O'Connor's retirement is great news for conservatives and not just because she was like the "dice of justice," a woman who might side with either the liberals or conservatives on the court based on her mood, which way the wind was blowing, and how much sleep she got last night, but because Rehnquist is a practically guaranteed retirement as well. So Bush is going to get to appoint at least 2 SCOTUS justices and who can say how long ultra liberal, 85-year old justice John Paul Stevens is going to hang in there? Imagine Bush replacing all three: ooh, would that be a sweet, sweet dream for conservatives!
Furthermore, the Democrats are in a real pickle here. There are 55 Republicans and given the current political climate, all of them are going to feel enormous pressure to vote for Bush's nominee. So unless Bush were to nominate an ax murderer or alternately Alberto Gonzales, the chances of one of his nominees losing a floor vote are practically zero. Moreover, since the Democrats have been making such a cacophonous din about so many of Bush's judicial nominees to lower courts, the public is going to see the howling over Bush's pick for what it is: political posturing. Of course, the Dems could filibuster, but at this point, Republicans like Mike DeWine and Lindsey Graham have been so savagely beaten by the base that they'd probably love the opportunity to try to get back in their good graces by voting for the nuclear option. You can just hear the spin now:
"I felt trying to compromise with the Democrats was the right thing to do. But, when they broke the agreement by filibustering the President's Supreme Court nominee and crossed my buddies in the conservative base, it was time for me to swing into action -- because nobody, and I mean nobody, messes with the Republican base when Mike DeWine is on the job. I love you guys and I'll always stick up for conservatives, always! Conservatives up, RINO's down foo'! Peace out!"
Ok, maybe that's a bit overwrought, but you get the idea.
Of course, there is one thing that can spoil this whole event for conservatives and that would be the ever present danger that the Republicans in Washington will get into a can't lose position, have victory right in their grasp and then say: "Uh, I don't really like this whole winning thing so much. You Democrats can have this one."
There are two ways that could happen. The first is if the Democrats' filibuster, which is entirely possible by the way, and the Republicans don't respond with the nuclear option. On one hand common sense says that if you're a Republican in a fight like this -- that your party desperately needs to win and the people who're voting for you care about deeply -- you don't vote with the other side. But, then there's the McCain school of logic which goes:
"My party desperately needs this and the base wants it more than anything, so I'm going to prove how moderate I am to the world by screwing them."
So this is possible problem #1.
Possible problem #2 is that Bush will break his campaign promise to appoint more judges like Scalia & Thomas to the court -- which as far as I'm concerned is just as important as his father's, "Read my lips, no new taxes" pledge -- and will appoint his good buddy Alberto Gonzales instead. Unfortunately, for Bush, the base doesn't want Gonzales first, second, third -- heck, if Bush got to appoint nine justices, conservatives wouldn't want Alberto to be number #9.
Look, I understand friendship and loyalty, I understand wanting to look out for a pal. But come on, Bush has already made Gonzales the Attorney General, so how much more does he need to do for the guy? AG should be enough for anybody....especially when there are so many other great candidates out there that the base would probably be perfectly happy with like Miguel Estrada, William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, J. Michael Luttig, Samuel Alito Jr., John Roberts, Emilio Garza, Teddy Olson, Larry Thompson, & John Cornyn. Heck, even candidates with less impressive conservative credentials in some people's eyes like Michael McConnell, James Harvie Wilkinson, & Edith Jones would be far preferable to the man whose name, Gonzales, is as the joke goes, Spanish for Souter.
So, there's a big win for conservatives in the making here, folks, as long as the pols in Washington don't throw it away...
Reaction From The Left-Side Of The Blogosphere To O'Connor Stepping Down
"Sandra Day O'Connor has retired. This is going to be bloody." -- The Washington Monthly
"Mark the date. In all likelihood, July 1, 2005 will be remembered as the day women’s choice died." -- Lean Left
"In any case, I'll be very surprised if (Bush) chooses someone in the least bit acceptable to anyone but the James Dobbsians. The want to set loose the hounds of hell." Hullabaloo
"Fantastic. Alberto "the Inquisitor" Gonzales is a possibility (to replace O'Connor)... what could possibly be worse?" -- Daily Kos
Also from Daily Kos, a list of some key decisions where O'Connor was the swing vote. ***
"The battle for America is now underway." -- Oliver Willis
"Bob Brigham mentioned that the right will spend $18m for their wingnut, but they were going to spend more on social security and that hasn't worked for them. It's a gut check for everyone, and I don't think another Thomas will slip on the court.
Hey, security mom, when you have to get birth control from Canada and leave the state for an abortion, while Osama is still living and breathing, you'll feel really good about voting for Bush." -- The News Blog
So here's a question: can we actually block anyone that Bush wants? The last heroic victory was the rejection of Robert Bork, and that was pulled off by a 55-45 Democratic majority. I guess we can filibuster, at least assuming the nuclear option can be blocked, but what, realistically speaking, is the plan here? -- Ezra Klein
"People in comments have reminded me that until O'Connor's retirement the "pro-Roe" crowd numbered 6. So, perhaps this issue will be punted for another couple of years. Someone make sure Stevens has a good doctor." -- Eschaton (*** Hawkins Note: This is correct. Replacing O'Connor will not change Roe v. Wade unless unpredictable Kennedy has a change of heart, which isn't impossible, but would seem to be unlikely)
This is will be an even more brutal fight than a Rehnquist retirement because O'Connor is a swing vote, and replacing her with a right-winger shifts the ideological balance of the court.
Short of actual war, this will be as brutal as it gets. -- Liberal Oasis
On a personal note, given that we have a President who has promised to nominate conservative justices and 55 Republicans in the Senate, I should be totally confident and happy right now, especially after reading all those hysterical liberals. But instead, I feel like we're at the start of one of those movies where the "heroes" are "lovable" but goofy screw-ups like Adam Sandler or Chris Farley who are just as likely as not to turn a "can't lose" situation into a disaster. Except in those movies, everything turns out all right in the end, but in this case we'll somehow end up with Alberto Gonzales on the court. Cross your fingers and write your Senators folks, cuz it should be a wild ride....
People Calls Democrats "Soft On Terrorism" Because They Are "Soft On Terrorism"
One of the most fascinating things about today's liberals is that it seems that they can almost always tell you exactly what they're against, but it's almost impossible to pin them down on what they're actually for.
Examples of this phenomenon abound, especially when you're talking about liberal politicians. They're against tax cuts, but they don't want to admit they're for higher taxes. They vote against any and every bill coming down the pike that might make abortions more difficult to obtain, but they retreat into meaningless jargon about how they're personally opposed to abortion when they're called on it. They vote for gun control at every opportunity, but say they support your right to carry a weapon. They're "personally opposed" to gay marriage, but they oppose doing anything legally to stop it. They voted for the money for the troops, before they voted against it. Etc., etc., etc., it's like that on so much of the left's agenda these days.
The same goes for defense issues. Liberals can go into mind-numbing detail describing all the things they don't like about the way George Bush runs our foreign policy. But then, when you ask for a breakdown of what they'd do differently, it's all platitudes, generalities, and situations so full of "if & but's" as to be meaningless for all practical purposes.
Which brings me to E.J. Dionne's latest hysterical column, "The rebirth of McCarthyism." It seems E.J. still has his underwear in a twist over Karl Rove slapping around the left for being "soft" on terrorism. Let's take a gander at what E.J. had to say:
"In the 1950s, the right wing attacked liberals for being communists. In 2005, Karl Rove has attacked liberals for being therapists. Thus is born a kinder and gentler form of McCarthyism.
...Rove's instantly famous speech last week to the New York state Conservative Party should be read in light of this history and not be written off as a cheap, one-time partisan attack. On the contrary, the address by Rove, President Bush's most important adviser, provides the outlines of a sophisticated strategy aimed at making liberals and Democrats all look soft on terrorism.
Here are the key passages: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to submit a petition. ... Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said: We will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said: We must understand our enemies."
Liberals and Democrats were enraged by Rove because virtually every office-holding liberal and Democrat closed ranks behind President Bush on 9/11. They endorsed the use of force against the terrorists and, when the time came, strongly backed the war in Afghanistan.
But Rove knows how to play this game. The only evidence he adduces for his therapy charge is a petition in which the current executive director of Move-On.org called for "moderation and restraint" in the wake of 9/11. Rove then slides smoothly from the attack on MoveOn to attacks on Michael Moore and Howard Dean. Finally, Rove tosses in an assault on Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., for his statement that an FBI report on the treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay might remind Americans of the practices of Nazi and communist dictatorships.
...That's how guilt-by-association works. Make a charge and then — once your attack is out there — pretend that your words have been misinterpreted. Split your opponents. Put them on the defensive. Force them to say things like: "No, we're not soft on terrorism," or, "I'm not that kind of liberal." Once this happens, the attacker has already won.
Respectable opinion treats Rove's speech as just another partisan flap. It's much more. It's the reincarnation of a style of politics that turns political opponents into traitors or dupes who are soft on the nation's enemies. Welcome back to the '50s."
Well certainly, I wouldn't want to compare the Democrats of today to the Democrats of the early fifties. I mean there may have been Communists infiltrating the highest levels of the Democratic Party back then, but even so, the Dems in those days were still much tougher on America's enemies than the Democrats of today are.
If you want proof of that, just look at the evidence Democrats offer to prove that they're not "soft" on terrorism. They point back to their overwhelming support for the invasion of Afghanistan right after 9/11 -- as if it would have been something other than political suicide to vote against going after Afghanistan when 90% of the American public was baying for blood in the aftermath of 9/11.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Democrats' vote and the few months of respite they gave Bush on foreign policy issues were purely a political decision, because they certainly weren't. However, it should be noted that not only did the Democrats not really have much of a political choice, but we're in the middle of 2005 talking about what "good soldiers" in the war on terror the Democrats were back in late 2001. Gee, what have you been doing for the last 3 1/2 years, fellas? How have you proven you're not soft against terrorism since then?
By electing Howard Dean, a man who made a name for himself nationally by coming out against the war, DNC Chairman?
By treating the group Karl Rove was specifically talking about, MoveOn, which is the biggest and most influential liberal 527 group, like they're part of the Democratic mainstream?
By trying to undercut support for the war by convincing the public a draft might be coming when Democrats know that there's absolutely no chance it'll happen because a draft is adamantly opposed by the Bush Administration, Congress, and the military?
By nominating John Kerry, a man who made a name for himself as an anti-war protestor and who voted against the gulf war and just about every weapons system that came down the pike?
By embracing Michael Moore, who opposed even the war in Afghanistan, and sitting him next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic Convention?
By treating strongly pro-war Democrats like Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, and Christopher Hitchens like pariahs?
By turning on the war in Iraq while our troops are still in the field?
By becoming completely obsessed with treatment of terrorists we've captured? By calling for Gitmo to be closed?
By calling for Gitmo to be closed?
Anybody who follows politics can go on and on and on with example, quote after quote, from the last few years that proves the point: Democrats are considered to be soft on terrorism, because they are soft on terrorism -- and for people like Dionne to bitterly complain being called out on it represents McCarthyism is just as ridiculous as it would be for Republicans to insist that they're not the "anti-abortion" party or the party for people who want low taxes.
If Democrats and more to the point, liberal Democrats, don't like being called "soft on terror," stop being so "soft on terror." Stop giving knee jerk support to people who are anti-war, stop worrying so much about the terrorists we've captured, and if you don't like what Bush is doing to fight terror, come up with some constructive suggestions of your own that will help us destroy international terrorist groups with global reach and the regimes that support them. The GOP would be glad to have both major parties in this country committed to the fight against global terrorism instead of having to worry that the Democrats would for all intents and purposes give up the fight if they got back into power...
The Most Likely Nominees For 2008 In Order + Condi Analysis
Here are the candidates -- in order -- who are in my opinion, most likely to win the Republican nomination in 2008. Do keep in mind that we're still more than 2 1/2 years out, so this line-up can & most certainly will surely change (Especially if some of the low profile governors start to pick-up momentum or if Rice, Jeb, Cheney or some combination thereof were to throw their hats in the ring).
1) George Allen
2) Bill Frist
3) Rudy Giuliani
4) Bill Owens
5) John McCain
6) Tom Tancredo
7) Mike Huckabee
8) Mark Sanford
9) Mitt Romney
10) Sam Brownback
11) Tim Pawlenty
12) Newt Gingrich
13) Tom Ridge
14) Ernie Fletcher
15) Haley Barbour
15) Bob Ehrlich
16) George Pataki
17) Rick Santorum
18) Chuck Hagel
Not Looking Likely To Run At This Point
Jeb Bush
Condi Rice
Dick Cheney
*** Update #1 ***: In the comments section, TheVirginiaWolf says:
You are all about Condi not running, aren't you? Ike was drafted, Condi will be drafted as well. It's unstoppable.
Two things:
First of all, I tried to keep my feelings about particular candidates out of this list. Trust me, if I were picking the candidates I'd most want to be the nominee instead of who I think will be the nominee, Rudy and McCain would be much, much, much lower (McCain would be somewhere around #2462 behind the girl who checked me out at the super market yesterday).
The reality is that Condi says she isn't running and I believe her, just like I believe Jeb and Cheney. Were she in the running, I'd have her in the #2 slot, behind Allen.
Which brings me to my second point: Condi obviously has a lot of grass roots support, definitely more than Allen at this point. So why would she be #2? Also, why is it that -- and this is probably obvious to anyone who reads RWN -- I don't think much of her as a candidate?
1) She's pro-abortion.
2) Most of her other domestic views are unknown.
3) She's never run for office so she's practically guaranteed to make all sorts of dumb, rookie mistakes in a presidential campaign. Look at the terrible errors made by Ross Perot if you want to see an example of what happens when a very smart, successful person who has no inexperienced candidate jumps into a presidential election.
4) She doesn't strike me as having the sort of charisma, personal warmth, and ability to connect with people that the most successful pols have.
5) By 2008, it looks like Condi will be a 53 year old woman who has never been married which means the press will be able to successfully portray her as weird, a lesbian, or a weird lesbian.
6) I don't buy the idea that a Condi presidency will cause a huge shift in black voting patterns. She's been with Bush since 2000 and as far I can see, she hasn't helped W. with the black vote whatsoever. So why would she be able to bring in this tidal wave of black support if she were the candidate?
Look, I like Condi personally and love her as Secretary of State. But, that doesn't mean I think she'd make a great candidate for President. I'm a big fan of Donald Rumsfeldm too, but I also wouldn't hesitate to tell you that he'd be a poor choice to be the nominee as well.
Now could I get behind Condi or for that matter another candidate I'm not wild about for the top slot -- like Giuliani -- as veep? That, I could live with (No Hagel, No McCain). But, having Condi as the nominee? She just hasn't proven she's ready...
Excerpt Of The Day: How We Lost Vietnam & The Consequences That Followed
"By 1973, the goal of fashioning a South Korean-like, non-communist entity in Indochina was supposedly obtained and the war over. The Paris peace agreements recognized two autonomous Vietnamese states. Almost all American prisoners were returned. The last few American ground troops came home.
If the communist North, and its Soviet and Chinese patrons, saw 1973 as a breather rather than a peace, American officials at least promised the South material support and air cover should the communists reinvade.
They did just that in spring 1975, barreling down Highway 1 with conventional Soviet tanks. Americans apparently did not want another quarter-century commitment to a second DMZ to ward off a perpetual communist threat from the north. By 1974, a series of congressional acts (Hawkins Note: Pushed through by the Democrats) had radically cut the funding of American military support for the South Vietnamese. The Saigon government abruptly collapsed in April 1975.
More than a million refugees fled the south. Tens of thousands of boat people drowned or starved. Another million were either killed, imprisoned or sent to re-education camps. The Cambodia holocaust followed.
The perception of American weakness prompted communist adventurism from Afghanistan to Central America. Few in the Middle East thought there were any consequences to taking American hostages, or killing American soldiers and diplomats. Ayatollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein alike had little fear of "the pitiful, helpless giant" (Richard Nixon's phrase).
There are lessons here. When the United States has stayed on after fighting dictatorial enemies — admittedly for decades in Italy, Germany, Japan, Korea and the Balkans — progress toward democracy and prosperity ensued. Disengagement from unresolved messy problems — whether from Europe after World War I, Vietnam in 1973, Beirut after the Marine barracks bombings, Afghanistan after the Soviet defeat, or Iraq in 1991 — only left murderous chaos or the "peace" of authoritarian dictators." -- Victor Davis Hanson
John Kerry Has Bush's Number -- Satire By Liberal Larry
Along with windsurfing, bicycling, and sucking the morale out of our armed forces like an industrial vac, John Kerry has the uncanny ability to predict the content of Bush's speeches and rebutt them in advance. There was little point in me watching Bush spew his jingoist propaganda last night, for Big John had it all covered. He knew that Bush would defy 200 years of presidential tradition and attempt to rally the nation with "Happy Talk" in a time of war. He knew that Bush would try to make us have faith in our country and pride in the troops, despite everything democrats have taught us. And he knew he had to do something about it.
Fearful of coming off like a sore loser, yet he finding himself unable to tolerate Bush's littany of lies, he took pen in hand to criticize Bush's poorly planned war. A Vietnam war hero thrice wounded in combat, he courageously expressed his disatisfaction with a war he himself supported before he was against it, and that he boldly sort of supports now.
The New York Times was, of course, hesitant to risk their reputation of objectivity by publishing a partisan hit piece. But after going over Kerry's article with a fine-toothed comb and triple-checking all the facts, they threw caution to the wind and printed the article as a service to the American People.
Ever the optimist, Kerry predicted a gloomy outcome for the War in Iraq, unless Bush followed some key advice. Gleaned from previous Bush speeches and policy already in effect, Kerry's bold new ideas are perhaps our best chance to end the Quagmire in Iraq:
1. Bush must announce that the U.S. will not remain in Iraq permanently.
2. The Iraqis must be encouraged to form their own government and hold elections.
3. The Iraqis must be trained to defend themselves.
4. Saddam must be captured and held for trial.
Most importantly, a plan must be set for the withdrawal of our troops and presented to democrats in Congress or, cutting out the middle man, given directly to Al Zarqawi so he can get a jump on the killing fields when we depart.
Oh, America! How wrong you were to send such a brilliant mind back to Boston! What fools you were to toss this bright beacon of hope away like a handful of someone else's war medals! I weep for you, America, for you've missed the John Kerry swift boat of love!
This satire was used with the permission of BlameBush!
You like to be surprised, right? Then click here. Yeah, go ahead, just click right here. Do it, it'll be fun, you'll love it.
Wait a second, you aren't chicken, are you? You're not going: "No mister, I'm scared to click on the blind link! I'm a little scaredy cat!"
That's not you, right? Then just click on the link, just click on it, that's it -- that's it -- hahaha, you fell for it, sucker! How you like that? Haha, I knew I could trick you into doing -- Oh wait, you -- haven't clicked on it yet?
Oh. Well, forget the "hahaha, you fell for it sucker" thing...I mean, that, that was part of a play...I mean oh, oh, a short story that I was writing about people who fell for something -- it's set in Holland -- and oh -- it had nothing to do with a website. It was people clicking on a - uh -- a light switch, that's it, a light switch.
So, nothing to worry about. Just click here. That's it. Just move that mouse right over the link and click, click, click. Don't even think about it, just do it.
That's it -- way to go -- Ok, I don't have all day here. I mean seriously, can we just get this over with? Will you just click here? I mean what -- what are you saying here? That you don't trust me? That I'm a bad person?
Ok, that hurts. It does -- no, no, -- don't apologize. You said what you meant. I understand totally. I mean, I just work every day, slaving over this hot blog, to make sure that you're entertained and informed, because I care, because I want to make things better for you, but you don't trust me enough to do this one little thing for me. No, I already said don't apologize. No, it's too late now. I don't even want you to click on this link. I'll get over it, don't worry, I've been on the net a long time. I understand how this works.
I'll just take off now, I'll just go somewhere, where, sniff, sniff, where I'm not in the way. I don't want to bother anybody -- wait, you will click the link? Oh, thank you so much! I don't know how to repay you, you're a wonderful, beautiful person, who is good, who nice, who is -- you have clicked the link right? I think you did -- yes -- I cannot believe you fell for that. I mean, I was sitting here thinking: "No, there's no way, nobody could buy into that" -- but you did. You bought right into it, you were like one of those rats in that psychology experiment who keeps hitting that button because the little ball of cheese falls out -- and they're so happy! Oh, look at me, "I am a rat eating a little ball of cheese!" That's you, you are the rat in this story and that is why -- wait, you were tricking me weren't you? You haven't clicked the link, have you?
Ok, I admit I was a little gleeful there with the "rat" and the "cheese," you know, but what about you? Yeah you! You're no better than me...Awww, screw it. I'm going to go watch South Park on TiVo. Click on some of the links -- please?
One last thing, a little word to the wise about Conservative Grapevine for the bloggers out there. The page is doing 1200-1500 daily uniques M-F. Yet, there are people who have blogs who are only sending 10 readers over the course of the week to CG, who are making the top 10 referrers. So, send a little traffic CG's way and you'll have an excellent chance to get it back multiple times over by being listed as a referrer for a week.
-- There has been a lot of hang wringing and even "draft talk" on the left inspired by the army's low recruitment numbers this year. However, not only did the Amry exceed their recruiting numbers in June, they're only 14% behind for the year. Granted, we've had to up recruitment incentives and add more recruiters to get the numbers up, but it sure doesn't sound like any sort of crisis.
-- During a debate last year, I said: "There isn't going to be a draft and anyone who tells you otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest." So, all you liberals who were claiming a draft was right around the corner during the 2004 election cycle -- and there were a lot of you -- are you "ignorant or dishonest?"
-- If you want to see a ground breaking blog, check out why are you worshipping the ground I blog on which features a hot Asian girl posting lots of pics of herself, talking about what she did today, and tossing out a little Wonkette style potty talk for good measure. The first time I ever went to her blog, I was there for 10 minutes, bookmarked it, and then started going through the archives before I even thought about what I was doing. That page is pure digital hypno-candy.
-- Currently I'm reading Ann Coulter's "High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton" as a warm-up for Ed Klein's "The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President." As I was reading Coulter's book tonight, I thought about Newt Gingrich, who is not considered a top notch candidate by most Republicans in 2008 largely because he has "too much baggage." Well, Newt does have a lot of baggage, but quite frankly, he looks like an altar boy compared to Hillary. So think about that, consider the multitude of sleazy scandals the Clintons have been involved in, and ask yourself if Hillary is really going to be as tough as people think in 2008.
-- VH1 is plugging a Hulk Hogan reality show all over the blogosphere, but they didn't advertise on RWN. And I'm one of the few bloggers who actually likes, watches, and occasionally blogs about wrestling. Where's the love, VH1, where's the love?
-- North Carolina Congressman Robin Hayes is saying definitively that Saddam was part of the 9/11 plot: "Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9-11." It goes without saying that the evidence presented to the public DOES NOT support that conclusion. Unfortunately, from what I've seen of Robin Hayes here in my home state, I'm not surprised to see him popping off. He may be a nice, conservative pol, but his mouth is way too big for his own good.
-- It was totally inappropriate for Congressman Tom Davis (R-Va) to suggest that there might be retaliation against pro-baseball if they allow George Soros to become an owner. Davis came across like an arrogant buffoon who had no qualms about abusing his power to hurt his political enemies. Americans deserve better than that sort of behavior from our Congressmen.
-- Since the SCOTUS ran rampant over the 5th Amendment with the Kelo decision, I think it's a good time to once again suggest that we combine two of my favorite things: horror movies and the Founding Fathers. Imagine a deserted street and a cackling land developer who has just taken some poor lady's house -- then, a zombie version of George Washington corners him in an ally, grabs an ax and says: "I cannot tell a lie, I'm about to kill you" and then chops him down like a cherry tree. Now that would be the start of a fun, educational (OK, not really) horror flick that could draw in some eyeballs if it were done right.
-- Wouldn't Janice Rogers Brown be a great candidate to fill a Supreme Court vacancy? She's well qualified, she believes in a dead Constitution, and she'd be the first black woman ever elected to the SCOTUS. Moreover, since she was already confirmed this month -- 56 to 43 -- as part of the "lame gang of 7 deal" that the MSM went gaga over, the Democrats will look incredibly hypocritical if they try to filibuster her nomination and they will infuriate their base if they don't. Plus, a filibuster of Brown would give wimps like DeWine and Lindsey Graham -- who both seem to have had some second thoughts -- the perfect excuse to vote for the nuclear option and end these judicial filibusters once and for all.
The Democratic Underground Post Of The Day: 9/11 Polling
Someone with the handle of "sabra" polled the fine folks at the forums of the Democratic Underground on a rather provocative question and produced some rather intriguing results. First, here's Sabra's question:
"Poll question: 9/11: LIHOP, MIHOP, or Other? LIHOP: let it happen on purpose. MIHOP: made it happend on purpose."
Just in case you're wondering who LIHOP or MIHOP, it's the Bush administration. So, are you ready for the results? Here we go:
So 45% of the DUer's think the Bush Administration was responsible for 9/11 and 41% believe they knew it was coming and deliberately allowed it to happen.
If you're surprised, you shouldn't be since RWN covered a similar poll done on the DU forums back in January. In that case:
159 out of 180 people at the Democratic Underground who have responded so far either believe the Bush administration planned 9/11 or knew it was coming and allowed it to happen. The other two options, you know, the ones that were picked by people who at least aren't crazy, drew only 21 people (12% of the vote).
So, they may be crazy, but if it's any consolation, at least they're consistently crazy...Wait, in retrospect, wouldn't it be better if they had become less nutty over time? Yeah, I guess so, huh?
Well, in that case, there is no upside here, especially for the Democrats who have to cater to these sort of loons because (God help us all) they make up a significant portion of their liberal base...
Excerpt Of The Day: Huzzah For The End Of The Assault Weapon Ban
"This wasn't supposed to happen. When the federal assault weapons ban ended on Sept. 13, 2004, gun crimes and police killings were predicted to surge. Instead, they have declined.
For a decade, the ban was a cornerstone of the gun control movement. Sarah Brady, one of the nation's leading gun control advocates, warned that "our streets are going to be filled with AK-47s and Uzis." Life without the ban would mean rampant murder and bloodshed.
Well, more than nine months have passed and the first crime numbers are in. Last week, the FBI announced that the number of murders nationwide fell by 3.6% last year, the first drop since 1999. The trend was consistent; murders kept on declining after the assault weapons ban ended.
Even more interesting, the seven states that have their own assault weapons bans saw a smaller drop in murders than the 43 states without such laws, suggesting that doing away with the ban actually reduced crime. (States with bans averaged a 2.4% decline in murders; in three states with bans, the number of murders rose. States without bans saw murders fall by more than 4%.)
And the drop was not just limited to murder. Overall, violent crime also declined last year." -- John Lott
Hat tip to Drudge for the story and of course, The Sun for the pic.
*** Update #1 ***: By the way, you know why I love this pic so much, aside from the fact that it's funny? Because it's so different from the way American papers treat the war.
Most American papers? They might not have a problem trashing the Bush Administration as lying warmongerers, trashing the troops as torturers, or portraying the war in Iraq as hopeless, but if you ask them to make the same kinds of value judgments about the people we're fighting, suddenly they get terribly worried about compromising their "neutrality" and start rambling on about how one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Well, the Sun doesn't go for that. Instead, they unapologetically treat Saddam as what he is: a human horror film who deserves every bit of embarrassment and humiliation that comes his way. It's nice to see members of the press, even if they are in Britain, who unashamedly refuse to play the moral equivalence game...
*** Update #2 ***: From UncommonSense in the comment section:
We're providing Saddam with tighty-wighties instead of the far more sexy boxer-briefs? That's torture!!
Careful! You don't want to give Ted Kennedy or Dick Durbin any new ideas...
Last night I heard several people on television spout something similar to this line, “We were told that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, but that was a lie. ” Excuse me while I take a few minutes to scream at the stupidity.
Okay, now I am going to very slowly explain something that Bush haters evidently cannot comprehend. President Bush never said that we should invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. He has said that Saddam had ties to terrorists, which he did. He also said, and it was well known, that Saddam wished harm to the U.S. and had, according the the U.N. and many others, unaccounted for WMD.
After 9/11, there was a lot of talk about not connecting the dots. Well, there were quite a few very large dots in Iraq, not connecting it to the attacks on 9/11, but indicating activity preparing for possible future attacks. (A few “connect the dots” posts are here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)
The Iraq War was not retribution for 9/11/01, but the Iraq War has been very much about 9/11. It is about 9/11/2008 or 9/11/2012 or whatever the date, God forbid, the next large scale attack on America is scheduled to take place. It is about a U.S. President being responsible enough to act where he saw a threat so that he would not find himself waking up to another 9/11 and knowing that it happened because he had not connected the dots.
This excellent editorial at NRO lists many of the reasons that success in Iraq has very much to do with 9/11, including that “Saddam’s regime had a web of connections to Islamic extremists and terrorists". I am sure that the anti-Bushies have access to the information cited here and at NRO, but they are completely incapable of comprehending it. It does not fit into their worldview and to attempt to process it would probably result in complete meltdown. But for those open-minded individuals out there who have been hearing that Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 and therefore there was no reason to go into Iraq, take a look at the NRO editorial.
This content was used with the permission of Polipundit.
Once again, I was fortunate enough to have an opportunity to interview the man I consider to be the best columnist in the business, Mark Steyn.
This interview was conducted via email and we covered a number of topics including Steyn's syndication in the US, Israel, the future of Europe and Nato, Christianity in Europe, Iraq, illegal immigration, and the American left's view of foreign policy.
Breaking New Ground! Bush ='s The BTK Serial Killer
As an early supporter of The Huffington Post, I must say that the blog has certainly turned out to be a disappointment.
The "Lefty Drudge Style" news is rather run-of-the-mill, the writing is generally bad and only a few token conservatives are allowed to post. Of course, all that would have been forgivable had Arianna been able to deliver on all the celebrities who were promised before the blog's "hyped to the heavens" debut.
Now some of you may wonder why I care about reading humdrum nonsense posted by a bunch of left-wing stars. I don't per se, but if you're going to relentlessly mock the sort of puerile drivel that makes up the day in, day out content of the Huffington Post, it would at least be nice to be making fun of famous people -- even if we were talking about say Julia Louis-Dreyfus or Urkel. As it is, the Huffington Post is still a target rich environment for conservative bloggers, but making fun of nobodies who only post ever so often isn't as much fun.
Speaking of "nobodies who only post ever so often" on The Huffington Post, an over-the-hill hippy named Paul Krassner has broken exciting new ground by comparing Bush to the BTK serial killer:
"There was something about Bush that reminded me of another president, a man I’d seen on the news the previous evening. It was the former president of his church, the BTK terrorist, justifying his project. Of course, to my knowledge, Bush hasn’t personally bound, tortured and killed anybody. Rather, his destiny was determined by that for which he was trained in college. Bush is our Cheerleader-in-Chief."
Bravo Paul, bravo! At a time when the entire left side of the political spectrum is consumed by Bush bashing and comparing him to every despot and dictator who ever walked the earth, you've at least said Bush reminds you of a "new" evil person. Why, that's the closest thing the Democratic Party has had to a new idea IN YEARS!
Still, everyone, be warned: According to Mr. Krassner's bio, he claims to be some sort of "satirist." I know, I know, that seems unlikely given that none of his previous posts appear to be funny. However, if you read his bio closely, Mr. Krassner brags about founding the Yippies & editing Lenny Bruce's autobiography, so perhaps he is actually being funny, but we can't understand it because his humor is so old and outdated.
PS #1: As an aside, despite the fact that the HP does enormous traffic, they're running no ads. What's the deal with that?
PS #2: Check out the Huffington's Toast parody blog. They're infinitely more entertaining than their inspiration.
PS #3: Boy, it's really fun to crank out a bit of pure snark every now and then!
Excerpt Of The Day: George Bush On The "Flypaper Theory"
"...Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation."
The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened or defeated. So they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take.
...Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, in Washington and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. The commander in charge of coalition operations in Iraq, who is also senior commander at this base, General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said, "We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us." -- From George Bush's Speech on Iraq last night
He makes an excellent point. Would we rather fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq or would we rather try to shoot down terrorist piloted airliners full of Americans as their flights scream towards American buildings? Would we rather that Al-Qaeda suicide bombers were headed to Baghdad or to New York? Would we rather have American secretaries and stockbrokers trying to take on machine gun carrying, bomb wielding, jihadis in LA or would we rather see the terrorists fighting the best soldiers ever to walk planet earth in Iraq?
Put another way:
In the space of a few years time, the Iraqi people will have gone from being oppressed by one of the world's most brutal dictators to members of a free society. Meanwhile, the Coalition is helping to avoid future 9/11's in America and Europe by bleeding Al-Qaeda dry in Iraq and we're encouraging a wave of freedom that will in time sweep across the Middle-East and help drain the swamp that radical Islam thrives in. It may be tough going, but it's the best way to go given our situation.
Our country did not ask for a war on terrorism, nor did we wish to once again send our troops off to foreign lands to fight and die for freedom and to protect our home. But since this war was thrust upon us, we must fight to win. And the road to victory in the war on terrorism leads over a pile of Al-Qaeda corpses in Iraq....
*** Update #1 *** : Omar from Iraq The Model gives the Iraqi perspective:
"Yesterday for example, interior ministry in Saudi Arabia uncovered a new list of wanted Al-Qaeda members with 36 names on it, 21 of who are believed to be residing in Iraq right now.
Can anyone tell me how can these terrorists be stopped from moving their zone of action to other countries if they weren't intercepted right here and right now?
There's no doubt that once Iraq falls in their hands they will start looking for other battle grounds and they will search for the "greatest Satan" in other places.
It is the American existence in Iraq that attracted them to a great extent and when there are no Americans in Iraq Al-Qaeda will not simply drop their weapons and start a normal life, they will seek other places where they can find, and kill Americans.
What I want to say here is that it is our fate to fight terrorism on our own land and we (the majority) have accepted to challenge this fate the day we abandoned Saddam and welcomed our freedom but that's not the case for you in America.
..;.Fighting terrorism for us in Iraq is a matter of life or death so we have no choice but to keep fighting until we kill or lock in jail every one of them and we're doing this whether the world supported us or not but in case we failed, the consequences will not be confined by Iraq's borders.
You (the west) can step back and wait for the terrorists to knock on your doors at any minute or you can put your s*** together and fight them while they're thousands of miles away."
It has been about 3 months since the last time I ranked my favorite 40 blogs, so I thought it was about time to do it again.
Do keep in mind that as the quarter has progressed, some blogs have of course moved up and others have dropped, based on how often I visit them, how much I like what I see when I get there, how often the blogs are updated, etc., etc. As per usual, do keep in mind that these sort of lists changes frequently over time based on a variety of factors. So if your blog didn't get included, it's no big deal -- it could be on the list next time.
Also, if there are any other bloggers out there who rank at least 20 favorite blogs or more in order today and then link back to the post & let me know about it, I'll add a link to your post right here later tonight.
Come on folks, let's see how the blogosphere stacks up!
Teaching Souter About The 5th Amendment The Hard Way
I'm not a guy who normally uses the word "delicious" unless I'm talking about food, but oh, this would be just DELICIOUS:
Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.
Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.
The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."
Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.
"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."
Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others."
Sure, this looks to be a cheap publicity stunt, but I still love the concept. I mean what conservative would mind chipping in a few bucks to teach a Supreme Court Justice like David Souter the value of the 5th Amendment? He thinks it's OK for the government to force people to sell their homes just so they can be handed over to developers? Ok, let's see how he likes it!
Quotes Of The Day: What Our Generals Say About The Insurgency
"You have an insurgency with no vision, no base, limited popular support, an elected government, committed Iraqis to the democratic process, and you have Iraqi security forces that are fighting and dying for their country every day. Senator, that is not a quagmire." -- General George Casey, the top commander in Iraq, responds to Ted Kennedy's assertion that Iraq is a "quagmire"
"The insurgency is in a no-win position. The insurgency can cause casualties, they can grab headline. But as long as the politics move forward in a positive direction that is considered to be legitimate by the majority of the Iraqi people, and as long as Iraqi security forces continue to develop at the rate that they're developing, and as long as American forces continue to stay there to provide the strength for those Iraqi forces as they develop — we are, after all, the shield behind which politics takes place — the insurgency won't make it." -- General John Abizaid
Exactly.
Look at the situation for the insurgents in Iraq.
The terrorists are relatively unorganized, are unable to hold territory, and in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces, they're proving to be largely ineffective.
Furthermore, do they have the support of the people? No, in Iraq their support is limited to a small percentage of Sunnis, who themselves only make up 20% of the population.
On top of that, the support the terrorists do have is inevitably doomed to spiral downward as the Iraqis continue to take over more and more responsibility for their own security. Many Iraqis may be ambivalent about seeing foreigners die (unfortunately, that's the way of the world), but when you start murdering members of the home team, it's a different story.
Moreover, unlike Hamas and Hizbollah, the terrorists can't provide services to the local community that could build loyalty over time, nor do they offer any "great vision" that can hope to capture the support of the population at this point. To the contrary, it's us, the good guys, who are providing the food, the jobs, the projects, and the realistic hope for a free and democratic society.
But, does that mean the "insurgency" will be over anytime soon?
No, the terrorists should be able to continue to convince mopes to strap themselves up with explosives and run into lines of people standing on the sidewalk & they also can pull off a few assassinations, but is that enough to conquer Iraq and bend it to their will?
No, it's not.
At this point, the terrorists have no more chance of taking over Iraq than Al Capone's gang had of turning Illinois into their own little personal fiefdom in the late 1920s. In fact, it's likely that the only way the terrorists can win now is if we get so psyched out by our defeatist press that we just give up. That's what Abizaid & Casey are trying to get across...
Now granted, Washington finished at a very respectable #4...but to me, Washington clearly should have been in the top spot.
Why so?
Because in my book, Washington was the linchpin of the American Revolution.
Some people would certainly take issue with that statement and would point to the contributions of other great patriots and revolutionaries like Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Tom Paine, James Madison, John Adams, James Otis, Nathanael Greene, Ethan Allen, Anthony Wayne, John Stark, Paul Revere, Daniel Morgan, Nathan Hale, John Paul Jones, etc., etc., etc..
However, consider the situation Washington found himself in: The country was not the patriotic enclave we tend to imagine it was today. Instead the population was split: roughly 1/3 of Americans were patriots, 1/3 were Tories, and 1/3 probably were willing to side with whomever won.
Furthermore, for much of the war, Washington was leading poorly trained civilians, many of whom -- especially early on -- served for only 8 months and then went back to their farms.
Although the Brits had their own supply problems caused by their distance from the motherland, Washington's were worse, again, especially in the early years of the war. Merchants wildly increased the prices of goods sold to the American army and because of rampant inflation, Congress was often unable to provide even basic supplies.
Just imagine it: our troops were fighting in war against the best trained, most competent, most powerful military force on the planet, and supplies were so hard to come by that at times, our soldiers were actually dying during the winter for lack of clothing.
This was the backdrop against which Washington had to work.
Although Washington's army was defeated in battle many times, had there been a single decisive defeat where our troops were trapped on the battlefield and destroyed by the Brits, the war would likely have been over. Had Washington not continually been able to recruit new troops and lead them into battle under some of the most difficult conditions imaginable, the war would likely have been over. Had Washington not been gutsy enough to make a surprise strike at Trenton in 1776, when his army's morale was low because of defeats at the hands of the British and unbearably bad conditions, it's likely that his army would have melted away as enlistments came up at the end of the year, which again would have meant that the war would likely have been over.
The fact that Washington managed to hold the army together long enough to trap Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1781 (with the help of the French) is practically miraculous. Nothing against Nathanael Greene, who was a fine general, but I don't think there was another American alive back then who could have led an army through to victory under the conditions Washington had to deal with.
I mean that. If a stray bullet had sent Washington to an early grave -- let's say before Saratoga in late 1777, I believe we would have lost the war. Although a people as independent and rebellious as our ancestors would have shaken off the British yoke eventually -- our nation's freedom could have been delayed a decade or two -- perhaps more -- without Washington to lead the way.
Then, later on, Washington who was revered by Americans at the time like no man before or since, was a strong and effective advocate of replacing the Articles of Confederation with a Constitution, and of course, he was also our first President (I don't count John Hanson).
No disrespect intended to other great Americans like Jefferson, Lincoln, & Reagan, but "The Father of Our Country" truly deserves that #1 slot...
Unfortunately -- and inexplicably -- WND just posted the address and do not give the readers an actual hyperlink to click on. That's too bad because it means that instead of getting several thousand WND readers checking out RWN, I didn't end up getting any real traffic of it.
I wonder if they have a "no linking to blogs" policy like Lucianne, which doesn't allow its readers to link blogs?
Still, it's nice to know that I'm catching somebody's eye in the conservative big leagues...
Why are liberals incensed by Rove's remarks? Because it forces them to confront an issue they'd been hoping to avoid-- the split between America-hating leftists and America-tolerating liberals. They've got to keep this alliance intact for political reasons... but ideologically, it's a muddle:
In the liberal narrative, the Democratic Party selflessly supported George W. Bush until he unwisely decided to make war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And indeed many of them supported that: Schumer and Clinton voted for the Iraq war resolution in October 2002.
Reading the initial press accounts of Rove's speech, I wished that he had been more specific about which liberals he was denouncing -- except that, as those press accounts failed to mention, he was. "I'm not joking," he went on immediately after the words quoted above. "Submitting a petition was precisely what Moveon.org, then known as 9-11peace.org did. You may have seen it in The New York Times or The Washington Post, the San Francisco Examiner or the L.A. Times. (Funny, I didn't see it in the Amarillo Globe News.) It was a petition that 'implored the powers that be' to 'use moderation and restraint in responding to the terrorist attacks against the United States.'"
One reason that the Democrats are squawking so much about Rove's attack on "liberals" is that he has put the focus on a fundamental split in the Democratic Party -- a split among its politicians and its voters.
On the one hand, there are those who believe that this is a fundamentally good country and want to see success in Iraq. On the other hand, there are those who believe this is a fundamentally bad country and want more than anything else to see George W. Bush fail.
Those who do not think this split is real should consult the responses to pollster Scott Rasmussen's question last year. About two-thirds of Americans agreed that the United States is a fair and decent country. Virtually all Bush voters agreed. Kerry voters were split down the middle.
As Betsy notes, either liberals have to confront the America-haters they are tactically allied with or suffer the political consequences themselves.
Let me put it in terms liberals can understand:
Would you ever in a million years allow conservatives to wink-wink nudge-nudge kinda-sorta ally themselves with racists without noting that fact, and without ripping into them for being sympathetic to racists?
Of course you wouldn't. And you don't. You're real bears on ripping conservatives whenever they use "racist code-words" to signal covert support for racism and to curry political favor from racists (whether those racist code-words are real or largely in your imagination).
So please explain to me why we conservatives should just ignore the fact that you are in a political marriage with those who actively root for American casualties and American defeat.
Mainstream conservatives have done a good, if imperfect, job, of rooting out and repudiating the racists in our midst. Don't forget-- it was largely conservatives who brought down Trent Lott.
Liberals cannot continue their wink-wink nudge-nudge flirtations with the hardcore anti-American left and then express shock when their commitment to winning the war or their love of country is questioned.
The alliance of the hard left and more reasonable liberals has persisted because 1) they try to blur their differences in order to keep the political alliance alive and 2) they paper over these differences by emphasizing the One Big Thing they agree on-- the Unholy Trinity of Bush, Rove, and Cheney must be brought low.
Rove is stirring the pot now, and forcing you to take sides. And you don't like that-- because this is a wedge issue, and if you disavow the America-hatin' left, you lose votes.
Well, sometimes you have to give up the votes of moral monsters (like, for example, racists) in order to do the right thing and keep politically clean.
Court Allows 10 Commandments on Seized Land -- Satire By Scott Ott
In a pair of rulings on the constitutionality of the 10 Commandments on government property, the Supreme Court today said the commandments may be displayed on public land if that property has been seized from private owners for 'public purposes' under eminent domain.
The 5-4 decision comes on the heels of last week's court declaration that so-called "private" property is actually government land temporarily under private management until its eventual seizure.
In a second ruling handed down today, the Supreme Court banned the 10 commandments from appearing in courtrooms unless the following disclaimer is included: "Display of this historically-significant collection of laws shall not be construed as an endorsement of the God who may, or may not, have spoken them, nor of the existence of such a God, nor of the legality of the laws. Citizens may observe and obey these commandments at their own risk. Please consult your family attorney before embarking on any law-abiding regimen."
This satire was used with the permission of Scrappleface.
Quote Of The Day: Scalia On The Dictatorship Of A Shifting Supreme Court Majority
"What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle. That is what prevents judges from ruling now this way, now that thumbs up or thumbs down as their personal preferences dictate. Today's opinion forthrightly (or actually, somewhat less than forthrightly) admits that it does not rest upon consistently applied principle." -- From Antonin Scalia's dissent in the Kentucky 10 Commandments Case
If you want to know why the fight over judges has gotten so intense in recent years, you need look no further than this quote by Scalia.
Conservatives want to live under the "rule of law" and liberals want to live under "The dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority" because they believe (with good reason) that activist liberal judges will impose by fiat much of the agenda that the left can't convince the American people to vote for.
To liberals, this is a beautiful thing. Heads, the American people vote for liberal policies or tails, the nearly uncheckable Supreme Court just imposes those policies on the people under whatever flimsy pretext the justices see fit to use.
That's why it is of the highest priority to get more conservative, originalist justices like Rehnquist, Scalia, & Thomas on the Supreme Court. Their respect for their constitutionally proscribed role is the best protection we have against abuse of power by the SCOTUS.
This interview covers Bill Clinton's affairs, whether Hillary had an affair with Vince Foster, Hillary's role in the Clinton White House, her "anti-military" views, and Ed Klein's reaction to the less than enthusiastic conservative support for his book -- among other things. At the end of the interview, you'll even get to read some controversial "off the record" comments that were put back on the record.
What follows is a transcript of our conversation edited slightly for the sake of clarity and to avoid repetition. Enjoy!
Here are some of the replies -- very representative replies, I might add -- from that thread before it was locked (Feel the love & compassion, baby, feel it!):
annabanana: yes. But it is not wrong to sigh a little surreptitious sigh of relief if he does..
Ouabache: problem is, if the pr*ck dies on us, and there is impeachment they will find some way to pin it all on the 'dead guy'. Oh yeah, the dead guy DID do all that evil sh*t ! Well, he is dead now, so we can be glad and just move on, right?
That is what they will do if the pr*ck dies. Among other things.
jobycom: Good advice, but it should extend a bit
After all, if I became an evil puppeteer who masterminded the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people so I could steal more money than twelve generations of my family could spend, then I'd say people should wish I was dead.
Or, you could look at it this way: If you are a young child in Iran and know that this monster is coming for you next, wouldn't you be relieved if he died? And wouldn't you dislike someone else who wanted to remain alive so he could kill you?
Karma is all perspective.
Disclaimer: these are hypotheticals discussed only because of the topic of this thread, and I in no way would endorse any attempts to bring harm to any member of that slimy gang of murderers.
Kathy in Cambridge I never wish things like that on people. Cheney is the exception.
kenny blankenship What do you think Mohandas K. Ghandi would say? I know what I say: it's a shame to cheat the hangman.
Zhade: I'd rather he were tried for his crimes...but the world will be a better place once he's six feet under, yes.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings: What do you have against the people in Hell? n/t
UdoKier He will burn in hell, if there is such a thing. I personally don't care if it's now or in 20 years. They'll just replace him with another thug.
But wishing it is not wrong. He is an evil man.
JanMichael: I'd rather see him being convicted at a War Crimes Tribunal. Then "taken care of" after his conviction. However i'll take what i can get.
Sparkly: He will die, and if there's a Hell, he'll burn in it. n/t
natrat: no, you should want him to die painfully and have is organs picked out every day by vultures for eternity
The Discovery Channel finished polling the American people on who they thought the Greatest Americans of all-time were. The first 5 were pretty good selections, but 6-10 on the list were so abysmal it makes me worry about the future of the Republic...OK, it's not quite that bad, but it's bad. Here are the public's final choices:
1) Ronald Reagan
2) Abraham Lincoln
3) Martin Luther King
4) George Washington
5) Benjamin Franklin
6) George W. Bush
7) Bill Clinton
8) Elvis Presley
9) Oprah Winfrey
10) Franklin D. Roosevelt
What did I tell you about the back 5? Bush hasn't finished his 2nd term yet so it's too early to even consider him. Clinton wasn't even a good President, much less a "greatest American." Elvis was just a singer & Oprah is such a terrible selection that she makes my brain hurt. Although FDR's disastrous domestic policies kept him from making my top 50, his leadership during WW2 at least makes him a serious selection.
Of course, that's not to say putting together a Top 10 is cake. Trying to pit the accomplishments of the Founding Fathers Vs. Presidents Vs. Generals Vs. Scientists was tough going. That being said, here's my Top 10:
1) George Washington
2) Abe Lincoln
3) Thomas Jefferson
4) Ben Franklin
5) James Madison
6) Ronald Reagan
7) Andrew Jackson
8) Tom Paine
9) Teddy Roosevelt
10) Alexander Hamilton
Ward Churchill's Endorsement Of Fragging Is A Natural Outgrowth Of The Left's Virulent Anti-War Rhetoric
"For those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who's already been inducted [and] in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal. But let me ask you this: Would you render the same support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?"
Later, in a question-and-answer period, Churchill was asked whether the trauma "fragging" inflicts on that officer's family back home should be considered, he responded: "How do you feel about Adolf Eichmann's family?" -- Ward Churchill
This is, of course, an outrageous comment, but it's also a natural outgrowth of the rhetoric used by a lot of anti-war liberals.
If George Bush is Hitler, doesn't that make the troops Nazis?
If Dick Durbin is right and we're as bad as Pol Pot and the Soviets, why should Americans "support the troops?"
If Michael Moore is right and the terrorists in Iraq are "The Minutemen," shouldn't we be rooting for them to defeat our troops?
The anti-war left has painted the Bush administration as genocidal fascists for sending our troops to Iraq, they treat the war as unjust and immoral, and then they constantly demonize our troops as murderous, torturing thugs. Well, if you believe the rhetoric coming from the left, what Churchill said is just the next logical step.
"Turns out that far-left groups in western Europe are carrying on a campaign dubbed Ten Euros for the Resistance, offering aid and comfort to the car bombers, kidnappers, and snipers trying to destabilize the fledgling Iraq government. In the words of one Italian website, Iraq Libero (Free Iraq), the funds are meant for those fighting the occupanti imperialisti. The groups are an odd collection, made up largely of Marxists and Maoists, sprinkled with an array of Arab emigres and aging, old-school fascists, according to Lorenzo Vidino, an analyst on European terrorism based at The Investigative Project in Washington, D.C. "It's the old anticapitalist, anti-U.S., anti-Israel crowd," says Vidino..."
Here's another quote from popular left-wing moonbat, Bartcop:
"Since feedback tells me a clear majority of bartcop.com readers believe our soldiers are "no different" than the scumbag 9-11 hijackers, I felt uncomfortable counting the who sacrificed their lives for their country, as tho they got what was coming to them."
Here's a wacko who talks about the "Bush Family Evil Empire," how we went to war for oil, who thinks Bush either let 9/11 happen on purpose or was responsible for it, yada, yada, yada, and then it's, "Oh, why don't most of my readers like the soldiers?" Maybe it's because they actually read what you write on your page and take it to the next logical step, you loon.
You know, this sort of rhetoric should prompt some hard questions for the left; it should be a wake-up call.
Maybe people like Dick Durbin should ask themselves if what they're saying is going to be great propaganda for Al-Qaeda. Maybe some people on the left should work a little harder to make it clear that they do think our military are the good guys. Maybe they think that's something they believe "goes without saying," but judging by what Churchill said and what Bartcop wrote about his readers, there are apparently a lot of people out there on the left who aren't getting the message.
In other words, if you're anti-war, dissent as much as you like, but choose your words more carefully to make sure our troops don't suffer as a consequence of your unnecessarily rabid bombast.
If you're not reading my other blog -- Conservative Grapevine -- then you should be. It covers some of the best posts from around the blogosphere and it's a great supplement to RWN's daily news. Here are some of the headlines today on CG:
-- Melbourne Age editor Andrew Jaspan criticizes Douglas Wood, for being "insensitive" to the terrorists who held him hostage (This is just unbelievable)
-- A letter to any American soldier, anywhere, but esp. in Iraq
-- Outrage: Berlin Outrage: The Checkpoint Charlie Monument, which consists of over 1,000 crosses adorned with the names of those murdered attempting to escape Communist East Germany for freedom, will be bulldozed on the 4th of July!
Check 'em all out and while you are over at Conservative Grapevine, make sure to bookmark the page and take a look at it after you check out Right Wing News each day.
