The Discerning Texan

As leaders of this great nation we should be constantly asking ourselves how our actions help us succeed in this war. The Republican Party has made it clear that our goal is success in Iraq. But Democrats have decided to allow the extreme liberal group, MoveOn.org, to become the megaphone for their party and lower the debate to uncharted depths. MoveOn.org has labeled General Petraeus a liar and a traitor to his country, a betrayer of the public trust.

Republicans have condemned this ad and all that is suggests. Democrats have allowed, and tacitly encouraged, this extreme liberal group to define what their party stands for and they are doing nothing to stop it. That silence you hear from the other side of the aisle is because of one simple fact: because ‘they’ are one in the same -- Moveon.org and the Democrat Party.

"We bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.” Those are the now infamous words spoken by MoveOn.org founder Eli Pariser when speaking about the Democrat Party after the 2004 elections. “We own it.” That message was clear when Senate Democrats objected on the floor of the Senate to a resolution to denounce the despicable ad calling Gen. Petraeus a traitor. Make no mistake -- MoveOn.org owns the Democrat Party.

“We bought it.” And how did MoveOn.org buy the Democrat Party? Campaign donations, of course. MoveOn.org has routed hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars to Democrats and they show no signs of slowing down. Congressman Tom Allen of Maine has accepted over $250,000 in donations through MoveOn.org alone. So it’s not surprising that Tom Allen has been deafeningly silent on this issue. Apparently the prospect of campaign funds is enough of an incentive for Democrats to stand idly by while a respected General is maligned before the country he has committed his life to protecting.

Labels: America War Support, Defeatocrats, Democrat Sabotage, Iraq, MoveOn.Org, Petreaus, The Left

Labels: Hillary, Hypocrisy, MoveOn.Org, Petreaus, The Left

Labels: America War Support, Defeatocrats, Democrat Sabotage, Iraq, MoveOn.Org, Petreaus, The Left, The Surge

Like the preacher who is focused on nothing but sin, Progressives must emphasize the alleged flaws of other people. They need to pinpoint those flaws, to feel important. Because Progressives make it clear that the real obstacle to Progress is Other People. In fact, if you really ask a "Progressive" what other people are like, you're likely to hear that much of humanity is either ignorant or evil.

The word Progressive first became popular in the late 19th century, but has now been adopted as a popular synonym for "socialism." Americans tend not to like socialism, associating it with the Soviet Union and other bad characters. But "Progressivism" sounds fine. So it is a euphemism for something people fear; a cover-up label.

The odd thing, of course, is that real progress in the world is almost never achieved by self-proclaimed "Progressives." They generally make things worse rather than better. (See all the mad utopian schemers from Bin Laden to Stalin and Ahmadi-Nejad.) As a group, they are strikingly ill-equipped to even understand the world in any depth. Rather, it's farmers, business people, engineers, teachers, laborers, scientists, soldiers, cops, doctors, writers, inventors, all of whom create real progress --- or who keep the world from sliding back into barbarism.

All the radicals in the world together have not created as much economic progress as the inventor of Diet Coke or the Post-It Note. I'm sorry, but it's plainly true. So the "Progressive" ego trip is really only an ego trip.

The same thing goes for "post-modernism," and so many other labels on the Left. If you're a "post-modernist," you plainly imply that everybody else is past it: dead and gone. The Progressive part of the world has moved beyond modernism, or whatever ism is to be surpassed. Well, why would you believe something as obviously false as that? Basically, to flatter yourself and your fellow deludees.

Labels: Marxism, PC, Socialism, The Left

Labels: Iran, Nutroots, Radicalism, The Left

DT, it is pretty damn obvious that Hsu did not make all this money from a lemonaid stand on the corner. And if a person is making that kind of money in the garment industry (my business for 15 years) that he can give $1.3 mil in just a few years to political causes, he had to be making a whole like more.

I checked my resources and found no listing for Hsu in any of my garment vendor data. None. And I have a book of vendors that include fabric, notions, labels, importers, jobbers, production (sweat) shops, shippers, etc. Nothing. He did not exist in the garment world.

So how does a man with no clear business write a check for $2,000,000.00? Where did he get that kind of dough?

I will say it again. Pressure should be brought on the Paws with a promise of a long vacation at Club Fed if they don't turn a dime on Hsu. As well as the Lee family.

Do I think there is a common thread in all of this? Yes, and it leads right to the PRC and Beijing.

The human comedy is not to be disdained. Nonetheless, after listening to the post-arrest audio tape of Craig’s interview with Sergeant Dave Karsnia, I find myself inclining toward Henry Kissinger’s pronouncement on the Iran/Iraq war: It’s a shame they both can’t lose. As it happens, I passed by the very same men’s room at the Lindbergh Terminal only a couple of months ago. I didn’t go in, however. My general philosophy on public restrooms was summed up by the late Derek Jackson, the Oxford professor and jockey, in his advice to a Frenchman about to visit Britain. “Never go to a public lavatory in London,” warned Professor Jackson. “I always pee in the street. You may be fined a few pounds for committing a nuisance, but in a public lavatory you risk two years in prison because a policeman in plain clothes says you smiled at him.”

Just so. Sergeant Karsnia is paid by the police department to sit in a stall in the men’s room all day, like a spider waiting for the flies. The Baron von Richthoven of the Minneapolis Bathroom Patrol has notched up a phenomenal number of kills and knows what to look for — the tapping foot in the adjoining stall, a hand signal under the divider. Did you know that tapping your foot in a bathroom was a recognized indicator that a criminal act is about to occur? Don’t take your i-Pod in with you! [...]

What else is a giveaway that you’re a creep and a pervert seeking loveless anonymous sex? Well, according to Sergeant Karsnia, when the Senator entered the stall, he placed his wheelie bag against the door, which (according to the official complaint) “Sgt Karsnia’s experience has indicated is used to attempt to conceal sexual conduct by blocking the view from the front of the stall”.

No doubt. But, if you use the men’s room at the airport, where are you meant to put your carry-on? There’s not many other places in a bathroom stall other than against the door, unless Minneapolis is planning on mandating overhead bins in every cubicle. In happier times, one would have offered some cheery urchin sixpence to keep an eye on one’s bags. But today if you go to the airport bathroom and say to some lad, “Would you like to take care of my wheelie for five minutes?”, you’ll be looking at 30 years in the slammer.

I’ve no doubt Senator Craig went to that bathroom looking for sex. Listen to the tape of his encounter with Sergeant Karsnia and then imagine, as Jonah Goldberg suggested, how the conversation would go if Senators McCain or Webb had been in that stall and were accused of brushing shoes with the flatfoot. Not being privy to the codes of the privy, it would take ‘em 15 minutes even to figure out what Sarge was accusing ‘em of and, when it became clear, the conversation would erupt in a blizzard of asterisks and, shortly thereafter, fists. Instead, Senator Craig copped a plea. Because of that, he should disappear from public life as swiftly as possible and embrace full time the anonymity he cherishes in his sexual encounters. Not, as the left urges, on grounds of “hypocrisy” — because he’s a “family values” politician who opposes “gay marriage” yet trawls for rough trade in men’s rooms. A measure of hypocrisy is necessary to a functioning society. It’s quite possible, on the one hand, to be opposed to the legalization of prostitution yet, on the other, to pull your hat down over your brow every other Tuesday and sneak off to the cat house on the other side of town. Your inability to live up to your own standards does not, in and of itself, nullify them. The Left gives the impression that a Republican senator caught in a whorehouse ought immediately to say, “You’re right. I should have supported earmarks for hookers in the 2005 appropriations bill.” ...

Today some Republicans pat themselves on the back for their “courageous” stand against liberal charges of hypocrisy as they were early in their denunciation of Craig. Now, these would be the same liberals who show routinely their hypocrisy embracing Bill Clinton (accused of rape), Barney Frank (accused of allowing his home to be used for male prostitution), and the late Gerry Studds (who had sex repeatedly with a seventeen-year-old page). These Republicans fear the “culture of corruption” label the liberals have assigned them and aren’t quite sure how to respond to it. Mostly, they refuse to fire back by highlighting the numerous examples of demonstrable sleaze involving William Jefferson (alleged bribe), Alan Mollohan (alleged self-dealing), John Murtha (earmarks related to his brother), Dianne Feinstein (her husband profiting from military contracts), Hillary Clinton (Norman Hsu, et al), and, of course, the aforementioned Clinton, Frank, and Studds examples.

There is indeed a culture of corruption, and it extends well beyond any single politician. It swirls around big government. It always has and it always will. It has become institutionalized in many ways. And that culture of corruption celebrates clever word games used by unelected judges to exercise power they don’t have as they rewrite the Constitution; it demeans people of faith who speak out against the culture of corruption and for — dare I say — family values; it undermines and seeks to demoralize Americans in uniform as they fight a horrible enemy on the battlefield; it demonizes entrepreneurs and successful enterprises; it uses race, age, religion, gender, and whatever works to balkanize Americans; and so on. This is the real culture of corruption. Let’s call it what it is — modern liberalism. And its impact on our society is far worse than the disorderly-conduct misdemeanor to which Larry Craig pled guilty and for which he has now resigned.

Labels: Campaign Contributions, Democrat Sabotage, Hsu Scandal, Media Bias, Scandal, The Left, US Senate

Today's Star Tribune gives us a preview of the festitivities planned by radical groups for the Republican convention in St. Paul next summer: "19 bicyclists arrested after rally turns into melee."

Labels: Nutroots, Radicalism, The Left

We wrote here about the television commercials that Freedom's Watch has produced, featuring veterans and their families, that urge Congress and the public to continue supporting the Iraq war. The commercials are well done, and convey the simple message that the Iraq war is important and winnable, and that we should allow our troops to see the mission through. The ads are appearing in the context of a blizzard of anti-war ads by left-wing groups, intended to pressure Senators and Congressmen into pulling the plug on the Iraq effort.

Freedom's Watch has placed its ads on Fox and CNN, but CNBC and MSNBC have refused to run the ads. Ari Fleischer wrote this morning on behalf of Freedom's Watch to let us know that CNBC and MSNBC have stubbornly refused to air the pro-war ads, even though they have run issue ads on other controversial topics. Freedom's Watch has written to CNBC and MSNBC to protest their decision; here is the text of that letter:

John Kelly
Senior Vice-President of NBC News Network Sales
30 Rockefeller Plaza
12th Floor
New York, NY 10112

Dear Mr. Kelly,

We understand that MSNBC and CNBC (the “Networks”) are refusing to sell advertising time to Freedom’s Watch (“FW”) to air a series of educational advertisements. It is our understanding that the purported basis for the denial is a Network policy denying access to groups that wish to sponsor advertising on controversial issues of public importance.

Given your recent history of airing such ads (see below), we must wonder if your denial to FW is a subjective decision because the network officials disagree with the FW ads’ message? If you continue to refuse to air FW’s advertisement we request an explanation of your basis in writing or station policy within two (2) days from the date above as time is of the essence.

FW has requested time on your networks to air advertisements discussing the War Against Terrorism. Your reporters and commentators discuss this issue on your programs at every hour of the day so you clearly agree this is an issue of great public importance. FW’s advertisements, to be sure, present a view of this debate that rounds out your coverage. These ads feature Iraq War Veterans and their families discussing their sacrifices in personal terms and their belief that we must allow the military time to complete its mission in Iraq and seek victory. This is a side of this issue that should not be silenced by national cable networks. We believe that rather than censor these American heroes, you should let the American public hear their story.

As noted above, it’s troubling that the Networks appear to be airing messages on issues on a selective basis. Our research indicates that your network has accepted and aired advertisements dealing with controversial issues of national importance in the recent past. For example, the Networks aired an advertisement entitled “Shameless Politicians” sponsored by Move America Forward regarding the war on terror in October 2004. In November 2006, the Networks aired advertisements sponsored by the American Medical Association entitled “Patient Voice” concerning the controversial issue of access to health care and coverage for the uninsured. During July 2007, the Networks aired advertisements sponsored by the Save Darfur Coalition. Your history of airing other issue advocacy advertisements makes the denial of FW advertisements troubling and raises the issue of whether your denial is based on an editorial disagreement with FW's message.

These ads are about important issues that will shape our national security policies for years to come. These ads present a point of view that your viewers are not now receiving.

Your viewers deserve to hear all sides of this issue so that they can make informed judgments about the future of their country.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this request. Please respond to me through Larry Weitzner at Jamestown Associates.

Very Truly Yours,

Bradley A. Blakeman
President and CEO

Freedom of speech: at some of our cable networks, you can't even buy it! We'll follow up with any response that may be forthcoming from NBC.

Labels: America War Support, Enemy Propaganda, Hearts and Minds, Media Bias, Media War, The Left

Now that Marcus Luttrell's book, "Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10," is a national bestseller, maybe Americans are ready to start a discussion about the core issue his story brings to light: the inverted morality and insanity of U.S. military rules of engagement.

On a stark mountaintop in Afghanistan, Leading Petty Officer Luttrell and three Navy SEAL teammates found themselves having just such a discussion back in 2005. Dropped behind enemy lines to kill or capture a Taliban kingpin who commanded between 150 and 200 fighters, the SEAL team was unexpectedly discovered in the early stages of a mission whose success, of course, depended on secrecy. Three unarmed Afghan goatherds, one a teenager, had stumbled across the Americans' position, presenting the soldiers with an urgent dilemma: What should they do?

If they let the Afghans go, the Afghans would probably alert the Taliban to the their whereabouts. This would mean a battle in which the Americans were outnumbered by at least 35 to 1. If the Americans didn't let the goatherds go -- if they killed them, because there was no way to hold them -- the Americans would avoid detection and, most likely, leave the area safely. On a treeless mountainside far from home, four of our bravest patriots came to the ghastly conclusion that the only way to save themselves was forbidden by the ROE. Such an action would set off a media firestorm, and lead to murder charges for all.

It is agonizing to read their tense debate as recounted by Marcus Luttrell, the "lone survivor" of the disastrous mission. Each of the SEALs was aware of "the strictly correct military decision" -- namely, that it would be suicide to let the goatherds live. But they were also aware that their own country, for which they were fighting, would ultimately turn on them if they made that decision. It was as if committing suicide had become the only politically correct option. For fighting men ordered behind enemy lines, such rules are not only insane, they're immoral.

The SEALs sent the goatherds on their way. One hour later, a sizeable Taliban force attacked, beginning a horrendous battle that resulted not only in the deaths of Mr. Luttrell's three SEAL teammates, but also the deaths of 16 would-be rescuers -- eight additional SEALs and eight Army special operations soldiers whose helicopter was shot down by a Taliban RPG.

"Look at me right now in my story," Mr. Luttrell writes. "Helpless, tortured, shot, blown up, my best buddies all dead, and all because we were afraid of the liberals back home, afraid to do what was necessary to save our own lives. Afraid of American civilian lawyers. I have only one piece of advice for what it's worth: If you don't want to get into a war where things go wrong, where the wrong people sometimes get killed, where innocent people sometimes have to die, then stay the hell out of it in the first place."

I couldn't agree more, except for the fact that conservatives, up to and including the president, are at least as responsible for our outrageous rules of engagement as liberals. The question Americans need to ask themselves now, with "Lone Survivor" as Exhibit A, is whether adhering to these precious rules is worth the exorbitant price -- in this case, 19 valiant soldiers.

Another question to raise is why our military, knowing the precise location of a Taliban kingpin, sends in Navy SEALs, not Air Force bombers, in the first place? The answer is "collateral damage." I know this -- and so do our enemies, who, as Mr. Luttrell writes, laugh at our rules of engagement as they sleep safely at night. I find it hard to believe that this is something most Americans applaud, but it's impossible to know because this debate hasn't begun. But it should. It strikes at the core not only of our capacity to make war, but also our will to survive. A nation that doesn't automatically value its sons who fight to protect it more than the "unarmed civilians" they encounter behind enemy lines is not only unlikely to win a war: It isn't showing much interest in its own survival.

This is what comes through, loud and ugly, from that mountaintop in Afghanistan, where four young Americans ultimately agreed it was better to be killed than to kill.

Throughout this book, the term fanatic is not used as a term of moral reprobation or condemnation, nor is rational actor a term of praise or approval. Both are used simply to designate certain kinds of actors and their conduct. The fanatic is someone willing to make a sacrifice of his own self-interest for something outside himself. He is willing to die for his tribe or his cause. The rational actor is someone whose conduct is guided solely by his own enlightened self-interest, which, because it is enlightened, is willing to accept the rule of law. However he is unwilling to die for anything, since death can never be in his self-interest, enlighten it however you please. The fanatic may be a saint or a terrorist, a revolutionary or a lone madman, while a rational actor may be a kind-hearted accountant, a devious business tycoon, a great scientist, a penny-wise housewife, or an officious government bureaucrat.

Now, of course, there are people who are mainly rational actors who are still willing to die for their country or for a cause. In this willingness, however, they are not acting as rational actors but as tribal actors. Indeed, an essential point of this book is that, in a crisis in which the law of the jungle returns to the fore, rational actors may suddenly begin to act like tribal actors. Often the danger is that they do not make this transition quite suddenly enough. Yet as the crisis deepens, those who refuse to stop playing the role of the rational actor find themselves increasingly friendless in a world full of enemies, until the day comes that they too must choose sides and embrace the tribal ethos of Us versus Them.

Both the tribal mind and fanaticism are rational adaptations to a world ruled by the law of the jungle--rational in that they increase the odds of surviving. On the other hand the rational actor doesn't have a chance of survival in the jungle. He who has neither a tribe nor pack to defend him will perish. That is why the rational actor must be horrified at the very thought of the return to the law of the jungle--in order to exist at all, the rational actor must live in an environment in which the rule of law has replaced the law of the jungle. Yet, in the modern liberal West, the rule of law has been so successful in pushing back the jungle that many in the West have forgotten that we are the exceptions, not the rule.

In short there are two great threats facing the survival of the modern liberal West. The first is its exaggerated confidence in the power of reason; the second is its profound underestimation of the forces of fanaticism.

Labels: Afghanistan, Media War, PC, Rules of Engagement, The Left

Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt for killing three Iraqi brothers in November 2005.

The hearing officer, Lt. Col. Paul Ware, wrote in a report released by the defense Tuesday that those charges were based on unreliable witness accounts, insupportable forensic evidence and questionable legal theories. He also wrote that the case could have dangerous consequences on the battlefield, where soldiers might hesitate during critical moments when facing an enemy.

"The government version is unsupported by independent evidence," Ware wrote in the 18-page report. "To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary."

Prosecutors allege Sharratt and other members of his battalion carried out a revenge-motivated assault on Iraqi civilians that left 24 dead after a roadside bomb killed a fellow Marine nearby.

Sharratt contends the Iraqi men he confronted were insurgents and at least one was holding an AK-47 rifle when he fired at them.

In addition to Sharratt, two other enlisted men are charged with murder and four officers are accused of failing to investigate the incident—the largest single Iraqi civilian death case of the war. Sharratt's case is the first among the three charged with murder to go to a hearing known as an Article 32 investigation, the military equivalent of a grand jury.

Back in June, I linked to an incredible must-read by J.R. Dunn on Haditha (if you didn't read it then, I highly recommend it now because it provides a very thorough dissection of the whole case).

Now today, as we mentioned, they are recommending also dropping charges against two other Marines.

But even more incredible--especially the enormous foot he stuck in his mouth right out of the box, and since there has been an outcry from Republican Congressmen for him to apologize--the disgusting Jack Murtha hung up today in an interview where the subject of Haditha was brought up, which Bryan of Hot Air has on tape: give it a listen. Bryan comments:

When he wasn’t busy over the past year or so arguing that we ought to fight al Qaeda in Iraq from our bases in Okinawa and Diego Garcia, Rep. Jack “Abscam” Murtha has been busy stuffing his face with pork, behaving questionably over appropriations and smearing US Marines. Now that three of the Marines Murtha prejudged to be guilty of cold-blooded murder have been cleared of all charges, Murtha ought to answer for what he has been saying about them.

Only one non-expletive word comes immediately to mind: Scum.

I don't care how much money it costs the RNC: Murtha needs to be taken out in next year's elections. Someone please get this disgraceful human being out of my sight...

Labels: Defeatocrats, Democrat Sabotage, Enemy Propaganda, Iraq, John Murtha, The Left, Travesty of Justice, US Marines

In the WHO rankings, the United States finished 37th, behind nations like Morocco, Cyprus and Costa Rica. Finishing first and second were France and Italy. Michael Moore makes much of this in his movie "Sicko."

[...]

So the verdict is in. The vaunted U.S. medical system is one of the worst.

But there's less to these studies than meets the eye. They measure something other than quality of medical care. So saying that the U.S. finished behind those other countries is misleading.

First let's acknowledge that the U.S. medical system has serious problems. But the problems stem from departures from free-market principles. The system is riddled with tax manipulation, costly insurance mandates and bureaucratic interference. Most important, six out of seven health-care dollars are spent by third parties, which means that most consumers exercise no cost-consciousness. As Milton Friedman always pointed out, no one spends other people's money as carefully as he spends his own.

Even with all that, it strains credulity to hear that the U.S. ranks far from the top. Sick people come to the United States for treatment. When was the last time you heard of someone leaving this country to get medical care? The last famous case I can remember is Rock Hudson, who went to France in the 1980s to seek treatment for AIDS.

So what's wrong with the WHO and Commonwealth Fund studies? Let me count the ways.

The WHO judged a country's quality of health on life expectancy. But that's a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That's not a health-care problem.

Similarly, our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada.

When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.

[...]

Another reason the U.S. didn't score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it's crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but "unequal distribution" would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.

It's when this so-called "fairness," a highly subjective standard, is factored in that the U.S. scores go south.

The U.S. ranking is influenced heavily by the number of people -- 45 million -- without medical insurance. As I reported in previous columns, our government aggravates that problem by making insurance artificially expensive with, for example, mandates for coverage that many people would not choose and forbidding us to buy policies from companies in another state.

Even with these interventions, the 45 million figure is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.

For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It "falters" only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine.

Labels: Democrat, Media Bias, NY Times, Socialism, Socialized Medicine, The Left

Labels: Homegrown Jihad, Homeland Security, Media Bias, Media War, The Left

Right about now, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are learning the meaning of the phrase “be careful what you wish for.” Their nincompoopery has led them to have the Most Despised Congress Ever. This constant investigations without any legislation is wearing thin on an American people who thought they were voting out earmarking, money-grubbing incompetents. The “new” team turned out to be the 1994 team of Dave Obey and Robert C. Byrd as the respective appropriations chairmen. Meet the new boss — older than the old boss.

Bush has a base. 58% of Republicans approve of his overall handling of the presidency. He has accomplishments and he has taken the principled — if momentarily unpopular — stance on the war on terrorism.

The 110th Congress as run by Pelosi and Reid is universally hated. ...

Labels: 2008 Congressional Races, 2008 Presidential Race, Congress, Defeatocrats, Democrat Sabotage, Nutroots, Socialism, Socialized Medicine, The Left, US Senate

Labels: Media Bias, NY Times, The Left, Wikipedia Bias

Joe Scarborough has pulled back the curtain on the liberal bias at MSNBC, describing an incident in which people in its newsroom ceaselessly booed President Bush during a State of the Union address.

The revelation came on "Morning Joe" today at 6:02 A.M. EDT. Joe was discussing a recent episode at the Seattle Times in which reporters and editors cheered the news that Karl Rove had resigned. Scarborough applauded Seattle Times Executive Editor Dave Boardman for issuing a memorandum reproving his colleagues. For more, read NB items by Brent Baker and Ken Shepherd.

Joe went on to describe a similar incident at MSNBC.

View video here. Note: that's newsreader Mika Brzezinksi heard murmuring in assent, though one has to wonder just how thrilled she was by Joe's candor in outing her fellow MSNBC liberals.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: There was a story out of Seattle, and the reason I love it is that it's transparency in the news. You have an editor who was actually outing his own people. The Seattle Times newsroom broke into applause when Karl Rove resigned. And of course that's bad. What I like about it is that the editor actually wrote about it and went in and told the people in the newsroom that was unacceptable.

And I've got to say, my first night here at MSNBC was the President's State of the Union address in 2003, and I was shocked because there were actually people in the newsroom that were booing the president actually from the beginning to the end. And I actually talked to [NBC/MSNBC executive] Phil Griffin about it, and he said "how was it last night?" Because he was the one that called me out of the Ace Hardware store, got my vest on. He said "how was it last night?" I said "well, it's OK, I understand it's a little bit different up here than it is down in northwest Florida, but you had people in the newsroom actively the President of the United States. Phil turned red very quickly. That didn't happen again.

Labels: Bush Derangement Syndrome, Media Bias, Media War, The Left

The victims were ethnic Kurd Yazidis, members of a minor sect with pre-Islamic roots. Muslim extremists condemn them (wrongly) as devil worshippers. The Yazidis live on the fringes of society.

That's one of the two reasons al Qaeda targeted those settlements: The terrorist leaders realize now that the carnage they wrought on fellow Muslims backfired, turning once-sympathetic Sunni Arabs against them. The fanatics calculated that Iraqis wouldn't care much about the Yazidis.

As far as the Thieves of Baghdad (also known as Iraq's government) go, the terrorists were right. Iraqi minorities, including Christians, have been classified as fair game by Muslim butchers. Mainstream Iraqis simply look away.

But the second reason for those dramatic bombings was that al Qaeda needs to portray Iraq as a continuing failure of U.S. policy. Those dead and maimed Yazidis were just props: The intended audience was Congress.

Al Qaeda has been badly battered. It's lost top leaders and thousands of cadres. Even more painful for the Islamists, they've lost ground among the people of Iraq, including former allies. Iraqis got a good taste of al Qaeda. Now they're spitting it out.

The foreign terrorists slaughtering the innocent recognize that their only remaining hope of pulling off a come-from-way-behind win is to convince your senator and your congressman or -woman that it's politically expedient to hand a default victory to a defeated al Qaeda.

THE media missed a big one yesterday.

They ran with the story that the Bush administration will soon designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps - a major troublemaker in Iraq - as a terrorist organization. But they didn't look past the public-consumption explanation that the move lets our government go after the Revolutionary Guards' finances and the international companies that cut deals with Tehran's thugs.

The real reason for the move is to set up a legal basis for airstrikes or special operations raids on the Guard's bases in Iran.

Our policy is that we reserve the right to whack terrorists anywhere in the world. Now we have newly designated terrorists. And we know exactly where they are.

This doesn't mean we won't go after their money, too. The Revolutionary Guards have built up a financial empire - they're religious fanatics, but, in their version of Islam, "greed is good." Hurting Iran's assassins in the pocketbook reduces their ability to export terror.

Labels: Congress, Defeatocrats, Iraq, Media Bias, Media War, Surrender Caucus, The Left, War Successes

Robert J. Samuelson, a contributing editor of Newsweek, slapped down his own Magazine for what he termed a "highly contrived story" about the global warming "denial machine.” Samuelson, writing in the August 20, 2007 issue of Newsweek, explains that the Magazine used "discredited" allegations in last week's issue involving a supposed cash bounty to pay skeptics to dispute global warming science and he chided the Magazine for portraying global warming as a "morality tale." (LINK) Samuelson’s article titled “Greenhouse Simplicities," also characterized the "deniers" cover story as "fundamentally misleading."

"Unfortunately, self-righteous indignation can undermine good journalism. Last week's Newsweek cover story on global warming is a sobering reminder," Samuelson wrote.

Who would have thought that Newsweek would debunk its own embarrassing cover story a week later in the very next issue? This kind of reversal does not happen very often in journalism. [Note: It previously took Newsweek 31 years to admit its 1970's prediction of dire global cooling was completely wrong. See October 24, 2006 article: Senator Inhofe Credited For Prompting Newsweek Admission of Error on 70's Predictions of Coming Ice Age – (LINK)]

In this week's issue, Samuelson's writes: "As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale—as Newsweek did—in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society."

Samuelson also noted, “Newsweek’s ‘denial machine’ [cover story] is a peripheral and highly contrived story."

Labels: "Consensus" Science, Global Warming Hysteria, The Left

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton cites her experience as a compelling reason voters should make her president, but nearly 2 million pages of documents covering her White House years are locked up in a building here, obscuring a large swath of her record as first lady.

Clinton's calendars, appointment logs and memos are stored at her husband's presidential library, in the custody of federal archivists who do not expect them to be released until after the 2008 presidential election.

A trove of records has been made public detailing the Clinton White House's attempts to remake the nation's healthcare system, following a request from Bill Clinton that those materials be released first. Hillary Clinton led the healthcare effort in 1993 and 1994.

But even in the healthcare documents, at least 1,000 pages involving her work has been censored by archives staff because they include confidential advice and must be kept secret under a federal law called the Presidential Records Act. Political consultants said that if Hillary Clinton's records were made public, rivals would mine them for scraps of information that might rattle her campaign.

Labels: 2008 Presidential Race, Hillary, Scandal, Socialism, Socialized Medicine, The Left

Over the past few months, I have been debating Roman Catholics who differ from their Eastern Orthodox brethren on the nature of the Trinity, Protestants who are willing to quarrel bitterly with one another about election and predestination, with Jews who cannot concur about a covenant with God, and with Muslims who harbor bitter disagreements over the discrepant interpretations of the Quran. Arcane as these disputes may seem, and much as I relish seeing the faithful fight among themselves, the believers are models of lucidity when compared to the hair-splitting secularists who cannot accept that al-Qaida in Mesopotamia is a branch of al-Qaida itself.

Objections to this self-evident fact take one of two forms. It is argued, first, that there was no such organization before the coalition intervention in Iraq. It is argued, second, that the character of the gang itself is somewhat autonomous from, and even independent of, the original group proclaimed by Osama Bin Laden. These objections sometimes, but not always, amount to the suggestion that the "real" fight against al-Qaida is, or should be, not in Iraq but in Afghanistan. (I say "not always," because many of those who argue the difference are openly hostile to the presence of NATO forces in Afghanistan as well as to the presence of coalition soldiers in Iraq.)

The facts as we have them are not at all friendly to this view of the situation, whether it be the "hard" view that al-Qaida terrorism is a "resistance" to Western imperialism or the "soft" view that we have only created the monster in Iraq by intervening there.

The founder of al-Qaida in Mesopotamia was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who we can now gratefully describe as "the late." The first thing to notice about him is that he was in Iraq before we were. The second thing to notice is that he fled to Iraq only because he, and many others like him, had been driven out of Afghanistan. Thus, by the logic of those who say that Afghanistan is the "real" war, he would have been better left as he was. Without the overthrow of the Taliban, he and his collaborators would not have moved to take advantage of the next failed/rogue state. I hope you can spot the simple error of reasoning that is involved in this belief. It also involves the defeatist suggestion—which was very salient in the opposition to the intervention in Afghanistan—that it's pointless to try to crush such people because "others will spring up in their place." Those who take this view should have the courage to stand by it and not invent a straw-man argument.

Labels: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Defeatocrats, Iraq, The Left

The White House Won't Look Different but it'll sure smell better. I hope whatever cave he flaps off to has laid in a goodly supply of Febreeze.

I don't buy that 'more time with the family' crap. Unless they mean the Republican crime family.
--------------------------------------

that bastard ain't going anywhere
the heat is getting so close so he is running to Texas but he will just be operating bush's puppet strings remontely
--------------------------------------

Exactly. The continuity of power is absolutely necessary to keep Imperial Amerika
"in higher, tighter and righter hands," to quote our First Emperor, Poppy Augustus (1984-1992).

You will see some combination of Loyal Bushie Comrades at the side of the next Emperor (unless the next Emperor of Amerika is permitted to be a Democrat, which I will simply not believe until I see it) which will be the real power in the naive and beholden Romney or Ghouli Imperium.

And Karl's resignation, which has absolutely nothing to do with what the Imperial Subjects of Amerika or our bootickling Imperial Congress want, is the logical step in terms of the Bush Imperium contiuing to keep Amerika a BushPutinist Nation, no matter who takes power.

Labels: Bush Derangement Syndrome, Karl Rove, The Left