The Left's State of Denial

Fingerpointing. Lots and lots of fingerpointing.


I didn't realize that Ayman al-Zawahiri was slated to help Bob Woodward hawk his new book.

Yesterday, al Qaeda's number two man called President Bush a "lying failure."

That sounds like it came straight from the mouths of the Dems, the lib media, and the lib glitterati drooling over Woodward's latest, State of Denial.

DUBAI (AFP) -- Ayman Al Zawahiri, the Al Qaeda number two, branded US President George W. Bush a liar who had ‘failed in his war against Al Qaeda’ and launched a scathing attack on Western targets including the pope and the United Nations.

In an 18-minute video posted on the Internet on Friday, Zawahiri called Bush an ‘executioner, responsible for the spilling of Muslim blood’, and said he had failed in his war against the terror organisation headed by Osama bin Laden.

Zawahiri begged Muslims to support the mujahedeen in Iraq and Afghanistan by all possible means because these countries were what he called the battlefield of the contemporary Crusade.

‘The Islamic nation must realise that Afghanistan and Iraq are the field of battle in the confrontation against the contemporary Crusade,’ he said. ‘The nation is therefore bound to support the mujahedeen in these two countries using all means at its disposal.’

He hit out at ‘defeatist’ Arab governments and Muslim preachers, and called for rejection of all resolutions recognizing the ‘Zionist entity’.

On Thursday, Islamist websites on the Internet had said there would be a new video message posted by Zawahiri entitled ‘Bush, the pope, Darfur and the Crusades’.

Zawahiri branded Pope Benedict XVI an ‘impostor for his attitude to Islam and the Arab world.’

He was referring to the pope’s September 12 speech in Germany in which, critics say, the head of the Roman Catholic Church seemed to link Islam and violence.

Benedict quoted a medieval Christian emperor who equated Islam with violence, remarks that sparked outrage across the Muslim world.

Also in the video message, the righthand man to Bin Laden called for a holy war in Sudan’s Darfur region against the ‘crusaders... of the UN’. Zawahiri called on ‘Muslims to join a jihad in Darfur against the forces of the crusaders related to the United Nations’.

The United States has been leading international efforts to force Sudan to accept the deployment of a 20,000-strong UN peacekeeping force to halt ethnic violence in its western Darfur region.

...The UN Security Council passed a resolution last month mandating deployment of the peacekeepers to replace an underfunded and ineffective African Union force in Darfur, but Sudan has rejected the demand.

Addressing Muslims directly, Zawahiri said: ‘The (Islamic) nation must admit the helplessness of the governments which usurp power in Muslim countries... These governments recognise the legitimacy of the United Nations, and this constrains them to protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Israel.’

He urged Muslims to ‘throw anathema at all resolutions and conventions of the surrender, beginning with the resolution on the partition of Palestine, including Camp David and Olso all the way up to Resolution 1701. All these resolutions recognise the legitimacy of the Zionist entity and incriminate jihad against this entity.’

In a previous video posted on the Internet to mark the fifth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US, Zawahiri warned that the Gulf and Israel would be Al Qaeda’s next targets.

‘You should worry about your presence in two areas,’ he said in the message addressed to Western powers. ‘The first is the Gulf, from where you will be expelled, God willing, after your defeat in Iraq, and your economic ruin will be achieved.

‘And the second is Israel, because the jihadi reinforcements are getting closer, with God’s help and power, and your defeat there will put an end to the superiority of the Zionists and Crusaders.’

In his latest video, Zawahiri called on Muslims to ‘wage a popular jihadist war against the Crusader campaign’ because ‘that is what the enemy fears the most’.

Wow.

Does that make you want to run out and buy Woodward's State of Denial?

I wonder.

Do Leftists enjoy being on the same page as sworn enemies of the United States?

It would make me uncomfortable.

Do Leftists squirm when their words are echoed by al Qaeda's number two guy?

I know that would bother me.

Do Leftists take pause to reevaluate their positions and their statements when they learn that terrorists have the same views?

I certainly would take time to reconsider my beliefs if I were thinking like a member of al Qaeda.

Who are America's enemies?

Go to your local bookstore. Watch C-SPAN.

It's very clear to me.

I think the Left is in a "state of denial."

Erik Fichtel, Eric Hainstock, and John Klang

This photo provided by the Sauk County Sheriff's Department shows 15-year-old Eric Hainstock. (AP Photo/ Sauk County Sheriff's Department)

Just two weeks ago, William Cornell, Shawn Sturtz, and Bradley Netwal's plot to stage a violent assault at Green Bay's East High School was uncovered.

Charges were filed against Cornell on Friday.

Cornell was charged with conspiracy to commit first-degree intentional homicide, conspiracy to commit damage to property by use of explosives, possessing explosives and possessing an illegal short-barreled shotgun. He remains in jail on $500,000 cash bail.

Cornell was ordered to return to court Oct. 23 to enter pleas to the charges, court records said.

Preliminary hearings for the other two teens accused in the plot -- Shawn Sturtz, 17, and Bradley Netwal, 18 -- are scheduled for Wednesday.

The weapons cache that the teens had was frightening. Thankfully, tragedy was averted in that case.

But you don't need an arsenal to do damage or commit murder.

Eric Hainstock proved that on Friday morning at Weston High School, in Cazenovia, Wisconsin.

It's a small school (125 students) in a small town (pop. 327) in Sauk County.

A statement on the school's website describes what happened -- the unthinkable.

On Friday morning at approximately 8 A.M., a student was apprehended after entering the high school main entrance with a shotgun. A struggle ensued, and the gun was taken away. The student then took out a second gun and several shots were fired. In attempting to subdue the student, Mr. Klang was shot. He was treated at Reedsburg Area Medical Center and then flown by med flight to the University Hospital in Madison where he died . In dealing with this crisis, Weston staff and administrators want to assure you that this was an isolated incident. The student was arrested and charged with first degree intentional homicide by the Sauk County District Attorney’s office.

Classes will not be held on Monday. The school will be open and staff, counselors, and clergy will be present for those students and families who would like to have support during this time. Sometimes it is healthy for teens to be with friends and talk about their feelings and concerns, and we want to be able to offer a safe, central location for them.


In a completely separate incident, one of our students was killed in a car accident Friday morning. While our plan is to resume classes on Tuesday, there is a chance that school and will be canceled Tuesday pending funeral arrangements. Please listen to your local radio and TV stations for updated information.

Erik Fichtel was only 16. He played on the school's football team and he was killed on Friday.

A deputy had spotted a speeding vehicle headed north on Highway G in the town of Washington, said Sauk County Sheriff Randy Stammen. The deputy turned around to try and catch the vehicle, but had not activated lights and sirens.

The deputy lost sight of the vehicle after it turned west onto West Harris Road. A short time later the deputy found that the vehicle had passed a stop sign at a "T" intersection and crashed into the shoulder of Highway K.

Fichtel was taken by Med Flight to UW Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival.

This tragedy occurred just minutes before Hainstock shot Principal Klang.

The school's statement goes on:

It seems that our school has been bombarded with tragedy. It is important that we pull together as a community so that a sense of normalcy and safety can be attained. Your children may have questions, and experts suggest that everyone should be encouraged to discuss feelings and concerns openly and honestly.

Please feel free to contact the school if you have any questions, as counselors and staff are willing and able to help. We’d appreciate your prayers during this difficult time.

Note that this public school's website contains a plea for prayers.

I wonder how long that will remain on the Internet before some atheist gets offended, complains, and demands that it be removed.

What else can one do in a situation like this but pray?

Understandably, the community is in total shock and grieving.

The tragedy of a good kid being killed on the way to school is so difficult to accept.

Then, the horror of a student killing the principal is beyond comprehension.

This tribute to Principal John Klang appears on Weston's site:

John Klang was the principal/administrator at Weston. Always kind and compassionate, his soft-spoken words touched many students, staff, and community members. He was very dedicated to the school, having served on the school board for over 20 years prior to becoming the school’s principal. He wasn’t the kind of principal who sat behind a desk to run the school. He was visible throughout the school and participated in many activities. He was killed because he was trying to maintain control and protect the students and staff at Weston, all of whom are grateful-and –safe-for his efforts. As his staff, we are praying for his family and the community and hope many people will join with us.

Here is a report on the shooting from the Associated Press:

A teenager who decided to confront teachers and the principal after complaining that other students teased him brought two guns to school and shot the principal to death, authorities said.

The shooting Friday also came a day after the principal gave 15-year-old Eric Hainstock a disciplinary warning for having tobacco, according to a criminal complaint.

On Friday morning, Hainstock pried open his family's gun cabinet, took out a shotgun, retrieved the key to his parents' locked bedroom and took a .22-caliber revolver, according to a criminal complaint.

He entered Weston Schools with the shotgun before classes began and pointed the gun at a social studies teacher, but custodian Dave Thompson wrested it from the teen, the complaint said. When Hainstock reached for the handgun, Thompson and the teacher ran for cover.

Then Principal John Klang went into the hallway and confronted Hainstock. A teacher said that after the shots were fired, Klang, already wounded, managed to wrestle the shooter to the ground and sweep away the gun, the complaint said. Students and staff detained Hainstock until police arrived, District Attorney Patricia Barrett said.

Klang was shot and he kept fighting to protect the lives of others.

The man is a hero.

No one else was injured. Klang, 49, was shot in the head, chest and leg, authorities said. He died hours later at a hospital in Madison. An autopsy was scheduled for Saturday.

Sheriff Randy Stammen praised Klang's swift action. "The heroics of the people involved in this can't be understated," he said.

School officials said Klang had given Hainstock a disciplinary notice Thursday for bringing tobacco to school, and the student faced a likely in-school suspension, the complaint said.

Hainstock told investigators a group of kids had called him names and rubbed up against him, and he felt teachers and the principal would not do anything about it, according to the complaint.

It also said Hainstock had told a friend a few days earlier that Klang would not "make it through homecoming," referring to festivities planned for the school's homecoming weekend.

After the shooting, Weston's football game, dance and parade were canceled or postponed, and crisis counselors were brought in for students.

Children from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade attend the small school near Cazenovia, a community of about 300 people about 70 miles northwest of Madison.

Sophomore Shelly Rupp, 16, said she woke up ready to celebrate homecoming. Instead, she ended up catching a glimpse of her principal lying in the hallway in "a pile of blood."

...Klang and his three children graduated from Weston Schools. Klang taught, then farmed for about 18 years before returning to teaching and taking over as principal in 2004, said his father, Don Klang. He was being groomed to become superintendent next year.

...The shooting took place two days after a gunman took six students hostage in a Colorado high school and killed one before shooting himself.

What is going on?

Going to school should not be like going to a war zone.

Hainstock will be tried as an adult, as he should be. If found guilty, he could spend the rest of his life in prison.

He deserves it. You do not bring a gun to school to use on anyone, EVER.

He was teased. So what? That's no excuse.

Yes, students can be horribly cruel to other kids, teasing and taunting. Treating another human being in that manner is completely unacceptable.

Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Harry Reid, and John McCain have been demanding that the U.S. government treat suspected terrorists, some picked up on the battlefield, with more dignity than that.

I sympathize with kids mercilessly harassed by their classmates. They are victims.

BUT-- That is no excuse to lash out violently. Hainstock is not a mixed up kid. He's a murderer.

It was an unspeakably sad day for the people of that small community.

The losses were so great and so sudden.

On Friday, a vigil was held. People gathered together to grieve.

About 500 students, parents, teachers and community members gathered Friday night under the lights of the football field to mourn the loss of Klang.

Instead of watching football, they cried, sang "Amazing Grace," listened to mournful violin passages and spoke fondly of Klang and also of a student who died earlier today in an unrelated car wreck.

Many wore Weston High sweatshirts and baseball caps in the cold late September wind. Bible passages were read and words of comfort spoken.

The flag at the opposite end zone flew at half staff.

Becky Jennings is the mother of children who attend the school ... and she says the vigil was meant to offer hope and prayer to a grieving community.

I suspect it will take a long, long time for them to recover from this. I hope their faith provides them with the comfort and strength that they so desperately need.

This was truly a tragic day for the Weston High School family.

Sometimes life can be unbearably painful.

S. 3930

Democrats are upset. The radical Leftists are upset. The ACLU is upset. Russ Feingold is upset.

Even Herb Kohl expressed his distress! SHOCKING!!!

What's the problem?

Terrorists' rights.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate on Thursday endorsed President Bush's plans to prosecute and interrogate terror suspects, all but sealing congressional approval for legislation that Republicans intend to use on the campaign trail to assert their toughness on terrorism.

The 65-34 vote means the bill could reach the president's desk by week's end. The House passed nearly identical legislation on Wednesday and was expected to approve the Senate bill on Friday, sending it on to the White House.

"The Senate sent a strong signal to the terrorists that we will continue using every element of national power to pursue our enemies and to prevent attacks on America," Bush said in a statement Thursday night.

...The White House and its supporters have called the measure crucial in the anti-terror fight, but some Democrats said it left the door open to abuse, violating the Constitution in the name of protecting Americans.

Twelve Democrats sided with 53 Republicans in voting for the bill. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., in a tough re-election fight, joined 32 Democrats and the chamber's lone independent in opposing the bill. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, was absent.

Read the roll call vote here. There realy aren't any surprises.

There's a lot of hand wringing on the Left.

Carl Levin said, "The habeas corpus language in this bill is as legally abusive of rights guaranteed in the Constitution as the actions at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and secret prisons that were physically abusive of detainees."

Referring to the upcoming elections, Teddy Kennedy said, "In 40 days, we can put an end to this nonsense."

Nancy Pelosi was angry.

In a statement yesterday, Speaker Dennis Hastert said, "Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and 159 of her Democrat colleagues voted today in favor of more rights for terrorists. So the same terrorists who plan to harm innocent Americans and their freedom worldwide would be coddled, if we followed the Democrat plan."

With eyebrows arched, Nancy Pelosi shot back, "I think the speaker is a desperate man for him to say that. Would you think that anyone in our country wants to coddle terrorists?"


I find it stunning that so many people in our country do want to coddle terrorists.

They don't understand that we are at war.

The 9/11 attacks were absolutely horrific; yet five short years later, the Dems (and Lincoln Chafee) focus on protecting terrorists rather than Americans.

The Dems want to present themselves as capable of fighting the War on Terror. They want the American people to trust them. They want us to trust them with our lives.

I don't trust them.

There will be legal challenges to S. 3930. I'm sure Ramsey Clark and his like-minded comrades will find time to argue against the legislation.

They'll probably find activist judges to rule in favor of our enemies.

Who knows what will remain of the legislation after they get done with it?

I take comfort in the fact that the Bush administration is doing everything within the law to prevent another 9/11.

For that to continue, it's critical that Republicans hold on to the House and the Senate.

_______________________________

Read R. Jeffrey Smith's analysis of S. 3930 in The Washington Post.

He frets about terrorist suspects not being given the full rights that the U.S. legal system provides for its citizens.

Another lib considers Bush to be a greater enemy to this country than the Islamic extremists, like Abu Hamza al-Muhajir (also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri).

He's the new leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.

AP reports that in an audio message posted on a website yesterday, the leader is rallying the troops.

In addition to recruiting the speaker also called for explosives experts and nuclear scientists to join his group's holy war against the West.

"The field of jihad (holy war) can satisfy your scientific ambitions, and the large American bases (in Iraq) are good places to test your unconventional weapons, whether biological or dirty, as they call them," said the speaker.

And the Dems are worried about terrorists' rights?

Riiiiiiight.

Bill Clinton: Headline for a Sexagenarian

I believe in giving credit where credit is due.

The Washington Post gets credit for the funniest headline of the day:

Bill Clinton's 60th Birthday Benefit Blowout


I don't know about you, but it made me chuckle.

Anyway, the article, by Dan Balz, provides the details of Clinton's big 6-0 birthday bash. It's a series of events -- three days of receptions, dinners, and a concert including a performance by The Rolling Stones, legendary sexagenarians in their own right.

Baby boomer and former president Bill Clinton is laying plans to celebrate his 60th birthday in grand style with a charitable fundraising extravaganza in New York late next month that will include an invitation-only concert by the Rolling Stones and contributor packages that run to $500,000 and higher.

Clinton's daughter, Chelsea, who has generally avoided high-profile participation in her parents' political and philanthropic activities, is serving as co-host of the three-day party. She will host a Saturday brunch on a weekend that also features a golf tournament at the Bayonne (N.J.) Golf Club, multiple receptions and a dinner at the American Museum of Natural History with the former president, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Chelsea.

"My mother and I are planning a weekend of events to commemorate his [Clinton's] 60th birthday," Chelsea Clinton writes in the invitation. "I know that he would want you to share this milestone -- so I hope you can join us in New York City this October 27th through the 29th."

The 2,100 invitations began arriving this week. Weekend packages start at $60,000 (Hint: $1,000 for every year of Clinton's age). Next is the "Vice Chair Package," for those who contribute $100,000 or raise $250,000. Those who pledge $500,000 or more will receive the "Birthday Chair Package," which includes the "Backstage Pass" dinner and photo with Clinton and platinum seating at the Saturday dinner and the Stones concert.

The Rolling Stones will perform at the Beacon Theater, an art deco landmark on upper Broadway that seats about 3,000 people. According to the invitation, the concert will be taped for an upcoming Martin Scorsese movie about the band. Organizers of the event would not say whether the Stones will be paid for their appearance.

WOW! That's a pricey blowout!

Now, this is a charitable event, but some Dems have to be unhappy about the Clinton blowout.

According to The Post:

Clinton turned 60 in August but organizers delayed the birthday fundraising event until late October to avoid any complaints from other Democrats that solicitation of money for the former president's foundation would soak up money that could otherwise be used to try to win back the House and Senate in November.

Do these contributors budget their money?

What difference does it make that the Clinton birthday party is at the end of October rather than August?

If wealthy donors plan to hand over $500,000 to support the Clinton affair, that has to have an impact on their contributions to Dem candidates.

The proceeds will go to the William J. Clinton Foundation, the umbrella organization that oversees the Clinton HIV-AIDS initiative, the Clinton Global Initiative and several other programs launched by the former president since he left office almost six years ago.

I think that there should be careful oversight as to where the party profits actually go. None of these funds should "mistakenly" make their way into Hillary's presidential campaign coffers.

Russ Feingold, John Kerry, and other Dem presidential hopefuls beware!

One more thing: I am sick of Dems painting Republicans as the party of the rich.

The Clinton well-wishers planning on attending the birthday blowout aren't exactly wanting for cash.

Journal Sentinel Steps Over the Line

Today's editorial in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "Green Steps Over the Line," slaps the wrist of Mark Green's campaign for putting out an ad that supposedly misrepresents the newspaper.

The JS editorial board whines:

The ad says the Journal Sentinel reports that Gov. Jim Doyle "secretly rigged a state Elections Board vote to try and steal the election."

Don't be fooled. The newspaper didn't write that. News stories reported on calls from a Doyle campaign attorney to Democratic members of the Elections Board before a key vote that was to determine if Green should return nearly $468,000 that went from his congressional campaign fund to his governor campaign. Another news report cited a call from the state Republican Party head to a board member on the same matter.

A Sept. 22 editorial mostly bemoaned the blatant partisanship of the Elections Board in that vote and urged reform that would remove partisanship from such decisions. Specifically, it urged passage of legislation that would have removed the partisanship.

Since the JS is parsing words, let's parse some more.

First, Green's ad doesn't quote the JS directly.

Moreover, the paper did cover the story that the Doyle campaign was in uncomfortably close contact with the Elections Board and strategizing. It cited damning e-mails.

The facts spoke for themselves.

In terms of partisanship, the reality is when Tom Barrett's case came before the board four years ago, Republicans did put partisanship aside.

But when the Dems on the board were to decide Mark Green's fate, they were given marching orders from Doyle's people and they went along in lockstep.

But the editorial also agreed with board counsel that there was likely nothing illegal about those calls, though it welcomed an investigation into whether open meeting laws were broken. So, "rigged?" "Steal?"

No controlling legal authority? That sort of thing? Give me a break!

"Steal" is a strong word. Agreed. But, it has shades of meaning. In the ad, I don't think "steal" is used to refer to broken laws. It's used to refer to dirty tactics and abuses that soil the electoral process; in effect, impacting the election in such a way that the people are robbed of a clean race.

The editorial goes on to pontificate about ethics, and how Green has ethical issues of his own.

Blah, blah, blah.

What bothers me about this editorial is that the JS is jumping down Green's throat for supposed inaccuracies in his ad.

Okay. So why doesn't the JS step all over itself to clarify Doyle's distortions of the paper's reporting?

Doyle can lie about Mark Green's position on stem cell research and the editorial board doesn't debunk how Doyle is trying to fool the public.

Throughout, the JS editorial board tries to appear above the partisan fray. Of course, the editorial itself proves otherwise.

Ethics is a worthy issue in this campaign. But misrepresenting what's reported won't help the cause.

How can the JS castigate Green for a debatable line in an ad when Doyle is the one who's clearly ethically-challenged?

Why are Kids Fat?

Growing numbers of American kids are obese or at risk of obesity.

What's the first step in dealing with the problem?

A good starting point would be to get pediatricians and other health care providers to encourage parents to be responsible and give their children healthy foods to eat and make sure they get plenty of exercise.

But rather than employing common sense and exercising personal responsibility, the FCC will conduct a study to examine the connection between TV commercials and childhood obesity.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Concerned that a steady diet of TV ads is putting too many pounds on American children, the Federal Communications Commission plans to study links between the ads, viewing habits and the rise of childhood obesity.

"Small children can't weed out the marketing messages from their favorite shows," FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said Wednesday at a news conference. "Especially when the marketing campaigns feature favorite TV characters like SpongeBob or Scooby-Doo."

Martin cited reports showing the average child watches 2 to 4 hours of TV per day and views about 40,000 TV ads every year, most of them for cereal, candy, toys and fast food.

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., said he urged the commission to form the task force, which will include FCC officials, members of the food, television and advertising industries, along with consumer advocacy groups and health experts.

"Judging by the sheer volume of media and advertising that children consume on a daily basis, and given alarming trends in childhood obesity, we're facing a public health problem that will only get worse unless we take action," Brownback said.

The task force will begin meeting early next year and issue a report with recommendations on how industry and media can work to reduce the childhood obesity rate.

Earlier this month, the Institute of Medicine found that one-third of American children are either obese or at risk for becoming obese. At the same time, American companies spend about $15 billion a year marketing and advertising to children under age 12.

Advertising has been directed at children since the 1950s. This is nothing new. Kids have been bombarded with ads hawking candy, sugar-packed breakfast cereals, and empty calorie snacks for generations, for fifty years!

Ronald McDonald first appeared on TV in 1963.

It's not the commercials that are making kids overweight. A child could be fed a steady diet of TV ads promoting junk food, but if the parent doesn't buy it, there's no impact on the child's weight.

The link between ads and childhood obesity breaks when the parent is factored into the equation.

Some children's advocacy groups have called for a ban on junk food marketing to children, but Brownback and Martin said they want to reach common ground with advertisers instead of creating new regulations.

What good would a ban on marketing junk food to kids do?

Kids under twelve don't have a lot of buying power. Most children under twelve don't determine what's for dinner. Most of them don't do the grocery shopping.

If your child is overweight, you can make sure that he or she has access to healthy snacks and eats well-balanced healthy meals.

Parents have control.

I think one of the most important causes of the obesity epidemic is a lack of physical activity. That's the difference between the lifestyle of today's kids and the lifestyle of kids of past generations.

Kids don't walk anywhere or ride their bikes or play outside for hours on end. They get chauffeured around and have scheduled play dates.

There is no question that kids are more sedentary today.

Obesity studies or bans on junk food advertising won't change that.

Kids are fat for the same reason that adults are overweight. They take in more calories than they need.

Government regulation isn't necessary to curb the childhood obesity trend.

It's the parents' responsibility to make sure their children under twelve eat healthy and stay active.

The commercials aren't the problem.

Joe Camel doesn't make kids smoke. Ronald McDonald doesn't make kids eat cheeseburgers and fries.

Ahmadinejad's Songs of War and Peace

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad needs help.

He has violent mood swings. He seems to function under different realities. He turns on a dime. That's not normal. I fear for his psychological well-being.

Only a week ago when Ahmadinejad was in New York and basking in the glory of one of his press conferences, he was bordering on breaking out into "Kumbaya."

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We love everyone around the world: Jews, Christians, Muslims, non-Muslims, non-Jews, non- Christians. We have no problem with people.

What we object to are acts that are inappropriate against us, or acts of occupation, of aggression, of violence, of displacement of nations. We have no problem with regular people.

We have no problem -- everyone we respect. Everyone should enjoy their legitimate rights.

But, again, I repeat that we oppose aggression and violence and murder. And we say that loudly.

All we need is love...

What a charmer!

But now, back in Tehran, Ahmadinejad has changed his tune. No more "Kumbaya."

It's back to war cries.

TEHRAN (Reuters) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday that Tehran would not suspend nuclear enrichment despite pressure from the West, the semi-official Mehr news agency said.

Western nations have said Iran must suspend enrichment, a process that can be used to make fuel for power stations or material for atomic bombs, to start negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.

"Today, Western countries want us to suspend our nuclear technology, but we say to them that we will never give it up," the president was quoted as telling a seminar in Tehran.

"If the Western countries want to continue in this way, the Islamic Republic of Iran will show off its capabilities in other fields too," he added without elaborating.

Well, that's a thinly veiled threat.

I thought Ahmadinejad loves everyone around the world. Why would he suggest that Iran will pursue nuclear weapons, when he is such a peacenik?

Go figure.
________________________________

Here are some more of Ahmadinejad's pearls of tolerance and peace, from Tehran.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Tuesday night that the era of empires and emperors has long gone.

President Ahmadinejad's remarks came as he addressed the 23rd International Quran Memorization and Recitation Competition which began here Tuesday night.

"We invite bullying powers and dictators of the world to monotheism and justice. We urge bullying powers to end their crimes, cruelty and aggression," he said.

He said that the world has awakened and today's society is a mirror of important events and developments.

The two sides of this mirror, he added, reflect the great challenges facing today's world -- on one side giving the world access to facts and on the other fighting arrogant powers.

"Countries of the world will not accept a monopoly by certain powers of nuclear weapons while others are refused access to the nuclear fuel cycle simply because they cannot be trusted and could use this for non-peaceful purposes.

Ahmadinejad added: "Nations of the world, including the Iranian nation, will not accept this simplistic arguemnt. The community of states should recognize the rights of all its members."

He urged world powers to open their eyes and end their aggression on Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan.

He said that world nations will not accept military superiority as a justification for invading countries while accusing other states of belligerence.

The president said he wished God Almighty would strengthen the bonds that unite the Muslim world.

Declassified

Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus of The Washington Post offer their analysis on the "sobering conclusions on why jihad has spread."

This comes after President Bush declassified portions of a National Intelligence Estimate that had been leaked (or cherry-picked) over the weekend.

It's nuts that Bush has to be fighting these leakers/cherry-pickers, these enemies at home.

Don't tell me that the leakers actively trying to undermine the U.S. mission in Iraq aren't our enemies.

Their actions are so irresponsible and so reckless. They are anti-American. They are cheerleaders for the terrorists.

Actually, I think this latest leak was directly related to the crushing blow that Clinton took over the weekend in his FOX News interview with Chris Wallace.

It was a diversionary tactic, an effort to make the Bush administration look worse.

From The Post:

Descriptions of the unseen document in media reports last weekend quoted intelligence officials as saying it described a global terrorist threat that was worsening as a result of the Iraq war. The reports led to an explosion of reaction, with the Bush administration and leading congressional Republicans saying that the published portions did not reflect the document's balanced view of successes and remaining challenges. It was no accident, Bush charged, that selective and potentially damaging parts had been "leaked" on the eve of the midterm elections.

What's with the quote marks around "leaked"?

A few days ago, DeYoung was touting the "new information" as if it were a leak. She wrote a foaming at the mouth lib hit piece, or if you prefer, hard news piece about the "very candid assessment."

Democrats, sensing advantage, contended that the administration had withheld a negative assessment for political reasons and demanded its release. The clamor apparently led Bush, in a meeting yesterday with Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte, to authorize publication of the judgments.

Democratic claims of an administration coverup seemed less justified yesterday as it became apparent that the complete classified report had been made available to lawmakers within days of its completion in April.

Suddenly, it's the Dems. That's incomplete.

THE WASHINGTON POST and THE NEW YORK TIMES SENSED ADVANTAGE.

Copies of the NIE were sent to the House and Senate intelligence, armed services and foreign affairs committees at the time, through normal electronic information channels available to all members, intelligence and congressional sources said. It arrived at the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on April 26.

In the House, "there was a bit of a snafu with this particular document," said a spokesman for Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the intelligence committee chairman. "We had a massive computer failure on our classified side." The first that the committee knew of its existence was late last week, when "it was requested specifically by a member. That was when it was found and scanned into our system."

Whether the document was ignored or disappeared into cyberspace, however, it seemed to have made little impact on Capitol Hill at the time. No one in either chamber, on either side of the aisle, requested a briefing or any further information on its conclusions until now, the sources said.

The assessment originally had little impact. It didn't cause anyone in the House or Senate to want more details. Even Russ Feingold didn't jump on it. (Perhaps he was busy making plans to visit Iowa again, or maybe he was wrapped up blogging on Daily Kos.)

So why now? Why report that information with such breathless urgency now?

That's extremely suspect.

Clearly, The New York Times and The Post chose to create a story now.

The intelligence community has had its own problems with the attention the document is now receiving. Several active and retired intelligence officials stressed that the judgments were nothing new and followed a series of similar assessments made since early 2003 about the impact of the Iraq war on global terrorism.

"This is very much mainstream stuff," said Paul R. Pillar, the CIA's national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005. "There are no surprises."

The Dems and the lib media look like idiots.

They manufacture the news. They're propagandists. They're disgraceful.

The Wisdom of Hamid Karzai

President Hamid Karzai, of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, responds to a reporter's question Tuesday, Sept. 26, 2006, during a joint availability with President George W. Bush in the East Room of the White House.

Yesterday at a joint press conference, President Bush and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai tried to set the lib media straight on the terrorism.

They don't get it. Karzai understands that they don't get it.

Transcript

Q Thank you, sir. Even after hearing that one of the major conclusions of the National Intelligence Estimate in April was that the Iraq war has fueled terror growth around the world, why have you continued to say that the Iraq war has made this country safer?

And to President Karzai, if I might, what do you think of President Musharraf's comments that you need to get to know your own country better when you're talking about where terror threats and the Taliban threat is coming from?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Do you want to start?

PRESIDENT KARZAI: Go ahead, please. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT BUSH: I, of course, read the key judgments on the NIE. I agree with their conclusion that because of our successes against the leadership of al Qaeda, the enemy is becoming more diffuse and independent. I'm not surprised the enemy is exploiting the situation in Iraq and using it as a propaganda tool to try to recruit more people to their -- to their murderous ways.

Some people have guessed what's in the report and have concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree. I think it's naive. I think it's a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe. The terrorists fight us in Iraq for a reason: They want to try to stop a young democracy from developing, just like they're trying to fight another young democracy in Afghanistan. And they use it as a recruitment tool, because they understand the stakes. They understand what will happen to them when we defeat them in Iraq.

You know, to suggest that if we weren't in Iraq, we would see a rosier scenario with fewer extremists joining the radical movement requires us to ignore 20 years of experience. We weren't in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th. We weren't in Iraq, and thousands of fighters were trained in terror camps inside your country, Mr. President. We weren't in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. We weren't in Iraq when they bombed the Cole. We weren't in Iraq when they blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. My judgment is, if we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse, because they have ambitions. They kill in order to achieve their objectives.

You know, in the past, Osama bin Laden used Somalia as an excuse for people to join his jihadist movement. In the past, they used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was a convenient way to try to recruit people to their jihadist movement. They've used all kinds of excuses.

This government is going to do whatever it takes to protect this homeland. We're not going to let their excuses stop us from staying on the offense. The best way to protect America is defeat these killers overseas so we do not have to face them here at home. We're not going to let lies and propaganda by the enemy dictate how we win this war.

Now, you know what's interesting about the NIE -- it was a intelligence report done last April. As I understand, the conclusions -- the evidence on the conclusions reached was stopped being gathered on February -- at the end of February. And here we are, coming down the stretch in an election campaign, and it's on the front page of your newspapers. Isn't that interesting? Somebody has taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for political purposes.

I talked to John Negroponte today, the DNI. You know, I think it's a bad habit for our government to declassify every time there's a leak, because it means that it's going to be hard to get good product out of our analysts. Those of you who have been around here long enough know what I'm talking about. But once again, there's a leak out of our government, coming right down the stretch in this campaign, -- to create confusion in the minds of the American people, in my judgment, is why they leaked it.

And so we're going to -- I told the DNI to declassify this document. You can read it for yourself. We'll stop all the speculation, all the politics about somebody saying something about Iraq, somebody trying to confuse the American people about the nature of this enemy. And so John Negroponte, the DNI, is going to declassify the document as quickly as possible. He'll declassify the key judgments for you to read yourself. And he'll do so in such a way that we'll be able to protect sources and methods that our intelligence community uses. And then everybody can draw their own conclusions about what the report says.

Thank you.

Q My question --

PRESIDENT BUSH: What was that question?

Q Why is that declassification not --

PRESIDENT BUSH: Because I want you to read the documents so you don't speculate about what it says. You asked me a question based upon what you thought was in the document, or at least somebody told you was in the document. And so I think, Jennifer, you'll be able to ask a more profound question when you get to look at it yourself -- (laughter) -- as opposed to relying upon gossip and somebody who may or may not have seen the document trying to classify the war in Iraq one way or the other.

I guess it's just Washington, isn't it, where, you know, we kind of -- there's no such thing as classification anymore, hardly. But, anyway, you ought to take a look at it and then you'll get to see.

You've got a two-part question.

Karzai's response nails it.

It's as if he's addressing a junior high school student. He explains the nature of the enemy and the War on Terror to the clueless reporter.

PRESIDENT KARZAI: Ma'am, before I go to remarks by my brother, President Musharraf, terrorism was hurting us way before Iraq or September 11th. The President mentioned some examples of it. These extremist forces were killing people in Afghanistan and around for years, closing schools, burning mosques, killing children, uprooting vineyards, with vine trees, grapes hanging on them, forcing populations to poverty and misery.

They came to America on September 11th, but they were attacking you before September 11th in other parts of the world. We are a witness in Afghanistan to what they are and how they can hurt. You are a witness in New York. Do you forget people jumping off the 80th floor or 70th floor when the planes hit them? Can you imagine what it will be for a man or a woman to jump off that high? Who did that? And where are they now? And how do we fight them, how do we get rid of them, other than going after them? Should we wait for them to come and kill us again? That's why we need more action around the world, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to get them defeated -- extremism, their allies, terrorists and the like.

On the remarks of my brother, President Musharraf, Afghanistan is a country that is emerging out of so many years of war and destruction, and occupation by terrorism and misery that they've brought to us. We lost almost two generations to the lack of education. And those who were educated before that are now older. We know our problems. We have difficulties. But Afghanistan also knows where the problem is -- in extremism, in madrassas preaching hatred, preachers in the name of madrassas preaching hatred. That's what we should do together to stop.

The United States, as our ally, is helping both countries. And I think it is very important that we have more dedication and more intense work with sincerity, all of us, to get rid of the problems that we have around the world.

"Do you forget people jumping off the 80th floor or 70th floor when the planes hit them? Can you imagine what it will be for a man or a woman to jump off that high? Who did that? And where are they now? And how do we fight them, how do we get rid of them, other than going after them? Should we wait for them to come and kill us again? That's why we need more action around the world, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to get them defeated -- extremism, their allies, terrorists and the like."

That's the divide. Karzai clearly illustrates the divide between the appeasers and the protectors.

The appeasers want to forget 9/11. For purely political purposes, the Dems and lib media want to divert attention away from the enemy and focus on attacking Bush in order to win seats in the House and Senate. It's that simple.

These people are dangerous.

Obviously, the terrorists are dangerous.

And the appeasers pose another danger.

Jim Webb

The Democrats and their lib media mouthpieces are ruthless people.

They will stop at nothing to bring down a Republican. I thought campaigning would get ugly after Labor Day, but I didn't envision something as vicious as the George Allen LIBERAL HIT JOB.

However, in their attacks on George Allen's integrity, the Dems and the lib media may have gone a bridge too far.

They pushed the macaca thing to the limit. Then, they foamed at the mouth over Allen's "hidden" Jewish heritage. The past couple of days, it's been Allen's alleged use of the N-word.

The New York Times offers the story of the latest person to come forward and reveal the "truth" about that racist monster George Allen.

Another acquaintance of Senator George Allen said Tuesday that she heard him use a racial slur in 1976, contradicting a statement he made Monday in an effort to tamp down similar accusations.

Mr. Allen’s campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, called the account by the woman, Ellen G. Hawkins, “another false accusation.”

...Mrs. Hawkins, who described herself as a rural Virginia housewife and an active Democrat, said in an interview Tuesday that she heard Mr. Allen use the slur repeatedly at a party on election night in 1976. She said Mr. Allen used the term while deprecating the intelligence of the black players on the Washington Redskins football team, which Mr. Allen’s father coached. Recalling remarks about its star running back, Larry Brown, Mrs. Hawkins said that Mr. Allen “started in effect bad-mouthing him, saying what a shiftless you-know-what” he was.

She said she remembered the conversation because she was a big fan of the team and was shocked. She said Mr. Allen’s statement on Monday was “just plain a lie.”

She described her recollections in an e-mail message forwarded to The New York Times. Her former husband, who she said was at the party, did not return a call for comment.

Exactly who sent this information to The New York Times?

Hawkins e-mail was forwarded. Forwarded by whom? Who was the original recipient of the e-mail?

Who solicited Hawkins to tell her story? Who prompted her to write the e-mail? Anyone?

...Mrs. Hawkins is the third acquaintance in two days to recount hearing Mr. Allen use racist slurs.

...A college football teammate, Dr. Ken Shelton, has said Mr. Allen used racial slurs and engaged in a racist prank in college in the early 70’s.

An anthropology professor, Christopher Taylor, said that as a graduate student at the University of Virginia he heard Mr. Allen use the epithet.

Mr. Allen’s campaign issued former teammates’ statements saying they did not remember his using the term. The campaign also issued a statement from his former wife, Anne Waddell, who confirmed meeting Mr. Taylor but disputed his recollection. She said Mr. Allen “would never utter such a word.”

As Hawkins basks in the spotlight for being the George Allen accuser of the day, Jim Webb, Allen's Dem challenger, is finally being pressed to address his vocabulary.

Democratic Senate challenger Jim Webb declined to say definitively Tuesday whether he had ever used a common derogatory term to describe blacks, stepping carefully after watching his campaign rival confront charges of racism.

"I don't think that there's anyone who grew up around the South that hasn't had the word pass through their lips at one time or another in their life," Webb told reporters.

Webb referred to his novel, "Fields of Fire," which aides said includes occurrences of the n-word as part of character dialogue. But he added: "I have never issued a racial or ethnic slur."

Asked for clarification of his original answer, spokeswoman Jessica Smith quoted Webb as saying, "I have never used that word in my general vocabulary or in any derogatory way."

She declined to say whether he had ever used the word apart from when he wrote his book.

Has Webb been taking flip-flopping lessons from his supporter, John Kerry?

He implied that he has used the N-word in the past; but then he backed off.

Did he use the N-word before he decided not to?

It certainly seems like Webb has some things to hide.

When he said, "I don't think that there's anyone who grew up around the South that hasn't had the word pass through their lips at one time or another in their life," Webb seemed to be acknowledging his own behavior. There's really no other interpretation.

Webb's spokeswoman is equally slippery in her responses on the matter.

She quotes Webb as saying that he NEVER used the N-word in his "general vocabulary" or in any "derogatory way." Then the spokeswoman turns around and doesn't answer whether or not Webb had used racial slurs apart from his writing.

Is Webb parsing his words here? Has he used the N-word but just doesn't consider it to be part of what he defines as his "general vocabulary"?

It seems that Webb is leaving himself some wiggle room, in the event that a "classmate" from college might surface with some damaging information on him.

If Webb was running on strong ideas, he wouldn't need to be dragging the campaign into the gutter.

_________________________________

Riehl World View uncovers some interesting connections between Allen's accusers and the Webb campaign.

Read about them.

Green v. Barrett of UW-Madison

Kevin Barrett, UW-Madison lecturer


Wisconsin Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Green is taking on UW-MADISON LECTURER KEVIN BARRETT again, and rightly so.

Don't know KEVIN BARRETT, UW-MADISON LECTURER?

Read some background on KEVIN BARRETT of UW-MADISON here and here and here.

Green Campaign: Renews Call for Termination of UW Lecturer Barrett

UW lecturer Kevin Barrett is at it again. After being instructed by UW-Madison administrators that he should not use the university to advance his absurd and slanderous theories about the September 11th terrorist attacks, Barrett ignored their warnings and scheduled another lecture in an official, taxpayer-funded academic building. Barrett also announced that the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) would be on hand to tape the event.

Instead of firing Barrett for thumbing his nose at the university, the UW-Madison administration has decided to allow the lecture to take place.

After hearing of Barrett’s upcoming lecture, gubernatorial candidate Mark Green issued the following statement Tuesday:

“Rather than stick to their guns and fire Kevin Barrett for openly defying university policy again, the administrators at UW-Madison have, once again, refused to put a stop to this charade.

“For far too long, Kevin Barrett has been allowed to propagate his libelous theories at the UW, and this time he’ll be doing it in front of a worldwide audience.

“This is a slap in the face to the thousands of families who lost loved ones on September 11th, and an insult to hard-working Wisconsin taxpayers and students who are being forced to pay the salary of a man who would have you believe the U.S. government orchestrated those terrible acts.

“The university needs to terminate Mr. Barrett immediately. He has soiled the good name of our proud UW system too many times, and made a complete mockery of academic freedom.

“Elect me governor, and I’ll inject some Wisconsin common sense back into the University of Wisconsin.”

Being filmed by the BBC isn't keeping a low profile, as Barrett had promised.

The man is a disgrace to the UW system.

I completely agree with Mark Green.

I am disgusted that Wisconsin tax dollars are funding Kevin Barrett and that he is using his position at UW-Madison to gives his views an air of legitimacy.

Barrett, UW-MADISON LECTURER, takes a national stage and now an international stage to express his theories that the Bush administration orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.

In an interview on Sean Hannity's nationally-syndicated radio program, Barrett named the neoconservatives behind the destruction of the World Trade Center.

"As I said before, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Douglas Faith, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby... um ... and, you know, I could probably throw out a few more but I think that's enough for now."

When challenged to throw out a few more names, Barrett hesitated, but then added:

"In fact, I could be wrong about this... I would certainly throw two members of the Bush Crime Family in there as suspects. That would be... Well, actually three,... the President's cousin Walker,... as well as the President's brother Marvin,... and I would throw in there the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush."

Barrett went on to say:

"The Bush Crime Family is intricately involved with the CIA drug cartel, and yes these people certainly knew what was going on."

As if that's not loony enough, Barrett then said that he believed President Bush may have been in on the 9/11 plot.

Barrett said, and I quote:

"I think President Bush very well may have signed an authorization for the 9/11 attacks."

There is no place for someone like Barrett in the UW system.

It's a joke that Jim Doyle proclaims himself to be the champion of quality education.

How can he consider Kevin Barrett fit to teach?

Quality education and Kevin Barrett are irreconcilable.

Recovered Memories of George Allen

The memories are flooding in.

It's really quite remarkable. Suddenly, people from George Allen's past are surfacing to pass along their favorite "George is a racist" recollections.

Some of them had little contact with Allen, like Larry Sabato.

RICHMOND, Va. -- A noted political scientist joined one of Sen. George Allen's former college football teammates in claiming the senator used a racial slur to refer to blacks in the early 1970s, a claim Allen dismisses as "ludicrously false."

Larry J. Sabato, one of Virginia's most-quoted political science professors and a classmate of Allen's in the early 1970s, said in a televised interview Monday that Allen used the epithet.

Sabato's assertion came on the heels of accusations by Dr. Ken Shelton, a radiologist who was a tight end and wide receiver for the University of Virginia in the early 1970s when Allen was quarterback. He said Allen not only used the n-word frequently but also once stuffed a severed deer head into a black family's mailbox.

Yikes!

That's awful!

Question: Was the severed deer head and Allen's vocabulary in college an issue in past elections?

All of a sudden, out of nowhere, Allen becomes akin to a Klan member.

Actually, I think the Dems are practicing their "swiftboating" techniques on Allen.

Allen's campaign released statements from four other ex-teammates defending the senator and rejecting Shelton's claims.

Christopher J. LaCivita, an Allen strategist, said Allen and Sabato were not friends nor did they associate with each other in college.

"Larry is obviously relying on words he heard from someone else," he said. "We believe it's completely inaccurate."

Calling Sabato Allen's "classmate," while technically correct, is deceiving.

The University of Virginia isn't some tiny community college. It's not as if all the students know each other or are familiar with each other's behavior.

Allen must have made quite an impression on Sabato, considering that weren't friends.

Over thirty years have passed and Sabato is sure that Allen used the N-word.

That's odd. It's an odd memory to hold and keep fresh.

Sabato just tosses out charges, without offering any explanation.

If he's going to make such a serious charge, then why would he go half way?

"Allen said the N-word but I won't say how I know."

That's just weird.

If Sabato has information on Allen that he wants to share, then he should share it, not tease with it.

Frankly, I'm surprised that Sabato is behaving so irresponsibly.

I think he's abusing his status and credibility.

Ooh, this widely respected professor said Allen used the N-word so it must be true.

Why won't he offer more details?

Sabato has made the decision to contribute to the "death by a thousand cuts" treatment that Allen is getting. Why go half way?

Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, would not tell The Associated Press how he knew Allen used the n-word. He told Chris Matthews on MSNBC that he did not know whether it was true that Allen used the word frequently while in college.

"I'm simply going to stay with what I know is the case and the fact is he did use the n-word, whether he's denying it or not," Sabato said.

What is that?

Allen, a Republican, has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2008. Questions about racial insensitivity have dogged him during his re-election bid against Democrat Jim Webb.

That's what is so odd.

Why did this racial insensitivity stuff become an issue now?

Do Virginians realize that they elected a "bigot" to be their congressman, governor, and then their senator?

The questions didn't just materialize. They were planted.

It's a hit job, character assassination.

I think it reveals the Dems' desperation.

I'm recovering a memory, too.

It's not a first-hand recollection. It's an American history moment, a Joe McCarthy moment.

From senate.gov:

In the spring of 1954, McCarthy picked a fight with the U.S. Army, charging lax security at a top-secret army facility. The army responded that the senator had sought preferential treatment for a recently drafted subcommittee aide. Amidst this controversy, McCarthy temporarily stepped down as chairman for the duration of the three-month nationally televised spectacle known to history as the Army-McCarthy hearings.

The army hired Boston lawyer Joseph Welch to make its case. At a session on June 9, 1954, McCarthy charged that one of Welch's attorneys had ties to a Communist organization. As an amazed television audience looked on, Welch responded with the immortal lines that ultimately ended McCarthy's career: "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness." When McCarthy tried to continue his attack, Welch angrily interrupted, "Let us not assassinate this lad further, senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?"

NO SENSE OF DECENCY.

The Wagger

Bill Clinton is quite a wagger.

Here are a few of Bill Clinton's memorable finger wags:


Wagging at the American people, televised address, 1998 ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.")



Wagging at Peter Jennings, 2004



Wagging on Meet the Press, 2005



Wagging at Chris Wallace, 2006



More wagging at Chris Wallace, 2006



Bill Clinton's wagging borders on the pathological. Very troubling indeed.

Green's Judgment Day

The ruling wasn't what Mark Green was hoping to get.

From the Associated Press:

Mark Green's campaign says it will appeal Monday's court decision which upholds an order that he cannot use nearly $468,000 in donations.

Green's campaign manager Mark Graul says the matter will be best addressed by the Supreme Court. Graul says they'll set aside the PAC money involved until there's a final decision.

Dane County Circuit Court Judge Richard Niess ruled the state Elections Board legally ordered the Republican gubernatorial candidate to divest of the campaign donations, which Green raised as a congressman and then transferred when he announced his run for governor in 2005. The board ruled the money from out-of-state political action committees which aren't registered in Wisconsin violated the state's campaign finance laws.

Because Doyle's dirty tactics with the Elections Board have been exposed, I think that Green has gained far more in support from voters than he has lost in terms of campaign cash.

Although Doyle's hit squad is trying to break the Green campaign by taking away $468,000, that doesn't compare to the hit that Doyle is taking from this.

Doyle being revealed to be undeniably corrupt is priceless, absolutely priceless.

...Niess refused to grant Green's request for an injunction stopping the board's order from going into effect. Niess ruled Green didn't demonstrate that he would be irreparably injured by the order, nor that he was likely to prevail on the merits of his case.

Blah, blah, blah.

Has a Doyle lawyer been in contact with Niess? Any damning e-mails floating around out there?

...Governor Jim Doyle's campaign issued its own statement stating, "The time for endless excuses, finger-pointing, and hypocritical Republican attacks designed to distract voters from the truth about Congressman Green's misconduct has ended.

God, Doyle is slimy!

MISCONDUCT???

And is tampering with the state Elections Board acceptable conduct?

I am so sick of Jim Doyle and his crew assuming that holier-than-thou position when they are rotten to the core.
________________________________

Read the court document.

Read the Green campaign's statement on today's ruling.

Pope Benedict, Reciprocity, and Islam

Pope Benedict shakes hands with ambassadors of Islamic nations and Italian Islamic leaders in a room at his summer residence of Castelgandolfo, outside Rome, September 25, 2006. (Osservatore Romano/Reuters)

Did Pope Benedict's meeting with Muslim envoys today help smooth over the tensions and violence in the Islamic world that came after he quoted a portion of what they considered to be an insulting text during a LECTURE?

Not really.

Some Muslims have responded positively.

CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy (AP) -- Pope Benedict XVI told Muslim diplomats Monday that Christians and Muslims must work together to guard against intolerance and violence as he sought to soothe anger over his recent remarks about Islam.

The pontiff also quoted from his predecessor, John Paul II, who had close relations with the Muslim world, calling for "reciprocity in all fields," including religious freedom. Benedict spoke in French to diplomats from 21 countries and the Arab League in his summer residence in Castel Gandolfo near Rome.

...Benedict's five-minute speech on Monday touched on religion and violence only briefly. He said that Christians and Muslims "must learn to work together ... to guard against all forms of intolerance and to oppose all manifestations of violence."

After his speech, in a salon in the papal palace in the Alban Hills, Benedict greeted each envoy one by one. He clasped their hands warmly and chatted for a few moments with each of the diplomats.

Iraq's ambassador to the Holy See said Benedict's address to the envoys should end the anger over the university address.

"The Holy Father stated his profound respect for Islam. This is what we were expecting," Iraqi envoy Albert Edward Ismail Yelda said as he left the 30 minute meeting. "It is now time to put what happened behind and build bridges."

...Benedict said he invited the diplomats to "strengthen the bonds of friendship" between both sides, but he did not offer any analysis of the controversial passage, which came in a speech exploring faith and reason.

Benedict said dialogue between Christians and Muslims "cannot be reduced to an optional extra. It is, in fact, a vital necessity on which in large measure our future depends," he said, quoting from a speech he gave to Muslims in Germany in 2005.

Benedict also cited John Paul II as saying "respect and dialogue require reciprocity in all spheres," particularly religious freedom. This is a major issue for the Vatican in Saudi Arabia and several other countries where non-Muslims cannot worship openly.

...Benedict gave "a very clear, very intelligent speech," said Mohamed Nour Dachan, an Italian of Syrian origin who heads the Union of Islamic Communities, or UCOII, one of the more radical Italian Muslim groups. "In a few words, the dialogue goes on. The dialogue is a priority for both Muslims and Christians."

Other Muslims are not so willing to have an open dialogue.

They are not buying into the reciprocity notion.

CAIRO -- Egypt's opposition Muslim Brotherhood said Monday that Pope Benedict XVI's meeting with Muslim envoys to the Vatican was another way of avoiding an apology.
"This is another attempt to avoid the issue of apology," Mohammed Habib, a senior member of the Islamist group, told AFP.

..."When we asked for an apology, we asked for a clear and honest one. We asked for an academic discussion" to discuss the speech, Habib said.

"When you quote something like that, you must analyse it and either show objection or agreement with these comments," he said.

These Muslims aren't the only ones dissatisfied with the Pope's remarks today.

Media libs are still criticizing the Pope as well.

Tony Barber writes:

[I]n his latest speech, the 79-year-old pope made a pointed reference to what the Vatican sees as discrimination against Christians in Saudi Arabia and other Islamic states where they are denied full freedom of worship or suffer repression.

Benedict quoted a speech given in Morocco by John Paul II, his predecessor, in which the late pope said: "Respect and dialogue demand reciprocity in all fields, above all in relation to fundamental freedoms, and most especially religious liberty."

Benedict's remarks, in front of an audience of envoys from about 20 Muslim countries, served as a reminder that although he has sought to make amends for his speech in Germany, he will not shy from talking frankly when necessary about Islam.

Since his election as Pope in April 2005, Benedict has altered the tone of Vatican policy on Islam, subtly distancing the Church from the path set by John Paul, who created history by becoming the first pope in 2,000 years of Christianity to enter a mosque.

Benedict has proved tougher on the issue of "reciprocity" – the Church's demand that Islamic states should grant the same rights and freedoms to Christians as Muslims receive in countries with a Christian heritage.

Last February Benedict removed Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, the Vatican's most prominent advocate of good relations with the Islamic world and a John Paul appointee, as president of the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue.

What does "reciprocity" mean?

1. given or felt by each toward the other; mutual.
2. given, performed, felt, etc., in return.
3. corresponding; matching; complementary; equivalent.

Some Muslims and clueless libs like Eleanor Clift and those of her ilk aren't comfortable with reciprocity. They don't think in terms of a two-way street being part of good relations between the faiths.

The onus for good relations is placed solely on the Catholic Church. Concessions must be made by the Pope.

Militant Muslims can execute a nun in cold blood, yet Pope Benedict is condemned and no apology is good enough.

Imagine. He's asking for RECIPROCAL civility and respect. How inappropriate!

Why is it that the Muslims' massive protests, as well as threats and acts of violence against the Pope and Catholics, must be tolerated, or at least understood by non-Muslims?

At the same time, the Muslims making these demands refuse to tolerate or attempt to understand non-Muslims. It's ludicrous.

First, violence is intolerable. Firebombing Christian churches and murdering a Catholic nun is unexceptable. Period.

Second, the Pope should not be expected to surrender his belief in religious liberty and freedom from religiously motivated violence.

Pope Benedict should not be criticized for supposedly being "tougher" than Pope John Paul II on reciprocity.

How do you think Pope John Paul would have reacted to radical Islam's religious intolerance as manifested in the world today?

I suspect he would have held as firm as he did on communism.

The claim that Pope Benedict is taking a different course than the one charted by Pope John Paul is a ruse, a misinformation campaign by the lib media.

Pope Benedict will not, and should not, bend to appease radical Islam. There is no middle ground when it comes to the atrocities that militant Muslims have committed in the name of God.

They are morally abhorrent. Case closed.

George Allen is Racist!

The Left is not about to let this drop.

They are bent on cementing the image of George Allen as a raving racist.

WASHINGTON -- Three former college football teammates of Sen. George Allen say that the Virginia Republican repeatedly used an inflammatory racial epithet and demonstrated racist attitudes toward blacks during the early 1970s.

"Allen said he came to Virginia because he wanted to play football in a place where 'blacks knew their place,'" said Dr. Ken Shelton, a white radiologist in North Carolina who played tight end for the University of Virginia football team when Allen was quarterback. "He used the N-word on a regular basis back then."

A second white teammate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he feared retribution from the Allen campaign, separately claimed that Allen used the word "nigger" to describe blacks. "It was so common with George when he was among his white friends. This is the terminology he used," the teammate said.

A third white teammate contacted separately, who also spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of being attacked by the Virginia senator, said he too remembers Allen using the word "nigger," though he said he could not recall a specific conversation in which Allen used the term. "My impression of him was that he was a racist," the third teammate said.

Shelton also told Salon that the future senator gave him the nickname "Wizard," because he shared a last name with Robert Shelton, who served in the 1960s as the imperial wizard of the United Klans of America, a group affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan. The radiologist said he decided earlier this year that he would go public with his concerns about Allen if a reporter ever called. About four months ago, when he heard that Allen was a possible candidate for president in 2008, Shelton began to write down some of the negative memories of his former teammate. He provided Salon excerpts of those notes last week.

...The racial attitudes of Allen, a once formidable presidential contender in 2008, have become an issue in his highly contested reelection campaign against Jim Webb, a former Marine and author. Last month, Allen was videotaped calling an Indian-American college student "macaca," an obscure word for monkey that is also used as a racial epithet in some parts of the world. Allen has since apologized to the student, saying that he made up the word, and did not know its other meanings.

Last week, Allen again created controversy by appearing offended when a reporter asked about the Jewish lineage in his mother's family, which he has since acknowledged. Allen has also faced questions about his affinity for the Confederate flag, which he wore as a pin in a high school yearbook photo and exhibited in his home in Virginia.

This article by Michael Scherer goes ON and ON to detail what a disgusting, racist pig George Allen really is.

By any standard, it's a hit piece.

Bill Clinton flips out about being the victim of a "conservative hit job" because Chris Wallace posed a totally fair question.

Compare that with Scherer's hatchet job on Allen. Compare that with The Washington Post's macaca obsession.

It's clear that the Left is digging up anything they can to destroy George Allen.

Allen's former teammates coming forward?

That's ridiculous!

Why didn't they surface before? Where were they when Allen ran for governor or the Senate?


Gee, do you think that any of Robert "I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time" Byrd's former Ku Klux Klan colleagues will come forward and give details on his blatant racist attitudes?

What about Joe "You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent" Biden?

What about Hillary "I love this quote from Mahatma Gandhi - who ran a gas station down in St. Louis for a couple of years" Clinton?

Will people out of their pasts step forward to give details about the depth of their racism?

There's an obvious double standard.

These attacks on George Allen are part of an orchestrated smear campaign. It's the politics of personal destruction in action.

It's ugly, pure and simple.

Jerry Falwell, Hillary Clinton, and Lucifer

Another stupid remark, another demand for an apology.

There always seems to be some sort of demand for an "I'm sorry." I'm not saying that at least some of the apologies aren't deserved. I'm just saying that we're in an era of hypersensitivity.

Jerry Falwell's comment about Hillary Clinton and Lucifer is a case in point.

At the "Value Voter Summit," Falwell said to a group of pastors and religious activists, "I hope she's the candidate because nothing will energize my [constituency] like Hillary Clinton.

"If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't."

Although Falwell said on Sunday that his comments were "tongue-in-cheek," the Hillary camp didn't appreciate the hyperbole.

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- ...Clinton press secretary Philippe Reines said Sunday, "Working for someone who believes in the Golden Rule, we're not going to engage in such vitriolic discourse -- but it seems that a new low has been reached in demonizing political opponents."

Falwell told the AP that he did not intend to demonize the former first lady. "That was totally tongue-in-cheek, and everyone in the building knew that and everyone laughed," Falwell said.

The phony outrage on the part of Hillary's people is all politics.

Falwell's comment was extreme, no question about it, but I'd hardly call it a "new low" ... in demonizing political opponents.

I an not excusing Falwell.

I'm Christian, but Jerry Falwell doesn't speak for me. I hereby officially condemn his remarks. Frankly, I think he's a nut.

The question here is not whether Falwell said something stupid; the question is whether Hillary's camp should be bothered by it?

I don't think so.

Just as the White House wouldn't dignify Hugo Chavez's idiotic UN remarks about President Bush with a response, I think it would have been much more effective if Hillary's people would have reacted to Falwell's lunacy in a similar fashion.

In Chavez's address to the UN General Assembly last week, he referred to President Bush as the devil at least eight times.

Wisely, the White House ignored Chavez. By doing so, it didn't legitimize Chavez or his words.

Hillary's campaign wants to play games.

There is no way that Falwell's Lucifer comment hits a new low in demonizing political opponents. There's just no way.

We know that Hillary is incredibly thick-skinned. She's married to Bill. She'd have to be.

By whining about the offensive remarks, Hillary gives Falwell far more influence than he deserves.

Finally, I can honestly say that if Lucifer were running against Hillary I would vote for Hillary.

Bill Clinton Blows a Gasket

Chris Wallace's interview with Bill Clinton on FOX News Sunday was truly something to behold.

Watch Clinton's eruption here.



More later.

The Packers are winning. I must savor the moment.
______________________________

WOO HOO!!!

The Packers beat the Lions, 31-24. Things got a little dicey when Ahman Green fumbled and gave Detroit another chance, but it turned out OK in the end.

Congrats to Brett Favre on his 400th NFL career touchdown pass! It makes me wonder why he even considered retiring last year.
______________________________

Back to Bill Clinton--

UNBELIEVABLE!

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

Clinton was shockingly out of control.

He sounded drunk to me, slurring his speech. He looked drunk too, spitting mad, threateningly leaning into Chris Wallace.

This was not a former president defending his record. This was a pathetic figure flipping out like a moonbat lib on a loony Left Internet discussion board.

I loved Chris Wallace's expression. He wasn't wearing a "little smirk," as Clinton claimed. He looked stunned; and that was completely understandable.

I think his finger-wagging performance on FOX may become the bit of tape that will replace the "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" as his defining moment.

It was that incredible.

I'd consider it reasonable for Clinton to be defensive about how he handled, (or failed to handle), Osama bin Laden. It would be reasonable for him to show some controlled anger. He thinks he's being judged unfairly. Clearly, the ABC docudrama The Path to 9/11 is still driving him nuts. He's freaked out about his legacy. He can't bear the thought of going down in history as the president that let bin Laden get away.

The thing that made Clinton's response to Chris Wallace's completely legitimate question totally weird was his vast Right-wing paranoia.

It was like watching someone have a mental breakdown. Really.

Clinton seemed so unstable.

It was more than losing his temper during an interview. It was like he was losing his mind.

Some choice moments:

"You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because [News Corp. Chairman] Rupert Murdoch's supporting my work on climate change," Clinton said. "You said you'd spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7-billion-plus in three days from 215 different commitments. And you don't care."

When Wallace offered to return the conversation to Clinton's philanthropic efforts, the former president wanted to continue talking about terrorism and recent criticisms that his administration was weak on terror.

"There's a reason it's on people's minds: Because there's been a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression," Clinton said.

I'd call it a serious campaign to give the public the truth, not distort it.

Clinton pointed the finger at Republican factions in Congress and Pentagon for stymieing his anti-terrorism efforts.

"All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office," Clinton said. "All the right-wingers who now say I didn't do enough, said I did too much — same people."

"Bush's neo-cons," "right-wingers" -- Now, now, settle down, Bill. You're sounding rather Michael Moore-ish.

Clinton vigorously defended his efforts to hunt down Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden after the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole and 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, saying he authorized the CIA to assassinate him and ever contracted with other parties to kill him.

"I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him," Clinton said. "I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it, but I did try and I did everything I thought I responsibly could."

Clinton also said:

"Now I've never criticized President Bush, and I don't think this is useful. But you do know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is only one-seventh as important as Iraq."

So, let me get this straight. Bill has "never criticized President Bush," but he proceeds to attack President Bush for failing to get bin Laden, but he believes that he deserves a pass.

Riiiiiight.

Here's more.

"And you (Chris Wallace) got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever, but I had responsibility for trying to protect this country.

That's truly bizarre.

It's surreal.

Accusing Wallace of staging a "conservative hit job" on him is just weird.

I bet Hillary is royally ticked off at Bill for this. She's probably shrieking at him right now for creating such a mess and drawing so much attention away from her. You know reporters will expect her to comment on Bill's meltdown.

Fair or not, Bill unhinged, just as Bill unzipped, reflects poorly on her.

Even if it's just a subliminal connection, Clinton going ballistic on Chris Wallace has to turn people off to the Clinton clan in general.

I don't understand Bill's pent-up rage. He really needs to find a way to release that energy.

________________________________

Partial transcript of the interview