Kowabunga

Michael Wigley of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota writing for the Red Star Tribune this week makes some interesting points in respect to a column by Lori Sturdevant recently published by the Strib.

Sturdevant unwittingly defines a fundamental liberal problem in her first paragraph:

"Reform of big, Byzantine public systems is cyclical work. It generally takes years of hand-wringing, analyzing and politicking to build a head of steam for noticeable change."

That should be a comforting thought to parents, especially in Minneapolis and St. Paul, sending their first-grader off to the big, Byzantine public school system. While legislators and bureaucrats are hand-wringing, analyzing and politicking, children are not learning to read or write or do arithmetic, but perhaps by the time the children are in the sixth grade ...

I'm not sure if anyone can be comforted by sending their kids off to a Byzantine public school system. I don't know how complex/intricate the public school systems are, but Wigley is right in that many kids are not being taught the basics (reading/writing/arithmetic). There are numerous failures in a system that is allowed to produce people that are not able to make change at a cash register without having a "deer in headlights" look on there face when you hand them when you hand them $5.52 for a for a $4.42 charge. (I have encountered this type of scenario numerous times when dealing with cashiers.)

It worries me that schools are resorting to computer technology for kids to use and perform their homework on rather than teaching them to use inherent cognitive processes. How are kids supposed to learn to spell correctly and use proper grammar when all they have to do is click spell check on a software program?

Wigley continues:

DFLer Mindy Greiling of Roseville wants to simply tweak the funding formula and add a billion dollars a year to the budget. In other words, the problem is not that children are not being educated; the problem is that the system is being challenged and needs to be supported better.

Or more accurately, the system doesn't have enough money, which is the constant cry, despite school districts providing lavish compensation deals to administrators. Remember the Apple Valley superintendent that was paid off to the tune of a half million dollars a few years back? Is there any sane person who would consider that a good use of taxpayer money? Or how about the Minneapolis case where the contract was broken by a administrator who wanted to go to Atlanta because the money was better? She broke her contract over taxpayer money! These are the poster child examples of the liberal cry of "It's for the children!" every time they call for new and bigger taxes to fund the schools.

Wigley then has this quote from Sturdevant:

"We'd love it from the feds ... . But when public work needs money, Minnesotans are acculturated to look first to state government."

Wigley correctly points out that regardless of the level of government, the money always comes from the taxpayers: that would be you and me and everyone else. Wigley also points out that the more layers of government involved, the greater the amount of bureaucracy and the less the money will actually buy. This is true whether we are talking education (public schools), welfare, social security, or nationalizing health care. The more layers of that is government involved, the less you get and the lower your return on your dollar, and the greater the amount of government waste there will be.

This is way the State and Federal governments should get out of the practice of providing certain social services, most especially the public schools, which should be controlled and funded specifically by the communities that they serve, as well as welfare programs (which would be best served if handled at the county level rather than involving higher levels of government). There are those who will cry out that some schools, especially those in poorer districts, will be shortchanged. Maybe, but there should be ways to handle that at the local level without involving higher levels of government that will introduce a lot of bureaucratic red tape and wasting taxpayer dollars by paying for more bureaucrats. One needs to remember that school districts normally cover more than a couple of schools, especially when we're talking mid to large sized cities.

Wigley then asks a question:

The second implication of Sturdevant's comment, and perhaps the more frightening, is that she sees Minnesotans as a people who when faced with a problem "look first to state government" for a solution. Have Minnesotans become so domesticated by years of liberal hand-feeding that we are neither outraged nor embarrassed by the characterization of us as waiting placidly in the corner by our dish for a helping from the government gravy train?

The answer, unfortunately, but not surprisingly, is yes; most people, and not just Minnesotans, have grown accustomed to looking to government, and the bigger the better, to solve their problems. Didn't Reagan say that "Government isn't the solution to your problems, but is the problem" or something to that effect? The fact that many Americans have been domesticated into believing that the only way to improve our education system is through big government and bigger taxes tells us exactly how big of a problem conservatives will be facing in coming years. It's scary to realize that so many people believe that the way to solving America's problems is through top-down big (expensive) government, rather than relying on local government where most social services are concerned (like schools and welfare). One way leads to a welfare nanny state, the other leads to responsible local government.

One thing that people need to remember is that its far more difficult to justify tax increases to the people that will have to pay them if the elected officials have to look them in the eye every meeting. This is something I have been learning while serving on my town board; we don't have the power to levy a tax, only recommend and justify the money needed to run the township. That's local control and responsible government. That's what the founding Fathers envisioned for America: That the powers granted to government should be granted to the level of government that is most closely aligned with the people (local, state, and Federal), and no higher than is absolutely necessary.

Liberalism (or Progressivism as they now want to call it) can only lead us down one path and that is to the welfare state, wasting our money and bilking working Americans out of their hard earned money, while continuing to fail to educate our children the basic tools they need to succeed in life.

Tags:

Star Tribune Wigley Sturdevant Liberal Education

Posted by Sqotty at 6:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The editorial staff of the Red Star Tribune ran an editorial piece about Al Gore and his recent Nobel Peace Prize for his work in propaganda. In it, they claim the Boracle can do more good outside the beltway rather than reentering the political arena, while blasting at conservatives critical of the award as being naysayers.

Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize has set off a firestorm of commentary, from both liberals and conservatives. While his prize is well-deserved, despite right-wing naysaying, the country would be better served by Gore remaining outside Beltway politics.

Actually, Al "Carbon Bigfoot" Gore does more damage by staying out of the race. Why? The answer will become clear in a minute.

Some conservative pundits complained about the relevancy of a peace prize for work on climate change. With a little knowledge of political behavior, however, it's easy to predict how a shifting climate will change natural resources and complicate international relations. When some areas of the world dry up, inhabitants will migrate elsewhere, bringing conflict in their wake.

Yes, the relevancy is highly questionable. The Boracle's An Inconvenient Truth was more political propaganda than science, and much of the science reported in it was erroneous with even more scientific facts ignored, just as was done in the latest IPCC report. Yep, the climate is changing, however that is nothing new. The Earth's climate has undergone change since the beginning of time and will continue to do so until the end of time. People will move with the resources, just as they have done in the past. That's just the way things work.

The science of global climate change survived vicious attacks on its credibility (in part due to the consensus of nearly all scientists familiar with the issue). Backers of the big polluters are now trying to assassinate the character of the messenger. [By] staying out of the political arena, [Gore] will deprive the cynics of claiming [his] work is for personal gains in power. ...

"Credibility (in part due to the consensus of nearly all scientists familiar with the issue)"? What credibility is their when they ignore the ice core samples that cover hundreds of thousands of years of climate data? Or the impact of sun spot activity on the climate? And a host of other factors? As for the consensus? What consensus is there? Check here and here for an update on the so called "scientific consensus". There is a consensus that the climate is changing, but not on the cause.

The piece also gets it wrong that the Boracle deprives those who disagree with him on the cause of the current warming trend that this is about personal power. I don't think any one has claimed he is doing this for personal power. However his staying out of the political arena allows him to steer clear of open debate on the issue and having to back up is claims when faced with real scientific data.

Elder statesmen are freed from the constraints of facing reelection. Hence, they may be candid about what they believe. People with vested interests in issues rarely give an accurate portrayal, and elected officials always have a vested interest in political matters.

Sure, he can be candid about his beliefs, but is he giving us an scientifically accurate analysis? One thing the piece is right about is that people with vested interests "rarely give an accurate portrayal" on the issues they are involved with. The same is true with Al gore and his carbon credit business:

By staying clear of the political arena, Gore does more damage in that he is able to maintain his ongoing conflict of interest where carbon emissions is concerned (through Generation Investment Management) and not have to defend his claims in open debate. a double win for the Boracle. Not bad for a failed presidential candidate.

Tags:

Gore Boracle Nobel Peace Prize Moonbat Star Tribune An Inconvenient Truth Star Tribune

Posted by Sqotty at 7:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

This was in the Opinion pages of the Star Tribune the other day. It's by a left-wingnut complaining about the lack of participation at a recent rally to support terrorism (they call them "peace" rallies). In it she writes:

In Ken Burns' recent series, "The War," a veteran says the military knew that the longest a person could endure combat before going totally nuts was 240 days. We've been in Iraq roughly 1,650 days now, and though God knows most of us haven't been asked to do much more than sell off our children's future, I think we're all going a little nuts.

When people talk about the longest time a person can withstand the stresses of combat as being 240 days, they are talking 240 consecutive days on the battle lines without any rest and recreation time. The same logic she uses to come up with 1,650 days in Iraq as being equivalent to 240 consecutive days of combat would mean that the 1,346 days of WW2 for the U.S. would mean that every serviceman during that war should have gone nuts. She also fails to acknowledge that our troops serving in Iraq (and Afghanistan) receive regular R and R. They even had a gaming convention back in June (and a successful one at that).

This is not to say our troops in Iraq (or Afghanistan, or Kosovo, where we have been involved even longer) are not under substantial stress, 'cause thy are. This is why the deployments are limited in duration, anywhere from four months to 16 months (last I heard, that's the max). Then they come back to the States. After a chance to recuperate and rearm, they are sometimes deployed for a second (or third) tour. But all during the time of their deployment they get time off to kick back and relax (as best as one can under these circumstances).

She also claims that we are selling off our children's futures, yet Congress does exactly that when they increase taxes to provide welfare to people to lazy to get a job, or insists on top-down management of our local schools when it should be left to the municipality involved (the more layers of bureaucracy, the more things cost and the less you get for your bucks), or fails to secure our borders and deal with the illegal immigrant problem.

Then she rants about how Republicans don't care about children, health care and schooling. The fact of the matter is that we do care. Health care is a parental responsibility (something I take serious where my daughter is concerned) and education is very important and parents should have the right to choose the best education for their children and pay for that which they use. What I mean by that is that school vouchers should be implemented so that all parents have a choice and maybe the public schools will get their act together. We also need to get the Feds out of our public schools. They cause dramatic increases in the costs for zero benefit.

Iraq is a never-ending nightmare, and the Decider's mind seems decided on something catastrophic for Iran. We're drowning in debt. Our health-care system is great -- for those who can afford it. It's October and 80 degrees outside. Creepy.

Nightmare? She hasn't been over there so how would she know what it is like (I haven't either). It may well be a nightmare for the Iraqis being targeted by al Qaeda terrorists there and the sectarian death squads. It is certainly becoming a nightmare for those murdering thugs that insist on killing innocent Iraqi civilians.

Something catastrophic for Iran? We have Jimmy Carter to thank for that if we do have to go into Iran to stop them from becoming the purveyor of nuclear materials to al-Qaeda.

Drowning in debt? Yep, that has been the American way for way to long, and our government isn't any better. That's one point we agree on, but for differing reasons. I suspect she is ticked off about the cost of the war whereas I am concerned about all the wasteful spending like that bridge to nowhere in Alaska, the need to reform welfare so that people are not simply getting a handout, privatizing Social Security so that my children will have something to bank on rather than getting bilked as my generation is. Our health-care system is great, and no one has ever been denied emergency medical services, regardless of ability to pay. That's why Mexico sends ambulances across the border to border town hospitals and dumps their poor on our system.

October and 80 degrees? Maybe I missed something the first week of October here in Minnesota, but it didn't hit that while I was in California, and it hasn't been much above 50 since I got back a week ago.

I could go on (and on), but why bother.

Tags:

Susan Lenfestey Moonbat Star Tribune Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 8:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Reading the editorial page in the Star Tribune is hit or miss; Jekyll or Hyde; Night or day. A couple of days ago it was Syl Jones moonbatting about the war in Iraq and the Bush Administration. That's the night, the Mr. Hyde, the miss. Today it is a piece by Clifford D. May on what we need to hear in a presidential campaign to have someone who will truly standout from the pack: a Churchillian viewpoint. It's the day, the Doctor Jekyll, the hit (home run in this case). Not surprisingly, I am an agreement with what may writes. I've read his work before and it is clear he gets it, and, unlike Syl Jones, uses facts not myths to make his arguments. and, as usual, I am surprised that the Strib is carrying his piece.

From the Star Tribune:

I suspect few readers will disagree when I say that not one of the presidential candidates, Republican or Democratic, has yet articulated a compelling campaign theme. All favor security. Not one opposes prosperity. Each promises to protect Social Security and improve health care. Voters can be forgiven if they are not overwhelmed.

Ain't that the truth! There are several candidates I like, but I can't say I am overly excited by any of them, except for the ones I am positively against, like Hillary, Obama, Kucinich, and Ron Paul. I am definitely overwhelmingly opposed to those particular candidates.

Let me offer a different approach on the off-chance that some candidate might find it useful: Tell voters the hard truth -- and challenge them.

I think this is similar to what Gingrich was talking about a few days back. Tell us what needs to be done, not what would be nice to do. And then be prepared to do it.

May elaborates on his point:

In particular, tell them we are at a critical moment in our nation's history: A dangerous enemy is waging an unconventional war against us. Remind them that this enemy has been underestimated by presidents and lawmakers of both parties many times, over many years.

Tell them, too, that fighting this enemy is a burden that history is asking the current generation of Americans to bear. We must do this for future generations -- as past generations fought for us.

Say frankly that if we don't have the stomach for a long and difficult war, we will be defeated by movements that are more determined than we are -- and more ruthless than we can ever imagine becoming.

He then goes on to use the Winston Churchill example: blood, toil, tears, sweat.

War is never popular, especially to those asked to fight it. Sometimes wars must be fought, as Churchill recognized in 1940 at the onset of World War 2. and that is the difference between the hard-core leftists in this country who foolish claim that "War has never solved anything" and the vast majority of our armed forces who recognize the necessity of fighting the terrorists and death squad fanatics. No sane person wants war, but only fools believe in peace at any price.

The Churchill approach would certainly wake up America's voters, shock them into action, one way or the other. The question is, are there any candidates out there today who are willing to walk that path? And make good on it? It would certainly be a breath of fresh air if one could come on strong like Churchill did in 1940.

MoveOn.org and its various allies and their puppets in Congress won't like it. I doubt they would even know how to counter it, except taking the Chamberlain approach of surrendering Iraq to Iran. We would probably see more full page propaganda condemning such candidates as being "traitors" as MoveOn did with General Petreus last week.

may also touches on the Petreus testimony and hits it on the head that it should be up to Genreal Petreus and his eventual successor to decide when and where (and how) to turn Iraq's security matters over to Iraqi troops. Some areas already are under full Iraqi control, an achievement that the left either ignores or denigrates. These matters should not be decided by a bunch of armchair generals relaxing in their air-conditioned offices swilling good booze like a Ted Kennedy on a Chappaquiddick bender.

The New York Times, whose editorial page views are hardly distinguishable from those of MoveOn.org, was closer to identifying the news in Petraeus' report. Its top story: "Petraeus Warns Against Quick Pullback in Iraq." It should not require a Churchill to see that if American forces leave Iraq precipitously, America's enemies will fill the vacuum. And Iraqis who have been fighting with us will be slaughtered. People around the world will get the joke: To be America's friend is more perilous than to be America's enemy.

The real news in Petraeus' testimony: Americans troops have been beating Al-Qaida in Iraq and, as that job gets done, it is Iranian-backed militias that are becoming the main problem that needs to be eliminated. The regime in Tehran wants Iraq as its colony. It doesn't want Iraq to be an American ally in the war with militant Islamism.

Like Vietnam and Cambodia, this is a very real potential that the left refuses to acknowledge. Either they don't care about the people of Iraq who want Liberty and Western democracy, or they are still blinded by their own delusions that the majority of Iraqis want to live free and in peace (not pieces).

Iran has been backing Muqtada al Sadr and his death squads for years, as well as funneling arms, munitions, cash and manpower to al-Qaeda in Iraq. There can be only one reason for Iran to do this: it wants to prevent Iraq from becoming a stable ally of the United States so it can eventually turn it into another Islamofacist Theocratic Tyranny.

Yes, it would be nice to hear a candidate come out and tell it like it is. Doing so will not only change the dialog, but may also push the American electorate toward a candidate who is willing to do what is necessary to secure Iraq's liberty rather than surrender to terrorists and dictators. I'm ready for such a candidate and I bet I am not alone.

Tags:

Clfford D. May Iraq Star Tribune Churchill War Election

Posted by Sqotty at 6:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Red Star Tribune, in living up to its leftist agenda, is running an editorial today, the Sixth Anniversary (for lack of better words) of the attacks of 9/11. It starts off benignly enough, mentioning that today two airliners slammed into the World Trade Center, killing some 2700 people. It also mentions the other two aircraft in the attack, but not that one was used to successfully attack the Pentagon.

It goes on to say that Americans are looking for a sense of unity and purpose.

It then heads into the thrust of the piece: Iraq.

Instead, the nation is divided this week over the messy and distracting issue of Iraq. Gen. David Petraeus went to Capitol Hill on Monday to give a long-awaited report on the war, and far from reassuring voters that their military is making progress, he couldn't even convince them he is using accurate measures of success. In what might have been the most depressing news of the day, the Washington Post reported that a majority of Americans don't even trust Petraeus -- whom President Bush chose precisely because of his trustworthiness -- to be square with them about the war.

This paragraph ignores the point that Congress unanimously approved Petreus' appointment to lead the troops in Iraq. In listening to the testimony, it is clear that The House of Representatives, at least those amongst the Democrats, ignored what Petreus stated and instead focused on some obscure polls produced by the BBC and ABC. I call them obscure as they are not widely known. Even Petreus and the Ambassador Crocker who was with him stated they were unaware of these polls. Yet the leftie moonbats, especially Loretta Sanchez (D, CA) continued to push that these polls are the real facts rather than what Petreus is reporting.

There is a big difference between accepting polls taken by biased media outlets versus the unbiased work of the troops on the ground.

But Sanchez, along with her MoveOn benefactors, don't care about that. Nor, obviously does the editorial staff at the Red Star Tribune.

Progress has been made in Iraq. It may not be as much as we would like to see: we would all like to see our troops come home sooner than later. However, as Petreus stated, things have improved sufficiently that we may soon be able to begin drawing forces down to pre-surge levels.

There are still challenges in Iraq. But the solution is not to cut and run, as the MoveOn crowd wants. It is to work with the people of Iraq so that they can secure and maintain their liberty.

It is bad enough that Sanchez implied that General Petreus is a liar. It is just as detestable that the Red Star Tribune has bought into that line of thinking as well.

As for the Red Star's desire to find unity and purpose: How about Victory in Iraq rather than perpetrating a desire for defeat.

Tags:

Sanchez Petreus Iraq 9/11 Star Tribune

Posted by Sqotty at 7:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It comes as no surprise to me that once again the Red Star Tribune is publishing an opinion piece pushing for a tax increase. This time it is blaming Republicans and conservatives for not wanting to increase taxes to pay for roads and infrastructure. That's what we already pay taxes for. Let's keep in mind that this year Minnesota had a $2 Billion surplus that the Democrats used for a spree of new spending rather than returning it to the tax payers. More on that later as we get into the opinion piece.

Conservatives are exceptionally good at politicizing emotion. From the headlong rush toward a half-trillion-dollar misadventure in Iraq to attacks on immigrants, gays and abortion rights, emotional appeals have brought to power conservatives whose bedrock ideology is no new taxes, no matter what, and shrinking government.

Actually, it is the Liberal/Progressive/Whatever Democrats who are the real experts at manipulating the emotions of voters by using lines like "it's for the kids" when it comes to huge increases in education spending while refusing taxpayers the option of "school choice" via a voucher system. They play on emotions where health care is concerned by claiming millions of Americans cannot afford insurance and thus getting health care, yet there isn't a hospital emergency room in the country that would refuse to treat an uninsured person for illness or injuries. They call the liberation of Iraq a "misadventure" yet millions Iraqis have been able to vote in a democracy for the first time, and live in a free society, albeit one that has to deal with terrorists and sectarian death squads. The right to kill your children is another hot button issue for Liberal/Progressive Democrats as they claim it is "reproductive rights," rather than pushing for personal responsibility and ensuring that all Americans, even those in the womb, will be able to enjoy our unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Conservatives have never "attacked" immigrants, but rather have pushed for enforcing our immigration laws, including the deportation of illegal aliens and securing our nations borders. Nor have conservatives "attacked" gays; there is a call to pass the Marriage Amendment that defines marriage as being between one woman and one man, which is what has been the norm throughout human history (with the exception of some cultures that have practiced polygamy, but that was still between man and woman, not man and man or woman and woman).

On the flip side of the coin Progressive/Liberal Democrats keep trying to change society through judicial fiat as with gay "marriage" in Massachusetts, or "royal" decree as was done in San Francisco. The claim that illegal aliens are just immigrant trying to make a living, yet these people have and do break our laws by violating immigration law, using forged documents and stealing the identities (and social security numbers) of working Americans. I could go on (and on), but you get the point.

But now that Minnesotans' tears are being shed and their fears heightened over the deadly collapse of the Interstate 35W river bridge, state Rep. Mark Buesgens tells us in his Aug. 10 commentary that this is no time to let emotions rule our collective response. It's a hypocritical ploy from a conservative legislator who has long prospered in the political marketplace of emotions.

Not even 24 hours had passed since the bridge collapse before the Lefties began calling for tax increases and blaming tax cuts for the disaster, yet it isn't transportation taxes that had been cut, but other taxes, and Minnesota ended up with a $2 Billion surplus, not a shortfall due to tax cuts. Who's playing with people's emotions? The Progressive/Liberal left.

Along with strong emotions, however, an unexpected bridge collapse legitimately and reasonably raises concrete questions about safety, maintenance, design, construction and political funding. Elected officials, after all, propose, authorize and administer transportation funds. And the public has a right to know about those decisions and to judge the results. That's democracy's ultimate check and balance.

Yep, here he is right, and with a $2 Billion surplus that COULD have been used for infrastructure, the Democrats went "whoohoo" and went on a spending spree like a bunch of drunken Liberals.

If the government has a surplus, we must cut taxes. If there is an ensuing deficit, we can't raise taxes back up, because that would hurt an already weakened economy. If pressing needs arise and public safety is at stake, we must reprioritize government spending, robbing health care or education to fill the gap.

Yep, and as has been shown, the tax cuts helped the economy and revenues grew, and Minnesota had a $2 Billion surplus, because people have more money to spend thus stimulating economic growth and job creation . Raising taxes has an inverse result, depressing tax revenues as people do not have as much to spend which causes economic stagnation and increased unemployment.

As for reprioritizing government spending, Liberals have been very good at robbing tax payers to support Liberal ideas rather than taking care of existing infrastructure. Instead of encouraging those in need to seek a helping hand up, they give them hand outs, thus keeping them on the public dole and encouraging bad behavior.

This is nonsense when pump prices often fluctuate daily by far more than the nickel or dime by which bipartisan legislators proposed hiking the gas tax. There's another difference: When drivers dig deeper for those market increases in the price of fuel, not a penny goes to easing traffic congestion that costs Twin Cities commuters hundreds of dollars a year or to maintaining bridges whose structural integrity is a matter of life and death.

Yep, and the price of a gasoline includes sales tax, so as the price of gas increases, people are paying more in taxes. That does not go towards infrastructure but into the general fund.

Facts, although they are stubborn things, haven't persuaded us to fix Minnesota's neglected transportation infrastructure, even as the funding shortfall approaches $2 billion a year. Maybe it's time to inject some good old-fashioned emotion into the debate.

Yep, facts are stubborn things, like a $2 Billion surplus squandered on new spending rather than used to cover the transportation infrastructure shortfall that deFiebre points out. Minnesota has spent a heckuva lot of money on light rail rather than on roads and bridges where we need to use it. And that $2 Billion surplus, as part of the State's general fund, could, and should, have been shifted to transportation uses.

Tags:

Star Tribune Minneapolis Bridge

Posted by Sqotty at 5:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Red Star Tribune editorial staff is off to their usual tricks of biased reporting and scare-mongering. This time in response to the National Intelligence Estimate released this week. The bigger question is: are they reading the same report I am? If so, how can they come to the conclusions that they do?

From the Strib editorial:

The headline finding in the two pages released this week is that Al-Qaida has rebuilt itself during the past two years and now represents perhaps as great a threat to the United States as it did six years ago.

What the NIE report states is:

Al-Qa'ida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the Homeland, as its central leadership continues to plan high-impact plots, while pushing others in extremist Sunni communities to mimic its efforts and to supplement its capabilities. We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership.

No where in the NIE report does it assert that al-Qaeda poses as great a threat as it did prior to 9/11.

Al-Qaeda has rebuilt its leadership structure and has established a safehaven in Pakistan, but it is a long way from rebuilding itself to pre-9/11 levels as the MSM claims that it has done.

The report also clearly states that al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) is the "most visible and capable" arm.of al-Qaeda, something that the politicians and the MSM seem to overlook in their ongoing quest to get us out of Iraq.

The NIE also states that al-Qaeda is leveraging contacts from AQI, as well as other terrorist organizations in order to enhance its own capabilities leading up to attacks on the U.S. This strategy makes sense and we should not be surprised by its being used by al-Qaeda.

The NIE also has a few bullet points that should not come as a surprised, and should be kept in the minds of our leadership, both military and legislative, so as to keep the m focused on the ball.

We assess that al-Qa'ida will continue to try to acquire and employ chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material in attacks and would not hesitate to use them if it develops what it deems is sufficient capability.

This should also be used to emphasize the need to secure our borders (both North and South) to prevent terrorists from smuggling not only themselves, but the materials needed, but not readily available in the U.S., to construct these kinds of weapons. Specicifcally, we need to prevent them from obtaining or transporting into the U.S. U-235 and/or plutonium, either of which can be used to build small nuclear bombs. And both may soon be available to them courtesy of Iran.

The Strib seems to not get it:

Bush's homeland security adviser, Frances Townsend, tried to turn that finding into the newest reason why Americans have to stay and fight it out in Iraq. But this is looking-glass logic taken to an absurd extreme. If Bush's misjudgments created the problem -- inviting Al-Qaida to take root in Iraq and putting American troops in its cross hairs -- why should voters trust his judgment to solve it?

Yes, we have to finish what we started in Iraq, and that includes leaving it as a secure and thriving democracy. To do less than that would result in AQI or Iran (or both) taking over Iraq and using it as a terrorist staging ground. It would also provide a protective barrier for Iran from U.S. and Coalition forces should hostilities erupt, as well as providing greater economic capabilities to the terrorist organizations.

Prior to 2003 and the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime, Iraq was already supporting terrorist groups by providing them safehavens for meetings and training grounds, as well as supplying funding and incentives to suicide bombers to attack Israel.

Although Iraq was not directly involved in the attacks of 9/11, it was in bed with al-Qaeda. Iraq was in violation of many U.N. resolutions concerning chemical weapons, and after the invasion over 500 such weapons have been recovered in addition to many tons of precursor materials needed to build more such weapons.

The editorial staff of the Star Tribune proves once again that THEY are the ones living in Wonderland.

Tags:

al-Qaeda NIE Iraq War on Terror

Posted by Sqotty at 11:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Froma Harrop's column in the Red Star Tribune is not exactly full of surprises. She rants on about how bush will go down in "ignomy" for "trying to wage an unnecessary war on the cheap," referring to the war in Iraq, and how America is a nation of indebtedness (so, what else is new?).

She starts her piece (I had to search around to find out that Harrop is a woman, born in New York) about how people seem to think that anything can be fixed with a trip to Circuit City.

Alas, retail therapy will not cure what's depressing most people -- which is the growing sense that America is rapidly losing its national greatness. Up ahead, the public sees enormous challenges and huge threats, and a national leadership that doesn't care a fig about the communal big picture. They're witnessing this end-of-empire spectacle, where the powerful grab as much loot as they can before the bottom falls out -- all the while diverting the public's attention with flag-waving and noisy expressions of religiosity.

Actually, if there is such a growing sense that America is losing its greatness, it is because of the rantings of the Leftists here and in Europe who keep stating such is the case because they suffer a severe case of p***s envy. Americans, by and large, live far better than most Europeans. We have, on average, a higher standard of living than most of Europe, marked by larger homes.

As for "national leadership that doesn't care a fig about the communal big picture," she has a point. Many of our elected leaders refuse to address the growing need to reform our social security system via privatization; fix our tax code, especially the Alter native Tax Method which is catching more and more Americans; secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws; but pushing hard to destroy our health care system by socializing it.

But then, she must be referring to G.W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress, especially those who support fixing these problems (in all fairness, Bush is not exactly keen on securing our border or enforcing our immigration laws), and not to the Democrats who don't want Americans to be in control of their own destiny.

The last part of the paragraph really torques me off: It implies that many Americans are easily suckered in by patriotism and religious faith, and that the deceivers are people of wealth and power trying to clean up with ill-gotten riches. Oh, wait, that sounds like Hillary. But, again, that is not who she is referring to.

People are feeling conned as well as poorly led, which is not a pleasant sensation. Small wonder that 70 percent tell pollsters that the country is on the wrong track.

Sounds like she is mistaking Bush for Carter; and what polls is she referring to? What were the questions asked, and who was asked? I've never been the victim of any such polls. I don't think I know any one who has. What are the demographics behind these polls? Was it taken in Castro District of San Francisco? Okay, if it was, it wouldn't surprise me.

Has there ever been a time when 100% of the people believed this country was on the right track on 100% of the issues? Realistically, is such achievable? No!

She goes on to mention American volunteerism, and the willingness of Americans to put their lives on the line for others. At least she got that part right. But what about the rest of her diatribe?

Thus, they feel vaguely insulted when their political establishment hangs low prices and tax cuts so high on the national altar.

Hey, beats the heck out of high prices and even higher taxes, which is what the Lefties are pushing hard to get. They've already achieved higher prices by refusing to allow drilling in ANWR and the out continental shelf, making the U.S. more dependent on foreign oil than it was previously (especially as India's oil consumption as quadrupled in recent years, and even China is soaking up more go-juice than ever before). The Moonbats have also prevented the building of new domestic refinery capacity, further acerbating fuel prices when an existing refinery goes offline (like Kansas, currently).

To the Left, any and all tax cuts are only of benefit to the rich. I guess in their limited brain capacity, I and everyone I know is rich beyond their wildest dreams, rather than being just a bunch of hard working Americans trying to make ends meet.

she gets another point right when she says that Americans are heavily indebted, getting further behind, with the average household carrying $6,600 of credit card debt. The number is slightly surprising as I thought it would be higher.

This next point also gets my goat:

America grew strong on Yankee ingenuity and scientific progress. Yet three Republican candidates for president question the theory of evolution, a building block of modern biology. The Bush administration's hostility to embryonic stem cell research is disappointing, but its efforts to talk down its potential are a disgrace. Add to that its public doubting of the science on global warming, then half-hearted measures to address the threat. Something has changed since America put men on the moon.

First, she implies that the theory of evolution is in fact a scientific law. No one has ever proved that the theory is correct. She further implies that divine creation is bogus, and anyone who believes in creationism must be off of their nut. Admittedly, no one has ever proved that the theory of creationism is a scientific law either. People who accept creationism do so as a matter of faith. What's wrong with that? On the flip side of the coin, people also accept evolution as being fact based on a matter of faith, just not religious faith. Of course it is also possible that evolution is a part of God's plan, making both real, however believing such is also a matter of faith.

On the matter of stem cell research, there is nothing preventing the Left from putting their money where their mouths are and investing their own dollars into embryonic stem cell research. In their limited view, things are only good of government does it for you.

Finally, we get to Global Warming, one of my favorite topics. No one, and I do mean no one, in the political arena, or elsewhere, is denying that there is a current warming trend in the Earth's climate. What is under debate is what is causing the current warming trend. The rabid Moonbats on the left foam at the mouth about it being manmade carbon emissions, while many scientists, for decades now, have been providing research that indicates that it is changes in solar activity, combined with cosmic radiation, as well as variations in the Earth's orbit and tilt, that is causing Global Warming. The lefties trot out their computer models that "proves" their point that it is carbon causing climate change despite the existing body of scientific evidence that proves their models wrong, and ignores the fact that the models are flawed (even the engineers behind them say they are not accurate), can not recreate known historical climate variations, and can be programmed to provide any results that they would like to "prove" their point. These climate computer models are nothing but crystal balls used with a bunch a mumble-jumble to hoodwink Americans (and, indeed, the world) into believing it is man that is causing Global Warming.

Indeed, something has changed since we put men on the moon. The Democratic Party has let itself be taken over by hard-core Leftwing Moonbats bent on destroying all that is good about America. And Froma Harrop is on their side.

Tags:

Iraq America Froma Harrop

Posted by Sqotty at 6:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I am stunned that the a target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.startribune.com/commentary/story/1267828.html">Star Tribune would publish a propaganda piece for a terrorist organization. No, I am not speaking of al-Qaeda, but Hamas. This is sickening. If I were a subscriber to the Red Star Tribune I would cancel my subscription. As it is, I check out the online edition only, therefore no subscription to cancel.

The commentary piece is by a Palestinian named Ahmed Yousef, and he has a lot to say about how it is America's fault that things are lousy for the Palestinian people.

The Palestinian National Authority apparently joins the list of elected governments targeted or toppled over the past century by interventionism: nations that had the courage to take American rhetoric at face value and elect whomever they would. No doubt some in Washington persist in the fiction that the United States is following a "road map" to democracy for Palestinians, just as others believe the Iraq war has been a sincere exercise in nation-building. Neoconservative strategists have miscalculated, however, and Hamas is stronger than ever.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. Although they are not international in nature, they have used terrorist attacks against Israel for decades, suicide bombings have become the weapon of choice for Hamas, murdering children and the elderly. When Israel retaliates by eliminating their terrorist thug leaders, they cry "foul."

Some critics raise the red flag of "Al-Qaida" and say that Hamas and parliament are a stalking horse for Salafi jihadists. I defy them to demonstrate one instance in which Hamas' military structure has struck against any force outside the theater of the occupation. The struggle has always been against the Israeli agenda of ethnic cleansing and conquest. Hamas is a movement of Palestinian liberation and nationalism -- Islamist, yes, but in the sea of contending faiths that is the homeland, where is the sin in loving one's creed?

Al-Qaeda like? Iffy, but certainly a "stalking horse for Salafi jihadists' is a fair assessment, although they are more public than "stalking."

As for the "military structure" of Hamas, if they really were a legitimate military, they would stop targeting school buses and shopping malls and focus on strictly military targets. However, they are nothing but a bunch of cowardly terrorists bent on murdering innocents.

This guy falsely claims that Israel is carrying out an "agenda of ethnic cleansing and conquest." If this were true, there wouldn't be any Palestinians for Israel would have succeeded at that already. Instead, the Palestinian population continues to grow faster than the population of Israel.

Further, it is the Palestinians, through organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and others that have been pushing an agenda of ethnic cleansing against the people of Israel. Israel has had to deal with mortar, rocket, and suicide bombings nearly everyday for the last six or seven years.

Palestinians want, on their terms, the same thing Western societies want: self-determination, modernity, access to markets and their own economic power, and freedom for civil society to evolve. Those who warn of "failed states" and "Hamastan" as a breeding ground for terrorism forget where blame for failure belongs -- at the feet of the American administration, which has chosen to isolate the elected government.

The Palestinian people could have achieved their goals of self-determination, etc. decades ago. They could even achieve such today, immediately, if they had the leadership and the will to live in peace with their neighbors. However, the majority has been unwilling to accept a two-state solution, and many who claim they support such, are merely talking out of the sides of their mouth. This includes Hamas.

And they blame us for their problems, when it is clearly something they are in total control to achieve, or, as they have chosen, flush down the toilet.

The Bush administration never intended to honor the outcome of fair and transparent elections in the occupied territories. The embargo, designed to punish the electorate for its choice, was the first step toward crushing new democratic institutions. The second has been to find collaborators for the American agenda and to supply them with advisers, funds and weapons for their campaign of destabilization. The final step will be to truncate Gaza from any proposed Palestinian state and make it a de facto prison for all "undesirable" aspects of Palestinian nationalism. This will culminate in provocations designed to trigger a military response from Israel, which will "justify" a war on Gazans. This would be tragic for all concerned, and the international community, especially the Arab League, must not allow such an outcome.

The U.S. rightfully cut of support of the Palestinian Authority as it is run by a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of a close ally, Israel. The American people should not be expected to have their tax dollars, money that I work hard to earn, handed over to a pack of murdering thugs. If the Palestinian people had chosen to elect leaders instead of terrorists, things would be different. And that is the bottom line: Palestinians need leaders, real leaders, who are willing to step up to the plate and actually lead their people to peace and prosperity, rather than down the road of terrorism and destruction.

I guess I should not be surprised that the Red Star Tribune would publish this piece of tripe. The editorial staff of the Red Star Tribune, and other newspapers across the country seem to think that terrorists are the good guys, while America is the bad guy. They must be deranges.

Tags:

Hamas Israel Terrorists

Posted by Sqotty at 6:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Red Star Tribune has a piece by Brian Rambert that is, once again, calling an end of the debate on the causes of global warming and silencing those of us who do not accept the theory put forth by the hard-left that it is due to the activities of man rather than the natural cycle of the Earth and Sun.

The ethical challenge for journalists and journalism (as opposed to infotainment personalities in "the media") is stark. It means accepting what the best available science has now concluded is fact about global warming -- that it's happening and human activity is an aggravating if not principal cause -- and pulling the plug on spurious "debate" engendered by conservative ideologues, much like what credible news organizations have done with Holocaust-deniers and creationists.

In the case of major newspapers like the Star Tribune and local television news outlets like KSTP, WCCO, KARE and KMSP, this would mean largely if not completely ignoring the vocal minority railing away at the work and findings of the National Academy of Sciences and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. If the talk radio choir wants to have a "debate" among itself, fine. But for journalists the debate phase has ended and the story now is, "What to do?"

Lambert is likening those who have looked at the issue of global warming and determined that it is a natural and unstoppable phenomenon with holocaust-deniers and creationists. He does not put forth any science that counters the claims that climate change is a natural cycle. Zero. Only repeats the mantra of Al Gore and it is carbon dioxide that is the cause.

Serious journalists cannot honor their professional commitment to truth while simultaneously pandering to political ideologues who are substituting campaign-style spin and misinformation for science.

Here he is right, but for the wrong reasons. The substantial amount of science that has been and is still being performed by serious climate scientists continues to point to the current warming trend of the Earth's climate has being natural and solar driven. Avery and Singer compiled a lot of this material in their recent book, Unstoppable Global Warming.

Does this guy, Lambert, read any science? Or is he just another puppet of the global warming moonbats like Al Gore?

The Star Tribune has shown its ignorance on the issue, as well as its bias, in having published this piece by Lambert.

Tags:

Star Tribune Unstoppable Global Warming Carbon Dioxide

Posted by Sqotty at 6:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I have yet to figure out how the editorial staff at the Red Star Tribune could be so wrong about things so often. Today's installment form the Paper of Surrender concern's former President jimmy Carter's statement about the Bush administration being "the worst in history." At least in regards to foreign policy and standing in the world community. This coming from a one-time loser who had the absolute worst administration, whose policies, both foreign and domestic, were such failures that he was ousted after four overly-long years in office.

A little comparison is in order.

During the Carter years, the U.S. economy stagnated under double-digit inflation. At that time, interest rates, both on loans and on deposits were sky high. The two are directly related and tightly intertwined. The more expensive it is to borrow money, the higher resulting interest rates.

Carter hamstrung the nuclear energy industry by pushing an agenda that resulted in laws being passed that eliminated the industry from being able to reprocess spent fuel rods. This resulted in the mess we are in today where power plants are stuck stockpiling the radioactive waste instead of shipping them to other reactors that could use the waste to generate more energy.

He also reinstated draft registration, which has set the stage for the possibility for implementing a draft, eliminating the all-volunteer military and setting it back to the Vietnam era and forced conscription of recruits. Bad idea.

Perhaps Carter's biggest failure is in regards to Iran. He failed to support one of our closest allies in the Middle East - the Shah of Iran. When the Shah was deposed and replaced by radical Islamists, Iran became an anti-Western totalitarian theocracy. The fall of Iran was followed by the embassy hostage crisis which Carter failed to resolve due to his ineptitude.

President Bush, on the other hand, inherited from his predecessor, an economic recession and failed economy. The economy continued to flounder and sink after terrorists struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing thousands of people and causing massive destruction.

Under Bush, America responded to the terrorist attacks by invading Afghanistan and removing the repressive Taliban regime, co-sponsors and protectors of al-Qaeda, perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.

The American economy prospered under a series of tax cuts, which also resulted in increased tax revenues. Unemployment fell to lows not seen since before the .COM bubble, and remains low even today.

The Bush Administration correctly perceived that Saddam Hussein was a threat to stability in that region, as well as being a co-sponsor of terror. Iraq had been used as a safe haven for terrorists to meet and plan. Hussein also had chemical weapons that he continued to hide from the Dunsels sent by the United Nations to inspect. Hussein was also directly responsible for the murder of over 500,000 Iraqis during his rule. Kidnappings, rape and torture were the rule of the day. Iraq routinely fired on U.S. and other allied aircraft that were patrolling the skies in accordance to the Gulf War cease fire agreement.

It is clear to me that given the historical facts, it is the Carter Administration that is "the worst in history."

Tags:

Bush Carter Iraq Dubya Foreign Policy

Posted by Sqotty at 7:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It looks as though the Star Tribune is changing its name to the Surrender Tribune, as it rails against the probable capitulation by the Democrats in Congress on setting conditions of surrender to terrorists in regards to funding our Armed Forces currently operating in Iraq. So far, the attempts made by the Party of Surrender to force a timeline for withdrawal, as been vetoed, and they do not have the support to over ride the vetoes.

From the Strib:

What a joke the Democratic majority in Congress risks becoming. On Tuesday, as nine more American soldiers were dying in President Bush's failed Iraq war, the Democrats were caving to Bush and agreed to pass a supplemental war appropriation with no meaningful strings attached. Will the challenge to Bush's Iraq policy mandated powerfully by last fall's congressional election come to such a pitiful, mewing end? It should not.

Although things have not gone anywhere near as well in Iraq as any of us would like, there are a number of reasons why this is so, beginning with the hard-left, including John Kerry, voting against the $86 Billion in funding for equipment the troops on the ground needed. Especially body armor.

The hard-left Democrats, in their rush to pull our troops from Iraq are short-sighted, and only prove that they are willing to do anything to discredit President Bush, even if it means handing Iraq over to terrorists and thugs.

Things could have gone better in Iraq. We all know this. We should never have trusted and negotiated with Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of an armed militia that has been fueling sectarian violence since 2004. 20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't mean squat in the long run, and we don't have a time machine capable of sending people back to correct the mistakes.

As for having received a "mandate" in 2006, that is hardly the case. If they had received such a "mandate" from the American people, there would be no problem in achieving the votes needed to override a presidential veto.

Members of Congress have done the job the American people expected of them. They've given Bush the war money he needs, but he rejected it. The ball is in his court. He can accept a timeline for ending American involvement in the war, or he will get no funding, and the Pentagon can begin withdrawing from Iraq sooner rather than later. The American people simply will not agree to continue funding a war without end.

Actually, this is half-true. They've voted to grant the funding only with conditions that UNCONSTITUTIONALLY shifts power away from the executive to the legislative branches. Under our Constitution there is only one Commander-in-chief - the President.

Congress is expected to provide the funding that will adequately equip our troops to continue to do the job that is needed to assist our fledgling ally in securing liberty for its people. If we withdraw before that is accomplished, then it will send a signal to Muqtada al-Sadr, al-Qaeda and the terrorist networks, and the Mullahs of Iran that Iraq is now theirs for the taking. And the sacrifice our troops of made will be in vain.

If the hard-left continues to fail to provide the funding that will provide the equipment that will improve our troops ability to survive in the hostile environment, including the new v-shaped hauled combat vehicles that have proven more resilient at protecting our troops than the more vulnerable Hummer.

To claim that legislation that authorizes funding with a timetable for surrender, I mean withdrawal is the same as saying that there will be no funding provided.

Failure to properly equip our troops in the field the latest and best technology for them to accomplish their mission on the part of Congress means that more of our precious troops lives will be in greater risk. Their blood will be on the hands of the hard-left controlling Congress for their continued refusal to provide them with that which they need, and their mouthpieces in the media, including the Star Tribune.

Tags:

Iraq War on Terror al-Qaeda Muqtada al-Sadr Star Tribune

Posted by Sqotty at 5:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Steve Chapman has a very weird analogy on the continued U.S. operations in Iraq. From the Red Star Tribune:

When police found Shawn Hornbeck living with his alleged abductor four years after he was kidnapped, the question arose: Why didn't the 15-year-old simply run away? But trapped and isolated, a hostage can be scared into thinking that the consequences of leaving -- for himself or his loved ones -- would be far worse than the consequences of staying. So he passes up opportunities to escape.

I really don't get what the kidnapping of Hornbeck and his failure to use "opportunities to escape" has to do with the establishment of a functioning Democracy in Iraq.

Chapman then gets into the thrust of his editorial:

That's roughly our plight in Iraq. Even one of President Bush's key allies, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., says "the situation in Iraq can now best be described as dire and deteriorating" and "our window of opportunity to reverse momentum may be closing." Hard-core supporters of the war, no longer able to pretend that we are making progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq, have fallen back to their last line of defense -- insisting that no matter how bad things are with us in Iraq, things would be far worse with us out.

Well, no, we are not being held hostage in Iraq. On the flip side, he is right about the support for continued operations in Iraq is a bit lagging of late, mostly on the part of those who have announced plans to run for the presidency in '08. Like McCain.

Whether or not the "window of opportunity" is closing is true, there is no doubt that the right strategy in Iraq can succeed. The right strategy goes beyond the obvious "surge" in troop deployments in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq. Even reaching out to the people of Iraq and the reconstruction of the nation's infrastructure may not be sufficient, as we have been doing since 2003. We need to make it such that Iraqi's feel secure enough that they can identify terrorists and sectarian death squad members without fear of reprisal against them and their families. As long as they live with that fear, that turning in a terrorist will result in the death of their entire family, it is difficult to make any real headway.

Pulling out, the argument goes, would destroy our credibility and embolden the terrorists. Neoconservative Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is among those confidently predicting a parade of horribles: ethnic slaughter, a regional war and a secure base for Al-Qaida to launch attacks on us and our allies.

If we withdraw, he wrote recently in the Washington Post, "the war in Iraq and in the region will not end but will only grow more dangerous." And there is the old argument that if we don't fight the terrorists in Iraq, we will have to fight them at home.

These points, contrary to what Chapman would have us believe, are true. The sectarian violence will continue, fueled by Iran. Iran may even cease its covert operations and openly move to convert Iraq into a totalitarian theocracy like itself, making Iraq a satellite state. Possible? Probable!

Once that is done, al-Qaeda will have a new base of operations, having won the waiting game with the U.S. as Congress continues to show a lack of backbone to do the heavy lifting necessary to create a stable and democratic Iraq.

We know that al-Qaeda, and recently, Hezbollah, has cells operating in the U.S. Once the U.S. ends operations in Iraq, these terror groups will be able to focus on their operations in America and other Western nations. They will also have a fall back position in Iraq should things turn sour. They will also have a supplier of nuclear materials with which to build small nukes that can kill hundreds of thousands of people in a single attack.

There will also be the stockpiles of weaponry still in Iraq that have not been fully inventoried, from which over 500 chemical weapons have been identified, recovered, and destroyed since 2003. How many more chemical weapons remain in Iraq is unknown.

Winning in Iraq is not an option, nor is it a luxury we can't afford. It is a necessity. The enemy fears a democratic state in their midst, and that is why the road to success has grown more difficult.

It also has not helped that we brokered a deal with Muqtada al-Sadr and his gang of thugs in 2004.

It won't be cheap. Victory never is. Not in blood, nor in money. I care about the loss of life. As for the money, spend whatever it takes to get it done. The key, though, is making Iraq safe for the people of Iraq so that they will not live in fear for their lives. Once that is achieved, a free and stable Iraq can be achieved.

Tags:

Iraq War+on+Terror Nuclear Weapons Chemical Weapons Democracy al-Qaeda Hezbollah Iran

Posted by Sqotty at 7:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Looks like the Red Star Tribune is living up to its name once again, this time taking the side of Communist China after that country successfully destroyed one of its weather satellites as a show of force, the old "we can knock out satellites, too." In its editorial today The Red Star Tribune states:

China's apparent success in felling a weather satellite with a missile presents a serious diplomatic and defense challenge to the United States. As worrying as the technical ability it required (not great; the U.S. ability to knock down satellites dates to 1985) are the intentions China signaled: It aims to be a force in missile defense and military uses of space. Washington, it seems, has been hanged with its own space weaponry rope. Perhaps now it will take seriously China's long-standing desires for international talks on military issues involving space.

Bush administration cries of foul and protests decrying China's militarization of space reek of hypocrisy. From the early days of the first Reagan administration, hawks in the Republican establishment have pursued dreams of space-based weapons systems with nary a concern over what anyone or any nation might think. Many others have always believed that anything even hinting at military use of space was a thoroughly bad idea. Blowing up satellites is a particularly bad idea, as the United States and Russia discovered decades ago, because it creates a great deal of space debris that puts other space vehicles at risk.

True, blowing up satellites does create debris fields that may be hazardous to other low-Earth orbit satellites. There is, however, a big difference between the intentions of the U.S. and those of Communist China. China has on many occasions, including as recently as 2006, threatened the use of nuclear weapons against the United States, particularly where our continued support of an independent Taiwan is concerned. The only reason for the Communist Chinese to pursue the development of satellite killers is to neutralize U.S. space-based missile defense systems (SDI).

China is only interested in terminating the U.S. ability to stop their nuclear missiles from striking their targets. This will give them a strategic advantage, militarily, over the United States. No SDI, no stopping incoming nukes, bye-bye USA.

Further, trusting Communist Dictators, or any dictator for that matter, to keep their word is foolish. Eisenhower trusted the Soviets to cease nuclear weapons development in the '50s, and that was proved to be trust misplaced, as the Soviets continued development, using the time bought through deceit to close the nuclear weapons gap that then favored the USA.

In the 1990s, former President Carter brokered the deal with North Korea that the Clintons signed off on, that handed nuclear technology to Kim Jong Il on the condition that Communist North Korea would cease all nuclear weapons programs. Again, we have learned that that was trust misplaced as they now have several nuclear weapons. Thanks to Democrats like Carter and the Clintons.

Iran claims to only be developing the refinement of nuclear materials for peaceful uses, yet they continue to call for the destruction of Israel, and could easily become the supplier of uranium 235 to al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups who would trade their lives to kill millions with a few well placed nukes. And that is a very easy thing to do, once they have a supplier of uranium 235, or plutonium.

Why is it, given this history, the Liberal Media and the Liberal-Left that today controls what was once a great political party, think the United States is the bullying bad guy, and that these dictatorships, who have murdered thousands, and in the case of China, millions, of their own people?

The editorial has more:

The Bush administration was then considering abrogating the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia because it was impinging on administration plans for its "Star Wars" programs. Bolton was asked: While neither China nor India is party to the ABM treaty, both nations' nuclear postures are predicated on the treaty's existence. Given that, shouldn't their concerns be considered before the United States unilaterally abrogates the treaty?

His answer dripped scorn, for the question and for its implication that perhaps the United States should consider what others think of U.S. actions. Well, he said, I guess we should just let foreign nations determine U.S. foreign policy.

Actually, the U.S. did not abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. That treaty was with the Soviet Union, and when it finally ended up on the trash heap of history where it belonged, all treaties with the Soviet Union also ended.

As for China, or India for that matter (why didn't they mention Pakistan as well?), if they have "concerns" about a treaty between the U.S. and a country that no longer exists, why should it be considered as more important than U.S. concerns? Bolton's response is classic, and why I believe it is a disgrace that the Democrats in the Senate blocked his appointment to the United Nations. There is little doubt that the Liberal-Left and the Main Stream Media would prefer the United States defer all foreign policy (and in many cases, doemstic policy as well) to the foreign nations such as China, North Korea and Iran, or, better still, to the United Nations.

To the Red Star Tribune and the rest of the Liberal-Left controlled media, it is always the U.S. that is at fault when there are confrontations with other nations. They trust murdering dictators more than they trust our own leaders.

Tags:

SDI China ABMT Foreign Policy

Posted by Sqotty at 2:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Interesting editorial from the Red Star Tribune on how Democrats are now being blamed for the "mess" in Iraq.

A new, pernicious line of argument is taking hold in Washington that should be clunked in the head until it dies. It holds that the Democrats in Congress are to blame for the mess in Iraq because they have offered no alternative around which Americans can rally, and that this is because they and their friends in the antiwar community want the United States to fail.

I believe it is correct to say that Democrats and their Liberal, anti-war, puppeteers are to blame, at least in part, the reasoning to do so is not due to reasons outlined in the editorial, but due to their continuous calls for withdrawing from Iraq, references to Iraq as being "another Vietnam," and various types of rhetoric, such as "No war for oil" and "Bush lied, people died." Instead of supporting the mission of our troops in Iraq, they continue to thwart the administration's plans that may bring victory, choosing to use Iraq as a political hockey puck in order to achieve their own politcal gain (which, as shown in the 2006 elections, had some impact on the composition of the new Congress).

It also doesn't help that our involvement in Iraq, as during our operations in Vietnam, garnered anti-war protests, and liberal celebrities using their stardom to convey an anti-war message. This emboldens the terrorists and sectarian death squads operating in Iraq. It also sends a signal to Iraq's neighbors, Syria and Iran, giving them a "green light" to continue to supply arms, money, and manpower to the anti-government forces operating in Iraq.

This is not Vietnam, nor should this war be compared to that war. Except for the home ground, where the media, the leftist anti-war zealots, and Liberal Democrats push for abandoning the fledgling democracy in Iraq before it has a chance to set down roots and anchor itself deep enough to overcome the challenges that terrorists and sectarian death squads pose.

Here is another fine example of the real reason we are having such troubles achieving victory in Iraq:

Underlying this reasoning is a bleak recognition that Bush's latest gambit, built around the so-called surge, won't work, coupled with some magical thinking: that indeed a formula exists which could reverse American fortunes and bring the Iraq expedition to a successful conclusion. But, the argument goes, Democrats have failed to embrace it, so this mess is their fault.

Lots of small, inconvenient facts are jettisoned to make this argument -- such as the growing number of Republicans who are joining their Democratic colleagues in opposition to the war. But the central, painful truth that gets ignored is this: Nothing can reverse American fortunes in Iraq. The United States already has failed. Bush failed. It's over. All that remains is working through the best way to get American troops out of Iraq.

There is a plan which can accomplish that, put forward by the Iraq Study Group (ISG). It entails shifting from a military to a political and diplomatic emphasis, strengthening efforts to train Iraqi troops and beginning the withdrawal of American combat forces. We wish the Democrats would use the power of the purse to force Bush's acceptance of the ISG approach. The political risk is that they would then be accused of undermining the troops. But that's a risk worth taking, and the Democrats have a good retort: They weren't the ones who put the troops in Iraq in the first place, in inadequate numbers with inadequate resources (remember the missing armor?). It now falls to the Democrats to keep the troops safe by the only effective way possible: getting them out of Iraq.

The understanding I have (and I could be mistaken) is that the "surge" was part of the plan put forth by the ISG. With five brigades being added to the area surrounding Baghdad, the hottest spot in Iraq, effectively doubling the number of "boots on the ground," it may be possible to finally securing that part of the country. That is the key to achieving victory in Iraq. Secure the capital and its immediate surroundings, and you have the basis to secure the rest of the country, and send a message to Iraq's enemies, most notably Iran, that their continued interference with Iraq will not be tolerated.

It is also false to say that the Democrats were not "the ones to put troops in Iraq in the first place." They all (with maybe one or two exceptions) voted in favor of liberating Iraq. Liberating Iraq was the right thing to do then, and it is the right thing to do today.

One thing the editorial does get right is that the bulk of Democrats never embraced the plan. The only reason for that is because it was put forth by President Bush, and not one of their own. I have no doubt that if it we had elected Gore in 2000 (and no, the election was not stolen from him), they (the Democrats in congress) would have rallied behind any plan he set forth. Of course, that would most likely be some superficial aerial bombing of Afghanistan with little or no effect on al-Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein would be alive and well, and continuing to butcher Iraq's that oppose him.

As for the "missing armor," that was the fault of Democrats voting against funding the necessary equipment for the troops in the field. Remember John Kerry's "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against." A sizable part of that was for body armor and other equipment for the troops serving in Iraq. It is Congress that controls the purse strings of government, and if the troops were in Iraq with insufficient equipment, it is because Congress failed to provide the funding necessary to assure that the troops were properly equipped.

Somehow, I am not surprised by the extreme bias presented by the Red Star Tribune. The Main Stream Media has been, for some time now, nothing more than the propaganda arm for the left-wing of the Democratic party. In their opinion, Democrats can do no wrong and Republicans can do nothing right. Yeesh!

Tags:

Iraq Study Group Iraq Vietnam War On Terror Kerry

Posted by Sqotty at 4:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Here's a good one from the Red Star Tribune by Aggergaard. He is complaining that the recent sale of the Strib, along with earlier sales of the Pioneer Press has had a dramatic impact, bringing job uncertainty to the newsroom.

The sales remind us that local journalism is about money. But for those who work in local journalism, the industry also is about uncertainty and (lack of) job security. Their plight should concern us all, and we should ready ourselves to do something about it.

Welcome to the ranks of the real world. It's about time, too. Most working Americans constantly have to worry about the security of their own job. Layoffs are a "threat" that lingers throughout most industries, especially in the high tech field in which I am employed.

The trick to surviving and overcoming a layoff is keeping job skills fresh and being adaptable. Not difficult to do in high tech, but some industries are less adaptable than others, like airplane mechanics and pilots (as well as others in the airline industry). There are only so many jobs in that field, and if a major employer goes under, or has to reduce its workforce, that results in a glut on the job market for that particular field.

The same is true with journalism, although there are other avenues open to those who are adaptable, like copy writing for advertisers, or writing tech manuals, etc. Those jobs don't have the same caché as writing for a newspaper. There is also the possibility in going into a completely different field as Aggergaard did (he went to Law School).

After he rants on for a few paragraphs about where "news" comes from and the demise of the print media (news papers) he comes up with these gems:

Local newspaper employees earn decent wages, particularly when compared with those who work in smaller news markets. They have health insurance, and many have 401(k)s. But their content is used, if not stolen, by other media whose workers are not paid as well, if at all. The irony is that those "new" media increasingly gain the public's trust while Mainstream Media lose both trust and their workforce.

Sure, the big papers pay well, especially compared to the small town papers that publish once or twice a week. They have a much larger market. As for losing trust to the New Media (I.E. the Internet and bloggers), they have to clean up their own backyard first, and not just in the print media like the guy from the New York times who was caught not only plagerizing, but making up facts to fit his stories (good gravy, anybody remember his name?). It also has to happen with televised news casters, like Dan Ra^ther, who use forged memos to justify a political position and create a controversy over something that never happened. It was a blogger, Little Green Footballs, that exposed that one, and brought us Ra^thergate during the 2004 election cycle.

When things like this take place on a recurring basis, it is no wonder that people lose their trust in the Main Stream Media. Then people turn to products that they can trust.

Mainstream Media's demise is welcomed by some, particularly those who find it biased and accordingly rely on blogs and other less-filtered media to define their truths. I am a blogger too, but I would never suggest that a blog, or at least my blog, should be a primary place for information. I do not have time to be a true journalist anymore because I'm too busy trying to make a living.

What he is saying here is that it's the bloggers fault that Main Stream Media is losing it's credibility and market, not the fact that news papers and other elements of the MSM are failing to deliver high quality and accurate (and, most importantly, UNBIASED) reporting.

He blames bloggers, but, in fact, bloggers are not to blame. If the MSM wants to stay viable (and it should) it needs to foster a culture of adaptability, and clean up its backyard. The role of newspapers is to report the facts, NOT set an agenda and steer the public discourse, which is what it so desires to do.

I will give Aggergaard one point. One should not get all of their news from bloggers. Most are not into reporting the news, but analyzing and commenting on it. Occasionaly reporting on events that they witness. Sometimes even exposing the faults, more frequently the bias, that infects newspaper journalism.

Posted by Sqotty at 9:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Sometimes it is hard to determine whose side the editors of the Red Star Tribune are on. Ours or our enemies. The latest from them is a piece denouncing the probability that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and a demand that we (America) sees proof before jumping to conclusions. It also sights the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) as reason to accept Iran's claim of peaceful use of nuclear materials. North Korea was also a signatory of the NPT (withdrew in April 2003), and we all know what's going on over there.

President Iwannajihad of Iran has frequently claimed, just as Kim Jong-il, that all they are doing is working towards the peaceful development of nuclear materials for power generation. President Iwannajihad, and others in Iran, has frequently called for the total destruction of Israel, a goal that can only be achieved through the use of nuclear arms.

The Red Star Tribune editorial has described Iran as an "international troublemaker." This is too weak a word, as Iran, under the control of a Islamic Theocracy, has previously committed an act of war against the United States by invading our Embassy (remember, under international law, embassies are considered sovereign territory for the country whose embassy that is), has repeatedly threatened to cut off oil shipments from the Persian Gulf, and, currently, is supplying arms, munitions, money and personnel to terrorist groups operating in Iraq.

Iran is closing in on being able to provide weapons grade materials to terrorist organizations. Iran does not need to develop a bomb themselves since all they have to do is provide the most important (and hardest to acquire) component, uranium-235 and/or plutonium, to al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and other groups who will happily do the deed themselves. And it doesn't take all that much nuclear material to get a sizeable bang for your buck.

Tags:

Iran
Nuclear+Weapons
Nuclear+Nonproliferation+Treaty
North+Korea

Posted by Sqotty at 8:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
View blog reactions

The New York Post looks to be the first in the MSM to break the story on the activities fo the 1st Combat Brigade of the 34 Infantry Division, a Minnesota National Guard Unit deployed in Iraq that sent a picture of their tak on Senator Kerry's remark about "getting stuck in Iraq."

Lesson to be learned: be careful of what you say, because with today's near instantaneous communication, it won't take long for someone to slam you for stupid remarks.

And Kerry wanted to be their Commander in Chief?

Meanwhile, I have to give kudo's where they are do, and that's to the New York Post and their writers, Todd Venezi and Ian Bishop. Good job, guys.

Even better job to the men and women of the 1/34. Thanks again for your service.

Tags:

John Kerry
Iraq
Politics
Moonbat
apology

Posted by Sqotty at 6:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
View blog reactions