A Surge is a Surge is a Surge….

“Vets for Freedom will not stand by and let the incredible progress of our troops go unnoticed by the American public and lawmakers from either side of the aisle,” Vets for Freedom Chairman Pete Hegseth, a decorated former Army infantry platoon leader in Baghdad, said in a statement.

“It is essential that our top legislators — regardless of party — understand the importance of victory in Iraq, the consequences of defeat and the success of the surge,” Hegseth said.

“Sen. Obama has said that he would still oppose the surge if given another opportunity and has pointed to every outside factor but the surge to explain improvements in Iraq. We hope he will listen to the veterans who have served there and support this important resolution for the sake of the troops.”

Say No More

(H/T to Hot Air)


Obama/Biden: Color Me Unimpressed

Obama picks Joe Biden as VP candidate

Joe Biden: ”I exaggerate when I’m angry”

Joe Biden’s racist slip

Biden’s description of Obama

Barrel of gaffes

Biden’s Gaffe: No Apology Needed

Obama on NewBorns and Abortion

Read Andrew McCarthy’s take: It sums it up

The Dude’s Favorite Part? The lede:

There wasn’t any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren’t cooperating. They wouldn’t die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”

No, Senator. They wouldn’t go along with the program. They wouldn’t just come out limp and dead.

They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among “the least of my brothers.” But of course, an abortion extremist can’t very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters — millions of them — is somehow not among America’s greatest moral failings.

Also, check out this transcript from April 4, 2002, where Obama challenges the Born-Alive bill’s sponsor:

OBAMA: Yeah. Just along the same lines. Obviously, this is an issue that we’ve debated extensively both in committee an on the floor so I — you know, I don’t want to belabor it. But I did want to point out, as I understood it, during the course of the discussion in committee, one of the things that we were concerned about, or at least I expressed some concern about, was what impact this would have with respect to the relationship between the doctor and the patient and what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation. So, can you just describe for me, under this legislation, what’s going to be required for a doctor to meet the requirements you’ve set forth?

SENATOR O’MALLEY: First of all, there is established, under this legislation, that a child born under such circumstances would receive all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, and that’s as defined, of course, by the … practice of medicine in the community where this would occur. It also requires, in two instances, that … an attending physician be brought in to assist and advise with respect to the issue of viability and, in particular, where … there’s a suspicion on behalf of the physician that the child … may be [viable,] … the attending physician would make that determination as to whether that would be the case…. The other one is where the child is actually born alive … in which case, then, the physician would call as soon as practically possible for a second physician to come in and determine the viability.

SENATOR OBAMA: So — and again, I’m — I’m not going to prolong this, but I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?

SENATOR O’MALLEY: In the first instance, obviously the physician that is performing the procedure would make the determination. The second situation is where the child actually is born and is alive, and then there’s an assessment — an independent assessment of viability by … another physician at the soonest practical … time.

SENATOR OBAMA: Let me just go to the bill, very quickly. Essentially, I think as — as this emerged during debate and during committee, the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purpose of the mother’s health, is being — that — that — labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now, it — if you think there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I — I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a — an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. Now, if that’s the case — and — and I know that some of us feel very strongly one way or another on that issue — that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.

More from the Dude:

Obama’s Lost Article in the Harvard Law Review:

Obama’s ‘Spotless’ Record

Uh…Yeah…What He Said: McCain’s Great Speech

Senator Obama is an impressive speaker, and the beauty of his words has attracted many people, especially among the young, to his campaign. I applaud his talent and his success. And all Americans should be proud of his accomplishment. I know I am.

My concern with Senator Obama is that on issues big and small, what he says and what he does are often two different things, and that he doesn’t seem to understand that the policies he offers would make our problems harder not easier to solve.

Senator Obama says he’s going to change Washington, but his solution is to simply make government bigger, and raise your taxes to pay for it. We’ve been doing that for years, and it hasn’t worked. In the few years he’s been in the Senate, he has requested nearly a billion dollars in pork barrel spending. That’s nearly a million dollars for every day he’s been in office.

I’ve never asked for a single pork barrel project for my state of Arizona, and as President, I will veto every bill that wastes your money, and make the authors famous. I will order a top to bottom review of every government program before I give them one additional dollar of funding. Those programs that are doing important work for the American people have nothing to fear from me. Those that can be modernized and made more effective will find me a willing partner. And those that have outlived their usefulness to you, and waste your money on things you neither want nor need, are going out of business whether they like it or not.

Senator Obama says he will only raise taxes on the rich. But in the Senate, he voted for tax hikes that would have impacted those making just $32,000 per year. He has proposed tax increases on income taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, Social Security taxes – pretty much anything that you can tax, he wants to tax more. Raising taxes in a bad economy is about the worst thing you could do because they would kill more jobs in an economy that‘s already losing too many. I‘m going to keep current tax rates low, and cut others, not because I want to make the rich richer, but because it keeps jobs in America and creates new ones, and gets our economy moving again by making sure you have more money to spend and save as you see fit.

Senator Obama says he wants energy independence, but he is opposed to new drilling at home; he is opposed to nuclear power; he is opposed to encouraging the invention of an affordable electric car that can run a hundred miles or more before it needs to be re-charged. He has even criticized wind and hydropower. He has said the high cost of gasoline doesn’t bother him, only that it rose too quickly. He believes every domestic energy source has a problem. I believe every energy source needs to be part of the solution. We need to develop new advanced alternative energies like wind, solar, tide and biofuels, but we also need to develop more existing energies like nuclear power and clean coal. And we need to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don‘t like us very much or care that Americans are suffering, start drilling and producing more oil at home, and bring down the cost of gasoline that is killing our economy.

On Iraq, Barack Obama says he wants peace, but even today he opposes the strategy of the surge that succeeded in Iraq and will succeed in Afghanistan. No rational person could see the progress we’ve made in the last year and a half, and not recognize that the surge, and the brave Americans who made it work, rescued us from a terribly dangerous defeat and put us on the road to victory. I don’t question his patriotism. This country has been as good to Senator Obama as it has been to me, and I’m sure he loves it. He just doesn’t understand how our defeat in Iraq would have left al Qaeda with a base to prepare attacks against us; increased Iranian power in the region; and threatened to draw other countries in the Middle East into a wider war that would have demanded even greater sacrifices from us. He didn’t see the danger in his policy, and so he thinks Iraq was just another issue to play politics with. Just like he doesn’t see that his policy of unconditional withdrawal before we are certain Iraqis can protect the gains we have achieved at the cost of American blood and treasure could result in in renewed violence and a third Iraq war. I hate war, and I know its costs better than many. When I bring our troops home, I intend to keep them home, leaving Iraq secured, and a democratic ally in the Arab heartland.

The bottom line is that Senator Obama’s words, for all their eloquence and passion, don’t mean all that much. And that’s the problem with Washington. It is not just the Bush Administration, and it’s not just the Democratic Congress. It’s that everyone in Washington says whatever it takes get elected or to score the political point of the day. If Senator Obama doesn’t have the strength to speak openly and directly about how he will address the serious challenges confronting America? How will he be strong enough to really change Washington? We don’t need another politician in Washington who puts self-interest and political expediency ahead of problem solving. We need to start putting the country’s interests first, and come together to keep American families safe and help them realize their dreams for a better life.

In war and peace, I have been an imperfect servant of my country. But I have been her servant first, last and always. Whenever I faced an important choice between my country’s interests or my own interests, party politics or any special interest, I chose my country. Nothing has ever mattered more to me than the honor of serving America, and nothing ever will. If you elect me President, I will always put our country first. I will put its greatness; its prosperity and peace; and the hopes and concerns of the people who make it great before any personal or partisan interest. We are going to start making this government work for you and not for the ambitions of the powerful. And I will keep that promise every hour of every day I am in office, so help me God.

Is Hillary Clinton Changing Her Vote?

She sure seems like a McCain supporter to me. Watch:

Who will Obama Throw Under the Bus Next?

Any ideas on who Obama will throw under the bus next? My hope is that he goes with the utterly detestable Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid…He’s a disgrace…

(H/T: Jawa)

Published in: on June 26, 2008 at 2:53 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , ,

Get Disappointed by Someone New??

Check out this Pro-Obama bumper sticker from the good folks at The Edge of the American West.

It made me laugh, so I figured I would share it with you…although, to be forewarned, the profits benefit the Obama Campaign.


I’m working on my own version of a McCain bumper sticker. It’ll read: Get disappointed by someone old. McCain 2008.

Drill, Refine, Build: A Guide for the Present and the Future

The only way to really solve the oil crisis in America is to attack the problem from all angles and with ferocity.
Let’s drill off shore and in ANWR, start building refineries and nuclear power plants, invest in green technologies and use less energy (when possible). Doing this will show the rest of the world that we are serious about being energy independent. For all the hand-wringing and blather coming from Obama’s mouth, he offers very little in the way of solutions. As far as I can tell, Obama’s plan is to tax the oil companies, and therefore the people who invest in the oil companies, more, ban any new drilling in America, not build any new refineries and not build any new nuclear power plants. And the man has the nerve to call it a plan that will lower gas prices. How exactly, Senator Obama?
The Dems in Congress, and their standard bearer in the race for the presidency, need to wise up and do the right thing for once.
Also, the oil companies are not evil. They are responsible for making the things we use on a daily basis, work. And they are owned by Americans with pensions and 401K’s and other investments. The problem is the U.S. Congress, not the oil companies themselves.
More from the Washington Post

Vets to Obama: Where’s the Love?