What the Heck was I Thinking!?

Hyscience.com posts about the latest comments by the Iraqi Foreign Minister. He has seen warring sects up close. Now he uses that to describe the behavior of the Congressional leaders. How ironic:

Iraqi Foreign Minister Calls The Bitter Partisan Squabbles In Washington For What They Are: “Warring Sects.” :: Iraq :: Hyscience

Hoshiyar Zebari, Iraq’s Foreign Minister, has called all the disarray and the appalling partisan politics going on in Washington for what they are: (In referring to Iraq’s) “warring sects,” one could say that the same applies here in our own country.

Source: Iraqi Foreign Minister Calls The Bitter Partisan Squabbles In Washington For What They Are: “Warring Sects.” :: Iraq :: Hyscience

You may recall that Rosie O’Donnell claimed that 9/11 was a conspiracy. Her argument, and that of many others in the moonbat conspiracy crowd, was that these jets couldn’t have cause such damage to the buildings.

Maybe they should explain how this happened:

Fiery crash collapses California freeway - Yahoo! News

OAKLAND, Calif. - A heavily traveled section of freeway that funnels traffic off the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge collapsed early Sunday after a gasoline tanker truck overturned and erupted into flames, authorities said.

Flames shot 200 feet in the air and the heat was intense enough to melt part of the freeway and cause the collapse…

So plain old gasoline can cause a fire big enough and intense enough to collapse a freeway overpass. Maybe nearly the same amount of jet fuel can cause similar fatigue and weakening in building structures that have already been stressed by a large mass being rammed into the side of the building.

Source: Fiery crash collapses California freeway - Yahoo! News

Captain Ed from Captain’s Quarters blog posts about a crazed liberal anti-gun zealot. Actually, that’s a slam against the anti-gun zealots. This guy is a radical, police-state-loving, anti-constitutionalist, anti-bill-of-rights putz!
If this is what our former diplomats demonstrate as their thinking power and their adherence to the US constitution, I fear we’ve made more enemies and confused more friends with the State Department over the past 30 or 40 years than any efforts in the war against the Islamo-fascists.
After presenting his gun loving credentials, Dan Simpson goes on to indicate how he’d implement Stalinist/Maoist policies and procedures to free the US of guns.

toledoblade.com — The disarming of America
Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.

He goes downhill from there, advocating special police squads to clear areas. He does miss one key point about the Blacksburg shootings at VT - in a place where guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. The law abiding citizens will only have furniture and their bodies to protect themselves and their loved ones.
The Soviet Union, Communist China, and even Iraq are clear demonstrations of  how hard it is to completely scrub an area of guns.
Our prisons may not have guns in the population, but they do have make-shift weapons that kill other people. Will knives be next on Mr. Simpson’s list?
He should change his last name to Simpleton, it makes better sense.
Doh!

Powered by ScribeFire.

Captain Ed, from Captain’s Quarters Blog and Blog Talk Radio, posts about an Ala Dershowitz article in FrontPage magazine.com. In the original article, and Captain’s Quarters blog post, the issue is Jimmy Carter’s integrity.

It shouldn’t be such a stretch to believe that Carter is tainted. His recent comments on last Summer’s war between Hizballah, Syria, Lebanon and Israel point to his evident anti-Semitism. Is it any wonder that he’d take money from like-minded people?

FrontPage magazine.com :: The Real Jimmy Carter by Alan M. Dershowitz

Recent disclosures of Carter’s extensive financial connections to Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia, had deeply shaken my belief in his integrity. When I was first told that he received a monetary reward in the name of Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, and kept the money, even after Harvard returned money from the same source because of its anti-Semitic history, I simply did not believe it. How could a man of such apparent integrity enrich himself with dirty money from so dirty a source?

It’s good that this kind of information comes out in public. Absent that, people wouldn’t have evidence of Carter’s sympathies for this bigoted group.

Source: FrontPage magazine.com :: The Real Jimmy Carter by Alan M. Dershowitz

Oliver North posts at RealClearPolitics - Articles - Losers

One paragraph in particular jumped out at me:

One e-mail from Ramadi, Iraq observed: “Good thing this guy Reid wasn’t around in 1940 when Winston Churchill promised the people of Great Britain nothing but ‘blood, toil, tears and sweat.’” Another, a Guardsman who recently returned from Mesopotamia with a Purple Heart, noted that Reid has become “Al Qaeda’s most powerful ally.” A Marine corporal I last saw along the banks of the Tigris River — now a Mississippi State University student — asked me, “Do those people who think we’ve lost this war have any idea what things will be like if we really do lose?” It’s an important question that none of the potentates on the Potomac who just voted to withdraw U.S. troops appear willing to address. (emphasis mine)

The first emphasis is one that deserves to printed as a headline in every paper in the country. The propaganda value of Reid’s remarks is immense - to the enemy.

The second emphasis in the quote is the question of the day to the Democrats. They don’t appear to care about the consequences of their choices. They want to pull our troops out not because it’s a sound, moral or militarily sensible thing to do. They want to pull the troops out because then they can say they took charge and became the country’s leaders.

What will they say when Iraq turns into a Sunni-Shia battlefield or worse, a killing field? What will they say when Al Qaeda or some other terrorist group from the region comes to the US and attacks us again?

Source: RealClearPolitics - Articles - Losers

Senator Lieberman’s speech against the GWOT supplemental bill has some pointed criticism of the Democrats’ arguments. One side benefit is that he also points out why they would be an absolute disaster as ”535 Generals” in managing that war. From The Tank on National Review Online

When we say that U.S. troops shouldn’t be “policing a civil war,” that their operations should be restricted to this narrow list of missions, what does this actually mean? To begin with, it means that our troops will not be allowed to protect the Iraqi people from the insurgents and militias who are trying to terrorize and kill them. Instead of restoring basic security, which General Petraeus has argued should be the central focus of any counterinsurgency campaign, it means our soldiers would instead be ordered, by force of this proposed law, not to stop the sectarian violence happening all around them - no matter how vicious or horrific it becomes.

In short, it means telling our troops to deliberately and consciously turn their backs on ethnic cleansing, to turn their backs on the slaughter of innocent civilians - men, women, and children singled out and killed on the basis of their religion alone. It means turning our backs on the policies that led us to intervene in the civil war in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the principles that today lead many of us to call for intervention in Darfur.

This kind of nonsensical ruleset for fighting a war is a guarantee for defeat. This isn’t a boxing match with Marquis of Queensbury rules. It’s a war. The enemy will use every tactic available to try to avoid a confrontation with our superior military forces. Restrictive rules of engagement are the biggest problem our military face in such a situation.

Mr. Lieberman goes on:

This makes no moral sense at all.

It also makes no strategic or military sense either. (emphasis mine)

Lacking moral sense and strategic or military sense is not a good set of qualities for leaders - especially military leaders. Having pointed out that members of Congress on the Democrat side propose conditions that lack these sensibilities, Mr. Lieberman proceeds to point out that the Majority Leader in the Senate lacks these sensibilities:

The sectarian violence that the Majority Leader says he wants to order American troops to stop policing, in other words, is the very same sectarian violence that Al Qaeda hopes to ride to victory. The suggestion that we can draw a bright legislative line between stopping terrorists in Iraq and stopping civil war in Iraq flies in the face of this reality.

It doesn’t sound like a ringing endorsement for the Democrats, if you ask me.

Source: The Tank on National Review Online

Only in the past few days have I seen much attention paid to Harry the Loser’s flip-flopping positions and statements. I noticed two such reports in the past few days. Now Wizbang Blog has posted on the topic.

Any way the wind blows… - Wizbang

It seems that attitude is contagious, and has infected House Majority Leader Harry Reid. Harry Reid yesterday called General David Petraeus a liar in saying that progress has been made in Iraq. On January 27, the United States Senate voted unanimously to confirm Petraeus as commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq. In other words, Reid was for General Petraeus before he was against him.

It’s about time the Loser and his fellow defeatists were held up to public scrutiny of their actions and words.

Source: Any way the wind blows… - Wizbang

Jim Addison at Wizbang Blog posts about Harry Reid (L - Nev.) twisting Gen. Petraeus’s words about victory in Iraq. In the quote below, I noted the complete flip-flop Reid has taken in less than 5 months - I also note that this has not made it to any legacy source. Must not be news

Reid calls General Petraeus a liar - Wizbang

Harry Reid was decrying timetables and “defunding” as recently as December, and voted to confirm General Petraeus. Now he does a complete turnabout on both, and calls the General a liar (bet he wouldn’t do that to the General’s face outside). (emphasis mine)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Mohammad at IRAQ THE MODEL asks several questions about journalistic reaction to terrorist atrocities. All emphasis is mine.

Where are the media when terrorists use chlorine poisonous gas, acids, and ball bearings to kill and hurt more and more civilians in utter disregard to all written and unwritten laws, ethics and values? I understand it’s the duty of the media to practice scrutiny over the work of governments but isn’t it equally their duty to expose criminals and their evil deeds?

It’s frustrating to see the media turn a blind eye to the nature of the crimes and open fire on an honest endeavor to restore peace to a bleeding nation. I’m sure the terrorists are pleased by the coverage. Why not, when their crimes are being portrayed as successful breakthroughs against the efforts of Iraq and America it’s likely motivating them to keep up the killing.

Would it be “hate speech” to expose the terrorists for what they are? I think our hate for their crimes must not be hidden; there is no shame in hating those blood-thirsty monsters. Even more appalling I see and hear some people who think the solution is to end the war from our end and I can’t find an argument more naïve than this - I’ve seen enough wars in my life that I can’t remember a day when there was peace and I hate wars more than they can imagine. But we didn’t start his war; it’s the terrorists who started this war against life.

I for one would like to hear a few journalists and liberal politicians answer these kinds of inconvenient questions.

Source: IRAQ THE MODEL

No, not John Kerry! This time it’s Harry Reid doing the Democrat rope-a-dope on an issue. Robert Novak reports:

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Partial Pro-Life Democrats

Partial Pro-Life Democrats By Robert Novak WASHINGTON — When the Supreme Court Wednesday upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act passed by Congress in 2003, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told a press conference: “I would only say that this isn’t the only decision that a lot of us wish that [Justice Samuel] Alito weren’t there and [former Justice Sandra Day] O’Connor were there.” Does that mean Reid was repudiating his Senate vote for the bill restricting abortions? No, he told me Thursday, he was talking about other decisions by Alito. (emphasis mine)

It just happened to come up while we were talking about the vote on the partial-birth abortion law.

 

Source: RealClearPolitics - Articles - Partial Pro-Life Democrats