10/26/2006
I’ve had to give a lot of thought to posting this comment. I’ve decided though that people like this need to be exposed and then shunned.
I found this comment in my moderation que this afternoon. At first I couldn’t believe that anyone would be this stupid, because to believe what this person believes they would have to have some serious mental problems and be totally incapable of accepting facts. So, without further delay I give you a comment submitted by “Enlightenment” or whatever this persons name is. Kind of ironic to have such a ridiculous comment submitted by someone going by the screen name “enlightenment”.
One thing that struck me as odd in the days after 9/11 was Bush saying “We will not tolerate conspiracy theories [regarding 9/11]â€. Sure enough there have been some wacky conspiracy theories surrounding the events of that day. The most far-fetched and patently ridiculous one that I’ve ever heard goes like this: Nineteen hijackers who claimed to be devout Muslims but yet were so un-Muslim as to be getting drunk all the time, doing cocaine and frequenting strip clubs decided to hijack four airliners and fly them into buildings in the northeastern U.S., the area of the country that is the most thick with fighter bases. After leaving a Koran on a barstool at a strip bar after getting shitfaced drunk on the night before, then writing a suicide note/inspirational letter that sounded like it was written by someone with next to no knowledge of Islam, they went to bed and got up the next morning hung over and carried out their devious plan. Nevermind the fact that of the four “pilots†among them there was not a one that could handle a Cessna or a Piper Cub let alone fly a jumbo jet, and the one assigned the most difficult task of all, Hani Hanjour, was so laughably incompetent that he was the worst fake “pilot†of the bunch. Nevermind the fact that they received very rudimentary flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station, making them more likely to have been C.I.A. assets than Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. So on to the airports. These “hijackers†somehow managed to board all four airliners with their tickets, yet not even ONE got his name on any of the flight manifests. So they hijack all four airliners and at this time passengers on United 93 start making a bunch of cell phone calls from 35,000 feet in the air to tell people what was going on. Nevermind the fact that cell phones wouldn’t work very well above 4,000 feet, and wouldn’t work at ALL above 8,000 feet. But the conspiracy theorists won’t let that fact get in the way of a good fantasy. That is one of the little things you “aren’t supposed to think aboutâ€. Nevermind that one of the callers called his mom and said his first and last name, more like he was reading from a list than calling his own mom. Anyway, when these airliners each deviated from their flight plan and didn’t respond to ground control, NORAD would any other time have followed standard operating procedure (and did NOT have to be told by F.A.A. that there were hijackings because they were watching the same events unfold on their own radar) which means fighter jets would be scrambled from the nearest base where they were available on standby within a few minutes, just like every other time when airliners stray off course. But of course on 9/11 this didn’t happen, not even close. Somehow these “hijackers†must have used magical powers to cause NORAD to stand down, as ridiculous as this sounds because total inaction from the most high-tech and professional Air Force in the world would be necessary to carry out their tasks. So on the most important day in its history the Air Force was totally worthless. Then they had to make one of the airliners look like a smaller plane, because unknown to them the Naudet brothers had a videocamera to capture the only known footage of the North Tower crash, and this footage shows something that is not at all like a jumbo jet, but didn’t have to bother with the South Tower jet disguising itself because that was the one we were “supposed to seeâ€. Anyway, as for the Pentagon they had to have Hani Hanjour fly his airliner like it was a fighter plane, making a high G-force corkscrew turn that no real airliner can do, in making its descent to strike the Pentagon. But these “hijackers†wanted to make sure Rumsfeld survived so they went out of their way to hit the farthest point in the building from where Rumsfeld and the top brass are located. And this worked out rather well for the military personnel in the Pentagon, since the side that was hit was the part that was under renovation at the time with few military personnel present compared to construction workers. Still more fortuitous for the Pentagon, the side that was hit had just before 9/11 been structurally reinforced to prevent a large fire there from spreading elsewhere in the building. Awful nice of them to pick that part to hit, huh? Then the airliner vaporized itself into nothing but tiny unidentifiable pieces no bigger than a fist, unlike the crash of a real airliner when you will be able to see at least some identifiable parts, like crumpled wings, broken tail section etc. Why, Hani Hanjour the terrible pilot flew that airliner so good that even though he hit the Pentagon on the ground floor the engines didn’t even drag the ground!! Imagine that!! Though the airliner vaporized itself on impact it only made a tiny 16 foot hole in the building. Amazing. Meanwhile, though the planes hitting the Twin Towers caused fires small enough for the firefighters to be heard on their radios saying “We just need 2 hoses and we can knock this fire down†attesting to the small size of it, somehow they must have used magical powers from beyond the grave to make this morph into a raging inferno capable of making the steel on all forty-seven main support columns (not to mention the over 100 smaller support columns) soften and buckle, then all fail at once. Hmmm. Then still more magic was used to make the building totally defy physics as well as common sense in having the uppermost floors pass through the remainder of the building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly, as falling through air, a feat that without magic could only be done with explosives. Then exactly 30 minutes later the North Tower collapses in precisely the same freefall physics-defying manner. Incredible. Not to mention the fact that both collapsed at a uniform rate too, not slowing down, which also defies physics because as the uppermost floors crash into and through each successive floor beneath them they would shed more and more energy each time, thus slowing itself down. Common sense tells you this is not possible without either the hijackers’ magical powers or explosives. To emphasize their telekinetic prowess, later in the day they made a third building, WTC # 7, collapse also at freefall rate though no plane or any major debris hit it. Amazing guys these magical hijackers. But we know it had to be “Muslim hijackers†the conspiracy theorist will tell you because (now don’t laugh) one of their passports was “found†a couple days later near Ground Zero, miraculously “surviving†the fire that we were told incinerated planes, passengers and black boxes, and also “survived†the collapse of the building it was in. When common sense tells you if that were true then they should start making buildings and airliners out of heavy paper and plastic so as to be “indestructable†like that magic passport. The hijackers even used their magical powers to bring at least seven of their number back to life, to appear at american embassies outraged at being blamed for 9/11!! BBC reported on that and it is still online. Nevertheless, they also used magical powers to make the american government look like it was covering something up in the aftermath of this, what with the hasty removal of the steel debris and having it driven to ports in trucks with GPS locators on them, to be shipped overseas to China and India to be melted down. When common sense again tells you that this is paradoxical in that if the steel was so unimportant that they didn’t bother saving some for analysis but so important as to require GPS locators on the trucks with one driver losing his job because he stopped to get lunch. Hmmmm. Yes, this whole story smacks of the utmost idiocy and fantastical far-fetched lying, but it is amazingly enough what some people believe. Even now, five years later, the provably false fairy tale of the “nineteen hijackers†is heard repeated again and again, and is accepted without question by so many Americans. Which is itself a testament to the innate psychological cowardice of the American sheeple, i mean people, and their abject willingness to believe something, ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous in order to avoid facing a scary uncomfortable truth. Time to wake up America.
Like I said… exposed, shunned, and might I be so bold as to add taken out of the gene pool…
There are so many urban legends and outright falsehoods in this comment that I don’t even know where to start. Never the less, I hope to put up a post tommorrow refuting this idiocy.
Ad Seen As Playing The Race Card… Huh?
The New York Times ran what was supposed to be a straight news piece. They failed miserably. Two things; first, there wasn’t a racial overtone to the ad, and frankly, I don’t see how anyone could see it that way. Two, the article gave very little space at all to the republican defense. Here’s the link to the ad. Look at it and tell me if you see Corker playing the race card… go ahead, I’ll wait.
See what I mean? Here’s the worst part about the whole article; the democrats have found a specialist in political advertising from Vanderbilt University to claim that this commercial ““is playing to a lot of fears†and “frankly makes the Willie Horton ad look like child’s play.â€. The thing about the Willie Horton ad is that it was true. Dukakis did let Willie Horton out on furlough when he was serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole, and Dukakis was soft on crime.
Probably the funniest and most disconnected line of the entire article was this one:
Mr. Ford told his audience here, and elsewhere in recent days, that the attacks were simply a sign of desperation, a sign the Republicans have nothing else to say.
Now, I said disconnected because the article even notes that the latest LA Times/Bloomberg poll shows Corker up 49 to 44. Who in their right mind would claim that someone who has a five point lead in the polls is making a desperate move?
Expect the democrats and the old media to continue these ridiculous articles for the next twelve days. They are and will do anything to get the left in power.
10/24/2006
This Ad Should Air On Every TV Station In America
David Zucker’s been at it again. By far the funniest ad since his Albright ad!
It’s really no big surprise to those of us who pay attention, but IBD highlighted — in it’s editorial yesterday — the bias coverage of the MSM when it comes to the economy.
The Dow Industrial is up over 12,000, Unemployment is at roughly 4%, 6.6 million jobs have been created, inflation has been tamed, federal tax revenues are up, and the defecit has been cut in half sooner than anyone had expected.
We have been in the strongest period of growth in this country in a long time despitet the obstacles the economy has had to overcome. Yet, when the public is polled they seem to think that the economy is bad. This is no big surprise though when you look at how the coverage has been slanted. From the IBD editorial:
This “cognitive dissonance” tends to be more pronounced at election time, perhaps because that’s when coverage tends to get more biased. Examples from past election cycles abound.
In 2004, when the Bush-Kerry race was heating up, we couldn’t help notice all the stories about trouble in the Midwest, and especially in key manufacturing states like Ohio, where the recovery that began two years earlier was said to be a no-show.
That’s funny, we thought at the time. Data showed the factory sector expanding for the 12th month in a row and employment at a 31-year high. But with Bush in office and John Kerry polling well, the media weren’t about to let facts get in the way of a good woe-is-us tale.
It was just the opposite in 2000, when Bush and Dick Cheney were campaigning to replace Bill Clinton and Al Gore, and had the nerve to point out the economy seemed to be slowing. Never mind the data indicated as much, or that stocks had been signaling a downturn since they topped that spring.
Eight years earlier, when George Bush Sr. was in the White House, and Clinton, Gore and 90% of the national media wanted him out, it was all about “the economy, stupid.” Though we were in the 18th month of expansion, and activity in the latest quarter was the strongest in three years, 92% of stories written about the economy in that stretch were negative.
The negative coverage dried up as soon as Clinton and Gore were elected. Only 14% of stories in November 1992 were negative vs. 90% the month before.
In 2006? Once again, there’s no shortage of anecdotal evidence. Typical was the one we cited last week, when both CBS and CNN took the best piece of economic news in a long time — the plunge in gas prices — and turned it into an election-year conspiracy of George Bush and Big Oil.
For fresh empirical evidence, the Business & Media Institute, admittedly a right-leaning group that audits coverage of the free enterprise system, just released a study of how the TV networks covered what was a strong economy in the 12 months ended in July. Among its findings:
• More than twice as many stories and briefs focused on negative aspects of the economy (62%) vs. positive (31%). “News broadcasts dwelled on one prospective cataclysm after another, yet each time the economy continued unfazed,” BMI said.
• Bad news was stressed on all three networks (CBS, NBC and ABC) and appeared in full-length stories twice as often as in shorter items.
• Ordinary people and businessmen whom reporters used to underscore negative stories outnumbered those telling positive stories by a 3-to-1 ratio.
• CBS’ coverage was easily the most slanted. More than 80% of its full-length stories on its “Evening News” delivered a negative view of the economy.
• Generally speaking, “the U.S. economy has been depicted as one major event away from collapse on all three evening news shows.”
Voters and business people alike would do well to ignore the media’s bias and remember who brought us this good economy.
Hat Tip: Ed @ Captains Quarters
10/23/2006
NYT’s Public Editor: Oops, We Were Wrong…
In a stunning development yesterday the public editor for the New York Times admitted that he was wrong for defending his paper’s publication of the secret banking program. Too bad it came four months after the publication of the article.
Since the job of public editor requires me to probe and question the published work and wisdom of Times journalists, there’s a special responsibility for me to acknowledge my own flawed assessments.
My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s decision to publish its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program. After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base. There were reasons to publish the controversial article, but they were slightly outweighed by two factors to which I gave too little emphasis. While it’s a close call now, as it was then, I don’t think the article should have been published.
Those two factors are really what bring me to this corrective commentary: the apparent legality of the program in the United States, and the absence of any evidence that anyone’s private data had actually been misused. I had mentioned both as being part of “the most substantial argument against running the story,†but that reference was relegated to the bottom of my column.
…I haven’t found any evidence in the intervening months that the surveillance program was illegal under United States laws. Although data-protection authorities in Europe have complained that the formerly secret program violated their rules on privacy, there have been no Times reports of legal action being taken. Data-protection rules are often stricter in Europe than in America, and have been a frequent source of friction.
Also, there still haven’t been any abuses of private data linked to the program, which apparently has continued to function. That, plus the legality issue, has left me wondering what harm actually was avoided when The Times and two other newspapers disclosed the program. The lack of appropriate oversight — to catch any abuses in the absence of media attention — was a key reason I originally supported publication. I think, however, that I gave it too much weight.
The problem with all of this is that — as Mr. Calame said — these reasons were there and as plain as the nose on his face when the article was published four months ago. The last paragraph in the article however gives us a little better insight into why he probably backed the bad decision of publishing the article:
What kept me from seeing these matters more clearly earlier in what admittedly was a close call? I fear I allowed the vicious criticism of The Times by the Bush administration to trigger my instinctive affinity for the underdog and enduring faith in a free press — two traits that I warned readers about in my first column
Great, so he put his countrymen in jeopardy because Bush made him angry… He should be so proud…
Three Colorado Catholic Bishops Come Out Against I
The three Catholic bishops in Colorado released a statement coming out against Referendum I and for Amendment 43 yesterday. Here is the text of the letter:
Dear friends in Christ, October 21, 2006
On the ballot this election, Coloradans have an opportunity to amend the state constitution through Amendment 43 so that marriage will be defined as exclusively the union between one man and one woman. As Catholics, we understand that marriage is a sacramental union; but defending marriage is not primarily a “religious” issue. On the contrary, it is a matter of common sense serving the common good. Protecting marriage serves all Coloradans, whether they have religious beliefs or not. Marriage has two natural purposes: to deepen the unity of spouses through their mutual love, and to provide a loving environment for bearing and raising children. Anything less than a state constitutional amendment defending marriage this year will enable state judges and legislators to potentially redefine marriage — even against the will of the people. Any attack on the identity of marriage and the family undermines society itself. Every effort to defend marriage and the family serves the common good. This is why Amendment 43 is so vitally important. Therefore, as the Catholic Bishops of Colorado, we strongly urge you to vote “Yes” on Amendment 43, which will protect and preserve the definition of marriage. We also strongly urge Catholics to vote “No” on Referendum I. In its language and its practical effect, Referendum I begins the dangerous process of establishing domestic partnerships as an equal and parallel institution to marriage. This inevitably undermines the privileged place of marriage and the family, and cannot serve the common good of Coloradans in the long run. Many good ways exist to secure the rights and dignity of all Coloradans. Referendum I is not one of them.
The U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults reminds us that “Catholics must participate in political life and bring to bear upon it - by their voices and their vote - what they have learned about human nature, human destiny and God’s will for human beings from his self-revelation” (pg. 502). This is a critical year on the Colorado ballot. We pray that every Catholic will vote responsibly, guided by his or her Catholic conscience, in November.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Most Reverend Arthur N. Tafoya, D.D.
Most Reverend Michael J. Sheridan, S.T.D.
Hugh has more on the disgraceful complete lack of coverage by the Denver papers.
10/21/2006
Ford Looses It And Crashes Corker Meet And Greet
Tennessee Democrat Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr. decided it would be a good idea to crash one of his opponents events (video below the fold).
Some are calling it a campaign ending mistake by a candidate who has reached the end of the line. In the last Zogby poll available (10/10 — 10/16) Corker led Ford 49% — 42% with the state trending Republican 60% — 40%. Earlier this month Ford had a solid lead — according to USA Today/Gallup — Ford was up by 5 points (9/27 — 10/1).
I believe Ford has piddled away a significant lead and has seen the trend in Tennessee going the other way, so now he’s getting desperate. With any luck Corker will maintain his lead and Ford will pull even more desperate stunts. That will almost ensure one less seat the Democrats can claim.
I find it interesting that most polls show a generic Congressional ballot trending Democrat considering the anecdotal evidence of the Ford — Corker race and the lead the Republicans have in some of the races where they need to keep the seat. Of course, you can make polls say anything you want.
There are three things working in the Republican party’s favor right now though:
Unfortunately, we won’t know for sure until November 7th. After all, that’s the only poll that counts.
10/20/2006
CNN Becomes Terrorist Propaganda Machine
Yesterday CNN joined the ranks of the New York Times when they published a video and accompanying story that is reportedly from the Islamic Army of Iraq. The video shows a terrorist sniper team methodically picking off American soldiers one by one.
I find it disgusting that an American news agency would be so cold as to apparently not consider the thoughts and feelings of parents and family members of the brave soldiers in Iraq. They also didn’t bother to consider the effect on morale here in the states. Certainly, this is a story worthy of coverage in the media, but I think showing the video went way over the line.
The other issue I find interesting in regards to the media’s coverage of the GWOT is that there is an overabundance of negative stories on the war, but stories of successes are virtually non-existent. Why not have balanced coverage? Could it be that they want us to loose, or is it just that they don’t know how to be balanced?
10/17/2006
I wrote earlier this week on Colorado’s Referendum I. Maybe I didn’t make myself clear about just how much damage this referendum will do to traditional marriage and children.
My belief is that the interests of children are best served when they have a mom and a dad (if not in the home, at least available to them). This referendum would allow homosexuals in a domestic partnership to adopt children as a couple.
14-15-106. Benefits, protections, and responsibilities of partners in a domestic partnership.
(5) Legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities of spouses, including but not limited to the following, shall apply in like manner to domestic partners:
(f) Adoption law and procedure;
(6) The responsibilities and rights of domestic partners, with respect to a child of whom either becomes the biological parent during the term of the domestic partnership, shall be determined as if the parties were spouses subject to the provisions of section 19-4-105 C.R.S.
Of course, these are — once again — the same rights afforded to married heterosexual couples. I — and many others — believe that number 1 this is extremely detrimental to children, and number 2 it is wrong to accord the same rights to homosexual couples as heterosexual couples.
It’s obvious to me that the supporters of this bill want marriage for homosexuals. As I said in my previous post, most Americans are dead set against this. The proof for this lies in the fact that marriage amendments have passed in 19 states 19 straight times.
On the other side of the debate, we have amendment 43. The text of that amendment is:
Amendment 43 amends the state constitution by defining marriage in Colorado as only a union between one man and one woman.
For a marriage to be valid under Colorado statutes, it must be (1) between a man and a woman; and (2) licensed, solemnized, and registered according to established procedures. Colorado also recognizes common law marriage.
The amendment effectively puts into the state constitution language which is in Colorado statutes. As such, Amendment 43 is not expected to affect state and local revenues or spending.
Amendment 43 upholds the values of Coloradoans, where referendum I doesn’t. I believe that it is imperative for Colorado to pass amendment 43 and throw out referendum I.
Most of the rest of referendum I deals with death benefits, right to sue benefits, insurance policy benefits, etc. Most of these rights can be taken care of through legal framework already on file.
Kos Kidz Are Smoking Crack Again
Amazingly, one of the the Kos kidz (jsepeta) seems to be an earthquake expert [sic]. This loony sufferer of Bush Derangement Syndrome proudly proclaimed that the 6.6 earthquake that hit Hawaii over the weekend was the work of none other than the evil George Bush.
Whenever you blow up stuff deep underground, you run the risk of forcing the tectonic plates to shift.
Recall how there were no nukes in North Korea under Clinton, when the adults were in charge of foreign policy. I hope that Hawaii residents can put two and two together and vote Democratic because the GOP’s idiotic mishandling of North Korea is a clear and pleasant danger. Heh, the smoking gun just fired, Dee-dee-dees!
GWB’s hard-on for more war and instability in the Middle East (the successful results of his conscious actions and inaction) have led to a world that is less safe in myriad ways. I cannot understand how any Jew or Jewish sympathiser, or Arab or Arab sympathiser, could possibly vote to keep George Bush’s regime in power. Congress’ lack of accountability, including not trying to stop Bush from sending our men and women to a senseless war that only benefits the defense industry and oil moguls, is what we should all be hammering on this election season. The Republican Congress has failed to put a check on Emperor Nero — sorry, President Bush — and they should all be thrown out on their respective asses for letting that a-hole destroy our Republic.
Weaker at Home, Hated abroad
Geesh, put down the crack pipe and think before you say something so stupid.
10/16/2006
Whitehouse Joins The Blogosphere
The Whitehouse has officially joined the blogosphere. Redstate has a podcast interview with Press Secretary Tony Snow.
One thing that struck me about the interview is how blessed we are to live in a country where we can openly and freely speak about God and our faith.
10/14/2006
Coloradoans are facing one of the most important votes they will ever make this November seventh. Gay “rights” activists have managed to get Referendum I — the domestic partnerships referendum — on the ballot this November and they would like you to believe that it has nothing to do with marriage. However, if you look at the text of the referendum, you’ll see that marriage is exactly what it is.
14-15-106. Benefits, protections, and responsibilities of partners in a domestic partnership. (1) A domestic partner shall have the benefits, protections, and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law, or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses.
The rights activists will tell you that it’s about visiting their partner in the hospital, making health care decisions for their partner, inheritance rights, and the right to make funeral arrangements for their partner, but same sex partners already have most of the rights they say they’ll get from referendum I.
Referendum I would simply put allow homosexuals to get married. California has already faced this issue. Last year, a California judge ruled that the existence of domestic partnership rights made a voter approved ban on gay marriage null and void.
The overwhelming majority of Americans disapprove of gay marriage, that’s why the activists do everything they can to portray it as anything but marriage. Don’t fall for their lies, referendum I is gay marriage by a different name.
10/13/2006
Underhanded, and Just Plain Wrong
Claire McCaskil, the Democrat candidate for Senate in Missouri has just pulled a campaign ad from TV that is most likely completely false, however, the ad remains up on YouTube. Whether false because McCaskil didn’t check her facts or false because she just doesn’t care if she lies remains to be seen. Either way, there’s no excuse for this kind of stuff. See Gateway Pundit for the details.
Just another reason to vote for Jim Talent
Today, we have this from the Patriot Post:
First, Washington Post legend-in-his-own-mind Bob Woodward released his latest literary assault on the administration’s Iraq policy. Then the current National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a classified security summary jointly composed by the 14 U.S. intelligence agencies, was illegally leaked. Finally, this week, a new study from Johns Hopkins University concludes that the population of post-invasion Iraq has suffered 654,000 more casualties than it otherwise would have during this period of time—a number quadruple the next closest estimate.
Now, say critics on the left, five years after 9/11, President George W. Bush’s “Axis of Evil†rhetoric has accelerated and escalated threats around the globe. One Axis member is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, another has just tested its first, and the third, Iraq, is in utter shambles. With elections just around the corner, anti-war pols have given a new spin to an old refrain, asking voters, “Are Iraq, Iran and North Korea safer than they were four years ago?â€
Woodward’s latest tome, State of Denial, largely dependent on what he describes as a secret Pentagon document detailing escalating violence in Iraq, is already butting heads with the truth. “They were keeping it classified until I got a hold of it,†Woodward told Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press. Unfortunately for Woodward, the document wasn’t so secret after all. Days after he reported on it in May 2006, the Pentagon presented its “9010 Report†to Congress, detailing the same information. This public report explicitly stated that terrorist violence in Iraq was at an all-time high.
Woodward, whom Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan recently likened to “a great dumb shark, remorselessly moving toward hunks of information he can swallow but not digest,†falsely claims that this mandatory public report blatantly contradicts the secret report in his possession. The confusion, though, is of Woodward’s own making. In the book, Woodward says the public report defines “Iraqi rejectionists†as “former regime loyalists, Saddamists, and terrorists, including al Qaeda.†The public report predicts violence will decline in 2007, says Woodward, while the secret report indicates terrorist violence will increase.
To the contrary, the public report places “rejectionists†in a category of their own—ordinary Sunni Arabs who have not embraced the transition from Saddamist totalitarianism to democracy. Unlike “regime loyalists, Saddamists and terrorists†who must be killed or captured, the report says, “we judge that over time many in this group will increasingly support a democratic Iraq provided that the federal government protects minority rights and the legitimate interests of all communities.â€
In other words, yes, the public report says these terrorists and insurgents will “retain the capabilities†to “sustain violence levels through 2007.†On the other hand, “appeal and motivation for rejectionist elements will wane in 2007†as political processes move forward with Sunni participation.
The more magnanimous among us might say that Woodward made an honest if sophomoric mistake; that he simply couldn’t process the information he’d taken in. We can’t, however, say the same about the illegal leak of the April 2006 NIE, “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,†which the traitors at the New York Times were all too eager to publish.
Following the NIE’s illegal release, Democrats were quick to pick up the ball. “Rather than reducing the number of terrorists worldwide and lessening the motivation of terrorists to attack the United States, the war in Iraq is having precisely the opposite effect,†opined House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. “We did not invade Iraq to fight terrorism as the President would now have us believe, but we’re less safe today because the war in Iraq has hindered our ability to make progress in combating terrorism.â€
Jay Rockefeller, ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, followed suit, saying, “There is no question that many of our policies have inflamed our enemies’ hatred toward the U.S. and allowed violence to flourish, but it is the mistakes we made in Iraq—the lack of planning, the mismanagement and the complete incompetence of our leadership—that has done the most damage to our security.â€
Inconveniently for Democrats, the U.S. wasn’t in Iraq when our Marine barracks in Lebanon were bombed in 1983, or when the World Trade Center was first bombed in 1993, or when the Khobar Towers were bombed in 1996, or when our embassies were bombed in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998, or when the USS Cole was bombed in the port of Yemen in 2000 or, finally, when Islamic terrorists rammed passenger jets into the WTC, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field on September 11, 2001, killing some 3,000 of our countrymen.
Indeed, why should we be surprised that Islamic terrorists would rally around the Iraq conflict to make their case for U.S. imperialism and western aggression? What’s more, why are we surprised that failure in Iraq would encourage these same militants?
What is really not surprising, though, is the fact that this report—willfully misconstrued as a criticism of the Iraq war—was illegally leaked only six weeks ahead of November’s crucial midterm elections.
The last NIE to receive this degree of attention, you’ll recall, was written in 2002 and concluded that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had aggressively pursued its WMD programs, possessed substantial chemical and biological arsenals, and “probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.†Curiously, the same people who decried the inaccuracy of that last highly publicized NIE are now touting select portions of this new estimate as gospel truth. Could it be that the NIE’s newfound advocates are more interested in political opportunism than substantive truth about terrorism and Iraq?
As for the Johns Hopkins study on war deaths in Iraq, suffice it to say the methodology of the researchers is drawing criticism from many quarters, including the government of Iraq and the United Nations. Even the New York Times was forced to admit to the study’s “spotty statistical history†and to recall that under Saddam Hussein “the state had a monopoly on killing, and the deaths of thousands of Iraqi Shiites and Kurds that it caused were never counted.†If the Hopkins pre-election hit piece has a familiar ring to it, it’s likely because the last time they published such a grossly flawed “study†on Iraqi war deaths was in late October, 2004, just days before the presidential election. Alas, some institutions of higher learning never do learn.
It’s no surprise, then, that these anti-war voices are now at fever pitch. After all, the coming election will largely determine this President’s ability to wage war on Jihadi terrorists for the remainder of his term. To wit, we have to wonder if this week’s treason case against U.S. citizen and al-Qa’ida deputy Adam Gadahn—the first in 50 years—would have occurred under a more “nuanced†administration. Given the Democrats’ soft-on-terror history, though, the cut-and-run crowd might want to be careful what it wishes for.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Air America — or as I call it: Radio Communista — has filed for bankruptcy. I guess this means Al Franken will have to find somewhere else to spew his propoganda.
NEW YORK — Air America Radio, a liberal talk and news radio network, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, a network official told the AP.
The network had denied rumors just a month ago that it would file for bankruptcy, but on Friday Air America said negotiations with a creditor from the company’s early days had broken down.
The network will stay on the air while it resolves issues with its creditors, spokeswoman Jaime Horn told the Associated Press. A formal announcement was expected to be made later Friday.
10/6/2006
CREW Provided E-mails To FBI … ABC’s Still Silent
We find out today through the Washington Post that a George Soros funded group provided a faxed copy of the Foley emails to the FBI. Apparently, CREW is naive enough to believe that a fax copy of an email is enough to walk into court and get a subpoena, because now their criticizing the FBI for not pursuing the investigation. Further damaging CREW’s position is the fact that the FBI believes that the group had the emails as early as April and refused to tell the FBI how they came in to possession of them and when they did finally provide them with a fax copy, the emails had been severely redacted by CREW. Dan at Riehl World View has much more on the far left CREW and their criticism of the FBI.
Meanwhile, ABC is still silent on who exactly the source was for the disgusting IM’s.
Hat Tip: Riehl World View
10/5/2006
So, while the Democrats are screaming over the Foley scandal the Republicans are still trying to get their ideas on illegal immigration, homeland security, and tax cuts out to the public. My question to you gentle reader is what ideas have you heard from the Democrats lately — that is, other than cut and run in Iraq. Go ahead and think about it for awhile….
Nothing? Yeah, that’s my take also. See the only strategy the Democrats have had for years is scream and cry about how horrible the Republicans are while putting forward no ideas of their own.
The other thing about the Foley Scandal is that this isn’t just a Republican issue. Barny Franks ran a gay prostitution ring out of his house and Gerry Studs went that extra mile and actually had sex with a seventeen year old page. Then, it seems to me there was something about an ex-President, a cigar, and an intern a few years ago. It also appears that evidence is mounting that the Democrats were actually the ones who sat on the Foley scandal for months endangering under age pages. So, the Democrats have no claim of moral superiority, neither do they have any ideas for bettering the country.
Foley Scandal Reeks Of Partisan Trickery
The evidence that this whole thing with Foley was a partisan action is mounting quickly. Many, including Speaker Hastert have come on TV and said that the leak of the IM’s look to be connected to George Soros. When you add to that the Breaking Drudge Report stories that (1) ABC committed fraud when they said that the page was underage. (2) The breaking Drudge story that this was a page prank gone awry that ended up in the hands of “enemy political operatives”, and (3) the fact that the IM story was not run until the day after Foley could be taken off of the ballot and Congress had left for a campaigning break and this looks more and more like a trick by the Democrats to hurt the Republican chances of keeping the House and Senate this November.
I’m no fool, I know that partisan trickery happens on both sides of the aisle. But, this stinks to high heaven. The Democrats for years have supposedly come down on the side of protecting our children, but they have actually fallen far short on this issue. They [the Democrats] were aghast that the Boy Scouts would actually want to set limits as far as who should be a troop leader. Now, unfortunately, they seem to have chosen the welfare of their party over the welfare of our children. Hypocrisy is bad enough, but hypocrisy that puts our children at risk is not acceptable. This, in my opinion, is just another reason that the Democrats can’t be trusted to sit in a seat of power in this country.
The Republicans, on the other hand, appear to have done everything they could. The emails that Speaker Hastert knew about were also known by a newspaper in south Florida. They apparently didn’t think there was enough to run with because they never published the story.
Finally, let me make clear to all of you. What Foley did — whether he was lured into it or not — is grotesque and horrible, and he should have left Washington in shame. I still maintain the opinion that Foley should never receive any benefit for ever having been a Congressman.
It Depends On What Your Meaning Of Underage Is…
The Drudge Report is now revealing that the “under age” Page was actually 18 when the conversations took place.
SEX CHAT WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD
On Tuesday ABC news released a high-impact instant message exchange between Foley and, as ABC explained, a young man “under the age of 18.”
ABC headlined the story: “New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote”
But upon reviewing the records, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, the young man was in fact over the age of 18 at the time of the exchange.
A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday.
Developing…
Apparently, ABC mistakenly left evidence of the identity of the page.
A posting on ABCNEWS.COM of an unredacted instant message sessions between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser.
The website PASSIONATE AMERICA detailed the startling exposure late Wednesday.
MORE
The PASSIONATE AMERICA webmaster tells the OKLAHOMAN that “he stumbled onto the former page’s AOL screen name when looking at transcripts of the instant messages on ABC’s Web site on Saturday. He said he typed a slightly-different Web address into his browser and found a version of the transcript with the screen name.
The AOL name of the young man was kept unredacted and housed on ABCNEWS.COM servers for 5 days!
The information could be publicly accessed.
ABC explains in a statement: “On Friday, ABC News published instant messages between a former page and Congressman Foley with the IM screen name of the teenage victim redacted. Immediately, we discovered that in one instance, the screen name of the teen on one IM exchange had not been properly redacted. ABC News immediately took down the posting [version 1], redacted the screen name and re-published the posting [version 2]. We certainly believed that we had taken care of the issue quickly. Last evening, after an inquiry from Matt Drudge, it came to our attention that a blogger was able to access our deleted file [version 1] by typing in a slightly modified web address. To be clear, no one visiting our website would have simply stumbled on the old version.”
Like the title of this post says, I guess it depends on what your definition of under age is. Either way, the end result is that ABC committed fraud on the American public when they claimed the page was underage.
My friend Mr. Bob at The Daily Blogster has this to say, I agree.
Two things; one MSN messenger logs all sessions unless during setup you tell it not to. I don’t know about others, but I suspect they the same.
The main thing here is the Rep’s did not know about anything except the marginally weird emails until last week. The Dems obviously did otherwise they would not have come out 2 days after the deadline to bring in another candidate.
This seat is a lock for the R’s. So the R’s have nothing to lose by exposing him earlier, they could put any candidate there and he would win.
This stinks to high heaven and now we are finding out the Page’s were not minors but adults. Still disgusting but not pedophilia, just another gay man who can’t control himself. I am glad he was exposed, but the timing is Democrat strategy, they put page’s at risk to get the job done.
10/3/2006
Foley Scandal A Black Bag Political Hack Job?
Let me preface this by saying what I’ve said before; Foley is a scum bag and deserves anything that he gets at this point. That being said, a listener to Hugh’s show has reminded us of something I’d forgotten. Something that certainly furthers my question from the other day.
This listener reminded us that there is no IM software that — out of the box — logs IM sessions. In fact, I’m not even aware of one where you have the option of turning that feature on. If one were to want to save a conversation they would have to copy and paste it into either a word processing program or some sort of a text editor.
So, given that there are supposedly around fifty recorded IM sessions with former Congressman Foley, isn’t it possible that the recording of those conversations and leaking of them to the media was planned from the beginning?
Some may say that the page’s recorded them, and yes, that’s possible. But, wouldn’t they or their parents have taken the conversations to the authorities? They didn’t.
So, given that, we next need to look at who has the most to gain from a long running Republican scandal right at election time… Go ahead, I’ll give you time to guess… Yup, the Democrats.
So, back to my statement form the other day. If the Democrats knew about these IM’s and didn’t say or do anything about it or held back from bringing it up until the midterm election, then they are just as guilty as anyone else in this mess.
I strongly urge the House to look into just exactly how these IM’s were recorded and distributed to the media. I also urge them to look into who is leaking them to the media. Contact your congressman and let them know what you think. Here is a link to the House’s website.
10/2/2006
We all know about the disgusting instant messages and emails that Republican Mark Foley sent to Congressional pages. I applaud Foley for resigning, and think that his punishment hasn’t gone nearly far enough. In my opinion, Foley should receive no compensation for ever having been a Congressman. No pension, no government health insurance, nothing. He is also being criminally investigated.
That being said, the timing of the release of this story is quite questionable. I feel, in addition to whatever investigation is going on about what Congressional Republicans knew, and when they knew it, we should also be asking that question of Democrats.
I find it very interesting that there was no mention of this story by anyone until less than fifty days out of an election. As disgusting and horrible as what Foley did was, knowing what was happening and not saying anything about it until your party could gain the most benefit from it is just as bad. If Democrats knew what was happening and did nothing about it so that they could gain political advantage in an election, they should be punished as well.