CHESSNOID

I was perusing the political news last night to get an update. An organization called MoveOn.org took out an ad that I thought was really good. I ran into the article at Addicted to Coffee in which the blogger does a good analysis of what message is being sent. The message was:

Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count. The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you’re shot in the back of the head — not the front. According to the Associated Press, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there. We’ll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won’t hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.

Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops. But we won’t hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.

Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.

Please do visit Addicted to Coffee’s blog and read the well thought out analysis made. Drop me a comment and tell me if you agree or disagree with the blogging author.

Yesterday, a loyal Republican American by the name Alan Greenspan,the former chairman of the Federal Reserve who served under 6 presidents, made a politically incorrect statement about Iraq we all suspect to be true. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” Greenspan says in the book. This is suppose to be controversial, but I don’t understand why. Are there people out there that really believe the Iraqi fairy tale of weapons of mass destruction still exist? We already have heard every white house official including Bush himself say there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but yet many people believe there is. Makes no difference what your political affiliation is when it comes to facts. The majority of Americans as well as Iraqis want the US troops out of the country. We have no business being there.

Right now, there are 2 presidential candidates that actually voted as senators against the War in Iraq when it was unpopular to do so. The first is Democrat Obama Barack. I have heard him speak and I think he is number 2 in the Democratic party in the polls. I do hope he wins the democratic nomination because he has strong convictions and is well spoken and wants to withdraw the troops immediately. The second to oppose the war from the beginning is Ron Paul. I keep running into his name when reading blogs. I looked at the scientific polls and hi is not the front runner, but what is weird is he is popular with the people. I think these scientific polls might be rigged like our last 2 elections. Again on Addicted to Coffee’s blog, he points out that in the people’s vote after debates he is well liked:

An MSNBC poll during the California Republican debate asked who stood out among the pack. 14% chose Rudy Giuliani. 19% chose Mitt Romney. 48% chose Ron Paul. Over 75,000 voted.

On the issue of who showed the most leadership qualities, Paul was again the clear winner with 44% of the vote (Romney was second with 18%).

Is this an aberration? No.

In ABC’s poll on the Ronald Reagan debate, over 27,000 people voted. At third place was Mitt Romney, with 396 votes. Taking second was a vote for “It doesn’t matter who won. I wouldn’t put America in another Republican’s hands” with 1,875 votes. And the winner of the poll?

With 23,694 votes, Ron Paul. That’s 87% of the vote (assuming I did the math correctly).

Fox News even had a poll, in which over 40,000 voted. Romney was first with 29%. And who did the conservative viewers of Fox News vote for into second place? Not Giuliani. Not McCain. Ron Paul, with 25% of the vote.

This blogger’s post is much longer and points out more interesting facts so please visit the site directly and read it first hand at:

Addicted to Coffee

I must admit it does seem odd that a popular Republican nominee isn’t receiving more media coverage just because he has always been against the war and wants to withdraw our troops. Don’t you think so?