24
Feb
This the funniest thing to come out this year!
Bob Rivers’ Cheney’s Got a Gun
I hope this isn’t copywritten, everyone NEEDS to hear it!
Now, before I get going, I have always respected David Bernstein a LOT. I have quoted him here before. That’s why his post baffles me. You can read the whole thing here. Now, the part that loses me is this:
Given these poll numbers, I would think that there is room for the development of a relatively liberal, non-Islamic, non-corrupt political movement in the Palestinian areas that seeks a negotiated peace with Israel. It’s too bad the EU, U.S., and to some extent Israel itself were busy propping up Fatah all these years instead of helping nurture such a movement.
That’s the same misguided logic Jimmy Carter is using. I’m really disappointed in his opinion quite frankly. What part of Hamas calling for the destruction of Israel does he not get or condone? What other option does he think the US, EU, and Israel was given in light of the Hamas declaration? The fact that the “new” Hamas declaration still does not call for peace with Israel does not give me any comfort that Hamas is ready to change their position. And lastly, has David not ever heard of push polls or media bias? I just have one suggestion for David, don’t believe everything you read without verifying it first. Especially polls. Al Gore would have been president followed by John Kerry if you believed the polls.
21
Feb
Here’s one headline:
Carter Says Hamas Will Be Peaceful, Advocates Giving Money to UN (VIDEO)
In a released statement, Carter elaborates further:
"During this time of fluidity in the formation of the new government, it is important that Israel and the United States play positive roles," Carter wrote in a piece in Monday’s edition of The Washington Post.
"Any tacit or formal collusion between the two powers to disrupt the process by punishing the Palestinian people could be counterproductive and have devastating consequences."
Here’s another:
Hamas drops call for destruction of Israel from manifesto
Lookin good? Not quite so fast:
"Hamas is talking about the end of the occupation as the basis for a state, but at the same time Hamas is still not ready to recognise the right of Israel to exist," he said. "We cannot give up the right of the armed struggle because our territory is occupied in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. That is the territory we are fighting to liberate."
Now, what exactly is Carter’s evidence Hamas is a good thing? What exactly makes him think that if the US and Israel play good guys Hamas end their only purpose of an autonomous state where Israel used to be? Why exactly is anyone still listening to him?
- Technorati Jimmy Carter, Hamas
This is an interesting bit of information that you don’t hear much about.
- Enron’s chairman did meet with the president and the vice President in the Oval Office.
- Enron gave $420,000 to the president’s party over three years.
- It donated $100,000 to the president’s inauguration festivities.
- The Enron chairman stayed at the White House 11 times.
- The corporation had access to the administration at its highest level And even enlisted the Commerce and State Departments to grease Deals for it.
- The taxpayer-supported Export-Import Bank subsidized Enron for More than $600 million in just one transaction. Scandalous!!
- BUT…the president under whom all this happened WASN’T George W. Bush. SURPRISE ……… It was Bill Clinton!
 |
 |
Have you ever asked yourself why Enron did so well in the 90′s only to be prosecuted immediately after Clinton left office? You just don’t see that question asked on tv very often now do ya?
20
Feb
A lot has been made of the wiretapping debate. Some Democrats have gone so far to even suggest Bush might face impeachment over the issue. Bush has argued that he had the right to do it, and, that some members of Congress were kept informed of what they were doing. What I’ve not really seen is a real debate over the merits of Bush’s claim. His basic claim is he was given the right by the War Powers given him by Congress immediately following September 11, 2001. Here is the text of that resolution:
One Hundred Seventh Congress
of the
United States of America
AT T H E F I R S T S E S S I O N
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
-
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
-
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
-
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
-
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
-
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for Use of Military Force”.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL.–That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.–
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.–Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
S. J. Res. 23–2
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.–Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Seems pretty clear to me. What part of "persons" are people not understanding?
- Technorati wiretapping
20
Feb
He favored keeping the agency within the Homeland Security Department. FEMA was independent before it was folded into Homeland Security when the department was created after the Sept. 11 attacks.
"It’s time for FEMA to go and to build something better, stronger within DHS to take its place," Lieberman said.
Fair enough.
Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he favored making FEMA a Cabinet department.
Davis said FEMA should not be competing for dollars within a department concerned with prevention as well as response, said Davis, who appeared with Lieberman on ABC’s "This Week."
Again, fair enough. Makes some sense.
Somewhere in there Yahoo implies Lieberman wants this restructuring done before the next hurricane season. In light of the ongoing changes within DHS, I want to know how he plans on re-structuring an agency that is still dealing with the changes brought on several years ago? These agencies are massive, complex structures that tie into every single local community. You can’t just snap your fingers and magically have a new better one in place. I don’t want snap decisions and actions. I want a better response, but I want the changes required done in a calculated progressive fashion that does not undermine the ability of FEMA to do its assigned responsibility now. Hurricanes are not the ONLY responsibility of FEMA. And, simply making them an animal with a different label will not make them any better. The best thing that can happen to FEMA is a good response to a disaster without political posturing affecting their actions. Until that happens ( don’t hold your breath ), FEMA will always be the scapegoat of political opportunists. More went right for FEMA than what went wrong in New Orleans. Let’s just fix what went wrong and quit attempting to paint the entire agency something it’s not ( a four letter word ).
For what it’s worth, I know Lieberman’s been around long enough to know how complex this issue is. For that reason, I think he’s just pandering.
- Technorati FEMA, Joe Lieberman
What he said this weekend was just plain stupid. And I mean that sincerely. At this point, I’m sure even he agrees. On pretty much the very day he trashes the Winter Olympics as being a bastion of white folks only, Shari Davis wins one of the very few gold medals the US will win this year. To compund his incredibly dumb statement, he compares the Winter Olympics to the Republican Party ( huh? ). I’ll elt Condi Rice debate that issue with the the equal ranking Democrat of Gumbel’s choice. How many stereotypes did Gumbel think he could cram into one statement? All he left out was white men can’t jump and once you go black, you’ll never go back.
And the real shame of it all is that I agree with Gumbel regarding the points he actually made about winter Olympic games. They bore me. I don’t consider events where someone else determines the result based solely on their opinion to be true competitive games. Curling is NOT a sport. Basketball is. Having Oylmpics every other year is BAD for the Olympics in that the rarity and uniqueness of it is gone. It’s no longer a much-anticipated event. It’s happening all the time. And, now that it is, people are realizing just how boring 90% of the WINTER games are.
So Bryant, do me a favor, keep harping on how boring the Winter Olympics are. But, STICK TO THE SUBJECT. Tossing the race card into every conceivable issue is just tiresome. And quite frankly, is becoming just as effective as the Winter Olympics are.
For details of Gumbel’s comments, go American Phoenix.
- Technorati Winter Olympics, Bryant Gumbel, racism
This is the topic that will NOT go away. I’ve yet to even figure why it’s being discussed much at all in the very first place. I took a poll here, about 80% think it’s not a story. Granted, my polls probably won’t affect national opinion, but larger ones are coming to pretty much the same conclusion. Time Magazine took a poll that showed Cheney’s unpopularity pretty much exactly where it’s always been. Regardless, this Sunday, Hillary Clinton ( and others ) once again had to discuss the non-incident that it was:
"I think the White House should have said something about it sooner," Clinton said. "I think that it’s gotten a little more light than it would have because the administration has an enormous penchant for secrecy for not telling anybody anything about anything."
Now, if I had been sitting there, I think I would have said something to the effect of: "This is such a non-incident, why are you asking ME about this now? Huh? Can’t think of anything else? I’ve not done anything myself worth discussing?"
And that folks, is the problem the Democrats seem to be having in a nutshell. Nothing is about them right now. Reacting to what others do is not what gets people talking about what you do. Hillary may be stumping for a shot at the presidency, but she’s not going anywhere by gossiping about others.
And to be fair, Foxnews ( and others ) was discussing it this morning on my way to work. Now, the issue has become debating how much of a non-issue this non-issue was in the first place politically, and why this non-issue is being debated on the merits of non-worthiness.
- Technorati Time Magazine, Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton
“…many monuments at UW already commemorate rich white men.” Thus spoke University of Washington Student Senate member Ashley Miller. The conversation was referring to this guy:
He’s Native American. See those airplanes in the background? He’s possibly the greatest pilot to ever sit in one of those cockpits. He was held captive and tortured during WWII. None of that mattered to Ashley Miller. She didn’t bother to research one iota about Pappy Boyington. She let her anti-war blinders get in the way and made that incredibly stupid and biased comment. If Pappy were still around I’d welcome him to my world. As it stands now, the heat has gotten to the Senate body and they are trying to dig their way out of it by figuring some way to honor all veterans of combat generically. That doesn’t cut it. Pappy was the best at what he did. Not too many Washington alum can make that claim. Not too many alum from anywhere can make that claim. There’s no need to sterilize his memory. He was great. He alone deserves to be remembered and celebrated for being the best at what he did. Just because some young girl who doesn’t care to explore the issue wants to make a political statement doesn’t lessen the fact that Pappy was great at what he did. And, the political statement that Ashley is trying to make is the one she doesn’t get. If it weren’t for the Pappy’s, she wouldn’t be allowed to publicly display how stupid she really is. Get a clue Ashley, start by apologizing to the Native Americans as well as the average white males. Then, read some history. They obviously don’t teach it very well at the University of Washington. If she can’t find the library, try watching tv:
Plot Synopsis: Pappy Boyington is the squadron-leader of a group of fighter pilots stationed on an island in the Pacific, during World War II. Pappy often needs to intercede in altercations at the base, but everyone seems to pull together when they are assigned missions in the air.
Or, if you’d prefer, read his book:
Just read something besides Salon.com. It’s making you stupid.
- More from Michelle Malkin and Sister Toldjah.
