More Lies From the Desk of Dan Froomkin

ASide from the quote of Scott McClellan saying:

"That is not the way this President or this White House operates."

I don't believe there is a single factual statement in those first four paragraphs.

It has become Liberal dogma that the White House was seeking revenge on that nobody Wilson for "proving" that the White House was lying about Saddam Hussein seeking "yellowcake" from Niger. Uh Dan, Wilson's report to the CIA as stated in the 9/11 Commission Report did precisely the opposite. I guess as a Democrat shill you wouldn't know the truth if you were telling it.

How This White House Operates

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, January 30, 2007; 1:14 PM

From the first time the White House was asked about allegations that senior officials had exposed a CIA agent's identity as part of a plot to discredit an administration critic, the answer was consistent.

As spokesman Scott McClellan put it as early as July 22, 2003: "That is not the way this President or this White House operates."

But in the course of the Scooter Libby trial, one thing has become quite clear: That is precisely the way this White House operates.

Faced with accusations that they had marched the country to war on evidence they knew was suspect, White House aides evidently responded with little if any restraint in attempting to discredit their critics.

There was, quite simply no reason for the White House to "seek revenge" on an idiot that didn't even know what he found out. Joe Wilson has always been a nobody with delusions of grandeur.

The CIA didn't pick him because he was the most qualified person to do this research, they picked him because his wife pimped him out. His "research" consisted of sitting on the porch drinking "tea" with a couple of his our of power old buddies in Niger. His report, such as it was, was verbal, not even written down. The White House never received anything but a verbal reference.

Wilson himself outed his wife when he discussed his trip to Niger with Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times. In an article dated May 6, 2003 (two months prior to the Novak story and the supposed leak from the White House) Kristoff said:

“I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.”

That person involved was none other than Joseph Wison. He outed himself and along with him, his wife. Oh yeah, and we now know that Wilson had never seen that forged document when he made his erroneous report to the CIA.

He in fact confirmed what the President stated in his State of the Union Speech:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.seeking to obtain"

That statement was true then and the British government, to this day, stands by that statement. The 9/11 Commission (A.K.A. The Clinton Cover Up Commission) confirmed that Iraq was seeking to obtain yellowcake from Niger.

Mr. Froomkin, you are a liar and one of the reasons that your, once great, newspaper has deteriorated into a tabloid.

What do you think?

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

New York Lies Editorial Staff Strikes Out Again

When Liberals write their usual anti-freedom screeds, it is often more educational to study exactly what they left out of the article rather than what they put into it.

January 30, 2007
Editorial
A Day Without Guns ...

Twenty years ago, the Florida Legislature cravenly decided to allow “law abiding” citizens to carry concealed weapons merely by declaring their preference for self-defense. Then last July, at the prodding of the gun lobby, the current crop of state lawmakers proved they could be even more corrupt and cowardly than their predecessors by deciding to make the list of gun-toting Floridians a secret.

Fortunately, a local newspaper has given residents of the state a final look at their representatives’ gruesome handiwork.

When the law was first enacted, there were fewer than 25,000 licensed gun holders. Since then, the state roll has boomed to 410,000 and counting. As the veil descends on this dangerously macho part of the public record, enterprising articles in The Florida Sun-Sentinel are laying bare the fact that more than 1,400 people easily got gun licenses despite pleading guilty or no contest to felonies that included manslaughter, burglary and child molestation. In Broward County alone, gun licenses grew in 20 years to more than 35,000 from 25.

What's notably missing from this New York Lies editorial is the casualty figures from Florida caused by this horrible state of affairs. Certainly, if the lying impression that the Times is trying to convey here is true, that proliferation of firearms leads to a less safe rather than a more safe environment, there should be a concomitant increase in deaths due to those profligate firearms.

It is really interesting that, given the intent of the article is to prove how unsafe easy access to firearms is, they give no such data. This leads me to suspect that the reason they omitted those data is because it would tell an entirely different story.

The truth is, the more firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens, the lower the crime rate. This is true in Florida as it is elsewhere.

Another example of the lazy "journalism" practiced at the Times and another example of deceitful editorial practices which have become commonplace at the Times.

No wonder the Times is dying. Good riddance.

What do you think?

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

"Endeavor to Persevere" Words to Live (and Win) By

Quitters never win and winners never quit. This is the message of the post World War II conflicts in which America has been involved.

Twisting Arms Isn't as Easy as Dropping Bombs

By Shankar Vedantam
Monday, January 29, 2007; Page A02

Whenever the United States goes to war, pro-war and antiwar advocates immediately reach for different history books. Hawks always equate the situation to a Hitler-Chamberlain standoff to show why hesitation can be fatal. Doves invariably pull the Vietnam War off the shelf to argue that plunging ahead can be foolhardy.

Two wars that the United States has launched against Iraq perfectly illustrate the problem with cherry-picking your history. Hawks and doves made their usual arguments before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Antiwar advocates who predicted that forcing Saddam Hussein to retreat from Kuwait would result in thousands of U.S. casualties were proved wrong by Operation Desert Storm. And the neoconservatives who warned that ignoring Hussein's weapons of mass destruction was like appeasing Hitler now have egg yolk dribbling down their faces.

The history book getting the most attention right now is about the 1954-1962 French colonial war in Algeria. Hundreds of thousands of people died in that conflict before Algerian guerrillas handed the French army a humiliating defeat. President Bush said he is reading Alistair Horne's account of the conflict, "A Savage War for Peace," to glean insights about the U.S. predicament in Iraq. Horne, a British historian, recently told PBS's Charlie Rose that he sees similarities and differences between the U.S. war in Iraq and the French war in Algeria -- and hopes his book will help Bush find a way to succeed in Iraq.

Political scientist Patricia Sullivan recently decided to take a different tack than the political pundits. Rather than look for a single war to provide insight, Sullivan decided to look at all post-World War II conflicts between the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and weaker nations.

The message from Ms. Sullivan's work that Mr. Vedantum seems unable or unwilling to discern is that failure to win in post WWII conflicts comes not from a lack of military might, but from the lack of American political will.

Many Conservative voices have been saying the exact same thing since this war began, our enemies cannot defeat us, only we can defeat ourselves, and that is precisely what is happening in Iraq today. Our society's pathologically short attention span is causing the American voter to become restive over the length and expense of this war in Iraq. This natural reaction is being egged on in every way possible by a Democrat Party bent on achieving power no matter what the cost to America's prestige and security.

The Democrat Party's avarice for power is the most dangerous domestic force in America. It is far more dangerous that any threat posed by hidden terrorist groups here in the States because the Democrats have demonstrated that they will stick at nothing to achieve power, including lying about our mission in Iraq, and betraying top secret information designed solely to embarass the current administration and aid our enemies.

What do you think?

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

Sending a Message to Iran and the Equivocating Democrat Response

Good old "Foxy-Loxy" Biden, as predictable as the setting sun (sort of like his quadrenniel prcedure of forming an "exploratory committee" to run for the Democrat Party's Presidential Nominee). Biden, whose arrogance is only exceeded by his profound lack of intellect, seems to lie with the alacrity only a true Liberal Democrat can seem to muster.

Cheney Says U.S. Is Sending 'Strong Signal' to Iran

By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 29, 2007; Page A02

Vice President Cheney said the deployment this month of a second aircraft-carrier task force to the Persian Gulf delivered a "strong signal" of the United States' commitment to confront Iran's growing influence in the region.

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

"Most members on our side of the aisle recognize that what's ultimately going to count here isn't sort of all the hoorah that surrounds these proposals so much as it's what happens on the ground in Iraq. And we're not going to know that for a while yet," said Cheney, who also offered a veiled shot at one of the president's strongest GOP critics, Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.). "Let's say I believe firmly in Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican," Cheney said. "But it's very hard sometimes to adhere to that where Chuck Hagel is involved."

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

In an appearance yesterday on ABC's "This Week," Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, dismissed suggestions from administration officials that his resolution condemning the military buildup would embolden the enemy.

"It's not the American people and the United States Congress who are emboldening the enemy," he said. "It's the failed policy of this president, going to war without a strategy, going to war prematurely, going to war without enough troops, going to war without enough equipment and, lastly, now sending 17,500 people in the middle of a city of 6 1/2 million people with bull's-eyes on their back, with no plan."

Dick Cheney is correct, this move has already caused some movement in the Iranian governments position on inspectors. He is also correct about Hagel. Hagel is all about Hagel and his dreams of becoming the President. He has seen an opportunity to open up a difference between himself and the rest of the Republican Presidential hopefuls by staking our the lunatic...er Leftist/Pacifist- anti-American position for himself.

As for Senator Biden, there are none so blind as he who is too stupid to see. Biden is as good at dissembling (lying) as he is at plagiarizing. He and his Democrat comrades have done more to undermine and sabotage this war than have our Iranian and terrorist enemies. I am in a quandry to decide if it is pure malevolence and political ambition that drive Democrats or just the inability to see the damage they are doing to damage American morale, to encourage our enemies, and to cause our failure.

I have a hard time believing that anyone who enjoys the privelleges and freedoms available to citizens here in America would wilfully seek to enable our enemies and work against our troops, but it wouldn't be the first time we've had traitors in our midsts.

I am certain of one thing, whether it is through malice and avarice, or through ignorance and blindness, Biden and the rest of the Democrats running for the Presidency would be a nightmare as President and would endanger our hard won and preserved freedoms.

What do you think?

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

Twisted History of the El Salvadoran Conflict

Gee, what a surprise, a one-sided article in the Washington Post about the 70's and 80's conflict in El Salvador. Of course attrocities were only committed by the anti-communist forces, never by the guerrilla forces...right!

Former Salvadoran Foes Share Doubts on War
Fifteen Years Later, Problems of Poverty Remain at Forefront

By Manuel Roig-Franzia
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, January 29, 2007; Page A01

SAN MIGUEL, El Salvador -- José Wilfredo Salgado says he collected baby skulls as trophies in the 1980s, when he fought as a government soldier in El Salvador's civil war. They worked well as candleholders, he recalls, and better as good-luck charms.

In the most barbaric chapters of a conflict that cost more than 75,000 lives, he enthusiastically embraced the scorched-earth tactics of his army bosses, even massacres of children, the elderly, the sick -- entire villages.

It was all in the name of beating back communism, Salgado, now the mayor of San Miguel, said he remembers being told.

But as El Salvador commemorates the 15th anniversary of the war's end this month, Salgado is haunted by doubts about what he saw, what he did and even why he fought. A 12-year U.S.-backed war that was defined at the time as a battle over communism is now seen by former government soldiers such as Salgado, and by former guerrillas, as less a conflict about ideology and more a battle over poverty and basic human rights.

Well, you have to give the Post one thing, they are consistent in their hatred of all things American. Once more we are given a twisted, pro-Leftist propaganda piece about the Cold war and the fight against the failed and deadly threat of Communism.

Liberals love revisionist history and will go out of their way to find people to confirm their prejudice. Note how this article begins with what was probably the worst attrocity committed by the pro-government, anti-communist troops, in the entire war, and then carefully balances the report by not citing a single attrocity perpetrated by the "heroic" guerrilla forces.

Oh! Thats right, the guerrillas never commit attrocities, only Americans and their allies can do that. I keep forgetting that we are always the bad guy, whether the enemy is communist guerrillas in El Salvador or Islamic terrorists in Iraq. Our enemies are always noble "freedom fighters," and Americans and our allies are always "oppressors" bent on smothering the poor and disadvantaged.

Leftist in the press are so predictable as to be boring. We are always wrong and the bad guys are always right (or should I say, "Left"). Somehow America, the nation to which most the world's people either seek to emulate or seek to gain entry to; the most prosperous, egalatarian, free nation on Earth is always wrong, an oppressor, murderous, and anti-freedom. It is always those who fight against us who are the noble oppressed people who only want freedom for themselves.

Somehow these "noble people" always wind up being part of the most pernicious, evil, murderous, and oppressive movements. This is of course because instead of telling them the truth, that one has to strive to attain wealth and freedom, they are told by those movements a utopian lie. Just support the Communists, and you will be "free" and "equal" They can't tell them the truth; that "freedom" means living as their masters tell them to live, and equal means levelling society to the lowest common denominator of society.

Yep just another anti-American propaganda piece form the Washington Post...Ho-hum, what a bore...

What do you think?

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

Democrat's New Ethics Rules A Thin Tissue of Lies

Well for those idiots among you who voted Democrat because you expected them to "clean up" the lobbying rules for Congress, welcome to reality. Did you really believe Madame "Bela" Pelosi and "Hateful" Harry Reid would do something to interfere with their ability to pay their relatives huge salaries and take trips at the expense of others? How droll.

New Rules Still Allow Congress Many Perks
Policies on Lobbying Are Selectively Strict

By John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 20, 2007; Page A01

On the Monday that was supposed to start the new Congress's first five-day workweek, Minority Leader John A. Boehner helped persuade his Democratic colleagues to give House members the day off.

The Ohio Republican had his reasons. He was going to see Ohio State compete in the national championship football game in Arizona. Boehner had tickets for the stadium's nosebleed section. Then, Boehner's office said, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. offered him a bird's-eye seat in one of the company's skyboxes.

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

The perk for Boehner and the lobbying access for News Corp. are entirely permissible under the new ethics rules Congress imposed on itself this month -- provided Boehner personally reimburses the cost of the skybox ticket, which Boehner's office said he plans to do once the company sends him the bill. The lawmaker can use campaign funds, instead of personal money, to pay his airfare.

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

"It makes one pause when members of Congress raise one hand to vote on an ethics proposal to limit special interests and with the other hand outstretched behind their back ask for campaign contributions or perks from special interests," said Kent Cooper, a former federal election regulator who studies ethics and political money.

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

Fact-finding trips paid for by special interests are another practice covered by the new rules, and although they will become less extravagant and less frequent, there will still be plenty of permissible opportunities to take them.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) took his wife, Victoria, with him when he gave a speech in Florence at an event sponsored by New York University, and they were driven around Florence in a car paid for by the school. Kennedy reported that the school paid $1,560 for car service and $257 for a hotel.

These regulations are the Congressional equivalent of the Emperor's New Clothes. Since Democrats now control the House and Senate, you may rest assured that no stone will remain turned in the Paleo-media's (Pm) efforts to ignore the corrupt activities of our new legislature.

Madame "Bela" has been allowed complete freedom by the Paleo-media to lie to the American public about the "Republican Culture of Corruption," implying that Democrats would do better. The Pm has studiously ignored the violations of ethics regulations by the Democrats, except for those cases where they were forced by Conservatives to admit to it. Even then, those occurrences were quickly forgotten and attention was refocused on the transgressions, however slight, of Repulican legislators.

Don't get me wrong, some of the actions of our Republican members of Congress deserved the scrutiny they received. I am only complaining that the same attention was absent in those cases in which Democrats were involved. But then, expecting the Liberally biased Pm to be balanced is an absurd dream.

What do you think?

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

More Whining from the PC Police..."He Hurt My Feelings"

Not another one! Now we have the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD, isn't that cute now) whining that Isaiah Washington called his co-star T.R.Knight a faggot. Not very polite, certainly not PC, but...So What If He Did? This is what AP calls a newsworthy story? The alleged incident didn't even occur on the night in question, but earlier in the year.

So now T.R. Knight has suddenly decided that he was offended, or is it that the group was offended that Washington used the word "faggot" in his answer to the reporters question? This is getting really tiresome people.

Group demands apology from 'Grey's' star
Associated Press
Thu Jan 18, 6:59 AM ET

LOS ANGELES - A gay and lesbian advocacy group demanded an apology Wednesday from "Grey's Anatomy" co-star Isaiah Washington for comments made following the Golden Globe Awards

During a backstage interview Monday, Washington denied involvement in a heated on-set incident last year during which an anti-gay slur was reportedly uttered.

"No, I did not call (co-star) T.R. (Knight) a faggot," Washington told reporters. "Never happened, never happened."

On Wednesday, Neil Giuliano, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, said he had contacted Washington's representatives in hopes of meeting the actor to discuss "the destructive impact of these kinds of anti-gay slurs."

You Liberals can call our President "Hitler" or "Nazi" and that is perfectly okay, but just let someone utter the word "faggot" and the world is coming to an end.

What is it with Liberals? Do they really believe that the world will, at sometime, become a place in which no one is nor can be offended? Are they that far gone into the ozone?

I fear the answer is "Yes!" After all these are the same idiots who still believe that Marx (that's Karl not Graucho who made his living off of insults) was right and America is Hell on Earth.

Sorry folks, I'm not buying it. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. People are human beings and therefore imperfect. They are going to have their prejudices whether you like it or not. Mind control advocates like those in the GLAAD organization are among the most dangerous people on Earth. They are the thought police.

They do not believe in freedom, they believe in slavery to the state. They are the advocates, as are most Liberals, of the society partrayed in Orwell's 1984.

Once again we see it is the Left which is a threat to our freedoms and our rights, not the Right.

Isaiah, don't give in. You have a right to say what you want, even when it is to explain that you didn't say that of which you are accused of saying.

Members of GLAAD grow up! Words, even disagreeable words like "these kinds of anti-gay slurs" cannot have a "destructive impact," they are just words. Get over them.

You do not have the constitutional right not to be offended. It is not in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. Look for it, it ain't gonna be there. So grow up, get a life, and Shut up! Nobody wants to hear your whining.

What do you think?

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

Aw, Those Poor Widdle Jihadists We Should Just Set Them All Free...To Kill Our Citizens

You know, I really do feel sorry for these guys, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Run around with the jackals, you gonna get bit sooner or later. I'm virtually certain some of these so-called lost prisoners are innocent, but the fact is, we have had enough released prisoners from Gitmo return to attack our troops that I believe this is a permissable "excess" (if it is an excess).

Some at Guantanamo Mark 5 Years in Limbo
Big Questions About Low-Profile Inmates

By Carol D. Leonnig and Julie Tate
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 16, 2007; Page A01

Shackled at the wrists and blinded by special goggles, the first captives from the U.S. war in Afghanistan were ushered to makeshift prison cells thousands of miles from the battle, at the U.S. naval station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, five years ago last week.

Gholam Ruhani was among them, the prison's third official inmate, flown in by cargo plane with the first group of 20 men. The 23-year-old Afghan shopkeeper, who spoke a little English, was seized near his hometown of Ghazni when he agreed to translate for a Taliban government official seeking a meeting with a U.S. soldier.

Ruhani is still at Guantanamo, marking the fifth anniversary of the prison and his own captivity. He remains as stunned about his fate, according to transcripts of his conversations with military officers, as he was when U.S. military police led him inside the razor wire on Jan. 11, 2002, and accused him of being America's enemy.

"I never had a war against the United States, and I am surprised I'm here," Ruhani told his captors during his first chance to hear the military's reasons for holding him, three years after he arrived at Guantanamo. "I tried to cooperate with Americans. I am no enemy of yours."

Well Ruhani, that may be true, or it may not be true. How are we to know? Your culture has raised duplicity to an art form. I am not concerned with the niceties here, you were swept up because you were associating with the Taliban. We have no way of knowing whether your story is fact or fiction. It would be stupid for America to release you simply because you claim to be innocent.

Sorry fellow, when the war is ended, and the threat from terrorism is reduced to nil, I believe you should remain precisely where you are. Of course there's no telling what Madame Bela Pelosi might do. She might release you, she is that dumb.

What do you think?

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

"Put Up" Time for Whining Democrats

Now that the Democrats are back in power "where they belong," it's performance time for these Keystone Kops of the Beltway. I am very much reminded of the final scene in Robert Reford's excellent movie "The Candidate." Following political neophyte Bill McKay's (Redford) big upset victory for governor of Kalifornia, in an isolated moment at the victory celebration he looks around and says to no one in particular, "What do I do now?"

The Democrats are back in power. What do they do now? They have no marketable ideas, their campaign was one of complaint and finger pointing.

Burden Set to Shift On Balanced Budget
Bush Likely to Force Democrats' Hand

By Lori Montgomery and Nell Henderson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 16, 2007; Page A01

When he takes the House rostrum next week for the State of the Union address, President Bush will list among his goals a balanced federal budget, a shift for a president who has presided over record deficits while aggressively cutting taxes.

Politically, analysts say, the president is calling the bluff of Democrats, who won control of Congress in part by accusing Bush of reckless fiscal policies. While Bush now shares the Democrats' goal to erase the deficit by 2012, the politically perilous work of making that happen -- cutting spending or raising taxes -- falls to the Democratic-run Congress.

"The Democrats have assailed deficits under President Bush. The White House is telling Democrats to walk the walk," said Brian M. Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Budget experts and economists from across the political spectrum, including some who worked in the Bush White House, say that Bush is unlikely to offer real concessions toward a balanced budget in the plan he delivers to Congress next month.

Well Madame Speaker, whatcha gonna do? Are you going to raise taxes on the "wealthy" and destroy the economy? Actually that's a given, I'm almost certain of that. Close the "loopholes" on corporations so that they have to pay taxes? Oh, that's right, corporations don't pay taxes, their customers pay them. Not that that matters to you. It will "look" more fair if you force the corporations to pay their "fair share" of taxes. Who cares that it will actually be a tax increase on those "who can least afford it." It will at least look good for the cameras.

We are all waiting with bated breath for the Democrat's plan to save this nation from the ravages of President Bush. It is strange however, that you have suddenly quit calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Wasn't that the single most important item on your agenda? My, my, my, you are in a quandry aren't you? With the eager assistance of the Paleo-Media, you sold the American voters a bill of goods, but your warehouse is empty. Looks like Democrat lies all over again.

Well, we are watching Madame Pelosi, watching and waiting. Hope for your sake you get your act together. Otherwise "Nancy, you got some 'splainin' to do!"

What do you think?

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

Time for Nifong to See Courtroom from the Other Side

Michael Nifong needs to be tried for malfeasance and false arrest. With this move, it is becoming more and more clear that DA Michael Nifong is guilty of pandering to the black population of Durham to further his political career at the expense of destroying the lives of these Duke students.

Prosecutor Seeks to Bow Out of Duke Case
Embattled DA Asks State to Take Over

By Peter Whoriskey and Sylvia Adcock
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, January 13, 2007; Page A01

After months of stinging criticism about his handling of the Duke University sexual assault investigation, Durham District Attorney Michael B. Nifong sought to bow out of the case yesterday, requesting that the North Carolina Attorney General's Office handle the prosecution.

His decision to recuse himself was welcomed by the defense team representing the three Duke lacrosse players initially accused of raping a 28-year-old stripper at a team party.

We feel very good about this. It's a fresh set of eyes looking at the case," said William Cotter of Raleigh, one of three attorneys for Collin Finnerty of Garden City, N.Y. "We think it's more likely that they will listen to us and we will certainly be cooperative with him or her."

The defense believes that another prosecutor would, after reviewing the contradictions of the alleged victim's accounts and the paucity of physical evidence, drop the case.

Nifong's behavior has been outrageous from the very start of this case. He is making this move in a sad attempt to protect himself from his own bad choices. For him to have brought rape charges against the Lacrosse team members without even having discussed the case with the accuser is unforgivable. The man callously used the lives of the three Duke Lacrosse Team members as a ladder to lift himself up and get elected. He has shown no deferrence to their privacy, their families, or their futures.

Nifong jumped on this case because he saw political advantage in attacking 3 rich white kids on behalf of a poor black woman. He failed to do a thorough investigation before going public and concealed exculpatory information from the defense team for his own political aspirations. He not only needs to be criminally prosecuted for this miscarriage of justice, he needs to be penalized financially in Civil Court for his actions.

District Attornies have tremendous power over our lives, and they therefore need to be held to an extremely high standard of behavior. Michael Nifong failed to achieve that standard.

What do you think?

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

Secretary Rice Responds to Senator Boxer's Malicious Personal Attack

Senator Boxhead...excuse me, I always get that name confused, Boxer has again confirmed her extremist Left-wing credentials, in making her unwarranted, irrelevent, intentionally malicious, personal attack on Condaleezza Rice in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting Thursday. Such transparent hatefullness is generally a sign of a limited intellect and Senator Box...er is a person of very limited intellect.

Rice Criticizes Sen. Boxer's Comment on War
Associated Press
Saturday, January 13, 2007; Page A15

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday criticized Sen. Barbara Boxer's suggestion that, because she does not have family in harm's way, she will pay no "personal price" in the Iraq war.

"In retrospect, gee, I thought single women had come further than that, that the only question is, 'Are you making good decisions because you have kids?' " Rice said on Fox News.

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

"Who pays the price?" Boxer (D-Calif.) asked Rice, who is unmarried and has no children. "I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families."

Boxer defended herself in a statement. "I spoke the truth at the committee hearing, which is that neither Secretary Rice nor I have family members that will pay the price for this escalation," she said.

We are once more confronted by the old tried and untrue Liberal tactic of claiming that a person cannot have a legitimate opinion on an issue if they don't have some personal experience or stake in the resolution of that issue. Over and over again, Liberals have made these same claims and over and over again, I have rejected them.

Our justice system is based on just the opposite principle. We are judged not by a panel of judges or by a single judge (unless we so request), we are judged by a jury of our peers. The assumption behind this is that 12 citizens are completely capable of empathizing with all of the issues surrounding a case, evaluate them, and come to a decision on the legitimacy of them. Somehow this concept excapes Babs and the rest of her mentally deranged Liberal fellow travellers.

Barbara Boxer's comments were rude. They were intended to be rude and hurtful. Because she has no legitimate reasoned argument to counter the administration's Iraq policy, she chose-as is the want of all Liberals-to make an ad hominem attack against Secretary Rice.

See the problem for the Democrats is that Secretary Rice absolutely ate the Democrat Senators' lunches Thursday, making them look like the idiots they are and they hate her for it. But even more than hating her for being smarter than they are, they hate her because she doesn't act the way they believe black women are supposed to act. For Democrats, no black person is legitimate if they aren't Liberals. They hate Condi because she isn't back on the Democrat plantation doing their bidding and taking their hand-outs.

Tell me Senator Boxer, who is more qualified to make judgments about war and how to conduct it. The person who, because they have no child involved, can make an objective assessment on how best to successfully achieve America's objective, or the person who, because they do have a child involved, is likely to allow that fact to cloud their judgment and influence their decision making process?

[il]Liberals are so emotional...

What do you think?

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

Esparza and McIntosh: No Struggles, No Shootings

I am really tired of hearing about these "poor unfortunate victims" of the police everytime a non-white person runs afoul of the law and due to there own behavior, are shot by the police.

Jan. 11, 2007, 1:43AM
FBI weighing a civil rights probe in death
It may monitor internal inquiries into fatal shooting by HPD officer during traffic stop

By ARMANDO VILLAFRANCA and BRIAN ROGERS
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

The FBI said Wednesday that it likely will open a civil rights investigation to monitor ongoing inquiries into the shooting death of Robert McIntosh by a Houston police officer.

The move only will monitor investigations by local authorities and is not a formal investigation to determine whether McIntosh's civil rights were violated, said Shauna Dunlap, a spokeswoman for the FBI.

"Agents have been looking into the matter, and it looks likely that we will open a civil rights investigation to monitor the progress of the district attorney's investigation and the Houston Police Department internal affairs investigation," Dunlap said.

The decision came on a day punctuated with community activists' calls for a federal investigation of Houston police after two men were shot and killed in separate incidents this week. City and police officials said they would fully investigate McIntosh's death and that of Omar Esparza. Esparza, 21, described as mentally challenged and mentally ill, was shot to death Sunday at his East End home. Officers said he lunged at them with a hammer above his head.

Alright, both of these shootings were sad, unfortunate, and probably unnecessary events. I'm sorry for the families of the to dead men.

That being said, innocent men do not run from the police just because they have been stopped for a routine traffic violation. Ask yourself, the last time you were stopped by a policeman, did it ever occur to you to take off running? Is that a "reasonable behavior" for an innocent man? I don't think so.

The police department's story was that:

The scuffle began after the driver of the car was taken into custody because there was an arrest warrant out for her, said Capt. Dwayne Ready. The officer then returned to the car to ask McIntosh to get out when he noticed the smell of drugs, Ready said.

McIntosh began fighting with the officer as he tried to place him in the patrol car. The two ended up in a ditch, where the officer attempted to stun the man with his Taser, Ready said.

"The suspect was able to grab the officer's hand with the stun gun and turned it on (him)," Ready said. "It popped the officer's thumb out of the socket."

Authorities said the officer moved away and drew his weapon, shooting the man in the chest. It was unclear how many times the officer fired.

The suspect was handcuffed after the shooting _ a common practice, Ready said _ but the cuffs were released when paramedics arrived, he said.

From what I've read this guy was behaving in a very suspicious manner, reeked of drugs, and when he was asked to get out of the car, he took off running. He was shot after fighting with the policeman and having injured him, turned his own Taser on him. If this account is true, was the cop justified in firing his gun? From what I read, absolutely.

The only civilian witness to the event, Yolanda Perry, claims that Mr. McIntosh was only shot after he had been handcuffed. If this is true and Mrs. Perry is certain of what she claims she saw, why did she refuse to give a statement to the investigating authorities? Why did she have be subpoened in order to give her account of the incident? This in itself is rather suspicious. It's as if maybe she doesn't like members of the law enforcement community. Most people willingly give their accounts to the police. It's a civic duty. Very curious...

As to the Esparza shooting, again it is sad when the police are forced to use deadly force against a suspect. Does anybody really think that the police officers wanted to kill Mr. Esparza? Is that a reasonable conclusion?

Omar Esparza was apparently "off his medication" and "highly agitated" at the time. The police hit him with 2 beanbag rounds to no apparent effect as well as a Taser which failed to penetrate his clothing. He attacked the policemen carrying a hammer and was consequently shot.

A couple of things here.

First, Mr. McIntosh is directly responsible for the shooting because of his suspicious behavior in the car and then his choice to run. I understand being nervous when you are stopped by a policeman, I generally am and I never have had anything to hide, but running away when you get out of the car is inexcusable and if I was setting policy, would be sufficient justification for the policeman firing his gun.

Comedian Chris Tucker even made part of his comedy act out of telling the "brothers" not to run from a policeman. Innocent people do not run when they are being stopped for a routine traffic offense. No exceptions to that.

Second, even though Mr. Esparza was mentally ill, is it reasonable for the citizens of Houston to ask police to risk potentially severe injury just to subdue a violently deranged person? I don't believe so. From the accounts, the police acted in a proper manner thoughout and only fired when the threat to them was immediate and dangerous.

I am tired of race pimps like Mr. "Quanell X" using incidents such as these to promote their own agenda of hatred. If Mrs. Perry's account is true, then I am certain that officer Smith will suffer the consequences of his actions and deservedly so. But by the same token, isn't it reasonable to express the same judgment on Mr. McIntosh? Shouldn't he be held responsible for his own part in the shooting?

Remember in Mr. McIntosh's case, no struggle, no shooting; just a simple arrest. In Mr. Esparza's case, no attack with a hammer, no shooting; just a trip to the mental hospital.

Yes the police must be held to high standards, but we must refrain from blaming them for the actions of others.

What do you think?

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

Pelosi's Interesting Definition of "Bipartisanship"

It comes as no surprise to me, but before the Democrats even officially take over control, Pelosi's empty promises begin to be exposed. Apparently among the first will be the emptiest and least sincere, that of "restoring bipartisanship."

"Democrats To Start Without GOP Input
Quick Passage of First Bills Sought

By Lyndsey Layton and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 2, 2007; Page A01

As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.

House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.

But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.

Nancy Pelosi, the Californian who will become House speaker, and Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, who will become majority leader, finalized the strategy over the holiday recess in a flurry of conference calls and meetings with other party leaders. A few Democrats, worried that the party would be criticized for reneging on an important pledge, argued unsuccessfully that they should grant the Republicans greater latitude when the Congress convenes on Thursday."

The only thing less surprising is that the Post reporters actually state the following comment as though it is factual:

"the Democrats may have to resort to some of the same tough tactics Republicans used the past several years.

I wonder if Mss. Layton and Eilpern could possibly be referring to those tactics which kept the Democrats in the majority for the 40 years prior to 1994's "Republican Revolution?" Over the past 12 years, the Democrats received pretty much the same treatment and disdain with which they treated the Republicans throughout their 40 year reign in the House. The only difference that I can see is that the Republicans complained a whole lot less than these whiney Democrats.

It is an article of faith with Democrats and even more with Liberal Democrats that they are appointed by a non-specific, anonymous, and/or yet to be undetermined deity, to rule. Thus when they were defeated in 1994, they became unhinged. One true indicator of the effect of this heresy was the number of formerly powerful long term Democrat Representatives who failed to seek reelection in 1996. It just wasn't acceptable to them to play second fiddle. Hence the nearly ceaseless whining to which the American people have been subjected over the past 12 years. Now comes the retribution, the first evidence of which will be this rough-shod stampede of Democrat-Socialist legislation during the first 100 hours.

Now that's what Pelosi and the Democrats call bipartisanship.

What do you think?

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