Nina Totenberg, NPR News

Nina Totenberg's story on NPR this morning had the kind of slant to it that press members probably find hard to see -- partially because it was what she didn't say along with how she said what she did say that biased the story. These are things you don't think about if the bias happens to run parallel to your own beliefs.

"The documents released [on Judge Roberts] is an indication of why the Democrats want to see more from Roberts' years at the Reagan years in the White House, and from his tenure as a political deputy to Solicitor General Kenneth Starr during the administration of George H.W. Bush.

Roberts, in a memo on his role in the preparation of Sandra O'Connor for her Senate hearings:

"The approach was to give specific responses to any direct questions on legal issues likely to come before the court while at the same time demonstrating a firm command of the subject matter and the arguments on both sides."

Now this should come as no surprise to anyone in politics. I'm not sure why this would be of concern to Democrats to begin with. A nominee put up by a Democratic president would certainly do the same thing. The implication is, of course, that Sandra, and by proxy Roberts, had something to hide. In fact, to my sensibilities, this is the only logical approach by a justice nominee. A judge should not make decisions outside of the context of a specific challenge -- and should not say how he would rule ahead of time. That would indicate an activist judge, in my book. One who already knows how he/she would rule on an issue before it even comes up in court. If Democrats are concerned with that approach, then I have concerns about theirs. I like Roberts approach.

During his tenure as deputy Solicitor General Kenneth Starr, Nina goes on to point out, he wrote briefs that argued, among other things, for the reversal of Roe v Wade.

Never mind that a lawyer's job is to argue one side of the case -- the one he's being paid to argue. The implication here, by omission of any mention of the context in which those briefs were written, is that it is self-evident that there could be no argument for such a reversal, and that anyone who did make arguments for it must be one of them thar radical religious right freaks.

And everyone knows that that is what this is really mostly about. The Pro-Choicers do not even want the decision questioned, much less reviewed. To even have questioned Roe v. Wade in any context is an abhorent thought to them. Now if you ask me, that makes it no different than a religious point of view. And it's the one issue guaranteed to charge up the Left. Which is why it is specifically pointed out in this story.

Nina goes on to say that the White House won't release memos from the Starr period for fear of chilling lawyers who advise the president on issues in the future from giving candid advice.

"But Democrats aren't buying that argument", she segues.

The choice of words along with the tone in her voice betray a skeptical "harumph!" on the part of the reporter. The language and tone suggest that the reporter herself believes the argument is a sham and so should you. If she said "Democrats say they aren't buying that argument", it would be different, or if she said "Democrats argue that..." it would be better.

But that's relatively small peanuts. She goes on to say

Time after time, Roberts takes the hardest of hard lines...

her voice taking on a disaproving, "tsk-tsk" tone. And there's some of that famous "fact based" NPR reporting.

He repeatedly butted heads with... [other conservatives]

Then she goes into detail about a particular case involving Theodore Olson -- going out of her way to show you just how conservative he was (he later had the audacity to argue the Bush side in Bush vs Gore) and a legal opinon Olson was asked for on the constitutionality of various bills in congress that would limiting the powers of the Supreme Court over the States' Jurisdictions (as outlined by the Constitution) on certain issues. Olson concluded that

While scholarly opionon was divided on the constitutionality, opinion among scholars, judges, and lawyers overwhelmingly opposed the idea as bad policy, and a threat to the American system of checks and balances. Were the President to oppose the legislation as unconstitutional, that position would be viewed by the press and public as a courageous and principled decision.

Ok, never mind that that's political advice, not a legal opinion, Nina uses this to set up Roberts' response to this as radical and suspect (an acid rejoinder, she says -- clearly an adjective chosen to cast a negative light on Roberts) Roberts wrote:

"Real courage would be to read the constitution as it should be read and not to cowtow to liberal thinkers."

Well, it would be. There he goes again, doing what a judge should do and look at laws or potential laws in light of the Constitution rather than in the light of public opinon. Man, the nerve!

Congress (being elected) is supposed to take care of public opinion. The Supreme Court is supposed to check it with the Constitution. That's the checks and balances as they were designed. Roberts gets it.

She then brings up the fact that he argued for a narrow interpretation of a sex discrimination law in intercollegiate athletics. He allied himself with the department's head of the Civil Rights Division, William Bradford Reynolds.

(I guess Nina's saying, "see, I said something nice about him -- so that's balanced") BUT....

In some cases Roberts even butted heads with Reynolds (God forbid you back different issues on both sides of the political fence case by case on their merits -- I mean, what kind of a judge would do that????)

She goes on to illustrate, I guess, that many of his memos address Civil Rights and Affirmative Action issues and that these writings have an "edge" to their tone not typically found in other memos, writing about a report from the Commission on Civil Rights advocating affirmative action,

"The logic of the report is - perfectly circular."

And her point is????????? Do we get to hear or see the report? Was the logic in the report, in fact, circular? Or, is anything coming out of the Commission on Civil Rights Sacrosanct, and not to be questioned or criticized? Is the point, "Roberts criticized a report from the Commission on Civil Rights, therefore, he is against Civil Rights."?

Roberts, it seems, is for Judicial Restraint on the part of the Supreme Court. It's not because Roberts opposes Civil Rights or any other pet issues of the Left, it's that he (*GASP*) SUPPORTS THE UPHOLDING OF THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh --- my -- GOD!!!! We can't have THAT!!!!!!! That's .... RADICAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Schumer: "The Supreme Court Makes Law"

"This, the Supreme Court, is far different than the court of appeals. The Supreme Court makes law. We hope they do it by interpreting precedent and following the legislature.

But they make law."

- Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D) New York

Gee, that's not what I was taught. I was taught that Congress makes law. The Supreme Court decides how it applies to certain cases, and whether or not the law is in line with the Constitution of the United States of America (if it isn't they "break" law, or invalidate it -- strike it down -- but they don't "make" it.).

To graduate from High School, I was required to pass a test on the US Constitution. It was so important that when they thought they lost my test results, I almost had to take it again.

I think to be elected to Congress, you ought to have to pass a test on the US Constitution. You should be aware of the framers intentions and state of mind when they wrote it. These were bright men. Their ideals should not be brushed aside lightly. They put a lot of thought in to it.

Shumer's thinking is in line with what activist groups want. A Supreme Court that can make law. If a Supreme Court can make law, activist groups can bypass the democratic process (Congress) and lobby the defacto dictators of it instead.

In the same press conference, Sen. Leahy (D), Vermont says

We have, right now, the most activist Supreme Court in my lifetime. No Supreme Court of my lifetime has overturned or undercut more laws passed by Congress than this Court has, everything from Violence Against Women on through, environmental laws, employment laws, all of these things.

This is a very, very activist court. I want to know whether he's going to be like that, somebody who would eagerly and willingly overturn settled law.

-- Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D), Vermont

Hmmm.... my definition of an activist court is a court that makes laws. The Senator from Vermont believes that a court that rules that laws, or parts of laws are unconstitutional is an activist court. Senator Leahy, that IS a large part of the job of the Supreme Court. Just because a law is passed for a politically enshrined good cause (violence against women, environmental laws, employment laws, etc) doesn't mean it's a good law or is in line with the Constitution of the United States.

It's one of the things that irks me most about the left. If you are against a bad environmental law, then you are labled as "Anti-Environment". If you are against a bad domestic violence law, then you are "Anti-Woman". If you are against a bad civil rights law, you are "Racist".

You are not even allowed to consider that the law might have some serious flaws. What happened to the favorite Liberal rallying cry -- "Question Authority!"? (one which I happen to agree with, but more on that in another post)

What I want in a Supreme Court Justice is someone who understands and embraces the Constitution of the United States of America, not an "Environmental", or a "Pro/Anti-Life" judge, or a "Pro/Anti-Buisiness" judge, or a "Pro/Anti-Gun" judge. I want a judge who knows what his or her job is, and perhaps more importantly, what it isn't.

From what I can gather, Judge John Roberts is just such a Judge.

Swear him in NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey, if Roberts was in any way associated with the Federalist Society, I say swear the man in NOW! Anyone associated with a group of people that are for Judges interpreting laws in light of the constitution rather than legislating from the bench is OK by me. Leave the legislating to the legislature.

We have a three-pronged government for a reason.

Authorities BAD!!!!

Mr Menezes' cousin, Alex Pereira, who is based in London, said the police would "kill thousands of people" if they were not held accountable for what had happened at Stockwell on Friday.

Alex is, of course, a known authority on what the police would do, and merits an unchallenged quote in the article.

He said: "They just kill the first person they see, that's what they did. They killed my cousin, they could kill anyone."

I'm sure they've seen hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people since 7/7. And true, they COULD kill anyone. But they wouldn't.

Same old story. Authorities bad. Morally equivalent to the terrorists (except the "sassy" terrorists are "freedom fighters".)

Why Kerry Lost

Kerry lost because these people supported him.

Ok, it's not QUITE that simple. But it's pretty close.

Man Shot was a Brazilian

Well, that sucks. A lot.

I'm sure the terrorists are happy.

I still think it would be a mistake to withdraw the shoot-to-kill policy. The police certainly need to be careful, and learn from this enormously painful mistake. I'm certain they were sure they were killing a killer.

Let's see... can't racially profile suspects. Man in big jacket leaving from suspect location being checked out by police to see if he was a threat... he runs from them... on to a bus (a favorite target of suicide bombers... )

If you're innocent, don't run from the police. And even if you're not, don't run in to a bus.

BBC Credibility Self Destructs

From this article at the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4628695.stm

It will not come as much of a surprise [ that Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that it could take up to 12 years to defeat the Iraqi insurgency ] to the Iraqis either. Even the optimists here in Iraq - and there are surprisingly many - do not expect life to improve for many years.

The problem is with the American public. They have simply not been prepared for this sort of long-term commitment.

Which American Public is he talking about? The majority, that voted for Bush -- because they knew he would carry out our responsibility to the Iraqis, or the minority (of whom at least 80% of the press are card-carrying members) that voted for Kerry, who for all of his pre-election posturing would surely have long ago put forth a timeline for withdrawal thus insuring defeat. Most of the Leftists even agree that pulling out now would be a mistake. People calling for withdrawal are a freakish minority.

The White House can either prepare Americans for a very long haul - or it could start work on an exit strategy, with all the humiliation that would entail, [em. mine] and the very real danger of an Iraqi civil war.

For all President Bush's recent expressions of resolve, it is still not entirely clear which option he is going to choose.

What planet have you been living on? It's entirely clear to me. The White House has been very clear from the beginning that this was a long haul committment. Bush has always said "As long as it takes." And he refuses to lay down a timeline for withdrawal in the face of demands from the left that he do so. He won't do it because it would be wrong, and dispite the slanders of MoveOn.org & Michael Moore, the man has too good a moral center to do it.

I love the little freudian interjection of "and all the humiliation that would entail" because that's excactly what the columnist and his peers are salivating to see, never mind the horrible suffering of the Iraqis for generations to come if that happened. No, far more important to skewer Bush at every opportunity.

George W. Bush:

"We are there to complete a mission, and it's an important mission." "A democratic Iraq is in the interests of the United States, and it's in the interests of laying the foundation for peace."

"The way ahead is not going to be easy."

''I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I. We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed -- and not a day longer."

I've been hearing and reading him say things to this effect since before we went in to Iraq. I simply don't understand how anyone can dismiss so cavalierly that the president has repeated this message again and again -- unless that person is knowingly trying to paint a different picture to continue grinding a political axe that has already worn very thin.

It is the press that is the the willing mouthpiece of the resistance(s), stressing the negative and largely ignoring any positive with headlines of terror and fear, and gloom and doom at every attack by the enemy. If there is demand for withdrawal it is coming from the very political sector to which most members of the press lay their allegiance, not from the White House. The only people demanding withdrawal are mindless peace-at-all-cost-nicks and people whose highest goal is to damage Bush politically over the lives of Iraqis and Americans and others.

I can see it now... the press's daily blow by blow coverage of the building of the Empire State building.

"397 bolts were dropped or broken today on the construction of the new building, a monument to American Corporate Greed. 40 welds were re-done when it was found they didn't meet the standards of the welders. A fourth builder fell to his death today, plunging the project further into quagmire. There were 3 bruised fingers, and 14 scrapes and cuts. It is doubtful as to whether this project will ever successfully completed. And if it is it will take a very long time."

Or how about this for England during WWII?

"Another bomb exploded today killing 17 Londoners. Parliament was warned that bombing the Germans in response to attacks would only bring more attacks. Protesters are urging the Prime Minister to stop the cycle of violence."

In their world, continuing=increasing, and repetition=truth .

And don't they love the word "Quagmire"?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4692881.stm

Oh, the Horror!

I read this article on the BBC website this morning:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706913.stm

I thought I might find out a little bit about what happened, but instead was paragraph after paragraph about how scared people were and how horrified they were to see 1) a policeman wielding a gun, and 2) seeing the suspect killed before their eyes by the big, bad Police.

The story leaves a taste not of justice being served and order being enforced, but almost an indignance that anyone died or that anyone had to see it.

Never mind the fact that its likely that the guy was suspected of attempting to blow a few dozen of the horrified citizens up himself.

This just in: the new story is much more balanced.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706787.stm

Perhaps they should have waited for facts to come out first before publishing the "Terror and Fear are Working" version of the article.

Well Halle-freakin'-luia!!!

Or whatever the equivalent Muslim phrase is. The closest I can come is "Praise be to Allah".

This is a welcome gesture.

UK Muslim Leaders/Scholars Issue Fatwa Against Suicide Bombings

A litte more of this around the world would would help.

I was reading in a story this morning about Sunni's threatening death to Shiite families in Baghdad -- going out of its way to explain why it was OK with Allah for them to issue such threats and back them up with death.

Apparently, this kind of thing is par for the course in the Middle East. Hopefully, a little dose of backbone will cure the timid and folks over there will stop standing for it and not comply.

Arrogance

Flipped past the public access channel last night, and there was some Kennedy offspring, giving a speech on how the eeeeeeeeeevil conservatives, ever pandering to the Corrupt Corporate Conglomerate (my phrase, like it?) are robbing from the poor and giving to the rich while destroying the environment -- pretty much how the Left frames conservatives in the world.

Well, this particular conservative counts himself as an environmentalist, but not a kum-ba-ya-singing, swaying counter-culture environmentalist. Any sensible human being wants a healthy and attractive environment. But I think we have to be reasonable about it. And I don't believe in robbing anybody and giving to anybody else -- this is why I'm a conservative.

I don't buy into the Leftist view that the rich are rich because they oppress the poor and take their money. Not that it doesn't happen. But by and large the rich are rich because somebody worked hard and took risks and it all payed off for them and, for some of them, their relatives.

Now I listened to a particular part of this Kennedy's speech in which he was trying to express the need for the Democratic Party to "take back" the monicre of "champions of the working class" from the Republicans -- who get their votes. And it struck me when he said something to the effect of "... and they get them to vote against their own economic interests" what is wrong with the Democratic Party (not that Zell Miller didn't hit the nail largely on the head last fall).

What they're basically saying about the poor (amongst themselves -- their favorite audience) is "They're too stupid to vote for us. They don't know what they want."

Yeah, that'll get me to vote for ya. Call me stupid. You're in, buddy!

It's because they believe that "the people" don't know what they want, but they (the Democrats) do. Just put them in power and they'll show you what you want, and if you don't they'll force it down your throat anyway. Remember -- Hitler was a Socialist. And Stalin.

At any rate, I don't know if its an actual plan or not, but basically it goes like this -- the kind of social engineering being advocated here is one which places a significant bit of the population in the position of being dependent on the government. This is good for parties that promote the social engineering -- because once you start letting a part of the population depend on the government, that part will continue to grow. The incentive to work (produce) drops, less gets produced -- and it is production of goods and services that makes the world go 'round, economically speaking. The people who are dependent on the government will vote to keep that structure in place (AARP, for instance) -- and in the long run, few are producing, the government has little to tax and can no longer support its dependent population, and it all collapses in a dusty implosion.

Conservatives understand this.

I suppose the Left counts on an endless supply of rich to plunder and re-distribute the wealth.

Blasts in London

A friend asked me if I could believe what happened in London this morning.

My answer? "Yes."

Since the first WTC bombing in 1993, I have been aware of terrorist designs on the west. As embassies and ships were attacked over the next several years, it was clear that this was not going to stop. When I heard about the first plane hitting the WTC in 2001, I knew immediately what it was and who was behind it without even turning on the news.

I see already that apologists are playing the "blame ourselves" game. God, what easy targets the west are. Kill a bunch of innocent civillians -- and we ask ourselves how we could behave differently to appease people with no respect for human life. We bend over backwards to accept people from all beliefs into our societies -- but what if one of those belief systems is hell-bent on destroying our society in the first place? This clearly is where "tolerence" needs to end.

We tolerate everyone but ourselves.

from the BBC site:

Respect MP George Galloway said the attacks were "despicable but not remotely unpredictable".

Mr Galloway said Londoners had "paid the price" of the government failing to heed warnings from the security services that attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan would increase the threat of a terrorist attack in the UK.

I agree with the first part of the statement, but what the hell does he mean by the second part? That going in to Afghanistan, especially, after the heads of the perps who doing these deeds shouldn't have been done .... because we might make them mad?

For the most part, terrorism is pretty much unstoppable. Anybody who thinks that if we just increase our security laws and expenditures enough we can be "safe" needs to pull their head out of the sand. We really, in the end, can't control the terrorists as long as they are willing to die or get caught after the act. The only control we have is in our response to it.

We can "be nice to them". But we lose that one, in the end. "Being nice" only works with people with a conscience and an ability to empathize with you, and these people clearly have neither. On top of that, "being nice to them" is what allows them to live in our midst in the first place.

If you give a dog a biscuit every time he barks, what do you think the dog will be doing more of in the future?

"Stay out of their countries" -- again, a reward, and again, a huge misunderstanding of their goals. They want control of the countries they live in, too. And a majority of the people who live in "their" countries don't want those people in control, either. In addition, most of the people who THINK they want them in control would quickly change their minds once they gained that control.

Remember Afghanistan? Remember the Taliban? Forget the wonton destruction of ancient artifacts and mandatory head covering -- hell, BODY covering for women. How about football stadium executions, public dismemberments, torture (real torture, not cheerleader piles of naked bodies of enemy fighters and common criminals or Koran kicking)? Systemic, openly sanctioned torture for simply saying the wrong thing.

Such are the values of these people. They believe they have the word of God, and they believe it is up to them to enforce their interpretation of His Will.

Or -- we can go after their butts and refuse to give in to their will. This way we don't reward them, we don't encourage them to "bark" again for another biscuit, and we actually do our best to punish the behavior. Can we stop them from blowing us up at random? No. If we fight back will we piss them off? Yes -- but they're already pissed off. Will their numbers grow? Perhaps, unless we can act as some sort of deterrent.

So we must fight on, like antibodies against the disease that is this fanatic breed of Islamist.

I noted this from the BBC article:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said he had joined with Muslim
leaders in condemning the attacks during a visit to West Yorkshire.

My question is, who are the anonymous "Muslim Leaders" and what did they say, and why aren't they and their words in the story instead of the Archbishop of Canterbury's?

Where is the outrage from these peaceful Muslims? Actions speak much louder than anonymous words, but I'd just settle for some substantive words from identifiable clerics. If Islam really is a religion of peace, how about a little help from the rest of Islam?

Timetables for withdrawal and losing a war

I could try to say it in my own words, but Rottie already hit the nail on the head and I'll just refer you to his article.

How to Lose a War

The Speech The President Should Give

John F-ing Kerry telling the president what to say in his speech.

Because he wishes he were elected, I suppose.

Let's see what ole Bean-Boy has to say....

Our mission in Iraq is harder because the administration ignored the advice of others, went in largely alone, underestimated the likelihood and power of the insurgency, sent in too few troops to secure the country, destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification, failed to secure ammunition dumps, refused to recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces and did no postwar planning. A little humility would go a long way - coupled with a strategy to succeed.

Too few troops is at best debatable, and it's already been debated. There were problems if you sent too few, problems if you sent too many. There's no such thing as a perfect plan. We went in largely "alone" with the help of a bunch of nations -- just not from a few of the more historically promeinent and currently socialist EuroWeenie countries because going in was the right thing to do, and not going in just because others won't wouldn't have been right. Did the Administration miscalculate some things? Yup. Did its critics get some things right before the war? Sure. I also fail to see where the Administration didn't recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces. No, we sure didn't bring pre-fab ones in, (well not many anyway), but I think everyone up to the top recognized that right away. What I'm hearing is "well, if we were in power it would've been done faster. Because we have a Plan®. And that Plan® has a Strategy to Succeed®. Fast. Read our website, on which we re-iterate over and over repeatedly that we have a Plan®. We don't tell you what it is, but by the Great Secular anti-Deity, we have one. Really. We're going to keep saying it until you believe us."

So what should the president say tonight? The first thing he should do is tell the truth to the American people. Happy talk about the insurgency being in "the last throes" leads to frustrated expectations at home. It also encourages reluctant, sidelined nations that know better to turn their backs on their common interest in keeping Iraq from becoming a failed state.

Yes, and defeatist talk will send the insurgency... er terrorists ... running back to their homes, petrified at our fear, uncertainty, and lack of conviction. It won't embolden them at all. Any sign of fear and waning resolve on our part is a victory for them. And what makes you think it is not the truth, anyway? Probably the fact that it would be politically inconvenient for your ilk. I've been hearing reports every day on NPR about "escalating violence" and "the ever escallating insurgency" since Saddam fell. With the exponential factor, Iraq should be molten by now, and yet it is not. "Continuing" apparently means "Escallating". If you haven't been paying attention in the Middle East for the last 60 years, "continuing" is not very hard.

We're doing our part: our huge military presence stands between the Iraqi people and chaos, and our special forces protect Iraqi leaders. The Iraqis must now do theirs.

I'm sorry, I'm really getting confused now. We didn't send enough troops, but we should start planning to pull them out, even though our "huge" military presence is all that stands between the Iraqi people and chaos. No wonder you lost the election. Take a position, flip-flop boy. Pick one. Any one. Just stick with one so we know where you stand.

As my dad used to say, "patience, child." I know you all have the attention-span of the average Teletubie, but sometimes things don't cook up like instant noodles. You know, like ending poverty with government subsidies. It's worked so well for the past 60 years.

He also needs to put the training of Iraqi troops on a true six-month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget needed to deploy them. The administration and the Iraqi government must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more.

Um... what's a "True Six Month Wartime Footing"? Is there some textbook I missed? Or is this a new trademarked phrase you'd like to register? Of course, the minute we set a time limit for their training, you'll complain that we [Bush] hasn't prepared them enough. Because you're not really interested in what should be done, you're interested highlighting any problems with what Bush is doing. Have you ever considered the possibility that there might be valid reasons for training in Iraq, and that possibly that the paltry, lukewarm offers made frankly wouldn't be worth the trouble?

If Iraqis adopt a constitution and hold elections as planned, support for the insurgency should fall and Iraqi security forces should be able to take on more responsibility. It will also set the stage for American forces to begin to come home.

I thought the Administraton didn't have a plan. That sounds like a good one to me.

Iraq, of course, badly needs a unified national army, but until it has one - something that our generals now say could take two more years - it should make use of its tribal, religious and ethnic militias like the Kurdish pesh merga and the Shiite Badr Brigade to provide protection and help with reconstruction. Instead of single-mindedly focusing on training a national army, the administration should prod the Iraqi government to fill the current security gap by integrating these militias into a National Guard-type force that can provide security in their own areas.

Oh, now THERE'S a good idea. Sounds like a recipe for a civil war to me. And how is "integrating militias into a National Guard-type force" different than training a national army -- besides the fact that these militias are often from different tribes or sects who hate each other and have somewhat of a sense of national dis-unity?

Hamstrung by its earlier lack of planning and overly optimistic predictions for rebuilding Iraq, the administration has failed to devote equal attention to working with the Iraqi government on the economic and political fronts. Consequently, reconstruction is lagging even in the relatively secure Shiite south and Kurdish north. If Iraqis, particularly Sunnis who fear being disenfranchised, see electricity flowing, jobs being created, roads and sewers being rebuilt and a democratic government being formed, the allure of the insurgency will decrease.

Of course, if we had been working with them more visibly (as if we haven't been working with them) you'd accuse Bush of meddling too much with Iraqi affairs. Give us a break. On top of that, a huge part of the reason for the roads, sewers, and electricity problem is precicely because the insurgency targets these things to keep them disrupted -- its only chance of succeeding. But John-boy doesn't mention that.

Iraq's Sunni neighbors, who complain they are left out, could do more to help. Even short-term improvements, like providing electricity and supplying diesel fuel - an offer that the Saudis have made but have yet to fulfill - will go a long way. But we need to give these nations a strategic plan for regional security, acknowledging their fears of an Iran-dominated crescent and their concerns about our fitful mediation between Israel and the Palestinians in return for their help in rebuilding Iraq, protecting its borders, and bringing its Sunnis into the political process.

Um.. the Sunnis opted out of the political process, remember? And still the new government and the US bends over backwards to include them to stem their Disenfranchisement®. But many Sunnis, like Kerry, cannot be convinced that America can ever do right.... except for Kerry who thinks HE could if he were in power. But the Sunnis would not be any warmer to America because Kerry was President. America is America, to them The Great Satan®.

The next months are critical to Iraq's future and our security. If Mr. Bush fails to take these steps, we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, costs rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face. Our troops deserve better: they deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice.

What a two-faced punk. Our [war criminal] troops deserve better. With that trademark drumbeat language (stumble along, our troops at greater risk, costs rising, the patience of the American People wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face) it sounds more like a campaign speech than constructive criticism. Oh, that's right, that's what it is!!!!!

He even got Quagmire® in there to boot. Can't leave THAT one out... except, according to him and his followers, haven't we been in a Quagmire® since like the 4th day of the invasion? Sounds to me like he's saying we're not in a Quagmire® yet, just almost. Unless our Democratic War Hero® ... er... criminal... er... Hero.... er... criminal.... steps in to save the day.

What in the Unholy FUHHHH????

Damn! We're not getting conservative judges on the Supreme Court fast enough. You know, ones who, like, understand the Constitution and that it was carefully written to protect citizens from abuse of government power.

The government can now come and force you to sell your home for pretty much any reason as long as it is deemed to be "in the public interest".

So if the government wants more tax money (obviously, in the "public" interest) it can now force you to sell your house to Wal-Mart who will in turn pay higher taxes on the property. Yes, the government now actually has incentive to force you out of your home. Holy crap. It's going down the toilet even faster than I thought it was.

Um... in our "checks and balances" system -- who is supposed to "check" the Supreme Court? Because... it needs a full-body check right now.

Would I like to sign a petition to bring the troops home?

I went to a downtown free concert last night. On the way there was one guy with a "Our Troops Are Doing a Great Job" sign. Then further down the street were several people that he was counterdemonstrating with "end the war", "bring the troops home", statistics on how many have died, etc.

Later, downtown I was approached by people with clipboards asking me if I would like to sign a petition to bring the troops home.

"Um.... no, thank you."

He said thanks and have a nice evening. At least he wasn't rude.

The place was crawling with activists.

At any rate, later I thought I should have told him....

"What, and let the rest of the world rant on about how we went in and made a mess and left before it was cleaned up and stablized?"

That's one of the biggest gripes I heard from my non-American aquaintances long before the war.

No, folks, no matter what you think about whether or not we should have gone in, it would be highly irresponsible to pull out now.

Palestinians Used Bible As Toilet Paper

Well, there you have it. An article in the Washington Times on May 15, 2002 reports that Palestinian militants holed up in a Christian Church -- not just any Christian Church, but the Church of the Holy Nativity, a very important Christian Church ..... wait for it....

used pages from the Bible as toilet paper.

Where were the rioting Christians? Where was the outrage from the Left?

(chirping crickets....)

Anyone?

(chirping crickets....)

I'd link to the story, but you have to pay for it if you want it from the source. But it's been re-published many times on the internet by other people recently as a counter-example to illustrate the point that I'm making here. Just Google it.

That's right, the Eeeeeeeeeevil United States goes out of its way to stay out of Mosques and bends over backwards to keep from doing anything that might be interpreted as anti-Islamic. An unsubstantiated report about a Koran flushing, and death, murder, and mayhem ensues, along with fresh yelps from the Left about the Bush Administration (again -- well, that's all they yelp about these days. I'm pretty sure, when pressed, they'd find that Bush caused the San Fransico Earthquake of 1906.)

And why the indignant outrage of the Leftists and the Islamists (who seem to be frighteningly too often on the same page) on the retracted and unsubstantiated alleged Koran flushing incident? Because they are both more than eager to believe stories like that.

Marijuana Wars

Feds win battle again medical marijuana

Um... Don't we have a real war to be fighting?

Guantanamo, prisoners of war

I think it's time to put some of what we're hearing about US prison abuse in a little perspective.

Do I think, first of all, that it's cool to stack prisoners up naked or desecrate Korans? No, not really.

Although ... try this experiment in a room full of Anti-American Liberals (otherwise known as Idiotarians™) (and the ™ is also ™ by Rottie, I believe, but it's good so I'm going to shamelessly borrow).

Ask how many of them would be offended by the desecration of Christian bibles. At best, you'll get relatively emotionless murmurs of "well, no, you can't do that either", but what you'll likely hear instead and expressed much more passionately is a litany of Christian "sins" throughout history that would justify such an act. Which gives an insight into the real agenda of these folks.

No mention of sins in the name of Islam, though. That would be disrespectful to The Peacful Religion™.

It would be Divisive™.

Now -- lets review once again the differences between a prison for breakers of the law and a prison for war prisoners... which starts with why and how people got there in the first place.

In a prison for law breakers, we have (1) people who we have probable cause to believe have broken a civil law awiting trial for a constitutionally brief period, or (2) people actually serving sentences after being convicted of breaking a civil law.

In a war prison, we have people who were fighting us in some arena of battle in a war. They are typically held without charge (because we're not talking about people who are there for breaking our civil laws) until the end of the conflict that battle was being fought in.

There is a bit of a difference between these prisoners, and say, German or Japanese prisoners during WWII. Most Germans and Japanese combatants wore the uniforms of their particular service and were easily identifiable as combatants. (that link to the much more eloquent Bill Whittle's essays on the subject)

How many German POWs did we give a fair trial to and send back home when they were found guilty of nothing but fighting for the other side? ????!!!

To hear the Left talk (now even through AmLeftsty International), we rounded up a bunch of innocent Afghan citizens illegally and shuttled them off to a Cuban Gulag for indefinite interment without charging them with some civil offense.

But that's not it at all. Instead of killing these folks on the battlefield in a war -- which nobody would have complained about -- we kept them alive and in what amounts to a POW camp.

By all rights, they should be dead.

Does it justify torture? No. Not in and of itself. Does anything justify torture? I'll leave that as a grey area, since I do live in the Real Real World where you might need to get information from someone to save the lives of hundreds or thousands or millions...

But, except for a few highly publicized incidents, by and large we're treating these people pretty well for folks we could have killed. 68,000 prisoners, most of whom have been set free. 325 investigations into alleged abuse. 100 confirmed cases of some sort of wrong-doing). Perfect record? No. Who has one? Gulag? Take the tinfoil off your head and join the real world.

These are not jaywalkers or speed-limit violators. These are people who joined an army that has vowed to kill YOU if at all possible, and they won't discriminate between Kerry voters and Bush voters. Hell, they'll even kill you if you're Islamic if it suits their cause.

But let's let them all go. That way, when one of them turns up as a suicide bomber on a subway in New York, all the Lefties can point at the Bush administration and say "we had him and Bush let him go". Because as we should all know by now, everything bad is Bush's fault.

The US isn't perfect. Nobody is. But this constant assault on it is painting a hugely distorted view of what's going on. How 'bout a little balance?

Know Thy Enemy

We went to see Brian off Thursday -- there was a special dinner for families of reservists who had been activated basically to let us know "hey, he's no longer a reservist, here's what you can expect now that your boy is an active Marine". Plus, how to get in touch with him, and a little about what he'd be doing.

Well, what he'll be doing is a lot more involved than training Iraqi soldiers and police, it seems. As a matter of fact, he seems to be part of the CAG, or Civilian Affairs Group. He'll be learning some of the language, and his job will be basically working with Iraqi civilians to re-build, re-construct -- in other words... just excactly the kind of target the terrorists like the best.

This speaks volumes about our enemy. What should be the safest job for us is, in fact, the most dangerous. These people want Iraq to fail and fall in to their hands so badly that they use -- as their primary tactic -- the killing of civilians -- to keep chaos and disorder in place. The hope is that people will become frustrated with the fact that the new government can't keep the peace and either vote the terrorists in or simply let the terrorists take over.

Any group of a few thousand loosely organized people in any country who are willing to stoop to this dispicable level of -- ahem, "engagement" -- can, over time, cause the same amount of chaos being caused in Iraq by these villians. People don't seem to understand that.

The gleeful Bush/America bashers like to point to each little bombing and say, "look, it has failed" -- which is all the freaking terrorists want. All they have to do is kill a few people a day in some sort of dramatic fashion (explosion, beheading....) and it will run every day as a top news story. This is easy for people who have brainwashed people to blow themselves up in the name of Islam. The daily news stories magnify their puny successes -- and over time this myopic view will cause public sentiment to shift away from getting rid of them or further marginalizing them, and in the end have us turning the reins right over to these folks. If you think Jerry Fallwell et al are bad, stop and consider this.... how many dreaded Christian-Righters have you heard about kidnapping aid workers and cutting their heads off -- filming it for the world to see? Think about that next time you want to draw some sort of moral equivalence between Al Queda and the American Religious Right. I'm not a part of it, but get real!

Do Iraqis have to do things our way? No. But get serious. There are several thousand black-hearted evil people over there that want to run Iraq THEIR way -- and given a choice, I think the other 20 million+ Iraqis would take our way over theirs. And we're not even insisting on that.

Here's some voters who really think hard....

From the Belleville News-Democrat:

Michael Collins, [is St. Clair County, Illinois] Precinct 26's longtime Democratic committeeman and a former East St. Louis City Council member.

In February 2001, a jury convicted Collins on four state felony charges of illegally registering voters nearly six years earlier. A judge later sentenced him to 18 months of probation and community service. The felony convictions, however, didn't stop Precinct 26 voters from re-electing Collins as their Democratic committeeman in 2002.

Now his first cousin Leander Brooks has been arraigned on 4 counts of voter fraud.

The Democrats are obviously the Party of the [Dead] People.