« December 2006 | Main | February 2007 »
I really hope that MoveOn.org gets enough money to air this ad during the Super Bowl.
I think that much like Hillary's regret, if they knew now, what kind of backlash this ad will produce after being shown during the Super Bowl, they also would have voted NO.
Senator Hillary Clinton says that if she she knew then (back before her vote for the Iraq War) what she knows now, she would not have voted to give the President authorization for the Iraq War.
Based on previous statements by Sen Clinton and other Democrats, I thought that they only voted to allow President Bush to threaten Saddam into cooperating with the UN. So is she saying that she now regrets that the President even threatened Saddam? Does that mean that she was perfectly fine with Saddam staying in power? Is she one of those people on the Left who believes Bush is more evil than Saddam? What else could it mean?
So I guess that as long as we know she will have perfect knowledge of the future, we can trust her judgment once she becomes President.
I'm wondering where that perfect knowledge is supposed to come from.
Joe Wilson?
Soooo.... Senator Spector says that he's also the Commander in Chief. In fact, he thinks that all of Congress is also Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Military decisions via committee. Now that's a good idea. Why didn't the founders come up with that one?
Let's see what they did come up with, and put on paper, about whose in charge of the Armed Forces.
The Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, says that the Congress shall have the power:
.....
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
And in Article 2, Section 2, the writers of the Constitution stated:
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States....
As I see it, Congress raises the money for an Army and Navy (funny thing about that 2-year funding rule on the Army side and not applicable to the Navy; it really screws up long-term planning of weapons systems) and they make the rules for government and regulation of said army and navy. That's the UCMJ. It exists and is followed quite closely, except in the case of senior officers. The President is the Commander in Chief. That title was well understood by the writers of the Constitution to mean that he would be in charge of the Army and Navy, exclusive to his office. It is critical, and it is almost unheard of; civilian control of the military. Our founding fathers believed it to be of the utmost importance, that the military be controlled by the civilian government and obey the orders of the President of the United States. In fact, Congress has always required Commissioned Officers to swear loyalty to the Constitution, and promise to obey the orders of the President of the United States. The first oath under the Constitution was approved by Act of Congress; 29 September 1789 (Sec. 3, Ch. 25, 1st Congress). It applied to all commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers and privates in the service of the United States. It came in two parts, the first of which read: "I, (state name), do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States." The second part read: "I, (state name), do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me." In over 200 years, Congress has never seen fit to question or change that portion of the oath.
Though the wording in our oath has undergone some changes since that time, it has never been without the oath to obey the orders of the President of the United States. And since the signing of the Constitution, it has never allowed for following the orders of the Congress.
Never.
Ever.
The Constitution is also clear on when the President needs the advice and consent of the Congress. That's covered in Article 2, Section 2:
He (the President - ed) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
There's nothing in the Constitution that says the President needs the advice or consent of the Congress in order to carry out his duties as Commander in Chief. But now Senator Spector believes that the Congress is suddenly a partner with the President in deciding how the military will be commanded. He's got a lot of the Loony Left behind him on that one, I'm sure. And probably every single Democrat in Congress. Not that the Constitution has ever been a big read on the Left, but it's pretty clear that they don't have a leg to stand on in this case. Yes, the Congress can cut funds, as Constitutionally they control the purse. That's about it.
Given that Congress can't even get it's act together on something as simple as Social Security reform, I can't wait to hear what the orders from Congress to the military will be.
From the NY Times, so it has to be true.
Veterans were more numerous among the crowd.
Dressed in the olive green, military-issued flight jacket that he said he wore during the invasion of Iraq while serving as a Marine sergeant, Jack Teller, 26, said he joined a caravan from Greenville, N.C., because he felt that it was his duty.
“I don’t like wearing the jacket because it reminds me that I participated in an immoral and illegal war,” said Mr. Teller, who had “Iraq Veterans Against the War” stenciled on the back of his jacket. “But it’s important to make a political statement.”
A Marine sergeant wearing an Air Force olive green flight jacket, and claiming he wore it during the invasion of Iraq? Uh, not likely. More likely he's another example of the Jessie MacDeath Syndrome, where wannabe's are desperate to be seen as a member of the military, but never had the balls to join up.
Another example in the very next paragraph:
Fernando Braga, a 24-year-old Bronx native who is a member of the Army National Guard, said that he was skeptical of the war before it started. Mr. Braga said his views hardened into opposition while he served in Iraq from March 2004 through January 2005.
“My own commander told us when we arrived that if we thought we were there for any reason other than oil then we had another think coming,” he said. “I realized even commanding officers were against it but following orders.”
Yeah, sure. Who was his commanding officer, LT Watada? Speaking LT Watada, his daddy was at the protest.
Robert Watada, 67, of Honolulu, a retired executive with the State of Hawaii who said his son, First Lt. Ehren K. Watada, was to be court-martialed next month for refusing to deploy to Iraq, said: “So many thousands of our own have died and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and for what? And still we are having to push Congress to block the president.”
Good luck with that Robert. The only people more cowardly than your son is the Democratic majority in Congress.
I've written about the problem with mountain lions before, mostly in the West. These cats clearly hunt humans. This is very different from deaths due to bear attack, where most of the attacks are from bears either searching for food in a poorly kept campsite, or bears which are startled on the trails and attack as a defense mechanism. Yes, the bears will go ahead and eat you once they've killed you, but it is very rare for bears to hunt humans for food.
That appears to be what large cats are now doing. The latest attack on Jim Hamm in California has all the signs that the cat wanted this guy for dinner. The cat attacked from behind, grasped onto Jim Hamm's head, and refused to let go of him even though Hamm's wife was pounding on the cat with a log, and even tried to stab the cat in the eye with a pen. This cat wanted a meal, found Jim Hamm particularly tempting, and wasn't about to let go without a fight. This attack was almost identical to another attack in the Denver area last year that was also clearly an attempt to get some food. A 7 year old boy, walking last in a file along a trail, was grabbed by his head by a cat that thought he was a good candidate for an easy meal. The family had to fight off the cat in that instance as well.
I'm not sure if the cats themselves have gotten more aggressive, whether their numbers are increasing dramatically enough to put pressure on their normal food sources, or whether the attacks are just getting reported more often. I don't think that the studies have been done to see which it is, or a combination of these or other factors.
The bottom line is this, if you go into the mountains where mountain lions hunt, you will look like food. You will look like really easy food, unless you fight back. That's what all prey does when a predator calls. The problem is, what to fight back with. We don't have the ability to outrun a mountain lion, and we can hardly outfight them by pitting our nails against theirs or our teeth against theirs. We can't even (morally) do what most prey does...hope to be just a bit bigger or faster than the other prey in the immediate area.
As for me, I know what I have for an advantage. With my opposable thumbs, I can grip a semi-automatic pistol. That's what I'll take on the trail with me. I gotta check up on what Colorado requires for a CCP.
So....listening to the speeches from the anti-America rally this last weekend, I'm wondering who exactly has had their right to free speech squelched? Or their right to assemble? Or their right to anything, guaranteed by the Constitution, abused? That's a constant whine from the Left, something or other about their rights being abused by the Bush administration. I'm actually waiting for the first bit of proof of an American having his rights abused by the Bush Administration. I mean damn, if Bush is as bad a Hitler, why couldn't he get some stormtroopers up on the stage this last weekend? It was held just down the street!
It's good to see the protesters are back to spitting on soldiers, wounded soldiers at that. Not that I ever bought the "we support the troops" but I'm sure some morons did.
If you don't know about the 12th, or "missing", imam, then this article about a cult leader who claimed to be the "missing" imam won't mean much. But it's a big deal to Shia. In fact the Iranian President, Iyamanutjob, believes he is paving the way for the return of the missing imam. Paving the way via nuclear blasts in Israel, but nonetheless, he believes he's helping the missing imam return to earth.
The leader of this cult also claimed to be the missing imam, or the Mahdi. He also happened to be killed during a clash with IA and Coalition forces. So if he was the Mahdi, he wasn't very well protected by Allah.
Proof once again that we don't worship the same God.
I just heard that upwards of 250 insurgents have been killed in Najaf during a combined Coalition/IA operation. Good to hear, I hope it's true.
I'm not sure what MG Fil's orders are for taking on the insurgents, but I'll bet it's the same orders MG Thurman (and all of us in Baghdad) waited on for a year while we were there. To actually have a major battle take place in Najaf means that something has changed. And to have such a large death toll on the part of the insurgents means that the ROE has changed as well.
All good news.
I'm probably the only one in my church that doesn't pray for peace. I pray for victory. I believe that any peace without a victory against the islamists will be a short-lived peace. So victory first.
So at least today, it seems that my prayers are partially answered.
Senator Clinton admits she made a mistake voting for the war in Iraq.
So what does that mean? Is she saying that 3000+ of my fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have died because she didn't feel like doing her fucking homework! Probably too busy getting a update on Bill's latest infidelities.
Or perhaps closer to the truth, 3000+ of us died because she felt it was politically expedient at the time to vote yes, and now it's politically expedient to leave us unsupported on the battlefield.
Thanks, beeyotch, I really appreciate it.
I'm not sure that America will ever be safe until the last whiny, pious, selfish, Leftist, baby-boomer pining away for their lost Viet Nam protest days, is dead and in the ground.
The lessons they learned from the Viet Nam war are unfortunately still with us today, and those lessons are just as likely to kill millions of innocents today as they did almost forty years ago. But don't try to explain that to someone 
who didn't care about it when they protested in '68, and didn't care about it when the dead were rotting on the streets of Phnom Penh and clogging the Mekong River. Those were brown people then, and those are brown people that will be dying in Iraq when we pull out now. Just as my dad's generation earned the title "the Greatest Generation" for their willingness to fight fascism, the boomer generation will likely earn the title of the "Selfish Generation" for their inability to see beyond their own personal wants. And they will have earned that title in spades.
I read earlier this week where one political commentator said that he hoped the Democrats win it all in 2008. That way they will have to support the War on Terror. He believes that the only reason they can be against it now is because they can hide behind the facade of being the "loyal opposition". He's forgetting that the Democrats were never the "loyal opposition" during the Cold War. They were not loyal to the US, they were loyal to the idea that the Soviet Union and the US were on equal moral footing, despite knowing of Stalin's purges, the Iron Curtain in 
Eastern Europe, the political gulags...all of it. They knew of these things, and still believed that the US and the Soviet Union were morally equivalent. The same thinking is prevalent in what passes for political thought in the Left today. Saddam is no worse than Bush (actually most on the Left consider Bush worse than Saddam), Al Queda is no worse than the Southern Baptist Convention, bin Laden is no worse than Ted Haggard. There is no reason to believe that once in full control of the war (i.e. a Democratic Commander-in-Chief with a Democratic Congress holding the purse) the Democrats will suddenly understand that there are cultures and societies that should be defended, and cultures and societies that should be defeated. Truth be told, if you polled those on the Left, a majority would likely believe it is our society that needs to be defeated. "US OUT OF EVERYWHERE" pretty much says it all.
Let's hope the self-absorbent lifestyle that has become the hallmark of these baby-boomers becomes the death of them all.
And soon.
Recent Comments