McCain Blasts ‘Vote of No Confidence’

McCain Blasts ‘Vote of No Confidence’

 Email this Story

Feb 4, 3:17 PM (ET)

By HOPE YEN

(AP) Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., speak about Iraq…
Full Image
if (NAV_NS&&NAV_VER 
“); 
var fiMaxNumSponLinks = 5; var fiSponLinksDivHgt = 195; var fiSponLinkTarget = new Array(); var globHtmlWriteSponSideBar1Obj = new Object(); globHtmlWriteSponSideBar1Obj.type = ‘8’; fiSponLinkTarget[0]= new Array(‘gca_sidebar1′, globHtmlWriteSponSideBar1Obj); fiSponLinkTarget[1]= new Array(‘gca_sidebar1′, globHtmlWriteSponSideBar1Obj); fiSponLinksChannelTag = ‘excite_myway_news_js'; document.write(‘


‘);

Google sponsored links
Arizona is at RiskDon’t Be a Victim of the Next Natural Disaster – Get Info Now!
www.FloodSmart.gov
 
Emergency Bulk FuelOil, Gasoline, Diesel, Kerosene Delivery, Disaster Recovery Plans
www.emergencyfuelservice.com
 


p {margin:12px 0px 0px 0px;}

WASHINGTON (AP) – The top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee sought to weaken support for a resolution opposing President Bush’s Iraq war strategy, saying Sunday that proponents are intellectually dishonest.

On the eve before a possible congressional showdown on Iraq strategy, Arizona Sen. John McCain contended the bipartisan proposal amounted to a demoralizing “vote of no confidence” in the U.S. military. The measure, he said, criticizes Bush’s plan to add 21,500 troops in Iraq yet offers no concrete alternatives.

“I don’t think it’s appropriate to say that you disapprove of a mission and you don’t want to fund it and you don’t want it to go, but yet you don’t take the action necessary to prevent it,” said McCain, a 2008 presidential candidate.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called GOP efforts to block a vote on the resolution “obstructionism.” Neither a Senate majority nor voters, she said, will tolerate such a delaying tactic.

(AP) This photo provided by the Library of Congress shows John McCain, (front, right) with his squadron…
Full Image

“If we can’t get this done, you can be sure a month or so down the pike, there’s going to be much stronger legislation,” she said.

The Senate, where Democrats hold a 51-49 working majority, has tentatively set an early test vote for Monday on the nonbinding resolution by Sen. John Warner, R-Va.

In a bid to attract more GOP support, Warner added a provision pledging to protect money for troops in combat.

That compromise drew the ire of some Democrats who said it leaned too far in endorsing the status quo. They want to see binding legislation to cap troop levels, force a new vote to authorize the war or begin bringing troops home.

McCain is sponsoring a resolution expressing support for a troop increase and setting benchmark goals for the Iraqi government. He sought to capitalize on some of the Democratic division.

(AP) Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. takes part in a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington in this Sept….
Full Image

“I do believe that if you really believe that this is doomed to failure and is going to cost American lives, then you should do what’s necessary to prevent it from happening rather than a vote of ‘disapproval,'” McCain said.

“This is a vote of no confidence in both the mission and the troops who are going over there,” he said, noting the proposal does not seek to cut off money for troops.

A fellow Vietnam veteran, GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, disagreed with McCain’s assessment. Hagel said the resolution would make clear the Senate’s belief that Bush’s policy is misguided.

Hagel said the proposal also lays out alternatives such as moving troops away from the sectarian violence and closer to the Iraq border to provide “territorial integrity.”

“We can’t change the outcome of Iraq by putting American troops in the middle of a civil war,” said Hagel, who is considering a run for the White House in 2008.

(AP) Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., right, accompanied by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. meets with reporters…
Full Image

Republican leaders are working to block a vote on Warner’s resolution. They insisted that at least two other GOP proposals also be considered – McCain’s and one focused on maintaining money for troops in the field. Such a strategy could dilute support for Warner’s measure and make it tougher for any measure to pass.

Democrats want to limit debate to just the Warner and McCain proposals.

Two Republicans who oppose Warner’s proposal, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Richard Lugar of Indiana, said Sunday they were uncertain the Warner resolution would get the support of 60 senators.

“Even if there is, it’s nonbinding, and has in my judgment no consequence,” Lugar said.

Hagel said Warner’s resolution strikes a careful balance for a majority of senators who oppose a troop buildup but differ on the appropriate response.

(AP) Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., left, talks during a special hearing on the regional impact of the new…
Full Image

He called McCain’s proposal meaningless because it offers benchmarks but does not spell out what the U.S. government will do if the Iraqi officials fail to meet them.

“What are the consequences? Are we then going to pull out?” Hagel asked. “Are we going to cut funding? Now, that falls more in the intellectually dishonest category.”

The resolution debate comes as the White House and congressional Democrats prepared to square off over war spending.

Bush’s new budget on Monday will ask for $100 billion more for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year – on top of $70 billion already approved by Congress for the current year. The budget will call for $145 billion in war spending for 2008.

The spending request covers Bush’s new war strategy, including the increase in troops, White House budget director Rob Portman said Sunday.

“It’s extremely important that we support our troops,” Portman said. He described the requested money as the amount needed “to be sure our troops have the equipment they need, that they are taken care of well.”

Hagel and McCain appeared on ABC’s “This Week,” Graham was on “Fox News Sunday,” and Feinstein, Lugar and Portman spoke on “Late Edition” on CNN.

My State of the Union Address

 

My State of the Union Address

by Thomas Lindaman

 

My fellow Americans, I come before you today (or tonight, depending on when you read this) to talk to you about the state of the United States. Sure, President Bush beat me to it, but hey, he’s the President and has access to “the Button.” And nothing ruins a morning like having a tactical nuke blow up in your bedroom. Especially on a Monday.

 

Right now America is at a crossroads. The Democrats have control of one house of Congress and a shaky majority in the Senate. How shaky? Michael Moore eating Jello on the San Andreas Fault during a 5.6 on the Richter Scale shaky. What this means to the state of the union has yet to be seen because they haven’t had a chance to prove themselves. Given some the particulars involved, we may be waiting until 2008 to see what they have to offer us.

 

The economy is still chugging along like Ted Kennedy in a drinking contest on St. Patrick’s Day. Or Tuesday, for that matter. We have low unemployment and low taxes, meaning not only are people finding work, they’re keeping more of the money they’re earning. So, why do most Americans think the economy is in the crapper? Because most Americans have been listening to the Democrats and the media. And I’m here to tell you that neither one knows enough about how the economy works to be credible. Let’s not forget that the Democrats have Jimmy Carter’s astronomically high interest rates and Bill Clinton’s Enron-esque “budget surpluses” on their resumes.

 

The war on terrorism continues. We’ve seen success and we’ve seen failure. We’ve seen the Iraqi people try, convict, and execute Saddam Hussein. We’ve seen many of our soldiers be killed by those who have a vested interest in seeing us lose the war on terrorism. We’re at a crossroads here, too. We can’t continue to do things the way we have been, and we can’t turn around and go home without looking like the French. So, today (or tonight), I’m hereby starting Operation Kick Ass and Take Names. It’s very simple. We let the American military kick ass and take names. Against that, al Qaeda and the other terrorist nations out there don’t stand a chance.

 

Another area where we need to improve is in the area of illegal immigration. It’s clear that neither Democrats nor Republicans really want to deal with the issue for any number of reasons, mainly that I don’t think they know how to do it. A fence won’t work because the illegals have a tunnel system. Fining the companies the hire illegals won’t help because then they’ll just resort to fake documents to avoid getting caught. There’s only one way I can think of to stem the tide of illegal immigration.

 

Genetically engineered cyborg monkeys.

 

Monkeys are known for throwing their poo at each other. Imagine if they were to use that ability to protect our borders. With cybernetic laser targeting and they will do the rest. Sure, it may freak out Charlton Heston, but we can build in a failsafe device to prevent them from using their poo-flinging abilities for evil instead of good. And if they work out on the border, we can send them to the front to fight terrorists. It’s a win-win situation, and it will be big with the people because everybody loves monkeys.

 

Finally, I want to address one of the biggest conflicts in the world today. Shi’ite vs. Sunni? Nope. Israel vs. Palestine? Not even close. I want to bring an end to the Rosie O’Donnell-Donald Trump feud. Listen, I think the two of you are irrelevant little publicity-seeking scumbags, but I’m tired of hearing the two of you bicker. So, I have a solution: a steel cage match. Get Vince McMahon to sign off on it and it will happen in time for Wrestlemania. The two of you, a 15-foot high steel cage, and a stipulation that the loser apologizes for being an ass and then shuts up for one full year. No disqualifications, weapons are allowed (and heavily encouraged by this commentator), and I’ll even act as special referee. That way, no one will get an unfair advantage because I think you both suck.

 

Overall, the United States is in pretty good shape. If we can weather the Britney Spears-Kevin Federline divorce, we can withstand anything.

 

Thank you, and may God bless America.

 

Thomas Lindaman is a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. and NewsBull.com. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets. He is also Publisher of CommonConservative.com. 

Clinton Beginning to Sound Like Hugo Chavez

Clinton Beginning to Sound Like Hugo Chavez


by Sher Zieve

 

Although more than a few Democrat leaders are working very hard to turn the USA into a socialist Nanny state, 2008 presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton blatantly threw down her gauntlet on Friday. In an apparent attempt to outdo Venezuela’s Marxist leader Hugo Chavez, Hillary announced that—if elected president of the United States—she will seize (in a true and pure communistic manner) all profits made by oil companies and redirect them into her [own] programs. Clinton said: “I want to take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence.” Although the mainstream media has summarily ignored and not reported on it until recently, President Bush has been proposing alternative energy sources’ legislation since his first administration. However, the president’s program does not include the theft of oil companies’ profits from their stockholders.

 

Note: Recently, Emperor-to-be Chavez announced that he is confiscating the Venezuelan media, telecommunications companies, oil companies, banks etc. and placing them under his personal control. He has also rewritten the Venezuelan constitution to allow him to take total control of the country and has even gone so far as to set himself up as the leader of Venezuela’s church. With newly proposed anti-free speech and other communistically-inspired bills, the now-back-in-power leftist Democrats are attempting to affect much the same in the United States. Reps Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) are diligently working to bring back the falsely named “fairness doctrine” in an attempt to control or completely shut down conservative talk-radio and other conservative media. If passed, this dogma would force conservatives to include the leftist point of view on their programs—and, presumably, in written commentary. As leftists already control the lion’s share of the current media, this would be anathema and an extremely effective way to silence the left’s opposition voices.

 

One has to wonder if, as Chavez has done, Clinton or any Democrat president will attempt to nationalize large portions of the US economy. Potential tax hikes, which will effectively cease and destroy the US’ current economic boom, have already been announced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). We-the-people can safely assume that these tax increases will be applicable only to those who are not Democrats and those who do not heavily contribute to Democrat causes.

 

Senator Clinton has already announced that, if elected, she will instate her previously failed universal health care program—which will presumably include illegal immigrants. Heck, in many states illegals, not US citizens, are already receiving free health care. So, one must assume their benefits would be increased. Democrats consistently tout the Canadian health care system as a model for the United States. However, for years, Canada’s system has been failing and a recent Canadian SARS commission report cites: “…the emergency infrastructure of [one of] the province[s] is decaying and being neglected” and “hospitals are as dangerous as mines and factories for their workers.” One can logically extrapolate these situations as endemic to the entire system. No matter. When the Democrats’ socialism and communism are on the march—logic and reason are the last things that will deter them.

 

The 2006 midterm elections are over. Democrats again control both Houses of Congress. Unless the results were due to massive voter fraud (which we will never know as Democrats won and they are the only ones who level the “fraud” charge), Republicans and conservatives angry with their Party either stayed home or voted for the Democrat candidate. So, we-the-people are now reaping the whirlwind. Will we, also, allow them to take the presidency in 2008?

 

One final note. At Friday’s Democrat National Committee’s winter meeting Muslim Imam Husham Al-Husainy gave the invocation, which included: “Through you, God, we unite. So guide us to the right path [Islam]. The path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom [all non-Muslims].” Any questions as to which path the Democrat Party is taking?

References:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250060,00.html

 

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/22416.html

 

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2007/02/03/2003347525

 

http://media.www.mtsusidelines.com/media/storage/paper202/news/2007/01/25/Opinions/Legislation.Ignores.Freedom.Of.Speech2676376.shtml?sourcedomain=www.mtsusidelines.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com

 

http://www.nysun.com/article/46191

 

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006097430

 

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54085

 

Sher Zieve is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

Americans deserve an answer This war is a product of Islamic Jihad

Americans deserve an answer

By Ted Belman

Hillary Clinton recently said

    “If I had been president in 2002, I would not have started this war.”“If we in Congress don’t end this war before January 2009, as president, I will.”

Both of these certitudes ignore the context and the realities. This may be because the Democrats by and large are in denial or believe that America is to blame for terrorism. If only America would stop oppressing the Arabs or stop favouring Israel, terrorism would greatly diminish.

Even if they are prepared to accept that we are in World War IV with Islamists, staying engaged in Iraq is counter-productive, they argue. It produces more terrorists than it kills. It is also costly to American lives and treasure.

Finally they argue that the war in Iraq was not prosecuted properly and that more troops should have been sent. While in hindsight, there is generally consensus on the errors but now the Democrats are against the surge and any attempt to correct the errors or the tactics or the strategy. Just bring the boys home and all will be well.

But what about World War IV? What are the causes of this war and how should it be prosecuted?

This war is a product of Islamic Jihad. Andy Bostom, author of the Legacy of Jihad, writes,

“The noted 19th century Arabic lexicographer E.W. Lane, who studied the etymology of the term, observed,

    “Jihad came to be used by the Muslims to signify wag[ing] war, against unbelievers”. The origins of the Muslim institution of jihad are found in the Qur’an. Sura (chapter) 9 is devoted in its entirety to war proclamations. There we read that the Muslim faithful are to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them. . . . Fight against such as those who have been given the scripture as believe not in Allah. . . . Go forth, light-armed and heavy armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah. That is best for you, if ye but knew.”

From such verses in the Qur’an and in the hadith, Muslim jurists and theologians formulated the Islamic institution of permanent jihad war against non-Muslims to bring the world under Islamic rule (Sharia law).

The consensus on the nature of jihad from major schools of Islamic jurisprudence is clear.

Summarizing this consensus of centuries of Islamic thought, the seminal Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun, who died in 1406, wrote:

    In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty because of the universalism of the mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.

Clearly the actions of the west are not the cause of the war as claimed by the Left.

After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Arabs turned to socialism under the Baath Party and pan-Arabism under Nasser. Their massive defeat in ’67 at the hands of the Israelis gave rise to the resurgence of Islam lead by Khomeini. With it came the call to Jihad, fueled by the new found oil wealth.

On Feb 1, 1993, one month before the World Trade Centre bombing, A Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, reported,

    Since the Fall of 1992, there has been a significant increase in Islamist terrorism, subversion and violence in such diverse countries as India, Pakistan, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Nigeria, Somalia, and many others. Despite the different circumstances of these incidents, they do not appear to be isolated events. Rather, they are the first incidents in the escalation of an Islamic Jihad against the “Judeo-Christian world order”. Thus, the climax of this struggle could well be an increase in terrorism throughout the West.

Muslims went on the attack all over the world giving rise to the expression “the margins of Islam are bloody”. Americans were often the victim of these attacks, the most egregious of which occurred on 9/11.

This was not a singular occurrence but it was a dramatic escalation in the war against the west promising more of the same.

What was America to do? In the past it “lobbed a few missiles” as it did in Afghanistan and Iraq or retreated as it did from Iran and Lebanon. 9/11 required more than tokenism. It required America to fight the war it had been avoiding for over twenty years.

Even the Democrats supported the war in Afghanistan and perhaps still do. But they question why Bush invaded Iraq. They argue it had nothing to do with the war on terror as if it was enough to invade Afghanistan only. They argue that terror must be treated as a matter of criminality and fought as such.

Given this history of the rise and growth of Jihad with its incumbent terrorism, how can Democrats suggest that it has anything to do with the invasion of Iraq.

When President Bush spoke to the Joint Session of Congress and the American People on Sept 20, 2001 he described al Qaeda thusly,

    This group and its leader — a person named Osama bin Laden — are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries. They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan, where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction.

And continued,

    Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Bush was speaking not only to the American people but for them. Yet Hillary Clinton said if she were the president in 2002, she would “not have started this war”. Was she referring to the Iraq war which started in ’03 or the Afghanistan war which was started in ’02. In any event, what would she have done to protect America or American interests? Americans deserve an answer.

And now she says, if elected, she will end the war in 2009. What does she mean? Does she intend to pull out of Iraq entirely and allow Iraq to fall to Iran which certainly will happen. If so, Lebanon and Jordan will also fall to Iran and its proxies shortly thereafter. And so will the entire Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia included.

Or is she prepared to drawn the line of retreat somewhere in order to maintain American presence in the Middle East and to protect its allies and interests. If so, where? Would it not be easier by remaining in Iraq rather then to retreating from Iraq? Americans deserve an answer.

If Americans withdraw from Iraq then what purpose was served by invading Afghanistan in the first place? Certainly the Taliban were punished for harbouring al Qaeda and the training grounds for terrorists were eliminated. But what is the point of the latter if they are allowed to regroup in Pakistan or Iraq or anywhere else for that matter?

Either America wants to prevail or it will be defeated.

Michael Gaynor in his article, Churchill, Lincoln, and Bush: Win! wrote,

PM Winston Churchill First Statement in House of Commons, May 13, 1940 put it this way,

    “Victory, at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.”“We will have no truce or parley with you [Hitler], or the grisly gang who work your wicked will. You do your worst — and we will do our best.”

He did not pretend that war would proceed according to plan:

    “No one can guarantee success in war, but only deserve it.”.

He was realistic and resolved:

    “Death and sorrow will be the companions of our journey; hardship our garment; constancy and valor our only shield; we must be undaunted, we must be inflexible.”

He had faith in the ability of the British people, once awakened, to persevere:

    “We have not journeyed all this way across the centuries, across the oceans, across the mountains, across the prairies, because we are made of sugar candy.”

The same must be said of the American People

One must keep in mind that Great Britain declared war on Germany before she was attacked. Still Churchill understood what was at stake.

Many have compared the threat posed by Hitler and Nazism in the thirties with the threat posed by the Islamists of today and concluded that the later is a more formidable enemy.

Bush has risen to the challenge. Clinton is shrinking from it.

Video: Our Plans to Destroy the World

Video: Our Plans to Destroy the World

by Akiva of Mystical Paths

According to history, on July 18, 1925, which was the 26st of Tammuz, 5685, during the 3 Weeks (of mourning), the evil book Mein Kampf (My Fight) was published by a modern Amalek and Haman, Adolf Hitler (may his name be erased).

In this book, this man gives a complete account of how he would build a world shaking army, destroy neighboring nations, commit genocide and ensure racial purity. No one believed him, and foreign language editions (English) even edited out the unbelievable portions.

As we all know, he then went on to build a world shaking army, destroyed neighboring nations, committed genocide, and caused a World War.

Today, the leader of Iran has described how he will build world shaking weapons, destroy neighboring nations, commit genocide, and ensure religious purity. Do you believe him?

Here, in this video
, we see exactly what he intends to do. No need to read the book, here’s the movie edition. Here’s the brief edition: Nuke Israel, the US, and Europe. (Don’t get distracted by the swastika, that’s a representation of Europe.)

Hear that carefully, NUKE ISRAEL, THE US, AND EUROPE. The Jews are at the top of the list, but they’re not the end of the list. Note the guy with the beard and turban sitting there is the world religious head of Shia Islam.

http://israelreporter.com/index.php/2007/02/02/nazi-iran/

Check out YouTube – Cool Facts about Israel:

If you never ever watch another thing I send you, PLEASE WATCH THIS!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers