Friday, March 31

2 sides

I have my opinions on race relations. As I see it, there are generally two sides.

One side is totally obsessed with race. Their identity as human beings is rooted in the color of their skin and they are consumed with the sins of the past. They stand continuously at the ready to cry racism while routinely claiming to be victims.

The other side judges everyone on their actions, their deeds and their contributions to the world, rather than skin color. This group acknowledges past wrongs and accepts them, but teaches individual responsibility and independence.

While I am a proud member of the second group, I think Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) is a card-carrying member of the first. As is actor Danny Glover, who reportedly will be at McKinney's side at a news conference scheduled for 5.30pm today.

After punching a Capitol Hill police officer earlier in the week, her lawyer said today that Ms. McKinney "was just a victim of being in Congress while black."

From the AP:

"Attorney James W. Myart Jr., said, "Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, like thousands of average Americans across this country, is, too, a victim of the excessive use of force by law enforcement officials because of how she looks and the color of her skin."

There certainly ARE victims in this case. Ms. McKinney PUNCHED a police officer who was attempting to do his job. He has most certainly been victimized, as have the residents of Georgia's 4th Congressional District who continue to be under-represented by this cretin.

'mr. self destruct'

"...The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order."

That's what five FISA judges told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday.

They also testified that the President could come under fire from Congress and the Supreme Court if it can be proven that the spying wasn't necessary in order to protect national security. That's fair. If al Qaeda agents are placing telephone calls into the United States that very much is a national security issue no matter how one chooses to slice it.

I wonder what Senator Russ Feingold is going to have to say about this testimony, other than calling John Dean to testify that Bush's alleged 'crimes' are 'worse' than anything Nixon ever did? The Senator has introduced legislation that seeks to censure the President based on the assertion that the foreign wiretapping program is 'illegal.'

Talk about a tin ear. Is this guy serious? The Democrats STILL don't get it. Criticizing the President for LEGAL activity? Not only is Feingold a stupid politician, he's also a dishonest man.

Is it November yet?

Thursday, March 30

chillin' in cancun

President Bush with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper today inside the Temple of Jaguars in Chichen Itza, Mexico.

Wednesday, March 29

awe and wonder

Check out today's solar eclipse of the Moon!! Eclipses occur when it -- the Moon -- crosses the face of Sun as seen from your (or yours, or yours, or your) viewpoint on the Earth.

This stuff amazes me. We're really talking some PRECISION here, when the Sun and the Moon and the Earth all line up PERFECTLY. And yet some so-called 'smart' people REALLY believe the universe just happened? Like it was one big accident?

I'm not buyin' it. That's too random for me. Too many variables. I think there's some extra-intelligent design in there someplace. That's what I think.


Today is indeed a sad day for every hot blooded, beer swillin,' chicken wing eatin,' big breasted-bubble butt-waitress oglin' American male within sight of this Blog.

Hooters Air is no more. After just three short, glorious years in the air, the 'Big Breasts In The Sky' now offer private charter service ONLY out of Winston-Salem, N.C.

'lacking in details'

Have you heard about the Democrats' new national security plan? Even says it is 'lacking in details.'

First, the Democrats promise to vote to implement ALL of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which would boost ports, airports, chemical and nuclear power plants, on mass transit systems and at the border.

They promise 'to hold Bush accountable' which presumably means they'll grow some balls and go for impeachment.

About Iraq, the Democrats rip Bush for going to Iraq in the first place, then they talk about 'manipulated' intelligence -- yes, the very same intelligence they, themselves voted for. Yet, the new 'plan' offers no specifics on what they would do differently, aside from some empty rhetoric about "responsible redeployment" of U.S. troops and a "significant" transition to full Iraqi sovereignty. Hello? The White House is already doing those things.

Can't the Democrats read the paper and keep up with current events? Note to the DNC -- we've already TOPPLED THE TALIBAN.

I saw Pelosi and Reid, but noticeably absent from this 'major event' today were 'courageous' Democrats like Rep. John Murtha who claims that our military is 'broken,' and Senator Russ Feingold who wants to censure President Bush for successfully defending the country from Islamic radicals.

"We are uniting behind a national security agenda that is tough and smart, an agenda that will provide the real security President Bush has promised, but failed to deliver," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, (D-NV)"

'Failed to deliver' security? How? Have we been attacked again since 9/11? Democrats are so 'tough' and so 'smart' they oppose the Patriot Act. Democrats oppose every counter-terrorism method currently used by the Bush Administration. Democrats oppose wiretapping phone calls made by al Qaeda members to people already within the United States. And Democrats oppose interrogation techniques that are revealing actionable intelligence resulting in foiling terror plots both inside and outside the U.S. How, exactly, is this being 'tough' and 'smart'?

CLAIMING to be serious about national security while opposing real measures to prevent terror on American soil only reinforces the lack of credibility Democrats possess on the subject. While continuing to play games with national security, the Left proclaim themselves to be neither 'tough' nor 'smart.'

At least they feel compelled to introduce veritable 'plans' every couple of months, just to remind us of their existence. Not that its worth reading.


Yesterday Ehud Olmert and the political party he co-founded with Ariel Sharon, Kadima, won the 2006 Israel general election. Today, Olmert began negotiations with the number two party, Labor, and attempted to figure out a way to form a new coalition government.

Since Kadima won fewer seats than expected -- 28 -- 'the party might have to give Labor one or even two of the top four portfolios of Foreign Affairs, Defense, Finance and Education.'

According to the JPost, Treasury is off limits because of Labor leader Amir Peretz.

"There is a limit to what the economy can tolerate," an Olmert associate said. "Peretz has a history of paralyzing the economy with strikes, so if he were appointed, the stock market would collapse."

violence gets us nowwhere...

Drudge and Hotline are reporting...

"Congresswoman McKinney Punches Police Officer... MORE... Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) punched a U.S. Capitol Police officer today after he mistakenly pursued her for failing to pass through a metal detector, HOTLINE reports... The entire incident is on tape. The cop is pressing charges and the USCP are waiting until Congress adjourns to arrest her, a source claims... Developing..."

From Hotline:

"Members are not required to pass through metal detectors and the officer, manning a position at Longworth House Office Building, apparently did not recognize McKinney and didn't see her Member pin.

The officer called out "Ma'am, Ma'am," in an attempt to stop her.

When the officer caught up to McKinney, he grabbed her by the arm.

McKinney pulled her arm away, swung around, cell phone in hand, and punched the officer square in the chest, according to the witness.

McKinney's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment."

5 years, 10 months

Yeah, he's a bad guy for sure. Jack Abramoff is going to prison for nearly six years for some crap he did in Florida. He sure does look a lot like my friend Andre.

Sorry Dude.

meathead quits

Under fire for improperly spending $23 million of taxpayer funds, Rob Reiner resigned as chairman of the First 5 California Children and Families Commission.

Reiner controlled how funds were spent to pay for advertising campaigns highlighting preschool when he was promoting a referendum for the June 2006 ballot that would guarantee preschool for 4-year-olds.

'waiting bush out'

Amir Taheri writes an incredible piece in todays WSJ called 'The Last Helicopter,' which chronicles the widely held belief across the Middle East that America will return to the foreign policy of the past after President Bush leaves office in 2009.

What has brought on this type of thinking? According to Taheri, 'Mr. Bush's plan to help democratize the heartland of Islam is fading under an 'avalanche of partisan attacks inside the U.S.'

I agree. Democrats don't seem to understand how damaging their posturing against all-things-Bush has been. It goes beyond politics and beyond mere dissent; What the Democrats have been doing for nearly four years is to undermine American foreign policy, weakening us in the eyes of the world and coming perilously close to preventing true reform in the Middle East from occurring.

Now the idea among influential Arab leaders -- like Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- is that Bush is seen as such a radical, at odds with most of the world AND even his own country -- the Muslim world must simply wait for the day Bush leaves office, fully expecting that America's Middle East foreign policy will return to the pre-Bush days of feckless inactivity.

The helicopter reference comes from pivotal events in recent American foreign policy -- the last American helicopter leaving Saigon (ending the Vietnam War) under Ford; five helicopters fleeing the Iranian desert after a badly botched rescue attempt of American hostages under Carter; helicopters carrying the bodies of 241 Marines murdered in their sleep in a Hezbollah suicide attack when Reagan was President; a helicopter carrying General Norman Schwarzkopf left southern Iraq at the conclusion of the Gulf War under the first President Bush; and the Black Hawk, downed in Mogadishu and delivering 16 American soldiers into the hands of a murderous crowd, under Clinton -- the perception that America will always cut and run from the Middle East whenever faced with mounting casualties.

This type of thinking is causing Middle Eastern behavior to change. Rather than continuing to embrace reform, the region appears to be slipping back into old habits. For example, Syria has refused to follow the example of Libya by opting to turn over its weapons program. The Saudis are focusing on economic, rather than political, reform. Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf has lifted restrictions on popular political parties and have allowed exiled leaders to return. In Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai is now courting Iran and 'playing the Pushtun ethnic card against his rivals.' In Turkey, democratization is now suddenly going in 'reverse.'

Taheri writes:

"Even in Iraq the sentiment that the U.S. will not remain as committed as it has been under Mr. Bush is producing strange results. While Shiite politicians are rushing to Tehran to seek a reinsurance policy, some Sunni leaders are having second thoughts about their decision to join the democratization process. "What happens after Bush?" demands Salih al-Mutlak, a rising star of Iraqi Sunni leaders. The Iraqi Kurds have clearly decided to slow down all measures that would bind them closer to the Iraqi state. Again, they claim that they have to "take precautions in case the Americans run away."

All of this suggests to me that the Bush approach to the Middle East has been correct all along. If Arab democracy fails, despite the best efforts of the Administration, blame will rest squarely on the shoulders of a bunch of obstructionist Democrats and their allies in the Leftist American media.

Tuesday, March 28


Sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction. Click the above headline to view amusing video footage of some uninformed anti-war zealots.

Big props to Michelle Malkin who captures the vacuity of Cindy Sheehan.

And the guy (pictured above) claiming to be in 'solidarity' with Abu Ghraib prisoners by walking with his hands behind his back? Great stuff!!!

I love laughter.

random thoughts for a tuesday

They are dropping like flies. Yesterday former Reagan advisor, political consultant and press secretary, the trusted Lyn Nofziger. Today former Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger. Both great men. Weinberger is a big part of the Reagan legacy in that he was involved in the build up of the American military which ended the Cold War.

President Bush's chief of staff Andy Card is now President Bush's FORMER chief of staff. This guy has to be really tired. Nobody can possibly work 18 hour days forever. A new rested chief of staff, in the person of Josh Bolton, will be good for the White House.

What the hell to make of these immigration protests? I never thought I would see American citizens advocating blanket rights for non-citizens. Our society and our politicians have foolishly allowed entitlements to get totally out of control. None of these illegals have earned the right to live here or to sponge off the system...our schools, our health care system. BUT, they certainly are a big part of the American economy. There is no easy solution to this problem. While I'm normally a black and white guy on most issues, immigration is an issue in possession of veritable shades of gray.

Have you heard that the actor Sean Penn has an Ann Coulter voodoo doll? Interesting. My first question is why? What's the point? Hate is such a waste of time. Such negative energy. Penn is one of the best actors EVER. He has critical acclaim, his choice of work, his health, a hot wife and more money than he could ever spend in several lifetimes. What on earth could he possibly be THAT pissed off about? Penn details his treatment of his 'Ann doll' in The New Yorker: "We violate her. There are cigarette burns in some funny places."

That reminds me of my friend Andre who once told me that he would pay to see Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft 'gang raped.' That is some sick shit.

And how's this for wisdom: actor Sharon Stone tells teenagers 'If you're in a situation where you cannot get out of sex, offer a blow job.'

Monday, March 27


According to Zacarias Moussaoui he and shoe bomber Richard Reid were to have been behind the controls of a fifth hijacked plane on 9/11.

Today's riveting testimony, about crashing the plane into the White House, stunned the courtroom. Moussaoui also now claims that he initially lied to investigators in August 2001 about his knowledge of 9/11 because he wanted the attacks to go forward.

He knew the attacks were coming 'sometime after August' but he didn't know the details. He also explained why he signed a guilty plea that named him as 'the 20th hijacker.'

"It was a bit of fun being called [that]."

Sunday, March 26

michael steele

Michael Sokolove does an excellent profile of Maryland Lieutenant Governor (and Senatorial candidate) Michael Steele in today's NY Times Magazine.

Friday, March 24


Madeline Albright writes an op-ed piece in the LA Times, in which she criticizes President Bush, declares that 'there is no Axis of Evil,' and that 'good and bad' isn't a strategy.

This hollow criticism from the former Secretary of State, a woman who collects brooches?

What exactly was the foreign policy of the United States when Albright ran the State Department? From my recollection it was Bill Clinton cozying up to Yasser Arafat and attempting to force Israel into giving Jersusalem to the Palestinians. It was killing innocent civilians while bombing aspirin factories in the Sudan to divert attention away from the lurid stories of Oval Office blowjobs and semen stained dresses. It was the premature pulling out of American troops in Somalia. It was never responding to, or fighting back from terrorist attacks--the first WTC bombing in '93; the embassy bombings throughout the '90s; the U.S.S. Cole bombing that killed 17 American sailors. And has been noted time and time again, the Clinton foreign policy was never concerned with preventing terrorism overseas or on American shores, or even capturing Osama bin Laden when he was offered to the White House by the Sudan AND Syria. Clinton was worried whether or not the United States had jurisdiction over bin Laden, while former Attorney General Janet Reno was afraid of aggravating the American Muslim population.

Quite a foreign policy legacy.

Albright is hardly qualified to judge whether or not a foreign policy is effective or even smart, since hers was neither. And she comes off sounding like just another Democrat. She doesn't have a plan; She has a litany of complaints. Isn't that helpful?

Can Albright find anything positive to say about Iraq? Short answer, no. She writes: "For years, [Bush] has acted as if Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein's followers and Iran's mullahs were parts of the same problem."

Yeah. It's called 'Terrorism,' Madeline. Get a dictionary.

What are we to do about Iran? According to Albright: Nothing. She writes: "In today's warped political environment, nothing strengthens a radical government more than Washington's overt antagonism. It also is common sense to presume that Iran will be less willing to cooperate in Iraq and to compromise on nuclear issues if it is being threatened with destruction."

Wrong again, Madeline. The idea that Iran is intends to 'cooperate in Iraq' is ridiculous given the history of the region.

Curiously absent from this Albright esssay is any mention of North Korea. Let's remember that it was Albright who struck a completely worthless deal with Kim Jong Il which he immediately broke because the world knew that Clinton was a cowardly, ineffectual leader. Albright--she of the tough foreign policy credentials--was snookered badly by Pyongyang.

But that's the type of diplomacy that the Left adores. Talk, and talk and talk, pose for pictures, shake hands with and trust the word of crazy lunatics like Jong Il, embrace pacifism by never taking any decisive or meaningful action, and then be totally surprised and aghast when their half-assed foreign policies blow up in the faces of future Administrations.

Wednesday, March 22

the last 25

Here are the last 25 songs played on my Mac from iTunes...

25. Sparklehorse--850 Double Plumper Holley
24. The Police--Secret Journey
23. South--Broken Head I
22. Toad The Wet Sprocket--Fall Down
21. The Smiths--Meat Is Murder
20. Finger Eleven--Complicated Questions
19. Spiderbait--Black Betty
18. Violent Femmes--Gone Daddy Gone
17. The Dandy Warhols--I Am Sound
16. Led Zeppelin--Fool In The Rain
15. Flyleaf--Fully Alive
14. The Cure--Apart
13. Midnight Oil--Now Or Never Land
12. The Stone Roses--Driving South
11. Beck--Whiskeyclone, Hotel City 1997
10. Johnny Cash--Cry, Cry, Cry
09. Pinback--Fortress
08. Goo Goo Dolls--January Friend
07. Vertical Horizon--Best I Ever Had
06. Nine Inch Nails--Terrible Lie (Sympathetic Mix)
05. Rolling Stones--Let It Bleed
04. The English Beat--Mirror In The Bathroom
03. Oingo Boingo--We Close Our Eyes
02. New Order--Avalanche
01. Marcy Playground--Gone Crazy

moving west...

Meanwhile, according to the AP, there is a report that Israel will be al Qaeda's next 'battleground.'

If true, what does that say about the current status of Iraq? It tells me we're winning.

If true, what will the Left say about it?


Oh, I know. They'll say its BUSH'S FAULT!

losing is not an option

When I hear the Democrats urging President Bush to pull our troops out of Iraq, essentially ceding victory to the terrorists, I always think of one thing. Osama bin Laden's assertion back in 1999 that 'America was a paper tiger.' OBL believes that Americans don't have the political will to win a 'long fight.' I disagree. Republicans have the will to win. Some Democrats don't.

But for the sake of argument, let's just say that the President mistakenly heeds the bad advice of the Left and withdraws from Iraq. What would happen then?

01. America's War On Terror would be over and judged a failure--We would no longer be a Superpower.

02. Terrorists would declare 'open season' on America--It would prove bin Laden was correct about 'American weakness.' Future attacks would dwarf 9/11.

03. The United States would no longer be credible on the issue of weapons proliferation--Without removing Hussein, Libya's Moammar Gadhafi would never have voluntarily disarmed, which led to the discovery of the nuclear network run by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan and Iran's two decades of deception.

Do you think Iran's mullahs will be more or less likely to halt their nuclear experimentation with an American loss in Iraq?

04. Permanent Mideast instability--With America gone from the region, Iran would rapidly (and dangerously) influence Iraqi hardliners like al Sadr and moderates like Al Sistani. Then we really would have civil war.

Syria would unleash on Lebanon and Israel. Iran would wipe Israel 'off the map,' as they have promised. Every country in the Middle East would make their own private deals with the new government of al Qaeda.

05. The end of Muslim reform--Leaving the region would be the ultimate insult on Arabic hearts and minds, the people we've been wooing for five years.

Serious minded politicians, dedicated to the best interests of the United States, should place complete and total American victory in Iraq at the top of their election year agenda.

growing up

Did you hear about the new research study that claims whiny children tend to grow up to be Conservatives, while confident, self reliant kids tend to grow up to be Liberals?

If thats true, how then do we explain that as adults, most Conservatives are confident, self reliant and reality-based, while a majority of Liberals are intolerant idealogues?

Tuesday, March 21

the 'objective' helen thomas

Saturday night I attended a dinner party and was reluctantly dragged into two separate political discussions. I say reluctant because of the propensity of those on the Left to have complete meltdowns when discussing politics in an otherwise neutral environment. I'm at someone's home by invitation. I didn't want to cause a stir. But I aggressively and deftly won the arguments with fact, logic and reason, as always.

True to form, the two Liberals, in attempting to defend the indefensible, threw out the obligatory Leftist buzz words and phrases: 'Fox News,' 'Halliburton,' 'Texas Cowboy,' etc.

Then, to my surprise, they suggested that Helen Thomas was an 'objective journalist' and that because of her 'hard hitting investigative analysis' she had been banned from all White House press events 'years ago.'

That's pretty funny. Especially since President Bush held a press conference this morning and took a question from non other than HELEN THOMAS.

How's this for an 'objective' question?

"All of the reasons you gave for going to war have been proven wrong, so what I want to know is-- why did you really want to go to war?"

Monday, March 20

'why now?'

For weeks, I've been trying to trying to formulate the words into thought, but I couldn't bring all the thoughts together.

But the brilliant Tim Hames of the U.K.'s Times and Sunday Times read my mind and did it for me. He writes today that the 'the tragedy of the Iraq invasion is that there won't be another.'

He writes:

"What should have happened was a showdown in March 1999, four months after the Iraqi dictator expelled UN weapons inspectors. This was the umpteenth violation of the terms under which he had earlier sued for peace and more than enough justification to remove him from power, irrespective of whether France, Germany or Russia had scant enthusiasm for the venture. If America and Britain had acted then, life would have been considerably easier. Delay after that point meant that it could always be asked “why now?” by opponents of intervention. As it was, Bill Clinton, handcuffed by the manner in which he avoided the conflict in Vietnam and shamed by the exposure of his exploits with Monica Lewinsky, could no more launch an assault on Iraq than he might claim membership of the American Celibacy Association."

I agree. Clinton was, and remains, a boob. A real incompetent. History will, and should, judge him harshly.

Hames also tackles the absurd Leftist notion that the liberation of Iraq 'has brought nothing to the Iraqi people except ever increasing death and destruction.'

He says:

"I suppose it depends on how you define “nothing”. If two elections, one constitutional referendum, a free press, an independent judiciary, greater religious liberty, the lifting of economic sanctions, reintegration into the region and the wider international community count for “nothing”, then nothing is a reasonable assessment. As many leaders of the anti-war movement have nothing but contempt for “bourgeois democracy” and hate capitalism and its manifestations, then, for them, “nothing” is entirely accurate."

I think it is going to be hard for any future President to do bold things, to embark on grand experiments, to forge ahead with anything similar to 'The Bush Doctrine.' That would indeed be a tragedy.

Hames sums it up this way:

"And what does this mean in practice? It means no more sadistic totalitarian dictators removed from office. It means no more free and fair elections for those who have never had them. It means no more openings for civic and religious liberty. It means no more chances of a cultural reawakening. Democracy might well progress in parts of the Middle East but, alas, mostly in the states that were most benign to begin with. There is little reason to suppose that the ruling elites in Damascus, Tehran or Tripoli have the cause for fear that they must have briefly felt three years ago. Nor have the people under their yoke any reason for optimism that they might yet escape servitude."

I disagree about that last part. The chapters of the Bush Presidency haven't yet been written about Iran, Syria and Lebanon. Let's wait and see about all that.


"SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME PROVIDED FINANCIAL support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s, according to documents captured in postwar Iraq. An eight-page fax dated June 6, 2001, and sent from the Iraqi ambassador in Manila to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Baghdad, provides an update on Abu Sayyaf kidnappings and indicates that the Iraqi regime was providing the group with money to purchase weapons. The Iraqi regime suspended its support--temporarily, it seems--after high-profile kidnappings, including of Americans, focused international attention on the terrorist group."

--From Stephen Hayes, writting in the 3/27/06 issue of 'The Weekly Standard.'

Strange. That doesn't jibe with what the Democrats have been telling us since 02.

'dangerous incompetence'?

Liberals love to accuse the Bush Administration of promoting 'a culture of fear.' But I believe that we should have a healthy fear, and a working understanding, of our enemy because of what they would like to do to us.

President Bush, in a speech today at the City Club in Cleveland spoke of Tal Afar, a northern Iraqi city with a population of 200,000 that is located in the western part of the Nineva Province, near the Syrian border. Here's what the President said:

"The savagery of the terrorists and insurgents who controlled Tal Afar is really hard for Americans to imagine. They enforced their rule through fear and intimidation -- and women and children were not spared. In one grim incident, the terrorists kidnapped a young boy from the hospital and killed him. And then they booby-trapped his body and placed him along a road where his family would see him. And when the boy's father came to retrieve his son's body, he was blown up. These weren't random acts of violence; these were deliberate and highly organized attempts to maintain control through intimidation. In Tal Afar, the terrorists had schools for kidnapping and beheading and laying IEDs. And they sent a clear message to the citizens of the city: Anyone who dares oppose their reign of terror will be murdered."

"As they enforced their rule by targeting civilians, they also preyed upon adolescents craving affirmation. Our troops found one Iraqi teenager who was taken from his family by the terrorists. The terrorists routinely abused him and violated his dignity. The terrorists offered him a chance to prove his manhood -- by holding the legs of captives as they were beheaded. When our forces interviewed this boy, he told them that his greatest aspiration was to be promoted to the killer who would behead the bound captives. Al Qaeda's idea of manhood may be fanatical and perverse, but it served two clear purposes: It helped provide recruits willing to commit any atrocity, and it enforced the rule of fear."

"The result of this barbarity was a city where normal life had virtually ceased. Colonel H.R. McMaster of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment described it this way: "When you come into a place in the grip of al Qaeda, you see a ghost town. There are no children playing in the streets. Shops are closed and boarded. All construction is stopped. People stay inside, prisoners in their own homes." This is the brutal reality that al Qaeda wishes to impose on all the people of Iraq."

My thought is that if the majority of the American people knew about this type of stuff the public support for the ongoing mission in Iraq woule be considerably higher. My guess is that had the Administration told the public more about the atrocities of the former Hussein regime--such as feeding humans into industrial-sized plastic shredding machines FEET FIRST--the public support for Operation Iraqi Freedom would never waver.

By the way, THESE are the same terrorists that Liberals claim deserve lawyers and access to the American judicial system. Liberals are concerned about American troops torturing THESE people. Liberals claim THESE terrorists deserve consideration under the Geneva Conventions. And Democrats really expect us to take them seriously? If the President is 'incompetent' for his handling of Iraq, what adjective should we use to describe those on the Left who wish to grant civil rights to terrorists?

But back on point: We made a mistake in Tal Afar by leaving too soon. Let me repeat for all you Liberals. WE MADE A MISTAKE BY LEAVING TOO SOON, but we learned some hard lessons and now Tal Afar is the model of what Iraq could be. Safe. Children play and attend school. Adults are confident, they have hope in the future. And they voted, big time, in recent elections.

More from President Bush:

"If you're a resident of Tal Afar today, this is what you're going to see: You see that the terrorist who once exercised brutal control over every aspect of your city has been killed or captured, or driven out, or put on the run. You see your children going to school and playing safely in the streets. You see the electricity and water service restored throughout the city. You see a police force that better reflects the ethnic and religious diversity of the communities they patrol. You see markets opening, and you hear the sound of construction equipment as buildings go up and homes are remade. In short, you see a city that is coming back to life."

"The success of Tal Afar also shows how the three elements of our strategy in Iraq -- political, security, and economic -- depend on and reinforce one another. By working with local leaders to address community grievances, Iraqi and coalition forces helped build the political support needed to make the military operation a success. The military success against the terrorists helped give the citizens of Tal Afar security, and this allowed them to vote in the elections and begin to rebuild their city. And the economic rebuilding that is beginning to take place is giving Tal Afar residents a real stake in the success of a free Iraq. And as all this happens, the terrorists, those who offer nothing but destruction and death, are becoming marginalized."

The strategy that worked so well in Tal Afar did not emerge overnight -- it came only after much trial and error. It took time to understand and adjust to the brutality of the enemy in Iraq. Yet the strategy is working. And we know it's working because the people of Tal Afar are showing their gratitude for the good work that Americans have given on their behalf. A recent television report followed a guy named Captain Jesse Sellars on patrol, and described him as a "pied piper" with crowds of Iraqi children happily chanting his name as he greets locals with the words "Salaam alaikum," which mean "peace be with you."

Meanwhile, the no-plan Democrats, with no better solutions of their own in an election year, can offer nothing but angry rhetoric and hateful vitriol. While our troops are dying defending American values overseas and advancing freedom and democracy in an already terrorist-ravaged country, the best the so-called 'Democratic' party can do is bitch and moan and call the President 'dangerously incompetent.'

Sunday, March 19

dumbing america down

Yet another great example of media bias, this time, from the LA Times:

"Three years ago, as they ordered more than 150,000 U.S. troops to race toward Baghdad, Bush administration officials confidently predicted that Iraq would quickly evolve into a prosperous, oil-fueled democracy. When those goals proved optimistic, they lowered their sights, focusing on a military campaign to defeat Sunni-led insurgents and elections to jump-start a new political order.

Doyle McManus writes as though he isn't an American citizen. 'As THEY ordered...?' How about 'as WE ordered?' Or rather than writing 'THEY lowered THEIR sights,' why not write 'AMERICA has lowered OUR sights'?

While choosing never to be objective in THEIR reporting, the LA Times should at least PRETEND to be rooting for their own country to win the war we are currently fighting.

Then, of course, you'd think the reporting might be accurate as well, wouldn't you? By what standard could America possibly be believed to, as the headline trumps, now have 'A Sliding Scale for Victory' in Iraq? The goals and objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom have NOT changed in three years. Certainly the tactics have changed, as has the approach. Obviously and wisely so.

Eggheard journalists, in researching their pieces, apparently don't utilize time-honored skills of logic and deduction anymore. Journalistic bias against President Bush and the Administration doesn't help either. Somehow, in clear violation of all journalistic ethics, editorial opinion now regularly finds itself appearing regularly on the news pages of American daily newspapers.

Quite simply, Americans are NOT being well served by America's Leftist media.

v for vapid

The #1 movie in America this weekend, "V For Vendetta," is a ficticious look at a futuristic Great Britain when a masked terrorist becomes a hero by awakening the masses from a government-induced catatonia...supposedly somehow similar to the catatonia currently being experienced by the unlucky citizens of the United States at the hands of the Bush Administration.

There's a bunch to chew on in this film...and one can choose to skew the message to support virtually any position, Right or Left. To me much of the dialogue sounded just too much like election year DNC talking points, especially the parts about the fear of citizens to speak out against their government, Nazi comparisons, treachery, sedition, dissent and secret tribunals.

cheese and sauce

I hear that actress Susan Sarandon is set to portray Cindy Sheehan in a biopic, which seems entirely appropriate to me. One phony portraying another.

Doing voice over work for those Stouffer lasagna ads wasn't quite paying the bills, huh Suzie?

thanks again

Friday night I ran into a Marine. When I thanked him for his service to our great country, he said 'Thank our buddy in the White House.'


Worldwide anti-war protests largely 'fizzled yesterday, with only a small number--1,000 or so--in Times Square. In London, 15,000 gathered in Trafalgar Square. Last year they had 45,000. In Washington DC only 300 people attended a rally at the Naval Observatory, the home of Vice President Cheney.

The next time you hear a Liberal speak about 'their courage of conviction' remember these enemic figures. Professional protesters notwithstanding, there's not much of an anti-war mood in the country because most Americans recognize that their country continues to do good around the world.

Saturday, March 18

war and politics

A memo, written by Senate Minority leader Harry Reid (D-NV), encourages Democrats to hold 'staged town hall type events' at military bases, fire stations, Veteran's facilities, weapons factories, National Guard outposts, etc.

"Ensure that you have the proper U.S. and state flags at the event, and consider finding someone to sing the national anthem and lead the group in the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of the event," the battle plan states.

The problem for the Democrats is that it is illegal to hold partisan political rallies at military bases.

You can't do that, Harry. Either you are ignorant of the law or you are actively encouraging members of your party to break the law. Neither are acceptable.


Today marks the third anniversary of the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom and large anti-war protests will take place around the world.

I'm no war monger, but its important to realize that sometimes war is necessary to preserve the things we, as a society, believe in. It's cliche--but true--to say that 'freedom isn't free,' and sometimes freedom has to be defended. Does that mean that war is fun and pleasant? No. It's painful. It's tragic. It's risky. People sacrifice their lives.

The anti-war people choose to ignore world history. Americans beating the anti-war drum ignore American history. Where would we, as a nation, be today without the Civil War? Where would we be had our founding fathers not fought for our freedom?

Today, let's ask ourselves a serious question: Should we really choose not to defend ourselves, our freedom and our liberty, from those who seek to attack us?

Friday, March 17

st. paddy's, part ii

And yes, I am wearing green today. I think I've got some Irish in my family somewhere along the way. So I'm off to have a Guinness and a bowl of corned beef and cabbage.

Have a good weekend...


I love what Cliff May wrote today, in an op-ed in USA TODAY:

"Before we decide that pre-emption has been a failure, let's acknowledge this: It is because the alternative failed that President Bush came to the conclusion that sometimes it is necessary to use force before attacks occur. It is not enough to attempt to punish our enemies after the blood has been cleaned from our streets."

"It's easy to say that if we had left Saddam alone, nothing bad would have happened. But how is that different from what was said for years about Osama bin Laden? We knew his intentions. We didn't take pre-emptive action. Don't you wish we had?"

national security strategy

Reasonable people will have no difficulty agreeing with the wisdom of these words or the logic of this policy:

"It is the policy of the United States to seek and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. In the world today, the fundamental character of regimes matters as much as the distribution of power among them. The goal of our statecraft is to help create a world of democratic, well-governed states that can meet the needs of their citizens and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system. This is the best way to provide enduring security for the American people."

"Achieving this goal is the work of generations. The United States is in the early years of a long struggle, similar to what our country faced in the early years of the Cold War. The 20th century witnessed the triumph of freedom over the threats of fascism and communism. Yet a new totalitarian ideology now threatens, an ideology grounded not in secular philosophy but in the perversion of a proud religion. Its content may be different from the ideologies of the last century, but its means are similar: intolerance, murder, terror, enslavement, and repression."

"Like those who came before us, we must lay the foundations and build the institutions that our country needs to meet the challenges we face. The United States must:

• Champion aspirations for human dignity;

• Strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us
and our friends;

• Work with others to defuse regional conflicts;

• Prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends with weapons of
mass destruction (WMD);

• Ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade;

• Expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure
of democracy;

• Develop agendas for cooperative action with other main centers of global power;

• Transform America’s national security institutions to meet the challenges and
opportunities of the 21st century; and

• Engage the opportunities and confront the challenges of globalization."

green beer and search engines

st. paddy's day

I'm about to go GET MY IRISH ON, but before I do...

Thursday, March 16

sniffing around

Lauren B. Weiner, a former researcher for Chuck Schumer (D-NY), has been accused of fraudulently obtaining a credit report on Senate candidate (and current Maryland Lt. Governor) Michael Steele.

Weiner, who worked for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in Washington, will be charged with obtaining the report without authorization, while conducting 'opposition research.'

Lovely. Repeat after me, kids. "Illegal activity does not qualify as 'opposition research."

One more time...

some light reading

Let's get started, shall we?


The Democrats in DC are continuing to show us why they are unqualified to lead America. All talk, but no action and no solutions to any of the problems facing America. Status quo. Ruling by consensus. Inaction. They don't see the big picture, especially when it comes to the global war on terror.

Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran, everything is interconnected. The global reach of the terror networks extend far beyond the borders of a small numbers of countries, so fighting the extremists is a multi-lateral task. It requires thinking in broad terms to see the big picture.

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, was a big picture guy. He saw the threat posed by a country that didn't attack us. He went after Germany first, then Japan. Harry Truman, another Democrat, was a big picture guy, too. He recognized that in order to save lives he had to do the unthinkable and drop bombs on the Japanese. Reagan saw the big picture. He ended the Cold War without firing a shot. President Bush is most definitely a big picture person as well as a gambler and a risk taker. The goal: Democracy for everyone.

About those polls...It strikes me as more than ironic that while Bush's approval numbers are at 37% because of unease over the progression of Iraq, those same people believe, by a 42%-27% spread, that Iraq has been a positive in the war on terror.

Meanwhile polls of the Iraqi people continue to show overwhelming approval and support of American troops and the American mission to free Iraq of terror.

Wednesday, March 15

democrats: blissfully unaware

Tom Harkin and Barbara Boxer have joined Russ Feingold in an effort to censure President Bush NOT for the NSA foreign wiretapping program, as they so dishonestly claim, but because of a perceived 'payback' for the impeachment of Left wing icon-- the second worst President in American history--Bill Clinton.

Those Democrats! Such models of consistency, courage and integrity!

Iowa's Tom Harkin is widely known for exaggerating his service in Vietnam, just like John Kerry. And the brilliant Barbara Boxer of California, one of my Senators, while finding the Dubai ports deal offensive and unacceptable, apparently has no problem whatsoever with a Chinese company controlling two ports in Long Beach, CA.

What's that saying? Birds of a feather...

meeting of the 'minds'

HARRY REID: "Ross, you're killing us. Enough of this ridiculous 'censure' talk."

RUSS FEINGOLD: "Harry, my name is RUSS. Russ Feingold. I'm from Wisconsin."

REID: "Whatever."

FEINGOLD: "I'm just speaking my mind and my principles."

REID: "I don't care about your principles. This is an election year. Stop it."

FEINGOLD: "Okay, I want a committee chairmanship."

REID: "Done."

DICK DURBIN: "Hey fellas, it's Happy Hour in the central time zone. How about we go get a martini and chase some skirts?"


This just in...Republicans are happier than Democrats according to a new poll by National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.

Makes sense. Just take a look at any Left wing blog and you'll know this is true.

empty rhetoric

Those Democrats sure are 'progressive' aren't they? Continually advocating failed, outdated policy while actively promoting class warfare and wedge issues crafted to accentuate the differences between Americans. No wonder they are the Minority party.

The Reid, Dean, Schumer, Pelosi 'braintrust' have been promising for months the release of their vaunted 'election year agenda'--the plan that would lead them back to victory in the midterm elections--and this is the best crap they can come up with?

'Guaranteeing that every American will have affordable access to broadband (high speed internet) within five years'? Are they planning to hand out computers to homeless people as well?

Pelosi, addressing the Communications Workers of America yesterday, outlined a number of action items tailored specifically for the 'have nots' among us--lower income Americans who hate the rich:

+Democrats' opposition to outsourcing. Ironic, given the fact that U.S. corporate outsourcing reached an all-time high when Clinton was President.

+Democrats' commitment to the right of all Americans 'to organize,' a big sop to 'Big Labor,' highly ironic given the fact that the mega-rich Pelosi and her mega-rich husband own numerous Northern California businesses, all of which hire non-union employees exclusively.

+Democrats view excessive corporate CEO salaries as 'immoral,' ironic given the fact that her annual income rivals that of the highest paid American corporate executive.

+Democrats are "fighting" to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which would guarantee that when a majority of workers in any given company want a union they will get a union. Ironic, given the fact that a majority of Americans believe that unions have outlasted their relevancy and usefulness.

+Democrats support "energy independence" within ten years. Really? Ironic given the fact that they refuse to utilize America's vast supply of natural resources. Of course, America could be energy independent by drilling in Alaska and by drilling offshore, because the price of Middle eastern oil would automatically FALL, be as cheap as water and affordable for everyone. Simple economics, yes. Brain surgery for Liberals.

+Democrats to support the notion of health care for all American within five years, which is simply an impossible task. Ironic, given the fact that the Democrats CLAIM to be so 'concerned' about the federal deficit that supposedly is so 'out of control.' It's so out of control, they want to make it even BIGGER.

+Democrats support "dignified retirement" (no privatization of Social Security) through an "AmeriSave" plan. Ironic given the fact that we have an aging population and the system is going to be completely out of money by 2043. The only way to 'save' Social Security is to totally reform the system NOW.

Oh yeah. Those Democrats are, as Pelosi says, "about the future." No. The Democrats are about status quo.

more false reporting

More from IBD, March 10, this time on the economy:

"With rising incomes, soaring wealth, bigger and better homes, plenty of jobs and low inflation, we may be living in the most prosperous time ever. Yet chances are you don't believe it one bit.

The economy isn't perfect, of course. But it's a long way from bad — a long, long way. We ponder this as a new employment report comes out, showing 243,000 new payroll jobs in February even as the number of people re-entering the labor market swelled by nearly 350,000.

So before the data are spun beyond recognition by others, let's recount the good news: Since May 2003, when President Bush's tax cuts became law, the U.S. has created 4.7 million jobs. Payrolls have now expanded for 30 straight months. The jobless rate, though up a tick at 4.8%, is still near its five-year low.

Worker pay is also on the increase. Average weekly earnings rose 3.5% last month from a year earlier — the best gain in more than four years.

Last summer, we all were fretting about the economic impacts of higher interest rates, surging energy prices and Hurricane Katrina. But over the last year, including the hurricane season, monthly job gains have averaged 197,000 — more than enough to sop up the 130,000 to 150,000 monthly growth in the U.S. labor force.

Based on the continued job growth and powerful gains in retail spending, most analysts now expect GDP to jump at least 4.5% in the first quarter and 3% for all of 2006 — even as the Federal Reserve continues to tighten credit."


"Last summer, we all were fretting about the economic impacts of higher interest rates, surging energy prices and Hurricane Katrina. But over the last year, including the hurricane season, monthly job gains have averaged 197,000 — more than enough to sop up the 130,000 to 150,000 monthly growth in the U.S. labor force.

Based on the continued job growth and powerful gains in retail spending, most analysts now expect GDP to jump at least 4.5% in the first quarter and 3% for all of 2006 — even as the Federal Reserve continues to tighten credit.

In spite of all the great news, Americans remain strangely downbeat. A Gallup Poll taken earlier this year found just 38% who viewed the economy as "excellent" or "good" — down from 46% at the start of the last recession.

Our own IBD/TIPP Polls have shown sharp drops in economic optimism and consumers' six-month outlook. (Results of our March survey are due Tuesday.)

No doubt about it, the economy keeps powering along. Yet many Americans seem to think it's all a mirage and are sold on the idea that these are the worst of times.

Why the gloom? Much of it, no doubt, stems from misreporting by the media. Against the backdrop of surging payrolls, for example, we keep seeing story after story, in print and on TV, about job "losses."

A recent study by the Media Research Center bears this out. It looked at TV news coverage of jobs in 2005 — 151 stories in all — carried on all three major networks.

This, mind you, was a year that saw the creation of 2 million new jobs, the addition of $350 billion to gross domestic product and an increase of $2 trillion in the value of household financial assets.Yet more than half of the networks' job reports focused on losses, not gains — a picture that wasn't just distorted, but wrong."

brilliant analysis

Good stuff from the March 14 edition of Investors Business Daily:

"What the Democrats really want is months of Watergate-style hearings geared to bring the president's poll ratings down further. Such hearings would send a dangerous — and utterly false — message to terrorists: that America is politically divided in fighting the war on terror.

The Democrats' cravenness actually goes further. Senior Democrats like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Senate Select Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota and former Sen. Bob Graham of Florida all attended intelligence briefings on the NSA's four-year old program If they thought it was unconstitutional, they had a duty to speak up. They didn't."


"When a president violates the Constitution, our system provides a clear remedy: impeachment. But Democrats know there's no public support for that. So in their desperation they're trying to score political points. Unfortunately, they're doing it in ways that aid and abet our terrorist enemies and undermine our troops.

No wonder this week's Gallup Poll found that 68% of the public don't believe congressional Democrats have "a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq," and that Republicans are better able to handle the issue of terrorism."

Tuesday, March 14

moussaoui case 'gutted' by liberal judge

From the LA Times:

"U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema all but gutted the government's death penalty case against admitted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui on Tuesday by ruling that prosecutors could not present any testimony or evidence from aviation officials to show that the Sept. 11 attacks could have been stopped had Moussaoui cooperated with the FBI."

Moussaoui is a non-citizen. How possibly could have any 'right' to a fair trial? How possibly could he have any 'rights' that would trump the rights of even one American citizen? It's impossible.

More from the Times:

"Prosecutors formally objected to [Brinkema's] ruling, and the judge later recessed the trial until Monday to give the government time to consider an emergency appeal before the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, VA.

Without testimony or evidence from aviation officials, the government would be hard-pressed to show the relevance of Moussaoui's arrest to the overall Sept. 11 plot. Federal Aviation Administration witnesses constituted about half of the government's case, prosecutors said."


A 'large scale plan' has been thwarted in Iraq. According to CNN, Iraq's Interior Minister, Bayan Jabr, al Qaeda fighters were planning to storm the U.S. and British embassies and take hostages.

What's this? Iraqi's responding to actionable intelligence? That's certainly good news.


Here's a film destined for controversy! The soon-to-be-released 'V For Vendetta,' a story set in futuristic London where the 'hero' is a terrorist.

Adapted from an original story by Alan Moore, the film is produced by Joel Silver and written by Andy and Larry Wachowski, the brothers behind the 'Matrix Trilogy.'

Monday, March 13

impeach leonie brinkema

In the outrage of the day, the judge presiding over the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui has threatened to throw out the death penalty because prosecutors allegedly 'coached' seven government witnesses.

Which brings to mind this question: WHO CARES?

Who decided that this foreigner deserved a fair trial? This guy has admitted in open court that he was a proud member of al Qaeda AND that he hates America.

There is rampant evidence that this bastard was complicit in the plot that resulted in 9/11. His computer had specs of planes and maps of agricultural fields, where he supposedly was planning to drop toxins on crops. Why are we making it tougher to prosecute this terrorist?

Let's recall that this is the man that took flight lessons and specified to his instructor that he didn't need to learn 'how to land' the plane. That's usually a big tip-off. Oops. Possible terrorist.

Apparently, none of that stuff counts. In a shameless effort to be as reckless (and as politically correct) as possible, this poster child for judicial reform--U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema--sent the jury home today and scheduled a hearing for Tuesday for what could be a "very serious taint of a key portion of this case."

Allegedly seven F.A.A. employees were sent transcripts from last week's hearings and testimony, a violation of Brinkema's orders, as she claims.


From CNN:

"The judge voiced her clear displeasure: "In all the years I've been on the bench, I have never seen such an egregious violation of a rule on witnesses."

More CNN:

"A lawyer for the Transportation Security Administration, Carla Martin, (who is no longer employed by the agency) emailed the transcripts, prosecutors told the judge in a letter."

Moussaoui's attorney reportedly said that it is going to impossible for his client to receive a fair trial. WHO CARES? Moussaoui isn't an American citizen, he has no rights in this country and he has no right to a fair trial.

Are we really going to allow a Liberal judge to send a message to al Qaeda that a judge will dismiss charges against an obvious terrorist because of process? Are we really going to allow American-hating terrorists to use our own Constitution against us, our own courts against us, in a time of war? Are we really going to allow an unelected judge to compromise America's national security in this way?

finally, part ii

The Bush Administration has been taking a pounding for nearly three years about the war in Iraq and how the President 'lied' about WMD and the threat posed by Iraq. As Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor wrote in a series in the NYT, the former regime of Saddam Hussein DID have prohibited weapons when the United States invaded in 2003.

Now Stephen Hayes writes a piece in The Weekly Standard about war-related documents, due to be released, that will shed some light on the weapons capacity of Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

The Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, has resisted the release of most of the documents captured in post-war Afghanistan and Iraq, documents that would prove we were right to do what we did on multiple levels.

But not anymore. The documents are going to be released, FINALLY. Which means that all the Left wing slugs that have been claiming that 'Bush lied and people died,' now have egg on their faces. Those people that are calling for the impeachment of Bush now owe the President an apology. These idiots that try to say that liberating Iraq wasn't 'a noble war' now look like complete morons.

Face it. If you are a Liberal and you opposed the Iraq have been proven to be WRONG. Just like I always said you were. And conservatives find themselves in familiar territory. We are Right again.

That being said, Hayes points out that the release of these documents are likely to empower both supporters and critics of the war, and that the documents "suggest that the new material will at least complicate the overly simplified conventional wisdom that the former Iraqi regime posed no real threat."


Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, a Democrat, wants to censure President Bush for protecting Americans from terrorism via the NSA wiretapping program.

Outrageous. And this guy is supposedly 'progressive'?

From the AP:

"The president has violated the law and Congress must respond."

Senator, you are incorrect and you know full well that you are incorrect. You, Sir, are playing politics with national security. You should be ashamed of yourself. You are not representing the people of Wisconsin with distinction and honor. You are dishonoring your state and your nation. You are misleading otherwise good people who trust you and believe in you.

"A formal censure by Congress is an appropriate and responsible first step to assure the public that when the president thinks he can violate the law without consequences, Congress has the will to hold him accountable," Feingold said.

Senator, you are aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States in a time of war. You are attempting to undermine the authority of the President of the United States in a time of war. By your actions and your words, it is you, Sir, that should be censured.

PSSST: Keep it up, Buddy. You're giving the good guys--the Republicans--a huge boost. Just keep talking.

hard work

Peter Baker writes in the WaPo today that the Bush team is tired. Now is that really news? Really?

"People work very, very hard," said White House communications director Nicolle Wallace, and "I'd be lying to say that there aren't some people on some days" who are weary. But "the other side of being here six years is incredible wisdom and steadiness and experience." Moreover, she added, "there's been enough turnover that there's new energy."

I bet people in the White House work hard. I bet they work most weekends. I bet the White House staff under every President has worked most weekends. Presidents don't ever really get time off, either. The responsibilities of the job never rest.

Certainly the anti-Bush press WANTS the supposed 'fatigue factor' of the Bush Administration to be a BIG STORY. But it isn't.

Baker reports with great surprise that Andy Card, the White House Chief Of Staff, even "COMES TO THE WHITE HOUSE ON HIS DAYS OFF TO GO BICYCLE RIDING WITH BUSH."

I don't have a bicycle, but if I did and I was tired, I sure as hell wouldn't ride it.

More from Baker:

"The succession of crisis after crisis has taken its toll. Some in the White House sound frazzled. While there are few stories of aides nodding off in meetings, some duck outside during the day so the fresh air will wake them up. "We're all burned out," said one White House official who did not want to be named for fear of angering superiors. "People are just tired."

Wait. 'Some in the White House sound frazzled'? That is the opinion of the WaPo reporter. By injecting his opinion into this very flimsy piece, Peter Baker exposes himself as a hack reporter with an agenda.


"White House officials are never genuinely away from the job. Tied to their BlackBerrys and cellular telephones, they are often called to duty even during rare vacations. Weekends are often just another workday. Hadley, for one, schedules a full day of meetings every Saturday. "

Sounds about right to me. What's wrong with hard work? Journalists don't work very hard, so they are automatically skeptical of anyone who puts in an honest day, week, month, year or years of work.

I just wish the press would get their story straight. On one hand we're told that the Bush Administration is such a sweat shop--people are working so hard--aides are falling asleep during meetings. But we also hear how Bush doesn't work very hard, takes long vacations and isn't fully engaged in the business of the country and the world.

Which is it?


I love George Clooney. And I respect his honesty about being 'a proud Liberal.' There's nothing wrong with that. I also respect the consistency of his principles. Mr. Clooney and I differ on most issues, but from what I can tell, he remains entirely consistent in his views, unlike most other Democrats, and I applaud him for that.

Here's some of what Mr. Ocean wrote today @ the Huffington Post:

"It's not merely our right to question our government, it's our duty. Whatever the consequences. We can't demand freedom of speech then turn around and say, But please don't say bad things about us. You gotta be a grown up and take your hits."

"I am a liberal. And I make no apologies for it. Hell, I'm proud of it."

"Too many people run away from the label. They whisper it like you'd whisper "I'm a Nazi." Like it's dirty word. But turn away from saying "I'm a liberal" and it's like you're turning away from saying that blacks should be allowed to sit in the front of the bus, that women should be able to vote and get paid the same as a man, that McCarthy was wrong, that Vietnam was a mistake. And that Saddam Hussein had no ties to al-Qaeda and had nothing to do with 9/11."

I don't believe McCarthy was wrong. But that's debatable. I think most of what is said and repeated about Joe McCarthy is another phony Democratic myth, right up there with other myths like Anita Hill, Florida 2000, the 'slow' response post-Katrina and that Bush 'lied' about WMD.

What's not debatable is whether or not Hussein had 'ties' to al Qaeda. He did. So you may want to re-think that part, George.

'benign and insipid'

Jacob Weisberg writes a brilliant piece in Slate. I don't know if I've ever read a better description of the problems of the so-called 'Democratic' leadership.

It would certainly appear that 2006 could shape up to be similar to 1994. An unpopular incumbent President and an renegade Congress. Only in 94, the GOP had Newt Gingrich and this time around, the Dems have the modern day equivalent of 'The Three Stooges.'

Weisberg writes:

"Individually, [the Democrats] lack substance and policy smarts (Nancy Pelosi); coherence and force (Harry Reid); and steadiness and mainstream appeal (Howard Dean). Collectively, they convey an image of liberal elitism, disarray, and crabbiness."

Weisberg on Pelosi:

"A five-minute interview is usually sufficient to exhaust her knowledge on any subject."

Weisberg on Reid:

"His own family includes so many lobbyists that after some nasty press coverage, he had to ban them from his office."

Weisberg on Dean:

"While smarter than either Pelosi or Reid, [he] clearly stands for something. Unfortunately, what he stands for in the minds of most people is incandescent rage and upscale socialism. "

The final paragraph:

"Thus far, Pelosi, Reid, and Dean have been literally unable to develop such a national message for the party's congressional candidates. Not just a good message—any message. Their "legislative manifesto," originally promised for November, has been delayed more often than a flight on Jet Blue. When it eventually arrives, expect something benign and insipid. In 1994, Gingrich had the Contract With America. In 2006, Democrats will have another glass of merlot."


From the sunday NYT:

"When the U.S. attacked Iraq in March 2003, Saddam Hussein possessed "stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials," as well as sophisticated equipment to manufacture nuclear and biological weapons, which was removed to "a neighboring state" before the U.S. could secure the weapons sites."

It's time for all of you who believe Bush 'lied' about WMD to apologize.

Sunday, March 12

president warner?

Nice teeth.

But seriously, the Democrats would be wise to support a reasonable guy like Mark Warner as their standard-bearer in 08.

about time

Saturday, March 11


Contrary to brainless Liberals, who consistently deny reality, America is very much engaged in fighting World War III. Muslim extremists want to kill us, as evidenced by a jihadist website that is recommending suicide bombings at American sporting events like the upcoming NCAA men's basketball tournament.

From Newsday:

"The posting recommended using three to five blonde or black American Muslim suicide bombers with homemade explosives hidden under their clothing," because of the inability of the United States to accept Osama bin Laden's recent offer of 'a truce.'


I'd like to thank Tom Fox, pictured above, for underscoring the very real risk posed by terrorists.

A so-called 'peace activist,' Fox was killed in Iraq. My sincere condolences to his family. It can't be very comforting to know that your loved one died pointlessly because of naivete and stupidity.


The 9/11 hijackers used internet access at American public libraries to book airline fares on the very planes used to bring terrorism to New York, DC and Pennsylvania.

So why has the USA Patriot Act been rewritten to prevent the Government from keeping tabs on library internet usage?

Why would any elected official oppose effective counter terror methods? Why does Senator John Sununu (R-NH) call this and other changes to the Patriot Act as 'modest but important'?

I wouldn't describe the now-required 'a statement of facts' before a subpoena can be granted as 'a modest' change. I also wouldn't describe 'subpoenas of gun, medical, library, or educational records requires the approval of senior FBI officials,' as a 'modest change.' Nor does requiring that there be 'clearer notification standards established for "sneak-and-peek" search warrants.'

Keep in mind this is the Patriot Act, the law that has prevented America from being attacked again since 2001. Under the new version of the law, 'a judicial review process for National Security Letters (NSLs) and their accompanying gag order' is now required. And 'subpoena recipients can challenge the accompanying gag order in court.'

'Modest and important'? More like reckless and suicidal.

government waste

Here's a great way to save money: Stop flying criminals all across America to evaluate their physical and mental health.

My former Congressman Randy 'Duke' Cunningham, after a week of incarceration in San Diego, yesterday was flown to Oklahoma City only to be transported yet again at some point to North Carolina for medical testing. In the meantime, the Bureau of Prisons will determine where Cunningham will serve his 100 month sentence.

Why North Carolina? We have plenty of doctors here in San Diego County. HOW WASTEFUL IS THIS? Flying hundreds of thousands of criminals around the country? The jet fuel alone must cost millions.

And you thought 'Con Air' was just a movie?

bloody hell

I love Australia's new tourism advertising campaign slogan: 'So where the bloody hell are you?'

a dead dictator

From the AP:

"Slobodan Milosevic, the former Yugoslav leader, who was branded "the butcher of the Balkans" and was on trial for war crimes after orchestrating a decade of bloodshed during the breakup of his country, was found dead Saturday in his prison cell. He was 64.

Milosevic, who suffered chronic heart ailments and high blood pressure, apparently died of natural causes and was found in his bed, the U.N. tribunal said, without giving an exact time of death."


Tom Friedman thinks that the Vice President should broker some type of make-shift Iraqi leadership summit--what he terms 'a national reconciliation conference'--to avoid a civil war and to hasten the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

That's not the worst idea I've ever heard.

Of course, being a true Liberal, Friedman sticks his foot in his mouth in an sophomoric attempt to squeeze some extra mileage out of the Cheney hunting accident by saying, 'this is a good job for someone with bad aim,' and he falsely characterizes the Vice President as being 'mean' and like 'Darth Vader.'

He writes:

"Cheney could open the meeting with his low growl by telling the Sunnis: 'Look, you guys don't want to compromise, fine. Then we'll just leave you to the tender mercies of the Shiites, who vastly outnumber you.'

To the Shiites: 'You want to rule Iraq and control the oil without real regard to the Sunnis? Well, you're going to rule over nothing but a boiling pot, unless you compromise.'

To the Kurds he could say: 'You've behaved most responsibly. Stick with it. If Iraq falls apart, we will make sure you're taken care of. We won't ignore the fact that you've built an impressively decent, democratizing society in your region.'"

Sadly, I can't link the Friedman piece for you even though I am a NYT subscriber. Now there is such a thing called 'Times Select,' which requires an addititonal fee to pay for the privilege of reading opinion pieces from intellectually dishonest slugs like Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and Paul Krugman.


The following sentence does two things for me. One, it sums up why I admire and respect President Bush. He promised to lead, and lead he certainly has. Two, it is one of the reasons why I have such disdain for Democrats.

"I understand some of the things I've done are unpopular," the President said. "But that's what comes with the territory. If you're afraid to make decisions and you only worried about whether or not people are going to say nice things about you, you're not leading."

Thursday, March 9

from reuters

Oh yeah. There's NO such thing as media bias.

redemption or retaliation?

From The Hill:

"Retaliation from the emirate could come against lucrative deals with aircraft maker Boeing and by curtailing the docking of hundreds of American ships, including U.S. Navy ships, each year at its port in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the source added."

"It is not clear how much of Dubai’s behind-the-scenes anger would be followed up by action, but Boeing has been made aware of the threat and is already reportedly lobbying to save the ports deal."

"The Emirates Group airline will decide later this year whether it will buy Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner or its competitor, Airbus A350. The airline last fall placed an order worth $9.7 billion for 42 Boeing 777 aircraft, making Dubai Boeing’s largest 777 customer."

But some lobbyists believe that a deal WILL be reached--the Peter King (R-NY) compromise legislation--that addresses security concerns while allowing the deal to go through.

At this point, it's hard to say if it will be redemption or retaliation. Congress still has 35 days of review so behind the scenes there's going to be 35 days (and nights) of diplomacy.


DP World, in light of all the controversy, has agreed to hand over operational control of six U.S. ports to an American company.

I'm not quite sure what I think of this. I agreed with the President about sending the right message to our allies. The U.A.E. has been a great help. I didn't want them to believe that their assistance to the U.S. with the War on Terror wasn't being rewarded because of politics. I still don't. If anything, this event might serve as a disincentive for other Middle Eastern countries to work with the U.S.

This DP World port deal just seems so 'Harriet Miers,' doesn't it? Initially, the White House claimed that they would play hardball with the Miers nomination, then they backed off, and, later accepted 'her' resignation, with a mixture of relief and gratefulness.

More to the point, the President very likely went to Miers and said, 'Harriet Baby. I can't keep taking these hits.' And out of loyalty, Miers fell on her sword and pulled her own nomination.

Bush intially and defiantly stated that the DP World port deal would go through, regardless of opposition and tactics. A veto was even promised, his first as President. But then, today, suddenly, boom, realizing that he doesn't have the Congressional support, the deal gets killed.

There are three things that worry me here. One, the perception that might form around the world that Bush is weak, that's he's lost control in Washington. Two, U.A.E. retailation against the United States and our financial interests. They might not allow U.S. Navy ships to dock in Dubai. They might kill trillions of dollars worth of deals with American corporations like Boeing, who had been lobbying like crazy to save the port deal. Three, it is never a good idea to piss off an ally. We just screwed ourselves militarily and strategically. Big time.

Here's DP World's official statement:

"Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operation of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity," DP World's chief operating officer, Edward H. Bilkey, said in a statement, read on the Senate floor by Sen. John Warner, (R-VA)."

And from Fox News:

"The announcement was somewhat of a blow for Democrats, who were pushing for a Senate vote on an amendment that would halt the deal. The Senate later voted 51-47 to ignore GOP requests to wait until a 45-day review of the deal is completed before they try to stop it. Republican leaders needed 67 votes to stop debate on the measure."

I just wonder if my hypothesis about Iran and the Straits of Hormuz is correct...


Larry Kudlow writes a great piece this morning on the U.S. ports deal.

Meanwhile, as of yesterday, Congressional oversight of the FISA overseas wiretapping program has grown, so the possibility of leaks of classified information relating to America's national security has increased by a factor of 1000.

We know how tight lipped Democrats like West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller are. I wonder what politician will be the next to open his or her yap and compromise the lives of Americans or the lives of American troops or agents around the globe?

as far as rugs go...

This rug is just a little bit better than the one in my hallway.

why worry?

We can't lose to these idiots.

Wednesday, March 8

support your president

I am so tired of hearing all the Bush bashing. Everything the man does, according to many of you, is wrong. Strangely, many of you who now criticize the President, were ardent fans of the man just a few short months ago.

Make no mistake. The United States is at war. We are in the midst of World War III, but many of you are completely unaware. It is testament to the greatness of George W. Bush and his Administration that so many of you have become disenchanted with the White House. It is the high rate of success of the Administration that has allowed most of the country to forget about the all-too-real threats that America faces from the radical Muslims around the world.

It is precisely because of the counter-terrorism tactics undertaken by the Bush Administration that I am posting these comments tonight. Otherwise, Southern California, most certainly a prime target of al Qaeda, might very well be long gone.

The NSA wiretapping program? Totally 'warranted.' And forget the lies you have been told by the Leftist, biased American-in-name-only press corps, that tell you that the NSA and the Administration are conducting 'domestic wiretapping.' It's not true.

No WMD in Iraq? It's not true. They've already found a great deal of WMD in-country, and, of course, during the run-up to invasion, there was a six month window where we wasted time at the U.N., getting those worthless resolutions, when Hussein very logically (and easily) could have moved Iraq's weapons to Syria. And that American-in-name-only-press has not reported that claims by a former Iraqi general, Georges Sada, who charges just that in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets."

Everything occurring on the ground today-- in 14 out of 18 provinces--in Iraq is mostly positive. But good news isn't particularly sexy news and nothing that could ever be defined as 'good news' for President Bush will ever be reported. Sad but true. All the business, all the jobs created, all the women who now can work and go to school and vote, all the optimism of the Iraqi people for the future, none of it is ever reported by the 'objective' American media.

Forget that bogus story about the Federal Government's response to Hurricane Katrina being 'slow,' because that isn't true, either. The bad preparation, the slow reaction, the poor decisions made on the ground in Louisiana is the reason that New Orleans was decimated by the storm.

I have three words for all of you who believe that Katrina was Bush's fault: Alabama and Mississippi.

All of these erroneous stories being told, is it really a surprise that the President is unpopular and hovering around 40% in opinion polling?

Which brings me to another story--those pesky, faulty, dishonest polls. When one of the news organizations releases a poll, it is very important that you, before taking the poll seriously, determine whether or not the poll was taken with a fair, representative sample of likely voters. Most polls tilt the sample heavily to one side or the other, which means from the start that the poll results will be skewed to one particular view or another. And most polls sample registered voters, not LIKELY voters. That is a big difference because it is the likely voters who vote. The registered voters? Not so much.

Not that President Bush much cares about any of this crap. He's doing his job--a great job. He's got little to no interest in what anyone thinks of him, which I find totally refreshing. He's not a politician.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that in this time of international unrest, it is extremely important that every American supports President Bush. I don't care if you personally disagree with the man or his policies. The fact is, dissent at this time, while important, can (and should) be done privately. When you or anyone you know publicly rips Bush, it weakens us in the eyes of the international community. And, most importantly, in the eyes of our enemies.

If you aren't behind Bush and your country in this time in our history, then it means that you are against Bush, against your country, against your troops. It's very simple and true. And it's not debatable.

There's plenty of time to debate the merits of policy, the opinion of war, the opinion of Administration policy. But not now. If you are a Bush critic, understand that you are being anti-American and that you are very much aiding and abetting our enemies around the world.

Supporting your President at this time doesn't necessarily mean that you support each and every policy the President advocates. It simply means that you support your country, your troops, your way of life. It also means that you are being a good American.

Support your President.

to the right, part ii

My friend JD Hayworth, Congressman from the great state of Arizona tells me that the action taken today by his Governor, Janet Napolitano, is nothing more than lip service. It's 'a brilliant political stunt,' he said.

Napolitano has ordered additional National Guardsmen to the Arizona/Mexico border but it is a cosmetic declaration ONLY. A call to the official office of the Guard, according to Hayworth's office, will tell you only that nothing will change in the actual quantity of posted Guardmen at the border or those who have allegedly been 'reassigned' to the border.

If Napolitano was actually dispatching additional Guard to prevent illegal immigrants coming over the border, I would support it. Arizona has the biggest percentage of illegal immigrants streaming over the U.S. border from Mexico.

But how predictable is it--shameful, really--that a Democrat would use a bogus policy declaration, policy that she knows from polling data, that is popular with the public, when she's actually doing nothing about tackling immigration?

to the right

According to Hillary Clinton 'Republicans are trying to create a "police state" to round up illegal immigrants.'

Excuse me, but isn't this the same Hillary Clinton who has been criticizing President Bush for not 'doing enough' to prevent illegal immigration?

According to her, today, she purportedly supports "a path to earned citizenship for those who are here, working hard, paying taxes, respecting the law, and willing to meet a high bar for becoming a citizen."

Sounds exactly like the Bush plan.


Dubya contemplates taking a hammer to a couple of his favorite Democrats.

data warehouse

Republicans have perfected political 'data mining' over the last few years, a process of identifying prospective voters and determining the best ways to boost voter turnout. Now Democrats, led by scumbag Harold Ickes, are trying to emulate that success, and in the process they've managed to piss off Howard Dean.

Officials at the DNC believe data mining should be their responsibility, rather than the task of an individual campaign, in this case, the as-yet-formally-announced presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.

When I first heard about this (and the above link from the WaPo points this out as well) I thought this effort reflected a belief of no-confidence in the DNC under the 'leadership' of Dean. Instead allies of the Clintons are appealing to donors like George Soros to bankroll this private firm that plans to build a voter file and an infrastructure of a winning campaign for Hillary in 08.

They've already raised $7.5 million for Ickes' newly-named firm, Data Warehouse.

The DNC disagrees with the endeavor. "From an institutional standpoint, this is one of the most important things the DNC can and should do. Building this voter file is part of our job," Communications Director Karen Finney said. "We believe this is something we have to do at the DNC. Our job is to build the infrastructure of the party."

'harm and pain'

Iran promised 'harm and pain' will come to the United States?

Monday, March 6

only in the life of the mother

South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds has signed into law a sweeping new anti-abortion bill that makes it illegal, beginning July 1, for any doctor to perform the dreadful abortion procedure, even in cases of incest and/or rape.

From the AP:

"The governor issued a written statement saying he expected a lengthy legal battle over the law, which, he said, would not take effect unless the U.S. Supreme Court upheld it."


Mrs. Focker can't spell worth shit. This is the same woman who once 'briefed' Congressional Democrats like Dick Gephardt on 'policy issues.' Look at all the spelling errors in her 2/28/06 'essay' about how 'dummbe' President Bush supposedly is:

• Irag
• curruption
• dictatoriship
• crediblity
• Adminstration
• warrented
• desperatly
• preceedings
• ouside
• subpoening
• responsibilty

"The arrogance of this C student," Streisand says of Bush.

'Arrogance'? Imagine the arrogance of someone who can't spell accusing someone else of being arrogant and dumb? How's that for STUPID?

Do the game-playing, power-hungry, solution-less, idea-challenged Democrats REALLY want us to take them SERIOUSLY in an election year?

Barbra, please keep those Dreamland 'truth alerts' and 'essays' comin,' baby. You are a national treasure.
Copyright 2004-2013, All Rights Reserved. All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without prior written permission. 0