Thoughts
« Previous Entries Next Entries »Hillary’s Politicized Trip To Iraq
Saturday, November 29th, 2003George W. Bush visits the troops in Baghdad, boosts their morale, and gets criticized by the media elite and liberals. Hillary goes to Iraq, criticizes policy, and is left untouched by media criticism.
Slaves to Political Correctness?
Friday, November 28th, 2003Political Correctness strikes again in the computer industry…
Finally, He’s Going To Die
Monday, November 24th, 2003
[size=12]This scum is going to die…[/size]
VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — Jurors in the trial of convicted sniper John Allen Muhammad decided Monday that he should be executed for his role in terrorizing the Washington D.C. area last fall.
It seems like these days there’s rarely a verdict that I can agree with, but finally today, I hear the news that John Allen Muhammad is going to get the death penalty.
One down, one to go.
Let’s speed up this process and kill him tomorrow.
Driving Mary Jo Filibuster
Wednesday, November 19th, 2003It appears that the driving force behind Mary Jo Kopechne’s death in Chappaquiddick was also the driving force behind the filibustering of Bush’s judicial nominees.
Confidential Democratic memos downloaded from a Senate Judiciary Committee database and leaked to the press show that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) overcame the reservations of 15 Senate colleagues to convince Democrats to wage filibusters against some of President Bush’s judicial nominees.
While Democratic memos continue to be leaked, the American public continually sees the malevolence of the Democrats. Ted Kennedy and the Democrats do not care about right or wrong, they care about Left or Right. Ted Kennedy is clearly driving his fellow Senate Democrats off the Dike Bridge – and it’s not pretty.
The documents also show in detail the evolution of Democratic opposition to Bush’s controversial nominees, from an initial hesitancy over blocking nominees with no obvious negative marks on their records to being fully committed to blocking those considered well qualified by the American Bar Association, such as Estrada, who subsequently withdrew his name from consideration.
Blocking nominees “with no obvious negative marks on their records.” What does this translate to? Bitter partisan politics. This has nothing to do with alleged “extremism” or “unqualified” candidates. This is about the Democrats stopping at nothing to undermine Bush’s presidency.
A memo prepared for Kennedy in April stated that Democratic staff had “heard that several Democratic senators have expressed concern about any filibuster of a judicial nominee that is based on substance, as opposed to process.”
The memo listed 15 senators who “may be wavering or opposed to extended debate.” They are: Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Tom Carper (Del.), Bob Graham (Fla.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Evan Bayh (Ind.), Mary Landrieu (La.), John Breaux (La.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Max Baucus (Mont.), Fritz Hollings (S.C.), Robert Byrd (W.Va.) and Zell Miller (Ga.) .
Two of the aforementioned Democrats (Ben Nelson and Zell Miller) have stuck to their guns an opposed these repressive and unprecedented filibusters against Bush’s nominees.
These memos reveal the calculated efforts by the Democrats to try and destroy Bush’s nominees, including “one-on-one” lobbying sessions. It seems that Democrat Senators were practically bullied into supporting the filibusters. The effort that was spent swaying their colleagues who were either opposed to or on the fence about using the filibuster to block qualified nominees shows that the Democrats are desperate party - a desperate party with nothing to lose… not even integrity.
Dictated by extreme left wing interest groups, the Democrats have further alienated themselves from mainstream America, and are selfishly trying to bring the judiciary down with them.
Liberal Judges - Never Again
Friday, November 14th, 2003The Democrats have now pushed the limit. Their dispicable, racist, sexist, partisan and unprecedented attacks on George W. Bush’s judicial nominees has now set the stage for their own demise.
After adding two more judicial nominees to their “Filibuster List,” the Republicans, trying to get decent and qualifed judges on the bench, have now dropped an iron fist on Democrats. According to an article on NewsMax:
Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said some Republicans already were plotting revenge for the day when a Democrat president tries to get his judges approved. His colleagues are saying, “We’ll have our opportunity someday, and we’ll make sure there’s not another liberal judge. Ever!” Santorum said.
Amen!
The Left Wing Conspiracy to Take Over Talk Radio
Wednesday, October 29th, 2003Democrats, still misunderstanding the phenomena of popular right-wing talk radio, are pumping money into starting a national liberal talk show, to be hosted by Ed Schultz, a radio personality from North Dakota.
This is so sad.
Democratic lawmakers in Washington are raising money for the show, and Democrats have pledged about $1.8 million over two years to get it off the ground, Schultz said Monday. He said a half-dozen stations are looking at whether to carry it.
This is so pathetic.
Do liberals understand how Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other popular conservative radio talk show hosts got to where they are? They worked they way up from the bottom and built up a fan base.
Ed Schultz, the potential radio voice of the Democratic Party, said “The Democrats are getting the tar beat out of them constantly by Limbaugh and Hannity, and they feel they don’t have a platform,”
Hello! That’s because Democrats have consistently failed to win on the issues – they certainly can’t debate on them, and that is a result of the fact that they have no platform!
The Democrats obviously need to do a lot better than Ed Schultz. Perhaps they need to stop pointing fingers and starting offering policy.
I’m not holding my breath for that to happen.
Liberals can bitch and whine about conservative talk radio all they want, but that doesn’t change the fact that television news media is extraordinary liberal, with CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS, just to name a few. So what are they complaining about? Their problem isn’t that liberals don’t have a voice; their problem is that liberals are losing their audience because people are sick and tired of the bias they get on TV. Liberals are livid that conservatives have been able to harness talk radio successfully.
At least conservatives didn’t need rich lawyers and politicians to achieve success in talk radio. Ultimately, this is why liberal talk radio will never be as successful as conservative talk radio.
Paris’s “Honorable” Cop Killer
Monday, October 6th, 2003As if there wasn’t already enough reasons to hate France. Convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal has been made an honorary citizen of Paris.
An honorary citizen? For what? For killing a cop in cold blood? This is just sick – absolutely sick.
The cop killer has been bestowed with an honor last given to Pablo Picasso back in 1971.
At the ceremony commemorating this travesty of morality, black activist Angela Davis hailed the cop killer’s “profound sense of humanity.”
I must have missed the memo that said that humanity meant killing a police officer in cold blood. No moral and decent person could ever say such a thing. These are the words of a person who is as evil as the cop killer himself.
Davis spewed out more stupidity when she said that the Free Mumia movement “takes on a new sense in face of American unilateralism, the aggression against the Iraqi people and the racist attacks against immigrants which can only further gnaw away at the vestiges of democracy in the United States.”
What?!?!?! This woman is insane. The Free Mumia movement is established on the canonization of a cold-blooded cop killer who has duped mindless leftists into believing he is innocent when the evidence overwhelmingly condemns him. It thrives on the anti-establishment bigotry of individuals who believe that blacks are always the victims of racism from “white America.”
When Michel Savage says, “liberalism is not a political position, it is a mental disorder,” we can see this quite clearly by looking at the Free Mumia movement.
Liberals and leftists have been brainwashed into believing that supporting this cop killer is an exhibition of political, social, and mental aptitude because of a distorted belief that only by being anti-establishment and dissenting against authority that you are actually a free thinking person and patriotic. They believe they actually stand for justice because of their deep-rooted hatred for so-called “white oppression” or some other bullshit liberal cliché that they choose to rally behind.
And France has just officially bought into the scam. They’ve honored the cop killing fraud that has brainwashed weak-minded liberals all across the world who are desperate to rally behind a poster child for the “oppressed black man” who’s a victim of the “white oppressive establishment.”
These people who support the cop killer are the antithesis of everything good about humanity.
The Clinton Administration: Attempting to Rewrite History
Sunday, September 14th, 2003Former members of the Clinton administration have been desperately trying to rewrite history to wash the blood off their hands for their inaction against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
It’s quite sad, when you see how they lie through there teeth. Albright, talking to TIME Magazine in an interview with J.F.O. McAllister on the eve of the publication of her new book of memoirs “Madame Secretary” had many ridiculous and false things to say regarding the differences of the Clinton and Bush Administrations on handling terrorism:
Q: Unlike other memoirs, Madame Secretary has hardly a hint of score settling. If you didn’t want to set the record straight, why did you write it?
A: The day-to-day making of policy is arguing all the time. You’re trying to get the right approach and the right answer, and there are moments that aren’t very pleasant. But in the end, you look at the overall product. Any differences we had [in the Clinton Administration] were so minimal compared to what I see in the Bush Administration, I thought: It’s just not worth it.
Unfortunately for her, history recorded a very different story of just how the Clinton Administration handled terrorism compared to the Bush Administration.
Clinton ignored lots of intelligence, and several offers by Muslim countries, like Sudan, to get bin Laden. Clinton’s reaction to the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 demonstrated his lack of concern for terrorism, even his acknowledgment that it was terrorism. The CIA was kept out of the investigation for crying out loud. Clinton also kept the CIA from hiring desperately needed Arabic translators, leaving phone intercepts from bin Laden untranslated. Clinton had plenty opportunity to respond appropriately to terrorism - yet he didn’t do a thing.
Q: Did you neglect the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and leave it for the Bush Administration to clean up?
A: President Clinton focused on terrorism from the start. The CIA set up a special bin Laden division, and the President authorized the use of lethal force against him. We struck his camp in 1998 after the embassy bombings, and we came close. President Bush has been in Afghanistan with 8,000 troops, and they still haven’t found him.
A meaningless strike did occur. However, the State Departments actually stopped the process of obtaining the two ringleaders of the embassy bombings, who were sitting in a hail cell in Khartoum, Sudan, waiting to be taken into U.S. custody. As RIchard Miniter explained in his book “Losing Bin Laden” that requests were denied by the State Department to allow agents to go to Sudan. Because “the U.S. government doesn’t do business with terrorists, and Sudan was considered a terrorist state.” The Sudanese government, holding the suspects for the United States were unable to “wait any longer for the Clinton Administration to come to its sense and take custody of [the suspects] Abbas and Suliman.” A terrible Clinton Administration failure.
Of course, Albright has also said back in February that she couldn’t explain why Bill Clinton also had turned down deals from the Sudanese government to hand over bin Laden. Clinton even admitted in a speech to the Long Island Association on Feb. 15, 2002 that he turned down the opportunity to get him:
“And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.”
Then of course was the attack on the USS Cole. Planned and executed by Al Qaeda - retaliation was opposed by Albright herself, as detailed by Richard Miniter, in his book Losing Bin Laden:
[Clinton administration counter-terrorism czar] Richard Clarke attended a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and others. Several others were in the room, including Leon Fuerth, Gore’s national security advisor; Jim Steinberg, the deputy National Security Advisor; and Michael Sheehan, the State Department’s coordinator for counterterrorism. An American warship had been attacked without warning in a “friendly” harbor and, at the time, no one knew if the ship’s pumps could keep it afloat for the night. Now they had to decide what to do about it.
…
Clarke had no doubts about whom to punish. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had compiled thick binders of bin Laden and Taliban targets in Afghanistan, complete with satellite photographs and GPS bomb coordinates … the Pentagon’s “target decks.” The detailed plan was “to level” every bin Laden training camp and compound in Afghanistan as well as key Taliban buildings in Kabul and Kandahar. “Let’s blow them up,” Clarke said. . . . Around the table, Clarke heard only objections … not a mandate for action.
….
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was also against a counterstrike … but for diplomatic reasons. “We’re desperately trying to halt the fighting that has broken out between Israel and the Palestinians,” Albright said. Clarke recalls her saying, “bombing Muslims wouldn’t be helpful at this time.”
….
Clarke remembers other objections from the State Department. “State noted that we had been bombing Iraq and Serbia and were getting the reputation internationally as a mad bomber nation that could only address its problems that, “It would be irresponsible,” a spokeswoman for Albright told the author, for the Secretary of to consider the diplomatic impact of a missile strike that might try but would quite likely fail to kill bin Laden.Albright urged continued diplomatic efforts to persuade the Taliban to turn over bin Laden. Those efforts had been gong on for more than two years and had gone nowhere. It was unlikely that the Taliban would ever voluntarily turn over its strongest internally.
…
In the end, for a variety of reasons, the principals were against Mr. Clarke’s retaliation plan by a margin of seven to one against. Mr. Clarke was the sole one in favor. Bin Laden would get away — again.
« Previous Entries Next Entries »