Romney, McCain and timetable

according to CNN

“The sharpest exchange in the debate came when Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was asked about the McCain campaign’s charge that he once said he favored a strict timetable for removing troops from Iraq.

Romney has consistently denied ever having backed a timetable and said McCain was taking a small portion of a quote out of context.

“It’s simply wrong,” Romney said. “By the way, raising it a few days before the Florida primary, when there was very little time for me to correct the record, falls in the kind of dirty tricks that Ronald Reagan would have found reprehensible.” But McCain, the Arizona senator who has strongly backed President Bush’s Iraq policy, accused Romney of hedging after public support for the war waned.”

OK, if it is so why state talker McCain would not say in a few days before the Florida primary that “Romney of hedging after public support for the war waned” instead of lying about Romney embracing a timetable foe withdraw ?

 McCain may be right that Romney should support surge back then in more clear words. I would agree with McCain in that.

But I am troubled by the fact that instead of criticizing Romney for not clear enough supporting the surge  , McCain start making stories about Romney accepting a timetable. Why in order to make a legitimate point McCain has to lie?

Is it the high moral ground on which McCain is making gains?

McCain versus Romney

CNN super Tuesday republican debates;

McCain versus Romney:

“ I am a leader and I was leading out of patriotism not for profit.”

Does it mean that McCain is discounting all those who are making a leaving by making a profit by entrepreneurship? Is it enough to be hero to diminish all those who are keeping economy running by making personal profits?  How can McCain be a president of the USA if he is mocking the idea of making profit in the USA?

May be he should just apply for position of Defense secretary in Romney administration?

Who is voting for Ron Paul?

Is Ron Paul popular??? Yes he is! Does it mean that he is right? No, it does not. Why is Ron Paul is popular? Because racism and anti-Semitism still have a lot of fans in this country. Fight anti-Semitism and racism of Ron Paul, fight arrogant isolationism, say a word against Ron Paul. In the meantime….whatever you do, do not say anything, if you want …. after all, KKK have to have somebody to vote for.

Losers for Obama

My fellow bloggers are saying that Kerry endorsed Obama, and Ned Lamont endorsed Barack Obama too. Wait a second, wasn’t Lamont a big looser? Wasn’t Kerry a huge loser as well? May be these endorsements are a liability rather than an asset, is it a coalition of “losers for Obama”?

Obama.Variations on topics of populism: part one ” undo the war”

Listening to Barack Obama’s recent speech in Manchester New Hampshire (CSPN-2) :

Incredibly populist speech. He can beat even Edwards with his blatant populism.

If I will have time I will go point by point: education, healthcare , global warming; all accessories of populism are in place. Nothing really new in this populist talk.

History knows only two forms of implementation of populism: communism and fascism. Those who like populism have to choose on those above because there are no other historical options available.

 

Let me focus only on his favorite aspect : anti war ( or to be precise pro-defeat) position. His anti-war vote is essentially only thing that separates him from Clinton who is essentially same populist position in terms of universal healthcare and feeding money to educational system.

So let us see what Obama is saying about the war:

1.

” undo the war” slogan

He reminds us again and again that he was one who was against the war.

You were against war? OK! Let us for the sake of argument accept that you were right then. It does not mean that you are right now. Things changed between then and now. You cannot stay in the past .You have to adjust your political mind to new reality. You do not like this reality? So do I. But if you do not like a reality it does not mean that you can ignore a reality: there is no “UNDO” button on “ political computer”. You were against the war it does not mean that you can “undo“ that war. And this is what Obama essentially is saying: “I was against the war then , war was wrong then , and if you will elect me I will end the war ( read “ I will capitulate”)”.

He presumes, for some reason, that after he will surrender everything will be like it was before the war. He presumes that the war will be undone by electing him as a president. Very misleading and deceitful message.

2.

price of withdrawal: misleading out of the war versus misleading in the war

If Obama indeed is honest as he claims (the main message of Obama’s is that he is honest outsider unlike other candidates who are dishonest insiders ) he has to talk right now with his constituency about price of withdrawal which will be huge. But he is not talking about price of capitulation, he is talking only about how correct he was back then when he was against the war. ( his glorious moment as he thinks)

He either does not understand what he is talking about or he is disingenuous in order to just to be elected. Why he his not talking with constituency about the price of withdrawal ( capitulation)? He is saying that if he is a president he will talk honestly about problems. So talk to us about the price of capitulation! Repercussions of capitulation will be catastrophic or at least they serious enough to talk about if you are really honest, of course . Capitulation means broken commitments, slaughtered allies, forever brokent trust in USA as word worthy partner.

So my question to Obama is : OK we got your message , you were right then does it mean that you have an alibi for being wrong now?

3.

personal vanity of Bush versus personal vanity of Obama;

May be starting the war was caused by personal vanity of Bush. May be so . But it looks like that loosing the war is a goal dedicated to personal vanity of Obama. Just because he voted against war, war has to be lost . Otherwise … he was wrong! So hurry up Obama , obstruct American efforts to win the war! If the USA will win this war it iwill prove that you were wrong back then voting against the war! You cannot afford it personally , so you have to “ stop Bush” in his efforts to win the war.

We are paying price for mistakes of Bush . I agree with that .Many things were done wrong. But why anybody would think that “ ending the war “ ( read capitulation) just because Obama voted back then against the war, will solve any of our problems? Would capitulation be a monument to Obama’s vanity?

Why daily kos hates Lieberman?

Because in 2006 “Daily Kos put itself totally in the service of Lamont.” And still Liebermann not just won but won decisively . So, Liebermann exposed lack of influence of daily kos on normal people . Liebermann proved that daily kos is overrated politically or at least he proved that you can deal against daily kos successfully. Who knows may be if daily kos did not help Lamont in 2006 Lamont would win???

Why am I not a democrat? KKK + daily kos + senator Dodd

Daily Kos is KKK of nowadays.

Convention by left wing nuts with “all paranoia conspiracy theories” collected together is OK for free country ( against which these nuts are all trying to make a case ). But any ” reputable ” politician who associates him/ herself with this celebrations of political intolerance is marked as hatemongering for me. You cannot claim USA voters‘ votes and be in KKK in the same time, and the daily kos is KKK of the left today.

Same anti-Semitism, same intolerance , same demagoguery, same KKK-like IDEOLOGY DRIVEN actions , same disregard to the good of own country.

So who are those democrat candidates who are attending this festivity of intolerance in the USA today ??

ALL OF THEM !!
Hillary will attend YearlyKos

I do agree with Patrick who made this comment :

“This is political suicide for them, the majority of America doesn’t
support or read Daily Kos… they are a hateful far left website.
Even the majority of left wingers will be turned off by this. Unless
they change their minds about this, this is going to hurt them long
term I would think. ?”

All main candidates from democratic side had to make their sacrifices on the ALTAR of daily kos. But Dodd went beyond of all of them. may be because he is a biggest looser or may be just he is the most stupid of all of them.

In anyway, today , senator Dodd and Daily Kos are two reasons why I am not a democrat.

I watched the piece with Dodd and O’Reilly on the Fox . For the record: I am not a fan of O’Reilly in anyway. I think O’Reilly is incapable to withstand a serious discussion, he is too self- absorbed and not intellectual enough. I am not a fan of republicans either. I voted republican last time but I feel myself independent after failure of Bush to fight the war as it must be fought ,thinking of our troops first and of anything else later .

So, I am not a partisan person . But what I found out after this segment with Dodd and O’Reilly on Fox is that I am accidentally ( may be )on the right side .I see no nutcases like Dodd on the side of republicans. I see that Dodd was beneath O’Reilly .Dodd was hysterical typical … left nut , because he is typical democrat today ???

Dodd’s logic is that because too many people are visiting daily kos it makes daily kos beyond criticism for, for example , disgusting mockery of Liebermann is the same as anybody would defend pedophiles and sex offenders are using the web to justify their addictions . There are too many people who are visiting pornography and pedophile sites , does it make it justified? Would democrats visit pedophile’s and pornographers’ conventions just because there are many people are visiting sites of that kind? I guess they would, and this is why I am not a democrat today.

Are Democrats palying like Bolsheviks ?

Democrats are calling for withdraw of troops. Democrats are OK with defeat in Iraq because the military defeat of the USA in Iraq means a political defeat of Bush, and, by proxy, defeat of GOP. So, military defeat of USA in Iraq will be a political victory for Democrats. Democrats have capitalized on anti-war sentiment in 2006, and they are going to bet on anti-war mood and general apathy of public during 2008 campaign. I do not blame Democrats for using anti-war demagoguery as a main tool in 2008 elections. After all, they have nothing else what separates them from GOP. They are similarly corrupted. And similarly incapable to achieve anything in Congress. So Democrats   rely solemnly on ending the war and on winning political power by ending the war. It is exactly what Lenin and Bolsheviks did during WWI: he used the national tragedy as an instrument of grabbing the power.

 

Anti-war versus anti-violence

I do not trust anti-war people. I am sure that their goal is political demagoguery.

If they are real anti-violence dedicated citizens, why nobody demonstrates against mass killings by terrorists ?

Can anybody refer me to at least one recent anti-terrorist demonstration? Does anybody know about at least one action by anti-war crowd, pacifists and other “anti-violence” talkers against suicide bombing and car bombing maniacs?

I challenge those who are calling us to stop “violence in Iraq” to explain why it is OK to ignore deliberate mass killings by terrorists and in the same time use casualties and violence as a “moral” excuse for accepting a defeat by withdrawal?

If they are anti-violence, why do they not think about those Iraqis who will be killed for sure if/when we leave? According to all experts there will be more casualties if we leave! So, if they really care about Iraqis, you should be for us staying there. Anyway, it cannot be both ways: crying for Iraqi casualties from suicide bombs and in the same time by damning them to even worse casualties.

These “anti-war” people are not “anti-violence” in general, they are “anti-violence by USA.”

This leads to at least three conclusions:

1. they are essentially anti-American because they are focusing exclusively and solely only against violence created by Americans
2. they are encouraging terrorism and violence against Americans because by ignoring terrorist violence they are creating a moral alibi for terrorists. And it is all terrorists need.
3. Being for withdrawal essentially means to be for escalation of violence. Being anti-war today means mean being pro-violence not against it.

 

 

So if we will withdraw for the sake of stopping violence it will be anti-American, pro-terrorist action encouraging further violence.

Prove me wrong

 

Levinism as the new Leninism

There is new political doctrine around. Its called Levinism after senator Levin!

As similarly sounding and ideologically related Leninism of Russia, Levinism is looking for the defeat of its own country in a war in order to gain a political advantages for own party .

Levin Urges Republicans to Back His Troop Withdrawal Plan. He said :”If those Republicans who say they want a change in course in Iraq will vote for one, we can start bringing our troops home and force the Iraqi political leaders to take responsibility for their own country,” (source)The question is what then??? According to the doctrine of levinism it will be peace and all of the USA will live happily ever after !!!

Let us for the sake of argument presume that Iraq invasion was a mistake. Can Dems due to their anti republican paranoia not see that withdrawal , as they see, it will be even bigger mistake? Granted, war is not going well. So what ? The normal thinking would be how to change the situation and to win. But they even do not want to think about winning. Why? Because winning in Iraq will make republicans stronger.

It is surreal to me but the fact: Pelosi cannot meet Petraeus but she found time to visit Bashar Al-ASSAD!

This is the real face of democratic party today . Party which has same demands as our enemy. In fact all those demands by Democrats to “ stop the war” are identical to demands of Taliban , Al-qaida, Iran and others.

 

The problem is that with no leadership from white house (and Bush provides none) they got a huge opening to exercise virtually unchallenged demagoguery . Liberal press is spinning everything in vacuum left by Bush’s inability to articulate a position of the USA in this global war.

We are facing the new Revolutionary Defeatism coming form the left

Levin said :

 

“It would require the President to begin reducing U.S. forces in Iraq within 120 days”

I bet al-quaida and Iran second this motion . Any doubts??

• • “It would limit the mission of our remaining troops to protecting our service-members and diplomats; training Iraqi security forces; and conducting operations against al-Qaeda; with the transition to those missions to be completed by next April”

Limit mission of troops by self protection? How about to limit mission of police on the dangerous neighborhoods by self-protection? Conducting operations against al-Qaeda? Like what ? How? What are priorities? Self-protection of troops or conducting operations?

• • “It would require a comprehensive diplomatic, political and economic effort to help create and sustain stability in the region.”

This is hilarious! Any examples of “comprehensive diplomatic, political and economic effort to help create and sustain stability in the region”? Oslo? Oil for food program? Levin sounds sometimes like Lenin, sometimes like Chamberlain. Very odd combination.

Situation is that: We are fighting a new type of war. War without rules with enemy with no face. It is difficult to figure out how to fight this war and therefore we are loosing precious lives of our troops. Leadership is bad or rather there is no leadership at all.

Solution how democrats see it: run away .They suggest us to forget everything and pretend it never happened. Let us pretend that USA was not attacked on 9/11and let us hope that the world will love us again after we retreat. Sounds silly? May be if you would remember that defeat in Iraq is inevitably a political defeat of Bush and by proxy defeat of GOP it is not that silly for Democrats . They see their gains on anti war sentiment in 2006 . After all they have nothing else what separates them from GOP. They are similarly corrupted. And similarly incapable to achieve anything in congress. So they rely solemnly on ending the war and by ending the war winning political power. It is exactly what Lenin did during WW1: he used the national tragedy as an instrument of grabbing the power.

May be Bush must be impeached but not for starting the war, but for not fighting the war he started. He must be impeached for not winning the war and wasting precious lives of our troops, not by not letting them fight. But Levin definitely must be called for what he is , traitor and defeatist-demagogue .

He calls for accepting a defeat and then negotiating a victory!!!