Better late than never...

Fred Thompson confirmed all the rumors about his presidential candidacy last night on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. From his 15 or so minutes he actually made some decent points... his support of the war and being respected by the "international community" instead of being liked. Based on his appearance last night (and I really don't know much else about him or his views) he seems to have a solid grasp of things and certainly comes across in a straightforward, easy to understand manner. If his campaign team doesn't fall apart on him, he certainly can't be counted out...

Sen. Craig's resignation not worth the paper it's written on

What the hell is this guy thinking? Does he really want to withdraw his previous plea and have this go to trial? This bathroom sex scandal will be just the tip of the iceberg... WASHINGTON - To the dismay of fellow Republicans, Sen. Larry Craig launched a determined drive to save his seat on Wednesday, vowing to stay in office if allowed to withdraw his guilty plea in a men's room sex sting. Craig's campaign suffered an instant setback, however, when the ethics committee refused to set aside a complaint lodged against him. "Pending Sen. Craig's resignation, the committee will continue to review this matter," the committee's senior senators wrote. Craig's decision to deploy his legal team marked a reversal of his pledge to resign on Sept. 30, and raised the possibility of a protracted legal and political struggle, much of it playing out in public, with gay sex at its core. Please just resign Seantor. You've slimed yourself and the party enough already.

Sen. Larry Craig arrested in airport bathroom for lewd conduct

YOU'VE GOT TO BE FREAKIN' KIDDING ME! Are Republicans trying to lose every election for the next 20 years? Roll Call is reporting that Sen. Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican, was arrested earlier this summer in a men's room at the Minneapolis airport by an undercover officer investigating complaints about sexual activity. The Capitol Hill newspaper says it obtained the arrest report. So far, CNN and several blogs are reporting the news. On Aug. 8 Craig pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct. A 10-day sentence was stayed, but he received a year probation and paid more than $500 in fines and fees, Roll Call writes. A spokesman for Craig described the June 11 incident as a “he said/he said misunderstanding,” and said the senator's office would release a fuller statement later today. He said/he said misunderstanding... that has all the marks of an Onion news piece... But don't stop reading now... It only gets better... [...] After he was arrested, Craig, who is married, was taken to the Airport Police Operations Center to be interviewed about the lewd conduct incident, according to the police report. At one point during the interview, Craig handed the plainclothes sergeant who arrested him a business card that identified him as a U.S. Senator and said, “What do you think about that?” the report states. I'd be saying that that makes him a bigger loser than George Michael. [...] “At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area,” the report states. Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times, and Karsnia noted in his report that “I could ... see Craig had a gold ring on his ring finger as his hand was on my side of the stall divider.” Karsnia then held his police identification down by the floor so that Craig could see it. “With my left hand near the floor, I pointed towards the exit. Craig responded, ‘No!’ I again pointed towards the exit. Craig exited the stall with his roller bags without flushing the toilet. ... Craig said he would not go. I told Craig that he was under arrest, he had to go, and that I didn’t want to make a scene. Craig then left the restroom.” A caller to Hugh Hewitt's show made the excellent point that if Craig was doing this at high noon and knew all the signals, that this probably wasn't his first time getting busy in a bathroom. What the hell are Republican elected officials doing? Unbelievable...

Senate votes 50 to 48 to add expiration date to Iraq war

They also want to make sure all the pork is shoved down our throats before the American public wakes up and realizes the Democrats they elected just a few months ago have totally abandonned the middle-of-the-road positions they took during the campaigns, taking a sharp turn to the left. Thank you sir may I have another.... WASHINGTON, March 27 — The Senate defeated an attempt to erase an American troop withdrawal date from an Iraq spending bill this afternoon after an emotional debate about the powers of the presidency and Congress and the well-being of front-line soldiers. By a vote of 50 to 48, the Senate allowed a withdrawal date of March 31, 2008, to remain in the $122 billion bill, which has yet to be acted upon. The majority defeated an amendment offered by Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, that would have removed the date. The March 31, 2008, date is nonbinding, so the spending bill emerging from the Senate differs markedly from the version narrowly passed by the House last week that demanded a withdrawal by Sept. 1, 2008. Moreover, the margins in both chambers were far too narrow to override a veto promised by President Bush. Republican Senators Chuck Hagel (Nebraska) and Gordon Smith (Oregon) voted with the Democrats to pass the bill. At least we know Bush will veto it, and as of now the cut-and-run Dems don't have the votes to overturn the veto.

Senate Republicans stand firm and block the Democrats attempt to force troop withdrawal

The only Republican that broke ranks and voted with the Dems was Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon. WASHINGTON, March 15 — The Senate on Thursday rejected a Democratic resolution to withdraw most American combat troops from Iraq in 2008, but a similar measure advanced in the House, and Democratic leaders vowed to keep challenging President Bush to change course in Iraq. Go to Complete Coverage » The vote in the Senate was 50 against and 48 in favor, 12 short of what was needed to pass, with just a few defections in each party. It came just hours after the House Appropriations Committee, in another vote largely on party lines, approved an emergency spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that includes a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. The House will vote on that legislation next Thursday, setting the stage for another confrontation. [...] The Democratic resolution in the Senate would have redefined the United States mission in Iraq and set a goal of withdrawing American combat troops by March 31, 2008, except for a “limited number” focused on counterterrorism, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and protecting American and allied personnel. The House measure set a withdrawal deadline of Sept. 1, 2008. Good work Senate Republicans blocking the Democrats proposal. Setting a set date for withdrawal is like giving the terrorists a date after which they can do whatever they want. It's like Aussie Prime Minister Howard had said about a possible presidential Democratic victory in '08: "If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March, 2008, and pray as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats." Whatever date we set for withdrawal, I'm sure the terrorists' calendar would have a big circle around that date. But cheer up Democrats. Your party finally did a couple things right. They finally had an original idea, and they actually tried to enact policy based on that idea. Sure it was about as wrong an idea as they could have possibly come up with, but at least it's more than the pointless anti-Bush blather that they usually rely on.

Rudy Giuliani slams the nonbinding resolution against the war and the government officials who support it

Amen Rudy! GIULIANI: I mean, you can look at the practical and common sense conclusion on that anyway you want. But there's something more important than that. We have a right of free speech in this country and we elect people to make decisions. Here's what I would prefer to see them do, though, if you ask me what's my view on that. The nonbinding resolution thing gets me more than are you for it or against it. I have tremendous respect for the people who feel that we either made a mistake going to war, who voted against the war, who now have come to the conclusion, changed their minds, they have every right to that, that it's wrong, you should, in a dynamic situation, keep questioning. What I don't like is the idea of a nonbinding resolution. KING: Because? GIULIANI: Because there's no decision. KING: But it's a statement. GIULIANI: Yes, but that's what you do. That's what Tim Russert does and that's what Rush Limbaugh does. That's what you guys do, you make comments. We pay them to make decisions, not just to make comments. We pay them to decide. The United States Congress does declarations, the war. We pay them to make decisions. Amen. If they're so opposed to the war, defund it. So put your money where your mouth is Democrats (and White Flag Republicans). Put up a resolution to defund the war, something that would actually be a decision, or are you afraid of the consequences?

Several Republicans begin to break ranks and join the Democrats

They're supporting the Democrats' non-binding resolution disapproving of the 20,000 troop surge. WASHINGTON — Breaking ranks, a small band of House Republicans declared their opposition to a troop buildup in Iraq on Wednesday, and President Bush appeared resigned to passage of a nonbinding measure disapproving of his decision. Whoopee. That dumb resolution is about as important as my opinion on who should advance on American Idol and who they should employ as a judge on the show. You know what, I'm going to write a non-binding resolution that says I do not support Simon Cowell's continued employment as a judge on American Idol. H. CON. RES. 63 Disapproving of the decision of the President American Idol producers and Fox Television announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq continue the employment of Simon Cowell as an American Idol judge. Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring) JWookie (the blogosphere concurring), That-- (1) Congress The blogosphere and the American people will continue to support and protect the members citizens of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq pursuing their dream to be the next American Idol; and (2) Congress The blogosphere and JWookie specifically disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush American Idol producers and Fox Television announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq employ Simon Cowell as a judge for American Idol. I bet it only takes hours for Fox to fire him... ... just you wait and see... ... any day now he's gone... ... fired... ... unemployed... ... don't blink you might miss it... ... there will be thousands of Idol contestants taking to the streets in joyous celebration... ... really... there will...

It's always fun mixing it up with dissenting, anonymous commenters...

This person wasn't exactly a troll, but did their best to cover their tracks... So I thought I'd post their original comment as well as my repsonse. It's so much easier to read when you don't have to scroll through those tiny Haloscan comments windows... I stumbled across you blog. it's so fascinating to read a conservative perspective on war. The problem I have with Iraq war is the number of Iraqi deaths. The fucked up situation in Iraq wasn't created by Americans...it happened way before all of that with the division of the Ottoman empire...the formation of a multi-tribed nation state later living under a dictator... the problems are complex but why are American troops in there trying to liberate a country and killing so many people in the process? THere's this paternalistic attitude that only Americans can save these people because they are too uncivilised to govern themselves. They support unpopular governments that promote the American agenda. While the idea of saving a country from an evil dictator is noble (and Hollywood) the reality is the dictator is dead, there are more people dying. What is being gained from this war? Meanwhile North Korea has nukes, and after seeing what happened in Iraq I'm sure more countries will be nuking up to protect themselves. The only country that has ever dropped a nuke on a civillian population is us. More people will die for nothing. So many in Iraq already have. An American life is not worth more than an Iraqi life. All life is equal. You people amaze me with your over simplification of issues. I guess it makes the world an easier place to live in. Have a nice life. - Interest A fabulous comment, no? So here's my reply... Hey, thanks for stopping by. Other perspectives are always welcome here. I can appreciate your concern for the Iraqi civilian casualties, and I agree that the problem in Iraq (and the Middle East in general) is based on issues and hatreds centuries old. We are coming into this fight a bit late... And that's about where my agreement with you ends. 99% of civilians killed in Iraq were murdered by the insurgents in an effort to break the spirit of not just Americans, but Iraqis as well. They're certainly not being killed by US troops. All you have to do is read any newspaper or tune to any news program to see the latest car bomb at a market, mosque, or recruitment center. And since you appear to by confused by who's who over there, our guys are the ones wearing uniforms, in jeeps, holding guns. You know... normal soldiers. The bad guys are hiding among the innocent, using them as shields, blowing them up in an effort to blackmail us. What I love about the liberal perspective is how they make the terrorists moral equivalents to our troops. They kill civilians, we kill terrorists. Apparently that's a distinction only those not blinded by their liberal hate can recognize. As far as the popularity contest, you'd prefer be the main priority of the US government, the Iraqi government is only unpopular with the insurgents. The average Iraqi was thrilled at the chance to vote on their leadership. Just see the poll turnouts. And they're damn thankful we ignored the rest of the world and helped free them from the oppressive, genocidal, murderer that had been ruling their country. As far as North Korea and their nukes, you've got a great example of what happens when you ignore the rest of the world and rely 100% on diplomatic efforts. Kim Jong Il flat out lied to Clinton, signed the nuclear proliferation treaty, and then went ahead with his nuclear programs anyway. We didn't attack NK, or anywhere nearby that made him fear for the safety of his nation. Evil dictators don't need an excuse for their nuclear agendas, and saying they'd only pursue nukes because we are in the region is a gross, childish oversimplification. Sure we've got nukes and yes we've used them and we did so to force the hand of an adversary unwilling to surrender. How long should we have let that war drag on? That of course brings us to your million dollar question, why are we there? How's national security, global war on terror, and freeing an oppressed people strike you? And wouldn't you know it, that also shows that we value Iraqi life just as much as we value American life. We value it so much that we're sending our own sons and daughters there, risking their lives for the lives of Iraqis. Some might even argue we're valuing the lives of the Iraqis more than our own. Regardless, it certainly doesn't prove we don't value Iraqi lives. So when you're done oversimplifying things with your pacifist hopes and dreams that we ought to be trying to make a world were all problems are solved with hugs and puppy dogs, I'll be having a nice life. In reality. Anyone want to add something? Feel free to leave a comment! And hopefully, in the next couple days, I'll get a chance to repsond to a global warming email I got. This guy didn't like the little Al Gore image over on the left... So check back soon for that!

Al Qaeda leader in Iraq takes credit for Rumsfeld's resignation

Why is it so hard for Americans to believe that the Iraqis are closely watching what we do here at home, including our elections? BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A purported audio recording by the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq vows to step up the group's fight against the United States, saying, "We haven't had enough of your blood yet." The recording was posted Friday on an Islamist Web site and the speaker is identified as Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, successor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Al-Muhajer is also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri. "Come down to the battlefield, you coward," the speaker says on the recording, which CNN cannot independently confirm as the voice of al-Muhajer. Calling President Bush a "lame duck" the speaker tells Bush not to "run away as your lame defense secretary ran away," referring to Donald Rumsfeld, who resigned Wednesday. [...] The speaker on the tape vows that al Qaeda in Iraq will not stop its jihad "until we sit under the olive trees in Rumiya after we blow up the wicked house known as the White House." He says the first phase of the jihad is now over, and that the next phase -- building an Islamic nation -- has begun. "The victory day has come faster than we expected," he says. "Here is the Islamic nation in Iraq victorious against the tyrant. The enemy is incapable of fighting on and has no choice but to run away." And being that we're in a "lame duck session" on top of Rumsfeld's resignation, America needs to take note that our actions at home are being monitored by the terrorists, and they're taking their cues from us. Rumsfeld's resignation is seen as a retreat. The Republican's loss in the midterm election is seen as weakness. America take note. We are under surveillance...

This is not what I wanted to see when I woke up this morning...

Ugh... I need some coffee... It's going to be a long two years. Don't expect to hear any whining here though. None of that "if Dems win I'm moving to Canada" crap. Not here. But America voted, turned out in record numbers in fact. And there was angry streak in some Republicans looking to send a message to what they perceived as a Republican govenrment that had strayed from its core values: fiscal responsibility, border security, small government, and family values. Turns out that faction got what it wanted. Lots of Republican representatives are cleaning out their DC offices for new Democrats to take over. The message has been sent; hopefully it motivates Republicans still in office to get their priorities straight. We controlled the House, Senate, and White House for 6 years but couldn't manage to get a fence across the entire Mexican border, we continue to waste money on huge social programs like prescription drugs and education, the government bureaucracy is larger than ever, and scandals were an anchor around several Republicans trying to replace their corrupt predecessors. In the mean time however, we've got Speaker Nancy Pelosi (San Francisco liberal), Judiciary Chair John Conyers (openly for impeaching Bush), and Ways and Means Chair Charlie Rangel (education and employment are the government's job). So look for the silver lining... Blogs sure aren't going to have a shortage of material with Dems taking over the House. Maybe we can show the country exactly what their priorities are. Still... Speaker Pelosi? (shudder)