Maybe that was a poor choice of words, but here’s what I’m getting at. We just witnessed the bizarre and disgusting spectacle of a disgraced, corrupt ex-governor, Jim McGreevey, virtually canonized after writing a sordid description of his anonymous homosexual encounters at rest stops and in alleys. He might even get his own talk show, for crying out loud! Congressman Foley, on the other hand, had to resign today in disgrace after disclosures of inappropriate e-mails written to a 16-old male page. Congressman, what were you thinking? Couldn’t you direct your attention to an 18 year old? If so, you could have just held a tearful press conference, then followed up a completely redemptive session on Oprah’s couch. Instead, you’re career is ruined, your family is in excruciating pain, and your obit will probably lead with this story.

Big mistake, and missed opportunity, if you ask me.

On a more serious note, clearly the timing of these disclosures appears suspiciously political. There have been gay rumors about Mark Foley for several years, at least since his Senate campaign in 2003. He withdrew from that race, and perhaps these rumors were the reason. Now, on the day when the Republicans hoped to trumpet their success in passing the terror detainee bill, this story grabs the headlines. Coincidence? I think not.

Be prepared for Sunday’s talking head shows to be all about this story and of course, Bob Woodward’s book, which is also conveniently timed to come out right before the election. Don’t you love that this book mentions Henry Kissinger? The liberals just can’t give up the ghost of Vietnam, and their desperate need to turn Iraq into Vietnam would be laughable if it weren’t so damaging to our troops and our war effort.

Trackback URL

In yesterday’s newsletter, I wrote about the group of students at the University of New Hampshire who have started a petition to remove psych professor William Woodward for pushing his insane 9/11 conspiracy theories on students. Now we have a group of professors at the University of Illinois interfering with the athletic department’s attempts to recruit players. Their beef: the fact that the university’s Board of Trustees has more important things to deal with other than the politically-correct obsessions of the looney left, in this case Chief Illiniwek.

Here’s what the letter, signed by 14 faculty members, said:

“In spite of what you may have recently read or heard in the media, after 16 years of debating this issue the UI Board of Trustees still refuses to take the necessary action and no end appears in sight.
“Thus, you may want to think twice about whether the University of Illinois is a good environment for you to further your education and athletic career. Do you want to play at a school that refuses to commit to equality for all races and that places more value on an outdated and divisive mascot than on a winning athletic program?”

As I often noted, this situation is another case in which liberals don’t appreciate the irony of their position. They are protesting the use of a mascot, who is in fact a student playing the role voluntarily, yet they routinely use living, breathing people (women, African-Americans, immigrants, gays) as mascots, claiming to speak for them and to know what’s best for them without the consent of those they claim to represent.

A better question than the one raised in the professors’ letter is whether these athletes want to attend a school where biology professors like Stephen Kaufman have the time to waste on foolishness like this jihad against Chief Illiniwek.

Trackback URL

It is hilarious, but not surprising, to watch liberals praise Bill Clinton for Sunday’s televised crazed tantrum and cite it as a blueprint for the way democrats should stand up to “attacks,” as in questions about their records while in office, by Republicans. The bad news for the Clintons, and democrats in general, is that it’s not 1992 any more. These phony attempts to rewrite history no longer go unchallenged after being delivered by the liberals’ lap dog mainstream media.

As Al Gore famously said, a leopard doesn’t change his stripes, and neither do the Clintons. On those rare occasions when they are confronted with a serious question about the years of negligence, malfeasance and self-promotion that were the Prevaricator-in-Chief’s administration, the Clinton playbook dictates lie, and lie aggressively, angrily and self-righteously.

Ever since Bill Clinton erupted in a narcissistic rage at this simple question, liberal apologists have been robotically reciting one response to Chris Wallace’s very reasonable question “I understand that hindsight is always 20/20, but the question is, why didn’t you connect the dots and put him out of business?” Their answer is the threadbare Michael Moore charge about the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief entitled—let’s all say it together–“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US.” On Monday, September 25, 2006, on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, the Left’s favorite sad sack, the pathetic Cindy Sheehan brought it up. On Tuesday, September 26, 2006, Clinton apologist Paul Begala mentioned it on the “Today” show. Most notably, later that same day Hillary Clinton said “I’m certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report titled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,’ he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team.”

Liberals have been trying to make hay out of this document for years, perhaps taking their lead from the Left’s leading lying lardsack, Michael Moore. The porky prevaricator made much of it in his crockumentary “Fahrenheit 9/11.” Recall democrat political hack Richard Ben-Veniste, a man who desperately wishes someone would invent a time machine so he can return to 1974, demanding that Condoleeza Rice recite the title of this PDB, but only the title, during his grandstanding performance at the political theater that was the 9/11 commission hearings. At the time, knowledgeable observers couldn’t figure out what the drama was all about, since the New York Times reported on this report on 5/16/02, followed by Newsweek in its 5/27/02 issue. Then we realized that, as usual, the left was attempting to gain a political advantage by misleading the public with half-truths, distortion and spin, not only by pretending that the title of this PDB was a huge Bush-busting bombshell, but also by limiting Ms. Rice’s testimony to the title of the PDB.

That’s because the August 6, 2001 PDB that the libs are so fond of citing contains nothing but historical information about al Qaeda’s plans during the 1990’s, when you know who was president, and further contains nothing that would help the government avoid an attack. Consider some of the substance of this PDB:

“Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S.”
Since Bin Ladin declared war on all US citizens in 1996, is that really a revelation?

“A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.”
None of the 9/11 hijackers were from New York, were they?

“FBI information since that time [1998] indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.”
Were federal buildings attacked on 9/11/01? I must have missed that.

“[T]he FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.”
No mention here of box cutters or airplanes used as weapons.

As you can see, a reading of the report itself, not just the title, demonstrates that the Bush administration did not ignore a warning that would have prevented 9/11. Once again, the liberals are lying to try to gain political advantage.

Speaking of Presidential Daily Briefs, Senator Clinton, as it turns out, in December, 1998, your husband was given a PDB entitled “Bin Laden Preparing to Hijack U.S. Aircraft and Other Attacks.” Interestingly, this PDB is all about hijacking, which you may recall, Senator, is what happened on 9/11. Just how seriously did he take that, Senator? Oh, I know. He probably “tried” to do something, but couldn’t get the FBI and/or CIA to certify something. Democrats harken back to the days when Bill Clinton was president, but as it turns out, even when he was, he wasn’t in charge.

The fact is that according to Michael Scheuer, a 22-year CIA veteran and chief of the Osama bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorism Center from 1996-1999, had eight to ten chances to get bin Laden and refused to try.

The bad news for democrats is that, contrary to their delusional view of the world, most Americans who saw Bill Clinton’s on-air meltdown don’t consider it a rallying cry to man the battle stations against the current evil regime. They see it for what it is, more evidence of the fact that twice the American people elected a sociopath as president, a man more interested in pursuing his own personal pleasure and promoting his self-image than protecting our country

Trackback URL

Yes, I have a lot to say about politics and the issues of the day, but for some reason today I felt the need to share some pearls of wisdom garnered in ordinary moments over the last couple of days.

“Throw it out and move on.”
This morning after Judy and Gerry got done working out, Judy said “Hey, if you’re cleaning out your closets, I’m collecting stuff for the church rummage sale. And this year, I’m going to be ruthless.” I agreed, saying “if you haven’t worn it for 2 years, it should go.” Judy replied “yes, but there are also those favorites that you were so much you forget how worn out they get. Those need to go, too.” But, I wondered, “how do you toss something you love when you know you won’t be able to duplicate it now? The stores don’t have outfits from two years ago, after all.” That’s where the life lesson came in. She said “I follow Gerry’s rule.” “Which is …?” I asked. “Throw it out and move on.”

Throw it out and move on. What a great motto for life in general, albeit not such a great one for a destructive, Soros-funded 527. For that group, the motto should be “throw out MoveOn,” but I digress …Someone lied to you, backstabbed you, and just generally treated you like a non-person? Throw it out and move on. Co-worker screws up a project you’re working both working on? Throw it out and move on. Spouse leaves the toilet seat up—again? Throw it out and move on. In other words, we often have zero % control over what happens to us in life, but we have 100% control over how we react. Imagine how much we could accomplish if we stopped wasting mental energy ruminating about how this rotten jerk lied, and that one left you holding the bag, imagining unrealistic (but admittedly extremely satisfying) revenge fantasies in which they get what’s coming to them. Imagine how much happier life would be if we focused on all the good things our loved ones do and how much they enrich our lives, rather than focusing on and magnifying their mistakes instead of trying to correct our own.

“I think I must be in the wrong shop.”
Last week I visited a friend in his antique shop, which is in a very affluent suburb. My husband likes to joke that it’s like those stores where everything is a dollar, except that here everything is $10,000. As we sat in the shop, visiting and catching up, a customer approached the door to be buzzed in. (Yes, even in this wealthy, low-crime suburb, you can’t be too careful.) Like nearly everyone seen walking around this town, she was a well-dressed woman whose jewelry and accessories suggested that she could afford anything in the store, so I was surprised when she told my friend that she was looking for a wedding gift in the $100-200 range. She said “I don’t suppose you have anything in that price range.” He replied “Oh, no, we do,” and proceeded to show her several items that I thought would make lovely gifts. First, several large sterling serving spoons, perfect for a buffet and a unique, one of a kind wedding gift. Then some candlesticks in plate, and so on and so on. She kept gravitating toward items that were 10-15 times the price range that she had suggested. I don’t know if she was hoping he would bargain and haggle with her like some guy running a booth in a flea market or what. (He wouldn’t and he won’t.) Regardless, of the reason, every time he would show her something in her stated price range or she would ask about an item ridiculously out of it, she would sigh and say “I guess I must be in the wrong shop.” After about the fourth or fifth time she said this same line, I, sitting there silently reading my newspaper, thought to myself “So why are you still here?”

Sometimes in life we need to face that “we are in the wrong shop;” that is, if we keep pursuing a particular objective, and despite giving it our all, meeting with constant resistance, perhaps we need to re-evaluate that goal and see if maybe it’s not the right vision for our future. Maybe we are trying to settle for something that is too puny for our talent because of fear and lack of confidence. Maybe we are really close to finding the precise arena in which we can excel, but that’s the shop down the street, or around the corner, but if we never step outside, we don’t see the possibilities.

I am so grateful for my many smart, considerate friends and the many insights and life lessons that they have brought me, sometimes without even realizing it.

Trackback URL

What a great question to ask about that slough of corruption, anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism that is the United Nations! Of course, the man asking it is our ambassador John Bolton. The U.S. currently pays 25% of the U.N.’s budget, and many Americans are asking “for what?” So that we can provide a forum for tin pot dictators to bash the United States and spew venomous diatribes against not only our country, but Israel? So Kofi Anann can live in luxury and funnel big bucks to his family members? So that blue-helmeted U.N. types can stand around (when they aren’t raping the local women, that is) and watch the Hezbos kidnap soldiers and dig tunnels to use to attack Israel? This is insanity, and I am grateful that we finally have a real man there to say so.

Speaking of which, we need to make Mr. Bolton’s nomination permanent, no matter what Lincoln Chaffee thinks.

As of this writing, Mr. Bolton’s chances of getting the job permanently don’t look good, and that’s bad news for America and for all freedom-loving people who want to fight the headchoppers. If his nomination can’t make it out of committee, the Republicans should bring the nomination to the Senate floor. Let the September 10 party fillibuster, and tell the American people why. That issue is a winner, if you ax me.

Trackback URL

As you heard on yesterday’s (9/10/06) show, the Clintonistas, in a pathetic attempt to convince the world that Bill’s legacy is something other than a stained blue dress, are screaming about the inaccuracies in the movie “The Path to 9/11.” Their two biggest beefs are (1) any suggestion that Bill Clinton was distracted while in office by his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky and the resulting impeachment and (2) any suggestion that Clinton had numerous opportunities to apprehend Osama bin Laden before 9/11. Poor Alessandra Stanley at the New York Times got the Joe Lieberman treatment because she didn’t trash the movie and even had the audacity to point out that George Bush’s failings with respect to 9/11 were minor compared to Clintons, since the former was in office only 8 months compared to the Prevaricator-in-Chief’s 8 years. Her real sin was suggesting that Bill Clinton was distracted while in office. She even had to print a correction, assuring all the moonbats that when she said that the 9/11 report said Clinton was distracted, she misspoke! If she hadn’t, she probably wouldn’t be invited to a single party all holiday season.

I’m not so sure that correction should have been issued, notwithstanding the howling on the left. Could it been have any more hilarious when Keith “head in the subway door” Olbermann huffed and puffed, accused Ms. Stanley of doing her research in “an alternate dimension?” He should know all about that! It seems completely at war with human experience to think he wouldn’t be distracted. Isn’t that the whole point of having an intern play with your hoo hoo? In any case, KO was outraged, and quoted the report: “Everyone involved in the decision had, of course, been aware of President Clinton’s problems. He told them to ignore them. Berger recalled the President saying to him “that they were going to get crap either way, so they should do the right thing.” All his aides testified to us that they based their advise soley on national security considerations. We have found not reason to question their statements.”

You see what I mean about this 9/11 report? Let me translate for you. All the Clintonistas we asked lined up and when we asked “was Bill Clinton serious about fighting these murderous headchoppers who first blew up the World Trade Center about a month after he took office?” they all nodded their heads up and down in unison and assured us that he had. As for no reason to question their statements, have you looked in Sandy Berger’s socks?

So I’m no fan of the 9/11 report, I consider it incomplete (Able Danger?) and inconclusive. Still, it’s one account, albeit a partial one, of what happened, and since Clinton’s defenders like Keith Olbermann want to cite it, here goes.

“We must then ask when the U.S. government had reasonable opportunities to mobilize the country for major action against al Qaeda and its Afghan sanctuary. The main opportunities came after the new information the U.S. government received in 1996-1997, after the embassy bombings of August 1998, after the discoveries of the Jordanian and Ressam plots in late 1999 and after the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000.” P. 348
Seems obvious. Also seems obvious who the president was from 1996-2000. Even those who went to government schools like me can figure that out.

“The U.S. policy response to al Qaeda before 9/11 was essentially defined following the embassy bombings of August 1998. We described those decisions in Chapter 4. It is worth noting that they were made by the Clinton administration under extremely difficult domestic political circumstances. Opponents were seeking the President’s impeachment.” (italics mine) p.348
Oh, but he wasn’t distracted by it. As we all know, he has an amazing ability to “compartmentalize.”

Here’s another little gem: “In February 1999, another draft Memorandum of Notification went to President Clinton. It asked him to allow the CIA to give exactly the same guidance to the Northern Alliance as had just been given to the tribals: they could kill Bin Ladin if a successful capture operation was not feasible. On this occasion, however, President Clinton crossed out key language he had approved in December and inserted more ambiguous language. No one we interviewed could shed light on why the President did this. President Clinton told the Commission that he had no recollection of why he rewrote the language.” p. 133.
Shazzam! I just don’t remember. Paging Jamie Gorelick: are you still going to try to convince us that the reason you tryed to stop this movie is that you worked way too hard to get the truth to the American people? PULEEZE!!

Or how about this one: “Footnote 11. NSC note, Clarke to Berger, Dec. 4, 1999; Richard Clarke interview (Jan. 12, 2004)In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote “no.” p. 500

I think it’s pretty clear to knowledgeable observers that the reason so many democrats were going nuts last week over this movie is their belief that the Clinton legacy and the future Clinton presidency (there’s a scary phrase) could be threatened. The very fact that they were so frightened by a tv movie says everything you need to know about both.

Trackback URL

This morning’s Washington Times editorial addresses President Bush’s response to 9/11, and the unfortunate efforts by some to undermine it:

Addressing a joint session of Congress nine days later, President Bush emphasized that the era of military half-measures was over. America’s response to September 11 could not be a repeat of the Clinton administration’s handling of the 1999 Kosovo campaign, where the military campaign was conducted almost entirely through the air, and it would be very different from the isolated strikes against al Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden, which took place during the Clinton years. “Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest,” Mr. Bush said. “And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.” 
 And with that, Mr. Bush did what what four presidents before him — Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton — had never been willing or able to do ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution and hostage crisis: mobilize the country for war against Islamofascist terror groups and their state sponsors that had repeatedly targeted this country. Less than one month after September 11, the United States launched a military campaign that deposed the Taliban dictatorship in Afghanistan. In March 2003, Mr. Bush moved to oust Saddam Hussein, a longtime supporter of terrorism who had been flouting U.N. Security Council disarmament resolutions for 12 years. Less than a week after U.S. troops pulled Saddam out of a spider hole on Dec. 13, 2003, Libyan boss Moammar Gadhafi decided to end his 33-year quest for nuclear weapons. …

…Despite all that has been done in an effort to make us safer, serious problems remain — in particular the inability to deal a decisive blow to the Sunni and Shi’ite terrorists operating in Iraq — a critical theater in the international war against Islamofascism.But the most disturbing development domestically is “the war against the war” — the systematic effort to undermine the ability of Western intelligence to prevent future terrorist attacks on the homeland. One such example was the decision by the New York Times to reveal the existence of the SWIFT program for investigating terrorist financing, something the Pentagon used to track down Hambali — operations chief of Jemaah Islamiya, which was responsible for the 2002 Bali nightclub bombing which killed more than 200 people. Unraveling complex connections between terrorists and financiers is already difficult enough without some in the media doing the dirty work of tipping off the terrorists.”

The headchoppers can’t win militarily and they know it. They are hoping that the 5th column media and their sympathetic democrat friends will make ensure that we defeat ourselves. President Bush is determined not to let that happen, and I thank God for that.
God bless President George W. Bush, and may God continue to bless America.

Trackback URL

As we often discuss on the show, Whittaker Chambers, the rumpled, former communist who, with the help of Richard Nixon, exposed elitist darling/patrician fop Alger Hiss as a commie and Soviet spy, famously said “People don’t get angry when you lie about them. They get angry when you tell the truth about them.” I couldn’t help but think of that when I saw this morning’s New York Post, “Bill’s Fury: Rips 9/11 TV Film Portrait of Bungle Bubba.” You know, of course, that he’s got his undies (boxers or briefs? I can’t remember. Quick someone find a 17 year-old girl.) in a bundle over ABC’s “The Path to 9/11.” Far be it from me to suggest that Bill Clinton is ever premature in any respect, but a question occurs to me: Has Slick Willie even seen the movie? Press reports suggest that he has not, so it seems that his whining is just that; that is, his complaining words are verbal premature ejaculations. He should know how much trouble that sort of thing can cause, no?

Will the suits at ABC cave? Let’s hope not. Some reports suggest some edits have been made to the film, but apparently the whitewash isn’t sufficient for the former Prevaricator-in-Chief. I suspect that the former First Enabler (that would be Hillary Clinton)might be the one who is really furious about this movie. It can’t help her presidential prospects for voters to be reminded that we can’t trust democrats, and especially Clintons, with national security.

Trackback URL

During a week when I must endure stories about Kofi Annan and his desire to avoid using force to disarm the Hezbos and Republicans going wobbly on the NSA terrorist surveillance program, it’s great to read a story like this one about the brave dog protecting his coyote friend. A rattlesnake bit the dog, but he survived, thanks to some quickly administered anti-venom.

Way to go, Pepper! Good dog!

Trackback URL