About Me

Name: The Asylum Pundits
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

Passing Thoughts Up!

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Saturday, September 30, 2006 10:10:55 PM
 The kids are gone on their honeymoon. The guests are gone. And it's just me here now. As per their request, I'm honoring their commitment to notify you, dear readers, that their new column at Common Conservative is up. And in addition to their outstanding recap of the past months events (a final chance to remind people of what has happened) there are other notable authors there well worth the read.

Their Editor, Thomas Lindaman, has another stellar piece this month. He'd like to be the new UN Secretary Generaland he puts together a pretty compelling case for the argument. And, after all, he's not corrupt. That means the money sent to the UN wiull actually be used appropriately, and I'm sure the practice of entertaining dictators will come to an end.

Vincent Fiore hits the nail on the head with a piece that points out that when it comes to liberals, there's all the blame in the world to go around (but none directed at them) rather than ideas. Ideas are made this country what it is, and it's what has made this nation great. Their thought process is to curtail that. To destroy it. THEY want to be the only ones to think so they can FINALLY look and sound intelligent.

Tom Adkins in his infinite wisdom paints a picture of a party that is reminiscent to the cheese-eating surrender monkeys from World War II; the analogy is not lost on the kids as they have been shouting about the present looking much like the 1930s in many respects. The Neville Chamberlains in the "Party of Clouseau," if they regain power, are going to go on the defensive much in the way a turtle hides in its shell when danger appears.

And Doug Patton leaps on that barge (yes the Democrats plans to retake both Houses of Congress is a barge--a garbage barge), but he presents a sobering reminder of the stakes in this election. He points out what will happen if they regain power. In the Senate it's even worse, as Patrick Leahy will head up the Judiciary Committee, ensuring another set of activist jurists going to the bench.

Jim Kouri discusses the meltdown of Bill Clinton in his interview with Chris Wallace. The only thing more amusing was wacky Keith Olbermann's take on it. (Don't worry if you missed it because only about a dozen people catch his show anyway; most of them are bloggers who verbally beat the tar out of him the next day.) But I digress. Former President Clinton, at the end of last month, proclaimed ABC was revising history with it's airing of The Path to 9/11, yet the irony was missed by many. Here was a man who's ideas for combatting terrorism was focused on law enforcement and subpoenas, not killing our enemies. And he is offended when anyone reminds him of it. And for the record, after this tirade and finger-wagging, even his own administration people said he was revising history. How's that sour taste now, Bill?

And my last highlight goes to Sher Zieve who penned an excellent column reminding everyone what sort of people Presidents Ahmadinejad (or "IWannaJihad," as Thomas calls him) and Hugo "Citgo" Chavez really are. These men may be the leaders of their nations, but it's illegitimate. Chavez seized power, and Ahmadinejad was handed it by the mad mullahs of Tehran. Neither of these can be trusted, and the UN's pitiful attempt to make these men look like something other than what they are was disgusting. This ranks right up there with allowing Yasser Arafat into the General Assembly Hall wearing a gun.

And after seeing this fiasco occur at the UN, I'm inclined to support Mr. Lindaman's candidacy for the General Secretary's position. He can't do any worse than Kofi Annan, and is far more personable than someone who threatens "strongly worded" letters and resolutions that have no teeth.

Sabrina McKinney
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

India Says Pakistani Intelligence Behind Mumbai Bombing

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Saturday, September 30, 2006 10:09:34 PM
 Little Green Footballs has the excerpts from the AP Wire report:

An Indian investigator on Saturday blamed Pakistan's spy agency of orchestrating the July train bombings that killed at least 207 people in Mumbai, an accusation that could threaten the already shaky peace process between the nuclear-armed neighbors.

Pakistan's minister of state for information, Tariq Azim, immediately denied the allegation, calling it "irresponsible" and demanding that India provide evidence of the link.

India called a halt to the often-stumbling, two-year-old peace talks with Pakistan in the wake of the bombings, which ripped through a series of suburban commuter trains during evening rush hour on July 11, killing at least 207 people and wounding 700.

Negotiations resumed earlier this month when Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf on the sidelines of a conference in Cuba. The two agreed to set up a joint mechanism to combat terrorism.

Mumbai Police Commissioner A.N. Roy, the lead investigator in the bombings, said Pakistan's Directorate of Inter Services Intelligence, or ISI, began planning the attacks in March and later provided funding and training for the bombers in the Pakistani town of Bahawalpur, a center of militant Islamic activity.

"The conspiracy was hatched in Pakistan," he said at a news conference.

Roy said the attacks were carried out by the Pakistan-based Islamic militant group Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, with help from the Students Islamic Movement of India, a banned Muslim organization.

He said 15 people have been arrested so far, including 11 Pakistanis. Three Indians are still on the run, he added, and another Pakistani bomber was killed in the blasts.

First, if this was conceived and ordered by the Pakistani government, then it shows a significant shift in the political allegiences of Pakistan. These people were staunch supporters of the war, and this, coupled with the recent deal struck between tribal lords, the Taliban/al-Qaida remnants hiding out, and the Pakistani government starts to open a few more eyes, and great deal more scrutiny into this nation's buisiness. If this government is protecting terrorists, and carrying out terrorist operations, then we need to sever ties to the Musharraf regime.

On the flip side, if this was an independent operation conducted by a few rogues in the ISI, then Musharraf must come out and bring them to justice. Protecting these people, if he knows who they are, is only going to raise tensions in the region; a region that only a few short years ago looked like it was heading towards all-out war. The world held its breath then, and will probably do so now, if this report by Indian investigators turns out to be true, and not irresponsible supposition.

India claims they have the evidence. Then let the world see it, and let Pakistan be the judge. It was a heinous, cowardly attack, and the world can ill afford to be wrong about Pakistan. As a nuclear-armed nation, the possibility of those nukes falling into the wrong hands--especially by a government that is either complicit in terrorism, or has those in the upper echelons of the government who support it silently--is a very real possibility. Thomas posted about Jamaat-e-Islami at the beginning of the month. They're a radical Islamic group in Pakistan that has siad that if they come to power they will share nuclear technology with ALL Muslim nations.

Let's hope the Indian government is mistaken. If not, we could be looking at a serious problem in the region, and it will only be compounded should radicals seize control.

Sabrina McKinney
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Time For The Torricelli Option in NJ?

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Friday, September 29, 2006 6:03:50 PM
 Robert Menendez, who took over Jon Corzine's vacant Seante seat when he was elected governor, is in a political firestorm. It seems some allegations regarding corruption and now extortion. From the NJ Star Ledger, courtesy of Hugh Hewitt; the key paragraphs are below:

With the Democratic establishment standing firmly behind him, U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez yesterday denied any involvement in the alleged shakedown of a Union City psychiatrist seven years ago.

Menendez, in a brief interview, said he did not know that his closest political adviser, Donald Scarinci, invoked his name in pressuring the psychiatrist to hire a Menendez acquaintance in 1999.

In a secretly recorded telephone call, Scarinci tells the psychiatrist, Oscar Sandoval, Menendez "would consider it a favor." On the same tape, Scarinci said the hire would offer Sandoval "protection" after the psychiatrist complained of trouble renewing his lucrative county contracts. ...

... Democrats accused the Kean campaign of engineering the tape's release, a claim flatly denied by Kean spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker. Yesterday, Sandoval backed the denial. He said he was approached for information about Menendez by Chris Lyon, an operative working for a Kean campaign consultant, but refused to speak with him.

The psychiatrist said he is speaking out about Menendez only now because he has been working on the lawsuit and transcribing audiotapes. ...

... Democratic Party chairman Joe Cryan said the tempest has made Democrats, who've won every U.S. Senate race in New Jersey since 1972, more resolved.

"The party understands we're not going to win this campaign by virtue of our previous successes," he said.

According to the latest polls, Tom Kean, Jr. leads Robert Menendez 44%-38%. This burdgeoning scandal is only going to add woes to his campaign, and the DNC in Jersey is going to need more than resolve to save Menendez's short Senate career. They're going to need a miracle. Of course there is always the Torricelli Option where tyhe Democrats removed Robert Torricelli from the ballot thirty-six days outside of the general election and replaced him with Frank Lautenberg. The replacement was challenged by the Jersey RNC, and the state supreme court upheld the switch despite the fact the law specifically states that no such switch could occur 51 days or later in the campaign.

If things continue to heat up for Robert Menendez, and it looks like it's about to, then I expect the DNC to either pull him (we're only 39 days away right now; Monday marks 36 days out of the election which is the bar set by the NJSC that last time around), or keep him in the race, and go after Sandoval like they're doing now. They're pulling out the stops to make Sandoval the bad guy--a liar trying to smear a US Senator. The Democrats always pull this sort of game when one of theirs gets his hand caught in the cookie jar. As it stands right now, Senator Menendez has some explaining to do, and we'd prefer it be done in front of a judge.

Either way you cut this, dear readers, Menendez is in trouble, and things are looking better for Tom Kean. Let's give him a helping hand, and dig up some contributions. A little goes a long way, and this could be a key seat the GOP might pick up this year.

Sabrina McKinney
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

America Isn't Stupid: The Democrats Will Not Win In November

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Friday, September 29, 2006 9:33:16 AM
 It is the 29th of September, and we sit just a little over a month outside of the midterm elections. And recent actions committed by the Democrat Party should have their base thoroughly worried. Thomas and Marcie have been hammering a solid point, and it's one shared by many amongst the center/right of the blogosphere: The Democrats are showing the nation that they don't stand for making sure this nation isn't hit again by terrorists.

This debate has been going on since 2003 when Democrats voted in favor of a war they didn't really believe in. The vote, which was held on October 16, 2002, supported going into Iraq, but as soon as the 2002 elections were over, the Democrats quickly changed their statements; many announced that they had a change of heart, and looked at their votes as a mistake. The whole chorus erupted with similar sentiments by the time we invaded Iraq, and within days of the invasion, Democrats were adopting the media talking points of a quagmire there.

They have been highly critical of the administration. In 2004, John Kerry announced that the Democrats wanted a new strategy for the war on terror, and campaigned on that strategy (though to this day no one really knows what that strategy was as Kerry failed to clue anyone in on it). This effort failed miserably as America realized that his ideas would lead us down the same failed road as the Clinton Administration did.

A side note here: I know that the liberals are constantly whining that our side brings up Bill Clinton. It's regrettable that we have to, but his ideas regarding how to address the issue of terrorism was completely foolish. Subpoena them? Indict them? Try them in abstentia? And they thought such tactics would frighten our enemies, which just goes to show America that these people weren't serious about dealing with the issue. Terrorists care little for laws that they don't believe in. Shari'a is the only law these people believe in, and under it they're justified in their actions. But that administration didn't get the concept of killing an enemy. And we know that there is some blame the current administration has to share in September 11th. It is not nearly as much as the previous one, but for that tragic day, there is plenty of blame to go around.

And the Democrats have simply continued to push the failed policies of that administration. But they've also taken it one several steps further. They have opposed any measures he has tried to take to make it easier and more efficient to protect the nation. They opposed the nomination of John Bolton to the UN, despite the fact that his presence has been a Godsend to the nation there. (And they still oppose him today.) They have attacked the president over his NSA surveillance program, over the SWIFT program, over secret prisons and CIA rendition flights. They have attacked him for the lack of "body armor" and "vehicle armor" for the troops. (The former a complete lie as all of our soldiers are outfitted with armored tactical vests.) Many of the Democrat leadership has taken up the talking points of the antiwar movement int he nation; a movement that may have it's roots in the Vietnam era, and that's where their last "victory" lies in that respect.

John Kerry, John Murtha, Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer; they've all taken the stance that we need to withdraw from Iraq. (Murtha calls it "redeployment," which is a term that John Kerry has latched onto, as well.) Redeployment isn't the answer to the so-called problems in Iraq. And those problems, it should be noted, aren't shared by the commanders on the ground, like General John Abizaid. The following is from an interview the general had recently with Hugh Hewitt:

HH: General Abizaid, are you confident as well that victory is possible in Iraq? And what will that look like?

JA: Yeah, no, I'm very confident that victory's possible, not only in Iraq, but in the broader Middle East, if you consider victory being a Middle East where extremism is not tolerated, and doesn't have a chance of going mainstream in the region. I certainly think that in Iraq, there'll be violence after the time that American forces depart. I think that the sectarian issues are deep, but they don't need to be fatal. I believe that over time, as you build institutional capacity and the Iraqi government, and especially in the Iraqi armed forces, that Iraqis will be able to do more and more of the day to day security work. And as that happens, we'll be able to bring our forces down. A lot of people...

HH: Do you have enough troops, General, to do the mission, to achieve that stability and victory?

JA: Yeah, Hugh. We have over 200,000 American troops in the Middle East. That's down from a high of 375,000 back in '03. But more importantly, there's over 275,000 Iraqi troops, 70,000 Afghan troops that are fighting directly with us, and then you go to places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, where they're fighting against the extremists with quite a few troops as well, and througout the region as well. So if it was my opinion that the people in the region weren't willing to fight against the extremists on their own, then I would have a different conclusion than what I just gave you. But all indications are that the people out here are not interested in having their countries turn into Taliban-like states. But on the other hand, Shiia extremism and Sunni extremism in the region are very strong, and we need to help the states help themselves against this. And at the same time, we've got to keep the flow of natural resources moving through the Straits of Hormuz, the Suez Canal, and the Babel Mandeb, which take an awful lot of air and naval power.

The general admits that there are some problems, but believes that vicotry can be achieved in the overall sense. The Democrats don't. And to prove this, we need only look to the past three or four days. They have grabbed ahold of the National Intelligence Estimate leaked to the New York Times, and are waving it like a banner. According to them, we are the source of increased terrorism. The more we fight, the more radical Islamicists will join the fight. We are, according to their estimates, creating more problems than we're solving over there. Yet that isn't what the report states. It acknowledge the uptick in violence, but it states that if we beat them in Iraq--a theater of operations where the terrorists have virtually put all their eggs in one basket--then the possibility of more radical Islamicists joining the fight is greatly reduced. It also acknowledges that killing the main leadership of al-Qaida in "rapid succession" would be enough to splinter the group thereby making al-Qaida less of a threat to the nation. The Democrats fail to grasp how this could occur.

Simply put, a fractured organization would have to rely on themselves, and those people--if they're not used to dealing with the internal situations of a cell--financing, supplying, sanctuary--they can be easily tracked down, captured, or killed. For evidence of this we only need to reference recent history. Namely, the recent plane plot broken up by British authorities. While they did have financial help from other cells, which would be the ones nailed in a worldwide sting. These arrests were made in Britain and in Pakistan. In addition to this we can look at the recent plot foiled in Canada where radical Islamicists were plotting to attack several government buildings. Both plots were able to be foiled with the help of the NSA surveillance program.

But the Democrats don't seem to care. When this subjkect is broached, they whine about the 'loss of civil liberties' for Americans when Americans aren;t the ones being targeted by these measures. Al-Qaida is being targeted. Radical Islam is in the crosshairs. They seem to miss this point. And on the issue of civil liberites, what has been revoked? If I were to stand accused of aiding and abetting terrorism, I'm still entitled to my Constitutional rights. So is Thomas, Marcie, Hugh Hewitt, and any other American citizen. We still do live in a land where we are innocent until proven guilty. Until that guilt is proven, we maintain our rights.

And despite their whines to the contrary, this program is perfectly legal. So was the SWIFT program. But they despise both because they're targeting our enemies. The democrats don't seem to like that word much, and many refuse to even acknowledge that the enemy we fight has no legitimate gripe. Their gripe--al-Qaida's and Osama bin Laden's--went away the day we left Saudi Arabia. But that wasn't good enough for them. Now there are other reasons why they hate us, and the Democrats refuse to even recognize those reasons. They hate us for our freedom, our liberties, and even our tolerance. After all, we tolerate everyone. (If we didn;t, would today's Democrat Party even have the right to speak?) They hate us, in short, because we are America; land of the free and home of the brave, and we stand for freedom around the world.

Democrats definitely dislike being painted in a bad light. They are still clinging to the lost ideals they once held onto. Being for the little man, and standing strong for America. Unfortunately for the nation, that dream died during the Vietnam War--a war they started with the phony Gulf of Tonkin incident hyped by then-President Lyndon Johnson. The radicals int he party came to the forefront, and they haven't gone back into the shadows since then. And now they play this game of brinkmanship for keeps. They want their power back so they can make the current administration pay for some imagined slight.

The Florida recounts? They'll make Bush pay. The midterms of 2002, which threw the Senate under GOP control? Oh, they';ll come back. John Kerry's failed 2004 presidential bid? STOLEN in Ohio, dammit! These people no longer live in reality. Today was the most glaring example of the "land of make believe" these people live in. When three senior Democrats take to the floor of the Senate to argue IN FAVOR OF habeas corpus protections of terrorists, something is seriously wrong with the party.

habeas corpus is the name of a legal instrument or writ by means of which detainees can seek release from unlawful imprisonment. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order addressed to a prison official (or other custodian) ordering that a detainee be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he or she should be released from custody. However, it applies only to United States citizens. Under the Constitution, it can't be suspended, according to Article I, Section 9, clause 2. Again, it applies to citizens only, and the current elected leaders are whining about it not being extended to our enemies. Our enemies are foreign-born illegal combatants, not US citizens; ligical assumptions dictate that by this reasoning, they don't have the right to begin with.

What can be said of a party that seems to be more intent on protecting those trying to kill us than protecting the people who trusted them enought o put them in office? That is what this year is all about. It's imperative that we remember we have an enemy willing to go to great lengths to hurt us. September 11th wasn't easy, nor was it cheap. If they hae the means by which to pull off another September 11th, and we have another breakdown, it's going to harm us in ways we can only imagine. This isn't 'fear-mongering' as the democrats proclaim. This is about protecting the nation. If we fail in that respect, then I have a list of things you can forget about, too.

These people are as clueless as a newborn babe in the woods. They are concerned with eight principle things:

*Withdraw the troops from Iraq.

*Begin proceedings for the impeachment of the president, and possibly the vice-president.

*Capitulate to world opinion regarding radical Islamofascism.

*Remove all the protocols put in place to protect the nation, including the NSA surveillance program.

*Repeal the Patriot Act.

*Grant terrorists the same Constitutional protections reserved for citizens.

*Release of all prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, and elswhere abroad.

*A possible withdrawal from Afghanistan.

These eight items are at the top of their laundry list should they regain power. Notice that none of it stems from a need to protect the nation. It is more about tearing down a president than anything else. And while I'll grant them a teeny bit of anger about how the Republicans went about impeaching President Clinton, that quickly dies the moment I remember that the man was impeached because he lied.

He lied to a federal grand jury. He suborned the perjury of Monica Lewinsky. (To define it for those that don't understand the word "suborn," the president tried to coax someone into lying on his behalf.) And he submitted a false affidavit to the judge of the proceedings. for a party with little morality left in it, it was the last straw when the Republicans held President Clinton accountable for his crimes. These people lie all the time. And yes, I include the little white lies and the politically-motivated ones in that indictment. Yet they can't come up with a single lie the president has uttered. They attack him over the "lies" surrounding WMDs in Iraq while ignoring the fact that we have found them over them, and President Clinton cited the same thing in 1998, 1999, and 2000. They didn't magically disappear in three years; not based on the list of WMDs then Secretary of State Powell gave to the UN Security Council.

They will lie if they have to to get their power back. they will sell out anyone who disagrees with them over any politically-charged issue. Representatives Wynn and Rush can attest to this, as can Senator Joe Lieberman. But the party is about to get a rude awakening come November. As the title implies, America isn't stupid. Mainsstream America understands the gravity of national security. It isn't to be a political football, and that's what they're seeing from the Democrats. Everything to them is a political opportunity, or they look for them just so they can continue kicking the administration. Another thing they seem to have forgotten is America isn;t happy when one side attacks a sitting president. They reacted in a nasty way towards the Republicans when President Clinton was impeached, and they're none too happy with the ones that are daily assailing the administration for some slight--new or old.

When America heads to polls, they will send a message to the Democrats that they don't trust them. And while the single-issue voters might be able to rally and take down a Republican or two, the Republicans won't lose control of either House. (And if the single-issue people are that determined to remove a Republican, hopefully they have the God's honest sense not to vote for the Democrat.) This year is extremely important to the nation. It will set the agenda for the remaining two years of President Bush's last term. Are we going to play the silly game of being angry enough to stay hime and "punish" the party, abandining the nation to the Democrats so they can make it vulnerable again? Or are we going to stand up, and cast a vote that continues to keep this nation protected?

I for one know which way I'm going. And if you'd like to contribute, head over to Hugh's site and follow the links to those who need your support. The base is needed this year more than ever. Every little bit counts, and whether you donate money or time, these candidates will be grateful that you chose the chance of victory over a strategy that has been tried, and has failed.

Sabrina McKinney
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Loopy Leahy's Lame Lunacy

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:49:36 PM
 Patrick Leahy has completely lost his mind. Below is a portion of his floor debate today over the detainee bill. All emphasis is mine. This transcript is courtesy of Hugh Hewitt

"This is not just a bad bill. This is truly a dangerous bill..I have been asking Secretary Rumsfeld for the last several weeks whether our actions are eliminating more of our enemies than are being created. But now we understand. We are creating more enemies than we are eliminating. Our intelligence agencies agree the global jihadist movement is spreading and adapting, and is increasing in both numbers and geographic dispersions. We aren't making ourselves safer. We're putting us more at risk. Intelligence agencies go on to note the new jihadist networks and cells with anti-American agendas are increasingly likely to emerge and the operational threat will grow not only abroad but in the homeland. This is truly chilling.

Nicely paraphrased from the New York Times arguments. And it also shows that Senator Leahy has not read enough of the National Intelligence Estimate. While it acknowledges that right now there seems to be an uptick in "sectarian violence" in Iraq, more successes on our side of the coin will deter more radical Islamicists from joining the jihad. In the end, the NIE states that we must win, and right now we're doing all right with that, but there is room for improvement.

The Bush Cheney Adminstration not only failed to stop 9/11 from happening, but for five years failed to bring Osama bin Laden to justice even though they had him cornered at Tora Bora --they yanked our special forces out of there to send them into Iraq. We witnessed the growth of additional enemies.

Who is writing this man's words? MoveOn.org? Going back to blaming the president for September 11th is ludicrous. President Bush, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, shares the blame with the Clinton Administration. But for people like Senator Leahy, history apparently began in January of 2001, and every little thing the president has done has contributed to us being attacked. Someone get this guy a straight-jacket. But wait, there's more of this craziness.

When America can be seen abandoning its basic American Democratic values, its checks and balances and its great and wonderful legal tradition, and is seen as becoming more autocratic and less accountable, how's that going to help foster democratic reforms elsewhere? Do as I say and not as I do is a model that has never successfully inspired peoples around the world, and it doesn't inspire me.

Lord, save my sanity because his is completely gone. It flew the coop obviously before this debate started. We're abandoning our 'basic American Democratic values,' with just a little over a month to go before we engage in a general election. We're abandoning those values when we say that terrorists can't be granted raights reserved for American CITIZENS only. This man is making an argument to extend American rights to its most loathsome and threatening enemies trying to kill us. That is like trying to treat a rattlesnake like it's a human being. Does he intend to prosecute the rattlesnake after it bites him?

The Administration has yet to come clean to the Congress or the Amerian people in connection with the secret legal justifications it has generated, the secret practices it has employed in detaining and interrogating hundreds if not thousands of people. Even they cannot dismiss the practices at Guantanamo as the actions of a few bad people.

Ahem. If the practices he is referring to include the six specific things that the CIA has asked for, then why isn't he asking Sens. McCain, Graham, and Warner. They did, after all, hammer the bill out, and approved of those measures. The administration has been perfectly transparent on things that America needs to know about. That which we don't need to know about is kept quiet. Sen. Leahy appears to be living back in an era where the government classified things so a story wouldn't get out. This is a time where they keep things to themselves so our enemies don't find out. He has a near-conspiratorial edge to his diatribe, like the Administration is some sinister regime.

And the Administration is now obtaining license. Before they just did it quietly, and against the law, on their own say so, but now they are obtaining license to engage in additional harsh techniques that the rest of the world will see as abusive, as cruel, as degrading and even as torture. Unfortunately, a growing number of our own people see it that way too..

Well, I hate to drop this bombshell on him, bnut what will happen to the detainees is no different than what happened before. The interrogation techniques stay. It's not torture. Were it torture, it would be banned. It might be like we're being abuisive, but it's not even that. Water-boarding? Navy SEALs are subjected to water-boarding as part of their training. Cold rooms? The military makes its soldiers work in the worst possible environments in the worst possible conditions during training. It it weren't for the panty-waists in the world, the world might recognize the effectiveness of such measures, and not amateurishly proclaim this to be torture. John McCain endured torture at the hands of his Vietnamese captors. Our soldiers in World War II were subjected to far worse at the hands of the Japanese and the Germans. We are doing nothing like what those countries did. By comparison, this is mild.

Secrecy for all time is to be the Republican rule of the day. Congressional oversight is no more. Checks and balances are no more. The fundamental check that was last provided by the Supreme Court is now to be taken away. This is wrong. This should be unconstitutional. It is certainly unconscionable, and it is certainly not the action of any Senate in which I have served. It is not worthy of the United States of America. What we are saying is one person will make all the rules. There will be no checks and balances. There will be no dissent. There will be nobody else's view. And we will remove piece by piece by piece every single law that might have allowed checks and balances. We are rushing through legislation that will have a devastating effect on our security and our values, and I implore senators, step back from the brink, and think about what we are doing.

That had to hurt for him to admit that this isn't unconstitutional. Furthermore with the beginning of this little rant, one would think that there's a provision in the bill that dissolves Congress. No more oversight and no more checks and balances? This isn't a Constitutional Amendment outlawing Congress or removing any of it's powers. It is defining what the president can and can't do. It defines a legal and illegal combatant. What it isn't is a blnak check for our enemies to traipse through their procedures with ALL the protections of a United States citizen.

We should be doing, focusing on getting the terrorists, securing the nuclear material, doing the things that Senator Kerry has talked about, others have, win the peace in Afghamistan, where the Taliban has regrouped.

'Getting the terrorists?' I suppose he missed the news that we killed al-Zarqawi back in June. 'Securing nuclear material?' We did when we first entered Iraq, and we're doing it now with trying to get Iran to end it's uranium enrichment program. 'Doing the things that Senator Kerry has talked about?' Thank God we're not doing that! If we were, the UN would have voted to ask us to leave Iraq by now. And just think, with his inability to understand the law, if the Democrats win back the Senate, this is the schmuck who will chair the Judiciary Committee.

But instead the president and the Republican Senate leaders call for rubber stamping more flawed White House proposals, just in time, just in time for the run up to another election, and for the fund raising appeals to go out. And I'd hope that this time for the first time, even though the United States Senate is controlled by the presidents party that we could act as an independent branch of the government, finally serve as a check on this administration.

(Read: Shame on the Republicans.) Sen. Leahy would prefer that they roll over for the Democrats the same way the Democrats would roll over for the terrorists. This man stood on the floor of the Senate, in this same rambling, bumbling, stumbling diatribe, and proclaimed he was upset that habeas corpus was being revoked from the terrorists. Revoked? They never even had it. They can't, leagally speaking. It's not open to them. The Constitution provides American citizens with certain rights. The Fourteenth Amendment clearly--empiracally--defines a United States citizen. These people--these terrorists--don't have those rights. They can't be granted it, and should the Democrats truly make a fuss about this, and get it challenged to the Supreme Court, the high court will rule that they're wrong, the legislation and the Administration are right.

And after this debate and the rejection of all amendments intended to improve this measure, I see that that day is long past. I will continue to speak out, that's my privilege as a United States Senator. But I weep for our country and our American values and the principles on which I was raised and which I took a solemn opath to uphold. I applaud those senators who stood several times on the flor today and who have voted to uphold the best of American values. Remember we are giving a blank check to a government whose incompetence was demonstrated in historic dimensions in the lack of preparations in response to Hurricane Katrina. This is the same government in its fight against terrorism had Senator kennedy and Congressman Lewis on terrorist watch lists and then couldn't get them off. This is a government that repeatedly releases confidential family information about our armed forces and veterans. It is a government that just refuses to admit any mistakes or make any corrections and regards all of its representatives from Donald Rumsfeld to Michael Brown as doing a heck of a job.

Katrina, 9/11, terrorist watch lists, and torture. I've never had so much fun laughing than if I were at the circus. Unfortunately for us today, Sen. Leahy didn't wear his clown suit a make-up. I have to question the 'release' of 'confidential' information about veterans and active-duty military. If they are referring to the laptops that have recently gone missing, and subsequently been recovered, VA officials stated that neither were accessed. Besides, you can't blame the administration for things they have no control over, and that is one thing they didn't have control over.

This is Patrick Leahy, dear readers, and he is showing the nation that the Democrats have gone lemming; they're off the deep-end, and they just keep driving themselves further to, and over, the edge of sanity and reasoned thought. Like I said, this is amusing, but it's also sad. We can no longer have an honest debate with these people. They reach into realmns that even JRR Tolkien never envisioned, and slap it out across the media, spinning as they go, just like Michael Moore. This goes beyond unhinged. It goes waaaay beyond Bush Derangement Syndrome. These people are watching far too many X-Files repeats, and see this nation as something it isn't; they see their government as doing something it hasn't done, but is constantly assailed for doing.

The arguments today (Senator John Kerry and Dianne Feinstein joined the habeas corpus chorus, along with Senator Patrick Leahy) should show America where the Democrats stand. This was not one simpleton amongst the Democrats. They mobilized today, and they spoke out. And they spoke out in volumes that the country should recognize from the days of future past. This chorus is old and overused. And it's not going to work. Everytime these people open up their mouths, the political noose gets tighter. On November 7th, they'll go to the polls with the illusion that they'll win. On November 8th, maybe the shock will be enough to wake them up and make them realize that their ideas aren't being accepted. Of course a few are liable to find themselves unemployed. When that happens, expect this party to be certifiable.

Sabrina McKinney

UPDATE: Welcome Hugh Hewitt Readers!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Appropriate Memorials Vs. Politically-Correct Stupidity

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Thursday, September 28, 2006 6:00:13 PM
 Rarely do I touch on regional issues, even in my own state of Illinois. However the kids have been grousing about the Sept. 11th Memorial here in Arizona. I've seen the pictures of the memorial, and you can, too here (including photos of the inscriptions) and here (which includes a photo of what it looks like from the outside). Needless to say I can understand why they're a little ticked. I would be, as well, if Illinois decided to erect such an abhorrant mockery to remember that day, those who died, and the survivors who walked from the rubble.

On the 26th, Ace of Spades posted phtos of what a memorial to that day should look like. It's in Broomfield, Colorado; the images alone will have tears welling up in your eyes. It was done tastefully, with plaques that focused on each plane attack, and a sculpture of three people. Two on either side of another helping her to safety. This is how a memorial of that deadly day should be. Those that settled on the plans for the memorial here in Arizona clearly had ulterior motives, and those ideas were obviously driven by the necessity to make a political statement. And speaking of political statements, check this out from Flopping Aces:

A reader at Hot Air found this curriculum for K-12 students visiting the site:

Ask students to think about how they would answer these questions: What does the word “tolerance” mean? What do you do and how do you react when a person is different from you? Share that today they will be learning more about tolerance and diversity.

Describe how key political, social, environmental, and economic events of the late 20th century and early 21st century (e.g., Watergate, OPEC/oil crisis, Central American wars/Iran-Contra, End of Cold War, first Gulf War, September 11) affected, and continue to affect, the United States.

Ask students what a world-wide memorial to victims of terrorism might look like. Have students design/draw their idea of a memorial. Have them write a paragraph or two explaining how their design shows a world affected by terrorism in the 21st century.

Inform students that today they will look at any effects 9-11 has had on our civil liberties.

Enactment: Discussion: Ask students: What has our government done to prevent a terrorist attack from happening again? (i.e., enacted the Patriot Act, increased security at airports and other locations, monitored some overseas phone conversations, etc.) What are some of the negative and positive aspects of these changes? Do students feel the changes are helping to prevent terrorism? What else do students feel the government could or should do to prevent a similar event from happening?

While I applaud teachers for wanting to teach about Sept. 11th, I would prefer they stick to the facts. Nineteen Middle-Eastern men, affiliated with the terrorist group al-Qaida, hijacked four jet liners, and turned them into cruise missiles. In that attack, 2,996 innocent civilians were killed. And since then, we have gone to war to destroy this enemy and protect this nation. Talk about the days events, discuss what they heard/saw on TV or radio that day. FORGET tolerance and diversity. The reasons why these terrorists chose to do this is irrelevant; they targeted innocent civilians in a surprise attack, and that should be condemned and deemed unacceptable by ANY civilized nation. And can someone tell me what two events--Watergate and Ira/Contra--have to do with Sept. 11th? The last time I checked, neither one of them were connected to the attack by the 9/11 Commission's report. Personally, I think the teachers would be better off sticking to facts and history rather than talking points that have no relevant place in the discussion at all.

Let the pundits hash out the "why" of the act of war. Let the president and the military fight the darn war. Learning to love and forgive our enemy is nice and sweet, but it doesn't help us protect this nation. The nation will be safe once our enemy is destroyed, or at least their capacity to fight is. Group hugs aren't going to help us. Learning about their culture isn't going to help us. And sitting in a circle, holding hands, and singing Kumbaya won't help us either. Killing our enemy will.

And the latest coming out of this flap is amusing. The governor of the State of Arizona has issued a statement that she never saw the inscriptions and that all questions or criticisms should be directed to the people that put the memorial together. Excuse me, Madam Governor but as the elected leader of the State of Arizona, it falls to you to review what might be seen as a mistake when it comes to spending taxpayer monies. That's right, dear readers, this disgusting memorial was constructed with taxpayer dollars, and private contributions. And is it any wonder why the citizens of Arizona are hot under the collar about this? Mr. Allah Pundit at Hot Air believes the governor to be "bullet-proof." That may be so, but as the kids point out, a couple more black eyes never looked better on such a pitiful, liberal governor.

This memorial craps all over the memory of those who died and those who responded to the attacks. I must concur with the kids, Espresso Pundit, and anyone else who has made this sort of call: TEAR it down, and rebuild it correctly. Yes, it is a waste of the taxpayers money, but I would rather see a memorial I can be prud of and remember that fateful day than one that has nothing but spit and vitriol for a nation that was attacked. The inclusion of non-Sept. 11th material in these inscriptions is completely and totally inappropriate. And if there was no oversight conducted by the governor's office--as she claims--then this is a serious lapse on the part of the state government.

Now the commission in charge of placing memorials in Wesley Bolin Plaza has decided to review the Sept. 11th memorial, after embarressingly admitting that no one paid attention to the inscriptions at all. Now they have decided that this warrants an investigation, and changes if they deem them necessary. (Here's a hint for them: CHANGE IT!) But what is most telling is the quote that Mr. Allah Pundit highlighted in his post:

Smith said Wednesday it never occurred to him during the February meeting to check on details of the inscriptions’ wording.

“We never thought anything would be inappropriate,” he said. “It didn’t sound like there would be anything controversial.”

Smith also said he didn’t think his commission was misled. “No, I think we could have been naive.”

Naive, indeed. As a matter of fact, he goes onto add his thoughts, and I'm sure they're shared by a great deal of Arizona citizens:

These morons commissioned a monument to September 11th and never thought to check what would actually be on it?

And I thought we had a team of brain-dead monkeys running the show in Illinois. I guess this sort of stupidty isn't exclusive anywhere, but is prevalent in places where public servants seem to be lax on the job.

Sabrina McKinney
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Democrats Continue To Tighten Their Own Noose

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Thursday, September 28, 2006 4:18:16 PM
 Early this morning (after a wonderful reception last night) I reintroduced myself to the readers of The Asylum. It's beenb a long time since I've done some writing, and despite being away fro some time, it's nioce to see that I still have the ability to write effectively. It's a lot like riding a bike; you'll never forget how to do it.

However what Democrats seem to have forgotten is that we are at war and Hugh Hewitt observes this in a striking fashion today. H.R. 6166 is the new detainee bill that authorizes the military tribunals for the detainees we capture in this war. There are 201 Democrats in the House, and 160 of them voted AGAINST this bill. According to Dennis Kucinich this bill "is everything we don't believe in." Rep. John Murtha, whom the extremem fringe is pushing to be the majority leader should the Democrats retake the House, jumped into the mix, and the NY Sun quotes him:

"It gives too much leeway to the president," Rep. John Murtha, a Democrat of Pennsylvania, said. "And I think when you tamper with the Geneva Conventions ... you hurt our ability to protect the troops."

That fails logic on every level. The president is the commander-in-chief of the military, and the leader of the united States. His powers are explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. He has the ability to prosecute this war any way he sees fit, provided it doesn't violate the law. The Supreme Court ruled that because Congress hadn't, in fact, authorized the tribunals that they had to tackle that. (That is also within the Constitution: Article I, Section 8, to be exact where it states that they have the power "To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.")

That what this bill was to do, but 160 Democrats in the House disagreed that we shouldn't be creating tribunals to prosecute these detainees. We're talking about our enemies here. These people want to kill us. And the Democrats--a good majority of them--disagree with this approach. Their logic boggles the mind. And in this election season the more they pull stunts like this, the tighter the noose they're wearing is going to get.

In short, dear readers, I don't buy the polls. I don't trust them (most of them), and I disagree with the assessemnt the DNC is making that they can and will retake both Houses. The kids have pointed out that the races coming up this november, while they are tight for some, they are not unwinnable by the GOP. In fact, a few of them are well within the margin of error, or within striking distance with a strong finish. It falls to us, the base, to ensure they return.

I know that a lot of people in the GOP base are unhappy with the dawdling the party has been engaged in for a couple of years, and the simple fact that they don't seem to have the stomach or spine for a good, old-fashioned, knock-down, drag-out political fight. But they had better locate it soon, otherwise the Democrats will put their noose around the nation, and hang us all. This vote shows that these people can't handle the idea of holding our enemies accountable for their actions.

Their talking points regarding a withdrawal from Iraq, and possibly Afghanistan, are purely nuts. Our enemies are in those two nations, so does a withdrawal mean the Democrats would rather have them over here? To top that off, we see their response to the president's programs to track these people down. They're against them. They'd like to extend any and all Constitutional protections to these people, and put them through the criminal justice system. Our criminal justice system wasn't created to handle such things. In a war, the prisoners have always gone through the military justice system. President Clinton opted to run the '93 WTC bombers through the criminal justice system, and we see how well that worked out. Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman (the blind Sheik) who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, used Lynne Stewart, a member of his legal team, to facilitate communications between himself and Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya--a radical terrorist group from Egypt. She was convicted in 2005 for doing this. But it shows that our system can't handle people like this. Another example is, of course, the recent verdict in the Moussaoui trial.

The tribunals are absolutely necessary for our enemies. We can't allow civilians to preside over the justice deserved for these individuals. We're too lenient on heinous offenders in our nation--our own citizens--and the moral relevance that attorneys will draw on for their clients could prove disastrous. A threat that we face, should we put these people through the criminal justice system, is recruitment in prisons. Do we really want to see homegrown radical jihadists coming out of our prisons? I wouldn't like it, and I doubt a fair majority of the nation wouldn't like it either. They're simply too dangerous to go through our criminal system.

Let this vote, and the actions of the Democrat Party, be a notice for the nation. They are weak on the issue of the war. I don't like the idea that the war has been politicized, but the Democrats started this right after their votes. They voted for this, but immediately started giving the president heck over over how he was conducting it, how our troops were acting, and immediately branded the whole thing a failure. And that was just in the first week of fighting.

The Democrats are completely weak on this front. They may have the odd and occasional good idea but when it comes to the war, they can't handle what is necessary to make this nation safe. If these people are given power back this November, this nation is in a great deal of trouble. And it goes beyond who the new Majority Leaders will be in either House. It goes beyond Rep. Rangel being the ranking member on the House Ways and Means committee. It goes beyond Sen. Leahy being in control of the Senate Judiciary Committee or Sen. Rockefeller being the chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committe.

The kids are right, and they have been pushing this since Hugh Hewitt unveiled the platform for the GOP. If we do not stand strong on the war, and hold the line, nothing else in the nation matters. Forget tax cuts or hikes. Forget who will be the next nominee on the Supreme Court. If the GOP loses in November, we will be fighting this war from the worst position of weakness we have ever had to endure. Our hands will be tied. Our intelligence agencies will have their fangs ripped away. And our military will go back to where it was under President Clinton--emascualted because we don't want to "offend" anyone, and completely at the mercy of the United Nations. In short the Democrats will have achieved explicitly what John Kerry wanted in 2004.

A United States that only does what the world allows it to do. That's not how we defend this nation, and the Democrats are 100% wrong in their assertions that this sort of strategy will help America. It won't. It's going to hurt us, and at a time when we really can't afford that. We not only have our enemies to deal with, but Iran and North Korea as well. Appeasement in the face of these regimes may be the Democrat's plan to "secure" this nation, but it's not a sound policy that will grant us the security we have now. And a Democrat victory in November turns President Bush into exactly what we don't need right now: A lame duck that will face obstruction in Congress every minute of every day. He's the leader of the nation, and he's fighting a war. The Democrats don't want us fighting this war any longer, and they're making that clear for everyone.

So, for those in the GOP, please contribute to the people up for reelection this year, and support those running for a seat tfor the first time. Support: Mike DeWine, Rick Santorum, Conrad Burns, Michael Steele, Bob Corker. Mark Kennedy, and John Kyl for the Senate.

Support those in the GOP for the House, including those that are fighting against the likes of John Murtha and the other "nutroots" candidates that are calling for appeasement and surrender in the face of an enemy that is intent on destroying this nation.

Sabrina McKinney

UPDATE: Patrick Leahy has stated oin the floor of the Senate that he will vote against this bill. He cites Habeas Corpus several times in one sentence, proclaiming that the bill is stripping this from the detainees. Habeas Corpus legally doesn't apply to foreign-born people. It applies to American citizens, not our foreign terrorist enemies. These doddering old fools are out to get us killed with this sort of thought process.

This is the fever swamp, dear readers. These people believe the garbage they read and hear from the fringe elements of the party. IF THEY CONTINUE down this path, with this sort of twisted, uneducated logic, they will lose in November in ways worse than they are predicting for the GOP. And IF this is their final leg platform--stating that they are against programs to protect this nation, and tribunals to prosecute our enemeis--then they are in for a very, very rude awakening on November 8th.

I'd also like to point out that his statement sounds like it has either been paraphrased by the recent New York Times arguments regarding the National Intelligence Estimate report, or it's been written by a "journalist" from that a paper. It's full of the same talking points and the same stupid logic. I'm also reemphasizing the support for people like Conrad Burns, whose opponent--Jon Tester--stated yesterday that the Patriot Act needed to be revoked. THIS IS THE DEMOCRATS this year, dear readers, and they're just bound and determined to get us killed.

UPDATE: Sens. John Kerry and Dianne Feinstein want Habeas Corpus for terrorists. Thomas is flabbergasted, and he was just on Hugh's show stating he wants to avoid "whatever law school these guys attended." As a lawyer myself, I fail to comprehend how idiotic these people sound. Oh yes, and Sen. Kennedy is worried about water being thrown on any detainees. No, we're sorry, Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.

Hat Tip: The Hugh Hewitt Show

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Some Things Never Change: The New York Times Is Still Wrong

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Thursday, September 28, 2006 4:56:25 AM
 Good morning, and welcome to a new day at the Asylum. For longtime readers, you'll remember that I was a guest-blogger on this site some months ago. I'm still continuing my fight against breast cancer, and I'm winning it. But the kids are away for a little R & R, and they asked me for a "return performance" on the site. So, for the next ten days or so, I'll be the one doing the writing. My name is Sabrina, and It's a pleasure to make the acquaintance of the newers readers; for the older ones, long time no see.

Onto business. When I left the site I had been dealing with a number of issues and events. One thing I see still hasn't changed is the New York Times and their idiotic portrayal of events. They totally screwed up the National Intelligence Estimate, and then offered up a a mockery of a defense of their amateurish interpretation of the report. Today, they presented another editorial--a gripe to Congress and the administration--for the recently passed anti-terror bill dealing with detainees.

The Times has several gripes in this piece, and I'd like to take them a step at a time. First, their lead-in to their list:

Last week, the White House and three Republican senators announced a terrible deal on this legislation that gave Mr. Bush most of what he wanted, including a blanket waiver for crimes Americans may have committed in the service of his antiterrorism policies. Then Vice President Cheney and his willing lawmakers rewrote the rest of the measure so that it would give Mr. Bush the power to jail pretty much anyone he wants for as long as he wants without charging them, to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, to authorize what normal people consider torture, and to deny justice to hundreds of men captured in error.

Point of order, your honor? The kids are right. nothing has changed. This bill does nothing but reinforce the laws that are currently on the books that deal with these sorts of prisoners. And the whining about the Geneva Convention is a bit on the melodramatic side. The Convention doesn't address fighters like these people. There are no Convention guidelines for an illegal combatant. For the record (and the benefit of the team of monkeys at the Times that NEVER went to law school) an illegal combatnat is some that:

--Wears no regular uniform with a sigil or flag on that uniform identifying their army.

--Bears no banner, sigil or flag in battle to identify themselves.

--Is not recognized or accepted by the nation they were caught in, and no other nation has stepped forward to claim them.

--They have no clearly defined commander or command structure in the field.

In every aspect of Convention interpretations, these people are illegal combatants. They are technically allowed no protections under the Convention, but the president has stated that these people will be treated under the Geneva Convention rules pertaining to POWs. There, the liberals should be happy now, right? Not even close. Allow me to continue:

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

Hello? Earth to the Times? Have we met? A terrorist who operates inside the United States is, in fact, an "illegal combatant." We don't know who thery are, where they reside, who their theater commander is, etc. So if we catch one here, in America, you bet your bottom dollar that he isn't going to get the cozy cell next to Moussaoui's. And summary arrest is a strong charge. We usually ask the government in question first, unless they already have them in custody (as is the case with the recent investigation by MI-5 in the plane terror plot). The detention is indefinite for a reason. If they were caught with the intention of committing an act, then I'm sorry but they're "ghosting" for awhile until we glean what we can from them.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

We just went down this road above. On the heels of the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan President Bush ordered that all detainees be given the same treatment due POWs under the Convention. As for his decisions as president regarding their interrogations, he has nothing to do with that. That goes to the individual interrogators, and those methods have been approved. Thomas posted about this last week when the deal was reached, and he made an interesting note:

And then there is this from AllahPundit:

The Blotter says Hayden’s pleased with the deal and that all six techniques the CIA had requested have been approved. To refresh your memory:

The first — the attention grab, involving the rough shaking of a prisoner.

Second — the attention slap, an open-handed slap to the face.

Third — belly slap, meant to cause temporary pain, but no internal injuries.

Fourth — long-term standing and sleep deprivation, 40 hours at least, described as the most effective technique.

Fifth — the cold room. Prisoners left naked in cells kept in the 50s and frequently doused with cold water.

The CIA sources say the sixth, and harshest, technique was called “water boarding,” in which a prisoner’s face was covered with cellophane, and water is poured over it — meant to trigger an unbearable gag reflex.

These techniques have been used for quite some time. Waterboarding, for example, is a method used to train soldiers. It is an excellent interrogation tool, and we teach our soldiers how to resist the panic that comes with the feeling the method provokes. All of these techniques were approved by the DoD, our intelligence agencies, etc. There is nothing wrong with them. This is not abuse, and it sure as heck isn't torture. No one is being "permanently damaged."

The Times go on further in it's hysterics, and it just continues to sputter downhill from here:

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Are these idiots for real? Basic Constitutional Law here guys: US rights apply to US citizens ONLY. They don't apply to the foreign-born who aren't citizens. Any detainees being held in a military prison is subject to other provisions of the law. Military law and civilian law aren't mutually exclusive; they can't operate within each other's realms. That's stupid. The detainees, as they were captured during hostilities, is subject to the UCMJ, not the Constitution.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Is anyone else hearing the "Twilight Zone" theme in their heads right now? Not only is the final sentence a swipe at the president--some veiled allusion to Hitler's actions during his tenure as Chancellor--and of course the bill is going to bar civilian legal intervention int he process. The detainees don't have a right to it. When are news outlets like the Times going to realize that the Constitution doesn't apply to every Tom, Debra, and Hamid around the globe. It applies only to us. Besides, I'd question Congress if they included a provision where the civilian legal system could get involved. I think Moussaoui's trial proved that civilians can't handle the gravity of such a case.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Okay, at this point I have to ask if intelligence has just left the building. Since when would a law in 2004 be accepted when a law in 2005 trumps it? And if this is to be their logic then why don;t they recognize the precedents leading up to Sealed Case as authorization for the president's NSA surveillance program? These people can't keep their logic straight. Add that plus the fact that these people we have captured aren't like any enemy we've taken prisoner before. These are people who have told their captors, lawyers and judges that if they get loose, they're going to kill them. The Islamic radicals take their war seriously. When will the Times?

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Ah, but Ken Lay wasn't threatening to launch a terror attack on the US, and neither was that mass murderer. These are matters of national security, and the government must have the opportunity to protect its security interests. These people have visits from their families when permitted. What prevents them from getting a message out about a possible mole in a cell, or the fact that a house they once believed was "safe" here isn't any longer? It kills any sort of case the government can build if every time they turn around, they're being hindered--purposefully--by enablers that believe the sort of nutty nonsense the Times espouses. Also, it should be noted that Thomas covered this in his post about the agreement that Lindsey Graham made a big deal about this in an interview with Hugh Hewitt back on the 14th. In that interview, he alluded that this was the most important aspect of the bill, yet it wasn't even addressed.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

If memory serves me correctly from law school, rape and sexual assault are already defined as "nonconsensual," so why redefine them again? Is not the original definition good enough? And what other forms of "nonconsensual sex" are they referring to? If someone is sodomized, then they are raped anally. Notice the word "rape" in the previous sentence? Hey, at least the readers catch onto this logic. And rape is already defined as a crime, so why include it in torture provisions. The law is clear from the start on this subject. Only its interpretation by the Times is foggy.

There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it.

We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.

The moderates have been "whipped into line?" Since when? Three of them just finished wasting time and money on a soapbox trip to score political points. Senator John McCain from Arizona led the charge on his hearty white steed (also known as Lindsey Graham), and they brought along their faithful squire John Warner in this little charade. But nothing changed within the law. The detainees will be treated as they always have been, not worse than before, and probably a helluva lot better.

And the Times gets is wrong with believing the Democrats are frightened because they're afraid the Republicans are going to hurl accusations at them. They're frightened because they know that the public is aware of their inability to handle issues of defense and national security. Their track record of allowing the threat to foment virtually unhindered, coupled with their incessant tirades demanding the retreat of our troops from the field of battle, only shows the voters what they already knew.

This piece, more than anything, almost sounds like a talking point straight out of the DNC. They're spinning this legislation as if it's something it's not. It's nothing. It's repetitive, and that's the damnable thing about this. We're in a war, and all they did was give the president what the Supreme Court requested: The tribunals. The detainee treatment doesn't change. We're still abiding by the Geneva Convention. And we can still use techniques that we've used for quite some time, like water-boarding. And I can only conclude by this pitiful editorial that the Times clearly knows nothing about what it purports to understand. They have no clue about the legislation they're opining about, and they have even less smarts in regard to the law. Now I know why Marcie keeps imploring them to have a lawyer fact-check them before these things go to print.

Nutty columns like this, with little rhyme or reason, defying logic in the process, is embarrassing. No wonder why their numbers keep shrinking.

Sabrina McKinney
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Day Has Arrived

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 10:12:40 AM
 For over a year Thomas and I have waited for this day. It has finally arrived, and we could not be happier. Yes, for those friends we have across the Internet, today is our wedding day. Do not worry about the site while we are gone. We have a special surprise for our longtime readers; one we jope they enjoy for the next ten days, or so. And while we are taking along a laptop in case something happens (al-Qaeda surrenders, a giant squid attacks our cruise ship, aliens come from out of the heavens to transport Howard Dean back home, or the new Democrats suddenly grow a brain cell) that laptop will not be the focus of our honeymoon.

Please enjoy our fill-in while weare gone, and Thomas and I will be right back at work, hard at it in the trenches, on October 7th.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Times' Response To The Declassified NIE

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 2:03:13 AM
Call it an impossibility to settle down. That is why I am up at this hour. And what do I see? I see a response by the New York Times to the declassification of the NIE yesterday. The entire "brief" has not been fully declassified, but key areas of it were so they could combat the spin the Times put on the estimate in the first place. The entire piece is cited below, as a subscription is required to access it. And, of course, what sort of an analysis would this be without my interjections crushing their fooilish little ideas:

It’s hard to think of a president and an administration more devoted to secrecy than President Bush and his team. Except, that is, when it suits Mr. Bush politically to give the public a glimpse of the secrets. And so, yesterday, he ordered the declassification of a fraction of a report by United States intelligence agencies on the global terrorist threat.

When it suits him? We bloggers could say the same thing about the Times and their blatant release of classified material from government leakers, but not the president. Never mind that the president, along with the vice president, have the ability to declassify ANYTHING. But the Times is disgusted with this, and we know why. They already blew the analysis, and as readers will see, this is a feeble attemtpt to save face with a "nanny-nanny boo-boo" defense. So, let us get this out of the way now. Yes the estimate did state all that the Times said was in there, however they took these items out of context within the report, and there is a need to set the record straight.

Mr. Bush said he wanted to release the document so voters would not be confused about terrorism or the war when they voted for Congressional candidates in November. But the three declassified pages from what is certainly a voluminous report told us what any American with a newspaper, television or Internet connection should already know. The invasion of Iraq was a cataclysmic disaster. The current situation will get worse if American forces leave. Unfortunately, neither the report nor the president provide even a glimmer of a suggestion about how to avoid that inevitable disaster.

Technically that is not what the estimate is about. It tells the readers what is going on with certain aspects of the world. The points in question within the released pages deal primarily with al-Qaeda, and briefly, at the end, with Iran and Syria. (I cited the document and gave analysis here.) The "glimmer of hope" that the Times is so desperately searching for is right here:

The Iraq conflict has become the .cause celebre. for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

The ray of hope is for America to win this, and we cannot do that while mainstream media outlets continue to hinder our progress in the war. The Times, with the story releasing information about the NIE has single-handily blown two classifed programs designed to disrupt our enemies, and then released information regarding an intelligence report. Thank you New York Times in aiding our enemies again by allowing them to know things that we know about them.

Despite what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, have tried to make everyone believe, one of the key findings of the National Intelligence Estimate, which represents the consensus of the 16 intelligence agencies, was indeed that the war in Iraq has greatly increased the threat from terrorism by “shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives.”

Again, the context. It also states that if they leave Iraq feeling defeated, it will kill the jihadist movement. All we have to do is hold true the course. Yes there will be successes and defeats. It is a war, after all. But to eternally proclaim the mission a failure--which the Times has done with nauseating incessancy--is a bit much. These people were screaming fromt he rooftops "QUAGMIRE" a week into the war, and they just will not come down off of that horse.

It said Iraq has become “the cause célèbre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.” It listed the war in Iraq as the second most important factor in the spread of terrorism — after “entrenched grievances such as corruption, injustice and fear of Western domination.” And that was before April, when the report was completed. Since then, things have got much worse. (The report was written before the killing in June of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The authors thought such an event would diminish the danger in Iraq. It has not.)

The loss of key leaders, particularly Usama Bin Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into smaller groups. Although like-minded individuals would endeavor to carry on the mission, the loss of these key leaders would exacerbate strains and disagreements. We assess that the resulting splinter groups would, at least for a time, pose a less serious threat to US interests than does al-Qaida.

Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global threat.

The above two parts are the only spots where al-Zarqawi is even discussed. It does not say that his death or removal from the Iraq theater would result in a decrease in violence. It says that the death of all three men in "rapid succession" would splinter al-Qaeda into tiny little groups. And that they would pose less of a threat to the nation. This is never more evident than in Iraq. The terrorists will not engage our troops. They are falling back on their old tactics of terrorism to force peopel to abide by their "rule." We see them come and go all the time in Iraq, and they do not last long once we sweep in. The second part is technically moot because he did not "escape" Iraq. Those in Iraq right now are strained already. They cannot compete against coalition and Iraqi forces. We recently captured al-Qaeda's number two man in Iraq, but I am sure the Times agrees that that is not a great achievement either.

Mr. Bush decided to release this small, selected chunk of the report in reaction to an article on the intelligence assessment that appeared in The Times over the weekend. As a defense of his policies, it serves only to highlight the maddening circular logic that passes for a White House rationale. It goes like this: The invasion of Iraq has created an entire new army of terrorists who will be emboldened by an American withdrawal. Therefore, the United States has to stay indefinitely and keep fighting those terrorists.

No, it goes more like this. On 9/11 we were attacked by al-Qaeda. They launched a team from afghanistan, and we demanded the Taliban hand over bin Laden and other key emembers of the organization. They refused. We invaded. In the course of the invasion we came across information that showed that al-Qaeda had been working with Saddam Hussein. Saddam bucked yet another United Nations resolution (1441), and we invaded. (We believe that "serious consequences" needs to go a bit beyond a harshly worded letter.) When we did invade, and remove him, the terrorists that had been there--some al-Qaeda, and a few others from the ranks of Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, et al--fought against us. Once Saddam's military ended its fight, we dealt with a native insurgency fueld by people like al-Sadr, in addition to the outside terrorist forces.

The native insurgents, for the most part, surrendered to the new government after the final vote--the constitution vote--in December of 2005. Since then we have been dealing with more foreign terrorists than native ones. And we will not abandon that nation to those animals. We will stay until they are ready to stand on their own. Pulling out would be the equivalent to pulling their chair out from underneath them. We will leave when the job is done. The jihadists decided to throw all their eggs in one basket; quite possibly an excuse for their failures around the world on terrorist plots.

By that logic, the more the United States fights, the longer the war stretches on.
It’s obvious why Mr. Bush did not want this report out, and why it is taking so long for the intelligence agencies to complete another report, solely on Iraq, that was requested by Congress in late July. It’s not credible that more time is needed to do the job. In 2002, the intelligence agencies completed a report on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction in less time. Mr. Bush also made selected passages of that report public to buttress his arguments for war with Iraq, most of which proved to be based on fairy tales.

He released these portions of the estimate to counter the Times' faulty assessment of what the report entails. Complaining about the time spent on these reports is absolutely nuts. It is the federal government, and it moves at the pace it sets for itself. Stamping your feet about it is not going to speed up the process. And as for the "fairy tales" the Times speaks of, need we remind them of of the casus belli?

--Alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction.

--Alleged ties to Al Qaeda and to international terrorism in general.

--Iraqi repression and brutalization of its civilian population.

--Iraqi hostility toward the United States.

--Iraqi hostility toward UN sanctioned operations such as Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch.

--Perceived Iraqi failure to cooperate with UN weapons inspections and disarmament procedures.

--Iraqi possession of Kuwaiti POW's, Iraqi violation of cease fire agreement.

--Attempted plot to kill former US president George H.W. Bush by Iraqi special service.

Then, Mr. Bush wanted Americans to focus on how dangerous Saddam Hussein was, and not on the obvious consequences of starting a war in the Middle East. Now, he wants voters to focus on how dangerous the world is, and not on his utter lack of ideas for what to do about it.

Idea Number One: Kill our enemy, or destroy their capacity to fight. See, we would still be doing that if it were not for the defeatist efforts of the Times. Blowing the cover on the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program, which helps us keep tabs on our enemies here, has been useful not only to us, but other nations, too. The Canadians made their raids based partly on information gleaned from the NSA TSP. The same goes for Britain in their recent arrests of a number of jihadists determined to commit an act equal in atrocity to 9/11; possibly even surpassing it.

When they released the story about the SWIFT program, the Times tipped our enemies off to what was being used to track their finances around the world. They knew, obviously, that we would be working to follow their money so we could put a stranglehold on their operations, but theyt likely did not know to what extent we had gone to. The revelation by the Times let them know that. Numerous intelligence analysts have stated that the release of these stories has damaged our efforts to stop our enemies here in the nation.

The Times does a nice rinse-and-spin of the NIE release, but it does not measure up to what the declassified sections really say. It does not paint a rosy picture, at all. But the underlying points made are that as long as they go home unhappy, the chances of more jihadists joining their ranks are greatly reduced, and that the worries of the future lie in theregion, with an ending emphasis placed on Syria and Iran; the two nations feeding the terrorists in Iraq.

The Times, simply put, is incorrect in their assesssments, and in their defense. It is utterly ridiculous to buy their Sunday assessment of the NIE after reading this today. Their view is utterly defeatist. The president's remains true to the task of finishing the job. They seem to miss the point that to run in the face of these animals is a slow death sentence on the nation, and on the world.

Whew. I needed that venting today. With all that is about to happen, I needed to blow off some steam. NOW, I think I can fall asleep.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

They Will Stop, But They Want It Kept Quiet

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 10:14:19 PM
 Or so goes the story from Bill Gertz at the Washington Times. According to his report Iran will quietly suspend their enrichment, and continue to do so as long as the West is silent on the issue:

Iran is close to an agreement that would include a suspension of uranium enrichment but wants the deal to include a provision that the temporary halt be kept secret, according to Bush administration officials.

Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, has been working with Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani on the enrichment-suspension deal that could be completed this week.

Disclosure of talks on the secret element of the arrangement comes as Mr. Solana and Mr. Larijani are set to meet today or tomorrow in Europe when the deal could be completed, said officials opposed to the deal, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

According to the officials, the suspension of uranium enrichment by Iran would be for 90 days, so additional talks could be held with several European nations.

Many U.S. officials are opposing the agreement as a further concession to Iran, which continues to defy a United Nations' call for a complete halt to uranium enrichment. A Security Council resolution had given Iran until Aug. 31 to stop its enrichment program or face the imposition of international sanctions. Tehran ignored the deadline, but diplomacy has continued.

Some in the State Department are supporting the deal, which they view as a step toward achieving a complete halt to uranium enrichment.

However, other officials said that keeping any suspension secret would be difficult and that it would drag the United States into further negotiations with Iran.

Iran is seeking to continue talks on its nuclear program while attempting to avoid the imposition of sanctions, something the Bush administration favors but that several other key states, including Russia, oppose.

The United States would then be faced with the difficult position of negotiating against the 90-day deadline, a position that favors Iran.

"The Iranians are very good negotiators," said one official close to the issue.

The officials opposed to the deal want any agreement on uranium suspension to be announced publicly.

Also, any suspension of enrichment would require International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections to verify that work has stopped at Iranian facilities. The inspections would likely be disclosed, exposing any secret arrangement with Iran on suspension.

Failing to publicly announce the suspension also would be a face-saving measure for the Iranian government.

Officials said President Bush is not happy with the secrecy demand, although he continues to support the use of diplomacy to solve the problem.

While this is a nice idea, I do not--for one solitary moment--believe that the Iranians will truly suspend their enrichment programs. I know that the IAEA has to be involved, but we are heading down the cat-and-mouse road, again, with another regime pursuing nuclear weapons.

Some people in the administration--notably the president--is not happy with the agreement, but they are dead set on pursuing diplomacy. And while that is always a good thing, it is definitely not the best course of action. A regime change needs to occur there, but not in the sense that those on the Left will point to. And as for being a "chicken-hawk" we eat chickens for lunch; yum, yum.

The regime change I am referring to is the same one that we have promoted on our site on countless occasions. The dissident movement in Iran is bigger than many understand, and it would have to be the primary source for toppling the current government. I am loathed to say this, but such a change can only be a boon for the region. Iran is the last, large stronghold when it comes to radical Islam. Their support and training of terrorists is well known, and without such a home those animals will have next-to-no protection from a coalition hunting them.

The National Intelligence Estimate, which I covered here, makes it clear that both Iran and Syria are deeply involved in the broader Middle East unrest. As the primary sponsors of terrorism in the region, they are neck deep in the unrest.

And the NIE also stated that CBRN (Chemical Biological, Radiological, Nuclear) weapons are still the focus of many organizations; al-Qaeda among them. We know that al-Qaeda has had contact with the Iraqi regime. Al-Zawahiri has had more than a couple meetings with the mullahs in charge over there. If those meetings and such communication are still intact (which intelligence shows that it is) then the threat of al-Qaeda getting their hands on such weapons is a very real possibility.

And I honestly do not believe them. They will continue to do it; likely at a location the IAEA is unaware of. You cannot trust them, and I do hope the negotiators go in with that thought in the back of their heads. I personally dislike this concession very much.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Not Only Do They Blow Secrets, They Get Them Wrong

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 8:09:47 PM
 The New York Times on Sunday supposedly blew the lid on the National Intelligence Estimate report recently issued. The declassified portions are here in a pdf. The Times assessment was completely wrong, and whether that was an assessment of their own reporters (of which I would like to see their national security credentials to make such an assumption) or if it were through their notorious "anonymous" officials.

Yes, the fight is generating a "second generation" of jihadis. HOWEVER, what the Times refuses to acknowledge is that should this generation and the previous one fail, those jihadis will quickly change their minds. In other words, our enemy is banking on the shirt-run; they are hedging bets that we will withdraw from battle before the battle is done. Not only would this reinforce the myth that bin Laden perpetuated in the 1990s, that we were a "paper tiger," but it will also serve as a demoralizing blow to the nation.

The jihadis are betting on a lot. They are betting that the fifth-column in the nation--the "Mother Moonbat" antiwar crowd--will be able to do to America now what the Vietnam protesters did in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They are also watching the politics of today in this nation, and they are hoping that the GOP will lose power, and eventually culminate into a cut-and-run victory in 2008. They need a change in thinking to succeed, and too many within the GOP are hyping the importance of the war.

And they should be. A vote for Democrats is a vote for vulnerability. They are not strong on national defense or security. They have been pushing an agenda of "redeployment" for the Global War On Terror (I state that because if we allow them to leave Iraq, it will only be a matter of time before they reach the same decision for Afghanistan). All in all, their rhetoric points to the simple fact that they utter abhor the moves made by President Bush in this war. (Yet, I would bet that if we were discussing a President Truman, Kennedy, or Roosevelt, and they did exactly the same thing, the Democrats would stand in lock-step behind them.)

The NIE also states that Europe is seen as a very important theater in this war. The jihadists have been gaining in influcence and presence over there. The NIE cites the 3/11 bombings in Spain, and the 7/7 bombings in London. It fails to note the thwarted terror plot by British authorities, or that those collapsed cells are being tracked throughout a large network of jihadists across Europe.

The recent actions from Europe regarding the jihadis has emboldened our enemy. France watched as night after night, riots broke out across the country after an incident involving two Muslim boys where they were killed when hiding from police. Jacques Chirac did not respond too quickly, and he showed Europe an unwavering surrender to something he felt he could not control. The EU is the group who threw the hissy fit over the CIA prisons there; these are places where we are getting a lot of information regarding our enemy's efforts. And no, according to Congress, no torture occurs there. At this point, the Left's idea of torture is an OPINION, and not fact.


The jihadists' greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution.an
ultra-conservative interpretation of shari'a-based governance spanning the
Muslim world.is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the
religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists. Propaganda
would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.

Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a
constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim
communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.

This, I feel, is one of the most important aspects of the war that we are frankly getting our @$$ kicked over. The administration has not done a very good job of promoting the war at home--reminding people of what is at stake--and they are not doing a good job of promoting freedom abroad. The propaganda that is emanating from our enemies is beating us at every turn. Part of that comes from the PR groups the jihadis use. Al-Manar is a prime example of this for Hezbollah; Al-Jazeera does it for all ot them.

We can see Iraq as an example of Muslims throwing off the idea of violence. The majority of people in Iraq would love the fighting to end. And they would love it if all the terrorists were dead so they could build their nation in peace. Sadly, the world--now--does not work this way, and this will last a bit longer than expected. People--Americans--must learn to deal with this. If they adopt the same attitude the Democrats have today, we will be fighting this disease for many, many years to come.

Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against
Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global
threat.

This is a portion that I found very interesting. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was brought to room temperature (after reaching approximately 10,000 degrees briefly) a couple of months ago. This estimate was put together BEFORE his death occurred. That means that much of what has happened recently is not even touched. I brought up the fact that the report cites the Spain and London bombings, yet does not address the cells nabbed by the Malaysians, the Brits, and Americans. From June (wehn al-Zarqawi was killed) up until now, none of the successes and none of the setbacks are included.

All in all, based on what is in the NIE, I can only assume that the Times believes itself to be more qualified to analyze the document. Unfortunately like their previous beliefs regarding this war, they are completely and dangerously incorrect. By promoting the idea that we are only making this war worse, which in turn makes people believe this is a losing cause, they are doing a great disservice to this nation. Nothing in the estimate supports this idea other than the paragrpah or two that discuss it. The rest of the time is spent breaking down al-Qaeda's strengths and weaknesses. TIt also points out that even though Iran and Syria are still "primary sponsors" of terrorism, other nations could be infiltrated by jihadis, and pose a danger to their stability.

The Times got it wrong. And their leak chould not excused simply because they were wrong. A leak is a leak, and it is high time that the Justice Department start moving forward against these outlets to keep these leaks from occurring. When the public knows a secret, chances are our enemy does, too.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Lally Weymouth Talks To Ahmadinejad

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Sunday, September 24, 2006 9:32:36 PM
 The appeasement press is at it again. Lally Weymouth had an interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (we are guessing it was prior to his departure), and the interview is supposedly "hard-hitting." Of course we are talking about the WaPo here, which seems to be a fairer paper at times than others, but the dinosaur media never seems to learn. That is evident in this interview. (For our readers, Ms. Weymouth's questions are colored in the regular green I use to cite stories; President Ahmadinejad's answers are in red.)

Do you think it would be in Iran's best interest to move toward a normal relationship with the United States?

We are interested in having talks with everyone. We believe that talks are much better than threats and confrontation. We are currently holding talks with many countries. I have said before that the United States is no exception, but the U.S. administration -- that is, a section of the U.S. administration -- does not create the right circumstances. It destroys chances for constructive talks.

Because a part of the administration wants to overthrow your regime?

It is the behavior I am talking about; the attitude is inappropriate. They believe that they own the entire world so they speak from that position, looking down at us -- even when they meet us. If they change their behavior, it is possible to talk about everything. Some politicians in the United States think that the nuclear issue is a way to put pressure on Iran, but they are wrong. One that has actually produced and used nuclear bombs cannot claim that they now want to stop proliferation.

Im other words, Mahmoud feels dissed, and he is not taking it any longer. Please. I am so sick of this "respect us" garbage from Iran. For what reasons should the world respect this regime. It quashes the freedom of its people, it funds, trains, and gives sanctuary to terrorist groups--namely Hezbollah--and it is working on creating nuclear weapons. Again, what respect should be given other than simple, common courtesy?

Why don't you let the IAEA inspectors back in, as the U.N. Security Council demanded last summer?

The Security Council's involvement is, in fact, illegal. We are working under the framework of the IAEA, and the cameras are on our sites. Could you please show me at least one report by the IAEA on the United States' nuclear facilities?

As the head of state of Iran, he can make a formal request of the IAEA to see their reports on the United States' IAEA report. Of course, there is nothing in that report that would even concern President Ahmadinejad. While it does talk about our weapons, it also talks the peaceful means we utilize nuclear power, such as making electricity, uses in medicine including cancer treatments and MRI machines, etc. We are open about how we use our technology. However the military applications will remain classified. And as one of the eight predominant nations on the planet, that is within our right, and it is guaranteed under our agreement with the IAEA.

Are you really serious when you say that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth?

We need to look at the scene in the Middle East -- 60 years of war, 60 years of displacement, 60 years of conflict, not even a day of peace. Look at the war in Lebanon, the war in Gaza -- what are the reasons for these conditions? We need to address and resolve the root problem.

Your suggestion is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth?

Our suggestion is very clear: . . . Let the Palestinian people decide their fate in a free and fair referendum, and the result, whatever it is, should be accepted. . . . The people with no roots there are now ruling the land.

You've been quoted as saying that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. Is that your belief?

What I have said has made my position clear. If we look at a map of the Middle East from 70 years ago . . .

Ahmadinejad only wants to go back to the point where the Palestinians were given their land, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, when it became the Palestine Mandate. And for the record it was the British that oversaw that mandate. After World War II, the British withdrew their "sponsorship", and in the framework of a United Nations mandate the state of Israel was formed--precisely in the same spot it was 2000 years ago. At that time, the Palestinian Arabs were located in where modern-day Jordan is. The Jordanians did not wish the Palestinians back within their borders. If President Ahmadinejad has a problem with that, I suggest he take it up with Jordan, not Israel.

So, the answer is yes, you do believe that it should be wiped off the face of the Earth?

Are you asking me yes or no? Is this a test? Do you respect the right to self-determination for the Palestinian nation? Yes or no? Is Palestine, as a nation, considered a nation with the right to live under humane conditions or not? Let's allow those rights to be enforced for these 5 million displaced people.

The "yes or no" question was asked three questions ago. His answer is more than revealing in his blatant attempt to not say what he wants to. The answer, quite simply, is yes. As long as he continues to cite maps from sixty or seventy years ago, he wishes Israel removed from the Earth. It was "not there" then, and he would prefer them to be gone now.

If the Palestinian people decided that they wanted a two-state solution, would you support that decision?

The politicians in the United States should allow the Palestinians to vote, and then we'll all respect the results. They won't even accept a small Palestinian state. That's why we think the root cause of the crisis must be addressed. Jews, like other individuals, will have to be respected. It's not necessary to occupy the land of others, to displace them, to imprison their young people and to destroy their homes and agricultural fields and to attack neighboring countries.

We will not accept the "two-state" solution? What has practically every president in the last decade been trying to do. Clinton had his Oslo accords. President Bush had his negotiations with the Israelis. They allowed the vote, and were willing to give the Palestinians their chance. What did the people do? By an overwhelming 80%, these people put a terrorist group in charge of their government. To people who are not off their rocker (of course this excludes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) that is a sign that those people like that sort of rule. The Israelis, however, cannot live next to a people that consistently feel that they need to be destroyed.

What is your analysis of Hezbollah in Lebanon today? What has been the impact of the war?

Everybody has said that the attacks of the Israeli government against Lebanon were pre-planned. The question is: The planes that leveled Lebanon, the laser bombs, where did they come from? Who provided the Zionists with the armaments? Who prevented a cease-fire in the beginning?

Here is the heart of his propoganda, and Ms. Weymouth, thus far, has done a good job of allowing President Ahmadinejad to hang himself. Here is a prime example of it. He questions where Israel got their weapons. The same could be asked of the Hezbollah rockets that pounded Israel. In this conflict, Hezbollah struck deeper than before. In addition to that, there was a report during that war that Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops were among the dead in Lebanon. Glass houses, Mr. President; You and your baseball bat need to go home before you bite off more than you can chew.

I think a section within the U.S. administration must take a new look at the Middle East. They should not assume that they can fix the problems of the Middle East through war.

The problem with that twisted logic is that we do not start the wars over there. They occur when diplomacy fails, and it has failed so much in the last thirty years. And President Ahmadinejad is remiss in remembering how the current regime came to power in Iran. It was through a coup; the use of naked violence to overthrow the legitimate leader and government of that nation.A government, I might add, that was "too friendly" to the United States in the radical's eyes.

In your meeting with the Iraqi prime minister last week, did any ideas emerge as to how to stabilize the situation in Iraq?

Saddam was a detested individual, no doubt, and although he was supported by a group of American politicians during the eight-year war with Iran, we nonetheless were happy when he left. This paved the way for the American government to improve their relations with the people in the region, but they lost the opportunity -- they decided to occupy Iraq in search of oil and their own interests. . . . The Iraqi nation has deep roots -- an ancient, civilized culture -- it cannot accept to remain under occupation. It cannot accept that its authorities are told on a daily basis what to do by American authorities. In the past years, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed. Even worse than what it was under Saddam.

So nice to see that he is using Democrat talking points. We went their for "oil?" It is a typical talking point, and completely wrong. If we really had wanted oil, why not simply open up ANWR? And if it was the president who wanted this war,m then why not go to war with Venzuala? We could kill two birds with one stone. It would "confirm": Hugo Chavez's insane idea that we are plotting to overthrow him, and it would have been done far cheaper and quicker than either of these two endeavors. And the idea that we are intentionally killing Iraqi civilians is beyond preposterous. The people who have died during this war, and during the securing of the nation, while they are regrettable are a natural "by-product" of war. And talk about a pot-calling-the-kettle moment. Who precisely cracks down on his people to the point that is comparable to Saddam's crimes?

Everybody in Iraq is unhappy. Iraq has a government now that has risen as a result of the vote of the people and it has a constitution and a parliament. Let them run and administer the country. Our policy is to support the government of Iraq, to create security for the country.

For a country that is unhappy, they sure have a funny way of making that known. Just about everyone in Iraq that are happy to be free are also the ones telling us that we cannot leave yet. They do not want us to leave.

It seems as if a Shiite majority has emerged with the bulk of power in Iraq. Is this good from Iran's point of view?

We are friends with the entire nation of Iraq. Our nation is like an extended family of the Iraqi nation. . . . We are not like American politicians who divide people and fracture.

Who are we dividing in Iraq? The only ones I am aware of that we have a problem with are those that continue to fuel the terrorists and the insurgents. For the most part, those outside forces are backed by Iran and Syria. We have proof of that in the CENTCOM briefings where they have revealed what they have found on the terrorists they kill. Among these items include IEDs; more advanced than the ones used in the beginning of the resistance against coalition forces.

[Prime Minister Nouri al-]Maliki has said that the most important job for him is to control the militias, many of which have close contact with Iran and some of which receive money from Iran. Will you help Prime Minister Maliki control the militias?

This is your mistake again. Mr. Maliki is a friend of ours. Our nations are very close. The country that is hurt most by the insecurity in Iraq is our country.
Everyone in the region says Iran is now the most powerful country -- that the result of the U.S. invasion is that Iran is more powerful than it has ever been.

Do you think there is a problem with Iran being a powerful country? Are you implying that the Americans went there to strengthen Iran?

No, but don't you think that is the end result?

Iran is a powerful country. A powerful Iran will benefit the region because Iran is a country with a deep culture and has always been a peaceful country. If the Americans had not imposed the shah, Iran could have been a far more powerful country.

A "deep culture" does not denote peaceful intentions. Japan had a "deep culture," too, yet it still went to war with China, and directly attacked the United States. Poor analogy, Mr. President.And Iran's power-or potential power, I should say--is a worry of the West. Thomas has brought it up, and so have I. Does anyone really with to see nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious zealot; one that would be at ease using those weapons to blackmail other nations?

Are you going to continue backing terror groups -- Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad?

Are you here on a mission or are you a journalist? A journalist does not judge. You say that Hamas is a terror group. Hamas is working in its own territory, in its own country. Why do you call them terrorists? If someone occupied the United States and the American people rose to defend their home, would you call the American people terrorists?

I would say they were terrorists if they started killing civilians.

The Palestinian people have the right to live. Gaza is being bombarded. Homes are being destroyed. Why? Because some politicians in the United States insist on supporting the Zionists at the cost of destroying the Palestinians and buying the hatred of all the nations in the region.

If ANY bombardments have occurred to the residents in Gaza it is retaliation to the continuing rocket attacks from the Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, PLO, and PLF rocket attacks into Israel proper. And while we do recognize their "right to lvive," we also recognize Israel's right to exist. The two are mutually exclusive provided that the Palestinians actually work towards peace. They have not, and are not at present, doing that.

This will work against the American government because anti-American sentiment and hatred is increasing by the day. One day it could turn into a storm.

You've made statements about the Holocaust, saying maybe it was exaggerated. Is that your opinion?

It's not the numbers that are important here. It's a very fundamental question: When we allow all researchers to do research freely, why don't researchers have the right to research this history as well? Let's remember that 60 million people were killed as a result of World War II. So let's put everything in context and let's research it further. . . . We know this was a historical event that has happened. But why is it that people who question it, even in the smallest sense, are persecuted and attacked?

So, President Ahmadinejad feels persecuted? I wonder if he can "emote" with the Jews that were persecuted in Nazi Germany's rise. Starting with the Nuremberg Laws for Racial Purity, up to the ghettos, and eventually to the trains and camps. This is a pathetic attempt, by him, to make himself a "victim" in all of this. Ms. Weymouth is throwing his own words in his face, and he is trying to weasel his way out of them.

Are you willing to take any steps to suspend uranium enrichment?

We think that the American politicians should change their attitudes. If they think that by threatening Iran they'll have results, they are wrong. I'll ask you: Who cut ties with Iran? It was the U.S. government. Who imposed the war with Saddam on us? So who is the one who has to give the positive signal, us or the U.S. government?

Ties were severed the moment their radicals--Mahmoud Ahmadinejad among them--stormed the United States embassy there, and took prisoners. Did they think we would make nice? For crying out loud, the Ayatollah was wetting his rodes believing that American nuclear weapons would rain down on Iran. Then he discovered Jimmy Carter, and realized how much of a joke American power was, at the time. President Reagan stated he had nothing to do with the release of the hostages, and President Carter did negotiate for their release. But it wasinauguration day before they werte released. Coincidence? I think not.

What do you want the United States to do for you and what are you willing to do in turn for the U.S.?

I sent a very detailed and caring letter [to President Bush]; I truly mean it when I say that I hope Mr. Bush will change his behavior and attitude. It doesn't make us happy that sentiments against him rise on a daily basis around the world.

This can be reversed. It's the attitude and the approach of some American politicians that ruins things. They want to return Iran to what it was before the revolution, under the shah, when it was really a puppet for the United States. That's history. It will never come back. The Iranian nation is a free and independent nation with an elected government, a parliament and a constitution.

How can you come to this country and tell our president to change his behavior?

We're just defending our honor.

I will give Ms. Weymouth credit. The questions were not easy ones for Ahamdinejad. In addition, she did not let up on questioning him if he was serious about wiping Israel from the face of the world. Her questions were probing, and they were fairly tough. I do not liek the idea of letting him off the hook on a couple of issues, but I can understand the time constraints allowed.

This interview was eeriely similar to his statements before the United Nations. It was blame America, blame Israel from beginning to end.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Vox Blogoli Part II: The Midterms & the GOP

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Sunday, September 24, 2006 12:32:16 AM
 Part Two of Hugh Hewitt's invitation concerns the GOP in the upcoming midterms. To be precise, I'll allow Hugh to explain it in his own words:

I am also bringing back the Vox Blogoli to welcome the new features. Synchronized blogging this weekend on two subjects: Which is the most important race for the GOP to win this cycle (and please include a link to that campaign's website), and for those who don't like campaign blogging or just need more than one subject, what are your thoughts on Thomas Edsall's extraordinary string of observations about just how biased the MSM is?

Marcie did an outstanding job addressing Thomas Edsall this evening. Now, it's my turn.

I honestly don't think that the midterms can be boiled down to ONE race for the GOP. If it came down to that, wouldn't we just dump all the eggs in one basket? Maybe, but that doesn't change the fact that a thorough and sound defeat is necessary this time around, and it can be accomplished through a couple of significant races. First up is Bob Corker in Tennessee. Senator Frist is retiring, and I have heard a lot of Democrats proclaim that if they can take Frist's seat from the GOP, it's a turning point. Number one, they'll be able to show that Tennessee isn't happy with the GOP. Number two, they claim that this shows there are inroads being made to the south; a region of the nation where Democrats, right now, are weak. Harold Ford, Jr. is proving to be a tough opponent for Corker, and recent polls have both men within spitting distance of each other, and well within the margin of error. This race will probably come down to the wire, and a loss for Ford means he's gone from the House, as well. It's a two-fold move, and could strengthen the GOP in both ways. I think that Tennessee will lean towards Bob Corker. The 2004 election results showing a 300,000+ vote difference is enough to ensure this seat stays in GOP hands, but the fight still remains.

Mike DeWine is up next, and there is a reason I bring him up. We're not fond of the man. We don't like how he plays politics. He was a part of the atrocious Gang of 14 deal, and he joined Arlen Specter in sticking his nose into the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program. Now, let's go to some different mental ideas here. Despite our differences, we do support the man. Why? Because 7 out of 10 times, DeWine gets it right. The Republicans are a party, and with that comes the fact that we may not always agree with these people. But this election isn't about individuals. And people have to start getting that through their heads. This year, it's about the party. We are in a war, and that is all that counts. Mike DeWine knows what it means to keep this nation protected. OK, so he sticks his nose in an issue or two we'd prefer he not, but it's his own view of this war that matters most. Nothing else matters except winning the war. If that isn't accomplished, then all other issues are a moot point. Sherrod Brown is his opponent, and like Harold Ford, Jr. he risks losing his seat in the House in this bid for DeWine's seat. Unlike Tennessee, Ohio's margin of victory for the president was slimmer; by about 118,000 votes. However, DeWine is a two term senator that has served the state well. Again, I predict a win for Mike DeWine. Just like the Tennessee race though, it's tight. The benefit that DeWine has is that he always finishes strong.

Next up is Rick Santorum, incumbant senator from Pennsylvania going up against Bob Casey. The good news is, in this race, is that Santorum has closed the gap. He is back by about ten points, and fighting hard. But this past week, Bob Casey openly refused to debate him, twice. Casey knows that if he does challenge him directly he is going to look stupid. The talking points of the Left isn't going to help him, and they're more likely to serve as his noose. President Bush lost Pennsylvania by just under 200,000 votes, and it's obvious that some in Pennsylvania might be thinking about giving up hope. They can't Santorum's in the leadership of the party in the Senate, and losing two leaders in the same year could be devestating to the party. And he would be a key proponent of the president's should social security reform come up again in the Senate. Amongst those I've discussed thus far, this is the one that has me worried. Like Ohio, the Democrats are throwing a lot of money and influence into the Pennsylvania race. They want his seat, and they're pulling out all the stops to get it. He has been a longtime spokesman for the party, and when it comes to the war, he gets it. He was the one who revealed the declassified National Archives memos showing we had found WMDs in Iraq when everyone else, including the preisdent, keeps saying that we didn't. He stood behind his vote then and now, and is not ashamed to have utilized that vote to defend this nation.

What else can I say about the next candidate in my review except that Michael Steele has the Dems scred sh**less in Maryland. I remember when this man addressed the RNC in 2004. Eloquent, factual, and dead-spot-on in his address of why President George W. Bush needed to be reelected. He was ruthlessly attacked by Democrat operatives. His image was phottoshopped on websites as "Sambo," and Democrat staffers from former candidates referred to the man as an "oreo." And if that were not enough, two staffers from Senator Schumer's office plead guilty to hacking Mr. Steele's credit reports in a blatant effort to dig up dirt. The digging doesn't bother me. Hacking his credit report does. This should show everyone that a black man like Michael steele, who is a Republican definitely has the Democrats worried. He has successfully served as Maryland's lieutenant governor since 2002; the first Republican elected since the position was created in 1970. He has the heavy backing of the black community who have grown to trust the man. He is an outspoken porponent of border enforcement, and a staunch supporter of the war on terror. The seat he would be taking comes from retiring Democrat senator, Paul Sarbanes, which makes this a very important race. The seat would be a pick-up for the GOP, and a key one at that. And if Michael Steele can overcome the odds (President Bush lost Maryland by almost 300,000 votes), it would be another nail in the current Democrat Party's coffin.

Last but certainly not least, or even a Republican, comes Joe Lieberman. Now I know a lot of fellow GOPers are scrathing their heads over this one. (I'm sure Hugh is, too.) Bear with me for a second. The Democrats pulled out every nasty, dirty little trick in their bag to defeat him in the primaries. And Lamont did a good job of that, with plenty of backing by the nutroots that can't seem to lay off insulting him (nice "blackface" in the Clinton photo) or his religion (WTG Jane Hamsher and those anti-Semitic comments). Because they did this, and alienated a fairly decent amount of the base in connecticut, their plan may have backfired. The momentum that Lamont was riding after the primary fight was over soon died. As of right now, Lieberman holds a virtually commanding lead over Lamont, and if Lamont loses, it's going to be disastrous for today's Democrats. The nutroots--the MoveOn.org kids, the Kos Kiddies, the Michael Moore-ons, and the Howling Mad Howie Deaniacs--think they have control of the party. And while I'll grant them a bit of self-aggrandizement (the mom-and-pop Democrats would prefer to not court these people but rather let them grow up) in organizing, they still fail to note the most glaringly obvious fact about Connecticut. Joe Lieberman's been their senator for 18 years, and him going independent--the predominant party in Connecticut--just reinforces their belief that he's right for them. That and the other obvious fact. No one really pays attention to elections until after Labor Day. The Connecticut primary was held on 8 August. Labor came on 4 September. Less than a month went by, and the first real polls rolled out, including a 12 September USA Today poll showing Lieberman 13 points ahead of Lamont. The plan for the Democrats, if it backfires, and Lieberman is returned to the Senate, will severely damage the nutroots. It'll also make them come completely unglued just in time for 2008.

Above all we must remember a couple of things about the GOP when it comes to this years elections. This is a midterm right before the exit of President Bush. Right now, with things going on in the Middle East the way they are, the issues of the war and national security are weighing on everyone's mind. With the recent news out of Pakistan that a deal has been reached granting Taliban and al Qaeda forces an area of "sanctuary" doesn't help matters, and Mahmoud "IWannaJihad" Ahmadinejad isn't going away. The Democrats have been weak in this area for some time now; going back to the heady days of Reagan in a refusal to confront Islamofascism when it appeared then. The war is everything this year, and the Democrats are campaigning on a withdrawal from Iraq, and possibly from Afghanistan, as well. If they regain power in Congress, expect them to try and pull out of both theaters; capitualtion, retreat, and defeat as it was in Mogadishu.

The other thing that we need to remember is that the party must stay focused and united. I said what I said about Mike DeWine for a reason. He has different views about different things than we do. But this isn't about single issue this, or single issue that. this is about staying on target. We WIN the war. I have said it numerous times that if we lose the war, the least of our worries will be confirming judges and cutting taxes. We will be in a fight for our survival, not that we aren't now. But things, if we run, will get more serious than before. That is why the party must stay together on this one issue, and the GOP must retain control of both houses. I'm not worried about the House. I'm predicting no less than a loss--if it happens--of about 5-7 seats. But I'm not predicting a loss. At best, I'm calling bothy the House and Senate races a push. The Democrats won't retake either.

Does the GOP have something to worry about this year? Sure. There are quite a few turned-off voters with the recent escapades by their own party. I cited with Mike DeWine the Gang of 14 deal, and the Senate's nose in the president's NSA program. But there is also John McCain's recent grandstanding over detainee treatment (which changed nothing; TY, Johnny. We do appreciate you wasting time and money); The dragging out of time for Samuel Alito's hearings, which only encouraged the attacks to come; Being seemingly unable to get the Patriot Act renewed on time; And hemming and hawing over the border issues. Republicans have a lot to be frustrated about.

Now, imagine if the Democrats were in power. Anyone in the GOP repulsed by that thought? Good. You should be because things will only get worse with them in charge. At least with the GOP we have a chance. They may take longer, and a couple may grab their soapboxes and make political hay, but 9 times out of 10, we're there when it counts most. This is election is about party loyalty, but not in the way the Democrats believe it to be. We're not "tossing" anyone under the bus. Even Lincoln Chafee is getting help from the local RNC chapter in Rhode Island, and from the national office, as well. No, party loyalty should be coming from the base. Stand with your party because now it matters most. We are five short years into this war; a war the president specifically said would take a long time. How long? Depends on how seriously we start addressing our enemy.

This election is about the future. The immediate one, and whether or not we show the world we still have the fortitude to handle this war, and finish the job we started. And on 7 November, we should resoundingly vote for victory because a vote for a Democrat is a vote for vulnerability. It is a vote for negotiations, capitualtion, retreat, and defeat. They don't have what it takes to stare this enemy down, and beat them. The Republicans do. And don't just support Michael Steele, Rick Santorum, Bob Corker, and Mike DeWine. Mark Kennedy in the house needs to be supported. Conrad Burns in Montana needs help. John Kyl might be knocking the snot out of Jim Pederson in the polls, but even he needs his help in Arizona. We supported him on the ground. More Arizonans can, too.

Support the GOP up for reelection, and back those that are first-timers. This year, we need all the help and support we can get. These candidates want to go to Washington to help the nation. They aren't going because they want power, like the Democrats. They know there's a job to do, and "retaking" power isn't one of them.

Publius II

Welcome HughHewitt readers to our brand new site. We hope you enjoy the wit, wisdom and knowledge that we espouse here, and feel free to leave a comment (no profanity, please) if you so choose. Marcie and I will answer any questions.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Vox Blogoli Part I: Thomas Edsall Sits Down With Hugh Hewitt

Posted by The Asylum Pundits on Saturday, September 23, 2006 9:56:31 PM
 It is that time again where the "Caesar" of the blogosphere has issued a challenge. Hugh is looking for opinions regarding the upcoming midterms. Namely, the important races for this coming elections. We will address that issue before the weekend is out (and that will be Thomas's job, not mine.) Mine is to touch on the other challenge: reaction to the very candid interview given by Mr. Edsell that Hugh conducted on September 21st. And I will be using excerpts from that interview to emphasize certain points.

First up is this exchange, which Mr. Edsall was happy to oblige Hugh with. It is a rarity to get this sort of honest candor from people within the dinosaur media. Most take offense to being asked questions like this, as Jonathan Chait and Michael Hiltzik have proven in past interviews with Hugh:

HH: Okay. Are you pro-choice?

TE: Yes.

HH: Even as to partial birth abortion, late term abortions?

TE: If the life of the mother is threatened, or if the child is going to be severely disabled, I would give it serious consideration.

HH: Do you own a gun?

TE: No, but I'm not against guns, and...well, in any rate, but you can ask gun questions.

HH: Do you favor same sex marriage?

TE: Not particularly.

HH: Do you think that liberal judges who decree that it's in the Constitution have erred?

TE: Probably.

HH: All right. That's interesting. Now...that makes you a lefty, but not over the edge lefty, right?

Precisely. Mr. Edsall is not ashamed to state what his beliefs are. And while I may disagree with them, this interview shows that he can be amiable, while most on the Left that Hugh interviews are completely over the edge, or worse, completely aloof to the idea of current events, and how things are happening in the world. More importantly in this exchange is his admission that while he does not own a firearm, he is not against people owning them. THIS is s sticking point to the Left, as evidenced by the Brady Center's continuing attempts to legislate what is, literally, unable to be legislated. The Second Amendment is quite clear: "...the right of the people to keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed." (Emphasis mine.)

HH: Okay. Now I want to get to your thesis about Building Red America. You don't much like the Republicans, Thomas Edsall, do you?

TE: I'm not wild about them.

HH: Why not?

TE: I think that...I admire Republicans, their skill and their talents. But I think the contemporary Republican Party, it has done some...I'll throw the positive out first. I think there are a lot of market solutions that the Democratic Party has failed to address, including in education with vouchers and choice. But to the negative, I think the Republican Party capitalized on white opposition to the civil rights movement. I think it sometimes has cynically used social conservatives, who many Republican conservatives refer to as right wing freaks and others, or religious nuts, and I think the party has really been on the side of the very rich.

Now, before readers go off half-cocked about this section, stop and think. Again, Mr. Edsall is being honest about his feelings regarding the Republicans. We usually hear unhinged honesty from the Left about why they dislike the Republicans, and much of it is unfounded innuendo (do not believe me? Go read Daily Kos, and tell me they are not unhinged towards us). I disagree with the religious freaks statement, as I do not believe the so-called "religious Right" runs the party. Yes, sociual conservatives have been used for pushing certain agendas, like John McCain's idiocy regarding torture, and the interference of Congress into the Terry Schiavo controversy a couple of years back. But they do not dominate the party. The party has had a solid view on America--eloquently articulated by Hugh in his fifteen-word platform for the Republicans--and those points have no wavered. The other point to make about this part is that he said he "doesn't care for " us much. He did not say he hated us. He disagrees with some of what we present. That is a turnaround change from the way today's Democrats act and engage the Republicans.

HH: But are there any Republican candidates out there, any Republican office holders, who you believe are actually advocating the rollback of civil rights?

TE: Office holders? No. I'm talking about people. No office holder would do that, because they couldn't win. I think there are office holders who would do it if it was a winning strategy.

HH: Who?

TE: Oh, I don't want to name some of them, but I would say that there are a lot of Republicans whose allegiance to civil rights is totally marginal, and totally operative. Let's put it that way.

HH: I mean, when you say that, immediately, I know my listeners will say ask him about Robert Byrd. You know, he was, actually, a Ku Klux Klan member. He's changed. Do you have anyone who has a shadier past on civil rights than Robert Byrd spring to mind, Mr. Edsall?

TE: No, no. Well, Trent Lott's early past was not...

HH: He was never a KKK'er.

TE: No, I'm not saying he was. But he was very active with the Council of Conservative Citizens, which is the organization that was created out of the white citizen's council.

HH: But of course, the Civil Rights Act was actually filibustered because of southern Democrats. That's why there was the...

TE: No question. I'm not arguing that. But those southern Democrats are today's Republicans.

HH: Again, I would look for any Republican in office calling for the rollback of civil rights. You can't find one.

TE: There would not be one. They would get their a$$ kicked.

More unexpected truth from a man on the Left. He openly acknowledges that no Republican he knows of advocates the rollback of civil rights for minorities. That is a stretch for many to admit that because it goes against their talking points. In 2000, there were attack ads against then Governor Bush revolving around the dragging death of James Byrd. It was a slam against the soon-to-be president over his opposition to hate crimes legislation (which is one of the dumbest ideas the Left has come up with in years), and directly stated that when he refused to sign it, it was like Byrd was dragged to his death all over again. The narrator of that ad was his own daughter. It is the Democrats who utilize the race card, and up until 2000, they used it effectively. Its use in a campaign forced Republicans to backpedal and deny rather than confronting their opposition with their own records regarding race relations. And, as Hugh pointed, it was the Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Amendment, not the GOP. They led the charge, not our side.

HH: A proposition. The reason talk radio exploded, followed by Fox News, followed by the center-right blogosphere, is that because folks like you have been the dominant voice in American media for a long time, and you’re a pretty thoroughgoing, Democratic favoring, agenda journalist for the left, and you’ve been the senior political reporter of the Washington Post for a very long time. And people didn’t trust your news product…not you, personally, but the accumulation of you, throughout the L.A. Times, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and they got sick and tired of being spoon fed liberal dross, and they went to the radio when an alternative product came along.

TE: To a certain degree, I agree with that.

HH: And so, why do you think it’s wrong, somehow, for people to want to hear news that they don’t consider as biased? I mean, that’s what it is. It’s just unbiased news is what people wanted. That’s why conservatives like me got platforms, and our blogs get read, and our columns get absorbed.

TE: One, I don’t think it’s unbiased.

HH: It’s transparent at least. Everyone has bias. I agree with that. Everyone’s got bias.

TE: It’s transparent. Okay, that I would agree. And I agree that whatever you want to call it, mainstream media, presents itself as unbiased, when in fact, there are built into it, many biases, and they are overwhelmingly to the left.

HH: Well, that’s very candid.

Indeed. Rarely is such honesty available through someone on the Left, let alone someone who used to work for a major news outlet like the WaPo. Note that Mr. Edsall has admitted that not only is there a bias within the dinosaur media, but that it is inherently built into the medium. These people have a distinct worldview, and those biases are more evident than ever. From Dan Rather peddling phony memos to Reuters" Fauxto-gate," the media has a duty to perform, and it is anything but a service to the nation. They have an agenda to push, and Mr. Edsall has basically admitted such. This is one of the reasons why this interview was a bombshell; someone on the other side was admitting things that the Left would prefer stayed quiet. The Left despises it when one of their own jumps off the reservation (Joe Lieberman, anyone?) and decides to think for themselves. This is one of the reasons why Christopher Hitchens is assailed by the Left. He saw what happened on 9/11, and realized that the doddering Democrats did not do their jobs protecting the nation. Their idea of protection was sort of like their ideas regarding condoms; it will do the job now, and we will work on more permanent applications later.

Mr. Edsall is being clear here in what he is stating. He knows the bias exists, and he is not afraid to admit it. But if we engage the Left (whcih Thomas and I do daily in forums like chatrooms) you could NEVER get those moonbats to admit that A) The alternative media, while it may have its own biases, is transparent when it reports news, and B) That the dinosaur outlets do have a bias they deny exists. With such intellectual dishonesty as that, how can anyone take the MSM seriously?

HH: I know, but national politics. Local politics is different. I think it’s in the selection of stories, stories not pursued. I mean, right now, the canard is oh, I covered the impeachment of Bill Clinton, liberal Democrats who are newsroom types tell me. I say, well, you have to. That’s a story you can’t…it’s like not seeing the iceberg, and taking the Titanic down. But in the agenda setting stuff…let me approach it this way. Is there any big name political reporter, and you know them all, Thomas Edsall. That’s why your book, Building Red America, is getting read left and right. Are there any of them who are conservative?
TE: Big name political reporter?

HH: Right.

TE: Jim Vandehei of the Washington Post.

HH: Think he’s voted for Republicans for president?

TE: Yes, I think he has. I don’t know, because he’s never told me. But I would think he has.

HH: And so, of those sorts…and he’s a very fine reporter.

TE: He is.

HH: He probably is a Republican. But given that number of reporters out there, is it ten to one Democrat to Republican? Twenty to one Democrat to Republican?

TE: It’s probably in the range of 15-25:1 Democrat.

Another daming admission. Most reporters that we have heard interviews with (and this goes back to people like Hitlzik and Chait) refuse to acknowledge the political affiliations in the newsrooms. It is important to note this, as Bernie Goldberg did in his two bestselling books, that their affiliations--their mindset--colors how they present the news. If this is the approximate ration sitting in America's newsrooms of Democrats to Republicans, then there is no wonder why mainstream media coverage has gone down the johnny-flusher. A prime example of how their views color their news is Steve Forbes's run fro president in 2000 when the dinosaur media practically crucified him for his flat-tax idea without even looking at what he presented. They ran with DNC talking points, and the words of elected Democrats without detailing where his problems were with the idea. Not only did they set out to kill the message, but the messenger, as well, and it stemmed from the bias that they were wholly opposed to the idea.

HH: Yeah, but is it right to, for example, hate Bush? Is that anger in your view?

TE: That is anger. The anger at Bush by left wing types is off the charts.

HH: Well, Jonathan Chait, your colleague at the New Republic, actually coined the term Bush hatred. He wrote that piece.

TE: No question. I read it.

HH: And so, are the people at the New Republic angry?

TE: He is.

HH: Are others angry?

TE: Yeah, there are some, yes.

HH: And so, I actually think you can’t find a lot of angry conservatives. I mean, we’re determined. We’re principled. But I’m kind of upbeat, as is Rush most of the time. Angry at Hugo Chavez, but I don’t get angry at Charles Rangel. I think that anger thing is…

TE: Oh, I think when Bill Clinton was in office, it was very similar tone and tenor to what you now see on the left wing blogosphere.

HH: I…I mean, there were some obvious crazy stuff, like the Clinton Chronicles. I will agree with you on that. But the viciousness and the prolonged sort of almost Tourette’s Syndrome when it comes to vulgarity and just coarseness on the left side of the…it must shock you as a reporter. Does it?

TE: I find it offensive.

Here endeth the lesson, Kossacks. There are intellectually honest people in your own party that completely dislike this sort of vitriol. And Mr. Edsall wastes no time in stating, for the record, that he is offended at such behavior. He also brings up the moonbats on the Right, and while some may think that we give these people a pass, think again. It is one thing to disagree with the oppositition. It is another thing to "hate" them. Thomas and I sit on the Right. We do not "hate" liberals. We think they are wrong, and we have fun proving that blatant fact on a few issues. But their spite, their unadulterated hatred of the commander-in-chief, is reprehensible. And while we may have disagreed with Bill Clinton, we never showed him an iota of disrespect when he was in the Oval Office. Disagreed with him? Surely; who on the Right did not? But disrespect the man because we disagree? Absolutely not. There are nutjobs on the right (Michael Savage is one of them, as is Ann Coulter) and we condemn them just as quickly and succintly as the moonbats on the Left, like the Kossacks.

HH: And is there also an underlying hostility to faith on the left?

TE: Among a segment of the left, and not insubstantial segment.

HH: And given that, isn’t it rational for people who are pro-military and pro-religious liberty to want to see Democrats defeated, not because they don’t like them or they’re angry at them, but because they recognize them as hostile to themselves? Isn’t it defensive, really?

TE: Well, you use people who are pro-religious liberty pretty loosely there.

HH: Well, I’ve never met a conservative who isn’t pro-religious liberty. Have you?

TE: You know, religious liberty is something that you define. Is it something that should be…people are free outside of the state, and the state should not be involved in any religious activity?

HH: I just think it’s sort of classic American civic approach, which is hey, you want to go to Church? That’s great. You want to go to Synagogue? That’s great. You want a mosque, that’s great. We’ll all just get along here. But in the meantime, don’t tell me my Church can’t expand, don’t tell me I have to take the cross down off the mountain in San Diego, don’t make me not build here, because you want a WalMart or a Costco to come in for tax purposes. And, of course, the snide nature. Your newspaper wrote that Evangelicals were ill-educated, and easily led. Remember that one?

TE: That was one of the dumber things that’s been in the paper.

HH: Yeah, but it was in the paper.

TE: It was.

HH: And it got past editors.

TE: The only reason that the reporter who wrote it didn’t get in bigger trouble is that the editor who let it get by was someone of some prominence.

Let me take these one at a time. First, to religion. It is the Left that has seemed openly hostile towards religion, in general, especially Christianity. Anyone remember Rosie O'Donnell's recent tirade where she compared Christianity to radical Islam? And we cannot forget that it was Jusice Hugo Black's decision to include a metaphor from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in Everson v. Board of Education that cited a "wall of separation" between Church and State. This was not a law, nor was it within the framework of the Constitution itself. It was a letter that led to a gross misinterpretation of the Establishment Clause that set the Left on its path to bar religion from any sort of public display. Today, the ACLU launches lawsuit after lawsuit against Christmas displays or pageants. They are the ones attacking the Mt. Soledad Cross in San Diego. And while the Left's attack dog (the ACLU) might get it right 1 out of every hundred cases, it is the other 99 that should have Americans worried.

Second, about the editorial control, this should come as no surprise that certain news outlets will not challenge certain people. We saw it with the Jayson Blair incident at the New York Times, where Pinch Sulzberger eventually relented, and ended up firing Howell Raines despite his carpings to the contrary. We saw it in Rathergate when CBS stood behind Dan Rather, and let him leave "gracefully" instead of firing his lying butt on the spot. Those in positions of power have it only as long as others allow them to have it. The editor that allowed that story to run, without questioning him on his mentality regarding it, is indeed a powerful person. And Mr. Edsall refused to give his name. A professional courtesy, to be sure, and it is not as though this interview has not been damning enough for the establishment of the MSM. But the point is that some are protected, despite their mistakes, which is similarto the way bad teachers are protected by their unions instead of facing the music when they are truly that bad.

HH: You quote an acquaintance of mine, Archbishop Charles Chaput in Denver, Colorado, as saying he told Catholics that a vote for Kerry was a sin. I know for a fact he did not say that. He wrote instead, if you vote this way, are you cooperating in evil, he asked rhetorically. And if you know you are cooperating in evil, should you go to confession? The answer is yes. But the question he was posed was not about John Kerry. It was about a generic class of politicians who really pushed forward on abortion, in which you made the decision to read John Kerry. He didn’t say John Kerry. Was that fair?

TE: It may not be. I, in all honesty, lifted that out of news stories, and if the news stories were inaccurate, then I am inaccurate, and it is unfair.

WOW! Can anyone remember when someon in the media has ever admitted to a mistake, and acknowledged that if their reporting was wrong, then so were they? I cannot recall such an incident. During the Rathergate scandal, Dan Rather did not offer up an apology for his biased lies, but rather he spun it. The report was "fake, but accurate" (and ironically those will likely be the words on his media tombstone), and he refused to back down from it. Many others in the media have done the same. The Newsweek Koran flushing story had spin on it, and so did the recent Reuters screw-up. But there is hardly ever an admission and apology. And while Mr. Edsall did not "apologize," per se, he admitted that if the report was wrong, then so was he. Again, we go back to one word to describe this interview:

Candor.

That is what we noticed about the entirety of this interview. He was forthcoming, seemingly honest, and quite open about his opinions regarding the dinosaur media. This sort of honesty is sadly lacking the media, and they would be remiss in ignoring this interview. They are being told, by one of their own, that they have made mistakes, and are continuing to do so.

Instead these ostriches are going to continue working with their heads in the sand. Like I said in the beginning, I may disagree with his political beliefs, to a point, I cannot argue with his forthrightness and his logic on this subject. I applaud Hugh for his ability as an interviewer to gain these insights. I also am most happy that he can get the occasional guest, like Mr. Edsall, who is not afraid to speak his mind honestly. Maybe if there were a few more people like Thomas Edsall in the media, it would not be in the sad state of disrepair it is in today.

Marcie

WELCOME Hugh Hewitt Readers To The New Site Of The Asylum. Please Feel Free To Leave A Comment, If You Wish
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »