Big Dogs Weblog

Good News from the Front Lines

by Surfside on Mar 15, 2005 at 13:33 Posted in Military Leave a comment

With all the negative reporting by the MSM regarding Iraq and Afghanistan, we hope to counterbalance it with good news that’s being missed or underreported. Occasionally, we’ll update you with interesting information from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, like the following:

* The Iraqi Army stepped up to the plate last week and began to flex their muscle. While operating a cordon-and-search operation in the Ninevah province, Iraqi soldiers detained 28 suspected insurgents. They also seized weapons and insurgent propaganda. A similar operation in Ayn Zalah netted the Iraqi Army five suspects, three of which were listed on the Iraqi army’s “most wanted” list.

* It wasn’t the stork delivering a baby in Afghanistan last week. It was a Black Hawk helicopter that helped to deliver a newborn on Saturday. Technically, the US Army Medic team aboard the Black Hawk delivered the baby girl while in flight to a medical facility. The mother, the 40-year-old wife of a village elder, had been in labor for 18 hours. Concerned, the village midwife notified a nearby U.S. military medical sergeant of her serious complications. Mother and child are reportedly doing well.

* Violent conflicts between coalition forces and enemy fighters have significantly declined in Afghanistan. Additionally, the number of areas deemed insecure has also “dramatically” decreased, according to Army Maj. Gen. Eric T. Olson, commander of Combined Joint Task Force 76. Maj. Gen. Olson reported these developments at a news conference in Kabul last week. He added that the secure environment has allowed international organizations to move around the country more freely and that reconstruction efforts can be completed at a faster pace.

* Between 142,000 and 145,000 Iraqi troops have been trained and equipped. Of these, approximately 50,000 of the soldiers are considered “elite” troops and currently “fight directly” against the insurgents, according to Lt. Gen. David Patreus in overall command of training Iraqi security forces. In a major move towards Iraqi independence which would allow the US troops to return home, Iraqis have begun to train their own soldiers. Iraqi officers feel confident they will eventually have the resources and trained troops to maintain their country’s security.

* In a related story, 2,900 Iraqi soldiers graduated just yesterday. All these men had prior military training and were part of the Direct Recruit Replacements program. Essentially, they were on a fast-track, three week training program. They will be deployed throughout Iraq wherever they are needed.

If you are a soldier or family member and have any stories to submit to “Good News from the Front Lines,” please send and e-mail to Surfside@onebigdog.net or to Bigdog@onebigdog.net.

Election Lie Finally Revealed

by Surfside on Mar 14, 2005 at 13:34 Posted in Political Leave a comment

Remember back during the campaign for President. Yes, way back then. The anti-war, anti-Bush zealots shot accusations like spitballs in a classroom – hoping one would hit and stick. If you remember, one of those charges accused Republican members of Congress with being “pro war” because they weilded enough influence to save their own sons and daughters from serving in Iraq. They viciously accused congressional members of sending the less-connected children to do the country’s dirty work.

Now, the public had no way to know if the accusation was valid. I, myself, wondered if it could be true. Were congressional members enacting “Do as I say, not as I do” legislation? Our Fourth Estate did not provide us with the answers. Since the press was mute on this issue, the public remained uniformed; and, many accepted the allegation as true. After all, wouldn’t our esteemed Fourth Estate enlighten us if the information was in error?

Apparently not. Today — more than four months after the Presidential Election, we learn that at least five members of Congress have/had sons serving in Iraq. Four of these Congressmen are Republicans; one is a Democrat. All of these legislators voted to give President Bush the authorization to send troops into Iraq. All of their sons ended up in harms way while bravely serving their country. Their honor, as well as the sacrifice of their families, was diminished and sullied by the scurrilous allegation of Bush opponents.

Now, this situation begs two questions: “What stopped the press from providing this information while the accusations were flying during the campaign;” and, “How could these anti-war, anti-bush zealots spew such hateful lies?” The second question can be easily answered. These people would have stop at nothing to defeat Bush and as many Republican lawmakers as possible during the 2004 election. It’s obvious they have no conscience and believe in using whatever means possible as long as it leads to the desired result.

The first question is much more troubling. It is, after all, the design of the Fourth Estate to inform the public concerning such matters. The crafters of our Constitution planned for a free press to keep the government honest. They maintain a “watch dog” status for the benefit of the country. But, what happens when the watch dogs choose sides? Unfortunately, the public remains uniformed or under informed. They are not given the tools they need to make educated decisions concerning elected representatives.

This isn’t the first instance of media bias. The Dan Rather incident revealed a troubling trend and exposed more than the now-tainted MSM wished to divulge. This egregious breech belies the more subtle nature of other offenses. The Associated Press (AP) published the story on these congressional military families as a feature piece – months after the election. This information could have been presented while the accusations were flying. The public and the country suffer from a lack of judgment and integrity by the media. Something must be done to watch the watch dog.

Read the AP story and accompanying side bar

Tags: Political

But, There Were No WMDs

by Big Dog on Mar 13, 2005 at 12:08 Posted in Political Leave a comment

Since way before the invasion of Iraq we have been warned that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction(WMD). Many who now say the President lied about WMD stated in the past that Saddam had them and he should be disarmed because he was dangerous. During the Presidential Campaign last year nearly every major democratic player, including those who stated that Saddam had WMDs, called President Bush a liar after our forces failed to find WMDs. There have been satellite photographs showing Russian trucks at weapons bunkers just prior to the invasion and subsequent photos showing those trucks heading toward Syria. Despite the fact that Hussein used chemical agents on his own people as well as on the Iranians, the looney left continues to espouse the same conspiracy theories: Bush lied about WMD to get into the war. Why, everyone knows he is just doing this because Hussein tried to kill his daddy.

We were told by John Kerry that we should have involved the UN. We should have gotten their approval and we should have developed a coalition backed by them. We have been told that these mistakes would not have happened if we would have just involved the UN and let them guide us in the right way of thinking. Poor Bush, cowboy that he is, went it alone. If he had only involved the UN (nevermind the fact that he tried to involve the UN).

Now there is a report in the New York Times that basically states that right after the invasion of Iraq, weapons facilities were systematically looted and dismantled. The parts were removed, rather skillfully, and taken somewhere else. These parts were in some of Hussein’s most important weapons facilities and included items that could be used to make a nuclear weapon. This is all according to an Iraqi official, Sami al-Araji, the deputy minister of industry. An interesting statement:

Dr. Araji said equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq’s dormant program on unconventional weapons.

Capable of making chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Say it isn’t so. Iraq and that nice guy Hussein actually had the capability to do this? So maybe it is possible he had weapons moved to other countries.

But what about the UN. If we had involved them, we would know what was going on. All the weapons inspectors could have filled us in. To the left, the UN is the answer for everything. So here is what the UN had to say (in case the left wants to discount Araji):

The United Nations, worried that the material could be used in clandestine bomb production, has been hunting for it, largely unsuccessfully, across the Middle East. In one case, investigators searching through scrap yards in Jordan last June found specialized vats for highly corrosive chemicals that had been tagged and monitored as part of the international effort to keep watch on the Iraqi arms program. The vessels could be used for harmless industrial processes or for making chemical weapons.

Now, how can it be that the United Nations is worried that this material could be used in clandestine bomb production? Didn’t Bush lie about all this so he could invade? Does not the left keep telling us that WMD were not there and that Hussein got rid of his weapons making capabilities in the early 90s? Well now we have the UN, the panacea of the left, telling us they are worried that Hussein had these things and that his people dismantled them and sold them all over the world. The article states that it is most likely that these people just wanted to make money off the stuff and did not care about weapons production. Be that as it may, the UN is acknowledging that the Bush administration’s reasons for going in are based in fact. Perhaps now that the UN has agreed, the dems will shut their pie holes and get on with the business of running the country.

What do you call WMD? Perhaps 500 tons of Uranium.

Did some of the WMD leave the country?

Tags: Political

Partisan Sarbanes Will Not Seek Reelection

by Big Dog on Mar 12, 2005 at 13:15 Posted in Political Leave a comment

Paul Sarbanes, five term Democratic Senator from Maryland announced yesterday that he will not seek reelection to a sixth term. Sarbanes has the record as being the longest serving US Senator in Maryland history. Many, including the Big Dog, have felt that Sarbanes should have been gone long ago. Sarbanes is a Democrat who supports social issues and courts the entitlement crowd. He keeps a low profile except during election season where he is seen all over the air waves.

His announcement sparked a flurry of speculation as to what people would seek his seat. Among the potential candidates are Kweisi Mfume and Martin O’Malley, though O’malley has his eyes on the Governor’s Mansion and denies he will run. Among the accolades paid to Sarbanes was this by US Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD)

Cummings said he told the senator he was a workhorse, not a showhorse, and said Sarbanes had the respect of Democrats and Republicans in Congress because of his integrity.

Integrity? This is a quality in which one takes the same principled stance regardless of the personal implications. Sarbanes fell woefully short of that during the impeachment hearings of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.

The Articles of Impeachment for each President focused on obstruction of justice. These show where Sarbanes sided with respect to Nixon:

It was during his service in the House, in August 1974, that Sarbanes was selected by his Democratic colleagues on the House Watergate Committee to introduce the first Article of Impeachment, for obstruction of justice, against President Richard Nixon. (Ethics in Government)

Sarbanes was chief sponsor of the Watergate cover-up impeachment article approved 27-11. (USA Today)

Now this is vastly different from the Sarbanes who spoke against impeachment for Bill Clinton. Remember, the articles were for the same offense. Sarbanes said: (Full Text)

It is a serious matter for the Congress to remove a President who has been elected in a democratic process for a term of four years, raising fundamental concerns about the separation of powers.

He goes on to note that if the removal power is not limited, as it clearly is, impeachment could be converted into a parliamentary vote of no confidence which, whatever its merits, is not our constitutional system. The separation of powers embraced in our Constitution and the fixed term of the President have been credited by many observers with providing stability to our political system.

It is important therefore to recognize that in considering the matter before us we do so in the context of a Presidential election, wherein the people have chosen the single leader of the executive branch of our Government–the President.

President Clinton has engaged in disgraceful and reprehensible conduct which has severely sullied and demeaned his tenure as President. Because of his shameful and reckless behavior he has brought dishonor upon himself, deeply hurt his family, and grievously diminished his reputation and standing now, and in history.

But the diminishing of Bill Clinton must not lead us to diminish the Presidency for his successors as our Nation moves into the new millennium. There is a danger to the Nation in deposing a political leader chosen directly by the people and we must be wary of the instability it would bring to our political system.

In the report of the staff of the impeachment inquiry in 1974 on the constitutional grounds for Presidential impeachment, the conclusion states:

Not all presidential misconduct is sufficient to constitute grounds for impeachment. There is a further requirement–substantiality. In deciding whether this further requirement has been met, the facts must be considered as a whole in the context of the office, not in terms of separate or isolated events. Because impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is to be predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office.

I do not believe the conduct examined here meets this test.

I will vote against removing the President.

Why is it that when it was Nixon, a republican, the crime of obstruction of justice warranted removal of the President from office despite the fact that the people had elected him (by a large margin) to lead the country but when it is a democratic President, the will of the people can not be over looked?

Sarbanes played partisan politics and voted exactly opposite given very similar sets of circumstances. This is not the definition of integrity. If Rep. Cummings thinks it is, the voters should reexamine his tenure in office.

I for one am glad Sarbanes is not running again. He would easily win reelection because of the large pockets of democrats in three subdivisions of the state. The other twenty subdivisions can not block these democraticly dense areas. Unfortunately, another democrat will probably win the seat. In the state of Maryland, ability is second to party affiliation.

Tags: Political

Florida Ponders Toilet Paper Tax

by Surfside on Mar 11, 2005 at 15:14 Posted in Uncategorized 1 Comment

Some Florida Democrats hope to wipe up with revenue from their proposed toilet paper tax. State Senator Al Lawson proposed a 2 cent per roll tax on the necessary staple. The revenues will help pay for wastewater treatment and sewer upgrades for small towns. Essentially, it will be pumped back into the system. The tax could raise 30 million per year.

The bill is likely to tank in the Republican-dominated legislature. Bottom line, though, Florida needs more revenue to support its burgeoning growth. This pay-as-you-go tax might be the solution. The legislature has promised to review the bill – not just flush it. House Speaker Allan Bense doesn’t think it will hold much water and joked, “Sounds like a pretty crappy bill to me.”

Even Governor Jeb Bush has plunged into the debate. He seems concerned that this tax might cut down on usage and added, “That’s not necessarily a good thing.” Bush might have a point. After all, isn’t cleanliness supposed to be next to Godliness? What’s really at stake here?

For consumers, the tax could be a pain in the . . . well, you know where. Toilet paper is the single most purchased item in grocery stores. One could argue it’s a sexist tax. Women usually use more toilet paper than men – a good deal more. It won’t all come out even in the end.

Tags: General