2007 Worst Blog Award Results

Well folks, the final voting has come to a close in the Red Stater "Oklahoma's Worst Blog Of The Year" Award.
We had 86 votes total.
And the winner is.....

Sorry, there were no winners amongst this bunch of pathetic losers.
Thats right, the voting ended in a tie... actually several ties with no winner.
So, after a full two months of voting and trying to outdo each other on the insanity moonbat scale, plus coming here and voting for themselves multiple times... still no champion could be found, no victory can be claimed.

Only more mediocrity and pathetic self loathing can be found at our nominees blogs, too bad... I had such 'high hopes' for each of them, but little did I know that each is so inept as to not be able to break away from the rest.
Oh sure we could try and get down into the minutia of which one is slightly more or less lame, but in reality.... they all deserve the title.

Considering these most unusual circumstances... I think it is only fair to let each of the nominees claim a share of being the Worst Blog in Oklahoma 2007.
Please feel free to post the official moonbat award on your blog if you are one of the 10 finalists, or if you just feel your blog is deserving.
Also feel free to refer to any of the 10 finalists as one of the "Worst Blogs of the Year" 2007.

Here are the final results...
Oklahoma's WORST Blog 2007- Final Results.
# of votes in (?)

Blue Oklahoma
6% (5)
Kittenstomper
8% (7)
Sooner Thought
8% (7)
Okie Funk
25% (21)
Daily Kos (Oklahoma)
8% (7)
10,000 Fists
4% (3)
OK Center For Conscience
4% (3)
Photo Tune
8% (7)
JMBzine
5% (5)
Mahatma "X"
25% (21)

Total number of votes was 86.
Winners- 0
Losers- 10

Hunter Keeps Pressure On Romney's China Syndrome

Columbia , SC:
At a press conference held at the South Carolina State Capitol today, Presidential candidate and U.S. Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) again called on Bain Capital, a company founded by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, to drop its strategic partnership with Chinese defense contractor Huawei Technologies in a bid to buy U.S. defense contractor 3Com.
Hunter also called on Romney to use his continued influence with Bain to terminate the proposed merger between Huawei and 3Com, which, according to a report in today's Washington Times, would threaten U.S. national security.

"As the founder of Bain Capital, Governor Romney has an obligation to utilize his influence within the company to terminate the proposed merger between 3Com and Chinese defense contractor Huawei," said Hunter. "In light of China 's refusal to port several American naval vessels last week, it is increasingly more important that American military technology be protected from foreign companies, such as Huawei, that are closely aligned with the Chinese government."

The Washington Times reported today that U.S. intelligence agencies informed the CFIUS review committee, responsible for examining proposed foreign investment transactions, that a merger between 3Com and Huawei would threaten America 's national security. 3Com presently performs vital cyber-security work for the Department of Defense.

"This proposed deal, which Governor Romney can work to terminate should he choose to do so, is unpatriotic and damaging to national security," continued Hunter. As further detailed in a resolution introduced in the House of Representatives, Huawei has close ties to the military of Communist China and allegedly aided Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.

Earlier this month, Hunter sent a letter to Governor Romney requesting that he use his influence as the founder of Bain to terminate the company's partnership with Huawei, including the proposed merger with 3Com. Hunter, who is ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, has not received a response to the letter.

Rudy Giuliani Would Be Our Bill Clinton

From Townhall.com

By John Hawkins
Friday, November 30, 2007

"Perhaps the biggest oddity of the Republican primary season so far has been that GOP voters keep saying that they want another Reagan, the candidates keep comparing themselves to Reagan at every opportunity, and yet the man who is leading in the national polls, Rudy Giuliani, is about as far apart from Reagan as it's possible to get ideologically while still remaining in the Republican Party. Rudy Giuliani is no Reagan. What he is, and what he would be if he gets the nomination, is our Bill Clinton.

Consider a few things.

Yes, Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury, not for having an affair, but conservatives relentlessly bashed Bill Clinton throughout the nineties for cheating on his wife and degrading the office. Well, morally Rudy Giuliani is every bit as sleazy as Bill Clinton.

He has been married 3 times, which could be forgivable in a President, but he also cheated on his second wife with his current wife, Judith Nathan, and announced his separation from wife number two, Donna Hanover, to her and the world at the same time at a press conference.

This has seldom been discussed during the primary season, which is rather bizarre given that the biggest knock against Newt Gingrich that I heard when he was thinking about running -- from the readers on my blog and other bloggers privately -- was that they were disgusted by his affairs and shabby treatment of his former wife. Yet Rudy, whose Clintonesque private behavior is every bit as appalling as Newt's, has gotten a pass on the issue.

Folks, if you think that nominating a man as sleazy as Rudy isn't going to come back and bite the GOP in the general election after the way we complained about Clinton during the nineties, you're kidding yourself. Moreover, if you think it's out of the realm of possibility that Giuliani would diddle some intern in a back office somewhere once he got out from under the watchful gaze of his wife, you're giving him way too much credit. Any man who will cheat on his second wife will cheat on his third wife, too, if the opportunity presents itself.

The Clintons are also known for the shady cast of characters who surround them. We're talking about people like Sandy Berger, Anthony Pellicano, Charlie Trie, Norman Hsu, and Anthony Rodham. Well, there are early indications that Rudy Giuliani is just as careless as the Clintons about whom he hangs around with.

We already know about Bernie Kerik, Rudy's pal and business partner who is facing 142 years in prison, but Rudy also continues to be closely associated with Alan Placa, a Catholic priest who has been credibly accused by multiple former victims of child molestation.

How many of these people surround Rudy and do you really want to spend 2008 explaining them away, the way Dems have to try to explain away people like Sandy Berger & Norman Hsu?

Another thing that people often forget about Bill Clinton is that his biggest accomplishments, welfare reform, NAFTA, and balancing the budget, were near and dear to the hearts of Republicans, not Democrats. That brings us to Rudy Giuliani -- the real Giuliani, not the guy who keeps trying to convince everyone that he's a diehard conservative.

The truth is that Rudy Giuliani is not a conservative. He's a Rockefeller Republican, a RINO, a tougher, more charismatic version of Arlen Specter -- which is why it's mind boggling that so many conservatives who are furious at George Bush and senators like Lindsey Graham, John Warner, and Trent Lott for not being conservative enough are happily backing Giuliani.

Don't kid yourself: Graham, Lott, Warner, and George W. Bush are all CONSIDERABLY to the right of Rudy Giuliani. Just take a look at what National Journal said about Rudy, ...

"The National Journal's rating system put him at 56 percent conservative and 44 percent liberal on economic issues in 1996 and assessed him as liberal by 59 to 40 percent in looking at his social issues votes."

We're talking about a guy whose record is pro-abortion (even pro-partial birth abortion), pro-gun control, and pro-illegal immigration. We're talking about a guy who was endorsed by New York's Liberal Party in 1989. Rudy even personally endorsed Mario Cuomo and said he was open to endorsing Bill Clinton.

This is not a man who is going to make Republicans happy if he becomes President. Yes, he would be better than Hillary, but he would also break the hearts of conservatives over and over again on issues that we deeply care about if he gets into office.

Now, I want to be clear about something: if Rudy Giuliani captures the nomination, I will vote for him and I would strongly encourage you to do the same. But, I can't pretend to be even the tiniest bit enthusiastic about having Rudy as our nominee.

To the contrary, Rudy is a dangerous candidate for the GOP. He could potentially tear the fabric of the Republican Party asunder by alienating millions of pro-life social conservatives so badly that they may vote for a third party candidate or turn away from the Republican Party entirely. That means a Rudy Giuliani candidacy could seriously damage the coalition that has delivered so many victories for the GOP from 1980 forward.

Additionally, it's worth noting that while the "Rudy is the most electable candidate" shtick seems plausible at first glance, it's pure vapor -- no more solid than the "John Kerry is our most electable candidate" nonsense that Democrats bought into hook, line, and sinker back in 2004. Why is that? Because millions of pro-life Republicans would stay home in 2008 if Rudy is the nominee. Because it seems unlikely that a pro-abortion New Yorker running as a Republican could carry every southern state. Because, most importantly, he is not currently beating Hillary Clinton in head-to-head polls in any state that George Bush didn't win in 2004. In other words, he doesn't live up to the hype that says he's going to put several key blue states into play. So, if you take away the electability angle from Rudy Giuliani, what's left that makes him appealing to conservatives?

Put another way, if you love RINOS like Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chafee, Rudy may be a good choice for you. If you're sick of social conservatives and would like to see their agenda rejected, even if it risks turning large numbers of them off to the Republican Party, vote Rudy. If you think that Rudy is the most electable candidate and your only concern is beating Hillary, I don't think that you're right, but I do understand backing Giuliani for that reason. However, if that's not what you're looking for, there is still time to choose another candidate.

Long story short, conservatives who are backing Rudy should go into it "eyes wide open" and understand exactly what they're getting. They're getting a Republican Bill Clinton: an ethically compromised candidate that Republicans will constantly have to apologize for and who is destined to disappoint conservatives either by losing in 2008 or by winning and then opposing us on many of the issues we care about most once he gets into office."

I'm not Duncan Hunter, ...but I approved this message.
-red

Liberals Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

The batt.com (I'm not making that up) is afraid, ...very afraid of ONE MAN.
The Independent Student Voice of Texas A&M says that if YOU are a liberal democrat... errr I mean "Independent"..., then YOU should be scared too.
The horrifying details follow.

By Travis Holland:
Duncan Hunter is an underdog in the Republican presidential race.
He represents mainstream conservative views without the backing of more popular candidates.

"Hunter views a pullout of Iraq as a retreat in a very real war on terrorism. He advocates using more Iraqi troops in hot zones to replace Americans.

Hunter is pro-life and supports bills to create laws defining unborn children as living people. As president, he wouldn't support gay marriage and believes that marriage is an institution that should only be between a man and woman.

Duncan Hunter is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment - he has a record to prove it, and he hasn't simply jumped on the NRA bandwagon like so many other candidates.

For his healthcare plan, Hunter wants to experiment with a few pilot deregulated hospitals and use the lessons learned from them to deal with current system. He realizes that changes need to be made in the bureaucracy of the current system.

Hunter is against amnesty for illegal immigrants and says he will not support any bills granting it. He has been a strong supporter of border walls in Congress and has a perfect record of battling illegal immigration. Voters can be sure he would do the same as president.

Although he is far from a frontrunner in the presidential race, Duncan Hunter deserves consideration at the ballot box. For those in search of a straight shooting, mainstream conservative candidate who makes border security a top priority, Hunter would be a good pick.

Vineet Tiruvadi: Duncan Hunter is one of the presidential candidates not burdened with "being known" or "leading the polls." This Republican representative from California doesn't command the national limelight, which is surprising considering some of Hunter's more theatrical stances.

One of Hunter's favorite lines immediately wedged itself into my head. "China is cheating on trade." In addition to drawing the obvious parallels with a 7-year-old losing a video game, this simple line really embodies Hunter's campaign.

The American-Chinese relationship is stressed to say the least. Chinese growth is worrisome in light of some unethical practices. Protecting American industry and jobs, along with American values, is a reasonable platform. There are better ways to deal with the issue than uttering dramatic invectives. It doesn't seem like Hunter sees that.

Hunter tried to pull federal funding for Columbia University when it was preparing a forum for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Crazy though our Iranian friend may be, pulling funding from one of our nation's top universities because it provides a forum for varying perspectives is over the top.

With the international realm becoming more convoluted by China's up-and-coming economy, Iran's questionable goals, Iraq's unrelenting instability and other policy issues, it doesn't seem like Hunter will be able to objectively lead America's already misguided international policy. That should be enough to condemn him to the back alleys of the campaign.

But if cliché Republican stances on stem cell issues, education, "family values," and the war in Iraq are appealing, this guy fits the bill excellently.

Throw in an endorsement from Ann Coulter and this guy scares the hell out of me."

Funk's Funk Infects Oklahoma

Okie Funk asks a very perplexing question today in one of his weekly depressing rants from the septic tank Out Back.

"Another Depressing Report"
"So the question is simply this: Why are Oklahomans more depressed than people in most other states?"

Based on the Okie Funk blog being voted the most popular political blog in Oklahoma, I'd say Oklahomans are depressed from reading the mentally unstable rantings of a depressed underachieving socialist/communist/populist/liberal blogger, college professor.

In the few years I have been watching Okie Funk flounder in hatred and depression, I can only recall one post with any positive tone to it at all... RunAndrewRun about a socialist/communist running against Funk's arch enemy... Jim Inhofe. Funk LOVES Andrew Rice almost as much as he hates Jim Inhofe.

I would bet Funk a pepsi that 99% of those 'depressed' Okies are liberals considering conservatives in general have a more positive outlook on life (*and mental health) than democrats and liberals do... thats a fact jack. (*thanks mal)

So, stop reading Doc Hoc's depressing anti-Oklahoma and anti-American propaganda and get out of the doldrums Oklahoma. Stop voting democrats into office that only make your taxes higher and your chances of getting a better job less. Stop believing CNN, MSNBC and NPR and start thinking for yourselves. Start thinking outside that box of depression Funk tries to keep you in, week in and week out.

If indeed Oklahomans are more depressed and mentally unstable as Okie Funk claims, he has nobody to blame but himself.
-red

Temperature Reaches All Time Low

Somebody call "down below" and see if it has all frozen over.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

By Jerome L. Sherman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. John Murtha today said he saw signs of military progress during a brief trip to Iraq last week...

"I think the 'surge' is working," the Democrat said in a videoconference from his Johnstown office, describing the president's decision to commit more than 20,000 additional combat troops this year.

Of course Murtha's revelation which is about 3-6 months behind reality for the rest of us, is followed with about twenty "buts"... however one thing is clear, the democrats and AQI have lost the war in Iraq.
Global warming apparently has no effect on Satan's paradise, which as of now is closed due to extreme blizzard conditions.

Hunter to Clinton Debate Plant: "Thanks, Send More!"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 29, 2007

San Diego, CA - - - GOP Presidential candidate Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) today sent the following response to Senator Hillary Clinton who planted a member of her campaign staff in the audience to ask a question at the Republican debate last evening in Florida. The retired military general, who announced during his question that he was gay, asked the candidates about their position on the Pentagon's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding homosexuals serving in the military.

November 29, 2007

Dear Senator Clinton,

Regarding the "plant", retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr, that you sent to ask me the question at the CNN-YouTube debate last night in Florida …

Send more!!!

Merry Christmas,
Duncan Hunter

Hunter is currently campaigning in South Carolina and will be appearing on the Jim Bohannan nationally syndicated radio program this evening at 10:00 p.m. (EST).

# # #

CONTACT: Gary Becks (619) 334-1655, dlhunter08@yahoo.com

Hunter for President, Inc.
9340 Fuerte Drive
La Mesa, California 91941
United States

Make This Christmas "Made In America"

I would like to reach out to all Americans and Oklahomans in particular to join those of us already committed, in making all of your Christmas gifts "Made In The USA".
This isn't about politics, or shouldn't be... this is about doing something good for Oklahoma, good for America, good for your neighbor, good for your children and good for you.

Yes, it will take a little extra effort.
Most worthwhile things do.
Give it a try.

-red s tater

Here are some websites dedicated to American Made.
Buy Oklahoma Made

Buy American Made

How Americans can Buy American

General Kerr Gets Schooled By Duncan Hunter

Here is the General Kerr / Duncan Hunter exchange in it's entirety... From CNN.
Below that, are some more examples of the planted questions (and otherwise) that were knocked out of the park by Duncan Hunter in last nights CNN Youtube Republican debate including his Christmas challenge to you.

Anderson Cooper:
It's about attack ads. It's an interesting show starting at 11:00 East Coast time tonight.

All right, let's get back to the debate. Another question from a YouTube viewer. Let's watch.

Brigadier Gen. Keith Kerr (Ret.): My name's Keith Kerr, from Santa Rosa, California. I'm a retired brigadier general with 43 years of service. And I'm a graduate of the Special Forces Officer Course, the Commanding General Staff Course and the Army War College. And I'm an openly gay man.

I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.

Cooper: I want to point out that Brigadier General Keith Kerr is here with us tonight. I'm glad you're here.

(Applause)

Again, the question to Congressman Hunter.

Hunter: General, thanks for your service, but I believe in what Colin Powell said when he said that having openly homosexual people serving in the ranks would be bad for unit cohesion.

The reason for that, even though people point to the Israelis and point to the Brits and point to other people as having homosexuals serve, is that most Americans, most kids who leave that breakfast table and go out and serve in the military and make that corporate decision with their family, most of them are conservatives.

They have conservative values, and they have Judeo-Christian values. To force those people to work in a small tight unit with somebody who is openly homosexual goes against what they believe to be their principles, and it is their principles, is I think a disservice to them. I agree with Colin Powell that it would be bad for unit cohesion.

(Red's SIDENOTE: From the "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" official policy... "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.")

Cooper: I want to direct this to Governor Huckabee.

Thirty seconds.

Huckabee: The Uniform Code of Military Justice is probably the best rule, and it has to do with conduct. People have a right to have whatever feelings, whatever attitudes they wish, but when their conduct could put at risk the morale, or put at risk even the cohesion that Duncan Hunter spoke of, I think that's what is at issue. And that's why our policy is what it is.

Cooper: Governor Romney, you said in 1994 that you looked forward to the day when gays and lesbians could serve, and I quote, "openly and honestly in our nation's military." Do you stand by that?

Romney: This isn't that time. This is not that time. We're in the middle of a war. The people who have...

Cooper: Do you look forward to that time, though, one day?

Romney: I'm going to listen to the people who run the military to see what the circumstances are like. And my view is that, at this stage, this is not the time for us to make that kind of...

Cooper: Is that a change in your position...

Romney: Yes, I didn't think it would work. I didn't think "don't ask/don't tell" would work. That was my -- I didn't think that would work. I thought that was a policy, when I heard about it, I laughed. I said that doesn't make any sense to me.

And you know what? It's been there now for, what, 15 years? It seems to have worked.

Cooper: So, just so I'm clear, at this point, do you still look forward to a day when gays can serve openly in the military or no longer?

Romney: I look forward to hearing from the military exactly what they believe is the right way to have the right kind of cohesion and support in our troops and I listen to what they have to say.

(Audience booing)

Cooper: All right. General Kerr is -- as I said -- is here.

Please stand up, General. Thank you very much for being with us.

Did you feel you got an answer to your question?

Kerr: With all due respect, I did not get an answer from the candidates.

(Applause)

Cooper: What do you feel you did not...

Kerr: American men and women in the military are professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.

For 42 years, I wore the army uniform on active duty, in the Reserve, and also for the state of California. I revealed I was a gay man after I retired.

Today, "don't ask/don't tell" is destructive to our military policy.

Every day, the Department of Defense discharges two people, not for misconduct, not for the unit cohesion...

Cooper: Wait, the mike is -- you've lost me. Is the microphone not working? Please, just finish your -- what is your question?

Kerr: Not for the unit cohesion that Congressman Hunter is talking about, but simply because they happen to be gay.

Cooper: OK. Senator McCain ...

KERR: And we're talking about doctors, nurses, pilots, and the surgeon who sews somebody up when they're taken from the battlefield.

Cooper: I appreciate your comments.

Senator McCain, I want to give you 30 seconds. You served in the military.

McCain: General, I thank you for your service to our nation. I respect it. All the time, I talk to our military leaders, beginning with our joint chiefs of staff and the leaders in the field, such as General Petraeus and General Odierno and others who are designated leaders with the responsibility of the safety of the men and women under their command and their security and protect them as best they can.

Almost unanimously, they tell me that this present policy is working, that we have the best military in history, that we have the bravest, most professional, best prepared, and that this policy ought to be continued because it's working.

(Red's Sidenote2- So everyone agrees with Duncan Hunter on this, except the Hillary campaign staffer with the microphone... no Not Anderson Cooper, the other one)

Another planted question referenced in the post below "CNN Debate Dictated by Democrats" came from Yasmin...

Cooper: Let's go to our next topic, which is foreign policy.

Our first question:

Yasmin: Good evening, gentlemen. My name is Yasmin and I hail from Huntsville, Alabama.

My question has to do with the current crisis in Iraq, as well as the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan.

After living abroad, personally, in the Middle East for a year, I realized just how much damage the Iraq war and the perception of invasion has done to the image of America. What would you do as president to repair the image of America in the eyes of the Muslim world?

Cooper: Thirty seconds, Congressman Hunter. The question is, how do you repair the image of America in the Muslim world?

Hunter: Cooper, Cooper, very simply, to the critics of America I would say this.

When you were faced with disease and starvation, the Americans brought food and medicine.

When you had earthquakes and tsunamis and floods, the Americans came and helped you.

And when you were threatened from outside, the Americans left the safety of their own homes to come and defend you.

I will never apologize for the United States of America.

(Applause)

The very first question of the debate immediately turned into a free-for-all brawl on immigration between Rudy's "sanctuary citiy" Vs Mitt's "sanctuary mansion" , after quickly confirming that neither Rudy nor Mitt can be trusted with the borders, it finally became Duncan Hunter's turn.

Cooper: Congressman Hunter?

Hunter: Yes. Cooper, a great debate. It's nice to listen to lots of statements about what the other candidates will do with respect to the borders.

I built that border fence in San Diego and it does work. It's a ...

(Applause)

You know, we built a double fence. We had the number one smuggler's corridor in America with most of the illegal aliens and most of the drugs that came into the entire country coming in through that number one corridor between Tijuana, Mexico, and San Diego, California.

We built the double-border fence with a road in between, and we reduced the smuggling of people and drugs by more than 90 percent. And as a result of that, the crime rate...

(Applause)

... the crime rate in the city of San Diego went down by 53 percent by FBI statistic.

And as a result of that, I wrote the law that the president signed last October 26, incidentally, passed the Senate 80-19, that mandates 854 miles of double-border fence across Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

Now, the administration has $800 million on hand right now, cash on hand. They haven't built a linear inch of that fence in Texas.

As president of the United States,
I will build the double-border fence,
all 854 miles,
in six months.

Cooper: Next question is ...

(Applause)

Hunter: That is my commitment.

(Applause)

And next (also a 'planted question')... this one about what the candidates will do to prevent poisonous toys from coming in from China.

Cooper: All right, let's have our next question from a YouTube viewer.

LeeAnn Anderson: My name is LeeAnn Anderson and I am from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and these are my kids Evan and May. Maya is from China and we adopted him to give her a better life. We never dreamed that she would that she'd be exposed to lead after leaving China, and now we find trains like this that are covered with lead in our home.

My question for the candidates are, what are you going to do to make sure that these kind of toys don't make their way into our homes and that we have safe toys that are made in America again and we keep jobs in America?

(Red's Sidenote- I can't help but point out here that in the video of her home with her children, she has the deadly toys in her hand and all around them everywhere, but doesn't bother to throw them out herself, instead asks... what is the government going to do?)

Cooper: Congressman Hunter, you have 30 seconds.

(Applause)

Hunter: China is cheating on trade, and they're using that $200 billion trade deficit over the United States to buy ships, planes and missiles.

They are clearly arming.
And it's in the interest of the United States...

(Applause)

... to stop China's cheating. My bill, incidentally, that's up right now would do that.

But what we all ought to do in this Christmas season, with about a month to go before Christmas is buy American.

That might hire the young person. That'll result in a...

(Applause)

You know, that just might keep your neighbor from losing his job, and it might help that young person coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan in uniform to have a job when they get back.

Let's buy American this Christmas season.

(Applause)

-red stater pledges to join Duncan Hunter in Buying American gifts for Christmas this year!
How about YOU?

CNN Debate Debacle Dictated by Democrats

Michelle Malkin has the complete unraveling of the CNN youtube Republican debate last night.
It seems now that the light of day is shown on the so-called unbiased and randomly chosen questions... the Democrat stench is everywhere you turn, along with their greasy fingerprints.

The homosexual General (Kieth Kerr) who asked the question on homosexuals serving in the military works for the Hillary Clinton campaign.

The girl who asked what the punishment should be for an abortion if Roe V Wade were overturned is a John Edwards supporter.

The so-called Log Cabin Republican questioner is a Obama supporter.

The woman letting her kids play with deadly leaded toys while she asks WHAT Republicans are going to do about it... is a prominent Union activist in the Edwards camp....

The kid that asked the gun question and caught the tossed rifle.... a film maker and not a lifetime member of the NRA as he claimed... and on it goes. Of course denials are flying in all directions, the Hillary Clinton campaign claims they had no idea General Kerr was going to do that and CNN claims they had not bothered to simply google General Kerr where they would have found that he was a part of the John Kerry campaign in 04 and currently works for Hillary.

The candidates handled themselves professionally and answered every single one of the loaded questions without hesitation.
I have but one question.

Where are those guys with the taser guns when you really need them?

Clinton Opposed Military Force In Iraq From The Beginning

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

President Bill Clinton
December 16, 1998

"I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," he said in May 2003, the same year he was quoted praising Bush's handling of the war.

In a June 2004 article in Time magazine, Clinton also suggested that he would have acted the same way Bush did.

"So, you're sitting there as president, you're reeling in the aftermath of (Sept. 11), so, yeah, you want to go get (Usama) bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, 'Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that.' That's why I supported the Iraq thing," he is quoted telling the magazine.

Endorsements Key To Presidential Election

It seems that special interest groups are once again taking control of our election process.
One candidate stands out as being endorsed by just too many controversial extremists groups and therefore he must be discounted, discredited and generally discarded... can't recall his name.
But first, let's run down the top candidates and their supporters.

Ron Paul gets the United Hookers endorsement to add to his Potheads of America supporters.
Rudy gets the "I cheated on my wife" vote. (Bill Clinton support pending)
Fred gets the "trophy wife" and cardiologists vote.
Mitt has the "I've got more wives" vote all wrapped up.
Hucklebee gets the "marry your cousin" vote (he's from Arkansas).
John McCain gets the sympathy vote, and that's about it.
Hillary is endorsed by the LPGA, snap-on tools and the first black President (pending DNA tests).
John Edwards is brought to you by "Breck" the $400 haircut shampoo of Presidents.
Hussein Obama... has the "names that sound like terrorists" vote all locked up.
Dennis Kucinich has the full endorsement of "pretend people" from outer space... and Shirley McClain.
"Jihad Joe" Biden has the hopes and dreams of al Qaeda squarely on his shoulders.
Poor Tom Tancredo doesn't have the endorsement of anybody...

Which brings us to the only candidate the media is ashamed to tell you about.
His endorsements are just too scandalous and shocking to put on the news.

He is loved by the military, and has a son who just returned from Iraq (2nd tour).
He has the endorsement of the "Republican wing of the Republican party" so says the Missouri Republican Assembly.
He has an A+ rating from the NRA
He has the full backing of those living on the US side of the only 15' tall Double Fence (he built) between Mexico and America.
He is a champion for the unborn.
China hopes you never hear his name again.
Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck support him... (scandalous!)

But his name escapes me....

US Turns Mosul Int'l Airport Over To Iraqis

Occupiers or Liberators?
Ninewa, Nov 26, (VOI) – Four years after being converted into a U.S. military base, Mosul International Airport will soon reopen for civilian flights and will launch its first flight for pilgrims traveling to the holy land in Saudi Arabia.

Ninewa Governor Darid Muhammad Kashmola told the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI) that preparations are underway to reopen Mosul airport and indicated that the inaugural flight will carry pilgrims to Saudi Arabia on Sunday.
In a phone call with VOI, Nour al-Din al-Hayali, a member of parliament from the Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front (IAF), said that he had committed himself to raising the issue of the Mosul airport in the Iraqi parliament. "This structure is Mosul's lungs and vital artery for local resident who are willing to travel to Baghdad and abroad, especially given the current difficult circumstances facing road transport," al-Hayali indicated.
Meanwhile, the media director in Mosul said that preparation work on the road leading to the airport and the terminals will soon be completed. "Work includes a project to line the road with trees, which we embarked upon on Saturday," the director added.
An official source from the Iraqi Airways, the national airline of Iraq, said that preparations are in their final stages. "Extra electricity lines and X-ray scanners have been installed, and a new staff has been appointed," according to the source.
Moreover, several meetings were held between the Hajj (Pilgrimage) Authority and Iraqi Airways to coordinate pilgrimage flights, scheduled to start on December 2, 2007.
Iraqi Airways is currently updating the airport's construction and equipment, including the terminals, watchtowers and other facilities, the source added.
Established in the 1950s in southern Mosul, the airport operated civilian flights until 2003, when the Multi-National Force (MNF) turned it into a military base. Only recently has the U.S. forces made the decision to hand it over to Iraqi authorities.
Mosul, the capital city of Ninewa province, lies 405 north of the Iraqi capital Baghdad.

Oklahoman Helps Net al Qaeda Weapons Smuggler

FORWARD OPERATING BASE HAMMER — Soldiers from Company B, 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment, captured 13 suspected insurgents during a nighttime air assault mission in Sayafiyah, a small village outside of Salman Pak, Nov. 24.

One of the detainees was a high value individual (HVI), who was a member of al-Qaida in Iraq wanted for weapons smuggling and financing attacks on Coalition forces in Salman Pak and Al Ja’ara.

“According to our intelligence, the insurgent we apprehended was an expert bomb maker and VBID (vehicle borne improvised explosive device) maker,” said 1st Lt. Matthew Barwick, from Lanham, Md., fire support officer for Co. B. “By apprehending him, we have taken a very dangerous person off the streets and made the area safer.”

During the course of the operation Co. B Soldiers cleared eight houses and barns while searching for the suspects.

“The operation went perfectly,” said Spc. Lyle Johnson, from Comanche, Okla., an indirect fire specialist in Co. B. “We cleared all of our objectives and got the No. 1 HVI and 12 of his partners. We did all of this without firing a shot, so I’d say it was a good operation.”

The 1-15th Inf. Regt. is part of the 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Benning, Ga., and has been deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom since March.

(By Spc. Ben Hutto, 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team Public Affairs)

In Other Recent Developments Here:

MOSUL — The Qayyarah Bridge, which spans the Tigris River in Iraq’s Nineveh Province, was repaired and opened to traffic just three days after a section was destroyed by a truck bomb, Nov. 23.

BAGHDAD — Based on a tip from a concerned citizen, Iraqi Security Volunteers in Baghdad’s Adhamiyah District led Soldiers from 3rd Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division to a building containing a large weapons cache, Nov. 24.

The Archer

My pal over at The Local Malcontent has this excellent piece, reprinted here in it's entirety.
Thanks Mal, for bringing this story to us.

"An Iranian student at a Canadian university has been accused by fellow bloggers of being a government agent and by the Iranian regime of being "the number one source of anti-Iran news from the Iranian blogosphere for the neo-con media."
Nonetheless, Arash Kamangir says he has no intention of stopping.

Last night, I emailed Arash Kamangir to see if he'd write a post especially for this blog.
Later on, I realized the magnitude of what I asked him: He is a very busy student, and immediately, I regreted imposing upon him. Then I found this PM post on his blog.

I urge all 12 of you loyal Local Malcontent readers to take a moment and read this post, please, and to make Kamangir.net a daily stop in your blogger browsing, for the truth within Iran.

Well worth it! As you may infer, there are dangers in both the real world and this electronic blog-world, for independent, fair-minded Iranian bloggers. Therefore, "Arash Kamangir" is a nom-de-plume, for safety's sake. But in a side note, look up "Arash Kamangir" on Wikipedia, for an inspirational, mythological story on Kamangir.

May I present for your reading pleasure, Mr. Arash Kamangir:

"You can’t lose your temper in the Iranian blogosphere - and whatever you do, you mustn’t lose your sense of humor.

We Iranians generally have one of the sharpest and most resilient senses of humor that I have ever seen. Some theories relate that to the decades of oppression, during which people have only been able to use indirect methods to express themselves.

Even today, you only need to ride the bus in Tehran to hear the latest rumors about the Ayatollahs and the regime through the jokes people trade and laugh at. But if you try to move from humor to a more direct way of expressing your opinions, you’ll likely end up crossing a couple of the unspoken red lines and eventually people will start yelling at you.

A lack of free speech has basically halted constructive discussion from developing and years of dictatorship have caused massive resentment, even among the ordinary people.
What makes things worse is the fact that hundreds of thousands of Iranians have been killed during these years, some executed by the regime and some killed on the various fronts of the supposed war "to conquer Qods [Israel]". This has made all political argument incredibly sensitive - lives have been lost for every point argued.

As a result, any successful discussion with a group of Iranians has to start with a long introduction through which one has to clearly declare his positions on key issues.
And if you dare to express your views in a public forum, it’s incredibly easy to be accused of being "on the payroll of the Islamic Republic", "being an apologist", or at the other end of the spectrum "a warmonger Iran-hating traitor".

The majority of the accusations come from sincere people who are irritated by politics and political games. But then there are the the opportunists, bloggers who thrive on accusing others in order to promote their image as the "reasonable observer" - throwing horrible accusations at those who dare to speak out on sensitive issues.

I have been accused of being on the Islamic Republic payroll in the past on multiple occasions. Most of the people who made those accusations are now amongst my good blog-friends. That’s because we sat down - either virtually or in person - and talked it out. Then came the accusations of being anti-Iran activist, including charges of "involvement in a filthy plot against Iran".

When I started blogging, on October 17th, 2004, about three years ago, my goal was to improve my English towards helping me score higher in the upcoming TOEFL exam, which I had to pass as a step in my admission to the Canadian university in which I am a graduate student. In those early days, and months, Kamangir was a lonely blog somewhere on the outskirts of the blogosphere. Soon after my wife and I came to Canada, I started writing about politics more explicitly.

On February 25th, 2006, a post I had written about a blast in a shrine in Iraq attracted the attention of high-traffic bloggers. The next day, after the number of hits of my blog jumped to 600, from the steady 25 of the past year, I had mixed feelings of joy and horror.

The best move I made was on May 1st, 2007, when I started writing a Persian blog as well. As of today, according to Alexa, half the visitors of my blogs visit Persian Kamangir. I have shifted a large portion of my efforts to my Persian blog in order to have the opportunity communicating with the Iranian youth. As we discuss issues of mutual interest such as human rights and fanaticism I am able to glean a lot of information about Iran through Persian blogs, comments and emails.

The result of this communication is translated into English and published in my English blog.
My efforts to help the flow of information from the Iranian blogosphere into the English-speaking audience and media has deeply irritated those who want to build a wall of denial to hide their atrocities.

As a result, on October 27th, 2007, Alef, a website known to be owned by a high-ranking conservative Iranian MP, published a piece about my blog. The report referred to my ongoing research on the state-run media’s incomplete quote from the Norwegian Foreign Minister’s speech at the United Nations University in Tokyo.

"He claims that the sentence ‘West must be more concerned with their own arsenal, rather than pointing at Iran and North Korea’ is made up. The blogger mentions that he will follow the story with the Foreign Ministry of Norway", wrote the author. The piece then followed with mentioning my real name accompanied by two pictures of me and describing me as "a resident of Canada whose blog is frequently referred to by the media and the warmonger neo-con blogs (including Pajamas Media and Gateway Pundit)".

It followed, "His blog is the number one source of anti-Iran news from the Iranian blogosphere for the neo-con media. The content translated by him, regarding President’s speeches, Iranian missiles, stonings, executions, the social security project, and so on, have been enthusiastically followed by the neo-con blogging networks. During last few months, he has increased his presence in the Persian blogging atmosphere, and also Iranian social networks, in order to direct anti-Iran content."

While public disclosure of my real name, in connection with my blog, has jeopardized my safety, it wasn’t the first time this vital information is spoken of publicly. On May 6th, 2007, another expat Iranian blogger disclosed my real identity for the first time in a post on his blog.
One of the pictures of me used in Alef’s piece is in fact a rare picture I had used in my biography in an academic journal paper related to my engineering degree. Earlier, the other blogger referred to that paper on his blog, when mentioning my real name.

I wasn’t surprised to find him accusing me of being involved in a "big filthy plot" against Iran in a Persian online community a short while after Alef’s piece came out.In a society so politicized, it is important to pierce through the layers of confusion and look at what is happening at the core.
The fact is that Iran is rapidly deteriorating in terms of many measures of civilized life (the last one was being ranked 162 among 168 countries in terms of freedom of press, by RSF). But that’s just the tip of the iceberg — there’s the terror of the sharia police, the increasing drug use among young people, and other social problems.

In the international arena, Iran is on the verge of war because of its president’s behavior and because the Islamic Republic seems obsessed with what it calls "peaceful nuclear technology."
In this environment I say - let’s talk with those who are willing to talk and ignore those interested in accusations and flame-throwing.

With my homeland falling apart so rapidly, losing one’s temper or getting offended by flames and throwing in the towel is the last luxury we can afford. We Iranians need to harness any tool for constructive discussion we can get our hands on, and right now, the Internet and the blogosphere is the best forum available."

Arash "Kamangir" is an Iranian graduate student living in Canada. He named his blog after the legend of a heroic archer who saves Iran.

Duncan Hunter Has Cool Hair

Who are YOU going to vote for in the primary?
Check out this great little homegrown video about all of the Republican candidates for President.
(Music- World Turned upside Down - Coldplay)
Then check out Duncan Hunter further.


(note: video ends at 4:50, hit stop)

Below is a very short clip on Duncan Hunter's America... which sounds a lot like my America, how about you?



Below is a very short video on what the Chinese are spending YOUR money on...
Have you heard about this from any of the OTHER so called conservative candidates?

Gohunter08
-red

Willing Suspension Of Disbelief?

By Jeff Jacoby Boston Globe Columnist / November 25, 2007

THE NEWS from Iraq has been so encouraging in recent months that last week even the mainstream media finally sat up and took notice.
Can the Democratic Party be far behind?

In a story titled "Baghdad Comes Alive," Rod Nordland reports in the current Newsweek on the heartening transformation underway in the Iraqi capital:

"Returning to Baghdad after an absence of four months," he writes, "I can actually say that things do seem to have gotten better, and in ways that may even be durable . . . There hasn't been a successful suicide car bombing in Baghdad in five weeks . . . Al Qaeda in Iraq is starting to look like a spent force, especially in Baghdad."

The signs of life, Nordland acknowledges "grudgingly" - his word - are undeniable.

"Emerging from our bunkers into the Red Zone, I see the results everywhere. Throughout Baghdad, shops and street markets are open late again, taking advantage of the fine November weather. Parks are crowded with strollers, and kids play soccer on the streets. Traffic has resumed its customary epic snarl. . . . The Shorja bazaar in old Baghdad, hit by at least six different car bombs killing hundreds in the last year, is again crowded with people among the narrow tented stalls. On nearby Al-Rasheed Street, the famous booksellers are back in business . . . People are buying alcohol again - as they always had in Baghdad, until religious extremists forced many neighborhood liquor shops to close."

Newsweek's isn't the only big media voice bringing tidings of comfort and joy from the Iraqi theatre.

On Tuesday, The New York Times led its front page with a good-news headline - "Baghdad Starts to Exhale as Security Improves" - and a large photo of an Iraqi bride and groom, bedecked in wedding finery and accompanied by a band. Below that: a picture of smiling diners at Al Faris, a restaurant on the Tigris riverbank that is booming once again. Inside, across four columns, another photo showed an outdoor foosball game in Baghdad's Haifa Street, once dubbed the "Street of Fear" because it was the scene of so many lethal sectarian attacks.

In another Page 1 story the day before ("U.S. Says Attacks in Iraq Fell to the Level of Early Last Year"), the Times recounted some of the auspicious data: civilian fatalities down 75 percent in recent months, Iraqi security-force casualties down 40 percent, total weekly attacks nationwide down nearly two-thirds since June.

The Los Angeles Times, too, fronted a story on the promising developments, reporting on an "unexpected flowering of sectarian cooperation" in which "Sunnis and Shi'ites are joining hands at the local level to protect their communities from militants." The results, reported the paper from the rural community of Qarghulia on Monday, "are palpable. Killings are down dramatically and public confidence is reviving."

Of course things could still change for the worse. In the Middle East there are few guarantees. Neither the US military nor the Bush administration plans to dust off that "Mission Accomplished" banner anytime soon.

Still: "By every metric used to measure the war," as The Washington Post editorialized on Nov. 18, "there has been an enormous improvement since January." The Post credits this achievement to American soldiers in Iraq, to General David Petraeus, "and to President Bush, for making the decision to launch the surge against the advice of most of Congress and the country's foreign policy elite."

With the media at last paying attention to the progress in Iraq, shouldn't leading Democrats think about doing the same? Perhaps this would be a good time for Hillary Clinton to express regret for telling Petraeus that his recent progress report on Iraq required "a willing suspension of disbelief" - in effect, calling him a liar. Perhaps Senate majority leader Harry Reid should admit that he may have been wrong to declare so emphatically: "This war is lost, and the surge is not accomplishing anything."

All of the Democratic presidential candidates have been running on a platform of abandoning Iraq. At the recent debate in Las Vegas, they refused to relax their embrace of defeat even when asked about the striking evidence of improvement. They continued to insist that "the surge is not working" (Bill Richardson), that "the occupation is fueling the insurgency" (Dennis Kucinich), and that the "strategy is failed" and we must "get our troops out" (Barack Obama).

Blind opposition to war that seems lost is understandable.
But can Democrats be so invested in defeat that they would abandon even a war that may be winnable?
With developments in Iraq looking so hopeful, this is no time to cling to a counsel of despair.

Search For The Real Conservative Continues

Conservatives seem to be staggering around in the dark looking for the real conservative candidate to vote for in the 2008 Presidential election.
In the Fox News Debate, Chris Wallace opened the questioning with the question yet to be answered... "Who is the most conservative Republican candidate?"

We know it's certainly not Rudy or McCain, ...and Mitt Romney's stance on guns, stem cell research and socialized healthcare disqualify him as a real conservative. Fred Thompson comes close but also fails the test on a couple of issues like leaving abortion up to the states. Many also wonder about Thompson's health and energy level for a job that ages men like a time machine. Ron Paul isn't even a Republican and so the media's newest darling Mike Huckabee has been dubbed the real conservative in the race.
However, in his Washington Post piece today, Bob Novak confirms what many of us already knew... Mike Huckabee is not a true conservative by any measure.

The False Conservative:

By Robert D. Novak
Monday, November 26, 2007; A15

Who would respond to criticism from the Club for Growth by calling the conservative, free-market campaign organization the "Club for Greed"? That sounds like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards, all Democrats preaching the class struggle. In fact, the rejoinder comes from Mike Huckabee, who has broken out of the pack of second-tier Republican presidential candidates to become a serious contender -- definitely in Iowa and perhaps nationally.

Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist advocate of big government and a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans. Until now, they did not bother to expose the former governor of Arkansas as a false conservative because he seemed an underfunded, unknown nuisance candidate. Now that he has pulled even with Mitt Romney for the Iowa caucuses and might make more progress, the beleaguered Republican Party has a frightening problem. (...more)

You know that old saying that often times 'what we are seeking the most is usually right under our noses all the time'?
There is only one candidate that nobody dares question his conservative credentials.
One candidate that has no skeletons in the closet, no hidden agenda and no crazy conspiracy theories to explain.
There is one candidate who not only served in Vietnam, but his son has served in Afghanistan and Iraq as well.
One candidate who not only says he will secure the borders but has actually built the only fence along the border to secure the border... and it works!
One candidate who has been named "The Republican Wing of the Republican Party" by the Missouri Republican Assembly.

So the real question is ...when are these conservatives like Bob Novak, Sean Hannity and the rest going to discover Duncan Hunter?
More importantly, when are YOU going to discover Duncan Hunter?
Hopefully not after it's too late.

-red

Cooking With Duncan Hunter

As we all prepare our favorite recipes this holiday season, we can rest assured that those would-be terrorists down at sunny Club Gitmo are doing just fine... as we see on this episode of "Cooking with Duncan Hunter".



In addition, on Ramadan the guests at Club Gitmo are served lamb, dates and honey as part of their holiday meals...with extra large portions to make up for the daily fast.
-red

Nobody Wants To Play With Jihad Joe Anymore

"Jihad Joe" Biden is in Des Moines Iowa whining and complaining that "nobody wants to play with us anymore".

Of course Jihad Joe is referring to his claim that the rest of the world doesn't want to 'play' with America because America lacks 'credibility'.

"Until we solve the situation in Iraq, we have no credibility to solve problems with more dangerous places in the world,” said Biden, “If you remove that boulder that is Iraq, the rest of the world is going to follow us again. Nobody wants to play with us anymore.”

Senator Biden doesn't get out much these days... running for president takes a lot of time. That could be the only explanation for how Biden could have missed speeches and talks from BOTH the newly elected leaders of Germany AND France where they said just the opposite.

Both the German-American and the broader transatlantic relationship have improved considerably because of an increased emphasis on discussion and dialogue. It started with President Bush’s trip to Mainz and Brussels last February, and under Chancellor Merkel's leadership, momentum has picked up.
"I had the privilege of being present at the meetings between President Bush and Chancellor Merkel. They met for extended discussions on a wide range of subjects. The President and the Chancellor have a very good rapport and have developed a close friendship."

OR newly elected French President Zarkozy's glowing speech praising America and proclaiming the great friendship between the two countries...
Today as in the past, as we stand at the beginning of the 21^st century, it is together that we must fight to defend and promote the values and ideals of freedom and democracy".
"Together we must fight against terrorism".
"For me, failure is not an option. Terrorism will not win because democracies are not weak, nor because we are not afraid of this barbarism".

So if not Europe, then who does Jihad Joe Biden want America to 'play' with that doesn't want to 'play' with America?
September 11, 2007- During the Petraeus Report hearings while General David Petraeus was being called a "liar", Joe Biden reached out to 'play'... with THE ENEMY. At this critical time when al Qaeda was hoping desperately for a democrat pullout in September... Joe Biden was just the man to give them hope...
Al Jazeera- 9/11/07:
Sen. Joe Biden:..."The "surge" strategy can not succeed, as national Iraqi leaders were not committed to reconciliation between sectarian and ethnic groups."
"It's time to stop the surge and bring the troops home"

Instead, the surge is being termed a "great success", tribal leaders had reconciled with sectarian and ethnic groups to help defeat al Qaeda, Iraqis are flooding back into their country from refuge by the hundreds of thousands and FREEDOM is taking hold in Iraq. Joe must have missed this news also. Too busy I'm sure.

It seems very clear that the only people Jihad Joe Biden is worried about not 'playing' with America any more are the Jihadists themselves. Biden cares more about what terrorists think of America than what Americans think of America as evidenced by his own statements. Except for his loyal flock of "fly in the dark" followers that is.

Joe Biden needs to be worrying about what Americans are starting to think about Joe Biden.
It's the democrat party and people like you (Joe) that nobody wants to 'play' with anymore, if democrats are sensing a lack of respect and credibility they need to look in the mirror before pointing the finger at America.

Note to America; Keep...correction GET Joe Biden AWAY from Pakistan.

The Folly Of Democrats On Iraq Becoming Obvious

By Charles Krauthammer

"It does not have the drama of the Inchon landing or the sweep of the Union comeback in the summer of 1864. But the turnabout of American fortunes in Iraq over the past several months is of equal moment -- a war seemingly lost, now winnable. The violence in Iraq has been dramatically reduced. Political allegiances have been radically reversed. The revival of ordinary life in many cities is palpable. Something important is happening.

And what is the reaction of the war critics? Nancy Pelosi stoutly maintains her state of denial, saying this about the war just two weeks ago: "This is not working. . . . We must reverse it." A euphemism for "abandon the field," which is what every Democratic presidential candidate is promising, with variations only in how precipitous to make the retreat.

How do they avoid acknowledging the realities on the ground? By asserting that we have not achieved political benchmarks -- mostly legislative actions by the Baghdad government -- that were set months ago. And that these benchmarks are paramount. And that all the current progress is ultimately vitiated by the absence of centrally legislated national reconciliation.

I can understand Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the No. 2 commander in Iraq, saying that the central government needs to seize the window provided by the surge to achieve political reconciliation. We would all love to have the leaders of the various factions -- Kurd, Shiite, and Sunni -- sign nice pieces of paper tying up all the knotty questions of federalism, de-Baathification and oil revenues.

What commander would not want such a silver bullet that would obviate the need for any further ground action? But it is not going to happen for the same reason it has not already happened: The Maliki government is too sectarian and paralyzed to be able to end the war in a stroke of reconciliation.

But does the absence of this deus ex machina invalidate our hard-won gains? Why does this mean that we cannot achieve success by other means?

Sure, there is no oil law. But the central government is nonetheless distributing oil revenues to the provinces, where the funds are being used for reconstruction.

Sure, the de-Baathification law has not been modified. But the whole purpose of modification was to entice Sunni insurgents to give up the insurgency and join the new order. This is already happening on a widening scale all over the country in the absence of a relaxed de-Baathification law.

As for federalism, the Kurds are running their own region, the Sunni sheiks in Anbar and elsewhere are exercising not just autonomy but control of their own security, and the southern Shiites are essentially governing themselves, the British having withdrawn in all but name.

Why is top-down national reconciliation as yet unattainable? Because decades of Saddam's totalitarianism followed by the brutality of the post-invasion insurgency destroyed much of the political infrastructure of the country, causing the Iraqis to revert to the most basic political attachment -- tribe and locality.
Gen. David Petraeus' genius has been to adapt American strategy to capitalize on that development, encouraging the emergence of and allying ourselves with tribal and provincial leaders -- without waiting for cosmic national deliverance from the newly constructed and still dysfunctional constitutional apparatus in Baghdad.

Al-Qaida in Iraq is in disarray, the Sunni insurgency in decline, the Shiite militias quiescent, the capital city reviving. Are we now to reverse course and abandon all this because parliament cannot ratify the reconciliation already occurring on the ground?

Do the critics forget their own arguments about the irrelevance of formal political benchmarks? The transfer of power in 2004. The two elections in 2005. The ratification of the constitution. Those were all supposed to be turning points to pacify the country and bring stability -- all blown to smithereens by the Samarra bombing in February 2006, which precipitated an orgy of sectarian violence and a descent into civil war.

So, just as we have learned this hard lesson of the disconnect between political benchmarks and real stability, the critics now claim the reverse -- that benchmarks are what really count.

This is to fundamentally mistake ends and means. The benchmarks would be a wonderful shortcut to success in Iraq.
But it is folly to abandon the pursuit of that success when a different route, more arduous but still doable, is at hand and demonstrably working."

How can democrats manage to hold on to defeat until November of 08?
I dunno' either, but it should be fun to watch!
-red
Update- There are two exceptions to the above... besides Joe Lieberman who isn't really a democrat any more... One is Engram at Back Talk blog who has been documenting the war and comparing the facts to the democrat talking points for years now (Engram is a democrat Research professor) The OTHER is Dave at Oklahoma Lefty Blog here in Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Lefty took me up on my challenge to support the war from the left just about a year ago now and has stuck it out through thick and thin to now witness success... proving that there are sane democrats and liberals out there... but finding them is a bit tricky in the ocean of insanity that is the leftwing antiwar blob-o-sphere.

God Bless both you guys... you are true leaders, the democrat party would be well served to take your examples of debate, civility and professionalism... not to mention patriotism.
-red s tater