No one is ever going to accuse me of being in the running to head up the Al Gonzales Fan Club. Here are some of the reasons:

• His support for racism, otherwise known as white guilt’s bastard offspring, “affirmative action”
• His handling of the Ramos and Campeon cases. If he had to be persecuted by democrats for the “politically motivated” firings of U.S. attorneys, why didn’t he go ahead and fire Johnny Sutton?
• But worst of all, his support for amnesty for illegal aliens. During his confirmation hearing, he referred to them as “undocumented aliens, but otherwise lawful citizens.” I guess that’s not a surprise, given his membership in the open borders’ group that helped write the amnesty bill that went up in flames a couple of months ago, La Raza.

Still, I hated to see him resign, if only because I knew it would unleash the chorus of liberal media yappers, endlessly repeating the same predictable phrases (say them with me): “embattled Attorney General,” “U.S. Attorneys’ scandal,” “President Bush’ warrantless wiretaps,” blah blah blah, and also because I didn’t know if I could stand watching the same media pinheads speculating on whether or not the resignation of the attorney general would “reduce the pressure” on the administration, or quiet its critics. Yeah right. PULEEZE! It’s bad enough to have to listen to this silly blather. Must they insult our intelligence as well? Indeed, Harry “The Mortician” Reid has responded to any suggestion that the Attorney General’s resignation would end the incessant investigations by saying “not on your life!” Of course not. What do you think? That the dems can’t keep all their eggs in the “U.S. defeat in Iraq” basket. As hard as the Surrender Caucus running Congress and their media buds have been working it, that might not turn out. Then what? Meanwhile, the same media phonies pretending to wonder whether this resignation would end the carping by democrats will be the first ones to ask tomorrow “Now that Attorney General Gonzales has resigned, who will be responsible for explaining the politically motivated firings of those U.S. attorneys?”

In addition, he was never responsible for incinerating American citizens on American soil, so he’s got that going for him. Those who were so outraged by Al Gonzales’ “shredding the Constitution” by having the effrontery to try to stop terrorists were strangely silent about Janet Reno and the Waco disgrace.

Trackback URL

While watching yesterday’s “Meet the Press” telecast, I almost felt sorry for Howdy Doody lookalike, NBC’s David Gregory, who was filling in for the regular host, former Mario Cuomo errand boy Tim Russert.

He was interviewing Karl Rove, and my bottom line review is “Hey David, pick up your jock!” Here’s how it went. Gregory recites a threadbare, lefty cliché, no doubt culled by one of his producers from the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, and smugly waits for a response. Karl Rove clearly and articulately responds with the surefire antidote, the crucifix to the MSM vampire, facts, facts and more facts. Consider the following exchange, which occurred after Gregory robotically recited the litany of hackneyed hooey about the liberation of Iraq (say it along with me: no WMD, the cost of the war was ‘misestimated,’ the level of sectarian violence was wrong, Iraqi war revenues would be used to pay for the war).

MR. GREGORY: But, Karl, I’m asking you a specific question about whether misjudgments were made and whether you acknowledge those.

MR. ROVE: I understand. I understand, but I want to deal with each one of these because I want to acknowledge, I want to acknowledge the reality behind each one of them. You say, for example, you make the assertion that oil revenues are not being used to pay for reconstruction. You’re absolutely wrong.

MR. GREGORY: The predication was they would pay for the war.

MR. ROVE: The Iraqi—let me finish—the Iraqi government has a capacity $41 billion budget, $10 billion, most of which comes from oil revenues, $10 billion of which goes to reconstruction. And so are they using their own resources to reconstruct the country? You bet. But, look, it’s one thing to rattle off all of these, and it’s a nice tactic. I appreciate—I applaud you for doing so. But if you take a moment and look at each one of these you’ll find that in each one of these there is a reasonable—you know, look, was everything done perfectly? No. But it—was this the right thing to do? You bet. And has the policy worked out exactly as people planned? Look, Napoleon said that your battle plan doesn’t survive the first contact with the enemy, but you still have to have a plan. And did everything work out like people expected and hoped? No. But is it the right thing to do and is it vital for the security interests of the United States? If we were to leave Iraq with the job undone, we would be running the risk of seeing the entire region plunge into violence. We would see Iran emboldened. We would see Hezbollah, Hamas and the al-Qaeda emboldened. We could see a terrorist state emerge in the heart of the Middle East. Not in Afghanistan with no natural resources, but in the very heart of the Middle East with the third largest oil reserves in the world. And we could see an increasing danger for our friends and allies in the region from Turkey to Lebanon to Jordan to Israel to Egypt to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.”

David, did you get the license number? Was Howdy Doody’s smirk an attempt to conceal his realization that he had just had his head handed to him, or am I giving him too much credit? (I can go either way on that one. Based on watching DG over the years, I lean toward the latter.)

The only discouraging thing about watching Karl Rove slice and dice this blowdried bonehead is the realization that most of the time, our candidates don’t make similar confident, forceful response to the endless stream of liberal blather on these talking head shows. I am demanding that every Republican candidate watch this Rove appearance and every speech Newt Gingrich has made over the last 15 years until they understand how easy it is to demolish liberal lies.

Gregory also took the opportunity to repeat what is obviously the latest subject of a fax from democrat HQ to all their media friends, the apparently heart-stopping revelation (no pun intended) that on April 15, 1994, Dick Cheney said it would have been a mistake to remove Saddam Hussein. What are the libs going to discover next? The hot new band Nirvana?

What Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart and the afore-mentioned Gregory don’t get is that, as they bleat on and on and continue replaying a tape from 1994, they simply reinforce what intelligent observers already know: they are completely clueless about history, and are blissfully unaware that the world changed on 9/11, which is why they can’t be trusted with national security. Of course, Karl Rove knocked the big juicy one over the plate out of the park.

Trackback URL

Of course, I refer to George Stephanopolis, who presided over the dems’ debate this morning on ABC. I can’t wait until Karl Rove gets a gig like George’s after he leaves the White House!

I’ll probably have more to say about this unintentional laugh riot later, but here are some initial impressions:

In response to a question regarding Hillary Clinton’s high negatives, Barack Hussein Obama said “If you believe that part of the problem is the failed politics of Washington and the conventional thinking of Washington, if you’re tired of the back biting and the score keeping and special interest driven politics of Washington, if you want somebody who can bring the country together around a common purpose and rally us around a common destiny, then I’m you’re guy.” What he’s not telling everyone is that he plans to replace “special interest-driven politics of Washington” with the ward heeling, horse trading, Tony Rezkofied politics of Chicago. Oh, yeah, that would be a HUGE improvement.

In response to a question about the power of prayer and whether it could have prevented or reduced the devastation of disasters like Katrina and the Minneapolis bridge collapse, He Who Walks on Water replied in part, “Part of what I pray for is the strength and the wisdom to act on those things that I can control and that is what I think has been lacking sometimes in our government. We’ve got to express those values through our government and not just through our religious institutions.”

Wait a second—“express those values through our government?” What about separation of church and state, Puggle? As you know, the ACLU finds only one sort of expression of religious values through government acceptable, and that involves installing foot baths for Muslims in public buildings at taxpayer expense. Come to think of it, maybe that’s what B. Hussein Obama is talking about.

This prayer question was the same one that elicited this brilliant response from Mike “Is it Senility or Just Plain Insanity?” Gravel: “I was always struck by the fact that many of the people who pray are the ones who want to go to war, who want to kill fellow human beings.” If he were talking about a certain subset of members of a world religion that involves praying 5 times a day while facing a certain Middle Eastern city, I’ve been struck by the same thing. Fortunately for me, I don’t Sen. Gravel was thinking of the same people as me, so I’ve got that going for me.

John Edwards was talking tough. He said “My belief is that you have to take these people on and beat them to bring change. You can’t sit at a table and negotiate with them.” Right on, Senator! Fight our terrorist enemy! Bring them to their knees! Unconditional surrender or nothing! Oh, I’m sorry, you weren’t talking about al Qaeda and their various related wackjob affiliates and affiliate wannabes with an affinity for beheading and mass murder of anonymous innocents. You were talking about your favorite opponents, insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. Death to Pfizer! You repeated that line about the impossibility of sitting down at a table and negotiating when you talked about lobbyists, and how “we have to take their power away from them.” Right, take it away. Sort of like the way those poor schmoes, Katrina victims, who lost their homes in foreclosure to a company in which you’ve invested $16 million had their homes taken away.

Trackback URL

If you watch cable tv, you know “polarized” our country is, how bitterly divided. Usually the liberal media gasbags bloviating about this subject on these often annoying and usually pointless shows are talking about their obsession, the endless presidential campaign and the big issue therein (read the issue that will insure that the next president is a democrat), the war in Iraq. As they repeat incessantly, the universal revulsion on the part of the American public toward the war handed control of the Congress over to democrats in 2006. And you thought it had something to do with Mark Foley and Macaca. That’s all you know.

Surprisingly, when these dunderheads in the MSM say that the war in Iraq is all that matters, they are right, but not for the short-sighted, simplistic reason that they think. The great divide isn’t between those want to pull the rug out from under the troops they voted to send into battle and those who don’t, although that’s certainly one useful way to decide who is a member of the 5th column and who is an American. No, it’s actually quite simple. There are two kinds of people in this country, those who understand that the liberation of Iraq was undertaken to prevent the predicted exodus of Osama bin Laden and his pals from Afghanistan to his new sanctuary and staging area, a country that had already harbored terrorists and had previous dealings with al Qaeda (that would be Iraq for any Daily Kos types who may be having this read to them) and those who are incapable of connecting those dots and who are determined to live in a Sept. 10 dream world. It’s the difference between understanding that after 9/11 it’s all about being pro-active and thinking it’s like 7/11, as in arresting the perp who knocked over the convenience market last Saturday night, and making sure his civil rights aren’t violated while we overcome our burden of proving that he was doing something wrong. It’s the difference between those who understand that we are engaged in an existential struggle for the future of Western civilization, and those whose irresistible impulse toward projection makes them believe that everything is about domestic politics to the point that they can trivialize the danger into a “bumper sticker,” like John “Sub Prime” Edwards, designed to create a “culture of fear” for political purposes, as was suggested by Zbigniew Brzenzinsi, national security adviser to Jimmy Carter. National security adviser to Jimmy Carter? There’s an oxymoron for you.

Speaking of confused people (well, we were just talking about Jimmy Carter, no?), in this morning’s Chicago Tribune (Libune), writing about the conviction of Jose Padilla (“Don’t call me paDEEyuh”), James Oliphant can barely conceal his contempt for “the Bush administration’s campaign against terrorism.” Shades of Michael Moore’s famous post-9/11 comment about Mohammed Atta and Friends trying to “get back at Bush.” Michael Moore said “This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes’ destination of California — these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!” (The demented of all stripes apparently experienced shared the outrage over the oucome 2000 election.) Also like the Round Mound Whose Lies Astound, the Libune reporter wants to make sure that you don’t give President Bush any credit for keeping us safe.

“It also bolsters an administration that has enjoyed relatively few high-profile successes in busting up terror cells. To date, its largest triumph has been Zacarias Moussaoui, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges in the Sept. 11, 2001, attack and now faces life imprisonment. Beyond that and hundreds of low-grade collars for offenses such as immigration violations, the administration has been known for sounding the alarm over threats that never came to be, as much as for locking up terrorists.”

And he should know. After all, whenever our intelligence agencies thwart a terrorist plot, I’m sure the first thing they do is alert the Chicago Tribune’s Washington bureau.

In his whole tendentious story, Mr. Oliphant never mentions my favorite aspect of the Padilla story. Curt Anderson did mention it in his AP story, though:

“The key piece of physical evidence was a five-page form Padilla supposedly filled out in July 2000 to attend an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan, which would link the other two defendants as well to Osama bin Laden’s terrorist organization.

The form, recovered by the CIA in 2001 in Afghanistan, contains seven of Padilla’s fingerprints and several other personal identifiers, such as his birthdate and abilities to speak Spanish, English and Arabic.”

Al Qaeda has you fill out an application to attend its camps? Can you picture that?

1. Name (please check all that apply)
o Achmed
o Abu
o Al-Maasri
o Mohammed
o Hussein
o Abdul
o Some Mexican Name Like “Padilla,” but Pronounced Differently
o Call me what you want, just don’t call me late for dinner, especially on “all you can eat goat” night.

2. Do you own your own suicide vest?

3. Education.
Please don’t fudge your qualifications. If you had one more bomb-making lab to complete before finishing up one of your modules at a previous training camp, don’t say that you graduated. We check that stuff.

4. If an American, prior Treasonous Experience (please check all that apply)
o Arson
o Robbery
o Beheading (including small animals)
o Drug Dealing (experience with heroin a plus!)
o Internet Scams
o Counterfeiting
o Voting for democrat party

Or maybe it’s more like the SAT, complete with analogies like:

JEW is to INFIDEL as

A. APPLE is to ORANGE
B. Rosie O’DONNELL is to INSANITY
C. HOMER SIMPSON is to DOUGHNUTS
D. CANTALOUPE is to MELON
E. TERMINAL, INOPERABLE CANCER is to DISEASE

The correct answer, of course, is E, however if you said A, B, C or D, you won’t be disqualified. Let’s face it, we’re obviously not dealing with a bunch of refugees from an Einstein convention, as the admission of Padilla into this insane organization proves.

Trackback URL

And here’s the best part—he’s there to promote his—are you ready for this?—his children’s book “Puff the Magic Dragon.” Perhaps Good Morning America is unaware that Peter Yarrow spent 3 months of a one to three year prison sentence after pleading guilty to taking “immoral and improper liberties” with a 14-year-old girl in 1970. He was pardoned in 1981 by—Drumroll, please!—Jimmy Carter.

If you’re thinking this isn’t the crime of the century, and that it happened a long time ago, I don’t disagree, but I do wonder why ABC feels the need to promote this clown’s book instead of a gazillion others that weren’t written by some disgusting hippie fossil who thought it was a good idea to answer the door naked and make sexual advances toward a teenage girl.

Could it be that they so admire his idiotic lefty “peace activist” credentials that they want to help him anyway that they can? He did campaign for John Francois Kerry in 2004, after all. Like Kerry, he is very fond of our communist North Vietnamese enemy.

So, they figure, keep the rehabilitation of this anti-American relic going. Pathetic.

Trackback URL

The most interesting part of yesterday’s Republican debate on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopolis” was when George asked the candidates about Barack Obama’s breathtakingly stupid and politically-motivated expression of phony foreign policy bravado last week. If you’ve forgotten, here’s what the Puggle said:

“Let me make this clear,” Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

And let me try to make something clear because no one in the lazy herd of democrat sycophants who masquerade as “journalists” is going to do it. Hoping to gain political advantage, and recklessly oblivious to the consequences. He Who Walks on Water goes all “muscular” on us by threatening one of our allies and mentions “actionable intelligence.” This statement is nothing short of hilarious. Hearing Barack Hussein Obama talk about actionable intelligence is like hearing Michael Moore talk about quality health care. It’s not only that neither one of them has any idea what he’s talking about. It’s that if the policies that they advocated were actually implemented, the result would be destroy any possibility of achieving their stated goal. If we implement government-run health care, that’s the end of quality. If we do all the things that you have suggested like closing Gitmo, granting non-existent habeas corpus “rights” to foreign enemy combatants and requiring warrants that would satisfy the ACLU before eavesdropping on terrorists, how exactly, Senator Obama, are we going to get that “actionable intelligence?” From the Intelligence Fairy? True to form, Mr. Actionable Intelligence voted against the revision of the FISA law last Friday. Normally, when the Puggle votes on any piece of legislation, his people send out some self-serving press release about it. Surprisingly, this vote against making it easier for us to eavesdrop on terrorists was the exception to that SOP. I guess they don’t want to trumpet the Senator’s opposition to protecting us from terrorists, especially not a few days after he was playing dress up in his Terminator costume.

Mitt Romney’s quip captured the idiocy of Obama’s schizophrenic approach to national security: “He’s gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week.”

Not surprisingly, Rep. Duncan Hunter was outstanding in this debate, pointing out that Barack Obama doesn’t understand that there have now been 100,000 Pakistani troops moved to the border with Afghanistan. “When you have a country which is cooperating, you don’t tell them that you are unilaterally going to move against them.” Only the Second Coming of Jimmy Carter would think otherwise. Come to think of it, even the King of the Useful Idiots, probably wouldn’t be as naïve as Barack Hussein Obama.

Speaking of unintentional hilarity, if you saw the debate, you probably enjoyed the question from viewer Sean Kennedy about Vice President Cheney as much as I did.

“During the Bush administration, there’s been a growing controversy over the role of the Vice President. As a candidate for president, what authority would you delegate to the office of Vice President and should those authorities be more clearly defined through a constitutional amendment?”

Leave it to the ABC to sift through all the serious and important questions on the minds of the voters to find this crucial issue. I was just thinking about that, weren’t you? I can’t choose a candidate without knowing where he stands on the constitutional amendment regarding the role of the Vice President! Say what? A “growing controversy?” Where—in Keith Olbermann’s pre-show prep meeting? The New York Times news room? Up until that point, Ron Paul was the sole comic relief. Let me translate this question: “Everyone knows that President Bush is nothing more than a sock puppet, and that Dr. Evil Neocon, Dick Cheney, is really in charge. If you are president, will you be a similar idiot figurehead, or will you be the real president?” I couldn’t help but recall that when President George H.W. Bush selected Dan Quayle, liberal critics cited the choice as evidence that 41 was threatened by anyone smarter than him, which given his low intelligence left him little choice but a dolt like Quayle. Then, the current President Bush selects one of the smartest, most experienced guys in Washington, and that proves he’s stupid, too. It’s great the way that works for Republicans: whatever you do, you prove how very stupid and insecure you really are.

I can’t leave the subject of this debate without mentioning my favorite exchange. How refreshing it was to hear a candidate refute the old liberal canard, an article of faith among the members of the Dino Media, about needing to raise taxes to pay for programs! You had to know this question was coming:

David Yepsen (the “dean” of Iowa political reporters): Is this Republican dogma against taxes precluding the ability of you and your party to come up with the revenues that the country needs to fix its bridges?

Rudy Giuliani: David, there’s an assumption in your question that is not necessarily correct. sort of the Democratic, liberal assumption, ‘I need money; I raise taxes,’ ”

Yepsen: Then what are you going to cut, Sir?

Giuliani: The way to do it sometimes is to reduce taxes and raise more money. For example, I ran a city with 759 bridges, probably the most used bridges in the nation, some of the most used in the world. I was able to acquire more money to fund capital programs. I reduced the number of poor bridges from 5% to 1.7%. I was able to raise more money to fix those bridges by lowering taxes. I lowered income taxes by 25%. I was collecting 40% more from the lower income tax than from the higher income tax. Give you another example, Sen. Edwards last week recommended increasing the capital gains tax from 15% to 28% because he wants more money. Sen. Edwards hasn’t had much executive experience because the reality is the last time we raised the capital gains tax—you go back and check it—from 20 to 28%, we lost $45 billion. There is a liberal, Democratic assumption that if you raise taxes, you raise money. We should put more money into infrastruture and we should have a good program for doing it, but the knee jerk, liberal Democratic reaction raise taxes to get money very often is a very big mistake.

I was so excited by that answer I almost did an impression of Meg Ryan in that famous fake orgasm scene from “When Harry Met Sally,” only I wasn’t faking. Thank you thank you thank you thank you, Mr. Mayor. Why aren’t Republicans saying this every hour or every day?

Trackback URL

Just one week and one day after he demonstrated puppy-like exuberance at the chance to have coffee with Castro, the prospective First-Responder-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, has announced his latest brilliant foreign policy idea: unilaterally invading one of our allies, Pakistan.

Let me get this straight, Barry. You were all for giving Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt, letting him flout 17 U.N. resolutions without any serious consequence, and allow him to give sanctuary to terrorists (yes, he was, and serious, informed people know it). This tolerance despite the fact that in your book, The Audacity of Hope, you say that you believed that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and coveted nukes. That was ok with you because he didn’t pose an “imminent” threat, you know like a 757 about to smash into the Sears Tower. In fact, your willingness to allow Saddam Hussein to continue to operate his rape rooms and human shredders and scheme to get WMD is your Number One foreign policy credential. I acknowledge that it has been somewhat overshadowed by your stunning comments about what would be most important after a nuclear terrorist attack on two American cities (no more Katrinas!) and that embarrassing answer about going hat in hand to the world’s dictators to “bridge the gap” between our nations (cue the Kumbayah), but your supporters still point to your speech opposing the liberation of Iraq in 2002 as evidence of your tremendous courage and judgment. And is it any wonder? Nothing says “courage” like running your mouth in front of a sympathetic crowd, and nothing says judgment like ignoring every intelligence agency in the Western world to draw your own conclusions from the center of the foreign policy universe, Springfield, Illinois.

As best as anyone can understand it, here is the Obama foreign policy for a post-9/11 world: vicious dictators who are stated enemies of the United States are owed all due respect, including personal visits from the President of the United States. Those who continue to flout the will of the international community will get what’s coming to them in the form of another meaningless U.N. resolution. The U.N. is a vital institution with a key role in maintaining world peace, so much so that they can pass all the damn pointless resolutions they want, and should by all means send their “peacekeepers” (rapists) to stop the genocide in Darfur. If you go out on a limb to be a friend to the United States even risking assassination like Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, your reward will be the same one the Obama administration has in mind for the Iraqis who joined us in our quest to establish a stable democracy there; that is, the rug will be pulled out from under you.

Senator, you need to buy a vowel. You are not ready for prime time. You need to go back to the minors. Stop me before I write more clichés. Everyone gets the idea. You are not Commander-in-Chief material. I haven’t seen a more laughable attempt to prove otherwise since Michael Dukakis donned that helmet.

I wonder how Lynn “Locker Room Girl” Sweet is going to put a good spin on this one.

Trackback URL