Bush's Fast-Track Confirmation Plan Continues: May Nominate Muslim U.N. Ambassador

If President Bush hasn’t come up with this plan to get his nominees through a Senate that will soon be controlled by Democrats on purpose, it sure is one heck of an accident.

First, Bush nominated Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. Gates’ answer to a single question from Carl Levin secured a landslide thumbs-up from the full Senate. When Gates was asked if the U.S. was winning the war in Iraq, he answered “no.” It was the two-lettered word heard ’round the partisan world.

As a result of the resounding success of this one instance of placating, either truthfully or cunningly, Senate Dems, I then recommended a similar approach for all future Bush nominees.

It could be that Bush is up to it again. Robert Novak believes that a Bush administration Muslim could be the front-runner to be nominated to replace the outgoing John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations:

Zalmay Khalilzad, who was announced this week as leaving as U.S. ambassador to Iraq, is the leading prospect to replace John Bolton as envoy to the United Nations.

President Bush was reported by aides as looking for someone who approximates Bolton’s combination of toughness and diplomatic skill and has tentatively decided on Khalilzad. A native of Afghanistan, he has served in government posts dating back to 1985 and is the highest-ranking Muslim in the Bush administration.

Another nominee on the fast-track! What high-profile Senate Democrat is going to have the brass donkeys to put the kibosh on a Muslim candidate for any post? I didn’t think so.

———-

Note: if you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

Bush’s Fast-Track Confirmation Plan Continues: May Nominate Muslim U.N. Ambassador

If President Bush hasn’t come up with this plan to get his nominees through a Senate that will soon be controlled by Democrats on purpose, it sure is one heck of an accident.

First, Bush nominated Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. Gates’ answer to a single question from Carl Levin secured a landslide thumbs-up from the full Senate. When Gates was asked if the U.S. was winning the war in Iraq, he answered “no.” It was the two-lettered word heard ’round the partisan world.

As a result of the resounding success of this one instance of placating, either truthfully or cunningly, Senate Dems, I then recommended a similar approach for all future Bush nominees.

It could be that Bush is up to it again. Robert Novak believes that a Bush administration Muslim could be the front-runner to be nominated to replace the outgoing John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations:

Zalmay Khalilzad, who was announced this week as leaving as U.S. ambassador to Iraq, is the leading prospect to replace John Bolton as envoy to the United Nations.

President Bush was reported by aides as looking for someone who approximates Bolton’s combination of toughness and diplomatic skill and has tentatively decided on Khalilzad. A native of Afghanistan, he has served in government posts dating back to 1985 and is the highest-ranking Muslim in the Bush administration.

Another nominee on the fast-track! What high-profile Senate Democrat is going to have the brass donkeys to put the kibosh on a Muslim candidate for any post? I didn’t think so.

———-

Note: if you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

Reid and Pelosi Courageously Vow to Block Senate Pay Raise —

From the A.P. via the Washington Post:

Members of Congress are in line for a $3,300 pay raise effective Jan. 1 unless they block it, and Democrats said Thursday they intend to try.

Officials said Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California and Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the party’s leaders, had notified Republicans they will try to add the anti-pay-raise provision to a bill that provides funds for most government agencies through Feb. 15.

Reid and Pelosi are standing firm in showing solidarity with every other hard-working blue-collar American who has to make do on $141,300 a year and endless perks, and they won’t accept a penny more! (shady land deals, however, are still fine)

The Iraq Study Group and James Baker's Saudi Connection: Dem Skepticism Takes a Magical Holiday

As we’re all aware, the Iraq Study Group, otherwise known as the Baker-Hamilton Commission (lawyers can’t do anything without having the word “commission” in the title, can they?) has released their report.

The “Study Group” — the stated goal of which was to pursue a round-table bipartisan discussion on commissions for the purpose of delineating task forces and implementing two-way dialog on methods for eliminating bureaucracy in the arena of Middle-East think-tanks — found that the United States is way off course in its goal of getting out of Iraq. President Bush disagrees in many areas.

Democrats in Congress and the mainstream media have gleefully devoured the report as damning evidence of the failures of Bush and Rumsfeld to properly wage war (by “properly” I mean doing it so nobody gets hurt or loses cable reception in the process). Gee, normally Democrats are so inquisitive about the source of their information. What happened?

Just for fun, lets ponder one question for a moment. Shortly after the attacks on 9/11, some Americans filed a $1 trillion lawsuit against Saudi officials and the Sudanese government. Who is a senior partner in one of the law firms Saudi Defense Minister Sultan bin ‘Abd-al-‘Aziz hired for his defense? You guessed it: James Baker III.

This all could be meaningless as it pertains to the Study Group findings, or maybe not, but still, how loud and how often would this fact have been trumpeted in the media if the Iraq Study Group report found that Bush’s war plan was right on track? How come nobody is pointing to Baker and questioning his personal motives? How can Baker be considered “neutral” in any of this?

What about Hamilton?

Then of course there’s Lee Hamilton, who once co-chaired a commission (there’s that word “commission” again) to investigate security issues at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. This was again done hand-in-hand with James Baker. The Baker-Hamilton report on Los Alamos, which was commissioned (doh!) in the early summer of 2000, after the theft of hard drives at the apparently not-so-heavily-guarded laboratory, released their recommendations later that year.

And how’s that going? Earlier this year, police in New Mexico, responding to a routine call at a trailer park, found nuclear secrets from Los Alamos that were allegedly “accidentally” taken by an employee — who was keeping them nice and warm next to a meth lab. The Baker-Hamilton report recommendations sure did a bang-up job there. What was recommendation #1? “Fire Gilligan as security director and replace him with Barney Fife”?

So, take the “Iraq Study Group” report for what it is: An opinion presented by people who have potential agendas and past track records of laughable failures, not to mention have the word “commission” listed way too many times on their resumes.

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

The Iraq Study Group and James Baker’s Saudi Connection: Dem Skepticism Takes a Magical Holiday

As we’re all aware, the Iraq Study Group, otherwise known as the Baker-Hamilton Commission (lawyers can’t do anything without having the word “commission” in the title, can they?) has released their report.

The “Study Group” — the stated goal of which was to pursue a round-table bipartisan discussion on commissions for the purpose of delineating task forces and implementing two-way dialog on methods for eliminating bureaucracy in the arena of Middle-East think-tanks — found that the United States is way off course in its goal of getting out of Iraq. President Bush disagrees in many areas.

Democrats in Congress and the mainstream media have gleefully devoured the report as damning evidence of the failures of Bush and Rumsfeld to properly wage war (by “properly” I mean doing it so nobody gets hurt or loses cable reception in the process). Gee, normally Democrats are so inquisitive about the source of their information. What happened?

Just for fun, lets ponder one question for a moment. Shortly after the attacks on 9/11, some Americans filed a $1 trillion lawsuit against Saudi officials and the Sudanese government. Who is a senior partner in one of the law firms Saudi Defense Minister Sultan bin ‘Abd-al-‘Aziz hired for his defense? You guessed it: James Baker III.

This all could be meaningless as it pertains to the Study Group findings, or maybe not, but still, how loud and how often would this fact have been trumpeted in the media if the Iraq Study Group report found that Bush’s war plan was right on track? How come nobody is pointing to Baker and questioning his personal motives? How can Baker be considered “neutral” in any of this?

What about Hamilton?

Then of course there’s Lee Hamilton, who once co-chaired a commission (there’s that word “commission” again) to investigate security issues at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. This was again done hand-in-hand with James Baker. The Baker-Hamilton report on Los Alamos, which was commissioned (doh!) in the early summer of 2000, after the theft of hard drives at the apparently not-so-heavily-guarded laboratory, released their recommendations later that year.

And how’s that going? Earlier this year, police in New Mexico, responding to a routine call at a trailer park, found nuclear secrets from Los Alamos that were allegedly “accidentally” taken by an employee — who was keeping them nice and warm next to a meth lab. The Baker-Hamilton report recommendations sure did a bang-up job there. What was recommendation #1? “Fire Gilligan as security director and replace him with Barney Fife”?

So, take the “Iraq Study Group” report for what it is: An opinion presented by people who have potential agendas and past track records of laughable failures, not to mention have the word “commission” listed way too many times on their resumes.

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

The Marlboro Candidate: Smoking Harmful — To Obama's Presidential Ambitions?

Did you guys know that Barack Obama is a cigarette smoker? If I heard this before, I’d forgotten.

We could be about to see the true level of committment of certain liberals to their pet candidate. Smoking? Oh my God! It probably won’t be too bad, though. Hell, a good Democrat can even kill a voter and be re-elected time and time again.

I did some poking around, and it’s funny, because all of a sudden, when it’s their guy, Democrats don’t seem to think it matters that Obama smokes.

Hell, smoking can even help a candidate.

“How smoking helps Obama” is the title of this commentary in The New Republic, reprinted in the Dallas Morning News in full here. “Smoking may help Obama’s image” claims the author.

One commenter at Rolling Stone wrote “who the f*#k cares if Obama smokes?”

I certainly wouldn’t, as long as these same people were this passive as it concerns the habits of rest of us.

The Marlboro Candidate: Smoking Harmful — To Obama’s Presidential Ambitions?

Did you guys know that Barack Obama is a cigarette smoker? If I heard this before, I’d forgotten.

We could be about to see the true level of committment of certain liberals to their pet candidate. Smoking? Oh my God! It probably won’t be too bad, though. Hell, a good Democrat can even kill a voter and be re-elected time and time again.

I did some poking around, and it’s funny, because all of a sudden, when it’s their guy, Democrats don’t seem to think it matters that Obama smokes.

Hell, smoking can even help a candidate.

“How smoking helps Obama” is the title of this commentary in The New Republic, reprinted in the Dallas Morning News in full here. “Smoking may help Obama’s image” claims the author.

One commenter at Rolling Stone wrote “who the f*#k cares if Obama smokes?”

I certainly wouldn’t, as long as these same people were this passive as it concerns the habits of rest of us.

Gates To Success: The Lesson For Future Bush Nominees

Note to President Bush: Instruct all your future nominees, from the courts all the way to your cabinet, to say America isn’t winning. Confirmation guaranteed!

Case in point — Robert Gates, who will be the next Defense Secretary. Gates was asked by Senator Carl Levin if America was winning in Iraq. Gates said “no.” Levin nearly soiled his Mens Wearhouse slacks with orgasmic political glee. Here’s a short video of the exchange. (Note: Gates also said “we’re not losing, either,” but the Dems were willing to allow him one indiscretion since they already had their desired soundbite)

The committee then voted unanimously to send Gates’ nomination to the Senate floor for confirmation, and probably even offered to take him out for drinks.

Whether or not Gates is right doesn’t really matter in this case — it was the sight of Democrats nearly dry-humping a Bush nominee that was the story of the year, and it should serve as a lesson for future Bush nominees facing a Democrat controlled Senate.

Note to future nominees: Learn to face Senate Democrats and include one of more phrases like these in your responses, and you’re a shoo-in:

“America is not winning”

“The fault of big oil”

“…on the backs of the poor”

“For the children”

“To avoid future disenfranchisement”

“Lack of health care”

“Unfair distribution of resources”

“Unfair distribution of global power”

“Unfair distribution of methods of distribution”

“The unspeakable horror of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo”

“Wal-Mart’s low wages…”

“Exhorbitantly high CEO wages”

“The travesty of racial profiling”

“Corporate greed”

“Trans fats kill more people every year than ______”

“Behind in our U.N. dues”

“To ensure the continuation of a secular government”

“Lovely pantsuit, Mrs. Clinton”

Sens. Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer react after hearing Defense Secretary nominee Gates’ opinion that America is not winning.

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

Bolton is Boltin’

U.N. Ambassador John Bolton is a guy who carefully considers the genuine best interests of the United States with every decision he makes. This, of course, doesn’t fly with freshly emboldened Democrats who are filibustering a permanent confirmation, so Bolton submitted his resignation to Bush, and the president accepted.

That’s okay, because seeing a man of integrity like John Bolton in the United Nations was somewhat sad and uncomfortable — sort of like watching John Wayne in a Broadway musical.

Who’s next? No doubt the Democrats plan to force Bush to send the U.N. a holiday fruitcake they’re more comfortable with.

Bolton is Boltin'

U.N. Ambassador John Bolton is a guy who carefully considers the genuine best interests of the United States with every decision he makes. This, of course, doesn’t fly with freshly emboldened Democrats who are filibustering a permanent confirmation, so Bolton submitted his resignation to Bush, and the president accepted.

That’s okay, because seeing a man of integrity like John Bolton in the United Nations was somewhat sad and uncomfortable — sort of like watching John Wayne in a Broadway musical.

Who’s next? No doubt the Democrats plan to force Bush to send the U.N. a holiday fruitcake they’re more comfortable with.