Rethinking Russia

Headline in my local newspaper 2 days ago: "Militants attack Russian town, 48 killed".

OK. I start reading.

The town, of course, was in the embattled area of Chechnya. Militants attacked it. Or separatists. Or militant separatists.

OK. 5 paragraphs into the story I find this: the militants were trained in Afghanistan with the Taliban and Al Qaida.

Paragraph 6 I find this: the militants are tied to the Wahabbi Muslim sect in Saudia Arabia which spawned Osama bin Laden.

So my question is: Why did it take 5 or 6 paragraphs to get to this information? Why wasn't it in the headline that "Al Qaida attacks Russian town, 48 killed"? Why do we mask who they are by calling them militants or separatists, as the media has done for the last decade.

So now I'm rethinking Russia and their decade long battle in Chechnya. I don't even know where that is, and I'm sure I don't know all of the details of that conflict. I do know that we in America have condemned the Russians for trying to put down the "separatists" every time.

Now I'm thinking that the Russians are fighting a common enemy to us and are 10 years ahead of us in the War on Terrorism. If they are indeed fighting Al Qaida I say "Go Russia"!

My thinking is that after 9-11 it is our obligation to go back and review every conflict in the last 20 years through the lens of the War on Terrorism. How long has it really been going on?

For example, President Clinton is out promoting his book and trumpeting as one of his major accomplishments the defeat of the Serbians in Kosovo. Were we on the right side in that one, thru the lens of the War on Terror? Serbia is a Christian nation. Kosovo / Albania were Muslim nations. Serbia was accused of "ethnic cleansing". What ethnicity were they trying to cleanse? As I remember it, they were principally fighting against the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) which was a militant islamic group. Was Serbia an early combatant in the War on Terror before we ever realized there was a War on Terror. I'm thinking so.

We owe ourselves a re-evaluation of recent history so we know the full extent of the fight that we're in.

Here's to the Little People

As we all know by now, Bill Clinton launched into a fit of rage at his interviewer in England during a TV interview this week. Among other things he said this:

"One of the reasons he (special prosecutor Kenneth Starr) got away with it is because people like you only ask me the questions."


"You gave him a complete free ride. Any abuse they wanted to do. They indicted all these little people (emphasis mine) from Arkansas -- what did you care about them, they're not famous, who cares that their life was trampled? Who cares that their children are humiliated?"


"Nobody in your line of work cared a rip about that at the time. Why? Because he was helping their story. People like you always help the far right, because you like to hurt people, and you like to talk about how bad people are and all their personal failings," he said.

Little people - like Susan McDougal who sat in jail for months rather than just testifying before the grand jury to protect the big dog. Little people like Web Hubbell who did the same.

"Little People". Why do I only ever hear liberals talking about the "little people"? Kind of patronizing isn't it. It reminds me of Lyndon Johnson. He used to have a saying:

Son, there's only two kinds of people around here: Elephants and piss ants. And I'm the only elephant.

Same thought.

Why do only liberals talk about the "little people"? That's an easy answer. It's because liberals, like President Clinton, are class elitists.

Conservatives are for the individual - both rights and responsibilities. They want the indivdual to succeed with minimal government support. And they want individuals to be responsible citizens.

Liberals are all about classes, not individuals. Class rights. Class entitlements. They give a lot of lip service to the "little people", but their leaders really are elitists who know more about policy than the class of "little people". The "little people" need caring for.

I don't buy it, but then again I'm just a little people.

WMD's Found Daily

Why is there an absence of coverage in the mainstream media of stories like this one about the U.S. weapons inspectors finding shells with WMD in them?

According to the head of the U.S. inspection team they are finding WMD evidence daily.

Daily?

Why isn't that on Rather/Jennings/Brokaw. Oh, I know. They're too busy relentlessly hammering on the Abu Gahraib prison mistreatment story.

I'm still convinced that they will find a large cache of WMD either buried in the desert or transferred to Syria or Lebanon. Just a matter of time and perserverance to keep searching.

Curse of the Ryans

Well well well. Another Ryan is in political trouble in Illinois.

First we had George Ryan, a crook through and through as our Govenor. He managed to hold off indictment until he made it through one term.

Then we had his heir apparent Jim Ryan who crashed and burned in what should have been a transition to power. His undoing? I believe it was his total failure as Attorney General to do any thing investigatively about his boss, a crook. He gave him a free ride and then coasted in on election day saying "What? Was I supposed to have done something". Thanks Jim, for us having a Democrat for govenor now.

It wasn't enough that the two Ryans are no longer in power. They, and the Republican Party power structure who supported them, brought about a wholesale slaughter of Republican candidates on the ballot at all levels that year. It will take the party a long time to recover.

I say all of that as a Republican who was infuriated with my party's leadership, or lack thereof. They hurt the party in Illinois.

Now we have Jack Ryan, running for an open - Republican held - Senate seat. The Democrats want it bad to tip the balance of the U.S. Senate back to the Democrats. So they're playing hardball. Their allies in the press forced Ryan to release his divorce records containing salacious allegations of sex club partying.

For the record, I do not consider the allegations serious enough for him to drop out of the race. For one thing they are unsubstantiated allegations in a custody battle. Reason 2 - his ex wife supports his bid calling him a good man and a loving father. Lastly, he didn't break any laws, cheat on his wife, or commit any physical violence. I think he's qualified and should stay in the race.

Ray Lahood, my Congressman - who I like and always vote for, thinks otherwise. He's calling on Ryan to step down.

Nice. Where were you Mr. Lahood when our party supported a crook for 4 years in the Govenor's office. I never heard from you then.

The Chicago Republican machine, led by Judy Barr-Topinka, are also calling for Ryan to step down.

Nice. Where were you, Judy, when you and your fellow party bosses brought the Republican party to staggering defeat in the last Illinois election? In fact, why are you still a party boss?

Message to Ms. Topinka and Congressman Lahood: Wrong issues, wrong Ryan.

Show the Videos Already!

I've said it here before. I'll say it to the American media again. Show the videos.

Show the video of Daniel Pearl being beheaded by Islamic terrorists in Pakistan.

Show the video of Nicholas Berg being beheaded by Islamic terrorists in Iraq.

Show the video of Paul Johnson being beheaded by Islamic terrorists in Saudi Arabia.

Play the audio of them screaming their death screams.

If you're going to relentlessly show the pictures of Abu Gahraib, then tell the rest of the truth and show the videos. Let's see the difference between mistreatment and atrocity.

And while you're at it, show the recently released video of Sadaam'm thugs torturing and killing prisoners in Abu Gahraib.

That would be fair and balanced.

That would show the American public exactly who our enemy is in the War on Terror.

This Just In......

In case you missed it over the weekend, an underreported news story indicated that Vladimir Putin, former head of the KGB, said that he had reported to George Bush shortly after 9-11 that Iraq was also preparing terrorist attacks against the U.S.

Say again? Where has that little nugget of news been for the last 2 1/2 years?

I'm guessing that the Bush administration wanted to go public with that news before the War, but held back to keep from comprimising intellegence sources. I don't know that as fact. I'm conjecturing here.

If that news was well know before the start of the Iraq War do you think there would be any question as to whether invading Iraq was justified?

And now that it is known, do Democrats have any leg to stand on as they pound on their allegation that Bush exagerated the Iraqi threat in the War on Terrorism?

And why is this story coming out now? What does Putin have to gain by publicly speaking up now?

I Blame the Sellout Senators

There are many to blame for the spectacle I witnessed tonight.

I watched the Dan Rather interview with former President Bill Clinton on 60 minutes. It was excruciating. Please tell me that we're not going to have to watch him lie his way through history revision after revision on national television for a year as he promotes his book.

Could Dan have been any more deferential? And could Clinton have been any more smug?

The problem here is clear. After disgracing his office and the country, we left him standing to declare victory. And rub it in our faces.

There's an old saying: If you shoot at the king, don't miss. Normally that saying is about the fearful retribution that comes to the shooters. In this case the retribution comes in the form of a million dollar victory dance book tour. Take that, Republicans.

And now we have the spectacle of Bill Clinton saying on national TV in a softball interview with Rather that he views the Impeachment as a badge of honor because it was illegitimate and he beat it.

I place blame in a lot of places.

First and foremost, of course, is the President himself. As he said in his interview, "I never thought of resigning". Anybody with any decency would have thought about it. Anybody else would have realized that you don't have an inherent right to the office of the President of the United States and that if you betray the public trust in that office you should step aside. But no. Not this guy. He felt entitled to the office. And his staff defended everything he did. None of them resigned either even as he forced them out on camera to defend the indefensible.

I blame Ken Starr. Contrary to Clinton's allegations, Starr was not a religious zealot bent on bringing down a president. Starr was in fact, way too nice. Playing by the rules to an extreme that in fact let the President off the hook. Starr didn't even commit to doing this as his full time job, but kept defending other clients in court.

Of course I blame all elected Democrats. It didn't matter what he did they weren't going to let him go down in flames. As long as he was defending the 3 core principles of the Democratic party (Abortion on demand, high taxes, loathing of the military) they would stuff principles to keep him in play. Need evidence? How about this: not one Democrat in the House or the Senate went to the evidence room during the Impeachment proceedings to view the boxes of evidence that Ken Starr or Impeachment Special Counsel David Shippers had collected and laid out for them. Not one. In spite of the oath they swore to do justice, looking at the actual evidence was beyond them. Did they know he was guilty? Of course they did. I refer you back to the "censure resolution" they proposed instead of impeachment. You can't read that document and conclude that Clinto was innocent. But the Demcrats tried to survive by spooning out the pap that his offenses "didn't rise to the level of an imeachable offense". Nonsense.

And most of all, I blame the Senate Republicans. They too refused to go look at the evidence. They made it clear that there was no way to get 67 votes for conviction on impeachment and they were covering their backsides. As David Shippers elegantly makes the case in his book, they sold out their fellow Republican House managers and tanked the trial. How disgusting was it when Arlen Specter voted "not proved" when push came to shove. I hold special contempt for him and the Senate Republicans who knew better and still voted no.

Only the House Republicans, and the 13 House Managers in particular lead by Henry Hyde, did their duty. Hats off to them.

And please spare me the Clinton victory tour.

Break out the nukes

It's a war. It's a war. It's a war.

The beheading of Paul Johnson in Saudi Arabia by Al Qaida today should make it clear to the left where the real evil lies. It's not George Bush. It's not Abu Gharaib. It's Al Qaida.

Let's hammer them into oblivion already. They are a threat to the entire West and they must be dealt with. Unequivocably. Unflinchingly. Dealt with.

Enough already.

"9-11 Commission Can't Find Their Butts with Both Hands"

Okay, that is the headline I would have written instead of the real headline in most newspapers Thursday morning: "9-11 Panel finds no link between Iraq and Al Qaida".

This is the same panel that can't even, as I've delineated for you in previous posts, spot the obvious conflict of interest of one of their own panel members. And we're going to trust them to analyze complicated terror networks.

Here's what I want before I'm satisfied: I want a full national discussion of the Salman Pak training camp in Iraq where a parked airliner was used to train hijackers on techniques using small knives. I want to know if the obvious is true, that this camp played a part in the training of the 9-11 "muscle" hijackers who took over the plane. That's what I want and it's completely missing in all the mainstream coverage of the commission.

Quick Takes

I'm on the road this week. So, with Fox News Network - O'Reilly Factor in the background as mood music, I'll throw out some quick takes from my perch in my hotel room.

1. The Reagan funeral was very moving and was America on display at it's best. The spit and polish of the military funeral details was impressive. Those guys should get a unit citation.

2. On the Left -

- Kerry is being seriously eclipsed lately with the funeral, with the release of Bubba's memoirs, and with Michael Moore's film coming out.

- I did see Mrs. Theresa Heinz Kerry on TV being interviewed this week. Let's see - she's from South Africa, she disdains America, and she speaks softly in a French accent about obsure French philosophers. Please put her on TV in a debate with Laura Bush. Please. It's too bad the potential 1st Ladies don't debate.

3. From the right:

I've made a decision about the Bush administration's approach to the election and their puzzling quietness on the successes of the Iraq War component of the War on Terrorism.

Either:

- They are very confident in how the summer will unroll into the election. Good economic news, a positive spin out of the handoff to Iraqi sovereignty on June 30th, a good bump out of the convention.

or:

- they're just not competent and they're making the usual Republican mistake of playing nice while the opponents are at war.

I'm going with the "confident" option.

Reagan taught me that I'm teachable

In honor of the passing of President Ronald Wilson Reagan this weekend I'll say this: I was wrong about him.

We're going to be seeing hours and hours of footage and commentary about Reagan and his presidency this week. But I don't need the footage to remember. It was all live and in color to me.

Two facts framed his presidency for me. First, the 1980 election was my first chance to vote in a presidential election. Second, I was a college student then, and a raving left-wing liberal. In the clutches of liberal academia and not correctly informed about politics.

As for the election, I did pay attention. Reagan or Carter - choose. I read. I watched the debates. And I voted - absentee because I was off campus working as a co-op student at election time. I remember wanting the voting experience so badly that when my ballot arrived in the mail I took it into the shower, pulled the curtain around me, and punched my ballot. The ballot booth experience in my little apartment. Who did I vote for? I'll tell you at the end.

When I was on campus passions ran high. I remember speakers on the quad railing about Ronnie and his "Super Cosmic Ray-Gun" (clever huh?) who was going to drag us into a nuclear war.

And I was passionate about Reagan, in opposition. I believed he was stupid. I believed his policies were wrong headed and caused the huge deficit. I believed he was a dangerous right-winger. I believed he was going to drag us into nuclear war with the Soviets. And I wanted him impeached over Iran-Contra.

Now I think differently. He didn't change of course. I did. I read more about history and politics from different sources. Frankly, Rush Limbaugh's two books did quite a bit to change my mind about Reagan. You should read them if you haven't.

Now I recognize that his committment to principle, namely the goodness of America and the need for limited government were right on target.

I changed. I'm teachable. That's what my experience with Reagan taught me.

Who did I vote for in my first election in 1980. John Anderson - Indpependent.

One Judge shuts down Democracy

It took years to shape this law - the law banning partial-birth abortion procedures.

435 duly elected Representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives passed the law - twice.

100 duly elected senators in the United States Senate passed it - twice.

1 duly elected President, Bill Clinton, vetos the law - twice.

A new election, a new president. The law passed again constitutionally by the House, passed again constitutionally by the Senate, signed now constitutionally by an elected President.

And now one federal judge in San Francisco of all places declares it unconstitutional and void. One judge, elected by nobody. One judge has that much power.

Does that make any sense at all?