Even Clinton aknowledges Iraq trip with McCain not bad

Hillary Clinton today weighed in on the Obama Iraq Controversy. Obama has resisted going to Iraq with John McCain even though he has only gone once. Today Hillary Clinton had this to say about John McCain and the trips she took with him, "“I have the highest respect and regard for Sen. McCain, he and I have actually gone to Iraq and Afghanistan together, and I honor his service to our country and his patriotism.” Sounds like Hillary is willing to see the truth while Barack Obama perfers to employ empty rhetoric without knowing the truth.

Sphere: Related Content

About that Recession the media has been talking about

For the past several months we have heard time and time again from the media about the horrible Recession that was going on. We have heard from the Bush detractors about the horrible Economy and the Bush Recession. Well, as it turns out we are not in a recession. By the definition of recession it is two quarters of negative growth. Now, originally Economists had predicted a .6% gowth rate in the first quarter. Now, it turns out that the economy grew more than expected at .9%. While that is not great growth it appears to be setting up what Alan Greenspan always called a soft landing where we go in a downturn, which always happens because the economy is cyclical, but we dont go into a recession. That allows the next wave of the cycle to pick and add more growth with no contraction in the economy. It looks we are doing better than the media and poltical talking heads thought, now wait for the spin because nothing can be good as long as President Bush is in charge.

Sphere: Related Content

Why would Obama go to Iraq

The National Journal has this:
RENO, NV -- In a Reno gymnasium festooned with American flags, John McCain knocked Barack Obama today for failing to visit Iraq since 2006 or meet with the U.S. generals overseeing the military efforts in the region.
McCain contrasted Obama's accused negligence with the Illinois senator's proposal to meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, asking, "Why is it that Senator Obama wants to sit down with the president of Iran but hasn't yet sat down with General Petraeus, the leader of our troops in Iraq?"
The McCain camp's criticism of Obama's single pre-surge trip to Iraq originated Sunday, when surrogate Sen. Lindsey Graham raised the issue and proposed a joint McCain/Obama trip to the region as a solution. (McCain has visited eight times to Obama's one.) McCain told the Associated Press Monday that he hopes to use such a venture to "educate" Obama. The Republican National Committee joined in today, posting a clock of the days elapsed since the likely Democratic nominee visited Iraq.
McCain reiterated that appeal, saying of the proposed trip with Obama, "I would be glad to go with him because these issues are far more important than any election. The security of this nation is far more important than any political campaign."
He read aloud the Obama camp's strongly-worded reaction statement, in which spokesman Bill Burton derided the offer as a "political stunt" and called McCain's optimism about the war a "false promise."
"That is a profound misunderstanding of what's happened in Iraq and what's at stake in Iraq," McCain retorted.
"I will never surrender in Iraq," he added, "I will not let that happen."

Of Course Obama will not go or meet with Generals. Then he would not be able to honestly through around his empty rhetoric. It would also require him to lead on an issue that he has knowledge of. Something he has not bothered to do in his brief experience of running for higher office after higher office.

Sphere: Related Content

More Members for Congress?

The Washington Post is discussing if the Congress should have more members. The Last time the membership number of the House changed was 1911. Since we have obviously grown a lot since then should the membership increase? If it does keep increasing when would it become unmanageable?

The Post from Capital Briefing from the Washington Post:

With members of Congress so very popular right now in the eyes of the
American people -- the latest
Gallup poll puts congressional approval at a solid 18 percent -- perhaps the
time is right to give the public more of what it loves.
Whether the voters
actually want it or not, the argument for a bigger House of Representatives is
the basis for a new
article by the California-based research center Miller-McCune. Surveying the latest
scholarly work, the piece makes the case that House districts now cover so many
people that members may not represent their constituents as well as they could,
or should.
When the current size of 435 members was established in 1911, each
House district covered roughly 200,000 people. Now the average district size is
more like 640,000, and the number will keep going up as long as the U.S.
population grows without the House growing along with it. Other western
democracies like Britain and Germany have larger lower houses of parliament than
we do, even though they have far fewer citizens.
So how big should the House
be? One study cited in the
Miller-McCune piece suggests the chamber could grow by about 50 percent, to 650
members. That would knock each district down to a more manageable 430,000 or so
constituents (still more than double the size the districts were the last time
the House expanded).
Now, a bigger House might mean lawmakers would be more
responsive to helping constituents get their Social Security checks. But would
it do a better job on lowering gas prices, dealing with illegal immigration or
any of the other tasks that the public currently thinks Congress does terribly?
And do angry voters really want a lot more lawmakers making $170,000 per year,
airing annoying campaign ads, and finding new ways to become enmeshed in
scandals?
Probably not.
Nor does there appear to be a huge appetite on
the Hill for such a move. In the 109th Congress, Rep. Alcee
Hastings (D-Fla.) introduced a bill "to establish a commission to make
recommendations on the appropriate size of membership of the House." The measure
picked up just one cosponsor and never even got a committee hearing.
On a
selfish level, Capitol Briefing would absolutely LOVE to cover the expansion of
the House. As things stand, congressional districts are re-drawn by each state
at least once every 10 years following the census, giving governors, state
legislators and other political operatives the opportunity to jockey for
advantage. Can you imagine the chaos if all of the sudden there were 200-plus
new seats to play with?
Unfortunately, Capitol Briefing does not have a vote
in the House to help make this happen. Perhaps the 650-member "House of the
Future" could include slots for a few bloggers.

Sphere: Related Content

Al Queda calls for use of WMD on civilians, but dont worry some think they are just misunderstood

Everytime I read a new article about how bad we treat terrorists and they should be given the same rights as Americans I get a little worked up. When people refuse to play by the rules they should not be rewarded by being treated better than other Military Prisoners. I think the people who push these kinds of view have lost track about what this is really about. The terrorists do not care about rules they do not care how many innocent people they kill just to accomplish their senseless views. They hit us once and we have to do everything possible to hunt these people down and hold them responsible for their actions.

From ABC News,

Intelligence and law enforcement sources tell ABC News they are expecting al Qaeda supporters will post a new video on the Internet in the next 24 hours, calling for what one source said is "jihadists to use biological, chemical and nuclear weapons to attack the West."
"There have been several reports that al Qaeda will release a new message calling for the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against civilians," FBI spokesman Richard Kolko told ABC News in an e-mail.
"Although there have been similar messages in the past, the FBI and [Department of Homeland Security] have no intelligence of any specific plot or indication of a threat to the U.S.," the e-mail said. "The FBI and U.S. intelligence community will review the message for any intelligence value."
While there is no evidence of any direct threat, the FBI sent a bulletin to 18,000 law enforcement agencies across the country, out of an abundance of caution.
Some independent analysts don't think the public should worry much.
Ben Venzke, the CEO of IntelCenter, a group that monitors terrorist communications on the Web, said the video, entitled "Nuclear Jihad, The Ultimate Terror," is a jihadi supporter video compilation and not from an official group.
"Supporter videos are made by fans or supporters who may not have ever had any contact with a real terrorist," Venzke said. "These videos almost always are comprised of old video footage that is edited together to make a new video."
He said the material in these types of videos does not qualify as an official message from al Qaeda or any other group.
"Considering them so would be the equivalent of considering a 10-year-old's homemade fan video of his favorite sports team to be an official team message," Venzke said. "IntelCenter is not aware of any new imminent message by al-Qaeda or any other leading jihadist group in audio or video form that will call for the use of WMD against civilians."
Word of the new tape comes on the heels of a spate of messages from Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Earlier this month, al Qaeda released an audio message from bin Laden, excoriating the media and countries that are supportive of Israel. The release was timed to coincide with the nation's 60th anniversary and President Bush's trip to the region.
So far this year, four bin Laden tapes have surfaced.
In April, the terror group released audio recordings in which al-Zawahiri answered questions submitted to an online forum several months earlier.
The increasing volume of tapes seems to signal to the law enforcement and intelligence communities that top al Qaeda leadership is comfortable monitoring current events and communicating messages frequently.
Officials have tracked the trend, but FBI director Robert Mueller downplayed the surge of messages during an appearance earlier this month, noting that "there is a difference between al Qaeda's ability to communicate internally and al Qaeda's ability to post a message on the Internet. As we all know, the Internet is so broad. The access is absolutely open that just about anybody can post material on the Internet."

Sphere: Related Content

Obama's Hypocritical Stance

Obama today blasted the fact John McCain for not letting the press into fundraisers with President Bush and claimed it is becasue John McCain is ashamed the President. Does that mean Barack Obama is ashmaed of Florida Democrats and Oprah since he has held fundraisers with them that did not allow in the press.

From the National Journal

Barack Obama, speaking in Nevada today about the nation's housing crisis,
launched his speech by chiding John McCain for holding a fundraiser with
President Bush. Full speech after the jump, but here's the related (and largely
predictable) snippet:
Today, John McCain is having a different kind of
meeting. He’s holding a fundraiser with George Bush behind closed doors in
Arizona. No cameras. No reporters. And we all know why. Senator McCain doesn’t
want to be seen, hat-in-hand, with the President whose failed policies he
promises to continue for another four years.

Sphere: Related Content

Why Would Howard Dean want to eliminate the Electoral College?

Howard Dean told Time Magazine this week that he was in favor of eliminating the electoral college. Why would he say that?
USA Today stepped up the answer the question with this

Republican strategists can envision a scenario in which Obama wins the popular
vote but loses in the Electoral College -- he might galvanize Southern black
turnout, for example, but still fail to switch a state in the region.
Among
the 10 strategists interviewed by Politico for this story, there was
near-uniform belief that had any other Republican been nominated, the party's
prospects in November would be nil. ...
The case they make for a comfortable
McCain win is not beyond reason. Begin with the 2004 electoral map. Add Iowa and
Colorado to Obama's side, since both are considered states Obama could pick off.
Then count McCain victories in New Hampshire and Michigan, two states where
McCain is competitive. In this scenario, McCain wins the Electoral College
291-246, a larger margin than Bush four years ago.
If Obama managed only to
win Iowa from Republicans and McCain managed only to win Pennsylvania, McCain
would still win by a much greater margin than Bush - 300-237.

Sphere: Related Content