11/30/2007
John Fund emails this in on the CNN plants. He’s writing this for Opinionjournal.com’s Political Diary:
Last week, CNN’s Anderson Cooper quipped in an interview with Townhall.com that “campaign operatives are people too†and that CNN wasn’t worried if political partisans posed questions at the upcoming GOP debate he was moderating. “We don’t investigate the background of people asking questions (by submitting video clips). It’s not our job,†is how he put it.
But now CNN’s logo has egg splattered all over it, as it scrambles to explain how a co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s veterans’ committee was allowed to ask a video question on gays in the military at Wednesday’s debate and was also flown by the network from California to the debate site in Florida so he could repeat his question to the candidates in person. CNN claims it verified retired Brig. Gen. Ketih Kerr’s military status and checked his campaign contribution records, contradicting Mr. Cooper’s blasé attitudes. Still, they somehow missed his obvious connection to the Hillary campaign which any Google search would have turned up. CNN later airbrushed Mr. Kerr’s question out of its rebroadcast of the debate, indicating that it apparently doesn’t think “campaign operatives†are legitimate questioners at the network’s debates.
Now it appears that an amazing number of partisan figures posed many of the 30 questions at the GOP debate all the while pretending to be CNN’s advertised “undecided voters.†Yasmin from Huntsville, Alabama turns out to be a former intern with the Council on American Islamic Relations, a group highly critical of Republicans. Blogger Michelle Malkin has identified other plants, including declared Obama supporter David Cercone, who asked a question about the pro-gay Log Cabin Republicans. A questioner who asked a hostile question about the pro-life views of GOP candidates turned out to be a diehard John Edwards supporter (and a slobbering online fan of Mr. Cooper). Yet another “plant†was LeeAnn Anderson, an activist with a union that has endorsed Mr. Edwards.
It seems more “plants†are being uprooted with each passing day. Almost a third of the questioners seem to have some ties to Democratic causes or candidates. Another questioner worked with Democratic Senator Dick Durbin’s staff. A former intern with Democratic Rep. Jane Harman asked a question about farm subsidies. A questioner who purported to be a Ron Paul supporter turns out to be a Bill Richardson volunteer. David McMillan, a TV writer from Los Angeles, turns out to have several paens to John Edwards on his YouTube page and has attended Barack Obama fundraisers.
Given CNN’s professed goal to have “ordinary Americans†ask questions at their GOP debate, how likely is that it was purely by accident that so many of the videos CNN selected for use were not just from partisans, but people actively hostile to the GOP’s messages and candidates?
CNN, the most trusted name in news. Uhh, I think it’s time for a new slogan.
Hat Tip: Instapundit
Suspect Takes Hostages At Hillary’s NH Office
Apparently a disturbed man has taken hostages at Hillary Clinton’s New Hampshire campaign office. he reportedly walked in to the office claiming to have a bomb. He then showed off what appeared to be a bomb strapped to his chest. Several hostages have been released including at least one child. However, it appears that the man is still holding hostages in the building. He’s demanding to speak with Hillary.
The Kos crazies are speculating in the comments that this guy is a right wing nut. Uh, maybe… maybe not. It’s irresponsible to speculate right now who this guy is, or what his purposes are.
Abu Abed Al-Obeidi was a former officer in Saddam’s army, then he joined the insurgency to fight against America. But, a funny thing happened along the way. He became disillusioned with the insurgency. He realized that Al-Qaeda had taken over the insurgency and wanted to cause nothing more than hate and discontent between Shia and Sunni Iraqis. That’s when Abu Abed Al-Obeidi decided to work with the Americans to oust Al Qaeda and make Iraq a better place.
James Hider has the story in today’s NY Post. Go read the whole thing!
11/29/2007
Retired Brig. Gen. Kerr claims that he’s not a Hillary plant. He’s just on the steering commitee list to lend name recognition to the campaign. Yeah, right… Anyway, here’s the video of CNN’s John Roberts giving Brig. Gen. Kerr another roughly four minutes to defend himself and push his question from last night. If you add that to the minute and a half rebuttal he got last night, and the original amount of time he was given to pose his question, he’s had roughly six or seven minutes to make his case. Did any of the Republican candidates get the same courtesy last night?
Hat Tip: Hotair
I noted this morning several of the plants found at last night’s CNN Youtube debate. Apparently there were even more there than we originally thought. Powerline points us to a plant who wanted to appear as a Paulbot, but is actually a Richardson supporter. Oh yeah, and the Paulbot/Richardson supporter also asked a question in the Democratic Youtube debate back in July. Is America such a small place that this one guy gets to ask questions at two different debates? Debates for two different parties? Michelle has found a former Jane Harmon intern courtesy of Jason Coleman. Oh yeah, and the guy who asked one of the social security questions — Adam Florzak? He works on Dick Durbin’s staff.
One last plant… for now anyway. Remember the guy who asked why there weren’t more African Americans voting for Republicans — David McMillan? He’s an aspiring TV writer in California, and surprise surprise… he’s a John Edwards supporter. How do we know this? Well, his Youtube page has multiple John Edwards videos, and a couple of tasteless videos featuring “The Blind Black Republican”. But, hey, I’m sure it’s just satire. Right? If you’re still not convinced this guy is a Democrat, check out his blog. The only other blog he links to is the king of sock puppets Glen Greenwald
The thing that bothers me the most about the rigging fo last night’s debate is that this was supposed to be a debate for Republican primary voters. Instead what we got were set up questions designed to stereotype Republicans as anything from hayseed chomping racists all the way to the typical mean white guys that want to poison your children with lead paint chips off of toys from China.
These questions were either sent in by Democrat operatives and picked by leftist CNN editors with an agenda, or were sent in by average americans, and picked by leftist CNN editors with an agenda.
The idea that CNN didn’t know about these plants is ridiculous. I can’t believe that CNN didn’t vett these questioners. I can’t believe that they didn’t take ten seconds to either look at their Youtube page, or — in the case of retired Brig. Gen. Kerr and many of the others — google their names. All of these plants were found by normal people with access to nothing more than a computer and the internet. And, they were all found within 24 hours of the debate.
Hat Tip: Michelle, Powerline, & Jason Coleman
The Opposition Research Debate
Well, I take back what I said about this debate being fair. We found out after the debate that the Democrats (and in my opinion probably CNN) planted several questioners in the “audience”. Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr — the gays in the military questioner — is working for Hillary Clinton. “Log Cabin Republican” David Cercone is a declared Obama supporter. Concerned young “undecided” person Journey is a declared Edwards supporter, and concerned mom LeeAnn Anderson is a union activist and Edwards supporter.
What did CNN know, and when did they know it?Â
11/28/2007
Okay, so I can’t wait until tomorrow. So far the questions have been surprisingly substantive. However, Ron Paul (R — Mars) has displayed — once again — why he’s not a serious candidate. Aside from believing in CFR/NAU conspiracies, his brand of isolationism is going to get us killed… More later.
Well, I wonder which questions CNN will pick for the Republican candidates tonight. Perhaps this one?
Or maybe this one?
Allah did the hard work and waded through the questions that have been submitted. He’s found some… Uhh… interesting ones. Â
I’m not sure I’ll live blog the debate, but I will try to have a post debate wrap up tomorrow. One thing’s for sure, it may not be substantive, but it will likely be entertaining.
11/27/2007
Michael Totten has a new dispatch up from the front lines in the war on terror. His latest is about the exciting changes that have taken place in Fallujah. Fallujah hasn’t become a vacation spot quite yet, but there have been drastic improvements that have taken place in just the last six months. From Michael’s dispatch:
Baghdad is supposedly only half as violent as it was when I spent my quiet week inside the city, but it is still very dangerous. The trend lines are going in the right direction, but anything can still happen anywhere at any time. It remains a city at war.
Fallujah is different.
None of the Marines I’ve spoken to are nervous while walking the streets. “Complacency kills†is the new catchphrase in Fallujah, and it’s drummed into the heads of the Americans here every day. The Marines may not have yet won the war in this city, but it sure is starting to look like it. The insurgency in Fallujah is over.
Go read the whole thing. It’ll be well worth your time.
11/26/2007
ACLU… Working for the Terrorists
Who could be against something like that you might ask. Well, our friends at the ACLU are.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Firefighters in major cities are being trained to take on a new role as lookouts for terrorism, raising concerns of eroding their standing as American icons and infringing on people’s privacy.
Unlike police, firefighters and emergency medical personnel don’t need warrants to access hundreds of thousands of homes and buildings each year, putting them in a position to spot behavior that could indicate terrorist activity or planning.
But there are fears that they could lose the faith of a skeptical public by becoming the eyes of the government, looking for suspicious items such as building blueprints or bomb-making manuals or materials.
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Americans have given up some of their privacy rights in an effort to prevent future strikes. The government monitors phone calls and e-mails; people who fly have their belongings searched before boarding and are limited in what they can carry; and some people have trouble traveling because their names are similar to those on terrorist watch lists.
The American Civil Liberties Union says using firefighters to gather intelligence is another step in that direction. Mike German, a former FBI agent who is now national security policy counsel to the ACLU, said the concept is dangerously close to the Bush administration’s 2002 proposal to have workers with access to private homes — such as postal carriers and telephone repairmen — report suspicious behavior to the FBI.
“Americans universally abhorred that idea,” German said. [emphasis mine — Jim C]
I think Mr. German is dead wrong about this. I think Americans would be surprised if their fellow Americans didn’t report suspicious activity or suspicious items. In fact, I think it’s the responsibility of all Americans to report suspicious activity. Look at the success we had when a video store clerk reported the suspicious activity of one of the Ft. Dix six. We stopped a terrorist plot to attack a military base here on US soil. There are — I’m sure — other examples of successes since 9-11 because of the vigilant eyes of the American public. We can look back at the many “test runs” on our airlines. There was also the case of the flying Imams. Who knows what they were really up to. The point is, we never had to find out because the people around them were paying attention.
AP reporter Eileen Sullivan wrote this piece. I wonder who the skeptical public is she’s referring to? The only thing I’m skeptical about is the government’s commitment to protecting it’s citizens from islamofacists. More than six years have passed since the 9-11 attacks, and the elites in Washington still won’t secure our borders.
Hat Tip: Stop the ACLU
11/25/2007
Democratic Candidates: We’ve Made Progress But…
So, when your party has spent the last two years claiming defeat in Iraq, and doing everything possible to bring about that defeat, how do you handle things when we are actually winning? You acknowledge the successes, claim that the cost is still too high, and then change the subject with the hope that everyone will forget that you’ve sold your country up the river for political gain.
As violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq: acknowledging that success, trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy.
Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains. At the same time, they are arguing that American casualties are still too high, that a quick withdrawal is the only way to end the war and that the so-called surge in additional troops has not paid off in political progress in Iraq.
But the changing situation suggests for the first time that the politics of the war could shift in the general election next year, particularly if the gains continue. While the Democratic candidates are continuing to assail the war — a popular position with many of the party’s primary voters — they run the risk that Republicans will use those critiques to attack the party’s nominee in the election as defeatist and lacking faith in the American military.
If security continues to improve, President Bush could become less of a drag on his party, too, and Republicans may have an easier time zeroing in on other issues, such as how the Democrats have proposed raising taxes in difficult economic times.
Now, of course, I would disagree with the NYT’s charecterization of difficult economic times, especially in light of this AP report that shows “Black Friday” sales up over 8% from last year. But, they do a good job of pointing out the difficulties that Democrats will face in 2008 because of their pandering to the nutroots.
As Captain Ed points out, the Democrats have a bigger problem though. Their message, and their policy on Iraq remain defeatist. They claim that they want a new strategy — a new direction — in Iraq, but fail to realise that the new strategy adopted in January of this year has made a remarkable difference. This is just more evidence that the Democrats as a party can’t be trusted when it comes to national security.
11/17/2007
An End To Catch and Release? Hardly…
Debbie Schlussel points us to what is being called the lactation memo. Apparently ICE chief Julie Myers has issued a memo directing ICE agents to use “prosecutorial discretion” (fancy wording for catch and release) when dealing with illegal alien females that may be nursing. In other words, all an illegal alien female need to is claim that she is breastfeeding and has no husband at home to take care of the child. Here’s the text of the memo curtesy of Debbie:
 This memorandum serves to highlight the importance of exercising prosecutorial discretion [DS: Fancy phraseology for “if I want to release them, I can”] when making administrative arrest and custody determinations for aliens who are nursing mothers. The commitment by ICE to facilitate an end to the “catch and relase” procedure for illegal aliens does not diminish the responsibility of ICE agents and officers to use discretion in identifying and responding to meritorious health related cases and caregiver issues.
The process for making discretionary decisions is outlined in the attached memorandum of November 7, 2000, entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion.” [DS: by failed INS Chieftess Doris Meissner] Field agents and officers are not only authorized by law to exercize discretion within the authority of the agency, but are expected to do so in a judicious manner at all stages of the enforcement process. [DS: In other words, hey agents, please find excuses to release aliens into the general .’
For example, in situations where officers are considering taking a nursing mother into custody, the senior ICE field managers should consider:
* Absent any statutory detention requirement or concerns such as national security threats to public safety or other investigative insterests, the nursing mother should be released on an Order of Recognizance or Order of Supervision and the Alternatives to Detention programs should be considered as an additional enforcement tool.
Debbie also reprints an email she recieved from an angry ICE agent. Apparently, the lactation excuse has become common knowledge amoungst the illegal alien community.
This is going over real well. It’s been called the Lactation Memo. Seems every female illegal alien arrested these days is now claiming she has a kid at home, no daddy around and that she’s breast feeding–this is the way they get released. It’s the catch and lactate policy. La Leche League is doing an awesome job and our “leader” is right up there with the really important memos. Talk about a kick to the nuts of morale AGAIN. How bad is it when Jules is citing to Doris Meissner memos. In the words of Charlie Brown, “We’re Doomed !”. Don’t get me wrong, child nourishment is important, but how TF is an agent supposed to know if someone is nursing? [Nipples] Check ? I went through INS Spanish Training and never had nursing or lactation on a vocab test. “Professora, como se dice lactating“?
You’d think that six years after 9/11 our leaders in Washington D.C. would be a little more concerned about securing our borders. I guess not…
11/16/2007
What’s the problem with giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens? There are several problems with this. The first is that they are illegal. They should be deported. They broke the law when they crossed into this country illegally. The second, and less obvious problem with giving illegals licenses is that most if not all states have reciprocity with each other when it comes to drivers licenses. In other words, if I have a license in Colorado, and move to Texas I don’t need to reapply for that license. All I need to do is go to the DMV in Texas and claim my Texas license.
So, the end result is that if New York (or any other state) gives licenses to illegals, those illegals can go to any other state in the country and get a license and register to vote in that state. We wouldn’t know where they are. In some states, we wouldn’t even know whether or not they’re illegal because law enforcement isn’t allowed to ask their immigration status.
Now imagine for a moment a Mohammed Atta with that kind of freedom of movement. This directly effects our national security, and it’s depressing (not surprising though) that the two leading candidates on the Democratic side of the aisle can’t answer the question of whether or not they support licenses for illegals. 80% of Americans are against it… 80% of Americans know exactly how they feel about it. Come on, it’s not a trick question.
11/12/2007
Project: Letters from Home, Mission Accomplished!
I recieved a note from the PAO I’ve been working with in the 1/1. The letters made it there, and they are now being distributed to the line companies. Here’s the text of the email:
Jim,
Today I received the box of letters and I have already distributed them out to our line companies. I will let you know what the Marine’s response to these letters will be, but I am sure it will be very enthusiastic.
Thank you so much for your time in this project. I know, especially considering your recent health, just how important this was to you.
Please know that this is just as important to us, and the Marines who receive these letters will be thrilled to find out there is so much support coming from back home.
Thank you everyone for your help with this project. There’s no way I could have done it without you!
11/9/2007
Another Fight Over Iraq Looming?
In an article about the Water bill veto override in the Washington Post I found this little bit of information about another looming fight over Iraq.
Moreover, the House unveiled a four-month, $50 billion Iraq war-funding bill that would give the president 60 days to present a plan to complete U.S. troop withdrawals by Dec. 15, 2008. The measure would limit the troops’ mission to counterterrorism and the training of Iraqi forces and would extend a torture ban to the CIA.
In short, the long-awaited battle between Congress and Bush over federal spending and the size and reach of government is now on.
If correct, it appears that Speaker Pelosi and the Defeatocrats in the House are gearing up to force a retreat just when things are looking up in Iraq.
Based on the little bit of information contained in the article, (I’m trying to find the actual bill for a more detailed analysis) I see four big problems right off the bat.
First of all, only funding the war for another four months wastes the congress’ time. In four more months they will have to come back and revisit the issue and we will have to have the same discussion again. This also causes trouble for our troops and their commanders in Iraq. They can’t really plan for anything beyond that four month time period.
The second problem is strictly congress’. The article says that the bill would give President Bush 60 days to come up with a plan to have troops out of Iraq by December 15thof 2008. What’s the problem? Congress doesn’t have the authority to demand a timetable for withdrawl. The only thing they can control is funding. President Bush would be well within his constitutional authority to tell Congress to buzz off. He is commander in chief, and he decides how troops are to be used and when they will come home.
Problem number three is much the same as the last one. The article says that the bill would “The measure would limit the troops’ mission to counterterrorism and the training of Iraqi forces…”. Once again, Congress doesn’t have the constitutional authority to dictate how troops are to be used in combat. The only thing they can control is funding.
Finally, the article says that the bill would extend a ban on torture to the CIA. I don’t know whether or not they can do that. That’s not the problem. The problem is that we. do. not. torture prisoners. Do we make things uncomfortable for them? Yeah, probably so. But, from everything I’ve heard about our interrogations, there is nothing that we do that rises to the level of torture. In this fight against radical Islamofacists we need every tool we can get our hands on. And, quite frankly, if making one of these guys uncomfortable will save American lives I’m not going to lose sleep over it. One of the biggest travesties of the entire Iraq war was Abu Ghraib. Nothing we did there rose to the level of torture, but the media and the many on the left were right out front proclaiming that “Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam’s torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management.â€Â  (Ted Kennedy D-Mass.). Were the actions of these few bad apples wrong? Yes, they were. But, they do not rise to the level of torture. Furthermore, they were punished for their actions.
You see, that’s the difference between us and the Islamofacists. They do torture people. They have no problem with torturing innocents either. There are stories coming out of both Iraq and Afghanistan of Christians AQ and AQI sawing off the heads of aid workers. Workers who are there to help the people. These workers are not soldiers, and they are usually members of NGOs (Non-governmental Organizations), many of them Christian organizations.
In Iraq, we have the story from Michael Yon titled “Bless the Beasts and Children”. The story recounts the murder of the population of an entire village. They found children that had been beheaded, and one Iraqi man recounted a story of parents being served the body of their child for dinner by Al Qaeda in Iraq (otherwise known as AQI).
The bad apples that used humiliation to interrogate prisoners at Abu Ghraib were punished for their actions. AQ and AQI celebrate their war crimes.
This will be an interesting fight. President Bush will probably veto any spending bill that puts unconstitutional limits on his powers as C-in-C. And, I don’t think that the defeatocrats will have the votes to override that veto. This of course, means that more time will be wasted rewriting the bill so that it is acceptable to the administration. In the meantime, the troops are the ones who pay for these silly theatrics. The Defeatocrats are holding up crucial funding for body armor, bullets, and mine resistant vehicles to score political points with their radical fringe. That is not only wrong, it should be criminal.
11/3/2007
The AP is reporting that Iraqi’s that had left Baghdad out of fear are now returning in droves. To the tune of 3,000 in the last three months.
BAGHDAD (AP) - In a dramatic turnaround, more than 3,000 Iraqi families driven out of their Baghdad neighborhoods have returned to their homes in the past three months as sectarian violence has dropped, the government said Saturday. Saad al-Azawi, his wife and four children are among them. They fled to Syria six months ago, leaving behind what had become one of the capital’s more dangerous districts—west Baghdad’s largely Sunni Khadra region.The family had been living inside a vicious and bloody turf battle between al-Qaida in Iraq and Mahdi Army militiamen. But Azawi said things began changing, becoming more peaceful, in August when radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his Mahdi Army fighters to stand down nationwide.
About the same time, the Khadra neighborhood Awakening Council rose up against brutal al-Qaida control—the imposition of its austere interpretation of Islam, along with the murder and torture of those who would not comply.
The uprising originated in Iraq’s west and flowed into the capital. Earlier this year, the Sunni tribes and clans in the vast Anbar province began their own revolt and have successfully rid the largely desert region of al-Qaida control.
Things are by no means perfect in Iraq. But, we are making significant progress. Progress that can no longer be ignored by the defeatists in the media, and their ideological comrades in the Democratic party. I wonder how Dingy Harry and John Murtha will handle this one?
I’m about halfway through Marcus Luttrell’s outstanding book titled “Lone Survivor: The eyewitness account of Operation Redwing and the lost heroes of Seal Team 10″. One thing that has struck me about Marcus and his fellow seals is that they are professionals. They are highly trained, highly motivated, and to a man, they are patriots. The media, and politicians on both sides of the aisle should get out of their way and let them do their jobs. Stop making these rediculous rules of engagement, and let them do what they know how to do.
Many of them will never recieve the credit they deserve because their missions are top secret, and will never be spoken of outside of a very small community. However, just a few days ago, the President awarded the CMH — the country’s highest honor — to Mike Murphy. Murphy was part of Operation Redwing and died while trying to get his team help.
Danny Dietz was also a part of Operation Redwing. He was honored in his hometown of Littleton Colorado with a statue. Dietz was killed while on the mission as well.
11/1/2007
Taking the Gloves Off… Finally
In a speech to the Heritage Foundation that wrapped up just a few minutes ago, President Bush finally took the gloves off and went after both Democrats in Congress and far left wing protest groups. He named Moveon.org and Code Pink by name when he said (this is not a direct quote. I’ll try to get one later along with a link) some in Congress need to pay more attention to the words of Osama Bin Laden, and less attention to Moveon.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters.
President Bush also let loose on Democrats for holding up the confirmation of Judge Mukasey, for holding up the defense spending bill, and the war supplemental.
The truth is he should have been saying this kind of stuff all along. Of course, he shouldn’t have to worry about an opposition party stabbing him in the back during a time of war either.