Boxer considers impeachment for Bush?

The democrats continued their baseless attacks on Bush, when Senator Boxer asked "presidential scholars" if the use of secret wire taps without court approval was impeachable. Let's face it, he won't get impeached, and here's why:

-This program was targeted at people overseas, or those talking with people overseas. One of those involved must have been believed to be involved with terror.
-Why should everyone be so concerned if they have nothing to hide?
-If I was talking to someone in Afghanistan, I would assume, no I would EXPECT, someone to be listening to my conversation. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
-Almost every American citizen will never be "spied" upon. This was a very small number of individuals in comparision to the american population. If I have to take this chance in being "spied" upon in order to save my family, friends, and other americans from being killed in a terrorist attack, you're damn right I wouldn't care.
-Those in Congress knew about this and it was approved on a bipatisan basis, as Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) agrees by saying, "I believe the program is essential to U.S. national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities."
-The Clinton administration believed it had the same power. President Clinton authorized the break in and instillation electronic bugs WITHOUT WARRANTS of Aldrich Ames. His deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick argued "The Department of Justice believes and the case law supports that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes." Patrick Leahy (D) argued that this was an "entirely different power" claiming "those are searches into embassies, foreign embassies, and things of that nature." No, sir, this was a man's home that Clinton authorized spying of, NOT AN EMBASSY.
-Something interesting happened on September 11, 2001. America, at least for a short while seemed different. People seemed united, united against a common enemy. That has changed for many Americans, who feel their time would be more worth while going after the President. But, this President has not swayed, he has not faultered, and he has made our country a safer one because of it. Honestly, I think what he has done in a general sense is nothing short of miraculous. He's put his political life on the line for our country. Most people don't see it, and will tell me I'm full of shit, and thats fine, you can have your opinion. But, just remember one thing....think about how you felt on september 11th, september 12th, and so on. I remember those days. Even though none of my family or friends were directly affected, I remember how I felt eating lunch in the school cafeteria on that awful day. I was so sad, so hurt by what had happened. Suddenly it seemed like my problems were so small. I remember going to work that night at the bakery. Selling baked goods just didn't seem very important at that point. It was just such a different feeling. I knew I never wanted that to happen...ever again. Unfortunately, many don't feel that way, just four years after that terrible event.

More blatant media bias

In a headline CNN claims that "Bush takes responsibility for invasion intelligence" The next paragraph gives the specific words of Bush: "It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush said during his fourth and final speech before Thursday's vote for Iraq's parliament. "As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that."
Interesting because I don't see anywhere in there that he took "responsibility for invasion intelligence." He stated that the intelligence was wrong, he took reponsibility for the decision to go into Iraq, and that he is responsible for reforming the intelligence capabilities! Obviously media bias when they run a headline which is purely false. They're trying to make it sound like Bush was the person responsible for the incorrect intelligence, which is false. Ugh, ridiculous.

The Iran situation is really starting to scare me

In case you've been hiding under a rock, in the past few months the idea of what to do about Iran has come into the spotlight. Iran is bent on creating a nuclear program. They say they have the right to produce nuclear power, and that is all this program is used for. However, most of the rest of the world is worried they may be doing this to create nuclear weapons. With the rhetoric of the leader of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying israel should be whipped off the map, a nuclear iran worries me. The general idea is that if iran is allowed to continue as they are, they could have a nuclear weapon in a couple years. I dont think they would hesitate to use it if provoked at all by israel or anyone else in the world. This could obviously be a very scary situation. It doesn't help the matter that Russia is selling Iran advanced Tor-M1 systems capable of destroying guided missiles and laser-guided bombs from aircraft. Apparently Israel is planning to have their troops ready by march for an attack on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran. I guess we'll have to see how this plays out, but it certainly seems like diplomacy is the way to handle both iran and north korea.

CNN is just plain ridiculous

So, after Bush's speech today, I was watching CNN to see how they covered it. During one segment they had one of their reporters on location in a diner in chicago. First mistake: illinois is a strong democratic state, and chicago is its stronghold. The reporter at the end of the segment even admitted this saying what I just said and "its hard to find a bush supporter here." The reporter interviewed three people, all of which were definitely anti-war, pro pulling our troops out. Second huge mistake: in this segment, they were trying to get reaction from bush's speech. None of the three even saw it!!!!!!! They were all in the diner eating and working! Haha. So, first they interviewed a woman about in her 40's who was working there. The first question went something like this: "Even though you didn't see the speech today, has the speech Bush gave changed your mind at all on the events in iraq?" Hahaha, you cant be serious....The woman answered that, we should have never invaded Iran (yes, she said iraN not iraQ, lol). She went on to argue that we're not making progress in iraq and she doesnt think people are swayed by the Presidents speeches. Then the reporter went over to a table and interviewed two people. The first guy he interviewed didnt really say much except that we shouldnt be in iraq. The woman they interviewed said washington has been trying very hard to "sell the war in iraq to her." But, she said, she is not swayed in her opinion. She went on to say that this is a war about religion, and wars over religion never win. Oh, and she also said it was a war for oil. That's interesting, because our highest gas prices ever have been after the war. This is why that argument has mostly died down as a reason for us going to war. Even the crazies dont believe that anymore.
So, then the reporter wrapped up the segment by saying "Even though these people didnt get to see the speech, I think their insights into this question over iraq are very interesting." Keep in mind this was supposed to be all about people's reaction to the speech. Haha, now I know why I dont watch CNN (I do like to watch it every once in a while to remember why its so ridiculous). I also know now why CNN's ratings are absolutely awful compared to Fox.

Already seeing it

Well, it seems that we're already seeing how the democrats might take a big hit for their stance on iraq. I predicted just a month ago that the democrats would pay a big price for what they're doing. It now seems thats becoming a reality.
"Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), the second-ranking House Democratic leader, have told colleagues that Pelosi's recent endorsement of a speedy withdrawal, combined with her claim that more than half of House Democrats support her position, could backfire on the party, congressional sources said." --Washington Post.
Actually, its already clear that their strategy is backfiring. Murtha originally called for the immediate withdrawal of troops (no I'm not talking about his first speech, but on the floor of the House). Now, he has a plan to bring them home in six months....interesting.
The article goes on to say that the democrats seem to be solidifying around one solid approach. That doesnt seem to be the case at all though because yesterday a meeting was held to find a suitable strategy, and it sounds like nothing came out of that meeting. You have Dean saying we cant win, Pelosi and Murtha calling for a 6 month withdrawal, Liebermann saying we need to stay, others saying we need immediate withdrawal, and everyone else somewhere in the middle. Doesn't seem to be a solid position to me.
The article then talks about how democrats "have tried over the past year to put aside deep philosophical differences and rally behind a two-pronged strategy to return to power: Highlight the growing number of GOP scandals and score Bush's unpopular war management."
Well, they're not winning on the first one. Libby was not charged with anything dealing with the CIA leak, just for lying about it. Delay got many of his charges dropped, with the toughest to prove conspiracy ones left.
Secondly, its pretty clear now that they're definitely losing on the war debate. Their position is only solidifying peoples thoughts that the democrats are weak on national security.

XBConnect

So, I recently discovered how I can basically get Xbox Live for free (don't worry, its not illegal)! There's a website called xbconnect.com. There you can sign up for an account (which is free) which allows you to play online with other members from around the world. It's pretty easy to set up, you just have to connect your xbox to a PC which is connected to the internet, download the program and go! Wahoo! So, I finally got to play some Halo 2 online the other day for the first time ever. I was pretty excited, but I really sucked since I hadn't played in a while. Oh well, I'm sure there will be more in my very near future.

Howard Dean is an idiot

I make this claim for several reasons:

1. He now wants the US to "redeploy," sending 20,000 troops to Afghanistan 80,000 others to a friendly country in the middle east. He wants to fight Zarqawi with these moved troops...hmmm. Let me make sure I have this straight, he wants us to leave iraq in order to fight Zarqawi, who is in iraq, well that just plain makes no sense...In addition to the fact that there is no damn country in there right mind that can/would host 80,000 troops, simply because of the fact that they would be a huge target for terrorist attack.
2. He claims that Zarqawi entered Iraq only after the US forces invaded. This is in fact not true, he entered Iraq a year before the invasion after being hurt in Afghanistan.
3. "...The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong...This is the same situation we had in Vietnam." - Dean No, this is NOT the same situation we had in Vietnam.
4. Please get your numbers correct. Dean said 25,000 people died in Vietnam. Please, sir, get your numbers correct. The actual number is well over 50,000. Seems to me to be a blatant attempt at comparing iraq to vietnam (which are very very different wars).
I'm sure there's more but I think I'll stop for now...oh I know, perhaps its the use of the word "idear." And people make fun of how the President talks? Haha.

Dems determined to ignore progress in Iraq

I think its interesting how, first of all, the democratic party is so incredibly split on the iraq issue, but second of all how the liberals and the liberal media have ignored Sen. Joe Lieberman's recent article. In case you dont know, he is indeed a democrat. You see, he recently took a trip to iraq and says he "can report real progress there." "Progress is visible and practical."
Some of the recent progress I've heard:
- A major terror plot was foiled yesterday by, get this the IRAQI FORCES!
- Iraqis controls over 50% of Baghdad (altough the US forces still mostly control the most dangerous areas). Regardless, the fact that they are taking the lead in many parts of baghdad is interesting, because you dont hear that on the news.
- Millions of iraqis are now able to us cell phones, something that was banned by saddam.
- This is the best: Iraq, yes Iraq, has the fastest growing economy in the world! Far outpacing even china!
It's just very interesting how the liberals calling for pullout are not basing their decisions on the evidence and things actually occuring in iraq, but on political issues. Honestly, that makes me sick, and its absolutely awful.

New polls look good for Bush

Well the polls seem to be turning in bush's favor, actually by quite a bit. It's surprising to me that they're turning around so fast. Of course the liberals will dismiss these results, but thats ok. This, if nothing else gives clear evidence of how well the liberals and the liberal media can unfairly sway public opinion. You can see this just by the fact that these polls have generally changed back so quickly. Anyways, heres the numbers from the most recent Fox Poll.
-Perhaps the biggest is bush's approval rating, back up to 42%, after hitting its low in the mid 30's. 48% still disapprove of bush's job rating.
-46% think the President gave Americans the best prewar intelligence available, while 44% think he intentionally misled the public.
-By 47% to 41%, the public believes there should be a publicly announced timetable for iraq.
-55% want US troops to stay and finish the job in iraq.
-This is a very interesting one: 42% believe that iraq had weapons prewar and moved or destroyed them, 19% believe iraq still has them, and only 28% believe iraq never had them. This is really very interesting, because the liberal media all seems to think that everyone believes that iraq never had them. But, a whopping 61% believe that iraq did/does have them.....interesting indeed.
-Another very interesting one: 52% believe that the world would be worse off if the US stayed out of iraq, while 59% believe iraq would be worse off had we stayed out.
-44% believe that the presence of US troops encourages terrorist attacks. This seems pretty obvious to me the way the question is asked. Seems like a pretty dumb question, I'm surprised that number isnt higher. A better question would be something like: "would there be more/worse terrorist attacks with US troops there or without."

All in all, these are generally very good numbers for Bush and the republicans, and well all of America for that matter. As long as Bush keeps up what he's been doing, I only expect these numbers to continue to turn in his favor....especially with the elections coming up in a couple of weeks in iraq.