Ye-ah Baby! Rumsfeld Telling It Like It Is

Rumsfeld: Bush foes lack courage on terror

CNN.com
2:00 p.m. EDT, August 29, 2006

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration's Iraq and counterterrorism policies of lacking the courage to fight terror.

In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration's critics as suffering from "moral and intellectual confusion" about what threatens the nation's security.

Addressing several thousand veterans at the American Legion's national convention, Rumsfeld recited what he called the lessons of history, including the failed efforts to appease the Adolf Hitler regime in the 1930s.

"I recount this history because once again we face the same kind of challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism" he said.

Never have truer words been spoken, I know because I've been saying this for some time. The Democrats are apparently incapable of comprehending the lesson of Neville Chamberlains failures. His constent attempts at appeasement directly led to WW II. Democrats and the critics of President Bush can't understand that appeasement to enemies of freedom is interpreted by them as weakness. It was so in 1937, it was so in 1953, and it is so now. Peace through strength is not just a slogan, it is a fact repeatedly proven to be true by practical experience.

Rummy is right and this is precisely why idiots of the type who elected Ned Lamont must never be allowed to govern this country. Those like the denizens of DemocraticUnderground and dailyKos are so fearful that they would sell this nation down the river in an instant were they faced with a real threat against our nation...such as, for instance, Hizbollah or al Qaeda. They believe that we, not the terrorists are the evil influence on the world. They hate America for being America.

Full Story: Rummy Nails the Democrats

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

The Answer Is...Armitage Not Rove

Ex-Colleague Says Armitage Was Source of CIA Leak

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 29, 2006; Page A06

The leak of information about an undercover CIA employee that provoked a special prosecutor's investigation of senior White House officials came from then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, according to a former Armitage colleague at the department.

Armitage told newspaper columnist Robert D. Novak in the summer of 2003 that Valerie Plame, the wife of a prominent critic of the Iraq war, worked for the CIA, the colleague said. In October of that year, Armitage admitted to senior State Department officials that he had made the remark, which was based on a classified report he had read.

Novak collected what he considered to be a confirming comment from White House political strategist Karl Rove, then wrote a column in July 2003 that cited Plame's CIA employment as a reason to question the credentials of the critic, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

In 2002, the CIA sent Wilson to Niger to determine whether Iraq was seeking nuclear material there. He subsequently accused the White House of distorting intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq.

So now we know. It was not Rove (the malevolent master of all Democrat nightmares). We also know that Prosecutor Fitzgerald has been on a witch hunt. He knew in the first few days who the source of the leak was, yet instead of folding up his tent and going home, he has pursued an inquisition apparently with the sole goal of making a name for himself.

If he already knew who was involved, why did he feel it necessary to set the FBI out to entrap Scooter Libby into committing perjury?

I know the Libs just hate this revelation because Armitage was one of their heroes in this administration.

Full Story: Should We Frog-March Armitage?

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Democrat's Disgusting Politicization of Katrina

The President and His Critics Mark Anniversary Along Coast

By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 29, 2006; Page A01

BILOXI, Miss., Aug. 28 -- A year after Hurricane Katrina devastated Mississippi and Louisiana, President Bush and Democratic leaders are converging on the Gulf Coast this week to commemorate the losses while continuing the political argument over the federal response to the country's largest natural disaster.

Arriving Monday in this seaside city for the first stop of a two-day visit that later took him to New Orleans, Bush paid homage to the grit of ordinary Mississippians in their efforts to rebuild their communities and promised that his administration will not neglect them as memories of the storm fade.

-------------snip----------------

In an interview, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast is going "not very well," and asserted that federal agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Small Business Administration are botching the delivery of federal funds to individuals and small enterprises. "Yes, the recovery is underway," she said. "It is still painfully slow. We have unnecessarily lost so much because the system is overburdened."

Landrieu has been joined by Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) for parts of what she has termed a "Hope and Recovery" tour for the region.

Now, now Mary, credit where credit is due. Remember, your state is a Democrat Paradise. New Orleans was a Socialist Paradise. It was your party that caused this "disaster" more than any other entity.

Diverting of levee funds, corruption at local level, incompetence of Mayor "Neglectful" Nagin. Disregard for the warnings given the state decades ago that the levees in New Orleans were only rated for a catagory 3 hurricane. These are Democrat policies, not FEMA or Presidential policies.

Oh and before you make to much of an ass out of yourself Harry (too late) I say to you Hurricane Floyd, Hurricane Floyd. Truly a triumph of epic proportions for "Democrat Leadership."

Full Story: For Democrats, Human Tragedy is Merely a Political Tool

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

E.J.'s Wishful Thinking

Slowly Sidling To Iraq's Exit
Many GOP Candidates Part Company With Bush

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006; Page A15

By Election Day, how many Republican candidates will have come out against the Iraq war or distanced themselves from the administration's policies?

August 2006 will be remembered as a watershed in the politics of Iraq. It is the month in which a majority of Americans told pollsters that the struggle for Iraq was not connected to the larger war on terrorism. They thus renounced a proposition the administration has pushed relentlessly since it began making the case four years ago to invade Iraq.

That poll finding, from a New York Times-CBS News survey, came to life on the campaign trail when Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.), one of the most articulate supporters of the war, announced last Thursday that he favored a time frame for withdrawing troops.

Shays is in a tough race for reelection against Democrat Diane Farrell, who has made opposition to the war a central issue. After his 14th trip to Iraq, Shays announced that "the only way we are able to encourage some political will on the part of Iraqis is to have a timeline for troop withdrawal."

E.J. you Democrats are really funny, you get agreement from some of the most Liberal, most political, and shakiest Republicans and suddenly the entire Republican Party is crumbling in their support for the war in Iraq. You cite McCain's statement as if it is some sort of revelation. Taking the statements of an unstable, arguably psychotic Republican Presidential Candidate in waiting as representative of anything other than that pip-squeak's own ego is delusional.

Democrats have nothing to offer America except complaints. I keep hearing about this great "Democrat Plan" but as far as I can tell, there is nothing but rhetoric. Why is it that Democrats want so much for America to be defeated? Why do Democrats hate America so much? Why do they mention each American Soldiers death with such relish?

Notes for Democrats: Whining is not a governing policy. Hatred of President Bush is not a qualification for leading the nation. Cowardess is not a qualification for command of our military. Cut and Run is not a strategy for success. "Over the Horizon" redeployment of troops in Iraq to "Okinawa" is not even sane, nor is it "Over the Horizon."

Full Story: Democrat Cowards for Governmental Leadership?

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Ultimate Test for New Iraqi Government

Sadr's Militia and the Slaughter in the Streets
'We Don't Need a Verdict,' One Commander Says

By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, August 25, 2006; Page A01

BAGHDAD -- In a grungy restaurant with plastic tables in central Baghdad, the young Mahdi Army commander was staring earnestly. His beard was closely cropped around his jaw, his face otherwise cleanshaven. The sleeves of his yellow shirt were rolled down to the wrists despite the intense late-afternoon heat. He spoke matter-of-factly: Sunni Arab fighters suspected of attacking Shiite Muslims had no claim to mercy, no need of a trial.

"These cases do not need to go back to the religious courts," said the commander, who sat elbow to elbow with a fellow fighter in a short-sleeved, striped shirt. Neither displayed weapons. "Our constitution, the Koran, dictates killing for those who kill."

His comments offered a rare acknowledgment of the role of the Mahdi Army in the sectarian bloodletting that has killed more than 10,400 Iraqis in recent months. The Mahdi Army is the militia of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, now one of the most powerful figures in the country.

The death squads that carry out the extrajudicial killings are widely feared but mysterious. Often, the only evidence is the bodies discovered in the streets. Several commanders in the Mahdi Army said in interviews that they act independently of the Shiite religious courts that have taken root here, meting out street justice on their own with what they believe to be the authorization of Sadr's organization and under the mantle of Islam.

This should be sufficient reason for troops to go into Sadr City to capture or kill Muqtada al Sadr and as many of his "militia" as possible. In situations like these, diplomacy is of absolutely no use. These guys are just murdering thugs and will only stop when they are dead. So why don't we give them what they want and send them to meet their maker.

This is the ultimate test for the new Iraqi government. If they are unable to bring these folks in line then they haven't got a chance of succeeding in asserting control over the nation.

Full Story: Muqtatda al Sadr's "militia" gravest threat to stable Iraq

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Bravo For the Passengers!

Asian students' shock at ejection from jet by passenger mutiny

Daily Mail
22:58pm 23rd August 2006

Two Asian students have revealed their shock and despair after being thrown off a plane because other passengers feared they were suicide bombers.

Manchester Umist students Sohail Ashraf and Khurram Zeb, both 22, said they sympathised with nervous travellers, but urged people not to be paranoid about Muslims.

"We might be Asian, but we're two ordinary lads who wanted a bit of fun," Mr Ashraf told the Daily Mirror.

"Just because we're Muslim does not mean we are suicide bombers."

The pair were marched off the jet at gunpoint after fellow passengers alerted officials on the flight back from Malaga, Spain.

Holidaymakers on board flight ZB 613 from Malaga to Manchester became alarmed at the men's behaviour, and demanded that air staff remove them from the plane in the incident last week.

The passengers on this plane did precisely the correct thing in notifying the crew of these two "lads" suspicious behavior. Given recent events in Britain, these to jerks should have known better than to "have a bit of fun." It is time for the TSA to utilize one of the most potent tools available to them and begin profiling passengers. This may boil down to all brown skinned passengers if events as reported by police in the border states turn out to be true. If there are indeed Middle Eastern men mingling into Mexican society to learn the culture prior to crossing the border illegally, then color discrimination may indeed prove necessary. It is not a good thing, but since neither Mexican nor American governments seem to be interested in stemming the tide of illegal crossings, the American people may wind up taking things into their own hands.

That would be a bad thing, but it would also be understandable. It is time for our elected representatives to get of their collective duffs and do their jobs. The politically motivated, intentional blindness of President Bush and our "illustrious" Senators is beneath contempt. The American people are demanding control of our border and enforcement of our immigration laws. We don't really need any new laws, we just need to enforce our current laws.

This issue is going to come to a head one way or another, I would prefer to see "civil authorities" take action rather than have a large and violent version of this civilian uprising on this British jet, but sooner or later we are going to have to pay the piper.

Full Story: A Sign of Things to Come?

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

USMC Calling Up IRR to Augment Forces

Marine Reservists Facing Combat Duty
With Volunteers Lagging, as Many as 2,500 to Be Called Up for Afghanistan, Iraq

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 23, 2006; Page A10

The Marine Corps is planning to call up as many as 2,500 Marine reservists for combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, dipping into a rarely used pool of troops to fill growing personnel gaps in units scheduled to deploy in coming months, officials said yesterday.

It is the first time the Marines have resorted to involuntary call-ups since the initial invasion of Iraq in March 2003, when about 2,000 Marines were ordered into service for a short duration. It means thousands of Marines across the country who have left active service could soon be forced to return.

They would come from a pool of about 59,000 members of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) -- Marines with specific skills who left active duty and returned to civilian lives, but are obligated to serve if called. Marine Corps officials said yesterday that reservists in their first or last years of enrollment will not be subject to recall.

Officials said they will try to choose Marines with the smallest number of combat tours, leaving about 35,000 subject to the call-up.

Once more, the Post "reporters" demonstrate an uncanny ability to deceive their readers. Mr. White's title implies that the United States Marine Corps is somehow unable to recruit enough volunteers. Of course the Marines are not talking about recruitment of new Marines, which is exceeding all goals they have established, he is talking about those who have served in the past, and are on the "Individual Ready Reserves"(IRR), a group of personnel who are required to serve if called upon and who expect to be so when we are at war.

Josh White's intent here is clear, but of course he is still required to tell the truth in the body of his article. Even the WaPo hasn't fallen to telling outright lies. Misinformation maybe, but outright lies, not yet. Apparently someone failed to tell Dumocrats in the Senate like Jack Reed (D, RI) that this is a routine operation during war. Of course Senator Jack, like most Dumocrats, doesn't concern himself with the truth, he is more interested in aiding the Democrat Party in recapturing control of Congress. Nothing like blowing off the truth for your own political ambitions, eh Jack?

Although "reporter" White's article begins by announcing that the Marines are seeing "volunteers lagging," he waits until the 8th paragraph to explain that this "shortfall" of volunteers is from IRR.

Nice hatchet job, Josh.

Full Story: Post's Contribution to the Anti-War Efforts of the Left

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Senator Burns Cracks a Latino Joke...So What?

Comments Haunt Another Senator
Montana's Burns Joked About Latinos

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 23, 2006; Page A04

In a moment of unusual candor for a veteran senator fighting for his political life, Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) offered this blunt self-assessment a few months ago: "I can self-destruct in one sentence," he told supporters. "Sometimes in one word."

It seems Burns has spent a good part of the summer testing his theory.

A new video released this week by his Democratic challenger, Jon Tester, shows Burns, 71, joking to a crowd in June about how a "nice little Guatemalan man" fixing up his house might be an illegal immigrant. "Could I see your green card?" Burns tells the crowd he asked the man. "And Hugo, says, 'No.' I said, 'Oh, gosh.' "

A Burns spokesman said the senator never really doubted the legal status of the handyman, Hugo Reyes. But it wasn't the only time Burns -- a critic of illegal immigration -- has poked fun at the immigrants doing work around his house.

One week after the green-card crack, Burns recounted in a debate how after watching an interview on television of an illegal immigrant headed to Virginia for work, "I told my roofer, you better go out and get your help, or you won't get my house roofed."

Ho-hum, yes, yes, Jim another politically incorrect moment. Who cares? What ever happened to the childhood proverb, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me?" It's obvious that Liberals like Mr. VandeHei either never learned it, or have forgotten it (either intentionally or unintentionally). Personally, I DON'T CARE! and neither should you.

The fact that someone cracks an insensitive joke on occasion doesn't concern me. I am tired of worrying if someone is going to call me a "racist" or "bigot" simply because I refuse to bow to those who seem to believe that their way is the only way to act, talk, think, and behave. Ethnic jokes are funny, some of them are hysterical. I don't care what group they are about if there's humor, I will laugh and I refuse to feel guilty.

I am too tired of people who spend their entire lives trying to be offended. I call them professional victims. They live their pitiful lives listening to every word spoken in public hoping to here some utterance that will allow the to express their outrage. If you spend your entire life looking for an excuse to be offended, you will certainly find it. So I repeat, I DON'T CARE!

If you are treated badly by someone there may or may not be cause for feeling outraged, depending on the situation. If you are being specifically singled out for unfair treatment, then you have reason for greivance, but just being laughed at or made fun of is neither a crime, nor is it unusual. If your feelings get hurt, well tough, get over it.

I have never met a self-righteous Liberal who didn't have a secret "bigot" or "racist" hidden away inside just waiting to jump out; especially when they think no one is there to see it. It's human nature, more than that, it's nature. Prejudice against others not like you is a defense mechanism. It is as natural as breathing and eating. As humans, we have imposed a thin veneer of civilization over those feelings which enables us to interact with each other without using our clubs and spears, but the feelings remain and anyone who denies them is lying to himself. So, if on occasion some of that slips out, it is only human.

It is time for Americans to grow up and quit taking offense or trying to take political advantage of every statement an individual makes. In the end none of us are guilt-free, much as most Liberals would have us think otherwise of them.

Full Story: To the Left: Stop Whining (and Lying)

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

The Insanity of the Senate Republicans and President Bush

Cost of Senate Immigration Bill Put at $126 Billion

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 22, 2006; Page A01

The Senate's embattled immigration bill would raise government spending by as much as $126 billion over the next decade, as the government begins paying out federal benefits to millions of new legal workers and cracks down on the border, a new Congressional Budget Office analysis concludes.

Law enforcement measures alone would necessitate the hiring of nearly 31,000 federal workers in the next five years, while the building and maintenance of 870 miles of fencing and vehicle barriers would cost $3.3 billion. Newly legalized immigrants would claim nearly $50 billion in federal benefits such as the earned income and child tax credits, Medicaid, and Social Security.

The CBO report is the most detailed analysis to date of legislation that has divided the Republican Party, energized millions of Latinos, and become a focal point of congressional campaigns from southern Arizona to upstate New York. Under the legislation, passed this spring by a bipartisan Senate coalition, tough border security measures would be coupled with a path to legal work and citizenship for most of the nation's 11 million undocumented workers and a new guest-worker program for prospective migrants.

President Bush applauded its passage, but House GOP leaders have dug in their heels against it, favoring a House-passed measure that would make illegal immigrants felons, build hundreds of miles of fencing on the southern border and offer no new guest-worker programs.

Well there you have it, the complete refutation of the pro-amnesty arguments. The additional burden on our social welfare net would far out weigh any benefit America would see in the granting of citizenship to "11 million" (more like 30 million) illegal aliens. This bill should be dead on arrival and hopefully the House GOP members will see that it is. The President needs to have his behind thoroughly kicked in this debate. He is ignoring the desires of 80% of the American people in his wrong headed "nice-guy" efforts to be understanding of the needs of the illegals.

Hey President Bush, what about the needs of the American people? You know the folks that hired you to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America?" How is allowing millions of unidentified people from nations all over the world to invade our nation virtually unimpeded "faithfully executing" your duties? We now have reports of Middle Easterners going to Mexico to learn Spanish before being smuggled across the border. Do you suppose that might have an effect on our national security? Just maybe?

Full Story: Gross Negligence in the Senate/White House

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Cohen Just Misses...Again

Mideast Echoes Of 1938

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, August 22, 2006; Page A15

In his upcoming book about the horrors of the 20th century, "The War of the World," the British historian Niall Ferguson has a chapter called "The Pity of Peace." It is about 1938, when World War II loomed, and Britain -- especially and importantly Britain -- did precious little to stop it. The warnings of Churchill -- "believe me, it may be the last chance . . ." -- were ignored, and the government under Neville Chamberlain obstinately pursued a policy that forever after made the word appeasement one of the most odious in history. Somehow, though, it looks like 1938 all over again.

The events in the Middle East are often compared to 1914 and the start of World War I. That war -- the Great War, the war to end all wars -- is actually the all-purpose war. It not only began for what seemed like a trivial reason (the assassination of someone who wasn't a head of state) but it was fought with tenacity and brutality for what now seems no reason at all. In the end, millions died and the world was utterly changed. Why?

But when it comes to the Middle East, 1938 is also a pretty instructive year. At the moment, the United Nations has committed itself to maintaining peace in Lebanon. It has done so by saying it will interpose an armed force between Israel on the one hand and Hezbollah on the other. At the same time, the Lebanese army will -- as it has already started to do -- invade its own country (gasp!), securing the south for the first time in decades.

A critical part of that plan is the establishment of the international peacekeeping force. It is supposed to have 15,000 troops, who will join 15,000 Lebanese troops to ensure that Hezbollah is not rearmed with Iranian and Syrian missiles and that Israel not only pulls out of Lebanon but stays out. The backbone of the international force is supposed to come from Europe, particularly France. It was France, in fact, that was most insistent on the establishment of the force.

Now France is having second thoughts . . . or cold feet . . . or mere questions. If it is the last, that's understandable. The French military is said to worry about the command structure, since this was a problem with the U.N. force in Bosnia in the 1990s. Command structure, though, was not nearly the whole problem in the Balkans. After all, Dutch soldiers were on the spot when Bosnian troops massacred Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica. It is hard to this day to account for what happened.

Gee Richard, are you finally snapping to reality? Has your Liberal pea-sized brain finally figured out that the French have been actively working against the United States and our diplomatic efforts in the Middle East? Have you finally figured out that anti-Semitism is rampant and growing in France and the rest of Europe? Has this finally opened your eyes to the world that we Conservatives have been talking about for years? I kind of doubt it.

Your Liberalism is stronger than your support for Israel. You just couldn't avoid blaming the President and the Iraq war for the troubles in Lebanon. Oh, I agree that this "truce" promoted by the US and the Useless Nations is a bad mistake; one for which Condi and the President bear a great deal of fault. But I would hardly say that the US has been "preoccupied" in this affair, rather say that our President's overwhelming desire to be seen as the "good-guy" has led him to pursue once more the futile path of working with the French.

It is precisely because of the constant venom you and people in the press have been spewing at the President for "going it alone" that we now find ourselves in this situation. For you to now attack the President for working with the French is the height of Liberal hypocrisy. Ya joik!

Full Story: Cohen's Liberalism Trumps His Understanding

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Democrats Just Don't Understand National Defense

Bush Says Iraq Pullout Would Be 'A Disaster'
President Acknowledges A Strain on U.S. 'Psyche'

By Michael A. Fletcher and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 22, 2006; Page A01

President Bush laid down an impassioned defense of his Iraq policy yesterday, saying the United States must stay in the fight despite an escalating death toll, increasing calls for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and growing public sentiment against the war.

While acknowledging that raging sectarian violence and mounting U.S. casualties in Iraq are "straining the psyche of our country," Bush said that withdrawing U.S. troops before the nation is stabilized would be disastrous.

"Leaving before the job would be done would send a message that America really is no longer engaged, nor cares about the form of governments in the Middle East," he said. "Leaving before the job was done would send a signal to our troops that the sacrifices they made were not worth it. Leaving before the job is done would be a disaster, and that's what we're saying."

Resolute and at times exasperated during a 56-minute news conference, Bush cast the war in Iraq as part of a broader struggle against Islamic extremism that holds serious implications for the security of the United States. Bush's defense of his Iraq policy touched on familiar themes, but his passionate and lengthy plea to keep fighting was striking in light of the plummeting support for the war among the public and -- more worrisome for the White House -- among Republicans.

It is astounding that the President is having to plead with Americans to stay the course in this war on the Global Islamic Jihad. What is it about Democrats and their propaganda wing-the MSM-that they want us to lose in this war? How can you call people who place their personal desire for political power over out national interests patriotic? I can't. I believe that the Democrat leadership is treasonous. I believe that they aspire to power so desperately that they are willing to sacrifice our national security. Their continual mischaracterization of the War in Iraq and their repeated misrepresentation of the facts makes that conclusion inescapable.

My only complaint with the President's stance is his unwillingness to commit more troops to the war and his failure to comprehend the depth of American sentiment against illegal immigration and against any kind of amnesty program. This myopia on the part of the President is a threat to our national security. If the Democrats were to jump on that issue they could make their arguments with some veracity, but they are working even harder than the President to enable the illegals in their efforts to gain access to our society.


Full Story: What's Patriotic About Sabotage?

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Bill Clinton and The New York Lies: A Perfect Match

How We Ended Welfare, Together

August 22, 2006
New York Times Op-Ed Contributor
By BILL CLINTON

TEN years ago today I signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. By then I had long been committed to welfare reform. As a governor, I oversaw a workfare experiment in Arkansas in 1980 and represented the National Governors Association in working with Congress and the Reagan administration to draft the welfare reform bill enacted in 1988.

Yet when I ran for president in 1992, our system still was not working for the taxpayers or for those it was intended to help. In my first State of the Union address, I promised to “end welfare as we know it,” to make welfare a second chance, not a way of life, exactly the change most welfare recipients wanted it to be.

Most Democrats and Republicans wanted to pass welfare legislation shifting the emphasis from dependence to empowerment. Because I had already given 45 states waivers to institute their own reform plans, we had a good idea of what would work. Still, there were philosophical gaps to bridge. The Republicans wanted to require able-bodied people to work, but were opposed to continuing the federal guarantees of food and medical care to their children and to spending enough on education, training, transportation and child care to enable people to go to work in lower-wage jobs without hurting their children.

On Aug. 22, 1996, after vetoing two earlier versions, I signed welfare reform into law. At the time, I was widely criticized by liberals who thought the work requirements too harsh and conservatives who thought the work incentives too generous. Three members of my administration ultimately resigned in protest. Thankfully, a majority of both Democrats and Republicans voted for the bill because they shouldn’t be satisfied with a system that had led to intergenerational dependency.

The last 10 years have shown that we did in fact end welfare as we knew it, creating a new beginning for millions of Americans.

In the past decade, welfare rolls have dropped substantially, from 12.2 million in 1996 to 4.5 million today. At the same time, caseloads declined by 54 percent. Sixty percent of mothers who left welfare found work, far surpassing predictions of experts. Through the Welfare to Work Partnership, which my administration started to speed the transition to employment, more than 20,000 businesses hired 1.1 million former welfare recipients. Welfare reform has proved a great success, and I am grateful to the Democrats and Republicans who had the courage to work together to take bold action.

Do you ever read an article and feel like the RCA dog? Well this one has my head on its side for sure. The hubris of the clown is just frightening. President Bubba vetoed welfare reform 3 times. He fought against the idea tooth and nail (just as Hillary instructed) until it became time for re-election, then suddenly he was on-board. There was no "bi-partisanship" in this achievement, it was the direct result of the Republican victory in 1994, and had this bill had "bi-partisan" support, they would have over-ridden Billy-boy's veto at least one of those three times.

I should not be surprised by this considering Clinton's uninterrupted history of lying to the public. Why shouldn't we expect him to lie about this in an attempt to attack the Republicans. Someone with the morals of an alley-cat and the brains to match (with apologies to all alley-cats) shouldn't be expected to do anything else.

The most disturbing thing about this is that the Bushes have allowed themselves to be seduced by this perverted, incompetent, boor. It doesn't speak well for their own intellect.

Man Democrats really know how to pick Presidents; Jimmah Cahtah, the most incompetent President in history and Bill Clinton the trashiest lout to ever hold the office of President.

Full Story: Bill Clinton: Trailer Trash Will Out

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Bias of Post Once More Blatantly Evident

Cold War Missiles Target of Blackout
Documents Altered To Conceal Data

By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 21, 2006; Page A01

The Bush administration has begun designating as secret some information that the government long provided even to its enemy the former Soviet Union: the numbers of strategic weapons in the U.S. nuclear arsenal during the Cold War.

The Pentagon and the Department of Energy are treating as national security secrets the historical totals of Minuteman, Titan II and other missiles, blacking out the information on previously public documents, according to a new report by the National Security Archive. The archive is a nonprofit research library housed at George Washington University.

"It would be difficult to find more dramatic examples of unjustifiable secrecy than these decisions to classify the numbers of U.S. strategic weapons," wrote William Burr, a senior analyst at the archive who compiled the report. " . . . The Pentagon is now trying to keep secret numbers of strategic weapons that have never been classified before."

The report comes at a time when the Bush administration's penchant for government secrecy has troubled researchers and bred controversy over agency efforts to withhold even seemingly innocuous information. The National Archives was embroiled in scandal during the spring when it was disclosed that the agency had for years kept secret a reclassification program under which the CIA, the Air Force and other agencies removed thousands of records from public shelves.

Let's get this straight, some mid-level manager in the Pentagon decides to redact traditionally released data and this idiot Chritopher Lee can't help but blame President Bush. Of course he never comes out and says it, the when his first written words are "The Bush Administration..." it leaves little doubt where his sympathies lie.

With Liberals, objectivity is the least of their concerns, poor journalism has become a synonym for MSM reporting. The Post is demonstrably one of the two or three most biased news outlets in America. They continue to wonder why they are going broke. They lash out at bloggers, blaming the "altenative media" for their irreversable decline while blythely ignoring the most fundamental priciples of good journalism. The Washington Post will shortly be relegated to the status of a privately funded (by George Soros or someone like him) propaganda rag. Their circulation continues to fall as the leave Americans farther and farther behind as they continue their journey to the extreme Left.

Full Story: Washington Post: Democrat Propaganda Rag

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Can It Be? Republican Candidates Finally Understand?

In Porous Border, GOP Sees An Opening
Candidates Take Hard Line To Rally Conservative Base

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 21, 2006; Page A01

ORO VALLEY, Ariz. -- When 11-term Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) announced his retirement, he bestowed his endorsement on soft-spoken state Rep. Steve Huffman. Only someone in his own moderate mold, Kolbe declared, could prevail in a demographically diverse district stretching from the affluent foothills of the Santa Catalina Mountains above Tucson to the rugged border of Mexico.

But when the long-simmering issue of illegal immigration boiled over this year, Huffman lost his favored status in the Sept. 12 Republican primary in the 8th Congressional District and was gasping to keep up with anti-immigration firebrands in his party -- and even with some in the other.

"Stop the invasion," conservative Democrat Bill Johnson bellowed at a candidates' forum last week, as the sun set through the picture window of the Church of the Nazarene here.

"Not only can we secure the border -- we must secure the border," trumpeted former state representative Randy Graf, widely considered the new front-runner for the Republican nomination.

Well I guess desperation is the mother of reason. It appears that those waffling members of Congress are beginning wake up to the fact that most American citizens consider the monsterous influx of illegal aliens a threat to our security, economy and national identity. I wish President Bush would wake up as well.

Unfortunately it appears that the President, and a disturbingly large number of "moderate" Senators are incapable of comprehending what is painfully obvious to the rest of us, a nation that can't control its borders ceases to be a nation.

The "Reconquista" and "Atzlan" groups are deadly serious in their goal of flooding the Southwestern United States with Mexican and other Hispanic illegals in hopes of rendering enforcement efforts untenable. It is time for our legislators to understand this. It now appears that those who are desperate enough from concern about their re-election chances are finally "getting it."

Full Story: The Threat of Illegal Immigration

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Hizbollah Violates Terms of Truce, Israel Blamed for Stopping It

Israel Strikes Deep in Lebanon
Premier, U.N. Chief Condemn Attack as Violation of Truce

By Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, August 20, 2006; Page A01

BEIRUT, Aug. 19 -- Helicopter-borne Israeli commandos raided a Hezbollah stronghold in the Bekaa Valley early Saturday, setting off a fierce gun battle. Lebanon called the attack a "flagrant violation" of a fragile six-day-old cease-fire and threatened to halt troop deployments in protest.

Hezbollah, which battled the Israeli military for 33 days until the truce took hold Monday, said its fighters encountered the Israeli commandos in a field near the town of Boudai, about 20 miles from the Syrian border.

The Israeli military, confirming the raid, said its commandos carried out the operation to interdict shipments of weapons and munitions to Hezbollah from Syria and Iran. The military said one Israeli officer was killed and two soldiers were wounded, one seriously.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora told reporters in Beirut that the attack was a "flagrant violation" of the U.N. cease-fire and that he planned to lodge a complaint with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Later Saturday, Annan said that he agreed the raid violated the cease-fire agreement and that he was "deeply concerned."

This was inevitable. Anyone with half a brain, and I don't include President Bush, Condi Rice, or Liberals, could have predicted this. Hizbollah has no intention of disarming or ceasing hostilities against Israel and is using the "truce" as an opportunity to rearm and reconstitute their forces in Southern Lebanon with the witting assistance of the Lebanese Government. Israel is responding the only way they can.

Koffi Annan has no intention of preventing Hizbollah from doing whatever it chooses. Once more the Useless Nations has proven its worth as a peace-making body. As usual, the French are leading the way in not fulfilling their pledge of troops to the UN "Peacekeeping" force. Normally I would be heaping scorn on the French, but given the incompetence of Annan's leadership and the likelihood of the UN failing to act, I find that I can't really blame the French for not wanting to commit their troops. Southern Lebanon is a war zone waiting to explode. As long as the Lebanese government remains committed to supporting Hizbollah, there can be no peace.

Full Story: Blaming Israel for Self-preservation

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Bad Judgment, Bad Law

Judge Rules Against Wiretaps
NSA Program Called Unconstitutional

By Dan Eggen and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 18, 2006; Page A01

A federal judge in Detroit ruled yesterday that the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional, delivering the first decision that the Bush administration's effort to monitor communications without court oversight runs afoul of the Bill of Rights and federal law.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ordered a halt to the wiretap program, secretly authorized by President Bush in 2001, but both sides in the lawsuit agreed to delay that action until a Sept. 7 hearing. Legal scholars said Taylor's decision is likely to receive heavy scrutiny from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit when the Justice Department appeals, and some criticized her ruling as poorly reasoned.

Ruling in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups in the Eastern District of Michigan, Taylor said that the NSA wiretapping program, aimed at communications by potential terrorists, violates privacy and free speech rights and the constitutional separation of powers among the three branches of government. She also found that the wiretaps violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law instituted to provide judicial oversight of clandestine surveillance within the United States.

"It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion. ". . . There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution."

A breathtakingly bad decision by a judge who demonstrates very little understanding of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or of her own cited case law. Suffice it to say that this judge's decision wouldn't withstand the most cursory examination by a first year Political Science major. Her statement in reference to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution that:

"in its few words requires reasonableness in all searches. It also requires prior warrants for any reasonable search, based upon pior-existing probable cause,as well as particularity as to persons, places, and things..."

Say what? The Fourth Amendment in no way could be interpreted as saying that by anyone familiar in the least with the Constitution and case law surrounding the Fourth. Her own citations of SCOTUS rulings as well as those of lower courts contain contradictions to her reasoning. She obviously failed to read those rulings in their entirety.

Prior to those errant statements as to the Constitutionality of the NSA program, her arguments against the petition for dismissal by the governement are again inconsistent with her own case law citations. There is no prima facie case that the plaintiffs conversations had been monitored by the NSA. Her argument that because the plaintiffs phone calls fell into the category of phone calls admittedly being monitored by the NSA was prima facie evidence that they had been monitored doesn't hold water. The logical progression fails to meet evidentiary standards particularly when the judges knowledge of the NSA program is only that which was available to the public through the public media. The secrecy exception requires a more detailed knowledge of the methodology and technology used. Judge Diggs own recited case law supports the governments case for dismissal.

Full Story: Judge Diggs' Pitiful Ruling

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Time for the Unthinkable?

Bush Said to Be Frustrated by Level of Public Support in Iraq

By THOM SHANKER and MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 — President Bush made clear in a private meeting this week that he was concerned about the lack of progress in Iraq and frustrated that the new Iraqi government — and the Iraqi people — had not shown greater public support for the American mission, participants in the meeting said Tuesday.

Those who attended a Monday lunch at the Pentagon that included the president’s war cabinet and several outside experts said Mr. Bush carefully avoided expressing a clear personal view of the new prime minister of Iraq, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

But in what participants described as a telling line of questioning, Mr. Bush did ask each of the academic experts for their assessment of the prime minister’s effectiveness.

“I sensed a frustration with the lack of progress on the bigger picture of Iraq generally — that we continue to lose a lot of lives, it continues to sap our budget,” said one person who attended the meeting. “The president wants the people in Iraq to get more on board to bring success.”

Another person who attended the session said he interpreted Mr. Bush’s comments less as an expression of frustration than as uncertainty over the prospects of the new Iraqi government. “He said he really didn’t quite have a sense yet of how effective the government was,” said this person, who, like several who discussed the session, agreed to speak only anonymously because it was a private lunch.

More generally, the participants said, the president expressed frustration that Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq, and was puzzled as to how a recent anti-American rally in support of Hezbollah in Baghdad could draw such a large crowd. “I do think he was frustrated about why 10,000 Shiites would go into the streets and demonstrate against the United States,” said another person who attended.

Yeah well George, you ain't the only one. I have long held to the belief that the Generals in Iraq and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeldt were on the right track, and that America's patience was necessary and justified, but I am beginning to wonder. Is it possible that Senator Joe "Plagiarizer" Biden is correct? Is it time to contemplate the unthinkable and consider a partitioning of Iraq?

The fact is, I don't know. It is becoming increasingly clear that no one has a good answer to the problem that Iraq has become. Clearly the Democrat plan of cut and run would be a disaster. Leaving a Iraq to fall into civil war would be an open invitation to the development of a terrorist state. That being said, we cannot go on indefinately imposing a system of government on the Iraqi people that they do not want, or are not willing to fight for.

I continue to hear from the Bush Administration that things are "improving" in Iraq, but I am not seeing any progress, and the march by 10,000 Shia in Bhagdad supporting the actions of Hizbollah really leads me to begin to question our approach.

I still haven't given up on the idea of a unified Iraq under some nominally democratic form of government, but I am beginning to wonder. I am not concerned that the Iraq war is somehow "distracting us from the war on terror," that is a bunch of Democrat non-sense, but I am concerned that the possibility of success in Iraq is being threatened by some questionable decision making on our part.

I have begun to wonder if we have all of the necessary people involved in our decision making process. To tell you the truth, this latest decision by the Bush Administration virtually to impose a futile ceasefire agreement on Israel has contributed a great deal to my growing doubts.

Full Story: Is Partitioning Iraq the Answer?

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Right Condi, and I'm the King of Mars

A Path To Lasting Peace

By Condoleezza Rice
Wednesday, August 16, 2006; Page A13

For the past month the United States has worked urgently to end the violence that Hezbollah and its sponsors have imposed on the people of Lebanon and Israel. At the same time, we have insisted that a truly effective cease-fire requires a decisive change from the status quo that produced this war. Last Friday we took an important step toward that goal with the unanimous passage of U.N. Resolution 1701. Now the difficult, critical task of implementation begins.

The agreement we reached has three essential components:

First, it puts in place a full cessation of hostilities. We also insisted on the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers. Hezbollah must immediately cease its attacks on Israel, and Israel must halt its offensive military operations in Lebanon, while reserving the right of any sovereign state to defend itself. This agreement went into effect on Monday, after the Israeli and Lebanese cabinets agreed to its conditions.

Second, this resolution will help the democratic government of Lebanon expand its sovereign authority. The international community is imposing an embargo on all weapons heading into Lebanon without the government's consent. We are also enhancing UNIFIL, the current U.N. force in Lebanon. The new UNIFIL will have a robust mandate, better equipment and as many as 15,000 soldiers -- a sevenfold increase from its current strength. Together with this new international force, the Lebanese Armed Forces will deploy to the south of the country to protect the Lebanese people and prevent armed groups such as Hezbollah from destabilizing the area. As this deployment occurs, Israel will withdraw behind the "Blue Line" and a permanent cease-fire will take hold.

Errr Condi, how are you going to do all of this? France is now refusing to commit troops until other nations commit troops, and other nations are refusing to commit troops unless France commits troops. Looks like a classic Catch-22 led by the Doormats for Deutschland, the Cowards of Calais, the Pipsqueaks of Paris, the Losers of Loire.

Hizbollah has already refused to disarm, the Lebanese Army is refusing to enter Southern Lebanon, Hassan Nasrallah is refusing to release the kidnapped Israeli soldiers, and has already launched attacks against Israeli positions in Southern Lebanon.

You can spout as many euphemisms as you wish about this agreement, but it is an unmitigated disaster. Your diplomacy has not "helped end a war," it has helped Hizbollah achieve victory. Your pathetic faith in diplomacy has only increased the risks to Israel and her people. Your meddling has endangered, not preserved our prestige in the area.

You have proven yourself not just incompetent, but sadly naive. You should tender your resignation for signing on to this pitiful agreement. You and the President have exercised poor judgment and failed America.

Full Story: Condileeza Rice: Blowing Smoke

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Surprise: Hizbollah Won't Disarm

Hezbollah Balks At Withdrawal From the South
Lebanese Officials Work on Compromise

By Edward Cody and Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, August 16, 2006; Page A01

BEIRUT, Aug. 15 -- Hezbollah refused to disarm and withdraw its fighters from the battle-scarred hills along the border with Israel on Tuesday, threatening to delay deployment of the Lebanese army and endangering a fragile cease-fire.

The makings of a compromise emerged from all-day meetings in Beirut, according to senior officials involved in the negotiations, and Prime Minister Fouad Siniora scheduled a cabinet session Wednesday for what he hoped would be formal approval of the deal. Hezbollah indicated it would be willing to pull back its fighters and weapons in exchange for a promise from the army not to probe too carefully for underground bunkers and weapons caches, the officials said.

Hasan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, had insisted that any disarmament of his militia -- even in the border area -- should be handled in longer-term discussions within the Lebanese government, according to government ministers. But the Lebanese army, backed by key political leaders, refused to send troops into the just-becalmed battle zone until Hezbollah's missiles, rockets and other weapons were taken north of the Litani River, the ministers said.

At stake in the standoff was implementation of a crucial provision of the U.N. Security Council cease-fire that went into effect Monday. The accord called for quick deployment of 15,000 Lebanese army troops south of the Litani River along the border with Israel. They were to take up positions under the aegis of a reinforced contingent of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or UNIFIL, to form a peacekeeping corps with a total strength of about 30,000.

Is anyone surprised by this? I repeat what I have said before, the reason Hizbollah has an armed presence in Southern Lebanon is because the Lebanese Army was incapable of dealing with them in the first place. Now we are surprised when the Lebanese Army refuses to do precisely that.

Dare I say it again? You cannot deal with the enemies of freedom. You cannot deal with the enemies of freedom. Is there anyone who doesn't get this fact? Are any of you still so stupid that you don't see this.

Hassan Nasrallah is unrepentent, unbowed, undefeated and not unarmed. Israel's soldiers were sacrificed on the alter of Olmert's lack of will. Israel's security has been sacrificed by the Bush Administration's pathetic obsession with operating within the strictures of the Useless Nations. Hizbollah will continue to occupy the South of Lebanon, they will make greater in roads into the Lebanese government, they will re-arm, re-build, and re-cruit. In a short time they will be in a much superior position than they were in prior to the war.

Bush has wimped out once more. The prisoners are still being held. The French are supposed to lead this UNIFIL (United Nations International Force in Lebanon) force and prevent the rearming of Hizbollah and assist the...Wait a minute, the French are leading this force? The French? The Doormats of Europe? The Masters of Surrender and Collaberation? They are to lead this force?

Boy, I hope Hizbollah has plenty of cheese and wine available, otherwise they'll be in real trouble.

Olmert is history. He has proven to be a disaster for the Israelis. Iran, Syria, and Hizbollah are the winners here. Israel is the big loser. Anyone who expects Koffi Annan to be a dispassionate and unbiased arbitor is smoking some pretty good dope. Koffi has repeatedly demonstrated his sympathy for the terrorists.

Assad is now emboldened and brazen in his contempt for America. Iran is more likely to pursue its nuclear ambitions. North Korea will be emboldened by the weakness displayed by the Bush Administration and their inability stand up to the whining of the paleo-media and the Old European cowards.

Full Story: Annan, Olmert, Bush: The Three Stooges

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Word Illchosen Perhaps, but Contempt Deserved by Left

Allen Quip Provokes Outrage, Apology
Name Insults Webb Volunteer

By Tim Craig and Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 15, 2006; Page A01

RICHMOND, Aug. 14 -- Virginia Sen. George Allen (R) apologized Monday for what his opponent's campaign said were demeaning and insensitive comments the senator made to a 20-year-old volunteer of Indian descent.

At a campaign rally in southwest Virginia on Friday, Allen repeatedly called a volunteer for Democrat James Webb "macaca." During the speech in Breaks, near the Kentucky border, Allen began by saying that he was "going to run this campaign on positive, constructive ideas" and then pointed at S.R. Sidarth in the crowd.

"This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, macaca, or whatever his name is. He's with my opponent. He's following us around everywhere. And it's just great," Allen said, as his supporters began to laugh. After saying that Webb was raising money in California with a "bunch of Hollywood movie moguls," Allen said, "Let's give a welcome to macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia." Allen then began talking about the "war on terror."

Depending on how it is spelled, the word macaca could mean either a monkey that inhabits the Eastern Hemisphere or a town in South Africa. In some European cultures, macaca is also considered a racial slur against African immigrants, according to several Web sites that track ethnic slurs.

Waaah, waaah, waaah! Get off the waaahmbulance! This jerk was there for this specific reason and no other. I am so tired of these hypersensitive whiners on the Left.

Ethnic slurs...so what? Get over it! No matter who you are, what your ethnicity is, what your race is, somebody somewhere is not going to like you or use the current proper term for your group.

You know what? It's time for Americans to grow up! It is time for Americans to quit acting as though they've never heard or used an ethnic or racial slur in their lives. No it's not polite, it's not nice, but neither is stalking a candidate in hopes of eliciting this or some other kind of reaction from him.

I doubt very seriously that George Allen is a biggot. He certainly can't be more of a biggot than those on the Left who are cheering for Hizbollah and the destruction of Israel.

Allens word was poorly chosen, but if anyone is stupid enough to base his vote on that event, then they probably shouldn't be allowed to vote. There is enough pettiness in the world, and I for one am tired of the knee-jerk yells of "Racist" and "Biggot" everytime someone opposes the Left's agenda.

Time for minorities to grow up! Time for Americans to quit recoiling in horror everytime someone uses an objectionable word. Why is it okay for Liberals to routinely call President Bush a Nazi and a facist, both of which are terms best applied to the Left, and it is not okay for a conservative to call some obnoxious stalker of Asian decent "macaca?" Is one any more hateful than the other?

Full Story: Grow Up America!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Further Proof That NY Times Revelations Endanger All Americans

Charity Funds Said to Provide Clues to Alleged Terrorist Plot
Officials Say Money for Attacks Came From Earthquake Relief

By Joshua Partlow and Kamran Khan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 15, 2006; Page A10

LONDON, Aug. 14 -- The transfer of millions of dollars from Britain to a Pakistani charity working on earthquake relief last year helped investigators uncover the alleged plot to blow up airplanes bound for the United States, according to two senior Pakistani intelligence officials.

The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation, said that a large portion of the money sent from Britain to the charity was siphoned off and ultimately used to prepare for the attacks. The officials said that about 5 million British pounds, or $10 million, was transferred to Pakistan, but that less than half was used for relief operations after the earthquake last October, which killed tens of thousands of people.

"British intelligence smelled a foul play the moment the transfer was made in December last year," said one of the senior intelligence officials, who is directly involved in the investigation.

"The innocent Pakistani souls in Britain who contributed so generously for the victims of the earthquake didn't know that their money would actually be used for one of the biggest terrorist operations," the other Pakistani official said.

I still don't understand why the Bush administration is afraid to go after the New York Times and its owners and editors for revealing top secret information. This revelation proves that what the Times revealed in its exposure of the SWIFT Banking monitoring has endangered the lives of American citizens unnecessarily. Alberto Gonzales should be pursuing these traitors relentlessly.

Once more programs like the NSA phone call monitoring and the SWIFT money transfer monitoring have been shown to be vital, and the Democrats who protest so vehemently and publicly have been shown to be dangerous politically motivated fools.

Full Story: Exposure of NSA Secrets Threaten Americans

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

War With Lebanon, Olmert's Swan Song?

Olmert Accepts Blame For Operation's 'Failings'

By Molly Moore
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, August 15, 2006; Page A07

JERUSALEM, Aug. 14 -- Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday acknowledged mistakes in the war against Hezbollah as the Israeli government confronted widespread criticism and political recriminations over the conflict.

"There have been failings and shortcomings," Olmert, with deep circles under his eyes and a haggard look on his face, told a special session of the Israeli parliament. "We need to examine ourselves in all aspects and all areas. We will not sweep anything under the table, we will not hide anything. We must ensure that next time things will be done better."

Defense Minister Amir Peretz announced he would "conduct a deep and wide investigation on all that occurred before the war erupted and through its duration."

The statements came as Binyamin Netanyahu, an opposition leader and former prime minister, described a "national soul-searching" over risks "threatening our very existence."

I would say that things look bleak for Olmert, but there is obviously enough guilt to spread around.

The IDF command failed in the proper training of their troops in combating terrorists.

A lack of anti-missile technology exposed the citizens of Northern Israel to randomly landing Katyusha rockets (it would be difficult to design an anti-Katyusha defense, but it is something they must examine).

There is the question of the effectiveness of the IDF's "ground-up radar," if any. This is radar which would pin-point the exact location of rocket launches within seconds of a launch.

The effectiveness of the bombardment strategy used by the Israelis to kill and intimidate the Hizbollah terrorists must be questioned.

Most certainly the psychological warfare aspect of destroying the Lebanese infra-structure in hopes that the Lebanese civilians would blame Hizbollah has been a dismal failure. Facts rarely trump well executed propaganda, and the terrorists in the Middle East excel at propaganda on the Arab street.

This kind of limited war has again been proven to be a faulty strategy. One must use overwhelming force to overcome these sorts of enemies. Olmert's main error was an error of scale. Once the decision to strike back was made, he should have gone in en masse. This war is not over, the issues are not resolved, and this is but a respite.

Full Story: For Israel, the Song Remains-All or Nothing At All

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Olmert's Bad Decision

Israel Accepts U.N. Deal
Both Sides Warn of More Fighting

By Molly Moore and Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, August 14, 2006; 5:40 AM

JERUSALEM, Aug. 14 -- The Israeli military halted its combat operations against Hezbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon and Hezbollah rockets stopped raining on Israel early Monday morning as a tenuous U.N.-imposed cease-fire took effect after more than a month of fighting that devastated parts of Lebanon and sent hundreds of thousands of Israelis into bomb shelters.

"The IDF has stopped its offensive operations in Lebanon," the Israeli Defense Forces said in a statement. "The IDF will respect the cease-fire, but will continue to defend its forces and the citizens of Israel."

Tens of thousands of displaced Lebanese began streaming back toward their ruined villages and towns in the south despite Israeli military warnings that it is still banning vehicles from using roads in southern Lebanon.

Israeli military officials also said aerial and naval blockades in Lebanon "will remain in effect until a system is established to monitor and prevent the smuggling of weapons into Lebanon."

This "ceasefire" is a bad deal for Israel. It turns the sacrifices of the IDF soldiers into a meaningless gesture. Without securing Southern Lebanon, and eliminating the presence of Hizbollah, Israel's entire campaign was meaningless. On the international front, they come out the big losers in this battle. They will have achieved very little in the way of increased security (UN troops are gonna protect them...Riiight). They have lost the propaganda war with Hizbollah. The Iranians will have escaped sans consequences for their support and inspiration of this entire event.

Even our own "beloved" Left-wing moonbats have decided that the Iranians and Hizbollah are the good-guys and the Israelis (and Americans) are the bad guys in this.

The Israeli people will pay for this misjudgment in the long run, as will Americans.

Full Story: Israel/America's Deal With the Devil

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Jabari Asim, A Lying Biggot

Still Battling Voter Suppression

By Jabari Asim
Monday, August 14, 2006; 12:00 AM

"It was not a difficult walk. It was for a good reason."

Those were the words of Besisa Mbaguna, a Congolese man who last month walked barefoot for two and a half hours to reach his polling place and cast his vote in his country's elections. Considering Congo's troubled history and its oppressive ruling class, it's fair to marvel that people such as Mbaguna got to vote at all. One can also wonder whether those votes will actually count, despite the best efforts of United Nations officials who oversaw the elections.

It's easy to imagine, for instance, that in such a country, Mbaguna could have been stopped short of the polls and turned away for some untenable reason -- say, lack of a photo ID. In Congo, sure, but certainly not in the good ol' U.S. of A.

Or so one would like to think. But the efforts of Republican lawmakers in Georgia, Indiana and, most recently, Missouri seemed aimed at making it as difficult to vote beneath our spacious skies as it is in war-torn Third World nations. Missouri, my home state, became the third member of this notorious trio in June, when Gov. Matt Blunt signed into law a requirement that voters show government-issued photo IDs at the polls starting in November.

Blunt and others say the law will prevent fraud. Their opponents rightly point out that the measure disproportionately affects those who have been disfranchised in the past, such as the poor and racial minorities. Besides, they argue, Missouri hasn't exactly suffered from an epidemic of imposters showing up to vote.

Once more, any attempt by the government to improve the accuracy and integrity of our elective system is opposed by those who would use the straw man of discrimination to oppose those efforts. If you wish t