Thursday, November 30, 2006

Feminist-Left Unabashed in its Dishonesty

Kathryn Jean Lopez over at The Corner links to a post by Jessica Valenti, Executive Editor of Feministing.com, about the "scary" new Director of The Office on Violence Against Women.

Why is the new Director so scary? Well, she is "another wacky Bush Appointee," Mary Beth Buchanan. First lets run down some of the other "wacky appointees" listed on the White House Press release Valenti links to:


  • Belinda Childress Anderson, the first female President of Virginia Union University, to the President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Governer Mark Warner credited Anderson, a black woman, with bringing financial stability to the 140 year old university and raising its academic standards. VUU is a historically black university that counts among its alumni Jesse Jackson, Douglas Wilder and Samuel Lee Gravely, Jr., the first black Admiral in the United States Navy.
  • Verna Fowler, Member the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin and founding President of the College of the Menominee Nation, to the President's Board of Advisors on Tribal Colleges and Universities. Fowler has been involved in education of Native Americans for 40 plus years now and has also served as Executive Director, Director of Credit and Finance, and as the Superintendent of Education for the Menominee Tribe.
  • Beverly Daniel Tatum, President of Spellman College, to the President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Spellman is a historically black college for women founded in 1881 and ranks among the top historically black colleges in the United States. Tatum has taught, lectured and been published (including by the Harvard Education Review) on the issues of race, racial identity and the psychology of racism.
  • Laura L. Rogers, of California, to be Director of the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking at the Department of Justice. Ms. Rogers currently serves as Director of the National Institute for Training Child Abuse Professionals. Previously she served as a Senior Attorney of the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse at the American Prosecutor's Research Institute. She has also served as a Deputy District Attorney in the San Diego County District Attorney's Office. (Ms. Rogers information quoted directly from White House Press Release)
This list of incredibly qualified women and men (Most members of a minority) from just this one set of appointments goes on; what a wacky, scary bunch.

But, on to the wack-job that really bothers Ms. Valenti:



  • Mary Beth Buchanan (ominous organ rift please): Ms. Buchanan is the first woman in Pennsylvania's history to be Presidentially appointed to the position of United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Buchanan also served from June 2004 until June 2005 as the Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, a Washington D.C.-based office that provides administrative support to the 94 United States Attorneys' Offices. As an assistant U.S. Attorney for the same district she helped form the Western Pennsylvania Crimes Against Children Task Force. Until her appointment as United States Attorney, Ms. Buchanan served as the Chairperson of the Crimes Against Children Task Force and the district's Child Exploitation Coordinator; she's served as Chair of the Judiciary Committee of the Allegheny County Bar Association; President of the University of Pittsburgh Chapter of the American Inns of Court, and President of the Women's Bar Association of Western Pennsylvania.
You get the picture.

What in Valenti's eyes makes Buchanan someone to be so loathed and feared? Well, for one thing she had the audacity to prosecute 55 people, including Tommy Chong for helping his son sell drug paraphernalia over the internet, a crime in Pennsylania; one of the articles Valenti links to that chronicles the martyrdom of Chong seems to imply that after 9/11 all law enforcement should be solely focused on terrorism-related activities. Oddly enough, however, one of the wacky things about Buchanan according to Valenti and several comments under the story is that Buchanan supports the Patriot Act (!).

Buchanans' next crime against women is prosecuting a California adult film company for three movies it produced and distributed. To quote from the CBS News article Valenti links to to show what a bad choice Buchanan is:

She believes that three films produced and distributed by Extreme Associates by mail and over the Internet contain coercive and violent sex, along with other material that is vile and degrading. Rob Black, president of Extreme Associates, considers that a compliment. One film, called “Forced Entry,” includes shots of women getting raped and murdered. It also includes suffocation, strangulation, beatings and urination. Black calls “Forced Entry” a slasher film with sex, loosely based on the Hillside Strangler case. But 60 Minutes couldn’t find enough plot to show anything beyond the opening credits.
This is anti-anti-violence against women? But we're not through yet. Buchanans' other crime was helping to prosecute a 54 year old Pennsylvania woman for posting stories on a web site depicting adults having sex with pre-teen children. Why would Valenti not like that? To (fully) quote our intrepid feminist:



"She’s an anti-obscenity crusader, prosecuting people for written stories on the internet and going after any and all porn. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of violent porn and the like, but Buchanan strikes me as more interested in enforcing morality than the law.) The legal director for the Pittsburgh ACLU once called Buchanan "the vanguard of [former U.S. Attorney General John] Ashcroft’s attempt to impose his morality on others." Yikes.
So basically, this sucks. I can see it now...VAWA funds being diverted to conservative anti-obscenity groups under the rhetoric of protecting women. I am completely freaked out."
Like totally.

More interested in enforcing morality than the law? If this is the quality of thought and logic produced by degrees in Womens and Gender Studies, such as the one Valenti obtained from Rutgers, refunds should be issued forthwith. In Valenti's world, being against depictions of kidnapping and rape of women as well as small children is suspect if done from a moral perspective.

While there are morals not enforced as laws, all laws are based on the concept of morality, including laws protecting women against hostile work enviornments, children against sexual predators and governing that VERY narrow range of speech so brereft of social value that courts and juries hold them as not protected. Perhaps Ms. Valenti could explain why we should consider the constitution a guiding authority if it is not moral at its foundation?

Valenti's post is the textbook example of Bush Psychosis and the rejection of critical thought in favor of emotional hysteria. A giant leap forward for women everywhere.

At last! A Nativity Scene that will not draw a lawsuit..


Bush: No Graceful Exit

New York Post story reports Bush says what amounts to no exit as soon as possible. That's, uh, good to hear. Maliki says he has not received the support he needs to get the country under control, but seems to continue to reject more direct American military intervention. Initial reports from the Iraq Study Group do not sound good. I have a sinking feeling.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

In response to Vienna and the ACLU:


"All I can do is fall down on my knees and cry 'Holy, Holy,' All I can do is fall down on my knees and cry 'Holy, Holy'; You are HOLY.." (Salvador "Cry Holy")

Hit the Road Jack, errr Nick....



(Hat Tip LGF)

Newt: Second phase of Iraq "failure"




On the Human Events website he lays out a vision of an aggressive move in Iraq reminiscent of George Washington crossing the Delaware and 11 important questions regarding the Iraq Study Group Report.

He has several good points. Admitting failure in the context of willingness to change, rather than quit, is productive. Newt is no cut and runner for sure.
He also points out what to many of us is obvious: Iran and Syria are not ran by dullards, but rather by shrewd men who know their region - they also cannot be trusted; there are components of the democratic majority the administration and republicans can work with to obtain our goals in Iraq, and; the changes have to be big, bold and decisive.


Go Newt.

Oh Dear God, will this mean more FRENCH tourists too?


News from The Guardian of falling dollars, rising Euros and trips to the U.S.

Baghdad from the Inside: Heartening and Heart Wrenching

Mohhamed at Iraq The Model shared this post with the world yesterday; it reaffirms the best and worst of what we all see in Iraq to one degree or another.

Continuing my theme from last Friday regarding the absurdity of comparing Iraq per capita or deaths per 100,000 as a measure of how good or bad things are going there - my central argument was that they were distinctions with big differences and it did not change the horror of the human toll on the ground (A death is Baghdad is not less tragic or consequential because two die in Mexico City or vice versa). I think this passage from the ITM post linked above illustrates this well:



We decided to go home earlier than usual that day and then we were met by the terrible news about the savage massacre in Baghdad that took away hundreds of innocent lives. I avoided looking at the news after I heard of the open-ended curfew and we had to get prepared for the worse.Terrorists and militias started an open war; the battlefield is our city and the fuel is innocent civilians as always since those criminal groups find it easier to kill civilians than to confront each other (and rid us of their evil). The big problem is that the security forces are not strong enough to stop them, worse than that, some members of these forces let themselves become partners to the criminals.We had no choice but to rely on ourselves to protect our homes and neighborhood insurgents and militias alike. In our mixed block the elders met to assign duties and make plans in case things go wrong. They decided that people should all exchange cell-phone numbers as the fastest means to communicate at times of action, it was also decided that if someone calls to report an attack on his home, everyone else must go up to the roof and start shooting at the direction of the assailants.More roadblocks were erected and older ones strengthened—streets and alleys were blocked in any possible way to prevent any attack with vehicles.They also agreed that no one moves on the streets after a certain hour at night and any moving person would be dealt with as a threat. (Emphasis added)

Later:

Rough times blur the vision and disrupt reason, I understand that. When you hear stories about people burned alive or mass public executions it makes you imagine that the streets are full of monsters coming to predate everything and makes you shout calling for merciless punishment upon even those who are only suspects.Being stuck at home for four days with all the violence going outside and the fear that it might reach you at home was a horrible experience. When the news came that the curfew was over and people began walking on the streets again there was a strange feeling that was particularly very strong this morning in Baghdad; despite all the rumors and fear from more wide-scale revenge attacks there was a feeling among the people that they must go out on the streets and live in all possible means.The most beautiful scene was that of students going to their schools and colleges despite all what happened in the days before.Not everyone will absorb the lesson but I'm sure that this last dose of terror has changed the feelings of so many people here, a change in favor of denouncing and rejecting violence, I hope.


The entire post highlights two major themes I've been hitting on the past several days: equating the violence in numbers or nature with Miami or Washington, D.C. with that in Baghdad just does not wash. In America violence is rarely ideologically driven and is often (as much as 50% in some cities) criminal on criminal, not to mention that often counted in violent deaths in the United States are such categories as suicide, self defense or protection of family/property and domestic violence. Subtract all of that and life in virtually any neighborhood in any city in the United States is Shangri-La compared to Baghdad.

The second part reflects the hope and the need for Iraqis as a group to reject citizen on citizen violence instigated by outsiders and sociopaths.

One last thing - On the story of false reports of violence by Associated Press and others broke by Flopping Aces and well covered by Michelle Malkin and Gateway Pundit, it is interesting to read this last quote from the ITM post:

The other star of the crisis was rumors about ugly revenge attacks and I sometimes feel that those rumors are part of the terrorists and militias propaganda campaign

Al Sadr backers walking out of Iraq Government

According to C-Span minutes ago.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Iraq, winning, lies and action....

Last week (just a few posts down) I argued that violence in Iraq is bad enough in any context and we better figure out a way to control it. I stand by that, but want to clarify :

Gateway Pundit posts today about the relative calm in the majority of Iraq and specifically about Sunnis and Shiites living side by side in Basra, rebuilding infrastructure and in general enjoying a peaceful existence that would likely shock a lot of Americans and Europeans.

Over the past few days Flopping Aces has developed, in a great bit of investigative journalism, that Associated Press and The Los Angeles Times are reporting false or exaggerated stories about military operations and sectarian violence. NBC News proudly declared a Civil War in Iraq:




On "Today," Lauer said NBC News consulted with many experts and carefully deliberated before making the call. He said there are two clearly defined groups, the Sunnis and the Shiites, using violence to gain political supremacy, and there's a government in place that's unable to protect people.

Carefully Deliberated. Sounds Familiar.

Now the problem: While some reports are surely exaggerated or outright falsehoods and while the provinces are quiet, Rome is burning.

As I pointed out on Friday, there is more than enough real violence and mayhem to go around in Baghdad and nearby provinces and cities. Peoples with deep and dogged hatreds, thirsts for power and needs to control are in fact killing one another at what any sane observer would call an alarming rate. Our forces perform bravely and brilliantly on a regular basis in Iraq under sometimes nearly impossible circumstances, including trying to serve, save a people who (even when not warring against one another) may not want the magic of western style democracy.

Rich Lowry in his column and Stanley Kurtz in a Corner post at NRO raises two themes in dire need of serious discussion among all conservatives, and indeed anyone who does not want to see Iraq fall into chaos or under Iranian-Syrian control.

First and foremost, Leadership. No war goes according to the game plan; every war from Iraq back to Caesar's war to put down the Gallic revolt led by Versingetorix finds itself careening off course in unexpected ways, including colossal blunders by Kings, Presidents and Generals. (Victor Davis Hanson in a piece both tongue in cheek and deadly serious catalogues the mistakes of World War Two and how they would be reported today.) It is exactly when things go wrong that leaders rise while others fall or fail.

Right now we have a Commander in Chief who in 2004 seemed to know where he stood and had an air of decisiveness that garnered him a record number of votes over a challenger who gave him everything he could handle - it was no cakewalk. I believe now as I did then that President Bush made enough Americans believe he had the plan to bring stability to Iraq without falling into the kind of indiscernible policy citizens feared and remembered from Vietnam, one where we were not losing but did not have the political will from our leaders OR the electorate to do what was required to win.

Fast forward to now and our Commander in Chief now meets with Nancy Pelosi who has described President Bush as incompetent, a liar and dangerous; he awaits the report of the Iraq study group in a manner that is evocative of someone looking for marching orders. On the military front, if his commanders in the field told him anything from the beginning except destroying Muqtada al-Sadr on the summer of 2004 was exactly the right thing to do, he took bad advice. If they did tell him that and he allowed anyone to override their advice it was a huge mistake. Iyad Allawi, the Iraqi Interim Prime Minister at the time, thought taking out al-Sadr was precisely what needed to be done.

Second, following up on the Kurtz post at NRO, were we (we go to war as a nation) more than a little naive in thinking that elections in an inherently unstable situation were going to pull the various factions together enough to have political and not (often) violence driven solutions to their differences? Also, to backtrack a moment, was the awful decision to enter into yet another truce with al-Sadr made simply in order to not delay the January 2005 elections? I agree that wars cannot have timetables as a rule of thumb; did we make the mistake of thinking democracies can?

Do we have the will now to support "going strong" if President Bush decides that is the game plan? I don't think there is enough support among Americans for "go long" and to go home at this point would be a larger failure than what any democrat or fatalist thinks we currently face.
We have the military resources to take out those like al-Sadr who are a brick wall on the road to an Iraq that can survive on its own. It will cost dear lives on both sides. But we must act decisively soon, both politically and militarily.

It's not defeatism to ask the questions and hope for action, but circumstances sometimes drive a nation at war to hard options. Those who think we are not at that point or very, very near it, are try to put lipstick on a pig.

Monday, November 27, 2006

Associated Press: Gullible or Propagandist?

Flopping Aces may have found the story of the year.

One wonders what might have been if the media during Tet were subjected to the citizen scrutiny shared today? More on this after I have digested this rapidly evolving story.


(Big Hat-Tips to my wife & Gateway Pundit)

Islam, Smith & Wesson and Protecting Women












Fausta's Blog has a great post on a perhaps emerging trend of "Submission Sheik." Please read the entire article, but I present from that story my Quote of the Day:

According to this site, the purpose of the veil is protection. While some decadent Westeners think of condoms when someone mentions protection,
This is the whole point, modesty is prescribed to protect women from molestation or simply, modesty is protection. Thus, the only purpose of the veil in Islam is protection.
Some of us decadent Western women, however, prefer to protect ourselves with firearms. Never mind that the mark of a civilized society is men's self-control.

As the father of two daughters, ages 21 and 19, I could not agree more.

Friday, November 24, 2006

Iraq, Washington, D.C. and statistics

I've always thought one of the things that separates conservatives from liberals (and I've been around plenty of both) is conservatives are more introspective about their positions. In fact, I often think we can become paralyzed over our own debates and endless assessment of policies and what makes a conservative.

But I am stunned over the numbers game a number of conservative blogs, many I respect deeply, are playing today. It actually started last May when Republican House Member Steve King took the floor to compare the deaths per 100,000 (the standard statistical measure) in Iraq and some American cities. His point was that in many places many more civilians died over a year than were dying in Iraq. Context for numbers is good and required for intelligent discussion; but the context has to be complete.

Many of the hundreds killed in Iraq every day are slaughtered by the forces of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a man so secure in his power and his 10,000 man militia he feels comfortable saying who the leaders of Iraq can and cannot meet with, including the President of the United States. The U.S. Military has been held back from getting al-Sadr before and is being held back now. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refuses to move against al-Sadr. In fact, it seems coalition forces are doing little besides being used as moving targets right now, unless fired upon directly, with no offensive operations of any significant size or scale being undertaken.

Anyone who reads this little blog at all knows I am NOT in favor of abandoning Iraq. I'm in favor of winning. So my question is, who the hell cares how many are killed in Brazil? WE are not there. We ARE in Iraq and if we have no capacity to stop the violence by thugs like al-Sadr and the equally barbaric Sunni militias, it raises some questions that go to the very core of the handling of this entire enterprise up to this point.

The disbanding of the Iraqi military, the complete dismantling of the Baath government infrastructure, the training of Iraqi security and military forces and, not the least question by the way, why are we propping up Maliki who is propping up a murderous thug who kills innocent men, women and children and has declared open war on the United States troops in Iraq. Did we not go there to crush exactly these types?

Do we hang Saddam (I'm more in favor of slow death by scorpion) but coddle the man who coddles and kowtows to al-Sadr?

There is only one circumstance that would make me support a complete pullout from Iraq ASAP: if we're not there to win and bring dignity, peace and safety to the people of Iraq. We better figure out fast if that is what we are going to do, because I'll bet you everything I own that a U.S. military medic or surgeon holding a child mangled by yet another car bomb does not give a tinkers damm about the murder rate in Bolivia.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Thin Thanksgiving week


I'm out of town this week visiting family I only see once or twice a year, so the number of post are few.


I hope each and every person who visits my humble little blog enjoys a wonderful Thanksgiving day and ask for your prayers and thoughts for all of men and women in Uniform around the world.

The cost of winning

In my post of of November 6, 2006, I did my best to discuss the sorry but often necessary choice of war over peace and the death of some to insure the survival of the many. This post on TCS Daily by Philip R. O'Connor is somewhat parallel to my larger point.

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Remember when....

Leading up to the election you were a right wing-nut and questioned the patriotism of democrats/the left if you said a vote for them was a vote for "cut & run."

Clinton, the former president, provided a rebuttal from a stage in Rochester, N.Y.
"On this 'stay the course in Iraq' deal, they say we're the cut-and-run crowd," he said. "These people don't look like cut and run to me," he said, gesturing at Eric Massa, a House candidate and Navy veteran, and former Sen. Max Cleland, a triple amputee from war wounds suffered in Vietnam a generation ago.
"
(DAVID ESPO AND ED WHITE - The Associated Press)

I guess Murtha, Levin, Pelosi, Kennedy, H.R. Clinton and the rest of the gang did not consult Cleland and Massa on Iraq Policy.

Analysis from Dr. Sanity

Dr. Sanity, for those of you with an interest in psychology/psychiatry breaks down some pressing need for therapy in the MSM. (Hat Tip Gateway Pundit)
PLEASE don't rob yourself by not reading every link in her post, it will take a while but is well worth it.



I have about 24 publications/websites on my RSS feed, everything from National Review to the New York Times; the post above explains why. If you just get your news from one or two sources, you can be dammed sure you're not getting it all or getting balanced coverage. We have a tendency to seek out what we agree with, I do to - but if we do not look for the back story, the quote that was not printed completely, we only rob ourselves.

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Iraq, Pelosi, Levin and Churchill...

This November 16 post from TCS Daily is another great insight into the choices we face in Iraq.

Far too many are still hung up on 2003 and the reasons (or lack thereof, some say) for going into Iraq to begin with. Even if you take as true all of those who say President Bush cooked intelligence, wanted Iraq for its oil, wanted to get Saddam for trying to get his dad and so on it does not change the obligation we created to the people of Iraq and to the fallen American servicemen and women.

Carl Levin in this Detroit Free Press interview states;
"We've been there now as long as World War II, almost, and longer than the Korean conflict. And the solution here is a political solution. It's not a military solution. Everyone seems to tell us that, but then a lot of people don't follow through on their own logic."

And we've all heard from Levin some variation of:
"It is our firm belief -- and I believe it more deeply than ever -- that we have to force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own nation, that we cannot save them from themselves. I believe that, whether or not public opinion is 60% supportive of it or 40% supportive of it. That is my belief. I think it is more and more the belief of colleagues. ..."


First, Senator Levin implies that Iraqis are not fighting and dying for their country on a daily basis; he could not be more wrong. Since January of 2005 an average of 193 Iraqi police and security forces personnel are killed each month. The worst month for American forces was 137 in November of 2004 and the average American killed per month since the start of the war is 65. Over 19,000 Iraqi civilians have died since January of 2005. In September of this year 3,389 civilians died.

Mr Levin wants to have his cake and eat it too on public opinion; he and other democrats say the public has spoken on Iraq and they want change, but then says he does not care if there is support for a near term redeployment. He then goes on to imply other democratic members of congress would be willing to ignore public opinion on the matter.


Nancy Pelosi said on the November 8 Newshour:
"So what is being accomplished by our being there? A responsible redeployment outside of Iraq, at the same time disarming the militia, amending the constitution, so that more people feel a part of the new government, and, again, building diplomatic relationships in the area to bring stability and reconstruction to Iraq is really a path we have to go down. The president -- victory is elusive. Victory is subjective. What does he mean by "victory"?"

First, Ms. Pelosi, the White House has said clearly what it considers victory, you just don't like the answer: MR. SNOW: No, I think what he was talking about is security objectives, but victory still is an Iraq that can sustain, defend and govern itself. (White House Press briefing November 10, 2006)

This is something the President has stated consistently. This "what is victory?" zen riddle posed by cut and run democrats is getting old. It is simply a way of tearing down a stated plan without offering one of their own, except of course to sell the Iraqis in to desolation and still blame George Bush.

Second, dear Speaker, how do you plan on disarming the militias? I'm sure we will wait until hell freezes over for an answer from Pelosi, Murtha, ET AL, on how to disarm the militias/insurgents without American military might to back up the Iraqi security forces. You see kids, they have it exactly ass-backwards: Disarm, control, hold, turn over, THEN you start a phased pull out.

You don't have to be Patton or a military historian to figure this out, even though in this case the vast majority of generals and experts agree. Just ask former CentCom Commander Anthony Zinni, retired Army Major General John Batiste, former Clinton administration NSC member Kenneth M. Pollack and, Current CentCom Commander General John Abizaid, to name a few. By he way, Iraq Defense Minister Abdul-Qadir al-Obaidi has publicly stated that U.S. forces pulling back and handing security over to Iraqi forces at this point is not a good idea.

Demoractic leaders are learning (I hope) that both the public and the experts agree that "change of direction" does not equal "cut and run."

Friday, November 17, 2006

Telling it like it is

The following comment and reply at Moonbattery regarding the sad and sophomoric post on Reason says it all for the libertarian position and why they get fewer votes than John Murtha running for Majority Leader:

Posted by: chsw10605 at November 14, 2006 03:33 PM

Theocratic Iran is social conservatism's logical end state--the only difference being the fictional work from which the government's fatwas are divined. The ideology is pure mysticism: a toxic brew of anti-science, anti-reason, and anti-intellectualism.

The incessant, goofball cries from social conservatives (like you) for war against Islam differ in no meaningful way from Iran's incessant, goofball cries for war against Judaism. It's a perverse philosophy of perpetual war, against enemies who can't be identified, for reasons that can't be defined.

Keep this in mind the next time you find yourself so befuddled over why on earth somebody might vote libertarian instead of republican.
=============================================================================
Posted by: Van Helsing at November 14, 2006 03:43 PM

Oh, yeah. Social conservatives using the Democratic process to defend the traditional definition of marriage is exactly the same as the ayatollah's stoning homosexuals to death. Social conservatives using the democratic process to protect unborn life is exactly the same as imams forcing girls to undergo genital mutilation. Social conservatives using the democratic process to stop molesters from taking their underage girlfriends across state lines to get abortions is exactly the same as virtue police honor-killing girls for talking to non-Muslims. Social conservatives using the democratic process to protest lifestyle indoctrination in the public schools are exactly the same as suicide bombers blowing up Israeli schoolkids.

Also, the answer to all of society's problems are open borders and drug legalization.

Keep this in mind the next time you find yourself so befuddled over why on earth somebody would vote republican instead of libertarian.
=====================================================================================
Some folks can say in a paragraph what others cannot get across in an entire book. Bravo.

Jose Padillas' Victim Status in danger

The above Washington Post story from today reports U.S. officials say Abu Zubaydah is the person who ratted out "poor Jose Padilla." Shortly after he was captured, U.S. officials said Zubaydah was believed to be a recruiter for Al Qaida (Although I must admit, between Padilla and "shoebomber" Richard Ried he was clearly not administering MENSA test to potential recruits).

Dear Mssrs. Murtha and Levin:

Before you continue your cut and run campaign on "behalf of our sevicemen and women" read this. (Hat Tip Jonah Goldberg at The Corner)

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Milton Friedman, Rest in Peace

Check out Murtha pic on CNN.com

Murtha is one unhappy man. Video from MSNBC here.

This is more than a rejection of Murtha on ethics; His stand on Iraq took a real beating, not only from General Abizaid, but many others; read here and here and here.

His Okinawa idea made even some in his camp on the war wonder if he was thinking before speaking, but then he repeated it often enough to toss aside his credibility, since last year we reached an agreement to reduce troop numbers in Okinawa.

As I said last week, the leftist democratic leadership rode into power on the backs of moderate/conservative democratic candidates, including a number of vets, some who served in Iraq and dammed well know the score better than Murtha and Levin.

In my opinion, this was 146 democrats saying "Keep your committee assignments and pork, we will not sell our ethics, our military and the people of Iraq out for a nice office and a bridge back home." I'm not blind and I understand promises were made by Hoyer, but they had a choice between corrupt and left or moderate and no skeletons. Good for them.

Murtha goes down in flames

Not even close for majority leader 149-86...A slap down for Pelosi as well?

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

The Murtha Shuffle

Just watched John Murtha on Chris Matthew's Hardball despite the fact you could see Matthews' testicles shrinking as the interview went on. Murtha did the classic "What 800 pound gorilla?" while Matthews gave "his friend" more free passes than a hall monitor on the take (Remember, Matthews worked for Tip O'Neill; it is alleged that O'Neill helped bail out Murtha when he was caught on tape during the ABSCAM sting turning down a cash bribe but reserving the right to change his mind). His story about whether or not he considered it a bribe attempt at the time and why he did not report it has evolved over the years, not to mention what he thought was going on:

MATTHEWS: But what do you mean when you said I'm not interested at this point. I'm not interested maybe at some point?
MURTHA: No, no, listen.
MATTHEWS: Thats on the tape.
MURTHA: I know, but what I said was I want to continue to talk to you guys, I want investment in the district. That's all I was interested in.
MATTHEWS: But did you smell corruption in that conversation?
MURTHA: Sure. I saw these guys were trying to corrupt me and trying to...
MATTHEWS: ... Did you think they were legitimate emissaries for an Arab big shot or did you think they were...
MURTHA: They were the slimiest guys I've ever seen.
MATTHEWS: Well why didn't you walk out of the room the minute you met them?
MURTHA: Well listen, they said they were going to invest in the district.

Now Murtha on the ABSCAM tape (verbatim):

MURTHA: Let's be honest about it. This poor son of a bitch could be killed
tomorrow, and you know I could be in it, and forget about it and so forth. Or,
but when I make a fuckin' deal I want to make sure that I know exactly what I'm
doing and either I can do something for you or I cannot do something for you.
And what I'm sayin' is, a few investments in my district, a few, you know, is
big to me, to this guy apparently is not too big, to a couple banks there which
would get their attention. And investment in a business where you could
legitimately say to me -- when I say legitimately, I'm talking about so
these bastards up here can't say to me, well, why, in eight years from now,
that's possible, we'd never hear a thing for eight years, but all at once, ah,
some dumb bastard would, ah, go start talking eight years from now, ah, about
the whole thing and say, "Jesus Christ, ah, this happened," then he, then he, in
order to get immunity so he doesn't go to jail, he starts talking and fingering
people and then the son of a bitch all falls apart.
(Italics added)


About three minutes later Murtha tells the undercover agents:

"A business commitment that makes it imperative for me to help him. Just, let me
tell you something. I'm sure if -- and there's a lot of things I've done up
here, with environmental regulations, with all kinds of waivers of laws and
regulations. If it weren't for being in the district, people would say... "Well
that son of a bitch, I'm gonna tell you something....This guy is, uh, you know,
on the take." Well once they say that, what happens? Then they start going
around looking for the goddamn money. So I want to avoid that by having some tie
to the district. That's all. That's the secret to the whole thing."


What is underreported is the fact that this is small stuff compared to the tens of millions Murtha helped funnel to clients in the defense industry represented by his brother. This guy potentially did the same or similar things Duke Cunningham is now in in prison for, disgraced and rightfully so. By the way - anyone who says this is a "swiftvetting" of Murtha is either absurdly uninformed or only cares about ethics when it does no harm to his or her party. Period.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Another NRO Hat Tip

Somehow missed this on my Guardian RSS feed; Al Qaida wants to nuke UK?

Reason?

A putrid post and comments at the Reason web site. (Texas Hat Tip to John Podhoretz at The Corner)

Designer Babies

I first heard about this for about five minutes when I was in my car today listening to Rush (yea, yea, get over it). Before I go any further, let me lay out a few things: I am a pro choice conservative when it comes to early term pregnancy (I know many disagree, passionately, but I don't argue it, it's how I feel); I am against partial birth abortion and late term abortion in general.

But this, like embryonic stem cell research, brings a new ethical dynamic to the issue: Is a human life that suffers from disease or defect worth less than one that does not suffer any debilitating afflictions?

I think I am qualified to speak on this since my daughter was born with a non-fatal, but disfiguring birth defect, a cleft lip and palate. She went through two major and painful surgeries before she was 14 months old, had another when she was 16 and still yet must have another. She has a pathological fear of needles because of what she went through over the years, suffered through so many ear infections she has significant hearing loss and will never be scar free, something not insignificant for an otherwise normal blond haired, blue eyed 19 year old.

Like the lady in the article, I held her in my arms while she cried from pain, physical at first, sometimes emotional later. I help hold her down when IV's were inserted and injections given and held her in my arms post surgery when a child who could not yet speak with her mouth spoke pain and suffering with her eyes, though too weak to cry.

I spent countless hours teaching her about the importance of walking with dignity when sometimes cruel children would point out scars, a nose that was not normal, slightly off enunciation and the like. She went through countless rounds of tubes being placed in her ears to cope with the endless ear infections that come with the condition. She had to wait until 16 to have a significantly deviated septum repaired. I know about a child suffering physically and emotionally because of not being born absolutely pink and perfect; and I would do it all over again.

Should Steven Hawkings' mother have terminated her pregnancy based on the fact he would end up with ALS? Should we euthanize children brain damaged in car accidents? I know some will say I am talking out both sides of my mouth on this, being pro choice. So be it. This is about what value do we place on the weak or imperfect. It makes me wish I could believe in absolutes so I could sleep a little better at night when such matters come to mind.

Rich Lowry on the elections at NRO

I am not that jazzed about endless election post mortems, but this one caught my attention, primarily because I rarely disagree with Lowry on anything of substance (Though I doubt he scores his success on what I think).

The points I disagree with (Link to article in headline):

Lowry says conservatives lost because independents broke against them, not conservatives; this is true to the extent that independents did vote in larger numbers for democrats last week. However, I think an argument that independents who cannot distinguish between the republican congress and democrat moderates, coupled with a general dissatisfaction drove the independents into waiting democratic arms. Now stay with me for a minute before saying I missed the point.

In the very next segment he says republicans not being fiscally conservative enough was not a factor and then goes on to ask what meaningful cuts republicans could have made. This is the liberal argument for unfettered spending. Republicans could have spoke with one voice about earmarks, about bridges to nowhere, about out of control agriculture spending and the endless, endless list. Lowry has been around long enough to know how perception in politics works.

Where were the republicans speaking out against out of control spending on pet projects? When I sent a letter to my Senator, Kay Hutchinson, inquiring about her stand on spending transparency, I received back a rather snotty and condescending letter (about three months later) more or less saying government was transparent enough and since she was not on that committee, she had no stand on the issue anyway (I am going to find, scan and post the letter).

So the two ideas (independent flight and a lack of conservative representation in the congress) tie together in my eyes. I think denying this leads republicans away from the path to power, not closer.

Monday, November 13, 2006

John Murtha--"Not at the moment."


I read the transcript and watched the videotape regarding John Murtha's meeting with FBI undercover agents during the ABSCAM Investigation. I think all should view it and make up our own minds as to the exact nature of the wrongdoing.

I will say this: Anyone who views this in the context of the way some Bush nominees (including Bolton and Pickering) were treated by democratic committee members over rumors and innuendo and still thinks Murtha should be Majority Leader without further inquiries is outright intellectually dishonest (bythe way, not a word about Murtha's Marine service; Randy Cunningham served his country at least as well and bravely yet still sold out for a few dollars). Also, even if the law did not require it--which it does--why did Murtha not forthwith report what was clearly an attempted bribe?

The New York Times ran a story about a nice little voting flea market Murtha runs from the Hill; Murtha has convicted Marines accused of war crimes, though military tribunals are still investigating and finally today an article from The Hill about Murtha's record for gorging at the defense pork buffet.

This is not about Murtha's war record or love of country. I'm sure Cunningham loves America too. But Democrats over the past six years have set the standard for how we question those who want to serve in powerful positions in government (for instance, Trent Lott).

It's also strange how six months before announcing publicly he would like to be majority leader if the dems took control of congress, he took the nearly identical position on Iraq as Nancy Pelosi, who even then was the Speaker shoe-in for democrats and accepted a "courage award from Code Pink. Not "let's fix it", not "let's find a new direction or strategy" but "let's get out ASAP." If not damning, an interesting coincidence.

Gateway Pundit: Despite Global Oil Crisis, Dems Will Block Drilling & Exploration!

Gateway Pundit: Despite Global Oil Crisis, Dems Will Block Drilling & Exploration!

Just a question

I did a LexisNexis search for United States Senators, Representatives who said before the start of the war in Iraq, the one most of them voted for, if any predicted it would lead to more terrorists. Care to guess the result?

Care to guess how many predicted a large, well organized insurgency?

Did John Kerry? John Murtha? Nancy Pelosi?

Now, when I searched for how many said before the Bush administration said Saddam was a dangerous tyrant and had to go, what do you think I found? Do your own google search, LexisNexis, whatever and get back to me. First correct answer get a trip to realityville.

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Judy Collins Benefit for landmine victims

I normally subscribe to Laura Ingram's "Shut up and Sing!" philosophy when it comes to entertainers of any political stripe, but Clear Path International is something we can all get behind.

Buy "Shut up and Sing" by Laura Ingram

Friday, November 10, 2006

Former Homeland Sec Tom Ridge

Opines on Rumsfeld, Robert Gates and the elections.

Khamenei calls Bush defeat a victory for Iran

Texas Hat-Tip to Threats Watch.

Now Al Qaeda in Iraq leader "gloats" over Bush lame duck status, Rumsfeld resignation.

Meanwhile John Murtha wasted no time in saying he will do all he can to make sure all some said would happen with a democratic takeover is going to happen:

"What we have to do is give a deadline to the Iraqis," Murtha said, adding
that he favored opening an investigation into how Bush's White House entered
and managed the war in Iraq.
(Link to full story above)

It's not enough to have the 9/11 Commission, which also looked at pre and post war intelligence, and the Iraq Study Group; someone has to pay - starting to get the picture?

So while leftist democrats who rode to power on the backs of moderate-posing democratic candidates prepare for jihad, the head of MI5 in Britain says there will still be terrorist - even without a republican majority.

A family veterans day


The Honor Guard when my father, an Air Force Veteran was laid to rest on a spring Texas day.





My Father-in-law Lt. Col. Walter E. Bjorneby (USAF, Ret.), Vietnam Vet and by his 104.






Happy Birthday to the United States Marine Corps and Hopes for a safe return home to My Son-in-law Cpl. John Barrier, USMC, currently in Okinawa.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Restore ethics to congress??

(Photo montage from TCS Daily)

TCS Daily on Speaker-Elect Pelosi's new House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chair? Oh boy kids, here we go.

I may be behind the curve on this

Put some really good stuff from US News & World Report on post-9/11 intelligence.

Some did not abandon Conservative values...


Or the truth, as Kathryn Jean Lopez posts on The Corner.

Was he right about everything? Of course not; but he was a man of his word and refused to pander to win.

John Bolton out as UN Ambassador?

This is bad, bad and worse. Is the big cave really underway already? Thanks for nothing ex-senator Lincoln Chafee; even when you don't have a job to lose you can't do the right thing.

UPDATE: Chafee not sure if he will stay in GOP - gee, that's a shock. (Texas Hat-Tip to KJ at the Corner)

Just too good for one link

Over at GatewayPundit there are just too many good posts for only one link, check them all out.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

The Fall


(My Thoughts after a post election day off)

From many in the blog world to Sen. Arlen Specter they just don't seem to get it.

Allow me paraphrase: "Scandals, Iraq, Rumsfeld, move center, move right, taken to the woodshed, off message, on message, Bush helped, Bush hurt..."

The Wall Street Journal Editors get it. I hope the GOP leadership gets it quick as 2008 is right around the corner.

So far Rush and the National Review seem the only other national voices with a firm, unwavering handle on this: Republicans lost because conservatives felt sold out by the leadership in the House, to an extent, and to a larger degree by the Senate leadership.

Go back 1997-98 when republicans in a state of panic started the process of and ultimately succeeded in throwing Newt Gingrich overboard because they only had a 12 member lead in the House and 10 in the Senate after midterm elections; Think they would take that now?

After the 1998 election many republican leaders and even some evangelicals called for Gingrich's ouster, while many others started the drum beat for a retreat to the "center" on many issues. Remember, this is the same Speaker who presided over welfare reform, the balanced budget and the successful implementation of the majority of The Contract with America; in other words, promises made and kept on a conservative agenda.

Then in 2002 everyone from Don Nickles to National Review joined the call for Trent Lott to walk the plank to satisfy a political constituency that, a) would never, ever support a conservative agenda anyway and b) supported a party that then and now counts among its ranks a former klan leader with a documented record of racist remarks in years past and who was instrumental in the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Yet republicans and the conservative media ate their own for a stray remark rather than fighting back. (By the way, I don't mean to beat up on National Review, a magazine I first subscribed to longer ago than I care to remember and I read NRO on a daily basis; I simply try to show that even the best of us can sometimes embrace the short term to our detriment)

Many pundits, talking heads and republicans said Lott would damage the conservative agenda - it's done so well since under Bill Frist and company.

Two years later, Nickles announce his retirement and, despite denials to the contrary went on to found his own lobbying group.

Since the Denny Hastert and later Bill Frist eras began the republican congress transformed into a mark-up paradise with some republican members even holding up transparency legislation designed to better allow taxpayers to see where their money is spent. All levels of spending have gone through the roof and during this election cycle a number of representatives, senators and republican candidates ran away from President Bush and the war on terror. They may have fallen anyway, but I can't respect people who run from who they are or who they represented themselves to be when elected to begin with.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Tracking Texas Races via MYSA.com

Governor's Race about as expected (more of the same). I am one conservative who thinks our republican Governor is a RINO sell-out. See ya at the ranch Kinky....

Very large turnout in my precinct

Looks like good turnout in San Antonio and around the State, not a lot of problems reported so far; when I left my precinct the line was twice as long as when I arrived. Voted with my 19 year old daughter for first time--I remember when she was in kindergarten standing in line with me as I voted in the 1992 Presidential. Wow.

Philadelphia Inquirer Readers: Near Chaos at Some Polling Places

GrassrootsPa has additional coverage.

UPDATE: RedState.com has more

Gateway Pundit: MO Update: Turnout High, Polls Are Busy in Missouri

Gateway Pundit: MO Update: Turnout High, Polls Are Busy in Missouri; Pay close attention to ACORN voter fraud stories embedded within posts. Great Job Jim!

Not enough Republican Ballots in NM?

This is in an area with a very tight race for Heather Wilson, (R) NM. Only 150 ballots published initially according to Karl Rove on Sean Hannity.

Michael Kinsley: Dems have NO PLAN


Where's the beef Nancy?


Hat tip to Captain's Quarters.

Election Day Link Blowout


Gateway Pundit for coverage on the Talent-McCaskill race in Missouri;

Election Projection is gloomy on GOP chances, but a great site;

GOP Senators has great information and links to state-by-state poll hours and results;

The Corner at NRO;

PoliticsCentral , and;

all the others on my blog roll. More later, off to polls.

Monday, November 06, 2006

The war choice

Does the palatability of (a) war define alone whether or not it is justified? Surely if that is the bar we set, no war ever is or ever was justified. Can you run a war by saying "this many casualties and no more?" Presidents sometimes have to place national priorities above the lives of good men, husbands, sons and fathers. It is unimaginable to think about the weight this must place on one's soul.

In his superb work When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome, Richard E. Rubenstein notes Constantine's deathbed baptism: "Like many other powerful figures, Constantine had not wanted to become fully a Christian while faced with the necessity (as he saw it) to sin." Constantine understood what so many in the current administration surely know:

Leaders send young men to die, knowing many will passionately, even violently disagree with their actions; there is no "good" war or, more often than not, even agreement on what is a "just" war. Two people can look at the same circumstances and draw opposite conclusions and this is why as a nation we delegate power to the elected and hopefully responsive few to make the hard choices that brings bile to the throat and bad dreams at night.

Robert S. McNamara's anguish regarding Vietnam, decades after he resigned, shows a man haunted by decisions made in the Johnson administration by he and others and in regard to his choice not to speak out or speak more aggressively when he sensed things were spinning out of control. To this day he is called names like "primary civilian death deliverer" by the likes of Mother Sheehan in this factually crippled article.

Can we doubt that any wartime president in our history, unable to vet their own doubts in public, suffered in private?

Are the many bright men and women, some young, some not so young anymore, who reenlists in the military noble fools for signing on to the current mission (after all - when you sign up during wartime is that not exactly what you are doing)? Were the men and women who served in Vietnam, 70% volunteers, patriotic fools?

Too many want to TiVo history and abandon Iraq to chaos because of the ugly way solders, Terrorist and, yes, civilians die.

In the wake of the CNN sniper video, obtained from and in collaboration with the very people killing our solders, we learned that it was judged required viewing by the American left because of the preposterous idea that we hicks in fly-over country did not know that 7.62mm round will blow a person's brains out; further, when we realized this it would be a moment of clarity for those of us who previously did not think abandoning Iraqis to wholesale civil war and slaughter was a good idea.

In reality it is the left who needed the reality check; they are the ones who wanted a clean, simple, quick war and transition from decades of absolute, cruel and murderous dictatorship to democracy and now cry foul that it did not happen. For those who claimed this is what they were promised by some in the current administration, they are correct, many did imply the very scenario the left craves now; many predictions made by the FDR administration and its generals and admirals failed to come to pass, yet the loyal opposition in America did not use this as a basis to call for pulling out of the war in Europe or the Pacific.

Sometimes doing the right thing is agonizing and painful beyond words and doing the wrong thing is even worse.

Saturday, November 04, 2006

Gateway Pundit: On Donald Rumsfeld

Gateway Pundit: Donald Rumsfeld... The Best Defense Secretary Ever!

Great post and has some graphs and stats that are relevant to my earlier post on CNN and the sniper video.
Bob

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Jon Stewart on the Daily Show: Terrorists don't kill troops, republicans do!

On the November 1 Daily Show, Jon Stewart joined the rush to defend John Kerry with a putrid segment (It may take a moment to load).

He makes a punchline out of American casualties and says republicans and the administration are the ones "really responsible for hurting (the troops in Iraq) by not giving them what they need in the field." He also prefaces it by saying he does not understand why "people" (presumably the troops) are so upset over a "botched joke" (is Kerry a writer for Stewart now?) that "might have hurt some feelings."

Might? So now maybe, perhaps, some feelings were hurt, but it's all kind of silly, right? Like ABC News, Jon Stewart knows our troops don't have any real reason to be upset at being transformed from the best and the brightest (a term liberals love when shedding Clinton tears over war casualties) to the dreadful and dim-witted in the eyes of John Kerry, a man who made elitist if not outright racist remarks about the potential composition of an all-volunteer army in 1972.

Stewart's comedic musings also leaves one to wonder if he ever watched any of the myriad videos of IED attacks available on the 'net, often videotaped by the insurgent/terrorist who set them off. In this example an Abrams Battle Tank equipped with depleted uranium armor (for Stewart and his viewers: that means really, really advanced armor) is hit by what appears to be an unexploded bomb. The outcome is not good. Their fantasy about there being armor enough to protect soldiers and marines when tens to hundreds of pounds of explosives are going off beside or underneath their vehicles once again shows either astounding ignorance of basic physics or a cynical manipulation of the deaths of American servicemen to support their agenda -- yet they call taking Kerry to task for his latest (and indeed decades of) military bashing remarks a sign of desperation? Right.


Stewart is either too afraid or unwilling, along with most of the media, to face facts. Our troops have a 90% survival rate in Iraq. NINETY PERCENT. That's a better survival rate than restrained passengers in automobile accidents for Pete's sake. Yet they want us to believe our troops' equipment and armor is the equivalent of t-shirts and Bermuda shorts and Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush just don't care. In fact, it's a big inside joke with those callous bastards.

But when Stewart and his sidekick Colbert ("104 more job openings in October") make jokes out of military deaths, it's okay.

UPDATE: Factcheck.org on body armor issues.

Terrorist: "Pelosi exit plan will not make us leave"


In an exclusive on World Net Daily Terrorist leaders say the fight against America will continue even if we leave Iraq, the antithesis of Pelosi's prediction on 60 Minutes.

Can we stand a Pelosi-Mother Sheehan foreign policy?

Are democrats are overplaying their hand on Iraq, with smug certainty of a House takeover? We have a party that wants to leave a country in chaos with no protection whatsoever and the electorate may give them the chance to try it?

Republicans are saying the base is energized and the turnout will be similar to 2004. God, I hope so.

If not, will the same people who want out now cry for intervention when it goes to wholesale slaughter in Iraq? When Turkey decides to move against the Kurds in the north of Iraq? When women in Iraq lose all basic human rights?

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Mitt Romney on Kerry

On Fox & Friends this morning said if Kerry WAS referring to Bush it puts him "In the Hugo Chavez camp." Brilliant.

Harold Ford

Calling for Kerry to apologize? Reported about 5 minutes ago on MSNBC.