Conservatives are going off the deep end over the Miers nomination. They need to calm down.
Bill Kristol was one of the first to express how depressed and demoralized he is over Bush's choice. Since yesterday morning, the conservative drumbeat against Miers has grown louder.
BUSH BETRAYED HIS BASE. BUSH BETRAYED HIS BASE.
Personally, I find it annoying.
I admit that little is known about Miers. So, how can conservatives be so sure that she is a poor nominee?
The fact is they don't know. That's what is at the root of the outcry. Conservatives want concrete guarantees. For them, "Trust me" doesn't cut it.
Frankly, I think they are behaving like Pavlov's dogs. After the Souter debacle, I can understand why conservatives are reacting this way. Of course, they would have preferred a familiar nominee. They've been spooked.
I know I'm in the minority here, but I don't think Bush is appeasing the Dems by nominating Miers. I don't think he's acting out of weakness.
Unlike poor Bill Kristol, I can honestly say that I'm not depressed or demoralized at all.
I believe that Bush knows Miers. This morning at his press conference, Bush said he is confident that Miers shares his judicial philosophy.
From the Washington Post:
"I know her heart. She knows exactly the kind of judge I'm looking for," he said at a morning news conference, noting that she had helped conduct the search that led to the appointment of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. She will be "exactly" what he is looking for, Bush said several times.
Asked by a reporter if she was "the most qualified" person he could find in the country, he said, "Yes, otherwise I would not have" named her.
The questioning at the Rose Garden news conference centered not around Democratic reaction to the appointment of Miers yesterday, but to the reaction of conservatives, many of whom expressed open disappointment with Miers's lack of a judicial track record or known philosophy about the role of the judiciary.
Reporters noted several times that a number of conservative commentators had questioned passing over some of the more prominent, proven conservative judges in favor of Miers.
"I'm interested in people who will be strict constructionists. . . . There should be no doubt in anyone's mind what I believe," Bush said. "Harriet Miers shares that philosophy."
Bush and his administration have confidence in Miers. Although that doesn't pacify the doubts that conservatives have, it should send a chill through liberals.
My only concern about Miers is her age. I would have preferred a younger nominee. Other than that, I'm not worried.
In the end, it all comes down to trust. While understandably wary, I think conservatives need to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Yes, a great deal is at stake. No kidding.
Does anyone really think that Bush and members of his administration would allow their legacy to be haunted by a Souter-like ghost?
If so, think again.
Tuesday, October 4, 2005
Big, Bad Bolton Goes to Yale
The Yale Daily News reports on John Bolton's return to his alma mater to address students in a speech hosted by the Yale Political Union.
Before getting to the substance of his appearance, I must point out another error by a liberal bastion. This is getting to be a trend.
Yesterday, it was the DNC that couldn't spell "Miers" correctly. I attributed the Dems' carelessness to their state of euphoria induced by the Miers nomination, although ignorance is also a possible explanation.
Today, I found another mistake. This time, in the caption accompanying the story on Bolton's visit, those intellectual giants at Yale had some spelling problems of their own. "Jon" Bolton is the U.S. Ambassador to the UN according to the Yale Daily News.
United Nations Ambassador Jon Bolton ’70 LAW ’74 speaks with students after his speech hosted by the Yale Political Union. During his speech the ambassador discussed U.S. foreign policy and his post at the United Nations. The Ambassador drew hisses from the rowdy crowd which filled SSS to capacity. (HAN XU/CONTRIBUTING PHOTOGRAPHER)
You'd think that the elite at Yale would be capable of spelling Bolton's name correctly. You'd think that would be the case, but I guess it's unfair to expect too much from the students at Yale. They grew up in the pre-"No Child Left Behind" era.
Am I being too nit-picky?
Of course, I am. People make mistakes.
However, when Dan Quayle adds an "e" to "potato," or when President Bush mangles a word, the Left goes berserk. I'm simply highlighting their ridiculousness.
On to substance--
Under the headline, "Bolton agitates audience," staff reporter Jessica Mardsen writes:
In his address, which defended the Bush administration's foreign policy, Bolton argued that voluntary contributions from states would allow major donors such as the United States to choose to fund the U.N. programs that they believe to be the most efficient. But while fielding questions from impassioned students packed into Sheffield-Sterling-Strathcona Hall, Bolton candidly discussed issues such as nuclear weapons in Iran and North Korea, the war in Iraq and his own confirmation battles.
...The audience interrupted Bolton throughout his speech with loud banging on desks and hissing, the typical YPU expressions for approval and disagreement. When asked about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, Bolton said the U.S. -- not other countries or international organizations -- should hold its own citizens accountable for possible abuse.
"We don't need anybody else to judge us," he said. "We judge our own."
The answer prompted loud hissing from the audience, but Bolton offered students a question of his own.
"I'm just curious, those of you who are hissing, who do you think will judge better than us?" he asked the audience.
...The lecture's organizers said they did not predict the degree to which Bolton's words would divide the audience.
"If we had known he was going to be this provocative, we would probably have tried to have a student debate to hash out the issues," YPU Speaker Goran Lynch '06 said.
Some students said they thought Bolton was too controversial and combative, reflecting U.S. Senate Democrats' concerns about his ability to be a successful diplomat.
..."He was extremely rude, extremely belligerent, everything the Democrats called him in confirmation hearings," Jed Glickstein '08 said. "He was all those things, but in the end he won the debate."
While an undergraduate, Bolton was a member of the YPU and served as floorleader of the Right in addition to serving at the helm of the Conservative Party. In an interview with the News after the speech, Bolton said he modeled his presentation and answers to questions on the best speakers he remembered from his days in the YPU, those who provoked discussion and offered controversial opinions.
"The best speakers at the YPU were the ones who debated with the students," he said.
First, that headline assigns the blame for the audience's outbursts on Bolton. He agitated them. It's as if they were victimized by big, bad Bolton.
How silly!
One student called Bolton "extremely rude, extremely belligerent."
I think that an audience hissing during a speech is somewhat rude and belligerent.
Am I being too judgmental or is there a double standard at work?
I think it's funny that the audience's reaction is explained away as the "typical YPU expressions for approval and disagreement."
Before getting to the substance of his appearance, I must point out another error by a liberal bastion. This is getting to be a trend.
Yesterday, it was the DNC that couldn't spell "Miers" correctly. I attributed the Dems' carelessness to their state of euphoria induced by the Miers nomination, although ignorance is also a possible explanation.
Today, I found another mistake. This time, in the caption accompanying the story on Bolton's visit, those intellectual giants at Yale had some spelling problems of their own. "Jon" Bolton is the U.S. Ambassador to the UN according to the Yale Daily News.
United Nations Ambassador Jon Bolton ’70 LAW ’74 speaks with students after his speech hosted by the Yale Political Union. During his speech the ambassador discussed U.S. foreign policy and his post at the United Nations. The Ambassador drew hisses from the rowdy crowd which filled SSS to capacity. (HAN XU/CONTRIBUTING PHOTOGRAPHER)
You'd think that the elite at Yale would be capable of spelling Bolton's name correctly. You'd think that would be the case, but I guess it's unfair to expect too much from the students at Yale. They grew up in the pre-"No Child Left Behind" era.
Am I being too nit-picky?
Of course, I am. People make mistakes.
However, when Dan Quayle adds an "e" to "potato," or when President Bush mangles a word, the Left goes berserk. I'm simply highlighting their ridiculousness.
On to substance--
Under the headline, "Bolton agitates audience," staff reporter Jessica Mardsen writes:
In his address, which defended the Bush administration's foreign policy, Bolton argued that voluntary contributions from states would allow major donors such as the United States to choose to fund the U.N. programs that they believe to be the most efficient. But while fielding questions from impassioned students packed into Sheffield-Sterling-Strathcona Hall, Bolton candidly discussed issues such as nuclear weapons in Iran and North Korea, the war in Iraq and his own confirmation battles.
...The audience interrupted Bolton throughout his speech with loud banging on desks and hissing, the typical YPU expressions for approval and disagreement. When asked about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, Bolton said the U.S. -- not other countries or international organizations -- should hold its own citizens accountable for possible abuse.
"We don't need anybody else to judge us," he said. "We judge our own."
The answer prompted loud hissing from the audience, but Bolton offered students a question of his own.
"I'm just curious, those of you who are hissing, who do you think will judge better than us?" he asked the audience.
...The lecture's organizers said they did not predict the degree to which Bolton's words would divide the audience.
"If we had known he was going to be this provocative, we would probably have tried to have a student debate to hash out the issues," YPU Speaker Goran Lynch '06 said.
Some students said they thought Bolton was too controversial and combative, reflecting U.S. Senate Democrats' concerns about his ability to be a successful diplomat.
..."He was extremely rude, extremely belligerent, everything the Democrats called him in confirmation hearings," Jed Glickstein '08 said. "He was all those things, but in the end he won the debate."
While an undergraduate, Bolton was a member of the YPU and served as floorleader of the Right in addition to serving at the helm of the Conservative Party. In an interview with the News after the speech, Bolton said he modeled his presentation and answers to questions on the best speakers he remembered from his days in the YPU, those who provoked discussion and offered controversial opinions.
"The best speakers at the YPU were the ones who debated with the students," he said.
First, that headline assigns the blame for the audience's outbursts on Bolton. He agitated them. It's as if they were victimized by big, bad Bolton.
How silly!
One student called Bolton "extremely rude, extremely belligerent."
I think that an audience hissing during a speech is somewhat rude and belligerent.
Am I being too judgmental or is there a double standard at work?
I think it's funny that the audience's reaction is explained away as the "typical YPU expressions for approval and disagreement."
Dems and RINOs opposed Bolton because of his fiery temperament; yet it's acceptable for the Yale audience to repeatedly disrupt Bolton during his speech.
There's definitely some inconsistency there.
Bolton apparently had no difficulty in meeting the challenge of dealing with their boorishness. Obviously, Bolton is tough. He can dish it out and he can take it.
It seems to me that he's the type of person that should be representing the U.S. at the corrupt UN. He won't accept the sorry status quo.
Given the current state of the UN, an unethical, unprincipled, unscrupulous organization populated by profiteers, only good can come from Bolton's presence there.
I do want to give credit where credit is due. The group at Bolton's speech did not throw any food at the Ambassador. No pies were tossed, no spilled salad dressing.
Then again, I don't know if that was the result of the audience's decorum, or the fact that "entrances and exits to the space were guarded by members of the Secret Service and police officers."
Monday, October 3, 2005
Prayer, Fasting, Charity, and Jihad
Ramadan begins on Tuesday.
Al Jazeera writes:
For more than a billion Muslims around the world the month of Ramadan is a "month of blessing" marked by prayer, fasting, and charity.
Ramadan has special significance since it is the month in which Muslims show empathy towards the poor and downtrodden.
Muslims practice sawm, or fasting, for the entire month of Ramadan.
This means they may eat or drink nothing, including water, while the sun shines.
During Ramadan in the Muslim world, most restaurants are closed during daylight hours. Families get up early for suhoor, usually a light meal eaten before the sun rises.
After the sun sets, the fast is broken with a meal known as iftar. Iftar usually begins with dates and sweet drinks that provide a quick energy boost.
Fasting serves many purposes. Self-discipline is one of the primary objectives of the fast in which all physical contact between husband and wife is also abandoned in daylight hours for the duration of Ramadan.
Fasting is also an opportunity to practice self-control and to cleanse the body, mind and soul. Fasting helps Muslims feel the peace that comes from spiritual devotion as well as kinship with fellow believers.
After sunset the fast is ended with modest meals followed by devotional prayers until sunrise. This routine is maintained for 29 or 30 consecutive days.
Muslims also believe Ramadan to be the month of the Holy Quran - Islam's holy book. They believe that this is the month in which the first verses of the Quran were revealed to the seal of prophets, Muhammad - Muhammad being the last prophet or messenger of Allah (God) on earth.
...Fasting is one of the five pillars of Islam. The others are: belief in one God (Shahaadah); prayer (Salaah) - five times a day at its appointed times; alms-giving (Zakaat) - 2% of fixed assets annually; and pilgrimage (Haj) to Makka at least once in a lifetime.
Many Muslim countries operate a reduced working week to allow people time to perform the extra prayers associated with the month.
This is a "month of blessing" for the world's Muslims.
Some claiming to be devout Muslims will recognize the holy month by committing suicide and murder.
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- The Middle East is jittery as it heads into Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual introspection that has become a time of increased attacks by suicide bombers who believe they receive extra blessings.
From Iraq to Lebanon to the Sinai, the month of prayer and after-dark feasting is now a month of heightened security.
Egyptian police planned increased watchfulness throughout the month, while insisting no specific threats had been received. But Israel warned its citizens to stay away from Egypt's beach resorts in the Sinai peninsula, calling the threat of attacks substantial.
Militants have not issued specific Ramadan-related threats, but the spike in violence in recent years - especially suicide attacks in Iraq - has been notable.
One possible reason is the belief by some Islamic extremists that those who die in combat for a holy cause during Ramadan are especially blessed.
"This is a month that has a spiritual feel to it, which condones the issue of jihad (holy war)," said Diaa Rashwan, an Egyptian expert on Islamic groups. Tradition holds the Prophet Muhammad led his forces in winning battles against nonbelievers during Ramadan, the ninth and holiest month on the Islamic calendar, which is based on the cycles of the moon.
...In Egypt, an Islamic group that previously claimed responsibility for this summer's attacks at Sharm el-Sheik vowed Sunday to launch an all-out war against Israelis, Americans and Egyptian police. An Egyptian security official said security was high across the country. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to talk to the press.
Israel urged its citizens not to travel to Egypt's Sinai peninsula during the upcoming Jewish holidays, which coincide with Ramadan's start, because Arab militants were planning to kidnap Israeli tourists there.
..."This time I can say that we have very substantial information," Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told Israel TV.
Kfir Pavzaner, an Israeli who had just returned from Sinai's Ananda Beach, described the scene: "As soon as the warning was announced it became like a huge storm that washed the Israelis out of Sinai. Suddenly there were rumors that Israelis will be kidnapped and they kept circling."
Debates about Islamic extremism have also become a routine part of Ramadan.
"Political and economic reform can't take place without religious reform," Ahmed al-Rubei, a liberal Kuwaiti columnist, wrote Monday in the pan Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat. "Religious reform requires courage from preachers and religion scholars. There is a majority that is afraid of expressing its ideas."
It's interesting that Al Jazeera's piece on Ramadan doesn't mention the violence that accompanies the "holy" month in Middle Eastern countries--not one word.
From Al Jazeera's account, one gets the impression that Ramadan in the Middle East is a time of goodwill, marked by prayer, fasting, and charity. It sounds like it should be a ceasefire of sorts from the terrorism and bloodshed that normally plagues the region.
Sadly, that's not the case.
Egyptian expert on Islamic groups Diaa Rashwan explains, "This is a month that has a spiritual feel to it, which condones the issue of jihad (holy war)."
So, this "spiritual" month actually incites violence.
I don't get it.
What type of spiritual introspection prompts one to commit murder?
Who is promoting the notion that Muslims will receive extra blessings if they choose to be suicide bombers during Ramadan?
The individuals engaging in that indoctrination are truly perverted.
As Kuwaiti columnist Ahmed al-Rubei notes, some courage on the part of Islamic religious leaders is desparately needed to bring about reform.
How will peace in the Middle East ever be realized without it?
Presidential Message: Ramadan
Laura and I send warm greetings to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world as they begin the observance of Ramadan.
The month of Ramadan, which commemorates the revelation of the Qur'an to the prophet Muhammed, is the holiest month of the Muslim year. It is a special time of reflection, fasting, and charity. It is also a time of spiritual growth and prayer and an occasion to remember the less fortunate by sharing God's gifts with those in need.
Throughout our history, America has been blessed by the contributions of people of many different faiths. Our Muslim citizens have helped make our Nation a stronger and more hopeful place through their faith, generosity, and compassion.
May this be a blessed Ramadan for Muslims in the United States and around the world. Ramadan mubarak.
GEORGE W. BUSH
MIERS AND THE VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY
Harriet MIERS is President Bush's choice to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court.
While looking around for reaction, I found this on the website of the Democratic National Committee:
Original Image--
Text--
Conservatives Red-Faced Over Myers
A politically weak Bush couldn't pick a nominee that would appeal to the most extreme members of his right-wing base, who are up in arms. Read More...
Before getting to the substance of the Miers nomination, I had to point out this amusing blooper.
I THINK THE DEMS SHOULD BE RED-FACED OVER MISSPELLING "MIERS" ON THEIR HOMEPAGE!
Funny.
Now, if you click on the link to read more about Harriet "Myers," you will see that the website of the Democratic National Committee does manage to spell correctly the name of President Bush's nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor.
The Dems are drooling with excitement. That may account for the spelling error.
The Dems write:
Conservatives Red-Faced Over MiersThe jury is still out on Harriet Miers. There are a lot of obvious concerns; her lack of experience, cronyism, and of course her views on our basic freedoms.
But one thing that's already clear is that a politically weak Bush was unable to pick a nominee that would appeal to his extreme right-wing base. Already this morning conservatives are up in arms over the nomination.
From Confirm Them:
[Law professor Jonathan Turley] Just said on NBC that this is “an amazingly bad choice.”
He went on to say outright that Ms. Miers is unqualified. Ugh.
From The Corner:
After the Roberts pick conservatives swooned and said Bush doesn't care about "diversity"; it's only high qualifications that matter to this bold, let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may leader, etc., etc. Don't we have to take all that back now?
From RedState.org:
Me, the sources, everyone it seems was wrong. We've all heard the rumors, but not a one could believe the President would do that. Where is our Scalia/Thomas.
I think I'll let the President fight this battle himself, for now.
Drudge reports:
Harriet Miers gave cash contribution to the Democratic National Committee in 1988...
On a conference call held by the Federalist Society this morning, former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie admitted sheepishly that Miers was a Democrat througout the 1980s...
HUMAN EVENTS: Harriet Miers contributed $250 to Clinton for President Committee on December 23, 1991, according to Federal Election Commission records. She did not contribute any money to the reelection of President Bush senior, who would face off against the Democrat Clinton in the 1992 presidential election. In 1988, Miers contributed $1,000 to the Democratic presidential primary campaign of then-Sen. Al Gore. At the time Vice President George H.W. Bush was in a Republican presidential primary fight with then-Sen. Dole and Kemp. She did not contribute to any of these Republicans...
From the Associated Press:
In 1988, Miers, then a lawyer in private practice, donated $1,000 to Gore, the Tennessee Democrat then seeking the party's presidential nomination, according to Federal Election Commission reports. Gore eventually bowed out and Michael Dukakis secured the nomination.
...Miers also gave $1,000 to another prominent Democrat _ Lloyd Bentsen, the longtime Texas senator who in 1988 ran for re-election and also was Dukakis' vice presidential choice on the Democratic ticket that year.
Bentsen won another term in the Senate, but the Republican ticket of George H. W. Bush and Dan Quayle defeated Dukakis and Bentsen.
Miers contributed $1,000 to the Democratic National Committee Services Corp. in 1988.
Another clear indication that Miers is a disastrous choice is that Senate minority leader Harry Reid has given her his initial approval.
Even foaming at the mouth Left-wing extremist groups, such as Naral, are subdued in their skepticism.
This all looks so bad for conservatives. Miers seems to be a worse choice than Souter!
When do you think the Dems will catch on that this is all part of the evil Bush plan?
This is all a VERY vast right-wing conspiracy, carefully orchestrated to include conservative columnists, publications, and blogs.
The most devious player in the conspiracy is Miers herself. I suspect that Miers made all those contributions years ago just to throw the Dems off balance. This woman, who has no judicial experience, was setting the stage for her eventual nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.
SHHHHHHH!
It's all a set-up.
Unfortunately, some Dems are catching on to the Republican scheme already.
PamB writes:
I think the fact that Bush chose her, is suspect in itself! He does not choose anyone, who is not going to lock step with his ideas of changing this country to a Far Right Wing and Religious led philosophy. Anyone who thinks this woman is going to be an independent thinker and judge, is naive .............
Cue the Twilight Zone music.
________________________
Disclaimer--
For the sarcastically challenged: I'm kidding about this being a conspiracy.
I'm not happy with the nomination of Miers.
________________________
Disclaimer's disclaimer--
The disclaimer may be part of a VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY.
__________________________
UPDATE:
After a spell check--
"You say Myers and I say Miers...."
Sunday, October 2, 2005
Cindy Sheehan and Mel Gibson
An example of the Left's hypocrisy:
In 2004, Mel Gibson was pummeled by liberal critics and columnists alike for supposedly making an anti-Semitic film, The Passion of the Christ.
Maybe they were angered that Gibson was able to circumvent Hollywood and make the movie he wanted to make without them. He took a chance. He told the story of the last hours of the life of Jesus without the approval of Hollywood's liberal elite.
In spite of the Left's insistence that the film was anti-Semitic, millions didn't see it that way at all. The public embraced Gibson's movie, and it set box office records.
Nevertheless, Hollywood libs and liberal columnists such as Frank Rich rejected it as a depiction of Christ's passion that was grounded in Gibson's hostility toward Jews. Gibson was labeled a hate-monger.
You would think that the same elitists who found fault with Mel Gibson for his presumed anti-Semitism would condemn Cindy Sheehan for her repeated suggestions that U.S. support of Israel was directly related to her son's death and was the root cause of terrorism.
Where are all the columns by Leftist writers trashing Sheehan for her Israel bashing?
Hollywood and the liberal media conveniently ignore some of Cindy's best:
"We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog sh-t in Washington! Let George Bush send his two little party animals to die in Iraq. It’s OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but we are waging nuclear war in Iraq, we have contaminated the entire country. It’s not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. Hypocrites! But Israel can occupy Palestine? Stop the slaughter!"
"Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel."
"You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism."
Apparently, as long as one is politically liberal and pushes the far Left's radical agenda, like Sheehan, one receives a pass from the liberal elite when making anti-Semitic statements.
However, if one does not march in lock step with the extremists on the Left, like Mel Gibson, one is dubbed an anti-Semite for putting the story of Christ's death on film.
Go figure.
The Left's selective outrage really is laughable.
The liberals' only consistency is their lack of consistency.
In 2004, Mel Gibson was pummeled by liberal critics and columnists alike for supposedly making an anti-Semitic film, The Passion of the Christ.
Maybe they were angered that Gibson was able to circumvent Hollywood and make the movie he wanted to make without them. He took a chance. He told the story of the last hours of the life of Jesus without the approval of Hollywood's liberal elite.
In spite of the Left's insistence that the film was anti-Semitic, millions didn't see it that way at all. The public embraced Gibson's movie, and it set box office records.
Nevertheless, Hollywood libs and liberal columnists such as Frank Rich rejected it as a depiction of Christ's passion that was grounded in Gibson's hostility toward Jews. Gibson was labeled a hate-monger.
You would think that the same elitists who found fault with Mel Gibson for his presumed anti-Semitism would condemn Cindy Sheehan for her repeated suggestions that U.S. support of Israel was directly related to her son's death and was the root cause of terrorism.
Where are all the columns by Leftist writers trashing Sheehan for her Israel bashing?
Hollywood and the liberal media conveniently ignore some of Cindy's best:
"We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog sh-t in Washington! Let George Bush send his two little party animals to die in Iraq. It’s OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but we are waging nuclear war in Iraq, we have contaminated the entire country. It’s not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. Hypocrites! But Israel can occupy Palestine? Stop the slaughter!"
"Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel."
"You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism."
Apparently, as long as one is politically liberal and pushes the far Left's radical agenda, like Sheehan, one receives a pass from the liberal elite when making anti-Semitic statements.
However, if one does not march in lock step with the extremists on the Left, like Mel Gibson, one is dubbed an anti-Semite for putting the story of Christ's death on film.
Go figure.
The Left's selective outrage really is laughable.
The liberals' only consistency is their lack of consistency.
Brit and Juan
During the roundtable segment of this morning's FOX News Sunday, there was a textbook example illustrating that when it comes to the minds of liberals and conservatives, never the twain shall meet.
While discussing Bill Bennett's widely analyzed comments regarding abortion, crime, and black babies, Brit Hume and Juan Williams exemplified the parallel universes that the Right and the Left occupy.
Hume was trying his best to explain to Williams that Bennett CONDEMNED the morally reprehensible suggestion that aborting black babies would be a way to drive down crime rates.
Williams refused to accept that reality. He was stupidly stuck on a sentence uttered by Bennett while ignoring the full context of the statement. Instead, Williams preferred to lynch Bennett.
Hume pointed out that in our society deeming someone a racist is equivalent to using a lethal weapon.
He's right. Playing the race card is one of the most effective tactics of the Left.
There is overwhelming societal condemnation for racism. To assign the label of "racist" to an individual is certain to take a toll on how that person is perceived by others.
For Williams and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and on and on, to contort Bennett's comments in order to do damage to conservatives is despicable.
Bennett's career history reveals that he successfully has worked to improve the situation of minorities. To crucify him on the basis of false charges of racism is unconscionable.
Obviously, liberals are using the strategy of death by a thousand cuts to destroy support for conservatives in order to destroy support for the conservative agenda among the majority of Americans.
They can demonize conservatives till the cows come home. That won't change the fact that when it comes to casting votes, most Americans reject liberals.
I doubt that unjustly characterizing Bennett as a racist will cause conservative and independent Americans to shift to the Party of Farrakhan and Sheehan.
While discussing Bill Bennett's widely analyzed comments regarding abortion, crime, and black babies, Brit Hume and Juan Williams exemplified the parallel universes that the Right and the Left occupy.
Hume was trying his best to explain to Williams that Bennett CONDEMNED the morally reprehensible suggestion that aborting black babies would be a way to drive down crime rates.
Williams refused to accept that reality. He was stupidly stuck on a sentence uttered by Bennett while ignoring the full context of the statement. Instead, Williams preferred to lynch Bennett.
Hume pointed out that in our society deeming someone a racist is equivalent to using a lethal weapon.
He's right. Playing the race card is one of the most effective tactics of the Left.
There is overwhelming societal condemnation for racism. To assign the label of "racist" to an individual is certain to take a toll on how that person is perceived by others.
For Williams and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and on and on, to contort Bennett's comments in order to do damage to conservatives is despicable.
Bennett's career history reveals that he successfully has worked to improve the situation of minorities. To crucify him on the basis of false charges of racism is unconscionable.
Obviously, liberals are using the strategy of death by a thousand cuts to destroy support for conservatives in order to destroy support for the conservative agenda among the majority of Americans.
They can demonize conservatives till the cows come home. That won't change the fact that when it comes to casting votes, most Americans reject liberals.
I doubt that unjustly characterizing Bennett as a racist will cause conservative and independent Americans to shift to the Party of Farrakhan and Sheehan.
I predict a backlash.
Maureenie in a Black Leather Catsuit
Maureen Dowd said, "When I need to work up my nerve to write a tough column, I try to think of myself as Emma Peel in a black leather catsuit."
I'd be interested to know Dowd's definition of "tough column".
What constitutes "tough"?
Could it be when she has writer's block and she just can't think up any interesting new ways to distort reality and lie about the Bush administration?
That can't be. For Dowd, lies and distortions are renewable resources, no deep drilling required.
Paul Wolfowitz is having fun.
"It's fun to have the chance to be a retail politician again," he told Andrew Balls of The Financial Times on a recent trip to India. It was an economic odyssey designed to warm up his image by tipping off the press to record his shirt-sleeve visit to a slum and his street dancing with children in Andhra Pradesh.
When the reporter noted that Mr. Wolfowitz's role as No.2 at the Pentagon must seem distant, he agreed, saying, "Yes, it does seem like a long time ago."
A lot has changed for this architect of the Iraq war since he left the scene of the accident. Following the lead of that other woolly-headed war theoretician,
Robert McNamara, Wolfie scuttled to the World Bank, where he changed the subject from bollixing up Iraq to fixing up Africa.
Unlike the Powell maxim "If you break it, you own it," the Wolfowitz philosophy is "If you break it, walk away from it."
Where on earth are those who egged on the Iraq civil war? The neoconservatives have moved on to debates about China and Iran. Richard Perle has dropped out of sight, except to pop up, as he did at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual meeting in May, to urge a military raid on Iran if it's "on the verge of a nuclear weapon."
The president and his generals are still offering gauzy assessments of our fight against an insurgency that grows ever more vicious, and dishing out loopy justifications for the war.
Before Mr. Bush was dragged out of Crawford this summer, he was making the case that we had to keep killing in Iraq to honor troops killed there. This week, Gen. Richard Myers offered more circular logic, warning that a U.S. defeat would invite another 9/11. The Bush administration used 9/11 as a pretext for invading Iraq and now says it can't leave for fear of spurring another 9/11.
Wolfie and fellow hawks turned Iraq into a harbor for Al Qaeda with an invasion they justified by falsely calling Iraq a harbor for Al Qaeda. General Myers said that America couldn't leave and allow Al Qaeda to dominate Iraq because "then in my view we would have lost, and the next 9/11 would be right around the corner, absolutely."
Here's the weirdest perversion: First Rummy, as President Reagan's Mideast envoy, was photographed with Saddam, supporting him in the war against Iran. Then Rummy and other hawks rushed the U.S. into war against Saddam and ended up turning Iraq over to Shiites intertwined with Iran. And now Richard Perle thinks we might have to bomb Iran.
The president spent years saying that Al Qaeda was on the run, and Rummy spent years saying we just had to finish off a few Saddam "dead enders." But four years after Mr. Bush promised to get "the people who knocked these buildings down," they are finally talking about Al Qaeda as a threat again.
Perhaps they have no choice, now that Al Qaeda has supposedly started its own weekly newscast on the Internet, "The Voice of the Caliphate," with an anchorman wearing a ski mask and an ammunition belt, and props like a Koran and a rifle pointed at the camera. Its top story was joy over Katrina damage.
Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Gen. John Abizaid called Al Qaeda "the main threat we face" in Iraq, citing its 400 suicide bombers deployed worldwide. So, when W. says if we fight them there we won't have to fight them here, that's just nutty.
Though the Bush gang has maintained that it would be hard for Al Qaeda to operate on the run, General Abizaid noted that the group is "empowered by modern communications, expertly using the virtual world for planning, recruiting, fund-raising, indoctrination and exploiting the mass media'' to break the U.S. will and try to form a haven in Iraq.
Al Qaeda is exploiting tribal tensions intensified by the bungled U.S. occupation. Mr. Wolfowitz's assumption that America could conquer Baghdad and install the Shiites at the expense of the Sunnis -- with bouquets thrown -- in a religious war that has been going on for centuries, was naive and dangerous.
The rest of us may be glued to the gruesome pileup of bodies in Iraq, but Wolfie has moved on. He told The Financial Times that he still thought the U.S. and the British did "the right thing" for "the right reasons," and "hopefully, it's going to turn out the right way."
He said that wherever he travels, from Burkina Faso to Bosnia, Iraq rarely comes up. How fortunate for him.
I guess it's official. Maureenie has declared the hostilities in Iraq to be a full-fledged civil war, the creation of neoconservatives.
Does she believe that her readers have no inkling about the history of the region?
Apparently, she is under that impression.
Hey, Maureenie! Hostilities in Iraq did not begin in March of 2003.
It's time for her to take a sabbatical for a remedial history class. In addition, I think she could benefit from some time with a therapist skilled in addressing the problems of compulsive liars.
Why do radical Left extremists like Maureenie have such problems with logic?
Do you think that one must originally be illogical to be a radical Leftist, or does the ideology of the radical Left promote the loss of reason?
Whichever, those on the Left, with Maureenie on the frontline leading the charge, clearly do not understand the roots, the reach, or the threat of terrorism.
Again, each paragraph of her commentary can be disputed.
She says that religious war in the region has been going on for centuries; yet she lays responsibility for it at the feet of Paul Wolfowitz and the Bush administration.
I am sick of Maureenie and those of her ilk betraying Iraq as a terrorist-free zone before the U.S. deposed brutal dictator, mass murderer Saddam Hussein.
I am sick of the promotion of the notion that al Qaeda had absolutely no connection with Iraq prior to March 2003.
Maureenie’s nonsensical ramblings are indicative of the depth of nuttiness on the Left.
I find her suggestion that "Wolfie" doesn't care about the tremendous sacrifices made by the men and women of our military serving in Iraq to be especially distasteful.
She writes, "The rest of us may be glued to the gruesome pileup of bodies in Iraq, but Wolfie has moved on.
Such a fallacious remark is positively contemptible, yet completely predictable.
Maureenie can sit around in her Emma Peel black leather catsuit and yammer incoherently to her heart's content. I don't care.
I do care that her misrepresentations have some influence.
It troubles me that Maureenie has fans that accept her drivel as gospel, fans too shallow to question her veracity.
Thankfully, the New York Times has chosen to limit the audience of her screwy columns.
Unwittingly, the Times has done the nation a great service.
I'd be interested to know Dowd's definition of "tough column".
What constitutes "tough"?
Could it be when she has writer's block and she just can't think up any interesting new ways to distort reality and lie about the Bush administration?
That can't be. For Dowd, lies and distortions are renewable resources, no deep drilling required.
Her latest:
A Wolfie in Sheep’s ClothingPaul Wolfowitz is having fun.
"It's fun to have the chance to be a retail politician again," he told Andrew Balls of The Financial Times on a recent trip to India. It was an economic odyssey designed to warm up his image by tipping off the press to record his shirt-sleeve visit to a slum and his street dancing with children in Andhra Pradesh.
When the reporter noted that Mr. Wolfowitz's role as No.2 at the Pentagon must seem distant, he agreed, saying, "Yes, it does seem like a long time ago."
A lot has changed for this architect of the Iraq war since he left the scene of the accident. Following the lead of that other woolly-headed war theoretician,
Robert McNamara, Wolfie scuttled to the World Bank, where he changed the subject from bollixing up Iraq to fixing up Africa.
Unlike the Powell maxim "If you break it, you own it," the Wolfowitz philosophy is "If you break it, walk away from it."
Where on earth are those who egged on the Iraq civil war? The neoconservatives have moved on to debates about China and Iran. Richard Perle has dropped out of sight, except to pop up, as he did at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual meeting in May, to urge a military raid on Iran if it's "on the verge of a nuclear weapon."
The president and his generals are still offering gauzy assessments of our fight against an insurgency that grows ever more vicious, and dishing out loopy justifications for the war.
Before Mr. Bush was dragged out of Crawford this summer, he was making the case that we had to keep killing in Iraq to honor troops killed there. This week, Gen. Richard Myers offered more circular logic, warning that a U.S. defeat would invite another 9/11. The Bush administration used 9/11 as a pretext for invading Iraq and now says it can't leave for fear of spurring another 9/11.
Wolfie and fellow hawks turned Iraq into a harbor for Al Qaeda with an invasion they justified by falsely calling Iraq a harbor for Al Qaeda. General Myers said that America couldn't leave and allow Al Qaeda to dominate Iraq because "then in my view we would have lost, and the next 9/11 would be right around the corner, absolutely."
Here's the weirdest perversion: First Rummy, as President Reagan's Mideast envoy, was photographed with Saddam, supporting him in the war against Iran. Then Rummy and other hawks rushed the U.S. into war against Saddam and ended up turning Iraq over to Shiites intertwined with Iran. And now Richard Perle thinks we might have to bomb Iran.
The president spent years saying that Al Qaeda was on the run, and Rummy spent years saying we just had to finish off a few Saddam "dead enders." But four years after Mr. Bush promised to get "the people who knocked these buildings down," they are finally talking about Al Qaeda as a threat again.
Perhaps they have no choice, now that Al Qaeda has supposedly started its own weekly newscast on the Internet, "The Voice of the Caliphate," with an anchorman wearing a ski mask and an ammunition belt, and props like a Koran and a rifle pointed at the camera. Its top story was joy over Katrina damage.
Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Gen. John Abizaid called Al Qaeda "the main threat we face" in Iraq, citing its 400 suicide bombers deployed worldwide. So, when W. says if we fight them there we won't have to fight them here, that's just nutty.
Though the Bush gang has maintained that it would be hard for Al Qaeda to operate on the run, General Abizaid noted that the group is "empowered by modern communications, expertly using the virtual world for planning, recruiting, fund-raising, indoctrination and exploiting the mass media'' to break the U.S. will and try to form a haven in Iraq.
Al Qaeda is exploiting tribal tensions intensified by the bungled U.S. occupation. Mr. Wolfowitz's assumption that America could conquer Baghdad and install the Shiites at the expense of the Sunnis -- with bouquets thrown -- in a religious war that has been going on for centuries, was naive and dangerous.
The rest of us may be glued to the gruesome pileup of bodies in Iraq, but Wolfie has moved on. He told The Financial Times that he still thought the U.S. and the British did "the right thing" for "the right reasons," and "hopefully, it's going to turn out the right way."
He said that wherever he travels, from Burkina Faso to Bosnia, Iraq rarely comes up. How fortunate for him.
I guess it's official. Maureenie has declared the hostilities in Iraq to be a full-fledged civil war, the creation of neoconservatives.
Does she believe that her readers have no inkling about the history of the region?
Apparently, she is under that impression.
Hey, Maureenie! Hostilities in Iraq did not begin in March of 2003.
It's time for her to take a sabbatical for a remedial history class. In addition, I think she could benefit from some time with a therapist skilled in addressing the problems of compulsive liars.
Why do radical Left extremists like Maureenie have such problems with logic?
Do you think that one must originally be illogical to be a radical Leftist, or does the ideology of the radical Left promote the loss of reason?
Whichever, those on the Left, with Maureenie on the frontline leading the charge, clearly do not understand the roots, the reach, or the threat of terrorism.
Again, each paragraph of her commentary can be disputed.
She says that religious war in the region has been going on for centuries; yet she lays responsibility for it at the feet of Paul Wolfowitz and the Bush administration.
I am sick of Maureenie and those of her ilk betraying Iraq as a terrorist-free zone before the U.S. deposed brutal dictator, mass murderer Saddam Hussein.
I am sick of the promotion of the notion that al Qaeda had absolutely no connection with Iraq prior to March 2003.
Maureenie’s nonsensical ramblings are indicative of the depth of nuttiness on the Left.
I find her suggestion that "Wolfie" doesn't care about the tremendous sacrifices made by the men and women of our military serving in Iraq to be especially distasteful.
She writes, "The rest of us may be glued to the gruesome pileup of bodies in Iraq, but Wolfie has moved on.
Such a fallacious remark is positively contemptible, yet completely predictable.
Maureenie can sit around in her Emma Peel black leather catsuit and yammer incoherently to her heart's content. I don't care.
I do care that her misrepresentations have some influence.
It troubles me that Maureenie has fans that accept her drivel as gospel, fans too shallow to question her veracity.
Thankfully, the New York Times has chosen to limit the audience of her screwy columns.
Unwittingly, the Times has done the nation a great service.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)