America's Greatest President

Ok, but seriously if Jimmy Carter speaks and no one listens, is it still idiotic? It appears Jimmy Cater is on furlough from his nursing home and is talking to anyone who will listen:

"I think what's going on in Guantanamo Bay and other places is a disgrace to the U.S.A.," Carter told a news conference at the Baptist World Alliance's centenary conference in Birmingham, England. "I wouldn't say it's the cause of terrorism, but it has given impetus and excuses to potential terrorists to lash out at our country and justify their despicable acts."

Carter calling anything a “disgrace” is like Charles Manson calling someone a lunatic. Also, note the use of the liberal “BUT”: There is no justification for terrorism BUT Guantanamo Bay justifies terrorism. I am patriotic, BUT I think America brought 9/11 on itself. I like Jimmy Carter, BUT he is a spineless ass clown trying to make a legacy for himself. Get the idea?

Ok, so if Carter, Democrats, and other persons who hate the United States believe Guantanamo Bay “excuses” and “justifies” terrorism (You know, just like Attica justifies rape and murder), then what was the justification for this?

This…

This…

This…

And oh by the way, this…

If liberals had their way, this is how the U.S. would interrogate terrorists.

1. Ask “please”
2. If that doesn’t work, ask “pretty please”
3. Ask “pretty please with sugar on top”
4. Promise to be their best friend
5. When all else fails… boycott the Olympics

Carter uses liberal speak in order to make it appear that he does not believe there is a justification for terrorism, even though he just said there was:

Carter said, however, that terrorist acts could not be justified, and that while Guantanamo "may be an aggravating factor ... it's not the basis of terrorism."

"What has happened at Guantanamo Bay ... does not represent the will of the American people," Carter said Saturday. "I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people."

The irony of all this is that it was during Carter’s administration that terrorists realized the soft underbelly of the US is the feebleness of a liberal administration. Al-Jazeera, of course, was quick to take yet another sound bite from a liberal; except they left out that useless part where Carter says “terrorist acts could not be justified”. Which he doesn’t believe anyway.

I think NYT writer Thomas Friedman has a better idea:

We also need to spotlight the “excuse makers,” the former State Department spokesman James Rubin said. After every major terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed. When you live in an open society like London, where anyone with a grievance can publish an article, run for office or start a political movement, the notion that blowing up a busload of innocent civilians in response to Iraq is somehow “understandable” is outrageous. “It erases the distinction between legitimate dissent and terrorism,” Rubin said, “and an open society needs to maintain a clear wall between them.”

So how do you identify the “excuse makers”? Oh, that’s easy:

1. Liberal use (literally) of the word “but”
2. They claim to just be “expressing their First Amendment rights”
3. They have to remind you they are patriotic and against terrorism
4. They are quoted in Al-Jazeera
5. Their biggest response to international aggression involved boycotting a sporting event

Spot the Trend

This from the WSJ:

Last Friday, [California] Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez told reporters during a conference call that he wouldn't consider canceling the special election unless the governor's office pledged in the future not to back any attempts to reform the state's budget process or restrict the right of public employee unions to spend member dues on political causes without written permission.

If you recall, a few days ago I pointed out California liberals desire to take legislative power out of the hands of the people and place it the hands of the few (presumably liberal) who know better than you what is in your best interest. Now they think union leaders (presumably liberal) should not be accountable to their members in determining which political causes (presumably liberal) to support.

This is rather interesting in light of what is going on at the AFL-CIO. It seems as though the Teamsters and Service Employees Union don’t think the AFL-CIO is acting in their best interest, but apparently Nunez never got the memo.

Bob Schieffer Outted as Racist, Gay Bashing Nazi

Here’s a good site. A liberal organization monitoring media bias. That’s a lot like John Gatti keeping crime in check, but needless to say that they’ve only been able to uncover conservative bias. Like this nugget, unearthing conservative bias at, (ahem) CBS.

In the July 21 edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, columnist Gail Shister quoted (registration required) CBS chairman Les Moonves: "That's not the end-all, be-all, but obviously the White House doesn't hate CBS anymore with [Bob] Schieffer in the anchor chair."

But far from hating CBS, the White House has reason to embrace the network and its selection of Schieffer to serve as interim anchor following Dan Rather's departure as anchor of the CBS Evening News. Schieffer has previously described his "golfing friendship" with President Bush "during the 1990s" and has said, "It's always difficult to cover someone you know personally."

Following the announcement that Schieffer would moderate the third and final presidential debate last year, Media Matters for America noted several statements Schieffer had made that raised questions about his objectivity.

Moreover, Shister wrote: "Moonves says Schieffer is looked upon kindly at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue because his brother, John Thomas Schieffer, was ambassador to Australia (he was posted to Japan in February), and was partners with the future President Bush in the Texas Rangers."

I don’t know enough about Schieffer to assess his political inclination, but the case for him being a Conservative mouth piece is a bit thin. As far as I know, Mary Matalin, who also worked for the President, is sleeping with James Carville, but that certainly does not make Cue Ball a Republican. I mean jeez, it isn’t like Schieffer was Jimmy Carter’s speechwriter, or I don't know... say, Lyndon Johnson’s Press Secretary. I mean trying to pass him off as unbiased under those cirumstances would be downright criminal, right?

California Judge Bars Vote on Change in Redistricting

A California judge has ordered the removal of a measure on California’s November ballot that changes districting and procedures around the state:

The judge, Gail Ohanesian of Sacramento County Superior Court, said supporters of the measure had violated the California Constitution by submitting a version of the measure to state officials for the ballot that was worded differently from the one signed by nearly 1 million voters.

"The differences are not simply typographical errors," Judge Ohanesian said. "They are not merely about the format of the measure. They are not simply technical. Instead they go to the substantive terms of the measure."

Supporters of the measure, who argued in court that the differences were both unintentional and inconsequential, said they would seek to have the judge's ruling stayed by the Court of Appeals as early as Friday or Monday.

Democratic California Attorney General Bill Lockyer says its not politics, he’s just doing his job. His spokesman stated, "The judge's ruling was well reasoned, well considered and correct. It basically stands for the proposition that the California initiative process isn't horseshoes and isn't hand grenades. Close is not good enough."

Sounds like a battle of semantics and technicalities, but isn’t this telling of how differently Democrats and Republicans view legislation? Whereas Republicans want to get this proposal into the hands of the voters and let them decide, Democrats are content with a single judge determining what is best for California.

News Flash: U.S. Cities Scarier Than African Jungles

Seems as though West Virginia's Democratic Senator, Robert Byrd likes the President’s pick for Supreme Court:

"One's life is probably in no greater danger in the jungles of deepest Africa than in the jungles of America's large cities," writes Senatro Byrd. "In my judgment, much of the problem has been brought about by the mollycoddling of criminals by some of the liberal judges who have been placed on the nation's courts in recent years."

Mr. Byrd essentially endorsed Mr. Bush's primary stated strategy for picking Judge Roberts and other judicial nominees. "The high court's share of the responsibility for our increasing lawlessness lies in two areas -- its zeal for bringing about precipitous social change, and its overconcern for the rights of criminals and its underconcern for the rights and safety of society," he writes.

I wonder why Byrd thinks the jungles of Africa and America’s cities are so dangerous? In case you missed the connection, here is a picture of Sen. Byrd in his more youthful days of indiscretion.

Make sense now?

The NYT Still Dancing

Remember this post? When a NYT editor slipped in some verbiage into a Military Officer’s op ed making it sound like he was involuntarily mobilized on very short notice, when he in fact volunteered for Iraq and knew for quite some time about it.

Well the NYT is still trying to dance around it. According to them an editor slipped it in to “clarify” the piece and make it “stronger”. And by clarify and stronger, the NYT means like, you know… make it more liberal.

When the Officer saw the changes, he threatened to pull the article. Except the problem is that the editor somehow “forgot” to pull the changes when the article went to print.

Not saying they did it on purpose. But it does give one a little insight on their agenda.

Speaking of Prisoner Abuse

Looks like the inmates at a Spanish prison have their own ideas how terrorists should be treated:

Inmates on Friday beat up Imad Yarkas, a suspected al-Qaida cell leader jailed on charges he helped plot the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States, breaking his jaw, nose and a tooth and injuring one of his eyes, Spanish officials said.

So this just goes to show that not all Spaniards are spineless weasels. This of course leads me to rethink my stance on Gitmo. I say close the place down. Send the terrorists to Brazil.

NYT Uncovers More “Abuses” at Gitmo

These abuses include lap dances, getting perfume rubbed on their arms, a neck and shoulder massage, and whispering in the ear. And to think American men have to pay 100 bucks an hour for this kind of abuse.

Sounds like a Scrapple Face article, but it is an NYT Op-Ed. Granted that all of the above is very old news, but NYT feels the need to reframe it in the context of the American military and intelligence community “prostituting” its female members:

There are countless reasons to be outraged about the abuses of detainees at American military prisons. But there is one abuse about which there can surely be no debate, even among the die-hard supporters of President Bush: the exploitation and debasement of women serving in the United States military. This practice must come to an immediate end, and the Pentagon must make it clear that such things will never be tolerated again.

So the real question here is what does the NYT know about “die hard supporters of President Bush”? Ok, but seriously, lets be honest here. NYT’s real aim here is to embarrass the American military and the White House. They tried it by reporting so-called prisoner abuses, but the problem is that no one really cared how terrorists are being treated, save the terrorists, the Democratic party and Chuck Hagel.

So now they reframe the issue in a way that think will garner more sympathy. The problem is that this is not a forced prostituion camp, but rather trained professionals willing to do dirty deeds in the name of patriotism.

Karl Rove was right and Ace Of Spades sums it up best:

They're not serious. They are against war even in the most dire of circumstances, and they're against any of the dirtier parts of intelligence-gathering. They cannot come right out and admit they oppose war and covert operations on principle, so they simply object to every conceivable part of warfare or covert ops or interrogation in their details.

Then they can claim they are not reflexively anti-this or anti-that, they're just very outraged by this particular practice.

Trouble is, they're outraged by every particular practice of war or intelligence-gathering. It's like saying you have nothing against Western omelets, except you despise eggs, loath ham, destest green peppers, and find onions gob-smackingly vile.

And also-- you're not too crazy about the toast and orange juice they give you on the side. And that you frankly find toast and orange juice "unAmerican" and "contrary to the spirit of our living Constitution."Let's stop talking of eggs and ham and such and just admit you're anti-omelet.

The Enemy Without and Within

The Football Fans for Truth hit a home run:

In the war on terror, the West has its hands full challenging psychotic Islamism. Multinational forces battle remnant Taliban in Afghanistan while the United States, Britain and others try to mold a cohesive, functioning Iraqi society amidst constant terror by disaffected Sunnis and imported jihadists. While it can be fun to identify the buffoons who characterize all attempts to fight terror abroad as mere smokescreens for the Bush Reich, the undeserved attention on a Michael Moore, Al Gore or George Galloway tends to obscure the fact that there are true villains during this time, and they are men of consequence.

I nominate four.

Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero: After 9/11 and before London came Madrid. Hundreds massacred on Spain's rail lines, followed by a direct note of extortion from al Qaeda - get out of Iraq or we'll keep killing you. Zapatero, newly elected as prime minister in part because of his predecessor's shifty handling of the bombings, promptly supplicated himself to the Islamofascists. "Wars such as that which has occurred in Iraq only allow hatred, violence and terror to proliferate," Zapatero lectured. To be fair, Zapatero ran on a promise to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq. Nonetheless, by promptly capitulating to terror (two months later, Spain was out of Iraq), Zapatero instituted protection payments as national policy and paved the way for 7/7 in London.

Kofi Annan: Not because of his duplicity during the U.N. resolution process or because of his scummy involvement in the Oil-for-Food program, but for his cowardly leadership in the early days of the Iraqi occupation, especially after the bombing of U.N. headquarters in Baghdad. Approximateley 600 U.N. employees were stationed in Iraq before 2003 bombing of the U.N.'s Baghdad office, which killed 22 people, including the chief UN envoy, Sergio Vieira de Mello. Did the U.N.'s flag still stand tall, uncowed by the brutal attack of a suicide bomber? Within a month, U.N. personnel staff totalled a few dozen. The U.N. turned tail and ran.

Ted Kennedy: His partisanship was so rank that it paved the way for the excesses of his party, from the drumbeat of "Bush lied" to Michael Moore sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention to the entire Democratic leadership treating Abu Ghraib as akin to beheadings to Kennedy's colleague, Senator Dick Durbin, likening American forces' handling of detainees at Guantanamo Bay to the atrocities of Pol Pot.
Kennedy's calumnies are worth repeating:

* "This [the war] was made up in Texas, announced in January [2003] to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud."

* "The trumped up reasons for going to war have collapsed."

* "The President's war has been revealed as mindless, needless, senseless, and reckless."

* "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management."

Kennedy's attacks, which are really no more than a reprise of his vicious excesses during the Vietnam war, underscore that at its heart, the American left is more comfortable waging war on its political opposition than on the likes of al Qaeda and Saddam.

John Kerry: He matters little now, but as the standardbearer for the opposition party in the last presidential election, Senator Kerry had an opportunity to offer a cohesive and responsible anti-terror and Iraq opposition policy. Instead, Kerry was either incoherent or destructive, communicating to Iraqis, the Middle East, and allies a significant fissure in American resolve. For example, prior to the war, Kerry voted for its authorization, wisely stating "We are facing a very different world today than we have ever faced before. September 11 changed a lot . . . We are living in an age where the dangers are different and they require a different response, different thinking, and different approaches than we have applied in the past."

Kerry added "It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations."

But in fighting off a challenge from the left during the Democratic primaries, Kerry disavowed his intelligent pre-war stand. In its place? A haphazard, desperate and shrill attack masquerading as policy. Kerry voted against funding the troops. He called the war he voted to authorize a "colossal error in judgment." He accused the president of lying to him personally. He degraded the particpation of other nations in Iraq as a "coalition of the bribed." Kerry's spokesman even called the Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi a "puppet," adding "and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips."

Kerry could have beaten Howard Dean, who ended up being a self-destructive paper tiger, by taking an approach that did not rupture bipartisanship on at least the basics, as opposed to the prosecution, of the war. Instead, Kerry panicked, and the effect (coupled with the contributions of his party's leadership) metastasized the malignancy in the Democratic party. Under the Kerry campaign, the Iraq war became no more than a tool to demolish the administration.

Zapatero and Annan demonstrated that swift kicks to the soft underbelly of a coalition member and the world's premier international organization would result in an immediate retreat. In short, if the terrorists struck, Spain and the U.N. would cave to their demands come hell, high water, greater goal, or the needs of the newly liberated Iraqi people.

Kennedy made the entire endeavor political, thereby ever-cheapening American efforts, which soon degenerated to the gutter. As Kennedy charged on the Senate floor after the Abu Ghraib revelations, we became Saddam. Last month, Senator Durbin informed us that we became worse than Saddam, an amlagamation of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.

Kerry institutionalized Kennedy's defamation. What should have been rejected as bizarre and dangerous was embraced as mainstream.

All four men have done incalculable damage to the fight against terror, the efforts to stabilize Iraq and the image of the West in this fight against al Qaeda.

If it Smells Like a Duck...

The BBC can’t quite seem to bring itself to refer to use the word “Terrorist” when referring to those who murdered 50 people in London.

The BBC has re-edited some of its coverage of the London Underground and bus bombings to avoid labelling the perpetrators as "terrorists", it was disclosed yesterday.

Early reporting of the attacks on the BBC's website spoke of terrorists but the same coverage was changed to describe the attackers simply as "bombers".

The BBC's guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments".

Consequently, "the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding" and its use should be "avoided", the guidelines say.

Unless of course they are referring to Israel and/or America.

USA Today has no problem applying this standard. Columnist Julianne Malveaux had this to say to Sean Hannity:

"Terrorism in the United States is as old as we are. You want me to give you a litany of terrorism? You want me to start with what's happened to the Indian population? You want to go on to what happened in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1921?"

"C'mon now, Sean," Malveaux told Hannity. "We are terrorists."

Asked point-blank if the U.S. was a "terrorist nation," Malveaux shot back: "Oh, Absolutely."

"George W. Bush is evil. He is a terrorist. He is evil. He is arrogant. And he is out of control."

The Grey Lady Shows It's Colours

An interesting “correction” in the NYT:

The Op-Ed page in some copies of Wednesday's newspaper carried an incorrect version of the below article about military recruitment. The article also briefly appeared on NYTimes.com before it was removed. The writer, an Army reserve officer, did not say, "Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., next Sunday," nor did he characterize his recent call-up to active duty as the precursor to a "surprise tour of Iraq." That language was added by an editor and was to have been removed before the article was published. Because of a production error, it was not. The Times regrets the error.

Now I know what you are thinking here: Another case of liberal bias at an Old Media stalwart. I don’t think that could be farther than the truth. This story was obviously planted by Karl Rove in a pathetic attempt to embarrass a, ahem... well respected news institution. For examples of NYT’s proven history of strong journalistic integrity, click here, here, here, here, and here.

Of course this is not nearly as clever as when CNN and Netscape posted a graphic of the President and the First Lady and titled the image assho… Well, I can’t go into detail here because me mum reads this site, but you can read all about it here.