Wednesday, January 31


French President Jacques Chirac thinks that if Iran had one or two nuclear weapons it wouldn't be a big deal.

Really? Is that what he really thinks or he is too typically French to have balls enough to do some heavy lifting? Or maybe he's on the take from Tehran like he was from Saddam and Oil-For-Food?

I say bring on Sarkozy.

rendition challenge

A consequential legal case involving the CIA and American foreign policy is developing in Germany.

hurting morale

It is logical to say that any non-binding resolution opposing the troop surge in Iraq hurts America's war effort. It gives rise to violence in Iraq. It emboldens the enemy, while making the job of our troops much harder. Any hint of a public opinion fracture among Americans is bad for US foreign policy, period.

So much for Barack Obama's assertion that Liberal ideas are based on 'facts.'

Gladly, GOP Senators Cornyn, Vitter and DeMint are taking the lead in opposing any such resolution. Read about it here.


Over the past four years the American economy has expanded faster than the Chinese economy. The United States has added more jobs than Europe and Japan combined. Earnings are up, wages are up. Strong growth, moderate inflation. And still, the White House gets no credit for brilliant economic policy.

I'm glad that President Bush was greeted like the rock star he is at the New York Stock Exchange today, shaking hands, receiving high fives, posing for photos and signing autographs to chants of 'BUSH! BUSH! BUSH!' As the WSJ says, 'As Bush Goes, So Goes The Market.'

The Dow Jones Industrials hit another all-time high today, after the Federal Reserve smartly decided to leave short term interest rates at 5.25%. And while I can't balance my freaking checkbook, even I understand this simple principle: Lower taxes always result in higher tax revenues.


Is the GOP 'seeing lemons' ahead of the '08 presidential campaign?

Perhaps, but am I? No way. I'm optimistic as always. How can you not be optimistic when you've got three top tier candidates in Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney?

"playing politics"

I call Senator Joe Biden "Mr. Quotable." Just look at some of the things he's been saying about his colleagues:

On Barack Obama...
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
But—and the “but” was clearly inevitable—he doubts whether American voters are going to elect “a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate,” and added: “I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.”
On John Edwards:
“I don’t think John Edwards knows what the heck he is talking about,” Mr. Biden said, when asked about Mr. Edwards’ advocacy of the immediate withdrawal of about 40,000 American troops from Iraq.
“John Edwards wants you and all the Democrats to think, ‘I want us out of there,’ but when you come back and you say, ‘O.K., John’”—here, the word “John” became an accusatory, mocking refrain—“‘what about the chaos that will ensue? Do we have any interest, John, left in the region?’ Well, John will have to answer yes or no. If he says yes, what are they? What are those interests, John? How do you protect those interests, John, if you are completely withdrawn? Are you withdrawn from the region, John? Are you withdrawn from Iraq, John? In what period? So all this stuff is like so much Fluffernutter out there. So for me, what I think you have to do is have a strategic notion. And they may have it—they are just smart enough not to enunciate it.”
On Hillary:
“From the part of Hillary’s proposal, the part that really baffles me is, ‘We’re going to teach the Iraqis a lesson.’ We’re not going to equip them? O.K. Cap our troops and withdraw support from the Iraqis? That’s a real good idea.”
The result of Mrs. Clinton’s position on Iraq, Mr. Biden says, would be “nothing but disaster.”
Most early polls show Mrs. Clinton as the party’s clear front-runner. Mr. Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is firmly in the thick of a pack of third-tier candidates. Still, he thinks that at such a precarious point in the nation’s history, voters are seeking someone with his level of experience to take the helm.
“Are they going to turn to Hillary Clinton?” Biden asked, lowering his voice to a hush to explain why Mrs. Clinton won’t win the election.
“Everyone in the world knows her,” he said. “Her husband has used every single legitimate tool in his behalf to lock people in, shut people down. Legitimate. And she can’t break out of 30 percent for a choice for Democrats? Where do you want to be? Do you want to be in a place where 100 percent of the Democrats know you? They’ve looked at you for the last three years. And four out of 10 is the max you can get?”
Great stuff. Love that guy.

Maybe you're wondering. What the hell would Biden do in Iraq? First, he'd given them some 'breathing room.'

More from Jason Horowitz' piece in the Observer:
"The Iraq he envisions has three ethnically homogenous enclaves, with a central government responsible for securing the country’s international borders and distributing oil revenues.
"He’d put the Shiite majority in the south, limiting their geographic control but keeping them from being drawn into a wider Sunni-Shiite conflict.
"He’d move the Sunni majority into the oil-poor Anbar province in the West, but they would be guaranteed a cut of oil revenues worth billions of dollars. Mr. Biden’s hope is that the oil money and relative calm would drain the loyal Baathist insurgency of support while simultaneously making the province less amenable to Al Qaeda provocateurs."
I don't really agree with these ideas, but at least Biden has a concrete plan and I respect him for it. That's more than I can say about the rest of the Democrats.

Tuesday, January 30

criminal offense

...and we're teaching impressionable children these lies, indoctrinating them with this nonsense! Unbelievable.


This global warming thing is ridiculous and I don't believe a word of it. It is complete crap...

perfect liberals

The members of Rage Against The Machine, one of the greatest rock bands ever, are reuniting and will be performing at the upcoming Coachella Music & Arts Festival.

How freakin' cool is that?

Go figure. Right wing Conservative guy [yours truly] digging on these psycho, delusional, anti-American Leftist freaks. Not only do they promote multi culturalism, but they blame America for all the worlds' problems, while admiring phony heroes like Che Guevara. And they are complete hypocrites. Decrying capitalism as bad and evil, while making millions from their record deal with a big, bad corporate record label.

They're idiots, but I love their music and I've been depressed that the show is already sold out.

But, as it turns out, the word from my buddy, the radio legend and Left wing freak Mike Halloran, is that the band will be donating the proceeds of this years' yet undetermined tour to whichever Left wing freak becomes the Dems' '08 nominee.

Probably a good thing I'm not going, huh?

Monday, January 29

reading assignments

Two good articles for you to read.

Bob Novak writes about the Biden/Warner meeting over the weekend which 'snagged' any hopes for a consensus bipartisan Senate resolution opposing the Iraq troop surge.

You've heard more than one Democrat talking about how the American West is the new frontier of Liberalism? Not so fast. There's no evidence of that, writes Stuart Rothenberg.


Kentucky Derby winner Barbaro has been experiencing some additional medical complications lately, including laminitis in the left rear hoof and a recent abscess in the right rear hoof. In fact, more surgery was going to be required on that rear right foot.

I'm sad about this beautiful horse, but I'm relieved that he was euthanized today.


Almost a month into the new year and we haven't talked about "America's Mayor."

From the January 19 edition of the Boston Herald:
"New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin often complains about how slowly his city gets federal hurricane recovery money, but a state official said Thursday that nearly $600 million is available - if only Nagin would request it.

"New Orleans and the city’s agencies have received nearly $300 million of the recovery money promised by FEMA - 96 percent of the $311 million that the city has formally requested since Hurricane Katrina struck 16 months ago, according to data released by the state homeland security office, which distributes the money.
"That leaves more than $595 million in federal money that is available to the city but has not been requested, said Col. Jeff Smith, chief of the homeland security office. Once the proper documentation is submitted, the money is available for replacing city property and structures damaged or ruined in Katrina and its aftermath, such as police cars and buses, the city jail, roads, and the sewer and water systems."

Nagin's probably just busy doing what he was doing in the days and weeks immediately after Katrina.

Living in Dallas.

stepping up?

Over the weekend Iraqi troops engaged a cult known as "Soldiers of Heaven" in a battle that left 200 fighters dead, including the group's leader, near the Shiite holy city of Najaf.

Associated Press:
The raid on Sunday in date-palm orchards on the city's outskirts was aimed against a group called the Jund al-Samaa, or Soldiers of Heaven, which appeared to have had links to Saddam Hussein loyalists and foreign fighters. Officials said the cult was hoping the violence it planned would force the return of the "hidden imam," a 9th-century Shiite saint who Shiites believe will come again to bring peace and justice to the world.
President Bush, on NPR:
"My first reaction to this report from the battlefield is that the Iraqis are beginning to show me something."
This is great news.

now playing


David Bell poses the question "Was 9/11 really that bad?" in an op-ed this morning in the LA Times.
"Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction? Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong? If we did overreact, why did we do so? Does history provide any insight?

"Certainly, if we look at nothing but our enemies' objectives, it is hard to see any indication of an overreaction. The people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country. But desire is not the same thing as capacity, and although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States."
HELLO? Terrorists are entirely capable of threatening the existence of the United States and our allies. That point isn't debatable. It's not even up for discussion.

In fact, terrorists have been threatening us for a long time. Osama bin Laden declared war on the US in 1997, but the great Bill Clinton wasn't paying attention. We were asleep on 9/11 and we've been playing catch up ever since. Due to the aggressive efforts of the Bush Administration and our allies, additional attacks have been foiled.

Certainly the attacks could have been much worse. Some 250,000 people worked in the World Trade Center. Taken in the proper context, the attacks weren't nearly as bad as they could have been.

But Bell wants us to 'imagine' that the 9/11 casualties were much, much worse so he can then put it into 'perspective' against, say, the 20 million Soviets that died in World War II, and then claim that Bush 'overreacted' with al Qaeda.

I'd describe this type of thinking as' mental masturbation.'

We learned exactly what Islamic terrorists are capable of on 9/11, which is why we are waging the Global War On Terror. We also learned that Democrats can't protect us because they are blind to the threat facing us, they are unfamiliar with the concept of reality and how it should be applied to global events and they are unwilling to do whatever is necessary to prevent the next attack.

Sunday, January 28


The great statesman otherwise known as John Kerry @ the World Economic Forum in Davos called his country, the United States, "an international pariah."

Liberals love to talk about how hated our country is because of our foreign policy and because of our President.

Europe has always been jealous and envious of America. A decade ago, I was in Europe and I encountered plenty of anti-American sentiment. England has been pissed at us since the Boston Tea Party. Hell, my tour guide to Warwick Castle lamented the fact that the United States was no longer a British colony.

I went to France and....well, you know. 'Stupid American' this, 'stupid American,' that...

They hate us because they are Socialists and we are Capitalists. They hate us because we are generally God-loving, God-fearing people. They hate us because we are the lone superpower on earth.

The world hates us, and its not new. And it has nothing to do with Iraq, or George W. Bush.

trunk show

Pelosi looks like she just stepped out of the latest Nordstrom catalog. Clearly, it's all about her, even in Afghanistan.


John Warner (R-VA) opposes the troop surge to Iraq because he feels guilty about Vietnam?

Two wars, two very different situations. Dumb bastard. He's undermining the war effort and undercutting his President.

The recent uptick in violence in Iraq is a direct result of the machinations of cowardly politicians like Warner. Were the government united behind Bush the terrorists would be in hiding rather than on our television screens.

Saturday, January 27


San Diego's Museum of Contemporary Art (MCASD) has expanded. I'm gonna go check it out today.

nancy, on tour

Now Pelosi is in Pakistan, meeting with US ally President Musharraf, discussing a House bill that would link American aid to the Pakistani military to Pakistan's success in combating the Taliban.

Good idea? No. It would weaken a friendly and already unstable government. Does America really need [or want] another enemy in that region? Risking a key ally in the Global War On Terror? Not very smart.

Threatening to pull aid money does one thing for Musharraf: It cuts his legs out from under him, which calls into question the future leadership of Pakistan, which then in turn endangers the national security of the United States.

How could we ever possibly track 'success'? It's a nebulous concept since these Taliban guys are anonymous. To their great discredit, the Democrats are ignoring a very obvious success in the GWOT: the fact that the American homeland hasn't suffered another attack since 9/11. The Bush Administration should get high marks.

How many times do I have to tell you that the Democrats cannot be trusted on national security? Its all symbolism over substance with them.


What kind of nincompoop would ever take Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins and Danny Glover seriously? All of them are established left wing crazies. As are the assholes who spray painted the US Capitol. Nice going.

Good of them to be protesting the good their country is doing in the Middle East, while terrorists bomb and murder five Iraqi schoolgirls. It's nice to see that the actors have their priorities in order.

Color me skeptical too about the AP's claim of 'tens of thousands' in attendance at today's DC anti war rally. When's the last time the MSM reported accurately on anything even remotely related to Iraq?

Meanwhile not a single shred of evidence has ever been presented or produced showing that President Bush, Vice President Cheney or any Administration official has lied about anything. Not one.


Newsweek is reporting that Karl Rove and White House communications director Dan Bartlett have been subpoenaed by Scooter Libby's defense lawyers and may be called to testify.

tinsel town

"Feel free to treat everyone like scum, for if they desire something from you, they'll just have to put up with it, and should they rise to wealth and power, any past civility shown toward them will either be forgotten, or remembered as some aberrant and contemptible display of weakness."

--- David Mamet, from his new book "Bambi vs. Godzilla," on Hollywood's version of the 'golden rule.'

Friday, January 26

friday round up

I didn't post here's what on my mind today.

Al Qaeda has no land, no territory, no country. Yet. But if the Democrats have their way, Iraq will become the property of the terrorists by attrition because Russ Feingold (D-WI) wants to cut off funding to the troops...And because of short sighted, poll driven Republicans like Chuck Hagel, John Warner, Susan Collins, Dick Lugar and Norm Coleman.

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha are in Baghdad as you read this, meeting with al Maliki.

From the AP:
"We come out of the meeting with a greater understanding of the other's point of view," said Pelosi.

[Pelosi] said the delegation also came "to convey to our troops the appreciation of the American people for what they're doing, to applaud their patriotism."
Wait a minute. 'A greater understanding'? As in 'I haven't really been paying that much attention to what the Bush Administration has been saying about Iraq before now'? And the troops are in Iraq doing their job, they aren't being patriotic by being in Iraq. That's a very important distinction.

See? The Democrats are very uncomfortable talking about or thinking about the military, because in the core of their being, their hard core beliefs, they dislike, distrust or even despise the military. That's why they cannot fathom any circumstance or situation where the military could be needed, wanted or used.

These are just incredibly self-serving comments by Pelosi. Telling the troops she appreciates them while she and her colleagues in Congress have been busy undermining the war effort for the last three years? I bet most troops would meet that type of rhetoric with the middle fingered salute.

What's this? A Van Halen reunion concert WITH Diamond David Lee Roth at the Palms resort in Las Vegas in late April?

President Bush is denying reports that he preparing an attack on Iran.
"We believe we can solve our problems with Iran diplomatically," said Bush. "It makes sense that if somebody is trying to harm our troops, or stop us from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, that we will stop them."
There are reports that 'Monkey Boy,' as I call Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been snubbed by the Ayatollah Khamenei, who is regarded as the guardian of the Islamic Revolution. Ahmadinejad, who until now has briefed Khamenei regularly on international and domestic politics, was refused a meeting earlier this month.

The UK Telegraph is reporting that that the Ayatollah is displeased by Iran's joint cooperation in helping North Korea develop its nuclear program.

Western intelligence believes Iran is preparing an underground test of their own small atomic weapon.

And speaking of 'western intelligence...'Here in Southern California, Hollywood is aflutter over Barack Obama. Yesterday it was announced that the Dreamworks guys -- Spielberg, Katzenberg, Geffen -- are hosting a glitzy fundraiser for Obama the end of February and A-listers George Clooney, Halle Berry and Oprah Winfrey all are big fans.

Interesting that Clooney has made no secret of his affection for Obama -- privately, rather than publicly.
"George is a huge supporter and fan of Barack, as well as a friend," said Clooney's publicist, Stan Rosenfield. He stressed that Clooney is unlikely to campaign for Obama, though, because the actor feels support from Liberal Hollywood can be a detriment to the candidate. "You lose the heartland," Rosenfield said.
Sir Richard Branson, the mogul behind the Virgin empire, is branching out into biotech and stem cells.

Jimmy Carter has apologized for writting a 'stupid' book.

I mocked John Edwards in '04 for his "Two Americas" campaign, but it turns out he was right. There's John Edwards and then there's everyone else. Holy crap, check out his new house!

Wednesday, January 24


The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted along party lines to oppose a surge of an extra 21,000 + troops to Iraq.

Nebraska's Chuck Hagel was the panel's lone Republican supporting the non-binding (unenforceable) resolution.

"There is no strategy. This is a pingpong game with American lives," Hagel said.

Said Chairman Joe Biden (D-DE):
"Unless the president demonstrates very quickly that he is unlikely to continue down the road he's on, (with regard to the troop surge) this will be only the first step. ... I will be introducing ... constitutionally legitimate, binding pieces of legislation. We will bring them up," Biden said.
"The president has made his decision. We need to get the job done," said Vice President Dick Cheney.

"We are moving forward." Cheney continued. "The Congress has control over the purse strings. They have the right, obviously, if they want, to cut off funding. But in terms of this effort, the president has made his decision."

Let the cowards try to cut off funding to the troops. If they do, Republicans will be the Majority party for the next 40 years.


Freshman Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) did the rebuttal to President Bush's State of the Union last night, during which he claimed, without substantiation, that 'the majority of the American military no longer supports the way [Iraq] is being fought."

That's Webb's opinion; it is not a fact.

[Obama should have done this rebuttal.]

gracious, always

Surprise, surprise. I liked Bush's speech. I liked how he congratulated Pelosi and the Democrats at the top. Classy. Gracious.

I liked the health care proposals. I'd love to get a $7,500 tax credit each year for health coverage, wouldn't you?

I liked the passion for victory in Iraq I heard in Bush's voice; I liked the conviction of his words. Clearly, Bush, some Republicans, and a couple Democrats, namely Joe Lieberman, see the importance of American victory in the Middle East.

But there was that striking moment last night: The part where the President spoke of victory in Iraq and the Democrats didn't applaud. They sat on their hands as he said the following:
"Many in this chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq, because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far-reaching.

"The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others. And that's why it's important to work together so our nation can see this great effort through. Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation. We will share ideas for how to position America to meet every challenge that confronts us. We'll show our enemies abroad that we are united in the goal of victory."

Total silence from the Democrats. Obviously, they wish not to be united with Bush on the goal of victory. In fact, they have gone to the trouble to craft non-binding legislation opposing the 20,000 + troop surge to Iraq. This type of opposition from the Democrats has been described by General David Petraeus as 'encouraging the enemy.'

More SOTU:

"If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country -- and in time, the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.

"For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is the greatest ally -- their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens, new recruits, new resources, and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September the 11th and invite tragedy. Ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East, to succeed in Iraq and to spare the American people from this danger.

"This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and now. I have spoken with many of you in person. I respect you and the arguments you've made. We went into this largely united, in our assumptions and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field, and those on their way."

Yet another amazing speech in a long line of amazing speeches given by a very courageous man.

Tuesday, January 23


Check out the complete list of nominations here. Visit the official Oscar site here.

state of the union

Let's say I'm the President. Here's what I say tonight in the State of the Union address.
"My fellow Americans,

The Battle of Baghdad will be won because I have instructed our commanders in the field to use whatever force they deem necessary to secure the peace and to eradicate the enemy. I remain convinced, now more than ever, that a safe, peaceful and democratic Iraq will not only greatly benefit the broader Middle East, and all other free nations. It will also make the State of our Union stronger.

(Applause & standing ovation from the Republicans, audible boos from the Democrats)

By Executive Order, I have instructed the National Guard to take up strategic positions along both the northern and southern borders of the United States. Anyone seeking entry into America must have valid identification. Those caught attempting to sneak into the country illegally will be taken to prison. Preventing illegal immigration will strengthen the State of our Union.

(Wild applause & standing ovation from the Republicans, boos from the Democrats)

These things, we will do, because they are the wise, correct things to do on behalf of the American people.

(Continued wild applause)

Never before in American history, has the State of our Economy been stronger. In spite of the Global War on Terror, our economy is strong, and the deficit continues to fall because of the ingenuity and the hard work of the American people. This is also the direct result of my decision to cut your taxes. Lower taxes spur investment, growth and opportunity for all Americans who pay taxes. Keeping taxes low and allowing people to keep more of their hard-earned money is the smart and correct thing to do, and we will continue to do so, as long as I am the President.

(Wild applause & standing ovation, by the Republicans, hissing by the Democrats)

Indeed, there are always tough choices yet to make. I'd like to outline two of those issues tonight.

One of those is the controversial issue of stem cell research. My opponents tend to forget, or gloss over, the fact that I am the first President to provide federal funding for stem cell research and I am constantly attacked for obstructing science. This couldn't be further from the truth. I favor a cautious approach, rather than a reckless one because I believe life must be protected at all costs.

(Standing ovation by the Republicans, more hissing by the Democrats)

Agree or disagree, debate on stem cell research is good for our Republic. I have sided with science, and have made decisions that square with my faith and my pro-life beliefs. I am comfortable with my decisions.

(Ovation, boos)

The use of America's own natural resources is controversial as well. Unfortunately, we can no longer afford to pretend that we are invulnerable to our enemies because we are dependent on their number one import: Oil. We can wait no longer utilize our own natural resources to our own benefit.

That is why I have signed an Executive Order authorizing the immediate drilling of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
(Loud ovation, boos)

No longer -- no longer -- will we be -- can we be -- more concerned with the rights of soul-less creatures than we are with the advancement and convenience of good people everywhere. Reducing America's dependence on foreign sources of oil is a central component to the National Security of the United States, my primary duty as your President.

(Ovation, boos and hissing)

I look forward to the spirited debate we will have with the American people in the weeks and months ahead. A healthy democracy is made even healthier with respectful, passionate discourse. Let us remember that an all mighty God has charged us at this time with defending our Liberty here at home, protecting our allies and our interests abroad and extending the reach of freedom to people everywhere.

May He continue to bless you and may He continue to bless the United States of America. Thank you."


Monday, January 22


The Huffington Post is virtual toilet paper, but I still read it.

Yesterday, Steve Rosenbaum got the Obama/Hillary phenomenon exactly right, especially about the part where he describes Obama's words as "feeling like his own."

I think that alone will help Obama. The only thing 'genuine' about Clinton is her obsession for power.

big 'get'

Another sign that Rudy Giuliani is serious about becoming President? He's hired Patrick Ruffini, President Bush's 2004 webmaster.

at home

ABC News is reporting that documents discovered at the former safe house of Abu Masab al Zarqawi in Iraq describe an al Qaeda terrorist plot inside the United States.

Those associated with the plot were connected to al Zarqawi, who was planning an attack at the behest of Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's number two in charge.
"This appears to be the first hard evidence al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) was trying to attack us here at home," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, former chief counterterrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council.
Ten to twenty foreign students were to use student visas to slip into the country to carry out terrorist attacks modeled after the 9/11 hijackers.

American colleges and universities already closely monitor foreign students studying in the US, even reporting students who fail to arrive on campus or those who regularly miss classes.

health online

Steve Case, the guy who brought you AOL twelve years ago, believes that you will pay $100 a year for premium services offered by his new medical website,

Friday, January 19

mitt v. mitt

The Boston Globe really has it in for Mitt Romney.

another u.n. scandal

First Saddam, now Kim Jong Il. Iraq had Oil For Food, North Korea gets a slush fund and it's called the United Nations Development Program, or UNDP.

The WSJ's Melanie Kirkpatrick writes:
"In a Jan. 16 letter to UNDP Associate Administrator Ad Melkert, Ambassador Mark Wallace of the U.S. Mission to the U.N. lays out what American digging has found so far: The UNDP's program in the Democratic People's Republic "has for years operated in blatant violation of U.N. rules, served as a steady and large source of hard currency and other resources for the DPRK government with minimal or no assurance that UNDP funds and resources are utilized for legitimate development activities."

"The stakes are nonetheless very high because, unlike Saddam's Iraq, North Korea has already succeeded in testing its nuclear bomb. The hard currency supplied by the UNDP almost certainly goes into one big pot marked "Dear Leader," which Kim can use for whatever he wants, including his weapons programs. This may not violate the letter of Security Council Resolution 1718, which restricts trade in anything having to do with North Korea's nuclear or missile programs, but it certainly violates its spirit."
What's next? The US, Canada, Japan, Belgium and Serbia will ask for a deferral of the program until a full accounting can be made. Yeah, that'll happen.

the european hurricane

Frankfurt, Germany.
Dorset, England.
Wilmereux, France.

Recorded wind gusts of 118 mph in Germany? Toppled cranes in the Netherlands? Torn roofs in Great Britain? Displaced passengers across Northern Europe? Seventy seven mph winds and canceled flights at Heathrow? Oil spills in the Baltic Sea? Heavy rain downpours across Northern Europe?

Europe rejoiced in the mythical perception that the Bush Administration 'bungled' the response to Katrina. I wonder how they'll handle the aftermath of their own continent-wide storm that so far has killed 25 people?


While reading I came across an amazing posting from Army Lt. Mark Daily who was killed in Iraq on Monday.

Daily posted on his MySpace page the reasons he joined the Army. Here's a sample:
"(War critics) point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral crusade. And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein."

"One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are. So that is why I joined."

hell, no

First they wanted someplace to pray at airports. Now Muslims want somewhere to pray at sporting events.

From the Chicago Tribune:
"If we attend the game in its entirety, we would miss one of our five daily prayers," said Amir Siddiqui, president of the Muslim cultural Student Association. "I can leave the game early, come later, or pray somewhere in the stadium on dirty floors with lots of noise and lots of people around, which isn't a huge problem. But we'd love to have a small area."
Um, separation of church and state, anyone?

Thursday, January 18

free is me

Look what Donald Trump sent me. Two tickets to a Trump Wealth Creation Seminar hosted by his daughter, Ivanka!

I can't wait.


A Camp Pendleton Marine has pleaded guilty to unpremeditated murder. He could be sentenced to life in prison.

Four other defendants had pleaded guilty to lesser charges, promising to testify against their fellow suspects in exchange for reduced prison sentences of less than a year to 21 months.

In what he described as 'making a statement,' Cpl. Trent D. Thomas (in photo) testified that Sgt. Lawrence G. Hutchins III sat in a palm grove April 25 in Hamdaniya with several of his men and hatched a plot to kill a suspected terrorist. If they were unable to locate the specific individual then they planned to kill someone else.
“We wanted to make a statement that the Marines were sick and tired of being bombed and stuff,” Cpl.Thomas said.
After failing to find the subject later that evening Thomas, Cpl. Marshall L. Magincalda and Lance Cpl. Robert B. Pennington pulled Hashim Ibrahim Awad from his home. As they led him away Awad allegedly asked “Why, mister, why?”

They took Awad to a roadside hole about ten minutes away. There Thomas and four other Marines opened fire on Awad. Sgt. Hutchins noticed that the Iraqi was still alive so he 'finished him off' with three more shots.

This is indeed a terrible crime. I wonder if these shell-shocked Marines would have been as frustrated and vengeful if they had been given more sensible rules of engagement to protect themselves and their comrades from I.E.D.'s and suicide bombers? (Until just very recently the R.O.E. in Iraq prevented Americans from shooting at terrorists without 'probable cause.')

the new opposition

It is highly irresponsible for GOP Senators Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe to part company with the President on Iraq.

fair, impartial?

The prosecution of Scooter Libby was political and his trial is going to be political, too.

Defense attorneys have had some success disqualifying potential Bush-hating jurors.

no debate

When I know my subject, I love debating someone who disagrees with me. It's fun.

Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," is a well known scientist who disagrees with Al Gore's version of global warming.

From the WSJ:
"Al Gore is traveling around the world telling us how we must fundamentally change our civilization due to the threat of global warming. Today he is in Denmark to disseminate this message. But if we are to embark on the costliest political project ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best facts, not just the convenient ones. This was the background for the biggest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to set up an investigative interview with Mr. Gore. And for this, the paper thought it would be obvious to team up with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," who has provided one of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore's tune."

"The interview had been scheduled for months. Mr. Gore's agent yesterday thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr. Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?"
Gore can't argue facts and he can't defend his 'beliefs' about global warming, so he hides from confrontation. He's both a liar and a coward.

P.S. To those of you who wasted 90 minutes of your life watching 'An Inconvenient Truth,' remember the part about the melting ice in Antarctica? According to Lomborg, Gore chose to focus on the 2% of the area that is warming while ignoring the 98% of Antarctica that is has been cooling for the past 35 years.

the other 'surge'

The WSJ ran this brilliant op-ed yesterday about the shrinking deficit.
"The myth persists in some media circles that the federal budget deficit is "surging" or ballooning or something terrible -- all of which is served up as ammunition for those in Congress who want a tax increase. At the risk of being drummed out of the guild, we thought you'd rather have the real story.

"The deficit has in fact declined by some $165 billion over the past two fiscal years, and according to the most recent data has continued to fall in the first quarter of fiscal 2007. The latest Treasury estimates for January show that tax receipts in December were $18 billion higher than a year earlier, helping to boost the budget surplus for the month to $40 billion, up from $11 billion a year ago. December is typically a good month for revenues due to year-end tax payments.

"Meanwhile, for the first three months of fiscal 2007 through December, revenues climbed 8.1%, building on double-digit revenue increases in the previous two years. Corporate income taxes were up a remarkable 22.2% in the first fiscal quarter, showing that the government continues to grab a nice chunk of the rising business profits that so many of our politicians like to deplore. Individual income taxes rose 8.8%, thanks to strong wage and salary growth. Much of this revenue comes from "the rich," believe it or not.

"In the most surprising budget news, federal spending was nearly flat in the first fiscal quarter. This was despite a 22.1% increase in Medicare spending due largely to the new prescription drug benefit, and a 10.7% increase in defense. Those increases were offset by lower spending for flood insurance and disaster assistance compared with the peak of post-Katrina payments a year ago. So the first quarter deficit was $85 billion, down sharply from $119 billion a year earlier.

"All in all, despite huge outlays for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the nation's fiscal picture is brightening. We hate to ruin the press corps's day with such cheerful news, but there it is."
This is stuff you won't hear from the Bush-hating MSM.

endless debate

Nancy Pelosi promises to do everything in her power 'to achieve energy independence.'

That's great news! That means we can start drilling in Alaska, off American coasts and in the Gulf of Mexico, right?

No. She won't do those things. But she has formed a House select committee to hold hearings and recommend legislation on how to reduce greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide generated by fossil fuels, that most scientists blame for a gradual warming of the earth's climate.

Isn't that exciting? It certainly has John Dingell (D-MI) in a tizzy.

From the AP:
"We should probably name it the committee on world travel and junkets," said Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which overseas the Clean Air Act and the Environmental Protection Agency.

"We're just empowering a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs to go around and make speeches and make commitments that will be very difficult to honor," said Dingell, a champion of the auto industry, which could be required to producing cleaner-burning and more fuel efficient vehicles.
I can't believe I actually agree with John Dingell on something.

Wednesday, January 17


What's this? Two US Border Patrol agents arrested and sentenced to prison time after shooting a Mexican drug runner? Have you heard about this? Outrageous.

I don't understand Bush's position on Mexico, period.

Call the White House and request that the President pardon Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean.

fisa rules

The concerned headline on the Drudgereport screamed 'Bush Won't Reauthorize Terrorist Surveillance Program.'

True. According to Reuters, the President has, in fact, decided not to renew the program as it is currently written. However, according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, a secret FISA court judge has approved a Bush Administration proposal to target communications inside and outside the United States with probable cause.

Gonzalez went on to say that the Administration will retain the "speed and agility" necessary to successfully defend the American homeland from terrorists attacks.

This is a shrewd move by the White House. Circumventing the Bush-hating Congress and giving this authority back to FISA might appear to be a victory for the Left, but it allows this important program to continue unabated.

downed drone?

According to 'an Iranian lawmaker' an American spy drone has been shot down by Iranian troops as it 'crossed the borders' in the last few days. Read about it here.

Tuesday, January 16


Reuters is reporting that Russia has shipped new anti-aircraft missile systems to Iran.

"We have supplied the modern short-range anti-aircraft systems TOR-M1 in accordance with our contracts," Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov told reporters. "Iran is not under sanctions and if it wants to buy defensive equipment for its armed forces then why not?"
Actually, Iran is, and has been, under UN sanctions restricting their trade in sensitive nuclear materials and technology since last year, an effort put into place to hinder their nuclear ambitions. Russia even joined in approval of those sanctions, although now Ivanov is claiming the missile sale isn't covered by the sanctions because of the defensive nature of the weaponry.

Helpfully, and almost on cue, the Associated Press is reporting that the United States has held 'surplus sales,' selling weapons to countries such as China and Iran. A veritable 'supermarket for arms dealers.'

Unfortunately, Joe Q. Public won't differentiate between Russia and the US in this case. No question you sell this stuff and it can find its way into the hands of some nefarious characters. Realities change. Iran was an American ally in the '70's.

This is biased reporting at its anti-Bush best.

But you can't really blame the Federal Government, can you? How much control can one guy, or a group of elected representatives, possibly have over such a bloated bureaucracy? It's totally out of control and has been for years. Government is beyond fixing. And international criminals -- in this case third party arms dealers -- will always find ways to ply their trade on the black market.

Besides, putting condoms in public schools costs a boatload of money, so why not shed some obsolete weapons?


The Democrats have turned 'Big Oil,' 'Big Pharma' and 'Big Tobacco' into Republican pejoratives. Nancy Pelosi has always been the queen of double standards. But now, with all apologies to Bill Parcells, I'm going to start calling her 'Big Tuna.'

From the WaPo:

"The bill would leave American Samoa as the only territory not covered by the $7.25 rate, and because Samoa is represented by a Democrat, Del. Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, Republicans cried foul."

"Faleomavaega's campaign coffers have been well stocked by the tuna industry that dominates his island economy, but Republicans picked up on another issue: StarKist owns one of the largest canneries on the island, and Del Monte Foods, StarKist's parent company, is based in San Francisco, which Pelosi represents."

Pelosi is always talking about how much time she used to spend in the kitchen. Hey Nancy! Go make me a sandwich.

more berger

Ronald Cass, Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law and Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, has written a brilliant piece about the Sandy Berger affair.
"Bill Clinton obviously has great sensitivity to his place in history and to accusations that he did too little to respond to al-Qaeda, that he is to some degree responsible for failing to prevent 9/11's tragedy. That is why he and his lieutenants made reckless and baseless accusations against the current Bush administration, attempting to portray them as having dropped the baton handed off by ever-vigilant Clintonistas (who, according to John Ashcroft's testimony, withheld the MAAAR, the Millennium Alert After Action Report, and its warnings about al-Qaeda's operations in the US from the Bush transition team)."

"But maybe there is more to the story. Maybe there is something far worse than we can imagine that is worth having his chief security aide risk his reputation, his career, and his liberty to cover up."


Or maybe fishing' is the better term. Barack Obama announced today the formation of his presidential exploratory committee. Shocker!


Iraq The Model is already reporting that terrorists are already leaving Baghdad and moving to Diyala.


From Monday's NYT:
"American officers cite several factors they believe will lend impetus to the new offensive. The five additional brigades of American troops committed by President Bush — approximately 21,500 American soldiers, about 80 percent of them to be deployed in Baghdad — will roughly triple the numbers of American soldiers available for ground operations, as a relatively small proportion of the new troop strength will be needed for “force protection,” the military term for troops who safeguard bases and ensure the safety of other soldiers."

"Another positive cited by the officers is the appointment by President Bush of Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus as the new overall American commander in Iraq, succeeding Gen. George W. Casey Jr., who will leave next month after more 30 months in command of the war. General Petraeus, who has already completed two 12-month tours in Iraq, has a reputation among officers who have served under him as an imaginative commander who enlists strong loyalties among his troops."
Think the MSM will report about the success once Baghdad is secure? No way. They'll glom onto violence elsewhere in the country as evidence of Bush's military incompetence.

Friday, January 12


The hypocrisy of pointless Democrats like Barbara Boxer.

Condi Rice is THE ultimate feminist!
She is unburdened by familial responsibilities. She is an accomplished woman. AND she's black! AND she's pro-choice, the Liberal litmus test! Rice should be celebrated by Liberal feminists the world over.

But because she is a Conservative and she works for George W. Bush, she doesn't count.

Rice doesn't have children so somehow the war in Iraq doesn't personally affect her? She doesn't have children so she's not capable of making informed decisions? She can't relate to families because she doesn't have one of her own? None of this makes any sense to me.

Rice is making tough, gut wrenching decisions that result in the deaths of Americans. I wonder about the toughest decision Boxer has had to make recently? Which pant suit to wear? What to order for dinner? Which event to attend?

Tony Snow summed it up nicely by saying that Boxer's comments were 'a great step backward for feminism.'

Thursday, January 11

cpl. jason dunham

President Bush, shown today at a White House ceremony honoring Medal of Honor winner Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham. Dunham was killed in Iraq when he threw his body over a live grenade to save members of his Marine patrol unit.


"On every major foreign policy and domestic debate of the last quarter century I've been there," says 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate Christopher Dodd.

Excuse me, I'm yawning.

the best medicine

Laughter is. Thanks to my buddy Lisa for this hysterical post from IMAO.


Meet Heidi. I predict she'll be Trump's next "Apprentice." I also predict she'll be my next girlfriend.

I'll let you know how that goes.

now playing


Deb Saunders gets it exactly right.

"If you think the world hated America for going into Iraq, imagine how the world will look at an America that flees an imploding nation. The world won't see an America -- as war opponents like to see themselves -- that is virtuous and realistic. They will see wholesale bloodshed, an ally that cannot be trusted and an army that doesn't know how to win."


The always-brilliant Dick Morris thinks Congress has a credibility problem.

Credibility issue #1:

Congress took the day off Monday so that members could attend the Ohio State - Florida National Championship game.
"Last year, the House and Senate worked an average of about two days a week for their salary of $162,500. Nice work if you can find it. Responding to well-deserved criticisms, the new House majority leader, Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), with great fanfare, promised a five-day work week. But that was just talk. When it was the Republicans who were scheduling the eight-day month, Hoyer was outraged. But now that the Democrats control the calendar, he considers a football game to be a legitimate excuse for a vacation day."
The next time you hear a politician talking about 'working families,' remember Congress won't be working a five day work week this month, either. The Martin Luther King holiday is next week and then, after that, both political parties are hosting their respective retreats.

Maybe February, then?

Credibility issue #2:

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid is resisting calls for 'an independent watchdog to enforce lobbying laws' from McCain, Obama, Collins, Lieberman and Feingold. Why? Reid wants to 'hold hearings.'
"This is hardly a new idea. It’s been proposed for years and makes sense. We’ve seen how little policing of lobbyists has been done — witness Jack Abramoff and his cohorts. Requiring hearings is just another stalling tactic. And, in any event, Reid is the last person who should be in charge of designing the self-policing of lobbyists. For years, his three sons and son-in-law made millions by lobbying for Nevada interests — often working out of his Senate office. Only when the press called attention to the practice did Reid bar the boys. Talk about the goats guarding the garbage!"
Reid never did return that $60,000 he got from Abramoff, did he?

20 days ago

Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is threatening to filibuster to 'block any legislation expressing disapproval' at the President's new Iraq war plan.

Yeah, but do they have the 60 votes necessary to do that?

Meanwhile, more empty, ridiculous and dishonest rhetoric from the Democrats. Today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said: "In choosing to escalate the war, the President virtually stands alone."

But look what Reid said on December 22, 2006.

jimma sucks

Mass resignations at the Carter Center.

Wednesday, January 10

'surge' part ii

I liked what I heard tonight from Bush about the change in the rules of engagement. I liked what I heard about the new commitment of the Iraqi government about a 'zero tolerance' policy toward sectarian and terrorist violence. And I liked Bush's cadence. He always seems sincere to me. Deadly serious. Of course he's serious, he's ordered troops into battle. Nobody talks about how that decision must weigh on him. He's responsible. He appeared more resolute than ever. Good stuff. Now, let's see if words translate into action.

But Howard Fineman -- who never misses an opportunity to bash the President -- thinks Bush looked 'scared' tonight.

And as we've come to expect, more inaccurate reporting on Bush's speech, just as there has been the entire Bush Presidency and the entire Iraq War. Latest example of shoddy, lazy reportage: Terrence Hunt can't manage to correctly report on the number of troops Bush is now sending to Iraq. It's 24,000, not 21,500. Why am I more deserving of Hunt's job than he is? Get it straight, Terry.

Read the entire text of the Bush speech here. No wonder the American military adores him.

'the surge'

So it will be 20,000 more troops to Baghdad with an additional 4,000 troops to the Anbar province. Baghdad will then be divided into 9 districts, with each district having one American battalion (600 troops) and one Iraqi brigade.

FYI, a brigade is larger than a battalion.

Advance excerpts from Bush's speech:
"Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work…and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated."
"The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time…In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy – by advancing liberty across a troubled region."
"The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security…The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will…Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship…A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them – and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren."
Read the roundup of Tony Snow's blogger conference call @ Powerline.

voters aren't this shallow...

Or maybe they are. A lot of Democrats are. Here's Barack Obama doing his best James Bond impression.

Maybe the Senator should pose for the cover of Rolling Stone like Gore did in 2000. Remember Gore's obviously air-brushed bulging crotch?

the withdrawal of four

This makes me sick.

President Bush withdrew the names of four judicial nominees. Why? Because his own party didn't even support his nominees. Anemic Congressional leadership is the reason the Republicans lost Congress last November.

The four: U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle of North Carolina, William Haynes, the Pentagon’s top legal counsel, William G. Myers III, of Boise, Idaho. Michael Wallace of Jackson, Miss., announced his withdrawal last month.

Boyle was first nominated for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991 by former President George H.W. Bush, and was nominated six more times by the current President Bush. But he didn't quit.

“I didn’t quit,” Boyle said. Instead, the White House gave up on his confirmation.

Haynes, was blocked by Lindsey Graham (R-SC) because of his Pentagon background and his perceived advocation of torture.

bad shot

We missed him.

hopes, dashed

The President is sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq, and will admit in a nationally televised speech tonight that mistakes were made 'with the earlier operations.'

That's certainly true. I keep harping on the critical error it was, back in '03, not to kill al Sadr. To me, that was the turning point.

Clearly some hopes have been dashed for a united, democratic Iraq in the short run. But what about the long run? I still think Iraq is winnable. But imagine not trying? Imagine casting 'symbolic' votes against funding the war?

There are two sides in this debate, the cowardly and the courageous. Democrats are the former and Bush is the latter. Bush is committed to winning, the Democrats, to losing, and they are committed to losing because they want Bush to lose. Whatever it takes to make Bush look bad, that's what the Left is hoping for.

Think about that for a moment, and there's no debating this point. The American Left -- the Democrats -- reviles George W. Bush so much that they are openly wishing for the deaths of American soldiers. They are openly hoping that America loses a war.

And these are the people -- the Democrats -- elected to power in November's midterm elections. Way to go, America.


I'm hyper-partisan, but if I were confronted with overwhelming evidence that Bush endangered national security by destroying classified documents, I would be revolted. I would be honest about it, I would think less of him and I would condemn the man and his actions. My estimation of the man would be forever altered. His reputation would be completely destroyed.

In that light what does it say about the s0-called Democratic Party that Bill Clinton, the most morally bankrupt and corrupt person ever to occupy the White House, remains a beloved, idolized and lionized figure?

Tuesday, January 9

damage & hypocrisy

President Clinton 'designated' Sandy Berger as his representative at the National Archives in 2002 ahead of Berger's appearance and subsequent testimony to the 9/11 Commission. Berger, now infamously, went to the Archives four separate times and stole (and destroyed) original copies of classified documents -- stuffing them into his pants and socks, and leaving some of them under a trailer at a construction site.

Clinton and Berger saw an opportunity to 'correct the record' about what they did, but mostly what they did not do to protect America's national security from Islamic terrorism.

We know that they did almost nothing, ignoring threats, ignoring opportunities, ignoring warnings, utterly disengaged, paralyzed by indecision, even worrying about 'jurisdictional' issues when it came to capturing bin Laden. No wonder members of the previous administration were concerned about how history would judge them.

Is it really such a stretch that Clinton -- in his perpetual legacy search -- ordered the destruction of the documents?

America's national security was damaged more than initially believed, and nary a peep about it from the MSM.

Imagine if Berger was a Republican. It would be non-stop coverage about the Republicans betraying national security.

There would be endless coverage. There would be hearings. There would be resignations, from the President, on down. There would be convictions, and there would be jail sentences.

It would be Watergate X 1000.

But since Berger is a Democrat, and a Clinton aide, he gets a free pass and a slap on the wrist. And I guarantee you that Berger will be working for the next so-called 'Democratic' President.

Read the entire report here.


Al Sharpton -- America's opportunist-in-chief -- is responsible for deciding whether or not he wants to run for president in 2008. But of course, if he runs and loses, you'll be responsible because of latent racism.


Kerry running for President again? I don't believe it. He's dense and error prone, but not stupid. Read the WaPo blog.


Looks like I'm switching to Cingular.

Monday, January 8

*breaking news

CBS News is reporting that a US Air Force gunship has fired strikes at al Qaeda terrorists in Somalia.

Read about it here.


Read the truth about what's happening in Iraq.

big 'mo

Mitt Romney's fund-raising effort is off to a rousing start. A million + in a single day ain't bad, adding to an already huge $6.5 campaign war chest.

Said Spencer Zwick, Romney's finance director: "Money talks, but early money screams."

'its a mac world, after all...'

Will they/won't they? There's rampant speculation about whether or not Apple will introduce a combo iPod/cell phone at tomorrow's MacWorld.

From the International Herald Tribune:
Industry executives and competitors say that Apple has developed the first of the next generation of devices that are closer to personal computers in pocket form, meaning that they will easily handle music, entertainment, productivity tasks and communications on cellular and other wireless networks.

'the man to see'

Time's Mike Allen is reporting that Bush has chosen President Reagan's former White House counsel, consummate DC insider and 9/11 Commission member, Fred Fielding, to replace Harriet Miers.

Nice biased reporting, the lead:
"In a signal that he could be open to working more closely with congressional Democrats rather than stonewalling, President Bush plans to name the widely respected Republican lawyer Fre..."

Sunday, January 7

el verde está fresco

Who exactly is Y Fray? She's LA's newest celebrity.


Ehud Olmert doesn't have the balls to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran.


You know what they say about conventional wisdom?

wall art

Projecting a film onto the external facade of Manhattan's MoMA? Sounds very cool to me.

I should move to New York.


It continues. I never imagined that killing Saddam would provoke outrage.

From the NY Times:
"Even among those who opposed the Iraq war from the start, there was always hope that bringing Saddam Hussein to justice would be a saving grace of the entire misbegotten enterprise. Now it seems that even this comfort will be denied. Far from healing old wounds, as some suggested it would, his conviction by the Iraqi special tribunal has exerted little effect on the deepening civil conflict between Shiites and Sunnis. The often circuslike atmosphere of the trial, as well as the murder of three defense lawyers, led groups like Human Rights Watch to condemn the tribunal as flawed and illegitimate. And the charge for which Saddam Hussein received the death penalty did not include his most heinous acts. His execution must still remind the world of the horror of the atrocities he committed while in power. But unfortunately, the disarray of the legal process calls greater attention to the failings of the United States, the Iraqis and the international community in dealing with all that has come after."
Hussein committed multiple acts of killing, mass murder and genocide. Stipulation, anyone?

Did it really make sense to allow Hussein and his lawyers to continue that 'often circuslike atmosphere' of future trials, when the outcome was already known? Really. What was the point of that? To please radical groups like Human Rights Watch?

Saturday, January 6

let the investigations begin...

I dread this. And for what? Spite? Payback for Clinton? How childish can you get? No wonder Harriet is leaving.

A hundred bucks says the Dems overplay their hand. They always do.

dumb and dumber

The Dems sent a letter to the President yesterday, urging him not to send a surge of troops to Iraq.

"Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain."

"Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror."
I'm scratching my head here. How could a victory in Iraq be described as 'no strategic gain'?

Declaring failure could not possibly be 'the way forward' in Iraq. Pulling the troops out would give the terrorists a victory. A defeated United States makes America a superpower no more.

And why are the Dems suddenly opposed to more troops? Is it because Bush is now proposing it?

Friday, January 5


I've never heard of this guy, Linton Brooks. Have you?

Brooks was the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees America's nuclear weapons program. Brooks was dismissed yesterday by Energy Security Sam Bodman.

The new guy, President Bush's selection, is Thomas D'Agostino, Brooks' deputy at NNSA, which seems like an odd choice to me, given that Brooks' dismissal came in the wake of security lapses. The same type of lapses that plagued Clinton Energy czar (current New Mexico and '08 Presidential candidate) Bill Richardson.

maliki's call

I rarely disagree with Charles Krauthammer. I disagree with him on the execution of Saddam.

If the execution was 'botched,' as he asserts, then it was botched by the duly-elected and Constitutionally viable Iraqi government, not the Bush Administration.

For all of this phony outrage at Hussein's passing, all of the charges that the US hastened the hanging, it turns out the White House wanted to wait.

3 days

America needed to 'be introduced' this week to the new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. So we've had it crammed down our throats that Nancy is a 'multi tasker,' that she's famous for raising kids, baking cookies, working on political campaigns, running for office herself, and, as a result of the November '06 elections, has become the first female Speaker of the House in American history.

No mention of the real Pelosi. The one described by Peter Schweizer in a book called "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy." Some of this stuff alleged by Schweizer is pretty over the top. But if even a quarter of what he describes about Pelosi is true, well. The word hypocrite doesn't cover it.

Pelosi grew up with privilege, the daughter of a political family in Maryland. She married rich. With her husband Paul, the Pelosi's own a large stake in the exclusive Auberge du Soleil hotel in Rutherford, California as well as a large stake in the Piatti Restaurant.

They own vineyards, too, according to Schweizer, none of which employ union workers. Yes. Nancy Pelosi, the 'staunch union supporter,' the woman who 'has received the Cesar Chavez award from the United Farm Workers union,' refuses to hire union workers at her own businesses.

For the record let me say that I don't bemoan anyone having money. I admire the wealthy and I salute their business acumen and talent. What I object to is the use of terms like 'rich' and 'wealth' to induce envy among others. And this class envy is what Democrats do best, painting the Republican party as the party of the 'rich,' portraying themselves as regular folks, barely getting by.

Most of the wealthiest members of Congress are Democrats, yet
they have the audacity, the hypocrisy, to call themselves the 'party of the people.' Well, they're not. But they throw great parties. It's a shame the people aren't invited.

The "Pelosi-Palooza" last night, was a $1,000 per person fund raiser, featuring Jimmy Buffett, Carole King and Mickey Hart. I wasn't there, but I understand Tony Bennett sang “I Left My Heart in San Francisco."

Today? More self aggrandizing, this time in Baltimore, her hometown, where "The Queen" will have a street named after her, the 'Nancy D'Alesandro Pelosi Via.' The street naming ceremony was to have taken place on Tuesday, but 'they postponed it a few days what with all the Ford stuff going on.'

I think Pelosi has shown the American people exactly the type of person she is this week. But I think someone needs to tell her that she wasn't elected president.
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