December 7-8, 2006
Dec 07 00:39 Democrats' Hamas Dilemma? Dec 07 02:36 Imams Retain CAIR Dec 07 14:19 Rationalization Via Euphemism Dec 07 19:32 He's BAAACK!!! Dec 07 19:54 Great New Blog Discovery!!! Dec 07 23:07 I Respectfully Disagree Dec 08 03:16 Dershowitz Dissects Carter, "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid" Dec 08 05:11 Hagel Gives 'Major' Foreign Policy Speech Dec 08 12:01 The Iraq Surrender Group FINALLY Makes Sense Dec 08 15:16 Little Larry Wilkerson Strikes Again
Democrats' Hamas Dilemma?
If the meeting described in this article took place, then Democrats have a serious problem on their hands.
Meanwhile, sources close to the Hamas-led government claimed that Hamas representatives recently held talks with officials from the US Democratic Party at a secret location. The sources told the Bethlehem-based Maan News Agency that Hamas representatives have also been holding secret talks with European government officials, including Britain and France.I just googled Hamas and the Democratic Party. One of the first links on the page led me to this information:
The Palestinian news agency Maan, quoting a senior member of the Palestinian government, reported Wednesday that "ministers of the Hamas-led government recently held talks with European countries and with a delegation of the American Democratic Party. According to the source, in the talks, the European officials showed their understanding for Hamas' stance.It's apparent that the party of appeasement is at it again. I'm not that shocked at their policy, though I'm quite surprised that they'd meet directly with a terrorist organization. This information begs other questions. Here are the questions I'd ask:
According to the report, several European countries are already holding talks with Hamas, and the dialogue has succeeded in bringing about a certain change in the European stance toward the Hamas-led Palestinian government. The Palestinian official said that Hamas representatives held meeting in European countries and even succeeded in convincing the Europeans to accept the movement's stance.
"Additional meetings will be held in the coming days between Hamas delegations and political officials in Europe and the United States," he added.
According to the source, the Europeans expressed their willingness to addresses an idea of solving the conflict based on a "long-term hudna (truce)," as suggested by Hamas, instead of the land for peace principle.
The Palestinian source added that the Europeans objected to the Qaurtet's conditions regarding the relations with the Palestinian government. The Quartet demands that Hamas recognizes Israel and the agreements signed with it, renounces violence and disarms.
"The most important European countries, which have contact with the current Palestinian government and with the Hamas movement, are France and Britain. These countries demanded that Hamas submits a detailed document on the hudna idea and on the organization's perception of Israel," the source said.
'Not interested in harming Democrats' chances'
The sources added that the political officials who met with the Hamas leaders in Europe were among the countries' leaders. The Palestinian official expressed his hope that the recent talks would lead to positive developments, especially in light of "Hamas' flexibility in its diplomatic stances."
---------------
The source also noted that Hamas made some achievement on the American front thanks to a meeting held with senior members of the Democratic Party. He refused to elaborate on the meeting and where it took place, claiming that Hamas is not interested in harming the Democrats' chances to win the 2008 elections.
- Which "senior members of the Democratic Party" met with Hamas?
- Does this meeting signal a return to the Clinton policy of endless Israeli concessions to the Palestinians without a guarantee of peace?
- What were the specific things that were discussed at this meeting?
UPDATE: Gary Miller at KvM has posted a little something on the Democrats' dilemma and other assorted issues, too.
Posted Thursday, December 7, 2006 3:25 AM
No comments.
Imams Retain CAIR
The Arizona-bound imams who were removed from US Airways Flight 300 have retained CAIR as their legal counsel in the matter. That isn't surprising to anyone who has been watching this unfold. What is surprising is that CAIR and the imams are going forward with this after Richard Miniter's article on the incident. Here's a refresher on what Miniter wrote:
Contrary to press accounts that a single note from a passenger triggered the imams' removal, Captain John Howard Wood was weighing multiple factors.Here's a portion of CAIR's official statement:
- An Arabic speaker was seated near two of the imams in the plane's tail. That passenger pulled a flight attendant aside and, in a whisper, translated what the men were saying: invoking "bin Laden" and condemning America for "killing Saddam," according to police reports.
- An imam seated in first class asked for a seat-belt extender - the extra strap that obese people use because the standard belt is too short. According to both an on-duty and a deadheading flight attendant, he looked too thin to need one. A seat-belt extender can easily be used as a weapon - just wrap one end around your fist, and swing the heavy metal buckle.
- All six imams had boarded together, with the first-class passengers - even though only one of them had a first-class ticket. Three had one-way tickets. Between the six men, only one had checked a bag.
- And, Pauline said, they spread out - just like the 9/11 hijackers. Two sat in first class, two in the middle and two back in the economy section, police reports show. Some, according to Rader, took seats not assigned to them.
Airline and law enforcement officials say the imams were taken off the flight November 20th for alleged "suspicious activity." They were handcuffed and questioned for several hours by authorities before being released. CAIR, along with other civil rights organizations, has called for congressional hearings on religious and ethnic profiling at airports in response to the incident.Since this statement came out, I found some additional information, at Powerline blog, in the form of an email from a Minneapolis Airport policeman. Here's what he said about the imams being handcuffed:
Since their removal from the flight, a number of charges have circulated in the media and on the Internet that the imams say are false, distorted or a misrepresentation of actual events.
"Unfortunately, the false claims and smears used against these religious leaders only serve to cloud the real issue involved, that of how national security can be maintained while preserving constitutionally-protected freedoms and respect for religious diversity," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad.
First off, none of the Imams were handcuffed in the airplane. They were handcuffed before they were placed in the squad car and the handcuffs were then taken off when they were brought back to our office. This is a standard operating procedure for when we transport anybody that is being arrested or being detained. Unless someone was looking out the window, it is doubtful anyone else would have known these guys were handcuffed.You'd never know that the imams weren't handcuffed inside the airplane if all you had to go on was CAIR's official statement. Thank goodness for this airport police officer supplying that additional information.
Furthermore, CAIR's statement that "the false claims and smears used against these religious leaders only serve to cloud the real issue involved" is a smear to the people filing statements with the police. When they make such a report, they do so knowing that they can be prosecuted for making false allegations. CAIR pushes forward despite knowing that it's highly unlikely that the police reports filed are false or part of a smear campaign.
The fact that they're still pushing this issue raises some questions for me, not the least of which is:
- Why does CAIR persist when the facts appear not to be on their side?
- Is it that the facts aren't that important to CAIR?
- Are they pushing this in an attempt to persuade members of Congress to vote for the Conyers Resolution? Remember that the Conyers Resolution would give "Muslims special civil-rights protections."
Posted Thursday, December 7, 2006 2:38 AM
No comments.
Rationalization Via Euphemism
The University of South Carolina's Vanguard has done a great disservice in dissembling the truth by only telling part of it. Now you'll get the rest of the information. Here's what the Vanguard's opinion editor Jason Shepard wrote:
The imams in question visibly prayed prior to boarding the plane. As they were boarding, a fellow passenger overheard one of the imams making "anti-American" remarks. Once on the plane, they "moved around." A concerned citizen passed the pilot a note, and as a result, the imams were subjugated to humiliation and detention, not to mention the major inconvenience that goes along with such consequences.Mr. Shepard's saying "they 'moved around'" doesn't tell the whole story, to say the least. They didn't just "move around"; they "spread out just like the 9-11 hijackers. Two sat in first, two in the middle, and two back in the economy section." Mr. Shepard's not telling the whole truth raises serious questions about Mr. Shepard's motives in not including all the details from his column.
Mr. Shepard continues, saying:
But the fact of the matter is that there was no legitimate justification to even believe that these imams might have been terrorist. The most plausible explanation for their detention is plain and simple: They were victims of Islamophobia.After hearing the term Islamophobia, I decided to check with the American Psychological Association to see if they recognize such a disease or condition. The researcher that I talked with said that she hadn't heard the term used in a scientific discussion. I expressed my skepticism that Islamophobia was a scientifically recognized term. The researcher said that she'd look into this. Then she said that she shared my skepticism.
The reason why I took this step is because I want to prove that this term isn't a scientific term but instead is a term used in criticizing anyone who disagrees with a Muslim. It's a term that's often used in silencing critics. It seems to me that Mr. Shepard could do better than just throw meaningless phrases around. I'd further suggest that using a term like Islamophobia shows an unwillingness to engage in serious debate about what really happened.
In other words, hearing terms like Islamophobe or Islamophobia should tell everyone that the person using those terms isn't interested in debate but is interested in denigrating the person that challenges their beliefs. I'd further suggest that Mr. Shepard's calling these imams victims is a stunning piece of propaganda. Frankly, I've read dozens of articles on what I'm now kiddingly calling the "Flying Imam Fiasco", both on the blogosphere and in the so-called MSM. Anyone who has read all of the information available can't seriously call these imams victims.
In fact, I'm not alone in suggesting that this fiasco was staged. If I'm right, then these imams aren't victims; they're victimizers. Let's finish with this:
The last time I checked, it is not only legal to critique the American government, but at least in theory, it is encouraged for all to participate in debates concerning our government and its policies.That's true enough, except that I'd suggest that using the whole truth is needed if you're interested in having a legitimate debate. Using less than the whole truth in disputing an issue is nothing more than having an argument. It certainly wouldn't be termed deliberations, which is defined as "discussion and consideration of all sides of an issue or thoughtfulness in decision or action."
UPDATE: Jessica Kohout of the APA just got back to me with an email. Here's what Ms. Kohout said:
The word is in common use but is still considered new. There is no statement by the APA on the word or the "medical Value" of the phrase. It appears to be used descriptively as indicated by this encyclopedia.In other words, Islamophobia isn't a scientific term but rather a term used for debating.
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
Shortcut to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia
Posted Thursday, December 7, 2006 2:58 PM
No comments.
He's BAAACK!!!
I can happily report that all is right with the world after reading this announcement:
Okay--I'm back...Welcome back Leo. The MOB just wouldn't have been the same without you "ballyragging liberals & RINOs". It isn't surprising that a multitude of your fellow MOBsters expressed their opinions after hearing the news, including King , Night Writer , Learned Foot , Dan at Northern Alliance Wannabe , AAA Ben at Hammerswing75 , Derek Brigham at Freedom Dogs and Dave from Ohligarchy. For those not familiar with Dave, Dave was our partner at Murtha Must Go and a topnotch blogger. If you aren't reading Dave on a regular basis, you should be.
Let's just say that the "troll" and I have come to an "understanding" and leave it at that.
Having said that, the outpouring of support that I've had from my friends in the MOB and elsewhere has been nothing less than humbling.
Last night, I said that news of this lib getting his comeuppance couldn't come soon enough. Tonight, with the benefit of hindsight, I should've said it differently. I should've said that "News of Leo's return can't come soon enough." Thankfully, Leo's return came sooner than we expected. That said, Leo should've never been faced with this decision in the first place.
Personally, it feels damn good to welcome Leo back.
UPDATE: Leo has posted a must read response to John Kerry's email to him. Don't miss it.
Posted Thursday, December 7, 2006 10:17 PM
No comments.
Great New Blog Discovery!!!
Each day, I look at which blogs are linking to me. Many of those blogs become part of my daily reading list. Few get mentioned specifically, sometimes just because I'm too busy blogging to mention them, sometimes because trolls have linked to me. In this instance, though, I'm glad I made the time to tell you that I've discovered an interesting blog titled " Common Sense America ".
According to the subtitle, Christi King writes alot about "Illegal Immigration, America, Freedom, News and Opinion", which is why I'm so glad I found her blog. Rather, I should say that Christi found my blog. Christi, Thanks for linking to my post about the Democrats' Hamas Dilemma. (I'll be posting more on that subject later tonight.)
Make sure and pay Christi a visit real soon. You'll be glad you did.
Posted Thursday, December 7, 2006 7:54 PM
No comments.
I Respectfully Disagree
It isn't often that I disagree with Captain Ed but I have to this time. The post that I disagree with is titled Hamas Shoots Its Mouth Off. Here's the specific line that I disagree with:
The Democrats would know better than to attempt to engage terrorists in an end run around the White House ... or they'd better know better.To be fair, I agree with Captain Ed that Democrats should know better. I can't agree that they do know better. Thanks to Rush, I now have a litany of instances where Democrats did "engage terrorists in an end run around the White House", starting with John Kerry and Tom Harkin visiting Daniel Ortega during the Reagan administration. Before that, Ted Kennedy "secretly offering the Soviet KGB assistance in bringing down Ronald Reagan in the upcoming election." Long before that, John Kerry met with the Vietcong in France in 1970, during the first Nixon administration. Granted, the Soviets and the Vietcong aren't terrorist groups but Ortega certainly will become a state sponsor of terrorism now that he's returned to power.
Remember, too, that Ortega was " an important leader " in the Sandinista National Liberation Front at the same time that Ronald Reagan was sending financial aid to the Contras, whose goal was to liberate Nicaragua.
Less than a quarter century ago, John Kerry, Tom Harkin and Ted Kennedy worked with oppressive governments to thwart the spread of freedom. It appears as though things haven't changed a bit since then. What a sad, pathetic statement on what Mssrs. Kerry, Kennedy and Harkin value least. The fact that Sen. Kennedy would work with a hostile, oppressive government to tip things in the Democrats' favor is disgusting. The fact that he'd sell out his own president simply to gain political power speaks volumes about Sen. Kennedy's (lack of) character.
It is my strong opinion that a man who would stab a sitting president in the back by dealing with our enemy with the sole intent of regaining a committee chairmanship wouldn't find it difficult to justify meeting with a terrorist group like Hamas.
To be fair to Captain Ed, though, the events that I've laid out don't constitute proof that "senior Democratic Party members" met with Hamas. They merely show the Democrats' willingness to secretly meet with America's enemies.
Posted Thursday, December 7, 2006 11:08 PM
No comments.
Dershowitz Dissects Carter, "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid"
Glenn Beck had world famous attorney Alan Dershowitz on Thursday night to discuss Jimmy Carter's book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid". To say that Mr. Dershowitz shredded the book on multiple levels is totally accurate. It didn't take long for the dissection to begin:
BECK: Why would you do that?It doesn't take a genius to see what Carter refuses to admit: that Yasser Arafat wanted nothing to do with signing a peace agreement with Israel. Only in Carter's world of delusion could someone think that Arafat was ever a trustworthy negotiating partner.
DERSHOWITZ: Well, I think he really wants to get publicity for his anti-Israel approach. Look, the most extreme thing he does is, we all know that Israel offered the Palestinians a state in 2000-2001, 95 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza. Bill Clinton said that and he said Arafat turned it down. Dennis Ross, our man there said that. Prince Bandar, the prince in Saudi Arabia, said that. Only Yasser Arafat disagreed and said no, no, no, it was really the Israelis who turned it down. Jimmy Carter chooses to believe Yasser Arafat over Bill Clinton and all the Americans. If I were Bill Clinton, I would be livid. I suspect Bill Clinton is livid. He's being called a liar by Jimmy Carter, and yet Bill Clinton has not spoken up.
Dershowitz is undeniably liberal, a man that most conservatives wouldn't agree with on much other than Israel. That said, Dershowitz gets it when it comes to Israel and he isn't willing to stay silent when another liberal talks stupidity and delusion about Israel-Palestine.
Here's another shot at Carter:
DERSHOWITZ: He will not sit down on a one-on-one on television or on the radio and have a discussion with me or anyone else who knows the facts. He insists going at it alone, and he is conveying misinformation, ahistorical facts to American audiences on every television show in America.The last thing that Jimmy Carter wants to do at this point is sit down with anyone who would slice and dice him, which Dershowitz certainly would do. The reason why Dershowitz would dissect Carter's assertions is because Carter doesn't have the facts on his side. I can picture a Carter-Dershowitz debate, with Carter making one false statement after another. When Dershowitz finally has had enough, he'd go into Reagan mode, saying "There you go again" before ripping Carter to shreds with his reply.
I challenge Jimmy Carter, my old friend, somebody who I supported, to sit down with me on any television school, at the Kennedy School, anywhere, and discuss in a rational way these issues. And I will show how wrong he is historically and how wrong he is in his assessment of this situation.
BECK: Yes, you can't. Now, let me go back to Jimmy Carter. I want to focus on him for a second. It seems to me, and you know, I know you voted for him. I'm sure you voted for him. I wouldn't have. I mean, I think he was a horrible president. But it goes beyond just being wrong, in my opinion. He seems to look for the, he seems to look for the worst in us, or not believe the best in us but believe the best in these horrible dictators and thugs.OUCH. That's taking a harsh shot at Carter. The thing is that it's totally accurate. It's also sad to think that a former president is capable of such delusion and intellectual dishonesty. I've said before that Jimmy Carter is both the worst president in American history and the worst ex-president in American history. Based on the excerpts from his latest literary work, I see no reason to change my mind.
DERSHOWITZ: You're absolutely right about that. He loved Yasser Arafat. He bounces his baby on his knees. He loved Assad, a dictator who killed 10,000 of his own people, and he couldn't stand Golda Meir. And he lectures Golda Meir, saying Israel isn't religious enough. It should be more religious. Imagine how critical he'd be if Israel were more religious?
He can't stand Begin. There are two or three Israelis he likes, Israelis who agree with him. But he seems to love every Palestinian, every Arab. He doesn't have it in his heart to condemn Hamas. He thinks Hamas would really recognize Israel eventually. He sees the bad and the worst in everything America does and everything Israel does, and he sees only the best in everything the Palestinians and the Arabs do. At bottom, this is a deeply, deeply anti-American book as well as an anti-Israel book.
Carter's frenzied pursuit of a positive legacy is the work of a desparate, small man.
Posted Friday, December 8, 2006 3:16 AM
No comments.
Hagel Gives 'Major' Foreign Policy Speech
Sen. Chuck Hagel addressed the Paul Nitze School for Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. During his speech, Sen. Hagel made several mistakes which I will point out here, starting with this one:
For almost four years, America has helped the Iraqi people build their own destiny. It has come at a high cost for America. As of today, over 2,900 Americans have given their lives in Iraq and over 22,000 Americans have been wounded. We have spent well over $300 billion in Iraq and we are still spending $8 billion a month. The Administration is expected to request another emergency supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan early next year for between $120 and $150 billion.Today, the biggest factor in Iraq's violence isn't terrorists or Iraqis themselves. It's Iran, which we learned last week is manufacturing and supplying Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi militia with IED's. We also learned in that report that the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps is playing a role in destabilizing Iraq. Here's how they're doing it:
Today, the defining factor in Iraq is widespread and devastating sectarian violence. Al Qaeda terrorists do operate in Iraq and we must confront them. But such terrorists are not the primary threat in Iraq. Iraqis are killing Iraqis. This is sectarian violence.
U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq's growing Shia militias from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran. Evidence is mounting, too, that the most powerful militia in Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, is receiving training support from the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah.For Sen. Hagel's statement to be true, you'd have to believe that U.S. intelligence is wrong. Sen. Hagel's statement can't be true because this isn't simply a case of sectarian violence. Instead, it's an act of war by Iran. It seems to me that Sen. Hagel's statement is overly simplistic. Let's hope that that's all it is. The only other possibility is that it's what he truly believes. Sen. Hagel continues by making this mischaracterization:
Much of Iraq is embroiled in a civil war and 140,000 U.S. troops find themselves in the middle of this civil war.I strenuously object to this being called a civil war. I'd further object that "much of Iraq is embroiled in civil war." These characterizations are oversimplifications at minimum. How can Sen. Hagel keep a straight face and say that "much of Iraq is embroiled in civil war" when only the Sunni Triangle has much sectarian violence at all? Frankly, it's misstatements like this that has caused the most erosion in the American people's confidence.
If the U.S. "tilts" to support the Shi'a in Iraq's ongoing violence, we would implicitly but undeniably align ourselves with Shi'ite interests that are backed by Iran. By choosing sides, the United States will compel the Sunni Arab world, which includes most of our friends and partners in the region, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others, to protect Iraq's Sunnis.With all due respect to Sen. Hagel, he's simply denying the facts when he says that "a U.S. strategy to 'choose sides' in order to bring order to Iraq could lead to direct regional involvement in the sectarian violence in Iraq." In case Sen. Hagel hasn't noticed, Iran and Syria already are contributing to the sectarian violence in Iraq.
With all due respect to Ayatollah Hakim, simply killing more "Baathists" will not achieve security in, or a future for, Iraq. But, a U.S. strategy to "choose sides" in order to bring order to Iraq could lead to direct regional involvement in the sectarian violence in Iraq and risk region-wide violence. This would be a generational catastrophe for the United States and the Middle East.
Furthermore, our ongoing deployment in Iraq is debilitating our military force structure. According to General John Abizaid, the Commander of the U.S. Central Command, except for U.S. Army forces stationed in South Korea, nearly all other Army units are currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, returning from a deployment, or preparing to deploy.While I admit that this is a problem, the reality is that we can't afford to lose in Iraq. If we pay a price later, then we'll figure out a way to pay for it later. Americans need to have our leaders tell us both the downside of what we're doing and the downside of not doing what we're doing. Simply put, we need to weigh the cost of doing something vs. the cost of not doing something. Failing to factor those things in leads to shoddy policymaking.
The Iraq Study Group put it very succinctly in their report to the President and Congress yesterday. They say:It's a shame that the Iraq Surrender Group sees things this way. The reality is that we can't worry about "crises around the world" because we need to focus on the crisis in Iraq. We need to take things one step at a time. We can't put out all the forest fires burning out there.
"America's military capacity is stretched thin: we do not have the troops or equipment to make a substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would also necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or respond to crises around the world."
It's time for people like Sen. Hagel to base their opinions on reality. The last thing we can afford is having policymakers basing their opinions on misrepresentations and false premises.
Posted Friday, December 8, 2006 5:12 AM
No comments.
The Iraq Surrender Group FINALLY Makes Sense
I didn't think I'd ever say that after briefly skimming through the ISG but I'm now forced to agree with something an ISG member said. The grand moment happened during last night's Newshour with Jim Lehrer. Here's the key exchange:
MARGARET WARNER: How did your early experiences, both as a legislator and then as a Supreme Court justice, help inform you? And did it help you bring to the table in this commission exercise?We finally have a ISG member admit that they didn't have a clue about foreign policy. I've often wondered why she was part of the Surrender Group since she's had no experience with setting foreign policy. I would've said that she didn't have experience in establishing policies but that wouldn't be accurate since she wrote new law as part of the Supreme Court. In fact, she helped 'write' new law all too often.
SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR: Oh, nothing, probably , except how to ask a few questions.
I was watching this segment and the horrified look on Margeret Warner's face made my sacrifice of listening to O'Connor and Vernon Jordan worthwhile. To her credit, Warner immediately started O'Connor's resuscitation immediately:
MARGARET WARNER: Nothing about forging coalitions?Besides being an attempted resuscitation, this exchange is yet another piece of proof of this group's hubris. They simply are full of themselves. They really think that they're above the fray, larger-than-life serious people come to rescue the dimwit living in the White House.
SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR: Oh, perhaps a little of that, but it wasn't necessary here. The members of the commission understood very well that it was desirable to have a consensus.
The only man in touch with reality from the group is an old favorite of mine, Al Simpson. Sen. Simpson made one of the funniest statements in the history of Sunday morning political programming here:
WALLACE: Some Republicans, though, Senator, have also been unhappy with the way the vice president handled this. I want to point out one example. Peggy Noonan, the former Reagan speech writer, wrote an article in The Wall Street Journal in which she said that Dick Cheney has become the hate magnet for this administration.I remember the fun people in Washington, and across the country, had with Simpson's line that the fuss surrounding Cheney's hunting accident.
And then she went on to say this. Take a look. She said, "So Mr. Bush may feel in time that he has reason to want to put in a new vice president in order to pick a successor who'll presumably have an edge in the primaries." Senator Simpson, what do you make of that?
SIMPSON: Well, we have a word for it, but we won't use it here, out here in the wild west. Let me tell you, that is...she is a wonderful gal. And I mean, I know her, and when I read her words, they're lyrical and they're marvelous.
Dick Cheney has become the hate symbol from the beginning. He was the hate symbol when he was with Halliburton. He was the hate symbol when he came in and the votes with South Africa and this and that. And then he was the hate symbol of hiding an energy conference. He was the hate symbol of terrorists, hate symbol of torture.
Let me tell you, those who don't like him have put a big red tail on his bum, and cloven hooves, and horns on his head. And let me tell you, if anybody thinks, if this had happened to anybody else in America, it would have been like a sparrow belch in a typhoon.
And let me tell you, if anybody thinks, if this had happened to anybody else in America, it would have been like a sparrow belch in a typhoon.
Even Chris Wallace was amused by it:
WALLACE: Could you be a little more colorful, Senator?I wish Alan Simpson was still part of the Senate. He was, and is, a man with a disarming sense of humor, with an abundance of common sense and an attitude of getting things done to improve Americans' lives.
In other words, he was the one who least fit with the Surrender Group. (BTW, I'd give an honorable mention to Leon Panetta in that category.)
Especially in light of Justice O'Connor's statement.
Posted Friday, December 8, 2006 12:02 PM
No comments.
Little Larry Wilkerson Strikes Again
Larry Wilkerson, the man whose first claim to fame was in saying that the Vice President had hijacked American foreign policy, has written another diatribe disguised as an analysis piece. Trust me when I say that it's charitably described as analysis. Here's what Wilkerson first said about American foreign policy:
He said the vice president and the secretary of defense created a "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal" that hijacked U.S. foreign policy.I don't know how Mr. Wilkerson thinks it's possible for the Vice President to hijack foreign policy. He never explains himself on that. Based on what Mr. Wilkerson has written in today's NY Daily News, it appears that nothing has changed. Here's a sampling of Mr. Wilkerson's musings:
There will be no miracles in Iraq to save President Bush from America's failure there. Jam-packed as the ISG's report is with recommendations and assessments, it is not a panacea for what ails the Bush administration. Even if its recommendations are spot-on, even if the President accepted every detail, there is not the requisite diplomatic skill and expertise within this national leadership to pull it off.That's the tone of Mr. Wilkerson's op-ed. He never explains why he believes this. Sadly, that isn't surprising. It must be awful being Mr. Wilkerson. His rage appears to be all-consuming. Here's more of Mr. Wilkerson's diatribe:
We have made so many mistakes since May 2003 that it is almost inconceivable that any strategy at all could work now.That isn't exactly the sound of optimism, is it? There's more:
This leadership and these skills do not reside in the current administration, even with the addition of the new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Gates, too, has his own basket of challenges, not the least of which is how to untrain thousands of Iraqis and then retrain them. For three years, the military trainers focused on numbers, numbers and more numbers, never looking to quality. Now, as they shift to quality, how can they suddenly convince thousands of previously ill-trained military new methods, new trainers and new curricula will miraculously produce a competent army?Mr. Wilkerson is short on answering 'why questions' that are typically answered in an analysis piece. Then again, Mr. Wilkerson doesn't offer proof that his statements have a basis in fact. Instead, Mr. Wilkerson offers us an unending diatribe filled with seething rage. That rage is most visible when he talks about the Vice President:
And then there is the vice president. How to circumvent him and his minions? It seems an impossible undertaking. With 88 people working directly for him on his own personal staff, an unprecedented number, and others strategically placed throughout the federal bureaucracy, Cheney is a formidable force.Mr. Wilkerson would be well-advised that real Americans think that elected officials, especially those at the upper end of the Executive branch, should set American foreign and national security policy. In fact, it might wound Mr. Wilkerson to know that Americans don't think highly of seething bureaucrats who rail against our nation's leaders. In fact, the American people have a tendency of ignoring these idiots because they can't stand how self-important these bureaucrats see themselves as.
The truth is that serious people won't give Mr. Wilkerson a moment's notice because he's a petty man whose writings are only a vehicle for venting his seething rage. The only people who will take him seriously are the moonbat fringe.
There is one distinction that Mr. Wilkerson has: He's the only known public official to have contracted CDS or Cheney Derangement Syndrome. Like BDS, there is no known cure for those that it inflicts. The good news is that it's fun to watch similarly affected people because they make such asses of themselves.
Posted Friday, December 8, 2006 3:16 PM
No comments.
