April 24-25, 2007
Apr 24 10:40 Better to be Thought a Fool... Apr 24 21:57 Reid In Full Backpedal Mode Apr 25 00:23 Pelosi to Miss Petraeus Briefing? Apr 25 00:47 No Calling This Democrat a Pacifist Apr 25 10:26 Tarryl Gets Hammered Apr 25 15:12 Dems Think They Can Legislate Defeat Apr 25 15:57 Want Candidness From Democrat Candidates? Lock Out the Press Apr 25 16:06 Check It Out
Prior Years: 2006
Better to be Thought a Fool...
There's an old cliche that says that "It's better to keep your mouth shut & be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." Based on this LA Times op-ed, former Sen. George McGovern would've been wise to have heeded that axiom. He didn't and now he looks like a doddering, defensive policymaker whose time has long passed. The object of his scorn in this op-ed is Vice President Dick Cheney. Here's a sampling of his scorn:
Cheney charged that today's Democrats don't appreciate the terrorist danger when they move to end U.S. involvement in the Iraq war. The fact is that Bush and Cheney misled the public when they implied that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks. That was the work of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda team. Cheney and Bush blew the effort to trap Bin Laden in Afghanistan by their sluggish and inept response after the 9/11 attacks.Mr. McGovern's op-ed is another 'episode' of "Bush lied, people died." This works in their minds because that's what they heard when President Bush made his justification for war with Saddam's terrorist nation. It's a shame that that isn't what he said.
What's worse with that paragraph is that McGovern uses that Democrat talking point instead of proving the Bush administration wrong. Vice President Cheney said that "Democrats don't appreciate the terrorist danger when they move to end U.S. involvement in the Iraq war." Based on how fast they expect the war to end, that's an accurate statement. Instead of proving Cheney's statement wrong, McGovern slips to the "Bush lied, people died" mantra.
That's what's called spin inside the Beltway. In flyover country where I live, it's called avoiding the subject. That's predictable behavior for Democrats. When they can't win the argument, they switch subjects. The way to defeat them, I simply let them have their rant, then I ask them to deal with the facts that I've presented. If they refuse to deal with the central facts, then you know you've won. What's even better is that they know you've won. Let's deal with each of McGovern's claims.
The fact is that Bush and Cheney misled the public when they implied that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11.Think of what Mr. McGovern is saying. He said that the Bush administration "implied" that Iraq was involved in 9/11. By saying that, he's admitting that they didn't explicitly say that. Stop and think about that. The only 'proof' that he can provide is that that's what he thinks they said. It says more about his line of thinking than anything else.
Cheney and Bush blew the effort to trap Bin Laden in Afghanistan by their sluggish and inept response after the 9/11 attacks.I'd like to know what Mr. McGovern is basing this statement on. Is he basing his opinion on the fact that the Coalition military drove the Taliban government? Or is he basing it on the fact that the Coalition won a war in Afghanistan, something that no other military had ever done before?
I suspect that McGovern thinks that Afghanistan was a failure because we didn't hand Osama's head to President Bush. That's a disappointment but it's hardly justification for saying that the Bush administration's response was "sluggish and inept."
Just as the Bush administration mistakenly asserted Iraq's involvement in the 9/11 attacks, it also falsely contended that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. When former Ambassador Joseph Wilson exploded the myth that Iraq attempted to obtain nuclear materials from Niger, Cheney's top aide and other Bush officials leaked to the media that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent (knowingly revealing the identity of a covert agent is illegal).GRRRR. Joe Wilson didn't explode "the myth that Iraq attempted to obtain nuclear materials from Niger." In fact, Bush's Sixteen Words didn't even contain the word Niger. Here's what he said in that SOTU:
"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."Here's Factcheck's analysis of Joe Wilson's 'findings':
Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.
- A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush's 16 words "well founded."
- A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from "a number of intelligence reports," a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
- Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush's 16 words a "lie", supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
- Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn't have been part of Bush's speech.The CIA, which sent Wilson on his mission, said that his information confirmed the validity of President Bush's 'Sixteen Words'. By definition, that means that Wilson didn't "explode the myth" of Bush's 'Sixteen Words'.
Furthermore, rebutting Wilson's lies was the Bush administration's right and their responsibility because Wilson was part of the Kerry campaign's foreign policy team at the time. Not rebutting him would've been seen as the Bush campaign not responding to a Kerry unproven allegation.
Then again, McGovern, Kerry and Wilson would rather not have you remember that part. They'd rather use this as 'proof' that President Bush is a ruthless, evil man who destroys anyone that "speaks truth to power" to his administration. Instead, it's just proof that the Bush administration sought to set the record straight rather than let a lying backstabbing backbencher get away with maligning his administration.
In attacking my positions in 1972 as representative of "that old party of the early 1970s," Cheney seems oblivious to the realities of that time. Does he remember that the Democratic Party, with me in the lead, reformed the presidential nomination process to ensure that women, young people and minorities would be represented fairly? The so-called McGovern reform rules are still in effect and, indeed, have been largely copied by the Republicans.Cheney wasn't referring to universal healthcare or artificially lowering the unemployment rate through government spending. He wasn't even thinking about the "so-called McGovern reform rules." What Vice President Cheney was specifically referring to was McGovern's peacenik amnesty plan for all draft dodgers. He was also referring to Democrats cutting off funding for the South Vietnamese , which utterly destroyed our credibility with the 'World Community'.
The Democrats' 1972 platform was also in the forefront in pushing for affordable healthcare, full employment with better wages, a stronger environmental and energy effort, support for education at every level and a foreign policy with less confrontation and belligerence and more cooperation and conciliation.
It isn't surprising that Mr. McGovern would try mischaracterizing Bush administration policy. It isn't even surprising that he'd try mischaracterizing Vice President Cheney's reference to McGovern's policies.
That's what happens when a liberal can't win a fight on the merits.
Posted Tuesday, April 24, 2007 10:42 AM
No comments.
Reid In Full Backpedal Mode
According to this article in the Politico, several Democrats are backing away from Harry Reid's statement that we can't win the war in Iraq. In fact, Jim Manley, Reid's spokesman, is singing a different tune:
Jim Manley, Reid's spokesman, said earlier that the "war is lost" comment was not in Reid's prepared text for the news conference last Thursday. But from now on, Manley said, the senator will "couch it more": The mission in Iraq is not working and must be changed.I'll guarantee that Reid sees the firestorm he created with his statement. Now he's backpedaling in a major damage control effort. The Washington definition of a gaffe is saying what you really believe in an unguarded moment. If you go to that 'dictionary' for the definition of a 'major gaffe', the only thing you'll find is a YouTube clip of Reid's disparaging, anti-military statements. Now he's getting 'help' from his Senate colleagues:
"I understand what he was trying to say," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), although she acknowledged that Reid's comments had caused a political problem for Democrats. "I think it was more a problem of tone rather than of substance."DiFi, it isn't a matter of tone. It's purely a matter of substance. He said what he said and it's obvious that he meant it. Let's put that horrible statement in context. Let's remember that he's got to say what the Insane Left tells him to say if he hopes that they'll keep funding Senate campaigns. Let's also remember that Reid is the idiot that rejoiced at killing the Patriot Act:
WALLACE: All right. Change of subject. You voted this week to block renewal of the Patriot Act, and as we mentioned with Secretary of State Rice, key provisions of that act are due to expire by the end of the year.Now he wants us to believe that he's pro victory in Iraq? Are we to believe that the man who rejoiced at taking away vital tools from law enforcement would give the military the things it needs for victory? Speaking charitably, that argument is laughable. Sen. Reid's statements about killing the Patriot Act to loud applause shows that Harry Reid and the Democrats attending that press event aren't serious about fighting terrorists. If they were, they wouldn't have celebrated defeating the Patriot Act, which is the most important pieces of legislation in fighting the jihadists.
After the vote on Friday, you talked at a Democratic Party meeting, and let's take a look at what you had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Think of what happened 20 minutes ago in the United States Senate. We killed the Patriot Act.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Senator, is that really something to celebrate?
REID: Of course it is. The fact is that I voted for the original Patriot Act. It was the right thing to do. And the Patriot Act that I talked about there, at least some semblance of it, came out of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate unanimously. It passed the Senate unanimously. It was an improvement over what we had.
In other words, Sen. Feinstein is spinning Reid's quote for all it's worth. The truth is that Democrats like Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha and Dennis Kucinich aren't the least bit engaged in fighting the jihadists. If they were, they'd understand the importance of winning in Iraq.
If the Democrats were serious about defeating the jihadists, they'd be offering alternative plans for winning in Iraq. They'd understand that Iraq is Ground Zero to terrorists like AQI. Instead, the Democrats talk about Iraq only in the context of gaining a political advantage. They should be ashamed of themselves.
That said, Democrats wouldn't be Democrats if they had any shame.
Check out Captain Ed's post about Nancy Pelosi's refusal to even attend Gen. Petraeus' briefing of the House tomorrow. Ed's post is all the proof you need on whether Reid and Pelosi take Iraq seriously from a national security level.
Posted Tuesday, April 24, 2007 10:00 PM
No comments.
Pelosi to Miss Petraeus Briefing?
ABC's Jake Tapper is reporting that
ABC News has learned, however, that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., will not attend the briefing.What type of scheduling conflicts would prevent Ms. Pelosi from learning the truth about what's happening in Iraq? Is it that she can't miss her Botox treatment? Or is it that she's making a surprise trip to Iran with Tom Lantos? Or is it that she simply doesn't care about what's happening with Iraq because she's gotten her marching orders from Gen. George Soros?
"She can't make the briefing tomorrow," a Democratic aide told ABC News Tuesday evening. "But she spoke with the general via phone today at some length." A Pelosi aide said the speaker on Tuesday requested a one-on-one meeting with Petraeus but that could not be worked out. He said their phone conversation lasted 30 minutes.
Last week, House Democratic leaders were criticized by their Republican counterparts when they initially declined an invitation from Petraeus to brief House members on the status of the war due to "scheduling conflicts."
Only her facelift technician knows for sure.
Seriously, what type of things are more important than a briefing on Iraq from the in-theater commander? Her statement, sent out through a "Democratic aide", was that she talked with Gen. Petraeus for half an hour. Will Ms. Pelosi tell us that she found his information persuasive? Or will she mimic Harry Reid in saying that she won't believe Gen. Petraeus if there are reports of progress?
America better wake up if they don't want America-hating ideologues like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton setting policy on the war against the jihadists. This is a life and death matter. If Ms. Pelosi isn't willing to reconfigure her schedule for this, we have to question her commitment to national security. We also have to question her decision-making ability.
Ms. Pelosi's ignoring this briefing is a pathetic display of stewardship and leadership. She deserves to be taken to task for this. Additionally, House and Senate Democrats need to pay an electoral price for their cavalier, disgusting attitude towards our national security.
At this time, I'd urge those people who would've been Reagan Democrats and Lieberman Democrats to examine the Democratic Party. I ask honest, thinking Democrats if these Democrats deserve your support. Finally, I ask you how far short they fall of JFK's great "We will bear any burden" standard.
I suggest to you that they don't hold a candle to truly patriotic Democrats like JFK, Harry S, FDR, Scoop Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In fact, I'd suggest that they fall so fall short as to be considered insignificant parasites compared with those great Democrats.
But by the end of the day, Pelosi's office changed course and scheduled a briefing for members of the House for Wednesday, April 25. The office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the senator would attend the classified briefing with senators on Wednesday at 4 p.m.TRANSLATION: Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel told Reid and Pelosi that they were getting crucified in the polls and by their enablers the Agenda Media.
Let us never forget that the Pelosi-Reid Democrats were willing to shirk their duties because they wanted to play politics with our servicemen's lives. They should pay a steep price for that type of stunt.
Posted Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:25 AM
No comments.
No Calling This Democrat a Pacifist
Based on this AP article, I certainly can't accuse this Democrat of being a pacifist. What I can do, though, is say that the AP sat on the article long enough:
A man accused of threatening a Nevada Republican Party official with a rifle was arrested Tuesday in a vehicle in which police found swords, knives, a shotgun, shells and a flare gun, authorities said. Matthew Hunter Kramer, 31, did not resist officers who arrested him on a warrant issued after the April 3 confrontation at state Republican Party offices in Las Vegas. It wasn't clear why he was not arrested earlier.The first thing I'd ask Kramer is if he's related to Jim Webb. I'd doubt it since he's willing to take responsibility for his actions but it's worth asking. Another thing I'd ask him is why he'd be so upset that he'd shoot somebody if President Bush vetoes the emergency war supplemental. Would it be because he wants the troops to get the supplies they need? Somehow I doubt that but....
Zachary Moyle, executive director of the state GOP, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that Kramer invited him to look at something in the trunk of his Mercedes before pulling out a rifle, pointing it at his face and warning that he would be back if President Bush vetoed an emergency war spending bill being considered by Congress.
Kramer also removed photos of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney from the wall of the office and threatened to harm staff members, Moyle said. Kramer left his cell phone number with office staff before leaving, police said.This is one of the most bizarre articles I've ever read. Why would Mr. Kramer leave his cell phone number after he'd committed a variety of felonies?
Finally, why the AP first reported on this incident now when the crime was committed 3 weeks ago? Isn't that just a bit odd?
Posted Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:48 AM
Comment 1 by The Lady Logician at 25-Apr-07 10:18 AM
According to the article they are just reporting on it now because they just got all the info for it now. Obviously, the victim was not going to comment until they had the perp under arrest so as not to "scare him off".
Personally I am surprised that this got reported AT ALL!!!!
LL
Comment 2 by sonia at 13-Jun-07 06:01 PM
check this video...very nice...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yOV5-eEM2qU
Tarryl Gets Hammered
Based on these comments, it seems that people commenting on the Times' article about Tarryl Clark aren't too happy with her. Here's a small sampling of what they said:
Deminn says:
She'd be wise to start off by abandoning that DFL in-state tuition for Illegal Immigrant nonsense that's helping to marginalize her party.Beebee says:
Senator Clark voted no on a bill that would reduce the debt load of college students. Now she is supported another bill that would allow illegal immigrants a break on tuition. I was behind her 100 percent during the campaign when all she had were promises. She's broken those promising concerning education , no matter how many bills she's authored/co-authored.tam850 said:
She got in and started doing things counter to her promises? And you folks are surprised? Extend that to every one of the last election winners. How many said they would raise this many different taxes and claim that a 10% budget bump is not enough.
This is what MN Democrats do...it is what they have always done. Why are you always so surprised when they promise something else, then revert to what comes naturally?
Al from Sartell says:
Taxpayer dollars for Illegal aliens? Surely, that can't be. Wouldn't it be better use of the money to invest it in deportation?Finally, I can't resist this statement from take that:
Tarryl needs to disengage herself from Larry Pogemiller. Pogemiller is the most liberal member of the Senate and Tarryl has aligned herself with him. They seem joined at the hip. Tarryl might be cute but her looks are only going to carry her so far.First, let me put these statements in context. These were a sampling of the opinions expressed after this article. The article made it sound like Tarryl was a combination of Jane Fonda's advocacy, Mother Teresa's compassion for humanity and the Cavalry riding to the rescue of Minnesota's budget process. (Yes, that's said with tongue planted firmly in cheek.)
Still, it's impossible to imagine a way in which the Times could prop Tarryl up much more. I'm not sure I would've written that type of press release if I were part of her campaign team. Here's what I'm referring to:
Just back from a weekend trip to Washington to lobby Minnesota members of Congress, the St. Cloud assistant Senate majority leader announced Monday she would be taking over the lead Senate negotiating position on the K-12 education budget bill conference committee. That's because the committee chairman and author of the Senate K-12 bill, Sen. Leroy Stumpf, DFL-Plummer, was hospitalized Friday after complaining of chest pains.What's most encouraging to me is how the readers cut through the article to focus on the issues that mattered most to them. I was particularly encouraged to see them talking about the Dream Act, an odd bill if ever there was one. Let me explain why I think it's odd.
--------------------
"It's an honor to get to do this," Clark said. "I'll have (Sen. Stumpf's) excellent staff to help us out as well as Sen. Stumpf himself. And I'll still be working on my other stuff as well." The conference committee could meet daily until a final bill is hammered out. Clark, a member of Stumpf's E-12 Education Budget Division, was not appointed to the conference committee last week but will now be the bill's lead Senate author.
1. Why spend political capital on a deeply divisive issue as giving subsidized tuition rates to illegal aliens? The only explanation for the DFL's taking this position is because they think they have unlimited political capital or they think nobody was going to notice.
2. It's also odd from the standpoint that Democrats, especially Sandy Pappas, have screamed about "starving Higher Education." It seems to me that legislation that eliminates the subsidizing of tuitions for illegal aliens would increase the money available for Minnesota students and those covered by Minnesota's reciprocity laws.
I'd further suggest that this isn't a good political move for Tarryl because now she'll have her fingerprints all over legislation that includes exorbitant tax increases.
Posted Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:26 AM
No comments.
Dems Think They Can Legislate Defeat
That's the pathetic prediction by House and Senate Democrats heading into the votes legislating defeat in Iraq. The AP is describing this as "a historic confrontation with Bush." That's spin of the worst kind. Let me apply some truth in advertising principles to what's really happening. This is historic in the sense that, for the first time in American history, the House and Senate will be legislating defeat.
The House vote scheduled Wednesday comes as the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and other defense officials try to convince lawmakers that a timetable would push Iraq into chaos. But Democrats said they were undeterred, guaranteeing a historic confrontation with Bush.What's ironic about Ms. Pelosi's statement is that, should they shut off funds to our troops, they'll be blamed for America's defeat. It wouldn't be that Republicans declared defeat.
"For the first time, the president will have to be accountable for this war in Iraq," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA), said Tuesday. "And he does not want to face that reality."
By following Gen. George Soros' marching orders, Ms. Pelosi will give southerners all the reason they need to defeat all the Democratic freshmen that ran to the right of the Soros Brigade.
Worse yet, Pelosi and Reid will have told the American military infrastructure that they loathe the troops, that they don't believe in their mission and they don't mind cutting their heart out by lying to them about supporting them financially.
Democrats view the November elections that allowed them to take control of the House and the Senate as a referendum on Bush's conduct of the war. Bush, however, says he stands firm on his latest strategy for winning the war and dismisses as counterproductive the Democratic call for withdrawal.Fred Barnes said that Sen. Lindsey Graham has a question for defeatist Democrats who've said that the war is lost. That question is "If we lost, who won?" Fred went on to say that, if we declared defeat, then Iran would be a big winner, with AQI being the other big winner. I'd add that the entire Middle East would be the losers. That's in addition to the US being the losers.
"That means our commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from legislators 6,000 miles away on Capitol Hill," Bush told reporters Tuesday. "The result would be a marked advantage for our enemies and a greater danger for our troops."
Meanwhile, Hillary stays out of this foodfight so she can say that she supported the troops. That's utter nonsense. Is she planning on not voting to cut off funding to the troops. If she doesn't vote for cutting off the funding, then the legislation is doomed in the Senate. Once that happens, she can't argue with any credibility that she supported the troops. In fact, she's been a shrinking violet of a leader when it comes to putting together a strategy to win in Iraq. In fact, she hasn't said how she'd defeat the jihadists, either.
America best be watching because that's the type of 'leadership' we'd get if she's elected president. That isn't leadership by my definition. It's an example of a failed stewardship of our national security.
That doesn't qualify as leadership in thinking, patriotic people. That's called bungling in the real world.
Posted Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:13 PM
No comments.
Want Candidness From Democrat Candidates? Lock Out the Press
Believe it or not, that's what Howard Dean said:
The head of the Democratic Party said Wednesday that the best way to get presidential candidates to talk frankly about issues is to lock out the media.This actually makes alot of sense from one perspective. It makes sense from the standpoint that Democrats rarely reveal who they are during campaigns. It's only after they're elected that they show their true colors. That's what they've done all the way up the food chain.
During the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, a banker expressed frustration with candidates who only talk in sound bites and wondered how that could be changed. Howard Dean, once a presidential candidate, offered a simple solution.
"I suggest you have candidates in to meetings like this and bar the press," Dean said.
A perfect example of Democrats hiding their agenda was the DFL here in Minnesota running on fiscal moderation, saying that they wouldn't raise taxes, etc. Now they hold strong majorities in the House and Senate. Now they're proposing billions of dollars in new taxes.
Another perfect example of Democrats hiding their agenda until elected is their saying that they wouldn't cut off funding to the troops. They're likely to vote on cutting off funding to our troops in the House. They'll vote on that in the Senate on Thursday.
Don't take my word on them changing their 'beliefs'. Here's an article praising Reid for changing his support for the troops:
But there is reason to believe that his provocative-if arguably clumsy-rhetoric is the product of a correct calculation that the public is warming to the more aggressive Democratic posture on the war.This guy is praising Reid for finally fully supporting the Insane Left's defeatist policy on Iraq.
Recall that, back in November, Mr. Reid deemed it necessary to reassure voters that Democrats were "not going to do anything to limit funding" of the war. But just a few weeks ago, he felt secure enough to put his name on legislation that would essentially defund that very same war by next March. And this week, he prodded Democrats to include a six-month troop-withdrawal timetable in a funding bill that will soon be sent to the President.
Let's return to more Dean insanity:
"The media has been reduced to info-tainment," Dean said. "Info-tainment sells, the problem is they reach the lowest common denominator instead of forcing a little education down our throats, which we are probably in need of from time to time."Insane Leftists like Dean think that the media is too conservative. That's why they've attacked Fox News and talk radio as fonts of disinformation. That's utterly laughable. The Strib can put out page after page of the DFL's press releases for Amy Klobuchar and Keith Ellison but that's ok. The St. Cloud Times can publish an article best described as gushy about Tarryl Clark but that's ok, too.
Let Brit Hume or Mort Kondracke say anything negative about a Democrat and all hell breaks loose. The truth is that liberals couldn't get elected if they openly campaigned on what they really intended to do.
Let this be a wakeup call to all of the conservatives who stayed home last fall to "teach Republicans a lesson." That group is as much to blame for the crisis that our military is now facing as anyone. To those who stayed home last time, I'll simply say this: You'd better get off your backsides soon so we can rid Washington of the political hacks you helped elect by staying home.
One last thing: Whatever happened to the liberal mantra that sunlight was the best disinfectant?
Posted Wednesday, April 25, 2007 4:00 PM
No comments.
Check It Out
My good friend Leo has changed the look of his website. It looks great. Even better is the fact that the page loads almost instantly, a dramatic change from the past.
As always, though, the content is terrific. Stop past & say hi to Leo.
Posted Wednesday, April 25, 2007 4:06 PM
No comments.
