Thursday, January 31, 2008

Ethanol demand pushes corn prices up.

True lovers of organic food have always been willing to pay more for it. They spend $3.99 on a half gallon of organic milk when a whole gallon of conventional milk costs $1 less. But that devotion may be tested. The forces that have driven grocery prices up sharply over the past year, growing demand for food in China and a global biofuels boom, have had an impact on the organic food markets as well. Meanwhile, U.S. farmers haven't kept pace with demand for organic food, sales of which shot up 21 percent in 2006, and that has also sent prices soaring. And supplies of organic soybeans and grains are squeezed, not only are they needed for human consumption, they serve as feed for the animals that will be sent to market as certified organic beef, chicken, eggs and pork. Organic corn that sold for about $200 a ton last fall now commands about $500 a ton. Demand for ethanol in the U.S. and biodiesel abroad has helped send prices of corn and soybeans to record highs. At the same time, the rapid expansion of China, India and other developing nations has multiplied demand for agricultural products for both food and fuel in those countries. By Lauren Villagran, AP business writer.

Because of the demand of ethanol the price of corn and soybeans are going through the roof. So now not only the price of organic food is going up but also the price of all foods are increasing. And this is just the beginning. Farmers want to make as much money as they can, so do you and I. If it pays more to plant corn they will and not plant wheat, sugar cane, cotton and other food products. And because of supply and demand, the price of other products, like corn, will go up. So your monthly food bill will rise, say 20 to 30%. Are you ready to pay $100 to $150 extra for food a month? This will be hard for a family on a fixed income. Maybe if we just leave corn and soybeans for food only and drill for more oil we can save up to $2000 dollars a year. Does it make sense to pay more for food so we can burn corn in our cars? More reading: Corn demand takes toll on gulf

Technorati Tags:

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

President Bush wants a quick agreement on the stimulus package

President Bush appealed on Saturday for swift congressional action on an economic rescue initiative and an electronic surveillance law that soon expires. The White House and House leaders of both parties reached agreement on a simply drawn stimulus program, which would provide tax rebate checks to 117 million families and give businesses $50 billion in incentives to invest in new plants and equipment(to help create jobs). In his weekly radio address, Bush asked Congress to approve the agreement as soon as possible. Some (Democrats) in the Senate, which will take up the measure after it goes to the House floor next week, have signaled that they want to broaden the bill. Democrats there want such things as an unemployment benefits extension, an increase in home heating subsidies or higher food stamp benefits.(they also want to include retirees) Bush suggested they could derail the whole effort, and he warned against it. By Jennifer Loven, Associated Press Writer.

This is suppose to be an economic stimulus package not an economic continuing package. The whole idea of giving people money so they will go out and spend it on something extra, to stimulate the economy, not to help people continue what they are doing now. The Democrats want to give extra benefits to the unemployed,heating subsidies, higher food stamp benefits and retirees. These people might need the money but they will just keep their spending at an even pace and not stimulate the economy. If you want to just give the money so someone can just spend it, give it to the homeless. I am sure they will spend it. It will not help the economy, but the money will be spent. The Democrats need to know, that we are giving out money just to help the economy, so that when the economy grows, all citizens will benefit. Just give the money back to those who paid it. This is not a welfare program.

Technorati Tags:

Powered by ScribeFire.

Saturday, January 26, 2008

Agent: Iraq courted fear of weapons

Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction to deter rival Iran (Iraq invaded Iran without notice) and did not think the United States would stage a major invasion, (what did he think the 100,000 plus U.S. troops were doing in Kuwait?) According to an FBI interrogator who questioned the Iraqi leader after his capture. Saddam expected only a limited aerial attack by the United States (like we did in the Bosnian war) and thought he could remain in control, the FBI special agent, George Piro, told CBS's "60 Minutes" program in an interview to be broadcast Sunday. "He told me he initially miscalculated ... President Bush's intentions." said Piro. "He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we (Clinton) did in 1998 ... a four-day aerial attack." (this was Bill Clinton's 4 day war) "He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack," Piro said. By Lily Hindy, Associated Press writer.

If you believe Saddam than I have some swamp land here in Louisiana I'll like to sell you. On September 22 1980 Iraq invaded Iran without formal warning. In this six year war, Iraq extensively used chemical weapons, such as mustard gas on a daily bases, against Iranian troops and civilians as well as Iraqi Kurds. When the war ended on August 20 1988 Iraq owed Saudi Arabia 30.9 billion, Kuwait 8.2 billion and the U.A.E. 8 billion. A total of 47.1 billion dollars. Do you think Saddam wanted to pay this bill? No, his plan was to attack the ones who helped him financially in the war against Iran. On August 2, 1990 Iraq attacked Kuwait with the equipment they helped finance in the Iran-Iraq War. Instead of paying his allies back, he was going to take their oil. During this war, Saddam fired missiles into Israel and Saudi Arabia. For the next ten years Saddam will play cat and mouse games with the U.N. Saddam was right he got rid of all his chemical weapons, he used them on Iran and innocent women and children. And in his own words, he had the intention of restarting an Iraqi weapons program, and had engineers available for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. I wonder who he was going to use these on?

Technorati Tags:

Powered by ScribeFire.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Sen. Hillary attacks raise risk of rift.

Sen Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign aired a new radio ad in South Carolina Wednesday that repeated a discredited charge against Sen. Barack Obama in what some Democrats said is part of an increasing pattern of hardball politics by her and former president Bill Clinton. The ad takes one line from an Obama interview - "The Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15, years"- and juxtaposes it with GOP policies that Obama has never advocated. The Clinton campaign argued that it was simply quoting Obama. But in the original context, Obama was describing the dominance of Republican ideas in the 1980s and 1990s, without saying he supported them, and asserting that those ideas are of no use today. By Alec MacGillis and Anne E. Kornblut, The Washington Post.

Remember, Obama, it all depends what is is. The Clintons are very good at twisting words, they been doing this all of their lives. This is one of the main reasons the national new media will not play hardball with the Clintons. First they use other people to attack their opponents by twisting their words. When this doesn't work, they will both team up and start twisting words about them selves or someone else. They must be afraid of Obama to be so open. I believe this is just the beginning. If Obama does well in S.C. the Clintons will bring out all the big guns. She can not lose on Feb 5th. So from Jan. 26th until Feb 5th you will see an unholy war. The words will fly from both sides and the Democrats will take sides. The leaders of the Democrat party will try to stop this, they are trying now. But the Clintons will do what ever it takes and no one is going to stop them.. On Saturday The battle begins.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Pressure builds on coal industry

In federal and state courtrooms across the country, environmental groups are putting coal-fueled power plants on trial in a bid to slow the industry's biggest construction boom in decades. At least four dozen coal plants are being contested in 29 states, according to a Associated Press tally. "Our goal is to oppose these projects at each and every stage, from zoning and air and water permits, to their mining permits and new coal railroads." said Bruce Nilles, a Sierra Club attorney who directs the group's national coal campaign. It's undeniable coal is one of the country's cheapest and most abundant fuels. Coal plants provide just over 50 percent of the nation's electricity. They also are the largest domestic source of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, emitting 2 billion tons annually, about a third of the country's total. By Matthew Brown, Associated Press Writer.

As the U.S. population grows we build new homes and we wire them for electricity. We build new stores for these people and we wire these buildings. We also wire all those office buildings they all need electricity. Ask the people in Louisiana and Mississippi how it feels to live without electricity for weeks after the storm. The Sierra Club wants to stop our growth and wants you to share your electricity with someone else. Which day of the week can you do without electricity? How many hours a day can you do without electricity? Wait! What about wind power plants? Texas' largest wind farm has 421 wind turbines that will power 230,000 homes per year. The nations total electricity produced by wind turbines is about 0.4 percent. Not even a half percent. And as we restrict our electric growth the rest of the world is growing and building more coal electric plants. I have an idea, if there were 12 million people less in the United States we would us less energy right. Why don't the Sierra Club go round up all the illegal alien, with their money, and send them back to Mexico. Just think of all the energy we can save.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Monday, January 21, 2008

Republicans and Democrats begin debate over tax rebates

As President Bush and congressional Democrats begin negotiations on a package of measures to stimulate the economy, the big fight will be about whether to put extra money in the hands of tens of millions of low-income families who (already get government assistance and) paid little or no income tax last year. Nearly 40 percent of Americans owed (or paid) no federal income tax last year (in fact got a tax refund), though even low income workers paid taxes for Social Security and Medicare )(which they will receive benefits from). While Bush has refused to disclose specifics (lie, he will later after he hears from the Demo's) of his $145 billion plan, administration officials and Republican lawmakers favor a proposal that would offer a proposal that would offer rebates of as much as $800 for individuals and $1,600 for families but only if they paid that much in taxes last year (giving them some of the money that they earned back). For practical purposes, analysts estimate, a family of four (husband, wife and two kids) with an income of $24,000 would receive no government payments at all (but should receive a child tax credit, could be up to $2,000, or government assistance), and families with incomes below $40,00 would a most receive partial rebates (the amount they put in). But a household with an income of $100,00 or more could get back $1600 (but the Democrats wants families with incomes as high as $60,000 to receive nothing). By Edmund L. Andrews, 2008, The New York Times.

We have seen the economy grow because of the President tax cuts. Even though the Democrats and the liberal media don't want to give President Bush's tax cuts credit for the steady growth we have had in the last six years, but we know it works. So why don't we give people some of their money back. Because the Democrats want to use that money to but votes. They know by giving the people on the bottom money they will vote for the people who might give them more free money in the future. This is using tax payer's money to buy votes.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Oil wealth fueling big dreams in Saudi Arabia.

The alarm bell sounded the end of the lunch break one November afternoon, and suddenly thousands of workers - on foot, on bicycles and in buses streamed in, seemingly from out of nowhere, and jolted the huge construction site to life. Amid a forest of cranes, towers and beams rising from the desert, more than 38,000 workers from China, India, Turkey and beyond have been toiling for two years in unforgiving conditions - often in temperatures exceeding 100 degrees - to complete one of the world's largest petrochemical plants in record time. By the end of the year, the massive city of steel at the edge of the Red Sea will take its place as a cog of globalization: Plastics produced at the plant will be used to make televisions in Japan, cell phones in China and thousands of other products to be sold in the United States and Europe. Construction cost at the plant, which spread over 8 square miles, have doubled to $10 billion because of shortages of materials and labor. The amount of steel being used is 10 times the weight of the Eiffel Tower. By Jad Mouawad, 2008, The New York Times.

I wonder if King Abdullah, the 83-year-old Saudi monarch, asked the environmental groups in Saudi Arabia for permission for the project? You know it's being built at the edge of the Red Sea, so there will be run off. I wonder if they have any environmentalist watchdogs that can file a law suit against the government? The environmental regulations has done the job in the U.S. In 1981, the U.S. had 324 refineries and today there are just 132 oil refineries, according to Oil and Gas Journal. Ask the green people, we don't need a petrochemical plant that will employ more than 38,000 workers and exports products to Japan, China, Europe and other parts of the world. We must pass legislation so our citizens can drive go carts to work and use florescent light bulbs. You know that the pollution will flow into California, that's the direction the weather patterns come from. Who is going to teach Saudi Arabia and those nations that follow Saudi's example, like Japan and China, a lesson? Maybe Green Peace can take their ship, with other green people, into the Red Sea and land on Saudi's beaches, naked, with signs like,"NO HAIR, CLEAN AIR." What do you think?

Saturday, January 19, 2008

More U.S. soldiers shifting to suppoprt Iraq missions.

U.S. commanders have begun shifting the mission of military forces in Iraq by moving more troops out of front-line combat and into assignments that allow American soldiers to monitor and support Iraqi units, senior military leaders said Thursday. In their changing capacity U.S. troops increasingly will be positioned to back up Iraqi forces in a role that commanders outlined in recommendations in September and have termed "over-watch." Under the recommendations, the overall U.S. troop level in Iraq will be reduced from about 165,000 to about 130,000 by July. One combat brigade already has left Iraq. By Juilian E. Barnes , Los Angeles Times.

A lot has change in Iraq in the last six months. Six months ago we where talking about bench marks to measure the progress in the war. In July 2007, it looked like out of the 18 bench marks we would have 8 satisfactory, 8 unsatisfactory and 2 mixed. The Democratically controlled House of Representatives voted 223-201, on July 11th, to require most U.S. troops to leave Iraq by April 1, 2008. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) accused Bush of a strategy "to keep our troops in an open-ended war-- a civil war in Iraq. I'm calling on my Republican colleagues to not just say the right thing but to vote the right way so we can give our troops the strategy they deserve." It's a good thing we don't run a war by committee. The founders of our constitution knew their could be only one Commander in Chief and that is the President. Bush said " I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding our troops. Bush was right and the Democrats were wrong.

Friday, January 18, 2008

Judge Alvin Hellerstein, "CIA's handling of tapes is unacceptable.

A federal judge in New York said Thursday that he was "disappointed" in how investigators from the CIA had handled videotapes documenting the harsh interrogation of detainees from al-Qaida, adding that he was considering questioning agency officials who had watched the tapes about why they had made no record of them in their files. Judge Alvin Hellerstein of U.S. District Court in Manhattan said from the bench that he was astonished that CIA investigators had not kept records about the tapes, which were destroyed in 2005, even though they were an important part of an internal CIA review of interrogation methods. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a freedom of information request, asking the CIA to produce information about the tapes and various other documents related to interrogation methods. By Alan Feuer, 2008, The New York Times.

Pres. Bill Clinton appointed Alvin Hellerstein to the bench in 1998. And it seems that he is also a Bush Hater. Why would he allow the ACLU to have CIA records? What good would they do with these records and who would they help? They were given to the New York Times to destroy the Bush administration but they destroyed the image of the United States. Do you think that if Pres. Clinton were president that Hellerstein, who Clinton appointed, would have given the ACLU the CIA records? Then why is Hillary Clinton White House records still locked up. Do you think if the ACLU ask for the records of Hillary Clinton so they can give them to the New York Times that Judge Alvin Hellerstein will have them released? Here is a Judge who is not balanced. All of his weights are on the Liberal side. In his court justice is not blind.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

President Bush calls for increase in crude oil production.

With oil prices hovering around $90 a barrel, President Bush on Tuesday urged oil-rich countries to raise their output, but Saudi Arabia's oil minister said the world's largest producer would do so only "when the market justifies it." Bush told reporters in Riyadh, "I would hope, as OPEC considers different production levels, that they understand that if ... one of their biggest consumers (the United States) economy suffers, it will mean less purchases, less oil and gas sold." By Michael Abramowitz, The Washington Post.

Do you mean if OPEC will drill for more oil, the price for a gallon of gas will go down and this will help our economy from a recession? Then wouldn't it make sense for the U.S to drill for more oil off our shores? It would help our economy and create jobs. Oh yes thats right the Democrats urged for ban on oil drilling off much of U.S. coast. WE can't drill off the coast of California. WE can't drill off the Coast of Florida. WE can't drill in some parts of Alaska. WE can't drill off the coast of New England. So where can we drill? We must rely on the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries for our life blood. I would buy a horse but they wouldn't let me have one in my subdivision.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Military chairman: Close Guantanamo.

The chief of the U.S. military said Sunday that he favors closing the prison here as soon as possible because he believes negative publicity world wide about treatment of terrorist suspects has been "pretty damaging" to the United States. "I'd like to see it shut down,"Adm. Mike Mullen said in an interview with three reporters who toured the detention center with him on his first visit since becoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff last October. Asked why he thinks Gauntanamo Bay, commonly dubbed Gitmo, should be closed, and the prisoners perhaps moved to U.S. soil, Mullen said, "More than anything else it's been the image - how Gitmo has become around the world, in terms of representing the United States. By Robert Burns, AP military writer.

I think the Chief of Staff is right. We should close Gitmo and bring those prisoner to the U.S. soil. But there might be a problem that they might not have thought of. How to protect these terrorist suspects. If you put them with our prison population they will all be dead within one month. If you think they were treated bad at Gauntanamo Bay, how do you think they will be treated on U.S. soil? I just have to say one thing "It will be interesting"

Monday, January 14, 2008

What experts bracing for U.S. financial freefall?

As leaders in Washington turn their attention to efforts to avert a looming downturn, many economists (how many?) suggest that it might already be too late to change the course of the economy during the first six months of the year, if not longer. With a wave of negative signs gathering forces, economists, policy-makers and investors are debating just how much the economy could be damaged in 2008. Huge and complex, the U.S. economy has in recent years been aided by a global web of finance so elaborate that no one seems capable of fully comprehending it (no one but these economists). That makes it all but impossible to predict how much the economy can be expected to fall before it stabilizes (but we know it is going to fall). The answer could be a defining factor in the outcome of the presidential election. Not long ago, the campaign centered on the war in Iraq. By Peter S. Goodman and Floyd Norris, 2008, The New York Times.

Since the Iraq war is going well and no longer an issue for the presidential race, the Democrats and the liberal news media are trying to make the economy the key issue. In 2006 they believe the Iraq war was the issue that helped the Democrats win the House and Senate. This was the issue that would help them win the White House in 2008, not anymore. Now they are putting all of their eggs on the economy. Economist David Rosenburg said "The question is not whether we will have a recession, but how deep and prolonged it will be." He also said on Dec,6, 2006 that he expected the U.S. economic growth to slow to 1.7% in 2007. He was wrong. It was 3.20% the same as 2006. The liberals know that the party of the incumbent president lost the election when their has been a recession. So their plans: talk down the economy for political gain, like they think Bush and Cheney did at the end of Bill Clinton presidency. Do you think the liberals will go for a tax cut to help the economy?

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Marion Jones gets 6 month sentence for LYING.

Marion Jones said she was scared. She said she was sorry. With a catch in her voice, she said her young sons needed her. "I ask you to be as merciful as a human being can be," she implored the judge. To no avail. The former Olympic track gold medalist was sentenced to six months in prison Friday for lying to investigators about using performance enhancing drugs and her role (knowing about it) in a check fraud scam, ending a long fall from grace for the one time fastest women on earth. U.S. District Judge Kenneth Karas acknowledged the children were victims, but said criminals "have to realize the consequences of their actions on others." By Jim Fitzgerld, AP sports writer.

Criminal, so I guess Marion Jones is a criminal for lying. And Martha Stewart is a criminal for lying. Scooter Libby is a criminal for lying. Now I wonder what is going to happen to Barry Bonds and the rest of the baseball players, that lied to congress, now that they are all criminals? Do all people who lie to investigators go to jail? NO. In 1998 President Bill Clinton lied during a grand jury testimony(just about sex, his private life) and was not considered a criminal. Judge Ken Starr, thought it was best for the country, was not to prosecute him. This case itself typifies today's government, an entity that is free to intrude in any area of your life, free to make up the rules as it goes along, free to allow prosecutors to make names for themselves in high profile cases without facing any personal consequences, no matter what harm they do. The original purpose of a grand jury was to act as a buffer between the king (and his prosecutors) and the citizens. Today the grand jury and investigators, simply acts as a rubber stamp for the prosecutor. They say people will learn for this. Yes, learn how to do the Clinton shuffle.

Friday, January 11, 2008

New Orleans Jacques Morial gets home detention

Jacques Morial, the younger brother of former New Orleans mayor and current National Urban League President Marc Morial, was sentenced Wednesday to six months of home confinement and three years of probation for failing to file federal income tax returns for three years (I guess illegal immigrants pay federal taxes). The sentence, imposed by U.S. District Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon, brought a quiet end to a controversial investigation that began in 2004, when armed federal agents used a battering ram to knock down the front door of the younger Morial's French Quarter townhouse so they execute a search warrant. Three and a half years later, in September 2006, Jacques Morial pleaded guilty to three misdemeanor tax counts. Morial had settled his tax debt of $26,600 for those years by the time of his indictment. By Gordon Russell, Staff writer, Times Picayune.

Not the IRS but federal agents, the FBI, arrived at Jacques' French Quarter residence at 7:30 a.m. on Saturday, Feb. 14, Valentine's Day. The agents announced their presence with bullhorns and told Morial to let them in. Agents brandished weapons and wore protective vests, one minute and 10 seconds later, they battered down his front door. All this, for what? His computer. How many people do you know that haven't filed their Federal taxes last year, last three years or more? Is this legal? YES! With a Federal Judge search warrant, if you don't answer your door in 20 seconds they can knock down your front door. And the Democrats are worried about wire taps. Maybe we should get rid for the IRS and this Federal mess with the flat tax?

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

A ban on FAT, no more transfat in D.C. suburb

With the first phase of Montgomery County's restaurant ban on trans fat taking effect Jan 1, the Tastee Diner's Bethesda and Silver Spring branches have switched from the margarine that has been the norm for more than 35 years to genuine butter, owner Gene Wilkes said (just those two). Wilkes estimated the switch to a trans-fat-free menu will add $1,500 a month to his supply tab, which he will pass on to his customers. "Things are going to be a little less tasty and a little more expensive, but we'll survive," said Wilkes, who has owned the popular diners since 1971, summarizing Montgomery's latest foray into the legislation of healthy habits. In recent weeks, the county's Department of Health and Human Services, which enforces food-handling regulations (the food police),has been sending fliers explaining the new rules to more then 2,400 food-service license holders (that is a lot of restaurants). "We plan to do as much education as enforcement this year," said John Munley, the department's program manager of the ban. " I think when people understand what they need to do, they will comply" (or they will lose their food-service license). By Steve Hendrix, The Washington Post. It looks like politicians know how to run your life better than you do. Just like your mother when you were young telling what you can and can't eat. They believe in womens right, when it come their bodies,concerning reproduction because women know what is best for themselves. Why can't they just let us make up our own mind what is best for us? I can tell you where this is heading to. When the manufacturer of products can't remove all of the trans fats in their product, congress, Democrats and good feeling Republicans, will put a sin tax on that product. And the public, you and I, will end up taking money out of our pockets to pay for this. This is still a free country and I think we know what is best for ourselves than politicians. Please just leave our food alone!

Saturday, January 5, 2008

She wants her TASER in pink.

An Arizona entrepreneur gathers women in her home for stun gun parties, and is selling the weapons like hotcakes. Before she lets them shoot her little pink stun gun, Dana Shafman ushers her new friends to the living room sofa for a serious chat about the fears she believes they all share. Welcome, she said to the taser party. On the coffee table, Shafman spreads out Taser's C2 "personal protector" weapons that the company is marketing to the public. It doesn't take long before the women are lined up in the hallway, whooping as they take turns blasting at a metallic target. "C'mon! she said "give it a shot". Shafman isn't an employee for Scottsdale, Ariz.- based Taser International. She's an independent entrepreneur who been selling Tasers the way her mother's generation sold plastic food storage containers. Amnesty International, which has criticized Taser's assertion that its weapons are nonlethal, frowns on the C2 and any attempt to spread the use of stun guns. Officials with the human rights organization said the weapons are frequently used in excess by trained police, and they're likely to be abused by the public as well. By Chris Kahn, AP business writer. All animals, when they are attacked, defend themselves. When we are attacked we should be able to protect ourselves in any way that we can. I think Amnesty International wants the government to protect us. When they remove our means of protecting ourselves, we become like sheep for the slaughter. I don't know about you but I'm not a sheep. I am a human, that when attacked, will use what ever means possible to protect my family and myself. I don't care what Amnesty International thinks or says.

Thursday, January 3, 2008

Other issues pushing Iraq aside.

The Democratic and Republican presidential candidates are navigating a far different set of issues as they approach the Iowa caucuses on Thursday than when they first started campaigning here a year ago, and that is likely to change even more as the campaigns move to New Hampshire and across the country. Even though polls show that Iowa Democrats still consider the war in Iraq the top issue facing the country, the war is becoming a less defining issue among Democrats nationally, and it has moved to the back of the stage in the rush of campaign rallies. Instead, candidates are being asked about, and are increasingly talking about, the mortgage crisis, rising gas costs, health care, immigration, the environment and taxes. Part of the shift appears to stem from the reduction in violence in Iraq after President Bush's decision to send more troops there last year. By Adam Nagourney, 2007, The New York Times. Now let us talk about the Democrats Iraq strategy. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) threw her support behind a proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa) for a prompt pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq. Sen John F. Kerry (D-Mass) "the presence of our troops itself is a part of the current reality on the ground that presents food for the insurgency." Kerry added, "in the end, the strategy for exit is in fact part of the strategy for success." Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev) Called for "a vote of no confidence in the president's current policy in Iraq" Sen Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis) condemned Bush's plan and said "we need a policy on Iraq that includes a flexible timetable for completing our military mission there with Dec. 31, 2006, set as a target date to complete the military mission there." As you can see the Democrats were wrong the U.S. public did not want a time table, they wanted us to win this war. The war is now on the back burner because we are winning the war. They are not mad at Bush for stating the war in Iraq. They were mad because we were not winning. President Bush said " we will stay the course" and the Democrats wanted a time table to pull out. Who was right!

Tuesday, January 1, 2008

Quiet month caps bloody year in Iraq.

December emerged as possibly the safest month for U.S. forces in Iraq since the 2003 invasion and the least deadly for Iraqi civilians in the past 12 months, but, now here come the negative, overall 2007 was the bloodiest year of the war, according to figures released Monday. On the military front, 21 U.S. personnel died in December, according to Department of Defense figures released by the independent Web site, making the average death tally last month the lowest since the start of the war, but, now here comes the negative, at least 899 American Troops were killed during 2007, according to the Web site, the highest annual toll since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. After high monthly death tolls early in 2007, the number of civilians and U.S. soldiers and civilians slain has been decreasing since the U.S. military completed a troop buildup in June. But, now here comes the negative, few people were celebrating the recent down turn in violence, especially Democrats, as proof of irreversible progress. By Tina Susman, Los Angeles Times.

The rest of the 19 paragraphs and a thousand or more words are all negative. Tina, just like all the other liberal news people, don't report anything good that our soldiers are doing in Iraq, just how many of them die each month. In fact, in October of 2006 the month before the mid term elections, the new media let us know how many of our soldiers died each day. Have you ever seen a news report about the good things our troops are doing in Iraq? Wait, Harry Reid and the rest of the Democrats said this is a civil war and that we lost the Iraq war. So we should give up and bring our troops home. Where is this civil war? We are winning the war on terrorist in Iraq because of our troop buildup. Maybe also the terrorism has slow down because the Iraq war has not been in the news much since the U.S. is winning. You know the only way the terrorist can get their message out to the world is through the liberal U.S. media. How else would the world know what the terrorist are doing?