• Democrats,  GOP,  Joe Lieberman

    Senator Joe Lieberman Watch: Lieberman Refuses to Slam the Door on Switching to the Republican Party

    liebermannovember12aweb

    Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) celebrates his victory in the U.S midterm elections in Hartford, Connecticut November 7, 2006.

    AP: Lieberman refuses to close door on switching parties

    Sen. Joe Lieberman on Sunday repeated his pledge to caucus with Senate Democrats when the 110th Congress convenes in January, but refused to slam the door on possibly moving to the Republican side of the aisle.

    Asked on NBC’s “Meet the Press” if he might follow the example of Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who left the Republicans in 2001 and became an independent, ending Republican control of the U.S. Senate, Lieberman refused to discount the possibility.

    “I’m not ruling it out but I hope I don’t get to that point,” he said. “And I must say — and with all respect to the Republicans who supported me in Connecticut — nobody ever said, ‘We’re doing this because we want you to switch over. We want you to do what you think is right and good for our state and country,’ and I appreciate that.”

    Lieberman can demand any committee and any assignment he chooses in the new United States Senate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is Joe Lieberman’s BITCH.

    Carl Levin can shoot his mouth off about Iraq War policy but change is going nowhere without Joe Lieberman on board.

    Stay tuned……

    Captain Ed has Jumpin’ Joe?

    Previous:

    Senator Joe Lieberman Watch: Liberman’s Victory – A “Declaration of Independence From Partisanship.”

    Senator Joe Lieberman Watch: Final JOEMENTUM

    Senator Joe Lieberman Watch: Landrieu stumps for Lieberman

    Senator Joe Lieberman Watch: Latest Quinnipiac University Poll Lieberman Leads 52-35

    Senator Joe Lieberman Watch: First Debate – Lieberman Accuses Lamont of “Finger-Pointing”

    Senator Joe Lieberman Watch: No Man’s Land?

    Senator Joe Lieberman Watch: Lieberman Defends Civil Rights Record

    Senator Joe Lieberman Watch: Richie Rich and the Two Anti-Semites


    Technorati Tags:

  • Democrats,  Iraq War

    Iraq War Watch: Democrats Plan Push for Iraq Troop Withdrawal

    iraqnovember12aweb

    US soldiers inspect the scene following a car bomb explosion in Baghdad, Iraq , Sunday, Nov. 12, 2006, that killed two and injured six Iraqis. Top U.S. officials are reviewing strategy in Iraq following last week’s defeat by the Republicans in midterm congressional elections and the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, one of the chief architects of the war.

    Reuters: Democrats say will push for Iraq withdrawal

    Democrats, who won control of the U.S. Congress, said on Sunday they will push for a phased withdrawal of American troops from Iraq to begin in four to six months, but the White House cautioned against fixing timetables.

    “First order of business is to change the direction of Iraq policy,” said Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who is expected to be chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee in the new Congress.

    Democrats will press President George W. Bush’s administration to tell the Iraqi government that U.S. presence was “not open-ended, and that, as a matter of fact, we need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months,” Levin said on ABC’s “This Week” program.

    Harry Reid and Carl Levin want to “CUT AND RUN.” This will be a disaster.

    iraqwarjune22aweb2

    Paul Mirengoff of Powerline (Via MM) has a better analysis, “What about Iraq?”

    Some very smart people argue that, as David Rivkin put it in the National Review, there is no substitute for victory. In this spirit, Frederick Kagan in the Weekly Standard recommends, among other things, that we send in more troops. But whatever the merits of that approach in the abstract, it is not politically sustainable and is not, therefore, where this thing is headed. Is there any politically sustainable new approach that might be acceptable?

    To analyze this question, we need to identify the reasons we have remained in Iraq for the past few years. I can think of five: (1) to avoid a humiliating Mogadishu-style defeat that will embolden our enemies, (2) to prevent parts of Iraq from becoming a base for anti-American terrorists, as Afghanistan was under the Taliban, (3) to prevent Iran from becoming the dominant player in portions of Iraq, (4) to prevent Iraqis from killing each other in sectarian strife, and (5) to promote a democratic Iraq. To me, the first two objectives are vital to our national security, and the third probably is very important to it. The fourth and fifth are extremely worthwhile objectives, but are not of high importance to our national security.

    In terms of attainability, the first objective — avoiding defeat — is just a matter of will. The enemy can’t defeat us; defeat occurs only if we choose to withdraw. The second objective is also attainable. We have proven that we can crush al-Qaeda and other insurgents when they attempt to seize and hold territory. The third objective — blocking Iran — can also be achieved. The pro-Iranian militias cannot take out-and-out control as long as we’re around.

    The fourth goal — preventing Iraqis from killing each other — has proven to be a bridge too far. There’s little reason to believe that we can accomplish this with our present level of force. Indeed, it’s not clear that we accomplish it even with higher levels. In any case, higher troop levels, and the death toll that would accompany them, are not politically sustainable.

    As for promoting Iraqi democracy, we’ve done most of what we can do. A democratic system is in place. It’s up to the Iraqis to make it work.

    Read it all.

    This or another hybrid approach is the direction the President should direct. The American people did not elect James Baker, Lee Hamilton,Harry Reid or Carl Levin as Commander in Chief. Only President Bush can REDIRECT Iraw War policy and I do not think he will “CUT AND RUN.”

    America has come too far to accept capitulation


    Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

  • George W. Bush,  Iraq War

    Iraq War Watch: President Bush’s “CUT AND RUN” Strategy?

    bakernovember12aweb

    Iraq Study Group members, Former US secretary of state James Baker(L), and former member of Congress Lee Hamilton, seen here in September 2006. British Prime Minister Tony Blair will give evidence next week to a US task force looking at future policy in Iraq, his office said.

    The American Thinker: Baker: A face-saving disaster?

    The Baker commission seems to be doing a lot more than just re-thinking Iraq. It appears to be copiously leaking a Vietnam-type cut-and-run plan that will leave the Gulf far more dangerous than it is now. The Vietnam model looks like a “face-saving” retreat by the United States—just like that one that left Vietnam a Stalinist prison state with tens of thousands of boat people fleeing and dying, and next door in Cambodia, two or three million dead at the hands of Pol Pot.

    Baker’s press leaks seem designed to test public reaction to the cut-and-run plan.

    Read it all.

    What is going on in President Bush’s head? Just because his poll numbers stink and he lost a few seats in the mid-term elections he will sell out his political party and the Iraqi people?

    He is recycling old political hacks from his father’s administration, dumps his Secretary of Defense and now is leaking his own “face-saving” plan to get out of Iraq.

    Does he wish to lead the GOP into the minority for the next fifty years?

    Let the 2008 Presidential campaign begin with a major distancing from this “cut and run” President.

    Flap foresees United States Senate filibusters from the GOP on Bush initiatives.


    Technorati Tags: , ,

  • Iran Nuclear Watch,  United Nations

    Iran Nuclear Watch: Ahmadinejad Blasts U.N. Security Council

    irannukenovember12bweb

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivers his speech during a conference of the Asian Parliaments Association for Peace, in Tehran, Iran, Sunday, Nov. 12, 2006. Ahmadinejad on Sunday harshly criticized the United Nations Security Council for its threats to impose sanctions on defiant Tehran over its nuclear program.

    AP: Ahmadinejad blasts U.N. Security Council

    President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday criticized the United Nations Security Council over its efforts to impose sanctions on Iran because of its nuclear program.

    “It is most embarrassing that the U.N Security Council, which should be the defender of nations’ security and rights, threatens countries pursuing nuclear fuel under the law to provide fuel for peaceful purposes,” Ahmadinejad said.

    Addressing the seventh conference of the general assembly of the Asian Parliaments Association for Peace, Ahmadinejad criticized the U.N. for applying a double standard, noting that “countries, armed with nuclear weapons, deny the rights of other countries to produce nuclear fuel and exploit it for peaceful purposes.”

    Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Mullahs are playing the Western media cycle again. The sad fact is the United Nations Security Council is a feckless and woirthless organization that will NEVER impose meaningful sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program.

    However, Israel and the United States will not be deterred by the political correctness of the United Nations or the P-5-Plus-1 group of nations.

    irannukenovember12aweb

    President Vladimir Putin, right, greets Iran’s top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani during a meeting at Novo-Ogaryovo just outside Moscow, Saturday, Nov. 11, 2006. President Vladimir Putin on Saturday held talks with Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, a move that signaled a serious Kremlin effort to force Iran to freeze its uranium enrichment program.

    Ahmadinejad made the comments following the meeting Saturday in Moscow between Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, and Russian President
    Vladimir Putin.

    Russia is urging the resumption of international talks on Iran’s nuclear program. Although Moscow, along with China, have agreed in principle on sanctions, both have publicly pushed for dialogue instead of punitive measures.

    Both countries have major commercial ties with Iran, and can veto council resolutions as permanent members.

    Of course, complete intransigence on the part of Russia and China may lead to a couple of results:

    1. Intransigence in the UNSC/G-8/WTO by the United States on all trade matters pertaining to Russia and China.

    2. Military action by Israel and the United States against Iran due to the complete failure/blockage of negotiations.

    If Flap were Ahmadinejad I would do less SPIN and more fortification of Kharg Island.

    Kharg Island

    irannukenovember4bweb

    irannukenovember4djpgweb

    Stay tuned…….

    Previous:

    Iran Nuclear Watch: Iran Broadcasts Drone Footage of United States Carrier

    Iran Nuclear Watch: Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh – Strike on Iran Possible

    Iran Nuclear Watch: Russia Won’t Bargain Over Bushehr

    Iran Nuclear Watch: A Military Option

    Iran Nuclear Watch: Six Arab States Want to Go Nuclear

    Iran Nuclear Watch: Iran Test Fires Three New Missiles in the Gulf

    Iran Nuclear Watch: Russia and China Say NO to United Nations Iran Sanction Resolution

    The Iran Nuclear Files

    irannukejuly15aweb

    The Natanz uranium enrichment complex in Natanz is pictured in this January 2, 2006 satellite image.


    Technorati Tags: ,