Wanted: Republican leader with some cajones who isn’t going to get caught trying to hide ……

More to come this evening.

Busy cleaning up snow.

On an unrelated note: Sorry, Mom. He’s from Wisconsin, a Packers fan, and terrified of Evha Junge knowing who he really is so he creates some ridiculous alter ego to annoy every one at Keegans, I think that should explain everything.

One of the worst told stories in the War on Terror’s Iraqi theater is the Iranian connections. For years there have been murmurs and stories about Iran’s intervention in the battle.

Last week was the domestic media battle over how high up the chain those individual bombs could be traced. Well, this week, the US has been tipped off about a large cash of these bombs with the sole intent of killing American soldiers.

BAQOUBA, Iraq —  U.S. and Iraqi forces have seized a large weapons cache that includes parts for sophisticated roadside bombs that are believed to originate in Iran, U.S. military investigators said.

Details of the find were expected to be announced Monday at a news conference in Baghdad.

But military officials told The Associated Press that the arsenal is one of the biggest found north of the Iraqi capital and contains components for so-called EFPs — explosively formed projectiles that fire a slug of molten metal that can penetrate armored vehicles.

The U.S. military has said elite Iranian corps are funneling EFPs to Shiite militias in Iraq for use against American troops. The area where the cache was found is dominated by Sunni insurgents but also includes pockets of Shiites.

Earlier this month, U.S. officials showed reporters in Baghdad pieces of EFPs they said were directly traceable to Iran.

An informant tipped off Iraqi police to the weapons stash Saturday, the military said in a statement to the AP. It was discovered near Baqouba, the provincial capital of Diyala province, about 35 miles northeast of Baghdad.

Iran is at war with the US in Iraq, when will we finally acknowledge it?

It will be interesting to see the anti-victory caucuses and war detractors explain this one.

Some people want to win, some people want to lose. Sen. Joe Lieberman wants to win.

Two months into the 110th Congress, Washington has never been more bitterly divided over our mission in Iraq. The Senate and House of Representatives are bracing for parliamentary trench warfare–trapped in an escalating dynamic of division and confrontation that will neither resolve the tough challenges we face in Iraq nor strengthen our nation against its terrorist enemies around the world.

What is remarkable about this state of affairs in Washington is just how removed it is from what is actually happening in Iraq. There, the battle of Baghdad is now under way. A new commander, Gen. David Petraeus, has taken command, having been confirmed by the Senate, 81-0, just a few weeks ago. And a new strategy is being put into action, with thousands of additional American soldiers streaming into the Iraqi capital.

Congress thus faces a choice in the weeks and months ahead. Will we allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq–or by the unchanging political and ideological positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over here?

Go read the rest!

That second paragraph is key. What the Dems and white flag Republicans were trying to stop was already underway. The General sent to Iraq to carry out the Surge was approved unanimously by Congress. Therefore, the Dems decided to go for what they really wanted afterall (to defund and end the war in Iraq via Congress), and now the White Flag Republicans need to decide just how anti-war they want to be for electoral purposes.

Where exactly is Sen. Coleman on the Iraq debate these days?  IS he still arguing for debate on the Baghdad Surge, or is he going to start arguing about the Democrats’ attempts to prematurely end the war in the central battle in the war on terror?

It is time to pick sides in the fight for Freedom. The Democrats are clear where they stand. They are against Victory.

Gary from Let Freedom Ring is not letting the DFL’s super majority status go unchecked.

So the puppet master that is da MOB is dissin’ my Mayoral Duties, and has waged a poll war against me. The arguments:

Read the rest of this entry »

Donation required.

Critics deride the aggressive fundraising push as the kind of business as usual that voters rejected at the ballot box last November — particularly the practice of giving interest groups access to committee chairmen in exchange for sizable donations — but Democrats are unapologetic.

“Financial services companies are inclined to give to me because I’m chairman of the committee important to their interests,” said Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, who will headline a breakfast Wednesday at a D.C. hotel, for which donations range from $1,000 to $15,000 for the Democratic National Committee. “I’m fundraising to give to others so I can help stay in the majority and do the public policy things I want.”

Asked whether banking interests feel obligated to give to Democrats when he asks them for contributions, Frank answered: “Obligated? No. Incentivized? Yes.” Frank said, however, that those donating “understand, and others do, too, that there are no guarantees of my doing what they want, or even my being pleasant.”

“I’m getting a lot of fundraising invitations,” said Robert E. Juliano, a Democratic lobbyist. “It’s no different than any other year.”

The invitation to Frank’s DNC event, which notes in bold letters that the Massachusetts Democrat is chairman of the financial services panel, was sent to financial-industry lobbyists and financial companies, among others.

Culture of corruption?

Our good friends at the Strib, as well as all the Bachmann Derrangement Syndrom suffering folks had better do a bit more research before they lash out.

BAGHDAD, Iraq  –  Thousands of Shiites rallied in the holy city of Najaf on Saturday to protest the nearly 12-hour detention of the eldest son of Iraq’s most influential Shiite politician as he crossed back from Iran.

Why would a son of Iraq’s top Shiite politician need to travel to Iran?

It also highlights the often knotty relationship between U.S. military authorities and Iraq’s leaders, whose ties to neighboring patrons — Syria backing Sunnis, and Iran acting as big brother to majority Shiites — add fuel to sectarian rivalries and bring recriminations from Washington about alleged arms smuggling and outside interference.

Who would stand to benfit most from Iraq’s partition?

In December, American forces seized two Iranian security agents at the elder al-Hakim’s compound in Baghdad. Six other Iranians were arrested Jan. 11 at an Iranian liaison office in northern Iraq.

Would Eric Black and the Strib like to rethink their attack on Congresswoman Bachmann now?

Heck the Iraq Surrender Group did say we should negotiate with Iran…….

Are they denying any Iranian involvement in the struggle in Iraq?

Sigh

The story fed to Eric Black by Rep. Bachmann’s obsessed stalkers has really grabbed hold in the MSM and DFL political world. But Why is it such a big deal to defend Bachmann for me? I’m defending what she said, and pointing out the hypocrisy of the local media.

Eric Black got fed this story by people obsessed with Bachmann to the point that they stalk her everywhere she goes. Black took the bait, and ran the story with out any comments from Bachmann, and likely it was in order to make this a story. Note the snarky “I have requested an interview….” at the bottom of his first Star Tribune Blog post. It almost seemed like a threat. That’s irresponsible and just further proves he is not a good reporter when it comes to a story involving Republicans. He may “be the best the Strib has” but that ain’t saying very much.

What Bachmann said in this fast paced and broad scoped interview can easily be disseminated with Google. The al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq are planning on setting up the Islamic state of Iraq should the US leave, most likely in Anbar province, or Western Iraq. Remember Sen. Coleman’s support for a Surge there, but not Baghdad? Yeah, we’ve heard this before. They plan to set a Caliphate there to further the agenda of radical Islam in taking over the region and spreading their hate. And despite the Strib and Liberal’s best effort, not everyone wants to abandon the mission.

The Iranian Government and/or military is assisting the sectarian violence that the war detractors deem a civil war along purely religious lines. And the Strib seemed to just dust off an old Editorial for today’s Bachmann bashing. (Editorial: Congress must prevent attacks against Iran) Read them both, notice anything? “Neoconservatives”

Well, the Southeastern portion of Iraq is more closely tied to Iran than to the other sects in Iraq. Should the US cut and run, and instability grows, the chances of the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds all agreeing to stay together without Western influence and force assisting are about as good as the Strib’s circulation numbers going up. Iraq will likely partition along Religious sects if the US leaves prematurely.

As I re-listened to the interview with Larry Schumacher, it is important to note that Schumacher brought up the Iranian sponsorship if the Shia in what he called the civil war.

Did the Congresswoman use a poor choice of words? Yeah probably. But the rhetoric in the debate over the Iraq war is vast. What she said has been said before though. What she said is commonly held by many supporters of victory in Iraq as a likely scenario if we are defeated. She flipped a few roles or names around in the midst of a long fast paced, wide ranging interview. If it was so ground shattering, why didn’t the St. Cloud Times even write a story on the podcast interview immediately? Maybe, because it didn’t fit their agenda?

Al Qeada is seeking to set up a terrorist zone in Iraq. Iran is trying to defeat the creation of a Democratic government of Iraq and is fanning the flames in and around Baghdad. As the Congresswoman said, Iran is trying to defeat America in Iraq.

We are at war with Iran diplomatically, and if we leave Iraq, before the Iraqi government is able to secure and defend its own Nation, it is incredibly likely that Iran would gain influence over a large portion of Iraq, and terrorists would have a safe haven over another large portion. Why do I say that? Because every place the US and pro-Western forces have retreated from after conflict or attacks has turned into a safe haven for terrorist and extremist Muslims.

Look at Afghanistan after the Soviet Union crumbled, Mogadishu after Clinton retreated, Lebanon, and then imagine what the oil rich nation of Iraq would look like if there was no force, US or Iraqi, to stop terrorists from having unfettered access to the rich resources and geography conducive to training for the next big attack against Western society.

You can really boil this all down to Black dragging this 2 week old interview on behalf of a few factions. One is the Bachmann obsessed stalkers and anti-Republican contingent. The other is for Black himself. He seems to take more pride in making a story than he does getting the details straight before he published anything. He was spoonfed this story, and simply worked off of talking points from anti-war and anti-Bachmann people.

A responsible journalist would have not run a story in order to get an interview or embarrass an elected official. Black has a history of this. He was antagonistic towards Kennedy and Bachmann during the 2006 elections, and he picked right up where he left off with carrying the DFL water. He likes to make Republicans explain themselves, but rarely, if ever makes those attacking them explain why.

It seems that I may be cut out for journalism. You see, I usually scan around for something that I can write on to make a point, and that is exactly what Black and the Strib have done here. They got fed something from the dumpster divers, it fit their agenda, add to that the DFL talking points, and you get the Bias also known as hews coverage of Republicans here in Minnesota.

Smith speculated the original statement was drawn from some ideas circulating in “the neoconservative network in which she circulates.“

Ah yes, us evil neocons are saber rattling for war with Iran. That must be tomorrow’s Editorial.

A few questions I’d LOVE to see Black answer: Who was his source who pointed out the interview? Does he write Editorials? Why doesn’t he wait to get a statement or clarification before publishing stories?

For those of you who think Eric Black is a good reporter with no bias at all, I would invite you to read up on his interview he did with Hugh Hewitt following Patty Wetterling’s blatant hatchet job lies also known as campaign ads.
Part 1

Part 2

Note in part one, right in the beginning, this exchange.

HH: Let’s begin by focusing on Patty Wetterling’s ad that was released two days ago, in which she says Congressional leaders have admitted covering up the predatory behavior of a Congressman who used the internet to molest children. Which Congressional leaders have admitted to covering up predatory behavior, Eric Black?

EB: As far as I know, none have.

HH: Does that make what she said a lie?

EB: Well, lie is a word you reach rarely, I think, in these kinds of ads, yes? But I would say that it’s not a correct statement, and you could quibble with the word choices quite strongly.

HH: What…is it possible to lie in a campaign ad?

EB: Well, what constitutes a lie…I guess you have to eventually get into intent. Something that’s inaccurate isn’t necessarily a lie. We’ve dealt with this…you know, I’ve dealt with this in my reporting many times. It’s rare that you get to the point of knowing that someone had uttered a falsehood, knowing it was false, and with malicious intent.

So why did Black blow this two week old story up into a big deal?

Dick Morris said Hillary Clinton took away Obama’s political virginity on O’Reily.

The thought of her and …… oh just plain yuck. Now I understand Bill a bit better.