| |
The Lunch Counter
|
Friday, September 29, 2006
|
|
By passing the 'Military Commissions Bill' today, the Senate has validated that which was already precedent. That, and the affirmation that enemy combatants can be held until the end of the war, and under the military jurisdiction and control. So if this war takes 10, 20, 50, or 60 years to complete, then that's how long they'll be there. Watching democrats like Kucinich and Leahy demand that enemy combatants (a special class of people they just can't get a grip on) be given constitutional rights was quite revealing. They are whining about constitutional violations when the object of the bill are terrorists, not Joe Blow across the street. They are the ones who believe that the U.S. Constitution is a suicide pact. Well, it isn't.
Military Commissions Bill Passes Easily. [Power Line]
12:51:14 AM 
|
|
|
|
Thursday, September 28, 2006
|
|
Rice Says Time Is Running Out for Iran To Suspend Enrichment. The United States is willing to give European Union negotiator Javier Solana a bit more time to pursue negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program before pushing for U.N. Security Council sanctions, but Iran’s time is running out, according to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “It is important in keeping a coalition together to -- if people want to explore something that doesn't move you very far off course -- to go ahead and explore it,” Rice tells journalists. [US State Dept - Washington File]
1:11:44 AM
|
|
The country's honorary mayor, Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, takes the high road. Which leaves Bill and Hillary down there.
"I know President Bush doesn't say that about President Clinton," said Giuliani. "I think the reality is that any American president, if they had known about an attack, would have done everything they could to stop it."
The real fault for 9/11, Giuliani says, lies squarely with the Islamic terrorists. He added, "I think we should stop trying to blame our presidents for 9/11."
A presidential match-up between Rudy and Hillary would be delicious. Her campaign will focus on Rudy, and Rudy's campaign will focus on Americans. Hillary would get spanked. And I apologize for that image.
12:11:00 AM
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
|
|
Slurp It: 7-Eleven Dumps Chavez's CITGO. It's good to see business taking community and country responsibility seriously. Now what about our U.S. Navy getting another gas vendor in the Navy Exchanges in this country? Citgo is an exclusive vendor there.
7-Eleven stores 20-year supply agreement with CITGO Petroleum Corporation, a U.S.-based company, ends next week, and 7-Eleven, Inc. is now making the switch to its own branded gasoline. Distributors for the gasoline that 7-Eleven stores begin selling in October is provided to us by U.S. companies, such as Tower Energy Group in Torrance, Calif., Sinclair Oil of Salt Lake City and Frontier Oil Corporation of Houston.
4:25:09 PM
|
|
Yesterday, President Bush and Afghanistan's President Karzai gave a press conference at which Jennifer Loven of the Associated Press demanded to know how Bush can say that the Iraq war has made us safer, when the partially-leaked National Intelligence Estimate says the war has fueled jihadism around the world. We quoted Bush's answer, as well as Karzai's contribution, yesterday, and video of Karzai was on Hot Air yesterday, too. But Bush was also excellent, and if you haven't seen it, the video is well worth a look:
[Power Line]
4:10:41 PM
|
|
The Democrats evidently aren't happy with the release of the "key judgments" of the National Intelligence Estimate on global terrorism, because now they've demanded that the White House release the entire report.
That will get them what they're looking for, i.e., headlines like this one: "White House refuses to release full NIE." The Democrats knew, obviously, that the administration can't release the entire document without both endangering agents and compromising the ability of intelligence analysts to write candid assessments without worrying that their work product will wind up in the newspaper. But for now, at least, they can change the subject.
Ted Kennedy weighed in with the most surreal attack:
"The American people deserve the full story, not those parts of it that the Bush administration selects," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.
That would be hilarious, if it were not so contemptible. When Democrats in the bureaucracy illegally leaked misleading portions of the NIE's "key judgments" in hopes of influencing the election, that was fine with Kennedy. But when the administration declassified the entire "judgments" section so that the American people can read it all and judge for themselves, now Kennedy complains that the voters aren't getting "the full story." Absolutely outrageous, but typical of the Democrats' ever more hysterical campaign. [Power Line]
3:43:09 PM
|
|
Sen. Allen accused by one person, and not from 17 others who knew him from college some 30 years ago, of using the N word. And boy is the left in a political tizzy over that? They have a one-page playbook. Don't discuss issues, destroy them personally and professionally so you can win by default.
I'm sick of Democrats playing the race card in every election. Why? To get votes. From who? Blacks, not Whites. Aside from being a disgusting thing to do to someone not deserving of it, what's more disgusting is that it works. It's about time for Black Democrats to be insulted by Democrats pulling their racial achilles heel every election and kick them to the curb on that basis alone. Seems to me they depend on stirring up racial tension lest Blacks may vote Republican. As close as elections have been since 2000, they must feel it mandatory to scare Blacks into voting Democrat. A few percentage points loss of the Black vote will be trouble for Democrats getting their power back. And we know that Democrats getting their power back is more important than stirring up racial tensions, don't we?
And what am I to make of this thing with Oprah? Is this supposed to be a joke? Satire? Shoe on the other foot, would it be funny if Sen. Allen made comments like Oprah is doing today? Sounds like she is on a take-a-whitey-to-lunch kind of thing. What's up with that?
1:31:34 AM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
|
|
Haven't heard one peep from anyone wanting to find out who leaked to the New York Times again. The level and preponderance of people willing to commit treason is astounding. Bush isn't 'playing politics' when he says that the leaker, whoever it was, was playing politics by leaking a sentence out of context from a secret report called a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), to give the wrong impression that that is the overall conclusion of the report. On that point, he is obviously right. If only the democrats would devote half their energy to fighting this war instead of fighting Bush and undermining the war effort and the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, we may have been out of there by now. So for this reason alone, I'm glad the President ordered the key judgements of the report declassified. That's only fair. Right?
But that's not enough for Harry Reid and the democrats. Reid wants it all declassified. Never mind that they have absolutely no say in what gets declassified, and that the parts relevant to their claim should be enough, but the precedent that they will establish is dangerous at the very least. The precedent to completely interfere and usurp the war-making powers of the presidency by investigating every last move to make it public and politicize it, oblivious to the fact that all of it helps the hearts and minds of the enemy, in addition to liberals.
Did I say oblivious to the fact? No, he's not that stupid. He knows, and they know, that this kind of behavior is spread over the globe in a matter of seconds. They also know that, aside from the battlefields, there is also a propaganda war going on, and this kind of behavior helps the enemy. Sen. Dick (Turban) Durbin produces the propaganda for the enemy free-of-charge. It doesn't make you patriotic, or a patriot, to act like that in such a public way. Publicly, all of the politicians should be behind the president and decide (or at least pretend) that it's OK to win this war. This isn't a war you walk away from. Otherwise, it will follow you. Read it.
Liberals' interest in protecting classified information started and ended with Valerie Plame. It's no big deal if a leak will bring harm to either the President or the war effort. To them, it's a plus if it will do both.
Declassified Key Judgements of the National Intelligence Estimate. Read it. Then imagine the consequences of leaving Iraq prematurely.
11:27:13 PM
|
|
Homeschooling, school vouchers, accountability, all are ways to combat 'the soft bigotry of low expectations' when it comes to educating our children to become successful and productive members of society. That goal isn't a race thing, its a human thing. The demographics of 'the educated' can, however, be described in racial and ethnic terms, but only at the risk of being counterproductive. There is evidence now that homeschooling among Black families is on the rise, the results of which can only be good for the kids, the families, and society.
What matters is what counts, and what counts is our children, not brick and mortar schools, not teachers unions, not bureaucrats.
ref: A new homeschooling movement led by Black families.
9:05:02 AM
|
|
|
|
Monday, September 25, 2006
|
|
War In Iraq Increasing Terrorist Threat
We have two problems with our national security. One is the leaking of classified information to the New York Times, a crime last I knew. The other is the reporting of that classified information, knowing that it is, or was, classified information. To say that the New York Times functions as the intelligence wing of al-Qaeda is not a stretch.
The meat of this intelligence assessment is nothing new. In fact, it was predicted. On October 6, 2005, President Bush gave a major address on the war on terror and Iraq before the National Endowment for Democracy; you can read the whole thing here. A part of that speech covered exactly what this National Intelligence Estimate, that Democrats are foaming at the mouth about, said. Counting on the fact that the MSM and most on the left don't pay attention to Bush when he talks about the war, the Democrats expose it now as a big surprise and a 'see I told you so' to their vacuous position toward the war on terror. In their hatred for Bush, they have cast themselves to represent or actually advocate for 'the other side' in this war. But that was of their own doing. Can't blame that on Karl Rove.
What Bush said almost a full year ago:
Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001 -- and al Qaeda attacked us anyway. The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse. The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet the militants killed more than 180 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan.
Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers -- and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.
On the contrary: They target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory.
Democrats use report to hit GOP over Iraq policy. Democrats on Sunday seized on an intelligence assessment that said the Iraq war has increased the terrorist threat, saying it was further... [The Seattle Times: Politics]
President Discusses War on Terror
Liberals' interest in protecting classified information started and ended with Valerie Plame.
7:25:10 AM
|
|
|
|
Sunday, September 24, 2006
|
|
Well that's what it was. And he was his 'ole self again, when he gets riled up. As he practically leaps out of his chair to get in Chris Wallace's face, and poking him with that famous finger, Bill Clinton said his piece in defense of his efforts to get bin Laden. Also accusing Chris Wallace of doing 'a conservative hit job' on him, as a 'right-winger.' Yup, poor victim Bill, that vast right-wing conspiracy again. All in all, it was a perfect display of a man on a mission to embarrass himself in making excuses and admissions in his 'obsession' with bin Laden. All over this legitimate question, 'Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida?'
 After complaining that the premise of the interview was ignored for not having asked questions about his fund raising campaign on some global climate issue, Clinton would not let Wallace return to the fundraising project he was there to talk about. Instead, Bill wouldn't let himself stop defending his legacy on terrorism and protecting the American people.
Clinton accused Wallace and Fox for not asking anyone in the Bush administration the so-called tough question that he was being asked. Questions like, in retrospect, do you think you could have done more, do you think you did enough? Oh how unfair of Wallace, NOT. Wallace did ask virtually the same question of Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld in March of 2004.
Claiming victim status, Clinton said no body asked Bush about retaliating for the attack on the USS Cole. Chris didn't either, he mentioned it in the broader sense of combating terrorism after a number of attacks. Patterico addresses this here:
Like Clinton, Think Progress shifts the argument to specific questions about the U.S.S. Cole, in order to argue that Clinton is correct:
Neither Chris Wallace, nor his predecessor, Tony Snow ever asked anyone in the Bush administration why they failed to respond to the bombing of the USS Cole, according to a Lexis-Nexis database search.
That may technically be true. If you simply plug the terms “U.S.S. Cole” and “Fox News Sunday” into a Nexis search engine, it may well be the case that Bush officials were not asked specifically about the response to the Cole. But that wasn’t Wallace’s question. Wallace had simply mentioned the Cole as part of a detailed question about terror acts that occurred on Clinton’s watch, culminating in a question asking why Clinton hadn’t done more — the same question Wallace asked Rumsfeld in 2004.
Clinton referred to Richard Clarke's book no less than 11 times demanding we read his book, that the facts are all in there, and they refute the notion that he didn't do all he could to kill bin Laden. I didn't read Clarke's book, but Byron York apparently did, and provides this among other quotes from Clarke's book, from page 225:
Because of the intensity of the political opposition that Clinton engendered, he had been heavily criticized for bombing al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, for engaging in ‘Wag the Dog’ tactics to divert attention from a scandal about his personal life. For similar reasons, he could not fire the recalcitrant FBI Director who had failed to fix the Bureau or to uncover terrorists in the United States. He had given the CIA unprecedented authority to go after bin Laden personally and al Qaeda, but had not taken steps when they did little or nothing. Because Clinton was criticized as a Vietnam War opponent without a military record, he was limited in his ability to direct the military to engage in anti-terrorist commando operations they did not want to conduct. He had tried that in Somalia, and the military had made mistakes and blamed him. In the absence of a bigger provocation from al Qaeda to silence his critics, Clinton thought he could do no more.
The Clinton show today answers the question as to why he hadn't done any interviews on Fox News Sunday before, and probably never will again. It's tough to defend the indefensible, and he doesn't posses the self-control necessary to have a sit-down conversation about tough issues.
10:59:01 PM
|
|
|
|
Saturday, September 23, 2006
|
|
Great news in the war on terror. According to leading democrats in Washington, getting bin Laden is the goal. So if, as French intelligence (an oxymoron if there ever was one) has it, he is now dead, does that mean that the war on terror is over? Oh how fun it would be to go back to that pre-9/11 mindset. Somebody better inform the Islamofascists around the world that it's over. Sounds like a good job for Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
gorrell
6:44:03 PM
|
|
|
|
Friday, September 22, 2006
|
|
Three Democrats Defend Bush Against Chavez. What a pile of you know what. A politically calculated defense is more like it. Of course Chavez is an idiot. That goes without saying, and explains why three democrats make 'news' for stating that which is obvious to mainstream America. Look who feels a need to distance themselves from the rants of  Chavez, who sounds very much like these liberals over the last 4 years. That's why it is they who are 'defending' Bush.
It's not a stretch to suggest that Chavez was simply following the lead of former presidents and wannabes. After all, he sees John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and others trash our president in Europe, Saudi Arabia, as well as the United States. Why get upset about it now? Bush is handling it right by ignoring him.
Three Democrats Defend Bush Against Chavez. Despite tepid relations with President Bush, two House Democrats and one Democratic senator took exception Thursday to remarks by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who twice called Bush 'the devil' while delivering remarks in New York City this week. By foxnewsonline@foxnews.com. [FOXNews.com]
12:34:45 AM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, September 21, 2006
|
|
Hugo Chavez, the hemisphere's idiot, and de facto owner of Citgo United States is one thing. And learning that the United States is giving up our tax dollars to Chavez to the tune of about a million dollars a day is another. But did you know that Citgo gas stations are on every Navy Base in the United States? After his idiotic rants in the United Nations General Assembly, and everywhere else that our nation's leading anti-Bush anti-war liberals arrange him to speak, it is time to come to our senses with Chavez and Citgo.
Chavez pimps his Citgo gas in Harlem and in the Northeast to stick it to Bush as much as he thinks he can. The Navy needs to get a new vendor in there to replace Citgo. I decided months ago what to do with my Citgo credit card. You, and everyone else who knows about Chavez's connection to Citgo, will make up your own mind.
11:50:48 PM
|
|
The United Nations finest hour, or week. Growing coca, as in cocaine ingredients, is just fine. Sudan? They'll be fine too, as soon as all the native Africans are murdered, things will just be another haven for terrorists because there won't be anyone else there who isn't a 'believer'. No genocide going on there. Iran? Eh, forget about that Security Council resolution that required Iran to stop refining uranium for other than electricity production, as in nuclear weapons. We didn't really mean to hurt Iran's feelings. And the icing on the cake is the anti-Bush pep rally going on in the General Assembly of despots, dictators, and terrorists.
Bolivian leader defends his drug policy (AP).
 AP - Bolivian president Evo Morales brandished a coca leaf on the floor of the United Nations Tuesday in a passionate rebuke of U.S. criticisms of the South American nation's anti-drug policies.
[Yahoo! News: Politics News]
4:36:45 PM
|
|
|
|
Monday, September 18, 2006
|
|
Am wondering why there hasn't been any polls taken in Arizona to test the will of the people there concerning the position their Sen. John McCain has taken regarding removing effective tools of the war on terror. So focused on polls and our 'image' around the world as McCain and most democrats are, I wonder if the people of Arizona are on board with their Senator, on removing the tools that have saved lives at the risk of costing us more innocent lives?
related: The Geneva Contention, Playing Politics With Our Lives, Again
8:29:06 AM
|
|
|
|
Saturday, September 16, 2006
|
|
Some Muslims react to the Pope of centuries ago the same way they react to cartoonists.
"In order to express their displeasure with the idea that Muslims are violent, thousands of Muslims around the world engaged in rioting, arson, mob savagery, flag-burning, murder and mayhem, among other peaceful acts of nonviolence."
 Radical Muslims in Somalia shoot and kill a 60 year old Italian nun in the back, twice, along with another hospital worker and the nun's bodyguard. One may wonder why a nun should even need a bodyguard?
Am waiting to hear condemnation of the murders from even one Imam. Why do they choose to use an academic lecture, the point of which was to promote everybody getting along, and that violence between faiths is not the answer, to respond violently? Is there no room for intellectual honesty in Islam?
That these hopelessly ignorant, hopelessly desperate, and hopelessly helpless people are so easily riled up to commit murder presents a problem that only the Imams can remedy. So why are they inciting this violence instead of trying to quash it?
Uma Bharti, a politician in India most accurately nails this phenomenon like this:
"Whether I agree (to the views of the Pope) or not is debatable." Bharti said that "Islamic fundamentalism has increased" because of jehadis. The fundamentalists are responsible for linking jehad with Islam," she said. Muslim leaders should tell the terrorists not to link jehad with Islam, she said.
Washington Post: Remarks by Pope Prompt Muslim Outrage, Protests
Michelle Malkin: Sister Leonella Sgorbati, RIP
9:04:28 AM
|
|
|
|
Friday, September 15, 2006
|
|
To the left, and the MSM, it only takes four senators to make a 'revolt' or a 'rebellion.' As has happened before to the Bush administration, the slim republican majority is not enough to overcome the RINOs in the bunch. These four are politicians playing politics with our lives.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona is again the leader of the pack that includes Sens. John Warner of Virginia, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine. The media calls it a 'revolt.' I call it a push to give the enemy an upper hand.
All Bush is asking for is what the Supreme Court said needed to happen, that is, to codify the way our intelligence operations have been operating. Bush said that those activities will stop unless they do. He further explained that he will not put our soldiers at risk of breaking the law or of being sued by a terrorist for trying to do their job. And until they do, we will no longer be able to get the helpful information we've been getting to stop future attacks. These politicians are risking our lives. We're the ones they need to be interested in protecting, not our enemy.
I have not been this angry with what's been going on in our government since Vietnam. Only this time, the battle ground will soon be in our streets if these RINO's and the democrats get their way.
McCain's attempt at equivalency with the terrorists is sickening to me. All the detainees we've captured are still alive, doing well, with a medical plan that no other prisoner in the world has. I remember the last time two of our soldiers were captured by these terrorists. They hacked them up with machetes.
McCain's objection is that if Bush's request was passed, that the terrorists will do the same. To think that this enemy would do the same is insane. They slaughter them. We could only hope that the terrorists would do the same. They would be alive and well. In reality, the terrorists have no use for health care of their prisoners. They kill them.
McCain misses the mark entirely when he says that the Bush request would put our soldiers in some kind of jeopardy. It is us, here in the United States that would be in jeopardy, not our soldiers. Time has run out. Let your Senator know that you don't want them to give up on fighting this war, to do so would be at our own peril.
Bush fights GOP revolt over terror bill (AP).
 AP - President Bush fought back Friday against a Republican revolt in the Senate over tough anti-terror legislation and rejected warnings that the United States had lost the high moral ground to adversaries. "It's flawed logic," he snapped.
[Yahoo! News: Politics News]
Related: Are Democrat Judiciary Committee Members acting like a Public Defender for al-Qaida? "It is the intent of these Democrats to criminalize interrogation techniques that are not torture, so as to take down this administration and the whole war on terror as it involves Iraq." 01/09/05
11:51:26 PM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, September 14, 2006
|
|
Here's a reality TV show worth watching, Al Gore and Bill Clinton competing for Kofi Annan's job at the United Nations. Among the benefits, they can badmouth this country from New York City instead of Europe and Asia, and there's never any pressure to do anything substantive.
U.N.'s Kofi Annan Reportedly Cashes In [NewsMax.com]
8:46:51 AM
|
|
Its not that they are taking their queue from Kofi Annan and the vast majority of the United Nations members, it's that this 'World Bank' group are from the same cloth. The UN and Kofi have yet to implement even one recommendation of Paul Volker's report, that the UN asked for, to investigate the Oil-For-Food program scandal to wherever it leads, and make recommendations. But Kofi is not interested in implementing any of it. Similarly, the World Bank organization apparently sees no incentive to reform their corrupt selves either. But both the UN and the World Bank sure expect, and depend on, our hard-earned money to keep them both from extinction.
We should be able to know that the corruption is gone before they are allowed to suckle off of America's nipple again. Cut them off. I'd give them 6 months, like the John Kerry plan. As opposed to the Howard Dean plan which would be immediately. They'll have 6 months to step up and fix the corruption. Else we're outta here, have a nice day. This is one example where cut-and-run would work.
Wolfowitz Corruption Drive Rattles World Bank. World Bank president Paul D. Wolfowitz’s fight against corruption in poor countries has drawn criticism for its aggressive approach. By STEVEN R. WEISMAN. [NYT > Home Page]
12:25:57 AM
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
|
|
65 tortured bodies found around Baghdad. How could they tell they were tortured? Do you think they found ipods full of the Red Hot Chili Peppers on the bodies, or was it something more acceptable, like body parts ripped off and single gunshots to the skull?
5:52:51 PM
|
|
It seems that rabid-radio, otherwise called Air America Radio, is on its way to a new direction. Bankruptcy. Will investor (boy is that ever a misnomer?) and AAR director Mike Papantonio pony up some more bucks to carry them over for one more year?
From NewsMax; Air America Denies Bankruptcy Report.
Franken, however, confirmed that the network, which debuted in March 2004, is suffering from cash-flow problems. He told Radar Online about the bankruptcy claim: "I don't know if that's true or not. We do know that there have been cash-flow problems. I haven’t been paid in a while. Like, there’s no cash flowing to me.”
Maybe they just weren't rabid enough, maybe they just need one more year of paying people to carry their program before sponsors will come to their senses and pay to keep them on the air through advertising? There's something about that business plan that is missing. It's the same thing that has always been missing. Demand. There's always the possibility that their talkers would stay on for no pay. Many of them are multi-millionaires anyway.
Meanwhile, if you want to help keep Air America on the air, send them a contribution if you're a wealthy democrat or republican. There's probably nothing that the Papster would like more than to advocate in a court somewhere that they need the 'fairness doctrine' back because it's not fair that people don't drink their cool-aid. WwwWaaaaaa!!!
4:57:26 PM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
|
|
|
|
Saturday, September 09, 2006
|
|
The jig is up for Joe Wilson. His house of cards came tumbling down, again. Ann Coulter has a wonderful summation of this fraud committed by Joe Wilson and his wife, and their accomplices in the media, in her latest article entitled Joe Wilson: The End Of An Error. Excerpt below.
"Last July Wilson wrote an op-ed piece in The New York Times saying that this particular intelligence regarding Iraq was false. A week later, columnist Robert Novak revealed that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA operative."
This is like saying: "John Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan; Reagan later died." Every word of that is true, but what it implies -- that Hinckley killed Reagan -- is false.
In the exact same way, the grand White House conspiracy promoted by Wilson and the mainstream media cites chronological events to prove causation.
3:50:01 PM
|
|
He must be reading the New York Times. 
&nb | |
