Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Just a brief note to readers, the following excerpt is from Jihad Watch. I don’t mind admitting this was my first visit there. At least it was the only visit I remember and after being there today I am confident I would not have forgotten. The story at the top of the page when I was there is linked below. It is what compelled me to publish this tiny post as encouragement for those who have never been there to check it out.

The piece hits home with me. Like so many others I am weary of the treatment some stories get based on an impression of who should be presented sympathetically and who should not. Most of us suspect that is due to media bias. If that is the case it should be criminal to attempt to mislead people rather than share the facts and let the viewers draw their own conclusions. Critics of this position will contend the viewer is always free to draw their own conclusions. But we all know the power of suggestion and the subtle influence of marketing techniques employed by advertisers, media outlets and politicians. So to put it simply, that boat don’t float.

Anyway, if you haven’t before we recommend you test drive Jihad Watch. If you have been there then you don’t need our recommendation.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Cue standard “Muslims fear backlash, deplore terrorism” story

This one is by Cydney Long for Philadelphia’s CBS3.com (thanks to all who sent this in). Let’s see — have we touched all the bases? Muslims shocked by terror charges? Check. The jihadists don’t represent all Muslims? Check. Islam is a religion of peace? Check. Qur’an good? Check. If you blame the religion you’re blaming all Muslims? Check. Good, Cydney! You get an A+ for this one!

(CBS 3) VORHEES, N.J. Muslims in the region are bracing themselves for a possible backlash in response to the terror plot arrests.

It is often helpful to look back from time to time and view the opinions and positions as well as public statements of our elected officials. We offer a copy of a press release from about a year and a half ago. This is from Senator Chuck Schumer and includes a letter to President Bush regarding the Iraq war. Although Senator Schumer’s understanding of war hasn’t seemed to improve since then, the passages highlighted in red are certainly interesting and a contrast to Democratic leadership in 2007.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 11, 2005

Schumer Urges Bush To Appoint Distinguished Delegation Of Former Military Leaders To Examine Iraqi Troop Training/Deployment And Report To Public

Today Sen. Chuck Schumer will send a letter to President Bush urging him to immediately appoint a distinguished delegation of retired military leaders to go to Iraq, examine the failures in troop training and deployment, and make a public report to the Congress and American people quickly. Schumer suggested that former military leaders like General Tommy Franks, General Norman Schwarzkopf, and Secretary Colin Powell should go to Iraq to make a first hand assessment about why the President’s troop training plan is not going well. From all reports there is only one single battalion out of 97 that are ready to fight on its own in Iraq - that is only 750 troops.

Schumer said, “The lynchpin in the President’s plan for victory is training enough Iraqi troops so that they can stand up and the U.S. forces can finally stand down – so it is critical to know what is going wrong. A distinguished delegation of former military leaders like General Tommy Franks, General Norman Schwarzkopf, and Secretary Colin Powell should be sent by the President to report back to the American public as soon as possible so we can fix these serious problems.”

Schumer’s letter to the President follows:

December 11, 2005

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Bush:

As you know, the training and deployment of Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) capable of defending Iraq from outside influences and policing against domestic insurgents is a key objective of our ongoing efforts in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and one that must be completed before we can end our military presence. Like you, I recognize that America must succeed in Iraq and in order to accomplish that goal I steadfastly support the establishment of a competent and capable ISF.

I am troubled by recent reports that the establishment of such forces is not moving forward as well as was hoped, and by the continuing inability to obtain a definitive assessment of the current status and abilities of the ISF. These matters lie at the very heart of the length and success of American military involvement in Iraq, and it is important for the American people to fully understand how much progress we have made in helping to establish the ISF.

I am deeply concerned that the lack of this information will make it increasingly difficult to chart a proper course in Iraq and may ultimately serve to undermine our chances of success. In order to give America the best chance for lasting victory in Iraq, I urge you to appoint a senior delegation of distinguished retired military leaders to travel to Iraq, assess the situation for themselves, and issue a public report of their findings.

As you have often said yourself, “As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.” Unfortunately, information available on the training and readiness of the ISF makes it difficult to predict when this will occur. For instance, in October it was revealed that out of over ninety ISF battalions, the number of fully independent, or “Category One” ISF battalions was revised down from three to one. The fact that two battalions were apparently downgraded would appear to be a significant step backward. In order to prevent any further regressions, it is important to have full and clear accounting of the situation on the ground and an explanation as to how this occurred.

There are also important and unanswered questions as to the actual size and cohesiveness of the ISF. As of mid-November the Department of Defense indicated that there were 211,700 members of the ISF, only about 65% of the number hoped to be reached by August of 2007. If we are to be successful in Iraq, we must clearly understand whether it is possible to complete training those already enlisted, as well as recruit and train the remaining personnel before the deadline.

Similarly, information from the GAO would indicate that there is a significant chance that possibly tens of thousands of those in the police component of the ISF may have deserted. Concerns also abound that the ISF is still 18-24 months away from operational independence and lack a sufficient command structure, and are a target for insurgent infiltration. Obviously, we need to get to the bottom of whether or not the ranks of the ISF are stable and cohesive before we can certify that they have been fully trained and are ready to assume independent responsibility for Iraq’s security.

I agree with you that the stakes in Iraq and that the United States must succeed in its work there. By providing an unvarnished analysis of ISF numbers, capability, and cohesion the delegation I am asking you to appoint could provide the American people with an honest assessment of our progress, inform the Administration and Congress of the best path to take forward, and allow us to move toward the shared goal of bringing our troops home and out of harms way. I urge you to appoint this delegation as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer
United States Senate

The Middle East is quite the focal point of international politics. The main points of contention are rooted in religion and economics. Based on size and the fact that there are essentially two sides to the argument, Israel and any strong alliances they have are positioned on one side of the argument. Anyone with even a casual interest in the history of events in the region would be willing to agree that Israel is a small country surrounded by nations with opposing viewpoints in religion and economics as well as ideology and prejudices in general.

Israel is, of course, a Jewish nation surrounded by Muslim or largely Muslim nations. The differences between Israel and the surrounding nations can be characterized as being on opposite ends of a spectrum. And most people would probably agree that Israel’s neighbors have in common a strong desire for Israel to go away. Many alliances in the region have been altered with the passing of time and the distinction between allies and enemies has been blurred from time to time. The only exception appears to be Israel and the United States.

Some examples of altered relationships may be useful to consider. Prior to the undoing of the Shah of Iran in the seventies, the United States had a workable relationship with Iran. After the hostage crisis of 1979 and since, that relationship has ceased. Likewise when the former Soviet Union was in a war with Afghanistan during the cold war, Osama bin Laden and the Afghan ‘rebels’ were supported the the U.S. The United States was at one time friendly with the government of Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Obviously, things changed for Saddam. The cold war found the former Soviet Union and the United States typically on opposite ends of the spectrum with regard to relationships in the Middle East.

These trends continued right up until and after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the announcement of the new war on terror. Some of the relationships based primarily on economic relationships were emphasized during the run up to the war in Iraq. Germany, France and Russia were at odds with the US at the UN not just on philosophical grounds or opposition to an impending war. Commencing a war in Iraq would disturb many ‘economic’ arrangements as well as obvious detriments and concerns.

Which brings us up to this year and the Wild West antics and politics of crazy times and trying to determine what’s next in the Middle East. The recent entrance of members of the United States Congress into matters of diplomacy has caused quite a stir and muddied the waters significantly. As if there wasn’t already enough confusion or actions offering contradictory evidence of positions, here are some more.

Just about the time we were reasonably convinced that the one constant in the Middle East was consensus among members of the Jewish community with the possible exception of Israeli politics, these headlines and stories appear.

Speaker Pelosi’s Statement in Damascus was Reckless, Irresponsible

Contact: Executive Director Matthew Brooks
Thursday, April 5, 2007, Washington, DC… The Republican Jewish Coalition issued this statement regarding House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s statements following her meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday:

“The Speaker’s statements were reckless and irresponsible,” said RJC Executive Director Matthew Brooks. “Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism and an ally of Iran. Speaker Pelosi’s statement, ‘We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace,’ represents a softness and a weakness in foreign policy that hurts the United States and Israel.”

Actually, the article above from the RJC is what we would have expected as a response over Speaker Pelosi’s trip to the Middle East. And since this blog claims to be non-partisan and independent with a tendency to lean to the right or conservative viewpoint, this being also a ‘Republican’ Jewish Coalition was no surprise. However, the following statement was what started our head scratching.

NJDC Defends Speaker Pelosi from GOP Smear

April 10, 2007 - 9pmWASHINGTON – Today, the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) condemned the Republican Jewish Coalition’s (RJC) misguided television advertising campaign, which smears Speaker Pelosi’s recent Middle East trip. The RJC makes the ridiculous claim that Speaker Pelosi’s trip “weakened America’s security.”

“The notion that the Speaker’s trip to the Middle East had negative ramifications for American national security is laughable,” said NJDC Executive Director Ira Forman. “If RJC wants to do something productive for our national security, they should stand with the majority of Jewish Republicans, Independents and Democrats in opposing the administration’s failed Iraq policy.”

We may be guilty of a lax approach to staying informed about the Middle East. In our defense, the conflicts in the Middle East have appeared to us to be so simple and obvious as to their nature, the need for strict, formal and immense critical research seemed unnecessary. Our consensus was no one was really interested in solving the problems so they will not be solved without opposing ideologies making mutual concessions.

After tripping over the articles already presented here, we found the following:

Pelosi’s father and the Holocaust

RAFAEL MEDOFF, THE JERUSALEM POST
When Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, stepped to the podium at a Knesset dinner during her visit earlier this month, she made history in more ways than one.
Not only was she the first woman Speaker of the House to address Israel’s lawmakers, Pelosi was also addressing the parliament of a country whose creation her own father championed, at the risk of his career - and perhaps her career, as well.

Speaker Pelosi’s father, the late US congressman Thomas D’Alesandro, Jr., of Maryland, was known as a Roosevelt Democrat. What is not widely known is that D’Alesandro broke ranks with president Franklin D. Roosevelt on the issues of rescuing Jews from Hitler and creating a Jewish State.

Is someone trying to say that Speaker Pelosi’s disregard for established protocol is a genetic flaw? We could accept that but it still does not provide an excuse for her behavior regardless of motive. Here are some more enlightening excerpts from other reports.

Pelosi stand on the war in Iraq bothers Israel lobby
But House speaker insists U.S. commitment to security of Jewish state is unshakable
Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Wednesday, March 14, 2007

(03-14) 04:00 PDT Washington — Speaker Nancy Pelosi is widely recognized as a strong, second-generation supporter of Israel, but the scattered boos she heard during an appearance before the Israel lobby’s most committed activists highlighted their conflicting emotions over the war in Iraq.

With the first two articles presented, this one just muddies that water a little more. But the following excerpt gives some understandable insight of Nancy Pelosi simply being a political animal afflicted with typical ambitions for power and influence of a arrogant, wealthy, misguided, selfish politician and nothing more.

To adapt, she will have to understand that today’s opponent could be tomorrow’s ally. Few in Congress have such a memory for slights and betrayals. She still bristles at the fact that when she first went to Washington, many in the Democratic establishment didn’t take her seriously and opposed her march up the leadership. As she told Time earlier this year, “They couldn’t control me, so they tried to take me down.” When her former House colleague Martin Frost was running to head the Democratic National Committee after the 2004 elections, she lobbied against him with a determination that all sides attributed to Frost’s challenging her for Democratic leader two years before. Asked about those conflicts, Pelosi refused to discuss them specifically but said, “Anybody who’s ever dealt with me knows not to mess with me.”

That first whip race intensified her rivalry with Hoyer and also cemented her bond with Murtha, who managed her campaign. Not only did he get her the votes to win that job but his support also made it possible for other old bulls in the House to begin to imagine a woman rising to the top

But Pelosi has also found a way to make her gender a weapon in political combat

All that raised a lot of new questions about Pelosi herself—about her judgment, her political instincts and her real ideology. Was her endorsement of longtime ally John Murtha over Hoyer a testament to her loyalty or proof that she is incapable of letting go of old grudges? Was putting her muscle behind the hero of the party’s antiwar wing a sign that she would steer her fractious and fragile coalition over the guardrails on the left? Did her support for a man who is notorious for slipping special-interest earmarks into spending bills prove that she didn’t really mean all that talk about cleaning up Congress? In other words, was Nancy Pelosi really up to the job?

If it is to be attributed to her father’s influence then maybe not all about him is flowery and innocent. The next reference is the bio presented at house.gov and is also used by Infoplease offering the dry facts. That is followed by a report of an insight into Nancy Pelosi’s father and his less displayed political philosophy.

D’ALESANDRO, Thomas, Jr., (father of Nancy Pelosi), a Representative from Maryland; born in Baltimore, Md., August 1, 1903; attended the parochial schools and Calvert Business College, Baltimore, Md.; engaged in the brokerage and insurance business in Baltimore, Md.; member of the State house of delegates in 1926-1933; general deputy collector of internal revenue in 1933 and 1934; member of the Baltimore City Council 1935-1938; delegate to each Democratic National Convention from 1944 to 1968; elected as a Democrat to the Seventy-sixth and to the four succeeding Congresses and served from January 3, 1939, until his resignation on May 16, 1947; mayor of Baltimore, Md., from May 1947 to May 1959; defeated for renomination in the March primary election; unsuccessful candidate for election to the United States Senate in 1958; appointed by President Kennedy to the Federal Renegotiation Board, 1961-1969; insurance and real estate broker; was a resident of Baltimore, Md. until his death there August 23, 1987.
Tommyrot in Baltimore
Monday, Nov. 18, 1957
Baltimore’s newspapers went on a rampage last week against a startling proposal by Mayor Thomas D’Alesandro Jr.: special taxes on advertising revenue, their main source of income. No other U.S. city, however hard up, has tried to raise cash by threatening the economic wellsprings of the press.

This ends our sad belief that dirty politics claimed as anything else are still dirty politics and the likelihood of a solution for the conflict in the Middle East in our lifetimes is remote. If you would like to present arguments or alternative opinions, fact, anecdotes or whatever in the comments, knock yourself out. Thanks for reading.
Stanford Matthews
with assistance from C. Harris
and the staff at MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, Is It Just Me?, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, Stuck On Stupid, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Jo’s Cafe, Conservative Thoughts, Allie Is Wired, Faultline USA, third world county, stikNstein… has no mercy, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Because of the following excerpt and source link to the full article below:

Israel responds to Arab Peace Initiative

Olmert answers the Arab League’s recapitulation of its peace initiative, offering a summit with moderate Arab states and experts discuss the prospects for the Saudi-drafted peace plan.
By Dominic Moran in Tel Aviv for ISN Security Watch (04/04/07)
In their recent summit in the Saudi capital Riyadh the 22 member states of the Arab League voted unanimously to renew the pan-Arab body’s 2002 peace offer to Israel.

You get this from Blog @ MoreWhat.com:

We all know the Middle East has a lot of problems. Every country in the region seems to have a complaint about how things are and an opinion of who is responsible for the problems. It has been a mixture of ‘peace’ talks and terrorist violence for as long as I can remember. And it all appears to be centered on everyone else’s opinion of Israel but largely an argument over land and who has the right to it. As a matter of fact, the endless debate over the ’state’ of Israel and a ’state’ for Palestine or Palestinians gives the impression it is nothing more than a cover for the real problem that a lot of people in the Middle East simply don’t like each other. If you fix the land problem, perhaps you can work on the people problems. Like most conflicts, a solution requires some unpleasant concessions to work. So here is my ridiculously simple and never to be accepted solution to the land problem.

If you click on the map of the area, certain characteristics immediately stand out. The location of the ‘disputed’ land as defined by the map is situated in Israel. Let’s not argue about that last statement. Just accept it. Currently, Israel is bordered by, in alphabetical order so as not to unintentionally offend anyone’s ego, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

Another obvious characteristic is that nearby Saudi Arabia is a comparatively large piece of real estate. If you look at the eastern border of Jordan you will notice a part of Saudi Arabia that makes a noticeable jagged shape along this eastern border. I suggest that Saudi Arabia donate the piece of land that is formed by drawing a line from the location where the borders of Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia meet to the eastern most part of Jordan’s border south of this first location.

Next, where Jordan borders Israel adjacent to the ‘disputed’ area, Jordan then donates a piece of land which would be a mirror image to the eastern 2/3 of the ‘disputed’ land and Israel donates the eastern 1/3 of the ‘disputed’ land. Now you have a designated area the same size as the disputed land on which to create a Palestinian state. It certainly is simple. It certainly won’t work. But it is also a practical solution to the problem of space and a little give and take to provide that space. If it does not resolve all the philosophical, religious, political and personal preferences of everyone involved, guess what? It is unlikely that anything ever will. But you have to start somewhere if you are truly interested in finding peace rather than demand to have everything your own way.

If you ever got past the land issue, you could consider tolerating each other enough to allow unfettered access to all the places regarded as religiously significant. If it is religiously significant, it should be available to all who are sincerely interested for religious reasons.

And if you would quit blowing each other up, you might just find a profitable way to get along and save yourselves all this grief. And the only reason I submitted this post against my better judgment is that gnawing feeling that even though I am not really personally invested in this conflict I am really tired of no one finding a way to solve it without feeling superior in some way. Damn people, get over yourselves and fix it.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Another disturbing employment report regarding the plans of Citigroup. It is disturbing in light of people like Bill Gates trying to make the case for large or unlimited increases in visa quotas to a Congress all to eager to listen. All the financial news that speaks to economic growth and job creation must be forgetting headlines like the following. While Citigroup hosts bring your children to work day in Pakistan they may be telling kids in America to bring their parents to the unemployment line. All the while publishing business specific press releases on expansion all over the world.

Citigroup To Layoff Thousands Of Employees

03/26/2007 07:34pm
HAGERSTOWN, MD - Citigroup announced Monday it’s planning to lay off thousands of people around the world; it’s also one of the largest employers in the region.
The financial services company plans to get rid of as many as 15,000 high cost jobs. It’s part of a plan to change the focus outside of the United States.

Citigroup to speed up China expansion

March 28 2007: 9:23 PM EDT
After winning permission to incorporate as a local bank in China, CEO Prince predicts 30 outlets by year-end; declines to confirm layoff rumors, possible ABN AMRO bid.
BEIJING (Reuters) — Citigroup Inc. plans to double its number of outlets in China this year to more than 30, Chairman and Chief Executive Charles Prince said on Thursday.

On March 26th NBC 25 reports a Citigroup announcement to layoff 15,000 around the world. Two days later Citigroup is denying the ‘rumor’ that NBC reported. Either NBC 25 got it wrong or Citigroup’s right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. Yet there are big expansion plans for China and elsewhere outside the US. So, do you suppose those 15,000 ‘high cost’ jobs are here or overseas?

It is any wonder why people get very annoyed over immigration, visas and outsourcing? It is really rather simple. What is the easiest way to lower costs? Overpay top executives if they are willing to slash jobs for American workers and replace them with cheaper offshore or imported workers who are less likely to complain based on the tentative nature of their employment. Politicians, lobbyists and corporate executives are not your best friend. That is of course, unless you belong to the corrupt trio.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

If the previous post does not show you that Senator Harry Reid is a contradction then understand he said they would not cut and run in Iraq or raise taxes. Right at the moment the tax thing is secondary. He said they would not cut and run. Senator Reid would you kindly explain the report below if you are not planning on cut and run?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

US Senate Democrats Draft Plan to Revise Military’s Iraq Mission
By VOA News
23 February 2007

Democratic Party leaders in the U.S. Senate are working on legislation that would effectively revoke the 2002 resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.

Senate Democratic aides say the proposal, which is not expected to be adopted, would limit the U.S. military’s mission to training Iraqi troops and police forces, securing the country’s borders and combating terrorist forces. Regular combat forces would be withdrawn by next year.

The proposal, drafted by Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Joseph Biden, who chairs the Foreign Relations panel is set to be presented to other Democratic senators next week.

If accepted, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would likely attach the proposal to an anti-terrorism bill. If passed by the Senate, which is not likely, the revised authorization would also have to be passed by the House and would be subject to a veto by President Bush.

Democrats and the independents aligned with them hold a slim 51 to 49 majority in the Senate, but hold a more comfortable majority in the House of Representatives.

The 2002 resolution gave President Bush authorization to take military action against Iraq, because of its alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. In a speech last week, Biden said the original resolution is now irrelevant because the WMD program did not exist, and former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is “no longer there.”

The bill is the latest effort by Senate Democrats to challenge President Bush on his Iraq policy. A vote on a non-binding resolution criticizing Mr. Bush’s plan to deploy an additional 21,000 troops to Iraq failed in the Senate, but was passed in the House last week.

Meanwhile, Democrats in the House of Representatives are considering a proposal by lawmaker Jack Murtha that would link funding of the U.S. military mission in Iraq to strict conditions on troop readiness and training standards.

Some information for this report was provided by AP and Reuters.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Right Nation, Leaning Straight Up, Maggie’s Notebook, and basil’s blog, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

This is a real American. You can read his speech to Congress regarding H Con Res 63 on a tribute page to him in the “Pages” menu to the right on the main page.or click here

The List OT Weekend at The Right Nation

OTA and Linkfest Weekend Who’s Are Ally?

Tech Support Weekend OTA 

How does H Con Res 63 affect real security, protecting America and
restoring our leadership in the world? It doesn’t. (Stanford Matthews)
Seventeen Republicans joined Democrats in Voting Yes on H Con Res 63
The names link to their information on Project Vote Smart (more on this later)

Representative Michael N. Castle District At-Large - US-House (R-DE)
Representative Howard Coble District 6 - US-House (R-NC)
Representative Thomas M. ‘Tom’ Davis District 11 - US-House (R-VA)
Representative John J. Duncan District 2 - US-House (R-TN)
Representative Philip ‘Phil’ English District 3 - US-House (R-PA)
Representative Wayne T. Gilchrest District 1 - US-House (R-MD)
Representative Bob Inglis District 4 - US-House (R-SC)
Representative Timothy V. ‘Tim’ Johnson District 15 - US-House (R-IL)
Representative Walter Beaman Jones District 3 - US-House (R-NC)
Representative Ric Keller District 8 - US-House (R-FL)
Representative Mark Steven Kirk District 10 - US-House (R-IL)
Representative Steven C. LaTourette District 14 - US-House (R-OH)
Representative Ronald E. ‘Ron’ Paul District 14 - US-House (R-TX)
Representative Thomas E. ‘Tom’ Petri District 6 - US-House (R-WI)
Representative James M. ‘Jim’ Ramstad District 3 - US-House (R-MN)
Representative Frederick Stephen ‘Fred’ Upton District 6 - US-House (R-MI)
Representative James T. ‘Jim’ Walsh District 25 - US-House (R-NY)

Church and State OTA weekend Feb 16-18, 2007 

In Exchange for Records, Fewer Immigration Raids

Over the past seven months, Bush administration officials have quietly toured the country, trying to persuade businesses that rely heavily on immigrant labor to join a little-known program that would spare them from embarrassing federal raids if they voluntarily handed over their workers’ documents so the government can scan them for fraudulent information….

The existence of the report above should be sufficient evidence that President Bush’s quiet tour is in the past tense. Raids are not the important part of the issue. The issue is the important part of the issue. It is called immigration. And every last politician can’t stop counting the money long enough to discharge their responsibility and correct border control and other national security problems including immigration.

If business wants to avoid raids by doing what they should in the first place, that is fine. Straighten out your obligation to protect this country and also stop violating laws. You forget that along with the need to have a profit in a busienss you have other obligations, not the least of which is to the country in which your business is located.

Stop the insanity and correct national security, including, but not limited to, defense, border control and immigration.

Staford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Escalating Our Military Involvement in Iraq Sends Precisely the Wrong Message Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Senate Assistant Democratic Leader Richard Durbin released the following statement tonight on President Bush’s address to the nation on the war in Iraq. 01/10/2007

There seems to be more conflict among people in this country as to an Iraq strategy than there is in Iraq. How’s that for helping out the other side? One of the drawbacks to freedom of speech is that people use it even when it is not in their best interest.

President Bush’s Administration is reminiscent of Lincoln and his difficulties with General McClellan in the Civil War. I will skip some obvious comparisons for the Demoratic party’s sentiments but can ask if anyone else was reminded of 1968.

It is unlikely that war plans have ever been completed without modification. Somewhere I heard someone say that after the first round is fired the battle plans go out the window. What politicians won’t give to us they expect from everyone else based on the words in the critiques. They claim they have the answer in their proposal. Leaving Iraq will solve the problem. They also claim the President’s current plan sends the wrong message. They think we’re doomed to fail. Have they ever considered their own actions may become a self-fulfilling prophecy? I have heard them say support the troops. Have they considered the positive effect of also supporting the mission? Slowly the Democrats opposition will convince me of the Dems suspected belief that utopia can be delivered if we all just talk and give each other a big hug. Let’s see ya try that with a terrorist who has repeatedly announced the fundamentalist mantra of killing all infidels. In case you’re not aware, that applies to anyone who doesn’t believe what they believe. And the way two distinct Muslim groups are killing each other in Iraq, that probably means everyone else.

Give the Bush Administration a chance to make something turn right about this wrongly initiated war. You might stop to think that some of us hold Congress partially to blame for failing to uncover the flaws as opposed to covering your political butts. And if the holier than thou minority of those voting against the war feel above reproach, forget about it. You were among the entire Congress, both houses, who failed to unearth the hoax. There is no “fool me once” loophole in matters of this importance. You all have a responsibility to see this thing through to a positive conclusion to right the wrongs and honor the sacrafice of others, Iraqis as well as Americans.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

There will not be a commentary here covering the entire State of the Union speech in one pass. This annual event is more significant than the importance most citizens place on it. But what is clear is that the media, some politicians and members of the public have made the Iraq War the primary issue. So that will be the topic of this post in brief.

Below is an interesting excerpt from a site that offered some stats on America at war. It is rather well written and more importantly, to the point. The point being the surprising lack of resolve in military matters that this country has been accused of and is quite simply guilty. Below is the excerpt.

The United States of America has a somewhat unique relationship with war. While America is considered to be the most militarily powerful country in the world today, Americans as a whole have never experienced war in the way that many other countries of the world have. There is a huge disparity between the American experience of war and the global experience. This may have an impact on American attitudes towards war

Which brings us to the subject of casualties. Follow the link above for the numbers if you like. The main point raised in opposition to the war is not on policy but casualties. Let’s just call it 3000 in three years. Of course, one death is unacceptable to most, but in war it is inevitable. Any way you slice it, the answer is the same. In terms of war, this nation’s casualties are extremely light. Granted, it is a different kind of war, but the numbers are still light.

I fear the opposition by elected officials is purely political. For those related to active duty service personnel, their opposition is understandable. But to increase the likelihood of bigger problems down the road with no guaranteed upside in leaving Iraq, the opposition makes no sense. It certainly makes no sense to leave without first trying one more (maybe the only) coherent proposal to date. That would include the initial decision.

MoreWhat.com urges those reading this and anyone they can tell, to contact your elected representatives to back the President’s Iraq strategy that was repeated tonight in the State of the Union address.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
( photos or other distractions were intentionally omitted from this post)

Another glance at a list of most popular news stories indicates the story of the two “abducted” boys has moved into first place since yesterday. In second place is a strange combo-looking thing featuring Hollywood divorces, Trump and Rosie and assorted other useless information. Third place has electronics standards and the BS electronics show hording space it doesn’t deserve. As a post of ours pointed out, the technology related industries in this country as well as others doles out tech advances in minuscule portions to maximize the profit ripoff of consumers. We have little sympathy for their perceived difficulties and absolutely no respect for their methods. Actually Beckham was in third place but who cares about soccer?

There are no other stories in the list worth mentioning with the possible exception of one on Secretary of State, Rice. The headline reads” Rice Encounters Skepticism in Mideast”. That is offered only for its comedic value. Maybe if the U.S. would put Israel in its place, show some compassion for the ordinary citizens of Palestine, Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East and warn every nation in the region to make an effort at peace, we might have something. Show them you’re serious by completing what you started in Afghanistan and Iraq, quickly. Straighten out some of the messes you’ve gotten us into and start acting like world leaders and maybe some one will take you seriously. If you get that far you can tell Iran and North Korea or any one else spoiling for a fight to straighten up or their situation will change abruptly. Do what you need to provide a little lasting peace and prosperity in the region and then take a break and bring the troops home. It can be done so quit wasting time and get at it. Tell the morons back in the states to stop debating foreign policy and military strategy in the news and get to work also. This country could use some leadership. Let’s start with what we have and stop playing politics. For once, finish the job and stop looking like the idiots you probably are.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

Walker’s World: EU-U.S. agree on Mideast

By MARTIN WALKER
UPI Editor Emeritus

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 (UPI) — The striking feature of the UPI-Zogby poll on American attitudes toward the Israel- Palestine dispute is the similarity with views in Europe. This suggests that the transatlantic political support now exists for a concerted push for a new effort to reach a settlement, which is exactly what Britain’s Tony Blair and the Iraq Study Group have been urging on President George W. Bush this month.

This is an interesting article but the bottom line is most conflicts in the world continue for outrageous lengths of time. Does anyone really want to solve these problems? Conflict involving Israel have existed since 1948. Certainly they have existed since the 1967 war. Much hope was placed on efforts during the Carter Administration. It looked good until the assasination of Anwar Sadat. Again, does anyone really want to resolve these problems? Sixty years and counting and nothing has been settled. Everyone can share in the blame.

Iran has experienced many problems. Any anger remaining from the US support of the Shah of Iran is understandable. Additional anger over lopsided support of Israel by the US is equally understandable. However, the current leaders in Iran calling for the destruction of Israel is not real helpful either.

Other nations in the region and US involvement produce problems based on objectives that are basically selfish and have nothing to do with solving world problems and only add to the difficulties. Therefore an article claiming the EU and US agree on the Middle East is hardly useful.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

Bush, Mexico’s Calderon to work on immigration
Reuters -
… W. Bush and Mexican President-elect Felipe Calderon
pledged on Thursday to work together for a comprehensive
solution to curb illegal immigration from Mexico …

If it was not a plot by both Houses of Congress to introduce
HR4437 knowing it would never get through the Senate, then
the fine new Senate of the 110th Congress should be able to
finish strong reform starting in January 2007. Similar to the
fact that Immigration Reform of 1986 was never enforced, in
their grand wisdom, politicians have improved on their deceit
by creating a better strategy. Work together just long enough
to satisfy mutual goals and fool the public in believing you really
give a damn. Like Democrats conceding Presidential 2004
elections by nominating John Kerry when John Edwards wsa a
much more viable candidate. Kerry was a sacrificial lamb and
the only one who did not know it was Kerry. He still doesn’t.

We hope all you smiling Democrats are enjoying your victories.
We hope all you Republicans are understanding your arrogance
that led to this. And we hope you both as well as all of America
is prepared for a continuation of porous borders, unrestricted
immigration and a complete breakdown of national security.

If you haven’t noticed, the resignation of Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld and previously mentioned items absolutely elated the
Muslim world. Al-Jazeera and the rest have been celebrating
since November 7th, 2006. Thank you one and all. NOT!

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Below is an example of just one more initiative simply created to
further the goals of one of the players on the international scene.
Day after day representatives of each country, regime, group,
organization or whatever make a statement in opposition to or in
favor of some grand plan or idea they claim is an effort to solve a
problem in the world. While this plays out and any one interested
weighs in on the idea’s relative merits or lack of same, people keep
dying or have their lives ruined or merely continue to suffer the
consequences of everyone else’s selfishness. No one is really trying
to find the right solution. They are simply working on a solution
that works for them. As long as that remains the strategy, no amount
of PR is going to change anything.

The major countries of the world have the tools necessary to solve
most of the world’s problems if they so desire. The problem is that
runs contrary to what they, the leaders of these countries, want. No
leaders have the courage to confront the other powers in their own
countries. The power behind the money in every country is not in
favor of what most of us would like; a peaceful world where every
person can pursue their dreams. Makes for a nice story but does not
work for the big money guys. It’s a bizarre global version of the old
joke, he who dies with the most toys wins.

This rant provided by C. Harris, with assistance from Stanford Matthews.

EXCLUSIVE- US starts plan to help Hamas opponents
Reuters AlertNet - Oct 13, 2006
By Adam Entous. JERUSALEM, Oct 13 (Reuters) - The United States
has quietly started a campaign projected to cost up to $42 million to
bolster Hamas’s political opponents ahead of possible early Palestinian
elections, say officials linked to the programme.