This has to be the money quote of the WEEK, not just the day [Hat tip to Michelle Malkin]:
Liberals like to say of the Bush administration’s allegedly militaristic foreign policy that if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Likewise, if the only tool you have is dialogue, everyone looks like a reasonable interlocutor.
I can hardly breathe, I am so frustrated and outraged, and nauseated. The emotional roller-coaster I've been on for the last couple of days, waiting, hoping for Bush or at least Bloomberg, to show some sense and ban Ahmadinejad from U.S. soil beyond the boundaries of the UN, might as well have been the real thing, complete with a 500 foot vertical drop.
How else could I feel after reading this:
During his two-day sojourn in New York, the Iranian president, who will be accompanied by a group of high-ranking officials, is also scheduled to attend bilateral talks with several of his counterparts and meet Iranians residing in the US.Ahmadinejad is also set to use a speech at a leading US university to challenge George W Bush at a time of high tensions with Washington over his country's pursuit of nuclear technology.
The invitation by New York's Columbia University to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is attracting growing criticism from the US hawks ahead of his arrival on Sunday.
Meetings with the survivors and bereaved families of the 9-11 incident, journalists and critics of the Bush administration are also included in Ahmadinejad's itinerary.
I'm gonna go with YES, on all counts.
And I thought it was bad when my daughter "lifted" candy from the check-out at the grocery store!
(Hat tip Alois)
Is it me, or does the following statement by a Clinton campaign official sound creepy?
The Clinton campaign has been [b]monitoring coverage of the Hsu case.[/b] "We don't think the Hsu story has broken through with voters at this point," one Clinton adviser said. [b]"And we're going to keep trying to make sure it doesn't overshadow her message."[/b]
What would that entail exactly? Could it include pressuring media NOT to run the story at all? Because I gotta tell you, if you don't read a paper, you aren't getting ANY coverage of this scandal at all! During the Jack Abramoff scandal, you couldn't turn on the G-damn TV without seeing that guy's black hat bobbing around in front of the cameras as he tried to flee blood-thirsty reporters. You also couldn't watch a promo for a news show without hearing some reference to his name or the names of those who benefitted from his "services."
But in this case, one that threatens to eclipse the Abramoff situation in terms of dirty dollars donated? Narry a peep about it from the MSM.
Coincidence or complicity?
Do we really want a President about whom we could seriously ask such a question?
I sure don't, and one would think--for consistency's sake at least--the nutroots wouldn't either. I mean, aren't they always harping on how they're sure Bushitlerburton and his evil henchmen are secretly working behind the scenes to twist the arm of the media so we never get the truth about things that could make them look bad? And this is different how exactly?
Ah yes, that's right. It all depends on the goals of the liars and dissemblers. The ends justify the means, and some liars are more equal than other liars I guess...
I see how it is.
/eyeroll
I couldn't stop laughing about this asshat long enough to write a post of my own about him, so it's a really good thing Rachel did it for me!
"Heeeeelllp! What did I do? What did I do? HAAALLLLPPPP!! Don't taze me, bro! Don't taze me! AGHGHGHGHGHHH!!!!!!!!!!!"[Emphasis mine]What that jackass really needs is a 2x4 upside the head; a good solid street-level ass-beating. Possibly by the 3-year-old who lives next door to me.
I wasn't even going to comment on this story but felt moved to do so when I started reading some right-leaning bloggers actually sympathizing with Sissyboy and saying that the cops "almost immediately" started tazering him just because he wouldn't be quiet. Bullcorn! Watch the stupid video, people.
My sentiments exactly!
Gulp! I don't know about you, but I couldn't be more spooked-out if it were October 31st and a guy wearing a white mask named Michael Meyers were standing on my front doorstep wielding a Ginzu knife!
The Hilldabeast has a plan to (get ready for it, the most terrifying word in the English language for a libertarian/conservative like me) REQUIRE every American to have health insurance.
AAAAAAAARGH!!!!!!
If you have a strong stomach, get a load of this:
Clinton's package would also require insurers to provide coverage for anyone who applies for it and would also bar insurance companies from charging people with greater health care costs more for their premiums.
"Are you a recalcitrant smoker who mainlines Coca Cola (and maybe even a little smack here and there), NO PROBLEM! We'll be happy to cover you for the same cost as everyone else!"
"What's that? You're having trouble finding a doctor? They say they're not taking any new patients? Full up? And the only doctor you could find who isn't is a large animal Vet? Hmmmm....That wasn't part of the plan! Oh, and you decided to quit your job and can no longer afford the premiums, so you need us to pay for your care? And because you have no doctor you'll be using the ER as your Primary Care physician? Uh, erm, okay, uh, that could work (in an alternate universe on the other side of one of Saturn's moons, perhaps)."
You see what I mean? It's a horror film waiting to happen. They could call it "Night and Day of the living but soon-to-be-dead-from-preventable-diseases."
Alternate titles could be: "The Blob that Ate the Federal Budget," "Live Expensively, Die Broke," or "Illegal Alien Predators: Requiem for American Healthcare."
Because that's one thing you KNOW Hillary's plan will do--it will count as "Americans" all the undocumented people in this country. They will be "required" to have health insurance, and since not one of them is technically really here, the gov't will have to pay for it like they pay for their schooling and (if she has her way) their college tuition.
The most scary thing of all? This delusional woman says it will only cost us $160 Billion? HA! And in case anyone hasn't already figured it out, that's still a LOT of money that has to come from somewhere, and where do you think that's gonna be?
And lest you think Wall Street will oppose this, you're wrong. They are loving this! A federal subsidy so that MORE people will be buying products the publicly traded healthcare companies sell? No limit to who can get insurance? No matter how often they plan to hog up the resources the already over-burdened system has to offer? And I have to presume there will be a prescription drug component too. Pretty cruel to FORCE people to go see a doctor who spends all of 35 seconds with the patient diagnosing them with a condition that will require insulin to treat (most likely) or high blood pressure meds, or some other pharmaco product. So the street loves that too. More for them, courtesy of the taxpayers!
Wall Street loves nothing better than guaranteed dollars coming there way, and if it means that you and I won't have as much left over to spend on other consumables (like food), OH WELL! Healthcare costs more to begin with than groceries, so if you have to buy one or the other, they'll take the former any day!
This is the part of the film where I yell "RUN!!! Don't go check out that noise in the basement! The power is out, it's midnight and there's a thunderstorm going on? What on Earth do you expect to find there???"
Mark Steyn gives me yet another reason to be glad I left Massachusetts. Of course I knew about Deval Patrick's obscene comments at last week's 9/11 tribute speech, but Steyn's analysis of them and what they mean to the Big Picture makes me realize that Massachusetts will probably be amongst the first to fall to the "Mean and Nasty" people when they decide to test if the people of this country have finally forgotten our heritage as the land of the free BECAUSE of the brave.
Here's a snippet, but do RTWT, and if you too live in the Bay State, seriously consider moving. With a guy like Deval Patrick in charge, who needs "mean and nasty" enemies?
Unfortunately, the obsolescent 1970s multiculti love-groove inclinations of society at large are harder to dislodge. If you'll forgive such judgmental categorizations, this isn't about "them," it's about "us." The long-term survival of any society depends on what proportion of its citizens thinks as Gov. Patrick does. Islamism is an opportunist enemy but you can't blame them for seeing the opportunity: In that sense, they understand us far more clearly than Gov. Patrick understands them.The other day, you may recall, some larky lads were arrested in Germany. Another terrorist plot. Would have killed more people than Madrid and London combined but it was nipped in the bud so it's just another yawneroo: Nobody cares. Who were the terrorists? Mohammed? Muhammad? Mahmoud? No. Their names were "Fritz" and "Daniel." "Fritz," huh? That's a pretty unusual way to spell Mohammed.
Indeed. Fritz Gelowicz is as German as lederhosen. He's from Ulm, Einstein's birthplace, on the blue Danube, which, last time I was in Ulm, was actually a murky shade of green. And, in an excellent jest on Western illusions, Fritz was converted to Islam while attending the Multi-Kultur-Haus– the Multicultural House. It was, in fact, avowedly unicultural – an Islamic center run by a jihadist imam. At least three of its alumni – including another native German convert – have been killed fighting the Russians in Chechnya. Fritz was hoping to kill Americans. But that's one of the benefits of a multicultural world: There are so many fascinating diverse cultures, and most of them look best reduced to rubble strewn with body parts. Fritz and a pal, Atilla Selek, had been arrested in 2004 with a car full of pro-Osama propaganda praising the 9/11 attacks. Which sounds like a pilot for a wacky jihadist sitcom: "Atilla and the Hun."
Fritz Gelowicz. Richard Reid. The Australian factory worker Jack Roche. The Toronto jihadists plotting to behead the Canadian prime minister. The son of the British Conservative Party official with the splendidly Wodehousian double-barreled name. All over the world there are young men raised in the "Multi-Kultur Haus" of the West who decide their highest ambition is to convert to Islam, become a jihadist and self-detonate.
Why do radical imams seek to convert young Canadian, British and even American men and women in their late teens and twenties? Because they understand that when you raise a generation in the great wobbling blancmange of Deval Patrick-style cultural relativism – nothing is any better or any worse than anything else; if people are "mean and nasty" to us, it's only because we didn't sing enough Barney the Dinosaur songs at them – in such a world a certain percentage of its youth will have a great gaping hole where their sense of identity should be. And into that hole you can pour something fierce and primal and implacable.
After this case, that term is going to take on a whole new meaning.
TAMPA - When a South Carolina police officer pulled over two Egyptian engineering students for speeding last month, he noticed one trying to put away a laptop computer.That computer contained a 12-minute video showing how to take apart a remote-control toy car and reassemble the wiring to make it into a remote detonation device, a federal prosecutor said Friday. The video’s narrator, a graduate student at the University of South Florida, said the device helped “to save one who wants to be a martyr for another battle,” the prosecutor said.
Investigators seized the laptop at the traffic stop. They later found that the most recently viewed files included videos showing Qassam rockets being fired along with visits to Web sites relating to Hamas and videos involving martyrs. It was not clear whether those files were being viewed as the two students drove. ...
Youssef Megahed and Ahmed Mohamed were indicted Aug. 31 in Tampa and charged with illegally transporting explosive materials. Mohamed also is charged with teaching and demonstrating how to make an explosive device. The video was uploaded onto YouTube, but later removed by the Web site, Hoffer said.
During their search of the car last month, investigators also found PVC pipe in the trunk filled with an explosive mixture of potassium nitrate, Karo syrup and kitty litter. Officers also found safety fuse, bullets and a mostly-full 5-gallon can of gas. Hoffer called the potassium nitrate mixture a “low grade explosive.”
Megahed’s rented Tampa home was searched by FBI agents. They found more material used in the explosive mixture, Hoffer said. In addition, they found a remote control toy boat still in its box. At a separate storage shed rented by Megahed, agents found a .22-caliber rifle and have uncovered evidence he tried to buy a Beretta handgun.
“The United States views this defendant as a danger," Hoffer said.
What was your first clue? The pipe bombs, the video of how to turn a remote-control toy into a bomb, or the explosives and bomb-building materials at their house?
Un-frickin-believable....
Stephen over at Dr. Horsefeathers has examined Mrs. Clinton (well, as closely as he was willing to get to her, which was at the other end of a fiber-optic cable I presume) and has the following to say about what "ails" her:
She behaved like an arrogant,snot-nosed, glib 10 year old, showing off her superior mind. In so doing, she accused him of the very thing she was doing--inventing an alternate reality. Of course, she is a veteran at the liar's trade, for whom such concepts as honor, truthfulness, courage and integrity are weird and archaic notions. Ms. Clinton indicated that General Petraeus was such a dispenser of untruths that it would require the "willing suspension of disbelief" to accept his assertions as fact. When she uttered the phrase she seemed to puff up with pride in her own command of literary English.
--------------------------------------
How clever of Senator Clinton to display her skill in finding a way to call someone a liar without actually using that word. It is a fortunate thing for America, that the Children's hour allowed us to see the difference between frightened, fearful children like Hillary Clinton and adults like David Petraeus.
I am so honored! I have been recognized for two Blogger Reflection Awards (okay, once was indirect, and shared but STILL).
So now it's my turn to "Reflect" on five bloggers. I'm going to choose five bloggers who have specifically changed my life. But before I tell you who they are, here's how this works:
1. Copy these rules.
2. Reflect on five bloggers and write a least a paragraph about each one.
3. Make sure you link to this post so others can read it and the rules.
4. Leave your chosen bloggers a comment to let them know they've been given the award.
5. Put the award icon on your site
Schmaltz und Grieben mit Alois, Klaus, Deb und der Lugers:
Yeah, I know, kinda makes it look like I'm plugging MYSELF, but what am I supposed to do? How could I do these without recognizing Alois and Klaus who have not only given me a second spleen to vent, but a wider audience as well. In addition to these wonderful gifts, these guys make me laugh (sometimes right before they make me cry, tears of mutual frustration you understand). And of course, no reflection would be complete without an expression of my "gratitude" for the lovely photos they post that make me feel like the Saggy Baggy Elephant! But I'm sure those are just meant to serve as insurance against my ever feeling too happy and losing the edge that makes my blog posts remotely worth reading.
Insignificant Thoughts:
What can I say about Vinny? Vinny has positively impacted my life on so many fronts. He's one of the best friends I've never met, he's virtually seen me through two pregnancies, numerous versions of this blog, and the birth of my latest venture, a forum for fellow moms whose brains didn't turn to mush the instant they got pregnant (well, based on some of the opinions posted by some of the liberal members, I may be being overly generous here, but I digress...). Vinny and his partner-in-crime, Slobokan are hosting that site, and Slobo (a.k.a. Mike) designed the banner for me. I'm sure my husband would question how "positive" the effects of this particular contribution to my life by Vinny and Mike, but on balance, aside from the few chunks of hair I've pulled out while reading some of stuff my members post, I've enjoyed it. Vinny and Slobo and I don't always agree politically though (Vinny is voting for "The Evil One" herself, blech, phooey), but I appreciate his acerbic wit and no-bullshit approach to commentary. Whether it's current events or technology, Vinny's site is the place to be. And be sure to check out his pod-cast, Tossed Salad. Good stuff!
Rachel Lucas:
Rachel Lucas--although she doesn't know it--is my "Blog Mother." Hers was the blog that inspired me to start a blog that was about more than just what I ate for breakfast. In a world of male bloggers, hers was the voice that said "You are woman, let them hear you ROAR!" (And the answer to your question is YES. If a woman roars in a forest of blogs, she does make a sound, even if very few stop by to hear her!). Rachel was also the first and only gun-totin-non-liberal-female-under 65 I'd encountered, uh, erm, EVER? When she went on hiatus, I had serious withdrawal, but now that she's back, I read her daily, again.
Michael Totten:
There's no point in even trying to do better than what Alois already said about Michael, so I hope he'll forgive me for borrowing his words:
What else needs to be said? Michael is THE BEST journalist out there, and thanks to him we've gotten to see the Middle East as it really is... not as someone with an axe to grind would have us think it is. Invaluable stuff that is going to take its place in the history books before long (once the school boards quit tinkering with the history books, but that's another story).
Dr. Horsefeathers:
Stephen has also become one of the best friends I've never met (and, if he will indulge me this compliment), the second Dad I never knew I needed. His encouragement and wisdom over the past few years have been invaluable, and I am glad to have this opportunity to thank him publicly. He is also the voice in my head (other than that of my actual father) admonishing me to work harder on my potty-mouth tendencies. Indeed, knowing someone as classy and articulate might be reading my posts motivates me to at least try to restrain myself from spewing bile all over the screen as often as I might otherwise do.
And there you have it. My list of five. I am grateful to have been recognized with this award, but am even more thankful for the opportunity afforded me by that recognition--the opportunity to express my gratitude to the bloggers who are responsible for the fact that I'm still doing this, two kids and six years after I began.
Thank you, and God bless you all!
"Ah, see, you misunderstood us..." [Say the Democrats in MO] "What we meant was "choice to ABORT your baby," [they chuckle softly and condescendingly to themselves] "not to DELIVER it the way you want! You silly woman! Don't you know? So many things can go wrong delivering a baby!"
Note who's supporting the midwives, and who's supporting tyranny.
It’s not clear how many midwives there are in Missouri because they operate through a shadow network."They can’t stand up and say who they are, and they can’t advertise in the Yellow Pages," said Columbia physician Elizabeth Allemann, who attended to the Shermans’ birth last week. "People have told me it would probably be easier to do a drug deal in Missouri than to find a midwife."
Sen. John Louden, R-Ballwin, who is sponsoring the Senate bill, said one of the main legislative opponents is Columbia Sen. Chuck Graham, a Democrat.
Graham said he hasn’t read this year’s bill, but if it looks like last year’s - and it does - he will consider filibustering it.
Graham said he has no problem with nurse midwives but believes the training most midwives receive is inadequate. "There are so many things that can go wrong with the birthing process," he said. "I think we should have people with a significant amount of medical training before the state starts licensing him."
Medical groups, including the Missouri Academy of Family Physicians, have spoken out against most midwifery because they believe home births are too risky.
Louden’s bill would require those who want to become licensed in the state to be certified through the North American Registry of Midwives. The organization, based in Lilburn, Ga., certifies midwives who have completed course work, passed a written exam and meet other requirements, such as attending to at least 20 out-of-hospital births and demonstrating a variety of skills.
Graham is not impressed.
Rebekah and Ben Sherman share a light moment as physician Elizabeth Alleman checks Nathan’s eyes. The Shermans’ two previous children were born with a midwife’s help, which is illegal in Missouri.
"I just don’t trust someone taking an Internet course and then the state saying, ‘Hey, go deliver babies,’ " he said.
So fine! Don't "license" them! Just don't criminalize them! Let women make their (here's a thought) OWN CHOICE ABOUT THEIR BODIES!!
Interesting point of view for a DEMOCRAT who's pro-choice! Where's NARAL on this? Where's Planned Parenthood or any of the other "CHOICE" people? Doesn't "choice" mean having the choice to DELIVER your baby the way you want, or just the choice to kill it the way you want?
Sorry if I'm coming off really angry, but I am, I really really am. I am outraged for these women and before anyone says to me "Well you don't live in MO, so what do you care?" I'll say "OK, well you don't live in Alabama, so what do you care if R v. W were overturned and women couldn't get abortions there?
Gee, it's a good thing the women of MO fifty or a hundred years ago didn't HAVE to find an OB or an RN to deliver their babies
What's next? You have to have a license to get pregnant in the first place? I mean, there are so many things that could go wrong! What if you eat wrong, or don't watch your BP, or refuse prenatal care (egads!!)
(tries to calm self, goes to find paper bag to stop hyperventilation)
AAARGH!
It's a felony--a FELONY--to deliver a baby in MO in your own home with the help of a midwife of YOUR CHOOSING, but hey, go right ahead and have Dr. Tiller do a late-term abortion on you b/c you're feeling a little down in the dumps, that's cool, at least he's a "doctor."
Excuse me while I go PUKE.
Remember when John Edwards, upon discovering that he was a beneficiarry of Katrina foreclosures, said this:
Asked about the matter, Mr. Edwards yesterday pledged that he would personally provide financial assistance to New Orleanians who are facing foreclosure by Fortress-affiliated businesses or have lost their homes already. "I intend to help these people," the former North Carolina senator said.
I (and I'm sure the victims) have been sitting her waiting to see how he would make good on that promise. What would "help" mean to this man running on a popuplist platform that there are "Two Americas," this man who claims to not only recognize, but understand both as well (I mean, I would hope he'd understand them both if he says he can effectively represent them both as President!).
So how did he do it? A better question might be, "Whats's the matter Mr. Edwards? Did that last haircut set you back more than you thought it would?"
From the WSJ:
Edwards Tackles Katrina Flap
Candidate Seeks to Help Victims, Redirects Subprime Investments
By CHRISTOPHER COOPER
September 14, 2007; Page A4WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, whose personal investments have been linked to foreclosure suits filed against three dozen victims of Hurricane Katrina, has helped set up a charitable organization to help the homeowners.
The Louisiana Home Rescue Fund will be seeded with $100,000--much of which will come from Mr. Edwards's own pocket, the campaign said, without specifying an amount.
The program will be administered by the nonprofit ACORN Housing Corp., and will provide loans and grants to 34 families in the New Orleans area whose homes were seized or are in danger of foreclosure following the August 2005 hurricane.
What did I expect you ask? Well, this is a guy who's campaigning on the premise that he should lead the nation because he would never allow "predatory lending" to victimize anyone, not just Katrina victims. And yet, oddly enough he made HUGE money invested in a fund that traded heavily in sub-prime "predatory" loans! Some would call that "blood money" of a sort, at least dirty money right? I mean, by his own estimation, the borrowers were "victims," right? Can't be a victim without a victiMISER! (I think the British spelling works better here, don't you?)
Because "Miser" is probably a good word for Mr. Edwards at this point. Here's a guy sitting pretty in the "other" America, in his 28,000 sq/ft home, with his own private gym and basketball court, and he can only spare $100K for these people? How much did these investments make him? Do we really believe for the millions he had invested, it was only $100K? Why not give it ALL to these people? Oprah bought cars for her whole audience and she's not even running for President!
And the worst part? Edwards claims he had "no idea" how his money was invested (is this his "out" for not doing more "Gee, I had NO idea!" Yeah, the Poles said the same thing about that rotten smell wafting over their homes from the "work camp" down the road...).
What can we expect from a President who doesn't know what the companies in which he invested his fortune and for whom he is a consultant are doing?
What a pompous mealymouthed "pansy" fraud.
Yes Mrs. Edwards, you read right, I *do* think your husband is a PANSY, and NO, I don't mean he likes boys, I wouldn't insult gay men by suggesting he was one of them. I mean it the same way Ann Coulter meant when she said he was a "faggot," the same way the Urban Dictionary defines the word pansy:
1. pansy
A sissy, fag, fairy, or one that is generally unmanly.
Let's hope something comes of it. I agree with Jimbo, it stanks to high-heaven.
Got this from Hot Air today. God bless this man. As I've already said, we don't deserve him.
Emperor Misha sums up the day for me perfectly. So, as the sixth anniversary of 9/11 draws to a close, let me invite you to read this (and remember it like your life depends on it, because it does):
NEVER forgive!NEVER forget!
...and that's really all I have to say for now, since a lot of people seem to be having trouble remembering those two simple lines.
And don't give me any "but they haven't attacked us in 6 years, so this war you talk about is all bogus" either. On September 10th, 2001, they hadn't attacked us in 8 years.
Complacency kills.
So my Dad got a call today from one of them--the "Friends of Fred" that is. He said the woman sounded like a very pleasant, bright forty-something who--rather than just hit him up for money right out of the gate--asked him if he wouldn't mind spending a moment or two discussing what he felt were "the important issues" of the '08 campaign (in his opinion).
Never being one to shy from giving his opinion anyway (hey, I had to get it from somebody right?) he told her:
Oh would that it were that simple....
You know, I've got a question for those in Congress currently insisting that General Petraeus must be lying (or "cooking the books" or "cherry-picking" statistics): How do you justify those accusations by saying that there's nothing in it for us in Iraq, that we're just playing referee, and that this isn't a battle against AQI or international terrorism in general, but rather a sectarian civil war in which we have no role to play and--often in the very next breath--insist that this is all about OIL? Is there, or isn't there, something in this for us?
(Scratches head in bewilderment)
And how is it possible for you to cotain in your brain these two thoughts at the same time (because I've heard them both, expressed virtually back-to-back):
1) "There's nothing in Iraq for us, our forces are misplaced there, there isn't even a real place called Iraq and the people of Iraq don't see themselves as a country. They aren't stepping up to the plate there to help themselves, they need to put up or shut up, we aren't going to stay there and play referee, etc..."
2) "This is an illegal war of aggression and we are over there killing hundreds of thousands of people! We invaded a sovereign nation that never attacked us on 9/11, we have no right to be there!"
And, the coup de grace just has to be:
"Our forces are stretched thin, we shouldn't be in Iraq because we need to be at-the-ready in case Iran makes a move! Iran is more dangerous anyway!"
Followed by something along the lines of
"Aren't you just trying to scare us into believing we need to stay in Iraq when you say that Iran is poised to move into any power vacuum left by us if we leave? Isn't this just a Bushitlerburton ploy to trick us into 'staying the course'?"
(Scratches head in disbelief)
What's saddest to me is that we have elected representatives who don't "get" the so-called "big picture" as much as they should to have any claims of legitimacy in the "We can keep you safer" department. But that's probably because we're electing the wrong people. We need to elect someone like Paul.
Iraq in contextDiana West (author of The Death of the Grown Up, which I'm currently reading) thinks that the troop surge in Iraq makes little sense because success in Iraq would "do nothing to ward off jihadist state threats -- Iran, for instance, in the wider region." She also believes that our focus on Iraq causes us to lose sight of "the big bad world beyond."
I confess to not really understanding why the primacy of the Iranian threat means we shouldn't push forward in Iraq. I don't know of anyone who advocates a mass U.S. invasion of Iran, and all other options -- tougher sanctions, encouragement of Iranian dissidents, bombing of Iranian nuclear sites -- are compatible with "surging" in Iraq. If the surge is causing us to lose focus when it comes to Iran -- and I'm not persuaded that it is -- why isn't the remedy to talk more about Iran, rather than giving up in Iraq? I admit that our lack of success in Iraq may well have made it more difficult to come to grips with Iran. But since we can't turn back the clock, why not pursue a course that seems to be helping to generate success in Iraq?
Diana wonders, "what's in it for us" in Iraq? One answer is the defeat of al Qaeda's most active operation. Iran is a major adversary in the war on terror, but so is al Qaeda. If al Qaeda in Iraq is routed because Sunni Arabs, with our encouragement and assistance, turn against it, that seems like a big deal. Our current strategy is helping to produce just that result, and in my view that's reason enough not to abandon it.
Finally, Iraq seems to have become a front in Iran's confrontation with the U.S. In fact, Iranian assets are operating in Iraq as part of the effort to drive the U.S. out. Thus, Iran must believe that its chances of dominating Iraq will improve if the U.S. leaves, and/or that a U.S. defeat in Iraq will improve Iran's chance of establishing a regional hegemony. I believe this too.
Maybe the answer is even MORE terrifying (if that's possible): They DO get it, but it's more politically expedient to pretend they don't. Keeping us safe isn't their goal, keeping themselves in power IS.
But the four-star General is betraying us?
(Pulls hair out in chunks)
Michelle Malkin observes the sixth anniversary of 9/11--the first to fall on a Tuesday--with the following:
But remembrance without resistance to jihad and its enablers is a recipe for another 9/11. This is what fueled my first two books, on immigration enforcement and profiling. This is what fuels much of the work on this blog and at Hot Air. Not every American wears a military uniform. But every American has a role to play in protecting our homeland–not just from Muslim terrorists, but from their financiers, their public relations machine, their sharia-pimping activists, the anti-war goons, the civil liberties absolutists, and the academic apologists for our enemies.I know which one I am, which one are you?The Left greets such a commitment with mockery and derision, preferring instead to suck its collective thumb, play the grievance card, and engage in hindsight hypocrisy.
As the most infamous of all Internet leftists once said: Screw them.
The 9/10 crowd stubbornly refuses to connect the dots to see any connection at all between 9/11 and the Iraq war. But it is all of a piece, and the troops who joined the military after the terrorist attacks and volunteered to go back again and again see it clearly. Watch. “Kill them over there so they don’t kill us over here” isn’t just an empty slogan for them. They live and die for it. For their children and ours. In Iraq and around the world.
There are 9/10 people and there are 9/12 people.
Just ask her, she'll tell you.
Pelosi on Petraeus Testimony: Continuing Failed Surge in Iraq Until at Least Next Summer Is UnacceptableWashington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement this afternoon on testimony of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker to a joint House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the war in Iraq:
“Last November, the American people voted for a New Direction in Iraq, but the President chose instead to escalate the war by reverting to a ‘surge’ strategy that had failed four times before. The President promised the American people that this surge would be a short-term effort to provide space for political reform and national reconciliation in Iraq. Today, despite overwhelming evidence that neither goal has been achieved, General Petraeus testified that the surge would last at least until next summer. This is simply unacceptable.
“Iraqis do not believe their security has been improved by the surge or by the American military presence in Iraq. The American people want to know why our troops must continue to sacrifice when a majority of the Iraqis want our forces out of their country. At home, an overwhelming majority of Americans want us to responsibly redeploy our troops so we can begin to address the dire readiness state of our military and refocus on fighting terrorism around the world. Standing in the way is the stubborn refusal of President Bush to change course, regardless of the facts.
“The President’s strategy in Iraq has failed. It is time to change the mission of our troops to one that will promote regional stability and combat terrorism, so that the numbers of our brave men and women in uniform in Iraq can be reduced on a much more aggressive timetable than the one outlined today by General Petraeus.”
Ya gotta love James! He actually made me laugh today, and given the other shit I've been reading and hearing today, that was a feat-and-a-half!
Why is it that no one in the MSM calls out these people on the inherent contradictions in thier point of view?
I can understand how some people who find themselves cohabiting a portion of a Venn diagram with Osama would bristle at the notion that they are on his side, or like him in any way; if he said the sun rose in the East, that doesn't mean that people who accept celestial mechanics are terrorists. Just because he said that Kennedy was killed by the military-industrial complex and the Iraq war is about oil doesn’t mean it's not so. Just because he cites Chomsky doesn't mean Chomsky's wrong. Just because he chides the Democrats for not pulling out of Iraq doesn't mean they shouldn't. Just because he hates Rumsfeld and blames him for everything from Vietnam to the Shah to the unsatisfying Sopranos conclusion doesn't mean that many of us in the West didn't think that episode lacked closure. Just because he says the right things and hates the right people doesn’t mean he's left--er, right. Er, good. He's irrelevant, because there is no terrorist threat, except for the one we created, which we can solve by leaving, but he's also extremely relevant inasmuch as we haven't found him yet, which proves the Administration is incompetent at protecting us from the threat of terrorism--which is a manufactured bogeyman designed to take away our civil liberties. Is it any coincidence that the tape surfaced just as a court struck down that law about that uh, that thing they were doing? I don't think so. As I keep saying every time a court strikes down a provision of the Administration's post 9/11 practices, or a newspaper reveals another element of our secret strategies: we are a hair's breadth away from a fascist state.
Ooooooh, that's right, they are "these people," utterly complicit in the propagandizing of America.
Excuse me while I go puke up my dinner.
You know how the government and the CIA have been telling us the Osama video is "authentic? Maybe not.
Latest Bin Laden Video Is a Forgery: All References to Current Events Are Made During Video Freeze
by George Maschke
Sun Sep 9th, 2007 at 06:10:31 AM ESTOsama Bin Laden's widely publicized video address to the American people has a peculiarity that casts serious doubt on its authenticity: the video freezes at about 1 minute and 36 58 seconds, and motion only resumes again at 12:30. The video then freezes again at 14:02 remains frozen until the end. All references to current events, such as the 62nd anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Japan, and Sarkozy and Brown being the leaders of France and the UK, respectively, occur when the video is frozen! The words spoken when the video is in motion contain no references to contemporary events and could have been (and likely were) made before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
The audio track does appear to be in the voice of a single speaker. What I suspect was done is that an older, unreleased video was dubbed over for this release, with the video frozen when the audio track departed from that of the original video.
This piece perfectly sums up my feelings on today's hearings and the Democrat refusal to disavow the MoveOn.org ads and accusations that Petraeus is lying:
Personally, I don't know which is more shameful: the craven streak exhibited by Congressional Democrats who rely on the "unified narrative" of their benighted ideological groupies to do their political dirty work for them; or the cynicism they convey simply by knowing that they command a band of buffoons willing to launch such smears, then sitting back and luxuriating in it.
I could have written this myself!
You should read the whole thing, but here's my favorite part:
Many parents in the unconstrained camp adhere to Rousseau's sentiment: "Man is born free, but everywhere is in chains." They not only fail to punish bad behavior but snarl at anyone who rebukes their precious darlings. In our house we have reversed Rousseau's theory: You are born in bondage and should be darn grateful for the free room and board. Besides, if you want to talk about restrictions on liberty you can take it up with your mother, who hasn't had an uninterrupted trip to the bathroom since 2001.
Michelle Malkin has been live blogging the testimony, and I have to commend her on how well she has conveyed the frustration I'm feeling watching these proceedings.
But I have a few more things to get off my chest about today's report. I'm just going to throw them out there in no particular order, as they come to me:
- Do Skelton and the other Democrats on the panel understand that average Americans and the members of the military aren't fooled by their "with all due respect to your fine service" bullshit statements? If what follows is something along the lines of "there's nothing you can say or do to convince us that this is anything other than a failed policy put forth by a corrupt administration," there's no other way to take such statements.
- The microphones....I'm supposed to believe the adminstration conspired to attack the country on 9/11, but not that the Democrats in Congress (or liberals in the media) conspired to render the microphones useless today, even if only to stop momentum and allow some of the midday audience to be forced back to work by the hour (and thus, to avoid hearing what Petraeus had to say firsthand and unfiltered by their liberal spinmeisters? Yeah, right!
- Petraeus says he wrote the testimony himself and that neither the Pentagon or the White House had a preview copy or any say whatsoever in his report. He says that under oath. But how much do you want to bet MoveOn.org and their ilk won't recant their accusations to the contrary?
- Why are the American people not as disgusted with our government as I am for the same reasons??? Why aren't they marching in the streets, demanding to know how so many of their elected representatives have decided (way before they had enough evidence to make such a decision on the basis of facts on the ground) that this is "Bush's war" in Iraq, and that their future political success hinges on our *failure* in Iraq? How on Earth are they getting away with saying--essentially--"We sure hope the USA loses"? Am I the only one who finds that more than a little nauseating? Party over country? Power over patriotism? Despicable (the root word of which, of course, is DESPOT, no coincidence there).
- What's it going to take for the American people to wake up and realize that Iraq is just one battle in a long war? What's it going to take for them to realize that the eyes of the world are on us! How we behave now, in this conflict--how we treat the Iraqis, what we expect of them, how we evaluate them--will all be judged and our credibility hangs in the balance. How is it that the same people who rail on and on about how "nobody likes us, everybody hates us, let's go eat worms" are missing the irony inherent in our having the attitude that the Iraqis have to do better than we did after our own revolutionary war--that they have to have a functioning government up and running and capable of securing its own people right away, in only three short years? Remind me again how long it took us to have a Constitution, never mind a functioning government? Wasn't it almost a decade? And as far as I recall from my American history classes, the colonies were divided along religious sectarian lines. They didn't have thousand year-old rivalries left unresolved. At worst they had secular disputes, and culturally they were not divided into three clearly defined ethnic groups either. We were a fairly homogenous bunch and it still took us how long to get our shit together?
Hello pot, meet kettle, you have a lot in common, but not as much as you'd think. It was actually *easier* for you to boil that water after all. So much for having a sophisticated "nuanced" understanding of the conditions on the ground! (rolls eyes).
When are we going to realize that being able to demand benchmarks in an e-amil shot off to someone 6,000 miles away doesn't equate to being able to meet those benchmarks in seconds. Funny how conservatives aren't allowed to paint all welfare recipients (or all Katrina victims) as being unwiling to help themselves, even if they've been on welfare for generations, but liberals can paint the Iraqis with the broadest brush there is--indicting all of them as slackers simply because they haven't met our benchmarks.
I just feel so sad. I feel like we can't get out of our own way, like our political climate is such that we *can't* do what we need to do to succeed. The Democrats are literally bound by their campaign promises to ensure that we fail. This is all the more painful listening to Petraeus because I really do believe he is the man to salvage this effort and should not be punished because he was late to the party. That wasn't his choice.
And for the love of all that is holy, I want Santos to stop quoting the fucking MEDIA as equally credible sources of information as Petraeus!
We don't deserve this man, we really don't. We are a bunch of immature spoiled children who clearly need to suffer much much more before we wake up and realize what's at stake here. When our leaders think they are doing our bidding when they seek to silence a man of such integrity and bravery? WE SUCK. There's no other way to put it.
Mark Steyn thinks ours is some kind of "limpid pastel," and I think he's right.
You simply must RTWT, but I will give you the money quote of the day right here. Priceless and--as usual--right smack-dab-on-that-money!
If a "war on terror" has no terror, who says there's a war at all? That's the argument of the Left--that it's all a racket cooked up by the Bushitlerburton fascists to impose on America a permanent national-security state in which, for dark sinister reasons of his own, Dick Cheney is free to monitor your out-of-state phone calls all day long. Judging from the blithe expressions of commuters doing the shoeless shuffle through the security line at LAX and O'Hare, most Americans seem relatively content with a permanent national-security state. It's a curious paradox: airports on permanent Orange Alert, and a citizenry on permanent ... well, I'm not sure there's a homeland-security color code for "Gaily Insouciant," but, if there is, it's probably a bland limpid pastel of some kind. Of course, if tomorrow there's a big smoking hole where the Empire State Building used to be, we'll be back to: "The president should have known! This proves the failure of his policies over the last six years! We need another all-star Commission filled with retired grandees!"And that would be the relatively sane reaction. Have you seen that bumper sticker "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB"? If you haven't, go to a college town and cruise Main Street for a couple of minutes. It seems odd that a fascist regime which thinks nothing of killing thousands of people in a big landmark building in the center of the city hasn't quietly offed some of these dissident professors--or at least the guy with the sticker-printing contract. Fearlessly, Robert Fisk of Britain's Independent, the alleged dean of Middle East correspondents, has now crossed over to the truther side and written a piece headlined, "Even I Question The 'Truth' About 9/11." According to a poll in May, 35 percent of Democrats believe that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance. Did Rumsfeld also know? Almost certainly. That's why he went to his office as normal that today, because he knew in advance that the plane would slice through the Pentagon but come to a halt on the far side of the photocopier. That's how well-planned it was, unlike Iraq.
That's my response to Osama who "invites" us all to embrace Islam as a means of getting his followers to stop killing us.
Of course, that's right after he tells us that we should go read books by those who say we're being attacked and targeted for death because of our policies not our faith or lifestyles.
And, if that's not schizo enough for you, he also attacks the Democrats for not living up to their campaign promises to get us out of Iraq!
But the money quote of the whole tape was this one:
"To conclude," bin Laden says, "I invite you to embrace Islam." He goes on to say: "There are no taxes in Islam, but rather there is a limited Zakaat [alms] totaling 2.5 percent."
And of course now there are people running around (mostly on the left) saying "SEE, we told you it's the policies STOOOOPID!" We'll be hearing a lot of that, people using Osama's words to justify their calls for retreat, to support their claims that Bush has made us less safe, and to impress upon us that we are the evil imperial satan that Osama says we are!
OK, so what about all this "convert to Islam or die" stuff? Is that just our penance for having lousy policies? Isn't it enough to get out of the region? Oh no? We have to convert too?
"NOOOO!" The leftards will tell us. "OH NO, of course we should not embrace something that would demonize (and execute) gays and lesbians, enslave women and practice rampant discrimination! Perish the thought! We should just get out of the region and stop pursuing our own interests there!"
Um, OK...So he's right to demand that we forego our own political interests, but wrong to demand that we forego our own spiritual ones? What if Osama disagrees?
I think we all know the answer to that one won't be forthcoming any time soon. In fact, I doubt we'll hear much about the gracious (yeah, as-in "engraved in blood") invitation extended to us to join this psychopath and embrace his satanic death cult of a "religion." It doesn't fit the "SEE, we told you it was all our fault!" meme now does it?
The liberal press and the asshats who follow it (or lead it, as the case may be) will completely miss the irony of their situation and will cherry pick from Osama's words to ensure the American People wake up tomorrow and feel most afraid of their own country. Meanwhile, Osama in return will do the exact opposite--he'll continue to sit in his cave and find new and different ways to say that everthing we do--whatever that might be--is a mistake, and when he does, there will for sure be Americans right there to cheer him on for doing so, willing to take any negative thing he says about this administration or the war in Iraq by itself as a sane and rational thing to say, even for a psycho. And of course, those of us on thie right (as in "correct") side of the fence will continue to argue the opposite, and the net result? Disunity, disharmony and ultimately, if they do strike us, CHAOS.
Because folks, the only thing this monster cares about is destroying us. If he has to pretend to like some of us better than others, or that there is a way we can redeem ourselves in his eyes, so be it, all the better to drive a wedge between us.
The thing to do, the one thing we have never done, is hang together, whether we agree politically or not. This is OUR country, OUR democracy, OUR way of life. Are we going to stick up for it, or are we going to allow someone else to use the freedoms it affords them to destroy us from within?
Only time will tell I suppose....Time, or Newsweek (or the NYTimes, or ABC or NBC or CBS, etc. ad infinitum....)
Well it's a damn good thing I'm not running for office! All my opponent would have to do is peruse this site for a few minutes and they'd have enough flip-flopping to make John Kerry look like the man of steel!
If you recall, back in June I wrote this post on the subject of the war. I was so certain, so frustrated, so defeatist, I actually typed these words:
It is TIME TO GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ
But I've been reading Michael Totten, and I've changed my mind. How can I not when I read things like this:
What worked in Ramadi might not work in Baghdad. The Mahdi Army's relative moderation, compared with Al Qaeda's brutality, prevents it from being rejected by the entire society. But this much cannot be denied: There are powerful winds of change in Iraq, and not enough time has passed to determine how they will transform the country.Want to know if the surge will succeed or fail? There is only one thing to do: Wait.
And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting.
As JD says:
if the Anbar Awakening is evidence of a U.S. military failure--lets have more of those failures.
You know, even if things weren't going so well in Iraq with the surge, I think Schumer's words would be enough to win me back to the pro-war side! Where does that worm get off putting politics above country? Political victory over the honor of our troops? He is a disgrace.
Well, looks like Obama's impressing conservatives as much as liberals, but is that really because he's so great, or because the GOP front-runners are so, uninspiring?
OR, most likely, is he winning praise because he represents "The Boy Who Lived?" (For the moment anyway....)
"What we're seeing at this early stage, among people looking forward to the November 2008 election," the pollster told Campaigns & Elections, "is that Obama is the Democrat Republicans are most likely to vote for."But what if he doesn't get the nomination? I put this question to Stephanie Frederick. She says, "I know one thing for sure: I will do anything not to have Hillary Clinton in office."
"I know that sounds terrible, but she's just not somebody I have a whole lot of respect for, and I really think it would be a disservice to our country to have her in office," Frederick says. "I think she lacks morals. Totally."
When I mention Hillary Clinton at Hutch's Cafe, Heidi and Vicki react as if I've uttered the name Voldemort. The prospect of another Clinton administration seems merely to disgust Vicki, but Heidi is positively terrified. "God forbid," she says, looking around the tiny room as if for hidden cameras. "There's nothing that woman won't do."
This from Michelle Malkin's site. It's so horrible I'm not sure I have much to say about it. I think it speaks for itself really.
Political correctness: The fastest way to uncivilize the civilized world.
My husband send me this link just now with the subject heading "fahkin awsuhm!"
He's right of course, only for different reasons than he thinks! Being a Red Sawx fan, he thinks it's "awsuhm" because it takes you to the site of a guy just as deranged as he is.
I think it's awesome because it takes you to a site jam-packed full of evidence that I am a great Mom. Because if I do no other thing right in the rearing of my daughters, I will have--by virtue of talking their father into moving AWAY from Red Sox Nation--spared them the horrors of growing up "at-risk" for developing that accent!