I am getting irritated, as I am sure many are. I am trying to figure out why public figures and some cases in leadership positions, can continue to make outrageous, seditious, and (in my estimation) treasonous statements and not be held accountable. I am trying to figure out as to why they are so stupid, as to believe that they are helping the troops by making reckless statements that can be used by the enemy, while our troops are currently in a combat zone.
Take our favorite flip-flopping, elitist, thinks-he-knows-it-all snob, Sen. John Kerry, for example. His latest? It seems he has taken upon himself to accuse the military of committing atrocities on innocents, in Iraq. He says he does it for the troops. He has no proof. He has no documentation. He has nothing but the same old tired inaccurate rhetoric on the same old litany of complaints that lost him an election, and respect. They say history repeats itself. I know that it certainly is reminiscent of his testimony on Capital Hill, during Vietnam.
Then we have the Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean. if you think John Kerry's irresponsible statements are bad, read about what Old Howie had to say on a San Antonio radio station.
Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.
While troops are in the harm's way, he says this. This is as low as you can go, just short of giving away government secrets.
It is painfully obvious that Mr. Dean has a serious problem with judgement and common sense. I know he graduated medical school, I know he is a doctor, but he is also one of the biggest idiots (right along with John Kerry) that I have ever seen in the political arena, in my life. I have seen no one that can even compare with his stupidity and his recklessness.
This is the leadership of the Democratic Party mind you, not angry twenty something year-olds that have serious issues with their parents and idolize professors like Walt Churchill. These are people that are supposed to be providing leadership to a major political party in the United States of America, not MoveOn.Org cult members that wish we could set up a Soviet Socialist Republic right here in America.If it is not ignorance, then it must be on purpose. And if it is on purpose, it is treason. At least it is, in my book.
IHT is reporting that Saddam's defense team walked out of court, earlier today. It seems that Ramsey Clark, the latest addition to the defense team for the former Iraqi dictator, wanted to address the court on the legitimacy of the court.Mr. Clark has been an attorney for many years. It would seem to me that he should know, the best ways to impress any judge do not include questioning the legitimacy of of his/her court. In fact, I can pretty much guarantee that it will at very least, seriously irritate him/her, when you do. But most people that have a minimal amount of cognitive functioning can easily figure out that Mr. Clark was sent in to throw wrenches into the process. Because otherwise, it wasn't going well. This was step one. Here you have a case of inexperienced lawyers (inexperienced at creating smokescreens, specifically designed to outflank the rule of law) trying to defend a client that is guilty as sin. They really don't have much of a defense. Enter the well experienced conman (er, I mean lawyer) from America (where this kind of thing is a science) to confuse things by deflecting attention from the matter of guilt and innocence, to anything else that is irrelevent. Can you spell circus?UPDATE - They changed the link on me because the judge has caved in and allowed the address. As a result, the defense has returned. Since they have returned, the IHT has changed the article to reflect such. But here is the original article I linked to:(Baghdad) - Saddam Hussein's defense team walked out of the court Monday after the chief trial judge refused to allow former Attorney General Ramsey Clark to challenge the tribunal's legitimacy in an address to the session.
After the lawyers walked out, Saddam told the judge: ''You are imposing lawyers on us. They are imposed lawyers. The court is imposed by itself. We reject that.''
Clark tried to address the court, saying he needed only two minutes to present his argument. But Chief Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin said the tribunal had been established under the law by an elected Iraqi government and that only Saddam's chief lawyer could address the hearing.
Amin said the defense should submit its motion in writing and warned that if the defense walked out then the court would appoint replacement lawyers.
''We reject the appointment of court employees to defend us,'' Saddam said.
He and his half brother Barazan Ibrahim then chanted ''Long Live Iraq, Long Live the Arab state''
When the judge explained that he was ruling in accordance with the law Saddam replied ''This is a law made by America and does not reflect Iraqi sovereignty.''
A guard tried to calm Ibrahim but he angrily told them to leave him alone.
The defense maintained that the court could not proceed to issues of substance before the matter of legitimacy and other procedural matters were resolved.
Saddam's chief lawyer, Khalil al-Dulaimi, demanded that the court halt its proceedings until the challenged is ruled on. The judge replied that the proceedings must go on while the challenge is being deliberated.
Clark spent about 15 minutes trying to address the ourt, but the judge wouldn't let him, arguing that only Arabic is recognized the language of the court.
'' We will give you enough time to address the court at a suitable time,'' said the judge.
At that point, Saddam snapped: ''The American occupation continues.''
In the previous post, we see that the Louisiana Governor had approved postponing the upcoming February elections. Now, comes this article from the AP, relating the plea of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin for people to return to the city.
ATLANTA (AP) -- Barbara Bonseigneur looked to her hometown mayor Saturday for a reason to return to New Orleans and help rebuild the battered city and home she fled ahead of Hurricane Katrina. She didn't get one.
"There is nowhere to buy food or get gas. It's chaotic," said Bonseigneur, 50. "Bringing us back to living in poverty is not a new beginning. How can a city that's broke help New Orleans rebuild?"
New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin spoke in Atlanta and pleaded with his former constituents to come home. While most in the frustrated crowd said they were eager to do so, the same question kept coming up: "Home to what?"
That's not surprising. Mayor Nagin does not fail to (at very least) entertain. He certainly isn't leading very well, so he might as well be funny.
Gov. Blanco has just given her okay and now "good old" Ray wants to get his people back. Not wanting to be subtle (it appears that she won't be able to give him forever, to circumvent the democratic process) he hits it, coming right out of the box. The very day after, he shows his desperation to get his base back into town; because he has almost no chance to get re-elected, whatsoever, if they stay away to make new lives for themselves and their families.But Mayor Nagin isn't the only one that is on the hot seat, a former Louisiana governor is now publicly criticizing Blanco. In fact, as time goes on, we will likely see more and more problems for her, as well as Mayor Ray. The opportunists in both parties will soon be jumping ship, to support anyone that will tell them what they want to hear. And the electorate will gobble it up as gospel.
From the AP comes this story.BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) -- Gov. Kathleen Blanco agreed Friday to postpone New Orleans' Feb. 4 elections for mayor and City Council for up to eight months because of the damage and dislocation caused by Hurricane Katrina.
(Emphasis in green is mine)Translation: Because they need to get their Democratic "the world owes us a living" electorate back, so they can vote to keep them in power.Never mind that the whole bunch failed its citizenry miserably and managed to deflect responsibility onto everyone else, but themselves. Never mind those buses sat in a parking lot and could have been used to evacuate, if only the Mayor would have commanded it, to be so.But the more I think about it, an extra few months won't make that big of a difference. This bunch will be out, anyway and they will be replaced by an equally incompetent bunch of leaders that will screw other things up, for other reasons. They will extort their bribes and peddle their influence, just like all past New Orleans governments have.Solomon once said, "There is no new thing under the sun". I am inclined to believe that, in this case.
Pedro at The Quietist has developed A Prescription For A Healthy Society. For a good laugh on things that will ring very familiar, give it a read.
Mark at WitNit has been following a story about the report of a Surface-to-Air Missile being fired at an American Airlines passenger plane at about 6600 feet, shortly after take-off from Los Angeles. He has followed it from the beginning and more of the blogosphere is now beginning to cover it. But as you might well guess, the MSM has been nowhere to be found. If they have covered it, I have missed it. It must have been buried.Mark has several links, so check it out.
Call it the Academic Food Chain, the Academic Chain Of Command, or whatever you want. You won't want to miss this from Ironman at Political Calculations. At the conclusion of this short block of instruction, you will be able to correctly identify, who has the real power and who doesn't. Give it a look.
The LA Times is reporting that Katie Couric is being wooed by CBS to become anchor of the CBS Evening News.If this is true and does come to pass, let me just say this:I do not watch the Today Show and I do not watch the CBS Evening News. So, if Couric makes the switch, I won't give a rat's derriere. I will not watch either, so neither show will gain nor lose a viewer.However, with that said, I think this will be a match made in Heaven. Leftist news organization hires leftist news anchor, what more could be hoped for?. It should work out, just fine. The only question that remains is, would she become a contributor to 60 Minutes? If so, then she would really have an opportunity to spread her leftist agenda.
Here are some reactions to the President's speech in Annapolis, on Wednesday found in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (which the very name of the paper itself, is the grandest of misnomers).
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate Minority Leader
"After nearly 1,000 days of war in Iraq, our troops, their families, and the American people deserve more than just a Bush-Cheney public relations campaign. They deserve a clear strategy with military, economic and political measures to be met in order to successfully complete our mission."
Like what Harry? A timetable for withdrawal? There's much more to a strategy than withdrawal and broadcasting it is NOT good strategy. But, that's all the Dems can come up with. They have no other ideas about how to attain victory. From the minority leader on down, they are clueless.Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI)
"It's a step back. The only new thing the administration gave the American people was a glossy 35-page pamphlet filled with the same rhetoric we've all heard before. This is not a strategy, and it certainly is not a plan to complete the military mission in Iraq."
Again, no alternative strategy. No ideas. Just a criticism of what Russ perceives as a "lack" of strategy. Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI)
"It's going to take more than one speech to restore the credibility gap that the president is suffering. ... The president has not been candid in the last two and a half years with the American people about the situation in Iraq."
Yes, Jack is right. The left makes numerous speeches daily that get covered heavily by the MSM. These are speeches that are primarily aimed at discrediting the reasons we went to war and the President, himself. It will take many more speeches by the President and his people, to counter the lies and distortions of the anti-American left. Jack hit the nail right on the head with that one, though I seriously doubt he meant to be right.
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)
"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 ... and the best way to protect the troops, the best way to stand up for the troops is to provide the best policy for success."
John is at it again. He lost this argument in 2004, but he is a glutton for losing in the arena of intelligent discourse. For John and those leftists that are having a hard time understanding this, I will try to help.President Bush won the election. The President has a GOP led Congress. They are entitled to run the country as they see fit. John has the right to criticize it. But, it's pretty much a rule of thumb that you don't get to run the country, if you lose elections. Therefore, the troops don't belong to John's point of view, because his point of view lost the last election. Those are the rules. They were made up many years ago.Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
"I think it really failed to respond to what the American people want and which they deserve. ... I think what they saw sort of lipstick put on to the old administration's plan. It wasn't really anything new - same kind of rhetoric."
Does anyone really care what a drunken sot has to say? I know that I don't.Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO)
"The president's speech in Annapolis today was a step in the right direction, and it begins to address the Senate's call for a successful exit strategy with measurable benchmarks. I look forward to hearing more, including information about the specific benchmarks we expect to achieve, and when we expect to achieve them."
Finally. Something positive about the situation, from a Democrat. But sadly enough, there is nowhere near enough sensible Democrats, like him. How many elections will they have to lose, before they realize that campaigning against something, without introducing viable alternatives, is a useless tactic?
Here is the complete AP article.
China (host of the 2008 Olympics, Security Council Member, and Clinton financiers) is being accused of, not just torture, but WIDESPREAD torture. The surprising thing is, it is Manfred Nowak, the U.N. Human Rights Commission's special investigator on torture who is saying this.
Let's look at this in perspective.
Here is a nation, that does not allow dissent. Their Maoist history is still a big influence in today's political climate and Maoism is not exactly the model of democracy and freedom.This is a case of, Chinese torturing Chinese. This didn't just start happening. Yet, they were welcomed with open arms to the Security Council, in spite of this fact.
Europe and the Europhilic leftists in the U.S., are having a collective royal cow about Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and the possibility that secret camps were housing bad guys (in Europe), bad guys that are seriously intent on hurting the United States of America. There is no WIDESPREAD torture of Americans by Americans. If there was Michael Moore would be in jail and yelling uncle. Yet, we continue to take the heat as if we were the poster child of human rights abuse, while this is (and has been) going on, for a long time. Europe needs to consider this of their newly found friends on the opposite end of their land mass, before making such a flap about things that happen during the course of a war. If they really want to be the champions of human rights, they need to look at things a little more on the side of fairness and good judgement, instead of their own selfish, self-interests.
