Feingold Can't Get No Satisfaction

Russ "I have never had a craving to be president of the United States" Feingold has weighed in on the leaks from the Iraq Study Group's report due NEXT WEDNESDAY.

He's not happy with what he's hearing. The leaks aren't satisfying Russ.

He's troubled.

He wants a timeline for troop withdrawal and he wants it NOW.

Feingold's Press Release

“I look forward to reading the report of the Iraq Study Group and I expect that it will provide some useful proposals to correct this administration's misguided policies in Iraq. But I am troubled by reports that the Group will not recommend a timeline to redeploy our troops from Iraq. We must redeploy from Iraq so that we can refocus on what must be our top national security priority - the threat posed by terrorist networks operating around the world. While I welcome the reports that indicate the Group will recommend greatly expanded diplomatic efforts in that region, not including a flexible timetable for redeployment of our troops would be a mistake that weakens both our efforts to help Iraqis reach a political solution in Iraq and our national security.”

(Note: "Redeployment" means retreat.)

Feingold wants a dramatic troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Originally, his deadline for retreat was set for December 31, 2006.

Think about that. Feingold proclaimed that U.S. troops should be out of Iraq in a month.

Talk about being completely misguided. What a disastrous policy that would be!

It illustrates just how ridiculous a set timetable is.

Of course, Feingold joined with failed presidential candidate and failed comedian John Kerry to support a July 1, 2007 deadline for troop withdrawal.

When that date rolls around, will the time be right for troops to leave Iraq?

Perhaps. Without question, Iraqis should take responsibility for maintaining order in their country.

But the sort of timetable that Feingold wants is a mistake.

What's guaranteed is that a defined timetable is like calendaring violence, atrocities, and the certain deaths of men, women, and children.

Furthermore, as I've said, I'm troubled by the assumption that this report will be the road map for U.S. policy in Iraq.

Read the transcript of President Bush’s News Conference With Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq.

President Bush hasn't resigned. The executive branch has not changed hands. There hasn't been a coup.

Remember, the Constitution does not grant the Iraq Study Group the powers of the presidency.

Who's grabbing power now?

Billions of Gallons of Raw Sewage

That's what the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District has dumped into Lake Michigan.

Metaphorically speaking, billions of gallons of raw sewage also refers to a significant portion of the content of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Case in point -- The article on the Sierra Legal Defense Fund's "Great Lakes Sewage Report Card."

I wrote about the report card in the wee small hours of Wednesday morning, "The Great Toilets." (What took The Journal Sentinel so long to get to the story?)

Naturally, The Journal Sentinel carries water for MMSD, gleefully reporting the findings that Milwaukee is not the worst polluter of the Great Lakes.

Milwaukee has long been painted by environmentalists as a villain for its chronic sewage spills into Lake Michigan, but a report released Wednesday by a Canadian conservation group shows the city is far from the worst polluter in the Great Lakes.

Milwaukee's grade of a C-plus, in fact, ranks in the top half of the 20 Great Lakes cities evaluated for their sewage management, and at the top of all the major cities surveyed, including Cleveland, Detroit and Toronto.

Still, nobody anywhere in the Great Lakes should be doing back flips, because the report prepared by Sierra Legal Defence Fund shows that an "appalling" amount of fouled water is gushing into the world's largest freshwater system, a drinking source for millions of people, including the Lake Michigan cities of Milwaukee and Chicago.

The 20 cities surveyed in the report alone dump an estimated 24 billion gallons of untreated sewage each year into the Great Lakes, "an outrageous quantity," said Jode Roberts, communications director for Sierra Legal.

"I knew it was a problem, but I had no idea how serious it was," added Elaine MacDonald, senior staff scientist for the group and author of the report.

But Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources' deputy water administrator Bruce Baker was somewhat buoyed by the news. While he is dismayed by the volume of nasty stuff spilling into the lakes each year, he said he was happy the group took the time to put the problems of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District in perspective with other Great Lakes sewage spillers.

What a load!

The report declares the dumping of sewage to be "appalling."

Milwaukee only got a C+ grade.

That's not good news.

I guess relatively speaking one could consider it to be positive. It's sort of like being happy about someone committing only a few murders rather than killing hundreds of people.

He said the district still has a lot to do to curb its overflow problems, but it has been "singled out as this really bad actor when we've known all along that when you put them in the context of large cities on Great Lakes, they're certainly not the lowest on that list."

Since 1994, MMSD has dumped an average of more than 1 billion gallons of untreated sewage per year into Lake Michigan. Last-ranked Detroit dumped more than 13 billion gallons in 2002 alone, according to the report. That waste ultimately makes its way into Lake Erie.

Detroit is a worse offender than Milwaukee.

I DON'T CARE.

The Sierra Legal Defense Fund's report is not vindication for MMSD.

The city isn't the worst sewage dumper. So what?

That doesn't make the practice of pouring billions of gallons of raw sewage into the lake easier to swallow.

There is no good news here.

The Iraq Study Group: Quasi-Commander-in-Chief

The Iraq Study Group has arrived at some conclusions.

The "elite" assembly of some of the finest minds in the country has agreed on a plan of action for U.S. involvement in Iraq.

The results were to be revealed NEXT Wednesday.

Of course, the group's findings were leaked already.

From (where else?) the leakers' paradise, The New York Times:

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group reached a consensus on Wednesday on a final report that will call for a gradual pullback of the 15 American combat brigades now in Iraq but stop short of setting a firm timetable for their withdrawal, according to people familiar with the panel’s deliberations.

The report, unanimously approved by the 10-member panel, led by James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton, is to be delivered to President Bush next week. It is a compromise between distinct paths that the group has debated since March, avoiding a specific timetable, which has been opposed by Mr. Bush, but making it clear that the American troop commitment should not be open-ended. The recommendations of the group, formed at the request of members of Congress, are nonbinding.

NONBINDING.

Yes and no.

Actually, I think the recommendations are binding, at least in the sense that they place a great deal of pressure on the President to accept them.

In effect, this little Study Group has taken on the role of a shadow administration.

I don't think there's anything wrong with input and suggestions; but that's not how all of this has been framed.

The presentation to the American public, via the lib media, is that the Iraq Study Group has the authority to come up with a solution to the Iraq problem (or civil war, if you work for NBC or are Colin Powell).

The leaking of its conclusions are hardly being reported as some simple suggestions from merely an advisory panel.

A person who participated in the commission’s debate said that unless the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki believed that Mr. Bush was under pressure to pull back troops in the near future, “there will be zero sense of urgency to reach the political settlement that needs to be reached.”

"A person who participated in the commission's debate."

Don't you just love those leakers? What would The Times without them?

The report recommends that Mr. Bush make it clear that he intends to start the withdrawal relatively soon, and people familiar with the debate over the final language said the implicit message was that the process should begin sometime next year.

The report leaves unstated whether the 15 combat brigades that are the bulk of American fighting forces in Iraq would be brought home, or simply pulled back to bases in Iraq or in neighboring countries. (A brigade typically consists of 3,000 to 5,000 troops.) From those bases, they would still be responsible for protecting a substantial number of American troops who would remain in Iraq, including 70,000 or more American trainers, logistics experts and members of a rapid reaction force.

In effect, the report takes power out of the President's hands and pressures him to do what the Study Group says.

As the commission wound up two and a half days of deliberation in Washington, the group said in a public statement only that a consensus had been reached and that the report would be delivered next Wednesday to President Bush, Congress and the American public. Members of the commission were warned by Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton not to discuss the contents of the report.

But four people involved in the debate, representing different points of view, agreed to outline its conclusions in broad terms to address what they said might otherwise be misperceptions about the findings. Some said their major concern was that the report might be too late.

What upstanding people these group members are!

They reach consensus yesterday and before the night is out, they're leaking.

Members were warned not to discuss the report.

Well, four people dismissed that entirely, supposedly due to their concerns that a week might make the report irrelevant.

What a lame excuse! Truly lame!!!

Although the diplomatic strategy takes up the majority of the report, it was the military recommendations that prompted the most debate, people familiar with the deliberations said. They said a draft report put together under the direction of Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton had collided with another, circulated by other Democrats on the commission, that included an explicit timeline calling for withdrawal of the combat brigades to be completed by the end of next year. In the end, the two proposals were blended.

If Mr. Bush adopts the recommendations, far more American training teams will be embedded with Iraqi forces, a last-ditch effort to make the Iraqi Army more capable of fighting alone. That is a step already embraced in a memorandum that Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, wrote to the president this month.

“I think everyone felt good about where we ended up,” one person involved in the commission’s debates said after the group ended its meeting. “It is neither ‘cut and run’ nor ‘stay the course.’ ”

“Those who favor immediate withdrawal will not like it,” he said, but it also “deviates significantly from the president’s strategy.”

The report also would offer military commanders — and therefore the president — great flexibility to determine the timing and phasing of the pullback of the combat brigades.

Translation: Bush should agree to implement the recommendations. Anything short of compliance will be viewed as pigheaded on the part of President Bush and the administration.

Reuters also reports on the Iraq Study Group's leaked recommendations.

The anonymous source that talked to Reuters gave a little different take on things than what The Times splashed.

"The main thing is (the group is) calling for a transition from a combat role to a support role," said the source, who spoke on condition that he not be named. "It's basically a redeployment."

It says, "HE not be named." That means Sandra Day O'Connor was not the leaker.

The source said the idea was to shift U.S. combat forces both to bases inside Iraq as well as elsewhere in the region as the military gradually moved away from combat operations, adding that this should happen over the next year or so.

The New York Times earlier reported that there was no timetable for the proposed U.S. pullback, but the source said: "there is a kind of indication in the report as to when that ought to be completed ... sometime within the next year."

The independent, bipartisan group also decided to call for a regional conference that could lead to direct U.S. talks with Iran and Syria, both accused by the United States of fomenting violence in Iraq, the source added.

The Iraq Study Group is not only acting as Commander-in-Chief, but it's assuming the role of Secretary of State as well.

Who needs a State Department or a Department of Defense when you've got a Study Group?

Many in Washington have held out hope that the group's report would provide a way for the United States to extricate itself from an increasingly deadly and unpopular war or, at least, a set of recommendations on how to move forward that could attract support from both Democrats and Republicans.

Their conclusions are likely to carry significant political weight even if President Bush chooses to ignore them, especially after his fellow Republicans lost control of the U.S. Congress in November 7 elections largely because of deep public discontent with the Iraq war.

This is the problem.

Their conclusions are more than advisory. They have much greater significance.

I'm not comfortable with the politics.

I wonder what would have happened in 1945 if Harry Truman has been bound by a Study Group's recommendations to decide the course of the war in the Pacific.

_________________________________

Today, President Bush met with Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki, after talks scheduled for Wednesday were abruptly cancelled.

He didn't seemed fazed by the Study Groups' recommendations.

AMMAN, Jordan -- President Bush pledged Thursday that U.S. troops will remain in Iraq to strengthen the authority of embattled Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and said the two agreed to speed a turnover of security responsibility to Iraqi forces.

...The president acknowledged the pressure at home for the beginning of U.S. troop withdrawals but he said, "We'll be in Iraq until the job is complete, at the request of a sovereign government elected by the people."

He said the United States — which now has about 140,000 troops in Iraq _will stay "to get the job done so long as the government wants us there."

Bush said he wanted to begin troop withdrawals "as soon as possible. But I'm a realist because I understand how tough it is inside of Iraq."

Iraq Study Group? What Iraq Study Group?



Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki (L) watches as U.S. President George W. Bush waves after a news conference in Amman November 30, 2006. REUTERS/Ali Jarekji (JORDAN)

Danny DeVito

After his disastrous appearance on The View this morning, will Danny DeVito go on an apology tour?

Will he apologize to President Bush and his supporters via satellite on Letterman?

Will he appear on The 700 Club and beg forgiveness from moviegoing conservatives?

Will Gloria Allred represent President Bush and demand that DeVito personally meet with him before a retired judge to determine just compensation for victimizing the President?

Is this a career ender for DeVito?

The answer to all of the above is NO.

The reason is obvious. DeVito's a lib and he was mocking President Bush.

Thus, no apologies are really necessary, though he has called Barbara Walters to make nice.

ABC, home of the Rosie O'Donnell-hijacked show The View, reports on the incident:

The actor, who was on the show to promote his movie "Deck the Halls," admitted he had been partying with George Clooney the night before and had not slept.

"I knew it was the last seven limoncellos that was going to get me," the actor told the show's co-hosts.

DeVito looked tired and frazzled. He occasionally slurred his speech, some of which was bleeped by the show's producers.

Some of the talk surrounding DeVito's appearance focuses on a long-winded anecdote he told about staying at the White House.

Seeming confused over whether he slept with his wife Rhea Perlman when he stayed in the Lincoln bedroom, DeVito said, "I don't know. Something happens when you go in that hallway. You start not recognizing women."

"No, it was Rhea," he continued. "We went in and we made it our business to really wreck the joint."

What a boorish display!

The executives at Twentieth Century Fox must be thrilled!

Deck the Halls is being panned by critics. If that's not bad enough, then DeVito goes on national TV and insults the target audience of the film -- FAMILIES.

DeVito's publicist, Stan Rosenfeld, told ABC News that the actor has apologized to Barbara Walters, "The View's" creator and co-host.

"He has called Barbara Walters to apologize for anything that could be construed as unfortunate," he said.

Rosenfeld said he has no idea whether DeVito was drunk during his appearance but emphasized that the actor has never had a problem with drinking.

Personally, I don't care whether or not DeVito was drunk, nor do I care if he has a problem with alcohol.

I do care that he spoke so crassly and disrespectfully about the President, imitating a stuttering, stammering Bush.

He not only insulted the President, but he also mocked people with speech difficulties.

Many media outlets are leaving that part out of their accounts, preferring to focus on his alleged drunkenness.

Watch DeVito embarrass himself.

TMZ

YouTube



DeVito is absolutely classless.

Don't go see Deck the Halls.

Two reasons:

1. The reviews are horrible.

2. It stars Danny DeVito.

Jim Webb Disses Bush

Jim Webb, noted author and Virginia's SENATOR-ELECT, hasn't even been sworn in yet and he's making waves in Washington.

RICHMOND, Va. -- Democratic Sen.-elect Jim Webb avoided the receiving line during a recent White House reception for new members of Congress and had a chilly exchange with President Bush over the Iraq war and his Marine son.

"How's your boy?" Webb, in an interview Wednesday, recalled Bush asking during the reception two weeks ago.

"I told him I'd like to get them out of Iraq," Webb said.

"That's not what I asked. How's your boy?" the president replied, according to Webb.

At that point, Webb said, Bush got a response similar to what reporters and others who had asked Webb about Lance Cpl. Jimmy Webb, 24, have received since the young man left for Iraq around Labor Day: "I told him that was between my boy and me."

Webb, a leading critic of the Iraq war, said that he had avoided the receiving line and photo op with Bush, but that the president found him.

How childish!

Webb was trying to avoid the President?

Doesn't this genius realize that he needs to work with the President?

And Webb can't bring himself to exchange a few words with Bush socially.

Yeah, the Dems intend to change the tone in Washington.

What a crock!

Webb is really strange. He certainly could have given a very generic response to the President's inquiry.

...He said he meant no disrespect to the presidency during the reception, but "I've always made a distinction about not speaking personally about my son."

In interviews during the campaign, Webb said it was wrong to elevate the role of one Marine over others. Webb also expressed concern that a high profile could subject a Marine to greater peril.

He wore his son's buff-colored desert boots throughout the campaign, but refused to speak extensively about his son's service or allow it to be used in campaign ads.

In other words, he readily exploited his son's service to dupe the people of Virginia into electing him; yet he refuses to give a simple response to questions about his son.

President Bush wasn't asking for an in-depth account of Webb's relationship with Jimmy Webb.

The President was showing concern and acknowledging Jimmy's service.

Webb, on the other hand, showed that he's extremely disrespectful and socially awkward.

He also has a violent streak.

Webb should stick to writing those creepy novels. He doesn't relate very well with others.

Mahmoud's Message: Dear Noble Americans

"Noble Americans, I love you. Do you love me?"


Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made good on his promise.

No, not wiping Israel off the map. He hasn't accomplished that -- yet.

I'm talking about his pledge to send a message to the American people.

On Tuesday, November 14, Ahmadinejad said:

"I will soon send a message to the American people. The message is in the stage of preparation."

Ahmadinejad completed his project and delivered the finished product today.

Yippee!!!

The Islamic Republic News Agency reported it this way:

In an important message released Wednesday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the people of the United States of America.

In his message, the president said, "While Divine providence has placed Iran and the United States of America geographically far apart, we should be cognizant that human values and our common human spirit, which proclaim the dignity and exalted worth of all human beings, have brought our two great nations of Iran and the United States closer."

What's with this guy?

He wrote that goofy, long letter to President Bush last Spring. Now, he's bypassed our President and has decided to directly address the American people.

The full text of the message is lengthy. It's a long-winded treatise that's in the same league as the best of John Kerry's babbling.

The AFP refers to the letter as "stinging."

Good grief.

The IRNA has translated the message in four parts.

I

II

III

IV

Basically, Ahmadinejad sucks up to the Americans, taking a stance that I'm sure many libs like. I think he was inspired by the recent U.S. elections.

He wants the Dems to make good on their campaign promises -- surrender, cut and run, that stuff.

He appeals to the pro-Palestinian, thinly-veiled anti-Semitic types in America.

He talks about Katrina.

Yes, Ahmadinejad covers all the lib talking points. In fact, I think he secretly longs to be an American lib. He is certainly hoping to be an American lib darling. Maybe he will win the hearts and minds of the American Left, but he won't win me over.

He's a Holocaust-denying, deranged, nuclear weapons obsessed maniac. He hates Israel and he hates that America is allied with Israel.

Big deal. Ahmadinejad wrote a letter.

Bottom line: WHO CARES?

The Great Toilets

The Great Lakes aren't really toilets. We just treat them that way.

Today, the Sierra Legal Defense Fund released its Great Lakes Sewage Report Card.

The grades are somewhat disappointing.

Surprised?

Read the report here.

It's a massive work.

The Associated Press sums up the key findings.

TORONTO -- The untreated urban sewage and effluents that flow into the Great Lakes each year are threatening a critical ecosystem that supplies water to millions of people, according to a study by a Canadian environmental group.

Even though municipalities in the Great Lakes region have spent vast sums of money in recent decades upgrading their wastewater plants, the situation remains appalling, said the Sierra Legal Defense Fund.

Sierra Legal said in a report to be formally released Wednesday that it studied 20 Canadian and American cities, analyzing municipal sewage treatment and discharges into the Great Lakes basin, the Canadian Press news agency reported on the report Tuesday, saying it received an advance copy.

The survey graded municipalities in areas such as collection, treatment and disposal of sewage based on information provided by the local governments.

The main problem, the environmental group said, is that in many cases, antiquated sewage systems are incapable of dealing effectively with the vast amounts of effluent that flow through them.

The situation is especially bad when heavy rains overwhelm treatment systems in cities where storm run-off is collected in the same pipes as sewage.

Some 24 billion gallons of untreated effluent enter the Great Lakes every year through combined sewage overflows, the study found.

Even with a relatively minor rain event, the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District dumps untreated sewage into Lake Michigan. Sometimes, it's not completely untreated. It's what MMSD calls a "blend."

When the rain is especially heavy, MMSD's "Lake Michigan solution" can be especially jaw dropping in scale.

For example, from the June 8, 2oo4 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Rained a lot; not our fault.

That, in a nutshell, was the defense sewerage district officials offered Monday for the record 4.6 billion gallons of raw sewage that was dumped into local streams and Lake Michigan last month.

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District officials told the state regulators that the rains through much of May were so heavy and local sewer lines so leaky that MMSD's system just couldn't handle all the flow. Dumping was done legally as an alternative to causing basement backups, MMSD officials said.

Astonishingly, the report gives Milwaukee (p. 50) a grade of C+.

That's scary. If Milwaukee can pull a C+, how bad does a city have to be to get a lower grade?

Green Bay (p. 49) can be proud with its B+ performance.

...Canada's worst offender was Windsor, Ontario, which _ along with U.S. cities Detroit and Cleveland _ performed "abysmally." Cities such as Toronto and Hamilton also earned below-average grades.

At the top end, Peel Region just west of Toronto, Green Bay, Wisconsin, and Duluth, Minnesota, were the best performers, thanks largely to their ability to keep rain water and sewage separate.

So Wisconsin is among the best performers in the country because it manages to keep rain and sewage apart.

That's amazing.

Also from The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

On Tuesday, two environmental groups notified the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District that they intend to file a second lawsuit against the district in federal court in Milwaukee in an attempt to halt ongoing sanitary sewer overflows.

In March 2002, Friends of Milwaukee's Rivers in Milwaukee and Alliance for the Great Lakes in Chicago, formerly the Lake Michigan Federation, filed a lawsuit in federal court, seeking a cessation of sanitary sewer overflows and asking a federal judge to impose financial penalties against the district for violations of the federal Clean Water Act.

The lawsuit alleged the dumping of more than 900 million gallons of untreated sewage from sanitary sewers into Milwaukee rivers and Lake Michigan from 1994 to January 2002.

Who knew that a city with a history of dumping BILLIONS of gallons of untreated sewage into Lake Michigan was worthy of a C+ grade?

More proof of grade inflation I guess.

The Reuters Album of Shame

Reuters photographers and photo editors have done it again.

Add two more questionable photos to the Reuters Album of Shame.


Women cry behind a coffin containing the body of their relative, in front of Imam Ali hospital in Baghdad's Sadr city November 27, 2006. Their relative was killed during Sunday's clashes in north Baghdad. REUTERS/Kareem Raheem (IRAQ)

The woman on the left bears a striking resemblance to President Bush.

Is this another case of a Reuters altered image?

Is Adnan Hajj working for Reuters again under a new name?

Today, we're treated to yet another Reuters disgrace. This photo isn't altered. It's just strange, one of those creative cropping shots.



Pope Benedict XVI arrives at Anitkabir, the mausoleum of the founder of the secular Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, in Ankara, November 28, 2006. Ataturk's mausoleum is the first official stop for Pope Benedict XVI during his four-day visit to Turkey. REUTERS/Alessandro Bianchi (TURKEY)

Why would this shot be slapped on Reuters' photo wire?

Is this a photo of Pope Benedict or an unidentified woman's legs?

Given Reuters' history of shameful shots, I think that this photo was no accident. I think it's a clear attempt to be sexually suggestive and disrespectful.

Reuters' editorializing photographers and their cheap shots are a disgrace to photojournalists everywhere.

Photojournalism is distinguished from other close branches of photography (such as documentary photography, street photography or celebrity photography) by the qualities of:

Timeliness — the images have meaning in the context of a published chronological record of events.

Objectivity — the situation implied by the images is a fair and accurate representation of the events they depict.

Narrative — the images combine with other news elements, to inform and give insight to the viewer or reader.

I think a new category of photography needs to be established for Reuters.

Perhaps "propaganda photography"?

"Poor taste photography"?

"Unprofessional, sleazy photography"?

POPE BENEDICT IS NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC

The Turks greeted Pope Benedict today.


A heavily armed security officer stands on the roof of the Ankara airport before the arrival of Pope Benedict XVI for a four-day Apostolic journey to Turkey at Esenboga airport in Ankara November 28, 2006. (Wolfgang Rattay/Reuters)



Turkish policemen guard the car waiting for Pope Benedict XVI outside Ankara's airport, Turkey, Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2006. (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini)

Amid heavy security, Pope Benedict XVI brought a message of peace and brotherhood to Turkey.

How sad that a holy man bringing a message of love and reconciliation must risk his life to deliver it!

ANKARA, Turkey -- Pope Benedict XVI began his first visit to a Muslim country Tuesday with a message of dialogue and "brotherhood" between faiths, and Turkey's chief Islamic cleric said at a joint appearance that growing "Islamophobia" hurts all Muslims.

Benedict also said guarantees of religious freedom are essential for a just society. His comments could be reinforced later during the four-day visit when the pope meets in Istanbul with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, the spiritual leader of the world's Orthodox Christians.

Religious freedom is about as foreign in some places as tolerance.

..."The so-called conviction that the sword is used to expand Islam in the world and growing Islamophobia hurts all Muslims," Bardakoglu said at a joint appearance.

Here's the problem:

ME, ME, ME.

Why is it always about Muslims? Why must they play the victim card so readily?

Religious tolerance is NOT a one-way street.

True, Islamophobia hurts all Muslims.

Judeophobia hurts all Jews.

Fear of Christians hurts all Christians.

Theophobia in general is a problem when it promotes violence and hate.

Here's some relevant questions:

Why aren't Muslims expected to be held to the standards that others are?

Why aren't they required to reflect on the reasons some people exhibit from Islamophobia?

I think a little personal responsibility is in order rather than whining about being victimized.


A small group of about 20 people, one holding a sign reading 'blood in the past, blood in the future, blood in the Vatican', protest the visit of Pope Benedict XVI in Ankara, Tuesday Nov. 28, 2006. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong)

Gee, I wonder why there's a rise in Islamophobia.

...The comment appeared to be a reference to Benedict's remarks in a speech in September when he quoted a 14th century Christian emperor who characterized the Prophet Muhammad's teachings as "evil and inhuman." Those remarks triggered a wave of anger in the Islamic world; on Sunday, more than 25,000 Turks showed up to an anti-Vatican protest in Istanbul, asking the pope to stay at home.

People hold placards comparing Pope Benedict XVI to the devil during an anti-pope demonstration outside Turkey's religious affairs directorate in Ankara, November 28, 2006. (Yves Herman/Reuters)

The Pope is the devil.

What a peaceful message from the anti-Christian crowd! Can you feel the love?

"Peace is the basis of all religions," Benedict told Bardakoglu.

The Vatican said the speech was an attempt to highlight the incompatibility of faith and violence, and Benedict later expressed regret for the violent Muslim backlash.

"All feel the same responsibility in this difficult moment in history, let's work together," Benedict said during his flight from Rome to Ankara, where more than 3,000 police and sharpshooters joined a security effort that surpassed even the visit of President Bush two years ago.

"We know that the scope of this trip is dialogue and brotherhood and the commitment for understanding between cultures ... and for reconciliation," he said.

Too many Muslims don't want understanding. They don't want brotherhood. They don't want reconciliation.

That's a tragedy.

I admire Pope Benedict for stressing the incompatibility of faith and violence.

The 25,000 anti-Pope protesters in Turkey should put down the placards, take off the headbands, stop shotting ugly slogans, and listen to what Pope Benedict has to say.

Profiles in Terror

Yesterday, there was a protest at Reagan Washington National Airport, a "pray-in" held by imams, rabbis, and ministers.

The demonstration was staged to keep the story of the six imams removed from a US Airways Minneapolis to Phoenix flight last Monday alive.

Supposedly, the purpose of the protest was to get US Airways to apologize for being anti-Muslim, discriminatory, and engaging in racial profiling.

Actually, I think the entire episode was a test.

How would passengers and airline personnel react to the weird behavior of the imams?

After charges of profiling were leveled, would US Airways back down?

Would the public side with the imams?

According to the Associated Press:

Imam Omar Shahin, one of the six imams detained last Monday at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, said they hadn't done anything suspicious.

The imams, who were returning from a religious conference, had prayed on their prayer rugs in the airport before the flight. After they boarded the flight, a passenger passed a note to a flight attendant. The men were taken off the airplane, handcuffed and questioned.

"It was the worst moment in my life," Shahin said.

I don't buy that. I think it was a highlight for Shanin. I think he got exactly what he wanted -- an opportunity to criticize the U.S. government for profiling and a chance to stir up Muslim rage.

If that incident last Monday was the worst moment Shahin has experienced, then he's had a very charmed life.

I think there's a good chance that Shahin hated being removed from the plane, handcuffed and questioned as much as Cindy Sheehan hates being arrested and led away in handcuffs.

US Airways Group Inc. spokeswoman Andrea Rader said prayer was never the issue. She said the passenger overheard anti-U.S. statements and the men got up and moved around the airplane.

"We're sorry the imams had a difficult time, but we do think the crews have to make these calls and we think they made the right one," she said.

The men were behaving suspiciously.

It would have been a grave mistake for US Airways to ignore them.

I sincerely believe that this was a case of entrapment.

These imams WANTED to cry, "Profiling!"

Yesterday's goofy "pray-in" smacks of Cindy Sheehan tactics. Instead of camping out near President Bush's ranch to attract the media, the clergy drew the media by camping out near the US Airways ticket counter in Terminal A.

As the religious of various faiths joined together to protest the alleged dehumanization of the imams and the degrading treatment they endured, more details from witnesses have emerged.

The information makes the protesters look ridiculous.

It makes MSNBC's Contessa "Rosa Parks" Brewer, a former Milwaukee news personality, and CAIR members look like absolute fools.


Watch--



Audrey Hudson of The Washington Times has the story:

Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials.

Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted "Allah" when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix.

"I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud," the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department.

Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.

"That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane."

A pilot from another airline said: "That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry."

And they claim that all they were doing was praying.

The imams were discriminated against for exercising their religion.

Is switching from their assigned seats on a plane part of their prayer practices?

...Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, called removing the imams an act of Islamophobia and compared it to racism against blacks.

BS.

The imams were acting suspiciously.

It wasn't Islamophobia to have them removed from the plane and questioned.

It was a completely rational and totally appropriate thing to do.

...The protesters also called on Congress to pass legislation to outlaw passenger profiling.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas Democrat, said the September 11 terrorist attacks "cannot be permitted to be used to justify racial profiling, harassment and discrimination of Muslim and Arab Americans."

"Understandably, the imams felt profiled, humiliated, and discriminated against by their treatment," she said.

I completely disagree with Jackson-Lee.

The 9/11 attacks weren't used as justification to harass the imams.

It would have been negligent on the part of the airline to allow the behavior to pass without investigating further.

Yes, there are "soft on terror" Dems like Russ Feingold who would prefer to aid the terrorists and put American lives at risk rather than question people acting inappropriately.

We can't afford to make that mistake.

According to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials, the imams displayed other suspicious behavior.

Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she "found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting." Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said.

Sure. That happens all the time. Nothing suspicious about that at all.

Who doesn't ask for extenders and then store them on the floor? That's perfectly normal behavior. Right.

I'd like to know how the imams' explained their request for extenders to authorities.

The imams said they were not discussing politics and only spoke in English, but witnesses told law enforcement that the men spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

Are all these witnesses conspiring against the six imams?

That's not believable.

...One of the passengers, Omar Shahin, told Newsweek the group did everything it could to avoid suspicion by wearing Western clothes, speaking English and booking seats so they were not together. He said they conducted prayers quietly and separately to avoid attention.

The imams had attended a conference sponsored by the North American Imam Federation in Minneapolis and were returning to Phoenix. Mr. Shahin, who is president of the federation, said on his Web site that none of the passengers made pro-Saddam or anti-American statements.

It sounds like this was a setup, arranged for the media's consumption.

The discrepancies between the imams' stories and those of the witnesses are too dramatic to be explained away as differences in interpretations.

The pilot said the airlines are not "secretly prejudiced against any nationality, religion or culture," and that the only target of profiling is passenger behavior.

"There are certain behaviors that raise the bar, and not sitting in your assigned seat raises the bar substantially," the pilot said. "Especially since we know that this behavior has been evident in suspicious probes in the past."

I feel sorry for the crew and passengers of Flight 300.

They are being victimized by these imams. They're being exploited by Muslims with an anti-American government agenda.

"Someone at US Airways made a notably good decision," said a second pilot, who also does not work for US Airways.

A spokeswoman for US Airways declined to discuss the incident. Aviation security officials said thousands of Muslims fly every day and conduct prayers in airports in a quiet and private manner without creating incidents.

That's key. Muslims fly all the time without problems.

This was not civil disobedience.

The six imams were not involved in a Rosa Parks moment. To suggest that is an insult to her courage and strong will.

These imams were playing a game, not making a statement.

The men do not have the right to cause a disturbance and disrupt the flight.

They acted like terrorists and so they were treated like terrorists.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

Georgia Thompson Reporting for Duty

Over the river and through the woods,
To Grandmother's house we go.

It's not going to be a very festive holiday season for Georgia Thompson and her family.

She's not going to Grandmother's house.

She's going to Illinois, to prison.

MADISON, Wis. -- Former state employee Georgia Thompson is reporting to prison on Monday after she was convicted this summer of of illegally steering a state contract to a company whose executives gave money to Gov. Jim Doyle's campaign.

...Thompson will serve an 18-month sentence at a minimum-security facility near Peoria, Ill.

I wonder what Jim Doyle will be doing for the holidays.

I suppose he's too busy to pay Thompson a visit.

I wonder if Doyle feels guilty. It's highly unlikely, but if he does, it might be cathartic for him to write an O.J. Simpson-style If I Did It book.

I'll be home for Christmas
If only in my dreams.

Turkey "Welcomes" Pope Benedict

TIME tries to rationalize "Why Turks Are Not Pleased to See the Pope."

In response to thousands and thousands of crazed anti-Pope Benedict protesters taking to Turkish streets over the weekend, the article offers up one of those "Let's understand why they are acting this way" analyses.

Like after 9/11, rather than blame the terrorists, libs put the onus on Americans to determine what we did to bring the attacks on ourselves. Why are the terrorists so mad at us?

TIME takes a similar stance with the Turkish reaction to the Pope's upcoming visit to Turkey, straining to justify the intense anger.

"For many in Turkey, the visiting pontiff personifies the mounting hostility they feel from Europe."

Reporter Pelin Turgut writes:

It took a 12 hour bus ride for Hafize Kucuk and Sevgi Ozen, 21-year-old university students, to get from the northern Turkish city of Samsun to an Istanbul rally Sunday protesting Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Turkey this week. But they thought little of the inconvenience. "This is a man who insulted our Prophet [Muhammad] and didn't even apologize properly," said Kucuk. "Now he's coming to our country, a Muslim country. This is unacceptable. We came to make our voices heard."

The rally, attended by some 15,000 Islamist protestors, was a colorful affair. Huge, lurid posters linking Benedict to Crusader knights. Hundreds of young men, wearing white headbands inscribed with the message "We don't want this sly Pope in Turkey", chanted angry slogans.

Militant protestors are a minority, but many Turks are deeply skeptical about a visit they view as part of a Western design against Turkey, which is mostly Muslim but officially secular.

I wouldn't call the rally a colorful affair at all.

The Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade is a colorful affair.

"Colorful" is not the right word to describe the rally. The connotation is too kind.

I would call it a disgusting display of hate and intolerance.

..."At this point most Turks are deeply suspicious of the West," says Cengiz Aktar, political science professor at Galatasaray University. "They see this visit as yet another development to be suspicious of."

Oh, I see. It's the big, bad West that's causing Turks to act this way.

Our fault.

...Nationalists believe the Pope's visit to Hagia Sophia, a major tourist attraction, is a sign of Christian desire to reclaim it as a church. Newspapers have speculated feverishly over whether he will pray while inside.

"Its not that we have anything personal against the Pope," says Zafer Emanetoglu, head of the youth branch of the Islamist party which organized Sunday's rally. "But we know that he is here as part of a greater plan against Turkey, and to unite Christians against Muslims."

Blah, blah, blah.

That sounds insane. Pope Benedict isn't going to "reclaim" Hagia Sophia.

The notion that the protesters have nothing personal against the Pope is equally insane.

Clearly, many of them do.

I think the protests should be condemned for what they are -- UGLY.

Look at a sampling of pictures from protests over the weekend:


A Turkish woman brandishes her placards during an anti-Pope rally organized by Islam-based Welfare Party in Istanbul, November 26, 2006. REUTERS/Fatih Saribas (TURKEY)

That placard on the left seems pretty personal to me.


Supporters of the pro-Islamic Felicity Party wave Turkish and party flags during an anti-pope rally in Istanbul, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 26, 2006. (AP Photo/Murad Sezer)

I demand an apology! These Muslims are insulting Jesus! Come on, Christians! Let's rally in the streets and chant anti-Muslim slogans and wear headbands!

When was the last time thousands and thousands of Christians did that in response to something Muslims said or did?

It didn't happen after Muslims killed three thousand innocents on American soil, all in the name of Allah.


A Turkish woman, wearing a headband that reads:'The ignorant and sneaky pope who insulted Islam and our Prophet should not come to Turkey' attends an anti-pope rally in Istanbul, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 26, 2006. (AP Photo/Murad Sezer)

Again, that's personal.

An apology from these Muslims to Christians is definitely in order for insulting the Holy Father, calling him ignorant and sneaky.



A Turkish woman, wearing a headband that reads:'No to an alliance of crusaders, let the pope not come!', holds a banner during an anti-pope rally in Istanbul, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 26, 2006. (AP Photo/Osman Orsal)

Muslims are bashing Christians. Is that politically correct?


A Turkish nationalist glues posters against Pope Benedict XVI. Crowds have begun converging in central Istanbul for a demonstration called by a small Islamist party against the visit to Turkey by Pope Benedict XVI, which starts on Tuesday.(AFP/Bulent Kilic)

Nooooo. That poster doesn't look to be a personal attack on the Pope, does it? It's a very flattering depiction of Pope Benedict.

Right.



A girl shouts slogans during an anti-Pope rally organised by the Islam-based Welfare Party in Istanbul November 26, 2006. Pope Benedict XVI is expected to arrive in Turkey on Tuesday. REUTERS/Pawel Kopczynski (TURKEY)


Demonstrators chant slogans during an anti-Pope rally organized by Islam-based Welfare Party in Istanbul, November 26, 2006. REUTERS/Fatih Saribas (TURKEY)

These photos bother me most of all. They are children being taught to hate.

It looks like they've learned their lessons well.

Wouldn't it help matters if these Muslim children were being taught to love others?

Wouldn't it make a difference if these Muslim children were being taught tolerance rather than violence?

I truly don't understand how SOME Muslim parents can raise their children to hate Christians and other non-Muslims.

Don't they want their children to inherit a peaceful world?

If they do, they're going about it the wrong way.
_____________________________

VATICAN CITY (Catholic Online) -- On a day that tens of thousands took to the streets denouncing a four-day papal pilgrimage to Turkey set to begin Nov. 28, Pope Benedict XVI called for prayers for the success of the visit to include interreligious dialogue with Orthodox Christians and Muslim leaders against the backdrop of underlying deep divisions in the nation.

In Nov. 26 remarks during the gathering at St. Peter’s Square for the Sunday recitation of the midday Angelus, the pope also focused on the day’s celebration of the feast of Christ the King and called for a commitment to avoid all discrimination against those afflicted with AIDS in anticipation of the observance of World AIDS Day, Dec. 1.

Extending greetings to “the dear Turkish people, so rich in history and culture” and “sentiments of respect and sincere friendship" to the nation and its representatives, Pope Benedict urged the thousands of pilgrims gathered to offer prayers “that this pilgrimage may bring the fruits that God desires.”

I'll be praying for the Pope's safety and a successful visit to Turkey.

I won't be marching in the streets insulting Muslims.

Frank McBride and Kyle Doss: Serenity Now!

It seems like this story has been going on forever. It's only been a week, but that seems like an eternity when it comes to news.

Enough already!

Everyone is familiar with Michael Richards' explosion into a racist rant during his stand up act at a comedy club.

Read the background here if you've been living under a rock and don't know what happened.

Unfortunately, the saga continues.

Yesterday, (while I was doing my post-Thanksgiving patriotic duty to support the nation's economy), one of the targets of Richards' attack and his lawyer announced that they believed Richards needed to apologize for his behavior, not just verbally but financially as well.

This should come as no surprise. The lawyer is Gloria Allred. The woman is everywhere. She has an uncanny ability to get the infamous to hire her to represent them.

From the Associated Press:

Two men who say they were insulted by actor-comedian Michael Richards during his racist rant at a comedy club want a personal apology and maybe some money, one of the men and their lawyer said Friday.

Frank McBride and Kyle Doss said they were part of a group of about 20 people who had gathered at West Hollywood's Laugh Factory to celebrate a friend's birthday. According to their attorney, Gloria Allred, they were ordering drinks when Richards berated them for interrupting his act.

When one of their group replied that he wasn't funny, Richards launched into a string of obscenities and repeatedly used the n-word. A video cell phone captured the outburst.

Richards, who played Jerry Seinfeld's wacky neighbor Kramer on the TV sitcom "Seinfeld," made a nationally televised apology on the "Late Show with David Letterman" earlier this week. He has since apologized to the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, both civil rights leaders.

Let me be clear.

I think Richards was completely out of line and should apologize for his horrendous behavior. It was such an out of control, horrible display.

BUT--

Why should he apologize specifically to Jackson and Sharpton?

What is that???

I think it's funny that the AP identifies them as civil rights leaders.

If they're the best the civil rights movement can offer, then the movement is lost. Don't forget that Jackson and Sharpton have anti-Semitic remarks in their pasts.

Now Doss has come out of the shadows and anonymity of the audience and taken center stage. He wants an apology, too. It can't be just any apology.

But Doss, 26, said Friday he wanted a "face-to-face apology."

"To have him do what he did to me ... I can't even explain it," Doss said. "I was humiliated, even scared at one point."

Richards' publicist said his client wants to apologize to both men, who are black, but hasn't been able to locate them.

Again, Richards is in the wrong.

He went absolutely nuts.

BUT--

I don't believe that Doss was scared.

He's not a shy, meek, and mild type of person. He's a heckler, right?

What's with this "ordering drinks" stuff?

So Doss and company were behaving appropriately and politely and Richards went berserk?

That's a new kink in the story.

Even if that's the case, I don't buy that 26-year-old Doss feared for his safety because a guy pushing sixty was screaming at him from a stage in front of an audience.

If Doss is demanding a "face-to-face apology," that's his business.

Is it really necessary to get a lawyer?

Richards has said he wanted to apologize directly to the people he insulted.

Why hire Allred?

Is she working pro bono?

I think it's more likely that Allred found Doss and not the other way around.

Allred, speaking by phone from Colorado, said Richards should meet McBride and Doss in front of a retired judge to "acknowledge his behavior and to apologize to them" and allow the judge to decide on monetary compensation.

"It's not enough to say 'I'm sorry' on 'David Letterman,'" she said.

She did not mention a specific figure, but pitched the idea as a way for the comic to avoid a lawsuit.

What sort of retired judge is Allred thinking of?

Is she envisioning a Judge Judy or a Judge Joe Brown scenario?

If Allred thinks Doss and McBride should file a lawsuit against Richards, then they should sue for damages.

This retired judge idea is really weird.

"Our clients were vulnerable," Allred said. "He went after them. He singled them out and he taunted them, and he did it in a closed room where they were captive."

How dramatic!

Richards did taunt them. Absolutely.

However, they weren't captive. They were free to leave.

And if it's true that they were heckling Richards, then they certainly can't be seen as vulnerable.

I'm not excusing Richards' behavior in any way.

However, I do object to Allred's description of the men as vulnerable. In no way can they have been considered captive.

...Richards' publicist said the comic wasn't considering any demand for payment. "He's not dealing with that," Howard Rubenstein said. "He wants to apologize to them directly and then see what happens."

A face-to-face apology is fine if a phone call or a formal letter isn't enough. I would imagine that could be arranged.

However, I don't think Richards should be expected to pay monetary reparations for his outburst.

Did anyone in the audience know Doss and McBride?

Without knowing their identities, the argument can't be made that Richards' slandered them and that would have a negative impact on their careers. It can't be said that Richards or other audience members could track them down and harass them.

Were they emotionally harmed by the episode?

That's difficult to quantify.

If Doss and McBride want money and Allred wants her piece of that pie, then let them go to court, not to a retired judge.

Why a retired judge?

It seems like a shakedown.

Richards shouldn't be expected to fork over money without the benefit of a defense.

Let's hear what McBride and Doss' roles were in the incident. Put them all under oath. Get witnesses.

I suspect it would come out that Doss and McBride were taunting Richards.

If they were completely innocent in the matter, you can bet that Allred would have already filed a lawsuit.

"The Politics of Murder"

David Ignatius has an interesting, albeit naïve, opinion piece in today's Washington Post.

He tackles the "troubles" in the Middle East.

He thinks he has isolated the problem and come up with some potential solutions regarding the the United States' role in the Middle East.

I think he's wrong.

Ignatius writes:

A disease is eating away at the Middle East. It afflicts the Syrians, the Iraqis, the Lebanese, even the Israelis. It is the idea that the only political determinant in the Arab world is raw force -- the power of physical intimidation. It is politics as assassination.

This week saw another sickening instance of this law of brute force, with the murder of Pierre Gemayel, a Lebanese cabinet minister who had been a strong critic of Syria. Given the brutal history of Syria's involvement in Lebanon, there's an instant temptation to blame Damascus. But in this land of death, there are so many killers and so few means of holding them to account that we can only guess at who pulled the trigger.

I fell in love with Lebanon the first time I visited the country 26 years ago. Part of its appeal, inevitably, was the sense of living on the edge -- in a land of charming, piratical characters who cherish their freedom. Lebanon has great newspapers, outspoken intellectuals, a wide-open democracy. It has almost everything a great society needs, in fact, except the rule of law.

And thus Ignatius identifies the problem in the vibrant land of Lebanon and the Middle East in general -- no rule of law.

As is so common today, he uses the disease paradigm to illustrate what's happening in the violent region.

The assassination, the murder, the use of force are all symptoms of the "sick" society.

A cure is needed, desperately.

...The sickness must end. The people of the Middle East are destroying themselves, literally and figuratively, with the politics of assassination. So many things are going right in the modern world -- until we reach the boundaries of the Middle East, where the gunmen hide in wait. Those who imagined they could stop the assassins' little guns with their big guns -- the United States and Israel come to mind -- have been undone by the howling gale of violence. In trying to fight the killers, they began to make their own arguments for assassination and torture. That should have been a sign that something had gone wrong.

Did the U.S. and Israel think that they could stop the "politics of assassination" and the terrorists' little guns with their big guns?

That's being very simplistic.

In the first place, neither the U.S. nor Israel have unleashed the truly big guns.

If we've been undone by the Middle Eastern brand of violence, it's precisely because we're fighting a war while trying to be politically correct. If we're bogged down, it's because we're permitting ourselves to be.

Ignatius dismisses U.S. efforts to compromise and to empower the people of the Middle East, to establish a framework by which freedom-loving people can seek a better life via the rule of law rather than by the barrel of a gun.

...The Middle East needs the rule of law -- not an order preached by outsiders but one demanded by Arabs who will not tolerate more of this killing. Any leader or nation who aspires to play a constructive role in the region's future must embrace this idea of legal accountability. That is what the United Nations insisted this week, with a unanimous Security Council resolution demanding that the murderers be brought to justice.

Ignatius has solved the problem!

The Middle East needs the rule of law.

No kidding!!!

In case he hasn't noticed, there are maniacs standing in the way of satisfying that need. God is supposedly telling them to destroy the infidels (that's us).

The real problem is far too many Arabs ARE tolerating the killing. They support it. They teach it. They want it.

Legal accountability?

The Middle Eastern suicide bombers, murdering in the name of Allah, are on a holy mission. Do you think these people care about legal accountability?

Moreover, Ignatius seems to think that there is a separation of church and state in the Middle East.

That's absurd.

Of course, there are citizens in the Middle East who want to have an ordered and civilized society. These oppressed people need help to fight the tyrants and the terrorists. We're helping them.

What's the alternative? Just stand by and let the hatred for Israel and America continue to be taught to Middle Eastern children, and wait for the next 9/11?

That's not an option.

Ignatius seems to forget that WE were attacked repeatedly throughout the 90s. And it's as if he can't remember the grand scale of the acts of war on September 11, 2001, when nearly three thousand innocents were slaughtered on American soil.

Now the United Nations must find a way to make the rule of law real. It has chartered a special investigator, Serge Brammertz, to gather the facts and has called for an international tribunal to try the cases. It must make this rule of law stick.

With all due respect, this is ridiculous. It's meaningless.

How is the UN, that savior worshipped by libs, going to make the rule of law stick?

It's nuts to think that special investigator Brammertz will supply the magic bullet to end the politics of murder.

...The idea that America is going to save the Arab world from itself is seductive, but it's wrong. We have watched in Iraq an excruciating demonstration of our inability to stop the killers. We aren't tough enough for it or smart enough -- and in the end it isn't our problem. The hard work of building a new Middle East will be done by the Arabs, or it won't happen. What would be unforgivable would be to assume that, in this part of the world, the rule of law is inherently impossible.

This paragraph is pure crap.

America isn't aiming to save the Arab world from itself. It's assisting Arabs save themselves from the hostile forces of Islamic extremists.

Ignatius slaps our military and our country when he says we aren't tough enough or smart enough (echoes of John Kerry) to deal with the extremism that brought down the World Trade Center and destroyed a section of the Pentagon and murdered all aboard United Airlines Flight 93.

And it certainly is our problem.

How incredibly stupid to suggest otherwise!

The terrorists and nutcase Middle Eastern leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have clearly stated their goals -- to destroy Israel and do as much damage to the U.S. as possible.

Of course it's our problem. OF COURSE.

I agree with him that building a new Middle East must be done by the Arabs. But just as the reconstruction of Europe happened after World War II, the civilized people need the help of other civilized people to build a democracy and a better life.

Ignatius ends with the lame claim that it would be wrong to assume that the rule of law can't be achieved in the Middle East.

That's just fine and dandy, but what's so frustrating is that Ignatius wants to bail out, redeploy, cut and run, whatever you want to call it.

If he believes that the rule of law can reign supreme, ending the politics of murder, then why would we not lend a hand in establishing it?

Obviously, the forces of good need our help. I'm sure the loved ones of those in the mass graves of Iraq, those brutalized and tortured, those children murdered by Saddam's WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, want to see justice.

What would Ignatius like to do?

Does he think that the U.S. should buy ad time on Arab TV and run some slick commercials telling Arab kids to "just say no" to Islamic extremism?

We can't possibly eradicate the Islamic extremists' desire to kill us, but we can help to bolster the civilized Arab world.

Think of it this way:

Just because it's impossible to permanently rid a garden of weeds doesn't mean that it's a mistake to pull out as many weeds as possible. It would be wrong to ignore the weeds and give up.

Is it better to let the weeds strangle the flowers and overtake the garden?

More importantly, can the flowers themselves kill the weeds that threaten their existence?

HAVE A BLESSED THANKSGIVING!

Proclamation Establishing Thanksgiving Day

October 3, 1863


The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle, or the ship; the axe had enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years, with large increase of freedom.

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and voice by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-eighth.

A. Lincoln

TURKEY HOTLINES

I love making Thanksgiving dinner almost as much as I love eating Thanksgiving dinner.

No matter how stuffed I am, I never go to bed before having at least a small turkey sandwich.

The ceremonial consuming of the leftovers is as much a tradition at our house as the feast itself.

Although I've been plenty frazzled preparing dinner, I've never called one of the many Turkey Hotlines.

I think it's a great service. They've probably helped rescue many a doomed dinner as well as prevent many trips to the emergency room.

Just a few:

Jennie-O: 1-800-TURKEYS

Butterball: 1-800-BUTTERBALL

Reynolds Turkey Tips: 1-800-745-4000

Here are some actual calls for advice received by the people manning the hotlines.

Butterball turkey experts still talk about the Kentucky woman who called in 1993 to ask how to get her dog out of her turkey. It seems the woman's Chihuahua had dived into the bird's cavity and become trapped there. The woman tried pulling the pooch and shaking the bird, all to no avail. A Butterball economist finally suggested the woman carefully cut the opening in the turkey wider to release the captive canine.

The Reynolds Wrap Turkey Tips Line (800-745-4000) took a query from a woman who wanted to know if she could cook her turkey by placing it in a Reynolds Oven Bag, putting it in the window in the back of her car, and letting the heat from the sun bake the turkey. (She was told that would be an uncontrolled heat source and was instructed to use an oven instead.)

The folks at Butterball have also dealt with cooks determined to roast turkeys on the back ledges of their cars. And they've had people call to ask if they could cook their holiday birds on radiators. Then there was the bride who had a small, apartment-size range and was worried the turkey would get larger as it cooked (similar to a loaf of bread rising) — she was fretting she wouldn't be able to get it out of the oven after it was done.

Why would anyone want to cook a turkey in the back of a car or on a radiator?

I don't think some of these people should be allowed anywhere near a kitchen or given the responsibility of feeding a group.

In recent years, there always seems to be stories about the dangers of the Thanksgiving meal. The potential for food poisoning is high. It's as if handling turkey is the same as handling toxic waste.

EAT AT YOUR OWN RISK!

Sometimes I think the media do everything they can to take the joy out of the holiday.

For example:

MADISON, Wis -- As people start preparations for Thanksgiving meals, experts are urging them to take steps to avoid food poisoning.

Experts said that Thanksgiving is one of the busiest times for the state Poison Center, and they said that people have a one in four chance of getting food poisoning each year.

...As people start preparations for Thanksgiving meals, experts are urging them to take steps to avoid food poisoning.

Experts said that Thanksgiving is one of the busiest times for the state Poison Center, and they said that people have a one in four chance of getting food poisoning each year.

What a pleasant thought to keep in mind while eating Thanksgiving dinner!

Nothing spoils a wonderful holiday meal like food poisoning.


(Gee, I hope I don't send anyone to the emergency room this year.)

Flyer and Fryer

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

A couple of hours ago, President Bush used his constitutional power to grant pardons.

Clearly, the President acted within the law; but I wonder if the Dems will behave true to form and try to spin this as an abuse of power?

Will Russ Feingold claim that the President is acting like "King George"?

Will Nancy Pelosi insist that the President is engaged in a power grab even though he's acting completely within the powers granted to him by the Constitution?

Will John Conyers and his House band of impeachment supporters, including Gwen Moore and Tammy Baldwin, charge President Bush with abuses for his action this morning?

I wouldn't put it past them.

Text of the Thanksgiving Pardon

Excerpts

The name of the national Thanksgiving turkey has been chosen by online voting at the White House website. By the decision of the voters, this turkey is going to be called Flyer. And there's always a backup bird, just in case the guest of honor can't perform his duties, and the backup bird's name is Fryer. (Laughter.) Probably better to be called Flyer than Fryer.

...We're here in the Rose Garden. This is a place where Barney likes to hang out. Barney is my dog. And he likes to chase a soccer ball here. He came out a little early, as did Flyer, and instead of chasing the soccer ball, he chased the bird. (Laughter.) And it kind of made the turkey nervous. See, the turkey was already nervous to begin with. Nobody has told him yet about the pardon I'm about to give him. (Laughter.)

Tomorrow is our day of Thanksgiving. It's a national observance first proclaimed by George Washington. In our journey across the centuries from a few tiny settlements to a prosperous and powerful nation, Americans have always been a grateful people, and we are this year as well. We're grateful for our beautiful land. We're grateful for a harvest big enough to feed us all, plus much of the world. We're grateful for our freedom. We're grateful for our families. And we're grateful for life itself.

So on Thanksgiving Day, we gather with loved ones and we lift our hearts toward heaven in humility and gratitude. As we count our blessings, Americans also share our blessings. We're a generous country. We're filled with caring citizens who reach out to others, people who've heard the universal call to love a neighbor as we want to be loved ourselves. On Thanksgiving and every day of the year, Americans live out of a spirit of compassion and care, and I thank you for that. It's the spirit that moves men and women to be mentors to the young, to be scout leaders, to be helpers of the elderly, to be comforters of the lonely and those who are left out.

We love our country, and the greatest example of that devotion is the citizen who steps forward to defend our nation from harm. Members of our military have set aside their own comfort and convenience and safety to protect the rest of us. Their courage keeps us free. Their sacrifice makes us grateful, and their character makes us proud. Especially during the holidays our whole nation keeps them and their families in our thoughts and prayers.

And now to the ceremonial task of the day. Why don't we have a look at Flyer? There you go. I think Flyer heard Barney barking over there. It's a fine looking bird, isn't it? Flyer is probably wondering where he's going to wind up tomorrow. He's probably thinking he's going to end up on somebody's table. Well, I'm happy to report that he and Fryer both have many tomorrows ahead of them. This morning I am grateful -- I am granting a full presidential pardon so they can live out their lives as safe as can be.

In fact, it gets even better. Later today, Flyer and Fryer will be on a plane to Disneyland -- (laughter) -- where they're going to achieve further celebrity as the honorary grand marshal of the Thanksgiving Day Parade.

Thank you all for coming. God bless, and happy Thanksgiving. (Applause.)

President George W. Bush is joined by Lynn Nutt of Springfield, Mo., as he poses with “Flyer” the turkey during a ceremony Wednesday, Nov. 22, 2006 in the White House Rose Garden, following the President’s pardoning of the turkey before the Thanksgiving holiday. White House photo by Paul Morse



President George W. Bush invites children to meet “Flyer” the turkey, held by Lynn Nutt of Springfield, Mo., during a ceremony Wednesday, Nov. 22, 2006 in the White House Rose Garden, following the President’s pardoning of the turkey before the Thanksgiving holiday. White House photo by Paul Morse

Another Day, Another Shooting

Rise and shine, Milwaukee!

Awake to more violence!

A man delivering newspapers this morning was shot.

A Journal Sentinel carrier was shot in the lower back during an apparent robbery early this morning on the city's west side, Milwaukee police said.

Police said the 45-year-old man was shot just before 4 a.m. today when he exited his vehicle to deliver a newspaper in the 2600 block of N. 54th St.

One or two suspects approached him on the sidewalk, where he was shot, police said. No one is in custody.

Crisis? What crisis?

Noooooooo. The city is not in crisis.

Right, Mayor Tom Barrett?

Janet Reno

Janet Reno, Bill Clinton's disastrous attorney general, is following in the footsteps of the classless and incompetent Madeleine Albright.

Like Albright, Reno has decided to make a high profile move and openly attack the sitting president.

If God forbid a Dem is elected president in 2008, can you imagine Bush administration officials behaving so badly?

I can't.

From The Washington Post:

Former attorney general Janet Reno has taken the unusual step of openly criticizing the Bush administration's anti-terrorism strategy -- joining seven other former Justice Department officials in warning that the indefinite detention of U.S. terrorism suspects could become commonplace unless the courts intervene.

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed in the case of alleged enemy combatant Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, the former prosecutors assert that criminal courts are well equipped to prosecute terrorism suspects while guaranteeing the constitutional rights of defendants arrested on U.S. soil.

Reno, reached at her Florida home yesterday, said she would let the brief "speak for itself. I've been following this, and it reflects my concerns about the detention and treatment of people who have been determined to be enemy combatants in a manner that is not clear how it is being done."

In their brief, Reno and the other former Justice Department officials said: "The government is essentially asserting the right to hold putative enemy combatants arrested in the United States indefinitely whenever it decides not to prosecute those people criminally -- perhaps because it would be too difficult to obtain a conviction, perhaps because a motion to suppress evidence would raise embarrassing facts about the government's conduct, or perhaps for other reasons."

The filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit is a highly unusual move for Reno. She has generally maintained a low profile since leaving the helm of the Justice Department in 2001 and has said little publicly about the policies of her successors, John D. Ashcroft and Alberto R. Gonzales.

Remember when President George H.W. Bush's attorneys general, Dick Thornburgh and William P. Barr, ripped Reno for her handling of Ruby Ridge and Waco?

Remember how they went on the record and publicly criticized her for making decisions that led to the deaths of 76 Branch Davidians, including 27 children?

No?

That's understandable, because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Reno's predecessors didn't publicly criticize her, though she certainly deserved to be.

Gonzales defended the administration's detention and surveillance policies in a weekend speech at the Air Force Academy, telling cadets that it is a "myth" that civil liberties have been hampered by anti-terrorism strategies.

Didn't Reno do enough damage to the country will she was attorney general?

Must she come out of hiding to challenge and undermine President Bush in the War on Terror?

I'm sure that officials of past administrations have had serious concerns about the decisions of their successors. I'm sure they've privately questioned the performances of those assuming their positions.

But why have Reno and those of her ilk determined that criticizing the current adminstration so publicly is wise?

Do they really think it's good for our country?

I think it's more likely that they are much more concerned with feeding their egos than doing what's best for the nation.

Reno was a miserable failure as attorney general. She's chosen to be a failure as a former attorney general.

Pathetic.

UNBALANCED DOYLE

Deficit? Balanced budget? Huh?

One of the many lies that Jim Doyle spouted during his campaign was that he balanced Wisconsin's budget.

That was THE accomplishment of his term. He balanced the budget.

Again and again and again, he cited balancing the budget as one of his shining achievements, a highpoint for him as governor.

In Doyle and Mark Green's first televised debate, Doyle had the audacity to blame Green, a single congressman, for the budget problems in Washington.

Doyle bragged about his skill and leadership in pulling Wisconsin out of a deficit and putting the state back in the black.

Of course, that's an absolute crock.

Read about the Doyle Method of "balancing" a budget.

Now that the votes have been cast and the election is over and Doyle is sitting pretty, we get the news that the next budget is anything but balanced.

Madison -- Gov. Jim Doyle and the Legislature will have to close a $1.6 billion deficit as they develop the next two-year budget, according to a new report released Monday.

Officials vowed that they would not raise taxes to close the gap between what state agencies say they need and what taxes are expected to generate.

That vow is worthless.

Doyle, the state's executive, is a liar. His flunkies will fall in line.

The $1.6 billion figure was the latest estimate of the so-called structural deficit facing the state. It is about 6% of the $26.4 billion that state government is on track to collect in taxes and fees over the next two years.

By comparison, $1.6 billion is how much more would be raised over two years if the 5% state sales tax were increased to 6% - a possible solution no one in the Capitol has dared to whisper. It is also the amount the state spent on Medicaid health care programs last year, not counting matching federal dollars.

State Administration Secretary Steve Bablitch said that Doyle will live up to his campaign promise and make whatever choices are necessary to control spending in a 2007-'09 budget. Doyle won't raise general sales, individual income or corporate income taxes, Bablitch said.

Parsing campaign promises is not a good idea.

But Doyle hasn't said how much of an increase he will recommend next year in fees, including the $55 annual vehicle registration fee. During his re-election campaign, Doyle had indicated he might support a $10 increase in the fee. But state Department of Transportation officials have asked that the fee be increased to $80.

In addition to raising fees and cutting costs, Doyle could also borrow more money, pushing the problem off into the future. Borrowing for transportation jumped 183% from 2002 to '06, for example, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

Fees. Taxes. What difference does it make?

Calling something a "fee" doesn't change what it means.

If it's money out of Wisconsinites' pockets and into government coffers, it's hurting the people.

...The new estimate came two weeks after Doyle was re-elected in a campaign in which the deficit was often debated.

How convenient!

Imagine. All of sudden a $1.6 billion deficit was discovered.

I bet no one saw that coming.

Riiiiiiiight.

Hey, Doyle supporters!

Do you feel duped, or are you apologists for the corrupt Doyle and busy towing the Doyle line?

The fact is Doyle lied.

He intentionally misled the voters.

I'd suggest an immediate recall effort, but there's time. I want to find out if there will be any revelations coming from Steve Biskupic that might be helpful in ousting Doyle.

Simply put, Doyle is a disgrace. The voters didn't get it right.

When Celebrities Attack

JERRY: "What happened to your mental alarm?"

KRAMER: "I guess I hit the snooze."



Another celebrity has run amok.

The latest is Michael Richards of Seinfeld fame. He went into a racist rant at a comedy club, the Laugh Factory, last Friday.

You've probably already seen this, but here's the video in the unlikely event that you haven't.

There's no way around it, no room for misinterpretation -- it's a horrible display.

As soon as Drudge posted the video, the story exploded.

This was NOT a show about nothing.

There was Richards, not as the odd yet endearing Kramer from Seinfeld; he was a raving, racial epithet-spewing maniac verbally assaulting some African-American hecklers.

Richards completely lost it.

And what follows when a celebrity behaving badly becomes a national story?

The obligatory apology of course, the Act of Contrition.

Richards moved at lightning speed.

Although the incident occurred on Friday, it didn't get widespread attention until Monday.

By Monday night, he was already apologizing on network TV.

Jerry Seinfeld was scheduled as guest on David Letterman, to hawk the release of Seinfeld - Season 7 on DVD.

He's doing publicity for the new release, and Richards is underfire for his inexcusable tirade. What awful timing for Jerry Seinfeld! What great timing for Letterman!

Drudge was promoting Richards' appearance earlier in the evening. I'm sure that gave Letterman quite a ratings boost. And it's Sweeps!!!

I'm not at all saying that it was a ratings ploy on Letterman's part. I think he did it as a favor to Seinfeld.

Season 7 is released today and a major character in the show is revealed as an out of control racist. That's not good for sales.

So, via satellite from LA, Richards apologized during Seinfeld's segment on Letterman.

It was the first matter of business. They got right to discussing the incident immediately after Seinfeld was introduced. Then, they quickly cut to Richards.

Read the AP's account of his mea culpa here.

"I'm not a racist. That's what's so insane about this," Richards said, his tone becoming angry and frustrated as he defended himself.

I didn't think he became angry. He looked stunned to me, a deer in the headlights.

I think he was trying to be forceful and sincere.

However, it's hard to say you're not a racist when there's video of you repeatedly shouting the N-word.

Richards descried himself as going into "a rage" over the two audience members who interrupted his act Friday at the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood. Richards responded to the black hecklers with repeated use of the "n word" and profanities.

Unlike Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic rant while under the influence of alcohol, Richards didn't blame drugs or any mood-altering substance for his actions.

He did say that he needed to understand the rage.

At times as he spoke, he became rather incoherent, talking about Katrina and where we are as a nation in terms of race relations. That was a bit off topic. Actually, it was irrelevant. Richards was supposed to be apologizing for his horrible behavior, not analyzing the American psyche.

...Richards deserved the chance to apologize, Seinfeld said on the "Late Show." Seinfeld said, "He's someone that I love, and I know how shattered he is about" the incident.

I think Seinfeld struck the right balance. He was loyal to a dear friend, yet he in no way excused or condoned his racist remarks.

If I wanted to be cynical, I could say Seinfeld was trying to do damage control so sales of Season 7 wouldn't suffer. Perhaps Seinfeld feared that his classic show would be tarnished forever unless he worked quickly to help save Richards.

Or worse yet, if I wanted to be really cynical, I might say that the entire thing was staged. Maybe it was all a stunt, in the vein of "no publicity is bad publicity."

I don't want to be cynical, so I will assume that Seinfeld, as well as Richards, were being sincere. It certainly seems to have been a genuine meltdown by Richards, and the reactions and apologies seem legitimate.

At one point, however, Richards grew flustered and expressed second thoughts about appearing on the "Late Show" when his use of the term "Afro-American" proved funny to some audience members.

"I'm hearing your audience laugh, and I'm not even sure that this is where I should be addressing the situation," he said in a tape of his appearance shown by CBS to reporters.

This is a little misleading.

Some in the audience laughed initially when Richards was speaking. They clearly thought it was a comedy bit.

Seinfeld admonished them, telling them not to laugh.

It wasn't the term "Afro-American" that elicited the chuckles.

I also wouldn't say Richards was flustered.

He looked to be in shock, as though he couldn't believe that he found himself in this situation.

There's no denying that he did go off the deep end when he reacted to the hecklers.

Should he be forgiven?

I think when someone sincerely apologizes (not the non-apology apology sort, but a real one), that individual deserves another chance.

Richards can't take back his words, but he can and did express remorse. That doesn't entirely clear him. I do think that he has some serious anger management issues and would benefit from sensitivity training.

Does this take the shine off Seinfeld as one of TV's funniest sitcoms?

I don't think so. Richards isn't Kramer. Kramer is a character. When actors are doing their jobs well, what counts is the performance, not the person behind it.

Will people boycott Seinfeld because of the Richards episode?

Some will and that's their choice. While I think that's a reasonable reaction, I don't think that continuing to watch the show means that one condones racism.

I suspect that with time the Laugh Factory episode will be forgotten and Richards eventually will redeem himself.

That's the way this sort of thing usually works.

Filling Budget Potholes

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has yet again come up with an editorial that is pathetic.

The Editorial Board likes the Wisconsin Department of Transportation's recommendations to increase driver and car fees, even though it does seem a little excessive.

The editorial, entitled "Filling Budget Potholes," begins with an acknowledgement that it's a bit odd that the fee increases weren't announced until after the election.

The timing may have been suspicious and the suggested boosts are probably too much, but the state Department of Transportation's recommendations for driver and car fee increases in its next budget address a real need: adequate funding for transportation. Right now, there's a big hole in transportation funding, and that hole has to be filled if the state wants the infrastructure it needs - in roads, freeway interchanges and public transportation - to foster economic development.

The timing of the recommendations was suspect because the recommendations, due two months ago, came after the Nov. 7 election. DOT officials say the timing was not political. Maybe, but it looks funny. And inconsequential. Does anyone seriously think that the announcement would have turned the election against Gov. Jim Doyle?

Of course, the DOT would say the timing wasn't political.

Does anyone seriouly think that the DOT would say that it was?

Furthermore, if it really was so inconsequential, then why the delay in announcing the hike in fees?

It's possible that the increase could have ticked off enough voters to have made a difference.

Would that difference have been significant enough to have turned the election in Mark Green's favor?

That's unlikely, but is that a valid reason to excuse the sleazy, dishonest move?

I don't think so.

More important is the amount of the recommended boost. The DOT wants a $25 hike in the annual car registration fee and a $10 hike in the driver's license fee. That's a 46% boost in the car registration fee, from $55 to $80. The department also wants to raise the registration fee for light trucks, to between $80 and $112, depending on their weight.

In the past, the governor has said he supports a $10 increase in the registration fee, and we're inclined to agree with Doyle.

It's true that even an $80 registration fee would leave Wisconsin car owners paying less than their counterparts in neighboring states; in Iowa, registration for a midsize car can be up to $210. But Wisconsin's gasoline tax at 32.9 cents a gallon is among the highest. Furthermore, one of the excuses given for Wisconsin's perennial ranking as a high-taxing state is that the fees are low. If the state keeps raising fees, taxpayers will be hit by a double whammy of taxes and fees that won't be good for a healthy economy, not to mention the family pocketbook. A $25 hike seems excessive.

Still, the state needs to pay for building projects, road maintenance and public transportation, which is a vital element in helping many people get to their jobs. If drivers want potholes filled and roads improved for safe travel, it's going to be costly.

What a convoluted mess!

The Editorial Board says Wisconsinites don't pay as much as citizens of neighboring states, but then it cites the whopping gasoline taxes that place an incredible burden on the people of the state.

Also, the increases are a burden that is more difficult for the poor to carry than the financially blessed. The Journal Sentinel doesn't address that issue at all.

In sum, the increases are bad.

BUT, they're necessary.

The money is needed to cover the costs of maintaing the state's roads.

Here's a thought:

Instead of increasing fees, why not trim some of the budget fat?

Here's another way for the state to spend money more effectively-- Why not award state contracts to the most economical and lowest bidders instead of handing out contracts as rewards for filling the campaign coffers of corrupt Gov. Doyle?

...At the same time, the governor and the Legislature can help future DOT budgets by not raiding the transportation fund to fill holes elsewhere in the state budget, something that has occurred too often in recent years and is one of the reasons for the transportation department's structural deficit.

WHAT?

The DOT budget has been raided to cover other budgetary expenses?

I thought Jim Doyle balanced the budget and without raising taxes.

Wasn't that one of the alleged major accomplishments of his first term?

Read about the Doyle Method of "balancing" a budget.

Drivers should not be taxed by the state twice, once on income and once in fees, to meet the education budget, for example. The fees and the gasoline tax should be reserved for transportation.

Keeping the fund segregated, responsible scheduling of projects and a small increase in fees could go a long way toward meeting the state's needs without doing too much harm to taxpayers.

Which is it?

The Editorial Board argues against the excessive hike in fees after it argued for it.

The way the Board explains it the increases are an unfortunate necessity and the buck doesn't stop with Doyle.

Jim Webb's Writings

Tim Russert is still positively giddy over the Dems' House and Senate victories.

On yesterday's Meet the Press, he interviewed Senator-elect Jim Webb of Virginia and Senator-elect Jon Tester of Montana.

This wasn't a Russert "gotcha" interview. I wouldn't call it a softball interview. It was a Nerf Ball interview.

Did Russert ask Webb about his career as a novelist and the content of his writings?

No.

Read a sampling of Webb's work.

Russert completely dodged the matter.

The only time Russert touched on Webb's sleazy books was when he joked about them, and very vaguely at that.

Transcript excerpt

MR. RUSSERT: Jim Webb, you had this comment in The Washington Post which caught my attention. “Webb said he will model himself after former New York senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D), whom he described as someone ‘who had government experience that was shaped by the intellectual world.’” A man I knew well, described as independent, maverick, iconoclastic. Do you see yourself along those lines?

SEN.-ELECT WEBB: You know, when this campaign started and people were saying I didn’t know how to do soundbites and debates and this sort of thing. And I sat down one day and I said, “Well, who is my prototype here?” And it would be Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Someone who had government experience, but who was shaped through the intellectual world and who cared about where you measure society, which is at the base, rather than at the top. Where is the health of society. And yeah, very much look forward to, in many ways, following in his footsteps.

MR. RUSSERT: And sometimes got in trouble for his writings.

SEN.-ELECT WEBB: And I, you know, it’s—I—I’m really looking forward to, to trying to do the—some of the same things that he did in terms of putting, putting my experience in the intellectual world onto the problems, the practical problems of today.

MR. RUSSERT: Jim Webb and Jon Tester, congratulations to both and we look forward to covering your tenures in the Senate.

You could tell that Webb was really uncomfortable at the mere mention of his writings. He started stuttering and stumbling.

I don't know why he lost his composure. He should have known that Russert wasn't going to put up any of Webb's pornographic passages on the screen and expect him to respond.

I do think it's odd that Russert drew a parallel between what Moynihan wrote and the sort of trash that Webb has peddled.

Clearly, Russert is thrilled that Webb defeated George Allen. He wouldn't embarrass him like that.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting him.

Maybe it isn't the Dems' victory that has brought a new sparkle to Russert eyes. Maybe he's been enjoying one of Webb's novels.

Charlie Rangel and the Draft

Charlie Rangel, Face the Nation

Charlie Rangel has two obsessions -- raising taxes and reinstating the draft.

WASHINGTON -- Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.

Would a draft have kept our military out of Bosnia?

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

The "flimsy evidence" that was presented to Congress was the same evidence that prompted Clinton to argue for a use of force against Saddam Hussein for failing to comply with UN resolutions.

Clinton gave this address to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff in 1998:

I ask all of you to remember the record here what he promised to do within 15 days of the end of the Gulf War, what he repeatedly refused to do, what we found out in 1995, what the inspectors have done against all odds. We have no business agreeing to any resolution of this that does not include free, unfettered access to the remaining sites by people who have integrity and proven confidence in the inspection business. That should be our standard. That's what UNSCOM has done, and that's why I have been fighting for it so hard. And that's why the United States should insist upon it.

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

Was Clinton's evidence of Iraq's WMD programs "flimsy"? Was that all crap?

Did Clinton lie? Of course, we know he lied, a lot. But did he lie about Iraq, too?

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.

Rangel doesn't know what he's talking about.

The all-volunteer military DOES NOT disproportionately put the burden of war on the poor and minorities.

Read "Who Are the Recruits? The Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Enlistment, 2003–2005."

It makes Rangel and others echoing the claim that the volunteer military is made up of young people with no other options look like fools.

Hopefully, the consequences of people like Rangel chairing committees will convince Americans that it was a terrible mistake to give the Dems power in the House and the Senate.

Rangel said he will propose a measure early next year. While he said he is serious about the proposal, there is little evident support among the public or lawmakers for it.

There's no way, at this point, that the Dems would reinstate the draft.

They're busy with other more pressing issues.

They want to raise the minimum wage.

They want to raise taxes.

Some want to impeach President Bush.

First things first.

Organs For Sale

Does the name Wang Wenyi ring a bell?

Refresh your memory here and here and here.

WorldNetDaily reports that Wang Wenyi was right.

Following years of denial, China has acknowledged that foreigners who can pay more than native Chinese have been given preference for organ transplants and that "donors" for the operation have often been executed prisoners.

WND reported in 2004 charges by the banned Falun Gong group – backed up by Chinese doctors and human rights experts – that the communist government was torturing prisoners, executing them and trafficking in their body parts.

This week, at a summit for transplant doctors held in Guangzhou, the once-denied practice was confirmed by government officials.

"Apart from a small portion of traffic victims, most of the organs from cadavers are from executed prisoners," said Vice Health Minister Huang Jiefu, according to English-language China Daily newspaper. "The current organ donation shortfall can't meet demand."

A ministry spokesman also said that "wealthier people, including foreign patients" were able to move to the top of waiting lists ahead of others waiting for organs.

...The announcement at the Guangzhou summit followed the adoption of new rules in July for transplants. Under these regulations, foreigners would only be eligible for transplants per internationally recognized standards. The 1 million Chinese already on waiting lists would be given priority, and organ donations, even from prisoners, would be with the donor's consent.

The rules also forbid "organ trading" – paying live donors for organs that are removed and then transported outside China for transplant.

Since the law prior to the new rules already said donations were supposed to be with consent, there is some question about the new regulations' effectiveness and whether they will be ignored as well. They only apply to ministry of health hospitals, the London Telegraph reported, and most transplant operations on foreigners are done at military hospitals run by the People's Liberation Army.

...Mabel Wu, 69, of Northridge, Calif., paid $40,000 for her new kidney in July. The family was told only that the donor was a 30-year-old male.

"I am very happy with this transplant," Wu told the Times. "I got a good kidney."

It's true.

The Communist Chinese HAVE been harvesting human organs and selling them at bargain prices.

Chinese prisoners, including political prisoners, are executed and their organs are used in transplants.

The Chinese don't deny this anymore. They admit to the practice.

Where's the outcry from so-called human rights organizations?

Where's the international outrage over this barbarism?

I guess the world is too busy condemning Israel for every move it makes to focus on the Chinese executions of thousands and the extraction of their organs for transplants.

And the 2008 Olympics will be held in Beijing.

The Chinese will welcome the world.

I wonder how many visitors will go home with a new organ.

Where do the organs come from?

Don't ask. Don't tell. Be happy.

"Stop, Stop!"

(AFP/Armani)

Never mind what's happening in Iraq or Iran or North Korea.

Who cares about what Nancy Pelosi and the Dems plan to do to the country?

Newlyweds Mr. and Mrs. Tom Cruise are leaving for their honeymoon, after a fairy tale wedding that cost somewhere in the seven figure range.

BRACCIANO, Italy -- Officially, they got married in Los Angeles, but the spectacle of the wedding between Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes was here, in a 15th-century castle that evoked fairy tales and lit up with red, white and green fireworks for a cheering, celebrity-laden crowd.

There were fireworks inside, too, a "never-ending kiss" between the betrothed after they exchanged vows Saturday. The kiss lasted so long it caused guests to shout "stop, stop!" said Giorgio Armani, who attended the wedding and designed the outfits of the bride, the groom and their baby, Suri.

The couple flew out of Rome Sunday for a honeymoon in the Maldives, said Ciampino airport spokesman Adriano Franceschetti. The rest of the wedding party was due to fly to Los Angeles later in the day.

I agree with the guests shouting "stop, stop!"

I say "stop, stop!" for different reasons of course.

There is something wrong when a celebrity wedding becomes the biggest story in the world.

It's moments like this that I wonder about people and their priorities.

The same celebrities that whine about global warming burned a lot of jet fuel flying to Italy.

The celebrities that push the "little people" to contribute their hard-earned dollars to support pet causes have no problem squandering tons of money that could have been used for much, MUCH more noble purposes.

This Cruise/Holmes wedding hysteria is bizarre.

So much of the Hollywood culture is deviant.

The media are weird.

Henry Kissinger: Victory in Iraq Impossible?

Henry Kissinger, the Grand Poobah of International Relations, has spoken.

LONDON -- Military victory is no longer possible in Iraq, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in a television interview broadcast Sunday.

Kissinger presented a bleak vision of Iraq, saying the U.S. government must enter into dialogue with Iraq's regional neighbors _ including Iran _ if progress is to be made in the region.

"If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible," he told the British Broadcasting Corp.

Notice how Kissinger is defining the term "military victory."

Notice how he emphasizes the politics of democracies and the growing weariness of a protracted conflict.

In order to understand what Kissinger told the BBC, you have have to understand what he really is saying.

Is the situation bleak? Yes.

Is America doomed to suffer defeat in Iraq? No.

"Victory" is not equivalent to "military victory."

But Kissinger, an architect of the Vietnam war who has advised President Bush about Iraq, warned against a rapid withdrawal of coalition troops, saying it could destabilize Iraq's neighbors and cause a long-lasting conflict.

"A dramatic collapse of Iraq _ whatever we think about how the situation was created _ would have disastrous consequences for which we would pay for many years and which would bring us back, one way or another, into the region," he said.

Kissinger, whose views have been sought by the Iraqi Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James Baker III, called for an international conference bringing together the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Iraq's neighbors _ including Iran _ and regional powers like India and Pakistan to work out a way forward for the region.

"I think we have to redefine the course, but I don't think that the alternative is between military victory, as defined previously, or total withdrawal," he said.

The spin on this is that Kissinger has declared victory in Iraq is impossible.

I didn't hear the complete interview, but my reading of his statements does not bring me to the conclusion that he thinks Iraq is a lost cause.

I think he's highlighting the necessity of patience and the insanity of a speedy, total withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

I think he's pointing to the importance of diplomacy.

The might of the American military ALONE won't establish peace in Iraq or the region.

I don't get why this is big news.

I'd put Kissinger's remarks in this category -- COMMON SENSE.

O.J. Simpson: My Confession

Edit: Scratch the "IF"


You hear about people like this. You know they're out there; but chances are you don't know one personally.

Well, I'm married to one.

To this day, my husband believes that O.J. Simpson is innocent. He believes that Simpson did not murder his ex-wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ron Goldman.

Now and then, since the verdict was read on October 3, 1995, we revisit the topic.

Simpson will be in the news for some reason and I'll ask my husband once again if he's seen the light yet. His answer is always the same: NOT GUILTY.

He truly believes that Simpson is not responsible for the murders. (I think his state of denial has something to do with The Naked Gun movies.)

I don't like to dwell on this irreconcilable difference.

But with Simpson's new book, If I Did It, Here's How It Happened, and the accompanying interview he did to launch the book, scheduled to air on FOX on November 27 and 29, the subject is back on the front burner at our home.

Even with Simpson actually offering his "hypothetical" confession, my husband still thinks that Simpson's hands are clean and the real murderer is out there somewhere.

Unbelievable!

Not surprisingly, Simpson's book and the FOX special are getting a lot of attention.

Apparently, obsessions die hard, obsessions such as a quest for justice.

Simpson's allegedly fairy tale murder plot book and TV special have the victims' family members upset and FOX News-haters troubled as well.

O.J. Simpson created an uproar Wednesday with plans for a TV interview and book titled "If I Did It" -- an account the publisher pronounced "his confession" and media executives condemned as revolting and exploitive.

Fox, which plans to air an interview with Simpson Nov. 27 and 29, said Simpson describes how he would have committed the 1994 slayings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman, "if he were the one responsible."

Denise Brown, sister of Nicole Brown Simpson, lashed out at publisher Judith Regan of ReganBooks for "promoting the wrongdoing of criminals" and commercializing abuse. The book goes on sale Nov. 30.

She added: "It's unfortunate that Simpson has decided to awaken a nightmare that we have painfully endured and worked so hard to move beyond."

Regan refused to say what Simpson is being paid for the book but said he came to her with the idea.

"This is an historic case, and I consider this his confession," Regan told The Associated Press.

This is just scratching the surface. There are literally thousands of articles on Simpson's book and reactions to it.

Read the transcript of Larry King's interview with members of Ron Goldman's family.

It's been eleven years since Simpson was acquitted, but interest in the case still runs incredibly high.

(I think it has something to do with the fact that justice was not done, that a brutal murderer walks among us and then has the gall to brag about it.)

Some are disturbed by the lack of conscience and the shamelessness of Simpson, publisher Judith Regan, and FOX.

For example, Eugene Robinson is outraged by Simpson's If I Did It.

He writes:

O.J. Simpson's forthcoming book, "If I Did It," could launch a profitable new series for publisher Judith Regan and her parent company, Rupert Murdoch's media empire. Let me suggest that she follow up with another snuff book, maybe "If I Shot My Wife in the Head," by Robert Blake, and then diversify into non-capital crimes with "If I Molested All Those Kids," by Michael Jackson.

Anyone who thinks I'm kidding probably clings to the illusion that Regan and the Fox television network have a morsel, a crumb, a mote, an iota of residual shame in what's left of their souls. Sorry, but the evidence shows otherwise.

Of course, many people thought the evidence showed that Simpson was guilty as hell. But Johnnie Cochran isn't around anymore, so maybe Regan and Fox will be showered with the opprobrium they deserve for letting the Juice do this booty-shaking end zone dance on the graves of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

...Only a narcissist of the first order would be compelled to revisit the scene of the crime and walk us through the butchery, knowing that no one would take his use of "if" or "would have" as anything but a mocking formality -- knowing that everyone would read the book as a true confession of his sins. Only a textbook narcissist would have such a warped need to bask once again in the limelight.

Memo to the Juice: Please go away. And take Regan with you. A former "reporter" for the National Enquirer, Regan became a sensation in the publishing world by satisfying humanity's bottomless appetite for slickly packaged trash. Her imprint, ReganBooks, is a division of HarperCollins, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. "If I Did It" will be featured on Fox, also owned by Murdoch, for two nights later this month (after NBC, to its credit, turned Regan down). Fox plans to air a two-night "interview" in which Regan converses with Simpson about his contribution to literature and his theoretical prowess as a psycho killer. It is no coincidence that the "interview" comes amid the November sweeps period, when ratings translate into cold cash.

For those keeping score, that's money for Simpson from the book, money for Regan from the book and lots of money for Murdoch, from both the book and the expected big TV ratings.

...The saddest aspect of this travesty is that Regan knows the book will sell and Fox knows the Simpson "interview" will score huge ratings. They have studied our weaknesses and calculated that sensation always trumps honor.

I agree with Robinson's assessment that If I Did It is a truly sick project.

It will be seen as Simpson's confession, just as publisher Judith Regan considers it to be.

The exploitation of the cold-blooded 1994 murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman will bring in lots and lots of cold hard cash for the profiteers.

Judith Reagan has come under such attack for her role in enabling Simpson that she felt the need to write a lengthy explanation to justify it.

It appears exclusively on The Drudge Report.

She insists that her involvement in the project is tied into the abuse she suffered at the hands of her former husband. It's a very odd, rambling, true confessions sort of essay. Regan gets into some detail about her personal experiences of being married to an abusive man.

I think that was completely unnecessary.

This part of her statement about the media makes sense:

In the past few days, since the announcement of the forthcoming book and televised interview If I Did It, it has been strange watching the media spin the story. They have all but called for my death for publishing his book and for interviewing him. A death, I might add, not called for when Katie Couric interviewed him; not called for when Barbara Walters had an exclusive with the Menendez brothers, who killed their parents in cold blood, nor when she conducted her celebrated interviews with dictator Fidel Castro or Muammar al-Gaddafi; not called for when 60 Minutes interviewed Timothy McVeigh who murdered hundreds in Oklahoma City, not called for when the U.S. government released tapes of Osama bin Laden; not called for when Geraldo Rivera interviewed his dozens of murderers, miscreants, and deviants.

Nor should it be.

“To publish” does not mean “to endorse”; it means “to make public.” If you doubt that, ask the mainstream publishers who keep Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf in print to this day. They are likely to say that there is a historical value in publishing such material, so that the public can read, and judge for themselves, the thoughts and attempted defenses of an indefensible man. There is historical value in such work; there is value for law enforcement, for students of psychology, for anyone who wants to gain insight into the mind of a sociopath.

There is some validity to those arguments. Many others have profited by giving the most monstrous members of society an opportunity to have a voice. But then Regan strays into inappropriate, really bizarre CYA territory.

But that is not why I did it. That is not why I wanted to face the killer. That is not why I wanted to publish his story.

I didn’t know what to expect when I got the call that the killer wanted to confess. I didn’t know what would happen. But I knew one thing. I wanted the confession for my own selfish reasons and for the symbolism of that act.

For me, it was personal.

Then, she gets personal; and I mean personal.

We don't need to read about how going to confession as a young girl creeped her out.

Regan doesn't need to reveal any of her own melodrama.

What's happened in her personal life is irrelevant to whether or not Simpson's book and the FOX interview is fit for public consumption.

She's obviously on defense and I can understand that.

The anger that's being thrown her way is palpable. (I wonder why.)

True, publishers and TV producers give forums to bad guys. Their motives for doing so are often based more in profit than principle, in making money rather than revealing some truth.

However, I think that all that bubbling rage should be directed toward the REAL bad guy in this story -- O.J. Simpson.

Rather than get all bent out of shape over Regan and FOX, why not be horrified that Simpson spends his days on the golf course, that he's been a free man for eleven years, and Brown and Goldman are dead?

What bothers me about all the fresh disgust is it seems people have been content to give O.J. a pass as long as he doesn't boast about his crimes and profit from them. There's something wrong about that.

The upset should not ONLY be about the book or the TV special. It should be about the fact that Simpson got away with murder.

And, from a purely personal standpoint, that my husband thinks he didn't.

Pelosi Loses

Doug Mills/The New York Times

Look at that smile on Nancy Pelosi's face. Is that a smile or is it a grimace?

Whatever it is, she's not happy.

Steny Hoyer, on the other hand, is looking very pleased. He has the expression of a winner.

John "Total crap" Murtha, standing in the background, is pouting. Poor Murtha.

Twenty-six years ago, he predicted that he would be in a position of leadership.

Watch and listen to Murtha brag about his tremendous influence in Washington here.

He thought he had the votes to be elected. He thought he was so close to becoming majority leader in the House that he could taste it.

Murtha was wrong, REALLY WRONG.

Steny Hoyer was voted to be the majority leader by a vote of 149-86.

That's a massive defeat for Murtha.

It's a disastrous defeat for Pelosi.

Her fellow Dems decided that putting the ethically-challenged, McGovern-esque Murtha in such a high profile position would be giving the Republicans a gift.

They determined it would be better to hand Pelosi an absolutely humiliating defeat rather than let Murtha speak for the Dems.

From The New York Times:

House Democrats chose Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland as their majority leader today after a bruising fight that cast a cloud over the party’s post-election celebration.

The election of Mr. Hoyer over Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, by a vote of 149 to 86, was an embarrassing setback for Representative Nancy J. Pelosi of California, who will be Speaker of the House in the new Congress and who had backed Mr. Murtha.

Mr. Hoyer, 67, is in his 13th term in Congress and his second as party whip under Ms. Pelosi, who has been the Democratic minority leader. She was put in line to become speaker when Democrats regained control of the House in last week’s elections.

After the vote, Ms. Pelosi smiled broadly and offered “great congratulations” to Mr. Hoyer. “I look forward to working with him in a very unified way to bring our country to a new direction for all Americans, not just the privileged few,” Ms. Pelosi said.

“We’ve had our debates,” she continued. “We’ve had our disagreements in that room, and now that is over. As I said to my colleagues, as we say in church, let there be peace on Earth, and let it begin with us. Let the healing begin.”

Oh, how lame!

"Let there be peace on Earth." The next line is "and let it begin with ME," not "us."

When was the last time Pelosi went to church? I mean to worship, not campaign.

Anyway, she has called for the healing to begin.

I think that's going to take a while.

It's a safe bet to assume that Pelosi hasn't been this battered and bruised since her last cosmetic surgicial procedure.

...Ms. Pelosi was chosen unanimously by her Democratic colleagues to be speaker in the 110th Congress, which convenes in January. Representative Jim Clyburn of South Carolina becomes the new Democratic whip, while Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois will be chairman of the Democratic Caucus, making him No. 4 in the Democratic hierarchy in the House.

Mr. Emanuel’s promotion paid tribute to his role in this year’s Congressional campaigns. Intending the words as a compliment, Ms. Pelosi described him as “cold-blooded, capable, calculating in terms of winning an election.”

HAHAHAHA

The Times needed to stress to its readers that when Pelosi refers to Emanuel, "cold-blooded" is a compliment.

...When Ms. Pelosi was asked what the election of Mr. Hoyer said about the wisdom of her backing of Mr. Murtha, she said she still stood “very, very proudly” behind her support of Mr. Murtha because of his opposition to the war in Iraq.

And did she have any regrets? “No,” she said. “I’m not a person who has regrets.”

Maybe that's her problem.

She should regret her stunningly stupid move to back Murtha.

Why is it that a Dem without regrets is a hero, but a Republican without regrets is stubborn and close-minded and unintelligent?

Another double standard at play.

I regret something. My regret is that the battle for majority leader is over.

The Dems' implosion over the leadership position was very entertaining.

If only it could have lasted just a little while longer...

Ethical Stem Cell Research Advances

Two stories exhibit the promise of stem cells in treating and curing disease.

1. Stem cells help dogs with dystrophy

NEW YORK -- In promising new research, stem cells worked remarkably well at easing symptoms of muscular dystrophy in dogs, an experiment that experts call a significant step toward treating people.

"It's a great breakthrough for all of us working on stem cells for muscular dystrophy," said researcher Johnny Huard of the University of Pittsburgh, who wasn't involved in the work.

Sharon Hesterlee, vice president of translational research at the Muscular Dystrophy Association, called the result one of the most exciting she's seen in her eight years with the organization. Her group helped pay for the work.

She stressed that it's not yet clear whether such a treatment would work in people, but said she had "cautious optimism" about it.

Two dogs that were severely disabled by the disease were able to walk faster and even jump after the treatments.

The study was published online Wednesday by the journal Nature. It used stem cells taken from the affected dogs or other dogs, rather than from embryos. For human use, the idea of using such "adult" stem cells from humans would avoid the controversial method of destroying human embryos to obtain stem cells.

2. Heart valves grown from womb fluid cells

CHICAGO -- Scientists for the first time have grown human heart valves using stem cells from the fluid that cushions babies in the womb — offering a revolutionary approach that may be used to repair defective hearts in the future.

The idea is to create these new valves in the lab while the pregnancy progresses and have them ready to implant in a baby with heart defects after it is born.

The Swiss experiment follows recent successes at growing bladders and blood vessels and suggests that people may one day be able to grow their own replacement heart parts — in some cases, even before they're even born.

It's one of several sci-fi tissue engineering advances that could lead to homegrown heart valves for infants and adults that are more durable and effective than artificial or cadaver valves.

"This may open a whole new therapy concept to the treatment of congenital heart defects," said Dr. Simon Hoerstrup, a University of Zurich scientist who led the work, which was presented Wednesday at an American Heart Association conference.

Also at the meeting, Japanese researchers said they had grown new heart valves in rabbits using cells from the animals' own tissue. It's the first time replacement heart valves have been created in this manner, said lead author Dr. Kyoko Hayashida.

"It's very promising," University of Chicago cardiologist Dr. Ziyad Hijazi said of the two studies. "I don't doubt" that it will be applied one day in humans, he said.

...Valves made from the patient's own cells are living tissue and might be able to grow with the patient, said Hayashida, a scientist at the National Cardiovascular Center Research Institute in Osaka.

The Swiss procedure has another advantage: using cells the fetus sheds in amniotic fluid avoids controversy because it doesn't involve destroying embryos to get stem cells.

"This is an ethical advantage," Hoerstrup said at the meeting.

Very promising advances indeed.

But wait a minute.

I thought that only EMBRYONIC stem cell research could yield the really big and best payoffs.

Michael J. Fox said so. Jim Doyle said so.

However, in both of these instances, the stem cells utilized in the procedures did not come from embryos.

Life was NOT destroyed to achieve the desired results.

Bottom line:

Medical breakthroughs do not have to come at the price of cheapening life.

Embryos, genetically complete human beings, do not have to be viewed as some expendable raw material.

The ethics of research methods do matter.

We should all be encouraged by the news of these advances and the hope that they bring.

Medical progress is not necessarily obstructed by rejecting the Culture of Death.

Murtha Gone Wild!

Uncut and uncensored, John Murtha shows what an upstanding guy he really is.

Murtha can't cut and run from his past.

The thing about the past is it never goes away.

CNSNews has a bit of the damning Abscam video.

NewsBusters has a bit of the damning Abscam transcript.

Undercover FBI Agent: "I got, I went out and I got the $50,000, okay? From what you're telling me, okay, you're telling me that that's not what you, you know, that's not what you-"

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA): "I'm not interested."

FBI Agent: "Okay."

Murtha: "At this point."

FBI Agent: "Okay."

Murtha: "You know, we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested and maybe I won't, you know."

FBI Agent: "Okay."

The American Spectator has a more complete version, with Murtha explaining why he didn't take the money.

"I want to deal with you guys awhile before I make any transactions at all, period.... After we've done some business, well, then I might change my mind...."

..."I'm going to tell you this. If anybody can do it -- I'm not B.S.-ing you fellows -- I can get it done my way." he boasted. "There's no question about it."...

But the reluctant Murtha wouldn't touch the $50,000. Here on secret videotape was this all-American hero, tall and dignified in a disheveled way, explaining why he wasn't quite ready to accept the cash.

"All at once," he said, "some dumb [expletive deleted] would go start talking eight years from now about this whole thing and say [expletive deleted], this happened. Then in order to get immunity so he doesn't go to jail, he starts talking and fingering people. So the [S.O.B.] falls apart."...

"You give us the banks where you want the money deposited," offered one of the bagmen.

"All right," agreed Murtha. "How much money we talking about?"

"Well, you tell me."

"Well, let me find out what is a reasonable figure that will get their attention," said Murtha, "because there are a couple of banks that have really done me some favors in the past, and I'd like to put some money in....["]

The dialogue continued as follows:

Amoroso: Let me ask you now that we're together. I was under the impression, OK, and I told Howard [middleman Howard Criden] what we were willing to pay, and [This is where the available videotape begins]I went out, I got the $50,000. OK? So what you're telling me, OK, you're telling me that that's not what you know....

Murtha: I'm not interested.

Amoroso: OK.

Murtha: At this point, [This is where the available videotape ends] you know, we do business together for a while. Maybe I'll be interested and maybe I won't.... Right now, I'm not interested in those other things. Now, I won't say that some day, you know, I, if you made an offer, it may be I would change my mind some day.

Watch the complete video.

The American Spectator: Full video of Murtha's Abscam meeting with the FBI.

The complete and unedited video of Congressman John Murtha's January 7, 1980 meeting with the FBI's undercover Abscam investigation. At Abscam's W Street townhouse in Washington, D.C. With FBI Special Agent Anthony Amoroso, informant Mel Weinberg, and Howard Criden.

What is Pelosi thinking?

Ruth Marcus gets it right.

John Murtha is UNFIT FOR MAJORITY LEADER.

Marcus writes:

The biggest puzzle, and biggest disappointment, in all this is Pelosi, who was pitch-perfect in her first several days as speaker-elect. Now comes this lose-lose move.

If she gets her way and helps Murtha win a come-from-behind victory against Maryland's Steny Hoyer in tomorrow's leadership election, she's buying herself -- and the Democratic caucus -- endless news stories about Murtha's ethics. If, as he says, Hoyer has the votes, Pelosi has made herself look weak within the caucus -- not a smart move for any new leader, and certainly not for the first woman in the job. Perhaps the late timing and measured phrasing of Pelosi's endorsement were meant to ensure that it would have little impact. If so, Pelosi failed to recognize that once she weighed in, the vote for majority leader would inevitably be seen as a gauge of her clout.

I wrote a few weeks back that Pelosi's first test as speaker would be whether she picks Florida's Alcee Hastings -- who was removed from his federal judgeship for agreeing to take a bribe -- to head the intelligence committee. As it turns out, I was wrong. Pelosi's first test was how to handle Murtha. Whatever happens tomorrow, she flunked. Whether she'll get another failing grade on Hastings remains to be seen.

Michael Barone discusses why the Madame Nancy Pelosi would back the unethical Murtha to be majority leader.

He notes:

[S]he has taken some serious political risks by supporting a man with Murtha's record. House Democrats are backing some serious changes in ethics rules, but Murtha's election would cast a pall over them. The word from Capitol Hill has been that Steny Hoyer, the current minority whip who ran against Pelosi for that job in 2001, has the votes. Hoyer is an experienced and competent politician who is respected and well liked on both sides of the aisle, and I suspect that many House Democrats are miffed that Pelosi is opposing him.

What I find particularly troubling is that lib outlets like The Washington Post and The New York Times are now citing the dirt on Murtha. This stuff isn't new.

Diana Irey used it in her campaign, but Murtha won reelection anyway.

The people of Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District knowingly elected a scumbag.

And Pelosi is backing him to lead the majority in the House.

So much for clean government and a new Washington.

Misfit Toys

We're on the Island of Misfit Toys. Here we don't want to stay.
We want to travel with Santa Claus in his magic sleigh.
A pack full of toys means a sack full of joys
For millions of girls and for millions of boys
When Christmas Day is here. The most wonderful day of the year.

When I think of misfit toys, I think of a Charlie-In-The-Box, a polka-dotted elephant, a cowboy who rides an ostrich, a train with square wheels, and a squirt gun that sprays grape jelly.



As King Moonracer says, "A toy is never truly happy until it is loved by a child."

It appears that the Island of Misfit Toys can be expecting 4,000 new unhappy inhabitants.

LOS ANGELES -- A talking Jesus doll has been turned down by the Marine Reserves' Toys for Tots program.

A suburban Los Angeles company offered to donate 4,000 of the foot-tall dolls, which quote Bible verses, for distribution to needy children this holiday season. The battery-powered Jesus is one of several dolls manufactured by one2believe, a division of the Valencia-based Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Co., based on Biblical figures.

But the charity balked because of the dolls' religious nature.

Toys are donated to kids based on financial need and "we don't know anything about their background, their religious affiliations," said Bill Grein, vice president of Marine Toys for Tots Foundation, in Quantico, Va.

As a government entity, Marines "don't profess one religion over another," Grein said Tuesday. "We can't take a chance on sending a talking Jesus doll to a Jewish family or a Muslim family."

Michael La Roe, director of business development for both companies, said the charity's decision left him "surprised and disappointed."

"The idea was for them to be three-dimensional teaching tools for kids," La Roe said. "I believe as a churchgoing person, anyone can benefit from hearing the words of the Bible."

According to the company's Web site, the button-activated, bearded Jesus, dressed in hand-sewn cloth outfits and sandals, recites Scripture such as "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." It has a $20 retail value.

My first reaction is that the Toys for Tots program shouldn't be distributing toys with such a strong religious component.

But then I thought of what the program is about.

It's about giving toys to needy kids for CHRISTMAS.

From the Toys for Tots Foundation website:

MISSION: The mission of the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve Toys for Tots Program is to collect new, unwrapped toys during October, November and December each year, and distribute those toys as Christmas gifts to needy children in the community in which the campaign is conducted.

GOAL: The primary goal of Toys for Tots is to deliver, through a shiny new toy at Christmas, a message of hope to needy youngsters that will motivate them to grow into responsible, productive, patriotic citizens and community leaders.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of Toys for Tots are to help needy children throughout the United States experience the joy of Christmas; to play an active role in the development of one of our nation's most valuable natural resources - our children; to unite all members of local communities in a common cause for three months each year during the annual toy collection and distribution campaign; and to contribute to better communities in the future.

Yup, Toys for Tots is definitely about CHRISTMAS.

What is CHRISTMAS?

How can one be offended by a Jesus doll when the holiday being celebrated is based on the BIRTH OF JESUS.

I thought that maybe the program had morphed into a secular thing. I thought the Toys for Tots Foundation had removed CHRISTMAS from its mission. Clearly, it hasn't.

Why be concerned about a non-Christian child receiving the doll?

Read this again:

As a government entity, Marines "don't profess one religion over another," Grein said Tuesday. "We can't take a chance on sending a talking Jesus doll to a Jewish family or a Muslim family."

Why would Muslim or Jewish children be receiving CHRISTMAS gifts?

Of course, the program is to meant to make all needy children happy, whatever their religious beliefs or non-belief.

But the Foundation does not mince words about the toys being for CHRISTMAS.

If Toys for Tots is no longer a CHRISTMAS charity, fine.

Then strip all references to CHRISTMAS from the program. There's nothing wrong with that; but the Toys for Tots Foundation hasn't taken that path.

Because Toys for Tots continues to be about CHRISTMAS giving, according to its own mission, goal, and objectives, I do think there is something wrong with worrying about whether or not someone is offended by a Jesus doll.

(Note: CHRISTMAS is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.)


Get more information on the misfit Jesus doll here.

IS NOW THE TIME TO LEAVE?

If you're a cut and run Dem, and you voted for a candidate because he or she supported an immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, you might feel duped.

While some Dems are still pushing for an immediate "redeployment" (AKA retreat and accept defeat), there are signs that Bush critics are putting the brakes on thoughts of getting the troops out of Iraq in the near future.

From The New York Times:

One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over Iraq holds that the United States can move forward by pulling its troops back, as part of a phased withdrawal. If American troops begin to leave and the remaining forces assume a more limited role, the argument holds, it will galvanize the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for securing and rebuilding Iraq.

This is the case now being argued by many Democrats, most notably Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who asserts that the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq should begin within four to six months.

But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.

Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.

In other words, "Never mind" when it comes to withdrawing from Iraq.

Zinni has been such a harsh critic of Rumsfeld and the neocons and their war. The Left slobbered all over Zinni for speaking out against the administration. They canonized any retired general willing to trash Bush's Iraq strategy.

But now what Zinni has to say may not be what the radical Left, Nancy Pelosi and her boy John Murtha, want to hear.

Some Bush administration critics are breaking ranks with their lib allies now that they can claim "Mission accomplished" in getting rid of Rummy.

...Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.

Send more troops.

That runs directly counter to the Pelosi/Murtha doctrine of "Get the hell out NOW."

...In essence, the current debate turns on whether Iraqi leaders would be susceptible to the sort of blunt American pressure entailed by troop reductions. Arguing that such pressure was necessary, Senator Levin joined forces with another Democrat, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, to offer an amendment in June calling for a phased reduction of American troops, a measure he stressed has been supported by all of the potential Democratic presidential candidates. The proposal is less sweeping than most other Democratic proposals, which have called for the withdrawal of all American forces over a fixed time frame.

Still touting one of those "sweeping" proposals is presidential wannabe Russ Feingold. (No matter what he says, I believe he wants to be president.)

“Redeploying our troops will pressure the Iraqi government to get its political house in order while allowing us to re-focus on global terrorist organizations and trouble spots that threaten our national security,” Feingold said. “It simply doesn't make sense to continue devoting so much of our resources to one country while ignoring the growing threats we face around the world.”

I guess Russ thinks he knows more than generals, retired and active.

Which branch of the military did Feingold serve in? I can't remember.

Wait... It's coming back to me. HE DIDN'T SERVE IN THE MILITARY.

...[S]ome current and retired military officers say the situation in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq is too precarious to start thinning out the number of American troops. In addition, they worry that some Shiite leaders would see the reduction of American troops as an opportunity to unleash their militias against the Sunnis and engage in wholesale ethnic cleansing to consolidate their control of the capital.

John Batiste, a retired Army major general who also joined in the call for Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, described the Congressional proposals for troop withdrawals as “terribly naïve.”

Well. That's a slap in the face to the cut and run Dems, isn't it?

Their heroes, the ones who called for Rumsfeld to resign, aren't saying what they want to hear any longer.

I suppose the measure that Feingold introduced yesterday would be considered "terribly naïve" by the respected and wise Zinni and Batiste.

U.S. Senator Russ Feingold today (Tuesday) introduced legislation requiring U.S. forces to redeploy from Iraq by July 1, 2007. The legislation, which builds on an amendment Feingold authored earlier this year, would allow for a minimal number of U.S. forces to remain in Iraq for targeted counter-terrorism activities, training of Iraqi security forces, and the protection of U.S. infrastructure and personnel.

Feingold wants the majority of American troops out of Iraq in about half a year. July 1, 2007 is the magic day.

Does that sound naïve to you?

...Kenneth M. Pollack, an expert at the Brookings Institution who served on the staff of the National Security Council during the Clinton administration, also argued that a push for troop reductions would backfire by contributing to the disorder in Iraq.

“If we start pulling out troops and the violence gets worse and the control of the militias increases and people become confirmed in their suspicion that the United States is not going to be there to prevent civil war, they are to going to start making decisions today to prepare for the eventuality of civil war tomorrow,” he said. “That is how civil wars start.”

It's weird that The Times helps to make the case for staying the course in Iraq and even adding troops.

The Times staff and management have done so much to undermine the war effort.

Now, with the Dems at the helm in Congress, it seems that The Times no longer wants to aid and abet our enemies. They no longer are pushing propaganda to promote a defeatist strategy.

The Times actually seems to want the U.S. to be victorious.

That's good.

What's not good is the motive. It's not as if The New York Times has suddenly turned pro-troops and pro-American.

I think the change is grounded in the realization that the Dems now have a stake in America's success.

Suggesting the lowering of troop levels and withdrawal deadlines may win votes but it won't win the war; and The Times knows it.

Scott Walker: It Takes a Conservative

What's playing out in Milwaukee County is a case study of the battle for fiscal responsibility in government.

It's a tax war.


Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker refused to appease the tax and spend liberals, special interests and unions.

So on Tuesday, Walker vetoed the entire 2007 county budget.

Why?

He's keeping his promise to the taxpayers of Milwaukee County.

Read Walker's reaction to the County Board's Budget.

The members of the Milwaukee County Board passed their version of a county budget on Monday, November 6 on a 14 - 5 vote. The "County Board Budget" raises the property tax by nearly $9 million. My original budget had a 0% increase in the tax levy.

What did the County Board “buy” with the additional $9 million of your money?

The County Board budget raises the property tax levy by nearly $9 million to fund a $49 million pension contribution – without taking any action to curb the future growth of this obligation.

...They bought more government jobs.

...The County Board spent an additional $9 million of your money on an outdated aquatics system. Not only did they keep nearly all of the pools open, but they are also pouring money into pools that were built as far back as the 1930s.

...The County Board spent an additional $9 million of your money to fund other odd items like restoring county funds on the Farm and Fish Hatchery for inmates at the House of Correction.

...What did the County Board buy with the nearly $9 million of your money?

Not very much. In addition to raising property taxes by nearly $9 million, the County Board budget is not balanced for 2007 and it fails to adequately address the legacy costs of the county, which are eating up our budget like a virus. Thankfully, I have a BIG veto pen and I plan on using it to protect the taxpayers of Milwaukee County.

Not surprisingly, Walker is being blasted for vetoing a bloated, irresponsible, and broken budget.

Rather than being praised for being true to his word and protecting Milwaukee County taxpayers, he's being lambasted.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that board members are "irked" by Walker's veto.

Okay, so some board members are irked. So what?

Walker didn't promise to make the County Board happy. He didn't promise to placate unions and add more fat to an already blubbery budget.

He promised to provide tax relief and to curtail the county's rampant irresponsible spending.

Of course, Walker's being criticized.

Some reaction from the Board:

Ryan McCue: "The county executive had a choice between political grandstanding and governing. Unfortunately he chose grandstanding."

Roger Quindel: "This veto doesn't make any sense. He should have worked with us."

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board echoes the complaints.

It refers to Walker's veto as "more political theater."

Rather than an act of political willpower by an elected official committed to a tax freeze, Walker's veto looks more like the act of an elected official unwilling to pull the trigger on specific items in the budget that he thinks are fiscally irresponsible. Rejecting the entire budget, the good and the bad, to make a point as Walker now has done, smacks more of political theater than good government.

If supervisors fail to override the veto Wednesday, they will have to piece together another budget, no small task, in a relatively short amount of time. In other words, start all over or, as Walker put it Tuesday, have "a do-over."

To what end? As Walker said in his veto message, he supports a number of the changes the board made to his budget. So why throw out the good with the bad? That doesn't seem responsible at this late stage in the budget process.

How is vetoing the budget throwing out the good?

Certainly, the good would be salvaged and the bad would be removed.

Duh.

The Editorial Board recommends, "Supervisors should override Walker's shotgun veto."

Why?

To keep the fat?

It's a sad thing when controlling government spending and defending the rights of taxpayers is seen as grandstanding.

Walker did the right thing by using his "shotgun veto" and mercifully putting the messed up budget out of its misery.

The County Board needs to do its job and get the budget right. The Board should follow Walker's lead and get the job done.

Walker upheld his promise and did the job that Milwaukee County voters elected him to do -- he refused to sign a budget that meant a multi-million dollar tax increase.

READ MY LIPS: HIGHER TAXES

Here we go.

The Republicans have behaved in a fiscally irresponsible fashion. No question about it.

However, they did enact the President's tax cuts. They deserve credit for that. The Dems, of course, have pledged to repeal those cuts.

What does it mean to have Dems in power?

HIGHER TAXES

Read more.

A Message to the American People

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is preparing something for the American people.

Oh, goody!

From the Islamic Republic News Agency:

(Note: The IRNA is to Ahmadinejad as The New York Times is to the Democratic Party.)

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Tuesday that he will soon send a message to the American nation.

"I will soon send a message to the American people. The message is in the stage of preparation," said Ahmadinejad in a press conference here on Tuesday.

Ahmadinejad said his message would be in response to the American nation's call.

What do you think the Holocaust-denier and mortal enemy of Israel is talking about?

"Reponse to the American nation's call"?

What call?

Is Ahmadinejad referring to the election results?

Is he referring to our call for sanctions against Iran?

And what will his message be?

Apparently, it's taking some preparation.

Ahmadinejad has timed his announcements carefully. Notice that he was relatively silent just before and after the U.S. elections.

He knew that he wouldn't be the lead story in the lib media while they were obsessing about important matters like "macaca." But now that it's settled and the Dems have control in the House and the Senate, Ahmadinejad has decided to resurface.

I suspect his message relates to this:

International Atomic Energy experts have found unexplained plutonium and highly enriched uranium traces in a nuclear waste facility in Iran and have asked Tehran for an explanation, an IAEA report said Tuesday.

The report, prepared for next week's meeting of the 35-nation IAEA, also faulted Tehran for not cooperating with the agency's attempts to investigate suspicious aspects of Iran's nuclear program that have lead to fears it might be interested in developing nuclear arms.

And it said it could not confirm Iranian claims that its nuclear activities were exclusively nonmilitary unless Tehran increased its openness.

"The agency will remain unable to make further progress in its efforts to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran," without additional cooperation by Tehran, said the report, by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei.

Such cooperation is a "prerequisite for the agency to be able to confirm the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program," it added.

As expected, the four-page report made available to The Associated Press confirmed that Iran continues uranium enrichment experiments in defiance of the U.N. Security Council.

Here we have another case of a tyrannical nut completely ignoring UN resolutions.

Yes, the UN is a completely corrupt, utterly impotent organization; but it does offer a forum for nations to interact in an orderly manner on issues of global interest.

Given what a disaster the UN is, John Bolton has done a remarkable job serving as our ambassador and representing the U.S.

Will the Dems, now in the majority, confirm him?

No.


(Sparks from the Anvil)

They will stubbornly reject him, even though he's an asset to the country and, in broader terms, the world.

What sort of plan do the Dems have to deal with Ahmadinejad?

They don't have one.

They can't be bothered "investigating" this nuclear-bent maniac. They must focus on investigating President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, etc., etc., etc.

If the Bush administration is struggling to rein in the world's tyrants, can you imagine how the UN-loving, appeasement Dems would handle it?

Haven't we learned the horrible consequences and the long term damage of having Dems like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton in office? Haven't we learned how inexcusably vulnerable they made us?

I guess not.

Have we forgotten?

I guess so.

I'm not at all happy with how Republicans have conducted themselves on spending and immigration and judicial nominations.

Still, when it comes to Dems and Republicans, I prefer to support the Republicans, the AXIS OF LESSER EVIL, because the Axis of Evil poses such a grave threat to our security.

The Iraq Study Group

There's something strange about that name -- Iraq Study Group.

Doesn't it sound like a gathering of political science students trying to get through a challenging class?

It seems like there should be pizza at the group sessions or lots of empty Starbucks cups tossed in the corners of the room.

From The New York Times:

President Bush spent more than an hour on Monday with the independent panel examining strategic options for Iraq, and cautioned afterward that while he was open to new ideas, it was important for “people making suggestions to recognize that the best military options depend upon conditions on the ground.”

The president’s brief remarks seemed aimed at Democrats, who are demanding a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq, beginning in a matter of months. Mr. Bush has steadfastly resisted any timetable, and his comments on Monday offered the first hint of how he might respond.

Why would Bush's remarks be aimed solely at Dems?

I thought Daddy's team, Bush 41's men, had similar goals in mind.

Newsweek declares on its cover that "Father Knows Best," that Daddy will bail out his firstborn once again by fixing Iraq, meaning getting the U.S. out.

Addressing reporters in the Oval Office, Mr. Bush shed little light o n the substance of his hour-and-15-minute session with members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, led by James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state, and Lee H. Hamilton, the former congressman. The president said that they had “a good discussion,” and that he was “looking forward to interesting ideas.”

And what would the press expect Bush to say?

"The nice men talked to me and now I'm going to do whatever they tell me to do?"

Did the reporters think that Bush would give specifics on how he now intends to manage Iraq? Problem solved after 75 minutes?

How much light were they expecting Bush to shed?

That was a ridiculous expectation.

Mr. Bush is under intense pressure to change course in Iraq, from Democrats and from some Republicans. One leading Republican, Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said in an interview on Monday that the election results were a clear cry for a new Iraq strategy.

“The American people have spoken with regard to their deep concern about the loss of life, the loss of limb, the enormity of the expenditures, the credibility of our country,” Mr. Warner said.

But Mr. Warner, who created a stir among Republicans this fall when he said the situation in Iraq was “drifting sideways,” appealed to his colleagues not to rush to conclusions before a report by the commission, which is expected in December.

Other Republicans also weighed in. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a leading member of the Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that he would “adamantly oppose” any effort to set a deadline for withdrawal, calling it “equivalent to surrendering in the central battlefront in the war on terror.”

Warner and Graham, two Gang of 14 members -- What a proud legacy they have!

The Times always seeks out wobbly Republicans to comment.

In this case, Graham is showing some spine; but it's still annoying that The Times likes to quote less conservative types as their Republican sources.

Democrats, for their part, continued their offensive, saying the American people had given them a mandate. In a news conference on Capitol Hill, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, who will be the next Armed Services chairman, accused the administration of “ignoring obvious reality on the ground in Iraq, that we’re getting deeper and deeper into a hole that we should stop digging.”

There's no mandate.

The Dems are acting as if they have enormous majorities in the House and Senate. Not so.

The debate will soon move to the Armed Services panel. Among the senators on that committee are leading contenders in the nascent 2008 presidential campaign, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain, who has been talking about increasing rather than decreasing the numbers of troops in Iraq.

Clinton and McCain are an interesting pair.

Clinton is being pressured by the radical Lefty base to sound like John Murtha and suggest that we bug out of Iraq starting now.

McCain, on the other hand, knows he must win over the Republican base. He no doubt feels pressure to be tough on terror and accept nothing less than clear victory.

..The Iraq Study Group, formed at the request of Congress, is in Washington this week for a last round of interviews before making its final recommendations. Vice President Dick Cheney attended the Oval Office session on Monday, and the group met with other members of the Bush foreign policy team.

In his comments, Mr. Bush appeared to be walking a fine line — declaring that he was open to new tactics in Iraq, but seeming to foreclose some options.

The Iraq Study Group has an advisory role. Bush isn't required to accept anything it may propose.

...Mr. Baker has made no secret of his belief that the Bush administration must talk to its enemies, Syria and Iran included. In a speech on Monday, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain said the West should be open to Iran and Syria — but only if they take a cooperative stance.

Mr. Bush did not budge on those points. Asked about Syria, he said, “We do have an embassy there in Syria,” without mentioning that contacts with the Syrian government have been limited. The president then laid out preconditions for talks with the Syrian government. Nor did Mr. Bush give any ground on Iran, instead reiterating his long-held stance that the Iranian government must suspend the enrichment of uranium before Washington will join talks.

Many officials inside and outside the administration are looking for signs that Mr. Bush will modify his views, especially now that he has nominated Mr. Gates, who led a committee of the Council on Foreign Relations calling for more engagement with Iran. But Bush aides say talking to Syria or Iran is simply not enough.

“Talking isn’t a strategy,” Mr. Hadley, the national security adviser, said in an interview last month. “The issue is how can we condition the environment so that Iran and Syria will make a 180-degree turn.”

Why mince words?

"Signs that Mr. Bush will modify his views" really means "signs that Mr. Bush will be an appeaser."

Think of how Ronald Reagan was criticized for his tough stance against the Soviet Union, the Evil Empire.

Dems charged him with doing everything wrong. He was going to start World War III. In retrospect, we know Reagan was right and the Dems were wrong.

Reagan didn't start a war; his policies brought an end to a forty-year-old war. He freed millions from Soviet oppression, and he didn't do it by kowtowing to his critics.

Expectations are high both inside and outside the administration that the Baker-Hamilton group will provide a face-saving way forward for Mr. Bush. But one leading Republican, Representative Duncan Hunter, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said lawmakers should not delude themselves by thinking there would be easy answers.

I don't think Bush is trying to save face. I think he's trying to do what's best for the troops, our country, the Iraqis, and our long term future.

Of course, the delusional Dems think there is an easy answer. It's what John Murtha's been insisting on for months.

Just bring the troops home. Reploy (AKA retreat in defeat). Lose.

“No matter what the commission recommends, the day after the recommendations come out, you’re going to have American troops in Iraq continuing to train and stand up the Iraqi forces,” Mr. Hunter said. “You have to do that. There’s no shortcut to that. There’s no silver bullet and there’s no easy way to do it.”

Pelosi and her boy Murtha would disagree. Russ Feingold and John Kerry would also beg to differ. They all think there is a silver bullet.

LEAVE. Set an arbitrary timetable and LEAVE.

Problem solved Dem-style.

It would be nice if the Iraq Study Group could arrive at some solutions that would stabilize Iraq and also bring our troops home quickly.

I don't think that's possible.

Rational Ahmadinejad

"[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's] an impressive fellow, this guy. He really is. He's obviously smart as hell. ... I don't think he has the slightest doubt about how he feels ... about the American administration and the Zionist state. He comes across as more rational than I had expected."

--MIKE WALLACE


Give an example of an oxymoron.

"Jumbo Shrimp" is commonly cited to illustrate the figure of speech.

I think it's time that "Jumbo Shrimp" be replaced by "Rational Ahmadinejad" as the oxymoron prototype.

I disagree with Mike Wallace's assessment of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

He doesn't impress me. Well, I guess he could be considered impressive in that Hitlerian way, but Ahmadinejad is certainly not an admirable man in my opinion. If "impressive" connotes positive qualities, the term doesn't apply to him.

Smart? Ahmadinejad is not "smart as hell." But if you think having a death wish and behaving in a taunting and dangerously reckless manner is "smart as hell," then I suppose he is. I don't see that as smart.

Rational? Ahmadinejad has to be one of the most irrational leaders on the world scene.

Here are his latest "impressive, smart, rational" remarks:

"Israel is destined for destruction and it will disappear soon," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday.

Speaking to government ministers in Teheran, Ahmadinejad said that the world's powers created "the Zionist regime" to increase their dominance in the region and that Israel "slaughters Palestinians on a daily basis."

The Iranian president added that since Israel was "a contradiction to nature, we foresee its rapid disappearance and destruction."

This from the man that claims to be pursuing a nuclear program for strictly PEACEFUL purposes.

Mahmoud is a madman.

He's a blight on the Middle East and an obstacle to peace.

That reminds me: When will the latest Nobel Peace Prize nominations be named?

I expect to see impressive, smart, and rational Ahmadinejad on the list.

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Jimmy Carter is probably putting in a good word for him.


PEACE: "Israel is destined for destruction and it will disappear soon."

_________________________________

For some context, keep this in mind:

"This issue (the elections) is not a purely domestic issue for America, but it is the defeat of Bush's hawkish policies in the world. Since Washington's hostile and hawkish policies have always been against the Iranian nation, this defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation."

--AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI

The Truth about Donald Rumsfeld

Douglas J. Feith, a professor at Georgetown University, provides a different take on the outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld than the caricature that the public has been sold for years.

Feith served as the U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from July 2001 until his resignation on August 8, 2005.

In Sunday's Washington Post, Feith wrote a piece to set the record straight about Rumsfeld, "The Donald Rumsfeld I know."

The same piece appeared in Sunday's St. Paul Pioneer Press with a more complete title, "The Donald Rumsfeld I know isn't the one you know."

Feith attempts to dispel some of the Rumsfeld myths and undo a bit of the merciless demonization that Rumsfeld has endured.

He writes:

Much of what you know about Donald Rumsfeld is wrong.

I worked intimately with Rumsfeld for four years, from the summer of 2001 until I left the Pentagon in August 2005. Through countless meetings and private conversations, I came to learn his traits, frame of mind and principles -- characteristics wholly at odds with the standard public depiction of Rumsfeld, particularly now that he has stepped down after a long, turbulent tenure as defense secretary, a casualty of our toxic political climate.

I know that Don Rumsfeld is not an ideologue. He did not refuse to have his views challenged. He did not ignore the advice of his military advisers. And he did not push single-mindedly for war in Iraq. He was motivated to serve the national interest by transforming the military, though it irritated people throughout the Pentagon. Rumsfeld's drive to modernize created a revealing contrast between his Pentagon and the State Department, where Colin Powell was highly popular among the staff. After four years of Powell's tenure at State, the organization chart there would hardly tip anyone off that 9/11 had occurred -- or even that the Cold War was over.

Rumsfeld is a bundle of paradoxes, like a fascinating character in a work of epic literature. And as my high school teachers drummed into my head, the best literature reveals that humans are complex. They are not the all-good or all-bad, all-brilliant or all-dumb figures that inhabit trashy novels and news stories. Fine literature teaches us the difference between appearance and reality.

Because of his complexity, Rumsfeld is often misread. His politics are deeply conservative, but he was radical in his drive to force change in every area he oversaw. He is strong-willed and hard-driving, but he built his defense strategies and Quadrennial Defense Reviews on calls for intellectual humility.

Those of us in his inner circle heard him say, over and over again: Our intelligence, in all senses of the term, is limited. We cannot predict the future. We must continually question our preconceptions and theories. If events contradict them, don't suppress the bad news; rather, change your preconceptions and theories.

Feith goes on:

Rumsfeld never told Gen. John Abizaid or Gen. Tommy Franks that U.S. Central Command could not have the number of troops that the commanders deemed necessary. Rumsfeld is more politically sensitive than that -- he would never expose himself to the risk of a commander later saying that he had denied him the forces needed. If other generals are unhappy with the troop levels in Iraq, the problem is not that they failed to persuade Rumsfeld, but that they failed to persuade Abizaid or Franks.

Historians will sort out whether Rumsfeld was too pushy with his military, or not pushy enough; whether he micromanaged Ambassador L. Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority, or gave them too much slack. I know more about these issues than most people, yet I don't have all the information for a full analysis. I do know, however, that the common view of Rumsfeld as a close-minded man, ideologically wedded to the virtues of a small force, is wrong.

Rumsfeld had to resign, I suppose, because the bitter political debate of recent years has turned him into a symbol. His effectiveness was damaged. For many in Congress and the public, the Rumsfeld caricature dominated their view of the Iraq war and the administration's ability to prosecute it successfully. Even if nominee Robert Gates pursues essentially the same strategy, he may command more public confidence.

What Rumsfeld believed, said and did differs from the caricature. The public picture of him today is drawn from news accounts reflecting the views of people who disapproved of his policies or disliked him. Rumsfeld, after all, can be brutally demanding and tough. But I believe history will be more appreciative of him than the first draft has been. What will last is serious history, which, like serious literature, can distinguish appearance from reality.

What are the odds that Feith's opinion will alter the public's perception of Rumsfeld?

Slim to none.

Still, I find Feith's perspective enlightening.

He provides a description of a complex man rather than the one-dimensional cartoon character that so many government officials and the lib media have spoon-fed Americans since the war in Iraq began.

Strong personalities, like Rumsfeld, elicit strong reactions.

Some of his colleagues can't stand him. Others respect and admire and appreciate him.

I think it's important to take the spectrum of opinions into account.

According to Feith, dismissing Rumsfeld as a "close-minded man, ideologically wedded to the virtues of a small force" is wrong.

His take on Rumsfeld should be given serious consideration.

As George Orwell said, "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

The Prodigal Returns

And the psychobabble continues, courtesy of the truly psycho Newsweek.

It's the cover story, "Father Knows Best."



Jon Meacham writes:

George Herbert Walker Bush is a proud father; tears easily come to his eyes when he thinks of his children, all of them, and there is gracious deference in his tone when he talks about the son he calls, with emphasis, "The President." He is not given to boasting about or bragging on his family; he still hears his mother's voice warning him to avoid "the Great I Am," but several times over the past few years the 41st president has mentioned to visitors that the 43rd president has read the Bible in its entirety—not once, the father says, but twice, sticking two fingers in the air. If so, then the incumbent may recall the Song of Moses: "Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask thy father, and he will show thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee."

Ask thy father, and he will show thee: advice that, at long last, George W. Bush seems to be taking.

...The American people, as politicians like to say, spoke last week—and spoke in no uncertain terms. The 2006 vote does not suggest an eagerness for a sharp left turn. It seems, rather, to be a plea for a shift from the hard right of the neoconservatives to the center represented by the old man in Houston. The re-emergence of Iraq Study Group voices such as [James A.] Baker, [Robert M.] Gates and Alan Simpson—all longtime friends of Bush Senior—is not unlike the entrance of Fortinbras at the conclusion of "Hamlet." These are 41's men, and the removal of Rumsfeld—an ancient rival of Bush Senior's from the Ford days—is a move toward the broad middle.

...Did 41 help bring Gates to the Pentagon? The White House denies it, but, as a Bush friend told NEWSWEEK, "his fingerprints are all over this." (The friend refused to be identified for fear of alienating the family.) Given the mists of secrecy that envelop the 41-43 relationship, it is striking that the broad Bush circle believes he had a hand in the Rumsfeld succession: as an old CIA director, 41 rarely leaves any clues at all.

As I've said, it's legitimate to discuss the realities of Rumsfeld's departure and his replacement.

But Meacham writes about it in a style that seems more fitting to an Oprah book club selection than a news weekly.

He offers Biblical references and Shakespearean parallels and sitcom connections. Not satisfied with that, Meacham injects elements of mystery as well.

The article is a potpourri, something for everyone. What I like about it is the humor. Meacham doesn't intend the piece to be comical, but it is.

"[L]ongtime friends of Bush Senior" arriving on the scene "is not unlike the entrance of Fortinbras at the conclusion of Hamlet."

Is this an essay for a literary journal or is it a news analysis?

"Mists of secrecy that envelop the 41-43 relationship" is bizarre.

What do these Lefties expect? Should Bush 41 have a blog and detail his conversations with Bush 43? Would that be enough to clear the mists?

Old CIA man Bush 41 "rarely leaves any clues."

That's funny. Meacham has a bit of Agatha Christie in him.

This is not news. It's entertainment!

The question becomes: Who will be cast to play Bush 41 and Bush 43 in the movie?

Feingold's Withdrawal

Just as politicians are jockeying for position to become the Dems' 2008 presidential nominee, Russ Feingold has decided to withdraw.

Smart move.

Washington -- Sen. Russ Feingold will not seek his party's presidential nomination in 2008, the Wisconsin Democrat told the Journal Sentinel on Saturday.

"I never got to that point where I'd rather be running around the country, running for president, than being a senator from Wisconsin," Feingold said in a phone interview from Madison.

Huh?

You mean all those trips that Feingold made to Iowa, New Hampshire, etc. weren't any fun?

Feingold, 53, conceded that he faced long odds of winning the nomination.

"It would have required the craziest combination of things in the history of American politics to make it work," he said.

But Feingold said waging an underdog campaign appealed to him. What didn't appeal to him, he said, was "the way in which this effort would dismantle both my professional life (in the Senate) and my personal life. I'm very happy right now."

At least Feingold wasn't completely crazy. He was sane enough to admit that he didn't stand a chance of winning his party's nomination for the top spot.

But I think there's more to his announcement than he's letting on.

I think there's a method in his madness.

Feingold had been publicly weighing a presidential bid since early 2005, forming a political action committee, traveling to key states such as New Hampshire and Iowa, and cultivating a more national constituency as an early and outspoken opponent of the Iraq war, the Patriot Act and other Bush administration policies.

The senator said Saturday that he went into that process with more of a predisposition against running than the other way around. Although Feingold's political activity pointed in many ways toward a run, he was not traveling, fund raising or organizing with quite the same intensity as some potential candidates.

"I began with the feeling I didn't really want to do this but was open to the possibility that getting around the country would make me want to do it. That never happened," he said.

Yeah, right.

Do you believe that Feingold didn't really want to run?

Do you believe that bachelor Feingold wasn't fantasizing about putting down roots in the Oval Office?

I don't.

"People have always portrayed me as ambitious. I'm not ashamed of that.

"But I have never had a craving to be president of the United States. I used to say it when I was 5 or 7 years old. But I haven't really been saying it as an adult," said Feingold, who said he didn't rule out running in the future.

WHAT?

Check out the transcripts of his Meet the Press appearances.

Of course he had a craving to be president.

...Feingold confronted obvious obstacles. The potential field includes New York Sen. Hillary Clinton - the financial and political colossus in the party - former vice presidential candidate John Edwards and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who has rapidly emerged as the Democrats' most celebrated political "fresh face."

Yes, the Obama factor most likely played a major role in his decision. He had to know that his presidential dreams were officially dashed. It wasn't going to happen.

...Feingold said winning the party nomination would have been "very difficult," but he viewed himself as someone who could win a general election and his decision wasn't based on who else might run.

"This may sound immodest, but I thought, 'I can do this. I can be the candidate, that rational, effective, presentable candidate for Democrats that would not be threatening, yet very progressive,' " Feingold said.

Feingold is flip-flopping.

He just said he never had a craving to be president, yet he viewed himself as the man and believed in his potential as a viable candidate.

That's strange for someone not interested in pursuing the presidency.

Why would he even think about his qualifications if he didn't have some desire to run?

...Asked about the Democratic field, Feingold made it clear he preferred a nominee who shared his views on the war.

"The first choice would be somebody who voted against this unfortunate Iraq war. That may not be available," said Feingold, who was the only Senate Democrat considering a run who voted against authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

"Second choice is somebody who at least said it was a bad idea. . . . I would be happy if Obama or (Al) Gore ran," said Feingold, who said he was not offering an endorsement.

Clinton, the presumed party front-runner, voted in 2002 to authorize force in Iraq. "Those who were there and came to the judgment the Iraq war was a good idea have to answer for some concerns I have about their judgment. That was a really bad judgment. I'm prepared to support a Democrat who voted for that war, but I think the American people would prefer a president who had the judgment to see it was not a good idea," he said.

Feingold sent an e-mail to supporters Saturday night announcing his decision.

Read Feingold's letter explaining his decision to withdraw.

Feingold is a shrewd politician.

I think he knows that he can't compete with the big names. Although Feingold has received a lot of attention, he never got the cover TIME or the coronation that Obama has been getting.

I think Feingold has determined that his best move is to escape from the bloodbath that the Dem primaries are guaranteed to be.

First, he doesn't have the money to compete. Second, and more importantly, I think he wants to stay out of the fray and keep his hands clean.

I wouldn't be surprised if his plan is to sit on the sidelines and hope to be tapped later for the number two spot on the ticket.

I think Feingold's withdrawal signals that he's moving into the role of the vice presidential candidate in waiting.

At the very least, I'm sure he hopes to be on the short list.

_____________________________

From WisPolitics: Listen to Feingold Press Conference in Racine

Frank Rich's Caca

The New York Times' "Free Access Week" is in its final day.

GOOD!

If FAW proved anything to me, it's that I would not want to subscribe to TimesSelect.

When did The Times start charging for the privilege to read the thoughts of its superstar columnists?

I don't remember. It's been over a year I guess.

It can't be all that successful or The Times wouldn't have needed to stage its FAW.

$7.95 per month or $49.95 per year?

No thanks.

Frank Rich's column, "2006, The Year of the 'Macaca,'" is worth its price -- FREE!

Rich writes a ranting and raving anti-Bush, anti-George Allen, anti-Republican screed.

Surprise, surprise!

I suppose Rich deserves points for managing to pack virtually every Dem talking point and worn-out cliche into a single column, albeit a long-winded one.

He exaggerates and dramatizes and goes over the top -- typical lib Rich stuff.

He gleefully gloats.

Rich begins:

OF course, the “thumpin’ ” was all about Iraq. But let us not forget Katrina. It was the collision of the twin White House calamities in August 2005 that foretold the collapse of the presidency of George W. Bush.

"The collapse of the presidency of George W. Bush"?

That's more than a bit extreme.

When Bill Clinton took a "thumpin'" in 1994, losing the House to the Republicans for the first time in forty years, was that considered the collapse of his presidency?

It was a major defeat, but Clinton still was the president.

Back then, the full measure of the man finally snapped into focus for most Americans, sending his poll numbers into the 30s for the first time. The country saw that the president who had spurned a grieving wartime mother camping out in the sweltering heat of Crawford was the same guy who had been unable to recognize the depth of the suffering in New Orleans’s fetid Superdome. This brand of leadership was not the “compassionate conservatism” that had been sold in all those photo ops with African-American schoolchildren. This was callous conservatism, if not just plain mean.

Give me a break!

What a complete and utter crock!

A grieving wartime mother wasn't camping in Crawford's heat. A pawn of the crazed Bush-hating Left was staging a media event.

And there's no question that terrible mistakes were made in the wake of Katrina at every level of government.

But Rich describes the incompetence and failures to coordinate local and state resources with federal agencies as intentional and lacking compassion. What about the roles of Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco?

Should their monumental failures be categorized as "callous conservatism"?

Rich is so extreme.

"George Bush doesn't care about black people."

Does Rich hang out with Kanye West?

It’s the kind of conservatism that remains silent when Rush Limbaugh does a mocking impersonation of Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s symptoms to score partisan points. It’s the kind of conservatism that talks of humane immigration reform but looks the other way when candidates demonize foreigners as predatory animals. It’s the kind of conservatism that pays lip service to “tolerance” but stalls for days before taking down a campaign ad caricaturing an African-American candidate as a sexual magnet for white women.

This kind of politics is now officially out of fashion. Harold Ford did lose his race in Tennessee, but by less than three points in a region that has not sent a black man to the Senate since Reconstruction. Only 36 years old and hugely talented, he will rise again even as the last vestiges of Jim Crow tactics continue to fade and Willie Horton ads countenanced by a national political party join the Bush dynasty in history’s dustbin.

First, Rich is egregiously misrepresenting what Limbaugh did.

The lies about Limbaugh and Fox have become mythic.

Second, how can Rich bitch about how Harold Ford was treated and stay mum on the abuse hailed at Michael Steele or Clarence Thomas or Joe Lieberman?

Some examples of liberal racism:

--USA Today doctors a photo of Condoleezza Rice.

--Condoleezza Rice is belittled on a math final at Bellevue Community College.

--Michael Steele is labeled an Uncle Tom and pelted with oreos.

--Former Milwaukee Alderman Michael McGee spews anti-Semitic remarks on the radio.

--Clarence Thomas is deemed "a black man who deserves an asterisk" by The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

--Trey Ellis plays shrink in a racist attack on Claude Allen.

--MoveOn.org hosts anti-Semitic remarks about Joe Lieberman.

--Chris Matthews repeatedly employs ethnic stereotypes to refer to Joe Lieberman.

The libs' attack politics is not officially out of fashion. It's not in history's dustbin. Far from it.

Oh, and for the record, let's not forget that the first politician to bring up the Willie Horton issue was none other than Al Gore in the 1988 primaries, not Bush 41.

Elsewhere, the 2006 returns more often than not confirmed that Americans, Republicans and Democrats alike, are far better people than this cynical White House takes them for. This election was not a rebuke merely of the reckless fiasco in Iraq but also of the divisive ideology that had come to define the Bush-Rove-DeLay era. This was the year that Americans said a decisive no to the politics of “macaca” just as firmly as they did to pre-emptive war and Congressional corruption.

What is Rich talking about?

The politics of "macaca," the assassination of George Allen's character, was a Dem scheme. It was front page material for The Washington Post for days.

If Rich is looking for a "divisive ideology," he need look no further than Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the Dem playbook. He should read his own propaganda rag newspaper.

...But for those who’ve been sickened by the Bush-Rove brand of politics, surely the happiest result of 2006 was saved for last: Jim Webb’s ousting of Senator George Allen in Virginia. It is all too fitting that this race would be the one that put the Democrats over the top in the Senate. Mr. Allen was the slickest form of Bush-Rove conservative, complete with a strategist who’d helped orchestrate the Swift Boating of John Kerry. Mr. Allen was on a fast track to carry that banner into the White House once Mr. Bush was gone. His demise was so sudden and so unlikely that it seems like a fairy tale come true.

Allen's demise came after weeks of pounding and smears and baseless accusations by the Dems and their media mouthpieces.

Rich considers such tactics to be a "fairy tale come true"?

What a sicko!

Yeah, isn't it great that disgusting filth peddler, or novelist if you prefer, Jim Webb will be serving in the U.S. Senate.

Lock up the pages now!

As recently as April 2005, hard as it is to believe now, Mr. Allen was chosen in a National Journal survey of Beltway insiders as the most likely Republican presidential nominee in 2008. Political pros saw him as a cross between Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush whose “affable” conservatism and (contrived) good-old-boy persona were catnip to voters. His Senate campaign this year was a mere formality; he began with a double-digit lead.

That all ended famously on Aug. 11, when Mr. Allen, appearing before a crowd of white supporters in rural Virginia, insulted a 20-year-old Webb campaign worker of Indian descent who was tracking him with a video camera. After belittling the dark-skinned man as “macaca, or whatever his name is,” Mr. Allen added, “Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia.”

The moment became a signature cultural event of the political year because the Webb campaign posted the video clip on YouTube.com, the wildly popular site that most politicians, to their peril, had not yet heard about from their children. Unlike unedited bloggorhea, which can take longer to slog through than Old Media print, YouTube is all video snippets all the time; the one-minute macaca clip spread through the national body politic like a rabid virus. Nonetheless it took more than a week for Mr. Allen to recognize the magnitude of the problem and apologize to the object of his ridicule. Then he compounded the damage by making a fool of himself on camera once more, this time angrily denying what proved to be accurate speculation that his mother was a closeted Jew. It was a Mel Gibson meltdown that couldn’t be blamed on the bottle.

Mr. Allen has a history of racial insensitivity. He used to display a Confederate flag in his living room and, bizarrely enough, a noose in his office for sentimental reasons that he could never satisfactorily explain. His defense in the macaca incident was that he had no idea that the word, the term for a genus of monkey, had any racial connotation. But even if he were telling the truth — even if Mr. Allen were not a racist — his non-macaca words were just as damning. “Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia” was unmistakably meant to demean the young man as an unwashed immigrant, whatever his race. It was a typical example of the us-versus-them stridency that has defined the truculent Bush-Rove fearmongering: you’re either with us or you’re a traitor, possibly with the terrorists.

As it happened, the “macaca” who provoked the senator’s self-destruction, S. R. Sidarth, was not an immigrant but the son of immigrants. He was born in Washington’s Virginia suburbs to well-off parents (his father is a mortgage broker) and is the high-achieving graduate of a magnet high school, a tournament chess player, a former intern for Joe Lieberman, a devoted member of his faith (Hindu) and, currently, a senior at the University of Virginia. He is even a football jock like Mr. Allen. In other words, he is an exemplary young American who didn’t need to be “welcomed” to his native country by anyone. The Sidarths are typical of the families who have abetted the rapid growth of northern Virginia in recent years, much as immigrants have always built and renewed our nation. They, not Mr. Allen with his nostalgia for the Confederate “heritage,” are America’s future. It is indeed just such northern Virginians who have been tinting the once reliably red commonwealth purple.

Though the senator’s behavior was toxic, the Bush-Rove establishment rewarded it. Its auxiliaries from talk radio, the blogosphere and the Wall Street Journal opinion page echoed the Allen campaign’s complaint that the incident was inflated by the news media, especially The Washington Post. Once it became clear that Mr. Allen was in serious trouble, conservative pundits mainly faulted him for running an “awful campaign,” not for being an awful person.

The macaca incident had resonance beyond Virginia not just because it was a hit on YouTube. It came to stand for 2006 as a whole because it was synergistic with a national Republican campaign that made a fetish of warning that a Congress run by Democrats would have committee chairmen who are black (Charles Rangel) or gay (Barney Frank), and a middle-aged woman not in the Stepford mold of Laura Bush as speaker. In this context, Mr. Allen’s defeat was poetic justice: the perfect epitaph for an era in which Mr. Rove systematically exploited the narrowest prejudices of the Republican base, pitting Americans of differing identities in cockfights for power and profit, all in the name of “faith.”

Unbelievable.

What an incredibly distorted account! Rich's description of the "macaca" incident is classic lib spin. It's history rewritten. It's caca.

I wonder if Rich realizes how unfair and hypocritical he's being. Is this his reality or is it merely the reality he's trying to get others to accept?

"Stepford mold of Laura Bush" isn't exactly playing nice, is it?

Perhaps the most interesting finding in the exit polls Tuesday was that the base did turn out for Mr. Rove: white evangelicals voted in roughly the same numbers as in 2004, and 71 percent of them voted Republican, hardly a mass desertion from the 78 percent of last time. But his party was routed anyway. It was the end of the road for the boy genius and his can’t-miss strategy that Washington sycophants predicted could lead to a permanent Republican majority.

What a week this was! Here’s to the voters of both parties who drove a stake into the heart of our political darkness. If you’ll forgive me for paraphrasing George Allen: Welcome back, everyone, to the world of real America.

I hope Rich will forgive me for paraphrasing him paraphrasing George Allen: Welcome back, everyone, to the world of real LIBERAL America.

Rich is dead wrong.

No one drove a stake into the heart of America's political darkness this week.

The Dems won. America's political darkness prevailed.

Kevin Barrett: The Face of UW-Madison

Kevin Barrett: "I think President Bush very well may have signed an authorization for the 9/11 attacks."

(Photo/Rick Wood)


Wisconsin taxpayers fund the UW system.

If you pay taxes in Wisconsin, this is what your money is buying.

From The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

"Your tax dollars are paying for the killing of American soldiers in Iraq. The CIA is paying for resistance in Iraq."

So closed Kevin Barrett's fourth and final lecture on the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, delivered as part of his course on Islam at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

My tax dollars are paying for slandering elected officials and trashing the American government, all under the guise of academic freedom.

Anticipation of this part of the course, and Thursday's class in particular, had been building for months.

Barrett has been at the center of a national controversy that also focused on tax dollars - specifically, whether they should be used to teach material considered outrageous, manipulative and inaccurate.

Gov. Jim Doyle and state legislators called for Barrett to be fired last summer for arguing that the Sept. 11 attacks were orchestrated by the U.S. government. University administrators defended Barrett's right to the classroom in the name of academic freedom. But they threatened him with dismissal if he did not keep his enthusiasm for his views in check in the classroom and did not stop seeking publicity outside the classroom.

When asked by reporters, Doyle remarked that he thought Barrett should be fired.

Doyle DID NOT work to get rid of Barrett. To the contrary, he said that it would be inappropriate for him to get involved in the matter.

The JS makes it sound like Doyle actively sought to have Barrett axed. Not so.

The part-time teacher vowed to teach the official version of the attacks alongside the Sept. 11 theory to which he subscribes. He said he would neither tell his students what his view was nor penalize them for not buying the theory. And he emphasized that 9-11 was just a small part of the course that he didn't get to until a period late in the semester.

That period was last week and this week.

Andrea Bromley, a sophomore, came away saying Barrett had failed to be impartial.

"It's become much more opinionated now that we're doing 9-11," Bromley said, referring to the tone and progress of the course. "He's trying to explain both views, but he's biased. I don't feel like he's presented enough info on the other side."

Freshman Jesse Moya disagreed, saying Barrett had been "very objective."

Moya, who said his uncle died in the World Trade Center attacks, said he had entered the course believing the attacks were the work of Islamic terrorists. He now believes otherwise.

"It seems like a more logical explanation that it was the U.S. government," he said.

Notice how it's suggested that Moya has absolute moral authority on the subject of the 9/11 attacks because his uncle was killed at the WTC. It's implied that Moya's views carry greater weight. That's a typical lib strategy. Victims, such as Cindy Sheehan or the 9/11 widows, are untouchable.

The fact that Barrett convinced Freshman Moya to believe that the U.S. government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks proves what a mistake it was to let Barrett spew his lies to kids.

Barrett began Thursday's lecture by reviewing the work of several Muslim writers who believe the Sept. 11 attacks were the work of terrorists. One argues that the attacks reveal broader clashes within Islam; another believes they indicate a blossoming clash between the Muslim world and the West. The writings were among works that had been assigned to Barrett's students to read.

Barrett then moved on to an essay by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, who argues that the Sept. 11 attackers were part of a broad network of terrorism sponsored by the United States and other Western intelligence agencies. Ahmed argues that the U.S. has used terrorism to destabilize other countries and gain control over their resources.

In his lecture, Barrett sprinkled in the phrase according to this analysis periodically at the end of his sentences. But he stated much of Ahmed's argument as fact and offered up his own views or observations to bolster the claims.

On the conventional idea that terrorists were motivated by their belief in Islam, Barrett said: "That's simply not true. That story gets blown out of the water."

On Ahmed's writings, he said at one point: "This is all standard narrative. What he's said so far, no one disputes."

Ahmed ends his essay by arguing that the U.S. is attempting "to exacerbate the deterioration of security by penetrating, manipulating, and arming the terrorist insurgency, thus legitimizing permanent Anglo-American military involvement in Iraq purportedly to promote security."

It was while discussing this argument that Barrett made his comment about American tax dollars being used to fund the killing of American soldiers.

Ahmed's essay is to be published in a book that was co-edited by Barrett. Barrett himself has an essay in it. He writes that the official version of 9-11 was a myth created by the U.S. government to help perpetuate war that would further its quest for world domination. The truth, he writes, was that "on 9/11, the World Trade Center collapsed, blown up by the globalists themselves." He likens President Bush to Adolf Hitler, arguing that both sold hatred to further their agendas.

What an utter disgrace!

Barrett is a nut. That we know.

What's disgusting is that the Board of Regents gave this loon a UW classroom to use as forum to spread his anti-American venom. And taxpayers subsidized it!

Barrett is requiring his students to take two exams and review one of the assigned or recommended texts. He said exam questions about the other 9-11 essays were likely.

His faith in his ability to grade fairly is unwavering.

"I try to lean over backwards to be fair, to give students the benefit of the doubt," he said. "Students would probably do better trying to argue against me."

I don't care if Barrett is doing backflips to be fair.

Barrett has can believe that 9/11 was an inside job. He can compile books about it and go on the radical Leftist lecture circuit charging the U.S. government with slaughtering three thousand people on American soil.

He has the right to be an idiot.

But--

TAX DOLLARS SHOULD NOT BE USED TO PUMP BARRETT'S GARBAGE INTO THE HEADS OF STUDENTS.

Veterans Day: Corporal Jason Dunham

U.S. President George W. Bush (R) listens to an opening prayer as he attends the official opening of the National Museum of the Marine Corps during the 231st anniversary celebration of the Marine Corps in Triangle, Virginia November 10, 2006. From left are Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine General Peter Pace, Commandant of the Marine Corps Michael W. Hagee and Bush. REUTERS/Larry Downing (UNITED STATES)

Yesterday, President Bush dedicated the National Museum of the Marine Corps.

At the ceremony, the President told the story of Corporal Jason Dunham and announced that he will be awarded the Medal of Honor.


Transcript excerpt from President Bush's remarks:

The history of the Corps is now being written by a new generation of Marines. Since the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, more than 190,000 men and women have stepped forward to wear the uniform of the Marine Corps. Like the Marines who have come before them, this new generation is serving freedom's cause in distant lands. Like the Marines who have come before them, this new generation faces determined enemies. And like the Marines who have come before them, this new generation is adding its own chapters to the stories of liberty and peace. And years from now, when America looks out on a democratic Middle East growing in freedom and prosperity, Americans will speak of the battles like Fallujah with the same awe and reverence that we now give to Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima.

Like the Marines who have come before them, this new generation has also given some of its finest men in the line of duty. One of these fine men was Jason Dunham. Jason's birthday is November the 10th, so you might say that he was born to be a Marine. And as far back as boot camp, his superiors spotted the quality that would mark this young American as an outstanding Marine: his willingness to put the needs of others before his own.


Corporal Jason Dunham

Corporal Dunham showed that spirit in April 2004, while leading a patrol of his Marines in an Iraqi town near the Syrian border. When a nearby Marine convoy was ambushed, Corporal Dunham led his squad to the site of the attack, where he and his men stopped a convoy of cars that were trying to make an escape. As he moved to search one of the vehicles, an insurgent jumped out and grabbed the Corporal by the throat. The Corporal engaged the enemy in hand-to-hand combat. At one point he shouted to his fellow Marines, "No, no, no, watch his hand." Moments later, an enemy grenade rolled out. Corporal Dunham did not hesitate; he jumped on the grenade to protect his fellow Marines, he used his helmet and his body to absorb the blast.

A friend who was there that terrible day put it this way: "Corporal Dunham had a gift from God. Everyone who came in contact with him wanted to be like him. He was the toughest Marine, but the nicest guy. He would do anything for you. Corporal Dunham was the kind of person everybody wants as their best friend." Despite surviving the initial blast and being given the best of medical care, Corporal Dunham ultimately succumbed to his wounds. And by giving his own life, Corporal Dunham saved the lives of two of his men and showed the world what it means to be a Marine.

Corporal Dunham's mom and dad are with us today on what would have been this brave young man's 25th birthday. We remember that the Marine who so freely gave his life was your beloved son. We ask a loving God to comfort you for a loss that can never be replaced. And on this special birthday, in the company of his fellow Marines, I'm proud to announce that our nation will recognize Corporal Jason Dunham's action with America's highest decoration for valor, the Medal of Honor.

As long as we have Marines like Corporal Dunham, America will never fear for her liberty. And as long as we have this fine museum, America will never forget their sacrifice.

May God bless you, may God bless the Marines, and may God bless the United States.

And may God bless all veterans.

Michael Ratner and the Center for Constitutional Rights

This is a MUST READ from Andy McCarthy.

Unlike TIME, McCarthy clarifies who is going after Donald Rumsfeld.

Michael Ratner, that's who. Al Qaeda's chief counsel in the United States. Ratner runs the Center for Constitutional Rights. Read about them here. This is an American -- yes, an American -- ultra-Leftist organization begun by Bill Kunstler and Arthur Kinoy which is suing our government in wartime for fighting the enemy.

CCR has gone to Germany to sue the American Secretary of Defense, in wartime, for purported war crimes. That's what we've come to. Don't think this is al Qaeda's law firm in America? Here (quoted by Senator Lindsey Graham in the Senate debate over how to deal with detainees), is Ratner talking (to Mother Jones, of course) about what he's trying to accomplish for the al Qaeda captives in Gitmo:

The litigation is brutal [for the United States]. We have over one hundred lawyers now from big and small firms working to represent these detainees. Every time an attorney goes down there, it makes it that much harder [for the U.S. military] to do what they’re doing. You can’t run an interrogation … with attorneys. What are they going to do now that we’re getting court orders to get more lawyers down there?

This is the enemy. I don't give a s*** that they say they are defending the U.S. Constitution. Their purpose in life is to undermine the Constitution and American national security ... on behalf of the barbarous murderers of thousands of innocent Americans.

In TIME's "EXCLUSIVE," the impression was that Germany was setting out to try Rumsfeld for war crimes.

In fact, Ratner is just another anti-American American.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is just another anti-American American-based group.

And TIME is serving as a willing accomplice in promoting their anti-American message.

McCarthy writes, "A law license is not a treason license."

Excellent point!

War Criminal Rumsfeld

In addition to the American Democrats, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir has another ally in defeating the U.S. -- Germany.

From TIME:

Just days after his resignation, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called "20th hijacker" and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a "special interrogation plan," personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski — who the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her accusations in the case — has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says, in part: "It was clear the knowledge and responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ."

A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment since the case has not yet been filed.

Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing are General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.

Why isn't Germany's top prosecutor going after the "war crimes" committed by terrorists and their sympathizers?

U.S. soldiers have been mutilated by Iraqi fighters.

For example, I don't recall Germany naming the torturers and murderers of Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, of Madras, Oregon in a lawsuit.

From the Associated Press, June 20, 2006:

U.S. forces on Tuesday recovered the bodies of two American soldiers reported captured by insurgents last week. An Iraqi defense ministry official said the men were tortured and "killed in a barbaric way." Al-Qaida in Iraq claimed responsibility for killing the soldiers, and said the successor to terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had "slaughtered" them.

The claim was made in a Web statement that could not be authenticated. The language in the statement suggested the men were beheaded.

Why was the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of five insurgent groups led by al-Qaida in Iraq, given a free pass by Germany for these brutal deaths of Americans?

"We give the good news ... to the Islamic nation that we have carried God's verdict by slaughtering the two captured crusaders," said the claim, which appeared on an Islamic militant Web site where insurgent groups regularly post statements and videos.

"With God Almighty's blessing, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer carried out the verdict of the Islamic court" calling for the soldiers' slaying, the statement said.

The statement said the soldiers were "slaughtered," suggesting that al-Muhajer beheaded them. The Arabic word used in the statement, "nahr," is used for the slaughtering of sheep by cutting the throat and has been used in past statements to refer to beheadings.

The bodies of Menchaca and Tucker were so disfigured that DNA tests were necessary to confirm their identities.

Talk about selective outrage!

It's absolutely disgusting.

"You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

--President George W. Bush, November 6, 2001

Germany is against us. Period.
_______________________________

Update:

This particular lawsuit does not involve Germany, at least not yet.

Mark Levin has explained how misleading the headlines are. A Marxist group, the Center for Constitutional Rights has filed papers against Rummy, hoping that the German government will get on board.

(By the way, although Germany isn't behind this investigation and potential suit, I still think Germany is against us.)

Will Kagen Take Him Out?

"I'm... I'm not afraid. I'll put my foot down and stand up if I'm on a plane with a terrorist – I'll take him out right there."

--Steve Kagen

And how will Kagen deal with his son's illicit drug use?

APPLETON (AP) -- One day after his father won a fiercely contested congressional seat, Tommy Kagen, the son of Steve Kagen, was cited for possession of drug paraphernalia, authorities said Thursday.

Tommy Kagen, 21, received a $168 ticket after a security screener at the Outagamie County Regional Airport found a marijuana pipe in his bags, said Sheriff's Capt. Mike Jobe.

Steve Kagen was not with his son at the time, according to authorities who said the incident occurred Wednesday around 5 p.m.

This has to put a damper on the Kagen victory celebration. A drug-related charge in the family can do that.

...In a statement, the elder Kagen said he was "very disappointed" with his son's actions.

"It shows a lack of respect for the law and our family," he said.

That's a very good response to his son's law-breaking.

But he also criticized the media's coverage, telling WLUK-TV in Green Bay the incident didn't deserve such scrutiny.

"When there's 650,000 dead in Iraq, and a news editor thinks this belongs on television, that's a sad commentary" on the media, he said.

Kagen should have stopped while he was ahead. He was doing so well, then he blew it.

His subsequent statements attempt to deflect attention from his son's misdeeds.

He tries shift the focus and dodge responsibility.

Of course the incident deserves scrutiny. Kagen's son is 21-years-old. He's not a child who needs to be protected from the spotlight. He's the adult son of a soon to be U.S. Representative.

The Bush daughters weren't granted media immunity for their underage drinking.

Kagen has to understand that this is part of being a public figure. He and his family are under the microscope now.

I think "terrorist slayer" Kagen is being awfully wimpy.

Expressing disappointment in his son was appropriate. Iraq is not relevant to this matter.

download 2006

Press Release

Blogger download set for Saturday
One Wisconsin Now and Boots and Sabers present

download 2006

Progressive and Conservative bloggers from across Wisconsin will join together this Saturday, November 11 in Waukesha to discuss the fall elections at download 2006, sponsored by One Wisconsin Now (OWN) and Boots and Sabers.

The event is free and open to the public. Eight bloggers will meet in two separate panels to discuss the results, the media coverage, the ads and the issues in the 2006 elections. An agenda is included below.

What: OWN and Boots and Sabers present download 2006

Where: Waukesha County Technical College,
Richard T. Anderson Educational Conference Center,
800 Main Street in Pewaukee

When: Conference opens at 11 am; panels begin at 12:15 pm.

Who: Bloggers from across the state; the public is encouraged to attend.

"We are excited to provide an opportunity for this dialogue," said John Kraus, Executive Director of One Wisconsin Now. "This will be an interesting forum to hear from both progressive and conservative bloggers, as they come together and share their thoughts on the 2006 elections."

Also, in honor of Veteran's Day, OWN and Boots and Sabers are encouraging attendees to bring domestic calling cards of greater than 100 minutes that will be sent to recovering and wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington D.C.

Saturday, November 11, 2006
download 2006
agenda

11:00 am -12:00 pm: Meet Up (Food and beverages will be provided)

12:00 pm-12:15 pm: Welcome and introductions

12:15 pm -12:45 pm: Panel 1- Election Results & Media Coverage

• Gretchen Schuldt, Milwaukee Rising

• Cory Liebmann, One Blog

• James Wigderson, Wigderson Library and Pub

• Jenna Pryor, Right off the Shore

12:45 pm - 1:00 Q & A

Break 15 minutes

1:15 pm - 1:45 pm: Panel 2 - Issues and Ads

• Owen Robinson, Boots and Sabers

• Jay Bullock, Folkbum's Rambles and Rants

• Seth Zlotocha, In Effect

• Kevin Binversie, Lakeshore Laments

1:45 pm - 2:00 pm: Q & A

Conclusion

In honor of Veteran's Day we will be collecting domestic calling cards that will be sent to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington D.C. for wounded soldiers to call home. 100-500 minute cards are welcome.

For more information, click here.

Mr. Big in Iraq: Abu Hamza al-Muhajir

Abu Hamza al-Muhajir: "Barbra, let's do lunch." "Nancy, who's your surgeon?"


You say Abu Hamza al-Muhajir and I say Abu Ayyub al-Masri,
You say potato and I say potahto,
Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, potato, potahto,
Let's call the whole thing off.

Whatever you call him, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq is reaching out to his like-minded anti-Bush allies.

Today's message from al-Muhajir isn't funny at all. It's nothing to joke about.

However, I do think that al-Muhajir's sense of kinship with the Democrats is rather amusing.

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Al-Qaida in Iraq claimed in a new audio tape Friday to be winning the war faster than expected in Iraq and said it had mobilized 12,000 fighters who had "vowed to die for God's sake."

...On the audio tape made available on militant Web sites, the al-Qaida in Iraq leader also welcomed the Republican electoral defeat that led to the departure of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He added that the group's fighters would not rest until they had blown up the White House.

"The al-Qaida army has 12,000 fighters in Iraq, and they have vowed to die for God's sake," a man who identified himself as Abu Hamza al- Muhajir said.

Al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, also urged the U.S. to stay in Iraq so his group would have more opportunities to kill American troops. "We haven't had enough of your blood yet," he told the U.S.

"We will not rest from our Jihad until we are under the olive trees of Rumieh and we have blown up the filthiest house _ which is called the White House," al-Muhajir said. It was not clear what Rumieh was referring to.

Well, well, well.

Al-Muhajir is celebrating the Republicans' defeat along with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Chuckie Schumer and George McGovern and 99.9% of Hollywood and other Left extremists.

..."The American people have put their feet on the right path by ... realizing their president's betrayal in supporting Israel," the terror leader said. "So they voted for something reasonable in the last elections."

Describing President Bush as "the most stupid president" in U.S. history, al-Masri reached out to the Muslim world and said his group was winning the war in Iraq faster than expected due to U.S. policies.

Did the AP get it wrong?

Are these quotes being mistakenly attributed to al-Muhajir/al-Masri?

It sounds like Cindy Sheehan said this stuff.

"The American people have put their feet on the right path" was uttered by Pelosi on Election night, wasn't it?

The Dems ran an anti-Bush campaign.

"Bush lied, people died. Blah, blah, blah."

Now what, Dems?

There are a lot of people counting on you to follow through on your promises to bug out of Iraq -- FAST.

Al-Muhajir is waiting for you to push retreat and defeat.

Not too soon though.

Al Qaeda wants to kill more Americans first, that from the lips of Dem ally al-Muhajir.

I want to know if the Dems will oblige.

The Dems offer two options:

1. Defeat now.
2. Defeat later.

Talking Him Off the Ledge

"I don't want to, Daddy. I don't like it."

Writing in The Washington Post, Peter Baker and Thomas E. Ricks take on the role of amateur psychologists.

They've decided that Donald Rumsfeld's resignation and his replacement Robert M. Gates indicate that President Bush is running to Daddy for help.

This sort analysis has been a favorite pastime of the Left since W. first went out on the presidential campaign trail.

Nine months after invading Iraq, President Bush told an interviewer he did not turn to his father for strength. "There is a higher father that I appeal to," he said. Nearly three years later, Bush may be appealing to his earthly father as well. Or at least his people.

With the war in Iraq going badly and Congress captured by the opposition, a commander in chief who has labored to demonstrate independence from his presidential father is now seeking help from some key veterans of George H.W. Bush's team to salvage the remainder of his own administration.

The suggestion is that W. tried to be president without help from Daddy, but he failed.

So, Daddy is stepping in to bail him out.

How lame!

Why is so much made of the father/son thing?

Lefties just can't let that go.

...A day after suffering a "thumping" in midterm elections, the president ousted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, a longtime rival of his father's, and replaced him with Robert M. Gates, his father's CIA director. And the president has invested great hope in James A. Baker III, his father's friend and secretary of state, to come up with a plan to correct the course in Iraq in a blue-ribbon commission report due as soon as next month.

"It certainly looks as if there is the handprint of Bush 41," said retired Army Col. F.W. "Bill" Smullen, a close aide to former secretary of state Colin L. Powell, using the nickname for the former president.

The Post always manages to come up with a comment from someone close to Colin Powell.

Have you noticed that?

...The relationship between the 41st and 43rd presidents has been a source of running commentary and speculation for six years. The son has often seemed to go out of his way to identify himself with Ronald Reagan rather than his father, and his personnel and policy choices often seemed at odds with the philosophy of the earlier Bush administration.

The speculation about the psychodynamics of Bush 41 and Bush 43's relationship is so amusing.

Why is it amusing?

BECAUSE IT'S GOOFY SPECULATION.

If the father was the patriarch of the realist school of foreign policy that aims to manage a combustible international order, the son brought to power neoconservatives who want to remake the world and spread democracy. The president has given speech after speech assailing past administrations for accepting tyranny in the Middle East in the belief that stability equaled security, a thesis that he says exploded tragically on Sept. 11, 2001.

The elder Bush was reported to have been skeptical of the way the younger Bush launched the war in Iraq in 2003 -- reports that were fueled in part by public comments before the invasion by Baker and Brent Scowcroft, the former president's national security adviser and close friend. Scowcroft later broke entirely with the current administration and was eased off the president's foreign intelligence advisory board.

Both Bushes get angry, however, at public suggestions of a rift, and some close to them say the Washington chattering class assumes far more than it knows. In this view, comments such as the "higher father" remark, made to journalist Bob Woodward, have been over-interpreted and exaggerated. Many people who serve in the current administration also served in the father's, including Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, belying the notion of competing camps.

Even if the theory about Bush family tension is overwrought, though, the existence of some type of rival factions has been a constant subtext of the current administration. The turn to representatives of the old Republican establishment such as Baker and Gates, whether it has anything to do with paternal relations or not, has sent a signal that Washington perceives as a bid to bring more pragmatism to policymaking.

Ooooooh. "Subtext."

How Ophrah-esque!

...[Tom Donnelly, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies] said, the question remains what the president is really thinking. "Bush's mind works differently from the normal political mind. He seems to be motivated by faith and ideals and willing to take risks politically. Maybe these Baker guys can talk him off the ledge, but nobody's done it yet."

In effect, The Post is saying that W. has been a bad boy and made a big mess in Iraq.

It's so out of control that Daddy has to step in, coming to the rescue.

The Post isn't satisfied that the Republicans took a "thumpin'" on Tuesday. Now, it has to criticize President Bush as running to Daddy when the going gets tough.

Even though W. has enlisted the help of some of Bush 41's buddies, he hasn't been talked off the ledge yet, as Tom Donnelly puts it.

Apparently, the frat boy Bush 43 hasn't been convinced to grow up by Daddy Bush 41. "That boy ain't right."

While it's fair to point out the connections that Robert Gates has with Bush 41, I think it's positively goofy to frame the war in Iraq as a father/son struggle.

Senator-Elect Blue Jim Webb

Renaissance man Jim Webb
(AFP/Getty Images/Alex Wong)

The U.S. Senate has gone Blue.

It's not official yet, but the Associated Press declared Jim Webb to be the winner of the Virginia race On Wednesday night, giving the Democrats the majority.

According to the AP, Webb defeated George Allen by a mere 7,236 votes.

RICHMOND, Nov. 8 -- Virginia's Democratic Senate candidate, James Webb, claimed the title of senator-elect Wednesday and began organizing his congressional staff, while Republican incumbent George Allen declined to concede but was described as "realistic" about the outcome if he seeks a recount challenging Webb's thin lead.

With control of the U.S. Senate hanging in the balance, Allen dispatched teams of lawyers and operatives across Virginia in search of the votes he would need to win. Early in the day, Allen did not appear ready to relinquish his claim to an office he once saw as a springboard to the White House.

"Let the process play itself out in a dignified manner," said Ed Gillespie, a former national Republican Party chairman, speaking for the Allen campaign in front of the Virginia party headquarters. "The votes need to be accurately counted. Only at the end of that process is a winner declared."

But Webb continued to lead by approximately 7,300 votes with virtually all of Virginia's 2.3 million ballots counted Wednesday evening, and Republicans said there appeared to be little hope that glitches or math errors might uncover new GOP votes. Gillespie said Allen was "realistic," and an e-mail sent late Wednesday said the senator would make a statement "at the conclusion" of the statewide canvass of votes. The e-mail said "more details will follow from the campaign" early Thursday.

Can you imagine if Allen held a 7,200 vote lead?

Dem leaders would insist that the results were tainted.

They would claim that voting machines either malfunctioned or were rigged.

Jesse Jackson would parachute in and charge voter suppression.

There would be reports of dogs being used to intimidate voters -- all the usual Dem accusations.

But the GOP doesn't operate that way. In general, Republicans show more respect for the electoral process than that. They respect the will of the people.

So, Webb has declared himself to be victorious. Although Allen hasn't conceded, he isn't vowing to fight Webb or whip his supporters into a frenzy ala Al Gore in 2000.

If Webb was trailing by 7,200 votes, I doubt that he would have the class being exhibited by Allen.

That's not a stretch.

Webb is not exactly a classy guy.

Here is a glimpse into the mind of Senator-elect Webb:

(Warning -- Not for the faint of heart)

– Lost Soldiers: “A shirtless man walked toward them along a mud pathway. His muscles were young and hard, but his face was devastated with wrinkles. His eyes were so red that they appeared to be burned by fire. A naked boy ran happily toward him from a little plot of dirt. The man grabbed his young son in his arms, turned him upside down, and put the boy’s penis in his mouth.”

Bantam Books, NY, 1st Edition, 2001, (hard cover), page 333.
Quote is from para. 10,.Chap. 34.

– Something to Die For: "Fogarty . . . watch[ed] a naked young stripper do the splits over a banana. She stood back up, her face smiling proudly and her round breasts glistening from a spotlight in the dim bar, and left the banana on the bar, cut in four equal sections by the muscles of her vagina."

William Morrow and Company, Inc., NY 1991, 1st Ed. (hardcover), p. 36.
Avon Books, New York, 1992 (Mass-Market paperback edition), p. 35
Quote is from para. 29, Chap. 2 “The South China Sea,”, Section 2

– A Country Such as This: "[He] could see Jawbone and Ashley Asthmatic [two guards at a Vietnamese prison camp] napping together in the grass. They faced inward, their arms entwined. It looked like they were masturbating each other. It didn't surprise him. … It was common to see men holding hands, embracing, playing with each other. Some of them [the guards] had wanted him. He could tell in those evanescent moments between his bao cao bow, the obligatory deference when a guard entered his cell, and the first word or blow that followed it… Quick, grinding voices, turgid with repressed passion. An exploratory reaching of the hand near his groin…”

Doubleday & Co., Garden City, NY, 1983 (hardcover); page 396.
Bluejacket Books, 2001 (Trade paperback edition), page 396
Page numbers are the same in the Naval Institute Press (paperback) edition, 1983.
Quote is from fifth para, Part 5 “A Country Such As This,” Chap. 24, Section 1

– A Sense of Honor: “Nurse Goodbody, dark and voluptuous (Lenahan had forgotten her actual name, it was something long and Italian), was a bedtime friend to many of the doctors in Bethesda. She had hinted to Lenahan that she simply could not contain herself. Doctors tending to patients, she explained, aroused her. Morphine Mary (again Lenahan could not remember her exact name) was a thin, nervous drill sergeant type, a disciplinarian who did not allow her patients even to complain. Lenahan was convinced that Morphine Mary did not even sleep with her husband. She wasn’t bad looking, he mused again, staring at her thin frame. If she’d just get laid every now and then she’d mellow out and stop being such a damn witch.” (p. 164) (Lenahan brings Goodbody home with him and has sex, pp. 188-190)

Prentice-Hall, New York, 1981 (hardcover)
Bantam, New York, 1982 (Mass-Market paperback edition), p. 164
Trade paperback edition, Bluejacket Books, 1995, p. 164
Quote is from fourth para in Part 3, “Chapter 4:1600”

– Something to Die For: "[Fogarty] has been thinking of the firm, springy skin and the sweet smells of a young Filipina woman named Maria in whose bed he had spent three nights almost twenty years ago. . . . She was a deliciously bad young woman. . . . On the second night, he had brought her a box of Godiva chocolates . . . . he had awakened to find her in the bathroom, sitting on the toilet with her knees underneath her chin, eating chocolates and counting her rosary beads as she prayed."

William Morrow and Company, Inc., NY 1991, 1st Ed. (hardcover), p. 32.
Avon Books New York, 1992 (Mass-Market paperback edition), p. 30
Quote is from third para in Chapter 2 “South China Sea,”, Part 2

– Something to Die For: "We're on our way to becoming the world's recreational center, a nation [USA] not to be taken seriously. Where are we still the undisputed leader? Music. Movies. Fast food. Drugs. . . . the billboards fifty years from now as you come over the bridge and stop at the tollbooths outside Manhattan: A smiling beautiful naked woman, and the sign saying AMERICAN ASS IS OUR MOST IMPORTANT PRODUCT."

William Morrow and Company, Inc., NY 1991, 1st Ed. (hardcover), p. 199.
Avon Books New York, 1992 (Mass-Market paperback edition), p. 237
Quote is from para. 38, Chap. 13, Part 1, (five paras before Part 2).

– Fields of Fire: Snake (the protagonist) sees his mother on the bed: "She looked as if she were carefully attempting to re-create a picture from some long-forgotten men's magazine . . . . She was naked underneath the robe . . . . and the robe fell loosely away, revealing her. Snake shrugged resignedly."

Prentice-Hall, New York, 1978 (Hardcover, 1st edition), p. 8
Bantam Books "mass market [paperback] edition" published in Sept. 2001. p. 9.
Quote is from paragraphs 18-23, Part 1 “The Best We Have”, Section 1
(NOTE: Part 1 is after the Prologue)

– Fields of Fire: "He saw the invitation with every bouncing breast and curved hip. . . . He was thirteen. . . . She was fifteen . . . . In a few moments she drew him to her and he murmured in his quiet voice, 'I am still small.' 'You are large enough,' she answered. And he found he was."

Prentice-Hall, New York, 1978 (Hardcover, 1st edition), pp. 211-212
Bantam Books "mass market [paperback] ed." published in Sept. 2001, pp. 280-81.
Quote is from paragraphs 8-20, Part 2 “The End of the Pipeline,” Chapter 24

– A Sense of Honor: “… that is, if you knew who your sister was, Brustein, and if she’d been born with anything between her legs except an asshole, I’d be happy to bring some class to your low-rent name by knocking the bitch up.” (p. 223)

Prentice-Hall, New York, 1981 (hardcover)
Bantam, New York, 1982 (Mass-Market paperback edition), p. 223
Trade paperback edition, Bluejacket Books, 1995, p. 223
Quote is from 17th para in Part 4, “Chapter 7:1930”

– A Sense of Honor: “You wouldn’t have believed it, Swede. She just dropped her britches and lifted up her skirt and pissed like a man. Didn’t lose a drop, either. Not a drop.” (p. 183)

Prentice-Hall, New York, 1981 (hardcover)
Bantam, New York, 1982 (Mass-Market paperback edition), p. 183
Trade paperback edition, Bluejacket Books, 1995, p. 183
Quote is from 23rd para in Part 3, “Chapter 8: 2300”

I know these are passages of Webb's novels, works of fiction, but I do think they are revealing.

I think they're worth reading. After all, Webb is soon to be a U.S. Senator.

Can you imagine the field day that the lib media would have had if a Republican had written this stuff?

If Virginians were looking for a senator who would stand up for family values and treat women with respect, they made a mistake by electing Jim Webb.

Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Read Nancy Pelosi's "One Hundred Hours."

Read the accompanying comments left on The Huffington Post blog, where Pelosi wrote her remarks.

You get the government you deserve, I guess.

Nancy's plan:

Higher taxes.

A broken Social Security system.

Defeat in the War on Terror.

Rumsfeld Goes

Tim Russert is ecstatic. He's as happy as if the Bills won the Super Bowl.

He's been campaigning for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld for years. Russert got his wish.

WASHINGTON -- President Bush said Wednesday Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is stepping down and former CIA Director Robert Gates will take over at the Pentagon and in prosecuting the war in Iraq.

Rumsfeld, architect of an unpopular war in Iraq, intends to resign after six stormy years at the Pentagon, Republican officials said.

"Allahu akbar!"

Bush described Rumsfeld as a "superb leader" in a time of change, but said his defense chief recognizes the value of "fresh perspective." He said Rumsfeld is a "trusted adviser and friend," and that he's "deeply grateful" for his service to the country. Bush said he and Rumsfeld agreed that "the timing is right for new leadership" at the Pentagon.

...Whatever confidence Bush retained in Rumsfeld, the Cabinet officer's support in Congress had eroded significantly. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the House speaker-in-waiting, said at her first post-election news conference that Bush should replace the top civilian leadership at the Pentagon.

And Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who had intervened in the past to shore up Rumsfeld, issued a statement saying, "Washington must now work together in a bipartisan way _ Republicans and Democrats _ to outline the path to success in Iraq."

I don't object to Rumsfeld stepping aside.

I do wonder about the timing though.

What message is that sending to our enemies?

I think they will view it as the appeasement Dems asserting their influence on the President.

Our enemies abroad will no doubt frame the replacement of Rumsfeld as a victory, sort of like Tim Russert.

A Loud Message

In The New York Times, Robin Toner
analyzes what the Democrat gains mean.

She believes that it sends "A Loud Message for Bush."

Everything is different now for President Bush. The era of one-party Republican rule in Washington ended with a crash in yesterday’s midterm elections, putting a proudly unyielding president on notice that the voters want change, especially on the war in Iraq.

Everything is different now.

The crucial difference is not how the election outcome has affected Bush. What matters is the difference that it makes for our enemies, especially those in Iraq, the place that Dems have declared a terrorist breeding ground.

Our enemies are thrilled to have the Dems in power.

For example:

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.

...Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the policy of withdrawal "proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation."

"We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq," said Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department. "They did not succeed in stealing Iraq's oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw."

...Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."

Terrorists wanted the Dems to be elected. They wanted Americans to back the retreat and defeat Dems.

They got what they wanted.

Mr. Bush now confronts the first Democratic majority in the House in 12 years and a significantly bigger Democratic caucus in the Senate that were largely elected on the promise to act as a strong check on his administration. Almost any major initiative in his final two years in office will now, like it or not, have to be bipartisan to some degree.

Good news for our enemies.

For six years, Mr. Bush has often governed, and almost always campaigned, with his attention focused on his conservative base. But yesterday’s voting showed the limits of those politics, as practiced — and many thought perfected — by Mr. Bush and his chief political adviser, Karl Rove.

In the bellwether states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, two Republican senators, both members of the legendary freshman class of 1994, were defeated by large margins. Across the Northeast, Republican moderates were barely surviving or, like Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, falling to Democrats who had argued that they were simply too close to a conservative president.

Bush hasn't governed with his "conservative base" in mind.

He's governed with the safety of the American people in mind.

New York Times libs don't get that, because they've politicized the War on Terror and looked at it as a political game.

Most critically, perhaps, Republicans lost the political center on the Iraq war, according to national exit polls. Voters who identified themselves as independents broke strongly for the Democrats, the exit polls showed, as did those who described themselves as moderates.

Unfortunately, conservative voters didn't turn out in the numbers needed.

Some sought to punish the Republicans.

Those voters have shot themselves in the foot.

Allowing radical Leftist Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker of the House and possibly handing over control to the Dems in the Senate isn't punishing Republicans as much as it punishes freedom-loving people all over the world.

Senator Olympia J. Snowe, a Maine Republican who was re-elected yesterday, said that with the election’s results, the administration’s Iraq policy “has to change.”

“It absolutely has to change,” Ms. Snowe said. “And that message should have been conveyed by the administration much sooner.”

RINO Snowe is an ally of the terrorists. Not that she wants to be, but that's the consequences of her position.

Mr. Bush’s allies could argue that history was working against Republicans, that in a president’s sixth year in office, his party was ripe for big losses. They could also argue that Congressional Republicans brought their own vulnerabilities and scandals to the table. But this was a nationalized election, and Mr. Bush and Iraq were at the center of it.

There's truth here.

Toner admits that Dems weren't elected on what they stand for. They landed in office because Americans cast anti-Bush votes.

Where does that leave us?

What's the Dem plan? What's their direction for the country, other than leaving Iraq in shame and raising taxes?

...After a campaign that only escalated the tension between Mr. Bush and Congressional Democrats, the president will now face overwhelming pressure to take a more conciliatory approach. For example, he will be under increasing pressure to re-evaluate his support for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, which he so publicly restated in the closing days of the campaign.

Rumsfeld is out.

...But much of Mr. Bush’s domestic agenda, which was not exactly gliding through the current Congress, will face even tougher prospects now. That includes any effort to overhaul entitlement programs like Social Security, already heavily shadowed by his failed effort to push through private investment accounts for Social Security in 2005, as well as any effort to extend all of his tax cuts, which Democrats say were heavily skewed to the most affluent.

Moreover, with a greater Democratic presence in the Senate, Mr. Bush will have far less latitude in his judicial nominees.

Even if Mr. Bush makes the grand gestures, Democrats heading into the 2008 presidential campaign may not be in the mood to reciprocate. Still, on Iraq, some change is almost inevitable, analysts say.

In other words, the country will be paralyzed by bitter partisan battles, and we will lose the war in Iraq.

...House Democratic leaders have already indicated that they will not cut off financing for the war; in many ways, their greatest power will be their ability to investigate, hold hearings and provide the oversight that they asserted was so lacking in recent years.

Can you say, "Impeachment"?

In short, Americans did send a loud message. It may have been meant for Bush and the Republicans, but it was received by our enemies.

Defeating the "tyrant empire" America is cause for celebration.

AG: Down to the Wire

I've been watching the numbers come in for Wisconsin's Attorney General.

J.B. Van Hollen is still hanging on to his lead over Kathleen Falk.

It's nearly a dead heat.

With 96% of the precincts reporting, there's just 7,500 votes separating the two.

I am hoping that Van Hollen holds on.

If Falk prevails, the corrupt Jim Doyle will be given free rein to abuse the power that the people of Wisconsin chose to entrust to him.

The race is so close that I suspect there will be a recount.

Ever since the 2000 Florida recount hell, I cringe at the thought of it.

If that's what it takes, then that's what it takes.

We need an AG that will take on Doyle. We don't need the rubberstamp Falk.
_______________________________

UPDATE: Woo hoo! We have a winner -- Van Hollen!

Jim Doyle must be saying, "Boo hoo!"

He counted on Falk being part of the Axis of Casinos. He was counting on her turning a blind eye to his corruption and protecting him.
_________________________________

UPDATE UPDATE:

Kathleen Falk will not concede the election.

Falk for Attorney General Campaign Manager Tim Del Monico issued the following statement on the Attorney General’s race election returns.

“Kathleen Falk has called JB Van Hollen to wish him the best. Given the narrowness of the election results, we will review the official canvas when it is completed by the Elections Board and evaluate the options at that time.”

YES to Traditional Marriage

By a large margin, and in spite of the lies of Fair Wisconsin, the state constitution will be amended to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

It looks like the campaign of the advocates of gay marriage underestimated the intelligence of Wisconsin voters. All the confusing ads and all the deceptive phone calls were ineffective.

The majority of Wisconsin voters disagree with Jim Doyle on the issue.

Jim Doyle?

Wisconsin voters reelected Governor Jim Doyle.

What does that mean?

The majority of Wisconsinites participating in Tuesday's election apparently want higher taxes.

They want to kill unborn children, even in the third trimester.

They believe that human life is raw material for medical experimentation that demands the destruction of that life.

They want to prevent parents from choosing the schools that their children attend.

They want Wisconsin government to be a "pay to play" paradise.

They want special interests and casino money to determine Wisconsin's future.

They want illegal immigrants to get in-state tuition for the UW system.

They think taxpayers should subsidize home loans for illegal immigrants.

They want businesses to be discouraged from locating or expanding in Wisconsin.

They don't mind election fraud.

The majority of Wisconsin voters participating in the election are willing to overlook Doyle's litany of ethical lapses.

We could have done so much better with Mark Green.

It was a lost opportunity.

Steve Kagen?

What were the people in Wisconsin's 8th Congressional District thinking?

The race between Steve Kagen and John Gard should have been a no-brainer for voters.

Did new voting machines malfunction? There must be some explanation.

A majority of the voters could not have knowingly picked Kagen over Gard.

MILWAUKEE (AP) -- Steve Kagen, a millionaire doctor new to politics, won Wisconsin's only open U.S. House seat Tuesday after a campaign promising to bring change to Washington and to the policy in Iraq.

"We already have too many professional politicians in Washington. Thank you so much for giving someone new a try," he told cheering supporters in Appleton after defeating veteran Republican state legislator John Gard. "We needed a positive change and a new direction. I think we found it this evening."

Then he added, "There's a doctor in the House."

Before Tuesday, according to the Congressional Quarterly, only 12 licensed physicians were serving in Congress -- 10 in the House and two in the Senate.

Kagen's win gave Democrats another seat in their effort to gain a House majority. With the high stakes, the race became the most expensive campaign in state history for a two-year job in Congress.

Kagen's margin of victory was slim.

Who cares? A win is a win and a loss is a loss.

It's amazing to me that given the choice between someone nutty like Kagen and a highly qualified, experienced, committed individual like Gard, Kagen would come out on top.

It took a while for Kagen to come out and address his supporters to deliver his rambling victory speech.

No doubt, he waited for Gard to call and concede.

Because the race was so close, it took a long time before Kagen was willing to claim victory.

Then again, Kagen could have been slow to do his victory dance because he operates on "Injun time."

Good grief.

What is this guy doing in the House of Representatives?

EXCLUSIVE: Wisconsin Exit Poll Results

Although polls don't close in Wisconsin until 8:00 pm, I have what I consider to be credible exit poll information.

A high-ranking official, speaking on condition of anonymity, has said that Herb Kohl will be elected to his fourth term to the U.S. Senate.

You heard it here first.

FAIR WISCONSIN UNFAIR

men·dac·i·ty (mĕn-dăs'ĭ-tē) n., pl. -ties.

1. The condition of being mendacious; untruthfulness.

2. A lie; a falsehood.

Fair Wisconsin, thy name is mendacity.

Fair Wisconsin, the group against Wisconsin's Marriage Amendment, is employing some of the most unfair tactics imaginable.

The group is bent on confusing as many people as possible.

Did you think Florida's 2000 butterfly ballot was meant to trick voters?

Well, that was nothing compared to what Fair Wisconsin is doing.

Press Release

“FAIR” WISCONSIN DECEPTION REACHES ALL TIME HIGH
Automated phone calls on election eve intentionally mislead voters

Madison—Recent reports from citizens around the state reveal the latest dishonest tactic from opponents of Wisconsin’s Marriage Protection Amendment. Fair Wisconsin’s most recent deception is pre-recorded calls going to conservative areas all across the state. The caller says, “Vote NO to send the message that we care about our family values and our children. We don't want activist judges getting involved to determine what marriage means. We know in WI that marriage means a man and a woman. Vote NO to stop activist judges. Vote NO to protect our values. Vote NO on the Gay Marriage Amendment.”

“These calls prove once again that ‘Fair’ Wisconsin is anything but fair. They know that an overwhelming number of Wisconsin voters support the amendment, and that the only way gay marriage activists can defeat the amendment is to trick voters into casting the wrong vote,” said Julaine Appling, President of Vote Yes for Marriage. “Polling of likely voters has repeatedly demonstrated Wisconsinites deeply held belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Fair Wisconsin wants the amendment to fail so that marriage is left unprotected, thereby leaving it subject to redefinition by the whimsical ruling of an activist judge. It is disturbing to me that such deceit is not only encouraged but forthright in all of Fair Wisconsin’s ads and now their calls. There’s apparently no end to what they’ll do to get their way.

“Today people all across Wisconsin will come out and VOTE YES to preserve traditional one-man/one- woman marriage. A YES vote is the only way to prevent activist judges from redefining marriage in Wisconsin,” said Appling.

...Remember that only a YES vote preserves traditional one-man/one-woman marriage.

Fair Wisconsin knows that it must lie to voters to have any hope of getting Wisconsinites to accept its gay marriage agenda.

I think the amendment issue should be debated, but it should be debated FAIRLY and TRUTHFULLY.

I believe that Fair Wisconsin's deceitful ads and phone calls will backfire.

By lying, Fair Wisconsin is only firing up voters to go to the polls to uphold traditional marriage.

Freedom to Choose Sex

Yes, I know that THE BIG STORY of the day is the elections.

Will the Dems' performance at the polls live up to the high expectations set by the lib media, pundits, and the candidates themselves?

That discussion will have to wait for a while, at least until the first bogus exit polls are leaked later today.

In the meantime, let's look at this truly bizarre story.

From The New York Times:

Separating anatomy from what it means to be a man or a woman, New York City is moving forward with a plan to let people alter the sex on their birth certificate even if they have not had sex-change surgery.

Under the rule being considered by the city’s Board of Health, which is likely to be adopted soon, people born in the city would be able to change the documented sex on their birth certificates by providing affidavits from a doctor and a mental health professional laying out why their patients should be considered members of the opposite sex, and asserting that their proposed change would be permanent.

Applicants would have to have changed their name and shown that they had lived in their adopted gender for at least two years, but there would be no explicit medical requirements.

How would applicants prove that they've lived as their "adopted gender" for two years?

What proof would they have? Two years' worth of receipts from Victoria's Secret?

“Surgery versus nonsurgery can be arbitrary,” said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner. “Somebody with a beard may have had breast-implant surgery. It’s the permanence of the transition that matters most.”

If approved, the new rule would put New York at the forefront of efforts to redefine gender. A handful of states do not require surgery for such birth certificate changes, but in some of those cases patients are still not allowed to make the change without showing a physiological shift to the opposite gender.

In other words, if one identifies oneself as a member of a gender, that's enough to be documented as male or female, even if that person hasn't had a sex change operation.

There aren't physical requirements to be deemed a male or female.

That's nuts (or no nuts, as the case may be)!

A birth certificate could be altered simply to reflect the individual's personal gender definition.

MAN! I FEEL LIKE A WOMAN!

This opens the door for a myriad of potential abuses and identity fraud.

I don't think it's a good precedent to allow alterations in such documents as birth certificates, based on how a people feel about their sexual identity.

There are other possibilities. If sex designation can be changed on a legal document, why not other information?

What if a woman decides that the year of birth stated on her birth certificate doesn't reflect how she feels in terms of her age?

Should she be allowed to change the year of her birth?

...Transgender advocates consider the New York proposal an overdue bulwark against discrimination that recognizes an emerging shift away from viewing gender as simply the sum of one’s physical parts. But some psychiatrists and doctors are skeptical of the move, saying sexual self-definition should stop at rewriting medical history.

“They should not change the sex at birth, which is a factual record,” said Dr. Arthur Zitrin, a Midtown psychiatrist who was on the panel of transgender experts convened by the city. “If they wanted to change the gender for all the compelling reasons that they’ve given, it should be done perhaps with an asterisk.”

I agree.

Sexual self-definition should not involve rewriting medical history.

I'm sure that the transgender community would never stand for an asterisk. That would be considered discriminatory.

...The Board of Health, which weighs recommendations drafted by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, is scheduled to vote on the proposal in December, and officials say they expect it to be adopted.

At the final public hearing for the birth certificate proposal last week, a string of advocates and transsexuals suggested that common definitions of gender, especially its reliance on medical assessments, should be abandoned. They generally praised the city for revisiting its 25-year-old policy that lets people remove the sex designation from their birth certificate if they have had sexual reassignment surgery. Then they demanded more freedom to choose.

Whether one is born a male or a female is not a matter of choice or how one feels.

It's a reality that isn't open for debate.

...Joann Prinzivalli, 52, a lawyer for the New York Transgender Rights Organization, a man who has lived as a woman since 2000, without surgery, said the changes amount to progress, a move away from American culture’s misguided fixation on genitals as the basis for one’s gender identity.

“It’s based on an arbitrary distinction that says there are two and only two sexes,” she said. “In reality the diversity of nature is such that there are more than just two, and people who seem to belong to one of the designated sexes may really belong to the other.”

How weird is that?

Recording a newborn's sex on a birth certificate is about documenting the facts.

It has nothing to do with the supposed "American culture’s misguided fixation on genitals as the basis for one’s gender identity."

The gender listed on a birth certificate is a matter of simple biology. It's not about a social crusade to completely blur the lines between the sexes. It's not about choice.

Playing with biological facts renders the documentation on a birth certificate meaningless.

The biological facts of one's sexual designation are not up for grabs.

Putting the very rare cases of human hermaphroditism aside, checking the male or female box on a legal document is not a difficult task.

The birth certificate is not meant to be a record of one's gender identity or what sex one wants to be.

Defining how one feels in terms of gender is a different matter from the facts of one's anatomy.

The birth certificate is a record of the sex of a baby when it's born.

It is what it is.

Weiners for Votes

The polls in Wisconsin haven't opened yet, but we already have a problem.

According to Executive Director of the Republican Party of Wisconsin, Rick Wiley, there has been a clear violation of Wisconsin law by a Democrat.

Wisconsin 31st State Senate District Dem candidate Kathleen Vinehout is so desperate for votes that she's bribing UW-Eau Claire students with free hotdogs.

---For Immediate Release---

Contact: Bob Delaporte, (608) 257-4765

November 6, 2006

DEMS HOTDOGGING FOR VOTES
ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO BRIBE VOTERS BY DESPERATE DEMS

( Madison , WI )....First it was "Smokes for Votes." Then it was "Pastries for Votes." Now Democrats are continuing their assault on the health of voters by offering "Wieners for votes."

Democrats in Eau Claire are illegally offering free food in an effort to bribe people for their vote. Today, a complaint had to be filed against Democrat Kathleen Vinehout's campaign for handing out free food in violation of Wisconsin 's "election bribery" law. The Executive Director of the Republican Party of Wisconsin, Rick Wiley, says he doubts even free food will help Vinhout's campaign.

"Apparently, Kathleen's campaign is so out of steam, they have to offer free hotdogs for votes," Wiley said, "Cigarettes, pastries and now hotdogs for votes. No wonder Democrats want universal health care. The people they are bribing for their vote are going to need it."

Kathleen Vineholt's campaign manager was spotted putting up flyers on the UW-Eau Claire campus for a phony front group called "Students 4 Students Voting." The flyers offer free hotdogs for voters, a clear violation of Wisconsin law. Wisconsin Statute 12.11(1) defines "election bribery" as ". . . any amount of money, or any object which has utility independent of any political message it contains and the value of which exceeds $1." Wiley says he's not surprised that Vineholt has resorted to breaking Wisconsin law to get votes.

"Kathleen Vineholt is continuing a Democrat tradition of Election bribery," Wiley said, "For Democrats, it's a lot easier to illegally hand out freebies than it is to come up with a plan to make Wisconsin better."

A complaint was also filed on Vineholt's campaign because a UW-Eau Clair professor was caught coordinating with Democrats at taxpayer expense. According to the complaint filed today, a professor was using her taxpayer funded e-mail to get students to accept rides from Democrats to the polls. On those shuttles, voters were handed a completed sample ballot with all the Democrats filled in - making it clear they were to vote for Democrats to enjoy the free perk.

Jim Doyle's administration remains under investigation by Federal, State and County authorities.

# # #

Authorized and paid for by the Republican Party of Wisconsin, Reince Priebus, Treasurer

When will the Dems learn that they can't bribe voters? It's illegal.

This incident raises some interesting questions:

What is your vote worth to you?

Would you sell it for a hot dog?

It's kind of funny; but then again, it's not funny at all.

I don't know who's worse -- the Eau Claire Professor working with the Vinehout campaign to stage the illegal weinie roast or the students that would have boarded the shuttles, gone to the polls, and voted the Dem Party ticket just for a free hot dog.

Milwaukee County Election Fraud Hotline

If you're voting in Milwaukee County, don't lose this phone number.

MILWAUKEE -- While candidates spend the last few days before election day on the campaign trail, authorities in Milwaukee County have unveiled a plan to make sure every vote counts.

While candidates have campaigned hard for every vote, attack ads have filled the airwaves, and emotionally charged issues over gay marriage and the death penalty await votes on the ballot. Authorities are worried that lineup is the perfect storm for election day fraud.

...A few weeks ago, Republicans called for police to be stationed at every polling place in Milwaukee, saying that would deter voter fraud. The district attorney's office says their plan is not in response to that.

...Citizens who suspect they've seen fraud on election day can call the hotline. Police will be sent to the scene to investigate, and if they find anything, prosecutors from the district attorney's office will be on hand to file complaints and involve the U.S. Attorney's office if necessary.

The Election Day Fraud Hotline is 414-935-3979.

Anyone know the Dane County Election Day Fraud Hotline number?

Elton John Wants You to Vote NO

No question about it, Wisconsin is a battleground state.

The razor-thin results of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections are testament to that.

With the Marriage Amendment on the ballot, advocacy groups on both sides of the issue are setting their sights on Wisconsin.

People around the country are hoping to score a victory for gay marriage in Wisconsin.

For instance, check out this blog, Towleroad.

New York-based Queerty is following the debate in Wisconsin.

Their reaction to the pro-amendment ad that uses children:

Wisc. Marriage Ban Ad Makes Us Sick
No, Seriously, We Just Barfed Rainbow Chunks

Personally, I don't like that ad. I get squeamish when it comes to exploiting children for political purposes.

Nevertheless, it's important to note that Wisconsin's Marriage Amendment is being viewed by activists around the country as much more than a local matter.

Wisconsin's Marriage Amendment is receiving international attention as well.

Read UK-based PinkNews.

Here's another UK site that's calling attention to Wisconsin's Marriage Amendment, 24dash.

I've been on the fence about this amendment from the moment I first read it.

Is it really necessary to amend the state constitution?

Does the amendment foster bigotry?

In my mind, the activities of the "Vote No" crowd and their intentionally confusing and deceptive ads have actually clarified things.

These pro-gay marriage groups have successfully redefined the issue for me.

I no longer think of it as a question of whether or not amending the state's constitution is appropriate in this case.

Clearly, the question has become whether or not you consider MARRIAGE to be between one man and one woman.

That is how I define MARRIAGE.

Two more important points influencing my decision:

First, I believe that the amendment will NOT constitutionalize discrimination.

Second, I want to prevent activist judges from legislating from the bench and effectively silencing the voices of the electorate.

Therefore, I will vote YES for Wisconsin's Marriage Amendment.

Elect John Gard

Here's the bottom line in Wisconsin's 8th Congressional District race:




Simply put, John Gard represents the values of Wisconsinites.

Steve "Injun time" and "terrorist slayer" Kagen does not.

Vote for John Gard.

Elect Mark Green

I'm going to keep this simple.

Tomorrow, I will vote for Mark Green to be the next governor of Wisconsin.

Green is the superior candidate, by far.

There are so many reasons to vote for Green and send Doyle packing. He's on the right side of the issues when it comes to ethics, health care, education, jobs, illegal immigration, and stem cell research.

In general, Mark Green will restore integrity to Wisconsin government and get the state back on track.

If there's one issue that Green and Doyle clearly differ on it's TAXES.

TAXES, TAXES, TAXES.


Take your property tax bill with you when you go to the polls.

Think taxes.

The choice is so easy.

A vote for Mark Green is a vote for a brighter future for Wisconsin.

Vote Mark Green.

Elect J.B. Van Hollen

For Attorney General, Wisconsin voters have a clear choice.

The candidates, Republican J.B. Van Hollen and Democrat Kathleen Falk are poles apart regarding their qualifications and their positions in terms of respecting the law and aggressively fighting to uphold it.

Reasons to vote for Van Hollen:

J.B. Van Hollen, an experienced prosecutor (something that Kathleen Falk is not) will tackle the violent crime problem.

I have no doubt that he will be tougher on crime than Falk.

Holding a rally and singing "Kumbaya" doesn't address the increase in violent crime in Milwaukee and the gang problem in Madison.

In addition to clamping down on violent criminals, Van Hollen will use his office to protect Wisconsinites from criminals who prey on consumers.

Unlike Falk, Van Hollen will not pander to ILLEGAL immigrants. He will not allow the laws of Wisconsin to be blatantly disregarded.

Van Hollen will work to restore integrity to our elections. Voter fraud in Wisconsin is a problem. Falk and Dems of her ilk want to ignore it.

Speaking of integrity, I trust Van Hollen to prosecute matters of corruption in government. I want Jim Doyle to be held accountable for the ethical abuses that have occurred under his watch. Falk wouldn't touch that.

In short, Van Hollen is about action, not Leftist rhetoric. I'm not satisfied with the lawlessness that plagues Wisconsin.

In the final analysis, Falk is not competent, nor is she willing to get the job done.

Vote for J.B. Van Hollen.

Paul Krugman's Damage

The New York Times is in a generous mood.

Times Select is celebrating "Free Access Week" from November 6 - 12. (This dispells the notion that the best things in life are free.)

I guess dramatically limiting the readers of their columnists' articles by no longer having them available online free of charge has had its drawbacks.Their message reaches a far narrower audience. They end up preaching to the choir.

So why was this week chosen to be Free Access Week?

I think The Times columnists are eagerly anticipating big wins for the Dems on Tuesday.

Accordingly, The Times libs want to gloat and gloat big.

The larger and more diverse the readership the better.

Courtesy "Free Access Week," Paul Krugman's latest column is easily reaching the masses.

What a treat!

His column, "Limiting the Damage," makes me wish that I didn't have access to the work of The Times columnists.

Life is better without them.

Krugman writes:

President Bush isn’t on the ballot tomorrow. But this election is, nonetheless, all about him. The question is whether voters will pry his fingers loose from at least some of the levers of power, thereby limiting the damage he can inflict in his two remaining years in office.

What a nut!

Krugman really hates President Bush. I get the feeling that he's counting down the days until he leaves office.

Whatever the results on Tuesday, Bush will be president for two more years.

Krugman needs to accept that reality.

There are still some people urging Mr. Bush to change course. For example, a scathing editorial published today by The Military Times, which calls on Mr. Bush to fire Donald Rumsfeld, declares that “this is not about the midterm elections.” But the editorial’s authors surely know better than that. Mr. Bush won’t fire Mr. Rumsfeld; he won’t change strategy in Iraq; he won’t change course at all, unless Congress forces him to.

HAHAHAHA

Krugman is emphasizing that "scathing editorial" in The Military Times.

Yesterday on Meet the Press, National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Rep. Tom Reynolds already discredited the significance of the editorial.

The Times is repeating the Russert lines.

Very lame.

Bush will do what he's been doing since the beginning of the war, listening to his generals on the ground and not paying attention to the retired ones brought out of mothballs to bash the President.

At this point, nobody should have any illusions about Mr. Bush’s character. To put it bluntly, he’s an insecure bully who believes that owning up to a mistake, any mistake, would undermine his manhood — and who therefore lives in a dream world in which all of his policies are succeeding and all of his officials are doing a heckuva job. Just last week he declared himself “pleased with the progress we’re making” in Iraq.

Krugman is exhibiting a trait often displayed by libs -- an uncontrollable urge to slip into psychobabble.

I think Krugman has been spending too much time with Maureen Dowd.

Krugman's depiction of Bush as the insecure bully worrying about undermining his manhood is just plain weird.

He must have consulted with dippy Dowd on that.

In other words, he’s the sort of man who should never have been put in a position of authority, let alone been given the kind of unquestioned power, free from normal checks and balances, that he was granted after 9/11. But he was, alas, given that power, as well as a prolonged free ride from much of the news media.

Alas, Krugman sounds like a goof on a radical Left website.

What's missing from Krugman's analysis and conclusions?

REALITY.

The results have been predictably disastrous. The nightmare in Iraq is only part of the story. In time, the degradation of the federal government by rampant cronyism — almost every part of the executive branch I know anything about, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been FEMAfied — may come to be seen as an equally serious blow to America’s future.

Where does this guy get off charging Bush with cronyism?

Bill Clinton was King Crony.

...The public, which rallied around Mr. Bush after 9/11 and was still prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt two years ago, seems to have figured most of this out. It’s too late to vote Mr. Bush out of office, but most Americans seem prepared to punish Mr. Bush’s party for his personal failings. This is in spite of a vicious campaign in which Mr. Bush has gone further than any previous president — even Richard Nixon — in attacking the patriotism of anyone who criticizes him or his policies.

Pardon my bluntness, but this is pure crap.

When has Bush attacked anyone's patriotism?

I am putting out this challenge again. Give me a direct quote citing Bush "attacking the patriotim of anyone who criticizes him or his policies."

You won't find one.

Krugman must have a guilty conscience. Perhaps he feels a tad...oh, I don't know, unpatriotic?

That said, it’s still possible that the Republicans will hold on to both houses of Congress. The feeding frenzy over John Kerry’s botched joke showed that many people in the news media are still willing to be played like a fiddle. And if you think the timing of the Saddam verdict was coincidental, I’ve got a terrorist plot against the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you.

The libs are the fiddle players.

Kerry didn't botch anything. He insulted the intelligence of the troops loudly and clearly.

Can't he hear himself talk? Didn't he realize that he had said something terribly out of line? Is the problem that he can't stand to listen to himself talk?

If he had truly botched a joke, he would have somehow covered up or immediately apologized for it.

Whatever, it wasn't too bright.

Moreover, the potential for vote suppression and/or outright electoral fraud remains substantial. And it will be very hard for the Democrats to take the Senate for the very simple reason that only one-third of Senate seats are on this ballot.

I don't believe this guy!!!

If Krugman is looking for voter suppression and outright electoral fraud, he need look no further than Wisconsin.

Read more here, here, here, and here.

What if the Democrats do win? That doesn’t guarantee a change in policy.

The Constitution says that Congress and the White House are co-equal branches of government, but Mr. Bush and his people aren’t big on constitutional niceties. Even with a docile Republican majority controlling Congress, Mr. Bush has been in the habit of declaring that he has the right to disobey the law he has just signed, whether it’s a law prohibiting torture or a law requiring that he hire qualified people to run FEMA.

I'm amazed that such trash is published by The New York Times. As Lefty as the paper is, I still expect just a bit of integrity and a grain of truth from The Times.

Just imagine, then, what he’ll do if faced with demands for information from, say, Congressional Democrats investigating war profiteering, which seems to have been rampant. Actually, we don’t have to imagine: a White House strategist has already told Time magazine that the administration plans a “cataclysmic fight to the death” if Democrats in Congress try to exercise their right to issue subpoenas — which is one heck of a metaphor, given Mr. Bush’s history of getting American service members trapped in cataclysmic fights where the deaths are anything but metaphors.

This is important to remember.

The Dems have no concrete plans for the country other than to attack Bush and members of his administration.

They claim investigations and impeachment are not a priority for them. That's a lie.

Three things are certain with a Dem congressional victory -- Death, higher taxes, and impeachment proceedings.

But here’s the thing: no matter how hard the Bush administration may try to ignore the constitutional division of power, Mr. Bush’s ability to make deadly mistakes has rested in part on G.O.P. control of Congress. That’s why many Americans, myself included, will breathe a lot easier if one-party rule ends tomorrow.

I am disgusted by Krugman literally blaming Bush for the deaths of American soldiers.

DEMS VOTED FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ. IF DEADLY MISTAKES HAVE BEEN MADE, THEN THEY MUST BE HELD RESPONSIBLE AS WELL.

And another thing--

Why is one-party rule an acceptable utopia when Dems are the party in charge?

Let's face it Krugman is a Dem operative, partisan hack.

Many Americans, myself included, will not be voting to give power to the Dems. We've seen the consequences of that -- higher taxes, a weakened military, and a disastrous foreign policy.

Curb Your Enthusiasm, Tim Russert

Did you watch Meet the Press this morning?

Tim Russert was absolutely giddy.

He doesn't have the champagne chilling. He's already popped the cork.

Russert's guests were National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair Sen. Elizabeth Dole, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Sen. Chuck Schumer, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Rep. Rahm Emanuel, and National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Rep. Tom Reynolds.

As usual, the partisan Russert would occasionally toss a jab at the Dems, but for the most part, he was attacking the Republicans.

While I watched most of the program, I didn't give it my undivided attention.

But to the best of my knowledge, Russert did not challenge Schumer on his DSCC's dirty and illegal use of Michael Steele's social security number to fraudulently obtain his credit report.

Read about the Schumer DSCC scandal that the lib media barely noticed here and here.

The AP quickly jumped on a comment made by Dole and splashed it.

WASHINGTON -- The head of the GOP Senate campaigns on Sunday sought to deflect growing criticism about the war in Iraq, saying her party will prevail in Tuesday's elections partly because "Democrats appear to be content with losing."

Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., acknowledged that Republicans face a tight race to maintain control of the Senate, but that voters will focus more narrowly on local issues. Democrats need to take six seats to gain power in the 100-member Senate.

...On Iraq, she said: "We need to win the war, and it would be disastrous to lose."

"It's like they're content with losing. To pull out and withdraw is losing. The Democrats appear to be content with losing," she said.

The AP account doesn't give an adequate description of Dole's remarks.

Before Dole finished explaining her comment, the rude Russert interrupted her. She clearly hadn't concluded her statement.

He refused to let her speak, saying something to the effect that she had made a very strong comment and he had to let Emanuel respond immediately.

There was a lot of crosstalk, due to the fact that Russert was being so unfair in the way he was moderating the discussion.

Eventually, Russert raised his voice and said, "Time out, time out...," while playing ref and gesturing the time out hand signal.

Funny that Dems can make virtually any "strong" comment bashing Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld and Russert never interrupts to allow a Republican to counter.

Of course, Dem cheerleader Russert never really gave Dole the opportunity to expound on her statement. He attacked and moved on, pulling a hit and run on cut and run.

Naturally, Russert failed to consider the validity of Dole's remark.

In reality, the Dem plan to "redeploy" is a plan for defeat. Redeploy, as Cardin said on Meet the Press last weekend, means redeploy the troops in Iraq to the United States, bring them home.

FACT: There is no question that bringing the troops home at this stage would be viewed by our enemies as a loss for America.

If the Dems want to retreat now, they most certainly appear to be content with losing, as Dole said.

The Dems' short-sightedness may work for them politically this Tuesday, but it will be devastating for our country in the long run.
________________________________

Read about Russert's sleazy attempt to attribute a "Rumsfeld must go" editorial running in military newspapers to members of the military here.

Mark Finkelstein of NewsBusters writes:

[RNCC Chairman Tom] Reynolds exposed those so-called "military newspapers" as nothing more than cogs in the Gannett chain, a member-in-good-standing of the MSM whose flagship paper is the reliably-liberal USA Today.

Russert flashed the panel of the editorial shown here, and asked Reynolds:



"Do you believe it would be helpful [to have] a change at the top of the Pentagon?"

That's when Reynolds unleashed this salvo:

"First of all, the Army Times editorial is written by its Gannett-owned newspaper, which is well-positioned [on the 'anti' side] in other editorial comment relative to the war. And so the editorial writers may be coming from Virginia rather from the military, particularly because it's owned by Gannett."

Russert really has lost it.

I think he's letting his loathing for Bush and especially Rumsfeld diminish his integrity as a journalist.

I doubt that he cares.

So Long, Saddam

Saddam Hussein will not be spending the rest of his days playing golf in Florida while he tirelessly searches for the real murderer of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

The verdict is in. His days are numbered.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Iraq's High Tribunal found Saddam Hussein guilty of crimes against humanity on Sunday and sentenced him to die by hanging.

Former Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan was found guilty of premeditated murder and was sentenced to life in prison. Three other co-defendants of Saddam Hussein were convicted of murder and torture and sentenced to up to 15 years in prison.

A fifth defendant was acquitted for lack of evidence.

Saddam and seven co-defendants were charged with crimes against humanity in the 1982 killings of 148 people in the town of Dujail after a failed assassination attempt on the former leader.

Here's more, from Aljazeera:

Saddam's sentence will be automatically appealed and reviewed by a panel of appeal judges, who will decide whether or not to allow a retrial.

If the judgement stands, however, Saddam must be executed within 30 days of the appeals panel delivering its verdict, the chief prosecutor has said.

Saddam, 69 said that he wants to be executed by firing squad. However Iraqi law states that he will be executed by hanging.

...Before the verdict was announced, Iraq's government imposed a curfew in Baghdad, the mixed Sunni-Shia province of Diyala and Salahuddin, the province containing Saddam's hometown of Tikrit.

But despite the curfews, Shias had gathered in Baghdad's Sadr City district to celebrate what they hoped would be a guilty verdict.

Meanwhile in and around Tikrit small groups of Saddam's supporters held protests and denounced the court's judgement.

Sheikh Al-Nadawi, the head of the Baigat group of tribes to which Saddam belongs, said: "Saddam lived a hero and will die as a hero. The court was set up by his rivals... It is a historical farce."

On Saturday Nuri al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister, said that he hoped Saddam would be found guilty, but also asked Iraqis to react calmly to the verdict.

"We hope the sentence matches what this man deserves for what he has done against the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people will express happiness in the way they find appropriate," al-Maliki said.

"We call upon the Iraqi people to be calm, to be disciplined and to express themselves in ways that take into consideration the security challenge and the need to protect the lives of citizens," he added.

Speaking before the verdict was announced, Iran also said that it hoped Saddam would be executed.

"Execution is the very least sentence they can hand down to Saddam Hussein," Mohammad Ali Hosseini, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, said.

A rope hangs around a statue of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in Baghdad's al-Fardous (Paradise) square, 09 April 2003, before US marines came in and pulled the icon down. (AFP/File/Patrick Baz)

Saddam wasn't happy when he heard that there's a noose with his name on it.

AP now has a more detailed report of the courtroom scene when the verdict was announced:

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Saddam Hussein and two other men were convicted and sentenced Sunday to death by hanging for war crimes in the 1982 killings of 148 people in the town of Dujail, as the former leader, trembling, shouted "God is great!"

After the verdict was read, Saddam yelled out, "Long live the people and death to their enemies. Long live the glorious nation, and death to its enemies!"

Once again, we hear the Islamic extremists' "God is great!" rallying cry.

Saddam initially refused the chief judge's order to rise; two bailiffs lifted the ousted ruler to his feet and he remained standing through the sentencing.

Before the hearing began, one of Saddam's lawyers, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, was ejected from the courtroom after handing the judge a memorandum in which he called the trial a travesty.

Chief Judge Raouf Abdul-Rahman pointed to Clark and said in English, "Get out."

Former US Attorney General and Saddam Hussein defense attorney Ramsey Clark is ejected from the courtroom during the reading of the verdict in the ousted dictator's trial.(AFP/Pool/Scott Nelson)


What is with Ramsey Clark?

I think he's as nuts as Saddam.

He has disgraced himself as a former U.S. Attorney General, and as an American, and as a human being.

Clark should cut the dramatic outbursts. It's over.

Saddam's days of Doritos and Raisin Bran Crunch are coming to an end.

I wonder if he has any regrets.

Jim Doyle: The Better Choice

This is how The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Saturday editorial, "Looking for Mr. Clean," began:

Editor's note: This is one in a series of editorials analyzing the gubernatorial candidates' positions on specific issues. On Sunday, we will end the series with an editorial recommending one of the candidates.

The "Mr. Clean" editorial went through an amusing series of contortions to arrive at the conclusion that the hopelessly corrupt Jim Doyle would actually do a better job of cleaning up the hopelessly corrupt state government that he currently oversees than Mark Green.

As promised the JS has an editorial "recommending one of the candidates" in its Sunday edition.

You'll never guess which candidate the JS endorsed.

The editorial board chose Jim Doyle as the better man for the job.

What a shocker!

"He has earned a second term" attempts to convince readers that Doyle does, in fact, deserve to be reelected.

It's difficult to pick this nugget out from the detritus of a gubernatorial campaign hugely predicated on each side caricaturizing how slimy the other is, but there is one essential fact voters should be able to recognize if they sift objectively through the facts.

Gov. Jim Doyle has, by most measures, had a successful first term. He has also been a necessary check against the excesses of the state Legislature, both houses of which have been controlled by his opposite party.

But it is largely on his record that we recommend Doyle for a second term.

What a joke!

The board really struggled with its choice. Sure.

What's funny is that the board touts Doyle's record as reason to give him a second term.

The way I see it, Doyle's record is reason to boot him from office, and the sooner the better.

Other highlights from the editorial:

The common rap against Doyle is that he has had ethical lapses. And there is genuine appearance of this. But Green has some of these, too. Sadly, both operate in a system that pretty much guarantees that something given comes with at least the expectation that something is returned.

The person, however, most apt to sign reform that would clean up this mess in this state is Doyle, not Green.

It's disgusting the way the editorial board glosses over Doyle's "ethical lapses."

Actually, it makes the board members look like utterly foolish partisan hacks.

...As a check against legislative overreach, Doyle's veto has been invaluable. On concealed carry, on legislation that would have had pharmacists' personal views trump what a doctor prescribes for a patient, on voter ID - whose true intent is voter suppression - and on legislation that threatened embryonic stem cell research.

Doyle's veto is one of the reasons that he should not be reelected.

He's blocked legislation that Wisconsinites want and deserve.

That fact that he wants to maintain Wisconsin's status as a haven for voter fraud is a disgrace.

The intent of a photo ID law isn't voter suppression. It's to ensure that every person's vote counts by safeguarding the integrity of elections.

Furthermore, pro-clone Doyle has flat out lied throughout this campaign about Mark Green's support for stem cell research.

Green is anti-abortion. Doyle is for a woman's right to choose.

TRANSLATION: Green respects life and will protect it. Doyle is for a woman's right to kill her baby via the most barbaric means, partial birth abortion. He's even against parental notification. He is not in step with Wisconsinites. He cares about pandering to his fringe Leftist base.

Green is against government funding of pioneering embryonic stem cell research. Doyle is for it.

TRANSLATION: Green is against increasing the use of tax dollars to destroy human life. Doyle, on the other hand, has no problem with destroying embryos, genetically complete human beings.

Green favors a taxpayer protection amendment that would limit, through the constitution, local spending. Doyle, forcing a freeze on local governments to accomplish much the same thing, is against it.

My taxes have skyrocketed since Doyle took office.

And the sky's the limit when it comes to Doyle raking in taxes.

Tax payers need relief. Doyle refuses to give it.

Doyle is the better choice.

I guess it's fair to consider Doyle to be the better choice.

Doyle is the better choice if you believe in killing unborn children.

Doyle is the better choice if you have no qualms about considering human life to be raw material for experimentation and destroying it in the process.

He's the better choice if you want to prevent parents from choosing the schools that their children attend.

Doyle is the better choice if you want Wisconsin government to be a "pay to play" paradise.

Doyle is the better choice if you want special interests and casino money to determine Wisconsin's future.

He's the better choice if you want illegal immigrants to get in-state tuition for the UW system.

He's the better choice if you think taxpayers should subsidize home loans for illegal immigrants.

Doyle is the better choice if you want businesses to be discouraged from locating or expanding in Wisconsin.

Doyle is the better choice if you don't mind election fraud.

He's the better choice if you want your taxes to increase.

So, I guess Doyle is the better choice if you're on board with all those things.

I'm not.

That's why I'm voting for Mark Green.

Catholicism, Gay Marriage, and Moral Relativism

Here is a good piece on Catholics and Wisconsin's Marriage Amendment.

It begins with Sam Sinnett's story, a 62-year-old Catholic homosexual.

Sinnett is "president of Dignity U.S.A., an organization that supports gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons in the Catholic Church and society."

He calls his Catholic faith a gift from Jesus Christ that came to him through baptism and he accepted when he was confirmed as a young adult. He affirms his sexual orientation within this context.

“My homosexuality is a gift from God, and for me to deny that is to put me in a position of not loving God, not loving myself and therefore not being able to love my neighbor, including my own children and family,” he said.

That perspective is challenged by church leaders.

While Sinnett has been in Milwaukee this week attending the annual conference of Call to Action, a progressive Catholic group with about 25,000 members, many Wisconsin Catholic leaders have been speaking and taking action to support an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution that would define marriage as between a man and woman.

At a Thursday press conference, Bishop Jerome Listecki, who leads the La Crosse diocese, quoted a document by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops titled “Between Man and Woman”: “The state has an obligation to promote the family, which is rooted in marriage,” he read. “Therefore it can justly give married couples rights and benefits it does not extend to others.”

Listecki said the church does not condemn the homosexual, but the homosexual act. He said that still leaves room for dialogue, for caring about the person and ministering to them.

“A lot of people think that the pastoral approach is an approach that says, ‘Well, I’ll sit down because I’m open to agreeing with you,’” he said. When you’re coming from the perspective of church doctrine, he said, the question is how to sit down and open a person to at least understanding church teaching.

“(One) can’t say, ‘I know what the church teaches and teaches clearly, but I choose to do this, therefore the authority lies with the individual,’” he said. “The door of the church is open, but there’s a realism. And that realism is, ‘Here’s what the church teaches.’ The Catholic has to take that and try to integrate that with the teachings in their own life.”

...The Milwaukee Archdio-cese Priests Alliance, an organization of 140 priests, released a letter in which they express “fear that the amendment may be construed to deny rights and services” and that “gay unions is not a chief cause of marital instability.”

Nicole Sotelo, Call to Action’s acting co-director, said statements against homosexuality like that of the Wisconsin bishops are “against the grain of what Jesus himself spoke about in the Bible.”

She said she loved the Catholic Church, and that the Catholic catechism says a Catholic must hold to the primacy of one’s conscience, while informing that with church teachings, traditions, scripture and prayer.

“If one’s conscience calls one to disagree with the Church’s teachings, you must do that because ultimately it is about your conscience before God,” she said. “It’s part of Christian and Catholic tradition to use one’s conscience and to discern the right way to act. Even Jesus, for example, did not always agree with his religious leaders.”

Listecki likened the claim that authority lies with the individual to moral relativism.

“It’s the individual’s conscience,” he said, “but the individual’s conscience in seeing the authority and the objective truth of the Church and then reconciling that with themselves, with their own lives and integrating that with objective truth in their own life. The authority doesn’t rest with the individual. The authority rests with the Church.”

Something that many people don't understand, particularly non-Catholics, is that the Church is not a democracy.

I'm a practicing Catholic and I do understand.

Have I done things that have gone against Church teaching?

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!

Are there things in Church teaching that I struggle to reconcile with what I do or think?

Absolutely.

But, at no time, do I expect the Church to alter its teaching to fit my views or behavior.

When I'm at odds with the Church, that's something I need to pray about and work out.

It's not a social matter.

It's not a political campaign.

It's between me and God.

Liberal Gay-Bashing: Ted Haggard

Dems and liberals and assorted anti-Christian evangelical crusaders are so hypocritical.

The big story for the past couple of days has been the antics of Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals.

Why has his personal life been put under the microscope?

It's similar to the Mark Foley scandal.

It's not that elected officials or the lib media care about "child" congressional pages or the evangelicals.

There is an orchestrated effort to derail the Christian evangelical vote for Tuesday's election.

The libs' plan didn't work when they dropped the Foley bomb. It was a dud. So, for a November surprise, the Left brought out its nuclear arsenal.

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- The Rev. Ted Haggard said Friday he bought methamphetamine and received a massage from a male prostitute. But the influential Christian evangelist insisted he threw the drugs away and never had sex with the man.

Haggard, who as president of the National Association of Evangelicals wielded influence on Capitol Hill and condemned both gay marriage and homosexuality, resigned on Thursday after a Denver man named Mike Jones claimed that he had many drug-fueled trysts with Haggard.

A quick question: Is it possible to condemn something and believe in its immorality, while simultaneously engaging in the behavior?

Yes. It happens all the time. I think it has something to do with being human.

On Friday, Haggard said that he received a massage from Jones after being referred to him by a Denver hotel, and that he bought meth for himself from the man.

But Haggard said he never had sex with Jones. And as for the drugs, "I was tempted, but I never used it," the 50-year-old Haggard told reporters from his vehicle while leaving his home with his wife and three of his five children.

Jones, 49, denied selling meth to Haggard. "Never," he told MSNBC. Haggard "met someone else that I had hooked him up with to buy it."

Jones also scoffed at the idea that a hotel would have sent Haggard to him.

"No concierge in Denver would have referred me," he said. He said he had advertised himself as an escort only in gay publications or on gay Web sites.

According to the Left: If you're a liberal, you're allowed to freely use illicit drugs, hire prostitutes, be a prostitute, engage in adultery, and, of course, be gay.

If you're conservative, however, such behavior is scandalous.

Understand?

...In addition to resigning his post at the NAE, which claims 30 million members, Haggard stepped aside as leader of his 14,000-member New Life Church pending a church investigation. In a TV interview this week, he said: "Never had a gay relationship with anybody, and I'm steady with my wife, I'm faithful to my wife."

Do you know what's ringing in my ears?

"I never had sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."

Another case that comes to mind is that of former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey.

From Newsday:

Former Gov. James E. McGreevey revealed during an interview with Oprah Winfrey that he was having an affair with another man while his wife was hospitalized for the birth of their child... .

In the interview, the audience members said Winfrey explores McGreevey's lifelong struggle with his sexuality.

McGreevey recounted going to the library as an adolescent to look up the word "homosexual" in a dictionary. When he found it included terms like "perverse" and "psychiatric disorder," the Irish-Catholic said he quickly learned to repress his feelings, audience members said.

...The interview also explores how McGreevey came out to his wife and parents, how his life is more authentic today, and what life is like with Australian financial adviser Mark O'Donnell, whom he refers to as his "life partner," the audience members said.

Despite his reckless lifestyle, including gay trysts at truck stops with complete strangers, McGreevey is hailed as a hero, a brave advocate, a "gay American."

Any dishonesty involved in the secret and not so secret lives of Clinton and McGreevey is a purely personal matter, and not fodder for public discussion. That's for the individual and his spouse to sort out, not society at large.

In Haggard's case, however, any alleged dishonesty about his personal behavior is supposed to destroy him.

What libs have come out in support of Haggard?

Has McGreevey issued a statement?

How about the widower of Gerry Studds?

Barney Frank is another I'd like to hear from. He knows about prostitution, considering a gay prostitution ring operated out of his Capitol Hill home.

Have gay advocate groups come to Haggard's defense?

(Crickets chirping)

My purpose in bringing up these cases is to illustrate the dramatic difference between the treatment of Haggard and the treatment of liberals during and after a scandal.

It's a cruel double standard, grounded in pure hate.

In Denver, where Jones said his encounters with Haggard took place, police said in a news release they planned to contact the people involved for information on whether a crime was committed. The statement did not say whether an investigation was under way, and police spokeswoman Virginia Quinones declined to elaborate.

Lynn Kimbrough, a spokeswoman for the district attorney's office, said that a public admission isn't enough by itself to bring a case, but that charges will be filed if criminal conduct can be proved.

At this point, the case is a smear campaign, just like the Foley case.

No charges have been filed.

It's the politics of personal destruction.

And there's another thing that disturbs me about the allegations against Haggard -- Why do the lib media, elected Dems, and Dem operatives assume that these revelations will influence the election?

Clearly, they're trying to demoralize the Christian evangelicals into sitting out this election.

Using Foley or Haggard to do it makes no sense to me.

As a result of the scandals or alleged scandals, why would any Christian evangelical decide to allow radical Leftists to take power in government?

Surely, most Republicans are far friendlier to their values than partial birth abortion-supporting Dems.

Surely, evangelicals realize that they are the ones actually coming under assault.

I think their intelligence and their tolerance are being underestimated by the Left again.

So what else is new?

Very troubling to me is the willingness on the part of Democrats and their lib media propaganda tentacles to bash conservative gays to score political points.

Why don't they grant Foley and Haggard the compassion, and ultimately the hero status, that formerly closeted liberal gays receive?

HYPOCRITES

AGAINST US

"You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

--President George W. Bush, November 6, 2001

Aaron Klein of WorldNetDaily writes:

JERUSALEM -- Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. – including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."

They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.

They said a withdrawal would also embolden their own terror groups to enhance "resistance" against Israel.

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.

Jaara was the chief in Bethlehem of the Brigades, the declared "military wing" of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party.

Together with the Islamic Jihad terror group, the Brigades has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing inside Israel the past two years, including an attack in Tel Aviv in April that killed American teenager Daniel Wultz and nine Israelis.

Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."

"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told WND. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."

Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the policy of withdrawal "proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation."

"We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq," said Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department. "They did not succeed in stealing Iraq's oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw."

...Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."

"Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam."

And all we hear from the Dems is that Bush's policy is broken.

They demand timelines.

What's the latest deadline for troop withdrawal?

Russ Feingold keeps pushing it back, so it's hard to keep track of the appeaser timetable. He had set December 31, 2006 as the date to have troops out of Iraq. Then, Feingold and John Kerry joined forces to propose July 1, 2007 as the magic day.

Does any know if that's the official Dem date?

I'm not sure.

It really doesn't matter. What matters to our enemies is that they believe they have broken the will of the American people.

Of course, the terrorists support the Party of Appeasement. Dolts like John Murtha, Dick Durbin, Harry, Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Jimmy Carter, and Bill and Hill Clinton have done the terrorists' bidding for months, years.

I'm sure our enemies would also throw their support to some so-called Republicans, like Appeaser-in-Chief Chuck Hagel.

There is no question that Dems and the lib media have been doing the work of the terrorists.

The Dem plan is to withdraw from Iraq in shame.

They have actively campaigned to defeat America in Iraq.

Does that bother you?

It disgusts me.

The Appeaser Dems (bascically everyone besides Joe Lieberman) are against us in the War on Terror. Either they truly don't understand how damaging their behavior is to our country's long term security or they don't want to understand.

They're playing political games. They're not acting for the good of the nation.

These Dems put their party first. They are concerned with their own political futures -- not America's future, not the free world's future.

Simply put, a vote to elect a Dem to the U.S. House or Senate is a vote for the terrorists.

(Does that seem over the top? It's not.)

AG Race: Are Laws Made to be Broken?

Kathleen Falk is truly desperate.

In her ads, she's resorted to flat out lies about her opponent, J.B. Van Hollen.

Read more.

Why is she so desperate?

Van Hollen is clearly the superior candidate.

KATHLEEN FALK HAS NEVER PROSECUTED A VIOLENT CRIMINAL CASE.

Hey, neither have I. Elect me Attorney General.

Of course, her complete lack of experience and her sleazy campaign tactics and her utter lack of personal integrity really bother me.

But the reason that I am rejecting Falk for AG is Falk's fundamental disregard for the law.

What sort of AG candidate makes it clear that she has no intention of upholding the law?

From The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Falk said she supports modernizing immigration law but said the conversation that had been generated this year was "mean-spirited."

"We have seen this interjected in the attorney general's race not because it's a matter of law enforcement but really as a matter of dividing," Falk said. Republicans were "raising issues of racial tension that don't foster improving our state."

What?

Falk thinks ILLEGAL immigration isn't really a matter of law enforcement?

Really?

I have a problem with that.

At the time Falk made her comments, Van Hollen said in a statement, "I don't have anything against immigrants. I do, however, oppose those who break the law."

Exactly.

It's unacceptable for Falk to blur the lines between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration.

A minimum requirement for serving as the state's AG should be a willingness to pledge to uphold the law, as it stands.

I have no faith whatsoever in Falk's willingness to do that.

None.

This is especially troubling.

Cary Spivak and Dan Bice reveal:

Now that aspiring casino magnate Dennis Troha and family have pretty much maxed out on Gov. Jim Doyle's campaign, they've decided to lay some side bets on the attorney general's race.

The Troha gang put $20,000 on the nose for Kathleen Falk to win Nov. 7. That's Falk, as in Doyle's pick for AG.

You gotta hand it to Troha - he knows how to get on the good side of a governor.

The Troha clan already has given $192,250 to Doyle, and Dennis Troha has dropped 100 grand on the Democratic Governors Association, which is funding the independent group flooding the airwaves with ads attacking U.S. Rep. Mark Green, Doyle's Republican challenger. Just for good measure, the Trohas tossed another $30,000 to the Democratic Party. And don't forget the $25,000 Troha kicked in to help pay for Doyle's 2002 inauguration gala.

More casino money.

It certainly appears that the Trohas are trying to buy favor with Falk. The message seems to be, "Leave our Gov. Doyle alone."

Do you think that Falk will vigorously investigate Doyle and his corrupt administration?

I don't.

Bottom line:

I do not believe that Falk has the spine, the character, and the experience to serve as the Attorney General of Wisconsin.

She has shown herself to be ethically-challenged.

J.B. Van Hollen is everything that Falk is not -- experienced, tough, and honest.

I do not trust Falk, and I'm not alone.

Read an impressive list of Van Hollen's supporters.

I trust J.B. Van Hollen to uphold the law in Wisconsin and make the state a safer, better place to live.

The Botcher

Sparks from the Anvil has a stack of more terrific cartoons.

Wordsmith has added to his Kerry the Botcher cartoon compilation.



What a great cartoon!

It reminds me of one of the latest buzz phrases of the Dems, "The war in Iraq has lasted nearly as long as World War II."

The comparison is stupid, as stupid as the John "Our troops aren't smart" Kerry apologists.

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Americans gave their lives in World War II.

Iwo Jima has an area of approximately 8 square miles.

Over 6,800 Americans died in the battle for the tiny island (February 19-March 26, 1945).

In only 36 days, thousands of American troops were killed to secure that piece of land in the Pacific.

I can't help but wonder how John Kerry and the cut and run Dems would have waged that battle.

Could it be any crystal clearer?

Today's Democratic Party is NOT the party of FDR and Harry Truman.

Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, John Murtha, and Howard Dean are an entirely different species of Democrat.

Think of what a mistake it would be to give 21st Century Dems control of Congress during wartime.

Keep that in mind next Tuesday.

New York Times Blows Nuclear Whistle

I don't know what The New York Times is trying to accomplish in its breathless expose, "U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer."

I guess it wants to paint Republicans and the Bush administration as incompetent and putting sensitive information, such as a recipe for an atomic bomb, on the Internet for anyone to read.

The source of the information: Iraqi documents captured during the war.

From The Times:

Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who had said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. A spokesman for the director of national intelligence said access to the site had been suspended “pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing.”

Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency, fearing that the information could help states like Iran develop nuclear arms, had privately protested last week to the American ambassador to the agency, according to European diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. One diplomat said the agency’s technical experts “were shocked” at the public disclosures.

The documents, roughly a dozen in number, contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs.

“For the U.S. to toss a match into this flammable area is very irresponsible,” said A. Bryan Siebert, a former director of classification at the federal Department of Energy, which runs the nation’s nuclear arms program. “There’s a lot of things about nuclear weapons that are secret and should remain so.”

So, The Times is in a lather about these IRAQI documents that nuclear experts consider too sensitive to post for public consumption.

It's suggested that the information in the IRAQI documents could be of assistance to states like Iran already on the road to building a nuclear bomb.

What is The Times saying here?

It's reporting that Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons. It's reporting that Iraq's nuclear program was advanced enough to be helpful to other wannabe nuclear powers. The claim is that the dissemination of Iraq's nuclear knowledge, via a U.S. government website, posed a threat to security.

Of course, the point of the article is to condemn the Bush administration and to charge that it can't be trusted with keeping the nation safe.

BUT, in The Times' rush to cast aspersions on Republicans, it calls in to question its "Bush lied" template.

I'm confused.

The article continues:

Some of the first posted documents dealt with Iraq’s program to make germ weapons, followed by a wave of papers on chemical arms.

At the United Nations in New York, the chemical papers raised alarms at the Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, which had been in charge of searching Iraq for all unconventional arms, save the nuclear ones.

In April, diplomats said, the commission’s acting chief weapons inspector, Demetrius Perricos, lodged an objection with the United States mission to the United Nations over the document that dealt with the nerve agents tabun and sarin.

Soon, the document vanished from the Web site. On June 8, diplomats said, Mr. Perricos told the Security Council of how risky arms information had shown up on a public Web site and how his agency appreciated the American cooperation in resolving the matter.

Am I misinterpreting this?

Is The Times making the case that Iraq did indeed possess the recipes for weapons of mass destruction?

If this information was so sensitive as to be useful to our enemies, it would appear that Iraq was in fact a serious threat to our security.

It's possible that if Saddam Hussein didn't use the information to build up a WMD arsenal of his own in Iraq, he certainly could pass his weapons-building knowledge on to other enemies of the United States.

In sum, for this story to be significant, The Times has to admit that Iraq possessed WMD information that could have been used to do tremendous damage to the U.S. homeland.

But, listening to the Dems and lib media outlets, one gets the impression that Iraq was harmless and not a threat to us.

So which is it?

Hear That, Russ?

"Don't show me that CNN poll."


Russ Feingold's presidential stock is falling.

A new CNN poll does not have good news for Feingold.

He barely registers on the 2008 presidential nominee radar screens of registered Dems.

(DEMOCRATS ONLY:) Please tell me which of the following people you would be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for President in the year 2008. New York Senator Hillary Clinton, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, former Vice President Al Gore, Indiana Senator Evan
Bayh, Delaware Senator Joe Biden, Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson or Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold?
(RANDOMIZED)

Registered Democrats

Oct. 27-29

Clinton 28%
Obama 17%
Gore 13%
Edwards 13%
Kerry 12%
Bayh 2%
Biden 2%
Feingold 2%
Richardson 2%
Vilsack 1%
No opinion 8%

Aug. 30 - Sept. 2

Clinton 38%
Obama* N/A
Gore 19%
Edwards 12%
Kerry 9%
Bayh 2%
Biden 3%
Feingold 3%
Richardson 3%
Vilsack *
No opinion 8%

*Obama not included in list on the August 30-September 2 poll.

Are you listening, Russ?

According to this poll, registered Dems are losing interest.

Perhaps Feingold should reconsider his path.

His presidential campaign looks to be at a dead end. He's lost support among Dems. He's fallen from a measly 3% to an even more pathetic 2%.

Some advice for Feingold:

Give it up! Do your job as a senator from Wisconsin. Address the concerns of your constituents.

In spite of his highly touted Listening Sessions, Feingold has done a poor job of communicating with Wisconsinites.

Months and months ago, I contacted Feingold about his resolution to censure President Bush.

I just got a response last week! EIGHT MONTHS!

Feingold wrote:

"I appreciate hearing from you and I regret the delay in responding to your concerns."

Oh well. I guess I should cut my senator some slack. Poor Feingold couldn't find time to fulfill his duties to the people of Wisconsin.

He's had such a busy schedule. Those multiple trips to Iowa and Hollywood fund-raisers don't leave much spare time for replying to constituents.

It's time-consuming to put on makeup and appear on Meet the Press and all those other Sunday talk shows.

I understand. I really do.

I understand that Feingold puts his personal political goals ahead of the concerns of the people he was sent to Washington to SERVE.

I also understand that the odds of him realizing his presidential aspirations are fizzling.


_________________________________

Update: Read Russ' recent thoughts on a presidential run.

The Message Heard 'Round the World

Within hours of Charlie Sykes posting this photo, it circulated around the world. John Kerry became THE joke.

A close examination of the photo shows the soldiers are members of the Minnesota Army National Guard. The patches on their arms are that of the 1st Battalion, 34th Infantry division, based in Bloomington, Minn.

...Major Jay Adams, chief of public affairs with the 13 Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) and Logistics Support Area Anaconda, confirmed the soldiers holding the banner in the photo are members of the 1/34th.

Adams said the sign was "created as a humorous response to remarks made during a recent political speech and demonstrates the wit and longstanding sardonic humor of the American soldier at war."

Chuck Triggs said his son, a member of the Minnesota National Guard, is one of the soldiers in the picture.

I absolutely love it.

I love that our troops in Iraq got their message out to the disgusting John Kerry.

To use Kerry words, it's "crystal clear." The troops are openly mocking the disgraceful Kerry. Their sign is very clever and very funny.

Do you think that Kerry is enjoying the banner? He likes a good joke, right? And our troops are smart enough not to botch it!

I also love that ONE picture via the New Media had the power to expose and effectively stifle the ridiculous "botched joke" spin of Kerry, the Dems, and their lib media mouthpieces.

On Tuesday, responding to a question from a reporter after Kerry delivered his "I apologize to no one" statement, he admonished Republicans and the White House:

Shame on them. Shame on them. And may the American people take that shame to the polls with them next Tuesday.

I say, "Shame on Kerry. Shame on Kerry. And may the American people take that photo by members of the 1st Battalion, 34th Infantry division, based in Bloomington, Minnesota to the polls with them next Tuesday."

What I love most about this fantastic photo is that our troops sent a message to our enemies.

They reminded the terrorists, the enemies of freedom, that the Democrat appeasers do not speak for all Americans.

Our enemies believe that the Dems are succeeding in breaking the will of the American people, as in Vietnam. With the help of John Kerry and those of his cut and run ilk, our enemies think that they have us on the ropes.

Not so.

These soldiers told our enemies, at home and abroad, that they do not share the views of the Party of Appeasement.

_______________________________

Listen to Newsradio 620 WTMJ's Charlie Sykes talk to the father of one of the soldiers in the photo here.

Seymour Hersh is Nuts

Seymour Hersh is seriously unbalanced.

Addressing an audience in Montreal on Wednesday, he was the voice of America's far Left. He said what so many Leftists believe.

--"The bad news is that there are 816 days left in the reign of King George II of America." The good news? "When we wake up tomorrow morning, there will be one less day."

--"In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation. It isn’t happening now, but I will tell you – there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq."

--"In Washington, you can't expect any rationality. I don't know if he's in Iraq because God told him to, because his father didn't do it, or because it's the next step in his 12-step Alcoholics Anonymous program."

--"You have a collapsed Congress, you have a collapsed press. The military is going to do what the President wants. How fragile is democracy in America, if a president can come in with an agenda controlled by a few cultists?"

--"There's no reason to see a change in policy about Iraq. [Bush] thinks that, in twenty years, he's going to be recognized for the leader he was – the analogy he uses is Churchill. If you read the public statements of the leadership, they're so confident and so calm…. It's pretty scary."

What's scary is that there are Americans that buy into the sort of garbage spewed by Hersh.

There is actually a contingent in America that just hates President Bush and is rooting for our defeat in Iraq. They can barely contain their rage. They hate Bush as much, if not more, than our enemies, Islamic extremists.

Hersh provides a textbook example of a Leftist loon. He's all that's wrong with far Left.

That's scary.

Extreme?

I think so.

Democrats cannot be trusted with America's security.

Dick Cheney and John Kerry

I love Dick Cheney's line about John Kerry's various degrees of apologies.

He was forced to make statement after statement to address his disgraceful remarks insulting the intelligence of American troops, the best and the brightest.

As the day went on, it became clear that the Dems were willing to throw Kerry overboard. Therefore, he had no choice but to back off the "botched joke" excuse. Kerry was obviously being pressured by his party to apologize.

According to The New York Times, Dick Cheney said, "He was for the joke before he was against it."

HAHAHA

John Kerry Retreats

John Kerry has decided NOT to stay the course.

He's starting to abandon his broken policy of "I apologize to no one."

Kerry and the Dems realize that it's time to cut and run.

WASHINGTON -- Sen. John Kerry apologized for "a botched joke" about President Bush's Iraq policies that led Bush and fellow Republicans to accuse him of insulting U.S. troops. Even some Democrats assailed Kerry, who had some campaign appearances scratched Wednesday.

"Of course I'm sorry about a botched joke. You think I love botched jokes?" Kerry said during an appearance on Don Imus' nationally syndicated radio program. "I mean, you know, it's pretty stupid."

Kerry, D-Mass., said he meant no offense to troops. "You cannot get into the military today if you do badly in school," he said. But he said the White House was purposely twisting his words, and asserted that it is Bush who owes troops an apology for a misguided war in Iraq.

"I'm sorry that that's happened," he said of his comment. "But I'm not going to stand back from the reality here, which is, they're trying to change the subject. It's their campaign of smear and fear."

A number of elected officials are weighing in today on Kerry's "botched joke."

A string of Kerry's fellow Dems have cancelled campaign appearances with the troop-bashing Kerry.

"Whatever the intent, Senator Kerry was wrong to say what he said," said Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr., running for the Senate in Tennessee.

"Sen. Kerry's remarks were poorly worded and just plain stupid," said Montana Senate President Jon Tester, a Democrat trying to unseat GOP Sen. Conrad Burns. "He owes our troops and their families an apology."

"I'm sorry he did what he did. But I think the issue ... we want to make sure it doesn't confuse the subject of the war in Iraq," Democratic Rep. Ben Cardin, running for Senate in Maryland, said on CNN.

A spokesman for Democratic congressional candidate Bruce Braley in Iowa said Braley had decided independently to cancel an event with Kerry scheduled for Thursday. Braley, who is running against Republican Mike Whalen, said in a statement that the White House and Kerry should stop bickering and focus on how to change course in Iraq.

Meredith Salsbery, a spokeswoman for congressional candidate Tim Walz, said Kerry made the final decision but acknowledged campaign officials were worried that the controversy would distract from his effort to unseat incumbent Republican Rep. Gil Gutknecht.

Kerry spokesman David Wade confirmed he no longer would appear at a Philadelphia rally on Wednesday for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bob Casey.

"We made a decision not to allow the Republican hate machine to use Democratic candidates as proxies in their distorted spin war," Wade said.

...Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, head of the Democratic campaign effort, called the White House attacks on Kerry an effort by Bush "to divert attention from his failed Iraq policy."

"Instead of going on television attacking John Kerry and everyone else under the sun, the president ought to be sitting at his desk coming up with a plan for Iraq," Schumer said.

Chuckie is so lame.

The White House isn't attacking Kerry. It's standing up for our troops.

Why do you think Kerry's remarks have touched such a nerve?

I think it's because Kerry's comments tap directly into the great divide in this country.

--Victory v. Defeat

--Supporting the mission v. Undermining the mission

--Fighting our enemies v. Appeasing our enemies

--Supporting our troops v. Disdaining our troops

The head of the Democratic party also downplayed Kerry's remarks. "Kerry made a blooper. Bloopers happen," Howard Dean told reporters in Burlington, Vt.

If anyone knows bloopers, Dr. Dean knows bloopers.



This isn't about a "botched joke" or a "blooper."

It's about the impression that Democrats and their lib media mouthpieces aren't with us in the borderless War on Terror.

Lynne Cheney posed THE question to CNN's Wolf Blitzer last week: "Do you want us to win?"

That gets right to the heart of the matter.

When The New York Times splashes stories revealing national secrets that aid and abet our enemies--

When John Kerry says, "And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night,terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs"--

When John Murtha accuses our American soldiers of murder, "they killed innocent civilians in cold blood"--

When Dick Durbin says, "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime—Pol Pot or others —that had no concern for human beings"--

When Ted Kennedy says, "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: US management"--

It's "crystal clear" what the Dems and the Leftist propaganda media outlets think of our military.
_______________________________

Kerry has conceded, sort of.

He issued an apology, or as The New York Times puts it, "Kerry Offers Apology for Iraq Remark."

That's a slimy Times headline. It wasn't an "Iraq remark" that caused members of Kerry's own party to run from him as if he had the plague. It was a remark disparaging the troops.

Everyone knows that. It's pathetic that The Times can't be honest.

From The Times:

Senator John Kerry tried this afternoon to put what he called a “poorly stated joke” behind him for good, offering an apology for anything he said on Monday that might have been interpreted as an insult to American troops in Iraq.

“As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loves ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop,” Mr. Kerry said in a statement. “I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member or American who was offended.”

Blah, blah, blah. It wasn't a poorly stated joke. The Times later refers to it as "Mr. Kerry’s gaffe."

Give me a break!

He trashed the troops, a pattern he's maintained since he came back from Vietnam.

Here's Kerry's statement:

As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.

I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.

It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don't want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops.

Kerry regrets that his words were misinterpreted. In effect, he blames those doing the "misinterpreting."

That's a crock.

It's cowardly.

What a loser!

Soldiers' Message to John Kerry

John Kerry,

Please report for duty.

American soldiers need your HALP!

Straight out of Iraq, they're sending you a crystal clear message.



Get it?

It's no joke.

h/t Charlie

"Clear Choice on Stem Cells": Vote Green

In today's installment of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board's slow-motion endorsement of Jim Doyle for governor, the topic is stem cell research.

Despite the fuss over the ad featuring actor Michael J. Fox, embryonic stem cell research is hardly a bellwether issue in the race for governor. For this Editorial Board, it's an easy call.

Gov. Jim Doyle and Wisconsin Green Party gubernatorial candidate Nelson Eisman have the right idea.

Doyle has embraced this research and done everything in his power to support it, committing millions of state dollars.

Republican Rep. Mark Green, on the other hand, has consistently voted with President Bush to continue the unreasonable restrictions the president imposed in 2001 on new federal funding for such research. Green has maintained that stance even while a growing number of fellow conservative Republicans have split with the president because they, like Doyle, appreciate the tremendous therapeutic possibilities of embryonic stem cells.

Why are there restrictions on new federal funding for EMBRYONIC stem cell research?

There are ethical considerations, considerations that even Bill Clinton acknowledged.


In March 1997, Bill Clinton called human cloning, Doyle's pet project, a "troubling prospect."

"Any discovery that touches upon human creation is not simply a matter of scientific inquiry," the president said Tuesday at a White House news conference to announce his decision. "It is matter of morality and spirituality as well."

Clinton also called on privately funded researchers to voluntarily implement a temporary moratorium on human cloning research "until our bioethics advisory committee and our entire nation has had time to... debate the ethical implications."

The success of Scottish scientists in cloning a sheep from an adult sheep -- and the subsequent announcement that Oregon scientists had successfully cloned monkeys from embryos -- prompted Clinton's decision.

No federal funds are currently being put toward human cloning experiments, but the president said he wanted to close possible loopholes in the present law by explicitly banning such funding.

..."There is much about cloning that we still do not know," he said.

The president said that he personally hoped the country would "respect this profound gift (life) and resist the temptation to replicate ourselves."

Obviously, Doyle and The Journal Sentinel Editorial Board do not share the concern that President Clinton harbored in 1997 about the morality and spirituality of playing with human embryos.

Green points out that he has no objections to private funding. But as one researcher put it, the private dollars available are "a drop in the bucket."

Now, why would the private dollars available be only "a drop in the bucket"?

Wouldn't private investors jump at the chance of making millions or billions of dollars in stem cell research, the new frontier for miracle cures?

Of course they would.

So why aren't the private dollars there?

It's not a wise investment.

At this point, EMBRYONIC stem cell research is problematic. It's been unsuccessful. The promise lies in adult stem cells and cord blood.

...Green fully supports adult stem cell research, which has delivered some therapeutic benefits. But embryonic cells hold more promise because they can become any tissue in the body.

Correction: Adult stem cell research has delivered the ONLY therapeutic benefits of any stem cell research.

In spite of the promised promise of EMBRYONIC stem cells, they have delivered no treatments or cures for illnesses. None.

He objects because the current research requires the destruction of the embryo. But because the embryos used are from fertility clinics and scheduled to be discarded anyway, that argument lacks credibility.

To the contrary, an argument should be made that those embryos scheduled to be tossed away like yesterday's trash should not be discarded.

A case should be made for the ethical handling of human life. Green is right to object to the destruction of the embryo.

The Journal Sentinel Editorial Board lacks moral grounding. Respect for life doesn't enter into the Board's arguments. They are shallow and uniformed and inhumane.

Green proposed using $25 million in state money to look for ways to extract stem cells without killing the embryos. But developments in this area have been called into question, and far more research is needed to know whether such procedures are viable.

Yes, and developments in EMBRYONIC stem cell research have been called into question.

For example:

--In animal studies, embryonic-stem-cell treatments have been found to cause tumors. In one mouse study involving an attempt to treat Parkinson's-type symptoms, more than 20 percent of the mice died from brain tumors — this despite researchers reducing the number of cells administered from the usual 100,000 to 1,000.

--Tissue rejection is another major hurdle to the use of embryonic stem cells in medical treatments. This is why ESCR is known as the gateway to human cloning, since one proposed way out of this potential dilemma is to create cloned embryos of patients being treated as a source of stem cells, a process known as "therapeutic cloning." Not coincidentally, many of the same proponents who are now urging increased funding for ESCR also advocate that we legalize and publicly fund therapeutic-cloning research, which many find immoral because it creates cloned human life for the sole purpose of experimentation and destruction.

Simply put, EMBRYONIC stem cells are currently not viable for treatment purposes.

Between the two major-party candidates, this issue has been muddied by rhetoric, but the bottom line couldn't be clearer: Doyle is right.

The stem cell research issue hasn't been muddied by rhetoric of the two-major party candidates.

It's been muddied by the liberals' dishonesty.

It's been muddied by lies -- from the likes of the Doyle camp, the Greater Wisconsin Committee, Michael J. Fox, and the intentionally deceptive Old Media.

The most productive research and beneficial results have come from adult stem cells.

The bottom line couldn't be clearer: Green is right.