4/26/2007
Goldstein on Lynch, Tillman, and Waxman
Jeff Goldstein has a good post on the Lynch/Tillman hearings from the other day. By far the best paragraph:
The only “fiction†here is that there was some kind of carefully orchestrated cover-up—which in itself is the very kind of “propaganda,†albeit of the anti-war variety, those who are pushing this story claim, cynically and repugnantly, to be outraged by.
Exactly!
Hat Tip: Neptunus Lex
David Broder of the WaPo has turned on Harry, and the nutroots have turned on Broder. Broder — in his column today — has made the point that the country deserves better than Reid. I would only add one thing; our troops deserve better than Reid.
…consider the mental gyrations performed by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) as he rationalized the recent comment from his majority leader, Harry Reid, the leading light of Searchlight, Nev., that the war in Iraq “is lost.”
On “Fox News Sunday,” Schumer offered this clarification of Reid’s off-the-cuff comment. “What Harry Reid is saying is that this war is lost — in other words, a war where we mainly spend our time policing a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. We are not going to solve that problem. . . . The war is not lost. And Harry Reid believes this — we Democrats believe it. . . . So the bottom line is if the war continues on this path, if we continue to try to police and settle a civil war that’s been going on for hundreds of years in Iraq, we can’t win. But on the other hand, if we change the mission and have that mission focus on the more narrow goal of counterterrorism, we sure can win.”
Everyone got that? This war is lost. But the war can be won. Not since Bill Clinton famously pondered the meaning of the word “is” has a Democratic leader confused things as much as Harry Reid did with his inept discussion of the alternatives in Iraq.
Nor is this the first time Senate Democrats, who chose Reid as their leader over Chris Dodd of Connecticut, have had to ponder the political fallout from one of Reid’s tussles with the language.
Hailed by his staff as “a strong leader who speaks his mind in direct fashion,” Reid is assuredly not a man who misses many opportunities to put his foot in his mouth. In 2005, he attacked Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, as “one of the biggest political hacks we have here in Washington.”
He called President Bush ” a loser,” then apologized. He said that Bill Frist, then Senate majority leader, had “no institutional integrity” because Frist planned to leave the Senate to fulfill a term-limits pledge. Then he apologized to Frist.
Most of these earlier gaffes were personal, bespeaking a kind of displaced aggressiveness on the part of the onetime amateur boxer. But Reid’s verbal wanderings on the war in Iraq are consequential — not just for his party and the Senate but for the more important question of what happens to U.S. policy in that violent country and to the men and women whose lives are at stake.
Given the way the Constitution divides warmaking power between the president, as commander in chief, and Congress, as sole source of funds to support the armed services, it is essential that at some point Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi be able to negotiate with the White House to determine the course America will follow until a new president takes office.
To say that Reid has sent conflicting signals about his readiness for such discussions is an understatement. It has been impossible for his own members, let alone the White House, to sort out for more than 24 hours at a time what ground Reid is prepared to defend.
Instead of reinforcing the important proposition — defined by the Iraq Study Group– that a military strategy for Iraq is necessary but not sufficient to solve the myriad political problems of that country, Reid has mistakenly argued that the military effort is lost but a diplomatic-political strategy can still succeed.
The Democrats deserve better, and the country needs more, than Harry Reid has offered as Senate majority leader.
It’s time for Reid to go.
Related: Troops have a message for Reid
 Hat Tip: Captains Quarters
4/24/2007
House and Senate conferees have agreed on a compromise to the Democrat’s surrender war funding bill. This is the bill that drew fire for attaching so much pork. The House and Senate have taken out some of the pork, but have added their minimum wage increase to the bill, an odd thing to add to a war funding bill [Emphasis mine — Jim C].
The bill includes $400 million in energy assistance for low-income families, the lower amount provided in the House version of the bill. It provides $650 million for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, $100 million more than either version provided.
The agreement would raise the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, from $5.15 to $7.25 over two years. It includes tax cuts worth $4.8 billion over 10 years.
I guess the good news is that this piece of trash won’t survive the veto pen.
I have listened in relative silence the last few days to the commentary about Reid’s war comment scandal. For those of you who don’t gobble news like I do; Thursday Senator Reid made the following comment:
I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and - you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows - this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday…
That comment — rightfully so — brought a backlash against Reid. Mark Levin called for his resignation, and lawmakers in both the house and Senate — including Joe Lieberman– denounced Reid and his fellow surrender monkey’s brand of defeatism.
“I can’t begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost,” said Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
[…]Â […]Â […]
“I have more faith in our soldiers than the Senate majority leader,” Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., said Thursday. “I believe our troops can win this war as past generations have prevailed when our country’s future is at stake.”
Now, today, Harry Reid gave a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center. In this speech he continued his defeatist rhetoric in calling for the beggining of the withdrawl of combat troops by Oct 1st.
Our first step immediately transitions the U.S. mission away from policing a civil war– to training and equipping Iraqi security forces, protecting U.S. forces and conducting targeted counter-terror operations.
This transitions our mission to one that is aligned with U.S. strategic interests, while at the same time, reducing our combat footprint. U.S. troops should not be interjecting themselves between warring factions, kicking down doors, trying to sort Shia from Sunni or friend from foe.
Our second step calls for beginning the phased redeployment of our troops no later than October 1, 2007 with a goal of removing all combat forces by April 1, 2008, except for those carrying out the limited missions I just mentioned.
It’s time for traitors like Reid to step down. We need real men and women in leadership right now.
4/23/2007
Army SGT Jim Wilt asks a good question of all of us… especially our leaders in Washington DC and our state houses of government.
By Army Sgt. Jim Wilt
Combined Joint Task Force-82 Public Affairs OfficeBAGRAM AIRFIELD, Afghanistan - Following the deaths of 32 Virginia Tech students, the President of the United States ordered that all American flags be flown at half-staff for one week.
In accordance with the president’s order, the U.S. flag at Bagram Airfield was raised to half-staff.Â
ÂThe deaths of the 32 students are a tragedy that was felt throughout the world. Even Afghan President Hamid Karazi gave his condolences to the U.S. on the loss of so many young lives. The president of a country, which has seen more than its fair share of young deaths, tipped his proverbial hat to these young people. Â
But I find it ironic that the flags were flown at half-staff for the young men and women who were killed at VT yet it is never lowered for the death of a U.S. servicemember.Â
Is the life of Sgt. Alexander Van Aalten, a member of our very own task force, killed April 20 in Helmand province not valued the same as these 32 students? Surely his death was as violent as the students.Â
Aalten’s death lacked the shock factor of the Virginia massacre. It is a daily occurrence these days to see X number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq or Afghanistan scrolling across the ticker at the bottom of the TV screen. People have come to expect casualty counts in the nightly news; they don’t expect to see 32 students killed.
Also, more parents have children in school than children in the military. This makes the deaths hit closer to home for a lot people.   Â
The deaths of our friends and family members in the military are not forgotten by the citizens of our great country. We see this as people line the streets to honor those who lost their lives fighting for the freedom of our country and the freedom of other countries.Â
Individual states have taken it upon themselves to raise their flags to half-mast when one of their children dies.
ÂI think it is sad that we do not raise the bases’ flag to half-staff when a member of our own task force dies.Â
ÂDepartment of Defense directives mandate we honor our fallen leaders from former presidents to the state governors, but there is no provision for the men and women who die preserving our way of life.
I can understand not lowering flags across the country for the death of a single servicemember. But shouldn’t the servicemember’s state lower the flag to show their respect to the fallen trooper, if only for one day? Some states do, but not all of them.
At the very minimum, the servicemember’s forward operating base and the installation of his or her parent unit should show their respect by lowering the flag for one day.Â
We line the sides of Disney Drive here when one of our brothers or sisters in the service dies, but we don’t lower the flag they fight under. A person can argue that we have Memorial Day for this but tell that to the people who knew the person.Â
We walk down Disney Drive everyday and salute the ranks above us, and those above us salute back. This is a sign of respect.
The U.S. flag is more than a piece of cloth. It is a symbol, a symbol which represents the people of America.Â
Hundreds of thousands of men and women have died under our flag, preserving its people.Â
ÂWhen we honor the flag by saluting it, we are honoring what it stands for. We honor freedom, the people it represents and a way of life.Â
Isn’t it time our flag saluted back when a person makes the ultimate sacrifice? Shouldn’t the flag, which represents our society, tip its hat when someone dies to ensure it will fly another day?Â
If the flags on our FOBs were lowered for just one day after the death of a servicemember, it would show the people who knew the person that society cared, the American people care.
4/22/2007
Couldn’t Have Said it Better Myself
Jeff Foxworthy took some time at the CMT music awards to explain why country music is so popular (scroll down for the video). I couldn’t have said it better myself.
4/19/2007
Shame on NBC and anyone else that aired portions of the video of the VT murderer. The public good was certainly was not served by airing the rantings of Cho Seung - Hui. The reality is that NBC aired this trash to boost it’s ratings, and that decision may cost future people their lives. Imagine for a minute some sick twisted individual out there watching Cho and deciding that this is a great way to go out. All he or she has to do is mail out a video to a major news outlet, and then go out and shoot up a school or their workplace and they get instant immortality courtesy of ratings hungry “journalists”. Unbelievable…
4/18/2007
232 years ago today our country found itself on the eve of war. This was a war to shake off the chains of tyrany. The following quote is from Samuel Adams. Let’s all take some time to think about how lucky we are to be free, how lucky we are to have had men like these brave few that were willing to lay down their lives so that their children and children’s children may be free. Let’s also consider how lucky we are to still have men and women today that are willing to lay down their lives on the alter of freedom.
“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, ‘What should be the reward of such sacrifices?’ Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!†—Samuel Adams
4/15/2007
Apparently, we’ve become a nation full of eunichs. Or at least we will if the dhimmicrats have their way. They want to establish the Department of Peace and Nonviolence. This would be a cabinet level appointment along the lines of the Department of Defense if HR 808 is passed.
Beginning
February 5, 2007SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
TITLE I–ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF PEACE AND NONVIOLENCESEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE.
SEC. 102. RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS.
SEC. 103. PRINCIPAL OFFICERS.
SEC. 104. OFFICE OF PEACE EDUCATION AND TRAINING.
SEC. 105. OFFICE OF DOMESTIC PEACE ACTIVITIES.
SEC. 106. OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL PEACE ACTIVITIES.
SEC. 107. OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR PEACE.
SEC. 108. OFFICE OF ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT.
SEC. 109. OFFICE OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND NONVIOLENT CONFLICT RESOLUTION.
SEC. 110. OFFICE OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS.
SEC. 111. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE.
SEC. 112. CONSULTATION REQUIRED.
SEC. 113. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
TITLE II–ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS AND TRANSFERS OF AGENCY FUNCTIONSSEC. 201. STAFF.
SEC. 202. TRANSFERS.
SEC. 203. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
TITLE III–FEDERAL INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON PEACE AND NONVIOLENCESEC. 301. FEDERAL INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE.
TITLE IV–ESTABLISHMENT OF PEACE DAYSEC. 401. PEACE DAY.
  Â
Hat Tip: Blackfive
4/14/2007
Imus, Jackson, Olbermann & Sharpton
I really don’t care about Don Imus. I can honestly say I don’t ever remember listening to his show, which is saying a lot with all of the radio I listened to the eight years I drove a truck over the road. That being said; with the controversy going on right now, one almost has to comment on what he said and the resulting fallout.
I guess one could make the case that this is Imus’ schtick, it’s what he does. That’s certainly true. By all accounts this isn’t the first time he’s made inflammatory or racist comments though. This time, he decided to go way out of his way to attack a womens college basketball team. These women were not involved in any political debate, they had done nothing to earn Imus’ comments. That’s why I believe that Imus got what he had coming. The “market” Â decided his fate, and he was fired.
Now, the one thing that bothers me about this whole bruhaha with Imus is the fact that race baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are claiming the moral high ground in the issue. Remember, Sharpton was the chief instigator in the Tawana Brawley fraud. From wikipedia:
Tawana Brawley (born 1972) is a black woman who received national attention in the U.S. when she was 15 years old for her claim that she was raped by six white men, some of them police officers, in the village of Wappingers Falls, New York. The alleged incident soon became a media sensation, championed by Reverend Al Sharpton and by attorneys Alton H. Maddox and C. Vernon Mason. There were no indictments in an investigation conducted by a grand jury in October 1988, who cited a lack of evidence, concluding she had not been abducted, assaulted, raped or sodomized.
[snip…]
Public response to Brawley’s story was at first mostly sympathetic. Bill Cosby, among others, pledged support for her. Articles about Brawley captured headlines across the US. Public rallies were held denouncing the incident. However, racial tensions also climbed, and when up-and-coming civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton, with attorneys Alton H. Maddox and C. Vernon Mason, began handling Brawley’s publicity, the case quickly took on an explosive edge.
Under the wing of Sharpton, Maddox, and Mason, a full-fledged media sensation was born. The three claimed that the entire case was a coverup going all the way up to the state government. They named New York prosecutor Steven Pagones specifically, calling him a racist and a rapist, among other accusations.
On October 6, 1988, the Abrams Grand Jury released its extensive and thorough 170 page report concluding that Tawana Brawley had not been abducted, assaulted, raped and sodomized as had been claimed by Brawley and her advisors. The report further concluded that the “unsworn public allegations against Dutchess County Assistant District Attorney Steven Pagones” were false and had no basis in fact. To issue the report, the Grand Jury heard from 180 witnesses, saw 250 exhibits and recorded over 6,000 pages of testimony. [3]
In the decision, the grand jury noted many problems with Brawley’s story. Among these were the results of the rape kit, which did not indicate sexual assault. Also, despite her claim of having been held captive for days, Brawley was not suffering from exposure, was well nourished, and appeared to have brushed her teeth recently. There were no burns on her body, despite her clothing being charred. A shoe she was wearing was cut through, yet she had sustained no injuries to her foot. The racial epitaths written on her were upside-down, which lead to suspicion that Brawley herself wrote the words. Testimony from her schoolmates indicated that she had attended a local party during the time of her supposed abduction, and one witness claimed to have observed Brawley climbing into the garbage bag.
A total of 180 witnesses were called during the hearings. Brawley herself never testified.[4]
Brawley and her mother were issued subpoenas to testify in front of the grand jury, and refused to do so. This may have prompted Brawley and her family to move hastily to Virginia, taking with them a “defense fund” of $300,000 which had been contributed by well-wishers. There is still an outstanding warrant in New York against the two for ignoring the subpoena.
The case still hangs over Sharpton, particularly following his entry into mainstream politics (his race for the 2004 Democratic Presidential nominationinvolved his addressing the convention from its podium), not merely because he defended Brawley’s story but for the unfounded accusations he leveled, and, according to some of his critics, his “playing the race card“.
Maddox was later disbarred after being accused of billing and abandoning clients in an unrelated series of incidents.
In 1997, Brawley changed her name to Maryam Muhammad.
In 1998Pagones was awarded $345,000 (he sought $150 million) through a lawsuit for defamation of character that he had brought against Sharpton, Maddox, and Mason, in which the jury found Sharpton liable for making seven defamatory statements about Pagones, Maddox for two and Mason for one. The jury deadlocked on four of the 22 statements Pagones had sued over and eight statements were found non-defamatory. [5]
Pagones had also sued Brawley. She defaulted by not appearing at the trial, and the judge ordered her to pay him damages of $185,000. As of 2003, none of the award had been paid. [1]
Sharpton — to this day — has never apologized for ruining the reputation of these men. Sharpton has made several racist comments himself, including this one during the “Freddie’s fashion mart” controversy.
“We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business.”
and this one from a speech at Kean College in ‘94:
“White folks was in caves while we was building empires… We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.â€
Then, of course, there’s Jackson’s famous “hymietown” remark.
Neither one of these “black leaders” has done much in the way of criticizing rap artists who routinely use the same language — and worse — as Imus did.
So, why the hypocrisy? I believe that getting involved in this scandal has allowed both of these men to further build their power base.
In the long run though, there’s a bigger reason. Left wing groups such as Media Matters, and left wing old media types like Keith Olbermann want to take down conservative new media. Olbermann, on a recent show regarding the Imus controversy tried his best to compare conservative talker Rush Limbaugh to Imus and called for his dismissal.
Keith Olbermann opened his Wednesday MSNBC show by displaying video of Rush Limbaugh on screen as he smeared conservative talk radio as “racist,†asking, “Why have none from the racist right been protested, boycotted or fired?†He then delighted Thursday night when guest Sam Seder, of the far-left Air America Radio, predicted “the next time Limbaugh slips up, which I think is inevitable, I think you’re going to see this sort of same type of reaction.†A pleased Olbermann exclaimed: “It’s the best thing I’ve heard in a couple of days. From your lips to God’s ears!†Olbermann had asked Seder: “How does Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage get away with worse than what Don Imus said?â€
With “SELECTIVE OUTRAGE: Imus Was Not Alone†on screen, Olbermann teased Wednesday’s Countdownby wondering: “Where’s the other outrage? Rush Limbaugh calls Barack Obama ‘Halfrican-American.’ Michael Savage says the Voting Rights Act means ‘a chad in every crack house.’ Neal Boortz says Cynthia McKinney looks like a ‘ghetto-slut.’ Why have none from the racist right been protested, boycotted or fired?†He soon cued up race-hustler Jesse Jackson: “Why are there not efforts to remove them from the air?â€
Olbermann’s crusade to remove conservatives from the air matched the spin forwarded Tuesday night on CNN’s Paula Zahn Now, as recounted in Matthew Balan’s NewsBusters post. Zahn set up an April 10 taped piece: â€Conservative Rush Limbaugh, who has offended just about every minority group, drew special criticism for attacking actor Michael J. Fox.†After regurgitating that controversy, Zahn moved to the very same quote highlighted by Olbermann: “Limbaugh later apologized. But the criticism for that low blow hasn’t stopped him from lashing out at presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, calling him ‘Halfrican.’†Viewers then heard audio of Limbaugh: “Barack Obama has picked up another endorsement, Halfrican-American actress Halle Berry. As a Halfrican-American, I am honored to have Ms. Berry’s support, as well as the support of other Halfrican-Americans.†Zahn proceeded to highlight the same Boortz comment about McKinney as Olbermann would do 24 hours later.
Olbermann and Zahn are humor-challenged since Limbaugh’s “Halfrican-Americanâ€quip was obviously a play on “African-American,†since Obama had a white mother and an African father, not a charge that he’s only half American.
A brief transcript of the relevant portion of the exchange between Olbermann and Seder on the April 12 Countdown:Â
 Keith Olbermann: “I’ll ask you the ten million dollar question: How does Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage get away with worse than what Don Imus said?â€
Sam Seder of Air America:“I’ll tell you something, well I think one there’s a certain expectation that they’re going to hear it more from Limbaugh although, you know, he, Dick Cheney was on his program several weeks ago. I listened in to Limbaugh today and he’s already warning his audience that they’re going to be coming for Limbaugh next. And I think, frankly, he’s got to be a little bit worried now because the bar has just been raised. I mean, corporations have said we’re not going to tolerate this any more and the next time Limbaugh slips up, which I think is inevitable, I think you’re going to see this sort of same type of reaction.â€
Olbermann:“It’s the best thing I’ve heard in a couple of days.â€
Seder, over Olbermann: “I hope so.â€
Olbermann:“From your lips to God’s ears!â€
See, the problem with Olbermann’s quotes is that they’re selective quotes taken out of context. Furthermore, has Olbermann listened to what’s left of Air America lately? Has he listened to himself lately? Talk about hate.
Look, what Imus said was horrible. He got what he deserved in my opinion. But for race baiters like Jackson and Sharpton and haters like Olbermann to try and claim the moral high ground is ridiculous.
4/10/2007
Blogging will be light for at least the next week. I lost my balance Sunday while in the garage and fell. When I fell, I landed wrong and broke my wrist. So, I’m typing one handed right now.
The swelling is bad enough that the doctors don’t want to put a cast on right now. So, Sunday night when I went to the ER, I was outfitted with a splint and orders to come back for a cast later this week. The fun never ends around here!
4/6/2007
No doubt the CAIR lawyers are already chomping at the bit to defend these two, or to sue the John Doe that dropped a dime on them.
Dallas police and federal terrorism officials are investigating two women, both dressed in camouflage pants under their traditional Muslim robes and scarves, who were seen conducting what appeared to be surveillance and acting suspiciously at Dallas Love Field.
One of the women, Kimberly “Asma” Al-Homsi, 42, of Arlington, who is on probation for a 2005 Garland road rage incident involving a fake grenade, is said to have long-range assault rifle and explosives training, according to a Dallas police intelligence bulletin issued March 5.
“I’m a trained sniper and proud of it,” Ms. Al-Homsi said in an interview Thursday after first refusing to comment on whether she has any terrorism ties. She then said no…
…On the afternoon of Feb. 25, Ms. Al-Homsi and a friend who could not be reached for comment, Aisha Abdul-Rahman Hamad, 50, of Irving, were spotted at Love Field wearing Muslim robes and camouflage pants and “acting suspiciously,” the bulletin states. The surveillance video shows one of the women walking back and forth, apparently pacing off distances.
When confronted, the women told officials they were looking for the Frontiers of Flight museum. They left in a red Honda. Descriptions of the incident and the car were circulated at the airport.
Two days later, the museum executive director was leaving for the evening when he noticed the Honda parked facing the runway. A woman, later identified as Ms. Al-Homsi, was sitting on the hood, looking through binoculars at the airplanes. He told the women the museum was closing, and they left.
Dallas officers stopped the car nearby, but the women refused to let police search their car, , according to a police report. The women had digital camera memory cards, binoculars, a flashlight and several lighters on them.
This war is far from over…
 Hat Tip: Michelle @ Michelle Malkin
4/5/2007
We conservatives in Colorado have become used to the illogical and incoherent rantings of the Denver Post editorial board. So, I — like most others — typically shrug our shoulders and go on. But, sometimes the editorial board makes such an incoherent leap of logic that shrugging your shoulders and going on just isn’t a possibility.
Such is the case with their editorial yesterday titled “Travel jostles Mideast policy“. Allow me dear readers — both of you — to take this apart piece by piece.
4/4/2007
Dems Trying To Divorce Iraq From GWOT
The Dems in Washington are doing their best to divorce the war in Iraq from the overall war on terror.
The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.
This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee’s Democratic leadership doesn’t like the phrase.
A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and “avoid using colloquialisms.â€
The “global war on terror,†a phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., should not be used, according to the memo. Also banned is the phrase the “long war,†which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years.
Committee staff members are told in the memo to use specific references to specific operations instead of the Bush administration’s catch phrases. The memo, written by Staff Director Erin Conaton, provides examples of acceptable phrases, such as “the war in Iraq,†the “war in Afghanistan, “operations in the Horn of Africa†or “ongoing military operations throughout the world.â€
Do they really think that by using a different term they will be able to change reality? The war in Iraq — according to our enemies — is inseperable from the war on terror. Why does the opposition think that that can be changed with semantics?
 Hat Tip: Guy @ GeezervilleUSA
UPDATE: Here’s the link to the committee memoÂ
4/3/2007
After the left had their meltdown over posts accusing Michael Ware of heckling Senator John McCain, many on the right rightfully issued retractions and apologies. Now, an AFP article published Sunday has given new energy to the story. As confederate Yankee points out; “If this is accurate, will I have to issue an apology for my apology now?”
Here’s the quote from the AFP article:
“I studied warfare. I’m a student of history. If you control the capital city of a nation you have a significant advantage,” countered McCain as one reporter giggled at the back.
Raw Story, the source for the video that supposedly cleared Ware placed him in the back of the room. So, one has to wonder, just who was it who giggled at McCain? Could it have indeed been Ware? Given Ware’s other journalistic shortcomings, does it really matter?Â
4/2/2007
It has apparently come out now (contrary to what was reported on the Drudge Report yesterday) that Michael Ware did not heckle McCain and Graham, although there is no mention of whether or not he was laughing at them during the press conference. That being said, there is more than enough evidence that Ware is not fit to cover the war in Iraq any more. There are three main reasons why I feel that he’s not fit to cover the war in Iraq any longer.
- He has admitted that threats from the insurgents and Jihadi’s have affected the way he couches his statements.
- As Powerline points out, he has wrongfully accused John McCain — a frequent critic of the administration’s handling of the war — of intellectual dishonesty and bad faith.
- He has repeatedly been more interested in presenting the enemy’s point of view than our own.
Here’s the portion of the transcript from the Hugh Hewitt interview where he admits that threats from Jihadi’s have affected his reporting.
HH: But I do think that that distinction between Islamists and insurgents has been well understood, and for a very long time. And I’d look for you to tell me when were you misled about that. But more importantly, going to the Islamists, about whom…you’ll agree with me, they’re evil. Won’t you, Michael?
MW: Well, I certainly…I mean, one has to be careful that as the Islamic army of Iraq reminded just last week on Al Jazeera, the insurgent groups study very closely everything that we hear, say and write. And given that we’re within their grasp, one always must be diplomatic. Suffice to say, it’s very hard to relate to the goals or tactics that the hard-line Islamists employ.
HH: Now that’s very interesting, because that would indicate that…and I understand it, but that fear is affecting your reporting, or your candor level.
MW: Well, it certainly affects the way you couch things. It doesn’t stop you saying things. I mean, like I said for example, I came across a tape once of Zarqawi himself, on an audio cassette, instructing or giving a seminar to some of his recruits and fighters, somewhere outside of Baghdad. Now this was a tape that was meant purely for internal consumption, for ideological or for training purposes. Now by one means or another, that fell into my hands, and I published it. I published its contents. Now within that discussion, Zarqawi himself showed that there was great division between his organization and one of the leading Iraqi Sunni organizations, and you’re hearing him criticizing this very important Iraqi leader. Now by me publishing that, that aired their dirty laundry. As a result of that, he threatened, or his organization threatened to kill me. I mean, one has to be careful about how you couch things, but it doesn’t stop you reporting the facts.
4/1/2007
“This Guy’s An Activist Not A Reporter”
Apparently Michael Ware has decided to completely throw out the illusion of being an impartial journalist. He decided that he would heckle Senators McCain and Graham. Here’s what the Drudge Report had to say about the incident.
**Exclusive**
During a live press conference in Baghdad, Senators McCain and Graham were heckled by CNN reporter Michael Ware. An official at the press conference called Ware’s conduct “outrageous,†saying, “here you have two United States Senators in Bagdad giving first-hand reports while Ware is laughing and mocking their comments. I’ve never witnessed such disrespect. This guy is an activist not a reporter.â€
Senators McCain and Graham flew into Iraq and drove into Baghdad, making stops at an open market and a joint Iraq/American military security outpost before appearing at the press conference.
This is not the first time Michael Ware has taken issue with Senator McCain’s comments about early progress in Iraq. Last week, after Senator McCain told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that he needed to catch up on the news coming out of Iraq, Michael Ware responded, saying: “I don’t know what part of Neverland Senator McCain is talking about when he says we can go strolling in Baghdad.â€Michael Ware has also publicly expressed his views on the war last year in an interview with Bill Maher, saying, “I’ve been given a front-row ticket to watch this slow-motion train wreck … I try to stay as drunk for as long as possible while I’m here … In fact, I’m drinking now.â€Developing…
In my opinion Michael Ware stopped being impartial a long time ago… if he ever was. Remember, he admitted on air on CNN that he was with the “insurgents” as they filled mortar shells with nerve agent. Also remember that CNN was the network that brought us the video of one of our bravest being cut down by a terrorist sniper — the video was clearly shot from near the sniper’s location. If Ware is CNN’s Baghdad bureau correspondent, and he has associated with the “insurgents” before, then it’s certainly a possibility that he was with the camera man when the sniper video was shot. If that’s the case, than he’s an even lower form of pond scum than I origanlly thought.
What I can’t understand is why CNN puts up with it. I mean, you would think that just in the interest of self preservation they would at least want to pretend to be impartial. I mean, they do have to compete with FOX News for ratings. Of course, that’s why FOX News was created in the first place; because there was a need in the market that wasn’t being filled by CNN, MSNBC, or the alphabet networks.
UPDATE:
Many of you will notice a trackback in the comments section that links to a post by some unknown leftwing blogger. This person claims that Ware didn’t heckle McCain, and links to a site that supposedly has video of the presser. I never could get the video to work, so I have no idea whether or not the video is of the presser or of last night’s buffet at the local Luby’s.
At any rate, here’s Ware’s response to the charge of heckling. Note the editorializing from both Soledad O’Brian and Michael Ware.










