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 to ensure that those who vote in an election are who they claim to be and are legally entitled to vote, then you are "trying to suppress the vote." Those who make this claim don't offer any alternative solution to a very real problem, only complaints that the solution offered is "discriminatory against blacks." Democrats want voter fraud to occur, as long as they believe that they are the beneficiaries while at the same time screaming hysterically that the machines we are using to vote are "hacked."

Such claims have been so prevalent in the dark halls of doom in which those conspiracy sotted members of the Left-wing, nutroot, blog sites, that they have attained the status of "known facts." They have no proof, no evidence, not a single instance in which they can prove such a fraud has occurred, but undeterred by truth, they state it as though only those who have been living in a cave in Tibet should doubt their assertions.

On the otherhand, there have been numerous occurences of the sort of voter fraud for which our state legislatures are now attempting to find a solution. Of course this sort of fraud they dismiss by saying that it:

is statistically more likely for a Missourian to be struck by a bolt of lightning than to have his or her vote canceled by someone posing as another voter to cast a ballot."

Of course there are more reasons than that to be concerned over voter fraud, but Mr. Asim chooses to dismiss those as unworthy even of comment.

I guess Mr. Asim assumes that all those voting for Democrats are inherently honest and would not dare to try to commit fraud and only Republicans are interested in cheating on elections. What a novel way of looking at things.

Mr. Asim I suggest you first look to the log in your own biggoted eye before you begin to search for the mote in the Republicans eyes.

Full Story: Jabari Asim, Choosing Blindness Over Reason

What do you think?

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

Eugene Robinson, Hypocritical Liberal Attacks the President

The War Bush Isn't Fighting

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, August 11, 2006; Page A19

When unsmiling agents at the airport take away your contact lens solution, your toothpaste, and your cologne or after-shave, remember Osama bin Laden. Remember the real war on terrorism that the Bush administration and its allies decided not to fight, preferring cowboy-style military adventures.

The revelation yesterday of the elaborate plot to blow up airliners over the Atlantic Ocean with liquid explosives reminds us of the real threats we face -- as opposed to the phantom threats that George W. Bush and Tony Blair have conjured to justify their disastrous war in Iraq.

The airliner conspiracy seems to have all the hallmarks of an al-Qaeda extravaganza: careful and sophisticated planning, the intent to shock the world with simultaneous detonations, cold-blooded determination to murder innocents by the hundreds, and a timeline that comes suspiciously close to the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Sending a cascade of Boeings and Airbuses into the frigid ocean would have had the kind of theatrical impact that al-Qaeda always seeks.

But it doesn't really matter whether the plotters were al-Qaeda soldiers taking orders from bin Laden or just a group of like-minded admirers working on their own. The plot demonstrates that al-Qaeda lives on, either as a functioning organization or, even more chillingly, as an inspiration to jihadists around the world.

Here's your archetypical Liberal hypocrite blaming Bush for ignoring Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden yet who spent reems of paper attacking the Bush administration for their efforts to monitor international phone calls and who relentlessly attacked President Bush for wanting to strengthen the Patriot Act. Man if that isn't classic Liberalism I don't know what is.

In Mr. Robinson's neighborhood President Bush has "distracted" our security resources from the "real" problem by attacking Sadam Hussein in Iraq, yet we know that to be completely false because Mr. Robinson has also been investing a great deal of time and energy in attacking the President for being too aggressive in pursuing domestic Islamic Terrorists. He doesn't want us fighting the terrorists in Iraq even when the terrorists themselves consider Iraq "central" to their strategy for Global Islamic Jihad, and yet he also doesn't want the President to use every means within his power to combat Islamic Terrorism here at home.

Perhaps Eugene is deserving of a little "surveillance" himself. He opposes our efforts both at home and abroad, perhaps he supports the aims of the Global Islamic Jihadists. How about it Eugene, are you a sympathizer? Or is it that you just hate the President so much that you don't care what he does, you will attack his actions.

Either way, you are a loser of the very lowest order.

Full Story: Eugene Robinson, Terrorist Sympathizer?

What do you think?

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

Democrat Plan to Combat Terrorism: Can You Say Allahu-Akbar?

Both Parties Claim Edge as Terror Is Reinforced as a Campaign Topic

By Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 11, 2006; Page A12

Democrats and Republicans alike rushed to invoke yesterday's terrorist scare in Britain in congressional campaigns, underscoring how a series of national-security-related developments are refocusing and sharpening the political debate three months before the midterm elections.

Campaigning in Connecticut, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who lost Tuesday's Democratic primary and is now running as an independent, said the antiwar views of primary winner Ned Lamont would be "taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England."

Rep. Mark Kennedy, the Republican Senate candidate in Minnesota, used the alleged plot as a campaign wedge only hours after it was disclosed.

"The arrests this morning in Great Britain make it clear that now, more than ever, this is an ongoing battle and we need leaders in Washington who remain committed to doing what is right instead of what may be seen as politically advantageous," he said. To amplify the point, Kennedy endorsed Lieberman over the GOP candidate in the race, Alan Schlesinger.

Both sides can claim whatever they choose to, but only the Republicans offer any real chance of successfully combating these Animals of Islam.

Democrats would have us in a perpetual paper-chase, pursuing judges for a warrant prior to every phone call the NSA wishes to monitor. Democrats would have us molly-coddling every captured terrorist, making sure that his pride wasn't damaged during interrogation. Heaven forbid that any terrorist we capture might suffer embarrassment at the hands of a female interrogator. That might upset our Democrat friends delicate nerves. Heck if we even slightly mistreat a prisoner in the act of finding out some fact that saves a thousand lives, our Democrat friends would probably not be able to sleep for weeks.

Democrats offer nothing in this war but obstruction and complaint. I would give you pretty good odds that had either Al Gore (the inventor of the internet) or John Kerry-Heinz won the election, especially if accompanied by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in leadership roles in Congress, America would have suffered more than one major attack by the terrorists.

Democrats just don't understand national defense. They just don't understand how to combat evil, or even what true evil is.

Full Story: Reid Has the Solution to Terrorism? Riiight!

What do you think?

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

Yep Dems are Correct, We Don't Need No Stinkin' Domestic Monitoring

Tip Followed '05 Attacks on London Transit

By Craig Whitlock and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, August 11, 2006; Page A01

It all began with a tip: In the aftermath of the July 7, 2005, suicide bombings on London's transit system, British authorities received a call from a worried member of the Muslim community, reporting general suspicions about an acquaintance.

From that vague but vital piece of information, according to a senior European intelligence official, British authorities opened the investigation into what they said turned out to be a well-coordinated and long-planned plot to bomb multiple transatlantic flights heading toward the United States -- an assault designed to rival the scope and lethality of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackings.

By late 2005, the probe had expanded to involve several hundred investigators on three continents. They kept dozens of suspects under close surveillance for months, even as some of the plotters traveled between Britain and Pakistan to raise money, find recruits and refine their scheme, according to interviews with U.S. and European counterterrorism officials.

Precise details of the plot -- how many planes, their destinations and the date -- remain unknown. The shape of the operation changed regularly as the would-be bombers considered which transatlantic flights to target and prepared for a practice run, which was expected to take place in the next few days, U.S. law enforcement officials said.

Well once again we are given witness to how myopic, politically motivated, and dangerous the Democrats in Congress are. In their heedless pursuit of regaining power our "Loyal" Opposition has been fighting tooth and nail to stop the NSA from doing precisely the sort of counterterrorism monitoring that helped Scotland Yard stop this latest attempt by members of the Global Islamic Jihad to murder thousands of tourists in the skies over the US.

By all means let's do what the Fat "Lady Killer" from Massachusetts, the Leaker from Vermont, and the Ketchup Baron also from Mass. want us to do. Let's unilaterally disarm ourselves in this War against the Global Islamic Jihad. The Liberals in Congress, and I include our own Republican idiots like Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chafee seem more concerned with their own paranoid agendae than they are with protecting the American people.

Now I understand this from the Democrats, they would willingly sacrifice thousands of lives if it meant they could regain control of Congress and the White House, but idiots like Specter just boggle the mind.

Democrats are dangerous. How can we possibly entrust our national security to a party that doesn't understand the nature of our enemies or how to combat them? How can we entrust our nation's safety to people who don't believe there is a security crisis? How can we entrust the Democrats with our security when every move they have made in Congress has been intended to thwart the President's every effort to protect Americans?

Full Story: Trust Me, I'm A Democrat?

What do you think?

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

Israel Rocks Hezbollah/Lebanese Sympathizers

Israelis Authorize Expansion Of Combat
Cabinet Bitterly Divided; Highest Toll Yet for Troops

By Molly Moore and Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, August 10, 2006; Page A01

JERUSALEM, Aug. 9 -- On the deadliest day of fighting yet for Israeli soldiers in Lebanon, the Israeli security cabinet Wednesday authorized the military to expand ground combat operations to try to root out Hezbollah guerrillas who continued to mount fierce resistance.

The cabinet debated military options during an acrimonious six-hour meeting that occasionally dissolved into shouting matches among members torn between the public's growing anger over the military's failure to stop Hezbollah rocket attacks and concerns that enlarging an already treacherous battlefield will result in high numbers of combat casualties, according to participants.

Wednesday's toll drove home those fears -- 15 soldiers were killed and 25 wounded in Israel's worst day of battlefield deaths since the conflict began, according to Israeli military officials.

Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah, in a defiant televised address Wednesday night, warned that expanded Israeli military operations in Lebanon would be repelled by the same fierce resistance that has prevented Israeli troops from controlling the terrain in the last 29 days of warfare.

The outcome of this attack is in little doubt, but it will be expensive for Israel. Just like a pig, Hasan Nasrallah is squealing louder as he and his organization suffers more damage. The greater his belligerence, the louder he shouts his threats, the more successful the Israelis efforts have been.

Now is the time for Israel and its supporters like America to be persistent and aggressive. America needs to deflect any efforts by the French and their fellow appeasers to bring this battle to an early and indecisive conclusion.

Full Story: Determination Is Watchword for Israelis

What do you think?

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

Lamont's Victory Good for Republicans Election Hopes

The Death of Triangulation

By Eli Pariser
Thursday, August 10, 2006; Page A23

Ned Lamont's victory Tuesday night in Connecticut's U.S. Senate primary is great news for Democrats. And it's a watershed moment for the growing majority of Americans, in red states and blue, who want change.

For months, polls have warned that across the political spectrum people are fed up -- with the no-end-in-sight occupation of Iraq; with an energy policy that caters to oil giants while gasoline prices soar; with a health-care system that leaves more behind with every passing day. Lamont's victory is evidence that a long-awaited wave of voter sentiment on those issues has materialized.

It's certainly understandable that Republicans would prefer to see Democrats continue to run the temporizing candidates whom they've had little trouble trouncing for the past decade. But you'd think Democratic strategists would be jumping for joy -- after all, they should be able to ride the anti-incumbent feeling to victory in November. Instead, we hear the perennial pundit nattering about moving the party too far to the left. And Marshall Wittmann of the Democratic Leadership Council -- who stubbornly refuses to address the real civil war in Iraq -- invokes the specter of a domestic civil war within the party.

That's because while Lamont's victory is a promising development, it marks the beginning of the end for an old favorite of Washington insiders -- the tactics of triangulation. Originally employed as a survival strategy by a Democratic president in the wake of 1994's Republican revolution, the policy of seizing the political middle ground no longer makes sense in an era when any attempt at bipartisanship is understood as a sign of Democratic weakness and exploited accordingly.

Delusion is endemic in the American Left and Eli is a perfect example. He dismisses the argument that the Democrat Party is moving too far to the Left in the face of history's evidence to the contrary. This sudden lurch to the Left is going to be the salvation of the Republican Party, who left to their own devices would fumble the election ball.

The policies advocated by those on the Left-the Democrats-have been consistently rejected by the American voter. We enjoy our freedom and affluence far too much to allow a bunch of socialist morons to take over the government. We have seen the effect of huge government give-aways on the people and economy of America. We have witnessed the destruction of the poor black and poor white families as a result of misguided welfare generosity. We have seen the effect of profligate spending by the government.

Lamont's victory is the best news Republicans could have hoped for.

Full Story: Deraged Democrats

What do you think?

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

Fear of Nutroots Reigns Supreme in Democrat Party

Democratic Leadership Welcomes Lamont
Lieberman Shuns Calls to Drop Out

By Shailagh Murray and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, August 10, 2006; Page A01

HARTFORD, Conn., Aug. 9 -- Democratic leaders embraced their new antiwar Senate nominee Ned Lamont on Wednesday, but his defeated rival, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) vowed to wage an independent crusade to save his seat and prevent the party from being captured by forces he said are out of the political mainstream.

At a unity breakfast in Hartford, state party officials, who had lined up almost solidly behind Lieberman in Tuesday's primary, including Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), pledged their support to Lamont in the general election campaign.

In Washington, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said in a statement that Lamont would have the national party's support. Also laying on hands for Lamont were such powerful party figures as former president Bill Clinton, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.).

In background conversations, Democratic officials gently signaled their desire that Lieberman abandon his independent candidacy but appeared reluctant to press him publicly. A senior Democratic official in Washington said leaders had met and decided to put off confronting Lieberman at least for a few days, to allow the senator time to absorb the implications of his loss and his new isolation from longtime colleagues and supporters. "There's a feeling that the dust needs to settle," the official said.

Six years after he was lionized as their annointed Vice Presidential candidate, the Democrat leadership can't run away from Joe Lieberman fast enough. It appears the defeat of Lieberman has put the fear of Nutroots in Harry Reid and his fellow cowards. Prior to the primary election in Connecticut, the faces of the Democrat Party professed their undying commitment to Joe, but once the results came in, they jumped ship like the rats they are, declaring their absolute commitment to Ned Lamont.

As a result of this fear based move the Democrat Party is in the middle of a huge lurch to the Left. George McGovern has nothing on Harry Reid's new stand (of course Harry has always been a Liberal, he has just been play acting as all of the Democrat leadership have been). They have always been socialist Liberals at heart. So no surprise for this writer.

Full Story: Moonbats Taking Over the Democrat Party

What do you think?

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

Terrorism? Nah the Democrats are Right, We're Not At That Much Risk

Britain Thwarts Major Terror Plot
Britain, U.S. Raise Security Threat Levels

By Fred Barbash and John Ward Anderson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, August 10, 2006; 7:28 AM

British authorities said today they had disrupted a "major terrorist plot" to blow up passenger flights between the United Kingdom and the United States, prompting a full-scale security clampdown at U.S. and British airports and a cascade of delays in trans-Atlantic flights.

London's Deputy Police Commissioner, Paul Stephenson, said 21 people had been arrested in London and in Birmingham, England, after a months-long investigation into what he said was a plan for "mass murder on an unimaginable scale." Peter Clarke, chief of the London police department's anti-terrorism branch, said the investigation reached a "critical point" last night, requiring immediate disruption of the plot, the arrests and the imposition of heightened security measures.

"Had this plot been carried out, the loss of life to innocent civilians would have been on an unprecedented scale, British Home Secretary John Reid said.

U.S. officials raised the "threat level" for air transport to red , the highest alert. The terrorists had targeted flights operated by American Airlines, Continental Airlines and United Airlines, a U.S. official said.

Well once more we see that the Democrats are correct, we should be spending our time worrying about socialized healthcare, minimum wage, and whether the "slick-back weenie-tweeter" is about to become extinct, rather than fighting terrorists in Iraq and other venues. The color alert warning system is a joke, right? The threat from terrorism has been way over blown by the Bush administration. The President is just using the terrorist threat as an excuse to expand his power.

I guess once more we see that the Democrats are wrong. Of course the Democrats don't believe that this is real. This morning on C-span you can hear them discuss this belief. They say the President wants to frighten us so that we are distracted from how terrible things are. This was an incident created by the Bush Administration to distract us.

That is why the Democrats must not win the elections this fall. They have no idea how to protect America. They don't even believe that terrorism is a threat. Democrats cannot be trusted with the reins of the American government.

Democrats believe America is bad, the US military is bad, the President is behind everything, not the terrorists. They're idiots, paranoid and dangerous.

I love when this sort of event occurrs because it brings them out and allows the rest of America to hear the lunacy that passes for Democrat-think.

Thanks God for GWB and Tony Blair.

Full Story: Bomb Plot Reveals Moonbat Democrats

What do you think?

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

That's Two (plus dozens more) For the Bloggers

Blogger Takes Aim At News Media and Makes a Direct Hit

By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 9, 2006; Page C01

Charles Johnson could tell there was something wrong with the news photo the minute he saw it. Something about the three plumes of black smoke rising over the buildings -- smoke just doesn't curl that way, pirouetting in unison. It was, he wrote Saturday, "blatant evidence of manipulation."

He was right on target.

The Reuters photo showing the aftermath of an Israeli airstrike on Beirut was doctored. The British-based news service acknowledged as much Sunday, withdrawing that picture and another doctored image, of an Israeli jet, that were taken by freelance photographer Adnan Hajj. The agency subsequently severed its ties with the Lebanese photographer and purged its files of his work.

The exposure of the doctored airstrike photo was a coup for Johnson and his four-year-old political blog, Little Green Footballs. Make that a second coup, of sorts.

Imagine, the Washington Post pretending that this is so unusual that it is noteworthy. They act as if this kind of bias against American Interests and Israel is unusual. One of the most blatantly biased news sources in America.

Even more amusing, if you believed that this piece was an analysis of Reuters News Services complete violation of objectivity and the precepts of good journalism, you'd be wrong. The bulk of the article is dedicated to the statements of Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a civil rights organization often vilified on Johnson's blog. Not surprisingly we find out (oh, horrors of horrors) those on the right, like the regular visitors to LGF, use this kind of "isolated" occurrence to "paint the MSM with the broad brush of Liberal bias." Imagine, people accusing the MSM of having a Left-wing bias. I mean just because the press continues to express horror over every single Lebanese casualty, even those which are demonstrably orchestrated, yet continues to virtually ignore the fact that the people of Israel are under constant threat from unguided missiles. Remember, during World War II we (the Allies) called the V1 and V2 (unguided)rockets, "weapons of terror."

Who could imagine such a thing? The press biased to the Left? Impossible!

Right!

Full Story: LGF Strikes Blow Against MSM Bias

What do you think?

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

Ding Dong the W[B]itch is Dead

Cynthia McKinney loses Georgia run-off race

By Matthew Bigg
Reuters
Wednesday, August 9, 2006; 2:21 AM

ATLANTA (Reuters) - Democrat Cynthia McKinney, Georgia's first African American congresswoman, lost her primary run-off race on Tuesday, paying a price for strident rhetoric and a failure to galvanize supporters.

Her opponent, Hank Johnson, won 59 percent of the vote in Georgia's 4th Congressional District, according to Atlanta station WSB-TV's Web site.

McKinney had been expected to cruise through the July primary but emerged only 3 percent ahead of Johnson, a lawyer and former county commissioner, and was forced into a run-off for a seat she has held since 2004.

In June, McKinney was forced to apologize on the floor of the House over an incident at the Capitol that drew rebukes from lawmakers of both parties, in which she poked a police officer who stopped her at a checkpoint after failing to recognize her.

This I am glad to see. The Queen of Thugs and her thug brigade will be gone from the Capitol again. In case you haven't seen it, members of her "entourage" [fellow thugs] roughed up a Channel 11 photographer twice last night. McKinney represents the lowest form of prima donna politician, dishonest, hateful, and arrogant beyond measure. She is only outshone in that aspect by Houston's own Miss Piggy, Shiela Jackson Lee. Would that Houston could get rid of her; fat chance (and I do mean "fat").

Ah well, I guess I'll just have to settle for McKinney's downfall. It's not polite, but "good riddance to bad rubbish."

Full Story: Georgia Whale Beached

What do you think?

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

Prediction: Lieberman Will Win as Independent, Damage Democrat Party

Lieberman Defeated in Democratic Primary
Senator Vows Independent Run As Antiwar Challenger Prevails

By Dan Balz and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, August 9, 2006; Page A01

HARTFORD, Conn., Aug. 8 -- In a stark repudiation, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) narrowly lost the Democratic Senate primary here Tuesday night, falling to antiwar candidate Ned Lamont in a campaign that became a referendum on the incumbent's support for the Iraq war.

Lieberman publicly conceded the primary shortly after 11 p.m., after a congratulatory call to Lamont. But he appeared almost exuberant in defeat, telling supporters at a hotel in Hartford that he planned to run as an independent in November and predicting that he would be returned to the Senate for a fourth term.

Lieberman, accused by many in his own party of being too accommodating to President Bush, also made it clear that he would try to make the general election a campaign about a tone and style of politics that he said has stalemated Washington and that he charged was at the heart of Lamont's campaign.

"I am, of course, disappointed by the results, but I am not discouraged," Lieberman said. "I'm disappointed not just because I lost but because the old politics of partisan polarization won today. For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand."

You're correct Joe, your ousting was a planned hate campaign planned by a bunch of left-over hippies from the 60's and a bunch of immature, hyper-emotional, hippy wannabes like Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and of course Jane Hamsher who, although Ned Lamont says he doesn't know her, manages to appear in a multitude of photos talking to him at a bar-b-que and who some how produced his video blog. No surprise, as a Liberal, Lamont is expected to tell those kinds of lies.

It is now up to you Joe to kick his tail in the election this November. It's a tall order, but I believe you will do it. I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your sacrifice. In losing the primary you are proving to America that the moonbats have taken over the Democrat Party and the only place for individuals with a reasoning intellect is the Republican Party.

Full Story: Lieberman's Loss: Republican Victory

What do you think?

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

Go Lamont! Let's Show America What the Dems are Truly Like

Lieberman's Troubles Go Beyond War
Some Voters Felt a Disconnect Long Before Today's Primary

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 8, 2006; Page A01

FARMINGTON, Conn., Aug. 7 -- Exactly six years ago Tuesday, on a sweltering day in Nashville, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) was introduced to the nation as Al Gore's vice presidential running mate. Lieberman called his selection "a miracle" and described himself as part of an "American Dream Team."

From the pinnacle of that 2000 campaign, Lieberman has seen his support crumble with astonishing swiftness. Six years after making history as the first Jew chosen for a national ticket and being hailed as one of the most respected politicians in the country, Lieberman is in the last hours of a battle to avoid a humiliating rejection by his own party at home. A poll Monday showed Lieberman behind but gaining ground in a tight race.

Lieberman's plight, according to Democrats here and in Washington, is two stories in one. The first is a metaphor for politics in the era of President Bush and how an unpopular war in Iraq has divided the electorate, inflamed the public debate and intensified an already partisan political climate.

For more than a decade, Lieberman has stood as one of the most prominent representatives of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council wing of the Democratic Party, a leading advocate of a robust and muscular foreign policy and a proponent of values-based politics in a party often seen as struggling to find its voice in the culture wars. His instincts for collegiality and bipartisanship, once regarded as virtues, are now seen as virtual disqualifications by his critics here and nationally.

As much as I respect and like Joe Lieberman, I'm hoping Lamont wins this primary so that Joe has to go independent. It is time for the Democrat string pullers to be revealed as the extreme Left-wing moonbats they are. I support Markos Moulitsas Zuniga's efforts and those of his followers to swing the Democrat Party into the full blown Socialist Workers Party it's always aspired to be.

I hope that the folks from the blogs democraticunderground.com, dailyKos.com., MyDD.com, BoomanTribune.com, BuzzFlash.com and all the rest of the moonbats gain complete control of the Democrat agenda. In fact I'm contemplating sending them all a nice fat donation for their political campaigns. The combination of them and the 501c groups like MoveOn.org, CommonCause and People for the American Way, should just about assure a Republican majority in Congress and a Republican President for the rest of my lifetime. And that's alright with me.

Full Story: Go! You Moonbats, Go!

What do you think?

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

Run, Tom, Run!

GOP Loses Bid to Drop DeLay From Texas Ballot

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 8, 2006; Page A06

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia refused yesterday to block an appeals court ruling to keep former congressman Tom DeLay as the Republican candidate on the ballot, all but ensuring that the former House majority leader will stand for election in November for his suburban Houston district.

DeLay was under indictment in Texas and facing a possible House ethics investigation when he resigned his seat in June and announced he would move to Alexandria in hopes of removing his name from the ballot.

But Democrats, eager to keep the politically tainted DeLay on the ballot, argued that he won the Republican primary this spring and cannot now decide on a successor without violating state election law and the U.S. Constitution. DeLay maintains a home in his district and cannot show that he would be living outside the district on Election Day, Democrats asserted.

A Republican federal judge in Texas ruled in favor of the Democratic argument last month, and that ruling was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans last week. With the election less than 100 days away, Texas Republicans appealed to the Supreme Court yesterday to stay the appeals court ruling and allow them to pick a new candidate to stand against Democrat Nick Lampson in November. That appeal was routed to Scalia, who denied it just two hours after it was received.

Alright Tom, it's time to quit playing around and get serious about this campaign. The Republican party needs you to be a stand up guy, put the past issues behind you and run like heck. You've got three months and you're going to have more press than you could buy when you re-enter the race. You've got a successful record in Congress as the most effective leader in recent history. Time to suck it up and do your public/Republican duty.

I hope you're listening out there, 'cause there are a lot of folks counting on you. It's time to put on your gloves and come out swinging. Hope you do!

Full Story: Fish of Cut Bait Time for DeLay

What do you think?

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

Republicans, Don't Blame Bush, Blame Your Wishy-Washy, Pork Stuffed, Spineless, Selves

House Incumbents at Risk, Poll Finds
Percentage of Americans Who Approve of Their Representative Has Fallen Sharply

By Peter Baker and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 8, 2006; Page A03

Most Americans describe themselves as being in an anti-incumbent mood heading into this fall's midterm congressional elections, and the percentage of people who approve of their own representative's performance is at the lowest level since 1994, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

As attention turns to Connecticut for Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's Democratic primary showdown today, the poll found some of the same political currents that have buffeted his campaign flowing through the national electorate. The public has soured on politicians backing the Iraq war, which Democrats consider the most important issue of the election.

Eighty-one percent of Democrats say the war was not worth fighting, and 70 percent feel that way "strongly." A majority of Democrats, 54 percent, say a candidate endorsing Bush's Iraq policy would be less likely to get their vote, compared with 37 percent for whom it would not make much difference. Two in three Democrats say it is time to begin decreasing troop levels in Iraq, although only one in four supports immediate withdrawal.

Especially worrisome for members of Congress is that the proportion of Americans who approve of their own representative's performance has fallen sharply. Traditionally, voters may express disapproval of Congress as a whole but still vote for their own member, even from the majority party. But 55 percent now approve of their lawmaker, a seven-percentage-point drop over three months and the lowest such finding since 1994, the last time control of the House switched parties.

If they lose this fall, Congressional Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. In the past 5 years, they have out-spent the worst of the Democrat Administration/Congress teams with record pork-barrel spending. They have been spineless and half-hearted in supporting the President's agenda which, of course, has resulted in poor poll numbers for both the President and the Republican Congress members.

A little advice, probably too late for most of you; if you're going to support the Presidents agenda, do it whole-heartedly. Stop worrying about the latest poll numbers and boldly state your reasons for doing so. If you are going to oppose the Presidents policies, do it boldly and give substantive reasons. In both cases doing what is politically expedient, according to the latest poll numbers, is not going to win you friends either among the people or in the Paleo-press. We want decisive leaders representing us not spineless, weather-vane, poll watchers. Stop trying to curry favor with the press, they hate you. Get over it. The Washington Post and the New York Times will never support your Conservative agenda, either switch parties and become a Democrat, or stop worrying about your press coverage.

The President has been mostly right in Iraq (though more troops would probably be a plus) and in the rest of his foreign policy. Western Europe is a lost cause, but Eastern Europe is still partially sane. The President totally wrong on illegal immigration, until you get control of your borders, any other "comprehensive solution" is a waste of time and will achieve nothing. Eighty percent of the people of this nation know this, why can't you in Congress and the President figure this out?

Regardless of the outcome, this promises to be an interesting election year.

Full Story: Incumbants on the Edge

What do you think?

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

David Broder's Lapse Into Senility

Doubling Two Bad Bets?

By David S. Broder
Thursday, August 3, 2006; Page A27

If you think there is an echo in the air when officials discuss the twin crises in Iraq and Lebanon, you're not hearing things. In both cases the argument for carrying on the destructive current policy comes down to a claim that "we can't afford to let the other guy win."

President Bush says over and over that cutting short the occupation of Iraq would turn that country over to the terrorists and embolden them to carry their wicked plots ever closer to our shores. He also endorses -- implicitly -- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's view that an early cease-fire with Lebanon would strengthen Hezbollah and make its prime sponsor, Iran, even more of a threat to its neighbors. That political support enables Olmert to wage the kind of campaign he has in Lebanon.

In both cases, the argument is not that continuing on the present course will necessarily or probably yield a positive result. On the contrary, it is basically a claim that it is unacceptable to change -- because the other side will claim a victory.

But if Hezbollah in Lebanon and the insurgents in Iraq really are deadly threats to Israel and the United States, respectively, then those nations should have used their full military might -- which is overwhelming -- to deal with the menace.

David Broder truly is an idiot. David, are you really questioning whether Hizbollah is a threat to Israel? Are you aware that there stated goal is "the complete destruction of the Zionist Entity?" In case you don't know what that means, they desire to wipe Israel off of the face of the Earth, and all of the Jewish inhabitants right along with it. No threat to Israel?

What can I possibly say to this bizzare editorial? Saying Broder is misguided would be a gross understatement, the word stupid leaps to mind.

It is astounding to me how the Left views events in the world. Israel is viciously attacked without provocation by a world renown terrorist group who are responsible for the deaths of 240+ American Marines among a host of others, and jerks like David Broder question whether Israel is right to attack the perpetrators.

Full Story: David I Think You've Overdosed on the Kool-aid

What do you think?

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

For Terrorists, Time/Leftists are Allies

Among Militia's Patient Loyalists, Confidence and Belief in Victory

By Anthony Shadid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, August 3, 2006; Page A01

JWAYYA, Lebanon, Aug. 2 -- There were no cars in the winding streets of this southern Lebanese village. Not many people, either. The signs of life were the buzz of Israeli surveillance drones overhead and, below, a gaggle of Hezbollah loyalists, sitting in a small storefront along an abandoned street. There was a walkie-talkie, bottles of water and, according to the half-dozen or so men, patience.

"We are waiting," said Jamal Nasser, a burly man in civilian clothes. "We are here, and we're not going anywhere."

Three weeks into its war with Israel, Hezbollah has retained its presence in southern Lebanon, often the sole authority in devastated towns along the Israeli border. The militia is elusive, with few logistics, little hierarchy and less visibility. Even residents often say they don't know how the militiamen operate or are organized. Communication is by walkie-talkie, always in code, and sometimes messages are delivered by motorcycle. Weapons seem to be already in place across a terrain that fighters say they know intimately.

"On the ground, face to face, we're better fighters than the Israelis," said Hajj Abu Mohammed, a bearded, 44-year-old militiaman in the small village of Srifa, whose walkie-talkie crackled and cellphone rang with a Hezbollah anthem.

This rosy picture of these murderer's moral once more echoes the sad truth about fighting evil on one side and Liberal peaceniks on the other side. It is the same in Lebanon for Israel as it is in Iraq for America and the Coalition Forces. It is difficult to win a war when you are being hindered at every turn by whining do-gooders, meddlers, and international know-it-alls.

Anthony Shadid (did you notice how he calls them "militia" rather than what they truly are?) says it later in the article, paraphrasing a member of the terrorist Hizbollah:

Fighters and supporters suggest that time is their advantage in a war that most suspect won't have a conclusive end. In conversations in southern Lebanon, the militia's supporters seem most adamant in trying to deprive either Israel or the United States of political gains from the military campaign.

The members of Hizbollah are relying on the do-gooders of the Left, like France, Russia, and China, in the Useless Nations, as well as those here in America to force a cease fire in Lebanon before the Israelis can finish the job of crippling them. Groups like Hizbollah survive through the generosity and interference of pro-Arab, anti-Semitic, anti-American groups. Left to their own devices, they would be eliminated in a fairly short period of time, particularly if the U.N. was to actually do their job and stop the influx of weapons and supplies from Syria and Iran.

Full Story: Hizzbollah Banking on Leftist Peace-mongers

What do you think?

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

Democrats Want Problems Not Solutions

An Estate Tax Twist Reverses Party Roles On Minimum Wage

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 3, 2006; Page A01

For years, organized labor has worked hard to raise the minimum wage, while business groups have campaigned to block such a change. This week in the Senate, however, the AFL-CIO is pushing to kill the wage increase while practically the entire business lobby is demanding that it pass.

The reversal is the product of election-year politics and clever -- critics say devious -- legislative packaging that has been dubbed the "trifecta." In the same bill, senators are being asked to raise the minimum wage (the liberals' goal), cut the estate tax (the conservatives' objective) and approve a laundry list of popular, though narrowly targeted, tax breaks.

"The sides have flipped," said Peter R. Orszag, an economics scholar at the Brookings Institution.

Prodded by moderate Republicans eager to undercut criticism by Democrats that GOP economic programs overwhelmingly favor the rich, the House approved the package last week, including a three-year phased-in boost in the nation's minimum allowable hourly wage to $7.25 from the current $5.15. It would be the first increase in the minimum wage in nine years.

The Senate intends to vote on the package this week, but the outcome is too close to call, lawmakers from both parties agree. Several Republican committee chairmen are unhappy with how the House GOP leadership stitched together the bill, and they may raise objections on the floor. But the biggest obstacle to passage is the strong opposition from Democratic leaders and their labor-union allies to the estate tax provision, which would permanently reduce the federal levy on estates left by the wealthiest Americans.

Once more we see the truth about Democrats. They love to complain about the problems confronting our society, as they see it, but when they are given an opportunity to support a really good solution by the Republican majority, they invent some reason to object to it. It is amazing how slow some American voters are to figure out that the Democrats don't care about the people who vote for them, only about attaining and retaining power.

If they actually cared about the "plight" of the minimum wage worker, they would vote for this bill, but they see the cut in the Death Tax as reducing the amount of money available for buying special interest's votes through directed spending.

Democrats want political issues on which they can run rather than solutions to solve the problems that confront America. Once more, in the lexicon of Democrats, Captitalism=Bad, Higher Taxes=Good.

Full Story: For Democrats It's Politics As Usual

What do you think?

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

Letter to the President From Democrat "Leadership?"

Democrat Letter to the President

The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

While the world has been focused on the crisis in the Middle East, Iraq has exploded in violence. Some 6,000 Iraqis were killed in May and June, and sectarian and insurgent violence continues to claim American and Iraqi lives at an alarming rate. [American casualties have been falling for three straight months as the Iraqis begin to take over a share of the defense burden. This month’s tally of 44 is the lowest in over a year.] In the face of this onslaught, one can only conclude that the Baghdad security plan you announced five weeks ago is in great jeopardy.

Despite the latest evidence that your Administration lacks a coherent strategy to stabilize Iraq and achieve victory, there has been virtually no diplomatic effort to resolve sectarian differences, no regional effort to establish a broader security framework, and no attempt to revive a struggling reconstruction effort. Instead, we learned of your plans to redeploy an additional 5,000 U.S. troops into an urban war zone in Baghdad. Far from implementing a comprehensive "Strategy for Victory" as you promised months ago, your Administration=' strategy appears to be one of trying to avoid defeat.

Meanwhile, U.S. troops and taxpayers continue to pay a high price as your Administration searches for a policy. Over 2,500 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice and over 18,000 others have been wounded. The Iraq war has also strained our military and constrained our ability to deal with other challenges. Readiness levels for the Army are at lows not seen since Vietnam, as virtually no active Army non-deployed combat brigade is prepared to perform its wartime missions. American taxpayers have already contributed over $300 billion and each week we stay in Iraq adds nearly $3 billion more to our record budget deficit.

In the interests of American national security, our troops, and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have embraced cannot and should not be sustained.

Rather, we continue to believe that it is time for Iraqis to step forward and take the lead for securing and governing their own country. This is the principle enshrined in the "United States Policy in Iraq Act" enacted last year. This law declares 2006 to be a year of "significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq." Regrettably, your policy seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

This legislation made clear that Iraqi political leaders must be informed that American patience, blood and treasure are not unlimited. We were disappointed that you did not convey this message to Prime Minister Maliki during his recent visit. Reducing the U.S. footprint in Iraq will not only give the Iraqis a greater incentive to take the lead for the security of their own nation, but will also allow U.S. forces to be able to respond to contingencies affecting the security of the United States elsewhere in the world.

We believe that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin before the end of 2006. U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces, and force protection of U.S. personnel.

Additionally, every effort should be made to urge the Iraqis to take the steps necessary to achieve a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. It is also essential to disarm the militias and ensure forces loyal to the national government. Finally, an international conference should be convened to persuade other governments to be more involved, and to secure the resources necessary to finance Iraq's reconstruction and rebuild its economy.

Mr. President, simply staying the course in Iraq is not working. We need to take a new direction. We believe these recommendations comprise an effective alternative to the current open-ended commitment which is not producing the progress in Iraq we would all like to see. Thank you for your careful consideration of these suggestions.



Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader
Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader
Dick Durbin, Senate Assistant Democratic Leader
Steny Hoyer, House Minority Whip
Carl Levin, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee
Ike Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee
Joe Biden, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee
Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee
Jane Harman, Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee
Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
John Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee

Here we go again. The Democrat leadership once again proves Karl Rove was correct when he stated in New Hampshire that:

“They may be with you for the first shots, but they're not going . . . to be with you for the tough battles.”

At the time Rove said this, it was treated by the Democrats and the Paleo-media as though it was a statement coming from the President of Mars, but the truth is that the statement was no revelation, it was a simple statement of fact.

Since Viet Nam (a war the Democrats got us into), Democrats have had no stomach for war. They see every war as another Saigon waiting to happen and every battle as another Têt Offensive. They believe that the American soldier is a corrupt, murderous, rapacious, stupid, thug, without whom the world would be better off.

Will they never learn? I seriously doubt it.

What do you think?

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

Cody/Post Hew to the Hizbollah Propaganda Line

Staying Power Adds To Hezbollah's Appeal

By Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A11

BEIRUT, Aug. 1 -- Still in the fight after three weeks of war with Israel, Hezbollah is riding a surge of popularity in Lebanon and has acquired increased influence in the Lebanese government and its component factions, according to senior Lebanese officials and analysts.

The killing of more than 50 civilians at Qana by Israeli airstrikes Sunday in particular built unity in the Lebanese population, in horror if not in politics. The shock of what happened there enveloped the border conflict in broad feelings of nationalism, rallying many Lebanese who are wary of Hezbollah to the flag of battle with Israel.

Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, a Sunni Muslim who has long worked to assert government authority in the south and disarm Hezbollah's Shiite militia, gave a telling display of the new attitude in a meeting Sunday with foreign ambassadors. Asked about his relations with Hezbollah by a female reporter clad in the scarf and long dress of a conservative Muslim, he replied that he was a good friend of the movement's leader, Hasan Nasrallah, and admired his militia's fight against Israel.

"I thank his eminence Seyyed Ali for his presence," Siniora said, using Nasrallah's familiar name and title, "and I also thank all those who are sacrificing with their lives for the independence and sovereignty of Lebanon, and I ask God to reserve a place in Heaven for all those who have lost their lives for the sake of Lebanon."

Most of us, with the obvious exception of Mr. Cody and the Washington Post, are aware that Qana has proven to be a Hizbollah propaganda stunt, rather than an act of Israel's Air Force. It helps to know that members of Hizbollah dressed as rescue workers paraded around for hours before any foreign correspondent cameras they could find, posing with the same bodies from different angles again and again to make it appear that there were more deaths than actually occurred.

The Paleo-press, always ready to support the terrorist line, has assiduously failed to report the fact that the Qana death toll suddenly dropped from the widely announced 57 to half that. It currently stands at 28, yet in the press one has to search carefully to find that out. So called News Outlets in the West are becoming more and more the propaganda parrots for our avowed enemies. This repeated and apparently intentional use of pumped up numbers against us and our Israeli allies by the domestic press is very reminiscent of the actions of Berlin Betty and Tokyo Rose.

Again and again, the press continues to repeat the erroneous death toll numbers, to the diplomatic, political, and PR advantage of our enemies, the Terrorists. These liars need to be held responsible for their deliberate attempts to sabotage our foreign policy.

Full Story: Berlin Betty Works At the Washington Post

What do you think?

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

Hooray! A Glimmer of Sanity in Senate

Senate Approves Bill to Expand Oil, Gas Drilling
Gulf States Would Get Share of Royalties

By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A07

The Senate approved yesterday a bill that would open more than 8 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas drilling, but it must be reconciled with a vastly more permissive House measure that would end a 25-year-old moratorium on drilling off the nation's Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

The bill passed 71 to 25 with the help of Gulf Coast senators whose states would receive a big share of the federal royalties on new production, and with the support of Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and other Democrats who are seeking to do something in response to high energy prices.

"Now, more than ever, America needs American energy," said Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). He said the bill would substantially reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil and gas.

But many lawmakers complained that, under the bill, four coastal states -- Louisiana, Texas, Alabama and Mississippi -- would receive revenue that belongs to the entire nation, and that Congress should not open more of the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling without taking action to increase energy efficiency. Republican leaders blocked an effort to attach an amendment to the bill that would have gradually raised U.S. automobile fuel economy standards.

Now don't get too excited, I said a "glimmer of sanity," not complete sanity. That would be far too much to hope for. At least this is a move in the right direction. There's a lot more that could be done and there are a lot more areas of the nation that need to be explored for oil and gas, but at least this is a start. As long as we have enough Democrats in Congress to mount a filibuster, we must take what we can get.

Remember, Democrats believe that expensive gasoline is good gasoline because they see it as a means to force Americans into smaller more efficient vehicles. Ever the champions of social engineering, we should be greatful that they have come this far, even if it is only because of the upcoming election.

Full Story: Democrats Abandon Their Principles for Elective Politics

What do you think?

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

Europe: When in Doubt, "Run Away!"

Europeans, Offering Peacekeepers, Call for End of Hostilities Now

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A10

UNITED NATIONS, Aug. 1 -- The European Union's 25 foreign ministers called Tuesday for an immediate cessation of hostilities in southern Lebanon and expressed their "readiness" to serve in a multinational peacekeeping force there once Israel and Hezbollah agree to halt their fighting and settle their political differences.

The agreement increased international pressure on the United States to press Israel for a halt to its military offensive. It also complicated U.S. diplomatic efforts to quickly stand up a multinational force under the mandate of the United Nations and carrying the authority to check Hezbollah's ability to attack towns in northern Israel.

Instead, the E.U. accord lent support to a diplomatic initiative by France to delay sending such a large force to the region until there is greater certainty that a sustainable peace accord can be enforced.

The optimistic schedule outlined by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice after her week-long diplomatic mission appeared to slip Tuesday, as White House and State Department officials engaged in intense behind-the-scenes diplomacy with France.

Well it's clear why the European Union's flag has 12 YELLOW stars on it. It's also clear that France wears the pants in that family. Never a nation to fight when they can surrender, France continues to strengthen its reputation as the gourmand of the battlefield. Quite frankly, the French would rather eat than fight.

It appears that the Régime de Vichy was no fluke, it was the natural order of things. Apparently "Vichy Europe" doesn't care about right and wrong, only about doing what is most expedient. Perhaps if they hadn't wimped out (well what did you expect?) when the Islamic population rioted following the decision to allow employers to actually control who they hired, the French might have begun to solve their many internal problems.

It is becoming more and more apparent that "Old Europe," aside from Britain, is becoming (if not already is) a lost cause. A couple of nations have shown some backbone, Denmark and Italy come to mind, but by and large, Europe has become like an old draq queen, rarely funny and more to be pitied than held in contempt.

Funny how the Democrats remind me more and more of Europeans. Once more we are given evidence that it is time for us to abandon the United Nations to its inevitable fate.

Full Story: European Union Takes Its Lead From Democrat Party

What do you think?

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

Useless Nations Passes Gas (Resolution on Iran)

Security Council Sets Deadline for Iran
U.N. May Impose Sanctions Unless Nation Ends Nuclear Activity by Aug. 31

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 1, 2006; Page A11

UNITED NATIONS, July 31 -- The U.N. Security Council approved a resolution Monday demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment and reprocessing of nuclear fuel by Aug. 31 or face the threat of economic and diplomatic sanctions.

The resolution, passed 14 to 1, represented the first time that the international body has legally required Iran to halt its enrichment of uranium. It increased pressure on Tehran to begin negotiations -- with Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States -- aimed at addressing international concerns that it may be developing nuclear weapons.

The council sought to further Iran's isolation at a time when the Bush administration has grown increasingly alarmed that the Islamic regime is fostering instability in Iraq and southern Lebanon, where the Iranian-backed Lebanese militia Hezbollah triggered the current conflict by launching a raid July 12 on Israeli troops inside Israel.

"This is a very important step forward in the effort to isolate Iran," U.S. Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns said in an interview. "I think the Iranians are surprised by this."

Oh Gee! Another "Or Else!" from the most useless organization on Earth. Can anyone name a more useless operation than the UN? So they passed another resolution telling Iran to "suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development," or else. Iranian U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif's response:

"Iran's peaceful nuclear program poses no threat to international peace and security and therefore dealing with this issue in the Security Council is unwarranted and void of any legal basis or practical utility."

Can anyone reasonably deny that John Bolton's original statement on the uselessness of the United Nations, so often quoted by the idiot Democrats like clueless Nancy "Wicked Witch of the Left" Pelosi, and the profoundly stupid Dianne Feinstein during his nomination hearings was devastatingly accurate?

Iran's Prime Minister, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is doubled over in paroxysms of hysterical laughter. His response, as predictable as the rising sun, echoes that of Al Gore during the 2000 campaign, "no controlling legal authority."

What a waste of American taxpayer money. We need to pack the entire useless lot of them up and ship them to Paris. Let the Frogs waste their time and money on this farce of diplomacy.

Full Story: That Sour Smell Is More Hot Air from the UN

What do you think?

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

Cohen: Somehow Manages to Blame Bush...Of Course

A Moment Mel Would Understand

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, August 1, 2006; Page A17

The world is having a Mel Gibson moment. If it does not quite hold Jews "responsible for all the wars in the world," then certainly it is ready to blame Israel alone for the carnage in Lebanon and, in the addled formulations of some, the war in Iraq as well. Gibson offered his inebriated analysis to a Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy, but drunk and a skunk though he may be, he put his finger to the anti-Israel zeitgeist and uttered its prevailing sentiment: Enough.

The war in Lebanon has thus far proved to be a debacle for both Israel and the United States. It has flipped George Bush into a state of babbling inanity about how this was "a moment of opportunity" -- as Britain's Tony Blair, his steadfast enabler, stood by and watched. This is similar to the opportunity presented by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which offered Bush et al. the chance to rearrange the china of the Middle East by smashing a good deal of it. That, as we all know, has not worked quite as splendidly as promised.

Before Gibson there was Kofi Annan. I do not accuse the United Nations secretary general of anti-Semitism -- a slam-dunk in Gibson's case -- but here again there is a rush to judgment, an impatience, an anger and a general vexation that, at best, is worrisome. When an Israeli airstrike in southern Lebanon killed four U.N. observers last week, Annan was quick to say Israel had done so deliberately. Why Israel would do such a thing -- what's the benefit to it? -- went unexplained or even, it seemed, unconsidered. Annan, who later said he would await an Israeli report on the incident, was having a mini-Mel Gibson moment.

This is all regrettable, not to mention troubling. War is a nasty thing, and in this war Israel has most of the firepower. Having most of the firepower means that it can do most of the damage. The consequences can be horrendous and almost unbearable to see on television. What's more, Israel has an almost mythical reputation for military prowess, a supposedly magical ability for battlefield precision, so it's all the harder to accept the fact that it, too, can make awful mistakes. The United States, after all, has done similar things in Iraq and Afghanistan. As for Hezbollah, it cannot make such mistakes. It doesn't give a damn where its rockets land.

Cohen gets most of this right, but somehow, as a typical Liberal American Jew, he cannot help but take a shot at President Bush along the way.

Nevermind that President Bush is the best ally Israel has had in some time. Nevermind that President Bush is taking a tremendous amount of heat from the international community for his steadfast support of Israel and his refusal to yield to the cries for capitulation from people like Cohen on the Left who see this not just as a struggle for Israel's survival, but as an opportune time to bash the American President.

Cohen reveals himself as a callow political hack who just happens to support Israel, rather than someone who is interested in the survival and success of Israel in the face continued attacks and a worldwide revival of anti-semitism. He seems more interested in scoring political points than conveying the truth. He can't even bring himself to express appreciation for the President's hands off policy. He can only bash the President.

Full Story: Cohen: Another Self-hating Liberal Jew?

What do you think?

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

Jimmy Carter: Neville Chamberlain's Number 1 Fan

Stop the Band-Aid Treatment
We Need Policies for a Real, Lasting Middle East Peace

By Jimmy Carter
Tuesday, August 1, 2006; Page A17

The Middle East is a tinderbox, with some key players on all sides waiting for every opportunity to destroy their enemies with bullets, bombs and missiles. One of the special vulnerabilities of Israel, and a repetitive cause of violence, is the holding of prisoners. Militant Palestinians and Lebanese know that a captured Israeli soldier or civilian is either a cause of conflict or a valuable bargaining chip for prisoner exchange. This assumption is based on a number of such trades, including 1,150 Arabs, mostly Palestinians, for three Israeli soldiers in 1985; 123 Lebanese for the remains of two Israeli soldiers in 1996; and 433 Palestinians and others for an Israeli businessman and the bodies of three soldiers in 2004.

This stratagem precipitated the renewed violence that erupted in June when Palestinians dug a tunnel under the barrier that surrounds Gaza and assaulted some Israeli soldiers, killing two and capturing one. They offered to exchange the soldier for the release of 95 women and 313 children who are among almost 10,000 Arabs in Israeli prisons, but this time Israel rejected a swap and attacked Gaza in an attempt to free the soldier and stop rocket fire into Israel. The resulting destruction brought reconciliation between warring Palestinian factions and support for them throughout the Arab world.

Hezbollah militants then killed three Israeli soldiers and captured two others, and insisted on Israel's withdrawal from disputed territory and an exchange for some of the several thousand incarcerated Lebanese. With American backing, Israeli bombs and missiles rained down on Lebanon. Hezbollah rockets from Syria and Iran struck northern Israel.

It is inarguable that Israel has a right to defend itself against attacks on its citizens, but it is inhumane and counterproductive to punish civilian populations in the illogical hope that somehow they will blame Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking the devastating response. The result instead has been that broad Arab and worldwide support has been rallied for these groups, while condemnation of both Israel and the United States has intensified.

Just what the world needs, another Jimmy Carter solution to a world-wide crisis. What's the matter Jimmy, your disasterous North Korean agreement wasn't bad enough? Now you want to destroy Israel. As is typical of your limited mentality, you want Israel to give their enemies everything they request,

"withdraw from all Lebanese territory, including Shebaa Farms, and release the Lebanese prisoners"

Of course! Why didn't I see it before? I must have been blind. You give a bully everything he asks for and he will leave you alone from then on. Neville Carter, eh? "Peace for our time." Is that what you are offering?

Jimmy, you truly are an idiot of the most profound and dangerous sort. Your Presidency was the single most disasterous since the Great Depression both economically and diplomatically, yet here you are giving advice to the American and Israeli people on how to run our foreign policy. You talk as if World War II and the lessons we learned never occurred. Like all Liberal idiots, you mistakenly believe that goodwill shown toward an implacable enemy whose only aim is the complete destruction of Israel will result in a like response. It is not only naive to believe so, but it requires a concious effort at being ignorant of history.

One would have thought that the lessons of Neville Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" declaration would be ingrained in the mind of any who sought to be a diplomat on the world scene, particularly in a highly charged environment like the Middle East where one side is intent on the total destruction of the other side who for themselves seek only the right to peacefully and securely co-exist, but clearly it is not so because the Chamberlain path is the very path you are suggesting to resolve the current situation.

Full Story: Jimmah, Go Back to Your Peanut Farm

For another blogger's eye view, click on the Webloggin link below:
Hasn't Jimmy Carter Caused Enough Harm?

What do you think?

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