Ol' 'Big Dick' Cheney (snark from Wonkette) spoke today and had some good'uns as he always does. Who would our enemies fear more: Cheney or the Silky Pony? 'nuff said.
I have entered certain highlight but I encourage you to read it all.
The American people spoke in the mid-term elections, the 110th Congress has arrived in Washington, D.C., and for the first time since 1995 the Democratic Party now controls both the House and the Senate. It was, in retrospect, a narrow victory. A shift of only 3,600 votes would have kept the Senate in Republican hands, and a shift of fewer than 100,000 votes would have maintained Republican control of the House of Representatives. I never knew the "mandate" was that small. Did anyone here know that?
...
That was the last time the national Democratic Party took a hard left turn. But in 2007, it looks like history is repeating itself.
...
Today, as the United States faces a new kind of enemy and a new kind of war, the far left is again taking hold of the Democratic Party's agenda. The prevailing mindset, combined with a series of ill-considered actions in the House and Senate over the last several months, causes me to wonder whether today's Democratic leaders fully appreciate the nature of the danger this country faces in the war on terror -- a war that was declared against us by jihadists, a war in which the United States went on offense after 9/11, a war whose central front, in the opinion and actions of the enemy, is Iraq.
...
Opponents of our military action there have called Iraq a diversion from the real conflict, a distraction from the business of fighting and defeating Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network. We hear this over and over again, not as an argument, but as an assertion meant to close off argument. The Dhims want to personalize this conflict. Like if we get OBL it is over, like with Hitler. But OBL is only a figurehead of an movement and there are others and well as many who would follow in his footsteps. BushCo understands the real enemy is the hopelessness of islam and how that makes them want strike out and the way to fix that is give those poor folks the chance to live like free, modern men. Like us.
... Yet the evidence is flatly to the contrary. And the critics conveniently disregard the words of bin Laden himself. "The most serious issue today for the whole world," he said, "is this third world war [that is] raging in [Iraq]." He calls it "a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam." He said, "The whole world is watching this war," and that it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation." And in words directed at the American people, bin Laden declares, "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever."
...
Obviously, the terrorists have no illusion about the importance of the struggle in Iraq. Ker-Pow!
...
If you support the war on terror, then it only makes sense to support it where the terrorists are fighting us. Duh! Did we only fight ther Germans in Germany and the Japanese in Japan? Nooo. We fought them wherever and whenever we could find them, aggressively.
...
...in the weeks since that vote, the actions of the Democratic leadership have moved from the merely inconsistent to the irresponsible. It's now been 67 days since the President submitted the emergency supplemental request.
...
And when they had the votes they needed, they stopped adding the pork, and they held the vote.
...
It is strange enough that the Speaker should do anything to anything to undermine America's careful, and successful, multilateral effort to isolate the Syrian regime. But at least one member of the Speaker's delegation saw the trip in even grander terms. He said the delegation was offering, quote, "an alternative Democratic foreign policy." Once again, we must return to a basic constitutional principle. Teaching moment here:No member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, has any business jetting around the world with a diplomatic agenda contrary to that of the President and the Secretary of State. It is for the executive branch, not the Congress, to conduct the foreign policy of the United States of America. SMACK!
...
This notion of a timetable for withdrawal has been specifically rejected by virtually every mainstream analysis. The report of the worthless and fraudulent Baker-Hamilton commission recommended against it. The National Intelligence Estimate produced by the intelligence community said a rapid withdrawal would be ill-advised. Our military commanders believe a rigid timetable is not a good strategy. It does, perhaps, appeal to the folks at MoveOn.org. WOP!
... Rarely in history has an elected branch of government engaged in so pointless an exercise as Congress is now doing. And yet the exercise continues. Three days ago the President invited the Democratic leaders to meet with him next week to discuss the supplemental. The majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, at first declined to do so. When Nancy Pelosi flies nearly 6,000 miles to meet with the president of Syria, but Harry Reid hesitates to drive a mile and half to meet with the President of the United States, there's a serious problem in the leadership of the Democratic Party. THWAPPP!
...
So in less than six months' time, Senator Reid has gone from pledging full funding for the military, and then full funding, but with a timetable, and then a cutoff of funding.
...
In their move to the left, many leading Democrats have turned not just against the military operation in Iraq, but against its supporters, as well.
...
Yet last year Joe was targeted for political extinction by his fellow Democrats. Al Gore himself, who famously endorsed Howard Dean in 2004, refused to help his former running mate, Joe Lieberman, on grounds that he doesn't get involved in primaries.
...
But it's far more serious than that. We're talking about a congressional majority with real power and a liberal agenda that, if followed, would have serious consequences for the country. Defeat.
...
In light of recent events, it's worth asking how things would be different if the current Democratic leadership had controlled Congress during the last five years. Would we have the terrorist surveillance program? Or the Patriot Act? Or military commissions to try unlawful combatants? We'd have the Feingold Muslim Protection Act.
... The good men and women serving in the war on terror, on every front, are staring evil in the face. Some of them will not make it home.
...
The consequences of walking away from Afghanistan were severe, but perhaps hard to foresee prior to 9/11. But no one could plead ignorance of the potential consequences of walking away from Iraq now,
...
Having tasted victory in Iraq, jihadists would look about for new missions.
...
What would it say to the world if we left high and dry those millions of people who have counted on the United States to keep its commitments?
...
Instead of allowing problems to simmer, instead of allowing threats to gather thousands of miles away and assume they won't find us at home, we've decided to face our challenges squarely. We offer a vision of freedom, justice, and self government as a superior alternative to ideologies of violence, anger, and resentment.
...
When the United States turns away from our friends, only tragedy can follow, and the lives and hopes of millions are lost forever.
... Ladies and gentlemen: not this time. Not on our watch. Does this man understand? I think so.
#1
Cheney should be front and center to expose the rabid defeatists on teh left. Let him be teh attack dog, they hate him anyway. Their response will be both weak in substance and foaming in invective. Both will turn off mainstream America at the '08 polls. Who can rationally disagree that a strong, assertive, freedom-enforcing and anti-terrorist America is a bad thing? I expect Omar, et al, in the Iraqi blogger community, among others benefitting from our sacrifices to make some penetrating and provoking ads for us RePubs
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/13/2007 21:36 Comments ||
Top||
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, April 13, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Intelligence: Congress is determined to apply "open government" principles to spying. Most Americans know espionage and secrecy are vital tools in the global war on terror and will reject this political power grab.
The White House has indicated that President Bush will veto the intelligence authorization bill set for Senate floor debate this week and backed by both the Senate Intelligence Committee's Democratic chairman, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, and the panel's Republican vice chairman, Kit Bond of Missouri.
No wonder. Included in its provisions are an array of congressional intrusions that would spill the beans about our espionage activities to our terrorist enemies, and force intelligence agencies to waste valuable time catering to the politically motivated whims of nosy senators and congressmen:
Spy agencies would be required to provide within 15 days "any intelligence assessment, report, estimate, legal opinion, or other intelligence information" requested by a congressional intelligence committee, the chairman or vice chairman of those panels, or "any other congressional committee of jurisdiction."
The administration could only refuse such requests by declaring an executive prerogative. The White House rightly charges that this "would foster political gamesmanship and elevate routine disagreements to the level of constitutional crises," plus force intelligence agencies "to direct resources from critical missions to comply with broad information requests within an artificial deadline."
The required notification to Congress of intelligence information would be extended to all members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, not just to their Democratic chairmen and Republican vice chairman and ranking members, as is now the case.
(This means Rep. Alcee Hastings, the Florida Democrat, impeached and ousted as a federal judge by Congress for perjury regarding a $150,000 bribe in a racketeering case, would be receiving ultrasensitive intelligence briefings.)
When spy agencies refuse to give notification because special protection of secrets is needed, they would have to give every committee member a classified statement of the reasons for the decision and the "main features" of the intelligence activity in question. As the White House points out, "these reporting requirements themselves may require broader dissemination of the very facts that require limited access."
The director of national intelligence would be required to provide Congress with detailed reports on current and former secret prisons for terrorists. Terrorist interrogation is better left to "the normal course between the intelligence committees and the executive branch," the White House maintains.
Congress would establish a new inspector general office over all intelligence agencies of the U.S. government including departments and agencies that already have an inspector general.
Every year, the president would be required to disclose the total funding request for intelligence activities. The White House responded by stating the obvious fact that "disclosure of changes in funding totals over time could compromise intelligence sources, methods, and activities."
Democrats such as Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin of Michigan have been trying to impose this kind of congressional micromanagement of spying for years. But they always seem to use information about intelligence decisions for political purposes during wartime. Earlier this month, Levin was hitting the Bush administration over the head with a declassified Pentagon report on pre-Iraq War intelligence.
Unfortunately, Bond, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence panel, is little better, insisting that Congress, under Democratic control, "reassert our oversight" instead of making sure it stays out of the executive branch's way as it tries to use espionage as a weapon against terrorists.
Former CIA Director Porter Goss found it impossible to reform "the agency" away from its bad bureaucratic habits and steer it toward being a more effective force in this new kind of war. How much harder would it be to spy on terrorists with a bunch of politics-minded congressmen and senators looking over our intelligence community's shoulder?
Posted by: Captain America ||
04/13/2007 20:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is what happens when a Fifth Column becomes a majority.
By the day, the debate at home about Iraq becomes increasingly disconnected from the realities of the war on the ground. The Democrats in Congress are so consumed with negotiating among their factions the most clever linguistic device to legislatively ensure the failure of the administration's current military strategy -- while not appearing to do so -- that they speak almost not at all about the first visible results of that strategy.
And preliminary results are visible. The landscape is shifting in the two fronts of the current troop surge: Anbar province and Baghdad.
The news from Anbar is the most promising. Only last fall, the Marines' leading intelligence officer there concluded that the United States had essentially lost the fight to al-Qaeda. Yet just this week, the Marine commandant, Gen. James Conway, returned from a four-day visit to the province and reported that we "have turned the corner."
Why? Because, as Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, the Australian counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus, has written, 14 of the 18 tribal leaders in Anbar have turned against al-Qaeda. As a result, thousands of Sunni recruits are turning up at police stations where none could be seen before. For the first time, former insurgent strongholds such as Ramadi have a Sunni police force fighting essentially on our side.
Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a major critic of the Bush war policy, reports that in Anbar, al-Qaeda is facing "a real and growing groundswell of Sunni tribal opposition." And that "this is a crucial struggle, and it is going our way -- for now."
The situation in Baghdad is more mixed. Yesterday's bridge and Green Zone attacks show the insurgents' ability to bomb sensitive sites. On the other hand, pacification is proceeding. "Nowhere is safe for Westerners to linger," ABC's Terry McCarthy reported on April 3. "But over the past week we visited five different neighborhoods where the locals told us life is slowly coming back to normal." He reported from Jadriyah, Karrada, Zayouna, Zawra Park and the notorious Haifa Street, previously known as "sniper alley." He found that "children have come out to play again. Shoppers are back in markets," and he concluded that "nobody knows if this small safe zone will expand or get swallowed up again by violence. For the time being though, people here are happy to enjoy a life that looks almost normal."
Fouad Ajami, just returned from his seventh trip to Iraq, is similarly guardedly optimistic and explains the change this way: Fundamentally, the Sunnis have lost the battle of Baghdad. They initiated it with an indiscriminate terror campaign they assumed would cow the Shiites, whom they view with contempt as congenitally quiescent, lower-class former subjects. They learned otherwise after the Samarra bombing in February 2006 kindled Shiite fury -- a savage militia campaign of kidnapping, indiscriminate murder and ethnic cleansing that has made Baghdad a largely Shiite city.
Petraeus is trying now to complete the defeat of the Sunni insurgents in Baghdad -- without the barbarism of the Shiite militias, whom his forces are simultaneously pursuing and suppressing.
How at this point -- with only about half of the additional surge troops yet deployed -- can Democrats be trying to force the United States to give up? The Democrats say they are carrying out their electoral mandate from the November election. But winning a single-vote Senate majority as a result of razor-thin victories in Montana and Virginia is hardly a landslide.
Second, if the electorate was sending an unconflicted message about withdrawal, how did the most uncompromising supporter of the war, Sen. Joe Lieberman, win handily in one of the most liberal states in the country?
And third, where was the mandate for withdrawal? Almost no Democratic candidates campaigned on that. They campaigned for changing the course the administration was on last November.
Which the president has done. He changed the civilian leadership at the Defense Department, replaced the head of Central Command and, most critically, replaced the Iraq commander with Petraeus -- unanimously approved by the Democratic Senate -- to implement a new counterinsurgency strategy.
#3
The donks blindly hate W and the trunks so much that they have become as irrational as the conservatives calling for Clinton's head in the mid 90s. I believe that the rabid donks will step up efforts to get at W and the trunks through the AG, funding for the war, and eventually impeachment. They will be so unfocused that election results in 2008 may surprise even the most cynical trunk.
#5
Stand by, Zenster. I am generally a very early morning guy - as early as 0530, harley ever after 2100. I am now reading your posts from yesterday. If not "ire", I seem to have provoked something!
But thats OK. I don't have solutions; only opinions. I'll be back here later, after I've had a change to read - if not digest - your words. I think I can remember it's at the Hammer's post.
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/13/2007 14:45 Comments ||
Top||
#6
No problem, Bobby.
The article doesn't mention one really important shift in policy. New ROE (Rules of Engagement) apply now in Iraq.
Previously, if our troops encountered hostiles, they could fire only if fired upon and were not allowed to return fire if the enemy ran out of ammunition or surrendered. This meant that hostiles could hose down our troops and, the instant they ran out of ammunition, simply drop their weapons and "surrender". Coalition troops were obilged to take them into custody and turn them over to Iraqi police who usualy let them back out on the street within hours. Our troops were encountering the same enemy fighters several times over the course of a month.
From what I gather, the new ROE allows our troops to open fire on suspected militants without first having to undergo attack. They are also permitted to kill those who are firing on them regardless of circumstances. In this war of attrition we now have, for once, a real chance at attritting the enemy.
I'd like to think that the Iraqi Army is coming up to speed, but if Iraq's politicians are any indication of performance, then I have little hope on that count.
#7
Zenster with respect to your posts of yesterday afternoon: I too wish we could disappear for a couple of months to give them a taste of what itd be like without our stabilizing influence.
Until we get a more unified front at home, thats got to be very nearly impossible. The left would unhinge itself about a.) not leaving completely, and b.) allowing the slaughter to go on while we hid out on the bases. And thatd be out of both sides of their mouths at the same time. It might be fun to see Pelosi and her ilk melt down in confusion. After all, its what they wanted, right? Protect the troops, you said, no? Let the Iraqis stand up for themselves, right? It is delicious to contemplate!
How long would we hide out? Until the Iranians invaded? Until Maliki was assassinated? After the Saudis came in to protect the Sunnis? When the Turks came over to teach the Kurds a lesson? What Tater declared himself President for Life? Too many possibilities, and not too many upsides to any of em.
I hope Krauthammer is correct, and we are seeing the first fruits of the surge. We have had a couple of instances over the last few years, where comparisons were made to the last burst of killing like the battle of the bulge. I remember reading here how previous wars get more and more savage and intense until suddenly they end. Think Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Saipan, and Hiroshima then it ends.
You posted, after Id long since gone to dreamland, Thank you, sinse. Even if somewhat garbled at times, I appreciate your support. I have backed our campaign in Iraq from the get-go and still do now. I just want our country to proceed with some sort of coherent game plan and not the dog's breakfast that has previously been passed off for strategy.
You had, and continue to have, my support, Zenster, for what its worth. Heck, I still support the Vietnam War, right up until we abandoned our SEATO allies. Like I said yesterday, I was quite depressed about yesterdays events, and you seemed to share my frustrations perhaps to the point of throwing up your hands and quitting. I briefly considered it yesterday.
But Ive been watching a WW II DVD The Complete History, I think, maybe British in origin, with a History Channel label on it. It amazes me how much where we are at now parallels the late 1930s in Europe. No one wants to face the threat; everyone hopes itll go away, and the US is safe behind the two huge oceans. It couldve ended in truce after Poland was partitioned, but Churchill got swept in and would have nothing to do with it. Had Chamberlain negotiated another peace for our time after the partition of Poland, it wouldve only been for another five-year hudna, anyway. Italy was hoping to prepare up until 1943, along with many of Hitlers generals.
Maybe Joes right, and its going to take an American Hiroshima to get more of us on the same page. But as long as the enemy keeps it below a certain level up to maybe say, Kenya, but well below the 9/11 level the American public will get bored, and the left and the MSM drum-beating will eventually triumph just as Chamberlain did.
If I go on any more, thisll start to approach the length of one of your posts!
I agree with johnniebartlett who said - Press on and support the troops and their commander. Ignore the media. Except I've been writing my Congessman - and your - with regularity. I wrote McCain yesterday, applauding his courage for standing up for the war.
For the voice of moderation, there is the ever-intelligent Trailing Wife - The Surge appears to be working, and more troops are getting ready to join those on the ground. Pulling out now would betray all who turned in bad guys, and the many Iraqis who've chosen to join the Iraqi Army and Police, even at the risk not only to themselves but to their families. The only way I would be comfortable leaving Iraq is if we had concluded that glassing over the Muslim Middle East is the only remaining option.
We knew this was going to be a long fight. For goodness sake, we've only been doing this for a scant four years! It took about that long to settle Germany after VE Day, and they didn't have a 1400 year religious war and a culture of deviousness to work around. How long did it take for South Korea to become truly democratic?
Peace, Bro. I gotta go get my haircut!
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/13/2007 15:19 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Boy, that is Zenster-length, isn't it? [grin]
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/13/2007 15:20 Comments ||
Top||
#9
See, Bobby, anyone can post at length once they get started.
I'll just say that it looks like we are in violent agreement.
With regard to the Vietnam war, one of the truly sad things is that the captains of American industry did not come forward and openly address why it was so important to fight communism. There was never a strong defense of capitalism advanced by conservatives or free-market economists. Somehow, communism was given a free ride instead of "The Emporer's New Clothes" treatment. Even now, both sides of the aisle continue to act as if communism is somehow a valid form of government instead of the thugocracy it always has been.
Similarly, people still equate capitalism with unbridled greed and predatory market control when those are manifestations of unethical or immoral conduct. It's long past tea that corporate leaders began rising to the defense of good old American capitalism. This is why, all of the beneficial technological spinoffs aside, the Apollo missions to the moon were so critical. They provided America with an irrefutable demonstration of technical might, effected entirely by our population of wage slaves, that Marxism's scientifically planned society could NEVER approach and has never approached to this day. Why these ideas were allowed to wither and die on the vine is something that politicians from both sides of the aisle have much to answer for.
The current administration, despite its willingness to address global terrorism, nonetheless is essentially mute regarding why American values are superior to Europe's socialism or the numerous MME (Muslim Middle East) cesspits that pass for governments. The harm this has done to our moral capital and persuasive ability is incalcuable and Bush has much to answer for in his ungainly silence.
#10
*sigh* Would that I were truly ever-intelligent -- I wouldn't have to apologize for saying stupid things nearly so often... but it's awfully sweet of you to say so, Bobby. And I do have to admit I wouldn't give nearly so strong an impression of intelligence had I not had the benefit of a Rantburg education!
#11
"The current administration, despite its willingness to address global terrorism, nonetheless is essentially mute regarding why American values are superior to Europe's socialism or the numerous MME (Muslim Middle East) cesspits that pass for governments. The harm this has done to our moral capital and persuasive ability is incalcuable and Bush has much to answer for in his ungainly silence."
Bush has a lot of shortcomings in my opinion, but assigning him any kind of unique responsibility for a failure to promote American values over Euro socialism or Islamic totalitarianism is grossly unfair.
Congress has done far less than he has in that regard; and the entire Democratic Party, along with its MSM propagandists and its Leftist indoctrination cadres in our universities, have devoted their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honors to not only denigrating those values abroad, but destroying them at home as well.
So before you grab the red-hot tongs and testicle crushers and go charging off after George W. Bush, remember there are a few hundred thousand Leftist scumbags who need to be "processed" first for their far larger crimes.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/13/2007 17:23 Comments ||
Top||
#12
For what it's worth, Vice President Cheney spoke up twice today against Democratic ideas on the War on Terror and the Iraq troop withdrawal deadline. In a speech to the Heritage Foundation in Chicago he said, "The prevailing mindset, combined with a series of ill-considered actions in the House and Senate over the last several months, causes me to wonder whether today`s Democratic leaders fully appreciate the nature of the danger this country faces in the war on terror -- a war that was declared against us by jihadists, a war in which the United States went on offense after 9/11, a war whose central front, in the opinion and actions of the enemy, is Iraq."
The UPI article continues Earlier, in an interview on a Chicago radio station, Cheney attacked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for her visit to Syria and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., for allegedly reversing himself on a pledge not to vote to cut off funding for U.S. forces in Iraq.
#13
With regard to the Vietnam war, one of the truly sad things is that the captains of American industry did not come forward and openly address why it was so important to fight communism.
Another of the truly sad things is that the leaders of the syndicates did not come forward to openly address why it was so importnat to fight communism. Nowhere was the working calls so brutally opressed, nopwhere was worker's safety so cynically disregarded (cf Tchernobyl, cf Russians's method of clearing minefields) thaan in the so called "workers paradise". And that even without counting for Gulag whose main purpose was not as an instrument of political represssion but as a disguised form of restablishing slavery: Gulag had production goals set by the Plan and local sections of NKVD has goals for number of arrests in order to feed Gulag's needs for workforce. Slavery that was communists had in reserve for the workers.
#14
by "syndicates" I assume you mean Unions, JFM. If so, your cynicism is well placed. Collectivism rewards membership, not exceptional performance...
If some workers are "lost", while the dues-paying base increases, the Union leadership is fine with that. It's only the bottom line that counts...and yes, I have to belong to a Union
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/13/2007 19:21 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Congress has done far less than he has in that regard; and the entire Democratic Party, along with its MSM propagandists and its Leftist indoctrination cadres in our universities, have devoted their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honors to not only denigrating those values abroad, but destroying them at home as well.
Agreed, in spades. It's just that, as president, Bush has the ultimate Bully Pulpit and his use of it has been nothing short of dismal. Part of strong leadership is the ability to elucidate the "whys and wherefors" of a political platform or agenda. Whatever the man's shortcomings, and they were many, JFK's speeches resonated to a far more sifnificant degree, both in their delivery and content. On his watch, Bush has seen this country confronted with far greater perils than Kennedy ever did. If he cannot craft the language needed to guide more Americans towards a fuller comprehension of those dangers, it represents a serious deficiency.
So before you grab the red-hot tongs and testicle crushers and go charging off after George W. Bush, remember there are a few hundred thousand Leftist scumbags who need to be "processed" first for their far larger crimes.
Hyperbole ill suits a man of your obvious intelligence, Dave D.. If you consider what I'm saying, you'd understand that I would rather see Bush be more successful at the vital missions of his administration. Again, all the petty criminals you mention DO NOT have such tremendous leverage at their behest. Bush does and somehow cannot find the proper fulcrum to shift this nation's opinion on topics crucial to its very survival. It is this groping that has beset his administration with a less than inspiring aura.
#16
I too wish we could disappear for a couple of months to give them a taste of what itd be like without our stabilizing influence.
Until we get a more unified front at home, thats got to be very nearly impossible. The left would unhinge itself about a.) not leaving completely, and b.) allowing the slaughter to go on while we hid out on the bases. And thatd be out of both sides of their mouths at the same time. It might be fun to see Pelosi and her ilk melt down in confusion. After all, its what they wanted, right? Protect the troops, you said, no? Let the Iraqis stand up for themselves, right? It is delicious to contemplate!
#17
"Hyperbole ill suits a man of your obvious intelligence, Dave D."
Was that an attempt at wry humor? You have looked in a mirror lately, haven't you? LOL!!!!!
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/13/2007 21:03 Comments ||
Top||
#18
I'm just tired of being accused of BDS. Like I said, I just wish that Bush was more successful at making this country aware of the menace that Islam represents. I'm not the only one who feels this way either.
#19
We all wish the president were better at handling the vicious, ill-wishing press and politicians. But he isn't, and now others like the Vice President and Senator McCain are stepping into the gap -- even we who just talk quietly and knowledgeably to those in our circle who have started to question the conventional wisdom.
Dave D, would it help if I said your intelligence isn't at all obvious? ;-) Although your hyperbole was practically poetic...
#20
Dave D, would it help if I said your intelligence isn't at all obvious? ;-) Although your hyperbole was practically poetic...
no. DD is a smart dude. It's his restraint that's admirable *sucking noises*
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/13/2007 22:09 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Restraint? What's that?
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/13/2007 22:14 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Restraint? What's that?
the "accessories" you normally wear at night in the O-Club?
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/13/2007 22:25 Comments ||
Top||
#23
"Dave D, would it help if I said your intelligence isn't at all obvious?"
Immensely. Words simply cannot express what enormous relief that gives me...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/13/2007 22:29 Comments ||
Top||
#24
I can't choose a preference between compliments I've received:
"you're not as smart as you look"
or "you're dumber than you look"
but I'm thinking of having one or the other on my tombstone...whadya think?
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/13/2007 22:51 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Frank, when you come up with something on par with Dave D.'s options list, let me know. You're more than good at snark, but endurance isn't necessarily your strong suit.
#26
I find endurance (long posts?) is overrated. My longevity and consistency is my best suit. I'm comfortable with who I am. I amuse some, educate fewer, disappoint more. Call it my ex-marriage writ large
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/13/2007 23:04 Comments ||
Top||
#27
"but I'm thinking of having one or the other on my tombstone...whadya think?"
Ya gotta get the Hawaian shirt in there somehow...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/13/2007 23:12 Comments ||
Top||
#28
you're right..what was I thinking?
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/13/2007 23:17 Comments ||
Top||
#29
Well I know what I think: I think I'm going to bed. G'nite...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/13/2007 23:31 Comments ||
Top||
#30
nite DD. Me too
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/13/2007 23:34 Comments ||
Top||
#31
FOX > BARNES [paraphrased]- the Democrats are seriously looking for "Watergate" but thus far have only a dubious "Watergate without a break-in" agz Dubya. "At least wid the real Watergate, somebody got arrested - right now all they have as to physical evidence are on-going, unsubstantiated, mostly pro-DemoLeft Media criticisms of KARL ROVE".
wow, a full out enemy to the State of Israel and I suspect every living Jew.. and a member of Parliament no less. Looks Like Israel has politicians who are as dangerously rotten as America has.
#2
We've got more than our fair share of the same type of creeps here in the USA on the federal, state, and local level. 99% of them belong to the Demorcat Party.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
04/13/2007 13:33 Comments ||
Top||
Liberals call Jason Whitlock's column "black-on-black racism". Tough idea to wrap your mind around, but they're used to mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance.
#4
No doubt the name Don Imus will be repeatedly invoked when the so-called Federal hate crimes legislation is soon to be debated in Congress. (The bill is numbered H.R. 254. Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-TX is the main sponsor.) Oh there will be legitimate selective enforcement and double-standard concerns voiced but they will be dismissed by a neutered media as the rantings of angry white men who simply want to retain their evil oppressive power. And the irrelevant hack, Imus, will be their poster boy. According to the proposed legislation, it would be considered a Federal Crime if it is proven that speech is motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability of the victim. One has to wonder how Rev. Al could have further manipulated Dons fate if this Orwellian logic had already been written into law. One also has to wonder if this becomes law if some will attempt to classify web sites such as Rantburg as hate speech.
#5
Step down from what? Who are these guys, anyway? What elections have they ever won? As far as I can tell, their only claim to fame is that every time they open their mouths the MSM treats it as gospel.
#6
DepotGuy, Don Imus is a Jew. That should make for some fun when the liberal Jews are forced to legislate against their own to appease the darkies. Hate crimes, another liberal brain fart.
1987: Sharpton spreads the incendiary Tawana Brawley hoax, insisting heatedly that a 15-year-old black girl was abducted, raped, and smeared with feces by a group of white men. He singles out Steve Pagones, a young prosecutor. Pagones is wholly innocent -- the crime never occurred -- but Sharpton taunts him: "If we're lying, sue us, so we can . . . prove you did it." Pagones does sue, and eventually wins a $345,000 verdict for defamation. To this day, Sharpton refuses to recant his unspeakable slander or to apologize for his role in the odious affair.
1991: A Hasidic Jewish driver in Brooklyn's Crown Heights section accidentally kills Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child, and antisemitic riots erupt. Sharpton races to pour gasoline on the fire. At Gavin's funeral he rails against the "diamond merchants" -- code for Jews -- with "the blood of innocent babies" on their hands. He mobilizes hundreds of demonstrators to march through the Jewish neighborhood, chanting, "No justice, no peace." A rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, is surrounded by a mob shouting "Kill the Jews!" and stabbed to death.
1995: When the United House of Prayer, a large black landlord in Harlem, raises the rent on Freddy's Fashion Mart, Freddy's white Jewish owner is forced to raise the rent on his subtenant, a black-owned music store. A landlord-tenant dispute ensues; Sharpton uses it to incite racial hatred. "We will not stand by," he warns malignantly, "and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business." Sharpton's National Action Network sets up picket lines; customers going into Freddy's are spat on and cursed as "traitors" and "Uncle Toms." Some protesters shout, "Burn down the Jew store!" and simulate striking a match. "We're going to see that this cracker suffers," says Sharpton's colleague Morris Powell. On Dec. 8, one of the protesters bursts into Freddy's, shoots four employees point-blank, then sets the store on fire. Seven employees die in the inferno.
#10
#5 Step down from what? Who are these guys, anyway? What elections have they ever won? As far as I can tell, their only claim to fame is that every time they open their mouths the MSM treats it as gospel.
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305
That is the problem. They carved out a position for themselves as spokesmen for the black community through tickiery and bullcrap. Nobody can ask them to step down because nobody is above them.
However the government should have looked at the tax exempt status of their non-profits long ago.
#13
Rambler-I lived in Putnam County, but that was much later than the Tawana mess. Very beautiful ridges and hills in that part of New York. :)
Al Sharpton and his ilk strike me first as hypocrits and second as pretty shabby representatives of the church. What was that line about your neighbor's eye? And what was that thingy about forgiveness?
Then again, maybe being hypersensitive about "ho's" is really about his own "purchase for a price" issues.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
