He'd be right at home in our Democratic Party . . .

While reading this article about the sinking of the South Korean military vessel, I couldn't help but think back to the irresponsible, contrived attacks on George W. Bush's GWOT policy:

In South Korea, where attitudes toward the North go to the core of the country's politics, opposition politicians have expressed deep skepticism with the official line that Pyongyang was at fault. Choi Moon Soon of the opposition Democratic Party, a member of the National assembly, is typical. He told TIME on August 13 that he believes the ship simply ran aground, and that the government concocted the whole North Korea attack story as a way to influence local elections that were held on June 2. (Elections which President Lee's ruling party actually lost.) He says he doesn 't believe the government will ever publish the report, and questions even whether it actually exists.

As TIME magazine reports, Choi Moon Soon (lyrical, huh?) is wrong. He would make a great "truther."

About Cheney's "secret" program . . .

One story about the recently-revealed "secret program" (that "Cheney lied about" and Panetta (heroically!) reported and terminated) ominously states that the program was related to "assassinations." Well:

According to the Wall Street Journal, the program which Democrats were so angry about turns out to be an effort “to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives.” Excuse me, but this is the Democrats’ idea of a scandal? Most Americans would not only expect, but demand, that the CIA do everything in its power to kill al-Qaeda operatives before they strike our country. Indeed, the Obama administration itself has reportedly escalated targeted killings of al-Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan using Predator and Reaper drones. These targeted killings are not assassinations — they are legitimate strikes against an enemy that has declared war on us and attacked us where we live.

In Dubya's defense

I heard something yesterday regarding some of the ill-considered policies of George W. Bush, all the Leftish ideas that were intended--at best, as efforts to reach across the aisle, or--at worst, as coalition builders: NCLB, Medicare prescription coverage, absolving more and more Americans from paying taxes. BTW, Dubya gets a lot of credit from the Left for compromising with them on all those issues, huh? Not.

In any event, it's going to be difficult to ever go back on those policies, and their moral consequences are not positive.

That being said, I enjoyed this imaginary resignation speech that someone wrote for Bush.

BUSH'S RESIGNATION SPEECH

The following 'speech' was written recently by an ordinary Maine-iac [a resident of the People's Republic of Maine ]. While satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in fact to be effective. This is an excellent piece by a person who does not write for a living.

The speech George W. Bush might give:

Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.
I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.

The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.
Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media.

Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied...People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' In stead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.< /I>

Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named ' Clinton ' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

Now some of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan , a nuclear ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to re-elect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel . Did you sleep through high school?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.

That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'

Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well Fed Ex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching.

I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it. God bless what's left of America .

Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.

Side effects of BDS

We have some dear friends that live in Tbilisi, Georgia, and we're really concerned about what is happening over there. What should America do in the face of such aggression?

One unfortunate side effect of the Left's radical, reckless rhetoric after 9/11 is showing up of late. As a result of the over-heated, irrational and partisan campaign waged against All Things Republican (or Anything Bush Touched), the President--and our country and our allies, are in a very difficult position in responding to the Russians' veritable invasion of Georgia.

"Adults" are better at remembering who the real enemies are in the world. But hey, maybe this election they will finally beat Bush.

McClellan finally learns to work the press

Jonah Goldberg credits Scott McClellan with coming into his own as a press secretary/propagandist: ("Self-serving McClellan throws out the ‘P’ word" on Nashville City Paper Dot Com):

This all bespeaks a level of sophistication few ever credited McClellan with when he stood at the podium looking like a McDonald's cashier flummoxed by an order. He's hawking books by making people think he's charging the Bush administration with wholesale dishonesty when he's not even making that case at the retail level. He's claiming the role of insider with behind-the-scenes insights, but he admits it never occurred to him that there was any dishonesty at work until he left the White House and began ruminating on what he could put in his book.

If only he'd been this good at working the press when it was for someone's benefit other than his own.

Some commenters over at The City Paper are dismissing Goldberg's op/ed because he hasn't read McClellan's book. Well, interviews and direct quotes are enough to go on, for the point that Goldberg is making--did you read the op/ed before commenting?

May I say that you weren't a very good press secretary, Scott?

I'm feeling light-headed about Obama . . .

. . . Michelle Obama, that is.

By now you've probably heard something about her recent statement while stumping for her husband Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama.

“Hope is making a comeback and, let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change,” she said during a rally in downtown Milwaukee.

I will concede that this is probably more of a misstatement than a misanthropic (?) statement by Mrs. Obama, but I'd say most Americans are not shocked at such a sentiment given the frequent, over-the-top statements about America from interest groups drunk on the wine of Dubya's misfortunes.

"Peace-loving" nut assaults Rice

Reading today about the assault of Condi Rice by an anti-war freak ("Protestor painted in 'blood' accosts Condoleezza Rice") reminded me of these prescient bits from Ann Coulter's column this week ("Have You Hugged An Islamo-Fascist Today?"):

Conservative speakers are constantly being physically attacked on college campuses -- including Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz and me, among others. Fortunately the attackers are Democrats, so they throw like girls and generally end up with their noses bloodied by pretty college coeds. But that doesn't make it right.

Michael Moore can waddle anywhere he wants in America without fear of violence from Republicans. But we still have to hear about every testy e-mail Paul Krugman ever
receives as if liberals are living in the black night of fascism. Any time Krugman wants to get into a "Most Vicious Hate Mail" contest, just say the word. You don't hear me sniffling.
. . . .

If liberals want to face real fascism, try showing up on a college campus and denouncing fascism.

Rove v. David Gregory

I had heard some buzz (not much, frankly--it has been a busy week) about Karl Rove's appearance on "Meet the Press" (w/ David Gregory guest-hosting). So tonight I watched the youtube broadcasts of Rove's appearance, and I have to say he_ate_Gregory's_lunch.

Now, his appearance didn't have to be a debate or a showdown, and I really don't think it is appropriate for journalists to set up such a thing (tough questions don't have to be contentious), but that is definitely the stance that Gregory took in the appearance. So, that's how I judged it. Judge for yourself . . .

Here's part 1, part 2, part 3 and part 4 for your viewing pleasure.

Watching the interview, I think that Rove is remarkably plain-spoken and remarkably effective at crafting a message; and ironically he was much less of a spin-meister than the panel of journalists who followed him.

Beauchamp and paper dovedom

From the looks of things, the Scarlet Pimpernel of anti-war Bush Derangement Syndrome is taking back almost all of what he wrote. Beauchamp recants.

Here's a previous post on Beauchamp's follies, motivations and evolving truths.

Not_going_according_to_script

It has been an interesting news day . . .
two scholars from the Brookings Institute are writing that the Surge appears to be working . . .
The new British PM is speaking glowingly of Dubya . . .
The NYTimes is admitting that Gonzales didn't "lie" . . .

300 show up to DEMAND impeachment

This just in from "Impeachment 2007" . . .

They're ticked off over at Democrats.com (which ironically has the tag "Unity" in its logo):

Conyers Wimps Out
On Monday, Rep. John Conyers brushed off the heroic impeachment efforts of Cindy Sheehan, Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Ray McGovern, Medea Benjamin, David Swanson, 300 dedicated impeachment marchers, 1 million petition signers, resolutions from dozens of cities and towns, and activists who called his office every 30 seconds.

300 people in Washington sure sounds like a groundswell to me! The report of "dedicated . . . marchers" reminds me of the couple of young demonstrators I talked with at an anti-Bush "demonstration" a couple years ago when Dubya visited Nashville--no jobs, no clue and one of them even gave me a flyer for my wife about the dangers of tampons.

As I recall the Left used to urge . . . these folks need to moveon.org.

Dems better get on with it

While we toured D.C. last week, I saw vandalism signs on every stationary object promoting the Liberal cause du jour (du jour while a Republican is President at least).

Well, one big event which was set for yesterday was the Impeach Cheney Rally. The Dems better get on with this one . . . it won't be long before these Bush and Cheney are out of office and these groups won't have anything to do.

Impeach Cheney!!! or not.

Kate O'Beirne has an excellent and extensive op/ed (here) over at NationalReview.com completely denuding the Left's "Impeach Cheney!!!!!" hooey. Here's a snippet:

The unremarkable interpretation that the vice president is to be treated like the president himself, when it comes to an executive order on classification practices that the president is free to repeal or modify at will, is not the stuff of a constitutional crisis.

O'Beirne addresses a string of purported offenses by Cheney . . . destroying Secret Service records! . . . claiming the VP has a hybrid role in the federal gov't! . . . that a former aide to Cheney was convicted of giving passing secrets to the Philippine gov't! . . . refusing to disclose members of the energy task force! . . .

Don't read it if your mind is already made up on the issue.

It's not an impeachable offense to beat a Democrat

I just read that U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer says she thinks impeachment of Bush should be "on the table."

Uh, Senator Boxer, it is not an impeachable offense to get elected while Republican. It surely is offensive (to a Liberal) to have people expressing Conservative viewpoints and it may be offensive (to a Liberal) for people not to let you impose statism on the citizenry, but it's not an offense. Heck, it's beautiful. Too bad we can't impose "benchmarks" on Liberal Congresses.

Newsflash: Surgeon General's post influenced by politics

Dang it, right as I was heading to bed, frequent commenter (and Authoritarian Cultist Watcher) William flung rumors (here) of the smoking gun of !!The Republican War On Science!! Dubya's former Surgeon General has "denounced" political interference while he--Richard Carmona, served in the Bush administration.

Well, I googled the story and loved this nonsensical quote from Carmona (here) :

"“Anything that doesn’t fit into the political appointees’ ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried,” Richard Carmona, surgeon general from 2002 to 2006, told a congressional committee. (emphasis added) “The job of surgeon general is to be the doctor of the nation, not the doctor of a political party.”

But later . . . deeper . . . way towards the end . . . in the article is this paragraph:

Also testifying were former surgeons general C. Everett Koop and David Satcher, who served in the Reagan and Clinton administrations respectively. Carmona said their testimony showed that political interference was “a systemic problem,” but that several former surgeons general told him they had never seen it rise to the levels he encountered."

Hmmm, on first blush, it appears William is right; this incident indeed proves what "we all know is true" . . . politics influence the job of the Surgeon General.

Scooter Liberated

The President's decision to commute Scooter Libby's prison sentence seems about right, I think. First, I believe that the executive pardon power should only be used in extraordinary circumstances.

Second, along the same lines, I think that a President should be very careful in overturning a jury's verdict. Unless Bush sat through the entire trial and heard all the evidence, I think a decision to overturn the conclusion reached by a jury of 12 citizens probably undermines rule of law.

Lastly, and more specifically, I think--based on what I know about the case, this prosecution was inappropriate and unnecessary. I think it is difficult--under these circumstances, to expect a person in Libby's position to remember every thing they said, every person to whom they said it and when they said it. Not to mention, there was no crime being investigated--in my humble opinion (unless embarrassing a Democrat political operative is now a crime).

In sum, I think that this decision by Bush strikes the proper balance, even though some Conservatives may think it is unfair to Scooter Libby. I for one am not eager for lameduck acts of overturning jury verdicts to become routine.

Roving for scandal

Okay, I'm starting to pay attention to the details of what the Dems are screaming about regarding Karl Rove . . . and despite what they say (laughably whining about purported media indifference to their claims), there's typically nothing there when the details of the claims are considered.

For example, here's a "report" posing as a smoking gun. (Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall April 24, 2007) Karl Rove makes comments ON NATIONAL TV listing areas of the U.S. which are notorious for suspect voting results. In New Mexico, the likely fraud almost turned the 2000 presidential election. In Washington State, the likely fraud did turn a gubernatorial contest. On and on.

Anyone that pays attention to elections knows of these problems. Sorry if Republicans are concerned about these problems and expect Federal prosecutors to prosecute. I guess too many Liberals are so busy trying to outlaw Republicanism that they have no time to worry about real crimes like election fraud.

This man could have been VP

Joe Lieberman's principled stance (expressed in his statement on the floor of the Senate yesterday) on Iraq demonstrates the root of Democrat opposition to winning in Iraq. And to think--if the Dems had been allowed to steal FL in 2000, he'd likely be the sitting VP. Do you think it's his Zionism that blinds him to the corruption and deceit in the Bush Administration?

Here (also here) is his superb op/ed in the Washington Post on the Dems' Porky Pig Goes to War Bill.

Gingrich did it, too!!!! Not quite.

The Left is so excited that they have some type of defense for the usurping tourist, Nancy Pelosi. FLASHBACK: Gingrich Thrust Himself Into Mideast Questions As Speaker, Bashed White House Policy | TPMCafe (via Liberadio's blog--here) The thing they're excited about is evidence! that Newt Gingrich traveled to Israel at one point during his time as Speaker of the House during the Clinton Administration.

Couple questions: Were we at war with Israel when Gingrich led this delegation on this trip? Were we at war with anyone (I'm not counting Haiti) when Newt made this trip or these comments?

Though I haven't made much of Pelosi's antics, this Superduper War-rooming by the Left merited comment.

Apolitical nature of U.S. Attorneys' offices

18-year Federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy sheds some light about the apolitical nature of Federal prosecutions. (here)