Galvin Opinion asks what is the rush

Fellow blogger the Galvin Opinion posts that the liberal media seemed very eager to declare the a left-winger in Honduras to be the winner in the presidential election. Pre-election polls showed the more conservative Sosa leading over left-wing Zelaya but exit polls showed Zelaya ahead. Within hours world media was declaring Zelaya the winner before final tallies were in and before Sosa conceded.

With South America forming a strong Castro/Chavez communist axis, one must wonder why these news outlets are so eager to see another leftist elected. Just what is it that draws the media to communist figures like Castro, Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and even "Uncle Joe" Stalin? The South America situation is becoming a serious situation that does not bode well for the US, especially if the trend works its way up to Mexico. So why does the media seem to be rooting for it?

Some of the news media rushing the gun are:

ABCNews

CNN

BBC

Former demon helps spare life of murderer

The formerly demonized special prosecutor Kenneth Starr helped get a murderer off death row due to illegally destroyed evidence by a clerk. A pair of scissors was the murder weapon of choice since they were being used to pry open a safe when the victim caught him in the act. The criminal admits to taking the cash box and the bloody scissors were found between the pool hall and the criminal's cousin's house. A DNA test was performed on the scissors, but it was inconclusive. Without the ability to run another test, VA. governor Mark Warner decided it was best to grant clemency. From the information given, I have to agree with the decision by Warner. Perhaps the clerk that destroyed the scissors should take his place. Just kidding.

The two interesting points about the case were as mentioned the presence of Ken Starr on the defense team and that this was to be the one thousandth execution in the US since the death penalty was reinstated. So 666 helps save 1000. No word on whether Starr celebrated the victory by smoking a cigar.

George Clooney puts life on the line to save the planet

George Clooney has purchased a Tango T600, the tiny eco-friendly car. This car at 39 inches wide is more narrow than a motorcycle and only holds two people: one in the front and one in the back. The little engine that could hums along on battery power up to 80 miles per charge and can go surprisingly fast with a maximum speed of 150 mph! Information missing from the Fox News article I have linked to is how safe the vehicle is. Zipping along the highway, it looks as if a wind or a truck blowing by could offer a challenge to stay upright and in your lane. We hope Clooney got a bright red one as pictured here so other grown up vehicles have a better chance at spotting him. At 39 inches the car is already not far from the width of a pancake.

As far as the car is concerned, are we going to soon hear cries of discrimination from the same airline passengers who complain about needing to buy 2 seats on an airplane? Will they claim the car discriminates against them?

Maverick Joe Lieberman sets partisanship aside to root for the troops and the country

As a sober wife shudders to watch her husband drunk at a party, so must Dems like Joe Lieberman view their fellow party members in the drunken stuper of Bush bashing. In an atmosphere thick with political rhetoric, Lieberman writes a piece in the Wall Street Journal for the troops and for the country. It is not a piece to bash Bush, nor to suck up to him either. It appropriately sets aside the pre-war attacks and focuses on the victory I have written our military deserves and the Iraqi people need.

Where over a week ago we had Murtha and Pelosi cooking up a public scene by demanding to withdraw, now we have a level headed Senator not afraid to write the words he knows will shine a light on how foolish the withdrawal talk is. Lieberman talking about his fourth trip and the progress shown claims:

"Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity."

There is even some progress in the Sunni triangle. Lieberman goes on to describe the clear signs of economic progress and the new political activity in the budding democracy. He then goes on to show the need for continued military presence to help the 27 million freedom seekers defend against the 10,000 terrorists. Giving credit to the Iraqi progress Lieberman also warns of the consequences of caving to the political pressure (manufactured by disinformation) stating:

"None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country."

He goes on describing the progress and warnings of the consequences of an early pullout. He heaps deserving praise on our forces efforts and sacrifices. The entire piece is a must read as it is a non-partisan, non-rhetorical, clear layout of the Iraqi advancements and future success story. One point that can't be left out is the following:

"Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today."

So the bottom line is Lieberman has been there four times, the Iraqis ARE there and the most American media desparaging Iraq have NOT been there or at least not lately. I have not read too many reports from those coming back from Iraq that cast the fatalistic picture we hear day in and day out from the partisan hacks. Yet they continue to spew doom and gloom as fact for the ignorant masses to lap up. They have shorted Iraq and some day soon their margin is going to be called.

In my title I called Lieberman "Maverick", the undeserved title often given to John McCain when he panders to the left. This piece is obviously from the heart and far from pandering to the right. Knowing the flack Lieberman will receive from liberals, he deserves the title. Kudos Joe.

Biden and Bush support Logic Lifeline theory

The Dems via Joe Biden moved one step closer to position themselves to steal credit in the likely event troops start coming home next year. George Bush steps in to both block Biden from taking the credit, while holding out a carrot to share credit by "consensus" actions. The Logic Lifeline has predicted the attempted theft and that Bush would offer to share the platform for those Dems when the troops come home.

The linked story shows that Biden lays out a troop withdrawal plan of 50,000 troops in '06 and 100,000 in '07. The White House calls Biden's plan "remarkably similar" to its own plan. Bush spokesman McClellan then talks about a "strong consensus" between Democrats and Bush on the withdrawal from Iraq.

Bush seems willing to overlook the antics of the Dems if they do come to a consensus opinion to move forward in a carefully planned manner. Bush never seems to learn that when he reaches out to Dems, they try to bite his hand off.

The irresponsible American media

One of my early posts focused on the purpose of media in America. The freedom of the press is a sacred right in the same category as freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the right to bear arms. What rights regarding the press were they purchasing with their blood at the birth of our nation? The right to merely report the news? The fact that some oppressed countries cannot even do that, I must admit that was part of it. Did our brave men die for their right to entertain us? Ridiculous.

The right purchased for the press was the right to contribute to public debate and opinion. The goal of every journalist student is not to simply report the news; they want to "make the world a better place". We can argue over what is "better" and realize that here and there the freedom of the press will be abused and misused. However, we should not expect the media as an institution to be as irresponsible as it has been regarding Iraq.

I have linked to a commentary by Clifford May from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies called "Memo to Murtha". He opens with a commendation of Murtha's service to the country and for "for sparking an honest debate" regarding Iraq. For the most part I agree with that sentiment. So far the discussion on Iraq has been based on name calling and groundless or grossly exaggerated charges. He mentions that there is room to critique the planning of the administration for a post-Saddam Iraq.

Clifford May then goes on to point out where Murtha has a serious flaw in his thinking. Under the assumption of Murtha that we cannot win in Iraq and therefore should withdraw troops, May asks what then Murtha? Standing up in Congress and demanding we withdraw our troops without any plan to deal with Iraq after we leave is grossly irresponsible. May points out that the Iraqi troops are not yet prepared to deal with the al-qaeda presence in Iraq. Portions or all of Iraq would fall to al-qaeda. They will use Iraq as a middle-east base that would threaten the entire region as well as surely threaten the U.S. as they build unchecked. May points out further consequences outside of Iraq stating:

In many other countries where al-Qaeda has been applying pressure -- Bangladesh, Indonesia and Thailand to name just a few – three things would now be clear: (1) It is dangerous to be allied with the U.S.; (2) it is futile to resist al-Qaeda; and (3) bin Laden and Saddam were correct in predicting that if you bloody Americans, they will always turn tail and run

May's entire article should be read and reread as it is one of the best commentaries on Iraq I have seen. While May thrashes the thinking or lack thereof of Rep. Murtha, I would extend the thrashing to the American media. How irresponsible that in their zeal to embarrass or take down a president they do not take the time to discuss the consequences so clearly laid out by May.

While Democrats like Bob Beckel and prominant media members hold up polling data showing a majority of Americans wanting the troops to be withdrawn from Iraq, they overlook the point that those being polled are not fully informed on the issues. A poll of the uninformed has no value. As we know from man-on-the-street questioning in radio and tv shows, many people cannot tell you who key governmental people past and present are. We can hardly believe they are informed about all the intricate details of Iraq. The media gladly adheres to the belief that Iraqi polls show Bush is wrong rather than those being polled need to be more informed. What do you think the response would be if a polling question asked:

"With U.S. forces facing continuing obstacles in Iraq, yet knowing there would be disastrous future consequences if we withdrew too soon do you think the U.S. should withdraw troops in the near future?"

We see that the media is failing miserably at keeping the public informed on critical issues. The question is are they themselves underinformed or misinformed; or is there something more sinister? In their zeal to undermine the efforts in Iraq are they truly ignorant of the severe issues at stake, or do they see future catastrophe as a political opportunity to demonize Bush for years as each consequence of an early withdrawal comes to fruition?

The Bosnia hypocrisy coming to the forefront

Two blogs I frequent have written on Bosnia lately and I think I have seen some attention given to Bosnia in other places lately. The Political Yen/Yang and In the Middle of America have both drawn attention to the seemingly forgotten conflict. As we are reminded of Bosnia, we begin to see they hypocrisy of the Dems and the media regarding Iraq. G, the host of Middle of America puts it so well:

"Bosnia: A decade after the war to form a government = success

Iraq: 2 years after the war to form a government = failure and need to immediately pull out?"

LA Sunsett of the Political Yen/Yang points out the possibility of it becoming "another powder keg region " given certain circumstances. The media has been keeping very quiet during the last few years about Bosnia. It will be interesting to see people's eyes open as that region comes back to the foreground.

Leadership a dying quality in politics

In today's political landscape, leadership is a dying quality. I expect more leadership from the GOP than I do from the Dems because conservatism is a base that can breed leadership while liberalism is geared more toward people doing their own thing; not the best breeding ground for leadership. While I am disappointed in the GOP for their occassional misstep, their habit of wanting to make friends with liberals, and their inclination to cave in the face of public pressure on critical decisions; the Dems have acted just shamelessly for several years now above and beyond their normal shamelessness.

When you look at the Dems actions objectively, you can't help but picture in your mind a flag blowing with the wind or a tumbleweed driven here and there with each changing breeze. The Democrats are now desparately trying to extract themselves from their 2002 war votes and WMD comments. Instead of standing by their vote or even standing by the reasoning behind their vote, they want to claim they were misled. Somehow that is supposed to give them a free ticket to criticize Bush and escape the consequences of their actions?

The premise of Bush misleading is a fanciful deception on the part of Democrats that they could not get away with if they did not have their willing accomplices in the media to carry water for them. While Dems make ridiculous claims that cannot be verified because of the classified nature of the available information. However, deduction by logic clearly shows that there was no such misleading on the part of Bush.

We have claims of a WMD threat similar in nature and intensity spanning multiple presidential administrations and multiple countries. So powerful is that logical argument, that the Dems have waited until only recently to open the spigot of this vein of claims. Again looking at it logically, the Dems of necessity needed to spend a lot of money and time with media collaboration to prepare the public environment of thought in order to pull off this deception. These claims would not have flown 2 years ago. It is only after carefully cultivating the soil in the public forum that this can gain any traction at all.

Ohio Democrat senatorial candidate Paul Hackett recently showed disdain for the actions of his fellow Dems stating how ridiculous the claim to have been misled is. He thinks they should claim to have made a mistake instead. Hackett is partially right here. He is correct in the ridiculous notion of being misled, but incorrect in claiming a mistake was made. This is the difference between a leader and a non-leader. A leader takes the best information available and makes the best decision possible based on that information. If the best information available turns out to be wrong, no mistake was made.

A truly spineless charleton will take hindsight and portray it as being the best available information. That is what the Dems are doing today. In the language of word processing they are cutting information available today and pasting it into the past as if what we know today was as clear as day then. It is truly amazing how the Dems MUST deceive in order to gain any ground in the public.

Misplaced anger plagues the liberal camp

While the liberal camp spins and blows smoke to create the appearance of a habitually lying administration in order to blast Bush with their anger, there is one event after another they pass by. The liberal camp will ONLY bestow anger when they think it will lead them to more political power, while they ignore things that deserve anger because it does not line up with their goals for more power.

I have linked to a story should fill all with rage at the terrorist insurgents in Iraq. Apparantly our soldiers pass out dolls to the Iraqi children as gestures of good will. The terrorists have taken some of these dolls and filled them with explosives. What perverted sub-human animal would target children to blow up by such means? The story states:

"The Iraqi army said on Thursday it had seized a number of booby-trapped children's dolls, accusing insurgents of using the explosive-filled toys to target children. ... This is the same type of doll as that handed out on several occasions by US soldiers to children," said government spokesperson Leith Kubba."

Where is the anger and outrage? The liberals have no response but to try and understand why these savages do what they do. They talk about how a foreign occupation in our hometown would make us do things we normally would not do and claim we don't understand them. If a foreign occupation happened in my hometown, regardless of the circumstances I would not react by targeting innocent children to blow up.

It does not matter what anyone other than a US GOP politician does, no anger is generated. Neither the beheadings in Iraq, the car bombings and roadside bombs, the explosions in Bali, the wedding bombings in Jordan, nor any other terrorist inflicted tragedy garner the outrage they deserve.

Anger against Zarqawi and his ilk is budding in the middle east, and if the world body joined in outrage against such actions it would go a long way in demoralizing the terrorist camp. Yet the liberal camp and the media strings they control have no time in the news cycle to generate such anger. Instead they dredge up the tired old story of Cindy Sheehan once again nagging Crawford, TX. with her presence. Basically it boils down to the formula the media has carefully crafted the last few years prevent them from going down this road. They know that anger at Zarqawi is not far from sympathy with the Bush resolve to defeat them.

Newdow put up or shut up

The famed atheist who is not secure enough in his own atheism to deal with the pledge of allegiance having the words "under God" in it, is now going after the "In God we Trust" in our currency. He must think that every time he spends a dollar, he is being forced into an act of worship.

If Newdow is really serious about this thing he should go after a real issue regarding religion: to remove the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays from government employee benefits. Skip the ridiculous symbolic stuff and go after something that will affect the bottom line.

Just imagine all the Michael Newdow fan clubs across the country consisting of government workers spared the indignity of celebrating a religious holiday on the government's dime. Imagine all the government union groups including all the teacher's unions that will provide him with hours of legal entertainment throughout the process.

And while he is at it, why doesn't he change his Christian name of Michael to something else? This guy either needs to get consistent or get a life.

Obama bolsters Logic Lifeline theory

The junior senator from my home state of Illinois bolsters my theory by demanding a troop reduction in Iraq. My theory is that the Dems see that troops starting to come home next year will derail their investment in the 'Iraq quagmire' exaggeration for the '06 elections. In order to minimize the damage, Dems must act in a deceitful way in order to take partial or full credit for troops coming home.

We are now seeing a story by Howard Fineman that shows the whole Rep. Murtha antic was pre-planned in some Democrat dark smoke filled room. Fineman in his Newsweek article states:

'Which was precisely what the Democratic leadership wanted Murtha to do. A close ally, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, was anxious to open a second axis of attack on Iraq—and was aware of his growing antagonism toward the war. The two met and agreed that he would make his case in private to the party conference. After that, on his own, he would introduce a resolution calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." Pelosi and the other liberals would keep their distance, while their own Marine charged up the Hill. Framed by long rows of American flags at a press conference, he denounced the Iraq war as a "flawed policy wrapped in an illusion." '

Now having skipped a slight beat with the GOP calling their bluff, Obama is next in line to come from behind the curtain and address the audience. Obama takes the standard approach of announcing a strategy as if he made it up himself, which happens to be the strategy that Bush has been announcing the entire time. Hoping the people will not be able to put their finger on just where they have heard it before, Obama states:

"The strategic goals should be to allow for a limited drawdown of U.S. troops, coupled with a shift to a more effective counter-insurgency strategy that puts the Iraqi security forces in the lead and intensifies our efforts to train Iraqi forces."

Of course when Bush says it, the media snickers behind their hands but when Obama says it they hang on his every word. The call to intensify efforts comes after seeing successful joint efforts between the US and Iraqi troops. Then in addition to this deception, Obama flat out lies by "criticized the Bush administration for questioning the patriotism of people who have spoken out against the war". Now the article does not quote Obama, so it could be the author AP reporter Anna Johnson that is doing the lying. Nobody in the Bush administration has ever, much less recently questioned anyone's patriotism. Johnson alludes to administration comments about Murtha. Sorry, but the administration respectfully disagreed with Murtha and Cheney called him a "patriot". Either Obama or Johnson is willfully trying to combine comments about those lying about pre-war intelligence and those wanting to pull out of Iraq.

The Dems are going to attempt to steal credit for troops coming home. George Bush is almost always a gentleman, even to the point of foolishness. One clear example is calling on Bill Clinton to work with his father in two areas where he could get fantastic press: the tsunami and Katrina. I have this sinking feeling that after having venom spewed at him day after day that as troops begin to come home Bush will call up key Dems to the 'platform' to enjoy some of the credit.

Name calling - the logic substitute

One of the most irritating things I see in the blogosphere is what people are using in their posts as a substitute for a reasoned argument. There are many posts where the points being made are SOLELY supported by name calling. This is such a waste of time to wade through, not to mention a waste of space to house it. I am glad I have not so far had much of this on my blog, but I see it all of the time reading others. The blogosphere is a wonderful idea, but my point is that it is diminished by this kindergarten activity. While everyone has the right to this free speech, we would all enjoy the blogging experience more if there were less of it.

The grass is always greener on the other side

After fleeing to France from the evil US, Johnny Depp is now horrified by the appeasement based riots there. He is now making noises of surrendering his home in France and moving elsewhere. The linked story claims:

Hollywood star JOHNNY DEPP is so shocked by the riots raging through France, he's considering abandoning his home in the country.

In the story Depp whines:

"I went there (to France) to live because it seemed so simple. Now it's anything but. I don't know how they'll recover from this."

Johnny, it sounds like you are right where you belong. Why don't you stay and try to help?

A lighter perspective on the Dems Iraq strategy

Courtesy of Power Line Blog reader David Lunde.

Murtha's call to withdraw and stunt support my theory

My theory in the last post was that Dems have invested in an Iraq War failure so much that a troop withdrawal might jeopardize it. The behavior of the Dems seemed then and even more now to be geared toward taking credit for any kind of withdrawal of troops between now and the '06 elections.

First, they try to pass a resolution demanding a timetable. The GOP passes their resolution without a timetable.

Next Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), a hawkish Democrat with distinguished military service comes to claim it is time to withdraw - or push to plan a withdrawal depending on the news source. Since Harry Reid made stunts fashionable, the GOP pulls their own stunt and forces a vote.

I won't try to make claims of who won or made gains throughout all of this, but the whole picture seems to be Democrats positioning themselves to take credit when troops start coming home. Barring the opportunity to take credit, they will certainly seek to minimize any atmosphere of success in Iraq if the troops begin coming home.

And now lo and behold, I have linked to a CNN news story that claims that there is a troop withdrawal plan that Rumsfeld is in posession of that will start some form of troops returning after the December elections. I had a feeling something was brewing with all of these games of political positioning.

From my perspective, the Dems have built a house of cards with several rooms in it: the intel manipulation claims, the Iraq quagmire, the high gas prices, the Plame leak and others. Each of these are still open ended in a way that could easily and quickly turn Bush's way. Since the Dems have chosen this 'house of cards' approach instead of a solid agenda with ideas, we can prepare ourselves for the claims of GOP 'dirty tricks' when the cards come down.

What was that Iraq resolution really about?

The GOP resolution plan for Iraq has been called a cave-in from the right and stealing a Dem idea from the left. I admit my first reaction was that the GOP is getting wobbly under pressure, and it may be the case. As for the GOP stealing the Dem's one idea, well in their form it was not a very good idea at all. The very fact that the Dems cannot see the serious danger of releasing a timetable for the likes of Zarkowi to see shows again that they have no business ever being in charge of our national security.

What we may want to evaluate, however, is the investment that the Dems have in this Iraq issue. Considering the issue and how they have signaled they want to use it in the '06 election cycle what would they fear happening the most that would derail their strategy? The answer is troops beginning to come home after the December Iraqi elections in small groups to continuous praise for a job well done. While I have no insight for when troops would start coming home, there is a possibility that we would start to see that happening at some point in '06. We just saw a great joint effort between our troops and trained Iraqis in that border town near Syria. It would not be surprising after a third succesful election day in Iraq to see the shift in Iraqi participation increase aggressively.

Could it be that the '06 timetable the Dems are wanting is to cover their strategy for when troops might actually come home. They could then easily attribute it to the timetable they pushed. They could not only claim what a disaster Iraq was, but then take credit for pushing for the troops to come home.

While it could be that the GOP were wobbly, it is possible that the strategy was to deny the Dems to cash in on their Iraq '06 investment. Additionally, the reporting from Iraq that is now going to be demanded of the White House can accomplish a couple of things. The WH has been weak on defending good decisions and good policies. In addition to Bush coming out swinging lately, this will provide an additional periodic cycle for Bush to report about all the good things happening in Iraq. It just might force a couple of news cycles to show that there are positive events happening in Iraq.

So what is it: wobbly, thievery or strategy?

UN continues to scheme for an Internet takeover

In the linked story, we see the countries of the world getting together and scheming again for the takeover of the internet. While the news media continues to demonize Bush, instead of addressing those who really deserve demonizing they pass up one of the most serious stories of our lifetime. Everyone who loves freedom should be enraged at the thought of the internet falling under UN control.

The UN itself has a history of impotence when dealing with world tyranny. Some could claim that like Jimmy Carter they have this morbid facination with tyrannical dictators. The UN security council consists of 2 permanent members that have historical track records against human rights and exercising censorship. China is still torturing and killing people for their beliefs, and have ruled the internet access in their country with an iron fist. When will the world wake up and realize that the UN is not a friend of the freedom loving world?

What rational person would think that before these members of the UN clean up their act and the UN itself stops stiff-arming countries who promote freedom and stops embracing countries that restrict freedoms? The internet should stay under the protective control of the US, because there is not another country out there with our track record of freedom who has the ability to guard it from a hostile takeover.

The egg-face dance of the Dems begins

With Bush showing signs of weakness during the month of October and the far left fringe applying pressure on the Dems to go for the juggular vein on the "Bush Lied" lie, they decided it was time to stick out their neck and go for it. Harry Reid started it all with his temper tantrum of shutting down the senate to insist they work on 'phase II'. GOP members already working on phase II looked up at Reid from their work and said "ok, Harry. We'll work on it". Then after Reid goes to the cameras to declare a victory, they threw up a prayer to the patron saint of hopeless causes, and began the quick process of making fools out of themselves.

With so many liberals in the MSM it takes a bit of time for the truth to sneak past this "filter" they throw up that attempts to keep facts from the public as long as possible. As the truth begins to ooze around the filter and between its cracks, it is obvious that the Dems are yet again going to do their famous "egg-face dance". There is a poster on Catptains Quarters blog that says similar things I have said:

"Anyone else here think the Dems overplayed their hands....AGAIN, and played it too early to boot?...This is a fight the Dems can't win if the GOP engage them. If they had played this closer to the midterms they'd have had a shot. But like overeager kids on Christmas morning..."

The following is an exchange between Fox's Chris Wallace and Senator Jay Rockefeller. One of the first things it shows is that the Dems criticizing Bush on his intellect is quite humorous. Reid shows he may have been punched one to many times in his boxing career, Kennedy continually shows that the brain goes before the liver, Pelosi's facelifts and botox must make it just too hard to think, and Rockefeller shows who needs intellect when you have a lot of money. I must say when Mike's son Chris Wallace came to Fox, I was skeptical that Fox would remain fair and balanced for long. Now that I have seen Chris in action asking the really tough questions and tough follow up of Dem and GOP alike, I really like him. As I have said before, while some truth may hurt the GOP here and there; the more truth that comes out the better conservatives look and the worst liberals look. Here is the exchange between Rockefeller and Wallace, transcript courtesy of Captains Quarters:

WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, the President says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did. In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the President ever did. Let's watch. SEN. ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 2002): "I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th, that question is increasingly outdated."

WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The – I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq – that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11. Now, the intelligence that they had and the intelligence that we had were probably different. We didn't get the Presidential Daily Briefs. We got only a finished product, a finished product, a consensual view of the intelligence community, which does not allow for agencies like in the case of the aluminum tubes, the Department of Energy said these aren't thick enough to handle nuclear power. They left that out and went ahead with they have aluminum tubes and they're going to develop nuclear power.

WALLACE: Senator, you're quite right. You didn't get the Presidential Daily Brief or the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief. You got the National Intelligence Estimate. But the Silberman Commission, a Presidential commission that looked into this, did get copies of those briefs, and they say that they were, if anything, even more alarmist, even less nuanced than the intelligence you saw, and yet you, not the President, said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. ...

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Chris, there's always the same conversation. You know it was not the Congress that sent 135,000 or 150,000 troops.

WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.

WALLACE: You're not?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. I'm responsible for my vote, but I'd appreciate it if you'd get serious about this subject, with all due respect. We authorized him to continue working with the United Nations, and then if that failed, authorized him to use force to enforce the sanctions. We did not send 150,000 troops or 135,000 troops. It was his decision made probably two days after 9/11 that he was going to invade Iraq. That we did not have a part of, and, yes, we had bad intelligence, and when we learned about it, I went down to the floor and said I would never have voted for this thing.

WALLACE: My only point sir, and I am trying to be serious about it, is as I understand Phase Two, the question is based on the intelligence you had, what were the statements you made? You had the National Intelligence Estimate which expressed doubts about Saddam's nuclear program, and yet you said he had a nuclear program. The President did the same thing.

The three biggest take aways from Rockefeller, is that he claims not to be responsible for his vote, he tries to rewrite history concerning his vote to authorize, and when backed into a corner accuses Wallace of not being serious. You would think if he had answered this same question a thousand times he could do a better job of it. Sometimes I have to stop myself for feeling sorry for the Dems. They just can't buy a break that sticks. But when I see how they are playing games with national security to attempt to score political points it angers me and continues to be obvious that they can never be trusted with the White House again.

Two potential 2008 candidates show they are not worthy

In order to be a worthy presidential candidate for 2008, the person must see terrorism for what it is and be prepared to defend this country with whatever means necessary. While Al Gore has denied considering a run in '08, he is high on the list of the far left to be the nominee. In a recent speech, however, Al Gore shows he is prepared to put junk science above the safety of US citizens saying:

"What changed in the U.S. with Hurricane Katrina was a feeling that we have entered a period of consequences and that bitter cup will be offered to us again and again until we exert our moral authority and respond appropriately," he says. "I don't want to diminish the threat of terrorism at all, it is extremely serious, but on a long-term global basis, global warming is the most serious problem we are facing."

Anyone who does not recognize terrorism as the most significant threat to the globe, cannot be entrusted with the highest office on earth.

John McCain also reveals he does not have what it takes to protect US citizens from the long arm of terrorism. While I do not advocate torture as a normal way to treat war prisoners, the day may come when torture is the only method available to attempt to extract information that could save the lives of hundreds of thousands of US residents. If a president must be in a position to decide between saving the lives of many and staying out of jail, he has been irresponsibly handcuffed. The Bush administration seeks to keep the laws as they are while McCain supports laws that could restrain the president whoever he may be now or in the future.

We cannot allow politicians to escape the consequences of putting our national security in danger in order to score political points. It is easy in a climate of spineless political correctness to go with the bleeding hearts on tough policies. It takes a backbone to push to retain such an unpopular option as torture. If there comes a day where torture is the only thing standing between a worthless piece of terrorist debris and the safety of my family, I support the one with a backbone.

Slingshot theory still holding as Bush numbers improve

The Rasmussen polling is one of the better polling out there as it tracks daily instead of one time headline creators like CBS did. After a tough October month, Bush has been steadily climbing in his approval numbers and his disapproval numbers have been steadily dropping. Rasmussen shows Bush's approval at 46%.

As a reminder, the slingshot theory held that the lowest points for Bush in October were like pulling back on a slingshot to its furthest extent. Upon release the velocity would enable the resulting shot to go faster and farther. Since the media will not allow a GOP politician to hold positive numbers for long due to constant and overwhelming media full court presses, the only thing to do is have periods of quickly bursting forward with the most velocity possible.

A clear example is that after 9/11 the media reluctantly (and obviously so) held back on their criticism of Bush. For months they correctly perceived that to gang up on Bush would not be considered patriotic. At some point either by some collaborative effort or because they all think alike, they determined that Bush was fair game again and the strong east wind began to blow. Bush allowed without any attempt at defense to be daily pummeled. At some point in May before the election Bush started fighting back and we saw the 'quick burst' in action. I think the liberals had better start pre-scheduling post election therapy for next November.

If my theory holds, I think they are going to need it after months of being hyped into thinking they can have a big win.

I guess I am a Numenorean, what are you?

Numenorean


To which race of Middle Earth do you belong?
brought to you by Quizilla

Best sign yet things are going well in Iraq

I have commented on this blog and elsewhere many times that the world must bear much of the responsibility for the extension of the insurgency in Iraq. Because UN leadership including Annan and much of the security council had so much invested in opposing action in Iraq, they felt after the fact that their purpose was an "I told you so approach". Certainly the WMD find being limited and below the expectation of stockpiles allowed them to be quite smug as the insurgency developed and challenged the coalition forces. Knowing that there were documented stockpiles of WMD and knowing that Saddam refused to provide proof of complete destruction of said stockpiles did nothing to wipe the smirk off their face while pockets of both coalition forces and Iraqi citizens died day by day. The attitude was thick as liquid from the UN and world body that the US had "made their bed and now they must sleep in it".

After the fall of Iraqi forces and the capture of Saddam Hussein, the UN and world body had an opportunity to step in. With the caveat that they disagreed with the US invasion, they could have claimed the world needed to come together to support the people of Iraq in their quest to become a free people and to create free elections. When the insurgency was created, instead of joining the mindless chanting of "the occupiers brought this on" they should have denounced them as the thugs and terrorists, greedy for power and control, that they are.

The blood of innocent Iraqi citizens and coalition forces is on the heads of those who instead chose to give aid and comfort to terrorists for the sake of political gain. Those in this country who saw a chance to score big points against George W. Bush share in that guilt. With critics across the globe and in our own country, Bush was left to "stay the course" alone.

Now we have had two successful elections and the stage is set for a triple crown. We have just completed a successful joint military effort with trained Iraqis in rooting out a nest of insurgents in a town bordering Syria, and it seems now is the time for Kofi Annan to jump in and try to take credit for the final lap. The linked story shows Annan is preparing for a trip to Iraq to appeal for reconciliation. In a move resembling the antics of Jesse Jackson, Annan seems to sense the time is ripe to move in, demand an end and take the credit when it happens.

Well, the goal is success in Iraq. If Annan is the last Kofi bean to tip the scales, I will be happy. The bottom line is that the most important point in Iraq is that our troops come away with a successful victory instead of what happened in Vietnam. There with great sacrifice they fought to save those people from communism and stop its spread, only to be pulled back and watch them get slaughtered. A victory in Iraq will be a powerful message to the entire world, but so would a retreat. Which message do you want to send?

Bush honors troops on verterans day

President Bush took an opportunity on Veterans Day to honor the troops by reassuring them they are fighting for a clear and honorable purpose instead of the lies told by those with only political gain in mind. I saw a lefty on a blog articulate all that is going on with these historical rewrites about before the war when he said "the end justifies the means". While GOP forgets they are the in the majority and often acts like they are in the minority, Dems act like they forget there are cameras, video and transcriptions of what they say. Now they are willing to trample the valiant efforts and sacrifices of our troops by lying and undermining the war. Today Bush made it clear that was not going to happen.

I have my theories about the timing of Bush's defense of his decisions to come in full force after the beginning of the year. Today was a clear signal to the troops that he would not let them down, a shot in the arm for his base and a shot over the bow as a warning to democrats who will be caught in their lies when the truth is revealed. While the Dems keep sticking their necks out further and further out, the trap is closing. With three clear encouraging events happening in a short span (Rove's vindication and the ongoing Wilson credibility meltdown, the Alito nomination and today's strong defense of policy and encouragement of victory to the troops) Bush is on his way to a come back.

Here is the text of what he said, transcription courtesy of michellemalkin.com:

"While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.

They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his
development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his
position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.' That's why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

"The stakes in the global War on Terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our Nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory."

Tortoise and the Hare or Pepe Le pew

The Democrats will have two choices for approaching the '06 and '08 elections: they can do the tortoise and the hare approach or the Pepe Le pew approach. Here is the story of the "Tortoise and the Hare":

"WHAT a dull, heavy creature," says the Hare, "is this Tortoise!"

"And yet," says the Tortoise, "I'll run with you for a wager."

"Done," says the Hare, and then they asked the Fox to be the judge.

They started together, and the Tortoise kept jogging on still, till he came to the end of the course.

The Hare laid himself down midway and took a nap; "for," says he, "I can catch up with the Tortoise when I please."

But it seems he overslept himself, for when he came to wake, though he scudded away as fast as possible, the Tortoise had got to the post before him and won the wager.

The Democrats can say to themselves that Bush is so bad that we can just take a nap and win the elections. No proposed agenda or platform that actually solves or helps anything. Just spend their whole time criticizing Bush.

They could also take a different approach and actually promote a platform with their detailed solutions to problems such as raising taxes, cutting the military, dooming Iraqis to slaughter like happened after we pulled out of Vietnam, more dependence on foreign oil, tank the economy by enslaving us to the Kyoto protocol, etc. This would be the Pepe Le pew approach. The voters would react to that just like the cat Penelope in the cartoon.

"Quel es? ... Ahhh ... la belle femme skunk fatale!! Tch-tch"

Liberals attempt to steal the 2008 election fails

While reading the lefty blogs I have seen them figuratively rubbing their hands together about the Ohio ballot initiatives regarding elections. In typical liberal fashion they put initiatives on the ballot they say are geared toward preventing election fraud. From Newsmax the inititiatives were to:

"The initiatives would have opened absentee balloting to all voters, lowered the cap on individual campaign contributions and put boards, instead of elected officials, in charge of drawing legislative and congressional districts and overseeing the state's elections, according to the Associated Press."

Typical of Dems to look at a perceived problem and suggest "reforms" that would benefit them while leaving out real reforms geared toward the prevention of fraud. The absentee ballot is the voter fraud's weapon of choice. There have been rumors of people going to nursing homes and homes of the elderly that have no capacity left to make decisions and filling out their absentee ballot for them. Of course, they wanted to limit free speech by lowering the cap on campaign contributions like they did with CFR. While the GOP was following the new limits, the Dems would be finding a way to get around their own law like they did in '04 with the moveon.org types.

What is completely missing is the real reform measure that would do a lot to prevent fraud; requiring a photo ID. Dems cry foul at every election (they lose) and yet fight the photo ID requirement tooth and nail. As in my previous post about truth, Dems don't want fair elections. They want to win them. Any initiative they pass is not for the good of the people, but part of a strategy to rig it in their favor.

Not this time. Ohio was too smart for that by soundly rejecting these measures. So while Democrats won their status quo elections, they failed where it really counted for them.

How will the Dems spin the governorship election victories

How can the Dems best spin the elections of NJ and VA? Will the Dems claim that these governorship victories were a denouncement of Bush? That will be a hard sell seeing that there is no net Democrat gain since the previous governors were also Democrats. VA and WV may be Red presidential states, but they often vote blue for governor. New Jersey would elect a monkey on the democrat ticket instead of a good GOP candidate. So though Dems have managed to keep the status quo, they will beat their chests and claim this is a meaningful victory.

I find it interesting that when early reports showed GOP Kilgore up in VA, the Dems were ready to scream voter fraud. Once their guy was announced winner, they were fine with the election process. Once again the Dems are not interested in honesty, only winning.

CIA-Wilson-Dems-Media need to come clean

Sometimes there is a situation that eludes you until suddenly somebody asks the right question and it all becomes clear. Scott Johnson of Power Line blog asks several key questions that really pierce the fog. As you read them you begin to get the overwhelming notion that there cannot be an innocuous answer to them. Here they are:

(1) Why wasn't Wilson's February 2002 trip to Niger made subject to a confidentiality agreement?

(2) Did the Agency contemplate that Wilson would publicly discuss the trip at will upon his return?

(3) Did the agency anticipate that if he did so, it would attract attention to the employment of his wife by the agency?

(4) Why did the Agency select Wilson for the mission to Niger to check out such an important and sensitive matter given his lack of experience in intelligence or investigation?

(5) Was the Agency aware when it selected him for the mission of his hostility to the Bush administration?

So either the folks at the CIA are stupid or there is something sinister going on there. Such bumbling of covert missions just don't happen. I have read that a lack of signing a confidentiality agreement either rarely or never happens, yet in this case nobody stopped to think about it? It is beginning to remind me of the State Department under FDR with communist spy Alger Hiss and others infiltrating the highest levels of trust.

With such serious national security breaches that looks like outright attempted sabotage of presidency on faulty information from several fronts, the Democrats and the media are not at luxury of playing politics as usual. Between this Niger CIA initiative and the PlameGate leak that is looking more and more like Wilson himself is the culprit the CIA, Wilson, Dems and media need to come clean and put the safety and well being of the country first.

I would like to devote this post to describing the truth seeking efforts of Democrats

Sorry, after thinking real hard I could not think of any truth seeking efforts on the part of Democrats.

Dems on drugs if they think this makes them look good

An excerpt shown on the Political Teen from a pre-war statement by Senator Schumer and an interview between Chris Wallace and Schumer yesterday:

A floor speech on October 10, 2002:

SCHUMER :It is Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the United States.

On the November 6, 2005 edition of FOX News Sunday:

WALLACE: Senator, you read the intelligence and you came to the same conclusion the President did.

SCHMUCK SCHUMER: Yeah, the bottom line is I wasn’t as sure of it as the President was, but …

If the Democrats think this blatant waffling makes them look better than Bush, they must be taking some serious drugs. To say one thing clearly in the past and then today making an opposing statement without any credible explanation whatsoever shows the Dems:

• Are wafflers of the worst kind
• Are banking on the short memories and/or stupidity of the people
• Shows in BOLD that the Dems only want to use the Iraq war to take down Bush without at the same time casting any bad light on themselves

An informed public will see through this, but only the public who listens to talk radio, watches Fox News or reads blogs that show these things will be informed. No wonder the libs hate these new sources of information, because they can't hide behind the MSM filter anymore. The trap is springing.

Agenda above truth

I have posted before about how the political culture has bred a group of mindless supporters willing to tell the most ridiculous and unbelievable lies, but the fanatic fringe and even the media is willing lap the lies up.

I have linked the title to a story about Jimmy Massey, who is a former marine staff sgt. that came back from Iraq with outrageous claims of troop misconduct. Actually, the outrageous claims remind me of John Kerry's slandarous claims when he came back from Vietnam.

While in every country and every war no matter how admirable the whole is, there are always bad apples who cannot deal with war or the power a gun in hand provides. That happens and is to be dealt with when proven. However to make these claims about US forces takes a sick mind. Jimmy Massey makes the following claims to push his obvious agenda:

• Marines fired on and killed peaceful Iraqi protesters
• Americans shot a 4-year-old Iraqi girl in the head
• A tractor-trailer was filled with the bodies of civilian men, women and children killed by American artillery

Massey's claims have been dicredited by his own words, the words of fellow troops and 5 journalists embedded in his unit. This did not prevent serial America slandering national publications such as "Vanity Fair and USA Today, as well as numerous broadcast reports" and " News organizations worldwide" from blindly reporting Massey's claims without verification.

Massey own words involve a continuous M.O. of making claims of being an eyewitness, then changing the story later that the incidents he speaks of were told to him by others and that he never actually saw them. Massey even lied about losing a job at a furniture store due to his anti-war stance. Then in a later interview, he states that he left on good terms and was not pressured to leave.

The fact is that people like Massey, Joe Wilson and others have exhibited a pattern of being willing to lie, have in their own words later discredited themselves, and yet continue to be held up by a media with an agenda to bring Bush down and recreate a Vietnam. It is a shame that we are in an era where we can't trust that the "truth will prevail", but rather that the side that has the best strategy and the best propoganda machine will prevail.

Bill Kristol says Fight Back Mr President

Bill Kristol has an interesting article in The Weekly Standard. He expresses similar thoughts I have about Bush refusing to fight for his administration. Kristol implores the president to defend himslf on these issues:

• To make and remake the case for war and defend against the ridiculous 'Bush lied' charge
• The slanderous charge by Reid and other Dems that Bush manufactured and manipulated intelligence leading up to war
• To remind the public that the Dems in '98 and '02 were making the same case against Saddam and WMD but are now trying to rewrite history
  

The difference between Kristol's column and my post is the underlying reason for Bush's current weakness. Kristol questions if Bush is facing reality, and blames most of the weakness on the lack of defense on the war, the failed social security reform and the Miers nomination.

My premise is that there is more strategy than failure involved. Bush's lack of fighting back is a huge gambit for a big '06 victory that centers around the behavior of the media. While Dems can ride for extended periods of time with high numbers (unless they shoot themselves in the foot), the media will not allow the GOP to do the same without a constant pressure to whittle their numbers down by minimizing the positive and maximizing the negative.

Rove and company are experts at the sudden momentum strategy, which seems to be the only thing that works against these media hitmen. The sudden spurt momentum cannot work for longer than 1 year and that is a stretch. Usually the maximum effective range is a 9 month cycle. The Bush admin is counting on the distractions of the holidays to get them to January.

Just get to January within the 9 month, where they will begin to unveil their strategy. Also, in this particular cycle, the Dems are congealing as a united front. That is good for the strategy coming. Those Dems running in '06 must be denied the strategy of "distancing" themselves from the main pack. By allowing a small season of perceived weakness, these Dems will be emboldened to join so far they will not be able to back out when the trap is sprung.

Dems check their inventory for one to discuss ethics and select....Kennedy

The Dems took a close look at their inventory of politicians to see who is best qualified to lecture Bush on ethics and they select (drum roll) Ted Kennedy. Kennedy, whose challenged liver has somehow managed to survive another day, went on with Tim Russert to denounce the ethical challenges in the Bush administration and denounce them.

First, the Dems continue to accuse Bush of unproven scandal after unproven scandal. Then Kennedy claims that Bush has subjected the country to "scandal after scandal". Someone needs to tap him on the shoulder and remind him that just because the Dems say something doesn't make it so. It is the equivalent of the Dems planting fog machines in place after place and then crying "where there is smoke there must be fire".

Of course, a restrained media (a media that both wants to be restrained and is restrained) would be responsible and cease from making outrageous, unproven claims a newsworthy item. Before shoving a microphone under the nose of any politician that wants to state a ridiculous charge as fact, they should do their fact checking first. Under a democrat administration the media showed great restraint, yet under the Bush administration they report every whiff of accusation as gospel.

We can only hope that the American people are informed enough to meet the claim of poor ethics by one such as Ted Kennedy with the peals of laughter it deserves.

Why do the bad apples always want to spoil the whole bunch?

It is always amazing that when you have something good, one or more bad apples want to ruin it. The bad apple is never content to be the lone bad apple. Instead they must corrupt those around them. Some examples would be:

• A religious leader who does not even believe the tenets of the religion he/she is a leader of. There are many christian leaders who do not believe the Bible, the supernatural elements, the work and resurrection of Christ. Many do not even believe in God. Why would they stay a leader in a church that stands for the things he does not believe?
• We see in teenage peer pressure that the 'bad' teen does not content himself with being bad, but must encourage his friends to participate in his badness.
• In a country like the US where capitalism has made us a strong economic and military power, those in this country want to change us into a weak socialist country like those in Europe. Why do they work so hard to take something good and turn it into something bad.
  

Go to another country if you don't like the country you are in. Go to another church or religion if you don't like the one you are in. We are not talking about small changes for the better, here. We are talking about circumstances where the changes the bad apples want actually change the kind or genre of the institution. The analogy could be the difference between going to a plastic surgeon for a nose job and a mad scientist changing you from human to a gorilla.

The fact is that the American economy gives the weaker socialist countries of Europe and Canada the ability to be what they are. Look what happens to the European economies when the US economy is in recession. If the US would turn socialist like these people want, the certain economic downturn that would happen in the US would throw the economy of the world into a tailspin. Other countries can play their games of taking from the rich to give to the poor, but in the case of the US the world cannot afford the ensuing catastrophe if we join the game.

CNN takes off kick me sign to lead with a military victory story

I was quite surprised and astonished to see this story at the top of the news lists. I of course scanned the story for the usual bias gotchas here and there and I must admit I could not find any. The story was upbeat, showed key positive elements and seemed to give an impression of being happy for the success.

Here are some key points:


- Leads with description of the success:

"Dozens of insurgents were killed Saturday on the first day of Operation Steel Curtain, a U.S.-Iraqi military offensive near the Syrian border, military officials said."

- Shows the important purpose of getting ready for the elections:

"The operation comes in the largely Sunni Muslim region in advance of Iraq's parliamentary election, set for December 15."

- Shows the resolve of our armed forces to liberate the people of Iraq from the insurgency:

'Marine Lt. Col. Dale Alford of the 3rd Battalion said the operation was launched "to liberate the town."

"We'll continue to push and liberate this city," he said.'

'Alford said "we are steadily cleaning the city out" and have faced "pockets of resistance throughout the day." '

- Shows the care to protect the civilians and attempt to meet their needs:

"Military officials said civilians have been evacuated to a secure sector of the city and have been provided food, blankets and heaters."

- Shows cooperation and gratitude of the Iraqi people:

' "For the most part, once we move through these towns that we've done over the last month, people seem to be happy that we're here," Alford said.

He said the "people were telling us who the bad guys are and we have forces all around the city over the last month gathering intelligence also." '

- Shows a joint effort between US troops and trained Iraqis:

' Operation Steel Curtain includes 3,000 U.S. Marines, soldiers and sailors and 550 Iraqi soldiers. It's the latest in a series of operations this year in Anbar province and follows others such as operations Fist and River Gate.

The U.S. military, in its news release, said "elements of the 1st Brigade, 1st Iraqi Army Division, and specially trained scout platoons recruited from the Al Qaim region" will help fight these adversaries. '

I am happy to see such a story on CNN and wish that all media outlets would rally behind our troops. I have maintained that if the US and world body would express support for our troops and the budding democracy in Iraq while denouncing the insurgency this war would come to a close fast. CNN good job this time. Kudos.

Puzzle pieces that need to fit together

The last post was a building block to this concept of open puzzle pieces that are centered around a potential Bush administration long term strategy. When you look at the pieces, you must either come to the conclusion that a) those in the administration including Rove are stupid b) they are not stupid but the current media climate does not allow them to effectively communicate their goals and actions c) the seeming weakness, hesitation and lack of communication is part of a long term strategy.

The pieces of the puzzle are:

• In spite of liberal and media efforts to portray him otherwise, Bush is very intelligent and has surrounded himself with master strategists
• In spite of public discussion, ridicule, media potshots, etc. about Bush's communication style, he has done nothing to improve it. In fact of late his communication is almost a caricature of the those items pointed out before.
• The war in Iraq could easily be effectively communicated as both being needed and worth the effort and cost, but the Bush administration has not attempted to do so.
• In spite of a seeming weak communicative front, eventually things seem to "just happen" that end in a victory to Bush. The best example seems to be regarding the court appointments.
• Public opinion has greatly eroded against Bush since the elections of last year with very little resistance or attempt to bolster them.
• The strange attempt at having the lowest possible punishment for the very serious national security breach of Sandy Berger.
• Not answering the lame charge of leaking Valerie Plame's name and "covert" status to the media to undermine and get back at Joe Wilson. The very words and actions of Joe Wilson could be directly challenged and more effectively undermine him.
• Not publicly challenging the credibility of Joe Wilson with his own words, when it could easily have been done.

I could add many related puzzle pieces to this list, but a continuing theme is the lack of the Bush administration defending actions that are easily defendable, while his liberal counterparts get bolder and rasher in their attacks on him. From a sideline perspective, it has been frustrating to see this lack of self-defense. In recent weeks, however, facts are starting to surface and events starting to unfold that are beginning to look like a "springing of a trap". The liberals have stuck their necks out so far on many anti-Bush fronts, that a complete and total discrediting is possible given the right circumstances and effective communication of them.

We are seeing liberal reporters like Andrea Mitchell restraining themselves from partaking of the cool-aid. It is almost like they know the trap will close down on whoever has been involved. The liberal fringe affectionately referred to as "moonbats" are continuing to plod on with their clueless jargon and seem to have roped some key Democrats like Harry Reid to begin to do their bidding. The pieces are beginning to fit together, and the conclusion that Bush is stupid is not a good fit here. The results could almost be Apochryphal against the Democrats, if I am reading things correctly.

The three sides of current politics

Instead of a clear layout of facts, today's political environment has become a clear war over public opinion. There are at least 3 entities in this war: the left cabal, the right cabal and the Bush administration. The left cabal consists of liberal politicians, MSM, blogs, the educational network, education of higher dislearning, the entertainment world, the conglomerate of countries who have a vested interest in the demise of the US, fringe militant groups for various leftist causes, some of the religious groups both normal and fringe, some of the corporate world,and labor unions. The right cabal would consist of the bulk of talk radio, a handful of newspapers, some religious groups both normal and fringe, some of the corporate world and a strong grassroots group of middle America.

While it is no surprise that the left cabal is not joined with Bush administration, there is also a wall between the right cabal and the Bush administration, though less hostile. While some might be attributed to a desire to be an administration for all of the people instead of only for political friends, there seems to be a different reason the Bush administration is keeping his friends at arms length. It is a puzzle that continues to allude my ability to piece together with certainty.

No spin is a conservative win

Everybody complains today about all of the political spin. My contention is that if you take away all of the spin, conservative ideas would clearly win. I won't begin to claim who started the spinning machine, though I think most could guess who I would blame. Whoever started it, the other side had a choice either to answer the spin straight and without spin, or to respond with a reverse spin.

We are now in an environment that if one side stopped spinning, the other side would eat them alive. This is because the media is also spinning and doing a poor job of conveying truth to the people. There are 3 major categories of media: news, commentary and entertainment. Sometimes there are hybrids of these. The best hybrids are commentary and entertainment, but commentary is already a hybrid of sorts with news and opinion.

The main question we need to ask ourselves throughout all of these controversies is what do we want if truth and winning are in conflict? When you read through the insane comments on the blogs, you don't get a strong sense that people want the truth. You clearly sense that they want to win, even if it means the truth must be sacrificed. For me, the truth may hurt but I want it. Of course I think the whole truth laid bare while causing hits here and there on the right, would obliterate the left. What do you think?

CNN experiences a Brown out

CNN annoounced today that Aaron Brown is leaving the network and that his hour will be replaced with a second hour of Anderson Cooper. I have a hard time thinking this is a net gain for CNN. In a former post we saw Brown with ratings of 687,000 and Cooper with a little better 766,000. If we apply the law of diminished returns, the second hour of Cooper will likely be less than the 687,000 mark.

I for one will not miss Aaron Brown. Nothing personal against him, I was just bored to tears with his droning delivery. However, I like Cooper even less. It is difficult to watch his elvish face and take the news seriously. Now that he is in essence replacing Brown, I suspect he will fall prey to the temptation of "trying too hard".

While on the topic of CNN, what is with Paula Zahn's voice? I used to watch her on Fox News and do not remember her chronically stuffed nasal passages then. Paula grew up in my neck of the woods, so I hope there is nothing wrong healthwise or otherwise. Ratings check in a few weeks.

Carter speaks up despite zero credibility

Jimmy Carter can never seem to muster a word of criticism for dictators like Castro, Chavez or Daniel Ortega but is now claiming Bush manipulated intelligence before the war. Without any supporting elements except Bush is a Republican, Carter pushes this idea and supports the temper tantrum thrown by sinking senate Democrats yesterday. Carter is known for failing to see obvious election fraud in countries where he has made himself the overseer. It is humorous to see fellow liberals not only tolerating Carter speaking up on issues despite the credibility gap, but encouraging it. Keep it up, libs. Your continued nonsense is a gift that keeps on giving.

Trent this is not the time to go wobbly

I was quite impressed to see that Bill Frist actually had a pulse after the temper tantrum by Harry Reid yesterday. I think his voice actually had a little emotion in it. I get weary of the Senate, Dems and GOP, who all seem to have a great need for some prune juice. Wouldn't it be great to have the same forum as the UK parliament; where they are popping up and down in spirited conversation instead of droning on and on?

Anyway, prior to Reids "Gee whiz guys, can't we ever win" event Trent Lott and other GOP were starting to go wobbly on Karl Rove; questioning and speculating his future in the administration. The fact is some Republicans don't know how to accept victory and maximize it. I don't know if they think it shows they are not gloating, or that they are gentlemen. To the rest of us it shows they are not strong and confident in their positions.

In high school sports, when you were demolishing the other team the coach would start putting in second and third string players to be a good sport. This is honorable in sports, but foolish in politics; especially when the other side would do no such thing for you.

This last kindergarten trick by Reid shows who and what the Dems are. There can be no more quid pro quo, no mutual back scratching, no quarter. They have started this fight and we must finish it with strong ideas and strong words. It is time to stand up and defend the actions and policies of this administration instead of letting the Dems define it. When it comes to the realm of ideas, conservatism always wins in a fair fight. The media has not allowed a fair fight, but this is not the '80s. Just think what Reagan could have accomplished with talk radio and the internet to break past the filter of the MSM. We have those now and we must use them with strenth, and not go wobbly.

Harry Reid hits the panic button

It must be tough for the Democrats as they see Bush go from the worst month of his presidency to gaining momentum in just a few days. Harry must have realized the Dems were going from predators to jokers in just a few days and has latched on to the pet conspiracy theories of the left, that the Bush administration purposefully misled the country on WMD leading to war in Iraq. Seeing that momentum was in Bush's favor, Harry hit the panic button to pursue the loony angle forcing a closed door session in the Senate.

The senate has had rules of courtesy that have been observed for a long time. One of those is that the minority and majority leaders will not pull sruprise tactics like this on each other. Throwing tradition to the wind and disdaining the "cooling saucer" position of the Senate in politics, Reid surprised Frist by calling the session.

The loss of power has been a thorn in the side of Democrats and the sudden loss of momentum as they fantasized about gains in '06 must have been too much to take. The fact is that Democrat gains of any significance in '06 is a pipe dream. They have no ideas, no plans and no leaders. They are slaves to the far left fringe because of the corner they have backed themselves into. Bush has so marginalized them they have no message except to criticize the GOP. Howard Dean is claiming the GOP is corrupt and so the people will come to the Democrats. The memories of the American people are not so short that they would think the Democrats are the high road party. The Dems are hungry, weak and frustrated. Not a good climate for strategy.