Monday, January 31

Terrorists Kill Handicapped Child

From the AP via Yahoo!
Iraq's interior minister said Monday that insurgents used a handicapped child as one of the suicide bombers who launched attacks on election day.
Can these "people" sink any lower? There couldn't be a clearer contrast between the Iraqis that went out and voted yesterday and the terrorists that blow up children in order try to stop them.

Noteworthy Courage in Iraq

I think this quote from an elderly Iraqi woman says a lot about the attitude of the 8+ million people that came out to vote yesterday.

From CSM:
"Why should I be afraid?" asked Arifa Abed Mohamed, an elderly woman in a black abaya, who was first to vote at dawn on one Baghdad polling station. "I am afraid only from God."


Update: (More Courage)

From Reuters:
Samir Hassan, 32, who lost his leg in a car bomb blast in October, was determined to vote. "I would have crawled here if I had to. I don't want terrorists to kill other Iraqis like they tried to kill me. Today I am voting for peace," he said, leaning on his metal crutches, determination in his reddened eyes.

Two Sure Winners in the Iraqi Election

The Iraqi people


The first clear winners given today's events are the Iraqi people. For the first time in their history, they looked tyranny in the eye, and tyranny flinched. They have also put the lie to the assertion that Muslims and Arabs in particular are incapable of Democracy and have added yet more weight to the assertion that freedom lives in every human heart regardless of race or religion.

President Bush and the US more broadly


Today's events vindicate, at least in part, the vision that the President put forward in his inaugural speech. They also show that Iraq is on an almost unstoppable course toward democracy. The next two votes in Iraq, the one on the constitution 9 mouths from now and the Presidential election in about a year, will solidify this course. This will effectively end the insurgency. If you don't believe me just ask Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi:
if we fight them, that will be difficult because there will be a schism between us and the people of the region. How can we kill their cousins and sons and under what pretext, after the Americans start withdrawing? The Americans will continue to control from their bases, but the sons of this land will be the authority. This is the democracy, we will have no pretext.

Friday, January 28

Dean's a shoo-in, Again…

From the AP via SFGate.com:
Harold Ickes, a leading Democratic activist and former aide to President Clinton, said Friday he is backing Howard Dean to be chairman of the Democratic National Committee -- giving a powerful boost to the front-runner.
Doesn't this all sound familiar? Dean's the big favorite. Dean gets the key endorsements. So where's the microphone? It's time for him to make himself look like an idiot again.

The UNron Scandal Continues

From Fox:
Paul Volcker (search), the man tapped by the United Nations to lead a probe into the troubled Oil-for-Food program, has potentially too-close-for-comfort ties to companies he's supposed to be investigating
So not only does the UN get to investigate itself, their so-called "independent investigator" is compromised, but no, they won't just give up this farce. Will they?

Thursday, January 27

The Washington Post is Pathetic

"Pathetic" is the only word I can think of to describe this story. As they say, it isn't the crime (in this case bias) that gets you. It's the cover up. Today the Washington Post has printed a story and then changed it without a correction. Following that, they denied that a correction was made and engaged in the slander of bloggers. After it became clear that this wasn't going to fly, they put the blame on the "website folks" at washingtonpost.com.

Here's the original paragraph that got slammed for it's obvious bias:
Some of the Democrats who opposed Rice were centrists from states in which President Bush won or ran strongly in November, including Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).
Anyone that has seen the four underlined senators speak on the senate floor knows they are far from "centrists."

The Post then changed the paragraph, which was reported by the Powerline guys:
the Post has now removed the word "centrists" from its article. I assume this was the result of our pointing out the absurdity of the characterization. But there is no indication of any correction, no acknowledgement that the change was made. So go the mainstream media.
The following is an E-mail sent by Chuck Babington the writer of the Post article:
Thanks for writing. You will not find this quote in my article:

"Some of the Democrats who opposed Rice were centrists from states in which President Bush won or ran strongly in November, including Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)." You (and many others) are victims of a cut and paste job that rearranged paragraphs in order to attack the story. You can read the real article on Washingtonpost.com. I'd be happy to respond if you want to take it from there.
again, thanks,
cb
At the time this email was sent, the article had yet to be reworded by the post, and that paragraph was still on the Post's website.

Once that email showed up on the internet, it must have dawned on Mr. Babington that it was time to cut his loses. The following is from another, later, email by Babington:
You are quite right... The website folks updated the morning story after the vote, and combined some paragraphs.
There seems to be only two options here. Mr. Babington is lying, in which case he wrote as it was printed and is now covering himself. He's been trying to do that without much success all day. The other option is provided by Powerline:
anonymous staffers at the Post revise articles written by the paper's reporters and inject their own political views into the paper's characterizations of members of the Senate.
Either way, the Post has had a pathetic day.

Saturday, January 22

Hilarious Counter Protest

I can't imagine what the leftists must have been thinking when they saw this:



Indepundent's description of events:

Finally, they reached the front rows of the march -- and turned their signs around:
FREE
CUBA

REAL
LIBERALS
FIGHT
TYRANNY

FREE
VENEZUELA

For a few moments, nobody noticed. Then, to my left, I heard someone gasp, "What do those signs say?"

"Free Venezuela?"

"Those signs are total BULLSHIT!"

Meanwhile, my team was also making our way forward. I found myself immediately behind a man with a megaphone, who was directing the crowd in angry anti-Bush chants. I recognized him as Justin Akers, a community college professor who moonlights as an organizer for the local chapter International Socialist Organization.

That's right -- my property taxes pay the salary of this man, who uses his classroom to indoctrinate young, impressionable students into his radical ideology. And I was close enough that I could almost reach out and touch him...

After marching a few more blocks, we quietly melted away, cutting through the side streets to reach our final rally point at 3rd & Broadway, right outside the NBC Building. There, we waited for the marchers to return.

Meanwhile, some pedestrians began to notice our little counter-rally, and took a moment to absorb the meaning of our signs.

"Hey," one man shouted, "Why don't any of you young guys go over and fight in Iraq?"

I hear this one at almost every one of these events. "I've already been."

This stopped him in his tracks, momentarily. "Well, why don't you go back?" Also predictable.

"If they send me, I'll go again."


He walked away, cursing at us under his breath.

Another man responded to our "Free Venezuela" sign.

"Venezuela is free!" He declared.

I wanted to ask him if he was aware that Venezuela strongman Hugo Chavez recently outlawed the "cacelorazo," a form of protest involving the banging of pots and pans in the streets (which was being practiced by many of that evening's protestors in San Diego, without any sense of irony). But he was gone before I could respond.

Several people didn't seem to understand our point. "Thank you guys for doing this," one man says. "Nobody can blame me when things go all to Hell," he continued, "because I voted for Kerry!"

Others read our signs and smiled, or gave us a thumbs-up.
Could there be any better spokesman for the Left?

Thursday, January 20

Hard Line Iranians Threaten UK

From the Arab Times:
A hardline Iranian religious group threatened on Wednesday to carry out suicide attacks on a UK-based Iranian exile TV presenter, saying his broadcasts were inflammatory and insulted Islamic values.

Mojtaba Bigdeli, the spokesman of Iran's Hizbollah group, said the British government must ban the satellite channel run by Iranian exiles within 30 days or face the consequences.

"After one month, our commandos will carry out suicide attacks in London against the shameless presenter of the channel," Bigdeli told Reuters by telephone.
Hardliners are just digging their own graves.

The Final Pathetic Death Wails of the Yanukovych Campaign

From Interfax:
Supporters of Viktor Yanukovych, who is judicially contesting the announced victory of Viktor Yushchenko in Ukraine's December 26 repeat presidential runoff election, put up a tent camp on the central square of Symferopil on Wednesday.

The campers put up seven tents on a square area of about 15 meters to 15 meters, fenced the area off with spikes which they tied together with ropes with blue ribbons attached to them, and called it a territory "free from Viktor Yushchenko." Banners were fixed to the tents some of which read, "For Yanukovych, for stronger Ukrainian-Russian unity."
For comparative purposes, here is a picture of the protests in Ukraine's capital after the first "election:"


Why Do I Have to Read an Iraq Newspaper to Hear the Real Story?

From Al Nahrein via Powerline:

19 Terrorist suspects arrested and 11 Killed in the Yusefiah area in south central Iraq.

A high ranking U.S. Army officer announced today that his forces, in conjunction with the Iraqi Army and Iraqi security forces, killed 11, arrested 19 armed terrorists and captured a large cache of weapons and explosives stolen from the previous regime’s army. The arrests and killing of armed terrorists happened as a result of an armed clash during a campaign covering a wide area in the Lateefiah area south of Baghdad. Brigadier General Michael, commander of the second combat troops army brigade said that this campaign was conducted differently from others in the past, it depended on tips and information the Iraqi forces received from the local population. This information was about the location and existence of armed terrorists in this area. He added that the campaign was not only military but also in preparation of the elections to be held in two weeks. It included securing the area and restoring irrigation and drinking water, electricity and roads for which 55 million dollars in reconstruction funds have been set aside.


As the guys at Powerline adeptly pointed out, the Iraqi paper calls our enemies by their correct name, terrorists. What is wrong with our press that the Iraqis, a people that have had a free press for all of a year and a half, can get the facts right and our media can't?

Wednesday, January 19

The Arrogant, Conceited New York Times

From the NYT:
When I telephoned a man named Ali Fadhil in Baghdad last week, I wondered who might answer. A C.I.A. operative? An American posing as an Iraqi? Someone paid by the Defense Department to support the war? Or simply an Iraqi with some mixed feelings about the American presence in Iraq?
I've noted before that the New York Times has sided with enemy, but this story has solidified that belief. In case you didn't know Ali Fadhil is a blogger for Iraq the Model. The above quote is the first paragraph of the article in which the Times interviews Ali, and it shows the incredible insulation and partisan bias at the Times. The idea that any Iraq that supports the United States must be a CIA or DOD agent, or better yet just "mixed" up, is totally absurd. Think about the beliefs that must under lie this reasoning. Namely, that no rational Iraqi would support the US goals unless of course we we're paying them off.

Chrenkoff puts this idea better I did:

an Iraqi can only seem "genuine" if he shares the liberal media elite's doubts about the liberation of Iraq. God forbid that anyone could possibly be happy that Saddam's gone and Iraq now has a chance for a better future - such people must obviously be frauds, or better still, frauds on American payroll.

Where is the Coverage?

From The LA Times: (12/28/04)

Iraq's most prominent Sunni Muslim religious party announced Monday that it was withdrawing from next month's parliamentary elections, saying that violence remains too grave to conduct the vote.

The move by the Iraqi Islamic Party threatens to deepen the political alienation of the nation's Sunni Arabs, who make up about 20% of the population but were long favored under Saddam Hussein's government. Many Sunnis have supported the insurgency and fear that the upcoming ballot will only cement their loss of influence as majority Shiite Muslims vote for members of their own sect. Yet Sunni support for and participation in a new government are considered crucial to stabilizing Iraq.
And now three weeks later, the election is still on, and their gambit hasn't paid off. So naturally, they do the old John Kerry Flip-flop.

From AINA:

Iraq's principal Sunni Muslim political party conceded Wednesday that its effort to delay Iraq's parliamentary election had failed and that it was preparing a strategy to influence the elected government following the vote on Jan. 30.

The Iraqi Islamic Party's willingness to accept and engage a new government indicated a possible avenue for Sunni participation
[...]
"The Americans are insisting these elections go on time," Ayad al Samaraee, deputy chairman of the Iraqi Islamic Party, told Knight Ridder. "Most probably, there will be no delay."

Instead of trying to halt the elections, al Samaraee said the party would focus on giving Sunnis a voice in the new government and was now reaching out to other parties and encouraging them to work together.
Now they want to be part of the new government, which is fine, but where is the coverage of this? The headline from the LA Times and the rest of the MSM was "Top Sunni Party Quits Election." Where is the headline saying, "Top Sunni Party Wants into New Government?"

-------------------------------------------

While we are on the topic of the AINA article, what is this?
It also said that 72 parties, coalitions of parties or individuals have joined its call for a boycott. They include Sunnis, Shiites, Christians and Kurds, said Sheikh Omar Zaydan, a spokesman for the Muslim Scholars Association. The claim couldn't be verified.
Since when do you print unverified claims?

Just a Small Thing

From mnf-iraq.com:

Mosul, Iraq -- Multi-National Forces from 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (Stryker Brigade Combat Team), were able to defuse a roadside bomb after an Iraqi boy provided them with information about it in northern Iraq on Jan. 10.

Soldiers of the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment, were on patrol in Mosul when an Iraqi child informed them of a roadside bomb in the area. The tip led to the diffusion and destruction of the bomb.
Isn't it amazing that a child instinctively recognizes that trying to blow people up that are helping you is wrong, and goes to tell a responsible person that someone is doing something wrong. Now if only this was so clear to adults.

More Bias By Omission

From Black Five:

As a recent example, the operation in Fallujah delivered an absolutely devastating blow to the insurgency. Though much smaller in scope, clearing Fallujah of insurgents arguably could equate to the Allies' breakout from the hedgerows in France during World War II. In both cases, our troops overcame a well-prepared and solidly entrenched enemy and began what could be the latter's last stand. In Fallujah, the enemy death toll has already exceeded 1,500 and still is climbing. Put one in the win column for the good guys, right? Wrong. As soon as there was nothing negative to report about Fallujah, the media shifted its focus to other parts of the country. Just yesterday, a major news agency's website lead read: "Suicide Bomber Kills Six in Baghdad" and "Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes." True, yes. Comprehensive, no. Did the author of this article bother to mention that Coalition troops killed 50 or so terrorists while incurring those seven losses? Of course not. Nor was there any mention about the substantial progress these offensive operations continue to achieve in defeating the insurgents. Unfortunately, this sort of incomplete reporting has become the norm for the media, whose poor job of presenting a complete picture of what is going on in Iraq borders on being criminal.
The essential point that is being made here is that this war is more about perception then anything else. The terrorists in Iraq have never and can never win any militarily significant victory. Every day we remain in Iraq, we get one step closer to victory, and they get one step closer to defeat. There is only one way the terrorists can win, and that is the same way evil people and evil ideologies have always won, which is by default. In other words, the good guys left the field of battle. The terrorists know this. They time attacks so that they make the morning headlines in the US. Every time the media spends hours and paragraphs talking about something the terrorist did, it is victory for the them against us. I'm not saying don't report the bad news. I'm say is put it in context. For example, the idea is being floated about that the terrorists are winning in Iraq. This is the result of the media feeding off itself. They report all these events out of context, and then conclude on that basis that the terrorists are winning. If this continues, they'll start concluding that we are defeated when we're really winning.

What about the media's portrayal of the enemy? Why do these ruthless murderers, kidnappers and thieves get a pass when it comes to their actions? What did the media not show or tell us about Margaret Hassoon, the director of C.A.R.E. in Iraq and an Iraqi citizen, who was kidnapped, brutally tortured and left disemboweled in streets of Fallujah?
[...]
The battle in Najaf last August provides another. Television and newspapers spilled a continuous stream of images and stories about the destruction done to the sacred city, and of all the human suffering allegedly brought about by the hands of the big, bad Americans. These stories and the lack of anything to counter them gave more fuel to the fire of anti-Americanism that burns in this part of the world. Those on the outside saw the Coalition portrayed as invaders or oppressors, killing hapless Iraqis who, one was given to believe, simply were trying to defend their homes and their Muslim way of life.

Reality couldn't have been farther from the truth. What noticeably was missing were accounts of the atrocities committed by the Mehdi Militia -- Muqtada Al Sadr's band of henchmen. While the media was busy bashing the Coalition, Muqtada's boys were kidnapping policemen, city council members and anyone else accused of supporting the Coalition or the new government, trying them in a kangaroo court based on Islamic Shari'a law, then brutally torturing and executing them for their "crimes." What the media didn't show or write about were the two hundred-plus headless bodies found in the main mosque there, or the body that was put into a bread oven and baked.
This is why I believe the media is politically biased and not just biased toward reporting bad news or shocking news. What could be more shocking or bad then 200 headless bodies in what is supposed to be a holy site? And yet, not a word from the MSM. Many in the media aren't just biased against the war or against this administration, they are biased in favor of the enemy. Our own media is betraying us.

Tuesday, January 18

There's Optimism on the Front

From Cpl. Isaac D Pacheco via The Cincinnati Enquirer:

I've become somewhat callused to this kind of seesaw reporting because every day I work with the news agencies that manufacture it. However, many service members shake their heads in frustration each time they see their daily rebuilding efforts ignored by the media in favor of the more "sensational" car bomb and rocket attack stories. Not to say that tragedies don't happen - Iraq is a war zone - but there is so much more happening that gets overlooked if not ignored.

Army Sgt. Addie Collins' Kicks for Kids program is an example of this. Three months ago this Army Reservist from Los Angeles asked her friends and family to forgo sending the usual box of goodies, and instead send a few pairs of kid-sized shoes, which she would hand out to Iraqi children she'd seen walking barefoot. Friends and family told friends and family, and today, 10,000 pairs later, Collins is outfitting an entire Ramadi community with sneakers, sandals and boots.

Where's her morning talk show appearance?
The days when media bias was about telling you things that were false or misleading are over. We've see with the CBS debacle that stories are now fact checked to their minutest detail. The media bias that we see today is more insidious. We'll call it media bias by omission. Basically, they aren't reporting news worthy stories. The BBC doesn't think it's news when American soldiers are assisting the Tsunami survivors. Cpl. Pacheco has shown us something very important. The same thing is happening in Iraq. The MSM is examining every terrorist attack in minute detail, but when something good happens, it's not news worthy. We need a media in this country that reports both sides of the story. Not just the side that they think is important.

Sunday, January 16

Israel is Done Waiting for the Palestinians to End Their Hopeless War

From the AP:

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Sunday he was giving Israel's army free rein to battle militants in Gaza, and the Palestinian leadership called for a halt to attacks on Israelis.
[...]
The Israeli assault on Khan Younis refugee camp in southern Gaza came as Israel Radio reported Sharon had ordered troops "to act immediately with no political or military restrictions" to halt repeated rocket fire into southern Israel Sunday.

"I won't let this mad situation continue," Sharon told the mayor of Sderot, whose residents have threatened to launch a commercial strike Monday in protest at the rocket attacks.

Sharon also told his cabinet the army had been "instructed to take any action needed without restriction to stop terror, and they will continue to do so... as long as the Palestinians do not lift a finger."
Not surprisingly, Israel has little patients with the Palestinian leadership whatever it's form. If the Abbas doesn't stop terror, the Israelis will. Eventually the Palestinians will have to realize that the ball is in their court. The Israelis can live with the Status Quo. The Palestinians can't. In the year, the Palestinians will be contained behind the Israeli Security Fence, and severely limited in the number of attacks they can carry out. The strategic Israeli position is getting strong in relation to the Palestinians. The longer the Palestinians wait to end their hopeless war. The less they will get from the Israelis when the inevitable peace deal is struck.

Genius Leftists Find another Way to Protest

It appears that Deacon of Powerline has found some more people that are suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome:

An attorney at a Washington D.C. law firm (not mine) told me that her firm is closed for inauguration day, but a number of attorneys plan to work anyway as a protest against another Bush term. To me, this raises an interesting philosophical question: can something be a protest if those against whom it is directed (a) don't know about it; (b) can't be affected by it, even indirectly; and (c) would be completely indifferent about the conduct associated with the protest even if they knew of it?
It's just like the idiots whose big idea was to turn around at the Inauguration.

Population Statistics: A Palestinian Fraud

From the Jerusalem Post:

While terrorism is the outward face of the post-modern aggressor, social psychology is perhaps his greatest weapon. If the target population can be manipulated to view itself as the aggressor, if it can be brought to view its position as untenable, then it will sue for peace and surrender. So it was that Kadoura Fares, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council and one of the heads of Fatah who signed Yossi Beilin's Geneva Accords, said in an interview with the pan-Arab London-based newspaper Al-Hayat in October 2003 that the Palestinian aim in signing the accords was to "foment a piercing public and political debate in Israel."

While Hamas has placed its emphasis mainly on the terrorist aspect of the post-modern battlefield, the PLO has placed an equal emphasis on the psychological component of the war. In fact, it could be said in retrospect that the greatest single victory the PLO has scored in its 46-year-old war with Israel was the publication of a single report in 1997. That report, "Demographic Indicators of the Palestinian Territory, 1997-2015," is based on a census carried out by the PA's Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) in 1997. It projects that the Arab population west of the Jordan River will by 2015 outnumber the Jewish population.

These numbers were immediately adopted by such prominent Israeli demographers as the University of Haifa's Arnon Soffer and the Hebrew University's Sergio Della Pergola, who have both warned that by 2020 Jews will make up between 40 and 46 percent of the overall population of Israel and the territories. The Palestinian projections, which place the Arab population of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip at 3.83 million and the Israeli Arab population at 1.33 million for a total of 5.16 million Arabs west of the Jordan River, put Israel with its 5.24 million Jews at the precipice of demographic parity with the Arabs.
If you been around this debate for a while, you know that these numbers were accepted as fact and used to further the Palestinians case. These numbers put pressure on the Israelis to settle the conflict or face the possibility that they would be facing Palestinians demanding not a state, but the right to vote in Israeli elections. This was sobering stuff for the Israelis. But, no longer...

The average of the last two scenarios, which corrected for the Palestinians living abroad and were based on base populations comprised of ICBS Palestinian population survey projections from the 1990s and Palestinian voting records in 1996 and 2004, brought the final projected number of Palestinians in Gaza, Judea and Samaria to 2.42 million - nearly a third less than the 3.83 million figure currently being used.

The study, which has been accepted by prominent American demographers Dr. Nicholas Eberstadt and Murray Feshbach, shows that contrary to common wisdom, the Jewish majority west of the Jordan River has remained stable since 1967. In 1967 Jews made up 64.1 percent of the overall population and in 2004 they made up 59.5 percent. Inside Israel proper, including Jerusalem, Jews make up 80 percent of the population.
With the political motivation gone, Israel is not likely to be looking for much compromise. That puts the ball firmly in the Palestinian's court. If they want talks if they want a state, they must end terrorism.

A Woman Stands Against the Mullahs in Iran

From CNN:

Nobel peace laureate Shirin Ebadi told Iran's hard-line Revolutionary Court on Saturday she won't obey a vague summons on her to appear for questioning, even if it means she will be jailed -- an open challenge to a powerful body that has tried and convicted many pro-reform intellectuals.

Ebadi, the first Iranian and Muslim woman to win the Nobel peace prize in 2003, vowed in a wide-ranging exclusive interview with The Associated Press to resist hard-line threats against her life and will never bow to intimidation.
[...]
"I've tasted jail myself: 25 days in solitary confinement with no access to radio, newspapers or lawyer. And I'm not afraid of prison," she said. "I'm a lawyer and familiar with the law. I haven't done anything other than defend human rights in Iran."
This is a good example of what Iran needs, which is people that stand against the Islamic extremists there. The more this happens the more the Mullahs will take notice. There are limits to the amount of people you can jail without starting a rebellion. The Mullahs may not realize it, but I believe they are getting close to that line. I would not be surprised if they wondered by it in the next year or two.

Saturday, January 15

Decision Time For Abbas

Abbas says he wants to lead the Palestinians to Freedom and a state of their own. This is his chance. After a Palestinian terrorist attack that killed 6 Israelis, Israel did not retaliate militarily. They simply cut off ties with the Palestinians until the terrorism stops. Abbas will have no better chance to lead his people then right now. He must not just denounce terror, but stop it. He can, and he must. The Palestinians have suffered for years because of a warped culture and inept leadership. If Abbas shuts down terrorism, Israel will be open to negotiation and the quality of life in the Palestinians areas will increase. If he does not, there will simply be more of the same.

Friday, January 14

The Loser

I had to laugh when I saw this as the title of a Reuters story:
Ukraine Court Agrees to Hear Vote Loser's Appeal
I was beginning to doubt whether good headline writers even existed anymore, but alas there is yet hope. As to Mr. Yanukovych, this same court has already rejected his previous claims. He has about as much chance of becoming the President of Ukraine as I do at this point.

In Denial

From melaniephillips.com::
I asked Iqbal Sacranie, general secretary of the MCB [Muslim Council of Britain],whether he thought that any public statements about Islamic terrorism, or any speculation about the number of Muslims in Britain who might support Islamic terrorism, would constitute incitement to religious hatred. He said: 'There is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist. This is deeply offensive. Saying Muslims are terrorists would be covered by this provision'.
This is similar to what Jesse Jackson and others do all the time. It's a simple theory, really. Just ignore the problem. Deny it exists. Blame everyone else for the problem, and then you don't have to step up to the plate. Take responsibility, and fix it.

CBS Takes Underhand Slap at Bloggers

From LGF:
CBS has altered the PDF file for their report on Memogate, to prevent copying and pasting.

Here's the page at CBS News, with modified PDF file: CBS Ousts 4 For Bush Guard Story.

Rather obviously (pardon the pun), this is aimed at making it harder for blogs to criticize the report, by stopping them from copying and pasting sections to illustrate points.
These people are stupid. First, for even thinking they could pull this off. Our friends at LGF have already posted the first unedited version with copying enabled, and second, for thinking they weren't going to get ripped for this. They are supposed to be a news provider. They're are supposedly in the business of spreading information, not figuring out creative ways to suppress it.

Just One Hour of CNN Bias

From Powerline:
I'm back after nearly a week of tough business travel, culminating in four hours at the Boston airport. The worst thing about being stuck in an airport these days is the televisions running CNN non-stop. But today Judy Woodruff's Inside Politics was so over-the-top that it provided comic relief. In one hour she ran the following stories:

1. Big business is rewarding President Bush for past favors and purchasing additional influence by paying for the inauguration festivities. Pro Bush companies, particularly energy and financial services companies, are paying $250,000 a pop.

2. The inaugural festivities cost too much -- at least $40 million. It's true that Clinton's cost about $33 million, but that was when we had budget surpluses and no natural disasters like the current one in Asia. (But I thought big business was footing the bill in order to buy influence -- if so, in the absence of a lavish inauguration, they wouldn't be allocating the bribe money to pay down the budget deficit or provide humanitarian relief).

3. Torture, always torture. Public opinion surveys showing that Americans (like their president) don't favor torture provide the pretext for CNN to show more Abu Ghraib footage and to take another shot at Alberto Gonzalez.

4. President Bush lacks public support for privatizing social security. And, according to Democratic consultant Ann Lewis, it's no wonder, what with the market down 100 points today and the same people who told us there were WMD in Iraq now telling us that social security is in trouble. (I'm not making this up; thank God Lewis is a Democratic consultant).

5. "Everyone loves Laura?" I'm not sure what the question mark was doing in the story, since CNN's poll showed that Laura Bush has an approval rating of something like 86-5. But CNN is quick to claim that this rating tends to go down when the First Lady takes controversial positions on public policy issues.

Woodruff also included a piece on blogging, in which CNN's reporter noted that blogs aren't going away now that the election is over. Instead, they are focusing on substantive issues and local political races. But even this unobjectionable piece was marred by Woodruff's need to explain that "blog" is short for "web log."

During breaks, CNN ran a commercial touting its war correspondent Christiane Amanpour. According to Amanpour "being a war correspondent is more than being a war correspondent," since her stories, "told well have the power to make a difference" and her "job is to make a difference for the good of the world." Judy Woodruff presumably answers to the same job description. Dan Rather too, for a little while longer.
This is why I'm willing to subjected myself to MSNBC when I'm not watching Fox. CNN's like a cess-ridden stream of propaganda.

Thursday, January 13

Ted's Off the Wagon Again

From ABC:
Kennedy also mangled the name of the Democrats' new star, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, calling him "Osama bin … Osama … Obama."
Looks like that after the election Teddy boy is back to drinking his lunch everyday.

Aren't You Glad These People Aren't in Power Anymore?

From the New York Post:
Former Clinton White House Mr. Fix-It Bruce Lindsey emerged tight-lipped yesterday after testifying before a federal grand jury probing whether top-secret documents were illegally removed from the National Archives.

The grand jury probe, reported exclusively in The Post Tuesday, is digging into why another former Bill Clinton aide, Sandy Berger, sneaked the national security documents out of the Archives - possibly in his socks.
The Clinton legacy lives on. What were in these documents that Berger was so desperate to destroy them?

Berger admits walking off with 40 to 50 top-secret documents from the archives, but claims it was an "honest mistake" while vetting documents for the 9/11 commission.

Berger has admitted destroying some documents - he says by mistake.
Ha, yeah right! He steals the documents, and then, they are destroyed. Well, isn't that convenient.

In defense of Michael Chertoff

The Christian Science Monitor has an excellent defense of the President's nominee to replace Tom Ridge at Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff:
In choosing Judge Michael Chertoff as the new Homeland Security secretary, President Bush sends a signal to Americans that it's important to have someone who will stand "tough on terror." Toughness is Mr. Chertoff's wide reputation: As a US Attorney, he made a name for himself by successfully working to get the bosses of the five largest Mafia families in New York off the streets.

That kind of experience with organized crime should translate well into defending American citizens at home from a organized terrorist networks such as Al Qaeda.
I agree.

Wednesday, January 12

Guess I'm Not Allowed in Russia Anymore

From The Washington Times:
The amendment said foreigners could be denied entry if they "commit actions of a clearly disrespectful nature toward the Russian Federation or the federal organs of the government of the Russian Federation."
So when are they going to put the sign up at the Russia embassy that says, "Only Fascists Need Apply."

BTW, Putin is siding with the Terrorists too.

The Attacks Begin on the President's Homeland Security nominee, Michael Chertoff

From the Muslim American Society:
Michael Chertoff is not fit to lead the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. While he has a good record as a prosecutor, he does not have as good a record on respecting and safeguarding civil rights and liberties. He is, by his own admission, an advocate of "streamlining" justice, a euphemism for setting aside troublesome things like due process of law.

One of the guiding principles of the Department of Homeland Security is that its strategies and actions will be consistent with the individual rights and liberties enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and guided by the Rule of Law. Michael Chertoff's record in John Ashcroft's Justice Department clearly illustrates Mr. Chertoff's cavalier treatment of both.

While serving as the head of the criminal division in the U.S. Department of Justice, Mr. Chertoff was responsible for: (1) misconduct by Justice Department lawyers in a failed prosecution of an alleged sleeper terrorist cell in Detroit, Michigan, (2) an overzealous, and ultimately failed, prosecution alleging the creation of internet terror networks against an innocent college student in Boise, Idaho, and (3) the stalled prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui.
If we accept the above list of things that Mr. Chertoff is supposedly "responsible for," then that would seem to refute that he has a "good record as a persecutor." Thus, one of these things must not be true. Although I don't know all the facts, it would seem to be logical that Mr. Chertoff does have a good record as a prosecutor since he has been conformed three times by various legislative bodies and is likely to be confirmed again by the US Senate to be the Homeland Security Secretary.

Post 9/11, Mr. Chertoff played a key role limiting or eliminating civil rights and liberties protections by promoting actions such as: using "material witness" warrants to incarcerate people of Middle Eastern and South Asian descent, interviewing thousands of Middle Eastern and South Asian men who entered the U.S. lawfully before and after the 9/11 attacks, denying a defendant facing the death penalty the fundamental right to face and question his accusers, and holding suspects indefinitely without counsel as "enemy combatants." Some have described Mr. Chertoff as "the driving force behind the Justice Department's most controversial initiatives in the war on terrorism."
As far as I'm aware, the only people being held incommunicado are people at Getmo or are otherwise in US military custody. Therefore, I'm not clear who their accusers would be. They were captured on the battlefield fighting US forces. The situation seems straight forward to me.

Ultimately, terrorism is a crime...
The author is incorrect here. International terrorism is more then a crime. It is an act of war. Crimes are individual acts, and although that describes a part of the events of Sept. 11, it misses the far more important element, which is that we were attacked not just by individuals but rather by a movement, Islamic fascism. It would be just as absurd to try to round up Islamic terrorists as criminals today as it would have been to round up German fascist in the 1930s. It just won't work.

AP Bias: The Make up of President Bush's Cabinet

From the AP via Yahoo!:

WASHINGTON - President Bush's second-term Cabinet will look roughly like his first - overwhelmingly male and mostly white, though Hispanics double their representation, to two.

There would also be two blacks and two Asian-Americans, but no Arab-American replacing Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, a Lebanese-American.

While Bush is fond of saying "all wisdom does not reside in Washington, D.C.," he drew most of his new Cabinet choices from the capital's corridors of power. All but two of his nine new picks already serve in the federal government.
[...]
"No matter what presidents say about a desire to have a Cabinet that looks like America, the best they can do is get a Cabinet that looks like Washington,"
While not technically inaccurate, the story is grossly unfair.

RacePercentage of the PopulationPercentage of Bush's Cabinet
White75%60%
Black12%13%
Hispanic12%13%
Asian3.6%13%
Source US census(pdf) and News Day

So yes, the cabinet is "mostly white," but minorities are overrepresented. Is this a bad thing? No, it's completely irrelevant, or should be.

Well the Brits Got What They Wanted. Now What?

From Reuters:

The government faces a major headache in deciding what to do with four detainees held as terrorism suspects for about three years without charges at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and due home soon.

Feroz Abbasi, Martin Mubanga, Richard Belmar and Moazzam Begg will be released within weeks from the camp, set up by the United States in January 2002 to hold combatants captured in Afghanistan and others suspected of association with al Qaeda.

Amid fears of an attack on British soil, Prime Minister Tony Blair's government has introduced tough terror laws, but it must now balance the need to protect citizens with the requirement to respect human rights.
On the positive side, Blair gets to point to this and say that "he got something for the US." On the down side, he's still going to take heat because radical leftist in the UK want these people released, and Mr. Blair isn't going to be that irresponsible with the lives of his own people to put these psychopaths back on the streets.

Tuesday, January 11

Cold Water Meets Cat: The Story of Mary Mapes

Courtesy of LGF Mary Mapes's statement about the CBS report:

I am terribly disappointed in the conclusions of the report and its effects on the four of us who will no longer work at CBS News. I am disappointed as well for the entire organization. It has been my second family and I will miss my colleagues there.

I am shocked by the vitriolic scape-goating in Les Moonves's statement. I am very concerned that his actions are motivated by corporate and political considerations - ratings rather than journalism. Mr. Moonves's response to the review panel's report and the panel's assessment of the evidence it developed in its investigation combine not only to condemn me, but to put all investigative reporting in the CBS tradition at risk.
Oh that rich CBS tradition. How could they do this? I mean...what? You're not allowed to create fake documents to back up your fraudulent politically motivated attacks anymore?

When are They Going to Get It?

From Yahoo!:
Phil Johnston, who heads the Democrats in losing presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites)'s home state, spoke out amid news of former Rep. Tim Roemer's decision to seek the national party's chairmanship.

"The fact that we lost the 2004 presidential race by a narrow margin should not result in the abandonment of our party's core principles," Johnston said.

Democrats, he said, can only regain the White House by choosing someone who can articulate the values of the party and strengthen its grass-roots organization.
Again and again, you hear this argument. It's the height of arrogance. Think about it. What is Johnston really saying here. Well, he's saying that the American people are too stupid to figure out that he's right. So if he can find someone that can just "talk the language of the stupid people," the Dems would be sure to win. After all, that is what the Republicans have always done, right? Well that or steal the election. This kind of reminds me of a scene at the end of the Lord of the Rings, a king sets himself on fire and goes running off a cliff. The only difference here is that Mr. Johnston is calling on all of his fellow travelers to do the same.

Monday, January 10

CBS Report Slams News Division

From CBS (So believe at your own risk):
(CBS) Four CBS News employees, including three executives, have been ousted for their role in preparing and reporting a disputed story about President Bush's National Guard service.

The action was prompted by the report of an independent panel that concluded that CBS News failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of the piece. The panel also said CBS News had compounded that failure with a "rigid and blind" defense of the 60 Minutes Wednesday report.

Asked to resign were Senior Vice President Betsy West, who supervised CBS News primetime programs; 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard; and Howard's deputy, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy. The producer of the piece, Mary Mapes, was terminated.
Why not just close down their news operation altogether? They obviously have no credibility left, and any few remaining views they have are literally dying off. They're just wasting everyone's time pretending to be some kind of legitimate news agency.

The Final Nail Goes into Yanukovych's Coffin

From China View:
Ukraine's Supreme Court turned down on Monday four more complaints from presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovych's team against the Central Election Commission.
And the Fascist goes quietly in to the night, which is much better then shooting yourself in the head after causing the deaths of 80+ million people. I.E. Hitler

There Was No Criminal Activity at the UN...Well Except for Embezzlement and Obstruction of Justice...So Far

From Voice of America:
Internal United Nations audits of the $64 billion Iraq oil-for-food program have revealed widespread mismanagement. But, investigators say they have not found evidence of criminal activity.

The independent commission looking into the now-defunct U.N. oil-for-food program concludes that administrators were guilty of huge lapses in oversight. Internal audits released by commission chairman Paul Volcker reveal "serious irregularities," including mishandling of funds, fraudulent documentation and bureaucratic bungling.
What…no criminal activity? The Volcker commission is a joke. What would you call "mishandling funds" that either ended up in your pocket or were used for bribes? I'd call it embezzlement. What would you call creating the documents to cover yourself? I'd call it obstruction of justice. No criminal activity? BS.

Useless, Good for Nothing UN

From the Telegraph:
The UN describes its role in South Asia as one of "assessment" and "coordination." Even this, however, seems to many to be a role unnecessary to the plot. The Daily Telegraph last week described the frustration of in-country UN officials who found they had nothing to do as the Americans, Australians, Indonesians, and Malaysians flew missions.
Thus, useless.

UN Failures:
  • Dutch Government resigns as a result of U.N. "peace-keeping".


  • U.N. fails to condemn slavery in Sudan.


  • The U.N. is even a joke in Sierra Leone.


  • Where was the U.N. during the massacre in Rwanda in 1994?


  • Where were they when Mugabe expunged all white farmers from Zimbabwe, and caused a famine that threatens to kill 8 million? Now they are talking with Mugabe about how to avert the disaster. What a joke!


  • They impede or war in Iraq, claiming diplomacy and inspections are the only answer. At the same time, they refuse to discuss the North Korea's brazen moves.


  • U.N. ignores more human rights abuses. This time in Iran.


  • U.N. takes over in East Timor, and then drops the ball leading to further violence and anarchy.


  • Remember those Buddist statues in Afghanistan that the Taliban destroyed? Well, you guessed it. The U.N. failed to save them.


  • The U.N. fails to protect those displaced by a civil war in Angola.


  • That's right. The U.N. failed in Kashmir, too.


  • The U.N. failed in Somalia.


  • The U.N. failed in Bosnia.


  • The U.N. failed in Israel.


  • The U.N. failed in Columbia.


  • The U. N. failed in Iraq.


  • Thus, good for nothing.

    Biased Tsunami Coverage From the BBC

    From The Telegraph:
    Last week we were subjected to one of the most extraordinary examples of one-sided news management of modern times, as most of our media, led by the BBC, studiously ignored what was by far the most effective and dramatic response to Asia's tsunami disaster. A mighty task force of more than 20 US Navy ships, led by a vast nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the Abraham Lincoln, and equipped with nearly 90 helicopters, landing craft and hovercraft, were carrying out a round-the-clock relief operation, providing food, water and medical supplies to hundreds of thousands of survivors.
    [...]
    The real story of the week should thus have been the startling contrast between the impotence of the international organisations, the UN and the EU, and the remarkable efficiency of the US and Australian military on the ground. Here and there, news organisations have tried to report this, such as the Frankfurter Allgemeine in Germany, and even the China News Agency, not to mention various weblogs, such as the wonderfully outspoken Diplomad, run undercover by members of the US State Department, and our own www.eureferendum.blogspot.com. But when even Communist China's news agency tells us more about what is really going on than the BBC, we see just how strange the world has become.

    One real lesson of this disaster, as of others before, is that all the international aid in the world is worthless unless one has the hardware and organisational know-how to deliver it. That is what the US and Australia have been showing, as the UN and the EU are powerless to do. But because, to the BBC, it is a case of "UN and EU good, US and military bad", the story is suppressed. The BBC's performance has become a national scandal.
    To think the Brits have to pay to have this stuff shoved down their throats. This is the typical systemic anti-Americanism that we are fighting in the media around the world. The same anti-Americanism that leftists blame us for creating, yet that doesn't seem to ring true. When we do something wrong in the eyes of elite world leftists of course the world media is all over it, but when we are doing something that should be considered good be any rational person, there is an amazing lack of coverage. It would seem that it is not our actions that are causing anti-Americanism around the world, but rather biased news outlets like the BBC.

    Terrorists at Getmo are...ahhh...well you can read it from yourself

    From City Journal
    Even more than Afghanistan, Guantánamo dissipated any uncertainty the detainees might have had about the consequences of noncooperation. Consistent with the president's call for humane treatment, prisoners received expert medical care, three culturally appropriate meals each day, and daily opportunities for prayer, showers, and exercise. They had mail privileges and reading materials. Their biggest annoyance was boredom, recalls one interrogator. Many prisoners disliked the move from Camp X-Ray, the first facility used at the base, to the more commodious Camp Delta, because it curtailed their opportunities for homosexual sex, says an intelligence analyst.
    ROFL They're doing what? Aren't these people supposed to be "Islamic Fundamentalists?" Talk about hypocrisy. They want us dead because we don't brutally oppress women, but Johnny and Jake Jihad are getting it on in some cell at Getmo, wow!

    Note:You should read the rest of the article it is an extensive look at what works and why in interrogations. As well as, the effect the leftist propagandists are having on our security.

    Sunday, January 9

    The Irrelevancy of the Democratic Party

    This guy is gold:
    Thought for the day, from a gloomy party member on the Democratic Underground Web site: ''Reality sucks. That's the problem. We want another reality.''
    [...]
    As usual, the media did their best to string along with the Democrats' alternative reality. For the most part, the press now fulfill the same function for the party that kindly nurses do at the madhouse; if the guy thinks he's Napoleon, just smile affably and ask him how Waterloo's going. So Alan Fram of the Associated Press reported with a straight face that Sen. Boxer, Congressman Conyers and the other protesting Democrats ''hoped the showdown would underscore the problems such as missing voting machines and unusually long lines that plagued some Ohio districts, many in minority neighborhoods.''

    I think not. What it underscores is that the Democrats are losers. Speaking as a foreigner -- which I believe entitles me to vote in up to three California congressional districts -- I've voted on paper ballots all my life and reckon all these American innovations -- levers, punch cards, touch screen -- are a lot of flim-flam. I would be all in favor of letting the head of Bangladesh's electoral commission design a uniform federal ballot for U.S. elections. But that's not the issue here. What happens on Election Day is that the Democrats lose and then decide it was because of ''unusually long lines'' in ''minority neighborhoods.'' What ''minority neighborhoods'' means is electoral districts run by Democrats. In Ohio in 2004 as in Florida in 2000, the ''problems'' all occur in counties where the Dems run the system. Sometimes, as in King County in Washington, they get lucky and find sufficient votes from the ''disenfranchised'' accidentally filed in the icebox at Democratic headquarters. But in Ohio, Bush managed to win not just beyond the margin of error but beyond the margin of lawyer. If there'd been anything to sue and resue and re-resue over, you can bet those 5,000 shysters the Kerry campaign flew in would be doing it. Instead, Boxer and Conyers & Co. are using a kind of parliamentary privilege to taint Bush's victory without even the flimsiest pretext.
    [...]
    A Democrat chum said to me on Thursday, oh, well, they're just doing this to toss a bone to the base. But they're running out of bones to toss, and the base needs a reality check, not more pandering. One reason why the party has shriveled away to Greater New England plus the ''minority neighborhoods'' of a few cities is that it's all fringe, and no mainstream. The base is out of control; the kooks still holding their post-election vigil outside one of John Kerry's mansions sound no loopier than the big-time senators. The party has no urge to move on from moveon.org.
    He really sums it up perfectly. Read the whole article. It's well worth it.

    P.S. Mark Steyn's homepage.

    More Bias From the AP

    From the AP via Yahoo! News:
    Most of the 550 prisoners from 42 countries no longer are considered of significant intelligence value, but many swept up in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan aren't expected to be freed anytime soon - some because of stalled legal proceedings, others because they allegedly still pose a threat to the United States or its allies.
    The US didn't sweep up these individuals. They are combatants. They were captured in battle. These people aren't alleged threats either. They are terrorists. If we release them, they will go back and start planning how to kill Americans again. Some already have
    Although all prisoners are accused of links to Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime or the al-Qaida terrorist network, Osama bin Laden has remained at large since the Sept. 11 terror attacks killed nearly 3,000 people in the United States.
    This is what is called a "false clause." Notice that the first half of the sentence has nothing whatever to do with the second half.
    The four prisoners who have been charged are low-level suspects, including bin Laden's driver, an al-Qaida accountant, a propagandist and an Australian cowboy allegedly turned Taliban fighter.
    You got to love this. This Australian is an "alleged" Taliban fighter, as if the US military plucked him of the streets of Sydney. This guy was in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban. That makes him an accentual Taliban fighter, not an "alleged" one.
    The military also has seen three of its four cases of alleged spying at Guantanamo Bay fall apart. In September, the military dropped an espionage charge against Senior Airman Ahmad Al Halabi, who was accused of trying to deliver messages from detainees to an unidentified Syrian. Al Halabi pleaded guilty to four lesser charges, including taking an unauthorized picture of the camp.

    Still pending is a federal case against civilian translator Ahmed Mehalba, accused of lying about having classified materials.
    So there are four cases. Two of which they don't mention. Of the other two, we have one that is pending. So that one hasn't "fallen apart." And one where the guy pled out to a lesser charge. Hint to the AP: When you get a conviction, your case didn't "fall apart."

    The AP Doesn't Get It

    From the AP via myway.com:
    Newt Gingrich is taking steps toward a potential presidential bid in 2008 with a book criticizing President Bush's policies on Iraq and a tour of early campaign states.
    First, Gingrich didn't write a book "criticizing President Bush on Iraq." He wrote a book, which among numerous other things criticizes the Administration for "underestimating the effect of anti-U.S. propaganda from the Arab" media. Aside from that, maybe the AP forgot there was just an election, which among other things showed that "criticizing President Bush on Iraq" was not a winning strategy.

    American Values, Gonzales, and Our "So-Called War on Terrorism"

    From The New York Times:
    If the United States were to look into a mirror right now, it wouldn't recognize itself.

    The administration that thumbed its nose at the Geneva Conventions seems equally dismissive of such grand American values as honor, justice, integrity, due process and the truth.
    One has to wonder if the author even believes that such values ever existed.

    Our friends at Powerline sum this up nicely:
    I hate to devote two posts to a single Bob Herbert column, but I want to make a point about his very first line: "If the United States were to look into a mirror right now, it wouldn't recognize itself." Coming from a leftist like Herbert, this "fall from grace" story is worse than disingenuous. Except perhaps for the harrowing Carter years, the American left doesn't believe that the U.S. has ever experienced a period of grace. What is Herbert's line on the World War II internments or our conduct of the Vietnam war (just ask John Kerry)? What did Herbert and his fellow leftists think we looked like in the mirror during the Reagan era, when we "created" the homeless class while engaging in a reckless arms build-up and unilaterally attacked the likes of Libya and Granada? Or, a few years later, when we went to war with Iraq the first time to protect, as the left would have it, our oil interests?
    And more from the glory that is the NYT:
    His judgments regarding the detention and treatment of prisoners rounded up in Iraq and the so-called war on terror have been both unsound and shameful.
    If you live outside of the traditional liberal elitist centers like Washington DC, NYC, or Boston, you might be thinking: "WTF is the 'so-called War on Terror'?" Well, this phrase is common among Europeans. For those of you that have DirecTV, you can here about the "so-called War on Terror" on Link TV (Ch 375). The Channel is like a propaganda arm for the Marxist Stalinist Left. Basically, people who use the phrase "so-called War on Terror" are people that believe the War on Terrorism is a "construct" created to impose the "Imperialism of America" on the world. Note, many of these same people are the crazies that believe that 9/11 didn't happen or that it the US government orchestrate it.

    Again the folks at Powerline with some insight:
    This is one of the main reasons why I continue to believe that the Democrats will be making a mistake if they push too hard on this issue in connection with the Gonzales nomination. Since 9/11, the Democrats have suffered two major electoral defeats. In both elections, I believe, the main reason was the American public's doubts about the Democrats' seriousness when it comes to fighting terrorism. And these doubts are certainly the major common feature of the two elections. Even Herbert recognizes the problem, sort of, when he states "the Democrats have become the 98-pound weaklings of the 21st century." Unfortunately, Herbert doesn't realize that the Dems have become weaklings because the voting public already views them as such.

    The first day of the Senate hearings seemed to confirm that the key Senators opposing Gonzales don't take the war on terrorism very seriously. Democratic Senators (along, unfortunately, with Republican Lindsay Graham) kept arguing that our use of debatable interrogation tactics puts our soldiers in harm's way because it means that when they are captured they are more likely to be tortured. There is some truth to this argument, but it would have been nice if one of these Senators had acknowledged that our actual enemies will behead any American (soldier or not) that they capture regardless of what interrogations tactics we use. It would also have been edifying if Gonzales' opponents had recognized the possibility that information obtained through aggressive interrogation can save lives. But, again, if you don't think the war on terror is real, this point is easier to lose sight of.
    In other words, as long as Dems and their leaders see this war as a "so-called war," they are going to lose elections.

    BANNED in Iran

    Following the lead of other dictatorial regimes, Iran is banning Blogs.

    From slashdot.org:
    It appears that Iranian ISPs have been ordered to block a large number of popular Web sites, including weblogging, community, chat and email services. Web (particularly weblog) use has been increasing rapidly in Iran, with 64000+ weblogs published by Iranians via various sites. As of today, if the news is correct, the majority of these may be inaccessible to their authors, as will the email (eg. Yahoo) services they use to communicate with friends, colleagues and family worldwide. See stop.censoring.us and hoder.com for more details. The newly expanded blocks include PersianBlog, Blogger and the Google-hosted Orkut 'social networking' site, where Iranians come third after Brazil and USA, representing 7% of all users.
    Maybe this will shock some Iranians into more then just talk. It's time for the Iranians to step up before their government gets the kind of iron-fisted control that was present in pre-war Iraq.

    Chirac Encourages Cowardice

    From CNN:
    French President Jacques Chirac has warned journalists in France to stay out of Iraq, because their safety cannot be guaranteed.
    Good news for us. That's less biased lefty reporters the US military has to protect.

    Saturday, January 8

    In Case You Hadn't Noticed, the New York Times Has Sided With the Enemy

    From the NYT via the IHT:
    Gonzales is said to face a sure confirmation. But thanks to the members of the committee, including some Republicans, who met their duty to question Gonzales aggressively, the hearing served to confirm that Bush had made the wrong choice when he rewarded Gonzales for his loyalty. The nation deserves an attorney general who is not the public face for inhumane, illegal and clearly un-American policies.
    It amazes me that these people spend so much time worrying about the well being of terrorists. I only have one question: How many Americans are you willing to see dead to ensure that well being? I think you know my answer.

    Wednesday, January 5

    More Bad Leaders for the Palestinians

    From USA Today:
    In the past week, Abbas:

    o Called Israel the "Zionist enemy" after seven Palestinians were killed by an Israeli tank shell Tuesday in Gaza.

    o Was carried on the shoulders of a leader of the militant Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades group in Jenin and signaled in Gaza that he would protect militants sought by the Israelis for terrorist attacks.

    o Made demands that were sure to aggravate Israel including the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees who fled after Israel became a state, the withdrawal of Israeli forces and settlers to Israel's pre-1967 borders, and making Jerusalem the capital of a future Palestinian state.
    Looks like Abbas is going to continue to lead the Palestinians in their quest for death. How leaders could continue to push their people down this road that glorifies killing yourself is incomprehensible.

    Tuesday, January 4

    More Leftist Hypocrisy

    Imagine if I expressed an opinion like this one: "In this time of war, America needs a strong and poised leader. Since men exemplify these qualities, we should have more male leaders." This of course is a bunch of nonsense, and I'm sure I'd hear about it from the leftists. Shockingly however when the roles are reversed, the liberals have reversed their position as well.

    From The Christian Science Monitor:
    I do not think I would be in danger of making a politically incorrect statement if I suggested the world might be a better place if more women occupied positions of political office and prominence. They can be as strong as any male in leadership positions. Take, for example, Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher. They can, unfortunately, be as murderous as males - for example, the young women who have carried out suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. But by and large, women have a sensitivity that offers hope of a gentler approach to politics and international affairs.
    I only need two words to put the lie to that one: Hillary Clinton.

    Monday, January 3

    America Needs to "Wake Up" to What the UN Really Is

    UN officials need to remember who pays there salaries, Namely the US and Japan.

    Form CNN:
    The U.N. official overseeing relief efforts for the tsunami disaster has called on world leaders to "wake up" to numerous other humanitarian catastrophes that he said get little or no attention.
    [...]
    "Could we wake up please to those 20 forgotten emergencies" [Egeland]
    Nice to see he knows the facts. Maybe he should travel around his own continent spreading this message. The US already gives 40% of the world's disaster relief.

    Shockingly Al-Jazeera is in the Pocket of the Terrorists

    From the AP via the Jerusalem Post:
    According to Asharq al-Awsat's report, the tape of the March 13, 2000, meeting shows former Al-Jazeera manager Mohammed Jassem al-Ali telling Odai Saddam Hussein, "Al-Jazeera is your channel," and Odai recalls that he proposed "some ideas" in previous meetings that led to "some changes" in political coverage, including the introduction of new hosts on Al-Jazeera programs.
    To think people that broadcast terrorists cutting off peoples heads might be on Saddam's side. This is one of the fundamental problems we have in the Middle East. The population getting most of their news from these people who are bought and paid for by terrorists and their supporters. Is it any wonder terrorist find it so easy to indoctrinate fools to go blow themselves up? We need to cut this poison off before it infects anymore people with it's propaganda. A good start would be to kicking Al-Jazeera out of the US.

    Saturday, January 1

    Yanukovich Finally Hits the Rocks

    From The New York Times:
    Viktor F. Yanukovich resigned as Ukraine's prime minister on Friday, signaling the end of a tumultuous political drama that nearly propelled him to the presidency but resulted in his defeat after a popular uprising against state-sponsored electoral fraud.
    It was only a matter of time. He may think that he still has a future in politics, but he's damaged goods. Kuchma's faction will find someone not so obviously tainted for next time.
    Mr. Yanukovich said, bitingly, that he could not continue serving as prime minister under the country's new leadership, a reference to Mr. Yushchenko's approaching presidency. "I believe it is impossible to have any position in a state that is ruled by such officials," he said.
    I'm sure they were just lining up to work for you too.
    Mr. Yanukovich remained defiant, insisting he was the rightful victor in the elections. He charged that tens of thousands of Ukrainians had been prevented from voting in the new runoff because of changes in election laws adopted by Parliament after the demonstrations in Kiev and other cities.
    Call Jessie Jackson!

    A Partial Peace Reaches Sudan

    From the Washington Post:
    The Sudanese government and rebels in the southern part of the country signed the final chapters of a peace deal Friday, clearing the way for a comprehensive accord ending Africa's longest-running civil war.
    This is obviously a positive development, and while it doesn't end the crisis in Darfur, it provides a outline for such an agreement there. With 70,000 people dead in Darfur as a result of the fighting, peace there is sorely needed.
    The United States has put strong diplomatic pressure on Sudan to make peace in the south, so that it can focus on ending the separate crisis in Darfur.
    Where ever there is conflict there are the evil Americans pushing for peace.