Sure I wave the American flag. Do you know a better flag to wave? Sure I love my country with all her faults. I'm not ashamed of that, never have been, never will be. -- John Wayne
Question: "Why is it that some right-wing bloggers and commentators are so pompous and lofty when it comes to Ann Coulter? She's known for her satirical style and verbal jabs, so what's wrong with using those techniques to make a highly valid point? Must we be such goody-two-shoe panzies all the freakin time? Jeeez." -- miketx7
Answer: First of all, let me say that Ann Coulter regularly engages in way over-the-top rhetoric against liberals. She can be very mean spirited, brutal, and savage. So much so, that I've disagreed with a number of comments that she's made and at times, despite the fact that I adore her, have even criticized her harshly. So, if some "right-wing bloggers and commentators" are tough on her, I fully understand that.
But, and this is one hell of a big but....
Coulter is also brilliant, incisive, does excellent research, and has the guts to say things that other people won't. For example, although I think she went too far in saying that, the Jersey Girls were "enjoying their husbands' deaths,"her larger point was absolutely correct: they're exploiting the deaths of their husbands for political purposes. Same goes for Cindy Sheehan, who has ruthlessly exploited the death of her son for politics' sake and has gotten her 15 minutes of fame along with a pocketbook full of cash as a result.
Do I wish Coulter had phrased what she said about the Jersey Girl a little differently? Yes, I do. But, on the other hand, would her comments ever have generated a debate if she hadn't been as acidic as she was? Probably not. Chairman Ann would also probably point to the fact that she's had 5 straight best selling books as evidence that her methods are very effective.
It's also worth noting that for all the hullabaloo what Ann Coulter has said, comments that are just as rude & vicious as the ones Ann makes are the rule, not the exception on the left.
It's not the least bit unusual for liberals to call conservatives racists, Nazis, theocrats & fascists. They compare George Bush to Osama Bin Laden, call him a a chimp, and proudly talk about how much they hate his guts. They accuse black Republicans of being Uncle Tom's, they throw pies at conservative speakers on college campuses, and they send the most racist, misogynist hate mail you've ever seen to minority conservatives like Michelle Malkin. They claim conservatives hate poor people and want old people to die in the streets. They accuse Republicans of wanting to lock liberals in camps, rigging the elections, invading Iraq just so Haliburton can make a few extra bucks, and of engineering 9/11 for political gain.
Then, despite the fact that this is just standard, run-of-the-mill discourse on the left, they turn around and complain that Ann Coulter is being mean to them? Maybe it's just me, but I think I can live with that.
PS: I will say this though: conservatives should remember that Ann Coulter is a uniquely talented individual who's still charming despite the fact that she can be as mean as a junkyard dog with a sore tooth. Conservatives who try to emulate Ann's level of ferocity usually just end up making themselves look bad.
Could you look at a few of these ads? Just a few? Especially if you haven't ever clicked on one before? It would really help me show these advertisers that it's worth their time to advertise on RWN:
RWN now has two banner ad slots available. You can purchase a 468x60 banner ad on RWN for $60 a month. The banners appear on every page of RWN. If you're interested, send $60 to my Paypal account (which is also located in the support section -- please mention what the money is for in the comments section) and email me your 20kb or smaller banner ad at johnhawkins-at-rightwingnews.com. I will sell a maximum of 4 of these ads per month and if a refund is given for any reason, it will be prorated.
RWN's Coulter Interview Makes It Into Newsmax And Editor & Publisher
Ann Coulter's comment about John Murtha in the interview that I did with her has made Newsmax and Editor & Publisher although neither publication saw fit to link back to Right Wing News.
Here are the comments from Newsmax, which appear to have largely been cribbed from the Editor & Publisher article:
"Following the controversy created by her new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," Ann Coulter has stirred up new outrage with a comment about outspoken anti-Iraq war Congressman John Murtha.
In an e-mail interview with John Hawkins at the Right Wing News Web site, Coulter was asked for comments on several prominent individuals. When the name of Pennsylvania Democrat and ex-Marine Murtha came up, Coulter remarked: "The reason soldiers invented ‘fragging.’”
"Fragging” became a familiar term during the Vietnam War and refers to soldiers trying to kill their own officers."
Although, I wouldn't have phrased that like Ann did, I would say in her defense that in that quote she didn't say that she wanted to kill Murtha, she'd didn't say that she thought he should be killed, and she didn't say that she thought Murtha should have been fragged. Is that hair splitting? Some people might think so, but given that some of her critics seem to be accusing her of saying those things, when she clearly did not, it's worth noting.
Of course, when you try to accurately talk about the gist of what Coulter said, as they did in a 2nd article at Editor & Publisher, you end up saying something that comes out about like this:
"Ann Coulter hasn't lost any of her 100-plus newspaper clients, or the support of her syndicate, Universal Press Syndicate, despite her nasty remarks in her new book about 9/11 widows and her comment in an onlne interview implying that, perhaps, U.S. Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) should be "fragged."
That doesn't sound quite so snappy, does it? Maybe they need to do another interview with Ann on say, the O'Reilly show, where they can discuss the RWN interview to get down to the bottom of what she really meant. And, if Ann's book get's flogged a bit more while they're talking, well, what can you do? ;D But, personally? I think she phrased it the way she did to draw exactly that reaction.
You can read the interview here and make up your own mind.
Q&A Friday #42: Why Does The Left Hate Bush So Much?
Question: "Over the past six years, we have seen an unprecedented amount of hatred directed at President Bush. He's been accused of every crime and called every nasty name possible. What do you think is the cause of this? Is it really his walk, is it Florida 2000, why do they hate him so much? Personally, I don't know how anyone could live with such venom in their hearts." -- WSOwen02
Answer: Why do they hate him so much? They'll give you every reason in the book for it, but in my opinion, most of it is really all about four things:
#1) A lot of Democrats felt cheated after Gore lost in Florida. Were they cheated? Absolutely not. But, they FELT cheated and they got angry at Bush because of it.
#2) Many Republicans absolutely despised Bill Clinton and part of the animus towards Bush is just payback. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that this is really the primary driving factor behind the impeachment talk. They're desperate to try to impeach Bush, for anything and everything they can come up with, because the Republicans impeached Clinton.
#3) During the Vietnam war, the libs protested incessantly, they spit on soldiers, and they became radicalized. It's the same dynamic this time around, except back then, it was Lyndon Johnson who was really responsible for getting the war into full swing. So, there was more bi-partisan blame for them to spread around. The war in Iraq is Bush's war all the way and so most of the venom is getting aimed at him.
#4) The Democrats are out of power and that's making them more bitter, more willing to accept conspiracy theories, and more angry at the guy who has beaten them, George Bush.
Bonus Answer: The left has actually been nasty, angry, and vicious for a long time now. For example, they absolutely hated Ronald Reagan's guts and had few qualms about saying so. So, why didn't people notice it more back then? Because there wasn't a new media out there to report it and the old media, as they do today, protects "their side." A kooky or vicious comment by a liberal is much, much, more likely to be buried, minimized, or completely ignored by the MSM than a similar comment by a conservative. The difference is that now there's an alternative media that reports things that would have been swept under the rug 10 or 20 years.
Correction: I made a careless error in the original. I said the Republicans "tried to impeach" Clinton when, of course, I should have written that they "impeached" Clinton. That has been corrected.
Question: "A question to consider for Friday: Why is it with record deficits, a decaying public school system, a tax code that favors the lawyers, and rampant earmarking in congress, conservative bloggers spend their time on constitutional amendments about marriage and flag burning? Why not push for a 2 year budget cycle, or an amendment for the line item veto? The conservative cause loses social liberals (that is, leave me alone!!!) who are fiscal conservatives when they legislate behavior rather than process, what say you?" -- BradStev2
Answer: Four things:
#1) I haven't observed bloggers spending an inordinate amount of time talking about the marriage and flag burning amendments.
#2) On the other hand, Congress has taken the time to deal more thoroughly with those issues and I don't agree with the people who say they should be working on "more important matters." In fact, I'd like to see both Amendments make it through Congress and the Flag Amendment is actually fairly close to doing so. Also, in both cases, because there is a very partisan split, the votes allow people to get a better idea of where both parties stand on gay marriage and flag burning, which is a good thing from my perspective. Last but not least, Congress can't spend all day, every day, working on whatever the issue du jour is. It's their job to deal with a wide range of issues, great and small, and you also have to remember that what people think is important is largely dependent on how much they care about what is being debated. As long as Congress isn't getting into really silly issues or areas they shouldn't be in to begin with, I don't have a big problem with the things they choose to debate. Now, how they vote after that debate, that may be a different matter.
#3) When you're talking about issues on a blog, you can talk about things that aren't in the news sometimes, but if you try to consistently push issues that aren't hot and that have no momentum, you're just tilting at windmills. In other words, there's a point to regularly hammering on a topic like a Houston hospital pulling the plug on Andrea Clark, Harriet Miers, or illegal immigration -- but not much of a point to doing more than briefly touching on issues like the, "2 year budget cycle, or an amendment for the line item veto." Some issues you may have an outside chance of making a difference on and others you don't.
#4) There are people in the Republican Party who don't like it when the GOP tackles social issues like gay marriage, abortion, or "family values" -- however, there are lots of social conservatives who get upset when those issues aren't treated seriously. In other words, it's a big tent party and everyone needs to feel their issues are getting a fair shake. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there, on both sides of the "leave me alone"/social conservative divide who disagree, but I think the GOP does a not perfect, but pretty good job of trying to address the concerns of social conservatives without going overboard and getting puritanical or preachy.
Question: "I work at a large company that has had to basically completely rebuild its entire IT infrastructure to conform to Sarbanes-Oxley. (Tasks that once took less than 10 minutes to complete now can take days due to a complicated approval process geared towards accounting for every single piece of access). John, do you think SOX was actually needed, or is it a government over-reaction to a problem? Or any answer in between!" -- sabiticus
Answer: Sarbanes-Oxley, which was the result of a massive overreaction to Enron and the other accounting scandals by Congress, is a classic case of the government "cure" being worse than the disease. We're talking about such an odious piece of incredibly pricey over-regulation that foreign companies have actually delisted from our stock exchange to get away from it.
On the upside, a lot of businesses are lobbying Congress hard to gut Sarbanes-Oxley and my guess is that eventually they'll win out. It can't come too soon from my perspective.
Question: "It's easy to see a tide turn," President Bush said yesterday referring to developments in Iraq. He quickly added, "Did I say those words?"
June 2004: Bush on the transfer of sovereignty to the interim government: "A turning point will come in less than two weeks."
Jan. 29, 2005: Bush on the Iraqi election: "Tomorrow the world will witness a turning point in the history of Iraq."
January 2005: Vice President Cheney on the Iraqi election: "The basic point, and one I've made already that I believe that the elections were the turning point."
Dec. 12, 2005: Bush on progress: "There's still a lot of difficult work to be done in Iraq, but ... the year 2005 will be recorded as a turning point in the history of Iraq."
May 1, 2006: Bush on the formation of a national unity government: "We believe this is a turning point for the Iraqi citizens."
My question is, is this a turning point in Iraq? And if so, what direction were we going in before this?" -- D-Vega
Answer: You never really know what the turning point of a war is until well it happens. Did the Battle of Britain, Midway, or our victory at Guadalcanal win WW2 for the Allies? No. But, they were all important steps forward that helped eventually pave the way for victory.
Unfortunately, a lot of people on the left in this country have forgotten something almost everyone knew back then. When your side wins and the other side suffers a great defeat, you celebrate the victory, you try to figure out how it moves you closer to victory, and you keep on rooting for your side to win. Too many liberals fail consistently on all three of those counts.
Q&A Friday #42: Why Don't More People Care About Voting?
Question: "Why is the majority of the American populace both uniformed and lethargic when it comes to voting?" -- godhasstolenmyheart
Answer: 1) We live in a rich, prosperous country with a boundless number of alternative activities that people can engage in to pass the time.
2) Politics is very complex and it takes a lot of time and effort to truly understand it.
3) Now add to those two facts a party system which, despite our partisan grandstanding, features two parties a lot of people think are too much the SAME, not too different.
Put it all together and you get a lot of people who just don't care that much about politics.
Personally? Although I do think there are big differences between the parties and think that who gets into office is extremely important, I'm not one of these people in the "vote or die" crowd. It would be great if everyone were as riveted by politics as the sort of political junkies who read blogs (if only because it would mean my audience would get bigger), but that doesn't appear to be in the cards and it's OK with me.
Q&A Friday #42 Have You Thought About Getting A Partner?
Question: "Have you ever thought of doing a “partner site with another Blogger, Such as RTG, or possibly a “Hannity and Combes” type site with you and a Liberal Blogger posting side by side article on the same subjects?" -- Don_cos
"I second Don_cos suggestion. That would be an interesting read." -- JonW
Answer: To me, having a partner would mean squabbles over money, content, and editorial control of the blog. So, I have no interest in getting in a partner for RWN.
On the other hand, there are a couple of concepts I've thought about that could include partnering up with other bloggers.
Remember Conservative Grapevine? It was sort of like Fark for Conservative political blogs. It was just one line for each entry, 10-12 entries per day, featuring the best material from right-of-center bloggers for the day.
It was a great concept, a great way to drive traffic to RWN, and a great way to drive traffic to other blogs. It was staying steady at 1200-1500 hits a day as well. But, I just didn't have the time to do it. I have toyed with the idea of getting a couple of partners, resurrecting that website, and splitting the money three ways. However, it could be harder to do that than it sounds. How do you determine that the other people aren't slacking or just promoting their friends? How do you split the money? Just 1/3 each or should it be based on links? It wasn't so simple.
The other idea I had was doing a blog sort of like The Corner, but featuring small bloggers, at something like www.gaggle.rightwingnews.com. The idea would be for it to be sort of an ongoing conversation/group of short blog posts. If I were to get something like this going, I could drive traffic to the site via RWN and it would be helpful for smaller bloggers trying to promote themselves.
Is either of these ideas currently in the works? No. Right now, I'm staying busy working on RWN and prepping my weekly Human Events. But, in the future? I might be open to getting one of these two blog ideas going.
So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective; heck, it can even be about movies, music, literature, or TV. Then, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.
Daily Kos Diary: Our Sons And Daughters Need To Realize That Choosing To Be A Soldier Means A Decision To Place Themselves Among "The Damned"
Liberals get huffy when conservatives suggest that a lot of libs just don't support the troops. However, the honest truth is that a lot of liberals, well, just don't support the troops. In fact, they have such loathing for our men and women in uniform that even though it hurts them politically, they still can't help but let their contempt for the military seep out.
For example, over at the Daily Kos, the most popular liberal blog on the planet, there is a Daily Kos Diary written by Populist Party AKA Doug Soderstrom, Ph.D.. It's called Young People of America...Rise Up and Rebel!
As you read these excerpts from the article -- and this an article from the Daily Kos, not something written by a commentes -- you tell me if this liberal, writing on a wildly popular liberal blog, supports or even likes and respects the troops...
"Just over 50 years ago it was No Gun Ri. Then My Lai. And now Haditha.. and, as (headlines declare), even more mass murders, most recently in the Iraqi villages of Ishaqi, Hamdaniya, Latifiyah, and Yusifiyah; young men fresh out of high school, frustrated by life, with nothing better to do than to sign up as mercenaries ready and willing to kill for their country, yet, as always, afraid to die and angry as hell as a result of buddies (comrades-in-arms) having been killed, everyone of them having been thrown into a world of cultural confusion and death wanting nothing more than an opportunity to return home, body and mind unimpaired.
...The new training program, technically referred to as "Core Warrior Values," an effort to enable soldiers to discriminate between who they should as opposed to who they should not be willing to kill; that is.. that it is proper for them to be chomping at the bits to kill the "bad guys," those armed with guns eager to kill them, but better for them to hold back a bit when it comes to the "good guys," women, children, the blind, and old men (especially those found to be sitting in wheel chairs). Something like training an American Pit Bull to viciously rip apart, that is, to devour, its prey, and then in midstream, amidst the chaos of an enraged battle, ensuring that the avenger will gently back off choosing to show mercy for those disinclined to fight back.
...Our children need to be told the truth.
Our sons and daughters need to realize that choosing to be a soldier means a decision to place themselves among "the damned," since no matter what they end up doing while on the field of battle, they will eventually be damned.. damned if they do and damned if they do not. Realizing that compliance with a superior's order to shoot and kill the enemy may well lead to the damnation (the self-extirpation) of one's soul.
...Because our country has become the world's leading producer as well as supplier of military weapons and technology, the world's primary advocate of war, a warmongering nation that requires the destruction of all who threaten its right to dominate the world, our children need not presume that they have a moral responsibility to support the military establishment.
...I beg the young people of this nation to consider the ominous proposition that, as it was in the days of Nuremberg when the Nazis were held responsible for crimes against humanity, when the leaders of the German nation dressed their children "in brown shirts" reminding that they had a moral obligation (a national duty) to fight for the Fatherland, it will be the same for the leaders of our nation, as well as for those who blindly allow themselves to be coerced into fighting for our country, a nation having come under the nefarious control of malefactors convinced that our nation has been given the right, the God-ordained responsibility, to oversee the planet, to, in fact, rule the world."
Does he like the troops? Judging by that last paragraph, which compares our soldiers to Nazis, I don't even think he likes America. Unfortunately, after reading a lot of liberal blogs, the only surprise here is that he was so open about how he feels...
Earlier this afternoon, I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to be on a teleconference with famed Soviet dissident, Natan Sharansky.
Sharansky's primary points were that the world needs to support the dissidents in Iran and that he was concerned about the destruction of antiquities on the Temple Mount, which he compared, quite correctly in my opinion, to the Taliban's destruction of Buddhist statues in Afghanistan.
During the Q&A phase of the press conference, I asked if there would be a Fatah/Hamas civil war?
He said it would really be more like a bloody battle of gangs, with most people sitting on the sidelines, rather than a civil war. It may be very bloody, but won't be a civil war per se.
Here's some more of what Sharansky has to say. None of what's said below is an exact quote. He said:
-- When he was a dissident, how different the world would have been if we had the internet. Back then, you'd go to great risk to meet a single journalist and then you were usually arrested. Now, dissidents can get their message out much more easily via the net.
-- He thinks it is a big mistake to negotiate with Iran and pointed to all the time we've wasted in North Korea as an example of why that's the case. He also said thst he thinks the Iranian people could overthrow the government, but they need the outside world, especially America, to be supportive of them.
-- There will never be true peace in the Middle-East if the only democracy is Israel. However, he added that he believes the Middle-East will change like Eastern Europe, in a wave and that if these other countries become free, even if they still hate Jews, peace will be possible.
-- That the Israelis shouldn't be willing to give up half of Jerusalem, because it's part of their identity, but he thought the public was willing to do it for the sake of peace.
-- That Iran reminds him of the Soviet Union. The leaders hate America, but the people love America.
It was a little tough to understand Sharansky, because he speaks with heavily accented English, but he had a lot of interesting things to say. In fact, I'd love to do an interview with him some time.
Thanks to Tim Chapman over at the Heritage Foundation for putting the teleconference together.
Other bloggers who wrote up the teleconference include:
Of Course, The Mainstream Media Is Making Life Easier For The Terrorists In Iraq
"If the same person who told President Bush to nominate Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court were advising him on foreign policy and we invaded the Cayman Islands instead of Iraq, I, too, would be criticizing the war. But I wouldn't pretend that by calling for an immediate troop withdrawal, I wasn't encouraging the Cayman resistance force to hold on and fight harder. Clearly, I'd be offering aid and comfort to the poolside waitresses, cabana boys, and scuba instructors we were fighting. But if there were a vote to withdraw troops from the Cayman Islands, I wouldn't pout and say that's not fair and then vote against it. It is simply a fact that naysaying the war and claiming that things are going so badly that troops must be withdrawn will encourage the enemy and demoralize our troops. Why can't Democrats just admit that?" -- Ann Coulter in her new book, Godless
"More ink equals more blood, claim two economists who say that newspaper coverage of terrorist incidents leads directly to more attacks.
It's a macabre example of win-win in what economists call a "common-interest game," say Bruno S. Frey of the University of Zurich and Dominic Rohner of Cambridge University.
...The researchers counted direct references to terrorism between 1998 and 2005 in the New York Times and Neue Zuercher Zeitung, a respected Swiss newspaper. They also collected data on terrorist attacks around the world during that period. Using a statistical procedure called the Granger Causality Test, they attempted to determine whether more coverage directly led to more attacks.
The results, they said, were unequivocal: Coverage caused more attacks, and attacks caused more coverage -- a mutually beneficial spiral of death that they say has increased because of a heightened interest in terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001." --
Terrorist attacks can produce body counts, but that won't win you a war. For that, you need an army that can take and hold territory. That's why the biggest weapon in the arsenal of the terrorists in Iraq isn't suicide bombings or beheadings, it's the American press.
In fact, it's fair to say that thousands of people have died in Iraq so that the terrorists can show off for papers like the New York Times and Washington Post.
It makes perfect sense from the point of view of the terrorists. The more people they murder and splashier their attacks are, the more the MSM and the Democrats will claim that the war in unwinnable. If the MSM and the Democrats can convince enough people they're right, the American troops will come home before the Iraqis are ready and this will give the terrorists an opportunity. They'll always be hopelessly outmatched against America's military, but if the United States were to pull a "Murtha" and leave chaos in our wake, then the terrorists might be able to raise large enough militias to have a chance to eventually take over.
Does this mean that no negative news from Iraq should be reported? Absolutely not. We need to know the negative news. However, we also need to get the positive news and the context. In these two areas, the mainstream media's coverage of the war has been woefully inadequate.
Think of it like this: During WW2, on D-Day, 1465 men were killed, another 3184 were wounded, 1928 men went missing. However, if the headline had been "1465 Killed!" and out of 12 paragraphs, 5 focused on the men who died, 3 focused on other negatives from the war, 2 paragraphs were from Germans saying the operation was insignificant, and 2 paragraphs gave a brief synopsis of why D-Day was important along with a couple of quotes from US generals, would that have given the American people a good understanding of what was going on? Not at all.
Yet, that's what we get day in and day out in Iraq. The liberals in the MSM have a template. That template says, "This is another Vietnam, we can't win, and while we're convincing people of that fact, we have to be very careful to downplay any positives because they might help Bush or keep the war going longer." 95% of the material we get from the MSM comes right out of this template and unfortunately, the people who benefit most from that are the terrorists who want to see every American dead.
Iraq's National Security Adviser: Al-Qaida In "Pretty Bad Shape" And A Large Number Of American Troops Will Be Able To Leave This Year
The libs in the mainstream media have been trying to convince the public that all is lost in Iraq, that it has nothing to do with the war on terrorism, and that our troops will never be pulled out of there if Bush has his way. It doesn't sound as if Iraq's National Security Adviser, Mouwafak al-Rubaie, seems to agree:
"National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie also said he believed the security situation in the country would improve enough to allow a large number of U.S.-led forces to leave Iraq by the end of this year, and a majority to depart by the end of next year. "And maybe the last soldier will leave Iraq by mid-2008," he said.
Al-Rubaie said a laptop, flashdrive and other documents were found in the debris after the airstrike that killed the al-Qaida in Iraq leader last week outside Baqouba, and more information has been uncovered in raids of other insurgent hideouts since then.
He called it a "huge treasure ... a huge amount of information."
(AP) Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie holds up a copy of a document purported to have...When asked how he could be sure the information was authentic, al-Rubaie said "there is nothing more authentic than finding a thumbdrive in his pocket."
"We believe that this is the beginning of the end of al-Qaida in Iraq," al-Rubaie said, adding that the documents showed al-Qaida is in "pretty bad shape," politically and in terms of training, weapons and media."
So according to al-Rubaie, a lot of troops will be leaving this year, most of them will be gone by next year, and they'll no longer be needed for security purposes by 2008. Hasn't this guy been listening to John Murtha and John Kerry? Doesn't he know that the terrorists are unstoppable? Maybe he didn't get the memo.
Also, isn't it a bit ironic that you have liberals claiming that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror even though we're fighting Al-Qaida and just killed Zarqawi? Moreover, Rubaie says they're in, "pretty bad shape." Doesn't he read Michael Moore's page? Doesn't he know that they're the good guys, they're the Minutemen, and they're completely invincible? Maybe Nancy Pelosi and Jimmy Carter can educate the man about his country and convince him that his optimism is misplaced.
On the other hand, I think al-Rubaie is exactly right. I think we will see a significant number of US troops pulling out of Iraq this year, a lot more next year, and US troops leaving the country or setting a permanent base, like we have in Japan or South Korea, in 2008. I also think Al-Qaeda is in a lot worse shape than we've been led to believe by the MSM and that as the Iraqi security forces start to become more powerful, you'll see a lot less murder and havoc in Iraq.
We'll see how things play out, but I suspect al-Rubaie and George Bush have a lot better handle on the situation than the Democrats and the media, and that will become more and more apparent in coming months, especially after we withdraw troops from Iraq because they're no longer needed.
Does Anyone Think The Government Can Even Handle Legalizing 12-20 Million Illegals?
One of the very serious, yet seldom discussed, problems with the Senate's illegal immigration bill is the presumption that the US Government is capable of processing 12-20 million illegal aliens, deciding whether they should be in the country legally, giving them background checks, deciding how much they owe in taxes, and determining how much Social Security they've paid in a timely and responsible manner.
What people have to understand is that the government agencies that deal with immigration are barely functional as it is. You're talking about organizations that are so understaffed, bureaucratic, and just plain old incompetent that you'd think that they hired 7 year old kids running lemonade stands off the street to head every department. And people think they can deal with the titanic and complex new workload the Senate bill would put on their shoulders?
Just read these excerpts from the latest Kenneth Timmerman column and you tell me if these agencies sound remotely capable of running a guest worker program or properly handling the extensive paperwork an amnesty would create:
"The U.S. immigration system is so broken that it can't be fixed, a former top security official at the Department of Homeland Security's Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) told NewsMax in an exclusive interview.
"Internal corruption at CIS is so pervasive that hostile foreign governments have penetrated the agency," said Michael J. Maxwell, who was forced to resign as chief of the CIS Office of Security and Investigation earlier this year.
"Terrorists and organized crime are gaming the immigration system with impunity. Taken together, these three elements form the perfect storm," Maxwell said.
"You can't separate immigration from national security, and that's what keeps me up at night," he added.
The Department of Homeland Security has begun to take Maxwell's warnings seriously. A just-released report from the DHS Office of Inspector General revealed that 45,008 aliens from countries on the U.S. list of state-sponsors of terror (SST) or from countries that protected terrorist organizations and their members were released into the general public between 2001 and 2005, even though immigration officers couldn't confirm their identities.
...That means that individuals from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, whose identities could not be verified and who could be working for terrorist groups, have been granted green cards or even citizenship, Maxwell added.
...From 2001 through the first half of 2005, 605,210 "OTM" aliens were arrested for violating U.S. immigration laws. But a lack of beds at detention facilities and other factors compelled the government to release 51 percent of them into the general population, while awaiting an immigration hearing on their final status.
...More than 7 million immigration-related "benefit" claims are adjudicated every year, which Maxwell and other critics say have led immigration officers to "rubber-stamp" green card and citizenship applications. Many CIS service centers have policies that reward immigration officers who adjudicate the highest number of cases per day, giving them additional paid leave and other benefits.
Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, says that he recently confirmed with FBI Director Robert Mueller that "a number of individuals from countries with al-Qaida connections are changing their identities. They're changing their Islamic surnames for Hispanic surnames, adopting false Hispanic identities . . . and hiding among the flood of illegals coming over our border and disappearing into the country."
...In sworn testimony before House International Relations subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation on April 6, 2006, Maxwell said that his office had received complaints of "USCIS employees providing material support to known terrorists or being influenced by foreign intelligence services."
...A big part of the problem, Royce added, was that "those deciding applications are under enormous pressure to reduce the backlog," and are told to "move the applications as fast as you can."
The subcommittee co-chair, Rep. Brad Sherman, D, Calif., said that Maxwell's information should be taken into account as Congress weighs a major new immigration law.
"We need to make sure that any change that we make in our immigration law does not overwhelm USCIS," Sherman said.
"It's not enough to adopt good policy, and that will be contentious here in Congress. It has to be a policy that the agency is capable of administering."
The information Michael Maxwell had provided the committee shows that "the agency has great difficulty administering even the present law," Sherman said."
By its very nature, government tends to be slow, stupid, and careless. But, when you're talking about ICE and CIS, you're talking about the worst of the worst. If the government were a jungle, these agencies would be three legged, toothless, half-blind lions trying to run down a pack of gazelles. They're just not going to be able to get the job done.
That's why, even if we were to have a guest worker program or amnesty, both of which are probably bad ideas (particularly the amnesty), we'd need to wait until after the new security measures are in place and working so that we can cut off the flow of new illegals and run the "undocumented workers" that are already here out of the country first. If we don't do that, the system will be completely overwhelmed with tax and Social Security fraud and it's even possible that criminals and terrorists may end up falling through the cracks just because some paper pusher wants to get their files off of his desk. That's a big problem with the Senate approach and it's one more reason why the House should give very little ground in Committee.
Excerpt Of The Day #2: A Magnificently Snarky Attack On Keith Olbermann
"(Keith) Olbermann has a Teflon ego. No matter how stupid he looks or how obviously wrong he is or how completely devoid of wit his copy is, he is perpetually pleased as punch with himself and convinced that the rest of the world is as moist over his brilliance as he is. It's almost like schizophrenia.
Olbermann: I'm the wittiest, cleverest pundit in all the galaxy! All sentient beings worship me and wish to carry my magical seed!
Orderly: You're in an observation cell clutching a beanie baby and standing in your own poo.
Olbermann: What? An autograph? Why of COURSE!" -- Steve H.
Excerpt Of The Day: A Good Question About Global Warming
"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?" -- Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson
Have you heard about the song Hadji Girl? It's a hilarious song sung by Joshua Belile, a marine stationed in Iraq.
Unfortunately for Belile, the video of his performing the song got out there and now it has gone viral. Why unfortunately? Because the press, being the press, is trying to play it up as a bloodthirsty marine glorifying the killing of Iraqi civilians.
For example, here's part of the Reuters spin on the song:
"The Marine Corps condemned on Tuesday as "clearly inappropriate" a music video purporting to show a Marine strumming a guitar and singing a song about killing Iraqis, to the laughter and cheers of other troops.
...The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Washington-based civil rights group, urged the military and Congress to investigate who was responsible for the video.
Its existence comes to light at a time when the military is investigating the role of Marines in the deaths of 24 civilians in the city of Haditha in November.
...At one point, the man sings, "I grabbed her little sister and put her in front of me. As the bullets began to fly, the blood sprayed from between her eyes, and then I laughed maniacally." In the background, laughing, clapping and cheers can be heard.
...CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said the military needs to determine who the Marine was, when the event took place and what disciplinary action will be taken.
"It shows what we hope is not a pervasive culture in the Marine Corps of a complete lack of sensitivity to the suffering of civilians in Iraq," Hooper said."
So, is this song really all that bad? Judge for yourself by watching the video or if you're not inclined to do that, here are the lyrics, which were cribbed from the fine folks over at Blackfive:
Hadji Girl
I was out in the sands of Iraq
And we were under attack
And I, well, I didn't know where to go.
And the first think I could see was
Everybody's favorite Burger King
So I threw open the door and I hit the floor.
Then suddenly to my surprise
I looked up and I saw her eyes
And I knew it was love at first sight.
And she said
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.
And she said
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I love you anyway.
Then she said that she wanted me to see.
She wanted me to meet her family
But I, well, I couldn't figure out how to say no.
Cause I don't speak Arabic.
So, she took me down an old dirt trail.
And she pulled up to a side shanty
And she threw open the door and I hit the floor.
Cause her brother and her father shouted
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
They pulled out their AKs so I could see
And they said
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
So I grabbed her little sister and pulled her in front of me.
As the bullets began to fly
The blood sprayed from between her eyes
And then I laughed maniacally
Then I hid behind the TV
And I locked and loaded my M-16
And I blew those little f***ers to eternity.
And I said
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
They should have known they were f***ing with a Marine
See? This is a joke song about a Marine being led into an ambush in Iraq and defending himself. Was it an appropriate song for a Marine stationed in Iraq to be caught on tape singing? No, not only because of the bad publicity, but because you don't want to risk giving the Iraqis the wrong idea. The last thing we want is for any of them to get the mistaken impression that we don't think killing Iraqis is a big deal or serious business.
That being said, singing this song isn't some sort of unforgivable act. In fact, if it had been sung by someone outside of the military, it wouldn't have been controversial at all. So, let's hope the military doesn't overreact and bury Belile because of the bad publicity. Give him a slap on wrist, make sure he doesn't sing any more songs until he gets out of the military one day, issue an apology for anyone who was offended, and let it go at that. This kid doesn't deserve to get thrown under the bus just because he sang a funny little song to entertain his buddies and a few of them made the mistake of taping it and sending it out.
Excerpt Of The Day: Business Is Not A Zero-Sum Game
"At the time I started my business, the Left had taught me that business and capitalism were based on exploitation: exploitation of consumers, workers, society, and the environment. I believed that "profit" was a necessary evil at best, and certainly not a desirable goal for society as a whole. However, becoming an entrepreneur completely changed my life. Everything I believed about business was proven to be wrong.
The most important thing I learned about business in my first year was that business wasn't based on exploitation or coercion at all. Instead I realized that business is based on voluntary cooperation. No one is forced to trade with a business; customers have competitive alternatives in the market place; employees have competitive alternatives for their labor; investors have different alternatives and places to invest their capital. Investors, labor, management, suppliers — they all need to cooperate to create value for their customers. If they do, then any realized profit can be divided amongst the creators of the value through competitive market dynamics.
In other words, business is not a zero-sum game with a winner and loser. It is a win, win, win, win game — and I really like that. However, I discovered despite my idealism that our customers thought our prices were too high, our employees thought they were underpaid, the vendors would not give us large discounts, the community was forever clamoring for donations, and the government was slapping us with endless fees, licenses, fines, and taxes.
Were we profitable? Not at first. Safer Way managed to lose half of its capital in the first year — $23,000. Despite the loss, we were still accused of exploiting our customers with high prices and our employees with low wages. The investors weren't making a profit and we had no money to donate. Plus, with our losses, we paid no taxes. I had somehow joined the "dark side" — I was now one of the bad guys. According to the perspective of the Left, I had become a greedy and selfish businessman. At this point, I rationally chose to abandon the leftist philosophy of my youth, because it no longer adequately explained how the world really worked." -- John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Market
John Hawkins: Do you think teachers are underpaid?
Ann Coulter: The good ones are, that's why they deserve merit pay. The bad ones are overpaid. Too bad their unions don't let us distinguish between the two.
John Hawkins: Is global warming occurring and caused by mankind?
Ann Coulter: The temperature of the planet has increased about one degree Fahrenheit in the last century. So imagine a summer afternoon when it's 63 degrees and the next thing you know it's...64 degrees. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!! Run for your lives, everybody! Women and children first! Help! Where's FEMA, dammit?
John Hawkins: Would you like to see the Miranda decision overturned?
Ann Coulter: Yes! But even more than that, I would like to meet one person, anywhere, anytime, who doesn't already know from watching TV that they have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney if they're arrested. What class of TV-deprived wretches is this rule intended to help, the Amish? Mountain-dwelling end-timers? Survivalist cave people living in polygamous clans?
John Hawkins: In your book, you explain that a number of medical breakthroughs have been achieved with adult stem cells while "embryonic stem cell researchers have produced nothing. They have treated nothing." Since that's the case, why do you think there's such a big push for government funding of embryonic stem cells when they look to be so obviously inferior to adult stem cells?
Ann Coulter: There are lots of leftovers when you abort 1.5 million babies a year. This is the next logical extension of the obsessive recycling mentality. "Hey, don't just throw away that baby you just aborted. Don't you know how full our landfills are getting? Let's see if there's some parts of it we can re-use for other things, like...I don't know...stem cells?"
John Hawkins: If you were to pick three concepts, facts, or ideas that most undercut the theory of evolution, what would they be?
Ann Coulter: 1. It's illogical. 2. There's no physical evidence for it. 3. There's physical evidence that directly contradicts it. Apart from those three concerns I'd say it's a pretty solid theory.
John Hawkins: If the science behind evolution doesn't stand-up, why do you think so many people who should know better so fervently believe in evolution?
Ann Coulter: A century of brain-washing combined with a desperate need to not believe in an intelligent designer.
John Hawkins: Do you think evolution, intelligent design, or something else should be taught in schools?
Ann Coulter: I would say teach them the one that has the strongest scientific basis to it, and if there's any time left over at the end of the day you could also teach them about the theory of evolution.
John Hawkins: Why do you think the President and Senate are so hellbent on pushing an immigration bill that has their base up in arms and is obviously bad for America?
Ann Coulter: I honestly don't know, but I have a nagging suspicion that it has something to do with Ricky Martin.
John Hawkins: As you mention, during the eighties, there was a tremendous push to convince America that, "AIDS didn't discriminate," that heterosexuals engaged in sexual activity, in the United States, were just as likely to get AIDS as homosexuals. As we know now, that wasn't true at all. In your opinion, did the efforts to convince heterosexuals that they were just as at risk as gay men, which seems to have mainly been about raising money for AIDS research and political correctness, end up causing the deaths of a lot of gay men because they believed the propaganda that said they weren't any more at risk than anyone else?
Ann Coulter: Of course it did. Thousands of gay men died and their blood is on the hands of the so-called AIDS Activists who thought it was more important to push their political and social agendas than it was to educate gay men about the dangers of public, anonymous, promiscuous, multiple-partner unprotected sex. Or as it's known in West Hollywood, "Friday night."
John Hawkins: If you could give George Bush a few words of advice, what would they be?
Ann Coulter: I would ask him if he'd given any thought to re-joining the conservative movement. I would remind him that he's not eligible to run for President again so how about building a proud legacy of genuine immigration reform, genuine tax reform, and Janice Rogers Brown on the Supreme Court?
John Hawkins: Every few months, it seems like a new story pops up that features liberals, in an effort to try to prevent you from speaking, disrupting one of your speeches at a college. Why do you think so many liberals seem to support those tactics which are generally associated with fascists?
Ann Coulter: I think you've answered your own question. At least they can't stop us from speaking by sending out victim-spokespeople anymore. Now I guess they'll have to go back to complaining about "hate speech."
John Hawkins: Earlier this year, Sean Penn admitted that he keeps an Ann Coulter doll around that he tortures for fun. Any comment on that beyond the fact that Penn is obviously mentally disturbed?
Ann Coulter: I'd always suspected that Sean Penn was the type of "man" who plays with dolls, but I assumed that he liked the life-sized ones you have to inflate first.
John Hawkins: There has been some controversy over your supposedly voting in the wrong precinct in Florida. Can you tell us anything about that?
Ann Coulter: No, I can't.
John Hawkins: How about dashing off a quick sentence or even just a word or two about the following individuals...
Cindy Sheehan: The Dennis Rodman of the peace movement. Joe Wilson: World's most intensely private exhibitionist. Michael Moore: Rumors of his depth are greatly exaggerated. John Murtha: The reason soldiers invented "fragging." George Bush: My Commander-In-Chief. John McCain: War hero and let's leave it at that. Alec Baldwin: Our main source of so-called "greenhouse gases".
John Hawkins: Can you tell us a little bit about your new book, Godless.
Ann Coulter: Yes, it's available at fine bookstores everywhere. Look for it behind the ceiling-high stacks of Al Franken and Hillary Clinton books. If you get to the 40-foot pyramid of the Da Vinci Code hardcovers, you've gone too far.
John Hawkins: Is there anything else you'd like to say or promote before we finish up?
Ann Coulter: Yes, today I'm plugging integrity, courage, honesty, and patriotism.
The Top 8 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Is A Weaker Candidate Than People Think
We’ve heard a lot about why Hillary Clinton will be a strong candidate in 2008. In fact, there are whole books on the subject.
However, Hillary Clinton is actually a much weaker candidate than many people seem to believe. Here’s a short, but sweet primer that may help explain why that is the case:
1. Likeability and Charisma
If you look back at the last eight presidential elections, at least, the more likeable candidate has won every time. That’s unfortunate for Hillary because unlike her slick, gregarious husband, she does not have the gift of gab or a warm personality. If Hillary has to pass the old, “Gee, would I rather go to a ball game, grab some pizza, or get a beer with Hillary or the Republican candidate,” test, she’s going to be in a lot of trouble unless the person asking the question is wearing a tinfoil hat or is such a radical lefty that she has a “I (heart) abortion” bumper sticker on her car.
2. Gaffes
Hillary not only lacks charisma and likeability, she’s more gaffe prone than most people seem to realize. For example, back in March she suggested that the illegal immigration bill in the House, “would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself.”
Then there were her wacky comments about school vouchers back in February:
“First family that comes and says ‘I want to send my daughter to St. Peter’s Roman Catholic School’ and you say ‘Great, wonderful school, here’s your voucher,’” Clinton said. “Next parent that comes and says, ‘I want to send my child to the school of the Church of the White Supremacist ...’ The parent says, ‘The way that I read Genesis, Cain was marked, therefore I believe in white supremacy. ... You gave it to a Catholic parent, you gave it to a Jewish parent, under the Constitution, you can’t discriminate against me.’”
As an adoring, if somewhat puzzled, audience of Bronx activists looked on, Clinton added, “So what if the next parent comes and says, ‘I want to send my child to the School of the Jihad? ... I won’t stand for it.”
Criminalizing Jesus? Cain and the Church of the White Supremacist? The School of Jihad? What?!? You put this woman in front of a camera for a year, in a presidential campaign, where every word the candidate utters is scrutinized like the Zapruder tape and she’ll give plenty of ammunition to her opponent.
3. She Can’t Win in the South
The only two Democratic candidates for the presidency who’ve won elections since Lyndon Johnson was in office have been two Southern governors, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Why were they able to win? Because unlike John Kerry or Al Gore, they were able to win southern states. Northern liberals like Hillary? They don’t do well in the South and Hillary will have a lot of difficulty reversing that trend. After all, not only is she a liberal, from a liberal state, with a liberal voting record, she apparently disliked living in the South so much that she moved to New York. Good luck connecting with the NASCAR crowd after that Hillary, ’cause you’re going to need it!
4. Hillary’s Base Problem
Here’s a little secret: a lot of liberals don’t really want Hillary as their candidate in 2008. Some of them don’t like her stance on the war. Others don’t like her close relationship with the DLC, which is perceived as being too moderate. There are even some liberals that are probably unhappy with her, as much as anything, because she has been treated like the “chosen one” for the Democrats since the 2004 election.
The result of this is that some of the more hardcore liberal activists aren’t thrilled with Hillary’s candidacy and they’re not shy about saying so. In fact, it has gotten so bad that the more time Democrats spend reading liberal bloggers, the cooler they get to Hillary. That’s not exactly the kind of reaction a candidate hopes for from people who should be some of her biggest supporters.
5. Hillary Will Increase Turnout—for the GOP
Remember how the Democrats turned out in droves in 2004 so they could vote against President Bush? Well, the same thing would happen on the Republican side if Hillary were the Democratic nominee. There are few words in the English language more terrifying to Republicans than, “President Hillary Clinton,” and it’s almost guaranteed that they will turn out in record numbers to make sure it never happens.
6. Hillary as Commander in Chief?
In general, the Democrats have serious credibility problems on national security and Hillary is not going to be the one to reverse that trend. Unlike candidates like John Kerry and Jimmy Carter, she doesn’t have a military background to fall back on. Moreover, her husband’s administration was lackadaisical about fighting terrorism and although Hillary did vote for the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, she certainly hasn’t developed a reputation as a hawk, like say Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman. Although at this point, it’s hard to know exactly what the foreign policy landscape will look like in November of 2008, it’s unlikely to be tranquil and that will be a major strike against Hillary.
7. Her Polling Numbers Aren’t Very Good
Since Hillary has been the frontrunner on the Democratic side from the moment that John Kerry conceded, she has been the subject of a lot of 2008 related polls. Unfortunately for her, those numbers haven’t looked particularly good.
For example, In mid-May of this year, Rasmussen Reports had Hillary’s unfavorable rating among adults at 39%. Another mid-May poll, from the New York Times, had 34% of Americans viewing her favorably and 35% viewing her unfavorably.
Perhaps that sort of soft support explains the results of a January 2006, CNN/Gallup poll which found that, “By a margin of three to one, Americans say they would “definitely” vote against Hillary Clinton for president.”
Given that Hillary already has extremely high name recognition, these bad numbers don’t bode well for her chances to win the presidency.
8. Baggage
Hillary is carrying around as much baggage as any of the other five candidates combined, starting with her philandering husband. In fact, there are so many controversies that have swirled around Bill and Hill than you can hardly list them all: Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broderick, Whitewater, selling the Lincoln bedroom, using the IRS against political enemies, selling pardons, taking the White House furniture, shady cattle futures deals, impeachment, firing the travel office staff to make room for cronies, it goes on and on and on. Discount these scandals as old news if you like, but the American people are going to think long and hard before they vote to turn the White House into the sort of sleazy circus sideshow that it was during Bill Clinton’s tenure as President.
Conclusion
Although Hillary Clinton would be far from a pushover, she’s not an unstoppable juggernaut either. To the contrary, Hillary is a deeply flawed candidate who would have great difficulty beating a credible, conservative Republican. So while it’s important not to get overconfident about a potential race against Hillary Clinton, we shouldn’t minimize her numerous weaknesses either.
* Do not nag him. He doesn’t need to hear your whiney little voice complaining about something he doesn’t want to change. Just sssshhh!
* Have a life. The second you start to miss yoga classes because of him, he’s got you, and you absolutely must not let him think he has you until he asks you to marry him. Men really are motivated by the chase.
* Dress like a girl. They like us because we’re girls, not miniature boys. Skirts are so popular in spring and summer for a reason. Not only are they much cooler than pants, it gives boys ideas. They imagine that the easier access means something.
* Don’t fall into the habit of wearing sweats and a t-shirt around the house. It can be cute but if it’s all he sees you in, he’s going to start looking at the Hooters girls a little too carefully.
* Never, ever talk badly about your man. Whatever fight you had, it’s between you two. Don’t tell your girlfriends, your boss, or God forbid, your mother.
* Don’t embarrass him in front of his friends. There’s a social order to everything and if you bitch at him in front of his friends, it emasculates him. Treat him like the prince he is, even if you’re seething with rage.
* Expect him to be kind, generous, loving, gentle and sweet, but don’t expect him to be happy about running your errands every day for a month. In other words, don’t take advantage of men’s naturally generous natures.
* Men don’t like complainers, especially if there is nothing to be done about it. Guys want to help, and if you give him a problem he can’t solve (ie, you have blisters and there’s no bandaids and you refuse to take off your shoes) it makes him feel like a failure.
* PMS is not an excuse to be mean to him. Don’t be short with him or be rude. Nicely tell him you feel bad and you’re much more likely to get what you need.
* Don’t dress like a hooker, unless he likes it.
* Work out. They like our bods for a reason. Give them lots of reasons.
* Don’t give up your life. He likes you because you’re interesting, so stay interesting. It’s tempting, especially in the early days of a new relationship, to blow off your friends and your other social obligations, but in the long run that could be disasterous. You need outside stimulation. Kiss him, tell him you’ll see him in a few hours, and leave.
* Seduce him. Often. He’ll feel awesome and that can only be good for both of you.
* Do not be a strident, anti-man voice screeching at him that he’s oppressing you. Men don’t like women who don’t like them. They also don’t like seeing their babies aborted but most of them are so terrified of the whole thing, they go along with it to keep you happy. Their fears are justified, but they need to stand up for themselves.
* Let him drive.
* Let him lead. Not all the time, but most of the time. Especially if it’s somebody you respect, whose life you admire.
* Expect the very best. More often than not, the guy will respond with exactly that.
"The Palestinian territories were in a state of near civil war, and just one act of violence, such as a high-profile assassination, could trigger mayhem, an international think-tank said yesterday.
....The think-tank, the International Crisis Group, said President Mahmoud Abbas’ determination to hold a referendum on July 26 on a statehood proposal that implicitly recognises Israel risked igniting more fighting with the ruling Hamas militant group. Abbas and the Hamas government have been locked in a power struggle since Hamas took office after trouncing the Fatah movement in elections.
“Today the situation is but one tragic step — the assassination of a senior Fatah or Hamas leader, for example — from all-out chaos,” said the report from the Brussels-based think-tank, an organisation that seeks to prevent and resolve conflict."
"Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Tuesday he has given the go-ahead for a shipment of weapons to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, whose loyalists are engaged in bitter infighting with the militant Islamic Hamas.
Violence between armed members of Hamas and forces from Mr. Abbas's rival Fatah movement have killed 20 Palestinians over the last month.
“I authorized last night the transfer of arms and ammunition to Chairman Abu Mazen in order to strengthen his presidential guard, so he can strengthen his forces against Hamas,” Mr. Olmert said, referring to Mr. Abbas by his widely used nickname.
“I did this because we are running out of time and we need to help Abu Mazen,” Mr. Olmert said at a meeting with members of Britain's Parliament."
At some point, if the "land for peace" deal between the Israelis and Palestinians is ever going to have a chance to happen, someone on the Palestinian side is going to have to achieve a monopoly on force. In other words, it's pointless for Israel to try to negotiate a permanent settlement with the Palestinians as long as there are terrorist groups that the government can't coerce into abiding by the terms of the agreement.
That's why, believe it or not, a civil war has the potential to be a big step forward in the conflict. And since Israel is giving weapons to Fatah, it appears that they would prefer them to be the winners. That's understandable given that Hamas openly favors an Israeli genocide while Fatah at least claims to be willing to settle for a two state solution.
However the fighting eventually turns out, it's better to have the terrorists targeting each other instead of the Israelis, so let's hope the Palestinian civil war really gets going soon.
" Top White House aide Karl Rove has been told by prosecutors he won't be charged with any crimes in the investigation into the leak of a CIA officer's identity, his lawyer said Tuesday, lifting a heavy burden from one of President Bush's most trusted advisers.
Attorney Robert Luskin said that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald informed him of the decision on Monday, ending months of speculation about the fate of Rove, the architect of Bush's 2004 re-election now focused on stopping Democrats from capturing the House or Senate in this November's elections.
...The prosecutor called Luskin late Monday afternoon to tell him he would not be seeking charges against Rove. Rove had just gotten on a plane, so his lawyer and spokesman did not reach him until he had landed in Manchester, N.H., where he was to give a speech to state GOP officials.
"We believe the special counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct," Luskin said."
If you're a Republican you gotta love it because you know if this shirt existed, Karl Rove would be wearing it today:
Update #1: Remember what Jason Leopold over at Truthout said back in May? Ok, maybe you don't. Back on May 13, 2006 -- Leopold wrote this:
"Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.
During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning."
This story was an enormous story in the liberal blogosphere and that's understandable because this would have been a huge scoop for Truthout...if any of it had been true. But, as day after day passed without Rove getting frogmarched anywhere, people, quite understandably, started to doubt the veracity of the story. If Rove was indicted, why weren't there any signs? So, what was the Truthout response to this? They upped the ante:
We know that we have now three independent sources confirming that attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13. We know that each source was in a position to know what they were talking about.
...Further - and again this is "What We Believe" - Rove may be turning state's evidence. We suspect that the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation may have broadened - clearly to Cheney - and according to one "off the record source" to individuals and events not directly related to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. We believe that the indictment which does exist against Karl Rove is sealed.
So, what's their reaction today? From the TPMmuckraker:
"But Truthout.org -- the one publication to report, repeatedly, that Rove was definitely going to be indicted -- isn't buying it.
I reached Truthout editor Marc Ash on his cel phone this morning. "I wasn't aware that he had said that," he said of Luskin's announcement, but insisted that Truthout was "absolutely" standing by its earlier reporting.
"We've done a lot of work on this story, we've talked to a lot of people," he said, "and some of the people who provided information for the story are absolutely in a position to know."
So if Truthout's reporting -- by correspondent Jason Leopold -- is correct, is Ruskin lying? "Robert Luskin's allegations are in the best interest of his client, not necessarily the press," Ash said. "I think that the information he is providing is directly contradicted by the information we have."
Yes, Rove has been cleared and they are STILL standing by the story that he has been indicted. You just can't make this stuff up.
So, what will the Truthout guys do next? Don't be surprised if they blame Rove for tricking them. There are already lots of posts like this at the Democratic Underground:
Yavin4: If there's one thing that these two idiots can do right, then it's manipulating the media so that they over-react to news. There's no question in my mind that Rove got Leopold to bite on that false story that he was about to be indicted. Rove deliberately planted that story in the hopes that the MSM would pick it up and run with it. Thus, he could sit back and wag his finger saying that the media cannot be trusted....
See? Even when a liberal rag that conservatives have no involvement with whatsoever blows a story, it's still part of a plot by Karl Rove, the Bush Family Evil Empire, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, etc. Typical libs...
Not every person in the thread agreed with the sentiments you're about to read, but nevertheless, these comments provide a window into the liberal mindset that you may find elightening.
The thread started off with this post...
Little Star: Zarqawi killing a war crime????? If our soldiers did beat him to death after he was captured alive is that a war crime?
...and then went from there:
wtmusic: of course just like Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and how many others we'll never know about.
xultar: Why should you dispense justice. What have Americans turned in to a bunch of justice giving jerks. Why does he get his execution without a f*cking trial? Even Saddam got a trial. Americans. Dishing out justice without a trial. Sounds pretty um...dictatorish to me.
peacebird: Last time I checked we were still a land of LAWS. He was (as evil as we believe him to be) still Innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW. Period. No shortcuts allowed. Sorry - he was a bad guy but it only demeans us if we sink to his level, where murder is acceptable. We should have brought him to justice but instead we took the "expediant" (easy) route and dropped a couple half ton bombs. Did the half dozen others killed at the same time deserve death also? How much "collateral damage" is too much?
genie_weenie: Exactly when did the American "Justice" System treat anyone fairly? This is not a personal attack, sir. I don't believe it is something we have devolved into, it's always been that way. We are just fortunate items like the Heretic's Fork, Pear of Anguish, Strappado and Judas Chair are no longer viewed as useful and justifiable items to interrogate and punish...
Kahuna: We will continue our hypocrital ways upon which our nation was founded. Don't sound so surprised.
malaise: What's one more war crime for these goons. To the Hague for Bushco
MrSlayer: If this Zarqawi character were real and this happened, I wouldn't care. I just don't believe he was a real guy, I think the whole thing is made up. But if he was real and they really got him and killed him by whatever method, why should I be outraged? He would be just as big a piece of sh*t as anyone, responsible for the deaths of many and I wouldn't cry any tears for him. I'd say he got what was coming to him. But, again, I think the whole thing is nothing more than propaganda.
9 Pieces Of Free Advice For 2008 Candidates On How To Play The Blogosphere
There's a lot of talk about the lavish party Mark Warner put on for bloggers who attended the Yearly Kos convention. How lavish was it? I've seen numbers between $50,000-$100,000 tossed around and that's no surprise given how ritzy Warner's shindig turned out to be:
"If the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries were held tomorrow, former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner would easily win the contest for the best party planner. To date, no other candidate has rented an Elvis impersonator to perform for supporters in a circular viewing station 1,000 feet above the Vegas strip. And no other candidate has tried to ply voters with the deadly trifecta of a vodka-chilling ice sculpture, a chocolate fondue waterfall, and free roller-coaster rides.
But there was Warner on Friday night, looking, as one blogger commented, like a cross between John Kennedy and Richie Cunningham of "Happy Days" as he danced between two Blues Brothers' impersonators at the Stratosphere Hotel and Casino. At a reported cost of around $50,000, Warner had rented out the highest bar in Vegas to entertain the nearly 1,000 bloggers and online activists who were in town for YearlyKos, a conference sponsored by the largest online community of Democrats in the country."
So, is this how candidates should try to woo bloggers? No way! What a waste of money. Here's a free suggestion for candidates who want to try to work the blogosphere: Buy ads instead of having a party. Why?
#1) Most bloggers would rather have money in their pockets than go to a party. So, if you're looking to build good will with bloggers, buying ads is a good way to go.
#2) By running an ad, you get to put your message in front of the blogger's audience, the people whom you really want to reach in the first place.
#3) If you run ads and do it right, you can hopefully bring enough fund raising contributions to make it self-financing. So, in the end, the ads have the potential to be "free" publicity -- or at least close.
Here's some more related free advice for candidates:
-- Although there have been some small flaps over candidates advertising at blogs that have said controversial things, as of yet, no candidate on the left or right has been significantly hurt by it. Still, it's better to avoid really controversial blogs. How can you know what blogs are really controversial? You probably can't. Ask someone who knows and understands the blogosphere to give you that info.
-- Frequently change up the content on your ads. It'll get you more clicks and help make people more aware of your positions.
-- Don't have your ad link to a page that's nothing but a donation page. Have some more information on there that explains to people why they should give you money. That seems rather elementary, but in the 2004 election you'd be surprised at how many candidates made this mistake.
-- Liberal blogs generally do a much better job of fund raising than conservative blogs. So, if you've heard stories about candidates that have raised a mint through blogs, keep that in mind.
-- The blogosphere on the right and left does not match up exactly to the general population. The right side of the blogosphere tends to be more libertarian and less socially conservative than Republicans in general. The left side of the blogosphere is very liberal, abrasive, and particularly loves attacks on Republican candidates. Tailor your ads accordingly.
-- Last but not least, since the point is to build name recognition for a run in 2008, why wait? Mark Warner has thrown the mega-party and Bill Frist's VolPac has been running ads for months. What is everyone else waiting for?
The Top Ten Possible Last Words Of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi -- Satire By Frank J.
Zarqawi lived for 52 minutes after U.S. troops got to him. There are lots of rumors about what his last words are, so here are the top ten possible last words of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi...
10. "So how big was that bomb you dropped on me? I was thinking at least 500 pounds; am I right?"
9. "If you don't do what I think you're going to do with that bacon, I'll give you each three of my virgins."
8. "Aiee! You're standing on my groin!"
7. "To be honest, I never actually finished reading the Koran. How did it end?"
