Well, Well, Well

Turns out the possibility that one day Iran may develop one nuke isn't the biggest concern for us after all.

Giuliani Previews His Fascist Presidency

Reminding us that democracy and free speech is over should he become President, Rudy "Benito" Giuliani criticized Hillary Clinton's criticism of the president's foriegn policy;

"I think that it's important that we conduct this debate in a way that we don't interfere with the ability of the country to function in a proper way, between the now and (the election),"

-I think Mr. Giuliani seems a little bit lost on what a campaign is.

"The president of the United States is president of the United States. He's going to be president of the United States from now until the time a new president takes over. Until then, he's the only one conducting foreign policy of this country, We can have our political debate in this country. ... But nobody should be creating the specter that we're sending emissaries out around the world before someone is actually sworn in as president of the United States. I think it would be good for the country if Mrs. Clinton, Senator Clinton would correct that statement now."

-Part of that political debate is to explain why the current system doesn't work, which is what Senator Clinton says. She explained (not well I would argue) how her foreign policy would be different than the disastrous Bush policy. Yes, running for President may require criticising the foreign policy of the current President.
Clinton's campaign shot back, reminding people that a vote for Giuliani is a vote for Bush;

"Senator Clinton and Mr. Giuliani have a fundamental disagreement. She will end the war in Iraq, reverse the Bush era cowboy diplomacy and restore America's standing around the world, Mr. Giuliani wants to escalate the war in Iraq and supports President Bush's failed foreign policy approach."

Giuliani responded by doing what he does best, inciting fear in the ignorant;

"The country is at war. Sometimes it doesn't feel like a war, because it's far away. ... We have the possibility of attack on America. We know that. It happened before."

If I had a choice between a Giuliani presidency and four more years of Bush, I'm leaning toward Bush.

Why Is Bush A Failure?

Try and spin this to make him look like a success.

It's Oil, Not Drugs

Oil

It even causes the threat of war between the most peaceful neighbors in the world; the United States and Canada.

House: No Aid To Saudi Arabia

In a stunning slap in the face of American Foriegn Policy, the House of Representatives voted to give no financial aid to Saudi Arabia..not that the oil rich nation needs it.

The House vote closes a loophole that has allowed the Bush Administration to send $2.5 million dollars to the kingdom, home to 19 of the 9/11 hijackers and the only country in the world to conduct public beheadings.

The Bush administration opposed the bill claiming Saudi Arabia needs the money because it is an ally in the war on terror.

The amendement was championed by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-New York), who is also my congressman.

They're Coming

From Afghanistan to the US, Canada, Britain and Germany.

Yeah, they may have come regardless of what we did after 9/11, but I can tell you this;

A.) Many of those recruited would not have been if not for the blunders post 9/11
B.) They should never have been able to "graduate" from a terror training camp more than half a decade after we invaded that country

We took the eye of the ball and now we may pay. THAT's Bush's failure.

Supporting Abbas

Suddenly when you're faced with the realization of a Hamas dictatorship in the land bordering Israel, the guy who took over for Arafat doesn't seem so bad anymore, does he?

Oh, and it's good to know that cutting off that aid to the Palestinian Government worked so well, I mean look how democracy flourished, electing terrorists who then go and stage a coup....fabulous.

Three snaps to the George W. Bush State Department

You Say Embassy, I Say Waste Of Money

What are they thinking?

Osama Bin Laden has had great luck convincing angry fundamentalist Muslims to join his cause by spinning our presence in the Middle East as one of the West attempting to colonize and westernize the East. He's convinced them that our goal is to take over the entire Middle East, rape them of their oil, give the land to the Jews and take away their Middle Eastern Islamic identity. We know that's ludicrous and isn't at all true, but these frustrated Muslims don't and they're being convinced their culture and way of life is in jeopardy, and we're doing nothing to prove to them that it's not. They very presence of our soldiers, for no apparent reason, except defending the oil fields, gives Osama Bin Laden a platform he doesn't deserve. We should be trying to rid Osama of excuses, not giving them to him. Therefore, I ask, why, why in hell are we building the most expensive, most expansive, most elaborate United States Embassy in a land where one of the reason the terrorists are using to gain support is that we're there to begin with?

The United States Embassy to Iraq in Baghdad is to be much larger and grander than any other one in the world. It will be a 21 building complex, sprawling over 104 acres. It's not so much an embassy as a campus, or a neighborhood within a city. According to the Washington Post, the embassy budget is $923 million. By comparison, the US Embassy in Beijing, China, clearly one of the most important countries on earth, has only a $49 million, in our strongest ally Britain, $39 million, and our southern neighbor Mexico, where the immigration debate is centered, $31 million. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why we are putting our biggest, most expensive foreign mission in a land where the people want us out. Is it just to be defiant? Osama Bin Laden can easily spin this embassy plan as an attempt by the West to "take over slowly." Why are we giving Al-Qaeda another battle cry?

It's just like this administration to drain our resources away in Iraq. Our military has already been severely strained by the war and now the State Department is straining its diplomatic efforts to put together the super-embassy. Even Lawrence Eagleburger, a Republican former Secretary of State and member of the Iraq Study Group called the State's Department's plans for the embassy "nuts" and "counterproductive."

I don't understand it. Do we really think we're going to win the PR wars with the Islamic fundamentalists by forcing ourselves on them? What are people, who have been told all their lives we seek to dominate them, going to think when they see a 104 acre United States Embassy? The assumption to many is going to be "Gee, was Osama right? Are they trying to force themselves on us?" We're not, but they don't know that. They're going to listen to one them before one of us, even if the one of "them" is Bin Laden or some Al-Qaeda publicist.

We Americans should be protesting. We should be livid that our government is wasting nearly a billion dollars of our tax money to build an obnoxious behemoth of an embassy in a land where we're not wanted and in the land where all it's going to be is a giant bull's-eye.

What are they thinking?

We're Bringing Them Here?

I'm all for rewarding Iraqis and Afghans who have risked their lives to help our cause with residency and asylum here in the US. Lord knows they've earned it and they'd make great Americans

However, I can't help but wonder, if they're here...then who's there rebuilding their country and putting together a democratic government?

A question that should be asked.

A Giant Bullseye

Ron Paul must be steaming.

Is it really that important that we put our largest embassy in the world in Iraq? I would say it should be in London, Beijing, Tokyo or Moscow.

This is the bad policy Paul was talking about. They don't want us there, so what do we do? We built our biggest embassy there. For five seconds, put yourself in the people's shoes. Imagine, if you will, they built the largest mosque in the world in Washington, D.C.

How would we feel?

Just think about it.

Worst Foreign Policy President

While I would agree with him, coming from Jimmy Carter, this is like Jim Bakker criticizing someone for being unfaithful in their marriage.

So, really, this isn't news