9/29/2006
I didn’t think I would ever hear Jack Murtha called “too conservative”, but that’s exactly what some Democrats in the House are calling him.
Why does it matter? It matters because Murtha is running a campaign to take the majority leader’s seat should the Democrats take control of the house in November.
Some liberals believe Murtha’s record on social issues is too conservative, especially on such topics as gun rights, gay marriage and abortion.
Just aother reason why a vote for any democrat is a vote against victory and a vote for vulnerability.
9/27/2006
The American People Deserve The Full Story…
Or that’s the story the senior windbag from Massachusets is trying to pass off regarding the NIE. Oh, no, he’s not applauding the Bush declassification of the final judgements portion of the NIE. He’s complaining because President Bush hasn’t released the whole thing.
“The American people deserve the full story, not those parts of it that the Bush administration selects,” said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.
It strikes me as ironic that the liberals at The New York Times and the leakers in our intel agencies weren’t worried about that when they intentionally cherry picked portions of the NIE that made the administration look bad, and the Iraq war look like a failure.
Kennedy knows that Bush will never release the whole thing, because it could place our agents in peril, and give the enemy information about what we know and how we found out. Far smarter comentators than I think that he’s said this to draw attention away from the hatchet job that the NYT did on the administration and the war effort over the weekend.
9/26/2006
Much has been made of the leaked classified NIE over the last couple of days. Today, President Bush authorized the declassification and release of portions of the report. In it, we see a completely different picture than the one portrayed by the liberal media. Here are some portions of the report you didn’t see in the New York Times or Washington Post.
United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa’ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization…
Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qa’ida, could erode support for the jihadists.
The action mentioned in the above paragraph is one facet of what we’re doing. We are engadged in creating a more responsive political system in Iraq right now. But, once again that’s not something you’ll hear from the likes of the New York Time’s.
We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse. New jihadist networks and cells, with anti-American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups. [emphasis mine — TR]
We assess that the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow in importance to US counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad but also in the Homeland.
The above paragraph is one of the last paragraphs in the released portion of the document. It once again stresses that the war is nowhere near to being over and we have many difficult days ahead. But, the overall tone of the peice is that we have made some very important progress in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. This is another observation that will not be noted anywhere in the liberal media.
9/24/2006
The NYT has an interesting article on the new NIE or National Intelligence Estimate. Long story short; Iraq has ticked off Islamofacists, and they’re using the war as a recruiting tool.
What the article and the NIE fail to recognize is that there’s nothing we can do to appease the Islamofacists. If we stay the course in Iraq, they’ll continue to use it as a recruiting tool. If we leave Iraq, then our defeat will be an even greater recruiting tool, as we’ll be seen as weak willed and an easy win, and Iraq will once again be a terrorist safe haven.
Some say that we should have never gone into Iraq in the first place. The problem with that is two fold. As has been stated before, Saddam’s Iraq was harboring Zarqawi and giving him medical treatment for wounds recieved in battle in Afghanistan, paying money to the families of suicide bombers, and had had several high level meetings with members of the Taliban and Al Qaida. Of course, conventional wisdom prior to the invasion of Iraq was that he had WMD’s as well (especially considering he killed thousands of his own people with them). You add to that the fact that Saddam routinely violated the terms of the cease fire agreement from the first gulf war, and that he was constantly in violation of sixteen UN Security Council resolutions we had plenty of reason to go in and finish what we started during the first gulf war. However, Captain Ed of Captain’s Quarters brings up another reason that we had to go to Baghdad; we didn’t want Saddam and his army causing trouble on our flank while we fought against AQ and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
I know you can make the case that Iraq wasn’t really on our flank, as Iran seperates Iraq from Afghanistan. But, picture for a moment though an Iraq under Saddam’s control that is not only feeding weapons and expertise to AQ and the Taliban – but then to raise the stakes a little — decides to attack Kuwait and Israel while we’re tied up in Afghanistan. I believe he would have done it too. Saddam badly wanted a defeat for America, and he wasn’t beyond assisting terrorist organizations either. As any reasonable person can see, something had to be done about Saddam.
At any rate, the Times article is an interesting read, and Captain Ed’s response is even better. Go check them both out.
Hat Tip: Captain Ed @ Captain’s Quarters
9/21/2006
Â
Â
Oh really? Danny Glover and dictator Hugo Chavez in a passionate embrace? Or was Glover auditioning for a new series titled “Dancing With the Dictators”?
9/20/2006
So, What Will Happen On November 7th?
Dean Barnett — writing at Hughhewitt.com — has a great breakdown of the action. Things don’t look as bad for the republican’s as the nutroots would like to believe.
9/12/2006
The Fictional Path To 9-11? Really…
The New York Times’ op-ed section today is all bent out of shape about ABC’s “The Path To 9-11“. Here are the first two paragraphs:
Perhaps the entertainment industry will come up with a few lasting lessons from the outcry over ABC’s “dramatization†of the events leading up to the terrorist attacks on 9/11. One suggestion: when attempting to recreate real events on screen, you do not show real people doing things they never did.
The film, a fictionalized portrayal of the nation’s failure to head off the attack on the World Trade Center, was shown Sunday and Monday. The second episode was wrapped around a live speech by President Bush, so it was especially unfortunate that the most questionable scenes all seemed to make the Clinton administration look worse, and Mr. Bush look better, than the record indicates.
So… the most questionable scenes seemed to make the Clinton administration look worse and Mr. Bush look better (notice the use of Mr. Bush… not the Bush administration or President Bush) than the record indicates. Not the movie I was watching. As I said last night, it seemed pretty damning for everyone.
As far as the Clinton administration’s liability in all of this, as I said earlier, they certainly have to take the lion’s share of the blame. They, after all, had eight years in which to do something about the problem. As we saw over the last two nights, Bill Clinton had numerous opportunities to capture or kill Bin Laden, numerous opportunities to aid the Northern Alliance, and numerous opportunities to hamper the funding of AQ and in the end, they did little more than fire a couple of tomahawk missles at the problem.
But judging by the editorial, the best complaint the Times can come up with is the Sandy Berger scene that was edited out of the movie.
One suggestion: when attempting to recreate real events on screen, you do not show real people doing things they never did.
The “docudrama†format can be useful in allowing viewers to see recent history through the eyes of fictional characters inserted in the action. But it carries the inherent risk that scriptwriters will take the opportunity to improve on history. ABC should certainly have been aware this was a danger with such a politically charged topic. If that thought never occurred to the folks in charge, they might have heard warning bells when Rush Limbaugh went on the air promoting the film and bragging that the writer was a friend of his.
What does the fact that Rush is a friend of the writer have to do with anything? I’m sure that Limbaugh has friends, both liberal and democrat. Even if the writer is in the eye’s of the left a raging rightwinger, that doesn’t mean that he can’t put out a ligitimate product. After all, they let Michael Moore produce Farenheight 911, one of the biggest left wing propaganda movies of all time.
It was especially disturbing that Tom Kean, co-chairman of the 9/11 commission and a former Republican governor of New Jersey, was willing to lend his prestige to this ill-considered project. Mr. Kean served as a senior consultant to the miniseries and has repeatedly defended it in public, even as several Democratic members of the commission criticized its distortions. Mr. Kean has said he will give his payment to charity, but that does not undo the damage done to the aura of bipartisanship that has surrounded the commission’s work.
What better way to insure accuracy than to have a senior member of the commision as the senior advisor to the miniseries. One would think that the Democrats would be happy that Thomas Kean was there making sure that the program was as accurate as possible.
Of course maybe the real problem is that the left — including the New York Times — doesn’t want the truth to come out.
I am getting really tired of this guy’s nonsense. Last night, while the rest of the country was reflecting on all that we lost five years ago, and what lies ahead, Olbermann was busy using his soap box to criticize the President for everything from not starting construction on a memorial in New York, to somehow covertly producing The Path To 9-11 and convincing ABC to air it — after all, it was all a bunch partisan lies don’t ya’ know.
Of course, there was also the criticism of anyone who would dare question Keith’s patriotism (I didn’t know anyone had).
And anyone who claims that I and others like me are “soft,”or have “forgotten” the lessons of what happened here is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante and at worst, an idiot whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.
What really angers me though, is that while Olbermann gasps, groans, and complains whenever anyone would dare question the direction that he and other Democrats would take this war, he has the nerve to out and out state that the President has squandered the good will of the country and other nations of the world. He then goes on to say that the Republicans and particularly the President have politicized 9-11 and the GWOT. Dare I say, Mr. Olbermann needs to take a long look in the mirror?
Hat Tip: Guy @ Damascus Road
Yup, I watched it. I’m sitting here at 9:30 PM on September 11th and I’m angry. I’m angry and disgusted at the failure at all levels of government. Both administrations, the CIA, and the FBIÂ failed miserably. They all appeared to be too hung up on political concequences to do anything about the threat.
However, that being said, I think the Clinton administration is far more responsible than the Bush administration. Why, you ask? Because the Clinton administration had eight years to do something about it. Those eight years included opportunities to kill or arrest Bin Laden, opportunities to hamper funding of AQ, opportunities to help the Northern Alliance, and opportunities to respond to numerous attacks that would have set AQ back years in their ability. For eight years we knew that these bastards wanted to hit us and all we did is shoot a couple of missiles at a training camp and an asprin factory.
As for the Bush administration. They apparently knew the same things that the Clinton administration did, and they had information that there may be an attack using aviation in the near future. The difference is that they only had roughly eight months to do something. In the world of politics and politicing in Washington, that’s not much time at all. After all it took us twelve years to decide to do something definitive about Saddam, and the Democrats, the French, Russia, and Germany are still complaining that it was the wrong thing to do.
I’d like to believe that we’ve all learned our lesson. But based on the response to the movie from some Democrats (not wanting it to air at all)… it appears that it’s still politics as usual.
9/11/2006
I’ll make no commentary on politics or media bias today. Today is for remembering. Take some time today to visit Fox News’ coverage of 9-11-01.
9/7/2006
Assaulting The Memory and Reality of 9-11 and The GWOT
The Democrats have come out in the last week with their own series of 9-11 related speeches. Unfortunately, their speeches have been geared more towards assaulting the memory of 9-11 and the realities of the war we are in. You’d think that coming up on the fith anniversary of the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor they’d be a little more reflective… or at least make sense. Nope, not this bunch. Instead, they’re bent on distorting the realities of the war we’re involved in, distorting the President’s record in the GWOT, and even attacking the first amendment.
Take for example this quote from John flip-flop Kerry:
“Today the administration finally recognized that the protections of the Geneva Convention should be applied to prisoners in order to restore our moral authority and best protect American troops,†said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Today’s shift in policy follows the sad legacy of five years during which this administration abused our Constitution, violated our laws and most importantly failed to make America safe.â€
Or this series of quotes from Governor [Insert deranged scream here] Dean:
 “…The truth is that the Republicans look increasingly incompetent in defending our nation. Five years into the Bush presidency and a republican majority, we see Iran is about to get nuclear weapons, North Korea not only has them but is expanding the number of nuclear weapons. Osama bin laden is still at large. And, I think the American people realize that Iraq was a war of choice and that the real war is the war on terror.
Incompotent except for the fact that we haven’t been attacked in five years. North Korea has nuclear weapons because Clinton and Albright were hoodwinked by KJI.
Iraq… How many times do I have to explain that it’s not a war of choice. Saddam was in violation of numerous UN resoluitons, he had used WMD’s on his own people, and he was actively supporting terrorism. At least one of his intel officials even traveled to Afghanistan to meet with AQ operatives. Iraq is but one front in the war on terror, just as the pacific was but just one front in WW II.
 ”…In many ways the Republicans have turned down the suggestions of the Democrats have for improving our ability to defend our homeland and we think it’s time for a new direction.
And what suggestions were those? Cut and run?
“…The Democrats want a new direction in our defense policy. We want to fight the war on terror. That means capturing or killing Osama bin laden, focusing on the terrorists in northwest Pakistan and we don’t think that the Iraq war is the right way to fight the war on terror because it simply has nothing to do with the war on terror.
First of all, I’m sure that we’re making every effort to capture or kill OBL. I’m sure we’re going after the terrorists in northwest Pakistan — most of those actions we probably won’t hear about because they’re being conducted by special ops folks.
I’m not even going to bother answering the Iraq charge again. If you have any questions about whether or not Iraq is important read answer to the quote above this one.
…I think security is an issue that now finally works for the Democrats. They’ve been there for five years, these Republicans. And the question is, are we safer now? And the answer is no.
Uh, except for the fact that we haven’t been attacked in five years despite the best efforts of OBL and his deranged followers.
“…Of course I think he (Secretary Rumsfeld) should resign. He’s fundamentally incompetent…Sixty percent of the American people believe the war in Iraq was a mistake. Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney have gone on television saying people who disagree with the president are essentially like Nazi appeasers.
Sixty percent… that’s an impressive number. That doesn’t mean that sixty percent of Americans are correct in their thinking. Especially when the facts of why we are there have been twisted by the DNC, and the public doesn’t have access to the same intel the President does. What I’m saying is that that sixty percent doesn’t have a complete and accurate picture, so their opinion is not an informed one. Oh, and by the way, the comparison is to those who appeased (or tried to) the Nazi’s, not to Nazi’s themselves.
Probably the worst assault on 9-11 is the Democrat’s attempt at outright sensorship of the failures leading up to 9-11. In a letter sent to ABC execs. Twice in this letter the Democrats threatened ABC’s broadcasting license if they didn’t correct certain “inaccuracies”.
Dear Mr. Iger,
We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of “The Path to 9/11″ mini-series on Sept. 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well-respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.
The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.
Notice the reminder of their free broadcast license, then notice in the final paragraph (below) the statement that the trust of the US Congress would be ruined.
 Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.
The threat letter was signed by Senator Harry Reid (D) Nevada, Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin (D) Ill., Senator Debbie Stabenow (D) Mich., Senator Charles Schumer (D) NY., and Senator Byron Dorgan (D) ND, all of which are faithfull lefty “nut” - roots Senators.
The problem these Senators (and the rest of the left) have with ”The Path to 9-11“ is that it’s proported to portray the Clinton administration’s anti-terrorism “efforts” in a less than flattering light.Â
This sets a disturbing precedent though. If a particular party doesn’t like the way a show or newscast is produced (accurate or not) then they threaten to pull the stations broadcast license. So, what’s the future have in store for other networks that are despised by the left such as Fox News? Maybe, if the Dems get their way we’ll go back to the “good ‘ol days” when the left entirely controlled the media.
One question… Where are the statements of condemnation from the ACLU and other NGO’s that are supposed to be fighting for our rights?
President Bush’s series of speeches over the last couple of days have been absolutely genious, and long overdue. He has put the ball in the Congress’ court.
So today, I’m asking Congress to pass legislation that will clarify the rules for our personnel fighting the war on terror. First, I’m asking Congress to list the specific, recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act — so our personnel can know clearly what is prohibited in the handling of terrorist enemies. Second, I’m asking that Congress make explicit that by following the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act our personnel are fulfilling America’s obligations under Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions. Third, I’m asking that Congress make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as a basis to sue our personnel in courts — in U.S. courts. The men and women who protect us should not have to fear lawsuits filed by terrorists because they’re doing their jobs.
By requesting this legislation the President is putting it on the Congress to make clear exactly what our troops and intel officials are to do. The Congress — particularly anti-war Democrats and some waffling RINO’s – will either have to come down on the side of fighting this war, or they will have to reveal their cut an run attitude.
The President has also called for Congress to debate several other important issues in the GWOT. He has asked for Congress to establish the military “commisions” or tribunals for captured AQ terrorists (this will allow us to put on trial the maserminds of the 9-11 plot, as well as the USS Cole), and he has asked Congress to sort out the legality of the CIA program. The president also issued a veiled rebuke of SCOTUS while talking about the decision rendered in US v. Hamdi.
As I said above, this forces the Congress — particularly anti-war Democrats and waffling RINO’s — to take a position on these important issues… right in time for the mid term elections. I say it’s about time.
9/5/2006
So, Olberman has once again tried to channel Murrow and quite frankly it’s even more disgusting and out of touch with reality than his attack on Donald Rumsfeld last week.
It is to our deep national shame—and ultimately it will be to the President’s deep personal regret—that he has followed his Secretary of Defense down the path of trying to tie those loyal Americans who disagree with his policies—or even question their effectiveness or execution—to the Nazis of the past, and the al Qaeda of the present.
I listened to the President’s speech today never heard him compare the media to the Nazis or Al Qaeda. What he did do is seem to compare those that would ignore the threat of Islamofacism to those who ignored the threat that Hitler posed in the mid to late thirties.
 Now, I know some of our country hear the terrorists’ words, and hope that they will not, or cannot, do what they say. History teaches that underestimating the words of evil and ambitious men is a terrible mistake. In the early 1900s, an exiled lawyer in Europe published a pamphlet called “What Is To Be Done?” — in which he laid out his plan to launch a communist revolution in Russia. The world did not heed Lenin’s words, and paid a terrible price. The Soviet Empire he established killed tens of millions, and brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war. In the 1920s, a failed Austrian painter published a book in which he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany and take revenge on Europe and eradicate the Jews. The world ignored Hitler’s words, and paid a terrible price. His Nazi regime killed millions in the gas chambers, and set the world aflame in war, before it was finally defeated at a terrible cost in lives.
 That is an appropriate comparison. We as a nation by and large ignored terrorism for many years prior to 9-11 and the only thing it won us is over 3,000 dead and a gap in the Manhattan skyline. We musn’t make the same mistake twice.
Back to Olberman’s “media as Nazi” complex. The paragraph that Olberman uses to back up his claim is this one:
Secondly, along with this campaign of terror, the enemy has a propaganda strategy. Osama bin Laden laid out this strategy in a letter to the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, that coalition forces uncovered in Afghanistan in 2002. In it, bin Laden says that al Qaeda intends to “[launch],” in his words, “a media campaign… to create a wedge between the American people and their government.” This media campaign, bin Laden says, will send the American people a number of messages, including “that their government [will] bring them more losses, in finances and casualties.” And he goes on to say that “they are being sacrificed… to serve… the big investors, especially the Jews.” Bin Laden says that by delivering these messages, al Qaeda “aims at creating pressure from the American people on the American government to stop their campaign against Afghanistan.”
Now, nowhere in that paragraph does President Bush say that Al Qaeda has or will use the American media (although I believe one could make a case that the media has — through it’s liberal bias –Â been a unwilling tool of Al Qaeda).
In conclusion, I think the President gave a great speech today. He layed out the threat that we face, and did something that as of this writing Olberman and Democrats of his kind still haven’t done… lay a plan for victory out on the table where everyone can see it.
Hat Tip: Hot Air
9/3/2006
Ralph “Bucky” Phillips may not know it yet, but he’s a dead man walking. Escaping from prison, shooting two New York state troopers — leaving one dead and the other in critical condition — probably won’t do much to endear you to those looking for you.
“Bucky” was last seen in upstate New York. If any of you live in that region, first of all, be careful. Secondly, keep an eye out for this dirtbag. If you see him, call your local law enforcement. I’m sure they’d like to have a talk with “Bucky”. Once again, be careful. Don’t approach this dirtbag by yourself.
Finally, our prayers go out to the families of the two officers who were shot. Law enforcement does a difficult job with little thanks. 99% of them are great at what they do, and deserve our respect. Unfortunately, all too often all they get is a hard time and sue happy lawyers sharks nipping at their heels.
Â
Update: Here’s another picture of the above mentioned dirtbag:
Â
Â
9/2/2006
I spoke with a real close friend of mine today. She has a friend who had lost her husband in Iraq recently. In the course of our conversation she said that she hated anyone who supported the war (and in particular Republicans), and as much as said that we don’t understand what’s at stake because neither we or our family members are over there loosing our lives.
I want you all to know that I know all too well what’s at stake in this fight. I have a close family member in Iraq right now. I think about and pray for the safety if my cousin — who is a first lieutenant patrolling the dangerous streets in northern Iraq — everyday.
There’s a lot at stake here at home as well. We face — if we fail — more 9/11 style attacks. I believe we also face loosing our way of life. Osama Bin Laden has said a number of times that he wants to establish another caliphate. That means establishing Sharia law world wide.
Al-Qa’ida’s goal is to “unite all Muslims and to establish a government which follows the rule of the Caliphs.” Bin Laden has stated that the only way to establish the Caliphate is by force. Al-Qa’ida’s goal, therefore, is to overthrow nearly all Muslim governments, which are viewed as corrupt, to drive Western influence from those countries, and eventually to abolish state boundaries.
It is truly a freighening time in our world now. Wars, rumors of wars. Sick minded mad men promising to once again eliminate an entire nation of people. As difficult as it is for those of us at home, our loved ones are the only ones who stand between these mad men and success.