Honest Error, But One Which Cannot Be Excused

x.x

The Wall Street Journal has an article questioning the “success against Terrorism”, based on an upcoming report from the Congressional Research Service.

A key passage in the article reads, “The report says measures such as the number of terrorist incidents per year and the number of terrorists killed or captured are inadequate. Instead, it urges the use of broader social indicators, like the ability of terrorists to recruit.” On its face, this sounds reasonable, but on closer examination, it not only is not a valid suggestion, but reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the war, in purpose and in effect.

The Wall Street Journal article gives a spotlight, unfortunately, to Ivy League (as in Ivory Tower) professors like Alan Krueger, a Princeton professor (specialty unidentified, most likely Political Science) who states, “We emphasize body counts, without acknowledging the elasticity of al Qaeda's recruiting”. The Journal goes on to state Professor Krueger’s claim that “al Qaeda is able to replace key personnel faster than they are killed or captured”, on no evidence of any kind.

The Journal notes that Raphael Perl wrote the report for the Congressional Research Service, suggesting that the report reflects his individual views, rather than a researched and supported consensus. Perl specifically describes the Terrorist operations in Iraq as “criminal organizations”, which highlights a significant error in his perception.

This is another example of impractical thought taking the place of experience and examination of the facts. This is not a police campiagn in Iraq, but a war. Frankly, Perl and Krueger are doing nothing more than parroting the Liberal arguments from the 1990s, that Terrorism is a criminal matter, rather than a threat to National Security and a violent element of warfare. A brief review of recent history shows the cost of making such assumptions. The trials of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers yielded six convictions, but failed to pursue connections to the people who funded and supplied the bombers, because the prosecutors were seeking convictions ahead of protecting against a future attack, and the Terrorists were allowed to delay the trials for years, providing information on American security measures to anyone interested in studying them. The terrorists were allowed to present themselves as victims, oppressed by the U.S. Government.

Al Qaeda certainly gained valuable information from the cirminal process, whereas the FBI and CIA were forbidden to communicate vital information to each other, because the acts were considered “criminal”. Democrats still refuse to accept responsibility for the results of their errors, the poor strategy employed by the Clinton Administration, allowing Al Qaeda to grow from a small regional group to a truly international threat. This is just a repeated attempt to take the war away from the men best able to win it, and give the terrorists another chance. I believe that Liberals like Perl and Kruger do not openly mean to put the United States in danger; their arrogance simply will not allow them to understand the need for a military solution to a serious threat to the nation. And that error, however honest, cannot be allowed to undo the victories accomplished, or imperil our future course.

Presidential Football League, Weeks 2 & 3

catching up...

Week Two Scoreboard

Washington (2-0) 63, A Johnson (0-2) 6
Polk (2-0) 45, Taylor (1-1) 3
Monroe (2-0) 51, Carter (0-2) 10
Reagan (2-0) 52, Taft (1-1) 6
J Adams (1-1) 45, GHW Bush (1-1) 6
Lincoln (1-1) 54, Harding (1-1) 6
Jefferson (2-0) 61, Buchanan (0-2) 3
Eisenhower (2-0) 38, Nixon (1-1) 6
Cleveland (2-0) 22, Hoover (0-2) 12
Arthur (2-0) 24, LBJ (0-2) 16
FDR (1-1) 60, Pierce (1-1) 0
T Roosevelt (2-0) 34, Grant (1-1) 3
Truman (2-0) 59, Fillmore (0-2) 3
McKinley (2-0) 42, Ford (0-2) 3
George W Bush (2-0) 48, Van Buren (0-2) 0
JQ Adams (1-1) 16, B Harrison (1-1) 15
Jackson (1-1) 30, Garfield (1-1) 7
Kennedy (1-1) 44, Tyler (0-2) 6
Madison (1-1) 41, Coolidge (0-2) 6
Hayes (1-1) 41, Clinton (0-2) 10
Wilson (1-1) 50, W Harrison (0-2) 6

Week Three Scoreboard

Kennedy (2-1) 31, Arthur (2-1) 9
George W Bush (3-0) 33, McKinley (2-1) 3
Hayes (2-1) 18, Cleveland (2-1) 16
Eisenhower (3-0) 59, Hoover (0-3) 3
Jefferson (3-0) 36, Nixon (1-2) 19
Monroe (3-0) 35, Van Buren (0-3) 9
Polk (3-0) 42, Carter (0-3) 9
Reagan (3-0) 45, J Adams (1-2) 9
T Roosevelt (3-0) 55, Garfield (1-2) 6
Truman (3-0) 42, Ford (0-3) 6
Washington (3-0) 54, Taylor (1-2) 10
JQ Adams (2-1) 48, Clinton (0-3) 9
Madison (2-1) 34, GHW Bush (1-2) 3
Grant (2-1) 54, Buchanan (0-3) 9
Harding (2-1) 16, Pierce (1-2) 15
Jackson (2-1) 15, B Harrison (1-2) 12 (OT)
FDR (2-1) 46, Tyler (0-3) 3
Taft (2-1) 31, LBJ (0-3) 0
Wilson (2-1) 45, Fillmore (0-3) 9
Lincoln (2-1) 51, Coolidge (0-3) 0
W Harrison (1-2) 19, A Johnson (0-3) 16

Presidential Football League

For those interested, and with a good memory from last year:

First Week Scoreboard

Washington 25, Lincoln 15
Polk 23, Madison 15
Monroe 23, J Adams 12
Reagan 46, Van Buren 9
GHW Bush 24, Carter 6
Taylor 24, Coolidge 12
Harding 21, A Johnson 18
Jefferson 18, FDR 15 (OT)
Eisenhower 31, JFK 3
Cleveland 29, LBJ 16
Taft 22, Hayes 18
Arthur 18, Hoover 15
Nixon 31, Tyler 13
Pierce 15, Buchanan 12
T Roosevelt 37, Wilson 6
Truman 27, Jackson 13
McKinley 22, JQ Adams 15
George W Bush 56, Clinton 3
B Harrison 27, Ford 0
Garfield 27, Fillmore 12
Grant 48, W Harrison 6

Thanksgiving

[ ]

Call me hokey, but I always like to recall what I am thankful for on Thanksgiving Day.

I am thankful for a merciful and benevolent God, with a strong sense of humor.

I am thankful for a great wife and two wonderful daughters.

I am thankful for my family, and all they taught me.

I am thankful for everyone who has taught me lessons.

I am thankful for President George W. Bush.

I am thankful for Richard Cheney.

I am thankful for Condoleeza Rice.

I am thankful for Donald Rumsfeld.

I am thankful for the United States Armed Forces, past and present, and for all their sacrifices and service.

I am especially thankful for the United States Marine Corps.

I am particularly thankful for the National Guard.

I am respectfully thankful for the United States Coast Guard, who saved damned near every flood victim along the Gulf Coast, who could be saved.

I am thankful for the State of Texas.

I am thankful for blogs, without which we might well have surrendered to Terrorists by now.

I am thankful for a responsive readership, who take the truth and demand it be heard everywhere.

I am thankful for the opportunities I have had to meet, speak with, and come to know some truly fine people who have done exceptional things.

To all of you, thank you.

No Points For Imagination

***

The Democrats are rather annoying these days, as they try to claim that President Bush somehow misled America into going to war in Iraq, and that Republicans are corrupt politicians with no intention of serving the nation. Both of these attacks are not only false, they are no better than repeated attempts to pursue arguments which never gained traction the first or second time. One might therefore wonder why the Left thinks they can score with a proven loser, although the Kerry Campaign suggests that the Left does not fare well in spotting clear losers these days. The reason, of course, is that the Left has bought into the push polls in the MSM, and honestly has come to believe that the President is weak, and therefore vulnerable. Further, many on the Left, including their ostensible leadership, have not bothered to validate their own claims, or investigate the facts for themselves, lest they find out they could be very, very wrong.

So here we are, in the waning months of 2005, and the Democrats feel the need to say something, but they are not inclined to seek a tangent that might actually work, so we instead hear yet another verse of the same old lie and whine. Unfortunately, there is a segment of the population which believes anything they hear often enough, which the MSM is only too happy to oblige, resulting in a small but constant change eroding support for the President and Republicans among average Americans.

This could be a bad thing, except that the Democrats have forgotten an element they used to comprehend; the Internet. The two things which have radically changed the landscape are blogswarms and linking. That is, one smal voice is easily drowned out by a major network, but if enough voices carry the same message, it gets heard. And the virtue of linking, is the evolution of footnotes - it allows for a writer to support his claims with evidence, tied directly to his work. The lies are a lot harder to make stand these days, because people will demand evidence, and are far more inclined to make up their own minds.

So, I have a sneaking suspicion that this most recent effort by the Left will bear early fruit, but it will sour in their mouths come election day, as there’s nothing to grow roots on in these slanderous rumors. And what’s more, there’s no reason to believe the Democrats will reconsider their course of malice, since it suits their petty emotions too well.

War Residuals

[.]

One thing I cannot stand about the Democrats, is the way they put politics ahead of the country. Now, this sort of statement is common to partisans on any side, but what I mean here, is the unfortunate fact that wars last for a very long time, often long after formal hostilities have ended.

Look around. Communism, to anyone with a good sense of Economics or History, is very much dead, and Communist regimes have generally gone out of power, those Communist countries remaining have had to change their version of Communism to include some very Capitalist ideas. China for example, the largest ostensibly Communist government on the planet, has a department of its Inetrior Ministry devoted to seeking Capital investments from major Western corporations. That is, where in the past the Chinese Central Committee expected to deal with national governments for business agreements by way of treaties, they now seek direct negotiations with specific companies and individuals, very much like a large entrepreneurship themselves. Chairman Mao did not write or speak anything on the subject of commercial infrastructure, but the New China sees things differently. Yet it is also true, that there remain hundreds of thousands of otherwise reasonable people, who think Stalin was good for Eastern Europe, and Castro has built a paradise. I note that these same communist protesters, however, generally live and protest in more capitalist locations.

The Fascism of the Nazis would seem to be very much dead, yet neo-Nazi groups have sprung up around the globe, often with little rational purpose except a desire to revere Hitler, mass murder and all. The same thing exists for Anarchists, whose heyday helped spark World War I (most people do not realize that it was an off-shoot of an Anarchist group which murdered the Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo). Anarchists are everywhere, with loud and offensive banners and slogans which still manage to say nothing of why they think their goals are realistic or even possible. And for all the noise about the new Jihad of the Islamo-Fascists, historians could point out several Islamist uprisings in the past, often related to a ‘Mahdi’, but just as bloody and insane as anything cooked up by Bin Laden or Zarqawi.

What I am saying, is that for all the wars fought up to now, there is a residue left behind, a spirit of the defeated party which finds new spirit and voice later on, sometimes in surprising places. Therefore, winning a war is a matter which goes a good deal further than an Armistice. The Nazis lost on the battlefield in 1945, but it was a full generation afterwards, before the average German came to think of Americans as a natural friend. And the pendulum swung back against us, as by the end of the Twentieth century, German sentiment came to believe in a stronger role for Germany in Eureopean politics. Like the French, the Germans were quick to pay lip service to the cause of NATO, but slow to follow an American lead where risk and sacrifice were demanded.

I suspect that down deep, this is what the Liberal truly fears, the bookend possibilities of war in the Middle East. On the one hand, if the U.S. frees nations from tyrants, they may well come to applaud the U.S. at first, but one cannot help but wonder if they might go the way of Germany, France, and Japan, and turn against us economically and politically when they see an opportunity. And of course the other possibility is equally horrid in Liberal eyes; that the Conservative perspective on Foreign Policy might be proven by events, leading other foreign powers to reach agreements with the United States on terms which would move them towards a truly open government. This would be a clear strategic victory for Conservatives, as it protects U.S. National Interests in the best possible way, but convincing foreign nations that their best interests are to mirror our own. The reason this is opposed by Liberals, and hence by the Democrats, actually seems to be that they would rather have a tyrant they know, than a representative democracy which can make its own choices. That is, they fear a truly representative government in Iraq, for the same reasons they fear one in the United States.

And the reason for that fear is the residue of American History applied to national political parties. The Republican party is the truly revolutionary party, having come into existence to oppose Slavery and fight to end it. Over the years, the Republicans have often found themselves in the minority, and so blamed for evrything in government which went wrong, and given no credit for things which went right. When the Stock Market crashed in 1929, while Hoover's White House must carry blame for its inaction at critical points, and for failing to speak to the nation, it should also be noted that many economists now believe that Hoover's plan for recover ywas sounder than FDR's, and the New Deal actually extended hardship for some parts of the country. The difference is between showy Democrat gestures, and traditional Conservative restraint, and it's no surprise that Conservatives did not fare well in the age of television until former actor Ronald Reagan found a way to mix Conservative pragmatism with populist drama. Since then, Republicans have come around to play the show game, and President Bush is criticized most harshly by fellow Conservatives, for failing to put on a good show, preferring instead to dwell on substance. Even modern Conservatives have failed to study the reasons why so many minorities support Democrats over Republicans, even when the voting record shows much better treatment of minorities by Conservatives than Liberals; the Liberals simply package their work in such a way, that they lie effectively about their own votes while claiming credit for everything done by Conservatives.

This all comes back to four wars; the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War 2, and the Cold War. The Civil War was a clear Republican success; it's a historical fact that the Democrats lined up largely with the Slave-owning South, and negotiated at one point for British intervention against the Union forces, which smells suspiciously like Treason, and for that reason Democrats had a very hard time taking the White House for a generation after the war. The Spanish-American War was controversial in its time, but it was a victory which not only claimed a lot of territory for the United States and scared the European powers into accepting the reality of the United States as a "great power" like themselves, but also reinforced the image in American minds that the military was at its best under a Republican, which image has been a burr in Democrat butts ever since. In World War 2, FDR discovered that he needed a broad consensus for many of his plans, and so had to reach accomodation with Republicans . This worked out well for FDR personally, but Harry Truman discovered that after the war, many Americans had begun to think of the Democrats and Republicans as equally to be credited for the war's victory, which hurt Truman's image in Korea and had a bit to do with Eisenhower running as a Republican.

And then there is the Cold War. Basically, by 1980 things were such a mess that most historians seriously considered the Soviet Union to not only be a permanent fact of the world, but likely to prevail in the long term over the West, who were widely tagged as weak and indecisive. Reagan changed all that, staring down the Soviets every chance he got, with strong rhetoric and carefully chosen action. By the time Reagan cried out, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!", he had not only won the war against the Communists, but showed up every Democrat who had counseled appeasement.

So, here in 2005 the residuals are there to be seen. Republicans have been, historically, more reluctant to use military force than Democrats, but have enjoyed better effect. And Democrats have a long series of bad decisions, whcih they could correct, except that their pride will not let them consider the possibility.

The Despots Strike Back

[ + ]

In their revolutionary book, 'The Third Wave', Alvin and Heidi Toffler explained how Information Management would become the next great paradign shift in human conditions, comparable to the Agricultural and Industrial revolutions before it. Unfortunately, just as with the first two revolutions, there are people trying to control access to Information and establish an effective monopoly of knowledge trade. The present campaign revolves around control of the Internet. The Washington Post (of all people) got it mostly right in an editorial dubbed “The Internet At Risk”.

It boils down to this; some twelve thousand people convened in Tunisia to discuss control of the Internet, including American control. I think it is significant that a location like Tunisia was chosen to discuss a high-technology issue. Not Seattle, Tokyo, London, Houston, Berlin, San Francisco, Bombay, New York or Kuala Lampur, but Tunisia, the city of Tunis to be precise, a “hot spot” only when one is speaking about the weather. And the forum was once again mainly about “rich” nations needing to share with poorer nations, without a single mention about how many of the poorer nations not only lack the infrastructure to benefit from end-user computer applications, but very often have governments not known for free elections, to say nothing of accountability for funds received. And naturally, the leaders of those poorer nations, however they came into office, found it appropriate to demand that they be granted shared control of the Internet.

The Post noted, “Many delegates want an end to the U.S. Commerce Department's control over the assignment of Web site addresses”, but also observed “The reformers' argument is attractive in theory and dangerous in practice.” The Post observed, as an example, that any nation or authority which controls Internet names and domains can prevent ‘undesirable’ groups or individuals offline, or charge varying rates to show preferences where they please.

Of course, the Post did not get the story completely right. The Post contended that governments “can order Internet users in their territory to take offensive material down. They can order their banks or credit card companies to refuse to process payments to unsavory Web sites based abroad. Indeed, governments' ample ability to regulate the Internet has already been demonstrated by some of the countries pushing for reform, such as authoritarian China. The sovereign nations of the world have no need to wrest control of the Internet from the United States, because they already have it.”

And there lies the hidden threat. The best reason for American control of the Internet, is that little thing we call the First Amendment. Yes, it allows for the Nazi Party, the Hell’s Angels, and the Democratic National Committee to say all manner of malicious and false things, but it also protects minority viewpoints which would otherwise simply disappear. The same Internet that allows for pornography and propaganda, also allows any individual to have their voice heard, and for any argument to have a chance to stand on its own merit. Recent years have shown that network and cable broadcasts have just as much offensive material, and arguably the pursuit of ratings and sponsors makes them less act less responsibly than a website which exists or fails on its own accountability to its audience. The same Internet that drives radical malice like the Dean Campaign in 2003-4, also provided for a critical watchdog which tripped up a fraudulent attempt to influence the campaign with forged documents. There is even reason to believe, that the oppression of certain minority groups in other parts of the world is restrained by the knowledge that a webcam makes it possible for the word to get out to the entire planet. The Internet is a wild territory, but compared to other mediums for news, entertainment, and opinion, it is far more effective and honest than anything else available.

Naturally, this sort of honesty scares bureacrats, which has led to attempts to regulate political speech on the Internet. And there is already history on the books, showing that political speech is not always given protection by the Congress or the Courts.

It’s easy, in between elections and with so much other noise going on, to miss something this quiet and this subtle. But it’s important to remind folks, that for all the value blogs provide, there are many people who hate them, and would like very much to see them shut down, even as they deny their intent.

God and Politics

One thing which always sets Liberals off against Conservatives, is the assumption they make that we are claiming God is on our side. To compensate for this feeling of inadequate holy ordination of their policies therefore, many Liberal politicians and candidates can be seen attending churches, albeit very often only so they can speak from the pulpit in defense of their own politics, something almost every Conservative eschews, but I digress.

It has long been understood that Conservatives and Liberals are held to different standards. An obvious example is Congressman Murtha’s slander of Vice-President Cheney, claiming that his deferment earlier in life makes him unfit to give orders or establish policy for the military, which makes one wonder why Congressman Murtha never had a problem with Bill Clinton. And more than a few Guardsmen have taken issue with the Democrats’ blunder in suggesting that Bush’s National Guard service was less than honorable, since the claim assumes either that the Guard excused Bush’s supposedly poor peformance, or that the Guard standard was rather low. It should also be noted that Trent Lott was essentially hounded into leaving a leadership position because of an ambiguous statement that some claimed suggested he was a racist, but former KKK Kleagle Robert Byrd was not only allowed to hold a leadership postion in the Senate, but has been often held up by the Democrats as a moral leader.Go figure.

But there is a deeper divide between Conservatives and Liberals on the question of God and faith. While both Conservatives and Liberals vocally support the First Amendment right to practice faith as one believes, there is a significant difference between the two sides on how to protect that right. For Conservatives, religion is personal as well as cultural, and so long as Congress does not pass a law which attempts to establish a state religion or demonstrate a specific religious preference, religious demonstrations and displays should not be denied or suppressed. Liberals have long pursued a course which essentially demands an atheist America, as exemplified by the ACLU and People for the American Way’s attempts to deny basic rights to churches and faith organizations, such as the Boy Scouts or the Roman Catholic Church. The dichotomy of professing the rights of the indivdual, but denying people the right to publicly express faith or use their faith in key decisions, is an hypocrisy the Left simply chooses to ignore.

The expression of faith goes deeper. Liberals and Conservatives alike had no offense at Jimmy Carter saying he was a devout Christian in 1976, but Liberals scorned President Bush’s statements of faith, as though the Jesus Christ worshipped and followed by Carter was now off-limits to Conservatives. That is brazenly dishonest, yet common to the point of ubiquity. And here in the days of Michael Newdow, religion is taken as a sign of evil intent, as evidenced by comments from many Liberals about Samuel Alito’s intentions, as though the man coordinated his own nomination, and doubtless will be brainwashing his SCOTUS colleagues if he is confirmed to the High Court. Otherwise, one would be forced to consider that the anti-faith bias of so many on the Left, is more indicative of pathogenic disorder than reasonable discernment.

One last thing, a clarification of sorts. Conservatives do not generally claim that God is on our side. It is, however, worth noting that God has made His priorities and commandments rather plain, and from what I can see, while God is sovereign, it appears that Conservatives are more on His side than Liberals. And that distinction is paramount in this category of debate.

Valerie Plame; The Lie That Just Keeps On Lying

[?][X]

There was a science fiction show once, about a secret agent who could change his appearance at will, as in reshaping his face and body into whatever he desired. He returned home after a long career but nobody would accept him, since he was nothing like the man he used to be. The thing is, you see, he had been so many different people so many times for so long, he couldn’t remember who he really was. He was compelled to choose one of his lies for his real life.

That, put simply, is Valerie Plame. The legend from the Left is that Ms. Plame was a hard-working honest servant of the U.S. Intelligence Community, made an innocent vcitim of the evil Bush regime, because her husband, the equally hard-working and noble Joe Wilson, caught the President in a lie. Makes a good storyline, and I rather expect Michael Moore will get around to making a movie about her. It meets the Moore Standard, after all - zero facts but the MSM doesn’t care.

The facts are very much a different story, and one the Democrats are not likely to push into production. To begin with, Joe Wilson is a documented liar, and one know to have a large mean grudge against the Bush Administration. For example, Wilson not only gave numerous interviews to the press about a confidential trip to Niger to investigate the question about whether Saddam Hussein’s regime attempted to purchase enriched Uranium, but he also declared that Bush was lying to say that Iraq had been attempting to acquire uranium from Africa. The evidence later showed that while Wilson focused on a single suspect document, which was never promoted by the Bush Administration, he withheld information known to the CIA, which supported the contention that Saddam had in fact been attempting to find sources fo enriched uranium. Wilson also hid the fact that his wife was the major influence which arranged for his government-paid trip, to such a point that the CIA did not enforce its normal secrecy requirements, which allowed Wilson to spend his time with press interviews and photo ops, instead of a debriefing and balanced evaluation of the facts.

What happened next was essentially a paranoid feud, the immature and egotistical Wilson representing both the paranoia and the malice in this instance. When the White House declined to respond in kind to his taunts and insults, Wilson went to Capitol Hill, and found a willing audience on the Democrat side of the aisle, which colored the debate on pre-War intelligence and poised to rewrite the history of the decision to go to war again in Iraq. The careful observer would have noted (and many did) that Wilson was unable to back up his claims with evidence, and that his screeds were actually no more than a bitter attempt to damage enemies.

On to Valerie Plame. To hear the MSM, the Plame issue was driven by a desire to punish Joe Wilson for criticizing the War in Iraq, which led to the exposure of his wife, an undercover CIA agent. The reality is different. First, it has been confirmed that Plame was not a field agent for the CIA, at least during the time in question, but a desk employee whose work was in no way related to field operations. Also, it is understood now that Wilson’s inadvisable trip for the CIA was made possible by his wife’s recommendation. And several intelligence reports have supported the fact, that reports of Saddam’s attempts to obtain nuclear material were true, which proved Wilson’s claims false. Further, two major intelligence reviews confirmed that the Bush Administration neither falsified nor manipulated intelligence data.

The facts, however, have not kept Wilson and his allies from pressing their hatred of the President well past the point of obsession. This is both good and bad. The first bit of bad news, is evidenced by the Libby indictment. Fitzgerald himself has admitted that Libby was not indicted in any direct consequence of the Plame investigation, but claims it was necessary to indict Libby, even though the facts suggest that honest error and confusion are more likely than malice or intent to deceive. With Woodward stepping forward to point another finger, again with nothing to show connection to the alleged “outing” of Plame, yet taken up eagerly by people enjoying the role of Grand Inquisitor. It’s one thing for Congress or the Justice Department to investigate known crimes and clear evidence, but quite another to pursue fishing expeditions for high-profile trophies. On the plus side, while the War in Iraq, the central issue in the 2004 Federal Election, was controversial and complex in many aspects, the sheer hysteria manifested by the Left cost them vital support from voters unwilling to grant power to a party so blind to basic facts. As the 2006 mid-term elections begin their primary cycle, it is a bad idea for Democrats to believe that the claim of “Bush Lied” will lead to election success, since it has already failed in a test bearing more directly on the President. Democrats chuckle at low published Job Approval numbers for the President, but fail to observe vital differences in the respondent pool from 2004, and also fail to note the distinction between happiness at the present condition, and commitment to see the mission completed. The 403-3 vote last night shows that even the most rabid Democrats generally understand that the American people are not at all keen on a ‘cut & run’ strategy, and since the Democrats have decided to once again polarize the issue, it forces people to mostly support the President. It shows a true disconnect on the Left, that they are able to comprehend that attacks on the President are not likely to sway the voters they need most, yet they refuse to rein in their most obnoxious members. Bear in mind, the difference between outrageous statements made on the Right and on the Left, is that on the Right the extremists do not hold office, while the most malicious and deceptive statements are repeated by Democrats in office, who know full well that the claims they make are neither truthful, nor do they serve the needs of the nation.

It is sadly true as well, however, that should the Democrats find some way to take control of the House of Representatives, they would be likely to try to impeach President Bush. While I consider this unlikely in the extreme to actually happen, because it is a possibility it must be considered and defenses manned. The facts have been presented many times already, so that while the Democrats can make noise on the WMD question, they cannot seriously hope to find evidence to support a claim that the decision made by the President, and approved by the Congress, was anything but honest and legitimate.

This brings us back to the Plame affair. To the unbiased observer, the claim that Plame was somehow the innocent victim of a conspiracy must seem laughable. After all, the Wilsons held press conferences, a photo shoot with ‘Vanity Fair’ magazine, a book deal, and countless television appearances, yet they continue to claim that their privacy is precious to them, and that they are simple, unassuming people. There is no question that while the President’s decision was supported by the available evidence at the time, Wilson’s motive for attacking the President was no better than a vendetta. The “evidence” not only does not lie, it has more than proven that Joe Wilson is nothing but lies. But the Democrats and the MSM have done an effective job of keeping the character of the Wilsons out of sight, and alleging connections through innuendo and rumor. Washington D.C. has always been a town full of whispers, and far more liberal in its politics than almost anywhere else in the country. The Democrats have effectively conceded that while they can taunt and insult the President, nothing in five years of slander has worked against him, so they are focusing on Vice-President Cheney. If the Democrats can get Cheney to resign as VP, expect the MSM to start trying to compare Cheney to Agnew, and to start hinting that Bush has something to hide.

Why do this, if it is so unlikely? For one thing, Democrats think they have a chance in 2006. Mathematically, that’s correct, and we Republicans had better not be too casual about protecting the House majority. But if opinion polls are not so great for President Bush, they are abysmal for the Congress, and especially for Democrats. The Democrats generally understand that they are very unlikely to take control of Congress in 2006. But if they can put pressure on Cheney, some Democrats hope they can force him to resign; stress after all, could lead to a stroke or heart attack, to which Cheney is unfortunately more susceptible than most men, and I am sorry to have to say there are Democrats who would like to deliberately cause a health condition which threatened the life of the Vice-President, in order to make him quit. Other Democrats would like for Cheney to stay on, knowing that if he resigns at a time when things are going well and the President is popular, the new Vice-President (Rice, perhaps) would immediately be considered the GOP front-runner (by the MSM) and make things harder for the Democrats to take the White House in 2008. if they keep the heat on Cheney, he has to stay put to show he is not going to be chased off by the attacks on him. So, the attacks on Cheney right now are supported by both factions on the Left. This, in the Democrats’ mind, could lead to a tarnished President and VP when the 2006 elections take place, strengthening the Democrats’ place in Congress, and leading to potential sweep in 2008, with Democrats retaking control of the House and Senate as well as the White House. I will let the reader decide how realistic that ambition should be counted, but caution us to defeat the attacks and prove the character of the men making them.

Unforgivable

!!!

It has finally begun to dawn on Senate Republicans that they have fumbled badly in the “United States Policy on Iraq Act”, more commonly known as the Warner Amendment. Unfortunately, instead of accepting the damage they have done and their responsibility, the consensus of the GOP Senate is to either ignore the effect of their action, or else deceitfully try to explain their way out of it. Many Senators have tried to simply head out on vacation with no apology for their action, while a few have actually tried to excuse their conduct. That won’t work, as events will unfold.

The Warner Amendment came as a vapid response to a Democrat-sponsored cheap shot, a demand for a withdrawal from Iraq which failed in the Senate by a 58-40 vote.

First off, note that the Democrat’s resolution was the template for the Republican version, to such a degree that the actual document presented for the vote simply scratches out the names of the Democrat sponsors and replaces their names with “Mr. Warner” and “Mr. Frist”. Let me say that again; the actual Republican resolution was actually nothing but a modified version of the Democrats’ own demands! There is no way, given the tone and wording of the resolution, that any Republican who voted for the Warner Amendment can pretend to have done proper diligence or focus on the interests of the nation, our troops, or the goals for the Iraq effort. This is, to use a crude analogy, like a man who admits that he propositioned a hooker, paid her and watched her undress, but who somehow maintains to his wife that because he didn’t complete the act he somehow did nothing wrong. Betrayal of trust is unforgivable, Misters Senator, and you should have known that long before you played into this trick.

So, what does this resolution do? First off, there is the stated “purpose”, which includes lines like “recommend changes to the policy” and “require reports on certain matters”. The Democrats love these, because they are obvious rebukes of the Administration. No Republican claiming to stand with the President has any business supporting such attempts, and they know it.

Next up is Section [b](3), which specifically calls for “the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq” in “calendar year 2006”. That’s government talk for “Run Away! Run Away!”, which again is exactly what Democrats have always wanted in Iraq, and no Republican should have considered for even a second.

Section [b](4) specifically demands that the United States publicly announce their intention to leave, to the people of Iraq, which would demoralize millions of Iraqis who believed the promise of American commitment to full stability in Iraq, including millions of women who voted for the first time, and millions of families who dared to express their free speech in the open. This statement represents a betrayal of promises and commitments made, because it demonstrates a lack of resolve critical to the survival of a democratic republic in Iraq. I can’t imagine any U.S. serviceman in Iraq thinking such a statement would be in any way advisable or reasonable in the foreseeable future.

Section [c] goes on to demand, “every three months … until all United States combat brigades have redeployed from Iraq, the President shall submit to Congress an unclassified report on United States policy and military operations in Iraq”. This is unconscionable, in that this would demand the President defend his decisions over and over again, in a circus tent forum (“unclassified” not only bars relevant information to defend key decisions, but would provide fodder to a press corps known to be hostile to the military, to the point of malice), and allow countless fishing expeditions by Congressmen and Senators looking for political opportunity at the expense of the war effort. Just imagine such a demand of Roosevelt during World War 2, or of Reagan during talks with the Soviets.

Section [c] also includes such gems as [c](1)(A) demanding “compromises necessary” from the Iraq government, which is doubletalk for appeasing terrorists entrenched in Iraq; and [c](1)(B) demanding bring in “the international community” to “forge a … political settlement”, which is doubletalk for saying let the United Nations co-opt democracy in the name of expediency. There is not one person with a knowledge of history, who could honestly believe such demands would lead to a stable or healthy Iraq.

In short, the resolution demands miracles now, or else to just pull out and run. It completely abrogates not only the moral purposes for removing Saddam Hussein from power, but also pursues a reckless path likely to harm, even kill, the innocent and virtuous citizens of Iraq by abandoning them to the whims and desires of known enemies on their borders, and to the terrorist factions which already threaten their future. In essence, the only thing which stands between most Iraqis and the chaos of terrorism and a new dictatorship, is embodied by the United States Armed Forces. And the people who voted for this resolution want that protection removed. Such a statement is unconscionable on every level of honor and decency.

Matthew McDonald, speaking for Senate Republicans, sent a mass e-mail yesterday to bloggers and the press, in a weak attempt to justify the betrayal of Iraq and our military. In a piece he titled “Setting The Record Straight”, McDonald not only ignored the specific text and demands of the resolution approved by the Senate, as well as the absolutely stupid tactic of using the Democrat’s own proposal as the template for the Republican version, he also falsely tried to pretend that the Republicans somehow were supporting the President and the People of Iraq in this betrayal. Sorry, Mr. McDonald, but you could not be more wrong in that pretense. As your own e-mail admitted, Senator Harry Reid was able to claim that the Senate – Republicans and Democrats alike – demanded that Bush “change course in Iraq”. (Senate Floor, November 17)

See that figurative knife sticking out of the backs of millions of Iraqi kids, Mr. McDonald? It reads “Made by the GOP” on the handle, and it came from your table.

Senator Warner actually tried to claim “I think this is supportive of the strong points the President has consistently made. In no way is it to be construed, in my judgment, as critical.” (Press Conference, November 15)

Translation: 'You see honey, I didn’t know she was a hooker, she looks a lot like you and I thought I was actually being faithful… and I only gave her fifty bucks to get undressed, uhhhhh, because I thought she needed to change into better clothes, yeah that’s it’ Sorry, MISTER Warner, but no one outside the Beltway could possibly believe that lie for a second.

The e-mail from “Ronald” McDonald went on to compare the demands in the resolution to statements made by and regarding the Iraqi citizens, completely missing the critical distinction between a nation making strides on its own initiative and efforts, and the demoralizing effect of being left on your own after a deadline. The e-mail from Mr. McDonald did serve one useful purpose, though – the inability of Mr. McDonald to understand the sheer lunacy of voting for such an execrable resolution shows just how insulated and unrealistic your average Senator’s comprehension of the real world has become.

As a Texan, I would like to use my own Senators as an example for a personal message I think we should all be sending:

Senators, you have forfeited your right to hold office. By siding with enemies of the people of Iraq and by betraying your President, especially while he was visiting a major foreign nation, you have demonstrated a complete lack of fitness for the duties and responsibilities of your office. You may count on my tireless efforts to see you replaced with a Republican who keeps his word and honor, and I am joined in that determination by millions of other Republicans who count our President and our troops of worthy of support, and who have no tolerance for betrayal or an expedient politician like yourself.



In conclusion, I would like to note the breakdown of the votes between the Democrat's Surrender-Now demand and the Republican copy. Two senators did not vote on either measure; 53 voted 'yea' on both resolutions; 26 voted 'nay' to the Democrat version, but 'yea' to the GOP-brand White Flag; 6 Democrats voted 'yea' to the Democrat version, but 'nay' to the GOP version out of spite; and fourteen brave souls had the integrity and courage to vote 'nay' on both resolutions. These are the Senators we should applaud and watch for their future votes, as they are the only Senators who seem to understand the concepts of Leadership, Commitment, and Honor:

From Kentucky, Senator Jim Bunning [R]

From North Carolina, Senator Richard Burr [R]

From Georgia, Senator Saxby Chambliss [R]

From Oklahoma, Senator Tom Coburn [R]

From South Carolina, Senator Jim DeMint [R]

From South Carolina, Senator Lindsey Graham [R]

From Oklahoma, Senator James Inhofe [R]

From Georgia, Senator Johnny Isakson [R]

From Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl [R]

From Arizona, Senator John McCain [R] (don't get cocky, John - you still have to explain your campaign finance "reform", and that 'let's leave it to the lawyers' bill you pushed on Torture definitions and restrictions)

From Alabama, Senator Jeff Sessions [R]

From South Dakota, Senator John Thune [R]

From Louisiana, Senator David Vitter [R]




And, in proof that there is yet at least one Democrat who knows what Democrats used to stand for, Senator Kent Conrad [D] from North Dakota


Speaking for myself, Kyl should be made Senate Majority Leader, and Thune should be given a strong whip, and a license to get the party back in line.

Speaking of Pre-War Intelligence

???

Congressman Curt Weldon says that the Able Danger intelligence team uncovered four terrorist hijackers in 2000, but was prevented by the Department of Justice from passing the information to the appropriate authorities.

Jamie Gorelick, a prominent Democrat on the 9/11 Commission refused to remove herself from the investigation even after evidence was produced showing she had direct and personal involvement in the rules preventing information exchanges between the military, intelligence, and the FBI, a policy now broadly understood to have hurt security and prevented the capture of the Al Qaeda cells.

Sandy Berger was convicted in September 2005, of stealing classified documents from the National Archives on multiple occasions. The documents dealt with Clinton Administration security actions and intelligence in 2000.

It is understood after investigation, that the 9/11 attacks were developed over a period of years dating back to at least 1995, and were inspired by the lack of concern and attention by the Clinton Administration to the numerous attacks by Al Qaeda through 1999.

The available evidence, even now, demonstrates that Saddam Hussein was a sponsor and patron of a number of terrorist groups. Also, questions surrounding meetings between representatives for Saddam and Bin Laden in 1994 have never been satisfactorily answered. Some government officials have pointed to information indicating the Iraq-Al Qaeda links were far more numerous and significant than has been publicly announced, as shown by a 2003 briefing for leaders in both the Republican and Democratic parties. This group includes Senator Rockefeller, who personally read a sixteen-page memo supporting links between the Hussein regime in Iraq and Osama Bin Laden.

The intelligence community, not only the United States but also most major agencies, including the community in Britain, France, and Germany, agreed in 2002 that WMD existed in Iraq and represented a real threat.

The Left now argues, as they did fifteen months ago in another equally deceitful and malicious effort, that President Bush lied about the Intelligence information, and somehow tricked the nation. But we’ve already been there and answered that lie. David Kay, a man quoted by the Left when it suits them to take a comment out of context, clearly said “I think the intelligence community owes the president rather than the president owing the American people. We have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush administration.”

As an example of world leaders of note, Tony Blair still believes the intelligence information is valid, saying “As for the existence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, there can be no doubt at all that those weapons existed, absolutely no doubt, because that is said not just by this government or the United States government. It was set out in detail over 12 years by the United Nations and by United Nations inspectors.”

Kay also observed that it was right to invade Iraq, because "I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war." Kay repeated that invading Iraq was actually vital to U.S. National Security, saying “I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened.”

Investigations into the pre-war intelligence have never found any evidence of pressure to reach a certain conclusion, and the statements made by President Bush were very similar to those made by leading Democrats and even President Clinton.

It’s obvious to me, that the attempts by the Left to once again smear the President amount to a shallow hope that people won’t notice that we had valid information, about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, long before they began training for the 9/11 attacks. An honest investigation would not be trying once again to put Bush in the dock. There have already been enough commissions and investigations about him, and fishing season’s over. If we want to investigate pre-War intelligence, let’s focus on why Al Qaeda was allowed to grow from a two-bit radical shoot to an international organization. That, of course, would put a damper on a certain Senator’s ambitions to become President in 2008, but it seems to me that’s what the Democrats fear, so it’s also where we should start to look.

Things That Should Already Have Been Obvious

!!!

[] Picking your nose on a first date is going to prevent a second date

[] If you are a wanna-be war hero, it won’t help you to be photo’d anywhere near the real article.

[] There is NO safe answer to “Does This Make Me Look Fat?”

[] It is not a good idea to challenge a Conservative President whose dad kicked your keister already; you will lose your palaces and family and power, and end up living in a stinking hole

[] “No Money Down” translates to mean “Huge Finance Charges”


[] There are men who just look stupid in a uniform, while others look great in one.


[] Those who can, do. Those who can’t, are called Democrats.


[] If you are a Republican Senator, who largely owes his office and party majority to the sitting President’s efforts, and this is in a time of war, you do not stab him in the back by attacking him with the opposition party’s words, especially while he is visiting a major foreign nation.












Here is the Roll Call Vote of that nefarious regurgitated donkey dump.

If It Wasn't About The Terrorists...

???

It occurs to me to wonder, what if the Democrats are right, in their claims that the Invasion of Iraq was not part of the Global War On Terror, to which they pay fervent lip service?

The Democrats have been pushing the claim that the War in Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. If this were actually the case, shouldn’t we look into what caused and led to the 9/11 attacks?

The available evidence, at least the bits the Democrats have not denied and tried to smear, is pretty clear that Osama began planning in earnest for the World Trade Center attacks during the Clinton Administration, after renewed success in attacking U.S. interests in a number of countries without significant retaliation. A few embassies, business targets, and bombings of assorted U.S. allies were all but ignored by President Bubba.

By the Democrats’ own logic then, shouldn’t they be demanding an investigation into Clinton’s failure to address the threat?

Then again, if we’re talking about Democrats, logic is not on the table...

Sunday TV

...

I enjoyed watching Fox News yesterday. I and my family were down with a virus, so we did little but watch television and drink soup. The Fox Channel was worth the look, as Chris Wallace hit the high points, correctly anticipating that the Democrat Jay Rockefeller would cling to the low road of insinuation and gutter mutter.

Among the questions which answered themselves:

“Senator Rockefeller, pre-war intelligence was a big issue in the last campaign, widely debated. George Bush won that election. There are now 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Is it really useful to go back over what Dick Cheney or someone else said in 2002?”

“Senator Rockefeller, the president says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did. In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the president ever did”

Some of the answers were worth attention, as Senator Pat Roberts observed:

“but we've had our own investigation, the WMD Inquiry, and the (inaudible) report in Britain and the WMD Commission all saying that there wasn't any manipulation or pressure.”

“I don't share Jay's view that there's that much difference between the PDBs and the information that we get, which is very similar to the senior executive intelligence brief.

I think what happened, if you read the Robb-Silverman report, that it was repetitive. It was a lot like the slam dunk statement by former CIA director George Tenet, who also believed, I'm sure, that there was an imminent threat.

I think that again, you know, this administration looked at the available report by the entire community, as we did, and said it was a danger to our national security, and they went to war.”

Seems like Chris Wallace learned more about Journalism than his dad.

Fair Weather Conservatives

.......

Back when the dispute among the Right over the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court was hot and nasty, I observed that some people’s avowed support for President Bush seemed to be a bit more frail and weak than they claimed. The response to that was varied, including a number of personal insults about me being a “robot” or “bootlicker”. While the issue passed, and a nominee acceptable to all Conservatives was named after Miers’ withdrawal, I continued to wonder how well Conservative support would stick by the man most responsible for the present GOP Majority, and the first man since Reagan to not wilt under the pressures or enticements to forfeit the promises made to the American People.

I received an e-mail Thursday night, which I find representative of that facade-only Conservatism. I leave off the writer’s name, but the text was as follows:

“I think George Bush has lost control of the ship. He seems paralyzed to make any tough decisions - about anything - is unable to tell us anything without reading from someone else's prepared scripts. He is unable to tell us which direction we are heading as we are heading nowhere now except in circles. He has forsaken whatever conservative agenda that was promised to get him elected. His cardboard press secretary is no better. Why anyone shows up at those press conferences is beyond me.

“Seems to me he is like Captain Queeg juggling his marbles petrified to do anything .More honesty - if this were baseball - a relief pitcher would be would be in with Bush being able to be charged with a loss and not with a win.
“Hey - if he can't or won't steer the ship - better he get the hell out of the way. I would rather go down swinging than be led to the ovens again by inaction. What happened to the Guy that stood on the rubble in New York - seems we lost him.”

I replied as follows:

“Having a bad day? I read your message, but I cannot say that I see the analogies as valid. First, "paralyzed" is hardly accurate. Bush is getting out and making appearances and delivering statements, and even if some less-than-focused Republicans are hurting vital work like ANWR and screwing around with the Budget, the President himself is doing his job, same as he always does.

“I would have to disagree with your choice of comparisons as valid in any way. Bush's selection of Alito, his support for drilling in ANWR, and other key points of focus are as conservative as anyone could ask - if turncoats in Congress will not pass the proposals into law, it hardly means that the President did not care. As for Captain Queeg (who never actually held that rank - remember part of the thing was that Queeg looked so desperately to be promoted to Commander?), he was a mentally unbalanced bully, hardly an apt description of George W. Bush.

“I understand that you would like a grand gesture from Dubs, but remember - the "show on demand" President was Clinton. Dubya does things because he is doing the job. What he said on the rubble in New York was unscripted, and he meant every syllable of what he said. That's what made the difference. George W. Bush, whatever you think of his elocution, never says something unless he means it, and he is not one to grandstand, even when Conservatives think that will help.

“What I am saying is this - the George W. Bush we have now, is exactly the one we have always had. He's maddening at times, because he will not say what you want him to say, and he will not make a gesture just for points. The same George W. Bush who annoyed Conservatives by not threatening China in the plane collision incident in 2001, was the same President who had no trouble sending troops into Afghanistan and Iraq. The same Dubya who nominated Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court also nominated Samuel Alito and John Roberts, and for the same reason in each case; he honestly believed in his nominee, and thought they were the right choice. The same Dubya who refused to get outraged at the slander from Kerry's campaign last year, also refused to fire or punish Cheney, Rumsfeld, or any other Administration member who was attacked simply for doing their job well. The man is who he is, and on the whole we are truly blessed to have him at the helm, a man unwilling to panic or be sweet-talked, and a man whose perspective goes a bit further than any other politician on the horizon right now.

“Instead of suggesting that Bush is somehow not the right man to have in charge, for myself I am hoping and praying that we can somehow find a man or woman to continue his leadership past 2008.”


This was not the first, nor sadly will it be the last, that I hear of someone whose confidence drives his mind and heart. It occurs to me that, call me what you will for saying so, that if Conservatives want to make something of our majority, we need to make plain that we stand behind our President, and that if they want to be part of the future, they must follow the leader of the movement, not pretend to grandeur themselves for the sake of expediency or a quick moment of attention from the MSM.

This is a gut-check call for the nation. If the Liberals can sell the idea that Conservatives are not committed to their ideals, the people who swing the elections will start believing in “moderate” Democrats again. The closest thing we have to a Conservative leader with the vision and backbone to get the job done, is President Bush. It’s time for us to show we have not forgotten that, or that we have confused his rivals (McCain, Specter, et al) for leadership.

I support the President. Where do you stand?

It's Still Veteran's Day

USA USN USMC USCG USAF

Yesterday was Veteran’s Day. As far as I’m concerned, so is today. This is not the kind of remembering we owe at the same level as Halloween or Valentine’s Day, a day to be noted, given a token respect and them move on. Rather, we need to stop and think about what we have been given.

First, a quick review of the blog commemoration:

LaShawn Barber has a round-up of Veteran’s Day blogging

Military.com has a video tribute to all servicemen

Milblogging has the thoughts and words of actual Military bloggers

And of course, I could not mention Veterans and Blogging without noting my personal favorite veteran blogger, Baldilocks.


Take a few moments and have another look and thought for the people who served to give us our most precious rights.

In conclusion, I mentioned yesterday that post-9/11 recruits are not nearly the desperate low-income, no-hope, in-it-for-some-employment losers that the Left would have you believe. I received an e-mail yesterday about one of the new recruits:

“I saw your post today about who exactly is enlisting and thought I'd forward you a little item we published nearly a year ago. We picked it up from the New York Observer. Folks like Gavriel are why this country is so great. (btw, our site is subscriber-only – I have to feed the kids somehow. But feel free to use this in any way you wish.)

“Former BofA Equity Analyst Killed in Iraq

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Dimitrios Gavriel, a former equity research analyst in Banc of America Securities' real estate unit, was killed last week in a battle in Falluja, Iraq, according to a report in the New York Observer.

Gavriel, 29, was a lance corporal in the United States Marines, which he had joined after being laid off from BofA in 2002, according to the newspaper. He had graduated from Brown University and soon joined PaineWebber. He then joined J.P. Morgan Chase's real estate unit and moved with it first to Credit Suisse First Boston then to BofA.

According to the Observer, Gavriel had received a job offer just before Marine boot camp. The newspaper quoted a friend who said Gavriel told him that he would be miserable had he not gone to boot camp. Gavriel had suffered a leg injury a week before going on a mission in Falluja.”

Veterans’ stories are worth a second look. And a third. And a fourth...

Remembering The Troops

USA USA USA

There’s The Liberal Way:

New Yorker Magazine Accuses The U.S. Of Murdering A Prisoner

Hollywood’s Latest Movie About Marines Accuses Them Of Being No More Than Vicious Animals

The Largest Liberal Blog Has An Open “Veterans Day” Thread That Does Not Honor A Single Veteran, But Complains About Health Care. The Next Thread On That Blog, With Three Times As Many Comments, Is Devoted To “Rum and Coke Friday”

Senate Stupidity Leader Harry Reid Discussed Veterans’ Day By Accusing Bush Of Lying About Intelligence Data Used In Deciding To Invade Iraq, Even Though He Saw And Approved The Same Data. Reid Had No Comments To Honor Veterans Today


And There’s The Conservative Way:

President Bush Visits Army Veterans To Deliver Veterans Day Speech

Speaker Of The House Dennis Hastert Honors Veterans As The Reason We Have Peace At Home

Michelle Malkin Simply Says “Thank You”

Captains Quarters' Tribute Includes A Photo Of the U.S. Flag Which Flew Above The Pentagon On 9/11/2001

Over at Polipundit, a day after Lorie Byrd remembered the birthday of the Marine Corps, A.K. McClure recalled the debt we still owe our veterans from World War One. As for me, I would like to recall the sort of men we have in our military. Despite claims to the contrary, the men who enlisted in the U.S. military after September 11 were very unlikely to come from poor families, almost all had at least a high school diploma, and the majority of recruits were white (only 14.09% in 2003 were black).

More soldiers come from the Southern states (41% in 2003), citing a family and cultural tradition, but very few from New England, and in general Red States were significantly more likely to have men enlist than Blue States.

The military under President Bush has been deployed fourteen times, as compared to forty-eight deployments under President Clinton, yet the results have been both more controversial and successful under Dubya than under Clinton, largely because forces have been sent in for specific objectives, and not withdrawn prematurely. This has fed a good rapport between the President and the Troops, especially with historic results in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, and Pakistan for troops to show for their pains.

Soldiers are not political by nature, nor do they consciously believe that one party or ideology is automatically superior by nature. But it is obvious who just talks about supporting the troops, especially in the job they are required to do, and who backs it up where it counts.

Thank you gentlemen. May this nation and the government never forget the debt we owe you.

The Enemy In The Room

RINO RINO RINO

The jelly-spined turncoats willing to take the name of Republican but ignore their duty and direction, have at least supplied us with a roster to know their members.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the RINOs of the United States.


(ht Michelle Malkin)

Confidence versus Recklessness

<>

E.J. Dionne is happy. Democrats are taking the Virginia election, especially as a sign of a rebound. Dionne, like other Liberals, thinks that one win over a bad campaign means the good times are returning. Howard Fineman of Newsweek thinks that Democrats can win if they “run as a moderate or run on competence (or both), and surf to victory on voters’ disdain for President Bush and his party’s corrosive ad tactics.”

Hey guys, Kaine took 52% of the vote, in a campaign he was easily winning for the last 2 months. While there are lessons to be learned here, one of the biggest should be to not read tea leaves into earthquakes. Calling Harry Reid’s tantrum on the Senate floor “an outside, grassroots game” is just idiotic. Pretending that anyone not already contributing to the DNC has any interest in a persecution of Karl Rove or Vice-President is no way to convince the American public that you have matured from the rants that convinced even the DLC that Howard Dean could not win the White House.

Fred Barnes has the gist of it, in his Daily Standard article “Sound and Fury” (as in signifying nothing); Barnes points out that “both had Democratic governors coming into yesterday's election. Both will continue to. Thus, there was no change, no earthquake, no reordering of the political universe. Ignore anyone who tells you otherwise.”

Good advice.

Sanity In Ohio

+++

The losses in Virginia and Soprano-Land were a bit disappointing, but the good people of Ohio knew their business. While supporting a bonds package to help bring jobs to Ohio, voters rejected a package of Democrat attempts to subvert the election process.

The group calling itself “Reform Ohio Now” was essentially a Liberal Stalking Horse, attempting to radically alter the process in Ohio, following the 2004 election. Four issues were set before the voters, ostensibly to improve the process, but in fact they would have taken much from the public, and put it into the hands of a few elitists. The text of the actual amendments can be found here.

Issue 2 was a measure to expand absentee voting, which sounds good on its face, but this would allow voting by mail. That’s right, not only no photo ID or confirmation that the voter was eligible to vote, but no confirmation at all that the voter even existed! Also, the measure would not have required any reason to be given for voting by mail, and provided absolutely no protection or security against fraud. 63% of Ohioans decided they didn’t want to help people commit voter fraud.

Issue 3 would have lowered limits on political donations not only from individuals, but also from PACs (which exist specifically to fund campaigns), “donor action committees”, or even from local, state, or national political parties. Essentially, this would have prevented competitive campaigning by anyone but the rich and the pre-financed, creating an absurd advantage for incumbents. This went down in flames as well.

Issue 4 would have removed redistricting power from elected officials, and put it instead into the hands of a five-member appointed commission. This is plainly contrary to the spirit of all existing constitutions, both Ohio’s and that of the United States. It also raises the obvious question of who and what would influence men who were not accountable for their decisions, but held the power to decide representation before the elections could even be scheduled. A full 70% of Ohio voters decided they wanted elected officials to be making those choices.

And finally, Issue 5 would have further usurped power from elected officials, turning over the administration of elections to that same appointed commission, answerable only to their personal agenda. I don’t know about you, but the idea that the rules, boundaries, procedures, and review of elections being controlled by a few unelected men who don’t answer to anybody, just screams ‘Politburo’ to me. And 70% of Ohio’s voters thought the same.

Given the balance between Republicans and Democrats in Ohio, the decisive measure of the vote indicates that Ohioans, both on the Left and on the Right, prefer Sanity.