George W. Bush, that's who, with his surprise visit to Baghdad yesterday.
Meeting with the newly convened Iraqi government. Lifting the morale of the troops.
Leadership.
Nice.
For a reverse, dare I say perverse, take on leadership - I point you to John Kerry making a speech this week pandering to a leftist Democrat group.
The "highlight" of Kerry's speech, and his biggest applause lines, appears to be his disavowal of the war that he voted for - which he now calls a big mistake for our country - and his apology for casting the wrong vote on the war. A vote he claims that President Bush "misled" him into casting.
Really, this is what you guys are looking for in a President? This is leadership? This is what makes you proud?
Never mind his really bad timing in disavowing our war efforts when we're experiencing real progress there. Never mind that he is completely wrong on the war being wrong, and on being manipulated into it. All factually incorrect. Never mind that.
The really troubling part is that he thinks that standing up and confessing that he is such a malleable and influence-able Senator that he can be "tricked" into casting a "wrong vote" for something as serious as sending our nation's soldiers to war makes him Presidential material. Huh? Unbelieveable.
Well, there you have it. Two examples of leadership this week. One bold and optimistic. The other craven and apologetic. I know who I choose to admire.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Rove off the Hot Seat
More good news today! Karl Rove has been notified by the Special Prosecutor that he will not be charged in the Valerie Plame case.
Now, can we please end this ridiculous charade of a non-case of non-leaking of a non-covert CIA officer's name? There is no case here.
Do you think Mr. Rove, in his new capacity leading Repbulicans into the 2006 midterm elections, is going to take out some frustration from his months-long slandering on some hapless Democrats? Do you think?
Now, can we please end this ridiculous charade of a non-case of non-leaking of a non-covert CIA officer's name? There is no case here.
Do you think Mr. Rove, in his new capacity leading Repbulicans into the 2006 midterm elections, is going to take out some frustration from his months-long slandering on some hapless Democrats? Do you think?
Reactions to Zarqawi's Death are Telling
My reaction to the death last week of archterrorist and leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq al-Zarqawi was simple. Elation. And I had a little extra bounce in my step, as a U.S. Air Force veteran, that the boys in blue delivered the 1000 pounds of justice that took him out.
Make no mistake - Zarqawi was the enemy. Our purpose in war is to defeat the enemy. To deal death and destruction to them in sufficient force that we disable their ability to hurt us. That is the stated goal of war. Therefore, Zarqawi's death - despite the efforts of Democrats and the media to lowball it - is a significant milestone in our war effort. Are we done? No, they can still hurt us. But we're closer to being done. And I say three cheers to our fine military folks who are getting the job done.
Things are looking up in Iraq. Our troops have been doing a fine job winning the war against militant Islam, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq. I don't know if you saw the news article last week that stated that 40% of the terrorists that we identified after 9/11 are now dead. 40%. That's a significant and successful number. The rest are weakened and dispersed. They cannot defeat us, unless we quit. Which, thankfully, George W. Bush will never do.
I was dismayed by general reaction to Zarqawi's death from the left. Their naysaying reactions, denying victorious credit to our war effort, are telling and are just more evidence that the left wants us to fail in this effort. It's disgraceful.
The most curious reaction you will have heard by now. It came from Michael Berg, father of Nicholas Berg who was beheaded at the hands of al-Zarqawi. Mr. Berg, a pacifist and an anti-war activist, said this:
and this:
He also said that George Bush was responsible for "hundreds of thousands" of dead in Iraq.
This is both curious and sad.
I think the same things about Michael Berg that I thought about Cindy Sheehan. Two things:
1. As a grieving father who lost his son in this conflict he is entitled to say whatever he wants to say - crazy or sane. I could not even begin to relate to his grief and only have empathy for him personally.
2. When he uses that situation in public activism - in his case as a candidate for Congress from the Green Party - then his views are subject to scrutiny and criticism. In this case, I would repudiate his expressed views totally and would never consider voting for him.
There is just so much wrong about his statements. Not just the factual errors, such as attributing hundreds of thousands of deaths to President Bush, when no such numbers have perished. No, it's his moral equivalence argument comparing President Bush to al-Zarqawi, and finding Bush worse, that is repugnant.
If you're a progressive and you find yourself in general agreement with Mr. Berg's statements equating Mr. Bush with al-Zarqawi - and finding Bush worse - I would seriously urge you to re-evaluate your thinking on this war. Because if that's your postion you have unquestionably lost perspective, and you don't have grief as a mitigating factor.
Well done, U.S. Air Force. Aim High!
Make no mistake - Zarqawi was the enemy. Our purpose in war is to defeat the enemy. To deal death and destruction to them in sufficient force that we disable their ability to hurt us. That is the stated goal of war. Therefore, Zarqawi's death - despite the efforts of Democrats and the media to lowball it - is a significant milestone in our war effort. Are we done? No, they can still hurt us. But we're closer to being done. And I say three cheers to our fine military folks who are getting the job done.
Things are looking up in Iraq. Our troops have been doing a fine job winning the war against militant Islam, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq. I don't know if you saw the news article last week that stated that 40% of the terrorists that we identified after 9/11 are now dead. 40%. That's a significant and successful number. The rest are weakened and dispersed. They cannot defeat us, unless we quit. Which, thankfully, George W. Bush will never do.
I was dismayed by general reaction to Zarqawi's death from the left. Their naysaying reactions, denying victorious credit to our war effort, are telling and are just more evidence that the left wants us to fail in this effort. It's disgraceful.
The most curious reaction you will have heard by now. It came from Michael Berg, father of Nicholas Berg who was beheaded at the hands of al-Zarqawi. Mr. Berg, a pacifist and an anti-war activist, said this:
I think al-Zarqawi's death is a double tragedy," Michael Berg told The Associated Press after learning a U.S. airstrike had killed the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. "His death will incite a new wave of revenge. George Bush and al-Zarqawi are two men who believe in revenge."
and this:
Berg said the blame for most deaths in Iraq should be placed on President Bush, who he said is "more of a terrorist than Zarqawi."
"Zarqawi felt my son's breath on his hand as held the knife against his throat. Zarqawi had to look in his eyes when he did it," Berg added, pausing to collect himself. "George Bush sits there glassy-eyed in his office with pieces of paper and condemns people to death. That to me is a real terrorist."
He also said that George Bush was responsible for "hundreds of thousands" of dead in Iraq.
This is both curious and sad.
I think the same things about Michael Berg that I thought about Cindy Sheehan. Two things:
1. As a grieving father who lost his son in this conflict he is entitled to say whatever he wants to say - crazy or sane. I could not even begin to relate to his grief and only have empathy for him personally.
2. When he uses that situation in public activism - in his case as a candidate for Congress from the Green Party - then his views are subject to scrutiny and criticism. In this case, I would repudiate his expressed views totally and would never consider voting for him.
There is just so much wrong about his statements. Not just the factual errors, such as attributing hundreds of thousands of deaths to President Bush, when no such numbers have perished. No, it's his moral equivalence argument comparing President Bush to al-Zarqawi, and finding Bush worse, that is repugnant.
If you're a progressive and you find yourself in general agreement with Mr. Berg's statements equating Mr. Bush with al-Zarqawi - and finding Bush worse - I would seriously urge you to re-evaluate your thinking on this war. Because if that's your postion you have unquestionably lost perspective, and you don't have grief as a mitigating factor.
Well done, U.S. Air Force. Aim High!
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Waving my Magic Wand
A charming new acquaintance asked me a engaging question during a lively dinner exchange last week. She asked me "if you could change one thing about America, what would it be?"
It was a serious question, genuinely offered. And I'm glad she asked it, because it gave me reason to think broadly about our country this week past my glib answer at the table - which was to fix the foster care system and do a better job taking care of children at risk. (A parochial answer for an ex-foster parent)
Thinking broadly about our country, from a pro-active fix-it perspective, made me realize that I'm generally very optimistic about America. We are a generous country. We are a compassionate country. We are a country of opportunity. We are a melting pot. We are a force for good in the world.
When you listen to talk radio as much as I do, you tend to focus on the things that are going wrong. And there are plenty of those. But we are an entrepenuerial country at heart and, over time, we fix those things.
So, I'll answer her question in a broadly idealistic manner and say that if I could change one thing about America, I would wish for more "clarity" in our public life.
What do I mean? Well, there are serious issues that we confront in all manner of our public life. And what troubles me is the lack of clarity. Of commonly understood analysis of those issues. Of intense polarization on policy, because there is not agreement on the underlying facts.
Why is there such deep "red state" / "blue state" disagreement over the basic big issues of the day? For example:
- Are we engaged in a global "War on Terror", or aren't we?
- If so, is the Administration conducting it in the way the American people would conduct a war, or not?
- Were there WMD's before the Iraq war, or not?
- Was Iraq a state sponsor of terror, and therefore a threat to us, or not?
- Do both sides in the Israel / Palestinian issue have a legitimate stake to that land or not?
- Is there verifiable, human caused, human fixable Global Warming, or not?
- Is "judicial activism" happening or not, and is that good or bad for America?
- Are our borders secure?
- Can we appropriately assimilate all of the foreign nationals who understandably want to live here, or not?
- Is the government too big and inefficient, or not big enough?
- Is the national debt that supports a war and hurricane relief appropriate or not?
- Is our culture life in America declining into coarseness, or progressing?
I could think of many more.
We face big questions in our day. And even with a proliferation of news and information sources we've divided into camps with two completely opposing set of facts on every big issue. How can we harmful partisan bickering, and solve problems, if we can't even agree on the facts of an issue.
So, if I could change one thing in America I would challenge our leaders in media and government to think about how their efforts contribut to "clarity" rather than just power and gamesmanship.
And if that's too idealistic an approach to the question, then my answer is: more pecan pie for every American.
It was a serious question, genuinely offered. And I'm glad she asked it, because it gave me reason to think broadly about our country this week past my glib answer at the table - which was to fix the foster care system and do a better job taking care of children at risk. (A parochial answer for an ex-foster parent)
Thinking broadly about our country, from a pro-active fix-it perspective, made me realize that I'm generally very optimistic about America. We are a generous country. We are a compassionate country. We are a country of opportunity. We are a melting pot. We are a force for good in the world.
When you listen to talk radio as much as I do, you tend to focus on the things that are going wrong. And there are plenty of those. But we are an entrepenuerial country at heart and, over time, we fix those things.
So, I'll answer her question in a broadly idealistic manner and say that if I could change one thing about America, I would wish for more "clarity" in our public life.
What do I mean? Well, there are serious issues that we confront in all manner of our public life. And what troubles me is the lack of clarity. Of commonly understood analysis of those issues. Of intense polarization on policy, because there is not agreement on the underlying facts.
Why is there such deep "red state" / "blue state" disagreement over the basic big issues of the day? For example:
- Are we engaged in a global "War on Terror", or aren't we?
- If so, is the Administration conducting it in the way the American people would conduct a war, or not?
- Were there WMD's before the Iraq war, or not?
- Was Iraq a state sponsor of terror, and therefore a threat to us, or not?
- Do both sides in the Israel / Palestinian issue have a legitimate stake to that land or not?
- Is there verifiable, human caused, human fixable Global Warming, or not?
- Is "judicial activism" happening or not, and is that good or bad for America?
- Are our borders secure?
- Can we appropriately assimilate all of the foreign nationals who understandably want to live here, or not?
- Is the government too big and inefficient, or not big enough?
- Is the national debt that supports a war and hurricane relief appropriate or not?
- Is our culture life in America declining into coarseness, or progressing?
I could think of many more.
We face big questions in our day. And even with a proliferation of news and information sources we've divided into camps with two completely opposing set of facts on every big issue. How can we harmful partisan bickering, and solve problems, if we can't even agree on the facts of an issue.
So, if I could change one thing in America I would challenge our leaders in media and government to think about how their efforts contribut to "clarity" rather than just power and gamesmanship.
And if that's too idealistic an approach to the question, then my answer is: more pecan pie for every American.
Right Principle, Wrong Application
As the U.S. Senate takes up consideration today of a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, there is only one thing that I can be sure of. And that is, that there will plenty of ridiculous political sophistry in evidence on both sides of this issue. Senators will say silly things, in spades.
For example, to get us off to a good start today, Senator Arlen Specter (R) announced his intention to vote no on the issue. In doing so he quoted Barry Goldwater's assertion that we should keep government out of the bedroom.
That's a good conservative principle, for which I'm generally in agreement.
However, the application here is laughable. That train has already left the station.
Government is already deeply involved in "marriage", in the bedroom or out. Governments issue marriage liscenses. If they didn't we wouldn't be having this debate.
Laws are already on the books defining marriage. Courts already decide case law.
The issue is not now whether or not government should be in the bedroom on marriage. It already is. The question is what policy government should favor. Do thousands of years of traditions from every civilization in history prevail, or do current understandings of equal protection under the law? It's a valid debate. Let's have it.
So, to Senator Specter - make a different argument. Oppose it or support it on the merits, not on the specious assertion that government shouldn't be involved in this question.
For example, to get us off to a good start today, Senator Arlen Specter (R) announced his intention to vote no on the issue. In doing so he quoted Barry Goldwater's assertion that we should keep government out of the bedroom.
That's a good conservative principle, for which I'm generally in agreement.
However, the application here is laughable. That train has already left the station.
Government is already deeply involved in "marriage", in the bedroom or out. Governments issue marriage liscenses. If they didn't we wouldn't be having this debate.
Laws are already on the books defining marriage. Courts already decide case law.
The issue is not now whether or not government should be in the bedroom on marriage. It already is. The question is what policy government should favor. Do thousands of years of traditions from every civilization in history prevail, or do current understandings of equal protection under the law? It's a valid debate. Let's have it.
So, to Senator Specter - make a different argument. Oppose it or support it on the merits, not on the specious assertion that government shouldn't be involved in this question.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Note to Dixie Chicks: Who Asked You To?
Let me just specify that I'm really fond of the musical group called the "Dixie Chicks". Mainly because I saw them perform live for a small technical conference I attended back in 1995 in Dallas - before they were famous, as they say.
They are extremely talented and make great music. No doubt about it.
So, I was a little disheartned when their career derailed back in 2003 because of a political comment that singer Natalie Mains made on a stage in London right before our battle in Iraq commenced. She said that she was "ashamed that President Bush is from our state", or something like that.
That little comment caused a firestorm, and their career tanked. Off the radio, decreased CD sales, and as they tell it - death threats.
What they never really got was this: people weren't that mad about what she said, just where she said it. We are tired of celebrities going overseas to bash the President. If you're that brave, say it in Dallas not London. Dixie Chickens.
I forgave them quickly. I mean really. Do I care what Natalie thinks about Bush and the war? Really. Forgive and forget and lets get the fiddles going.
At least that's what I thought. Apparently, it's not reciprocal.
In a massive strike of career suicide, the Chicks have come out swinging with their first song off their long awaited new album called "Not Ready to Make Nice". They are still angry about the backlash to her statement. So, out they come with this angry screed aimed at their audience.
Not ready to make nice?
Who asked you to? Wasnt' me. I'm living quite nicely without spending $15 for this.
Have a nice life Natalie, Emily, and Martie.
They are extremely talented and make great music. No doubt about it.
So, I was a little disheartned when their career derailed back in 2003 because of a political comment that singer Natalie Mains made on a stage in London right before our battle in Iraq commenced. She said that she was "ashamed that President Bush is from our state", or something like that.
That little comment caused a firestorm, and their career tanked. Off the radio, decreased CD sales, and as they tell it - death threats.
What they never really got was this: people weren't that mad about what she said, just where she said it. We are tired of celebrities going overseas to bash the President. If you're that brave, say it in Dallas not London. Dixie Chickens.
I forgave them quickly. I mean really. Do I care what Natalie thinks about Bush and the war? Really. Forgive and forget and lets get the fiddles going.
At least that's what I thought. Apparently, it's not reciprocal.
In a massive strike of career suicide, the Chicks have come out swinging with their first song off their long awaited new album called "Not Ready to Make Nice". They are still angry about the backlash to her statement. So, out they come with this angry screed aimed at their audience.
Not ready to make nice?
Who asked you to? Wasnt' me. I'm living quite nicely without spending $15 for this.
Have a nice life Natalie, Emily, and Martie.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
of Heroes and Murderers
I saw "United 93" on opening day last Friday. You know the story. You know how it ends.
Let me just say that I would encourage everyone who's even thinking about seeing it to see it. It's an extremely powerful movie that's brilliantly done.
My experience was apparently like others who's reviews I've read. The theater was silent, with the audience gripped by the intensity and emotion of the film. When the lights came up everyone just sat for a minute and then filed out silently like a funeral procession.
I wanted to scream a profanity at the scream, but suppressed that urge. I was angry at the end. For good reason. I had just watched the true story of the first counterattack in the war on terror.
Don't worry about the movie clashing with your politics. The movie is devoid of politics. There's no agenda or opinion pushed. There's no context at all, in fact. It's just a real time presentation of the events of that fateful morning. You think for yourself. You decide it's meaning.
Go. See. Remember. It's the least we can do to remember those who first fought back.
Let me just say that I would encourage everyone who's even thinking about seeing it to see it. It's an extremely powerful movie that's brilliantly done.
My experience was apparently like others who's reviews I've read. The theater was silent, with the audience gripped by the intensity and emotion of the film. When the lights came up everyone just sat for a minute and then filed out silently like a funeral procession.
I wanted to scream a profanity at the scream, but suppressed that urge. I was angry at the end. For good reason. I had just watched the true story of the first counterattack in the war on terror.
Don't worry about the movie clashing with your politics. The movie is devoid of politics. There's no agenda or opinion pushed. There's no context at all, in fact. It's just a real time presentation of the events of that fateful morning. You think for yourself. You decide it's meaning.
Go. See. Remember. It's the least we can do to remember those who first fought back.
We Need Clarity on Immigration
The flareup of immigration issues in the last month, including Congress's attempts at "immigration reform" and the resulting marches by hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, gives us all a second chance at civics class. We need clarity on this issue in a big way.
I have some thoughts:
First, it's clearly a huge problem. When a constituent group can generate mass rallies which threaten to "shut down" American cities - you've got a problem.
Second, no one hates the illegals. America is a very welcoming country with a strong sense of rooting for immigrants. Most of us can completely understand someone's desire to leave a country that is saturated with poverty and corruption to try to make a better life here. Most Americans believe that we should welcome as many good people as we can from all over the world as we can reasonably assimilate.
Third, we can't welcome everyone. We just can't. There has to be an orderly control of the borders which admits only the number of people we can absorb.
Fourth, if you're not in that number you can't just break into the country. It's trespassing, and it's illegal. Plus, when 12 million people do it it's an invasion.
Fifth, the marchers have intentionally poked their fingers in our eyes. It's as if:
Someone broke into our house (illegal border crossing), ate all of the food in our refridgerator (use public schools, emergency rooms, etc), and then get mad at us for not giving them the spare key to the house yet (immigrant rights now!), and by the way - why haven't we adopted them yet? (today we march - tomorrow we vote!)
Unbelievable ingrattitude.
Sixth, politicians from both parties are completely out of tune with mainstream America on this one. Enough of the platitudes like "they're doing jobs Americans won't do" and "we can't have a mass deportation". Americans will do the jobs if the wages are not depressed by an illegal market. And surrender to the problem is not a policy.
For clarity, let me state my position on it:
- America has a right, and a duty, to control it's borders as any sovereign state does.
- Congress has already passed laws defining border control and immigration policy, including setting the limit of how many people we can reasonably assimilate
- Congress and the several presidential administrations have been seriously negligent in enforcing those laws for the last twenty years, resulting in an illegal population 12 million strong willing to make threats to shut down our cities.
- Congress and the Bush Administration have exactly no credibility on immigration reform, given a twenty year track record of dereliction which has allowed the flouting of our laws and sovereignty to the tune of 12 million illegals within our borders.
- In spite of that, Congress and the Bush Administration need to establish immediate control of our border and enforcement of our laws by:
- securing the border immediately. Build a wall now.
- Deporting everyone that comes into contact with law enforcement that is not in the country legally
- Punishing heavily businesses that hire illegal aliens - which depresses the wage scale for Americans. I would start with the businesses, like Tyson foods, that had to shut their doors yesterday during the boycott because their illegal workers were at the rallies. Fine those CEO's to the maximum extent of the law.
Enough foolishness on this issue. We need clarity. And we need public officials Republicans and Democrats - to follow the law.
I have some thoughts:
First, it's clearly a huge problem. When a constituent group can generate mass rallies which threaten to "shut down" American cities - you've got a problem.
Second, no one hates the illegals. America is a very welcoming country with a strong sense of rooting for immigrants. Most of us can completely understand someone's desire to leave a country that is saturated with poverty and corruption to try to make a better life here. Most Americans believe that we should welcome as many good people as we can from all over the world as we can reasonably assimilate.
Third, we can't welcome everyone. We just can't. There has to be an orderly control of the borders which admits only the number of people we can absorb.
Fourth, if you're not in that number you can't just break into the country. It's trespassing, and it's illegal. Plus, when 12 million people do it it's an invasion.
Fifth, the marchers have intentionally poked their fingers in our eyes. It's as if:
Someone broke into our house (illegal border crossing), ate all of the food in our refridgerator (use public schools, emergency rooms, etc), and then get mad at us for not giving them the spare key to the house yet (immigrant rights now!), and by the way - why haven't we adopted them yet? (today we march - tomorrow we vote!)
Unbelievable ingrattitude.
Sixth, politicians from both parties are completely out of tune with mainstream America on this one. Enough of the platitudes like "they're doing jobs Americans won't do" and "we can't have a mass deportation". Americans will do the jobs if the wages are not depressed by an illegal market. And surrender to the problem is not a policy.
For clarity, let me state my position on it:
- America has a right, and a duty, to control it's borders as any sovereign state does.
- Congress has already passed laws defining border control and immigration policy, including setting the limit of how many people we can reasonably assimilate
- Congress and the several presidential administrations have been seriously negligent in enforcing those laws for the last twenty years, resulting in an illegal population 12 million strong willing to make threats to shut down our cities.
- Congress and the Bush Administration have exactly no credibility on immigration reform, given a twenty year track record of dereliction which has allowed the flouting of our laws and sovereignty to the tune of 12 million illegals within our borders.
- In spite of that, Congress and the Bush Administration need to establish immediate control of our border and enforcement of our laws by:
- securing the border immediately. Build a wall now.
- Deporting everyone that comes into contact with law enforcement that is not in the country legally
- Punishing heavily businesses that hire illegal aliens - which depresses the wage scale for Americans. I would start with the businesses, like Tyson foods, that had to shut their doors yesterday during the boycott because their illegal workers were at the rallies. Fine those CEO's to the maximum extent of the law.
Enough foolishness on this issue. We need clarity. And we need public officials Republicans and Democrats - to follow the law.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Latest Leak Exposes Democrats
The latest "leak" case to come out of Washington D.C. this week has served to be a reminder that Democrats cannot be trusted with national security.
Highlights:
- Mary McCarthy was fired from the CIA last week after being caught for leaking classified information in her care to the media. Mary McCarthy is a former Clinton Administration official with antipathy for the Bush Administration. She leaked information to cause damage to the Bush Administration.
- the story that she leaked to the media was the story that the CIA was running secret prison camps in Easter Europe where terrorist were kept outside of the restrictions of U.S. law.
- the media that she leaked it to was the Washington Post
- the Washington Post just won a Pulitzer Prize for it's coverage of the secret prison story. Coverage, I might add, that is illegal since it published classified material against the interests of the U.S. while we're at war
- the secret prison story has caused great harm to our relationship with allies in Eastern Europe who were, until the leak, willing to help us in the War on Terror
- the secret prison story has not been proved to be true. In fact, European Union authorities charged with investigating it reported last week that the could uncover no evidence to support it.
So, how did Democrats respond to Mrs. McCarthy leaking classified information damaging to the U.S. in wartime?
They excuse her, saying - as John Kerry did this week on a Sunday talk show - that she was just "telling the truth".
Make no mistake - this leak by Mary McCarthy of classified CIA material ( if there was indeed any truthful material in what she leaked) was damaging to the interests fo the United States in a time of war. CIA director Porter Goss has testified to this damage.
She should be prosecuted immediately, along with the responsible newspaper officials who published it.
And Democrats who excuse her unlawful behavior should never be trusted with our national security.
Highlights:
- Mary McCarthy was fired from the CIA last week after being caught for leaking classified information in her care to the media. Mary McCarthy is a former Clinton Administration official with antipathy for the Bush Administration. She leaked information to cause damage to the Bush Administration.
- the story that she leaked to the media was the story that the CIA was running secret prison camps in Easter Europe where terrorist were kept outside of the restrictions of U.S. law.
- the media that she leaked it to was the Washington Post
- the Washington Post just won a Pulitzer Prize for it's coverage of the secret prison story. Coverage, I might add, that is illegal since it published classified material against the interests of the U.S. while we're at war
- the secret prison story has caused great harm to our relationship with allies in Eastern Europe who were, until the leak, willing to help us in the War on Terror
- the secret prison story has not been proved to be true. In fact, European Union authorities charged with investigating it reported last week that the could uncover no evidence to support it.
So, how did Democrats respond to Mrs. McCarthy leaking classified information damaging to the U.S. in wartime?
They excuse her, saying - as John Kerry did this week on a Sunday talk show - that she was just "telling the truth".
Make no mistake - this leak by Mary McCarthy of classified CIA material ( if there was indeed any truthful material in what she leaked) was damaging to the interests fo the United States in a time of war. CIA director Porter Goss has testified to this damage.
She should be prosecuted immediately, along with the responsible newspaper officials who published it.
And Democrats who excuse her unlawful behavior should never be trusted with our national security.
New Orleans Historic Vote
I have three brief thouhts on last weeks Mayoral election in New Orleans"
1. I'm amazed that voters in the "Big Easy" would choose old line party insiders after the political structure there completely failed them in Hurricane Katrina. Sixty years of failed policy and deep endemic poverty were exposed by the flood, and yet voters chose more of the same. Whether it's Mayor Nagin, who let buses sit and get flooded rather than use them to evacuate people, or Landrieu, who is part of the old line corrupt party bosses there - it's more of the same. Bad choice.
2. I like the run-off system they have in place. Since no candidate achieved a majority, the top two vote getters will face a second election.
We could have used that in the Republican primary in Illinois where Judy Barr-Topinka won with 36%, while the four non-Judy candidates split the remainder. If you had a run-off election with Judy and the winner of the non-Judy votes (Jim Oberweiss), there's no way that Judy would win. Yet we're stuck with her in the general election, where her ties to convicted Governor Ryan will sink her. Nice.
3. Did all the people who voted in New Orlean's election still live there? Are the evacuees going home?
1. I'm amazed that voters in the "Big Easy" would choose old line party insiders after the political structure there completely failed them in Hurricane Katrina. Sixty years of failed policy and deep endemic poverty were exposed by the flood, and yet voters chose more of the same. Whether it's Mayor Nagin, who let buses sit and get flooded rather than use them to evacuate people, or Landrieu, who is part of the old line corrupt party bosses there - it's more of the same. Bad choice.
2. I like the run-off system they have in place. Since no candidate achieved a majority, the top two vote getters will face a second election.
We could have used that in the Republican primary in Illinois where Judy Barr-Topinka won with 36%, while the four non-Judy candidates split the remainder. If you had a run-off election with Judy and the winner of the non-Judy votes (Jim Oberweiss), there's no way that Judy would win. Yet we're stuck with her in the general election, where her ties to convicted Governor Ryan will sink her. Nice.
3. Did all the people who voted in New Orlean's election still live there? Are the evacuees going home?
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Ashamed of My Vote
It's healthy every now and then to look back and re-evaluate the votes that you've cast. And, I'll admit. I'm ashamed by the vote I cast years ago for George Ryan to be Governor of Illinois.
That would be the same George Ryan who was convicted by a jury in Chicago this week on all counts of corruption.
I can't claim that I didn't know he was corrupt when I cast my vote. I knew, even then. Everyone knew.
I cast my vote as a party-line vote. I believe in voting for a party, and not just "the man". Because a position like Governor involves nominating a lot of people to office, and I want the people he brings with him to be from the group that thinks most like me. So, I held my nose and voted for him.
It was close. Very, very close. I really wanted to vote for Glenn Poshard, even though I didn't know much about him - but he was affiliated with the wrong party. Turns out I've learned a lot more about Poshard since then. He's a very honorable man who would have served the state well.
My mistake, and it was a big mistake.
Not only did Ryan bring corruption with him to office, but bad judgement as well. Now we have to live with a disfunctional justice system after he pardoned all of the death row inmates and placed a moratorium on the death penalty. Some Republican.
Of course, he's a media darling because of the death penalty thing. And the media is stunned by his conviction. They want to eagerly report that it may be overturned because of suspect jurors. At least, they hope it is.
The most often used statement by the media was that it was "a sad day for Illinois" that he was convicted.
No it wasn't. It's a great day when corrupt politicians face judgement. George Ryan first among them.
I'll do better voting in the future. Lesson learned.
That would be the same George Ryan who was convicted by a jury in Chicago this week on all counts of corruption.
I can't claim that I didn't know he was corrupt when I cast my vote. I knew, even then. Everyone knew.
I cast my vote as a party-line vote. I believe in voting for a party, and not just "the man". Because a position like Governor involves nominating a lot of people to office, and I want the people he brings with him to be from the group that thinks most like me. So, I held my nose and voted for him.
It was close. Very, very close. I really wanted to vote for Glenn Poshard, even though I didn't know much about him - but he was affiliated with the wrong party. Turns out I've learned a lot more about Poshard since then. He's a very honorable man who would have served the state well.
My mistake, and it was a big mistake.
Not only did Ryan bring corruption with him to office, but bad judgement as well. Now we have to live with a disfunctional justice system after he pardoned all of the death row inmates and placed a moratorium on the death penalty. Some Republican.
Of course, he's a media darling because of the death penalty thing. And the media is stunned by his conviction. They want to eagerly report that it may be overturned because of suspect jurors. At least, they hope it is.
The most often used statement by the media was that it was "a sad day for Illinois" that he was convicted.
No it wasn't. It's a great day when corrupt politicians face judgement. George Ryan first among them.
I'll do better voting in the future. Lesson learned.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Federal Government Derelict on Immigration
Note to Congress on your break:
Yada, Yada, Yada. You can debate all of the bills you want to in Congress on Immigration reform. Doesn't matter. You have no credibility on the issue.
You can't be derelict in your duties for two decades, and totally abdicate serious enforcement of our immigration laws currently on the books now - resulting in a crisis of 12 million illegal aliens - and expect us to give any credence to any legislation you're proposing now. Guest worker. Amnesty. Whatever. Doesn't matter.
Secure the borders first. Congress and the Bush Administration. Build the wall, or whatever it takes to stop a million people a year from entering our country illegally every year.
Until you can do that, you're just continuing in your dereliction of duty.
Yada. Yada. Yada.
Yada, Yada, Yada. You can debate all of the bills you want to in Congress on Immigration reform. Doesn't matter. You have no credibility on the issue.
You can't be derelict in your duties for two decades, and totally abdicate serious enforcement of our immigration laws currently on the books now - resulting in a crisis of 12 million illegal aliens - and expect us to give any credence to any legislation you're proposing now. Guest worker. Amnesty. Whatever. Doesn't matter.
Secure the borders first. Congress and the Bush Administration. Build the wall, or whatever it takes to stop a million people a year from entering our country illegally every year.
Until you can do that, you're just continuing in your dereliction of duty.
Yada. Yada. Yada.
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Not Funny
My son came to us this morning to tell us that he had accidentally taken two doses of his medicine.
This was followed, as we raced for the phone to call a pharmacist or poison control, by an exuberantly shouted "April Fools!".
Not funny. At the time, at least.
Hope you had some fun with April Fool's Day.
This was followed, as we raced for the phone to call a pharmacist or poison control, by an exuberantly shouted "April Fools!".
Not funny. At the time, at least.
Hope you had some fun with April Fool's Day.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Taps for Cap
Caspar (Cap) Weinberger, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Defense in the 80's, died today.
I served under Secretary Weinberger in my tenure in the U.S. Air Force and I have the utmost respect for him. He was a helluva leader and an inspiration to me.
I salute him today for his life and his service to our country. Rest in Peace.
I served under Secretary Weinberger in my tenure in the U.S. Air Force and I have the utmost respect for him. He was a helluva leader and an inspiration to me.
I salute him today for his life and his service to our country. Rest in Peace.
Pass it Harder
Congress is embroiled this week in passing legislation to deal with the substantial problem of illegal immigration, include penalties for those who have broken the law to violate the borders of the U.S. In response, 500,000 protesters filled the streets of Los Angeles last Saturday to advocate against the law and in favor of rights for these law-breakers.
This bold in-your-face demonstration by such a large crowd, many of whom were probably the illegals in question and who had no fear of protesting in public - with Mexican flags raised high - illustrate clearly the magnitude of the problem and dictate the direction of the solution.
Pass whatever legislation is required to get control of our borders. Pass it now.
Pass it harder.
And then enforce it, with every ounce of political will necessary.
Can we please cut through the horsecrap on this issue?
- A country must have control of it's borders if it is to maintain it's safety, values, and way of life.
- A country also benefits from a sane immigration policy that allows new people in, from all races and ethnicities and geographies, at a controlled pace that allows for assimilation into our country. You remember: e pluribus unum. (out of many, one). The "melting pot". That's what assimilation is. Allow people in, but control the pace and require assimilation. Diversity of culture yes, but allegiance to the country and assimilation as well.
- We accomplish the two goals of controlled immigration through two means - border security and lawful immigration policy.
- The border security has been entirely degraded, with at least 500,000 "illegals" skipping across the border each year. There are people trying to do it legally and waiting in line. And then there are criminals who break-in. This is not adequate security.
It's not only terrorists who can come in with that flood of illegals. There are hardened criminals in the bunch as well, who circumvent the background check required of the people who do this by the book.
- Our laws, which define how many people can be lawfully emigrated and assimilated in a given time period, have been rendered meaningless by lack of enforcement. The rule of law degraded.
- The words "illegal immigrant" mean something. If you've entered the country illegally, you have violated the law.
It's time for our elected officials to be accountable on this.
Pass whatever new laws are needed.
Secure the border.
Enforce the laws.
Period.
This bold in-your-face demonstration by such a large crowd, many of whom were probably the illegals in question and who had no fear of protesting in public - with Mexican flags raised high - illustrate clearly the magnitude of the problem and dictate the direction of the solution.
Pass whatever legislation is required to get control of our borders. Pass it now.
Pass it harder.
And then enforce it, with every ounce of political will necessary.
Can we please cut through the horsecrap on this issue?
- A country must have control of it's borders if it is to maintain it's safety, values, and way of life.
- A country also benefits from a sane immigration policy that allows new people in, from all races and ethnicities and geographies, at a controlled pace that allows for assimilation into our country. You remember: e pluribus unum. (out of many, one). The "melting pot". That's what assimilation is. Allow people in, but control the pace and require assimilation. Diversity of culture yes, but allegiance to the country and assimilation as well.
- We accomplish the two goals of controlled immigration through two means - border security and lawful immigration policy.
- The border security has been entirely degraded, with at least 500,000 "illegals" skipping across the border each year. There are people trying to do it legally and waiting in line. And then there are criminals who break-in. This is not adequate security.
It's not only terrorists who can come in with that flood of illegals. There are hardened criminals in the bunch as well, who circumvent the background check required of the people who do this by the book.
- Our laws, which define how many people can be lawfully emigrated and assimilated in a given time period, have been rendered meaningless by lack of enforcement. The rule of law degraded.
- The words "illegal immigrant" mean something. If you've entered the country illegally, you have violated the law.
It's time for our elected officials to be accountable on this.
Pass whatever new laws are needed.
Secure the border.
Enforce the laws.
Period.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Election Day
It's primary election day here in Illinois. We're picking a new Governor and some lessor officials, as well as warding off (hopefully) tax increases.
We currently have a Democrat in office. A particularly haughty Chicagoan who insulted us downstaters by refusing to live in the Governor's mansion in the capital of Springfield. Time for him to go.
There are several candidates in the Republican primary and the outcome is, unfortunately predictable. There is one establishment candidate (Judy Baar-Topinka) and four outsiders.
I can't vote for Ms. Topinka because I count her in the Republican leadership for two decades that have taken our party into total electoral calamity. She bears some responsibility for that.
That leaves her four challengers, all white guys, who will predictably split the anti-Judy vote thereby ensuring her win.
I voted. I voted for one of the anti-Judy challengers. Tonight I'll watch her win without a majority because of the split anti-Judy vote.
Then I'll reluctantly vote for her in the general election because I prefer a Republican administration to a Democrat administration every time.
We currently have a Democrat in office. A particularly haughty Chicagoan who insulted us downstaters by refusing to live in the Governor's mansion in the capital of Springfield. Time for him to go.
There are several candidates in the Republican primary and the outcome is, unfortunately predictable. There is one establishment candidate (Judy Baar-Topinka) and four outsiders.
I can't vote for Ms. Topinka because I count her in the Republican leadership for two decades that have taken our party into total electoral calamity. She bears some responsibility for that.
That leaves her four challengers, all white guys, who will predictably split the anti-Judy vote thereby ensuring her win.
I voted. I voted for one of the anti-Judy challengers. Tonight I'll watch her win without a majority because of the split anti-Judy vote.
Then I'll reluctantly vote for her in the general election because I prefer a Republican administration to a Democrat administration every time.
Monday, March 20, 2006
"Tell Your Dad Not to Admit It"
I had an interesting encounter with a friendly gentleman on the North Shore of Chicago this weekend.
I had taken my family for an impromptu getaway to the windy city. We bunkered into a posh hotel on Lake Michigan in the South Loop and laid seige to several musuems on Saturday and Sunday. Sharks and dinosaurs, oh my. A very fun weekend.
On Sunday morning I took my oldest son on a quick photo tour of downtown Chicago. Big buildings - snap! Millenium Park - snap! Beaches on the North Shore - snap!
On that last stop we met a kindly older gentleman walking his dog.
He: "Would you like me to take a picture of you and your son?"
Me: "That would be great!" Snap. Snap.
Me: "We're just visiting for the weekend."
He: "That's great! Welcome to our city."
Me: "We saw the Shedd Aquarium yesterday, and are headed to the Field Musuem today."
He: "That's great! Did you get a chance to go to the anti-war rally?"
Ummmmmmmmmmm. Clearing my throat.......
Me (with a big smile): "Actually, I'm a veteran and I support President Bush and the war."
He (turning purple): "NO! Nobody supports Bush anymore!"
He (looking at my son): "Tell your Dad not to admit that to anyone else here."
Me (with a friendly wave): "Thanks for helping us out!"
And we parted with friendly grins.
I happened to be near Soldier Field later that day where the rally was apparently being held. The usual suspects assembling, as is their right. They had a nice day for a rally. I went in with my family and saw the dinosaurs and mummies.
However, I'll admit it to anyone. I support President Bush. Taking the War on Terror was the right thing to do, even with the cost. I base that on staying informed on all of the issues. If you paid close attention to the news lately you would see:
- we're meeting the milestones on establishing a Democracy in that critical region
- March's casualties were down
- Sadaam's trial is proceeding
- Iraqi towns once held by terrorists are now safer
- an Iraqi Air Force general has admitted that his men flew the WMD's into Syria before the war started
Bush, despite doing a poor job explaining it, is on the right track - my new friend in Chicago's opinion notwithstanding.
Postscript: I just finished reading Richard Miniter's book "Disinformation", which methodically knocks down 22 media myths about the war like:
- there were no WMD's in Iraq
- there were no connections between al Qaida and Iraq
- 100,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq by the U.S.
- the war was really fought for oil and Haliburton
It's a great read. Chock full of facts. I highly recommend it. You should read it, and then some of you should consider apologizing to the President.
I had taken my family for an impromptu getaway to the windy city. We bunkered into a posh hotel on Lake Michigan in the South Loop and laid seige to several musuems on Saturday and Sunday. Sharks and dinosaurs, oh my. A very fun weekend.
On Sunday morning I took my oldest son on a quick photo tour of downtown Chicago. Big buildings - snap! Millenium Park - snap! Beaches on the North Shore - snap!
On that last stop we met a kindly older gentleman walking his dog.
He: "Would you like me to take a picture of you and your son?"
Me: "That would be great!" Snap. Snap.
Me: "We're just visiting for the weekend."
He: "That's great! Welcome to our city."
Me: "We saw the Shedd Aquarium yesterday, and are headed to the Field Musuem today."
He: "That's great! Did you get a chance to go to the anti-war rally?"
Ummmmmmmmmmm. Clearing my throat.......
Me (with a big smile): "Actually, I'm a veteran and I support President Bush and the war."
He (turning purple): "NO! Nobody supports Bush anymore!"
He (looking at my son): "Tell your Dad not to admit that to anyone else here."
Me (with a friendly wave): "Thanks for helping us out!"
And we parted with friendly grins.
I happened to be near Soldier Field later that day where the rally was apparently being held. The usual suspects assembling, as is their right. They had a nice day for a rally. I went in with my family and saw the dinosaurs and mummies.
However, I'll admit it to anyone. I support President Bush. Taking the War on Terror was the right thing to do, even with the cost. I base that on staying informed on all of the issues. If you paid close attention to the news lately you would see:
- we're meeting the milestones on establishing a Democracy in that critical region
- March's casualties were down
- Sadaam's trial is proceeding
- Iraqi towns once held by terrorists are now safer
- an Iraqi Air Force general has admitted that his men flew the WMD's into Syria before the war started
Bush, despite doing a poor job explaining it, is on the right track - my new friend in Chicago's opinion notwithstanding.
Postscript: I just finished reading Richard Miniter's book "Disinformation", which methodically knocks down 22 media myths about the war like:
- there were no WMD's in Iraq
- there were no connections between al Qaida and Iraq
- 100,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq by the U.S.
- the war was really fought for oil and Haliburton
It's a great read. Chock full of facts. I highly recommend it. You should read it, and then some of you should consider apologizing to the President.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Bastards!
Another American hostage was found tortured and killed in Iraq by radical Islamic murderers.
Story here.
Bastards.
Story here.
Bastards.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
"I've Been Retired for Four Days Now"
I'm not a big fan of the lottery. I almost never, ever play.
Okay, maybe a couple of times when one of the huge powerball lotteries has gone over a couple of million I'll plunk down a couple of bucks on a quick pick.
But you have to get a grin out of 8 regular joes at a meat packing plant in Nebraska hitting the big jackpot. $15 Million each, not bad.
Here's to those guys. Spend the money well.
I'm guessing at least one of them will buy season tickets to the Cornhuskers games. Go big red!
Okay, maybe a couple of times when one of the huge powerball lotteries has gone over a couple of million I'll plunk down a couple of bucks on a quick pick.
But you have to get a grin out of 8 regular joes at a meat packing plant in Nebraska hitting the big jackpot. $15 Million each, not bad.
Here's to those guys. Spend the money well.
I'm guessing at least one of them will buy season tickets to the Cornhuskers games. Go big red!
Passion Lives There
I know it's fashionable to bash the Winter Olympics. Not real sports. Not real athletes. Whatever.
I always enjoy them. Skating. Skiing. Hockey. Heck, even I'll even sit and watch curling!
There's something about the Olympic spirit that's inspiring, and we all need to be inspired every now and then.
I always enjoy them. Skating. Skiing. Hockey. Heck, even I'll even sit and watch curling!
There's something about the Olympic spirit that's inspiring, and we all need to be inspired every now and then.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Eavesdropping: Po-tat-o or Po-tay-toe?
The facts, as we know them from the NY Times whistleblowing story and the White House's response to it, are as follows:
- in the days after 9/11, President Bush acted on the advice of the National Security Agency (NSA) to authorize eavesdropping (phone, email, etc) on certain categories of individuals within the domestic United States. He did so without obtaining a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, claiming executive constitutional authority to collect foreign intelligence in war time.
- the individuals involved may or may not be citizens - we don't know yet
- the individuals involved were suspected of having some level of contact with Al Qaida. This suspicion was based on information collected in intelligence operations overseas. I.E. their phone number was found in captured cell phones of laptops.
- Approximately 500 people fell into this program
- The details of the program are top-secret, and involve elements that caused the Administration to believe that it would not be practical, or would compromise the secrecy and success of the program, to go through the established FISA court warrant procedure. A court procedure that the 9/11 commission report indicated was insufficient for combatting terrorism.
Those are the facts. How are they portrayed by the opposing sides in this media conflict?
Domestic Spying - say the Democrats, the mainstream old-school media, and the Hollywood politicos like George Clooney. They use this loaded phrase to cast the program in the widest possible worst case scenario to imply that the President is "spying" on every American - or at least his political opponents.
Terrorist Surveillance - says the President in his State of the Union speech. Limiting the scope of the program to those with connections to terrorists. Not you. Not me. Not the kindly old lady who lives down the block. Only people who have "reached out and touched" Al Qaida.
So, Domestic Spying vs. Terrorist Surveillance.
Which is right? More descriptive? More credible? More honest? More hysterical. It makes a difference.
So, let me ask you:
If U.S. military or intelligence personnel come into the possession of battlefield intel in the form of captured cell phones or computers that have contact information for someone within the borders of the U.S.A., who may be members of a terrorist cell waited for instructions, who may or may not be U.S. citizens - do you want that person monitored or not?
Are we really serious about "connecting the dots" regarding individuals within our borders who are in contact with the people who aim to kill us, or not?
Is said person, who is in contact with Al Qaida, having his civil rights violated by being monitored, or not?
And are the Democrats and the media advocating that we not monitor those people, and leave ourselves open to the next attack?
Democrats are playing a dangerous and losing game by asserting, without evidence, that President Bush has "broken a law" and/or committed an impeachable offense. Surveilling terrorists on our soil is a winning argument for the President.
- in the days after 9/11, President Bush acted on the advice of the National Security Agency (NSA) to authorize eavesdropping (phone, email, etc) on certain categories of individuals within the domestic United States. He did so without obtaining a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, claiming executive constitutional authority to collect foreign intelligence in war time.
- the individuals involved may or may not be citizens - we don't know yet
- the individuals involved were suspected of having some level of contact with Al Qaida. This suspicion was based on information collected in intelligence operations overseas. I.E. their phone number was found in captured cell phones of laptops.
- Approximately 500 people fell into this program
- The details of the program are top-secret, and involve elements that caused the Administration to believe that it would not be practical, or would compromise the secrecy and success of the program, to go through the established FISA court warrant procedure. A court procedure that the 9/11 commission report indicated was insufficient for combatting terrorism.
Those are the facts. How are they portrayed by the opposing sides in this media conflict?
Domestic Spying - say the Democrats, the mainstream old-school media, and the Hollywood politicos like George Clooney. They use this loaded phrase to cast the program in the widest possible worst case scenario to imply that the President is "spying" on every American - or at least his political opponents.
Terrorist Surveillance - says the President in his State of the Union speech. Limiting the scope of the program to those with connections to terrorists. Not you. Not me. Not the kindly old lady who lives down the block. Only people who have "reached out and touched" Al Qaida.
So, Domestic Spying vs. Terrorist Surveillance.
Which is right? More descriptive? More credible? More honest? More hysterical. It makes a difference.
So, let me ask you:
If U.S. military or intelligence personnel come into the possession of battlefield intel in the form of captured cell phones or computers that have contact information for someone within the borders of the U.S.A., who may be members of a terrorist cell waited for instructions, who may or may not be U.S. citizens - do you want that person monitored or not?
Are we really serious about "connecting the dots" regarding individuals within our borders who are in contact with the people who aim to kill us, or not?
Is said person, who is in contact with Al Qaida, having his civil rights violated by being monitored, or not?
And are the Democrats and the media advocating that we not monitor those people, and leave ourselves open to the next attack?
Democrats are playing a dangerous and losing game by asserting, without evidence, that President Bush has "broken a law" and/or committed an impeachable offense. Surveilling terrorists on our soil is a winning argument for the President.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
WMD's Take Flight
The most underreported story at the moment is Saddam Sent WMD to Syria, Former General Alleges, which details how the WMD's were shipped out of Iraq to Syria in the days before the war started. Go read it.
I hope this report is taken seriously and investigated. Not just to prove the Democrats wrong in their continued, and irresponsible, litany that "Bush lied" us into war about WMD's. Because, if they are still around in Syria as this report alleges and as I believe they are, they are still a threat to us.
Let's investigate this seriously.
I hope this report is taken seriously and investigated. Not just to prove the Democrats wrong in their continued, and irresponsible, litany that "Bush lied" us into war about WMD's. Because, if they are still around in Syria as this report alleges and as I believe they are, they are still a threat to us.
Let's investigate this seriously.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Democrats Vote Themselves out of "Mainstream"
As the votes occur in the U.S. Senate this week to confirm Judge Sam Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, Senate Democrats are apparently preparing to take their party over the cliff and out of the "mainstream".
Consistent among their arguments in their opposition to Judge Alito is that he is out of the "judicial mainstream".
It's not enough that he has sterling levels of experience, written opinions, and judicial temperament. No, all of that was attested by the American Bar Association (ABA) in their report to the Judiciary Committee that found him to be well qualified. No, that's not enough. Consider Sen. Chuck Schumer's only question to them in response, where he asked them if they measured whether or not the judge was within the "judicial mainstream"? The ABA's response - "We don't do politics".
Well the Democrats do politics. And they have decided that is in their interest to appease their radical left wing base and attack, oppose, and possibly filibuster the nomination of this fine man.
So I ask you - who is outside of the judicial mainstream?
Judge Alito, who the ABA found through interviews with 2000 people who knew him - judges who served with him, lawyers who clerked for him, lawyers that argued in front of him, etc - was an honest and fair man of utmost integrity and judicial temperament?
Or partisan Democratic Senators who threw every unfounded, mean, and illogical argument at him in the hearings and weren't able to lay a glove on him? You want to take Teddy Kennedy's word ethics? Or Hillary Clinton's on the "mainstream"?
It's inevitable. The Senate Democrats will choose disgrace over integrity this week in their votes to oppose the judge. They will publicly line up and exit the mainstream. And Judge Alito will be confirmed anyway. That's justice.
Consistent among their arguments in their opposition to Judge Alito is that he is out of the "judicial mainstream".
It's not enough that he has sterling levels of experience, written opinions, and judicial temperament. No, all of that was attested by the American Bar Association (ABA) in their report to the Judiciary Committee that found him to be well qualified. No, that's not enough. Consider Sen. Chuck Schumer's only question to them in response, where he asked them if they measured whether or not the judge was within the "judicial mainstream"? The ABA's response - "We don't do politics".
Well the Democrats do politics. And they have decided that is in their interest to appease their radical left wing base and attack, oppose, and possibly filibuster the nomination of this fine man.
So I ask you - who is outside of the judicial mainstream?
Judge Alito, who the ABA found through interviews with 2000 people who knew him - judges who served with him, lawyers who clerked for him, lawyers that argued in front of him, etc - was an honest and fair man of utmost integrity and judicial temperament?
Or partisan Democratic Senators who threw every unfounded, mean, and illogical argument at him in the hearings and weren't able to lay a glove on him? You want to take Teddy Kennedy's word ethics? Or Hillary Clinton's on the "mainstream"?
It's inevitable. The Senate Democrats will choose disgrace over integrity this week in their votes to oppose the judge. They will publicly line up and exit the mainstream. And Judge Alito will be confirmed anyway. That's justice.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
My ill-spent Morning in Traffic Court
There is an old saying that a "conservative" is a liberal who has been mugged. (As my twelve year old would say.."Get it, they now believe in law and order, get it?)
I would modify that to say that a conservative should be anyone who has spent time in the paragon of beauracratic efficiency know as traffic court, as I had the privilege of doing this morning.
It should certainly cure liberals of a belief that government should be delivering most services to "the people".
Yes, I know. I wasn't one of the people today. I was a perp. A violator. Who am I to comment on the wonders of the "Law and Justice Center"? Just shut up and put up with the two and a half hour excercise in civics and learn a lesson already.
Two and a half hours? To pay a traffic ticket? What's up with that?
Was I protesting the charges? Um, no. You got me, officer. Fair and square. Speeding? Guilty. 88 mph in a 65 zone. Not a close call. No seatbelt? Guilty. I didn't even try to drag it surreptitiously across my stomach as the officer approached the car. Nope. Guilty.
I've got $150 buring a hole in my pocket. Let me pay it and give me the prize - my Driver's License back - already.
But, it's not going to be that easy. The wheels of justice have to grind me down a while. Stand here. Sit there. Court appearance required. That's right - the courtroom where 50 people are all scheduled for the same 9:00am hearing. We'll call your name - eventually. Say hi to the pretty State's Attorney. What? No, I don't want to protest it. I'm guilty. Who can I pay already?
You just want to pay? Sign this. Plead that. Go down and stand in that long line in the hallway. Never mind that there are several computer stations unmanned. These two plodding bored people will help you - eventually.
What? Don't mind that doctor who's trapped in line behind you on his cell phone talking his nurse through how to perform a diagnostic test to decide whether a patient needs to go to the emergency room or not! The line will eventually move it's two feet per ten minutes and free him up too.
If my liberal friends get to experience this encounter with your local government some day, ask yourself this as you observe the proceedings: if this was a business, would they treat you this way? I mean, after all, they generate huge amounts of cash for your city to operate on. No one gets out of there for less than $100, I noted as I watched them staple stacks of cash to thick permanent files on us.
I know you guys hate Walmart. But wouldn't you really want them to run the traffic court? Do you think they would have hesitated to open another register to clear out that line?
I would modify that to say that a conservative should be anyone who has spent time in the paragon of beauracratic efficiency know as traffic court, as I had the privilege of doing this morning.
It should certainly cure liberals of a belief that government should be delivering most services to "the people".
Yes, I know. I wasn't one of the people today. I was a perp. A violator. Who am I to comment on the wonders of the "Law and Justice Center"? Just shut up and put up with the two and a half hour excercise in civics and learn a lesson already.
Two and a half hours? To pay a traffic ticket? What's up with that?
Was I protesting the charges? Um, no. You got me, officer. Fair and square. Speeding? Guilty. 88 mph in a 65 zone. Not a close call. No seatbelt? Guilty. I didn't even try to drag it surreptitiously across my stomach as the officer approached the car. Nope. Guilty.
I've got $150 buring a hole in my pocket. Let me pay it and give me the prize - my Driver's License back - already.
But, it's not going to be that easy. The wheels of justice have to grind me down a while. Stand here. Sit there. Court appearance required. That's right - the courtroom where 50 people are all scheduled for the same 9:00am hearing. We'll call your name - eventually. Say hi to the pretty State's Attorney. What? No, I don't want to protest it. I'm guilty. Who can I pay already?
You just want to pay? Sign this. Plead that. Go down and stand in that long line in the hallway. Never mind that there are several computer stations unmanned. These two plodding bored people will help you - eventually.
What? Don't mind that doctor who's trapped in line behind you on his cell phone talking his nurse through how to perform a diagnostic test to decide whether a patient needs to go to the emergency room or not! The line will eventually move it's two feet per ten minutes and free him up too.
If my liberal friends get to experience this encounter with your local government some day, ask yourself this as you observe the proceedings: if this was a business, would they treat you this way? I mean, after all, they generate huge amounts of cash for your city to operate on. No one gets out of there for less than $100, I noted as I watched them staple stacks of cash to thick permanent files on us.
I know you guys hate Walmart. But wouldn't you really want them to run the traffic court? Do you think they would have hesitated to open another register to clear out that line?
Friday, January 13, 2006
The Party of Unfinished Sentences
The continued drumbeat from the Democrat leadership this week about President Bush's "illegal warrantless spying on Americans" shows that the Party of Unfinished Sentences is at again.
Of course, their main ritual of the unfinished sentence was on display as well in the Alito hearings. The being "a woman's right to choose." Choose what? Well, of course they don't want to finish the sentence and say "a woman's right to choose whether or not to hire an abortionist to take the life of the unborn child developing within her." Let's just shortcut that at the right to choose.
Back to the NSA eavesdropping story. Just because Democrats keep repeating all day, every day, that the President broke the law by "spying on Americans" doesn't make it true.
As to the unfinished sentence - what Americans? Me? You? My preacher? The little old lady next door? Bill Clinton? Ted Koppel? The Red Hat Society?
Let me finish the sentence for them. The President authorized the NSA to monitor, by eavesdropping, the conversations of people on American soil - citizens or not - who they had probable cause to believe were in contact with Al Qaeda leaders.
When I say it that way, and I do say it that way, it's a different story. We would expect the President to be taking aggressive action to monitor those people to protect the security of our homeland. Except Democrat leaders, or course, who just want the issue to bash the President with - not the truth.
I could make the whole argument here, but Jonah Goldberg has already done it extremely well in his column "so what if you are". Go read it.
And always ask - what's the rest of the sentence?
Of course, their main ritual of the unfinished sentence was on display as well in the Alito hearings. The being "a woman's right to choose." Choose what? Well, of course they don't want to finish the sentence and say "a woman's right to choose whether or not to hire an abortionist to take the life of the unborn child developing within her." Let's just shortcut that at the right to choose.
Back to the NSA eavesdropping story. Just because Democrats keep repeating all day, every day, that the President broke the law by "spying on Americans" doesn't make it true.
As to the unfinished sentence - what Americans? Me? You? My preacher? The little old lady next door? Bill Clinton? Ted Koppel? The Red Hat Society?
Let me finish the sentence for them. The President authorized the NSA to monitor, by eavesdropping, the conversations of people on American soil - citizens or not - who they had probable cause to believe were in contact with Al Qaeda leaders.
When I say it that way, and I do say it that way, it's a different story. We would expect the President to be taking aggressive action to monitor those people to protect the security of our homeland. Except Democrat leaders, or course, who just want the issue to bash the President with - not the truth.
I could make the whole argument here, but Jonah Goldberg has already done it extremely well in his column "so what if you are". Go read it.
And always ask - what's the rest of the sentence?
Senators Behaving Badly
"Senators, have you no shame?" would have been a good question for someone to direct to the Democrat Senators on the Judiciary Committee in this week's hearings on Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.
Desperate to defeat Alito - yet unable to do so on the merits of his experience, capability, or judicial temperament - the Democrats loaded up the smear arsenal.
Thank heavens for C-Span! Staying up late to watch Kennedy and Schumer and Leahy etc. thunder imperiously at Alito, all but calling him a bigoted unethical women-hating stooge of an illegal President, until his wife retreated from the room in tears: Priceless! Nice, Democrats. Real nice.
Watching Chucky Schumer haughtily conclude that he was troubled by the nominee's unresponsiveness and would have a hard time voting for him, like there was any chance in the world that he might even consider voting for him: Priceless!
At least I got to prove my "News Junkie" bona fides this week by taping C-Span in order to watch Committee hearings into the wee hours of the morning.
Desperate to defeat Alito - yet unable to do so on the merits of his experience, capability, or judicial temperament - the Democrats loaded up the smear arsenal.
Thank heavens for C-Span! Staying up late to watch Kennedy and Schumer and Leahy etc. thunder imperiously at Alito, all but calling him a bigoted unethical women-hating stooge of an illegal President, until his wife retreated from the room in tears: Priceless! Nice, Democrats. Real nice.
Watching Chucky Schumer haughtily conclude that he was troubled by the nominee's unresponsiveness and would have a hard time voting for him, like there was any chance in the world that he might even consider voting for him: Priceless!
At least I got to prove my "News Junkie" bona fides this week by taping C-Span in order to watch Committee hearings into the wee hours of the morning.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
You Can't Just Give Back the Money
The most important story on the front page of yesterday's USA Today was not the shockingly out-of-date "Dewey defeats Truman" kind of headline proclaiming that the trapped miners in West Virginia were found alive - when in fact they were dead.
No, that was a tragic story with an important side lesson about the ability of the print media to compete with the 24 hour news cycle on a deadline, but it was not the most important story for the nation.
That would be the 2nd story, below the fold, about super lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleading guilty to lobbying fraud and giving up evidence to take down a lot of Congressmen with him. This is the story with long term national ramifications.
Why? Because this story will damage the nation long term for two reasons:
1. It will directly take down a lot of powerful Congressmen if it plays out to the extent that is possible. Key figures like Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D) are potentially on the hook for taking bribes.
2. It will further undermine American's faith in government if a large group of nationally known politicians are indicted for accepting bribes.
Hastert, as was noted, immediately "gave back" about $69,000. Sorry guys. You can't just give the money back. If you took bribes, you are going down.
This has enormous implications for the 2006 elections. Stay tuned.
No, that was a tragic story with an important side lesson about the ability of the print media to compete with the 24 hour news cycle on a deadline, but it was not the most important story for the nation.
That would be the 2nd story, below the fold, about super lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleading guilty to lobbying fraud and giving up evidence to take down a lot of Congressmen with him. This is the story with long term national ramifications.
Why? Because this story will damage the nation long term for two reasons:
1. It will directly take down a lot of powerful Congressmen if it plays out to the extent that is possible. Key figures like Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D) are potentially on the hook for taking bribes.
2. It will further undermine American's faith in government if a large group of nationally known politicians are indicted for accepting bribes.
Hastert, as was noted, immediately "gave back" about $69,000. Sorry guys. You can't just give the money back. If you took bribes, you are going down.
This has enormous implications for the 2006 elections. Stay tuned.
Spy, President Bush, Spy
In case you had any doubt, President Bush has my full approval for his policy authorizing the NSA to conduct eavesdropping operations domestically on people who have been linked to terror suspects overseas. With a warrant or without, I applaud the full tilt war on terrorism that the President is waging.
If you've ever heard the folks in the silly apathetic middle argue that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, this one story should put that argument to rest.
The facts are straightforward, only the spin is arguable. In the wake of 9/11, and in the aftermath of taking down the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, intelligence assets such as phones, address books, and computer contact lists were captured. The NSA, with the approval of the President, began eavesdropping activities on domestic contacts that were identified with these methods. The President had the authorization of the Attorney General, and he briefed relevant members of Congress on the program.
So, what is the different spin:
Democrats are outraged that the President would authorize domestic spying without proper court warrants. They fume about civil liberty violations. They shout abuse of power and hint at impeachment.
Republicans support the notion that in wartime all means of intelligence should be aggressively pursued to protect the nation. Also, that we learned post 9/11 that our laws and policies were antiquated tools when it came to dealing with non-state terrorists.
Clearly, one party is serious about the fact that we are at war, and is aggressively waging it with everything in the arsenal. Clearly, one party is not serious at war and thinks nothing of handcuffing the President for partisan advantage.
I know which side I'm on. I applaud the President and his reliable determination to prosecute this war with every tool he has available. I disdain the Democrats who would block efforts to monitor terrorist contacts operating in this country because the correct paperwork wasn't obtained.
If Democrats want to take on President Bush for monitoring Osama bin Laden's cell contacts within the U.S., I say bring it on. This is absolutely a winning issue for the President.
If you've ever heard the folks in the silly apathetic middle argue that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, this one story should put that argument to rest.
The facts are straightforward, only the spin is arguable. In the wake of 9/11, and in the aftermath of taking down the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, intelligence assets such as phones, address books, and computer contact lists were captured. The NSA, with the approval of the President, began eavesdropping activities on domestic contacts that were identified with these methods. The President had the authorization of the Attorney General, and he briefed relevant members of Congress on the program.
So, what is the different spin:
Democrats are outraged that the President would authorize domestic spying without proper court warrants. They fume about civil liberty violations. They shout abuse of power and hint at impeachment.
Republicans support the notion that in wartime all means of intelligence should be aggressively pursued to protect the nation. Also, that we learned post 9/11 that our laws and policies were antiquated tools when it came to dealing with non-state terrorists.
Clearly, one party is serious about the fact that we are at war, and is aggressively waging it with everything in the arsenal. Clearly, one party is not serious at war and thinks nothing of handcuffing the President for partisan advantage.
I know which side I'm on. I applaud the President and his reliable determination to prosecute this war with every tool he has available. I disdain the Democrats who would block efforts to monitor terrorist contacts operating in this country because the correct paperwork wasn't obtained.
If Democrats want to take on President Bush for monitoring Osama bin Laden's cell contacts within the U.S., I say bring it on. This is absolutely a winning issue for the President.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Intelligent Design Expelled from Dover
There are important stories in the news this week, to be sure. And I am following them. The Iraqi elections. Sadaam's trial. Bush's NSA eavesdropping revelations. All important.
But the story that interests me most is the story of the Federal Judge in Pennsylvania issuing a ruling that the Intelligent Design policy instituted by the Dover School Board was unconstitutional and must be ceased.
The story was interesting to me on two levels.
First, it taps into my longstanding interest in the creation vs. evolution debate.
Second, the decision is a milestone in that debate and deserves a great deal of study and scrutiny. I'd advise everyone that is proffering an opinion on the ruling to actually read the thing.
I read the entire ruling - an ambitious excercise for a non-lawyer - including all 139 pages plus the footnotes. I read it all in one sitting.
After reading the Dover decision, I made a decision. That is, to start a new blog focused on this one topic only - separate from Partisan Newsjunkie.
Politics here.
Creation vs. Evolution over at my new home: http://onorigins.blogspot.com
Stop in and check it out.
But the story that interests me most is the story of the Federal Judge in Pennsylvania issuing a ruling that the Intelligent Design policy instituted by the Dover School Board was unconstitutional and must be ceased.
The story was interesting to me on two levels.
First, it taps into my longstanding interest in the creation vs. evolution debate.
Second, the decision is a milestone in that debate and deserves a great deal of study and scrutiny. I'd advise everyone that is proffering an opinion on the ruling to actually read the thing.
I read the entire ruling - an ambitious excercise for a non-lawyer - including all 139 pages plus the footnotes. I read it all in one sitting.
After reading the Dover decision, I made a decision. That is, to start a new blog focused on this one topic only - separate from Partisan Newsjunkie.
Politics here.
Creation vs. Evolution over at my new home: http://onorigins.blogspot.com
Stop in and check it out.
This is News?
In the "this is news?" category tonight, I submit the lead story on all the network and cable networks tonight. Let's review it as reported by CBS:
Bob Schieffer introduced Wednesday's CBS Evening News by using loaded language as he pointed out how, “to protest the President's decision to continue spying on American citizens, a federal judge took the unprecedented step of resigning from the court that issues warrants in such cases,”
Really now. This is the state of mainstream journalism today?
First of all, it is of course loaded language. According to the totality of news reports on the topic the judge did not officially announce a reason for his resignation. Would you get that from Scheiffer's phrasing "to protest the President's decision..."? Of course not. That phrasing was loaded and agenda driven.
So, if the judge did not announce an official reason, how did Schieffer know the reason. Again, from reading multiple sources I learned that this was deduced from remarks that the judge made in private conversations. Really now! Is that the standard of reporting a lead story on network news now? CBS News is reporting rumors about private remarks as factual news now?
Finally, why is this news? Is it news that one Clinton appointee has a philosophical difference of opinion with President Bush? One judge out of 11 resigns and that is news? No, it is not.
If it were news, the accurate headline would be "10 out of 11 judges are not offended by the President's actions."
Bob Schieffer introduced Wednesday's CBS Evening News by using loaded language as he pointed out how, “to protest the President's decision to continue spying on American citizens, a federal judge took the unprecedented step of resigning from the court that issues warrants in such cases,”
Really now. This is the state of mainstream journalism today?
First of all, it is of course loaded language. According to the totality of news reports on the topic the judge did not officially announce a reason for his resignation. Would you get that from Scheiffer's phrasing "to protest the President's decision..."? Of course not. That phrasing was loaded and agenda driven.
So, if the judge did not announce an official reason, how did Schieffer know the reason. Again, from reading multiple sources I learned that this was deduced from remarks that the judge made in private conversations. Really now! Is that the standard of reporting a lead story on network news now? CBS News is reporting rumors about private remarks as factual news now?
Finally, why is this news? Is it news that one Clinton appointee has a philosophical difference of opinion with President Bush? One judge out of 11 resigns and that is news? No, it is not.
If it were news, the accurate headline would be "10 out of 11 judges are not offended by the President's actions."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)