What? John McCain is Running for President?

Tonight on David Letterman, John McCain will announce what everyone in the country already knows: That he is running for President.

Now, McCain doesn't really need to do this in order to inform people of his aspirations, but he does need to do this as a way to remind people that he still exists.

He is currently getting trounced in GOP primary polls by Rudy.

He is losing Republicans who once viewed him as the front runner due to his refusal to embrace the Bush tax cuts, and the constant drumbeat coming from conservative talking heads that he is not Republican enough, too eager to compromise and has been in Washington too long.

But McCain is still quite popular with independents and Democrats.

McCain will boost his visibility by going on Letterman and in a sense that's good. We want a popular, likable candidate to represent our party in '08, especially if the current President is unpopular.

He may be taking a page from Arnold, who announced on Jay Leno, but Arnold was running in California, and there was no primary.

What McCain should be doing however is brandishing his conservative credentials (yes, he does have them) on O'Reilly and on the talk radio circuit.

He can sit on the couch of far-left talk show hosts until everyone who gets their news from comedians supports him, but those are not the people who are going to be deciding whether he's the GOP nominee.

Well Senator, we're in the process of deciding right now, and your nomination is becoming less and less likely.

Sphere: Related Content

Liberals Cheer: "Go Terrorists Go!"

When this story broke last night, I knew that the liberal blogs wouldn't be able to maintain their human decency or control their Bush/Cheney derangement syndrome. The beautiful and talented Amy Proctor took the time to collect some of the more atrocious quotes and posted them on her blog. Here's the post:


Taliban Targets Cheney
Vice President Dick Cheney was the target of an apparent assassination attempt outside the U.S. military base in Bagram, Afghanistan, where the VP was staying. Approximately 20 people were killed in the attack but Cheney was unharmed.




Update on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 at 12:00PM by Amy Proctor
Sickening but true, leftist liberal whacko blogs are saying "maybe next time" and "too bad you missed" to the Taliban on the Cheney assassination plot. The Huffington Post blog has a headline "Suicide Bomber Fails to Stop World's #1 Homicide Bomber". The Huffington headline featured "Over 20 Die in Attack Aimed at Cheney" with a photo seeming to blame the VP for military and civilian casualties in the blast. Here are some of the liberal comments on Huffington's Post:


*"Better luck next time!"
By: TDB on February 27, 2007 at 08:18am



*"Dr Evil escapes again...damn."
By: truthtopower01 on February 27, 2007 at 08:18am


*"Another 14 people dead, and their blood is literally on Dick's hands".
By: micdago on February 27, 2007 at 08:24am



*"So Cheney is personally responsible for the deaths of 14 innocent people...and then he waddles off to lunch!! What a piece of shit!"
By: fantanfanny on February 27, 2007 at 08:15am



*"Jesus Christ and General Jackson too, can't the Taliban do anything right? They must know we would be so gratefull to them for such a remarkable achievement."
By: hankster2 on February 27, 2007 at 08:32am



*"Let's see...they're killing him over there so we don't have to kill him over here?"
By: ncjohn on February 27, 2007 at 08:57am



*"Forget the bombs fellas, next time just expose him to a big magnet and turn his pace maker into an 'in body' IED"
By: pinehermit on February 27, 2007 at 08:58am



*"I am so sorry. I should not have felt that electric surge of anticipation when I read the headline. I feel so guilty, so dirty. Still, that tingly feeling just won't go away."
By: ncjohn on February 27, 2007 at 09:00am



*"And they missed!? Oh, Hell. Like Mamma used to say, I guess it's the thought that counts..."
By: Anachro1 on February 27, 2007 at 09:02am



*"You can never find a competent suicide bomber when you need one."
By: Mark701 on February 27, 2007 at 09:28am



*"If only Cheny and Chimpy traveled together. They could kill two turds with one stone. And then---President Pelosi! Neocons wake up screeming."
By: TOMVICKERS on February 27, 2007 at 09:35am



*"Da-da-da-da-da, I'm loving it!"
By: BJasinBeetlejuice on February 27, 2007 at 09:23am



*"Cheney's pure evil. The sooner he goes, the better."
By: bookish on February 27, 2007 at 09:52am

Liberalism is a sickness" isn't just a mantra, it's a fact. These people need serious therapy. But what would expect from a bunch who supports the Iraqi Insurgency?

I'm wondering now how sincere all those liberal well-wishers of D-Sen. Tim Johnson were after his near death experience with arteriovenous malformation just after the midterm elections of 2006. They were more concerned with him losing the balance of power for them in the Senate than regaining health. Republicans sincerely wished him well.

Viscous, disgusting people. No wonder they have to rely on illegal aliens, dead people and felons to win elections.

Ask yourselves why the Taliban has never tried to assassinate John Kerry, Hillary Clinton or the other few Democrats who have ventured abroad. Hmmmm......

Thanks Amy.

So what's wrong with these guys?

This, in addition to the Edward's blogger fiasco speaks volumes about the willingness of the left-wing bloggers to use vile personal attacks and even wish physical harm upon those politicians with whom they disagree.

Disgusting.

Sphere: Related Content

Betty Not Just Ugly, Also Dumb

Yet another reminder that the vast majority of celebrities are imbeciles. I'm sure they will give us a few more examples of their warped world view tonight at the Oscars. I won't be watching.

From News Busters

At 'Spirit Awards,' Star of ABC's 'Ugly Betty' Quips U.S. Won't Be 'Free' Until Bush Gone
Posted by Brent Baker on February 24, 2007 - 20:22.
A preview of the political commentary we can expect at Sunday night's Academy Awards? As a presenter at Saturday's “Film Independent's Spirit Awards” carried live at 2pm PST/5pm EST on the Independent Film Channel (IFC), actress America Ferrera (IMDb page), the title role star of ABC's Ugly Betty, interjected a bit of political commentary suggesting the U.S. will not be “the land of the free” again until President Bush leaves office. Taking the stage inside a tent on the Santa Monica beach, Ferrera was joined by actor Zach Braff, a star on NBC's Scrubs, to present the award for the “Best First Feature.” In the scripted exchange, Braff asked: “So do you think that you have any traits in common with the country that is your namesake?” Ferrera replied: “I guess I'm a free-spirited person and America's supposedly the 'land of the free,' right?” She then added, to loud applause from the left coast film industry audience: “Or at least we will be in 2008.”

Of course, Ferrera needs to study up on the U.S. political system. The new President will not take office until 2009.

The awards ceremony will re-air twice for two hours in “edited” form on AMC, presumably meaning with advertisements and sans the vulgarities, at 10pm EST Saturday night and 9am EST Sunday morning.

The exchange at the February 24 event:


Zach Braff: “You know America, here's a little interesting tidbit you probably don't know about me. My middle name is Israel. We're both named after countries. “

America Ferrera: “Wow, that is interesting.”

Braff: “So do you think that you have any traits in common with the country that is your namesake?”

Ferrera: “Well, you know, I mean I guess I'm a free-spirited person and America's supposedly the 'land of the free,' right?”

Braff: “Well, I guess.”

Ferrera: “Or at least we will be in 2008.” [loud applause] Well how about you, Zach, I mean do you have anything in common with Israel?”

Braff: “Let me see. Well, I'm predominantly Jewish, I'm very hot and all of my neighbors hate me. So yeah.” [audience laughter]

Sphere: Related Content

Sorry....

I've been out with the flu for the past week, so I haven't gotten a chance to post anything other than a picture of former President Chester A. Arthur (did any of you know who it was? Be honest.)

I'll be back with a vengance early next week however, examining the Hilary, Obama tiff, the end of the Edwards campaign, and why I'm almost ready to make an endorsement for '08. I'll give you a hint, It's not Duncan Hunter.

Sphere: Related Content

Happy Presidents Day

Sphere: Related Content

Congressional Cowards

Ralph Peters, New York Post
February 17, 2007 -- PROVIDING aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime is treason. It's not "just politics." It's treason.

And signaling our enemies that Congress wants them to win isn't "supporting our troops."

The "nonbinding resolution" telling the world that we intend to surrender to terrorism and abandon Iraq may be the most disgraceful congressional action since the Democratic Party united to defend slavery.

The vote was a huge morale booster for al Qaeda, for Iraq's Sunni insurgents, and for the worst of the Shia militias.

The message Congress just sent to them all was, "Hold on, we'll stop the surge, we're going to leave - and you can slaughter the innocent with our blessing."

We've reached a low point in the history of our government when a substantial number of legislators would welcome an American defeat in Iraq for domestic political advantage.

Yes, some members voted their conscience. But does anyone believe they were in the majority?

This troop surge might not work. We can't know yet. But we can be damned sure that the shameful action taken on the Hill while our troops are fighting isn't going to help.

And a word about those troops: It's going to come as a shock to the massive egos in Congress, but this resolution won't hurt morale - for the simple reason that our men and women in uniform have such low expectations of our politicians that they'll shrug this off as business as usual.

This resolution has teeth, though: It's going to bite our combat commanders. By undermining their credibility and shaking the trust of their Iraqi counterparts, it makes it far tougher to build the alliances that might give Iraq a chance.

If you were an Iraqi, would you be willing to trust Americans and risk your life after the United States Congress voted to abandon you?

Now that Donald Rumsfeld's gone, the Democrats are doing just what they pilloried the former Secretary of Defense for doing: Denying battlefield commanders the troops and resources they need.

Congresswoman Pelosi, have you no shame?

As a former soldier who still spends a good bit of time with those in uniform, what infuriates me personally is the Doublespeak, Stalin-Prize lie that undercutting our troops and encouraging our enemies is really a way to "support our troops."

As for bringing them home, why not respect the vote the troops themselves are taking: Sustained re-enlistment rates have been at a record high.

And our soldiers and Marines know they'll go back to Iraq or Afghanistan. And no, Senator Kerry, it's not because they're too stupid to get a "real" job like yours or because they're "mercenaries." Some Americans still believe in America.

If our troops are willing to fight this bitter war, how dare Congress knife them in the back?

On Thursday night, I was in Nashville as a guest of the 506th Regimental Combat Team - with whom I'd spent all too brief a time in Baghdad.

The occasion was their welcome-home ball, complete with dress uniforms spangled with awards for bravery. Proud spouses sat beside their returned warriors.

Of course, those soldiers were glad to be home with their loved ones. But they also know they'll go back to one theater of war or another - and no one complained.

They share a value that Congress has forgotten: duty. They're willing to bear the weight of the world on their shoulders. Because they know that freedom has a price.

As you entered the ballroom for the event, the first thing you saw was a line of 34 photographs. A single white candle softly lit each frame. Those were the members of the 506th who didn't come home.

Soldiers honor their dead. It's the least Congress could do to honor the living men and women in uniform.

You don't support our troops by supporting our enemies.

Ralph Peters' latest book is "Never Quit The Fight."

Sphere: Related Content

The Return of McGovernism

The Democrats have abandoned what's right, for what's popular right now.

We have reached a dark time in our history when in order to appease their base many Democrats are actually willing to cut off our troops financially.

Pelosi says Bush lacks the authority to take military action against Iran. I take this to mean that Pelosi, like most other Dems wouldn't use military force against Iran for any reason. Ever.

Now, Pelosi's assertion in ridiculous.

Of course Bush has the authority to invade Iran. There's a reason that the founders gave almost all authority over the military to the President. It was so 535 members of congress don't waste perfect opportunities for military action by endlessly debating the issue.

It's not that Bush lacks the authority. It's that the Democrats lack the will to do it, even if its necessary.

Their Presidential candidates appeasement to their anti-war base over the past few months will continue on until after the primaries.

If elected, their reliance on this base will tie their hands so that they will not have the courage or political ability to do what is necessary to protect the nation and the world from terrorism and rogue regimes.

If this happens, and every reasonable American should hope that it doesn't, things are going to get real bad, real fast.

But, hopefully it will thrust the GOP back into a long-term position of power and once again solidify their standing as the party of National Security, just like it did following the far-lefts political abandonment of anti-communism in the mid-seventies.

From The Washington Times:

Murtha's plan for defeat
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
February 16, 2007


In the wake of September 11, McGovernism -- that is, the reflexive opposition to the use of force by the United States against foreign enemies that has dogged the Democratic Party since Richard Nixon's time -- became more of a liability than ever. At least, it appeared that way judging from the 2002 and 2004 election results. But in last year's congressional elections, the Democrats came up with a shrewd, cynical new P.R. strategy that has until now served them well: saying lots of nice things about American soldiers fighting in Iraq while simultaneously advancing resolutions that denigrate their mission. But the decision to effectively cut off funds by micromanaging their use -- rather than by doing so directly -- may also be unconstitutional.
When the House votes today on the resolution denouncing Mr. Bush's plans for additional troops to combat al Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Iraq, members should be under no illusions about what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic Party leadership are trying to do: to make it impossible for American troops to properly do their job in Iraq. In an interview yesterday with MoveCongress.org, a Web site for a coalition of anti-war groups, Mr. Murtha, who chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, explained that by placing conditions on $93.4 billion in new combat funds, he would make be able to effectively stop the troops in their tracks. "They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work. There's no question in my mind," Mr. Murtha said.
"We will set benchmarks for readiness," a top Democratic leadership aide told the nonpartisan Politico.com Web site, which summarized the Democrats' strategy this way: "If enacted, these provisions would have the effect of limiting the number of troops available for the Bush surge plan, while blunting the GOP charge that Democrats are cutting funding for the troops in Iraq."
Aside from doing severe damage to the war effort in Iraq, the Democrats' political strategy to cripple the war effort by attaching thousands of legislative strings to war funding may also be unconstitutional. Noted attorney and constitutional scholar David Rivkin makes a strong case that Congress cannot act like a "puppet master" appropriating and authorizing funds while attaching conditions that would effectively transform the president into a marionette. If Congress wants to cut off funding, it must do so honestly and directly, rather than dishonestly through micromanagement. In addition to paving the way for a geopolitical catastrophe for this country, the Democratic leadership may be setting the stage for a constitutional confrontation with the White House.

Sphere: Related Content

SEN. BARACK OBAMA, (D) - FLAVOR COUNTRY

We have now established that a majority of Americans no longer consider infidelity to be a big deal when it comes to their politicians.
Bill Clinton opened the door for our leaders to pretty much do whatever they want with whomever they want, in bed (or on a desk) and pay no price politically.

Those who found what he did to be inappropriate for a sitting President were silenced with the new conventional wisdom, established by the Democrats: Everybody cheats; it’s none of our business.

So now, it’s not a big deal if San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is drinking martini’s and having sexy-time with the spouses of his staff members. He’ll still get re-elected as long as he keeps marrying gay couples. No one in the Bay Area seems to care much. Then again, San Francisco isn’t known as a haven for values voters.


So infidelity is okay. But what about smoking?

It has now been established that the Democrats' fair-haired boy, Barack Obama, is a smoker.

I don’t really care if people smoke or not. I used to smoke and many of my friends do. The difference is that none of my buddies are considering a run for the White House.

So why should we care?

Obviously, smoking is bad for you. We all know this, but it’s my view that if you enjoy it to the point where you don’t care whether it’s going to kill you or not, then that’s your business.

But the President isn’t just some low-profile schmo. He’s the leader guy.

Despite the sour taste that people usually have in regards to their political leaders, the President is still a role model. He sets a moral tone and his behavior is more closely watched than ever in this era of mass media.

So, if the president is lighting up, and everyone knows it, doesn’t that serve as a pass (or at least an excuse) for young people to pick up the habit?

Isn’t it a bit harder to explain the dangers of smoking to your teenager, when he holds the Trump card of being able to say ‘The President does it, why can’t I?'

Bill Clinton’s behavior, which was viewed as harmless by his supporters, certainly did not help the insanely high, out of wed-lock birthrate in black communities where the former President is viewed very favorably.

A much higher percentage of the African-American population smokes than does the white community. Would having a cigarette smoker as the first black President help improve that situation? I doubt it.

So just quit Barack! Cold turkey. Right now.

I know it’s hard, but get some gum, or a patch. It couldn’t be any more difficult than some of the problems which you will inevitably face in your tenure as Commander-in-Chief during wartime.

And therein lies the rub.

If your willpower and resolve are too weak to quit doing something that is very likely to kill you at an early age, how can we expect you to overcome the obstacles that lie in wait for you in the Oval Office?

It’s very similar to the recent debacle eating up the John Edwards campaign where he refuses to fire a couple of bloggers whose writings contain vile, anti-Christian diatribes.

Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's bigoted statements would have easily gotten them dismissed from almost any other job, but for some reason, Edwards refuses to fire them. It’s an easy call. If you’re running for the nation’s highest office, you shouldn’t struggle with a decision that’s this simple.

If elected to the Presidency, one will most likely agonize over life and death decisions every day. It shouldn’t spark a lot of confidence among the electorate if two of the leading Democratic contenders for the job, are struggling to such an extent with a couple of no-brainers.

Obama’s smoking habit should also be a concern to Democrats who have made it their crusade to ban smoking everywhere.

Here in California, I believe you can now only smoke in your room, in the dark and while completely covered by bed sheets or a large comforter.

Second only to the dangers of global warming, Democrats have made it their goal to pass anti-smoking legislation in order to save us from ourselves.

Some of their laws have been good ones, like banning smoking in restaurants and in the workplace. Others have been Draconian, such as extending the ban to bars and in some cases, public sidewalks.


So how is it going to look if Obama is given the nomination and the Democrats' standard bearer’s own behavior flies in the face of 20 years of that party’s progress in ridding the country of tobacco smoke. For God’s sake, who will Rob Reiner vote for?

Obama should quit smoking right now. Not just for himself, but for the kids with whom he surrounds himself with at his campaign events, and who see this charismatic, American success story as a role model.

Unlike our current president, Bill Clinton was not strong enough in the character department to leave his bad habits behind when he assumed the Presidency and I believe that America has paid a price because of it. Obama needs to avoid these mistakes, not only if elected, but as a candidate as well.

With all the positive media attention that he has received, he needs to make sure that he lives up to it, by setting a positive example.

Sphere: Related Content

The Blizzard of '07

Helplessly snowed in, two New Yorkers come to grips with the fact that they will not be able to return their copy of An Inconvenient Truth, to Blockbuster Video, on time.

Sphere: Related Content

More Little League Reporting From the Left-Wing Press

This is from a blog called Ace of Spades HQ. I just added a link. Yet again the MSM jumps the gun in order to try to discredit the administration.

WaPo Exclusive: Pentagon Inspector General's Report States Conclusively That Bush Admin Official Cooked Pre-War Intelligence!!!
Oh, Minor Correction: It Was A Report From Anti-War Democrat Carl Levin Which "Concluded" That. Whoops, Our Bad.
—Ace

Long headline, but for one of the most egregious "twisted intelligence" debacles of all time.

The correction, of course, does not quite capture the enormity of this error -- breathlessly labeling a partisan liberal Democrats' "conclusions" as if they were the indpendent, nonpartisan official conclusions of the Bush-run Pentagon. How could they really convey how massively they fucked up here? This is, in journalistic terms, simply catastrophic.

"Confirmation bias," they call it-- the press simply will run anti-Republican stories that ought to sound a little implausible or sketchy because, to them, they sound pretty darn reasonable. Such "facts" are "self-checking" -- they just prove themselves by how wonderfully they fit in with the liberal worldview.

Meanwhile, anything that shows the Democrats in a bad light is vetted, checked, confirmed, re-confirmed, and subject to a complete full-office rewrite to insure all appropriate mitigating "context" was included before ultimately being buried on page A37 beneath a short blurb on Icelandic geese migration.


Carl Levin Wouldn't Lie To You: Consider how astoundingly easily it was for Levin to get this false report on page one of the Washington Post. He just had to claim what he was reading was from the IG report. (Or be unclear about which report he was quoting.)

No need to see the actual document. Nope -- if Carl Levin tells you something, that itself is auto-confirming. Liberal Democrats don't lie to other liberal Democrats, and they never make errors. So really, who needs to see the actual document?

The standard "two sources" verification rule is apparently suspended if a liberal Democrat is your source.


Better Headline For the Washington Post:


Charges Carl Levin Has Been Making For Three Years Completely Vindicated By 2004 Report Authored By Carl Levin

So their front page story wasn't merely based upon a partisan document written by Carl Levin, misattributed to the Pentagon IG -- it was based on a 2004 partisan document written by Carl Levin.

I think this is where Dave from Garfield Ridge is supposed to step out from behind a wall and say, "It's old."

The first-to-market effect should be fun to watch-- the media just got a late Christmas present in a report confirming everything they believe (which is, of course, also everything Carl Levin believes).

One problem: None of it is true.

But they don't want to give back their Christmas present. Who would?

So it will be enjoyable to watch the media spin the actual report as "substantially" confirming Carl Levin's various charges even though, you know, it actually doesn't.

But they now have that idea in their little pointy immune-to-contrary-facts heads: Report proves Bush twisted intelligence. That idea is in there (as it always has been) and they'll be damned if stupid little facts get in the way of "The Truth."

BREAKING NEWS FROM THE WASHINGTON POST: DUKE LACROSSE PLAYERS FOUND GUILTY!!!!

Oh, wait -- they are "guilty" according to charges filed by DA Mike Nifong.

Sorry, minor mistake of attribution there. Could happen to anyone, really.

See, Mike Nifong was reading his indictment to us over the phone, and he sort of gave the impression that he was reading from the jury's verdict, and, see... well, who has time to check on these things.

It sounded pretty good when he was reading it to us.

Reporting is hard, man.


The Washington Post

Where Our Motto Has Always Been, "Oh well! That's why God gave pencils erasers!"

More here on National Review On-line:

Feb. 9 front-page article about the Pentagon inspector general's report regarding the office of former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith incorrectly attributed quotations to that report. References to Feith's office producing "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" and that the office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" were from a report issued by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in Oct. 2004. Similarly, the quotes stating that Feith's office drew on "both reliable and unreliable reporting" to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq "that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration" were also from Levin's report. The article also stated that the intelligence provided by Feith's office supported the political views of senior administration officials, a conclusion that the inspector general's report did not draw.The two reports employ similar language to characterize the activities of Feith's office: Levin's report refers to an "alternative intelligence assessment process" developed in that office, while the inspector general's report states that the office "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." The inspector general's report further states that Feith's briefing to the White House in 2002 "undercuts the Intelligence Community" and "did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence."

Almost all the truly damning quotes came from the office of Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, not the DOD inspector general.

As I write this, Chris Matthews is peddling the phony WaPo scoop on Hardball, prattling on about how this report proves that Doug Feith "cooked the intel" to get us into war.

How did the WaPo screw this up so badly? (h/t James C.

This is the second Washington Post embarrasment in the last two weeks. William Arkin was exposed as being a left-wing military hater posing as a "military analyst" last week in a situation which the Post is yet to address.

Sphere: Related Content

O'Reilly and Obama: Two Articulate Americans.

Those who watch O'Reilly on a regular basis know that the first few minutes of his show are dedicated to the Talking Points Memo. A commentary by O'Reilly on an important issue of the day. It usually consists of hard-hitting social commentary, and while often controversial, it is just as frequently the most interesting part of his show.

Here is one of his best, from last week:



Today, the Talking Points Memo was O'Reilly questioning why so many blacks were offended when the President described Barack Obama as "articulate".

He then had two black women on, who bashed Bush for his choice of words, describing his description as being an example of white condescension, when it comes to African Americans.

In my view this belonged in O'Reilly's "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day", another popular segment on the show.

Barack Obama is articulate. Either Bush meant it as a compliment, coming from someone who is admittedly not very articulate, or those who have been bitching about Bushes lack of sensitivity doth protest too much.

The truth is, too often when we see an African American being interviewed by the media, portrayed on a sitcom, in a movie or performing a rap song, they do come across as being inarticulate.

Isn't it possible that the reason so many Democrats have been swooning over Obama, despite the fact that he has thus far had almost nothing to say in terms of what his policy views are, is because he is so different? Not only when compared to how we are used to seeing blacks portrayed in the media, but also when compared to the black politicians that we have come to know over the last half-a-century?

Couldn't the word articulate just as easily be used to describe a pleasantly surprising attribute for a young, untested and inexperienced politician, like Obama to have?

Maybe that's the conclusion blacks should be coming to, instead of trying to find racist undertones every time a white person says something about a black person. Even when it's something positive.

Wait. Are those sirens? I gotta go. The PC police are here.

Sphere: Related Content

More From The DNC Winter Meeting

Also at the DNC Winter Meeting, a convocation was given by a Muslim Imam who said this:

"We thank you god, to bless us among your creations. We thank you, god, to make us a great nation. We thank you, god toss send us your messages through our father Abraham, and Jesus and Mohammed, through you, god, we unite, so guide us to the right spot we wish for peace, equality and help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation."

"Oppression and occupation" huh? Sounds a lot like Sean Penn or Code Pink to me.

If this guy had given the convocation at a GOP function, and said this, he would have been booed out of the building. And with good reason.

What was the reaction from those at the DNC Winter Metting? Silence.

Was the silence due to cowardice or was it tacit agreement?

I don't know the answer, but whatever it was, it speaks volumes about the Democrats who strive to regain control of the White House.

The Democrats need to take a long hard look at Islam and decide whether they wish to confront its radical elements or allow their blind hatred of George W. Bush to lead them to accepting the hateful rhetoric of the enemy, as their own.

Sphere: Related Content

Have You Seen This Man?

Has Anyone checked in Speaker Pelosi's basement?
She must let him out for events like this one.

February 06, 2007
It's Howard Dean's Party
By Rich Lowry

Washington, D.C. -- At the Winter Meeting of the Democratic National Committee, in a ballroom of the Washington Hilton packed with hundreds of Democratic activists, Rep. Rahm Emanuel seems a distant memory. Emanuel is the Chicago Democrat who masterminded the brilliant, soothingly moderate Democratic campaign of 2006 while clashing with the fire-breathing DNC Chairman Howard Dean.

If there's one thing obvious in this room, it is that Emanuel might be clever, but it's Howard Dean's party. Dean electrified a similar DNC gathering four years ago when he said that he was "from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party," and launched his antiwar candidacy briefly into the stratosphere. Now, all the Democratic presidential candidates appearing here borrow from Dean and try to appease the party's yowling, antiwar base.

Even Hillary Clinton, who now represents the right flank of the Democratic field. She is sporadically heckled from the floor as she speaks. She desperately wants to find her footing in her antiwar party, but in a way that doesn't damage her national-security credentials. There is a pleading quality to her antiwar lines, as if she's saying: "Please accept this and make me go no further."

She explains that the Senate needs 60 votes to cap troop levels, as she advocates, or cut off the funding for U.S. troops, which leaves it open that she'd be for a funding cutoff as well, if she had more votes. She touts her idea to cut funding for Iraqi troops -- never mind that until now everyone has agreed that training Iraqi troops is an absolute imperative. She concludes by pledging that if Congress hasn't brought an end to the war by January 2009 -- again leaving it open that she might support a congressional cutoff -- she will if she's elected president.

Other presidential contenders implicitly push her to commit herself further. Barack Obama demands plans to end the war in "clear, unambiguous, (no) uncertain terms." John Edwards says that the White House is counting on Democrats to be "weak and political and careful. This is not the time for politician calculation."

Both are shots at Hillary, whose cutoff date of January 2009 seems far away compared with the dates of the rest of the field. Edwards wants the war over in 18 months, by August 2008. Obama wants it over in a little more than a year, by March 31, 2008. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson wants it over by the end of the calendar year, and former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack wants it over "immediately."

This is a party that is heading toward serious attempts to cut off funds for the Iraq War, especially if conditions don't improve soon. Nonbinding resolutions of the sort the Senate is debating this week won't be adequate for long.

The Democrats are in the throes of a full-fledged Vietnam flashback. Even if the Bush "surge" works, Democrats will stay committed to ending the war -- just as Democrats cut off the war in Vietnam in the mid-1970s, even as it had been put on a more sustainable footing. The party has regressed all the way to its McGovernite roots. The centrist Clintonite interlude of the 1990s is almost entirely washed away, with the Clintonite candidate -- Hillary -- trying not to get washed away with it.

This McGovernite tendency is pacificist and isolationist. Even as Democrats give way to it, they still style themselves idealistic internationalists. Calls to end the genocide in Darfur were applauded here, although no one said how it was going to be done, nor why ending the savagery in the Sudan is such a priority when it is fine to abandon Iraq to its near-genocidal furies.

The Vietnam Syndrome made Democrats allergic to the use of force for two decades. The Iraq Syndrome will be a reprise. Anyone who, like Rahm Emanuel, wants to see the Democrats occupy the sensible center must be dismayed. Howard Dean, however, can only be pleased. He's chairman of this party for a reason.

Sphere: Related Content

In The Shadows of Iraq

Bush's Real Record
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 1/31/2007

Economy: The mantra among critics of President Bush is that he's been "incompetent" as chief executive. To which we respond: Looked at the U.S. economy lately?

In his "State of the Economy" speech Wednesday, Bush expressed justifiable pride in his economic accomplishments. Our good friend Larry Kudlow keeps calling it "the greatest story never told." And indeed it is.

The Bush-is-a-failure mantra is, quite simply, out of touch with reality. What the economy's done in the past six years, especially in view of what Bush faced on entering office, has been nothing short of remarkable.

Remember that first bleak week, way back in January 2001? The economy was in a free fall, with job growth having peaked in mid-summer 2000. During Bush's first quarter in office, the economy actually shrank.

This wasn't surprising, given the Fed had been ratcheting up interest rates for two years and the stock market had just suffered its biggest meltdown. Americans took a $7 trillion hit from that debacle, and some feared we might even slide into a depression.

Then came the first attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor, killing 3,000 people, costing $100 billion in direct costs to the economy and untold billions more in indirect costs, and damaging the national psyche. People stopped flying and buying. They cocooned.

It was the worst first year for a president since FDR. But Bush turned a potential disaster into one of the success stories of the post-World War II era. Yet few credit him for it.

His three tax cuts pushed 5 million mostly low-income families off the tax rolls and substantially shifted the tax burden toward the rich. Despite harsh criticism, the cuts revived the economy.

Where are we today? "Across our nation," Bush said Wednesday, "small businesses and entrepreneurs are creating millions of new jobs. Retail sales are up, consumer spending is strong, exports of goods and services have jumped by nearly 35%. The Dow (industrial average) has set records 26 times in the past four months. Productivity is strong, and that's translating into higher wages."

Every word true. And yet, our newspapers and TV talking heads are obsessed with stories of mass "inequality" and "middle-class squeeze" and "jobs shipped abroad" and "falling behind."

Reality is quite different, of course. But reality can never be permitted to get in the way of Bush-bashing — the stock in trade of the mainstream media and their allies in the Democratic Party.

So what's the real record? Since Bush's tax cuts took effect in mid-2003:

• Real gross domestic product is up to $1.33 trillion, or 12.6%.

• Existing businesses have hired 5.9 million workers (not counting the millions of jobs entrepreneurs have created).

• Corporate profits have soared 91% to $1.6 trillion.

• Tax receipts have leapt $503 billion, or roughly 1.1 percentage points of GDP, refuting the notion the tax cuts "caused" deficits.

And thanks to rebounding stock prices and huge gains in home values, Americans' total wealth has soared 39% to $54 trillion — the biggest expansion ever.

After such a stellar performance, a breather — what economists call a "midcycle correction" — would be in order. Yet the economy continues to power ahead.

In 2006's final period, GDP growth was 3.5%, and it has averaged 3% since the tax cuts. Real wages rose 1.7% in '06, much faster than the 0.3% average of the Clinton years. In just the last 12 months, unemployment plunged from 5.0% to 4.5%, near postwar lows.

More of us have jobs, own homes and businesses, and work for higher pay than at any time in history. We're the richest people on earth. For a change, let this story be told.

Those who have opposed this President from the very beggining love to label his entire administration as a "failure", but will history view him as such?

It is of course too soon to tell. Not only in regards to the situation in Iraq, which is teetering on the brink but not over, but also in regards to his domestic policies, which so far, have garnered very positive results, as well as his sucess in protecting the country and tracking down Al-Queda.

So if Iraq had never happened, or if by some miracle, we can end the fighting there and we end up with a stable government in that country, isn't the legacy of the Bush presidency thus far, incredibly positive?

Bill Clinton's entire legacy is based on three things. The amazing economic growth of the late 90's, scandal and his lacking response to events which led to 9/11.

This Administration's legacy should be based on more than the mistakes made in Iraq, and we should not even begin forming that legacy in our minds and especially in our media, until the four years in office which the President earned, have come to a close.

Sphere: Related Content

And She's Off...

The fact that Hillary is yet to utter a single word regarding policy and is yet to give us a single reason as to why she should be elected President, should be a good indicator as to what kind of President she would be if she ever is elected.

For the past six years Hillary has twisted with the political winds, relying on only her last name to keep her on top of the Presidential heap.

Then, in her first high profile trip to Iowa since she officially announced her candidacy, this lighthearted, yet very telling exchange took place:




While we are all racking our brains, as to whom Hillary and her supporters had on their minds when they began cracking up, let’s discuss how she mindlessly punted the multiple follow-ups with Democratic talking points.

Then, once her aides told her that she sounded like a typical, evasive politician – something that the American people won’t buy (see Kerry and Gore)-she played up the joke angle. And then the "everyone's out to get me" angle.

Why are you all “psychoanalyzing” me? See. I’m a victim.

That kitchen is going to get pretty hot Mrs. Clinton. Perhaps you should keep one eye on the exit.

No one cares what Hillary meant when she spoke of how to deal with "evil and bad men." Her audience certainly thought they knew and had a nice, long laugh.

Bill Clinton was not a bad or evil man. He was just a scoundrel with a broken moral compass.

But Hillary took what could have been a light and human moment and then tried to squirm out of it, just like a politician always does when they are trying too hard to get on everyone’s good side.

Just like her husband.

Get used to it.

For the next year Hillary will be going through the motions of a presidential campaign using the template created by the Clinton team, with the insufferable Terry Mcauliffe at the helm. The only problem is that the template was created for Bill, not for Hillary.

She will not offer any substantive policy ideas, and while this can work for some presidential candidates, it cannot work for one who’s as charismatically challenged as Mrs. Clinton.

She does not have Bill's political gifts, but like Gore and Kerry before her, no one has bothered to tell her this. She will therefore continue to run a campaign that's heavy on rhetoric and talking points, but devoid of substance.

Her supporters like her because she’s a Clinton. She’s also a woman, and the Democrats yearn for someone other than a white male in the Oval Office, regardless of their qualifications (see Obama).

The fact that Hillary is a woman, and the fact that she is a woman who has had a very public and very controversial personal life in regards to her marriage, is going to raise questions as to whether she is tough enough to lead a polarized nation during tumultuous times.

Her husband is a god-like figure to Democrats, but as we can see, he is also a bit of a joke. Hillary must strike some kind of balance or there will be more moments like this, and they will do a lot more damage than this silly, yet not entirely insignificant, gaffe.

Hillary will say anything to get elected and do the same to get people to like her. This may have worked when her unknown husband was running for president in '92, but it will not work for his wife 15 years later, and it is certainly not a quality that one wants the Commander In Chief to espouse.

So let us pray.

Please God. Let the Six-Year honeymoon for Hillary, be over.

Sphere: Related Content

Reminder of What's at Stake

From the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal and Daniel Hanninger, comes this utterly terrifying piece of writing.


January 25, 2007
Talking Ourselves Into Defeat
By Daniel Henninger

The United States is talking itself into defeat in Iraq. Its political culture is now in a downward spiral of pessimism. In the halls of Congress, across endless newspaper columns, amid the punditocracy and on Sunday morning talk shows--all emit a Stygian gloom about America.

Yes, on any given day on some discrete issue (Prime Minister Maliki's bona fides, for example), the criticism of the American role is not without justification. But the cumulative effect of this unremitting ill wind is corrosive. We are not only on the way to talking ourselves into defeat in Iraq but into a diminished international status that may be harder to recover than the doom mob imagines. Self-criticism has its role, but profligate self-doubt can exact a price.

Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins wonders "whether the clock has already run out." To U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton the new strategy is "a dead end." For the Bush troop request, presidential candidate Joe Biden predicted "overwhelming rejection." (His committee resolution to that effect yesterday passed by three votes.) Presidential candidate Chuck Hagel: "We have anarchy in Iraq. It's getting worse." And not least, Sen. John Warner this week heaved his tenured eminence against the war effort, proposing another "non-binding" resolution against more troops.

To pick one amid scores of similar characterizations in the media, the Associated Press wrote from Washington before the State of the Union speech that "Democrats--and even some Republicans--scoffed at his policy." "Scoff" is a strong word, suggesting eye-rolling ridicule. (The line was so good that the AP ran it after the speech as well, under another writer's byline, this time from Baghdad.) But of course amid the giddy vapors of mass mockery, they all "support the troops."

Our slide to a national nervous breakdown because of Iraq is not going unnoticed. Australia's foreign minister, Alexander Downer, has been visiting across the U.S. this week. "I've been pretty worried about what I've heard," Mr. Downer said in an interview. Walking on Santa Monica beach Sunday before last, Mr. Downer said he encountered a display of crosses in the sand, representing the American dead in Iraq.

"What concerns me about this," he said, "is that it's sort of an isolationist sentiment, subconsciously, not consciously, and that would be an enormous problem for the world. I hope the American people understand the importance of not retreating and thinking the world's problems aren't theirs."

Some of this is politics as usual, but even normal partisanship comes dressed now in the language of apocalypse. In his SOTU rebuttal, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb ripped into the current economy, saying it reminded him of the early 1900s: "The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt." Ah, we've fallen to the level of czarist Russia.

You know the pessimism has turned manic when no one is allowed to depart the asylum. Sen. John McCain's support for Iraq and the new Bush plan is now being described in press reports as not only costing him support in the polls (the asylum's inkblot of reality) but worse, the support of campaign contributors.

It is a phenomenon fascinating to behold. Its causes are multiple, but here are several:

• Bush schadenfreude. Partisan pleasure in George Bush's pain dates to the anguish of the contested 2000 election loss. The Democrats have run against something called "Bush" for so long that this sentiment is now bound up in any act or policy remotely attached to the president. Iraq's troubles, or Iran or North Korea, are merely an artifact of crushing this one guy.

• The Iraq Study Group. The ISG report wasn't defeatist, but it enabled the vocabulary of defeat. Its warning of a "slide toward chaos" was re-defined as the current Iraqi status quo. They called their bipartisan solution "phased withdrawal," but it was a euphemism for defeat. Momentum was already building in this direction, and the ISG propelled it.

• The leadership vacuum. The administration never rallied the nation behind the war in a concrete way. A young Marine officer recently returned from combat in Iraq told me this week he is taken aback at how disassociated the American people seem from Iraq, no matter how constantly it's in the news. He says it's as if the problem is not so much what is actually happening in Iraq but that the war is "annoying" to Americans, as if to say: Can't it just go away or not be on the front page all the time? Rallying a nation at war is a president's job.

• The opposition vacuum. One reason the negative mood in politics is so disconcerting is that the opposition's alternative vision is nonexistent. On joining the opposition recently, GOP Sen. Norm Coleman announced, "I can't tell you what the path to success is." Joe Biden says the "primary" Iraq strategy should be to force its leaders to make the political compromises necessary to "end the violence."

As a political strategy, unremitting opposition has worked. Approval for the president and the war is low. The GOP lost sight of its ideological lodestars and so control of Congress. But the U.S. still occupies a unique position of power in the world, and we are putting that status at risk by playing politics without a net.

On the "Charlie Rose Show" this month, former Army vice chief of staff Gen. Jack Keane, who supports the counterinsurgency plan being undertaken by Gen. David Petraeus, said in exasperation: "My God, this is the United States. We are the world's No. 1 superpower. This isn't about arrogance. This is about capability and applying ourselves to a problem that is at its essence a human problem."

At our current juncture, Gen. Keane's words probably rub many the wrong way. But there's a Cassandra-like warning implicit in them. The mood of mass resignation spreading through the body politic is toxic. It is uncharacteristic of Americans under stress. Some might call it realism, but it looks closer to the fatalism of elderly Europe, overwhelmed and exhausted by its burdens, than to the American tradition.

In 1966, Sen. George Aiken delivered a speech on Vietnam famously translated for history as "declare victory and go home.' " On current course, it looks like we may declare defeat and go home.

Daniel Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page.

While many insist that it was the decision to go into Iraq, which threatens to erode our superpower status in the world, in reality leaving a difficult situation in that nation, because we cannot stomach the carnage, would be ten times as devastating to our reputation.

When George Bush Sr. pushed Saddam out of Kuwait in a matter of weeks and with hardly any causalties it made the American people believe that The United States could easily dispatch of any foe, with very little trouble.

As a result, the American people can no longer stomach long-term battles in which lives are lost, regardless of the battles importance to the future of our nation and the world.

3,000 lives is a devastating loss to a nation such as ours, which puts a higher value on human life than any other people on the planet. However, we have suffered through far higher body counts in order to achieve the ability to live our lives without the threat of facists, totalitarians and religious nuts.

Combat Deaths

Civil War - 110,070
WWI - 53,513
WWII - 292,131
Korea - 33,651
Vietnam - 47,369
Iraq - 2,479

Sphere: Related Content

KEITH OLBERMANN. A NEW LOW FOR THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA.

Recently, many on the left have gravitated towards a guy named Keith Olbermann for their daily dose of punditry.

The staunch critic of the Bush Administration grabs about half-a-million viewers a night with his show, Countdown,and is most often seen through the mainstream media lens as the Left's answer to Bill O'Reilly, whose show competes with Olbermann's in the 8pm time slot.

Well, perhaps "compete" is not the right word. O'Reilly trounces Olbermann nightly, getting roughly three times his viewership and leaving Olbermann (much like MSNBC) mired in third place.

Politically, Olbermann's rhetoric is pretty standard for today's Far Left bomb thrower.

"Bush-lied, our freedoms are being taken away, America is just as bad as the terrorists, Fox News is right wing propaganda," you know, standard liberal bunk.

Olbermann is a sports guy and always has been. His entire broadcast career has been dedicated to ESPN, Fox Sports Net, and calling baseball games, and his specialty shows when he starts talking politics.

Like most on the far left, he plays loose with the facts, molding the issues to fit his interpretation of them. The most notable example of this were his misleading statements concerning the Military Commissions Act, which he falsely characterized as allowing the federal government to arrest anyone, at any time and without any reason.

His followers freaked out over this and screamed bloody murder, but that ended abruptly, once folks realized that he was grossly misinterpreting that particular piece of bipartisan legislation.

To his credit, Olbermann is an eloquent speaker, a tremendous writer and a very handsome gentleman. He was named "Sexiest Newsman" by Playgirl magazine a couple years ago for whatever that's worth.

He could have great potential as a pundit or social commentator if he knew what he was talking about.

Unfortunately, like so many on the Far Left he is not only devoid of important factual information, but also of any common decency.

He would be right at home moderating a live debate between Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump. It would go down is his language. A language filled with personal attacks, name-calling and childish, unprofessional behavior.

Olbermann has become a bit of a household name, even to conservatives and non-sports fans, due to his constant personal attacks on Mr. O'Reilly.

Olbermann celebrated O'Reilly's personal troubles, when the FNC commentator was accused of sexual harassment.

Although the case was eventually settled, Olbermann publicly reveled in his competitors personal troubles, and gleefully began a pledge drive to make the tapes between O'Reilly and his alleged victim public.

Yes folks, these are the actions of a top personality on what is billed as a serious news network.



I'm not going to defend O'Reilly. Maybe he did sexually harass some chick. Who knows? But to take joy in the problems of others, simply because you disagree with them politically, is low-class. It's like cheering when the quarterback of the opposing team gets injured and is taken out for the season.

His immaturity continued, as did his personal crusade against O'Reilly when at an event for the Television Critics Association, he donned an O'Reilly mask and gave the Nazi salute to the audience.

Implying that those with conservative values are akin to Nazis, is, of course, standard fare for the modern liberal movement. But when an individual who is billed, by some, as being a serious voice in important times does something like that, essentially calling his competition a Nazi, can you really take anything that guy says seriously anymore? Is his perception of the world and those who inhabit it so screwed up that he actually thinks that Bill O'Reilly is a Nazi sympathizer, likes Nazis or has political beliefs that in anyway mirror the horrifying ideology of The Third Reich?



Olbermann has called O'Reilly a "moron" and "this generation's Joe McCarthy."

Perhaps if McCarthy had sold Red Scare "gear", and then given the proceeds to charity, he could have secured a more positive legacy for himself.

He also referred to FNC's Chris Wallace as "a monkey posing as a newscaster" after Wallace asked former President Bill Clinton a simple question as to why he did nothing about terrorism during his eight years in office.

And yet, these immature and mindless attacks, coupled with pretty words attached to a pretty face, have lead the far left in this nation to embrace this guy and use You Tube clips of his nightly rants, in their crusade to destroy the Bush presidency and give up in Iraq.

He is to themwhat O'Reilly is to people who have traditional values and who care about things like child molesters going to jail and political correctness run amok: a hero.

And how appropriate it is.

This kind of gutter politics has been the weapon of choice for liberals in this country ever since President Bush took office. So it is only fitting that their new hero behave in the same fashion as those who have preceded him. In fact, he must, in order to gain their admiration and support.

His attacks on O'Reilly have succeeded in achieving for Olbermann what was likely his main goal: higher ratings.

When you act like a buffoon, people like to watch, and once word gets out, those who are also buffoons will join in the fun. Once again, I point to the recent ratings surge on The View as proof.

Olbermann is a perfect example of the type of person that the traditional left-wing media needs to avoid in order to continue to be taken seriously in the public arena.

Just as the Left's delusions of Republican's stealing elections, could potentially lead those leftists using the delusion to justify cheating in order to gain what they feel is rightfully theirs, the deluded Left has gravitated towards Olbermann's hateful rhetoric and behavior. They have done so as a reaction to what they have been duped into believing is similar behavior coming from guys like O'Reilly and other conservatives and Republicans. Thank inaccurate and dumbed-down hit pieces such as Robert Greenwald's Outfoxed for that mindset.

This opening, and it's acceptance by Olbermann's fans and supporters has the potential to make his style of low-brow news programming commonplace on our television sets and in our newspapers.

O'Reilly has been the bigger man through all of this and has pretty much ignored Olbermann's low-blows, but in my view, he shouldn't.

O'Reilly should take on Olbermann, exposing his behavior and explaining why it not only reflects poorly on everyone in the media, but how it also lowers the level of civil and political discourse further, in a nation which can not afford to visit these depths at this crucial point in our history.

So if you're looking for an O'Reilly alternative, skip the mean-spirited Olbermann, go to Comedy Central, and watch the funnier and more cerebral Stephen Colbert.

Colbert may also make a living by trashing conservatives, but unlike Olbermann, he has made a name for himself without trying to destroy his competition on a personal level.

Sphere: Related Content

Democrat Speak.

From Hughhewitt.com. The Godfather of blogging.

Friday, January 19, 2007
Democrat Speak
Posted by Dean Barnett | 5:15 PM
I sense the dark hand of George Lakoff in all of this.


You remember George Lakoff, don’t you? Lakoff was the mastermind academic who officiously volunteered to help the Democrats remake America’s political terminology. I’m not sure any of the following can be laid at Lakoff’s feet, but his game was garden variety exercises in Orwellian stuff like referring to reckless government expenditures as “investments” or a troop surge as an “escalation” or surrender as “redeployment.”


But this time, they’ve gone too far. Yesterday on ABC News, Dianne Sawyer did a glowing puff piece on the new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi may dress like she owns stock in Chanel, but worry not – according to Sawyer she’s “galvanized steel with a smile.” At one point in the interview, Pelosi talked about the Congressional Medal of Honor that was posthumously awarded to Jason Dunham last week. Here’s how Pelosi described Dunham’s heroism:


“I just had the privilege of meeting with the family of the young man who received the Congressional Medal of Honor. He jumped on a hand grenade and saved the lives of his other young people in his unit.”


I know the Democrats have developed as one of their pet Lakoffian tics the habit of describing our warriors as defenseless children. Thus, when Pelosi refers to Dunham as a “young man” and the men he saved as “other young people,” she’s merely falling into a bad habit.


But it’s a real bad habit; a truly offensive one. This is a matter of more than just mere semantics. Jason Dunham was a Marine. So, too, were the men he saved. They see themselves as warriors, and that’s what they are. The term “young people” is meant to demean them, and in Dunham’s case denies him the dignity that he has so completely earned.


Additionally, the failure to use the word “soldier”, "Marine" or any other term that acknowledges a connection between Dunham and the military is borderline grotesque. In Pelosi’s formulation, it almost sounds as if some random “young people” were frolicking in Iraq and stumbled upon a live grenade.


One other thing: If Dianne Sawyer really wants to see human beings that are like “galvanized steel,” she might consider turning her journalistic gaze to Iraq and the Marines still there like Jason Dunham.

Sphere: Related Content

What Was in Sandy Berger's Pants?

And why is the left-wing media avoiding the story like the plague?

January 15, 2007
Sandy Berger: What Did He Take and Why Did He Take It?
By Ronald A. Cass

Some things cry out for explanation. Like finding $90,000 in marked bills in a Congressman's freezer. Or finding out that a blue-chip lawyer who held one of the most important jobs in the nation was willing to risk his career, his livelihood, and his liberty to steal, hide, and destroy classified documents.

We all have a pretty good idea what the money was doing in Representative William Jefferson's freezer. But the questions about President William Jefferson Clinton's National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, just keep piling up.

It's time we got some answers.

**********
According to reports from the Inspector General of the National Archives and the staff of the House of Representatives' Government Operations Committee, Mr. Berger, while acting as former President Clinton's designated representative to the commission investigating the attacks of September 11, 2001, illegally took confidential documents from the Archives on more than one occasion. He folded documents in his clothes, snuck them out of the Archives building, and stashed them under a construction trailer nearby until he could return, retrieve them, and later cut them up. After he was caught, he lied to the investigators and tried to shift blame to Archive employees.

Contrary to his initial denials and later excuses, Berger clearly intended from the outset to remove sensitive material from the Archives. He used the pretext of making and receiving private phone calls to get time alone with confidential material, although rules governing access dictated that someone from the Archives staff must be present. He took bathroom breaks every half-hour to provide further opportunity to remove and conceal documents.

Before this information was released, the Justice Department, accepting his explanation of innocent and accidental removal of the documents, allowed Berger to enter a plea to the misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material - no prison time, no loss of his bar license. The series of actions that the Archives and House investigations detail, however, are entirely at odds with protestations of innocence. Nothing about his actions was accidental. Nothing was casual. And nothing was normal.

What could have been important enough for Berger to take the risks he did? What could have been important enough for a lawyer of his distinction to risk disgrace, disbarment, and prison?

To paraphrase the questions asked of Richard Nixon by members of his own Party, what did he take and why did he take it?


**********

The report released by Rep. Tom Davis last week makes plain that right now we cannot answer those questions. We cannot say what information in fact was lost through Mr. Berger's actions.

At President Clinton's request, he reviewed highly confidential material during four visits to the Archives over four months. Only Mr. Berger knows what transpired on his first two visits, when he reviewed collections of confidential memos, e-mails, and handwritten notes, including materials taken from counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke's office - all of which were not catalogued at the individual item level.

On Mr. Berger's third visit Archives employees became suspicious that he might be removing classified material. Rather than directly confront a former Cabinet-level official, Archives officials simply took steps to identify further theft on succeeding visits. That is how Mr. Berger's thefts on his fourth and last visit were documented.

We don't know what Mr. Berger might have removed from the uncatalogued materials reviewed in his earlier visits, but we know his last visit focused on a memorandum called the Millennium Alert After Action Report (MAAAR). Copies of this report were made available to the 9/11 Commission, but the information in those copies undoubtedly is not what interested Berger most. Berger took five copies of the report and later destroyed three of them.

What was on the copies he destroyed? Handwritten notes from Berger, the President, or some other official? Observations that would be embarrassing to them, evidence they missed an important threat or considered or recommended actions - or decisions not to act - they wouldn't want to defend in public? Evidence, perhaps, that would have supported the Bush Administration? We don't know, and no one who does is saying, but the evidence must have been terribly damning for Berger to take the risks he did.


**********

There are good reasons to protect sensitive communications within the government. Some discussions should be private if presidents are to have the best advice and the nation is to have the best decisions on sensitive matters. The President and top officials should be able to explore options and discuss threats - among themselves and with their key staff members - without fear that a remark taken out of context or poorly phrased will come back to haunt them.

Laws that endeavor to strike the balance between salutary confidentiality and beneficial public disclosure at times tilt too far to disclosure. In public debate, advantages of disclosure are often easier to explain than advantages of secrecy. That, in part, follows from the nature of secrets - if you don't reveal them, you can't explain fully why they should have stayed secret.

The Berger episode, however, strictly involves materials that are supposed to be turned over under the law, materials specifically covered by a presidential directive that authorized sharing the information with those investigating 9/11 intelligence-gathering and evaluation. Mr. Berger's willingness to risk everything to suppress the information goes well beyond ordinary concerns against excessive disclosure.

Bill Clinton obviously has great sensitivity to his place in history and to accusations that he did too little to respond to al-Qaeda, that he is to some degree responsible for failing to prevent 9/11's tragedy. That is why he and his lieutenants made reckless and baseless accusations against the current Bush administration, attempting to portray them as having dropped the baton handed off by ever-vigilant Clintonistas (who, according to John Ashcroft's testimony, withheld the MAAAR and its warnings about al-Qaeda's operations in the US from the Bush transition team).

But maybe there is more to the story. Maybe there is something far worse than we can imagine that is worth having his chief security aide risk his reputation, his career, and his liberty to cover up.


**********

Mr. Berger, the Clintons, and their allies do not want questions about this story asked or answered. Mr. Berger's lawyer, Lanny Breuer, along with former Clinton officials, assured us that all of the material destroyed by Berger existed in other form and was made available to the 9/11 investigations, that nothing relevant to the Clinton Administration's response to al-Qaeda was withheld.

Of course, we also were assured that Monica had only imagined a relationship with Bill and that rumors to the contrary were, in Hillary's famous phrase, the work of a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

Politicians never like to admit mistakes. They see legitimate inquiries as politically inspired, which they often are. Changing the subject or shifting blame to others aren't tactics peculiar to the Clintons.

The Clintons, however, take the game of deny-deceive-and-distract to a new level. Their relentless personal attacks on Ken Starr were designed to undermine the credibility of information about Bill Clinton's perjury, to deflect attention from his own failings. Clinton's excessive reaction - complete with hyperbole, finger-wagging, and scolding - to a simple question from Fox News' Chris Wallace about his response to al-Qaeda is in the same vein. Something here touches a nerve.

That nerve is exposed in the Sandy Berger saga. This story at bottom is about the security of our nation, about what was - or was not - done to protect us from the most shocking and deadly attack on American citizens by foreign agents in our nation's history. This story is critical not only to understanding our past but also to securing our future. It can help us understand what it is reasonable to expect can be done to keep us and our loved ones safe from harm. It is, in short, as important a story as there is.


**********

It is a story the news media should be desperate to explore, not desperate to avoid.

They should want to know the full story, no matter what the implications are for the legacy of a president much loved by an overwhelmingly liberal media or what the risks are for a former First Lady whose future is tied to her husband's past. Those risks loom especially large before a field of potential Republican presidential candidates with strong reputations in security matters - like Rudy Giuliani, for example, whose courageous performance on 9/11 still resonates.

Those who wrap themselves so frequently in the mantra of the people's right to know should want to know the truth - all the time. Sadly, today's would-be Woodwards and Bernsteins look more like ostriches than hawks, showing no curiosity about what Sandy Berger was hiding. Had that been the attitude when Watergate first appeared as a minor news story, Richard Nixon would have served out his full second term. The rest, as they say, is history.

Mr. Cass, Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law and Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, served Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush as Commissioner and Vice-Chairman of the US International Trade Commission.

Sphere: Related Content

CNN Media Bias?

Everyone should cut and paste the link below, go to the page and look at the second picture in the first row. The one which shows the Illegal immigrants protesting. Now read the caption which appears when you move the cursor over the picture. Go now and then come back here.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2006/yir/your.picks/

There is a clear bias among those within the left-wing media which not only opposes any substantive immigration reform, but also heavily favors amnesty. Everyone from AP down refuses to even call Illegal immigrants, "illegal" They're just called "immigrants" in just about every form of media from the time stories originate on the wire services until the story appears in the next day's newspaper.

Now I am not coming from a hardline perspective on illegal immigration. I believe that all illegals currently in this country should be given amnesty, but that it should be the last time, and that the amnesty should be given in conjunction with a serious increase in border security. I do believe that CNN is being overly sympathetic to Illegals in this example, and I base that on the words which they chose to use in conveying their simple message.

Then again I could be over reacting, because I'm bored. Let me know what you think.

Sphere: Related Content

One of the Good Ones

1913 - 2006

Sphere: Related Content

I've been saying this for years.....and I'll keep saying it....

.....but I've been busy with finals and a whole mess of other stuff, so I'll let Matt Ladner say it for me this time.

Lot's of year end punditry coming soon.


Want to reduce poverty? Lower those tax rates.
Building a strong economy – and helping the poor – means keeping taxes and government spending low.
By Matthew Ladner

PHOENIX – When the US government ended "welfare as we know it" in 1996, it handed responsibility for reform to the states. In so doing, it also created a real-world test of two competing economic strategies used to fight poverty. The results are in and the lessons are clear: Low tax rates lift up the lives of America's poor.
Many people argue that government can reduce poverty by "redistributing" wealth through progressive taxation - imposing higher tax rates on higher income brackets - and through more government spending.

Most economists, however, say the best way to reduce poverty is through stronger economic growth. Growth means more jobs, a surefire antipoverty plan. Building a strong economy means keeping taxes and government spending low.

A study published last month by the Goldwater Institute, "How to Win the War on Poverty: An Analysis of State Poverty Trends," tests these different theories by examining state poverty rates from 1990 to 2000.

Nationwide, states took great strides in reducing both general and childhood poverty. Poverty fell by 5.3 percent and childhood poverty by 9.4 percent. Some states, however, reduced poverty much more than others, while some states suffered large increases.

Take Colorado. It reduced its childhood poverty rate by almost 27 percent. Meanwhile, Rhode Island's childhood poverty rate increased by almost the same amount. What accounts for those differences?

Using data from the Census Bureau, the report found that states with the lowest tax rates enjoyed sizable decreases in poverty. For example, the 10 states with the lowest total state and local tax burdens saw an average poverty reduction of 13 percent - two times better than the national average. The 10 highest-tax states, meanwhile, suffered an average increase in poverty of 3 percent.

Some high-tax states, such as California, Hawaii, and New York, suffered catastrophic increases in poverty. As California began to reject the low-tax legacy of the Reagan governorship, the state's poverty rate jumped 13 percent in the 1990s.

Some will be quick to dismiss this as a consequence of illegal immigration. But lower-tax border states such as Arizona and Texas had substantial declines in poverty while also experiencing large increases in immigration.

In fact, California's high taxation has been so damaging to the economy that another increase like the one in the 1990s would result in poverty exceeding Mississippi's by 2010.

When a state has a low tax burden, economic growth is stronger. Economic growth delivers more job creation and higher per capita and median family incomes. Economic growth is a powerful means to pull people out of poverty.

Although some policymakers justify high taxes for the sake of the poor, the data show that higher taxes and related spending do little to reduce poverty rates. Rather, states with healthy economic climates have much more success in lifting people out of poverty.

The causes of, and solutions to, poverty are complex, but one policy is clear: Low tax rates are a significant factor in achieving the universal goal of poverty reduction.

Matthew Ladner is vice president for research at the Goldwater Institute, a public policy organization in Phoenix



Any liberal's out there care to respond? Anyone? Beuller?

Sphere: Related Content

Idiots In The News # 2

New 007 Daniel Craig says he wants the secret agent to do a gay love scene in the next Bond film saying:
"Why not? I think in this day and age, fans would have accepted it."
First they ruin the rainbow for everyone and now James Bond.
Possible new Bond catchphrase: "May I push in your stool?"


It's official. Idiocy is contagious.


Operation: "Make Paris Hilton look like less of a skank" appears to be off to a pheonomenal start.


So Gwen thinks that "The British are much more intelligent and civilized than the Americans." This from a woman who named her kid Apple. I suppose however that compared to her collegues in this nation's music and film industry who Gwen spends most of her time with, George Galloway is a real MENSA candidate.


"All I'm saying is..hic..that besides you Rosie..hic, my wife is the hottest woman in Hollywood...hic. "

Where are the human rights advocates? They should be all over this guy for making fun of the mentally ill and people who stutter. Once again "The View" proves itself as a breeding ground for stupitity.


"Happy Kwanza Everyone."
Question: What's dumber, Michael Richards or Kwanza?

Sphere: Related Content

Bolton's Departure Is Bad News For The U.N.

Anyone who still opposes John Bolton's presence as the U.N. either hasn't been paying very close attention, or is so blinded by partisanship that they have ceased to do what's in the best interest of the US and the broken world body which it hosts and funds.

In other words....The Democrats and their liberal money men.

Will the UN ever work again? Rumor has it that George Mitchell will be pegged to fill Bolton's position, more on this later.

As I have said before, it's going to take someone who is going to honestly tell the beuracrats at the UN that they are on the verge of making the world body irrelivant, to fix the problem.

Bolton was perfect for the job, but it's obvious that the Democrat's are not as inerested in "Draining the Swamp" at the UN as they claim to be about draining the one in Washington.




December 05, 2006
Partisan Politics Defeat Bolton Nomination
By Jack Kelly

Now more than ever we need a strong voice at the United Nations. But petty partisan politics has deprived us of one of the strongest ever. Most important is what the UN will or won't do about Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. An effective UN sanctions regime may be the only step, short of war, that can keep weapons Hitler only dreamed of out of their hands.

Push is coming to shove. The U.S., the four other permanent members of the Security Council, and Germany are meeting in Paris Tuesday to agree on the text of a UN resolution. This is not a time for the US delegation to be leaderless.

Push is also coming to shove in Lebanon, where Hezbollah, the Shiite militia backed by Iran and Syria, is trying to force the democratically elected Lebanese government to resign. The purpose of the Hezbollah putsch, many think, is to derail the UN inquiry into the 2005 assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri, in which Syria is implicated.

The Oil for Food and related scandals have shown the UN bureaucracy is rife with corruption. There will be no meaningful reform of the UN without vigorous American leadership.

But the White House announced Monday that UN Ambassador John Bolton will leave his post when Congress adjourns this week.

This is not because of any shortcoming in Mr. Bolton. He has been the most effective UN ambassador since Jeanne Kirkpatrick (1981-85) and Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1975-76). But he was serving as an interim appointee because he could not obtain senate confirmation.

Mr. Bolton's resignation "represents a tremendous blow to the effectiveness of U.S. leadership at the UN, as it disrupts the continuity of our diplomacy at a critical moment," said Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn, who in the expiring Congress chaired a subcommittee which investigated the Oil for Food scandal, in which Saddam Hussein bribed UN staff members and officials in France, Russia and Britain.

"Ambassador Bolton's tireless diplomatic efforts yielded considerable results, including Security Council resolutions condemning North Korea's nuclear activities and a call for UN peacekeepers in Darfur," Sen. Coleman said. "He has built a consensus among our allies on the need to constrain Iran's nuclear program and work towards reform of the UN."

It's been customary for the senate to confirm a president's nominees for executive branch positions -- provided the nominee is qualified, and there are no issues of moral turpitude. (Federal judges, who serve for life, are another story.) But most Democrats in the senate -- including all those on the Foreign Relations committee -- opposed Mr. Bolton when the president nominated him in January, 2005.

There were enough votes on the floor of the senate to confirm Mr. Bolton. But the defection of two liberal Republicans on the Foreign Relations committee sealed his fate.

Initially, it was Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio. But after watching Mr. Bolton at work for a year, Sen. Voinovich changed his mind: "He has demonstrated his ability...to work with others and followt he president's lead by working multilaterally," Sen. Voinovich said in a statement in July.

Then the fly in the ointment became Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, an initial supporter of Mr. Bolton, whose switch doomed hope the lame duck senate would confirm him.

"The American people have spoken out against the president's agenda on a number of issues, and presumably one of those is on foreign policy," said Sen. Chafee, who was defeated in the election. "At this late stage in my term, I'm not going to endorse something the American people have spoken out against."

But Americans are unhappy about Iraq, not about Mr. Bolton's stellar performance at the UN.

Ostensibly, Democrats opposed Mr. Bolton because he'd been an outspoken critic of the UN, and because he'd been said by some to be a difficult person to work with...a criterion which, if universally applied, would sharply circumscribe Hillary Clinton's opportunities in public service. But I suspect much of the Democratic pique was derived from Mr. Bolton's role in the Florida recount in 2000. When it comes to politics, Democrats have long memories, and hold grudges.

It's appalling to me that Democrats would let partisan pique deprive America of as able a public servant as John Bolton at this critical time.

James Webb, the senator-elect from Virginia, made headlines when he snubbed President Bush at a White House reception last month for the new members of Congress. Some commentators described his behavior as uniquely boorish. But I think he'll fit right in

Sphere: Related Content

Good Point....In Cartoon Form

Sphere: Related Content