The Worst Americans of 2007-Part 1

Mark Cuban/Brian De Palma


First the Dallas Mavericks owner funds the wacky, albeit creative, 9/11 conspiracy theory film Loose Change. Then he goes on to finance the awful, anti-troop, Brian De Palma flick, Redacted. My, how things have changed since the WWII era when Hollywood was actually rooting for our side and making films which made our soldiers look like the brave and noble individuals that most of them are.
Meanwhile, we don’t see anything coming out of Hollywood portraying the Jihadists as the bad guys. That wouldn’t be PC now would it?

You’d think that with all that this country has given to millionaires such as Cuban and De Palma they could give a little back when America is fighting a war against dangerous fundamentalists. But alas, they choose to make dishonest films, which are taken as fact by every Muslim who's looking for any excuse to hate us, and that individual now beileves that they are perfectly justified in blowing up more of our fighting men and women. You two truly exemplify what it means to be bad Americans.

Harry Reid

Another crummy American this year was the Senate Majority Leader who, in his overly zealous attempts to undermine the President, has consistently stuck his thumb directly in the eye of our troops .
There is no question in my mind that Leader Reid has wanted us to fail in Iraq from the moment he sensed that there were political points to be scored from a defeat at the hands of the terrorists.
In order to ensure such a defeat, he has used his prominent position behind the Senate podium to send the following messages to our soldiers in Iraq.

“I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything.”

"As many had foreseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results."

These quotes wouldn’t be a big deal if they had been found on the pages of Move.On or the Daily Kos, but the fact that they were uttered by one of the most powerful elected officials in Washington, says a lot about where the Democrats' priorities lie. I don’ t know what’s scarier: the fact that the Leader of the Senate was so very wrong about the surge strategy or the fact that he wanted so very badly to be right about it.

My favorite Reid moment, however, was when he referred to illegal immigrants as “undocumented Americans.” Funny, funny, scary stuff.


Rosie O’Donnell

This blog spent a good part of the spring in an effort to get Rosie O’Donnell removed from The View, a campaign that was ultimately successful. I’m sick of talking about her, so instead I will focus on what she came to represent.

O’Donnell was the central figure in the exposure and subsequent humiliation of the 9/11 Truth movement.

What makes this group so intriguing is that it showed us all how powerful the Internet can be when used as a tool by gullible, albeit creative individuals who long for excitement and conspiracy, even at the expense of their own nation.

I covered a 9/11 truth rally, and it was little more than an extension of the Bush-hatred that has become so prevalent over the last seven years. The sign waving conspiracy enthusiasts outside of the CNN building on Sunset Boulevard were, for the most part, vapid and yet were all united in their belief that the American government was covering something up in regards to 9/11 and was probably behind the attacks in the first place.

As cars honked their support for the “Impeach Bush/Cheney” signs held by many of the participants, it became clear just how damaging bad information can be when seen on a well laid out website.

Thankfully, Rosie’s departure killed the chances of these particular conspiracy theorists gaining any credibility, whatsoever.

The Paparazzi/Perez Hilton/TMZ

I’m just going to come out and say it. If you read People Magazine, Us, In Touch or any of the other supermarket checkout rags focusing on the personal lives of celebrities, you’re part of the problem.

I will never understand it, but if you purchase one of these mindless magazines, or log on to one of the celebrity-obsessed sites that have grown in popularity as of late, you are putting money in the pockets of the paparazzi.

At least 15 photographers follow the Britney Spears train wreck everywhere it goes. Gas stations, fast food joints. She’s not that interesting. Neither are Brangelina or any of the other public figures who would probably be homeless if not for their good looks and hotel money.

My question is, do the people who care about this stuff vote? If they do, whom do they vote for? Can we stop them from voting? Perhaps if every awards show was broadcast on election day... Just a thought.

Sphere: Related Content

When Terror Strikes, The Choice Is Obvious

"The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a tragic event for Pakistan and for democracy in Pakistan. Her murderers must be brought to justice and Pakistan must continue the path back to democracy and the rule of law. Her death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere -- whether in New York, London, Tel-Aviv or Rawalpindi -- is an enemy of freedom. We must redouble our efforts to win the Terrorists' War on Us."

Or maybe......

Who else?

Sphere: Related Content

Tim Weiner and The New York Times Get It Wrong Again

Tim Weiner of the New York Times doesn't let facts get in the way of his

story

on J. Edgar Hoover's plan to incarcerate Americans during the 1950's. While Hoover may have indeed had such a plan, Weiner makes an unfair and inaccurate comparison of Hoover's plan to the Bush administration's Military Commissions Act of 2006. He writes:

"After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush issued an order that effectively allowed the United States to hold suspects indefinitely without a hearing, a lawyer, or formal charges. In September 2006, Congress passed a law suspending habeas corpus for anyone deemed an “unlawful enemy combatant.”

Of course if Weiner had actually read the bill, specifically section 7 of the bill, he would know that the suspension of Habeas Corpus only applies to "aliens" deemed enemy combatants. This is far different from the president having the ability to deem any American an "unlawful enemy combatant" and throw them in prison.

The New York Times ladies and gentleman. Informing the terrorists and misinforming Americans since 2001.

Sphere: Related Content

Barone On Putin as POTY

"Yes, he's a consequential figure, who has just nominated a successor who looks like his pawn (at least for now; for a contrary view, see this speculation). But Russia ain't what it was when Time saw Ronald Reagan and Yuri Andropov as a dynamic duo. And who are Time's runners-up? Al Gore, who exaggerated the IPCC climate forecast by a factor of 20 to say that New York and London would be flooded by global warming (they weren't in the 13th century, when the weather was a lot warmer than it is now). J. K. Rowling, who has made millions writing books that children and adults love to read; all power to her, but she's not exerting the kind of influence over human affairs that Hitler did in 1938 and Stalin did in 1939. Or Hu Jintao, who is presiding over a system whose initiation, in 1978, was rightly honored by Time as a turning point in history. I have on my bookshelves somewhere (actually, it's not there, because I've just moved and haven't reshelved my books) a book by a China scholar entitled 1587: A Year of No Significance. I bought it because of the title and haven't gotten around to reading it yet. Hu Jintao is, so far as I can tell, like that book, of no significance. David Petraeus, No. 4 on Time's list, has made a much greater—a huger—difference. But Time doesn't want to acknowledge that, because to do so would be to admit that George W. Bush is not an ignorant tyrant and that the United States is not on the losing side of history. Better to elevate Vladimir Putin to a significance he does not deserve. Shame."

Sphere: Related Content

Huckabust?

Huckabee Sees WH 'Bunker Mentality'

By LIBBY QUAID


CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - Mike Huckabee, who has joked about his lack of foreign policy experience, is criticizing the Bush administration's efforts, denouncing a go-it-alone "arrogant bunker mentality" and questioning decisions on Iraq.

Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor now running for the Republican presidential nomination, lays out a policy plan that is long on optimism but short on details in the January-February issue of the journal Foreign Affairs, which is published by the Council on Foreign Relations. A copy of his article was released Friday.

"American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out," Huckabee said. "The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States' main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists."

In one specific criticism, Huckabee said Bush did not send enough troops to invade Iraq. And he accused the president of marginalizing Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, who said at the outset of the war that it might take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to control Iraq after the invasion. "I would have met with Shinseki privately and carefully weighed his advice," Huckabee said.

He said this year's troop increase under Bush has resulted in significant but tenuous gains, and he said - much as Bush has - that he would not withdraw troops from Iraq any faster than Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander there, recommends. The military has now slowly begun to reverse the troop increase.

Huckabee has previously joked about his lack of experience in international affairs. "I may not be the expert as some people on foreign policy, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night," he said earlier this month.

While the Foreign Affairs article is missing the one-liners he is known for, it does have a few folksy comparisons to illustrate his points. On Iran, for example, he makes a case for diplomacy by saying, "Before we put boots on the ground elsewhere, we had better have wingtips there first."

He adds that the U.S. can exploit the Iranian government's hunger for regional clout, saying, "We cannot live with al-Qaida, but we might be able to live with a contained Iran."

Last week, Huckabee missed a report the White House released saying Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program; one day later, the candidate said he was unaware of the report and had been campaigning too hard to read the newspaper or be briefed. The Foreign Affairs article seems to have been written before the report was released, citing "urgent concerns about Iran's development of nuclear weapons."

In his article, Huckabee also thumped Bush for failing to pursue al-Qaida in Pakistan, noting recent terrorism plans, since thwarted, that were planned there: "Whereas our failure to tackle Iran seems to be leading inexorably to our attacking it, our failure to tackle al-Qaida in Pakistan seems to be leading inexorably to its attacking us again."

Sphere: Related Content

Don't Buy The Left's Spin On Iran

This has never been a very political administration. To a fault, President Bush has consistently done what he believes to be the right thing to do rather than the popular thing.

His poll numbers have tanked and he doesn't really seem to care.

Despite the fact that he has been attacked mercilessly by Democrats in an unprecedentedly vile fashion for the last eight years, he never fires back or uses the opposition's vitriol in order to gain politically.

Gone is the take no prisoners, win by any means, political style of the Clintons, although it’s trying to make a comeback.

I like Bush's style. A good President is supposed to stay above the political in order to focus on....you know.....the nation's problems and stuff.

The NIE report on Iran released last week however, gave the president the political equivalent of a massive club with which to bludgeon his political foes over the head. Repeatedly. But Bush missed it.

The fact that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003 shows us that the invasion of Iraq has had incredibly positive repercussions on the Middle East and by default on the world.

One of the key goals of the invasion--to deter nations run by brutal totalitarian regimes from even thinking about buying or making WMD's--has worked perfectly.

At this point, every crazy dictator in the world knows that if he so much as acquires a weapon of mass destruction in a dream, he runs the risk of having his government toppled or having billions in nuclear technology blown up by the United States.

For all of you liberals out there: This is good. We want this kind of thing to happen, because it prevents nukes and horrible chemical weapons from being put in the hands of terrorists. It also prevents Israel being completely destroyed.

Libya.
North Korea.
Iran.

Like dominoes, the nations that we worry most about actually using an apocalyptic weapon have had to give up their dreams of holding their respective areas of the world hostage by threatening to lob a nuke into neighboring countries.

The principle of preemption has worked.

Democrats, of course, would never admit this but the increasingly positive news coming out of Iraq means that they will be unable to deny it forever. There is an incredible transformation underway in the Middle East.

The sour taste over Iraq remains in the mouths of much of the American electorate and this has allowed the Democrats to spin the NIE report as a negative. They say it is a further indictment of Bush's credibility and the sad state of our intelligence gathering abilities.

As usual, the "Bush lied" argument will never go anywhere. It's bogus. And while some will believe it now due to far-left sites that peddle misinformation, the accusation that Bush misled the American people either now or in the lead up to the Iraq war will never survive in the scope of history.


But some still don't get it. Liberal columnist Matthew Yglesias was allowed to throw this

gem

onto the pages of Saturday’s L.A. Times:

"The problem with the Bush preemption doctrine isn't merely that it's been applied when the intelligence was lacking but that the underlying idea is unsound. By casting America as the threatening aggressor, it encourages countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction to defend themselves, as it undermines the sort of international cooperation that's necessary to halt the spread of those weapons. On some level, Democrats seem to recognize this, but if they're politically too timid to rule out the failed policy of preemption, they can't offer a coherent rationale for an alternative approach. Instead, they sometimes seem to be offering more of the same, only a bit less so. Thanks to the latest intelligence, preemption is moot for the short run."

Clearly this is bass ackwards. By casting America as the "aggressor",rogue nations appear to be encouraged to stop in their attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction? Like in Iran? The nation that you're talking about in the article you're writing, Matt? Right? Wait.....did I miss something?


We attacked Iraq. A couple of months later, their neighbor, who policy minds were incredibly worried about in the wake of 9/11, stopped making their nuke. That seems like a fairly simple scenario that anyone familiar with the concept of "cause and effect" should be able to grasp.

The reason that the Democrats won't rule out the policy of pre-emption is because they know it works. It's like ruling out the policy of brushing your teeth as a preemptive strike against cavities.

Yglesias also claims that the discovery of the recent intelligence"....signals that the hawks inside the Bush administration have lost. No U.S. airstrikes will be forthcoming."

Who? What hawks in the Bush Administration wanted to bomb Iran's nuke facilities? Does Matthew Yglesias have some sort of inside information about what Dick Cheney was recommending the President do about the Iran situation?

Does his position as associate editor of Atlantic Monthly allow him access to that type of inside information? I doubt it.

The incresingly partisan Joe Klein makes the same accusation in this week's Time Magazine, yet he provides no evidence to back up his claim.


Making an assumption based on guesses as to what is going on in the White House and then presenting it as fact is bad journalism. I expect that kind of thing from Yglesias, but not from a respected journalist like Klein.

Bush should have launched a pre-emptive strike on liberals like Yglesias as soon as the NIE report was released in order to connect the absence of Iran's nuke program to the absence of Saddam Hussein’s vicious regime.

The modern left has a long history of being wrong on foreign policy matters and then being incapable of admitting their mistakes once they’re evident.

Many liberals are still incapable of conceding that Ronald Reagan was instrumental in the collapse of the Soviet Empire.

Their refusal to acknowledge the success of the President’s surge strategy would be laughable if it wasn’t so depressing. In my favorite surge delusion, some liberals imply that the only reason that the civilian death toll in Iraq has dropped so dramatically over the past few months is because most of the Iraqi’s are already dead.

The fact that guys like Yglesias were so quick to spin the NIE's conclusions into a negative, in addition to the administration’s unwillingness to explain to the American people the likely reasons why Iran suspended its nuclear program in 2003, will probably allow for some short term political gains for the Bush haters and those against the use of military force for any reason whatsoever.

However, those of us who are able to separate the reality from the pathological spin of the left wing media, are becoming increasingly confident in the knowledge that history will cast the decision to topple the government of Iraq in a positive light and that so-called “cowboy diplomacy” has worked far more efficiently than most in the media are willing to admit.

- Dan Joseph

Sphere: Related Content

Grand Old Gang

Sphere: Related Content

News From Iran Shows Bush Doctrine Works

For several years now we have heard conspiracy theories floated by Iraq war opponents everywhere that the Bush administration had pretty much settled on attacking Iran. To hear them tell it, it wasn't simply going to be a strategic bombing of the rogue nation's nuclear facilities, but rather an all-out, Iraq-style, ground war.

Of course, there is no evidence that the administration was planning such an attack. But with the mission in Iraq going badly, it was political rhetoric which succeeded in making the far-left and the Democratic base hate the president even more and unite the left around the idea that a war against Iran was inevitable unless John Edwards or some other far-left dove was brought in immediately to stop it.

Now, keep in mind: all of this fear-mongering of another Bush war came against the backdrop of an Iran which most believed was in the process of (or close to being in the process of) building a nuclear weapon. Despite the obvious danger of such a prospect, the left showed that they were far more concerned with an imperialist America actually using its military than they were of a radical Islamic nation with a nuke.

Now a new NIE intelligence estimate tells us that Iran halted their development of nuclear weapons in 2003.

The left seized on this finding immediately and pointed to it as evidence that the Bush administration over-hyped the threat posed by Iran, with the goal of bringing us into another war. We've come to expect this type of knee-jerk reaction from the tin-foil hat crowd and Bush haters, but as is usual these days, on matters of foreign policy the opposition let their mouths get a couple steps ahead of their brains on this one.

Let the grown ups explain.

First of all, I shouldn't even have to point out that those who are trying to score political points off of this NIE report are the same folks who have been calling the President a liar or implying that he misled the nation in the lead up to the Iraq war. Of course, the intelligence that the president received which led him, as well as almost everyone else to believe that Saddam Hussein had WMD's and was possibly well on his way to acquiring a nuclear weapon was laid out very clearly in an NIE intelligence estimate.

It's political opportunism right out of the Clinton playbook. When the intelligence estimate says something that is subsequently investigated and turns out to be wrong, the president is a liar. However, when believing the NIE estimate can help the Democrats politically, they will use it as fact to try and make the president look like a liar.

Of course, the Democrats will never admit how hypocritical this pick-and-choose politics is. They will also never admit that this news is evidence that the war in Iraq has served as a deterrent to other regimes who seek weapons of mass destruction. Of course, to hear the left tell it, this whole war was about oil anyway so they probably wouldn't have the intellectual honesty or capacity to understand that deterrence was one of the major, strategic goals of the Iraq invasion in the first place.

We now know that Iran suspended their development of a nuclear weapon around the same time that we invaded Iraq in order to disarm Saddam. Coincidence? You can make the call on that one.

Common sense would suggest that like Libya, the powers that be in Iran decided that acquiring a nuke was not worth the threat of having the United States put the smackdown on them and overthrow their government. Something that they now saw we were perfectly willing to do, with or without the blessing of the U.N.

So our show of force in Iraq worked perfectly in that sense. Recently, North Korea has also promised to end their nuclear weapons program as well. So there you have it. The Axis of Evil is no longer a threat to the world or the stability of the Middle East, right?

Not quite. We know that we can't trust regimes like Iran or North Korea in the long run. Despite the fact that both Iran and Saddam were not as far along in their WMD capabilities as we thought, both regimes felt it necessary to keep the world guessing.

Iran is still enriching uranium, North Korea lied to us once before when we made a deal with them. You simply can't trust these guys.

Therefore, President Bush is correct in his assertion that Iran is still dangerous even without a current nuke program.

While we must keep Iran on a steady diet of sanctions and carrots attached to sticks, in order to ensure that they improve their behavior in the region, today's revelation is good news for everyone.

For the time being, Iran's neighbors don't have to worry about having a bomb lobbed at them.

For now the U.S. does not have to be concerned with Iran handing off a nuke to Al-Queda or some other Islamic extremist group. The fact that it appears that Iran couldn't even possibly construct a nuclear weapon before the middle of the next decade buys us some much needed time to fight the War on Terror, without Iran having the bargaining power which a nuclear weapon would give them.

The real story here however is the left's continued attempts to spin every positive into a negative. To spin even the most promising intelligence into a gotcha moment for the administration.

But their days are numbered. As the surge in Iraq continues to work and democracy continues to evolve in the region, the Bush administrations decision to go into Iraq will eventually begin to get the credit it deserves for the dominoes which continue to fall as a result.

Of course I could be wrong. Maybe Iran just stopped their nuke program in 2003 because they were bored or lazy, or because they just wanted to be nice guys.

But if you are still not convinced, ask yourself this: If Iran had announced that it had suspended its nuclear weapons program a few days after the U.S. attacked Iraq, how would the media and the Democrats have reacted to that?

Whatever the case, it's time for some honesty from the Democrats and those in the media, who seem to believe that this story is more about the Administration's credibility than our sucesses in the War on Terror.



-Dan Joseph

Sphere: Related Content

Sphere: Related Content