From politics (moderates who lean to the right) to Pogo (drools during poker stare) to rants (Whatcha expect from savvy, sassy sexagenarians?) to raves (Have you had your kudo today?) -- we never take ourselves too seriously.
We do, however, reserve the right to slaughter an occasional sacred cow. And in case we fail to mention it -- we will never forget....
WTF = Where's the fire? That's a Technorati section where members can write "hot topic" blurbs.
You'll find a GOE "blurb" at the link above. If you are a member, hop over and vote for the Gathering of Eagles blurb to push it to the top of the topics list!
More publicity for GOE II and Rolling Thunder, of course!
The blurb:
If a Gathering of Eagles on March 17 -- with 30,000 individuals clustered at military memorials throughout Washington, DC was historic -- wait until May 26-27.
Thousands of individuals, families, veterans' groups and affiliated organizations will join 500,000 Rolling Thunder members (celebrating their 20th anniversary) in Washington, DC on May 26-27.
Participants will hoist thousands of American flags to express their support for our military -- past, present and future -- and especially in the current Global War On Terrorism.
While the vast majority of participants also endorse unrestricted funding of our troops in Iraq, Americans from across political lines will stand shoulder-to-shoulder in a display of support for our troops.
For more information, schedules, events and affiliated groups (including their related veteran-support projects), visit:
Thanks to some astute (and self-less) Blog Drive patrons at the Help Forum, I've reduced the load-time for my blog .....
Makes me vury vury happy. (Heck, I might even stay beyond my contract!)
Now, maybe (just maybe) more folks won't give up and go away, impatient because the page grindsandgrindsandgrindsandgrinds for 10-15 seconds before opening!!!
I eliminated one data-based script and moved another to a page on my web site (http://www.perishthethought.com/never.html) .... When and if I get around to re-directing my blog to the web site server, I'll have more "space" for other goodies as well!
Just wanted to say a sincere "thanks" to the Forum folks --- I beeez a happier camper, now!
And --- thanks to the powers-that-be at Blog Drive for again featuring this blog .... Welcome new readers!
Moqtada al-Sadr wasn't in Najaf to count noses this week (he went into hiding several months ago), but those who were there seriously discount his proclamation for "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqis to protest the presence of coalition forces.
Maybe only 5-7,000 got the message. Maybe that's all his insurgents could muster. At any rate -- both the liberal press and Moqtada al-Sadr certainly created a spectacle.
Today is Easter Sunday in the Christian Church, the holiday that celebrates Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Easter is one of the few floating holidays in the calendar year, because it's based on the cycles of the moon. Jesus was said to have risen from the dead on the first Sunday after the first full moon of spring. For that reason, Easter can fall as early as March 22nd and as late as April 25th.
The word "Easter" comes from an ancient pagan goddess worshipped by Anglo Saxons named Eostre. According to legend, Eostre once saved a bird whose wings had frozen during the winter by turning it into a rabbit. Because the rabbit had once been a bird, it could still lay eggs, and that rabbit became our Easter Bunny. Eggs were a symbol of fertility in part because they used to be so scarce during the winter. There are records of people giving each other decorated eggs at Easter as far back as the 11th century. -- GK
Ten Cadillacs and other hollywoodish lyrics are unrealistic (hey -- it's only a song), but a flag on every lawn and a chicken in every pot will do the trick. Plus moving the RNC platform more to the middle.
That's how Democrats won in November 2006. Check out the Blue Dog Democrats who won, giving Democrats majorities in both the House and Senate.
While this New York Times op ed has some debatable points and may be more relevant to the Northeast, this basic premise is on-target:
During the 12 years that Republicans controlled the House, moderate Republicans were the stepchildren of their party, expected to vote with their conservative leadership on crucial issues, even if it meant taking positions that could anger centrist voters back home.
In fact, the Democrats made some of their deepest inroads last year in the Northeast. A total of 10 Republican incumbents in the House were defeated in four states — New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York and Pennsylvania — where the challengers aggressively tried to tie the incumbents to President Bush and his conservative allies on the Hill.
I don't imply that conservative values are on the down-swing. Core values will not change in our lifetime -- to the contrary. But trends do change ...
I simply point out that if Republicans are to make in-roads toward regaining both the House and Senate AND especially in retaining the White House -- the party must move to the middle to attract and represent the interests and aptitudes of Americans.
The handwriting is on the wall and no amount of posturing will erase it. Core values will always be relevant to conservatives; interests and aptitudes change.
Candidates and party lines must reflect the interests of Americans. That's how Democrats won in 2006. They'll win again in 2008 unless Republicans gravitate toward more moderate national trends and opinions.
One critical trend for Republicans to grasp is that America does not identify with the far left. Blue Dog Democrats know this and face their own battles to break the binds of established hard-line liberals.
"Smack Dab in the Middle" may be a tad extreme for most conservatives, but if maintaining control of the direction of this nation (and I add -- for the sake of this nation) is important, then conservatives best accept the reality that America IS becoming increasingly politically moderate.
And on a purely personal note -- did I mention that Mitt Romney is the only proven Republican candidate to bring conservatives and (democrat) moderates together?
James Baker, co-chair of the Iraq Study Commission, corrects Congressional leaders (Pelosi, Murtha, Lantos and Reid, et al) about their "interpretation" of the Commission's recommendations:
The report does not set timetables or deadlines for the removal of troops, as contemplated by the supplemental spending bills the House and Senate passed. In fact, the report specifically opposes that approach. As many military and political leaders told us, an arbitrary deadline would allow the enemy to wait us out and would strengthen the positions of extremists over moderates. A premature American departure from Iraq, we unanimously concluded, would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions in Iraq and possibly other countries.
The goal of the United States should be to help Iraqis achieve national political reconciliation and greater effectiveness of their security forces, the report said, so that Iraqis can assume more of the security mission. This in turn could allow for an orderly departure of U.S. troops. An important way to encourage Iraqis to work together is to hold them to the type of benchmarks that Congress, President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have all considered. If the Iraqi government does not meet those benchmarks, the United States "should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government," the report said. But we did not suggest that this be codified into legislation. The report doesn't recommend a firm deadline for troop removal unless America's military leadership believes that the situation warrants it.
Nothing has happened since the report was released that would justify changing that view. Setting a deadline for withdrawal regardless of conditions in Iraq makes even less sense today because there is evidence that the temporary surge is reducing the level of violence in Baghdad. As Baghdad goes, so goes Iraq. The Iraq Study Group said it could support a short-term surge to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up training and equipping of Iraqi soldiers if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines such steps would be effective. Gen. David Petraeus has so determined.
Read the entire report. Better still, send a copy of this article to your representative as they mull the President's veto.
No, it's not just conservatives who are criticizing Pelosi's fact-fumbling trip to the Middle East. Liberal news shows, comedians, the WP and now the WSJ editors:
Democrats at War Prime Minister Pelosi and Secretary of State Lantos undermine U.S. foreign policy--and maybe their own party.
Friday, April 6, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Democrats took Congress last fall in part by opposing the war in Iraq, but it is becoming clear that they view their election as a mandate for something far more ambitious--to wit, promoting and executing their own foreign policy, albeit without the detail of a Presidential election.
Their intentions were made plain this week with two remarkable acts by their House and Senate leaders. Majority Leader Harry Reid endorsed Senator Russ Feingold's proposal to withdraw from Iraq immediately, cutting off funds entirely within a year. He promised a vote soon, as part of what the Washington Post reported would also be a Democratic offensive to close Guantanamo, reinstate legal rights for terror suspects, and improve relations with Cuba.
Meanwhile, Speaker Nancy Pelosi made her now famous sojourn to Syria, donning a head scarf and advertising that she was conducting shuttle diplomacy between Jerusalem and Damascus. If there was any doubt that her trip was intended as far more than a routine Congressional "fact-finding" trip, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Tom Lantos put it to rest by declaring that, "We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States."
Americans should understand how extraordinary this is. There have been previous battles over U.S. foreign policy and fierce domestic criticism. In the 1990s, these columns defended Bill Clinton against "the Republican drift toward isolationism and political opportunism" amid the Kosovo conflict. But rarely in U.S. history have Congressional leaders sought to conduct their own independent diplomacy, with the Speaker acting as a Prime Minister traveling with a Secretary of State in the person of Mr. Lantos.
Yes, Congressional Republicans have visited Syria too. But Ms. Pelosi isn't some minority back-bencher. Without a Democrat in the White House, she and Mr. Reid are the national leaders of their party. Even Newt Gingrich, for all his grand domestic ambitions in 1995, took a muted stand on foreign policy, realizing that in the American system the executive has the bulk of national security power. He also understood he would do the country no favors by sending a mixed message to our enemies--at the time, Slobodan Milosevic.
What was Ms. Pelosi hoping to accomplish, other than embarrassing President Bush? "We were very pleased with reassurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process," she told reporters after meeting with dictator Bashar Assad. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria."
She purported to convey a message from Israel's Ehud Olmert expressing similar interest in "the peace process," except that the Israeli Prime Minister felt obliged to issue a clarification noting that Ms. Pelosi had got the message wrong. Israel hadn't changed its policy, which is that it will negotiate only when Mr. Assad repudiates his support for terrorism and stops trying to dominate Lebanon. As a shuttle diplomat, Ms. Pelosi needs some practice.
Mr. Lantos probably got closer to their real intentions when he told reporters that "this is only the beginning of our constructive dialogue with Syria, and we hope to build on it." The Pelosi cavalcade is intended to show that if only the Bush Administration would engage in "constructive dialogue," the Syrians, Israelis and everyone else could all get along.
This is the same Syrian regime that has facilitated the movement of money and insurgents to kill Americans in Iraq; that has been implicated by a U.N. probe in the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri; and that has snubbed any number of U.S. overtures since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Perhaps if he works hard enough, Mr. Lantos can match the 22 visits to Damascus that Bill Clinton's Secretary of State Warren Christopher made in the 1990s trying to squeeze peace from that same stone.
In fact, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Lantos both voted for the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 that ordered Mr. Bush to choose from a menu of six sanctions to impose on Damascus. Mr. Bush chose the weakest two sanctions and dispatched a new Ambassador to Syria in a goodwill gesture in 2004. Only later, in the wake of the Hariri murder and clear intelligence of Syria's role in aiding Iraqi Baathists, did Mr. Bush conclude that Mr. Assad's real goal was to reassert control over Lebanon and bleed Americans in Iraq.
With her trip, Ms. Pelosi has now reassured the Syrian strongman that Mr. Bush lacks the domestic support to impose any further pressure on his country. She has also made it less likely that Mr. Assad will cooperate with the Hariri probe, or assist the Iraqi government in defeating Baathist and al Qaeda terrorists.
Back in Washington, Harry Reid says his response to Mr. Bush's certain veto of his Iraq spending bill will be to escalate. He now supports cutting off funds and beginning an immediate withdrawal, even as General David Petraeus's surge in Baghdad unfolds and shows signs of promise. If Mr. Bush were as politically cynical as Democrats think, he'd let Mr. Reid's policy become law. Then Democrats would share responsibility for whatever mayhem happened next.
So this is Democratic foreign policy: Assure our enemies that they can ignore a President who still has 21 months to serve; and wash their hands of Baghdad and of their own guilt for voting to let Mr. Bush go to war. No doubt Democrats think the President's low job approval, and public unhappiness with the war, gives them a kind of political immunity. But we wonder.
Once we leave Iraq, America's enemies will still reside in the Mideast; and they will be stronger if we leave behind a failed government and bloodbath in Iraq. Mr. Bush's successor will have to contain the damage, and that person could even be a Democrat. But by reverting to their Vietnam message of retreat and by blaming Mr. Bush for all the world's ills, Democrats on Capitol Hill may once again convince voters that they can't be trusted with the White House in a dangerous world.
Guess who is becoming their own worst enemy?
If Democrats plan to take the White House in '08, someone better reign rein in Pelosi, Reid, Murtha and now the self-anointed S0S Lantos.
