Kidnapped by Japan - How A Mother's Dying Wish Led To A Father's Unimaginable Loss

Read the story here

Friday, June 13, 2008

Obama's REAL Color Problem: Its Not That He's Black; Its That He's Yellow

Sphere: Related Content

Barack Obama, the man who is simply hopping up and down to go head to head with the Iranian Hitler, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and any other kill-crazy maniac who has murdered his way to the leadership of some country or other is scared to death of facing John McCain. McCain's comments in the video above refer to his original offer to Obama to meet with him mano-y-mano in a series of ten unstructured joint-candidate townhall meetings. As McCain notes in the video Obama has backed out of eight of those debates, accepts one that will be Lincoln/Douglas style (they'll give long speeches to each other and take no questions) and one townhall gathering on JULY 4 when nobody is watching TV.

What this says about Obama is that what we all know already is correct: the townhall format, in which longer, detailed answers are required is not his forte. In the past this type of unscripted forum has led to some of Obama's most embarrassing moments on the campaign trail. He stutters and stammers and mangles the facts, contradicting himself with wild abandon. In other words without a script in front of him he shows himself to be the shallow glass of water many on the Right believe him to be. His refusal to accept McCain's offer shows that he believes it, too. His refusal to go up against McCain in this kind of unstructured format is an amazing admission, especially contrasted with how he says he will handle foreign leaders. On the one one hand he's telling us that he doesn't have the goods to deal with McCain while on the campaign trail he's telling us he will meet with the Ahmadinejad's of the world, who are conspiring against us, ASAP and without preconditions.

Whatever you may think about McCain (and I've stated my negative feelings about him ad nauseum in numerous posts) he doesn't want to blow America up. Ahmadinejad does. So Obama would prefer to risk screwing up against a guy who is a genuine danger to the country than with a man who is only a danger to Obama's own ambitions. Obama isn't just a coward, he's also a fool and as President he would be a dangerous one.

I was listening to Brit Hume's show last night and in the roundtable session they were discussing Obama's refusal to take on McCain in the ten townhalls. While acknowledging that Obama was a coward for avoiding them they felt that this really wouldn't matter to the electorate as the main issues in the campaign will remain the eoconomy and the war. Well they may have been right about the issues but they were wrong about Obama's behavior in this situation being irrelevant. The public is still forming their opinions about Obama and if they come to see that he simply doesn't have what it takes to lead that will affect how they vote. In conjunction with Obama's socialist policies McCain should highlight Obama's cowardice daily. He has the wrong message and he is the wrong man. If people recognize that, Obama can't win.

Stop The ACLU also knows a chicken when they see one.

Hot Air does, too

And Wake Up America

RIP Tim Russert

Sphere: Related Content

Meet The Press Anchor Tim Russert died today while at work.

Tim Russert, NBC News's Washington bureau chief who was renowned for his tough questioning of politicians, died of a heart attack after collapsing while at work today. He was 58.

Russert was perhaps most famous for his probing questions of politicians on the Sunday morning talk show ``Meet the Press.'' He was also a best-selling author whose books included a tribute to his father, ``Big Russ and Me.''

Former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw announced Russert's death on the air, telling viewers about Russert's childhood growing up in Buffalo, New York, his love for his family and his tremendous work ethic. Brokaw said Russert was ``one of the premier political analysts and journalists of his time.''

``The news division will not be the same,'' Brokaw said.

Russert took over as anchor of ``Meet the Press'' on Dec. 8, 1991, and since then it has become the most-watched Sunday morning interview program in the U.S. and the most-quoted news program in the world, according to the network's Web site.

He was born in Buffalo on May 7, 1950, and graduated from John Carroll University in University Heights, Ohio. He earned a law degree from the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law in Cleveland.

He worked for former New York Governor Mario Cuomo in Albany from 1983 to 1984 and was a special counsel in the U.S. Senate from 1977 to 1982.

He was married to journalist Maureen Orth, a writer for Vanity Fair magazine and had a son, Luke.

Our sincere condolences to his family and friends.

Further commentary this weekend.

Hot Air
also notes his passing

Friday Zen

Sphere: Related Content

Come Back Laura Ingraham!

Sphere: Related Content

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has the latest on Laura Ingraham's disappearance from her own radio show these past few weeks.

Laura Ingraham has apparently run into a contract dispute with her syndicator and has been off the air for most of the last two weeks. It seems like a bad time for the Right to lose one of its strong and entertaining national voices. The Republicans and conservatives look like they’re in for a bad time already in Congressional races, and the effort to inform people about the presidential race and its issues needs to be in full gear now.

Come back, Laura. We need you.

Michelle Malkin agrees

Hugo Chavez Campaigns For Obama (Well Sort of)

Sphere: Related Content

Venezuelan Communist President Hugo Chavez, enemy of GWB and 'bro to the stars is apparently ramping up the rhetoric against our current President.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says he expects oil prices to keep climbing and predicts they could reach $200 a barrel.

It isn't the first time the Venezuelan leader has mentioned that benchmark-- though he hasn't said when it might be reached.

Chavez reiterated the prediction after the price of light, sweet crude continued to rise on the New York Mercantile Exchange and settled at $136.38 a barrel Wednesday.

Chavez said in a televised speech Wednesday that oil should be $100 a barrel, but could keep rising to $200.

He blamed the falling U.S. dollar, U.S. ``threats'' against Iran, and what he called ``bad management'' of the U.S. economy for driving rising prices.

Venezuela is the fifth-largest supplier of oil to the U.S.

Chavez is, of course an expert on economic management as this story shows:

Mirina Kakalanos has been forced to double prices at her family's shoe store in the last year. Customers turn away after browsing the pumps and sandals, but Kakalanos says she has no choice.
“There is less money coming in, and more costs to cover,” said the 40-year-old mother of three, whose Greek immigrant father opened the shop after moving to Venezuela in search of a better life. Now she barely makes enough to get by.

Boom times are waning in oil-rich Venezuela, even as world crude prices soar. Inflation is nearing 30 percent, the highest in Latin America, and annual economic growth slowed to 4.8 percent in the first quarter, a four-year low.
Analysts say President Hugo Chavez's economic policies are hindering private investment and growth just as he hopes to boost support ahead of November's regional elections. Many point to the economy as his Achilles' heel.

Already complaining of inflation and food shortages, voters last December rejected constitutional changes that would have allowed Chavez to run for re-election indefinitely – his first blow at the ballot box, where he had enjoyed four straight electoral and referendum wins.

Inflation has been a familiar problem, but a newly slowing growth rate is making it a more urgent concern.

As prospective Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama has shown great interest in a very similar economic agenda it is only left to be wondered how much he will be involved in the upcoming campaign.

When asked just that question, long-time Chavez pal, actor Sean Penn said,

"Bush is a f...king b..stard and murdering sc..bag. I hope his f..king .ss gets..."

Well, you get the point.

Mugabe's Reign Of Terror Continues - World Shrugs

Sphere: Related Content

Serial killer and election-thief Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe is continuing his brutal ways in the aftermath of his country's recent much disputed Presidential election.

President Robert Mugabe's regime struck at his rivals Thursday only two weeks before Zimbabwe's presidential runoff, twice detaining his challenger and jailing the No. 2 opposition leader to face treason charges.

The U.S. ambassador, meanwhile, said 20 tons of American food aid heading to impoverished Zimbabwean children had been seized by authorities last week and given to Mugabe supporters at a rally.

The repeated detentions, coupled with Western accusations that Mugabe's regime is using food as a weapon, dramatically demonstrate the obstacles to the campaign thrown up by the longtime leader.

"This is a government that is taking tremendous and, frankly, awful strides to maintain its power, that is increasingly abusing its own citizens and has raised, or should I say lowered, the bar to a level that we rarely see," State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said in Washington.

Morgan Tsvangirai, who led the opening round of presidential voting 2 1/2 months ago and faces the increasingly autocratic Mugabe in a June 27 runoff, was first stopped at a roadblock in the south and held at a police station for about two hours, his party said.

Apparently feeling these actions aren't enough to frighten and silence his opponents Mugabe has found more horrific ways to get his point across:

BRUTALITY has sunk to new lows in Zimbabwe ahead of this month's election, with government militiamen burning people alive.

It emerged yesterday that three people linked to the Opposition Movement for Democratic Change party were killed in two attacks last Friday.

Dadirai Chipiro, 45, was attacked by three men seeking her husband who was away on business, The Times reported.

They grabbed Ms Chipiro and chopped off a hand and both her feet.

Then they shoved her into her hut, locked the door and hurled a petrol bomb through the window.

On Friday the 21-year-old pregnant wife of a local councillor in Harare - Pamela Pasvani - was burned to death.

The councillor's six-year-old son also died in the fire.

Mugabe's neighboring countries have been approached about dealing with him in the past and have instead given him a total pass. That is why attempts to involve them in the current situation are so depressing:

[US Ambassador James] McGee called on Zimbabwe's neighbors to intervene, saying the Southern African Development Community should send more observers to ensure peace before and during the vote.

Officials of the regional group said 120 monitors would deploy beginning Thursday and plans called for a total of 400 observers by election day—three times the number sent for the March 29 vote.

"We'd like to see three to four times that," McGee said. "Then I think we would have an opportunity" for free and fair elections.

The opposition, McGee and other foreign diplomats, and Zimbabwean and international human rights groups accuse Mugabe of unleashing violence against Tsvangirai's supporters to ensure Mugabe wins the runoff.

The government and Mugabe's party deny the allegations.

And so Mugabe's monstrous reign of terror goes on. And so does the "world community" of which so many in the US are so impressed, without any real intention to do anything about him.

Hot Air takes note

Thought Leader is also outraged talks about UMass revoking Mugabe's degree

So is Vlad Tepes

Hugh Hewitt is also displeased

A Blog For All is equally outraged

Rep Man doesn't seem thrilled, either

John McCain Is Learning A Lesson About What The "New Politics" Is Like - Same Old Same Old

Sphere: Related Content

It is probably a very good thing for John McCain that the Dems have their nominee locked in so far in advance of the conventions and the "official" start of the Presidential race. All this lead time should give McCain plenty of opportunity to see how self-defeating will be his planned "civil" campaign against Barack Obama.

Despite giving oh-so-very-many hope, Obama, a "new kind of politician" ya know, seems oddly comfortable with lying to the public about McCain's comments and positions, not to mention dropping the very old-type-of-politicians habit of speaking in "code phrases" (about which the Left are so sensitive) about McCain's age.

The Obama distortion that McCain is responding to above is sort of the continuation of his lie of a few months ago in which he tried to make it sound as if McCain would be happy if American troops remained in Iraq for "100 years". Obama intentionally made it sound like McCain would be happy with American soldiers fighting and dying there for 100 years. In fact McCain meant then, as he means in the current situation that it wouldn't be terrible if American troops were in Iraq in the future the way American troops are still in Japan and South Korea, as non-fighting monitors. At the time even the msm thought Obama's distortion was egregious enough to confront him on it directly. That didn't stop Mr. Hope and Change. He blithely just kept on 'a lyin'.

There are more chinks in Saint Obama's armor than in any other candidate in recent memory. From his radical buddies, his socialist policies, his lack of any demonstrated policy or legislative leadership, his breathtaking ignorance on foreign policy, his lack of curiosity about what is really going on on the ground in Iraq, his quotidian gaffes and on and on, Obama is a veritable goldmine of material that can be used for attacks. If, in spite of Obama's gutter tactics McCain still finds it uncivil to hit him over the head with rhetorical 2x4s on a regular basis he will certainly lose.

Hopefully for him these recent hints of the deluge of garbage the Dems are about to drop on him has been bracing enough that he'll understand what it is that he's up against and what he'll have to do about it to win.

Liberal Values, a liberal but not a moonbat discusses

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Thursday Zen

Sphere: Related Content

Shh! Don't Tell Al Gore: Late Spring Snowstorm On Mount Hood

Sphere: Related Content

Its a darn good thing that Al Gore is impervious to facts because if he cared a lick about the truth this story would rattle the King of Global Warming:

Winter-like weather returned to the Northwest as snow fell across the state Tuesday including on Mount Hood where drivers were dealing with unusual weather for this time of year.

And while it didn't cause major problems, most people were asking, "What happened to spring?"

The snowfall at Timberline Tuesday was amazing, blowing snow and ice most of the day. There was packed snow and ice on the roadway that turned to slush in some spots and the trees were coated thickly.

Even though the Fourth of July is less than a month away to many it seemed more like February.

"I don't ever remember it being this much snow this late in the season," one mountain resident said.

People who live on the mountain said they found 3 to 4 inches of fresh snow on the ground Tuesday morning and it was a shocker -- even for those who stay there year-round.

"It is not supposed to do this in June," Bill Roberson of South Carolina said with a laugh as he stood in the falling snow wearing shorts.

It must be getting harder and harder to be Al Gore.

Let's See, Oil Prices Are High. What To Do? What To Do? Wait A Second, I Know! Drill Dammit! Drill!

Sphere: Related Content

While John McCain is blowing his chance to capitalize on possibly the biggest issue of the upcoming election - high oil prices - at least Republicans in the House (of all places!) are doing the right and smart thing. Michelle Malkin cites USA Today that:

Supporters of a proposal to allow drilling for oil and gas off the U.S. coastline are expected to make their case to a House panel Wednesday.

Offshore oil and gas production has been banned off most of the U.S. coastline since Congress approved the Outer Continental Shelf moratorium in 1981, which prevented the leasing of coastal waters for fossil fuel development.

Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., wants to change that with an amendment to the Interior Department spending bill to be considered by a House Appropriations subcommittee. The amendment would lift the prohibition on exploration 50 to 200 miles offshore but continue to ban drilling within 50 miles of the coastline.

“For 27 years, Congress has deliberately locked-up vast offshore oil and natural gas reserves,” Peterson said. “With the price at the pump increasing daily — with no end in sight — and the cost of natural gas trading at record levels, Congress needs to unlock these reserves.”

He cites estimates from the Minerals Management Service that there are 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas located offshore.

The bill later went down to defeat along party lines, Republicans all in favor of drilling, Dems against. This is the kind of common sense issue that would easily resonate with voters. Sadly standard bearer McCain is squishy on offshore drilling and no better than the head of the Sierra Club when it comes to drilling in ANWR, apparently mistaking that tundra-covered hellhole in Alaska for the majesty of the Grand Canyon.

Although it escapes the two major party candidates for President the American people are sharp enough to understand that if we are being jerked around over the issue of foreign oil it makes a helluva lot of sense to drill for our own instead.

Malkin goes on to cite the WSJ that:

A century and a half after oil production began, there is ample evidence that a lot of oil — and natural gas — remains to be found in the U.S. and its territorial waters. Some of those areas are wide open to oil companies, including most of the Gulf of Mexico where deep-water floating rigs now routinely drill wells hundreds of miles from shore. Even in the gulf, areas are off limits, including most of the waters off the Florida coast. The entire East and West Coasts are off limits for new drilling.

The US has a huge amount of oil that remains currently untapped. The Bakken Formation in Montana and North Dakota alone is hugely rich in oil.
In April 2008, a report issued by the state of North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources estimated that the North Dakota portion of the Bakken contained 167 billion barrels of oil[9].

Due to their thisclose relationship with the radical environmental movement the Dems are in no position to exploit this opening. A May Gallup poll shows that 57% of Americans favor drilling in coastal and wilderness areas. If the Republicans in Congress can get their thick-headed Presidential candidate on board they'd be able to speak very appealingly with one voice to the American people on an issue that has mass appeal and is good policy, too.

A Newt One discusses

Bear Creek Ledger does as well

So too The Cassandra Page

Less Is More - Barack Obama's Real Message

Sphere: Related Content

For all his empty talk about hope and change and the mainstream media's amazing lack of intellectual curiosity about what it all means I'm really starting to believe that come November 4 the American public just may finally "get it" unintentionally thanks to Obama himself. The video above is just the latest example of Obama inadvertently spilling the beans on himself.

While the American people are having fits about each day's increase in the cost of gasoline Obama reveals in the video, not that he wants to see prices go down but that he's only unhappy that they're going up too fast. For anyone familiar with the Left this attitude is no big surprise. Obama and his ideological cohort see rising energy prices as a method of conservation. When energy costs are too high people will be forced, out of economic necessity, into using less. While Conservatives would be happy with reduced consumption of oil, we'd like alternatives to be highly developed enough first that petroleum can be made less essential without decreasing people's lifestyle choices. The Left, the Green Left especially would be happy if we were all to go back to living in straw huts and wearing fig leaves.

Obama's previous slip of the tongue about his plans for the new America he'd like to build can be seen in the video below.

Obama doesn't want to raise America's standard of living. This would be unfair to all those other countries around the world where they can't drive SUVs as big as ours or "eat as much" as we can or keep their homes at 72 degrees like we do. To Obama this is a zero sum world. If we have something it means we've taken it from someone else and is therefore immediate evidence of our corruption.

Barack is certainly not the only one in the Obama family to feel this way. His very talkative and very influential Mrs. is on-board with this kind of thinking as well. Back in April in a North Carolina speech she let the cat out of the bag when she said,

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

Even if the McCain campaign proves to be as ineffectual as I suspect it just might be the truth about Obama's real vision for America; one in which we all must come to accept Obama-imposed limitations might become apparent anyway. While Obama is a gifted reader, without a carefully written script before him his extreme inexperience and lack of intellectual nimbleness might just make his real intentions slip out so frequently that they finally sink into the American consciousness. And, God willing, that might be what it takes to finally sink him.

Hot Air didn't miss the implications of Obama's comments, either.

Neither did Stop The ACLU

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Wednesday Zen

Sphere: Related Content

Naked Bike Ride, Etc

Sphere: Related Content

Just one question: Where do you go to see attractive nekkid people riding around in public?

I...Uh...You Know What I Mean...Uh....Yeah...Support This Guy

Sphere: Related Content

For know...time, I figured that...I mean I thought...uh, ya know...thought...or let me think this uh through...uh. I actually kinda thought, you know...well let me say...uh thought that this...Oba...uh, I mean Obama uh, guy was just an...well, by that I mean was a just, uh just an empty...uh jacket and pants...nice pants, ya know...uh empty suit. But after seeing thing here. Ya know? After seeing this moving picture deal, uh...I think him for...President of all these...uh 57 states.

Yeah, I'm...uh...well...ha see, endorsing...(that's the word, right?) him.

Thank you.

Liberty Pundit admires his eloquence, too

Stop The ACLU is equally impressed

Tigerhawk is also awed to hear Obama-unplugged

Shock in Washington: Private Business More Efficient Than Government

Sphere: Related Content

The picture above is a shot of the Senate Dining Room, part of the government run Senate Restaurants, and it looks pleasant enough. Sadly that is the only nice thing that can be said about it. In a story embarrassing to Democrats because it shows how poorly the government performs in comparison to the private sector, the degree of the failure is instructive about more than just restaurants.

Year after year, decade upon decade, the U.S. Senate's network of restaurants has lost staggering amounts of money -- more than $18 million since 1993, according to one report, and an estimated $2 million this year alone, according to another.

The financial condition of the world's most exclusive dining hall and its affiliated Capitol Hill restaurants, cafeterias and coffee shops has become so dire that, without a $250,000 subsidy from taxpayers, the Senate won't make payroll next month.

The embarrassment of the Senate food service struggling like some neighborhood pizza joint has quietly sparked change previously unthinkable for Democrats. Last week, in a late-night voice vote, the Senate agreed to privatize the operation of its food service, a decision that would, for the first time, put it under the control of a contractor and all but guarantee lower wages and benefits for the outfit's new hires.

The House is expected to agree -- its food service operation has been in private hands since the 1980s -- and President Bush's signature on the bill would officially end a seven-month Democratic feud and more than four decades of taxpayer bailouts.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Rules and Administrations Committee, which oversees the operation of the Senate, said she had no choice.

"It's cratering," she said of the restaurant system. "Candidly, I don't think the taxpayers should be subsidizing something that doesn't need to be. There are parts of government that can be run like a business and should be run like businesses."

The difference between the private and public systems is made apparent by the behaviour of the (imagine this!) marketplace.
In a masterful bit of understatement, Feinstein blamed "noticeably subpar" food and service. Foot traffic bears that out. Come lunchtime, many Senate staffers trudge across the Capitol and down into the basement cafeteria on the House side. On Wednesdays, the lines can be 30 or 40 people long.

House staffers almost never cross the Capitol to eat in the Senate cafeterias.

"It's so bad that the Senate hasn't yet figured out that House 'Taco Salad Wednesday' trumps any type of entree they have to offer," said Ron Bonjean, a former press secretary to both the House speaker and the Senate Republican leader.

"Those who think the House and Senate don't talk enough clearly haven't been in the Longworth cafeteria on the House side at lunchtime recently. Senate staffers have been flocking there for better food, more options, and you get some exercise to boot," said Brian Walsh, spokesman for Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.),who frequently dines on the other side of the Capitol.

And of course that consumer satisfaction is borne out on the bottom line. While the government run system has lost more than $18 million since 1993, as noted above, the...
...Restaurant Associates turns a substantial profit -- paying $1.2 million in commissions to the House since 2003. Company officials did not return telephone calls seeking comment.

You might think that this little lesson on the benefits of capitalism might not only make Senator Feinstein blush a bit but might also make her reexamine some of her long-held liberal economic assumptions. But don't count on it. Her liberal power base is certainly not interested in her making reasonable policy decisions. They and she are about power first and foremost. Even this small step seemed like it caused her physical pain.

Now if only we could get everyone to take note of this situation and then realize that these government folks are the same ones who now want to take over health care.

Outside The Beltway also notes

The Bad News Is The Good News...

Sphere: Related Content

The now undeniable success of The Surge (deserving of the capitalization, I'd say) is a growing problem for Democrats and their new standard bearer, Barack ('I'm still pulling out') Obama. Democratic luminaries like Harry Reid tried denying the early indications that The Surge was working (Reid: "Its a failure") in a willing suspension of disbelief that was reminiscent of a child closing his eyes and shaking his head, hoping that the bad thing would go away. It didn't.

Author Arthur Herman has a good recent piece here in which he spells out what is now happening in Iraq and why it makes the Dems look so very bad.

AMERICA has won, or is about to win, the Iraq war.

The latest proof came last month, as the Iraqi army - just a few months ago the target of scorn and abuse from Democratic politicians and journalists - forcefully reoccupied three cities that had served as key insurgency bases (Basra, Sadr City and Mosul).

Sunnis and Shias alike applauded as their nation's army compelled insurgent militias to lay down their arms. The country's leading opposition newspaper, Azzaman, led the applause for the move into Mosul - a sign that national reconciliation in Iraq is under way and probably irreversible.

US combat deaths in May also were down to 20, the lowest monthly total since February 2004. The toll for May 2007 was 121.

In a Washington Post interview, CIA Director Michael Hayden said we're witnessing the "near strategic defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq."

The Dems have made the "quagmire" of Iraq a linchpin in their continuing assaults on Republicans in general and GWB in particular and were certainly hoping to use it as a battering ram against John McCain in the upcoming election. Sadly for them, events are conspiring to prove that not only are they bad prognosticators but many of their underlying assumptions about the war were dead wrong, as well.

The rap the Dems tried to peddle so long has been that Bush had taken his eyes off the real prize - the war on terror - to pursue oil for his big business buddies, his mad obsession, while Al Qaeda gained strength in Afghanistan and elsewhere. But now it is becoming more obvious every day that Bush's "obsession" may have been where the action really was after all.
In wars, however, trends have their own momentum. And the trend is running away from al Qaeda and its jihadist allies - not only in Iraq but also across the Middle East.

According to Hayden, al Qaeda faces a similar strategic debacle in Saudi Arabia.

And al Qaeda's fugitive leadership is learning that its former safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border is no longer so safe. Thanks to cooperation with Pakistan's new government, unmanned US Predator drones recently killed two top al Qaeda leaders there.

Once Gen. David Petraeus is confirmed as commander of US forces in the Middle East in July, he'll be able to apply the same strategy for victory learned in the Iraq surge to the war in Afghanistan.

In short, the larger War on Terror may be reaching a tipping point similar to that of the Iraq war.

The US public and policymakers need to recognize how this happened - and draw lessons from this success.

1) We need to acknowledge that the Iraq war wasn't a "distraction" from the War on Terror, as critics still complain, but its centerpiece.

It's not mere coincidence that our success against al Qaeda globally comes along with success in Iraq. For all its setbacks and frustrations, the Iraq war drew jihadists into a battle they thought they could win, because it would be fought on their home turf - but which they're now losing disastrously.

The fact that Iraq is central to the war on terror shouldn't be a big surprise to Dems. Al Qaeda has been telling us just that for some time. The Democratic desire to damage Bush colored their judgement and that is becoming more and more obvious.
...America doggedly refused to give in to terror, despite 4,000 combat deaths and massive antiwar sentiment, and unwaveringly supported an Iraqi government that was at times feeble and confused - and proceeded to break the jihadist movement's back.

In that interview, the CIA's Hayden also that al Qaeda is no longer able to use the Iraq war as a way to draw in new recruits. The reason is clear: If you go to Iraq to fight the American infidel you will die, and die for nothing.

3) Finally, the Bush administration's success in Iraq, and growing success in the War on Terror, offers a powerful object lesson in how to deal with the continuing threat from Iran.

Iran remains the most lethal state sponsor of terrorism, fomenting proxy wars in Lebanon and Gaza, and in Iraq itself. Its nuclear-weapons program proceeds despite minor sanctions and endless international efforts at engagement.

Now the Bush administration has shown the way for the next president. Instead of trying to "understand" the enemy, disrupt and defeat his plans. Instead of listening to domestic critics, act in the nation's best interests. Instead of relying on multilateral support to decide what to do, go it alone if necessary.

Instead of worrying about an exit strategy, realize that there's no substitute for winning.

This is basically the same lesson that Ronald Reagan taught in confronting and beating the Soviet Union, and the Dems, who were wrong then show that they are beyond learning and are making the same mistake again. The Democrats seem uncertain how to handle this new reality. Obama hasn't bothered to go to Iraq since The Surge began and hasn't adjusted his policy - Get out ASAP - in light of the new facts on the ground; a disturbing lack of flexibility in a Presidential-wannabe.

The understanding that Iraq is in fact a success and a major one hasn't been completely digested by the American people yet. There are five months to go before the election. If the public gets the full picture by November 4 Iraq, which has been the Democrat's gift that keeps giving may actually turn out to be their Achilles' Heel. Now wouldn't that be ironic?

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Tuesday Zen

Sphere: Related Content


Sphere: Related Content

I'm feeling a bit under the weather so I don't think I'll be blogging today. Hopefully I'll be back to my regular schedule tomorrow. See ya.

Monday, June 9, 2008

Monday Zen

Sphere: Related Content

American People To Media: You're Full Of It

Sphere: Related Content

A good sign that the American people actually see through the bias of the media is found in this recent Rasmussen poll:

Just 17% of voters nationwide believe that most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of election campaigns. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that four times as many—68%--believe most reporters try to help the candidate that they want to win.

The perception that reporters are advocates rather than observers is held by 82% of Republicans, 56% of Democrats, and 69% of voters not affiliated with either major party. The skepticism about reporters cuts across income, racial, gender, and age barriers.

Ideologically, political liberals give the least pessimistic assessment of reporters, but even 50% of those on the political left see bias. Thirty-three percent (33%) of liberals believe most reporters try to be objective. Moderates, by a 65% to 17% margin, see reporters as advocates, not scribes. Among political conservatives, only 7% see reporters as objective while 83% believe they are biased.

Even better news is that the public seems pretty savvy on who the msm is pulling for:
Voters have little doubt as to who is benefitting from the media coverage this year—Barack Obama. Fifty-four percent (54%) say Obama has gotten the best coverage so far. Twenty-two percent (22%) say McCain has received the most favorable coverage while 14% say that Hillary got the best treatment.

At the other extreme, 43% say Clinton received the worst treatment from the media. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say the media was roughest on McCain and only 15% thought the media coverage was most unfair to Obama.

Looking ahead to the fall campaign, 44% believe most reporters will try to help Obama while only 13% believe that most will try to help McCain. Twenty-four percent (24%) are optimistic enough to believe that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

In my earlier post today I said that the msm would be deifying Obama and McCain needed to run that Straight-Talk-Express of his right over Obama if he wants to win. These numbers show that if he were to do that, he just might find a receptive audience.

Hot Air discusses

Liberty Pundit notes Rasmussen as well

Has Anybody Around Here Seen the ACLU?

Sphere: Related Content

This headline, Council: Mongtomery schools cave to pressue with Islam book pretty much says it all.

Washington, D.C. -

A new report issued by the American Textbook Council says books approved for use in local school districts for teaching middle and high school students about Islam caved in to political correctness and dumbed down the topic at a critical moment in its history.

"Textbook editors try to avoid any subject that could turn into a political grenade," wrote Gilbert Sewall, director of the council, who railed against five popular history texts for "adjust[ing] the definition of jihad or sharia or remov[ing] these words from lessons to avoid inconvenient truths.".....

Sewall's report blames publishing companies for allowing the influence of groups like the California-based Council on Islamic Education to serve throughout the editorial process as "screeners" for textbooks, softening or deleting potentially unflattering topics within the faith.

"Fundamentally I'm worried about dumbing down textbooks," he said, "by groups that come to state education officials saying we want this and that - and publishers need to find a happy medium."
This kind of nonsense is seen regularly in the UK which is in full retreat in the face of a rapidly growing, soon to be dominant Muslim wave. The fact that textbooks here in the US which are already frequently twisted to politically correct ends are now caving to Islamist sensibilities is not a good portent for our future.

Maybe someone should call the ACLU.....LOL Just kidding.

Barking Moonbat Early Warning System discusses

Obama In Full

Sphere: Related Content

Ok. The primaries are over. Hillary has curtsied her way out the door and now Barack Obama, Lightworker and "attuned being" who will bring about a "new way of being on the planet" is preparing to take his place among the mere pretenders on Mount Rushmore. Well, while the "Lightworker" bs may be slightly overheated even for the mainstream media, it isn't by much. The msm will spend the time from now to the general election explaining new reasons why BO deserves to be beatified. And though John McCain may have been their favorite Republican up until now that is something like being one's favorite rancid stench; you may prefer to smell it more than all those other really foul stinks but when a field of Lilacs (Obama) turns up you run as far away from your favorite stench as quickly as you can. That's pretty much what John McCain will be discovering over the next few months. What's an old fogey, *YAWN* war hero, RINO candidate to do?

John McCain talks about running a "civil" campaign which would be quaint, if it wasn't so disturbing. It reminds me of how Bush came to office with hopes of "creating a new atmosphere" in Washington and working with the Democrats. Yeah, that went well. Running a "civil campaign" against the Democrats , expecting that they will reciprocate, is like going to duke it out with Al Qaeda with the expectation that you'll both play by the equivalent of Marquess of Queensberry rules.

Even after all these months of primaries the American people still haven't taken the measure of Obama. On the one hand they like his "change-happy, "hope"full rhetoric but they're also aware of the Reverend Wright issue and they haven't liked what they've seen, and there is an resevoir of distrust right under the surface. McCain needs to flesh Obama out and put meat on the bare bones the American people have seen so far. Obama is the most flawed candidate in memory and if McCain finds it un-civil to explain that fact in detail, we better all get ready for the US to turn into the Netherlands over these next four or (God help us) eight years.

There are a lot of questions about Obama that Americans need the answer to before an informed decision can be made as to whether they believe that their future should be turned over to him. Following are just some of the questions John McCain needs to ask frequently to educate the public, ignoring what will be the Obama campaign's and the media's growing anger over their repetition:

1) Why have so many of your associates been so anti-American?

A) Since there are so many of them, it leads one to believe that you felt comfortable around them. Do you?

B) If not, what opinions of theirs were you unaware of until recently?

C) If you say you were unaware of their attitudes and actions (which they've hardly tried to keep secret) doesn't this call into question your judgement?

D) If you say you that you shouldn't be held accountable for the opinions of those around you, would you mind if a Republican candidate kept company with a David Duke or an Eric Rudolph? If yes, why? If no, why not?

2) You say you are a leader who will bring people together. When have you done this?

3) I (John McCain) am known as a "maverick". That means I often went against my party and reached across the aisle. In the brief time you've been in the Senate, in those many I reached out, you never reached back. Why not?

A) And related to leadership when you were an Illinois state senator you had a reputation of avoiding the tough votes. You had one of the highest records of voting "present" instead voting "yes" or "no" on bills in the Illinois senate. How can voting "present" be considered leadership?

4) You are the most liberal member of the US Senate. When have you had the courage to vote against the far left of your party?

5) Please explain what your experience is in foreign policy?

6) Will you raise taxes?

7) If after all the effort, blood, sweat and tears we've put into Iraq, if we do as you say you will,and pull out and the forces of radical Islam come back in and take over again, slaughtering many of those who had been our allies, who in the world do yoyu believe will ever trust us again?

8) Who do you admire more, Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan?


These are the kind of questions that McCain has to ask if he is to have any chance of beating Obama. The funny thing is that, since the msm will be doing their level best to protect Obama, McCain's allies in this big reveal will be conservatives, the very group he seems to disdain more than any other. Rush, Laura, Sean, NRO, the conservative blogosphere will be trumpeting Obama's flaws as often and as loudly as they can.

It will both odd and a shame if the candidate who will benefit by their efforts aren't joined by him. But sadly, one thing it won't be is surprising.

Michelle Malkin
discusses the Lightmaker

Hot Air is amused by the Lightmaker