Monday, April 30, 2007
On the way home, his state motorcade hit the gas again, topping 70 MPH. No word on whether he was wearing a seat belt.
If you, or I, or ANY Republican elected official endangered themselves and the residents of their state in a similar manner, they would be held accountable before the law.
If this was Tom Delay, a firing squad would already be taking practice shots.
But like Representative Patrick Kennedy (DEMOCRAT-RI) who last year drove his car into a barrier at the U.S. Capitol while under the influence, Democrats will never face the same accountability that apply to the rest of us.
And you wonder why they continue to behave the way they do? Why not? They get away with it.
Circulation Numbers for the Top 25 Dailies and Sunday Papers
Editor and Publisher
April 30, 2007
NEW YORK Here are the Top 25 Daily and Sunday Newspaper lists from ABC for the six-month period ending March 2007. Industry-wide, circulation slipped more than 2% daily and 3.5% for Sunday. All daily averages below are for Monday-Friday.
Newspaper, Daily circ as of 3/31/07; % Change:
USA TODAY 2,278,022; (+0.23%)
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, 2,062,312; (+0.61%)
NEW YORK TIMES, 1,120,420; (-1.93%)
LOS ANGELES TIMES, 815,723; (-4.24%)
NEW YORK POST, 724,748; (+7.63%)
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, 718,174; (+1.37%)
WASHINGTON POST, 699,130; (-3.47%)
CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 566,827; (-2.12%)
HOUSTON CHRONICLE, 503,114; (-2.00%)
ARIZONA REPUBLIC 433,731; (-1.14%)
DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 411,919; (-14.27%)
NEWSDAY, 398,231; (-6.91%)
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 386,564; (-2.93%)
BOSTON GLOBE, 382,503; (-3.72%)
STAR-LEDGER OF NEWARK, 372,629; (-6.08%)
ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, 357,399; (-2.09%)
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 352,593; (+0.61%)
STAR TRIBUNE OF MINNEAPOLIS, 345,252; (-4.88%)
CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER, 344,704; (+0.45%)
DETROIT FREE PRESS, 329,989; (-4.70%)
ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, 322,771; (-0.08%)
PORTLAND OREGONIAN, 319,625; (-1.05%)
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 296,331; (-6.58%)
ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, 284,613; (-5.07%)
SACRAMENTO BEE, 279,032; (-4.83%)
Newspaper, Sunday circ as of 3/31/07; % Change:
NEW YORK TIMES, 1,627,062; (-3.37%)
LOS ANGELES TIMES, 1,173,096; (-4.73%)
CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 940,620; (-1.73%)
WASHINGTON POST, 929,921; (-3.20%)
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, 775,543; (-2.47%)
DENVER POST/ ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, 704,168; (-0.79%)
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 688,670; (-2.45%)
HOUSTON CHRONICLE, 677,425; (-2.18%)
DETROIT FREE PRESS, 640,356; (change in frequency)
STAR TRIBUNE OF MINNEAPOLIS, 574,406; (-5.32%)
STAR-LEDGER OF NEWARK, 570,523; (-4.33%)
DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 563,079; (-13.33%)
BOSTON GLOBE, 562,273; (-6.92%)
ARIZONA REPUBLIC, 541,757; (-2.64%)
ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, 523,687; (-6.72%)
NEWSDAY, 464,169; (-5.04%)
CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER, 442,482; (-1.86%)
NEW YORK POST, 439,202; (+6.15%)
SAN FRANSICO CHRONICLE, 438,006; (-2.99%)
ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, 430,893;(+2.01%)
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER/ TIMES, 423,635; (-2.74%)
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, 407,754; (-3.67%)
MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL, 400,317; (-1.24%)
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 378,696; (-7.27%)
BALTIMORE SUN, 377,561; (-6.06%)
PORTLAND OREGONIAN, 375,913; (-2.29%)
There's a sad sort of clanging
From the clock in the hall
And the bells in the steeple, too
And up in the nursery
An absurd little bird
Is popping out to say coo-coo
coo-coo Regretfully they tell us
coo-coo But firmly they compel us
to say goodnight
So long, farewell
Auf Wiedersehen, adieu
To you and you and you
When it comes to soaring rhetoric that inspires our troops and the nation, the above examples are the gold standard.
On the other hand, many readers have noticed that it's difficult to tell the difference between words spoken by Democrats and the terrorists we seek to defeat.
So here's a test. In the following examples, leave your informed guess in the comments as to whether the words below were spoken by Congressman Jack Murtha (DEMOCRAT-PA) or Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Queda's second in command and right hand to Osama bin Laden:
- "A fact that Bush, Rice and Rumsfeld conceal from [the American public] is that there is no way out of Iraq, other than immediate withdrawal."
- "All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free: from a United States occupation."
- "I call upon every reasonable American... to conduct a personal soul searching and to ask himself several clear and honest questions: Are we really calling for freedom, justice, equality, human rights, environmental preservation and an end to killing, the destruction and plundering?"
- "That President Bush has eradicated half of al Queda... it's all nonsense and exists only in his head...al Queda is spreading, growing and becoming stronger."
- "The same lies the U.S. government said about Vietnam they repeat about Iraq."
- "US soldiers kill everyone in the taxi then they go into homes and pull the people out. And the stories keep getting worse and worse."
No fair Googling for a match. Just take your guess.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Every defeatist, appeasing, Islamist enabling left wing loon has had their say with the freedom of speech that is ONLY available to them because a brave American soldier fought and died to protect that right.
But who speaks for the soldiers? Congressman Murtha?
Vick, a Sgt. First Class Ranger serving in Iraq, phoned the Neal Boortz radio program (streaming audio from links here). It quickly became an emotional call as this brave man was brought to tears by the sacrifice, honor and love for America he has witnessed among his fellow soldiers and the false story he sees around him when he comes home.
"Sir, I would like to finish my job. We have been given a very clear and defined mission: To set up a government that could sustain itself, defend itself and run itself by itself. I don't know how you could make that any plainer.Nine members of my unit I have carried off in a black bag that I have zipped up. And I refuse to believe that I am going to have to come home and say that all of that was for nothing."
"I'm a RANGER. I do NOT fail!...I can do this job!"
Words do not adequately convey the power and emotion of Vick's words. Gazing at the Flag came by this video which I cannot recommend enough. It is a must see. But perhaps more importanly, a MUST HEAR!
Saturday, April 28, 2007
President Bush speaking to Joint Session of Congress, September 20, 2001
- When five U.S. soldiers were brutally murdered after being abducted in a daring kidnap attack in Karbala, Iraq last January, we speculated that it had the hallmarks of a secret Iranian operation. During his recent visit to Washington, General Petraeus confirms that Iran's Quods force funded, armed and trained the attackers.
- Add to that the arrests Friday of four men suspected of smuggling armour-piercing bombs from Iran to Iraq and sending back militants to Iran for "terrorist training."
- This is on top of President Bush's February news conference where he outlined the Iranian skulduggery in Iraq and the Pentagon presentation showing Iranian weapons used to kill Americans in Iraq.
- Meanwhile we learned this week that the Al Queda leader who masterminded the horrific bombings in London on July 7, 2005 was arrested by U.S. forces as he tried to cross into Iraq from Iran.
- And let's not forget that Iran owns terrorist proxy Hezbollah lock stock and barrel and that Hezbollah has killed at least 289 Americans throughout the Middle East.
When is enough enough?
Harry Reid: Where Will You Fight Al Queda?
You won't fight Al Queda in Iraq. Will you fight them in Iran? Would you fight them in Afghanistan?
Will you fight them here or there? Will you fight them anywhere?
Would you fight Al Queda if they bomb our trains? Would you fight Al Queda if they hijack our planes?
Will you fight them like a mouse? Or will you just fight the White House?
Would you fight them with General Petraeus? Or will you just let Al Queda slay us?
Where will you fight Al Queda Harry Reid?
Will you fight them in our malls? Would you fight them in school halls?
Will you fight Al Queda at all? Or just let the President's plans stall?
Would you put our heads on the chopping block? And let Al Queda lop them off?
Are you here to play political games? Do you not care if the country goes up in flames?
Will you gut the Patriot Act and wait until we next get whacked?
Have you gone so far 'round the bend that you cannot give Iraq a chance to mend?
When will you learn? What will you do? How will you keep us safe? Do you have a clue?
Answer us please as time grows short. Al Queda is coming and we need a report. Will you fight them now or later? Will you wait until the cost is greater?
Illustration from "Dr. Seuss Went to War."
Friday, April 27, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
"This war ends when they stop planning to come here and kill us, but until then, if I have anything to say about it, the lesson that I learned coming out of September 11, 2001, is, never, ever again will this country be on defense waiting for them to attack us. The United States of America will be on offense (applause) and make no mistake about it, the Democrats want to put us back on defense.
The Democrats -- and I can make a lot of other points about this -- do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us. But I listened a little bit to the Democratic debates, and I could be slightly wrong about this but I think this is almost correct. If one of them gets elected it sounds to me like we're going on defense, where we got a timetable for withdrawal out of Iraq. We're going to wave the white flag there. We're going to try to cut back on the Patriot Act. We're going to cut back on the electronic surveillance. We're going to cut back on interrogation. We're going to cut back, cut back, cut back, and we'll be back in our pre-September 11 mentality of being on defense.
The question is going to be, "How long does it take and how many losses do we have along the way?" And I truly believe if we go back on defense for a period of time, we can ultimately have more losses and it's going to go on much longer. The power of our ideas is so great we'll eventually prevail. The real question is how do we get there? Do we get there in a way in which it's as expeditious as possible and with as little loss of life as possible, or do we get there in some circuitous fashion?
[Terrorists] hate us, not because of anything bad we've done. This has nothing to do with any aggression on the part of the United States of America. It has nothing to do with anything America is taking from anyone. It has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms that we have and the freedoms that we want to share with the world because the freedoms that we have and the freedoms that we want to share with the world are in conflict with their perverted interpretation of their religion. Their maniacal, violent, and perverted interpretation of their religion, in which they train their young people to be suicide bombers, and they train them to hate you and despise you and they train them to hate your religion and to not allow you to have religion of your own or anyone else. They hate us for the reasons that are the best about us, because we have freedom of religion, because we have freedom for women, because women are allowed to participate in society, because we have elections, because we have a free economy. Well, we're not giving that up, and you're not going to come and take it from us. "
Let's repeat this slightly altered phrase from FDR's fireside chat from December 29, 1940:
No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it. There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb. We know now that a nation can have peace with the Islamists only at the price of total surrender.It's Republicans like Rudy Giuliani and Independents like Joe Lieberman (see below) who carry the spirit of FDR and American greatness in the face of evil into the 21st Century.
And today's Democrats? They are willing to wave the white flag of surrender and defeat faster than you can say "Patriot Act."
"I've got reports of nuclear weapons in New York City, apartment buildings that are going to be blown up, planes that are going to fly into airports all over again, plots that I don't know. I don't know what's going on inside the United States and I'm struggling to find out where the next disaster is going to occur. Everybody forgets one central context of what we lived through — the palpable fear that we felt on the basis of the fact that there was so much that we did not know," Tenet said.That's right. The same man who would kill innoncent men, women and children expected to be granted the protections of the U.S. Constitution which were extended by the Clinton Administration to his accomplice Ramzi Yousef who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993.
One of the most important Al Qaeda operatives to be questioned was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was picked up in March 2003 in Pakistan. According to Tenet, Mohammed wanted to go to New York and get a lawyer before he would talk.
Tenet went on to tell his interviewer:
"Here's what I would say to you, to the Congress, to the American people, to the president of the United States: I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots," Tenet told CBS' "60 Minutes." "I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together, have been able to tell us."
The program for terror suspects uses "enhanced interrogation" techniques that "60 Minutes" reported are said to include sleep deprivation, extreme temperature exposure and "water boarding," in which restrained suspects have water poured on their faces, causing gagging and drowning fears.
Tenet denied that suspects are tortured.
When asked why "enhanced interrogation" techniques were necessary, Tenet said, "Because these are people who will never, ever, ever tell you a thing. These are people who know who's responsible for the next terrorist attack ... (who) wouldn't blink an eyelash about killing you, your family, me and my family and everybody in this town,"
The terrorist interrogation program SAVED LIVES OF AMERICANS. Who would oppose such a policy? WHO?
By way of American Israeli Patriot:
I cannot imagine a clearer example of how WRONG, DANGEROUS and DAMAGING the defeatist Democrat policy in Iraq is than to see how it emboldens Palestinian terrorists who will now feel free to step up their attacks against innocent Israelis.
If you are a Democrat, or for that matter an American, then this piece should disturb you. Very much. The following quotes come from Abu Ahmed, Northern Gaza commander of the Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade; a terrorist organization which is an offshoot of Condi Rice's ray of hope in the Middle East, Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah organization. Many of the Al-Aqsa fighters have been trained by Americans and subsidized by US taxpayer dollars (just this month Congress approved a $59m aid package for Fatah).
This is what he has to say today (courtesy of World Net Daily);
"It was a very happy day for us Palestinians to hear nine American dogs were killed in Iraq. We feel encouraged and we feel great solidarity with our brothers in Iraq, and we consider this heroic operation, which aims to humiliate the Americans, as proof that the will of our resistance is more powerful than any (big) American war airplanes...The coming victory in Iraq proves the next step is to release Palestine if we speak in one voice. We the Palestinians are learning both on the political and military level from our brothers, the heroes in Iraq. They are a model for us."
"The Iraqi people, with the help of the mujahedeen fighters all over the world, are teaching the American dogs a huge lesson that will serve for generations for anybody who will dare attack lands of Muslims," Abu Ahmed said. "Iraq will be the beginning of the collapse of the American empire."
What is the Democrat's response to terrorists dancing on the graves of U.S. soldiers?
Lieberman has a choice to make. But first, his words today on the Senate Floor:
Statement by Senator Lieberman on Iraq Withdrawal Provision in Supplemental Appropriations Bill
Floor of the United States Senate
April 26, 2007
"Mr. President, the supplemental appropriations bill we are debating today contains language that would have Congress take control of the direction of our military strategy in Iraq.
Earlier this week the Senate Majority Leader spoke at the Woodrow Wilson Center and laid out the case for why he believes we must do this—why the bill now before this chamber, in his view, offers a viable alternative strategy for Iraq.
I have great respect for my friend from Nevada. I believe he has offered this proposal in good faith, and therefore want to take it up in good faith, and examine its arguments and ideas carefully and in depth, for this is a very serious discussion for our country.
In his speech Monday, the Majority Leader described the several steps that this new strategy for Iraq would entail. Its first step, he said, is to "transition the U.S. mission away from policing a civil war—to training and equipping Iraqi security forces, protecting U.S. forces, and conducting targeted counter-terror operations."
I ask my colleagues to take a step back for a moment and consider this plan.
When we say that U.S. troops shouldn't be "policing a civil war," that their operations should be restricted to this narrow list of missions, what does this actually mean?
To begin with, it means that our troops will not be allowed to protect the Iraqi people from the insurgents and militias who are trying to terrorize and kill them. Instead of restoring basic security, which General Petraeus has argued should be the central focus of any counterinsurgency campaign, it means our soldiers would instead be ordered, by force of this proposed law, not to stop the sectarian violence happening all around them—no matter how vicious or horrific it becomes.
In short, it means telling our troops to deliberately and consciously turn their backs on ethnic cleansing, to turn their backs on the slaughter of innocent civilians—men, women, and children singled out and killed on the basis of their religion alone. It means turning our backs on the policies that led us to intervene in the civil war in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the principles that today lead many of us to call for intervention in Darfur.
This makes no moral sense at all.
It also makes no strategic or military sense either.
Al Qaeda's own leaders have repeatedly said that one of the ways they intend to achieve victory in Iraq is to provoke civil war. They are trying to kill as many people as possible today, precisely in the hope of igniting sectarian violence, because they know that this is their best way to collapse Iraq's political center, overthrow Iraq's elected government, radicalize its population, and create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East that they can use as a base.
That is why Al Qaeda blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra last year. And that is why we are seeing mass casualty suicide bombings by Al Qaeda in Baghdad now.
The sectarian violence that the Majority Leader says he wants to order American troops to stop policing, in other words, is the very same sectarian violence that Al Qaeda hopes to ride to victory. The suggestion that we can draw a bright legislative line between stopping terrorists in Iraq and stopping civil war in Iraq flies in the face of this reality.
I do not know how to say it more plainly: it is Al Qaeda that is trying to cause a full-fledged civil war in Iraq.
The Majority Leader said on Monday that he believes U.S. troops will still be able to conduct "targeted counter-terror operations" under his plan. Even if we stop trying to protect civilians in Iraq, in other words, we can still go after the bad guys.
But again, I ask my colleagues, how would this translate into military reality on the ground? How would we find these terrorists, who do not gather on conventional military bases or fight in conventional formations?
By definition, targeted counterterrorism requires our forces to know where, when, and against whom to strike—and that in turn requires accurate, actionable, real-time intelligence.
This is the kind of intelligence that can only come from ordinary Iraqis, the sea of people among whom the terrorists hide. And that, in turn, requires interacting with the Iraqi people on a close, personal, daily basis. It requires winning individual Iraqis to our side, gaining their trust, convincing them that they can count on us to keep them safe from the terrorists if they share valuable information about them. This is no great secret. This is at the heart of the new strategy that General Petraeus and his troops are carrying out.
And yet, if we pass this legislation, according to the Majority Leader, U.S. forces will no longer be permitted to patrol Iraq's neighborhoods or protect Iraqi civilians. They won't, in his words, be "interjecting themselves between warring factions" or "trying to sort friend from foe."
Therefore, I ask the supporters of this legislation: How, exactly, are U.S. forces to gather intelligence about where, when, and against whom to strike, after you have ordered them walled off from the Iraqi population? How, exactly, are U.S. forces to carry out targeted counter-terror operations, after you have ordered them cut off from the very source of intelligence that drives these operations?
This is precisely why the congressional micromanagement of life-and-death decisions about how, where, and when our troops can fight is such a bad idea, especially on a complex and changing battlefield.
In sum, you can't have it both ways. You can't withdraw combat troops from Iraq and still fight Al Qaeda there. If you believe there is no hope of winning in Iraq, or that the costs of victory there are not worth it, then you should be for complete withdrawal as soon as possible.
There is another irony here as well.
For most of the past four years, under Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the United States did not try to establish basic security in Iraq. Rather than deploying enough troops necessary to protect the Iraqi people, the focus of our military has been on training and equipping Iraqi forces, protecting our own forces, and conducting targeted sweeps and raids—in other words, the very same missions proposed by the proponents of the legislation before us.
That strategy failed—and we know why it failed. It failed because we didn't have enough troops to ensure security, which in turn created an opening for Al Qaeda and its allies to exploit. They stepped into this security vacuum and, through horrific violence, created a climate of fear and insecurity in which political and economic progress became impossible.
For years, many members of Congress recognized this. We talked about this. We called for more troops, and a new strategy, and—for that matter—a new secretary of defense.
And yet, now, just as President Bush has come around—just as he has recognized the mistakes his administration has made, and the need to focus on basic security in Iraq, and to install a new secretary of defense and a new commander in Iraq—now his critics in Congress have changed their minds and decided that the old, failed strategy wasn't so bad after all.
What is going on here? What has changed so that the strategy that we criticized and rejected in 2006 suddenly makes sense in 2007?
The second element in the plan outlined by the Majority Leader on Monday is "the phased redeployment of our troops no later than October 1, 2007."
Let us be absolutely clear what this means. This legislation would impose a binding deadline for U.S. troops to begin retreating from Iraq. This withdrawal would happen regardless of conditions on the ground, regardless of the recommendations of General Petraeus, in short regardless of reality on October 1, 2007.
As far as I can tell, none of the supporters of withdrawal have attempted to explain why October 1 is the magic date—what strategic or military significance this holds. Why not September 1? Or January 1? This is a date as arbitrary as it is inflexible—a deadline for defeat.
How do proponents of this deadline defend it? On Monday, Senator Reid gave several reasons. First, he said, a date for withdrawal puts "pressure on the Iraqis to make the desperately needed political compromises."
But will it? According to the legislation now before us, the withdrawal will happen regardless of what the Iraqi government does.
How, then, if you are an Iraqi government official, does this give you any incentive to make the right choices?
On the contrary, there is compelling reason to think a legislatively directed withdrawal of American troops will have exactly the opposite effect than its Senate sponsors intend.
This, in fact, is exactly what the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq predicted. A withdrawal of U.S. troops in the months ahead, it said, would "almost certainly lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict, intensify Sunni resistance, and have adverse effects on national reconciliation."
Second, the Majority Leader said that withdrawing our troops, and again I quote, will "reduce the specter of the U.S. occupation which gives fuel to the insurgency."
My colleague from Nevada, in other words, is suggesting that the insurgency is being provoked by the very presence of American troops. By diminishing that presence, then, he believes the insurgency will diminish.
But I ask my colleagues—where is the evidence to support this theory? Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took command, U.S. forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul and Fallujah and Tel'Afar and Baghdad. And what happened in these places? Did they stabilize when American troops left? Did the insurgency go away?
On the contrary—in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, Al Qaeda rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence.
So I ask advocates of withdrawal: on what evidence, on what data, have you concluded that pulling U.S. troops out will weaken the insurgency, when every single experience we have had since 2003 suggests that this legislation will strengthen it?
Consider the words of Sheikh Abdul Sattar, one of the leading Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province who is now fighting on our side against Al Qaeda. This is what he told the New York Times when asked last month what would happen if U.S. troops withdraw. "In my personal opinion, and in the opinion of most of the wise men of Anbar," he said, "if the American forces leave right now, there will be civil war and the area will fall into total chaos."
This is a man whose father was killed by Al Qaeda, who is risking his life every day to work with us—a man who was described by one Army officer as "the most effective local leader in Ramadi I believe the coalition has worked with... in Anbar [since] 2003."
In his remarks earlier this week, the Majority Leader observed that there is "a large and growing population of millions—who sit precariously on the fence. They will either condemn or contribute to terrorism in the years ahead. We must convince them of the goodness of America and Americans. We must win them over."
On this, I completely agree with my friend from Nevada. My question to him, however, and to the supporters of this legislation, is this: how does the strategy you propose in this bill possibly help win over this population of millions in Iraq, who sit precariously on the fence?
What message, I ask, does this legislation announce to those people in Iraq? How will they respond when we tell them that we will no longer make any effort to protect them against insurgents and death squads? How will they respond when we declare that we will be withdrawing our forces—regardless of whether they make progress in the next six months towards political reconciliation? Where will their hopes for a better life be when we withdraw the troops that are the necessary precondition for the security and stability they yearn for?
Do my friends really believe that this is the way to convince Iraqis, and the world, of the goodness of America and Americans? Does anyone in this chamber really believe that, by announcing a date certain for withdrawal, we will empower Iraqi moderates, or enable Iraq's reconstruction, or open more schools for their children, or more hospitals for their families, or freedom for everyone?
Mr. President, with all due respect, this is fantasy.
The third step the Majority Leader proposes is to impose "tangible, measurable, and achievable benchmarks on the Iraqi government."
I am all for such benchmarks. In fact, Senator McCain and I were among the first to propose legislation to apply such benchmarks on the Iraqi government.
But I don't see how this plan will encourage Iraqis to meet these or any other benchmarks, given its ironclad commitment to abandon them—regardless of how they behave.
We should of course be making every effort to encourage reconciliation in Iraq and the development of a decent political order that Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds can agree on.
But even if today that political solution was found, we cannot rationally think that our terrorist enemies like Al Qaeda in Iraq will simply vanish.
Al Qaeda is not mass murdering civilians on the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenues. Its aim in Iraq is not to get a seat at the political table.
It wants to blow up the table—along with everyone seated at it. Al Qaeda wants to destroy any prospect for democracy in Iraq, and it will not be negotiated or reasoned out of existence. It must be fought and defeated through force of arms. And there can be no withdrawal, no redeployment from this reality.
The fourth step that the Majority Leader proposed on Monday is a "diplomatic, economic, and political offensive... starting with a regional conference working toward a long-term framework for stability in the region."
I understand why we are tempted by these ideas. All of us are aware of the justified frustration, fatigue, and disappointment of the American people. And all of us would like to believe that there is a quick and easy solution to the challenges we face in Iraq.
But none of this gives us an excuse to paper over hard truths. We delude ourselves if we think we can wave a legislative wand and suddenly our troops in the field will be able to distinguish between Al Qaeda terrorism and sectarian violence, or that Iraqis will suddenly settle their political differences because our troops are leaving, or that sweet reason alone will suddenly convince Iran and Syria to stop destabilizing Iraq.
Mr. President, what we need now is a sober assessment of the progress we have made and a recognition of the challenges we face. There are still many uncertainties before us, many complexities. Barely half of the new troops that General Petraeus has requested have even arrived in Iraq, and, as we heard from him yesterday, it will still be months before we will know just how effective his new strategy is.
In following General Petraeus' path, there is no guarantee of success—but there is hope, and a new plan, for success.
The plan embedded in this legislation, on the other hand, contains no such hope. It is a strategy of catchphrases and bromides, rather than military realities in Iraq. It does not learn from the many mistakes we have made in Iraq. Rather, it promises to repeat them.
Let me be absolutely clear: In my opinion, Iraq is not yet lost—but if we follow this plan, it will be. And so, I fear, much of our hope for stability in the Middle East and security from terrorism here at home.
I yield the floor."
But don't yield the floor just yet! The Senate is divided 49-49 with you and the Socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont registered as Independents but caucusing (giving control) to Democrat defeatists.
You can announce you will now caucus with the Republicans and the Senate will be divided 50-50 and a tie vote to reorganize the Senate with Republicans in charge will be broken by "Attack Dog" Cheney casting the tie breaking vote.
How much longer can you wait Joe? Jump Joe! Jump NOW Joe!
From Best of the Web at Opinion Journal:
"Resolved, that this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the American people, that after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which, under the pretence of military necessity, or war power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate convention of the States or other peaceable means, to the end that at the earliest practicable moment peace may be restored on the basis of the federal Union of the States."--1864 Democratic platform
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Clinton: We may need to confront IranThat's right! It's only been 28 years since the Iranians committed an act of war and took our embassy personnel hostage. And in the meantime, their proxy Hezbollah have killed hundreds of Americans and their agents in Iran are killing more Americans.
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER
Apr. 26, 2007
Democratic presidential candidate and New York Senator Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that it might be necessary for America to confront Iran militarily, addressing that possibility more directly than any of the other presidential candidates who spoke this week to the National Jewish Democratic Council.
Clinton first said that the US should be engaging directly with Iran to foil any effort to gain nuclear weapons and faulted the Bush administration for "considerably narrowing" the options available to America in countering Iran.
Still, she said, all avenues should be explored, since "if we do have to take offensive military action against Iran, it would be far better if the rest of the world saw it as a position of last resort, not first resort, because the effect and consequences will be global."
Sure wouldn't want to rush into anything that might disturb the "peace" now would we?
Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’
By Fiona Harvey and Stephen Fidler
April 25 2007
Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.
A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.
Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.
The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a “green gold rush”, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go “carbon neutral”, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.
The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more than double in size to about $68.2bn by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4bn in the same period.
The FT investigation found:
■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.
■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.
■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.
■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.
■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.
Francis Sullivan, environment adviser at HSBC, the UK’s biggest bank that went carbon-neutral in 2005, said he found “serious credibility concerns” in the offsetting market after evaluating it for several months.
“The police, the fraud squad and trading standards need to be looking into this. Otherwise people will lose faith in it,” he said.
These concerns led the bank to ignore the market and fund its own carbon reduction projects directly.
Some companies are benefiting by asking “green” consumers to pay them for cleaning up their own pollution. For instance, DuPont, the chemicals company, invites consumers to pay $4 to eliminate a tonne of carbon dioxide from its plant in Kentucky that produces a potent greenhouse gas called HFC-23. But the equipment required to reduce such gases is relatively cheap. DuPont refused to comment and declined to specify its earnings from the project, saying it was at too early a stage to discuss.
The FT has also found examples of companies setting up as carbon offsetters without appearing to have a clear idea of how the markets operate. In response to FT inquiries about its sourcing of carbon credits, one company, carbonvoucher.com, said it had not taken payments for offsets.
Blue Source, a US offsetting company, invites consumers to offset carbon emissions by investing in enhanced oil recovery, which pumps carbon dioxide into depleted oil wells to bring up the remaining oil. However, Blue Source said that because of the high price of oil, this process was often profitable in itself, meaning operators were making extra revenues from selling “carbon credits” for burying the carbon.
There is nothing illegal in these practices. However, some companies that are offsetting their emissions have avoided such projects because customers may find them controversial.
BP said it would not buy credits resulting from improvements in industrial efficiency or from most renewable energy projects in developed countries.
"The best immediate defense of the United States is the success of Iraq in defending itself; and that, therefore, quite aside from our historic and current interest in the survival of democracy, in the world as a whole, it is equally important from a selfish point of view of American defense, that we should do everything to help Iraq to defend itself."
The response was a resounding agreement.
Several readers speculated on the source of the text. At Mike's America, Jay from the American Israeli Patriot guessed it immediately. He's volunteered to remain quiet and see if other readers catch on.
With that in mind, another statement from this same individual delivered a few days after the first. Please register your agreement or disagreement with the following:
If Iraq goes down, it is no exaggeration to say that all of us in America would be living at the point of a gun -- a gun loaded with explosive bullets, economic as well as military.
The Islamists secret emissaries are active in our own and in neighboring countries. They seek to stir up suspicion and dissension to cause internal strife. ... They try to reawaken long slumbering racist and religious enmities which should have no place in this country. They are active in every group that promotes intolerance. They exploit for their own ends our own natural abhorrence of war. These trouble-breeders have but one purpose. It is to divide our people, to divide them into hostile groups and to destroy our unity and shatter our will to defend ourselves.
There are also American citizens, many of them in high places, who, unwittingly in most cases, are aiding and abetting the work of these agents. I do not charge these American citizens with being foreign agents. But I do charge them with doing exactly the kind of work that the Islamists want done in the United States.
These people not only believe that we can save our own skins by shutting our eyes to the fate of other nations. Some of them go much further than that. They say that we can and should become the friends and even the partners of the Islamists. ... But Americans never can and never will do that.
No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it. There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb. We know now that a nation can have peace with the Islamists only at the price of total surrender.
They call it a "negotiated peace." Nonsense! Is it a negotiated peace if a gang of outlaws surrounds your community and on threat of extermination makes you pay tribute to save your own skins?
Thinking in terms of today and tomorrow, I make the direct statement to the American people that there is far less chance of the United States getting into war if we do all we can now to support the nations defending themselves against attack by the Islamists than if we acquiesce in their defeat, submit tamely to an Islamist victory, and wait our turn to be the object of attack in another war later on.
Our national policy is not directed toward war. Its sole purpose is to keep war away from our country and away from our people.
We have no excuse for defeatism. We have every good reason for hope -- hope for peace, yes, and hope for the defense of our civilization and for the building of a better civilization in the future.
O.K. Agree or disagree?
Have you guessed who spoke these words? Here's a hint: I took some liberties with both texts and made minor alterations. It should be clear that the individual who spoke the original is or was one of our leaders. In fact, he is or was a President of the United States.
In the same longer speech above, The President remarked that he received a number of messages from citizens all asking "Please, Mr. President, don't frighten us by telling us the facts." Sound familiar?
Is this just another example of a "peace" activist who demands you agree with him or he'll kill you?
What do you expect when you have a Party Chairman like Howard Dean who "hates Republicans" and claims "We're in a battle between good and evil and we [Democrats] are the good."
More on the peace fascists and their brown shirt tactics here.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Writing about their state's senior Senator and the leader of Democrats in the U.S. Senate, The Las Vegas Review Journal said "Sen. Reid, flopping around in big red shoes like Bozo the Clown" as he leads Democrats and nation in a disastrous policy of surrender in Iraq.
And that's not all. Not to be outdone in sheer buffonery, Madame Speaker Pelosi apparently doesn't even have a clue what the latest Democrat surrender plan is. Watch this....
click box to activate.
Reid and Pelosi. So stupid they almost make you wish Tom Daschole was back in charge!
Sunday, April 22, 2007
In the 1970's he warned that global warming could be a problem but was ignored because the scaremongering tactic at the time was focused on global cooling.
He also points out other examples where "everybody knew" something which later turned out to be false.
Here's an excerpt:
Impact of global warming looms on the horizon
By Glenn Shaw
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner
April 22, 2007
...Global warming is now being noted, and I in the meantime have become a little skeptical about some of the claims being put forth. I’m skeptical despite the fact that “everybody knows that the science is in.” The science isn’t even close to being in.
A significantly large fraction of the science being done on global climate change is perhaps not wrong, but not enough, a little naive, repetitive and incorporating only a fraction of the complexity required to base policy on. Though we scientists don’t advertise it much, science is often muddled when it is working on difficult new problems and most especially when the problems start to become political. And the issue of global warming has become massively political. Special interests abound. Try getting funding while being a skeptic.
There is much more in climate science that we simply do not understand. Believe it or not, nobody has any sustainable theory, other than a few clues, about the causes of the ice ages. They are resonant with some of the orbital movements of the planets, but only roughly so and other things are going on that cause and end these spectacular events. We do not know.
Yet the socialist scaremongers behind the Global Warming movement would have us radically alter every aspect of our lives to meet their demands for an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases.
And there is no hard science to suggest that such a drastic step would benefit the planet in any way.Shaw ends his article with a few cautionary words of warning about climate change, no doubt to keep him being stoned to death by the Global Warming Taliban.
But he's another in a growing list of CREDIBLE scientists who dispute the left's scaremongering.
Steve Stanek writing in Tech Central Station offers some perspective on our gun violence occurring in those "civilized" nations so critical of the United States.
Here are a few of the headlines I came across:And of course that fails to take into account the killing efficiency that European governments demonstrated so well during the 20th Century.
- "8 slain at council meeting"
- "Teen wounds 5 in tech school"
- "Suspected gang shooting leaves 4 dead, 2 injured"
- "Man kills ex-bosses, principal, himself"
- "Gunman kills self, 7 others"
The incidents these headlines describe occurred in France, the Netherlands, Japan, Germany and Italy, respectively. In the five years since that research, crime rates have continued to climb in many other countries with far stricter gun control laws than those in the United States.
Should the U.S. be more like Europe? No thanks.
Will it be you?
It really couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Readers at Mike's America are aware of how much we depend on Flopping Aces for the unique information that I am only too happy to pass along to readers here (see below).
And you may have also read my inteview with Curt from last December. He's done a remarkable job with his page.
If I might just relate a personal story that I haven't shared: Curt first commented at Mike's America shortly after I began my little enterprise (we both began at about the same time, but he's so much more cuddly and loveable, hence his success). At that time most of my early commenters were of the nasty moonbat variety with more bile than brains (some things never change) and one in particular was playing the old chickenhawk game demanding to know what I have done to serve my country (never mind that this loon is one of those liberal parasites that has never done anything for his country except complain.)
Curt came along, and as a former U.S. Marine he put the guy in his place. I'll be forever grateful and it convinced me that this blog experiment was worth doing and that there were so many other good people out there.
Any hour now Flopping Aces will pass the magic number and I hope it's a referral from Mike's America that puts him over the top. So visit Flopping Aces NOW!
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Look and learn:
This is an animated graphic presentation. Wanna see it again? Click here.
We're reminded earlier this week that the Democrat's leader in the U.S. Senate, Harry Greid, insisted that “this war is lost,” (Flopping Aces, who found the graphic above also has the video of Reid here).
It's a slap in the face to the brave men and women who have and currently are sacrificing so much to attain that victory not just for Iraq but for the United States.
Reid's move, like so many Democrat's words and actions, is another thumbs up sign to the Al Queda terrorists who are in Iraq now and who would take over the minute we left after unleashing the most monstrous bloodbath of the 21st Century. Would Reid and Pelosi be willing to be held accountable for that? Don't make me laugh.
Pelosi First Dodges DC Meeting with Top U.S. General
By way of Right Voices we learn in the Weekly Standard that House Speaker Neville Nancy can travel half way around the world to shake the hand of President Assad of Syria, a man with the blood of U.S. soldiers and innocent Israelis on his hands, but initially declined to make time on her schedule to meet with General David Petraeus, our top military commander in Iraq and the architect of the current surge.
It's another appalling example of Democrat leaders who seek to appease our enemies but have nothing but contempt for our military. Democrats continue to offer nothing in terms of a policy alternative leading to victory. They are banking on defeat!
Maybe Reid meant that if Iraq is won DEMOCRATS ARE LOST!
5:04 PM: News sources are reporting that one of the Blue Angel's, from the Navy and Marine Corps precision air performing wing has crashed on Pine Grove Road near Beaufort, SC (map here) and a few miles from Hilton Head Island, SC (home of Mike's America).
No news on the condition of the pilot or any injuries to those on the ground.
It's a beautiful sunny spring day here with low wind and hardly a cloud in the sky.
Our thoughts are with the pilot's family and to any who might have been injured on the ground.
"The best immediate defense of the United States is the success of Iraq in defending itself; and that, therefore, quite aside from our historic and current interest in the survival of democracy, in the world as a whole, it is equally important from a selfish point of view of American defense, that we should do everything to help Iraq to defend itself."There's more to add here, but I'll wait until we get the yeas or nays. No moonbat speeches please!
Friday, April 20, 2007
We covered a range of issues related to the problem of Islamic Facism and the Global War on terror.
The archive of the show's recording should be availble here soon if you care to listen. I'm on in the second half hour.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
He made a joke by singing the opening line from the classic adaptation of the Beach Boys "Barbra Ann:" "Bomb Bomb Iran."
You Tube has the video here. McCain has been running like a conservative lately. A bit late if you ask me, but better late than never.
Turkey, Pakistan public oppose bigger Islam role
By David R. Sands
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 19, 2007
Turkey and Pakistan, two influential Muslim states, have seen massive public demonstrations in recent days in which huge crowds protested that Islam was playing too big a role in public affairs.
In Karachi, Pakistan's largest city, an estimated 100,000 people took to the streets Sunday to protest plans by an influential mosque to run a "Taliban-style" anti-vice campaign in the capital city of Islamabad.
A day earlier, some 500,000 Turks staged a rally in Ankara urging Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a former Islamist and head of the moderate Muslim ruling party, not to run for president, traditionally a secular and nonpartisan post.
The twin rallies come at a time of intense debate over the ability of moderate Muslims across the Islamic world to challenge more radical, anti-Western voices. The Bush administration has made a major push in its public diplomacy to encourage moderate Muslim voices across the greater Middle East.
"This weekend, for the first time in a long time, we've seen people power in action on the streets in Turkey," said Zeyno Baran, director of the Center for Eurasian Policy at the Hudson Institute and a specialist on Turkish politics.
Moderates in Turkey, an overwhelmingly Muslim country, had been "fairly passive" in the past in defending the country's institutions from religious forces, Ms. Baran said. They have relied on the country's staunchly secular military to defend the secular character of the country's laws and leading institutions.
The Bush geostrategy showing hopeful signs? Oh well, Democrats will just have to work harder to undermine it.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Last week the Adirondack Mountain Club of New York state got caught in a blizzard while protesting global warming.
Their demand for an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 is the standard extreme environmental position.
Meanwhile, a study commissioned by New York City shows that the city expels 1% of all the greenhouse gas emissions in the world. That's as much as all of Ireland or Portugal.
Mayor Bloomberg has promised a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, so it's hard to see how they would meet the radicals demands for an 80% reduction. Anything less than 80% would be meaningless sacrifice with no environmental benefit if you accept the extremists numbers.
So, we call upon the good liberals of New York City to show us the way forward and make the difficult and radical changes necessary in their lifestyle to achieve the 80% reduction.
Come on New Yorkers, you can do it. It's just 80% fewer bus and subway rides. 80% fewer trucks delivering food. 80% less heating, cooling and lighting. You will all have to move close enough to work so you can walk and of course you'll have to take the stairs in your home and workplace as their will be 80% fewer elevator rides. Just think of all the exercise you'll get in those skyscrapers!
Ok, ok it's not a direct correlation between 80% less activity and an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, but even if it were 20% it would mean the end of productive economic activity in New York City. Poor and minorities hardest hit, film at 11.
Maybe it would be a better idea to be more SURE about climate science and global warming before embarking on such idiocy.
Earlier we mentioned that the formerly "Great" Britain was instructing schools to not teach the history of the Holocaust because it might offend Muslims. Now, a new edict from a government body advising students and teachers to avoid staring at Muslims as it might cause offense.
Well it would seem that the Brit in this video has had enough. He's got a five minute rant on the general topic of offending Muslims which appears to have been broadcast from a storage closet under the stairs, though I could be wrong since living standards in socialist countries are so far below those in the U.S. that this might be his living room.
But putting that aside, this is another MUST SEE! Promise me you'll make it to the part where he suggests that instead of Jihadis blowing themselves up for 72 virgins they buy inflatable women and blow them up instead. And when this inflated woman commits some heinous offense like showing herself without the headgear, they can stone her and inflate another one.
I like the way this guy thinks!
Like most of these mass shootings Virginia Tech was a "gun free zone." If guns were the problem, how come NRA conventions and gun shows aren't shooting matches?
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
I've been reticent to comment on the Virgina Tech horror. It's a time for families to grieve, bury their dead and heal the wounds of the injured.
However, it's regrettable that the incident has become immediately politicized by people with a gun control agenda.
Virginia Tech already had a strict no gun policy in place, only recently penalizing a student with a permit to carry a concealed weapon on campus. Perhaps if that licensed individual had been allowed to carry a firearm Monday's tragedy would have been muted.
But that example points up the fact that no law can legislate against evil intentions. We also have laws against using automobiles in a conscious effort to injure or kill people but that didn't stop Iranian born Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, who attacked students at the University of North Carolina last year by driving an SUV into a crowd on campus.
As some have pointed out, it would make as much sense to ban foreign students as it would to ban guns. Millions of guns are in the hands of law abiding citizens and those persons don't go on killing sprees.
I realize in the haze of thinking where one can only see shades of gray use of the word "evil" is about as black and white as you can get. But is it not EVIL to go on a killing spree?
Any attempt to legislate on moral grounds is shot down by the hazy gray thinkers, the same folks who would now impose restrictions on the very same law abiding gun owners who might have put a stop to this nightmare at Virginia Tech.
What's clear is that at most academic institutions, what is lacking is not gun control, but any effective form of moral guidance, religious or otherwise, which forms a bulwark against evil intentions and PREVENTS such shocking and horrible events from occurring.
And perhaps that is an issue which needs to be addressed in the larger community as well. What a shame the same folks posturing on gun control will refuse to permit that debate!
For now, it is a time for Virginia Tech and the nation to mourn and a time to heal. But in the days ahead, let us not shrink from an honest debate on the causes of this evil act and what would really have prevented this nightmare.
Our hearts, our thoughts and our prayers are with you Virginia Tech. We remain as always "One nation, under God Indivisible."
Monday, April 16, 2007
Iranian-born journalist and author Amir Taheri is based in Europe and has always demonstrated some of the most clear headed thinking on these issues. I strongly urge you to read what he has to say.
I'll just give you this teaser:
"Both the mullahs and the Jack Murtha Democrats hate Maliki because he is working to prevent their respective dreams from coming true.
The mullahs dream of that "last U.S. helicopter" taking off from a Baghdad rooftop, spelling the end of American hopes of bringing decent government to Iraq.
The Murtha Democrats may not want a humiliating American defeat in Iraq but would like something that looks like one. Only perceived defeat in Iraq would give their party something with which to unite its base and make a bid for the White House next year.
It may be a coincidence. However, each time Democrats throw a poisonous arrow at Maliki, they are followed by mullahs doing the same the next day. Maybe Maliki is doing something right?
AP: The Berlin Zoo's popular polar bear cub, Knut, is not feeling well and had his daily public appearance in front of thousands of visitors cut short Monday after only 30 minutes.
The zoo's veterinarian, Andre Schuele, put the 4 1/2-month old cub on antibiotics and said the Knut is "off stage to get some rest while we watch him closely."
There was no specific diagnosis "but he is still a young animal and therefore susceptible to infections," Schuele said.
"At the moment he is resting on his blanket and sleeping," Schuele said, adding that despite his lethargy Knut did eat his regular meal in the morning.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Emboldened by the take down of Don Imus (lefties will even eat their own) their henchmen at Media Matters, the folks dedicated to making sure you only read or hear the news that they approve, have announced their "enemies list" of future targets.
For those of you not old enough to recall the significance of an "enemies list" look here.
Media Matters Enemies List
On April 11, NBC News announced that it was dropping MSNBC's simulcast of Imus in the Morning in the wake of the controversy that erupted over host Don Imus' reference to the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos." The following day, CBS president and CEO Leslie Moonves announced that CBS -- which owns both the radio station that broadcast Imus' program and Westwood One, which syndicated the program -- has fired Imus and would cease broadcasting his radio show. But as Media Matters for America has extensively documented, bigotry and hate speech targeting, among other characteristics, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and ethnicity continue to permeate the airwaves through personalities such as Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Michael Smerconish, and John Gibson.
What? No Sean Hannity?And just what have the above done to deserve to be targeted for destruction of their livelihood? Here's a sample from the Media Matters enemies list indictment:
- On the March 21 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, The Glenn Beck Program, Beck called Rosie O'Donnell, co-host of ABC's The View, a "fat witch," claimed that O'Donnell has "blubber ... just pouring out of her eyes," and asked, "Do you know how many oil lamps we could keep burning just on Rosie O'Donnell fat?" Beck also called Hillary Clinton a "stereotypical bitch."
Hmmm... Rosies a fat whale and Hillary Clinton is a bitch? Accurate and mild statements compared to some of the crapola Media Matters readers regularly fling at President Bush, Vice President Cheney, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow.....
- On the July 19, 2006, edition of his radio show, Cox Radio Syndication's The Neal Boortz Show, Boortz claimed that "at its core," Islam is a "violent, violent religion," and said, "[T]his Muhammad guy is just a phony rag-picker." Boortz asserted that "[i]t is perfectly legitimate, perhaps even praiseworthy, to recognize Islam as a religion of vicious, violent, bloodthirsty cretins."
And again, what's your complaint?
Of course Rush Limbaugh is target #1 for the lovers of free (approved) speech:
- On the March 2 broadcast on his nationally syndicated radio show, Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, Rush Limbaugh stated that "since [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] has -- on his mother's side -- forebears of his mother had slaves, could we not say that if Obama wins the Democratic nomination and then wins the presidency, he will own [Rev.] Al Sharpton?"
Yes, and O'bama will have to pay reparations to himself! They've got more goodies on Limbaugh like: "Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?" Yes, actually I have.
Oh there's much, much more. Taken out of context and overblown to shock the easily offended sensibilities of self righteous,left wing hyprocritical poseurs bigots who couldn't care less when much much worse is directed at anyone not in one of their protected classes of people.
I say: you want to change the culture and clean things up? Fine by me. Start by holding yourselves accountable to the same standard of conduct you daily demand of others.
I love it!
In Iran, Feeling the HeatAnd all of that hard difficult diplomatic work achieved through years of effort can be undermined in one day by the wrong words or a visit by Neville Nancy and her acolytes of the new "Democrat alternative foreign policy."
By Jim Hoagland
April 15, 2007
Dying from cancer a quarter-century ago, the deposed shah of Iran pressed on me a fundamental point about his nation that has become even more vivid over the past two weeks. What the shah said, and almost said, then sheds light on the current confrontation between Iran and the world's great powers.
The historical force of past intervention in Iran's affairs is obviously no justification for kidnapping British sailors and marines; for pursuing nuclear weapons; or for supporting terrorism in Iraq, Israel and elsewhere. But it is important for Americans to recognize how deep is the imprint of the past and how demagogues exploit it when they are in trouble. It will take broad and sustained campaigns of political and economic pressures to force change in the behavior of any Iranian regime.
Consider the bombast of Ahmadinejad and his aides in grabbing hostages again, in threatening to pull out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and in saying they will cut off negotiations if the United Nations continues to condemn Iran's nuclear program. The meaningful detail in Iranian threats not to talk to the West is that the Iranians are still talking to the West, however theatrically and unconvincingly. They stall, but they remain engaged, trying to fend off impending isolation.
This demonstrates that the financial and diplomatic pressures orchestrated by the Treasury and State departments are taking their toll on Ahmadinejad's regime. They should be continued and intensified where possible. Among those voting against Tehran on the latest Security Council censure were South Africa, which often breaks with the West on political issues to bolster its nonaligned credentials, and Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation.
Those votes were body blows to Tehran's pretense that the nuclear dispute reflects a continuing victimization of Third World peoples and resources by the rapacious British and other Westerners. So is the visible irritation of Russia's Vladimir Putin with Iran's refusal to consider his offers to guarantee Iran access to peaceful nuclear energy.
The diplomatic effort to assemble a united international front against Iran is paying off. One sign: President Bush displays no sense of urgency about having to decide on military action, recent visitors to the White House report. History, ancient and recent, shows that his best option is to continue on the high road of multilateral, peaceful pressures.
Remember the dream of Victor Davis Hanson? How much more effective would our efforts be, and how much more secure and free the world would be if Democrats stood shoulder to shoulder with us instead of always seeking a political advantage?
Will Democrat egos get in the way of progress again or have they learned their lesson?
American Israeli Patriot, Our blogging friend on the ground in besieged Israel, reports on a vote by the National Union of Journalists in the once "Great" Britain for a boycott of Israeli goods at their annual meeting as part of a protest against last year's war in Lebanon.
The journalist's union also demanded "sanctions be imposed on Israel by the British government and the United Nations." Another resolution laughingly insisted that Israel conducted a ""savage, pre-planned attack on Lebanon" in last year's July war.
These are journalists right? One would hope they are well informed and that their memories might permit them to recall that the conflict was started after Hezbollah invaded Israel by crossing the blue line, killed several of their soldiers and kidnapped two others who have yet to be accounted for then launched repeated rocket attacks on the civilian population.
Does that ring a bell to any of these "journalists?"
Of course the trade unions in what was once "Great" Britain have been fronts for communist movements since their inception. Stalin would be proud. Anything to weaken the resolve of the English speaking peoples is a good thing in commie land.
Stalin would also be proud upon hearing the news that some "schools in England are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils."
No doubt to make way for more indoctrination into socialist inspired crackpot nonsense on global warming.
In the wake of Britain's perceived weakness in the crisis over the illegal seizure of their naval personnel by Iran we're becoming even more seriously concerned with that the once "Great" fortitude our British cousins showed during the Blitz of London and the Battle of Britain may be lost drip by drip with the slow wearing away of common sense that is the first cornerstone of a society that seeks to remain free.
Please tell us it's not too late!
Democrats are constantly squawking about how unfair it is that we don't have a compulsory draft to share the burden of military service equally. Of course we've pointed out the benefits of an all volunteer service and the quality of recruits but they persist.
They also whine about how unfair it is that our allies in this "unilateral" Bush's war are not doing more.
So we wonder then why there is no consistency when it comes to the shared burden and sacrifice of keeping ALL this nation's promises to protect the health, welfare and safety of it's citizens through the funding of government by compulsory taxation?
Why is it that they fail to embrace that same concept of fairness when it comes to who pays and who benefits from taxes?
2004 IRS data:
Top 1% making more than $328,049 pay 36.89% of Federal personal income taxes.
Top 5% "" $137,056 pay 57.13%
Top 10% "" $99,112 pay 68.19%
Top 25% "" $60,041 pay 84.86%
Top 50% "" $30,122 pay 96.70%
Bottom 50% making less than $30,122 pay 3.30%
A study by the Tax Foundation reveals that "Those in the lowest quintile received $14.76 in federal spending for every dollar they paid in federal taxes; for middle earners, it was $1.29; top earners, just 32 cents. In total-dollar terms, low-income families netted over $31,000 each from government taxes and spending, while high-income households lost roughly $48,000."
And if you thought the $25 billion in pork barrel spending Neville Nancy used to buy votes for her surrender in Iraq bill was something, it's microscopic compared to the $ONE TRILLION smackeroos the Tax Foundation study reveals is being used to keep Democrat voters fat, lazy and stupid.
Tax Cuts for Who?
And then there's the perennial debate over tax cuts. Democrats now in control of Congress have threatened to repeal the Bush tax cuts and push for a wave of new spending and taxes.
And like they do every time these issues come up they begin squawking like a gaggle of demented parrots "tax cuts for the rich. tax cuts for the rich...AWK.... Halliburton, Halliburton!!!"
The Bush tax cuts were signed into law on March 28, 2003. Let's assume, perhaps incorrectly, that when Democrats say "the rich" they're talking about that top 1% of wage earners who take home more than $328,049.
If you look at the rate for that top 1% under Bush's plan in 2004 it's higher than all but one of the last five years and higher than the Clinton year of 1999.
You'll also notice that the 50% of taxpayers in the bottom tax bracket have decreased their contribution from a high of 4% in 1999 to 3.3% in 2004 under Bush's plan.
Another key factor that you can't help notice is that ALL income levels have been rising dramatically. Remember that old Reagan proverb: "A rising tide lifts all boats?"
And just what is making all that new wealth possible?
Tax Cuts Work!
Saturday, April 14, 2007
It's a long speech, but well worth reading. After discussing Congressional attempts to force defeat on the economy, he turns to Iraq. He reminds any who are still in denial about Iraq's key role about the war on terror what the terrorists themselves have to say about it.
Then he gets to the main event, which is whether we win or lose in Iraq and just what that means. I know it's a long excerpt, but every paragraph has a gem of truth that needs to be read.
Vice President's Remarks to the Heritage Foundation
White House transcript
April 13, 2007
...The Democratic leadership has assured us that, in any event, they support the troops in the field. They did vote to confirm General Dave Petraeus unanimously in the United States Senate -- and for good reason. General Petraeus is one of the finest military officers of his generation, an expert in counterinsurgency, a leader committed to victory, and with a strategy to achieve it.
The senators knew something else about General Petraeus. They knew he had told the Armed Services Committee that he could not do his job without reinforcements. Yet within days of his confirmation a large group of senators tried to pass a resolution opposing those very reinforcements, thereby undermining the General's mission. Over in the House of Representatives, such a resolution actually passed on the floor. As President Bush said, this may be the first time in history that a Congress "voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose the plan he said was necessary to win that battle."
In the weeks since that vote, the actions of the Democratic leadership have moved from the merely inconsistent to the irresponsible. It's now been 67 days since the President submitted the emergency supplemental request. As most Americans know by now, the House of Representatives has voted to provide the funding, but also to require that we cut the number of troops below the level that our commanders in Iraq say is necessary for victory, and further require that American forces begin withdrawing from Iraq according to a set timetable, and be gone next year regardless of circumstances on the ground.
Not before that vote had the Democrats ever managed to find enough members of the House to support a planned retreat from Iraq. So how did they manage to pass it this time? They did it by horse-trading -- by adding in all that pork-barrel spending we've heard about. And when they had the votes they needed, they stopped adding the pork, and they held the vote.
Such an outcome raises more than a little concern about the future of fiscal discipline on Capitol Hill. The implications for national security are equally obvious, and far more critical to the future of the country. An editorial by The Washington Post aptly termed the House bill an "unconditional retreat ". The legislation that passed in the Senate is no better, and that bill, also, calls for the withdrawal of American troops according to a pre-set timetable determined by members of Congress.
So this is where things stand today. The Democratic Congress has approved appropriations for a war, and attached detailed provisions for the timing and the movement of American troops. It is unacceptable, of course, from an institutional standpoint. Under the Constitution, Congress has the purse strings and the power to confirm officers. But military operations are to be directed by the President of the United States, period. (Applause.) By the wisdom of the framers, that power rests in the hands of one Commander-in-Chief, not 535 commanders-in-chief on Capitol Hill.
I might add that we don't need 535 secretaries of state, either. (Laughter and applause.) It didn't help matters when the Speaker of the House showed up in Damascus for a sit-down with Syrian president Bashar Assad. Here again, we have an instance of the new congressional leadership making a bad move and sending mixed signals about the policies and the intentions of the United States.
It is strange enough that the Speaker should do anything to anything to undermine America's careful, and successful, multilateral effort to isolate the Syrian regime. But at least one member of the Speaker's delegation saw the trip in even grander terms. He said the delegation was offering, quote, "an alternative Democratic foreign policy." Once again, we must return to a basic constitutional principle. No member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, has any business jetting around the world with a diplomatic agenda contrary to that of the President and the Secretary of State. It is for the executive branch, not the Congress, to conduct the foreign policy of the United States of America. (Applause.)
In America, above all, the Democrats -- excuse me, in Iraq, above all, the Democrats' attempt to micromanage our commanders is an unwise and perilous endeavor. It is impossible to argue that an unconditional timetable for retreat could serve the security interests of the United States or our friends in the region. Instead, it sends a message to our enemies that the calendar is their friend, that all they have to do is wait us out -- wait for the date certain, and then claim victory the day after.
This notion of a timetable for withdrawal has been specifically rejected by virtually every mainstream analysis. The report of the Baker-Hamilton commission recommended against it. The National Intelligence Estimate produced by the intelligence community said a rapid withdrawal would be ill-advised. Our military commanders believe a rigid timetable is not a good strategy. It does, perhaps, appeal to the folks at MoveOn.org.
Recently the National Commander of the American Legion said, "You cannot support the troops if you want them to cut and run. It's time for the President to veto this surrender bill and for Congress to pass a serious war-funding bill, which would provide the money without the micromanagement." (Applause.) Standing here today, I can assure the American Legion, and the VFW, and all the veterans organizations, and all the men and women serving at this very hour, that the President of the United States will, indeed, veto this irresponsible legislation. (Applause.)
Rarely in history has an elected branch of government engaged in so pointless an exercise as Congress is now doing. And yet the exercise continues. Three days ago the President invited the Democratic leaders to meet with him next week to discuss the supplemental. The majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, at first declined to do so. When Nancy Pelosi flies nearly 6,000 miles to meet with the president of Syria, but Harry Reid hesitates to drive a mile and half to meet with the President of the United States, there's a serious problem in the leadership of the Democratic Party.
Senator Reid has threatened that if the President vetoes the timetable legislation, he will send up Senator Russ Feingold's bill to de-fund Iraqi operations altogether. Yet only last November, Senator Reid said there would be no cutoff of funds for the military in Iraq. So in less than six months' time, Senator Reid has gone from pledging full funding for the military, and then full funding, but with a timetable, and then a cutoff of funding. Three positions in five months, on the most important foreign policy question facing our country and our troops.
Senator Reid, of course, was one of the many Democrats who voted for the use of force in Iraq. They are entitled, if they want now, to oppose this war. Yet Americans are entitled to question whether the endlessly shifting positions that he and others are taking are reflections of principle, or of partisanship and blind opposition to the President.
In light of recent events, it's worth asking how things would be different if the current Democratic leadership had controlled Congress during the last five years. Would we have the terrorist surveillance program? Or the Patriot Act? Or military commissions to try unlawful combatants? All these measures have been essential to protecting the American people against enemies who are absolutely determined to cause another 9/11, or something far worse. And it's an open question, I think, whether the current Democratic leadership would have put these protections in place.
They've even created controversy over the words we use to describe the challenges now facing America. According to news accounts, one committee in the House has decided to stop using the phrase, "Global War on Terrorism." I'm left to wonder -- which part of that phrase is the problem? Do they deny the struggle is global, after the enemy has declared the ambition of building a totalitarian empire that stretches from Europe around to Indonesia? Do they deny this is a war, in which one side will win and the other will lose? Do they deny that it's terror that we're fighting, with unlawful combatants who wear no uniform, who reject the rules of warfare, and who target the innocent for indiscriminate slaughter?
That's the nature of the fight we're in. We can't wish it away, or define it away. In Iraq, while extremists are trying to stir an endless cycle of violence, where al Qaeda is operating and trying to open new fronts, where an elected government is going about the hard work of political reconciliation, the United States has interests at stake, and promises to keep.
The ultimate solution in that country will be a political solution, but reconciliation cannot be reached in an atmosphere of violence and instability. So we are there, alongside Iraqi forces, to bring security to Baghdad. Together our forces have carried out thousands of patrols. We have set up joint security stations and combat posts in the capital city, we've seized hundreds of weapons caches, found and cleared hundreds of improvised explosive devices, detained suspected killers and bomb makers, and found and destroyed car bomb factories.
Our new strategy in Iraq is still in its early stages of implementation. Roughly half of the reinforcements have arrived, and as General Petraeus has said , it'll be a while before we can fully assess how well it's working. But there's one thing the American people already know: The men and women we've sent to carry out this mission are brave and decent. They and their families represent the best in the American character, and we are proud of each and every one of them. (Applause.)
The good men and women serving in the war on terror, on every front, are staring evil in the face. Some of them will not make it home. They can never be sure what the next day will bring. But they're giving it all they have, and we owe them the same. Both political parties, both elected branches, both houses of Congress need to unite and back up our military 100 percent, leaving no uncertainty about whether this country supports them and what they're doing. (Applause.) They deserve this support so they can finish the job and get it done right, and return home to an America made safer by their courage.
The United States is keeping its commitments, and persevering despite difficulty, because we understand the consequences of getting out before the job is done. History provides its own lessons, and none perhaps is better than the example of Afghanistan in the 1980s. During those years, Afghanistan was a major front in the Cold War. The strategic significance was clear to all, and the United States was heavily engaged in the area, supporting the Mujahedin against the Soviets. But when the Soviet Union collapsed, everybody walked away from Afghanistan. From that point on, extremist factions began to vie for power. Civil war broke out. By the end of the 1990s, the Taliban had an iron grip on the country, and was hosting Osama bin Laden and the training camps for terrorists that led directly to the attacks of September 11th, 2001.
The consequences of walking away from Afghanistan were severe, but perhaps hard to foresee prior to 9/11. But no one could plead ignorance of the potential consequences of walking away from Iraq now, withdrawing coalition forces before Iraqis could defend themselves. Moderates would be crushed. Shiite extremists backed by Iran could be in an all-out war with Sunni extremists led by al Qaeda and remnants of the old Saddam Hussein regime.
As this battle unfolded, Sunni governments might feel compelled to back Sunni extremists in order to counter growing Iranian influence, widening the conflict into a regional war. If Sunni extremists prevailed, al Qaeda and its allies could recreate the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan, except now with the oil wealth to pursue weapons of mass destruction and they could underwrite their own designs, including against our friends in the region. If Iran's allies prevailed, the regime in Teheran's own designs for the Middle East would be advanced, and the threat to our friends in the region would only be magnified.
We must consider, as well, just what a precipitous withdrawal would mean to our efforts in the war on terror, and to our interests in the broader Middle East. Having tasted victory in Iraq, jihadists would look about for new missions. Many would head for Afghanistan to fight alongside the Taliban. Others would set out for capitals across the Middle East, spreading more discord as they eliminate dissenters and work to undermine moderate governments, in what the terrorist Zawahiri has called a "jihad wave." Still others would find their targets and victims in other countries on other continents.
What would it say to the world if we left high and dry those millions of people who have counted on the United States to keep its commitments? And what would it say to leaders like President Karzai in Afghanistan and President Musharraf in Pakistan, who risk their lives every day as fearless allies in the war on terror? Critics enjoy pointing out mistakes through the perceptive power of hindsight. But the biggest mistake of all can be seen in advance: A sudden withdrawal of our Coalition would dissipate much of the effort that's gone into fighting the global war on terror, and result in chaos and mounting danger. And for the sake of our own security, we will not stand by and let it happen. (Applause.)
This nation has chosen a better course. Instead of allowing problems to simmer, instead of allowing threats to gather thousands of miles away and assume they won't find us at home, we've decided to face our challenges squarely. We offer a vision of freedom, justice, and self government as a superior alternative to ideologies of violence, anger, and resentment. We believe, and we know, that free institutions and human liberty provide the best long-term hope of progress for nations, and peace for the world.
The course we have chosen is not an easy one for America. But it will be far easier on the conscience of America when we see it through, sparing millions from suffering, and leaving behind a free and democratic Iraq. Although the current political environment in our country carries echoes of the hard left in the early '70s, America will not again play out those old scenes of abandonment, and retreat, and regret. Thirty-five years is time enough to have learned the lessons of that sad era. When the United States turns away from our friends, only tragedy can follow, and the lives and hopes of millions are lost forever.
Ladies and gentlemen: not this time. Not on our watch. (Applause.) This cause is bigger than the quarrels of party and the agendas of politicians. At this hour in our history, it is the cause of America -- and the best among us are fighting and sacrificing for its success. And if we in Washington, all of us, can only see our way clear to work together, then the outcome is not in doubt. We will press on in this mission, and we will turn events towards victory.