Cheney: 1994 and 2002

By now, I am sure everyone has seen Cheney’s remarks in 1994 regarding the decision to not topple Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War. To summarize, he stated that without Saddam, outside forces would be eager to take over parts of Iraq. Syria would come in from one side, Iran from the other. In the north, the Iraqi Kurds could potentially band with Turkish Kurds and attempt to create their own state, “threatening the territorial integrity of Turkey.” In a word, Iraq would be a quagmire.

Today, Cheney supporters are quick to point out that 2002 was a whole different world than the one we lived in in 1994. After Sept. 11, 2001, the world changed, and Cheney’s views of the world changed as well. That is a fair point, one that I will concede to the Cheney crowd.

However, the real story here is about the case the administration made in selling the War to the American People. Cheney said that we would be greeted as liberators. Clearly, he knew this was false. Our role in the world may have changed after 9-11, but that change did not include a mass conversion of the Iraqi people. This is the real problem that the 1994 video showcases.

More retirements

White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow says he is not leaving his post yet, but will not last through the duration of the President’s term.  Usually, when a Washington politico resigns, he/she does so to “spend more time with family.”  However, Secretary Snow says he will stay on until he runs out of money.  If you are curious just what kind of financial strain he is under, the Washington Post reports that Snow is one of 17 top advisors to the President who earned $165,200 in 2006.

I know Washington is an expensive city to live in, and Snow may have more than one home to pay for, but $165,200 is a pretty nice salary.  Along with that, he has the best health care around and most likely a wealthy stock portfolio.

With Washington Insiders struggling to live off of six figures, one would think that more empathy would be given to the majority of Americans who make their lives with much less.

Time for Retirement

The Election is 15 months away, but its never to early to take a look at who’s leaving the race.

In Illinois, 2 Republican Congressmen are set to step down:  Dennis Hastert and Ray LaHood.

In Mississippi, Congressman Chip Pickering has confirmed that he will not seek re-election.

From Ohio, Congresswoman Deborah Pryce signaled her intentions to leave her seat.

Who else will join them?  Republican Congressman Vern Ehlers, R-MI, is not getting any younger and may not want to put up with anti war protesters showing up at his home in Grand Rapids, MI too much longer.

The Bourne Ultimatum: Anti-American?

As an interested campaign observer, I am sitting here watching Mitt Romney on Fox News, backtracking on his Massachusetts Health Care plan and attempt to portray Barack Obama as anti-American. During the comercial, I caught an advertisement for tomorrow’s edition of The O’Reilly Factor.

He asks the question, is the new movie, The Bourne Ultimatum, anti-American? What kind of debate will this possibly be? First, it is a movie. Second, it’s rated R, meaning it’s intended for those aged 17 and above, meaning that all viewers know the difference between reality and a movie. Third, I assume that the case for this movie being anti-American is because is included a secret government agency that assassinates political opponents around the world. Further, it portrays the leadership in the organization as being reckless in their pursuit to kill Bourne and those he comes in contact with. However, the movie also includes a character in the agency who stands up to the injustice and sheds light on the secret program. Certainly,our country conducts covert CIA actions. We know for a fact our country has engaged in assassination attempts around the world.

It seems that the movie is very American! More importantly, its a movie. I know there are pundits out there who want to lump Hollywood with Democrats and liberals, but this is just not fair or accurate.

I’ve seen the entire Bourne trilogy. It is an entertaining series of movies, very fast paced and action packed. When making the movies, I am entirely convince that all involved people were interested in making a good movie that would attract a large audience and bring in a large profit. To say they intended to attack America is nothing more than another ridiculous comment from the mouth of Dennis Miller.

Update:   So…..I tuned in to watch.  It was basically another segment to bash on celebrities.  Bill says that while he knows that its just a movie, Pakistanis won’t understand and will think worse of America….hmmmmmm.

Another campaign casualty

With the Ames Straw Poll behind us, Tommy Thompson has ended his failed presidential campaign.  Thompson is a 4- time governor of Wisconsin and held the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush.

Thompson was never able to gain traction in the campaign.  He had no issue to justify a campaign.  Tancredo is the clear anti- illegal immigration candidate.  Duncan Hunter is a candidate for a strong military.  Brownback focuses on being the most pro-life candidate.  These candidate with little support have found a niche.  Thompson never accomplished that.

Only 2 times in this campaign have I seen someone ask a question of a candidate and been so shocked by the response that they assumed the candidate misheard the question.  First, Thompson was asked if homosexuals could be fired for being homosexual.  He responded with a yes…….only later to muddle his clear response through press releases.  Second, Gov. Richardson was asked if he believed homosexuality was a choice or a biological characteristic.  He said it was a choice……only later to muddle his clear response though press releases.  In both cases, the questioner was caught off guard by the response and repeated the question and received the same response.

That is the only campaign moment I can remember from the Tommy Thompson candidacy.  Good bye Tommy.  I would have thought you’d stick around long enough to get some of the confused support going to Fred Thompson.

Where do the Dems go to school?

In that YouTube/CNN debate on 7-23-07, one question asked the candidates if their children went to public school or private school.  The idea behind the question was that if they chose private schools, they were somehow less qualified to be President.

In reality, the Democrats support public education.  They seek to improve it.

On a practical level, those who have used private schools had legitimate reasons.

Clinton:  Chelsea would have never had an privacy at a public school in Washington D.C..  Until they moved to DC, she did attend public schools.

Obama:  He was teaching at a private school.  I assume that meant his children either received a  free or discounted tuition.

Biden:  At a time when he’s dealing with the sudden death of his wife, you would be hard-pressed to criticize his decision to accept help from his sister, who worked at a private school and volunteered to ensure his children had a ride to and from that school each day.

Despite their children being in private schools, these candidates opposed the idea of taking funds away from public school in favor of private ones.

Hannity and….no, its just Hannity

On Fox News at 9 p.m., you can tune in to watch Hannity & Colmes.  Sean Hannity typically dominates the conversation and Colmes, who is quick to say he represents a liberal viewpoint rarely makes a good argument to oppose Hannity.

This post is inspired by a recent segment.  On their way to a commercial, they always give a quick preview of what’s coming up later in the show.  Both members of the show took the opportunity to report that Barack Obama favors sex education for kindergarteners.  The pictures on the screen were more intriguing that their words.  This pictures consisted of a woman unrolling a condom over a cucumber.  Whoa there Fox!  Aren’t ya going a bit overboard with the dramatics?

It turns out that Obama actually just advocates for teaching young children the difference between acceptable touching and unacceptable touching.  He wants to teach children to report instances of inappropriate touching.  I was shocked that he didn’t advocate giving condoms to the 5 year olds after the preview I saw!!!

Family Research Council attacks Dems

The Democratic Candidates for President met with Planned Parenthood this week and advocated their pro-choice beliefs.  Aren’t you shocked?  Democrats are supporting a woman’s right to make her own decisions.  Democrats believe abortions should be, to quote Sen. Hillary Clinton, “safe, legal and rare.”

On Aug. 9, the Democratic Candidates will participate in a forum put on by the Human Rights Campaign and LOGO to discuss issues important to the homosexual community.  The candidates will all tell the audience that they do not believe in gay marriage.

These two campaign forums has the Family Research Council upset!  How dare these Democrats campaign for votes!  How dare they seek endorsements from groups who represent large voting blocs!

I suspect that when the GOP candidates seek the endorsement of Tony Perkins and James Dobson, the Family Research Council will be pleased.  The FRC is just another group that has influence over a large group of voters.  What would happen if all ten GOP candidates told the FRC that their number 1 issue didn’t matter to them.  Thats exactly what happens when the Democrats go to the Human Rights Campaign.  They have to stand there and say, “I disagree with you on your most important issue, but I am still here and want your vote.”

Leaving His Party Behind

The President has announced his intention to veto a Health Bill that is supported by his fellow Republicans in the Senate.  Even conservative Senator Orrin Hatch is supporting the bill.

In the bill, the Senate is attempting to expand health coverage to an additional 3.3 million children.  President Bush supports the current S-Chip program, but is not comfortable with the proposed expansion.

This is just the latest issue where the President finds himself at odds with his party, immigration being another.  Will the war be the next?

What’s wrong with John Cox?

You might not know it, but John Cox is running for the GOP Presidential nomination.  I don’t support his candidacy, but I am wondering why he is excluded from everything.  The GOP debates allowed for ten candidates, many with less than 1% poll ratings.  Why not allow one more?   The Washington Post has an election coverage section that covers presidential candidates.  The GOP coverage includes Gilmore, a man who’s dropped out.  They also include non candidates like George Pataki and Newt Gingrich.  I don’t support Cox, but a piece of me feels bad for him!