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

The New Senator From Virginia is a Real Jerk

Not only is Virginia's new Jr. Senator a socialist and the author of some questionable materials, but apparently he is also an incredibly pompous jerk.

November 30, 2006
Webb Offends Bush & the English Language
By George Will

WASHINGTON -- That was certainly swift. Washington has a way of quickly acculturating people, especially those who are most susceptible to derangement by the derivative dignity of office. But Jim Webb, Democratic senator-elect from Virginia, has become a pompous poseur and an abuser of the English language before actually becoming a senator.

Wednesday's Washington Post reported that at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, Webb "tried to avoid President Bush,'' refusing to pass through the reception line or have his picture taken with the president. When Bush asked Webb, whose son is a Marine in Iraq, "How's your boy?'' Webb replied, "I'd like to get them (sic) out of Iraq.'' When the president again asked, "How's your boy?'' Webb replied, "That's between me and my boy.'' Webb told the Post:

"I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall. No offense to the institution of the presidency, and I'm certainly looking forward to working with him and his administration. (But) leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is.''

Webb certainly has conveyed what he is: a boor. Never mind the patent disrespect for the presidency. Webb's more gross offense was calculated rudeness toward another human being -- one who, disregarding many hard things Webb had said about him during the campaign, asked a civil and caring question, as one parent to another. When -- if ever -- Webb grows weary of admiring his new grandeur as a "leader'' who carefully calibrates the "symbolic things'' he does to convey messages, he might consider this: In a republic, people decline to be led by leaders who are insufferably full of themselves.

Even before Webb's studied truculence in response to the president's hospitality, Webb was going out of his way to make waves. A week after the election, he published a column in The Wall Street Journal that began this way:

"The most important -- and unfortunately the least debated -- issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country.''

Well.

In his novels and his political commentary, Webb has been a writer of genuine distinction, using language with care and precision. But just days after winning an election, he was turning out slapdash prose that would be rejected by a reasonably demanding high school teacher.

Never mind Webb's careless and absurd assertion that the nation's incessantly discussed wealth gap is "the least debated'' issue in American politics.

And never mind his use of the word "literally,'' although even with private schools and a large share of the nation's wealth, the "top tier'' -- whatever cohort he intends to denote by that phrase; he is suddenly too inflamed by social injustice to tarry over the task of defining his terms -- does not "literally'' live in another country.

And never mind the cavalier historical judgments -- although is he sure that America is less egalitarian today than it was, say, 50 years ago, when only about 7 percent of American adults had college degrees? (Twenty-eight percent do today.) Or 80 years ago, when more than 80 percent of American adults did not have high school diplomas (85 percent have them today), and only about 46 percent owned their own homes, compared with 69 percent today?

But notice, in the second sentence of Webb's column, the word "infinitely.'' Earth to Webb: Words have meanings that not even senators can alter. And he has been elected to be a senator, not Humpty Dumpty in "Through the Looking Glass.'' (When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.) America's national economic statistics are excellent; Webb could actually tell us how
much richer the "top tier'' has become, relative to other cohorts, over a particular span. But that would require him to actually say who he is talking about, and that takes time and effort, and senators -- Webb is a natural -- often are too busy for accuracy.

Based on Webb's behavior before being sworn in, one shudders to think what he will be like after that. He already has become what Washington did not need another of, a subtraction from the city's civility and clear speaking.

Apparently, he is also an all-around unpleasant character, as we see in this article by R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., posted on CNN's site.

WASHINGTON (CREATORS) -- When Ronald Reagan's former secretary of the Navy, James Webb, eked out victory against the Republican Sen. George Allen in Virginia, what did the Democrats gain? To be sure they gained control of the Senate. That has been widely noted. Less widely noted is the fact that they gained something infinitely more subtle, but delightfully more amusing as will become apparent in the months ahead. In Webb they gained yet another very unpleasant person as a conspicuous member of the party hierarchy. He will not be easily obscured. Webb now takes his place with Hillary Rodham Clinton, Dr. Howard Dean, Al Gore, Jean-Francois Kerry and so many other Democratic notables as a rebarbative blowhard with whom you would not want to share a gondola. Nor would a civilized American want to have any of these churlish cads to dinner or even as neighbors down the block. Just the other day one of Sen. Clinton's neighbors turned up with a gunshot wound. I would not be surprised if it were self-inflicted.

All of the above are demonstrably unpleasant individuals, known for their public temper tantrums, their rudeness to staff, their slipperiness with the truth and their occasional bizarre outbursts. The Republicans have a few such stinkers, for instance Newt Gingrich, but not nearly as many. It almost seems that to be a Democratic notable one has to be ill-tempered and, as I say, unpleasant.

Think back to Dean's historic scream and frequent public demonstrations of bile. Think of Clinton's and Gore's mendacious moments and lapses into self-absorption when public matters were at issue, for instance 9/11. Think of how often all of them have played the role of the bad sport after a failed election or, in Hillary's case, a visit to a grand jury.

Recall, if you will, Sen. Kerry's recent catastrophic joke on the campaign trail. To many Americans he seemed to be saying that our solders serving in Iraq are dolts. Call me naive, but personally I accepted his explanation that he merely botched a joke meant to imply that President George W. Bush is a dolt -- Bush, who, incidentally, graduated from Yale with a higher grade point than this intellectual mediocrity. Nonetheless, it was in Kerry's defense of his botched joke that he revealed his unpleasant essence. He snarled that, "I apologize to no one." In his hastily called press conference he went on to pout, "I'm not going to stand for it." And he went on in his bullying diatribe to thunder, "I'm sick and tired of a bunch of despicable Republicans ... Enough is enough. We're not going to stand for it." For what? For perceived mistreatment from "these Republican hacks who've never worn the uniform of our country ... " blah, blah, blah.

As I say, Kerry is an unpleasant fellow in a party increasingly led by unpleasant fellows and fellowesses. Consider incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who blustered to Time magazine not long ago, "Anybody who's ever dealt with me knows not to mess with me." Again, is this someone you would care to dine with or even pass in a hallway?

As it happens I did dine with Webb, sometime after his brief stint at the Department of the Navy. He is a pretty good novelist and in print at the time had expressed some ideas of which I approved, particularly his scruples against women in combat, though other of his references to women strike me as coarse. At any rate, I invited him to dinner for what turned out to be a gruesome evening. Webb is one of those people of whom it is said he is uncomfortable in his skin. At first I thought his discomfort might come from the fear he was going to have to pay his way. It was a classy eatery. I reassured him that he was my guest. I went on to make clear I considered him a fine writer. Nothing I said reassured him, not even my insistence that he have dessert. I left baffled. Most of the military men I have known are gents. Many writers are cads, but I thought a writer who had also served high up in the Reagan administration might be civilized. After that dinner I never made the mistake of inviting him anywhere again.

His campaign was a prolonged demonstration of his caddishness. He who had called President Bill Clinton's administration the most corrupt in modern history invited Clinton to campaign with him. He actually exploited his own son's present service in Iraq for political advancement. While campaigning he paraded around in his son's combat boots! There were others in the 2006 election with sons in Iraq. One is a leading opponent of the war. None put a son in such an embarrassing and potentially dangerous position. Once elected, Webb took his boorishness to the White House.

Invited there with other freshmen members of Congress, Webb refused to stand in the presidential receiving line. He would not have his picture taken with the president. "How's your boy?" the Washington Post reports the president asking him later during the reception. Webb replied that he would like to get the troops home, a point appropriate for the campaign trail but not at a White House social event. "That's not what I asked," the president persisted, "How's your boy?" "That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," the unpleasant Webb replied, and he cut his host. This the Post portrayed as part of Webb's "unpolished style." "I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall," he told a reporter. Well, then a gentleman does not accept the president's invitation to the White House and no one told him he would have to display the picture anywhere.

According to The Hill, Webb even told a source for the paper that "he was so angered by this (encounter) that he was tempted to slug the commander-in-chief." Webb claims that one of his heroes is President Andrew Jackson. I too admire Old Hickory, but I at least recognize the rough ways of the early 19th century are not to be reprised in the 21st century. What next, will the junior senator from Virginia begin challenging those who arouse him to a duel? What century does Webb think he is living in? Believe me Sen. Webb is going to be a vast source of amusement, and he will fit in nicely with the unpleasant pols whose political base is the Angry Left.

I have said it before and I shall be saying it again, often politics is not a rational act. Increasingly, especially in the Democratic Party, it encourages behavior that is abnormal: politicians windsurfing to assure their constituencies that they are just like them or ranting to show how genuinely human they are. These pols play on the fantasies of mildly delusional voters. In the case of the unpleasant Webb, the delusions are a bit over the top. It makes me wonder why his stay at the Department of the Navy was so brief. Did the Reaganites shove him out? Did one of them make the mistake of taking him to dinner? Or did they catch him acting up at a White House reception that has gone unreported? Some reporters should have looked into this.

Webb's predecessor was most certainly a flawed candidate, but he was an excellent Governor and a good Senator as well. He payed for Maccaca and the war in Iraq with his political career.

I expect that it won't be long however until we see "Don't Blame Me I voted for Allen" bumper stickers all over the Old Dominion.

Sphere: Related Content

Kristol Clear #2 w/ Robert Kagen

Surrender as 'Realism'
Retreat would win us no friends and lose us no adversaries.
by Robert Kagan & William Kristol
12/04/2006, Volume 012, Issue 12

Foreign policy realism is ascendant these days, we are told. This would be encouraging if true, because our foreign policy must indeed be realistic. But what passes for "realism" today has very little to do with reality. Indeed, if you look at some of the "realist" proposals on the table, "realism" has come to be a kind of code word for surrendering American interests and American allies, as well as American principles, in the Middle East.

Thus, the "realists" advise us to seek Syria's help in Iraq even as the Syrian government engages in a concerted campaign of assassinating every Lebanese political leader who opposes the return of Syrian hegemony in Lebanon. Presumably, the "realist" position is that we should give Lebanon back to Syria, or at least turn a blind eye to its murderous efforts to regain control there, as an incentive to Syria to help us in Iraq, where Syria is also engaged in supporting terrorists. "Realism" is letting dictators get away with terror and murder--and, in particular, letting them get away with the murder of our friends.

The "realists" advise seeking Iranian help in Iraq as well. They are coy about suggesting what the United States could give Tehran as an inducement for such assistance, but the implications of their position are clear. After all, the Bush administration has already offered to talk to Iran, provided the Iranians agree to suspend enrichment of uranium. That has also been the position of the Europeans. The Iranians have refused.

So the "realists" are
adapting to the reality of Iranian intransigence. They are in effect suggesting that the administration drop its long-standing position and begin negotiating with Iran despite the Iranian regime's refusal to agree to the common U.S.-European demand. What the realists have in mind, then, is that the United States should turn a blind eye to Iran's nuclear weapons program, in exchange for Iran's help in easing our retreat from Iraq. Who cares if this would destroy U.S. credibility, weaken those in Europe who are trying to be strong, undermine the effort to prevent Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons, and lead to a cascade of additional nuclear states in the region? It would at least make possible further "realistic" accommodations to these new and deadly realities.

The "realists" also advise putting pressure on Israel to deal in a more forthcoming way with the Hamas-dominated Palestinian government. Israel should be induced to make concessions despite the ongoing violence and the refusal of Hamas to ratify even Yasser Arafat's acceptance of Israel's right to exist. Thus, in order to conciliate Arab dictators and radicals, Washington should retreat from long-standing principle and hand a dramatic victory to the forces of violence and extremism in Palestine.

So let's add up the "realist" proposals: We must retreat from Iraq, and thus abandon all those Iraqis--Shiite, Sunni, Kurd, and others--who have depended on the United States for safety and the promise of a better future. We must abandon our allies in Lebanon and the very idea of an independent Lebanon in order to win Syria's support for our retreat from Iraq. We must abandon our opposition to Iran's nuclear program in order to convince Iran to help us abandon Iraq. And we must pressure our ally, Israel, to accommodate a violent Hamas in order to gain radical Arab support for our retreat from Iraq.

This is what passes for realism these days. But of course this is not realism. It is capitulation. Were the United States to adopt this approach every time we faced a difficult set of problems, were we to attempt to satisfy our adversaries' every whim in order to win their acquiescence, we would rapidly cease to play any significant role in the world. We would be neither feared nor respected--nor, of course, would we be any better liked. Our retreat would win us no friends and lose us no adversaries.

What our adversaries in the Middle East want from us is very simple: They want us out. Unless we are prepared to withdraw, not just from Iraq but from the entire region, and from elsewhere as well, we had better start figuring out how to pursue effectively--realistically--our interests and goals. This is true American realism. All the rest is a fancy way of justifying surrender.

--Robert Kagan and William Kristol

This is the first big battle of the Pelosi era and we have to win it.

When we left Vietnam it lead to the deaths of an additional 3 million in Southeast Asia. It also legitimized a political class to whom the answer, when faced with a difficult situation, is to quit.

You got crazy Charlie Rangel who wants to bring back the draft. Conyers wants to impeach the President even though Pelosi knows that the Dem's don't have anything to impeach him over, and a wackadoodle, bribe taking, impeached judge ready to take over the intelligence committee (once again, affirmative action at work.) I'm ranting here I know, but this is what happens when you bend over backwards to satisfy the insane, Congressional Black Caucus.

Oh, and this is too funny "....who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?" Yeah Charlie. Everyone's just dying to get a flat in Harlem.

Anyway, my point is that Kristol is dead on as usual.

I interviewed voters coming out of a polling station in a heavily Democratic part of Sherman Oaks on Election Day. It was an assignment for a journalism class and it shocked me how many people actually wanted an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Joe Six pack has absolutely no concept of the consequences that such a move would have. This is because Joe Six Pack doesn't read articles by Bill Kristol.

Sphere: Related Content

Sphere: Related Content

LET THE LIBERALISM BEGIN

Politics is full of highs and lows. Around this time two years ago Republicans celebrated after successfully defending their President from constant, dishonest and unjustified attacks which the far left bellowed for four straight years without coming up for air. We won that election, and knowing what we now know about John Kerry it was probably a very good thing.


You can’t keep winning forever. The GOP lost last Tuesday after 12 years of almost uninterrupted electoral victories.

Unlike some political parties, we aren’t going to call the American people stupid for handing us a loss. We aren’t going to create fantasies of stolen elections.

Mike DeWine and Kenneth Blackwell lost big in Ohio despite the fact that all Diebold machines are rigged to give 100 votes to the GOP for every one vote cast by an African American.

No, we’re better than that. We’re good losers. And we lost.

After almost six years of one party government, the people have once again divided power among the parties. But will they get what they wanted from their new liberal congressional leadership? Probably not. Let’s examine.

First off, lets make it clear what the American people said a week ago. The message they sent was a clear rebuke of the President’s handling of the Iraq war and Congressional corruption and scandal.

It was not about the President’s domestic agenda or the economy.

Had the American people been upset about those things the GOP would have lost 50 seats in the House instead of 28. Of course despite this fact, newly elected Democrats like Missouri Senator-elect Claire McCaskill continued the class warfare, by promoting boneheaded economic policies like repealing tax-cuts for the top wage earners and putting it towards a tax cut for the middle class. Pretty talk, bad policy.

It’s also incredibly ironic that the day the folks decide to kick the GOP out on their rears was the same day the Dow Jones hit a record high.

By the way, the people did not vote for national health care Senator Clinton. Didn’t you learn anything the last time Congress changed hands.

Next up, Iraq.

After telling us for months leading up to election day that they did not want to “cut and run” Pelosi endorses the king of the “cut and runners” for the post of House Majority leader in John Murtha. So much for moderation.

This is borderline retarded.

If I were Nancy Pelosi, I would be constantly looking over my shoulder to make sure that Steny Hoyer wasn’t following me with a meat cleaver.

We should have known that feel good policy ideas like immediate troop withdrawals and timetables would be the first ones brought forward by the party, which has thus far put forth no sensible solution to our problems in Iraq. That’s just what Democrats do during war- time. But they should tread much more lightly if they want to hold on to their majority for more than two years and have a shot at taking back the White House in ’08.
They don’t yet appear to realize that Ned Lamont lost by 10-points on Election Day.

Within a week of their victory, the Democrats have mistaken the American people’s understandable displeasure with the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy, with an endorsement of the far-left’s anti-growth, anti-War on Terror agenda.

The Democrats who gave the party its new House Majority are mostly moderates. They are not in any way ideologically similar to the Democrats who make up the new House leadership.

These Democrats are now in the precarious position of having to explain to their constituents why the first two things they did when they got to Washington was to vote for a San Francisco liberal as Speaker of the House and give up in Iraq, two things that the American people don’t want.

The situation is similar in the Senate. Again, Jim Webb and John Tester are the two candidates who gave the Dems their Senate majority. They are fairly conservative guys and won by a very slim margin in both of their races. One death in a state with a Republican governor, one unhappy Democrat who decides to jump parties (I’m looking in your direction Senator Lieberman) and everything changes.

In the House, the GOP must detach itself from the leadership that blew it for them in the first place. There are plenty of good candidates out there, but new blood is the key. Hastert is already out and John Boehner should follow.

Same thing in the Senate. Bill Frist is gone as are Rick Santorum and George Allen, who would have been in line for leadership positions. The party needs a friendly center-right face. Sorry Mitch McConnell. Your'e just too grumpy.

Lamar Alexander would be an excellent choice on this front. The capable Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Liddy Dole would also be good choices, bringing a prominent female into the GOP leadership to help counter the media’s love affair with Ms. Pelosi.


President Bush has lost much of his power to push through legislation, but he pushed through most of the important stuff in his first term so it’s not that big of a deal.
He will have to make some concessions. Rumsfeld’s resignation was the first one, and a modest increase in the minimum wage is another mostly harmless compromise.

While he only has two years left, Bush can use the innate power of his office, as well as the fact that he is ideologically more in step with the electorate than The House leadership, to win battles on the federal budget and veto any tax increase that they manage to get to his desk.

As Clinton showed us in his battles with Congress in the mid-nineties, it is far easier for a president to appear moderate than it is for a 435-member body which must appeal to dozens and dozen of different factions to get anything done. Especially a Congress whose leadership is as far to the left as that of the 110th promises to be. Bush could benefit significantly from this.

Bush also has the power to finally be a real Republican and curb spending. If you thought the last congress loved to spend, wait until you see this one go. It would not surprise me the least bit if Democrats intentionally tried to run up the shrinking budget deficit in order to use it as a tool against Republican’s next time around. Remember, the President gets the blame for bad economic news. Especially a Republican President.

The dynamics of the presidential sweepstakes have also morphed significantly as a result of the election.

George Allen is done. John Kerry is even more done than he was after the ’04 cycle.

Hillary’s stock has risen dramatically among Democrats who owe her big for her help in winning a handful of House seats in New York, and for raising ungodly amounts of cash.
As long as she doesn’t fall into the health care trap again she should be fine.

She wont be anywhere near the Senate for the next two years. She will be in Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina, so she doesn’t have to worry about voting, taking positions or any of that messy stuff.

Speaking of senators with no positions. The Democrats have remained true to the principles of Affirmative Action, by continuing to gush over the possibility of Barack Obama running for President. His qualifications for being made the leader of the free world? He’s black and speaks in complete sentences.

Therefore I’m proposing that freshman Senator Jim DeMint consider running for the Presidency in ’08 as well.

Who? You ask.

Exactly. He’s white.



John McCain is the one who stands to gain the most from the GOP’s election debacle. He can now position himself as the one who can successfully lead the GOP out of the political wilderness. He can say that if nominated he would have coattails, and he would probably be right. Republicans want to win. If McCain can convince them that he is the only one capable of doing that, then conservatives may hold their noses and choose him over Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, the two men who appear to be emerging as the biggest obstacles to McCain’s presidential ambitions.

Despite all of the changes that have come to pass over the last week however, one thing has not changed. Bush is still the President. He still must do whatever he feels necessary in order to win The War on Terror, and should not be deterred on that front by the political posturing of the opposition party. A bad idea is a bad idea, even if supported by an electoral mandate.

I will leave you this week with an interesting observation made by Michael Barone, who is quickly becoming one of my favorite journalists. For a good quick read check out the Almanac of American Politics.



President Bill Clinton tried to create a natural majority for his party but fell short. George W. Bush attempted the same for his party but has also missed the mark. The 2002 and '04 Republican majorities were too small to withstand the winds of 2006.
For a dozen years, our politics has been bitterly polarized, dominated by two baby boomer presidents who happen to have personal characteristics that people on the other side of the cultural divide absolutely loathe. Clinton in 1992 and Bush in 2000 both made genuine efforts to run as unifiers, but once in office proved to be dividers.

Sphere: Related Content

Panda Predictions

HOUSE : Dems + 19

SENATE: Dems + 3

MO: Talent (R)
The mobilization of GOP voters will make the difference here.

VA: Allen (R)
A repeat of the 1996 Warner vs Warner race. Don't be surprised if Webb leads early.

TN: Corker (R)
Ford meltdown. He should never of confronted Corker at that press conference.

MT: Burns (R)
Big Comeback. Kerry's comments will tip the balance in this red state.

PA: Casey (D)
This race has been over since last year.

RI: Whitehouse (D)
Keep an eye on this race. Some polls have Chafee closing the gap. One even has him ahead.

OH: Brown (D)
The problems with the Ohio GOP are going to cost that state a great Senator in Mike Dewine

MD: Cardin (D)
Could be an upset, but Maryland will reject two excellent GOP candidates in Steele and Governor Erlich in favor of liberal tradition.

NJ: Menendez (D)
If Satan rose from the bowels of the earth and ran as a Democrat in New Jersey he would still win by 10-points

AZ: Kyl (R)
National trends will not be enough to oust Arizona's other Senator.

CT: Leiberman (I)
He's going to owe the GOP big time.


Keep checking back. This could change.

Sphere: Related Content

LETTERMAN AND KERRY EXPOSE THE LEFT'S TRUE FACE

And here we are. This week Republicans and Conservatives will have to come to grips with the fact that Democrats will most likely gain control of The House of Representatives and probably the Senate as well.

The majority of the mainstream media is aiding, abetting and cheering those Democrats, on, in a fashion which has never been seen before during a mid-term election, with stories on the big three networks, CNN and most of the print press that keep with tradition and run negative towards the GOP and positive towards Democrats at a rate of about 5 to 1.

http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2006/fax20061031.asp

While Democrats will likely have much to cheer about on election night, the last few weeks of this election cycle have exposed a great deal in regards to the psyche of those who are rooting for a Democratic takeover as well as those lawmakers who will benefit from a Democratic majority.

In the last month Bill O’Reilly has been hawking his latest book “Culture Warrior” all over the place, including shows on which the hosts are well-documented left-wingers, or “secular-progressives” as Bill would say.

This says a lot about O’Reilly in that he is not afraid to be challenged and that he can back up his points without being made a fool of by a hostile host or a anti-O’Reilly audience. This is perhaps why O’Reilly is the most powerful individual in the news media today.

On two of these shows, “The View” and “The Late Show With David Letterman” O’Reilly did very well. He stood his ground. When challenged with snide remarks or sweeping generalizations, he hit back with facts. Many believe he also out-funnied a visibly angry David Letterman.

The most telling moment however, happened on both shows and exposed a common trait among this nation’s liberals.

Bill O’Reilly asked both Rosie O’Donnell and David Letterman a very simple question which both talk show hosts either could not or would not answer. The question: Do you want the United States to win in Iraq?

To his credit Wolf Blitzer answered it immediately when asked the same question by Lynne Cheney who rightfully confronted the CNN host on his network's recent showings of political bias.

“The answer, of course, is we want the United States to win. We are Americans. There’s no doubt about that. You think we want terrorists to win?” Replied Blitzer. Of course if he had answered in anything other than the affirmative he probably would have lost his job.

Rosie and Dave however are not held to the same standard as Wolf Blitzer. They are a part of Hollywood’s inner-circle of leftists and their views are shared by many Bush–haters, left wing bloggers and my guess is, many who will hold leadership positions in a Democratic congress.

They want the U.S. to lose in Iraq.

Their hatred of The President is so great, their desire to say “I told you so” to justify their initial opposition to the war, so strong, that they actually want to see us be forced to prematurely pull out of Iraq, making the situation in the Middle East even worse than it is now.

We give a lot of wiggle room to American citizens who genuinely hate this country or who think that we are the bad guys and that the terrorists are justified in their actions.

But, if you want us to lose the war in Iraq, regardless of where you stand on the issue or where you stood when the initial debate took place in 2002 and 2003, then you are a bad American. That’s right, I said it. You’re unpatriotic.

So what to make of Senator John Kerry’s recent comments?

Let’s be clear. Kerry was talking about the troops, not the President.

Kerry claims that the whole incident was simply a botched joke, but this is very hard to swallow given the Senator’s history of undermining our troops in the field from his ivory tower.

Kerry’s anti-military leanings have come out on several occasions, dating all the way back to the Vietnam era, when he stabbed his fellow soldiers in the back by accusing them of atrocities which he said were reminiscent of a fellow whose name sounded kind of like Genghis Khan when pronounced by Kerry. This gave birth to the “Swift Boat Vets” who told America that they hadn’t seen any of this when they were with Kerry in Southeast Asia.

After his electoral loss in 2004, he accused our troops of terrorizing innocent women and children while once again giving no evidence to back up his claims.

Now it comes out that in ’72 he believed that a volunteer army would consist of the "...poor, black and brown." This has not turned out to be the case with our current army, but apparently no one bothered to tell Kerry that.

Now he expects us to believe that the whole thing was just a big misunderstanding, and that he was simply trying to make another joke about how stupid the president is.

Now forget for a moment how tasteless it is for a sitting Senator to joke of the Commander In Chief's stupidty during war time. Remember, Democrat's abandoned any kind of civil political discourse long ago.

So let’s assume that Kerry just badly botched a very unfunny, very unoriginal joke, and that he was referring to the President having not gotten a good education and because of this, he got us stuck in Iraq.


If this is the case then Kerry could have just as easily been talking about himself.

Kerry’s grades at Yale were just as bad, if not worse than the Presidents. In addition to this he voted for the war……before he voted against it, of course.

So either way, Kerry’s statement was boneheaded as all Hell.
But, even given Kerry’s proclivity to make boneheaded remarks around election time, I believe that in this case he meant what he said and said what he believes.

It was a poorly thought out statement, in front of one of the far-left’s greatest constituencies –college kids- in which his elitist, holier than thou attitude was on full display, and in which he expressed his true anti-military feelings.

I have never thought very highly of John Kerry as a person, regardless of his ideological leanings. I also saw no need for Kerry to give an apology, which he finally did yesterday after two days of painful explanations as to how he was misunderstood.

His recent remarks, his past remarks and his voting record are an accurate indicator of how Kerry views the American military, so by all means he should do what we elect our officials to do and tell us what he really thinks. John McCain calls it "straight talk".

Kerry is now the deserving poster child, but these sentiments are not simply a Kerry problem, or a Letterman problem, or a Rosie problem. They are a Democratic problem.

It’s a loathing of the American military and the men and women who serve in it. It is the view expressed at cocktail parties on the upper-west side of Manhattan and in Hollywood, that our troops are brainless dupes. Helpless pawns in a military which is not a force for good in the world, but rather the cause of many of the worlds problems.

This view has been expressed by Democrats such as Bill Clinton Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin and my guess is that it is shared by Liberals such as Pelosi, Dean, Rangel and many others who want to lead the next congress. Is that what you want?

Even if you're one of those independents who hates Bush, and who believes the smear merchants who accuse him of everything from lying about Iraq to being behind the September 11 attacks, can you really stand for a party that genuinely looks down on the men and women who bravely serve in our military?

Is that better, than the admittedly flawed leadership that we have now?

I think not.

But its out of my hands at this point.

So I'm begging all of you. On Election Day, keep John Kerry in the minority. If you do this Rosie O'Donnell's head will explode and when that happens, everybody wins.

Sphere: Related Content