Another Case of Liberal Compassion

In Indonesia:

These locals have long viewed the dragons as a reincarnation of fellow kinsfolk, to be treated with reverence. But now, villagers say, the once-friendly dragons have turned into vicious man-eaters. And they blame policies drafted by American-funded environmentalists for this frightening turn of events.
"When I was growing up, I felt the dragons were my family," says 55-year-old Hajji Faisal. "But today the dragons are angry with us, and see us as enemies." The reason, he and many other villagers believe, is that environmentalists, in the name of preserving nature, have destroyed Komodo's age-old symbiosis between dragon and man.
...
"For us, giving food to the dragons is an obligation, our sacred duty," says Hajji Adam, headman of the park's biggest village, Kampung Komodo.
Indonesia invited the Nature Conservancy, a Virginia-based environment protection group, to help manage the park in 1995. An Indonesian subsidiary of the group, called Putri Naga Komodo, gained a tourism concession for the park in 2005 and is investing in the conservation effort some $10 million of its own money and matching financing from international donors.
With this funding and advice, park authorities put an end to villagers' traditional deer hunting, enforcing a prohibition that had been widely disregarded. They declared canines an alien species, and outlawed the villagers' dogs, which used to keep dragons away from homes. Park authorities banned the goat sacrifices, previously staged on Komodo for the benefit of picture-snapping tourists.

Not surprisingly, this led to some rather tragic consequences, the dragons going for the next easiest food source...

A year ago, a 9-year-old named Mansur was one such victim. The boy went to answer the call of nature behind a bush near his home in Kampung Komodo. In broad daylight, as terrified relatives looked on, a dragon lunged from his hideout, took a bite of the boy's stomach and chest, and started crushing his skull.
...
A few months later, Jamain's neighbor Mustaming Kiswanto, a 38-year-old who makes a living selling dragon woodcarvings to tourists, and whose son had been bitten by a dragon, was attacked by another giant lizard after falling asleep. In June, five European divers, stranded in an isolated part of the park, said they successfully fended off an aggressive dragon by throwing their weight belts at it.
To the villagers in Komodo, the recent incidents provide clear evidence of an ominous change in reptile behavior. "I don't blame the dragons for my boy's death. I blame those who forbade us from following custom and feeding them," says Jamain. "If it weren't for them, my boy would still be alive."

A centuries old truce, for lack of a better word, has kept the lizards mostly docile. And when they got out of line, the villagers dogs would help protect them. Without the incentive of free easy food, and the disincentive of fighting off protective dogs, the dragon has turned to vulnerable humans as an easy food source. Small children, sleeping people, anything that looks like easy prey is fair game. After all, the Komono Dragons haven't had to get their own food for centuries. It's not likely they'd go back to trying to hunt. Well, at least we know the liberals are sorry for their actions...

The boy "shouldn't have crouched like a prey species in a place where dragons live," says Marcus Matthews-Sawyer, tourism, marketing and communications director at Putri Naga Komodo. "You've got to be very careful about extrapolating and drawing any conclusions."

Oh.

Despite such disbelief in the Komodo villagers' theories, executives at the Nature Conservancy's headquarters in the U.S. pledge to reach out and tackle local fears. "Any concern expressed by the villagers will be taken seriously and we will address it if we can," says Chief Communications Officer James R. Petterson. "The Komodo effort is a work in progress."

No measures have been taken as of yet, and it's doubtful any will. Because the conservancy doesn't care about the people, just this fantasy Utopia for the animals. For liberals, it's never about the consequences of the action, just the action itself and how it makes them feel. What's a dead child here and there when you're busy saving the Earth. As the soviets used to say, you have to break a couple of eggs to make an omelet.

It's funny that, even though Republicans are the "Racist ones", it's always liberal ideas that rack up the piles of little colored bodies.

Barack's Identity Politics

No racial component here folks!

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — If Barack Obama's historic campaign to become the first black president boosts black turnout as drastically as he predicts, he could crack decades of Republican dominance across the South.
That's a big "if."
Still, an Associated Press analysis of U.S. Census and voting data from the past four presidential elections shows a potentially dramatic impact should Obama fulfill his pledge to elevate black participation by 30%.
That would add nearly 1.8 million votes in 11 Southern states, the analysis shows, enough to tip the balance in several that have been Republican strongholds.

And why would he expect such gains? And why only if he's president?

The only reasonable explaination is that he expects black people to show up in droves never before seen...because he's black. Gotta support a brother don'tcha know?

It's nice to see the candidate of hope and change is still beholden to identity politics.

The McClellan "Fiasco"

From Michelle Malkin:

Reader Kevin B. e-mails what McClellan said in his press briefing on March 22, 2004 when asked about Richard Clarke’s book blasting the Bush Administration for 9/11 and CIA intelligence failures:

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he (Richard Clarke) had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he’s raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book.

Pot. Kettle.

More like at the time, McClellan was appalled by such disgusting backstabbing and called it what it was. Once he bowed out he realized he could do the same thing and get rich and loved for it.

So, we have a choice to make:
Either Scott McClellan is a liar, making this up for his 15 minutes in the spotlight to become a liberal hero, or he was a coward who had no courage to come forward and actually criticized others who did so.

With the massive paycheck, it seems pretty cut and dry to me.

And why in the hell are liberals celebrating this fool who they believe kept his mouth shut until it was too late to do anything about it?

Sanctimonious Fools

Further proving just how wrong those filthy rightwingers were about St. Obama, Trinty Church has recently issued a statement about Reverand White:

Mr. Moss invoked the 40th anniversary of the death of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., saying Mr. Wright’s character was being “assassinated in the public sphere because he has preached a social gospel on behalf of oppressed women, children and men in America and around the globe.”
...
“It is an indictment on Dr. Wright’s ministerial legacy,” Mr. Moss wrote, “to present his global ministry within a 15- or 30-second sound bite.”
He cited Mr. Wright’s development of ministries: “places for senior citizens, day care for children, pastoral care and counseling, health care, ministries for persons living with H.I.V./AIDS, hospice training, prison ministry, scholarships for thousands of students to attend historically black colleges, youth ministries, tutorial and computer programs, a church library, domestic violence programs, and scholarships and fellowships for women and men attending seminary.”

All of this, of course, is a neat little "look over there" trick, designed to deflect criticism.

No one at all is criticizing Wright for his contributions to humanity. They are criticizing him for his anti-Semetic and overtly anti-American remarks. And his seeming anti-white bias has put a couple people off as well.

Let us not forget that it was a 15-30 second video, shot on a phone that brought down Michael Richards, screaming "You can talk, you can talk, you're brave now motherf**ker. Throw his ass out. He's a n*gger! He's a n*gger! He's a n*gger! A n*gger, look, there's a n*gger!" No one accused anyone of a hit job on Richards. No one said his remarks were taken out of context. No one demanded we look at how funny he was (or wasn't) on Seinfeld. His remarks were taken at their racist face value and denounced.

It is not character assassination to point out someone's own comments. It is not character assassination to show 3 and 4 and 5 minute clips of them talking. In one of these, the man even realizes that he has offended "some white people", and much like Richards, tells them to get over it. "He's preaching the Bible", don'tchaknow? As long as there is no mitigating context that we're missing, (and in Wright's case, there clearly isn't), playing his unaltered comments is nothing more than exposing people to his sermons. To compare him to the late great Dr. King is absolutely dispicible. Whereas King preached tolerance and told the black community to accept their white brothers and sisters (in an age where he was being sprayed with firehoses and attacked by dogs), Wright preaches about the evils of the white society to the black man (while he lives in luxury). The two couldn't be further apart.

Mr. Moss added that the questioning of Mr. Wright added up to “an attack on the legacy of the African American Church which led and continues to lead the fight for human rights in America and around the world.”

And of course the parting racist shot. If you are against anything we do, you are an unmitigated racist, who just hates the black man.

This further strains Obama's claim that he had no clue what Wright stood for. The very next minister defends Wright from these charges, echoing Barack Obama's very same tone. "We can't judge a 40 year career by a stupid thing said on occasion." The question is...why not? That's how we judge people in politics. How often is the assinine "Gays and single mothers helped cause 9/11" comment brought up, even now that the man is dead? It was a sad comment, and it rightfully tarred Falwell. The church simply wants a pass on Wright's disgusting and reprehensible comments because he's a black man, and black men, according to seperationist liberation theory, are supposed to stick together against white racist oppression (which this most certainly is...not honest criticism). Being black is the ultimate, get out of stupid free card.

While Trinity church would like to point to Reverand Wright's years of service to the black community as a way to define him...it's more appropriate to define him by his deep connections to virulent racist Louis Farrakhan, his support for suicide bombers in Palestine, his characterization of 9/11 as a way for "people of color to remind us they were still around", and his many trips to state sponsors of terrorism.

Playing the victim card just doesn't quite cut it here.

"I'll Punch Anyone in the Nose Who Says it Again!"

Christopher Hitchens sounds almost unglued attacking Bush because of a relatively simple comparison between Iraq and Vietnam. Any argument which starts by "his faith is stupid can't go much of anywhere...

Via the Guardian:

How do I dislike President George Bush? Let me count the ways. Most of them have to do with his contented assumption that 'faith' is, in and of itself, a virtue. This self-satisfied mentality helps explain almost everything, from the smug expression on his face to the way in which, as governor of Texas, he signed all those death warrants without losing a second's composure.
It explains the way in which he embraced ex-KGB goon Vladimir Putin, citing as the basis of a beautiful relationship the fact that Putin was wearing a crucifix. (Has Putin been seen wearing that crucifix before or since? Did his advisers tell him that the President of the United States was that easy a pushover?)
Comment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To invoke Vietnam was a blunder too far for Bush


The Presidents's crass comparison between Iraq and war in south east Asia was the most ludicrous misreading of history

Christopher Hitchens
Sunday August 26, 2007
The Observer


How do I dislike President George Bush? Let me count the ways. Most of them have to do with his contented assumption that 'faith' is, in and of itself, a virtue. This self-satisfied mentality helps explain almost everything, from the smug expression on his face to the way in which, as governor of Texas, he signed all those death warrants without losing a second's composure.
It explains the way in which he embraced ex-KGB goon Vladimir Putin, citing as the basis of a beautiful relationship the fact that Putin was wearing a crucifix. (Has Putin been seen wearing that crucifix before or since? Did his advisers tell him that the President of the United States was that easy a pushover?)
It also explains the unforgivable intervention that Bush made into the private life of the Schiavo family: leaving his Texas ranch to try and keep 'alive' a woman whose autopsy showed that her brain had melted to below flatline a long time before. Here is a man who believes the 'jury' is still 'out' on whether we evolved as a species, who regards stem cell research as something profane, who affects the odd belief that Islam is 'a religion of peace'.

That all of that, except for the bit about Islam, is completely irrelevant to the issue is really the strong point of the article, and really the rest of the article doesn't get much better from there.

Then, addressing the convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars last week, the President came thundering down the pike to announce that a defeat in Iraq would be - guess what? - another Vietnam. As my hand smacks my brow, and as I ask myself not for the first time if Mr Bush suffers from some sort of political death wish, I quickly restate the reasons why he is wrong to join with his most venomous and ignorant critics in making this case.

And from there, Hitchens writes out 13 points on why he's smarter about Iraq than ANYONE ELSE. They're really not worth reprinting here, because none of the 13 are even relevant to the discussion. To be glib, let me list 3 reasons why Hitchens should be laughed out of the room.

1) Saddam is dead. The Baathists are not in power. As such, no matter how brilliant Hitchens history lesson is...it tells us nothing. We are fighting various forces..and any Baathists among them are so small in number as to have virtually no effect on the debate.
2) There were differences between the Soviets and The Communist Chinese as well. That they weren't identical doesn't mean they had no similarities-or that they can't be compared. If for no other reason, Saddam and the North Vietnamese can be compared for the brutal torture of their enemies and the deaths of millions. That's no small similarity and is more relevant to the debate than all 13 of Hitchen's quotes combined. And the wars can be compared if for no other reason than that our enemies are trying to break the American will to fight...not to beat our military. Again, not a small difference.
3) And most importantly...Hitchens 13 points don't matter because none of them even ADDRESSES Bush's point.

That's right, in calling Bush an idiot that he completely dances around the comment Bush made. Bush never claimed that the lead up to the two wars was identical, or that Saddam and the Vietnamese were in cohoots. What was Bush's point again?

Oh yes. I remember:

Then, addressing the convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars last week, the President came thundering down the pike to announce that a defeat in Iraq would be - guess what? - another Vietnam.

Bush is arguing that leaving Iraq would create another humanitarian crisis, by leaving the citizens open to mass slaughter. Hitchens dismisses this by pointing out (Correctly) that Saddam killed his own citizens before we came. So? How would that mitigate our responsibility for handing over the citizenry to al Quida? And he dismisses the evil that was the North Vietnamese out of hand.

I cannot see how any self-respecting Republican can look at this record without wincing and moaning with shame or how any former friend of the Vietnamese can equate them with either a fascist dictatorship or a nihilistic Islamist death-squad campaign. And now Bush has joined forces with anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan in making the two struggles morally equivalent.

How DARE Bush compare a corrupt regime that was responsible for millions dead and endless torture to...well, another corrupt regime that was responsible for millions dead and endless torture? Why, that's something that's makes Hitchens white wash look kinda like the way it happened.

The Aclu Chooses the Wrong Side AGAIN!

Not That I think the original idea will work...

Cities sue gangs in bid to stop violence

But the ACLU opposing it certainly gives me a reason to support it.

FORT WORTH, Texas - Fed up with deadly drive-by shootings, incessant drug dealing and graffiti, cities nationwide are trying a different tactic to combat gangs: They're suing them.
Fort Worth and San Francisco are among the latest to file lawsuits against gang members, asking courts for injunctions barring them from hanging out together on street corners, in cars or anywhere else in certain areas.
The injunctions are aimed at disrupting gang activity before it can escalate. They also give police legal reasons to stop and question gang members, who often are found with drugs or weapons, authorities said. In some cases, they don't allow gang members to even talk to people passing in cars or to carry spray paint.
"It is another tool," said Kevin Rousseau, a Tarrant County assistant prosecutor in Fort Worth, which recently filed its first civil injunction against a gang. "This is more of a proactive approach."

It's an odd approach. Demanding that people who routinely disobey the law...follow a new set of laws. But the approach is not without it's charm, in that it gives the police new tools to attack gangs and take them down.

But the best feature of this? The ACLU don't like it!

But critics say such lawsuits go too far, limiting otherwise lawful activities and unfairly targeting minority youth.
"If you're barring people from talking in the streets, it's difficult to tell if they're gang members or if they're people discussing issues," said Peter Bibring, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. "And it's all the more troubling because it doesn't seem to be effective."

Of course, they know this argument is crap. Injunctions are against specific people. As are all court orders. In the same way that, if you file a restraining order against your Hispanic neighbor-it doesn't apply to all Hispanics, this too doesn't give the police cart blanche to pull over "minorities".
Then again, the ACLU never argues the facts of the case, nor are they particularly truthful. They just argue extreme rhetoric and accuse their opponents of everything short of sacrificing children to the cloud god to make it rain.

Hell, it's not like the ACLU actually cares how their actions affect everyone else. They just like feeling good about themselves at night.
What a group of pricks.

Anything Except Letting them Defend Themselves

We have a slightly delayed solution to Virginia Tech...DOOR LOCKS!

BLACKSBURG, Va. - After a student gunman killed four of his classmates and his German teacher and then left, Derek O'Dell had to wedge one of his sneakers under the classroom door to keep the attacker from returning to kill even more.
There was no lock on the door to protect Derek and his wounded classmates against Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 30 students and faculty members, plus himself, at Virginia Tech's Norris Hall. Two others were killed in a dormitory.
Safety experts say that while school officials across the nation re-evaluate campus safety in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech tragedy, many are overlooking a simple solution: putting locks on the inside of classroom doors.

Of course, the solution is anything other than actually arming the student body. Most of the people Seung Hui Cho gunned down were in the hallways, or those that he shot through doors. What this would've done, in effect, is trap the few students in the halls who were seeking refuge. The very article shows why this wouldn't have worked:

O'Dell was shot in one arm, but he and some classmates barricaded the door to Room 207 with his shoe and their bodies — "the heaviest thing in the room was bolted down and the desks were pretty flimsy," he said — as Cho returned twice to try to finish them off. When he couldn't get in, Cho stepped back each time and fired a round into the door, one shot penetrating O'Dell's black fleece jacket but missing his body.
"It's kind of crazy to think that you have 1 1/2 or 2 inches of wood between you and a person with a gun who just killed half your classmates," said O'Dell, who is working at a veterinary clinic for the summer.

When Cho couldn't get in, he just shot through the door, in this case, hitting a student. In another case, he shot through the door killing teacher Liviu Librescu, 75, as teh teacher barracaded the door with his own body to give his students a chance to escape.

At the end of the day, the best solution costs the school nothing. And that solution is to let the students be armed. To date, there has never been a shooting rampage that has happened on an armed populous. There have, however, been numerous attempts that have been stopped by an armed citizen. If a killer wants to massacre people, it's really quite stupid to suspect that a lock will stop him.

Hell, it doesn't even stop a robber.

A whole Lotta WTF

Understanding humanity means taking a look not only at our highs, but also our lows.
For example:

Accused grave robbers dodge sex charges

MADISON, Wis. - Three men who dug up a young woman's corpse to have sex with it after seeing her obituary photo cannot be charged with attempted sexual assault because Wisconsin has no law against necrophilia, an appeals court ruled Thursday.
A judge was correct to dismiss the charges against twin brothers Nicholas and Alexander Grunke and Dustin Radke, all 21, because lawmakers never intended to criminalize sex with a corpse, the District 4 Court of Appeals said in a 3-0 ruling.
The three men went to a cemetery in Cassville in southwestern Wisconsin on Sept. 2 to remove the body of Laura Tennessen, 20, who had been killed the week before in a motorcycle crash.
They said the men had seen an obituary of Tennessen with her photo and wanted to dig up her body to have sexual intercourse. Such an act is known as necrophilia.

There's something inherently wrong with someone who looks at an obituary picture and thinks "God, she's hot. Let's go have sex with her corpse." This is a sad day for Wisconsin, for the Tennessen family, and for our system of law in general.
I repeat: "If you knowingly wish to have sex with a dead body. You are fucked up, and should be locked away."

The men were charged with attempted third-degree sexual assault and misdemeanor attempted theft charges. But Grant County Circuit Judge George Curry dismissed the sexual assault charges in September, saying no Wisconsin law addressed necrophilia. Prosecutors appealed his ruling.
At issue is a provision in the sexual assault law saying criminal penalties apply "whether a victim is dead or alive at the time of the sexual contact or sexual intercourse."
The appeals court said the law was ambiguous but the most reasonable interpretation was that it does not ban necrophilia. Instead, the court said, the law was meant to make sure prosecutors could bring sexual assault charges in rape-murder cases in which the victim ends up dead.

The ambiguity, of course, doesn't exist. The wording of the law is crystal clear. But, as is often the case with liberal judges, what the law says doesn't matter so much as what they WANT the law to say.
This imaginary distinction would be laughable if it wasn't so disgusting. Murdering your rape victim doesn't in any way, shape, or form protect you from a rape charge once the body is found. No one I have ever heard of has raised the defense "I can't be charged with rape, cause she's dead!" Evidence of forcable sex in a murder victim is often considered ipso facto evidence of rape.
The law was made to erase the need to prove a victim was alive to charge with sexual assault. That it say penalties apply "whether or not the victim is alive", not "whether or not the attacker killed the victim before or after the assault", clearly puts this crap to rest. Both judges are pretending that there's some magical Bubblegum Clause that specifies that a murder has to be involved, when the law clearly is made to punish sexual contact with a victim who can't say no due to death.

As the old saying goes, why let the facts get in the way of a good story.

We've gone from "as long as it's between consenting adults" to "as long as she can't say no"....

A Patriotism Foul!

Clinton cries foul!

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that a top Pentagon official did not intend to impugn her patriotism by suggesting her questions about U.S. planning in Iraq boosts enemy propaganda.
At the same time, Gates defended his aide and the author of the letter, Undersecretary for Policy Eric Edelman, calling him "a valued member" who provides "wise counsel and years of experience (that) are critically important to the many pressing policy issues facing the military."

Of course, the staffer never questioned her patriotism. And even if he had, her patriotism, or lack thereof, is irrelevant. Anytime a liberal (and sometimes an anti-war conservative) is confronted with the very real fact that al Quida is listening in to our debates, and is hoping that lack of unity will lead to our retreat, they hoop and hollar about their patriotism being called into question. The idea that Bush supporters use patriotism attacks is an invention of the left to reframe the debate away from the actual impact of their ideas. Since we don't live in a vacuum, the actual consequences of our actions must be examined.
It's a shame Gates backed away and apologized for a slight that never occured. If Senator Clinton doesn't wish to have her words scrunitized, or her ideas subjected to a harsh dose of reality, perhaps she should remain silent. Otherwise, she's fair game for ridicule if her ideas are terrible.

The right has a massive problem of backing down whenever some buffoon cries about hurt feelings. "My patriotic nerve got hurt!" Tough, that's life.

The clear cut truth of the matter is this: everyone who pushes for a withdrawl, is pushing for another American loss on the battlefield, to a bunch of cave dwelling savages. If you don't mind this, that's fine, push for withdrawl. But don't cry foul when someone brings up that a loss for us means a win for al Quida. That's simple reality folks.
And if you are arguing that we should turn over control of Iraq (and leave our Iraqi allies) to the very savages who have been raping and murdering the Iraqis for 4 years now...don't get upset when someone questions your humanity.

Bush Speaks the Obvious

In 'surge of facts,' Bush emphasizes Al Qaeda-Iraq link

On Tuesday President George W. Bush delivered what some have called his longest, most detailed argument yet that Al Qaeda in Iraq is linked to the central Al Qaeda organization. Speaking to 300 troops at Charleston Air Force Base in South Carolina, the president argued that a new unclassified report clearly indicated a connection between the Al Qaeda who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks and Al Qaeda in Iraq, which is largely believed to be composed of a strong majority of Iraqi nationals. Politicians, intelligence officials, and regional analysts have met Mr. Bush's recent assertions with much skepticism.
In his address Bush made it clear that he intended to rebut those who accused him of drawing links between the two organizations to create a "distraction from the real war on terror." In his speech, reprinted on the official White House website, Bush accused those who contested his position of having problems "with the facts."
Here's the bottom line: Al Qaida in Iraq is run by foreign leaders loyal to Osama bin Laden. Like bin Laden, they are cold-blooded killers who murder the innocent to achieve al Qaida's political objectives. Yet despite all the evidence, some will tell you that al Qaida in Iraq is not really al Qaida – and not really a threat to America. Well, that's like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun, and saying he's probably just there to cash a check.

For anyone with an IQ above room temperature, this comes as no surprise. The news worthiness of this article comes not from Bush's relatively obvious statements, but from the downright ridiculous hem and haw that came from the left of the aisle:

White House officials have ardently defended Bush's speech, but many Democratic congressmen criticized the president of exaggerating the connection between the two groups, reports The New York Times.
Democratic lawmakers accused Mr. Bush of overstating those ties to provide a basis for continuing the American presence in Iraq. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid (D) of Nevada, said Mr. Bush was "trying to justify claims that have long ago been proven to be misleading."

This is much akin to trying to tell you that the local boy scout troop in your area is not affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America. Or that the Michigan Republican party has absolutely no connection to the nationwide righties. Or that the Louisiana ACLU has no ties the national ACLU. If you made any of these absolutely stupid remarks...youd be laughed out of the room. That some people are trying to argue that there is no connection between al Quida in Iraq, and al Quida...shows a deeply ingenuous desire to confuse and mislead the American people. And of course, this claim that the two are unrelated is impossible to contain under even a feather's weight of scrutiny, so the opposition seeks to reframe the debate:

"I think what the president is saying is in some sense fundamentally misleading," said Robert Grenier, former head of the counter-terrorism center at the CIA as well as the agency's mission manager for the war in Iraq. "If he means to suggest the invasion of Iraq has not created more jihadists bent on killing Americans, and that if Iraq hadn't been there as a magnet they would have been attracted somewhere else, that's completely disingenuous."
The war "has convinced many Muslims that the United States is the enemy of Islam and is attacking Muslims, and they have become jihadists as a result of their experience in Iraq," Grenier said.

Or

"The Americans have been playing up the role of Al Qaeda in the context of the insurgency.... Al Qaeda is clearly an important segment in the counterinsurgency campaign, but it's not the only one. It may not be the biggest quantitative factor but qualitatively they are important," says Martin Navias, a counterterrorism expert at the Centre for Defence Studies at King's College in London.

But those questions are not the debate. We don't care whether or not some Muslims see this as a war on Islam and have joined al Quida, nor is ANYONE on the President's side claiming that al Quida is the only threat in Iraq. The question is "Are they connected?" And the answer, as even the opposition grudgingly admits is yes, though they try to spin it...

Bush's speech may have misinterpreted the National Intelligence Estimate report upon which he based his argument say a number of intelligence officials and counterterrorism experts. The report described Al Qaeda in Iraq as an "affiliate" of the central Al Qaeda organization currently flourishing in Pakistan, reports The Washington Post. However, the report did not say that the Iraq group took orders from the main Al Qaeda organization. Rather it indicated that Al Qaeda might attempt to utilize the Iraq organization's "contacts and capabilities" for fundraising and recruiting.
That conclusion prompted Democrats and others to say that al-Qaeda is not running the war, but is instead benefiting from it, and thus that the conflict has increased the terrorist threat rather than diminished it.

So, al Quida is directly benefitting from the war, but there's NO CONNECTION! As proof, Democrats say that the Iraq branch doesn't take direct marching orders, which means nothing. The ford plant chief in Missouri doesn't call up the head of Ford every morning to ask what he should do, but it doesn't mean they're not connected. That claim is bordering on the insane. By that logic, I could claim that baseball players who ignore what their managers tell them are not part of the team. Or that quarter backs who call audibles are clearly not affiliated with their coaches.

And furthermore, what does this prove? Terrorist cells are, by their very nature, fractured...so that if one cell is caught they can't tell anything about other groups.

Furthermore, the mythical differences between al Quida in Iraq and al Quida everywhere else don't stand up to even a brief overview:

Before his death, there was clearly connection between Zawahiri and Zarqawi, and even praised him in death.

And our new bundle of joy leader in Iraq ABU HAMZA AL-MUHAJER has clear ties to Zawahiri and the endorcement of Osama himself. So, the two leaders of al Quida in Iraq have clear ties to the world wide group's leader and #2, but again, no connection, move along.

And even the high ranking Iraqi who was caught (and is being touted as proof of AQI's Iraqi membership) seems to have direct ties to Osama.

Bottom line:
If Bush's claims that al Quida in Iraq and al Quida are linked (which, name alone, isn't that much of a stretch), then it is a delusion that Osama bin Ladin, al Zawahiri, al Zarqawi, and virtually every ranking member of the two supposedly unaffiliated groups share.

And if Democratic leaders aren't willing to admit that much, then why in God's name should we listen to anything they say about the war in Iraq period?

Fox News: The Proof Piles Up

Driving home, listening to the talk radio FOX affiliate in St. Louis, an ad came on that basically forced me to admit how ridiculously conservative leaning FOX really is.

The ad was about having a "fair and balanced" understanding of Global Warming. Of course, all the books on the matter leaned the same way, including:

Silent Spring by Rachel Carson
Earth in the Balance by Al Gore
An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore

That's right. They all leaned to the LEFT.
Despite teh famous right wing bias of FOX, here they were inviting their listeners to get the facts about Global Warming from ridiculously biased, factually challenged, left wing books.

Man, I see why liberals think FOX is so conservative...

Who Needs Reading and Writing?

Schools in Australia give up on trying to provide relevant education at all, and instead is offering classes in prostitution.

H/T Moonbattery

Funding for tertiary courses in prostitution could be considered under changes aimed at boosting quality and relevance in the sector, education officials say.
But MPs on Parliament's education and science select committee were told today that although courses in the world's oldest profession might be considered if providers put them forward, they would still have to meet tight criteria to get funding.

Ignoring the jokes I could easily make about tight criteria, c'mon. Wasting money on teaching kids prostitution? This is a continued leftist theme: waste tax payer money on sexing up the kids (or a side effect, wasting tax payer money on putting hookers through "quality testing").

Tertiary Education Minister Michael Cullen has said the changes are aimed at increasing the "quality and relevance" of courses.
However they have raised questions regarding the TEC's actual control over individual courses.

Forget how much control the TEC has, the question should be "can they rationally make choices?" Seriously, how relevant can a class on selling your body for money possibly be? I think quite a few people may get upset by their tax dollars getting spent on subsidizing girls having sex with strangers, and on "professors" fulfilling their voyuerism by watching (how else would "quality" be determined).
I can almost accept the argument that the government has no continued interest in keeping prostitution illegal. But neither does it have any interest in state funding of hopeful future hookers.

National Party education spokeswoman Katherine Rich said she was concerned by the TEC's apparent "agnostic" attitude towards the content of courses under the new system.
She questioned whether it might lead to a continuing proliferation of courses such as twilight golf seen under the old system.

The purpose of colleges are to provide students with accurate and RELEVANT information that will help them succeed in life, and make them more productive members of society. Not only is no training actually needed to have sex for money, but the classes have no relevancy. Liberals seem to have a ridiculous fascination with forcing sex down people's throats (yes, the pun's intended), and tossing the bill to the general public.

In short, your sexual proclivities are no longer private when you decide to exercize them in the lobby of your office. You cannot reasonably expect no one to comment when you're pulling out pictures of what "you did in the bedroom last night". Your "private business" is no longer private when you air it out in the public square.

More "private affairs" that those "damn nosy conservatives" keep making a big deal out of:

'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'
Do Porn Classes Have Merit?
The NEA's "Artwork"
And let's not forget the latest...
Sex Ed for Kindergarteners 'Right Thing to Do,' Says Obama

Who Needs Protection for Doing the Right Thing?

Democrats seek to water down provisions that would protect whistle blowers against lawsuits from those they report.

From the Washington Post:

Democrats are trying to pull a provision from a homeland security bill that will protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leadership aides.

This John Doe Legislation was proposed after the Flying Imams incident, and the subsequent threatened lawsuit. The idea being that anyone who reported suspicious behavior shouldn't be able to be sued after the fact.

“Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police or law enforcement,” Mr. King said in an interview last night.
...
“I don't see how you can have a homeland security bill without protecting people who come forward to report suspicious activity,” Mr. King said.

But in true Democrat fashion-being Politically Correct is more important than keeping the public safe:

Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, initially opposed the legislation for fear it would lead to racial profiling.

Of course, MUSLIMS MUST BE PROTECTED! AT ALL COSTS!
You know, even if they're acting illegally, or just to terrify the other passengers.
This is so stupid it makes my head hurt. People who are acting suspiciously should be reported. And if they're doing nothing wrong, it teaches them not to act like that in the future. It MAY be that the guy next door is just looking in the window of your neighbors house to see if their best friend is home. They also could be a robber looking to steal everything they own.

But if you can get sued for being wrong...will you call the cops?

Garbage Suit Dismissed as Such

Plame's lawsuit goes the way of the Dodo:

WASHINGTON - A federal judge dismissed former CIA operative Valerie Plame's lawsuit against members of the Bush administration Thursday, eliminating one of the last courtroom remnants of the leak scandal.
Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had accused Vice President Dick Cheney and others of conspiring to leak her identity in 2003. Plame said that violated her privacy rights and was illegal retribution for her husband's criticism of the administration.

Yawn. There is no right to privacy about public facts. If someone "leaked" the fact that I work for Complete Music as a DJ, I have no legal recourse. I indeed work for Complete Music, and am indeed a DJ. Since she was not a covert agent (and he identity wasn't therefore protected by law), she doesn't have a case.
It's just a shame that the judge couldn't say it to her like that.

And since her identity was "leaked" by Armitage, not Libby, Bush, Cheney or Spongebob, she cannot sue anyone other than Armitage.

What the judge should've said, "Look guys, it was fun while it lasted, but your 15 minutes are over. We all know no crime was committed and your rights weren't violated, so shut up already and go away."

You Know You're Full of Crap

When even your own allies aren't backing you up...

It's bad enough for Michael Moore that CNN, MTV, and even various liberal rags are ripping his new movie to pieces. Now AP jumps on the bandwagon:

SiCKO patients got VIP treatment in Cuba

HAVANA (Reuters) - Three New York rescue workers injured in the September 11 attacks got the best treatment Cuba can offer in Michael Moore's film critique of U.S. health care, the Cuban doctors who attended them said this week.
The 9/11 responders spent 10 days on the 19th floor of Cuba's flagship hospital with a view of the Caribbean sea, a sharp contrast to many Cuban hospitals that are crumbling, badly lit, and which lack equipment and medicines.
...
The movie, "SiCKo," has stirred heated debate in the United States since opening in June.
Moore used Cuba to argue that other countries are providing better health care to its citizens than the United States with far fewer resources, putting the blame on profit-driven U.S. pharmaceutical and medical insurance industries.
...
But the hospital where SiCKO's patients were treated is an exception in Cuba, where patients of many other hospitals complain they have to take their own sheets and food.

Despite the fact that most of the people cannibalizing Moore agree with his basic premise that America needs socialized health care, his work is just too ridiculous and shoddy for them to swallow. The man is that laughable as a "documentary director". He can't even sell snake oil to people who are in the market for snake oil.

Even the intellectually bankrupt have problems with the idea that Cuba is a superior system (in any way) to our own. The rest of us realize that whether it be Cuba, Canada or our very own VA, socialized health care is a dismal failure.

But when confronted with criticism, Moore just points to his earlier work. "It was criticized too." Yes, Michael. It was. For the same exact reasons:
It was sloppy, lazy, filled with innuendo, light on facts, and little more than party line. And it was fiction wrapped up in the guise of fact.

Gore Proves Himself Unfit to Save Environment

The schmuck serves endangered animal at a wedding? What a hypocrite!

Gore's message loses bite

ONLY one week after Live Earth, Al Gore's green credentials slipped while hosting his daughter's wedding in Beverly Hills.
Gore and his guests at the weekend ceremony dined on Chilean sea bass - arguably one of the world's most threatened fish species.
Also known as Patagonian toothfish, the species is under pressure from illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing activities in the Southern Ocean, jeopardising the sustainability of remaining stocks.
The species is currently managed by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Living Marine Resources, the body which introduced a catch and trade documentation scheme as an attempt to tackle illegal poaching of this species.
Working with non-government organisations, the Humane Society International's focus is now on pursuit of illegal fishing operators who, in the rush to cash in on the highly valued species, plunder stocks with no regard for sustainability.
It has been estimated that more than 50 per cent of toothfish traded is illegally caught, and includes juveniles vital to the ongoing toothfish population.
For many years HSI has expressed concern over the huge numbers of seabirds that die each year on the hooks of illegally set demersal longlines, threatening the long-term viability of those populations.
Yet, while legal operators in the Southern Ocean are obliged to follow strict environmental rules, illegal operators undermine the sustainability of their fishing operations.
Recently, HSI petitioned the US Government asking that they certify and sanction Spain for allowing Spanish nationals known to engage in pirate fishing operations to continue to harvest toothfish in a declared conservation area.
Success would allow the US Government to embargo Spanish toothfish imports until such time as Spain demonstrates compliance of its nationals with international law and agreements.
As we await a response from the US, thousands of endangered seabirds die, while the sustainability of the Patagonian toothfish and the legal fishing industry inches closer to the brink of extinction.
A strong and concerted effort by Governments, the fishing industry, the conservation community and by the public which drives consumer demand, is required to put an end to pirate fishing operations in the Southern Ocean - otherwise the ecological sustainability of the toothfish is at risk.
And Al Gore could choose something else to eat.

Once again proving that there's one set of rules for him, and another for everyone else, Gore shows his commitment to the environment by eating endangered fish. That's just great.

Sorry, Al, but if you're going to make a species extinct, you lose my vote for the person who needs to be put in charge of "saving the planet."

Congress Deserves it's Numbers

Bush is ridiculously having to beg Congress to let military leaders make military decisions in Iraq?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070719/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

So after demanding that Bush change strategy in Iraq, and he does, the asshats in Congress demand retreat, because Bush followed their original advice. Despite the fact that the surge is working and the majority of soldiers are happy with the idea of actually tracking down the enemy, buffoons like Harry Reid comment that the opinions of the generals on the ground are irrelevant. "If they tell me we are making progress, I won't believe them."

And in this vein, Congress spent all night debating a withdrawl. Ignoring that this is a blatant usurping of war powers, now that they can't get the withdrawl passed, the Dems are now refusing to pass a funding bill...breaking that famous promise that they'd keep our troops funded and continue to work in their best interests.

Bush needs to tell this group of clowns that if they somehow manage to pass a withdrawl bill, that he'll just ignore it as Congress is not Constitutionally allowed to pass such a bill.

Listening to the Democrats yammer endlessly about the lack of Progress in Iraq is especially ridiculous with the news that we captured a top Iraqi al Quida operative today.
Other spectacular "failures":
Rockets Nutralized
Insurgent Commander Killed
Caches Turned Over
Iraqis Lead Soldiers to Caches
Safe Haven Destroyed, Bad Guys Detained

The list goes on...

But it's clear to see. The war is not the failure the liberals wish it to be.