Test Your intelligence click this link and see if you can find whats wrong in the Picture. You have about 30 seconds (it helps if your sound is turned up)
Vote
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
'Mugwumps' And Other Reptiles
Or a Catholic Perspective on some important issues and the idiots we elect
'Mugwumps' And Other Reptiles
By: Ed Kelley, Special To The Evening Bulletin
10/30/2006
The mugwumps are back! Maybe they never left. The short of it is that the mugwumps are political types whose "mug" is on one side of the fence, while their "wumps" are on the other side of the fence. The long of it is that the mugwumps were a political movement in 1884 comprised of Republicans who supported the candidacy of Democrat Grover Cleveland for president and who opposed their own candidate James Blaine of Maine. Their mug was switched to the Democrats because in good faith they could not support James Blaine, the Republican candidate. They maintained that Blaine was untrustworthy and a fraudulent candidate. The mugwumps were reformers and idealistically against the political corruption that was prevalent at the time. Political corruption meant political patronage ... the spoils system. The winning candidate would dole out government positions to his supporters prior to the election. Political affiliation was the basis for political appointment to many positions. It never happens today... oops, scratch that.
Ironically, Blaine was from the reform wing of his own Republican Party, but the altruistic mugwumps rejected him anyway. They accused him of being elitist and possibly anti-Catholic. Be that as it may, mugwumps were quite comfortable playing both sides of the fence, and they did great harm to the success of their own Republican party for many years to come.
There are two ways to answer the great questions of our times; the mugwump approach i.e., to be on both sides at the same time, and the Shakespearean approach to choose one side or the other, i.e. "... to be, or not to be?" I much prefer the latter. Put your cards on the table and full steam ahead. Your vote should be for the person with the most straightforward positions that you agree with. In the case of the current herd who all think of themselves as succes fou [French for "an extraordinary success"] it is mostly Republicans who can point to concrete accomplishments that will stand the test of time for the welfare and benefit of our republic.
In the next few weeks, mugwumps from both parties will appear everywhere to tell you what they think you believe, and they will assume you have no intelligence, no character, no values, no memory, no principles or consistency of considered opinions, just like the mugwumps that they are. Their assumptions about you are the characteristics they themselves possess.
Some issues stand out:
Economy
Republicans are spending like Democrats and bragging about how the tax cuts are improving government revenues in this phenomenal economy we are currently having. All true, but you can't have it both ways. That's mugwumpian. Democrats are forecasting imminent disaster upon their grandchildren due to a huge deficit that coincidentally has been going down every day, due to those tax cuts. How inconvenient for the Dems! That's totally illogical and mugwumpian. Voters, even those who are ecstatic about a 12,000-plus DOW, want all politicians to grow up and cut both taxes and spending at the same time.
Foreign Policy
Democrats are supporting the troops by voting for troop funding and wanting them to abandon their mission at the same time, because America is such a bad, bad place of bad, bad people. That's mugwumpian. Dems must either support the fight or cut off all funds for it ... the Iraq war is either to be, or not to be. By the way, according to the Constitution and the separation of powers, the Executive Branch is charged with conducting all foreign policy and the House of Representatives is charged with funding any war effort. The Senate is charged with approving the funding measures originated in the House. Neither the House members nor the Senators are empowered to go to foreign lands and conduct U.S. Foreign Policy ... yet we see members of Congress doing that all the time. It's time for all of them to shut up and do the job we elected them for, and not try to do someone else's job, or criticize someone else's job, or decide which parts of the Constitution are optional. We voters are fed up with it. Nowhere in American history has any such foreign policy interference by members of Congress proved to be helpful to the republic in any manner. Cut it out. Run for president if you want to generate foreign policy ... but for now, do your own job.
Deficit Spending
OK, the government is "of and by the people," and that means the "government" is you and me. Let's say I want to pay down my share of the deficit and the national debt. So here's a check, and it's made out to ... me! I just lowered the debt by 100 bucks. You do the same and by tomorrow we'll live in a new world. The problem is solved, unless you can tell me who else has a right to get my check. I guess that's not a mugwump issue, but when you follow the money and the trail at both ends leads to my pockets, I think it is worth mentioning.
Communion With The Almighty
Remember that one? A Catholic politician who was in favor of abortion could not receive Holy Communion according to certain local bishops. It has gone back and forth, but we finally have a final definitive decision. Classic mugwump issue.
"The U.S. Bishops concluded that 'you (bishops) could not be accused of being less than Catholic if you did not deny Communion (to a politician), nor should you be accused of being lacking in pastoral judgment if you did.'"* Honest dialogue is meant to keep the door open, as well as the need to work with politicians and other public officials rather than alienate them. For example, money is needed for Catholic hospitals, charities and education.
Incredible! An upstanding Catholic public official can approve and support legislation that includes federally funded third term abortions, and suffer no penalty or even admonition whatsoever from his Church who opposes abortions ... because the church organization wants to be prudent and not suffer any financial consequences to federal funding for a Catholic hospital, etc.? How about a good Catholic civilian like John Q. Catholic who works at an abortion clinic and supports their activities with all his skills. Will his bishop or priest give him a pass and communion, like the bishops are giving their friendly neighborhood politician? I see this as a "to be, or not to be" decision by the churchmen, ... in for a penny, in for a pound, ... there's no nuance available for this one! That said, how seriously can we now take the child protections being offered for that "other" problem? All have a right to their own religious beliefs, but they must separate them from the organization that administrates their religion. There's no hiding behind church, synagogue, temple, mosque, etc in the pursuit of really stupid moves. They should really be Shakespearean about third term abortions, be de-communioned and excommunicated, or not! Politicians included!!
Vouchers
The mugwumps are on a roll. In the fall of 2004 Sen. Arlen Specter's Washington, D.C. office told me, in response to my phone call and question, that the Senator did not support school vouchers for the D.C. Public Schools (which was an issue at that time) "because that would be like giving a check to the Catholics!" In the end, the measure passed. Once started, the program was tremendously successful, and lo and behold, 52 percent of the folks participating in the D.C. voucher program were (shhhhh) Catholic. Great ... I always wanted to be a victim of religious persecutions by a prejudiced Senator who should have retired long, long ago. The man is a mugwump and worse! Arlen, don't spit against the wind, don't ... well, you know the rest.
Voter I.D.
This issue strictly applies to Democrat mugwumps. They want voters to vote, but are against checking whether the voter has a legitimate right to vote. Philadelphia has the long ongoing problem that dead Democrats insist on actively voting in elections. Just like their live brethren, their attendance at primary elections is much reduced. The Republican dead seem to accept their fate and stay dead. They never seem to vote in Philadelphia elections. For an adequate Voter Photo I.D., we need your photo, birth certificate, proof which tells us you were born a citizen or proof you have acquired citizenship through legal means, proof you live where you say you live, perhaps with a past utility bill which has your name and address, or some other proof of residency. You can get such a photo I.D. in Pennsylvania by applying to the local Driver's License facility and getting either a driver's license, or a "non-drivers" driver's license. The only notation that would have to be added for a voter I.D. would be an indication of whether you were a citizen (C), a non-citizen or permanent resident (NC) or a foreigner (F). If you are a dead (C), your photo is not going to look very good. Only live (C)'s are permitted to vote in our elections.
Islami-schism
You don't really have to interpret the words of the Quran, like Christians often do when extracting the literal words of the Bible, because the Quran is pretty literal. I understand that parts of the Quran are derived from Muhammad, parts come from the New Testament of the Bible and parts come from the Talmud, the law book of the Jews. Quotes from the Quran include messages to be tolerant and understanding as well as other messages to kill all infidels. Can you guess with me which of these latter messages came from the Muhammad parts and which messages came from the Judeo-Christian parts? Now you understand why there's all this confusion about what the Quran says.
I once worked with an Egyptian Coptic Christian who told me of the democratic values practiced by the great Muslim hordes who overran Egypt centuries ago. "We had a choice", he said, "Become a Muslim or die!" That is a pretty tough approach we would have to take for a peace treaty with Islam. I've heard no substantive moderate Muslim voices come forth.
No mugwumps are within this group.
*Catholic Star Herald, pp. 6, 20 October 2006 "politicians and communion, a ground zero issue" by Deborah Gyapong catholic news service
Vote
'Mugwumps' And Other Reptiles
By: Ed Kelley, Special To The Evening Bulletin
10/30/2006
The mugwumps are back! Maybe they never left. The short of it is that the mugwumps are political types whose "mug" is on one side of the fence, while their "wumps" are on the other side of the fence. The long of it is that the mugwumps were a political movement in 1884 comprised of Republicans who supported the candidacy of Democrat Grover Cleveland for president and who opposed their own candidate James Blaine of Maine. Their mug was switched to the Democrats because in good faith they could not support James Blaine, the Republican candidate. They maintained that Blaine was untrustworthy and a fraudulent candidate. The mugwumps were reformers and idealistically against the political corruption that was prevalent at the time. Political corruption meant political patronage ... the spoils system. The winning candidate would dole out government positions to his supporters prior to the election. Political affiliation was the basis for political appointment to many positions. It never happens today... oops, scratch that.
Ironically, Blaine was from the reform wing of his own Republican Party, but the altruistic mugwumps rejected him anyway. They accused him of being elitist and possibly anti-Catholic. Be that as it may, mugwumps were quite comfortable playing both sides of the fence, and they did great harm to the success of their own Republican party for many years to come.
There are two ways to answer the great questions of our times; the mugwump approach i.e., to be on both sides at the same time, and the Shakespearean approach to choose one side or the other, i.e. "... to be, or not to be?" I much prefer the latter. Put your cards on the table and full steam ahead. Your vote should be for the person with the most straightforward positions that you agree with. In the case of the current herd who all think of themselves as succes fou [French for "an extraordinary success"] it is mostly Republicans who can point to concrete accomplishments that will stand the test of time for the welfare and benefit of our republic.
In the next few weeks, mugwumps from both parties will appear everywhere to tell you what they think you believe, and they will assume you have no intelligence, no character, no values, no memory, no principles or consistency of considered opinions, just like the mugwumps that they are. Their assumptions about you are the characteristics they themselves possess.
Some issues stand out:
Economy
Republicans are spending like Democrats and bragging about how the tax cuts are improving government revenues in this phenomenal economy we are currently having. All true, but you can't have it both ways. That's mugwumpian. Democrats are forecasting imminent disaster upon their grandchildren due to a huge deficit that coincidentally has been going down every day, due to those tax cuts. How inconvenient for the Dems! That's totally illogical and mugwumpian. Voters, even those who are ecstatic about a 12,000-plus DOW, want all politicians to grow up and cut both taxes and spending at the same time.
Foreign Policy
Democrats are supporting the troops by voting for troop funding and wanting them to abandon their mission at the same time, because America is such a bad, bad place of bad, bad people. That's mugwumpian. Dems must either support the fight or cut off all funds for it ... the Iraq war is either to be, or not to be. By the way, according to the Constitution and the separation of powers, the Executive Branch is charged with conducting all foreign policy and the House of Representatives is charged with funding any war effort. The Senate is charged with approving the funding measures originated in the House. Neither the House members nor the Senators are empowered to go to foreign lands and conduct U.S. Foreign Policy ... yet we see members of Congress doing that all the time. It's time for all of them to shut up and do the job we elected them for, and not try to do someone else's job, or criticize someone else's job, or decide which parts of the Constitution are optional. We voters are fed up with it. Nowhere in American history has any such foreign policy interference by members of Congress proved to be helpful to the republic in any manner. Cut it out. Run for president if you want to generate foreign policy ... but for now, do your own job.
Deficit Spending
OK, the government is "of and by the people," and that means the "government" is you and me. Let's say I want to pay down my share of the deficit and the national debt. So here's a check, and it's made out to ... me! I just lowered the debt by 100 bucks. You do the same and by tomorrow we'll live in a new world. The problem is solved, unless you can tell me who else has a right to get my check. I guess that's not a mugwump issue, but when you follow the money and the trail at both ends leads to my pockets, I think it is worth mentioning.
Communion With The Almighty
Remember that one? A Catholic politician who was in favor of abortion could not receive Holy Communion according to certain local bishops. It has gone back and forth, but we finally have a final definitive decision. Classic mugwump issue.
"The U.S. Bishops concluded that 'you (bishops) could not be accused of being less than Catholic if you did not deny Communion (to a politician), nor should you be accused of being lacking in pastoral judgment if you did.'"* Honest dialogue is meant to keep the door open, as well as the need to work with politicians and other public officials rather than alienate them. For example, money is needed for Catholic hospitals, charities and education.
Incredible! An upstanding Catholic public official can approve and support legislation that includes federally funded third term abortions, and suffer no penalty or even admonition whatsoever from his Church who opposes abortions ... because the church organization wants to be prudent and not suffer any financial consequences to federal funding for a Catholic hospital, etc.? How about a good Catholic civilian like John Q. Catholic who works at an abortion clinic and supports their activities with all his skills. Will his bishop or priest give him a pass and communion, like the bishops are giving their friendly neighborhood politician? I see this as a "to be, or not to be" decision by the churchmen, ... in for a penny, in for a pound, ... there's no nuance available for this one! That said, how seriously can we now take the child protections being offered for that "other" problem? All have a right to their own religious beliefs, but they must separate them from the organization that administrates their religion. There's no hiding behind church, synagogue, temple, mosque, etc in the pursuit of really stupid moves. They should really be Shakespearean about third term abortions, be de-communioned and excommunicated, or not! Politicians included!!
Vouchers
The mugwumps are on a roll. In the fall of 2004 Sen. Arlen Specter's Washington, D.C. office told me, in response to my phone call and question, that the Senator did not support school vouchers for the D.C. Public Schools (which was an issue at that time) "because that would be like giving a check to the Catholics!" In the end, the measure passed. Once started, the program was tremendously successful, and lo and behold, 52 percent of the folks participating in the D.C. voucher program were (shhhhh) Catholic. Great ... I always wanted to be a victim of religious persecutions by a prejudiced Senator who should have retired long, long ago. The man is a mugwump and worse! Arlen, don't spit against the wind, don't ... well, you know the rest.
Voter I.D.
This issue strictly applies to Democrat mugwumps. They want voters to vote, but are against checking whether the voter has a legitimate right to vote. Philadelphia has the long ongoing problem that dead Democrats insist on actively voting in elections. Just like their live brethren, their attendance at primary elections is much reduced. The Republican dead seem to accept their fate and stay dead. They never seem to vote in Philadelphia elections. For an adequate Voter Photo I.D., we need your photo, birth certificate, proof which tells us you were born a citizen or proof you have acquired citizenship through legal means, proof you live where you say you live, perhaps with a past utility bill which has your name and address, or some other proof of residency. You can get such a photo I.D. in Pennsylvania by applying to the local Driver's License facility and getting either a driver's license, or a "non-drivers" driver's license. The only notation that would have to be added for a voter I.D. would be an indication of whether you were a citizen (C), a non-citizen or permanent resident (NC) or a foreigner (F). If you are a dead (C), your photo is not going to look very good. Only live (C)'s are permitted to vote in our elections.
Islami-schism
You don't really have to interpret the words of the Quran, like Christians often do when extracting the literal words of the Bible, because the Quran is pretty literal. I understand that parts of the Quran are derived from Muhammad, parts come from the New Testament of the Bible and parts come from the Talmud, the law book of the Jews. Quotes from the Quran include messages to be tolerant and understanding as well as other messages to kill all infidels. Can you guess with me which of these latter messages came from the Muhammad parts and which messages came from the Judeo-Christian parts? Now you understand why there's all this confusion about what the Quran says.
I once worked with an Egyptian Coptic Christian who told me of the democratic values practiced by the great Muslim hordes who overran Egypt centuries ago. "We had a choice", he said, "Become a Muslim or die!" That is a pretty tough approach we would have to take for a peace treaty with Islam. I've heard no substantive moderate Muslim voices come forth.
No mugwumps are within this group.
*Catholic Star Herald, pp. 6, 20 October 2006 "politicians and communion, a ground zero issue" by Deborah Gyapong catholic news service
Vote
This is what it's all about....
British scientists grow human liver in a laboratory
By FIONA MacRAE, Science Reporter
Last updated at 12:32pm on 31st October 2006
British scientists have grown the world's first artificial liver from stem cells in a breakthrough that will one day provide entire organs for transplant.
The technique that created the 'mini-liver', currently the size of a one pence piece, will be developed to create a full-size functioning liver.
Described as a 'Eureka moment' by the Newcastle University researchers, the tissue was created from blood taken from babies' umbilical cords just a few minutes after birth.
As it stands, the mini organ can be used to test new drugs, preventing disasters such as the recent 'Elephant Man' drug trial. Using lab-grown liver tissue would also reduce the number of animal experiments.
Within five years, pieces of artificial tissue could be used to repair livers damaged by injury, disease, alcohol abuse and paracetamol overdose.
And then, in just 15 years' time, entire liver transplants could take place using organs grown in a lab.
Stem Cells
By FIONA MacRAE, Science Reporter
Last updated at 12:32pm on 31st October 2006
British scientists have grown the world's first artificial liver from stem cells in a breakthrough that will one day provide entire organs for transplant.
The technique that created the 'mini-liver', currently the size of a one pence piece, will be developed to create a full-size functioning liver.
Described as a 'Eureka moment' by the Newcastle University researchers, the tissue was created from blood taken from babies' umbilical cords just a few minutes after birth.
As it stands, the mini organ can be used to test new drugs, preventing disasters such as the recent 'Elephant Man' drug trial. Using lab-grown liver tissue would also reduce the number of animal experiments.
Within five years, pieces of artificial tissue could be used to repair livers damaged by injury, disease, alcohol abuse and paracetamol overdose.
And then, in just 15 years' time, entire liver transplants could take place using organs grown in a lab.
Stem Cells
Monday, October 30, 2006
Election Prediction....
Say what you will I think the Republicans are going to hold both houses... Now you can call me an optimist, or just a fool but thats my prediction. I also predict it will come down to about 3 seats in the house. The NIGHTMARE will be we won't know who controlls the house untill about Christmass Time. That's my true prediction, that once again we will be settling elections in court. The cry of voter fraud is already ringing out of the Democrat camps... This election is going to be a circus that will put the Gore/Bush election to shame....
Friday, October 27, 2006
Blitzer AMBUSHES Lynn Cheyney
Friday, October 27, 2006
The Latest October Surprise: Lynne Cheney
Posted by Hugh Hewitt 4:44 PM
"Wolf, I have nothing to explain. Jim Webb has a lot to explain"
That was Lynne Cheney an hour ago on CNN.
Wolf Blitzer attempted to sandbag Lynne Cheney today, but that the former Chair of the NEH wasn't buying any of it. Incredibly Blitzer drags the Second Lady of the United States into the dust-up over the novels of James Webb, airing Webb's defense which wrongly drew a comparison between his novels and Lynne Cheney's novel. Blitzer even goes so far as to read the DNC talking points to Cheney, who had been booked to discuss her new children's book, The 50 States. Cheney's outrage is obvious, as is Blitzer's recognition that he had crossed a line which he ought not to have crossed.
Bravo to Mrs. Cheney for chucking it back at Blitzer.
The entire interview will air next hour, but with just this clip CNN is already again exposed as a reliable purveyor of DNC spin. I will post the transcript as it arrives and play it on the air, but if the base needed more motivation, seeing this ambush will provide it. I don't know the circumstances of the invitation tendered to Mrs. Cheney, but it sounds as though CNN had booked her to talk about her book, and then used the time for other purposes.
If you post on this interview, send me a link. Disgust at MSM bias has been mounting throughout the election season, and this is just another though very high profile example of why that disgust exists.
UPDATE: Here is the transcript of the segment that played last hour:
WB: Democrats are now complaining bitterly in this Virginia race. George Allen using novels, novels that Jim Webb, his Democratic challenger, has written, in which there are sexual references. And they’re making a big deal out of this. I want you to listen to what Jim Webb said today in responding to this very sharp attack from George Allen.
LC: Now do you promise, Wolf, that we’re going to talk about my book?
WB: I do promise.
LC: Because this seems to me a mighty long trip around the merry-go-round.
WB: I want you to respond. This is in the news today, and your name has come up, so that’s why we’re talking about it. But listen to this:
James Webb: There’s nothing that’s been in any of my novels that in my view, hasn’t been either illuminating the surroundings, or defining a character, or moving a plot. I’m a serious writer. I mean, we can go and read Lynne Cheney’s lesbian love scenes if you want to, you know, get graphic on stuff.
LC: You know, Jim Webb is full of baloney. I have never written anything sexually explicit. His novels are full of sexually explicit references to incest, sexually explicit references…well, you know, I just don’t want my grandchildren to turn on the television set. This morning, Imus was reading from the novels, and it’s triple X rated.
WB: Here’s what the Democratic Party put out today, the Democratic Congressional Senatorial Campaign Committee. Lynne Cheney’s book featured brothels and attempted rape. In 1981, Vice President Dick Cheney’s wife, Lynne, wrote a book called Sisters, which featured a lesbian love affair, brothels, and attempted rapes. In 1988, Lynne Cheney wrote about a Republican Vice President who dies of a heart attack while having sex with his mistress. Is that true?
LC: Nothing explicit. And actually, that is full of lies. It’s not…it’s just absolutely not true.
WB: But you did write a book entitled Sisters.
LC: I did write a book entitled Sisters. This description…
WB: And it did have lesbian characters.
LC: No, not necessarily. This description is a lie. I’ll stand on that.
WB: There is nothing in there about rapes and brothels?
LC: Wolf, Wolf, could we talk about a children’s book for a minute?
WB: We can talk about the children’s book. But I just wanted to…
LC: I think our segment is like 15 minutes long, and we’ve now done ten minutes, so…
WB: I just wanted to clarify what’s in the news today, give you a…
LC: Sex, lies and distortion. That’s what it is.
WB: This is an opportunity for you to explain on these sensitive issues.
LC: Wolf, I have nothing to explain. Jim Webb has a lot to explain.
UPDATE: OCBlog has the relevant paragraph from Lynne Cheney's novel. I can't believe Blitzer fell for this DNC misdirection.
Here's the transcript of the entire interview:
WB: And joining us now, the wife of the Vice President of the United States, Lynne Cheney, no stranger to CNN. Thanks very much for coming in.
LC: Thank you, Wolf, for having.
WB: And we’re going to talk about this excellent new book, Our 50 States: A Family Adventure Across America. This is a book that I recommend for all ages, and I see it’s already a bestseller.
LC: I’m very proud of this book. It was an effort of two years for Robin Glasser and me. And it was inspiring the whole time. It’s a story of the whole country, told by a family going on a road trip, and my grandchildren love it.
WB: I want to get to that, all that, but I want to pick your brain a little bit on news that’s happening right now, including your husband, the Vice President. He was interviewed earlier this week out in North Dakota, and he had this exchange with a radio talk show host. Listen to this:
Host: Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?
DC: Well, it’s a no-brainer for me, but for a while there, I was criticized as being the Vice President for Torture. We don’t torture. That’s not what we’re involved in.
WB: It made it sound, and there’s been interpretation to this effect, that he was in effect confirming that the United States used this waterboarding, this technique that has been rejected by the international community, that simulates a prisoner being drowned, if you will. And he was, in effect, supposedly confirming that the United States has been using that.
LC: Wolf, that is a mighty house you’re building on top of that molehill there, a mighty mountain. You know, this is a complete distortion. He didn’t say anything of the kind.
WB: Because of the dunking, you know, using the water and the dunking…
LC: Wolf, I understand your point. It’s kind of the point of a lot of people right now, to try to distort the administration’s position. And if you really want to talk about that, I watched the program on CNN last night, which I thought, it’s your 2006 voter program, which I thought was a terrible distortion of both the President and the Vice President’s position on many issues. It seemed almost straight out of the Democratic talking points, using phrases like domestic surveillance, when it is not domestic surveillance that anyone has talked about or ever done. It’s surveillance of terrorists. It’s people who have al Qaeda connections calling into the United States. So I think we’re in the season of distortion, and this is just one more.
WB: But there have been some cases where innocent people have been picked up, interrogated, held for long periods of time, then simply said never mind, let go. They’re let go.
LC: Well, are you sure these people are innocent?
WB: Well, they’re walking around free right now. Nobody’s arrested them.
LC: You made a point last night of a man who had a bookstore in London, where radical Islamists gathered, who was in Afghanistan when the Taliban were there, who went to Pakistan. I think that you might be a little careful before you declare this as a person with clean hands.
WB: You’re referring to the CNN Broken Government special…
LC: I certainly am.
WB: This was the one that John King reported on last night.
LC: You know, right there, right there, Wolf. Broken Government. Now what kind of stance is that? Here we are, we’re a country where we have been mightily challenged over the past six years. We’ve been through 9/11. We’ve been through Katrina. The President and the Vice President inherited a recession. We’re a country where the economy is healthy. That’s not broken. This government has acted very well. We’ve had tax cuts that are responsible for our healthy economy. We’re a country that was attacked five years ago. We haven’t been attacked since. What this government has done is effective. That’s not broken government. So you know, I shouldn’t let media bias surprise me, but I worked at CNN once. I watched the program last night…
WB: You were a co-host of Crossfire.
LC: …and I was troubled.
WB: All right. Well, that was probably the purpose, to get people to think, to get people to discuss these issues, because there are a lot of conservatives…
LC: All right, all right, Wolf. I’m here to talk about my book. But if you want to talk about distortion…
WB: We’ll talk about your book.
LC: Right. But what is CNN doing running terrorist tape of terrorists shooting Americans? I mean, I thought Duncan Hunter asked you a very good question, and you didn’t answer it. Do you want us to win?
WB: The answer, of course, is we want the United States to win. We are Americans. There’s no doubt about that. You think we want terrorists to win?
LC: Then why are you running terrorist propaganda?
WB: With all due respect, with all due respect, this is not terrorist propaganda.
LC: Oh, Wolf…
WB: This is reporting the news, which is what we do. We’re not partisan…
LC: Where did you get the film?
WB: We got the film…look, this is an issue that has been widely discussed, this is an issue that we reported on extensively. We make no apologies for showing that. That was a very carefully considered decision, why we did that. And I think, and I think, of your…
LC: Well, I think it’s shocking.
WB: If you’re a serious journalist, you want to report the news. Sometimes the news is good, sometimes the news isn’t so good.
LC: But Wolf, there’s a difference between news and terrorist propaganda. Why did you give the terrorists a forum?
WB: And if you put it in context, if you put it in context, that’s what news is. We said it was propaganda. We didn’t distort where we got it. We didn’t distort anything about it. We gave it the context. Let’s talk about another issue in the news, and then we’ll get to the book. The Democrats are now complaining bitterly in this Virginia race. George Allen using novels, novels that Jim Webb, his Democratic challenger, has written, in which there are sexual references. And they’re making a big deal out of this. I want you to listen to what Jim Webb said today in responding to this very sharp attack from George Allen.
LC: Now do you promise, Wolf, that we’re going to talk about my book?
WB: I do promise.
LC: Because this seems to me a mighty long trip around the merry-go-round.
WB: I want you to respond. This is in the news today, and your name has come up, so that’s why we’re talking about it. But listen to this:
James Webb: There’s nothing that’s been in any of my novels that in my view, hasn’t been either illuminating the surroundings, or defining a character, or moving a plot. I’m a serious writer. I mean, we can go and read Lynne Cheney’s lesbian love scenes if you want to, you know, get graphic on stuff.
LC: You know, Jim Webb is full of baloney. I have never written anything sexually explicit. His novels are full of sexually explicit references to incest, sexually explicit references…well, you know, I just don’t want my grandchildren to turn on the television set. This morning, Imus was reading from the novels, and it’s triple X rated.
WB: Here’s what the Democratic Party put out today, the Democratic Congressional Senatorial Campaign Committee. Lynne Cheney’s book featured brothels and attempted rape. In 1981, Vice President Dick Cheney’s wife, Lynne, wrote a book called Sisters, which featured a lesbian love affair, brothels, and attempted rapes. In 1988, Lynne Cheney wrote about a Republican Vice President who dies of a heart attack while having sex with his mistress. Is that true?
LC: Nothing explicit. And actually, that is full of lies. It’s not…it’s just absolutely not true.
WB: But you did write a book entitled Sisters.
LC: I did write a book entitled Sisters. This description…
WB: And it did have lesbian characters.
LC: No, not necessarily. This description is a lie. I’ll stand on that.
WB: There is nothing in there about rapes and brothels?
LC: Wolf, Wolf, could we talk about a children’s book for a minute?
WB: We can talk about the children’s book. But I just wanted to…
LC: I think our segment is like 15 minutes long, and we’ve now done ten minutes, so…
WB: I just wanted to clarify what’s in the news today, give you a…
LC: Sex, lies and distortion. That’s what it is.
WB: This is an opportunity for you to explain on these sensitive issues.
LC: Wolf, I have nothing to explain. Jim Webb has a lot to explain.
WB: Well, he says he’s a serious writer and novelist, fiction writer. He was doing basically what you were doing.
LC: Jim Webb is full of baloney.
WB: We’ll leave it at that. Let’s talk a little bit about your book, Our 50 States: A Family Adventure Across America.
LC: You know, one of the reasons I wrote this book is because we spend so much time nowadays talking about things that are negative. And it’s not the fault of any particular segment of the society. But we have come to define news as bad news. And so our kids get a steady diet of this is wrong, the government is broken, the war isn’t working, the economy’s terrible. Even when those things aren’t true, our kids are getting a steady dose of negativity. What Robin and I wanted so much to do is to talk about what a wonderful country it is. We wanted to give our kids something positive. And I hope that’s what we’ve done in this book. It’s very, very pro-American. This is a book that’s very patriotic. There is no question about our view that this is the greatest country on the face of the Earth, and that is what we want kids to take away from it.
WB: The kids who read this book will learn a lot about the 50 states. That’s what it’s called…
LC: Yes.
WB: But a lot of the landmarks in those 50 states.
LC: Well, not just landmarks, but the vast variety and diversity of our culture. You know, we have everything from the preservation hall band in New Orleans to mariachi music in Texas, to the philharmonic in Boston. We’ve got all kinds of food. There’s a lovely little girl in this book, her name is Annie, and she writes back to her grandma again and again about the different foods she’s enjoying or not. In Boston, she says the beans are great, but she’s a little doubtful about the cod. So it’s not just about landmarks, it’s also about the kind of history and culture that I think kids will enjoy very much.
WB: And it is beautifully illustrated.
LC: Robin Glasser is a dear person, and a very talented individual. And I’m very happy to work with her.
WB: We can certainly disagree on what is news, what is serious news, but we can agree that this is a beautifully done book.
LC: Well, I appreciate that. Thank you, Wolf.
WB: How is your husband doing, because there’s always concern about his health.
LC: Well, I’m not sure why there’s always concern about his health. He’s been out on 140 campaigns. He’s raised forty-some million dollars for Republican candidates around the country. He’s been very busy. He has been serving the nation very well, as I think George Bush has been a really great leader for us during this time of some trials.
WB: We’re going to leave it right there. It was kind of you to come in.
LC: Thanks, Wolf.
WB: You came armed. I guess you knew what you wanted to do.
LC: Wolf, I am always prepared for you to ask questions that maybe aren’t quite fair, but they’re pretty tough.
WB: You did a good job.
LC: Thanks, Wolf.
WB: Thank you.
Democrats
CNN
Monday, October 23, 2006
More Delusions from a Defeatocrat....
Greene County: Murtha calls Iraq a 'failed policy wrapped in illusion' at banquet
Jon Stevens
Staff writer
JEFFERSON -- John Murtha has never been one to hold back on what he believes.
And the outspoken Johnstown Democrat, who is seeking re-election to Congress in the sprawling 12th District, didn't disappoint the crowd gathered Sunday night at the Jefferson fire hall to honor state Rep. Bill DeWeese as "Democrat of the Year."
Murtha, 74, one of several speakers at the Greene County Democratic Committee's fall banquet, said he has never seen people so eager for a change. (where's he looking?)
"There is going to be a tidal wave Nov. 7. The House of Representatives is going to turn Democratic, big time," Murtha said. (oh I guess he's looking through the bottom of a Cuervo Bottle)
Why?
"Because the Republicans are not paying attention to the people. The Bush administration is arrogant," he said.
Murtha, while passionately defending his patriotism, has been criticized for his criticism of the way the war In Iraq is being handled. (Because He wants to cut and run)
"This is a war that cannot be won militarily," he said. "There is a limitation of what the military can do. Our soldiers are caught up in a civil war and while we need stability in the Middle East, we cannot do it by ourselves," he said. (That is the statement of a drunken ole ASS, this war can ONLY be won Militarily. The Islamic fascists have repeated over and over the only way they will stop killing US is if we convert to Islam and submit to Sharia Law. No matter if this poster child for term limits wants to fight or not, they aren't going to stop trying to kill us)
He makes no apologies for his stand on the war.
"I do this as an obligation as a member of Congress. When I see a policy I don't agree with I have to speak out," he said.
Murtha, who is running against Washington County Commissioner Diana Irey, said he keeps saying to the Bush administration, "Folks, it's not going the way you said it would go. You are painting too rosy a picture. We have kids being killed and we have to change course and we have to change direction." (This old fart doesn't even have the BALLS to debate Irey, let alone make the hard decisions that need to be made in a time of war. Soldiers die in war Congressman they know the risk of the life they have chosen. We thank them for their sacrifice unlike you who condemns, convicts and wants to execute soldiers on unproven hearsay)
He said no one supports the military more than he does. (BULLSHIT) A former Marine colonel, Murtha said he has three brothers who served in the Marines, and his father and two uncles were World War II veterans. (Murtha continuously lies about his military service)
"I support the military but I cannot support a policy having young people in harm's way in the middle of a civil war" he said. (what kind of support is it when you claim on national TV that our soldiers are guilty of war crimes that they still have not even been charged with, just to advance your standing in your party)
Murtha said there were a lot of people who thought he would back down when people started to attack him.
"I talk to the military all the time and I go to the hospitals at least once a week and I see the results of this bad policy, a failed policy wrapped in illusion," he said. (have you visited the soldiers you falsely accused of war crimes Congressman)
Murtha also said this country should be worried about North Korea and Iran, both of which have nuclear potential, something Iraq never had.
"Yes, we should be worried because of how we have depleted our reserves in this Iraqi war. We have to work this out diplomatically with North Korea and Iran," he said. (yeah just like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did, one gave us the Ayatollah in Iran and the two together gave N Korea the Bomb)
Democrats
Jon Stevens
Staff writer
JEFFERSON -- John Murtha has never been one to hold back on what he believes.
And the outspoken Johnstown Democrat, who is seeking re-election to Congress in the sprawling 12th District, didn't disappoint the crowd gathered Sunday night at the Jefferson fire hall to honor state Rep. Bill DeWeese as "Democrat of the Year."
Murtha, 74, one of several speakers at the Greene County Democratic Committee's fall banquet, said he has never seen people so eager for a change. (where's he looking?)
"There is going to be a tidal wave Nov. 7. The House of Representatives is going to turn Democratic, big time," Murtha said. (oh I guess he's looking through the bottom of a Cuervo Bottle)
Why?
"Because the Republicans are not paying attention to the people. The Bush administration is arrogant," he said.
Murtha, while passionately defending his patriotism, has been criticized for his criticism of the way the war In Iraq is being handled. (Because He wants to cut and run)
"This is a war that cannot be won militarily," he said. "There is a limitation of what the military can do. Our soldiers are caught up in a civil war and while we need stability in the Middle East, we cannot do it by ourselves," he said. (That is the statement of a drunken ole ASS, this war can ONLY be won Militarily. The Islamic fascists have repeated over and over the only way they will stop killing US is if we convert to Islam and submit to Sharia Law. No matter if this poster child for term limits wants to fight or not, they aren't going to stop trying to kill us)
He makes no apologies for his stand on the war.
"I do this as an obligation as a member of Congress. When I see a policy I don't agree with I have to speak out," he said.
Murtha, who is running against Washington County Commissioner Diana Irey, said he keeps saying to the Bush administration, "Folks, it's not going the way you said it would go. You are painting too rosy a picture. We have kids being killed and we have to change course and we have to change direction." (This old fart doesn't even have the BALLS to debate Irey, let alone make the hard decisions that need to be made in a time of war. Soldiers die in war Congressman they know the risk of the life they have chosen. We thank them for their sacrifice unlike you who condemns, convicts and wants to execute soldiers on unproven hearsay)
He said no one supports the military more than he does. (BULLSHIT) A former Marine colonel, Murtha said he has three brothers who served in the Marines, and his father and two uncles were World War II veterans. (Murtha continuously lies about his military service)
"I support the military but I cannot support a policy having young people in harm's way in the middle of a civil war" he said. (what kind of support is it when you claim on national TV that our soldiers are guilty of war crimes that they still have not even been charged with, just to advance your standing in your party)
Murtha said there were a lot of people who thought he would back down when people started to attack him.
"I talk to the military all the time and I go to the hospitals at least once a week and I see the results of this bad policy, a failed policy wrapped in illusion," he said. (have you visited the soldiers you falsely accused of war crimes Congressman)
Murtha also said this country should be worried about North Korea and Iran, both of which have nuclear potential, something Iraq never had.
"Yes, we should be worried because of how we have depleted our reserves in this Iraqi war. We have to work this out diplomatically with North Korea and Iran," he said. (yeah just like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did, one gave us the Ayatollah in Iran and the two together gave N Korea the Bomb)
Democrats
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Mea Culpa: Kerry 'Regrets' Voting for Iraq Resolution
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
October 12, 2006
(CNSNews.com) - Sen. John F. Kerry, who may be running for president again, says that voting to authorize the war in Iraq is one of his biggest political mistakes. The fact that this idiot is a politician is his biggest mistake.
In a blog on his website, (That doesn't archive his posts or allow comments so it is NOT a blog.) the Massachusetts Democrat noted on Wednesday, "Four years ago today, the United States Senate voted to give President Bush the authority to use force in Iraq. There's nothing -- nothing -- in my life in public service I regret more, nothing even close. We should all be willing to say: I was wrong, I should not have voted for the Iraq War Resolution." How about when you testified before congress and LIED and accused your fellow veterans of commiting war crimes that YOU SAID you witnessed but NEVER happened. Are you proud of that Senator?
Kerry said it's "not enough" to talk about the Bush administration's "incompetence and immorality" in the conduct of the war, and he said it's not enough "just to look backwards." Your the one looking backwards, talking about a vote you made 4 years ago.
"We must change course in Iraq," Kerry insisted. He referred to his "comprehensive plan" to end what he describes as a civil war. Where is your "comprehensive plan" the only thing I could find on your website was one paragraph on what to do in Iraq:
[John Kerry supports internationalizing our effort in Iraq, so our troops are not carrying all the work with more lengthy and extended deployments. He also believes we have to move forward with reconstruction because it’s an important way to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and stop the spread of terror. The January 30 elections will be an important milestone for Iraqis. America must help them achieve a viable government, because it is up to them to run their country.]
Kerry said his plan -- which sets a July 2007 deadline to withdraw U.S. troops -- is the opposite of Bush's "stand-still-and-lose" strategy. (Critics of the "get-out-now" approach, including President Bush, describe it a "cut-and-run.") because that's what it is.
Kerry also called for "real diplomacy" toward Iraq, which he described as "a Dayton-like summit of Iraq and the countries bordering it, the Arab League, NATO, and the Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council." Yes lets ask the local dictators what should be done in Iraq, and we can't forget China, Russia, and France. Thats "Real Diplomacy" taking direction from the people that want to see Iraq fail and those that profited off of supporting Sadams Regime.
Kerry said since Congress shares the responsibility for getting the U.S. into Iraq, it should "take responsibility for getting us out the right way." Like they did in Vietnam setting the stage so that millions can die in the slaughter and chaos that will follow. Just as the Democrats in Congress allowed Pol Pot to slaughter millions in Vietnam after they pulled out and abbandoned the S. Vietnamese.
He urged Americans to visit the Vietnam War Memorial - to walk down the path and look at all the names inscribed on the black marble walls. Kerry noted that "half the names on that wall were lost after America's leaders knew and later acknowledged our strategy would not succeed. Bullshit
"It was immoral then and it is immoral now to be quiet or equivocal in the face of that kind of delusion. Just think about what that Wall might look like for Iraq," Kerry said. Yeah look at it 4 years of War and only 3000 American Soldier Deaths. The most effective and SAFE War Zone in the history of Warfare. Besides Senator you weren't quiet as you gave false testamony to congress during the Vietnam War, that was real Moral of ya.
Kerry made his comments hours after President Bush once again explained what the U.S. is doing in Iraq -- and why.
Finish the job
At a White House news conference Wednesday morning, President Bush said "stay the course" does not describe his policy in Iraq.
"Stay the course means keep doing what you're doing. My attitude is, don't do what you're doing if it's not working; change." Bush said his administration is constantly changing its tactics to achieve a strategic goal, which he described as a country that can "defend itself, sustain itself, and govern itself."
"Stay the course also means don't leave before the job is done," Bush said.
"Defeat in Iraq will embolden an enemy," he said. "And I want to repeat to you the reality of the world in which we live. If we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy is coming after us. And most Americans...understand we've got to defeat them (terrorists) there so we don't face them here."
According to Bush, "The stakes couldn't be any higher."
The president admitted that the war in Iraq is "tough on the American psyche," but when it comes to the questions of "can we win," the answer is yes.
Bush said he's not questioning anyone's patriotism, but he did note that many Democrats are among those saying, "get out, it's not worth it."
Bush said setting a "date certain" for a U.S. troop withdrawal is a mistake. "That is cut and run," he said.
Democrats
Kerry
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
October 12, 2006
(CNSNews.com) - Sen. John F. Kerry, who may be running for president again, says that voting to authorize the war in Iraq is one of his biggest political mistakes. The fact that this idiot is a politician is his biggest mistake.
In a blog on his website, (That doesn't archive his posts or allow comments so it is NOT a blog.) the Massachusetts Democrat noted on Wednesday, "Four years ago today, the United States Senate voted to give President Bush the authority to use force in Iraq. There's nothing -- nothing -- in my life in public service I regret more, nothing even close. We should all be willing to say: I was wrong, I should not have voted for the Iraq War Resolution." How about when you testified before congress and LIED and accused your fellow veterans of commiting war crimes that YOU SAID you witnessed but NEVER happened. Are you proud of that Senator?
Kerry said it's "not enough" to talk about the Bush administration's "incompetence and immorality" in the conduct of the war, and he said it's not enough "just to look backwards." Your the one looking backwards, talking about a vote you made 4 years ago.
"We must change course in Iraq," Kerry insisted. He referred to his "comprehensive plan" to end what he describes as a civil war. Where is your "comprehensive plan" the only thing I could find on your website was one paragraph on what to do in Iraq:
[John Kerry supports internationalizing our effort in Iraq, so our troops are not carrying all the work with more lengthy and extended deployments. He also believes we have to move forward with reconstruction because it’s an important way to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and stop the spread of terror. The January 30 elections will be an important milestone for Iraqis. America must help them achieve a viable government, because it is up to them to run their country.]
Kerry said his plan -- which sets a July 2007 deadline to withdraw U.S. troops -- is the opposite of Bush's "stand-still-and-lose" strategy. (Critics of the "get-out-now" approach, including President Bush, describe it a "cut-and-run.") because that's what it is.
Kerry also called for "real diplomacy" toward Iraq, which he described as "a Dayton-like summit of Iraq and the countries bordering it, the Arab League, NATO, and the Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council." Yes lets ask the local dictators what should be done in Iraq, and we can't forget China, Russia, and France. Thats "Real Diplomacy" taking direction from the people that want to see Iraq fail and those that profited off of supporting Sadams Regime.
Kerry said since Congress shares the responsibility for getting the U.S. into Iraq, it should "take responsibility for getting us out the right way." Like they did in Vietnam setting the stage so that millions can die in the slaughter and chaos that will follow. Just as the Democrats in Congress allowed Pol Pot to slaughter millions in Vietnam after they pulled out and abbandoned the S. Vietnamese.
He urged Americans to visit the Vietnam War Memorial - to walk down the path and look at all the names inscribed on the black marble walls. Kerry noted that "half the names on that wall were lost after America's leaders knew and later acknowledged our strategy would not succeed. Bullshit
"It was immoral then and it is immoral now to be quiet or equivocal in the face of that kind of delusion. Just think about what that Wall might look like for Iraq," Kerry said. Yeah look at it 4 years of War and only 3000 American Soldier Deaths. The most effective and SAFE War Zone in the history of Warfare. Besides Senator you weren't quiet as you gave false testamony to congress during the Vietnam War, that was real Moral of ya.
Kerry made his comments hours after President Bush once again explained what the U.S. is doing in Iraq -- and why.
Finish the job
At a White House news conference Wednesday morning, President Bush said "stay the course" does not describe his policy in Iraq.
"Stay the course means keep doing what you're doing. My attitude is, don't do what you're doing if it's not working; change." Bush said his administration is constantly changing its tactics to achieve a strategic goal, which he described as a country that can "defend itself, sustain itself, and govern itself."
"Stay the course also means don't leave before the job is done," Bush said.
"Defeat in Iraq will embolden an enemy," he said. "And I want to repeat to you the reality of the world in which we live. If we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy is coming after us. And most Americans...understand we've got to defeat them (terrorists) there so we don't face them here."
According to Bush, "The stakes couldn't be any higher."
The president admitted that the war in Iraq is "tough on the American psyche," but when it comes to the questions of "can we win," the answer is yes.
Bush said he's not questioning anyone's patriotism, but he did note that many Democrats are among those saying, "get out, it's not worth it."
Bush said setting a "date certain" for a U.S. troop withdrawal is a mistake. "That is cut and run," he said.
Democrats
Kerry
Politics Philly Style
Court Examines Rendell's Role In 1998 Protester Beatings
By: WILLIAM MULGREW, The Evening Bulletin
10/20/2006
Philadelphia - A special three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals convened Wednesday to hear arguments on whether a Federal Civil Rights suit may proceed against Gov. Ed Rendell and overturn a 2003 lower court ruling that there was insufficient evidence. Rendell is charged with conspiring to suppress the First Amendment rights of protesters by having Teamsters Local 115 beat them while they demonstrated outside Philadelphia's City Hall during a Democratic fundraiser featuring President Bill Clinton.Rendell, who was mayor of Philadelphia at the time, admitted in a deposition following the Oct. 2, 1998 beatings to personally inviting Teamsters Local 115 Secretary-Treasurer John Morris and instructing the union to "drown-out" the Clinton protesters."I specifically said I didn't want any interaction with the demonstrators. I wanted this to be extremely peaceful and extremely positive," Rendell also claimed in the deposition, which was taken two years after the fact.Morris was caught on video by local media placing a fedora over protester Don Adams' head, signaling the Teamsters to knock him to the ground and assault him. Adams was treated at a nearby hospital for a concussion, lacerations and multiple bruises. His sister, Teri, sustained minor injuries.Testimony from Morris' chief of staff revealed that, after the beatings, Rendell called Morris about the Teamsters who participated in the attack and said, "nothing is going to happen to these guys," and "I know how these things go." He then suggested that Morris and the Teamsters file a criminal complaint against Adams, which they did two days later on Oct. 4, 1998, alleging that he struck a woman in their group.Even though there was no police reports supporting the Teamster's claim, the incident was caught on video, and the District Attorney's Office pursued trial against Adams, who filed suit against the Teamsters and Rendell several months later.At one point, the Teamsters offered to drop their charges against him if he dropped his case. During that time, they launched a media campaign and accused Adams of being a woman-beater. Adams rejected the deal and was found not guilty on July 8, 1999. Five teamsters then pled guilty to various charges of assault and were granted probation, and Morris died in 2001.Arguments surrounding Rendell's involvement center not on how convincing the evidence is, but whether his interaction with Morris after the fact - consoling the Teamsters and advising them to sue Adams - can be used as evidence to support the charge of conspiracy.The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in United States vs. Smith in 2002 that concerted actions to conceal unlawful behavior are relevant to a finding of conspiracy. The Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in United States vs. Brodie last year.However, Philadelphia Law Department attorney Jane Lovitch Istvan, who represents Rendell, argued in brief, "The alleged conversation in this case ... contained no evidence of attempted concealment, nor is there a pattern of other alleged attempts to conceal.""I think he might have a case," Circuit Judge Restani said during oral arguments surrounding Adams' claim.The three circuit judges were appointed to hear the case from outside the Third Circuit Court's jurisdiction after a motion asking the entire Circuit to recuse itself was granted. This recusal was issued due to the fact that Rendell's wife, Judge Marjorie Rendell, sits on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Democrats
By: WILLIAM MULGREW, The Evening Bulletin
10/20/2006
Philadelphia - A special three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals convened Wednesday to hear arguments on whether a Federal Civil Rights suit may proceed against Gov. Ed Rendell and overturn a 2003 lower court ruling that there was insufficient evidence. Rendell is charged with conspiring to suppress the First Amendment rights of protesters by having Teamsters Local 115 beat them while they demonstrated outside Philadelphia's City Hall during a Democratic fundraiser featuring President Bill Clinton.Rendell, who was mayor of Philadelphia at the time, admitted in a deposition following the Oct. 2, 1998 beatings to personally inviting Teamsters Local 115 Secretary-Treasurer John Morris and instructing the union to "drown-out" the Clinton protesters."I specifically said I didn't want any interaction with the demonstrators. I wanted this to be extremely peaceful and extremely positive," Rendell also claimed in the deposition, which was taken two years after the fact.Morris was caught on video by local media placing a fedora over protester Don Adams' head, signaling the Teamsters to knock him to the ground and assault him. Adams was treated at a nearby hospital for a concussion, lacerations and multiple bruises. His sister, Teri, sustained minor injuries.Testimony from Morris' chief of staff revealed that, after the beatings, Rendell called Morris about the Teamsters who participated in the attack and said, "nothing is going to happen to these guys," and "I know how these things go." He then suggested that Morris and the Teamsters file a criminal complaint against Adams, which they did two days later on Oct. 4, 1998, alleging that he struck a woman in their group.Even though there was no police reports supporting the Teamster's claim, the incident was caught on video, and the District Attorney's Office pursued trial against Adams, who filed suit against the Teamsters and Rendell several months later.At one point, the Teamsters offered to drop their charges against him if he dropped his case. During that time, they launched a media campaign and accused Adams of being a woman-beater. Adams rejected the deal and was found not guilty on July 8, 1999. Five teamsters then pled guilty to various charges of assault and were granted probation, and Morris died in 2001.Arguments surrounding Rendell's involvement center not on how convincing the evidence is, but whether his interaction with Morris after the fact - consoling the Teamsters and advising them to sue Adams - can be used as evidence to support the charge of conspiracy.The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in United States vs. Smith in 2002 that concerted actions to conceal unlawful behavior are relevant to a finding of conspiracy. The Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in United States vs. Brodie last year.However, Philadelphia Law Department attorney Jane Lovitch Istvan, who represents Rendell, argued in brief, "The alleged conversation in this case ... contained no evidence of attempted concealment, nor is there a pattern of other alleged attempts to conceal.""I think he might have a case," Circuit Judge Restani said during oral arguments surrounding Adams' claim.The three circuit judges were appointed to hear the case from outside the Third Circuit Court's jurisdiction after a motion asking the entire Circuit to recuse itself was granted. This recusal was issued due to the fact that Rendell's wife, Judge Marjorie Rendell, sits on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Democrats
Gingrich: The man who can save GOP
Gwinnett Daily Post October 13 2006
Matt Towery
So why was it the Republicans in 1998 decided that Newt Gingrich had to go as U.S. speaker of the house?
The continuing crisis over former Florida U.S. Rep. Mark Foley's inappropriate contact with teenage pages and the handling of the situation by current House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois jogs my memory back to November 1998.
That's the day Newt Gingrich, the man whose political campaigns I had chaired for years, suddenly resigned from Congress altogether.
I fumed when he had to step down. I fume still. Now I get to unload on the GOP ingrates who turned on the only Republican in my lifetime, other than Ronald Reagan, to have original political ideas.
The day Gingrich resigned, I left early in the morning to take my family to our mountain house. Everyone in his office said Gingrich had the votes to remain as speaker.
What many don't know is that Gingrich, when he first moved into my North Atlanta district in 1992, was not popular even with Republicans. A group of us who had established constituencies in the area pulled every string and made every connection possible to help barely lift Gingrich past a virtually unknown opponent in the congressional Republican primary. It proved well worth the effort.
I then witnessed the effort of Gingrich and a devoted cadre of progressive conservatives to reinvent public policy programs, culminating with the Contract with America.
I wanted to strangle Newt when he resigned. But his explanation to me made sense - it wasn't worth continuing the fight for true reforms if he had to also fight Republicans lacking the intestinal fortitude to see them through.
Now, with the GOP House polling lower all the time over everything from Mark Foley to ethics to the federal budget, I ask again:
Why did Newt Gingrich have to resign?
He didn't have to and shouldn't have. I'm not judging Gingrich, but I'm about to judge some accepted history.
Current research of that time mostly assures us that Gingrich's plunge in popularity was largely a result of his showdown with President Bill Clinton, which forced a "government shutdown," and, subsequently, Gingrich's alleged irritation at having to exit Air Force One from the rear of the plane when it returned from Israel.
Sure, the media transformed the shutdown into a caricature of Gingrich as being coldhearted. But it was Clinton's unwillingness to negotiate on tough budget constraints pushed by the Republicans that led to the short shutdown of government operations.
Gingrich's alleged complaint about the airplane landing was taken out of context. He pointed out that Clinton had avoided the GOP leadership on board for the 20-plus hours of the flight. Budget negotiations could have been taking place. Then the president simply lacked manners in shunting the Republicans out the back of the plane.
In reality, the shutdown was a concerted action by Congress to do what most Americans wanted them to do, rein in big government.
Further, it was Gingrich's capital gains tax cut that helped to spur the economy for which President Clinton is now so widely credited. It was Gingrich who forced issues of balanced budgets and welfare reform. It may have made him a poster boy for the left, but it ended up helping make the Democratic president's legacy appear grand.
As for the impeachment issue, which is also noted in many articles as having hurt Gingrich, well, that too is a stretch. Gingrich was savvy enough to know that the effort to remove Clinton would be unpopular. But his members demanded action, and he followed what he felt was a constitutional duty, if clearly an ill-conceived political action.
For all he did, his reward from an ungrateful bunch of spoiled Republicans was a demand that he walk the plank for having lost a few House seats in the 1998 elections.
To his credit now, he has publicly stood by embattled House Speaker Dennis Hastert, despite the fact that he would be well justified to hang him out to dry.
Just remember, Republicans: What goes around comes around.
This brilliant leader has had eight years to reinvent himself. With a party begging for brains and action in place of cocky half-wits and slick-looking talking heads, Newt Gingrich is looking more and more like the hero he truly was.
He's still the GOP's true Mr. Speaker.
Newt
Matt Towery
So why was it the Republicans in 1998 decided that Newt Gingrich had to go as U.S. speaker of the house?
The continuing crisis over former Florida U.S. Rep. Mark Foley's inappropriate contact with teenage pages and the handling of the situation by current House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois jogs my memory back to November 1998.
That's the day Newt Gingrich, the man whose political campaigns I had chaired for years, suddenly resigned from Congress altogether.
I fumed when he had to step down. I fume still. Now I get to unload on the GOP ingrates who turned on the only Republican in my lifetime, other than Ronald Reagan, to have original political ideas.
The day Gingrich resigned, I left early in the morning to take my family to our mountain house. Everyone in his office said Gingrich had the votes to remain as speaker.
What many don't know is that Gingrich, when he first moved into my North Atlanta district in 1992, was not popular even with Republicans. A group of us who had established constituencies in the area pulled every string and made every connection possible to help barely lift Gingrich past a virtually unknown opponent in the congressional Republican primary. It proved well worth the effort.
I then witnessed the effort of Gingrich and a devoted cadre of progressive conservatives to reinvent public policy programs, culminating with the Contract with America.
I wanted to strangle Newt when he resigned. But his explanation to me made sense - it wasn't worth continuing the fight for true reforms if he had to also fight Republicans lacking the intestinal fortitude to see them through.
Now, with the GOP House polling lower all the time over everything from Mark Foley to ethics to the federal budget, I ask again:
Why did Newt Gingrich have to resign?
He didn't have to and shouldn't have. I'm not judging Gingrich, but I'm about to judge some accepted history.
Current research of that time mostly assures us that Gingrich's plunge in popularity was largely a result of his showdown with President Bill Clinton, which forced a "government shutdown," and, subsequently, Gingrich's alleged irritation at having to exit Air Force One from the rear of the plane when it returned from Israel.
Sure, the media transformed the shutdown into a caricature of Gingrich as being coldhearted. But it was Clinton's unwillingness to negotiate on tough budget constraints pushed by the Republicans that led to the short shutdown of government operations.
Gingrich's alleged complaint about the airplane landing was taken out of context. He pointed out that Clinton had avoided the GOP leadership on board for the 20-plus hours of the flight. Budget negotiations could have been taking place. Then the president simply lacked manners in shunting the Republicans out the back of the plane.
In reality, the shutdown was a concerted action by Congress to do what most Americans wanted them to do, rein in big government.
Further, it was Gingrich's capital gains tax cut that helped to spur the economy for which President Clinton is now so widely credited. It was Gingrich who forced issues of balanced budgets and welfare reform. It may have made him a poster boy for the left, but it ended up helping make the Democratic president's legacy appear grand.
As for the impeachment issue, which is also noted in many articles as having hurt Gingrich, well, that too is a stretch. Gingrich was savvy enough to know that the effort to remove Clinton would be unpopular. But his members demanded action, and he followed what he felt was a constitutional duty, if clearly an ill-conceived political action.
For all he did, his reward from an ungrateful bunch of spoiled Republicans was a demand that he walk the plank for having lost a few House seats in the 1998 elections.
To his credit now, he has publicly stood by embattled House Speaker Dennis Hastert, despite the fact that he would be well justified to hang him out to dry.
Just remember, Republicans: What goes around comes around.
This brilliant leader has had eight years to reinvent himself. With a party begging for brains and action in place of cocky half-wits and slick-looking talking heads, Newt Gingrich is looking more and more like the hero he truly was.
He's still the GOP's true Mr. Speaker.
Newt
But he doesn't mean anyone any harm....LOL
Ahmadinejad warns Europe it will pay for backing Israel
Sat. 21 Oct 2006
The Guardian
· Iran's president threatens storm of retaliation
· UN efforts to block nuclear programme 'illegitimate'
Robert Tait in Tehran
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran added a threatening edge to his verbal onslaught on Israel yesterday by warning European governments to withdraw their support or face getting "hurt" in a storm of retaliation.
He also called Britain and America "enemies of Iran" whose attempts to block the country's nuclear programme at the UN security council were "illegitimate".
Mr Ahmadinejad was speaking in Tehran at the annual Qods [Jerusalem] day rally, staged by Iran's Islamic regime to propagate its ideological opposition to Israel. He repeated predictions that Israel would soon disappear but, in a fresh warning, said European countries could pay a much higher price than the US for their backing.
"We have advised the Europeans that the Americans are far away, but you are the neighbours of the nations in this region," he said. "We inform you that the nations are like an ocean that is welling up, and if a storm begins, the dimensions will not stay limited to Palestine, and you may get hurt. It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals ... this is an ultimatum. Don't complain tomorrow."
Mr Ahmadinejad, who last year called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and dismissed the holocaust as a "myth", has not previously made such a clear distinction between US and European support for Israel.
The UN security council is poised to consider sanctions in response to Iran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. But Mr Ahmadinejad dismissed the security council because of the presence of America and Britain as permanent veto-wielding powers.
"What sort of security council is this?" he asked. "You want to be the judge, the jury and the enforcer."
Mr Ahmadinejad's outburst came amid a carnival atmosphere in which throngs of children carrying balloons milled among the crowds. Dozens swapped paintings depicting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for T-shirts donated by Tehran city council.
A display of banners featured one bearing the phrase "Israel must be wiped off the map" in Hebrew. Others accused companies such as Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Nestlé and Marks and Spencer of being pro-Israel. A stall recruiting potential "martyrs" was selling CD-roms showing volunteers from the Palestinian militant organisation Hamas preparing suicide attacks against Israel.
Iran
Sat. 21 Oct 2006
The Guardian
· Iran's president threatens storm of retaliation
· UN efforts to block nuclear programme 'illegitimate'
Robert Tait in Tehran
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran added a threatening edge to his verbal onslaught on Israel yesterday by warning European governments to withdraw their support or face getting "hurt" in a storm of retaliation.
He also called Britain and America "enemies of Iran" whose attempts to block the country's nuclear programme at the UN security council were "illegitimate".
Mr Ahmadinejad was speaking in Tehran at the annual Qods [Jerusalem] day rally, staged by Iran's Islamic regime to propagate its ideological opposition to Israel. He repeated predictions that Israel would soon disappear but, in a fresh warning, said European countries could pay a much higher price than the US for their backing.
"We have advised the Europeans that the Americans are far away, but you are the neighbours of the nations in this region," he said. "We inform you that the nations are like an ocean that is welling up, and if a storm begins, the dimensions will not stay limited to Palestine, and you may get hurt. It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals ... this is an ultimatum. Don't complain tomorrow."
Mr Ahmadinejad, who last year called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and dismissed the holocaust as a "myth", has not previously made such a clear distinction between US and European support for Israel.
The UN security council is poised to consider sanctions in response to Iran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. But Mr Ahmadinejad dismissed the security council because of the presence of America and Britain as permanent veto-wielding powers.
"What sort of security council is this?" he asked. "You want to be the judge, the jury and the enforcer."
Mr Ahmadinejad's outburst came amid a carnival atmosphere in which throngs of children carrying balloons milled among the crowds. Dozens swapped paintings depicting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for T-shirts donated by Tehran city council.
A display of banners featured one bearing the phrase "Israel must be wiped off the map" in Hebrew. Others accused companies such as Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Nestlé and Marks and Spencer of being pro-Israel. A stall recruiting potential "martyrs" was selling CD-roms showing volunteers from the Palestinian militant organisation Hamas preparing suicide attacks against Israel.
Iran
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Confessions of a 'Defeatocrat'
The Babbling of an Idiot from my state that is a poster child for Term Limits...
By John P. Murtha
Sunday, October 15, 2006; Page B01
The Republicans are running scared. In the White House, on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail, they're worried about losing control of Congress. And so the administration and the GOP have launched a desperate assault on Democrats and our position on the war in Iraq. Defeatists, they call us, and appeasers and -- oh so cleverly -- "Defeatocrats." The TRUTH hurts doesn't it?
Vice President Cheney has accused Democrats of "self-defeating pessimism." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has faulted us for believing that "vicious extremists can be appeased." The White House calls Democrats the party of "cut and run."
It's all baseless name-calling, and it's all wrong. Unless, of course, being a Defeatocrat means taking a good hard look at the administration's Iraq policy and determining that it's a failure. It's NOT name calling when the group that determines the current course is a failure offers no alternative except "cut and run"
In that case, count me in. Because Democrats recognize that we're headed for a far greater disaster in Iraq if we don't change course -- and soon. This is not defeatism. This is realism.
There would be no greater disaster than following your plan of pulling the troops out and placing them somewhere like Okinowa. The country would then fall into Civil War, The Kurds would split off in the north and create Kurdistan which would be immediately invaded by Turkey, while Iran would invade from the other direction to aid Al Sader as he started beheading Sunnies in the south. That's what your plan would do John.
Our troops who are putting their lives on the line deserve a plan that matches our military prowess with diplomatic and political skill. They deserve a clear and achievable mission and they deserve to know precisely what it will take to accomplish it. They deserve answers, not spin. And our troops know they would not get that from the Dems which is why they vote overwhelmingly Republican, and it's why your party tries to disqualify their votes every election.
Our military has done all it can do in Iraq, and the Iraqis want their occupation to end. I support bringing our troops home at the earliest practicable date, at a rate that will keep those remaining there safe on the ground. It's time that the White House and the GOP start working with Democrats in Congress to come up with a reasonable timetable for withdrawal and for handing the Iraqi government over to the Iraqis. First of all Iraq is run by an Iraqi government ASSHOLE, or did you miss the 3 elections they had while you were enjoying the view you have with your head up your ass. It's NOT an occupation and contrary to what you believe the Iraqi government wants us there until more civility is restored to THEIR nation.
The administration's use of Rovian catchphrases is nothing but propaganda designed to stifle the loyal opposition. We Democrats are determined to restore our nation's military strength, (just like Bill Clinton did by cutting the defense budget) refocus on the real terrorist threat, bolster security safeguards at home and reestablish the credible standing we once had in the world. This from the party that did nothing to respond to all the terrorist attacks in the 90s except pass laws that forbid the CIA from talking to "unsavory characters" and just recently bragged about "stopping the Patriot Act" and voted against Listening to Terrorists that call people living inside the US. That is not defeatist. It is a call to formulate and execute a winning game plan for the War on Terror. LOL
Most Democrats voted against the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. Regrettably, I was not one of them. Since entering Congress in 1974, (32yrs of this idiot) I have always supported the president on issues of war. But in this case, I made a mistake -- and unlike certain members of the administration, I'm willing to say so. If I had known in October 2002 what I know now, I would never have voted for the resolution. And what do you know now? That you and your party don't know how to do anything except set Americans up to be killed on the streets of America.
Some of my Democratic colleagues questioned whether Iraq posed an immediate threat to our national security; some were not convinced that Iraq was accelerating the development of nuclear weapons and had an active chemical and biological weapons program; Its Funny how they didn't feel that way in 98 when they all made statements saying exactly that. and almost all believed that Iraq was not involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. NO ONE EVER SAID IRAQ HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH SEPT 11 YA GIT They turned out to be right on all three counts. Nevertheless, since our forces deployed to Iraq, Democratic support for the troops has never wavered. It can't waver from never having supported them in the first place. Its always been their position.
In the past nine months alone, $962 billion has been appropriated for the Defense Department, $190 billion for the war effort. A vast majority of Democrats voted for the funding. Democrats also identified shortfalls in body armor, armored vehicles and electronic jammers to defeat roadside bombs. Which people like you and John Kerry voted against the bill to fix that problem. Democrats uncovered problems with the military readiness of our ground forces in the United States and fought for measures to restore it. That's hardly defeatist. Since the problems were created by the massive military cuts done by Bill Clinton and your party spending the money as what you called "the peace dividend" after the fall of the Soviet Union. How can you brag about trying to fix a problem that you created. Besides name one bill that you created to fix any of these problems John?
When U.S. forces first entered Baghdad, the Iraqi people cheered as the statue of Saddam Hussein was torn from its pedestal. Forty-two months and $400 billion later, we are caught in a civil war in which 61 percent of Iraqis think killing Americans is justified and the Iraqi people butcher one another at an alarming rate. We are considered occupiers. The longer we stay, the harder it becomes for the Iraqis to find their own destiny. Only defeatacrats like you and your willing accomplices in the MSM believe that.
The administration's "stay-the-course" strategy is not a plan for victory. It's not even a plan. All we have is a new military blueprint to keep 140,000 troops in Iraq through 2010. Oh my god defined goals and a time table to achieve them that goes out to 2010 we can't have that can we John? Why it might actually lead to success.
We are seeing an astonishing and unprecedented parade of retired U.S. generals calling for a new direction in Iraq. These are voices of bravery, experience, conscience and loyalty. These are men who left because they could not adapt to the change in how war must be fought when you are not fighting an army that is aligned to one country or wears no uniform who have been taught to look coldly and objectively at the facts of bloodshed. Can they all be wrong? How about the 15 intelligence agencies that recently offered the opinion that this war has not made us safer? Are they all defeatists? Are they to be ignored? that's NOT what the intelligence report said John and you know it.
Was Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, former Army chief of staff, a defeatist when he said that it would take several hundred thousand troops to prevail in Iraq? His recommendation was ignored. Because he was wrong Or what about Gen. Jay M. Garner, our first administrator in Iraq, who recommended that the Iraqi army be kept intact and used to stabilize the country? His recommendations were ignored. The Iraqi army was disbanded and the former military took their munitions and went off to form the core of the insurgency. And if the General and you were listened to about them they would also have the tanks and still be wearing the uniforms of Iraqi soldiers. The statement speaks for itself. They couldn't be trusted to keep them as the Army their actions as civilians prove that disbanding them was the correct choice. Was former secretary of state Colin L. Powell defeatist when he warned: "If you break it, you own it"? Well we do own it and were not going to cut and run until it's fixed. Was Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower a defeatist when he ran for president in 1952 to change the course of Democrat Harry S. Truman's administration in Korea?
Will the White House toss the same tired insults at Sen. John W. Warner (Va.), the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who has voiced concern over the situation in Iraq? Or at former secretary of state James A. Baker III when the commission he is co-chairing delivers its report on reassessing our options in Iraq? Report ain't been delivered yet and Warner has proved long ago that he is more aligned with your party and it's past failures, than the administration.
This administration's insistence on a "go-it-alone, stay-the-course" policy in the face of objections from a majority of Americans and Iraqis and most world public opinion, and in the face of a deteriorating situation, defies logic. For one we are not going it alone, the last Presidential election was a referendum on the War and Bush got the solid majority, so what majority are you talking about? World public opinion didn't want to fight Hitler or Japan or the communist threat either. Unlike you asshole the American people could care less about what any European thinks.
The United States is about to begin its fifth year of occupation and fighting in Iraq. That makes this war longer than U.S. participation in World Wars I and II, and longer than the Korean War and our own Civil War. With every year of occupation, our efforts to fight global terrorism and our military's readiness to fight future wars have further deteriorated, along with our standing in the world. Meanwhile, the radical Islamic cause wins more and more recruits. Your just stupid aren't ya John? I don't hear any praise for the fact that this war is being fought so successfully that even in that extended period of time that you are dreading about only 3000 of our brave men and woman have given their lives. More of our soldiers died in single days and in some cases single battles in the wars that you name. Yet you look at our military mission as a failure. As for the war on terror every terrorist leader has stated that their goal is to get America to cut and run from Iraq and then they will follow the infidels to the US and kill them there. That's what your policies would give the American people. A propaganda defeat for us, and a victory to the terrorists to recruit from and no reason to fear coming over here to kill more of us.
Despite the presence of more than 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, 23,000 Americans injured or killed, tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths and the expenditure of nearly a half a trillion dollars, here are the dismal results:
· In September, 776 U.S troops were wounded in Iraq, the highest monthly toll in more than two years.
· Over the past year, the number of attacks against U.S. personnel has doubled, rising from 400 to more than 800 per week.
· Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, recently acknowledged that sectarian violence has replaced the insurgency as the single biggest threat to Iraq.
· In the past two months, 6,000 Iraqis died, more than in the first year of the war.
· Last week, electricity output averaged 2.4 hours per day in Baghdad and 10.4 hours nationwide -- 7 percent less than in the same period in 2005.
And your response is to "cut and run", that will fix the problem how?
· A Sept. 27 World Public Opinion poll indicated that 91 percent of Iraqi Sunnis and 74 percent of Iraqi Shiites want the Iraqi government to ask U.S.-led forces to withdraw within a year. Ninety-seven percent of Sunnis and 82 percent of Shiites said that the U.S. military presence is "provoking more conflict than it is preventing." And Iraqi support for attacks against U.S.-led forces has increased sharply over the past few months, from 47 percent to 61 percent. Sounds like a Democrat party Poll don't it LOL
Now, Karl Rove may call me a defeatist, but can anyone living in the real world deny that these statistics are heading in the wrong direction? Yet despite this bleak record of performance, the president continues to stand by his team of failed architects, preferring to prop them up instead of demanding accountability. Just a little bit of history to put things in perspective. In WWII the most US casualties that we suffered in a single month occured just before Germany surrendered. So using Murtha logic we should have quit WWII before winning also.
Democrats are fighting a war on two fronts: One is combating the spin and intimidation that defines this administration. The other is fighting to change course, to do things better, to substitute smart, disciplined strategy for dogma and denial in Iraq. LOL what a Maroon
That's not defeatism. That's our duty.
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) is the ranking member on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.
He served 37 years in the Marine Corps. (those numbers don't add up he can't have served as long as he has in government and that long in the Marines just another of Johns lies)
By John P. Murtha
Sunday, October 15, 2006; Page B01
The Republicans are running scared. In the White House, on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail, they're worried about losing control of Congress. And so the administration and the GOP have launched a desperate assault on Democrats and our position on the war in Iraq. Defeatists, they call us, and appeasers and -- oh so cleverly -- "Defeatocrats." The TRUTH hurts doesn't it?
Vice President Cheney has accused Democrats of "self-defeating pessimism." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has faulted us for believing that "vicious extremists can be appeased." The White House calls Democrats the party of "cut and run."
It's all baseless name-calling, and it's all wrong. Unless, of course, being a Defeatocrat means taking a good hard look at the administration's Iraq policy and determining that it's a failure. It's NOT name calling when the group that determines the current course is a failure offers no alternative except "cut and run"
In that case, count me in. Because Democrats recognize that we're headed for a far greater disaster in Iraq if we don't change course -- and soon. This is not defeatism. This is realism.
There would be no greater disaster than following your plan of pulling the troops out and placing them somewhere like Okinowa. The country would then fall into Civil War, The Kurds would split off in the north and create Kurdistan which would be immediately invaded by Turkey, while Iran would invade from the other direction to aid Al Sader as he started beheading Sunnies in the south. That's what your plan would do John.
Our troops who are putting their lives on the line deserve a plan that matches our military prowess with diplomatic and political skill. They deserve a clear and achievable mission and they deserve to know precisely what it will take to accomplish it. They deserve answers, not spin. And our troops know they would not get that from the Dems which is why they vote overwhelmingly Republican, and it's why your party tries to disqualify their votes every election.
Our military has done all it can do in Iraq, and the Iraqis want their occupation to end. I support bringing our troops home at the earliest practicable date, at a rate that will keep those remaining there safe on the ground. It's time that the White House and the GOP start working with Democrats in Congress to come up with a reasonable timetable for withdrawal and for handing the Iraqi government over to the Iraqis. First of all Iraq is run by an Iraqi government ASSHOLE, or did you miss the 3 elections they had while you were enjoying the view you have with your head up your ass. It's NOT an occupation and contrary to what you believe the Iraqi government wants us there until more civility is restored to THEIR nation.
The administration's use of Rovian catchphrases is nothing but propaganda designed to stifle the loyal opposition. We Democrats are determined to restore our nation's military strength, (just like Bill Clinton did by cutting the defense budget) refocus on the real terrorist threat, bolster security safeguards at home and reestablish the credible standing we once had in the world. This from the party that did nothing to respond to all the terrorist attacks in the 90s except pass laws that forbid the CIA from talking to "unsavory characters" and just recently bragged about "stopping the Patriot Act" and voted against Listening to Terrorists that call people living inside the US. That is not defeatist. It is a call to formulate and execute a winning game plan for the War on Terror. LOL
Most Democrats voted against the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. Regrettably, I was not one of them. Since entering Congress in 1974, (32yrs of this idiot) I have always supported the president on issues of war. But in this case, I made a mistake -- and unlike certain members of the administration, I'm willing to say so. If I had known in October 2002 what I know now, I would never have voted for the resolution. And what do you know now? That you and your party don't know how to do anything except set Americans up to be killed on the streets of America.
Some of my Democratic colleagues questioned whether Iraq posed an immediate threat to our national security; some were not convinced that Iraq was accelerating the development of nuclear weapons and had an active chemical and biological weapons program; Its Funny how they didn't feel that way in 98 when they all made statements saying exactly that. and almost all believed that Iraq was not involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. NO ONE EVER SAID IRAQ HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH SEPT 11 YA GIT They turned out to be right on all three counts. Nevertheless, since our forces deployed to Iraq, Democratic support for the troops has never wavered. It can't waver from never having supported them in the first place. Its always been their position.
In the past nine months alone, $962 billion has been appropriated for the Defense Department, $190 billion for the war effort. A vast majority of Democrats voted for the funding. Democrats also identified shortfalls in body armor, armored vehicles and electronic jammers to defeat roadside bombs. Which people like you and John Kerry voted against the bill to fix that problem. Democrats uncovered problems with the military readiness of our ground forces in the United States and fought for measures to restore it. That's hardly defeatist. Since the problems were created by the massive military cuts done by Bill Clinton and your party spending the money as what you called "the peace dividend" after the fall of the Soviet Union. How can you brag about trying to fix a problem that you created. Besides name one bill that you created to fix any of these problems John?
When U.S. forces first entered Baghdad, the Iraqi people cheered as the statue of Saddam Hussein was torn from its pedestal. Forty-two months and $400 billion later, we are caught in a civil war in which 61 percent of Iraqis think killing Americans is justified and the Iraqi people butcher one another at an alarming rate. We are considered occupiers. The longer we stay, the harder it becomes for the Iraqis to find their own destiny. Only defeatacrats like you and your willing accomplices in the MSM believe that.
The administration's "stay-the-course" strategy is not a plan for victory. It's not even a plan. All we have is a new military blueprint to keep 140,000 troops in Iraq through 2010. Oh my god defined goals and a time table to achieve them that goes out to 2010 we can't have that can we John? Why it might actually lead to success.
We are seeing an astonishing and unprecedented parade of retired U.S. generals calling for a new direction in Iraq. These are voices of bravery, experience, conscience and loyalty. These are men who left because they could not adapt to the change in how war must be fought when you are not fighting an army that is aligned to one country or wears no uniform who have been taught to look coldly and objectively at the facts of bloodshed. Can they all be wrong? How about the 15 intelligence agencies that recently offered the opinion that this war has not made us safer? Are they all defeatists? Are they to be ignored? that's NOT what the intelligence report said John and you know it.
Was Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, former Army chief of staff, a defeatist when he said that it would take several hundred thousand troops to prevail in Iraq? His recommendation was ignored. Because he was wrong Or what about Gen. Jay M. Garner, our first administrator in Iraq, who recommended that the Iraqi army be kept intact and used to stabilize the country? His recommendations were ignored. The Iraqi army was disbanded and the former military took their munitions and went off to form the core of the insurgency. And if the General and you were listened to about them they would also have the tanks and still be wearing the uniforms of Iraqi soldiers. The statement speaks for itself. They couldn't be trusted to keep them as the Army their actions as civilians prove that disbanding them was the correct choice. Was former secretary of state Colin L. Powell defeatist when he warned: "If you break it, you own it"? Well we do own it and were not going to cut and run until it's fixed. Was Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower a defeatist when he ran for president in 1952 to change the course of Democrat Harry S. Truman's administration in Korea?
Will the White House toss the same tired insults at Sen. John W. Warner (Va.), the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who has voiced concern over the situation in Iraq? Or at former secretary of state James A. Baker III when the commission he is co-chairing delivers its report on reassessing our options in Iraq? Report ain't been delivered yet and Warner has proved long ago that he is more aligned with your party and it's past failures, than the administration.
This administration's insistence on a "go-it-alone, stay-the-course" policy in the face of objections from a majority of Americans and Iraqis and most world public opinion, and in the face of a deteriorating situation, defies logic. For one we are not going it alone, the last Presidential election was a referendum on the War and Bush got the solid majority, so what majority are you talking about? World public opinion didn't want to fight Hitler or Japan or the communist threat either. Unlike you asshole the American people could care less about what any European thinks.
The United States is about to begin its fifth year of occupation and fighting in Iraq. That makes this war longer than U.S. participation in World Wars I and II, and longer than the Korean War and our own Civil War. With every year of occupation, our efforts to fight global terrorism and our military's readiness to fight future wars have further deteriorated, along with our standing in the world. Meanwhile, the radical Islamic cause wins more and more recruits. Your just stupid aren't ya John? I don't hear any praise for the fact that this war is being fought so successfully that even in that extended period of time that you are dreading about only 3000 of our brave men and woman have given their lives. More of our soldiers died in single days and in some cases single battles in the wars that you name. Yet you look at our military mission as a failure. As for the war on terror every terrorist leader has stated that their goal is to get America to cut and run from Iraq and then they will follow the infidels to the US and kill them there. That's what your policies would give the American people. A propaganda defeat for us, and a victory to the terrorists to recruit from and no reason to fear coming over here to kill more of us.
Despite the presence of more than 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, 23,000 Americans injured or killed, tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths and the expenditure of nearly a half a trillion dollars, here are the dismal results:
· In September, 776 U.S troops were wounded in Iraq, the highest monthly toll in more than two years.
· Over the past year, the number of attacks against U.S. personnel has doubled, rising from 400 to more than 800 per week.
· Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, recently acknowledged that sectarian violence has replaced the insurgency as the single biggest threat to Iraq.
· In the past two months, 6,000 Iraqis died, more than in the first year of the war.
· Last week, electricity output averaged 2.4 hours per day in Baghdad and 10.4 hours nationwide -- 7 percent less than in the same period in 2005.
And your response is to "cut and run", that will fix the problem how?
· A Sept. 27 World Public Opinion poll indicated that 91 percent of Iraqi Sunnis and 74 percent of Iraqi Shiites want the Iraqi government to ask U.S.-led forces to withdraw within a year. Ninety-seven percent of Sunnis and 82 percent of Shiites said that the U.S. military presence is "provoking more conflict than it is preventing." And Iraqi support for attacks against U.S.-led forces has increased sharply over the past few months, from 47 percent to 61 percent. Sounds like a Democrat party Poll don't it LOL
Now, Karl Rove may call me a defeatist, but can anyone living in the real world deny that these statistics are heading in the wrong direction? Yet despite this bleak record of performance, the president continues to stand by his team of failed architects, preferring to prop them up instead of demanding accountability. Just a little bit of history to put things in perspective. In WWII the most US casualties that we suffered in a single month occured just before Germany surrendered. So using Murtha logic we should have quit WWII before winning also.
Democrats are fighting a war on two fronts: One is combating the spin and intimidation that defines this administration. The other is fighting to change course, to do things better, to substitute smart, disciplined strategy for dogma and denial in Iraq. LOL what a Maroon
That's not defeatism. That's our duty.
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) is the ranking member on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.
He served 37 years in the Marine Corps. (those numbers don't add up he can't have served as long as he has in government and that long in the Marines just another of Johns lies)
Ted Turner 'Very Upset' Over North Korean Nuclear Test
Here is proof that you can have the mentality of chronic pot smoker and still be a Billionaire. Follow the link and read the whole story it's a good laugh.
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
October 10, 2006
(CNSNews.com) - Liberal billionaire Ted Turner -- who last year claimed that North Korean officials were "absolutely sincere" in their intent to use nuclear power only for civilian purposes -- said Monday that he's "very upset" the Asian nation has conducted a nuclear weapons test.
Turner's position was quite different during a Sept. 19, 2005, interview on CNN's Situation Room after the billionaire returned from a meeting with North Korean officials.
"I am absolutely convinced that the North Koreans are absolutely sincere," Turner said then. "There's really no reason for them to cheat" and use nuclear power for weapons instead of generating electricity and other civilian uses.
"I looked them right in the eyes, and they looked like they meant the truth," he added. "I mean, you know, just because somebody's done something wrong in the past doesn't mean they can't do right in the future or the present. That happens all the, all the time."
Looking at the "challenging situation" around the world, Turner stated "the most dangerous thing is the nuclear weapons because they can end our lives in an afternoon." India, Pakistan and Israel also have nuclear weapons, and "Iran is probably trying to get them," he added.
In the end, the only real solution to nuclear proliferation is "for everybody to get rid of all nuclear weapons" under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Turner stated.
"The next most dangerous thing is probably global climate change or global warming, and then, right behind that are overpopulation -- we need to get serious about family planning -- and trying to alleviate poverty, to get clean, renewable energy, probably with solar panels to the billion and a half people in the world who don't have access to electricity," Turner said.
"There are a lot of things in our own government that are a mess," the billionaire said. "I always feel like if you really work hard and get to be nearly perfect, then you can go around and tell everybody else what to do.
"But if you're not perfect, you shouldn't tell other people what to do," he added. "You should let them work it out for themselves to a large degree.
"War just isn't the way to get things done anymore," he noted. "Blowing up bridges and hospitals and museums and everything, it costs a lot of money to rebuild them.
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
October 10, 2006
(CNSNews.com) - Liberal billionaire Ted Turner -- who last year claimed that North Korean officials were "absolutely sincere" in their intent to use nuclear power only for civilian purposes -- said Monday that he's "very upset" the Asian nation has conducted a nuclear weapons test.
Turner's position was quite different during a Sept. 19, 2005, interview on CNN's Situation Room after the billionaire returned from a meeting with North Korean officials.
"I am absolutely convinced that the North Koreans are absolutely sincere," Turner said then. "There's really no reason for them to cheat" and use nuclear power for weapons instead of generating electricity and other civilian uses.
"I looked them right in the eyes, and they looked like they meant the truth," he added. "I mean, you know, just because somebody's done something wrong in the past doesn't mean they can't do right in the future or the present. That happens all the, all the time."
Looking at the "challenging situation" around the world, Turner stated "the most dangerous thing is the nuclear weapons because they can end our lives in an afternoon." India, Pakistan and Israel also have nuclear weapons, and "Iran is probably trying to get them," he added.
In the end, the only real solution to nuclear proliferation is "for everybody to get rid of all nuclear weapons" under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Turner stated.
"The next most dangerous thing is probably global climate change or global warming, and then, right behind that are overpopulation -- we need to get serious about family planning -- and trying to alleviate poverty, to get clean, renewable energy, probably with solar panels to the billion and a half people in the world who don't have access to electricity," Turner said.
"There are a lot of things in our own government that are a mess," the billionaire said. "I always feel like if you really work hard and get to be nearly perfect, then you can go around and tell everybody else what to do.
"But if you're not perfect, you shouldn't tell other people what to do," he added. "You should let them work it out for themselves to a large degree.
"War just isn't the way to get things done anymore," he noted. "Blowing up bridges and hospitals and museums and everything, it costs a lot of money to rebuild them.
Murtha Tells MoveOn Members: 'Screw' Republicans
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
October 13, 2006
(CNSNews.com) - "Screw them," Rep. John Murtha said of Republicans in an email sent to the liberal political group MoveOn.org on Wednesday. The Pennsylvania Democrat, who is urging a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq, added that he needs its members' help to throw GOP congressmen "out of power -- as many of them as possible."
"I'm working hard to turn the mess in Iraq around -- but I need more good people in Congress with me," Murtha stated. He referred to "outstanding" candidates that he would like to see elected, such as fellow Pennsylvania Democrats Lois Murphy in the 6th District and Chris Carney in the 10th District, as well as Zack Space, a candidate in Ohio's 18th District race.
"The three candidates who need your support today will fight side-by-side with me in Congress when the time comes to hold George W. Bush's feet to the fire," Murtha stated. "Can I count on you to chip in $25 or more?" he asked.
Democrats
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
October 13, 2006
(CNSNews.com) - "Screw them," Rep. John Murtha said of Republicans in an email sent to the liberal political group MoveOn.org on Wednesday. The Pennsylvania Democrat, who is urging a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq, added that he needs its members' help to throw GOP congressmen "out of power -- as many of them as possible."
"I'm working hard to turn the mess in Iraq around -- but I need more good people in Congress with me," Murtha stated. He referred to "outstanding" candidates that he would like to see elected, such as fellow Pennsylvania Democrats Lois Murphy in the 6th District and Chris Carney in the 10th District, as well as Zack Space, a candidate in Ohio's 18th District race.
"The three candidates who need your support today will fight side-by-side with me in Congress when the time comes to hold George W. Bush's feet to the fire," Murtha stated. "Can I count on you to chip in $25 or more?" he asked.
Democrats
Reid: Investigate Bush Over North Korea Nukes
By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 09, 2006
(CNSNews.com) - Reacting to the announcement that North Korea successfully conducted a nuclear test, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called Monday for an investigation of the Bush administration's "failed North Korea policies." Land Deal Harry is the one that needs to be investigated.
In a release, Reid said that "on the Bush Administration's watch, North Korea's arsenal has grown to as many as a dozen bombs," because he said Bush is "distracted by Iraq and paralyzed by internal divisions." Yeah it had nothing to do with the FACTS that Madelin Alldull and Gritz Carter negotiated a bad deal that had the Clinton Administration giving N Korea all the ingreadiants to make all the Nuclear Bombs they could ever want.
Calling the test "reckless and counterproductive," Reid called on Bush to "rally the international community and ... directly speak with the North Koreans so they understand we will not continue to stand on the sidelines." He has rallied the International Community and got 4 other countries involved in talks with N Korea, unlike the FAILED Bi-Lateral talks of the Clinton Administration that gave NK the Bomb in the first place.
Reid also called for a "full review" of the Bush administration's "failed North Korea policy," the development of "recommendations to change course," and direct communication with the North Koreans about "the consequence of their actions and the administration's new course." Once again the Dems want to go back to the FAILED policy of the Clintons that gave NK the Bomb.
In an election-year call for support, Reid said Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress "have made America less secure. It is time for a new direction," he said, referring to the Democrats' campaign slogan. Yes the direction of SURRENDER. Funny ain't it how the policies of Bill Clinton and Madelin Alldull were directly responsibile for causing 9-11 and N Korea having the Bomb yet thats what the Dems want to return to...LOL
In a separate statement Monday, House Speaker Dennis Hastert also condemned the nuclear test, calling it a "desperate act of a criminal regime."
Hastert said the United States is "neither threatened nor impressed, but resolved to restore stability to the Pacific Rim."
Hastert called on the international community, specifically the United Nations, to "take decisive action to isolate this regime against this provocative move." The UN couldn't decide to tie it's own shoes, unless of course they could figure out how to steal money in the process.
Democrats
Clinton
North Korea
Reid
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 09, 2006
(CNSNews.com) - Reacting to the announcement that North Korea successfully conducted a nuclear test, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called Monday for an investigation of the Bush administration's "failed North Korea policies." Land Deal Harry is the one that needs to be investigated.
In a release, Reid said that "on the Bush Administration's watch, North Korea's arsenal has grown to as many as a dozen bombs," because he said Bush is "distracted by Iraq and paralyzed by internal divisions." Yeah it had nothing to do with the FACTS that Madelin Alldull and Gritz Carter negotiated a bad deal that had the Clinton Administration giving N Korea all the ingreadiants to make all the Nuclear Bombs they could ever want.
Calling the test "reckless and counterproductive," Reid called on Bush to "rally the international community and ... directly speak with the North Koreans so they understand we will not continue to stand on the sidelines." He has rallied the International Community and got 4 other countries involved in talks with N Korea, unlike the FAILED Bi-Lateral talks of the Clinton Administration that gave NK the Bomb in the first place.
Reid also called for a "full review" of the Bush administration's "failed North Korea policy," the development of "recommendations to change course," and direct communication with the North Koreans about "the consequence of their actions and the administration's new course." Once again the Dems want to go back to the FAILED policy of the Clintons that gave NK the Bomb.
In an election-year call for support, Reid said Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress "have made America less secure. It is time for a new direction," he said, referring to the Democrats' campaign slogan. Yes the direction of SURRENDER. Funny ain't it how the policies of Bill Clinton and Madelin Alldull were directly responsibile for causing 9-11 and N Korea having the Bomb yet thats what the Dems want to return to...LOL
In a separate statement Monday, House Speaker Dennis Hastert also condemned the nuclear test, calling it a "desperate act of a criminal regime."
Hastert said the United States is "neither threatened nor impressed, but resolved to restore stability to the Pacific Rim."
Hastert called on the international community, specifically the United Nations, to "take decisive action to isolate this regime against this provocative move." The UN couldn't decide to tie it's own shoes, unless of course they could figure out how to steal money in the process.
Democrats
Clinton
North Korea
Reid
Friday, October 13, 2006
Our Boy Imamadjihad Speaks...
Iranian President Ahmadinejad: 'The Iranian People... [Can] Quickly Become an Invincible Global Power... As Soon as It Achieves Advanced Technologies'
Today's Islamist Websites Monitor is about messages alerting Muslims to a new insult to Islam - a cube-shaped building being constructed in New York aimed at provoking Muslims. To read more, visit: http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD131506.
The following are excerpts from an address delivered by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which aired on the Iranian news channel (IRINN) on September 28, 2006.
TO VIEW THIS CLIP, VISIT:http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1288
Because of "The Aggressors of the World," "The Shadow of Threat Prevails Everywhere"
Ahmadinejad: "Today, words like morality, spirituality, human nobility, courage, greatness, and affection are meaningless to the great powers.
"Today, the aggressors of the world are embroiled in many contradictions. On the one hand, they generate wars in many places around the world, yet on the other hand, they raise the banner of the desire and demand for peace. On the one hand, they kill the peoples in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon, and turn them into refugees, yet on the other hand, they raise the banner of human rights. On the one hand, they operate all the terrorist groups in Iraq and Palestine, and set them upon the peoples, yet on the other hand, they raise the banner of the war on terror.
"They fill all their warehouses with atomic, biological, and chemical weapons. However, when facing the technological and scientific progress of the peoples, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy, they chant the slogan of concern for global security. On the one hand, they cause the greatest damage to natural resources, such as water, air, forests, pastures, and the human environment, yet on the other hand, they raise the banner of protecting the environment, hygiene, and welfare. This is the situation in the world today. The shadow of threat prevails everywhere.
"The powers are willing to destroy the planet several times over, in order to line the pockets of the world's capitalists, parties, and great powers."
[...]
"They Have Failed in the Proper Management of the World... Today, the Iranian People is Recognized as a Model for All the Peoples of the World"
"They should accept the fact that they have failed in the proper management of the world. They should accept that they are unable to manage the world in a just and progressive manner. My dears, we face a very heavy duty today. Today, the Iranian people is recognized as a model for all the peoples of the world. From the Far East to the West, and including the southernmost regions of the globe, the peoples' attention, eyes, and hearts are drawn towards the Iranian people - so that the Iranian people will be able to overcome the difficulties, and present the peoples of the world with a perfect model of splendid, humane, and divine life."
[...]
"Every day, youth, politicians, religious scholars, and scientists make requests in various manners, in order to benefit from help, guidance, and support of the Iranian people. The Eastern and Western groups have failed in managing the world, and the world is left with only one light, one banner, and one people, which has preserved the hope in the hearts of all the peoples. This is the great and courageous people of Iran."
[...]
"They are not opposed to the [nuclear] bomb. They are not opposed to nuclear weapons. After all, they have equipped some false regimes in our region with a variety of nuclear weapons, and they are not worried at all. Every day, they make, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, yet they are not worried. But if our people obtains nuclear energy for peaceful purposes - that would make them worry. Why? The answer is clear. They fear the progress of the Iranian people. They know that the Iranian people - because of its past culture, its past civilization, its intelligent youth, its human and material potential - has the capacity to quickly become an invincible global power. This will happen as soon as it achieves advanced technologies."
[...]
"A few months ago, they said to us: 'Suspend [the enrichment] for only three months, and then we will hold joint discussions.' We responded: Why should we stop for three months? Stopping for three months means tremendous damage. It means lagging by three month behind global technology. Who will compensate our people? And for what reason? Show us some law, some document, some logic, and we will submit totally to reason. They have no logic. They have finally reached the point at which they say to us: 'Stop just for one day.' We said: 'We won't.' They said to us...
"They said: 'Stop, using some technical pretext. Say that a screw came loose, or that there was a power outage. Come up with a pretext to stop it.' We said: Why should we lie to stop it, if there's no technical malfunction?'"
[...]
"Why do they insist that we stop, even if just for one day? Why do they insist that we pretend to stop our nuclear activities? The answer is very clear. I ask the intelligent people of Karaj to listen carefully: They have the global propaganda network at their disposal. Through widespread propaganda, they want to say to the peoples of the world: 'You see, we were right. The Iranians finally accepted our logic.' As soon as we stop, even if for just one day, they will use global propaganda to prevent us from resuming our activities."
Today's Islamist Websites Monitor is about messages alerting Muslims to a new insult to Islam - a cube-shaped building being constructed in New York aimed at provoking Muslims. To read more, visit: http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD131506.
The following are excerpts from an address delivered by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which aired on the Iranian news channel (IRINN) on September 28, 2006.
TO VIEW THIS CLIP, VISIT:http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1288
Because of "The Aggressors of the World," "The Shadow of Threat Prevails Everywhere"
Ahmadinejad: "Today, words like morality, spirituality, human nobility, courage, greatness, and affection are meaningless to the great powers.
"Today, the aggressors of the world are embroiled in many contradictions. On the one hand, they generate wars in many places around the world, yet on the other hand, they raise the banner of the desire and demand for peace. On the one hand, they kill the peoples in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon, and turn them into refugees, yet on the other hand, they raise the banner of human rights. On the one hand, they operate all the terrorist groups in Iraq and Palestine, and set them upon the peoples, yet on the other hand, they raise the banner of the war on terror.
"They fill all their warehouses with atomic, biological, and chemical weapons. However, when facing the technological and scientific progress of the peoples, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy, they chant the slogan of concern for global security. On the one hand, they cause the greatest damage to natural resources, such as water, air, forests, pastures, and the human environment, yet on the other hand, they raise the banner of protecting the environment, hygiene, and welfare. This is the situation in the world today. The shadow of threat prevails everywhere.
"The powers are willing to destroy the planet several times over, in order to line the pockets of the world's capitalists, parties, and great powers."
[...]
"They Have Failed in the Proper Management of the World... Today, the Iranian People is Recognized as a Model for All the Peoples of the World"
"They should accept the fact that they have failed in the proper management of the world. They should accept that they are unable to manage the world in a just and progressive manner. My dears, we face a very heavy duty today. Today, the Iranian people is recognized as a model for all the peoples of the world. From the Far East to the West, and including the southernmost regions of the globe, the peoples' attention, eyes, and hearts are drawn towards the Iranian people - so that the Iranian people will be able to overcome the difficulties, and present the peoples of the world with a perfect model of splendid, humane, and divine life."
[...]
"Every day, youth, politicians, religious scholars, and scientists make requests in various manners, in order to benefit from help, guidance, and support of the Iranian people. The Eastern and Western groups have failed in managing the world, and the world is left with only one light, one banner, and one people, which has preserved the hope in the hearts of all the peoples. This is the great and courageous people of Iran."
[...]
"They are not opposed to the [nuclear] bomb. They are not opposed to nuclear weapons. After all, they have equipped some false regimes in our region with a variety of nuclear weapons, and they are not worried at all. Every day, they make, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, yet they are not worried. But if our people obtains nuclear energy for peaceful purposes - that would make them worry. Why? The answer is clear. They fear the progress of the Iranian people. They know that the Iranian people - because of its past culture, its past civilization, its intelligent youth, its human and material potential - has the capacity to quickly become an invincible global power. This will happen as soon as it achieves advanced technologies."
[...]
"A few months ago, they said to us: 'Suspend [the enrichment] for only three months, and then we will hold joint discussions.' We responded: Why should we stop for three months? Stopping for three months means tremendous damage. It means lagging by three month behind global technology. Who will compensate our people? And for what reason? Show us some law, some document, some logic, and we will submit totally to reason. They have no logic. They have finally reached the point at which they say to us: 'Stop just for one day.' We said: 'We won't.' They said to us...
"They said: 'Stop, using some technical pretext. Say that a screw came loose, or that there was a power outage. Come up with a pretext to stop it.' We said: Why should we lie to stop it, if there's no technical malfunction?'"
[...]
"Why do they insist that we stop, even if just for one day? Why do they insist that we pretend to stop our nuclear activities? The answer is very clear. I ask the intelligent people of Karaj to listen carefully: They have the global propaganda network at their disposal. Through widespread propaganda, they want to say to the peoples of the world: 'You see, we were right. The Iranians finally accepted our logic.' As soon as we stop, even if for just one day, they will use global propaganda to prevent us from resuming our activities."
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Al Qaeda Tries To Defend Its Base
October 5, 2006: Al Qaeda in Iraq recently announced that over 4,000 foreign jihadists had died in Iraq. Since 2003, al Qaeda has been obsessed with the fact that infidel troops were in Iraq. One of the primary goals of al Qaeda has always been to get all infidels out of the Middle East. Al Qaeda is not alone in this respect. Saudi Arabia, in the same religiously conservative spirit, long ago banned the practice of any other religion Saudi Arabia. And any Saudi who converts to another religion faces a death sentence. The main beef al Qaeda has with Saudi Arabia, and many other Moslems, is that Saudi Arabia is not conservative enough.
Through the 1990s, Islamic radicals were driven out of their home countries. That's how Saudi and Egyptian Islamic terrorists ended up in Afghanistan by the late 1990s. They lost the battle for public opinion in their home countries, and Afghanistan provided a refuge. From that refuge, al Qaeda planned the September 11, 2001 attacks. Several months later, with Afghanistan no longer a safe place for Islamic terrorists, the survivors took refuge among pro-Taliban tribes across the border in Pakistan. Over the next year, several thousand al Qaeda activists were captured or killed. Most of the senior leadership, and over half the operatives, were put out of action.
But al Qaeda still had a base of support in the Persian Gulf. Much of the oil money had been wasted or stolen over the past half century. This was especially the case in Saudi Arabia, and many Saudis were angry with their government, but not capable or brave enough to do anything about it. Many wealthy Saudis donated money to al Qaeda, and many more young Saudis were willing to serve al Qaeda, to the death. After September 11, 2001, even with the fact that 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudis, al Qaeda was left alone in Saudi Arabia. The understanding was that, if al Qaeda does not attack Saudi Arabia, the government would leave al Qaeda alone. This led to much friction with the United States, but the Saudis did not want to have terrorist bombs going off in their own back yard. The government had made a deal with the conservative clergy in the 1980s. The government would subsidize, and tolerate, Islamic radicals, as long as no attempt was made to overthrow the government, or upset public order.
Then the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. This upset everything. The Sunni rulers in the Persian Gulf did not care for Saddam Hussein, especially after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. A decade earlier, the Persian Gulf Arabs had cheered as Saddam invaded Iran, and then came up with over $100 billion to bail out Iraq when Iran counterattacked. Saddam was considered an unstable maniac. But he served the very essential function of keeping Iran out of the Persian Gulf. That was considered more important than the welfare of the Iraqi people. Besides, there are no democracies in Arabia, and no enthusiasm for it. Saddam was a cruel despot, and most Arab leaders could relate to that. Actually, Islamic conservatives consider democracy blasphemous, as only God can lead his people. To these zealots, the perfect government is one run by clerics, in the name of God. But only Iran and Afghanistan have been able to establish such religious dictatorships. The Afghan one failed when Afghans realized what they had got, and was destroyed with the help of 300 Americans on the ground, and a few dozen U.S. warplanes overhead, in late 2001. The Iranian tyrants have been more resourceful, and are hustling to get nuclear weapons, before their restless subjects overthrow them.
The war in Iraq attracted, as al Qaeda has now made public, at least 4,000 foreigners to fight for the cause of radical Islam. The actual number is probably closer to 10,000, because police in Moslem countries, especially Saudi Arabia, have noted the return of thousands of Islamic radicals from Iraq. Some are inflamed and still full of fight, and soon under arrest or observation. Most are disillusioned. What they saw in Iraq was mainly a struggle by the Sunni Arab minority to restore Saddam, or another Sunni Arab despot. The majority of Iraqis, even among the Sunni Arabs, did not want a return of the dictatorship. Yet this was what the al Qaeda volunteers were being asked to do. And the preferred method was bombing attacks that were killing more Iraqi civilians that police or foreign soldiers.
Meanwhile, al Qaeda has been trying to become a larger illusion, since efforts to become a larger organization have failed. Any Moslems, anywhere, with any kind of grievance, can get on the al Qaeda bandwagon and become part of something larger. That may not help your local cause much, it may even increase your chances of getting arrested or killed, but think of all the shared glory. Al Qaeda was now running a media circus, and anyone could join. So unhappy Moslem migrants in Europe, miffed at their inability to integrate in the local culture, declared that they were part of al Qaeda, and they were going to make Europe a Moslem state. Right.
In Africa and Asia, Moslems unhappy with their lack of economic progress compared to nearby Christians (who, for one thing, paid more attention to education), joined al Qaeda's call for war against the infidels. Meanwhile, acts of international terrorism stayed pretty much the same. Such acts went from 452 in 1985 to 104 in 2000. Major increases began in 2001, as al Qaeda made use of its Afghan bases to strike out. But the violence never returned to 1980s levels (when the terror was largely secular, and backed by the Soviet Union). In the first nine months of 2006, there have been 112 attacks.
Domestic terrorism, which is what is going on in Iraq, stayed steady at about 1,300 incidents a year from 1998 to 2001. It nearly doubled, to 2,362, in 2002, dropped to 1,625 in 2003, then went back over 2,000 in 2004 as the Iraqi Sunni Arabs began their fight to regain power. In this effort, they made a very deliberate alliance with al Qaeda. Both groups wanted Sunni Arabs to control Iraq, and both were willing to do anything to make that happen. This violence now accounts for about half the domestic terror on the planet. Oddly enough, this violence is not killing as many people as Saddam killed per year, in the past, when he was waging major campaigns against Kurds or Shia Arabs (who, together, comprise 80 percent of Iraq's population.) Iraq has always been a dangerous place. The difference this time, is that the battle is for the rule of law, not just to keep another tyrant in power.
Through the 1990s, Islamic radicals were driven out of their home countries. That's how Saudi and Egyptian Islamic terrorists ended up in Afghanistan by the late 1990s. They lost the battle for public opinion in their home countries, and Afghanistan provided a refuge. From that refuge, al Qaeda planned the September 11, 2001 attacks. Several months later, with Afghanistan no longer a safe place for Islamic terrorists, the survivors took refuge among pro-Taliban tribes across the border in Pakistan. Over the next year, several thousand al Qaeda activists were captured or killed. Most of the senior leadership, and over half the operatives, were put out of action.
But al Qaeda still had a base of support in the Persian Gulf. Much of the oil money had been wasted or stolen over the past half century. This was especially the case in Saudi Arabia, and many Saudis were angry with their government, but not capable or brave enough to do anything about it. Many wealthy Saudis donated money to al Qaeda, and many more young Saudis were willing to serve al Qaeda, to the death. After September 11, 2001, even with the fact that 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudis, al Qaeda was left alone in Saudi Arabia. The understanding was that, if al Qaeda does not attack Saudi Arabia, the government would leave al Qaeda alone. This led to much friction with the United States, but the Saudis did not want to have terrorist bombs going off in their own back yard. The government had made a deal with the conservative clergy in the 1980s. The government would subsidize, and tolerate, Islamic radicals, as long as no attempt was made to overthrow the government, or upset public order.
Then the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. This upset everything. The Sunni rulers in the Persian Gulf did not care for Saddam Hussein, especially after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. A decade earlier, the Persian Gulf Arabs had cheered as Saddam invaded Iran, and then came up with over $100 billion to bail out Iraq when Iran counterattacked. Saddam was considered an unstable maniac. But he served the very essential function of keeping Iran out of the Persian Gulf. That was considered more important than the welfare of the Iraqi people. Besides, there are no democracies in Arabia, and no enthusiasm for it. Saddam was a cruel despot, and most Arab leaders could relate to that. Actually, Islamic conservatives consider democracy blasphemous, as only God can lead his people. To these zealots, the perfect government is one run by clerics, in the name of God. But only Iran and Afghanistan have been able to establish such religious dictatorships. The Afghan one failed when Afghans realized what they had got, and was destroyed with the help of 300 Americans on the ground, and a few dozen U.S. warplanes overhead, in late 2001. The Iranian tyrants have been more resourceful, and are hustling to get nuclear weapons, before their restless subjects overthrow them.
The war in Iraq attracted, as al Qaeda has now made public, at least 4,000 foreigners to fight for the cause of radical Islam. The actual number is probably closer to 10,000, because police in Moslem countries, especially Saudi Arabia, have noted the return of thousands of Islamic radicals from Iraq. Some are inflamed and still full of fight, and soon under arrest or observation. Most are disillusioned. What they saw in Iraq was mainly a struggle by the Sunni Arab minority to restore Saddam, or another Sunni Arab despot. The majority of Iraqis, even among the Sunni Arabs, did not want a return of the dictatorship. Yet this was what the al Qaeda volunteers were being asked to do. And the preferred method was bombing attacks that were killing more Iraqi civilians that police or foreign soldiers.
Meanwhile, al Qaeda has been trying to become a larger illusion, since efforts to become a larger organization have failed. Any Moslems, anywhere, with any kind of grievance, can get on the al Qaeda bandwagon and become part of something larger. That may not help your local cause much, it may even increase your chances of getting arrested or killed, but think of all the shared glory. Al Qaeda was now running a media circus, and anyone could join. So unhappy Moslem migrants in Europe, miffed at their inability to integrate in the local culture, declared that they were part of al Qaeda, and they were going to make Europe a Moslem state. Right.
In Africa and Asia, Moslems unhappy with their lack of economic progress compared to nearby Christians (who, for one thing, paid more attention to education), joined al Qaeda's call for war against the infidels. Meanwhile, acts of international terrorism stayed pretty much the same. Such acts went from 452 in 1985 to 104 in 2000. Major increases began in 2001, as al Qaeda made use of its Afghan bases to strike out. But the violence never returned to 1980s levels (when the terror was largely secular, and backed by the Soviet Union). In the first nine months of 2006, there have been 112 attacks.
Domestic terrorism, which is what is going on in Iraq, stayed steady at about 1,300 incidents a year from 1998 to 2001. It nearly doubled, to 2,362, in 2002, dropped to 1,625 in 2003, then went back over 2,000 in 2004 as the Iraqi Sunni Arabs began their fight to regain power. In this effort, they made a very deliberate alliance with al Qaeda. Both groups wanted Sunni Arabs to control Iraq, and both were willing to do anything to make that happen. This violence now accounts for about half the domestic terror on the planet. Oddly enough, this violence is not killing as many people as Saddam killed per year, in the past, when he was waging major campaigns against Kurds or Shia Arabs (who, together, comprise 80 percent of Iraq's population.) Iraq has always been a dangerous place. The difference this time, is that the battle is for the rule of law, not just to keep another tyrant in power.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
The Clinton Legacy
As the North Koreans set off their Nuclear Bomb, we can Thank the Clinton WhiteHouse for plunging the world one step closer to Nuclear War. Yes it was Madelin Alldull that Guaranteed that North Korea would be able to achieve this wonderfull goal. Thanks Bill no one represents what the Dems can do for the world better than you and your Leagacy.
I'll add here, since we're inevitably going to hear the Democrats and their media allies lionizing the Clinton approach, that what we're seeing here is directly Clinton's fault. By signing an agreement that everyone knew would be cheated on by North Korea as a substitute for taking action, he, personally, left any successor no viable options and made this day a 100% certainty.
And that day is a 100% certainty, whether or not this particular event is borne out as a nuke. The only question now is when, and that was true the day after Clinton/Carter's "peace in our time (subtext: and war in someone else's)" agreement was signed. That transparently phony agreement, and not his negligence in pursuing al-Qaeda, has always been the #1 screw-up of Clinton's Presidency. It may yet surpass his #2 screw-up in terms of the American lives it costs before all is said and done.
If the GOP has 2 brain cells left, they'll hit that point with everything they have. Which means, of course, even odds at best. (from Winds of Change)
UPDATE: Great add Check it out at DRUDGE on the Clinton Legacy
Democrats
Clinton
North Korea
I'll add here, since we're inevitably going to hear the Democrats and their media allies lionizing the Clinton approach, that what we're seeing here is directly Clinton's fault. By signing an agreement that everyone knew would be cheated on by North Korea as a substitute for taking action, he, personally, left any successor no viable options and made this day a 100% certainty.
And that day is a 100% certainty, whether or not this particular event is borne out as a nuke. The only question now is when, and that was true the day after Clinton/Carter's "peace in our time (subtext: and war in someone else's)" agreement was signed. That transparently phony agreement, and not his negligence in pursuing al-Qaeda, has always been the #1 screw-up of Clinton's Presidency. It may yet surpass his #2 screw-up in terms of the American lives it costs before all is said and done.
If the GOP has 2 brain cells left, they'll hit that point with everything they have. Which means, of course, even odds at best. (from Winds of Change)
UPDATE: Great add Check it out at DRUDGE on the Clinton Legacy
Democrats
Clinton
North Korea
Al-Qaida escapee from U.S. prison urges followers in new video to go nuclear
Al-Qaida escapee from U.S. prison urges followers in new video to go nuclear
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - An al-Qaida member who escaped from a U.S. prison in Afghanistan urged his followers in a new video aired Tuesday to acquire nuclear technology.
Abu Yahia al-Libi, who broke out of prison in July 2005, appeared in a video broadcast by the pan-Arab Al-Arabiya TV, telling his followers "
"Allah will not be pleased until we reach the rooftop of the White House," Abu Yahya al-Libi was shown telling fighters in the tape aired by the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television.
The channel said the tape was one-hour long, showing footage of Libi urging fighters to train hard and even to try to acquire nuclear technology.
"You have to get well prepared by starting with exercise, and then you have to learn how to use technology until you are capable of nuclear weapons," he said.
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - An al-Qaida member who escaped from a U.S. prison in Afghanistan urged his followers in a new video aired Tuesday to acquire nuclear technology.
Abu Yahia al-Libi, who broke out of prison in July 2005, appeared in a video broadcast by the pan-Arab Al-Arabiya TV, telling his followers "
"Allah will not be pleased until we reach the rooftop of the White House," Abu Yahya al-Libi was shown telling fighters in the tape aired by the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television.
The channel said the tape was one-hour long, showing footage of Libi urging fighters to train hard and even to try to acquire nuclear technology.
"You have to get well prepared by starting with exercise, and then you have to learn how to use technology until you are capable of nuclear weapons," he said.
North Korea's First Customer to Purchase WarHead
Iran Blames U.S. for N. Korea Nuke Test
Oct 9, 10:44 AM (ET)
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iranian state radio Monday blamed North Korea's reported nuclear test on U.S. pressure, accusing Washington of "humiliating" the impoverished communist country.
"Not only did the United States not lift the sanctions it had imposed on North Korea, it even increased the diplomatic pressure. Such pressure finally led North Korea to conduct its nuclear test," Iranian state radio said in a commentary.
So I guess that means that since we have sanctions on Iran since 1979 for seazing hostages that they're justified in not only testing a nuke but bombing us with one because we have humiliated them for so long.
"North Korea's nuclear test was a reaction to America's threats and humiliation," it said.
Iran has said it will not abandon uranium enrichment despite the threat of international sanctions over its disputed nuclear program, which Tehran insists is purely for peaceful purposes to be used for nuclear energy. Yeah they sit on a sea of oil but are worried about their country needing energy... LOL
President Bush on Monday said the United States was still attempting to confirm that a nuclear test in North Korea had actually taken place. Still, he said, "such a claim itself constitutes a threat to international peace and security."
Iranian state radio accused Washington of "double standards" in its policy on nuclear nonproliferation, pointing to its attitude toward Israel and India. India has tested a nuclear bomb and Israel is widely believed to possess such weapons, but the United States is not currently applying sanctions against them. Could be because Israel and India aren't bank rolling terrorism all over the world the way Iran is, or the fact that their leaders aren't telling their people that it their duty to bath the world in blood so that the twelfth Imam can return and bring on the world wide caliphate the way Imamadjihad is doing in Iran.
In an oblique message to the United Nations, which is considering taking steps against Iran's nuclear program, Iranian state radio said that the Security Council should not punish North Korea but disarm the nuclear arsenals of the great powers.
"Instead of imposing comprehensive sanctions on North Korea ... it would be better if the U.N. Security Council adopt a wise decision and seek full implementation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty," it said.
"That is to say, it should seek to disarm the countries that currently possess nuclear weapons and provide conditions so that signatories to the treaty will be able to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," it said. This guys smokin crack.
North Korea
Iran
Oct 9, 10:44 AM (ET)
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iranian state radio Monday blamed North Korea's reported nuclear test on U.S. pressure, accusing Washington of "humiliating" the impoverished communist country.
"Not only did the United States not lift the sanctions it had imposed on North Korea, it even increased the diplomatic pressure. Such pressure finally led North Korea to conduct its nuclear test," Iranian state radio said in a commentary.
So I guess that means that since we have sanctions on Iran since 1979 for seazing hostages that they're justified in not only testing a nuke but bombing us with one because we have humiliated them for so long.
"North Korea's nuclear test was a reaction to America's threats and humiliation," it said.
Iran has said it will not abandon uranium enrichment despite the threat of international sanctions over its disputed nuclear program, which Tehran insists is purely for peaceful purposes to be used for nuclear energy. Yeah they sit on a sea of oil but are worried about their country needing energy... LOL
President Bush on Monday said the United States was still attempting to confirm that a nuclear test in North Korea had actually taken place. Still, he said, "such a claim itself constitutes a threat to international peace and security."
Iranian state radio accused Washington of "double standards" in its policy on nuclear nonproliferation, pointing to its attitude toward Israel and India. India has tested a nuclear bomb and Israel is widely believed to possess such weapons, but the United States is not currently applying sanctions against them. Could be because Israel and India aren't bank rolling terrorism all over the world the way Iran is, or the fact that their leaders aren't telling their people that it their duty to bath the world in blood so that the twelfth Imam can return and bring on the world wide caliphate the way Imamadjihad is doing in Iran.
In an oblique message to the United Nations, which is considering taking steps against Iran's nuclear program, Iranian state radio said that the Security Council should not punish North Korea but disarm the nuclear arsenals of the great powers.
"Instead of imposing comprehensive sanctions on North Korea ... it would be better if the U.N. Security Council adopt a wise decision and seek full implementation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty," it said.
"That is to say, it should seek to disarm the countries that currently possess nuclear weapons and provide conditions so that signatories to the treaty will be able to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," it said. This guys smokin crack.
North Korea
Iran
Sunday, October 08, 2006
The World is Burning and The Democrats want to Fiddle and Bash Faggots...LOL
The BIG news this week has been about a prevert that likes to fantasize about and talk dirty to young men. Well I agree Foley is a degenerate and desearved to lose his seat, even though unlike the MSM is reporting 3 years ago the "boy" in question was 18. He at least is a better man than Bill Clinton, Foley had the decency to resign. The Haven of Hypocracy the Democrat party would have us all believe they are outraged by his behavior, while at the same time they have cheered and protected Democrat scumbags like Barney (toothless) Frank who had a gay male escort service being run out of the basement of his DC residence. Now most of the following list is out of Congress except Franks and Innoye, but then again this is just a sampling of the past as an example of the lack of outrage by the Haven of Hypocracy.
Let's balance the playing field, shall we?
REP. JOHN YOUNG (D-Tex.):
On June 11, 1976, Colleen Gardner, a former staff secretary to Young, told the New York Times that Young increased her salary after she gave in to his sexual advances. In November, Young, who had run unopposed in the safe Democratic district five consecutive times, was reelected with just 61 percent of the vote. The scandal wouldn't go away, and in 1978 Young was defeated in a Democratic primary runoff.
REP. ALLAN HOWE (D-Utah):
On June 13, 1976, Howe was arrested in Salt Lake City on charges of soliciting two policewomen posing as prostitutes. Howe insisted he was set up and refused to resign. But the Democratic Party distanced itself from his candidacy and he was trounced by his Republican opponent in the November election.
REP. FRED RICHMOND (D-N.Y.):
In April 1978, Richmond was arrested in Washington for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old boy. Richmond apologized for his actions, conceding he "made bad judgments involving my private life." In spite of a Democratic primary opponent's attempts to cash in on the headlines, Richmond easily won renomination and reelection. But his career came to an end four years later when, after pleading guilty to possession of marijuana and tax evasion - and amid allegations that he had his staff procure cocaine for him -- he resigned his seat.
REP. JOHN HINSON (D-Miss.):
On Aug. 8, 1980, during his first reelection bid, Hinson stunned everyone by announcing that in 1976 he had been accused of committing an obscene act at a gay haunt in Virginia. Hinson, married and a strong conservative, added that in 1977 he had survived a fire in a gay D.C. movie theater. He was making the disclosure, he said, because he needed to clear his conscience. But he denied he was a homosexual and refused GOP demands that he resign. Hinson won reelection in a three-way race, with 39 percent of the vote. But three months later, he was arrested on charges of attempted oral sodomy in the restroom of a House office building. He resigned his seat on April 13, 1981.
REP. ROBERT BAUMAN (D-Md.):
On Oct. 3, 1980, Bauman, a leading "pro-family" conservative, pleaded innocent to a charge that he committed oral sodomy on a teenage boy in Washington. Married and the father of four, Bauman conceded that he had been an alcoholic but had been seeking treatment. The news came as a shock to voters of the rural, conservative district, and he lost to a Democrat in November.
REP. ERNIE KONNYU (D-Calif.):
In August 1987, two former Konnyu aides complained to the San Jose Mercury News that the freshman Republican had sexually harassed them. GOP leaders were unhappy with Konnyu's temperament to begin with, so it took little effort to find candidates who would take him on in the primary. Stanford professor Tom Campbell ousted Konnyu the following June.
SEN. BROCK ADAMS (D-Wash.):
On Sept. 27, 1988, Seattle newspapers reported that Kari Tupper, the daughter of Adams's longtime friends, filed a complaint against the Washington Democrat in July of 1987, charging sexual assault. She claimed she went to Adams's house in March 1987 to get him to end a pattern of harassment, but that he drugged her and assaulted her. Adams denied any sexual assault, saying they only talked about her employment opportunities. Adams continued raising campaign funds and declared for a second term in February of 1992. But two weeks later the Seattle Times reported that eight other women were accusing Adams of sexual molestation over the past 20 years, describing a history of drugging and subsequent rape. Later that day, while still proclaiming his innocence, Adams ended his campaign.
REP. JIM BATES (D-Calif.):
Roll Call quoted former Bates aides in October 1988 saying that the San Diego Democrat made sexual advances toward female staffers. Bates called it a GOP-inspired smear campaign, but also apologized for anything he did that might have seemed inappropriate. The story came too close to Election Day to damage Bates, who won easily. However, the following October the ethics committee sent Bates a "letter of reproval" directing him to make a formal apology to the women who filed the complaint. Although the district was not thought to be hospitable to the GOP, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a former Navy pilot who was once shot down over North Vietnam, ousted Bates in 1990 by fewer than 2,000 votes.
REP. GUS SAVAGE (D-Ill.):
The Washington Post reported on July 19, 1989, that Savage had fondled a Peace Corps volunteer while on an official visit to Zaire. Savage called the story a lie and blamed it on his political enemies and a racist media. (Savage is black.) In January 1990, the House ethics committee decided that the events did occur, but decided against any disciplinary action because Savage wrote a letter to the woman saying he "never intended to offend" her. Savage was reelected in 1990, but finally ousted in the 1992 primary by Mel Reynolds.
REP. BARNEY FRANK (D-Mass.):
In response to a story in the Aug. 25, 1989, Washington Times, Frank confirmed that he hired Steve Gobie, a male prostitute, in 1985 to live with and work for him in his D.C. apartment. But Frank, who is gay, said he fired Gobie in 1987 when he learned he was using the apartment to run a prostitution service. The Boston Globe, among others, called on Frank to resign, but he refused. On July 19, 1990, the ethics committee recommended Frank be reprimanded because he "reflected discredit upon the House" by using his congressional office to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets. Attempts to expel or censure Frank failed; instead the House voted 408-18 to reprimand him. The fury in Washington was not shared in Frank's district, where he won reelection in 1990 with 66 percent of the vote, and has won by larger margins ever since.
SEN. DANIEL INOUYE (D-Hawaii):
In October 1992, Republican Senate nominee Rick Reed began running a campaign commercial that included a surreptitiously taped interview with Lenore Kwock, Inouye's hairdresser. Kwock said Inouye had sexually forced himself on her in 1975 and continued a pattern of sexual harassment, even as Kwock continued to cut his hair over the years. Inouye, seeking a sixth term, denied the charges. And Kwock said that by running the commercial, Reed had caused her more pain than Inouye had. Reed was forced to pull the ad, and while many voters took out their anger on the Republican, Inouye was held to 57 percent of the vote - the lowest total of his career. A week later, a female Democratic state legislator announced that she had heard from nine other women who claimed Inouye had sexually harassed them over the past decade. But the women didn't go public with their claims, the local press didn't pursue the story, and the Senate Ethics Committee decided to drop the investigation because the accusers wouldn't participate in an inquiry.
REP MEL REYNOLDS (D-Ill.):
Freshman Reynolds was indicted on Aug. 19, 1994, on charges of having sex with a 16-year-old campaign worker and then pressuring her to lie about it. Reynolds, who is black, denied the charges and said the investigation was racially motivated. The GOP belatedly put up a write-in candidate for November, but Reynolds dispatched him in the overwhelmingly Democratic district with little effort. Reynolds was convicted on Aug. 22, 1995 of 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography, was sentenced to five years in prison, and resigned his seat on October 1.
Here's a bi-partisan one:
REP. DAN CRANE (R-Ill.) and REP. GERRY STUDDS (D-Mass.):
The House ethics committee on July 14, 1983, announced that Crane and Studds had sexual relationships with teenage congressional pages -- Crane with a 17-year-old female in 1980, Studds with a 17-year-old male in 1973. Both admitted the charges that same day, and Studds acknowledged he was gay. The committee voted to reprimand the two, but a back-bench Georgia Republican named Newt Gingrich argued that they should be expelled. The full House voted on July 20 instead to censure the two, the first time that ever happened for sexual misconduct. Crane, married and the father of six, was tearful in his apology to the House, while Studds refused to apologize. Crane's conservative district voted him out in 1984, while the voters in Studds's more liberal district were more forgiving. Studds won reelection in 1984 with 56 percent of the vote, and continued to win until he retired in 1996.
Democrats
Let's balance the playing field, shall we?
REP. JOHN YOUNG (D-Tex.):
On June 11, 1976, Colleen Gardner, a former staff secretary to Young, told the New York Times that Young increased her salary after she gave in to his sexual advances. In November, Young, who had run unopposed in the safe Democratic district five consecutive times, was reelected with just 61 percent of the vote. The scandal wouldn't go away, and in 1978 Young was defeated in a Democratic primary runoff.
REP. ALLAN HOWE (D-Utah):
On June 13, 1976, Howe was arrested in Salt Lake City on charges of soliciting two policewomen posing as prostitutes. Howe insisted he was set up and refused to resign. But the Democratic Party distanced itself from his candidacy and he was trounced by his Republican opponent in the November election.
REP. FRED RICHMOND (D-N.Y.):
In April 1978, Richmond was arrested in Washington for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old boy. Richmond apologized for his actions, conceding he "made bad judgments involving my private life." In spite of a Democratic primary opponent's attempts to cash in on the headlines, Richmond easily won renomination and reelection. But his career came to an end four years later when, after pleading guilty to possession of marijuana and tax evasion - and amid allegations that he had his staff procure cocaine for him -- he resigned his seat.
REP. JOHN HINSON (D-Miss.):
On Aug. 8, 1980, during his first reelection bid, Hinson stunned everyone by announcing that in 1976 he had been accused of committing an obscene act at a gay haunt in Virginia. Hinson, married and a strong conservative, added that in 1977 he had survived a fire in a gay D.C. movie theater. He was making the disclosure, he said, because he needed to clear his conscience. But he denied he was a homosexual and refused GOP demands that he resign. Hinson won reelection in a three-way race, with 39 percent of the vote. But three months later, he was arrested on charges of attempted oral sodomy in the restroom of a House office building. He resigned his seat on April 13, 1981.
REP. ROBERT BAUMAN (D-Md.):
On Oct. 3, 1980, Bauman, a leading "pro-family" conservative, pleaded innocent to a charge that he committed oral sodomy on a teenage boy in Washington. Married and the father of four, Bauman conceded that he had been an alcoholic but had been seeking treatment. The news came as a shock to voters of the rural, conservative district, and he lost to a Democrat in November.
REP. ERNIE KONNYU (D-Calif.):
In August 1987, two former Konnyu aides complained to the San Jose Mercury News that the freshman Republican had sexually harassed them. GOP leaders were unhappy with Konnyu's temperament to begin with, so it took little effort to find candidates who would take him on in the primary. Stanford professor Tom Campbell ousted Konnyu the following June.
SEN. BROCK ADAMS (D-Wash.):
On Sept. 27, 1988, Seattle newspapers reported that Kari Tupper, the daughter of Adams's longtime friends, filed a complaint against the Washington Democrat in July of 1987, charging sexual assault. She claimed she went to Adams's house in March 1987 to get him to end a pattern of harassment, but that he drugged her and assaulted her. Adams denied any sexual assault, saying they only talked about her employment opportunities. Adams continued raising campaign funds and declared for a second term in February of 1992. But two weeks later the Seattle Times reported that eight other women were accusing Adams of sexual molestation over the past 20 years, describing a history of drugging and subsequent rape. Later that day, while still proclaiming his innocence, Adams ended his campaign.
REP. JIM BATES (D-Calif.):
Roll Call quoted former Bates aides in October 1988 saying that the San Diego Democrat made sexual advances toward female staffers. Bates called it a GOP-inspired smear campaign, but also apologized for anything he did that might have seemed inappropriate. The story came too close to Election Day to damage Bates, who won easily. However, the following October the ethics committee sent Bates a "letter of reproval" directing him to make a formal apology to the women who filed the complaint. Although the district was not thought to be hospitable to the GOP, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a former Navy pilot who was once shot down over North Vietnam, ousted Bates in 1990 by fewer than 2,000 votes.
REP. GUS SAVAGE (D-Ill.):
The Washington Post reported on July 19, 1989, that Savage had fondled a Peace Corps volunteer while on an official visit to Zaire. Savage called the story a lie and blamed it on his political enemies and a racist media. (Savage is black.) In January 1990, the House ethics committee decided that the events did occur, but decided against any disciplinary action because Savage wrote a letter to the woman saying he "never intended to offend" her. Savage was reelected in 1990, but finally ousted in the 1992 primary by Mel Reynolds.
REP. BARNEY FRANK (D-Mass.):
In response to a story in the Aug. 25, 1989, Washington Times, Frank confirmed that he hired Steve Gobie, a male prostitute, in 1985 to live with and work for him in his D.C. apartment. But Frank, who is gay, said he fired Gobie in 1987 when he learned he was using the apartment to run a prostitution service. The Boston Globe, among others, called on Frank to resign, but he refused. On July 19, 1990, the ethics committee recommended Frank be reprimanded because he "reflected discredit upon the House" by using his congressional office to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets. Attempts to expel or censure Frank failed; instead the House voted 408-18 to reprimand him. The fury in Washington was not shared in Frank's district, where he won reelection in 1990 with 66 percent of the vote, and has won by larger margins ever since.
SEN. DANIEL INOUYE (D-Hawaii):
In October 1992, Republican Senate nominee Rick Reed began running a campaign commercial that included a surreptitiously taped interview with Lenore Kwock, Inouye's hairdresser. Kwock said Inouye had sexually forced himself on her in 1975 and continued a pattern of sexual harassment, even as Kwock continued to cut his hair over the years. Inouye, seeking a sixth term, denied the charges. And Kwock said that by running the commercial, Reed had caused her more pain than Inouye had. Reed was forced to pull the ad, and while many voters took out their anger on the Republican, Inouye was held to 57 percent of the vote - the lowest total of his career. A week later, a female Democratic state legislator announced that she had heard from nine other women who claimed Inouye had sexually harassed them over the past decade. But the women didn't go public with their claims, the local press didn't pursue the story, and the Senate Ethics Committee decided to drop the investigation because the accusers wouldn't participate in an inquiry.
REP MEL REYNOLDS (D-Ill.):
Freshman Reynolds was indicted on Aug. 19, 1994, on charges of having sex with a 16-year-old campaign worker and then pressuring her to lie about it. Reynolds, who is black, denied the charges and said the investigation was racially motivated. The GOP belatedly put up a write-in candidate for November, but Reynolds dispatched him in the overwhelmingly Democratic district with little effort. Reynolds was convicted on Aug. 22, 1995 of 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography, was sentenced to five years in prison, and resigned his seat on October 1.
Here's a bi-partisan one:
REP. DAN CRANE (R-Ill.) and REP. GERRY STUDDS (D-Mass.):
The House ethics committee on July 14, 1983, announced that Crane and Studds had sexual relationships with teenage congressional pages -- Crane with a 17-year-old female in 1980, Studds with a 17-year-old male in 1973. Both admitted the charges that same day, and Studds acknowledged he was gay. The committee voted to reprimand the two, but a back-bench Georgia Republican named Newt Gingrich argued that they should be expelled. The full House voted on July 20 instead to censure the two, the first time that ever happened for sexual misconduct. Crane, married and the father of six, was tearful in his apology to the House, while Studds refused to apologize. Crane's conservative district voted him out in 1984, while the voters in Studds's more liberal district were more forgiving. Studds won reelection in 1984 with 56 percent of the vote, and continued to win until he retired in 1996.
Democrats
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)