Senator Ted Stevens has been indicted. 7 counts in all relating to his renovations on his vacation home and apparently lying to investigators.
Ted Stevens is a 7 term Senator from Alaska. He's 84 or 86 years old, depending on whether you believe the headling on Drudge or the story Drudge gives the link.
I don't know, and we don't know if Stevens is guilty or not. We'll find out after his trial. This brings me to the character of those serving in elected offices throughout the country.
There have always been people of unsavory character in our elected offices. Presidents, Senators, Representatives, Governors, Mayors, Councilmembers and probably even a dogcatcher or two.
We also have elected officials that are consorting with unsavory characters and while they may or may not be guilty of participating with their friends, the people we associate ourselves with ought to be considered when we are running for office.
It seems, that we have more in the past 20 years than we've had in our entire history. I suspect that is because we always focus on the ones in our time rather than those that are long since dead and gone.
It is, however, incumbent on us to question all of our candidates regardless of whether the press will do it or not. Senator Barack Hussein Obama should be called on the carpet for his associations, his sweetheart deal on his home, his stance on schools when his own children are in private schools and so on. Senator John McCain should also be questioned hard on his immigration stance, his association with the Keating Five, his near change to the Democrat Party and so on.
We should also question the length of time these representatives of ours represent us. Ted Stevens is a 7 term Senator. That's 42 years when he completes his term, if he completes his term. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia should also be scrutinized.
I am not in favor of term limits. Unless those limits are placed on our elected representatives by a vote of the people. However, I am in favor of truth in advertising from these candidates.
In the past twenty years we've had Bill Clinton impeached, guilty of perjury which cost him his law license, and 80 plus members of his administration found to be corrupt in one fashion or another. We've had Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana indicted. Still on the job. Senator Larry Craig plead guilty. Still on the job.
A man or woman is elected to public office to represent the people. They are lent the public trust. When they abuse that trust, whatever charge they receive for events done in office, the penalty should be double that of American citizens for the same crime.
Ted Stevens may be innocent of the charges. However, if he's found guilty, he should be given the full measure of the punishment. I don't concern myself with the punishments of liberals that are found guilty. I expect liberals to be guilty of breaking a law.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Timetables
Several days ago, the Prime Minister of Iraq said that he would like to see a timetable of 16 months to begin for the removal of United States troops. The news media is playing this as saying that Senator Barack Hussein Obama was correct and that Maliki is backing Obama.
President Bush has said all along that timetables were not appropriate because it would signal to the enemy that they should sit back and wait for us to leave and then begin anew, their attacks on Iraq.
Things have changed, however. The war is nearly over. Victory has nearly been achieved (although I believe that victory has been achieved). There is very little al queda left in Iraq any longer. Those that haven’t been killed or taken captive, have been fleeing Iraq in droves. Iraq has taken over 10 of the 18 provinces and there is almost no threat of al queda left in Iraq. What is left, the Iraq security forces can take care of with limited support from the American military.
Wasn’t that the goal? Weren’t we supposed to stay there until the Iraqi security forces could control their own country? That’s what we trained them to do.
To call for a timetable now, or time horizons, seems to me to be appropriate. The Bush administration has always said that we’re there as guests of the Iraqi’s and that we’d leave when they said they could take care of themselves. That time seems to have come. This was inevitable. The only ones that seriously thought that they war couldn’t be won were the terrorists, al queda and the liberals. Newsflash: We’ve won!! It hasn’t been announced yet, but we’ve won.
So why would it be wrong to start planning for the withdrawal of American troops? It is easy for Obama to say ‘my time frame and calling for a timetable was correct.’ The dynamics have changed. He called for this timetable as the troop surge was beginning, which he said had no hope of succeeding. Now the surge has proven to be even better than predicted and certainly better than Obama said would happen.
There will likely be some setbacks as we withdraw. The insurgents, terrorists or whomever is still lurking will try a resurgence as we leave, but the point is that the Iraqi’s can now handle their own. There is no civil war. There is no quagmire. This is not Vietnam and never has been.
The United States should declare shortly that the war in Iraq is won and over and troops will begin coming home or being redeployed to Afghanistan. If Obama is going to play the game of “I was right, Bush was wrong” then President Bush should come out on national television and announce that victory has been achieved in Iraq; al queda is on the run and headed to Afghanistan and our troops will be following them into Afghanistan to put an end to the al queda infrastructure.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
President Bush has said all along that timetables were not appropriate because it would signal to the enemy that they should sit back and wait for us to leave and then begin anew, their attacks on Iraq.
Things have changed, however. The war is nearly over. Victory has nearly been achieved (although I believe that victory has been achieved). There is very little al queda left in Iraq any longer. Those that haven’t been killed or taken captive, have been fleeing Iraq in droves. Iraq has taken over 10 of the 18 provinces and there is almost no threat of al queda left in Iraq. What is left, the Iraq security forces can take care of with limited support from the American military.
Wasn’t that the goal? Weren’t we supposed to stay there until the Iraqi security forces could control their own country? That’s what we trained them to do.
To call for a timetable now, or time horizons, seems to me to be appropriate. The Bush administration has always said that we’re there as guests of the Iraqi’s and that we’d leave when they said they could take care of themselves. That time seems to have come. This was inevitable. The only ones that seriously thought that they war couldn’t be won were the terrorists, al queda and the liberals. Newsflash: We’ve won!! It hasn’t been announced yet, but we’ve won.
So why would it be wrong to start planning for the withdrawal of American troops? It is easy for Obama to say ‘my time frame and calling for a timetable was correct.’ The dynamics have changed. He called for this timetable as the troop surge was beginning, which he said had no hope of succeeding. Now the surge has proven to be even better than predicted and certainly better than Obama said would happen.
There will likely be some setbacks as we withdraw. The insurgents, terrorists or whomever is still lurking will try a resurgence as we leave, but the point is that the Iraqi’s can now handle their own. There is no civil war. There is no quagmire. This is not Vietnam and never has been.
The United States should declare shortly that the war in Iraq is won and over and troops will begin coming home or being redeployed to Afghanistan. If Obama is going to play the game of “I was right, Bush was wrong” then President Bush should come out on national television and announce that victory has been achieved in Iraq; al queda is on the run and headed to Afghanistan and our troops will be following them into Afghanistan to put an end to the al queda infrastructure.
I welcome your comments.
Brett
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Oil Drilling will commence....after the election
Oil drilling in this country will begin soon. Not soon enough to solve the problems today, but soon.
It’s widely stated that the Democrats will win the House, Senate and White House in November. I don’t entirely agree with that, but let’s assume the prognosticators are actually right for once .
One real problem that we have in this country is the skyrocketing cost of oil. This causes some problems for Democrats. First, former President Bill Clinton vetoed oil drilling in ANWAR in 1996. The claim was the environment and that it would take ten years for the oil to get to the gas pumps, so it was vetoed and drilling didn’t take place.
However, in 2005, Hurricane Katrina drove oil prices up and gas prices at the pump followed in 2006. That is ten years after Bill Clinton’s veto.
Second , the Democrats ran on two things in 2006 to take over the House and Senate majorities. First they ran against the Iraq war saying they’d end it. Second, they ran saying they’d solve the oil problem and bring prices down at the pump. On October 20, 2006, the price per barrel of oil was $58.42. It’s now over $137.00 per barrel. They obviously didn’t solve the oil problem. Of course, they didn’t end the war in Iraq either as promised. One short note here. I believe that the reason the Democrats took over Congress in the last election was because of the Republicans spending habits. They acted more like Democrats than Democrats did and it cost them their jobs.
The Democrats are continuing to say that oil drilling is not what this country needs. They are locked into that position for now. However, it’s becoming more and more apparent that oil drilling is going to have to start to bring the price of oil down and with Iran ratcheting up their rhetoric and now testing their missiles showing they can hit Tel Aviv, it’s going to become more necessary for us to drill oil. Not to mention the increased demand brought on by India and China which will only increase.
The Democrats, if they win in the fall, will then shortly after taking office in January, change their position and start drilling oil. This will be done to save their jobs for the next election. They will then be able to say that they passed the oil drilling proposal and run on that for the next few elections.
In other words, the Democrats are hoping that nothing happens between now and election day that will force them to pass oil drilling legislation in the next three months. Before the election, it will be seen as a Republican pressure victory for oil drilling. After the election, it will be reported as the Democrats saving America from the evil middle east.
Politics drives the Democrats. Not what’s right or wrong, but politics. It’s always this way, but this seems to be one of the most blatant examples in many years. There is one way to assure we get more oil to the market. Elect Conservatives. Then hold their feet to the fire.
I welcome your comments.
It’s widely stated that the Democrats will win the House, Senate and White House in November. I don’t entirely agree with that, but let’s assume the prognosticators are actually right for once .
One real problem that we have in this country is the skyrocketing cost of oil. This causes some problems for Democrats. First, former President Bill Clinton vetoed oil drilling in ANWAR in 1996. The claim was the environment and that it would take ten years for the oil to get to the gas pumps, so it was vetoed and drilling didn’t take place.
However, in 2005, Hurricane Katrina drove oil prices up and gas prices at the pump followed in 2006. That is ten years after Bill Clinton’s veto.
Second , the Democrats ran on two things in 2006 to take over the House and Senate majorities. First they ran against the Iraq war saying they’d end it. Second, they ran saying they’d solve the oil problem and bring prices down at the pump. On October 20, 2006, the price per barrel of oil was $58.42. It’s now over $137.00 per barrel. They obviously didn’t solve the oil problem. Of course, they didn’t end the war in Iraq either as promised. One short note here. I believe that the reason the Democrats took over Congress in the last election was because of the Republicans spending habits. They acted more like Democrats than Democrats did and it cost them their jobs.
The Democrats are continuing to say that oil drilling is not what this country needs. They are locked into that position for now. However, it’s becoming more and more apparent that oil drilling is going to have to start to bring the price of oil down and with Iran ratcheting up their rhetoric and now testing their missiles showing they can hit Tel Aviv, it’s going to become more necessary for us to drill oil. Not to mention the increased demand brought on by India and China which will only increase.
The Democrats, if they win in the fall, will then shortly after taking office in January, change their position and start drilling oil. This will be done to save their jobs for the next election. They will then be able to say that they passed the oil drilling proposal and run on that for the next few elections.
In other words, the Democrats are hoping that nothing happens between now and election day that will force them to pass oil drilling legislation in the next three months. Before the election, it will be seen as a Republican pressure victory for oil drilling. After the election, it will be reported as the Democrats saving America from the evil middle east.
Politics drives the Democrats. Not what’s right or wrong, but politics. It’s always this way, but this seems to be one of the most blatant examples in many years. There is one way to assure we get more oil to the market. Elect Conservatives. Then hold their feet to the fire.
I welcome your comments.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Victory in Iraq is in sight. Where are the Democrats?
Over the weekend, it was announced that 15 of 18 of the benchmarks have been reached by the Iraqi government. Where are the Democrats?
During the past five years, we’ve heard how the Iraq war was a failure. A quagmire. Even Senator Harry Reid said that the Iraq war was lost. Then President Bush implement General Petraeus’ plan for the surge. The turnaround was nearly instantaneous. Leading up to the surge, Senator Hillary Clinton said that Petraeus’ recommendation of the surge stretched the imagination and that it wasn’t believable.
As it became apparent that the surge was not just working but more successful than even predicted, the Democrats, including Senator Carl Levin came out and said that the Iraq war couldn’t be won by the military, that there had to be a political solution and that the Iraqi government was failing and we should set time tables and get out.
I submit that there wasn’t much reason for the government to begin hitting it’s goals because the military hadn’t eliminated Al Queda from Iraq. The military success must come first, then the government has reason to hope that they would be successful and have a government that had the ability to last.
Now that the surge has produced such terrific results and al queda is on the run, the government has stepped up and met 15 of the 18 benchmarks. So where are the Democrats with their excuses as to why the surge worked and the benchmarks are being met?
Where is CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC asking them about the successes that Democrats said wouldn’t come?
We’ve almost won the war in Iraq. I’m really hoping that we can declare victory before the end of summer and President Bush can begin bringing troops home. Not on any artificial timetable, but on what President Bush said from the beginning. We’ll leave when we’ve achieved victory. We’ve almost achieved victory. It won’t be long now.
I welcome your comments
Brett
During the past five years, we’ve heard how the Iraq war was a failure. A quagmire. Even Senator Harry Reid said that the Iraq war was lost. Then President Bush implement General Petraeus’ plan for the surge. The turnaround was nearly instantaneous. Leading up to the surge, Senator Hillary Clinton said that Petraeus’ recommendation of the surge stretched the imagination and that it wasn’t believable.
As it became apparent that the surge was not just working but more successful than even predicted, the Democrats, including Senator Carl Levin came out and said that the Iraq war couldn’t be won by the military, that there had to be a political solution and that the Iraqi government was failing and we should set time tables and get out.
I submit that there wasn’t much reason for the government to begin hitting it’s goals because the military hadn’t eliminated Al Queda from Iraq. The military success must come first, then the government has reason to hope that they would be successful and have a government that had the ability to last.
Now that the surge has produced such terrific results and al queda is on the run, the government has stepped up and met 15 of the 18 benchmarks. So where are the Democrats with their excuses as to why the surge worked and the benchmarks are being met?
Where is CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC asking them about the successes that Democrats said wouldn’t come?
We’ve almost won the war in Iraq. I’m really hoping that we can declare victory before the end of summer and President Bush can begin bringing troops home. Not on any artificial timetable, but on what President Bush said from the beginning. We’ll leave when we’ve achieved victory. We’ve almost achieved victory. It won’t be long now.
I welcome your comments
Brett
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)