Saturday, November 10, 2007


I'm going on a retreat today and then to L.A. for a few days. I won't be posting again until Thursday. For all you new commenters, the comments are moderated, so you won't see them until Thursday either. (I've had some e-mails from those not understanding the moderation thingy)

Anyway, I expect to see each and everyone of you back here Thursday morning. Don't disappoint me!

Friday, November 09, 2007

Romney's On A Roll

From Taegan Goddard's Political Wire:

Mitt Romney has opened a wider lead in New Hampshire over his Republican presidential rivals, according to a new Rasmussen Reports survey. Romney now has support from 32% of likely voters, followed by Rudy Giuliani with 17%, Sen. John McCain at 16%, Mike Huckabee at 10% and Fred Thompson at 7%. Meanwhile, a new Zogby poll in Iowa shows Romney leading with 31%, followed by Mike Huckabee at 15%, Rudy Giuliani at 11%, Fred Thompson at 10% and Sen. John McCain at 8%.

The way things look now, if Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire and some of the other early states, then I think Rudy will be toast.

We can only hope.

One more thing. I think a Romney/Huckabee ticket has a nice ring to it. It does have that north/south thing going. But what would you think of a Romney/Giuliani ticket?

I just saw this. This is the biggest slam on Romney that I have seen from the right.

Quote of the Day

Gail Collins: "Back in mid-2001, when Mayor Rudy Giuliani was busy committing adultery, lurching into his divorce and third marriage and rooming with a gay couple he promised to marry as soon as the law allowed, who among us would have imagined that one day he would be endorsed for president by Pat Robertson? Truly, Sept. 11 changed everything."

Thursday, November 08, 2007

Mr. Redford, Just Shut Up.

Robert Redford is ranting about his new film "Lions for Lambs." Look, we all know Redford is a raging liberal and that's fine. That is who he is. In this Washington Times article he bashes Mitt Romney as "plastic." Fine. He is entitled to his opinion, but this is what TICKS ME OFF:

"What he wants, he says, is for people to think about what important moments in recent American history have in common, "from McCarthyism to Watergate to Iran-Contra to now," where the "fear card" has been played."

I have a newsflash for Redford. WE HAVE REASON TO FEAR. I am just sick and tired of mish mash liberals IGNORING what happened on 9-11. I am sick and tired of them pretending that it was an isolated incident instead of the fulfillment of years of terror that we ignored, from the first World Trade Center bombing, to the U.S.S. Cole to our embassy bombings. I am sick and tired of Hollywood limo liberals like Robert Redford who would be the FIRST to be beheaded if the radical Islams got a hold of him, pretend that these fanatics do not pose a threat to us and that we are silly to fear them. Did he not watch the innocent men and women jump from the world trade towers? Did he not see the faces of those lost on Tv night after night? Did he not feel our sorrow and pain? Where the hell was he????? Why not make a movie about that???

Listen Mr. "The Way We Were," we ARE NOT the way we were. Evil men flew planes into our buildings and killed 3000 innocents. They meant to kill tens of thousands more. How can ANYONE who saw any of the coverage of that day or the films made about those plane rides and not think WE HAVE A RIGHT TO FEEL FEAR?

You can disagree with this administration about a great many things. But the TRUTH and the FACT is that this administration has done what it promised, what NO ONE thought it could do. IT HAS KEPT US SAFE FOR 6 YEARS. 6 years. When no one thought we would be safe for 6 weeks. These monsters cut off the heads of our journalists, hung our soldiers like a lynching, blew up our boys and their own people, and promised American deaths, and yet we SHOULD NOT BE AFRAID? Bush plays the fear card????

Mr. Redford, you play the propaganda card with your films. That's your right and be grateful you have it, because under those who hate us, you would not. Take for granted all that you enjoy. That's fine. But don't you accuse this government or people of playing the fear card.

We should be afraid. These monsters are brutal, sick, and HATE us. If we didn't have the mighty military that we have then God knows what would happen.

You make me sick Mr. Redford and you don't deserve to be American. But you are. Because we are free. Free to be ignorant like yourself.

Once again, the party of tolerance...

..isn't very tolerate. Maybe the gay community will learn it before the black community will. They want your votes and that's about it:

The Democratic Party establishment's behavior is being called called "shameful" in the handling of North Carolina Senate candidate Jim Neal's recent disclosure that he is gay.

The Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Independent Weekly reports:

"'Shameful' is how Pam Spaulding, a Durham activist, puts it. Spaulding's blog, Pam's House Blend, is one of the most read gay-advocacy Web sites in the country. 'The complete lack of institutional respect for Jim Neal's candidacy based on his orientation,' she says, 'shows the two-faced nature of the Democratic party.' They want gay votes, she says. But they don't want gay candidates. Spaulding points specifically to the national Democratic Senate Campaign Committee and its chair, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who for unknown reasons wouldn't return Neal's phone calls. 'The cause,' Neal said, 'is that I'm not Washington's choice. I'm not Chuck Schumer's choice.'"

Obama? Edwards? Are you paying attention??

I'm thinking you could use this:

Hotline On Call:

NPR's David Greene reports about what happens when real people find their stories folded into the candidates' campaign rhetoric. One single mother, a waitress at Maid-Rite, famous for its meat sandwiches, chatted with Hillary Clinton during a recent campaign stop about her struggles to make ends meet. Her story wound up in HRC's stump speech, Greene reports. The waitress, meanwhile, was left wondering why the former first lady didn't leave a tip.

From NPR:

I followed Clinton during a recent bus tour across Iowa, when she and her entourage pulled into a Maid-Rite, a greasy spoon famous for its loose-meat sandwich. Clinton settled into a red stool at the counter, ate a sandwich, chatted with her waitress and then was on her way.

The scene gave Clinton perfect fodder for her next few stump speeches. Turns out her waitress was a single, working mom — just the kind of voter Democrats are courting aggressively this year.

Clinton recalled the meeting for an audience up the road in Boone. "The woman waiting on us — it was her first day," she said, adding, "She was a little nervous. Single mom, raised two boys, works at a nursing home and always has a second job."

If she's elected president, Clinton promised, people like her waitress will have it better.

The way Clinton eased the waitress into her rhetoric is something repeated day after day, by all the campaigns. But in the process, people like the waitress don't always have their stories told.

"I wished I would have been asked first," the waitress, Anita Esterday, said of Clinton's decision to insert her in a speech, adding, "I wish she would have asked if she could talk about me later. I didn't like it when someone called me up and said Hillary Clinton is talking about you. It's like, what'd I do now? What's she saying?"

When I returned to the Maid-Rite a few weeks later, Esterday said the senator had caught her off guard. But once they got talking, she was honest with Clinton about her need to work two to three jobs.

"I've been doing it all my life. Why should it change now that I'm old?" Esterday said.

Esterday does not think Clinton got it. "I don't think she understood at all what I was saying," Esterday said, adding, "I mean, nobody got left a tip that day."

Clinton may have decided not to tip. She was also never given a bill — her meal was on the house. Still, Esterday said Clinton might have left her something: "Maybe they don't carry money, I don't know."

Welcome to world of the limo liberal my dear.

Now, could someone get a hold of Obama and Edwards and make a commercial about this. Now. I think Iowa Democrats would be very interested.

Update: The Clinton campaign is saying they did leave a tip for the staff, but no one seems to know where it went. Also on Drudge..this isn't the first time Hillary has stiffed a single mom.

Update 2: Fox news is reporting that the Clinton staff did leave a generous tip, but this ABC news story says "Brad Crawford, manager of Maid-Rite caught in the political mixer, who said the senator's staff did pay a tip but "it might have not been disbursed properly."

One story is saying that everyone was tipped, so why would the waitress say that no one did? Did the manager keep the tip???? Or.....perhaps he suddenly found it, if you know what I mean. Also, one story is saying the meal was on the house and the other story is saying that the staff paid for it. Whatever.

Not a big deal, to be sure, just curious.

Update 3: Geeze. I know this whole thing is stupid, but I just hear on the news that the manager is saying that the waitress was paid her tip. So was she lying? And why would she lie??? And what is she suppose to say now? She works 3 jobs, she needs this job. Is she going to contradict her employer?? Good grief. This is just so typical of the Clintons. Just obscure the facts and no one will ever know the real truth. Ugh.

Will Religious Endorsements Help?

That depends on who gets nominated.

Pat Robertson endorses Rudy (I still haven't figured that out). Brownback endorses McCain. Moral Majority co-founder Paul Weyrich endorses Romney. Gary Bauer endorses Fred. Baptist leader Rich Scarborough endorses Huckabee.

As this WaPo article points out, the social conservatives are very divided this election. Many Christian conservatives are very upset with Robertson's endorsement of Rudy, not the least of which is the Family Research Council. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention said that Robertson's support of Rudy reflects Robertson's belief that Rudy is the only one to beat Hillary, but like so many social cons, Richard Land says he will not vote for Rudy under any circumstances.

This is what I have been saying for a long time. It doesn't matter how stupid you may think it is that many won't vote for Rudy, even if it is against Hillary, there it is. It is a political reality. And this looks like the road we are going down. I just cannot tell you how frustrating it is to me.

I look at my religious friends and say "you cannot let Hillary win. That would be so much worse than voting for Rudy." I look at my Republican friends who are not so religious and say " Wake up and understand how many will not vote for this man and nominate someone they will vote for!"

And neither side is listening to me.

Geeze. It's just like my personal life.....;-)

This is the way I see it. If Rudy gets the nomination I don't think the religious endorsement of Robertson helps. Robertson has said too many crazy things over the last few years and he has lost respect from many Christians. If Romney gets the the nomination, then it does help to get religious endorsements because it shows social cons that his Mormonism should not be looked upon as a negative. If McCain or Fred get the nomination,the religious endorsements help because it helps assure Christians that they really do care about their concerns even if they themselves don't come across as very religious.

I said this last election to my non-religious Republican friends, and I will say it again. You can't win without us and we can't win without you.

Let's come together on this. Pick one. McCain, Romney, and Fred can get all our votes. But not Rudy. Just not Rudy.

What is that that I am feeling???

Oh yes, it's hope.

THANKS AND PRAISE: Michael Yon emails: "I photographed men and women, both Christians and Muslims, placing a cross atop the St. John's Church in Baghdad. They had taken the cross from storage and a man washed it before carrying it up to the dome. A Muslim man had invited the American soldiers from 'Chosen' Company 2-12 Cavalry to the church, where I videotaped as Muslims and Christians worked and rejoiced at the reopening of St John's, an occasion all viewed as a sign of hope. The Iraqis asked me to convey a message of thanks to the American people. 'Thank you, thank you,' the people were saying. One man said, 'Thank you for peace.' Another man, a Muslim, said 'All the people, all the people in Iraq, Muslim and Christian, is brother.' The men and women were holding bells, and for the first time in memory freedom rang over the ravaged land between two rivers.
Michael Yon is making this photo available for free.
*note: I've bumped this from yesterday because it's important. I don't want anyone to miss it.

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

A Hunger Strike At Columbia

All kinds of liberal mish mash here. Their Facebook here. So it looks like five students will forgo food until, among many other gobbly gook type things, they have an "an administration that is responsive to institutional racism, supports its students, and proactively works to create a climate in which nooses and swastikas are not the order of the day."

The order of the day?? What? Are there ropes all over campus and swastikas on every door? Good grief, is there anything worse than '60's type hippie wannabes? Too bad they weren't this upset when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to speak. Oh well.

via Gawker

Just something to think about....

From RedState: (emphasis mine)

1) McCain polls better against Clinton than any other Republican, including Rudy. Any electability argument for Rudy applies to McCain equally well and fewer social conservatives are likely to jump to a third party candidate if the pro-life McCain is at the top of the ticket.

2) McCain staunch support of the mission of our troops in Iraq has rekindled some love (and muted some of the hate) that conservatives have felt toward the Senator. McCain's early argument for a change in strategy means he was not a go-along-with-Bush supporter as much as someone looking for a way to win the War. McCain can claim, legitimately, that he proposes the "surge" long ago and the administration came around to the successful strategy far later.

3) McCain's heroic story still lends him unrivaled credibility on military affairs and unequaled respect among those who disagree with him on some issues.

4) As the Republican candidates all seem to be flawed in some respects, Republicans seem to be reevaluating McCain. Instead of comparing McCain to some mythical Second Coming of Reagan, voters are considering McCain in relation to Rudy or Romney and realizing that all have things to like and dislike.

5) Sen. McCain is increasingly and surprisingly likely to be a candidate that doesn't cause a chunk of Republican voters to run to a third party. Rudy and Huckabee are facing (perhaps non-credible) threats from large groups of voters who say they will vote Hillary or nobody if they are nominated. McCain may not be most Republicans first choice, but he is not most Republicans last choice either.

Band of Bloggers...

...will debut on the History Channel this Friday. I've been seeing the promos and I cannot wait to see it. In the promos a military blogger (not sure who), says if you want to know what's going on in Iraq read the milblogs. That is more than true.

Check the listings for more times at the link.

via Instapundit

Good News and Weird News.

The good news? My man McCain is moving on up.

The weird news? And it doesn't get any stranger than this. Pat Robertson endorses Giuliani.

Michael Yon calls into the Hugh Hewitt show

Transcript here. Here are some good parts:

HH: Tell us what the Iraqis are telling you about this lull or peace or improvement. What do they think is going on here, and how long will it last?

MY: I don’t believe this is a lull. I believe this is the real thing. I believe that we’ve seen lulls before, and I’ve always been very circumspect on taking a chance and saying hey, this is the real thing. But I’ve seen a change in the mood of the people, and it’s remarkable. And I believe if we can just continue to help them progress, and we’ve got a little bit more serious fighting to do up in Ninewa Province, and then in Kirkuk and Salahaddin Province, and also out in Diayala Province, those four provinces. Other than that, I think really, it’s a matter of pouring on the juice and helping them to get this country going again. I mean, they’re just finished with the war, as long as we can help get the monkey off their back in the form of al Qaeda, which is pretty much crushed at this point.

Read Hugh's post here. It is just delicious! He has video of the Democrats making predictions of our defeat in Iraq.

The irony here is that with the defeat of al Qaeda and all the good things happening in Iraq, we will finally have the opportunity to bring our boys home. Which is what we all want on all sides of the political spectrum.

The bad news for the Democrats is that we will bring them home in victory, not the defeat the Democrats predicted and based their political agenda on.

A Big French Hug

Who could have forseen this?

What would have been unthinkable a year ago--a two-day summit between the leaders of France and the United States--is now a political reality that promises to change the complex and troubled landscape of U.S.-European relations. Not only will Sarkozy meet with President Bush at the White House and Mount Vernon, but also he will address the U.S. Congress, a great honor and rare privilege, especially for the president of a formerly hostile power.


Alongside his straight-talking foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, the new French president has become a key U.S. ally in efforts to halt the rise of a nuclear-armed Iran, delivering a barn-storming speech, in September at the U.N. General Assembly, condemning the stance of Iranian tyrant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Most of the old tensions over the war in Iraq have largely dissipated, replaced by a newfound willingness to work together on an array of issues, from the Iranian nuclear crisis to genocide in Darfur. There is even talk in Paris of France rejoining the unified command structure of NATO in the next couple of years, a radical reversal in French thinking.

h/t BigDog

Someone notices the difference between the Bush family girls and the Clinton's daughter

And it's a Democrat no less. Maybe she read my post?

Hillary, let it go....

Why does Hillary not just move on from the disastrous answer regarding drivers license for illegals at the last debate? Why does she feel she must keep defending herself on what could easily have been downplayed?

Mickey Kaus thinks it could be one of two things:

It's the possibility that a) she panics in adversity--a point Levin emphasizes or b) she's too vain to let herself be perceived as having given a wrong answer, so she goes back to correct it even when that only compounds the damage. .

The answer would be "b," of course.

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Say What???

Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that her status as the Democratic presidential front-runner-not her gender-has led her male primary rivals to intensify their criticism of her.

"I don't think they're piling on because I'm a woman. I think they're piling on because I'm winning," Clinton told reporters after filing paperwork to appear on the New Hampshire primary ballot.

"I anticipate it's going to get even hotter, and if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. I'm very much at home in the kitchen," she said.

Good grief. This woman hasn't seen a kitchen in 35 years.

Obama on SNL

Live from New York, it's...Obama!

This is the bit if you don't want to watch the video:

The opening sketch of Saturday's broadcast featured Poehler and Hammond, as the Clintons, hosting a Halloween party. Toward the end of the sketch a man walked in wearing an Obama mask — which he removed to reveal he was, indeed, Obama.
"I have nothing to hide," Obama said. "I enjoy being myself. I'm not going to change who I am just because it's Halloween."

No wonder this man will not win against Hillary. You have a forum like that and you can't make the writers give you better material than that??? I mean, come on!!! If Hillary and Bill win, they will keep SNL funny for the next 4 years.

Obama, for God's sake...Step. Up. Your. Game.

The Presidential Medal of Freedom Honors a Great Man

Cuban physician Oscar Elías Biscet and seven others will be awarded the presidential medal of freedom by George W. Bush in a White House ceremony today. But Dr. Biscet will not be there to accept his honor in person. Today, like most days for the better part of the past eight years, he is locked away in a dungeon on Fidel Castro's island paradise.

The Cuban cell where Dr. Biscet resides looks like the one above.

The Boston Globe has more:

A prolife Christian physician, Biscet first ran afoul of the Castro regime in the 1990s, when he investigated Cuban abortion techniques - Cuba has by far the highest abortion rates in the Western Hemisphere - and revealed that numerous infants had been killed after being delivered alive. In 1997, he began the Lawton Foundation for Human Rights, which seeks “to establish in Cuba a state based on the rule of law” and “sustained upon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” In 1999, he was given a three-year sentence for “disrespecting patriotic symbols.” To protest the regime’s repression, he had hung a Cuban flag upside down.

Jay Norlinger at NRO reminds us of why this is so significant:

In awarding this medal, President Bush — not for the first time — has shown huge brass ones. How many other presidents would have done this? I can’t think of any (save our boy, the 40th). And don’t hold your breath for a president in the future who will act this way.

As I said in a recent column, conservatives are down on President Bush, blaming him for everything under the sun, picking at him. Sure, he’s made mistakes. But he also has greatness in him. And this was a great act. In bestowing the Presidential Medal of Freedom on Oscar Biscet — an all-but-forgotten and all-but-helpless man in a Cuban dungeon — George Bush has done an incredibly large-hearted and important thing.
Do not think it’s merely symbolic: This award has rocketed through dissident circles, and nerved Cubans and their well-wishers everywhere.

Dr. Biscet's son has tribute to his father published in yesterday’s Boston Globe.

In a world of great suffering at least we can honor those who sacrifice so much for so many.

God bless Dr. Biscet.

via LST

Obama fights back...

On Hillary's energy policy.:

CEDAR RAPIDS, IA -- Clinton laid out proposals today she said would promote clean energy and create at least five million "green-collar" jobs. The wide-ranging speech was the first of a series she will deliver on the topic this week. In it, she talked about the problems caused by climate change and pollution like rising sea levels, water shortages and health problems and compared dealing with these issues to the great challenges of the last century. ("green-collared "jobs? oh puke)


“You can’t bring about change on our energy policy if you change your position to suit the politics of a presidential campaign,” Obama Iowa communications director Josh Earnest said. “When she had the chance to lead, Senator Clinton voted multiple times against legislation to increase production of renewable fuels and to increase fuel efficiency standards. To stand up for rural America and break America's dependence on foreign oil, we need a leader who won't just tell people on the campaign trail what they want to hear, but one who will tell the American people what they need to hear like Senator Obama did when he called for increased fuel efficiency standards during a speech in front of automakers in Detroit.”

It's a start, but Obama better find his fangs soon.

Monday, November 05, 2007

Because He Was A Jew

After thinking about Daniel Pearl, the journalist from the WSJ that was beheaded by terrorists in 2002, I decided to go rent the movie based on his story, "A Mighty Heart."

It occurred to me while watching the film, and it was an excellent film, that the reason political type movies don't do well isn't because of Hollywood bias, as much as we would like to believe so, it is because they are too difficult for most people to understand.

This world's problems are too big. They are too vast and horrible. When I try to focus on terrorism across the world, across these years, I can't wrap my mind around it. And I am one of those few who are really interested in it. But the truth is that when I see films like this and I try to grasp such evil in the world, I just cry.

Most people don't want to go to the movies to cry. Most people don't want to go to movies to understand political or religious situations.

The movie tried to guide the viewer through the maze of reasons that Daniel Pearl was killed. It hinted at the reason being the way we treated our prisoners at Gitmo. It hinted that the reason was that the terrorists that held Daniel believed him to be a CIA operative. But the real reason Daniel Pearl was murdered is simple and it was addressed in the movie. It was at the beginning and the ending. And I am sure Daniel Pearl's widow had a lot to do with making sure that happened.

The reason Daniel Pearl was brutally murdered was because he was a Jew. Plain and simple.

I'm going to put this simply for you because the movie makes it much too complicated, which is one of the problems of these kinds of movies. The group that kidnapped Daniel called themselves "The National Movement for the Restoration of Pakistani Sovereignty." But that was just a made up organization that no one had ever heard of before. The man convicted and sentenced to death in July of 2002 for the kidnapping and death of Daniel Pearl is Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, a British national of Pakistani origin. (He is still alive, on appeal)

The movie briefly mentions al Qaeda, which is one of it's glaring errors. The truth of the matter is Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh was a member of the innermost circle of Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. In 1994 he was operating terrorists training camps in Afghanistan and had earned the title of bin Laden's "special son." And then there is this last bit of information. U.S. authorities named Saeed Sheikh as a key figure in the funding of the 9/11 attacks.

Were you all aware of these things? Neither was I. Nor does the movie educate us on these very important matters.

Why is it important? Because as many splinter groups of Islamic fanatics there are, things always seem to funnel back to the monsters that attacked us on 9-11. And it occurred to me while watching this movie that as much as the Islamic fanatics hate America, there is one group they hate much more. The Jews.

At the beginning of the movie Daniel Pearl makes the mistake of admitting to one of the terrorist "clerics" he is interviewing, that he is Jewish. They don't mention the Jewish aspect again until the end. They do not show the beheading in the movie, which is understandable of course, but when you think about the gore and violence we see every day on the movie screen, why should we avoid it when seeing it will teach us a most important lesson about our enemy? I haven't seen the movie, but I'm sure in "Rendition" they show all the brutality of the U.S. interrogation, don't they? When the movie about Abu Ghraib is made, and it will be, I'm positive that every inhumane act will be put before us. Hollywood will be hoping to teach us to never let it happen again. Yet, Daniel's murder is censored completely from this movie.

At the end of the movie it shows Daniel on the video of his captors declaring himself a Jew. He talks about a street named after his Jewish grandfather. His wife had said that Daniel had not been a religious man, but in the end he embraced what he was, a Jew. And he died because of it.

Did you know that On April 16th 2007 Daniel was added to the Holocaust Memorial on Miami Beach as the first non-Holocaust victim? His father, Judea Pearl, said that he wanted to remind generations to come that "The forces of barbarity and evil are still active in our world. The Holocaust didn't finish in 1945."

So many things I didn't know about Daniel Pearl. So many things the movie, whether intentional or not, failed to say about this man.

This article in the WSJ has Tom Jennings, a longtime friend of Daniel's remembing this: "This was the man who wrote a song for my son days before his birth, encouraging him into the world. The song was called, 'The World Is Not a Bad Place."

But this world is a bad place. We, here in America, live our cushy lives and argue about stupid things, while the dark face of hatred simmers with ideas on how to kill us. Not because of war or land, but because of who we are. If we are Jewish. If we are Christians. If we are simply Americans. We are wished dead by our enemy.

The recent news of the defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq should really be a cause of true celebration here, but we are all caught up in our own political agendas and Presidential campaigns to realize how significant it is.

Daniel Pearl's father is right. The holocaust didn't finish in 1945 and it's time we all faced it. The story of Daniel Pearl came and went. The movie came and went. No one seems to want to remember the truth about the death of this man. I want us to never forget Daniel Pearl.

Daniel wasn't a soldier, he was not in war, he was not a political prisoner. He was an innocent American citizen. Daniel Pearl's head was cut off by those who attacked us because he was a Jew.

More on Torture

BigDog also sent me this link:

Torture" is probably the most egregious of these cases. That's the explanation for the sneer quotes. Because, quite simply, in much of the debate over "torture", we're not talking about actual torture at all. We're talking about rough treatment, harshness, or coercion. "

"The American left has defined these upward until they mean the same thing as torture, all as a part of their efforts to undermine the War on Terror in general. The core of this stance is the assertion that a slap on the head, several days without sleep, or hearing Rage Against the Machine played at full volume is fully the equivalent of torture in the classic sense. (Well... maybe we should reconsider that last....)"

"Of course, it's no such thing. Torture is easily defined as physical assault carried out over a prolonged period against a victim under complete control and holding the possibility of permanent physical or psychic damage. Official legal terminology contains the proviso that torture consists of acts that "revolt the conscience" We can also add, by way of Dashiell Hammett, that such actions must have "threat of death behind them". If they contain these elements, they are torture. If not, they're something less. Not necessarily something justifiable or commendable, but not torture either. (Another method of judging these actions is to ask whether the activity would excite an individual like Mengele or Yezhov.) "

"The left has succeeded, through a relentless media campaign (is there any other kind?) in obscuring this distinction. According to the latest criteria, torture is anything unpleasant that occurs to a prisoner while in American custody. (Overseas it's different. It's very, very difficult -- almost impossible, in fact -- for any developing or left-of-center regime to commit torture, no matter what they do to their prisoners. Unless, as in the rendition uproar, the U.S. is somehow involved.)"

It's strange really, that sometimes I must defend what I don't believe in. BigDog sends me this link to allow me to see the distinction of what the left defines as torture and what the definition of torture really is. It is a compelling argument. I'm glad I don't make these decisions.

It just so happens that I got an e-mail the other day from a lefty commenter who berates me for somehow defending torture in an earlier post. I e-mail back and point out that whatever the U.S. is involved with, does it bother him more that our enemy "tortured" Daniel Pearl for example? Not a enemy combatant, not even a soldier, but an innocent American. Do you know what he wrote back? He said that that wasn't torture, that was murder. You can't compare the two.

Gee, do you think the moments (days? weeks?) leading up to beheading Daniel Pearl might have been torture for him? Do you think the moment he saw the blade coming for his throat might have been torture? Do you think that when he felt the cold steel against his skin IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN TORTURE?????

For the life of me I can never understand why the left can find so much to be angry about with America, yet can seem to find no rage for the monsters that fight us.

UPDATE: Actually it's more of "past" date. I found this post I wrote in the archives (2005) on torture. Sometimes I even forget what we took down in Iraq. Sometimes it's good for us to remember.

A few thoughts...

I was watching TV these last few days and I just wanted to comment on these two unrelated things.

First, Duncan Hunter proposed giving the jobs of State Department officials who refuse to serve in Iraq to our wounded soldiers. (h/t to Bigdog for reminding me of this)

An excellent idea. I wish Bush had the nerve to do it.

The second thing I watched was Larry King's interview with Bill Cosby and his friend Alvin F. Poussaint who wrote the book, "Come On People; On The Path From Victim to Victors." Did any of you see it? I have written here many times how much I admire Cosby for speaking out about the problems in the black community, but he was practically incoherent in this interview. He would start to answer a question and then go rambling off on another subject that made no sense. He was wearing dark sunglasses the whole time too, which I found strange. I hope he's ok, but that was the most bizarre interview I have seen in a while.

How can we solve the political differences in Iraq?

I don't know. Maybe the same way we do here?

The suggestion is that American forces must keep fighting in Iraq until the Arabs and Kurds have put aside their differences, resolved their internal tensions, and started singing "kumbaya" in Arabic. But even the president's most ambitious aims involved only establishing a stable and peaceful democracy in Iraq--which is very different from resolving all tensions, as anyone who knows anything about democracy can tell you. For the United States, reconciliation should mean persuading the peoples of Iraq to address their problems and power struggles peacefully, through a political process rather than through violence, and to reject and oppose those who seek to use force to gain leverage in the political process. That is exactly what we are now in the midst of doing.

h/t BigDog

The anti-war far left protestors.

Zombie has the pictures from the Oct. 27th anti-war protest in San Francisco. I advise my lefty commenters to go take a good hard look at those that agree with you. You might not like the company you keep.

These pictures are a reminder of why the left has the reputation of being anti-American. Zombie should be given an award for shining a light into the darkness of liberalism. via RWN

Sunday, November 04, 2007

Fred Thompson on Abortion

He didn't have me at the beginning. He almost completely lost me in the middle. But the very last thing he said about his daughter, and it had nothing to do with law or federalism or anything else but reality, he got me.
I think I can be on board now with Fred.

via HotAir