Wei's Father is in from Taiwan.  All he is does is cook, smoke, and sleep.  I think Wei, set up a TV, but I am not sure.  I can smell the smoking and I do not like it.  So I am running my air cleaning thing.  But I am not sure it works that good.   At night I will turn it up on high.  In the meantime I am visiting other blogs.  I have found Iraq's and others from all over.  Maybe I will post one's from all over the world.  Perhaps I will start a no smoking zone on the internet. LOL.

Bill thought you would find this story from NYPOST.COM interesting:

REID'S BLOODY HANDS
Fresh from his declaration that "this war [in Iraq] is lost," Senate Demo cratic leader Harry Reid is moving quickly to hasten America's unilateral surrender.

And to cast the Middle East into murderous chaos.

Reid yesterday promised that the Democratic-controlled Congress will within days pass legislation requiring U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq over the six months starting Oct. 1.

Never mind that such legislation:

* Likely wouldn't pass either house of Congress . . .

* . . . and, even if it did pass, certainly wouldn't survive a veto.

So the point must be not to make policy, but to send a message: That Harry Reid's Democratic Party is against war in the Middle East, maybe?

Or that war in the Middle East is OK - so long as no Americans are fighting?

Or, maybe it's all about politics?

To be sure, Reid won't risk calling for an immediate pullout. He cautioned his party's bug-out-now wing to be patient, despite "the restlessness" of those who "voted for change in November [and] anticipated dramatic and immediate results in January."

The problem, said Reid, is that "George W. Bush is still the commander-in-chief - and this is his war."

And there's the real problem: From the start, Reid and the Democrats have seen the war in Iraq as a partisan opportunity.

They refuse to present a unified front to the rest of the world - especially to America's enemies - because, in their pinched view, to do so would be to weaken their own prospects for retaking the White House in 2008.

No, Reid didn't repeat his declaration of defeat during yesterday's speech from the Senate floor.

It probably has dawned on him just how big a political blunder he committed - witness Sen. Chuck Schumer's gentle contradiction of the majority leader over the weekend, insisting that "the war is not lost."

Then again, Reid didn't have to repeat his original remarks - because the imposed timetable he announced, if enacted, would bring about precisely the same result.

That is, a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from the region - if Reid thinks the bug-out would stop at Iraq, he's dumber than he sounds - followed by:

* A rapid, al Qaeda/Iranian-driven descent into regional chaos.

* Most likely, a general war.

* And, almost certainly, a Mideast nuclear-arms race as Saudi Arabia, Eygpt and (probably) Turkey rush to arm themselves in anticipation of an Iranian bomb.

At the very least, Reid has to understand that his rhetoric can only encourage short-run insurgent attacks on Americans in Iraq.

Their blood stands to be on his hands.

And that's a terrible price to pay for a political payday that's so tentative that even an instinctive gut-fighter like Chuck Schumer recoils from the risk.

Harry Reid needs to put a cork in it.

Today.

To sign up for Daily Newsletter Alerts, please visit http://www.nypost.com/php/newsletter/classify_newsletter_clicks.php

Us losers are in good company.  At least we have each other!!

On 4/22/07, Bill <irishbillydjr@gmail.com> wrote:

I really appreciate all of your comments and your blog.  I posted your blog on my page. Hang in there, son, and in between watching wrestling, American Idol, I will be online writing all those stupid politicians and talking to whomever I can.  Anything I can do let me know.   Bill Dunn aka BravoBilly aka IrishBillyDJr

--
CJ
A Soldier's Perspective
www.soldiersperspective.us
www.theyhavenames.com
Life's disappointments are harder to take when you don't use swear words!!
"Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."
Philippians 4:8

Ever since I saw the pages that the guys in Iraq had, I thought if they can do it, why cannnot I.  So I have been working on my page.  I found pictures to post, did all sorts of things.  I even posted another milblog.

I see the milblogs written by soldiers defending me,  in a land far off.

I hear the politicians say that perhaps we have lost.  After seeing what I have seen,  I think not.

Have you seen the same sites that I have seen  or just that of the press?  I am just a simple man.  Trying to make it from day to day.  In a different war at a different time, a baby of World War II.

But, when I see the Milblogs and hear you speak, I really get angry with you.

These young men, from all over our land, build a voting booth and help on election day and now you and your party says that they are in the way.

You want to set a date to bring them home, to take them out of Iraq.  Have you thought what will happen when you bring them back?

Have you thought of the oil fields burning, and our nation unable to run because your political aims.  You want to try things to an end in a peaceful way with an enemy that will not do so .  He will laugh behind your back, and as you turn around, swing a sword at you.

Your aim is to keep your office, and get contributors. so in 2008. the White House will be won by your party, but meanwhile your young men bleed and die in a far off land defending you.  Have you been there?  Have you seen what they have done?  Or do you only rely on the media?  There is a part of media you are missing.  The internet.  That part gets the milblogs and blogs of wives and family.

I am sickened by your hypocrisy to your voters. 

Soldiers keep fighting, I say, Fight for what is yours. Fight until the last man is no longer there because they will not allow you to fight here.  They will tell you that violence is wrong and guns aren't allowed on there.  You will feel you aren't allowed and struggle with who you are.  Speak out for that is all you have now. Talk to the politicians, because they really want to get rid of you, take away your job.  Then when they need you, call on the UN's soldiers. 

A few rambling ideas here...

I went to the VA today after getting someone to take me there and taking the nasty laxative that flushed me out.  All day yesterday I did not eat except I decided to eat breakfast, which I was not supposed to.  One website said ok another no. One said not to mix some stuff in, etc.  The point of all this being by time I got there all worn down and on the table all stripped down naked with just a gown on, they asked me who do I have to take me home...I repond the DAV driver.  Well, some state law, says, "NO way, Charlie, can't do."  They give me the choice of no sedative or no Colonoscopy.  Guess which one I chose?....After dressing I went right off the bat to the Canteen to get a sandwich and then waited for the driver.  Slept on the way home...and more at home.  Wei was making Crescent hot dogs.  I finally broke down and ate one....LOL.

Harry Reid, Loser

by Jed Babbin  (More by this author)

Posted: 04/20/2007

The Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, believes the war in Iraq is lost.  There is nothing about that conclusion that bothers Reid:  He is as blasé as he is certain, as resolute in pursuit of defeat as Churchill was in pursuit of victory.  Last November, the Democrats seized control of Congress on the pretense that they wanted to change our policy regarding Iraq but not -- as they, to a man (and a woman) insisted -- to merely cut and run.  We knew they weren’t being truthful then, but too many people were taken in.  Now all pretense is dispensed with:  we can see the man behind the curtain.
On Thursday, Reid said: "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week." He said that in the middle of a week when some 146,000 Americans are serving in Iraq, and at least 6 have died.  He said that at a time when the troop surge announced by President Bush has only managed to deliver three of five brigades -- about 60% of the planned 21,000 additional troops -- to Iraq.  The fact that the surge hasn’t had a chance to work is much less important to Reid and the Dems than the political mileage they may gain from declaring it a failure.
How many times have we heard the Dems insist that they support the troops?  It’s one of their mantras.  If something isn’t “for the children”, it’s to “support the troops.”  But it’s false, just as their insistence last fall that they wouldn’t cut and run was.  All of that pales in comparison to one single fact: Reid and the rest of the Democrats do not condemn defeat.  They do not say they would have done better to win, because the words “win” and “victory” never pass their lips.  They never propose an idea that might lead to quicker, more decisive victory in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the Horn of Africa, or Lebanon, or anywhere else.  No.  The Democratic pathology is the same now as it was forty years ago.  

During the Vietnam War, Democrats were able to rally Americans around their anti-war banner because the draft brought the dangers of the war home to most families.  But Vietnam was – in their terms -- a “war of choice”:  America didn’t have to fight in Vietnam to preserve itself.  Iraq – and the rest: don’t forget the rest -- are different on two counts.
First, President Bush began the counter-attack after 9-11 in Afghanistan against the regime that had harbored and aided bin Laden in the 9-11 attacks.  No one (no serious person, at least, which eliminates every Dem with the exception of Joe Lieberman) thought that the war could -- or would -- end there.  The objective then, of which we have long since lost sight, was to end state sponsorship of terrorism.  
Military analysts were uncertain whether the campaign to follow – against the other state sponsors of Islamic terrorism -- should begin in Iraq or Iran or Syria.  President Bush chose Iraq.  Iraq is not a war of choice:  it was, inarguably, a state sponsor of terrorism.  Yes, Iraq wasn’t involved in 9-11: but it was involved in terrorism in a very big way.  The only argument against Iraq was that it was not the next most urgent campaign.  Had Iran been first, Iraq might have not been necessary.
Second, whether Iraq should have been invaded is not the issue.  The war against Islamic terrorism and the nations that sponsor it cannot be won there, but it can be lost.  If we lose it -- unlike the Vietnam War -- we lose America.  Vietnam wasn’t an existential war: this war is.  And it is a great mistake to say this is “the war in Iraq.”
President Bush has failed in some ways, but his most important failure is in the leadership in the prosecution of this war.  He hasn’t – since that memorable speech a week after 9-11 -- performed the role of a war president.  He hasn’t defined the enemy, how he must be defeated, and how we will even know if we have won.  
Let’s be plain: we are at war with those who adhere to radical Islam.  It is an ideology, not a religion.  Our goal is not -- cannot -- be to implant democracy in the Middle East.  Democracy is a system of government not, as the neocons say, a weapon.  We must defeat the enemy by defeating his ideology and compelling -- by violent means as may be necessary -- those nations who support the terrorist to stop doing so.  When that task is done, the war is won.  And not one moment before.
What, then, is the import of what Sen. Reid said?  First, Reid and his ilk do not support the troops. When Reid says the war is lost, the troops hear.  They understand that they are still risking their lives every day for a war the Democrats are content to lose.  There can be no more destructive assault on their morale.  It is only because of their inherent quality -- much higher than the draftees of Vietnam -- that they don’t abandon the field.  
On April 23, 1971 John Kerry told a Senate Committee, “We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”  In those years, the morale of our troops was destroyed piecemeal by Kerry and his cohorts.  Reid is merely a new manifestation of the Democrats’ pathology.  He, like the rest, don’t give a damn about our troops.  They care only about their path to greater political power.

Harry Reid’s statement compels one more conclusion:  that the Democrats are incapable of leading this nation to victory against this existential threat.
Conservatives have begun to think that the import of the 2008 presidential election is that the winner will decide how the Supreme Court’s balance will tilt for the next two decades.  True enough.  But more important, by far, is how the next president will prosecute the war.
The fate of democracy in Iraq will not be determinative of victory or defeat in the larger, long war.  Will some Republican pursue real victory?  Or will the Democrats just declare defeat and come home, bringing defeat with them?

I am getting picked up by DAV to go to The VA for a Colonoscopy tomorrow.  I finally solved all of my problems of not having anybody to help me.  It seems that if you seek you can find.  AA is only there to keep you sober.  Now that Clyde has me off on Sunday, I am going to start going to church at Calvary Chapel.  I just have to get up there.  I need to develope a family...Getting tired now...

I was trying to figure out who to  post with when I realize I have my own blog and I can post my own stuff.  Some of the things I want talk about are the facts that everybody has been lulled to asleep regarding terrorism

One by one I will write each Senator and each Congressmen and let them know how I feel about abandoning our troops and the war effort. The do not seem to have idea of what is going on with the terrorist.