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

Category: Politics

  • John Edwards – one-note Charlie

    The prettiest girl in the Democrat Presidential lineup, John Edwards claims he wants to remind America about poor people, according to the Politico’s Richard Allan Greene;

    Edwards, a consistent third in the polls for the Democratic nomination, is swinging through 12 cities in eight states over three days “in order to bring attention to the 37 million Americans living in poverty.” 

    Now, the Edwards’ camp claims that this isn’t part of the campaign – and if we believe that there’s some real estate development opportunities in New Orleans they’d like to talk with us about.

    The Edwards camp says their man is “taking a break from [his] normal campaign schedule” and emphasizes that the tour does not include any of the early-voting states.

    But campaign manager Joe Trippi did send out an e-mail on Friday under the header “George Bush doesn’t care about poor people.”

    Is George Bush running for President again in ’08? Apparently Joe Trippi thinks that’s true. So why would John Edwards be focusing on poverty in the US (aside from emmulating Robert F. Kennedy in the ’68 election)? Because Edwards is a typical Liberal Democrat – he’s playing to Democrats’ guilt for their successes in what ever endeavor they’ve chosen. Like Edwards himself who channels the ghosts of dead babies into the courtroom to the tune of millions of dollars.

    Edwards made a half-million dollars as a consultant to a hedgefund while learning what hedgefunds do (it’s always been my understanding that consultants know more about the business they’re hired to advise than that business – but what do I know). Edwards funds a charity for the poor that doesn’t do anything for the poor except send John Edwards out to talk to groups of rich Liberals about the poor (with whom Edwards has never met, by the way – ask his middleclass neighbor in North Carolina) at meals that the poor couldn’t imagine in their wildest dreams.

    But we all know that the media will follow him around like a fricken puppydog and record every word that falls from his pretty mouth. 

    “While we’re pleased that a presidential candidate is showing an interest in Eastern Kentucky, we’re a little cautious about Edwards’ visit since the theme of his tour is poverty,” Tony Fyffe wrote in an editorial titled “Visit is welcome but could have negative impact” on Wednesday.

    He predicted “news footage of rundown homes, trash-ridden roads and streams, etc.” and complained that  “Kentucky is nothing more than a poverty-stricken state, according to the national media.”

    If Edwards does make his way to the White House, Fyffe wrote, “we hope Edwards returns to the region and puts his poverty action plan to work. Something tells us, however, that we’ll be just a memory as soon as the tour bus leaves the region next Wednesday.”

    I guess Fyffe is just writing these predictions based on Edwards’ past performance as the prettiest girl in the campaign.

  • “History will judge us, my friend”

    Apparently, Senator from Virginia and turncoat Reaganite, opportunist extraordinaire Jim Webb, possibly the largest cranium in the US Senate, faced off with Momma’s boy Lindsey Graham on Meet the Press yesterday. I dunno, I haven’t watched Russert’s Democrat-lovefest since he had useless-ass John Kerry on the show to talk about different the world would be if we’d only had foresight to elect Kerry two years earlier instead of someone who could do the job without advice from Jabba the Kennedy.

    Anyway, according to the Associated Press writer Calvin Woodward, Webb found it particularly easy to be the cool one for a change when his opponent is linguine-spined Lindsey Graham;

    “Just wash your hands of Iraq,” an animated Graham said to the war critics, including the Democrat seated to his immediate right. “History will judge us, my friend.”

    “It’s been a hard month, Lindsey,” Webb commiserated, wearing a tight smile. “You need to calm down, my friend.”

    “Lindsey’s had a hard month,” Webb repeated.

    “It ain’t about Lindsey having a hard month,” Graham snapped.

    “History will judge us, my friend”. Just like History has judged the anti-Vietnam crowd of being wrong in the thirty-plus years since the end of that war. The dominos did fall in Southeast Asia, just like it was predicted – but it only cost a couple of million asian lives. As long as it’s only brown people, it doesn’t matter that much to the Democrats like Webb, I suppose.

    Of course Associated Press couldn’t help but throw in a reference to Webb’s Vietnam service (while at the same time ignoring the fact that Graham is currently in the Army Reserves). And Graham, to his credit, confronted Webb on his observations and decision-making from his Ivory Tower;

    “Have you been to Iraq?” Graham demanded.

    “I’ve covered two wars as a correspondent,” Webb said. “I have been to Afghanistan as a journalist.”

    Graham: “Have you been to Iraq and talked to the soldiers?”

    Webb: “You know, you’ve never been to Iraq, Lindsey.”

    The Republican pointed out he’s been there seven times.

    “You know,” Webb said dismissively, “you can see the dog and pony shows. That’s what congressman do.

    Dismissively. As if there was nothing to see in Iraq, that relying on the AP is probably a better idea than going to see for Webb’s self. Especially since Webb can’t seem to believe his lyin’ eyes anyway.

    Graham tried to ease the tension. It didn’t work.

    “Let’s—something we can agree on,” he said, placing his hand on Webb’s arm. “We both admire the men and the women in uniform. ”

    “Don’t put political words in their mouth,” Webb interrupted.

    The exchange ended with Graham praising the troops: “God bless them and let’s make sure they can win because they can.”

    And Webb getting the final, combative word:

    “I’ll let them judge what you said.”

    The implication, of course, is that Webb speaks for the troops better than Graham. Webb references polls and history as if he reads either. History has always judged anti-war activists hashly. From the Civil War-era draft riots, through today’s misguided misfits of the anti-war, History has proven time-and-again that war is a necessary evil, and that avoiding war only leads to greater, more destructive wars.

    The anti-war movement, and apparently the naive and unread James Webb, is simply an opportunistic movement to elect otherwise unelectable candidates to office. Someone as ignorant of history, and unwilling to seek his own answers to complex problems as Webb appears, never would have been elected to his office by a responsible constituency.

  • No matter what happens, we’re screwed

    I’m sure ya’all feel like I do – that no matter what Republicans do, the media and the Left are going to complain about it. Just like the other day when Mr. Chertoff said he had a gut feeling the we are going to be attacked by al Qaeda this summer. I’ve had that feeling just about everyday since about 1992.

    When the Bush Adminstration announces a foiled terrorist plot, the Left and the media pooh-pooh the attempt and accuse the Administration of creating an atmosphere of fear. But when Chertoff says he “feels” like there’s another imminent attempt, everyone wants details.

    The Congressional Democrats claim they want the war to end, but anyone with at least half-a-brain knows the only this war will end is if we remove Iran from the equation. But because the Iraq Study Group said we need to engage those goat-ropers in diplomacy, the Democrats wave the ISG report like a bloody shirt everytime someone discusses the only rational way to deal with Iran – a military solution.

    In today’s Washington Post, Peter Baker describes the impasse between the president and the Congressional Democrats;

    A weakened president is desperately playing for time while a Democratic opposition mounts its case against him and Republican lawmakers agonize over how long to stick with him. Bush will keep pressing his strategy in Iraq in hopes that it produces more than the meager results his White House reported yesterday while his foes keep scoring political points and not much else.

    “The town is gridlocked,” said Kenneth M. Duberstein, who served as chief of staff in the Reagan White House. “There is no give at the White House or on the Hill. The Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to do anything. So, at least for the foreseeable future, which may be September, the only result is stalemate. That may benefit the president, and if you listen to the Democrats, they think it benefits them.”

    Both sides have stuck to their familiar positions. Bush has long seen a virtue in refusing to relent to pressure and operating as he sees fit regardless of Congress, while the Democrats, until January, had spent the Bush presidency essentially in the minority, lobbing criticism but with no responsibility for governing. Neither side shows even passing interest in forging a bipartisan consensus, preferring instead to bend the other to its will.

    No one wants to confront Iran – the major opposition player in the world. All for political and not strategic reasons. A rational person would admit that removing the current leadership in Iran is the only way to calm the situation in the Middle East – but no one wants to pay the political price for doing the right thing – the correct thing.

    The press continues to label the strategy in Iraq a failure, without mentioning that Iraq has met nearly half of the arbitrary benchmarks Congress set to determine success there. Ignoring that Congress agreed to wait until September, Nancy Pelosi pretends that agreement never happened;

    “The president stubbornly refuses to develop a redeployment plan or devise a redeployment schedule, preferring to hope, despite the abundance of evidence to the contrary, that his failed policies will somehow make tomorrow better than today,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

    Ya hafta start asking yourself why the Democrats don’t want a victory in the Middle East, someone must begin asking the Democrats why they’re in such a rush to concede defeat. If I were a real journalist, and I really wanted to inform the public about what’s really going on in Washington over Iraq, those are the questions I’d ask Democrats in Congress – but those are exactly the questions everyone in the mainstream media avoid asking.

    Instead they count how many times the President and the Administration use “precipice” and it’s variations in talking about Iraq. Is this grade school? Is this some kind of playground game of “gotcha”? Or are there real lives and the future of our nation hanging in the balance?

  • Irony overload

    Just doing my daily blog reading and from two of my favorites too much irony for one person to stand – so I pass off some of it to ya’all. First from Atlas Shrugs, the all-by-itself-laughable story of the UN’s new Global Compact initiative to teach private business to be more responsible;

    Its goal is promoting more virtuous behavior on the part of private business, and just last week it hosted what its own brochure described as an “historic” two-day corporate jamboree at the UN’s palatial offices in Geneva.

    And then, as if by magic, I turned to Bloodthirsty Liberal to read;

    A new audit has found that renovating the iconic U.N. headquarters building is already $148 million over budget, long before the dirt has been shoveled.

    Delays and design changes to the nearly $2 billion project have created the initial cost overrun, according to a report from the U.N. Board of Auditors, which further finds that the United Nations has yet to undertake important pre-construction surveys.

    So, the most innefficient, nonproductive, irresponsible and corrupt entity in the world wants to teach us all how to be successful and responsible.

  • Boehner call RINOs “wimps”

    This is welcomed news, Fox News reports that John Boehner is finally saying what the rest of us have been saying;

    House Republican leader John Boehner blasted GOP defectors in the Senate, calling them “Wimps,” as lawmakers awaited the Bush administration’s assessment Thursday of political, economic and military progress made by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government.

    But they’re really worse than wimps. Not only have they emboldened the Democrats, they’ve emboldened the enemy, too;

    But officials said the report also would show progress in several areas, such as a drop in sectarian killings in Baghdad and opposition to Al Qaeda terrorists by tribal sheiks in Anbar province.

    Predictably, Democrats say the findings are proof the war effort is failing, while Republicans say the limited progress shows hope and that lawmakers should not lose faith.

    Boehner, R-Ohio, made his “wimps” remark in a private meeting Wednesday with rank-and-file Republicans — ironically at nearly the same moment that several GOP senators beseeched the White House without apparent success for a quick change in course on Iraq.

    Emboldened by the Republican divide, Democrats called for a vote on legislation to end U.S. combat operations next year. The House planned to vote first on Thursday.

    Boehner spokesman Brian Kennedy said the lawmaker’s comments “were intended to illustrate the fact that we just recently voted to give the troops our full support — including ample time for the Petraeus plan to work, and that too much is at stake for Congress to renege on its commitment now by approving what can only be described as another partisan stunt by Democrats.”

    All of this banter between the sissies and the warriors in Congress has sent al Sadr back to Iran to await the outcome. You can figure he’ll reemerge just before Congress votes just like last time – as if the Democrats and al Sadr are working in concert, huh?

  • Fear-mongers in the Associated Press

    Everywhere I turn this morning, some media outlet is telling me that some secret report was leaked and intelligence places al Qaeda back to it’s 2001 strength. At least from the Washington Post there’s no speculation about it’s pre-2001 strength;

    Six years after the Bush administration declared war on al-Qaeda, the terrorist network is gaining strength and has established a safe haven in remote tribal areas of western Pakistan for training and planning attacks, according to a new Bush administration intelligence report to be discussed today at a White House meeting.

    The report, a five-page threat assessment compiled by the National Counterterrorism Center, is titled “Al-Qaida Better Positioned to Strike the West,” intelligence officials said. It concludes that the group has significantly rebuilt itself despite concerted U.S. attempts to smash the network.

    But the Associated Press isn’t that shy;

    A new threat assessment from U.S. counterterrorism analysts says that Al Qaeda has used its safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border to restore its operating capabilities to a level unseen since the months before Sept. 11, 2001.

    In fact the Washington Post story,  goes so far that it points out that intelligence officials said that al Qaeda is “considerably weaker” than they were in 2001;

    While asserting that al-Qaeda is still considerably weaker than it was before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the new report concludes that the group is stronger than it has been in years. “There is heightened concern given al-Qaeda’s operational activity [and] . . . operational levels” along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, the U.S. official said.

    WaPo is certainly no supporter of the war against terror. Despite the Washington Post’s contrary story, every radio and television news broadcast has repeated the silly AP headline as news.

    Need I remind the Associated Press and their assorted minions in broadcast news that in 2001 al Qaeda had their own country and at least the tacit support of three other countries. Not only have they lost Afghanistan, they don’t have the support of Pakistani government forces any longer. They’ve lost operational bases throughout the region where they enjoyed a virtual open range for training and operations.

    They may be stronger than they were in late 2001 – but that’s only because their willing accomplices in the media (that’s you, AP) make recruiting so easy.

    Elsewhere in the Associated Press story on MyWay;

    The official and others spoke to The Associated Press on condition they not be identified because the report remains classified.

    I hope the Bush Adminstration sends “the official and others” out hunting with Dick Cheney – or hunting with me, for that matter.

  • More Haditha good news

    Sorry that I’m so far behind that I missed the greatest news today. According to Chickenhawk Express, the prosecutor has recommended that charges against LCpl Sharrat be dropped in the Horrible Haditha investigation;

    The Chickenhawk is doing the happy dance today – this is just great news and should be trumpeted from the rooftops…

    An investigating officer has recommended dismissing murder charges against a Marine accused in the slayings of three Iraqi men in a squad action that killed 24 civilians in Haditha, according to a report released Tuesday. The government’s theory that Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt had executed the three men was “incredible” and relied on contradictory statements by Iraqis, Lt. Col. Paul Ware said in the report, released by Sharratt’s defense attorneys.

    She has much more read it all – in fact, Chickenhawk Express is my daily destination for Haditha news. Of course when I started reading the Chickenhawk Express post, the first thing I thought was to call John Murtha’s office for about 900th time this month to find out when he’ll be issuing his apology. But California Conservative had already done it;

    I asked the woman that answered the phone “if Congressman Murtha had a statement following a news story regarding Lt. Col. Paul Ware’s report stating that “The government’s theory that Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt had executed the three men was “incredible” and relied on contradictory statements by Iraqis.”

    Instead of answering that question, she asked “So the trial is over?” I told her that it wasn’t, that the recommendation was nonbinding. Then she asked “So it isn’t over?” I confirmed that it wasn’t. I asked if Congressman Murtha would “like to make a statement considering his accusations made over a year ago on ‘This Week With George Stephanopoulos’”? Here’s her response: “Congressman Murtha doesn’t have a statement because the investigation is still ongoing.”

    Pretty much the same answer I’ve been getting. But, of course, Murtha is just using this for cover. His original statement, and most of the statements before and since, have been to  endear himself to the anti-war crowd in Congress and to get himself some cover because of his morally questionable extra-governmental dealings for which he’s famous – things I’ve catalogued here. He knows that Democrats don’t throw their more criminal members to the wolves when they toe the party line. Remember how quickly James Trafficant went down because of his repeated criticism of his Democrat Party members? So does Murtha know that the reverse is just as true.

  • Pandering writ large

    I know there are single-issue voters, but I think single-issue political debates are just boring and useless attempts at pandering to draw in people who can’t hold more than one idea in their tiny brains at a time. Take this example, a debate about gays by the Democrat candidates;

    Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Chris Dodd have confirmed they will participate. Several other Democratic candidates also may join the debate.

    The debate will be conducted with a live audience in Los Angeles.  On the panel questioning the two Democrats will be Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese and singer Melissa Etheridge.

    The debate was put together by LOGO and HRC.

    “In the 2008 presidential election, issues of concern to the LGBT community have already been at the forefront of the national conversation,” said Solmonese.

    “From the repeal of “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” to the recent signing of a civil unions bill in New Hampshire, there is no doubt that voters will demand answers to important questions affecting our community.”

    So what are they going to “debate” – which candidate is more gay than the others? There’s no debate in the Democrat party about these so-called “gay rights” (whatever that happens to mean), so why are they going to stand on stage and promise huge special interest giveaways to people who supposedly want to be treated like everyone else – despite the fact that they refuse to act like everyone else and they demand “rights” that no one else has.

    Yeah, it’s going to be a huge applause-fest that does nothing except try to gain for the gay community the acceptance into the mainstream that they claim they so lack. While we’re at it, lets have a debate about the fate of abandoned puppies. I’ll bet the Democrat candidates can rate huge among their base on that one, too.