She was pretty intergral part in saving the N.F. Air Force Base. Buts that about it.
Reynolds had a whole lot more to do with that than Clinton. She showed and waved so she thinks she can claim it.
really?
No not really. I talked to the head of Clintons office here in Buffalo, the woman in charged spewed a list of meetings Clinton had with the departments responcible for the closing of Air Force bases around the country.
She helped, she hasn’t done much of anything else but I will credit her role with keeping that base.
^ And I’m sure the head of Clinton’s office is a real good unbiased source of information.
Think about when this was happening and who had the power.
Clinton, huge Bush basher.
Reynolds, huge Bush supporter. He’s the one who had the power and connections to save the base.
And you being a huge Clinton hater aren’t biased? If I have to choose between two biased opinoins I will pick the one who actually has somthing to do with the topic.
And if you think Reynolds has more say in Congress than Clinton you’re insane.
I also followed the N.Falls Base issue pretty closely and I never heard Reynolds name once where as I heard Clintons quite a few times.
Ok, how about not my opinions then:
http://www.tonawanda-news.com/thetonawandas/local_story_236115754.html?keyword=topstory
The second, which also hit airwaves this week, has Lockport Town Councilman Mark Crocker, an air force reserve retiree, speaking about the representative’s efforts on behalf of the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station.
“Saving the air base was critical. I feel Congressman Reynolds definitely saved the air base,” Crocker said in the ad.
And as long as you don’t have an issue with a source biased toward Hillary:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061004-5.html
There are few people more dedicated to bringing jobs to New York than Congressman Reynolds. During the last round of base closings, Tom led the effort to save the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, saving 3,000 upstate New York jobs.
http://www.nrcc.org/News/view_article.asp?id=1486
Top Democratic leaders such as Erie County Democratic Chairman Leonard R. Lenihan praised Reynolds’ service, as did Sen. Charles E. Schumer.
Tom Reynolds is a class act who will leave behind a long, strong legacy of accomplishment for the people from Western New York,” Schumer said. “From saving the Niagara air base to moving the Peace Bridge forward, to delivering federal aid following devastating storms, he knew how to work across party lines to get things done for the people of his district. It was a complete pleasure to work with Tom Reynolds, and I will miss him.
http://www.reynolds.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=238&Itemid=1
Maybe you just block out any time you see a Republican speaking, but even a Democrat should remember Reynolds on the news pretty much all the time talking about trying to save the air base back when it was in jeopardy.
And I’ll give credit to a Democrat, Chuck Schumer, because he had a lot to do with as well. He and Reynolds were the two people who did the most to save that air base. As usual though Hillary, miss junior senator from NY, rides on Chuck’s coat tails and claims she made everything happen.
I <3 Glenn Beck
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/04/beck.iraq/index.html
NEW YORK (CNN) – Perhaps it was the mental stress of preparing for a book tour in which she had to sell a marriage-destroying affair as a heartwarming memory. But before her book was released, Barbara Walters had this to say to Elisabeth Hasselbeck about Iraq on “The View” on April 8, 2008:
Hasselbeck: I think the surge has probably been one of the most effective strategies in this war.
Walters: No, it has not.
Hasselbeck: Oh, I disagree I think it absolutely has.
Walters: I think a few weeks ago it was considered that. Now there has been more violence than there has been in many months.
First of all, a “few weeks” of an upturn in violence shouldn’t negate “many months” of progress. But was Barbara Walters even right?
Looking at the site icasualties.org provides the answers. There had been a short-term spike in violence, but only compared with already significantly decreased post-surge levels.
Even with this spike, in the three weeks prior to her comments, coalition troop death rates had fallen by 62 percent from the previous May and were lower than the average rate of every previous year of the war.
With the benefit of hindsight, we can look back and ask: Was this really a sign of an upcoming turn for the worse in Iraq?
The following month after Walter’s comments, May 2008, held the lowest rate of troop fatalities of any month since the beginning of the war – as they decreased by 84 percent since the same month a year earlier. I’m not sure if Hasselbeck received an apology.
This is not to say that Iraq won’t become more violent – the situation is still delicate. And, I’m not trying to beat up on Barbara Walters, she herself pointed out that she’s no expert on these matters, and she’s surely a legendary journalist.
But she’s not alone in trying to dismiss the successes of the surge with such certainty and such lack of evidence.
It seems that for so many in the media and elsewhere, there is an incredible desire to find the negative. It’s an unquenchable thirst. How else could an essentially fired former press secretary’s questionable claims about the war be more important to cover than improvement in the actual war?
Terrorism worldwide has decreased by 40 percent since 2001, according to a Canadian study. The Iraqis have gained control of Basra and Sadr City. Iraqi oil outputs have hit a post-war high.
U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker said, “You are not going to hear me say that al Qaeda is defeated, but they’ve never been closer to defeat than they are now.”
CIA Director Michael Hayden says we are witnessing, “near strategic defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al Qaeda globally.” He says Osama bin Laden had “largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq War to recruit adherents,” according to The Washington Post. Such claims warrant a close and sober inspection, but the momentum is unquestionably on our side.
Yet, after a solid year of significant gains, pessimism still rules.
This is not a new phenomenon. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wrote “as many had foreseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results.” They made this statement on June 13, 2007 – three days before the surge was even fully implemented and three months before the military had said it was fair to judge the progress.
I’m not naïve. I understand that regardless of the actual progress, they were going to say it wasn’t working anyway. But if I may borrow some Eliot Spitzer-esque language: Don’t we pay them enough to at least fake their sincerity?
I have been a supporter of our efforts in Iraq from the beginning, although I’ve harshly criticized our tactics many times. But, it’s important to recognize what an opportunity we have right now.
We can win.
This is not about politics. Our winning this war does not mean that you have to vote for John McCain. I might not even vote for McCain.
Some Democrats have claimed responsibility for the success of the surge, saying that they forced Bush into changing strategies. Fine.
Nancy Pelosi says some of the success of the surge is based on the “the goodwill of the Iranians.” Whatever. We can argue about that later. After we’ve won.
I’m not asking you to think the war was a good idea, I’m just asking you to think winning the war is a good idea. We know where we’ve been. Now, let’s all honestly look at where we are. We haven’t seen a situation this promising for some time, let’s take advantage of it. I’m sure Barbara Walters will agree.
This part needs it’s own quote…
Widely reported or not, we have made great progress.
Terrorism worldwide has decreased by 40 percent since 2001, according to a Canadian study. The Iraqis have gained control of Basra and Sadr City. Iraqi oil outputs have hit a post-war high.
for half a trillion dollars we could have built replicas of basra and sadr city out of solid gold. who gives a fuck?
The voters are going to give a fuck when Obama keeps running on the “we can’t win, the McCain plan is a failed plan” ticket.
yeah, im sure his 100 years strategy will resonate with the voters much better. The same strategy that will cost your party 15 senate seats in two elections and 100 house seats.
Fucking LOL^
What are you LOLing at? We picked up 6 senate seats and 40 house seats in 06 and are projected to pick up more this year…if we get 60 in the Senate you’re fucked.
All on the promise that you would end the war and fix the economy. I didn’t see much change.
the McCain plan HAS failed. The surge was there to allow for political progress and that has been extremely lacking. It’s not just about less violence. We could stop all the violence tomorrow if we wanted by sending every member of the military into Iraq, however that’s not how you “win”.
Actually by a lot of reporting accounts it has succeeded and is turning Iraq around and making it a much safer place.
But You wont read that because Logic and Truth means nothing to liberals.
Links to said “reports”? When we are at pre-surge troop levels or less and the violence ceases, I will believe you. Until then, it’s still a crapshoot.
I’m not gonna do your homework for you.
The reports are there and not very hard to find if you look beyond the pessimistic everything is fucked liberal media.
Why open your mouth if you aren’t prepared to back up what you are talking about with facts. :roll:
and that is from a very biased editorial. Funny though, having a hard time finding much from US news sources :roll: Guess Indiana Jones or Hillary getting coffee in some shithole town is more news worthy
this is from an Australian news source (actual news)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23799921-20261,00.html