Hillary Says Madeleine Albright in Hell

And Hillary, once again desperate in her narcissism to make everything about her, instead manages to nonsensically make it sound like Madeline Albright went to hell. (Her comment refers to a cringeworthy statement Albright made in support of Clinton’s 2016 candidacy). https://t.co/YICX0A66Fp

— Tammy Bruce (@HeyTammyBruce) April 27, 2022

What a stupid thing to say! Hillary Clinton is nuts.

Madeleine Albright - First Woman Secretary of State

The person who wrote this headline must be a biologist. https://t.co/dGLnZjD3ZU

— Abigail Shrier (@AbigailShrier) March 23, 2022

Rest in peace.

Pelosi: 'The Word'

Nancy Pelosi provides more evidence that she has gone off the deep end.

The woman is clueless.

She's preaching about Jesus and "The Word" but she doesn't know what she's talking about.

From CNSNews:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says she believes she must pursue public policies "in keeping with the values" of Jesus Christ, "The Word made Flesh."

Pelosi, who is a Catholic and who favors legalized abortion, voted against the ban on partial-birth abortion that was enacted into law in 2003.

At a May 6 Catholic Community Conference on Capitol Hill, the speaker said: “They ask me all the time, ‘What is your favorite this? What is your favorite that? What is your favorite that?’ And one time, ‘What is your favorite word?’ And I said, ‘My favorite word? That is really easy. My favorite word is the Word, is the Word. And that is everything. It says it all for us. And you know the biblical reference, you know the Gospel reference of the Word.”

“And that Word," Pelosi said, "is, we have to give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word. The Word. Isn’t it a beautiful word when you think of it? It just covers everything. The Word.

“Fill it in with anything you want. But, of course, we know it means: ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.’ And that’s the great mystery of our faith. He will come again. He will come again. So, we have to make sure we’re prepared to answer in this life, or otherwise, as to how we have measured up.”

Pelosi claims to pursue policies in keeping with the values of Jesus Christ???

She has to be kidding.

Pelosi really has issues with the Word and the Catholic Church.

Remember this tidbit from Meet the Press, August 24, 2008?

Transcript excerpt

MR. BROKAW: There was a very well publicized and very effective interview by Pastor Rick Warren at the Saddleback Church in California of the two candidates recently. And on the right especially, response from Senator Obama to the question of when life begins has been getting a lot of attention. We want to just share with you how that went, and then you can take a look at it and, and respond to it for us.

(Videotape, August 16, 2008)

PASTOR RICK WARREN: At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is, is above my pay grade.

(End videotape)

MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you're looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, "Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?" what would you tell him?

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator--St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child--first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There's very clear distinctions. This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and--to--that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who've decided...

MR. BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it...

REP. PELOSI: I understand that.

MR. BROKAW: ...begins at the point of conception.

REP. PELOSI: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions. That's why we have this fight in Congress over contraception. My Republican colleagues do not support contraception. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must--it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think. But that is not the case. So we have to take--you know, we have to handle this as respectfully--this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been--and I'm not saying Rick Warren did, because I don't think he did, but others will try to.

Huh?

I could not believe that Pelosi, this self-professed "ardent, practicing Catholic," thought she could get away with blathering on the way she did about Catholicism and when life begins on such a high profile program without igniting a firestorm.

She had to realize there would be a strong reaction and dramatic consequences to her ridiculous claims.

From The Hill:

In a rare public rebuke of a top politician, the archbishop of Washington said Monday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was incorrect when she recently said the moment of conception has long been a matter of controversy within the Catholic Church.

In a release issued Monday night, Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl said Pelosi's comments on "Meet the Press" on Sunday "were incorrect."

Wuerl noted that Pelosi responded to a question on when life begins by mentioning she was Catholic.

The release quoted Pelosi as saying the church has not been able to come with a definition of when life begins.

“After Mr. Tom Brokaw, the interviewer, pointed out that the Catholic Church feels strongly that life begins at conception, she replied, 'I understand. And this is, like, maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy,' " the release said.

Wuerl strongly disagrees.

He said, "We respect the right of elected officials such as Speaker Pelosi to address matters of public policy that are before them, but the interpretation of Catholic faith has rightfully been entrusted to the Catholic bishops. Given this responsibility to teach, it is important to make this correction for the record."

Wuerl pointed out that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear, and has been clear for 2,000 years. He cited Catechism language that reads, "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception … Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.”

The "doctors of the church"?

I hope for non-Catholics and misguided Catholics the fact that Archbishop Wuerl did rebuke Pelosi made an impression.

Her comments on Meet the Press were so off base that a correction by a Church authority was required.

Her comments about the Word guiding her in policy matters is equally off base.

CNSNews notes:

After Pope Benedict XVI met privately with Speaker Pelosi in February 2009, the Vatican issued a statement saying: "His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in co-operation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."

Does Pelosi believe that she is more informed about the Church's teaching on the dignity of all human life than the Pope?

I don't know how Pelosi dares to say that her policy work in Washington even remotely is influenced by Jesus Christ and the Word of God.

She promotes the assault on the dignity of human life. She's spent her public life working to assure that there are no obstacles when it comes to the killing of the unborn.

The woman is a hypocrite. She's an embarrassament.

Another thing--

Why is Pelosi being given a pass on her claim that Jesus is her guide as Speaker of the House?

When President Bush referenced his faith, he was described as a nut and dangerous.

Madeleine Albright wrote a book about it.

OK, Lefties.

Slam Pelosi the way you slammed Bush.

Video.

Madeleine Albright: Lockerbie Bombing a 'Terrible Accident'

Let's get this straight.

Pan Am Flight 103 being blown out of the sky was NO accident. It was an intentional, murderous, evil act.

Madeleine Albright doesn't see it that way. On MSNBC, Albright referred to the terrorism as an "accident."

Video, from Breitbart.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I think we have to take the British and the Scotch at their word, that there were no deals. Uh, the issue itself is most unfortunate, because so many Americans and other nationals died in that terrible, terrible accident.

How could a former secretary of state call the intentional slaughter of hundreds of innocents an accident?

Disgraceful.

Obviously, Albright has problems recognizing terrorism.

If she does recognize it, she apparently doesn't have the spine to call it what it is.

Obama and Jesus

For 8 years, President George W. Bush was mercilessly mocked by Leftists about his faith.

Some examples:

Madeleine Albright
More Madeleine Albright
Chris Matthews

As it turns out, Obama talks about Jesus more than Bush did.

From Politico:

More than four months into the Obama presidency, a picture is emerging of a chief executive who is comfortable with public displays of his religion — although he has also paid tribute to other faiths and those he called “nonbelievers” during his inaugural address.

Obama’s invocation of the Christian Messiah is more overt than Americans heard in the public rhetoric of Bush in his time in the White House — even though Bush’s victories were powered in part by evangelical voters.

“I don’t recall a single example of Bush as president ever saying, ‘Jesus’ or ‘Christ,’” said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Christian group Family Research Council. “This is different.”

To Perkins, Obama’s overtly Christian rhetoric is a welcome development from an administration that he largely disagrees with on the issues, though Perkins sees a political motive behind it, as well.

“I applaud that. It gives people a sense of comfort,” Perkins said. “But I think it’s a veneer, a facade that covers over a lot of policies that are anti-Christian.” That includes, in his view, Obama’s stance in favor of abortion rights.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, the executive director of the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State, doesn’t like the trend with Obama: “I don’t need to hear politicians tell me how religious they are,” Lynn said. “Obama in a very overt way does what Bush tended to do in a more covert way.”

I wonder if Madeleine Albright is troubled by Obama's religious talk.

I'm sure Chris Matthews loves it, by virtue of the fact that he worships anything and everything that is Obama.

Sure, Obama is exploiting faith for his political purposes. Nonetheless, the Left really should get on Obama's case about Jesus. Failure to do so is hypocritical.

I think Leftists would rather be hypocrites than critics of Obama.


_______________

On a related note: Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the man who brought Obama to Jesus, speaks out.

Wright hasn't talked to Obama since he took office.

Asked if he had spoken to the President, Wright said: "Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office. ...

"They will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is. ... I said from the beginning: He's a politician; I'm a pastor. He's got to do what politicians do."

I find it stunning that Obama spent 20 years with Wright as his spiritual leader.

Stunning.

Laura Ling and Euna Lee

UPDATE, August 5, 2009: N. Korea Releases U.S. Journalists
______________

Nearly one month ago, the Iranians freed imprisoned journalist Roxana Saberi. At first, she was arrested for working in Iran without press credentials. Eventually, she was charged and convicted of spying.

Thankfully, that hostage crisis was resolved; but now we have another "Axis of Evil" nation hostage crisis. This time North Korea is holding Americans captive.

From the New York Times:

North Korea on Monday sentenced two American journalists to 12 years of hard labor in a case widely seen as a test of how far the isolated Communist state was willing to take its confrontational stance toward the United States.

The Central Court, the highest court of North Korea, held the trial of the two Americans, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, from Thursday to Monday and convicted them of “committing hostilities against the Korean nation and illegal entry,” the North’s official news agency, KCNA, said in a report monitored in Seoul.

Ms. Ling and Ms. Lee have been held since they were detained by North Korean soldiers patrolling the border between China and North Korea on March 17.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has called the charges “baseless.”

The United States government had demanded that the North forgo the legal proceedings and release the two women.

The sentencing came amid rising tensions between Washington and Pyongyang. Earlier Monday, North Korea threatened to retaliate with “extreme” measures if the United Nations punished it for its nuclear test last month, and Washington warned that it might try to put the North back on its list of states that sponsor terrorism, a designation that could subject the impoverished state to more financial sanctions.

“Our response would be to consider sanctions against us as a declaration of war and answer it with extreme hard-line measures,” the North Korea’s state-run newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, said in a commentary.

...Analysts said they were a pawn in a rapidly deteriorating confrontation between the United States and North Korea — a potential bargaining chip for the Pyongyang regime and a handicap for Washington in its efforts to pressure the government over its recent missile and nuclear tests.

North Korea is a mess.

Obama can't place blame solely on the Bush administration for that. He can blame Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton, too.

Responsibility for the present threat posed by North Korea dates back well before Bush took office. An August 1, 1994 editorial in National Review provides some reality as opposed to the usual Dem spin.

Obviously, it's not as if no one saw the potential for North Korea to be a serious threat to U.S. security and world stability.

Obama can thank the Clinton administration and the disastrous Albright for the failures that have led to years and years of mounting tensions.

A nuclear North Korea is part of the "proud" Clinton/Albright legacy.

They rewarded North Korea for bad behavior. The result was not diminished hostilities.

So now what?

Ling and Lee are being held hostage. They're being used as pawns.

Maybe Obama should meet with North Korean leaders, without preconditions, just as he promised during his campaign.

QUESTION: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"

OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous."

Obama's "holding out the olive branch to the world" rhetoric hasn't really changed much of anything.

Of course, North Korea is testing Obama.

The world has been watching the various legs of his apology tours. Obviously, Obama talking down America doesn't make North Korea want to cooperate and reduce tensions with the U.S. and the global community. Weakness encourages North Korea to be more aggressive and the country is seizing that opportunity.

I think North Korea wants to find out just how weak Obama really is.

All of our enemies are interested in that information.



Meanwhile, Ling and Lee are looking at 12 years of hard labor in a North Korean prison camp.

That's no picnic. Or should I say that's no date night?

Madeleine Albright, Elvis Costello, and Conan O'Brien

Conan O'Brien had quite an eclectic line-up on his show Thursday night.

Elvis Costello was the first guest, not counting Sarah Silverman's appearance for the "Year 2000" segment. Costello was hawking his new talk show, Spectacle: Elvis Costello with..., on the Sundance Channel.

Of course, he and O'Brien talked about the election. Costello noted that he and his wife, Diana Krall, have two-year-old twin sons. Costello said that with Barack Obama in office, he won't have to apologize when his sons, American citizens, learn about the president of the United States.

More Bush Derangement Syndrome on display.

Barack Obama was elected. Obviously, Costello is glad. Fine. Why take a swipe at Bush?

It certainly seems that this new Obama era of change and unity is crap. There's a lot of ugliness out there. Come together? I don't believe that the libs have any interest in doing that at all.

O'Brien's second guest was Madeleine Albright. Usually, guests leave after their segments conclude, but Costello remained, moving to the couch.

It was a rather brief segment. She had time to hawk her book, Memo to the President Elect: How We Can Restore America's Reputation and Leadership. Now available in paperback, it's an updated edition.

Albright said she gave a copy to Barack Obama and she inscribed it: "With the audacity to hope you find this book useful."

Do you think Obama will read it?

Albright also had time to bash the Bush administration and its policies.

O'Brien brought up Kim Jong-Il. The question couldn't have been less spontaneous. It seems whenever Albright is interviewed she talks about North Korea. It reminds me of Jimmy Carter constantly yapping about the Camp David Accords.

O'BRIEN: I have to ask you about this. I believe you're the last or one of the last high-ranking U.S. officials to meet directly with Kim Jong-Il, back in '99 or 2000. What's he like?

ALBRIGHT: Well, I am the last and the highest level American official to meet with him, and we didn't have a lot of information about him. And so... and also, we didn't have an embassy there, so I had no idea what was going to happen. And wasn't sure that he was actually going to see me because he'd invited President Clinton, and President Clinton said, 'I have to send my Secretary of State first.'

What? Clinton didn't run to personally meet with Kim Jong-Il?

Albright talked about having to see Kim Jong-Il's embalmed father. She said, "He's in a glass box."

What entertaining, sparkling conversation!

ALBRIGHT:As soon as I had done that, I got a phone call and they said that he would see me. So...and we spent a lot of time together. He is actually... some people think he's crazy. He's not crazy. He's actually very smart. He's a terrible dictator. And while he's having fancy dinners, people are starving. But it certainly was interesting, and I'm really sorry that those talks were not continued.

O'BRIEN: Well, your belief and the Clinton administration's belief was that you need to speak to the government of North Korea. You have to talk to these people. The Bush administration felt, 'No, we can't. We can't speak with them.'

ALBRIGHT: Well, the bottom line is you can't learn anything about another country or deal with your enemies if you don't speak to them. And so we believed that you really should spend time, find out, deliver... You know speaking isn't always nice, I think you know that, and sometimes you say some pretty tough things, but you have to do that. And I think that's the right way, because what happened, because those talks weren't picked up until several years later, when we left office, we knew North Korea was dangerous. We were afraid that it had one...the capability of one to two nuclear weapons. They have, because the talks were cut off, they have exploded a nuclear weapon, and we now think they might be able to make something like eight. So the time lost, I think, is very serious.

O'BRIEN: Well, maybe we'll be in a new direction now.

ALBRIGHT: That would be good.

Albright has been doing CYA, especially on North Korea, since Bush took office. She has been such an outspoken critic, undercutting a sitting president.

I doubt that Condoleezza Rice will write books slamming Barack Obama, and then go on talk shows spewing her criticism.

Read this enlightening August 1, 1994, editorial from National Review for some historical perspective on North Korea and nuclear proliferation.

Albright is in no position to be casting stones at the Bush administration for unsuccessful diplomacy when it comes to North Korea.

It is intellectually dishonest to ignore the Clinton administration's pivotal role in the nuclear North Korea. It cannot be dismissed.

Clinton gave North Korea nuclear technology. He talked and trusted and made disastrous decisions. Yes, Clinton did that. CLINTON.

If only Clinton had employed a different approach, maybe we'd be better off today. Clinton was duped and so was his stooge Madeleine Albright.

Instead of criticizing Bush, Albright should be apologizing to Americans and the global community for her failures. She should be begging for forgiveness.

A nuclear North Korea is part of the "proud" Clinton/Albright legacy, yet Albright persists with the lame spin she's been selling for years.

O'Brien bought it. He was willing to enable and promote Albright's version of events.

He didn't say that it would have been better if Albright and Clinton hadn't screwed up in the first place.

After the talk came a very odd moment.

Costello and Albright did a duet. I thought it was strange that Costello hung around after his interview, but I wasn't expecting him to sing with Albright. Costello sat on the couch and played guitar. Albright leaned in toward Costello and they sang Cole Porter's "Don't Fence Me In."

I don't know why, but they did. This wasn't a spontaneous thing. It was rehearsed. The guitar was waiting behind the couch. Bizarre.

Costello introduced the goofy number with a prepared dedication. Clearly, it was prepared. He began the dedication. O'Brien briefly interrupted with a comment and Costello then repeated the same words.

COSTELLO: We want to send this out to any older gentlemen who happen to find they have a little time on their hands right around now, you know?

Gee, which "older gentlemen" could he be talking about?


(Screen grab/ NBC)

Although it was a rehearsed number, Albright was using cue cards or a teleprompter to help her with the lyrics.

Albright was obviously delighted with her performance.

After the song, Albright pulled Costello toward her to give him a kiss.


Albright kisses Costello.


Costello, post-kiss.

If you can imagine, Albright is worse at singing than she was at being Secretary of State.

Madeleine Albright and Democracy

Once again, Madeleine Albright and Charlie Rose engaged in a "Blame America First" fest.

She was Rose's guest yesterday, plugging her latest screed, Memo to the President Elect: How We Can Restore America's Reputation and Leadership.

It still boggles my mind that some people worship this inept woman. I can't believe she's considered credible. Listening to her, I can't believe that she served as the U.S. Secretary of State.

She's such a partisan hack and so anti-American.

As usual, Rose asked an idiotic, loaded question: "Has our focus on democracy led to anything other than us feeling good about ourselves?"

Albright said, "The bottom line is I happen to believe in democracy, and I think that countries are better off if people can make their own choices about their leaders."

But she went on to bash the idea of free elections.

Albright explained:

"On the democracy issue... democracy at the moment has a bad name because it's identified with military force. And it looks as though you impose democracy. I think we need to get back to where we support democracy.

Then, I think, the other issue out there is how to mitigate some of the worst parts of globalization and the gap between the rich and the poor, and then to deal with issues of environment and energy, all of which require incredible international cooperation. And that's what the next president has to do."

Good grief.

Only Jimmy Carter can outdo Albright when it comes to bashing the Bush administration and America.

Democracy has a bad name?

Really?

It's not the last, best hope of man on Earth?

If democracy is so bad then why are people from every corner of the world coming to America?

Albright says democracy is identified with military force rather than liberty.

How dare our military men and women impose freedom on oppressed people and fight tyranny!

__________________

Watch the interview here.

Pretender Madeleine Albright

Madeleine Albright was back for yet another interview on Charlie Rose's show.

Rose treated her as if she were infallible. I find that just plain goofy.

Of course, Rose gave Albright ample opportunity to criticize President Bush and attack the administration's foreign policy.

Going to Albright for perspective and wisdom on U.S. foreign policy is as ridiculous as turning to Jimmy Carter for advice on how a president should handle a hostage crisis.

Albright tossed out plenty of gems.

On the War in Iraq:

"Iraq in many ways has shown the limitations of our power."

"This has put into question what American power can achieve."

"It was a badly implemented use of American power."

"I think [Iraq] is a disaster."

Albright, fan of Kofi Annan, was doing her best to slam Bush and his administration and take America down a few notches in the process.

She did go into CYA mode, trying to account for all the statements she made during the Clinton era about the danger that Saddam Hussein posed to us and to the world.

Albright said, "I actually believe that there were weapons of mass destruction...but I didn't think they were an imminent threat."

Albright directly countered one of the favorite talking points of her comrades on the Left -- Bush LIED about WMD.

She clearly said he did not lie. She believes Saddam had them.

Regarding the war, Albright said, "I understood the why. I didn't understand the why now and the what next."

Albright declared, "It was a war of choice, not of necessity."

Was Bosnia a "war of necessity"?

Hmmm.

She babbled about terrorism as Rose pitched ultra-soft softball questions.

"We can't take sides in this."

"We don't know enough about Muslims. We can't be in the middle of that."

"Islamofacism – bad word."

It's precisely that sort of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" approach to terrorism that serves to foster terrorism.

Albright was commenting on the insurgency in Iraq, but her argument that ignorance about Islam means that we should disengage is just nuts.

On the Iraq Study Group:

"I think it has great value."

"But everything's a little late."

"What I have a problem with is we are sinking fast here."

"It moves in generally the right direction."

"Talking to one's enemies is a good idea."

Albright complained, "The neocons and the far Right called it surrender."

She was quick to toss the "neocon" label out and point fingers at what she called the "far Right."

Rose didn't say anything about Albright being a lib or on the far Left, or about her being weak on terror.

I really didn't expect him to point that out. In fact, I would have been shocked if he did.

Why is what this woman has to say given any credence at all?

The clueless Albright is no foreign policy genius. She proved that.

What did her eight years serving in various capacities for the Clinton administration, and her four years as Secretary of State get us?

The simple answer:

DISASTER

More specifically:

Repeated terrorist attacks, on American soil and American interests abroad.

A strengthened al Qaeda.

A nuclear North Korea.

A Bosnia quagmire, meaning no exit strategy there.

Why listen to Albright?

I can't imagine.

Chill Winds

The Dems are always moaning about the "chill winds of censorship."

"You can't criticize this administration."

"You're called unpatriotic if you disagree with the evil neocons."

"BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!"

So what do those libs do?

They use their power to censor.

Bill Clinton and company blew a gasket over the ABC docudrama The Path to 9/11. They weren't happy with the film. Rather than the director's cut, they fought for the Clinton cut, and demanded that it be edited.

What champions of free expression!

Now that Google libs will be taking over YouTube, the chill winds of censorship will blow more fiercely.

Smart move by Google to grab YouTube, control accessibility, and censor.

YouTube has already balked, albeit rather briefly.

The target: A fantastic piece by David Zucker.

Proud son of Wisconsin Zucker uses humor to get a deadly serious point across about the Dems, the Party of Appeasement.

Read about the YouTube thought police here.

The popular video-sharing YouTube site, which is being purchased by Google for $1.65 billion, limited access to a political ad that mocks the Clinton administration's policy on North Korea, but contains no profanity, nudity or other factors generally thought objectionable.

The company announced a "flagging" policy change just this week, about the time that a controversial spoof by Republican filmmaker David Zucker depicting former Secretary of State Madeline Albright as a cheerleader for Islamic terrorists started appearing with a warning page in front, requiring verification that a viewer is 18 before the video will appear.

...However, after a brief period of accessibility, the verification page started appearing on YouTube. It asked that: "This video may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube's user community. To view this video, please verify you are 18 or older by logging in or signing up." Today the verification page on the spoof was removed.

Frankly, who cares if YouTube does censor conservative videos?

The double standard is frustrating, I know.

If YouTube continues to be abusive, I'm sure a conservative version will start up.


WATCH THE DAVID ZUCKER ALBRIGHT AD HERE.

The Legacy Game

Do the Dems believe in free speech and artistic expression?

I thought they care about civil liberties and the Constitution, so much so that they "killed" the Patriot Act (temporarily).

Now, they are bringing out the big guns to "kill" a TV movie because they don't like it.

Apparently, the Dems are truly frightened, so frightened that they are abusing their power and threatening ABC over its upcoming mini-series.

They obviously believe that it could do tremendous harm to their party or they wouldn't be trying to alter it or prevent it from being seen at all.

Boo Hoo.

Senate Democrats even sent a letter to Disney's Robert Iger demanding that the September 10 and 11 airing of The Path to 9/11 mini-series be cancelled.

The letter was signed by Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Debbie Stabenow, Chuck Schumer, and Byron Dorgan.

Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.

As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Howard Kurtz reports that the Dems have been successful.

ABC plans to make minor changes to its docudrama on the run-up to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in response to heated complaints from former Clinton administration officials that a number of scenes are fabricated, a network executive said yesterday.

...The ABC executive said the "adjustments and refinements" are "intended to make clearer that it was general indecisiveness" by federal officials that left the country vulnerable to terrorist attacks, "not any one individual." The executive, who requested anonymity because the network is making only written comments, said small revisions have been underway for weeks.

Suddenly, the Dems care about the truth. That's odd, given that they thrive on selling lies and distortions to the American people.

Their "take no prisoners" approach to getting some fictionalized aspects of the docudrama altered is stunning.

Do you realize that they are taking a harder line on The Path to 9/11 than they take in fighting the War on Terror? The appeasers have decided that this is the battle they desperately need to win.

Do you see what's wrong with that picture?

I think the Dems need to get a grip.

It's rather amusing that Bill Clinton and his brigade have blown a gasket over this.

They need to keep it in proper perspective. It's a TV movie! It's not as if this mini-series is being chiseled in stone and declared the one and only official history of the pre-9/11 era.

Furthermore, Clinton hasn't been president for five and a half years. Getting bent out of shape over his portrayal is unnecessary.

It's not as if Americans are being put at risk because Clinton is a sitting president, and he's being relentlessly bashed as incompetent.

The Dems view a mini-series that may possibly do damage to the Clinton administration's legacy as irresponsible and an unconscionable act of misrepresentation; but when they actively seek to destroy President Bush and members of his administration with outright lies, it's business as usual for the Dems. That's their mission, their ultimate goal.

Madeleine Albright has been running around hawking her book about the incompetence of President Bush and the dangers of the Bush presidency. Has the administration demanded that her inaccurate creation be banned in the name of presenting factual content?

Is Jimmy Carter censored when he lies about the President and actively undermines him and the country every chance he gets?

Is Russ Feingold prevented from spewing his inaccuracies about the INTERNATIONAL terrorist surveillance program?

What about the secret counterterrorism programs that The New York Times likes to splash? Has The Times been shut down due to the recklessness and subversiveness of its staff?

Think of Fahrenheit 9/11 and the abuse President Bush took from Michael Moore, in the middle of a presidential campaign. Moore's film was packed with inaccuracies and misrepresentations, yet it was shown in theaters all over the country and the world.

During wartime, with American troops in harm's way, Dems had no problem with Moore's hit piece on the Commander in Chief, nor do they have a problem with all the other inaccuracies (lies) that are told about the current administration (Joe Wilson, Richard Armitage).

I suppose the Dems are just mad that Sandy Berger's National Archives heist wasn't enough to save Clinton and his administration from scrutiny when it comes to their responsibility in regard to the 9/11 attacks.

The Dems should quit worrying about how their party appears in the mini-series. They should worry about the reality of their party today and what they stand for (appeasement).

As for Clinton's legacy, we know that it is permanently stained. We know of his administration's many, many failures, the consequences of which we struggle with today (North Korea).

And the Dems in office now are doing nothing to rectify the miscalculations of the Clinton administration. To the contrary, they, too, are promoting policies and behave in ways that weaken our national security and are detrimental to our country.

Do Clinton and the Dems really think that The Path to 9/11 is going to harm them more than they've already harmed themselves?

The real story here is not how Dems are forcing edits on a mini-series. It's how Dems have hurt America. That's a legacy that they cannot edit.
________________________________


Read this review of the mini-series from The Detroit Free Press:

There have already been rumblings of controversy and criticism for "The Path to 9/11." The Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal advocacy group, has slammed the docudrama, alleging factual inaccuracies. The group said Tuesday in a news release that "the miniseries largely casts blame for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks on the Clinton administration while whitewashing the failures of the Bush administration."

"The Path to 9/11" does use the standard historical docudrama disclaimer in regard to telescoping events with "time compression" and using "composite and representative characters."

And in one cheesy note of semi-exploitation, the film relies rely rather heavily on news images of former President Bill Clinton embroiled in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, leading to congressional impeachment hearings. The implication? The president might have missed a chance to nab Osama bin Laden in the late 1990s because of the distracting pressures of the impeachment imbroglio.

"This president is not going to take chances," Richard Clarke is quoted as saying.

But on balance, over five often compelling hours, "The Path to 9/11" seems extremely scrupulous in trying not to assign blame for the events of 9/11 to the administrations of either Clinton or President George W. Bush.

It sounds like the Dems' have blown the significance of this mini-series out of proportion.

And as far as the accuracy of its content goes...

The Dems doth protest too much, methinks.

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.

Good, Evil, and Madeleine Albright

Aljazeera likes Madeleine Albright.

I don't think it's her ability to leg-press 400 pounds that makes her appealing. I think it's the way she bashes President Bush that makes her a hero to extremists.

George Bush's religious absolutism is alienating Muslims worldwide and making US foreign policy difficult for many countries to accept, according to a former secretary of state.

Madeleine Albright said the president's use of Christian rhetoric and belief in the "absolute truth" was worrying.

"Some of his language is really quite over the top," she told Reuters on Sunday during a trip to London to promote her book, The Mighty and Almighty, which examines religion and world affairs.

On her book tour, Albright is actively campaigning to alienate Muslims by insisting that President Bush is trying to undermine their religious beliefs. He's not. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Actually, Albright's attack on Bush's faith is what's over the top.

"I worked for two presidents who were men of faith, and they did not make their religious views part of American policy," she said, referring to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, both Democrats.

This is just plain screwy.

Bush hasn't made his religious views part of American policy, certainly no more than any prior president.

Maybe an argument could be made that Carter's religious views weren't part of American policy; but that would be because under the disastrous Carter presidency, there basically was no policy.

And let's not get into Clinton's exploitation of faith when it suited him.

Is Clinton parading before the cameras while carrying a huge Bible Albright's idea of what it means to be a man of faith?

Bush, a Republican, has said that his faith informs his decisions as president. He says, for example, that he prayed to God for guidance before invading Iraq.

"President Bush's certitude about what he believes in, and the division between good and evil, is, I think, different. The absolute truth is what makes Bush so worrying to some of us," Albright said.

I'm glad that Bush prays and is guided by a moral framework that is universal.

I prefer that to a president that is morally-challenged.

What worries me is that Albright and those of her deranged ilk don't understand the division between good and evil.

Everything is relative with them.

For example, the 9/11 hijackers weren't evil. They just had a different world view. Understand?

Some Muslims have accused Bush of waging a crusade against Islam.

The White House says it has nothing against Islam, but against those who commit terrorist atrocities in its name.

Albright is playing right into the hands of militant Islam. Her new book could be used as a recruiting tool for terrorists.

In her book, Albright recalls how Bush, while he was governor of Texas, told Christians he believed God wanted him to be president.

Let's get the entire statement in context, please.

She quotes from his speech to his party convention of 2004, when he told Republicans: "We have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom."

Oooh. How scary!

Bush says that people have a right to live free of tyranny. What a wacko idea!
(By the way, I think the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights espouses the exact same thing.)

Albright is being so disingenuous.

Let's quote some of Bill Clinton's speeches. How many times did he invoke God?

Albright, 69, who was secretary of state under Clinton from 1997 to 2001, says the war in Iraq "may eventually rank among the worst foreign policy disasters in US history".

She describes it as arguably worse than the Vietnam War, not in terms of the number of people killed but because of the volatility of the Middle East.

It wasn't enough for her to say that Iraq is Vietnam. Albright thinks it's worse than Vietnam.

The woman wants attention.

She wants to sell her new book so she shamelessly attacks President Bush and U.S. policy, without any regard for the ramifications of having a former U.S. secretary of state slam the administration.

Asked about her own beliefs, Albright said she had "a very confused religious background".

Born and raised a Roman Catholic in Czechoslovakia, Britain and then the United States, she converted to Anglicanism when she married and only later in life discovered she had Jewish roots.

It is this legacy which makes her wary of any religion which claims a monopoly on truth, she said.

Albright is very confused. I'll grant her that.

I wonder if she's seen The Da Vinci Code yet.

As Madeleine Albright tries to drum up sales for her book, she is undermining more than President Bush and his administration.

She is attacking America by aiding our enemies.

That's definitely not good.

One might even consider it evil.

Madeleine Albright

What a bitter, graceless woman!

Madeleine Albright was interviewed by Andrea Mitchell on The Charlie Rose Show.

Mitchell was an absolute joke. She didn't challenge Albright on anything. It was a love fest. It was like listening to two elitist libs talking at Starbucks.

Albright went on and on about how Bush is messianic, and how troubled she is by Bush's relationship with God.

Her criticism of the President was relentless. She kept insisting that Bush has a "certitude," that he believes God is instructing him. Some of her statements not only mocked Bush's faith, but the faith of all believers. In general, Albright's obsession with Bush and God was positively bizarre.

Albright also was whining about the Bush Administration doing "nothing" in Darfur while she was excusing the Clinton Administration's inaction in Rwanda. Unbelievable.

Then, she talked about attending a meeting at the White House. Mitchell asked if Albright got the feeling that Bush listened to her advice. Albright said he didn't.

She said, "He might hear but not listen, or the other way around."

I would hope that the President wouldn't follow the inept Albright's instructions. Where does she get off expecting the Bush Administration to pay attention to her?

She was incredibly condescending. Her message: "I'm brilliant and have all the answers to solve all the world's problems. Bush is a dunce."


On immigration, Albright said that it's a difficult issue (Duh!).

She said we have to protect the borders, but we have to welcome people. Albright babbled for a while about the Statue of Liberty.

In short, she wants amnesty for illegals and sees no reason to clamp down, yet she says we should protect the borders.

Mitchell didn't ask her to elaborate on how she thought we could "protect the borders" at the same time that we keep the borders wide open to embrace anyone who feels like coming to America.

Mitchell didn't follow up on any of Albright's vague ramblings. None. She really did a very poor job of interviewing her.

I could tolerate Mitchell's incompetence. I had more difficulty with accepting the things that Albright was spewing out.

I can't believe this woman was at one time the U.S. Secretary of State.

She conducts herself like a partisan hack.

Utterly inappropriate.

No dignity.

If It's Sunday, It's Anti-Bush Spin

I used to think that Tim Russert was a competent interviewer. Now, I think he's a partisan hack.

In my view, he has managed to turn Meet the Press into a propaganda arm for the Democratic National Committee.

Although Russert has always been easier on Dems than on Republicans, at one time he was more balanced in his questioning. That's changed. Russert has taken on the role of an anti-Bush Administration activist.

On today's program, Russert directed a Bush-bash fest with Bill Clinton legacy spinmeister Madeleine Albright and useful tool Lindsey Graham.

First, it's ridiculous to believe that a RINO like Graham was booked as a guest to speak in support of the Bush Administration.

It seemed that when Graham wasn't attacking Bush and the White House, he was backpedaling and apologizing for offering support to the President in the past.

Russert graciously set Albright up to say: Bush did a miserable job in Iraq; Bush misled the country with faulty intelligence in making the case for war; Bush and Cheney support torture; and Republicans have poisoned the political climate, with the RNC's White Flag ad as a case in point.

For the most part, Graham agreed with Albright on every point. Occasionally, he would present an opposing view. This happened when Albright would say that she agreed completely with what Graham had just said. It was as if a little bell would go off in Graham's head, signaling that he had been too anti-Bush Administration in his remarks. Only then would he criticize the Dems.

For example, Russert showed an edited bit of the RNC's "Retreat and Defeat" ad. Graham said that the ad should be pulled. He ran down the list of Dems who have claimed our troops have not made progress in Iraq and called for retreat. Graham then went on to characterize them as patriots.

Albright jumped in to say that she was in complete agreement with Graham, that the attack methods being used by the Republicans are shameful. At that point, the bell went off for Graham. He then tacked on that the Dems are not blameless. He said that Dems haven't helped matters by calling the President a liar.

Overall, Graham consistently gave far too little, far too late. Throughout his appearance, his defense of the President was extremely limp.

Graham also went off on the torture issue, insisting that the U.S. must stop the torturing of prisoners.

(By the way, does the U.S. have a meat grinder for human flesh at any of its terrorist detention facilities? As a matter of policy, does the U.S. cut off heads, cut off limbs, cut out tongues, or gouge out eyes?

The term "torture" is bandied about, but it's not clearly defined. Do U.S. military personnel routinely practice "torture" as the Dems and RINOs claim?)

The assumption was that currently the U.S. regularly engages in torture tactics. No challenge of that assumption was made. For instance, there was no one to point out the reasoning behind not wanting to limit what approach can be used when dealing with a terrorist under the ticking bomb scenario, something that even John McCain has acknowledged would demand tough measures.

Too bad Dick Durbin wasn't there to add some spice to the discussion by calling Americans the keepers of gulags.

I think for a moment Albright thought she would not have to answer for statements she made in 1998 about the threat that Saddam Hussein posed.

Russert did read a quote from Albright's book. It rather weakly stated that she believed Iraq was a danger to the U.S. Albright quickly covered that by saying the Clinton Administration effectively dealt with the Iraq problem by sanctions and strategic bombing.

Naturally, Russert did not challenge her, and neither did Graham.

Albright did not have to account for her hawkish stance in 1998 and the litany of remarks she made back then about Saddam possessing weapons of mass destruction.

On February 18, 1998, at a town hall meeting at Ohio State, Albright said:

For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. And it is a threat against which we must, and will, stand firm.

In discussing Iraq, we begin by knowing that Saddam Hussein, unlike any other leader, has used weapons of mass destruction even against his own people. In fact, he is a repeat offender, having used them both in the battle and against his people.

...First of all, I'd like to repeat and say that the United States does not challenge Iraq's territorial integrity, nor do we want to see the Iraqi people suffer any further. Our problem, and the world's problem, is with Iraq's leaders. Today those leaders have a choice: they can allow UN inspections to proceed on the world's terms, or they can invite serious military strikes on ours.

At the same forum, Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen also presented a strong case for military action against Iraq.

From the meeting's transcript:

Saddam Hussein, as Secretary Albright has indicated, has developed an arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons. He has used these weapons repeatedly against his own people, as well as Iran. I have a picture, which I believe CNN can show on its cameras, but here is a picture taken of an Iraqi mother and child, killed by Iraqi nerve gas. This is what I would call "Madonna and Child, Saddam Hussein Style."

(Shouting.)

Now, the United Nations believes that he still has very large quantities of VX. VX is a substance, a nerve agent, which is so deadly that a single drop can kill you within a couple of minutes. Anthrax is a biological agent that kills people within five to seven hours seven days, rather, after they breathe an amount the size of a single dust particle. If you were to take a five- pound bag of anthrax, properly dispersed, it would kill half the population of Columbus, Ohio.

Now, at the time of 1991, at the end of the Gulf War, he had also loaded chemical and biological weapons into artillery shells, missile warheads as well. He was working on a missile that would have a range of nearly 2,000 miles. That means it could travel all the way from Baghdad to as far as Paris, and perhaps other capitals in Europe, and one day, perhaps, even to the United States. He has fired these missiles against four of his neighbors: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iran and Israel.

And because of the threats posed by Saddam and his deadly arsenal, the United Nations insisted that he eliminate all of these weapons of mass destruction following the Gulf War.

...But Saddam has delayed; he has duped; he has deceived the inspectors from the very first day on the job. I have another chart which shows exactly what I'm talking about. From the very beginning, he declared he had not offensive biological weapons programs. Then, when confronted with evidence following the defection of his son-in-law, he admitted they had produced more than 2100 gallons of anthrax. The UN inspectors fear that he may have produced as much as three times that amount.

...These inspectors, again, they've done a good job, but their work isn't over; and that's why we need them back on the ground, searching for these deadly weapons that Saddam has used in the past and could use again in the future. We hope that Iraq will agree to let the inspectors do their work, but if Saddam refuses, we're prepared to use military force to achieve that which he will not allow the inspectors
to do.

Our military goal would be to deliver a serious blow that would significantly diminish Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, the threat, and reduce his ability to threaten his neighbors.

Why didn't Graham call Albright on her effort to rewrite history and to distance herself from the reality of the Clinton Administration's position on Iraq?

Perhaps he hadn't had his morning coffee and wasn't up for the fight. Maybe he's a spineless RINO and accordingly has no interest in speaking up for the President or his party. It's possible that Graham was coached by John McCain to let Albright and Russert deliver as many blows to Bush as possible, and Graham was willing to take the fall.

I don't know why Graham chose to aid Russert in his anti-Bush Administration campaign. In any case, Graham helped the Dems in their drive to hurt Bush's credibility.

Why did Russert give Albright the opportunity to trash the current Administration without holding her accountable for her words and actions during her tenure as the Secretary of State?

That's simple. He's a partisan hack.

Just days away from the elections in Iraq, this is all very disheartening to me.

As Joe Lieberman has said, it would be a colossal mistake to "seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory."

Apparently, Russert, Albright, and Graham are eager to make that colossal mistake.

As Samuel Johnson said in The Idler, 1758, "Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages."

Let's be clear. Russert is not an objective journalist. He has a horse in this race and it's definitely not Bush.

Sometimes, it seems that it's not America.

The Unbearable Relativity of Eleanor Clift's Rage

Eleanor Clift has lost her mind.

If she hasn't, she is being incredibly disingenuous in her statements about the intelligence that the WORLD had about Saddam Hussein's regime.

On The McLaughlin Group, Clift was screeching about the Bush administration lying us into war.

Clift and all those reiterating that claim are truly embarrassing themselves. They've done so from the first time they began chanting that mantra and it appears that they intend to continue, with no end in sight.

The reality is Clift and her fellow libs cannot insist that Bush lied the U.S. into war without insisting that Clinton and the Dems lied about Iraq as well.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Clift fell back on that tired old Dem talking point about the administration cherry-picking intelligence to build a case for war.

Apparently, Clift is content to do some cherry-picking of her own.

FACT:

WHAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION SAID ABOUT SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME WAS NOT QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION AND THE DEMOCRATS SAID.