Color Me Enraged - CJ

CJ of A Soldier's Perspective and You Served has an interesting missive on a recent Anti-Defamation League (ADL ) report about a suppossedly groing "rage" movement in America. Suprisingly they found nothing wrong with the rage leveled at the previous administration or even conservatives today.

Bush = Hitler was fine.

Obama is a Socialist...not so much.

Read on.

Color Me "Enraged"

By CJ at A Soldier's Perspective

In November 2009, the morons at the Anti-Defamation League released a report titled "Rage Grows In America: Anti-Government Conspiracies." The authors of the report have the audacity to suggest that a "climate of anti-government fervor and activism" was created "since the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States." Really?

I searched the ADL website forwards and backwards looking for a report talking about all the "anti-government fervor and activism" that was so prevalent during the Bush Administration. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any. None. Not one. It's not because there was no such thing as rage against Bush – it was everywhere! It was because the ADL is a leftwing extremist organization in and of itself.

The report cites "growing beliefs [that] threaten to create a large pool of people more susceptible to extreme anti-government conspiracy theories and even calls to resistance on the part of extremist groups and movements." Again, I couldn't find any mention anywhere in ADL's vast resources that mentions all the extremist groups that also advocated anti-government conspiracies (9-11 anyone?) and calls to resistance (IVAW/ANSWER/Code Pink).

READ MORE...

WTF?

I think this person is just a little too angry to be driving around the beltway...

Hat Tip: Lt Col P at OPFOR

The Dangers of Returning to a Law Enforcement Mentality for Counterterror Operations

Recent events have caused a concern that we may be taking the wrong approach to dealing with the terrorists who wish to destroy our way of life. We are bringing the architect of 9/11 to the scene of his crime just as he requested when he was captured. We are putting restrictions on and sowing confusion in the minds of those with the most dangerous task of going into enemy territory to apprehend them. I urge you to contact your representatives and tell them you don't think these merciless killers deserve this kid glove treatment. I have an Op Ed in today's Washington Times discussing this issue. The piece can be found here and I have also included it below. - Jim Hanson

Navy SEALs or CSI

The court-martial of three Navy SEALs, for purportedly punching terrorist suspect Ahmed Hashim Abed once in the gut, and the upcoming trials of Sept. 11, 2001, mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees in New York City illustrate a decisive shift from fighting a war on terrorism to conducting a police action.
The transition to a law enforcement mentality in our efforts to combat terrorism will create many challenges. Special operatives tracking down the world's most menacing killers will have to make sure they have their Miranda cards handy.
If we are to try terrorists in U.S. federal court, we must ensure their capture and any evidence we will use meets the rigorous standards of our judicial system. This poses concerns about the methods and tactics our special operators use to conduct the raids that bring these savages to bay.
A raid into enemy territory to capture a terrorist alive is one of the most complex undertakings we attempt short of space flight. You could call it an intricate martial ballet, but I liken it to conducting a Beethoven symphony with all the players and instruments in free fall, hurtling toward Earth like a phalanx of lawn darts. So many facets must occur in perfect harmony that adding additional complicating factors is inviting failure.
Yet that is exactly what the law enforcement model must consider. If the information leading to a raid is not sufficient to justify a warrant, then what right do we have to kidnap a suspected terrorist? Our entire counterterror strategy is built upon the concept of high-value targets (HVTs) who are vetted by military and civilian intelligence before being put on a list as candidates for a raid.
But this process is not the same as presenting evidence to a grand jury or a judge to obtain an arrest or search warrant. The targets of these operations are not common criminals, or even war criminals. They belong to a group lower and less civilized than that, and they completely abjure all codes of conduct that would offer protections to those bound by them.
Picture the scene when we go to get Osama bin Laden.
(knock, knock, knock)
"Navy SEALs, we have a warrant."
"Mr. bin Laden, open the door, please. We have a warrant, sir."
"Thank you, sir. Can you please step away from that suicide vest. Thank you."
"You, crime scene tape. You, cut the lights and get me a flashlight. I'm going to check for latent prints."
It's absurd, and yet our legal system would seem to require it. Now that we have him in custody, we can consider interrogating him about future al Qaeda operations. Except that we first must inform him that he has the right to remain silent and to an attorney and apparently to a show trial in New York City.
Even if we were to attempt to interrogate him, he has the word of our president and attorney general that we will not do so with any rigor. Heaven forbid he receive so much as a fat lip, as the three SEALs found out recently when they captured Abed, a butcher who murdered and desecrated four Americans in Fallujah.
These Americans now face a court-martial after Abed complained to Iraqi authorities. And the technique of waterboarding, which has been done to thousands of our own troops in training and which proved invaluable in convincing Mohammed to offer a treasure trove of intelligence? Absolutely not.
The terrorists know our playbook as well as our interrogators do, and now that we have shown what happens to our best if they even dangle a toe over the line, who is going to break the most fanatical enemies we have?
These restrictions may not be fully in place yet, but can you doubt we are on that path? The case of the three SEALs illustrates that the new system gives our special operators the perverse incentive to take no prisoners.
Why risk your career and life to truss up these barbarians and bring them back to watch cable TV in federal prison, while complaining to the press about how brutally they are being treated? If a Hellfire missile hurtling through a window and killing a terrorist and his family is due process, then so be it.
Jim Hanson was a weapons sergeant in 1st Special Forces Group and now serves as director of the Warrior Legacy Institute.

The stakes are high and our enemies are playing for keeps. We need to do the same.

Cordially,

Jim

Jim Hanson

Director, Warrior Legacy Institute

Elephants, Donkeys and a Crowded Room

Jules has a great piece up about race in this race...

He writes:

Michael Grunwald at Time: “Race is the elephant in the room.” I dunno. Looking at this pile of an article, I’d say the room is full of warmed-over primary bullshit:

On a swing through Pennsylvania last month, John McCain visited a Manheim Central High School football practice — not to ingratiate himself with the players, who weren’t even old enough to vote, but to identify himself with the gritty, down-home, lunch-bucket values of small-town football. “This is a blue-collar town,” Manheim’s coach said in his introduction of McCain. “We don’t have a lot of flashy athletes. We don’t come out with a lot of flash.” But the coach explained that his team works hard, plays with discipline and comes through in the end. “A lot like John McCain,” he said.

If you’re familiar with the code words of the sports world, you’ve probably already guessed that Manheim’s players had something else in common with McCain: they were white. On the other hand, athletes who are described as “flashy” almost invariably have something in common with Barack Obama. I’m not saying the coach was trying to inject race into his discussion of flashiness. I’m saying that sometimes we talk about race even when we’re not talking about race — in presidential politics as well as sports.

OK, so it’s not about race, however, for purposes of argument, we’ll make it about race.

Race is the elephant in the room of the 2008 campaign. In West Virginia’s primary, one out of every four Hillary Clinton voters actually admitted to pollsters that race was a factor in their vote; that may be an Appalachian outlier, but even in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio the figure was a troubling 1 in 10.

Right. Those figures again. As usual, somewhat lacking in context and detail. They work better that way. Apparently not so troubling that large numbers of Obama voters cited race, or that the race concerns cited may well, polling suggests, have been about racism rattling around in Obama’s closet.
This part is good.

This is touchy stuff, partly because “the race card” is not always, so to speak, a black-and-white issue. New York governor David Paterson recently accused Republicans of using “community organizer” as a subtle racial put-down; that seems hypersensitive to the point of paranoia. Obama was a community organizer, and his opponents should be able to criticize him without being accused of race baiting. But it’s tricky when the attacks wander into the neighborhood of racial stereotypes, like the McCain “Celebrity” ad linking Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, which had a whiff of lock-up-your-women alarmism about the sexual power of black men.

That’s odd. I thought the idea he was all glitz, no substance just like Brits and Paris, not that he wanted to date them. Or have them bring him home to dinner.

The usually somnolent David Gergen lashed out at McCain’s ad portraying Obama as
the Messiah, calling it a subtle but intentional effort to paint a black man as The Other.

Whatever the Messiah might have actually looked like, I’m pretty sure most Christian Americans think Jesus was a blue-eyed white guy with shoulder length brown hair. Jewish Americans, who don’t think he’s arrrived yet, probably think he’s going to look … Jewish. “The Other” only works if you’re an idol-worpshipping pagan. Or a Muslim, maybe. Odd thing for Gergen to say. I have taken the “Messiah” references, which I’ve also made, as an effort to cast Obama as someone whose apostles and acolytes and camp followers think he walks on water and who is promising to miraculously transform this wretched, benighted, much-abused nation of ours into a golden city on a hill, with lots of loaves and fishes.

There's more...go read the rest. You won't be dissapointed.

Advice for the Democrats

James Taranto writing in todays Best of the Web has a great segment entitled Flirting with Disaster, which I will post in its entirety, but please go there and read it yourself.

Mr. Taranto writes:

Juan Cole, the Arabist historian who is well-regarded on the Angry Left, has a warning for Democrats. Because of the presidential veto and the necessity for 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate, they cannot "force a significant reduction of troops from Iraq on Bush's watch, so as to avoid Iraq becoming exclusively their headache when they (as is likely) take over the White House in January of 2009":

In all likelihood, when the Democratic president pulls US troops out in summer of 2009, all hell is going to break loose. The consequences may include even higher petroleum prices than we have seen recently, which at some point could bring back stagflation or very high rates of inflation.

In other words, the Democratic president risks being Fordized when s/he withdraws from Iraq, by the aftermath. A one-term president associated with humiliation abroad and high inflation at home? Maybe I should say, Carterized. The Republican Party could come back strong in 2012 and then dominate politics for decades, if that happened.

It is all so unfair, of course, since Bush started and prosecuted this disaster in Iraq, and Bush is refusing to accept responsibility for the failure, pushing it off onto his successor.

How can the Dems avoid this? Cole says "they could try to legislate stronger US diplomacy aiming at ensuring peace between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran," although it's not clear how you "legislate" diplomacy. He says "they could resist the temptation to demonize Iran or to push it onto a war footing with threats or even bombings," although it's hard to see how the Democrats have the power to appease Iran, even if one supposes it could be done.

He offers one good bit of advice: "As for Iraq itself, the best hope for the Dems may be that Gen. Petraeus actually succeeds, over the next year, in significantly reducing ethnic tensions." That he should even have to say this speaks volumes about the perverse position the Democrats have created for themselves vis-à-vis Iraq.

We have some better advice for the Democratic presidential candidates:

First, if you don't want to deal with the Iraq problem, don't whine about how "unfair" it is. Instead, don't run for president. Just as we have an all-volunteer military, no one is forced to serve in the White House. The job of the president is to deal with the country's problems, and one of those problems right now is Iraq. If you're not up to it, the presidency is not the job for you. Al Gore, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel have all decided to forgo a presidential run, and there is no dishonor in doing so.

Second, if you do run for president and win, don't retreat from Iraq. Cole acts as if it is a foregone conclusion that the next (Democratic) president will quickly surrender, with results that even he says would be disastrous. In fact, the next president will have the option of acting wisely, and Hillary Clinton at least may even have it in her to do so.

Third, don't promise to act unwisely if elected. The Democratic base wants an American retreat, and the presidential candidates will be tempted to promise it to them. But why set up expectations you can meet only at enormous cost to America's interests?

More generally--and this advice applies to all politicians of both parties--if the interests of your party conflict with the interests of the country, put the country first. (If you believe liberating Iraq was a mistake, think of how this advice might have applied to Democrats like Kerry and Mrs. Clinton who voted for it.) This may lead to the occasional election loss, but in the long run the country will thank you, and your party will be better off. Democrats may well be better off losing in 2008 than winning in the scenario Juan Cole envisions.

I like Taranto's suggestion also...why can't Cole think this clearly? Suprisingly Taranto doesn't gloat over the fact that Cole so clearly identified Carter as the worst president ever...

Trackbacked by:
The Surge just won … in D.C. from Pros and Cons

The Doctor Will See You Now

Fox News reports:

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.

"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."

He noted, for example, that women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat "the first trace of problem." Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, announced earlier this year that her breast cancer had returned and spread.

Edwards said his mandatory health care plan would cover preventive, chronic and long-term health care. The plan would include mental health care as well as dental and vision coverage for all Americans.

"The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death," he said.

The former North Carolina senator said all presidential candidates talking about health care "ought to be asked one question: Does your plan cover every single
American?"

"Because if it doesn't they should be made to explain what child, what woman, what man in America is not worthy of health care," he said. "Because in my view, everybody is worth health care."

Edwards said his plan would cost up to $120 billion a year, a cost he proposes covering by ending President Bush's tax cuts to people who make more than $200,000 per year.

Cox & Forkum weigh in:

Just How Supportive are the Kossacks of the Military?

NOT much it would seem.

As the Military and Progressives panel at the YearlyKos came to an end, a young man in uniform stood up to argue that the surge was working, at which point the following happened as reported by Ezra Klein of Tapped at the American Prospect:

AN ODD CLOSE. As the Military and Progressives panel came to an end, a young man in uniform stood up to argue that the surge was working, and cutting down on Iraqi casualties. The moderator largely freaked out. When other members of the panel tried to answer his question, he demanded they "stand down." He demanded the questioner give his name, the name of his commander, and the name of his unit. And then he closed the panel, no answer offered or allowed, and stalked off the stage.

Wes Clark took the mic and tried to explain what had just occurred: The argument appears to be that you're not allowed to participate in politics while wearing a uniform, or at least that you shouldn't, and that the questioner was engaging in a sort of moral blackmail, not to mention a violation of the rules, by doing so. Knowing fairly little about the army, I can't speak to any of that. But it was an uncomfortable few moments, and seemed fairly contrary to the spirit of the panel to roar down the member of the military who tried to speak with a contrary voice.

So there we have it...a member of the US Military, in uniform (which is open for another discussion as to whether it was appropriate and legal under UCMJ) being shouted sown and the panel closed because he presented an opposing view. So much for being the party of tolerance.

Over at LGF they are discussing this a whole lot more and one reader even posted the actual DoD Policy that the Kossack was attempting to enforce (DoD Directive 1334.01).

First Obamagirl..Now Hillary Girl?

I'll say one thing...she's a total hottie:

Martin Luther King of Iraq - Murdered by Racists

This is going to be hard to say, and even harder to take for many of you reading this, but it needs to be said. If you are advocating retreat in Iraq you are either a coward or a racist.

There I’ve said it.

Yes I called you a racist, why? Read on.

I’ve listen to many people and their arguments for leaving Iraq: it’s too dangerous, it’s not our fight and “they” just don’t understand democracy are some of the biggest reasons people give for wanting to leave Iraq. The other biggie: we are creating more terrorists by being there. Of course all of those reasons are valid in the minds of those advocating a sudden and deadly retreat from Iraq and yet I can give examples and anecdotal information that can counter almost everyone of them but one. “They just don’t understand democracy because of their culture.”

You’ve heard that before, or some variation of it I’m sure. I know you have, because I hear it all the time. I heard it again on Saturday while at the community pool having a conversation with the local journalist that I’ve countered before on this blog. My impression of his biggest reason for wanting to leave Iraq, their culture just doesn’t understand democracy, and the New York Times agrees. What’s that? A local journalist and the New York Times espousing the same viewpoints, isn’t that a coincidence, no media bias here though.

Oh sure they complain about the high loss of American lives, and the devilish deaths wrought upon the civilian population by an enemy that only seeks to achieve martyrdom and sensational images. But what they are really saying is that American lives are too good to be “wasted” on someone with a different culture or skin color or religion. Civilian deaths help support their cause but it’s the loss of American lives, our men and women in defense of another people that they can’t stand, why? Because they have a different culture than ours, they look and act differently and they cannot possibly understand democracy like we do.

As Col Sherman Potter of MASH fame was won’t to say: “Bull Hockey!”

The members of the cultural left are racists; they are the same people that lynched blacks in southern America for 100 years after the Civil War freed them. They are the same people that abandoned the Vietnamese to a generation of genocide, they are the same people that abandoned the Chinese in Tiananmen Square, and they are the same people that abandoned the Kurds in Northern Iraq to the genocide of Saddam, and now they will abandon the people of Iraq once again because they have a different culture than us.

They will have us abandon another group of people all because of what they look like, how they dress and how they “think” because how they dress, look and think is not like us. They are the consummate racists and they are proud of it.

When the New York Times advocates an immediate withdrawal, and members of Congress seek to limit the President’s ability to conduct the war in a manner that can result in victory, and victory is not yet lost. Then they are damning the millions of Iraqis who seek to be known as Iraqis, not just Shias or Sunnis, but Iraqis, of the possibility of democracy all on racial terms. They claim that the tribal culture of Iraq and most of the Middle East can not understand the concept of democracy and are unable to stand up and defend themselves all because the elected government of Iraq is still floundering and yet thy ignore the fact that out own fledgling government of the 1770’s floundered and stumbled for 11 years before they were officially recognized and functioning.

In essence they are damning the future Martin Luther King’s of Iraq, who may at this time be a young man or woman all of 12 or 13, to a world of darkness and chaos or possibly even death all because, “their culture doesn’t understand democracy.” I would argue that the cultural left is the culture that does not understand democracy, because they base democracy purely upon racial overtones and quotas.

If you are advocating a complete withdrawal of Iraq, are you really willing to allow the future of Iraq be systematically slaughtered and the country thrown into a new dark age, just so you can feel better about yourself? Or can you truly embrace the concept of American Liberty and extend it to someone different than yourself?

If you can’t do that then you can be sure, you are a racist and there is no place for you in America.


~~~
Linked/Trackbacked by:
The Dawn Patrol - Mudville Gazette
The Cowards of the Senate - Bear Creek Ledger

Sen. Levin Gets Fisked

If you haven't read it yet, go now and read 1LT Hegseth's response to Sen Carl Levin in today's Washington Post. As Uncle Jimbo calls it at Blackfive, the Senator was KO'd by the 1LT.

A couple of excerpts:

As an Iraq war veteran who participated in combat operations and political reconciliation efforts, I take issue with some of the arguments repeatedly being made on Capitol Hill. Most recently I was bothered by statements from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who cited three common antiwar arguments in his June 21 op-ed, " Lincoln's Example for Iraq," all of which run counter to realities on the ground in Iraq.

Veterans know firsthand that numerous mistakes have been made in the war. But that does not change the unfortunate reality: Iraq today is the front line of a global jihad being waged against America and its allies. Both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have said so.

We face an important choice in the coming months: provide Gen. David Petraeus the time and troops he needs to execute his counterinsurgency campaign, or declare defeat and withdraw from Iraq. It seems that Democrats in Congress have already made their decision.

President Lincoln chose to fight a bloody and unpopular war because he believed the enemy had to be defeated. He was right. And to me, that sounds more than a bit like the situation our country faces today. What path will we choose?

Read the whole thing you won't be disappointed. As JD Johannes notes on his blog, "its unfortunate that our 'elder statesmen' have been annointed as experts on a war they have barely witnessed in person."

PC Run Amok

James Taranto in today's edition of Best of the Web brings us the story of the PC and anti-gun culture run amok: From the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif., comes one of the funniest stories ever in this series:

Who knew a 2-inch toy army man could cause such a stir?

A fifth-grade promotion ceremony in Rancho Palos Verdes turned into a free-speech battleground Thursday, when students were asked to remove weapons from toys that had been placed on mortarboard caps because of the school's zero-tolerance policy for weapons on campus.

Each year, students decorate wide caps with princesses, football goal posts, zebras, guitars and other items to express their personalities and career goals. Cornerstone at Pedregal School is the only Palos Verdes Peninsula public school to practice the tradition.

On Thursday, before the ceremony, one boy was told he couldn't participate unless he agreed to clip off the tips of the plastic guns carried by the minuscule GIs on his cap. Ten others complied with the order before the event. . . .

In enforcing the decision, the district cited its Safe Schools policy and the federal Gun Free Schools Act of 1994, a federal law designed to remove firearms from schools.

Hear that sound? It's the world's smallest violence. (The Associated Press has a photo.) The best detail, though, is this:

The principal pulled Cole [McNamara, an 11-year-old student] aside Thursday morning, handed him a pair of scissors and said the guns had to go.

She handed him a sharp object? Wasn't she worried that he'd stab someone?

I do believe Taranto has hit the mail sqaurely on the head by highlighting the obvious disconnect the anti-gun and PC culture has in their inability to distinguish between a toy soldier and an actual weapon.

Torn

Cox & Forkum always seem to get it...

They Can’t Move On (Part 98567)

When it was announced that Tony Snow’s cancer had returned I waited for the left to jump on the band wagon and wish him good luck in his battle. Actually I was waiting for the left to pile on and wish him good riddance in the most painful method possible, they didn’t disappoint. Actually they did disappoint but at least it was expected.

Anyway, over at The Huffington Post a thread titled “Tony Snow has Cancer” had to be shut down because so many of the tolerant left piled on and wished him all the best in his pending death that Arianna had to close the thread and remove it from view. Today R.J. Eskow writes in his post Can Americans Reconcile? With Best Wishes For Tony Snow:

“What will it take before Americans can reconcile with each other? Just five years fter that unprecedented spirit of post-9/11 unity, Americans are more divided now than they've been in the decades since Vietnam - and possibly since the Civil War. The bitterness and anger run deep.”

But then focuses all of his anger at the division towards those of us on the other side of the aisle:

“That division is the result of a cynical cabal's calculated exploitation of 9/11. They tried to exploit a tragedy for selfish ends, to create a generation of hegemonic Republican leadership.”

That’s how you build bridges Mr. Eskow, you burn them first.

Of course with such hatred coming out right up front it’s no surprise that the loyal Huffington posters piled on again with their hatred for anyone that thinks differently than they do:

I will pray for Tony Snow. He should and will receive the finest medical care. But I will remain appalled that his party, the Republicans, continues to fight against equally good care for tens of millions of Americans, including not only mature men and women but also the youngest children.
By: jjllss33 on March 27, 2007 at 09:17pm

I don't pray, but I do wish him well. I assume the "Tony Snow Has Cancer" thread was shut down because too many others did not wish him well. And I also assume that some of those venomous posts were written by "his side" to make "our side" look bad. Sad, isn't it?
By: paligap on March 27, 2007 at 09:52pm

your points are well expressed- but if the US ever wants to be seen as credible on the world stage we must impeach bush and dick to show that when US foriegn policy is Hijakkked for personl, political and monetary gains, those responisible for these illegal war crimes will be punished according to law.
By: noamjunior on March 27, 2007 at 10:30pm

I am ready to forgive, and even embrace, anyone who is willing to renounce their godforsaken Conservative beliefs and work hard AGAINST the political right from
now on.
That's all it takes--Just coming clean, and giving up the juicy and tempting Evil that Conservatism has become for too many sadly susceptable people.
By: nikto on March 27, 2007 at 11:05pm

I confess, my first thought was that Snow should undergo faith healing alone to show the white house's confidence in the method they've chosen for so much of the rest of the nation.
By: jmpurser on March 27, 2007 at 11:33pm

Sure, we wish Tony well. We also wish for him to pray and come to terms with his professed faith. You can't be a Christian and tell lies regarding Bush's policies and cover up for Bush's crimes. So pray a great deal because you have been doing the DEVIL'S WORK!
P.S. Stay away from Katie Couric.
By: VOTER on March 27, 2007 at 11:45pm

You write: "After all, we're in this thing together." No. We're not in it together.
They've sacrificed the Constitution, the city of New Orleans, New Yorkers before 9/11 with inaction and after 9/11 with lies, half a million Iraqis, thousands of American troops, many American Muslims, the economic fate of our country and -- worst of all -- our environmental future. Their corruption and arrogance doesn't include anyone not on their donors list.
Make nice if you want, but until they're out of power and in jail, then karma, cancer, or simple American justice will do. Until then, let's not look for excuses to excuse them.
By: wiltmellow on March 27, 2007 at 11:49pm

I do feel compassion for Tony Snow, but I can never reconcile with the people who support a criminal enterprise, and a traitorous one at that. This group that Mr. Snow has been covering for, have as their sole purpose, the destruction of our democracy, the implosion of the middle class, and the grossly obscene and bloated enrichment of billionaires.
There are over three thousand young Americans, who will spend eternity in their coffins, owing to an insane notion of an imperial presidency.
We are without health care, because of this, and without proper funding for the stem cell research that can eradicate horrific disease, like cancer.
At the end of the day, I know that Mr. Snow was only following orders, and that is sad, but true.
By: judygee on March 27, 2007 at 11:58pm

Ironic, isn't it, that cancer attacks Mrs. Edwards and Mr. Snow who seem to be well-liked by people on both sides of the divide?
Mr. Snow is a spokesman for a corrupt regime that murders people in Iraq and denies health care to its own citizens.
I will send out a lot of sympathy for those victims. If I have any left over, I might send some his way.
By: Leftyliberal on March 28, 2007 at 12:09am

Tony Snow doesn't get a pass. He has smirked and lied and played the GOP hate and smear game. He had colon cancer and talked about his faith and family and his appreciation of life. His appreciation of life apparently was all about HIS life. Nevermind our soldiers and their suffering. He lied and twisted the truth to support his employer...Bush. He will need to tell the truth...the whole truth if he wants
forgiveness. Feel free to post hate mail about what a small person I must be. I am.
By: nonbeliever on March 28, 2007 at 12:31am

Mr. Snow is a spokesman for a corrupt regime that murders people in Iraq and denies health care to its own citizens. I will send out a lot of sympathy for those victims.
If I have any left over, I might send some his way.
By: Leftyliberal One can sympathize with Elizabeth Edwards because she is an honest, genuine person. One may sympathize for Tony Snowjob's medical condition (we progressives can handle that, unlike the WHACKADOOS, such as Rush Oxycontinbaugh, implying that the Edwards are godless) but not for the endless lies he tells when before the press corps...what a difference in integrity.
By: TTP on March 28, 2007 at 01:16am

The only way this USA will reconcile is when we realize that the deaths of the Iraqi citizens deserve as much sympathy and more, than that which you mention for Mr. Snow. What the hell makes an American life more important than an Iraqi life? Tell me, I want to know. If anybody out there knows, pls tell us. Let's do this: for all the innocent Iraqi's killed in this OCCUPATION (it is not a war) by the grand ol USA, let's take a life of an American, starting with the Senator's and Congressman's families....
By: Monkelis on March 28, 2007 at 01:33am

Forgive me if I have some irreconcilable differences, because American security forces use torture, and they fear no American court.
By: disintaGreatNation on March 28, 2007 at 01:58am

The Tony Snow I see today is the same one I saw yesterday... the main propagandist for a criminal regime. Only difference is that today we know his cancer has returned.
By:
cunningham on March 28, 2007 at 02:21am

These past 6 years must have really changed me.
I can't find an ounce of pity for Tony.
By: wallygator on March 28, 2007 at 08:00am

That huffpo has been taken over by the neocon's is evidenced by the disallowing comments about Snow. All I can say is that the profound advice by our esteemed Resident Bush that prayer will heal Snow. However, it makes me wonder if Snow's cancer story is concocted so that Bush can claim his connection with god because of his advice for prayer, in Snow's behalf, resulted in remission of Snow's cancer thereby allowing Bush to declare his divinity as he has previously proclaimed.
By: predator3x2 on March 28, 2007 at 09:00am

I see evil rotting from the inside. Compassion is only for those who do not wish to destroy me.
By: NoOtherWay on March 28, 2007 at 09:29am

That's tolerance from the Party of Tolerance for you. Now if you don't mind you are going to have to go and read the rest…I can’t do it anymore, and as long as the Left is angry as they are, I will have to answer in the negative towards Mr. Eskow's question, they obviously aren't ready to face reality yet.

Anti-Everything Protestors

To mark the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq the local chapter of Women in Black had intended to hold one of their silent vigils on the corner of the main intersection of town. Unfortunately, Global Warming didn't cooperate and the were forced to cancel when mother nature unceremoniously dropped 5 inches of snow on us today.

The question I have for WIB is, if as your mission statement clearly states:

We have seen that violence takes many forms, from the physical and psychological violence of war, to death and suffering from economic inequality, from neglect, from lack of medical care and degradation of the environment. The violence we mourn transcends any single political point of view. We mourn what happens to people because of racism, greed, and the denial of individual potential. We mourn domestic violence, intolerance and crime. We mourn war and terror. We share a particular concern for worldwide violence against women and children. And we share an understanding that there will never be peace on earth while there is political, social and economic acceptance of this violence against more than half the world’s population.

If you mourn the violence against women and have as you state a "shared perspective [that] seeks to invoke those qualities and values that cultures tend to label as 'feminine'," how can you in all honesty protest the war in Iraq when the military actions in there have elevated women into positions they could never have held in traditional Islamic countries?

In Iraq right now women comprise 25% of the Iraqi Parliament, which is the highest proportion in the Arab world and one of the largest percentages worldwide. Gulf Region Division water treatment projects have provided the capacity to serve an additional 2.2 million Iraqis with potable water. At the end of the program, the added capacity could serve approximately 5.2 million Iraqis with potable water. And, in 2006, educational opportunities improved for Iraqis with 838 of 849 schools completed. Each completed school serves approximately 400 students for a total of 335,200 students nationwide.

With all that the US Military and our allies, the Coalition Forces, are accomplishing why do you still seek to protest against the United States for promoting the health and welfare of your sisters in Iraq. Shouldn't you instead be pleased that a country has stood up to the medieval beliefs held towards women that are inculcated in Islamic culture? Never before have women in Islamic countries enjoyed such freedoms and you are asking them to throw it all away simply because you hate our country more than those that oppress your fellow sisters.

Is this the schizophrenic response we can expect from modern feminism? A group that should be applauding the actions of advancing freedom to women that have been oppressed for centuries one would think would gain the admiration of feminist movements around the world, and instead all we get is more denouncements and hatred.

One of your prime supporters and friend in protest Code Pink, actively seeks to continue the violence you mourn the world over by giving cash donations to the terrorist group Hamas, and you stand quietly by and accept their help in your misguided vigils. You mourn everything that occurs in the world and protest against those who say, “enough is enough” and take action to right the wrongs.

The feminist movement should be applauding the action taken in Iraq by the US and our Coalition Allies instead of supporting the very people who will respect you even less if they win. Perhaps if you were a little less anti-everything and a little more pro-freedom we might take you a little more seriously.

A Step into the Fetid Swamps

What passes for cutting edge reading and analysis at the Daily Kos? If the recommended diaries are any indication it’s not good. At the top of the list is a post pushing Wesley Clark’s efforts to derail a war that hasn’t even started: To stop a war by jasmint53. Yes you heard me right; Retired General Wesley Clark has founded the StopIranWar.com campaign and joined forces with the Iraq war vets of VoteVets.org.

Up next is a piece of satire that can only be considered juvenile at best as diarist JekyllnHyde writes "Gore Oscar in Doubt," Says Supreme Court of the United States. You read that right folks, the diarists at DK have now taken to writing fictional pieces about Gore being stripped of his Oscar for the “documentary” An Inconvenient Truth. While I believe he should be stripped of his Oscar for other reasons concerning his fauxumentary, the kos kids believe it will happen as some conspiracy theory organized by Bush and Rove.

My favorite diary today though has to be Sept 23, 2002, Why Al Gore Should be President by davefromqueens. David pens his masterpiece by quoting at length a single speech given by Al Gore on September 23, 2002. A rambling diatribe that takes President Bush to task for contemplating an invasion of Iraq, the diarist still can’t come to grips with reality as he clearly states:

“Boy do I love this man! (The post 2000 Gore) In a time where Bush and Cheney are scaring Americans, Gore correctly stands up to the problem by pointing out that the war in Iraq weakens us and hurts our ability to fight the real terrorists. Gore says it first, even when the entire news media was cheerleading Bush.”

I suppose that since Al hasn’t changed his story in a decade and a half that all the same things he was saying before 2000 couldn’t possibly be the truth.

To round out the gallery, the kos kids have once again elevated their favorite media megalomaniac, Keith Olberman to the high alter of kossakdom with the promotion of The King of Everything: Olbermann's Commentary Tonight by SusanHu. Susan reminds us that tonight the high priest of idiotarianism will go after Condoleezza Rice:

"[W]ho chastised the renegades in Congress who would dare to curb a renitent Bush
administration by legislating troop withdrawal or revising the 2002 Iraq authorization."

That’s right friends; Olberman will attack the Secretary of State for reminding the members of Congress that surrender is not an option we should be even considering.

Is it any wonder why we question their patriotism?

The Baroness knew them before we did, and they murdered the finest of French culture and threw that country into 200 years of turmoil, before they could be stopped. Will we allow them to do the same to us before they are stopped?

Is the Surge Working?

Well, lets go to the news shall we and see what we dig up:

Civilian deaths in Iraq drop overnight
By KIM GAMEL

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The number of Iraqi civilians killed in Baghdad's sectarian violence fell drastically overnight, an Iraqi military official said Friday, crediting the joint U.S.-Iraqi security operation that began in force just days ago.

Iraqi army Brig. Gen. Qassim Moussawi, a spokesman for the Baghdad commander, said only 10 bodies had been reported by the morgue in the capital, compared to an average of 40 to 50 per day.

"This shows a big reduction in terror and killing operations in Baghdad," he said on Iraqi state television.

Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil, commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, also reported a reduction in violence, attributing it to both the increased U.S. and Iraqi security presence and an apparent decision by the militias and insurgents to lay low.

Wow, who would have 'thunk' it, especially with John - Bleed the US Troops Slowly - Murtha Defeatocrat, al Qaeda: running around saying its a lost cause and we need to get out now. Perhaps now the members of the Defeat at all Cost Caucus will take notice and realize that its possible to actually achieve a victory in Iraq and still keep our honor.

Then and Now

These scenarios would be funny if they weren't so true: What happens now is in the extended section.

1973 Scenario:
Jack pulls into school parking lot with rifle in gun rack. Vice Principal comes over, takes a look at Jack's rifle, goes to his car and gets his rifle to show Jack.

1973 Scenario:
Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school. Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up best friends. Nobody goes to jail, nobody arrested, nobody expelled.


1973 Scenario:
Jeffrey won't be quiet in class, disrupts other students. Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by Principal. He returns to class and is quiet.

1973 Scenario:
Billy breaks a window in his father's car and his Dad gives him a whipping. Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.

1973 Scenario:
Mark gets a headache and takes some headache medicine to school. Mark shares headache medicine with Principal out on the smoking dock.

1973 Scenario:
Mary turns up pregnant. 5 High School Boys leave town. Mary does her senior year at a special school for expectant mothers.

1973 Scenario:
Pedro fails high school English. Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.

1973 Scenario:
Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the 4th of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red ant bed. Ants die.

1973 Scenario:
Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary, hugs him to comfort him.
In a short time Johnny feels better and goes on playing.

2006 Scenario:
School goes into lockdown, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

2006 Scenario:
Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.

2006 Scenario:
Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.

2006 Scenario:
Billy's Dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang. Billy's sister is told by state psychologist that she remembers being abused herself and their Dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair with psychologist.

2006 Scenario:
Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.

2006 Scenario:
Middle School Counselor calls Planned Parenthood, who notifies the ACLU. Mary is driven to the next state over and gets an abortion without her parent's consent or knowledge. Mary given condoms and told to be more careful next time.

2006 Scenario:
Pedro's cause is taken up by state democratic party. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English banned from core curriculum. Pedro given diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he can't speak English.

2006 Scenario:
BATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated, Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

2006 Scenario:
Johnny's parents sue and win a 3 million dollar law suit against the county for not posting signs warning that running on the playground can be hazardous. Mary is accused of being a sexual predator for hugging Johnny and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison.

Political Prognostication by Kos

One of the major reasons why Kos and his followers are so bad at picking winners in the political arena can be summed up in two sentences written by Kos himself:

“One reason I'm not jumping aboard any 2008 bandwagons is that I'll wait as long as necessary to see if Gore will jump in. That’s ultimately my guy this cycle.”

Holy cow, Mr. Do As I Say, Not As I Do concerning all things environ-mental is your guy? If Ned Lamont had read that line before you jumped into his living room in the middle of a campaign commercial he’d have had you arrested! If Gore is your man for this cycle, the Democratic Party is in worse shape then I ever thought.

And what passes as the must read on the Daily Kos? The diary by Cenk Uygur Impeach, Impeach, Impeach. A running screed against all things Bush that is capped off by the single biggest whopper of all time to ever come out of the mouth of a Kossack:

“Look, for me this is not a political thing. I don't give a damn which party is in power, as long as they do reasonable things. I thought George H. W. Bush was an excellent foreign policy president. I voted against Bill Clinton twice, but came to regret it because I thought he also did an excellent job in foreign policy.”

You read that right people, he doesn’t care who is in the White House just as long as they do “reasonable things.” I guess protecting the American People from Islamic Terrorists that love to cut the heads of their enemies off and post videos of them doing it on the internet isn’t a reasonable thing in Kos Land, but somehow promoting a policy of surrender is.

It's no wonder the vocal Left is so loud, they've forgotten to take their meds.

Tommy

Support the troops only when it suits your pupose? Well Rudyard Kipling met you a long time ago:

Tommy

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o'beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's ``Thank you, Mister Atkins,'' when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's ``Thank you, Mr. Atkins,'' when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.

Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy how's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints:
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;

While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind,"
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind,

There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

So stop surrendering to the enemy and support the troops 100%, not just when it suits your agenda, otherwise we don'na need ya, because we can see your intentions and desires and we have enough people wanting to kill us over there, back here it would be nice if you'd just keep your opinions to yourself.

Relishing Defeat

By Jacob Laksin
FrontPageMagazine.com

For all the twists and turns of the conflict in Iraq, it’s comforting to reflect that one thing hasn’t changed: The antiwar “movement” -- that motley aggregation of Hollywood glitterati, bullhorn radicals and leftist Democrats -- remains as irresponsible and unserious as ever.

As evidence, consider this weekend’s much-hyped antiwar protest in the nation’s capital. Coming on the heels of last Wednesday’s nonbinding anti-surge resolution, a cynical stunt engineered by the Democrat-dominated Senate Foreign Relations Committee to oppose the 21,500 troop increase in Iraq, the protest was a transparent attempt by a political fringe to capitalize on popular discontent over the war’s conduct.

To wit: The star of the demonstration was none other than Jane Fonda. As she told it, the 69-year-old actress had come out of protest retirement -- this was her first anti-war demonstration in 34 years, Fonda solemnly explained -- in order to break her silence about, well, the need to break her silence. “Silence is no longer an option,” Fonda announced, thus dealing a certain blow to public discourse. Fonda also delivered a historical lecture. Likening Iraq to the war in Vietnam, Fonda condemned what she called America’s “blindness to realities on the ground.”

This is richly ironic. It was Fonda after all who distinguished herself in the Vietnam War by glad-handing communists in Hanoi and making propaganda broadcasts for their cause, only to look on as the real destruction commenced once South Vietnam fell to her former hosts.
Read the Rest...