The US Senate Almost Unanimously Agrees: Bush Strategy in Iraq Is Working

Maybe the media was the last to get the memorandum on this.

MoveOn.Org infamously called him "General Betrayus" in a massive New York Times advertisement. This sparked discussion and outrage because General David Petraeus had not even gotten his feet wet in Iraq. It will likely inspire scores of GOP commercials directed against any candidate unfortunate enough to have taken this anti-American organization's donations.

The United States Senate, in a sense, almost unanimously endorsed the current direction in Iraq last week with their confirmation of this general as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Many applauded his ability to de-escalate the violence and bring political stability. Deaths among American servicemen and Iraqis have fallen as a result. Iraq now feels confident enough to ask the United States for some indication about when US servicemen will start to be pulled out. If anyone needs any indication that Iraq is not Vietnam, the host country requesting a timetable for pullout represents a strong example of this truth.

Senator Robert Byrd voted against this confirmation, but not for reasons you might anticipate. He argued that a successful commander ought to be left where he is. Continuity in command makes more sense than promotion at this point, according to the Senator. We did not promote Dwight D. Eisenhower out of his active role after D-Day. President Lincoln did not desire to remove Ulysses S. Grant from the battlefield because he found success where other Union generals had not. Senator Byrd does have a valid point.

However, let us not lose sight of the meaning of this vote. Senate Democrats demonstrated confidence in the Bush Administration and his commanders whether they wanted to reward success with a promotion, or keep a good general where he enjoyed success. We have come a long way in a short time in this war. We must thank first and foremost the servicemen who have sacrificed to do the job right, next their commanders for working to fashion a plan for victory, and finally President Bush whose political courage helped better the lives of millions of Iraqis who were initially freed from tyranny and will now face more freedom from terror.

CNBC Rates West Virginia Three Spots Lower in 2008

Open for business? Not according to CNBC.

In the past year, West Virginia has dropped from 44th to 47th in the nation in terms of having a business friendly environment. While we rate very well in the cost of doing business, we rank 49th in technology and innovation and 50th in terms of business friendliness.

Surely that is part and parcel of being in a traditionally neglected Appalachia, right? Not necessarily. Our neighboring states rate far better than we do. Virginia ranks 2nd, falling from number one last year. Ohio, usually cited as an underachieving state, rates 30th. Pennsylvania has a rating of 23rd and Maryland 36th. Even Kentucky earned a rating of 35th. Kentucky pulling ahead of Maryland is a surprise on the surface, but the left-liberal stranglehold on our northern neighbor cannot be helping it much.

These numbers desperately scream for a change. In this situation, change is not a platitude. Republican nominee for governor Russ Weeks and most GOP candidates for the legislature agree that West Virginia requires structural changes in the way it approaches the business sector. It is not just the law. We need to help transform people's basic attitudes about business. There is a mistrust there that goes back generations and this must be addressed. We also have people who prefer to keep West Virginia as it is because they see no need for economic development. They have their fortunes made and do not worry too much about the rest of us.

We must address this issue or continue to fall farther behind. Here is a link to the article from CNBC.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/25447869

Coming Soon to a Stadium in Colorado....Obamanation

Conventions in recent years have transformed into attention getting parties for candidates but nothing in the past will top the "look at me"fest that Barack Obama has planned for his party. Instead of holding the climactic day in the convention hall, Obama wants to issue free tickets to try and fill a 75,000 seat stadium. He plans to show the country, the world, and most importantly the Democratic Party how much the people love him.

Obama hopes to garner the same kinds of press accolades that he got when he spoke after a massive rock festival. The press gave him the credit for attracting tens of thousands of attendees who had really come to see free music. How will this play with the Democratic Party, though? Party conventions serve another purpose other than anointing the next nominee for the presidency. They also function as rewards for hard working, cash donating, or long time faithful party members. All of a sudden the restricted club will be completely open to the public on the most important day. How will the old Democratic machine politicians react to this?

Obama also faces a serious problem. Certainly the backbone of his support thus far has lain with the antiwar crazies to whom he promised a definite end date on Iraq. He also slammed Bush's refusal to agree to a timetable that might encourage terrorists to lay low until the danger is gone. Now gas prices have taken center stage as an issue and the Democrats do not fare well here due to their refusal to allow expanded drilling. Iraq has stabilized; its government and military gain more confidence monthly while the violence plummets.

As a result Obama recently announced that as president he will not stick to a set timetable, but evaluate the situation as it develops. Smart thing to say, but his statement almost precisely mimics the stance of President George W. Bush. Iraq itself may make this a moot point because they themselves want to set a plan for US troop withdrawal. If President Bush comes to an agreement with Iraq on this issue and the country remains stable, the war cannot be defined as anything but a success. The extreme anti-American anti-war crowd will not stand by a candidate that admits in the least that President Bush's policies actually succeeded. On the other hand, mainstream America knows success when they see it.


Meanwhile John McCain has started campaigning aggressively. His style differs strongly from President Bush's campaign in 2004. Senator McCain gives a speech, then walks into the crowd to engage the people one on one. His campaign runs opposite to that of Obama. McCain sees the opinion and perspective of each individual as important, something that reflects America's belief in individualism. Obama emphasizes the collective experience, making the individual feel part of something larger, but small himself. His Colorado extravaganza reflects a Benito Mussolini style that works well for sports fans and rock concert attendees, but is not conducive to stating a rational message.

The obstacles continue to pile up for Obama. Perhaps that is why he now calls himself the underdog in the race.

******************************************************************

Let's give credit to President George W. Bush for making a courageous decision this week, overturning the executive ban that his father placed on offshore drilling and exploration. Anyone who knows anything about the current President Bush understands that this had to be a personally difficult decision. George W. Bush has always demonstrated a sincere and powerful loyalty to his father and the legacy of that presidency. To personally repeal a measure his father imposed must have been gut wrenching.

However President Bush understands that times have certainly changed. In the first Bush's presidency, gasoline prices hovered around a dollar a gallon on average, lagging far behind inflation. Now they drive inflation and threaten to undo twenty-five years of prosperity. It is not to go back to relying solely on cheap oil that we must do this. The US should continue expanding its use of native natural gas and oil as well as coal while also generating more power from wind and solar sources. Diversification brings stability.

The Brilliance of President George W. Bush

It's not fashionable to say it, even amongst the conservatives who voted for him. The truth is inescapable, though. When it comes to foreign policy and bolstering American credibility in the world, President Bush and his administration have performed brilliantly.

After eight years of mollycoddling by Bill Clinton, President Bush's unabashedly aggressive policies worked like a bucket of ice water on a soundly sleeping child. Europe especially had to wake up and recognize the new sheriff in town. President Bush after 9/11 then named the three most wanted malefactors against world peace. His "Axis of Evil" address offended the sensibilities of liberals and professional diplomats in the same manner as President Reagan's "Evil Empire" analogy. In the long run, this kind of labeling when applied to rogue regimes is difficult to shake.

President Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated American resolve. Bill Clinton issued threats just as when the National Weather Service issues a thunderstorm threat. It may or may not come. President Bush along the same line issued warnings; in other words the storm is coming.

The world got used to an America ready to defend the interests of real peace and it responded. Anti-American governments fell in nations such as Germany and France despite the fact that the world press labeled the people as literally hating the United States. Perhaps they understand better than academics and the press who the real threat is. Meanwhile some states such as Libya abandoned their previous policies of seeking WMDs and supporting terror. Palestinian terror has dropped significantly since its major benefactor Saddam Hussein was expelled from power. Vietnam sought a partnership with the US against Islamic terror.

Dominoes continue to fall. Europe backed out of any support of Iran as its frightened president turned up the rhetorical heat. North Korea negotiated its way out of the Axis of Evil by succumbing to regional pressure led by the US. Now Iran stands virtually alone, even Chavez has not been his usual boisterous self lately. All this has happened quietly without a lot of saber rattling by the US. Once we proved that we would act, the rest of the world friend or foe knows they can count on American resolve.

Had Congress listened to the president's wishes domestically, our position would be even stronger. Imagine if we had followed President Bush's wishes from his first months in office when he warned us about upcoming energy shortages. We could be almost self-sufficient if we would only tap our own sources. His only flaw has been his inability to sell his policies in the same manner as Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan. This reflects a businesslike mentality in the White House, but the result has been an electorate easily convinced by emotional appeals from his opponents.

At the end of the day, the Bush foreign policy has worked miraculous change. Europe stands with an aggressive United States. Even moderate anti-war activists have to accept the fact that the United States has almost succeeded in Iraq. Iran stands alone without support from any of its previous benefactors. Japan, Britain, and Australia stand with us as firmly as ever.

Hats off to President George W. Bush, a president who was not afraid to act and who has given the world real solutions rather than band aids.

RCBI Demonstrates Some Inconsistencies

Imagine that you are back in school and your teacher assigns a paper. Which tool would you prefer to use to write it, a typewriter or a word processor? Sure you could use a typewriter, but it is much more difficult and time consuming and you have a higher chance of making time consuming errors. This is the analogy used by some local businessmen to explain the changes taking place at RCBI.

In a recent letter to the editor, the CEO of RCBI explained that the changes were not substantial and should not cause access problems. However in a letter addressed to local businesses, they apologize for the inconvenience caused by removing the machines to Bridgeport. This is a standard courtesy. However they go on to offer a reduced rate for the next twelve months as compensation. This reflects an acknowledgment that removal of the machines will cause problems for the businesses that need them.

In some cases the new machines have reduced size capacity. In others, the difference lies in ease of use. The machines being removed are computerized. This means that different components can change very easily and that it is capable of much more complicated work. What they will now use does not have nearly the same capabilities or ease of use for the small and moderate sized business market.

It is entirely likely that removing these machines from Rocket Center represents a business type decision. Officials have to come periodically from Marshall University to oversee the operation. Gas prices have forced cutbacks to alot of people and organizations. If this, or something like it is the case, RCBI should just state those facts. However they should not privately apologize to local businessmen for imposing a severe inconvenience, but tell the public that all is well.

Will this affect the daily lives of most people in the region? Probably not. However in the long term, access to these kinds of facilities represented a marketing asset for attracting business to the Potomac Highlands. One answer could be to try and interest West Virginia University in taking over the operation of these machines in its own facilities in Keyser. With an emphasis on marketing the services, Potomac State (a branch campus of WVU) might be able to make them profitable where Marshall University's RCBI could not.