Well, the Congressional Dummycrats did it again. Backing down from Bush seems to come natural to them.
On May 1, they sent Bush a bill that would give him all the war-funding money he asked for, but put a timetable for getting out of Iraq. Bush vetoed it and demanded a “clean” bill. The Dems got their backs up in the air and swore they would not back down. They knew they couldn’t override the veto so they wrote up another bill that will most likely have other restrictions that Bush can choose to ignore.
Rep. Joe Baca, D-Calif., a member of the Blue Dog coalition, a group of conservative Democrats, said "But we realize too we have a responsibility to fund our troops and make sure they have the right equipment." Our troops haven’t had the right equipment ever since they were sent over there to fight.
The bill is also expected to insist that U.S. troops are properly trained along with other restrictions, but it is also expected that the bill would likely give Bush the authority to waive any restrictions.
Even if deadlines for troop withdrawals are dropped as expected, Democratic leaders are claiming victory in the high-profile fight with Bush. I have no idea how they can possibly do that
Why do the Democrats continue to lick the ass of a president who has approval ratings that remain in the 29% to 30%?
More importantly, when are the American people going to wake up and demand that the Congress start doing something good for the country?
“No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people” H.L. Mencken, a journalist.
The California Curmudgeon
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
LAILA IS FIX-IN TO DANCE
Did the fight game follow Laila into the dancing world? Is the “fix” in?
Laila, in "Dancing With The Stars" gets six tens for jumping up and down out of sync with her partner in that Egyptian dance and Apolo gets five because Len thought his cha-cha was too raunchy. A Latin dance that is too raunchy is like a waltz that is too graceful.
I can’t imagine why the judges favor her. They seem to give her a ten just for walking out on the floor and not falling down. She is a good dancer, but not a great dancer. She smiles a lot and flirts with the judges, but she really has an attitude that turns me off.
I was hoping against hope that she would be voted off tonight, but she is still there.
Either Joey or Apolo could dance rings around her and then come back and stomp her ass.
Even Ian beat her last night.
Well, as they say in the fight game “There is always next week”.
The California Curmudgeon
Laila, in "Dancing With The Stars" gets six tens for jumping up and down out of sync with her partner in that Egyptian dance and Apolo gets five because Len thought his cha-cha was too raunchy. A Latin dance that is too raunchy is like a waltz that is too graceful.
I can’t imagine why the judges favor her. They seem to give her a ten just for walking out on the floor and not falling down. She is a good dancer, but not a great dancer. She smiles a lot and flirts with the judges, but she really has an attitude that turns me off.
I was hoping against hope that she would be voted off tonight, but she is still there.
Either Joey or Apolo could dance rings around her and then come back and stomp her ass.
Even Ian beat her last night.
Well, as they say in the fight game “There is always next week”.
The California Curmudgeon
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
SUPPORTING THE TROOPS THE BUSH WAY #2
Once again the Bush administration shows its contempt for our fighting troops in Iraq by having the Department of Defense block our soldier’s access to MySpace, YouTube, Metaccafe, IFilm, StupidVideos, FileCabi, BlackPlanet, hi5, Photobucket, Pandora, MTV, 1.fm and Live365.
The headline in our local paper read “Popular Web Sites Now Off-Limits To Troops”.
This online link between troops serving overseas and their friends and families was blocked Monday by the DoD.
The DoD said this new move “was not to prevent the service men and women from communicating with their loved ones,” it was “to maintain a balance between operations security and privacy rights when sharing information online is becoming commonplace”.
Military officials also said they blocked the Web sites because they took up too much bandwidth. “Our concern is network availability,” said Timothy Madden a spokesman for the Joint Task Force-Global Network Operations. “We’re trying to make sure that we have enough capability to do what we need to do for DoD missions: … war fighting, intelligence.”
Major Bruce Mumford, communications officer for the 4th Brigade,1st Infantry Division in Iraq, says the military will not spend more on expensive equipment to broaden the bandwidth and meet the demand. “The U.S. Army’s not going to pay the bills for you to get on MySpace and YouTube.”
And now, as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story. The ban comes just days after U.S. forces in Iraq established a YouTube channel featuring combat footage “to give viewers around the world a ‘boots on the ground’ perspective of Operation Iraqi Freedom from those who are fighting it.”
I guess they don’t want any real news to find its way out of Iraq.
The California Curmudgeon
The headline in our local paper read “Popular Web Sites Now Off-Limits To Troops”.
This online link between troops serving overseas and their friends and families was blocked Monday by the DoD.
The DoD said this new move “was not to prevent the service men and women from communicating with their loved ones,” it was “to maintain a balance between operations security and privacy rights when sharing information online is becoming commonplace”.
Military officials also said they blocked the Web sites because they took up too much bandwidth. “Our concern is network availability,” said Timothy Madden a spokesman for the Joint Task Force-Global Network Operations. “We’re trying to make sure that we have enough capability to do what we need to do for DoD missions: … war fighting, intelligence.”
Major Bruce Mumford, communications officer for the 4th Brigade,1st Infantry Division in Iraq, says the military will not spend more on expensive equipment to broaden the bandwidth and meet the demand. “The U.S. Army’s not going to pay the bills for you to get on MySpace and YouTube.”
And now, as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story. The ban comes just days after U.S. forces in Iraq established a YouTube channel featuring combat footage “to give viewers around the world a ‘boots on the ground’ perspective of Operation Iraqi Freedom from those who are fighting it.”
I guess they don’t want any real news to find its way out of Iraq.
The California Curmudgeon
Monday, May 14, 2007
SORPANOS GO DOWN WITH ONLY A WHIMPER
Is it just me or are these last episodes of the Sopranos going to be the least exciting of the entire series except, of course, for the ones Tony spent in bathrobe and bed somewhere near the beginning?
I'm not a violent person, but I like a show that can keep me on the edge of my seat and I certainly expected more excitement in these closing days of Tony's family.
To me Tony's family has become boring.
The California Curmedgeon
I'm not a violent person, but I like a show that can keep me on the edge of my seat and I certainly expected more excitement in these closing days of Tony's family.
To me Tony's family has become boring.
The California Curmedgeon
Sunday, May 06, 2007
THE NRA SHOOTS OFF ITS MOUTH
Well, if that don’t beat all.
The NRA, the powerful gun lobby, has come out in favor of selling guns to terrorists. They are urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms.
The bill would block gun sales, licenses or permits to anyone on the terror watch list. To me that sounds sensible.
The argument seems to have something to do with the terrorist’s second amendment rights and that they are only suspects. They also say that there is no legal basis to deny a sale to a purchaser just because he is on a terror watch list.
In a 2005 study, the Government Accountability Office found that out of 44 firearm purchases attempts made by known or suspected terrorists 35 were approved.
By law gun dealers must deny the sale of a gun to a felon, a person guilty of domestic abuse or an illegal immigrant, but if the person is merely a terrorist, well, they must sell him a gun.
Why do they prevent a person who is on the “No Fly” list from flying, but not from buying a gun? It doesn’t make any sense to me except that the NRA doesn’t make any money when people fly.
NRA, it’s time to put your gun where your mouth is.
The California Curmudgeon
The NRA, the powerful gun lobby, has come out in favor of selling guns to terrorists. They are urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms.
The bill would block gun sales, licenses or permits to anyone on the terror watch list. To me that sounds sensible.
The argument seems to have something to do with the terrorist’s second amendment rights and that they are only suspects. They also say that there is no legal basis to deny a sale to a purchaser just because he is on a terror watch list.
In a 2005 study, the Government Accountability Office found that out of 44 firearm purchases attempts made by known or suspected terrorists 35 were approved.
By law gun dealers must deny the sale of a gun to a felon, a person guilty of domestic abuse or an illegal immigrant, but if the person is merely a terrorist, well, they must sell him a gun.
Why do they prevent a person who is on the “No Fly” list from flying, but not from buying a gun? It doesn’t make any sense to me except that the NRA doesn’t make any money when people fly.
NRA, it’s time to put your gun where your mouth is.
The California Curmudgeon
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
THE DECIDER DECIDES MOST AMERICANS ARE WRONG
Yesterday George W. Bush vetoed a war-funding bill that would, at last, start bringing our troops home. This is something that the American public wants and has made quite clear to the administration. He ignored the majority of Americans and he defied the majority of Congress when he stamped that big red VETO on that bill. And in so doing, he told our brave men and women of the military that they will be the ones to pay the price of his action.
When President Bush rejected the troop withdrawal plan that was supported by nearly two-thirds of the country, he was not working for the American people, he was protecting all of his bad Iraq decisions. He was trying to protect his legacy.
Back in 2003 the commanders urged Bush to stick to the battle plan in Afghanistan which was to capture Osama bin Laden. They also urged him to forget about attacking Iraq, but the White House ignored their advice and launched a war that has now cost America more than 3,500 lives. Bush now says we must stop listening to the politicians in Washington and let the military commanders run the war.
In a speech yesterday Bush said “Twelve weeks ago I asked the Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would provide our brave young men and women in uniform with the funds and flexibility they need. Instead, members of the House and the Senate passed a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders. So a few minutes ago, I vetoed the bill.”
He now expects the Democrats to bring him a compromise bill. What this means is that they should bring him a clean bill without any suggestion of troop withdrawal. How do they compromise with a man who will not give an iota from his position? This is the man who believes that everything is His Way or No Way.
Now Bush wants us to believe that he had nothing to do with starting the war and that it’s the military's war. He wants us to believe that he is protecting the right of the military commanders to determine the war policy of this nation. It is also seems that his plan is to set up Iraq military commander Gen. David Petraeus to be his fall guy when we leave Iraq in defeat sometime in the future.
We are not on the road to victory; we are on the road to nowhere.
The California Curmudgeon
When President Bush rejected the troop withdrawal plan that was supported by nearly two-thirds of the country, he was not working for the American people, he was protecting all of his bad Iraq decisions. He was trying to protect his legacy.
Back in 2003 the commanders urged Bush to stick to the battle plan in Afghanistan which was to capture Osama bin Laden. They also urged him to forget about attacking Iraq, but the White House ignored their advice and launched a war that has now cost America more than 3,500 lives. Bush now says we must stop listening to the politicians in Washington and let the military commanders run the war.
In a speech yesterday Bush said “Twelve weeks ago I asked the Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would provide our brave young men and women in uniform with the funds and flexibility they need. Instead, members of the House and the Senate passed a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders. So a few minutes ago, I vetoed the bill.”
He now expects the Democrats to bring him a compromise bill. What this means is that they should bring him a clean bill without any suggestion of troop withdrawal. How do they compromise with a man who will not give an iota from his position? This is the man who believes that everything is His Way or No Way.
Now Bush wants us to believe that he had nothing to do with starting the war and that it’s the military's war. He wants us to believe that he is protecting the right of the military commanders to determine the war policy of this nation. It is also seems that his plan is to set up Iraq military commander Gen. David Petraeus to be his fall guy when we leave Iraq in defeat sometime in the future.
We are not on the road to victory; we are on the road to nowhere.
The California Curmudgeon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)