Just think of left wing logic like this. 5 x 8 = 73. Then get really mad about it! Once you can do that, you will be able to understand them. -- Don_cos
Here are a few links to peruse over the week-end. RWN will return on Monday with a huge interview with one of the biggest names in conservatism. Who? Let's just say the man had a banner year in 1994 & knows a thing or two about how to put together a contract.
See you on Monday and until then, consider this to be an open thread....
Prepare yourself, because I'm about to prove what a hard hearted conservative I am by agreeing with a business that most people seem to think is picking on a 7 year-old kid with cerebral palsy and autism -- but somebody's got to do it, right?. Well, actually nobody has to do it, I just wanted to do it because I've never liked it when sweet reason and common sense are tossed out the window based on nothing more than sappy emotionalism.
" If you're a 7-year-old kid with cerebral palsy and autism, you have to take your laughs anywhere you can get them.
Just don't have too much fun at the local movie theater, or you might get thrown out. That's what happened to young Anthony Pratti this week. To say his parents are upset about it would be an understatement.
Anthony, who uses a wheelchair, was with his parents, his sister and his grandmother at the Loews Cineplex theaters in the Galleria at Crystal Run Sunday, watching a 1:15 p.m. matinee of the G-rated film "March of the Penguins."
The family sat in the wheelchair section provided by the theater. Anthony was having a good time, said his mom, Gina Pratti.
"He was laughing, but he really wasn't much louder than any of the other kids," she said.
About 15 minutes into the film, one of the theater's managers approached the family, she said.
"He said our son was laughing too loud," Pratti said. "My husband told him Anthony didn't understand, that he was disabled, but that we'd try to quiet him down."
Not good enough, apparently – the manager brusquely told the family that Anthony had to leave, Pratti said.
Outraged, the family followed the manager to the lobby, where they were told they all didn't have to leave – just Anthony, Pratti said.
Pratti was dumbfounded.
"I said to him, what are we supposed to do, wheel him outside and leave him there?" she said.
The manager refunded the family's ticket purchase and sent them on their way, she said.
...Explanations aside, Pratti has a simple message for the manager she says publicly humiliated her son: "Shame on you."
You know what the problem with this story is? It treats this whole incident as if it's a battle between the theater and a "7-year-old kid with cerebral palsy and autism".
However, there's another very important group of people who are being left out of the equation: the other patrons in the movie theater.
Picture this: One happy day, you decide to take your two kids to see "March of the Penguins." So you get your kids ready, you head to theater and you pay for the tickets. You pay 15 bucks to get in, you spend another $20 on popcorn, sodas, nachos and candy. That's a little pricey, but the kids really want to see the movie and you don't do this every week, so it's OK.
Well, you sit down in the middle of the theater with your kids, you get situated, and the film cranks up. Well, a couple of minutes in, something happens and you hear loud, obnoxious laughter at an inappropriate time. You can't hear the dialogue. Then it stops....but a couple of minutes later, it starts up again and goes on and on. Again and again it happens. 20 minutes into the movie, your kid is whispering to you that she "wishes that boy would shut-up" and you're hoping an usher will walk down the aisle so you can tell him to do something about that kid that's ruining the movie for you.
Then, lo and behold, the manager walks in the back and takes the kid out of the theater. What's your reaction? "FINALLY! What took them so long?"
Some people would say, "That's mean." I would say that when people spend their hard earned money to go to theater, they should be able to sit there and enjoy the movie without having to listen to cell phone chatter, people talking, squalling babies, bratty kids, and, yes, without loud, grating laughter.
Maybe that's hard for the Pratti family to get a grip on. Maybe they think a whole theater full of people should have had their quiet afternoon ruined rather than inconvenience their son. However, the manager -- who obviously didn't just pick Anthony Pratti out of a dark theater without a good reason -- disagreed -- and he was right to do so.
If Anthony Pratti's laughter was loud and irritating enough to disturb the other people at the movie theater, he should have been asked to leave, and whether he has cerebral palsy and autism has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Excerpt Of The Day: Cindy Sheehan's Poll Numbers Don't Live Up To The Hype
"Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother who maintained an anti-War protest outside of President Bush's ranch, is viewed favorably by 35% of Americans and unfavorably by 38%.
...In general, people see in Sheehan what they want to see. Opinion about her is largely based upon views of the War, rather than views about the woman herself. Democrats, by a 56% to 18% margin, have a favorable opinion. Republicans, by a 64% to 16% margin, have an unfavorable view. Those not affiliated with either major party are evenly divided.
...Among those with family members who have served in the military, Sheehan is viewed favorably by 31% and unfavorably by 48%." -- Rasmussen Reports
Knowing how liberals think, they'll probably figure the message wasn't the problem, it was just that Cindy Sheehan wasn't sympathetic enough.
If that turns out to be the case, look for the next anti-war spokesman to be an orphaned puppy with a hurt foot who limps around mewling pitifully while dragging a sign that says: "Pull out of Iraq unless you want me to die"...or maybe not =D
In any case, I'm just glad Sheehan has failed to sway the American people...
The New York Times Vs. The New York Times On The Florida Recount
"Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida's ballots (in 2000); both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore." -- Paul Krugman on Aug 19, 2005
"- Bush won the recount after the election done by the Miami Herald. Here's a headline and the first paragraph...
"REVIEW SHOWS BALLOTS SAY BUSH
Republican George W. Bush's victory in Florida, which gave him the White House, almost certainly would have endured even if a recount stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court had been allowed to go forward."
- Bush also won a 2nd recount done after the election by eight media groups. Here's what the New York Times, certainly not a Bush supporting paper, had to say about that. I am quoting the headline and the first paragraph...
"Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward"
Liberals, who always seem anxious to relive the "glory days" of the Vietnam anti-war movement, have frequently exclaimed that Iraq is a quagmire. Believe it or not, they are correct. Iraq is a quagmire all right: for the terrorists.
Of course, you'd never realize this if you just get your news from the mainstream media because they present such a myopic view of Iraq. Every day they talk about the American and Iraqi body count, highlight every bit of negative news, and present no real context of the conflict.
The focus is always on how long can we hold out? Why aren't we making any more progress? Is there any point in continuing? Yada, yada, yada...
Well, let's change the focus a bit and look at what's happening from a different perspective: the perspective of the terrorists.
Currently, they hold no territory, they're wildly unpopular, they have no open bases of operations and even if they did, they couldn't hold them. That was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in Fallujah & when Muqtada al-Sadr's uprising was crushed.
Furthermore, the sad reality for the terrorists is that they're supported only by a minority of the minority Sunni population as it is. On top of that, given that the Sunnis don't intend to boycott the elections this time, the terrorists are doomed to see their allies in Iraq continue to dwindle as more Sunnis become involved in the political process.
Given that's the case, the terrorists have one strategy left that they can pursue: Drive the United States from Iraq using terror tactics, topple a weak Iraqi government, and then takeover.
So that means roadside bombs, kidnappings, and suicide bombers are their tactics of choice. Those tactics produce casualties, terror, and gory videos, all of which are designed to lessen the confidence of Iraqis in their government, slow progress, and most importantly, influence the American public through media coverage of their activities.
Unfortunately for the terrorists, America has turned out to be considerably more tenacious and resourceful than they expected and that has left the terrorists in a hell of a spot.
You see, the American strategy is to help the Iraqis form a legitimate, stable, and Democratic government that's capable of handling its own internal security. Once that happens, the window of opportunity for the terrorists will close.
Why?
Because theoretically, the terrorists might be able to create enough political pressure in the States to convince the Americans to leave, but the Iraqis live there, so they can't cut & run. Instead, the Iraqis are going to stay, fight, and eventually they will greatly reduce the effectiveness of the terrorists or destroy them outright. This is a pattern that has played out time and time again in nations all over the world.
As you can see, it's not a pretty picture for the terrorists. They can't make Bush quit, the political process is continuing to move forward, & the Iraqi troops and policemen are becoming more capable by the day.
This is devastating news for Zarqawi & Company because once the Iraqis can stand on their own two feet, the terrorists will be put in a position where they have to keep fighting an embarrassing "can't win battle" against other Muslims or else they'll be humiliated and lose prestige throughout the Middle-East as they're forced to admit defeat.
The Anti-War Crowd May Be Experiencing Their Best Days Now By Lorie Byrd & John Hawkins
(From Lorie Byrd) Those in the anti-war, anti-Bush crowd may want to celebrate the President's low public opinion numbers on Iraq while they can.
Those like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan, aided by those in the media who do not support success in Iraq, have painted such a picture of doom and gloom and utter failure that even a small identifiable success there may be seen as big news and even, perhaps, as a turning point. Of course for that to happen, news of any successes in Iraq has to break through the media filter.
If an acceptable Iraqi constitution can be agreed upon after the present delay, that may be seen as bigger news than it ordinarily would have absent the doom and gloom background. But, again, it would have to break the media filter and a constitution does not provide the sensational pictures that the grieving mother of a dead American soldier does. There is something coming up though, that might.
I am very curious to see how coverage of the upcoming trial of Saddam Hussein is handled and its effect on public opinion of the mission in Iraq. If the media here gives significant coverage to the trial, and the public is reminded of the atrocities of Saddam and, frankly, his looniness, they may recall why President Bush decided to take the word of the CIA, the U.N., and the intelligence services of almost every country in the world about WMD over the word of a madman.
This content was used with the permission of Polipundit.
(From John Hawkins) Lorie is absolutely right. Not only do we have the MSM presenting an almost uniformly negative view of what's happening in Iraq, we have liberals trying to undercut the war here at home because they believe they'll benefit politically if we fail in Iraq. Add to that the fact that this is not a typical war, we're not taking territory, there's no army for us to destroy, etc., etc., and it's hard for the American people to gauge our success in Iraq.
So, that's why big events and trends are particularly important in shaping public opinion. The Iraqi Constitution, the referendum on the Constitution in October, the elections in December, significant drop-offs in casualties, our troops coming home, the capture of Zarqawi, and the trial of Saddam -- all have the potential to significantly boost support for the war....and they will.
Just look back through history and you'll find that this is not a country full of people who believe in cutting and running, quitting, or giving up.
Think back to 1972, when conventional wisdom says the American people were sick of Vietnam. The Democrats ran an ultra-liberal, peace at any cost veteran, George McGovern, against Nixon who talked about "Peace with honor" and his "Secret plan to win the war." Guess what happened? Of course, Tricky Dick squashed McGovern like a bug.
Only the enormous beating that the Republicans took after Watergate enabled the Democrats to deny South Vietnam promised air support and supplies, which in the end was what delivered the country into the hands of the North Vietnamese...and the Democrats aren't proud of that or the other rotten things they did during that war. To this day, Democrats are ashamed of the filthy hippies, hostility to the troops, and foreign policy weakness that became the calling cards of liberalism during the Vietnam era.
So let 'em trot out Cindy Sheehan. Let Howard Dean talk about how great the Iraqis had it under Saddam Hussein. Let the liberals call for the US to unconditionally surrender to the terrorists by running from Iraq with our tails between our legs. All the Democrats are doing right now is cementing the idea in the American public's mind that they're too weak and vacillating to be trusted to defend America. That might be a great strategy for a political party in France, but it will not play well in America over the long-haul.
Excerpt Of The Day: Cindy Sealed The Deal. I'm Now A Republican...
"I actually felt myself become a republican today. It was around 10am, when I read the latest update of the Cindy Sheehan saga in CNN.com. I then shot over to read some blogs about it, and perused the comments in some of them, which was nothing but a long series of petty (albeit entertaining) partisan bickering.
Then it happend. The good little democrat in me tied the little noose around his neck and jumped off the stool. He just couldn’t take it anymore.
Take what? The whining. The constant whining by the extreme left about the reasons for war, the incompetence of this administration, and how we’ve all been lied to, and how we should pull out of Iraq immediately, because, *gulp* our soldiers were in danger.
Guess what folks….they signed up to join the Army, not the boy scouts. Anytime your orientation to a new job involves an automatic weapon, you should be smart enough to figure out there’s danger involved. I actually read some people’s comments about many of the soldiers over there being naive….they weren’t expecting to go to war, so, they should be allowed to go home. Wow.
Soldiers know, when they enlist, that it is entirely possible they will be shipped out and never come home. It’s part of the job. The fact that people still walk in to recruiters’ offices and sign that piece of paper make them heroes. To imply that they are simple kids who didn’t know what they were getting into, or even worse, that they died for no reason, or an immoral reason, does a horrible thing. It strips their sacrifice of the honor that it deserves. Even though those folks sitting out there in the Texas fields claim to honor and support the soldiers, they obviously have been blinded by their own selfishness as to the real way to support them." -- Scott Randolph
The Minneapolis Star Tribune quoted RWN in a section called Shortcuts. It's basically just a quote section and unfortunately you have to register to view it. Here's the Cindy Sheehan related quote they posted:
Wrecked marriage
"I've seen a lot of whining and carping about Michelle Malkin scooping the MSM on Cindy Sheehan's divorce. It's not surprising that liberal blogs would bitterly complain, since they complain about everything, but some conservative blogs have even been on her case. That's ridiculous! ...
"It's particularly newsworthy in Cindy Sheehan's case because, by her own admission, she split from her husband over her anti-war activities. Here's a woman who -- again, by her own admission -- admits that she has lost all her friends, stopped talking to much of her extended family, and has now apparently destroyed her marriage with her anti-war protesting. ... If the people on the left actually cared about her welfare, they'd be encouraging her to go see a psychologist instead of cheering her as she inappropriately uses the death of her own son to try to make herself into a media star."
You can see the entire post they quoted from by clicking here.
Just for the fun of it, the 10 best action sequences ever in the movies, in order...
10) The Crow: The invincible Brandon Lee vs. an entire room full of gangsters in a bloody gun battle with slamming music pumping in the background. It was murderous fun!
9) Troy: The Duel between Achilles and Hector was stylish and well done, despite the fact Brad Pitt was involved...
8) Saving Private Ryan: The opening action sequence gave you more of a feel for the peril soldiers were in than any previous movie. It was beyond intense...
7) Fist of Legend: This is the best martial arts movie ever made & the final scene that features Jet Li against the nearly unstoppable Japanese general was phenomenal.
6) The Killers: This movie was full of voluminous & stylish gunplay from Chow-Yun Fat, but the big gun battle at end where dozens and dozens of gangsters died, along with the cruel plot twist, really stood out.
5) The Matrix Revolutions: This was an execrable movie with horrible dialogue, but the super powered battle between Neo and Agent Smith at least lived up to the hype.
4) Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King: The massive final battle in this movie may be the finest large scale battle ever filmed. Giant clashing armies, cut aways to fantastic battles between heroes and monsters, stunning giant war elephants. It was just superb!
3) Kill Bill Vol 1: Whatever you think of Tarantino, you've got to give him credit for making Uma Thurman look like Bruce Lee -- especially in the incredible bloody brawl at the end of the movie. The Bride vs. the Crazy 88 was off the charts.
2) Equilibrium: When John Preston takes out an entire headquarters using the "gun kata." Just awesome.
1) The Matrix: The rescue of Morpheus. That's the most influential action sequence of the last decade if you ask me.
Time to Make August Exciting... Politically! -- Satire By Frank J.
Man, it's rough for us pundits (or those of us who play pundit on the internet). August is always the most boring month politically... and this is an off-year! No big elections for over a year! I mean, we're really grasping at straws for something to talk about.
Does it have to be this way, though? How about we have a few special things happen on August on every odd-numbered year to make it the most exciting time politically outside of a presidential election. Isn't that a great idea?
Of course it is!
Ideas for making August the most exciting month in politics
Here are my suggestions:
* Random Special Governor Election! Look at the surprise of one governor as he is randomly picked to have a special election in one month! Watch as the other party scrambles to get a candidate! Excitement!
* Politics for the Pretty! Have a special Miss USA contest where the winner gets an extra Congressman and electoral vote for her state. The swimsuit competition could determine the future of our country!
* Paintball! Paintball game between Republican and Democrat Senators. Winning side gets ten extra one-time votes to use on any bill or bills they want. Your Senator better have dead aim, because you never know when those surprise votes could turn the tide!
* Wheel... of... War! A wheel is spun with a list of countries we don't like. Whoever the wheel picks gets a barrage of cruise missiles. Will they just sit back and take it, or will they strike back? Such excitement as we wait to find out! If the wheel lands on "Bankrupt," nothing happens because we're already hugely in debt.
* Monkey Congressman! A monkey is dressed in a suit and added to congress. Will he vote randomly, or can one party tempt him with bananas to vote as they want him to?
* Get Out of Supreme Court Free Card! The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will set out a jar of jellybeans. Whichever politician comes closest to guessing how many jellybeans are in the jar will be able to have any case he or she wants automatically thrown out of the Supreme Court!
* Bribes Are Legal Tuesday! Only on the first Tuesday in August, it's legal to bribe your Congressman. Better rush to the bank!
* Battle to the Death! One Republican and one Democrats congressman are picked at random to fight to the death. Even more exciting than the blood-letting will be the pundits speculating weeks ahead on how the shift in power in Congress based on who wins will affect political posturing!
See, with just a little ingenuity, August on off-years can become "Political Fun Month!" Yay!
Cindy Sheehan Says What The Anti-War Movement Thinks
"On the bright side, Sheehan shows us what Democrats would say if they thought they were immunized from disagreement." -- Ann Coulter
As per usual, Ann makes a brilliant point. Cindy Sheehan has been lionized, revered, and put up on a pedestal so high that you can barely see her feet. People in the anti-war movement are calling her a "hero,""another Rosa Parks," and making it absolutely clear that they think Cindy Sheehan speaks for them.
Since Cindy Sheehan represents their views so well -- as a matter of fact, I haven't heard one iota of criticism of her from anyone in the anti-war movement -- it seems fair to say Cindy Sheehan speaks for them.
So, we can look at what Cindy Sheehan says and get an idea of what people in the anti-war movement really think.
For example, Cindy Sheehan thinks that"The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!"
For pro-war people? We think the biggest terrorist in the world is Osama Bin Laden. But, as we've seen for quite a while now, Republicans want to stop the terrorists and Democrats want to stop the Republicans. No big shocker.
Also, why does the anti-war movement think it was a mistake to invade Afghanistan? Are they so naive that they believe we could have gone after Osama Bin Laden without hitting Afghanistan as well? Apparently so, as their leader Cindy -- who also wants to bring the troops home from Afghanistan -- confirmed in a conversation with Chris Matthews:
"MATTHEWS: All right. If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?
SHEEHAN: I don't think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing. We're fighting terrorism. Or terrorists, we're saying. But they're not contained in a country. This is an ideology and not an enemy. And we know that Iraq, Iraq had no terrorism. They were no threat to the United States of America.
MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.
SHEEHAN: Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.
MATTHEWS: But that's where they were being harbored. That's where they were headquartered. Shouldn't we go after their headquarters? Doesn't that make sense?
SHEEHAN: Well, but there were a lot of innocent people killed in that invasion, too. ... But I'm seeing that we're sending our ground troops in to invade countries where the entire country wasn't the problem. Especially Iraq. Iraq was no problem. And why do we send in invading armies to march into Afghanistan when we're looking for a select group of people in that country?
So I believe that our troops should be brought home out of both places where we're obviously not having any success in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is still on the loose and that's who they told us was responsible for 9/11."
"When I was growing up, it was Communists'. Now it's Terrorists'. So you always have to have somebody to fight and be afraid of, so the war machine can build more bombs, guns, and bullets and everything." -- Cindy Sheehan
Some people apparently learned very little from 9/11.
Also, many Americans will probably disagree with the strong dislike and contempt for America that the anti-war movement's leader Cindy has shown in the past:
"America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for..." -- Cindy Sheehan
You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East. You tell me that, you don't tell me my son died for freedom and democracy.'" -- Cindy Sheehan
Cindy Sheehan and the people she speaks for in the anti-war movement want to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, believe terrorism isn't a real threat, and they don't think much of America. They certainly may have a right to feel that way. but it's also the right of other more sensible people to point out they're out of touch with reality.
Excerpt Of The Day: The Strength Of The Bush Economy
Meanwhile, a splendid group of economic data points show clearly the effectiveness of the president’s marginal tax-rate reductions of two years ago. The tax-cut package was in large part directed at stock market and business capital formation, both hard hit a few years back. This was the correct target. Share prices have recovered about 70 percent in recent years, with a number of widely tracked indexes, like the NYSE and the S&P small- and mid-cap indexes, now trading at all-time highs. The economy itself is growing at about 4 percent per annum since the tax cuts, with business investment leading the surge.
Breaking down the major components of the economy, business spending on equipment and software is now contributing close to 30 percent of the increase in gross domestic product. (Prior to the Bush tax cuts on capital gains, dividends, and personal incomes, cap-ex was a net drag on economic growth.) The business surge has caused industrial production to rise by nearly 9 percent in the past couple of years, or 4.1 percent annually.
In this supply-side model, it is investment and production that create jobs. Not surprisingly, the total U.S. employment of 142 million workers stands at an all-time high. Since May 2003, non-farm payrolls have grown by 4 million, while the Labor Department’s household survey (which includes the self-employed) has surged by 4.5 million. The unemployment rate is 5 percent with real worker compensation growing by nearly 4 percent. Interest rates and core inflation are running at four-decade lows." -- Larry Kudlow
"Republican Party leaders are courting Joe Scarborough to replace U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris in the 2006 Senate race against Bill Nelson."
Normally, I don't think it's a good for pundits to run for office for a number of reasons. They tend to be too uncompromising, they've built up a long track record of outrageous statements, and running for office requires a related, but still different skill set than writing columns or doing TV or radio.
However, Scarborough is a level headed guy who's less controversial than a lot of other hosts, plus he has proven that he can campaign with the best of them during his time in the House. In my opinion, I think Scarborough would be a significantly better candidate than Katherine Harris and I think he'd have a good shot of knocking off Bill Nelson.
I'd also add that Scarborough is not only a rock ribbed conservative, but he's also a relentless deficit hawk. The Senate desperately needs more representatives who fit exactly that description.
-- Palm Beach County is still pursuing Rush Limbaugh for "doctor shopping."
You know, while Rush certainly broke the law by illegally obtaining pain killers, they're not even going after him for that. Nor would it be wrong for the prosecutors to do so. I have much more sympathy for someone who gets hooked on pain killers than someone who's using marijuana, heroin, crack, etc, etc, but still, the law is the law, and if Limbaugh broke it, he should be treated just like anybody else.
However, that's exactly the problem.
To me, this looks like another Martha Stewart case, where someone who's rich and famous is being targeted because of their celebrity. If Martha Stewart would have been just another Jane Doe, she would have never been prosecuted. Same goes for Rush Limbaugh. The only reason they're still pursuing the case at this point is because he's "Rush Limbaugh," not Joe Schmoe.
We as a society tend to be very sensitive to celebrities getting breaks or special treatment because of their stardom. But, it seems to me that we should also be sensitive to people being targeted for jail time simply because they're famous.
-- A while back, I noted that my favorite blogging trend was Chick Pic Blogging, which is attractive women creating blogs featuring lots and lots of pictures of themselves.
Know what my least favorite blogging trend is? Conservative blogs for people who hate conservatives. This features ostensibly conservative/libertarian bloggers who whinge endlessly about Republicans and Conservatives. They despise the war, religious people, or just all things Republican and they obsessively go and on and on about it.
The only thing more annoying than a liberal is someone who claims to be a conservative and yet sounds like a liberal most of the time. Have a glass of shut-the-hell-up already Pat Buchanan, Andrew Sullivan, and you other third rate, right-wing rejects...
-- From a Wall Street Journal editorial on the delay in writing the Iraqi Constitution:
"At least the last-minute brinksmanship doesn't appear to be about religion, despite repeated alarms in the U.S. about the rise of a Shiite "theocracy." Most of the Iraqi framers seem to agree with constitutional language asserting that Islam will be "a"--not "the"--principle source of legislation. This is not so different from the vague appeals to divine providence found in some of America's founding documents, and certainly is no reason to fear Iranian-style clerical dominance. On both family law and women's rights, as well, compromises appear to be within reach.
Oil, Federalism, and religion have been the main sticking points in the Constitutional debate. Oil and Federalism? As long as the Iraqis can work out the oil issue, they can probably work out the Federalism issue.
"Islam is the official religion of the state and it is the main source of legislations."
The official religion part? That's not a problem since they are, after all, an overwhelmingly Muslim state. However, if Islam is the "main source of legislations," instead of "a source" of legislations, it would open the door for Sharia and other similarly backwards religious practices.
-- I've seen a lot of whining and carping about Michelle Malkin scooping the MSM on Cindy Sheehan's divorce. It's not surprising that liberal blogs would bitterly complain, since they complain about everything, but some conservative blogs have even been on her case. That's ridiculous!
Since when are the divorces of public figures NOT covered by the press?
It's particularly newsworthy in Cindy Sheehan's case because, by her own admission, she split from her husband over her anti-war activities. Here's a woman who -- again, by her own admission -- admits that she has lost all her friends, stopped talking to much of her extended family, and has now apparently destroyed her marriage with her anti-war protesting.
Not only is Sheehan an anti-American moonbat, which is bad enough, she's running her life though a meat grinder so she can be in the public eye.
If the people on the left actually cared about her welfare, they'd be encouraging her to go see a psychologist instead of cheering her as she inappropriately uses the death of her own son to try to make herself into a media star.
-- After buying my dog pig snouts, I never thought there was any product too gross for me to feed to him -- but I was wrong. I found that out today after running across pork lung in the pet section at my local grocery store. Pork lung? Blech...
-- It's worth reminding people that there are an infinite number of high value targets for terrorists in the US with little or no security around them. While we're worried about defending nuclear plants and airports, the terrorists are probably scoping out elementary schools and night clubs.
What it comes down to is that once the terrorists are here, we almost have to get lucky to stop them. So, the key is to kill the terrorists where they live and stop them from getting into our country in the first place. We're going after the terrorists abroad, but we're not even coming close to keeping them from getting into this country.
We may have no fly-lists, but our borders are not secure & our immigration system is a non-functional mess. Yeah, it's great that we check for terrorists that are entering the country via plane, but if they can just take a flight to Mexico and Canada and waltz across the border, what have we achieved?
-- I'm a big lover of B-horror movies, but even I couldn't sit through a dog called "Humanoids From the Deep". In retrospect, I should have realized how bad it was going to be after reading the description:
"Killer amphibians, the result of experiments splicing the genes of murderers and salmon, terrorize a small seaside community."
Mental note: never watch a horror movie featuring monsters that are part salmon again.
-- You know what I'd like to see in New York in 2006? I'd like to see Rudy Giuliani run for governor because I think he would splatter Eliot Spitzer. Then George Pataki could take over for Jeanine Pirro, who has looked very unimpressive so far, in the hunt for Hillary's seat.
Now granted, she would poll well ahead of Pataki at this point, but Pataki is a big name, he'd get money and support from the Party even though he's a RINO, and the fact that Hillary is going to be essentially going AWOL so she can run for President gives him a great campaign theme to hammer on.
If Pataki could get within a few points of Hillary early on, she might just decide not to run rather than face a bruising, expensive election that could tie up resources and might start to give people doubts about whether she could win the Presidency. After all, 800 pound gorillas are supposed to squash their home state opponents, not win in squeakers.
This would enable the GOP to keep the NY Governorship and maybe pick up a Senate seat and, let's face it, neither Giuliani or Pataki can be the nominee in 2008. Pataki is a non-starter and Giuliani is all name recognition and likability. Once we get close to "go time" and Giuliani's positions on gay marriage, abortion, gun control get more scrutiny, along with his really ugly divorce, he will implode. He might be great in New York, but he's not going to go over with the ultra-conservative base that will be voting in the primaries.
So Pataki and Giuliani should stay home in New York, where they're big fish in small ponds...
The Greatest Terrorist Threat: Babies -- Satire By Frank J.
Some infants have been stopped from boarding planes because their names have been the same or similar to that of terrorists. The parents then had to produce passports to prove their babies were not terrorists. Some say this is ridiculous and babies should not be scrutinized as terrorists.
I say that this is the CRAZIEST IDEA IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND! ...or at least since 204 B.C. (I forgot who said what then, but I remember it was PRETTY CRAZY!).
If babies are giving a free pass, then won't terrorists just try to recruit babies for their missions of terror?
Of course they will! And it will be easy too, because NO ONE IS MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO BRAIN WASHING THAN A BABY!
Since babies know very little, they easily take in whatever is told them, which would include MURDEROUS RADICAL ISLAMIC IDEALS!
Even more disturbing about babies is that they HAVE NO CONCEPT RIGHT OR WRONG!
Luckily, God, in His infinite wisdom, gave babies little physical ability, because, if they could, THEY WOULD KILL YOU AND EVERYONE YOU CARE ABOUT FOR A BA-BA!
Terrorists could give them this ability!
If we were smart, we would TREAT ALL BABIES AS POTENTIAL TERRORISTS!
"I have basic motor-skills and would think nothing of killing you."
Babies should be locked in a bomb-proof container in the cargo hold of an airplane. This container should also be soundproof. I AM NOT JUST SAYING THIS BECAUSE I HATE CRYING BABIES ON AIRPLANES!
This is a national security issue.
This satire was used with the permission of Frank J. from IMAO.
"Like the March of Dimes' victory against polio in the U.S., civil-rights organizations can claim victory as well. At one time, black Americans did not enjoy the same constitutional guarantees as other Americans. Now we do. Because the civil-rights struggle is over and won doesn't mean that all problems have vanished within the black community. A 70 percent illegitimacy rate, 65 percent of black children raised in female-headed households, high crime rates and fraudulent education are devastating problems, but they're not civil-rights problems. Furthermore, their solutions do not lie in civil-rights strategies.
Civil-rights organizations' expenditure of resources and continued focus on racial discrimination is just as intelligent as it would be for the March of Dimes to continue to expend resources fighting polio in the U.S. Like the March of Dimes, civil-rights organizations should revise their agenda and take on the big, non-civil-rights problems that make socioeconomic progress impossible for a large segment of the black community." -- Walter Williams
Want to read a telling story about the nature of the left today in America? Somehow, I just knew you would ;)
The Pentagon, along with the Washington Post got together and were going to sponsor a "Freedom Walk" on the anniversary of 9/11. What's a "Freedom Walk," you ask? Here's a description from the Freedom Walk website:
"The America Supports You ‘FREEDOM WALK’ is an event on September 11 that allows citizens the opportunity to remember the victims of September 11, honor our American servicemen and women past and present, and commemorate our freedom.
The America Supports You ‘FREEDOM WALK’ is a walk of remembrance and support. Remembrance of the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Pentagon and the Twin Towers, and support of the many American men and women in uniform past and present who protect the freedom the walk is commemorating."
That seems pretty innocuous, doesn't it? I mean, certainly no one but raving kooks could be opposed to supporting the troops and remembering the victims of 9/11, right?
Wrong.
A typical reaction to this event from the left side of the blogosphere could be found at the Daily Kos, where Kos described the event as a "creepy 9/11 propaganda event."
So much for the old, "We all support the troops," line the left was shouting from the rooftops last year. Remember how angry and offended they'd get when anyone suggested they'd forgotten 9/11? But, of course, that was an election year. Now, in an off-year, supporting the troops and remembering the fallen is "creepy 9/11 propaganda."
"Critics of the war in Iraq gathering for demonstrations in Washington beginning on Sept. 24 also had criticized media outlets for co-sponsoring the Pentagon event. The Washington Post was one of several local media organizations that had signed on to promote the walk.
"As it appears that this event could become politicized, The Post has decided to honor the Washington-area victims of 9/11 by making a contribution directly to the Pentagon Memorial Fund," Eric Grant, a Post spokesman, said in the newspaper's Tuesday edition. "It is The Post's practice to avoid activities that might lead readers to question the objectivity of The Post's news coverage."
The Post article said the newspaper had notified the Department of Defense that it would no longer donate public service advertising space to promote the Pentagon walk.
The Post spokesman was not immediately available for further comment.
Leaders of the newspaper's unit of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild Local 32035 delivered a resolution to publisher Bo Jones' office stating its concerns over linking the paper to the Pentagon event, unit co-chairman Rick Weiss said.
"The statement urged Post management to reconsider the decision co-sponsoring this event in the interest of maintaining the paper's reputation for neutrality on polarizing issues of public policy," Weiss said."
Here, here! We wouldn't want the WAPO to compromise their neutrality. I mean, geeze, what would people say if they seemed to publicly support the troops more than the terrorists or the victims of 9/11 more than Al-Qaeda? How could they ever bear the shame?
Well, all I can say is that if liberals remembering the victims of September 11 and honoring our troops is too "creepy,""polarizing," and "politicized" for their tastes, that's fine. Luckily, not everyone shares their opinion and I'm sure the event will be a success whether liberals frown on it or not.
I've been interviewed again, this time at the National Journal's Blogometer. Make sure to check out the interview, which is near the bottom of the page, or you may REGRET IT FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE...well, assuming you do regret it and the earth is hit by a giant meteor right that very second...or something like that.
Anyway, I think it's a pretty good read and you can check it out by clicking here and going about 4/5's of the way down the page.
In an effort to be fair and balanced, Right Wing News has decided to present some quotations from Cindy Sheehan, her family, and her supporters. Enjoy!
"...We should call her “Mother Sheehan”. We should never call her Cindy; I don’t know her. “Mother Sheehan” is her title, and expresses her ceremonial status as a bereaved mother, calling forth over the dead body of her son. She is not a person now, she is a mother, which is not an expression of her individuality, but rather the expression of her eternal character: the mother, the bringer of life who has been wronged by state power.
...We should not use the name of her son. Her son is a symbol of all sons who have been sacrificed for this useless and criminal war." -- From Daily Kos
"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith....That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together." -- Cindy Sheehan, after her first meeting with George Bush
"It was -- you know, there was a lot of things said. We wanted to use the time for him to know that he killed an indispensable part of our family and humanity. And we wanted him to look at the pictures of Casey.
"He wouldn't look at the pictures of Casey. He didn't even know Casey's name. He came in the room and the very first thing he said is, 'So who are we honoring here?' He didn't even know Casey's name. He didn't want to hear it. He didn't want to hear anything about Casey. He wouldn't even call him 'him' or 'he.' He called him 'your loved one.'
Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject. And he acted like it was a party." -- Cindy Sheehan
"The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect." -- Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins
"...my in-laws sent out a press statement disagreeing with me in strong terms; which is totally okay with me, because they barely knew Casey. We have always been on separate sides of the fence politically and I have not spoken to them since the election when they supported the man who is responsible for Casey's death. The thing that matters to me is that our family -- Casey's dad and my other 3 kids are on the same side of the fence that I am." -- Cindy Sheehan
"I have lost almost every friend that I had before Casey died. My husband and I are separated, because he doesn't support my activities." -- Cindy Sheehan
"The husband of Cindy Sheehan, the mother camped outside President Bush's Texas ranch to protest the death of a son in the Iraq war, has filed for divorce, according to court documents." -- The Las Vegas Sun
"My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11..." -- Cindy Sheehan
"Courageously she has gone to Texas near the ranch of President Bush and braved the elements and a hostile Jewish supremacist media to demand a meeting with him and a good explanation why her son and other’s sons and daughters must die and be disfigured in a war for Israel rather than for America.
Recently, she had the courage to state the obvious that her son signed up in the military to protect America not to die for Israel." -- David Duke
"Cindy Sheehan is my hero. She is the hero of all Americans who make up the 62% of us who oppose this war. As an American exercising her right to free speech, she is a brave, passionate, living example of democracy, and she has the undeniable force and the moral authority of a grieving mother." -- Christine Lahti
"America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for..." -- Cindy Sheehan
"When I was growing up, it was Communists'. Now it's Terrorists'. So you always have to have somebody to fight and be afraid of, so the war machine can build more bombs, guns, and bullets and everything." -- Cindy Sheehan
"Some have compared Cindy Sheehan to Rosa Parks, and I certainly agree." -- Bob Fertik
"And I'm gonna say, "And you tell me, what the noble cause is that my son died for." And if he even starts to say freedom and democracy' I'm gonna say, bullsh*t.
You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East. You tell me that, you don't tell me my son died for freedom and democracy.'" -- Cindy Sheehan
"For those of us who don't truly believe in god, she is truly a gift that we must not f*ck up under anyway shape or form. For all of you Jesus believers, she should be looked upon by you as a true savior. For Budhist, she is about true, unconditional love. For Muslims, she wants to stop the pain against your people. She has united this world from love, and there is no greater power then a mother's love of her child. I know, mine are my life, my soul, my joy and my acomplishments. If anyone would harm them, I would die and want to take down whoever did this. She is justified in her anger, beyond any man can truly understand. She is our Martin Luther King, Bobby K, she is a start of a movement. We don't get these chances very often because the world is asleep at the wheel.
She is the light, don't let it ever stop burning, because we may not get another chance, they don't come around that often." -- lynettebro440 at the Democratic Underground
With the fourth anniversay of the hot war between al Qaeda and the West approaching, it is interesting to see how al Qaeda's strategy and objectives have evolved since the United States committed to engaging in open warfare.
The Word Unheard points us to an article in Spiegel Online by a Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein, who is believed to be a reliable source of information on al Qaeda. His main source for this article on al Qaeda strategy is none other than Saif al-Adel, al Qaeda's military commander who is currently operating from Iran.
al Qaeda's purported strategy can be broken down into seven "phases" which span from 2000 until 2020, at which time they believe the global Islamist Caliphate will be established and they will acheive "definitive victory." Here are the phases, which are followed by commentary when appropriate.
The First Phase Known as "the awakening" -- this has already been carried out and was supposed to have lasted from 2000 to 2003, or more precisely from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington to the fall of Baghdad in 2003. The aim of the attacks of 9/11 was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby "awakening" Muslims. "The first phase was judged by the strategists and masterminds behind al-Qaida as very successful," writes Hussein. "The battle field was opened up and the Americans and their allies became a closer and easier target." The terrorist network is also reported as being satisfied that its message can now be heard "everywhere."
al Qaeda can claim some success in the First Phase, as the organization is now the preeminent terrorist organization on the planet. The attacks of September 11 were cheered throughout the Islamic world. The global media disseminates Al Qaeda commander's speeches. Each and every terrorist attack is followed by suspicious of al Qaeda involvement. And the US did indeed bring the war to the Islamic world in Afghanistan and Iraq, however not against Islam itself. But this came at a price, as Islamist Afghanistan and friendly Saddam-governed Iraq were lost.
The Second Phase "Opening Eyes" is, according to Hussein's definition, the period we are now in and should last until 2006. Hussein says the terrorists hope to make the western conspiracy aware of the "Islamic community." Hussein believes this is a phase in which al-Qaida wants an organization to develop into a movement. The network is banking on recruiting young men during this period. Iraq should become the center for all global operations, with an "army" set up there and bases established in other Arabic states.
So far, the Second Phase has been a failure. The Arab and greater Islamic Street has been essentially silent in its support of al Qaeda. The perception that al Qaeda's cause is popular as hundreds of Islamists enter Iraq monthly is overshadowed by the tens of thousands of Islamic fighters who enter Afghanistan during the war with the Soviet Union. al Qaeda has generated new recruits, but not nearly enough to replace the experienced operators and managers that have been lost under the American onslaught in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Winning the Second Phase is important from a ideological standpoint. Defeat in Iraq would seriously harm the credibility of al Qaeda and weaken their mystique. They would possess a losing ideology that could not stand up to the Great Satan. Allah would have abandoned them to the privations of the infidel.
The Third Phase This is described as "Arising and Standing Up" and should last from 2007 to 2010. "There will be a focus on Syria," prophesies Hussein, based on what his sources told him. The fighting cadres are supposedly already prepared and some are in Iraq. Attacks on Turkey and -- even more explosive -- in Israel are predicted. Al-Qaida's masterminds hope that attacks on Israel will help the terrorist group become a recognized organization. The author also believes that countries neighboring Iraq, such as Jordan, are also in danger.
The Fourth Phase Between 2010 and 2013, Hussein writes that al-Qaida will aim to bring about the collapse of the hated Arabic governments. The estimate is that "the creeping loss of the regimes' power will lead to a steady growth in strength within al-Qaida." At the same time attacks will be carried out against oil suppliers and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism.
The Third and Fourth Phases can essentially be condensed. The potential spread of jihad and instability to Iraq's neighbors of Turkey, Syria, (and while not mentioned, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait) as well as Israel highlights the importance of an American victory in Iraq. Iraq, as a failed state, would provide al Qaeda a base to create instability in bordering countries, setting the stage for overthrow by the Islamists.
It should be noted that Syria is playing a dangerous game by allowing al Qaeda to use its soil to conduct operations in Iraq. The jihadis are developing contacts, networks and obtaining recruits, which can eventually by turned against the Asad regime.
For the record, it seems al Qaeda has already laid the groundwork for the Third and Fourth Phases. There are reports al Qaeda seeks to establish itself in Gaza to strike Israel, and Turkish vacation spots, including cruise ships are believed to have been the target of a just-foiled al Qaeda plot. Islamic countries have been the target of numerous al Qaeda attacks {see flash presentation, 2M download), and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have been in open war with al Qaeda for several years. Saudi oil facilities have been a target throughout.
The United States will not allow another Islamic state to fall to al Qaeda's ideologues. The lesson of September 11 serves as a reminder of what happened when Afghanistan became a sanctuary and de facto al Qaeda state.
The Fifth Phase This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaida hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order.
The Sixth Phase Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of "total confrontation." As soon as the caliphate has been declared the "Islamic army" it will instigate the "fight between the believers and the non-believers" which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden.
The Seventh Phase This final stage is described as "definitive victory." Hussein writes that in the terrorists' eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the "one-and-a-half million Muslims," the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn't last longer than two years.
Phases Five, Six and Seven are merely the dreams of al Qaeda, as the prospects for al Qaeda's success in phases One thru Fourth are looking grim at the moment. Despite media portrayal of defeat in Iraq, the Iraqi people are fighting the insurgency and the Anbar region is set to be reduced as an al Qaeda rear area. The jewel of al Qaeda, Afghanistan, fell almost four years ago, and al Qaeda and its Taliban allies have not come even close to retaining control. There are rumors of a rumors of a serious rift between al Qaeda and the Taliban, as the Taliban believes its woes were created by closely allying themselves with Osama's cause.
However, in the event of the United State loses its political will and pursues a policy of isolation from the Muslim world, an inevitable showdown with al Qaeda would ensue. Open confrontation with the West, as well as the possibility of a nuclear armed Caliphate, would bring the full military might of the Western World (those who value their freedom). The current operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, Southeast and Central Asia and within the borders of Western nations would be tame in comparison to what would come. The Japanese, Germans and Italians discovered in World War II the price of wakening the American military psyche.
The West would basically have two options: (1) blitzkrieg 21st Century style - the full mobilization of its military and an accompanying sweep of the Islamic crescent, without regards for Politically Correct warfare; (2) nuclear war. Both campaigns would be designed to fully eliminate the Islamist threat, and the Muslim infrastructure, which allowed for the rise of al Qaeda's ideology.
This content was used with the permission of The Fourth Rail.
The Hotline's Blogometer asks a rhetorical question: "If Both Sides Hate You, Are You Necessarily Doing Something Right?"
The answer to the question is usually no, no, no!
Sure, there may a good reason for everybody to hate certain people & things like Nazis, roaches, & Pauly Shore movies, but if you're talking about politics, it rarely works that way. Show me someone who is widely disliked by both the right and the left and there's probably a very good reason for it.
Furthermore, along similar lines, there's this statement: "If both sides are angry about a piece of legislation, does that mean it's really a good deal?" Again, no, absolutely not!
If you're talking about legislation, rarely does "splitting the baby" equally benefit each side, because liberals and conservatives are so far apart on the issues. Not every law that passes is a home run for one side or the other, but in most cases, philosophically, either the GOP or the Democrats got more of what they wanted. That means if both sides are angry about a certain proposal, it's probably because one side isn't well informed about the situation and is misinterpreting a win for their side as a loss.
Now you're probably wondering: "Hey Hawkins, why did you bother to post about this?"
Because the whole, "Gee, everybody's unhappy, so it must be a good idea," concept is a pet peeve of mine, especially because it's usually trotted out by smug moderates who for some reason think they're superior to everyone else because, "They're in the middle."
I don't buy that line of reasoning.
Liberals and conservatives are so far apart on so many things that it's like one side is cooking pizza and the other side is making an ice cream sundae. If you try to split the difference between an ice cream sundae and a pizza, you're going to end up with a moderate...ehr, a mess.
The other quote that has really gotten to be annoying is Benjamin Franklin's, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with that quote per se and would even say it is correct on its face.
The problem I have is with people who act as if Franklin's quote is some sort of unconditional blanket statement that means you should never, ever give up any liberty for security, for any reason.
Of course, if you follow that sort of reasoning to its natural conclusion, you empty out all the prisons, get rid of the police force, the military, and the government, and then you live in anarchy rather than giving up any of your precious freedom.
The truth is that we have, are, and always will be balancing freedom and security. Show me a measure that increases security and I'll show you a measure that, in some way, decreases freedom. The reverse is true as well. An increase in freedom means, in some way, that you will become less secure.
Finding the balance, that's the key. Ben Franklin understood that, but a lot of the people quoting him don't seem to get it.
How about doing me a favor by clicking on just a few of my advertisers? Even if you click on 2 or 3 of them, it'll help out. Seriously. The more eyeballs they have on their ads, the more they're getting for their money, and the more likely they are to advertise with RWN again. So, could you just take a look at 2-3 of them? I'd certainly appreciate it.
The Democratic Underground Post Of The Day: The Bush Family Is Behind Everything!
"Syrinx: The Conspiracy Is Real And It Must Be Stopped. Now tell me again why "conspiracy theories" are out of bounds? If conspiracies don't exist, why are there federal laws against them, and laws against them in every state?
There most definitlely is a conspiracy in place, ongoing, that is transforming our country into a fascist oligarchy. The evidence is undeniable. And the Bush family is at the epicenter of it.
Bush's grandfather was a buddy of Hitler. Bush's daddy murdered JFK. That's the answer to the great mystery. No mystery at all. Why the f*ck was George H.W. Bush in Dallas that day. Hmm? Why can't he recall where he was? Bullsh*t.
Why are the Bush's best buddies the bloodthirsty oil-barons of Saudi Arabia -- Bandar Bush and all? Why were they buddies with Saddam Hussein. With the Iranian clerics? Even with Osama Bin Laden?
The Bush family are cold-blooded murderers. And they will not rest until they have a stranglehold on you and everyone and everything you hold dear. They are evil, and must be stopped.
Can they be stopped?"
I kept waiting for the "just kidding" at the end of the post. It never came. There were however, plenty of people, by far the majority of people who posted, who seemed to agree with what Syrinx had to say...
"Cindy Sheehan's makeshift protest camp near the president's ranch in Crawford is a brilliant piece of political theater, and it's beginning to make people say things they almost surely know they shouldn't say about a grieving mother, but just can't quite help themselves. One blogger over at redstate.org used a term relating to prostitution to describe her, and Fred Barnes -- one of the nicest men on earth -- called her a "kook" on Fox. By allowing her to get their goat in this fashion, Mrs. Sheehan and her friends are getting exactly what they want, which is a cultural confrontation between a mother who lost a son in Iraq and some pundits (like me) who don't seem to have her moral authority." -- John Podhoretz
In one sense, Podhoretz is right, but there are so many things that bug me about Cindy Sheehan.
1) The Democrats use people like Cindy Sheehan all the time -- and I'm not just talking about Kristin Breitweiser and the rest of the Jersey Girls. Why do you think Max Cleland was on the campaign trail for John Kerry last year? Because he was a great speaker or had something to say that the American people really wanted to hear? No, Cleland was there so they could gratuitously exploit the fact that he lost limbs in Vietnam. The only reason the Kerry campaign brought Cleland in was so they could wheel him out there, have him say whatever lines Kerry put in his mouth, and then squeal, "Look at 'em picking on poor Max Cleland," when someone criticized him.
They're doing the same thing with Cindy Sheehan, except in her case, she's using her dead son as a shield from criticism.
3) A lot of people have lost their sons and daughters in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 9/11. Sheehan doesn't speak for them. So why should what she has to say carry any more moral import than the words of all the people who've also lost loved ones and vehemently disagree with her?
4) Because the Democrats and Sheehan are so willing to prostitute Casey Sheehan's memory at every opportunity, now the pressure is on for Republicans to do the same. We're already starting to hear talk about finding people who've lost children in Iraq and also support the war, so they can be asked to speak out. I don't feel right about that. If they want to come forward and talk on their own, they have the right to do so, of course, but we shouldn't be getting into some kind of "grief off" with the Democrats.
5) Moreover, the decisions we make in Iraq should not be based on the unpredictable feelings of grieving parents. You can't, for example, say: "We need to stay in Iraq, but since Cindy Sheehan is upset, we should pull out." That's nuts, but it's exactly what so many people on the left are demanding we do.
Try that sort of thing where you work some time and see how well it goes over. When your boss asks where your report is, say: "I didn't do the report and you better not say anything about it because my son died a year ago."
How long does Sheehan get to figuratively use the corpse of her son to deflect all criticism, get special privileges, and demand media attention?
7) Last but not least, there's probably not a person reading this page who hasn't lost a loved one at some point or another, but very few people have tried to use that death as a ticket to their "15 minutes of fame" like Cindy Sheehan has. That's part of the reason why what Cindy Sheehan is doing seems, in the end, to be so manipulative and grotesque.
Living In Denial, Or Alternately, If Only We Were As Mean As The Republicans!
Over at the WAPO, this article about whether the Democrats are too nice for their own good, comes from such a skewed perspective, that it almost sounds like a Scrappleface parody.
There are a few token Republicans quoted, but the whole piece is chock full of Democratic hatchet men bemoaning the fact that the Donks keep getting beat by Republicans because as the old saying goes: "Nice guys finish last." Here's a representative sampling:
"Republicans don't mind running an ad that's entirely false, but Democrats have never learned, and I'm not sure many of them want to learn, how to play that kind of politics," said Robert Shrum, an adviser to several Democratic presidential campaigns. NARAL had to pull the ad, he said, because "they weren't getting support from any substantial quarter."
Democratic strategist Chris Lehane, who like Shrum favors hardball politics, protested that "we Democrats bring a well-thumbed copy of Marquess of Queensberry Rules while the other side unsheaths their bloody knives, with a predictable outcome.
...Some Democratic operatives say their trouble is congenital. "The problem is our politically impractical insistence on always residing on the moral high ground," said Jim Jordan, who was a longtime adviser to Kerry. "A large part of our ethos goes to what we perceive to be moral superiority and the sad truth is in politics that's sometimes inconvenient."
This is hilarious! We live in an age where the President is regularly accused of being behind 9/11, going to war in Iraq in order to enrich his oil buddies, and is called a Nazi with regularity. Beloved Democratic loser Paul Hackett recently called Bush a "son-of-a-b*tch," a "chickenhawk," and "un-American." The current darling of the Democratic Party, moonbat Cindy Sheehan, is running around on an "impeachment tour" practically accusing Bush of murdering her son: "I want to ask the president, why did you kill my son?"
Meanwhile, the WAPO is quoting these Democratic operatives who're bemoaning the fact that they're playing by "Marquess of Queensberry Rules." They could not be deeper in denial...
By replacing an aggressive, anti-America, pro-terrorist regime with a democratic society in Iraq that's capable of handling its own internal security.
That's victory.
But, what about...
The insurgency? We should try to beat them down as much as possible before we leave, but it isn't necessary to wipe them out before we leave.
Instead, the goal is, and has been, to help the Iraqi security forces become capable of handling their own security. That has been slow going because we had to disband the Sunni dominated Iraqi army and rebuild from scratch, but we've made an enormous amount of progress in that regard and are continuing to do so. All over the country,
