Blog The Vote- McCain on Iraq

“Democrats, who deny our soldiers the means to prevent an American defeat, have chosen another road,” McCain says in prepared remarks. “It may appear to be the easier course of action but it is a much more reckless one, and it earns them no credit even if it gives them an advantage in the next election. This is an historic choice, with ramifications for Americans not yet born.”

The Politico has the full story here.

Political Cartoon-The Problems of the Internet

Hillary Clinton's Iraq Vote

The Presidential campaign has caused the candidates to reexamine their position on the war in Iraq in the present tense and past tense. Sen. Barack Obama has said that he would not have voted for the war, if he were in the senate. Sen. John Edwards has written an op-ed in the Washington Post, in which he opens with the words "I was wrong." The question on Democratic primary voters is why hasn't Presidential front runner Hillary Clinton apologized for her vote.

Sen. Clintons position for the past several months is that she made the right vote at the time. She said "My decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House, watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this president, or any future president, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war," explaining her position on the war.

Some believe that Sen. Clintons belief was not a political move but a philosophical belief which she holds deeply. Michael Crowley of The National Republic writes, about an October 10 meeting that Sen. Clinton had with the Council on Foreign Relations. There, in the midst of race for Senate, she took a Presidential position on Foreign Policy.

She discussed that the U.S. should lead coalitions and alliances against such things as poverty, AIDS, and repression. The Senator outlined her belief in the use of force as follows;

There is a refrain ... that we should intervene with force only when we face splendid little wars that we surely can win, preferably by overwhelming force in a relatively short period of time. To those who believe we should become involved only if it is easy to do, I think we have to say that America has never and should not ever shy away from the hard task if it is the right one.

This statement sounds like a Republican to me. I think her vote in 2002 was justified according to the information presented to her. I think it takes a strong person to standby there vote, and that is what she is trying to do rather then back peddle. By no means does this mean I support Senator Clinton, but I do believe she has done the right thing in this situation. Unlike Senator Barack Obama, I would have voted for the war but I believe it has become a mismanaged war by our President, furthermore I believe it is our responsibility to the Iraqi people to fix the problems that we have created in that country. Which is both in our interest and there interest.

What do you think?

Political Cartoon-Civil War: Congress vs. The White House

Political Cartoon-Campaign Fundraising: Hillary v. Obama

Democrat vs. Democrat

Sen. Carl Levin, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman appeared on ABC's "This Week." He went against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Senate "will not stop paying for the Iraq war or relent from insisting that President Bush keep pressing the Baghdad government for a negotiated end to the violence," Sen. Levin said.

Sen. Levin has spent the past few years arguing against the war and calling for a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Michael Crowley at The Plank believes the Senate Democrats are attempting to play to the multi-personalities that makes up the Democratic party. He says "Are Reid and Levin playing a game of good cop, bad cop? Reid stokes up the base while Levin covers the right flank?"

I would have to agree with Mr. Crowley that the democrats are extremely disunited and that the party leaders recognize this flaw. Therefore they need to play to be able to play to the different parts of the party. They were able to do this in the 2006 Midterm Elections by nominating several moderate democrats and being able to get the Democratic party to unite behind these candidates, they continue to try to play to the overall moderate base by taking multiple positions on key issues.

What do you think?

Apologies for Slavery

I do not want to sound crude when I discuss the new apologies for slavery, but when it was discussed on the New Republic I felt it was an important issue to discuss.

I agree that individual state governments and the federal government should pass resolutions expressing regret and apologies for the institution of slavery. However, I have overheard some discussion of "slavery reparations," I disagree with this idea for one main reason. I do not believe that there is one living individual who was enslaved. Families are able to trace their lineage to former slaves, however they did not suffer and they therefore do not deserve to be paid for others suffering.

Our country and government has larger problems, and handing out money to families of former slaves is not going to change anything. I personally believe this just another way for people to make money off our government, that could be put to good use.

What to Make of "Underclassmen" Foreign Policy

Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria seems to have started a chain of non-State Department officials directly engaging in foreign policy. Gov. Bill Richardson (D) has just gone to North Korea to claim the remains of American soliders from the Korean War (backed by the Bush administration unlike Pelosi's visit). Newt Gingrinch (R), former Speaker of the House, calls Pelosi's and Richardson's visit to these foreign nations dangerous. Breaking with tradition of letting the President's administration handle the foreign diplomacy, he says these leaders have begun to create their own foreign policy agenda for personal gain. While nothing bars them from engaging in talks with other nations, it certainly can demonstrate a divided US government, a sign of weakness to other foreign nations.

Do you think President Bush has lost control (perhaps credibility) in foreign matters? Who should be in charge of foreign diplomacy?

(Photo: zaiusnation.blogspot.com)

Political Cartoons

Political Cartoon

Here is a link to my original post on the No Child Left Behind Act. What do you think?

Blog The Vote-Giuliani and Forbes

Ryan Sager has the whole story here. The Giuliani Campaign has been quiet for some time now. This deal with Forbes will help Giuliani a lot in the long run.

The connections that Steve Forbes has will help the campaign in the long run. He is fully integrated within the business world and this will help Giuliani achieve fundraising goals.

This is a significant endorsement that will help the Giuliani campaign

Spring Break: Congress goes to Cancun!

Just kidding, but that would be funny to see Chuck Hagel and Nancy Pelosi on MTV's Spring Break. The war spending bill that the President has vowed to veto is going to have to wait till Congress returns from Spring Break (Passover and Easter).

Congress will reconvene April 16, however the funds the President has asked for are desperately needed. As well Congress is no longer debating those funds they are debating the pork that was laid on thick.

The Politco says:

The White House doesn't intend to accept the IOU quietly, accusing the Democratic-controlled Congress of skipping town before its work is done.

"They should stick around until they send him a bill," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. "You can be sure that we won't be shy about talking about that."

And I would agree Democrats realize that the money is needed with or without a withdrawal date. They need to stop delaying things, it is only crushing the American image more so than it already is.

Democrats: Would you like some spinach with your MK47?

I found this picture here. This is in reference to the war appropriations bill that is laden with pork. All I am saying is I understand why its done but this is a little ridiculous.The bill in the House is entitled the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, a very patriotic title at that but the bill is nothing but.

Yes, all the bleeding heart liberals and anti-war people are excited cause it sets a date for withdrawal from Iraq. However, it makes a mockery of American politics.

The bill is for $124 billion dollars. $96 billion is going to the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the question on my mind is where is the other $28 billion going.

I will tell you, the other $28 billion was things added on to the bill in order for House Democrats to get enough votes to pass the bill, by the slimmest majority ever.

The Politico created a Top-10 List of add-ons, read the entire bill if you would like.
--$165,200 to the widow of Rep. Charles Norwood (R-Ga.), a promoter of patients’ rights legislation who died of cancer and lung disease in February, three months after he was reelected.

--$4 million for the Office of Women's Health at the Food and Drug Administration.

--$5 million for tropical fish breeders and transporters for losses from a virus last year.

--$25 million for spinach that growers and handlers were unable to market, up to 75 percent of their losses.

--$50 million “for asbestos abatement and other improvements” to the Capitol Power Plant.

--$60.4 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service, “to be distributed among fishing communities, Indian tribes, individuals, small businesses, including fishermen, fish processors, and related businesses, and other persons for assistance to mitigate the economic and other social effects caused by” a commercial fishery failure.

--$74 million “for the payment of storage, handling, and other associated costs for the 2007 crop of peanuts to ensure proper storage of peanuts for which a loan is made.”

--$120 million for the shrimp and menhaden fishing industries to cover consequences of Hurricane Katrina.

--$283 million for the Milk Income Loss Contract Program.

--$400 million for “wildland fire suppression.”

To me all the add-ons are ridiculous, the President has said he will veto the bill because of the withdrawal date. All the Democrats are doing is delaying funds to our troops. The fact is the bill should have been passed without a withdrawal date, you may not like President Bush but he is right when he says if you set a date for withdrawal all the terrorist will hide in their caves till we leave and then come out and take over. You may say that is not our problem, but it is.

What do you think?

Iran Hostage Situation

The Iranian Foreign Minister said that the 1 female British soldier could be release as early as today or early Thursday.

Earlier British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett announced that the UK would freeze all bilateral business with Tehran until the all sailors and marines are released.

Britain says Iran's detention of the eight Royal Navy sailors and seven Royal Marines, who were conducting a routine inspection of a merchant vessel at the northern end of the Persian Gulf, is illegal and is demanding their release. Iran insists the group was inside its territorial waters. Read more here.

I think that the British are doing to little to deal with the situation, in all seriousness if these would have been American troops, we would probably be working harder diplomatically then the British are. I also feel that President Bush may have decided to use some force to pressure Iran to give them up. What ever the case if this issue is not resolved shortly, we could see World War III in our generation. Why do I say this, Iranian President Amadinejad has declared he wants to destroy the western world, the United States and Israel in particular. If war broke out between Britain, Americas closest ally and Iran, we will see a third front ofthe "War on Terror."

What do you think?

Political Cartoons on Slate.com

Blog The Vote-Vilsack Endorses Hillary

“There is no candidate for president who will do a better job of creating a stronger and better America for your children than Hillary Clinton,” Vilsack said at Clinton’s side in Des Moines.

As predicted over the weekend Tom Vilsack, former Presidential candidate has endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton as well he will serve as her campaigns co-chairman.

I think Vilsack may become Clinton Vice President.

What do you think?

Update: Interested in other endorsments, click here.

U.N. New Sanctions on Iran

Over the week the U.N. Security Council, decided unanimously to impose new stricter sanctions on Iran. The resolution would freeze the assets of 28 additional individuals and organizations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs. About a third of those are linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, an elite military corps.

The resolution also calls for a voluntary travel embargo on Iranian officials and Revolutionary Guard commanders.

President Ahmadinejad, responded to the new sanctions over the weekend. Ahmadinejad, in an interview with France's Channel 2 TV network, warned nations "seeking to impose sanctions against Iran will suffer a greater damage themselves," IRNA reported.

I agree with the new U.N. Sanctions, the international community needs to use a strong hand when dealing with Iran. They are a threat to international security, that must be dealt with accordingly. I believe we should not use military force for as long as possible, however that may become necessary. It will only work though, if it is a multi-lateral force, and not just an American force.

Blog The Vote- Monday Vilsack to announce...

Tom Vilsack, dropped out of the Presidential race in February however he still holds some power in the Presidential campaign. Who will he endorse?

On Monday Vilsack is expected to make an announcement. Earlier this week the Associated Press reported that Vilsack is likely to endorse Sen. Hillary Clinton.

What will his endorsement mean?

KCCI political analyst Dennis Goldford said it's possible that it will."The 300,000 people who said they'd caucus for him in 2008 may well take that into consideration as they decide where else to go," said Goldford.

I have to agree any former Presidential candidate will hold a lot of clout in the race. Vilsack garnered some significant support early in the campaign season and still holds all those supporters in his back-pocket.

Republicans keep Control

I love reading other bloggers and I just read this great article, about why the Republican minority is still able to control the floor of the House.

I think it shows how strong of a party they were and still continue to be dispite the low approval ratings of the President. They were in control for over a decade and now once placed on the opposite side of the table, they are still trying to stay on top.

Read the article and tell me what you think?

House passes Iraq Bill

The Hill reports that by slim victory (218-212) the House passed a bill that forces the President to bring the troos home by August 2008 or earlier.

The wording was worked into a $124 billion appropriations bill that would fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is the Democrats strongest stand against the presidents Iraq policy.

The White House has already said it will veto the legislation.

I would agree with the veto, setting a specific date is asking for trouble. I have said in an earlier post that if we set a date for withdrawal, we will see an end of violence until we leave. Once we leave an all-out civil war would break out.

Update 2:17 pm: President Bush responded to the House vote a short while ago. "A narrow majority in the House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law and brings us no closer to getting the troops the resoures they need to do their job," the president said. I agree with the President the show the democrats continue to put on is hurting the soldiers and not helping to bring an end to the war.

What do you think?