Well, I've been really busy with work and life and I haven't been blogging in a while. (Sorry)
My buddy Bruce was asking what was up, so I figured I should set a little time aside tonight and write. I told him that since the mainstream media (MTM) has noticed the improvements in Iraq, I haven't had to do much writing about it. But I told him that with the 2008 Presidential election heating up, I'll probably have plenty to write about!
And boy was I right!
It seems that Hillary Clinton has fallen behind in the polls in Iowa and now trails Barak Obama. And she's freaking out! Today she issued a press release attacking Obama and at first I thought it was a satire piece from the Onion:
Today in Iowa, Senator Barack Obama said: "I have not been planning to run for President for however number of years some of the other candidates have been planning for."
Oh really?
"Senator Obama's comment today is fundamentally at odds with what his teachers, family, classmates and staff have said about his plans to run for President," Clinton spokesperson Phil Singer said. "Senator Obama's campaign rhetoric is getting in the way of his reality."
Immediately after joining the Senate, Senator Obama started planning run for President. "'The first order of business for Senator Obama's team was charting a course for his first two years in the Senate. The game plan was to send Senator Obama into the 2007-2008 election cycle in the strongest form possible'...The final act of the plan was turning up the talk about a potential Presidential bid, which was greatly aided by his positive press and suggestions by pundits that he run for President." [U.S. News and World Report, 6/19/07 ]
His law school classmates say that Senator Obama has been planning Presidential run for 'more than a decade.' [A]ccording to those who know him, he has been talking about the presidency for more than a decade. "It was clear to me from the day I met him that he was thinking about politics," says Harvard Law School classmate Christine Spurell. [Washington Post, 8/12/07 ]
15 years ago, Senator Obama told his brother-in-law he was planning to run for President. Craig [Robinson] pulled him aside [in 1992] and asked about his plans. "He said, 'I think I'd like to teach at some point in time, and maybe run for public office,' recalls Robinson, who assumed Senator Obama meant he'd like to run for city alderman. "He said no -- at some point he'd like to run for the U.S. Senate. And then he said, 'Possibly even run for President at some point.' And I was like, 'Okay, but don't say that to my Aunt Gracie.' I was protecting him from saying something that might embarrass him." [Washington Post, 8/12/07 ]
In third grade, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want To Be a President.' His third grade teacher: Fermina Katarina Sinaga "asked her class to write an essay titled 'My dream: What I want to be in the future.' Senator Obama wrote 'I want to be a President,' she said." [The Los Angeles Times, 3/15/07]
In kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President.' "Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,' the teacher said." [AP, 1/25/07 ]
You have got to be kidding me...
First, Hillary Clinton issuing a press release ridiculing another candidate for "planning for years to run for President" is frankly hyper-ironic. Pot, meet kettle.
But the real jaw dropper here is that Hillary dug up Obama's essays from 3rd grade and Kindergarten! LOL
So if you have a 6 or 7 year old son or daughter with political ambitions, you better teach them to be careful with their writings... it may come back to haunt them!
Is she really saying that no one but Hillary is allowed to have dreams of being President of the United States?
This reminds me of the Dean Scream... I wonder if she'll make out better than he did.
Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday. Mostly because it's a time for the family and it's not overly commercialized. When Thanksgiving is approaching, you don't have to worry about budgeting funds for gifts or credit card bills the following month. All you have to worry about is exercising and/or dieting to work off your over-consumption.
One of my favorite columnists, Mark Steyn, has written a column about Thanksgiving. As a Brit living in America, he always provides a unique perspective to things. It's a very good column and an interesting perspective comparing the longevity of the US Constitution and the European constitutions. When you hear someone pining for America to be more like Europe, keep this in mind:
Thanksgiving (excepting the premature and somewhat undernourished Canadian version) is unique to America. "What's it about?" an Irish visitor asked me a couple of years back. "Everyone sits around giving thanks all day? Thanks for what? George bloody Bush?"
Well, Americans have a lot to be thankful for.
Europeans think of this country as "the New World" in part because it has an eternal newness, which is noisy and distracting. Who would ever have thought you could have ready-to-eat pizza faxed directly to your iPod?
And just when you think you're on top of the general trend of novelty, it veers off in an entirely different direction: Continentals who grew up on Hollywood movies where the guy tells the waitress "Gimme a cuppa joe" and slides over a nickel return to New York a year or two later and find the coffee now costs $5.75, takes 25 minutes and requires an agonizing choice between the cinnamon-gingerbread-persimmon latte with coxcomb sprinkles and the decaf venti pepperoni-Eurasian-milfoil macchiato.
Who would have foreseen that the nation that inflicted fast food and drive-thru restaurants on the planet would then take the fastest menu item of all and turn it into a Kabuki-paced performance art? What mad genius!
But Americans aren't novelty junkies on the important things. The New World is one of the oldest settled constitutional democracies on Earth, to a degree the Old World can barely comprehend. Where it counts, Americans are traditionalists.
We know Eastern Europe was a totalitarian prison until the Nineties, but we forget that Mediterranean Europe (Greece, Spain, Portugal) has democratic roots going all the way back until, oh, the mid-Seventies; France and Germany's constitutions date back barely half a century, Italy's only to the 1940s, and Belgium's goes back about 20 minutes, and currently it's not clear whether even that latest rewrite remains operative. The U.S. Constitution is not only older than France's, Germany's, Italy's or Spain's constitution, it's older than all of them put together.
There was a comment on an earlier post of mine that I found interesting:
gypsy hammond said... The surge is working? That must explain why 2007 has seen the highest level of troop deaths since the war began. But then, defining success downwards has been a hallmark of this war and this administration.
While this reflects the usual "it's all Bush's fault" thought process, what caught my eye was the statement about 2007 being the highest level of troop deaths. So I went to icasualties.org to see if it's true.
And it is.
But Gypsy's comment is a little disingenuous. The commenter states that the Surge isn't working because 2007 has the highest troop deaths so far.
So the critical point is: When did the Surge begin?
President Bush announced the Surge in January 2007, saying that 35,000 additional troops will be sent to Iraq. The troops were deployed between Febuary and May 2007. In June 2007, the Surge's offensive operations began (once all of the troops were fully deployed).
Using Excel and the figures from icasualties.org, I built a chart to better reflect what is happening from January 2006 through November 2007 (click on the image for a larger view):
So clearly, once offensive operations began in June 2007, US military deaths have begun to significantly decline. Coupled with the Anbar Awakening, it really looks like Iraq has turned around for the better.
The media hardly reports on Iraq anymore BECAUSE deaths are down, there are few if any car bombs, etc. etc. It reminds me of the old saying about the news media: "We don't report when a plane lands successfully, only when they crash". That's what is happening with Iraq RIGHT NOW! Even to the point that Afghanistan (which they've ignored for a while) is now being painted as a failure because Iraq is not.
What is really distressing though, is the complete and utter disconnect with reality I am observing from the Democratic Leadership (Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi in particular). They continue to say that the Iraq War is lost. And worse, they are continuing to try and cut off support for the troops to ensure that the war is lost.
Whose side are they on? We can all argue about how the war began, but the reality is that it happened and we need to deal with the current situation. And the current situation shows that the Iraq War can be (and possibly is) won. To continue to try and pull the rug out from under the troops when they are succeeding is one of the most politically suicidal moves I have ever witnessed. The American people may not agree with how the war started or if the war was worthwhile, but few Americans want our troops to lose - and that's something that Reid and Pelosi obviously don't understand.
Four years ago, I attended a Veterans Day observance in Orleans, Mass. Near the head of the parade, a 106-year-old named J. Laurence Moffitt rode in a Japanese sedan, waving to the small crowd of onlookers and sporting the same helmet he had been wearing in the Argonne Forest at the moment the armistice took effect, 85 years earlier.
I didn’t know it then, but that was, in all likelihood, the last small-town American Veterans Day parade to feature a World War I veteran. The years since have seen the passing of one last after another — the last combat-wounded veteran, the last Marine, the last African-American, the last Yeomanette — until, now, we are down to the last of the last.
An Italian musician and computer technician claims to have uncovered musical notes encoded in Leonardo Da Vinci's "Last Supper," raising the possibility that the Renaissance genius might have left behind a somber composition to accompany the scene depicted in the 15th-century wall painting...
Pala explains how he took elements of the painting that have symbolic value in Christian theology and interpreted them as musical clues.
Pala first saw that by drawing the five lines of a musical staff across the painting, the loaves of bread on the table as well as the hands of Jesus and the Apostles could each represent a musical note.
This fit the relation in Christian symbolism between the bread, representing the body of Christ, and the hands, which are used to bless the food, he said. But the notes made no sense musically until Pala realized that the score had to be read from right to left, following Leonardo's particular writing style.
Neall lives in Deptford, NJ and works in Exton, PA. He writes about technology, music, books, and news. He is an IT expert and published author. He's also a musician and songwriter.
