Iraq & Afghanistan- The Military News

Last Surge Brigade to Return After Successful 13-Month Deployment

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=50263

Security squeeze limits al-Qaeda in Iraq hiding spots (Baghdad)

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=c...&Itemid=128

Life-Saving Surgeries Await Iraqi Child

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/images/stories/fea...19_fea1_med.jpg

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=c...61&Itemid=1

News Today!

http://pentagontv.feedroom.com/?&fr_st...eclip&rf=ev

http://pentagontv.feedroom.com/linking/ind...=ev&hl=true

Airpower Summary for June 14

By the U.S. Air Forces Central Public Affairs Office

SOUTHWEST ASIA - Coalition airpower integrated with coalition ground forces in Iraq and the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan in the following operations June 14, according to Combined Air and Space Operations Center officials here.

In Afghanistan, Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles dropped Guided Bomb Unit-31s and 38s to destroy anti-Afghan forces in caves in the vicinity of Nangalam. The Joint Terminal Attack Controller confirmed the missions successful.

In the vicinity of Orgun-E, an F-15E dropped a GBU-31 to destroy anti-Afghan forces with rocket launchers. The JTAC reported the mission successful.

In the vicinity of Lwara, F-15Es dropped GBU-12s, 31s, and 38s to destroy anti-Afghan forces with rocket launchers and spotters on a ridge line. The JTAC declared the mission successful.

Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt IIs dropped GBU-12s to destroy anti-Afghan forces in a tree line in the vicinity of Uruzgan. The JTAC confirmed the mission successful.

In the vicinity of Qal-E-Naw, an F-15E dropped a GBU-31 to destroy anti-Afghan forces. The JTAC declared the mission successful.

In the vicinity of Garmser, A-10s dropped GBU-12s to destroy anti-Afghan forces in a building. The JTAC confirmed the mission successful.

To deter enemy activities, A-10s performed shows of force in the vicinity of Lwara, Orgun-E, and Sharona. JTACs reported the missions successful.

In the vicinity of Bari Kowt and Nagalam, F-15Es performed shows of force to deter enemy activities. JTACs declared the missions successful.

In total, 54 close air support missions were flown as part of the ISAF and Afghan security forces, reconstruction activities and route patrols.

Thirteen Air Force and Royal Air Force surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft flew missions as part of operations in Afghanistan.

Additionally, two Royal Air Force aircraft performed tactical reconnaissance.

In Iraq, British GR.4 Tornados performed shows of force to deter enemy activities in the vicinity of Al Amarah and Al Nasariyah. JTACs confirmed the missions successful.

In total, coalition aircraft flew 53 close air support missions for Operation Iraqi Freedom. These missions integrated and synchronized with coalition ground forces, protected key infrastructure, provided over watch for reconstruction activities and helped to deter and disrupt terrorist activities.

Twenty-two Air Force and Navy surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft flew missions as part of operations in Iraq. Additionally, four Air Force, and Royal Air Force aircraft performed tactical reconnaissance.

U.S. Air Force C-130 Hercules and C-17 Globemaster III's provided intra-theater heavy airlift, helping to sustain operations throughout Afghanistan, Iraq and the Horn of Africa.

Approximately 132 airlift sorties were flown; 446 tons of cargo delivered, and 2,774 passengers were transported. This included approximately 30,000 pounds of troop re-supply air-dropped in Afghanistan.

Coalition C-130 crews from Australia, Canada, and Iraq flew as part of operations in Afghanistan or Iraq.

On June 13, U.S. Air Force and Royal Air Force aerial refueling crews flew 56 sorties and off-loaded approximately 3.2 million pounds of fuel to 278 receiving aircraft.

http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=news/news_...hp&id=20495

That is all!!

Latin America outraged at EU plan

Leaders across Latin America have reacted angrily to a new EU law that could jail illegal immigrants for up to 18 months before they are deported.

One president called it a hate initiative. Another said it was an attack on people's rights and lives.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7466218.stm

Detained migrants riot in Belgium

Migrants at a detention centre in Belgium have rioted after an illegal immigrant from Cameroon was found hanged there on Thursday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7380656.stm

Asylum seekers 'abused' in Greece

With pressure building on the Greek government over the alleged violent abuse of asylum seekers, the BBC's Paul Henley speaks to a man who says he experienced the brutality at first hand.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7445665.stm

And all we Americans wanted was a mere fence and to stop the shoting coming from Mexico and Nose snubs from Canada?

TAX CUTS FOR OIL COMPANIES
Prime Minister Putin Primes the Pump
By Jason Bush

Russia's record oil output is slipping, and major tax cuts are on the way. But massive investment is needed
On June 11, the International Energy Agency announced that Russia's oil production had hit 9.5 million barrels per day in the first quarter, edging past Saudi Arabia's 9.2 million to make the country the global King of Crude. But few in Russia are cheering because that new crown is already wobbling. After climbing for years, Russia's output has begun to drop: It was down by 0.7 percent in April. The problem is so serious that the new Prime Minister, former President Vladimir Putin, has said the issue is his first priority.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/busine...,560948,00.html







That is all!!

Murtha pissing on the Marine Corp!


Obama, the flecked Piper?



The Obama nation; Overcome with megalomania?



Top 10 reasons to blame Democrats for soaring gasoline prices

1 Defeat of President Bush's 2001 energy package

According to the BBC, "Key points of Bush('s 2001) plan were to:
-Promote new oil and gas drilling

-Build new nuclear plants

-Improve electricity grid and build new pipelines -$10bn in tax breaks to promote energy efficiency and alternative fuels

New York Times article, dated May 18, 2001

"President Bush arguing that the country had a future of 'energy abundance if it could break free of the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental advocates.

The Bush plan "mentions about a dozen areas including land-use restrictions in the Rockies, lease stipulations on offshore areas attractive to oil companies, the vetting of locations for nuclear plants, environmental reviews to upgrade power plants and refineries that could be streamlined or eliminated to help industry find more oil and gas and produce more electricity and gasoline.

** It is not his plan was the only answer or EVEN THE answer per se. What the object was IT, our cvomming energy needs,NEEDED TO BE FOCUSED ON THEN. What we VOTERS now need to be focused on, IS THE DOOMCRATS HAD NO PLANNED Aternative, BUT to REJECT THE IDEA OF ANY COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY PLAN ALL TOGETHER!! As we drive up to the pump today we can see in bank accounts how short sighted that was.

Times quotes President, "this great country could face a darker future, a future that is, unfortunately, being previewed in rising prices at the gas pump and rolling blackouts in the great state of California" if his plan was not adopted in 2001.

Just as the times pointed out President Bush's predictions have been born out, the article further quoted one of the energy antagonist most sage of Democrats, former President Obama-Jimmy Carter:

World supplies are adequate and reasonably stable, price fluctuations are cyclical, reserves are plentiful," he (Carter) argued. Mr. Carter said "exaggerated claims seem designed to promote some long-frustrated ambitions of the oil industry at the expense of environmental quality."
as a later Times article notes, "the president's ambitious policy quickly became a casualty of energy politics and, notably, harsh criticism from Democrats enraged by the way the White House had created the plan."

In other words, Democrats refused the President's plea to "break free of the traditional antagonism between energy producers and environmental advocates."

Remember that the next time you pull up to the pump ... or the voter's booth.

2) Speculation

According to a June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report, US energy futures historically "were traded exclusively on regulated exchanges within the United States... The trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC electronic exchanges was exempted from (federal) oversight by a provision inserted at the behest of Enron and other large energy traders into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000." The bill was signed into law by Bill Clinton, in one of his last acts in office.

Remember that the next time you pull up to the pump ... or the voter's booth.

3. The Global Warming the hype of reality.

As a result of the Al Gore & Democratic-negotiated Kyoto Protocol which created a worldwide market in carbon-emissions trading. Both 2005 --the year that trading was initiated--and this year --when the trading expanded dramatically – the world by NO coincidence at all, saw substantial and unexpected price spikes in the cost of oil.

Remember that the next time you pull up to the pump ... or the voter's booth.

4 Reduced competition

Oil Industry Consolidation has come reduced competition. Remember, most of the major oil company mergers -- Shell-Texaco, BP-Amoco, Exxon-Mobil, BP-ARCO, and Chevron-Texaco -- happened on Clinton's watch. The number of oil refiners dropped from 28 to 19 companies during Democratic majority and their once darling Clinton's two terms.

Remember that the next time you pull up to the pump ... or the voter's booth.

5 Refinery capacity

"High oil prices propped up by a shortage of refinery capacity which came during the Democratic majority and Bill Clintons ran of near sighted Enviromental special interest control. That bottleneck is not predicted to ease until 2010," according to Peak Oil News. W

Remember this, while voters in South Dakota have approved zoning for what could become the first new oil refinery in the United States in 30 years, the Dems' environmentalist special interest Democratic constituency vowed to oppose it, just like environmentalists opposed the floodgates that could have saved New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina.

Remember that the next time you pull up to the pump ... or the voter's booth.

6 Coal

"The liquid hydrocarbon fuel available from American coal reserves exceeds the crude oil reserves of the entire world," writes Dr. Arthur Robinson. The U.S. has approximately one-fourth of the world's known, proven coal reserves. Coal would be a proven, and increasingly clean, source of electric power and--at current prices--a liquefied fuel that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Yet Democrats controlled by their environmental lobbyist friends have fought, and continue to fight, both coal-mining and coal plants. Remember that the US Air Force is NOW transitioning to Jet fuel made from Coal. Also,that the last 3 years of WWII Germany used this technology to run its industry and war machine.

Lastly, Democratic insertions in the Clean air act stand blocking even the military transition which only by presidential wavier was allowed to proceed for National security reasons.. Is $8.00 a gallon NOT A NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERN, Ms. Pelosi , Mr Obama and Mr. Dean?

Remember that the next time you pull up to the pump ... or the voter's booth.

7 Nuclear power

Even the French, who sometimes seem to lack the backbone to stand up for anything other than soft cheese, faced down their environmentalists over the need for nuclear power. France now generates 79% of its electricity from nuclear plants, mitigating the need for imported oil. The French have so much cheap energy that France has become the world's largest exporter of electric power. They have plans in place to build more reactors, including an experimental fusion reactor.

The last nuclear reactor built in the United States, according to the US Dept of Energy, was the "River Bend" plant in Louisiana. Its construction began in March of 1977. Who has stood in the way, the democrats controlled by the environmental lobby.
Remember that the next time you pull up to the pump ... or the voter's booth.

8 Insistence on alternative fuels

One of the first acts of the new Democrat-controlled congress in 2007 was an energy bill that "calls for a huge increase in the use of ethanol as a motor fuel and requires new appliance efficiency standards." By focusing on alternative fuels such as ethanol, and not more drilling, Democrats have added to the cost of food, worsening starvation problems around the word and increasing inflationary pressures in the U.S., including prices at the pump.
Remember that the next time you pull up to the pump ... or the voter's booth.

9 Coastal Drilling

(i.e., not in my backyard) Democrats have consistently fought efforts to drill off the U.S. coast, as evidenced by Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's preotestation against a failed 2005 bill: "Not only does this legislation dismantle the bi-partisan ban on offshore drilling, but it provides a financial incentive for states to do so." Like the Florida Democratic Cuban American Senator Mendez, who recently railed at VP Cheney’s comments that even the communist Cubans and Chinese understood how important it is to drill off the Cuban coast and south Florida. He said in part truthfully “There are no China oil rigs drilling off South Florida.” He conveniently left off the fact that there numerous drill platforms in that region that are a part of multi-national consortiums in Joint Ventures Businesses involving Spain, Brazil, China and all in business with Cuba, who are exploring and drilling as we speak.

A financial incentive? With these Joint ventures now slant drilling for oil just 50 miles off the Florida coast, wouldn't that have been a good thing?
Remember that the next time you pull up to the pump ... or the voter's booth.

10 ANWR

Now Obama and Doomocrats main talking point on this issue is one of look over here, not here where IO do not want you to. So they misdirect to issues of 68 million arces not being drilled yet. Which is both Not true and true at the same time. What they are not wanting us to know is that there are vast explorations and studies being conducted and there are producing wells in that region they say is not being drilled. Also, they are not telling us that this regions oil is difficult to access, fraught with government regulations and hurdles, due to the democrats placing exploration prohibitive environmental constrains which make this area of the “Rocky Mountains,” oil the most expenses to produce in the US.

What they are not telling us, is that in Places like Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma, old adbdon wells are reopening in prolific ways. That wild catters, that exten tic breed of oil men have somehow come back from extinction and have started not only to drill but find unknown quanties of oil and particularly gas yet unknown to exists. The Barnett gas fields in North Texas have created great economic stimulus for that region. One has only to get on the road and see it for themselves.

Not to mention Democrats the outright fabrication that ignores had Bill Clinton signed into law the Republican Congress's 1995 bill to allow drilling of ANWR instead of vetoing it, ANWR could be producing a million barrels of (non-Opec) oil a day--5% of the nation's consumption.

Although speaking in another context, even Democrat Senator Charles Schumer, no proponent of ANWR drilling, admits that "one million barrels per day," would cause the price of gasoline to fall "50 cents a gallon almost immediately," according to a recent George Will column.



http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/top...e_democr_1.html

THAT IS ALL!!

Are facts undermining the Democratic narrative dominating in their political rhetoric the last 6 years and the last 30 years?
— most importantly, the facts about Iraq.

During the Doomocratic primary season, all candidates veered hardly a atom from their well rehearsed and distributed talking points narrative that helped the Democrats sweep the November 2006 elections. Iraq is spiraling into civil war, we invaded unwisely and have botched things ever since, no good outcome is possible, and it is time to get out of there as fast as we can. Yeap, Dean-o-mite, that’s the ticket?

In January 2007, came, agreeably belatedly McCain/Bush ‘s surge strategy, advocated by McCain since the summer of 2003, Barack Obama in harmonic chorus with his fellow Putsch Dooms informed us that the surge couldn’t work. They, speaking the vile tongues of Kos-o-mites and move-on-a-tribes, regurgitated in repetitive drones, “the only thing to do was to get out as soon as possible.”

In playing to the new shut up Putsch dooms, to win the Democratic presidential nomination, this was a chore of harmony. — but, a harmony of notes without meaning of words which proved again the Putsch dooms to be poor prophets. Now in the deafening silent of poor prophecy, the putsch doom stand in the surges success light. Violence is down enormously, Anbar and Basra and Sadr City have been pacified, Prime Minister Maliki has led successful attempts to pacify Shiites as well as Sunnis, and the Iraqi parliament has passed almost all of the “Political gamesmanship trickery of benchmark” Dean/Pelosi/Reed, miscalculated political spin legislation which demanded the accountability the Putsch never wanted. All of which Barack Obama seems to have barely noticed or noticed not at all. He has not visited Iraq since January 2006 ( 2 YEARS 6 MONTHS) and did nor has not wanted to seek a meeting with Gen. David Petraeus when he was in Washington. The parody of this is why not crowed song bird with pretty and empty tunes?

Remember how Kerry’s Phase I of Indoctrinate U socialist DOOM-ocracy where they as opponents of the Vietnam War simply LIED UP, STOKED UP and TUNED OUT any positive news of American successes made in Gen. Abrams new strategies of withdrawal and Vietnam-ization. Today, it is different for the phase II of the socialist DOOMocacy opponents of the Iraq war, oddly NOT the Afghanistan war for some odd reason, including Obama, seem to have been doing the same but differently, now is LIE UP, SHOUT SHUT UP while SPINNING INTER-NUT,PUNDIT HACK, GOO UP.

However, there cracks, in the indoctrinate U front, in regards to Iraq. The normal cheerleaders of the DOOMocacy and Obama-Jimmy, like the Washington post, on June 7th noted in remarks about” Obama “has become unreasonably wedded to a year-old proposal to rapidly withdraw all U.S. combat forces from the country — a plan offered when he wrongly believed that the situation would only worsen as long as American troops remained.” Further fissures appeared in the post on June 18th when it noted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyard Zebari told Obama in a phone conversation that a precipitate withdrawal would embolden al-Qaeda and Iran. But Obama told Jake Tapper of ABC News that he said no such thing.

Perhaps it was a question of lies, that has always been a good Doom fallback position when they want you to look one place instead of another. Then again it could be a lie, with the Iraqi government setting forth an obstacle to Obama’s plans for Iraq. But why unless they believe his willingness to talk to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions while avoiding at all costs talking to Petraeus and seeing Iraq in the light of day not in the dark and smoky back room closet that Dean/Pelosi and Obama usually haunt.

After all, Dean and Pelsoi’s Putsch doomorats have laid their souls out to the Mongers of others self interests who have ridden the back of Murtha’s Benedict moment of clarity about “depraved American soldiers massacring innocent Iraqis.” A spin dry moment of “wanta believe” propaganda spun by insider propagandists for the benefit of the left coast’s shut up and f**k middle America groupies, Freedom fighters the world over, and mostly for the Putsch doomocarcy, which is so desperate for power, it will eat our American defenders to get it.

Another great fissure like blow to the over dramatic reactant spin dry of this Phase II Doomacracy’s and Obama-Jimmy’s Environmental Lobby narrative has been its wholly come back to bite you in the arse miscalculation about Energy.

They have for 30 years just said NO!

First, to us having today enough Nuclear power units to more than supply I needs and conversion to urban electric transportation alternative that would have been there if the energy sources where not sabotage by the doomocats, who has religiously taken credit for it these last 30 years.

Second to new drilling in AWAR and the more promising offshore field of dreams that could have been, which because they refused to allow, could be adding many millions of barrels a day to US produced supplies. They say it would be nothing! But nothing today, made in the alternative, known volumes denied as nothing yesterday is a stretch in believability, in comparison to the logic of having the unknowns impact in making us feel more positively when we pay $4.00 a gallon and likely more soon. We now must wonder, what might have been, had only we not listened to the “shut up, it would be nothing” better for you. That often miscalculated Doomocratic spin dry of “ we know, we decide, such things for you.”

Third, taxes, well that a hoot is it not, Jimmy’s 2nd term windfall taxes, now that worked well didn’t it. Obam and his doom spin dry us and say, if we take, meaning TAX, the big oil companies, that will help us when we fill up our tanks. I ponder, like it did for the Jimmy –ecomony where in the end, we paid and paid dearly. Who raises taxes in a THE RECCESSION the dooms keep spin drying us in talk and tell we are in for god shake. Take Econo-101 Obama, Dean-o-mite and Socialists San Fran Pelosi, for gods shake.

All of this matters because the rejection of the Republicans in the 2006 elections was a verdict on competence more than ideology. The Republicans seemed incompetent at relieving victims of Katrina, producing success in Iraq and even policing the House page programs. The Democrats could not do worse and might do better was the lie the Phase II socialist of this Putsch Doomocracy sold us in yet another bill of goods without the goods. But in the 19 months since November 2006, were is the Doomocratic beef comrades.

NO war- paid for.

No FISA- approved in talking point smoke and mirror more of the same but different.

Honesty in Government- Big shot committee insider mortgage deals, $50,000 in the freezer, Obama Real estate-I did know gate. The bird feathers may change colors but the bird is still the same.

Campaign reform- Money is Republicanism yada, yada..1/3 billion spent by democrats on presidential primary alone… Obama lies takes the money Chicago style Hope and change..

Minimum wage increase- effecting only 2.3 % of all workers, 1/3 of which are illegal aliens.

Government DEBT 9 trillion, significant increases in spending for earmarked pork added to politically anti budget issues like war and defense spending “in protests of take that.”

If George W. Bush was wrong about the surge from summer 2003 to January 2007, Barack Obama has been wrong about it from January 2007 to today. John McCain seems to have been right on it all along. If the Doomocrats were wrong about energy these last 30 years, why are they so shut up right now? When asked why he changed his position on an issue, John Maynard Keynes said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” What say you, Sen. Obama?

A derivative of “Changing Facts, Iraq today.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTdlN...jcyN2RiZjdhZGM=

THAT IS ALL!!

The quarterly report, required by Congress, measured progress in the country in March through May of this year.

The report highlighted that all major violent indicators dropped during the reporting period by as much as 80 percent.
When you win, you can actually lose.

Federal Appeals Court Overturns Enemy Combatant Classification for Guantanamo Detainee

n the first Guantanamo Bay case to be reviewed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of Huzaifa Parhat, a Chinese Muslim known as a Uighur, undermining the basis for his more than six years in detention.

The appeals court directed the U.S. military to release Parhat, to transfer him or to hold a new proceeding promptly in light of the appeals court's ruling.

Okay, no problem ACLU. We just release him and deport him TO CHINA, there he can appeal all he wants, hey? Out of the warm bed and 3 meals a day, into the fires of Chinese justice, now that is a victory hey ACLU?

One for the good guys hey! Saves us $40,000 a year to keep him..

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,370209,00.html


Most Tryranical leaders of 2008

1 Kim Jong-il, North Korea

2 Omar Al-Bashir, Sudan

3 Than Shwe, Myanmar

4 King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia

5 Hu Jintao, China

6 Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe

7 Sayyid Ali Khamenei, Iran

8 Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan

9 Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan

10 Isayas Afewerki, Eritrea

11 Vladimir Putin, Russian

12 Muammar al-Qaddafi, Libya

13 Bashar al-Assad, Syria

14 Hugo Chavez, Venezula

15 Teodoro Obiang Nguema, Equatorial Guinea

16 King Mswati III, Swaziland

17 Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia

18 Aleksandr Lukashenka, Belarus

19 Hosni Mubarak, Egypt

20 Raúl Castro, Cuba

21 Choummaly Sayasone, Laos

22 Idriss Déby, Chad
[/B]

Noting 10 of the 22 worst leaders control very Dominate Islamic Countries.

While 2 out of the 22 are Latin American Marists and 5 more are outright and or modified communist Marxist regimes who run the countries in authoritarian Communist like rule, like in China, Russia and Belerus, North Korea and Myanmar

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/20...-2006/Dictators


THAT IS ALL!!

Remember Those DOOMocratic Iraqi Benchmarks? What happened to them?

Democrats no longer talk of the 18 benchmarks for measuring progress in Iraq because so much progress has now taken place.

Way back in the dark days of 2007, when the only popular question about the Iraq war concerned the degree of tragedy, Congress’s Iraq “benchmarks” were all the rage among Democrats. Every argument against a continued U.S. presence in Iraq was constructed around the Maliki administration’s apparent inability to meet the political and security-based milestones as outlined by America’s Democratic-majority Congress.

Then something happened. The gains of the troop surge allowed the Iraqi government and citizenry to implement the security measures and legislative acts called for by the U.S. The benchmark line of argument quietly died. Here, then, is the brief life and glorious death of the great benchmark trope.

In mid-May 2007, Congress passed bill H.R. 2206, which included 18 benchmarks intended to gauge success in the security and political reconciliation of Iraq. Some of the benchmarks were broadly worded calls for beefed-up security, while others cited very specific goals. Benchmarks included, for example, “Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty,” “Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations,” and “Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected.”[/i] Continued aid for Iraq reconstruction was to be contingent upon the Iraqi government’s ability to satisfactorily meet these benchmarks. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on May 25, 2007.

In July 2007, the Bush administration issued an interim report that found satisfactory progress being made on eight of the 18 benchmarks, most of those having to do with security. The progress on eight other benchmarks was described as unsatisfactory, and the assessment of two more benchmarks was mixed. The New York Times quoted an anonymous White House official as saying, [u]“It is a mixed bag, with some areas that are too early to pass judgment on.”

It was becoming clear that the top-down nature of the benchmarks was not necessarily reflective of some of the decidedly bottom-up signs of progress in Iraq. Specifically, they failed to capture the opportunities that first arose in Anbar province, as Sunnis turned on al-Qaeda and something like viable statehood seemed to be in the offing. As Ambassador Ryan Crocker presciently noted at the time, meeting the specific benchmarks was less important than achieving the trickier and less easily quantifiable goal of keeping various Iraqi sectarian and ethnic blocs talking to one another.

Yet, the benchmarks stood and had to be addressed. With the troop surge in its infancy and the Democratic majority in Congress reluctant to acknowledge any progress in Iraq, the July report served as a hedged note of positivity until September, when Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus were scheduled to give a comprehensive Iraq report to Congress.

However, soon after the enthusiastic Bush report came out, the Government Accountability Office released a contradictory report of its own. The GAO sent an assessment to Congress claiming only three of the 18 benchmarks had been met. The report stated:

While the Baghdad security plan was intended to reduce sectarian violence, U.S. agencies differ on whether such violence has been reduced. … The capabilities of Iraqi security forces have not improved. … Overall, key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds.

The Democrats pounced. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released an official statement on the GAO report, in which she stated:

The president is demanding tens of billions more dollars for the war in Iraq despite non-partisan conclusions, such as the draft GAO report and the recent National Intelligence Estimate, that the Iraqi government has failed to achieve required reforms.

As in the past, President Bush stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the facts on the ground about the sectarian civil war in Iraq or the growing bipartisan
opposition to his failed policies. He insists that our soldiers sacrifice even more, and taxpayers spend billions more dollars for an Iraqi government incapable or unwilling to institute reforms required by the president himself.

When Ryan Crocker and Gen. Petraeus testified on Iraq’s political and military progress, respectively, both were cautious and circumspect. Democrats who were eager to poke holes in a triumphal mischaracterization of the situation on the ground were flummoxed. Gen. Petraeus discussed the gains of the surge in reducing sectarian violence, but readily ceded that progress was uneven, fragile, and slow. Crocker admitted that political progress was happening at a frustrating pace but argued that “a secure, stable democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors is attainable.”

Petraeus defanged anti-war Democrats by calling for a troop drawdown starting mid-2008. Because Petraeus had realized that benchmarks weren’t the most useful metric and because he recognized a trickier kind of progress underway in Iraq, he had no need to fudge things. Moreover, he’s an honorable and gifted military mind who understood that the surge, as implemented, would either continue to yield progress or it would not.

If the Dems could no longer bite, they could certainly still bark. In the wake of the September testimony, anti-war lawmakers and media outlets refused to let up on the benchmark mantra. For them, victory or defeat in Iraq hung on those 18 points. Party big shots like Harry Reid and Joe Biden publicly cited the failure to meet the benchmarks as evidence that Iraq was hopeless. House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn issued a statement saying: “Despite the clear evidence that the Iraqi government has failed to make the necessary political progress and deliver on 15 of 18 benchmarks outlined by the Bush administration, the president wants to establish a permanent presence or ‘enduring relationship’ in Iraq, continuing to sacrifice an unacceptable level of American blood and treasure.”

Well, if the benchmarks were all-important to Democrats in the fall of 2007, they have become meaningless to them in 2008. When is the last time you’ve heard a benchmark reckoning from Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi? The reason for the deafening silence on this matter is simple. The military and political progress in Iraq has proved so monumental that the majority of the benchmarks have now been met.

Seven of the 18 benchmarks relate to Iraq’s national security. We can just about put a check next to each one. We can even look at some of those and marvel at the low expectations behind them. Number 9, for example: “Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations.” There are far more than three battle-ready brigades in Baghdad. The galvanization of Sunni Awakening groups who have wrested their country back from al-Qaeda and the decisive efforts of Iraqi forces in Basra and Sadr City have been the two most vital developments of the entire post-Saddam period.

The other eleven benchmarks are the political ones. And these are not so easily sniffed at. However, with Iraq’s parliament passing three critical laws in February and the Maliki government’s surprising tenacity, the four most challenging of these benchmarks have been met: a plan for provincial governance, de-Baathification reform, an amnesty for former insurgents, and legislation on the procedures to form semiautonomous regions.

Of the remaining benchmarks, some were always too ill-defined to be worthwhile. (Consider 18, for example: “Ensuring that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces.” Can we even say with confidence that America’s political authorities are not making false accusations against our own armed forces?) Others are also subjective, but admittedly important — equality under the law being one. And on these there is continued and demonstrable progress.

Robbed of benchmark-rage, the Democrats have been floundering in their search for a substantive argument against the evident progress in present-day Iraq. Hoisted by their own petard, the anti-war crowd has become the enemy of cold, hard facts. Today they talk of John McCain’s “neo-imperial” ambition to keep peacetime troops in Mesopotamia, as if the U.S. didn’t already have thousands of troops stationed around the globe serving in just that capacity. If Capitol Hill Democrats find themselves in need of something to do, perhaps they should reassert a benchmark plan. This time they can try holding themselves up to a set of standards. I will be so bold as to suggest the first one: evidentiary consistency. It shouldn’t be hard to come up with 17 more.

Doomocratic Putsch rage, the extremes!




That is all!!

Friendly Fire; wee, we had no sticking white flag, again!!

PARIS — A military shooting demonstration in southeast France on Sunday left 16 people wounded, including children, when real bullets were used instead of blank ones, officials said.

Four of the wounded were in serious condition, including a 3-year-old child, Bernard Lemaire, chief of the regional administration in Aude, said on France-3 television. Fifteen of the injured were civilians.

A Defense Ministry official said the incident occurred during a demonstration of hostage-freeing techniques at the Laperrine military barracks. The official said investigators will look into why real bullets were used.

No information was immediately available about what kind of weapon was used.

The soldier who fired the shots has been detained, Lemaire said. He said the injuries were likely an accident but that it could have been a "criminal act."
In a statement, President Nicolas Sarkozy expressed his "horror" at Sunday's incident at the base, which houses the 3rd marine infantry parachute regiment.
The injured were taken to nearby hospitals, with the most seriously wounded taken to Toulouse.


That is all!!

Leadership profile: Try testing yours here.

http://www.military.com/LeaderShipTest/1,1...?ESRC=marine.nl

Based on your answers, your profile matches...

William Tecumseh Sherman!

Biography:

William Tecumseh Sherman was one of the most controversial and successful Union generals during the Civil War. He performed well at Shiloh, Vicksburg, and the siege of Chattanooga. He captured Atlanta in one of the Civil War's most decisive campaigns. He advocated the concept of "total war" — waging war not just on the enemy's forces but on the enemy's support network. In this, he was the first modern general. He demonstrated this in his famous "March to the Sea," where his troops cut a swath of destruction through Georgia.

Leadership Attributes:

Sherman was tenacious in battle, and served with Ulysses S Grant in his campaigns — including the siege of Vicksburg, where his tenacity payed off. Sherman led by initiative as much as by planning. During his "March to the Sea," he was cut off from supply lines and his troops lived off the land. Sherman was a soldier, not a diplomat. In fact, after the war, when his name was bandied about for a nomination, he said, "If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve."




That is all!!

The Obama-nation doctrine:



The theology of indoctrinated bitterness, liberalism; "as infantile idiotic, as it is narcissistic,."

http://www.youtube.com/v/FiQJ9Xp0xxU&hl=en



That Adult thinking for themselves America, those voices of selfless hope and positive spirit.

http://www.youtube.com/v/EOc6wv9s1wA&hl=en&fs=1

Happy 232th Birthday America, God Bless the USA!

That is all!!

Hmm! Our lefties were wrong again;

First, the war in Iraq was illegal, gone to way side.

Second, it is an unwinnable Quagmire, going to way side.

Third, the surge will never work and is a FAILURE, lost, gone to way side.

Forth, there was no WMD in IRAQ, except:

• [I]WHY WOULD A COUNTRY WHICH HAS “NO,” ZERO, NATA, Nuclear plants, have 500 tons of YELLOW CAKE enriched uranium, if they HAD NO NUCLEAR program, and or plans for one…

COMRADE WART HOGS OF THE LEFT WHO ,WHINED AND WHINED, “NO WMD?”


500 tons of uranium shipped from Iraq, Pentagon says

The United States secretly shipped out of Iraq more than 500 tons of low-grade uranium dating back to the Saddam Hussein era, the Pentagon said Monday.

The U.S. military spent $70 million ensuring the safe transportation of 550 metric tons of the uranium from Iraq to Canada, said Pentagon spokesman Brian Whitman.

The shipment, which until recently was kept secret, involved a U.S. truck convoy, 37 cargo flights out of Baghdad to a transitional location, and then a transoceanic voyage on board a U.S.-government-owned ship designed to carry troops to a war zone, he said.

The "yellowcake" uranium transfer was requested by the Iraqi government at the encouragement of the U.S. government, Whitman said.
The United States approached Canadian company Cameco to bid for the material, according Cameco spokesman Lyle Krahn. He would not disclose the winning bid amount.

Krahn admitted that this was not a "routine transaction," but he said the agreement was approved by the Canadian government and was carefully monitored.
The undertaking, named "Operation McCall" by Pentagon officials, was in the planning stages for months and was completed Saturday after the material had been in transit for weeks, according to Whitman.

He said yellowcake uranium is a commonly traded commodity used for nuclear power generation. It is not enriched and cannot be used without first going through a complicated enrichment process, he said, but because of the unstable nature of Iraq, the United States and the Iraqi government decided it should be moved out of that country. Iraq has no nuclear power generating plants.

The uranium was packed into 110 shipping containers moved by convoy from a facility in Tuwaitha, Iraq, about 12 miles south of Baghdad. The containers were first moved to the secure International Zone in central Baghdad and then to Baghdad International Airport, where thery were loaded onto C-17 cargo planes.

It took 37 flights to move the shipping containers out of Iraq to a "third country," Whitman said.

A Pentagon official who asked not to be named said that third country was Diego Garcia, a British territory in the Indian Ocean where the United Kingdom and the United States operate a joint military base.

From that third country, Whitman said, the containers were loaded onto the SS Gopher State, a U.S.-owned crane ship normally used to haul equipment in and out of war zones. The ship carried the uranium to Canada, where it was bought by Cameco, a private firm.

The uranium will be sent by truck to two processing plants in Ontario, Krahn said. Once it has been enriched for energy use it will be sold to power plant operators, he said.

The United States is Cameco's largest customer, Krahn said, but he did not specify if the Iraq yellowcake would ultimately end up in the United States.

Whitman said the Department of Defense's cost of securing and transporting the uranium from Tuwaitha to Canada was $70 million, and the government of Iraq had agreed in principal to reimburse the United States for part of that cost.

He said he could not say how much Iraq intends to repay the United States

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/index.html


That is all!!

Isn't it amazing that most of the major news networks managed to miss the Iraqi yellowcake completely?

Here is another link regarding the yellowcake issue:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.a...300323577877918

Shiites outing Obama..

On Monday, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki suggesting for the first time that a timetable be set for the departure of U.S. forces under the deal being negotiated, which he called a memorandum of understanding.

Rubaie said Iraq was waiting "impatiently for the day when the last foreign soldier leaves Iraq".

"We can't have a memorandum of understanding with foreign forces unless it has dates and clear horizons determining the departure of foreign forces. We're unambiguously talking about their departure," Rubaie said in the holy Shi'ite city of Najaf.

He was speaking to reporters after meeting Iraq's top Shi'ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

Rubaie said he spoke to Sistani about the U.S. talks, but did not say if the cleric had an opinion on the negotiations. The revered cleric is routinely briefed on key national issues.

"I informed the (clerical leaders) about some of the advances in the talks. There are real problems and difficulties, and we have many roadblocks ahead. There is a big difference in outlook between us and the Americans," Rubaie said

On Tuesday the White House said the talks were not aimed at setting a hard deadline for withdrawal.

"Negotiations and discussions are ongoing every day," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in Japan, where President George W. Bush is attending a Group of Eight summit.

"It is important to understand that these are not talks on a hard date for a withdrawal."

PARLIAMENT HICCUP

In a further complication, Iraq's deputy parliament speaker Khalid al-Attiya said lawmakers must approve any deal the Iraqi government reaches and will probably reject the document if American troops are immune from Iraqi law.

It would be virtually unthinkable for the United States to allow its soldiers to be subject to Iraqi law.

Maliki's preference for a memorandum of understanding, which could be an attempt to bypass parliament, is in contrast to earlier talks which have all been leading to the signing of a formal Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).

"Without doubt, if the two sides reach an agreement, this is between two countries, and according to the Iraqi constitution a national agreement must be agreed by parliament by a majority of two thirds," Attiya told Reuters in an interview

Washington has SOFA pacts with many countries, and they typically exempt U.S. troops from facing trial or prison abroad.

Iraq said last week Washington was showing flexibility on some key issues, which officials said included dropping a demand for immunity for private
contractors working for the U.S. government.

Control of military operations and airspace are other points of contention, along with the detention of prisoners.

http://www.reuters.com/article/gc05/idUSL0353522920080708

Leave a Message

By Daniel Politi

Posted Tuesday, July 8, 2008, at 6:09 AM ET

USA Today and the Washington Post lead with Iraq's prime minister suggesting for the first time that he would favor establishing some sort of timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. During a visit to the United Arab Emirates, Nouri al-Maliki talked about the security pact currently being negotiated between the United States and Iraq, and said it looks like the two sides will "reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or a memorandum of understanding to put a timetable on their withdrawal." The White House publicly said the statement was consistent with U.S. policy, but the Bush administration has frequently spoken up against a timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

It's unclear whether Maliki's talk of a withdrawal timetable actually reflects a change or if it's just another example of how the prime minister talks tough when he's addressing regional audiences only to temper his remarks in negotiations with U.S. officials. USAT notes that some think the tough words were nothing more than a negotiating tactic.

Still, as the WP highlights, the move reflects the "political dilemma" that Maliki and other members of his government are facing as they prepare for the upcoming provincial elections. Many in Iraq's opposition, including Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr, have long talked about a timetable, which is an issue that many Iraqis support. The Post notes that the fact that there's talk of a "memorandum of understanding" suggests the United States and Iraq are far from reaching a long-term agreement

US out of Iraq before GW leaves office? OMG! What would the liberal whiners do?



The FEAR, within Iranian bravado!

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's Revolutionary Guards have begun a military exercise and issued a warning that Israel and U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf would
be prime targets if Iran is attacked.

The Web site of the elite Iranian force posted a statement late Monday announcing the military drill, which it said involved "missile squads," but did not say where it was taking place. Iran's guards and national army hold regular exercises two or three times a year, but the statement did not say whether this drill was one of them or if it was a special exercise.

Israel's military sent warplanes over the eastern Mediterranean for a large military exercise in June that U.S. officials described as a possible rehearsal for a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, which the West fears are aimed at producing atomic weapons.

The Iranian Web Site quoted guard official Ali Shirazi as saying that Israel's coastal metropolis of Tel Aviv and U.S. warships in the Gulf would be among the first targets if Iran comes under attack.

"The Zionist regime is pushing the White House to prepare for a military strike on Iran," Shirazi was quoted as saying. "If such a stupidity is done by them, Tel Aviv and the U.S. naval fleet in the Persian Gulf will be the first targets which will be set on fire in Iran's crushing response

Shirazi is a cleric who represents supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the guards' naval force. Khamenei has the final say over all state matters.
"The first shot by the U.S. on Iran will set the U.S. vital interests in the world" at risk, Shirazi said, according to the Web site.

The U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, headquartered in the Persian Gulf nation of Bahrain, is responsible for patrolling the Gulf, the Suez Canal and parts of the Indian Ocean.

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev would not comment on Shirazi's warning other than to say "his words speak for themselves."
Though Washington says it prefers a diplomatic resolution to the standoff over Iran's nuclear activity, the U.S. and Israel have not ruled out a military option. Iran insists its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes, such as energy production.

On Friday, Iran's top Revolutionary Guards commander, Gen. Mohammed Ali Jafari, said Iran would consider any military action against its nuclear facilities as the beginning of a war.

However, Iranian leaders have said they believe the speculation of a military strike is part of a campaign of psychological warfare.

That is all!!

Jul 9, 2008 8:26
Report: Iran conducts test of Shihab 3 missiles as part of army drill

Iran on Wednesday conducted a test of its Shihab 3 missiles, capable of striking targets at a range of 2,000 kilometers, ( 1240 miles) the Islamic Republic's state-run Press TV reported.

Nine other missiles were tested on the second day of a military exercise dubbed 'The Great Prophet III,' including Zelzal and Fateh missiles, with ranges of 400km (240 miles) and 170km ( 105 miles) respectively.


http://www.stratfor.com/

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull


That is all!!

I agree but more practically different with Obama that Americans should learn other languages.

I agree South Carolinians or say Iowans should learn Bronx-ese, or Yonker-ese, or South Chicagoian and or perhaps California Valley-ism and most assuredly visa versa. Because they, as coexisting neighbors of common interaction, as united citizens of one country, speaking only varying dialects of English, are likely to run into those other on occasion, as do, more commonly, neighboring Europeans, who interact more practically via common and frequent interacts with their close neighbors, who speak a completely different language.

Yet, Obama nonsense of laughable hyperbolic below is an absurdity of the Liberal Utopian elitist thought speak, usurped as a common threat of American culture for a one world, Socialism and Governance, to the extremes.

It is a elitist false populist fallacy, projected on common folk, who are never likely to need to speck Spanish or French, until the small legal and vastly larger illegal immigrants have become the majority in this country.

See Obama illogic of inexperience and false projection of elitism on common folk below:

http://www.youtube.com/v/BZprtPat1Vk&hl=en&fs=1



The audacity of real change below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZQPy8an12g

That is all!!

I am really mad about this must see video!

http://www.osampump.com/

That is all!!

Try this link if one above does not work.

That is all!!

ELECTION 2008
Backlash: 2 million angry Democrats reject Obama?
Raise $10 million for Clinton campaign debt, urge her return

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 12, 2008
12:30 am Eastern


By Andrea Shea King
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

More than two million angry Democrats are rejecting Sen. Barack Obama as the likely Democratic nominee for the presidency this year, according to a new protest organization.

"I hate to use this word but it's fascist, and that's the approach they're taking to silence any Hillary Clinton supporters," Will Bower, co-founder of PUMA/Just Say No Deal, an exploding coalition of voters who say they have raised $10 million in just days to pay down Clinton's campaign debt.

"Barack Obama wants to give his acceptance speech in a stadium because he intends to minimize any pro-Hillary supporter dissent. It's not because he wants to include more people. He knows that if they pull any shenanigans at convention, the Hillary delegates will walk out, and they don't want that to be seen or heard. They're bringing as many Obama supporters as they can to fill that stadium. It's fascism," he said.

The voters who still are supporting Clinton are doing everything they can to make sure that doesn't happen, raising an estimated $10 million since Independence Day to retire her debt.

Nearly 18 million people voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential primaries and many of them believe their candidate was cheated out of being the Democratic nominee for president.

Now more than two million, based on donation and other records, are determined to protest the nominating process and push for an open convention in Denver this August.

"The seeds of discontent for the birth of the PUMA/Just Say No Deal movement were planted during Barack's poor performances at the debates, the media assault on Clinton after Iowa, Obama's arrogance on the campaign trail, and the DNC's selective application of its own rules," Bower explained.

"We said we are not falling in line just because Obama and (David) Axelrod and the DNC were saying 'All right, this is over, let's all get behind Barack Obama.' There are plenty of us out here saying, 'No this is not over. You have treated us very unfairly and in fact, anti-democratically,'" he said.

Bower said Hillary supporters were so incensed with the DNC's action they wrote about it at their blogsites. The issue went viral, spreading rapidly across the Internet. One irate blogger came up with the acronym PUMA after blogging "Party Unity, My A**." The abbreviation eventually evolved into the puma cat logo used at multiple sites

It took only days for PUMA and dozens of other grassroots organizations and political activists to discover one another and convene a conference call. They agreed to band together and call the movement Just Say No Deal.

"We formed this coalition to give people time to say 'Look, everything is still on the table. You still have months before November to make this decision' " Bower explained.

PUMA/Just Say No Deal now represents and gives voice to more than 230 grassroots organizations, blogs and millions of self- professed PUMAs intent on one mission: NOBAMA!

"On June 8th the coalition was born and within 24 hours we were on Fox News," Bower said. Since then, he and several other coalition members have done dozens of television, radio and print interviews. And they've met with the Republican presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain and his campaign advisor Carly Fiorina.

"We felt reassured after that meeting that come November, we'd be voting for McCain, but we still haven't made that choice. We want him to work for our vote," Bower said.

PUMA/Just Say No Deal members are pushing varying agendas and voting strategies, but the factions are united in their unwavering decision to not "fall in line" in supporting Barack Obama. For many of the disenfranchised Democrats, the choice will be John McCain. For others, it will be a third party candidate, a write-in, or no vote at all.

"A lot of us still want Hillary to get the nomination, but we all agree that none of us want Obama to be the next president," Bower said.

"We're letting the Democratic National Committee and other party leaders know that PUMA/Just Say No Deal members are serious. We're not going to take this lightly and we're prepared to vote for John McCain if need be."

Bower said he believes his group is creating an impact with the Democratic National Committee.

"They are worried. They saw these past few weeks how much money we're still raising for Hillary Clinton. Originally they said 'Hillary has until the convention to pay off her debt if she wants to be on the roll call.' Well, then we started making money for her. And then they moved it up to July 15th. So we started making a lot of money for her."

"We started an initiative just before the 4th of July to raise money for Hillary, and so far we've raised approximately $10 million. Sources tell us that's less than $5 million away from being in the black. By this weekend Hillary's debt will be finished."

Bower makes it clear that Sen. Clinton has not asked the organization to do anything. "We're doing this on our own. We don't want the DNC to use her debt as a strong-arm tactic to keep her or her supporters from having a voice at the convention. All of us are contributing what we can. None of us want Barack Obama to be the next president."

Coalition members donate in increments of $20.08. "That way they know it's from us," Bower explained.

It's not just the money giving the DNC angst.

"Some of their superstars are now having to spend all of their time addressing us specifically," Bower said. “Donna Brazile's (superdelegate and DNC rules committee member) job now is fighting the PUMAs. Ed Rendell created a group called Hound to address the PUMAs. So some of their best people are having to devote all of their time and energy just to address us."

Money raised by PUMAs also doesn't go to Obama's campaign or the DNC coffers.

Bower also pointed to polls indicating shrinking support for Obama.

"CNN did a poll at the beginning of June that showed 1 of every 5 Clinton supporters would not vote for Obama. Well, just one month later that's now 1 in 3. So we're getting our numbers up and we're growing strong. And if the DNC's not worried about us, then they're clueless as to this movement."

They also credit Obama with helping their effort.

"In the last two weeks we've seen Obama go back on his campaign promises – FISA, campaign finance, especially the Iraq war," Bower said.

"There is a movement afoot," Bower confided. "It hasn't hit the ground yet, but we want to target down-ticket Democrats who have been complicit in the DNC's dealings these past few months. You'll probably be hearing more about that soon. Some of Obama's original supporters are leaving him. Eight super-delegates left Obama this week. People are realizing Obama will be a dead weight to them and that's why these eight delegates have switched back over to Hillary's column. And I'm expecting there'll be more to follow."

"He's only the presumptive nominee. And he's doing everything he can, the DNC is doing everything it can, to shove Hillary out of the process when she has received more votes than any primary candidate in history," he said.

The coalition believes the Democrat leadership in Congress is supporting Obama because they want a weakened executive branch and Obama is an inexperienced, manufactured candidate who'll have to rely on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

"Hillary won't do that," Bower assured.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=69294

THAT IS ALL!!

U.S. could step up Iraq pullout in September: report

OOPS!

Sat Jul 12, 8:50 PM ET



NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Bush administration is considering withdrawing additional troops from Iraq beginning in September, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions, citing administration and military officials

The withdrawal, which the Times said would constitute a marked reversal from the war's darkest days of 2006-2007, stemmed partly from the need for more U.S. troops in Afghanistan to fight the rising insurgency by the Taliban and other fighters. U.S. and allied casualties there have outpaced those in Iraq in recent months.

No final decisions have been made, but at least one and as many as three of the 15 combat brigades now in Iraq could be withdrawn, or slated for withdrawal, by the end of the administration in January, the Times said, citing officials.

The White House declined to discuss the withdrawals, but spokesman Gordon Johndroe told the newspaper that while the president hoped to bring more troops home, he would await the recommendation in September of Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, the Times said.

"For now," Johndroe said, "we will continue discussions with the Iraqis on our shared goals of a reduced U.S. troop presence," it quoted him as saying.

Despite consensus among officials that fewer forces are needed in Iraq and more in Afghanistan, one senior administration official also cautioned that President George W. Bush would resist deep or rapid reductions if that threatened the prospects for a stable, democratic government in Iraq, the Times said.

"There hasn't really been any discussion of numbers, and it's definitely based on conditions on the ground," the Times quoted a military officer in Baghdad as saying. Conditions "are a lot more favorable than in December or April or even two months ago," he added.

But Petraeus, who leaves Iraq in September to head the U.S. Central Command, which also has oversight over the Afghanistan war, and has already begun the review of security and troop levels, is expected to be more cautious than some administration and Pentagon officials might want, the Times said. Officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said Petraeus would more likely recommend a smaller reduction.

The most optimistic course would be 115,000 to 120,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, the Times said, which would be down from the peak of 170,000 in 2007 after Bush ordered the troop increase.

As of July 9, there were 146,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Iraq is a major issue in November's presidential election battle between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama. McCain supports the Bush administration's current strategy there, while Obama has called for a timetable for withdrawal.

While a reduction of combat brigades in Iraq would free up troops that could be sent to Afghanistan, officials said no additional forces would go until next year, the Times said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080713/ts_nm/iraq_usa_dc

That is all!!

McCain scrubs Obama's lead in new poll

New York (PTI): In wharly embracing his old rival Clinton and travelling the country courting big donors at lavish fund-raisers, may have t could ring alarm bells for Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, his Republican rival John McCain has virtually scrubbed the 15 point lead enjoyed by the African American till last month with the two now locked in statistic dead heat.

The latest poll by Newsweek which the magazine itself said surprised the analysts showed that Obama was just three points ahead of McCain (44 per cent to 41 per cent) which is within the margin of error.

Like they say below, leaving out the fact, with all other polls giving a 3 to 5 point spread for Obama, Newsweek/NYT released one with a 15 point Obama advantage.

Yea, I bet their Shocked, more like, "o NO! not again, HORRIFIED, both at the prospects, that their Saint of the left, might lose, and more importantly, how their obvious "DAN RATHER" like media complicit bias and effort at maninuplation and indoctrination, was shown clearly, and truely, as a fact, in the last poll they so lamely attempted to manipulate..

Less than a month ago, Obama was leading by 15 points 51 per cent to 36 against the 72-year-old Vietnam veteran and analysts scrambled to pinpoint the cause for the sharp drop as to whether Obama's glow is fading or there is some sampling error.

The 47-year-old's rapid drop comes at a strategically challenging moment as he faces accusations of changing his position on major issues and is struggling to woo supporters of Hillary Clinton, whom he vanquished in the nomination contest, still not reconciled to her defeat.

Obama's reversal of position on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and his decision to opt out of campaign public finance system led to charges of flip flop.

In this context, a key finding of the poll was that 53 per cent of voters (and 50 per cent of former Hillary Clinton supporters) believe that Obama has changed his position on major issues in order to gain political advantage.

More seriously, Newsweek said, some Obama supporters worry that the spectacle of their candidate eagerly embracing his old rival Clinton and travelling the country courting big donors at lavish fund-raisers, may have done lasting damage to his image as an arbiter of a new kind of politics.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200807131140.htm

That is all!!

No WMD?


That is all!!

The Doomocracy; painted into the corner of doom and gloom.

AFGHANISTAN THE GOOD WAR
Obama would send 2 more brigades to Afghanistan

By NEDRA PICKLER – 48 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrat Barack Obama said Monday that as president he would send at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan, where U.S. soldiers face rising violence and endured their deadliest attack in three years on Sunday.
The proposed force increase — about 7,000 troops — is part of Obama's plan to pull combat troops out of Iraq and focus on the growing threat from a resurgent al-Qaida in Afghanistan.

"As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan," Obama said in an op-ed published Monday in The New York Times, a day before he plans a speech here on his vision for Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there," Obama said. "I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq."

Republican presidential candidate John McCain is planning to speak about his plan for Afghanistan Thursday. He told reporters Monday, "I think we need to do whatever is necessary and that could entail more troops."

U.S. commanders have said they need up to three more brigades in Afghanistan — or as many as 10,000 additional troops — to both train Afghan forces and battle the insurgency. President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have promised to beef up the U.S. force in Afghanistan next year, but military leaders have made it clear they won't be able to do that until they can reduce forces in Iraq.

Obama says he will do that, redeploying combat brigades out of Iraq by summer 2010. He wrote that he would leave in place a residual force of undetermined size behind to "perform limited missions" like going after remnants of al-Qaida and training Iraqi forces.

"Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and al-Qaida has a safe haven," Obama wrote. "Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been."

McCain took issue with that point. "He was wrong when he said we've lost the war, and he is wrong today when he says that Iraq is not the central battleground," the Arizona senator said. "We are winning there and his proposals would jeopardize the fragility of the success we've achieved. And his refusal to acknowledge that success is remarkable."

There are currently 36,000 U.S. forces in Afghanistan, including 17,500 serving with the NATO-led coalition and another 18,500 conducting training and counterinsurgency. The recent spike in U.S. troops there resulted largely from the overlap of one brigade moving into the country, as another is preparing to leave.

Violence is on the rise in Afghanistan. Monthly death tolls of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan surpassed U.S. military deaths in Iraq in May and June, and a militant attack Sunday on a remote military outpost killed nine American soldiers, the deadliest assault on U.S. forces in Afghanistan in three years.
In his op-ed, Obama defended his opposition to President Bush's increase of troops in Iraq despite its success in helping bring down the violence in that country. He credited the increase for protecting Iraqis and weakening al-Qaida's effectiveness.

"But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true," Obama said. "The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we've spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq's leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge."

McCain criticized Obama for his stance on the surge. "The major point here is that Senator Obama refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong," McCain said. "He said that the surge couldn't succeed. He said he opposed the increase in troops. The surge has succeeded.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i93McMP...lGV2RgD91TP3GG0

That is all!!

Schumer a media hog of Prophetic DOOMocatic folly:


A Sneak Peek at Democrats in Control
July 14, 2008 by bluecollarmuse

I was thinking earlier today about the huge numbers of Democratic distortions and outright deceptions swirling around in the news. Nancy Pelosi calling drilling a GOP hoax and continuing to blame Republicans for gas prices; Dennis Kucinich and other Democrats deflecting attention from their historic 91% DISapproval rating by renewing calls for W to be impeached; their deafening silence on how badly the war in Iraq is going and their insistence on sticking the many with the tab for the greed and ignorance of a few in housing speculation. All of these things and so much more await the nation foolish enough to grant these people additional power in November in the name of ‘Change’. What we need a change from is Democratic policy!

Just exactly how bad would it be for Democrats to be in charge of both the White House and Congress? While there is no way to tell for sure beyond the incontestable “Very, very bad!”, we have a fly-on-the-wall view of the destruction awaiting America’s millions. It was provided by none other than Democratic icon and NY Senator Charles “Chuck” Schumer.

Most of you are by now aware of the failure of either the second or third largest bank in US History on Friday, July 12th, 2008. Depositors staged a run on
California based IndyMac to the tune of $100 million! The bank collapsed and was taken over by the federal government who opened up again this morning for business as usual. Well, except for the depositors with balances over the FDIC guaranteed $100,000 limit. As of this writing, there’s no word on what happened to balances over that amount although the first $100,000 is safe.

What you may not be aware of, as I was not, is WHY there was a run on IndyMac. I assumed, incorrectly, it was related to the subprime mortgage bailout and poor loan management and performance by IndyMac. Subprime mortgages are involved. They provided the weakness IndyMac was dealing with. However, that’s not why depositors broke the bank and headed for the hills with their cash

Erick Erickson at RedState has the scoop. It seems Senator Schumer was not content to notify the Office of Thrift Supervision, IndyMac’s regulator, of his concerns about IndyMac’s condition and stability. Beyond that responsible notification, Senator Schumer made his concerns very public via a series of strategic leaks via letters to . When the public got wind of his concerns, they panicked and destroyed a financial institution.

This is not simply my highlighting a Democrat’s bad behavior. The Office of Thrift Supervision’s Director, John Reich, issued a written statement laying IndyMac’s collapse at Charles Schumer’s feet.

“As a regulator of insured depository institutions, we do not publicly comment on the financial condition or supervisory activities related to open and operating institutions,” Reich wrote. “We believe it is critically important to maintain the confidentiality of examination and supervision information.”

He went on: “Dissemination of incomplete or erroneous information can erode public confidence, mislead depositors and investors, and cause unintended consequences, including depositor runs and panic stock trades. Rumors and innuendo cause damage to financial institutions that might not occur otherwise and these concerns drive our strict policy of privacy.”

Senator Schumer evidently felt such a responsible handling of matters such as these was, itself, irresponsible and needed a little nudge in the right direction from his office. He did not deny or even apologize for his actions. Instead he justified them in a statement issued through his office in which he said,
“The home loan bank system has an obligation to lend responsibly and police its members. But it has not been doing its job. We have found the only way to get the home loan bank system to act appropriately and positively is to make public the concerns we’ve already expressed privately.”

Schumer’s hubris and arrogance as evidenced by his actions were summed up in a statement by former US Comptroller of the Currency John D. Hawke.
“If Schumer continues to go public with letters raising questions about the condition of individual institutions, he will cause havoc in the banking system,” Hawke said.

“Leaking his IndyMac letter to the press was reckless and grossly irresponsible. I don’t see how he can be trusted with confidential information in the future. What this incredibly stupid conduct does is put at risk the willingness of regulators to share any information with the [congressional] oversight committees. After this, you’d be crazy to share information with Schumer.”

I opened with noting this post would give you a glimpse into government with Democrats in control. Hawke’s comments are all the description one needs when contemplating such a horror. Havoc causing; reckless; grossly irresponsible; untrustworthy; incredibly stupid; putting [America] at risk; not to be privy to confidential or delicate information. One Senator, acting as he saw fit with no thought or concern for the people affected, decided to impose his will on a segment of the American people. That they weren’t people who could hold him accountable for his actions at the ballot box is even more disgusting. His actions have done incalculable harm to the economies, jobs, futures and dreams of thousands of people associated with IndyMac; the very little people Schumer and company ceaselessly tell us they look out for.

There’s some looking out to be done here, all right. America had better look out for itself and vote, not just “No!”, but “Heck, NO!” to any Democrat seeking office in November. If we don’t, we can all sit back and look out for more destruction born of arrogance headed down from the heights of Capitol Hill courtesy of Democrats

http://medializzy.wordpress.com/2008/07/14...ats-in-control/



No values Voters

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/82644...=embedded_video

Doomocrat solutions:

http://www.youtube.com/v/Hea_LYT5Lg4&hl=en&fs=1

That is all!!

P.S.

A Collage of Liberalism and Democrats’ ‘STUPIDITY’

http://swamphermit.wordpress.com/2008/07/1...idity%E2%80%99/

The DOOMocratic majority;

An audacity of "NO HOPE" LEADERSHIP!


Democrats Depressed About Congress - Lowest Approval Rating Ever




A new Gallup Poll has Congressional Approval rating dropping to 14%, the lowest it's ever been. Just last month Congress recorded the lowest confidence rating ever taken by Gallup. According to Gallup, Republicans are more positive about Congress than Democrats.

The most recent decline comes almost exclusively from Democrats, whose approval of Congress fell from 23% in June to 11% in July, while independents' and Republicans' views of Congress did not change much. As a result, Republicans are now slightly more likely than Democrats to approve of the job the Democratic-controlled Congress is doing (19% vs. 11%). The 11% of Democrats now approving of Congress is slightly lower than Gallup found in 2006, toward the end of the Republican-led 109th Congress. Democratic approval of Congress initially surged after the Democratic takeover of the U.S. House and Senate, from 16% in December 2006 to 44% in February 2007, but by August 2007 it had fallen to 21%. Democrats' approval of Congress rebounded to 37% later that year, but has since been in a nearly continuous decline.

It's sad when more Americans approve of the job President Bush is doing more than they approve of the job the new ands improved Doom-ocratic Congress is doing. It's time for the Doom Congress to stop acting like they can't do anything and start showing some real leadership.




July 16, 2008

Congressional Approval Hits Record-Low 14%

PRINCETON, NJ -- Congress' job approval rating has dropped five percentage points over the past month, from 19% in June to 14% in July, making the current reading the lowest congressional job approval rating in the 34-year Gallup Poll history of asking the question. The previous low was 18%, last reached in May.

The 75% currently disapproving of Congress is just shy of the record-high 78% in March 1992. ( Bill Clinton and a Democratic Majority in Congress too!

These results, from a July 10-13 Gallup Poll, follow 18 months of dismal job approval ratings for Congress, during which approval has usually registered below 30%, and has averaged only 25%.

Still, the 14% approval rating is extraordinary. Approval of Congress has fallen below 20% only six times in the 34 years Gallup has measured it. Including the latest reading, four of those have come in the past year: in July, June, and May 2008, and in August 2007. The two additional readings were from March 1992 (in the midst of the House bank check-kiting scandal) and June 1979 (during an energy crisis that resulted in surging gas prices and long gas lines), when either 18% or 19% of Americans approved of the job Congress was doing.

The most recent decline comes almost exclusively from Democrats, whose approval of Congress fell from 23% in June to 11% in July, while independents' and Republicans' views of Congress did not change much. As a result, Republicans are now slightly more likely than Democrats to approve of the job the Democratic-controlled Congress is doing (19% vs. 11%).



The 11% of Democrats now approving of Congress is far lower than Gallup found in 2006, toward the end of the Republican-led 109th Congress.

Democratic approval of Congress initially surged after the Democratic takeover[u] of the U.S. House and Senate, [u]from 16% in December 2006 to 44% in February 2007, but by August 2007 it had fallen to 21%. Democrats' approval of Congress rebounded to 37% later that year, but has since been in a nearly continuous decline.

Republicans' approval of Congress dipped at the point of transition from Republican to Democratic control after the 2006 midterm elections, from 50% in November 2006 to 31% in February 2007 -- and has continued to trend downward except for a brief spike last fall after Gen. Petraeus' testimony before Congress.



Bottom Line

Gallup's latest monthly update of public approval of Congress leads to several observations:

1. As economic conditions in the country are worsening, Congress is taking the brunt of it. Since the start of the year, public approval of Congress has fallen from 23% to 14%, while approval of President George W. Bush has been more stable: 32% approved of the job he was doing in early January versus 31% today, with a range of just 28% to 34%.

2. One reason for the growing congressional/Bush approval gap is that Bush benefits from a core group of Republicans nationally who continue to stick by him (67% of whom approve in the latest poll), and who, at this point, are likely to remain supportive of him through the close of his term. This contrasts with the paltry 11% of Democrats who currently approve of the job Congress is doing. By its nature, Congress may simply be less able to engender this kind of political loyalty -- it typically trails the sitting president in approval -- and thus, the current Democratic Congress lacks a reliable pool of Democratic support to keep its approval ratings afloat.

3. Still, the Democratic Congress has received much less intra-party support for its leadership of the kind that the Republican Congress enjoyed from Republicans in 2006. The mild honeymoon the current Congress enjoyed with its own party at the start of last year quickly faded as Democrats grew upset with congressional inaction on Iraq and immigration reform.

4. Finally, 2008 now looks an awful lot like 1979, and for some of the same reasons: mounting inflation, record-high gas prices, and a looming recession. Public approval of President Jimmy Carter in mid-July 1979 was 29%, very similar to Bush's current 31%. And approval of Congress was also comparable: 19% in June 1979 vs. 14% today.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,016 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted July 10-13, 2008. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

To provide feedback or suggestions about how to improve Gallup.com, please e-mail feedback@gallup.com.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/108856/Congress...cordLow-14.aspx



That is all!!

Indifferent ambiguity?
Friday, July 18, 2008 06:00:13 AM

John McCain facing a stimulation deficit, while Obama a countenances of Messiah insufficiency.

While overall interest in the presidential campaign has swelled since last fall, backers of Barack Obama are more fired up and express more loyalty to their candidate than McCain's do, a poll by Obama nation Associated Press and Yahoo nut-root News showed Friday.

In addition, individual groups backing Obama – African-Americans, Democrats and liberals – are more enthusiastic than whites, Republicans and conservatives, who are more aligned with McCain, the GOP senator from Arizona.

Suggesting what in parsing? Democrats and Liberals and the obvious African Americans, are not white?

Obama faces hurdles of his own. The poll shows lagging fervor for the Democratic senator from Illinois by supporters of his vanquished rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton. And there are lots of dispirited and undecided independents, who are expected to be pivotal on Election Day, now less then four months off.

The passion and interest shown by blocs of voters are important because they affect who will be motivated to vote. For now, the numbers favor Obama: 38 percent of his supporters say the election is exciting compared with 9 percent of McCain's. Sixty-five percent (65%) of Obama's backers say they are hopeful about the campaign, double McCain's 33%, and the Democrat's supporters are three times likelier to express pride.

"Being African-American, you know, I do have some biases," said John Douglas, 67, of Villa Rica, Ga., an Obama supporter. He said the pride and thrill he feels about the possibility of the first black president "has been building up for my lifetime, it's been building up since the inception of our country."

Half of McCain's supporters say the race makes them frustrated, more than double Obama's backers who say so. By 2-to-1 or more, McCain backers are likelier than Obama's to say the campaign makes them bored, angry and helpless. And while 16 percent of those preferring Obama say they may change their candidate, 24 percent of McCain's say they might do the same.

"I don't feel I have a choice I can really get behind," said Carol Hall, 63, a Republican from Yorktown, Va., who prefers McCain but said he isn't conservative enough. But she doesn't trust Obama. "I think they're pitiful choices." Booya!

The AP-Yahoo News poll, conducted by Knowledge Networks, has measured the political sentiments of the same 2,000 adults since November. While 45 percent expressed a great deal or quite a bit of interest in the campaign back then, 60 percent say so now, but it's Obama supporters whose energy has grown more:

–More than twice as many Democrats as Republicans have gotten more excited about the campaign since the fall, 22 percent to 9 percent. Forty-seven percent (47%) of Republicans and 29 percent of Democrats express frustration.

–Blacks are three times more likely, than whites, to be more excited about the election than they were last fall, 33 percent to 11 percent. They are also six times likelier to be more proud, 43 percent to 7 percent, and twice as likely to be more interested and hopeful.

Right now, 44 percent of whites and just 11 percent of blacks say the election frustrates them, and whites are far likelier to say they feel angry and helpless. (Whites making up 71% of all Americans makes this less than insignificant.)

–Liberals are three times likelier than conservatives to be more excited than they were and twice as likely to be more proud. Nineteen percent of conservatives feel more helpless, compared to 9 percent of liberals.

–Overall, 44 percent of Obama voters have grown more interested in the campaign since the fall, compared to 35 percent of McCain's. Currently, seven in 10 Obama backers say the campaign interests them, as do six in 10 of McCain's.

”It's exciting because [u]we've got a winner," said Susan Gates, 55, a Democrat from Chelmsford, Mass.[/u]

All Democrats don't feel that way. Overall, 31 percent of those supporting Obama are Democrats who preferred Clinton during the party's prolonged primary battle this spring, and they are less enthused than those who have backed Obama longer.

Just 12 percent of former Clinton supporters say they are excited about the campaign, one-third the excitement level among Obama's longer-term backers. A fifth of them say the election makes them feel frustrated and helpless, and about as many say they may still change their minds, double the number of longtime Obama loyalists who say that.

"I was really hoping Hillary would pull it off," said Doreen Malinoski, 42, of Montclair, Calif., a Democrat who said she is uneasy with Obama's calls for change. "I mean, is this the best we can come up with?"

Independents, whom both McCain and Obama are avidly pursuing, remain underwhelmed.[u] Booya! Only 21 percent find the election interesting – down from 31 percent in November – and [u]just 7 percent say it's exciting. Substantial numbers say they feel frustrated, helpless and even bored.

Independents are about evenly divided between the two candidates, with about a quarter behind each.