Saturday, December 31, 2005
Happy New Year to all
It's just about here.
The countdown's begun
Let's send up a cheer.
Let's sweep out the old
Moonbats go first.
And Mike, I am told
can handle the worst.
He shines linguistically,
He's quick on the draw.
He knows how intrinsically
To stick in their craw.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
(Editors note: Earlier compilation of August September review published before it was completed. I'm resolved in the New Year to hate Google Blogger more). The complete review for that period follows)
Thursday, December 29, 2005
So where is the outrage when a wealthy Los Angeles landowner, a liberal, seeks to evict the homeless simply because the man who has worked for years to provide them shelter is black and a REPUBLICAN?
Yep, just before Christmas, the evil lefty landlord lowered the boom with the impossible 600% increase in rent, and let it be known that his change in heart after many years is because he recently learned that Ted Hayes, the founder of this particular shelter known as Dome Village is a Republican.
Mr. Hayes, a black man with dredlocks and rather unusual attire had spoken to a local Republican club only days before the rent increase demand arrived. His appearance was reported in the LA Times. After receiving the rent demand, Heath called property owner Milton Sidley and was told: "This Democrat is tired of taking care of Ted Hayes. If you're such a Republican, you let the Republicans help you out from now on,' " Hayes said.
Hayes is not going quietly. In an email to supporters he said:
Yet, here in the land of the free and home of the brave, I can't freely express my political views without having to suffer consequences from a land owner to whom my organization has faithfully paid rent of $2,500 and annual fee of $10,000 taxes.California Conservative describes Haye's journey to conservatism this way:
This bigotry and racism has no place in this country nor anywhere else in the world. Also, what is strikingly disturbing, according to Democrats, it appears that being a Republican is already bad enough in and of itself, but to be Republican and BLACK is the worse thing that a person can be or do. It is wickedness! What is this phenomenon, that American Black people are not allowed to be openly Republican?
It is as though it was Republicans and not Democrats who held us as slaves; fought the government to keep us a slaves; placed us under the oppression of Jim Crow laws; denied us the right to vote; and destroyed the Black communities with the last forty years of indoctrinating us with Socialist philosophy of the welfare state.
Frankly, the disdain should be the very opposite, that being a Black Democrat is odious. In other words, knowing the truth of these two political parties, the question can be asked, "How can a Black be or remain a Democrat."
In light of our beloved nations racial history, it is racist for anyone Democrat, especially White Democrats to denigrate any Blacks who freely chooses to return or be a part of the Political party - REPUBLICAN that freed our ancestry from slavery by the shed blood, maiming and death of their young men.
Over the years, Hayes noticed that although LA's political powers were overwhelmingly liberal and Democrat, he saw patterns that suggested that those who controlled LA didn't want to resolve the problems of homelessness, drugs, and gangs. Instead, Hayes saw that LA's Democrats had a need to keep things the way they were; and that if someone ever fixed those problems, Democrats would lose control of the communities they had deliberately disenfranchised. Hayes found that Democrats perpetuate the problems of gangs, drugs, and homelessness to remain relevant.It's pretty obvious that Democrats care more about political power and that all their expressed concern for the poor, for the homeless, for blacks, or for national security is nothing but hot air. Will Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Barbara Boxer or Jesse Jackson and the rest of the poverty pimps come forward to help the homeless about to be displaced in Los Angeles?
Don't hold your breath!
For more information on Dome Village and how to contribute, visit their web page.
Thanks to Bookworm, Flopping Aces and California Conservative for their work on this important story. Flopping Aces has much more about Ted Hayes.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Early on, I asked if this was such a great injustice would the media please provide just ONE example of an ordinary American citizen whose rights and liberties were wrongly infringed? Sure, we nabbed a bunch of terrorists, including the loon who planned to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge. Had any of these whackos succeeded, we can only imagine how the Defeaticrats would be howling about how Bush failed to protect us. But where are the examples of abuse?
Well, Senator Edward Kennedy (Defeaticrat-MA) found one. In an op-ed he wrote for the Boston Globe (sister paper owned by the New York Al Queda Times) he cited the astonishing story of Federal agents knocking on the door of a University of Massachusetts Dartmouth student who had requested a copy of Chinese Communist leader Mao's Little Red Book:
Just one little problem: The story turned out to be a hoax! Another in a long series of lies by people who will use any means to smear President Bush.
Just this past week there were public reports that a college student in Massachusetts had two government agents show up at his house because he had gone to the library and asked for the official Chinese version of Mao Tse-tung's Communist Manifesto. Following his professor's instructions to use original source material, this young man discovered that he, too, was on the government's watch list.
Think of the chilling effect on free speech and academic freedom when a government agent shows up at your home -- after you request a book from the library.
Yes, the same folks who insisted the "fake but accurate" phony Bush National Guard documents at CBS were the smoking gun to expose Bush as a liar were only too eager to swallow this one too. Just as they were eager to accept the letters of a poor little girl whose father was killed in Iraq.
A little note to those who willingly propagate these continuing falsehoods: Embracing fakery, phoniness and fools is an abysmal and appalling disservice to the much needed debate on life and death issues that this nation faces. You should all be ashamed if you were capable of registering that emotion.
And before I leave this subject, a postscript: I have noticed a fair number of hits coming to Mike's America on the basis of an internet search with the phrase "Joshua Sparling hoax." This references a post on the hate card sent to an injured soldier at Walter Reed Hospital, a TRUE story that also discusses the hoax of the little girl who lost her father in Iraq. I'm sure there are plenty of deluded Defeaticrats out there who would love to hear that the Sparling story is false and that the UMass Dartmouth student or little girl story are true. Too bad they don't invest their energy into coming up with positive contributions to our nation in this time of trouble.
Once again, Defeaticrats prove they have no ideas, no plan, nothing but lies, bitterness and hate. Very sad!
Thanks to Moonbattery for pointing me to this gem of indifference to veracity.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
HEY SAINT NICK: YOU GOT A WARRANT TO SLIDE DOWN THAT CHIMNEY???
NORAD Tracks Santa 2005
Friday, December 23, 2005
"Vote in Iraq has citizens skeptical: Many already say they think parliament election pointless." Followed up with: "Voting opens with violence."
PDF readable file of front page here.
The main lead went on to list every possible bad thing the reporter could think of in three paragraphs. "Slogans about democracy obscured by crime, violence, poor health care, bad schools dilapidated sewer and water pipes, corruption, electricity shortages, economic stagnation and unemployment.
Not ONE WORD about the unprecendented and astounding progress that has been made.
The newspaper was flooded with letters. Mine is here:
Has The Packet hired Democrat National Chairman Howard Dean to write the headlines?
I rarely have seen a more biased and pessimistic headline than the one you ran on the front page Dec. 15, the day of Iraq's free election for a permanent government: "Vote in Iraq has citizens skeptical" with the subhead: "Many already think parliamentary elections pointless."
"Pointless?" Eleven million people turned out to vote for one of the only free governments in the Arab world, and you describe it as pointless? What does this say about the sacrifice of so many brave Americans and brave Iraqis who have fought and died to make this day possible?
You must have looked long and hard to find an accompanying story that was so front-loaded with bad news and negativity and no counterbalance. I looked at the front pages of both the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, whose service provided the news story to The Packet and neither put up anything approaching the sour and biased tone of your headline, let alone your report.
Are you not aware of the Brookings Institute Iraqi Index? (see www.brookings.edu/iraqindex)
Automobile ownership has doubled in Baghdad. Telephone subscribers have increased fivefold. TV satellite dishes banned under Saddam are everywhere as are independent newspapers. Internet users have increased by 32 times prewar level. Iraq's economy continues to grow in double digits.
Your headline raises serious questions about how you handle the responsibility to inform our citizens on this important issue.
This newspaper serves one of the most Republican areas in all of South Carolina. We are also home to Parris Island, the US Marine Corps training base scant miles across the water from Hilton Head Island. Fort Stewart, home of the Third Infantry Division, known as the Rock of the Marne, whose members are currently securing our VICTORY in Iraq, is a few miles further down the road. Yet we endure an unrelenting stream of negative, biased reporting? Wise up fellow Lowcountry residents! Stop supporting those who so arrogantly and actively oppose the VICTORY of your nation at a time of war.
I would also encourage supporters of VICTORY, no matter where you live, to write letters to your local papers holding them accountable and responsible for their reporting.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Ignoring the fact that Clinton, Carter, Reagan, Bush "41" all claimed the same powers that President Bush has regarding the monitoring of terrorists, I'm reminded of another demonstration of how the powers of the state were exercised during the Clinton years.
Apparently Defeaticrats are all for getting tough with five year old Cuban boys like Elian Gonzales above... But let's not risk offending a terrorist!
This PHONY, NON STORY continues to suck all the oxygen out of the media that might otherwise be forced to report the good news in Iraq or the vote in the House of Representatives last week supporting VICTORY!
Chicago Sun Times: WASHINGTON -- Ted Stevens wore his power necktie, the one featuring the ''Incredible Hulk'' cartoon character. It is the one the Alaska senator reserves for his toughest fights.Majorities in both house of congress have for YEARS supported the ecologically safe, environmentally friendly drilling for oil in ANWR. The will of the people continues to be frustrated by a vocal minority of environmental extremists. Another slap in the face for the people of Alaska and another guarantee that billions more American dollars will head to the Middle East instead of the U.S. Treasury as would accrue from ANWR oil royalties.
''I hope the good Lord will help me hold my temper,'' he told colleagues as he began his final pitch for a cause he has championed for a quarter century: opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the northeastern corner of Alaska to oil drilling.
An hour later he sat quietly in the Senate chamber, again disappointed. The tie didn't help.
The Senate rejected opening the Alaska refuge to oil companies, even though Stevens had maneuvered the measure onto a must-pass defense spending bill that includes money for troops as well as billions for Katrina hurricane victims.
It was a stinging defeat for Stevens, 82, one of the Senate's most powerful members, who had hoped to garner more votes by forcing senators to choose between supporting the drilling or risking the political fallout from voting against money for the troops and hurricane victims.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
- Vice President Cheney cut short a trip to Iraq and Pakistan to cast the tie breaking vote on a domestic spending bill that would reduce the growth in costs of those programs by less than $40 Billion, out of projected budgets of $TEN TRILLION$$$$$$ during the same period. $$$TEN TRILLION$$$ in projected spending and Congress can only slow the growth by $40 Billion? Merry Christmas to all the big government socialists (who would probably prefer the secular: Happy Winter Solstice)
- A vote on the Defense Authorization bill is being held up by a filibuster of Senators opposed to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Two Republicans, Michael Dewine of Ohio and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island joined the Democrats to block this plan that is widely supported by Alaskans. Money for Katrina reconstruction, also part of this bill is being held up as well.
- Democrats who complained that the current Patriot Act imposed too much on civil liberties are now demanding it be extended for a three months. That would bring it into the heart of the 2006 elections where the issue would be even more politicized. I would urge the GOP Senators to agree to an extension, but extend the act a year or more. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff had a press conference today where he asked why Congress would approve roving wiretaps on drug dealers but not on suspected terrorists? Interesting question considering that drug dealers have been part of the Democrat fund raising machine.
The House of Representatives is standing by to vote on final approval of anything sensible to emerge from the Senate. The clock is running and you know that these elected officials would rather be home with their families and constituents. The House has been quietly doing their work, and seem to show a more professional attitude than their Senate colleagues.
House Passes Resolution for VICTORY in Iraq: Who Knew?
If I had not read this tidbit at Crush Liberalism I would never have known:
The day after the historic election of the first freely elected government in the Middle East, the House of Representatives passed House Resolution 612 which states in part:
59 Democrats joined all 220 Republicans voting YES for VICTORY!108 Defeaticrats could not even bring themselves to vote for VICTORY! Mark their names down.
Whereas the Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, the first to take place under the newly ratified Iraqi Constitution, represented a crucial success in the establishment of a democratic, constitutional order in Iraq; and Whereas Iraqis, who by the millions defied terrorist threats to vote, were protected by Iraqi security forces with the help of United States and Coalition forces: Now, therefore, be it
(1) the House of Representatives is committed to achieving victory in Iraq;
...4) the successful Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, required the presence of United States Armed Forces, United States-trained Iraqi forces, and Coalition forces;
(5) the continued presence of United States Armed Forces in Iraq will be required only until Iraqi forces can stand up so our forces can stand down, and no longer than is required for that purpose;
(6) setting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, or immediately terminating their deployment in Iraq and redeploying them elsewhere in the region, is fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq;
...(8) the House of Representatives has unshakable confidence that, with the support of the American people and the Congress, United States Armed Forces, along with Iraqi and Coalition forces, shall achieve victory in Iraq.
Did any of my readers other than Jonathon at Crush Liberalism see this vote reported in the lamestream media? On the day the vote took place, it was total hysteria about how rotten it is that President Bush is using the very same authority that Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush "41," and Clinton used to protect national security in times of relative peace.
Hold the Line - December 19, 2005 - The New York Sun: Feature the new line of political attack the left is launching against the White House. It is criticizing the Bush administration for authorizing the government to listen in on telephone and email conversations between America and places such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. And the Democratic Party, in the latest evidence of the bubble-like separation from reality in which the party lives, is working itself into a lather from which it is going to take weeks to recover, if it can recover at all.What's this? Not only Clinton, but Carter too believed he could use warrantless wiretaps to keep tabs on terrorists? We were living in a POLICE STATE, a DICTATORSHIP and we didn't even know it!
Reasonable people may differ over the correct place to draw the line between civil liberties and national security in wartime, but this strikes us as a pretty clear-cut case. The Fourth Amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
At issue is whether the listening in on overseas phone conversations is, in a time of war, "unreasonable." A person is now subject to a warrantless search when boarding an airplane, entering the New York subway system, or even entering the building that houses the office of the New York Civil Liberties Union. Why should an international phone call be inviolate?
Beyond the Fourth Amendment, the law that is said to restrict the Bush administration's activities is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But, contrary to what you may read in some other newspapers, that law does not require that all such surveillance be authorized by a court. The law provides at least two special exceptions to the requirement of a court order. As FISA has been integrated into Title 50 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1802, one such provision is helpfully headed, "Electronic surveillance authorization without court order."
This "without court order" was so clear that even President Carter, a Democrat not known for his vigilance in the war on terror, issued an executive order on May 23, 1979, stating, "Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order." He said, "without a court order."
America is in a war with Islamic extremists who are trying to defeat our country. "Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas," Mr. Bush said in his radio address. "But we didn't know they were here, until it was too late." The president said the activities he authorized by the National Security Agency "make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time."
The majority of Americans, we're confident, are grateful to Mr. Bush for setting the listening in motion and hope it succeeds in preventing another attack like the one on September 11, 2001. If this listening were not happening, it'd be a scandal. You don't even need a wiretap to predict that the same partisan Democrats who are now denouncing the president for supposedly infringing on civil liberties would be denouncing him for failing to take the steps necessary to protect us.
Two words of caution for you ole Har: TOM DASCHLE!
Click on the chart above and read about Reid's CLAN OF CORRUPTION.... then tell me what makes Tom Delay such a criminal.
Lefty Lie #1: Not enough oil in the Alaskan Artic National Wildlife Refuge to bother about. Really? Almost more oil in a tiny sliver of ANWR than the rest of the ENTIRE COUNTRY! Ah well, why bother letting a little thing like TRUTH get in the way of lefists imposing their state sanctioned environmental religion on the rest of us. More on ANWR here.
We at Mike's America are not about to sweep the miracle of Iraq's freedom under the rug. Here's another great visual reminder of the power of freedom. This man, seen voting in the first election in January, 2005 weeps for joy and for the sorrow of decades lost to tyranny and horror.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
The supersecret NSA program at the heart of the current controversy saved the Brooklyn Bridge (foreground) in NewYork City from disaster. Too bad it wasn't implemented in time to save the World Trade Center towers in the background.
In 1994 the Clinton Adminstration, led by Deputy Attorney General "Build the Wall"Gorelick insisted that President Clinton had the power to order searches without a warrant. Where was the outrage? Where were the frontpage screaming headlines "Clinton Abusing Powers?" Where was the question at a news conference regarding: "unchecked power of the executive in American society?"
Byron York on Bill Clinton & No-Warrant Searches on National Review Online: In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has 'inherent authority' to order physical searches, including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens, for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body.
"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."
"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."
In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed he had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime. "Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise," Gorelick said. "Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus."
The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames's lawyers would challenge the search in court. Meanwhile, Congress began discussing a measure under which the authorization for break-ins would be handled like the authorization for wiretaps, that is, by the FISA court. In her testimony, Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court — if, as she testified, it "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security." In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.
Selective left wing outrage is ASTOUNDING! And the above is at least focused on national security. But what about the spying on senior leaders of the Catholic Church, including Cardinal O'Connor? Are we to assume that spying by a DEMOCRAT administration on U.S. citizens including: Roman Catholic Cardinal John O'Connor of New York, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Feminists for Life, the National Rifle Association and the U.S. Bishops' Conference of the Roman Catholic Church is somehow justified and spying on terrorists out to kill thousands of our citizens is not?
Does a Cardinal in the Catholic Church represent a greater threat to our society, or have fewer rights to civil liberties than a terrorist?
Bush NSA Program Nabs Brooklyn Bridge Bomber
Let's look at one of the terrorists apprehended under this supersecret NSA program: Iyman Farris, a central Ohio truck driver, plead guilty in 2003 of plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City.
Had we not "connected the dots" and apprehended Farris it's quite possible that another great and historic symbol of New York City would be gone, along with countless numbers of innocent civilians, all of whose civil liberties would be terminated with their death. Would the survivors be comforted knowing that we had bent over backwards to respect the civil rights of those who commit such an atrocity?
Perhaps we should commission a poll of New Yorkers, currently using the Brooklyn Bridge to walk to work during the transit strike in that city. Do they approve of using every means available to protect that structure, their lives and their ability to get to work?
No matter how badly the New York Al Queda Times wants to change the subject, the miracle of 11 million Iraqis voting in the first free and democratic Arab election will not be swept under the rug.
Turn up the speakers and prepare to be moved by the miracle of freedom.
Thanks Moc's Blog for pointing me to it.
Fraudmongering publicity whores like former Ambassador Joe Wilson and his ex-CIA wife Valerie Plame never seem to know when enough is enough. But really... posing in your PJ'S for Time Magazine's People Who Mattered 2005?
The Drudge Report ran a headline contest for the photo:
"Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?"
"Honey, I think I lost my cover"
"Why doesn't Bono return our calls anymore?"
"Valerie preparing for another undercover assignment"
"Joe, they came here to take a picture of me"
"A Leaking in Noir"
"The Pajama Party"
"Time to put this one to bed"
"My wife does it for microfilm"
"Make your own damned breakfast"
"Have you seen my pills?"
"Sleeping With the Enemy"
“Would you PLEASE send the news people away? I’m UNDER COVER!”
"Bananas in Pajamas"
"Do you know where the yellowcake is?
"Look what You've Done To Us, Bob Novak!"
"No More Wire Hangers"
"Joe, When Are You Going Back To Work?'
"The baby upstairs is floating above the bed again"
Monday, December 19, 2005
Whack! Whack! Whack! It's the sound heard in the East Room of the White House as President Bush takes the bat to the Defeaticrats and their allies in the news media in this Monday press conference on the heels of his Sunday Oval Office Speech on our VICTORY in Iraq.
In his answers to the assembled press corps he spelled out once again how we are winning in Iraq, how vital our efforts to preserve national security at home have become in the wake of Sepetmber 11th and the necessary work we continue to undertake to achieve VICTORY, not just in Iraq, but the broader war.
The President addressed at length the current controversy over the National Security Agency monitoring of Al Queda communications directed to individuals in this country from overseas. He reiterated his duty under the Constitution to protect the lives and liberties of the American people. No greater duty does a President have than to secure the liberties of all American citizens to be free from those who would do us harm.
Here's the best exchange regarding the NSA wiretap controversy with a reporter from the Washington Post:
And this gem about the Patriot Act renewal:
White House transcript: Question: Thank you, Mr. President. I wonder if you can tell us today, sir, what, if any, limits you believe there are or should be on the powers of a President during a war, at wartime? And if the global war on terror is going to last for decades, as has been forecast, does that mean that we're going to see, therefore, a more or less permanent expansion of the unchecked power of the executive in American society?
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I disagree with your assertion of "unchecked power."
Question: Well --
THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, please. There is the check of people being sworn to uphold the law, for starters. There is oversight. We're talking to Congress all the time, and on this program, to suggest there's unchecked power is not listening to what I'm telling you. I'm telling you, we have briefed the United States Congress on this program a dozen times.
This is an awesome responsibility to make decisions on behalf of the American people, and I understand that, Peter. And we'll continue to work with the Congress, as well as people within our own administration, to constantly monitor programs such as the one I described to you, to make sure that we're protecting the civil liberties of the United States. To say "unchecked power" basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the President, which I strongly reject.
The President: Let me say something about the Patriot Act, if you don't mind. It is inexcusable for the United States Senate to let this Patriot Act expire. You know, there's an interesting debate in Washington, and you're part of it, that says, well, they didn't connect the dots prior to September the 11th -- "they" being not only my administration, but previous administrations. And I understand that debate. I'm not being critical of you bringing this issue up and discussing it, but there was a -- you might remember, if you take a step back, people were pretty adamant about hauling people up to testify, and wondering how come the dots weren't connected.
Well, the Patriot Act helps us connect the dots. And now the United States Senate is going to let this bill expire. Not the Senate -- a minority of senators. And I want senators from New York or Los Angeles or Las Vegas to go home and explain why these cities are safer. It is inexcusable to say, on the one hand, connect the dots, and not give us a chance to do so. We've connected the dots, or trying to connect the dots with the NSA program. And, again, I understand the press and members of the United States Congress saying, are you sure you're safeguarding civil liberties. That's a legitimate question, and an important question. And today I hope I'll help answer that. But we're connecting dots as best as we possibly can.
I mentioned in my radio address -- my live TV radio address -- that there was two killers in San Diego making phone calls prior to the September the 11th attacks. Had this program been in place then, it is more likely we would have been able to catch them. But they're making phone calls from the United States, overseas, talking about -- who knows what they're talking about, but they ended up killing -- being a part of the team that killed 3,000 Americans. And so -- I forgot what got me on the subject, but nevertheless I'm going to -- we're doing the right thing.
Earlier, President Bush expressed his disatisfaction with the NSA leak this way:
You've got to understand -- and I hope the American people understand -- there is still an enemy that would like to strike the United States of America, and they're very dangerous. And the discussion about how we try to find them will enable them to adjust. Now, I can understand you asking these questions and if I were you, I'd be asking me these questions, too. But it is a shameful act by somebody who has got secrets of the United States government and feels like they need to disclose them publicly.
Defeaticrats it seems are desperate to do anything to take the miracle of the first free election in the Arab world off the the front pages. Apparently, they are also bound and determined to tie the hands of those whose purpose is to protect the American People. In these difficult days, I am reminded of these words from Abraham Lincoln, who has become President Bush's role model for VICTORY:
Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865
BBC NEWS World Americas Press finds new tone in Bush speech: "Press finds new tone in Bush speech "
Mike's America is flattered to be the sole conservative counterweight in this story to the reporting of:
-The New York Times
-The Washington Post
-The Miami Herald
-The Los Angeles Times
Regardless of whether your visit to Mike's America, coming as you do from , started with a link from the BBC or elsewhere, you are most welcome!
Sunday, December 18, 2005
With that shining ribbon on top, President Bush wrapped up the encore to his VICTORY in Iraq speeches like a well dressed Christmas present.
Explaining as best he has to date, in direct, clear and concise words what we have achieved in Iraq and what we have yet to do; while admitting where we have gone wrong.
But lest his critics simply take that admission as validation of their own do-nothing strategy, Mr. Bush was even more direct:
White House transcript: Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope. For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them. My fellow citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq, we are winning the war in Iraq.In perhaps a reference to all the Cindy Sheehan's but more importantly ALL the injured soldiers and families of fallen heroes:
I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq: I have heard your disagreement, and I know how deeply it is felt. Yet now there are only two options before our country -- victory or defeat. And the need for victory is larger than any president or political party, because the security of our people is in the balance. I don't expect you to support everything I do, but tonight I have a request: Do not give in to despair, and do not give up on this fight for freedom.
Americans can expect some things of me, as well. My most solemn responsibility is to protect our nation, and that requires me to make some tough decisions. I see the consequences of those decisions when I meet wounded servicemen and women who cannot leave their hospital beds, but summon the strength to look me in the eye and say they would do it all over again. I see the consequences when I talk to parents who miss a child so much -- but tell me he loved being a soldier, he believed in his mission, and, Mr. President, finish the job.Yes Mr. President FINISH THE JOB! And our prayers go with you and all those who sacrifice so much for our freedom.
I used to look forward to this issue. It chronicled real newsmakers in a positive, informative manner that was interesting to read.
But it appears that like so much of the lamestream media, Time is determined to go the way of the dinosaurs. On that long road to extinction, they're sputtering out the last gasps of their transparent bias and contempt for those who are now, like me, their former readers.
The City Troll was brave enough to put on his hip boots and wade into that sewer of sneering smugness that substitutes for journalism today. He takes them on point by point. If your blood pressure can stand it, go take a look:
The_City_Troll: Times People Who Mattered 2005
Yet, too many in this country seem determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, not just in Iraq but also in the wider war. It's these folks who think that BUSH and our military are the problem and that we need to bend over backwards to be nice to terrorists. These are the folks who support the Al Queda bill of rights proposed by Senator John McCain. These are the folks who think that the leak of a non-covert CIA agent is a high crime, but the leak of the most supersecret national security program to track terrorists is fine and dandy.
We've got a problem in this country and it goes beyond a red state/blue state divide. Flopping Aces synthesized the problem in a series of posts which I excerpt here.
Plotting The Demise Of America:From a comment at Protein Wisdom: "I believe that the majority of those on the left and a good number of libertarians believe, quite simply, that we aren't at war; or that if we are, its "war" instead of war, and besides, it was based on lies so it really isn't a war. Also: Halliburton. And anyway, we started it.Flopping Aces followed that up with "Democrats Too Busy Defending Terrorists from America."
If you begin with the assumption that, say, the New York Times thinks the war on terror and the war in Iraq are just a bunch of bullshit, then this kind of reporting makes complete and perfect sense. Same with Dean's and Murtha's and Pelosi's and Kerry's pronouncements.
They've seen that their constituents can absorb a 9/11-style attack, and they've seen that the victims of such attacks become even more resolute in their hatred of George Bush and Republicans.
If I'm a terrorist, feeling all bummed by my comrades getting greased along the Euphrates, I'm really trying to find a silver lining. Fortunately, the infidels are cooperating:
- I now no longer need fear any kind of physical coercion; the Dems have basically put me in the same position as Nigel Tufnel's guitar: It's never been played. Don't touch it. Don't even point. Don't even look at it.
- As a potential martyr, I know I won't need to comply with a treaty I never signed; I won't be incarcerated for much more than a fortnight; I won't be returned to my country of origin; and I won't be placed in some allahforsaken Caribbean gulag where they pee within 20 feet of my plastic-encased Koran.
- I also know that if the kufr find my Blackberry, they can't really do much about checking on my contacts at Harvard and Georgetown. I?ll lose my speed dial to Ahmenedijad and Dana Milbank's (or is it Dana Priest's?) e-mail address, but I can always rebuild my contacts list.
It's great. I get all the benefits of being an American citizen and still get to plot its violent demise.
In that post he quotes My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
I cleaned that up a bit, but you get the idea. The Defeaticrats are not only clueless, they are dangerous.
This latest outrage with the f#@%ing New Qaeda York Times exposing classified information, and the paranoid idiots that love stories like this for their own selfish reasons?I'm furious. First, they complain that the pre-911 intelligence was faulty (which it WAS) or that the Bush administration (and curiously, only the Bush administration) ignored the "obvious" signs of a potential attack. The 9/11 Commission CRITICIZED the NSA for not conducting surveillance, for Chrissakes! Then, when something is done to plug the holes?The Patriot Act, the NSA's watching people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations, etc., then these same ENEMIES OF THE STATE scream bloody murder.
I'm not sure I even have words to describe my utter frustration with the interferences thrown in to every single f#@%ing thing we have to fight this war on Islamofascism whether it's the media disguising opinion as "news," the lies they and idiotarian BLOGGERS spread, the ridiculously overblown hysteria over interrogation methods, the insane paranoia over the USA Patriot Act, the exposure of REAL classified information, the spreading and feeding of terrorist propaganda, the bats@#t f@#%ing crazy "anti-war" (NOT) lunatics (yes, I do mean batsh*#t! you people ARE out of your minds and obviously immune to history and logic), and the disgusting disloyal political opposition led by the likes of Ted "Chappie" Kennedy* and John F'n Kerry and Al-Q Gore and other losers with an axe to grind, no matter the human cost.
Flopping Aces goes on to cite that Senate MINORITY (what a nice word when attached to Defeaticrats) Leader Harry Reid was informed of the supersecret NSA plan to monitor terrorists, as were other members of congress.
He goes on to question where the outrage from these Defeaticrats was when we learned that the Clinton Administration had bugged abortion foes, including "Roman Catholic Cardinal John O'Connor of New York, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Feminists for Life, the National Rifle Association and the U.S. Bishops Conference of the Roman Catholic Church. Many of these targets were explicitly Christian and openly opposed to anti-abortion violence."
At the same time Al Queda was ramping up it's plans to attack America, The Clinton Administration was building a wall to prevent law enforcement from sharing information on terrorists. Instead, law enforcement agencies were told to go out and bug churches.
But the piece de resistance (a bit of French lingo for our Defeaticrat surrender monkey friends) is this response Flopping Aces found to Senator Reid's call for a probe to investigate the NSA program of which he was fully informed.
Let's Probe:Let's probe why the CIA doesn't mind a covert agent divulging her identity to a casual sex partner.As always, Curt at Flopping Aces covers a story he covers it like asphalt on a freeway. Great job Curt!
Let's probe why sworn members of congress can travel to Baghdad to stand in solidarity with Saddam as we are moving our troops to engage him.
Let's probe why a US Senator would travel to Syria, Iran, Lybia, Yemen and Qatar to warn than the the Iraq invasion was eminent.
Let's probe why a defense department contractor was allowed to sell missle guidance technology to China and why it is now being transferred to Iran.
Let's probe why the 9/11 commission omitted valuable information and excluded key witnesses to issue a false report of our defense administration prior to the NYC attacks.
Let's probe why the Fitzgerald grand jury never interviewed key witnesses such as Plame herself, her husband or the reporters involved.
Let's probe why US Senators on the intelligence committee leak top secret information to the media when they want to try to damage our President and our defense capabilities.
Let's probe who ordered the Sandy Berger shredding mission.
Let's probe who tried to squelch the Able Danger team.
Let's probe every single page of the BARRETT REPORT.
BY ALL MEANS --LET'S PROBE!!
The only way to combat defeatism by the Defeaticrats is to DEFEAT THEM in 2006 and beyond. It's going to be a tough election, and conservatives already sick of compromises may be called upon to make more. But the stakes are too high to waver, or sit this one out.
"Mistake?" Well only those who get their news from Howard Dean and Bill Clinton would think that 11 million Iraqi voters and the first truly free Arab republic in the Middle East is a mistake.
BREITBART.Com WASHINGTON - President Bush will address the nation about Iraq on Sunday evening, his first speech from the Oval Office since he announced the beginning of the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. The address at 9 p.m. EST comes on the heels of a two-week, four- speech blitz to build support for a war that a majority of Americans now say was a mistake.
I would encourage readers to visit Vote Churchill and wish Michael a safe trip home and also share any issues of concern that can be addressed at the state level (you don't have to be a SC resident).
Thanks for your service Michael and we look forward to a fuller report of your activities when you are free to share your thoughts.
Comments of Michael Churchill: Mike, the referendum was a pretty quiet day here in Baghdad, but the election on Thursday even trumped that day.
There was a higher voter turnout percentage here in Iraq than the United States had for the 2004 Presidential Election.
Another thing that will quiet all those opposed to our presence in Iraq...
If Iraqis wanted us out of their country so badly, then why not a single one of the sixty political parties in Iraq represented for parliament elections push the agenda of immediate Coalition withdraw?
I am proud to have served in Iraq, and to see democracy through its infancy.
Democracy is a beautiful thing, and I am sure those 11 million voters will agree.
I think the caption for Cindy should be... 'I voted for Senator Kerry, and all I got was this lousy scarf.'
Right on schedule. The full moon is Sunday and the witch is on her broom again. This time in Spain.
The anguish on her face must have been the moment a member of the press informed her that 11 million Iraqis, a full 70% of eligible voters, including huge numbers of previously boycotting Sunnis voted for the first truly democratic Arab government.
Stock up on the garlic, holy water and silver bullets...
moon phase info
Saturday, December 17, 2005
The Washington Times, America's Newspaper: " Ronnie Earle, the Travis County, Texas, district attorney, is apparently furious about a television advertisement that accuses him of being politically motivated in winning an indictment of Rep. Tom DeLay, Texas Republican. Mr. Earle's office has responded by notifying the ad's sponsor, the Free Enterprise Fund (FEF), that he plans to subpoena the District-based organization.
The TV ad, which saturated airwaves in Austin, Texas, said: 'A partisan prosecutor with a political agenda can be a dangerous thing,' and compared Mr. Earle to a snarling, vicious dog.
A draft of the subpoena provided to the FEF says the group's executive director must travel to Texas and 'provide the Travis County District Attorney's office with any and all documentation regarding the advertisements that have been produced or paid for by the Free Enterprise Fund, including any and all information regarding media buys by the Free Enterprise Fund for those advertisements that have run in Austin, Texas.'
The Texas subpoena must be cleared by a D.C. court before it can be presented to the FEF.
What Mr. Earle wants, a source with special knowledge of the request tells this column, is a copy of the organization's donor list, so he can find out who paid for the ads.
Wasn't it the NAZIs who took by other means what they could not win by elections?
On the big day, my local newspaper ran the following headline on the front page above the fold: ""Vote in Iraq has citizens skeptical" with the subhead: "Many already think parliamentary elections pointless." Followed by a second story suggesting that violence had marred the elections.
They followed that manure load of Defeaticrat propaganda with a story that listed every bad thing they could think of regarding Iraq with no mention at all of the positive. I'll let you know if they print my response to such tripe.
Meanwhile, here's an excellent article of the mostly unreported story from Iraq. Read it in it's entirety. I excerpted a few gems.
Good Grief! Even Sunnis want Americans to stay! Somebody please call Congressman Murtha and Cindy Sheehan! And what about the "civil war" which Senator Carl Levin (Defeaticrat-MI) has claimed for the past year was just around the corner?
The Weekly Standard "Happy Days!": 'Experts Cautious in Assessing Iraqi Election,' ran the headline on a Friday Washington Post story by Robin Wright; 'High Turnout, Low Violence a Positive Step, but Not a Turning Point, Analysts Say.'
In Iraq, just about everyone is celebrating. "Happy days!" cheered Salim Saleh to a New York Times reporter. "Before, we had a dictator, and now we have this freedom, this democracy," Emad Abdul Jabbar, a 38-year-old Sunni, told the Times. "This time, we have a real election, not just the sham elections we had under Saddam, and we Sunnis want to participate in the political process." "We are so happy," Sahera Hashim told the Financial Times. "We hope for security, good life. We have suffered too much in the past."
The mayor of Ramadi, an insurgent and Sunni stronghold, compared the elections to a wedding: "Right now, the city is experiencing a democratic celebration." Another Sunni man told a Post reporter, "All my neighborhood is voting. God willing, after the elections things will be good."
The biggest story of this election, apart from its obvious milestone character, is the staggeringly high Sunni turnout. In October we were being assured, by the usual experts, that the passage of the constitutional referendum was a disaster, another of many final nails in the coffin of Iraqi democracy: The Sunnis would now never participate in the electoral process. It turns out that they did participate, and they did so with eager anticipation that through the new democratic process their voices could be heard and their interests protected.
It also turns out that one of the major reasons Sunnis had not participated before was fear that they would be killed by terrorists and insurgents. This time, with 160,000 American troops and thousands of newly trained Iraqi soldiers and police, there was a sense of security. "Last time, if you voted, you died," Abdul Jabbar Mahdi, a Sunni, told the Times's Dexter Filkins. "God willing, this election will lead to peace." As Filkins notes, "Comments from Sunni voters, though anecdotal, suggested that a good number of them had stayed away from the polls in January not because they were disenchanted with the democratic process, but because they were afraid of being killed."
Among the Sunnis he interviewed, the Times's John Burns found "a new willingness to distance themselves from the insurgency, an absence of hostility for Americans, a casual contempt for Saddam Hussein, a yearning for Sunnis to find a place for themselves in the post-Hussein Iraq.
There may now be a realization among Sunnis that the insurgency is not winning, and thus may not be the best way for them to recover their lost power--or even to strengthen their bargaining position. Sunni fence sitters seem to be tilting toward involvement in the political process.
A more active counterinsurgency strategy--and the presence of 160,000 American troops--has not, as some predicted, reduced Sunni participation in the political process or engendered greater hostility and violence. On the contrary, the extra troops helped provide the security that made it safer for Sunnis and others to vote, and for democracy to take root. If American and Iraqi troops continue to provide basic security, and if Iraq's different sects and political groups now begin to engage in serious, peaceful bargaining, then we may just have witnessed the beginning of Iraq's future.
And not only Iraq's future. One 50-year-old Shiite schoolteacher told the Los Angeles Times, "I am proud as an Iraqi because our country is becoming a center of attraction for all Arab countries. The new situation in Iraq, the democratic system, is starting to put pressure on the Arab systems to make some changes toward democracy." Such thoughts cannot yet be freely expressed in the salons of Washington, D.C., and New York City. But they seem to make sense in today's Iraq.
Burns reports that even Sunnis unhappy with the American presence favor only a "gradual drawdown," and only if Iraq has achieved a sufficient level of security and stability. "Let's have stability, and then the Americans can go home," one Iraqi store owner told Burns. Informed that President Bush was saying exactly the same thing, this man replied: "Then Bush has said it correctly".
The only civil war we should worry about is the one Defeaticrats have waged unrelentingly against the twice elected government in the United States.
From the White House: As President, I took an oath to defend the Constitution, and I have no greater responsibility than to protect our people, our freedom, and our way of life. On September the 11th, 2001, our freedom and way of life came under attack by brutal enemies who killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. We're fighting these enemies across the world. Yet in this first war of the 21st century, one of the most critical battlefronts is the home front. And since September the 11th, we've been on the offensive against the terrorists plotting within our borders.So let's review: The Patriot Act removed the Gorelick "Wall" that prevented law enforcement from learning of the impending terror attack on September 11. That wall will now be rebuilt thanks to a small number of Democrats, joined by a handful of Republicans filibustering against a clear majority in the Senate and the will of the House of Representatives.
One of the first actions we took to protect America after our nation was attacked was to ask Congress to pass the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act tore down the legal and bureaucratic wall that kept law enforcement and intelligence authorities from sharing vital information about terrorist threats. And the Patriot Act allowed federal investigators to pursue terrorists with tools they already used against other criminals. Congress passed this law with a large, bipartisan majority, including a vote of 98-1 in the United States Senate.
Since then, America's law enforcement personnel have used this critical law to prosecute terrorist operatives and supporters, and to break up terrorist cells in New York, Oregon, Virginia, California, Texas and Ohio. The Patriot Act has accomplished exactly what it was designed to do: it has protected American liberty and saved American lives.
Yet key provisions of this law are set to expire in two weeks. The terrorist threat to our country will not expire in two weeks. The terrorists want to attack America again, and inflict even greater damage than they did on September the 11th. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that law enforcement and intelligence officials have the tools they need to protect the American people.
The House of Representatives passed reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Yet a minority of senators filibustered to block the renewal of the Patriot Act when it came up for a vote yesterday. That decision is irresponsible, and it endangers the lives of our citizens. The senators who are filibustering must stop their delaying tactics, and the Senate must vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act. In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment.
To fight the war on terror, I am using authority vested in me by Congress, including the Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force, which passed overwhelmingly in the first week after September the 11th. I'm also using constitutional authority vested in me as Commander-in-Chief.
In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.
This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.
As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation's inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad. Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here, until it was too late.
The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.
The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.
The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.
This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the President of the United States.
Furthermore: remember all the feigned outrage over the "outing" of non-covert CIA agent Valerie Plame and how damaging those same political demagogues claimed it was to our national security?
Well, here we have a leak regarding one of the most secret programs, one of which congress was duly notified. And yet, where is the outrage?
I suppose those who claim such a strong, "moral" stand on behalf of civil liberties won't mind at all if Osama bin Laden calls his terrorist gang in the U.S. to give the order to nuke an American city. The survivors will be so comforted by the notion that we are protecting the rights of those terrorists!
And don't you find it interesting that this "leak" which was apparently known by the reporter for over a year, is released the day after the miracle of Iraq's most democratic and free election?
Defeaticrats playing games with our national security and trying to undercut our successes in Iraq and the war on terror! What a bunch of losers!
Well, it appears the Defeaticrats have finally gotten around to defining what the meaning of the word "is" is, so they're busy with their friends in the "media" trying to convince themselves that a "majority" thinks Iraq was a "mistake"."
Well not so fast. Dick Morris has a few thoughts on the subject:
Dick Morris : Polls and The War
After a newspaper ran Mark Twain's obituary, the story goes, he protested that the reports of his death had been "greatly exaggerated"; so, too, the media accounts of an emerging national consensus against the War in Iraq are considerably at variance with what Americans are actually thinking.
The most recent Fox News poll, completed Nov. 30, suggests that while half of Americans would like to see a schedule for withdrawal of U.S. troops, a majority feel the war has done good things ? and a larger majority feel that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when Bush told us there were.
By 52 percent to 27 percent, Americans believe that "the world would be worse off if the U.S. military had not taken action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein were still in power." By 59-20, they feel Iraq would've been worse off if we hadn't acted.
Asked what they believe about WMDs in Iraq, 61 percent said there were still such weapons there or that there had been WMDs in the country but that they were destroyed or moved. Only 28 percent agree that Iraq had no WMDs.
These data show that Americans are still largely in sympathy with our objectives in Iraq and accepting of our reasons for entering the war ? two good reasons for the Democrats not to overplay their hand in opposing it.
The irony of this war is that the normal definitions of words do not really apply. "Success," for example, does not mean military victory on the battlefield, but a political victory in creating a stable, democratic, elected government in Iraq that can wage its own war and protect itself against terrorists. For America, "peace" does not mean the end of fighting, it just means that an Iraqi government will be battling its own terrorists with less and less American intervention or support.
Similarly, "defeat" does not mean that the terrorists prevail militarily ? but that they force a political decision to withdraw American troops before the Iraqi government and military can take over the task of self-defense.
Even the political interface with the military operations is not what it appears to be. President Bush has been re-elected commander-in-chief for the next three years. No congressional majority will ever muster the gravitas to cut off funding for the war. Our troops are there to stay as long as he wants them to. With his apparent resolve, there is no real likelihood that we will be "defeated" in Iraq. We really won't leave until the job is done. Obviously, in three years, 80 percent of Iraq can figure out how to govern, conciliate, rule and, if necessary, suppress the other 20 percent.
But the war will erode Bush's popularity every day that it continues to rage and Americans die. There is no way around this central fact of our political life. No spinning, Iraqi elections or presidential speeches can do much to alter it. Bush will probably leave office with much diminished popularity and the Democrats will probably make large gains in the elections of 2006 and 2008 because of the cost of the war in Iraq.
Will the war have been worth it? Probably. Iraq will likely emerge as a key regional ally. And the demonstration of American resolve will hugely boost chances for a comprehensive deal between Israel and the Palestinians. North Korea is sounding more intimidated every month. The global coalition against Iran and Syria is forged in the wake of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's commitment to multilateralism in the shadow of Bush's willingness to go it alone if Europe won't move ahead.
How will history treat it all? As George Bernard Shaw put it in "The Devil's Disciple," "History, sir, will tell lies as usual."
Friday, December 16, 2005
From Through the Looking Glass: Iraqi voters line up outside a polling site in Barwana, Iraq, on Dec. 15, 2005. Iraqi citizens are voting to elect Iraq's first free, permanent parliamentary government.Iraqi voters could teach Americans a thing or two about democracy. If we had lines at polling stations half as long as the one shown above there would be riots (well, not at mostly Republican precincts where manners and civility would prevail).
DoD photo by Sgt. James P. Aguilar, U.S. Marine Corps.
The more we learn about this miracle of freedom in Iraq the more impressive it is. Current estimates are that 11 million voters participated. That's 70% of those eligible. I don't think we have EVER had that high a turnout for an American presidential election.
Violence too was remarkably low with Iraqis taking the lead in providing for their own security.
A momentous achievement for a people with no history of democracy.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Second: Racism was a factor in the tragedy as it was claimed blacks were most impacted... Well -- WRONG AGAIN! As a percentage of the population, more white people died.
Can someone please tell the race baiting hatemongers to shut up and do something to help the survivors instead of spreading their racism?
Statistics Suggest Race Not a Factor in Katrina Deaths -- 12/14/2005: "Statistics released by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals suggest that fewer than half of the victims of Hurricane Katrina were black, and that whites died at the highest rate of all races in New Orleans.
Liberals in the aftermath of the storm were quick to allege that the Bush administration delayed its response to the catastrophe because most of the victims were black.
Damu Smith, founder of the National Black Environmental Justice Network, in September said that the federal government 'ignored us, they forgot about us ... because we look like we look.'
Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan in October said that the Federal Emergency Management Agency wasn't fit to help the storm's victims because 'there are not enough blacks high up in FEMA' and added that, 'certainly the Red Cross is the same.'
Rapper Kanye West used his time on NBC's telethon for the hurricane victims to charge that, 'George Bush doesn't care about black people.'
But the state's demographic information suggests that whites in New Orleans died at a higher rate than minorities. According to the 2000 census, whites make up 28 percent of the city's population, but the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals indicates that whites constitute 36.6 percent of the storm's fatalities in the city.
African-Americans make up 67.25 percent of the population and 59.1 percent of the deceased. Other minorities constitute approximately 5 percent of the population and represented 4.3 percent of the storm's fatalities.
Overall for the state, 658 bodies have been identified. Forty-seven percent were African-American and 42 percent were Caucasian. The remaining bodies were either non-black minorities or undetermined.
An additional 247 victims have not been identified, so their demographic information has not been released.
The data showed that the majority of Katrina's victims lived in the Orleans parish. The nearby St. Bernard and Jefferson parishes had 91 and 25 victims, respectively.
The storm also did not discriminate based on gender. Fifty percent of the victims were male and 49 percent were female, with 1 percent being undetermined.
Many families took their children to the polls, dressed in their best clothes in a festive celebration of their future in a new Iraq where ballots are replacing bullets and dictatorship and death have given way to democracy.
There is a bright shining star of hope and freedom rising on the horizon of the Middle East. All Americans should be proud to have played such a central role in this miracle.
What a shame our Defeaticrat friends cannot join the party. Leading up to this latest historic event Razor Sharp Claws (who comments here as Dcat) had a commenter who said the following:
"I seem to remember north korea, nicaragua, cuba, franco's spain and mussolini's italy having elections. why don't we call them democracies?" This same attention starved individual also feels that Reagan had nothing to do with winning the Cold War. Delusion is a harsh mistress! If this person does not understand the difference between a one party state election where only approved candidates are on the ballot and a free and open process, then it's clear we need to reform the failed public school system in this country that would allow such persons to graduate.
Ah, but this is a day to celebrate, not pity the lost souls that would condemn our nation to defeat. Let's focus instead on people like Sooni, an Iraqi living in Baghdad, who blogs "Yes, it was the right decision" in response to President Bush's speech yesterday. People like Sooni have endured decades of horror at the hands of Saddam and endured the violence since he was removed. Should not their voice carry as much weight as blind obstructionist Defeaticrats?
A happy Iraqi in Suleimaniya demonstrates support for the United States on the eve of the Iraqi election. Someone please phone Congressman Murtha's office and let him know!
BBC Highlights Mike's America Comments on Bush Speech.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
White House Transcript:Once again, a point by point recitation of our goals, our methods, how they have adapted to events and a response to his critics. And the Defeaticrat response? More of the same defeatism which paralyzes that political party from offering anything constructive at a time of war.
I've come to discuss an issue of vital importance to the American people, and that is: Victory in the war on terror.
We are living through a watershed moment in the story of freedom. Most of the focus now is on this week's elections -- and rightly so. Iraqis will go to the polls to choose a government that will be the only constitutional democracy in the Arab world. Yet we need to remember that these elections are also a vital part of a broader strategy for protecting the American people against the threat of terrorism.
We saw the future the terrorists intend for our nation on that fateful morning of September the 11th, 2001. That day we learned that vast oceans and friendly neighbors are no longer enough to protect us. September the 11th changed our country; it changed the policy of our government. We adopted a new strategy to protect the American people: We would hunt down the terrorists wherever they hide; we would make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them; and we would advance our security at home by advancing freedom in the Middle East.
We removed Saddam Hussein from power because he was a threat to our security. He had pursued and used weapons of mass destruction. He sponsored terrorists. He ordered his military to shoot at American and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zones. He invaded his neighbors. He fought a war against the United States and a broad coalition. He had declared that the United States of America was his enemy.
When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As President, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq -- and I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that. At the same time, we must remember that an investigation after the war by chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer found that Saddam was using the U.N. oil-for-food program to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions, with the intent of restarting his weapons programs once the sanctions collapsed and the world looked the other way. Given Saddam's history and the lessons of September the 11th, my decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. Saddam was a threat -- and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power. (Applause.) We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator; it is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in its place.
As I stated in a speech in the lead-up to the war, a liberated Iraq could show the power of freedom to transform the Middle East by bringing hope and progress to the lives of millions. So we're helping the Iraqi -- Iraqi people build a lasting democracy that is peaceful and prosperous and an example for the broader Middle East. The terrorists understand this, and that is why they have now made Iraq the central front in the war on terror.
Last month, my administration released a document called the "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq." In recent weeks, I've been discussing our strategy with the American people. At the U.S. Naval Academy, I spoke about how we changed our approach to training Iraqi security forces, so they can take the fight to the enemy and eventually take responsibility for the security of their citizens without major foreign assistance. Iraqi forces are becoming more and more capable.
Last week before the Council on Foreign Relations, I explained how we changed our approach to help Iraqis hold and rebuild cities taken from the enemy, and how to help them revitalize Iraq's infrastructure and economy. Today, many cities like Mosul and Najaf are coming back to life, and Iraq's economy is growing. Thousands of new businesses have opened in Iraq, personal income is up, and according to one survey, seven in 10 Iraqis say their own lives are going well, and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve in the next year.
Earlier this week at the Philadelphia World Affairs Council, I spoke in depth about how we changed our approach to helping the Iraqis build their democracy. At the request of Iraqi leaders, we accelerated the transition to Iraqi self-government. We set four major milestones to guide Iraq's transition to constitutional democracy: the transfer of sovereignty, elections for a transitional government, the adoption of a democratic constitution, and elections for a new government under that constitution. In spite of the violence, Iraqis have met every milestone -- and this is changing the political landscape in Iraq.
Sunni Arabs who failed to participate in the January elections are now campaigning vigorously in this week's elections -- and we can expect a higher turnout of Sunni voters. As Sunnis join the political process, Iraqi democracy becomes more inclusive -- and the terrorists and Saddamists are becoming marginalized.
Each of the changes we have made in our approach in Iraq is helping us meet the hard realities and the facts on the ground. We've adapted our tactics; we have fixed what was not working, and we have listened to those who know best: our military commanders -- and the Iraqi people.
Our tactics continue to change, but our goal in Iraq has not changed: a free and democratic Iraq. I strongly believe a democratic Iraq is a crucial part of our strategy to defeat the terrorists, because only democracy can bring freedom and reconciliation to Iraq, and peace to this troubled part of the world. Our efforts to advance freedom in Iraq are driven by our vital interests and our deepest beliefs.
The people of Iraq are now seeing some of the tangible benefits of their new democracy. They see that as freedom advances, their lives are improving. Iraqis have approved a bold constitution that guarantees the rule of law and freedom of assembly, and property rights, and freedom of speech and the press, and women's rights, and the right to vote. They see their freedom increasingly being defended by their own soldiers and police instead of foreign forces. And they see that freedom is bringing opportunity and a better life.
Freedom in Iraq will inspire reformers from Damascus to Tehran. This new Iraq shares our deepest values, and it shares our most determined enemies. By helping Iraqis build a nation that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself, we will gain an ally in the war on terror and a partner for peace in the Middle East.
First, setting an artificial deadline would send the wrong message to the Iraqis. As Iraqis are risking their lives for democracy, it would tell them that America is more interested in leaving than helping them succeed, put at risk all the democratic progress they have made over the past year.
Secondly, setting an artificial deadline would send the wrong message to the enemy. It would tell them that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run. It would vindicate the terrorists' tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder. It would embolden the terrorists and invite new attacks on America.
Third, setting an artificial deadline would send the wrong message to the region and the world. It would tell our friends and supporters that America is a weak and unreliable ally, and that when the going gets tough, America will retreat.
Finally, setting an artificial deadline would send the wrong message to the most important audience -- our troops on the front line. It would tell them that America is abandoning the mission they are risking their lives to achieve, and that the sacrifice of their comrades killed in this struggle has been in vain. I make this pledge to the families of the fallen: We will carry on the fight, we will complete their mission, and we will win. (Applause.)
Victory will be achieved by meeting certain clear objectives: when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can protect their own people, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against our country. These objectives, not timetables set by politicians in Washington, will drive our force levels in Iraq. As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. And when victory is achieved, our troops will then come home, with the honor they have earned. (Applause.)
One of the blessings of our free society is that we can debate these issues openly, even in a time of war. Most of the debate has been a credit to our democracy, but some have launched irresponsible charges. They say that we act because of oil, that we act in Iraq because of Israel, or because we misled the American people. Some of the most irresponsible comments about manipulating intelligence have come from politicians who saw the same intelligence we saw, and then voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein. These charges are pure politics. They hurt the morale of our troops. Whatever our differences in Washington, our men and women in uniform deserve to know that once our politicians vote to send them into harm's way, our support will be with them in good days and bad, and we will settle for nothing less than complete victory. (Applause.)
The story of freedom has just begun in the Middle East. And when the history of these days is written, it will tell how America once again defended its own freedom by using liberty to transform nations from bitter foes to strong allies. And history will say that this generation, like generations before, laid the foundation of peace for generations to come.