Thursday, February 1, 2007

The (anti) Surge

"We don't have a plan, but we don't want you to have one either." That seems to be the word from the Dems (and some 'republicans') in the Senate. Not only are they going to attempt to pass their non-binding resolution, they've taken out the part about it 'not being in the interest of the U.S.' on the surge.

Since the nbr was specifically against the surge, now exactly what is it for? Oh yeah, votes. That's what drives most politicians. They legislate with polls and voter sentiment. The democrats I can (sorta) understand, Bush's numbers are low and support for the war is low. But for the 'republicans' it's really hard to figure. Three out of four Republicans support the war, the President and the Surge; so what's the thinking behind alienating your voters? Who knows, but hopefully these politicians will pay the ultimate price for their shenanigans: ie. loss of job.
Senate corners Bush over troop increase

Mark Tran
Thursday February 1, 2007
Guardian Unlimited


US marines, west of Baghdad
US marines patrol west of Baghdad. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images.
George Bush was today facing further political isolation over his policy on Iraq after top Senate Democrats and Republicans agreed on a provisional resolution opposing a troop increase.

The White House has been lobbying fiercely to head off such a resolution and its failure to do so underlines the unpopularity of Mr Bush's plan to send an extra 21,500 troops to Iraq.

Several proposals had been circulating in the Senate, but the Democratic chairman of the senate armed services committee, Carl Levin, and his predecessor, the Republican senator John Warner, have managed to craft a resolution designed to attract maximum support from both parties.(link)

The article didn't give a specific list of 'republicans' who support this measure (and the one that will go around the House), but I'm sure it's the same thugs who were signing on earlier (represented in the Pledge). If you haven't signed up for the pledge, do so now. Let these politicians (and the NRSC) know that we do not support these people.
__________
Reason to care

Monday, January 29, 2007

Sad day for horse lovers, race lovers, animal lovers and generally those people that love winners.
Barbaro euthanized Monday morning

KENNETT SQUARE, Pa. -- So many people felt a stake in Barbaro's recovery. They imagined his pain, grimaced each time he faltered, took heart as each day passed and he was still alive, making painfully slow progress.

The 2006 Kentucky Derby winner's fight for survival was their fight, a symbol of strength, courage and comfort -- and, more than anything else, a source of inspiration.

Forde: Harsh Reality

Pat Forde

Barbaro's epic struggle to survive captured America's heart. But his death leaves horse racing with an opportunity to honor his legacy with some reform. Story

He was, after all, winner of the world's most famous race, in a sport desperate for a superstar. For months he seemed, remarkably, to take everything that came at him: good and bad.

Finally, it was too much.

Barbaro was euthanized Monday after complications from his gruesome breakdown at last year's Preakness, ending an eight-month ordeal that made him even more of a hero than he was as a champion on the track.

"Certainly, grief is the price we all pay for love," co-owner Gretchen Jackson said.

A series of ailments -- including laminitis in the left rear hoof, an abscess in the right rear hoof, as well as new laminitis in both front feet -- proved too much for the gallant colt. Barbaro was given a heavy dose of a tranquilizer and an overdose of an anesthetic and put down at 10:30 a.m.


I have never like the practice of putting down horses, but I havn't followed this story enough to form an opinion over whether the horse was seriously suffering or if treatment simply wasn't working.
__________
Reason
Yes everyone else has already posted this, but I had a physical today and rough day at work, so I didn't get to do it earlier (heh).

Seems that the Iraqis are trying to step up. Granted they had to get help, but in a fight this size thats not necessarily a bad thing right now. (of course, the key is how will they handle it when we leave)

Iraqi army kills leader of Shiite cult

By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer 4 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq -

News | News Photos | Images | Web

Iraq's army announced Monday it killed the leader of a heavily armed cult of messianic Shiites called "the Soldiers of Heaven" in a fierce gunbattle aimed at foiling a plot to attack leading Shiite clerics and pilgrims in the southern city of Najaf on the holiest day of the Shiite calendar.

Senior Iraqi security officers said that as part of the plot, three gunmen were captured in Najaf after renting a hotel room in front of the office of Iraq's most senior Shiite spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, with plans to attack it.

The fierce 24-hour battle was ultimately won by Iraqi troops supported by U.S. and British jets and American ground forces, but the ability of a splinter group little known in Iraq to rally hundreds of heavily armed fighters was a reminder of the potential for chaos and havoc emerging seemingly out of nowhere. Members of the group, which included women and children, planned to disguise themselves as pilgrims and kill as many leading clerics as possible, said Maj. Gen. Othman al-Ghanemi, the Iraqi commander in charge of the Najaf region. (link)


Also, I would like to point out to any of the 'cut-and-run' or redeploy or whatever you call it crowd the easiest way and fastest to end the U.S. intervention in Iraq is to get the Iraqi Government to ask us to leave. All the protesters and feckless Senators need to simply convince Maliki to ask Bush to pull the troops out and per our agreement and the U.N. mandate, we will simply leave. That would be much easier than Hillary Clinton claiming that it is irresponsible to not pull the troops out before the next President (wonder who she's voting for?) is sworn in.
__________
Reason to fight