Clipmarks | merrie's 'bush' clips

Obama Owns Appeasement

Sat, 17 May 2008 10:27:37 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: Update: Newt Gingrich calls this a study in guilt:
Instead, he got volcanically defensive, which suggests that even Obama sees the parallels between his everything’s-on-the-table approach and the Chamberlain diplomacy which resulted in dismantling Czechoslovakia.

And if Obama considers discussion of foreign policy “divisive”, then he should hide himself right back to Academia. Guess what, Senator? Presidential elections focus on foreign-policy principles, and if you can’t defend yours, then you have no business running for office.

Clip Source: hotair.com

George Bush seems to have really rattled Barack Obama and the Democratic Party with his speech yesterday in the Israeli Knesset. Rather than ignoring Bush’s argument against appeasement, or adopting it, Barack Obama has declared that Bush intended his denunciation of appeasement as an attack on his campaign, even though Bush never even mentioned the nationality of modern appeasers in his speech. Obama lashed out in a speech today, calling Bush’s rhetoric “appalling”:

Bush wasn’t referring to American politicians in this passage, but instead politicians in Europe and elsewhere who have either an animus towards Israel or appreciation for dhimmitude. Nothing — and I mean nothing — in this speech points to any candidate or the Democratic Party, unless they identify themselves as the reference

Obama could have taken the smart route and embraced it to explain how he understands the lessons of appeasement, which is why his talks with Iran would not result in it.

[Video]

Tags: bush, israeli knesset, obama, democratic party

North American Army Created Without OK By Congress

Mon, 03 Mar 2008 05:42:33 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: In Canada, the agreement paving the way for the militaries of the U.S. and Canada to cross each other's borders to fight domestic emergencies was not announced either by the Harper government or the Canadian military, prompting sharp protest.

"It's kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration," Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians told the Canwest News Service. "We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians.....

In Nov. 2007, WND published a six-part exclusive series, detailing WND's on-site presence during the NORAD-USNORTHCOM Vigilant Shield 2008, an exercise which involved Canada Command as a participant.

In an exclusive interview with WND during Vigilant Shield 2008, Gen. Renuart affirmed USNORTHCOM would deploy U.S. troops on U.S. soil should the president declare a domestic emergency in which the Department of Defense ordered USNORTHCOM involvement.

Clip Source: www.worldnetdaily.com

In a ceremony that received virtually no attention in the American media, the United States and Canada signed a military agreement Feb. 14 allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis.

In Canada, the agreement paving the way for the militaries of the U.S. and Canada to cross each other's borders to fight domestic emergencies was not announced either by the Harper government or the Canadian military, prompting sharp protest.

In May 2007, WND reported President Bush, on his own authority, signed National Security Presidential Directive 51, also known as Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20, authorizing the president to declare a national emergency and take over all functions of federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, without necessarily obtaining the approval of Congress to do so.

Tags: media, military, u.s.canadian military agreement, cross each other's borders, bush, harper

Cha-Ching:UPDATE:$845 Billion More For Global Poverty:Obama Bill

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:34:18 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, but Lugar, the ranking Republican member. Lugar has worked with Obama in the past to promote more foreign aid for Russia, supposedly to stem nuclear proliferation, and has become Obama's mentor. Like Biden, Lugar is a globalist. They have both promoted passage of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty.

The so-called "Lugar-Obama initiative", also known as the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, which was designed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. But one defense analyst, Rich Kelly, noted evidence that "CTR funds have eased the Russian military's budgetary woes, freeing resources for such initiatives as the war in Chechnya and defense modernization." He recommended that Congress "eliminate CTR funding so that it does not finance additional, perhaps more threatening, programs in the former Soviet Union." However, over $6 billion has already been spent on the program.

Clip Source: www.aim.org

The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee

The bill, which is item number four on the committee's business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn't realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.

It's not clear what President Bush would do if the bill passes the Senate

Tags: obama, global poverty act, s.2433, $845 billion, biden, lugar, bush

What Kind of 'Experience'?

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:34:39 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: It may be old-fashioned to talk about character and integrity but they can have a lot more to do with the fate of this nation than "experience" at playing political games.

More to the point, Presidents of the United States lacking character and integrity have inflicted lasting damage on the office they held and on the nation.

Senator McCain's political record is full of zig-zags summarized in the word "maverick." That is another way of saying that you don't know what he is going to do next, except that it will be in the interests of John McCain.

While you are on the Internet looking up the record of the Clintons, look up John McCain's record.

Senator McCain's trump card is his military experience. Some say his military experience is especially valuable when we are under threat from terrorists. But is it?

John McCain's military service was both honorable and heroic. But let's not confuse that with experience relevant to being President of the United States.

Clip Source: www.gopusa.com

Give McCain credit where credit is due: He supported the "surge" in Iraq, which rescued a deteriorating situation. But so did George W. Bush, who has never touted his military service and Dick Cheney who was never in the military

A naval aviator does not plan battlefield strategy, much less global military strategy, which a President must oversee, with the help of experienced generals and admirals

The most charitable interpretation of Senator McCain's constant touting of his military service is that he is simply milking it for political advantage.

It would be truly dangerous if McCain really considers himself a military expert, who can therefore ignore the advice of real military experts as President of the United States.

A man like McCain, with a history of being headstrong and shooting from the hip, is the last thing we need as President, in an age of complex global threats, including terrorists who may get nuclear weapons within the next few years.

site is www.tsowell.com

Tags: mccain, bush, cheney, pow, military expert

The Problem With Bush's "Unconscionable Historical And Moral Lapse"

Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:49:35 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: Robert Spencer, one of the nation’s leading critics on Islam, says President Bush experienced "an unconscionable historical and moral lapse" when he recently called for an end to what he called the "occupation" of Arab land by the Israeli military.

The Islam critic says it is interesting there were no calls for a Palestinian state when the same territory was occupied by Egypt and Jordan prior to 1967.

[Camp David Accords, or “Framework for Peace in the Middle East” (Egyptian-Israeli history)
Encyclopædia Britannica : Related Articles]

http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-91061/Camp-David-Accords

Clip Source: www.onenewsnow.com

Speaking from the West Bank town of Ramallah, Bush said that "painful political concessions" are needed for the peace process. And he said Israel must agree to adjust its borders back to the lines drawn before the Israeli victory in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.

Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch, says territorial acquisitions in war is nothing new. "The idea that after a successful war the victorious nation may occupy some land from the defeated nation in order to increase its national security and minimize the risk of a future attack -- that is something that is as old as warfare," he claims.

But Spencer says the problem is that President Bush does not seem to think Israel has that right. "When Israel does exactly the same thing when faced by an array of hostile states that have sworn its destruction," he continues, "then suddenly this becomes an unacceptable occupation of Arab land. It's really an unconscionable historical and moral lapse on the part of the president."

Tags: bush, abbas, olmert, palestine, israel

Could Bush kill earmarks?

Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:49:39 GMT

clipped by: n2sooners

Clip Source: www.captainsquartersblog.com

President Bush chastised Democratic leaders for failing to live up to their campaign promise to curb so-called earmarks

90% of the earmarks in the omnibus bill never entered the legislative language

Because they are not technically part of the bill, the Executive Branch is not legally bound to implement conference reports. The President could simply direct agencies to ignore the earmarks listed in the conference reports. The funds would still be spent, but the agencies would have the discretion to distribute the funds by merit rather than congressional diktat.

If they determine the conference reports' earmarks remain non-binding, then President Bush should issue an Executive Order cancelling all 11,331 earmarks

An executive order

wouldn't apply to one budget year, but to all subsequent budgets after its issuance, if Bush desires. An EO would prevent any federal agencies from spending money on conference report earmarks until Bush or his antecedents rescinded the EO.

Tags: congress, president, bush, budget, spending, pork, earmarks

Bush's war funding.. exposed

Wed, 21 Nov 2007 20:54:03 GMT

clipped by: boozich
clipper's remarks: they say after 10 miles of flight, each jet has to paint a big M in the sky, with golden exhaust!---just to confuse the enemy.

Clip Source: muzich.blogspot.com

how Bush is funding his war.

Bush has came up with a new formula to fund his Iraq war

Tags: humor, bush, war, funding, marketing

The Nancy And Harry Show

Sun, 18 Nov 2007 07:39:40 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: What's left for the Democrats, then, is the embarrassment of yet another certain political loss.
"They seem determined to keep bringing up resolutions that they know the president won't agree to," said Alexander, the Tennessee Republican. "We look pretty silly when we lecture Baghdad on being in political stalemate and insist on staying in one ourselves."
Anyone doubting that Americans are unhappy with the performance of the Democrat-led Congress need only check out this list of polls to see how their approval ratings have slid. It's the one reason poll-battered President Bush still has to smile - he's more popular than Congress.

Clip Source: communities.canada.com

Reid and Pelosi are easily two of the least likeable pols on Capitol Hill, exuding as much warmth as a 10-watt bulb. Both leaders are seen to be snippy and too calculating by half - even by some members of their own party.

The problem this time for Democrats is their latest anti-war efforts have likely come too late. Once again, troop timetable legislation has little chance of making it through the Senate. Republicans who only a few months ago were tempted to side with Democrats, mostly because of voter anger, no longer see the urgency of bailing out on Iraq.

Here's the problem for Democrats. Bush's announcement earlier this fall that he planned to reduce troop levels in Iraq to pre-surge levels by next summer seems to have taken the edge off the American public's demand for an end to the war.

recent reports that casualty levels among U.S. forces have dropped in tandem with the level of sectarian violence, U.S. public opinion about the war has actually turned slightly in Bush's favour.

Tags: harry reid, nancy pelosi, anti-war efforts, troop withdrawal, casualty levels, sectarian violence, public opinion, bush

Pakistan And President Musharraf Mark Steyn

Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:46:36 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: Everyone's an expert :General Musharraf should do this, he shouldn't have done that, the State Department should lean on him to do the other.

Furthermore, confident believers in the usual dreary pendulum of Pakistani politics — corrupt democrats, followed by authoritarian generals, followed by corrupt democrats — overlook how profoundly the country's changed. Its political dynamic has a new player: Islamism. Miss Bhutto says, oh, don't worry about that, it's a lot of hooey got up by Musharraf to persuade Washington to prop him up for another half-decade.

Pakistan is not Persia. For one thing, it's a country only 60 years old whose slapdash creation was one of the worst disasters of British imperial policy. Yet even those who thought so at the time would be astonished to find that, a mere couple of generations on, a regional afterthought is not only a nuclear power that has dispersed its technology around the planet but also a driving force of the world's first global insurgency.

Clip Source: www.nysun.com

In the days after 9/11, George W. Bush told the world that you're either with us or against us. Musharraf said he was with us, which was jolly decent of him considering that 99.9999% of his people are against us. In the teeth of that glum reality, he's rode a difficult tightrope with some skill. As John Negroponte, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, put it, aside from America "no country has done more in terms of inflicting damage and punishment on the Taliban and al-Qaeda since 9/11" — which, given the proportion of the population that loathes America and actively supports the Taliban and al-Qaeda, is not unimpressive.

Time for Pakistan to go back to democratically elected unicyclists, like the charming and glamorous Benazir Bhutto, who plays note-perfect in the salons of the west but degenerates into just another third-rate ward-heeler from one of the world's most corrupt political classes once she's back greasing the wheel in Pakistan itself

Tags: bush, musharraf, bhurro, taliban, al-qaeda, nuclear power, 9/11, daniel pearl, london tube bombings

The Foreigner's Gift:The Americans, the Arabs, and the Iraqis in Iraq

Sat, 10 Nov 2007 10:03:57 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: Yes, a poisoned Palestinian political culture opted for Hamas in a free election in early 2006. This is what it is: an expression of the malady of Palestinian politics. The larger case for democratic reform is bigger, and nobler, than the state of Palestinian politics.
The Bush Doctrine brought about a veritable reversal in the realm of ideas: here was a conservative President asserting that freedom can travel to distant shores, that we can take it to strangers beyond, and here were his liberal critics at home falling back on a surly argument that Iraq, Lebanon, and other Arab and Islamic domains offer insurmountable obstacles to the spread of freedom.
Those in the know—and those who pretend to be—have written and spoken about the influence exercised by the Egyptian thinker and pamphleteer Sayyid Qutb (executed by the Nasser regime in 1966) on the course of modern Islamism. This is good as far as it goes. What is needed is a more sustained analysis of the depth of Egyptian radicalism

Clip Source: www.commentarymagazine.com

Natan Sharansky is perhaps on the mark with his observation that Bush, in holding onto his belief, is a lonely man even within his own circle of power. To come to that belief, Bush needed no great literacy in political theory. Intuitively, he grasped the connection between autocracy and terror. Norman Podhoretz’s argument on behalf of liberty reads that landscape with clarity. The peace of pharaohs and autocrats, the stability presented by despotism, is deceptive. The politics of democracy can be messy, of new democracies messier still. But we ought to have the courage of running freedom’s risks.

But oddly, Wilsonianism triumphed. “For three generations,” Kissinger writes, “critics have savaged Wilson’s analysis and conclusions; and yet, in all this time, Wilson’s principles have remained the bedrock of American foreign-policy thinking.”

He held out to the Arabs a respectful message: that despotism was not necessarily something fated— “written”—for them for all time.

Tags: iraq, afghanistan, bush, sharansky, saddam, nasser, mubarak, islamist

Giving U.S.Sovereignty To Third World Kleptocrats

Thu, 01 Nov 2007 07:40:44 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: Within the Authority, consisting of 155 nations, America would have one vote and no veto. However, we would pay the principal share of the operating costs, as we do today of the United Nations.

In 1978, Ronald Reagan declared, "No national interest of the United States can justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth's surface over to the Third World."

Rejecting the New International Economic Order that sought to effect a historic transfer of wealth and power from the First World to the Third, President Reagan in 1982 refused to sign the Law of the Sea Treaty or send it to the Senate. Now, Bush, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., have resurrected this monstrosity and are about to ram it through the U.S. Senate with, if you can believe it, the support of the U.S. Navy.

Clip Source: www.realclearpolitics.com

President Bush is about to take his country by the hand and make a great leap forward into world government. He has signed on to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which transfers jurisdiction over the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian and Arctic oceans and all the oil and mineral resources they contain, to an International Seabed Authority. This second United Nations would be ceded eternal hegemony over two-thirds of the Earth. It is the greatest U.N. power grab in history and, thanks to George Bush, is about to succeed

Within the Authority, consisting of 155 nations, America would have one vote and no veto. However, we would pay the principal share of the operating costs, as we do today of the United Nations.

The Law of the Sea Treaty is an utterly unnecessary transfer of authority from the United States and of the wealth of its citizens to global bureaucrats

and to Third World regimes that have never been reliable friends

Tags: bush, biden, lugar, third world kleptocrats, global bureaucrats, u.s.senate

The Fight For SCHIP

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:42:08 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: Looking to claim the high ground in the political battle, the president this week designated three senior officials to negotiate with Congress, including the secretary of health and human services, Michael Leavitt. He has also indicated that he would be willing to increase funding to cover 500,000 children who are now eligible for SCHIP, but not enrolled. "As it is clear that this legislation lacks sufficient support to become law, now is the time for Congress to stop playing politics and to join the president in finding common ground to reauthorize this vital program," the White House said in a statement. The president's chief spokeswoman said at a press briefing: "We won this round on SCHIP."

Clip Source: www.nysun.com

Democrats are vowing to keep up the fight for an expansion of government-funded health insurance after they failed to override a presidential veto of a bill that would have added nearly 4 million children to the rolls

While the White House declared victory and urged a compromise, the Democratic leadership tried to signal defiance. "In the coming days, Democrats will not back down, and we will insist on providing health care coverage to these 10 million children

Yet that attitude did not appear to be universal among Democrats. The party's presidential frontrunner, Senator Clinton, said at a health care forum yesterday that the sweeping reforms that she and other Democrats want would have to wait until a new presidential administration and a larger majority for the party in Congress

The bill provided an annual spending increase of $35 billion for SCHIP, which would have expanded to include 10 million children from its current 6 million

Tags: congress, pelosi, emanuel, schip, clinton, bush, hhs, michael leavitt

Blocking Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:53:42 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: As the new member of the policy team, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte has been given this assignment. His task is to start afresh and to reexamine our position today, our national interests, and our options. Specifically, the President and the Secretary have asked Negroponte to be inventive in exploring options between acquiescence and attack that best protect and advance American national interests. The task is to be inventive, to be prepared to use all the sticks and carrots in the American arsenal, and, indeed, everything in the international arsenal that can feasibly be mobilized to this end. Our operational objective, the President reiterated, is to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons within the foreseeable future, by which he said he means at least five years.

Clip Source: www.belfercenter.org

As the conditions in Iraq deteriorate and the Bush Administration awaits General Petraeus’s Iraq report due on September 15, 2007, the rise of Iran becomes more vivid. Elimination of the Taliban to the East and Saddam to the West has left Iran as the major power in the region. After fighting Israel to a standstill last summer, Iran’s client, Hezbollah, has emerged as the dominant political force in Lebanon. Many now foresee the rise of Shiite power across the Arab crescent. With the wind at its back, Iran’s nuclear program is on track to cross the point of no return this year.

On September 2, 2007, Iranian President Ahmadinejad claimed that Iran was actually operating 3,000 centrifuges. 3,000 fully-functioning centrifuges can produce a bombs worth for highly enriched uranium (HEU) in 271 days

The President and the Secretary of State have concluded that they need a serious strategic reassessment of our strategy to block Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Tags: iran, nuclear, hezbollah, ahmadinejad, bush, rice, elbaradei, negroponte

NO NUCLEAR WEAPON FOR IRAN

Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:31:32 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: French President Nicolas Sarkozy piled pressure on Iran at the United Nations Tuesday

Clip Source: www.breitbart.com

Sarkozy added there would be no world peace if the international community "shows weakness in the face of the proliferation of nuclear weapons," in a speech received with loud applause from the rest of the assembly.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said last week that France was preparing for war as a worst-case scenario, but Ahmadinejad described such talk as "a propaganda tool. Why is there a need for a war?" he asked.

The United States is pushing for further UN sanctions on Tehran and would hold talks with the four other members of the Security Council -- France, Britain, Russia and China -- along with Germany on the issue this week.

Kouchner and his Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki, were meanwhile to meet later Tuesday on the sidelines of the General Assembly, diplomats said.

"For my part, I don't use the word 'war,'" Sarkozy told the Times.

press for "an arsenal of sanctions" to convince Tehran to drop its nuclear ambitions.

Tags: sarkozy, kouchner, bush, un sanctions, tehran, security council, france, britain