Ted Kennedy "Weighs In" On Spying

Pardon the pun.

This interesting tidbit from the FoxNews Political Grapevine on Tuesday.

Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy has said the vice president "ought to reread the constitution" if he thinks President Bush can approve domestic surveillance without congressional oversight or a court order.

But Institute for Homeland Security director Randy Larsen says that on the day after 9-11, with the Pentagon still smoldering, Kennedy invited Larsen to his office for a briefing and asked Larsen whether the attacks meant that the government should unleash the NSA and CIA inside the United States. After a pause, Larsen says he told the Senator "we may have to look at that, but we'd need a lot of oversight." Senator Kennedy could not be reached for comment.

Heh. I'll bet he couldn't.

Americans aren't fooled by Media Bias on 'Spying'

So...what are we to make of the latest Rasmussen poll?

December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.

Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.

It appears that, despite the breathless outcry from the MSM, the American public is smart enough to know that we need to be able to 'spy' on people with links to terrorists in the United States to protect ourselves against future 9/11-style attacks.

The problem with the hysteria on the left & the media is that their objections are all based on hypothetical situations. There have been very few disruptions to any civil liberties--no little, grey-haired ladies dragged screaming from libraries. However, there have been no terrorist attacks in the U.S.

The Democrats continue to position themselves as the party one would least like to have in charge during wartime. They need to start putting national security above politics if they want to win future elections.

Interesting Poll Results from Strategic Vision

Results out from a recent poll of likely Wisconsin voters from Strategic Vision.

Below are the results of a three-day poll of likely voters in the state of Wisconsin. Results are based on telephone interviews with 800 likely voters in Wisconsin, aged 18+, and conducted December 16-18, 2005. The margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.


Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Jim Doyle's job performance?
Approve 46%
Disapprove 44%
Undecided 10%

If the Republican primary were today, whom would you vote for? (Republicans only)
Mark Green 47%
Scott Walker 40%
Undecided 13%

If the election for Governor was held today, and the choice was between Jim Doyle, the Democrat and Mark Green, the Republican, whom would you vote for?
Jim Doyle 45%
Mark Green 43%
Undecided 12%

If the election for Governor was held today, and the choice was between Jim Doyle, the Democrat and Scott Walker, the Republican, whom would you vote for?
Jim Doyle 46%
Scott Walker 39%
Undecided 15%

Do you approve or disapprove of United States Senator Russ Feingold's job performance?
Approve 56%
Disapprove 29%
Undecided 15%

Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Herb Kohl's job performance?
Approve 54%
Disapprove 26%
Undecided 20%

If the election for United States Senate was held today, and the choices were Herb Kohl, the Democrat or Tommy Thompson, the Republican, whom would you vote for?
Tommy Thompson 45%
Herb Kohl 42%
Undecided 13%

If the election for United States Senate was held today, and the choices were Herb Kohl, the Democrat or Robert Gerald Lorge, the Republican, whom would you vote for?
Herb Kohl 59%
Robert Gerald Lorge 29%
Undecided 12%

If the election for United States Senate was held today, and the choices were Herb Kohl, the Democrat or Tim Michels, the Republican, whom would you vote for?
Herb Kohl 56%
Tim Michels 37%
Undecided 7%

Do you think Wisconsin headed in the right direction or wrong direction?
Right 32%
Wrong 56%
Undecided 12%

Very interesting. You can check out the whole poll here.

King Kong vs. Aslan

Interesting series, "King Kong vs. Aslan" by Mark D. Roberts on his blog site.

I saw a movie on Friday. Here's the basic plot:

Some people travel to a mysterious land where they find strange beasts and unsought for adventures. This land is ruled by an awesome animal, whose kingly roar is deafening and who instills awe in the creatures of the land. When one member of the party is taken captive, the others seek to rescue that person, even though they'd rather just go home. As they are looking for their captured colleague, the rescue party is chased by ferocious beasts, who almost kill them. Ultimately, the captured person is saved from certain death by the sacrificial intervention of the animal king. Thereafter the captive, now rescued, feels a strong connection to the savior beast. Yet because of this captive, the great animal ends up losing his life.

So here's your quiz: What movie did I see on Friday?

Mark, as usual, provides an insightful commentary on the messages contained in both movies. Worth a read.

Democrats Need Definition of Victory

Remember the endless publicity from the media over the Murtha amendment? The furor caused by the Republicans for calling the Democrats bluff and forcing a vote on immediate withdrawal from Iraq?

Well, I had to dig long and hard to find this story.

House disavows calls for Iraq withdrawal

By LIZ SIDOTI ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- For the second time in as many months, the House rejected calls for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq with a vote Friday that Democrats said was politically driven and designed by Republicans to limit debate on the war.

In a 279-109 vote, the GOP-controlled House approved a resolution saying the chamber is committed "to achieving victory in Iraq" and that setting an "artificial timetable" would be "fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory."
Democrats voted against the resolution by 108-59, while 32 of them voted "present," a rarely used option that signals neither support nor opposition. That split underlined divisions within the party over alternatives to President Bush's Iraq war policies.

Among Republicans, 220 supported the proposal, none were opposed and two voted "present," while the House's lone independent voted "no."

So, you can read the entire amendment on my December 16th post. What do you suppose were the Democrats' objections?

Murtha sent his fellow Democrats a letter objecting to the GOP resolution. "It calls for 'complete victory' which does not define victory, is open-ended, and therefore means that our troops could be there for ten or fifteen years," Murtha said.

And this one...

"What is victory? Nobody has defined what victory is," Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., objected.

These people rejected a resolution calling for victory in Iraq. Their reason? No one has told them what victory in Iraq means. This is probably why they are so completely clueless about what DEFEAT in Iraq means.

It is hard to understand the motivation of the Democratic party on a purely philosophical basis. After all, isn't the Democratic Party the champion of the 'little guy'? The Party of taking care of those who can't care for themselves? The compassionate party who doesn't believe that people should raise themselves by their own bootstraps? The party of government intervention in every aspect of life?

So, why are they so absolutely unconcerned about the Iraqi people? Ask yourself...if the Iraqi people could vote in OUR elections, do you think the Democrats' outlook would change? In a New York minute.

This is all political. The irony is that they accuse Bush of being political (yeah, right, let's start a war in the Middle East--that'll boost my popularity) when he is not political enough. Notice how his approval ratings have soared once he started fighting back?

Really. These people need to get their act together and start standing FOR something. They have been trying to build a platform of being AGAINST Bush for so long, I'm not sure that they have it in them. For America's sake, I hope I am wrong.

The Real Progress of Freedom in the Middle East

So, how much actual evidence have you heard from the anti-war crowd about 'no progress in Iraq'? Remember the people at the onset of the war who argued that people in Arab countries didn't want democracy 'foisted' upon them? (I actually had a conversation with a very smart colleague who told me that maybe the Arab peoples just couldn't handle democracy! He was dead serious.)

An organization called The Freedom House conducted a scientific survey to gauge the progress of freedom in the Middle East. Their findings?

The people of the Arab Middle East experienced a modest but potentially significant increase in political rights and civil liberties in 2005, Freedom House announced in a major survey of global freedom released today.

The global survey, "Freedom in the World," shows that although the Middle East continues to lag behind other regions, a measurable improvement can be seen in freedom in several key Arab countries, as well as the Palestinian Authority. In another key finding, the number of countries rated by Freedom House as Not Free declined from 49 in 2004 to 45 for the year 2005, the lowest number of Not Free societies identified by the survey in over a decade. In noteworthy country developments, Ukraine and Indonesia saw their status improve from Partly Free to Free; Afghanistan moved from Not Free to Partly Free; and the Philippines saw its status decline from Free to Partly Free.

According to Thomas O. Melia, acting executive director of Freedom House, "The modest but heartening advances in the Arab Middle East result from activism by citizen groups and reforms by governments in about equal measures. This emerging trend reminds us that men and women in this region share the universal desire to live in free societies."

Freedom is like a virus. Once it starts spreading, it is very difficult to stop. Emboldened by U.S. support in Afghanistan and Iraq, the people of the Middle East are putting pressure on their governments, with astounding results.

On the whole, the state of freedom showed substantial improvement worldwide, with 27 countries and one territory registering gains and only 9 countries showing setbacks. The global picture thus suggests that the past year was one of the most successful for freedom since Freedom House began measuring world freedom in 1972.

"These global findings are encouraging," said Arch Puddington, director of research. "Among other things, the past year has been notable for terrorist violence, ethnic cleansing, civil conflict, catastrophic natural disasters, and geopolitical polarization. That freedom could thrive in this environment is impressive."

You can read the whole study and the statistics behind it at the Freedom House website. And lest you be cynical about who might be behind this organization, it was founded by Famous Democrat Eleanor Roosevelt and gets contributions from the Soros Foundations (flaming liberal) as well as the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (neo-con).

Best Argument by a Democrat for Voting Republican in '06

Vying valiantly with Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean for the "Best Argument by a Democrat for Voting Republican" Award is John Kerry.

Kerry pulls ahead of the competition with his latest remarks at a dinner December 14th for his '04 Campaign Workers.

This statement should whip the 'undecideds' and moderate Democrats into a voting frenzy for the Democratic Party in '06...John Kerry predicts that if Dems retake the House, they should start impeachment proceedings against Bush.

Story in The Hotline.

In a short speech, Kerry praised Dems who were working on Senate and House campaigns, and then said, according to one listener: "If we take back the House, there's a solid case to bring articles of impeachment against this president." Another listener heard a slight variation: "If we win back the House, I think we have a pretty solid case to bring articles of impeachment against this President." Kerry then quickly added, according to several in the audience, "Don't tell anyone I said that."

His communication director, David Wade, later said Kerry was "just kidding".

Hah. He is a laugh riot.

The Dems are always accusing Bush of 'dividing the country'. Is this their idea of 'bringing it together'?

Forget Condi vs. Hilary, My Money is on Betty vs. Murtha

For those of you who missed this priceless video clip on Fox News Wednesday night, you can catch it at The Political Teen.

Iraqi citizen and voter, Betty Dawisha, tells it like it is. I guess she isn't one of the 80% of Iraqis who want us out of the country. Too bad the BBC doesn't do any polls in Iraq on what they think of Howard Dean!

House Republicans Call Democrats' Bluff

The House Republicans drafted legislation tonight and plan to force a House vote tomorrow on the commitment of the U.S. to achieve victory in Iraq.

The Resolution is as follows:

RESOLUTION expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq.

Whereas the Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, the first to take place under the newly ratified Iraqi Constitution, represented a crucial success in the establishment of a democratic, constitutional order in Iraq; and

Whereas Iraqis, who by the millions defied terrorist threats to vote, were protected by Iraqi security forces with the help of United States and Coalition forces: Now, therefore, be it resolved that--

1. the House of Representatives is committed to achieving victory in Iraq;

2. the Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, was a crucial victory for the Iraqi people and Iraq's new democracy, and a defeat for the terrorists who seek to destroy that democracy;

3. the House of Representatives encourages all Americans to express solidarity with the Iraqi people as they take another step toward their goal of a free, open, and democratic society;

4. the successful Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, required the presence of United States Armed Forces, United States-trained Iraqi forces, and Coalition forces;

5. the continued presence of United States Armed Forces in Iraq will be required only until Iraqi forces can stand up so our forces can stand down, and no longer than is required for that purpose;

6. setting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, or immediately terminating their deployment in Iraq and redeploying them elsewhere in the region, is fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq;

7. the House of Representatives recognizes and honors the tremendous sacrifices made by the members of the United States Armed Forces and their families, along with the members of Iraqi and Coalition forces; and

8. the House of Representatives has unshakable confidence that, with the support of the American people and the Congress, United States Armed Forces, along with Iraqi and Coalition forces, shall achieve victory in Iraq.

(It was online in Adobe format here. I re-keyed it, hopefully without typos!)

You can tell it was a great move, because Nancy Pelosi is already foaming at the mouth...(from Fox News)

Ron Bonjean, a spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said House Republicans hope Democrats will stand with them in backing the resolution.

But a Pelosi spokeswoman, Jennifer Crider, said: "Talk about playing politics with the Iraq war, American troops and the American troop deserve a real debate — not the Republican stunt."

This is a direct response to Jack Murtha and his silly suggestions (let's redeploy our troops to Okinawa???), Howard Dean and his ranting (the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq...is just plain wrong) and Nancy Pelosi's mind-boggling claims that the majority of Dems are for immediate troop withdrawal (after they all voted against it a few weeks ago).

Once again, the Republicans are forcing the Democrats to vote and go on the public record as to where they stand on this war. And finally putting to rest the silly notion that withdrawing the troops is somehow the best strategy to achieve victory in Iraq (well, it is...but for the wrong side!)

C-SPAN will be 'must-see TV' tomorrow!!!

William Proxmire Dies at Age 90

I just heard on the news on the way to work this morning that William Proxmire, a former Wisconsin Democratic Senator, passed away today at the age of 90.

The AP has a story here in the Washington Post.

Proxmire was known for his "Golden Fleece" awards, which he gave out regularly to highlight waste in government. He drank his own Koolaid, too, by spurning campaign contributions, being a frugal money manager of his own office (he never went on an international trip in 20 years of service and fighting senatorial perks and salary increases.

Whether you agreed or disagreed with him, you had to admire his energy, dedication and "practice what you preach" approach to government. His passing reminds me of how far our elected officials have fallen from his example of hard work, integrity and dedication.

Make December 15th "Purple Finger Day"

Timmer over at Righting America is urging everyone to follow William Bennett's advice and color their fingers purple in a show of solidarity with the Iraqi people on December 15th, election day in Iraq. Check out his post here.

What a great idea! I have my purple Sharpie ready! Pass it along!

Another good man killed by terrorists

I got tears in my eyes the other night when I saw Jennifer Griffin's Fox News report that Lebanese journalist and politician Gibran Tueni had been killed in a bombing in a Beirut suburb Monday.

Tueni had predicted that he would be a target of assassination attempts back in August. I blogged last March on an interview Griffin did with Tueni where he said:

Huge impact. A huge impact. (note: he is referring to President Bush's State of the Union address) You know, really, people felt very happy when President Bush was re-elected. Believe it or not, we had a headline that day which was on eight columns--one word--Bush. Like that. You know why? Simply because, we think that is the first time that an American president is speaking clearly about democracy and is serious about implementing democracy in the Middle East.

Really, the Lebanese were always cautious about the American policy in the Middle East. The Lebanese always thought that the Americans bartered them with the Syrians. Lebanese are still cautious and afraid that one day or another, you will have a Syrian/American agreement, you know, and Lebanese will pay the price.

What helped a lot also, I think, really, is that this is the first time that we felt that maybe we are not going to pay the price alone. Because at the time we were outspoken, but you were killed.

So, in the end Tueni did pay the price alone and was killed for what? For speaking out. For encouraging freedom. For calling for Syrian troop withdrawal.

He was not threatening a violent overthrow of the government. He wasn't recruiting suicide bombers. He was speaking out--voicing what many Lebanese were thinking. He was a 48-year-old father of four, including twin daughters a few months old.

Totalitarianism is the enemy of human freedom. Freedom is the God-given heritage of all people. Why have Americans suddenly become confused about this? Do we want to be on the side of people who yearn and struggle for freedom and self-determination? Or do we want to tacitly support dictators whose regimes suppress their people in order to amass personal wealth and power? What do we want to stand for? What heritage do we want to leave to our children?

In addition, the situation in Lebanon provides an interesting counter to the liberal argument that the U.S. presence in Iraq is a cause of the terrorist violence there. We are not in Lebanon. We were not in Beslan. What explains the violence going on in countries where we are not?

The bottom line is that evil exists. (Did Hitler just have a 'different perspective'?)

The bottom line is that it is futile to try to explain terrorism through a rational thought process. They are not just people with a different point of view, a la Chris Matthews:

If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we’ve given up. The person on the other side is not evil. They just have a different perspective.

Really, sometimes I am embarrassed to be an American.

Chronicles of Narnia

We saw the movie "Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" this weekend. I have long been a fan of C.S. Lewis and have read many of his books (although he was a prolific writer, so I still have a few to go!).

The movie was very well done. Not surprising, since Douglas Gresham, Lewis' stepson by his marriage to Joy Davidman, was involved in the film as a producer. It was very true to the book and the graphics were absolutely amazing. (I saw it on the Ultrascreen and kept wanting to reach out to touch Aslan's furry mane!)

It was a good family movie. Young children would enjoy it (I found it less scary than Harry Potter) and there is enough depth to the story to keep adults interested. We went Friday night and the large Ultrascreen theater was packed.

It is fascinating that C.S. Lewis wrote one of the world's most beloved set of children's books, but was a confirmed bachelor until age 59, when he married Joy, a friend who had been recently diagnosed with cancer.

You can see the influences of his life--being wounded in France during WWI, his loss of his mother at an early age, his friendship with J.R.R. Tolkien and his Christianity--in the story. The story is a good one on its own merits and even better when you consider some of the truths that Lewis is trying to convey through the story.

I would highly recommend reading the entire set of Chronicles. Another good fiction book is The Screwtape Letters and his science fiction trilogy, Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength.

But my favorite Lewis book would have to be Mere Christianity.

Sounds Like Progress to Me...

Okay, does this sound like "no progress in Iraq" or "civil war" or "80% of the Iraqis want the U.S. out" to you?

BAGHDAD, Dec. 7 -- Tucked into a bunker-like former headquarters of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, a type of war room unfamiliar in this country buzzed with life Wednesday. Halfway through a 14-hour shift, campaign workers from the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni Arab group that boycotted the country's previous elections in January, munched rice and kebabs, their faces lit by computer screens.

Across town, hundreds of black-clad followers of the radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr -- who decried balloting 10 months ago as something imposed under American occupation -- beat their backs with chains and stomped across a large poster of former interim prime minister Ayad Allawi. Sadr's political wing has joined forces with the alliance of Shiite religious parties that leads Iraq's current government and opposes Allawi's secular movement.


As Iraqis nationwide prepare to go to the polls for the third time this year on Dec. 15 -- this time for a new parliament -- candidates and political parties of all stripes are embracing politics, Iraqi style, as never before and showing increasing sophistication about the electoral process, according to campaign specialists, party officials and candidates here.

From The Washington Post.

You'd Think They Would Have Learned from the Last Election...

Finally. The GOP has had enough. After months of taking it on the chin and letting the Dems rule the airwaves with gross factual misrepresentation, the Republican National Party has decided to fight fire with....well, actual video! (from Drudge)

It was interesting today to hear Howard Dean accuse the Republicans of 'cherry-picking' his comments. He claimed that his remarks were taken out of context.

In case you missed it, he said "the idea that we are going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong". So, try to imagine a possible context in which that comment would mean anything different than it does standing alone. In case you would like to hear the entire interview for yourself to see whether you can divine an alternative meaning, check it out here at the website of San Antonio radio station WOAI. There is an audio file of the entire interview.

I still can't quite figure out why the Democratic leaders persist in making loony remarks on the record (on television, radio, in interviews) and then protest that their remarks are being twisted in some Machievellian Republican plot. (I'm sure that Karl Rove is at the bottom of it all!)

I keep thinking that they are stuck in the past, where their version of the story was supported in the mainstream media and the general public had no way to verify the facts. For example, without the internet, you or I would have no idea what he actually said in San Antonio (unless we lived there and happened to catch the show).

However, now that anyone with a computer and an internet connection (or, heck, a library card) can replay EXACTLY what Howard actually said and decide for themselves whether the 'context' changed his meaning, why would he try to 'spin' his way out of it?

I don't know, but either Howard is pretty stupid, or he thinks we all are.

John Kerry--the gift that keeps giving

I've decided that, this year, all I want for Christmas is for John Kerry to keep attempting to articulate the Democratic position on the war on terror (with some assistance from Howard Dean--but that's another blog for another day).

On Sunday's "Face the Nation" program, John Kerry accused U.S. troops of terrorizing innocent Iraqi civilians.

Bob Schieffer says, "Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, he takes a very different view, Senator Kerry. He says basically that we should stay the course, because he says real progress is being made. He says, 'This is a war between 27 million Iraqis who want freedom and 10,000 terrorists.' He says we're in a watershed transformation. What about that?"

JOHN KERRY: I don't agree with that. But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is, you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment; you've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis, and there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all --

(transcript from Rush Limbaugh's website)

So, Kerry's position is:

~American troops are terrorizing kids and children (are these two different groups?) in the middle of the night (adding women as an afterthought). Is he serious? Is this what he thinks of our troops? Where is his concern for what Saddam Hussein was doing, which was terrorizing men, women, kids AND children in the morning, in the afternoon and in the middle of the night?)

~Breaking historical and religious customs (against breaking into people's homes in the middle of the night??). To what historical and religious customs is he referring? Here Kerry displays the breathless grasp of Middle Eastern culture and religion that would make him a great President. It is obvious that he has no idea what he is talking about. Watch the other Dems and the media for this new talking point--maybe Kerry was just trying it out to see if it had any 'legs'.

~The Iraqis should be doing this, not the American troops. I don't get this at all. Is he advocating that Iraqis should be terrorizing kids and children and women in the middle of the night and breaking their historial and religious customs?

~He doesn't agree that the war is between the Iraqi civilians who want peace and freedom and the terrorists? Who DOES he think the participants are in the war, exactly?

Really, it is scary that this guy is considered worthy of interviews on television, let alone an elected official who came anywhere close to winning a presidential election. I don't know if I can handle three more years of this....

Marquette Punishes Student for Blog Comments

In a controversial ruling, the Marquette University Dental School has decided to make an example of a student blogger who wrote uncomplimentary remarks about his professors and fellow students on his blog.

From the MJS article in today's JSOnline edition:

A dental student at Marquette University has been suspended for the rest of the academic year and ordered to repeat a semester after a committee of professors, administrators and students determined that he violated professional conduct codes when he posted negative comments about unnamed students and professors on a blog.

So, will the university start suspending students who make negative verbal comments about other students and professors?

Read the excellent analysis of this situation at Marquette Warrior.

The student is considering suing the university on First Amendment Grounds. This will be one to watch.

Just Do It

Per Kevin McCullough's blogsite, Musclehead Revolution, join the "Send the ACLU a Christmas Card" brigade.

We are excited to be launching the opportunity today...between now and Christmas we are asking you to send the ACLU direct "MerryChristmas" cards.

And we aren't talking about these generic "happy holiday" (meaning nothing) type of cards...

Go get as "Christmas" a Christmas card as you can find... something that says.. "Joy To The World", "For Unto Us A Child Is Born", but at least "Merry Christmas", put some of your own thoughts into it, sign it respectfully and zip it off in the mail to:

ACLU
"Wishing You Merry Christmas"
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York, NY 10004

While you're at it, send one to your local ACLU Chapter. For Wisconsinites, it is:

State Office
ACLU of Wisconsin
207 E. Buffalo Street, Suite 325
Milwaukee, WI 53202-5774

Just think what might happen if everyone who opposes the ACLU's constant interference with our freedom of religious expression would send them a card.

If there's hope for the Grinch, maybe....

Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt

Dems React to Bush's Plan

Great post from Jon Henke at The QandO Blog on the Democratic reaction to Bush's strategy on Iraq. The best thing that could happen to Bush's approval ratings is to have John Kerry hold frequent press conferences and remind the American people how close we came to actually putting this nincompoop in the White House.

Here's what Kerry said:

"The truth is that the president draws a false line in trying to make his case to America. The troops don't belong to his point of view, they belong to America..."

Here is Jon's response:

Well, and I don't want to presume to tell a sitting Senator his business, but I seem to recall Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution giving the Executive branch just that—authority over the armed forces: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States".

Maybe John Kerry has a different edition of the Constitution.

In the Comments section, Steve Schippert has an additional response to this nonsense.

So what we should have is 52% of the troops fighting the war with conviction, 47% of them angrily testifying in Congress and/or protesting in Fallujah by tossing their medals over some fence still standing, and 1% of them refusing to go along with either crowd, confidently defiant to everything.

Earth to Kerry: We had an election. America chose. The title is "Commander in Chief". Not Military Democratic Procedural Facilitator in Chief.

Jon takes aim at the responses of other key Dems, including our own Russ Feingold, who said:

The problem here is that the president put out the wrong document. It should be strategy for victory against al Qaeda. Iraq is not the be-all and end-all of our national security.

So, for months (including just yesterday), Feingold has been calling for Bush to present a specific strategy for the war on Iraq. Now Bush presents one and Russ says it addresses the wrong thing? And I thought that Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda.

Read the entire post.

The Dems are clearly in a sorry state of disarray. It will be interesting to see how that master of politics, Hillary Clinton, rises to this challenge.

MJS Column Spreads Falsehood About Bush

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel today chose to publish a stunning column from community columnist Marcia Thurnbauer, who in her column defending the right of Milwaukee citizens to vote on a referendum opposing the war, demonstrates that anti-war liberals are willing to spread out-and-out lies in order to support their cause. And, unfortunately, the mainstream media is all-too-willing to print them.

I quote from the column:

And whether you believe that the U.S. attack on Iraq is the result of innocent lapses in intelligence, the opportunity to seize control of Iraq's oil, or-as The New Yorker magazine chillingly reported--a mandate from God to President Bush to force democracy on the Middle East, there is little doubt that this ill-conceived war is depleting resources that are badly needed at home.

What I believe Marcia is referring to is that now-infamous BBC 'crockumentary' where Nabil Shaath, a Palestinian negotiator, made the following statement:

Mr Shaath said that in a 2003 meeting with Mr Bush, the US president said he was "driven with a mission from God".

"God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq... And I did.

"And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I'm gonna do it."

So...speaking of God, let's use our God-given common sense and re-read the above quotes. Do you honestly think that George Bush really said this? Even if you think he thinks this way--would he be stupid enough to say this to Nabil Shaath and Mahmoud Abbas? (And if he is THAT stupid, how could he possibly be the criminal mastermind that 'duped' the Congress, Senate, American people and THE WORLD into attacking Saddam Hussein? Can't have it both ways, folks. But I digress.)

Apparently, to liberals opposing the war, it is okay to just make stuff up. To characterize this as a revelation from The New Yorker Magazine is blatantly misleading. I did an archive search on The New Yorker Magazine website and I can't find anything related to this story. I don't doubt her word that The New Yorker reported on the BBC story, but apparently, they did not have any independent 'scoop' on this topic.

So what? Maybe Marcia just failed to attribute the source of her comment incorrectly. And if that's all there was to it, it would just be sloppy research. But wait, there's more.

Of course, the White House flatly denied that Bush made these remarks. But since leftist Democrats and anti-war Liberals have called Bush an inveterate liar, I guess they value the word of a Palestinian negotiator more highly than that of the President of the United States.

But would they take the word of another Palestinian? One that was actually in the same meeting? If you had followed this story at all, you would know that Abbas, who was in the meeting, flatly denied that Bush made any such remarks.

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has denied an account by another Palestinian official of a meeting with US President George Bush in which Bush is cited as saying he believed that God told him to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

A statement in Abbas's name released by his office said an excerpt from an interview with Palestinian Information Minister Nabil Shaath due to be broadcast by the BBC in which Shaath described a meeting with Bush in June 2003 gave a "completely false" account.

In the interview for the series, Israel and the Arabs, Shaath described the meeting, at which he said Abbas was present.

"President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did. And then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.' And I did,'" Shaath said.

"This report is not true," the Abbas statement said today. "I have never heard President Bush talking about religion as a reason behind the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush has never mentioned that in front of me on any occasion and specifically not during my visit in 2003."

Shaath could not be reached for comment.

From an AP report quoted in The Sydney Herald (Of course, this got about as much coverage in the U.S. mainstream media as my Aunt Martha's funeral).

And even Shaath backed away somewhat from his remarks in an October 7, 2005 interview with the BBC, headlined "Bush God Comments 'Not Literal'".

But in an interview for the BBC Arabic service on Friday, he said the president - who had just announced an end to hostilities in Iraq, was merely expressing his heartfelt commitment to peace in the Middle East.

"President Bush said that God guided him in what he should do, and this guidance led him to go to Afghanistan to rid it of terrorism after 9/11 and led him to Iraq to fight tyranny," he said.

"We understood that he was illustrating [in his comments] his strong faith and his belief that this is what God wanted."

Despite this, the BBC chose to run the 'documentary' anyway. Do a Google search on "Bush God Iraq War BBC". It will give you goosebumps. This out-and-out lie from the Palestinians has been circulate all around the world. And apparently accepted as truth.

So, Marcia swallows it all, hook, line and sinker. Again, can we really blame her? Unless she was motivated to really question the story and do some further research, can we blame her for being duped by the story? Maybe, maybe not. But The Journal Sentinel has a responsibility, if not to its readers, then to its stockholders, who have to be appalled at dwindling circulation numbers, to vet the information contained in columns that they run.

In addition, I find it laughable that the mainstream media continues to knock the internet and the bloggers as being 'unreliable'.

And I wonder. If you can't attack the war strictly on its merits, then I guess you are reduced to just making stuff up. Ironic that this is what liberals are accusing the Bush administration of doing in the run-up to the war.

I think it is about time that American citizens, regardless of our feelings about the war, start demanding truth from our news sources. If we accept a press that is no longer 'free', but bound by their own ideology, we are on a slippery slope. A free, accurate and reliable press is a linchpin of democracy.