Following Secretary of State Condi Rice’s interview on Meet the Press this morning this is what the enlightened leftist bloggerKos had to say:
by kos
Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 09:52:02 AM PDTInsane. Condi Rice on this morning’s Meet The Press:
“The fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al Qaeda … or we could take a bolder approach.”
We could destroy the people who attacked us, or we could let our attackers off scott free to go after an unrelated and unthreatening foe.
That’s not “bold”. That’s “fu….. idiotic”. (I removed the rest of the expletive)
Wow. Now that is insightful and well thought out Kos. And that is the “analysis” one finds at the left’s #1 blog.
To borrow an earlier sentiment/paraphrase from our Senator Spandex (John Kerry) : I can’t believe we are losing to these guys. If this type of incendiary and vacuous pablum is the best “anlysis” the mainstream left “thought leaders” can offer regarding the most important issue of our time the War on Terror, Bush and the GOP only have themselves to blame for such low approval ratings right now.
How many times do we and other members of the New Media/blogosphere have to recount the clear and present danger and imminent threat to our country posed by Sadaam that even Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry publically ackowledged on numerous occassions or the many documented links between Sadaam/Iraq/ and terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda? At this point, it boggles the imagination that the “blame America first crowd” led by the Kos, Moveon, Sorros, Michael Moore, et al. continue to make these absurd assertions which have been thoroughly debunked. They are like mind numbed robots (“Bush lied” false, “Halliburton/blood for oil” false, “Bush coordinated 9-11” false Arguing with liberals like those who frequent the DailyKos would be analogous to having a thoughtful conversation with a three year old.
Nowhere in the post is there any mention of the historic nature of the high (60%) Iraqi voter turnout or significance of adopting a constitution in a free Iraq or what it will mean to have a thriving liberal democracy in the heart of the Middle East… Zip, Zilch, Nada. Talk about a visceral hatred of your country and a mentally unstable preoccuption with one man George W Bush. I can’t imagine what it must be like for lefties such as Kos to get through a typical day.
More MSM laziness and slanted “journalism.” With distorted “reporting” such as this , is there any wonder that Bush’s poll #s are so low? The elite media are so inept and bias that they are hardly any more credible than Moveon.org or the Dailykos blog.
Again, monopolies/socialist style organizations which erect barriers to competition as the MSM has done for years always result in contrived scarcities, inferior quality, and limited consumer choice. The MSM is really no different than our government run public schools, government run healthcare, and Social(ist) Security. Is anybody surprised that more Americans are tuning them out and cancelling their subscriptions and tuning us in?
A Kennedy hypocrisy classic from the dim bulb of the RFK clan, Max. I wonder what enviro-wacko brother RFKJr. thinks about this? No comment from Uncle Teddy, he is busy opposing a wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod. It may be good for the environment, but that should not come at the expense of Teddy’s view from the family compound. From the Boston Herald’s Inside Track,
Professed environmentalist Max Kennedy is due in court on the Cape today to answer chargeshe violated town conservation rules by clear-cutting a coastal bank on his Hyannisport property.
Kennedy, son of Ethel and the late Bobby Kennedy, was found responsible for cutting the vegetation in violation of restrictions the town Conservation Commission had set. He was assessed a $150 fine, which he did not pay, and he has to appear today for an arraignment.
“He is supposed to show up,” said town conservation agent Darcy Karle. “As a courtesy I contacted his attorney and told him that Mr. Kennedy needed to show up and pay the fine or a warrant for his arrest would be issued.”
Do we need to tell you this is not Kennedy’s first run-in with the town conservation types? Kennedy, an avowed tree-hugger who formerly ran the Watershed Institute at Boston College and briefly flirted with a congressional run in 2001, was fined twice in 1998 for clearing brush and trees on his Cape property.
To build a touch-football field. Of course.
Kennedy is also currently in violation of wetlands protection laws for a pier he built off the back of his Maywood Avenue home. Karle said Kennedy constructed the pier without first submitting the proper paperwork, and that lights on the end of the dock are in violation.
Kennedy had asked for a hearing on Sept. 27 to answer to all the charges, then didn’t show up.
Kennedy is currently under orders to replant shrubs on the bank and to remove the too-bright lights at the end of his pier. His attorney did not return our call. But do stay tuned . . . .
This Sunday evening we are pleased to welcome back to Pundit Review Radio one of our favorite new media opinion leaders, Patterico. His site is loaded with interesting commentary on the nomination, check it out.
Does the Miers nomination stand a chance? Should it stand a chance? How will it impact the second term? The GOP? Bush’s legacy?
Join the discussion,
When: Sunday night, 9pm est
Where: Streaming live at WRKO
Contact Info: Call us toll free at 877-469-4322
About Pundit Review Radio
Pundit Review Radio is where the old media meets the new. Each week Kevin & Gregg give voice to the work of the most influencial thought leaders in the new media/citizen journalist movement. This unique show brings the best of the blogs to your radio every Sunday evening at 9pm EST on AM680 WRKO, Bostonâ??s Talk Leader.
Iowa’s Governor Tom Vilsack today suggests the best way to pay for the War and disaster relief is to reduce spending and raise taxes. (“Cuts That Heal” WSJ Opinion Section October 13, 2005).
In just five years, the president and his party have turnded the largest budget surpluses in our history into the largest deficits. The’ve already added $1.3 trillion to our national debt with unwise tax cuts and runaway spending.
Perhaps Governor Vilsack may have forgotten, but the 2000 recession, bursing of the “dot-com” bubble, and corporate scandals such as Enron and Tyco occured during the Clinton “trickle-down immorality” years-not to mention 9-11 which could have very well have been avoided if Slick had seized the many opportunities to capture and kill Osama. These events, and not President Bush’s much maligned tax cuts for the “rich”, caused the economy to contract and the deficit to widen. By the way, since President Bush’s tax cuts have gone into effect the deficit projections have decreased dramatically and almost 4 million new jobs have been created. But we shouldn’t expect that hard economic data will disuade liberals such as Governor Vilsack from continuing to talk down the economy. Funny how we have not heard claims about the Bush economy being the “worst since Herbert Hoover.”
While I agree that spending restraint is vital, the cuts Governor Vilsack suggests merely nibble around the edges by citing the usual liberal bogeymen (“ending corporate welfare” and “cutting bil oil and gas subsidies.” The largest unfunded liabilities are Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. President Bush and the GOP have proposed fundamentally reforming both of these massive government entitlement programs which threaten to devastate our economy if left untouched. Governor Vilsack and his fellow Democrats have done nothing but demagogue and marginalize these proposals to offer Health Savings Accounts and Individual Retirement Accounts to Americans who don’t want socialized medicine and 1% returns on SS.
Governor Vilsack then proposes raising taxes on the “rich.” (He like all liberals, who never call them tax hikes, refers to them as “restoring the top tax rates to the Clinton era”) Wow, what a novel concept for a modern day liberal-Democrat to propose. Is it any wonder that Democrats consistently lose elections? Why should Americans even listen to Democrats regarding economic policy when they continue to ignore the empirical evidence which has consistently demonstrated that across the board marginal tax cuts increase tax revenues to the federal treasury, reduce the deficit, increases investment, employment, and economic growth? One need only consider the Coolidge/Hoover marginal rate cuts of the 20’s, JFK’s tax cuts in the 60’s, Regan’s tax cuts in the 80s, and Bush 43’s cuts to understand how allowing all Americans to keep more of their hard earned money is the most effective way to create wealth and grow the economy. Democrats such as Governor Vilsack perpetually ignore this axiom choosing to instead engage in class warfare pitting the “rich” against “working Americans.” (As if “rich’ people don’t “work.”) What I can’t believe is how such supposedly educated and enlightened liberals continue to ignore such a basic economic concept which has been proven time and time again. Tax cuts increase tax revenues, reduce the deficit, and raise the standard of living accross the board, expecilly to minorities and the poor.
In contrast, every time taxes have been increased(Think about the Ted Kennedy Millionaires Yact Tax”), especially on the most productive members of our society (the “rich”), tax revenues, investment, employment, and economic growth have always decreased. Remember Jimmy Carter’s “stagflation” and economic “misery index” anybody?
Governor Vilsack’s prescription for the economy (raising taxes and opposing fundamental market based reforms in health care and Social Security) is further evidence that Democrats cannot be trusted to govern especially during war time when robust economic growth and fiscal discipline is vital to waging an effective War on Terror!
John Fund recently wrote a column on seven Republican appointed SCOTUS judges who disappointed once in office. They were Justices Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, Souter, Oâ??Connor, and Kennedy.
Jim Lindgren, makes an important observation on The Volokh Conspiracy,
“since the Stevens nomination, the only two Republican-appointed Justices who stayed fully true to form were Scalia and Thomas. Consider how these two differed from the other Republican appointments over that period (Stevens, Oâ??Connor, Kennedy, and Souter). Scalia and Thomas were movement conservatives who before their nomination were publicly attacked for their views. Before appointment, they had taken public positions that were perhaps broadly popular with the general public, but unpopular with educated elites and the press. Scalia and Thomas had sharpened and defended their ideas against attack.
By contrast, before their nominations Justices Stevens, Oâ??Connor, Kennedy, and Souter had not faced much public criticism for their judicial and legal ideologies. Their conservative ideologies were not as well formed, if they existed at all. Thus, they â??grew in office.â? In her conservative background before appointment, Miers is much more like Oâ??Connor, Kennedy, and Souter (and Blackmun from an earlier era) than like Scalia and Thomas.
That has to be considered a strike against Harriet Miers. And so does this. This pick is a disaster for the second term. I think she her confirmation is in serious doubt.
One thing is perfectly clear about the Bill Clinton administration. He could never really handle the job of president. At least not when it came to making difficult life and death decisions about defending this country. Former FBI Director Louis Freeh’s new book makes that perfectly clear.
A meglomaniac like Clinton could never make the tough decisions about national security when their own popularity was their top priority. Bill Clinton was literally phsyically unable to endure the potential pitfall of true leadership. He needed to be loved, and you cannot be loved when you take on big challenges. Too many things could go wrong and hurt your poll numbers. The idea of being unpopular upset Bill Clinton more than a world without fast food and slutty interns.
It certainly took priority over defending this country, as the former FBI Director makes clear in this book. Responding assertively to repeated, increasingly deadly terrorists attacks against the US and its interests overseas would have upset many people, here in the states and among his friends in Europe.
The calculation was clear. Forcefully defend the United States, or, talk a big game, and hope that nothing else happened. Clinton chose the latter and the result is that George W. Bush inhereted a fully formed global terrorist network that was coiled and poised to strike its biggest blow.
People should remember that as they vilify President Bush for the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, having breakfast, etc. Defending this country means making unpopular decisions. One thing people on both sides should admit about our current president is that he does not shy away from challenges. When difficult decisions about national security are on the table, President Bush will make the decision that he thinks is best for the country, no matter how difficult or unpopular.
One could easily imagine that a book such as this, written by a former FBI Director, filled with behind the scenes stories, would be previewed in the big news magazines such as Time and Newsweek. After all Time put Hillary on its cover when they ran an exerpt from her bland, predictable, unnewsworthy book. And they put Bill on the cover when his book came out.
Louis Freeh on the cover? No. An exerpt from the book? No. Zero, zip nada. As we talk about regularly, the media works via an agenda, and if a story does not fit that agenda, you will have to go elsewhere to find it. So this week, with the ex-FBI Director and ex-President and his team fighting it out over how this country responded to the early attacks from Al Qaeda and neither news magazine has nary a word about it. Hilllary and Bill get the cover, Clinton critics, even from the highest levels of the government, get the back of the hand.
Among the chestnuts in this new book that Time and Newsweek have declared unworthy,
Settling a score, Louis J. Freeh, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under President Bill Clinton and in the first six months of the Bush presidency, asserts in a new book that Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief, was “basically a second-tier player” who had little access to power and was in no position to issue credible warnings in advance of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Ah, Richard Clarke, another meglomaniac in search of the cameras.
“With Bill Clinton,” Mr. Freeh writes in a chapter called “Bill and Me,” “the scandals and rumored scandals, the incubating ones and the dying ones, never ended. Whatever moral compass the president was consulting, it was leading him in the wrong direction, and he lacked the discipline to pull back once he found himself stepping into trouble. Worse, he had been behaving that way so long that the closets were full of skeletons just waiting to burst out.”
This nugget has received the most attention,
Freeh also alleges that Clinton refused to personally ask Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to allow the FBI to question suspects in the â??96 Khobar Tower attacks who were in Saudi custody. Freeh writes: â??Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudisâ?? reluctance to cooperate and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library.â?Â
Clinton, of course, denied and personally ducked this question and sent out Sandy Burglar of all people to defend him. How ironic that a man recently busted for stealing classified documents from the National Archives, was sent out to defend Clinton on national security. Here is what the admitted thief and probation violator had to say,
“The president strongly raised the need for Saudi officials to cooperate with us on the investigation into the attack on Khobar Towers at the time when the FBI was attempting to gain access to the suspects. The president did not raise in any fashion the issue of his library.”
Well that settles it. Right?
Saudis, Arabs Bankrolled Clinton Library
The names of most of the 113,000 donors to Bill Clinton’s presidential library remain a closely guarded secret, but a new report claims that the facility was heavily funded by the Saudi royal family and other wealthy Arabs.
According to Monday’s New York Sun, the $165 million complex was funded in part by gifts of $1 million or more each from the Saudi royals and three Saudi businessmen.
History will not be kind to Bill Clinton, and he knows it.