Terrorism Down, ABCNBCCBSCNN Ignore

The State Deparment has released its new report on Patterns of Global Terrorism, and wouldn't you know, terrorism is down. But you won't hear it on the news. Nope, they have to continue the charade that Bush is bad, Bush lied, Bush hasn't made us safer... . Here's the choice part:

There were 190 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight decrease from the 198 attacks that occurred in 2002, and a drop of 45 percent from the level in 2001 of 346 attacks. The figure in 2003 represents the lowest annual total of international terrorist attacks since 1969.

A total of 307 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, far fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 1,593 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, down from 2,013 persons wounded the year before.

I won't wait for Dan Rather to cover this.

"Operation Measured Patience"

Who the hell comes up with these names. When I saw this on Free Republic, I felt I had to weigh in with my own name: Operation Flatlujah. It works for me.

Man the Lifeboats, We're Taking on Water

After months of handwringing over John Kerry, it appears that the fog may be lifting over the democrat party, and it doesn't look pretty. Here's a peak:

John Kerry Must Go
Note to Democrats: it's not too late to draft someone—anyone—else
April 27th, 2004 11:45 AM

WASHINGTON, D.C.— With the air gushing out of John Kerry's balloon, it may be only a matter of time until political insiders in Washington face the dread reality that the junior senator from Massachusetts doesn't have what it takes to win and has got to go. As arrogant and out of it as the Democratic political establishment is, even these pols know the party's got to have someone to run against George Bush. They can't exactly expect the president to self-destruct into thin air.

With growing issues over his wealth (which makes fellow plutocrat Bush seem a charity case by comparison), the miasma over his medals and ribbons (or ribbons and medals), his uninspiring record in the Senate (yes war, no war), and wishy-washy efforts to mimic Bill Clinton's triangulation gimmickry (the protractor factor), Kerry sinks day by day. The pros all know that the candidate who starts each morning by having to explain himself is a goner.

What to do? Look for the Dem biggies, whoever they are these days, to sit down with the rich and arrogant presumptive nominee and try to persuade him to take a hike. Then they can return to business as usual—resurrecting John Edwards, who is still hanging around, or staging an open convention in Boston, or both.

If things proceed as they are, the dim-bulb Dem leaders are going to be very sorry they screwed Howard Dean.

Speaking of lifeboats, this reminds me of the Three Stooges short where they're in a small boat that's taking on water. Moe tells Larry and Curly to help get the water out, so Larry starts bailing the water, while Curly drills holes in the bottom of the boat with an auger. I'm just wondering which Democrat is Curly?

Moonbat Alert

The moonbats are out over at Common Dreams -- "news organization" (use that term loosely) that has "breaking news and views for the progressive community. I guess you need to be pretty progressive, or just hopped up on goofballs, to believe the New Reports on U.S. Planting WMDs in Iraq.

Flippity Flop

Damn, it's hard keeping up with Kerry's flip flops.

Contradicting his statements as a candidate for president, Sen. John Kerry claimed in a 1971 television interview that he threw away as many as nine of his combat medals to protest the war in Vietnam. . . .

Throughout his presidential campaign, Kerry has denied that he threw away any of his 11 medals during an anti-war protest in April, 1971.

His campaign Web site calls it a "right wing fiction" and a smear. And in an interview with ABCNEWS' Peter Jennings last December, he said it was a "myth."

But Kerry told a much different story on Viewpoints. Asked about the anti-war veterans who threw their medals away, Kerry said "they decided to give them back to their country."

Kerry was asked if he gave back the Bronze Star, Silver Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for combat duty as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam. "Well, and above that, [I] gave back the others," he said.

The statement directly contradicts Kerry's most recent claims on the disputed subject to the Los Angeles Times last Friday. "I never ever implied that I did it, " Kerry told the newspaper, responding to the question of whether he threw away his medals in protest.

He's pathetic.

Happy Earth Day!

Thirteen years ago, I planted 40 black walnut trees on Earth Day at our house in Vermont. I can't wait for Earth Day 2031, when those black walnuts will have matured and I can cut them down and sell them.

As for this year's Earth Day, I think I'll go burn a tire.

Religion of Peace?

The Evening Standard in London has published an interesting article detailing the kooks that follow al-Qaeda.

"As far as I'm concerned, when they bomb London, the bigger the better," says Abdul Haq, the social worker. "I know it's going to happen because Sheikh bin Laden said so. Like Bali, like Turkey, like Madrid - I pray for it, I look forward to the day."

But America didn't cause this as we so often hear from the caterwauling on the left. It actually was a call to arms on 9/11:

But it was the events of 11 September that crystallised Sayful's worldview. "When I watched those planes go into the Twin Towers, I felt elated," he says. "That magnificent action split the world into two camps: you were either with Islam and al Qaeda, or with the enemy. I decided to quit my job and commit myself full-time to al-Muhajiroun." Now he does not consider himself British. "I am a Muslim living in Britain, and I give my allegiance only to Allah."

They need to be stopped, especially if there are similiar sentiments here in the US.

Oh, Wait, You Meant "All" of My Records?

John Kerry says he will release all of his medical records from Vietnam. Or will he?

Secret War Plans

Bob Woodward's new book about the war in Iraq is coming out soon, and the lefties are fulminating about it already, ready to pounce on Bush just like they did with Clarke's piece of fiction. Once article is touting the secret war plan Bush had for Iraq. Wow, imagine a president formulating a war plan in secret. The bastard. I think he should have vetted it through the NY Times and WaPo editorial boards before going through with the attack.

Gee, anyone ever heard of the Rainbow Plan?

Gee, So it Wasn't that "Axis of Evil" Remark

Yesterday, the New York Times published an article stating that the North Koreans had nukes in their arsenal at least five years ago. Maybe now we can put to rest the constant harping from the left trying to protect Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright from the debacle known as the "Agreed Framework" by claiming Bush precipitated the nuke production with his "Axis of Evil" comment in the 2002 State of the Union address. Just more facts that they will ignore.

Freeh to Criticize

Louis Freeh writes in today's Wall Street Journal, Before 9/11--and After, that the US wasn't ready to fight before 9/11, but once the attacks happened, we were. Here's part of it:

Al Qaeda was at war with the U.S. even before Sept. 11, 2001. In August 1998, it attacked our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In December 1999, one of al Qaeda's soldiers, Ahmed Ressam, entered the U.S. to bomb Los Angeles airport. In October 2000, al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in the port of Aden.

The question before the 9/11 Commission is why our political leadership declared war back on al Qaeda only after Sept. 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden had been indicted years before for blowing up American soldiers and embassies and was known as a clear and present danger to the U.S. So what would have happened had the U.S. declared war on al Qaeda before Sept. 11? Endless and ultimately useless speculation about "various threads and pieces of information," which are certainly "relevant and significant," at least in retrospect, will not take us very far in answering this central question.

On Jan. 26, 2001, at 8:45 a.m., I had my first meeting with President Bush and Vice President Cheney. They had been in office four days. We discussed terrorism, and in particular al Qaeda, the African embassy bombings, the Cole attack and the June 1996 Khobar bombing in Saudi Arabia. When I advised the president that Hezbollah and Iran were responsible for Khobar, he directed me to follow-up with Condoleezza Rice. I did so at 2:30 p.m. that day and she told me to pursue our investigation with the attorney general and to bring whatever charges possible. Within weeks, a new prosecutor was put in charge of the case and on June 21 an indictment was returned against 13 Hezbollah men who had been directed to bomb Khobar by senior officials of the Iranian government. I know that the families of the 19 murdered airmen were deeply grateful to President Bush and Ms. Rice for their prompt response and focus on terrorism.

It's clear to me that the 9/11 Commission has devolved into partisanship. Unfortunately, the partisanship is limited to the democrats, while the Republicans sit back like a bunch of doofuses and act non-partisan. Could we have picked more limp-dicked losers for the Republican side? Geez, when are these idiots going to wake up and see what's going on? Do they expect to "get them" on the final report? By that time, no one will care, and the damage will have been done to Bush. These idiots need to realize that the dems on that commission have one purpose and one purpose only -- beat George Bush. They don't care about figuring out what happened on 9/11. If last week's performance by the dems' (ben Veniste and Kerrey) questioning Condi Rice wasn't enough to convince people that they're not interested in facts, then what is it going to take -- a bat in the face?

Bush Should Have Done More to Stop 9/11, Damnit!!

Just imagine if he had...

Partisan Witch Hunt?

From James Taranto's Best of the Web:

'Not a Contemporary Piece of Information'
During yesterday's 9/11 commission hearing, Democratic lawyer Richard Ben-Veniste tried to set a trap for Condoleezza Rice over an August 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing:

Ben-Veniste: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

Rice: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.

Now, the . . .

Ben-Veniste: Thank you.

Rice: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste . . .

Ben-Veniste: I will get into the . . .

Rice: I would like to finish my point here.

Ben-Veniste: I didn't know there was a point.

Rice: Given that--you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.

Ben-Veniste: I asked you what the title was.

Rice: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.

Ben-Veniste's rudeness was clear for all to see, but to understand just how dishonest was his line of questioning, look at this article from the May 27, 2002, issue of Human Events, a conservative Washington weekly:

Sen. Bob Graham (D.-Fla.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told HUMAN EVENTS May 21 that his committee had received all the same terrorism intelligence prior to September 11 as the Bush administration.

"Yes, we had seen all the information," said Graham. "But we didn't see it on a single piece of paper, the way the President did."

Graham added that threats of hijacking in an August 6 memo to President Bush were based on very old intelligence that the committee had seen earlier. "The particular report that was in the President's Daily Briefing that day was about three years old," Graham said. "It was not a contemporary piece of information."

Graham is far from a supporter of the Bush administration, as he made clear last year in his brief but loopy presidential campaign. The 9/11 commission is supposed to be an impartial search for the truth. Is there any doubt that Ben-Veniste is guilty of trying to turn it into a partisan witch hunt?

In other words Bush=Hitler.

Unrest in Baghdad?

Maybe it should be rest in Baghdad.

Daily Moron

I've been away and a little busy, so I've been bereft in posting lately. Apparently, I missed the bile Markos Moulitsas posting concerning the American deaths in Fallujah:

Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly. That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

What an asshole!

Someone Likes Air America

Not me, but this guy does. Out of curiosity I listened to the first segment of Al Franken's show off the internet. Ironically, I listened to that in my left ear and Rush in my right ear. If Franken wants to be successful, he needs to be entertaining, which he was not in segment I heard. In fact, it was difficult to listen to, almost to the point where I was embarrassed for him. But that's not the story. The story is that the liberal news is making it a big story. I would normally ignore it, but in this case the bias is so transparent, it makes me want to scream. Franken is on 4 stations while Rush is on 650, and the news is making it out to be like Rush's days are numbered. Moreover, Franken's network's business plan has a major flaw -- you can't buy segments. To get the show, a station must buy all 24 hours of programming. Very few stations are going to buy into that because they have local programming that they want to air, not this crap 24/7. It just aggravates me that NBCABCCBSPBSCNN give this story such prominence.

By the way, I'm inventing a new car in my basement. I've got your number General Motors. Yeah right.