Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) stands with Manchin (D-WV) over Rand Paul ad

Most people who know me know what I think of Rand Paul and it isn't much.  When I received the link to this story from a good friend, all I could think of was it figures out of Paul who I consider to have the ethics and integrity of a gnat.  Paul decided pay for an ad going after the Democrat Senator Manchin who is up for re-election to a full term after filling the seat after the longtime Senator Byrd died.  His reason?  Senator Manchin voted against a Rand Paul amendment cutting off foreign aid to Egypt, Pakistan, and Libya.  Now for the rest of the story:

The advertisements fail to point out Paul's legislation received just nine favorable votes, while 81 senators -- including 30 Republicans -- voted against it. 

Only nine Republican Senators voted for the amendment:  Crappo (ID), DeMint (SC), Grassley (IA), Lee (UT), Moran (KS), Paul (KY), Risch (ID), Roberts (KS), Shelby (AL), and Toomey (PA).

Senators Not Voting:  Boozman (R-AR), Boxer (D-CA), Burr (R-NC),  Heller (R-NV), Inhofe (R-OK), Kirk (R-IL -- recovering from stroke), Murray (D-WA), Rubio (R-FL), Vitter (R-LA)

With these votes totals against his amendment, Rand Paul still got mad and is advertising against some Democrat Senators including Manchin who is bi-partisan on certain issues but in the world of Paul and his little group with DeMint, being bi-partisan is a dirty word as you always have to be partisan even when it hurts the Country.  These two Tea Party Senators are perfect examples of Party over Country no matter what.

When you have an amendment that loses by that much and gets Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to back Manchin over the Paul ad, then Republicans have a real problem in the Senate with that Hard Right group of Senators.  Senator Graham has honesty and integrity which shows when he talks about foreign affairs being bi-partisan -- he is 100% correct on that point.  He is not afraid to put Country over Party which I would bet has him on the enemies list of the Tea Party in 2014.  Bet they primary him just like what they did to Lugar in IN when the Tea Party took out Lugar.

Really wanted to Take Back the Senate at the beginning of this election cycle but changed my mind with some of the Tea Party GOP candidates running for the Senate.  I would support Manchin in a heartbeat if I lived in West Virginia.  Manchin is by far the best person for the job and was happy to see him beat the Republican in 2010 who spends more time in FL then in WV and has run for so many offices in WV losing every last one of them.  He is a very wealthy person so he just keeps wasting his own money.  My prediction: Machin in a landslide.

October 9, 2012

Sen. Lindsey Graham stands with Manchin over Rand Paul ad 

By Paul J. Nyden 

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is running television ads attacking Democratic senators who voted against his amendment to legislation on Sept. 21 that would have cut off foreign aid to Egypt, Pakistan and Libya. 

Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va, and Bill Nelson, D-Fla., are Paul's first two targets.
"While they tear down and burn the American flag in Egypt and shout 'Death to America,' Joe Manchin votes to provide U.S. taxpayer aid to Egypt," Paul's 60-second ad states.

"While radical Islamists burn our embassy and kill our ambassador in Libya, Joe Manchin votes to send more taxpayer money to Libya." 

(snip)

The ad ends by stating, "Joe Manchin works with Barack Obama to send billions of our taxpayer dollars to countries where radicals storm our embassies, burn our flag and kill our diplomats." 

Manchin said many senators thought Paul's amendment may have been "well-intentioned but severely flawed." 

Manchin believes it would also have "jeopardized our greatest Middle Eastern ally, Israel.
"When we voted in September, I promised to work across the aisle to correct the problems and stop giving aid to countries that don't share our values and won't defend our interests -- and I am determined to get the right policy in place," Manchin said. 

On Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., joined Manchin in a telephone conference call about the controversial ads. 

"A lot of debate goes on about foreign aid," Graham said. "Foreign relations are not a Democrat or Republican issue, but a American issue. 

"I very much would like to have a Republican president and a Republican-controlled Senate. But when it comes to foreign policy and the matters of war, I think we need to be bipartisan," Graham said. 

"Most Americans are war weary. We are broke. We are $16 trillion in debt. If I thought we could withdraw from the Middle East and we would be safe, I would do it. But we don't have easy choices available to us."  

Excerpt:  Read More at the West Virginia Gazette

My non-political comment about the article -- looked really strange to see the Big 12 advertised when I clicked on the link and then remembered West Virginia is our newest member.  Glad they are in the Big 12 this year.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is running television ads attacking Democratic senators who voted against his amendment to legislation on Sept. 21 that would have cut off foreign aid to Egypt, Pakistan and Libya.
Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va, and Bill Nelson, D-Fla., are Paul's first two targets.
"While they tear down and burn the American flag in Egypt and shout 'Death to America,' Joe Manchin votes to provide U.S. taxpayer aid to Egypt," Paul's 60-second ad states.
"While radical Islamists burn our embassy and kill our ambassador in Libya, Joe Manchin votes to send more taxpayer money to Libya."
The advertisements fail to point out Paul's legislation received just nine favorable votes, while 81 senators -- including 30 Republicans -- voted against it.
The ad ends by stating, "Joe Manchin works with Barack Obama to send billions of our taxpayer dollars to countries where radicals storm our embassies, burn our flag and kill our diplomats."
Manchin said many senators thought Paul's amendment may have been "well-intentioned but severely flawed."
Manchin believes it would also have "jeopardized our greatest Middle Eastern ally, Israel.
"When we voted in September, I promised to work across the aisle to correct the problems and stop giving aid to countries that don't share our values and won't defend our interests -- and I am determined to get the right policy in place," Manchin said.
On Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., joined Manchin in a telephone conference call about the controversial ads.
"A lot of debate goes on about foreign aid," Graham said. "Foreign relations are not a Democrat or Republican issue, but a American issue.
"I very much would like to have a Republican president and a Republican-controlled Senate. But when it comes to foreign policy and the matters of war, I think we need to be bipartisan," Graham said.
"Most Americans are war weary. We are broke. We are $16 trillion in debt. If I thought we could withdraw from the Middle East and we would be safe, I would do it. But we don't have easy choices available to us."
Graham, who has traveled widely in the Middle East, said the U.S. already has criteria in place that could, under certain circumstances, terminate aid to countries like Egypt, Pakistan and Libya -- the three countries Paul's ad focuses on.
"Al-Qaida, the Taliban and radical Islamists would like nothing more than to have America withdraw from the region."
Graham then focused on the negative impacts from withdrawing all U.S. aid.
"If we stopped our assistance to Egypt at this point, that would destroy the Camp David accords -- the worst thing we could have done to the state of Israel. This new government in Egypt is a work in progress. We cannot write off the largest nation in the Arab world."
Graham believes the people who recently killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya need to be brought to justice.
"But they do not represent the Libyan government. Most people in Libya want to move forward, not backward," Graham said. "People in Libya want to go a different way. We have to help them."
Graham believes Pakistan is a very complex country.
"The Pakistanis allow us to ship supplies into Afghanistan and are working better with us killing terrorists on the Pakistani border.
"The Rand Paul amendment would have required us to withdraw assistance to these three countries that are critically important to our national security."
Several other Republicans spoke out in strong opposition to Paul's amendment last month, including Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz, and Bob Corker, R-Tenn.
McCain said cutting off all assistance to Libya "would abandon our friends to our terrorist enemies, destroy America's moral standing in the world, and do egregious harm to our national interests."
Corker believes "we need to reform foreign aid in a way that leads to greater accountability, but Sen. Paul's amendment is not the answer.
"If terrorists in any country that we are aiding trespass at one of our embassies or consulates, this amendment forces the aid to be withdrawn, even if the country is cooperating with us and working as an ally."
Reach Paul J. Nyden at pjny...@wvgazette.com

Graham: Obama's Iraq, Afghan policies 'being run out of Chicago'

Senator Graham's comments that the Iran and Afghan policies are 'being run out of Chicago' IMO are 100% correct.  Everything Obama is doing now is about re-election which is being run out of Chicago.  He doesn't care if it is the wrong decision if it helps his reelection chances with the far left.  Obama is very shallow and shows more by the day he only cares about being reelected.  Then he can continue his perks including vacations around the world on the backs of the US taxpayer and his wife can visit wherever she wants as part of their entitlement mentality.

To risk the loss of Iraq for political purposes is unconscionable but then not sure how much of a conscience that Obama has ever had.  What he doesn't have in the way of a conscience, he makes up for with arrogance.

We would love to see Lindsey Graham as the next Secretary of Defense -- he would be perfect for the job!

Graham: Obama's Iraq, Afghan policies 'being run out of Chicago'


By Kevin Bogardus - 10/23/11 09:32 AM ET 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday that key foreign policy decisions by the Obama administration are being made for political reasons. 

"I would argue Iraq and Afghanistan is being run out of Chicago, not Washington, in terms of decisions," Graham said on Fox News Sunday.


Graham criticized President Obama for planning to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year. He said the White House ignored requests from military commanders for more troops in the country. 

"I think in the last year he has made some poor, dangerous foreign policy decisions at the strategic level when it comes to Iraq," Graham said. "When your military commander, who I trust, says you need 15,000 to 18,000 in 2012 to secure the gains we have fought for and you have zero and you celebrate that, that’s pretty disappointing." 

Earlier on the show, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said both the United States and Iraq agreed to the plan to withdraw all U.S. troops. She also noted that it was the Bush administration that came to a security agreement in 2008 with Iraq to withdraw all U.S. combat forces. 

"You have a bipartisan commitment to withdraw combat troops," Clinton said.
She said Iraq is an independent nation and that they need to make decisions regarding their own security. 

"That is what we were there for: to give the Iraqi people the chance to make their own decisions," Clinton said.   

Source:  The Hill

Lt General John Allen Reveals that Obama Ignored Military's Advice on Afghanistan

Wonder who we should believe?  A Marine Corps Lt General with years of experience fighting or a White House lackey spokesman.  For us, Marine Lt General Allen wins hands down.  Is this more of Obama not listening to his advisers and going over the edge on his own or is this Obama putting politics ahead of our military once again?  It is probably a little of both.

He wants the 30,000 surge troops home by the election but that will mean withdrawing them in the middle of the fighting season which runs from April to November so he will end up putting more of our troops in harm's way for his political gain.  Don't believe most Americans are going to buy into the Obama spin as that seems to be all he does right not as he has gone into full political campaign mode.

What is he going to do when a new much tougher and harder hitting Republican gets in the race that has already taken him on?  How is he going to handle the fact more and more of the American public are realizing that his policies have been bad for America?  How Americans going to react with Obama putting our military in Afghanistan in harm's way for his own political benefit?  We will find out soon enough the answers to these questions.

Right now politics trumps all now for Obama which is scary for America!

We want to thank Senator Graham for being willing to ask General Allen the tough questions and General Allen for having the courage to answer truthfully.

General Reveals that Obama Ignored Military's Advice on Afghanistan5:21 PM, Jun 28, 2011 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES

Lieutenant General John Allen told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that the Afghanistan decision President Obama announced last week was not among the range of options the military provided to the commander in chief. Allen’s testimony directly contradicts claims from senior Obama administration officials from a background briefing before the president’s announcement.
In response to questioning from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Allen testified that Obama’s decision on the pace and size of Afghanistan withdrawals was “a more aggressive option than that which was presented.” 

Graham pressed him. “My question is: Was that a option?” 

Allen: “It was not.” 

Allen's claim, which came under oath, contradicts the line the White House had been providing reporters over the past week—that Obama simply chose one option among several presented by General David Petraeus. In a conference call last Wednesday, June 22, a reporter asked senior Obama administration officials about those options. “Did General Petraeus specifically endorse this plan, or was it one of the options that General Petraeus gave to the president?” 

The senior administration official twice claimed that the Obama decision was within the range of options the military presented to Obama. “In terms of General Petraeus, I think that, consistent with our approach to this, General Petraeus presented the president with a range of options for pursuing this drawdown. There were certainly options that went beyond what the president settled on in terms of the length of time that it would take to recover the surge and the pace that troops would come out – so there were options that would have kept troops in Afghanistan longer at a higher number. That said, the president’s decision was fully within the range of options that were presented to him and he has the full support of his national security team.” 

The official later came back to the question and reiterated his claim. “So to your first question I would certainly – I would certainly characterize it that way. There were a range. Some of those options would not have removed troops as fast as the president chose to do, but the president’s decision was fully in the range of options the president considered.” 

(The full transcript of the exchange is below; the full transcript of the call is at the link.) 

So the new top commander in Afghanistan says Obama went outside the military's range of options to devise his policy, and the White House says the president's policy was within that range of options. Who is right? 

We know that Petraeus and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have both testified that the administration's decision was "more aggressive" than their preferred option. And there has been considerable grumbling privately from senior military leaders about the policy. Among their greatest concerns: the White House’s insistence that the 2012 drawdown of the remaining 23,000 surge troops be completed by September. That means that drawdown will have to begin in late spring or early summer—a timeline for which there exists no serious military rationale. Afghanistan's "fighting season" typically lasts from April through November. (Last year, it continued into December because of warmer than usual temperatures.) So if the White House were to go forward with its policy as presented, the largest contingent of surge troops would be withdrawn during the heart of next year's fighting season. 

Excerpt:  Read More at The Weekly Standard