Why do Europeans Love Obama?

Let us count the ways:

1) Obama’s tax code, support of big government programs and redistribution of income, and subservience to UN directives delight the European masses—especially at a time when their own governments are trying to cut taxes, government, seek closer relations with the US, and ask a petulant, pampered public to grow up.

2) He offers Euros a sort of cheap assuagement of guilt—in classic liberal style. When Obama says falsely that he does not look like other Americans who have addressed Germans (cf. Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice who have represented US foreign policy abroad the last 7 years), Europeans feel especially progressive—and therefore need not worry that no one of African ancestry would ever become a European Prime- or Foreign-Minister.

3) Europe is weak militarily and won’t invest in its own defense. But with Obama, they believe the US will subject its enormous military strength to international organizations—usually run by utopian Europeans. So they will play a thinking-man’s Athens to our muscular Rome. They especially lap up Obama’s historical revisionism in which he lectures about the world’s effort to feed Berlin or tear down the communist wall, never the solitary, lonely efforts of a Harry Truman or Ronald Reagan to confront the evils of communism when almost everyone else preferred not to.

4) Style, style, style. Remember socialist Europe is where we get our designer eyeglass frames, Gucci bags, and French fashions. Instead of a strutting, Bible-quoting Texan, replete with southern accent and ‘smoke-em’ out lingo, they get an athletic, young, JFK-ish metrosexual, whose rhetoric is as empty as it is soothing. The English-only Obama lectures America on its need to emulate polyglot Europe; while a Spanish-speaking George Bush is hopelessly cast as a Texas yokel.

5) Obama reassures Europeans that they, not American right-wingers, “won” the classical debates of the 1990s over economics, foreign policy, and government. He is a world citizen, who buys into human-created massive global warming, wind and solar over nuclear and clean coal, high taxes, and cradle-to-grave entitlements, and resentments of the rich. There is a certain European “We told you so” that comes with his election. In short, we elect a world citizen with a European view, and put behind us the embarrassments of a Texan or cowboy actor.

The final irony?

The hated George Bush is still around; Chirac, Schroeder, Villapin et al. are history. Iraq is secure. Iran is becoming isolated. North Korea supposedly is denuked. And America is reassuring a jittery Europe that we will stick by them in a world of bullying Russians and Chinese.

A Modest Prediction

In 5 years, Europeans will prefer George Bush to a “We are right behind you” Obama.

What a difference a year makes!

A little more than a year ago most Americans—and nearly all the Democratic opposition in Congress—opposed the surge of troops into Iraq and Gen. David Petraeus’s change of tactics.

The conventional wisdom after four long years of war was that we were stuck in the middle of a hopeless civil war. There was no American military solution to quell the violence. The Iraq government was not only incompetent, but proof that democratic government itself was incompatible with Middle Eastern culture and religion.

Pundits were advocating trisecting the country into separate Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish enclaves. Our presence in Iraq caused us to have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, while empowering Iran, and helping al Qaedi to gain new recruits in a new theater of operations. Democratic presidential candidates were hammering each other over Iraq and demanding that those who had voted to authorize the invasion apologize for their vote. Barack Obama wanted all American troops out by March 2008.

A New Political Reality

And now? July is closing with the fewest number of American combat fatalities since the war started. There is no civil war. The Maliki government has put down Shiite militias and won back Sunnis into the elected administration, and, as an autonomous and confident government, is in tense negotiations with the US over future basing of American troops. Al Qaeda has been humiliated and routed from Iraq. American troops, versed in counterinsurgency, are being redeployed to Afghanistan to reapply what worked against jihadists in Iraq. Iranian-backed militias are being disbanded or have fled back into Iran. The additional surge troops are now out of Iraq. Democratic opponents suddenly concede that the withdrawal of American troops should be predicated on conditions on the ground. Anti-war activists critique Iraq more as a possibly successful war not worth the human and material costs rather than an effort long ago lost.

What Happened?

So what happened in the last twelve months to cause such a radical turn-about in Iraq and here at home? The surge added some needed troops, but more importantly sent the symbolic message that the United States was not leaving, but determined—militarily—to defeat terrorists and give the Iraqi government critical time to consolidate its authority.

The so-called Anbar awakening in which Sunni tribal leaders turned on al Qaeda and joined forces with us was not caused directly by the surge, but would have failed without the confidence more Americans were on the way to support their fight against al Qaeda. Americans began to turn from counter-terrorism to counterinsurgency tactics that meant dispersing combat troops out of compounds and into Iraqi neighborhoods where they could protect Iraqis who resisted terrorism.

Don’t Forget …

Two critical developments are relatively unappreciated, but likewise proved critical. The first was the continual growth and improvement in the Iraqi security forces that now include many veteran units that have learned to confront and defeat terrorists.

Second, between 2003-7 American forces took an enormous toll on jihadists. We have heard mostly how many Americans have been lost, rarely how many of the enemy they have killed or wounded—but the aggregate number is in the tens of thousands. Even in postmodern wars, there are finite numbers of skilled combatants—and many of them simply did not survive their encounter with American troops.

Nothing New

None of this volatility is new in American military history. The American Revolutionary War ebbed and flowed for nine years, variously pronounced won, lost, and won again. The Union thought it had won, then had lost, and finally won the Civil War during the last 16 months of the conflict. The Philippine insurrection, in various phases, lasted 14 years, often praised as won and condemned as lost. No war was more mercurial than the Korean between 1950-53, in which the American public was convinced the war was hopeless before it ended in1953 with the preservation of South Korea.

In most of these struggles, the efforts of just a few rare individuals—a Washington, Grant, Sherman, Ridgway—proved crucial. We remember their names, not the thousands of pundits who declared them incompetent and their wars lost. Long after a Seymour Hersh, Moveon.org, Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, Harry Reid and others are forgotten, Americans will still remember what David Petraeus did for our country. Amen to that!

Pelosi calls on Bush to release reserve oil

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday urged President Bush to release crude oil from the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve to combat high prices, a call Republicans used to bolster their push to increase domestic production with more drilling in environmentally sensitive areas.

The Department of Energy plans to suspend this delivery of the 70,000 barrels of oil per day currently going into the SPR - per a law Congress passed in May that required the suspension until the end of 2008. But many Democrats want Bush to go further.

Pelosi sent a letter asking the president "to draw down a small portion" of the SPR's more than 700 million barrels of oil "to help reduce record prices that are helping push the economy toward recession."

"Releasing oil from the Reserve is a tool to manage our national and economic security, and when judiciously used will in no way jeopardize national security," the California Democrat wrote.

Call for more drilling

The SPR was established in the aftermath of the oil embargo in the early 1970s and is intended for use in case of a disruption in oil supplies. Suspending or drawing down supplies from the reserve is not typically done to regulate prices, but Pelosi noted that crude prices have dropped when the United States has opened the spigot on the SPR in the past.

Still, the White House rejected the speaker's call, saying that using the reserve to manipulate prices was "ineffective."

"It's unfortunate that the only place Democrats in Congress can find to explore for more resources is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve," said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel. "It is time to put aside these politically-motivated band-aids offered by the Democrats and do something that will improve our energy security in the future like expanding access to American energy in" the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

Without directly opposing her proposal, House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio said that Pelosi's call to release supplies from the SPR meant that she "is admitting yet again that increasing the supply of oil will help reduce the price of gasoline."

"I agree, and so do my House Republican colleagues who have been arguing for decades in favor of more American energy production," he said.

House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam, R-Florida, and House Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, have pledged to force a vote on bills to allow offshore drilling and exploration in ANWR before Congress leaves for its month long August break.

Democrats have repeatedly driven back attempts to open ANWR and the OCS for oil drilling, arguing that any help for skyrocketing prices would be years away and miniscule. Republicans argue that increased exploration for domestic oil sources would signal that the United States is intended to take care of its own energy needs and would drive down costs.

New drilling in the OCS - shallow ocean areas just off the coast that slope for miles into deep sea - was banned in 1991 after the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska. The Energy Department has estimated that 86 billion barrels of oil may be present in areas currently off limits to drilling.

The Energy Department has estimated that ANWR could produce as much as 1.45 million barrels of oil per day within 20 years after it is opened for exploration. The United States currently consumes about 21 million barrels of oil per day.

Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami noted that Democrats support a bill that would require oil companies that hold existing federal leases for oil drilling to begin exploration or lose the rights to those leases.

"(Republicans) are ignoring the fact that 68 million acres on shore and offshore could be drilled at this moment," he said. "Providing oil companies with additional public lands would not lower the price of gas and would not provide relief to American families."

Nearly 10,000 such leases are open. Republicans say it takes time to develop such leases and that if older leases are not currently in production, it's because it's not financially viable to do so.

Putnam and Blount admitted their options for forcing the ANWR/OCS issue in the House of Representatives are limited, but Putnam predicted the issue could be "potentially a game changer" for Republican prospects in the November election.

Cheaper gas?

Regardless of the back-and-forth on oil supplies, experts are divided on whether increasing supplies would mean lower gasoline prices. Noting that the SPR holds crude oil and not refined gasoline, Mark Cooper, research director for the Consumer Federation of America, told a Congressional hearing in April that the oil industry has failed to add refinery capacity to keep up with demand.

"By failing to expand production capacity to meet demand and provide a reasonable reserve in an industry with very low supply and demand elasticities that is prone to accidents and disruptions, the markets became tight and volatile," he told members of the House Select Subcommittee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, adding "Crude oil will not do much good without the ability to refine it."

Cooper testified that putting SPR's 70,000 barrels per day back into an 85 million barrels per day market would have "little if any impact on prices." But he told the representatives that the current SPR policy should be overhauled, noting that the Bush administration had failed to fill the reserve when prices were low and now objects to stopping the fill with prices at record highs.

Melanie Kenderdine, associate director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Initiative and former oil policy analyst for the Department of Energy, testified at the same hearing that the SPR has been "inconsistently" used.

Kenderdine noted that drawdowns from the reserve were not triggered with the loss of more than 2 million barrels per day at the start of the Iraq war but were used with the loss of less than a million barrels per day after Hurricane Katrina disrupted refineries in the Gulf Coast. In that instance, crude oil from the reserve was traded for refined product from Europe.

She also said that the sale of crude oil from the reserve, currently at an average cost of less than $30 per barrel, could dramatically reduce gasoline prices and also could provide needed funding for research and development into alternative energy sources - ultimately the only way to eliminate the country's dependence on fossil fuels.

"An outright sale of 40 million barrels of oil from the SPR would generate almost $4.5 billion in new revenues," she testified. "This would have the added benefit of lowering prices to consumers.

"For those who say we would diminish our energy security by so doing, I would point out that this would reduce the amount of oil in the SPR to around 660 million barrels, roughly 60 million barrels more than was in the reserve when we invaded Iraq when, presumably, this level of oil insurance was deemed sufficient to protect our energy security interests during a war in the Middle East."

CNN's Deidre Walsh contributed to this report.

The Democrats are working hard on the Energy Crisis

They have heard our voices, and they are making the energy crisis their top priority.

They know people are adjusting their lives dramatically to deal with the huge rise in gas and food prices.

They know, they will give us change. They will find the answers and save us all.

They are bringing all their resources and powers to bear on this most important crisis.

Here is a glimpse of what they have done so far:

Former aide: Bush should tell all on CIA leak

WASHINGTON (AP) - A former White House spokesman told Congress on Friday that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney wanted him to say that Cheney's chief of staff wasn't involved in the leak of a CIA operative's identity, an assertion that turned out to be false.


Scott McClellan, Bush's spokesman from 2003-2006, said he had reservations about publicly clearing the name of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff at the time. Later, Libby was convicted of obstructing the investigation of the leak of Valerie Plame's CIA identity.

McClellan told the House Judiciary Committee that he doesn't know if a crime was committed. But he had harsh words for the White House, suggesting that the administration is continuing to cover up.

"This White House promised or assured the American people that at some point when this was behind us they would talk publicly about it," he said. "And they have refused to.
"And that's why I think more than any other reason we are here today and the suspicion still remains," McClellan told the panel.

McClellan said he does not believe Bush knew about or caused the leak. When asked about Cheney, he replied: "I do not know. There's a lot of suspicion there."

Committee Chairman John Conyers of Michigan requested that McClellan appear to give sworn testimony about the account in his book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception." The book includes McClellan's claim that he was instructed to mislead the public about the roles of Libby and former presidential adviser Karl Rove in the leak of Plame's identity and its aftermath.

The committee's ranking Republican, Lamar Smith of Texas, ridiculed the hearing as a "book-of-the-month club" that revealed nothing new. Whatever McClellan was instructed to say, Smith said, was typical work of the White House press office.

"It should be of no surprise that there was spin in the White House Press Office," said Smith. "What White House has not had a communications operation that advocates for its policies? Any recent administration that did not try to promote its priorities should be cited for dereliction of duty."
Related to but separate from his comments about the Plame case, McClellan also criticized the Bush administration for its handling of prewar intelligence in making the case for invading Iraq.
"It's public record that they were ignoring caveats and ignoring contradictory intelligence," McClellan said.

I feel so much better knowing Congress has its priorities right.

Source

And you thought this was all Water under the Plame Bridge

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan will testify before the House Judiciary Committee next week on the Plame affair, the Associated Press reported today.

"President Bush's former spokesman, Scott McClellan, will testify before a House committee next week about whether Vice President Dick Cheney ordered him to make misleading public statements about the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity," the AP reported.

"McClellan will testify publicly and under oath before the House Judiciary Committee on June 20 about the White House's role in the leak and its response, his attorneys, Michael and Jane Tigar, said on Monday."

McClellan has just released a scathing memoir on his time in the White House. In it, he speculates that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby met privately at least once to concoct a story about their roles in the leak of Plame's identity. Libby was tried and convicted for lying to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the Plame affair. President Bush later commuted his sentence.

These Moonbats just don't give up...like a pissed-off old wench that just won't let the past go....

Wasserman Schultz: Judiciary Committee Willing To Arrest Rove If He Doesn't Testify

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said that the House Judiciary Committee would be willing to arrest Karl Rove if the former White House official doesn't testify about his role in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006.

Wasserman Schultz, in an interview on MSNBC Tuesday, echoed the demand of House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) that Rove would not be allowed to invoke executive privilege to avoid testifying. Rove could not invoke the privilege since he said he did not have conversations with the president about the attorneys' firing, Wasserman Schultz said.

Asked by MSNBC host Dan Abrams if the committee would go far as having Rove arrested, Wasserman said it would.

"Well, if that's what it takes," she said. "I mean we really cannot allow the co-equal branch of government, the legislative branch, to be trampled upon by the executive branch. The founding fathers established three branches of government. We are a co-equal branch, and this is an administration that essentially has ignored and disrespected the role of the legislative branch for far too long."

Rove said Sunday that the Judiciary Committee has refused to take up offers by his lawyer and the Bush administration that would allow the committee to find the information it's seeking without Rove's testimony.


COMMENT: Marxism is alive and well.

Update (PDF): Rove's Lawyer Ridicules Subpoena

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) issued a subpoena Thursday to former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove for testimony about politicization of the Department of Justice (DOJ), including the case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, who was jailed for bribery in what was widely seen as a political prosecution.

In response, Rove's attorney Robert Luskin questioned why the subpoena was necessary and mocked Conyers in a letter copied to RAW STORY.

"I do not misunderstand either the Committee's procedures or the scope of its interest in Mr. Rove; nor, in light of your reported remarks about the need for 'someone' to 'kick his ass,' am I the least bit confused about the Committee's motives and intentions," Luskin wrote. "I confess, however, that I do not understand why the Committee is threating a subpoena to Mr. Rove for information related to the alleged 'politicization of the Department of Justice,' when, as the Committee is surely aware, Mr. Rove has already received a subpoena for the same subject matter from the Senate Judiciary Committee."

"I also do not understand why the Committee refuses to acknowledge that, in these matters, Mr. Rove is not a free agent," he adds. Read the letter here.

House subpoenas Karl Rove in Justice Dept. Probe

I bet you thought all this was over and the whining Moonbats were on to other things.....WRONG.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed former White House adviser Karl Rove as part of its inquiry into whether the Bush administration politically meddled at the Justice Department.

Accusations of politics governing decisions at the agency led to the resignation of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The subpoena issued Thursday orders Rove to testify before the House panel on July 10. He is expected to face questions about the White House's role in firing nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 and the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, a Democrat.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers had negotiated with Rove's attorneys for more than a year over whether the former top political adviser to President Bush would testify voluntarily.


They have nothing else to do between destroying our faith in congress and pissing all over the taxpayer.

Happy hunting....

Turn Out the Lights...

From Texas Rainmaker:



The party’s over…

Count me as one of those who couldn’t decide which was better: To watch the Democrats destroy each other on a daily basis… Or to watch the Clintons finally tuck their political tail between their legs and walk out (dis)gracefully.

Now it’s time for John McCain to find himself a good CONSERVATIVE second fiddle so the base can get excited about showing up to vote in November. Just be prepared for all out racial war from here on out… not because we’re all racists, but because racist Democrats will try to paint it that way. Every ad, every speech, every comment will be taken as having some racial connotation to it. Just get ready.

Either way, today is a special day. Good riddance, Clintons.

You are mighty

type your name in the address below and run it.

http://www.yourname.youaremighty.com


Enjoy

Some of the Luckiest People in the World

Bodies

National Health Care - OK, OK, I take it back...

I know I've been ranting against any form of national healthcare. I've been against it because it smells too much like Socialism/Marxism. To me, national healthcare was the first step over the cliff into one (or both) of these forms of government. And, I was against it because the Hildebeast wants it.

So, partly because of what I've seen when living in countries that have this sort of care, I've re-thought this subject. National healthcare is something the U.S. needs. People do not need to be worried about how to pay for treatment or if the doctor is competent. We just have to be concerned with whatever ailment we have.

But, national healthcare can only be successful if it's run correctly. We shouldn't demand that people pay a deductible or premiums. We should not demand people pay for the care if they don't want it. If you work and are an american citizen you should be allowed this necessity. I've seen too many people denied quality care because they didn't have insurance. We should also me free, (like other countries are) to buy private health insurance if we want. England, you can have national care, but you can also buy private insurance. National healthcare shouldn't be the only choice for the country.

We won't have this national health care though because we will have to sacrifice. We won't be caught dead giving something up for "the good of the country." Hell no! Let the government figure that out. Most countries pay for that free health care with a huge sales tax, like 14 to 16 percent. Would you be willing to pay 16 percent of each dollar you spend, instead of the 7 to 9 percent we pay now?

Also, doctors, HMOs and pharmaceutical companies would throw themselves in front of a bus rather than give in to national healthcare. Do you honestly think they will give up those hundreds of thousands of dollars a month salary to be paid what the government will probably pay?

I think not.

So, national healthcare has a long way to go and frankly, I don't see it happening because of these factors I mentioned.

We need it, and I hope the Hildebeast can do it without destroying the democratic system we now enjoy.

I still won't vote for her.

Criminal Probe Opened over CIA Tapes

And so, the witch hunt continues:

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into the
destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes and Attorney General Michael B.
Mukasey appointed an outside prosecutor to oversee the case…

“The Department’s National Security Division has recommended, and I have
concluded, that there is a basis for initiating a criminal investigation of this
matter, and I have taken steps to begin that investigation,” Mukasey said in a
statement released Wednesday.

Mukasey named John Durham, a federal prosecutor in Connecticut, to oversee
the case. Durham has a reputation as one of the nation’s most relentless
prosecutors. He served as an outside prosecutor overseeing an investigation into
the FBI’s use of mob informants in Boston and helped send several Connecticut
public officials to prison…

The CIA has already agreed to open its files to congressional investigators,
who have begun reviewing documents at the agency’s Virginia headquarters. The
House Intelligence Committee has ordered Jose Rodriguez, the former CIA official
who directed the tapes be destroyed, to appear at a hearing Jan. 16.

This is just what we needed. Another gutless attorney general. Another out of control special prosecutor. And another media circus.

Never mind there is no crime here, or even the possibility of a crime.

He served as an outside prosecutor overseeing an investigation into the FBI’s use of mob informants in Boston and helped send several Connecticut public
officials to prison.

And it sure sounds like Mr. Durham has his priorities straight, doesn’t it?

What a waste of the taxpayers’ money, just to placate the howling banshees on the left and in the media. (Though I repeat myself.)

Thanks to Sweetness and Light

From a Michigan State University Professor

The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indrek Wichman. Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association. The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. The group had complained the cartoons were 'hate speech.' Enter Professor Wichman. In his e-mail, he said the following:

Dear Moslem Association,

As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest. I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt , the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called 'whores' in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland , and the rioting and looting in Paris France. This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile 'protests.' If you do not like the values of the West - see the 1st Amendment - you are free to leave.
I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option.
Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.

Cordially,
I. S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering

As you can imagine, the Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well. They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded and the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty and mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen. Now the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray. CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations , apparently doesn't believe that the good professor had the right to express his opinion. (unlike the broad latitude given to the Islamists to spew their hate-filled raves) For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman, saying the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks.

The 'Surge' Is 'Working'? Fine. Then Bush Should Be Impeached.

This column, from David Michael Green at the Smirking Chimp is a real eye catcher because if we could get enough liberals to buy into this thinking feeling, we might be able to get more of them to pull a Murtha and acknowledge that the surge is working,

But let's forget all that, and, just for the sake of discussion, assume
Little Bush has achieved something worthwhile in Iraq during 2007. Shouldn't he
be recognized for his achievement?

No. He should be impeached.

Some may claim that he has committed no crime related to Iraq (that's
actually an endless list, but don't get me started). For those folks, it is well
to remember that an impeachable offense is, as Gerry Ford once aptly reminded
us, anything that a majority of the House of Representatives believes it to be
on any given day. I'm not one who believes that this nuclear warhead of
constitutional government should be used lightly, but surely we can all agree
that gross incompetence and negligence are well within the range of what
constitutes an impeachable offense. Imagine if the country had a president who
had gone barking mad in his first year of office, and was making reckless
decisions that were grievously harming us. Would anyone argue that these
behaviors didn't rise to the level of impeachable offense, and that the country
should endure another three years of serious damage because insanity wasn't a
high crime or misdemeanor? Heck, would anyone argue that gross incompetence and
negligence aren't impeachable offenses when lying about oral sex is? (Okay - I
mean anyone besides those people?)

If the surge is working, Bush should be impeached precisely for the reason
that it is working. This is a president who was told by at least two top
generals in the military that he would need additional forces in Iraq in order
to succeed in his objectives. Notice that they were not saying that the war was
immoral or even a bad policy choice. They were simply arguing that to
effectively achieve the political objectives Bush was pursuing, he would, in
their professional opinion, need a much greater level of force presence. Notice
that the same president who today incessantly hides behind the supposed force
requirements of his generals, falsely claiming to defer to their military
judgement, not only disastrously failed to adhere to this advice in 2003, but
went so far as to cashier these career officials out of the military and destroy
their careers instead in order to send a warning to anyone else stupid enough to
be so candid.

Okay, so he's a liar and a hypocrite. That ain't exactly headline news. But
here's the larger point: If the surge is working, it would have worked a lot
better had Bush listened to Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki and others back at
the beginning. The fact that he did not demonstrates gross misjudgement which
quite likely has meant the difference between a stupid and ill-advised war that
might have ended quickly and relatively painlessly, on the one hand, versus a
stupid and ill-advised war that will probably never end and has taken over a
million lives so far, on the other. However ironic it certainly is, it is
nevertheless indisputable that the very 'success' of the 'surge', such as it is,
is therefore actually an indictment of Bush. It proves how dangerously wrong he
was when he rejected precisely this advice even before the war was launched. The
results of that failure of judgement have been astronomically huge and
catastrophically disastrous. Anyone guilty of such egregious errors has no
business being commander-in-chief, his slimy fingers gripping the nuclear
trigger. If the surge is a success, Bush should be impeached for gross
incompetence.

Wow, the liberal mind at work is a real wonder to behold, isn't it?

We changed strategies, the change worked, and therefore Bush should be impeached. Of course, by that standard, the President in charge of every major war we've ever fought could be impeached because we changed strategy in some form or fashion in every one of them at some point.

PS: Should I even have written that last paragraph? Is it even necessary to refute something like this? Given that the most ridiculous ideas and conspiracy theories are taken seriously on the Left and even on certain parts of the Right (See the North American Union and the amero that Bush is supposedly going to implement next year), it's hard to tell sometimes.

Top Democrats balk on contempt resolutions

House Democrats have postponed a vote until December on contempt resolutions against White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, delaying for now any constitutional showdown with the White House over the president’s power to resist congressional subpoenas.

Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) has been pushing for the contempt vote, arguing that the White House must be held accountable for ignoring subpoenas issued by his panel as part of the U.S. attorney firing scandal. Other top Democrats, including Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), have argued that the House should put off that fight while debates over Iraq funding and electronic eavesdropping dominate the floor. The contempt vote had been tentatively scheduled for Friday before Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) informed his colleagues that it was being delayed.

“[Emanuel] has been saying that this week is not the time to do this, that it
will step on our message on Iraq and FISA,” said a top House Democratic
leadership aide.

Emanuel could not be reached for comment by press time on Tuesday. The Illinois Democrat was overseeing an “issues conference” for House Democrats, urging rank-and-file lawmakers to hold more town-hall-style meetings with constituents in order to explain to them what Democrats have achieved since taking control of Congress.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is backing Conyers and wants a floor vote on the contempt resolution, but she has agreed to wait another few weeks before forcing a showdown with President Bush on the matter.

“I think it’s going to happen before we leave for the year, but not necessarily this week,” Hoyer said Tuesday.

Off Topic Subject: Pharmaceutical Companies

It never ceases to amaze me how the drug companies can invent new diseases and conditions just to market their new drugs. They are the masters of the drug trade.

Here's an example. In a commercial last night, a drug company pushed its new drug for the treatment of...."Bipolar Mania."

WTF is that? I've never heard of "Bipolar Mania." Did someone just think this up or what? Who "discovers" these new ailments?

OK, they've convinced us that when we have too many bad days in a row, we're bipolar. That's treated with several fine chemicals they just happen to have in stock.

Now, these existing drugs are supposed to treat the symptoms of bipolar disorder, and I hear they work well. Apparently, they don't work well enough when it comes to the freaked out feeling you get when you're in a bipolar episode, so, you also need to get this new miracle drug to combat the bipolar mania.

So, you can be taking these existing drugs for the bipolar disorder, then you can take this new drug to treat the onset before it turns into the actual bipolar....WTF?

That's just an example. Another favorite example of the marketing and re-marketing of drugs can be seen on the shelf in Wal-Mart.

Go tothe pain reliever section and find Excedrin Extra Strength, Excedrin Migraine, and Excedrin Tension Headache. Read the contents and their amounts. You might be surprised to see all three have the same ingredients and the same amounts, (aspirin 500mg and caffeine 550mg). So, what's the difference between the three?

Marketing...that's the ONLY difference.

The last example of how these companies milk all they can from you and the insurance companies is what they do when they lose their patents.

As I understand it, a drug company has the patent on their new drug for only about two years. Then that drug becomes something like public domain. Companies can now create generics and the drug will eventually be forced to over the counter (OTA).

Take Prilosec and Nexium. Nexium is sold by prescription only and Prilosec is sold OTA.
Surprise...Nexium was Prilosec when it was prescription only. Same ingredients...no difference.

They lost the patent and had to create something else to keep charging the big bucks so...they reformulated Prilosec and turned it into Nexium. Then, they marketed it to be an aid in healing the esophageal damage from stomach acid...you know the "little purple pill?"

Here's a flash: ALL of these acid inhibitors...Prevacid, Nexium, and Prilosec, heal damage done by acid reflux...if you take them regularly. But this little purple pill is marketed as if it's the ONLY cure.

Give me a break.

Anyway, my two-cents.

Calls to Henry Waxman's Office

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: This is Roseanne in Reidsville, North Carolina. Hi, Roseanne. It's nice to have you on the program.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. I want to tell you what Senator [sic] Waxman's representative told me, and then I would like to tell you what I told him when he said something about the tone of the Internet. He told me that the senator's position was not being represented correctly, that what the senator actually believed and what was being reported weren't the same thing, which puts him in the same position you are in, doesn't it?

RUSH: You mean Congressman Waxman?
CALLER: Yeah, congressman. Sorry.
RUSH: You called his office after you heard the report that he has assigned investigators to monitor me and Hannity and Levin and our shows for irregularities?

CALLER: Yes. I called him this morning and I asked him how he could make an attack on the conservative talk show hosts who aren't telling me what to think, but instead they're simply representing what I already think, and before I could say anything more, he interrupted me and told me that the congressman's position was being misrepresented.

RUSH: The congressman's position is being misrepresented?
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: Uh, well. So your point is, well, they misrepresented my position, so the congressman and I are pretty much on the same page?

CALLER: Yes, but there was an oddity about the call. I was told to stick to the point, but I think this is kind of the point. There was an oddity to the call. I wanted to further explain. I wanted to hear an explanation. I wanted more, but... The man was very pleasant, and he was very kind, but he kept cutting me off. He didn't explain anything, and when he said something about the tone of the Internet, it was odd because I felt like the call was being led.

RUSH: The tone of the Internet?
CALLER: Yes, sir -- and then I hung up and then I called back after I reflected on it, and I said to him, I said, "Do you realize when you say 'tone of the Internet,' do you realize you can't or shouldn't regulate 'tone'?" And I said, "Do you realize that Hillary has always, as long as I can remember, attacked everything that I love and I believe in. If she had her own way, she'd wipe me and my kind off the face of the earth -- and, sir, tone, passion, is one and the same," and I asked him to explain that to Mr. Waxman, that tone and passion, and that if somebody's trying to bring you to extinction, you're going to have passion.

RUSH: Well, you know, I don't know how many people call Waxman's office.

CALLER: Yesterday I couldn't get through.


RUSH: Yeah, I'm sure, and I'm sure these guys had to devise a response, and they are probably tired, by the way, of taking all these calls, and that might have been why the representative working for Congressman Waxman was a little testy.

CALLER: No, he wasn't. He was very nice.

RUSH: Yes, but you said he kept cutting you off --
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: -- and trying to make his points and so forth, because I'm sure he wanted to get on to the next call. But it's interesting. The interesting thing that you point out that they say Congressman Waxman's remarks were "misrepresented." He didn't deny it, huh? Did the guy deny it, Roseanne? Or he just --

CALLER: He didn't explain, Rush. He just left it at that. He just left it that the --
RUSH: Misrepresented.
CALLER: -- congressman was being misrepresented, and the point that I asked him, if he would please make to the congressman was -- I didn't say it this way, but I'll say it this way to you. Rush, I'm an ornery woman. You can't put a thought in my head if I don't already have it, and I know you know that about women, because you've made that very clear. You don't put thoughts in my head. I have my thoughts. You voice my thoughts and you make me feel --

RUSH: Exactly!

CALLER: -- like there's a tomorrow.

RUSH: That's one of the secrets of this program is, that I validate what people already think. You are not the mind-numbed robots in this society. It's the Democrats who are mind-numbed robots and the kook-fringe base. They're the ones that don't want to think. They're the ones that don't think. They're the ones that don't want to be challenged on their preconceived little worldview for their own security. You're exactly right.

CALLER: Last week, when Harry Reid took you out of context, my nine-year-old screamed from his 360, "That's not what Rush said." My nine-year-old knew how to put you in context.

Read the rest at the link.

Rapper TI Arrested just before an Awards Show

Who cares?

Muslims: Make Peace with Us or Die

A letter signed by over a hundred Muslim scholars sent to Christian leaders around the world declares that the survival of the world is at stake if they don’t make peace with Muslims.

Prominent Muslim scholars are warning that the “survival of the world” is at stake if Muslims and Christians do not make peace with each other.

We non-Muslims sincerely apologize if our women and children have been getting in the way of your exploding backpack bombs in cafes and discos in a less-than-peaceful manner.

Texas Rainmaker