This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Author: Jonn Lilyea

  • So this is draining the swamp, huh?

    So trying to create trust in Congress means assigning accused criminals to one of the most sensitive positions in Congress, I guess. Blinky the Botox Queen has appointed William Jefferson to the House Homeland Security Committee. From The Hill’s Susan Crabtree and Jackie Kucinich;

    In an interview with CNN’s Larry King, which aired Tuesday night, Pelosi said that after learning about the $90,000 Jefferson stashed in his freezer, she stripped him of his Ways and Means seat.
     
      “What I said to my colleague is, you have $90,000 in your freezer, whatever the explanation, you have a problem with me,” she told King.
     
      Pelosi then said she named Jefferson to the Homeland Security panel because it has jurisdiction over his storm-ravaged district and because the tax-writing panel deals with some of the business and financial issues involved in the allegations against him while the Homeland Security Committee does not.
     
      “But Mr. Jefferson’s district has been New Orleans, greatly affected by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. And the committee of jurisdiction there, Homeland Security, is an appropriate place for him to be,” she said. “But I removed him from the Ways and Means Committee, [which] had something to do with the accusations made against him. Homeland Security does not.”

    Um, aren’t the agencies investigating his bribery case also under the aegis of Homeland Security, Nan?

    At least Republicans are speaking up this time;

    “You gotta wonder where Jefferson’s gonna store all those homeland security secrets,” said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (N.C.), a deputy Republican whip. Other Republicans said Pelosi’s decision contradicted her promise to create “the most ethical Congress in history.” Said King: “It shows hypocrisy. Before the election, they made a big point of pulling him from Ways and Means and after the election, they put him on Homeland Security.”

    Yeah, well, the election’s over and Democrats have saved their jobs one more time. In two years the mush-heads who voted for Democrats won’t care what happened two years ago.

    A spokesman for Pelosi said she opted to place Jefferson on Homeland Security because the panel oversees the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Jefferson had been a vocal critic of FEMA’s performance during Hurricane Katrina, which affected thousands of his constituents.

    Those dipshits in Louisiana don’t deserve representation; they keep sending the same incompetent morons and criminals back into the same offices that inflicted that 2005 mess on the area. At least Republicans are forcing Democrats to go on record with their vote;

    “House Democrats and their leaders should immediately reconsider this baffling and troubling decision,” said Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.
        “The Democrats previously determined Congressman Jefferson is unfit to serve on the Ways and Means Committee, which oversees the nation’s finances and trade, so it is difficult to comprehend how they can approve of Congressman Jefferson’s fitness for a seat on the Homeland Security Committee, with access to America’s most sensitive and closely guarded intelligence information,” Mr. Boehner said.
        The threat is likely to prompt Democrats to ratify Mr. Jefferson’s seat in a late-night voice vote, but a senior House Republican aide says Republicans will monitor floor proceedings day and night to block the unanimous-consent measure.

    I just wish the FBI would hurry up and charge the guy, actually.

  • John Kerry, sign your Form 180 or shut up

    Reading Mary Ann Akers in the Washington Post column “The Sleuth” today, I’m reminded of John Kerry and his childish refusal to sign his Form 180 and putting all of this “swiftboating” nonsense behind him.

    Kerry “swiftboated” himself by not being forthcoming with his military records and proving his detractors wrong. So anything else he has to say about the people who ended his stillborn ambitions is just mindless blather.

    Every veteran has been challenged about his accomplishments. The veterans who have actually done the things they claim to have done don’t mind proving themselves. Every soldier who had ever reported for duty has had to display his bona fides. Why won’t Kerry, and why won’t Kerry shut up about it?

    According to AP, by way of Fox News;

    But Kerry said the incident raised questions about Fox’s fitness to serve as an ambassador.

    Why? Because he opposed a politician in an election a donated money to that politician’s opponent? I guess just about anyone would be unfit using that measure.

    Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a presidential hopeful and chairman of Tuesday’s hearing, said he found Fox’s responses “unsatisfying.” He said he would have preferred if Fox admitted it was a mistake to contribute to the Swift Boat group.

    I’d have preferred that Fox just come out and tell Kerry to sign his fricken Form 180 and admit that he’d done nothing wrong and declare that both Obama and Kerry resign their respective positions if they plan on using those positions to intimidate their political enemies – like two spoiled little brats.

  • Conflicted reviews

    Yesterday, I read Anne Applebaum’s reportage of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of a new book entitled “Infidel”. I recommended the piece to people around the office here because Ms. Applebaum’s “The Gall to Speak Her Mind” was such a well-written, unbiased article about this brave Somalian/Dutch woman who is currently targeted by Dutch of “Asian decent” to suffer the same fate as her co-producer, Theo VanGogh;

    For those who haven’t encountered her name yet, suffice it to say that Hirsi Ali is a European of African descent with an almost American rags-to-riches life story. As a young woman, she escaped from her Somali family while en route to an arranged marriage in Canada, made her way to Holland, learned Dutch, attended college and eventually won a seat in the Dutch parliament. Along the way, she also made an intellectual journey — beautifully described in her new book, “Infidel”— from tribal Somalia, through fundamentalism, and into Western liberalism. After Sept. 11, 2001, horrified by some of the things Osama bin Laden was saying, she reached for the Koran to confirm a hunch: “I hated to do it,” she wrote, “because I knew that I would find bin Laden’s quotations in there.”

    Partly as a result she lost her faith, concluding that the Koran spreads a culture that is “brutal, bigoted, fixated on controlling women, and harsh in war,” and that should not be tolerated by European liberals. The conclusion led her into a series of controversies — and to the murder of a Dutch filmmaker with whom she had co-produced a film about the mistreatment of Muslim women. The murderer was the son of Moroccan immigrants, born in Holland; he pinned a letter threatening Hirsi Ali onto his victim’s chest. Ultimately, she left Holland for Washington, where she remains, ensconced at the American Enterprise Institute.

    I commend Ms. Applebaum for giving unbiased exposure to this brave woman. I highly recommend reading the piece as well the book.

    But then, I see, from Little Green Footballs, Newsweek isn’t so kind. Neither are all of the reviewers at Amazon. For those reasons alone, I’d buy the book.

  • Washington Post’s profits fall

    According to the Wall Street Journal’s Josee Rose and Jonathan Vuocolo, the Washington Post’s fourth quarter income fell nearly 7%;

    The Washington-based publisher’s net income fell to $95.5 million, or $9.97 a share, from $102.4 million, or $10.65 a share, a year earlier.

    Results from the latest quarter included a charge of $3.30 a share for early-retirement buyouts among other items. Results from the year-earlier quarter included items such as a charge of $1.80 a share associated with Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes.

    Operating revenue rose 10%, to $1.04 billion from $948.7 million a year earlier, due to growth at the company’s education, television broadcasting and cable television divisions, offset by declines at the newspaper and magazine publishing divisions.

    While the Washington Post faces the same advertising pressure as other publishing companies, it finds relief from those problems because of its Kaplan and television operations.

    I hate to take comfort in others’ misery, but the Washington Post has made it so easy for me to abandon that particular trait.

  • “…make sure this is still President Bush’s war’

    Reading the Washington Post this morning I see the Democrats still have their panties wadded up over how best to hamstring the President and his troops;

    House Democratic leaders offered a full-throated defense last night of their plans to link Iraq war spending with rigorous standards for resting, training and equipping combat troops, saying that they would hold President Bush accountable for failing to meet those readiness tests.

    But after a fractious meeting of the House Democratic caucus, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said Democratic members still have not united around the proposal.

    They all seemed so united recently when the war protesters were in town. It was like there was blood in the water and it was feeding time. So what could have happened? Maybe the left discovered that the average American citizen (as opposed to the below-average American citizens who make up the vocal anti-war crowd) isn’t ready to admit defeat. Notice that only Democrats in secure seats are supporting Murtha – very few secure seats. Included in that number is my favorite (drunken, loutish) Jim Moran from across the Potomac – despite the WaPo calling his district in Alexandria, VA “conservative”;

    But some Democrats, especially those from conservative districts, remain wary. Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (Va.), who supports the plan, said many Democrats “want to make sure this is still President Bush’s war. It’s his war to manage, and it’s his war to end.”

    It’s the president’s war, huh? Then let him fight it, gumball.

    AP reports that Democrats may be finally awakening to the fact that they don’t really have a say in the war after all;

    Bush “hasn’t to date done anything we’ve asked him to do, so why we would think he would do anything in the future is beyond me,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., one of a group of liberal Democrats pushing for an immediate end to the war.

    Across the Capitol, Carl Levin suddenly decides that Syria is the problem, according to Flopping Aces and RedState. Remember before the war in Iraq, the Left was yelling that Iran would be a better a more logical objective than Iraq. And they pointed out that several of the nineteen hijackers on September 11th were Saudis – why don’t we attack Saudi Arabia? Now that we’ve tied Iran into the murders of our troops, Levin points us in the other direction.

    I was just wondering, does the military have a plan to, if necessary, to go into Syria to go to the source of any weapons coming from Syria?

    What’s up with these nimrods? Do they so want the war against terror to be such a failure that they’ll advocate a war anywhere except where our troops happen to be deployed?  

    I sure hope the American voters are watching this circus and will take it into consideration next November.

  • A pro-Democrat post

    A TaH reader (thanks, Brad) emailed me a link to RealClear Politics that, after considering a few hours (remembering the price that Joe Lieberman and Ellen Taucher have paid), I’ve decided to share with other readers. Probably one of the few times you’ll ever see me praise a Democrat. Behold! Ed Koch speaks;

    When the U.S. leaves Iraq, as the Democrats promise they will force President Bush to do, will we face the prospect of emboldened Jihadists, with the cry of “God is Great” on their lips, blowing Americans up here in the States? If terrorists explode radioactive bombs and tank trucks of chlorine gas in American cities, or worse still, full-fledged nuclear weapons, what will our reaction be? Will we be like the English and Spanish who, when their commuter trains were blown up in London and Madrid, rolled over and surrendered to terrorist demands?

    That should be the question that American voters should be asking. Along with;

    Why won’t we take those who threaten us at their word? Why do we continue to make excuses for their threatening behavior until finally we will be forced to act because they have exploded the dirty bomb or the real nuclear bomb in our homeland?

    And the words of warning you’ll never hear from another registered Democrat;

    Wake up, America! This war is not only taking place in Iraq. The struggle is for the future of the world. Our enemies intend to conquer us, and they say so openly. The time to resist is now.

    Of course no entry in praise of Democrats would be complete without mentioning Joe Lieberman’s (I know he’s an Independent, but he’s still a Democrat) piece in the Wall Street Journal yesterday entitled The Choice on Iraq. He chastized Democrats for being so overwhelmed by the Bush Derangement Syndrome to admit that Iraq’s outcome will determine our own future;

    But the fact is that we are in a different place in Iraq today from even just a month ago — with a new strategy, a new commander, and more troops on the ground. We are now in a stronger position to ensure basic security — and with that, we are in a stronger position to marginalize the extremists and strengthen the moderates; a stronger position to foster the economic activity that will drain the insurgency and militias of public support; and a stronger position to press the Iraqi government to make the tough decisions that everyone acknowledges are necessary for progress.

    Unfortunately, for many congressional opponents of the war, none of this seems to matter. As the battle of Baghdad just gets underway, they have already made up their minds about America’s cause in Iraq, declaring their intention to put an end to the mission before we have had the time to see whether our new plan will work.

    Lieberman’s final paragraph was equally as powerful as Koch’s, but  a bit less dramatic;

    We are at a critical moment in Iraq — at the beginning of a key battle, in the midst of a war that is irretrievably bound up in an even bigger, global struggle against the totalitarian ideology of radical Islamism. However tired, however frustrated, however angry we may feel, we must remember that our forces in Iraq carry America’s cause — the cause of freedom — which we abandon at our peril.

    So at least two get it. When can we expect the remainder to follow?

    Just giving up on their “slow-bleed” policy isn’t enough. If Democrats would abandon the moonbat wing, the moonbat wing would go away. If Democrats would abandon that vocal minority of Americans who think that simply bringing home the troops would solve all of our problems and get behind our troops for a few months, they’d triumph. The jihadists and the flakes thrive on attenton. Just ignore them for a few months, for Pete’s sake. 

  • Let’s watch this productive moment in time

    According to AP, (by way of the Wall Street Journal) the US and Iraq will hold a conference with Syria and Iran;

    Envoys from the West and Islamic nations — including Iran, Syria and the U.S. — are expected to attend a conference next month on efforts to stabilize Iraq, a diplomatic adviser said Tuesday.

    Earlier, U.S. and Iraqi forces staged raids in Baghdad’s main Shiite militant stronghold as part of politically sensitive forays into areas loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr.

    The multination conference, planned for mid-March in Baghdad, is an attempt by the government to seek greater regional assistance and study ways to fight insurgents and tensions between Iraq’s majority Shiites and Sunnis. No firm date has been set.

    Talk about mental masturbation. The Iranians and Syrians will take just the event all by itself as an indication that they’ve got us over a barrel and they’ll make all kinds of moronic demands.

    Some nations had expressed reservations about taking part in the conference because of security concerns and political sensitivities.

    I think I’d be more wary of presenting an image of weakness when we’re winning the war than I’d be wary of political sensitivities. Maybe a couple of air strikes on those smugglers on the Iran border would help.

  • So who’s surprised?

    According to Politico’s Daniel W. Reilly and Jim Vandehei, the Democrats have had a hard time trying to keep their campaign promises;

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is discovering the cold truth about governing with a slim majority: It’s much easier to promise behavioral change for Congress than to deliver it.

    Pelosi vowed that five-day workweeks would be a hallmark of a harder-working Democratic majority. So far, the House has logged only one. Lawmakers plan to clock three days this week.

    The speaker has denied Republicans a vote on their proposals during congressional debates — a tactic she previously declared oppressive and promised to end. Pelosi has opened the floor to a Republican alternative just once.

    Pelosi set a high standard for herself when she pledged to make this “the most ethical Congress in history” — a boast that was the political equivalent of leading with her chin. And some critics have been happy to hit it.

    So who’s surprised? This is the same party who controlled Congress for 50 years and are still complaining about the same policy changes they’ve been complaining about for 50 years. Democrats aren’t in the business of conducting business, they’re in the business of keeping their jobs.

    They complain that Republicans stand in their way of accomplishing their agenda, but since they hold the majority they shouldn’t be having these problems, should they? Even back in ’94 when they tried and failed at creating a national health care system, they blamed Republicans for their own party members who wouldn’t vote for the measure.

    The Democrats need crises to retain power – they need the hand-wringing mutton heads to be scared into voting. Look at their big “Bush is going to start the draft again” push in the 2004 election when they realized that Americans weren’t being scared over the war.

    Even Harry reid is having problems with his Senate majority. AP reports that he’ll have to delay debate on the Democrats’ plan to revisit the 2002 authorization for war;

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., said Monday he wanted to delay votes on a measure that would repeal the 2002 war authorization and narrow the mission in Iraq.

    Senior Democrats who drafted the proposal, including Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Carl Levin of Michigan, had sought swift action on it as early as this week, when the Senate takes up a measure to enact the recommendations of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.

    Reid, who will huddle with Democrats Tuesday to discuss whether to postpone the Iraq debate, cited pressure from victims’ families for quick action on the Sept. 11 bill as the reason for doing so.

    What victims? The victims of what? The Democrats are finally figuring out that their most vocal supporters are a tiny majority in this country – they realize that their mandate is no mandate at all.

    Since they didn’t have a plan before the election and they pulled the Murtha slow-bleed plan out of their collective ass after the election, Americans aren’t as pleased with Democrats as Democrats thought they’d be.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., meanwhile, said she doesn’t support tying war funding to strict training and readiness targets for U.S. troops.

    The comments distanced her from Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who has said he wants to use Congress’ spending power to force a change in policy in Iraq, by setting strict conditions on war funding.

    Even Murtha is becoming a lightening rod, apparently. So I guess being in the majority isn’t all it’s cracked up to be when people expect you to actually work and make policy.