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

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
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 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
    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
    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.

    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 and 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.