Twenty-eight months and seven partisan filibusters later, Miguel Estrada has thrown in the towel, withdrawing his name from consideration for a seat on the federal bench.

This is a sad end to the shameful war the liberals in the Senate have waged against their worst enemy: a conservative minority.

President Bush issued the following statement:

It is with regret that, at the request of Miguel Estrada, I have today withdrawn his nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. I understand and respect his decision, and wish Mr. Estrada and his family the best.

Mr. Estrada received disgraceful treatment at the hands of 45 United States Senators during the more than two years his nomination was pending. Despite his superb qualifications and the wide bipartisan support for his nomination, these Democrat Senators repeatedly blocked an up-or-down vote that would have led to Mr. Estrada’s confirmation. The treatment of this fine man is an unfortunate chapter in the Senate’s history.

I commend Bush for saying it straight up. The Democrat senators who chose to block a simple up-or-down vote are spineless demagogues

And what did the Democrats do in reaction to this? They blamed the White House.

Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York said, “Mr. Estrada is an unfortunate victim of a White House process of not cooperating with the Senate and stonewalling the appointment of judges.”

Pardon me? Who was filibustering for over two years? Who didn’t give an overly qualified nominee a chance for an up-and-down vote?

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said, “The Democrat’s character assassination of Miguel Estrada was a political hate crime… We have witnessed the Democrats at their ugliest.”

So now Texas Supreme Court judge Priscilla Owen will be on the front lines of the Democrats bastardization of democracy. Democrats have said that she is an “anti-abortion and pro-business judicial activist whose opinions and rulings are overly influenced by her personal beliefs.”

Now, what that really means is that she’s a conservative woman, and the Democrats can’t stand a conservative woman, who is pro-life nonetheless, being confirmed… So what do they do? With the Republicans holding only a slim majority in the Senate, and at least 60 votes to end a filibuster, the Democrats has successfully found a way to stall the judicial nomination process, at the expense of our legal system’s efficiency.

Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, is subject to the same disgraceful tactics of the Democrats mainly for being pro-life.

California judge Carolyn Kuhl, still awaits confirmation after it was postponed because “Democratic opponents suggested her record was too far to the right on privacy, civil rights and abortion.”

Judge Charles Pickering, has also seen his confirmation blocked for “being too conservative.”

The common crime: conservatism.
The common enemy: Democrats.
The common victims: America and democracy.

Estrada’s bowing out should signal to Republicans that they need to scale up their efforts to counter the despicable behavior of Senate Democrats. This is not the time for Bush to nominate less conservative judges. It’s time for Bush to put his cowboy hat on and demand the Democrats vote to confirm his nominees and fill the judicial vacancies.

Ahhhhh… how refreshing it was today to be sitting in Starbucks with an iced latte and to see this Boston Globe story.

Oh how sweet it is to finally see something good in the Boston Globe!

A federal judge has ordered the Boston Fire Department to hire four white men who successfully challenged the department’s affirmative action policy and award them back pay and the seniority they would have earned had they not been passed over for lower-scoring minorities three years ago.

This is a good day for people who believe in fairness and equality. Can you believe it? An important job such as firefighting had its hiring policy perverted by affirmative action.

For the first time since the affirmative action plan was put in place 30 years ago, the city will be forced to compensate white applicants who say the hiring policy violated their civil rights.

Isn’t that a noble concept… white people deserve civil rights too…

“I think hopefully we’re just going back to normal, the way it was meant to be, so that now they are just hiring the best person, regardless of race or color,” said attorney Harold Lichten, who represents the four men who challenged the hiring plan in court..

That’s right, the way it was meant to be: pick the best applicants. Does anyone want to put their lives in the hands of the most “diverse” fire department, or the smartest and strongest?

In his four-page decision released yesterday, US District Judge Richard G. Stearns stressed that his order was limited to the four men who sued and wasn’t intended to establish a precedent with respect to other white applicants who were also passed over in October 2000. A Globe analysis showed that 70 white men and women were bypassed in favor of minorities who scored lower.

Seventy white applicants were passed over for lower scoring minority applicants… How sad. If I was in a burning building, I wouldn’t care what color the firefighter was, I just want them to best there was to offer because being a firefighter is surely no easy job, and if I have to discriminate against the less qualified – then tough… it’s my life we’re talking about here. I want someone who met the qualifications, not someone who’s skin color allowed them to get the job over someone who was better.

Stearns ordered that the four men be hired “at the next immediate opportunity to fill vacancies.”

Here’s an idea, lets send the unqualified firefighters back to the books so they can reapply and give the qualified white applicants those jobs they had been previously denied.

Attorney Toni Wolfman, who represents the NAACP, which brought the 1972 suit that triggered the affirmative action policy, disagreed with Lichten’s statement that the court rulings will lead to a more “normal” hiring practice.

I hear an idiot bell ringing soon.

“If a return to normal means a return to the way in which the Boston Fire Department conducted its hiring prior to the mid 1970s, it will be a disaster for any applicants of color in the city,” said Wolfman, adding that there’s not an effective check on the discretion used by those doing the hiring.

I’m terribly sorry is Attorney Wolfman doesn’t believe minority applicants are qualified to be firefighters on their own merit. If hiring based on qualifications puts minorities at a disadvantage, then perhaps the problem isn’t with the hiring process…

Each of the plaintiffs had been bypassed several times for firefighter jobs, despite scoring 98 or better on the civil service exam. All five had scored 99 when they were passed over for appointment three years ago.

…All in the name of “diversity.” What a crock.

By 2000, according to data collected in the case, 40 percent of Boston firefighters were black or Hispanic, slightly more than their 38 percent representation in the overall population.

Oh no! Where’s the disaster for minorities! Geez, next thing you know this will be too good for them, and then they’ll complain that too many minorities are in “high risk” jobs like firefighting.

If not for the ruling, some of the men would never get another chance to be firefighters because they’re more than 32 years old, the maximum age for applicants, Lichten said.

I wonder what it must feel like to have your goal in life stolen from you in the name of “diversity.” I wonder what it must feel like to be caught in a burning building and wondering the firefighters coming to get you are there because they were the best of the best, or because they had the right skin tone.

I want the best people fighting fires. I want the best people caring for patients. I want the best people teaching children. I want the best people researching for cures to diseases. I want the best people getting the jobs… When it’s your life on the line, wouldn’t you want the same thing? What price are you willing to pay for diversity?

The World Tribune reported today that the United States suspects that Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction are in Lebanon.

Those of us who have always known Saddam had weapons of mass destruction are not surprised. However, should this information result in an extraordinary discovery in the near future, it won’t be good enough for the liberal anti-Bush ideologues who wouldn’t believe Bush if he said the Earth was round.

U.S. intelligence suspects Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction have finally been located.

Unfortunately, getting to them will be nearly impossible for the United States and its allies, because the containers with the strategic materials are not in Iraq.

This is good news, however, this business about not being able to get them is not acceptable. We have to get to them and show to the skeptics liberals that they were wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Instead they are located in Lebanon’s heavily-fortified Bekaa Valley, swarming with Iranian and Syrian forces, and Hizbullah and ex-Iraqi agents, Geostrategy-Direct.com will report in Wednesday’s new weekly edition.

I find it hard to believe that the United States will accept this and not attempt to retrieve the WMD.

U.S. intelligence first identified a stream of tractor-trailer trucks moving from Iraq to Syria to Lebanon in January 2003. The significance of this sighting did not register on the CIA at the time.

U.S. intelligence sources believe the area contains extended-range Scud-based missiles and parts for chemical and biological warheads.

So let’s get them! What are we waiting for?

The CIA now believes a multi-million dollar deal between Iraq and Syria provided for the hiding and safekeeping of Saddam’s strategic weapons.

This is new? Let’s think about this here, Saddam Hussein had plenty of warning that we were going to attack his ass. He knew that George W. Bush was serious, and wasn’t going to let down. So obviously, Saddam went to extraordinary efforts to hide the weapons in the event that he’d survive a U.S. invasion and obtain power again.

So, as far as this news is concerned, we’ll see how things develop. Now, to address the liberals…

Liberals will make any excuse to explain why this information, or the potential seizure of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction is a farce. Why? Because they’re hatred of President Bush is more important to them than the truth. It is more important than the facts. It is more important than what is right. It is more important than our lives.

Hypothetically speaking, let’s say we can’t prove the WMD are there. Now, while the information may have been reliable, to liberals, the inability to prove it is equivalent to it being a falsehood.

Only liberals are afforded the “luxury” of the benefit of the doubt. When Bill Clinton warned the United States about Iraq’s weapons programs in the 90’s liberals gave him the benefit of the doubt – if they even doubted him at all. George W. Bush on the hand, obviously must have had an ulterior motive, and is immediately called a liar by the left.

So what does this say about liberals today, beside their obvious hypocrisy?

The ultimate truth is they’re willing to give evil terrorists and dictators the benefit of the doubt. They don’t want a commander-in-chief who’s willing to take a chance on reliable intelligence to protect our country.

A Commander-In-Chief who is willing to risk the lives of Americans rather than act on potential threats against them is no Commander-In-Chief I want.

There has been plenty of intelligence supporting Bush’s assertion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. If more and more intelligence surfaces supporting this, wouldn’t you rather have a President who is willing to take the chance and do something about it, rather than a President who will just sit at his desk with his fly unzipped and let us be attacked?

Any reasonable person who cares about his or her family, friends, relatives, and fellow citizens, would prefer a President who acts on questionable intelligence, rather than waits until it is too late do anything about it.

So, are you a reasonable person?

So the nimrod Al Franken, who’s upcoming “book,” “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right,” has been caught lying himself.

I’m not talking about his book yet, for it has not been released, I’m talking about his recently publicized attempt of deception of John Ashcroft:

Franken, a satirist and former writer for “Saturday Night Live,” admitted in a letter last month that he deliberately tried to mislead Ashcroft when he sought personal information from him.

For someone who’s upcoming “book” is trying to make claims that The Right are the ones who are liars, this doesn’t quite support his theory, and it certainly doesn’t help legitimize his views.

Al Franken wrote in his letter of apology to John Ashcroft:

In the letter, I indicated that I wanted your story for a book about abstinence-only sex education entitled ‘Savin’ It!’ I claimed that I had already received testimonies from several conservative leaders, which I had not.

To put it simply, he’s a lying liar who told a lie. Not only did he lie, but he also was deceiving by using letterhead from Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center for Press and Politics at the Kennedy School of Government. Franken, although a “fellow” at the school during the last spring semester, did not have permission to do this and the school was not pleased.

Al Franken’s letter addressed this specifically:

My biggest regret is sending the letter on Shorenstein Center stationery, I can assure you that no one at the Shorenstein Center had knowledge of the letter before I sent it. I am very embarrassed to have put them in this awkward and difficult position, and I ask you not to hold this against the Center, the Kennedy School, or Harvard in general.

Al Franken is not really concerned about the school. He’s just sorry he was exposed for the lying liar that he is.

Franken, however, did not admit to lying:

I regret wasting your time on what as an imprudent attempt at satire.
In retrospect, I hope you will take my original letter with a measure of the humor with which it was intended.

Satire? Is that what he calls it? I call it lying and deceiving.

Al Franken is the kind of person who thinks that the Left is always right, and the Right is always wrong. He thinks that conservatives only win arguments because they cheat. Al Franken is the kind of person who writes a “book” calling others liars, but clearly doesn’t lead an honest life himself.

It must be nice to have the opportunity to hide behind the label of “satirist” in order to get away with lying. When Franken is in a position where his views or actions backfire on him, he can just claim “I’m a satirist, you shouldn’t take me seriously,” and when he builds momentum, or has no opposition, he claims to be bastion of truth and objectivity.

In my book, that is what I consider cheating. Franken has clearly attempted to absolve himself of accountability for his lying and deception by claiming satire.

This is how he operates. This is how he’ll continue to operate. His “book” should have been titled “Lies and the Lying Liar Who Tells Them: An Autobiography.”

Bustamante is up in the polls for the recall in California. I really paid little attention to the California recall because of the circus it has become. However, information recently discovered by me thanks to an article written by Michelle Malkin, has made me really concerned about what’s going on.

Malkin’s article tells very disturbing things about Bustamante which made me realize just how serious now the recall is – if he wins, the State of California will find itself in a state of complete disarray, and the state of our union will suffer as well.

Bustamante has ties to a racial separatist group called Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA), which stands for Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan. Malkin notes that it is “one of the nation’s most virulently racist organizations.”

Malkin wrote about MEChA:

…it operates an identity politics indoctrination machine on publicly subsidized college and high school campuses nationwide that would make David Duke and the KKK turn green with envy.

Just goes to show you (again) that certain forms of racism are more equal than others.

MEChA members in the University of California system have rioted in Los Angeles, editorialized that federal immigration “pigs should be killed, every single one” in San Diego, and are suspected of breaking into a conservative student publication’s offices and stealing its entire print run in Berkeley.

That’s very nice, not only does the group support homicide, but also censorship of different points of view.

…its motto is ” Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada (For the Race, everything. For those outside the Race, nothing).

Could you imagine if the gubernatorial recall front-runner had ties to a white supremacist group with a similar motto?

The MEChA Constitution calls on members to “promote Chicanismo within the community, politicizing our Raza (race) with an emphasis on indigenous consciousness to continue the struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlan.” “Aztlan” is the group’s term for the vast southwestern U.S. expanse, from parts of Washington and Oregon down to California and Arizona and over to Texas, which MEChA claims to be a mythical homeland and seeks to reconquer for Mexico ( reconquista ).

To put it simply: they want to flood the United States with these people and take over our country. They are the Chicano equivalent of Nazis.

Does Bustamante find himself accountable for his ties to this organization? Schwarzenegger get ragged on for the alleged affiliations of his father the Nazis, but Bustamante remains unscathed by the media to address his past and present ties with this organization. Trent Lott gets shamed out of his leadership position in congress for saying some kind words to the late Strom Thurmond who was once a part of the Dixiecrat Party, Meanwhile Robert Byrd, former member of the Dixiecrats remains unblemished for this part of hist history as well as his membership with the KKK. Al Gore single-handedly rewrote his own father’s life story by suggesting that his father was huge advocate for civil rights, even though he was also a part of the pro-segregationist Dixiecrat party.

So let’s just say for the sake of discussion that a man’s past is a man’s past and what we do in college isn’t necessarily a reflection of one’s present day values… We’d like to believe this is the case, and I’m sure such a case will be made on Bustamante’s behalf in the event of widespread media exposure on his MEChA ties, but then we must once again look at Trent Lott, and the criticism he received.

TIME Magazine had a story back in December 2002 on Lott’s college days and his alleged attempts to keep black students out of his fraternity.

True or not, I don’t know, however, I’m not holding my breath for TIME to write such an exposé on Bustamante. He clearly was unaffected during his campaign for lieutenant governor – do I really expect that things will be different this time? Not at all. The media ought to get onto Bustamante – he has some explaining to do.

Westchester County has been ordered to pay damages of $2,500 to a twice-convicted pedophile. Why? Because they refused to allow him to perform his clown and balloon animals act for children at an Amusement Park.

Excuse Me? What the hell is that?

WHITE PLAINS — A federal judge ordered Westchester County yesterday to pay a twice-convicted pedophile $2,500 for violating his rights by past refusals to allow him to perform his clown act for children at Rye Playland Amusement Park.

But Judge John S. Martin approved the county’s park regulation crafted earlier this year that bars convicted pedophiles from obtaining performance permits if their acts are designed to “entice a child to congregate around” them. The ruling allows the county to bar Richard Hobbs from performing his clown act at the county-owned park.

Figure this one out. The county is now able to prevent this pervert from performing in front of children; but awards him $2,500 dollars at the same time? It’s liberal judges like this that Democrats like Hillary Clinton would like to see nominated and appointed. Unbelievable.

County officials hailed the ruling as a victory, though they said they were perplexed by the judge’s decision to award Hobbs the money.

Perplexed? How about dumbfounded and pissed?

He sued the county in 2000, charging that Westchester had violated his First Amendment rights by refusing to allow him to perform his clown and balloon animals act at the 279-acre park.

This is a serious problem - the First Amendment is being used gratuitously to defend harmful behavior and people. This is a perversion of the Constitution.

The county said Hobbs’ panhandling act would compete with the county’s for-profit operation in the only government-owned amusement park in the country. The county also cited Hobbs’ criminal past as another factor in refusing him the right to perform.

No shit. You think?

Hobbs pleaded guilty in 1978 to second-degree sexual abuse after New Rochelle police charged him with luring an 11-year-old boy into his office and fondling him. Four years later, a Pennsylvania judge sentenced Hobbs to nine months in jail for molesting a 14-year-old boy while driving him to church, where Hobbs performed his clown show for children.

And now he’s getting $2,500 dollars for being denied the right to perform for children… does this make sense? Can liberals understand what’s wrong with their ideology when pedophiles are receiving damages because a group of people don’t want him to perform in front of their children? Is this sending the right message? Is this how we’re supposed to protect our children?

In December, Martin handed down a decision that the county had a right to ban Hobbs from performing in the park’s money-making venues, like the amusement rides, but not from the public areas, like the boardwalk.

Was he ordered to inform his audience of his status of a sex offender? His “profession” puts him in the presence of children for crying out loud!

In March, Spano issued an executive order that banned pedophiles from performing acts designed for children’s amusement.

At hearings in April to determine public and private areas of the park, Hobbs’ lawyers challenged Spano’s executive order.

Since when does a pedophiles right to perform for children have more bearing than a parent’s right to protect his or her child?

In yesterday’s 25-page decision, Martin said the county’s past wrongful efforts to keep Hobbs from performing at the park cost Hobbs $2,500 in income. But, he said, the provision against pedophile performance contained in the new order is allowable.

Past wrongful efforts? Give me a break. This worthless judge ought to have his head examined for making such a ridiculous ruling. I didn’t realize protecting children was a “wrongful effort.”

“It is unquestionable that the county would wish to protect children from exposure to potential harm by preventing convicted pedophiles from performing acts that would entice children to congregate around them in county parks,” Martin wrote.

Great. So why did you give the guy $2,500! This is insane. The left have taken over the courts which care more about the rights of criminals than protection of the people. The Left have made our legal system soft on crime, at the expense of law-abiding citizens. How are the children protected from pedophile perverts when a dumbass liberal judge awards damages to a two time convicted pedophile because he was “wronged” for being denied the right to perform for children?

First Amendment rights my ass!

There are some people out there who believe that black people can�t be racists. The sentiment is that racism is only racism when it is the majority discriminating against the minority.

Too many people believe this fallacy, enough people on the Supreme Court felt this way, and thus, discrimination remains legal with college admissions, employment, etc. etc. etc.

I have to say, I was quite intrigued to this story, about one black person being accused of racism towards another black person…

A dark-skinned Black waiter at an Applebee’s restaurant near Atlanta alleged that his light-skinned Black supervisor was discriminating against him. To settle the suit, the company paid him $40,000.

This is amazing to me. I don�t really hear about these stories often� they may be more common than I am aware, but nevertheless, this blows my mind.

Dwight Burch, a former employee, accused his manager at the Jonesboro, Ga., restaurant of repeatedly referring to him as a “tar baby” and “Black monkey” during his three months at the restaurant. Burch also alleged in his suit that his manager told him to bleach his skin and that he was fired when he threatened to report the man to officials at Applebee’s headquarters.

This goes beyond mere name-calling. This guy actually lost his job as a result of this racism. I totally agree the guy deserved the settlement he got. I believe that people who have been discriminated against ought to be able to seek damages for it. As long as racism can be proven � which in this case it clearly can be.

This is what civil rights is supposed to be about � when equal opportunity has been denied, the wrong should be made right. I am glad that racism within the black community can be recognized as racism. The article does however paint the situation somewhat differently. Mention is made of the term �colorism� � a euphemism for racism within the black community.

I think we should move beyond the labeling game and the creation of new words and terms to hide the reality of what occurred here. It is racism. There�s no other way to define it. To offer a new �-ism� to make distinction between two different executions of racism is to suggest one is different or perhaps less severe than the other. It�s a made up term meant to diminish the seriousness of such ignorance. The mere creation of the word �colorism� to distinguish discrimination within the black community between discrimination between two different groups implies that some forms of racism are more equal than others.

�Colorism� is a euphemism for racism. Plain and simple. If people can�t recognize the fact that there is nothing different between racism against blacks by whites, whites by blacks, blacks by blacks, or any other combination of races, religions, ethnicities, etc. etc, than we�re forgetting the whole point of what the civil rights movement was all about.

I am not going to remind you, if you don�t know, then I can�t help you.

While I’m On The Subject of Race…

I was thinking about this particular situation vs. the �affirmative action� issue. Then I realized a parallel and a discrepancy with �equal opportunity� and the War in Iraq.

Some of the people who were against the United States for going into Iraq had problems with the �preemptive strike� doctrine of the Bush Administration. Democratic candidates for President have expressed their issues with the doctrine, as well as other Democrats and liberals whom you and I all have had conversations with.

I came to the realization that the same people who were against the �preemptive strike� against terrorism are for the �preemptive strike� against racism.

Let me clarify.

�Affirmative Action� is justified on the basis that opportunities are being given to minorities who might not achieve a particular goal, such as admission to college, or a job, because of his or her race.

For instance, companies are expected to hire a certain number or percentage of minorities, in order to give them the opportunity of having a job they may otherwise not have gotten because of the possibility they�d be denied a job due to racism.

So, while no racism has occurred. No discriminatory actions have been made against any individual, employers have been assumed that they may discriminate anyways, and in order to prevent that, quotas are enforced. So, while a minority applicant has never experienced actual discrimination, the company may just have to hire him or her, even if he or she is not the most qualified applicant, in the efforts of �equal opportunity.�

That is a �preemptive strike� against racism that has not yet occurred. However, liberals generally don�t take issue with this preemptive strike. They do however take issue with preemptive strikes against terrorism.

Why? How can the �preemptive doctrine� be rejected in one situation, but encouraged in another?

Hypocrisy, maybe? Yeah, I think so.

Now, to make my positions clear, I believe in the �preemptive strike� doctrine on terrorism, but not against racism (in the form of quotas). For one thing, a �preemptive strike� against racism merely begets more racism, and is inherently racist itself. It does not combat racism, or solve it. A �preemptive strike� against terrorism saves lives. It protects us from terrorism only at the expense of the lives and freedom of evil terrorists. Preemptive strikes against racism gives minorities admissions, jobs, etc. etc. at the expense of other people who may just be more qualified.

As seen in this case in Georgia, a man who experienced racism was able to obtain damages after being victimized. When you wait for terrorism to occur before you combat it, you�re dead. That�s it. There�s no way to rectify that. You�re dead. You can�t undo that. You can�t seek damages after you�re killed.

No government policy is going to change a person�s intolerance towards another person. However, Bush�s policy of preemptive strikes against terrorists will save lives. It protects America from evil people who wish to harm and kill us.

So why are liberals soft on terrorism? Why are they so against preventing terrorism from hitting us first, but are willing to fight racism by discriminating against the majority? Why are they willing to take a chance with terrorism but not with racism?

Why are liberals willing to risk their lives for political correctness? Excuse me for saying so, but I�m not willing to risk my life or the lives of others to keep liberals from being offended. Liberals have things backwards. They should be fighting terrorism before it happens and fight discrimination after it occurs. You can�t legislate morality, but you can save lives by hitting your enemies before they hit you.

Just whose side are the Democrats on? Everyday I wonder if Saddam Hussein will be the running mate of whoever wins the Democratic Presidential nomination. The Democrats have continually advocated the weakening of our military and impotence of homeland security.

Democrats are having some problems with the preemptive strike doctrine (when a Republican is in office) and are now criticizing Bush yet again.

Barbara Lee-nient-On-Terrorism, Congresswoman from California said “I am confident that, when we have that debate and investigation, more people will realize that the use of military force as a first-strike option is a dangerous precedent that can be used by other countries, including nuclear powers.”

What wonderful lip service to the anti-Republican-war liberals out there. Of course, there is no logic behind that statement. She clearly make no effort to suggest that other world nuclear powers out there won’t use nuclear weapons… so what she’s saying is better they strike us first than vice-versa. Apparently she’s introduced a bill with 24 cosponsors, which, if passed, would “disavow the preemptive doctrine.”

And they wonder why they lost so badly in November of 2002. What they are saying to other countries is “Hey, we won’t attack you even when you’re asking for it, so why don’t you launch a few nukes our way…”

“That is not a world we want to live in and not an example we want to set,” Lee told Foxnews.com in an e-mail.

Excuse me, but I don’t want to live in a world were rogue nations get the go ahead to attack us first because they’ll be comfortable knowing we won’t go after them until they’ve hit us. Great plan Barbara!

Lee said the current controversy over whether the White House provided faulty evidence to go to war with Iraq is just one reason why a first-strike doctrine often can backfire.

Oh give me a break! Is that all she can say? I’m sorry, but I’d take the word of questionable intelligence over waiting around for us to be attacked before we do anything.

But experts say first-strike is a good policy to have on hand, especially in the war on terror.

“I think that if you have enemies in this world and they believe you’d never pre-empt them, that could be a bad thing,” said Mark Burgess, a research analyst with the Center for Defense Information. “I think it’s a good tool to have. I think it’s not a good tool to have if it’s the only tool in your chest.”

Exactly! But Barbara Lee-nient-On-Terrorism thinks she’s smarter than the experts on this one. She clearly understands nothing about fighting the War on Terror. She wants our enemies to be able to fully mobilize and strike us before we take action, rather than letting us dismantle them before they become a threat…

As Bush said a year ago, “We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge.”

Liberals can argue in all directions about whether or not there are/were WMDs in Iraq – and they can live under the liberal utopian idea that there were no WMDs, but this kind of policy only promotes the idea that we should trust people like Saddam Hussein on their word.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz probably said it best:

“These are people who operate in the shadows, with a great deal of secrecy, and a great deal of false information planted all over the place… I think the lesson of 9/11 is that, if you’re not prepared to act on the basis of murky intelligence, then you’re going to have to act after the fact. And after the fact now means after horrendous things have happened to this country.”

Perhaps Barbara Lee-nient-On-Terrorism thinks we should we trust Al Qaeda not to hit us again just because it’s been almost two years since September 11, 2001 and they haven’t hit us since?

This is really irritating. Liberals are doing whatever they can to weaken this country. This bill that wants to abandon the preemptive strike doctrine is never going to pass. Thank God. I don’t want liberal politics to put millions of lives in jeopardy.