Saturday, 19 January 2008
 

Russ Vaughn: Electile Dysfunction

It’s abundantly clear and I charge without fear
Nor the slightest degree of compunction,
Proven night after night both on left and on right,
Our media have electile dysfunction.

While hoping to score they’ve become such a bore
With their overdone, nonstop production.
So we’re starting to balk at their unending talk;
We’re weary of endless seduction.

The hooray and hearsay, the pestering foreplay
Their tempting has lost its direction;
It will be with some glee when we actually see
The media finally get an election.

Russ Vaughn

Contributed by Bill Faith on January 19, 2008 at 01:58 PM in Poetry, Politics, Politics and National Defense, Russ Vaughn | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sunday, 03 June 2007
 

2007.06.02-03 Fred! Roundup

See previous: 2007.05.31 Fred! Roundup. This post is backdated; please scroll down for newer entries. Original timestamp 2007.06.02.04:28.

Thompson sees fence between Congress, voters
By Stephen Dinan

RICHMOND -- Former Sen. Fred Thompson yesterday said there is a giant disconnect between voters and politicians in Washington and that the immigration bill is the chief reason.

Speaking to Virginia Republicans, Mr. Thompson, who is considering a run for president, drew a standing ovation when he said voters don't believe Washington politicians when they claim they are trying to secure the border as part of the bill.

"You've got to secure the border first, before you do anything," he said. "The members say it's right here in this bill: the border. The response is, 'We don't care what's on a piece of paper -- secure the border.' This piece of paper doesn't secure the border." ...

Read on.

Stall for time, friends and neighbors, stall for time. The best possible outcome we can hope for on the immigration front is to keep the illegals illegal till we get a good man in the White House. 

Below the fold:

• Thompson runs as a back-to-basics conservative
• Republican Thompson says U.S. battling "evil"
• Jonah Goldberg: Better Off Fred?
• Thompson Establishes Campaign Committee

See also:

• Fred Thompson Edging Toward 2008 Bid
• Eric Alterman to liberals: Fear the Fred
• Fred Thompson and Anti-Southern Bigotry
• Opportunity

Thompson runs as a back-to-basics conservative 
David Brooks (H/T: Lucianne)

This week Fred Thompson gave a speech in Connecticut during which two words did not cross his lips: George Bush. But that's all right.

Thompson recently gave speeches in Virginia and California during which he scarcely mentioned Bush either. In the world Thompson described, the current Washington players are most notable for being trapped in that undifferentiated swamp we call Washington politics.

That's because the divide that engages Thompson most is not the ideological one between liberals and conservatives or between this or that brand of conservatism. It's the divide between concentrated power and decentralized power.

Thompson's core theme is that there is a disconnect between Americans and their rulers. He campaigns against concentrated Republican power almost as much as he does against concentrated Democratic power. Though a Republican, he's able to launch a reasonably nonpartisan attack on the way government has worked over the last 19 years.

This suspicion of concentrated power in general and Washington in particular is not some election-year conversion for Thompson. It stretches back his whole life. He began his career investigating the Nixon White House. As Stephen Hayes reminded us in The Weekly Standard, as a staffer on the Senate Watergate committee, Thompson asked the question that revealed the existence of the White House tapes. ...

Read the whole thing.

Republican Thompson says U.S. battling "evil"

RICHMOND, Virginia (Reuters) - Republican Fred Thompson, making his first appearance since his late entry into the 2008 White House race, criticized the immigration pact in Congress on Saturday and said the United States was battling threats from "forces of evil."

In a speech at a Virginia state party dinner, the conservative former Tennessee senator and Hollywood actor made only passing reference to his presidential ambitions but took a jab at Democrats while praising limited government and lower taxes.

"There are all kinds of threats out there in America," Thompson said, citing a disrupted plot at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York as the latest example. He said the United States must send a message to its allies about the dangers of terrorism.

"This is a battle between the forces of civilization and the forces of evil and we've got to choose sides," Thompson said. ...

He won a standing ovation from the dinner crowd of more than 450 in Richmond with a call for stronger borders and an attack on the immigration compromise pending in Congress, and backed by President George W. Bush, that would give 12 million illegal immigrants a shot at citizenship.

"This is our home and we get to decide who can come into our home," he said.

He said Washington's partisan politics had bred cynicism about government and there was a "disconnect" between Washington politicians and Americans.

Thompson, a supporter of the Iraq war, also criticized the Democratic-controlled Congress for its debate on bills that would set withdrawal deadlines and timetables for U.S. troops in Iraq.

"The only real debate going on in Congress is what our surrender date is going to be," he said. "This is what passes for policy in the Democratic Party." ...

Read the whole thing.

See also: Thompson Generates Buzz in Richmond

Better Off Fred?
We know Thompson can play one, that's for sure.
By Jonah Goldberg

Here are just a few little-known facts about Fred Thompson:

• Every night before going to sleep, Osama bin Laden checks under his bed for Fred Thompson.

• Though Fred Thompson left the Senate in 2003, Harry Reid still hasn’t stopped wetting his pants. ...

• Only two things can kill Superman: Kryptonite and Fred Thompson.

• Fred Thompson once stood on our south border and glared at Mexico. There was no illegal immigration for a month. ...

• Fred Thompson can open clamshell packaging without the slightest trouble.

As the old proverb goes, there’s truth in jest. Obviously, I don’t mean to say that it’s possible for anyone to open clamshell packaging easily. I nearly lost a thumb recently while trying to extricate a cowgirl doll for my daughter from its plastic cocoon.

But there’s no denying that Fred Thompson has one of the most profound personality cults we’ve seen in politics for a long time. While traveling around the country in recent months, I’ve been amazed at how many rank-and-file Republicans see Thompson as a secular savior, as if Thompson were designed by GOP-friendly alien scientists as some sort of Super Candidate. ...

Read the whole thing.

Thompson Establishes Campaign Committee
By Liz Sidoti (H/T: Kim Priestap)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican Fred Thompson took the first formal step toward a widely expected bid for the presidency, establishing a preliminary campaign committee on Friday.

The "testing the waters" committee allows Thompson—a former Tennessee senator and actor best known for his film and television roles, including as a prosecutor on NBC's "Law & Order"—to raise money, hire staff and gauge support without officially committing to a White House bid and without having to publicly disclose donations or expenditures.

The "Friends of Fred Thompson" committee was incorporated in papers filed with the Secretary of State in Nashville, Tenn., to "promote the potential candidacy of Fred Thompson for the office of president of the United States."

Thompson, 64, a Southern conservative with a right-leaning Senate record, would shake up an already unsettled race for the GOP nomination led by Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Many conservatives have expressed dissatisfaction with the current field of 10 candidates.

By creating the committee now, Thompson, an advocate in the Senate of a campaign finance reform bill requiring greater disclosure of contributions, avoids having to report to the Federal Election Commission his fundraising totals, donor identities or expenditures on July 15. That's the filing deadline for the second quarter of the year, and the top-tier GOP candidates, as well as seven underdog contenders, must abide by it.

Thompson's timing could significantly dampen the fundraising ability of his potential GOP rivals during the homestretch of the second quarter financial reporting period. Donors who otherwise would have contributed to other Republicans, instead, may choose to give to Thompson.

Officials close to Thompson say he's more likely than not to formally enter the race, perhaps as early as July, and open headquarters in Nashville and the Washington, D.C., area. However, they caution, he's made no final decision about going forward. ...

Read on.

Contributed by Bill Faith on June 3, 2007 at 11:57 PM in Decision '08, Fred Thompson, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Friday, 25 May 2007
 

2007.05.25 !Fred (and assorted Dem dumbness) Roundup

See previous: Today's !Fred (and assorted Dem dumbness) Roundup

Below the fold:

• Clinton and Obama Vote No on Iraq War Funding
• Books Paint Critical Portraits of Clinton

*** *** *** Fold (but please don't spindle or mutilate) *** *** ***

Clinton and Obama Vote No on Iraq War Funding
Lorie Byrd

The vote was 80-14:

Courting the anti-war constituency, Democratic presidential rivals
Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama both voted against legislation that pays for the
Iraq war but lacks a timeline for troop withdrawal.

"I fully support our troops" but the measure "fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq," said Clinton, a New York senator.

"Enough is enough," Obama, an Illinois senator, declared, adding that
President Bush should not get "a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path."

Their votes Thursday night continued a shift in position for the two presidential hopefuls, both of whom began the year shunning a deadline for a troop withdrawal.

No big surprise that Obama and Clinton voted "no" to bow to their moonbat base. They had to do something to compete with Edwards' claim that the war against terrorism is just a bumper sticker slogan.

Books Paint Critical Portraits of Clinton
2 Biographies Detail Marital Strife and Driving Ambition
By Peter Baker and John Solomon, Washington Post Staff Writers

Two new books on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York offer fresh and often critical portraits of the Democratic presidential candidate that depict a tortured relationship with her husband and her past and challenge the image she has presented on the campaign trail.

The Hillary Clinton who emerges from the pages of the books comes across as a complicated, sometimes compromised figure who tolerated Bill Clinton's brazen infidelity, pursued her policy and political goals with methodical drive, and occasionally skirted along the edge of the truth along the way. The books portray her as alternately brilliant and controlling, ambitious and victimized.

The Clinton campaign has nervously awaited publication of the books for fear they would include a bombshell revelation or, at the very least, revive memories of less-savory moments in the couple's rise to power. The books, both by longtime journalists and both obtained by The Washington Post yesterday, include a number of assertions and anecdotes that could confront her campaign with unwelcome questions.

"A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton," by Carl Bernstein, reports that Clinton as first lady was terrified she would be prosecuted, took over her own legal and political defense, and decided not to be forthcoming with investigators because she was convinced she was unfairly targeted.  ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on May 25, 2007 at 02:30 AM in Barack Obama, Decision '08, Hillary Clinton, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Friday, 18 May 2007
 

Fred!

Below the fold:

• First Blogger?
• The Man Who Wasn't There
• Reagan 2.0

See also The Immigration Bill: Comprehensive or Incomprehensible?, which I excerpted and linked here.

*** *** *** Fold (but please don't spindle or mutilate) *** *** ***

First Blogger?
PJM Hollywood

Since the ‘04 Howard Dean campaign, the Internet has been seen as fertile ground for presidential candidates. But the advent of a possible candidacy by former Senator Fred Thompson could take online politics to a new level. In this exclusive article for Pajamas Media, Thompson reveals a respect for the ‘net and its importance to democracy that could only come from a true web surfer. If the six-time weekly winner of the PJM Presidential Straw Poll is actually elected President, are we looking at … the First Blogger?

To PJM and Friends
By Fred Thompson

So, I hear you all have been talking about me.

It seems that I ought to respond, at least briefly, to all those who have expressed confidence in me — both here and in other forums. I do not take that confidence lightly.

The Pajamas Media poll is certainly good news, especially when, for a lot of politicians, encouragement to run from three relatives and an unemployed campaign consultant is considered an unstoppable groundswell. When people are saying nice things about me, I try to remember the proverb that compares flattery to a net at your feet. To be sure, the Pajamas poll results are very flattering, so let me return the favor and throw a net at your feet.

Whether or not the Internet can elect any particular candidate in any particular race, it’s clear that all of you and our many friends across the blogosphere and the Web are part of a true information revolution. That’s why so much of my effort has been focused on talking to Americans through this medium. By empowering individuals and building communities, the Internet provides a way of going around the inside-the-beltway crowd to reach people in numbers unheard of not that long ago.

I believe this direct communication and discussion is going to have an enormous impact on our political process. Our nation is facing unprecedented threats, and the challenges of globalization. ...

The Man Who Wasn't There
Fred Thompson isn't yet running, but he's running a great campaign
Peggy Noonan

Having watched the second Republican debate the other night, it's clear to me the subject today is Fred Thompson, the man who wasn't there. While the other candidates bang away earnestly in a frozen format, Thompson continues to sneak up from the creek and steal their underwear--boxers, briefs and temple garments.

He is running a great campaign. It's just not a declared campaign. It's a guerrilla campaign whose informality is meant to obscure his intent. It has been going on for months and is aimed at the major pleasure zones of the Republican brain. In a series of pointed columns, commentaries and podcasts, Mr. Thompson has been talking about things conservatives actually talk about. Shouldn't homeowners have the right to own a gun? Isn't it bad that colleges don't teach military history? How about that Sarkozy--good news, isn't it? Did you see Tenet on Russert? His book sounds shallow, tell-all-y.

These comments and opinions are being read and forwarded in Internet Nation. They are revealing and interesting, but they're not heavy, not homework. They have an air of "This is the sound of a candidate thinking." That's an unusual sound.

***

Reagan 2.0
Dan Riehl

Instapundit referring to this note at PJM from Fred Thompson:

No wonder Thompson's paying attention to the Internet: "As of Wednesday afternoon, Thompson’s video, in which he suggests that Moore might look into a mental institution, drew 598,600 viewers on Vimeo, YouTube and Google Video. That dwarfs the most views from any moment during the debate."

It was easier, too. It probably took a half hour or less to make that video. People sometimes say that Thompson's lazy, but I'm put in mind of the Robert Heinlein short story, The Man Who Was Too Lazy to Fail.

Many have said that Reagan's greatest strength was his ability to talk over the media and connect directly with the American people. The mis-characterizations of his intellect, ability and effort never really hurt him much while he was in office because, in a sense, people felt they had a relationship with Reagan. You didn't need the media to tell you who Reagan was, or that for which he stood. His communication skills were so solid, he told you, you sensed he was telling the truth, and a vast majority of the American electorate very much liked what they heard.

We often hear partisanship being blamed as the big problem with getting effective leadership from Washington. But it's interesting to consider Reagan, his ability to skirt the media, and wonder if the media hasn't been the biggest challenge for Presidents since the Kennedy/Nixon debate.

To the extent that might be true, at least for now Thompson has found the same method around the media we bloggers use. It's powerful and, for a candidate, or a President, it could be Reagan on steroids aka Reagan 2.0. ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on May 18, 2007 at 08:54 PM in Fred Thompson, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wednesday, 16 May 2007
 

Pelosi proposes, then quickly withdraws,
rule change to shut out GOP minority

Below the fold:

• Pelosi's Gambit
• Queen Nancy
• House Democrats Just Blinked
• Pelosi proposes, then quickly withdraws, rule change to shut out GOP minority
• Breaking News from the House
• Pelosi's Sister Mary Elephant Moment?

*** *** Fold (but please don't spindle or mutilate) *** ***

Pelosi's Gambit
Jonah Goldberg (Hat tip: Michelle Malkin)

Boehner's office just sent this out:

DEMOCRATS TO CHANGE 185 YEAR-OLD HOUSE RULE TO ALLOW TAX HIKES WITHOUT HAVING TO VOTE

May 16, 2007

In a stunning move, House Democrats today revealed they will attempt to rewrite House rules that have gone unchanged since 1822 in order to make it possible to increase taxes and government spending without having to vote and be held accountable.  House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today vowed Republicans will use every available means to fight this unprecedented change.

“This is an astonishing attempt by the majority leadership to duck accountability for tax-and-spend policies the American people do not want,” Boehner said.  “The majority leadership is gutting House rules that have been in place for 185 years so they can raise taxes and increase government spending without a vote.  House Republicans will use every tool available to fight this abuse of power.” ...

Don Surber: Queen Nancy

Congressman Eric Cantor: House Democrats Just Blinked

Pelosi proposes, then quickly withdraws, rule change to shut out GOP minority

John Hinderaker: Breaking News from the House.

Dan Riehl: Pelosi's Sister Mary Elephant Moment? 

Contributed by Bill Faith on May 16, 2007 at 09:49 PM in Nancy Pelosi, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wednesday, 09 May 2007
 

2007.05.09 Decision '08 // Dem Stupidity Roundup
(And assorted other "Let's give 'em a country to run" topics)

See previous: 2007.05.08 Decision '08 // Dem Stupidity Roundup ...

Below the fold, newest items at the top:

• F. Thompson sharpens strategy
• The inarticulate Barack Obama, pt. 2
• Some other good early AM reads
• Obama Overstates Kansas Tornado Deaths

Video: Mitt Romney’s second campaign ad
Ian Schwartz

Mitt Romney is the first top-tier Republican presidential candidate to run a national ad. The ad started in early April, but I haven’t seen it on television until recently:

Bryan adds: The ad deftly distances Romney from President Bush–who has spent money like mad and only used the veto twice–while coming across as positive and reformist and a conservative Republican. It gets Romney to Bush’s right on fiscal issues, where there is a lot of space and where any GOP hopeful needs to be. I can’t say I’m a Romney guy, but this is a solid ad imho. Not flashy or original, but it does the job.

*** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***

F. Thompson sharpens strategy
By: Jonathan Martin and Mike Allen

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson acknowledges his coming-out speech in California last weekend didn't live up to expectations, advisers say, and he is planning a tighter and sharper message dubbed "Stump Speech 2.0" for a Saturday night event to be attended by key conservative leaders.

Friends working on the speech say it will include more of a call to arms than the entertaining but unfocused after-dinner address Thompson gave to an eagerly expectant audience Friday night at the Balboa Bay Club and Resort in Newport Beach, Calif. ...

Friends helping Thompson with the speech say it will have more of a discussion of values issues than the Orange County outing and will emphasize the importance of confirming conservative judges....

***

The inarticulate Barack Obama, pt. 2
Michelle Malkin

[video link]

He's tiiiired.

When there's a crisis, you can count on Barack Obama...to say just the wrong thing. First, there was his bizarre rant tying the VTech massacre to Don Imus, Iraq, Darfur, and the kitchen sink.

Now, this:

Barack Obama caught up in the fervor of a campaign speech Tuesday, drastically overstated the Kansas tornadoes death toll, saying 10,000 had died.

The death toll was 12.

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed," the Democratic presidential candidate said in a speech to 500 people packed into a sweltering Richmond art studio for a fundraiser.

At the end of the speech, he recognized the flub:

As he concluded his remarks a few minutes later, he appeared to realize his gaffe.

"There are going to be times when I get tired," he said. "There are going to be times when I get weary. There are going to be times when I make mistakes."

Noted. ...

Confederate Yankee Bob Owens comments "He was just using a Lancet estimate."

See also: The Rest Were Pledged

***

Some other good early AM reads (I might or might not find time for excerpts later):

• Fred Barnes: Trading Places
• Kathleen Parker: Can Fred Thompson Fill the GOP's Vacuum?

***

Sort of a toss-up but I'm writing this off as simple stupidity as opposed to deliberate perfidy. Even the Obamanation wouldn't try to put over a whopper that big.

Obama Overstates Kansas Tornado Deaths

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Barack Obama, caught up in the fervor of a campaign speech Tuesday, drastically overstated the Kansas tornadoes death toll, saying 10,000 had died. The death toll was 12.

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died—an entire town destroyed," the Democratic presidential candidate said in a speech to 500 people packed into a sweltering Richmond art studio for a fundraiser.

Obama mentioned the disaster in Greensburg, Kan., in saying he had been told by the office of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius that the state's National Guard had been depleted by its commitment to the Iraq War.

"Turns out that the National Guard in Kansas only had 40 percent of its equipment and they are having to slow down the recovery process in Kansas," Obama said, his shirt sleeves rolled up and his head glistening with sweat.

Don Surber: Is Obama too tired to be president? 

Contributed by Bill Faith on May 9, 2007 at 01:49 AM in Dem Dumbness, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tuesday, 08 May 2007
 

2007.05.08 Decision '08 // Dem Stupidity Roundup
(And assorted other "Let's give 'em a country to run" topics)

See previous: 2007.05.07 Decision '08 // Dem Stupidity Roundup ...

Below the fold, newest items at the top:

• Quayle season?
• The Flight To Flyover Country
• All profile, no courage
• Rudy donated repeatedly to Planned Parenthood in the 1990s
• Giuliani the Insincere
• Pro-choice Giuliani called acceptable

Does America Elect Defeatists? 
Hatched by Dafydd ab Hugh

I just received a very pessimistic e-mail from a close friend of mine (not Friend Lee) who is utterly convinced that the Democrats will win the presidency in 2008, even if the Iraq war is going much better. My correspondent is a libertarian-conservative who is obsessed with the "neo-cons," whom he hates with a passion and blames for "hijacking" the Reagan legacy and the Bush presidency (he even wrote a book about it, Post-Nationalism).

But why is he so despondent, utterly convinced that Hillary Clinton will be our next president? First, because he's not naturally an optimistic person; but more important, because my friend truly believes that the American people despise "neo-cons" as much as he does.

This is actually quite a common belief, that the entire country shares one's own burning, heart-felt principles (or obsessions). But I assured him, it's a delusion: The vast majority of Americans have no idea who or what the neo-cons are, and honestly couldn't care less. However, my friend, a political junky (as am I), cannot seem to understand the depths of ennui that most Americans have for the "inside baseball" of politics. As I wrote him: ...

*** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***

Quayle season?
Don Surber

As Republicans kick the tires on the various candidates offered for 2008, they find themselves wondering if there is one once-married candidate who has never waffled on abortion, has stood tall on tax cuts and who has stood four-square for family values.

There is one name out on there that isn’t being mentioned: Dan Quayle.

I dunno, Don. You say potato, I say potatoe. It might make for an interesting campaign, anyhoo.

***

The Flight To Flyover Country
Ed Morrissey

Political analysts sometimes refer to the space between the two coasts as "flyover country," a space so uninteresting and unimportant that it bears little consideration until someone needs votes. The Midwest, with the exceptions of Chicago and perhaps the Twin Cities, get little credit for sophistication or intellectual interest. For the most part, people make jokes about cows and corn and consider the coastal megalopolises the center of American thought.

Michael Barone, writing in today's OpinionJournal, says that has changed in practice, if not yet in thought. More native-born Americans have left the coastal megalopolises for flyover country, stratifying the big American cities on the coasts and in effect abandoning them to immigrants: ...

***

All profile, no courage
Paul Mirengoff

The Washington Post has a good piece about John Edwards' plans to combat poverty. Edwards has made his program to "end poverty in 30 years" in this country his signature domestic issue. The Post story, by Alec MacGillis, provides insight into both Edwards and the issue.

The centerpiece of the Edwards plan is to do away with public housing projects and replace them with one million rental vouchers through which to disperse the poor into better neighborhoods, closer to good schools and jobs. However, as the Post explains, a major federal experiment started during the Clinton administration shows that dispersing poor families in this fashion does not improve earnings or school performance. When this inconvenient truth was brought to Edwards' attention during his November 2005 symposium on poverty, he apparently had no answer. ...

***

Rudy donated repeatedly to Planned Parenthood in the 1990s
Allahpundit

At least six times, maybe more, according to copies of his tax returns provided to Politico “by aides to a rival campaign, who insisted on not being identified.” The obvious (if unpersuasive) spin would be to insist that the money was meant for lobbying, to defend the right of privacy, not for the actual performance of abortions, which of course Rudy deeply, personally opposes. Instead his camp offered this non-answer:

“Mayor Giuliani has been consistent in his position — he is personally opposed to abortion, but at the same time he understands it is a personal and emotional decision that should ultimately be left up to the woman,” said Maria Comella.

Comella added that, “from the start, Mayor Giuliani has been straight with the American people about where he stands on the issues and saying exactly what he thinks.

“Ultimately, this election is about leadership, and it’s a sign of leadership to stand by your position in the face of political expediency.”

It’s a sign of leadership to insist that you despise abortion after having donated six times to America’s most notorious abortion provider? ...

***

Giuliani the Insincere
On abortion, the former mayor lacks both clarity and conviction.
By Rich Lowry

Rudy Giuliani is supposed to be the candidate of authenticity, the tough-talking former New York City mayor who sticks to his beliefs no matter what. But he is repeating a line that is so flagrantly insincere, it makes any of Hillary Clinton’s canned talking points seem free and natural by comparison.

Giuliani claims he “hates abortion.” Oddly, this hatred didn’t manifest itself until Giuliani realized he had to have something to say to pro-lifers besides that he supported abortion on demand in any circumstance.

Giuliani has been pounded by pundits for his answers on abortion at the first GOP debate. But he didn’t commit a gaffe. He only suffered from the contradictions of a position that appears to be the product of poorly thought-out political calculation. ...

***

Pro-choice Giuliani called acceptable
By Eric Pfeiffer

Two leading Republican lawmakers said yesterday that former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's pro-choice stance on abortion should not disqualify him from becoming their party's presidential nominee or from receiving the support of conservative voters.

Making the comments were House Majority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, one of Mr. Giuliani's rivals for the nomination. Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, a social conservative also running for the party's nomination, said during the Republican presidential debate last week that he could accept a candidate with differing views on abortion.

"I think it's an uphill fight on that issue," Mr. Boehner said during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday." "But I think a lot of Republican voters see Rudy Giuliani as competent and able to do the job."

Mr. Boehner has not endorsed the Giuliani campaign. He noted the large delegation of House Republicans who met with former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee two weeks ago and said voters are open to a range of primary candidates. 

Contributed by Bill Faith on May 8, 2007 at 12:06 AM in Dem Dumbness, Politics, Rudy Giuliani | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Saturday, 05 May 2007
 

2007.05.05 Decision Fred! '08 Roundup

See previous: 2007.05.04 Decision '08 Roundup ...

Below the fold, newest items at the top:

• Fred Thompson — ‘I’ve never casually run for anything’
• Some remarks I left on the Power Line forum
• A Second Helping of Fred
• Fred's Debut

Some Thoughts On Fred!'s Lincoln Club Speech

I'm not sure if C-Span had problems at the last or if I did something wrong but I managed to watch almost all of Fred Thompson's speech at The Lincoln Club. He kinda sorta followed the prepared remarks posted here but they don't begin to do justice to his podium persona. He's not quite Reagan's equal as a communicator but he's the closest I've seen in a lot of years and he said all the right things.

btw, I just bookmarked The Fred Thompson Report on ABC's web site and spent some time in the archives. How about if you do the same?

Fred! '08! Fred! '08! Fred! '08!

***

Via Real Clear Politics, watch some short excerpts from Sen. Thompson's speech at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae7EfXqNO4Q. *** *** Update: Watch the whole speech here (Hat tip: bnelson44 in this PL Forum thread) It's just over a half hour long so you might still want to watch the excerpt if you're pressed for time.

***

Better yet, watch that clip here then go watch Fred Thompson on Hannity & Colmes Part I and Fred Thompson on Hannity & Colmes Part II

*** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***

Fred Thompson — ‘I’ve never casually run for anything’

***

I posted this on this Power Line Forum thread but since it's alreay typed up I might as well post it here to. (The whole thread's well worth your time.)

(With a salute to IronDioPriest for kinda/sorta bringing this up earlier.)

Second, the last five years have been a critical time in our nation’s history. From 2002 to the present, men like George Bush, John McCain, and many others have been fighting a very difficult battle on behalf of our country. Not Fred Thompson: he preferred to leave the Senate to live the very sweet life of a minor television celebrity. There’s nothing wrong with that, necessarily, but it’s not exactly heroic, either.

John, go reread A Second Helping of Fred, which Scott linked to from The Fred factor, part 3. Sen. Thompson didn’t feel particularly needed in 2000.

Thompson says before 9/11 he thought the United States was in “an era of caretaker presidents"-that the American people did not want to talk about some of the more difficult issues. Although Thompson credits Bush for campaigning on Social Security reform, such bold policy proposals were the exceptions after eight years of Bill Clinton. “George Bush comes along and talks about compassionate conservatism, it seemed like a perfect thing that fit the times and I’m sure his advisors thought so. And that’s not worth it. I was wrong. September 11 happened. We realized, everybody realized, that the earth had shifted under us. It became in most people’s eyes, a different era, requiring much more of a president. Giving a president much greater opportunities to do things than it ever had before.”

Fred’s said he would have done some things differently in Iraq than George Bush did, but can we really fault him for not competing against a sitting Republican President for the ‘04 nomination? Should he have run for the seat Sen. Frist vacated? (Of course, by your reasoning Frist should have fought to retain his seat himself, I suppose.) Possibly, or possibly he was confident that seat would remain in Republican hands anyway and decided to save himself for bigger things.

As far as this Old Dog’s concerned the winner of Thursday night’s debate was Fred Dalton Thompson. If I could simply wave my magic wand and make it happen I’d appoint Duncan Hunter to the Oval Office with Fred Thompson as his VP but I’m willing to be realistic and vote for a Thompson/Lieberman ticket without being too put out.

***

A Second Helping of Fred
We may well just have something here.
by Stephen F. Hayes 

... A couple of weeks ago, I profiled Thompson for THE WEEKLY STANDARD. Although  the piece ran at a meaty 6,000 words, there was much from my interview with Thompson that I wasn't able to include. So consider this a second helping of Fred. ...

Among many other things, we discussed the surge (he's for it, but thinks it was late and should have been bigger); cutting spending (he faults both the Bush administration and congressional Republicans for their failures); the Democrats' attempt to cut funding for the Iraq War ("tragic"); why he chose not to run for president in 2000 (he didn't want to be a "caretaker president"); his reading habits in college (Russel Kirk, Friedrich Hayek, National Review and, to understand the other side, the New Republic,); his frustrations in the Scooter Libby prosecution with the CIA ("they set this whole thing up") and the Justice Department (the case was brought because of "a breakdown" at DOJ); and which longtime Democrat he contributed to in 2006.

The Surge

On January 11, the day after President Bush announced his plans for a troop surge in Iraq, Thompson praised the changes in a commentary for ABC Radio. "I was struck by a couple of things he said that indicated not just a change in tactics but a whole new attitude with regard to what's necessary," Thompson said. "He's taking the gloves off." Thompson, a strong supporter of the Iraq War who voted to authorize it in October 2002, ended with a soft but direct critique: "I'll bet that a lot of folks who support the president on this are asking themselves 'What if we'd taken care of business this way two years ago?'" 

I asked Thompson if he was among that group ("Yep."), whether the surge is the last hope for a victory ("In Iraq? Probably."), and what specifically had led him to offer that criticism of the White House.

"The greatest source of my frustration," he says, "is that in any situation involving military conflict in a democracy, the president has a limited window of opportunity to get the job done, or more precisely, to make progress. That window can be pretty wide if progress is being made. My concern is that we have waited so long that that window is almost closed. And you cannot carry on a war for any length of time at all without the support of the American people." He adds: "If we had done this three years ago, I just think we would have been in much better shape."  ...

Democrats, con and pro

Democrats in Congress, he says, are making policy decisions on Iraq based on their reading polls that suggest the war is unpopular. "I think they're overreading them. I think they're misinterpreting them. I think they're going to overreach," he predicted. "These attempts to cut off funding , especially at this stage in the game that the Democrats are trying to do back-door and now front-door, are tragic," he says. "We are on the verge of a major defeat for this country. These are serious times and it's not about personalities. . . . To me, it's beyond a pro-Bush, anti-Bush deal in the war and I've been saying the same thing since back when he was 60 percent in the polls."

One longtime Democrat Thompson praised at several points throughout the interview was Senator Joe Lieberman, a staunch supporter of the Iraq War and the War on Terror. Thompson worked closely with Lieberman as the senior senators on the Senate Government Affairs Committee in the late 1990s. Thompson says Lieberman backed him against the interests of his party in several difficult spots when the cameras weren't on. It demonstrated character that Thompson says he saw again when Democrats abandoned Lieberman in his primary contest against liberal upstart, Ned Lamont. Thompson says he admires Lieberman's willingness to fight for an unpopular war.

"I just thought, you know, it was the gutsy, principled thing for him to do. That ought to be rewarded every time we find it." Thompson's PAC gave Lieberman $1,000 in August 2006, shortly after his loss in the primary, and another $1,000 in October. (Thompson refused to answer my question about whether he would consider Lieberman as his running mate if he were to win the Republican nomination.)  ...

Read the whole thing.

***

Fred's Debut
Ed Morrissey

Fred Thompson appeared last night at the Lincoln Club, an influential group of California power brokers in the GOP, giving a speech which broadly outlines his agenda. Given that the Lincoln Club could have invited almost any of the 2008 primary candidates to speak at their annual dinner, the choice of Thompson gives the impression of a tacit endorsement of his candidacy -- and the Lincoln Club’s endorsement (tacit or otherwise) carries a powerful weight to anyone fortunate enough to receive it.

The speech itself serves as an excellent entrée into the race. On the Iraq war, he remained steadfast in its central importance to American global security. On economics and taxes, he stayed close to the federalist philosophies that have become his hallmark. Thompson also attacked government waste, red tape, and its intrusion into areas without a Constitutional mandate -- and its poor performance when it does.

I've extensively reviewed the speech at Heading Right. ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on May 5, 2007 at 02:34 PM in Fred Thompson, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Friday, 04 May 2007
 

2007.05.04 Decision '08 // Dem Stupidity Roundup
(And assorted other "Let's give 'em a country to run" topics)

See previous: 2007.05.03 Decision '08 Roundup ...

Below the fold, newest items at the top:

• Debate Analysis: Romney Wins

An Incomplete Field
First impressions of the GOP's 2008 candidates.
Peggy Noonan

They stood earnestly in a row, combed, primped and prepped, as Nancy Reagan gazed up at them with courteous interest. But behind the hopeful candidates, a dwarfing shadow loomed, a shadow almost palpable in its power to remind Republicans of the days when men were men and the party was united. His power is only increased by his absence. But enough about Fred Thompson.

This is a piece about Thursday night's Republican presidential debates, but first I would like to note that the media's fixation with which Republican is the most like Reagan, and who is the next Reagan, and who parts his hair like Reagan, is absurd, and subtly undermining of Republicans, which is why they do it. Reagan was Reagan, a particular man at a particular point in history. What is to be desired now is a new greatness. Another way of saying this is that in 1960, John F. Kennedy wasn't trying to be the next FDR, and didn't feel forced to be. FDR was the great, looming president of Democratic Party history, and there hadn't been anyone as big or successful since 1945, but JFK thought it was good enough to be the best JFK. And the press wasn't always sitting around saying he was no FDR. Oddly enough, they didn't consider that an interesting theme.

They should stop it already, and Republicans should stop playing along. They should try instead a pleasant. "You know I don't think I'm Reagan, but I do think John Edwards may be Jimmy Carter, and I'm fairly certain Hillary is Walter Mondale." 

I return to the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif., Thursday night. It was an incomplete field that made its debut, but not an unimpressive one. ...

*** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***

Debate Analysis: Romney Wins
Ed Morrissey

The first Republican debate has finished, and the analysis and spin will begin in earnest. I'm sure that by morning, my e-mail will be filled with messages insisting on promoting one candidate over another, but I already have a few conclusions to share with CQ readers and to inspire debate in this comment thread.

* Who won? -- Mitt Romney won this debate. He looked relaxed, answered clearly, showed real warmth and a sense of humor, and actually answered the questions asked of him -- even the stupid ones, to which I'll return shortly. After Romney, one has to think that Jim Gilmore and Mike Huckabee may have made some strides in breaking out of the third tier. They also showed that they could connect emotionally to the audience and give clear, thoughtful answers.

* Who lost? -- Not everyone who didn't win lost, but a couple of candidates obviously lost this debate. ...

* What about Fred? -- Fred helped himself tremendously by staying out of this debate. His absence will make GOP hearts grow much fonder, much faster. At this rate, if Fred stays out of these debates until the primary season begins, he might be the consensus nominee. ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on May 4, 2007 at 01:38 AM in Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thursday, 03 May 2007
 

2007.05.03 Decision '08 // Dem Stupidity Roundup
(And assorted other "Let's give 'em a country to run" topics)

See previous: 2007.05.02 Decision '08 Roundup ...

Below the fold, newest items at the top:

• Some initial post-debate thoughts
• The Obama campaign: home of the Whopper
• Obama placed under Secret Service protection
• The fix on tonight's debate

The Myth of Cuban Health Care
Fred Thompson

You might have read the stories about filmmaker Michael Moore taking ailing workers from Ground Zero in Manhattan to Cuba for free medical treatments. According to reports, he filmed the trip for a new movie that bashes America for not having government-provided health care.

Now, I have no expectation that Moore is going to tell the truth about Cuba or health care. I defend his right to do what he does, but Moore’s talent for clever falsehoods has been too well documented. Simply calling his movies documentaries rather than works of fiction, I think, may be the biggest fiction of all.

While this PR stunt has obviously been successful — here I am talking about it — Moore’s a piker compared to Fidel Castro and his regime. Moore just parrots the story they created — one of the most successful public relations coups in history. This is the story of free, high quality Cuban health care.

The truth is that Cuban medical care has never recovered from Castro’s takeover — when the country’s health care ranked among the world’s best. He won the support of the Cuban people by promising to replace Batista’s dictatorship with free elections, and to end corruption. Once in power, though, he made himself dictator and instituted Soviet-style Communism. Cubans not only failed to regain their democratic rights, their economy plunged into centrally planned poverty. ...

Read the whole thing, folks. Fred! '08! Fred! '08!

*** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***

*** Michelle's post here is well worth your time. I wish I'd realized she was blogging during the debate. (HT: Dan Riehl)

***

Some initial post-debate thoughts:

How has Ron Paul passed for a Republican for so long?

Romney didn't do half bad. Still not my choice but not a major loser by any means.

I still think Hunter would make a good President but he just doesn't have what it takes to get elected.

If the Dhimms can refuse to debate on FOX couldn't the Republicans have at least insisted on a politcally neutral moderator?

I'm going to spend some time on other things, maybe even a nap, then start checking out blogger reax later.

***

Too short for a good excerpt: The Obama campaign: home of the Whopper

***

The fix on tonight's debate 
Paul Mirengoff

Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post's blog "The Fix" previews tonight's debate among the Republican presidential candidates. Cillizza provides his view of the stakes for each candidate and what they need to accomplish.

The stakes seem highest for Mitt Romney. The images of Giuliani and McCain are already well-formed, though they undoubtedly can use some polishing with the Republican base. Other than Romney, the other participants appear to be "pretenders." But Romney has the financial resources to contend, is not doing badly in Iowa and New Hampshire, and is flirting with double digits in the national popularity polls. Having finally built a little momentum, this is his chance to introduce himself to many Republican voters on his own terms, not in a YouTube circulated by his enemies or opponents.

Romney is smart and engaging enough to take advantage of this opportunity. However, ...

***

Obama placed under Secret Service protection

(CNN) -- Illinois senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has been placed under the protection of the U.S. Secret Service, the Secret Service said Thursday.

A statement from Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he authorized the protection detail for Obama.

"As a matter of procedure, we will not release any details of the deliberations or assessments that led to protection being initiated," the statement said. "For security reasons we will not release the timing, scope or details of any protective operations."

FoxNews has more here.

Contributed by Bill Faith on May 3, 2007 at 04:51 PM in Barack Obama, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wednesday, 02 May 2007
 

2007.05.02 Decision '08 // Dem Stupidity Roundup
(And assorted other "Let's give 'em a country to run" topics)

See previous: 2007.05.01 Decision '08 Roundup ...

Below the fold (newest items at the top):

• Obama Takes MySpace Page From Backer
• Obama’s pastor problem

Video: Fred! on H&C
Ian Schwartz

Sean Hannity interviewed possible Presidential candidate Fred Thompson Tuesday night. Fred said his lymphoma is a “non-factor” and he has never had an hour of pain from it. Thompson said Harry Reid is an “extremist” that is doing things that this country will regret. Fred! also went after MoveOn.org, saying they run the Democratic Party. [video links]

*** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***

***

Obama Takes MySpace Page From Backer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Is MySpace always mine or can it belong to someone else?

At the cost of losing 160,000 friends, Democrat Barack Obama's presidential campaign has taken over control of the MySpace page listed under his name on the popular social networking site.

The case raises questions about the campaigns' desire to control their message versus the power of voter-generated material, especially for a candidate such as Obama who has sparked unsolicited excitement on the Web.

For the past 2 1/2 years, the Obama MySpace page has been run by an Obama supporter from Los Angeles named Joe Anthony. At first, that arrangement was fine with the Obama team, which worked with Anthony on the content, promoted the link and even had the password to make changes.

But as the site exploded in popularity in recent months, the campaign became concerned about an outsider controlling the content and responses going out under Obama's name. It told Anthony it wanted him to turn it over. ...

Ben Smith has more here.

***

Obama’s pastor problem
Bryan Preston

Imagine for a moment that a Republican presidential candidate claimed to have a spiritual mentor, and it turned out that that mentor preached and taught in racial overtones. Imagine the media giving that candidate, that pastor, and their relationship a pass. Imagine Andrew Sullivan not calling that candidate and his pastor “Christianists” or some other anti-religious epithet You can’t. It wouldn’t happen.

But if the candidate is a Democrat? Well, it’s happening right now.

Sen. Barack Obama attends Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. The pastor is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a man Obama credits as his spiritual mentor. But Wright dubs the US the “United States of white America.” The church’s website is definitely black-centric and not very welcoming to anyone of other races.

The subject of Obama and Wright came up on Hannity & Colmes Monday night. ...

Contributed by Bill Faith on May 2, 2007 at 09:42 AM in Barack Obama, Fred Thompson, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tuesday, 01 May 2007
 

2007.05.01 Decision '08 // Dem Stupidity Roundup
(And assorted other "Let's give 'em a country to run" topics)

See previous: 2007.04.30 Decision '08 Roundup ...

Below the fold (newest items at the top):

• Vanity Fair: Rudy is a lunatic
• Video: Pelosi by the Numbers
• Buckley and Will See Doom for GOP

Ex-Senator Seen as Rehearsing for Prime Time

WASHINGTON, April 30 — When 10 of the declared Republican presidential candidates gather for their first debate on Thursday at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Southern California, Fred D. Thompson, the actor and politician, will not be among them. But he will not be far offstage.

Mr. Thompson, the former Tennessee senator and current presidential question mark, is speaking the next night at the annual dinner of the Lincoln Club of Orange County, an influential conservative group. The scheduling illustrates the political place Mr. Thompson occupies: he is of the presidential campaign, but not in it. Yet.

Making speeches at carefully chosen appearances, doing an occasional interview and fielding questions from Republican congressmen, Mr. Thompson, 64, is running something of a guerrilla exploratory effort. He even weighed in recently on a conservative blog to offer a detailed defense of his ideas on federalism.

Behind the scenes, Mr. Thompson has been consulting with his inner circle — including former Senators Bill Frist and Howard H. Baker Jr. of Tennessee and experienced Washington aides like Mark Corallo, a former Justice Department official — about how he could pull together the money and staff he would need to run. ...

Ed Morrissey comments on the NYT article here. SeeDubya has a good related post here.

***

Don't miss Fred!'s excellent NRO guest column: Sticks & Stones.

*** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***

Vanity Fair: Rudy is a lunatic
By See-Dubya

Vanity Fair takes off from its full-bore, cover-to-cover Globwarming evangelism to helpfully compile all the gossip and scandal about Rudy Giuliani in one snarly piece. Their take isn’t that his judgment is bad, or his positions are odious to the base. No, we’re going for the nuance here—Rudy is mad, mad, MAD!

A famous person’s nuttiness is of an entirely different order than an unfamous person’s. The big issue with nuttiness is that it’s secret or shameful. But, in a sense, publicity cleanses or absolves nuttiness. That is, it makes it normal. We’re used to it. What’s more, with Rudy, there’s so much of it that sheer volume cancels the details out.

And, in some significant way, the nuttiness is the point. Rudy is reversing the basic political math, where likability = electability. Rather, it’s Rudy’s extremism, his vividness, the joie de guerre of his obsessions and fixations, his beastliness, that give him his chance. ...

Times are tough. We’re not looking for a nice guy for President. Romney-style decency isn’t necessarily selling to the base these days. The country wants someone who will treat Ahmedinejad like a ferret-rights activist and the Saudis like–well, like Rudy treated Prince Alwaleed after 9/11. ...

Guess I'd have to say there are some things I don't particularly like about Rudy but the fact Vanity Fair doesn't approve on him is going to be a plus in a lot of people's books, including mine.

***

Video: Pelosi by the Numbers
By See-Dubya

Sure, it’s propaganda, but it’s pretty darn good propaganda. Produced by the National Republican Congressional Committee, and poached from Ms. Underestimated, it’s a nice rundown of Nancy’s accomplishments: [video link.]

***

Buckley and Will See Doom for GOP
Posted by Blake Dvorak

At the end of this clip from ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos and George Will have this interesting exchange:

Stephanopoulos: If this now declared deadline of Gen. Petraeus of September, if the political goals haven't been met by then, do you see large scale Republican defections at that point?

Will: Absolutely. They do not want to have, as they had in 2006, another election on Iraq. George, it took 30, 40 years for the Republican Party to get out from under Herbert Hoover. People would say, "Are you going to vote for Nixon in '60?" "No, I don't like Hoover." The Depression haunted the Republican Party. This could be a foreign policy equivalent of the Depression, forfeiting the Republican advantage they've had since the '68 convention of the Democratic Party and the nomination of [George] McGovern. The advantage Republicans have had on national security matters may be forfeited.

As Stephanopoulos says, Wow.

Compare that to what William F. Buckley Jr. wrote the other day (which Drudge highlighted today in very important red lettering): ...

Even though both Buckley and Will are careful to hedge slightly on their predictions, essentially two of the most respected and smartest minds in conservative politics just declared that the Republican Party will not only suffer greatly in 2008, but that it is in danger of becoming a minority party for generations.

I won't dispute the possibility of such a scenario, but we need to consider where exactly the Iraq war will fit in history. For instance, does Will's Depression-analogy hold up? The only answer is that we won't know for several years, if not decades. But right now I think it's still a far-fetched notion. The Depression was a world-changing event that lasted for over a decade and affected every aspect of society. As bad as Iraq is -- and for the fallen soldiers' families, it is incalculably worse -- the average American is simply not suffering on a level commensurate with the Depression because of the war.

As for their more general point that 2008 will be another rough year for Republicans barring any real change in Iraq, ...

Dan Riehl comments here.

Contributed by Bill Faith on May 1, 2007 at 02:01 AM in Fred Thompson, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Monday, 30 April 2007
 

2007.04.30 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup
-- Breaking: Bush to veto Oink and Run bill tomorrow

See previous: 2007.04.29 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup   

Below the fold (newest items at the top):

• Ledeen Responds To Tenet
• Broder Sticks To His Guns
• The Consequences Of The Democrats' Iraq Policy
• A Loser's History
• Democrats’ Blood II
• Bush Plans to Veto Iraq War Spending Bill on Tuesday
• Former CIA Boss Out of Loop on Parts of His New Book
• But I won't question his patriotism
• Video: Tenet says Iraq wouldn’t have had nukes until 2007 or 2009
• Tenet Does 60 Minutes
• Afghan Infant Deaths Fall 40,000 Per Year After Eviction of Taliban
• A basic tenet of public life, part 2

Who Won Harry? 
J D Pendry, CSM, USA (Ret.)

You don't mind if I call you Harry do you? I'm just an Average American and since you preface every statement you make by portending what I want, I thought we would be comfortable using first names. I could call you Senator if you like, but understand that I get a searing pain in my right temple each time I think about that. As you know me so well and seem so concerned about my desires, I'm sure that you don't wish me any discomfort. My faith tells me I should not succumb to fits of rage, but I have simmered a bit about this one Harry. I'll try to be civil, but I may need to ask forgiveness afterwards.

So, if we have lost this war, who won it? You haven't exactly explained that for me or the rest of the Average Americans out here. As the twitch returns above my right temple, allow me to speculate:

"Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda's global campaign and we devote considerable resources to the fight against al Qaeda Iraq.

They [Qazali network responsible for the deaths of five Soldiers in Karbala] were provided substantial funding, training on Iranian soil, advanced explosive munitions and technologies as well as run of the mill arms and ammunition, in some cases advice and in some cases even a degree of direction. ...

And there's no question, again, that Iranian financing is taking place through the Quds force of the Iranian Republican Guards Corps. ..."  -- General David Petraeus

Does that clear if up for you Harry?

Harry, I think you are a loser and what's more, real Americans don't care for losers -- losers at anything much less war. You see in war, I do not recall there being a second place trophy. ...

*** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***     *** ***

Ledeen Responds To Tenet
Ed Morrissey

Michael Ledeen found himself in the middle of a controversy regarding the new book by former CIA chief George Tenet, and unexpectedly so. According to Ledeen, he had not been contacted by Tenet or his co-author for the book for his input. Nevertheless, Ledeen found Tenet's scorn for him and his efforts to assist the intel community on Iran on the front page of the New York Times this past weekend. Now Ledeen responds at National Review Online, and he accuses Tenet of misrepresenting Ledeen's efforts:

In December, 2001, I participated in discussions between two Pentagon officials and Iranians who claimed knowledge of Iranian-sponsored efforts to kill Americans in Afghanistan. We met in Rome, Italy over several days. The discussions were approved by Stephen Hadley, the deputy national-security adviser, and the two Defense department officials’ travel was approved by their superiors. The American ambassador in Rome was fully informed in advance, and fully briefed afterwards. The conversations produced detailed information about the identities, locations, and plans of Iranian-trained terrorists in Afghanistan. This was passed on to the proper authorities at the DoD, and I was later told by military officers that the information likely saved American lives.

Now comes the former director of central intelligence, George Tenet, with several pages about the meeting in his new book. He does not mention that American lives were saved, nor does he seem at all interested to learn that there were well-informed sources who were willing to help the American government. Nor, for that matter, is he much interested in the facts at all.  ...

***

Broder Sticks To His Guns
Ed Morrissey

David Broder took Democrats to task for allowing an incompetent like Harry Reid to rise to party leadership, pointing out several of the Senator's foolish foibles as examples. This column sent the netroots into a tizzy, with many of them declaring Broder as irrelevant and past his expiration date. The Senate Democratic caucus even sent him a letter, signed by all 50 members, extolling the virtues of Reid and lauding his "straight talk" -- apparently all endorsing the notion that we have lost the war in Iraq.

Today, Editor & Publisher caught up Broder, who has no intention of retracting his remarks:

David Broder said he wouldn't change anything in his April 26 column, which angered many readers and caused 50 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus to write a letter criticizing Broder in Friday's Washington Post. ...

"I still think the Democrats can do better, and should do better," said Broder, when reached today by E&P. ... Broder told E&P that he was "astonished and delighted" that 50 Democratic senators "spontaneously" came up with the letter (adding that he was being "tongue-in-cheek").

The letter was something of a non-sequitur. His criticism wasn't that Reid spoke his mind, but that he put his foot in his mouth when he did. Declaring a war "lost" while American troops are still fighting -- and making progress -- reveals a hysterical streak that doesn't reflect well on leadership. As Broder pointed out in the column, not even the people who signed the letter would defend what Reid said, instead trying to use Clintonian word parsing to make it appear that Harry Reid had not just capitulated to terrorists in Anbar and Baghdad. Calling the President a "loser" may make the netroots swoon with delight, but it hardly makes for a professional atmosphere between Congress and the White House.

***

The Consequences Of The Democrats' Iraq Policy
John Hawkins (H/T: Lorie Byrd)

I detest a lot of things about the way that Democrats argue about the war in Iraq...

* The dishonest way that so many of them voted for the war when it was popular and turned on it when public opinion went the other way.

* The way they criticize Bush, but have never offered up a plan for victory.

* The fact that they've encouraged the terrorists to murder our soldiers and the Iraqi civilians by convincing them that all they have to do is hold out a little longer and the Democrats will hand them victory.

* Their claim that "Bush lied" about weapons of mass destruction when countless Democrats looked at the same evidence and came to the same conclusions that Bush did.

You could go on and on with these examples. But, here's what I really dislike the most about the way the Democrats argue about the war: the fact that they are, for political reasons, advocating that we leave Iraq before the Iraqi military can defend the country while studiously avoiding a discussion of the horrific consequences that may result from that action.

Some of those consequences could be, but are not limited to...

* The end of democracy in Iraq.
* Millions of Iraqis killed in a real "civil war."
* The invasion of Iraq by Iran and/or Turkey.
* Iraq becoming a satellite state of Iran.
* A regional Shia on Sunni civil war that could begin as all sides pour in money and weapons.
* A terrorist "state within a state" controlled by Al-Qaeda.
* Al-Qaeda switching its focus from Iraq to the United States which could lead to more attacks here.
* A massive surge in recruiting by terrorist groups bolstered by Al-Qaeda's "victory" over the US.
* A massive spike in worldwide oil prices if all the oil from Iraq is cut off in the fighting.

We don't see Democrats in Congress or liberal bloggers saying, "Sure, those are things that could happen, but we think that's a fair trade off if we can leave right now." Instead, if you listened to the anti-war crowd, you'd think that there were no consequences to THE DEMOCRATIC DESIRE -- not, Bush's desire -- to leave Iraq before its military is ready to defend the country. ...

***

A Loser's History
George Tenet's sniveling, self-justifying new book is a disgrace.
By Christopher Hitchens (H/T: Michelle Malkin)

It's difficult to see why George Tenet would be so incautious as to write his own self-justifying apologia, let alone give it the portentous title At the Center of the Storm. There is already a perfectly good pro-Tenet book written by a man who knows how to employ the overworked term storm. Bob Woodward's 2002 effort, Bush at War, was, in many of its aspects, almost dictated by George Tenet. How do we know this? Well, Tenet is described on the opening page as "a hefty, outgoing son of Greek immigrants," which means that he talked to Woodward on background. Further compliments are showered upon him. We discover that his main protector on Capitol Hill, Sen. David Boren, who represented Oklahoma until 1994, had implored President-elect Bush to retain this Clinton-era head of the CIA and if he had any doubts, to "ask your father":

When the younger Bush did, the former President George H.W. Bush said: "From what I hear, he's a good fellow," one of the highest accolades in the Bush family lexicon. Tenet … later led the effort to rename CIA headquarters for Bush, himself a former DCI.

No need to draw a very complex picture here: Tenet knows how the kiss-up and kiss-down game is played. And, for a rather mediocre man, he did well enough out of the arrangement while it lasted.

***

Democrats’ Blood II
A J Strata

The Democrats better stop playing games and get the money and material flowing to our troops. Their partisan greed has already sent signals to al Qaeda and others to ramp up the killings - which they gleefully did. But now protective vehicles are being held up ONLY because the money is not flowing.

[...]

Addendum: The hypocrisy of the Surrendercrats is stunning. Check out this statement from Dorgan (D-ND):

Senators pressed for more. “We’re buying far too few of them,” said Sen. Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat. “If we have that capability, why would we not do everything to mobilize, to move as many of them into the field as is possible?

Why Senator? Because, you fool, you did not give Bush the funds he needed? Even when you knew a veto was imminent you took politics over lives? How many will die because of your crass partisanship?

I left out part of A J's post that duplicates my related post here.

***

Bush Plans to Veto Iraq War Spending Bill on Tuesday

WASHINGTON  —  President Bush plans to veto legislation to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on Tuesday, but vowed to work with Democrats on the next step to craft a compromise supplemental spending bill that would be free of an Iraq pullout timetable.

"I made my position very clear, the Congress chose to ignore it, so I will veto the bill," Bush said in a press conference in the White House Rose Garden on Monday. "That's not to say that I'm not interested in their opinions — I am. I look forward to working with members of both parties to get a bill that doesn’t set artificial timetables and doesn't micromanage and get some money to our troops."

Senior White House officials told FOX News that Bush will veto the bill late Tuesday after he returns from a trip to Tampa, Fla., to visit the United States Central Command. The schedule is based on Congress delivering the legislation to his desk by then. The veto will not take place in a ceremony, but the president will make short remarks or release a statement.

Bush has repeatedly signaled his opposition to setting a timetable to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and the veto comes as no surprise to Democratic lawmakers and others who want to pull out of Iraq. ...

***

Former CIA Boss Out of Loop on Parts of His New Book
Scott Ott

(2007-04-30) — Former CIA Director George Tenet said today that he was not included in discussions about key portions of his book that have been called into question by eyewitnesses to the events recounted.

“There was no serious debate at the publisher’s office, at least none that included me, about whether to retain certain questionable assertions in my book,” Mr. Tenet told 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley. “And yet, as usual, it looks like I’m going to take the heat for what appears in those pages just because I happen to be the author.” ...

***

But I won't question his patriotism
By Jay Tea

Yesterday, Kim had a good piece on John Murtha's latest stroke of genius: to use the impeachment process as "leverage" against President Bush over the Iraq war. This may come as no great surprise to people, but I think that is a very, very bad idea.

I will not question Murtha's patriotism.

I will question his integrity. In the now-legendary Abscam sting, Murtha was not indicted. He met with the bogus Arabs, discussed how their bribe money could best be used in his district, but deferred actually accepting cash "for now."

But I will not question his patriotism.

I will question his intelligence. Murtha, it is worth noting, was a proponent of of pulling US forces out of Iraq and redeploying them to Okinawa, where they could quickly return to the region if necessary. Murtha didn't bother to mention that 1) the Japanese are growing more and more dissatisfied with our presence there, and wouldn't exactly embrace a massive infusion of new forces, and B) Okinawa is practically next door to Iraq only on a celestial scale -- to everyone else, it's a third of the globe away, with China and Russia being in the way of direct transit.

But I will not question his patriotism.

I will question his judgment. ...

***

Video: Tenet says Iraq wouldn’t have had nukes until 2007 or 2009
Ian Schwartz (H/T: Lorie Byrd)

Well, I guess we should have waited to invade until last year:

Transcript:

SCOTT PELLEY, CBS’ “60 MINUTES”: January ‘03, the President, again: “imagine those 19 hijackers this time armed by Saddam’s Hussein,” is that what you’re telling the President?

GEORGE TENET: No.

[narrating voice]

The Vice President up the ante, claiming Saddam had nuclear weapons when the CIA was saying he didn’t.

PELLEY: What’s happening here?

TENET: I don’t know what’s happening here. The intelligence community’s judgemnet is he will not have a nuclear weapon until the year 2007, 2009.

PELLEY: That’s not what the Vice President is saying.

TENET: Well I can’t explain it.

Lorie comments:

Here is