Thursday, June 30, 2005


Which one would you choose???? Dean or Mehlman. Maybe this video will help you decide.

Ken Mehlman and Howard Dean are both very busy running the nation’s political parties. As such, they don’t often have time to sit down together and talk out their differences. We thought it was high time they did just that. This civil, political discussion is brought to you by, Trey Jackson, and IMAO. Enjoy!

Which One Would You Choose?


First two paragraphs from a human interest story by Reuters newswire service:

World's oldest person celebrates 115th birthday

A Dutch woman who swears by a daily helping of herring for a healthy life celebrated her 115th birthday on Wednesday as the oldest living person on record.

Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper, a former needlework teacher, was born in 1890, the year Sioux Indians were massacred by the U.S. military at the Battle of Wounded Knee.

And WHAT did this Dutch woman have to do with Battle of Wounded Knee, you might ask? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

James Taranto ( WSJ-Best of the Web ) makes this point: The swipe at America seems especially gratuitous given that 1890 actually was a big year in the history of the Netherlands: the year Queen Wilhelmina , age 10, ascended to the Dutch throne.


The Big Bad Butcher of Baghdad is upset over having his picture on the front page of the Sun in nothing but his briefs. Sun says... so sue us!

Saddam says he might sue the Sun for violating
the Geneva Convention and his human rights.

The Sun says that if he does they will sue Saddam for libel.

June 30th Frontpage of the Sun:

As Saddam instructs his briefs to sue Sun over those pants,





Colorado U Professor Ward Churchill Suggests 'Fragging'
Military Officers Has More Impact Than Conscientious Objecting


Ward Churchill is at it again, but this time he is advocating that soldiers kill their superiors. Blogger and First Amendment Law Professor Eugene Volokh goes on O’Reilly to defend Churchill’s comments. Sadly, Churchill does have the right to say this and get away with it (legally that is).

Denver Post reports Churchill's non-retraction of his remarks: Reached at his home in Boulder County on Wednesday night, Churchill said the comments were made merely to spark discussion and not to take a position on fragging, which is the killing or injuring of an officer in combat by a subordinate.

“I neither advocated nor suggested to anyone, anything,” Churchill said. “I asked them to think about where they stood on things.”

Churchill has been accused of plagiarism, academic fraud and misrepresenting his Native American heritage. He is under investigation by the school's Standing Committee on Research Misconduct.

All you never wanted to know about Ward Churchill can be found in an essay at BaboonsAreScaredOfUs and extensively at PirateBallerina.

Wednesday, June 29, 2005


Here is my current TOP 20 GO TO DAILY Blogs... but not necessarily in order of preference since it depends on what is on my mind that day.

1. Right Wing News

2. Ankle -Biting Pundits

3. Hugh Hewitt

4. Captain's Quarters

5. Constitution Death Pool

6. The Shape of Days

7. GOP Bloggers

8. Powerline

9. Roger Simon

10. Instapundit

11. BuzzMachine

12. IMAO

13. Townhall-Blog

14. Boortz

15. Lone Star Times

16. LittleGreenFootballs

17. MediaBlog

18. RightNation

19. BlogsforBush

20. AlamoNation

If you can't stand the heat of your burning flag, get out of the superpower business...

Cox & Forkum Editorial Cartoons

I find the desecration of our flag very offensive! It ignites angry and hostile feelings in me to see Old Glory go up in flames. While I am burning with moral indignation, the amendment I would really like to see passed is one that allows us to set fire to the punks that burn our flag. But, I expect cooler heads to prevail in Congress... why I would expect that is symptomatic of a childish optimism I can't seem to outgrow.

The courts have already desecrated our Constitution horribly in the name of 'not offending anyone' (except white Christian males of course) and we don't need Congress adding their own damage. We can detest and protest (as long and loud as we please) about how our Constitutional liberties and freedoms are used and abused by flag-burners, protestors at soldiers funerals, and their ilk... but to remove or limit any of those freedoms only puts another win in the Anti-American column.

We have already headed down a slippery slope by allowing the left to manipulate and deform our Constitution, through the courts, in order to achieve their social agenda. Those on the right do not need to do the same, albeit, openly with an amendment instead of using sleight of hand tactics such as changing "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to Separation of Church and State.

I like what MARK STEYN has to say on the issue in the Chicago Sun Times: (emphasis are mine)

"... complaints of ''desecration'' of the Quran by US guards at Guantanamo [That] alone is a perfectly good reason to object to a law forbidding the "desecration" of the flag. For my own part, I believe that, if someone wishes to burn a flag, he should be free to do so. In the same way, if Democrat senators want to make speeches comparing the U.S. military to Nazis and the Khmer Rouge, they should be free to do so. It's always useful to know what people really believe..."

"One of the big lessons of these last four years is that many, many beneficiaries of Western civilization loathe that civilization -- and the media are generally inclined to blur the extent of that loathing. At last year's Democratic Convention, when the Oscar-winning crockumentarian Michael Moore was given the seat of honor in the presidential box next to Jimmy Carter, I wonder how many TV viewers knew that the terrorist ''insurgents'' -- the guys who kidnap and murder aid workers, hack the heads off foreigners, load downs syndrome youths up with explosives and send them off to detonate in shopping markets -- are regarded by Moore as Iraq's Minutemen. I wonder how many viewers knew that on Sept. 11 itself Moore's only gripe was that the terrorists had targeted New York and Washington instead of Texas or Mississippi"

"One thing I've learned in the last four years is that it's very difficult to talk honestly about the issues that confront us. A brave and outspoken journalist, Oriana Fallaci, is currently being prosecuted for ''vilification of religion,'' which is a crime in Italy; a Christian pastor has been ordered by an Australian court to apologize for his comments on Islam. In the European Union, ''xenophobia'' is against the law. A flag-burning amendment is the American equivalent of the rest of the West's ever more coercive constraints on free expression."

"Banning flag desecration flatters the desecrators and suggests that the flag of this great republic is a wee delicate bloom that has to be protected. It's not. It gets burned because it's strong. I'm a Canadian and one day, during the Kosovo war, I switched on the TV and there were some fellows jumping up and down in Belgrade burning the Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack. Big deal, seen it a million times. But then to my astonishment, some of those excitable Serbs produced a Maple Leaf from somewhere and started torching that. Don't ask me why... I've never been so proud to be Canadian in years. I turned the sound up to see if they were yelling ''Death to the Little Satan!'' But you can't have everything."

"It's the left that believes the state can regulate everyone into thought-compliance. The right should understand that the battle of ideas is won out in the open."

Tuesday, June 28, 2005


There was far more to Karl Rove's remarks than just the reference to liberals reaction to 9/11...

June 22, 2005
Karl Rove, Deputy White House Chief of Staff
Remarks to the New York Conservative Party

Thank you very much, Michael, for your kind introduction — and for all you have done over the years to advance the conservative cause in this great state and throughout our land. You are a forceful and articulate champion of conservatism — and all of us are grateful for your energy and commitment to a great cause.

I honored to receive the Charles Edison Memorial Award, particularly in light of your previous honorees, including Representative Jack Kemp, Senator Zell Miller, and above all, President Ronald Wilson Reagan. That is better company than I deserve to be in — but I’ll take what I can get.

It’s a pleasure to be among so many friends and fellow conservatives — and it’s a privilege to speak to the Conservative Party of New York. You provide much of the energy and activism and hard work that has brought us to a moment when conservatism is the dominant political creed in America — and when we are making progress on so many important issues.

Think for a moment how much has been achieved by conservatives in the last 40 years. The conservative movement has gone from a small, principled opposition to a broad, inclusive movement that is self-assured, optimistic, forward-leaning, and dominant.

Four decades ago conservatism was relegated to the political wilderness — and today conservatism is the guiding philosophy in the White House, the Senate, the House, and in governorships and state legislatures throughout America.

More importantly, we have seen the great rise of a great cause. Conservatives have achieved a tremendous amount in the past decades — but there is more, much more, that remains to be done. This afternoon I will devote my remarks to the President’s victory in November; the ideas that will continue to work in our favor; and the state of contemporary liberalism.

The political realignment in America is moving ahead; here are some of the reasons I believe this is happening.
To you, the Presidential election probably seems like it took place a long time ago; I know that’s certainly how it seems to me. But it was a key election in the history of our country — and there are important things we can learn from it.
Recall that in 2004, we faced a united opposition which outspent our side by over $40 million in a time of controversial war and a recovering, but not recovered economy.

The 2004 election was a steep political mountain to climb, but the President scaled it — and he did so with energy, passion, decency, and an unwavering commitment to principle. What is significant about November’s victory is not simply that the President won, but how he won.

In the 2004 election, President Bush placed all his chips on the table. There was no trimming on issues, no “campaign conversion,” no backing away from Social Security and tax code reform. The President persistently made the case for an “ownership society”; championed a culture of life; defended the institution of marriage; stood with the people of Iraq in their passage to liberty; remained committed to spreading democracy in the Middle East; and continued to aggressively wage and win the war on global terrorism.

President Bush showed himself as he is. He wanted a referendum on what he has accomplished — and most importantly, on what he hopes to achieve.

The victory itself was significant. President Bush received more votes than any other candidate in American history. He’s the first President since 1988 to win a majority of the popular vote. He increased his popular vote total by 11.6 million votes since 2000 — more than four-and-a-half times President Clinton’s increase from 1992 to 1996. President Bush improved his percentage in all but three states. He improved his vote in 87 percent of all counties and carried more than 80 percent of the counties — and he won in 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties and George W. Bush is also the first President since FDR to be re-elected while his party gained seats in the House and Senate — and the first Republican President since 1924 to get re-elected while re-electing Republican House and Senate majorities. And he won with a higher percentage than any Democratic Presidential candidate has received since 1964.

President Bush achieved what almost none of his critics thought he would. Once again, they misunderestimated what you and he could do.

And now, moving forward, here’s why we will defy expectations again. It’s because of the ideas we hold.
A quarter-century ago, a Senator from this state, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, wrote this: “of a sudden, the GOP has become a party of ideas.” It was true then; and it remains true today. We are the party of ideas — and as Richard Weaver wrote, “ideas have consequences.” With that in mind, here are some of the ideas I believe will lead to the further realignment of American politics.

We are seizing the Mantle of Idealism. As all of you know, President Bush is making a powerful case for spreading human liberty and defending human dignity. This was once largely the preserve of liberalism — but Ronald Reagan changed all that. It was President Reagan, you’ll recall, who said the policy of the United States was not simply to contain Soviet Communism, but to transcend it. And we would, he argued, was because of the power of liberty.

President Bush has built on those beliefs — and he is committed to something no past President has ever attempted: spreading liberty to the broader Middle East. President Bush’s eventual goal is the triumph of freedom and the end of tyranny in our world. This vision, which will require the concentrated work of generations, is consistent with the deep idealism of the American people — and it is an idealism whose importance is being confirmed by history and events.

During the last four decades we have witnessed the most spectacular growth of liberty in history. More nations are free today than ever before. Consider that in a four month period — from the end of 2004 to early 2005 — we saw elections take place in Afghanistan, the Ukraine, among the Palestinians, and in Iraq. In the span of 113 days, more than 100 million people, living on two continents, have cast free votes in nations that had never known democracy. More than half of these voters are people of the Muslim faith who live in the broader Middle East. And since those elections we have seen what scholars refer to as “The Arab Spring” in Lebanon and Egypt and elsewhere. We are seeing unprecedented progress when it comes to spreading liberty in the Middle East.

This confidence in the power of liberty is anchored in the words of the Declaration of Independence; the arguments of President Lincoln; and the policies of President Reagan and President Bush. In his second Inaugural Address, President Bush stated it well:

“Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.”

Second, our movement’s growth has made us Agents of Reform. Edmund Burke, one of the most important figures in the history of conservatism, was known as an advocate of reform. He understood the essence of conservatism is applying timeless principles to changing circumstances, which is one of the keys to political success.

President Bush has pointed out that many of our most fundamental systems — the tax code, health coverage, pension plans, legal systems, public education, worker training among them — were created for the world of yesterday, not tomorrow. He is committed to reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time. As the President has said, to give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools. We will build an ownership society by expanding the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance, and preparing Americans for the challenges of life in a free society. We are putting government on the side of reform and progress, modernization and greater freedom, more personal choice and greater prosperity. The great goal of modern-day conservatism is to make our society more prosperous and more just.

Third, we are defending Time-Honored Values. Conservatives have long known that political liberty depends on a healthy social and moral order. And so the President is committed to strengthening society’s key institutions — families, schools, communities, and protecting those mediating structures so important to our freedom, like our churches, neighborhood and private groups - the institutions that inculcate virtues, shape character, and provide the young with moral education.

That is why President Bush supports welfare reform that strengthens family and requires work. That is why he has supported adoption and responsible fatherhood initiatives. That is why he is building a culture of life and upholding the dignity of the human person — and seeks a world in which every child is welcomed in life and protected in law. And that is why he has provided unprecedented support for religious charities that provide a safety net of mercy and compassion.

It is why President Bush supports the protection of traditional marriage against activist judges; why he signed legislation that insists on testing, high standards, and accountability in our schools; and why he he has fostered a culture of service and citizenship.

President Bush supports these things because he believes they will lead to a society that is more compassionate and decent, stronger and better. We are attempting to spread liberty abroad — and we must show that we are worthy of liberty at home.

Let me now say a few words about the state of liberalism. Perhaps the place to begin is with this stinging indictment:
“Liberalism is at greater risk now than at any time in recent American history. The risk is of political marginality, even irrelevance. Liberalism risks getting defined, as conservatism once was, entirely in negative terms.”

These are not the words of William F. Buckley, Jr. or Sean Hannity; they are the words of Paul Starr, co-editor of The American Prospect, a leading liberal publication.

There is much merit in what Mr. Starr writes — though he and I fundamentally disagree as to why liberalism is edging toward irrelevance. I believe the reason can be seen when comparing conservatism with liberalism.

Conservatives believe in lower taxes; liberals believe in higher taxes. We want few regulations; they want more. Conservatives measure the effectiveness of government programs by results; liberals measure the effectiveness of government programs by inputs. We believe in curbing the size of government; they believe in expanding the size of government. Conservatives believe in making America a less litigious society; liberals believe in making America a more litigious society. We believe in accountability and parental choice in education; they don’t. Conservatives believe in advancing what Pope John Paul II called a “culture of life”; liberals believe there is an absolute unlimited right to abortion.

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be to “use moderation and restraint in responding to the terrorist attacks against the United States.”

I don’t know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt as I watched the Twin Towers crumble to the earth; a side of the Pentagon destroyed; and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble.
Moderation and restraint is not what I felt — and moderation and restraint is not what was called for. It was a moment to summon our national will — and to brandish steel.

MoveOn.Org, Michael Moore and Howard Dean may not have agreed with this, but the American people did.

Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said: we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said: we must understand our enemies. Conservatives see the United States as a great nation engaged in a noble cause; liberals see the United States and they see Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags, and the killing fields of Cambodia.

Has there been a more revealing moment this year than when Democratic Senator Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans had done to prisoners in our control at Guantanamo Bay with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot — three of the most brutal and malevolent figures in the 20th century?

Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America’s men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.

Let me end where I began. Forty years ago, Lyndon Baines Johnson, a proud liberal, won the Presidency in a landslide. His party held 68 Senate seats; 295 House seats; and 33 governorships.

In 2004 George W. Bush, a proud conservative, won the Presidency for the second time, receiving the most votes in American history. His party has now won seven of the last 10 Presidential elections. Republicans hold 55 Senate seats; 232 House seats; and 28 governorships.

These facts underscore how much progress has been made in four decades. It has been a remarkable rise. But it is also a cautionary tale of what happens to a dominant party — in this case, the Democrat Party — when its thinking becomes ossified; when its energy begins to drain; when an entitlement mentality takes over; and when political power becomes an end in itself rather than a means to achieve the common good.

We need to learn from our successes — and from the failures of the other side and ourselves. As the governing movement in America, conservatives cannot grow tired or timid. We have been given the opportunity to govern; now we have to show we deserve the trust of our fellow citizens.

At one time the conservative movement was largely a reactionary political party — and there was a sense of pessimism even among many of its ardent champions. You’ll recall that Whittaker Chambers, who gave up his affiliation with Communism to join the West in its struggle for freedom, said he believed he was joining the losing side.

For decades, liberals were setting the agenda, the pace of change, and the visionary goals. Conservatives were simply reacting to them. But times change, often for the better — and this President and today’s conservative movement are shaping history, not trying to stop it. Together we are articulating a compelling vision of a better world — and I am grateful to all of you who are making that better world a reality.

Thank you very much for your attention, for your support of this President, and above all, for your devotion to this country.

Monday, June 27, 2005


Stealing from the poor to give to the rich policy makes great strides with latest Supreme Court Ruling...

WHAT, Don't you believe me???? You don't really believe that the Supreme Court ruling in Kelo vs New London will result in the government confiscating mansions or land belonging to Fortune 500 companies to build low income housing and parks do you?

HOW AWFUL that those nasty Conservatives would trash the Constitution just to help out their rich developer buddies... Public use now means ANY USE by whoever has the right government contacts and the money to build something that will bring in more tax dollars than your rinky-dink little home or farm or mom-pop business.

Or as Jeff Jacoby puts it: "In effect, the majority in Kelo v. New London held that the words “public use” in the Fifth Amendment -- “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation” -- can mean wholly private use, so long as the government expects it to yield some incidental public benefit -- more tax revenue, new jobs, “maybe even aesthetic pleasure,” as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in a dissent joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Would your town’s tax base grow if your home were bulldozed and replaced with a parking garage? If so, it may not be your home for long."

“The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," the dissenters warn. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

In a separate dissent, Thomas made the same point: "These losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities . . . the least politically powerful." Fifty years of eminent domain statistics drive home the fact that families uprooted by eminent domain tend to be non-white and/or non-wealthy. No wonder urban renewal came to known bitterly as "Negro removal."

"It isn't the high and mighty on whom avaricious governments and developers prey. Justices John Paul Stevens, Steven Breyer, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Anthony Kennedy are responsible for this execrable decision, which shreds what little was left of the principle that a man's home is his castle. But they'll never have to live with its consequences."

BUT WAIT ONE COTTON PICKIN MINUTE... It was Conservative Justices that were AGAINST this government land grab?????

Our forefathers fought and died to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity. And one of the most basic liberties they secured for us in the Constitution was the right of the individual to possess their own little kingdom instead of merely occupying space at the Crowns pleasure and discretion.

Justices John Paul Stevens, Steven Breyer, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy have put asunder that blessing of liberty our forefathers secured for us. I'm surprised they didn't hold off until next week for an Independence Day gift.

It makes me sick to think about how hard the Democrats (aided and abetted by John McCain) are working to make sure we have many more days like this by bullying weak-kneed Republicans into giving us even more liberal or quasi-moderate justices.

Read Jeff Jacoby, and get to know Pasquale Cristofaro. He is one of the New London homeowners condemned to lose their homes by those five justices so developers could build privately- owned offices, upscale condos, and a waterfront hotel.

I sometimes think I might end up like Pasquale's wife and die with a broken heart from losing my beloved Home of the Brave.

Sunday, June 26, 2005


Bush May Condemn and Seize Supreme Court
by Scott Ott

(2005-06-24) -- A day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize private property to promote economic development, President George Bush said he may soon move to seize the high court under "the executive branch's power of eminent domain."

The 5-4 court decision broadens the reasons for which properties can be taken under the Fifth Amendment beyond the traditional 'public use' (such as schools and highways) to include 'public purposes' such as...

  • increasing tax income to a municipality,

  • returning a favor to a wealthy developer who supported your city council campaign,

  • improving the view of the waterfront from the Mayor's house, or

  • getting rid of grumpy old people who have lived in their homes long enough.
"In the spirit of the new government takeover of American homes and businesses," said President George Bush, "We may have to seize the moment to condemn some aging, faded and blighted elements of the Supreme Court. Then we can replace them with something that will serve public purposes."

I think this is a GREAT move... lets take a CUE from the looney loyal opposition and start a PETITION supporting the use of eminent domain over the Supreme Court


It can't come as any surprise to pajama word warriors, liberal slayers and other astute conservatives that the liberals are going berserk following the Durbin Debacle.

The outrage over Karl Rove's comments and demands for his ousting was only to be expected. I have found a number of highly entertaining commentary by some of my favorite bloggers. Following, is a list of a few of my favorites:

Good point by Erik at REDSTATE.ORG: "Rove did not say Democrat. Rove said "liberal." Rove did not say progressive. Rove said liberal. Yet, all the folks who call themselves progressive and Democrat have jumped out to attack him. John Kerry even said Rove challenged the patriotism of "every American" and "For Karl Rove to equate Democratic policy on terror to indictments or therapy or to suggest that the Democratic response to 9/11 was weak is disgraceful." Hmmmm . . . considering Rove never mentioned Democrats, it is quite funny how the Dems are beating the hell out of him for saying what he said. I guess they just might be admitting they are the liberal party."

Good piece of advice for Democrats from JAY REDING.COM: "...if the democrats don't want to be accused of being weak on defense, perhaps they should stop being weak on defense for a change."

As usual, CAPTAIN'S QUARTERS spells it out in no uncertain terms with examples of why Karl Rove only told the truth: "What we have here, in this demand for a retraction after a season of personal attacks from Howard Dean, Harry Reid, and the entire leadership of the Democratic Party is pusillanimity at its most hypocritical. Talk about dishing it out and not being able to take it! That the party of Harry Truman has descended to this jaw-dropping level of political cowardice and sheer crybaby status boggles the mind."

BLOGS FOR BUSH details WHY ROVE WAS RIGHT. They also have a good post on WHITE HOUSE DEFENDS ROVE: "it takes a great deal of guts to be a member of a Party which has chipped away at post-9/11 national unity and then complain that someone calling you on it is eroding national unity...national unity, Senator, would be Democrats not lying about why we went in to liberate Iraq; national unity would be Democrats not giving honored place to a fascist-apologist like Michael Moore; national unity would be Democrats condemning in no uncertain terms the likes of George Soros and MoveOn."

HUGH HEWITT refers to RNCs Ken Mehlman's comment, followed by a long list of how liberals truly did respond to 9/11 and the War on Terrorism: "It's outrageous that the same Democrats who stood by Dick Durbins libeling of our military are now expressing faux outrage over Karl Roves statement of historical fact. George Soros, Michael Moore, MoveOn and the hard left were wrong after 9/11, just as it was wrong for Democrat leaders to stand by and remain silent after Dick Durbin made his deplorable comments. - RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman

ANKLE-BITING PUNDITS gives 6 reasons why the Democrats have made a huge strategic blunder in attacking Karl Rove.
OH MY!! So much to read so little time!

UPDATE: Add to your list of how Liberals responded to 9/11 and the War on Terror one John Kerry: "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror"

Tuesday, June 21, 2005


With teary eyes and trembling voice Durbin apologises...

I am not one that will trumpet semantics for the purpose of continuing to dump on someone... but the one thing that still jumps out at me... Especially considering his other attempts to downplay his words and actions is that he still DID NOT say his words were wrong... he still apologized for those who took him wrong and were hurt by his unfortunate choice of words.

He was NOT misunderstood... he said what he did, and I personally feel he should still be forced to say he was WRONG, not just taken wrong. Maybe he really did not mean to demean those that suffered and died at the hands of the gulags and pol pot or Nazi death camps... but he DID demean them... perhaps in his heart of hearts he truly did not mean to demean our soldiers... but he DID, and he did it just to make disparaging remarks about our president... fine... that is what a Democrat is suppose to do, I suppose... but if he crosses the line-- he needs to say so and apology without ANY qualifiers... anything less has little value as far as I am concerned.

A different report of his apology:

Sen. Dick Durbin went to the Senate floor late Tuesday to offer his apologies to anyone who may have been offended by his comparison of treatment of detainees at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Nazis, Soviet gulags and Cambodia's Pol Pot.

"More than most people, a senator lives by his words ... occasionally words fail us, occasionally we will fail words," Durbin, D-Ill., said. "I am sorry if anything I said caused any offense or pain to those who have such bitter memories of the Holocaust, the greatest moral tragedy of our time. Nothing, nothing should ever be said to demean or diminish that moral tragedy.

"I am also sorry if anything I said cast a negative light on our fine men and women in the military ... I never ever intended any disrespect for them. Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line to them I extend my heartfelt apology," Durbin said, choking on his words.
Durbin said in the course of his remarks on June 14, he raised "legitimate concerns" about U.S. policy toward prisoners and whether their treatment makes America safer.

Durbin read from an FBI report that included descriptions of one case at Gitmo in which a detainee was held in such cold temperatures that he shivered, another in which a prisoner was held in heat passing 100 degrees, one in which prisoners were left in isolation so long they fouled themselves and one where a prisoner was chained to the floor and forced to listen to loud rap music.,2933,160275,00.html

I have not yet listened to his remarks, perhaps they will convince me of his sincerity... even his earlier apology was full of recriminations against Republicans trying to use his political remarks for their own partisan purposes. Does he really NOW feel remorse?

I called Senator Dick Durbin's office this morning at (202) 224-2152 and, after being on hold for a while, laid out the reasons why I think Durbin should resign from the Senate. His staffer told me that as of this morning, he is standing by his statement comparing American soldiers to the Nazis, the Communists and the Khmer Rouge. There was one caveat, however: the staffer told me that Durbin never actually said "American soldiers," and that there are also contract interrogators at Guantanamo Bay. I asked whether Durbin was trying to claim that everything bad about Gitmo was the fault of civilians, and the army has nothing to do with it. She backtracked quickly and denied that this was Durbin's theory--it would, of course, be an absurd claim since the military runs Guantanamo Bay and sets the policies there. Her evasion shows, though, how deeply dishonest Durbin's position is-- Powerline

Also from Powerline... who tend to be thinking along my lines: Senator Dick Durbin characterizes his incessant imputation of heinous misconduct to the American military as "a very poor choice of words": "Sen. Durbin apologizes for Gitmo remarks." Does he retract his comparison of our soldiers to mass murdering Nazis and Communists? The answer, the Minneapolis Star Tribune will be happy to know, is "no."

More on this later when there's more time to write, but at first glance, Dick Durbin's "apology" is far too equivocal, and in my opinion, too late. Instead of just saying "I'm sorry, I screwed up and what I said was wrong", this is what we get:

"Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them I extend my heartfelt apologies."
Why the equivocation? Does he still not believe his words crossed the line, or just that he made a "poor choice of words"? And why did it take so long for him to do this, especially in light of him turned down prior chances to do so in the past week. What's changed in that time period?. Wonder if had anything to do with the poll numbers showing Americans favor what's going on Gitmo.

But to me, in the end, what is just as shameful was the week long silence from Democrats refusing to condemn the remarks or call on him to apologize. Not until today did a fellow Democrat, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, have the decency to call Durbin on the carpet. And excuse me for wondering whether Durbin turned on the water works with crocodile tears and said "Sorry", because Daley is from Chicago, and is an extremely powerful person Durbin needs politically in Illinois.

BTW concerning that FBI memo: One knowledgeable official familiar with the memo cited by Durbin as well as other memos said the FBI agent made no such allegation and that the memo described only someone chained to the floor. Anything beyond that is simply an interpretation, or artistic license taken over what the FBI memo actually said.

So after a week of horrendously negative press to which Durbin has repeatedly responded by declaring that he did NOT regret his words and it was just Republicans beating up on him... a prominent Democrat leader with tremendous political clout, Mayor Daley, publicly calls Senator Durbin's words outrageous and now he is suddenly repentant... but still only because his unfortunate choice of words did not reflect what he really meant (the original meaning of which he has been defending all week) ...

Nothing more is going to happen to Durbin, the teary eyes guarantee that, and so I will let it go as a dead horse... but do I believe him or forgive him? Not in a heartbeat... and if any of you do, you are even more gullible than Charlie Brown.


Illinois Congression Delegation opinions on Senator Durbins comments:

"Illinois Congressional Delegation"

QUESTION: Do you think Senator Durbin should apologize?

Here are the results:

Sen. Durbin-D 202-224-2152 Will not answer phone.*
Sen. Obama-D 202-224-2854 NO OPINION


Bobby Rush-D 202-224-6500 -No opinion
Jessie Jackson-D 202-225-0773 -No opinion
Daniel Lipinski-D 202-225-5701 -No opinion
Luis Gutierrez-D 202-225-8203 -No opinion
Rahm Emmanuel 202-225-4061 -No opinion
Henry Hyde-R 202-225-4561 -No opinion
Danny Davis-D 202-225-5006 -No opinion
Melisa Bean-D 202-225-3711 -No opinion
Janice Schakowsky-D 202-225-2111 -No opinion
Mark Kirk-R 202-225-4835 -No opinion
Jerry Weller-R 202-225-3635 -No opinion
Jerry Costello-D 202-225-5661 -No opinion
Judy Biggert-R 202-225-3515 -No opinion
Dennis Hastert-R 202-225-2976 -No opinion
Timothy Johnson-R 202-225-2371 -No opinion
David Manzullo-R 202-225-5676 -No opinion
Lane Evans-D 202-225-5905 -No opinion
Ray Lahood-R 202-225-6201 -No opinion
John Shimkus-R 202-225-5271 -No opinion


* Those who did get through were told he had nothing to say beyond his published statement.


The Washington Times reports that Majority Leader Bill Frist, in a letter to Minority Leader Harry Reid, demanded a "formal apology" from Durbin yesterday, and Senate Democrats responded by attacking Republicans:

*** QUOTE ***
Reid spokesman Jim Manley called the Frist letter "pathetic." "Republicans don't have an agenda, so they are trying however they can to pull attention away from the real problems facing the country," Mr. Manley said. "It is interesting to note that reporters got the letter before we did, as far as I can tell."

. . . Asked about the reaction to Mr. Durbin's comments and his apology, Mr. Reid said he was through talking about the controversy. "The American people have really had it up to here with what the president is doing and not doing and what the Republican-led Congress is doing," Mr. Reid said, pointing to a copy of theNew York Times in his hands that had a front-page story about the falling poll numbers of President Bush.

"The statements made by Senator Durbin speak for themselves. I stand by the statement he made,"he said. "We are not going to discuss this any more." Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, refused to address the ADL criticism of Mr. Durbin,saying only that Republicans "will do anything for a diversion." Pressed to give his opinion of the matter, Mr. Schumer turned his back on reporters and ignored the questions.

*** END QUOTE ***

Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, a Jewish World War II veteran, did reject the Nazi analogy. In any case, it strikes us that an apology is insufficient at this point. As in the case of Trent Lott, Durbin has shown that he doesn't regret what he said, and indeed appears oblivious to what's wrong with it. Just as Republicans forced Lott out of his leadership role to show thatthey rejected the things he said, the Dems should do the same to Durbin.



AP Report: Chicago Mayor Richard Daley says Senator Dick Durbin should apologize for comments comparingAmerican interrogators at Guantanamo Bay to Nazis. Daley says Durbin--a fellow Democrat--is a good friend. But he says it's wrong to evokecomparisons to the horrors of the Holocaust or the millions of people killed in Russia underStalin or in Cambodia under Pol Pot. And Daley says it's a disgrace to accuse military men and women of such conduct.


It is hard to get caught up... I have been involved in some important family issues and keep putting off blogging regularly, but the recent outrages of the Demwits makes it impossible for me to continue being silent... there is much warrioring to do.

We will resume regular blogging in response, reaction and recognition of Turbin (he's a) Dick Durban since half the writing team of Write Wing Warriors hails from Chicago. When you have been off as long as we have, though, the dilemma is where to start?

Since most everyone interested in the issue has seen the news articles, I will first share what the different bloggers have posted that touched me. See the next couple or three posts.

Tuesday, June 14, 2005



"In the years leading up to September 11th, the United States dealt with terrorism primarily as a law enforcement issue. Terrorists who had already killed Americans were investigated, they were arrested, and then they were put on trial, and then they were punished. When terrorists committed an act of war against our country on September 11th, killing 3,000 people, the United States and our allies responded by using military force against al Qaeda and its Taliban sponsors in Afghanistan. In this new era, it became clear that prosecuting terrorists after they strike was an inadequate approach, particularly given the lethal threats posed by violent extremists.

During the operations since September 11th, the military has apprehended thousands of enemy combatants, and several hundred were determined to be particularly dangerous and valuable from an intelligence perspective. There was no existing set of procedures or facilities to detain these enemies in Afghanistan or elsewhere. After extensive discussions with his senior advisers, the president decided that they were not entitled for formal prisoner of war status under the Geneva Conventions and that they were certainly not criminal defendants in the traditional law enforcement sense. Indeed, faced with this new situation, the president ordered that detained combatants be treated humanely under the laws of war. The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay was established for the simple reason that the United States needed a safe and secure location to detain and interrogate enemy combatants. It was the best option available.

The Department of Defense, working through the National Security Council interagency process, established procedures that would provide appropriate legal process to these detainees, procedures that go beyond what is required even under the Geneva Conventions. These included combatant status review tribunals to confirm that, in fact, each individual is, in fact, an unlawful enemy combatant. Every detainee currently at Guantanamo has received such a hearing. As a result, some 38 individuals were released.

Military commissions, trials with full representation by defense counsel for those suspected of committing war crimes. The commissions have been temporarily suspended pending further review by the U.S. federal court system.

And third, administrative review boards that annually assess the remaining potential threat and intelligence value represented by each detainee. These boards are designed to reexamine detainees regularly in order to identify detainees who can be released.

Our goal as a country is to detain as few people as is possible and is safe. We prefer to return them to their countries of origin if the country is capable and willing to manage them in an appropriate way. In some countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, we have begun a process of trying to help them develop the proper facilities and the proper trained forces to manage these detainees. Other countries have not satisfied the U.S. government, as yet, that they will treat their nationals humanely, were they to be transferred to their countries. Still others don't have laws that permit them to detain individuals of this sort, and they're in the process of passing such laws.

One of these detained terrorists at Guantanamo is a man, called Mohamed al-Kahtani, believed to be the 20th hijacker on September 11th. He has direct ties to al Qaeda's top leadership including Osama bin Laden. While at Guantanamo, Kahtani and other detainees have provided valuable information, including insights into al Qaeda planning for September 11th, including recruiting and logistics; the identities and detailed information of 20 of Osama bin Laden's bodyguards; information leading to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the September 11th attacks; and information allowing foreign police to detain 22 suspected terrorists plotting attacks earlier this year.

Detainees are sent to Guantanamo only after a proper screening process that identifies these prisoners who pose a threat to the United States or who have intelligence value. The kind of people held at Guantanamo include: terrorist trainers, bomb-makers, extremist recruiters and financiers, bodyguards of Osama bin Laden, and would-be suicide bombers. They are not common car thieves. They are believed to be determined killers.

Arguably, no detention facility in the history of warfare has been more transparent or received more scrutiny than Guantanamo. Last year the department declassified highly sensitive memorandum on interrogation techniques. Unfortunately, they were documents that are useful to terrorist operatives, and we posted them on the Internet specifically to set the record straight about U.S. policies and practices.

There have been nearly 400 separate media visits to Guantanamo Bay by more than 1,000 journalists. Additionally, some 180 congressional representatives have visited the facility.

We provide continuous access to the International Committee of the Red Cross, whose representatives meet privately with the detainees.

Allegations of abuse at Guantanamo, as at any other U.S. military facility, have been thoroughly investigated. Any wrongdoing is -- wrongdoers are being held accountable. The U.S. military has instituted numerous reforms of the conduct of detainee operations, with a renewed emphasis on standards and training.

The U.S. military has also gone to unprecedented lengths to respect the religious sensibilities of these enemies of civil society, including the issuance of detailed regulations governing the handling of the Koran and arranging schedules for detainees around the five daily calls for prayer required by the Muslim faith. In fact, at Guantanamo, the military spends more per meal for detainees to meet their religious dietary requirements than it spends per rations for U.S. troops.

Since September 11th, the military has released tens of thousands of detainees, including some 200 from Guantanamo. Regrettably, we now know that some of those detainees that were released from Guantanamo have again taken up arms against the United States and our allies, and are again -- were again attempting to kill innocent men, women and children. The U.S. government will continue to transfer others to their countries of origin after negotiating appropriate agreements to ensure their humane and -- humane treatment.

The United States government, let alone the U.S. military, does not want to be in the position of holding suspected terrorists any longer than is absolutely necessary. But as long as there remains a need to keep terrorists from striking again, a facility will continue to be needed. The U.S. taxpayers have invested over $100 million in military construction in the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, and it is spending something like an average of $90 (million) to $95 million a year to operate that facility to its highest standards.

The real problem is not Guantanamo Bay. The problem is that, to a large extent, we are in unexplored territory with this unconventional and complex struggle against extremism. Traditional doctrines covering criminals and military prisoners do not apply well enough.

As the president has said, we are always looking for ways to improve our procedures. And of course we have been looking for better suggestions as to how to manage detainees who pose a lethal threat to the civilized world, and we have already implemented dozens of reforms.

Finally, today is the 230th birthday of the United States Army. From this Republic's earliest days, the American people have depended on our soldiers to protect our freedoms and to stand against those who seek to take our freedoms away. Theirs is a proud history. So I want to wish the Army a happy birthday and extend my appreciation to all those who serve in the United States Army around the world, and the appreciation of a grateful nation."

Thursday, June 02, 2005


For those concerned about the immigration issue that the Minuteman movement in Arizona is attempting to bring to our attention... I, a born and bred decesendant of Texas Freedom Fighters, would like to share a bit of Texas history for the purpose of illustrating a point.

When the Anglo settlers in Texas (who were Mexican Citizens if they were landowners) decided to declare independence from Mexico it was because the government had been overthrown and in control of Santa Ana, a tyrannical dictator much like Saddam.

All agreements and constitutional freedoms that had been granted the settlers (as well as many for the Mexican nationals) had been revoked by Santa Ana when he overthrew the Mexican government and he was determined to drive out and destroy all the Anglo settlers and take over their farms, ranches and businesses (in addition to taking anything from Mexican citizens he desired.)

When the decision was made to declare independence from Mexico, many Mexican nationals, who treasured freedom, joined with the Anglo settlers to fight for their independence. Those Mexican nationals became known as Tejanos and their ancestors were honored as heroes here in Texas, just as much as any of the better known names in the US (like Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie.)

Tejanos were every bit as proud of being Texan and American as anyone I knew. When I was growing up, Mexican immigrants were proud to become Americans... they were among the most vocal opponents of bilingual education... they WANTED their children to learn English, to be proud of their adopted country.

Now to my point... the Americans with Mexican heritage and the legal immigrants were opposing bilingual education (the first phase of this drive to open borders.) Those in this country illegally (I object to calling them immigrants) did not yet have a political voice... so WHO was pushing bilingual education?

I will give you a hint... the same people that were pushing MULTICULTURALISM. Have you guessed yet? Yes, it was the liberals... this is why I advocate the eradication of liberalism. Liberalism is the enemy of everything that is American.

Multiculturalism was just another anti-American program. The hated MELTING POT is uniquely American... it is the TRUE American culture... that is why the liberals have spent so much effort trying to demonize it. It is who we are.

The so-called melting pot is a phenomenon that occurs no where else in history. It is when people from many countries and cultures come and bring the best of their heritage to blend with others looking to become part of something that was bigger and better than anything they had ever had before. And by doing so, this country of immigrants developed its own melting pot culture, one that offered freedom and unlimited opportunity for anyone who was willing to work, fight and sometimes die for such an unheard of ideal.

Change and growth is always difficult and so it was with this country... We have had evil infections that had to be rooted out and healed, but we have always strived for that "impossible dream" until we made the impossible, not only possible, but the envy of the world. However, envy can become a sickness... and that sickness has invaded our country and created a sub-culture that we call liberalism. That disease has made great inroads in vital areas of our country and has weakened the very foundations that once made us so strong. Other countries have always and will always attempt to take advantage of and then belittle the US... but our greatest and most dangerous enemy is the one within.

Unfortunately, those that do or have dearly loved this incredible adventure called America have largely been blind to the threat liberalism has become for our country. Expecting, but not demanding, the best from everyone coming to America has been both our greatest strength and our greatest weakness. It was not 9-11 that shook many of us out of our complacency... it was the aftermath, when the liberals shed their various disguises and began to show their true colors and vicious hatred for America that many of us recognized the enemy and became warriors in the War for the Heart and Soul of America where victory is even more vital than in the War on Terror.

The election of George W was an important battle, but there are many more battles yet to be fought and won. Freedom Fighters, such as LetFreedomRing and the other warriors here and in other America-Loving groups, are vital to regaining our lost ground and putting US back on solid ground. We must never again let complacency or ignorance reign in this country. Therefore I implore you not to blame Mexico or certain politicians while ignoring the fact that this illegal invasion was begat and is being legitimatised by that disease of the mind and soul we call liberalism.

You have a right to your own opinions - You do not have a right to your own facts!