Wednesday, October 31, 2007
The Death of the Pope
The Rise of Dictators
Frankly, Halloween sounds better!
BY R. EMMETT TYRRELL, JR.)
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
By Michelle Malkin!
Monday, October 29, 2007
Sunday, October 28, 2007
For some of us, the Clinton presidency was one of the least consequential in US history. It was a presidency of missed opportunities, specially in fighting terrorism and doing something about Social Security.
The Clinton presidency was what Charles Krauthammer described as a "vacation of history". It was indecision and an unwillingness to deal with problems:
"Looking the other way was largely a function of the age — our holiday from history, our retreat from seriousness, our Seinfeld decade of obsessive ordinariness. Clinton never could have been elected during the Cold War. The 1990s produced a president perfectly suited to the time — a time of domesticity, triviality and self-absorption."
What decisions did Hillary Clinton support as co-president? What policy memos did she write? I would like to know!
Why won't they release all of those policy memos and e-mails that she wrote to Bill during their shared presidency?
Again, I am not calling for personal matters. Bill and Hillary Clinton are entitled to private husband-wife communications. We are not asking to read their Valentine's Day notes or anniversary cards!
Why won't they do it? This is like a candidate for a key position refusing to release college transcripts that support relevant studies. Most employers would find his refusal a bit strange.
Again, why won't she do it? Dick Pollman writes this:
"Here's the deal, apparently: She gets to tout her First Lady stint as proof of her governmental experience, but we on the receiving end don't get to find out exactly what she did. She gets to travel America extolling the successes of the Bill Clinton administration, and she gets to tell us how much she influenced his thinking, but we don't get the chance to learn exactly what she influenced (much less how and why)." (Pillow talk as public policy, and vice versa )
The answer is that you look for distractions. The so-called "torture" debate is one of those distractions intended to keep the base occupied with a bit more anti-Bushims!
Let's stop the foolishness. The US does not torture.
The Democrats are distracting their angry base. It's easier to talk about torture than to admit that you don't have the courage the stand up to Pres. Bush on Iraq.
GITMO is not about torture. It's time to force Democrats to live in the real world rather than left wing fantasies:
"Vice President Cheney has said that the choice between "dunking a terrorist in the water" and missing out on intelligence that will save American lives is a no-brainer.
The Democrats should tell us how they would get information from some of the world's deadliest terrorists. So far, they haven't! We live in a very dangerous world but the Dems are still counting votes in Florida!
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Of course, the Demos are still talking multinational operations.
With who? With who, Senator Obama?
Today, Secretary Gates made it clear:
"The US has tired of NATO waffling on their commitment to Afghanistan. Robert Gates has decided to end the US participation in Kosovo if our European partners refuse to meet their obligations in Afghanistan, transferring over 1100 soldiers from the Balkans to the fight against the Taliban." (The Kosovo Card)
The Canadians and Brits are doing a good job overall. The Eastern Europeans are too. However, too many others want to wimp out. Back to Captain Ed's post:
"America can use its troops elsewhere, especially since our NATO allies don't seem particularly interested in supporting our interests. The British, Canadians, and eastern Europeans have been tremendous partners and deserve more credit, but western Europe has dragged their heels in the one front in the war on terror they supposedly support. If they can't give any more than lip service, then we don't need to participate in their Balkans project, either. Let those governments start spending their own money to secure their backyard if they cannot muster any support to beat the Islamist threat in Afghanistan. Our money and resources can be put to better use elsewhere."
This is the kind of "real world" reality that you don't get at the left wing primaries. However, this is the kind of reality that a Democrat will have to deal with if he (or she) becomes president.
It's so easy to be in favor of multinational operations. It's a lot more difficult to get nations to send troops! By the way, the latest Rasmussen confirms that In Dealing With Iran, Americans Expect Little Support from European Allies! Wonder why?
Friday, October 26, 2007
If a Democrat wins, he or she will use force against Iran. Why? Because Iran will read a Dem victory as a sign of weakness and will get even more reckless and daring.
I'm not advocating a military option. However, it has to be a credible option on the table. (By the way, I'm happy to read that every major Republican candidate is on board about a potential military action!)
I like Pres. Sarkozy but is Iran afraid of France?
Iran knows that Pres. Sarkozy and PM Harper have words. They can play with words until they achieve their nuclear objectives.
Iran also knows that Pres. Bush has B-52, F-16s, aircraft carriers and lots of bunker-buster bombs. They fear that a lot more than another UN resolution!
The Dems are all over each other calling for talks with Iran. The pacifist wing has pushed the Dems to an irrational corner where any military action is bad.
I'm for talks too. However, haven't we been talking directly and indirectly with Iran?
It's time for Dems to get serious about Iran. In the 1990's, Pres. Clinton pushed most of our pressing problems under the rug. We don't have the option anymore.
Power Line has a great summary of the Dems' dilemma:
"It's not easy being a semi-serious person seeking the nomination of a frivolous party."
(A frivolous party has a frivolous debate)
Captain Ed has a great quote:
"The Democrats have become a group of hysterical screamers with nothing positive to add except to throw their hands up at the first sign of difficulty and to declare defeat before all options have been exhausted." (Surrender Democrats Can't Even Abide Sanctions)
It takes two to make peace and negotiate in good faith. So far, I don't believe that Iran is serious about negotiation! Worse than that, I don't think that Democrats are very serious about foreign policy and the challenges the US faces in a very tough world!
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
"The candidate's unparalleled fundraising success relies largely on the least-affluent residents of New York's Chinatown -- some of whom can't be tracked down." (An unlikely treasure-trove of donors for Clinton)
I love this line from the article:
"Many, on the other hand, said they gave for reasons having more to do with the Chinese community than with Clinton. He Duan Zheng, who gave $1,000, said of the Fujianese community: "They informed us to go, so I went."Everybody was making a donation, so I did too," he said. "Otherwise I would lose face."
That's great! It's also obscene!
John Edwards is blasting Clinton! (Hillary's Chinatown fund-raiser draws Edwards' criticism) I'm surprised that more Dems don't stand up and call on the Clintons to play clean.
I like this from Blogger Flip:
"The unlikely vein of campaign gold Hillary seems to have tapped in Chinatown certainly appears to be of the familiar Clinton scandal genus, but the species isn't quite identifiable yet - are these straw donors being quietly reimbursed behind closed doors, are they hard-working immigrants being pressured by local heavies to dig deep for their Senator, or are might they simply be figmental?" (Mama's Gotta a Brand New Hsu)
To be fair, candidates can not review every donation. Honest mistakes will happen.
However, we are talking about he Clintons. They want to win. As I said before, they will do, or say anything to win!
The Clintons are corrupt in every way. (See The allure of stinking campaign cash)
I agree with Captain Ed:
"Who wants Hillary elected so badly that they keep using Asian-Americans as straw donors to flood her coffers with their cash? Who has this much cash to dump into the presidential election? Perhaps the FBI will start looking for those answers -- and soon." (The Chinatown Dodge)
Let me repeat. The Clintons are corrupt. By next summer, most Democrats will reluctantly agree with me and have a serious case of buyer's remorse!
P.S. On a related point, Zogby has an interesting poll:
"The online survey of 9,718 likely voters nationwide showed that 50% said Clinton would never get their presidential vote."
Captain Ed wrote Lame Duck? Not So Far.
"Legislatively, Democrats have all but declared defeat in their effort to stop the war. At a luncheon with reporters last week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) admitted that "when we said we would end the war, we never said that we had the veto pen or the signature pen. ... I don't disagree with the public evaluation that we have not done well in ending this war."
All of this is driving Demos mad. They want a recall and I don't mean the 2004 elections.
Adriana Huffington has this advice for Democrats:
"So Bush is still relevant. And unless the Democrats make it crystal clear -- in actions as well as words -- that there is no common ground, they risk finding themselves increasingly irrelevant."
Adriana is missing the point. The Democrats are not irrelevant. Instead, they are cowards. They are afraid to implement what they promised their base. Pelosi & Reid won't cut the funding because they are afraid of the consequences.
One year later, I'm happy and the Demos are furious.