There was an article posted in the Washington Post yesterday by none other than Angelina Jolie.  Here is an excerpt from her article...

"As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible. "

She also cited General Patraeus saying, "In Baghdad, I spoke with Army Gen. David Petraeus about UNHCR's need for security information and protection for its staff as they re-enter Iraq, and I am pleased that he has offered that support. General Petraeus also told me he would support new efforts to address the humanitarian crisis "to the maximum extent possible" -- which leaves me hopeful that more progress can be made."

I know she gets it because she also said, "My visit left me even more deeply convinced that we not only have a moral obligation to help displaced Iraqi families, but also a serious, long-term, national security interest in ending this crisis."

Now why can't the actors and actresses that support the left wing loon agenda see this as plainly as Angelina Jolie.  It's because they rather do their "arm chair" analysis while hob-nobbing with their bling-bling friends instead of getting their hands dirty!

You can read her article here...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022702217.html?nav=hcmodule

It looks like there is a movement by so-called Republicans called Republicans for Obama.  They even have a website - www.republicansforobama.org - feel free to go there and post some sense into their forum.  Anyway, are these folks just liberals who are calling themselves Republicans so they can convince others to become left wing loons?  Why don't they just register as Democrats?  How can a real Republican agree with Obama's values?  He is for partial birth abortion.  He wants to put our country in harm's way by giving up Iraq to terrorists who are intent on killing Americans.

These people aren't Republicans!  They are another bunch of left wing loones for Obama!

Here, watch the video...

Obama is clueless about our National Security!

----
Boomer Out 

At a McCain campaign rally in Cincinnati yesterday, conservative talk show host Bill Cunningham introduced John McCain.  During the introduction, he decided to hammer Obama suggesting that he is a "hack" that would get chummy with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hezzbolah.  He also made muslim inuendos by calling Obama by his middle name "Hussein".  Ok, firstly, I don't have a problem with someone using Obama's middle name.  I've done it too.  I mean, after all, Hussein is Barack Obama's middle name.  I don't necessarily have a problem with his other comments either.  I think he could have done better with the introduction, but hey, it is what it is. 

Anyway, McCain latter denounced Cunningham's remarks, saying that he would like to have a civil campaign against Obama.  "The moral of the story", McCain said, "is we just have to have a stronger control of our campaign.  ...There is no excuse for what happened today".  At a scheduled news conference he said, "I will take responsibility and I apoligize for it...".  While I don't think it was necessary for McCain to denounce Cunningham's statements, I can understand the strategy... what with all the fighting going on with the Democratic candidates it's probably a smart move.  McCain said he would do his best to prevent dirty politicking, however, he will have a hard time controlling the 527 groups (independent advocacy groups).

Ok, so now tough talking Cunningham says McCain has lost his support.  "I'm going to follow the lead of Ann Coulter", said Cunningham, "I've had it with John McCain.  ...I'm going to endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton for president because she would do a better job in the Oval Office, I think, than the liberal John McCain.  I'm done with him".

What the heck?  Here is another knucklehead who likes to dish it out, but can't take it.  So he cries like a kid and wants to take his ball and go home.  Is he kidding?!?!  He would rather vote for a liberal Democrat than vote for the Republican candidate!  Bill Cunningham and Ann Coulter are just closet Democrats who found an opportunity to out themselves.  I say, let them go.  If they want to be Democrats, then so be it.  But, hey... when they want back in, the hell with them!

The Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is almost done with the "Crusher".  What is the Crusher?  It's a remote operated six wheeler that is virtually unstoppable.  This is what Stephen Welby of DARPA says about it... "This vehicle can go into places where, if you were following in a Humvee, you'd come out with spinal injuries.  Usually vehicles are set up to protect humans. Here, we didn't have to worry about that."

Take a look...

As Barack Obama closes in on the Democratic nomination, I become more concerned with the future of our national security.  Let me list the things that concern me...

• He has a time table to pull the troops out of Iraq (He expects full withdrawal in 2009).
• He lacks experience with national security (He can't even claim military service).
• He wants open dialog with rogue nations without preconditions.
• He urges the Bush Administration to conduct air strikes against targets in Pakistan - what the...?
• He wants to cut back on our defense budget and tap into military funding to support his health care plan.
• He does not seem to understand or accept the fact that pulling out of Iraq will destablized the region.

The Washington Times interviewed retired military officers, defense industry executives and other defense officials and they all cite Obama's lack of experience as a major concern.  They also pointed out that he plans to pull the troops out of Iraq when the surge has reduced violence, disrupted Al Qaeda and improved the Iraqi government's functional ability.

That is why I feel strongly about voting for John McCain.  Protecting the country is at the forefront of  his campaign.  Further, he knows what its like to be in the military.  There will be no speculation on his part, just the stark reality that terrorists are out to kill Americans and destroy our way of life.

A reporter asked Barack Hussein Obama about his patriotism citing the fact that he did not place his hand over his heart during the national anthem.  This was his response...

The choice not to put his hand on his heart is a behavior that "would disqualify about three-quarters of the people who have ever gone to a football game or baseball game." 

The problem with your answer, Mr. Obama, is that 3/4 of the people in the stadium are not running for the Oval Office!

Ralph Nader has entered the presidential race for the 3rd time.  The last time Nader ran for president, the Dems blamed him for Al Gore's loss.  Psst... hey Dems, maybe Gore lost on his own!

Ok, so now that he's thrown his hat into the race, Obama and Hillary are making noises about him.  Here's what Barack Hussein Obama said...

“Mr. Nader is somebody who if [you] don’t listen and adopt all of his policies, [he] thinks you’re not substantive. He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work,” Obama said. “Historically, he is a singular figure in American politics and has done as much as just about anybody on behalf of consumers, so in many ways, he is a heroic figure and I don’t mean to diminish him, but I do think there’s a sense now that, you know, if somebody’s not hewing to the Ralph Nader agenda then you must be lacking in some way.” 

Hillary said...

“Obviously, it’s not helpful to whoever our Democratic nominee is. But it’s a free country. I don’t know what party he’ll run on. Where did he run on last time? Does anybody remember? Was it on the Green Party? Well, you know, his being on the Green Party prevented Al Gore from being the greenest president we could have had and I think that’s really unfortunate. I think we paid a big price for it,” she said.

For a couple of liberals, they seem to have a problem with someone exercising their right run.

Looks like the NYT is playing down it's big breaking story about McCain possibly having an inappropriate relationship with a female lobbyist.  There was a blurb on it's front page that referred it's reader to page 20.  While they haven't actually raised the white flag, they are trying to justify their poorly sourced article.  They are now saying that there was a disagreement between four reporters who felt they had the story nailed and Bill Keller, the executive editor who felt that they hadn't.  In the end, though, the NYT released the article. 

When questioned on the substance of the story, Keller danced around and said, "On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself".  To me that sounds like a cop out.  His statement really does not say anything.

The New Republic thrashed the New York Times for giving the article a green light.  They say the piece was "filled with awkward journalistic moves".  U.S. News & World Report Publisher Mort Zuckeman told Fox News that "I don't think that there is enough acknowledged sourcing for this story".  The National Review Online said, "The Times doesn't have the goods... at least from what's in the story... and shouldn't have run it".

Again, the liberal leaning and baised NYT, who gives MoveOn.org huge financial advantages to print full page ads on its rag to attack General Patraeus does not practice fair journalism on conservative issues.

Well, this is just a follow up on my last post about the smear article on McCain that the New York Times published.  Of course, we already know that the story could not be substantiated.  The former McCain aides said that they did not actually see any inappropriate behavior and that the woman involved said that the accusations never happened.

Now here are the questions I have about the New York Times.  Apparently they've had this information for 3 months before McCain got the endorsement from them on Jan. 25.  Now why would the NYT endorse him if they had this formation?  Also, why did they decide to publish it now?

Ok, when they endorsed McCain, it was during the time the activist conservatives were saying that McCain was too moderate/liberal and that they would vote for Hillary if McCain got the nod from the GOP.  So this left wing looney commie rag endorses him.  We all know that the NYT is a very liberal leaning paper.  Endorsing a conservative is just not something they would do, unless of course, it can damage McCain and move angry activist conservative votes to the Dems.

Now they publish this smear article after holding it for 3 months... just when McCain looks like he will get the GOP nomination.  How timely is that!

I think the New York Times is showing how little integrity it really has!!!

----
Flight Commander Boomer Out