Direct from Drudge

This doesn't need any comment from me . If you can't see the hypocrisy , you are drunk on Gore's Kool-aid .

POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy. Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES). In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average. Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006. Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. “As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006. For Further Information, Contact: Nicole Williams, (615) 383-6431 editor@tennesseepolicy.org

And Newsmax reports that Bush's home in Crawford , Tx. is more eco-friendly than Gore's .

"It's interesting that Bush seems to actually practice conservation, while Gore seems to want to buy his way out of his obligations," said Lewis, referring to the purchase of offsets for carbon emissions attributed to the high power use in Gore's 20-room mansion.

An April 2001 article in USA Today described the president's 4,000-square-foot single-story limestone house in Crawford as an "eco-friendly haven."

"Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground - one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called 'gray water,' and one tank for 'black water' from the kitchen sink and toilets," it said. "The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater."

In addition, "the Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25 percent of the electricity that traditional heating and air-conditioning systems consume."

As Cybercast News Service reported earlier, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR) charged on Monday that Gore's mansion in Nashville "consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year."

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said TCPR President Drew Johnson.

"It's interesting that Bush seems to actually practice conservation, while Gore seems to want to buy his way out of his obligations," said Lewis, referring to the purchase of offsets for carbon emissions attributed to the high power use in Gore's 20-room mansion.

An April 2001 article in USA Today described the president's 4,000-square-foot single-story limestone house in Crawford as an "eco-friendly haven."

"Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground - one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called 'gray water,' and one tank for 'black water' from the kitchen sink and toilets," it said. "The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater."

In addition, "the Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25 percent of the electricity that traditional heating and air-conditioning systems consume."

As Cybercast News Service reported earlier, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR) charged on Monday that Gore's mansion in Nashville "consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year."

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said TCPR President Drew Johnson.

End runs by Democrats

The Democrats are now wanting to float a re-do of the original authorization for the war in Iraq . Since debate on the non-binding resolution against Bush's "Surge" was stymied , they will now try anything . Kennedy wants the war resolution changed , and Murtha intends to withhold funding in as many ways as possible .
The Democrats know they can't do these things but will try an end run on Republicans who support the President by bringing up bills and resolutions they can't pass , just to get Republicans looking bad for the 08 voters . In other words , they still have no other plan than to bash Bush .

In http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1593819,00.html this article in Time ,
Michael Duffy relates the strategy as "...a new measure that sets new limits on the American mission in Iraq. The details of Reid's resolution are fuzzy because the Democratic leadership only just glommed onto this idea last week and the language of the resolution is still being worked out. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said on Sunday that the new measure would set a deadline next year for withdrawal of some US forces — he did not say how many. It would most likely restrict US troops to training, support and counter-terror roles, though that too has to be worked out. Reid is expected to unveil the resolution on Tuesday. "

He also quotes "An aide to a more conservative Senator, who doesn't like what's going on in Iraq but is not willing to oppose the President, was more pointed. "They are all trying to figure out a way to embarrass the President and rally the netroots," he said. "It won't get very far."

"The idea to revisit the original war authorization was first proposed by Sen. Edward Kennedy in January and has been bouncing around the Senate chamber for a few weeks, talked up at various points by different Democratic senators. It was ignored chiefly because it had virtually no chance of winning any Republican votes — and that fact hasn't changed. "

"Republicans blocked debate on the non-binding resolution, and Democrats overplayed their hand in the House, meanwhile, when Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania threatened to withhold funds for any combat unit destined for Iraq which was undermanned or under-equipped in some way — an indirect Iraq no confidence vote. Republicans seized on this too-clever-by-half gambit, charging the majority with bleeding the troops and shrewdly challenging Democrats to simply cut off all funds if they didn't like the war. That worked. Murtha hasn't been heard from since, though his aides say he may say something in public this week about his next steps. "

In my view , this shows that they have NO plan for the war beyond denigrating Bush . Even when calling for withdrawals on a timeline , they are not clear , and some of their timelines closely match what the administration has proposed if Iran's own forces meet expectations as they finish the training we are providing them now .

How can this be ?

I am told by liberals that the economy is in the dump due to Bush , and tax cuts . How can the deficit be getting smaller ? According to an article in The Christian Scientist Monitor , the US deficit is shrinking towards half of its 1970 levels when analyzed as a percentage of gross domestic product .
Here are some snippets from the article -http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0221/p01s03-usec.html

Despite the ongoing costs of US military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan,
the outlook for the federal budget has grown substantially brighter.
Tax
revenues are rising much faster than spending, according to Treasury Department
numbers released last week. The recent trend is strong enough that, were it to
continue, the budget could move into surplus in barely a year, one economist
calculates.
In the MonitorThursday, 02/22/07



Already,
the federal deficit is shrinking toward about half the size that it has averaged
since 1970, when analyzed as a percentage of gross domestic product.
The
shift reflects a strong economy, with higher incomes and corporate profits
generating a bigger flow of tax revenue. In turn, the Treasury's progress could
help the economy by buoying investor confidence in the nation's fiscal position.

Poor Nancy Pelosi !!

So the Speaker of the House has no qualms about withholding funding and stopping the "surge" , but is upset because Cheney spoke his mind about it . She wants an apology from the President !

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253604,00.html

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday phoned President Bush to air her complaints over Vice President Dick Cheney's comments that the Congressional Democrats' plan for Iraq would "validate the Al Qaeda strategy."
Pelosi, who said she could not reach the president, said Cheney's comments wrongly questioned critics' patriotism and ignored Bush's call for openness on Iraq strategy.
"You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," the speaker said.

Pelosi, at a news conference in San Francisco, said Cheney's criticism of Democrats was "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support."
"And you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to call the president and tell him I disapprove of what the vice president said," Pelosi said. "It has no place in our debate." Bush had previously urged her to call him when a member of his administration stepped over the line by questioning Democrats' patriotism, she said.

Here are Cheney's comments -

"I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the Al Qaeda strategy," the vice president told ABC News. "The Al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."

UPDATE 3-16-2007 The Senate vote Pelosi was counting on to force Bush to get out of Iraq failed to pass by a clearly partisan split vote . The Senate voted 50-48 against a resolution requiring all but essential support troops to leave Iraq by March 2008.
This is a victory for Republicans, who had relied on parliamentary maneuvers for weeks to delay an extensive debate on Iraq. They changed course in recent days, allowing Mr. Reid's proposal to advance and demonstrating that Democrats were unable to muster enough support in Congress to push through sweeping changes in Iraq policy, despite the party's victory in the November election.

Don't trust Kim Jong Il !!!!

We should NOT trust N. Korea to stand by any provisions of the current Six-party Talks ! They are not trustworthy in any way as proven by their recent actions , which I think were just build-ups to the concessions that might be made soon if the talks continue as they have lately .
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=17237 <--Read this from ISN -International Relations and Security Network .

"Six-Party Talks: A bitter pill to swallow
The possible deal between the
US and North Korea, discussed last month in Berlin by Assistant Secretary of
State Christopher Hill and his North Korean counterpart, Vice Foreign Minister
Kim Gye-gwan, is expected to be ratified at Six-Party Talks later this week in
Beijing. If the North freezes but does not dismantle its nuclear program, the
threat of another nuclear crisis will persist; to achieve lasting success, all
parties to the talks must insist on the irreversible denuclearization of the
Korean Peninsula.

In the first phase of the deal, North Korea allegedly will cease operations of its five-megawatt reactor and allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to monitor Yongbyon in return for a partial release of North Korean funds from Banco Delta Asia (that have been frozen for over a year), removal from the US terrorism list, and a renewed supply of at least 500,000 tons of oil. This would halt North Korea's ability to produce more plutonium and expand its nuclear weapons arsenal. In return, the North's primary "rewards" would be partial relief from international economic isolation and gains in stature that derive from de facto being the world's eighth nuclear weapons state.
A second phase would address North Korea's existing nuclear stockpiles in the context of added economic benefits, steps by the US and Japan toward normalization, and the establishment of a permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula.
The Bush administration's success requires what most critics believe is impossible: the rollback of North Korea's nuclear weapons program. The current deal in its initial stage would not achieve that objective. Instead, the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula would require additional actions by North Korea, but financial pressure on the North would be considerably eased, leaving the administration to rely on questionable North Korean assurances that it is committed to the Korean Peninsula's denuclearization.
In many respects, this new deal appears to conform with the North Korean "freeze-for-reward" proposal tabled at the third round of Six-Party Talks in June 2004. This proposal envisaged a limited freeze of North Korea's nuclear program in return for energy supplies and the lifting of US economic sanctions on the DPRK. A statement by the DPRK foreign ministry spokesman advocated a "freeze" as the first step toward dismantlement and characterized the size of the "reward" as the factor that would determine the ultimate timing of North Korea's nuclear dismantlement. "

You see that N. Korea has expanded the situation by claiming nuclear achievements to the point that the world cannot afford to ignore them . This makes it easier for them to ask for and to get relief from the money freeze imposed on them , and put a dent in the isolation they have brought upon themselves in the last few years . None of this will help keep the Korean peninsula nuclear free , since few beleive they will honor any new agreements since they have honored few of them in the past .

North Korea has gotten a taste of power and has learned from Iran how to make certain parts of the UN wet their pants in a rush to cater to them .

Our Flag - Long may it wave !

" A thoughtful mind , when it sees a nation's flag , sees not the flag only , but the nation itself ; and whatever may be its symbols , its insignia , he reads chiefly in the flag the government , the principles , the truths , and the history which belongs to the nation that sets it forth . "
Henry Ward Beecher

This is a sentiment to hold deep in our hearts , not only toward our own flag , but to all flags of nations of the world .
It is too bad that we are engaged in a war with a nationless enemy . Perhaps this is one reason that we have Americans that do not support our war on terror . Perhaps if the enemy had a nation and a flag , these non-supporters could find reason to identify with our struggle and support America and her allies .
If Beecher is correct , the flag of our enemy would reflect the depths of enmity the radical Islamist hold for us , and the enormity of their often stated goal of destroying us along with all of western society and culture .

Bashing the troops and getting away with it

I am pasting this entry directly from http://www.strategypage.com/default.asp

"In light of the blog based blowback over his original post, Washington Post
writer Bill Arkin fired off two responses. Arkin's replies seemed to fall more
into the "I'm sorry if you were offended", and actually heaped more insults on
the troops. As if he did not get his butt kicked enough after referring to the
all-volunteer force as mercenaries, Arkin seemed to be asking for more. However,
Arkin's response also seems to indicate that the media is more willing to fight
a war against the war on terror rather than to call out opponents of the war on
apparent hypocrisy.
It seems that the media and the anti-war movement
understands some implications that the internet and 24-hour news coverage have
for the troops, but seems unwilling to keep that in mind. It is not 1942, when
the Chicago Tribune's revelation of American codebreaking at Midway managed to
escape the attention of the Axis. Today, when the New York Times blows
intelligence programs, the Washington Post's columnists labels the troops
mercenaries, Newsweek releases a report that is inaccurate, or when an anti-war
politician compares American troops to the Khmer Rouge, it spreads across the
world at the speed of light.
Naturally, such ill-considered decisions
by these media outlets and politicians draw fire. This then leads to
polarization. The offended troops see this as elite media members not
understanding what is going on. The media, of course, digs in its heels,
charging the military with wanting to censor the news, never considering that
there is a responsibility to carefully consider the words one uses in that
debate, particularly given the fact that those comments will spread around the
world. The troops usually are caught in the middle, taking incoming fire from
the media, while those who support their mission return fire. Too often, those
troops caught in the middle of the debate, often see their opinions lost in the
din.
It is a stretch for anyone to believe that the military wants to
preclude debate about the war on terror. Freedom of speech and freedom of the
press are part of what they are defending – and indeed, are trying to make
possible in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other places. That said, the troops do
have a right to request that the American people conduct the debate in a manner
that does not put the troops in greater danger. "– Harold C. Hutchison
(haroldc.hutchison@gmail.com)

This shows how the media continues to bash the troops and thus the war , even when call out on their biased reporting .

The war will be lost from within the US , not on the battlefield if this is continued without consequences for the perpetrators of the seditious conduct of parts of the media .