This week's truth-telling idiot? Howard Dean.
Last October, I penned “When idiots speak truths”, in which I lambasted Joe Biden for saying that, if Obama were to be elected, America’s enemies would test the administration with an international crisis within six months. I had no doubt he was right (and we’ve already seen the Obama administration fail a number of tests); I thought the statement was stupid on various other levels. But it was also amusing because it was such a great example of Joe gaffe-a-minute Biden at his best.
We now have a replay of that moment, but it’s former DNC Chair Howard Dean whose mouth “doth runneth over”. And I’m not attacking Dean for lying or obfuscating (his usual tactics), but rather using Dean’s momentary clarity against the Dems push for the “health reform” bill.
In a series of interviews with Vermont Public Radio and MSNBC, Dean has attacked the health reform bill that is nearing completion in the Senate. On VPR, Dean said “Honestly, the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill."
Hey, I like that advice. For once, Dems, listen to Dean.
But what is really astonishing is what else he had to say about the bill.
Dean said that the current bill will force citizens to pay for healthcare and fine them if they don’t. "A very small number of people are going to get any insurance at all, until 2014, if the bill works.” “IF” the bill works? Do I detect a hint of doubt?
So, did Dean just reveal that Democrats, for all their pompous statements of confidence, honestly have NO IDEA if the changes they are proposing to 1/6th of the US economy will work? Is that a gamble that YOU, Dear American Citizen, are willing to let them take with your health?
“The bill does more harm than good,” he stated.
He stated on VPR: “You have the vast majority of Americans want the choices, they want real choices. They don't have them in this bill. This is not health care reform and it's not close to health care reform."
You are right, Americans want “reform”. What we don’t want is socialized medicine. And this bill is not “reform”, but rather a path to socialized medicine. Thank you for that moment of clarity.
Mr. Dean has, in the past, uttered absurdities that solidly confirmed his status as either an idiot or a liar. For whatever reason, this idiot has finally started to tell the truth—a truth, by the way, which happens to agree with the criticisms coming from Conservatives.
One problem Dean has with the bill is that the “pre-existing conditions piece” (which would have prohibited insurance companies from charging people with pre-existing conditions more for their coverage, forcing the companies to either absorb the loss—which is not likely—or spread that out to everyone else—which the companies have said they will do) has been stripped from the bill, enabling the companies to charge more to the elderly (who have a higher rate of illness than the young) and sick. Well, no kidding, Mr. Dean! So his solution is to force insurance companies to charge the same to everyone, no matter what conditions they have and how much they have neglected their health up to that point. Under his idiotic plan, the rest of us will see our rates skyrocket as a result of that insanity.
MSNBC Interviewer and liberal-apologist George Stephanopoulos tried to counter Dean’s arguments by stating all the things the bill allegedly does to “control cost:” 1) A tax on the “Cadillac health care plans”, 2) New incentives for doctors and hospitals to focus on quality, 3) and two new Medicare panels to try to control cost.
Dean replies: “George, you just named a whole bunch of bureaucracies and a lot of promises, I don’t see cost control in this bill; I really don’t.” Now, isn’t this one of the things Conservatives have been saying? Isn’t this one of the so-called “lies” for which Democrats have attacked Conservatives? Dean has again revealed that the Dems KNOW that their plan will NOT control costs!
I’d like to say that Mr. Dean might be on the road to recovery of his senses, but other comments clearly reveal that he is not. He’s still an idiot, but for political reasons alone he has finally let the truth slip. It sounds very much like the Conservatives were right all along.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Democrats & Victory: Never the twain shall meet
Current events are perpetually confusing and confounding to those who lack a sense of historical perspective. To the citizen with a reasonable education and a bit of curiosity, to he who is willing to dig and research, current events become a fascinating subject of contemplation.
I am astonished by the events surrounding the Obama administration’s handling of the war in Afghanistan. The Obama team ran their 2008 campaign not so much against the Republican presidential candidate, Senator McCain, as much as against former President George Bush, and tirelessly reiterated that the war in Afghanistan had been the “good war”, while the war in Iraq had been a disastrous misadventure and a “distraction” from the real “war on terror” (or “International Contingency Plan”, or whatever the phrase may be now).
That argument seemed somewhat reasonable and even many independents and moderate Republicans might have agreed. When Obama took office, he immediately risked alienating himself from his base when he decided to send 20,000 troops to Afghanistan to reinforce our small forces already in place. He then decided to form a “better strategy” that considered the “end game”—a swell phrase actually meaning: “how do we get the hell out of there”.
He appointed General McChrystal to head up the forces, and in March announced they had a new strategy. When General McChrystal wrote his report and requested around 40,000 additional troops in September to add to the 68,000 that were currently deployed, Obama seemed to stumble. He dithered around until December, excusing his pathetic inaction on the need “for a new strategy”—perhaps we should dub it “Obama War Strategy 2.0”.
He finally committed himself to a plan in December. Obama has decided to send—not the 40,000 troops requested—an additional 30,000. I can imagine that this must have been a tough decision on his part, since it is sure to alienate him from his far left base, which is already on the attack against him. So I feel it is fair to praise his “courage” for deciding to send additional troops and to shore up the forces.
Obama’s decision to send troops was also announced with a planned time-table for departure—or should I say, “retreat”: Summer 2011 and end in 2013.
Curiously, in his article in the Guardian UK, Ewen MacAskill, titled “Obama’s War: the final push in Afghanistan”, MacAskill wrote that “US officials said Obama wants almost all the US troops out before the end of his first term in office in January 2013, leaving behind a small contingency force. Gibbs said the president did not want to leave the problem to his successor.”
For a team that crowed that the GOP is in decline and will be out of power for the next forty years, the year 2013 should be not be considered the first year in office for “his successor”. What happened to all that confidence that Obama was “The One”? It almost appears that the Obama team has come to the conclusion that the battle can’t be won. No, not in Afghanistan: I’m talking about Obama’s re-election!
So, in one article, we find three amazing blunders by the Obama team.
First, it seems somewhat foolish to take the political risk of sending troops, an action that will irritate the left, but to send a smaller number than requested and which may not be enough—a decision that leaves him open to harsh criticism if he has to send more later on, or if he decides to abandon the effort as “futile”, since he can be accused of having provided insufficient support in order to win. His inability to make up his mind made him look weak, indecisive, and perhaps—dare I say it—cowardly. He has exposed himself thusly on both political flanks.
Second, by announcing a time-table for departure, he has not only signaled to our enemy what our plans are and the limits of our resolve, he has also boxed himself in. What if we are losing and need new troops? He won’t be able to send more without appearing foolish. What if things have stabilized but we need a little more time? He will be out of time, and will have to back-pedal in an election year. His only way of coming out ahead is if we suddenly win the war, the Taliban pack their tents and give up, and Al Qaeda is destroyed. What are the odds of that happening?
Third, it appears that, like Obama inadvertently signaling weakness and lack of confidence to our enemy, Whitehouse spokesman Robert Gibbs seems to have signaled a loss of confidence within the Whitehouse about the possibility of re-election.
There are even more bizarre statements being made by the left. When MSNBC’s analyst Chris Matthews discussed the speech, he actually called the West Point venue “the enemy camp”.
"They start with a lot of excitement. I remember the scene in ‘Gone with the Wind' where the rebels are so excited about going to war with the North, a country they can't beat because of its industrial advantage and population advantage. They are going to lose that war eventually. I watched the cadets, they were young kids - men and women who were committed to serving their country professionally it must be said, as officers. And, I didn't see much excitement. But among the older people there, I saw, if not resentment, skepticism. I didn't see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there. The president chose to address tonight and I thought it was interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case. I mean, that's where Paul Wolfowitz used to write speeches for, back in the old Bush days. That's where he went to rabble-rouse the "we're going to democratize the world" campaign back in '02. So, I thought it was a strange venue."
What is strange is that our “elite” journalists actually think that West Point is enemy territory. They must be fantastically out of touch with reality, to be surprised to not see “much excitement” among the young cadets who are facing being sent to war. Does he honestly think those kids should look forward to risking life and limb in a very dangerous engagement? Is Matthews really stating that the limit of his understanding of the military mindset was formed by his viewing of “Gone with the Wind”? He says he didn’t see much “warmth” from the older officers…well golly, Chris, when your president has left their troops without sufficient reinforcements for nine months after the initial request for troops came in, what do you expect to see? When they hear the Commander in Chief alert the enemy about the limits of our commitment, when that commander sets new and dangerous precedent by forcing troops to “Mirandize” enemy combatants and places enormous new burdens on those troops that puts their lives at danger, do you actually expect them to “get a shiver up their legs” to hear your beloved Ditherer in Chief speak?
There was another phrase in Matthew’s idiotic statement that made me raise an eyebrow. When he says that the Southern Rebels were enthusiastic to go to war against the North, “a country they can’t beat because of economic and population advantage”, he again reveals a profound ignorance and contradicts the very argument about the war that he and other liberals are making.
“Ignorance”, I say, because the “under-populated” and “economically disadvantaged” South damn near beat the North. If Matthews would read more history, he might find out that the North, which had anticipated a swift and decisive victory, was greatly surprised by the tenacity, determination and military prowess of the Southern army. The mood in the North turned decisively against the war, and President Lincoln was beset by the “Copperheads”, AKA “Peace Democrats” who petitioned him to negotiate an end to the war—without victory (I guess then, as now, “victory” was never the objective in war for Democrats).
What’s truly amazing is that Democrats have been saying that victory is “impossible” against these “insurgent forces”—even though the Afghan insurgents are challenged by a much smaller population and economic disadvantages when compared to the might of the USA. So, which is it? If the defeat of the South in the Civil War was inevitable due to these limitations, then isn’t the defeat of the Taliban also inevitable for the same reasons?
Of course not. What defeated the South, and what will defeat the Taliban, is something that none of these effete and arrogant “Peace Democrats” have to offer: true grit. That is something George Bush had in Spades, and which Obama appears to aspire to, but has no experience with.
Is it any wonder the older officers were visibly skeptical?
I am astonished by the events surrounding the Obama administration’s handling of the war in Afghanistan. The Obama team ran their 2008 campaign not so much against the Republican presidential candidate, Senator McCain, as much as against former President George Bush, and tirelessly reiterated that the war in Afghanistan had been the “good war”, while the war in Iraq had been a disastrous misadventure and a “distraction” from the real “war on terror” (or “International Contingency Plan”, or whatever the phrase may be now).
That argument seemed somewhat reasonable and even many independents and moderate Republicans might have agreed. When Obama took office, he immediately risked alienating himself from his base when he decided to send 20,000 troops to Afghanistan to reinforce our small forces already in place. He then decided to form a “better strategy” that considered the “end game”—a swell phrase actually meaning: “how do we get the hell out of there”.
He appointed General McChrystal to head up the forces, and in March announced they had a new strategy. When General McChrystal wrote his report and requested around 40,000 additional troops in September to add to the 68,000 that were currently deployed, Obama seemed to stumble. He dithered around until December, excusing his pathetic inaction on the need “for a new strategy”—perhaps we should dub it “Obama War Strategy 2.0”.
He finally committed himself to a plan in December. Obama has decided to send—not the 40,000 troops requested—an additional 30,000. I can imagine that this must have been a tough decision on his part, since it is sure to alienate him from his far left base, which is already on the attack against him. So I feel it is fair to praise his “courage” for deciding to send additional troops and to shore up the forces.
Obama’s decision to send troops was also announced with a planned time-table for departure—or should I say, “retreat”: Summer 2011 and end in 2013.
Curiously, in his article in the Guardian UK, Ewen MacAskill, titled “Obama’s War: the final push in Afghanistan”, MacAskill wrote that “US officials said Obama wants almost all the US troops out before the end of his first term in office in January 2013, leaving behind a small contingency force. Gibbs said the president did not want to leave the problem to his successor.”
For a team that crowed that the GOP is in decline and will be out of power for the next forty years, the year 2013 should be not be considered the first year in office for “his successor”. What happened to all that confidence that Obama was “The One”? It almost appears that the Obama team has come to the conclusion that the battle can’t be won. No, not in Afghanistan: I’m talking about Obama’s re-election!
So, in one article, we find three amazing blunders by the Obama team.
First, it seems somewhat foolish to take the political risk of sending troops, an action that will irritate the left, but to send a smaller number than requested and which may not be enough—a decision that leaves him open to harsh criticism if he has to send more later on, or if he decides to abandon the effort as “futile”, since he can be accused of having provided insufficient support in order to win. His inability to make up his mind made him look weak, indecisive, and perhaps—dare I say it—cowardly. He has exposed himself thusly on both political flanks.
Second, by announcing a time-table for departure, he has not only signaled to our enemy what our plans are and the limits of our resolve, he has also boxed himself in. What if we are losing and need new troops? He won’t be able to send more without appearing foolish. What if things have stabilized but we need a little more time? He will be out of time, and will have to back-pedal in an election year. His only way of coming out ahead is if we suddenly win the war, the Taliban pack their tents and give up, and Al Qaeda is destroyed. What are the odds of that happening?
Third, it appears that, like Obama inadvertently signaling weakness and lack of confidence to our enemy, Whitehouse spokesman Robert Gibbs seems to have signaled a loss of confidence within the Whitehouse about the possibility of re-election.
There are even more bizarre statements being made by the left. When MSNBC’s analyst Chris Matthews discussed the speech, he actually called the West Point venue “the enemy camp”.
"They start with a lot of excitement. I remember the scene in ‘Gone with the Wind' where the rebels are so excited about going to war with the North, a country they can't beat because of its industrial advantage and population advantage. They are going to lose that war eventually. I watched the cadets, they were young kids - men and women who were committed to serving their country professionally it must be said, as officers. And, I didn't see much excitement. But among the older people there, I saw, if not resentment, skepticism. I didn't see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there. The president chose to address tonight and I thought it was interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case. I mean, that's where Paul Wolfowitz used to write speeches for, back in the old Bush days. That's where he went to rabble-rouse the "we're going to democratize the world" campaign back in '02. So, I thought it was a strange venue."
What is strange is that our “elite” journalists actually think that West Point is enemy territory. They must be fantastically out of touch with reality, to be surprised to not see “much excitement” among the young cadets who are facing being sent to war. Does he honestly think those kids should look forward to risking life and limb in a very dangerous engagement? Is Matthews really stating that the limit of his understanding of the military mindset was formed by his viewing of “Gone with the Wind”? He says he didn’t see much “warmth” from the older officers…well golly, Chris, when your president has left their troops without sufficient reinforcements for nine months after the initial request for troops came in, what do you expect to see? When they hear the Commander in Chief alert the enemy about the limits of our commitment, when that commander sets new and dangerous precedent by forcing troops to “Mirandize” enemy combatants and places enormous new burdens on those troops that puts their lives at danger, do you actually expect them to “get a shiver up their legs” to hear your beloved Ditherer in Chief speak?
There was another phrase in Matthew’s idiotic statement that made me raise an eyebrow. When he says that the Southern Rebels were enthusiastic to go to war against the North, “a country they can’t beat because of economic and population advantage”, he again reveals a profound ignorance and contradicts the very argument about the war that he and other liberals are making.
“Ignorance”, I say, because the “under-populated” and “economically disadvantaged” South damn near beat the North. If Matthews would read more history, he might find out that the North, which had anticipated a swift and decisive victory, was greatly surprised by the tenacity, determination and military prowess of the Southern army. The mood in the North turned decisively against the war, and President Lincoln was beset by the “Copperheads”, AKA “Peace Democrats” who petitioned him to negotiate an end to the war—without victory (I guess then, as now, “victory” was never the objective in war for Democrats).
What’s truly amazing is that Democrats have been saying that victory is “impossible” against these “insurgent forces”—even though the Afghan insurgents are challenged by a much smaller population and economic disadvantages when compared to the might of the USA. So, which is it? If the defeat of the South in the Civil War was inevitable due to these limitations, then isn’t the defeat of the Taliban also inevitable for the same reasons?
Of course not. What defeated the South, and what will defeat the Taliban, is something that none of these effete and arrogant “Peace Democrats” have to offer: true grit. That is something George Bush had in Spades, and which Obama appears to aspire to, but has no experience with.
Is it any wonder the older officers were visibly skeptical?
Monday, November 30, 2009
A stormy 2010 forecast for Honduras
To recap: The Honduran President, Mel Zelaya of the Honduran Liberal Party, was deposed this year when he attempted to illegally and unconstitutionally propose a change in the term limits on presidents in order to open the possibility of re-election to himself. This created a rift in the country, but ws "resolved" when the Supreme Court determined that the referendum Zelaya had proposed was unconstitutional. Zelaya disobeyed the court orders and chose to thumb his nose at the Judiciary. The court then ordered his arrest, which occured and Zelaya was sent packing. The Honduran congress, ruled by a majority of Zelaya's own Honduran Liberal Party, agreed with the decision.
In his place, an interim president took the office. Roberto Michelleti, also of the Honduran Liberal Party, repeatedly and stubbornly claimed that the deposition of Zelaya was perfectly constitutional, and he resisted all the intense pressure that was put on the government by such Democratic giants as Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and our Glorious Leader, Barack Obama.
Zelaya intensified the conflict by calling for insurrection, trying to re-enter the country and taunting the authorities, and finally sneaking into the country and taking up surprise residence in the Brazilian embassy. He encouraged his supporters to keep the pressure up, resulting in violence in the streets. An attempt to resolve the crisis was thwarted by Zelaya when he backed out of the agreement, which required the Congress to vote on whether or not to reinstate him. Michelletti, in an attempt to resolve the conflict, had agreed to the condition.
But Michelletti refused to cancel the elections that had already been scheduled, and even temporarily "stepped down" as President during the election in order to avoid the appearance of unduly influencing them.
Zelaya's one and only term was to end this year anyway, and elections had already been scheduled for Sunday, November 29th.
The elections took place, as planned, yesterday, and the Conservative Party candidate, Porfirio Lobo Sosa, won. The congress plans to vote on whether or not to reinstate Zelaya this week.
Not surprisingly, a few nations still will not recognize the elections results. Argentina, Spain, and Brazil claim that the elections took place under the control of a "defacto" government and refuse to recognize the new government. For those who do not know, all three governments are run by socialists who are allies of Hugo Chavez.
The next few weeks will be vitally important for Honduras. If the Congress decides to reinstate Zelaya, it will put him in a position of power and, given his track record of abusing his authority, who knows what he will try. If they refuse to reinstate him, he will likely attempt to disrupt the government and the transition of power. Either way, Zelaya will receive help from his leftist allies from Venezuela, Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua, and Spain.
At that point, strong and consistent leadership from Washington DC will be crucial to restoring the peace in the nation.
Sadly, "strong and consistent leadership" is exactly what is missing from the Obama administration. So it's a safe forecast for stormy weather in Honduras through 2010 at least.
In his place, an interim president took the office. Roberto Michelleti, also of the Honduran Liberal Party, repeatedly and stubbornly claimed that the deposition of Zelaya was perfectly constitutional, and he resisted all the intense pressure that was put on the government by such Democratic giants as Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and our Glorious Leader, Barack Obama.
Zelaya intensified the conflict by calling for insurrection, trying to re-enter the country and taunting the authorities, and finally sneaking into the country and taking up surprise residence in the Brazilian embassy. He encouraged his supporters to keep the pressure up, resulting in violence in the streets. An attempt to resolve the crisis was thwarted by Zelaya when he backed out of the agreement, which required the Congress to vote on whether or not to reinstate him. Michelletti, in an attempt to resolve the conflict, had agreed to the condition.
But Michelletti refused to cancel the elections that had already been scheduled, and even temporarily "stepped down" as President during the election in order to avoid the appearance of unduly influencing them.
Zelaya's one and only term was to end this year anyway, and elections had already been scheduled for Sunday, November 29th.
The elections took place, as planned, yesterday, and the Conservative Party candidate, Porfirio Lobo Sosa, won. The congress plans to vote on whether or not to reinstate Zelaya this week.
Not surprisingly, a few nations still will not recognize the elections results. Argentina, Spain, and Brazil claim that the elections took place under the control of a "defacto" government and refuse to recognize the new government. For those who do not know, all three governments are run by socialists who are allies of Hugo Chavez.
The next few weeks will be vitally important for Honduras. If the Congress decides to reinstate Zelaya, it will put him in a position of power and, given his track record of abusing his authority, who knows what he will try. If they refuse to reinstate him, he will likely attempt to disrupt the government and the transition of power. Either way, Zelaya will receive help from his leftist allies from Venezuela, Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua, and Spain.
At that point, strong and consistent leadership from Washington DC will be crucial to restoring the peace in the nation.
Sadly, "strong and consistent leadership" is exactly what is missing from the Obama administration. So it's a safe forecast for stormy weather in Honduras through 2010 at least.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Eric Holder: most imcompetent AG in history
The “SMARTEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY” can’t make a decision and gets too confused to run a war. "Victory"? Please don't use that word.
Obama gets nervous when we talk about "victory".
Here, listen to him as he wiggles and wobbles and waffles all over the place. Please, "victory" is too scary a word to use.
So what about Obama's decision to bring al Qaida terrorists caught on the battlefield to civilian trials? You'd think they would be able to defend their position on this. But did you see the exchange between Lindsey Graham and history's most incompetent Attorney General, Eric Holder?
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?
ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --
GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.
HOLDER: Well, I think --
GRAHAM: The Ghailani case -- he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn't object to it going into federal court. But I'm telling you right now. We're making history and we're making bad history. And let me tell you why.
...
GRAHAM: If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?
HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.
GRAHAM: Where would you try him?
HOLDER: Well, we'd go through our protocol. And we'd make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried. [...]
GRAHAM: If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?
HOLDER: Again I'm not -- that all depends. I mean, the notion that we --
GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.
The big problem I have is that you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we'd have mixed theories and we couldn't turn him over -- to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence -- for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we're saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you're confusing the people fighting this war.
They don’t understand the implications of criminalizing a war or politicizing the judicial process. DAMN but Democrats should be PROUD.
Holder got his ASS handed to him by Graham!
Obama gets nervous when we talk about "victory".
President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy
agenda, but "victory" in the war-torn country isn't necessarily the United
States' goal, he said Thursday in a TV interview.
"I'm always worried about
using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor
Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC
News.
The enemy facing U.S. and Afghan forces isn't so clearly defined, he
explained.
Here, listen to him as he wiggles and wobbles and waffles all over the place. Please, "victory" is too scary a word to use.
So what about Obama's decision to bring al Qaida terrorists caught on the battlefield to civilian trials? You'd think they would be able to defend their position on this. But did you see the exchange between Lindsey Graham and history's most incompetent Attorney General, Eric Holder?
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?
ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --
GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.
HOLDER: Well, I think --
GRAHAM: The Ghailani case -- he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn't object to it going into federal court. But I'm telling you right now. We're making history and we're making bad history. And let me tell you why.
...
GRAHAM: If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?
HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.
GRAHAM: Where would you try him?
HOLDER: Well, we'd go through our protocol. And we'd make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried. [...]
GRAHAM: If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?
HOLDER: Again I'm not -- that all depends. I mean, the notion that we --
GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.
The big problem I have is that you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we'd have mixed theories and we couldn't turn him over -- to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence -- for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we're saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you're confusing the people fighting this war.
They don’t understand the implications of criminalizing a war or politicizing the judicial process. DAMN but Democrats should be PROUD.
Holder got his ASS handed to him by Graham!
Sunday, November 8, 2009
As much as I love FOX, there is at least one guy there that I can't stand and I wish they'd lose: Geraldo Rivera.
Tonight I heard (and verified) that Senator Lieberman "an independent from Connecticut who heads the Senate's Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, said initial evidence suggested that the alleged shooter, Army Major Nidal Hasan, was a 'self-radicalized, home-grown terrorist' who had turned to Islamic extremism while under personal stress."
In response, FOX's idiot-at-large Rivera argued that Lierberman is wrong about the statement, that Hasan is just a nut, and that--in Rivera's own words--"the word terrorist implies that {Hasan} was part of a conspiracy, and there is no evidence of that."
Someone at FOX needs to sit Rivera down with a dictionary. There are many variants of the definition of a "terrorist", but really it's quite simple: "a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities" NOTE: a terrorist usually organizes with other terrorists, but not always.
What is certain about terrorists is that they use extreme violence, or a threat of violence, to affect policy or counter an enemy they oppose. They almost always engage unarmed individuals in a location and a time where they usually feel they are safe; the point is not just to kill some individuals, but for the act of terror to undermine the feeling of safety of the survivors and their families and to inflict a painful psychological wound on society.
I should clarify that Lieberman did not say that Hasan IS a terrorist, he was more nuanced than that. Here is the rest of his quote:
"We don't know enough to say now, but there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act."
Senator Lieberman, I have to agree.
Tonight I heard (and verified) that Senator Lieberman "an independent from Connecticut who heads the Senate's Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, said initial evidence suggested that the alleged shooter, Army Major Nidal Hasan, was a 'self-radicalized, home-grown terrorist' who had turned to Islamic extremism while under personal stress."
In response, FOX's idiot-at-large Rivera argued that Lierberman is wrong about the statement, that Hasan is just a nut, and that--in Rivera's own words--"the word terrorist implies that {Hasan} was part of a conspiracy, and there is no evidence of that."
Someone at FOX needs to sit Rivera down with a dictionary. There are many variants of the definition of a "terrorist", but really it's quite simple: "a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities" NOTE: a terrorist usually organizes with other terrorists, but not always.
What is certain about terrorists is that they use extreme violence, or a threat of violence, to affect policy or counter an enemy they oppose. They almost always engage unarmed individuals in a location and a time where they usually feel they are safe; the point is not just to kill some individuals, but for the act of terror to undermine the feeling of safety of the survivors and their families and to inflict a painful psychological wound on society.
I should clarify that Lieberman did not say that Hasan IS a terrorist, he was more nuanced than that. Here is the rest of his quote:
"We don't know enough to say now, but there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act."
Senator Lieberman, I have to agree.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Press and President cover for Muslim murderers and terrorists
As details surrounding yesterday’s mass murder at Ft. Hood, TX are rapidly revealed, a pattern is already being exposed—not only in the behavior and speculated motivations behind the attack, but also in the treatment of the story by the mass media.
What we know:
1. The shooter is Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan
2. Hasan is a US born Muslim
3. Hasan received his Psychiatric training through the army, and treated US vets returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, most recently at the Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood after being transferred from Walter Reed Medical Center
4. Hasan had been disciplined for a number of incidents in which he proselytized the Islamic faith to his patients
5. Eye witnesses have reported that Hasan had made a number of statements about the wars, stating that “we have no business over there” (referring to Iraq and Afghanistan). After the Muslim attack on the Army recruiting station in Arkansas last June (perpetrated by an American convert to Islam, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad), was overheard saying that “maybe this is what more Muslims need to do, stand up and attack the enemy” (implying that the “enemy” in his view was the United States Armed Forces in which he was serving)
6. Hasan had complained that he was being “harassed” for his Islamic beliefs and had contracted a military lawyer
7. Hasan got into frequent arguments with other soldiers who supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and apparently had hoped that President Obama would remove our troops from those countries
8. Hasan had just received orders to deploy to one of the war zones (there are conflicting reports that it was Iraq, others say Afghanistan), and had “been mortified” about that deployment and was trying to fight it to avoid service in the Middle East
9. Hasan had come to the attention of federal law enforcement officials six months ago because of “Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings. The officials said they are still trying to confirm that he was the author…One of the Web postings…equates a suicide bomber to a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades.”
10. The day before the attacks, Hasan had emptied his apartment, giving away many of his possessions including Qu’rans
11. Hasan had been seen on video surveillance tapes entering a nearby convenience store in “full Muslim attire” the morning of the attack (to their credit, CNN did provide the video of Hasan in Muslim garb in the convenience store, the day after the attack)
12. Hasan yelled “God is Great” in Arabic as he began the attacks
13. He used to side arms in the attack and killed 12, wounded 31 (mostly) unarmed soldiers
From this information, we can begin the dangerous job of speculating about Hasan’s motive: he was a disenchanted Muslim who disagreed with US foreign policy, sympathized with the Muslim enemy in the war zones, apologized for Muslim acts of terror and verbalized his support for the murder of US troops in the United States, prepared himself for the attack as if he knew he would not survive, and chose to attack soldiers in a setting in which there would be many unarmed targets.
In short, it is a classic example of Islamic terrorism against US soldiers by a Muslim extremist.
But that is not the information you will get from many of the mainstream media who are feverishly attempting to be politically correct and cover for his actions.
On a National Public Radio broadcast yesterday, about six hours after the attack, I heard the host (I don’t recall his name) discuss the issue and carefully pronounce the Major’s Arabic name, but then he and a female reporter specifically pointed out that “Hasan is a United States soldier and a US citizen, he’s not a foreigner”. They appeared to take pains to avoid mention of Hasan’s Muslim faith or outrageous statements against the United States that were already being reported by the AP, FOX, and other sources. Later, reporters for NPR actually changed the pronunciation of his name, anglicizing it and they further sterilized the reporting to avoid any mention of his Muslim identity.
Similarly, NBC reporter Brian Williams and a reporter at the scene discussed the issue in detail—except they never mentioned that he was Muslim, nor did they touch on one single relevant detail about his outrageous and traitorous comments, instead focusing on the speculation that, because he had dealt with soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorders, he may have suffered from stress. What’s more, CNN reporters were overheard mentioning his “harassment” complaints, but studiously avoided mentioning the complaints against him for his comments.
After being advised about the brutal killings, the White House announced that they would speak out about the situation, and President Obama—fully aware that a deadly attack against unarmed military personnel had killed 13 people—went live with a light-hearted commentary in which, instead of somberly speaking about the events, he focused instead on cheerful praise of Native American leaders at the Tribal Nations Conference. His behavior was appalling, and should be considered Obama’s “Katrina moment”.
Obama’s inconsiderate and dispassionate response must be considered in conjunction with his total inability to formulate a strategy for the conflict in Afghanistan, and his shameful disrespect for the requests for additional troops that were formally submitted months ago. He called the terrorist attack a “horrific outburst of violence”, yet another attempt to downplay domestic acts of terror perpetrated by Muslims against our citizens.
So what is it with the media that appears to actively attempt to downplay violent acts by Muslims in this country in an effort to make them look like random acts of violence, or aberrations by imbalanced individuals, instead of what they are: terrorist acts perpetrated by Muslims who live in this country while considering the nation and its people as their mortal enemies? They are complicit in an insidious cover-up, a form of news sanitization, and are not only covering for an inept, incompetent and unpatriotic President, but for the enemy that is killing our citizens.
Keep in mind that these are the same media and politicians who labeled Tea Party protestors "extremists", "terrorists", "Nazis", and who warned America to be vigilant for "home-grown terrorists" and new "Timothy McVeighs" (implying that we should be suspicious of conservatives and returning military). A Democrat even called conservatives "Taliban" this past week. All of this was picked up and gleefully covered by the same out-of-touch media who now bend over backward to hide Hasan's Muslim identity and his Jihadist motives.
***Update 1***
I just remembered another recent controversy that seems relevant to this issue. Remember how the Democrats were so keen to pass hate-crime bills that protect homosexuals and others with bizarre sexual proclivities, but refused to provide similar protection for military members?
"In a recent Judiciary Committee hearing, Democrats voted against excluding pedophiles from hate crime protection in a new crime bill. At the same hearing, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) lambasted Republicans for trying to add protections for veterans in the same bill. No such outrage was voiced against the protection for pedophiles. " It also brings to mind the history surrounding the "Beltway Sniper", Liberal media rounded up panels of "experts" who promoted the notion that the sniper was most likely a white conservative acting alone and then buried the facts surrounding the real killer, John Muhammed, when it was learned that he was an American convert to Islam who murdered innocent people as a form of Jihad.
The media would neither want to consider this type of violence against our military citizens as neither an act of terror, nor a hate crime. It's just a little tragedy, folks. No need to be outraged.
Maybe we have to ask ourselves, as the Liberals did after 9/11: "What did we do to deserve this"?!
***Update 2***
Obama has issued a request that we "urged people not to jump to conclusions while law enforcement officers investigate the shootings. " What?! So now analyzing the evidence for Hasan's activities, of which there is there is more than enough, is "jumping to conclusions"?
We have just learned that Hasan filled out a form for his mosque that he claimed "Palestinian" nationality, even though he was a US citizen! (Who is surprised?)
AND Newsweek has now published an article in which the author, Andrew Bast, attempts to make the claim that Hasan was a victim of PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) even though he has never seen combat. "Hasan's perspective is unknown. He had yet to fight abroad. But the accusations against him can't help but bring to mind the violence scarring military bases all over the country after the duration of two long, brutal wars." To the contrary, you brainless twit, his perspective is already widely known. This may be the clearest example yet of how some Liberal journalists, instead of acting as "investigators", finding and following evidence to a logical conclusion, come to their own biased conclusions without regard to the evidence and instead pervert the evidence in order to support their own political agendas.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
The threats against conservatives
CNN’s Lou Dobbs has reported recently that a gunman fired a shot at his home while his wife was outside the home and entering her automobile. Dobbs stated that the mass media and pro-immigration groups such as LULAC and the National Council of La Raza have “created an atmosphere and they’ve been unrelenting in their propaganda” against him, a statement that appears to connect their activities and the life-threatening attack against his family. The shot was not an isolated event; it “followed weeks and weeks of threatening phone calls.”
As pointed out by NewsBusters author Jeff Poor, the Obama administration has been alerting the nation to their perceived threat that conservative rhetoric could lead to violence. But the attack on the Dobbs family reveals a very real threat that Liberal rhetoric also may instigate violence against individuals speaking out against the Obama administration policies.
Given these facts, one would assume that Dobbs’ assertion would be headline news—at the very least at CNN. Yet a visit to CNN.com homepage found no references to the events. What’s more, a search within the CNN pages returned not a single article on the attack. Think about that: one of CNN’s premier anchors and managing editors received death threats and even had a shot fired at his home, yet CNN did not apparently find that noteworthy!
While the attack on Dobbs is both concerning and shocking, CNN’s silence on the issue is stunning. One cannot imagine that CNN would remain silent if a right-wing nut threatened the life of, and fired shots at, CNN minority reporters such as Soledad O’Brien. So why the silence about the threat to Dobbs? Is it because Dobbs has taken a stance that is contrary to the clearly Liberal political stance that CNN now espouses? Could the network that has tasked O’Brien with “Black in America” and “Hispanic in America” find Dobbs’ anti-illegal-immigration stance so distasteful that they think he brought it upon himself or somehow deserves assassination?
During his October 28th radio program, talk show host and FOX commentator Glenn Beck discussed the constant threats against him, and went so far as to inform his audience that he actually considers the possibility that “something might happen” to him, that “they” might even try to shoot him, but then clarified that he believes that if something were to happen to him, “they would probably be more subtle about it”. Hinting at what he meant, he reassured his audience that he is “not suicidal, and my brakes work just fine.” In other words; if he turns up dead due to “suicide” or “brake failure”, you, loyal listeners, should suspect foul play.
Has America really reached this point? Can it be that the hyperbolic propaganda and hatred by the left toward conservatives and independents has reached such a fevered pitch that they can actually rationalize the assassinations of “dangerous” influential news anchors and talk show hosts?
As pointed out by NewsBusters author Jeff Poor, the Obama administration has been alerting the nation to their perceived threat that conservative rhetoric could lead to violence. But the attack on the Dobbs family reveals a very real threat that Liberal rhetoric also may instigate violence against individuals speaking out against the Obama administration policies.
Given these facts, one would assume that Dobbs’ assertion would be headline news—at the very least at CNN. Yet a visit to CNN.com homepage found no references to the events. What’s more, a search within the CNN pages returned not a single article on the attack. Think about that: one of CNN’s premier anchors and managing editors received death threats and even had a shot fired at his home, yet CNN did not apparently find that noteworthy!
While the attack on Dobbs is both concerning and shocking, CNN’s silence on the issue is stunning. One cannot imagine that CNN would remain silent if a right-wing nut threatened the life of, and fired shots at, CNN minority reporters such as Soledad O’Brien. So why the silence about the threat to Dobbs? Is it because Dobbs has taken a stance that is contrary to the clearly Liberal political stance that CNN now espouses? Could the network that has tasked O’Brien with “Black in America” and “Hispanic in America” find Dobbs’ anti-illegal-immigration stance so distasteful that they think he brought it upon himself or somehow deserves assassination?
During his October 28th radio program, talk show host and FOX commentator Glenn Beck discussed the constant threats against him, and went so far as to inform his audience that he actually considers the possibility that “something might happen” to him, that “they” might even try to shoot him, but then clarified that he believes that if something were to happen to him, “they would probably be more subtle about it”. Hinting at what he meant, he reassured his audience that he is “not suicidal, and my brakes work just fine.” In other words; if he turns up dead due to “suicide” or “brake failure”, you, loyal listeners, should suspect foul play.
Has America really reached this point? Can it be that the hyperbolic propaganda and hatred by the left toward conservatives and independents has reached such a fevered pitch that they can actually rationalize the assassinations of “dangerous” influential news anchors and talk show hosts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
