Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Time is of the essence lately. Yours truly may be limited in substance until the weekend, but I will do the best I can. Today, I hit the highlights:

Idaho Senator Larry Craig denies being gay. So, some time back the Senator plead guilty to disorderly conduct for supposedly propositioning another male in an airport restroom. Now, he contends those charges and says it was a mistake, mainly due to his failure to obtain legal counsel. Okay, whatever. But the issue isn't whether the Senator is gay, which for some reason is what he wants to focus on. No, the issue is whether or not this man propositioned someone for sex. If this is true, the Senator should resign his position. The Senate is launching an ethics probe (there's an oxymoron...Senate ethics probe) and apparently there will be more to come.

Alberto Gonzalez resigns. I don't know much about this guy, but I do know that he got a raw deal. I'm not exactly sure why the Dems focused so much energy in "getting" this guy, but it apparently worked. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part. My only disappointment was in his handling (or lack thereof) of the Campian and Ramos case. Otherwise, I feel for this guy. Now, what's really scary is that Bush is considering Chertoff as his replacement. Yikes!

Hillary favors a national smoking ban. I'm not a smoker. In fact, the odor makes me want to gag. But I am getting a bit tired of people treating smokers like the lepers of our time. National smoking ban? Gimme a break.

Senator Harry Reid: ""Most Americans, and a bipartisan majority in Congress, believe this strategy is not in our national interest and the time for a major change in strategy is now."

What the Senator means is that we need to change strategy before this strategy succeeds. Everyone knows that if the troop surge works, and is the first step to a safe, secure and stable Iraq, then the Dems are doomed. They will have no chance in '08. So, Reid is working hard to change the course before we succeed.


Allisoni Balloni said...

When it is suggested that Republicans hope for a terrorist attack, those suggesting it are treated like terrorists themselves. Interesting that you feel it appropriate to say that Democrats are hoping for failure in Iraq. Is that not a very similar statement?

Larry Craig is focusing on whether or not he is gay because that seems to be all conservatives care about these days. He can be wrought with scandal and no one will pay much attention, but if he likes other men? Heaven forbid! A sinner? *GASP* It's everybody's business!

The Loop Garoo Kid said...


I am having difficulty understanding why you and other self proclaimed conservatives think that Alberto Gonzales "got a raw deal." First, Mr. Gonzales, until the middle of September, remains the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the United States. President Bush made a serious mistake naming him AG as whatever his strengths, he lacked certain abilities, chief among them experience at the Justice Dept. For an interesting take on this, read David Brooks column that appeared today, Wednesday, August 29, 2007.

There is no question that U.S. attys serve at the pleasure of the President. Had the 8 fired U.S. attys received letters to the effect of "The President thanks you for your service and requests your resignation by..." That would have been the end of it. Instead, Gonzales announced the 8 were fired for performance related issues. There is a legal term of art for this. It is called "a lie."

Then Mr. Gonzales made a complete hash of his appearences b/f Congress, giving the impression at best that his recollection was faulty and at worst he was disingenuous. This is not OK for the highest ranking law enforcemant officer of the United States. Calls for his resignation came from both sides of the aisle. The entire Dept. of Justice had become demoralized and to an extent ineffective b/c Alberto Gonzales was never able to differentiate between his former post as White House Counsel and his current one of AG.

Why was the Dept odf Justice demoralized? Well, the 8 fired U.S. attys did their jobs well; received positive reviews; then were fired after which the head of the Justice Dept. besmirched their reputations as attys. This is not effective leadership. Alberto Gonzales did not get "a raw deal." He should have remembered Thoams Cardibnal Woolsey: "Had I but serv'd my God with half the eal I serv'd my king, he would not in mine age have left me naked to mine enemies."

Just out of curiousity, do you truly beleive the surge is the first step toward a safe, secure, and stable Iraq? I think more accurately asked, do you really think that Iraq will be safe, secure, and stable until some strongman seizes control? I do not argue that the surge is having positive effects nor do I argue w/ the strategy. After all, what were the alternatives? Withdraw? That would take 9 to 13 months; cost hundreds if not thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqui lives.

Stay the course? That wasn't working too well. It is difficult for me to believe that intelligent people such as yourself believe that there is a reasonable propspect for a peaceful political solution in Iraq. Yesterday, there was Shi'ite sectarian violence in Karbala. Today Muqtada al Sadr told the Mekti army to stand down. We will now see how much actual control he has.
Meanwhile, that jackanapes Amadinejad said Iran was ready to fill the power vaccuum in Iraq.

Let us not forget the Sunni-Shi'ite rivalry which the Malaki government is unable to reconcile or the Kurds' desire for autonomy.

The defeat of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia now appears possible b/c their former allies, the Sunnis, have recognized them for the murderous parasites they are. NBC News stated several weeks ago that AQM was responsible for only 15% of the violence in Iraq.

Until there is a political solution, Iraq will never be safe, secure, or stable notwithsatnding the best efforts of our military.

Anonymous said...

Gay politician. Ethics "probe."


But as for Gonzales, I don't know much about it. If he did it, he should have stepped down. One less politician in office is nothing for me to cry about. The best solution I have is not to replace him, as crazy as that sounds.

As for Hillary. She's an idiot. Next topic.

Reid? And idiot, but not for his war stance. More like for his political stance in general if you ask me.


Iran continues to enrich U-235, and Hot-Air Politics throws stones
from Left & Right. What Fun!

False Prophets, wearing sheepskins
hide their true intent. Watch Out,
Goldie Locks, It's a WOLF!


Focus on Reality:


John Washburn said...

Allisoni, I have seen no indication that Democratic leaders hope for success in Iraq. In fact, Reid has already declared the war lost. Are those the words of someone hopeful for victory?

"He can be wrought with scandal and no one will pay much attention"

Actually, many GOP leaders are calling for his resignation today, along with many grassroots conservatives (yours truly included).

Loop, I believe what the commanders and troops on the ground say, and that is that Iraq CAN be secured. So far, they appear to be right. The strategy is to secure, and thus give the citizens something to fight for. The troops say it can be done. They're the ones there, not me, so who am I to question what they're seeing?

Robert, no disagreement here, especially the part about idiots

Snake, Iran is out of control and the UN appears to be failing once again. I fear that we may be forced into action against them as we were against Iraq. The question is, at what point do we recognize the UN as incompetent and withdraw from it?

The Loop Garoo Kid said...


There is a fundamental difference, as there should and must be, between what our commanders and troops believe can be accomplished militarily and what can be achieved politically.

The average Iraqi would trade the benefits of the democracy we have bestowed upon them for working electricity, running water, and the prospect of not getting tortured, shot, or blown up by a sectarian militia or kill crazed member of AQM (thanks to reb for the phrase "kill crazed.")

There is no way to be polite or politic about the following: The line that we, the American public, has been fed is: "If we can provide enough security, the Iraqi government will be able to follow a policy of reconcilliation and ultimately everything will be as fine as wine in the summertime."

Unfortunately, as we see, nothing is farther from the truth. The Sunnis want to regain the power they have lost. The Shi'ite don't want to share power w/ the minority that oppressed them for a generation. The Kurds want as much oil money and autonomy as possible.

Meanwhile, millions of Iraqis have been displaced, internally or in exile, including a significant portion of the professional class and the intelligencia.

So long as there is a stron U.S. military presence, the lid will be kept on, but barely. As soon as we leave, the lid blows off.

B/c of the lack of security, we have been unable to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure which is in worse shape now than it was under Saddam.

W/ all due respect, I think that you have made a fundamental error which was the obvious flaw in the NeoCon policy. You believe that the Iraqis are fundamentally like us and want the same things we do.
They don't. That should be obvious. We can't turn Iraq into Oklahoma and Baghdad into Tulsa.