October 4, 2006 Posts
02:44 Reid, Dean Walk Into Trap 17:41 'Christian Issues' and Christian Apathy 23:27 Anna Diggs-Taylor, Amy Klobuchar & UFPJ
Reid, Dean Walk Into Trap
Howard Dean and Harry Reid took the bait again after President Bush baited them with this:
Bush criticized Democrats who voted against legislation authorizing warrantless monitoring of phone calls and e-mails to detect terror plots and another bill that would allow tough interrogation of terror suspects by CIA agents. "If they feel we are safer without this program, the Democrats in the United States Senate need to explain to the American people which of the attacks that the CIA program stopped would they have been willing to let go forward," Bush said.Reid responded this way:
"President Bush is no longer credible with the American people, no matter how many campaign speeches he gives in the next month. The President won't listen to the 16 intelligence agencies that say that the war in Iraq has made the threat of terrorism worse. His Secretary of State apparently ignored warnings of an Al Qaeda attack months before September 11. His Republican leader in the Senate thinks America should empower the Taliban terrorists who aided and abetted Osama bin Laden."Here's how Dean responded:
"What's softer than giving up the hunt for Osama bin Laden and ignoring the 16 intelligence agencies who told him that the war in Iraq is making us less safe at home and around the world? It's time for the truth. All the tough talk in the world cannot hide the fact that President Bush and his GOP Congress's bad decisions have hurt America's security."The phrase "Monkey see, monkey do" fits Dean's and Reid's replies to a T. Both harp on the NIE, which they still think is a winning issue for them. As I pointed out here, Democrats relied on the 'abridged version'. Once President Bush declassified the key findings so that everyone could read it, Democrats should've dropped the subject but they didn't. Now they'll pay the price for relying on such a "nothing report", as I called it earlier.
Reid also harped on the AP's misquote of Sen. Frist's statement about Afghanistan while ignoring Sen. Frist's post on his VOLPAC blog. Here's what the original article said:
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan guerrilla war can never be won militarily and called for efforts to bring the Taliban and their supporters into the Afghan government.Here's Sen. Frist's correction of the facts:
The Tennessee Republican said he had learned from briefings that Taliban fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be defeated by military means. "You need to bring them into a more transparent type of government," Frist said during a brief visit to a U.S. and Romanian military base in the southern Taliban stronghold of Qalat. "And if that's accomplished we'll be successful."
Frist said asking the Taliban to join the government was a decision to be made by Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
First of all, let me make something clear: The Taliban is a murderous band of terrorists who've oppressed the people of Afghanistan with their hateful ideology long enough. America's overthrow of the Taliban and support for responsible, democratic governance in Afghanistan is a great accomplishment that should not and will not be reversed.Obviously, Reid won't let things like facts get in the way of a contrived diatribe. Neither will Dean. They'll say anything in their desparate attempt to persuade voters to their side. Desparation doesn't work because the Right Blogosphere annihilates their baseless accusations almost as fast as they issue their statement.
Having discussed the situation with commanders on the ground, I believe that we cannot stabilize Afghanistan purely through military means. Our counter-insurgency strategy must win hearts and minds and persuade moderate Islamists potentially sympathetic to the Taliban to accept the legitimacy of the Afghan national government and democratic political processes.
A good example of this was the Right Blogosphere's questioning of the leaked NIE information. Many of us questioned the veracity of the NIE information because we speculated that this information was likely leaked by someone wishing to tell one side to the story. When President Bush declassified the Key Findings, our hunch was verified. Jack Kelly did the best job of exposing the fraud here:
"We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere," the NIE said.This is what Reid and Dean are yapping about when they talk about "The President won't listen to the 16 intelligence agencies that say that the war in Iraq has made the threat of terrorism worse."
The Times and the Post reported only the first half of that sentence.
"The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."
The Times and the Post reported only the first sentence in that bullet point. The reason for the omissions is clear. The omitted clause and sentence say jihadist success in Iraq (the likely consequence of a premature U.S. pullout) would increase terrorism elsewhere. Conversely, a perceived jihadist failure in Iraq would discourage jihadists everywhere. These "judgments" in the NIE undermine Democratic calls for withdrawal from Iraq.
If ignorance is bliss, then Reid and Dean must be delirious to the point of near inebriation.
Originally posted Wednesday, October 4, 2006, revised 09-Nov 11:53 AM
August 2006 Posts
No comments.
'Christian Issues' and Christian Apathy
I just returned home from a planning meeting for a voter forum event that will be held Thursday, Oct. 12, 2006 at the Joy Christian Center at 6:30 pm. After the meeting was over, one of the people asked about reading the mood of Christians. The sense was that Christians aren't motivated this year because of some think that President Bush hasn't pushed 'Christian issues' enough while other Christians think that Congress hasn't passed enough legislation that Christians care about.
I had to speak up at that point because I was a little hot under the collar. I reached that boiling point because too many Christians stay home because politicians don't focus solely on issues like gay marriage or abortion. That type of narrow-mindedness goes against numerous Biblical principals, not the least of which is the matter of stewardship.
Christians often praise God for the liberties we have, with freedom to worship being among the most cherished freedoms. That's absolutely appropriate because that is a great liberty. Unfortunately, too many Christians focus solely on praising God for our liberties but then are apathetic towards their responsibilities to the societies they live in. God said that we are to be "salt and light" to the world. That infers that we should help bring clarity into a world where chaos rules too often. How can a Christian say that they've been a good steward in bringing clarity if they're ignorant of the important issues of the day? How can Christians be good stewards of their vote if they aren't informed? God's given us a tool to influence society with the right to vote. It's time that Christians used that tool wisely.
I've heard Christians rationalize their not voting by saying that "there isn't a dime's worth of difference between" the various politicians. That's nonsense. Christian voters were motivated in 2004 because of the issue of judicial nominees and rightly so. Their votes meant the difference between a Justice Alito, who believes that the Constitution means what the Constitution says, and a Justice O'Connor type who sometimes believes that the Constitution means what the Constitution says. I ask apathetic Christian if that isn't proof that there's a "dime's worth of difference" between staying home and getting involved. I'd also ask them if President Bush's nominees for the appellate courts don't matter in other issues. Let me get specific by refering to this George Will column:
As the comprehensive and sustained attack on Americans' freedom of political speech intensifies, this city has become a battleground. Campaign-finance "reformers," who advocate ever-increasing government regulation of the quantity, timing and content of political speech, always argue that they want to regulate "only" money, which, they say, leaves speech unaffected. But here they argue that political speech is money, and hence must be regulated. By demanding that the speech of two talk-radio hosts be monetized and strictly limited, reformers reveal the next stage in their stealthy repeal of the First Amendment.The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (aka BCRA and McCain-Feingold) that Mr. Will is talking about affects churches by limiting what they can say on issues near to their hearts as elections draw near. If they don't heed the rules, their tax exempt status can be revoked. Yet Christians are apathetic towards voting because this supposedly isn't a 'Christian issue'. The reality is that Christian apathy is taken by politicians as license to limit our liberties. BCRA is a way to 'legalize' limiting our First Amendment liberties.
Still think that voting is optional with regards to being a good steward of what God's given us?
Our apathy on the illegal immigration issue is another issue that I can't fathom. By not voting for candidates that will enforce our borders, Christians are telling the rest of America that we won't do everything possible to ensure that our laws are enforced. That isn't the type of message that I'm comfortable sending to society. I'd bet that an overwhelming majority of Christians would agree with me once they thought this through.
Another motivating factor for Christians should be the issues of national and homeland security. This year, President Bush signed legislation reauthorizing the Patriot Act, which allows our intelligence agencies to communicate with law enforcement agencies. Congress also passed legislation that (a) allows the National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept communications between terrorists in foreign countries and sleeper cells here in the US and (b) sets the parameters for the CIA's interrogation of captured terrorists. Thus far, the CIA's interrogation techniques have prevented 8 terrorist attacks against US interests. The NSA's intercept program was used to thwart the terrorists' plot to blow up a dozen American jetliners over the Atlantic.
You'd think that passing such legislation would be a no-brainer but it wasn't. There were nearly 200 politicians that voted against all three of these measures. Is it wise for Christians to not vote for candidates that would vote for these measures?
As Christians, we have an affirmative responsibility to be good stewards of everything that God gives us. It's time that we accepted the responsibility of being good stewards of our voting privileges.
Posted Wednesday, October 4, 2006 5:43 PM
August 2006 Posts
No comments.
Anna Diggs-Taylor, Amy Klobuchar & UFPJ
This ruling isn't surprising to anyone with a lick of common sense. What's surprising is that anyone that lacking in common sense could be a federal judge.
This ruling represents two of the biggest reasons why Republicans should be motivated to vote this November: judicial nominees and national security. Don't think that those issues aren't linked. Diggs-Taylor's ruling proves that they are. Based on Amy Klobuchar's statement that she wouldn't have voted to confirm Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Alito, isn't it logical to think that she'd do everything in her power to prevent high quality jurists like Roberts and Alito from getting confirmed?
Also considering the fact that Ms. Klobuchar didn't even know who the first secretary of DHS was, what makes us think that she'd have a clue about homeland security issues? Why shouldn't we think that she's nothing more than a puppet for Chuck Schumer and special interest groups like UFPJ?
After all, UFPJ is a behind-the-scenes force in the Klobuchar campaign. I just took a little trek over to UFPJ's website to see what they're campaigning about. Here's what I found:
Counter Military Recruitment CampaignNotice the harsh rhetoric in this 'Campaign': The "harvesting of human beings" must stop. It's obvious that this campaign is about furthering their unstated goal of eliminating militaries.
As each day goes by, and opposition grows against the Iraq war and other attacks on democracy, more forceful tactics and outright lies will be used by the military to recruit the hearts, minds and bodies of our youth. It is time to participate in counter-recruitment campaigns in order to stop the harvesting of human beings. Please explore our counter-recruitment website, which features regularly updated articles, resources, and other educational information about counter-recruitment activities.
Think I'm kidding? One of UFPJ's stated goals is to eliminate wars, including war with Iran. This campaign essentially amounts to their implicit goal of eliminating militaries and weapons of all sorts. Another of their unstated goals is the unilateral disarmament of Western countries, especially the U.S.
People, if you're thinking about casting a 'protest vote' by not voting, you're actually casting a vote for a national 'security' policy written by UFPJ, passed by legislators like Amy Klobuchar and upheld in the courts by the Anna Diggs-Taylors of the judiciary.
That 'protest vote' isn't a protest; it's an abdication of responsibility. That isn't something that a self-respecting conservative should tolerate.
UPDATE: Captain Ed is all over the ruling, as I expected. As usual, it's solid logic from one of the best minds in the Right Blogosphere. Make sure and read it all.
Originally posted Wednesday, October 4, 2006, revised 05-Oct 7:36 AM
August 2006 Posts
Comment 1 by ruby at 05-Oct-06 01:17 AM
Amen!
