Giuliani hammers Democrats for being pinko commie peace-mongers

There's so many good quotes in this speech it's hard to narrow it down... “But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have?” Giuliani said. “If we are on defense [with a Democratic president], we will have more losses and it will go on longer.” “I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,” Giuliani continued. “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.” He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.” [...] “This war ends when they stop coming here to kill us!” Giuliani said in his speech. “Never, ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for [terrorists] to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!” Giuliani said terrorists “hate us and not because of anything bad we have done; it has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms we have and the freedoms we want to share with the world.” Giuliani continued: “The freedoms we have are in conflict with the perverted, maniacal interpretation of their religion.” He said Americans would fight for “freedom for women, the freedom of elections, freedom of religion and the freedom of our economy.” Addressing the terrorists directly, Giuliani said: “We are not giving that up, and you are not going to take it from us!” Amen Rudy! Now if only we could steer you a little further to the right on some of those social issues you'd be damn near the perfect candidate.

Senate votes 50 to 48 to add expiration date to Iraq war

They also want to make sure all the pork is shoved down our throats before the American public wakes up and realizes the Democrats they elected just a few months ago have totally abandonned the middle-of-the-road positions they took during the campaigns, taking a sharp turn to the left. Thank you sir may I have another.... WASHINGTON, March 27 — The Senate defeated an attempt to erase an American troop withdrawal date from an Iraq spending bill this afternoon after an emotional debate about the powers of the presidency and Congress and the well-being of front-line soldiers. By a vote of 50 to 48, the Senate allowed a withdrawal date of March 31, 2008, to remain in the $122 billion bill, which has yet to be acted upon. The majority defeated an amendment offered by Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, that would have removed the date. The March 31, 2008, date is nonbinding, so the spending bill emerging from the Senate differs markedly from the version narrowly passed by the House last week that demanded a withdrawal by Sept. 1, 2008. Moreover, the margins in both chambers were far too narrow to override a veto promised by President Bush. Republican Senators Chuck Hagel (Nebraska) and Gordon Smith (Oregon) voted with the Democrats to pass the bill. At least we know Bush will veto it, and as of now the cut-and-run Dems don't have the votes to overturn the veto.

Senate Republicans stand firm and block the Democrats attempt to force troop withdrawal

The only Republican that broke ranks and voted with the Dems was Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon. WASHINGTON, March 15 — The Senate on Thursday rejected a Democratic resolution to withdraw most American combat troops from Iraq in 2008, but a similar measure advanced in the House, and Democratic leaders vowed to keep challenging President Bush to change course in Iraq. Go to Complete Coverage » The vote in the Senate was 50 against and 48 in favor, 12 short of what was needed to pass, with just a few defections in each party. It came just hours after the House Appropriations Committee, in another vote largely on party lines, approved an emergency spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that includes a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. The House will vote on that legislation next Thursday, setting the stage for another confrontation. [...] The Democratic resolution in the Senate would have redefined the United States mission in Iraq and set a goal of withdrawing American combat troops by March 31, 2008, except for a “limited number” focused on counterterrorism, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and protecting American and allied personnel. The House measure set a withdrawal deadline of Sept. 1, 2008. Good work Senate Republicans blocking the Democrats proposal. Setting a set date for withdrawal is like giving the terrorists a date after which they can do whatever they want. It's like Aussie Prime Minister Howard had said about a possible presidential Democratic victory in '08: "If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March, 2008, and pray as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats." Whatever date we set for withdrawal, I'm sure the terrorists' calendar would have a big circle around that date. But cheer up Democrats. Your party finally did a couple things right. They finally had an original idea, and they actually tried to enact policy based on that idea. Sure it was about as wrong an idea as they could have possibly come up with, but at least it's more than the pointless anti-Bush blather that they usually rely on.

Bush fires 8 US Attorneys!! Oh the humanity!!

Apparently the Dems never got the memo that as Commander in Chief of the most powerful nation on the planet, if someone under your employ doesn't perform up to expectations, you can fire them. As if these were the first US Attorneys a president had ever fired... The key here is "perform up to expectations" as opposed to "on a whim" or "to avoid your own criminal prosecution." But the Democratic Presidential candidates smelled blood and added to the MSM's feeding frenzy over this non-issue. But who would take the the 1st place for the "best shameless grandstanding", "beating a dead horse beyond recognition", and "wasting perfectly good airtime on a major news network for absolutely nothing" contest? Senator Barack Obama needs to fire his PR guy for not getting him more airtime on this exceedingly pointless issue as well as his speechwriter for not coming up with something with a bit more panache. Well maybe not fire... that's so Republican... I opposed Mr. Gonzalez's nomination, in part, because he had shown in his role as White House Counsel a penchant for subverting justice to serve the President's political goals, and I feared that in an Attorney General. Sadly, the latest revelations underscore my concern. Americans deserve to know who in the White House is pulling the strings at the Department of Justice, and why. Anyone involved should appear under oath and answer these questions. You opposed him from the beginning. Is that really the best you could come up with? Rookie... You get 3rd place. Senator John Edwards is outraged and takes 2nd place in our little contest for lumping the firing of US Attorneys to the Patriot Act, Gitmo, and Abu Ghraib. Kudos John! Today's news is only the latest and most disturbing sign of the politicization of justice under President Bush. From the abuse of investigative authority under the Patriot Act to the unconstitutional imprisonment of the Guantanamo Bay detainees and illegal torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Bagram Air Force Base, this president has consistently shown contempt for the rule of law. But Senator Hillary Clinton takes the cake and is our grandprize winner due to her complete and total hypocrisy. "The buck should stop somewhere," Clinton told ABC News senior political correspondent Jake Tapper, "and the attorney general — who still seems to confuse his prior role as the president's personal attorney with his duty to the system of justice and to the entire country — should resign. "I'm deeply disturbed by what we have learned thus far," Clinton said, "and I join those who are calling for a full and thorough investigation to try to get to the bottom of these very political decisions that interfere with prosecutorial responsibility by U.S. attorneys, and I think that the attorney general should resign." But where's the hypocrisy you ask? When Clinton's husband took office in 1993, one of the first actions his attorney general took was to remove every U.S. attorney. Clinton was asked how this was different from the termination of eight U.S. attorneys last December. "There is a great difference," Clinton said. "When a new president comes in, a new president gets to clean house. It's not done on a case-by-case basis where you didn't do what some senator or member of Congress told you to do in terms of investigations into your opponents. It is 'Let's start afresh' and every president has done that." Oh Hillary! How soon we forget! Check out this great op-ed from the WSJ that explains a little better how unprecedented Clinton's firing of all 93 US Attonreys was and not only the Democratic buddies he helped, he quite possibly quashed the White Water scandal he and his wife were up to their necks in as well. Mega-sooper-dooper bonus points for using the executive powers to prevent investigation into your own shady dealings! At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition. Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton. Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons. This doesn't of course mean that Bush's firings weren't politically motivated. They were. They just weren't of the grotesquely criminal nature the Clintons' were. I mean really... has our society reached a point where it's criminal to fire someone for performing required tasks poorly or not performing them at all? The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney General Albert Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush -- or any President -- to insist that his appointees act energetically against it. Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129-votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do. In New Mexico, another state in which recent elections have been decided by razor thin margins, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias did establish a voter fraud task force in 2004. But it lasted all of 10 weeks before closing its doors, despite evidence of irregularities by the likes of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn. As our John Fund reported at the time, Acorn's director Matt Henderson refused to answer questions in court about whether his group had illegally made copies of voter registration cards in the run-up to the 2004 election. As for some of the other fired Attorneys, at least one of their dismissals seemed to owe to differences with the Administration about the death penalty, another to questions about the Attorney's managerial skills. Not surprisingly, the dismissed Attorneys are insisting their dismissals were unfair, and perhaps in some cases they were. It would not be the first time in history that a dismissed employee did not take kindly to his firing, nor would it be the first in which an employer sacked the wrong person. So sure this could have been handled better. But once you actually start to look at facts as opposed to innuendo, you pretty quickly figure out just how liberally biased the MSM is and just how much hot air Democratic presidential candidates are full of.

Is Obama taking a staunch position against Iran?

That's certainly what this Chicago Tribune headline makes it seem like: Obama calls Iran threat to U.S., Israel. Kinda makes him sound like he's the next JFK... Could it be true? Seeking to woo Jewish votes and contributions, Sen. Barack Obama told an audience in Chicago Friday that he considers Iran "one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace" and pledged he would try to end that nation's uranium enrichment program. At least the ChiTrib is honest enough to note a political campaign promise when they see one. Still, Obama says Iran is one of the greatest threats to world peace. So far he's on the money... As he criticized the Bush administration's Iraq policies, the Democratic presidential candidate suggested that the danger posed by neighboring Iran has grown in recent years because of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Ahh the truth at last... It wouldn't be a Democratic fundraiser without a good ol' fashioned Bush-bash: Iran is our fault! So it's a back-assed view of national security. Yes, Iran's a threat, but because we screwed the region up. Nevermind that the region has been screwed up for centuries and we just got there... And then the annointed one speaks! "One of the most profound consequences of the administration's failed strategy in Iraq has been to strengthen Iran's strategic position, reduce U.S. credibility and influence in the region, and place Israel and other nations friendly to the United States in greater peril," Obama (D-Ill.) said before a regional gathering of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a major pro-Israel lobbying group. Obama is looking at the strategy completely backwards. Iran is stronger by default because we ahnililated the stronger military threat in the region, and they're in a strategic position now because we already took out Iraq that was in a more strategic position. And it's not like Iran just figured out Israel existed in the past three years since we've been in the Middle East. Israel's been a target since the country was founded, and they've been a target simply because they exist. America has probably done more to inhibit Israel than help Israel. US officials talk alot about our great ally Israel, but most of our foreign policies have been made to placate the Arab street at the expense of Israel. And Obama's audience ought to realize that if he or any other Democrat is elected, we'll be leaving the region shortly after they take office, and Israel will be left alone to defend itself. Again. So sure Obama sounds great. It's easy to sound great when you spew misconceptions and half-truths... UPDATE @ 10:22am: And good luck to Obama when he tries to play the black card to get elected. Especially since his white ancestors owned slaves.

Rudy Giuliani slams the nonbinding resolution against the war and the government officials who support it

Amen Rudy! GIULIANI: I mean, you can look at the practical and common sense conclusion on that anyway you want. But there's something more important than that. We have a right of free speech in this country and we elect people to make decisions. Here's what I would prefer to see them do, though, if you ask me what's my view on that. The nonbinding resolution thing gets me more than are you for it or against it. I have tremendous respect for the people who feel that we either made a mistake going to war, who voted against the war, who now have come to the conclusion, changed their minds, they have every right to that, that it's wrong, you should, in a dynamic situation, keep questioning. What I don't like is the idea of a nonbinding resolution. KING: Because? GIULIANI: Because there's no decision. KING: But it's a statement. GIULIANI: Yes, but that's what you do. That's what Tim Russert does and that's what Rush Limbaugh does. That's what you guys do, you make comments. We pay them to make decisions, not just to make comments. We pay them to decide. The United States Congress does declarations, the war. We pay them to make decisions. Amen. If they're so opposed to the war, defund it. So put your money where your mouth is Democrats (and White Flag Republicans). Put up a resolution to defund the war, something that would actually be a decision, or are you afraid of the consequences?

Several Republicans begin to break ranks and join the Democrats

They're supporting the Democrats' non-binding resolution disapproving of the 20,000 troop surge. WASHINGTON — Breaking ranks, a small band of House Republicans declared their opposition to a troop buildup in Iraq on Wednesday, and President Bush appeared resigned to passage of a nonbinding measure disapproving of his decision. Whoopee. That dumb resolution is about as important as my opinion on who should advance on American Idol and who they should employ as a judge on the show. You know what, I'm going to write a non-binding resolution that says I do not support Simon Cowell's continued employment as a judge on American Idol. H. CON. RES. 63 Disapproving of the decision of the President American Idol producers and Fox Television announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq continue the employment of Simon Cowell as an American Idol judge. Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring) JWookie (the blogosphere concurring), That-- (1) Congress The blogosphere and the American people will continue to support and protect the members citizens of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq pursuing their dream to be the next American Idol; and (2) Congress The blogosphere and JWookie specifically disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush American Idol producers and Fox Television announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq employ Simon Cowell as a judge for American Idol. I bet it only takes hours for Fox to fire him... ... just you wait and see... ... any day now he's gone... ... fired... ... unemployed... ... don't blink you might miss it... ... there will be thousands of Idol contestants taking to the streets in joyous celebration... ... really... there will...

Bernanke to testify before Democratic committees for the first time

And this article makes the point that the Federal Reserve Chairman and the Democrats grilling him might not be on the same wavelength... Feb. 12 (Bloomberg) -- When Ben S. Bernanke testifies before Congress's new Democratic majorities this week, it may be hard to tell that he and his questioners are talking about the same economy. The Federal Reserve chairman will use his semiannual appearances before House and Senate banking panels to describe a healthy economy and a strong job market. Democrats such as Representative Paul Hodes of New Hampshire will paint a much different picture -- of stagnant incomes and jobs lost to foreign competition. "Part of the reason I was elected and many of my colleagues were elected was because of the deep concerns that folks have about the economy," says Hodes, president of the freshman House Democrats and a member of the Financial Services Committee that will hear from Bernanke Feb. 15. And Rep. Hodes wasn't alone. Joining his "concerns" is the opinion that the economy's "not so good" from Senator Brown and that people are "checking the help-wanted ads" not the latest stock prices according to Rep. Wilson. That's some brilliant economic analysis all around right there. Random, pointless concerns, a general not-so-good by someone who probably doesn't understand how supply and demand works, and anecdotal unemployment stories probably put forth by lobbyist unions, rather than reality. I'll be the first to say unemployment sucks. I was unemployed for a couple months a few years back; I quit a dead end job that cost me more in gas and mileage than I made. How did I re-employ myself again? I went to a temp agency, and yes, my college education paid off. I worked hard at that company and they hired me full time. Even gave me a raise, thanks to a college education. I worked so hard that when I said I was moving and going to have to quit, they found me a job close to my new house. All that was me, my hard work, a grateful and generous employer, and a bit of luck. The government had nothing to do with it. And that's how it should be. While certain sectors of the economy aren't performing as well as those that are carrying the GDP, the government shouldn't be creating jobs for steel workers in Ohio, miners in West Virginia, or computer programmers in California. I mean, really, the government does too much as it is. Honestly, the free market, capitalist system maintains itself pretty well on its own. Government officials just need to stay out of its way. It's a whole lot easier for bureaucrats to muck it up that fix it once they've broken it.

Aussie PM John Howard rips Barack Obama

It's put up or shut up, and John Howard has been a staunch ally and understands what's at stake in the GWOT and in Iraq. So he gets to make comments like this. National Post - In a rare intervention by a foreign leader into U.S. domestic politics, Australian Prime Minister John Howard ridiculed a proposal by Mr. Obama to completely withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq over the next 13 months. Mr. Howard's unexpected criticism of Mr. Obama -- an underdog candidate to win his party's presidential nomination -- stunned Democrats even as U.S. conservatives joined the attack on the Illinois senator's dovish foreign policy views. "If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March, 2008, and pray as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats," Mr. Howard told an Australian broadcaster. I wonder if Obama will put that on his campaign bumper sticker? UPDATE @ 11:56am: This story has gone around the world and back again and everyone's got an opinion. Obama responded to Howard's remarks... "I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced," Mr Obama told reporters in the mid-western US state of Iowa. I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1400, so if he is ... to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq. Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric." As far as I'm concerned those 1400 could simply be cooking meals over there and it's still notable and as a nation we ought to be thankful. Or we can be like Obama and look a gift horse in the mouth. You decide... Howard won't take that lying down and he of course refuses to retract any part of his statement. What I have done is to criticize Sen. Obama's views on a particular issue, and I don't retreat in any way from that criticism," Howard said. "I think if America is defeated in Iraq that will be catastrophic for the West and it will have tremendously adverse consequences for Australia." Howard, who trails the opposition Labor Party in his re-election bid this year, criticized his opponents as being hypocritical. "Apparently it's all right for people in the Labor Party to regularly criticize the Bush administration's policy on Iraq -- and they do that almost on a daily basis," Howard said. "Yet my criticism of the policy position of somebody who is not president -- and is not even the Democratic candidate for the presidency -- that is interfering in American politics and is absolutely to be forbidden." Can't disagree with that. If you disagree and/or hate George Bush, that's fine. Speak your mind, no one will judge you. Of course if you agree with him you're an idiot. Expect to be shunned.

Bloggers on staff with Sen. Edwards are giving him a bit of a headache

Two bloggers Sen. Edwards staffed put him in a bit of a sticky spot the other day... WaPo - Former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) condemned comments made by two bloggers on his presidential campaign staff but chose not to fire the women, an incident that exposed the fault lines between the largely unfiltered world of new media and the highly regulated universe of national politics. At the center of the brouhaha are Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen, both of whom were hired last month by Edwards to oversee his "Net roots" outreach. A loose conglomeration of liberal-minded bloggers have grown increasingly influential in Democratic politics. Before joining the Edwards campaign, Marcotte and McEwen each maintained personal Web logs on which they posted highly critical and profane thoughts about topics including the Roman Catholic Church. Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, called on Edwards to fire the duo, whom he described as "vulgar, trash-talking bigots." Wow... second chances abound for liberals who trash WASPs. Of course we were talking about Mitt Romney and some off his staffers popping off, we'd have a national outcry and the oh-so-tolerant left would demand he withdraw from the race, no matter how many apologies he and the staffers issued. And since the MSM isn't paying attention, this isn't the only issue Edwards has made for himself at the moment. He's getting himself in enough trouble talking out of both sides of his face (after all, he did learn from from the best in the business, John Kerry, who flipped flopped more than a fish out of water). 2 weeks ago, speaking at the Herzliya Conference in Israel Edwards addressed the issue of Iran and their pursuit of nukes quite firmly. "Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons . . . The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran." He then took a page from John Kerry's playbook and proceeded to change his position. Q. Can we live with a nuclear Iran? A. "I'm not ready to cross that bridge yet... When [Bush] uses this kind of language 'options are on the table,' he does it in a very threatening kind of way - with a country that he's not engaging with or making any serious diplomatic proposals to. I mean I think that he's just dead wrong about that." How else should a military threat be made? What option does Edwards mean to leave on the table - a bouquet of flowers? On the February 4 edition of Meet the Press, Edwards was asked, "Would President Edwards allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons?" His response: "There's no answer to that question at this moment... We ought to negotiate directly with the Iranians, which has not been done...." Q. But they may get one. A. "I think we don't know, and you have to make a judgment as you go along." So he's gone from staunch position to a policy of jibberish flexible it's spineless. So Edward has become the protege of John Kerry. Only Edwards has charisma and better hair

It's always fun mixing it up with dissenting, anonymous commenters...

This person wasn't exactly a troll, but did their best to cover their tracks... So I thought I'd post their original comment as well as my repsonse. It's so much easier to read when you don't have to scroll through those tiny Haloscan comments windows... I stumbled across you blog. it's so fascinating to read a conservative perspective on war. The problem I have with Iraq war is the number of Iraqi deaths. The fucked up situation in Iraq wasn't created by Americans...it happened way before all of that with the division of the Ottoman empire...the formation of a multi-tribed nation state later living under a dictator... the problems are complex but why are American troops in there trying to liberate a country and killing so many people in the process? THere's this paternalistic attitude that only Americans can save these people because they are too uncivilised to govern themselves. They support unpopular governments that promote the American agenda. While the idea of saving a country from an evil dictator is noble (and Hollywood) the reality is the dictator is dead, there are more people dying. What is being gained from this war? Meanwhile North Korea has nukes, and after seeing what happened in Iraq I'm sure more countries will be nuking up to protect themselves. The only country that has ever dropped a nuke on a civillian population is us. More people will die for nothing. So many in Iraq already have. An American life is not worth more than an Iraqi life. All life is equal. You people amaze me with your over simplification of issues. I guess it makes the world an easier place to live in. Have a nice life. - Interest A fabulous comment, no? So here's my reply... Hey, thanks for stopping by. Other perspectives are always welcome here. I can appreciate your concern for the Iraqi civilian casualties, and I agree that the problem in Iraq (and the Middle East in general) is based on issues and hatreds centuries old. We are coming into this fight a bit late... And that's about where my agreement with you ends. 99% of civilians killed in Iraq were murdered by the insurgents in an effort to break the spirit of not just Americans, but Iraqis as well. They're certainly not being killed by US troops. All you have to do is read any newspaper or tune to any news program to see the latest car bomb at a market, mosque, or recruitment center. And since you appear to by confused by who's who over there, our guys are the ones wearing uniforms, in jeeps, holding guns. You know... normal soldiers. The bad guys are hiding among the innocent, using them as shields, blowing them up in an effort to blackmail us. What I love about the liberal perspective is how they make the terrorists moral equivalents to our troops. They kill civilians, we kill terrorists. Apparently that's a distinction only those not blinded by their liberal hate can recognize. As far as the popularity contest, you'd prefer be the main priority of the US government, the Iraqi government is only unpopular with the insurgents. The average Iraqi was thrilled at the chance to vote on their leadership. Just see the poll turnouts. And they're damn thankful we ignored the rest of the world and helped free them from the oppressive, genocidal, murderer that had been ruling their country. As far as North Korea and their nukes, you've got a great example of what happens when you ignore the rest of the world and rely 100% on diplomatic efforts. Kim Jong Il flat out lied to Clinton, signed the nuclear proliferation treaty, and then went ahead with his nuclear programs anyway. We didn't attack NK, or anywhere nearby that made him fear for the safety of his nation. Evil dictators don't need an excuse for their nuclear agendas, and saying they'd only pursue nukes because we are in the region is a gross, childish oversimplification. Sure we've got nukes and yes we've used them and we did so to force the hand of an adversary unwilling to surrender. How long should we have let that war drag on? That of course brings us to your million dollar question, why are we there? How's national security, global war on terror, and freeing an oppressed people strike you? And wouldn't you know it, that also shows that we value Iraqi life just as much as we value American life. We value it so much that we're sending our own sons and daughters there, risking their lives for the lives of Iraqis. Some might even argue we're valuing the lives of the Iraqis more than our own. Regardless, it certainly doesn't prove we don't value Iraqi lives. So when you're done oversimplifying things with your pacifist hopes and dreams that we ought to be trying to make a world were all problems are solved with hugs and puppy dogs, I'll be having a nice life. In reality. Anyone want to add something? Feel free to leave a comment! And hopefully, in the next couple days, I'll get a chance to repsond to a global warming email I got. This guy didn't like the little Al Gore image over on the left... So check back soon for that!

Doctor debunks the anti-smoking data and other legislative nonsense...

I heard Dennis mention this article yesterday and interview the doctor who wrote it today. Dr. Gio Batta Gori is a renown epidemiologist and toxicologist and for whatever reason, the WaPo decided to publish his piece. Here's a snippet... Lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases develop at advancing ages. Estimating the risk of those diseases posed by secondhand smoke requires knowing the sum of momentary secondhand smoke doses that nonsmokers have internalized over their lifetimes. Such lifetime summations of instant doses are obviously impossible, because concentrations of secondhand smoke in the air, individual rates of inhalation, and metabolic transformations vary from moment to moment, year after year, location to location. In an effort to circumvent this capital obstacle, all secondhand smoke studies have estimated risk using a misleading marker of "lifetime exposure." Yet, instant exposures also vary uncontrollably over time, so lifetime summations of exposure could not be, and were not, measured. Typically, the studies asked 60--70 year-old self-declared nonsmokers to recall how many cigarettes, cigars or pipes might have been smoked in their presence during their lifetimes, how thick the smoke might have been in the rooms, whether the windows were open, and similar vagaries. Obtained mostly during brief phone interviews, answers were then recorded as precise measures of lifetime individual exposures. In reality, it is impossible to summarize accurately from momentary and vague recalls, and with an absurd expectation of precision, the total exposure to secondhand smoke over more than a half-century of a person's lifetime. No measure of cumulative lifetime secondhand smoke exposure was ever possible, so the epidemiologic studies estimated risk based not only on an improper marker of exposure, but also on exposure data that are illusory. So we're basing scientific studies and are forming public policy on nothing more than anecdotal assumptions? Great. One thing to note here is that no one is saying second hand smoke isn't unhealthy, all we're questioning is how unhealthy. Is it worth the panic that the prohibitionist anti-smoking zealots have caused? The answer there is an emphatic no. The risk of cancer due to second hand smoke is largely exaggerated. There's no reason to ban smoking outdoors as several SoCal cities have done. There's no reason to force privately owned businesses to prohibit smoking. It kind of makes you wonder what else are scientists with agendas lying about... Global warming perhaps? Is global warming really humanity's fault? They talk all about CO2 emissions, but fail to note that over the last century as temperatures have increased, during that same period CO2 emissions have dropped. Maybe those scientists are using the same computer models that back in the 70's were predicting a global freeze or reports that had us running out of landfill space by 2000 due to the overwhelming amount of garbage we produce. That's the best part about liberal agendas... you can talk and talk and talk, throwing out opinions as if they were facts and never be held accountable to them by the MSM. It must be nice. And then in the name of energy conservation, California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine has introduced a bill that would ban incandescent light bulbs... You know up until now, I'd thought the banning trans fats in restaurants was the dumbest piece of legislation going. Levine's bill is completely f*cking retarded. If you want people to buy florescent bulbs because they're more energy effficient, you don't start by banning he competition, you make the alternative more attractive. Pass tax breaks for the manufacturers and tax incentives for the consumer. You don't make light bulbs illegal. It's like California (and the rest of the country for that matter now that the Dems are in charge) is being manhandled and driven right off a cliff by a bunch of 2 year olds in the Democratic party. And dumb 2 year olds at that! "We don't like this... ban it! This makes us feel bad... ban it! Personal responsibility and a free market system? Rubbish! We know what's best for everybody!" What a bunch of crap.

Incoming Senate Intelligence Committee Chair fails basic intelligence quiz

I know it's an bit of an old story, but I still couldn't resist. Intelligence chairman fails quiz... You really can't make this stuff up... Washington, D.C. (AHN)-It seems ironic that the person selected by incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to chair the Senate Intelligence Committee would fail to pass a basic intelligence quiz. But that is exactly what happened when Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas)-who is slated to take the helm of the Intelligence Committee in January-attempted to take a simple quiz put together by Congressional Quarterly. Reyes struggled when asked even simple questions about major terrorist organizations, Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. For example, Reyes' response to a question asking which branch of Islam-Sunni or Shiite-comprised Al Qaeda was "probably both, predominantly, probably Shiite." That answer is incorrect. In fact, Al Qaeda was founded by Osama Bin Laden and is a Sunni organization which rejects Shiites as heretics. Reyes was also unsure who or what Hezbollah was-a major terrorist group which operates outside of Southern Lebanon. CQ National Security Editor Jeff Stein, who posed the questions to Reyes, said he was "amazed" by Reyes lack of knowledge about the two major terrorist organizations, telling CNN, "If you're the baseball commissioner and you don't know the difference between the Yankees and the Red Sox, you don't know baseball. You're not going to have the respect of the people you work with." What else can you say about that? It's simply unbeleivable. Hopefully America files that in the back of their minds and corrects this sort of mistake in 2008 (see also Chuckie Rangel calls for reinstatement of draft). I bet if the follow up question to that was "Hezbollah attacked Israel recently. Who's fault is that?" he would have answered Bush. Nevermind that he doesn't even know who Hezbollah is...

John Bolton to resign as US Ambassador to the UN

He was never confirmed as UN Ambassador thanks to a Democratic filibuster, so his term ends with the current lame duck session, another casualty of the November election. Mr. Bush had planned to push for confirmation during the current lame-duck session of the Republican Congress, which would have allowed Mr. Bolton to continue as ambassador. But today’s announcement suggests that the White House realized it was not going to receive the necessary votes. President Bush said that he accepted “with deep regret” Mr. Bolton’s decision to end his service. “I am deeply disappointed that a handful of United States Senators prevented Ambassador Bolton from receiving the up or down vote he deserved in the Senate,” Mr. Bush said. “They chose to obstruct his confirmation, even though he enjoys majority support in the Senate, and even though their tactics will disrupt our diplomatic work at a sensitive and important time.” Mr. Bush, who is expected to meet with Mr. Bolton later today, said in his statement that this “stubborn obstructionism ill serves our country, and discourages men and women of talent from serving their nation.” To be fair, we can't blame this one entirely on the election and the Democrats. Republicans should have grown a spine and pushed his nomination through when they had control of the House and Senate. Now we're going to get a watered down, PC version of John who will simply allow the UN to continue to be the pointless organization it currently is. We continue to pour billions of dollars into the UN without any hope of meaningful action in return. Bolton was the only bright spot in that organization. Now he's gone.

Newly elected Congressman Ellison insists he'll only swear in on a copy of the Koran

He's the first Muslim elected to US Congress and he's refusing to swear in on the Bible. Some think, what's the big deal? He's not Christian; he's Muslim, so let him swear on his own holy book. A fair argument, but Dennis Prager's become the latest conservative labeled a racist by the PC police thanks to this column that says it is a big deal what book he uses to swear in on. Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath. It's a good point. America reveres its symbols; from the flag to the bald eagle to our public officials swearing to uphold the laws of this great country and taking that oath with their left hand on the Bible and right hand in the air. Can we just subsitute that powerful imagery to suit the person taking the oath? Would it mean the same if a Mormon swore on the Book of Mormon? A Scientologist on a copy of Dianetics? Should a left handed person be allowed to swap their hands around, right hand on the Bible and left in the air? Would those images have the same meaning to the American people? It may seem arbitrary, but like most symbols, it's the meaning that's important. What's the big deal about the flag? It's just some stars and stripes... Who cares if we burn it our not? WHo cares if an "artist" puts it on a wall covered in urine and feces? Or the bald eagle... it's just another bird. It's the people who fought, bled, and died for those images that gives the image meaning. Washington, Jefferson, and Madison swore on the Bible. So have thousands of other Christians, Jews, agnostics and aetheists who served as congressmen, senators, and presidents. Why should Muslims receive preferential treatment? Dennis also cautions that we ought to take this seriously because of the message this send the Muslim world. The appeasement crowd would say that this would show our accceptance of all cultures, creeds, and religions. That would matter if our primary concern was making the rest of the world like us. But our enemies could see this as the beginning of their ultimate goal: the Islamicization of America. Take some time to read the whole article. It's well worth it...

Pelosi passes on Alcee Hastings for House Intelligence Committee chair spot

Even the best predictions can be wrong... Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, preparing her party to take control of the House from President George W. Bush's Republicans when the 110th U.S. Congress convenes on January 4, told Rep. Alcee Hastings, a Florida Democrat, of her decision during a closed-door meeting. "I advised him that I would select someone else as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee," Pelosi said. Aides said Pelosi has yet to pick anyone else for the job. Perhaps avoiding the candidate who was one of only six federal judges in American history to be impeached for taking bribes was the smart move... Pelosi may not have picked anyone yet, but here's the speculated short list... Democratic Reps. Silvestre Reyes of Texas and Rush Holt of New Jersey (both members of the Intelligence Committee) and Norman Dicks of Washington state, who serves on the House Homeland Security Committee. Jane Harman is the current ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, but she's the dark horse here because she and Pelosi aren't on the best of terms, she's a fan of Israel, and generally doesn't appear to be liberal enough...

This is the brain trust America elected...

America, you put these people in power and these are the kinds of ideas you can expect until 2008... Key Democrats, including the incoming House speaker, House majority leader and chairmen of the House and Senate armed services committees, said they do not support a resumption of the draft. They predicted that the idea will gather little momentum in the 110th Congress, which convenes in January. Pentagon officials also restated their opposition to a draft. Their comments came a day after Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), who will chair the Ways and Means Committee, said he would again introduce a bill calling for a return to the draft, which has been suspended since 1973. Rangel's previous bids to reinstate the draft stirred little interest in Congress but considerable agitation among some bloggers and talk radio hosts, who suggested the public was about to be blindsided. Yesterday, congressional leaders tried to allay such fears, saying the 2007-08 legislative agenda will not include a resumption of the draft. The draft. Briliant idea Chuck. So brilliant in fact that one of Kerry's lies about Bush in the '04 election was that Dubya'd reinstate the draft. I guess not... Must only be the Democrats who think our professional armed forces aren't good enough to finish the job.

General Abizaid says "Cut and Run" philosophy is bad

Timetables are bad, m-kay? Democrats had been hammering Bush for ignoring the advice of his commanders on the generals on the ground in Iraq, so let's see if the Democrats decide to ignore the advice of the generals on the ground. WASHINGTON -- The top U.S. commander in the Middle East warned Congress Wednesday against setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, rejecting the arguments of resurgent Democrats who are pressing President Bush to start pulling out. Gen. John Abizaid instead urged quick action to strengthen Iraq's government, predicting that the vicious sectarian violence in Baghdad would surge out of control within four to six months unless immediate steps were taken. "Our troop posture needs to stay where it is," and the use of military adviser teams embedded with Iraqi army and police forces needs to be expanded, Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee. It was the first hearing on Iraq policy since last week's elections gave Democrats control of both houses of Congress starting in January. I've got money that they push "cut and run" anyway, despite the general's advice that leaving now will simply turn Iraq into a terrorist cesspool. What most articles that discussed Abizaid's comments left out was his entire exchange with Hillary Clinton. Hugh played it on the radio last night and the SF Gate came the closest to transcribing the exchange. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said benchmarks for progress only continue to recede. "Hope is not a strategy," said Clinton, another likely presidential contender. "Hortatory talk about what the Iraqi government must do is getting old. I mean, I have heard over and over again that the government must do this, the Iraqi army must do that. Nobody disagrees with that. The brutal fact is, it is not happening." [...] Abizaid also countered the pessimistic views of the senators by saying that despair is not a strategy. "And when I come to Washington, I feel despair. When I'm in Iraq with my commanders, when I talk to our soldiers, when I talk to the Iraqi leadership, they are not despairing. They believe that they can move the country toward stability with our help. And I believe that." The commanders, our troops, and the Iraqis have hope still. Too bad the hand-wringers in Washington don't... UPDATE @ 2:46pm: Maybe not cut and run... Dems pick Hoyer over Murtha.

So who's going to run the House Committees for the Democrats?

Yesterday I mentioned Conyers taking control of the Judiciary Committee and Rangel over at Ways & Means and what that moght entail. But those aren't the only committees in the House. Here's an indispensible article by Patrick Poole, cited by Dennis today, that gives you a little more background into the likely new House Committee Chairs. You have to read the whole thing, but I'll give you some of the highlights. Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence – Alcee Hastings (FL-23) Pelosi is likely to pick her friend Hastings over ranking current Democrat on the committee, Jane Harman. Hastings was one of six federal judges in American history impeached when she was caught taking a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a lenient exchange. Oh and Harman's been taking flak from her own party for being too pro-Israel. Committee on Appropriations – David Obey (WI-7) Obey has openly vowed to battle our country's biggest national security threat, global warming and would love make individual contributions to a political candidate a federal crime. Committee on Armed Services – Ike Skelton (MO-4) Skelton is mentioned as one of the "more sensible" Democrats in Congress, but has lately fallen into the John Kerry approach to the war in Iraq. He was for the war before he was against the war. Or is it the other way around? I can never keep track. Skelton's also been hanging around with and approving of Murtha's cut and run Iraq policy. Committee on the Budget – John Spratt (SC-5) The National Taxpayer's Union gave Spratt an "F" grade last year as one of the biggest spenders in Congress. However, he will be up for re-election in '08 in a district that voted overwhelmingly for Bush in '04, so he might try to bump that "F" up to a "C" to appeal to his constituents. Committee on Energy and Commerce – John Dingell (MI-15) Currently the longest serving member in the House, he's also had a longstanding plan to nationalize America's healthcare. Committee on Financial Services – Barney Frank (MA-4) Frank is infamous for being censured when it was discovered his boyfriend was running a male prostitution ring out of Frank's home. He was also one of only 3 representatives to vote against the Fallen Heroes Act that prohibited protests in national cemeteries during soldiers' funerals. Committee on International Relations – Tom Lantos (CA-12) Openly pro-Israel, but also a member of faaaaaar-left group Progressive Caucus, founded by socialist Bernie Sanders and currently headed by Dennis Kucinich. Please go read the rest of Patrick Poole's article for all the links on each of the above Congressmen and women. In fact email it to all your friends.

This is not what I wanted to see when I woke up this morning...

Ugh... I need some coffee... It's going to be a long two years. Don't expect to hear any whining here though. None of that "if Dems win I'm moving to Canada" crap. Not here. But America voted, turned out in record numbers in fact. And there was angry streak in some Republicans looking to send a message to what they perceived as a Republican govenrment that had strayed from its core values: fiscal responsibility, border security, small government, and family values. Turns out that faction got what it wanted. Lots of Republican representatives are cleaning out their DC offices for new Democrats to take over. The message has been sent; hopefully it motivates Republicans still in office to get their priorities straight. We controlled the House, Senate, and White House for 6 years but couldn't manage to get a fence across the entire Mexican border, we continue to waste money on huge social programs like prescription drugs and education, the government bureaucracy is larger than ever, and scandals were an anchor around several Republicans trying to replace their corrupt predecessors. In the mean time however, we've got Speaker Nancy Pelosi (San Francisco liberal), Judiciary Chair John Conyers (openly for impeaching Bush), and Ways and Means Chair Charlie Rangel (education and employment are the government's job). So look for the silver lining... Blogs sure aren't going to have a shortage of material with Dems taking over the House. Maybe we can show the country exactly what their priorities are. Still... Speaker Pelosi? (shudder)