Even before Bush took the stage Tuesday night, John Kerry had ridden to the rescue to tell America what must be done to "win" in Iraq. While the rest of us might be under the impression that Kerry is not the president, Kerry himself labors away, safe in the knowledge that he probably should be.
Liberal Larry sees the spark of genius in the international peace-maker from Boston. I wonder why the rest of us don't?
Ever the optimist, Kerry predicted a gloomy outcome for the War in Iraq, unless Bush followed some key advice. Gleaned from previous Bush speeches and policy already in effect, Kerry's bold new ideas are perhaps our best chance to end the Quagmire in Iraq:
1. Bush must announce that the U.S. will not remain in Iraq permanently.
2. The Iraqis must be encouraged to form their own government and hold elections.
3. The Iraqis must be trained to defend themselves.
4. Saddam must be captured and held for trial.
Most importantly, a plan must be set for the withdrawal of our troops and presented to democrats in Congress or, cutting out the middle man, given directly to Al Zarqawi so he can get a jump on the killing fields when we depart.
Why would Kerry worry about the middle man now? He did not when he traveled to Paris during Vietnam to hold personal summits with the enemy. Perhaps Kerry and Zarqawi could put there heads together and find a way to get Kerry in front of a senate hearing so that he could singlehandedly end this ever-so-non-international effort.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Churchill's Back-Advocating the Killing of Officers
Ward Churchill splashes back onto the scene, via Jackson's Junction, and this time he is advocating a less that passive approach to conscientious objection.
"For those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who's already been inducted in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal. But let me ask you this: Would you render the same level of support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?"
"...Conscientious objection removes a given piece of cannon fodder from the fray. Fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect." - Ward Churchill, Portland, Oregon- 6/23/05
Churchill's latest comment only brings one question to mind: Would it be all right to “frag” his ass yet?
And to think, there was a time when calling Churchill anti-American was considered unsavory and a bit reactionary. Now it seems enlightened and a bit psychic even. I say send him to Gitmo for a vacation. He's earned it. And I don't want to hear about any A/C “torture” either. I'm just about ready for the real thing in this case.
"For those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who's already been inducted in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal. But let me ask you this: Would you render the same level of support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?"
"...Conscientious objection removes a given piece of cannon fodder from the fray. Fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect." - Ward Churchill, Portland, Oregon- 6/23/05
Churchill's latest comment only brings one question to mind: Would it be all right to “frag” his ass yet?
And to think, there was a time when calling Churchill anti-American was considered unsavory and a bit reactionary. Now it seems enlightened and a bit psychic even. I say send him to Gitmo for a vacation. He's earned it. And I don't want to hear about any A/C “torture” either. I'm just about ready for the real thing in this case.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
America Loses One of Our Best Historians
A quick note to inform readers of the passing of Shelby Foote. Anyone who has seen the Ken Burns documentary on the civil war is sure to remember Foote, who filled much of the film with wonderful anecdotes from the front lines and the rear eschalon.
He also wrote what is no doubt the single most substantive piece on the subject of the civil war, "The Civil War-A Narrative," which took roughly 20 years to write.
As the New York Times notes in the piece I have linked above, critics referred to Foote's drawl as "molasses over hominy," and I can't possibly think of a better way to describe the music of the man's voice. Ken Burns said of Foote, "He made the war real for us," and I couldn't agree more. Each volume of his three-part anthology had the look of a big-city phone book, but there has never been a more engaging and substantive work on the subject of the civil war, or perhaps any other.
Linton Weeks had this to add:
Maybe now the Civil War can finally be over.
He had his own internal conflict. He wanted to be known as a novelist but will forever be remembered as the author of a sweetly written, three-volume narrative history of the Civil War and as a television star because of his bourbon-voiced contributions to Ken Burns's PBS series on the war. His novels were good: His Civil War history was everlasting.
As a legacy, we should all be so lucky. To me his anthology was an addiction, and I have lost track of how many times I have read and re-read them. They were, and are, my favorite historical work and he, my favorite author.
Foote was a man I admired deeply, and though I never had the honor of meeting him, I will miss him as I would an old friend.
So long sir. And thank you...for everything.
The Party of Liars At It Again
Judging by the Democratic Party sound-bites from directly after Bush's speech last night, it is clear that they all got their talking points memo, and the talking point is Bush's use of 9/11 references in relation to the war on terror?
From Pelosi to Kerry, Reid to Durbin, and everyone in between, there is unanimous outrage that a President of the United States would reference the single-most significant attack on American soil in the context of a speech discussing the very war that resulted.
Am I missing something here?
Pelosi's remarks are typical of the whole bunch:
"The president's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments. He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
According to Pelosi, it is weak to note that we are in a war on terror because of the events of 9/11. I wonder what would be acceptable to her. Should we say that we are in a war on terror because the French don't bathe on Sunday? How about because Californians can't play hockey? Is that why we are in a war on terror?
We are in a war on terror because the events of 9/11 shook this country awake from it's long slumber of complacency regarding Islamic terrorism. That, according to Pelosi, is a weak argument. What an idiot she is. Rube city.
Also, she says there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq. This is similar to other Democratic idiots who today have been trying to nail Bush with drawing a link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein last night. Here is a link to the text of the speech. I invite anyone to go find me that quote. For that matter, find me any quote, anywhere, in which George W. Bush said that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Pelosi, and her politically retarded cohorts, couldn't possibly be more obtuse. We are in a war with Islamic terrorism. Not al Qaida, not Saddam Hussein, and not even Osama Bin Laden. Islamic terrorists and all who harbor them. Hussein had plenty of links to organized terrorism, from training camps to financial aid for terrorist bombers. Even the 9/11 Commission acknowledged that...openly. Christ on a crutch, even CBS knew it.
The left is spinning like tops today because that is all they have in the way of opposition to the war in Iraq. Spin. Everything that has fallen out of their mouths today by way of characterizing Bush's speech last night is a flat out lie. When they say there is no connection between Hussein and terrorism it is a lie. When they say that Bush is trying to link Hussein directly to 9/11 that is a lie. Since that is about the entirety of what they are saying today, they are, by definition, liars.
For a reply of more substance, less rant, check: Power Line. Hugh has all kinds of links.
From Pelosi to Kerry, Reid to Durbin, and everyone in between, there is unanimous outrage that a President of the United States would reference the single-most significant attack on American soil in the context of a speech discussing the very war that resulted.
Am I missing something here?
Pelosi's remarks are typical of the whole bunch:
"The president's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments. He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
According to Pelosi, it is weak to note that we are in a war on terror because of the events of 9/11. I wonder what would be acceptable to her. Should we say that we are in a war on terror because the French don't bathe on Sunday? How about because Californians can't play hockey? Is that why we are in a war on terror?
We are in a war on terror because the events of 9/11 shook this country awake from it's long slumber of complacency regarding Islamic terrorism. That, according to Pelosi, is a weak argument. What an idiot she is. Rube city.
Also, she says there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq. This is similar to other Democratic idiots who today have been trying to nail Bush with drawing a link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein last night. Here is a link to the text of the speech. I invite anyone to go find me that quote. For that matter, find me any quote, anywhere, in which George W. Bush said that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Pelosi, and her politically retarded cohorts, couldn't possibly be more obtuse. We are in a war with Islamic terrorism. Not al Qaida, not Saddam Hussein, and not even Osama Bin Laden. Islamic terrorists and all who harbor them. Hussein had plenty of links to organized terrorism, from training camps to financial aid for terrorist bombers. Even the 9/11 Commission acknowledged that...openly. Christ on a crutch, even CBS knew it.
The left is spinning like tops today because that is all they have in the way of opposition to the war in Iraq. Spin. Everything that has fallen out of their mouths today by way of characterizing Bush's speech last night is a flat out lie. When they say there is no connection between Hussein and terrorism it is a lie. When they say that Bush is trying to link Hussein directly to 9/11 that is a lie. Since that is about the entirety of what they are saying today, they are, by definition, liars.
For a reply of more substance, less rant, check: Power Line. Hugh has all kinds of links.
A Few Thoughts On Tonight's Speech
I missed President Bush's speech tonight as I was busy covering the slow death of a local township for The Forest Lake Times. Living in the wonderful information age though, as I do, I was able to read the speech in full. A special thanks to the link queen, Republican Jen, for getting me started so fast. Although I am sure could have found it, I checked her site first and sure enough, there it was.
The crux of the speech was to remind the American people what this is all about, and address the uber-left's increasingly shrill call for an exit strategy. That is one point that I will not address, because the whole notion of a timetable for withdrawl is so silly and myopic that it does not deserve consideration. It is simply another aspect of what Hugh Hewitt would call the "retreat and defeat" mentality of the left, which is bent on snatching defeat from the very jaws of victory.
There were, however, some interesting points made by the President that deserve highlighting.
Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Usama bin Laden: "This Third World War … is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation."
So, let's see. The Republicans agree that the war on terror is being fought in Iraq, and Bin Laden agrees that the war on terror is being fought in Iraq. That leaves the left, who apparently don't recognize a war on terror when they see one. Either that, or they would prefer it end in "victory and glory" for Bin Laden. That makes them extremely dim, or working for the other side. I'll let the reader decide which is more accurate.
These are savage acts of violence — but they have not brought the terrorists any closer to achieving their strategic objectives. The terrorists — both foreign and Iraqi — failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty. They failed to break our Coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war. They failed to prevent free elections. They failed to stop the formation of a democratic Iraqi government that represents all of Iraq's diverse population. And they failed to stop Iraqis from signing up in large numbers with the police forces and the army to defend their new democracy. (emphasis added)
I count no less than six massive strategic failures by terrorists who desire a victory in this war. They are indisputable. Contrarily, the coalition has achieved every goal it has set for itself thus far. Sometimes they have taken longer than expected, and other times they came at a higher price than expected, but nevertheless, every failure listed here was also a succes for us.
Can someone explain to me how that translates to "quagmire." To "abject failure." The war on terror is proceeding exactly as planned, except for the fact that it is indeed a war, which the left seems to have difficulty grasping. Did they expect the terrorist infrastructure to just give us these victories? Apparantly so.
More than 2,000 members of the Iraqi Security Forces have given their lives in the line of duty.
These are the people that don't seem to matter to the left. While they are always there, at the ready, to point out the over 1,700 American soldiers that have lost their lives in Iraq, for some reason Iraqi soldiers don't seem to tally in their figures, nor do Iraqi civilians, except when bogus figures can be used to pin deaths on the American military.
Do the Iraqi's that have given their lives in this war not deserve our respect and full measure?
The President addressed the nation tonight no doubt due to sagging poll support for the war. And once again he reminds us that the war is not about what is popular, but rather about what is right. Do I agree with everything he does? Hardly. But I voted for him originally because I was tired of politicians who based every decision on polls. And, in 2004 I proudly voted to re-elect him because he had proven my instinct spot on.
Personally, I have never been more proud of my country than I am for its undertaking of this massive effort to foment change in the Middle East. It was long overdue and it was right. My optimism for success is based on the long list of successes we have already enjoyed. Nevertheless, it continues to be an uphill battle.
Terrorist forces learned only too well from our time in Somalia that "weak" America can be made to retreat. It was Clinton's worst mistake and has made this job all that much harder. The Democratic Party has added to that presumption with their weak-kneed response to hard work.
But, cutting and running now would be worse than never having gone there in the first place. Not only would it leave Iraq to an uncertain and probably horrific future, but it will guarantee that when the war on terror is begun again, on some other battlefield, it will have once again been made harder by an immeasurable factor. It is hard at times, and heart-breaking at others. But, for the sake of our children, the children of Europe, and the children of the Middle East, we must stay the course.
Also posting: Captain's Quarters live blogged the whole thing.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Kos: Politicize the War, Win the Election
DailyKos is promoting a platform whereby Democrats are able to talk about the war in terms that they don't really subscribe too, but is sure to help them regain power in 2006. Because, after all, it's not winning the war that counts...it's winning elections.
So here are two ways to talk about the war that don't betray weakness:
We have a lot to be proud of over the past three years. We have freed the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator and given them their first taste of freedom...
...We have accomplished what we set out to do -- bring freedom to Iraq and rid the region of the specter of Saddam's terror.
But now it is time to let the Iraqis take charge of their own lives.
Indeed, according to Kos we have transformed an entire nation from that of dictatorship to that of freedom and democracy. Millions of people now enjoy basic freedoms that most have never tasted in their entire lives. And that, my Democratic candidate friends, is a perfect reason to promote a cut-and-run strategy in 2006.
Also, note the very first statement. Is Kos acknowledging that the Democrats have sounded "weak" up until now? That is quite an admission. I think he owes somebody an apology and a resignation.
"Weak" Democrats hoping to "hawk" their way into power may want to beware of Kos' advice however. His advice didn't work too well in the 2004 election, and after all, he was the first person on the left to suggest that Howard Dean would make a great DNC chair. Furthermore, it doesn't appear that Kos has been watching much news lately.
The American public has turned heavily against the war, despite the absence of an anti-war movement, despite the 24/7 cheerleading of the war in the cable news networks, and despite the lack of coherent Democratic opposition to the war. Democrats must ride that wave into 2006, and can do so in ways where they don't sound like hippy retreads.
What is NOT an option is remaining silent on the war, as so many Democrats would obviously prefer. (emphasis added)
To Kos' credit, he did include the word "coherent" in regards to Democratic opposition. That is certainly an element that has been missing. What Kos fails to see is that with all of the successes that he personally lists prior to this statement, opposition to the war is destined to sound incoherent.
To recap, Kos thinks the war has been a great success, and therefore we should elect politicians that are more capable of getting us out of there as soon as possible. The Democrats should deny their own conscience and pretend that they are solidly behind the successes in order to regain power in the house and senate.
Kos reveals something in this piece that most on the right have known since the very beginning. The Democratic (not liberal) opposition to the war is politically driven. It is not that they want the war over or even, dare I say, that they want America to fail. They simply can't stand that Republicans might get credit for it. For them, Kos has a plan to get elected, get in charge, and ultimately, take credit for any positive things that result in Iraq.
What a great American he is.
UPDATE: If there is anyone who actually buys Kos' nonsense that American media has acted as a "cheerleader" for the war, here is The Good News In Iraq Part 30 from Chrenkoff. Ask yourself, how many of these things were you made aware of through main-stream media sources....(chirp, chirp, chirp)...That's what I thought.
Also posting: The Museum Of Left Wing Lunacy, Chrenkoff
So here are two ways to talk about the war that don't betray weakness:
We have a lot to be proud of over the past three years. We have freed the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator and given them their first taste of freedom...
...We have accomplished what we set out to do -- bring freedom to Iraq and rid the region of the specter of Saddam's terror.
But now it is time to let the Iraqis take charge of their own lives.
Indeed, according to Kos we have transformed an entire nation from that of dictatorship to that of freedom and democracy. Millions of people now enjoy basic freedoms that most have never tasted in their entire lives. And that, my Democratic candidate friends, is a perfect reason to promote a cut-and-run strategy in 2006.
Also, note the very first statement. Is Kos acknowledging that the Democrats have sounded "weak" up until now? That is quite an admission. I think he owes somebody an apology and a resignation.
"Weak" Democrats hoping to "hawk" their way into power may want to beware of Kos' advice however. His advice didn't work too well in the 2004 election, and after all, he was the first person on the left to suggest that Howard Dean would make a great DNC chair. Furthermore, it doesn't appear that Kos has been watching much news lately.
The American public has turned heavily against the war, despite the absence of an anti-war movement, despite the 24/7 cheerleading of the war in the cable news networks, and despite the lack of coherent Democratic opposition to the war. Democrats must ride that wave into 2006, and can do so in ways where they don't sound like hippy retreads.
What is NOT an option is remaining silent on the war, as so many Democrats would obviously prefer. (emphasis added)
To Kos' credit, he did include the word "coherent" in regards to Democratic opposition. That is certainly an element that has been missing. What Kos fails to see is that with all of the successes that he personally lists prior to this statement, opposition to the war is destined to sound incoherent.
To recap, Kos thinks the war has been a great success, and therefore we should elect politicians that are more capable of getting us out of there as soon as possible. The Democrats should deny their own conscience and pretend that they are solidly behind the successes in order to regain power in the house and senate.
Kos reveals something in this piece that most on the right have known since the very beginning. The Democratic (not liberal) opposition to the war is politically driven. It is not that they want the war over or even, dare I say, that they want America to fail. They simply can't stand that Republicans might get credit for it. For them, Kos has a plan to get elected, get in charge, and ultimately, take credit for any positive things that result in Iraq.
What a great American he is.
UPDATE: If there is anyone who actually buys Kos' nonsense that American media has acted as a "cheerleader" for the war, here is The Good News In Iraq Part 30 from Chrenkoff. Ask yourself, how many of these things were you made aware of through main-stream media sources....(chirp, chirp, chirp)...That's what I thought.
Also posting: The Museum Of Left Wing Lunacy, Chrenkoff
The State of Things
Davids Medienkritik has a disturbing story out of Berlin regarding the very dim future of Checkpoint Charlie. The monument there has over one thousand crosses dedicated to all those who was murdered trying to escape East German Communist rule.What makes this story all the more disturbing is the obvious conflict of interest involved. As we indicated above, the Communist PDS is currently a member of the coalition that governs the city of Berlin. But prior to 1990, the PDS was known as the SED, the party that ruled East Germany with an absolutist iron fist. It was the SED dictatorship that was directly responsible for the hundreds of murders that the crosses at Checkpoint Charlie memorialize. And guess what? The PDS wants the monument torn down!
It looks like the rewrite of history is well under way in Berlin, whose Senate for Urban Planning thinks the monument adds to a "Disneyland" atmosphere and added:
...the East German dictatorship cannot be equated with the atrocities of the Third Reich.
One can only speculate as to the choice of date, but it is hard to imagine that it is not a big "screw you" to the U.S. Medienkritik comments that regardless of intention the date is insulting to many.
Certainly, we feel that the outrageous timing of the monument's destruction is incredibly insensitive not only to the families of those killed at the wall, but also to all those Americans and their families who served in Berlin and around Germany during the Cold War.
Perhaps we in this world are doomed to continue repeating the same mistakes over and over again. As long as the symbols of freedom are to be erased by any governmental body that finds them unseemly, what reminders will we have that people craved it enough to risk their lives?
Also posting: Depleted Uranium, Daily Pundit, Tom McMahon
Monday, June 27, 2005
Girls Gone Wild-Gitmo Edition
Via Power Line, 17 former Gitmo detainees have been released by Pakistani officials after being held in a local jail for the last nine months. Having been imprisoned so long for nothing, the peace loving Islamic missionaries came out with some interesting sexual fantasies.
Rahman claimed female interrogators at Guantanamo stripped in front of prisoners despite pleas for them not to — echoing allegations leveled by other inmates, although not by the other five inmates who spoke to AP on Monday.
"Girls would interrogate us. They would take off their clothes in front of us. They would make different poses in front of us and they would sit on our chests," said Rahman. "This was shameful."
I'll bet those guys can't wait to get home. (Cue dreamy music and wavy picture)
Free, but sexually deprived terrorist (FSDT): “Hey guys, what did you do at Gitmo?”
Former detainee, also sexually deprived (FDSD): “Oh man, there was this chick. We were hanging out in the interrogation rooms together and she was like...all over me. I told her, hey, I've got a girlfriend back home but she just wouldn't stop. She was all over me.”
FSDT: “Was she hot?”
FDSD: “Hot? Dude...she was from the CIA. Of course she was hot. And way into me too. She couldn't keep her eyes off of my beard. So anyway, we're just sitting around one day, discussing all of the cool things I know about manipulating people into killing tons of innocent civilians, and I can tell that she's really getting off on it, you know?”
FSDT: “Oh man, did you guys do it?”
FDSD: “Naaa..we didn't go all the way. Like I told her, I have a girlfriend. But she was so hot and bothered she just wouldn't stop. So, I'm describing that time...you know...that day we beheaded that guy? And she just starts taking off her clothes right there in front of me. Next thing I know she is sitting on my lap...kind of...working her body back and forth. Then she would stand in front of me and pose like those girls in the Koran do. Wait...no...that's Playboy. Anyway, it was soooo hot dude.”
FSDT: “It sounds like it.”
FDSD: “Ya...but the mood got ruined when she took my Koran, set it on the floor and peed on it. Don't get me wrong, peeing on the book didn't bug me because I knew it would give the perfect chance to join Jihad again, I just didn't know that girls actually peed. It was quite a shocker. I wonder if they poop too?”
FSDT: "Wow man, it sounds like you had a pretty good time."
FDSD: "Ya...It was way cool."
Fade out on image of both terrorists in search of on unsuspecting, burka-clad, teenager to have some fun with, followed by her death-by-stoning for sins against God.
Rahman claimed female interrogators at Guantanamo stripped in front of prisoners despite pleas for them not to — echoing allegations leveled by other inmates, although not by the other five inmates who spoke to AP on Monday.
"Girls would interrogate us. They would take off their clothes in front of us. They would make different poses in front of us and they would sit on our chests," said Rahman. "This was shameful."
I'll bet those guys can't wait to get home. (Cue dreamy music and wavy picture)
Free, but sexually deprived terrorist (FSDT): “Hey guys, what did you do at Gitmo?”
Former detainee, also sexually deprived (FDSD): “Oh man, there was this chick. We were hanging out in the interrogation rooms together and she was like...all over me. I told her, hey, I've got a girlfriend back home but she just wouldn't stop. She was all over me.”
FSDT: “Was she hot?”
FDSD: “Hot? Dude...she was from the CIA. Of course she was hot. And way into me too. She couldn't keep her eyes off of my beard. So anyway, we're just sitting around one day, discussing all of the cool things I know about manipulating people into killing tons of innocent civilians, and I can tell that she's really getting off on it, you know?”
FSDT: “Oh man, did you guys do it?”
FDSD: “Naaa..we didn't go all the way. Like I told her, I have a girlfriend. But she was so hot and bothered she just wouldn't stop. So, I'm describing that time...you know...that day we beheaded that guy? And she just starts taking off her clothes right there in front of me. Next thing I know she is sitting on my lap...kind of...working her body back and forth. Then she would stand in front of me and pose like those girls in the Koran do. Wait...no...that's Playboy. Anyway, it was soooo hot dude.”
FSDT: “It sounds like it.”
FDSD: “Ya...but the mood got ruined when she took my Koran, set it on the floor and peed on it. Don't get me wrong, peeing on the book didn't bug me because I knew it would give the perfect chance to join Jihad again, I just didn't know that girls actually peed. It was quite a shocker. I wonder if they poop too?”
FSDT: "Wow man, it sounds like you had a pretty good time."
FDSD: "Ya...It was way cool."
Fade out on image of both terrorists in search of on unsuspecting, burka-clad, teenager to have some fun with, followed by her death-by-stoning for sins against God.
Hillary Flexing Her Muscles
The difference between Democrats and Republicans, and the media's treatment of both, can be viewed once again through the prism of Edward Klein's new book on Hillary Clinton. Personally, I suspect the book is mostly trash, something akin to the hatchet job Kitty Kelley did recently on Laura Bush, although the resumes of the authors clearly favors Klein.
I seem to recall that one of the assertion's in Kelley's book was that Laura Bush was a drug dealer in college. Like Kelley's book, Klein's is full of anonymous, and unsubstantiated sourcing.
Perhaps the difference between the two books is in the press coverage of each. While the White House made hardly a peep about the Kelley book, except to perhaps note that it was unworthy of the time needed to comment, Kelley appeared on essentially every major news and magazine show on the networks and cable, without objection from the White House.
Conversally, reports are surfacing that Hillary Clinton's machine is putting immense amounts of pressure on television and radio to not interview Klein. This, from Newsmax:
Hillary's top aides and supporters have also launched a major effort to stop any discussion of the book over the TV airwaves. So far, their censorship effort has been a huge success in stopping Klein from appearing on television.
Though the celebrated author was scheduled to appear on more than a half dozen major TV network shows, all have cancelled except one, Fox's "Hannity & Colmes."
Typical of liberal overkill, Hillary's attempts to censor television, though successful, will undoubtedly lend credibility to the book. It probably would have been better to simply ignore it.
On a side-note, can you imagine all of the leftist's screaming were it reported that the White House was pressuring television to censor Kitty Kelley? The sky would have fallen and the outcry of censorship and call for resignations would have been heard from across the country.
Not as surprising, is the fact that the networks and cable news have been more than happy to drop Klein. Chris Mathews called the book a "big piece of crap;" a description that no doubt applies to Kitty Kelley's hatchet piece as well, which Mathews was more than happy to publicize by interviewing Kelley on "Hardball" shortly after the book's release. In fact, Kelley appeared on all sorts of shows.
Kelley was given star billing on show's like NBC's "Today" show (with an unprecedented interview over three days); CNBC's "Capital Report;" CNN's "Newsnight" hosted by Aaron Brown; CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight;" CNN's "American Morning" with Paula Zahn; MSNBC's "Hardball" with Chris Matthews, among others.
Despite Klein's lack of access to these shows, the book has been ranked #1 on the Amazon bestseller list.
And now, a look at how local leftists are dealing with the news, from Les Enfants Terrible:
Early news reports indicate that a groundswell of civil libertarians on the left are rising up to demand Hillary call off the dogs and allow Klein to be interviewed, noting the unAmerican-ness of censoring an author simply because one disagrees with the sentiment contained within. Locally, leftists who were yesterday crying on the steps of the local herbal medicine store in response to new stem cell research have rehydrated and are uniting in righteous indignation at the actions of Hillary's oppresive public relations army.
As this story is being written, permanent markers and colorful posterboard are being married into angry signs depicting Hillary with a narrow black moustache, wearing a swastika on her shoulder, and in some cases, with her face caricatured to resemble that of a monkey.
Naaaa...I'm just kidding. They couldn't give two shits if Hillary censors Klein. I just made that up.
Also posting: The photo of Hillary at sisu is a must see.
I seem to recall that one of the assertion's in Kelley's book was that Laura Bush was a drug dealer in college. Like Kelley's book, Klein's is full of anonymous, and unsubstantiated sourcing.
Perhaps the difference between the two books is in the press coverage of each. While the White House made hardly a peep about the Kelley book, except to perhaps note that it was unworthy of the time needed to comment, Kelley appeared on essentially every major news and magazine show on the networks and cable, without objection from the White House.
Conversally, reports are surfacing that Hillary Clinton's machine is putting immense amounts of pressure on television and radio to not interview Klein. This, from Newsmax:
Hillary's top aides and supporters have also launched a major effort to stop any discussion of the book over the TV airwaves. So far, their censorship effort has been a huge success in stopping Klein from appearing on television.
Though the celebrated author was scheduled to appear on more than a half dozen major TV network shows, all have cancelled except one, Fox's "Hannity & Colmes."
Typical of liberal overkill, Hillary's attempts to censor television, though successful, will undoubtedly lend credibility to the book. It probably would have been better to simply ignore it.
On a side-note, can you imagine all of the leftist's screaming were it reported that the White House was pressuring television to censor Kitty Kelley? The sky would have fallen and the outcry of censorship and call for resignations would have been heard from across the country.
Not as surprising, is the fact that the networks and cable news have been more than happy to drop Klein. Chris Mathews called the book a "big piece of crap;" a description that no doubt applies to Kitty Kelley's hatchet piece as well, which Mathews was more than happy to publicize by interviewing Kelley on "Hardball" shortly after the book's release. In fact, Kelley appeared on all sorts of shows.
Kelley was given star billing on show's like NBC's "Today" show (with an unprecedented interview over three days); CNBC's "Capital Report;" CNN's "Newsnight" hosted by Aaron Brown; CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight;" CNN's "American Morning" with Paula Zahn; MSNBC's "Hardball" with Chris Matthews, among others.
Despite Klein's lack of access to these shows, the book has been ranked #1 on the Amazon bestseller list.
And now, a look at how local leftists are dealing with the news, from Les Enfants Terrible:
Early news reports indicate that a groundswell of civil libertarians on the left are rising up to demand Hillary call off the dogs and allow Klein to be interviewed, noting the unAmerican-ness of censoring an author simply because one disagrees with the sentiment contained within. Locally, leftists who were yesterday crying on the steps of the local herbal medicine store in response to new stem cell research have rehydrated and are uniting in righteous indignation at the actions of Hillary's oppresive public relations army.
As this story is being written, permanent markers and colorful posterboard are being married into angry signs depicting Hillary with a narrow black moustache, wearing a swastika on her shoulder, and in some cases, with her face caricatured to resemble that of a monkey.
Naaaa...I'm just kidding. They couldn't give two shits if Hillary censors Klein. I just made that up.
Also posting: The photo of Hillary at sisu is a must see.
How To Be A Famous Blogger
The Jawa Report is continuing it's coverage of Jessica Cutler, AKA the Washingtonienne, who is celebrating her one-year anniversary as a "famous" blogger. It's how she got famous that provides a lesson for all of us struggling journalists.
From what I can gather, Cutler was "discovered" by Wonkette's Ana Marie Cox, who linked Cutler's blog when she discovered that Cutler had been paid to have sex with a married Bush staffer on multiple occasions. In fact, Cutler's blog made claims that she was having sexual realtionships with no less than six beltway politicos at one time. This would certainly appeal to Cox, who is herself famous for an obsession with anal sex, which somehow made her a perfect candidate to cover the Democratic National Conmvention in 2004.
For the g-rated version of the story check Wizbang, but for a more accurate synopsis of how to become famous in the blogosphere, Dr. Rusty Shackleford has the time-line:
Girl writes blog: nobody notices.
Girl links other blogs: nobody notices.
Girl links blog of Capital Hill staffer, complete with sordid details of ass-sex for money: every one notices.
Girl continues writing blog, a lot more butt-sex references: MSM falls over self loving girl's blog, put her up as poster-child of blogosphere.
Nick Denton buys girl's blog: girl now hires interns to write for her.
Capital Hill whore poses for Playboy, gets book deal: a lot of Google hits for South Parkosphere because they all link to pics.
I've been going about this all wrong. All this time I thought, if I provide timely news and some witty commentary, perhaps over time I too could join the ranks of the read. Instead, I should have been out nailing every politician I could find. Then I could have a book deal, get invited to cover conventions, pose for Playgirl, and become the "poster child of the blogosphere."
Hmmm....I want to be a famous blogger, but I also prefer the "exit only" distinction that has always, and currently, applies to my backside. I want to be taken seriously, but was unprepared for the entry-level prostitution qualification.
I just don't know what the "right thing" is anymore. Is there a way to be well-read without first being...well...reamed?
Also posting: The LLama Butchers, Michelle Malkin (old)
From what I can gather, Cutler was "discovered" by Wonkette's Ana Marie Cox, who linked Cutler's blog when she discovered that Cutler had been paid to have sex with a married Bush staffer on multiple occasions. In fact, Cutler's blog made claims that she was having sexual realtionships with no less than six beltway politicos at one time. This would certainly appeal to Cox, who is herself famous for an obsession with anal sex, which somehow made her a perfect candidate to cover the Democratic National Conmvention in 2004.
For the g-rated version of the story check Wizbang, but for a more accurate synopsis of how to become famous in the blogosphere, Dr. Rusty Shackleford has the time-line:
Girl writes blog: nobody notices.
Girl links other blogs: nobody notices.
Girl links blog of Capital Hill staffer, complete with sordid details of ass-sex for money: every one notices.
Girl continues writing blog, a lot more butt-sex references: MSM falls over self loving girl's blog, put her up as poster-child of blogosphere.
Nick Denton buys girl's blog: girl now hires interns to write for her.
Capital Hill whore poses for Playboy, gets book deal: a lot of Google hits for South Parkosphere because they all link to pics.
I've been going about this all wrong. All this time I thought, if I provide timely news and some witty commentary, perhaps over time I too could join the ranks of the read. Instead, I should have been out nailing every politician I could find. Then I could have a book deal, get invited to cover conventions, pose for Playgirl, and become the "poster child of the blogosphere."
Hmmm....I want to be a famous blogger, but I also prefer the "exit only" distinction that has always, and currently, applies to my backside. I want to be taken seriously, but was unprepared for the entry-level prostitution qualification.
I just don't know what the "right thing" is anymore. Is there a way to be well-read without first being...well...reamed?
Also posting: The LLama Butchers, Michelle Malkin (old)
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Now What Will We Do With the Babies?
The "this has nothing to do with abortion" pro-embryonic stem-call research crowd took a shot to the chin this weekend as a new study, completed by scientists in Pittsburgh, provided some startling results.
It had been thought that embryonic stem cells were more "robust," which provided the perfect impetus to create breeding farms of little, very early stage tots, for harvest as a research tool that, despite that he is already dead, might still save Christopher Reeves. New research though, shows adult stem cells to be just as resilient as baby ones, despite the fact that 51% percent of those cells hold the dreaded "voted for Bush" gene.
If the study indeed holds up to scrutiny, it will be a devastating blow to an entire sect of the American population that was much more comfortable with science when it came at the expense of another human life. Rumor has it that, following their successful campaign to prolong human life by at least a year or two on average by creating "Matrix"-like baby trees, the next step would have been to declassify all of the wonderful medical advances by Nazi doctors, who performed valuable research on people who, "let's face it" they say, were going to die anyway.
This new study puts a major dent in those plans.
The cry has gone out from Blue America already. "Without scientific advances to fall back on, how will we further erode Jesus-land's irrational attachment to 'life?'" one well-intentioned liberal asked rhetorically. Another simply sat on a curb at the local herbal medicine store and wept uncontrollably.
Nevertheless, the battle is far from over. In a frightfully organized campaign, pro-baby farm forces are calling on all of there friends in the main-stream media to insure that the messsage of this study does not reach the average American. "It simply would not do to have all of these medical advances come from adult stem cells, when the same research could be done, and we could farm babies," said one local do-gooder, who sees embryonic stem cell research as "the killing of two birds with one stone," if indeed that pun can be pardoned.
One thing is clear. If those who prefer "backwoods" science, which seeks to prolong and perhaps even save lives without the added benefit of embryo factories, they will face an uphill battle. As many of the deeply-caring leftists that I interviewed indicated, "this isn't just about research. This is about our right to use fetuses for things that makes sense, like medical research, biodegradable fertilizer, or even a tasty garnish."
Also posting: ProLife Blogs, Stones Cry Out.
It had been thought that embryonic stem cells were more "robust," which provided the perfect impetus to create breeding farms of little, very early stage tots, for harvest as a research tool that, despite that he is already dead, might still save Christopher Reeves. New research though, shows adult stem cells to be just as resilient as baby ones, despite the fact that 51% percent of those cells hold the dreaded "voted for Bush" gene.
If the study indeed holds up to scrutiny, it will be a devastating blow to an entire sect of the American population that was much more comfortable with science when it came at the expense of another human life. Rumor has it that, following their successful campaign to prolong human life by at least a year or two on average by creating "Matrix"-like baby trees, the next step would have been to declassify all of the wonderful medical advances by Nazi doctors, who performed valuable research on people who, "let's face it" they say, were going to die anyway.
This new study puts a major dent in those plans.
The cry has gone out from Blue America already. "Without scientific advances to fall back on, how will we further erode Jesus-land's irrational attachment to 'life?'" one well-intentioned liberal asked rhetorically. Another simply sat on a curb at the local herbal medicine store and wept uncontrollably.
Nevertheless, the battle is far from over. In a frightfully organized campaign, pro-baby farm forces are calling on all of there friends in the main-stream media to insure that the messsage of this study does not reach the average American. "It simply would not do to have all of these medical advances come from adult stem cells, when the same research could be done, and we could farm babies," said one local do-gooder, who sees embryonic stem cell research as "the killing of two birds with one stone," if indeed that pun can be pardoned.
One thing is clear. If those who prefer "backwoods" science, which seeks to prolong and perhaps even save lives without the added benefit of embryo factories, they will face an uphill battle. As many of the deeply-caring leftists that I interviewed indicated, "this isn't just about research. This is about our right to use fetuses for things that makes sense, like medical research, biodegradable fertilizer, or even a tasty garnish."
Also posting: ProLife Blogs, Stones Cry Out.
Democrats Are Not Afraid To Fight
What would a weekend be without an installment from Liberal Larry, who this week goes on a tirade against KKKarl Rove and his "treatment" of liberals recently.
In the wake of the terrorist attacks, America was united in their grief for the thousands who died without dignity. But for some, the grief didn’t make the natural transition into guilt and shame for what American imperialism has done to stoke the fires of hatred in the Middle East. Rather, a fascist furvor of unbridled jingoism swept the land. Soldiers were lionized. Liberals were demonized. France was mocked and ridiculed. “Bush = Hitler” saturday morning cartoons were banned from the airwaves. As progressives watched in horror, the red staters took to flying their flags, singing “God Bless America”, and fawning over the military. It was a slap in the face of those of us who despise God, America, and the military, yet kept our yaps shut until well into 9/12 for the sake of national unity.
So much for "tough love."
We're sorry Larry. We didn't realize that our patriotism and desire for freedom around the world caused the left so much personal anguish. Might I suggest a new entitlement whereby, frustrated and forsaken leftists receive a healthy government stipend for the psychiatric care necessary to feel whole again. It is personally disturbing to me, and should be to all conservatives, that so many of our American brethren are walking around with such an unhealthy mental disorder.
Bring back compassionate conservatism. Insitutionalize now!
In the wake of the terrorist attacks, America was united in their grief for the thousands who died without dignity. But for some, the grief didn’t make the natural transition into guilt and shame for what American imperialism has done to stoke the fires of hatred in the Middle East. Rather, a fascist furvor of unbridled jingoism swept the land. Soldiers were lionized. Liberals were demonized. France was mocked and ridiculed. “Bush = Hitler” saturday morning cartoons were banned from the airwaves. As progressives watched in horror, the red staters took to flying their flags, singing “God Bless America”, and fawning over the military. It was a slap in the face of those of us who despise God, America, and the military, yet kept our yaps shut until well into 9/12 for the sake of national unity.
So much for "tough love."
We're sorry Larry. We didn't realize that our patriotism and desire for freedom around the world caused the left so much personal anguish. Might I suggest a new entitlement whereby, frustrated and forsaken leftists receive a healthy government stipend for the psychiatric care necessary to feel whole again. It is personally disturbing to me, and should be to all conservatives, that so many of our American brethren are walking around with such an unhealthy mental disorder.
Bring back compassionate conservatism. Insitutionalize now!
Evil Tax Cuts Help Everybody
William Kristol opines that Social Security reform is going nowhere in the near future, and surprisingly, that is fine with me. While the left's dishonest smear tactics may have borne fruit in the short run, the foundation of need has been poured and the seed of better returns through "ownership" has been planted. I have no doubt that the longer the idea of personal accounts is allowed to sink into the American psyche, the more it will come to be seen as not only a good idea, but the right thing to do. But I digress...
Along the way, Kristol gives a synopsis of the growth caused by Bush's "evil tax cuts for the rich."
The 2003 cuts in personal income rates, and in the tax rates on dividends and capital gains, have helped produce economic growth of better than 4 percent a year--as non-tax-cutting European economies have stagnated. Unemployment here is down to 5.1 percent, while it remains 10 percent or more in Germany and France. The Dow is up by about 24 percent since May 2003, and capital spending by business is up some 22 percent.
And tax revenues are up. As Stephen Moore has pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, the supply-side Laffer curve has worked. Federal tax receipts are up by over 15 percent so far this fiscal year--and state tax receipts are up 7.5 percent. Individual and corporate receipts are up some 30 percent in the two years since the tax cut. The budget deficit looks as if it will be down by some $60 billion this year.
The information in the second paragraph is what drives the left completely nuts and generally causes a complete intellectual meltdown. The prevailing theme of the left is that tax cuts lined the pockets of the rich and prevented our benevolent government from doing it's good work across the nation. In fact, the tax cuts and the subsequent growth realized from them have caused tax receipts to rise at levels far exceeding pre-tax cut predictions. In short, the tax cuts have generated more tax revenue, not less.
Success in the private sector is what breeds a healthy government. The progress that has been bred in both areas is what John Kerry promised to repeal were he to be elected, and what the Democratic Party will fight hard this fall to render useless.
Along the way, Kristol gives a synopsis of the growth caused by Bush's "evil tax cuts for the rich."
The 2003 cuts in personal income rates, and in the tax rates on dividends and capital gains, have helped produce economic growth of better than 4 percent a year--as non-tax-cutting European economies have stagnated. Unemployment here is down to 5.1 percent, while it remains 10 percent or more in Germany and France. The Dow is up by about 24 percent since May 2003, and capital spending by business is up some 22 percent.
And tax revenues are up. As Stephen Moore has pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, the supply-side Laffer curve has worked. Federal tax receipts are up by over 15 percent so far this fiscal year--and state tax receipts are up 7.5 percent. Individual and corporate receipts are up some 30 percent in the two years since the tax cut. The budget deficit looks as if it will be down by some $60 billion this year.
The information in the second paragraph is what drives the left completely nuts and generally causes a complete intellectual meltdown. The prevailing theme of the left is that tax cuts lined the pockets of the rich and prevented our benevolent government from doing it's good work across the nation. In fact, the tax cuts and the subsequent growth realized from them have caused tax receipts to rise at levels far exceeding pre-tax cut predictions. In short, the tax cuts have generated more tax revenue, not less.
Success in the private sector is what breeds a healthy government. The progress that has been bred in both areas is what John Kerry promised to repeal were he to be elected, and what the Democratic Party will fight hard this fall to render useless.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Fashioning a Pre-Determined Outcome
I couldn't bail out of town for the day without leaving behind a "weekend read" for the faithful. As per specifications, this weekend brings more humor. However, this week's installment, courtesy of Cap, comes from a source a bit more mainstream.
Morgan Spurlock, of "Super Size Me," fame, returns with a half-hour weekly "documentary" and this week's episode is a doozy. Mr. Stacy, the episode's main character, spends a month with a muslim family and deconstructs all of the stereotypes clung too desperately by ignorant Americans. We know this because the outcome of the episode was predetermined.
OpinionJournal's Debbie Schlussel thought that a peculiar quality for a documentary and inquired as to the irregularity.
I asked the show's executive producers--all of whom worked on "The Awful Truth With Michael Moore," a cable TV show--how this could be a documentary when they had decided the outcome in advance. Wasn't it possible that Mr. Stacy would come out seeing that there isn't Islamophobia to the extent that the Muslim community claims? Might he see that there is disturbingly strong support in the Detroit-area Islamic community for terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah--a fact regularly documented even in the normally pliant Detroit media?
No, the producers told me. "Morgan wants the show to demonstrate to America that we are Islamophobic and that 9/11's biggest victims are Muslims."
Alrighty then, as long as we're coming at this thing from a place of honesty.
When a piece like this comes along and provides eight-by-ten glossies of the modern liberal train wreck, it is not suprising that Cap, with his penchant for rubber-necking leftist disaster areas, enjoyed it thoroughly. Enough, in fact, to send along some thoughts.
I had my suspicions about Sperlock of Thirty Days fame, especially after he bragged of his ACLU membership on his first show of the TV series.
On that episode he and his girl friend lived on minimum wage for thirty days and struggled mightily to make rent etc. They should have done what most minimum wage earners do and live with their parents while attending school and spend their money on gas and beer.
BTW I love the opinion and actions of the Imam at the end of the piece... Its probably the first time a Muslim has made me laugh.
If the excerpt I provided isn't enticement enough, or the curiosity of watching a show made by a man that once tried to kill himself with Big Mac's, certainly the rare promise of Islamic comedy will get you to read the whole thing.
Also posting: The Art of the Blog
Morgan Spurlock, of "Super Size Me," fame, returns with a half-hour weekly "documentary" and this week's episode is a doozy. Mr. Stacy, the episode's main character, spends a month with a muslim family and deconstructs all of the stereotypes clung too desperately by ignorant Americans. We know this because the outcome of the episode was predetermined.
OpinionJournal's Debbie Schlussel thought that a peculiar quality for a documentary and inquired as to the irregularity.
I asked the show's executive producers--all of whom worked on "The Awful Truth With Michael Moore," a cable TV show--how this could be a documentary when they had decided the outcome in advance. Wasn't it possible that Mr. Stacy would come out seeing that there isn't Islamophobia to the extent that the Muslim community claims? Might he see that there is disturbingly strong support in the Detroit-area Islamic community for terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah--a fact regularly documented even in the normally pliant Detroit media?
No, the producers told me. "Morgan wants the show to demonstrate to America that we are Islamophobic and that 9/11's biggest victims are Muslims."
Alrighty then, as long as we're coming at this thing from a place of honesty.
When a piece like this comes along and provides eight-by-ten glossies of the modern liberal train wreck, it is not suprising that Cap, with his penchant for rubber-necking leftist disaster areas, enjoyed it thoroughly. Enough, in fact, to send along some thoughts.
I had my suspicions about Sperlock of Thirty Days fame, especially after he bragged of his ACLU membership on his first show of the TV series.
On that episode he and his girl friend lived on minimum wage for thirty days and struggled mightily to make rent etc. They should have done what most minimum wage earners do and live with their parents while attending school and spend their money on gas and beer.
BTW I love the opinion and actions of the Imam at the end of the piece... Its probably the first time a Muslim has made me laugh.
If the excerpt I provided isn't enticement enough, or the curiosity of watching a show made by a man that once tried to kill himself with Big Mac's, certainly the rare promise of Islamic comedy will get you to read the whole thing.
Also posting: The Art of the Blog
Friday, June 24, 2005
See You on Sunday
I'm taking a dozen nine-year-old girls to Duluth tomorrow morning for a soccer tournament.
I'll be back on Sunday. Have a nice weekend.
I'll be back on Sunday. Have a nice weekend.
Rove=Durbin Cathing On
(I know: editing error in the title. Supposed to be "Catching." Can't change now though, already sent out the trackbacks.)
Yesterday we theorized that the left's manufactured outrage regarding Karl Rove's remarks about liberals were a thinly veiled attempt to equate Rove with Dick Durbin, whose remarks endangered troops in a time of war and offered the enemy some much needed propaganda on a silver patter.
If there is one thing about the left that I have learned it is this: Any time one of their politicians is disgraced through their own actions, they respond with mock indignation at some perceived affront by a Republican in an effort to generate similar outrage by the people. It works almost never. Nevertheless, the moonbat set is screaming for an apology and even Rove's resignation today.
Sound familiar?
It is so obviously an attempt to shame Rove as Durbin shamed himself.
Our nuanced left, of course, misses the obvious difference between the remarks of the two men. Not only did Rove's remarks fail to endanger anyone or anything, except for perhaps Democratic election hopes in 2006 and 2008, they were for all intents and purposes, correct.
Nevertheless, liberals on the hill are atwitter with mock indignation, proving once again that they have no idea how to tell the difference between raw-bones propaganda and a characterization of a belief system.
"[Rove's comments were] a slap in the face to the unity that America achieved after Sept. 11, 2001." -- Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
"If the president really believed his own words of unity, then he should fire Karl Rove... [Rove] owes an apology to every one of those families who paid the ultimate price on Sept. 11." -- Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
For Rove "to try to exploit 9/11 for political purposes once again just shows you how desperate they are," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi
Let us not forget, we were told by some of these same people that remarks by Durbin were not worthy of the coverage ond outrage they received by every-day Americans. In fact, Harry Reid even stood behind those remarks.
Baldilocks, via Michelle Malkin, puts that in context with the rhetoric of the left today.
Soldiers get their lives endangered but no one is supposed to say jack. Liberals get their feelings hurt and scream bloody murder.
Scream bloody murder is right. I've never seen them so unhinged. Once again I say, the doves will do and say anything to end this war with little to no regard for a victorious outcome. They will use any rhetoric, and say anything about anybody to bring their anti-American desires to fruition. But God help the man, or the woman, who calls the doves...doves.
Yesterday we theorized that the left's manufactured outrage regarding Karl Rove's remarks about liberals were a thinly veiled attempt to equate Rove with Dick Durbin, whose remarks endangered troops in a time of war and offered the enemy some much needed propaganda on a silver patter.
If there is one thing about the left that I have learned it is this: Any time one of their politicians is disgraced through their own actions, they respond with mock indignation at some perceived affront by a Republican in an effort to generate similar outrage by the people. It works almost never. Nevertheless, the moonbat set is screaming for an apology and even Rove's resignation today.
Sound familiar?
It is so obviously an attempt to shame Rove as Durbin shamed himself.
Our nuanced left, of course, misses the obvious difference between the remarks of the two men. Not only did Rove's remarks fail to endanger anyone or anything, except for perhaps Democratic election hopes in 2006 and 2008, they were for all intents and purposes, correct.
Nevertheless, liberals on the hill are atwitter with mock indignation, proving once again that they have no idea how to tell the difference between raw-bones propaganda and a characterization of a belief system.
"[Rove's comments were] a slap in the face to the unity that America achieved after Sept. 11, 2001." -- Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
"If the president really believed his own words of unity, then he should fire Karl Rove... [Rove] owes an apology to every one of those families who paid the ultimate price on Sept. 11." -- Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
For Rove "to try to exploit 9/11 for political purposes once again just shows you how desperate they are," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi
Let us not forget, we were told by some of these same people that remarks by Durbin were not worthy of the coverage ond outrage they received by every-day Americans. In fact, Harry Reid even stood behind those remarks.
Baldilocks, via Michelle Malkin, puts that in context with the rhetoric of the left today.
Soldiers get their lives endangered but no one is supposed to say jack. Liberals get their feelings hurt and scream bloody murder.
Scream bloody murder is right. I've never seen them so unhinged. Once again I say, the doves will do and say anything to end this war with little to no regard for a victorious outcome. They will use any rhetoric, and say anything about anybody to bring their anti-American desires to fruition. But God help the man, or the woman, who calls the doves...doves.
Will One Leftist Lap-Dog Fire Another?
No less than a dozen UN staffers have written a letter to "outgoing" administrator Mark Malloch Brown to fire another staffer, Justin Leites, for working for the Kerry campaign last year, and thus breaking UN neutrality rules.
The letter, signed by "12 UNDP Staffers" demands the immediate dismissal of Justin Leites, who heads the UNDP internal communications department. The unnamed staffers call on Mr. Malloch Brown to dismiss Mr. Leites "before you relinquish office as UNDP administrator." A Turkish national, Kemal Dervis, has been named to replace Mr. Malloch Brown at UNDP, starting August 15, as Mr. Malloch Brown dedicates himself fully to serving as U.N. chief of staff.
However, as we noted earlier this week, courtesy of Atlas Shrugs, Brown himself lives in an apartment owned by George Soros, one of the, if not the, single largest contributer to the Democratic Party. Brown's rent actually eats up all but $5,000 of his annual salary, raising questions, in my mind, as to how he pays for groceries, cab fare, cable, beer, and other such necessary items.
It's certainly not a surprise that the UN is full of leftists. What is surprising is that people within the organization are displaying the courage to do something about it, in a similar way that officials are trying to clean up PBS. No doubt we will start hearing any day now how there is a Rovian conspiracy to turn the UN into another "right-wing" propaganda machine. Furthermore, the right has Fox News and shouldn't that be enough?
In short, no it isn't. I won't be happy until we have turned every thoughtful, neutral, and caring organization into a thoughtless, radical, unfeeling, right-wing, hate-speech machine.
So there.
The letter, signed by "12 UNDP Staffers" demands the immediate dismissal of Justin Leites, who heads the UNDP internal communications department. The unnamed staffers call on Mr. Malloch Brown to dismiss Mr. Leites "before you relinquish office as UNDP administrator." A Turkish national, Kemal Dervis, has been named to replace Mr. Malloch Brown at UNDP, starting August 15, as Mr. Malloch Brown dedicates himself fully to serving as U.N. chief of staff.
However, as we noted earlier this week, courtesy of Atlas Shrugs, Brown himself lives in an apartment owned by George Soros, one of the, if not the, single largest contributer to the Democratic Party. Brown's rent actually eats up all but $5,000 of his annual salary, raising questions, in my mind, as to how he pays for groceries, cab fare, cable, beer, and other such necessary items.
It's certainly not a surprise that the UN is full of leftists. What is surprising is that people within the organization are displaying the courage to do something about it, in a similar way that officials are trying to clean up PBS. No doubt we will start hearing any day now how there is a Rovian conspiracy to turn the UN into another "right-wing" propaganda machine. Furthermore, the right has Fox News and shouldn't that be enough?
In short, no it isn't. I won't be happy until we have turned every thoughtful, neutral, and caring organization into a thoughtless, radical, unfeeling, right-wing, hate-speech machine.
So there.
Is The White House Finally Fighting Back?
I don't know. Maybe, but it is undeniable that there is suddenly a flurry of words coming from Pennsylvania Ave. Karl Rove provided a "stand up and cheer" moment earlier this week, when he accurately chracterized the liberal response to 9/11. Now, Cheney is responding to the Downing Street Memo, by pointing out a simple fact. The proposed "timeline" for the war, as stated in the memo, simply doesn't jibe with the reality.
"And remember what happened after the supposed memo was written. We went to the United Nations. We got a unanimous vote out of the Security Council for a resolution calling on Saddam Hussein to come clean and comply with the UN Security Council resolution. We did everything we could to resolve this without having to use military force. We gave him one last chance even, and asked him to step down before we launched military operations.
"The memo is just wrong. In fact, the president of the United States took advantage of every possibility to try to resolve this without having to use military force. It wasn't possible in this case. I am convinced we did absolutely the right thing. I am convinced that history will bear that out."
It is doubtful that his statement will placate anybody on the left, who no doubt will stammer and sputter a response like "but...but...you were going to go in sooner. The memo says so."
Scott McCellan and Co. are also on the offensive, defending Rove against the absolutely ridiculous request from Democrats that he apologize and/or resign; purely fabricated outrage, by the way, intended to minimize the Durbin offense.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said there was no reason for Rove to apologize because he was "simply pointing out the different philosophies when it comes to winning the war on terrorism."
Mehlman is getting in on the action too.
"I think what Karl Rove said is accurate and reflects a big difference between the two parties," added Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman.
"I think they (Democrats) have a pre-9/11 world view and I think that's one of the biggest reasons President Bush was re-elected because the American people understood they wanted a president and a philosophy that took on the terrorists abroad to keep us safer at home and guide our ways," he said.
I continue to be mystified as to the objection to Rove's comments. The dove's on the left seem increasingly tolerant of any speech, no matter how absurd, except that which refers to them as "doves."
If these statements signal a more pro-active approach from the White House it is very much welcome and long overdue. Let's hope it is the beginning of a trend.
"And remember what happened after the supposed memo was written. We went to the United Nations. We got a unanimous vote out of the Security Council for a resolution calling on Saddam Hussein to come clean and comply with the UN Security Council resolution. We did everything we could to resolve this without having to use military force. We gave him one last chance even, and asked him to step down before we launched military operations.
"The memo is just wrong. In fact, the president of the United States took advantage of every possibility to try to resolve this without having to use military force. It wasn't possible in this case. I am convinced we did absolutely the right thing. I am convinced that history will bear that out."
It is doubtful that his statement will placate anybody on the left, who no doubt will stammer and sputter a response like "but...but...you were going to go in sooner. The memo says so."
Scott McCellan and Co. are also on the offensive, defending Rove against the absolutely ridiculous request from Democrats that he apologize and/or resign; purely fabricated outrage, by the way, intended to minimize the Durbin offense.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said there was no reason for Rove to apologize because he was "simply pointing out the different philosophies when it comes to winning the war on terrorism."
Mehlman is getting in on the action too.
"I think what Karl Rove said is accurate and reflects a big difference between the two parties," added Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman.
"I think they (Democrats) have a pre-9/11 world view and I think that's one of the biggest reasons President Bush was re-elected because the American people understood they wanted a president and a philosophy that took on the terrorists abroad to keep us safer at home and guide our ways," he said.
I continue to be mystified as to the objection to Rove's comments. The dove's on the left seem increasingly tolerant of any speech, no matter how absurd, except that which refers to them as "doves."
If these statements signal a more pro-active approach from the White House it is very much welcome and long overdue. Let's hope it is the beginning of a trend.
A Fresh Nominee To The UN
Since it is becoming ever apparent that any Bush nominee to the UN will be too (insert character flaw here), perhaps it is time to choose someone else. Someone with the right experience. Someone who has a more paternal approach. Someone with a solid TV image.
Liberal Larry has just the guy:
However, there is one man who meets all of the qualifications for the position and then some. I'm talking, of course, about deposed Iraqi leader, Saddam "Cuddles" Hussein. While Bully Bolton is a bullying bully who bullies his subordinates, Saddam jokes with and gives fatherly advice to his captors. Bolton holds grudges against those who don't march lockstep to the beat of his drum, but Saddam has no hard feelings for the chimp who bombed his palaces in the incorrect order and then chased him down a spider hole. Bolton belittles the very organization he seeks to work for, yet Saddam has a long record of cooperation with the UN, and would sooner eat a bowl of Fruit Loops than defy France.
Why not? Hussein is someone we can trust, unlike the Bushies. It might even be good "therapy" for him, and give us all a better "understanding" of our enemy. And, since he is indeed a "criminal," he'd fit right in.
Liberal Larry has just the guy:
However, there is one man who meets all of the qualifications for the position and then some. I'm talking, of course, about deposed Iraqi leader, Saddam "Cuddles" Hussein. While Bully Bolton is a bullying bully who bullies his subordinates, Saddam jokes with and gives fatherly advice to his captors. Bolton holds grudges against those who don't march lockstep to the beat of his drum, but Saddam has no hard feelings for the chimp who bombed his palaces in the incorrect order and then chased him down a spider hole. Bolton belittles the very organization he seeks to work for, yet Saddam has a long record of cooperation with the UN, and would sooner eat a bowl of Fruit Loops than defy France.
Why not? Hussein is someone we can trust, unlike the Bushies. It might even be good "therapy" for him, and give us all a better "understanding" of our enemy. And, since he is indeed a "criminal," he'd fit right in.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Left's Reaction to Rove So Predictable
While the MSM treated the Dick Durbin story akin to a root canal, Karl Rove's statements about the liberal reaction to 9/11 are splashed all over the media today. From the left, all of the outrage that should have been directed at Durbin is now being unleashed on Rove. To me that is surprising, as Rove described the left's reaction to 9/11 fairly accurately. I would have thought they would be grateful that Rove finally saw their position for what it is.
If there is one thing about the left that I have learned it is this: Any time one of their politicians is disgraced through their own actions, they respond with mock indignation at some perceived affront by a Republican in an effort to generate similar outrage by the people. It works almost never. Nevertheless, the moonbat set is screaming for an apology and even Rove's resignation today.
Sound familiar?
It is so obviously an attempt to shame Rove as Durbin shamed himself. Unfortunately, while Durbin's statements have absolutely no basis in fact, Three Bad Fingers, via Hugh Hewitt, has compiled an evidentiary list of comments by the left that show Rove to be absolutely right on the money.
Immediately After 9/11, MoveOn.Org Petition Urged “Moderation And Restraint” And Use Of “International Judicial Institutions.”
Liberal Donor George Soros Claimed America Should Have Treated 9/11 Attacks As Crime, Responded With Police Work. “War is a false and misleading metaphor in the context of combating terrorism. Treating the attacks of September 11 as crimes against humanity would have been more appropriate. Crimes require police work, not military action. To protect against terrorism, you need precautionary measures, awareness, and intelligence gathering – all of which ultimately depend on the support of the populations among which terrorists operate... (George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy, 2004, p. 18)
Sitting In His Capitol Hill Office Last Week, Near A Window Where He Could See The Smoke Rising From The Pentagon On Sept. 11, Kucinich Insisted He Is More Optimistic Than Ever That People Worldwide Are Ready To Embrace The Cause Of Nonviolence.” (Elizabeth Auster, “Offer The Hand Of Peace,” [Cleveland, OH] Plain Dealer, 9/30/01)
Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI): “Only Now Are We Trying To Figure Out What Is Islam. Maybe If There Was A Department Of Peace, They Would Be Able To Say, ‘Uh-Oh, We’ve Got Some Problems With These People,’ … I Truly Believe That If We Had A Department Of Peace, We Would Have Seen [9/11] Coming.” (Ethan Wallison, “War A Challenge For Peace Caucus,” Roll Call, 10/1/01)
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) To High School Students: “How Would [Muslims] Look At Us Today If We Had Been There Helping Them With Some Of That Rather Than Just Being The People Who Are Going To Bomb In Iraq And Go To Afghanistan? … War Is Expensive Too … Your Generation Ought To Be Thinking About Whether We Should Be Better Neighbors Out In Other Countries So That They Have A Different Vision Of Us.” (Gregg Herrington, “Senator Asks Students To Ponder,” The [Vancouver, WA] Columbian, 12/19/02)
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): “[W]ar On Terror Is Far Less Of A Military Operation And Far More Of An Intelligence-Gathering, Law-Enforcement Operation.” (The Iowa Brown & Black Coalition Presidential Forum, Des Moines, IA, 1/11/04)
These examples are just a drop in the bucket.
Joefish and Redstate have more on the Democratioc reaction.
Rove did not make an off-hand, undisciplined remark resulting from frustration, or anger, or designed for political gain. He simply, and accurately, described the liberal reaction to 9/11 and the war on terror. The surprising thing is that liberals suddenly don't feel like owning it. That too, is typical. While they love to throw big words and insults at the right for everything under the sun, responding in kind guarantees the whimy, self-righteous indignation we are now seeing directed at Rove.
I'm not sure the left could get more predictable if it went out of it's way.
If there is one thing about the left that I have learned it is this: Any time one of their politicians is disgraced through their own actions, they respond with mock indignation at some perceived affront by a Republican in an effort to generate similar outrage by the people. It works almost never. Nevertheless, the moonbat set is screaming for an apology and even Rove's resignation today.
Sound familiar?
It is so obviously an attempt to shame Rove as Durbin shamed himself. Unfortunately, while Durbin's statements have absolutely no basis in fact, Three Bad Fingers, via Hugh Hewitt, has compiled an evidentiary list of comments by the left that show Rove to be absolutely right on the money.
Immediately After 9/11, MoveOn.Org Petition Urged “Moderation And Restraint” And Use Of “International Judicial Institutions.”
Liberal Donor George Soros Claimed America Should Have Treated 9/11 Attacks As Crime, Responded With Police Work. “War is a false and misleading metaphor in the context of combating terrorism. Treating the attacks of September 11 as crimes against humanity would have been more appropriate. Crimes require police work, not military action. To protect against terrorism, you need precautionary measures, awareness, and intelligence gathering – all of which ultimately depend on the support of the populations among which terrorists operate... (George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy, 2004, p. 18)
Sitting In His Capitol Hill Office Last Week, Near A Window Where He Could See The Smoke Rising From The Pentagon On Sept. 11, Kucinich Insisted He Is More Optimistic Than Ever That People Worldwide Are Ready To Embrace The Cause Of Nonviolence.” (Elizabeth Auster, “Offer The Hand Of Peace,” [Cleveland, OH] Plain Dealer, 9/30/01)
Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI): “Only Now Are We Trying To Figure Out What Is Islam. Maybe If There Was A Department Of Peace, They Would Be Able To Say, ‘Uh-Oh, We’ve Got Some Problems With These People,’ … I Truly Believe That If We Had A Department Of Peace, We Would Have Seen [9/11] Coming.” (Ethan Wallison, “War A Challenge For Peace Caucus,” Roll Call, 10/1/01)
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) To High School Students: “How Would [Muslims] Look At Us Today If We Had Been There Helping Them With Some Of That Rather Than Just Being The People Who Are Going To Bomb In Iraq And Go To Afghanistan? … War Is Expensive Too … Your Generation Ought To Be Thinking About Whether We Should Be Better Neighbors Out In Other Countries So That They Have A Different Vision Of Us.” (Gregg Herrington, “Senator Asks Students To Ponder,” The [Vancouver, WA] Columbian, 12/19/02)
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): “[W]ar On Terror Is Far Less Of A Military Operation And Far More Of An Intelligence-Gathering, Law-Enforcement Operation.” (The Iowa Brown & Black Coalition Presidential Forum, Des Moines, IA, 1/11/04)
These examples are just a drop in the bucket.
Joefish and Redstate have more on the Democratioc reaction.
Rove did not make an off-hand, undisciplined remark resulting from frustration, or anger, or designed for political gain. He simply, and accurately, described the liberal reaction to 9/11 and the war on terror. The surprising thing is that liberals suddenly don't feel like owning it. That too, is typical. While they love to throw big words and insults at the right for everything under the sun, responding in kind guarantees the whimy, self-righteous indignation we are now seeing directed at Rove.
I'm not sure the left could get more predictable if it went out of it's way.
Further Lessons In Real Torture
Michelle Malkin brings this article to our attention.
US Marines have found manuals on taking hostages and decapitation during a raid on a guerrilla hideout in the Iraqi village of Karabla, near the town of Qaim, close to the Syrian border. The Arab newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat reports that in the hideaway the troops also found several hostages who were being held there by Islamic militants. The hiding place was being used as a centre for the interrogation and torture of hostages, and contained electrodes and other instruments of torture.
Surprisingly, the manuals bear an uncanny resemblance to those found by FBI investigators at Gitmo...NOT!
This discovery though, does kind of add an exclamation point to the differences between America's treatment of prisoners and the enemy's. Too bad we already got the Durbin "apology." This would have made a nice backdrop. And, while the Dem's are all screaming that Karl Rove was insensitive to their position (see below), the nature of the enemy continues to reveal itself in despicable ways.
US Marines have found manuals on taking hostages and decapitation during a raid on a guerrilla hideout in the Iraqi village of Karabla, near the town of Qaim, close to the Syrian border. The Arab newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat reports that in the hideaway the troops also found several hostages who were being held there by Islamic militants. The hiding place was being used as a centre for the interrogation and torture of hostages, and contained electrodes and other instruments of torture.
Surprisingly, the manuals bear an uncanny resemblance to those found by FBI investigators at Gitmo...NOT!
This discovery though, does kind of add an exclamation point to the differences between America's treatment of prisoners and the enemy's. Too bad we already got the Durbin "apology." This would have made a nice backdrop. And, while the Dem's are all screaming that Karl Rove was insensitive to their position (see below), the nature of the enemy continues to reveal itself in despicable ways.
Talking My Language...Finally
Karl Rove, before a group of New York conservatives just a few miles from Ground Zero, finally started telling it like it is.
"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Rove said Wednesday night. "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."
Until recently, this kind of rhetoric has been woefully missing from the White House. Instead they have played it close to the vest and tried to pretend that a war wasn't being waged against them by the far-left leadership of the Democratic Party. Perhaps Senator Durbin's comments on the senate floor was the final straw. I sure hope so, and I hope this marks a trend towards plain english by the Republican Party.
Naturally, while Harry Reid and friends either stayed silent or provided myriad reasons why Durbin should not apologize for comparing our treatment of detainees to the killing feilds of Pol Pot, they all want an apology today.
Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, called on Bush to "immediately repudiate Karl Rove's offensive and ourtrageous comments." Rove, he said, "should also apologize to the people of this country and particularly to the people of New York for his efforts to divide the country."
Reid is officially certifiable. GOP Bloggers has a link to video in which he is quoted saying he "stands by" remarks made by Durbin. This man wants an apology? He should really learn to save his righteous indignation for serious matters lest he find himself just another caricature, like Durbin and Dean.
Speaking of caricatures, the leftistspere is going crazy today.
Aside from being sort of funny and timely, Karl Rove's comments are also very much true. Frankly, I'm surprised the left isn't rising up today and saying "You're damn right!" I can't even count the times I have heard "war isn't the answer," and "we must understand their concerns." Indictments, understanding, and therapy is exactly what the left wanted and Rove's description is spot-on.
This will be interesting to follow though. The left will undoubtedly keep up the pressure for an apology, but to do that the quote must be proved erroneous. Four years of rhetoric though, proves Rove correct on this matter. If the left were smart, wishful thinking I know, they would just let this go. Then again, when the left sees a hole, it can't help but dig. So, get ready for the dirt to start flying.
"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Rove said Wednesday night. "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."
Until recently, this kind of rhetoric has been woefully missing from the White House. Instead they have played it close to the vest and tried to pretend that a war wasn't being waged against them by the far-left leadership of the Democratic Party. Perhaps Senator Durbin's comments on the senate floor was the final straw. I sure hope so, and I hope this marks a trend towards plain english by the Republican Party.
Naturally, while Harry Reid and friends either stayed silent or provided myriad reasons why Durbin should not apologize for comparing our treatment of detainees to the killing feilds of Pol Pot, they all want an apology today.
Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, called on Bush to "immediately repudiate Karl Rove's offensive and ourtrageous comments." Rove, he said, "should also apologize to the people of this country and particularly to the people of New York for his efforts to divide the country."
Reid is officially certifiable. GOP Bloggers has a link to video in which he is quoted saying he "stands by" remarks made by Durbin. This man wants an apology? He should really learn to save his righteous indignation for serious matters lest he find himself just another caricature, like Durbin and Dean.
Speaking of caricatures, the leftistspere is going crazy today.
Aside from being sort of funny and timely, Karl Rove's comments are also very much true. Frankly, I'm surprised the left isn't rising up today and saying "You're damn right!" I can't even count the times I have heard "war isn't the answer," and "we must understand their concerns." Indictments, understanding, and therapy is exactly what the left wanted and Rove's description is spot-on.
This will be interesting to follow though. The left will undoubtedly keep up the pressure for an apology, but to do that the quote must be proved erroneous. Four years of rhetoric though, proves Rove correct on this matter. If the left were smart, wishful thinking I know, they would just let this go. Then again, when the left sees a hole, it can't help but dig. So, get ready for the dirt to start flying.
What? No More Flag Burning?
Guy who needs an ass-whuppin'
The House of Representatives today passed an amendment to the constitution that would allow the senate to ban the burning of the American flag.
By a 286-130 vote - eight more than needed - House members approved the amendment by the required two-thirds majority after a debate over whether such a ban would run afoul of the Constitution's free-speech protections.
If approved by a similar two-thirds majority in the Senate, the amendment would then move to the states for ratification. It would have to be approved by three-fourths, or 38, of the 50 state legislatures to become the 28th amendment to the Constitution.
To be honest, I'm not all that excited about the amendment. I think burning the flag is an expression of free speech and should be protected. In the short-term, it is an excellent way to determine who in this country really needs an ass-whuppin'. It will be much harder to tell without the convenient blaze surrounding the stars and stripes. We'll have to judge by smell or t-shirt slogans, which are much harder to spot from a distance than a flag ablaze.
And let's not forget the long run. Someday, God forbid, the liberals may actually gain back power and continue the process of running this great country into the ground. I may want to burn one as a sign of protest. Of course, by that time we'll be flying the UN flag, rendering my gesture meaningless , but shouldn't I have the right anyway?
In short, don't ban flag burning. It's a helpful tip now, and will make a wonderful disposal system if the liberals get back into power and hand our sovereignty over to the UN.
UPDATE: Apparently I am not alone in my assessment. The American Mind thinks it is a waste of time. It appears, for now though, that the amendment will not make it out of the senate.
A Shameless Plug
I cordially invite readers to go to The Red Voice and check out my latest column on Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Federation, their illegal actions, and efforts to prevent criminal investigators from searching their records for the proof.
These are some scary people. If you have daughters, you will want to know what you are up against.
Also, for those who followed the trackback here, please feel free to view my home page.
These are some scary people. If you have daughters, you will want to know what you are up against.
Also, for those who followed the trackback here, please feel free to view my home page.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Dallas Morning News Sorry Too...
Courtesy of Hugh Hewitt comes an editorial in the Dallas Morning News today regarding Durbin's self-serving apology on the senate floor.
We're sorry that anything else Mr. Durbin might say about allegations of torture at Guantanamo Bay simply cannot be believed, thanks to his way-over-the-top screed.
We're sorry that in his haste to score political points against the Bush administration, he chose to squander his credibility by linking U.S. troops to despots who killed millions of innocent people.
We're sorry that at this key moment in the war on terror, when democracy demands a full and open debate on all U.S. policies and tactics, he so devalued his own voice and potential contributions.
We're sorry that Mr. Durbin woke up this morning still the Senate's assistant minority leader the second-ranked Democrat and that it apparently hasn't occurred to fellow Democrats that he should step down from the leadership.
I would love to believe that Durbin's credibility is shot because of this, but to believe that suggests that other's credibility has been damaged by things they have said in the past. Kennedy, Byrd, Biden, etc., all appear to have just as much credibility in the eyes of the leftist rank and file as ever. In fact, even centrist Democrats, like Lieberman and...McCain are afraid to put Durbin in his traitorous place.
The left is a machine that loves propaganda, and I doubt that any Democratic senators will pay a political price for treachery. At least, not as long as the inmates continue to be in charge of that particular asylum.
UPDATE: Blue State Conservatives has an example of a real apology, and GOP Bloggers wonders if Durbin's apology will lead to one from Harry Ried.
We're sorry that anything else Mr. Durbin might say about allegations of torture at Guantanamo Bay simply cannot be believed, thanks to his way-over-the-top screed.
We're sorry that in his haste to score political points against the Bush administration, he chose to squander his credibility by linking U.S. troops to despots who killed millions of innocent people.
We're sorry that at this key moment in the war on terror, when democracy demands a full and open debate on all U.S. policies and tactics, he so devalued his own voice and potential contributions.
We're sorry that Mr. Durbin woke up this morning still the Senate's assistant minority leader the second-ranked Democrat and that it apparently hasn't occurred to fellow Democrats that he should step down from the leadership.
I would love to believe that Durbin's credibility is shot because of this, but to believe that suggests that other's credibility has been damaged by things they have said in the past. Kennedy, Byrd, Biden, etc., all appear to have just as much credibility in the eyes of the leftist rank and file as ever. In fact, even centrist Democrats, like Lieberman and...McCain are afraid to put Durbin in his traitorous place.
The left is a machine that loves propaganda, and I doubt that any Democratic senators will pay a political price for treachery. At least, not as long as the inmates continue to be in charge of that particular asylum.
UPDATE: Blue State Conservatives has an example of a real apology, and GOP Bloggers wonders if Durbin's apology will lead to one from Harry Ried.
A Perspective From Someone Who Has Been There
Tired of listening to main-stream bench-warmers talk about the "situation in Iraq?" Tired of sissy columnists describing the "disaster" from their computer screen in New York or L.A.?
Courtesy of Power Line, Karl Zinsmeister just returned from his third tour in Iraq and gives a glimpse at the real "situation in Iraq."
What the establishment media covering Iraq have utterly failed to make clear today is this central reality: With the exception of periodic flare-ups in isolated corners, our struggle in Iraq as warfare is over. Egregious acts of terror will continue—in Iraq as in many other parts of the world. But there is now no chance whatever of the U.S. losing this critical guerilla war.
Contrary to the impression given by most newspaper headlines, the United States has won the day in Iraq. In 2004, our military fought fierce battles in Najaf, Fallujah, and Sadr City. Many thousands of terrorists were killed, with comparatively little collateral damage. As examples of the very hardest sorts of urban combat, these will go down in history as smashing U.S. victories.
This is undoubtedly why the left has ramped up the rhetoric in the last few months. In their myopic view, a victory in Iraq is a victory for Republicans, which, besides being shameful, is also a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is they who gambled everything on the notion that we would lose in Iraq and now must either admit they were wrong or attempt a desperate undermining of the war, in essence trying to snatch defeat form the jaws of victory.
Hence you have Durbin, Biden, Pelosi, et al now engaged in an attempt to divert attention by besmirching the military and attacking Bush. What is truly sad about the situation is that it is based on that gamble, rather than an honest assessment of the war. Thus, it is a situation created of their own pessimism that they must now play out to protect their power in Washington.
Could there be anything more cynical than politicians working directly against their own country and military simply to protect their own ass?
Then again, Pseudo-Polymath theorizes that the left simply doesn't know what's going on.
Suppose our Administration knows all this ... why the silence? What does it serve them to not trumpet this point of view? Is it that they feel they cannot overwhelm the negative impression the MSM gives ... or is it a strategic ploy, giving the opposition the opportunity to keep digging that anti-American/military hole just a little deeper for themselves?
Who knows, maybe he is right. Maybe the Democrats are just stupid.
Courtesy of Power Line, Karl Zinsmeister just returned from his third tour in Iraq and gives a glimpse at the real "situation in Iraq."
What the establishment media covering Iraq have utterly failed to make clear today is this central reality: With the exception of periodic flare-ups in isolated corners, our struggle in Iraq as warfare is over. Egregious acts of terror will continue—in Iraq as in many other parts of the world. But there is now no chance whatever of the U.S. losing this critical guerilla war.
Contrary to the impression given by most newspaper headlines, the United States has won the day in Iraq. In 2004, our military fought fierce battles in Najaf, Fallujah, and Sadr City. Many thousands of terrorists were killed, with comparatively little collateral damage. As examples of the very hardest sorts of urban combat, these will go down in history as smashing U.S. victories.
This is undoubtedly why the left has ramped up the rhetoric in the last few months. In their myopic view, a victory in Iraq is a victory for Republicans, which, besides being shameful, is also a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is they who gambled everything on the notion that we would lose in Iraq and now must either admit they were wrong or attempt a desperate undermining of the war, in essence trying to snatch defeat form the jaws of victory.
Hence you have Durbin, Biden, Pelosi, et al now engaged in an attempt to divert attention by besmirching the military and attacking Bush. What is truly sad about the situation is that it is based on that gamble, rather than an honest assessment of the war. Thus, it is a situation created of their own pessimism that they must now play out to protect their power in Washington.
Could there be anything more cynical than politicians working directly against their own country and military simply to protect their own ass?
Then again, Pseudo-Polymath theorizes that the left simply doesn't know what's going on.
Suppose our Administration knows all this ... why the silence? What does it serve them to not trumpet this point of view? Is it that they feel they cannot overwhelm the negative impression the MSM gives ... or is it a strategic ploy, giving the opposition the opportunity to keep digging that anti-American/military hole just a little deeper for themselves?
Who knows, maybe he is right. Maybe the Democrats are just stupid.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Dick Durbin Apologizes (updated)
Brit Hume just reported that Senator Dick Durbin has apologized for his remarks about Gitmo on the floor of the senate. FoxNews has the story.
"I am sorry if anything I said caused any offense or pain to those who have such bitter memories of the Holocaust, the greatest moral tragedy of our time. Nothing, nothing should ever be said to demean or diminish that moral tragedy.
"I am also sorry if anything I said cast a negative light on our fine men and women in the military ... I never ever intended any disrespect for them. Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line to them I extend my heartfelt apology,"
At one point Durbin was choked up during the speech and the apology seemed primarily directed at anybody who was "offended" by his remarks. That is to say, he didn't exactly say that he had been wrong, just that he regreted the offense.
UPDATE: Having had a chance to hear the apology a few times now I'll stick with my original assessment. While Durbin "regrets" the offense, the apology smacks more as a reult of getting caught than any true remorse ofer his remarks.
The Anti-idiotarian Rottweiler had this to say about the apology:
"If at first you don't succeed, bite your lips, drip glycerine in your eyes and try again..."
That just about sums it up as far as I'm concerned. Any real tears shed by Durbin more likely regard his political future as they do anything else.
That reminds me, can we move on from senators crying on the senate floor? A more sissified body I have never seen. We're at war, grow a spine for the love of Christ.
Pardon My English makes another salient point:
...this apology would never have happened if leading Democrats had anything to do with it.
In fact, while Durbin was busy with his tissues, Pelosi and Waxman were busy keeping the torch alive.
Daily Pundit has the apology that Durbin should have made, except that he is a Democrat:
He is a Senator, a Democrat, and a high Senate official. He's probably incapable of saying something meaningful, like, "I'm sorry I said what I said. It was wrong to compare American troops to Nazis, Stalinist gulag operators, and Pol Pot's attempt at genocide. I apologize to all of America for my shameful utterances."
Ya, right. Too much to expect. I know.
The Jawa Report, surprisingly, for a site that displayed so much righteous anger earlier in the week, is excepting the apology:
Durbin has apologized. I'm with Chris Short and Citizen Smash on this. I accept the apology at face value. Now let us see him try and undo all the damage that has been done.
Powerpundit sums it all up, in my opinion:
...Dick Durbin has still not admitted that he was wrong with his comparison. That is the key here. The apology is designed to remove the pressure from himself and the Democratic Party that refuses to repudiate him.
So, the tears, the quoting of Abe Lincoln (which almost made me physically ill), and all Durbin was really doing was protecting his backside, most likely. Then again, maybe he was crying about all of the Soros' dough that the American people, in their inability to understand his true meaning, cost him.
Whatever he is sorry for, he should still resign.
"I am sorry if anything I said caused any offense or pain to those who have such bitter memories of the Holocaust, the greatest moral tragedy of our time. Nothing, nothing should ever be said to demean or diminish that moral tragedy.
"I am also sorry if anything I said cast a negative light on our fine men and women in the military ... I never ever intended any disrespect for them. Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line to them I extend my heartfelt apology,"
At one point Durbin was choked up during the speech and the apology seemed primarily directed at anybody who was "offended" by his remarks. That is to say, he didn't exactly say that he had been wrong, just that he regreted the offense.
UPDATE: Having had a chance to hear the apology a few times now I'll stick with my original assessment. While Durbin "regrets" the offense, the apology smacks more as a reult of getting caught than any true remorse ofer his remarks.
The Anti-idiotarian Rottweiler had this to say about the apology:
"If at first you don't succeed, bite your lips, drip glycerine in your eyes and try again..."
That just about sums it up as far as I'm concerned. Any real tears shed by Durbin more likely regard his political future as they do anything else.
That reminds me, can we move on from senators crying on the senate floor? A more sissified body I have never seen. We're at war, grow a spine for the love of Christ.
Pardon My English makes another salient point:
...this apology would never have happened if leading Democrats had anything to do with it.
In fact, while Durbin was busy with his tissues, Pelosi and Waxman were busy keeping the torch alive.
Daily Pundit has the apology that Durbin should have made, except that he is a Democrat:
He is a Senator, a Democrat, and a high Senate official. He's probably incapable of saying something meaningful, like, "I'm sorry I said what I said. It was wrong to compare American troops to Nazis, Stalinist gulag operators, and Pol Pot's attempt at genocide. I apologize to all of America for my shameful utterances."
Ya, right. Too much to expect. I know.
The Jawa Report, surprisingly, for a site that displayed so much righteous anger earlier in the week, is excepting the apology:
Durbin has apologized. I'm with Chris Short and Citizen Smash on this. I accept the apology at face value. Now let us see him try and undo all the damage that has been done.
Powerpundit sums it all up, in my opinion:
...Dick Durbin has still not admitted that he was wrong with his comparison. That is the key here. The apology is designed to remove the pressure from himself and the Democratic Party that refuses to repudiate him.
So, the tears, the quoting of Abe Lincoln (which almost made me physically ill), and all Durbin was really doing was protecting his backside, most likely. Then again, maybe he was crying about all of the Soros' dough that the American people, in their inability to understand his true meaning, cost him.
Whatever he is sorry for, he should still resign.
Bolton-Too Effective for the Democrats
Once again, John Bolton has been denied the opportunity to go to the United Nations and lobby, through thought and deed, for reform to the crippled organization. Mark Noonan thinks he knows why.
Bolton's gravest sins seem to be that (a) he denigrates treaties like the defunct Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and (b) he takes a hostile view of Castro's anti-human tyranny in Cuba. For our leftwingers, treaties like the ABM are holy writ - anything which tends to hobble American power is a vital necessity. Additionally, after five decades on their knees to Fidel, the left isn't about to suddenly stand up, wipe off their collective chin and realise they've been worshipping a pig. Stopping John Bolton has become an exercise in re-affirmation on the left: a means of stating that international law (as expressed by treaty) is paramount in the United States and that Castro's Cuba is the shining light of the world.
I just knew there was a really good reason. It's just that no one on the left seems able to articulate it. Thanks Mark.
Atlas Shrugs has a piece from the New York Sun today that sheds some light on whose greasy fingers might be behind the anti-Bolton nonsense. Any guesses?
...the no. 2 officer at the United Nations, Mark Malloch Brown, whose current annual net salary as an undersecretary general is $125,000 a year, has emerged as the tenant in a house that Mr. Soros owns and that rents for $120,000 a year...
Talk about a conflict of interest. If one is inclined to do the math, Malloch Brown's salary pays for Soros' apartment, and roughly a year's cab fare...if that. I wonder how his family survives. It's funny, everybody is screaming about Bush's "world domination" plot, but everywhere we turn, there's Soros with his greedy little hands behind the power. Apparantly world domination is cool, as long as you spread the love around to the Democratic Party.
In the meantime, Claudia Rosset and George Russell have more on the OFF scandal, which is ever-increasing in scope.
Two possibilities have been brought up for the future of this position. Either it's time for Bush to nominate an acceptable (lap-dog) candidate, or he should go for a Bolton recess appointment, which will no doubt begin to be referred to as the "nuclear option" any day now. A recess appointment would give Bolton 18 months to serve before he must be confirmed.
That is the route that I would take. Let Bolton get in there and do the work. Like everything else with the left, it's all about the up-front rhetoric. Once Bolton proves to be qualified and effective, they will have little choice but to knock it off and give him a vote.
Bolton's gravest sins seem to be that (a) he denigrates treaties like the defunct Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and (b) he takes a hostile view of Castro's anti-human tyranny in Cuba. For our leftwingers, treaties like the ABM are holy writ - anything which tends to hobble American power is a vital necessity. Additionally, after five decades on their knees to Fidel, the left isn't about to suddenly stand up, wipe off their collective chin and realise they've been worshipping a pig. Stopping John Bolton has become an exercise in re-affirmation on the left: a means of stating that international law (as expressed by treaty) is paramount in the United States and that Castro's Cuba is the shining light of the world.
I just knew there was a really good reason. It's just that no one on the left seems able to articulate it. Thanks Mark.
Atlas Shrugs has a piece from the New York Sun today that sheds some light on whose greasy fingers might be behind the anti-Bolton nonsense. Any guesses?
...the no. 2 officer at the United Nations, Mark Malloch Brown, whose current annual net salary as an undersecretary general is $125,000 a year, has emerged as the tenant in a house that Mr. Soros owns and that rents for $120,000 a year...
Talk about a conflict of interest. If one is inclined to do the math, Malloch Brown's salary pays for Soros' apartment, and roughly a year's cab fare...if that. I wonder how his family survives. It's funny, everybody is screaming about Bush's "world domination" plot, but everywhere we turn, there's Soros with his greedy little hands behind the power. Apparantly world domination is cool, as long as you spread the love around to the Democratic Party.
In the meantime, Claudia Rosset and George Russell have more on the OFF scandal, which is ever-increasing in scope.
Two possibilities have been brought up for the future of this position. Either it's time for Bush to nominate an acceptable (lap-dog) candidate, or he should go for a Bolton recess appointment, which will no doubt begin to be referred to as the "nuclear option" any day now. A recess appointment would give Bolton 18 months to serve before he must be confirmed.
That is the route that I would take. Let Bolton get in there and do the work. Like everything else with the left, it's all about the up-front rhetoric. Once Bolton proves to be qualified and effective, they will have little choice but to knock it off and give him a vote.
9/11 Victim Families Speaking Out
The families of those killed on 9/11 are not very pleased with the museum of freedom planned for the memorial. Can you blame them? Who wants a liberal lesson in revisionism on the grave of their relatives.
"It doesn't belong at a memorial," said Charles Wolf, whose wife, Katherine, died in the World Trade Center collapse. "You wouldn't put a debate about Nazism and authoritarianism at Dachau."
Center President, Charles Wolf, perhaps emboldened by the drop off of blog interest in this subject, basically told the families where they can stick it.
Center President Richard J. Tofel said that while the causes of the Sept. 11 attacks would not be up for debate, the center would not bar criticism of the United States and its actions.
"Part of the way we celebrate freedom is to acknowledge that even the greatest societies in the world and those that have made the greatest contribution to freedom are not perfect," he said.
What? France isn't perfect?
This issue cannot be allowed to die. The victims of 9/11 and their families deserve a memorial that they, and we, can be proud of. Let the anti-American left keep their "history lessons" where they belong, in college classrooms from sea to shining sea.
Sign the petition, keep the ball rolling. Michelle Malkin has a load of links to peruse on the subject.
"It doesn't belong at a memorial," said Charles Wolf, whose wife, Katherine, died in the World Trade Center collapse. "You wouldn't put a debate about Nazism and authoritarianism at Dachau."
Center President, Charles Wolf, perhaps emboldened by the drop off of blog interest in this subject, basically told the families where they can stick it.
Center President Richard J. Tofel said that while the causes of the Sept. 11 attacks would not be up for debate, the center would not bar criticism of the United States and its actions.
"Part of the way we celebrate freedom is to acknowledge that even the greatest societies in the world and those that have made the greatest contribution to freedom are not perfect," he said.
What? France isn't perfect?
This issue cannot be allowed to die. The victims of 9/11 and their families deserve a memorial that they, and we, can be proud of. Let the anti-American left keep their "history lessons" where they belong, in college classrooms from sea to shining sea.
Sign the petition, keep the ball rolling. Michelle Malkin has a load of links to peruse on the subject.
We Came So Close
Voting on the best looking quarter has finally come to a close at Radioblogger and alas, Minnesota was not quite able to overcome Colorado's quarter. I personally lost track of how many times I voted. (Relax people, it was an informal poll.)
The final tally breaks down this way:
Colorado 51% 1,815
Minnesota 49% 1,773
At one time the great State of Minnesota was within five votes but in the end, Colorado gets it's win with a lucky geological happenstance. I should have known early on, when Lileks ripped the Mn. quarter, that the jig was up. Oh well, the Gophers have a pretty good class of freshman coming up in hockey this year. We'll take it out on their netminders this winter.
The final tally breaks down this way:
Colorado 51% 1,815
Minnesota 49% 1,773
At one time the great State of Minnesota was within five votes but in the end, Colorado gets it's win with a lucky geological happenstance. I should have known early on, when Lileks ripped the Mn. quarter, that the jig was up. Oh well, the Gophers have a pretty good class of freshman coming up in hockey this year. We'll take it out on their netminders this winter.
What Is To Be Done With Durbin?
Hugh Hewitt is making the case that Durbin should be censured for his remarks on the senate floor. It's hard to argue with. It would certainly put the Dem's on the spot with their vote, but would also allow them a chance to mealy-mouth their way out, explaining their vote as one for free speech or other nonsense. Just enough to get a ten-second platitude slot on the networks.
By all means pursue censure, but Bill Kristol thinks the eunice should be on the Democrats to clean up their own litterbox, and uses Trent Lott as an example.
When Sen. Trent Lott made a far less damaging, but still deplorable, statement two and a half years ago, his fellow Republicans insisted he step down as their leader. Shouldn't Democrats insist that Sen. Durbin step down as their whip, the number two man in their leadership? Shouldn't conservatives (and liberals) legitimately ask Democrats to hold their leader to account, especially given the precedent of Lott?
Of course, if the Democrats set this as a precedent, the axe would have to fall all over the place. No...they'll protect Dick Durbin to the last because they see themselves in him; essentially running scared from their own rhetoric. And, in protecting Durbin, they will be attempting to create legitimacy for themselves.
The only thing we can expect from the Democratic Party on Durbin is absolute silence.
By all means pursue censure, but Bill Kristol thinks the eunice should be on the Democrats to clean up their own litterbox, and uses Trent Lott as an example.
When Sen. Trent Lott made a far less damaging, but still deplorable, statement two and a half years ago, his fellow Republicans insisted he step down as their leader. Shouldn't Democrats insist that Sen. Durbin step down as their whip, the number two man in their leadership? Shouldn't conservatives (and liberals) legitimately ask Democrats to hold their leader to account, especially given the precedent of Lott?
Of course, if the Democrats set this as a precedent, the axe would have to fall all over the place. No...they'll protect Dick Durbin to the last because they see themselves in him; essentially running scared from their own rhetoric. And, in protecting Durbin, they will be attempting to create legitimacy for themselves.
The only thing we can expect from the Democratic Party on Durbin is absolute silence.
Monday, June 20, 2005
A Reminder That We Are Not Alone
An Iraqi Soldier flashes the victory sign
Arthur Chrenkoff has an absolutely wonderful post up today that serves as a reminder that we are not bearing the burden of freeing millions of people alone. It's called " The Willing" and it is a tribute to the Coalition of the Willing in pictures.
Included is a description of one El Salvadoran soldier's moment of bravery and sacrifice.
One of his friends was dead, 12 others lay wounded and the four soldiers still left standing were surrounded and out of ammunition. So Salvadoran Cpl. Samuel Toloza said a prayer, whipped out his knife and charged the Iraqi gunmen. In one of the only known instances of hand-to-hand combat in the Iraq conflict, Cpl. Toloza stabbed several attackers swarming around a comrade. The stunned assailants backed away momentarily, just as a relief column came to the unit's rescue.
Seeing the pictures and reading the various quotes of support really send it all home. This is truly a global effort, regardless of leftist assertions.
Blackfive adds his endorsement of the photo of American troops, Blackhorse Scouts about to enter a terrorist hideout. It is pretty cool. It's what the best trained, best equipped, force for freedom in the entire world looks like.
Perhaps it is about time that the left was reminded that in their quest for political gain, at the expense of the American military and the truly humanitarian effort in Iraq, they desecrate the memory and sacrifice of soldiers from over two dozen nations besides our own. Should our partners willingness to serve in this just cause and determination to stand side by side with America on the side of freedom be cast aside as well, to gain a few seats back in congress, or because they don't like Republicans?
The days of "loyal opposition" are long gone. Expecting the Democratic Party to show decency out of respect for our coalition is naive. The war did not have to be a partisan effort, the Democrats made it one. I take solace though, that in my old age, when I part the leaves of history books, I will do so with pride. Pride in my country, pride in my military, and pride in the partners that helped free an entire nation from oppression.
Bill Clinton Joins the Defeatists
Bill Clinton today called for either the closing or reforming of Gitmo. To his credit, he managed to do so without using the word gulag, or referring to Pol Pot or Stalin, which makes him a unique animal indeed in today's Democartic Party.
Still, there is much in this debate that is going unsaid, which was summarized today by Neal Boortz.
Put Clinton on the growing list of people who think that Caribbean temperatures and loud rap music constitute torture. Funny how nobody has mentioned that it's hotter in Iraq right now ... but about 20 degrees ... and the music is much worse. Perhaps if Bill Clinton had done his job as president there would never have been a 9/11, a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq and Guantanamo would just be a Navy base. One thing for absolute drop-dead certain. If Guantanamo were to be closed tomorrow, by Thursday the world's anti-American media and their Democratic fellow travelers in this country would have some other outrage to press. God forbid the media should spend any time reporting on what's going well in Iraq.
Reporting on the good news in Iraq has apparently become the defatco job of the blogosphere, most notably from the milblogs. Isn't it sad that ordinary soldiers, who have far more important things to do, have to take time simply to report on progress because the media is so uninterested?
Still, there is much in this debate that is going unsaid, which was summarized today by Neal Boortz.
Put Clinton on the growing list of people who think that Caribbean temperatures and loud rap music constitute torture. Funny how nobody has mentioned that it's hotter in Iraq right now ... but about 20 degrees ... and the music is much worse. Perhaps if Bill Clinton had done his job as president there would never have been a 9/11, a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq and Guantanamo would just be a Navy base. One thing for absolute drop-dead certain. If Guantanamo were to be closed tomorrow, by Thursday the world's anti-American media and their Democratic fellow travelers in this country would have some other outrage to press. God forbid the media should spend any time reporting on what's going well in Iraq.
Reporting on the good news in Iraq has apparently become the defatco job of the blogosphere, most notably from the milblogs. Isn't it sad that ordinary soldiers, who have far more important things to do, have to take time simply to report on progress because the media is so uninterested?
Legitimate Questions Raised by DSM
Questions are beginning to swirl about the authenticity of the Downing Street Memo, based mostly on Michael Smith's burning of the photocopies. Captain's Quarters asks:
Why would a reporter do such a thing? While reporters need to protect their sources, at some point stories based on official documents will require authentication -- and as we have seen with the Killian memos, copies make that impossible. The AP gets a "senior British official" to assert that the content "appeared authentic", which only means that the content seems to match what he thinks he knows.
Indeed, the authenticity of the memos has been proven by no one, and the burning of the photocopies makes doing so impossible, unless Smith's source comes forward. All of the actual "confirmations" are to the tone of the reported meeting, or based on excerpts. Also, the sources for that authentication are all anonymous, which can be anybody.
Whether the DSM are real or not though, this will make it hard for them to be used for the purpose desired by the left, which is to fashion impeachment proceedings based on the information contained within, again, unless a source comes forward with the originals.
Captain's Quarter's has many more questions about the documents and Smith, all of which is at least worth reading.
Frankly, even if the DSM were authenticated, they are anything but the "smoking gun" the left has asserted. They are in fact, an exercise in contradiction. While an MI6 employee notes in the main document that he thought the intelligence was being "fixed" in the lead up to the war, they also demonstrate that the Brits were concerned about WMD; the existence of and possible use against coalition troops.
The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America's top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.
It wasn't just the possiblity that Iraq had, or would use, the weapons against troops. The Brits were looking at the possibility differently in a post 9/11 world.
"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
The AP story goes further to say that there was doubt among the Brits as to whether the programs had been "stepped up;" the assumption being that they did indeed exist and were, in fact, referred to by the Brit's as "worrying." The other assertion made by the document is that the Bush administration was considering circumventing the UN and would invade Iraq by January.
This seems to show the left that Bush was "rushing" to war based on bad intelligence. But, as we all know, Bush did indeed go to the UN and did not invade Iraq until March. So the charge by the left, than, is that Bush was mulling over not going before the UN at one time in the lead-up to the war.
So what?
Personally, I don't doubt the ultimate validity of the documents. Were they created by the left, they would have said something like "Bush noted in a meeting his clear intention to lie to the America people in order to fulfill his life-long dream of world domination," or some such nonsense. In short, the documents do not say what the left so desperately needs them to say.
Nevertheless it is important that such questions, like those by Captain's quarters, be asked about the DSM. One assertion that the Captain makes about the documents, that they are fake, is indisputable. This prompted Kevin "Fuck Off and Die" Drum to prove that he cannot tell the difference between the word "fake" and the word "fraud."
The wingnuts are getting desperate. Captain's Quarters, in a nostalgic attempt to recreate the glories of Rathergate, suggests that the Downing Street Memos aren't real. Why? Because Michael Smith, the reporter who got hold of them, had them retyped to protect his source and then returned the originals. Jonah Goldberg feverishly calls CQ's revelations a "must read."
Yes Kevin, they are not original documents but in fact are mock-ups and therefore fake. Now that we all agree...
Not to be outdone, Goldberg has a little fun at Drum's expense.
The bottom line is that, here we are again, looking at unauthenticated documents; documents that do not make the case that is being claimed. I'm not sure the point of this entire exercise. Is it to prove that Bush and the Brit's were making a case for war against Hussein? Is it that there was uncertainty regarding the levels of WMD production in Iraq?
I say again, so what? Of course they were making a case, based on the prevailing beliefs.
If, instead, the point is to prove that "Bush lied" about the reasons for going to war, they have a long, long way to go. The DSM does not say anything remotely close to that. With the war in Iraq for the most part in the past, with Iraqi's having held elections and in the process of writing a constitution, and with Hussein's butchery something for the history books, aren't there more important things to talk about?
It's like Drum said, the left's attachment to the DSM is just a continuation of a "nostalgic attempt" to create the glory days...of the Viet Nam era.
Why would a reporter do such a thing? While reporters need to protect their sources, at some point stories based on official documents will require authentication -- and as we have seen with the Killian memos, copies make that impossible. The AP gets a "senior British official" to assert that the content "appeared authentic", which only means that the content seems to match what he thinks he knows.
Indeed, the authenticity of the memos has been proven by no one, and the burning of the photocopies makes doing so impossible, unless Smith's source comes forward. All of the actual "confirmations" are to the tone of the reported meeting, or based on excerpts. Also, the sources for that authentication are all anonymous, which can be anybody.
Whether the DSM are real or not though, this will make it hard for them to be used for the purpose desired by the left, which is to fashion impeachment proceedings based on the information contained within, again, unless a source comes forward with the originals.
Captain's Quarter's has many more questions about the documents and Smith, all of which is at least worth reading.
Frankly, even if the DSM were authenticated, they are anything but the "smoking gun" the left has asserted. They are in fact, an exercise in contradiction. While an MI6 employee notes in the main document that he thought the intelligence was being "fixed" in the lead up to the war, they also demonstrate that the Brits were concerned about WMD; the existence of and possible use against coalition troops.
The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America's top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.
It wasn't just the possiblity that Iraq had, or would use, the weapons against troops. The Brits were looking at the possibility differently in a post 9/11 world.
"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
The AP story goes further to say that there was doubt among the Brits as to whether the programs had been "stepped up;" the assumption being that they did indeed exist and were, in fact, referred to by the Brit's as "worrying." The other assertion made by the document is that the Bush administration was considering circumventing the UN and would invade Iraq by January.
This seems to show the left that Bush was "rushing" to war based on bad intelligence. But, as we all know, Bush did indeed go to the UN and did not invade Iraq until March. So the charge by the left, than, is that Bush was mulling over not going before the UN at one time in the lead-up to the war.
So what?
Personally, I don't doubt the ultimate validity of the documents. Were they created by the left, they would have said something like "Bush noted in a meeting his clear intention to lie to the America people in order to fulfill his life-long dream of world domination," or some such nonsense. In short, the documents do not say what the left so desperately needs them to say.
Nevertheless it is important that such questions, like those by Captain's quarters, be asked about the DSM. One assertion that the Captain makes about the documents, that they are fake, is indisputable. This prompted Kevin "Fuck Off and Die" Drum to prove that he cannot tell the difference between the word "fake" and the word "fraud."
The wingnuts are getting desperate. Captain's Quarters, in a nostalgic attempt to recreate the glories of Rathergate, suggests that the Downing Street Memos aren't real. Why? Because Michael Smith, the reporter who got hold of them, had them retyped to protect his source and then returned the originals. Jonah Goldberg feverishly calls CQ's revelations a "must read."
Yes Kevin, they are not original documents but in fact are mock-ups and therefore fake. Now that we all agree...
Not to be outdone, Goldberg has a little fun at Drum's expense.
The bottom line is that, here we are again, looking at unauthenticated documents; documents that do not make the case that is being claimed. I'm not sure the point of this entire exercise. Is it to prove that Bush and the Brit's were making a case for war against Hussein? Is it that there was uncertainty regarding the levels of WMD production in Iraq?
I say again, so what? Of course they were making a case, based on the prevailing beliefs.
If, instead, the point is to prove that "Bush lied" about the reasons for going to war, they have a long, long way to go. The DSM does not say anything remotely close to that. With the war in Iraq for the most part in the past, with Iraqi's having held elections and in the process of writing a constitution, and with Hussein's butchery something for the history books, aren't there more important things to talk about?
It's like Drum said, the left's attachment to the DSM is just a continuation of a "nostalgic attempt" to create the glory days...of the Viet Nam era.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
A Wonderful Game of Pretend
Democrats Playing At Impeachment
The Downing Street Memo is turning out to be to House Democrats what a tea-set or a Molly Muddypants doll is to a five year old girl; a prop in a wonderful game of pretend.
They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official.
No word on whether any stuffed giraffes were used to fill seats, or if anyone brought their mother's costume jewelry. But they did bring all of their propoganda.
The event organizer, Democrats.com, distributed stickers saying "Bush lied/100,000 people died." One man's T-shirt proclaimed, "Whether you like Bush or not, he's still an incompetent liar," while a large poster of Uncle Sam announced: "Got kids? I want yours for cannon fodder." (emphasis added)
Conyers's firm hand on the gavel could not prevent something of a free-for-all; at one point, a former State Department worker rose from the audience to propose criminal charges against Bush officials. Early in the hearing, somebody accidentally turned off the lights; later, a witness knocked down a flag. Matters were even worse at Democratic headquarters, where the C-SPAN feed ended after just an hour, causing the activists to groan and one to shout "Conspiracy!"
Not to be outdone by fictional death toll figures, another moonbat went full blown into conspiracy mode.
The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration "neocons" so "the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world." He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
This is the second time that this assertion has been made in the last couple of days. Although McGovern was admonished that Israel was not to be brought up in "polite conversation," it is becoming ever more clear he is simply stating out loud what most of the anti-war crowd believes. It is also becoming apparent that those same people would throw Israel to the Islamist wolves if given the opportunity. Indeed, Israel's genocide may be their only solution to the war on terror and Islamic fundamentalism.
I wonder if their will be any kind of censure proceedings for all of the prominent Democrats who pushed the WMD "lie" down the throats of Americans.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy 'Burglar' Berger, Feb, 18, 1998.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
There is plenty more here.
It's time to move on folks. The ridiculous "lie" business has been over for a long time. Let's stop living in the past and get on with the business of the future.
A Les Enfants Terrible Fathers Day Booty Report
It was certainly good to be dad this year.
My dearly Befuddled bought me Queen Greatest Hits, which is a stellar album. She also gave me a super-cool, purple-yet-blue, metallic Zippo, complete with spare fints and wicks. To top it off, she brought home the biggest porterhouse available at the butcher shop on a saturday afternoon.
It was scrumptious.
UPDATE: I awoke this morning to a homemade card signed by all the kids, and my oldest daughter got me a nice Minnesota Vikings bumper sticker, two chocolate chip muffins, and a Butterfinger, to add to the take.
But the piece de resistance came from my second-oldest daughter and fellow hockey fanatic. This is just too cool for school:
I can't wait for hockey season. I mean I really can't wait. I might have to put this on and go hit somebody...just for the fun of it.
HAPPY FATHER'S DAY GUYS!!
My dearly Befuddled bought me Queen Greatest Hits, which is a stellar album. She also gave me a super-cool, purple-yet-blue, metallic Zippo, complete with spare fints and wicks. To top it off, she brought home the biggest porterhouse available at the butcher shop on a saturday afternoon.
It was scrumptious.
UPDATE: I awoke this morning to a homemade card signed by all the kids, and my oldest daughter got me a nice Minnesota Vikings bumper sticker, two chocolate chip muffins, and a Butterfinger, to add to the take.
But the piece de resistance came from my second-oldest daughter and fellow hockey fanatic. This is just too cool for school:
I can't wait for hockey season. I mean I really can't wait. I might have to put this on and go hit somebody...just for the fun of it.
HAPPY FATHER'S DAY GUYS!!
Help Us Obi-Sean. You're Our Only Hope.
The Downing Street Memo is all the rage in the leftistsphere these days, based essentially on a single remark by a MI6 analyist that the Bush administration was "fixing" intelligence on Iraq.
Despite this "bombshell" and others; the Bush administration's opinion that Hussein was dangerous and their adherence to the long-standing U.S. desire for regime change in Iraq, the memo is not gaining much traction, except for leftist whack jobs, which is probably why Liberal Larry is so damn frustrated.
Written in Bush's own hand and inked with the blood of a murdered Abu Ghraib detainee, the Downing Street Memo is a Stunning Revelation that the Shrub's reckless, ill-planned Rush to War with Iraq was carefully planned months in advance, perhaps as far back as his childhood. Of all the Stunning Revelation memos that keep surfacing, this is the one Stunning Revelation that can bring Bush down and finally free the International Community from his arrogant Swagger of Terror. But no matter how often I bring it up in normal conversation, or sneak up behind people and scream "DOWNING STREET MEMO! DOWNING STREET MEMO!" in a high-pitched feminine screech, no one wants to talk about it. They'd rather flap their sheeple gums over the Michael Jackson witch trial - and I hold the media responsible for allowing Hollywood sensationalism to briefly distract them from their job of compulsively badmouthing the peeResident.
Hopefully, journalist Sean Penn will come home from his fact-finding mission in Iran and restore some balance and integrity to the profession.
Because no one has the ability to make the American people sit up and take notice like Sean Penn. One can only hope that he completes his thesis on "free and fair" elections in Iran soon.
Despite this "bombshell" and others; the Bush administration's opinion that Hussein was dangerous and their adherence to the long-standing U.S. desire for regime change in Iraq, the memo is not gaining much traction, except for leftist whack jobs, which is probably why Liberal Larry is so damn frustrated.
Written in Bush's own hand and inked with the blood of a murdered Abu Ghraib detainee, the Downing Street Memo is a Stunning Revelation that the Shrub's reckless, ill-planned Rush to War with Iraq was carefully planned months in advance, perhaps as far back as his childhood. Of all the Stunning Revelation memos that keep surfacing, this is the one Stunning Revelation that can bring Bush down and finally free the International Community from his arrogant Swagger of Terror. But no matter how often I bring it up in normal conversation, or sneak up behind people and scream "DOWNING STREET MEMO! DOWNING STREET MEMO!" in a high-pitched feminine screech, no one wants to talk about it. They'd rather flap their sheeple gums over the Michael Jackson witch trial - and I hold the media responsible for allowing Hollywood sensationalism to briefly distract them from their job of compulsively badmouthing the peeResident.
Hopefully, journalist Sean Penn will come home from his fact-finding mission in Iran and restore some balance and integrity to the profession.
Because no one has the ability to make the American people sit up and take notice like Sean Penn. One can only hope that he completes his thesis on "free and fair" elections in Iran soon.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Turban's Priorities Have Certainly Changed
Senator Dick Turban has been highly critical of intelligence gathering in the United States over the last few years. But, while he likens Camp Delta to a death camp, intelligence gathering is exactly what is happeneing down there.
Commander Major General Jay Hood has noted:
"There's no doubt in my mind that the intelligence gathered from the detainees is a value to the US and its allies in the global war on terror" — adding that much has been learned about al-Qaeda recruitment, training, funding and movement.
And had this to say to the Washington Times:
"Detainees under our charge right now have provided us tremendous insight and intelligence regarding how terrorist organizations recruit, fund, train and plan, and how they have the ability to compartmentalize information, operations and projects,"
A skeptical interrogator had this to say on the fruits of Guantanamo:
"Before I came down to Guantanamo, I thought, 'What could they possibly have of value after two and a half years?'" says the senior interrogator. "But when I got down here, I was like 'Wow!' I was surprised by what I had found." He claims that information gathered here has helped foil multiple terrorist attacks.
Guantanamo is providing American and coalition troops with knowledge of tactics, funding, recruiting and countless other aspects of al Qaida in Iraq. Whether it be through knowledge of specific attacks, or general knowledge on how the insurgents operate, there can be little doubt that the information is saving not only American lives, but those if innocent Iraqi's as well.
Durbin is compromising that effort and eroding our effort to save those lives. Perhaps he should take this advice:
There is a delicate balance in times of peace--even more delicate in times of war. We have to maintain our reputation as a civilized nation but our first priority must be our own defense. (emphasis added)
That quote just about sums it up. Too bad Dick Durbin has ceased listening to...Dick Durbin, who has also said this in the past:
We all join the President in applauding the sacrifices made by our brave men and women in uniform. But we must continue to provide them the tools they need to accomplish the difficult tasks they face. (emphasis added)
And this:
It is only with valid, credible, good intelligence that we are able to anticipate someone who is trying to cause harm to the American people or to strike us in our territory or to, frankly, attack our special interests around the world. Intelligence is a critical part of our national defense. (emphasis added)
The only "tools" Durbin is providing these days is those for recruiting insurgents, as his "priority" has obviously changed from "national defense" to appeasing the restless far-left base of the Democratic Party. Frankly, I don't see any other way to view his ridiculous statements.
Commander Major General Jay Hood has noted:
"There's no doubt in my mind that the intelligence gathered from the detainees is a value to the US and its allies in the global war on terror" — adding that much has been learned about al-Qaeda recruitment, training, funding and movement.
And had this to say to the Washington Times:
"Detainees under our charge right now have provided us tremendous insight and intelligence regarding how terrorist organizations recruit, fund, train and plan, and how they have the ability to compartmentalize information, operations and projects,"
A skeptical interrogator had this to say on the fruits of Guantanamo:
"Before I came down to Guantanamo, I thought, 'What could they possibly have of value after two and a half years?'" says the senior interrogator. "But when I got down here, I was like 'Wow!' I was surprised by what I had found." He claims that information gathered here has helped foil multiple terrorist attacks.
Guantanamo is providing American and coalition troops with knowledge of tactics, funding, recruiting and countless other aspects of al Qaida in Iraq. Whether it be through knowledge of specific attacks, or general knowledge on how the insurgents operate, there can be little doubt that the information is saving not only American lives, but those if innocent Iraqi's as well.
Durbin is compromising that effort and eroding our effort to save those lives. Perhaps he should take this advice:
There is a delicate balance in times of peace--even more delicate in times of war. We have to maintain our reputation as a civilized nation but our first priority must be our own defense. (emphasis added)
That quote just about sums it up. Too bad Dick Durbin has ceased listening to...Dick Durbin, who has also said this in the past:
We all join the President in applauding the sacrifices made by our brave men and women in uniform. But we must continue to provide them the tools they need to accomplish the difficult tasks they face. (emphasis added)
And this:
It is only with valid, credible, good intelligence that we are able to anticipate someone who is trying to cause harm to the American people or to strike us in our territory or to, frankly, attack our special interests around the world. Intelligence is a critical part of our national defense. (emphasis added)
The only "tools" Durbin is providing these days is those for recruiting insurgents, as his "priority" has obviously changed from "national defense" to appeasing the restless far-left base of the Democratic Party. Frankly, I don't see any other way to view his ridiculous statements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)