All Things Considered

Sorry - on a little bit of a hiatus during the holidays.

More reading on the Humvee armor question and the troops on the ground. (Link provided by Mike)

To the media, it was a dramatic revelation of Bush administration hypocrisy and incompetence: A lowly American GI courageously speaks truth to power, thus showing that the emperor has no clothes. But to this Marine veteran of the Iraq war, the hullabaloo over Army Spc. Thomas J. Wilson's question reveals far more about media bias, prejudice and ignorance than it does about the U.S. military and Iraq.

Spc. Wilson asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld why, nearly two years after the start of the war, his unit still has too few "up-armored" humvees. The media were surprised that an enlisted man would ask so direct and pointed a question of the Pentagon's highest official. I wasn't.

I enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve after Sept. 11, 2001, and served in Iraq in 2003. Throughout boot camp, combat training and subsequent preparation for war, my instructors always stressed the importance of independent thinking and initiative. Obviously, when you're in the middle of a firefight, you cannot--and must not--second-guess split-second command decisions. However, when preparing for war, thoughtful and considered questions are not only tolerated; they are encouraged--even demanded, I found.

As one of my combat instructors told us: "Marines, you're more likely to die from someone doing something stupid than because the enemy is skilled and ingenious. So make sure you've thought things through and that everyone's on the same page. Be polite. Be tactful. But don't be afraid to ask questions."

Aggies in the national news, but not exactly for the best of reasons.

Aggies started camping out last Sunday to buy tickets for this season's SBC Cotton Bowl, in which A&M plays the University of Tennessee in Dallas on New Year's Day.

At 4:30 a.m. Thursday morning, an unnamed woman marched right past snoring football fans and took her place at the head of the line.

When the campers woke up at around 6 a.m. and began protesting, she grabbed the posted sign-up list of students who'd been waiting for days — and ate it.

"The piece of paper doesn't justify a spot in line to me if no one is standing there," the anonymous woman, a senior, later told the Battalion, the student newspaper. "If they wanted a spot, they should've woken up."

A spokesman for the university's athletic department said students had been putting their names on lists while waiting for tickets since at least 1985.

"[She] walked up in the line and people were trying to explain to her that she had to put her name on the list," said sophomore Amineh Baradar. "She didn't want to because she said [keeping lists of who was there first] wasn't an official university policy."

The culprit:

Chris Farley is alive and well and eating Cotton Bowl ticket lists in College Station.

The message boards are eating this story up - pun intended. If you have some time, check out the Sooner board. Hilarious.

Okay, you got me. It's time for Rumsfeld to go. Somehow.....someway. I can't stand the guy. Another ringing endorsement.

Schwarzkopf, interviewed on MSNBC-TV’s “Hardball,” chided Rumsfeld for his reply to a soldier in Kuwait over the lack of armor on many military vehicles used in Iraq.

“I was very, very disappointed — no, let me put it stronger — I was angry by the words of the secretary of defense when he laid it all on the Army, as if he, as the secretary of defense, didn’t have anything to do with the Army and the Army was over there doing it themselves, screwing up,” Schwarzkopf said.

Here is another example of how completely ridiculous liberals have become.

Lieberman says no to being Homeland Security Chief

by PLS
Tue Dec 14th, 2004 at 19:11:49 PST

Update [2004-12-14 22:19:23 by Armando]: Promoted from the diaries by Armando. Title Edited "Loserman" becomes Lieberman. Everybody knows I'm not Joe's biggest fan. But if this is true, big ups to Joe. He must know we hate him, but he was a good enough Dem to pass on something he probably would have very much wanted to do.] (Author's bold and italics)

Aaron Brown reporting that Lieberman [Diarist wrote "Loserman"] has said no for the second time to the WH regarding taking the Homeland security post, and that he has also turned down being the American ambassador to the UN.

Humm... glad he is saying no. But the fact that he has repeatedly asked to serve in this administration shows just how loyal he has been.

Oh, and Zell Miller has accepted a job at Faux as a comentator. What a surprise, huh?

Let me get this straight: Bush appoints conservatives and people that have served with him before....and you blast him. Bush appoints people in your party to high positions in his cabinet....and you blast him. "But if this is true, big ups to Joe." Huh? What kind of idiot is this Armando? Lieberman turns down a high cabinet position and you applaud him? Mark this down: next person that Bush appoints, he will get blasted for only choosing "his" people. These guys at Daily Kos are so out of touch it's not even funny.

There are days that I absolutely love John McCain and there are days that I just cannot stand him. I think this is a complete cheap shot at the President. Now, that's not to say that McCain doesn't have a point. I have said many times that I am not a fan of Rumsfeld and, honestly, I probably lean more to this way of thinking. However, that being said, I think this kind of rhetoric needs to be passed on behind closed doors. I don't doubt that McCain has already said something along these lines to President Bush already. What is the point of saying this out loud on front of the cameras? I cannot understand the angle McCain is trying to take here.

U.S. Sen. John McCain said Monday that he has "no confidence" in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, citing Rumsfeld's handling of the war in Iraq and the failure to send more troops.

McCain, speaking to The Associated Press in an hourlong interview, said his comments were not a call for Rumsfeld's resignation, explaining that President Bush "can have the team that he wants around him."

"I have strenuously argued for larger troop numbers in Iraq, including the right kind of troops — linguists, special forces, civil affairs, etc.," said McCain, R-Ariz. "There are very strong differences of opinion between myself and Secretary Rumsfeld on that issue."

When asked if Rumsfeld was a liability to the Bush administration, McCain responded: "The president can decide that, not me."

Another example of "I take my life in America for granted". (Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan)

A teenage girl with a mental age of eight is facing the death penalty for prostitution in Iran. The trial comes only four months after the hanging of another mentally ill girl for sex before marriage in a case that has prompted a human rights lawyer to prepare a charge of wrongful execution against the presiding judge.

The girl, known as Leyla M, is in prison while the Supreme Court decides on her "acts contrary to chastity", among the most serious charges under Iranian law. Under the penal code, girls as young as nine and boys as young as 15 can be executed.

Interesting post by Adam Yoshida on the West versus Islam. I am not sure that I agree completely, but it's tough to discount what he has to say. (My bold and italics)

I hate to admit to it but, in the weeks immediately following September 11th, I initially bought into the widely-circulated platitudes about the ‘peaceful’ nature of Islam. It would be fair to say (if one were trying to put it as mildly as possible) that my position has since changed.

Many have noted in recent months that I’ve spent an increasing amount of time discussing the broader Islamic threat as opposed to merely the Islamist threat. That’s because I’ve come to a simple conclusion: if Western Civilization is to survive, Islam must be destroyed. The two are not compatible and cannot co-exist on a single planet.

Some of the bolder souls on the right have moved beyond the initial belief that the present war is merely against “terrorism” to the more specific belief that we are fighting “Islamists.” But, allow me to ask a question: how are we to distinguish what is Islamist from what is merely Islamic? The answer, in truth, is that we can’t. The Islamist operative planning to blow up the Sears Tower is to the Moslem in Tehran what the Communist agent in Washington was to the Moscow factory worker in the Cold War. Both are part of the same evil system, only their guilt differs.

Fantastic letter posted at Powerline which, I think, truly exemplifies why we are in this war with Iraq. (Mt bold and italics)

Reader Harold Stones works for Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas. Mr. Stones writes:

I have become friends with Chris Phelps, a young Marine officer. Chris emailed me that he was about to be deployed for his second tour of duty in Iraq. He is married, has four sons, all younger than 7. I responded that I doubted his wife, Lisa, was overjoyed and, allthough her parents live nearby, I asked Chris to give her my office, home and cellphone numbers in the event they need anything. I think his message is well worth sharing.

Of course, we agree. Here is the response from Major Phelps that Mr. Stones forwarded to us:

No Lisa isn't happy, and I was just talking to my two oldest sons last night about sacrifice. (Sort of prepping the battlefield, but we've talked about the subject for two years.) I want them to understand the topic and what it means to be an American....really more what it means to stay an American and what citizens of this great country must do to secure that concept. It's amazing how a 6.5 and a 5 year old can really understand it, and actually converse back with an adult on the topic. It's going to be hard on them.

I hope I'm not too naive but this is what's in my head. I continually tell myself and I wholeheartedly believe that if we as a country can confront terrorism and rouge nation-states that support terrorist acts and if we can bring peace, hope, freedoms, and democracy to a country in the heart of the Middle East while at the same time solidifying the security, freedom, and liberties of this great nation then my sacrifice is inconsequential. If I am asked to partake in some small way to accomplish this goal then I say take me before my four sons are confronted with this problem in 20 years and they are forced to clean up a problem that has only festered, become increasingly worse and a problem that we should have confronted twenty years earlier. We are doing the right thing, and America needs to stand united and reaffirm to themselves every now and then that we are in fact doing the right thing. I think I'm a free minded thinker, and I'm not "brainwashed" by the President, Mr. Rumsfield, or some "right wing propaganda conspiracy theory." I really think we're attempting to accomplish something monumental. I guess we'll see.

Mr. Stones, you've been good to my family and so has Senator Roberts. Thank you for that. I look forward to seeing you again.

Best regards,
Chris Phelps
Major, United States Marine Corps

Agree 100%. Thank you for your service, Major Phelps.

Now it's official. I am not sure how you could think anything other than poison. This has to be one of the strangest things I have ever seen.

Austrian doctors said Saturday that Viktor Yushchenko, who faces a Dec. 26 runoff in Ukraine against the Kremlin-backed candidate, Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, was poisoned with dioxin as he campaigned for President.

I am at a complete loss for words. Honestly, though, I don't think I really have to say anything - this piece completely speaks for itself. I will apologize up front for any disrespect to my University of Texas friends, but how does this man claim "Academic" status at your university? How embarrassing. (Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan) (My bold and italics)

The United States has lost the war in Iraq, and that's a good thing.

That's a good thing? What kind of idiotic rhetoric is that? A good thing? So, Mr. Jensen, every American soldier that is killed in Iraq is a good thing? It's a good thing that Iraqi people are being killed trying to take back their country?

I don't mean that the loss of American and Iraqi lives is to be celebrated. (Ed: Oh really? It sure does seem like you do. Idiot.) The death and destruction are numbingly tragic, and the suffering in Iraq is hard for most of us in the United States to comprehend.

The tragedy is compounded because these deaths haven't protected Americans or brought freedom to Iraqis. They have come in the quest to extend the American empire in this "new American century."

So, as a U.S. citizen, I welcome the U.S. defeat for a simple reason: It isn't the defeat of the United States -- its people or their ideals -- but of that empire. And it's essential that the American empire be defeated and dismantled.

Speak out against the war? Okay. Speak out against the President? Okay. Openly root for the death of our soldiers and the defeat of our country and, now, we have a very serious problem.

Please not that Mr. Jensen was kind enough to leave his email address at the bottom of the letter - rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu - if you care to let Mr. Jensen know how you feel about his propaganda. Ms. Lorraine Branham is the Director of the University of Texas Journalism School - her email is lbranham@mail.utexas.edu  - if you care to let her know that you do not appreciate the University of Texas supporting this type of propaganda.

Robert Jenson is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and the author of "Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim our Humanity."

Well, that definitely makes things a lot more clear. Mr. Jensen has a book with the same subject. Is the book not selling enough that you have to turn your back on your country, Mr. Jenson? Despicable. You, sir, should be ashamed.

Ick.

Fingerprints belonging to both Michael Jackson and the boy accusing him of child molestation were found on pornographic magazines seized from Jackson's Neverland ranch last year, the Santa Barbara News-Press reported Saturday, citing sources it did not identify.

I had previously mentioned the MoveOn statement about "owning" the Democratic Party. In all honesty, I love it. Give the Democratic Party to MoveOn, to Michael Moore and to Howard Dean. It only makes it easier for the Republicans in future elections. Every time you see these people in the news, it only pushes more moderates to the right. I am very curious to see what will happen when Hillary (as referenced below) decides it's time for her to make her strong push for the Presidency. I just don't see her allowing the people listed to have any say so on "her" party and "her" candidacy. She will shut them down quickly and silently. I wouldn't be surprised if the calls have been made already. So, what happens? Do these far lefties disappear? Do they decide it's best to slink back under the rock where they came? I don't think so. I think they get even louder. Perfect scenario for the Republicans, who just get to sit back and have the Democrats snipe each other out of another election.

Everything I Know is Wrong has a great post detailing such a situation.

Neo-European, socialist/communist liberals like MoveOn, and Michael Moore, PETA, The Deaniacs and Naderites, etc., are simply so far out of the mainstream in America that they'll never be able to garner national support without lying about who they are and what they believe. They seem completely willing to do this, but with the failure of mainstream media's monopoly it will be much more difficult to get away with than in the past.

As for the decent left, they've had about all they can stand of being lumped in with the idea-less MoveOn loons. The stuck-in-the-sixties left is an embarrassment to thinking people, and there are a lot of thinking people on the left. Still the decents will have a hard time getting over the team concept of politics. They are Democrats, never mind that their Party has lurched from under them and left for parts unknown. They are Democrats and they have defined themselves that way, politically, for a lifetime. As a former Democrat I know how hard that is to get over. As a current Republican voter, but having gone through the process of leaving a party with which I was highly identified, I can tell you I would not hesitate for a second to stop supporting a party that stopped supporting me. But there will be no mass migration away from the Democrats, especially not to the evil Republicans -- thus the battle.

Fantastic piece by Peggy Noonan about the future of Hillary Clinton. Peggy makes a lot of predictions about Hillary's future behavior - most of which I completely agree with. It's going to be very interesting to see how close Peggy comes to nailing Hillary. Check out the rest of the article. Here is the question and answer session.

So what about the future? Let's do some Q&A.

How is Mrs. Clinton positioning herself in terms of the issues?

She is taking care of her liberal base while cherry-picking key issues on which she can get to the right of the Republican party. This is most astute and quite effective. For the liberals she produces a steady stream of base-friendly efforts (Special Committee on the Aging, education funding, help for the emotionally disturbed, extended unemployment insurance) and classic pork barrel. To get to the right of the president she talks homeland security and immigration. On homeland security she fights for increased funding, better controls at U.S. ports, tightened security for nuclear power plants and chemical plants. She issues warnings about the use of weapons of mass destruction on American soil. She is a member of the Armed Services Committee and likes to talk about military reform. On immigration she has begun talking tough on border security, accusing the administration of not spending enough, employing enough people, using the best technology. She recently called herself "adamantly against illegal immigrants," by which she no doubt meant illegal immigration, and has been inching toward support for a national ID card.

Why does she want to get to Mr. Bush's right on these issues?

Three reasons. The first is that she knows another attack on American soil is inevitable and wants to position herself politically as The Wise One Who Warned Us.

Second, she knows that a woman perceived as a liberal has no chance at winning the presidency while a woman perceived as a tough, pragmatic moderate does. So she is tough where Mr. Compassionate Conservative is soft (immigration), or is vulnerable, after a coming attack, to charges that he was soft (homeland security). She can't lose on this one. Security can always be better, and after America is attacked again anger and finger pointing will be widespread.

Third, Mrs. Clinton knows the Democratic Party as a whole is to the left of the electorate. She is used to this. It is the story of her life. The electorate in Arkansas were always more moderate than Gov. and Mrs. Clinton, and President and Mrs. Clinton for that matter. She knows how to operate in such conditions. She does not intend to go down in flames as a leftist when she runs for president. This will take guile. She has guile.

But what about what people are saying is the key difference between the red states and the blue states, the values thing, religion.So many Americans cleave to a religious faith, and the Democratic Party is perceived to be uninterested in faith except to the degree that they are mildly hostile ("Take down that Merry Christmas sign!") or believe religion is a "language" they must learn to "speak effectively." Isn't that an essential problem for the Democrats?

Yes. And she knows it. And she is about to get very spiritual. She knows it's not enough to run around quoting scripture on the stump, as John Kerry did. On the other hand she cannot speak as Bush did of Christ as the center of her life because that would not be credible: She has never spoken that way and strikes no one as born again.

But she can go about it in her own way. She will begin giving interviews in which she speaks of the importance of the teachings of Christ in her thinking about policy issues. She will also begin to emphasize as never before her Methodist youth, and her hometown pastor's emphasis on public service. Something tells me a big black Bible is being put on a coffee table in her office even as I type. And there will also suddenly be more media availabilities after Sunday church service.

Always remember what Bill Clinton did after he lost re-election to the governorship in 1980. He joined the choir in the only local church whose services were broadcast on television throughout Arkansas every Sunday morning. You could turn in every Sunday and see him in his robe, with his music book, singing spirituals.

If Mrs. Clinton is such a big Democratic star, why didn't her colleagues consider her for majority leader, instead of the less impressive and sophisticated Harry Reid?

She doesn't want it. She doesn't want to lead the Democratic senators. She wants to lead the Hillary for President effort. She wants her independence. She will in fact demonstrate some of that independence down the road by opposing the Democratic Conference when it is insufficiently tough, pragmatic and moderate on some key issues of her concern. Nothing will more underscore her reputation for moderation, and she has nothing to lose, as she doesn't care what the other senators think of her. She thinks they're the guys in the background in the photo-op. Similarly she will take no serious part in telling her party how to turn itself around. She will keep her wisdom to herself.

So how will she spend her time the next two years or so?

She will continue as the peerless fund-raiser of her party. She very much believes in money and its power to ensure success. She will continue to reach out to conservative opinion makers. She likes to surprise them by asking them to come by or go to lunch. This is bold and shrewd; it leaves them "surprised" and "curious," the first step toward "more impressed than I wanted to be." It won't change their minds, but to some small degree she hopes it will declaw them. She will continue to quietly pork-barrel the left and push base-friendly issues while speaking more and more about improving the military and national security.

But wait a second, she can't win her party's nomination that way. The primary voting base of the Democratic Party is leftist.

Yes, but in her case it doesn't matter. The base of the party will be with her, for two reasons. First, they know her history and know her. They believe she sees the world as they do but does certain things to survive. She was woven into the left and knew everyone on the left for 25 years.

Second and just as important, after the trauma of the Kerry loss, after the morass of doubt and depression in which the party now finds itself, she will seem to be one thing they really want: the person who can win. Because she is a winner. She always has been. The base will make a calculation not unlike the one she has made: We can play moderate to win, no problem.

You make it sound like a Hillary candidacy is inevitable.

She is inevitable as a candidate, but not as a president. There will be serious drawbacks and problems with her candidacy. When she speaks in a large hall she shouts and it is shrill; she sounds like some boomer wife from hell who's unpacking the grocery bags and telling you that you forgot not just the mayo but the mustard.

That's fixable, to some degree. What may not be fixable is that many voters associate her with a time of scandal and bad behavior. I mean not Monica, which the Clintons always pretend is The Scandal, but every other scandal of the Clinton era: FBI files, illegal fund-raising, sleazy pardons, the whole ugly mess. There will be some who associate her with the cultural disaster that was the Clinton presidency. There will be those who remember she and he led the country down a path both dark and merry while Osama tapped out his plans on a laptop in a cave.

Are those all the potential impediments to her plans?

No. There is still, always, with Mrs. Clinton, the question of her deepest convictions and beliefs. Also known as What She Stands For, or What She Believes. She has been finessing all this for decades and will continue to attempt to, but it may not work in a national presidential run. What she believed did not seem all that important when she was running for first lady, and was easily finessed when she ran in liberal New York. But there is an old paper trail, there is a record of radical statements and writings by Mrs. Clinton. She could disavow what she has written in the past, but never has. In this she is like John Kerry, who could not disavow his youthful, radical statements about Vietnam. Why has she not disavowed, and why can't she? That will be a question.

Does that stuff really matter?

Sure. It's at the heart of things. Americans want to know the deepest beliefs of their president. Mrs. Clinton is no doubt correct that the first woman president will be a conservative or a tough moderate. But maybe the American people would prefer a woman who actually is a conservative or a moderate, such as Sen. Kay Baily Hutchison, as opposed to one who plays one on TV.

So in your view the Democratic bench consists of Hillary. Who's on the Republican bench?

They've got a deep bench and a big fight coming. Alphabetically the list so far can be considered to include George Allen, Bill Frist, Rudy Giuliani, Chuck Hagel, John McCain, Bill Owens, George Pataki, Mitt Romney, and beyond that any number of potential surprise guests from Tommy Thompson to Colin Powell to Mrs. Hutchison. It will be quite a race. I'm already looking forward to it.

It's obviously very early, but I just cannot see America accepting Hillary Clinton as their first female President. I just cannot see it. Time will tell.

Ugh.

When Army Sergeant Dennis Edwards spoke at Dennis-Yarmouth Regional High School last month, 100 students listened in rapt silence as he told chilling tales of battlefield horror in Iraq and criticized President Bush's motives for going to war.

Edwards, 23, a Barnstable High School graduate, said he and two other soldiers shot and killed a 10-year-old boy in Iraq who pretended to be wounded and suddenly fired an AK-47 rifle. The boy was found to have explosives attached to his body, Edwards told the stunned audience.

Now, Edwards has admitted to his superiors in the elite 82d Airborne Division that the story about the shooting was a lie, Army officials yesterday. As a result, the veteran of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan could be charged with making false statements, face a court-martial, and be stripped of his rank.

I have long believed that Larry King is one of the true idiots roaming this Earth. Further proof: (Hat Tip: Atrios) (My bold and italics)

From the 8-times divorced Larry King, talking to John and the wonderful Elizabeth Edwards, regarding her recently diagnosed breast cancer:

"Senator, has there been any thoughts and this happens in any case where the male hears the news from the mate -- aesthetically, how will Elizabeth look, how will she respond? Do you have any of those feelings?"

Very sensitive, Larry. Very nice. I am sure Elizabeth feels wonderful hearing this garbage coming out of your mouth. Moron.

Incredible picture taken from the lead plane of the Missing Man Formation flown over Kyle Field.

Donald Rumsfeld took a major public image hit this week during his question-and-answer session with the troops. I have never been a big fan of Rumsfeld and, honestly, I have had a very hard time defending the work that he has done up to this point. I find myself cringing during many of his press conferences and shrugging when presented with criticism of his policies. I can't say that I would have shed many tears had he not been invited back for Bush II. That being said, I think he got absolutely set-up during this session particulary with this question. (More on that in a second) (My bold and italics)

Army Spc. Thomas Wilson, for example, of the 278th Regimental Combat Team that is composed mainly of citizen soldiers of the Tennessee Army National Guard, asked Rumsfeld in a question-and-answer session why vehicle armor is still in short supply, nearly three years after the war in Iraq.

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked.

A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense.

Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

"We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north," Wilson said after asking again.

Rumsfeld replied that, "You go to war with the Army you have," not the one you might want, and that any rate the Army was pushing manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it as fast as humanly possible.

And, the defense chief added, armor is not always a savior in the kind of combat U.S. troops face in Iraq, where the insurgents' weapon of choice is the roadside bomb, or improvised explosive device.

"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up," Rumsfeld said.

I can understand that Rumsfeld was probably surprised by this question and didn't have an answer prepared to counter, but I absolutely hate this response. I am sure that the troops listening probably hated it even more. The statement may be true and just his first reaction after being taken aback, but I just can't believe that is the best attitude to take with these guys putting their lives on the line every day. You have to go to war with the Army that you have? I don't want to hear that - tell me you are going to fix the problem. Tell me that help is on the way. Do not tell me that my leaders are satisfied with the status quo. Tell me anything, but don't tell me that. Ugh. Very disappointing.

Lee Pitts, a reporter for the Chattanooga Times, is taking credit for the Rumsfeld bash.

A reporter traveling with a National Guard unit prodded one of its soldiers to ask Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about the lack of armor for some U.S. military vehicles in Iraq, an exchange that made worldwide news Wednesday when the assembled troops cheered the question.

Edward Lee Pitts of the Chattanooga Times Free Press told colleagues in an e-mail that he and members of the Tennessee Army National Guard now in Kuwait "worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor" and that Spc. Thomas Wilson posed the question at his request.

Honestly, I could care less who asked the question. Obviously, by the crowd's reaction it's a question they wanted to hear answered. I can respect that they do. So does President Bush.

“If I were a soldier overseas wanting to defend my country, I’d want to ask the secretary of defense the same question, and that is, ‘Are we getting the best we can get us?’”

U.S. soldiers “deserve the best,” Bush said, adding: “I’ve told many family I’ve met with, ‘We’re doing everything we possibly can to protect your loved ones.’”

I don't like to limit myself to just one forum, but 2Slick has done some great research concerning this topic. Section off about an hour out of your day to read some of this stuff. Great job on his part. (Hat Tip for all links to 2Slick)

Great post into the thought process of SPC Wilson

I have no doubt that one of SPC Wilson's superiors told him to go through a scrap yard to get more vehicle armor. There's nothing wrong with this- resourceful soldiers are always looking to improve on their equipment, weapons, fighting positions, etc. What SPC Wilson might not be aware of (at his level)- is that all vehicles that drive north into Iraq are required to have "level 3" armor protection. If a vehicle does not meet this standard, it will not be driven up north- it will be carried on a flatbed truck. Once in Iraq, armored vehicles are used for driving off post, and unarmored vehicles are used for driving around on post. This policy is put out to each unit's commanders well before the unit even arrives to Kuwait. The leaders are then charged with disseminating this information down to the soldiers. Obviously, this process of "information dissemination" doesn't always happen like it's supposed to- and so we have uninformed soldiers (who think they're going to drive into Iraq in unarmored vehicles) taking shots at our nation's most powerful leaders. It happens all the time, and it's another reason why America is such a unique country. There are many places in this world where a soldier would not survive asking such a question.

Delobius at Blog Machine City

The claim that the lack of armored Humvees is a damning indictment of President Bush is absurd, too - that's like saying the Eighth Air Force's lack of long-range escort fighters early in WWII is a savage criticism of FDR's joining the war in Europe. Both scenarios represent a paradigm shift - a fundamental change in the nature of warfare. The US Army that came to war in 2003 was still much the same one that won Desert Storm: heavy armor, artillery, mechanized infantry, and airpower, supported by allegedly rear-echelon troops like me. The Army wasn't doctrinally or structurally organized for a free-flowing all-areas battle, and "tragically unarmored" Humvees are a part of that.

Beef Always Wins (Hat Tip: Powerline via 2Slick)

The MSM will mislead by discussing the assembly of vehicles - but that is not where the bottleneck is... I had the opportunity to talk to some of the people at Ceradyne - from what was related during the visit, the bonus potential and contracts are set up to run capacity at 100% 24/7.

Finally, some great debate in the comments section at Little Green Footballs (LGF) 

The Senate, overwhelmingly, passes the 9/11 Intelligence Reform Bill.

The U.S. Senate passed legislation to reorganize the nation's intelligence agencies and create a national director of intelligence to oversee efforts to prevent terrorist attacks.

The Senate voted 89-2 today for the bill, which the House approved yesterday. President George W. Bush may sign the legislation as early as next week, his spokesman said.

No mandate = 89-2. I would hate to see what Dems consider a "true" mandate.

Please, oh please, oh please.......please let Howard Dean become the Chairman of the DNC. I am begging for his nomination. Does anyone else find it hilarious to watch the Democrats turn to the worst they have to offer to lead them? This man is going to be the strategic leader behind the Democratic movement right after he completely bombed his own campaign and couldn't even beat out John Kerry? Absolutely hilarious. Please do it. You just guarantee more Republican wins in the future.

Fifty one percent is not a mandate either. And this time we're not going to let them get away with it.

Well, for one - yes it is. Please see Intelligence Bill for proof #1.

(My bold and italics)

The destination of the Democratic Party means making it a party that can communicate with its supporters and with all Americans. Politics is at its best when we create and inspire a sense of community.

Please point me to anything, anywhere, in Dean's run in the primaries that had anything to do with "communication....with all Americans". Please point me to anything, anywhere, in Dean's previous campaign that "inspired (anything resembling) a sense of community". Are you kidding me? I keep looking around for the Candid Camera guy to walk out and tell me this is one big joke. This guy is about as hard, far left, as you can get and here he is talking about communicating with all of America? Where do I get off talking like this? Look no father than this:

I'll give this to Republicans. They know the America they want. They want a government so small that, in the words of one prominent Republican, it can be drowned in a bathtub.

They want a government that runs big deficits, but is small enough to fit into your bedroom.

They want a government that is of, by, and for their special interest friends.

They want a government that preaches compassion but practices division.

They want wealth rewarded over work.

What am I missing here? Talk about reaching out to all Americans and then go on to blast roughly 51% of Americans. This guy is a complete joke.

Do everything you can to support this man's nomination for the head of the DNC. Trust me - it is in our best interests for him to run their campaigns.

UPDATE: MoveOn has "bought" the Democratic Party. They make the rules now.

"In the last year, grass-roots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive," the message continued. "Now it's our party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back."

Honestly, as much as I cannot defend the actual words of the Klu Klux Klan, I have to say that I do not agree with this decision by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court passed up a chance Monday to consider if states can ban members of the Ku Klux Klan and other groups from wearing masks at public gatherings.

Justices without comment rejected an appeal from an offshoot of the KKK whose members wear white robes, hoods and masks.

The Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan had challenged as unconstitutional a New York law that allows loitering charges against someone who is "masked or in any manner disguised by unusual or unnatural attire or facial alteration."

We have to remember that, despite how much we hate what people say, we have to support their "right" to say it. This is a bad decision.

File this under the "I never thought I would see this" category. (My bold and italics)

New York Civil Liberties Union attorney Beth Haroules, representing the church and some church members, told justices that people have been allowed to demonstrate with masks before in New York without facing arrest.

"Even the most reviled members of our society are entitled to the fair and evenhanded application of the law," she wrote in the appeal.

Humorous article over at The National Anxiety website. (Hat Tip: AmberGnat)

Proving that “idiots tend to cluster together,” said Caruba, in January Al Gore, rumored to have been Vice President of the United States, selected the coldest day in a half century of New England weather records to declare that global warming was the result of “Bush policies (that) are leading to weather extremes.” Not to be outdone, an October Florida billboard campaign by Scientists and Engineers for Change and Environment 2004 claimed that the hurricanes the state experienced were President Bush’s fault. They were joined by the NAACP’s National Voter Fund that warned, “minorities (are) more heavily impacted by environmental threats” than other groups.

This is absolutely hilarious. (My bold and italics on the really good parts)

Those Michael Moore loving, tin-foil hat wearers over at DummyCrapsick Underground deserve some credit. After all, those foaming-at-the-mouth raving moonbats contributed in some small way to Bush's re-election, and a complete sweep of Congress by the Republicans. So, in their honor (this is about the only time they'll get it), John Hawkins over at RWN has trolled through their message boards, and before he even took a shower after emersing from that leftist cesspool, he compiled the 10 worst quotes from DU this year.

10) devinsgram: "...Everybody in middle American crying, putting out their flags and their show of emotion. Phooey on them, they are the ones responsible for what happened in NYC on 9-11. They are the ones who put this idiot in office."

9) leftofthedial: "I knew some *wonderful* people who were strong supporters of the Nazi Party.They gave to charity, worked hard, and held marvelous little soires at their homes. Please! Support for Bush is 100% qualification for the "stupid fascist" label. Good Germans, good bushgang supporters. Same difference. One of two things allows one to support the bushgang:Willful ignorance of the evil being done. Willful ignorance = stupid. or Complicity in the evil. Complicity = fascist."

8) JVS: "Lincoln was right to crush the South in the 1860's. Someone ought to do it again."

7) matcom: "F#CK YOU If You Vote For Bush - I Hope You Get ALL That You Want

hey freepers! (and lurkers and idiots of ALL shapes and sizes) YOU GET 100% OF WHAT YOU DESERVE!!!

When they come for YOU - F#CK OFF
When they come for YOUR children - F#CK OFF
When YOU are unemployed - F#CK OFF
When the NEXT attack hits - F#CK OFF

I HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR YOU AND MY FIRST QUESTION WILL BE "WHO DID YOU VOTE FOR?"If you say Bush, F#CK YOU.

I don't care WHAT the situation.I don't care HOW much you are hurting.MY liberalism tells me to CARE about ALL PEOPLE! Guess what......IT.IS.OVER.

I DON'T GIVE A FLYING F#CK ABOUT YOU IF YOU VOTE THAT WAY*the.end.*TOUGH SH#T."

6) MCVet: The Republicans are Nazis....In order to defeat them, we too must become Nazis.

5) LastChance2004: "Wait Until After Election 2004. If chimpy gets selected again, we're all in big trouble. The fascists you describe will start doing more than just voting, the "brownshirts" will be coming after people. And the people like us will oppose them with whatever means necessary.It'll then get ugly, real ugly."

4) skjpm:"I am frightened by what I am learning about America during this election. I think that a majority have an irrational fear of liberals, and that if Bush wins, and decides to send liberals to camps for their "protection," most would support the move and say "About time too." There would be some dissent, but the majority of Americans see liberals as a threat, and nothing would be done. The press would hold debates, but people wouldn't care. I think that all Bush has to do is say the word, and we'll be rounded up. Who would stop him?"

3) Joanne98: "Since tomorrow is the anniversary of the "excuse" the cowboy uses to attack anybody he wants to. I'm bracing myself for the ongoing images of people in small red state towns exploiting the victims of 9/11. CNN is already showing people in small town Texas CRYING over New York City's loses. Well, you know what. You never liked New Yorkers. You hated New Yorkers remember. If you really cared about the victims of 9/11 you would vote for John Kerry because that's the only thing they want you to do. But NO! Instead you brought the Bush bastard's convention to ground Zero and thought NYC would be glad to see you.Instead of getting flowers and candy you got protesters, a half a million of them that said. GO HOME. Do you remember the Evita song...DON'T CRY FOR ME DIRTSVILLE TEXAS..........Let's get this straight, Dirtsville, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN TO YOU and it never will because no self respecting terra-rist would ever attack something so unimportant. It would be like the USA attacking Goatsgrave Yemen. It's never going to happen.The bottom line is, you don't care about NYC or the pain, all you care about is getting Boosh re-elected and fighting a Holy pissing contest with the darkie Muslims. All in the name of Jesus which you're sure is coming back the day after tomorrow. Nobody needs this sh#t, especially the people of NYC who still watch airplanes when they fly overhead. The people in big cities are in more danger than ever thanks to the cowboy's invasion of Iraq. But that's something the good people of Dirtsville don't have to worry about.So take your flags, your prayers, your rodeos and your country music and stick it. You're waging war because you want too, because you like it and you're not fooling anybody. You're only happy when you have an enemy, if it wasn't 9/11 it would be something else. Like "libruls". At least have the decency to admit that."Put on your public grieving shows tomorrow because you already have them planned but spare us the DRAMA next year. It didn't happen to you. Get over it.I know this is harsh and I know not all people in small rural towns are Republicans but they ARE voting for Bush, who is only making big cities more dangerous. This is how I feel about it. Flame away."

2) Gyre: "I don't support them (the troops). We've exported our illiterate little kids with their tiny brains filled with images of Rambo. We've armed them and told them the enemy is a demon who doesn't deserve to live. Most of them are more than willing to believe that. They are stupid and dangerous and have no intellectual capacity to grasp basic concepts of democracy. They're a symptom of a disease that infects my country."

I could bold this entire post - what a moron. It's hilarious to watch these people bury themselves - you really don't want to watch, but you just have to for the sheer awe of it.

1) ReadTomPaine: As we’ve heard again and again recently, if we are going to beat this bunch of rule breaking GOP misanthropes, we’re going to have to start fighting as dirty as they do. I started this thread for one reason, to get everyone’s ideas on a list of things we as Democrats can consider to stop the takeover of this country. This isn’t going to be a thread for the squeamish, or for the ideologically pure. Best to steer clear if that describes you.Here are half a dozen ideas to get the ball rolling.

1) Get Republicans fired at your workplace, or fire them yourself if you can – In the belief that all activism starts with the grass roots, do us all a favor, and fire your Republican employees this week. There are legitimate reasons to fire virtually any employee, so avail yourself of them. Not only will it quit the gloating you’re hearing around the office, it’ll stop those donation checks they are getting ready to write. Might also teach them a bit of humility regarding the poor and the disadvantaged. They can be the “Pioneers” of “Unemployment Window A”

2) Pretend to be a Republican, and then cut down the next Republican that you have a conversation with. - The more public/crowed the place you do this, the better. Use whatever remarks you know are sure to make the intended impression. “You’re no better than the liberal scum you claim to hate… get back into the kitchen… Just wait till we win next year and toss peons like you into the field or the workhouse… People in your income bracket don’t have the right to be Republican or vote etc.” If you need talking points, just observe in a Yahoo political chat room for a few minutes and you have all the right wing bile that you can use and quite possibly all that you can stand.

3) Create, plant and disseminate widely “news stories” that discredit GOP policies – A good way to do this is to print out stories in the visual style of a major newspaper or magazine (don’t use the logo or other copywrited material, however) and theme them similarly to the ones that targeted John McCain’s platform last presidential election. Make sure not to slander individuals directly. Leave stacks of the printouts where people are certain to find them – i.e. supermarkets, coffee houses, bars, community centers etc. As in #2 make sure to write these from the right wing perspective, for maximum effect on the target audience. Avoid digital media, as it’s too easy to fact check, not that most GOP voters care to check these things anyway.

4) Contact the IRS and anonymously tip them off regarding prominent GOP contributors in your area. – Lets face it, they are likely tax evaders in any case (that’s why they are GOP), so might as well have them go thru an audit and feel a bit of what it’s like to have a hostile government prying into their affairs. The tax money you shake free will be a little payback to your community for the egregious tax cut they undoubtedly are enjoying.

5) Make sure that you’re the only ride on voting day for a group of hard right types who live out of the way, and then don’t show up. – This works best in low population density areas and poor right wing communities. Cultivate a group of right wing friends and make sure they depend on you for the ride on Election Day. Then don’t show up. Every vote they miss is an uncontested vote on the blue side of the aisle. The right needs a taste of Florida 2000.

6) Impersonate Linda Tripp. – Whisper into the ear of GOP associates to encourage and get dirty laundry regarding their improprieties, and then make sure that information gets into the wrong hands. It’s hard to brag about family values or think about politics when you’re in a divorce court.Are you really serious about winning the culture war? Do you mean it when you say it’s time to fight fire with fire? Then channel that anger and let’s hear some ideas. Given the thin skin of most conservative ideologues, it won’t take much to have them running far away from such policies and tactics so we can all enjoy proper, principled political discourse in the country again. First, however, they need to be taught that fighting dirty burns them as much as it burns anyone. BTW- if you want to take action beyond the intellectual consideration of these ideas, please do so on your own. This thread is meant for the mental exercise of these ideas. Don’t involve DU.

What idiots like this don't realize is that this kind of rhetoric just continues to push people farther and farther right. This kind of rhetoric just helps people choose right when they are on the fence. No one wants to be a part of people that speak and think like this. I say let them speak. Give them face time. Forward their ideas, their rhetoric, their values. All it does is strengthen our side and pull people from their side. I say keep on fighting, liberals! Keep on spreading your hateful rhetoric! Keep up the fight!

Calvin Murphy is found innocent. I followed some of the testimony that the girls were giving and it sure seemed pretty damning to me. Obviously, the jury did not feel the same way. As it stands though, this man is ruined. How do you fight your way back to society after accusations like this? Acquitted or not, this man can never have a normal life again.

In court, Hardin reminded jurors that he lost his job and been hurt by his daughters allegations and the criminal charges long before the trial.

"In a sense, they've already won," Hardin said. "He's ruined."

True statement. This I didn't know (my bold and italics):

The trial often focused on Murphy's unusual family tree, which includes 14 children by nine women. The five daughters who accused Murphy were all born outside his marriage, while the two daughters born to his ex-wife rallied to his defense and testified on his behalf.

14 children by 9 women? Wow. Obviously, safe sex isn't a high priority with Mr. Murphy. I wonder at what point does he finally learn his lesson? 16? 18? I would truly hate to see his child support bill every month.

December 7, 1941 - A day that will live in infamy. Great post over at Powerline remembering the speech made by President Roosevelt.

Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with the government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleagues delivered to the Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. Very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.

Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island.

This morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.

Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounding determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.

UPDATE: Again, I cannot stress enough how embarassing Terry McAuliffe has become. I love it - every word that comes out of his mouth just continues to discredit the Democratic Party.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, in a special Pearl Harbor Day statement, said national unity 63 years ago enabled Americans to go forward and defeat the country's enemies, but the same kind of unity needed now was being undermined by Republican disagreements over provisions of the yet-to-be-voted on intelligence reform bill.

Breaking news. Bush wins Ohio. Democrats, of course, will not accept this and will continue to throw money at this state until something changes in their favor.

Outgoing Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said the party will spend "whatever it takes" to study complaints from Ohio voters.

How sad has Terry McAuliffe become?

Dennis Prager writes a great article on Blue America.

To cite but one of many examples, take the widely held liberal slogan "War is not the answer." It is pure irrationality. War has ended more evil than anything the left has ever thought of. In the last 60 years alone, it ended Nazism and the Holocaust; it saved half of Korea from genocide; it kept Israel from national extinction and a second Holocaust; it saved Finland from becoming a Stalinist totalitarian state; and according to most of the people who put "War is not the answer" stickers on their bumpers, it saved Bosnian Muslims from ethnic cleansing.

I couldn't agree more.

Really? No kidding? Bush doesn't support Annan? Why in this world would he? Koffi Annan has been absolutely nothing but an obstacle for Bush in this war with Iraq. Bush was actually a lot more pleasant than I would have been with this guy.

"It's very important for the United Nations to understand that there ought to be a full and fair and open accounting of the oil for-food program," Bush said at the White House .

"In order for the taxpayers of the United States to feel comfortable about supporting the United Nations, there has to be an open accounting."

I would have called him out for the absolute crook that he is. Any wonder who actually did support him?

The United States broke with other nations on the U.N. Security Council, including Britain, Russia, France, Germany and China, which announced their support for Annan.

Britain is a surprise there, but the others definitely fall into line.

The United Nations "has evolved into an anti-Israel, anti-Semitic group of petty, sniping bigots who are pursuing an anti-freedom, anti-democratic, anti-American agenda," said state Sen. Serphin Maltese, a conservative Republican from Queens.

"To authorize an expansion of their headquarters would be a slap in the face of American citizens."

Agreed.

This is hilarious. (Hat Tip: PoliPundit)

Twenty John Kerry supporters met for their first group therapy session in
South Florida Thursday, screaming epithets at President Bush as they shared
their emotions with licensed mental health counselors.
The first of several free noontime therapy sessions at the American Health
Association in Boca Raton was designed to treat what mental health
counselors have dubbed Post Election Selection Trauma (PEST).

File this one under the "we'll never hear this from the media" file. The mystery behind the 380 tons of explosives that were found missing right before the election may have been removed from Saddam to better execute suicide bombings. Of course, this was a huge deal days before the election, but now that this letter has been found detailing the removal, we will hear nary a word from our media.To prove my point - the article was found in the Independent.

As American forces closed in on Baghdad last year, senior members of Saddam Hussein's government devised a plan to send suicide bombers in vehicles packed with devastating high-energy explosives that were under UN safeguards.

The disappearance of the explosive, known as HMX (high melting explosives), in mysterious circumstances at the end of the war caused a few nasty moments for President George Bush's presidential election campaign last month.

A letter to Saddam from Dr Naji Sabri, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, five days before the fall of Baghdad, suggests taking the HMX from underground bunkers, where it had been kept under seal by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and giving it to suicide bombers.

What is happening in this country? Seriously. Now we are taking the Christ out of Christmas so as not to offend others? This is unreal. If you don't like the Christmas music, just don't go to the parade. Christmas carols are now offensive? Are you kidding me? Bah-Humbug to you whiners - just shut up and enjoy the holidays. If you can't do that, just shut up and allow me to enjoy it. (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin)

Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper recently announced that next year the phrase "Merry Christmas" will be removed from the city building and replaced with "Happy Holidays."

And now a church group who wants to march in the Parade of Lights and sing Christmas carols will not be allowed to participate in the parade. Organizers say the parade is about the holidays, not Christmas, but leaders of the Faith Bible Chapel say that's ridiculous.

"We can't pretend that Christ didn't exist and Christmas wasn't about his birthday, so we felt we could sing it and apparently that is not in social vogue anymore," said Pastor Gary Beasley, with the Faith Bible Chapel.

"Our policy, which we have applied consistently for years, is to not include religious or political messages in the parade --in the interest of not excluding any group," said Jim Basey, the president of the Downtown Denver Partnership.

Hmmmmmm......interesting. Impact?

Ukraine's Supreme Court has nullified the results of the country's disputed presidential election and called for a repeat of the runoff in three weeks.

You would have to think that this statement by Bush

In Washington Thursday, U.S. President George Bush appeared to warn Russia against meddling in Ukraine's affairs, saying he believes "any election, if there is one, ought to be free from any foreign influence."

"These elections ought to be open and fair," he said. "The position of our government is that the will of the people must be known and heard. And, therefore, we will continue to monitor and be involved in a process that encourages there to be a peaceful resolution of this issue."

caused this outburst by Putin.

Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the United States on Friday of pursuing a dictatorial foreign policy and said mounting violence could derail progress toward bringing peace and democracy to Iraq.

Must read post over at 2Slick about why America is winning the war on terrorism. (Italics provided by author)

Obviously, bin Laden was wrong about many things. I would submit that he was most wrong about the one thing that matters most- the American Spirit. By this I mean the intangible quality that makes Americans who we are- it's a quality that remains an enigma to many around the world, but continues to be our secret weapon- a weapon that no amount of fascist rhetoric or Al Jazeera-sponsored propaganda can successfully fight against. When we speak of "winning their hearts and minds," we're not talking about using some kind of "Jedi mind trick" or phony psycho-babble. We don't "trick" the people into thinking we're there for purely magnanimous purposes, when we "secretly" just want to make the world safer for our own children. It's much simpler than that. The fact is- we're just being ourselves. Nothing more, nothing less. This may shock some people around the world (especially bin Laden), but the truth is- Americans are good people!

I am sure most of you have heard about these Dutch doctors already, but I thought I would bring it up here anyway. It is absolutely amazing to me that this kind of practice is taking place in this day and time. So, now we have doctors deciding who lives and who dies? This brand of thinking reminds me of Alec Baldwin in the movie "Malice" talking about his God Complex. This is very scary.

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - Four times in recent months, Dutch doctors have pumped lethal doses of drugs into newborns they believe are terminally ill, setting off a new phase in a growing European debate over when, if ever, it's acceptable to hasten death for the critically ill.

Some great links on the subject. (Hat Tip for all links: Hugh Hewitt)

Hugh Hewitt

This is either a low point, or a point of no return. The establishment of "independent committees" to dispatch non-consenting humans is nothing but a death penalty committee for innocents. Once begun, it is impossible--simply impossible--to limit the concept with any bright line. Abortion, of course, has always been limited by the physical act of birth, and once out of the womb, only the most extreme "reproductive rights" advocates have argued that the baby's natural right to live can be compromised by the mother. But now the Netherlands has gone farther--much, much farther. If the "severely retarded" may be killed upon appropriate motion, second, debate, and majority vote, why not the moderately retarded? Why not the mildly retarded? Why not, in fact, anyone the "independent committee" deems as usefully dispatched.

Powerline

For most of my life, I thought that philosophers could generate intellectual systems, independent of religious belief, that would, on a strictly rational basis, reproduce all of the essentials of the 20th century system that has worked well for this country. I no longer believe that to be the case. It seems appallingly clear, now, that the secular path--the road that has been taken by the Netherlands and almost all of western Europe--leads inexorably to the view that men and women are cattle, and the only reasonable approach is to appoint a committee of wise men to decide when it is time for them to die.

and the scariest one of them all: (Bold and italics provided by author)

The Fourth Rail

An article from October offers further details the nature of the Groningen protocol, and yet the full parameters of this program are still shrouded in secrecy. Contrary to the article referenced above, a parent does not have the legal right to oppose the murder of their child, the final decision of life or death rests with a board of doctors. A parent's wish to preserve their child's life can be overruled if the "professionals" see differently.

This is very sick and scary stuff. I will admit - I am not completely opposed to euthanasia. Honestly, I can see instances where it would be justified. If I were in a situation that I would not be able to recover, I would want to be put to death. However, that is a decision that I made - or my family made - for me. I will not allow my family's life to be put into the hands of a doctor or a board of doctors who feel
that it's in "everyone's best interest" if they were no longer allowed to live..

I truly hope that this country comes to their senses and abolishes this behavior immediately. Somehow, I don't think it will.

The thought of euthanasia for kids just gives me the creeps.

Great article disputing the recent allegations made by the Red Cross concerning the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Once upon a time, the International Committee of the Red Cross was a humanitarian outfit doing the Lord's work to reduce the horrors of war. So it is a special tragedy to see that it has increasingly become an ideological organization unable to distinguish between good guys and bad.

That's the unfortunate conclusion suggested by three years of open ICRC hostility toward U.S. conduct in the war on terror. The latest salvo was Tuesday's front page story in the New York Times quoting from an ICRC report complaining about the detention conditions and interrogation practices used on Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

What an awful shame that the ICRC absolutely fails to see right from wrong, good from bad.

This is very disturbing. (Hat Tip: Talk Left) (My bold and italics)

During a nine month investigation, the BBC has uncovered the disturbing truth about the way authorities in New York City are conducting the fight against Aids.

HIV positive children - some only a few months old - are enrolled in toxic experiments without the consent of guardians or relatives.

I absolutely cannot stand Maureen O'Dowd. I think I would be hard pressed to find someone who thinks so completely opposite of me on every single issue. I really don't even like giving her face time on this web site, but like the title says: All Things Considered. I did find this article interesting. Even more, I found this passage extremely interesting.

We are in the era of vamping, self-doubting "Desperate Housewives," not strong, cutting "Murphy Brown."

I do find it very interesting that women (or maybe, rather, this woman) is more concerned with why no women are being nominated to take over the higher journalism positions, rather than be aghast at how her fellow women are being portrayed on television in prime time. I'll tell you what - watch that show Desperate Housewives one time (I have) and come back and tell me if you are satisfied at how women are being portrayed on television. Say what you want, tell me how unfair it is, but I guarantee you that those kind of portrayals do play a part in why someone like Katie Curic isn't getting the job. It's weird and it's wrong, but it's the way I see it.

UPDATE: I will preface this by saying I don't agree with this viewpoint at all, but I did find it amusing that I came across this so soon after I posted this last article. I am sure it's a joke, but, at least, I think we can all agree that he is spot on in this take.

It does not make me happy to see a fat woman walking down the street with her disgusting stomach hanging over her cheap lycra tracksuit bottoms, they walk along with stupid grins on their faces like they have something to be proud of. Their spotty backs are tattooed with stupid butterflies which they think are amazingly femmine and attractive because they read it in bloody cosmopolitan magazine.

Fantastic post by Adam Yoshida on the possibilty of another Clinton in the highest office.

Is there anyone in America who doesn’t think that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a cold and tough woman? That’s certainly what I think. Frankly, if given a choice of possible Democrats, I’d rather have her confronting the terrorists than John Kerry, John Edwards, or Howard Dean. John Kerry would probably try and tell the terrorists about Vietnam, John Edwards would probably sue them, and Howard Dean would probably have a panic attack. It says something about the emasculation of the Democratic Party that, in my judgement, Hillary is probably the toughest dude among potential Democratic candidates for President in 2008.

He likes Jeb Bush, but I just can't see it. I just don't see another Bush being able to get the Republican nomination - especially when his brother is so incredibly polarizing.

That leaves one man, I think, who can be counted on to hold the White House in 2008: Governor John Ellis Bush of Florida, the President’s brother.

To begin, Jeb is simply a better politician than his brother. He’s more articulate and has proven appeal in a key swing state. Better yet: he’s demographically appealing. A Catholic two-term Governor of the nation’s third-largest state (and largest swing state) with a Mexican-American wife and two Hispanic children, were his last name not “Bush” he would, at this point, be the runaway front-runner for the Republican nomination at this point.

Thankfully for us the, “the President’s brother shouldn’t run for President” argument won’t go very far when the other candidate is the previous President’s wife.

David Limbaugh has a great article on the liberal attempt to halt the Republican agenda.

The objective fact is that President Bush and Republicans won decisively. The lesson most reasonable people would take from such a victory is not that they were doing something wrong and they better back off from it. While I agree that winners shouldn't become highhanded, neither should they act like losers.

Why should President Bush voluntarily surrender his just-affirmed political capital by capitulating to the demands of Democrats? Wouldn't that be as much of a slap in the face to voters, who just endorsed his agenda, as becoming cocky?

UPDATE: Bernard Moon on the liberal elite's version of the conservative Christian.

Oddly enough, we believe in the deity of Jesus Christ and the literal translation of the Bible. We also believe in the necessity of the separation of church and state, know that Jesus would not be a Republican nor claim allegiance to any earthly organization, do not hate Jews, and do not hate gays and lesbians. Lastly, we do not want to establish a Christian kingdom, since the only one we should have our eyes on is the eternal kingdom.

So please do not hate or fear us. We seem to be misunderstood with multiple myths surrounding our beliefs, motivation, and existence.

UPDATE II: Gloria Borger whines.

O, the irony! Whatever happened to the inspired young turks, those feisty backbenchers who were going to democratize the place? They now have a lock on the institution, and they're acting like they own it. At least it took Democrats 40 years of unbroken power to reach that point; these folks have taken way less time. Even the arrogance of power moves at a faster pace these days.

I apologize for the light blogging over the holidays. I've been taking it easy. I hope everyone had a fantastic holiday.