Greenspan Speaks

Intentional Obfuscation


Alan Greenspan is selling a book: The Age of Turbulance:Adventures in a New World, he too was invited to do the Sunday circuit. He practiced the art of self-promotion by capitalizing on a misunderstanding of a remark in his book: "...Iraq is about OIL...."

Since the release of his book, the buzz about Greenspan's disagreement with Bush was all the rave. What a disappointment it must've been to the *bash-Bush* crowd when the word-meister clarified what he meant. Hold the "irrational exuberance," he can't talk his signature mumbo-jumbo and expect to recover the $8 million in advance plus sell a enough books to clear a net profit?

Responding to questions, Greenspan talked simple English. He agreed that Saddam was a threat and had to be removed. But he wasn't worried about WMDs per se, his concern was that Saddam would try to dominate the ME in order to control the oil supply. If that happened, Saddam would see to it that the Oil needy Countries of the World would fall into an economic depression, retarding the progress of Globalization which is the greatest benefit to the enrichment of mankind...ever.

He also regretted that politicians can't admit the obvious truth about Iraq without suffering political ruin. Let's face it, but for OIL, would we have engaged in costly nation building in Iraq? Perhaps, if Saddam involved himself with international terrorists or challenged our military policies in the region regarding the War on Terror...then he'd be fair game. However, one thing about Saddam and every narcissistic dictator of modern times, Number One has to survive. Afterall, no suicide belt or bullet to the head for Saddam or Osama; all the torture and dying is suffered by the people they rule.

Clinton Speaks

Intentional Obfuscation


Is Hillary Clinton the most tight lipped campaigner you ever heard?...Through tough questioning on all the Sunday talk shows, she delivered her maticulously prepared talking points without a hitch.

Why did the presumptive front-runner stick her neck out? To candy coat her orginal vote for the Iraq War; to soften her recent slap at the Petraeus testimony; to mitigate her calculated decision NOT to vote to condemn the "MoveOn Betrayus Ad"; and, to shield her Health Care Plan (that was revealed this week) from the expected blasts from one of her famous propaganda inventions, the Right Wing Conspiracy.

All in all she handled herself like a pro...never diverted from her chosen path The message came through loud and clear no matter what the questioner asked: She takes responsibility for her Iraq vote, then..but avoids saying it was a mistake. Yes, she would change it,now (not to upset the MoveOn PAC). Answer---->> Petraeus, although formidable, is carrying water for the CIC. The troops are doing a wonderful job but there's no *military solution for Iraq;* therefore, we need a *change of direction* from Bush's stay the course losing strategy, i.e, ----->>exit stage Left.

On Hillary Care '08...She chirped:"I learned a lot; I have the scars to prove it". This time she's giving the Insurance Companies and their lobbyists a gift (campaign donations included). The plan seems more moderate, but it's an incremental step towards Government Funded Health Insurance. Hillary never thinks she's wrong...once President she'll educate her subjects on the benefits of socialized health care, then we'll all know better.

Big finale: "When I am President I will end this War and bring the troops home; and, work hard to make sure every American has health insurance." She left out the part about raising taxes on the rich, the middle class, the poor(cigarettes), Big Business (oilmen); regulations on EVERYONE...She'll run "the village" into the ground...Beware of Hillary, her fiscal M.O. was not praised in Alan Greenspan's book as was former President Bill Clinton's (The best "Republican" President?).

Just For Laughs

Ho Ho Ho...Need a little fiber?...go to my redesigned blog for relief from the 24/7 mindless news cycle...enjoy.

The Best of Sunday Talk

The Hero and The Zero

Sen. John McCain and Sen. John Kerry debated the Iraq War on Meet the Press. Tim Russert questioned McCain and Kerry with expected results...Russert tried to interrupt but McCain pulled a Cheney, telling Russert to let him finish a thought...and he did. He basically supports Petraeus' plan, rejected surrender, and regrets that the change in strategy was four years in coming. Early on he joined the choir asking for more troops and agressive military action. The "light footprint strategy" was never his call. McCain was a constant critic of Rumsfeld, Gen. Casey and the PR nightmare at AbuGhraib.

However, Tim Russert didn't ask the Presidential candidate about his successful run-in with the Administration over Torture. If the many policy differences McCain has had with the Bush Administration were aired again, no doubt he'd be positioned to ignite the brigades of "middle men" who followed him like lemmings in 2000; and, his come-back would be a done deal. Soooo, I'm left wondering will the Media men support Hillary, someone they obviously don't like? Or are they waiting to see if McCain looks promising for '08 before they jump on the Straight Talk Express? Oooops, that's the "No Surrender" this time around?


The Zero, Kerry, just doesn't know how to relate to every day people..Except for a bigger vocabulary, he sounds the same way he did back in the 70s when he was talking to Congress and dissing the soldiers that fought in Viet Nam. Like most of the Democrats he sees withdrawal as a strategy and defeat as acceptable. In a nutshell, diplomacy is the only correct approach to stabilizing the Middle East.

After drawing down the bulk of combat troops, he suggested small numbers of troops stay to chase Al Qaeda all around Iraq. He doesn't seem to worry about the fate of those vulnerable troops, the long suffering Iraqis, the Arabs in region vis a vis Iran or the possible disruption of OIL to the World's economies. Like most Democrats he just wants to quit and be done with it.

Too bad (for them that is) the Democrats didn't know in 2004 that their candidate didn't have the guts to fight hard and WIN at anything..afterall, what did they expect from a WindSurfer?

Comments <<<<---------------->>>>

TGIF

(R-savior)
General Petraeus was confirmed unanimously by Congress and sent on his way to implement HIS counter-insurgency strategy giving the USA one more chance to stabilize Iraq. He was ordered to report on progress this week in September. Within weeks of his departure, reports of successes in Anbar and Baghdad starting to filter in through the Media "No News is Good News" barricade.

Democrats had put all their eggs in the failure basket and rallied to discredit Petraeus, deny the accuracy of any positive news and frantically devise one non-binding resolution after another, championing defeat and calling for some form of "cut and run." In partisan parlance, "quit now...make our radical anti-war base happy in an election year."

They couldn't get the 60 votes necessary to make complete fools out of themselves; yet however unbelievably, Democrats want to lose Bush's War more than they care about the consequences of failure to Iraqis, the Middle East, the reputation of our Military or their own Country...to R-credit, Republicans held the line.

(Moving on)
The unpopular reception of MoveOn's "Betrayus" Ad, backed D-rats into a corner and forced most of them to be very careful not to sound supportive of the widely condemned slur of an honorable soldier. Democrats were hammered relentlessly by all the Republicans on the committees who sat next to them while D-losers were squirming in their skins, sweating the bad publicity, fearing the well deserved tag...anti-military. Polls show that the American people trust the Military more than they do politicians..clearly, the Ad backfired and distracted from any loyal-opposition to the General's testimony.

(Jaws)
Not only did Hillary Clinton refuse to criticize the MoveOn/NYT "Betray Us" Ad, but she aligned herself with the sentiment-within. When she spoke to General Petraeus at his (pre-emptively maligned) presentation of the report on the Surge in Iraq, Clinton, prune faced, said this: "The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief." Plus, dripping from her venomous tongue, she hooked Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker as "de facto spokesmen for a failed policy."

(Jumping the Shark)
Senator McCain was campaigning in New Hampshire, traveling in his bus formerly known as the Straight Talk Express... now the "No Surrender," when he slammed Hillary Clinton for her remarks to General Petraeus saying: "...it's a "willing suspension of disbelief" that Sen. Clinton thinks she knows more than Gen.Petraeus about events on the ground in Iraq." Plus, "There is no greater slander to a soldier than an accusation of betrayal to his nation. I do not understand why those seeking to be CIC have yet to forcefully denounce, in their own words, this McCarthyite attack on our commander."

(Piling on)
Notably, Rudy Giuliani's campaign bought an ad in the NYT praising Petraeus and his accomplishments...also, checking first hand on the "special" discounted price afforded to MoveOn by the Liberal leaning NYTimes. Rudy demanded and got the same price for his full page ad which appeared today.

(Captain Courageous..W's Speech)
Capping off this week's Iraq debate, GW Bush gave his most positive prime time speech to date. He told the American people what was suspected all along...we'd be in Iraq forever.

After seeing the divisions in Congress, the weak Maliki Government and our Arab allies in the region, required assurances from the USA promising an "enduring long term committment" to the defense of an independent Iraq from all outside forces. Our national security interest, i.e., Iraq and the region's OIL resouces, must remain controlled by the OPEC states; under no circumstances should the distribution of OIL be disrupted by Iran or Al Qaeda. If the Dems get their way and we abandon Iraq, an economic depression will befall a World that can not survive without Oil from the Middle East.

(Salute)
Republicans preferred that this week's contentious events rested on the popularity and credibility of General Petraeus who performed exceptionally well. Furthermore, he made the rounds of TV Talk Shows, Think Tanks and even the Press Club, confirming the expectation of victory in Iraq if we persevere, never waiver or show lack of resolve to our enemies; in other words, adopt the Democrats' M.O.

Moderate Republicans, seeking cover from critics at home, would rather the successful strategy in Iraq be credited to the more popular and trusted General Petraeus. BooHoo for them, because Bush's speech reminded the opposition that this whole Iraq adventure is the core of GW Bush's legacy. His fame or infamy, along with the status of the Republican Party, depends more on the General's warring skills than on GW's ability to communicate.

Gen. Petraeus and Amb.Crocker

Grilled on the Hill

Join me and the Staff of the RepublicanForum to discuss the presentation made by Petraeus and Crocker. Will the Dems get their way and we leave as losers? OR did these two men make the case that the Surge is working and the US should not abandon the people of Iraq now, not when the Sunnis are fighting with us and against Al Qaeda? They showed us the proverbial light at the end of the long, long tunnel.

Jasimus at Hard Starboard covers the Petraeus' Hearings in his unique style...loaded with content and seasoned with spicy humor. Take a look.

Six Years Ago Tomorrow

Mark Steyn writes:

Six years on, most Americans are now pretty certain what they’ll wake up to in the morning: There’ll be a thwarted terrorist plot somewhere or other — last week, it was Germany. Occasionally, one will succeed somewhere or other, on the far horizon — in Bali, Istanbul, Madrid, London. But not many folks expect to switch on the TV this Tuesday morning, as they did that Tuesday morning, and see smoke billowing from Atlanta or Phoenix or Seattle.

During the IRA’s 30-year campaign, the British grew accustomed (perhaps too easily accustomed) to waking up to the news either of some prominent person’s assassination or that a couple of gran’mas and some schoolkids had been blown apart in a shopping centre. It was a terrorist war in which terrorism was almost routine. But, in the six years since President Bush declared that America was in a "war on terror," there has been in America no terrorism.

In theory, the administration ought to derive a political benefit from this: The president has "kept America safe." But, in practice, the placidity of the domestic front diminishes the chosen rationale of the conflict: If a "war on terror" has no terror, who says there’s a war at all? That’s the argument of the Left — that it’s all a racket cooked up by the Bushitlerburton fascists to impose on America a permanent national-security state in which, for dark sinister reasons of his own, Dick Cheney is free to monitor your out-of-state phone calls all day long.

Judging from the blithe expressions of commuters doing the shoeless shuffle through the security line at LAX and O’Hare, most Americans seem relatively content with a permanent national-security state. It’s a curious paradox: airports on permanent Orange Alert, and a citizenry on permanent ...well, I’m not sure there’s a homeland-security color code for "Gaily Insouciant," but, if there is, it’s probably a bland limpid pastel of some kind.

Of course, if tomorrow there’s a big smoking hole where the Empire State Building used to be, we’ll be back to: "The president should have known! This proves the failure of his policies over the last six years! We need another all-star Commission filled with retired grandees!"



Osama bin Metrosexual

Check out a humorous fashion critique ("the look isn't working") by Manolo of the Osama tape here; and, a more serious look at the video message to the Democrats and the American people; in short, "Join Islam or Dye"...ooops, that's "Die" Osama actually made a "no new taxes pledge" ...which ofcourse is unlikely if the tax and spend Dems get more influence than they have now re: quitting the War in Iraq; OR, win enough seats in the '08 Congress to steam roll Republicans.

Gosh, the Democrats have picked-up strange political advisors: Castro is for Hillary and Obama(Sure Winners?). Chavez does a stand-up comedy act at the UN lounge against GW Bush; and now this? Osama writing the Democrat talking points. Boy he's really scared the Bush brigades will drive his minions out of Iraq, chase them down and exterminate them where ever they pop up.
Boooo Yaaaaa!! Vote Republican!!


Petraeus and Crocker Talk Iraq *

If you care to comment on the testy hearings about the progress of the Iraq Surge etc.,...go here today for a real time blogging of the event.

*My friends at Hard Starboard have complete coverage of Petraeus' Testimony...video and pictures of the Code Pink wackos. It's all you need.