Wednesday, January 31, 2007

A Clean Plan For Our Defeat

Obama Has A Plan

RUSH: If we want to surrender to the car bombers and the beheaders, then Barack Obama is your man, along with Hillary Rodham Clinton and most any other Democrat. And, by the way, along with surrender abroad, Obama would lower our defenses against terror here.

If you read the whole statement, what he wants to do, he wants to close Club Gitmo. I’ve got a thriving merchandise business down there, and I will not stand for closing Club Gitmo. He wants to end the NSA eavesdropping of foreign terrorists. He wants to gut the Patriot Act.

He wants to extend due-process rights to foreign terrorists. Incredibly, he would also end the close vetting of Muslims seeking student visas here. He has said in November 2005 that such careful vetting by American consuls abroad amounts to profiling and violates the civil liberties of the foreign visa applicants. His pleasant demeanor masks a very dangerous man from the hate-America liberal far left.

Look as his votes, folks. This guy is being cast about as a bright and articulate and clean mainstream African-American guy, and he speaks these moderate words and phrases. He is a liberal. He is as far left as anybody, including Kucinich. He's as far left as anybody on the Democrat side is and can be. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing, an articulate wolf, clean wolf, mainstream, good-looking wolf in sheep's clothing. At any rate, so he's out there. But you might say, “Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Limbaugh, he at least has a plan and you've been deriding Democrats for not having a plan, Mr. Limbaugh.” Yeah.

But my problem with this plan is it's destined to lose. We will be defeated.

Absolutely Unbelievable...

Landrieu Wishes Terrorists HAD Blown Up Levees

RUSH: I saw this yesterday on the web at, and I haven't seen it anywhere else, but this is reporting that yesterday Senator Mary Landrieu, Louisiana, had an outrageous outburst in which she remarked, quote, “We would have been better off if the terrorists had blown up our levees.”

That's what she's reported as having said, “We'd be better off if the terrorists had blown up our levees.” You know, Kathleen Blanco is out there whining and moaning about all the federal money that hasn't showed up, and you've got local officials down there that botched this left and right.

It's easy to dump on Bush. That's all you have to do today to deflect attention from yourself if you're a politician, any party, dump on Bush. But what is this, Louisiana would have been better off if a terrorist had blown up the levees? Did she think there would have been aid money coming faster, faster efforts to rebuild the levees, would there have been more national sympathy if terrorists had blown up the place rather than a hurricane?

But think of a US Senator saying this. Not that far from 9/11, folks. “We'd have been better off if terrorists had blown up our levees.”

Please visit his site at:

Another outrageous case of hoof-in-mouth disease. I don't know what's wrong with politicians the last few days, saying such stupid, stupid things...

What Do You Think...?

Race Gaffe Hits Democrat Presidential Campaign

A Democratic presidential candidate last night apologised for describing Senator Barack Obama as the “first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean”.

Joe Biden said: “I deeply regret any offence . . . I may have caused. That was not my intention and I’ve expressed that to Senator Obama.”

He was forced to say sorry on the same day that he began his candidacy — 20 years after his last run at the White House imploded after he was caught plagiarising Neil Kinnock, then the Labour leader. Mr Biden spent most of yesterday struggling to keep his latest campaign on track after making remarks that appeared to confirm a reputation for talking first and thinking later.

Only last year he was in trouble again for saying: “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.”

Mr Biden said that he had spoken to Mr Obama, a rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, who had told him: “ ‘Joe, you don’t have to explain anything to me’ . . . he understands what I meant — this is a very special guy.”

Asked what he did mean by saying that Mr Obama was “clean”, Mr Biden said: “He’s fresh, new, smart, insightful. Lightning in a jar.”,,11069-2578277,00.html

I was reading this article about Obama today and thinking he reminded me of someone from history--and with good reason... (*The answer is inside.)

This Is More Concise...

Hillary's Understandable Contradictions

Hillary Clinton's many contradictions aren't hard to understand once you realize her need to suppress her natural instincts and policy preferences because they conflict with her lifelong presidential aspirations.

For the most part Hillary is not personally conflicted: She knows precisely what she wants. But her personality characteristics and the circumstances in which she finds herself force her to walk a tightrope between warring constituencies and to project a double-mindedness that is wholly inconsistent with her innate ideological certitude.

These themes were on display this past weekend as Hillary began her presidential campaign in Iowa. From the issue of her gender, to her kaleidoscopic positions on the war, she was trying to thread personal and policy needles to make herself attractive to Midwestern voters without triggering any more blue-state liberal landmines in the process. (Hollywood moguls have already sent her a message by hosting a fundraiser for Barack Obama.)

In the past, Hillary has vacillated between righteous indignation at any expectation that she should be home "baking cookies" and her acquired awareness that she must not go too far and project herself as cold and heartless.
So it was no surprise that in Iowa she reflected a bit of both sides: On the one hand she wore her gender on her sleeve in telling her audience she faced a "double standard" as a female candidate. In the next, shameless breath, she instructed them to look beyond "stories about my clothes and hair" to help her make history.

Similarly, Hillary wants desperately to project a soft, amiable side that is appealing to voters, but she doesn't want to come off as too soft to be chief executive and commander in chief.
Not to worry. She's quite comfortable with bare-knuckles political brawling. In this vein, she mildly criticized John Kerry for not having responded fiercely enough to his Swift boat accusers.

"When you're attacked, you have to deck your opponents," she said. Hillary has labored to cultivate the image that she's open-minded - kicking off her first New York Senate campaign with a phony "listening tour" and pretending to absorb the people's concerns. Now, with an equally straight face, she says she wants to "chat" with voters and have "one-on-one conversations, just you and me."

Right. Surely even those not majoring in "Hillary Studies" can see she is nothing if not a woman with definite policy preferences and a singular commitment to accomplishing them - no matter what anyone else thinks or chats.

You might note that Hillary did not come away chastened from the stinging personal defeat of her universal health care ploy. To the contrary, she said, in Iowa, concerning Hillary Care, "I now know what the roadblocks and obstacles are." (I fault her here, by the way, not for her unflinching commitment to socialized medicine - I'll save that for later - but for her usual duplicity in disguising it.)

On Iraq, Hillary has long been speaking out of both sides of her mouth. She figured out early on that she would have great difficulty courting a center-right electorate in a general election with the purely antiwar message her liberal base uncompromisingly demands. So she has been back and forth on Iraq - a hawk with dovish wings - almost as much as the perpetually double-tongued John Kerry.

For now Hillary seems to have settled - appropriately - on the Clintonesque position of taking responsibility for her vote to authorize the war against Iraq, while simultaneously denying responsibility because President Bush "misled Congress and the country on what he was seeking and what he intended to do." On the broader war on terror, she throws bones to the right, saying, "we must [defend] our country and [deter] those who wish us ill, as they still do."

Yet she says we must end "the alienation toward us in the rest of the world," a statement sure to warm the hearts of Jane Fonda and the 12-year-old war protestor who lamented that "the rest of the world sees us as a bully and a liar." Hillary's words should also please John Kerry, who just said on foreign soil that the United States is now considered an "international pariah."
It has yet to be determined, however, whether Hillary subscribes to Kerry's "global test," where we would virtually confer on other nations a veto power over our sovereign decision to go to war.

Though we will continue to see abundant evidence apparently to the contrary between now and November 2008, Hillary knows exactly who she is and what she wants. The open question is: How many naive or uninformed voters can she fool without permanently estranging herself from her natural soulmates on the far left?



Get A Little Rush!

Rush Nails Hillary

RUSH: Let's go to the audiotape. Mrs. Clinton. This is last Saturday at Des Moines' East High School. She said this about her position on the war in Iraq.

HILLARY: I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies. So he took the authority that I and others gave him and he misused it, and I regret that deeply. And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give this president that authority.

RUSH: Yay! This is an outright lie. This is a total mischaracterization. We all know why. It is designed to get her over the hump, so to speak, of this problem that she has, that she voted for the war. So essentially, she was tricked. She never voted for going to war. She voted for the opportunity to go to war, but only if we had allies and only if we had exhausted negotiations, but she was not authorizing going to war. The next bite she says that Bush should finish Iraq before he leaves.

HILLARY: I think it's the height of irresponsibility, and I really resent it. This was his decision to go to war. He went with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy, and we should expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office.

RUSH: All applause. You know what this is about. Bush has said that the war on terror will go on and on and on beyond his administration, and any expert in this realizes that that's the case. Mrs. Clinton here is saying (summarized), "Oh, no, no, no! You get all this stuff off the table before I take office in 2009." That's why she wants the troops out in 2009 because that's what she's going to be inaugurated, so she wants all of this off the table. She doesn't want to inherit what she thinks is somebody else's mess.

Now isn’t that rich. From an administration that left the Bush administration with so many messes: the state of the military, the lack of any action on terrorism, on and on. The Clinton administration didn't tackle anything big after they tried health care and it bombed out, because the preservation of that approval number at 65% was everything. But she didn't want any tough challenges. It's his responsibility, “He started it. He should finish it before I take office. Just get out of there, Bush.”

Again, it's about her. It's not about the events in which the country is involved that define themselves and take their own course. It's about clearing the decks for Mrs. Clinton so she can start fresh without having to get her feet wet or her hands dirty on any of this hard stuff.

Please visit his site at:

I took one of his pieces off, as he got a little blabbery; his brother's article is up front.

MUST READ--IT'S GREAT! Pig In A Pastel...

Whom Does Hillary Think She's Fooling?

Only a few days have passed since Hillary Clinton announced she is running for president, but already it is clear that much forbearance will be required from us all in the long months ahead. This is not just because Mrs Clinton has started wearing ominous pastels and smiling a lot, or appeared to enjoy a joke apparently about her husband's sexcapades in the White House — although these things do, of course, matter.

No, what is so lowering about Hillary and her rush for power is the merciless, unapologetic, chisel-eyed way she has pursued her presidential ambitions over the past few years, and her blatant attempt to make over her naturally acrid persona into something that American voters might find palatable.

Even from an ocean away it makes painful viewing, like watching someone trying to fold a balloon into a matchbox, or form a rounded human being out of leftover ectoplasm and a Martha Stewart wig. Yet the New York senator seems unstoppable in her aspirations, attempting a soft-focus rebrand on herself as a homemaker of meek views and kindly disposition, ready to whisk around with the duster, cook Bill a nice, eggy supper and sort out world problems at the same time.

In her new pearls and heart-shaped lockets, those telling little trinkets she hopes will send out the subliminal message that she is a biddable soubrette at heart, Mrs Clinton has become shameless in her pursuit of high office and the Hillary-lite ideal. Her official website reveals that the woman who once sneered at Tammy Wynette wives who baked cookies now talks of the inner calm that she finds in housework and gardening, and of how cleaning out her closets brings relief from worrying about North Korea and Iran. "I can't get my arms around that," she says, modestly acknowledging that there are bigger global problems that she can contend with, although folding sweaters and chucking out old tights, alongside the occasional skeleton, is an enjoyable breeze in comparison.

What happened to the forbidding woman who first stepped into the public arena 15 years ago, the militant feminist who was not afraid to air her difficult views on stay-at-home mothers and abortion on demand? Sister, she has long gone, dissolved in an acid bath of burning ambition, alongside the First Lady Hillary who had an agenda of her own in trying to push through healthcare reforms that appalled many Americans, but fitted with her own bossy, liberal views.

With the voting landscape now dominated by moral values and faith-based groups who wield enormous power and are easily affronted, Senator Clinton's route march to the White House must remain free of controversy, and if that means shaping herself into a vanilla vision of impeccably centrist views and somehow distancing herself from her own initial support of the Iraq war and other pesky matters such as gun control and gay marriages, then so be it. Not that any of this is going to be easy.

Mrs Clinton reminds too many Americans of the international embarrassment and sexual psychodrama of her husband's administration, an experience many would rather forget. Naturally, the far Right doesn't like her much, but even among Democrat supporters, she polarises opinion as if she was political Marmite: people either absolutely love her or utterly loathe her, although all are agreed that a little Hillary goes a long way.

There is even a thriving Hate Hillary industry that sells "I Hate Hillary" T-shirts, mouse mats and car bumper stickers, and feeds on the foaming bile of Hillary-hating blogs. Many of Mrs Clinton's detractors find it particularly annoying that she has made gender the focal point of her campaign, perhaps in an attempt to neuter the enthusiasm being whipped up around Barack Obama's bid to become the first black US president.

"I'm a woman and I'm a mom," croons Hillary-lite, while complaining about the double standards she must endure regarding comments on her clothes and her hair. Yet none of this is trivial. Everything Mrs Clinton now does and says is a deliberate political statement, from the honey streaks in her hairdo to the girly pinks she chooses to camouflage herself in, although the effect of the latter is unconvincing: think killer shark prowling the shallows in a party frock.

Of course, all politicians are guilty of a little repositioning and shaving of principles when the occasion suits, but until Hillary Rodham Clinton came along, no one has ever dared to politically morph themselves to quite such an astounding degree. Will it work? Let's hope not.

Even 'Bammy Can't Quite Keep His Face Straight When He Says This...

Perception vs. Reality

Although he frequently makes a point of finding something charitable to say about his opponents’ arguments, Sen. Barack Obama almost always ends up voting liberal.

“The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact,”
the Illinois Democrat wrote in “The Audacity of Hope,” a memoir published last year. “Much of what I absorbed from the sixties was filtered through my mother, who to the end of her life would proudly proclaim herself an unreconstructed liberal.”

It'd be his best dream if this were true... Yeah, that's why we get, from the party of 'reason and fact', all of their over-emotional nonsense all weekend long... And from a man that thinks this tremendous idiocy:

"As a country,'' he says, "we seem to be suffering from an empathy deficit.'' More empathy can resolve our political stalemates, he believes, on issues ranging from affirmative action to globalization.

Empathy is not often "reasonable", nor is it very "factual". So that puts his nonsense to bed! God, somebody cap his pen and tell him to go sit down and shut up!

The Secret of Obama's Appeal Stays a Secret:

Barack Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope'' is well into its fourth month on the bestseller list, and even a professional sourpuss (not that I know any) can see why.

"I am new enough on the national political scene,'' he writes in the book's prologue, "to serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.''
Never mind the mixed metaphor about striped people projecting on screens (a rare infelicity from such a graceful writer). The statement is the purest Obama, the kind of sentiment that people seldom get from a career politician: knowing, self- aware, candid, vivid in its expression and -- most amazing of all -- true.

"The Audacity of Hope,'' in fact, can best be understood as an extended effort on the part of the first-term Illinois senator to keep that screen as blank as possible.

Dear God, He's At It Again...

Thousands Fleeing Hugo Chavez's Venezuela

Each day after dawn, hundreds of Venezuelans gather outside the Spanish Consulate in Caracas, hoping to get papers allowing them to flee the South American country for Spain.

Others form long lines at other consulates, equally fearful of the future of Venezuela under President Hugo Chavez. Two months after Chavez was re-elected to another six-year term, the National Assembly is entrusting him with wide-ranging powers that will allow him to dictate new laws for 18 months.

Venezuelan Lawmakers Delay Chavez Vote

Venezuelan lawmakers decided Tuesday to delay giving President Hugo Chavez augmented executive powers, Globovision reported Tuesday.

In an open-air public session scheduled for Wednesday, Venezuelan lawmakers loyal to the leftist Chavez are scheduled to give the president wide-ranging executive powers that will allow him to rule by decree for 18 months, during which time he has promised to complete his socialist revolution by nationalizing several sectors of the economy, including the energy industry.

I have to post this every few months just to remind everyone to not dial in to this extreme madman...

More Fun For Israel...

Bethlehem Christians Fear Muslim Neighbors

A number of Christian families have finally decided to break their silence and talk openly about what they describe as Muslim persecution of the Christian minority in this city.

The move comes as a result of increased attacks on Christians by Muslims over the past few months. The families said they wrote letters to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, the Vatican, Church leaders and European governments complaining about the attacks, but their appeals have fallen on deaf ears.

According to the families, many Christians have long been afraid to complain in public about the campaign of "intimidation" for fear of retaliation by their Muslim neighbors and being branded "collaborators" with Israel.

But following an increase in attacks on Christian-owned property in the city over the past few months, some Christians are no longer afraid to talk about the ultra-sensitive issue. And they are talking openly about leaving the city.

"The situation is very dangerous," said Samir Qumsiyeh, owner of the Beit Sahur-based private Al-Mahd (Nativity) TV station. "I believe that 15 years from now there will be no Christians left in Bethlehem. Then you will need a torch to find a Christian here. This is a very sad situation."

Qumsiyeh, one of the few Christians willing to speak about the harsh conditions of their community, has been the subject of numerous death threats. His house was recently attacked with fire-bombs, but no one was hurt.

Qumsiyeh said he has documented more than 160 incidents of attacks on Christians in the area in recent years.


This photo is so painful (and beautiful) to look at, I can hardly stand it. I hope every happy asshole who protested the war--ANY war, all war...whatever this weekend sees this picture and can one day DREAM about being such men.

She Voted Against It Before She Voted For It...

Hillary Fibs in Iowa About Ethanol, Voted Against It

During her first visit as a presidential candidate to early-caucus state Iowa, Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke out strongly in favor of boosting the production of ethanol in the United States.

But that’s a complete turnaround from her earlier actions regarding the alternative fuel, which is made from corn – and could provide a big boost to the economy of agricultural Iowa.

At a town hall meeting in Des Moines, the state capital, on January 27, Clinton said: "I believe we’ve got to take a strong stand on limiting our dependence on foreign oil. And we have a perfect example here in Iowa about how it can work with all of the ethanol that’s being produced here.”

According to an article in the Chicago Tribune cited in a release from the Republican National Committee, Clinton "took questions and spoke of boosting production of ethanol.”

And the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Clinton "genuflected before ethanol, which is big business in Iowa.”

But as a Senator from New York, Clinton has voted at least 17 times against measures promoting ethanol production, the RNC noted.

During a question-and-answer session in 2004, Clinton was asked about "her outspoken opposition to legislation that would double the use of ethanol as a gasoline additive,” the Des Moines Register reported at the time.

"She was momentarily stumped by a question as to why she opposed the ethanol mandate, but then said she was concerned that it would raise gasoline prices for her constituents.”
Clinton reportedly said: "I have to look to first protecting and supporting the needs of the people I represent right now.”

In 2002, Clinton even signed a letter that read in part: "There is no sound public policy reason for mandating the use of ethanol.”

It’s not surprising that Clinton would have a change of heart regarding ethanol when addressing Iowa voters, considering that the ethanol industry generates $2.49 billion in total sales back to local communities, according to the Iowa Corn Growers Association.

Also, "more than 14,750 Iowa jobs are affected by ethanol,” the Association notes, "including 2,550 directly related to ethanol production.”

Monday, January 29, 2007

They Never Heard Of "Let's Roll"...

Anti-War Protesters Spray Paint Capitol Building

Anti-war protesters were allowed to spray paint on part of the west front steps of the United States Capitol building after police were ordered to break their security line by their leadership, two sources told The Hill.
According to the sources, police officers were livid when they were told to fall back by U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) Chief Phillip Morse and Deputy Chief Daniel Nichols. "They were the commanders on the scene," one source said,who requested anonymity. "It was disgusting."

Brave men like Todd Beamer strove to protect our Capitol--these assholes only move to destroy and despoil it... May they roast in hell--totally abashed by their own cowardice.

Sunday, January 28, 2007

My Father and Myself

My Thoughts On Abortion and Life:

I am thinking about abortion and coming closer than I ever have to wanting it outlawed. I will never want it completely outlawed because I think it's too important for women to have control over their own bodies; men have controlled women--'barefoot and pregnant'--for too long.

But women need to be virtuous. They would have more parity in the world if they ever said 'no'. Showing their strength by showing men they understand the tremendous gift they have been given in bringing life into the world--and that they do not take it lightly--would bring them true equality.

Succumbing to their feelings, or their desires, or their bodily sensations makes them--us--seem too weak--too much prey for others. Women have to know it's a divine thing--to bring life into the world--and treat it as such. We have to communicate that to men by not making it easy for them to have us and what we can do.

I cannot tell you the supreme message that was given to me when I could hear my parents in their bedroom... To hear the man and woman who gave birth to me, do the same thing that made me, was a profound lesson in humanity.

There is nothing quite like seeing the man who made you, on a Sunday morning, in the kitchen, in his undershirt, eating cornflakes and ice cream--and having him there every day.... even as inadequate as he was.... he was my father--and he was there.

Women who bring fatherless children into the world do not understand the tremendous disservice they do them. Yes, my Dad was lousy--he eventually gave away my inheritance to my brother because we disagreed on issues (and we did not speak 10 years before he died--his choice)--but he was there in the house, while I was growing up and, for all his faults, that left me with a tremendous sense of what men and women were--and, at this late date, what they could be together--and what they had always been. As God intended.

I didn't need a more devastatingly eloquent picture of human beings, in the sight of God, than that.

Ugly Is As Ugly Does, John...

Interview With Conyers On Impeaching President Bush:

John Conyers, chair of the congressional Judiciary committee, is in the VIP area, backstage at the DC antiwar demonstration. He's surrounded by press, microphoness, cameras, digital recorders... Finally, there's an opening. I jump in, introduce myself and remind him that we met last June, and the circumstances. He remembers.

"There are a lot of progressives on our site who were angry, the day after the November election," I tell him. (You know who you are .) He smiles and says, "The day after... that soon? The new congress wasn't even sworn in until January.""Yep, the day after," I reply, adding, "They've been angry that impeachment is off the table."

He pauses, purses his lips, then nods his head, agreeing, saying, "They have lots of good reasons to be angry. But, you know, the presidential race is coming, in 2008.. and it's already 2007. If you know a way to take care of all the domestic issues, to successfully prepare to take the White House, to investigate and prosecute and impeach-- tell me..."

I replied, "Me, personally, I'm not worried about impeachment. I'm trusting you to pursue investigations that will turn up lots of dirt... You are starting them, aren't you?"Congressman Conyers replies that they've already set the gears in motion and they will be under way soon, and that he hopes to see new revelations uncovered, after years of coverups.

Then I continue, "I'm not worried about impeachment because I think that once your hearings start, you'll turn up stuff that will send the Republicans to the White House demanding that Bush and Cheney leave."He smiles, nods again and says, "That's been done before, you know. They did that with Nixon."

Then he introduces me to his communications direction. I introduce myself as the publisher of He replies that he knows us well-- that they check Google alerts and we show up regularly. That is sweet news, confirming a suspicion I've had. And I'm guessing that if John Conyer's staff checks Google alerts, that all the congressional staffs do it.

That means that we in the progressive media, at least those spidered by Google news-- OpEdNEws, Buzzflash, Rawstory, truthout, counterpunch, tompaine, huffingtonpost (as compared to blogs and community blog sites, which are not spidered) are reaching the decision makers in congress. (not that the blogs are not also reaching them, but not through the Google alerts.) But back to John Conyers and our impeachment conversation...

In our conversation, Congressman Conyers held to his position on not pursuing impeachment directly. But, as far as I'm concerned, Conyers is doing the best thing he can do to stop Bush and Cheney and get rid of them. All good things come in time. He's proceeding to hold hearings with the hopes of digging up what it takes to take things to the next level. What's there to complain about?

We're at war and this is what those traitorous asswipes in Congress are doing. Charges need to be filed against them for trying to undermine the President in time of war.

The War On Terror--and Why We Haven't Found Osama bin Laden

The War On Terror--and Why We Haven't Found Osama Bin Laden

Every couple of days, I get some dedicated idiot (sorry Les Ismore) who whines 'we should've stayed in Afghanistan', or snivels out the question of 'why are we in Iraq?', or laments 'we haven't 'gotten' bin Laden'. Oft times, they tell me how devastatingly tough they are and how 'they'--or a Democrat president--'would've gotten him' (quite forgetting that a 'Democrat president' had numerous chances to 'get him' and thoroughly chickened out (as they wish to do now). The Democrats are 'tough' only in retrospect...

We haven't 'gone after' bin Laden because bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan--he's in Pakistan's northern territories. Pervez Musharraf does not rule there--Pakistani warlords DO--and they are the ones that have said no special ops/Americans can come in to look for him, nor take him out if they find him.

Musharraf leads, and is alive, only by the slimmest margin. The help he already gives us has put his life in danger; he has suffered MANY assassination attempts. Were he to help us any more/allow us into the north, there would very probably be a coup and he would be killed.

Pakistan has nukes--and they are always into it with India (who also has nukes) and who is allied with Britain (and thus with us, as well). Were there to be a coup in Pakistan, or were we to recklessly go into the north absent Musharraf's or the warlord's permission, someone could get jumpy and a nuke could fly. India could very well respond in kind. Thus, the entire Indian subcontinent could erupt in nuclear warfare.

Now, are we supposed to risk all of that simply to get bin Laden--or ANY one man? At this point, bin Laden, if he's even still alive, is contained, he is no threat.

The USA is trying to NOT be 'imperialistic', or selfish, in abiding the wishes that we stay out of the northern regions of Pakistan. Isn't that what you Demmies are always saying we should be?
THAT'S why President Bush has not 'gone after' bin Laden and, instead, chose to do other needed work--like against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Saddam in Iraq.

This war on terror has many sides to it. As in any war, the battle is waged in many places. I do not understand how anyone on the Left can be so ignorant about warfare to not realize that.

You people would wage WWII in El Alamein, the Hurtgen Forest, Midway, Omaha Beach, Eniwetok etc. and not realize they were all part of the same war.

I am not so stupid.

Very simply, WWII was a war wherein the Allied powers (USA, the Commonwealth nations, various European exiles and others, and the Soviet Union, primarily) and the Axis powers (Germany, Italy, European annexed puppet states, and Japan) engaged one another. Battles ranged from Tobruk, Singapore, the Ardennes, the Solomon Islands, Okinawa, Dresden, Anzio, Kiev, Iwo Jima, Monte Cassino, Stalingrad, Bataan, Kasserine Pass, the Battle Of the Bulge, Manila, Vanatu, Corregidor, Messina, the Coral Sea, Aleutian Islands, Guadalcanal, etc. Find all those places on a map and you'll see just how disparate they are.

Think of our war on terror now. Think of the radical muslims as the Axis powers. Realize that we (and our allies/Israel) have to fight them in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Ethiopia, Madrid, London--wherever they are.

It is not so simple a matter that we need to engage them ONLY in Afghanistan. Our job is not to ONLY find bin Laden. Our job did not end with Saddam. Just as we did not fight WWII ONLY to avenge Pearl Harbor, or free Southeast Asia, or stop Hitler, or restore shipping lanes, or save London.

The present-day war on terror is not a case of either/or--with only ONE justifiable goal or objective--anymore than Dunkirk was justified but the Bastogne was not. Anyone on the Left who does not understand this is naive and most abjectly ignorant. Go study war and learn to fight for yourself. Be of some use to your society.

Saturday, January 27, 2007

Laugh Yourself In Half Over This One...

Hillary Clinton Sings National Anthem

DU's Daily Deluge Of Delusion

DU's Silly Hero Worship Of Goofy Al:

*Al Gore will ultimately win because he is the Hero of a Thousand Faces

He is the embodiment of the Joseph Campbell theory of myth and the universal subtext. He was cast out reluctantly and set upon a multi-stage journey of self-discovery while overcoming external ordeals. He has obtained the goal of the quest and is in the final stages of the journey - the return home where the hero shares with the rest of us the knowledge gained in his outside odyssey. See? He will win because he is supposed to, or else the story ends badly. Ok, I feel better now.
(Phoebe Loosinhouse)

*This is EXACTLY what I have been saying all over the boards.

It's a flippin' archetype! And Americans -- for that matter, most people -- CANNOT resist an archetype. If he runs, it will be irresistible.

*He's an archetype AND an antidote!

You're right. It also settles a craving for justice. Will the Hero resist his own myth? I hope not.
(Phoebe Loosinhouse)

*Yep. He's Arthur in the Sword in the Stone. (Phoebe Loosinhouse)

*It's time he takes his rightful place at the table... (fooj)

Friday, January 26, 2007

Wanna See Some REAL Men?

For Soldiers About To Rock (We Salute You)
Turn this up full blast and look at all the delicious eye candy and REAL men!

More Politics Of Envy From the Democrats

More Politics Of Envy From the Democrats

In a Newsweek column titled "How Dems Can Win White House," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., opines about the difficulties that the Democratic Party has had in defining itself.

The senator wonders, enviously, how Republicans have been able to "identify issues that connected to their deeply held values," reduce them to a few words _ eight according to Schumer _ and communicate to the American people.

"What are our eight words?" the senator asks.

But Democrats have a very clear picture of who they are. And newly elected Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, who his party picked to give their response to the president's State of the Union address, knows his party's message and communicated it clear as a bell.

Aside from the senator's criticisms about the war in Iraq, the entire substance of his thoughts about what is going on in our country was about differences in earnings. Specifically, about the differences in earnings between CEOs and the "average worker.""When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times."

So, Schumer, listen to your newly elected colleague. He has succinctly summed up what your party is about. I call it the politics of envy.

Frank Salvato Pens A Good One...

The Intellectually Stunted Practice of Bush-Bashing

To put it bluntly, I have little use for Bush-bashers. Their song is old and tired. Their mordantly indignant tirades serve to degrade not only the office of the president, but the intellectual stature of Americans in the eyes of the world.

While there is always room for genuine, thoughtful, intellectual debate, debate that supposes solutions over rhetoric, Americans have grown tolerant to the small-minded practice of Bush-bashing. If there is anything that reduces the image of Americans around the globe, it is the stunted, acerbic, bullhorn mentality of America's Fifth Column and those who join in their caustic idiom.

For the record, while I agree with much of what the president has proposed and accomplished, I disagree with him on some issues as well. So, for those who dwell amongst the unwashed masses of the Progressive-Left, for those of you who routinely condemn and label those of my opinion "Bush-bots," I say "talk to the hand."

I believe that not only should border security and immigration reform be approached as separate issues, they need to be approached as separate issues, border security being the priority. Where in the past most came to the United States in search of the American dream, today some among these pilgrims masquerade as such while harboring an agenda of ill will and a lust for killing Americans of all political ideologies.

In this post-9/11 age, it is incomprehensible that one of the wealthiest countries in the world and certainly the one with the most to lose doesn't have a physical delineated border and state-of-the-art border surveillance system.While the construction of a security fence on the Southern border has commenced, it wouldn't be out of line to say that it took damn near a revolution in this country to get to this point. It cannot be stressed strongly enough; only after the borders are secure can meaningful immigration reform be effective.

I also join in the frustration that so many feel regarding the degradation of American citizenship by a majority of our elected officials. It is unconscionable that they continue to dole out "rights" to those who have broken our laws to get here.

As taxpaying citizens bear the burden of their political generosity -- and opportunism -- it is undeniable that our nation is in need of meaningful immigration reform that reflects the realities of the 21st century while also protecting the status of citizen, no matter what.

To that end, I had suggested in a previous column that those who broke the law to get here be given only one path to citizenship, a path with real economic, legal and social penalties. Illegals should be given one choice: a) pay back taxes for the time they illegally worked here, agree to accept a felony conviction (the penalty being an extended period of probation), agree to master the English language, assimilate and forfeit the right to vote in all elections, local, state and federal, or b) be detained and summarily deported. But I digress.

Even though I disagree with President Bush on several issues, including the fact that he -- in an act of reconciliation after the 2000 election -- allowed members of the Clinton administration to stay on in key governmental roles, I do not stoop to personal attacks. I refuse to break Reagan's Rule as others of my own political affiliations have done and continue to do.

I do not cry out that Bush has betrayed the country. I don't chant "Bush lied. People died." I don't excoriate him for not clamping down on the borders, and I don't eviscerate the man because he is not clairvoyant and therefore unable to accurately see into the future where the war against radical Islamist aggression is concerned.

I refrain from attacking George W. Bush, from calling him names, from attacking his intellect and from personally degrading the man because it is the honorable, civil and right thing to do. Instead, I engage in the intellectually superior exercise of civil debate and discourse, just as I did when President Clinton was in office. Stated plainly, it is correct to honor the office, if not the man.

Taking into account the incredible events that George W. Bush has had to contend with during his presidency -- not to mention the unimaginable amount of irrational and politically cultivated hatred that has been foisted upon him and a mainstream media that facilitates it -- I find it hard to believe that either Al Gore or John Kerry could have done any better given the exact set of circumstances.

In fact, in the shadow of Harry Reid's cowardly comment that he and his congressional colleagues don't have a responsibility to engage in crafting a battle plan for victory in Iraq -- or any other battlefield in the war against radical Islamist aggression -- I would advance the notion that few could have performed as well.

Great statesmen and good politicians are measured by their accomplishments. Their stature is garnered through the advancement of solutions over rhetoric, good government over politics, not in their political longevity or the health of their political parties.

Today, there are few statesmen left in Washington, and each year, that number dwindles. We have turned away from electing statesmen like Barry Goldwater, Adlai Stevenson, Zell Miller and Henry Hyde only to saddle ourselves with the jaded political opportunism of Harry Reid, Chuck Hagel, Nancy Pelsoi, Arlen Specter and Dick Durbin. In the post-Cultural Revolution/Social Enlightenment Era in which we find ourselves, it would appear that many among us who are unwilling to read beyond the first paragraph believe that their opinion counts for something.

As our education system and progressive "it takes a village" culture invents self-esteem for those who haven't taken the time to earn it, we see a society that, increasingly, values the "free speech" of hollow, destructive rhetoric over any semblance of civility, respect, intellect or honor.

I refuse to abandon the dignity of civil discourse for the blathering of the manufactured outrage utilized by the Bush-bashers. In the end, I am adult enough to realize that he is doing what he believes is best for the country.And while I may disagree with his course of action on several issues, he is my president, he is our president, and the office, if not the man, deserves respect.

Please, Everyone Take A Moment To Thank Them

Troop Deaths Put a Heavy Toll On A&M

More than five years into America's war on terrorism, the routine at Texas A&M University — home of the Corps of Cadets — is well-established. When an Aggie is killed, the school's maroon flag is hoisted in mourning. Then it is lowered, folded and shipped to yet another grieving family.

That procedure was followed this week as the military confirmed Sean Edward Lyerly, Class of 1998, a former member of Company L-1, the Corps' Lone Star company, had died in combat in Iraq.

***** ***** *****

You May Write Them At:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I was unaware of the recent losses your brave Corps Of Cadets has sustained in fighting our most recent war. Please let me, at this time, offer you my most sincere condolences. Whatever your troop's personal politics, let them know that we deeply honor their sacrifice and consider them true American heroes. You may go to:

and see the memorial I have posted in their honor. Thank you for being patriotic Americans. I stand behind you 100%


Thursday, January 25, 2007

The Lynching Of the President

The Lynching of the President

So there I was, lying in my bed in Malibu with my dogs, watching Mr. Bush's State of the Union speech. I thought it was darned good. Realistic, gracious, modest, sensible. I happen to think we should get out of Iraq yesterday, but I thought Mr Bush put forward his case well. And Congress responded graciously and generously on both sides of the aisle.

Then, whaam, as soon as the speech was over, ABC was bashing him, telling us how pathetic he was, how irrelevant he was, how weak he was, how unrealistic he was.Right after that, Jim Webb gave a very short speech biting Bush's head off -- but not making any concrete proposals about anything. No network person mentioned how simple minded and unrealistic he was.

Then, tonight, the next night, I walked into the kitchen where my wife had left the radio going with NPR to amuse the cats. NPR was having a call-in show talking about the State of the Union. The first speaker I heard was a country music legend, Merle Haggard, who said he had never seen things so bad in this country. Then a legion of anonymous callers chimed in with similar thoughts.

And suddenly it hit me. The media is staging a coup against Mr. Bush. They cannot impeach him because he hasn't done anything illegal. But they can endlessly tell us what a loser he is and how out of touch he is (and I mean ENDLESSLY) and how he's just a vestigial organ on the body politic right now.


Take The Pledge: How Victory Trumps Party

Many Democrats are willing to encourage the enemy if it means hurting George W. Bush. They are willing to disregard the advice of the general they have just sent to do a mission if it serves their political purposes.

Chuck Hagel is thus far the only Republican to indicate that he is willing to issue the same encouragement to the enemy.

Senator Warner’s resolution has the same effect as Senator Biden’s. General Petraeus testified as to any resolution blasting the new strategy. Biden’s resolution blasts all of the strategy. Warner’s blasts the most important parts.

There is no meaningful difference in my eyes –or the eyes of General Petraeus, the MSM, or the eyes of the enemy—between the two resolutions.

Because the troops and the war trump any partisan calculation, I have helped organize a campaign to alert Republican senators that a vote for the Warner resolution, or any other similar resolution, is a deal breaker for me. I will not contribute to any senator who so votes, and I will not work for any senator who so votes.

Further, I will withhold all funds from the NRSC if the NRSC supports in the ’07-’08 cycle any Republican senator who voted for the Warner amendment.

I am not alone in this conviction, even though it may mean splitting with some friends, senators I have eagerly helped elect in the past with my time and treasure, and whom I know to be very good senators on almost all issues. At the web site more than 4,000 people signed the pledge of non-support for individual senators and the NRSC in the first six hours of its operation. Hundreds of bloggers have joined on as well. I expect the numbers to grow, and the memory of the votes of next week to remain strong for years to come.

There are two parties in the country –the victory party, and everybody else.

Crass--Not Class--Democrats

Webb Of Venom

President Bush's State of the Union Address was no barnburner. The president was serious and thoughtful, and his speech offered little in the way of rhetorical fireworks.

But if President Bush's speech was unexciting, Sen. Jim Webb's, D-Virginia, purported rebuttal was disastrous. Webb decisively demonstrated why Democrats cannot be given charge of America's foreign policy.

President Bush acknowledged that American involvement in Iraq has not gone as planned; that the sectarian violence currently wracking Iraq was hardly our goal. Nonetheless, Bush provided a realistic perspective: "This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen, on this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle."

Sen. Webb's response, by contrast, sounded like that of a divorced woman complaining about her ex-husband's penchant for leaving up the toilet seat. Webb spent a full 400 words, or well over 25 percent of his speech, whining about the genesis of the war in Iraq. "This country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years," Webb stated. "Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world."

Webb went on to indict President Bush for taking "us into this war recklessly" and, by extension, losing "opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism" and spilling "the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve." "We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable -- and predicted -- disarray that has followed," Webb charged.
This is political chicanery at its most scurrilous. Webb rewrites history for his own purposes here. Democrats voted in favor of action in Iraq with open eyes, just as Republicans did.

The invasion of Iraq has been correctly characterized as the longest telegraphed punch in the history of warfare. It was openly debated for months, and that followed a decade of debate about what to do with Saddam Hussein. There was no reckless "rush to war." Nor was the war in Iraq a lost opportunity to defeat international terrorism. Al Qaeda is particularly active in Iraq, viewing Iraq as a central front in its war against Western civilization.

But Webb's most disreputable attack was his implication that President Bush cared less about the blood of our military men and women than Webb. Webb went out of his way to champion his military service, his father's military service, his brother's military service and his son's military service, all of which was perfectly normal and commendable. Then Webb crossed the line: "We owed [the national leaders] our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it."

"Concern for our welfare." This is obscene. The idea that President Bush wrote off the lives of military men and women on a whim is an egregious slur. It is a direct slap at Bush's honor and a vile attempt to drag Bush's character through the mud.

But this is what today's liberals call "muscular liberalism." Commentators on the left raved about Webb's speech. Though Webb called for a "new direction" in Iraq, he offered not a single practical word about how to tackle the situation on the ground. Calling for "regionally based diplomacy" will not solve much in a region including the likes of Syria and Iran -- and it is certainly not "muscular."

What, then, makes Webb a "muscular liberal"? His absolute loathing for President Bush. Democrats believe that it takes more courage to obstruct President Bush and Republicans than to fight Islamism. Webb offered nothing but vitriol, and Democrats lapped it up.
President Bush is not a perfect president or a perfect man. But he is a man, not a child. On a night when President Bush spoke maturely about serious issues, Webb graphically illustrated that Democrats are simply angry adolescents not to be trusted with national security.

Rush Was Right...

Democrats Sat Whenever the ‘V’ Word Was Uttered

The most dramatic statement in the president’s State of the Union address Tuesday night did not come from the president, and it was made without speaking a single word. During his speech, President Bush spoke with conviction about the importance of achieving victory in Iraq:

“This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.”

The majority party’s response to that statement, and others, made more of an impression on me than anything the president said. In response to his call to “turn events toward victory,” the majority of congressional Democrats sat on their hands.

This Is NUTZ...

When "Chicken Little" Grows Up

Few American children miss the experience of being read the classic story of "Chicken Little." This was the chicken who was hit on the head by a falling acorn and interpreted the incident to mean that the sky was falling. Whereupon the life purpose of the Chicken Little character became to warn the world of this imminent disaster–until it was discovered that an acorn was not the sky.

This American classic children's story perhaps has a charm effect upon a child's mind but when read by an adult, the story contains a very deep, dramatic, and powerful lesson about life.

This is a story of how a "rational" misperception may forever plague the adult mind. How many times have we interpreted a situation and made a serious judgment call only to discover later that our evaluation of the circumstance was false? Tragically many adults after discovering that their original judgment or conclusion was wrong still refuse to correct their errors and stand by their original position in spite of how wrong and misguided.

No matter how intelligent, how wise, or how brilliant we may be, we occasionally make what appears to be "rational" conclusions which, after further consideration or investigation, turn out to be misinterpretations. The challenge appears when we discover that we are, as the phrase goes, "barking up the wrong tree." Admitting that one is wrong is often difficult. It is even more difficult for those who are considered "experts" with high academic credentials or those who hold high political positions. Too often these people would rather be wrong and claim they are right than to admit that they made a significant mistake in judgment.

The key turning point in the Chicken Little fable occurs when undeniable proof that the sky is not falling is presented and realized.

The lesson of this story is that one can make a total change as to how one perceives the world when a "rational" misperception is revealed. Initially one might ask, "What's so brilliant about that?" Then one realizes that few people are willing to change their mindsets even in the face of revelations which totally challenge and negate their previously held conclusion. The need to be right even when one is wrong is what needs to be overcome and dismissed.

Few children when reading this story are mature enough to understand the painstaking task that is often involved in the reevaluation of a strongly held position. Adults considering this issue realize that it can be a perplexing if not an arduous task to correct a mistaken perception yet alone a mistaken conclusion.

As one gains life experience it becomes apparent that many people who are considered bright and successful, when presented contradictory information refuse to accept it and resist modification of their conclusions regardless of the facts. The annals of human history reveal that clinging to theories which have never worked, holding to ideas that constantly fail, supporting positions that are clearly untenable, standing by actions that can only lead to dead ends, and retesting plans that in the past have only led to disasters, is a shockingly repeated scenario.

Our current day confrontation with worldwide terrorism is replete with grandiose judgment errors which appear to resist correction. What is worse, the errors in judgment are reinforced to the point that they become engraved in stone, and then are called "government policy".

For mysterious reasons America is now supplying arms as well as financial aid to its own enemy terrorists. To the disbelief of all concerned, the Israeli army has been forced into the position of transferring American weapons to the Palestinian factions which will be attempting to kill the very soldiers supplying them with these weapons. The Israeli army is appalled that it has to do this, but it cannot question the operation since it is United States' policy.

America which has been portrayed as a friend of Israel, is now not only supplying weapons to an enemy sworn to the total destruction of Israel, but even actively training the Palestinian soldiers in fighting techniques. To make sure that there are no mistaken notions surrounding this hard-to-swallow abominable situation, the Palestinian military leaders and participants in the Palestinian-American training camps have freely and publicly declared that Israel will be the victim of the American supplied warfare training and weaponry.

America which once appeared to be caring for the State of Israel has had a long history of expecting Israel to sacrifice itself for American interests. The list is extensive and includes major issues such as Jonathan Pollard being imprisoned for life; the meaningless two state solution peace plan; the requirement that Israel not respond to the thirty-nine Iraqi scud missiles that landed on the Tel Aviv in the first Gulf War; the demand that there be no Israeli supervision of the Egyptian-Gaza crossing where now millions of pounds of explosives, major weapons, and ammunition freely flow into the hands of terrorists; as well as forcing Israel to pull out of Lebanon leaving its kidnapped soldiers behind.

And likely, soon, Israel will be required to relinquish more land and terrorist prisoners in order to establish a false and failed peace which will only empower every known terrorist organization to achieve its next ultimate victory.

And what does Israel do? It supplies America with reams of military and security intelligence which American dollars could never buy.

"Land-for-Peace" is a failed and disastrous policy which is still being promoted as if it is a wonderful idea. A "two state" solutions is an unworkable situation which is still being upheld as a panacea to Middle East peace. The belief that a sworn enemy can quietly reside adjacent to its most hated nemesis and that life will be fine, is a total misjudgment. And yet the United States as well as the European Union continue to "pound the pavement" preaching this clearly foolish and impossible ideal.

America, believing the fantasy that the competing Palestinian factions will only fight and kill each other, is arming the preferred faction even though both are vehemently calling for the destruction of Israel and America–this is terrifying and tragic.

Furthermore, all this is happening under the shadow of America's proclamation that it will not prevent the continuation and completion of the Iranian nuclear reactors. Yet for all the talk, it is clearly known that soon these reactors will produce high grade plutonium, the essential ingredient for a nuclear weapon.

Chicken Little was screaming to all she could find that the sky was falling. At that time, she was wrong; she had made a major misperception. But at least when enlightened, she was able to understand that her actions were wrong and without letting her pride get in the way, she proceeded to revise and correct her interpretation. Her pride and personal image did not prevent her from admitting to the world that she was wrong. This is not happening today with our world leaders.

If Chicken Little grew up today and made it her purpose to scream to the world that the sky is falling, she would be right. She would be right to say, "Why didn't you learn from me? My story was telling you that humankind must not be stubborn and intransigent when it comes to recognizing a mistake and rectifying it?" The life of the world is at stake, it’s time to stop acting as if only an acorn has fallen.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Too Good To Pass Up:

A Wreck of a Case

The perjury trial of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, began this week, with prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald playing the role of Mike Nifong. With apologies to Gordon Lightfoot, then, and to the victims of a famous shipwreck, here's how the bards will tell the tale:

The Wreck Of the Patrick Fitzgerald

The legend lives on from main Justice on down
Of the thrill of the big prosecution
The "kill," it is said, gives a rush to one's head
When the perp for his sins makes ablutions.
And with yellowcake tales and reporters in jail,
Well, then, Patrick Fitzgerald sensed vict'ry.
But Fitz, the fed man, soon would get his hide tanned
When Bob Woodward did clear up the myst'ry.

Before Valerie Plame, the young Fitz had a name
As a g-man of growing distinction.
But his own lust for blood got him stuck in the mud,
And it's taking his case toward extinction.
'Twas Joe Wilson who lied, but not the Veep's side:
Scooter knew Cheney wasn't in peril.
Though the case it was lame, Pat's ambition, aflame,
Caused the wreck of the Patrick Fitzgerald.

Consider the background: When Robert Novak found
That Joe Wilson and Ms. Plame had reason
To make Cheney look bad; and that Wilson, that cad,
Had falsified his dates, times and seasons,
The Left changed the focus with some hocus pocus
About how Ms. Plame was a key spook.
But at Georgetown salons, her background was well known.
Her CIA links were an op/en book.

Yet, who leaked the name of "spy" Valerie Plame
Made the case just too big a treasure trove.
After all, thought the Left, if we give it some heft,
Perhaps we'll kill that SOB Karl Rove.
But their plans all died when Woodward took Rove's side
And the "leak" clearly was inadvertent.
But by now Fitz was hooked; if he produced no crook
Then his whole case would seem unimportant.

He hid Armitage, and he tried arbitrage:
In his market, the down side was prison.
But Miller endured, and her martyrdom cured
The press of buying Fitz's grand vision.
No underlying crime meant he'd wasted his time
And his glory nobody would herald.
The young prosecutor craved fame as his suitor
But fame wrecked Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald.

So, let Scooter go; let us call off this show:
By now, it is just a bad circus.
The case is a mess; and by now, more or less,
Patrick Fitzgerald has no good purpose.
The legend has died, and with it, the pride,
Of the Fitz who would go down in hist'ry.
'Cuz doubts rightly surged, and all perjury purged,
When Bob Woodward did clear up the myst'ry.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

A Limbaugh Laugh...

Rush Limbaugh Blasts A Caller:

RUSH: We'll start with Gregg in Wooster, Ohio. Gregg, thanks for waiting and welcome to the program.

CALLER: Hey, how you doing, Rush?

RUSH: Hey never better, sir.

CALLER: Thank you. I want to say, Rush... I want to ask you a question here.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: Why do you push so hard for this New World Order agenda when they send people to Iraq to die by the hundreds, seems like every day, all these Iraqis have suffered and lost their lives for this war that's unjust, and will you stand with me and take a stance and join the Resistance Manifesto (a kook document) against this war?

RUSH: No. I won't.

CALLER: You won't?

RUSH: No. I am not going to join you in the defeat of the United States of America. I'm not going to join you in your distortion of what is happening in Iraq. If you're so concerned about death, will you join me in banning the automobile? If you're so concerned with death, will you join me in holding doctors accountable for poor writing? Faulty prescriptions lead to 7,000 deaths a year. If you are so concerned about death, will you join me and ban emergency rooms, where many, many people die every day.

You, sir, are an embarrassment to me. You are an embarrassment to the country. You have a brain but you don't even use it. It's a sponge for a bunch of anti-American garbage and guilt that you soak up and then you spew it back, making yourself feel important and big and better and smarter than everybody else, when the truth is, if people like you ever end up in control of the country, we are finished! You will give it away in order to make yourself feel good that you are against death.

Three thousand Americans died in two hours on September the 11th. You have forgotten who did it. You have forgotten that they want to continue doing it or you don't believe it or you think we are to blame for it or what have you. But I'm not going to join you in any move that would ensure the defeat of the United States military and this country.

It's Already Gettin' Good! LOL!

Hillary the Calculator

(Gentlemen, start your engines...!)

When Hillary Clinton announced her presidential exploratory committee while sitting on a couch in her living room, she didn’t project warmth so much as a sense that she was desperately trying to project warmth.

As TV producer Steve Rosenbaum wrote of her performance on the liberal website The Huffington Post: “Hillary is struggling with words that are not her own. You can practically see the teleprompter reflected in her eyes. Every word has been word-smithed, every phrase looked at by a team of consultants.”

Welcome to the Hillary Clinton campaign, which will be the most blatantly calculated presidential campaign in memory.

Almost all political campaigns involve falsity and playacting, but it is Hillary’s lot in life not to be able to fake it well, so the scriptwriting and the consultants’ work show through. She seems to take the advice to “act naturally” literally, and the acting is always more in evidence than the naturalness.Thus, the great battle is joined between the ruthless, highly effective inauthenticity of Hillary Clinton and the vapid, feel-good authenticity of Barack Obama.

The Most Beautiful Words I Have Ever Read...

"My Losing Season"

These words are from Pat Conroy's wonderful book 'My Losing Season' p.376 (linked on my sidebar). It is a book of such haunting beauty that I was sobbing on page four of the prologue--and I don't even like basketball!

His comments refer to his lack of service in Viet Nam--and all his war protests--when facing one of his old teammates who had served, and served his country so well. Mr. Conroy displays unstinting courage in facing who he was, and what he did.... and what, by his own admission, he should have done, all those years ago.

Please get this book and read it; never has a man bravely taken his own measure so completely.

A Long Read, But A Great One!

The REAL State of the Union
by John L. Perry

It is the same as always; only more than ever, the world is looking to America.

Eleven score and eleven years ago, our forebears brought forth upon this continent a new nation whose founding principles have transformed every human life since.

Within merely 231 trips by this small planet around the sun, the United States of America has become the Great Enigma of all recorded history: We are the most-envied, most-admired, most-coveted, most-desired place on earth to live and work and play and raise a family. Yet we are the most-resented, most-reviled, most-rejected, most-hated nation on Earth.

More people want to weaken us, harm us, destroy us and conquer us than any other land. Large in number, they remain a global minority.

The enigma unveils a tormenting conundrum: No people in all of history have been more caring, more generous of their substance to help fellow inhabitants of this globe. No other nation has so magnanimously forgiven its debtors their debts. No other nation, at such cost in blood and treasure, has ridden to the rescue more often to save other nations from enslavement.

Tolerating the Intolerable

No other nation has tolerated — vigorously protected — its own internal critics' freedom to abuse, malign, lie about, and defame its own principles and its own freely elected leaders to the extent the United States has. No other nation has made a safe harbor, and principally financed, within the heart of its largest city a global town square for other nations to send their officials to speak slander and hurl epithets against their host.

Amid all this, the nation whose risky course on a hostile sea of international scoffing and belittling was set in 1776 by a small band of brave, God-fearing patriots is today the best-fed, best-clothed, best-housed, and best-educated, the healthiest and the safest, most fully employed and creatively occupied nation on the face of the earth. It is, by virtue of its own merits and hard work, and the inadequacies and foolishness of other nations, now the world's only superpower — powerful enough to destroy, many times over, all life on this planet.

Yet it is a nation that has no territorial ambitions. It covets no other people's assets. Only those who threaten the United States with harm have cause to fear it.

At no time in history has productivity been higher, unemployment lower, and inflation virtually inoperative than in America today. All of that is following on the heels of the murderous assault of Sept. 11, 2001, a calamity that would have paralyzed most cultures, but made Americans only stronger.

Soiling Their Own Nest

Despite a worldwide organized aggregation of terrorism bent on America's annihilation, there are within our midst those who are wallowing in the luxury to hate America, to blame it first and foremost for all the world's ills and to join the chorus of America's enemies abroad. Such craven treachery has always been part of the American scene. Still, the American ship of state sails on.

It is indeed an enigmatic global — and domestic scene — for an American to ponder.

What to make of it all?

First, never forget what it is to be an American — and to thank God every day for that unique blessing, a blessing that carries with it a commensurate responsibility.

Second, never forget what it is America stands for.

Finally, never, never abandon the fight — wherever it may break out, wherever it may call — to keep America safe.

America needs to back off from all the lesser quarrels, the shabby compromises, the petty diversions, and look at the larger picture.

No End in View

America is a long, long way from the end of this war of terror that was thrust upon us. Those of us alive today will very likely not see its end. Nor may our children. Nor may theirs.

Ultimate victory, or ultimate defeat, will come, for that is what ultimate means.

In this long, unwinding conflict America will suffer setbacks and experience advances. The authentic picture will not be revealed in the most-recent image on the television screen, but in the lengthy cavalcade of events that yet lie ahead.

What will it cost to win that ultimate victory? The only answer is: It really doesn't matter. For the cost, whatever it is, will be unbearable should we fail. That is why America must do whatever it has to do.

Expect Even More Travail

Already, a painful number of American families have had to bear the dreadful cost of loss of life of loved ones. This burden will spread and grow more weighty, as casualties continue. There is no way to avoid that awful reality. Great, and then greater, sacrifice looms, for more and more Americans.

Life in the United States, as we now know that style of life, will not continue, and will never fully return, in its present form. Carefree days of self-indulgence and wishful denial will wrench to a close.

In its borning years, the United States was in mortal danger. Those times are upon us again. What is at stake is our very survival.

It Is Nothing New

In those grim years, when there were no assurances this new nation could make it past the next day, even into the next season, Americans did not give up. They never lost sight of the light ahead.

We stand once again in their shoes.

America had allies then. America has allies now. America will have them tomorrow.
While we strive for our own, our children's own, survival we are also called upon to help our friends. America will not abandon those friends.

The flickering flame of the small candle of liberty that was handed to us in 1776 is now a towering flame of hope for the whole world. All across the lands where people are held in bondage, threatened with mutilation and death, degraded beyond belief, there is that growing realization that they, too, can be a part of this sweetest of revolutions — the American revolution of free men and women.

Too Late to Turn Back Now

This is causing great upheaval and strife, in the Arab states, all across the Middle East, up and down the archipelagoes and peninsulas of Asia, crisscrossing the South American continent, all over Africa from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean, from the Horn to the Atlantic.
The present conflict in Mesopotamia is but one of many battles that will be fought, some won, some lost.

The inescapable reality, the welcome news, is that the genie of liberty is now out of the bottle, and can never be stuffed back in again. The beautiful part is, it is all our fault.

Small wonder America is so hated in all the dark corners where tyranny, quite correctly, feels threatened. In the highest compliment attainable, we are hated because of who we are and for what we stand. So, let us stand tall and relish the hatred we have earned.

For This We Are Guilty

Yes, America is to blame for this out-of-control wildfire, for America, in 1776, struck the spark.
We must never cease nurturing, never cease fanning that spark. Or history will never forgive us.

What, then, is the real State of the Union in 2007? It is in 2007 what it has always been — in mortal peril and at the same time on the threshold of historical greatness.

This is no time for crawfishing or for cowering, for regretting or for retreating. This is a time for renewal and rejoicing.

America will not be defeated. America will not be destroyed. That is the magnificent promise, the grand adventure of history that Americans have inherited.

We have one another. We have our friends. We have our faith in the Almighty. And we have the sure and certain knowledge that the multitudes of this planet are on our side, too.

They sense, and we should know: America is on the right side of history.

The Democrats having, once again, been their most exquisitely lousy selves had rather depressed me lately. I thought about Barbara Boxer's incomparable crassness to Dr. Rice, Jim Webb's unbelievable rudeness to the President at a handshake, Ellison's treachery in drawing up papers for Mr. Bush's impeachment--even while his palm was held on the Koran in front of him and he was being sworn into office--and I thought 'yes, they are only being what we knew them to be'...

However, John Perry's beautiful words have stirred me again and reminded me that, I should not look at the pettiness of those who I knew were petty, but at the greatness of America still before me. (Oh, and for the 69% of the bedwetters who think America is a 'poor' country, or one that is no longer great--you can all go f*** yourselves--in my own crass gesture of exactly what I think of you!)