About Me

Name:The Crawfish
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
Blogging Friends of The Swamp
Interesting Stuff
My Gummint Officials
Big-Time type sites

Obama and the Soviet Bear

Posted by The Crawfish on Thursday, August 14, 2008 12:55:18 PM
Americans Are Stoooopid!
 
That's what Obama and his minions believe.  Yesterday, they trotted Virginia Governor Tim Kaine out in front of the cameras to say this:
"The Senator's goal was to be tough and smart," Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine said of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, "and so when the action (in Georgia) happened on Thursday, he immediately called for a ceasefire, condemned the unwarranted use of force by Russia.  It was a bad crisis for the world.  It required tough words, but also a smart approach to call on the international community to step in -- and I'm very, very happy that the senator's request for a ceasefire has been complied with by President Medvedev."
 
a) He had no goal of being tough and smart.  His first actions were to continue his vacation and say that the UN should handle the situation.
b) Obama never made a serious call for a ceasefire, and the one that Putin's puppet agreed to (with fingers crossed behind his back) was brokered by French President Sarkozy.  (Imagine that...the Soviets lied to the French about their military intentions and the French believed them)
c) Kaine was obviously sent out there as part of his audition to be The Messiah's Vice President.  If he is able to get the mainstream media to report more Messiahlies and the American people to believe this tripe, then he might be worthy to sit at Obama's right hand.
 
 

video here

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/258486

Meanwhile, as reported on Thursday, 8-14-08, the Soviets believe that the ceasefire meant that the Georgians would stop fighting, but they were free to continue. For those who actually believe that Georgia started it without it being a set-up, notice that the Soviets are saying that Georgia’s borders from before this Soviet invasion are null and void. Looks like Obama’s ceasefire claims were a bit premature, as was George W Bush’s claim that Putin is a good guy.
USSR's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov declared Thursday that the world "can forget about" Georgia's territorial integrity, and American and Georgian officials said the Sovs appeared to be targeting military infrastructure — including radars and patrol boats at a Black Sea naval base and oil hub.
 
The White House responded, but then again, what can we really do about it?  "Our position on Georgia's territorial integrity is not going to change no matter what anybody says," White House press secretary Dana Perino said Thursday. "And so I would consider that to be bluster from the foreign minister of Russia. We will ignore it."
 
 
This has the possibility of getting really bad for Georgia.  The US isn't in any position to really do anything to prevent a full takeover, or partial takeover, by the Soviets.  The Europeans are not going to do anything, because they are fully dependent upon the Soviets for oil and natural gas.  The Europeans don't want to freeze to death this winter.
 
Oh, and before anybody complains about the name of the country doing the invading here, yes, The Swamp's official term for that nation has reverted to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
 
Now about the set-up.  The seperatists in South Ossetia and Abkhazia were supported, funded, and armed by the Soviets.  Most of them have Russian passports, which is a violation of international law as they are legally citizens of Georgia.  Technically, those passports are not valid.  The Georgians were responding to activity by the seperatists, and when they acted, the Soviets were able to hit back with 5 divisions, plus naval and air assets, within a few hours.  That doesn't just happen.  That kind of military action takes planning and time to put the action-ready units in position.  Obviously, this was pre-planned.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (29) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Turban Durbin, Useful Idiot

Posted by The Crawfish on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:59:22 AM
The Crawfish saw just a little bit of the Sunday talk shows this weekend, what with the Olympics, sleeping late, dealing with the kids, etc, goin' on, but he did catch Chris Wallace interviewing Senator DICK "Turban" Durbin, one of The Messiah's top henchmen, on Fox News Sunday.  As per usual, the Dim-ocrat couldn't give a straight forward and truthful answer to any real questioning.  We've edited the transcript down to just the portion regarding energy, since the rest was just more incoherent Bravo Sierra from Turban.
 
 The following is a partial transcript of the Aug. 10, 2008, edition of "FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace":

"FOX NEWS SUNDAY" HOST CHRIS WALLACE: Joining us now to discuss how Barack Obama is dealing with Republican attacks and dealing with the Clintons is Senator Dick Durbin, national co-chair for the Obama campaign, who comes to us from Chicago.

Senator Durbin, we played truth squad with a McCain ad, so let's do the same with an Obama ad. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NARRATOR: Big oil's filling John McCain's campaign with $2 million in contributions, because instead of taxing their windfall profits to help drivers, McCain wants to give them another $4 billion in tax breaks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Senator Durbin, isn't that misleading? John McCain is not proposing any special tax breaks for big oil. He's just talking about lowering the corporate tax rate for every business.

SEN. DICK DURBIN, D-ILL.: Well, Chris, let's be very honest about that. When you lower the taxes, then some of the most profitable corporations in America will benefit.

And one of the most profitable corporations in America — Exxon Mobil, for example — the John McCain proposal would give them a $1.2 billion tax break — overall, $4 billion in tax breaks for oil companies — at a time when we have the worst deficit in our history.

That isn't responsible. And that ad is accurate.

Wait a friggin’ second here. Making a profit is a BAD THING? Who gets that profit from Big Oil, Senator? Middle-class Americans do.  What is not responsible about reducing corporate taxes?  That will drop prices for American consumers and increase profits for American stockholders.  And the ad is misleading because it implies that mcLame is wanting to cut taxes only for oil companies, not ALL corporations.

WALLACE: But let me ask you, because Obama's answer, and he says it in that ad, is to impose a windfall profits tax on the oil industry. Let me put something up.

Last year, the oil and gas industry made a profit of 8.3 percent. Beverages and tobacco had an average profit of 19 percent, drug companies 18 percent, computer companies 14 percent.

Senator, why single out the oil industry and say it's their profits alone that are unreasonable?

It takes Fox News to finally nail the Dims on the simple concept of profit margins, while The Swamp and other conservatives have been hammering that point for years.  To argue economic points, one must understand basic economics.

DURBIN: Because they have reported record-breaking profits, not just for oil companies, but for American businesses. The amount of money that they are taking in in profits at the expense of families and businesses and farmers and our overall economy are absolutely beyond anything historically.

And what we're saying is there's a limit. This president should have called the oil company execs in the office long ago and said, "You're killing the economy." The airlines can't survive. He should have jawboned.

He should have made it clear that the profit-taking that they are experiencing is at the expense of this economy, of families that are struggling to get by, of people who are losing jobs.

“there’s a limit.” There is a LIMIT of how much a company is allowed to make for its stockholders? What country do you live in? Those profits are most of the income for pension plans and union retirement funds, you twit!  Why should the President tell companies that they must limit their profits, when the government is making more profits from that company's income than the company is?

WALLACE: But, Senator, I mean, one of the reasons that their profits as a gross number are so big are because their investments are so big. Their research and development is so big. As I just pointed out, there are other industries which, as a percentage of their expenditures — making double the percentage of profits of the oil industry.

DURBIN: Chris, I'm not an accountant, but those who are have dug into the books and listened what it turns out to be. What in the (*#^$# did he just try to say?  The profit-taking by the oil companies is not being used to look for new sources of oil and gas. Because your party WON'T LET THEM!  Overwhelmingly, they're buying back their stock. They're paying out dividends. How evil can they possibly BE?  They're paying the CEO salaries. Freely voted upon by the shareholders of the companies, or is the free market not allowed to be free under the goals of the DNC?  In other words, they're not plowing it back into the futures of their company. They're plowing it into the wallets of their officers and the people who run their companies as well as their shareholders.

Yes, moron, their SHAREHOLDERS! Try looking up who they are. They are not the fat cats you claim that they are.

Now, that kind of profit-taking is OK generally, but it reaches a point now where the oil companies are literally killing the economy. And when John McCain says, "Well, they need $4 billion more in tax breaks," he just doesn't understand the reality of what this economy is facing.

Well, allow for AMERICAN oil drilling and see those prices come down and more AMERICAN money stay in AMERICA instead of third world and arab crrapholes!

WALLACE: But Senator Obama is also talking about possibly lowering the corporate tax rate as a way — as a general way to spur the economy. If he does that, then he's going to be giving tax breaks to the oil industry.

TAG!

DURBIN: I'll take, on balance, the Obama approach to the McCain approach any day. What Barack Obama has said is focus the tax breaks on the families that are struggling, middle income and working families.

You can’t give tax breaks to those who already pay no taxes.  If you look at his economic plans in his "The Blueprint For Change" you will notice that he is a clueless socialist and his plans are unConstitutional.  Not that you would object to any of that, Turban.

And those are the folks who have been disadvantaged by a war that's costing us $10 billion to $12 billion dollars a month, a war that's taking money out of our economy that could be spent here in America.

How about ending entitlements and earmarks that are costing us a lot more than the Iraq war, which we happen to be winning?  Those are actually unConstitutional, while the Iraq conflict is NOT.
 
Senator, you talking points have been found wanting and weak.  Go back to elementary school and write some new ones on the chalk board 20 times each, until you have them memorized.

What Barack has said — give those families a fighting chance. They've fallen behind under the Bush economic policies. And let me just also remind you, in April when John McCain was asked — he said he thought that the Bush economic policies were showing progress in America.

I don't think that you can find many American families that would agree with that statement.

Those policies were doing quite well until the price of oil went up, as did the unconstitutional minimum wage, and your party is responsible for both of those happenings.  Game, set, match for Mr. Crawfish.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (26) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Who Owns Evil Big Oil?

Posted by The Crawfish on Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:16:06 AM
Debunking the claims of the left, AGAIN!
 
The Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) keep bleating about the huuuuuge profits of the eeeevil and greeeeeeedy oil companies.  Of course, anybody who actually understands economics and the business world can see that the oil industry only has a 10% profit margin, which is much lower than some other industries that the left never whines about (Microsoft has a profit margin of 23%), and no other industry has special taxes placed upon it by the feds so that the government makes as much profit as the companies without doing any of the work.  (Of course, The Messiah is still saying that all of the experts agree with his that proper tire inflation will save us 3% of our total oil usage...these are probably the same experts who say that there's no disputing that all Glo-Bull Warming is man made and will kill us all in the next decade)
 
The Crawfish has, in his greedy capitalistic hands (he's definitely not rich...he's active duty and enlisted, not an officer) a report from September 2007 called "The Distribution of Ownership of U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Companies" by Dr. Robert J. Shapiro and Dr. Nam D. Pham.  Here's the link: http://www.energytomorrow.org/media/resources/r_477.pdf
 
This report gives an overview of the health of the oil industry and who really owns and profits from them.  While the left wants Americans to believe that a few fat cats are the ones who own and profit from Big Oil, this report clearly states that "insiders" (officers and board members of those companies) only own 1.5% of the total shares of these companies, and this holds true throughout the industry.  Individual investors account for 29%, mutual funds and companies that have mutual funds have 42.7%, another 18.1% is held by asset management companies that do not have mutual funds, and 8.7% is owned or managed by pension funds, insurance companies, endowments/foundations, banks, and other financial institutions.
 
The conclusion section (page 12) states that the vast majority of the ownership is by middle-class American households.  Here's the kicker....the final paragraph.
 
"Further, we find that while the oil and natural gas industry has recorded very strong profits for the last three years, this recent record follows more than a decade in which real oil and natural gas prices declined and the industry's profits and returns lagged those of the rest of the economy.  In both periods, concerns that company insiders capture a substantial share of those profits are unfounded.  The data strongly suggests that most of those profits go to the industry's majority shareholders, who are middle-class U.S. households with mutual fund investments, pension accounts, other personal retirement accounts, and small personal portfolios."
 
Now, before any liberals try to say that this report was written by the oil companies or right wing Republicans (are there any right wing Republicans left?), here's the bio on Dr. Shapiro from the end of the report.  It clearly shows which side of the aisle he's on, so The Swamp considers this report to be, as Fox News would say, "fair and balanced."

Robert J. Shapiro is the co-founder and chairman of Sonecon, LLC, a private firm that advises U.S. and foreign businesses, governments and non-profit organizations. Dr. Shapiro has advised, among others, U.S. President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair; private firms such as AT&T, Amgen, Gilead Sciences, Google, MCI, Inc., Corporation, Nordstjernan of Sweden, and Fujitsu of Japan, and non-profit organizations including the American Public Transportation Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He is also Senior Fellow of the Progressive Policy Institute, Senior Policy Fellow of the Georgetown University Center for Business and Public Policy, director of the Globalization Initiative of the NDN, co-chair of American Task Force Argentina, and a director of the Ax:son-Johnson Foundation in Sweden. From 1997 to 2001, Dr. Shapiro was U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs. In that position, he directed economic policy for the Department of Commerce and oversaw the nation’s major statistical agencies, including the Census Bureau while it carried out the 2000 decennial census. Prior to that appointment, he was co-founder and vice president of the Progressive Policy Institute and the Progressive Foundation. He also was the principal economic advisor to Governor Bill Clinton in his 1991-1992 presidential campaign and a senior economic advisor to Vice President Albert Gore and Senator John Kerry in their presidential campaigns. Dr. Shapiro also served as Legislative Director for Senator Daniel P. Moynihan and Associate Editor of U.S. News & World Report. He has been a fellow of Harvard University, the Brookings Institution, and the National Bureau of Economic Research. He holds a Ph.D. from Harvard University, a M.Sc. from the London School of Economics, and an A.B. from the University of Chicago.
 
Are there any libs who want to refute this?  Bring it on!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (62) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I've been going off

Posted by The Crawfish on Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:26:10 PM
I've been making the rounds of the blogs and columns, taking The Messiah to task on his energy plans.  Well, a new Friend of The Swamp has a great post at his blog.  The Crawfish cordially invites y'all to check out Garnet92's blog, "Pesky Truth" and this post: 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Miffed At Himself?

Posted by The Crawfish on Wednesday, August 06, 2008 10:43:00 AM
Stung by his own words....again

The Messianic campaign of Barack Obama has gotten its tighty whities in a wad lately over an ad that the McCain campaign put out.  The ad shows the adulation Obama is getting and includes images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.  Unfortunately for The Messiah's campaign, it appears that he himself is the one to blame for this McCain ad.
 
"Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame. I've already had an hour and a half. I mean, I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse."
 
 
When he admits that he gets that kind of media exposure, he has nothing to complain about when McCain calls him on it.
Tags: obama  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

BOYCOTT TYSON FOODS!

Posted by The Crawfish on Monday, August 04, 2008 8:27:29 AM
Tyson Foods is Anti-American!

The Crawfish usually doesn't call for a boycott of anything, but this company has repeatedly proven that they are anti-American.  First of all, they spent loads of money propping up the Clintons (getting all sorts of tax breaks and other good treatment from the Arkansas and federal gummints, such as special allowances to pollute the whole state with chicken poop).  Now, they have taken away the Labor Day paid holiday from their employees at their Shelbyville, TN, poultry processing plant, replacing it with a muslim holiday.  It appears that half of the employees at that plant are Somalis, and they refuse to assimilate into American culture.  They are making Americans assimilate to THEIR culture, and Tyson Foods is all too happy to comply.
 
 
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

-Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (25) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's "The Blueprint For Change"

Posted by The Crawfish on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:09:13 PM
 Here's all 16 parts!

Back in the spring of 2008, The Swamp’s intrepid reporter, The Crawfish, went on a clandestine mission deep behind enemy lines and was successful in obtaining one of the most important documents of the Barack Obama campaign, “The Blueprint For Change.” (okay….so he went to their website and downloaded it) This document is the policy manifesto of that campaign. Since then, he has filed a series of reports taking that document subject-by-subject and giving his take on what it says.

Here is a compilation of links to all 16 of The Crawfish’s reports.

Part 1: Opening Letter

http://constitutionalcrawfish.blogtownhall.com/2008/04/19/part_1_obamas_blueprint.thtml

Part 2: Ethics

http://constitutionalcrawfish.blogtownhall.com/2008/04/20/part_2_obamas_blueprint.thtml

Part 3: Health Care

http://constitutionalcrawfish.blogtownhall.com/2008/04/22/part_3_obamas_blueprint.thtml

Part 4: The Economy

http://constitutionalcrawfish.blogtownhall.com/2008/04/26/part_4_obamas_blueprint.thtml

Part 5: Senior Citizens and Retirement Security

http://constitutionalcrawfish.blogtownhall.com/2008/05/02/part_5_obamas_blueprint.thtml

Part 6: Children and Education

http://constitutionalcrawfish.blogtownhall.com/2008/05/06/part_6_obamas_blueprint.thtml

Part 7: Energy Policy

http://constitutionalcrawfish.blogtownhall.com/2008/05/09/part_7_obamas_blueprint.thtml

Part 8: Fiscal Responsibility

http://constitutionalcrawfish.blogtownhall.com/2008/05/15/part_8_obamas_blueprint.thtml

Part 9: Rural America

http://constitutionalcrawfish.blogtownhall.com/2008/05/30/part_9_obamas_blueprint.thtml

Part 10: Women

http://constitutionalcrawfish.blogtownhall.com/2008/06/04/part_10_obamas_blueprint.thtml

Part 11: Immigration Reform

http://constitutionalcrawfish.blogtownhall.com/2008/06/20/part_11,_obamas_blueprint.thtml

Part 12: Combating Poverty

http://constitutionalcrawfish.blogtownhall.com/2008/06/24/part_12_obamas_blueprint.thtml

Part 13: Universal Voluntary Public Service

http://constitutionalcrawfish.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/01/part_13,_obamas_blueprint.thtml

Part 14: Civil Rights

http://constitutionalcrawfish.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/09/part_14,_obamas_blueprint.thtml

Part 15: Foreign Policy

http://constitutionalcrawfish.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/15/part_15,_obamas_blueprint.thtml

Part 16: Veterans Affairs

http://constitutionalcrawfish.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/18/part_16,_obamas_blueprint.thtml

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (14) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I'm not a McCainiac

Posted by The Crawfish on Monday, July 28, 2008 10:17:32 AM
On Friday, 25 July 2008, Senator McCain delivered a speech to the American GI Forum, in Denver.  Of course, the Obamedia failed to give it any airtime.  If they had, it would have been another big blow to the Messiah.  It was very well done.
 
Thanx to Neal Boortz and his website for the link to this one.
 
The first 2/3 of the speech is about the Surge and his support of it, while the Messiah had it all wrong.  The last part is the story of Green Beret Ray Benavediz, and the actions that earned him the Medal Of Honor.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (17) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

His Minions Defend Him

Posted by The Crawfish on Friday, July 25, 2008 8:46:25 AM
 It is amazing to what extent the Obamessiah's minions will lie to the American public in order to defend him.

WASHINGTON —  The following is a partial transcript of the July 20, 2008, edition of "FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace": With a lot of unnecessary dialogue snipped away by The Crawfish

"FOX NEWS SUNDAY" HOST CHRIS WALLACE: Joining us now to talk about Senator Obama's trip and its effect on the presidential campaign, two key supporters who are on the vice presidential watch lists — Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent Democrat who supports McCain, and Senator Evan Bayh, who backs Obama.

And, Senators, welcome back to "FOX News Sunday".

WALLACE: Admiral Mullen didn't mention Obama, but he did say this idea of a timetable for getting out in two years is dangerous. Why not agree that you're going to make any decisions based on conditions on the ground, Senator?

BAYH: Chris, I think it's important to note that Barack Obama's judgment about these issues has been excellent from the beginning, the kind of judgment you'd want in a commander in chief, and others are now beginning to adopt his positions.

SAY WHAT? He opposed the Surge, but his judgement has been excellent? Everybody except Obama and the Dim-ocrat Congressional leaders has noticed that the Surge has worked, and that might allow us to start pulling troops out earlier than expected.

We wouldn't be discussing surges in Iraq or anything else if Barack had had his way. We wouldn't have started that war to begin with.
 
If Barack had had his way, we'd have pulled out and surrendered to Sadr, AQ, and Iran this past March, and he would not have been able to make this trip safely.

He was right about Afghanistan. That's the place from which we were attacked. He's been calling for more troops there now for over a year. And John McCain, to his credit, has now come around and adopted Barack's point of view on that.

McCain has been calling for more troops in Afghanistan for quite a while as well.

He has been for, as you say, a phased withdrawal from Iraq. As we heard, Prime Minister Maliki has embraced a more definitive time line, whether it's the 16 months or something else. But clearly, they want a more definitive time line.
 
He was for a complete pullout by March of this year.

And even President Bush now is coming up with a variety of euphemisms — aspirational goals, time horizons. I mean, it's starting to sound pretty much like a timeline to me.

We always have goals for when military operations can end, but events on the ground or at sea can always change them.

So it's common sense, Chris. Any important enterprise, certainly something as important as a war — you want to have a plan. And a plan has to have some idea of what it's going to cost, what the adverse consequences are going to be and how long it's going to take.

Did FDR have a cost plan and timetable for WW2? Of course not, moron.

So 16 months seems to be a reasonable goal. Let's work toward that. Let's bring this to a conclusion in a responsible way and focus on Iraq (sic) where the focus should have been all along.

WALLACE: But, Senator Bayh, even the Washington Post criticized Obama this week for — and let's put it up on the screen — his iron timetable, accusing him of foolish consistency and that he's ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome.

And here's an exchange between Obama and McCain this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: I'm really astonished that he should give a policy speech on Iraq and Afghanistan before he goes to find out the facts.
 
Point to McLame.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Again, two questions, really, Senator Bayh. Why the, quote, "iron timetable" that the Washington Post talks about? And secondly, this issue — why announce your policy before you go to Iraq and talk to the generals and the Iraqis?

BAYH: A couple of things, Chris. First, General Petraeus was asked recently about whether a 16-month period was a reasonable period of time, and he said it would depend on a variety of factors. He didn't say it was unreasonable.

He didn’t say it was reasonable either.

We've been there — will have been — 16 months from when the next president is inaugurated, almost seven years. We've spent $700 billion. Just think of all the other things we could have done — finished Afghanistan, energy security for our country — with those amount of resources.

We’ve been in Germany for how long? As for energy security, how come your party has not let us drill for our own oil over the past 30 years?

What's really surprising is that John, a man I admire and respect, says that even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruct in Iraq, knowing all the consequences that have been adverse in Afghanistan because of our fixation on Iraq, he would do this all over again. That's what is really surprising.

But Obama has said he would NOT support the Surge if he could go back and do it again, just because Bush’s policies are wrong. Success is not supportable simply because W was responsible. And THAT is the official position of the Dim-ocrat leadership.

So Barack thinks that 16 months from January is a reasonable period of time. Let's go for it. Let's see. Let's try and bring this to a conclusion on that time frame. If there are difficulties, we'll address them when they arise.

Besides, Obama wouldn’t be able to go to Iraq for his media extravaganza if his own plans had been implemented.

LIEBERMAN: The reality is if we lost in Iraq, which Obama was prepared to do, we would go to Afghanistan as losers. Instead, Al Qaeda has its tail tucked between its legs as it's exiting Iraq to go — to try to...

WALLACE: I'm going to...

BAYH: I have to respond to that. Barack Obama was not for losing in Iraq. Barack didn't want the war to begin with.

But since we were there, he decided he wanted us to lose instead of win.

BAYH: And now you have Maliki, even President Bush, are moving toward Barack Obama's position on this.  His judgment was right.

No. His judgement was that the Surge would never work and he refuses to this day to admit that it has worked.

LIEBERMAN: Those questions — bottom line, no question that Barack Obama was prepared to lose in Iraq.

BAYH: That's not true.
 
Yes, Senator Bayh, it is very much true.

WALLACE: I want to ask Senator Bayh about another aspect of Obama's trip.

He plans to make a big public speech in Berlin. There was first talk it was going to be at the Brandenburg Gate. They announced today it's going to be at the Victory Column, a golden column in the heart of downtown Berlin.

Why would someone running for president of the United States hold a big rally in Germany? Wouldn't it be like a candidate for German chancellor holding a rally in front of the Statue of Liberty?

Not to mention that the column was put in it’s present position and additions made to it raising it to it’s current height by……..Adolf Hitler and Albert Speer! Oh, and Obama is the candidate of UNITY and PEACE, while that column celebrates German CONQUESTS!

BAYH: A couple of things, Chris. First, getting back to Iraq, I just have to disagree once again. Barack Obama is for success in Iraq. His judgment about this was right from the beginning.

If he is for success, then why does he continue to oppose the Surge, which has led to success?  Why does he want to pull out no matter what the actual situation on the ground is?

BAYH: Now, with regard to Germany, look. I was with Barack the last time he made one of these trips to Iraq. We met with the Iraqi president, the prime minister, our generals, our ambassadors. He was very substantive, very knowledgeable about the challenges that we face.

What does that have to do with Germany? If he was so knowledgeable, then why was he so incorrect in his judgement?

Now he's meeting with some of our European allies. We need to rehabilitate these relationships. They frayed over the last eight years. Our reputation in the world has been damaged because of some of the policies this president has pursued.

And by the policies of the European nations to capitulate to Islamists and to embrace socialism, which our President rightly opposed.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,386863,00.html

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (17) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Weekly Claw

Posted by The Crawfish on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:09:47 AM
The Crawfish has a weekly column at www.vajoe.com that goes by the name of "The Weekly Claw."  It comes out every Tuesday.  Here is today's edition for your perusal.  Come on by vajoe sometime and leave your comments.  It is a good website for military folks, military families, veterans, and members of the state defense forces.

The Crawfish apologizes to his loyal readers for having such a short column this week, and for having it contain only a couple of subjects. I didn’t do enough prep work over the weekend. Sorry.

Can it get any more obvious who the American media is supporting for the Presidential election? This week, Barack Obama goes on a “Senate Fact Finding” trip to Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, and Germany and the entire news media of America follows his every move. All three major non-cable networks send their top anchors to record his every movement and photo op. The other media outlets have all sent print reporters, photographers, videographers, and loads of sound technicians. Have they done so for any of McCain’s overseas trips? NO. Have they done so for any of President Bush’s overseas trips? NO.

On that bias subject, the Noo Yawk Slimes recently ran an op-ed piece by Obama (well, actually written by his keepers, but under his signature). They ran it word for word how the Obamessiah campaign wanted it. The McCain campaign sent in an op-ed essay of their own, but it got rejected. The editor said that it would get published if it was rewritten to conform to the Obama format, with timetables for leaving Iraq, a definition of victory, and other Democrat talking points. In other words, unless it is endorsing Obama’s positions, it will not get published.

The Slimes isn’t the only print outlet that can’t help itself in it’s bias. This year’s cover s of Newsweek  and Time magazines show an interesting pattern. Newsweek’s cover s have featured McCain twice (2/11 and 2/18) and one of them was a negative story (“There Will Be Blood” 2/18). Hillary! was on the cover twice (1/21 and 3/17). Her Bitterness, Michelle Obamessiah, was featured on 2/25. The Obamessiah himself was featured 5 times (1/14, 3/31, 5/19, 6/2, and 7/21).  Time was almost as bad. They have had His Majesty on the cover 3 times (3/10, 4/21, and 5/19), The Messiah and Her Thighness (wife of The Impeached One) together twice (2/18 and 5/5), and Hill The Chill once (3/17). McCain was only on the cover once (2/4). The Swamp’s intrepid reporter has been told that US News has a similar record, but can’t verify it through their website.

Obama’s foreign trip has also been orchestrated to make him look Presidential, as every photo op with foreign dignitaries has him in the guest of honor seat, with the other Senators along the periphery.    Is it really a fact finding trip or is it a campaign trip in response to McCain pounding him on his naiveté on the issues?   He opposed the “Surge” and has continually said that it has been a failure, yet the only reason he can go to Iraq right now and be secure is that the Surge has worked.  The only reason that we MIGHT be able to pull our troops out within the next two or three years is that the Surge has been successful.

When he goes to Berlin, he is going to make a major campaign speech.  Of course, he’s going there because the socialists in Germany adore him.  Otherwise, there’s no reason for an American Presidential candidate to campaign in Germany.  Does Angela Merkel campaign in Ireland?  He originally wanted to make his speech at the Brandenburg Gate, but Merkel objected.  Now his speech will be at the Victory Column, which was put in it’s present position and built to it’s current size by Albert Speer’s ministry under the direction of Adolf Hitler. Hmmm…..Obama’s connections to the Cult Of Personality that brought Hitler to power are coming into focus. Both support government control over all aspects of life. Hitler had his triumphant rallies at Nuremburg’s stadium. Obama is going to have his crowning moment at the Democratic National Convention not at the Pepsi Center Arena, where the rest of the convention is being held, but at Invesco Field at Mile High, so the crowd can top 70,000.

Email It