December 17-19, 2006
Dec 17 02:44 Barr Jumps GOP Ship for Libertarian Party Dec 19 04:46 Santorum Continues Fighting the Good Fight Dec 19 11:57 Sen. Boxer, Rescind That Award Dec 19 18:30 Active Duty Soldiers Call for An End to the Occupation of Iraq Dec 19 21:23 It's Official: TJackson Will Start Thursday Dec 19 22:55 Tuesday's Must Reading Dec 19 23:56 Cheney Will Testify in Libby Case
Barr Jumps GOP Ship for Libertarian Party
Former Clinton impeachment manager Bob Barr has left the GOP, joining the Libertarian Party instead. There was a time when Bob Barr was a good conservative but those days are in his past now. Here's Bob Barr's explanatiton on why he left the GOP:
"It's something that's been bothering me for quite some time, the direction in which the party has been going more and more toward big government and disregard toward privacy and civil liberties," said Barr, 58, a lawyer and consultant living in Atlanta. "In terms of where the country needs to be going to get back to our constitutional roots ... I've come to the conclusion that the only way to do that is to work with a party that practices what it preaches, and that is the Libertarian Party."I suspect that Barr left mostly because of the "liberty issues" he talked about. Barr's been an outspoken opponent of the Patriot Act and the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program. It's his right to advocate that position but that doesn't mean he's right on the issue.
I have real trouble with Barr's position based on this lawsuit that he's part of:
What is the NSA Domestic Spying Program?That isn't even close to an accurate description of the NSA program. In fact, it's a pack of bald-faced lies. Gen. Hayden testified about it under oath during his confirmation hearings. He dispelled all those myths during his testimony. Still, Barr persists even though he's relying on secondhand information at best. In Bob Barr's world, we'd be fighting the terrorists blind. He'll deny it, of course, but it's his actions that give him away. Frankly, Barr sounds like he's reading his lines straight from the NY Times' original article on the NSA intercept program. Forgive me if I don't see Barr as a libertarian or the NY Times as an objective news source.
Sometime in 2001, the president authorized the NSA to intercept telephone and Internet communications of Americans inside the United States, without the authorization of any law or court. Under the program, the NSA is intercepting and analyzing millions of ordinary Americans' communications, with the help of the country's largest phone and Internet companies. The president has stated that he authorized the domestic spying in 2001, that he has reauthorized the program more than 30 times since its inception, and intends to continue doing so.
Frankly, Mr. Barr owes the dedicated people at the NSA a formal apology for accusing them of breaking the law.
Frankly, so does the NY Times.
Posted Sunday, December 17, 2006 2:45 AM
No comments.
Santorum Continues Fighting the Good Fight
It drives me crazy knowing that Rick Santorum won't be part of a Republican majority when the 110th Congress convenes. He's one of the few principled politicians of the past decade. It's also a shame because he's one of the few senators who actually gets it with the GWOT. The good news is that he'll be writing a book about it when he leaves the Senate. According to Salena Zito, the book will be based on his "Gathering Storm" speech that became part of his stump speech. Here's a glimpse into what Sen. Santorum will do once he leaves the Senate:
Rick Santorum says he will remain a vocal advocate of America's war on terror, what he calls "the greatest problem...a very grave threat to the future and security of our country", despite losing his U.S. Senate seat. The always-outspoken Republican is "working on a lot of different things...to play a part in that struggle," although he remains noncommittal about his next job and his political future.As I said during the campaign, Bob Casey doesn't have gravitas; Sen. Santorum does. The truth is that Sen. Santorum has a detailed understanding of what's all involved with the war against the jihadists; Casey is clueless. What this proves is that this election wasn't about qualifications; it was about the nation irrationally venting itself. If it was about qualifications, Santorum would be the second-ranking Republican in the majority party.
He criticized news coverage of the war in Iraq, declaring: "I have always said that if World War II was covered like this war, I really, very seriously, doubt that we would have ever won that war...The bottom line is, the media, and I am not saying that they are intending to do this, but simply by what they are doing, without question, it is aiding the terrorists and their objective."Democrats were quick to point out that the Iraq war has lasted longer than WW II, which is true. What they didn't say was that there have been fewer casualties in 3+ years of war in Iraq than what the US sustained at Normandy, much less in WW II.
Another lesson to be learned about this is that bin Laden was right in thinking that the American people don't have the stomach or steadfastness to win protracted, messy wars that last longer than a couple months. Part of their squeamishness should be put at Democrats' feet. They've been whining about this war almost since its beginning. They've been wimps on the war while ignoring the dangers of failing in Iraq.
Ultimately, that's what did Sen. Santorum in. That's a crying shame. We needed more leaders like Sen. Santorum, not more wimps like Casey.
Posted Tuesday, December 19, 2006 4:46 AM
Comment 1 by Dave in Pgh. at 19-Dec-06 10:20 AM
Exactly right. The killer thing for me is that Santorum says what he means, he means what he says, and not enough people would listen. I had the opportunity to hear him speak at my neighborhood community center back in September (this would have been the "Islamic fascism" stump speech, the precursor to the "gathering storm" speech), and I was impressed not only to hear a politician speak from the heart, but also to listen to a political speech that betrayed an astonishing degree of historical awareness for a sitting office holder.
How many people get elected (or get jobs in the news media) and begin acting as though the world began in 2003? Instead of turning him out, the electorate should have sent 100 Rick Santorums to the Senate. Are the voters afraid of someone who is smarter and more knowledgable than they are?
Mindboggling.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 19-Dec-06 06:08 PM
Thanks for those insights, Dave. As usual, we're on the same page.
BTW, Dave is one of my favorite bloggers. If the Ohligarch isn't part of your daily reading, they you're missing out on a valuable perspective.
Here's the link to Dave's blog:
http://ohligarchy.blogspot.com/
Sen. Boxer, Rescind That Award
Awhile back, I signed up to get CAIR's daily e-letter. One of the tidbits of news from yesterday's e-letter was that Sen. Barb Boxer had given Basim Elkarra the "'Outstanding Service' award in recognition of his efforts to protect civil liberties and to build bridges among diverse communities in California." This morning, Joe Kaufmann issued an official statement asking for Sen. Boxer to withdraw the award. Here's the heart of Joe's statement:
As Executive Director, Basim Elkarra has defended someone that trained for jihad in a Pakistani terrorist camp; he has defended an imam that urged a Pakistani crowd to wage attacks on America; and he has defended an imam that was attempting to build an Islamic school for the purpose of teaching children how to commit violent acts against Americans. As well, Elkarra has described Israel as a "racist" and "apartheid" state, and he has moderated an event that featured a Hamas operative who spent five years in an Israeli prison and who is currently on trial in the U.S.Here's the question I have for Sen. Boxer and Basim Elkarra: How do you "build bridges among diverse communities in California" while defending "someone that trained for jihad in a Pakistani terrorist camp" and "an imam that urged a Pakistani crowd to wage attacks on America"? Forgive me if I don't understand how you can do both simultaneously without talking out of both sides of your mouth. Perhaps Sen. Boxer can explain how that's done.
Something that I found curious is that there isn't a trace of this news either on Sen. Boxer's website or on CAIR-Sacramento's website. If Sen. Boxer thinks that Basim Elkarra's efforts are worthy of this award, shouldn't she have issued an official statement announcing this award? You'd certainly think that CAIR-Sacramento Valley would've issued an official statement on this. The only reasonable explanation that I can think of is that they haven't posted the official statements on their respective websites. The only place this news appears is here.
The other explanation for the lack of publicity on this award is that Sen. Boxer supports Elkarra's work but doesn't want California's voters to know that she's supportive of Elkarra.
I join Joe Kaufman and Americans Against Hate in asking for Sen. Boxer to rescind this award because I don't think it's justifiable. I'd further suggest that the people of California demand an explanation of Sen. Boxer for why she thinks Mr. Elkarra is deserving of any award, much less an award for building "bridges among diverse communities in California."
Posted Tuesday, December 19, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment 1 by Saleha at 22-Jan-07 02:39 PM
Half of what youve written makes no sense due to the fact that it is speculation and opinion.... if you have any proof than bring it forth in full context.... and not in your selected context and do not put your opinions within the context.... let those who read your work understand in full what was said by Basim.
Active Duty Soldiers Call for An End to the Occupation of Iraq
That's the headline for an article written by The Nation's Marc Cooper. I clicked on the link just to see what type of verification was required to sign the petition. There wasn't any verification that the petition required. That means that any Tom, Dick or Mary Poppins could sign the petition & nobody would be the wiser. Here's the opening two paragraphs from the article:
For the first time since Vietnam, an organized, robust movement of active-duty US military personnel has publicly surfaced to oppose a war in which they are serving. Those involved plan to petition Congress to withdraw American troops from Iraq.I'm skeptical that "nearly 1,000 US soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen, including dozens of officers" have signed this petition because I was able to enter the name Mary Poppins into the petition. In this instance, 'Mary' hadn't served in Iraq but she was an E-5 in the Navy. To the best of my knowledge, 'Mary's' signature was accepted for the petition.
After appearing only seven weeks ago on the Internet, the Appeal for Redress, brainchild of 29-year-old Navy seaman Jonathan Hutto, has already been signed by nearly 1,000 US soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen, including dozens of officers, most of whom are on active duty. Not since 1969, when some 1,300 active-duty military personnel signed an open letter in the New York Times opposing the war in Vietnam, has there been such a dramatic barometer of rising military dissent.
Another thing worth remembering is the fact that 1,000 troops isn't a substantial number of troops. This afternoon, I talked with a soldier who's heading to Iraq in March. This soldier said that there's approximately 2,000,000 people serving in the military. According to my Minnesota math calculations, that figures out to being .05 of a percent. It's understatement to say that that's a statistically insignificant number.
At the end of the day, this is just an article from a far left wing rag attempting to drum up support for their lunatic anti-war positions. It's much sound and fury, signifying nothing in my opinion.
Posted Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment 1 by Spy D Rman at 20-Dec-06 12:50 AM
I just signed the petition as Spy D Rman, an E-1 serving in the Iraq Theater from the Zip code 90210.
It's Official: TJackson Will Start Thursday
In a move that's certain to please the Vikings' fans, Coach Brad Childress announced that rookie QB Tarvaris Jackson will start Thursday night in historic Lambeau Field against Brett Favre.
A number of people I've talked with have what I consider to be too high expectations for TJax but I still like TJax starting for these reasons:
1. Superior arm strength- Brad Johnson's arm is so bad that I've nicknamed him Mr. Checkdown. He simply wasn't willing or able to make plays downfield. We saw Sunday that TJax is perfectly willing to take his shots downfield.
2. We get to see how good he is. If he flops, then they use the high pick to draft a Jamarcus Russell if comes out.
3. If Jackson does well, then they'll know that they've got a keeper & that they won't have to go after a QB in the draft or free agency. That allows valuable free agent money to be spent upgrading other positions like the offensive line, the secondary and tight end.
I don't see a downside to Childress' decision to start Jackson. It's better to fidn out what you've got now rather than wait until training camp. You avoid spending money of a megabucks free agent, too. Plus, the rookie plays against real defenses rather than the vanilla defenses of preseason games.
Posted Tuesday, December 19, 2006 9:23 PM
No comments.
Tuesday's Must Reading
Today's must reading is this post from Christi King's Common Sense America blog. I first learned about Christi's blog about on December 8th when Christi linked to my post about Hamas's secret meeting with "senior Democratic officials." Since then, I've made a daily visit to her blog for a helping of old-fashioned common sense on the biggest issues of the day. If you want to give yourself an 'early Christmas present', then I'd strongly recommend stopping past Christi's post on the Little Drummer Boy.
Posted Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:55 PM
No comments.
Cheney Will Testify in Libby Case
Of course, that isn't how it's worded in this AP article. The opening paragraph reads like this:
Vice President Dick Cheney will be called to testify on behalf of his former chief of staff in the CIA leak case, defense attorneys said Tuesday, ending months of speculation over what would be historic testimony.Just like others in the Agenda Media, the AP refuses to get the facts straight in this case. Valerie Plame's name wasn't leaked. We know that she was 'outed' by her husband from this Andrew McCarthy column. Here's what McCarthy said:
In fact, it appears Plame was first outed to the general public as a result of a consciously loaded and slyly hypothetical piece by the journalist David Corn. Corn's source appears to have been none other than Plame's own husband, former ambassador and current Democratic-party operative Joseph Wilson , that same pillar of national security rectitude whose notion of discretion, upon being dispatched by the CIA for a sensitive mission to Niger, was to write a highly public op-ed about his trip in the New York Times.I'm betting that this trial will delightful to watch if you're a Republican because Joe Wilson's role in outing his wife will become public information. We'll also have the trial transcripts. One of the things that I want to see is how many knots Andrea Mitchell ties herself into. When Plamegate initially broke, Mitchell said that it was common knowlege with natioal security reporters who Valerie Plame was. Mitchell's position on that eventually 'evolved' into the 'fact' that it wasn't common knowlege.
It's my opinion that Mitchell's evolved position is totally untenable because Robert Novak knew this and national security wasn't his traditional beat. You'd have to believe that Novak was the national security expert, not Mitchell, to believe that Mitchell didn't know who Valerie Wilson was.
As Bill Clinton used to say, that dog won't hunt.
Posted Tuesday, December 19, 2006 11:57 PM
No comments.
