Friday, January 12, 2007

2008 Dream Team Preview?

The American mission in Iraq must succeed. Our goal--promoting a stable, accountable democracy in the heart of the Middle East--cannot be achieved by purely military means.
Iraqis need to establish a civil society. Without the support of mediating civic and social associations--the informal ties that bind us together--no government can long remain stable, and no cohesive nation can be maintained. To establish a civil society, Iraqis must rebuild their basic infrastructure. Iraqis must take control of their destiny by rebuilding houses, stores, schools, roads, highways, mosques and churches.

Continue Reading Newt and Rudy Here:

15 comments:

anita said...

if anything, a rudy/newt team would be an entertaining one.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, thats the ticket.

Rhino-itall said...

i was thinking more Newt-Rudy for 08, but either way it would be pretty good.

Anonymous said...

Well that goes without saying. Newt is without a doubt the strongest candidate out there right now...from both sides.

gary said...

I hope that Newt is the candidate in that I don't think he will win the general election. What is interesting is that at least 3 of the Republican candidates--McCaine, Guiliani, and Newt--have an adultery problem in their past. So did Clinton of course but he didn't depend on the religions Right (or the religious Wrong as I call them.)

Anonymous said...

giuliani is a quasi-fascist egomaniac. he's a horrible manager and a bad person. and, thankfully, he has no shot getting out of the primaries.

frankly, none of the candidates excite me very much except maybe for hillary. granted, i'd never vote for her, but we're in for one hell of a campaign season if she gets the nod. oh, what fun.

Anonymous said...

by the way, aurorans, i am playing a SOLO show tomorrow night @ 9 PM in Williamsburg, at Rock Star Bar (351 Kent @ N 5th).

i quit big dictator.

i'm accompanied by a great sax player.

and it's a party for a friend of mine, whose band the creamsicles plays @ 11. no cover.

cool bar, too. blacklight air hockey, mermaids, a cave, and (best of all) you can smoke inside.

so come on down with someone you want to bone and i'll make sure you get laid.

gary said...

By the way Aurorans, Patrick's Buchanan's column is worth a read:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53736

Anonymous said...

Donsky,

I am going on a pre arranged mountain outing (and just checked the status of the fake snow- we have trails, mofos!Winter at last!)but I wish you luck and I think you will be awesome. In anything you do.

If Donkey can get a stealth of it, we can convert it at TBR to a digital podcast. Or maybe you can do that? Either way, get it out there.
Good Luck!

Anonymous said...

good call. i'm gonna record the show.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how the military can oversee economic growth or help it grow. This is their assertion that contracting the jobs out leads to cronyism but in a bid system that is just ludicrous. Once again it wasn't Bush that hired Haliburton to rebuild Iraq. It was Clinton...what a joke. These two should run as Dem candidates. It's a war not nation building, right?

Anonymous said...

Its not a bid system, its a no bid system.

In some cases that is because for SOME contracts there are some niche suppliers that happen to specialize and there aren't alot of competitors. Thats a reality in many no-bid situations, logistics come into it too.

People like to distort the Halliburton issue and say that the left just like to cry about Cheney. Twist the issue. Yeah, some people dont really know why they hate Halliburton but like to bring them up. But thats stupid too.

The issue with the contracts, as with all contracts, is when a company is permitted to fail and renege on their obligation and nothing happens. Or the penalty is negligible.

I look at examples where our troops were given safety gear with defective stitching, and how the same company that put the soldiers at risk had NOTHING happen.There were the meal examples, and we could go on and on.

So you can look at it as a partisan concern, or you can look at it as a common sense fiscal accountability concern. A safety concern, our obligation to our troops to provide supplies.

I dont get how people can be pro-troops, pro-victory, pro morale...and think its ok to be cheap on the backs of our uniformed men and women. Permit our contractors to shaft them as well. Who are we loyal to? I say the troops over the profiteers. Anyone who thinks otherwise is the real traitorous scum.

How many of us have donated money just to get those helmet upgrades???

Shouldnt be. Partisan bullshit doesnt even enter into it. Its about doing right by the people that die for our country. Some respect.

anita said...

"This is their assertion that contracting the jobs out leads to cronyism but in a bid system that is just ludicrous."

come on paddy, you're not THAT naive, are you?

Miss Carnivorous said...

Good Lord when liberals are recommending Pat Buchanon columns you know we are doomed!

gary said...

How about Chris Ruddy? See his article on why he opposes the surge here:http://newsmax.com/pundits/Ruddy.shtml?s=lh

Oh, and the attack in Somalia that our Aurorans were so gung-ho about? They screwed that up too, killing 70 villagers and no Al Qaeda:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article2149716.ece