Happy New Year!
The Conservababes have been busy running around celebrating the holidays...ahem...Christmas and New Year...so posting has been and probably will be nonexistent for a few more days.
Just wanted to wish everyone a very happy New Year!
We are a group of opinionated news junkies who used to e-mail rants, stories, and opinions back and forth. We started this little "group" during the 2004 elections, and it brought much-needed perspective and humor to the lunacy and ridiculousness going on on a daily basis. It occurred to us recently that we should start a blog to capture all of our thoughts and comments. So here we are.
The Conservababes have been busy running around celebrating the holidays...ahem...Christmas and New Year...so posting has been and probably will be nonexistent for a few more days.
In case you haven't noticed, we're not really in the serious "discuss weighty matters of politics" today. So. In the spirit of being irreverant and non-weighty...here is a collection of stuff I found while browsing various sites this morning.
From the Washington Post, this is the best analysis of the current kerfuffle over Bush's wiretapping and the Constitutionality of it all that I've read this week.
Does the president have the constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches against suspected foreign agents in the United States? George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr (one critic calls him the man who "literally wrote the book on government seizure of electronic evidence") finds "pretty decent arguments" on both sides, but his own conclusion is that Bush's actions were "probably constitutional."
In 1972 the Supreme Court required the president to obtain warrants to eavesdrop on domestic groups but specifically declined to apply this requirement to snooping on foreign agents. Four appeals courts have since upheld presidential authority for such warrantless searches. Not surprisingly, the executive branch has agreed.
True, Congress tried to restrict this presidential authority with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. It requires that warrants for wiretapping of enemy agents in the United States be obtained from a secret court. But as John Schmidt, associate attorney general in the Clinton administration, wrote: "Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms." Indeed, President Bill Clinton's own deputy attorney general testified to Congress that "the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," then noted a few minutes later that "courts have made no distinction between electronic surveillances and physical searches."
Presidents always jealously guard executive authority. And Congress always wants to challenge the scope of that authority. This tug of war is a bipartisan and constant feature of the American system of separation of powers. President Bush's circumvention of FISA is a classic separation-of-powers dispute in the area in which these powers are most in dispute -- war powers.
These would be very very sad if they weren't so very very funny. We've never posted any lunacy from the lefties at Democratic Underground before - but frankly I think we should more often.
Honorable Mention: Syrinx: The Conspiracy Is Real And It Must Be Stopped. Now tell me again why "conspiracy theories" are out of bounds? If conspiracies don't exist, why are there federal laws against them, and laws against them in every state?Here's another Great American who apparently is off his meds:
There most definitlely is a conspiracy in place, ongoing, that is transforming our country into a fascist oligarchy. The evidence is undeniable. And the Bush family is at the epicenter of it.
Bush's grandfather was a buddy of Hitler. Bush's daddy murdered JFK. That's the answer to the great mystery. No mystery at all. Why the f--- was George H.W. Bush in Dallas that day. Hmm? Why can't he recall where he was? Bullsh--.
Why are the Bush's best buddies the bloodthirsty oil-barons of Saudi Arabia -- Bandar Bush and all? Why were they buddies with Saddam Hussein. With the Iranian clerics? Even with Osama Bin Laden?
The Bush family are cold-blooded murderers. And they will not rest until they have a stranglehold on you and everyone and everything you hold dear. They are evil, and must be stopped.
Can they be stopped?"
8) stevietheman: "Brilliant. I've often thought myself that without a peaceful remedy, and soon, we may just be months away from Revolution in America.
That's how sinister these people in stranglehold of our government are. They may not receive it, but they deserve a French-style Revolution, with actual heads rolling.
And we have to be clear who these reich-wing creeps get their power from: Oligarchs and big corporate CEOs from particular industries.
If we are to fight the most wicked of today's politicians, we must also fight the true source behind the wickedness, the resources that fuel and fund the wickedness. These politicians are merely superficial veneers to the truly problematic entities. If only they are removed, then those problematic entities find some sneaky way to come back at a later time. They always do.
So when we "take them down", *this time* we need to pull out the roots and soak the ground with permanent plant killer.
The true enemy is corporatism."
Here's my problem with your coverage: as a legal matter, there isn't any debate. The authorities are all on one side; they agree that warrantless surveillance for national security purposes is legal. I think your articles misleadingly suggest that there is real uncertainty on this point, when there isn't. Thus, for example, you write:Maybe Mr. Lichtblau will respond.Some officials familiar with it say they consider warrantless eavesdropping inside the United States to be unlawful and possibly unconstitutional, amounting to an improper search. One government official involved in the operation said he privately complained to a Congressional official about his doubts about the program's legality. But nothing came of his inquiry. "People just looked the other way because they didn't want to know what was going on," he said.
I don't think you should be quoting anonymous "officials" making incorrect assertions about legal issues, while not pointing out that their assertions are wrong. (I would also note that the NSA intercepts are not "inside the United States.") And I don't think that a partial sentence from one of the controlling decisions, buried at the end of a long article and not repeated in subsequent articles, removes the incorrect impression you convey that the NSA program is, in all likelihood, illegal. Also, with all due respect, I think your treatment of the 2002 FISA case is itself misleading. While you do quote part of the key sentence, you go on to suggest that the court left the issue in a state of ambiguity by writing:But the same court suggested that national security interests should not be grounds "to jettison the Fourth Amendment requirements" protecting the rights of Americans against undue searches. The dividing line, the court acknowledged, "is a very difficult one to administer."
Those quotes had nothing to do with the court's recognition of the President's inherent power to surveil without a warrant to obtain foreign intelligence information, and did not in any way qualify the court's clear holding on that issue. You plucked them from another part of the opinion. The "dividing line" the court referred to was the "primary purpose" test that was established by the Truong decision and changed by Congress in the Patriot Act. The court noted that the "primary purpose" test was difficult to administer, which it saw as an argument in favor of the constitutionality of its revision by Congress. Contrary to the implication of your paragraph, this had nothing to do with the President's power to conduct warrantless surveillance.
In my opinion, you should not convey the impression to your readers that the NSA surveillance is likely illegal unless there is, at a minimum, a respectable argument, supported by legal authority, to that effect. Do you think there is such an argument? If so, what is it, and what is the authority?
Thanks again for responding.
Which brings me to this week's scandal about No Such Agency spying on "Americans." I have difficulty ginning up much interest in this story inasmuch as I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East, and sending liberals to Guantanamo.Go read the rest if you have a few minutes.
[nice to know we're not the only ones. -dp]
But if we must engage in a national debate on half-measures: After 9/11, any president who was not spying on people calling phone numbers associated with terrorists should be impeached for being an inept commander in chief.
A U.S. appeals court today upheld the decision of a lower court in allowing the inclusion of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse display, hammering the American Civil Liberties Union and declaring, "The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."And...
Writing for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said the ACLU's "repeated reference 'to the separation of church and state' ... has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."
Suhrheinrich wrote: "The ACLU, an organization whose mission is 'to ensure that ... the government [is kept] out of the religion business,' does not embody the reasonable person."
Ahhh. Finally. There's hope.
So Saddam Hussein says he was tortured while in US custody. (world's tiniest violins playing) Can't wait to hear the Democrats take his side against America. THAT should be good stuff.
The benevolent and peaceful former President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, has been tortured by the cruel and bloodthirsty Americans while being held in illegal captivity. This brave and misunderstood leader of the truly Free Iraq - who agreeably destroyed his weapons of mass destruction upon request and who had been respectful and generous to his beloved people, neighbors, and even United Nations Inspectors during his long stewardship - has now been brutalized at the hands of the ruthless and evil American Empire who savagely plucked him from his "happy place" in the ground.
"Illegal" wiretapping. Warrantless searches are "illegal". George Bush isn't "above the law".
I have scoured the Times' reporting for any argument as to why the NSA program would be illegal, and so far haven't found one, beyond the false insinuation that warrantless searches must be illegal. What the Times has mostly done is quote anonymous sources who express "doubts" and "concerns" about the legality of the program. But doubts and concerns may or may not be well-founded, and a doubt is not an argument. Today's reporting continues to be argument-free.Yes. "Argument Free", indeed. Because...that's all they can come up with. Why? Because this is (say it with me, now) a NON-STORY.
Heh. Good ol' Karl Rove at it again.
Just for the sake of argument, lets say that the wiretaps were done outside the law; that there was a clear and definitive prohibition against the President doing what he did: even so, to bring it up and hammer on it is stupid. We're at war - the MSM and the left don't recognise this, but the American people do. If the Democrats really want to go into 2006 arguing that we shouldn't monitor phone calls from Colorado Springs to Pakistan's Tribal Areas, then that is fine by me...we'll happily take the 30 extra House seats it will give us.It really is as if Karl Rove has a mind-control ray....
In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."And yet we still get comments and e-mails from liberals squawking about how Bush did a bad thing and he's a criminal and how dare we and we're just taking Bush's side because he can do no wrong in our eyes and blah blah blah. Brings me back to my earlier paragraph about liberals lacking any powers of deductive reasoning whatsoever. As someone once said, "Being that stupid should hurt".
The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.
But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."
Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
Bush's approval ratings climb.
It's gotta be a bad day to work in Manhattan today.
Subways and buses across the nation's largest city shut down Tuesday morning as transit workers walked off the job following days of acrimonious labor talks, stranding more than 7 million daily riders and threatening the city with a $400 million a day financial hit.I heard about this on Fox this morning and thought somehow it was a joke or they were kidding or something. People are walking. Twenty blocks. To work. In the cold.
"This is a fight over dignity and respect on the job, a concept that is very alien to the MTA," union President Roger Toussaint said in announcing the strike. "Transit workers are tired of being underappreciated and disrespected."
Give be a big, fat BREAK.
PATCO's leader, Robert Poli, still naively thought that he could shut down the nation's airports and that the administration would have to give in to their demands. But instead, the government scrambled to hire more controllers (many from the military) and the disruption to air traffic proved to be brief. And amazingly, the American people stood with Reagan in large numbers. It wasn't too long before air traffic was back to normal, fears of disaster having been unwarranted.
But on the second thought, just imagine what would have happened had one accident occurred during this time. The blood would have been on many hands, including Ronald Reagan, himself.
As D'Souza notes (he was a Reagan aide at the time), the president adopted this stern course of action without consulting any polls. Yet, much to the surprise of many on his staff (who were often incredulous at some of his actions), the American people supported him because they were convinced that principle mattered, especially in the face of threats and intimidation. By this one incident, which set the tone for the whole presidency, "Reagan proved that the right thing to do can also be politically advantageous."
It took two years to fully train the new controllers, but we all survived, disruptions were few and PATCO was dead. The American labor movement had suffered its worst defeat in decades and the balance of power in labor disputes shifted towards management. Reagan's image as a courageous leader was burnished.
Transit workers want 8 percent annual raises over three years, while the MTA has proposed 6 percent raises spread over 27 months. The union later indicated that it would accept smaller raises if the authority agreed to decrease disciplinary actions against workers.
Subway operators earned an average of $62,438 a year, including overtime, under the previous three-year contract, which expired at midnight New York time, the MTA said.
Train conductors averaged $53,000, subway booth clerks $50,720, and bus drivers $62,551, the state agency said. The MTA wasn't immediately able to provide the average amount of overtime.
``The MTA's position has been clear from the beginning,'' Gary Dellaverson, the transit authority's chief negotiator, told reporters outside the talks late yesterday. ``There are no cuts in health benefits on the table.''
Employees yet to be hired by the MTA would have to pay a ``small portion'' of their salaries toward health care.
The city's subway and bus workers went on strike Tuesday for the first time in more than 25 years, stranding millions of commuters, holiday shoppers and tourists at the height of the Christmas rush. A judge promptly slapped the union with a $1 million-a-day fine. State Justice Theodore Jones leveled the sanction against the Transport Workers Union for violating a state law that bars public employees from going on strike.
vomiting, vomiting, vomiting.... Oh, this picture really does make me sick to my stomach...
Someone had the above title written on a sign going to the Lions game yesterday.
I admit I'm stealing this straight from Rush's show today, but I thought I'd generate some conversation on it...
So I'm just going to keep doing my job. Maybe you can keep focusing on all these focus groups and polls, and all that business. My job is to lead, keep telling the American people what I believe, work to bring people together to achieve a common objective, stand on principle, and that's the way I'm going to lead. I did so in 2005, and I'm going to do so in 2006.
(Monday, 12/19: Much more - scroll down for updates)
I know most of you have heard the political debates that have been going on back home. You've heard some prominent voices advocating a sudden withdrawal of our forces from Iraq. Some have suggested this war is not winnable. And a few seem almost eager to conclude that the struggle is already over. But they are wrong. The only way to lose this fight is to quit. And that is not an option. Every American serving in this war can be absolutely certain the people of the United States are behind you. Americans will not support a policy of submission, resignation, or defeatism in the face of terror.
Our country will never go back to the false comforts of the world before September 11, 2001. Terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness. And this nation has made a decision: We will engage these enemies, facing them far from home so that we do not have to face them on the streets of our own cities.
If you don't read Mark Steyn, you must. Especially his latest column entitled "Iraq vote leaves Dems looking like the losers". Here's a taste:
Bush lied, people dyed. Their fingers. That's what this is about: Millions of Kurds, Shia and Sunnis beaming as they emerge from polling stations and hold up their purple fingers after the freest, fairest election ever held in the Arab world. "Liberal" in the American sense is a dirty word because it's come to stand for a shriveled parochial obsolescent irrelevance, of which ''Good Night, and Good Luck,'' Clooney's dreary little retread of the McCarthy years, is merely the latest example. (Clooney says he wants more journalists to "speak truth to power," which is why I'm insulting his movie.)Go read the rest. Good stuff.
The Anglo-American political tradition is the most successful in the world in part because of the concept of "loyal opposition." Yes, the party out of office opposes the party in office and hopes to supplant it, but not at the expense of the broader political culture. A party that winds up cheerleading for a deranged loser death cult is the very definition of pointless self-defeating sour oppositionism. So, as Zarqawi flails, Dean and Murtha and Kerry flail ever more pathetically, too. Just wait till the WMD turn up.
Also threads and comments at Lucianne.com.
Our friends over at Barking Moonbat make very good points.
Whether you believe in the war or not, the simple fact is that we’re in it and we stand to lose too much if the constant harassment and negativity doesn’t stop. The time to argue over the justification for the war against terror or the war in Iraq is when everything has settled down. Second-guessing the President and publicly espousing defeatism is destructive in nature and only places our troops in jeopardy by encouraging the enemy. The time to stick together is now. We can argue over the details later ... when our troops have come home and, because of their sacrifices, we can debate the whole matter in comfort and safety. Until that day, none of us are safe ... Republicans or Democrats.Say on, Skipper.
Something that was driving me nuts as I read through the different reports from the MSM on the speech was their fantasy about a lack of support for the mission in Iraq.
Six in ten Americans believe we should do what the President is proposing. While the President himself acknowledged the deep divide in the country regarding the war, it should be remembered that a majority of Americans believe it would be a mistake to cut and run.
The majority of Americans understand the necessity for completing the mission. They are not willing to accept defeat. They understand how high the stakes are.
The reality is the majority of Americans have not bought into the Dems' retreat and defeat policy for Iraq.
I thought Bush's straight talk was particularly effective.
As I said before, this speech was not political spin. The President was direct and humble, yet confident and firm.
In case you were wondering why I dislike John McCain... check out this link from Rush about his torture bill.
Co-blogging by proxy. Love it. And I'm honored to share with you the latest comment from Ms. Proctor. This is a follow-up comment to our Iraq War: 101 post, and since it didn't fit in my teeny little comment space, I had to post it here so it wasn't lost forever. (please visit her blog - it is time well spent)
"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to Osama bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers."Saddam also supported the 9/11 attacks. Look what they found in Iraq while my [Ms. Proctor's] hubby was fighting the Fedayeen in AsSamawa! Saddam & 9/11
My uncle recently sent me this article written by one of my favorite columnists, Peggy Noonan. Please read it when you get a chance. I was particularly struck by this simple, yet very profound thought:
Later Howard Dean, that human helium balloon ever resistant to the gravity of mature judgment, said of the administration that they lied us into war. He left no doubt that he meant they did it deliberately and cynically. But there seems to me a thing that is blindingly obvious, and yet I've never seen it remarked upon. It is that an administration that would coldly lie us into Iraq is an administration that would lie about what was found there. And yet the soldiers, searchers and investigators who looked high and low throughout Iraq made it clear they had found nothing, an outcome the administration did not dispute and came to admit. But an administration that would lie about reasons would lie about results, wouldn't it? Or try to? Yet they were candid.Indeed. Good thought, yes? Yet another question I'd love a liberal to answer for me someday.
Jean Schmidt only parrotted what the military really thinks. While active duty soldiers and their families respect immensely Murtha for his prior service, as opposed to, say, draft dodger Bill Clinton, we are all puzzled by Murtha’s comments, particularly initially. He spoke in either misinformation or lies, in which case he needs to either get a new fact checker or go to confession. His comments about the tactical mission and the activity of the enemy are simply wrong.
What we in the military know to be cowardly is cutting and running. (I'm an Army wife, not a soldier, to be clear) Murtha specifically said in his initial statements that the US needs to pull its troops, against their will I might add, from Iraq immediately. This is what some call immediate withdrawal. In the military we call it cutting and running. All are accurate. This is a recipe for absolute disaster and we have learned from Clinton and Len Aspen’s military disaster in Mogudishu that our enemies take it as a victory when we do such. And, we learned from an interview with Osama Bin Laden about the incident that terrorists see America as a paper tiger that will flee with it’s tail between it’s legs when American soldiers are killed. This is NOT the mentality of the courageous military, but of Democratic politicians who are out of touch with military reality.
So it is cowardly, militarily speaking, to cut and run. War hero? Perhaps. But John Murtha is NO hero now. Lookit, my husband went on over 200 raids, hundreds of convoys, engaged terrorists in combat etc. and it is totally counterproductive for American politicians to use treasonous rhetoric that makes more terrorists want to fight against us. Murtha and other Dems are aligning themselves ideologically with OUR ENEMIES. When my husband is in Iraq, or I think of all our friends there, or our Iraqi friends and all they’ve had to endure, it is unthinkable that a ‘war hero’ would speak in such an irresponsible and frankly unsubstantiated manner. I wouldn’t mind it because the Dems will continue to lose elections, but I do mind it because anyone who gets into ideological bed with terrorists and their pillow talk is about how wrong and terrorizing OUR troops are makes us sick. So there. Murtha is indeed by any military standard a COWARD for suggesting US immediate withdrawal.
Once again, Michelle Malkin's got the goods. Complete with related articles and fantastic, must-read quotes and opinion.
Voter turnout was very heavy with early estimates placing it at roughly 70% of the population. That’s an even better turnout than we get here in America and we don’t have to risk getting blown up or shot just to cast a vote.You got a deal, Skipper, as long as those two players to be named include Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Cindy Sheehan, any celebrity you deem appropriate or John Murtha.
Speaking of America, I certainly hope the Iraqis have better luck with their sore losers than we have had here. John Kerry (who spent Christmas in Cambodia many years ago) made a statement Wednesday night that if Democrats win back the House of Representatives in the 2006 elections that there should be immediate impeachment proceedings brought against President Bush.
I will be willing to trade the Iraqis John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and two players to be named later for Saddam Hussein. Have we got a deal, fellows?
John Podhoretz - "The people of Iraq, the men and women of the U.S. military and George W. Bush end this year with pride and the knowledge that they have done good for the world."Yeah.
For some reason Salon.com linked to us and is sending us frothing angry bitter liberals who think it's okay to swear and curse and insult us in our comments section.
We've got a round-up of news and exciting stuff from Iraq. This truly is a historic day for them, and we should be happy for them, and excited for thier future.
Sure, I love the fact that we are trying to paralyze terrorist organizations, and freeing Iraq from a brutal jackass regime, but what makes me proud is how our actions mirror those of a benevolent nation who had faith in the future of a fledgling country. One that lent a hand when we needed it. We as Americans tend to forget where we came from, and the principles our nation was founded on. Liberal isolationism, and cries for "peace" will just show other nations who wish to shed their primitive political systems that we just don't care, and have completely forgotten that at one time WE were the ones fighting a war for democracy, using nothing but bravery, and whatever weapon we could find.
Now pay attention, liberal kiddies. Put your protest signs down and close your mouths for just a few minutes as our great President reminds you why it is we're in Iraq. It seems that with all your screeching and temper-tantrum-throwing you've forgotten. Or maybe you've chosen to forget because sometimes drama queens get more attention. Well, the adults haven't forgotten, and we'd like to remind you. So please pay attention.
When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As President, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq -- and I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that. At the same time, we must remember that an investigation after the war by chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer found that Saddam was using the U.N. oil-for-food program to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions, with the intent of restarting his weapons programs once the sanctions collapsed and the world looked the other way. Given Saddam's history and the lessons of September the 11th, my decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. Saddam was a threat -- and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power. (Applause.) We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator; it is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in its place.Read the rest of it, please.
Listening to Fox News this morning it really hit me how important these elections are. They will decide on the government, how long our troops will be there, their economy - everything. It's a big freakin' deal, ya'll.
Award for Photoshopping Creativity goes to One of the Evildoers who apparently has a LOT of time on his hands.
Heh. Go see the other one.
UPDATE: Just thought I'd note that while we are poking fun at Mother Sheehan, and have managed to offend a few people, we do so because she has ceased to be a "mourning mother" and has used her son's death as a platfom upon which to bash our troops and spout Michael Moore's lies and talking points. She defended her son's killers. Called the troops that her son was a part of "Baby killers" and by her speech insulted her son and spit on her son's heroic death. She is pathetic. Sorry if that offends you.
Sorry for the non-existent posting lately...the Sage and I are swamped with work. You know, our day jobs. At least we're being good little capitalists, right?
UPDATE (12/11): $23,000,000.00 on opening night alone. Holy mackerel, folks. Wow.
Stop the ACLU has a comprehensive roudup of the latest fallout and commentary from Dean's latest caterwauling for retreat, surrender, defeat. Lots of linkage - take a look around when you have a few moments.
Not quite Joe Lieberman, but it's progress...
WASHINGTON - North Dakota Rep. Earl Pomeroy is accusing Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean of overstepping his bounds, saying the former presidential candidate should not give up on the war in Iraq.
On Monday, Dean likened the war in Iraq to Vietnam and said, "The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong."
"My words to Howard Dean are simple - shut up," Pomeroy told WDAY Radio in North Dakota on Thursday.
Pomeroy later told the Associated Press that he is tired "of the overblown rhetoric on both sides."
"We have young men and women with their lives on the line," he added. "The debate has fallen far short of what they deserve."
Pomeroy said Dean wasn't representing Democrats like him when he discussed the war.
"He is not hired to make major policy announcements on behalf of all the Democrats," Pomeroy said. "As our party chairman I believe he needs to focus on the nuts and bolts of winning elections."
Dean backtracked on his statements somewhat Thursday, saying his assertion that the United States cannot win the war was reported "a little out of context," and that Democrats believe a new U.S. strategy is needed to succeed there.
A spokesman for the Democratic National Committee declined to comment on Pomeroy's remarks.
Pomeroy said he also is frustrated with Republicans who have politicized the war and a recent House debate on Iraq that became heated and angry. During that debate, Ohio Republican Rep. Jean Schmidt implied that Democratic Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., was a "coward" because he called for troops to pull out of Iraq. Schmidt later said her remark about Murtha was a mistake. (why do Republicans always back down in the face of shrill "offended" Democrats? The truth hurts, Murtha. Shut it. -Patriotette)
"I thought the debate on the House floor was shameful," Pomeroy said. "It was loud, strident and partisan."
Pomeroy, who has visited Iraq three times, said he believes the United States must stay in the country for now to achieve progress on national security, the creation of a stable government and the establishment of a functioning economy.
In 2002, Pomeroy joined 215 Republicans and 80 other Democrats in voting to authorize force in Iraq.
(12/16/05: Ahem. It's come to my attention that the correct spelling is 'tucas' not 'tookus'. Oops. Thanks to an alert reader for pointing that out. I'm a phonetic speller. Obviously.)
Following up from our earlier post, the liberals at the Democrat Underground fever swamps decided to take a vote. Oh....wait. This isn't from the DU.
So everyone's heard about the bi-polar guy who got shot at Miami International Airport yesterday, right?
The family of the man will sue the air mashall(s), the airport, the airline and/or the US government for “excessive force” and “negligence,” claiming that the marshalls acted too hastily with deadly force, and that they didn’t make sure the man actually had a bomb. The airport and airline are “responsible” for “allowing” the man to get free from the marshalls.Yep, and if you click the link (which I highly recommend you do) and read on, some of the predictions are happening. Suprise, surprise, eh?
Ramsey Clark will represent the man’s family in a civil suit against the US government, claiming the man was driven to hysteria because of President Bush’s policy in Iraq.
Howard Dean will call on Congress to investigate the incident based on Clark’s “case;” congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will demand intel from the White House on the growing phenomenon known as “Iraq Pseudo-Airport Bombing Syndrome.”
Charles Rangel and other Congressional Black Caucus members will decry how minorities are “disproportionately affected” by “Iraq Pseudo-Airport Bombing Syndrome,” now known as IPABS.
Congressman John Murtha will claim that the current crop of air marshalls in the United States “is broken” and “worn out,” and will call for an immediate redeployment of all air marshalls.
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry will claim that “there’s no reason for air marshalls … to be terrorizing passengers … terrorizing kids and women, breaking sort of the customs of … proper air travel.”
Another mistake, but who can blame the Marshall for his response? I think he did exactly the right thing, and it makes me feel safer that we have such rapid responders. I wonder if the lefties will try to make a bad guy out of this man? Any one else feel an ACLU lawsuit coming on?*sigh*
After waiting with her bodyguard on stage for several minutes for the music to stop while a section of the audience chanted "You suck, you suck," an irritated Coulter said she would not finish her speech. She said she would go straight to questions and answers, suggesting the disruption was the best the liberals could do to counter her.But the best part is, the University of Connecticut decided to hire Mother Sheehan as a "counterpoint" to our Ann. That's like asking a sock puppet to rebut statements made by Dick Cheney.
To provide another viewpoint to Coulter's, the Progressive Students' Alliance had brought in Cindy Sheehan, the California woman who made headlines in August by camping out near President Bush's Texas ranch to protest her son's death in Iraq. Sheehan's speech Monday also was paid for with student government funds.Coulter was paid $16,000. Sheehan was paid $10,000.
One student asked what she would do if she had a child who came out as gay.Well, some whiney, no-sense-of-humor having students were offended and thought her speech was hateful. Is sarcasm totally lost on these idiots? If Ann Coulter was a liberal would they then find their senses of humor? (remember Whoopie Goldberg's tirade against Dubya?)
Coulter replied: "I'd say, `Did I ever tell you you're adopted?'"
She also aimed plenty of criticism at the Democratic Party, calling U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer of California a great candidate for Democrats because "she is a woman and learning disabled." She also aimed barbs at Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.
"If the Democrats want to stick to the middle of the road, why did they pick Ted Kennedy. Didn't he have some trouble sticking to the middle of the road?" she said.
Jerome Smith, a UConn graduate, talked about how he hid his homosexuality while at UConn, afraid his fraternity brothers and family would shun him.Is it really hateful to be funny? Or is it just that the truth hurts?
"Words are sharp tools and certain people like Ann Coulter use them to hurt people," he said.
Democratic Chairman Howard Dean on Monday likened the war in Iraq to Vietnam and said, "The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong," comments that drew immediate fire from Republicans. In an interview with WOAI-AM in San Antonio, Dean criticized what he called President Bush's "permanent commitment to a failed strategy" while saying, "We need to be out of there and take the targets off our troops back." Dean recalled that the strategy to stay the course in Vietnam cost thousands more lives to be lost.
"I wish the president had paid more attention to the history of Iraq before we had gotten in there," Dean said. "The idea that we're going to win this war is just plain wrong."
Ken Mehlman "fires" back with the same mealymouthed crap the Republicans always "fire" back with.
Republican Chairman Ken Mehlman said Dean's "outrageous prediction sends the wrong message to our troops, the enemy, and the Iraqi people just 10 days before historic elections."Blah, blah. I'll be impressed when someone bitch-slaps Howard "Waste of Skin" Dean. On national television. Twice. With a sock. A dirty one.
Interesting to find out that there are major jerks on my side of the aisle, as well. Check out this thread at Conservative Underground where yours truly gets attacked for...asking a question and trying to open up a honest dialogue.
Why can't you DIRECTLY answer my responses to you rather than being a sock puppet for a socially engineered leftist nut job? Me thinks you can't answer because your handler isn't around to feed your simple mind the talking points that fuel your stance on social issues.
Indeed, you are pathetic and to be pitied.
Hey ya'll. We're inching closer and closer to Christmas, and with that comes the Monday Christmas Silliness roundup for the week of December 5th.
She doesn't care, and neither do we. This was sent to me by the Detroit Conservadad and is a must-read and a must-share.
The lady that wrote this letter is Pam Foster of Pamela Foster and Associates in Atlanta. She's been in business since 1980 doing interior design and home planning. She recently wrote a letter to a family member serving in Iraq. Read it!
WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS?
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001? Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania?
Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet?
Well, I don't. I don't care at all.
I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.
I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling, slashed throat.
I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.
I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.
I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.
In the meantime, when I h ear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.
When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care.
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care.
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled 'Koran' and other times 'Quran'. Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and -- you guessed it, I could not have said this any better myself!
How long are we going to sit back and listen, not only to celebrities and members of the MSM, but to our own government officials slandering our country and committing treason during a war?