"Truth, Justice, and All That Stuff"

Hollywood has done the unthinkable.

It has stripped all-American Superman of his American identity.

From The Hollywood Reporter:

Nevermind Superman's sexual orientation. Here's another identity-related question that is likely to spark controversy as the Man of Steel soars into theaters nationwide this Fourth of July weekend in Warner Bros. Pictures' "Superman Returns": Is Superman still American?

Ever since artist Joe Shuster and writer Jerry Siegel created the granddaddy of all comic book icons in 1932, Superman has fought valiantly to preserve "truth, justice and the American way." Whether kicking Nazi ass on the radio in the '40s or wrapping himself in the Stars and Stripes on TV during the Cold War or even rescuing the White House's flag as his final feat in "Superman II," the Krypton-born, Smallville-raised Ubermensch always has been steeped in unmistakable U.S. symbolism.

But in the latest film incarnation, scribes Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris sought to downplay Superman's long-standing patriot act. With one brief line uttered by actor Frank Langella, the caped superhero's mission transformed from "truth, justice and the American way" to "truth, justice and all that stuff."

"The world has changed. The world is a different place," Pennsylvania native Harris says. "The truth is he's an alien. He was sent from another planet. He has landed on the planet Earth, and he is here for everybody. He's an international superhero."

Translation: We want the movie to make lots of money in foreign markets. We also don't want to alienate the America-haters in America.

So, Superman is no longer a super-American.

Patriotism stops at the water's edge. Actually, it stops at the ticket counter.

In fact, Dougherty and Harris never even considered including "the American way" in their screenplay. After the wunderkind writing duo ("X2: X-Men United") conceived "Superman's" story with director Bryan Singer during a Hawaiian vacation, they penned their first draft together and intentionally omitted what they considered to be a loaded and antiquated expression. That decision stood throughout the 140-day shoot in Australia, where the pair remained on-set to provide revisions and tweaks.

According to Dougherty, the "American way" is a "loaded and antiquated expression."

Among the Hollywood liberal elite, I suppose it is.

This is further proof that Hollywood is hopelessly out of touch with the American people.

In comic book terms, Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris are the unambiguously evil duo, out to eliminate the identification of freedom and justice as AMERICAN values.

At this point, Clark Kent would excuse himself and suddenly Superman would swoop in and save the day.

The American way is truth and justice.

"We were always hesitant to include the term 'American way' because the meaning of that today is somewhat uncertain," Ohio native Dougherty explains. "The ideal hasn't changed. I think when people say 'American way,' they're actually talking about what the 'American way' meant back in the '40s and '50s, which was something more noble and idealistic."

What is Dougherty really saying here?

He's saying that today's "American way" is no longer noble and idealistic. America's goodness was lost somewhere in the 1940s and 1950s.

Clearly, Dougherty and Harris believe that America no longer stands for truth and justice. They think that the "American way" is the wrong way so they purged the term from their movie.

"Truth, justice, and all that stuff" doesn't cut it for me. I still believe in the American way. Apparently, lots of people do.

Millions are so desperate to be a part of the American way that they enter the country illegally, in some cases risking their lives.

I think Ronald Reagan's words still ring true.

"We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth."

Since Dougherty and Harris didn't hesitate to apply their agenda to Superman, AMERICAN icon, I'll do some revising, too.

"It's a bird!"

"It's a plane!"

"It's two 'blame America' traitors!"

An Open Letter to Rick Graber

Dear Mr. Graber,

In a mailing dated June 15, 2006, you appealed for contributions to the Republican Party of Wisconsin.

You write:

Leftist organizations like MOVEON.ORG, the ACLU and EMILY'S LIST are pouring millions of dollars into the campaign coffers of Democrat candidates running for Congress.

Wisconsin is a battleground state for control of Congress in 2006.

If we don't act today... and do everything we can to defend our four Republican seats in Congress... then we risk handing the U.S. House to the most RADICALIZED ELEMENTS of the Democrat Party this November.

You continue:

Let's not forget the importance of defeating Jim Doyle this November too.

...Mark Green will bring honesty, openness, integrity and fiscal responsibility back to the Governor's Office.

I don't have a problem with any of that.

I do have a problem with the fact that your letter says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the U.S. Senate race.

ZERO. ZILCH. NADA.

What's with that?

Do you know that Herb Kohl is up for re-election?

Have you caught any of Kohl's dopey commercials that have been running on Wisconsin TV for months?

It might come as a surprise to you, but Wisconsin voters will be choosing a senator this November.

What's the story, Mr. Graber?

Are you already admitting defeat? Is that it?

Have you no confidence in Wisconsin voters?

This senate thing has moved beyond the annoying stage and become a case of negligence.

Simply put, the Republican Party of Wisconsin is betraying its members.

To be blunt, you're pissing off contributors.

Kevin Barrett: Another Academia Nut

UW-Madison is harboring a nutjob instructor that rivals Ward Churchill and Arthur Butz in terms of disseminating lies and hate.

From The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The University of Wisconsin-Madison announced Thursday that it would launch a review of an instructor who argues that the U.S. government orchestrated the Sept. 11 attacks for its own benefit.

The instructor, Kevin Barrett, is co-founder of an organization called the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance, which claims the Bush administration planned the attacks to create a war between Muslims and Christians. He argues that members of the faiths must work together to overcome the belief that terrorists were to blame.

"The 9/11 lie was designed to sow hatred between the faiths," Barrett has written on the organization's Web site.

"Either we discuss the compelling evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, or there is precious little to talk about."

Your tax dollars at work...

In a written statement Thursday, Provost Patrick Farrell said the university would conduct a 10-day review of Barrett's plans for the fall course and his past teaching performance. He said Barrett's syllabus, reading list and past evaluations by supervisors and students would be examined.

"Mr. Barrett's statements regarding the events of Sept. 11 have raised some legitimate concerns about the content and quality of instruction in his planned fall course," Farrell said.

Yeah, that's putting it mildly.

The announcement came as word of Barrett's views spread through political Web sites. State Rep. Stephen Nass (R-Whitewater) was among a burst of critics calling for his dismissal.

...[I]t wasn't until he spoke on a conservative talk show hosted by Jessica McBride on WTMJ-AM (620) Wednesday night that Barrett prompted a public outcry in Wisconsin. He talked openly about his Sept. 11 beliefs and said he discussed them in the classroom.

Once again, talk radio comes to the rescue!

If not for those in the alternative media getting this information out to a wider audience, this story would never have been exposed to the public or received the attention it deserves.

Nass released a statement calling on Chancellor John Wiley to fire Barrett immediately.

"The fact that Mr. Barrett uses his position at UW-Madison to add credibility to his outlandish claims is an unacceptable embarrassment to the people of Wisconsin and the UW System," Nass said. "Chancellor Wiley must act immediately to end any professional relationship between Barrett and the UW. He needs to be fired."

I agree.

This isn't a matter of academic freedom. This is about a conspiracy theorist pushing lies and propaganda to subvert the government.

U.S. Rep. Mark Green (R-Wis.), who is running for governor, released a statement that said: "Not a dime of either taxpayer or tuition dollars should be going to Kevin Barrett so he can tell students that September 11 was a creation of the government, and that the most murdering terrorist organization in the world is a myth created by the CIA."

Mark Green has weighed in. Now, I'm waiting to hear what Jim Doyle has to say about this.

No comment, Jimbo?

What's the problem? Feeling intimidated by the teachers' union?

But not everyone was outraged.

Mir Babar Basir, a recent graduate of UW-Madison who served as president of the Muslim Students Association, said he knew Barrett and agreed with his take on the attacks. He said Griffin drew hundreds of supportive observers when he spoke at the university.

"This is not just Kevin Barrett's idea," Basir said. "It's legitimate to think that the U.S. government was involved."

No it's not.

I suppose it could be considered legitimate to believe that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks if you're so anti-Bush that you're eager to submit to that sort of brainwashing.

Frankly, I'm outraged that not everyone is outraged by Barrett's claims.

"When David Ray Griffin spoke, it was packed," Basir added. "Madison is fairly liberal. It's not surprising that a lot of people agreed with him."

WHAT?

"Madison is fairly liberal"?

That statement speaks volumes about where Basir stands politically. In addition, I think it's very telling in terms of his intellectual status. Rather weak, I'm afraid.

David Walsh, president of the UW System Board of Regents, said Barrett should be able to share his views in the classroom.

"Unless he's yelling fire in a crowded theater, we need to be careful to protect his academic freedom," Walsh said.

Do lies presented as truth belong in the classroom?

For example, in the name of academic freedom, should an instructor be permitted to teach students that the sun and the planets revolve around the earth?

Should an instructor be allowed to promote claims that the Holocaust didn't happen?

Another question: Would Walsh consider it acceptable for an instructor to share the view that homosexuality is a mental illness?

Would that view be protected under the umbrella of academic freedom?

No way.

The truth: Madison is cutting Barrett yards and yards of slack because he's teaching students to believe that the Bush administration plotted to slaughter Americans.

To be honest, I'm more disgusted with UW-Madison than I am with Barrett.

________________________________

Read just a sampling of Barrett's writings here and here and here.

Barrett is a prolific writer, spreading his crazy ideas all over the Internet. The written word, however, doesn't satisfy him. He advocates taking action against "fascism-complicit corporate and government entities."

The film United 93 prompted him to organize his "FASCISM STINKS" campaign.

Hollywood has gone far beyond the fever dreams of Joseph Goebbels with Flight 93, a propaganda film based on the 9/11 psy-op script. This film, like the bad-B-movie 9/11 covert operation itself ( http://mujca.com/worstmovie.htm ) was designed to whip audiences into emotional hysteria, and turn that hysteria toward the mass-murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and the elimination of freedom in the US and around the world.

Last night my eleven-year-old son accompanied me to the Madison, WI opening of Flight 93 at the Point theater, where we began handing very polite, low-key "question 9/11" leaflets to moviegoers (leaflets available for downloading from http://911truth.org). After a few minutes, a portly, scowling theater manager appeared and ordered us to leave the sidewalk in front of the entrance to the theater. The sidewalk, he stated, was private property (which it probably is, since the theater chain has privatized the entire block) and he ordered an underling to call the police. My son started crying, thinking we were going to be arrested. I lost it, and called the guy a fat Nazi and other choice epithets and left before the police got there. (Had my son not been collapsed in hysterics, I would have waited for the police and insisted on my Constitutional right to free speech.)

The question arises: How do we deal with non-Constitution-compliant corporations, officials and individuals in the current state of emergency? I think we need to enforce compliance with the Constitution by any means necessary.

ANNOUNCING THE "FASCISM STINKS" CAMPAIGN

It would be wonderful if free-speech-prohibiting businesses, agencies and individuals were made to pay for their violations of the Constitution. While I am certainly NOT urging anyone to mix together a gallon of eggs and drano, which produces the world's worst odor, unscrew the lid and knock over the jar in the aisles of the Point Theater and other non-Constitution-compliant chains at the beginning of Flight 93 before making a surreptitious exit, neither would I be displeased if something like this happened. (This definitely should not be done to theaters that are in compliance with the Bill of Rights and allow leafleting.)

Egg-and-drano spills in fascism-complicit corporate and government entities will drive home the message: FASCISM STINKS, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO JUST HOLD OUR NOSES AND PUT UP WITH IT ANY MORE.

Possibly the most disturbing thing revealed in this account of his United 93 experience --

Barrett has an eleven-year-old son. He's indoctrinating his child with his anti-American lies, teaching him to distrust his country.

And UW-Madison is giving Barrett a forum to do exactly the same thing to undergraduates!

This certifed nut was hired to teach at a prestigious public university!

What kind of background checks does UW-Madison do on its faculty? Are they totally clueless about the individuals that they put into their classrooms?

If the truth about Barrett wasn't known when he was hired, that's bad.

If the truth about Barrett was known when he was hired, that's unconscionable.

Bin Laden's Ode to Al-Zarqawi

The latest message supposedly from Osama bin Laden is a love letter of sorts to the dearly departed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- Osama bin Laden defended attacks by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi against civilians in Iraq, purportedly saying in a taped Web message Friday that the slain al-Qaida in Iraq leader was acting under orders to kill anyone who backs American forces.

Bin Laden paid tribute to al-Zarqawi in a 19-minute audio message posted on an Islamic militant Web site. The message has narration by a voice resembling bin Laden's as a video shows an old photo of him in a split-screen next to images of al-Zarqawi taken from a previous video.

..."Abu Musab had clear instructions to focus his fight on the occupiers, particularly the Americans and to leave aside anyone who remains neutral," bin Laden said.

"But for those who refused (neutrality) and stood to fight on the side of the crusaders against the Muslims, then he should kill them whoever they are, regardless of their sect or tribe. For supporting infidels against Muslims is a major sin," he said.

Reading this latest message attributed to bin Laden reminds me of the National Guard member's story of the beheading of a twelve-year-old boy by insurgents. The child had accepted a soccer ball as a gift from American soldiers.

Obviously, the boy made a fatal mistake by taking the soccer ball. It appears that the insurgents considered the child to have displayed a refusal of neutrality and support for the infidels.

His punishment? Death by decapitation.

There is no question that al-Zarqawi was a merciless, cold-blooded killer, just like Bin Laden.

The torture and murder of the infidels (that's us) is al Qaeda's mission. Why is it that so many on the Left don't get that?

"We will continue to fight you and your allies everywhere, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Sudan to run down your resources and kill your men until you return defeated to your nation," he said, addressing Bush

Can you say "deadline for withdrawal"?

John Kerry and Russ Feingold can.

"Al-Zarqawi's story will live forever with the stories of the nobles, so don't cry over one who is not missing," bin Laden said. "He can teach the world a lesson on how to seize freedom ... and how to resist tyrants."

Bush a tyrant? Where have I heard that before?

Cindy Sheehan, Harry Belafonte, Hugo Chavez, Dick Durbin...

"Even if we lost one of our greatest knights and princes, we are happy that we have found a symbol for our great Islamic nations, one that the mujahedeen will remember and praise in poetry and in stories secretly and aloud," bin Laden said.

Al-Zarqawi sawed off the head of a hostage with a knife.

And he's one of the "greatest knights and princes"?

Al-Zarqawi will be glorified in poems?

Think about what bin Laden is saying. It's truly the ramblings of a madman.

It's also insane for the Left to be claiming that Bush is a war criminal and more of a threat to peace than bin Laden.

It's completely nuts!

_____________________________


Read the text of one of bin Laden's previous messages.

He echoes the message of the Democrats so exactly that it's spooky.

Much of the statement sounds like bin Laden lifted it straight from the Congressional Record.

In fact, reports indicate that the defeat and devastating failure of the ill-omened plan of the four - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz - and the announcement of this defeat and working it out, is only a matter of time, which is to some extent linked to the awareness of the American people of the magnitude of this tragedy.

Who said it? Bin Laden or John Murtha?

The wise ones know that Bush has no plan to achieve his alleged victory in Iraq.

Bin Laden or John Kerry?

If you compare the small number of the dead when Bush made that false and stupid show-like announcement from an aircraft carrier on the end of the major operations, to many times as much as this number of the killed and injured, who fell in the minor operations, you will know the truth in what I am saying, and that Bush and his administration do not have neither the desire nor the will to withdraw from Iraq for their own dubious reasons.

Bin Laden or Ted Kennedy?

There is no defect in this solution [a long-term truce] other than preventing the flow of hundreds of billions to the influential people and war merchants in America, who supported Bush's election campaign with billions of dollars.

Hence, we can understand the insistence of Bush and his gang to continue the war.

Bin Laden or Al Gore?

It's remarkable how closely bin Laden's words reflect what the Dems say.

Remarkably scary.

Bush Overstepped his Authority -- GASP!

According to The Washington Post, the Supreme Court struck back at the power hungry, abusive Bush administration today.

The Supreme Court today delivered a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration over its plans to try Guantanamo detainees before military commissions, ruling that the commissions violate U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions governing the treatment of war prisoners.

It's a "stunning rebuke."

You can tell that the Left is loving this.

Visions of impeachment are dancing in their heads.

In a 5-3 decision, the court said the trials were not authorized by any act of Congress and that their structure and procedures violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949.

(Chief Justice John Roberts recused himself because he had served on the appeals court that had previously heard the case.)

...The case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a 36-year-old Yemeni with links to al-Qaeda, was considered a key test of the judiciary's power during wartime and carried the potential to make a lasting impact on American law. It challenged the very legality of the military commissions established by President Bush to try terrorism suspects.

...The ruling does not mean that the United States must close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility or free any of its detainees, including Hamdan.

That's important. This ruling doesn't mean that Gitmo is being shut down or the detainees are being released.

The ruling does indicate that the Supreme Court DOES NOT have a conservative, constructionist majority.
Reuters referred to the decision as a "stinging blow" for Bush.
The Associated Press considers it to be a "strong rebuke" directed at the administration, and a "broad defeat for the government."

The BBC thinks of the ruling as a "major blow" to Bush.

According to The Chicago Tribune, it's a "broad strike back at the powers asserted by the president since the 9/11 attacks."
Amnesty International calls it a "victory for the rule of law and human rights."

Etc., etc., etc.

I don't think libs have been this excited about a Supreme Court decision since Roe v. Wade.

It's strange to me that they are drooling over a victory for terrorists. Well actually, it's not strange.

It's typical for them to be rooting against the Bush administration's efforts to combat terrorism and protect Americans.

They are sticking to their usual procedures of branding Bush as the true enemy and, in effect, siding with the terrorists.

I agree with this comment by Ret. Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales. He believes that "every government branch needs to be on the same page as to how to deal with terror suspects in the United States."

Scales said:

"The American people and the Supreme Court and the rest of people in the enlightened world ... have to decide for themselves, are we in a state of war or are we not in a state of war? The enemy is using our confusion about the conditions in the world today to their advantage and ultimately, we're going to end up with innocent dead in Europe, the United States and elsewhere in the world."

He's right.

But hey, the only thing that really matters to the libs is that a Supreme Court ruling went against the Bush administration. Forget how it impacts the War on the Terror.

It's the political fall-out that counts to the libs. They care about how much damage they can do to Bush and the Republicans, not the safety of INNOCENT men, women, and children.




__________________________________

Read Mark Levin's take on the ruling, "The Outrage of Hamdan."

What Happened and Didn't Happen on my Summer Vacation

For four days, I was cut off from the 24-hour news cycle.

I stayed away from TV and radio and the Internet. As addicted as I am to the news, it was wonderful to take a break and relax and recharge. I didn't want it to end.

Now, I'm trying to catch up on what happened while I was gone.

An abbreviated round-up of some "big" stories--

• Israel and the Palesintians are engaged in a clash that could escalate into all-out war in the wider Middle East.

• The flooding in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic states reached deadly and devastating proportions.

• The Bush administration, including President Bush himself, attacked The New York Times for leaking yet another secret counterterrorism program.

• Rush Limbaugh was detained at Palm Beach International Airport after a search revealed he was in possession of Viagra. (Wow! Stop the presses!)

• A proposed amendment to protect the American flag was defeated in the Senate by one vote.

• Star Jones got the boot. She'll be leaving The View. (So what?)

What didn't happen while I was away--

• The Republican Party of Wisconsin STILL has failed to find someone to challenge Herb Kohl, acting as an accomplice to his all but guaranteed re-election.

Sometimes I think I would be much happier if I didn't pay attention to news and politics, if I lived in an area where the Internet connection is so slow that I couldn't access immediate information.

Although ignorance is bliss and choosing to be disconnected permits a certain comfort, it's a false sense of ease.

I think it's important to care about what's going on locally, nationally, and internationally -- not the silly gossip, but the significant stuff.

I believe we have a moral responsibility to work for justice, human rights, and real peace.

On the flip side, ignorance can be far less stressful and much more relaxing than being informed.

Cluelessness has its advantages, but also its dangers.

Living in a bubble and being on a perpetual vacation from the issues would be pleasant, but it would be selfish.

So, it's back to reality.

Sunny Day, Stormy Night

America the Beautiful

God's Country

At the end of a cool, drizzly Sunday, it was as if God's hands brushed aside the clouds to reveal a glorious sunset.

This is summer in Wisconsin.

Feingold's Meet the Press Flubs

Russ Feingold's appearance on Meet the Press this morning is a must-see.

I only saw a portion of Feingold’s segment and time doesn’t allow me to pick the interview apart right now.

So, a couple of VERY BRIEF comments--

I think Tim Russert did a good job of posing tough questions. However, his follow-up questions were weak at best.

One "Gotcha" moment that Russert did get:

Feingold walked right into this. He didn’t just step in it; he fell into it face-first.

In their discussion on "domestic wiretapping," Russert brought out an excerpt from Feingold’s GQ interview.

No, Russert didn't question Feingold about his attraction to Sharon Stone. (That still creeps me out.)

Russert asked Feingold to explain this remark:

"Problem is, George Bush has committed a more clearly impeachable offense than Clinton or even Nixon ever did."

Feingold went on to talk about high crimes and misdemeanors and make the case that a simple break-in, referring to Watergate, was nothing compared to what Bush has done as president.

Russert challenged, saying that Feingold's argument logically led to the conclusion that he believes Bush should be impeached.

Feingold backtracked. No, no, he doesn’t believe there should be an impeachment. It would be bad for the country, etc.

So, Bush has committed an impeachable offense but it would be a bad idea to impeach him.

That smacks of pure politics, not principle; and as Russert pointed out, a lack of logic.

Another thing that struck me was Feingold’s statement on why he came to Washington.

He didn't mention working to represent the people of Wisconsin.

He spoke in much more general terms, and referenced the Constitution, a clear indication that he's trying to appeal to the nation, not primarily his constituents.

Feingold is so busy running for the 2008 Dem nomination that he is shirking his responsibilities to the people who sent him to Washington -- Wisconsinites.

Still, he's quick to exploit us for his personal gain, bragging about his listening sessions and visiting all the counties. He's in touch with us "real Americans," blah, blah, blah.


Plus, he's using his status as a U.S. senator to make a shameless appeal to Sharon Stone.

That's an abuse of power.

Sensitivity Training by Ricardo Pimentel

Sensitivity.

It's so important for journalists to understand the power of words. They need to be sensitive to the subtle and not so subtle shades of meaning that they convey through the language that they use.

Ricardo Pimentel, Editorial Page Editor for The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, has some pointers.

He explains why illegal immigrants should not be called illegal immigrants in his article, "A Matter of Grammar and Law."

Pimentel tries to make a case for using the softer term "undocumented immigrant."

He goes on and on about the political agenda of those using "illegal immigrant" to describe those living in the country illegally.

What is so very lame about that is he doesn't seem to even realize that sticking with "undocumented immigrant" is also pushing a political agenda -- his.

He writes:

"There he goes again," some of you are probably thinking. "Politically correct Ricardo." That's one take, I guess. Another might be, "trying-to-be-accurate Ricardo." It's a matter of both grammar and law. Illegal as a noun offends both -- not to mention the offense given by stigmatizing an entire group of people.

Yes, we're talking about illegal immigration. But illegal is a modifier, not generally a noun. And presence without the required papers, under current law, is a civil violation, not a criminal one.

Pimentel's verbal gymnastics are a joke.

"Yes, we're talking about illegal immigration," but Pimentel says it's wrong to call it that, partly because it's actually a civil and not a criminal violation.

Violation of what?

THE LAW.

In other words, civil or criminal, it's ILLEGAL.

This reminds me of the decision by Reuters to not call a terrorist a terrorist.

From Snopes.com:

After the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, Stephen Jukes, Reuters's head of global news, directed his staff to avoid the using word "terrorist" in their news reports to describe the perpetrators of those attacks:

Throughout this difficult time we have strictly adhered to our 150-year-old tradition of factual, unbiased reporting and upheld our long-standing policy against the use of emotive terms, including the words 'terrorist' or 'freedom fighter'. We do not characterise the subjects of news stories but instead report their actions, identity or background. As a global news organisation, the world relies on our journalists to provide accurate accounts of events as they occur, wherever they occur, so that individuals, organisations and governments can make their own decisions based on the facts.

Right.

And aborting a baby is a choice, not an abortion.

These sort of word games are nothing new.

The motivation behind banning terms that are clearly understood as part of the common vernacular is purely political.

Not everything is relative and open to debate.

Fact: The nineteen 9/11 hijackers were terrorists.

Fact: People in the U.S. illegally are illegals.

Fact: Ricardo Pimentel is a political hack.

The Soccer Ball

This story from AP covers what some National Guard members had to say about their experiences while serving in Iraq.

It gets into their reactions and evaluations of what they did and saw there.

HATTIESBURG, Miss. -- They are returning home with a sense of accomplishment, but also with feelings of anger and frustration, even despair.

They speak proudly about building up the Iraqi security force, restoring electricity and watching Iraqis walk miles to vote.

But they wonder whether it will be enough to secure Iraq's future, and at times, express bitterness toward the people they wanted to help.

The article goes on to detail stories from four soldiers just back from Iraq.

This one absolutely knocked me out.

Children looking for handouts of candy would often approach 1st Lt. Anselm T.W. Richards and the men in his platoon. The soldiers would oblige them, then ask for information.

Sometimes, the children would tell them who made bombs and dealt in weapons. Everybody in town seemed to know the answer.

One day, Richards says, the parents of a 12-year-old boy told him their son had been beheaded by insurgents because he accepted a soccer ball as a gift from soldiers.

"We said to the parents, 'You tell us who did it and we will get them.' They said if we talk to you, they'll kill us as well,'" says Richards, a hedge fund broker from Philadelphia.

"That's the fear in which these people live. That's probably the biggest hindrance to them moving forward."

This is such an awful story that it's almost too horrific to believe, just as flying planes into the World Trade Center towers seemed unfathomable.

What sort of animal BEHEADS A 12-YEAR-OLD BOY because he accepted a soccer ball from American soldiers?

If you want to talk about atrocities and torture in Iraq, here's a prime example.

Will this be all over the news? Is this front page New York Times or Washington Post material?

Does the story of this young boy rate a piece by Michael Isikoff?

No, this is just an article on the newswire. It's barely on the radar screen.

The Haditha incident, on the other hand, is an obsession. Brian Williams and his colleagues can't stop drooling over that.

...Richards believes no one should be too quick to judge the small group of Marines being investigated in the Nov. 19 deaths of 24 Iraqi civilians, including unarmed women and children, following a roadside bomb that killed a fellow Marine.

"My question is why are people so curious and so eager to find fault with the Marines or soldiers whose lives are on the line," he says. "Why is it their behavior that's being questioned, not the behavior of the guy placing the IED, or the bomb."

He adds: "If it's because children were killed or women, it's understandable, but you know what, those Marines who are killed are children of someone as well."

I think it is utterly irresponsible to say that we created these terrorists, as if the American "occupation" could somehow drive a person to behead a boy for accepting a gift, a soccer ball.

That's insane.

These so-called insurgents are monsters, yet libs prefer to blame their actions on Bush administration policy.

In their deranged world, our enemies are actually Bush's victims.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR BEHEADING A CHILD. NONE.

It's the act of a soulless being.

Where's Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch?

Where's the outrage over the acts of the terrorists?

These organizations employ a disgusting double standard, and so do the media and the politically opportunistic elected officials that would rather attack Americans than focus on defeating these positively evil people.

Among the difficulties: Richards says Iraqi insurgents know the U.S. troops wouldn't fire at a school _ "so they will set up on a school or put a sniper on the roof of a school."

Did you get that?

They "know the U.S. troops wouldn't fire at a school," so the terrorists exploit their goodness.

YES, THEIR GOODNESS. THEY EXPLOIT THE GOODNESS OF AMERICAN TROOPS. OUR TROOPS ARE NOT THE ENEMY.

I am so sick of nuts on the Left refusing to admit to the savagery of our enemies and chastising Americans instead.

Richards says the region is safer than it was a year ago, though five of his men were injured by a roadside bomb just a few weeks before the end of their deployment. Among other accomplishments, he says his brigade helped expand the hours of available electricity each day and trained Iraqi police and security officers.

"I'm optimistic in that I feel like I've done everything that I can do and we as a group could possibly do," he says.

According to Richards, progress has been made in Iraq. He should know because he was part of it.

That reality doesn't keep disgraces like John Murtha from insisting that there's been no progress.

Last Sunday on Meet the Press, John Murtha criticized Karl Rove for making comments about the Dems' calls to cut and run from Iraq.

REP. MURTHA: He’s, he’s in New Hampshire. He’s making a political speech. He’s sitting in his air conditioned office with his big, fat backside, saying, “Stay the course.” That’s not a plan. I mean, this guy—I don’t know what his military experience is, but that’s a political statement. This is a policy difference between me and the White House. I disagree completely with what he’s saying.

Flip that around back at Murtha.

It could be said that Murtha was making a political speech, sitting in an air conditioned studio "with his big, fat backside," refusing to acknowledge the accomplishments of our troops.

That may be part of the Dem plan to win back seats in the House, but it's stabbing our troops in the back.

If a few troops were involved in wrongdoing in Iraq, then they should and will be punished.

But without question, the OVERWHELMING majority of our troops conduct themselves with bravery and honor. They deserve our respect and gratitude. I'm so proud of the American military.


WHAT SORT OF PERSON BEHEADS A 12-YEAR-OLD?

I can't stand to think about it.



The question: Is it morally acceptable to "redeploy" now?


The Dems think so. Sure, "bring 'em home" or send 'em to Okinawa.

Yeah, that's a plan.

When Russ Feingold appears on Meet the Press this morning, will Tim Russert bring up the little boy beheaded over a soccer ball?

Will he ask Feingold about the MORALITY of "redeploying"?

Hillary's Doublespeak

It appears that Hillary Clinton was quite confused yesterday.

While delivering an address to members of the NDN, her comments on divisions within the Democratic Party were sharply divided.

Washington, D.C. (AHN) -- U.S. Senator, and former First Lady, Hillary Clinton (D-NY) admits that the Democratic Party is "openly struggling with a lot of the difficult issues," ahead of the 2006 mid-term elections.

Despite the challenges before the party, Clinton still says Democrats are preferable to their "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil," GOP rivals.

Clinton says, "Although unity is important it is not the most important value. It is, I think, a tribute to the Democratic Party at this moment in time that we are honestly and openly struggling with a lot of the difficult issues facing our country."

OK. That's typical political rhetoric (AKA BS).

Hillary acknowledges the fissure (more like chasm) separating Dems on the Iraq war, and then spins it as a plus for the party.

I do think her "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" remark about the Republicans is a poor choice of words. It makes me think of the strategy that she must employ in her marriage to good ol' boy Bill.

I'm not taking a cheap shot there. I'm serious when I say that. She carries a lot of sleazy baggage that she can't leave behind.

But I digress. The point is Hillary clearly admits to divisions within the Dem Party.

Also during her address yesterday, Hillary touted her party's unprecedented unity on Iraq.

Huh? Are they united by their divisions?

From The Washington Times:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said yesterday that Democrats emerged from the Senate debate on U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq "more united" than ever behind a conditional-exit strategy in the war that has divided her party.

In remarks before the NDN, a new centrist-leaning Democratic advocacy group, Mrs. Clinton avoided the criticism she had earlier leveled at anti-war lawmakers seeking a quick pullout of all U.S. forces within one year. This time she offered only words of praise for the widely differing withdrawal positions offered by liberal Democrats in the Senate.

In other words, this time Hillary offered a political ploy.

In other, other words, honesty is not the best policy in Hillary's world.

"The Democrats may have different views about how we succeed in Iraq, but we are together and unified in fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities to engage in serious debate, to ask the difficult questions and to offer honorable and responsible positions," she said.

And what would those "honorable and responsible positions" be?

I'm not aware of those offerings.

While the Democrats' withdrawal proposals were easily defeated in the Senate Thursday, Mrs. Clinton said the 37 Democratic votes for a nonbinding, non-deadline resolution offered by Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, which urged the administration to begin some withdrawals this year, signaled a growing consensus within her party

I don't see "growing consensus" at all.

Wishing won't make it so, Hillary.

I see those Dems as trying to appease elements of their fringe base while at the same time attempting to appeal to the somewhat more moderate wing of their party by not coming off like the reckless extremists who voted for the Kerry-Feingold amendment.

"Democrats come out of this, I think, with a unified message that we want success in Iraq, we want the Iraqi people to have the stability and security and peace that they have voted for. We want their government to be able to deliver that," she said.

No, that's what the Bush administration and Republicans have been advocating from day one.

If Dems had a unified message of wanting success in Iraq, Russ Feingold and John Kerry wouldn't be grandstanding about setting a deadline for troop withdrawal and sucking up to the radical Left.

If Dems were unified, John Murtha wouldn't be taking every chance he gets to moan about "no progess" in Iraq.

If Dems were unified, Hillary wouldn't have been booed mercilessly a few weeks ago when she said that setting a hard and fast deadline for American troop withdrawal was not a "smart strategy."

Dems may want success in Iraq, but they have a dramatically different definition of success than the Republicans do.

For the Dems, success apparently means relentlessly accusing our military of atrocities, abuses, and torture. It means saying that 2500+ precious Americans died for a pack of lies. Success means retreating from what Howard Dean says is an "unwinnable" war.

If the Dems do want a stable Iraq rather than leaving the job undone, as Hillary claims, then they should stop trying to make political hay out of the suffering and sacrifices of Americans, our coalition partners, and the Iraqi people. Kerry should quit with the "lie and die" stuff.

Obviously, Dems aren't unified.

Obviously, politics doesn't stop at the water's edge anymore, not 21st century Dem politics.

The Dems' tactics sicken me.

Mondale the Hawk, Albright the Hack

Former Vice President Walter "I will raise your taxes" Mondale has weighed in on a foreign policy matter.

He's offering the Bush administration advice on North Korea.

What's strange is that Mondale is being a hawk, while Bush is pressing for a diplomatic solution to the North Korean nuclear problem.

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - Former Vice President Walter Mondale joined the list of people supporting a pre-emptive U.S. strike against a North Korean missile.

Mondale said Friday that the United States should tell North Korea to dismantle the missile - and if it doesn't "we are going to take it out."

He said the missile would be easy to hit and "I think it would end the nuclear long-range dreams of this dangerous country," said Mondale, who's also a former U.S. ambassador to Japan, in the interview.

Mondale, 78, said North Korea already has nuclear weapons and its ambition to develop a long-range missile is "one of the most dangerous developments in recent history."

It's so dangerous, he said, because of the nation's isolation from the international community and its unpredictable leader, Kim Jong Il.

"It is the danger of our time," he said. "Here's this bizarre, hermit kingdom over there with a paranoid leader getting ready to test a missile system that can hit us."

Mondale certainly isn't mincing words.

He's taking the stance that Kim Jong Il is a danger who must not be appeased in any manner.

Contrast that with Madeleine Albright's comments from a few days ago.

While in Moscow for an investors' conference, Albright was spouting off on the Bush administration.

She blamed North Korea's nuclear aspirations on Bush's Iraq policy.

Albright believes:

"The message out of Iraq is the wrong one."

"The message out of Iraq is that if you don't have nuclear weapons, you get invaded. If you do have nuclear weapons, you don't get invaded."

This woman is so irresponsible.

What is she trying to do? Encourage nuclear proliferation?

Although Mondale's comments may be misguided, at least he isn't sending a message of weakness to the world. He's not blaming America, like Albright.

Mondale's message: No Nukes for you. End of story.

Albright's message: I'm so thoroughly immersed in my hatred for Bush that I'm incapable of conducting myself with integrity. I bring shame to myself as I dishonor and endanger America.

Gore, Letterman, and the Tipping Point

Al Gore is STILL on the promotional circuit for An Inconvenient Truth. He was David Letterman's guest tonight.

Gore seemed out of breath when he first came out, like he just ran up a flight of stairs. Strange.

The first topic was Iraq.

Letterman got right into it by saying we just passed that "dreadful, obscene milestone," referring to the 2500 military deaths in Iraq.

Letterman asked, "Are we knee deep in a mess of our own making?"

Gore responded with a profound, "Uh..., yeah!"

Letterman complained, "We're asked to be patient with trouble that we're causing ourselves. I don't mean to be harsh, but is that accurate?"

Gore said, "Well...blah, blah, blah."

The gist of his response was that we need a "new team" to get us out of Iraq.

Next topic -- North Korea.

Gore started blabbing about North Korea and Iran.

Letterman asked if this nuclear problem will resolve itself. (What a stupid question!)

Gore said it will take a lot of work to work it out.

Commercial break #1

Then, it was on to the global warming spiel.

Again, Gore said the debate is over. He insists that there's scientific consensus.

It's at the point where "global warming threatens the future of civilization," according to Gore.

The villains: The oil companies.

Gore claims that he is trying to use his movie to push Americans past the tipping point so that they will demand that their leaders address global warming.

Letterman swallowed everything that Gore had to say.

Commercial break #2

Letterman mentioned that CO2 levels continued to climb during the Clinton-Gore years.

Naturally, Gore blamed that on Newt Gingrich and the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.

Then came the clip of the film.

For the set up, Letterman asked, "Is this the love scene or the chase scene?"

Gore said, "Both."

It wasn't actually a clip. It was more of a montage, like from the film's trailer. I can't believe the footage convinced anyone to run out and see the movie. That is the point of showing a clip, right?

The interview ended with the question about running for president again.

Gore's response: "I have no plans."

He went on to say that he appreciated the question and the encouragement. I guess he was reacting to the smattering, and I do mean smattering, of applause.

Instead of running for elected office, Gore said that his campaign is to get Americans past the tipping point.

I rarely watch Letterman anymore. I got bored with his tired old shtick long ago.

After watching his three segments with Gore, I regret that I wasted my time.

In a sense, Gore's campaign has worked on me. I've definitely reached the tipping point.

I can't watch one more moment of another boring interview with Gore pontificating about saving the world.

Fast Michael Moore, Fast

I found this on Michael Moore's website.

He's promoting the TROOPS HOME FAST.

It's a CODEPINK initiative, beginning on the Fourth of July.

You can fast with us in Washington, DC in front of the White House, or in your own community. You can fast as an individual, or organize a rolling fast (each one taking one day) in a public place such as a congressional office, a recruiting station, a federal building or a church. And if you live outside the United States, we encourage you to fast on July 4th outside a U.S. Embassy or consulate. While the U.S. officials are enjoying their barbeques and festivities, we will be reminding them of the ongoing suffering of Iraqis and soldiers in this unjust war.

Our fasters now include Cindy Sheehan; actress Susan Sarandon, environmentalist Diane Wilson; comedian Dick Gregory; singer Willie Nelson; Dr. Bob Edgar, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches; Dr. E. Faye Williams, National Chair of the National Congress of Black Women; Colonel Ann Wright; Iraq veteran Geoffrey Millard; Kim Gandy, President of the National Organization for Women; and CODEPINK cofounders Medea Benjamin, Jodie Evans and Gael Murphy.

Here is a more complete list of who's fasting.

Noticeably missing from the list of fasters is Michael Moore.

The Big Guy is promoting the fast but not taking part.

I'm putting out a challenge to Moore.

I'm drawing a line in the taco dip.
______________________________


Mr. Moore,

Why don't you put your principles where your Triple Whopper with Cheese is?

Join the fast.

I dare you. I Double Whopper dare you.

THE NEW YORK TIMES IS AGAINST US

Does this have something to do with those nagging guilt feelings that plague New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger?

On May 21, 2006, Sulzberger delivered a "True Confessions" commencement address at the State University of New York at New Paltz.

He apologized to the graduates for failing to pass a liberal utopia on to the next generation and for allowing them to inherit a war.

Text

Apparently, the guy feels some personal responsibility for the dismal state of the world and he's working at rectifying it by crusading against the Bush administration.

What makes Sulzberger's personal battles so dangerous is that as he wages war against the White House, he's undercutting national security and putting all Americans at risk.

Today, The New York Times has done it AGAIN.

Eric Lichtblau and James Risen have given aid and comfort to our enemies by exposing yet another secret counterterrorism program.

In "Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror," they write:

Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.

It's not secret anymore.

The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

The Times clearly wants to paint the program as a violation of the privacy of Americans. Supposedly, it's another secret and sinister effort to destroy the civil liberties of law-abiding citizens.

It's not.

"The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database."

That hardly seems like some sort of abuse of power by the Bush administration.

What is the point of blowing the lid off of this program other than to do damage to Bush?

Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said.

The program, run out of the Central Intelligence Agency and overseen by the Treasury Department, "has provided us with a unique and powerful window into the operations of terrorist networks and is, without doubt, a legal and proper use of our authorities," Stuart Levey, an under secretary at the Treasury Department, said in an interview on Thursday.

The program is grounded in part on the president's emergency economic powers, Mr. Levey said, and multiple safeguards have been imposed to protect against any unwarranted searches of Americans' records.

The program, however, is a significant departure from typical practice in how the government acquires Americans' financial records. Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records from the cooperative, known as Swift.

That access to large amounts of confidential data was highly unusual, several officials said, and stirred concerns inside the administration about legal and privacy issues.

"The capability here is awesome or, depending on where you're sitting, troubling," said one former senior counterterrorism official who considers the program valuable. While tight controls are in place, the official added, "the potential for abuse is enormous."

Who is this "former senior counterterrorism official"? What's the name of this leaker/traitor?

The program is separate from the National Security Agency's efforts to eavesdrop without warrants and collect domestic phone records, operations that have provoked fierce public debate and spurred lawsuits against the government and telecommunications companies.

The Times tosses this paragraph in order to seize the opportunity to reiterate the "domestic spying" lies it's been pushing for months and months.

But all the programs grew out of the Bush administration's desire to exploit technological tools to prevent another terrorist strike, and all reflect attempts to break down longstanding legal or institutional barriers to the government's access to private information about Americans and others inside the United States.

"Exploit"?

"Break down longstanding legal or institutional barriers to the government's access to private information about Americans"?

That has a rather negative connotation, doesn't it?

I'll rewrite the paragraph--

But all the programs grew out of the Bush administration's desire to utilize every technological tool possible to prevent horrors like the hijacking of civilian airliners, the deaths of nearly three thousand innocents, and the disintegration of the World Trade Center. They all reflect attempts to empower the government to effectively combat the efforts of our enemies to attack us again.

That's better.

...Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified. Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program, saying that what they viewed as an urgent, temporary measure had become permanent nearly five years later without specific Congressional approval or formal authorization.

Naturally, they spoke on condition of anonymity.

They did so "because the program remains classified."

OOPS! NOT ANYMORE.

It's on the front page of The New York Times!

Do you think members of al Qaeda and their sympathizers have access to the story?

Gee, I hope not.

Data from the Brussels-based banking consortium, formally known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, has allowed officials from the C.I.A., the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies to examine "tens of thousands" of financial transactions, Mr. Levey said.

While many of those transactions have occurred entirely on foreign soil, officials have also been keenly interested in international transfers of money by individuals, businesses, charities and other groups under suspicion inside the United States, officials said. A small fraction of Swift's records involve transactions entirely within this country, but Treasury officials said they were uncertain whether any had been examined.

Overwhelmingly, we're talking about suspicious INTERNATIONAL transfers of money, with only "a small fraction" of transactions occurring entirely domestically.

And here's the real kicker--

...The Bush administration has made no secret of its campaign to disrupt terrorist financing, and President Bush, Treasury officials and others have spoken publicly about those efforts. Administration officials, however, asked The New York Times not to publish this article, saying that disclosure of the Swift program could jeopardize its effectiveness. They also enlisted several current and former officials, both Democrat and Republican, to vouch for its value.

Bill Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, said: "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."

Mr. Levey agreed to discuss the classified operation after the Times editors told him of the newspaper's decision.

On Thursday evening, Dana Perino, deputy White House press secretary, said: "Since immediately following 9/11, the American government has taken every legal measure to prevent another attack on our country. One of the most important tools in the fight against terror is our ability to choke off funds for the terrorists."

She added: "We know the terrorists pay attention to our strategy to fight them, and now have another piece of the puzzle of how we are fighting them. We also know they adapt their methods, which increases the challenge to our intelligence and law enforcement officials."

Referring to the disclosure by The New York Times last December of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program, she said, "The president is concerned that once again The New York Times has chosen to expose a classified program that is working to protect our citizens."

The bottom line: Sulzberger's New York Times is an absolute disgrace.

On November 6, 2001, President Bush said, "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

It's very clear. The New York Times is against us.

Feingold's "Boxers or Briefs?" Moment

This is too much.

Russ Feingold has been a lib media darling since last summer when he first set his December 31, 2006 deadline for American troop withdrawal from Iraq.

They've fawned all over him, giving him tons of favorable coverage. Those on the farthest fringes of the Left have reacted in the same way. They worship him.

Now, however, the Feingold love fest has turned really, really weird.

The July issue of GQ has an interview with Feingold that would be more fitting in Tiger Beat.

It's his "boxers or briefs?" moment.

Excerpts from Lisa DePaulo's sit-down with "The Real Maverick":

You’re a big golf guy, right?

I like golf. But I don’t want anyone to be under the illusion that I’m good at it. I just really enjoy it.

Well, how good are you?

About an 18 handicap. That mean anything to you?

Nope.

It’s sort of okay. Not humiliating. It took me twenty years to get from humiliating to where other people don’t just kind of go, “Ugh.”

Do you watch golf?

Yes, I…I hate to admit.

Who’s your favorite golfer?

Tiger Woods. What an original answer. And so unlike me. I’ve always been the underdog kind of guy. But for whatever reason, I just cannot—I am so taken with his ability.

Have you ever met him?

No. I’d love to. He and Bob Dylan. Those are the two I’d love to meet.

YUCK!

I feel like I'm participating in some sort of domestic spying or warrantless eavesdropping.

It sounds like the kind of conversation that a lonely man and a lonely woman would have after the last call on Saturday night -- the "let's get to know each other FAST" sort of talk.

To be fair, the interview contains some serious talk, too. They do touch on politics.

Would you like to see [Bush] impeached?

I have to think about whether that’s good for the country. He’s probably committed an impeachable offense. But the Constitution does not require, just because somebody has committed an impeachable offense, that you actually impeach him. That’s why censure is a good way to have accountability but not actually remove the president from office. You know, I was the only Democratic senator to vote to hear the evidence they wanted to dismiss against Clinton. I thought it was our role to do it. I wrote an opinion—all of us had to write an opinion—and in the last couple of paragraphs, I said, “Look, I majored in history, and I knew that the only impeachment had been Andrew Johnson.” And I said, “I’ve only been conscious of this stuff for twenty-five to thirty years—and I’ve already seen two: Nixon and Clinton. I really worry that people are gonna start seeing impeachment as a regular way to do business.” Problem is, George Bush has committed a more clearly impeachable offense than Clinton or even Nixon ever did.

Worse than Nixon?

Probably.

"Worse than Nixon" -- What a maverick-y thing to say!

Have you been to Iraq?

Twice.

And the first time was with Hillary, right?

Yes. And both times with John McCain.

What was it like traveling with Hillary?

It was a blast.

Really?

It was a great group. First of all, to be able to sit there and watch Hillary Clinton and John McCain just shoot the breeze? I mean, I felt like, whatever I had to do to get here? It was worth it.

Did they like each other, Hillary and McCain?

I think so. Absolutely. She was fun. She’s got a great sense of humor.

Tell me how. Give me an example.

She likes to laugh. If somebody says something outrageous, she pursues it and makes them defend it. Or she can give them a hard time, which I really enjoy. I remember one night she said, “That’s enough work—let’s hear some good stories.” I can’t give you all the details. [smiles]

Did she pack more than everybody else?

What’s that?

Did she pack more than everybody else?

[laughs] That would be a dangerous area for me to get into, because I may pack a little more than I should.

So you pack like a girl?

There would be those who would say that. And it would not be the easiest thing to deny.

Okay, back to the wiretapping—

Back to the wiretapping? From packing like a girl! This is one of the more interesting interviews—

I'd call it a really embarrassing interview, the kind that will come back to haunt Feingold.

"Oooooh, Mr. Senator. Tell me about traveling with Hillary. You pack like a girl (giggle, giggle)."

It seems so ... seamy.

After that gossip, then things get really personal.

Let’s talk about this twice-divorced thing.

Sure.

How much of a political liability do you think it will be?

I have no idea. If it is, so be it. That’s up to the people to decide.

What’s it like to be a single senator?

It’s new to me. You sort of end up working a whole lot. There’s a tendency to let the time get filled up. So I’ve been very careful—

So you’ve become less social?

No, probably more social, in the sense that because you don’t have a spouse—see, when you’re married, you really feel an obligation to spend all that available time with your spouse if you can. I’m able to spend more time with more people now. I’m reconnecting with a lot of people and old friends.

Dating?

Um, that’s, uh, classified?

Are there women throwing themselves at you?

I certainly wouldn’t say that. [smiles] I’m not gonna say that.

You know, there’ve been some legendary single senators.

Yeah, I know. I’m not aspiring to be in that hall of fame.

His "classified" line is like something out of a bad B-movie.

The thought of "women throwing themselves" at Feingold is so ... what's the word?

Incomprehensible?

Okay. Real quick: Jennifer or Angelina?

Jennifer? Jennifer who?

Oh, come on, Senator! Jennifer or Angelina?

Jennifer who?

Aniston. [silence] Oh, God. You don’t read the tabloids, do you?

Can I have a third choice? Can I pick Sharon Stone?

Oh my God! Enough!

Sharon Stone?

Now I'm completely creeped out.

This rivals Jimmy Carter's infamous 1976 Playboy interview.

When Carter was asked about his religious beliefs, he responded:

"Christ said, 'I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery.' I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times. This is something that God recognizes I will do -- and I have done it -- and God forgives me for it. But that doesn't mean that I condemn someone who not only looks on a woman with lust but who leaves his wife and shacks up with somebody out of wedlock. Christ says, Don't consider yourself better than someone else because one guy screws a whole bunch of women while the other guy is loyal to his wife."

That didn't keep Carter from being elected president, but Carter himself referred to the interview as "a devastating blow to our campaign."

There are just some things that are better left unsaid, or at least unread.

Feingold's GQ interview definitely would fall into that category.

Foiled Again

Only last weekend, we were told of al Qaeda's plot to release poisonous cyanide gas in the New York subway system in 2003.
Ayman Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's deputy, called it off for reasons that are still unknown to U.S. intelligence officials, according to Ron Suskind's new book, The One Percent Doctrine.

I guess you could call today's news more reassuring. Rather than al Qaeda choosing to back off on a plot to kill Americans, the plan to attack the Sears Tower was foiled thanks to federal officials cracking a terrorist ring.

From The Chicago Tribune:

WASHINGTON -- Federal agents in Miami, in an effort to crack down on an alleged terrorist ring, arrested seven men Thursday who had "aspirations" but "no means" to attack the Sears Tower in Chicago, a senior federal law enforcement source said.

The men had been plotting for an undetermined amount of time but their scheme was thwarted well before there was any threat that could be carried out.

"There was no threat at all," the senior law enforcement source said, referring to the Sears Tower.

FBI agents, along with state and local law enforcement officials, cordoned off an area of Liberty City, a Miami neighborhood, Thursday evening in raids that officials described as a significant terror-related investigation.

FBI Director Robert Mueller, speaking on CNN, said, "I can tell you that we do have an ongoing operation in Miami. We are conducting a number of arrests and searches and we'll have more about that when the operation is concluded, probably tomorrow morning."

Mueller added that "whenever we undertake an operation like this, we would not do it without the approval of a judge. We've got search warrants and arrest warrants and the like."

...Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales and top FBI officials are to discuss the case in more detail at a news conference Friday in Washington, D.C.

"They had aspirations...a lot of talking," said the senior federal law enforcement source. "But they had no means."

CNN adds:

Law enforcement sources told CNN that some of the suspects are members of a radical African-American Muslim group and that at least one had taken "an al Qaeda oath." They had carried out surveillance on the Sears Tower and FBI building in Miami, the sources said.

Sources told CNN that the arrests culminated a monthslong undercover operation. The suspects believed they were dealing with an al Qaeda operative, but the person was actually a government informant, the sources said.

...The FBI said one search warrant was executed in a warehouse near a housing project in Liberty City, a predominantly black and low-income area of Miami.

...Residents living near the warehouse told The Associated Press that the men taken into custody called themselves Muslims and had tried to recruit young people.

The men slept in the warehouse, Tashawn Rose, 29, told the AP.

"They would come out late at night and exercise," she said. "It seemed like a military boot camp that they were working on there. They would come out and stand guard."

Even though this plot was in the very early stages, it serves as a reminder that we are at war.

There are people who want to attack us on our soil.

I wonder. Do you think Ramsey Clark grabbed the first flight that he could get to Miami?

Are representatives from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch rushing to aid the seven men who were arrested?

I hope the facilities where the men are being held have prayer rugs and copies of the Koran on hand.

John Kerry Spins Defeat

In another fundraising appeal e-mail masquerading as an informative message, John Kerry is spinning the devastating trouncing he took from members of the Senate this morning.

He writes:

Dear Mary,

Just hours ago, the Senate voted on the Kerry-Feingold proposal to redeploy American combat troops out of Iraq by July 1, 2007. Thirteen Senators voted for it.

It was an important step towards ending the administration's aimless, open-ended course in Iraq and having Iraqis stand up for Iraq.

When Jack Murtha stepped up to the challenge of leadership in the House on Iraq, he was alone. Last week, 140 House members voted to support his leadership.

When we in the Senate began the fight to change course in Iraq, we too were almost alone. Today our numbers grew -- and that is progress you made happen.

First and foremost, Russ and I thank you for your support. Over the last few weeks, hundreds of thousands of you have joined our effort to bring our combat troops home. Once again, the johnkerry.com community has shown its deep commitment to fighting for a better course for America.

We ask you to join us now in honoring the strength and leadership of the Senators who stood with you:

Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), co-sponsor
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Sen. James Jeffords (I-VT)
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), co-sponsor
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Please call, write, or email these Senators and acknowledge their leadership on Iraq.

Let me be absolutely clear. Russ Feingold and I would have forced this vote even if the outcome were going to be 98 to 2. Ending the Bush administration's disastrous approach to this war isn't about counting votes. It isn't about legislative strategy or electoral calculation. It's about applying constant pressure to change a broken course.

It's about utterly rejecting the desperate tactics of cowardly political operatives like Karl Rove who, as John Murtha pointed out, have no qualms about telling our soldiers to "stay the course" from the comfort of their air-conditioned offices at the White House.

It's about doing what's right.

Karl Rove may worry about losing votes. It's our job to worry about young Americans losing their lives. It's our job to provide a new vision that offers real security for America while giving the Iraqis their best chance for a stable Iraq.

I will keep doing what's right on Iraq, and I won't stop until our troops are home and the future of Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqi people.

I know you'll keep working right alongside me.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

Were you able to read that without dozing off?

Kerry even drones on and on in his e-mails.

Notice how he manages to push all the buttons that send the Leftists into a frenzy.

He canonizes John Murtha, and he demonizes Karl Rove, calling him a coward.

Kerry's no fool when it comes to playing the fringe Left. He knows that when libs hear Karl Rove's name, they get out their checkbooks.

It's so hypocritical for Kerry to say that his "bring the troops home now" efforts are "about doing what's right," when in reality, Kerry is simply playing games. He's pandering to the far Left for his personal political gain.

I wonder how much money he rakes in from liberals when he sends out one of these e-mails.

Actually, it would be in the self-interests of conservatives to support Kerry, too.

He's aiding Republicans with his relentless chipping away at the Dems' united front.

Kerry and his new buddy Russ Feingold are dividing their party. Kerry brags about it in the e-mail!

The problem is while Kerry is doing of plenty of damage to the Dems, he's also undermining the War on Terror.

He's telling our enemies -- the ones who celebrate the deaths of American men, women, and children, the ones who are actively plotting to kill more -- that the U.S. should surrender, cut and run.

He recruits terrorists by asserting that the military under the Bush administration is engaged in the systematic torture and murder of Iraqis.

In effect, he's attacking Americans while we are at war.

I guess old habits die hard.

Diana Irey

John Murtha has got to go!

I don't mean that he has to wipe the makeup off his face and leave the sets of Meet the Press, Face the Nation, etc.

I mean he has to be defeated this November.

RJay introduces Diana Irey, Murtha's Republican challenger.

Check out her website here.



Also, from RealClearPolitics, read "Rep. Murtha: Pennsylvania's Embarrassment."

I think Murtha has gone beyond being an embarrassment. I consider him to be Pennsylvania's disgrace.


Obligatory disclaimer: I thank Rep. Murtha for his military service.
__________________________________

Read Murtha's latest "same old, same old" on The Huffington Post.

In "Knowing Your Enemy," he continues to push for the speedy withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

An interesting comment posted by a reader:

Isn't it clear Mr. Murtha? The enemy is the Republican party.
- Bobbotov, 06.21.2006