Posts
He does comedy well.
(H/T Prime Time Politics)
Showing posts with label John Edwards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Edwards. Show all posts
Monday, May 19, 2008
Thursday, January 3, 2008
The Huckster & Obama Take Iowa
With 65% of the precincts reporting, Fox News has called Iowa for the Mike Huckabee with 31% of the caucus vote. Romney, who spent a large part of his budget for advertisements in Iowa, is well behind Huckabee in a second place at 23%. Thompson and McCain are in a near tie in third place at about 13% each.
On the Democratic side, its appearing that Obama has taken Iowa with 37%. Clinton and Edwards stand tied at 31%.
I do not see a Huckabee nomination in the cards. Our President's most important job will be foreign policy and, in that arena, Huckabee seems, to put it charitably, naive. Further, his personal ethics are very much in doubt after the incredibly transparent trick of a few days ago, holding a press conference to show attack ads that he then said he would not show. If he ever tried such sophmoric tricks as President, he would absolutely be eaten alive, and rightly so.
Huckabee's defining characteristic among Iowa voters seems to have been that Huckabee is a Christian conservative. Outside the realm of identity politics, Huckabee has nothing of substance to offer.
As to what this means for the Democrats, the aura of inevitabiity has been shattered for Hillary. For far too long, Hillary refused to answer any questions of substance and tried to straddle the fence on all issues, with the apex of these acts comining during a debate when, in answer to a question about NY Gov. Spitzer's driver's licenses for illegals, she made statements that contradicted themselves. She has been too clever by half. Whether she can overcome the storm of losing Iowa is now very much an open question.
In one way at least, I welcome Obama's victory in a largely white, rural state. Perhaps now we can start to bury the race card as a viable part of American politics.
Update: Arianna Huffington is ecstatic.
Update: With 98% of the caucusus reporting, it appears Edwards has taken scond place, with 30%. Clinton is in third place with 29%.
Update: Joe Biden has dropped out of the race.
Update: Ron Paul came in with 10% of the vote.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Edwards the Unready
Ethelred the Unready was an English King at the turn of the first millenium, A.D. His particular appellation - "the unready" - derives from the Anglo-Saxon Unraed, which means "without counsel", "ill-advised" or "indecisive". Ethelred earned that title because of his inabiity to deal effectively with the foreign threats to his lands. The more I read of John Edwards, the more he seems to me a reincarnation of this ill famed monarch.
John Edwards has an "if elected" interview in the NYT today. It is a long interview, much of it on Iraq and Iran, that more than amply demonstrates Edwards's incredible cynicism, superficiality, and general unreadiness to lead this nation against the threats we face. Among his many deep thoughts:
The continued occupation of Iraq undermines everything America has to do to reestablish ourselves as a country that should be followed, that should be a leader.
. . . As we begin to redeploy out of Iraq we would be intensely involved at a high level in the political process between Sunni and Shia. We would be intensely involved in the diplomatic process with other countries in that region of the world. And simultaneously with that we should be building an international consensus that I believe can be constructed . . .
We know form the N.I.E. report that it appears [Iran] stopped making nuclear weapons program in 2003. If we did not verify that they have stopped and will continue to not pursue nuclear weapons and if we continue to have verification of that then we will help them with their economy, us and the Europeans. . .
Edwards also talks about maintaining a quick reaction force in the Middle East, though it is completely clear that this military genuis hasn't the faintest clue of the purpose of a QRF. At any rate, and in sum, like Ethelred in his day, Edwards seems completely unprepared to deal with the numerous foreign policy threats that face our nation.
I will not go through the trouble - nor risk the near fatal rise in blood pressure that will inevitably ensue - to deconstruct the idiocy, only a portion of which is quoted above, unless, by the hand of some God with a very malignant sense of humor, Edwards comes out of Iowa and New Hampshire appearing as if he has any chance at all of winning the Democratic nomination for President. Regardless, you can read the NYT interview here.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Interesting News From Around The Web
Walid Phares assesses the state of terrorism around the world. "In short, there are several "wars" on terror worldwide. . . . America is leading the widest campaign, but efforts around the globe are still dispersed, uncoordinated, and in many cases, contradictive."
At NRO, a symposium on Pakistan with a wide variety of views on Bhutto’s assassination and how we should interact with Pakistan, including this assessment from Victor David Hanson: "Pakistan is a nuclear dictatorship, with a thin Westernized elite sitting atop a vast medieval Islamist badlands that it cannot control."
Bhutto’s 19 y.o. son is expected to be named the successor as head of her political party. If he actually wins in the Pakistani election, this seems like it will lead to the sort of "palace intrigue" not seen since the days of Cardinal Richelieu.
More reflections on fallout from the Bhutto assassination here. And the Telegraph has an incisive article on the Frankenstein’s monster of terrorism nurtured by successive Pakistani governments, including Bhutto’s, that now threatens to overtake all of Pakistan. Former PM Sharif, an Islamist with Saudi support, is not what we want to see in charge of Pakistan. For some good background, see this Stephen Cohen article on the jihadi threat in Pakistan. And this from Tariq Ali on the Saudi connection to the madrassahs and terrorists in Pakistan.
Michael Ledeen examines more State Department pro-Iranian spin.
2007 was "a year that strode boldly into the stall of human events and took a wide stance astride the porcelain bowl of history." Read David Barry’s hilarious year in review.
A politically incorrect Aussie’s wish list for 2008.
Classical Values has some thoughts on our rather insane primary system that gives special weight to Iowa and New Hampshire.
A New Years Resolution for Congressional Republicans that all conservatives can get behind. End the earmarks.
And some late blogging of things I did not have time to get to earlier . . .
Hillary Clinton almost takes the cake for sublime idiocy. The last thing Pakistan needs at this point is further destabilization, but we have Hillary calling the current government illegitimate and demanding an international tribunal to investigate Bhutto’s assassination. While Obama does take the cake – finding that Bhutto’s assassination was caused by our prosecution of the Iraq war. If only we had surrendered earlier to al Qaeda, perhaps this would not have happened. Even the incredibly cynical John Edwards called that one a bit of idiocy.
A politically incorrect Aussie’s wish list for 2008.
Classical Values has some thoughts on our rather insane primary system that gives special weight to Iowa and New Hampshire.
A New Years Resolution for Congressional Republicans that all conservatives can get behind. End the earmarks.
And some late blogging of things I did not have time to get to earlier . . .
Hillary Clinton almost takes the cake for sublime idiocy. The last thing Pakistan needs at this point is further destabilization, but we have Hillary calling the current government illegitimate and demanding an international tribunal to investigate Bhutto’s assassination. While Obama does take the cake – finding that Bhutto’s assassination was caused by our prosecution of the Iraq war. If only we had surrendered earlier to al Qaeda, perhaps this would not have happened. Even the incredibly cynical John Edwards called that one a bit of idiocy.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Interesting News From Around the Web
In multicultural Britain, the Labour Party now wants to rewrite the British anthem, ‘God Save the Queen,’ to make it “more inclusive” and a little less unfriendly to its northern cousins. Specifically, the verse that calls for the “rebellious Scots” to be crushed seems to be problematic.
A fascinating post at Right Truth on the White Man’s Burden in the 21st Century
This is worrisome. Hillary Clinton seems to think Adam Smith no longer has application to our economy.
CAIR and the canard of rampant Islamaphobia at Q&O
CAIR has picked the dhimmi candidate for President. No surprises. Its John Edwards
The ACLU has a real problem with Marines praying on duty. The Marines have some suggestions for the ACLU
Remember the days when a person could figure out how to build a nuclear weapon from open sources in a library . . . . . Cheatseeking Missles has the modern Michael Crichtonesque equivalent.
From the No Good Seed Goes Unpunished category . . .
Christian Arabs are being cleansed from Palestinian controlled areas
Carl in Jerusalem tells us that Israel looking askance at the NIE on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
Iraq the Model discusses how to eat an elephant in Iraq
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Democrats & The Future of Iraq
The Democrats are going apoplectic. Not only does it appear that we will succeed in Iraq, but we will maintain a long term presence to provide internal and external stability. This would be fatal to all the non-principles (America is Bad, Bush is Incompetent, Partisan Political Gain, Iraq was a Mistake, Peace Through Superior Surrender-Power) that our Democrats hold dear. Poor Joe Klein at Time Magazine is even demanding we toss out the Constitution to prevent this one. And Harold Myerson, the legal scholar at the Washington Post, sees this as a nefarious plot by President Bush. Indeed, he warns "Bush's efforts to make the U.S. presence permanent would drape the necks of the Republican presidential and congressional candidates with one large, squawking albatross. " It sounds as if Republicans could be tagged with the eternal shame of success.
With the pax Americana taking hold in Iraq, with Iraqi forces increasing daily in size and effectiveness, and with the drawdown of U.S. forces having begun, it was reported yesterday that President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki had agreed to begin negotiations on the future of U.S. forces in Iraq. Basing troops long term in Iraq would be done, at the invitation of Iraq and for precisely the same reasons as justified statitoning troops in post-war Germany, Japan and Korea: to provide for the internal stability of a nascent Democracy and to protect against external threats. As to external threats to Iraq, Amir Taheri has pointed out that the countries surrounding Iraq have long been planning how to carve it up after the inevitable Democrat-led U.S. withdrawal. And as to internal stability, this from the NY Sun, quoting General Lute:
"From the Iraqi side, the interest that they tend to talk about is that a long-term relationship with us, where we are a reliable, enduring partner with Iraq, will cause different sects inside the Iraqi political structure not to have to hedge their bet in a go-it-alone-like setting, but rather they'll be able to bet on the reliable partnership of the United States," he said.
"To the extent it doesn't cause sectarian groups to have to hedge their bet independently, we're confident that this will actually contribute to reconciliation in the long run," he said.
The agreement in principle "signals that we will protect our interests in Iraq, alongside our Iraqi partners, and that we consider Iraq a key strategic partner, able to increasingly contribute to regional security," the general said.
Read the entire article. (H/T Don Surber)
A stable Iraq is the last thing radical Islamists, Middle East despots, or our Democrats want. According to Time Magazine’s Joe Klein:
The Democrats are lining up. . . . to block any Bush attempt to pass a Status of Forces Agreement treaty with Iraq. The question is, Will Bush try to bypass the Senate by making the SOFA an executive agreement with the Iraqi government? The answer is, of course he will.
. . . But any agreement that opens the door to permanent bases should require Senate approval. . . .
What an ass Joe Klein is. One, a SOFA agreement does not, itself, directly obligate us to station any troops on foreign soil. It merely sets the terms of how such soldiers will be treated in a foreign country. Moreover, SOFA agreements – which we have with virtually every country where our troops are stationed - are not and never have been treaties requiring Senate approval. The President negotiates and signs those agreements as Commander in Chief. As to the whether the Congress can dictate troop deployment once hostilities are ended, that implicates the Constitutional separation of powers between the President as Commander in Chief with day to day control of the military and the Congress whose authority is limited to budgeting and declaration of war. Apparently those nuances of Constitutional law are beyond the grasp of Mr. Klein. Just like the Second Amendment, it would seem that the Constitution need not be consulted when it conflicts with an end that the left is emotionally invested in achieving.
As to the Democrats “lining up,” well, I guess its not as if we have any vital national security interests at stake in Iraq and the Middle East:
Obama has definitively stated that he will "not maintain permanent bases in Iraq." Is it just me, or does that phrasing seem carefully worded?
You can read Hillary’s letter to the White House on the issue here. I love Hillary’s take on this. “To be clear, attempts to establish permanent bases in Iraq would damage U.S. interests in Iraq and the broader region . . .” She does not elaborate on this point, but I would love to hear her explain this in a debate. This is the logic of the far left. America can only succeed by losing. We can only achieve a lasting peace through defeat. It is nihilistic insanity.
John Edwards, though, takes the cake. In demanding a complete withdrawal from Iraq, John Edwards states that “Bush is planning to pursue a 'Korea-style' American occupation of Iraq for 10 years or more.”
How is our stationing of forces in Korea an occupation? An occupation denotes imposing military control over a region. Stationing troops in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government would be no more of an occupation than was the stationing of our troops in Germany or Japan after their own democratic governments been formed. They are there only at the host country invitation and to provide internal and external stability. And in every foreign country that our soldiers have been so stationed, that is precisely what has occurred. If Mr. Edwards is claiming that Korea does not want our troops there, the man has no touch with reality. The last politician who planned to remove our forces from the Korean peninsula was President Carter. And it was the Koreans who went nuts.
It would seem that our Copperheads are walking ever ever further down the road of defeat in Iraq and the world at large. It is a dangerous road for them indeed.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Interesting News From Around the Web
Brazil discovers huge oil reserves off its coast. Good. Brazil says OPEC needs to bring down the price per barrel of oil. Great.
The UN claims that “the world’s scientists have spoken, clearly and in one voice” with the release of the IPCC report claiming that humans are destroying the world through global warming. It would be nice if that "one voice" could get the facts right, at least in the first paragraph of its report. As to this one voice claim . . .
A use of the police force to crush dissent . . . by Democrats in Oklahoma. There is no force in America more committed to the stifling of free speech then the neo-liberals that make up today's Democratic Party.
George Will takes a look at some of the reprehensible company John Edwards keeps and tells us why lawyers such as Milberg Weiss give the legal profession a horrible image.
What a great juxtaposition. Gateway Pundit tallies the numbers from al Jazeera and another source to show just how successful the surge has been in Iraq: "violence in Iraq is down by 50%; civilian casualties in Iraq are down by 60%; Baghdad casualties are down by 75%; Basra violence is down by 90%; [and] terrorist attacks in Iraq are down by 80%." Compare that with the Washington Post, which has been running a near news blackout on good news from Iraq over the past several months, only to tell us today that President Bush is regaining his bearings - and they can't seem to grasp why. As WaPo puts it in their page 1 article: "In many ways, [President Bush's] shifting political fortunes may owe as much to the absence of bad news as to any particular good news."
Actually, the WaPo did include a bit of the good news out of Iraq today . . . on page A14. "U.S. officials on Sunday declared a 55 percent drop in attacks since the launch of an offensive nine months ago . . ." They also note that bombs across Iraq killed at least 20 people, highlighting the country's continuing security threats. Al Qadea is in tatters, but it still has a bite. Intelligence from the community led to a find of 20 vehicles rigged for suicide bombs just last week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
