According to the FBI Foley’s not a Pedophile

The Democrat’s big October surprise and political roadside bomb set for Republicans just fizzled out!

Brian Ross reports that after interviewing 40 Congressional Pages and turning over every rock on Capital Hill the FBI was unable to find that Mark Foley had any sexual contact with any under age Pages, still desperate to make a case against Foley they are now interviewing female Pages. Foley is gay.

This is another in a long line of Democratic, made for affecting the outcome of elections, scandals that have not panned out like Democrats had hoped.

DNC Chairperson Howard Dean called this a firestorm when first it was disclosed that the Republican Congressman was gay and it was thought he was enticing young Pages into sexual relationships.

Even had it been true, which it is not, that Congressman Foley had sex with an underage page it would not have been the first time that this kind of conduct has happened on Capitol Hill.

Recently deceased former Congressman Gerry Studds actually did have sex with a teen aged Page. But he never apologized. He defended the relationship as consensual and condemned the investigation, saying it had invaded his privacy.

Studds was censored by Congress but won reelection to his seat and continued to serve. In contrast Republican Foley, who was only guilty of emailing Pages, resigned his seat.

Foley is not a Pedophile, he did not commit pedophilia yet because of the Democratic created firestorm he was put out of Congress. Something that Democrats didn’t do to one of their own who was an actual pedophile!

So goes the politics of firestorms in October…

It is Love or it is Pedophilia?

Tired of the Foley Flap? Want something comparable by a little different?
Well, speaking of Pedophilia and corruption of minors remember Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, you remember him, Newsom wanted to go down in history as the Martin Luther King Jr. of the homosexual rights movement by freeing homosexuals to marry in California which was also in violation of Californian state law and all conventional wisdom.

Newsom also ordered employees of the city of San Francisco to break state law by issuing marriage license to homosexuals and further ordered them to perform civil weddings. All lawless acts but hey this is America you should be able to do whatever you want right?

Well enough, so now about Newsom's latest disregard of the law, he's recently in the news for something that Liberals are accusing former Senator Mike Foley of, pedophilia.

Yes the 39 year-old sexually uninhibited politician is knockin' boots with a just turned 20 year old. The Mayor's new date is Brittanie Mountz who the San Francisco gate reported just turned 20 last month. However Brittanie's MySpace page said that she was 19 years old has been recently updated to state that she is 26.

But according to the Sonoma County registrar of voters, the Rohnert Park resident turned 20 on Sept. 17.

Apparently there are Photos of Mountz holding a wine glass during the opening of the new Westfield San Francisco Shopping Center, where Newsom also made an appearance. But according to the Mayor's office the couple did not arrive there together and the Mayor was not with her.

Whether Mountz was actually drinking alcohol at the shopping center opening remains a mystery. Attempts to reach her were unsuccessful.

But Newsom spokesman Peter Ragone distanced his boss from the event, saying the mayor and Mountz had arrived separately and had not been there together.

You know the old Clinton line -- (Clinton voice) I tried, but I didn't inhale-- when he was asked whether he ever tried Marijuana. Something like that huh!

No big deal only that drinking age in California is 21 years old.

So with the political atmosphere in Washington D. C. so highly charged with the investigation of a former Congressman's emails to young Congressional Pages it's interesting that out in sunny California whether it's homosexuality or pedophilia it all good!

Mayor Newsom you GO boy!

Should North Korea be made to pay for Hawaii's damages?

No man is an island no man stands alone, Each man is my brother. Each man is my friend.

I learned that lyric as a child and though I can't be certain that it is completely correct that is how I remember it.

However in the larger context we are related as people who share a common home the earth. That is why North Korea's recent underground Nuclear testings are so detrimental to the world community.

Is it just a coincidence that days after two North Korean underground nuclear test that the islands of Hawaii are facing earth tremblers, power outages and possible tsunamis. Are these events really unrelated?

Were there any predications of earthquakes in or around Hawaii predicated for this time? And is there any way of determining whether huge underground blasts are or are not able to cause chain reaction of events world wide?

Who would even pose these questions and to whom would these questions be asked of?

If North Korea's two underground Nuclear test can be linked to the recent Hawaii earthquake joltings on Sunday will the world community demand that North Korea pay for damages?

Finally if discovered that the recent event's in Hawaii where the result of North Korea's willful breaking of international laws the world community should not only require sanctions against North Korea but they should require payment for the negligent actions of a country that disregarded the safety of the world community by setting of nuclear bombs in the heart of mother earth with complete disregard for the earth or the other inhabitant on the planet!

Bush-bashing goes Bust!

Arrogance, condescension and hate broadcasting known as Air America radio has filed for and sought Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection.

Months ago Air America spokespersons disavowed rumors that Air America was on the verge of bankruptcy they now claim that bankruptcy just recently became necessary.(Yeah right!)

Is this a harbinger of the fate of Liberals in the upcoming mid-term elections who have pinned all their hopes on the same hate politics as normally typified by the Liberal broadcasting station, Air America?

Air America started up about two years ago as the Liberal answer to Conservative radio. Many believe that it was started just to affect the outcome of elections.

Much like the Democratic political party, Air America has had very few new ideas and formatted itself after the Conservative radio media. For example Air America’s flagship talk show featuring comedian Al Franken was named "The O'Franken Factor" parroting Franken’s arch foe Bill O’Reilly’s, “The O’Reilly Factor.”

In other news Former vice-President Al Gore forayed into the multi-media business with ventures in TV and the internet. Mr. Gore’s Current TV is going international by launching a UK version with this business partner Rupert Murdock. Murdock started Fox News.

Mr. Gore said that the aim for his television and web service was “the democratisation of the television medium.” (Democratisation? sounds like the internet isn't the only thing Mr. Gore has invented!)

Air America has struggled financially since its inception. Documents filed with the bankruptcy court show that the company lost $9.1 million in 2004, $19.6 million in 2005 and $13.1 million so far in 2006.

This of course is no reflection on Liberal ideas nor does it suggest that Liberal ideas are bankrupt.

What? No money to be made in Bush-bashing… but it feels sooooo good!

…sorry Mr. Franken this card has been declined, you care to try another?

It is Intifada or Just French Islamic Crime?

In which country has there been nearly 2,500 police officers wounded this year, at an average of 14 officers a day, in this Countries unofficial Civil War. By comparison the Iraqi War, an official war, to date American casualties has been confirmed by the Department of Defense at 2730 Deaths.
What country is at civil war? France of course.

"We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more; it is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails. You no longer see two or three youths confronting police; you see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their 'comrades' free when they are arrested."

Not everyone agrees that France is in the midst of a civil war against Islamist extremist Gerard Demarcq, of the largest police unions, Alliance, dismissed talk of an "intifada" as representing the views of only a minority.

Mr. Demarcq said that the increased attacks on officers were proof that the policy of "retaking territory" from criminal gangs was working. Mr. Demarcq obviously sees France’s problem as a law and order problem.

However, Michel Thoomis, the secretary general of the hardline Action Police trade union, has written to interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy warning of an "intifada” and demanding that officers be given armoured cars in the most dangerous areas.
He said: "We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists.

This is not a question of urban violence any more; it is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails. You no longer see two or three youths confronting police; you see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their 'comrades' free when they are arrested."

He added: "We need armoured vehicles and water cannon. They are the only things that can disperse crowds of hundreds of people who are trying to kill police and burn their vehicles."

Might I remind you that this is happening in the streets of France. Democrats who have called for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq let me ask you, how long would you suppose America has before we begin to look like Europe if we lose in Iraq?

Let’s all think about it!

Dem Polls, Dem Polls

Are Democrats polling their way to victory, it could happen! Though it hasn’t yet.

It seemed to have happened in 2000 and again in 2004 Democrats took their polls, and just as they thought America loved them!

Oh but just like the movie -The Day after Tomorrow-, the day after the 2000 and 2004 elections “dem” polls froze over for Democrats and it was like political Global Warming had hit the self proclaimed victorious Liberals. They went into total political meltdown. Alas their beloved exit polls didn’t reflect the actual vote count. Their polls had failed them. Send 6,000 lawyers to Ohio immediately!

But No! The elections were stolen, the Chads, the Chads, Florida and Ohio. It’s been like one political toxic Geo-thermo greenhouse effect and according to the Democrats their opponents the Republicans are Carbon Dioxide and they’re destroying the Earth’s ozone (among other things!).

So here we are in 2006 and guess what? The polls show the Democrats with a huge lead! Surprised? I didn’t think you would be. After all Democrats have done a lot to turn public sentiment against those nasty Republican destroyers of the ozone.

Democrats have all but made the name Bush a four letter curse word! Not to mention Nancy Pelosi’s strategy of obstruct, prevent and blame. Say it with me: obstruct, prevent and blame! Good! (I knew you could.) It seems to be working too. This Congress goes by the moniker of “the do nothing Congress.” Can’t do much when one half of an almost 50-50 split decides that they’re going to sit down on you.

I wonder if these same tactics can be employed by the Republicans if the Democrats just happen to get their polling numbers correct this time and win control of either the House or Senate or both?

I guess Democrats feel that the American people are tired of winning the war in Iraq (we are winning you know!) so their policy of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory will work really well with the new direction they are talking about taking America in. They can entitle this new direction; Erasing all of America’s victories because we hate Bush! How does that sound? Pretty catchy huh?

And then there’s that new and better way of fighting the war you remember John Kerry had one. I guess we’ll get to see it now. I can’t wait. We’ll be reunited with all of our old friends, France, Germany, Russia and China and we’ll solve all of the world’s problems, Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and Cindy Sheehan! Or will Kerry’s much vaunted diplomatic prowess turn our enemies into friends? I think America should make a truce with Ms. Sheehan.

If Kerry’s able to do that I’ve got some water that sure would make some good wine! Maybe he’ll be able to fit my request into his going to be business schedule.

Anyway, dem polls, dem polls it’s all about the Democrat’s polls and if these polls are correct hold on to your seats because it’s going to be a bumpy ride in America until 2008 and beyond. But I’m not putting any stock in main stream media's polls call me silly but we've been here before and I think that they’ve been out of the main stream for a long, long time. I don’t think they have the slightest idea of what Americans want. And according to polling results things are about to get worst!

And believe me things can definitely get worst than they are right now. Because like a Muslim a Democrat can only harm himself without money or power. But give him either of the two and Israel you’d better watch your back! And that warning Israel is about either Muslim or Democrat! And America you’d better watch yours too!

Anybody taking an exit poll…are the Democrats leading?

Like a Chicken with its Head Chopped Off

When I was young I saw a chicken being slaughtered for dinner. One quick blow to its neck and it was all over except the chicken began to run and run and run without its head.

Which is a lot like the former Congressman Mark Foley scandal, Congressman Foley resigned what, some five days ago. He’s gone, finished, and disgraced yet the scandal keeps running and running and running. Why?

Because it’s politically expedient! What did Hastert know and when did he know it? Should Hastert step down? Should the Republicans be run out of town? These questions ladies and gentlemen are all the machinations of the politicizing of a very tragic life. And those who seek to use this tragedy for political gain are villains too.

Also with the chicken it’s a neurological response. The running is a response because the body of the chicken hardly realizes that the small brain is gone until much later.

I guess the media’s brain is a lot like that. They’ve hardly realized that Congressman Foley is gone. One would think that with all of the Foley questions, investigations, hearings and reporting that he was still a sitting Congressman. Foley’s not here he’s gone!

I realize now that this, so called, scandal is like a funeral. A funeral is not intended for the departed, not really. A funeral is for all of us who wish to emote about, rationalize and justify the way we who remain live.

That’s what's really happening with these congressional hearings and media reports concerning the Foley scandal. Since 2000 some of us in this country have been emotionally disturbed. This scandal, this October surprise is our funeral. It’s just a cathartic way of expressing the way we really feel about President Bush and Republicans.

A time in which like DNC Chairman, Howard Dean you all can say, I hate Republicans and everything that they stand for. Plus what a wonderful opportunity to finally deal a fatal blow to the neck of your political rivals and pick up a few seats and control of the Senate and the Congress at the same time.

Why this is a firestorm! Yeah that’s the ticket, a firestorm… Gee and I thought this was about protecting children.

Oh well, things are never what they seem in an election year and scandals can be like funerals and dead chickens can ran.

Conservatives ARE Guilty

Yes this whole sorted Congressman Foley affair finds Republicans guilty of a grave and gross sin… which sin? They are guilty of the sin of TOLERANCE of course.

Republicans knew that Rep. Foley a Conservative Congressman is homosexual yet they were tolerant of him, Republicans knew about some of the emails too. Speaker Dennis Hastert told Foley to knock it off once Hastert heard of it, while remaining tolerant of the Congressman.

But because Republicans were politically correct and tolerant they left themselves open for the criticisms which they are now receiving, criticisms that they knowingly allowed a Homosexual Congressman to pursue young boy-Congressional pages on Capitol Hill and did nothing about it.

Don’t you get it? The real problem is with tolerance! Tolerance is the slippery slope from which Republicans have fallen and once one begins to allow behavior normally considered taboo to become normalized and once one allows that which is traditionally wrong to become legally right, what happens is the lines of acceptability becomes blurred. That is why Conservatives failed to act in this case; they are morally confused by tolerance.

Liberals want tolerance of homosexuality however there are many complexities surrounding those who are confused about their sexual identity, so it is with Congressman Foley. So it is with the myriad of sexual identity groups; cross dressers, lesbians, bi-sexuals, transsexuals, men who love boys, etc, etc, etc. This indeed has become a very complex social discussion. Who knew that a homosexual man would be attracted to children of the same sex? Liberals point out all the time that there is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia.

In light of this new social conversation Conservatives who normal represent family and values have allowed themselves to become open to the left’s calls for tolerance. That is why there is a homosexual Republican Congressman in the first place. Homosexuality is socially accepted so who are the Republicans to deny a homosexual from being a Republican Congressman? They didn’t deny him! In fact they were tolerant and supportive of Congressman Foley.

However, when one relaxes values in order to be politically correct, as the Conservatives have done, the unconscionable can happen and in this case it did! The other thing to consider is Liberals are now attempting to use the fact that Conservatives did not uphold Conservative values even though Conservatives were attempting to show tolerance for Foley in this email situation.

But here is the irony, Liberals claim that it doesn’t matter that Foley was homosexual what matters is that he attempted to molest an under age child. However, as it is now known the page, at the center of all this controversy, was eighteen-years-old at the time that he received the Foley email.

There was no child involved! There was no sex involved; we are talking about an email to a consenting 18 year old adult. The only thing that is untoward about this whole scenario is that a Republican homosexual was involved even though he immediately stepped down from his Congressional seat. Unlike the Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds' who continued service in the House for 13 years after he admitted to having had actual sex with a teen page. Studds’ teen page WAS actually 16 years old!


So the truth and the bottom line is a Republican homosexual Congressman emailed an eighteen year old page, Jordan Edmund, who was not under age at the time of Foley’s email. So what are Democrats and Liberals of all stripes incensed about? In two words, power and control, Democrat’s see this made up scandal as an opportunity to win the House of Representatives.

So as I originally stated Conservatives are guilty; if they are guilty of anything they are guilty of being tolerant and politically correct. With real Conservatives in Congress we wouldn't be discussing the fact that Conservatives are supposed to be the party of morals and family values.

And no one would be able to say as they are now saying, Look Conservatives have a homosexual Republican Congressman who attempted to have sex with an underage child, Conservatives are hypocrites! They’re not a party of family values!

This is why, instead of electing Democrats or more of the same Conservatives, what we really need in the halls of Congress are “real” Conservatives, Conservatives that uphold family values and morals.

That’s what Liberals are asking for by this firestorm of outrage against Foley and Hastert and I say let’s give the Liberals what they want!

The Republican Gay American

Rep Mark Foley is a Gay American. Everyone knew it. He was openly gay. So from the Democratic perspective what is the scandal?

Is it that Representative Foley is gay? Is it that Rep. Foley attempted to have relations with a Congressional page? Is it that Republicans should have known because Rep. Foley is gay he needed to be closely monitored and they did not hold him with suspicion when they discovered that he had been emailing Congressional pages?

Well let’s look at each of these questions we’ll start with the last first. It appears that it came to Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert attention about a year ago that Rep. Foley was emailing pages the Speaker told him to knock it off. Hastert thinking that, that would be enough to end it did nothing else because the emails involved showed no evidence of sexually inappropriateness.

But I get it because Rep Foley is gay the Speaker should have immediately asked for Rep. Foley’s resignation right?

Second Rep. Foley is responsible for the Congressional page program on Capitol Hill so I suppose that he has many, many contacts with the pages that come and go on Capitol Hill. But Rep. Foley is gay so Speaker Hastert and the Republicans should have made sure that Foley was never around or alone with young boy pages. At the very least everyone should have been suspicious of a gay man who wanted to be in charge of the Congressional pages right?

Third Rep. Foley is gay therefore Republicans should have known that Foley could not be trusted with any sensitive position in Congress right?

Okay I see what the scandal is now… the Republicans allowed a gay man to head a committee or program that had young boys in it and they did not suspect that the gay man might try something sexually inappropriate.

It’s going to be interesting to see what precedence main stream media and Democrats set for persecuting gay Congresspersons and those who support them. And if those gay Congresspersons act out in inappropriate gay sexual behavior it will be interest to see the standards which Liberals set for requiring that gays and their supports be stripped of power.

Well I get it now!!! Democrats believe that every one in Congress that supports a gay colleague who has committed a sexual inappropriate act should step down immediately!
Okay, let’s look around and …

Let them without sin cast the first stone!

Liars, Thieves and Partisans

President William Jefferson Clinton an admitted liar, Sandy Berger a convicted thief and Richard Clarke an admitted government bureaucratic failure and an obvious partisan shill all wish to shape the discussion about 9/11. Interestingly this correction is happening months before a midterm election and on the heels of an ABC made for TV Docu-Drama the path to 9/11 which shows the failure of both the Clinton and the Bush administrations in dealing with terrorism prior to 9/11.

However, the Clinton administration had eight years in which to shape the discussion about terrorism when they held the presidency, so why must we suffer their pitiful excuses and their political polarizing accusations regarding the sitting President now?
According to Michael Scheuer, who ran the CIA unit that hunted Usama bin Laden under President Clinton interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox news Sunday things were not as President Clinton remembered:

WALLACE: Mr. Scheuer, as the man in charge of what was called "Alec Station," the CIA unit in charge of hunting down Usama bin Laden, you say the Clinton administration missed at least 10 chances to get him. I don't want to go into all 10, but what was the problem?
FORMER CIA UNIT CHIEF MICHAEL SCHEUER: Well, the president is correct, in that he got - President Clinton is correct that he got closer than anyone, but, of course, he always refused to pull the trigger. And in addition, we were never authorized, while I was the chief of operations, to kill Usama bin Laden. In fact, Mr. Richard Clarke definitely told us we had no authorization to kill bin Laden.
Why they didn't shoot, of course, is, at least from Mr. Tenet's viewpoint it was because one time they were afraid to have shrapnel hit a mosque when they killed bin Laden. And two other times I think they were afraid they actually would have to do something, so they warned the emirates on one occasion, the princes from the United Arab Emirates, to move so we couldn't attack bin Laden.
WALLACE: They were on a hunting trip with bin Laden.
SCHEUER: Yes, sir. And Richard Clarke called the emirates and warned them that they should get out of that area, which cost us the chance to kill him…
WALLACE: But, Mr. Scheuer, I can see you beginning to shake your head. I mean, whether or not they had certifiable proof about the Cole, they certainly knew that Al Qaeda had been involved in the 1998 bombing of the U.S. embassies in Africa.
In your opinion, as somebody who was up close and personal, why didn't the Clinton administration go after Al Qaeda after the USS Cole?
SCHEUER: Mr. Wallace, my opinion is not all that important. I went to a little Jesuit school in Buffalo called Canicius, and the priests taught us never to lie, but if you had to lie, never lie about facts. Mr. Richard Clarke, Mr. Sandy Berger, President Clinton are lying about the opportunities they had to kill Usama bin Laden. That's the plain truth, the exact truth.
Men and women at the CIA risked their lives to provide occasions to kill a man we knew had declared war and had attacked America four or five times before 1998. We had plans that had been approved by the Joint Operations Command at Fort Bragg. We had opportunities, many opportunities to kill him.
But that's the president's decision. That's absolutely the case. It's not a simple, dumb bureaucrat like me; that's not my decision. It's his. But for him to get on the television and say to the American people he did all he could is a flat lie, sir…
SCHEUER: ... saying this that what Mr. Benjamin, who I have a great deal of respect for, but what I say doesn't matter. What matters is the documents that back up what I have to say or what Mr. Benjamin has to say.
The 9/11 commission ignored those documents, didn't publish them to the American people, let no one involved with the effort to get bin Laden testify to the American people.
This is not a question of interpretation or judgment. This is a question of fact. And the documents will show the president had the opportunity.
WALLACE: Mr. Scheuer, you're very critical of President Clinton, as we've seen today, but you also are on the record as saying that President Bush was, quote, "absolutely negligent in his failure to do more in the first eight months."
SCHEUER: Oh, I think that's absolutely the case. And I think that this administration has led us into a tremendously difficult long-term problem, which will be very bloody and costly for Americans.
I think fair is fair, though. Mr. Clarke, Mr. Berger, Mr. Clinton did have opportunities that were delivered by the men and women of the CIA to kill Usama bin Laden. In the first eight months of the Bush administration, there were no such opportunities. Could Bush have done more?
BENJAMIN: He didn't create any either.
SCHEUER: There were no such opportunities.
BENJAMIN: There were no votes (ph)?
SCHEUER: Well, the agency was still in the field. We were still trying to collect information. We didn't know where he was. I'm not saying that what they did or not was right, but the fact is Bush didn't have eyes on target.

According to FORMER CIA UNIT CHIEF MICHAEL SCHEUER in the eight years of the Clinton presidency Clinton had 10 times which to kill bin Laden and did not. In the first eight months of the Bush administration the opportunity to kill bin Laden didn’t present itself even once.

So the former President’s “At least I tried” performance on the Fox News Sunday show was something that we have grown to expect from Bill Clinton and his waging finger… a lie!

Why Democrats will not win 2006, 2008

Leading Democrats are playing politics with the lives of U.S. troops in Iraq. By undermining U.S. policy there, they are emboldening the very terrorist movement they say they hope to defeat.

How stupid are Democrats? They have been decimated and they don’t even know it! And the sad but true fact is that they’ve done it to themselves again! And because of their hatred for Conservatives and their propensity for lies and deceit they will lose the 2006 and 2008 national elections.

Democrat Senators leaked the NIE report to their allies in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and the New York Post and told the papers that the report was proof that the war in Iraq is causing an increase in terrorist.

• Leaked intelligence report says Iraq war is increasing Islamic radicalism
• Democrats say report proves that U.S. war strategies must change
• White House says media reports mischaracterized full report
• Leak comes as terrorism, war in Iraq are top election issues

This was meant of course to show that the war in Iraq is wrong on every level.

Leaking classified information is a crime punishable with prison time. The statutes are on the books, folks. Those who leak classified information and those who publicize it should go to jail but this is an election year and if the leakers are Democrats they are considered Whistleblowers but if Republicans are accused of leaking they are called traitors al a Valerie Plame. (By the way President Bush, V.P. Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove have been completely absolved of these spurious charges which were advanced by Democrats!)

The latest example: the selective leak from a National Intelligence Estimate – on the war on Iraq. According to the media's version of what was leaked, Americans are less secure now than before Iraq was invaded. It is not inconsequential that this report was leaked just over a month before national elections: In order to challenge these allegations, President Bush as forced to declassify a very sensitive NIE document.

It has been alleged that Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi is responsible for this leak; nevertheless, the intent for this leak was purely political and shows a long sustained pattern of disregard for national security, (at a time of war no less!) for the sake of political gain for those in the Democrat party.

As previously stated, this dangerous act of Democrats playing politics with American secrets forced the President to release a de-classified version of the intelligence report on terrorism and the Iraq campaign. But ironically the report refutes the original claims of the Democrats who point to it! The very report exposes those Democrats, and the liberal favoring MSM Papers, as Dan Rather liars who are again attempting to affect the outcome of an American political election by broadcasting unfounded lies about the Bush administration and the war in Iraq.

* The leakers cherry-picked the report, intending to undermine the administration's war policies, and the reporters bit - hook, line and sinker.

* Or the reporters - and editors - themselves collaborated in disseminating deliberately deceptive "news."

Either way, the original newspaper stories amounted to distribution of propaganda - witting or otherwise - that materially aided the cause of the enemy in time of war.

This is not the first time Democrats and main stream media have collaborated to hurt the U.S. Iraqi war effort. There was the Abu Ghraib leaked report, a leaked report from the US army’s internal investigations.

There was the Leaked CIA secret prisons information leaked by CIA agency employee Mary McCarthy which bears directly on the way we conduct investigations into terrorism and how we gather terrorist information.

Finally there is the NSA warrantless domestic surveillance program leaked to The New York Times and, first reported by The New York Times on December 16, 2005, which impacts the way in which America protects itself from terrorists plots.

It is not only these Democrat’s leaks that put America’s security at risk, but also out right false Democrat generated committee reports meant to put the Bush administration’s war on terrorism in the most negative light possible.

Jack Kelly reports such an instance in which a report when read is totally opposite of the reported conclusions drawn by Democrats who claimed that the report advises against the war. Kelly reports that after reading the whole 205 pages, he was stunned by the degree to which the "findings" in the body of the report did not support the "conclusions" made by Democrats at the end of it.

Two moderate Republicans -- Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine -- joined with Democrats to adopt "conclusions" designed more to abuse Mr. Bush than to convey what committee investigators actually found.

The committee voted, 8-7, to strip from the report this statement by Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks describing an American raid on Salman Pak, an Iraqi base about 21 miles southeast of Baghdad:

"This raid occurred in response to information that had been gained by coalition forces from some foreign fighters we encountered from other countries, not Iraq. It reinforces the likelihood of links between (Saddam's) regime and external terrorist organizations, clear links with common interests."

The reference to what was found at Salman Pak had to go because it clashed with the committee's "conclusion" that Saddam Hussein had no ties to al-Qaida. Saddam "was resistant to cooperating with al-Qaida or other Islamist groups," the committee majority concluded.

To come to that conclusion, the Democrats not only had to drop Gen. Brooks' statement down the memory hole, they had to ignore a mountain of other evidence of Iraq's links to terror groups

Democrats have undermined America’s war effort in all instances to attempt to show that the Bush administration is not effectively waging productive war against terrorism.

They have leaked information, often classified secret documents, in their attempt to win the hearts and minds of the American people concerning the war in Iraq.

The truth is it is Democrats who have made us less safe from terrorism and terrorists threats not Republicans as they are charging.

The last sad and finally point is that Democrats have proven that they are willing to lose the war in Iraq in order to win the hearts and minds of the American people by turning Americans against the war on terror.

That is the reason why Democrats will lose in 2006 and 2008, because a Democrat win would mean that America would lose. Not only a loss in Iraq but a loss of the hearts and minds that the Democrats are so desperately vying for which would be a lost of the very soul of America, alas the very soul of America would be lost too!

Backhanded Regards to Karl Rove

More on the Chris Wallace Fox news interview where former President Bill Clinton continued to give insight into the political machinations of his mind. In the interview with Chris Wallace, Clinton took time to complement (though tongue in cheek) Karl Rove.

Clinton said that he honors Karl Rove because he is good! Yes good according to the former President. It was like Socrates paying Plato a complement. In that subtle bit of admiration the former President tells a lot about himself. Mr. Clinton shows that he believes it is good to dis-inform the American people to win elections, that’s what he means with that complement to Rove. What else could he mean?

This writer doesn’t think that Mr. Rove is purposely deceiving the American people but apparently Democrats and President Clinton do. Clinton said, “That’s their job their job’s to beat us, I like that about Rove but our job is not to let them get away with it and if they don’t then we’ll do fine.”

What Clinton was referring to is getting away with making the Democrats appear to look like they don’t care about terror or make it seem that Democrats are weak on terror. Clinton seems to think that the Republicans have the power to make Democrats look as if they are not serious about terror and the security of this country. Not John Murtha, John Kerry or any of the Cindy Sheehan Democrats.

The White house and the Republicans want to make the America people afraid according to President Clinton. Not Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda or the defeatist Democrats who constantly cry that we can’t win in Iraq.

However here is a key mistake that the former President made in this interview, Clinton tipped the Democrat’s hand by suggesting that the Democrats stacked their political deck with military candidates this time around. Clinton said that Democrats have nine candidates that are Iraq war veterans who are running for house seats. Humm? I wonder if any of them or all are like Rep. John Murtha?

He also bragged that, “We've got President Reagan's secretary of the navy as the Democratic candidate for the Senate in Virginia. A three-star admiral, who was on my National Security Council staff, who also fought terror, by the way, is running for the seat of Kurt Weldon in Pennsylvania.”

All of this is to give the appearance that Democrats have a huge military appearance in the 2006 elections. What this means is that the Democrats know that they are weak on defending America and they are adjusting cosmetically to appear strong.

This of course is Democrat transparent election strategy to off-set any Republican advantage on the war on terror as was Democrat’s recent effort to connect with Christians by having Senator Barack Obama invoke his religious beliefs in the media and on the campaign trail.

Clinton then began to outline political the machinations of issues and counter issues which he seems to believe is all a big game of “us against them” a game where it’s who is more successful in framing the political argument before the American people, you know, the Clinton game of spin and triangulation that he “is is” so famous for.

According to Clinton his only worry is that the Republicans may come up with a rhetorical devise that would put the Democrats in a box that they can’t get out of.

See to Clinton politics is all about the spin it’s all one big political game whoever’s deal works just keep on working it. It’s the spin stupid!

Spin, triangulate and frame the argument the way you wish it to be perceived by the America people. That’s the reason the former President was on Fox news Sunday.

This was an attempt to go right into the heart of Conservativism, that’s what Democrats perceive Fox to be, and do damage control on the questions that the movie “A path to 9/11” raised on the way the Democrats handled terrorism for eight years of the Clinton administration and if the other side can do it better than Clinton on framing the argument, then caudles to them from President Clinton.

Even if your name is Karl Rove!

The Orwellian Truth According to Bill Clinton

According to former President Clinton the vast right-wing conspiracy got it all wrong and he’s going to set the record right! President Clinton believes that Chris Wallace was attempting to move his bones in yesterday’s Fox news interview, he also believes that ABC and Fox are a part of the vast right-wing conspiracy to defame him regarding what his administration did to prevent terrorism in the eight years of his presidency. And finally Mr. Clinton believes that Richard Clark is the sole authority on terrorism in the world. You got all that? But wait there’s more.

Also President Clinton says that it was the FBI and the CIA’s fault that he didn’t kill Osama bin Laden and Chris Wallace’s interview was a conservative hit job set up to deflect criticism from Rupert Murdock’s support of Clinton’s work on climate change. You believe that? Well if you’re a Democrat you might.

What is so incredible about this exchange is that in the span of four questions Clinton transformed from a cool in control former President into a radical partisan hack, all on the posing of one fatal question, why didn’t you do more to put bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business?

Using partisan hack language like neo-Cons and right wingers, language that one would find on any Liberal anti-Conservative internet chat board the former President became argumentative and combative while leaning forward into Wallace as he attempted to defend his administrations failure to deal with terrorism.

Clinton said, “I worked hard to try to kill him (Osama bin Laden), I authorized the finding the CIA to try to kill him we contracted with people to try to kill him I got closer to killing him than any one’s gotten since.”

The former President then went on the attack by impugning Chris Wallace and the Fox networks integrity he said, “You set this meeting up because you’re going to get a lot of criticizisms from your viewers because Rupert Murdock supported my work on the climate change and you came here under false pretenses and said that you would spend half of the time talking about you said you spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise 7 billion dollars plus in three days from 215 different commitments and you don’t care.”

Whew! Then I realized. To President Clinton fighting terrorism is a little like playing football for the Detroit Lions. You know, after one day after Detroit lost 9-6 to Seattle and failing to score a touchdown Detroit wide receiver Roy Williams thought that it was, “ … stupid how close we were to putting 40 points on the board." President Clinton probably thinks that it was stupid just how close his administration came to killing Osama bin Laden!

I’m betting that President Clinton, like Williams, would do well in a game of horse shoes!

It wasn’t the former President’s fault, he authorized the CIA to kill bin laden and the CIA failed.

President Clinton said that he didn’t do anything about the bombing of U.S.S. Cole because the FBI and the CIA did not certify that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with the bombing while he was President. Boy those FBI and CIA guys just aren’t doing the job are they?

And though the 9/11 commission report shows that his administration was at fault in many failed attempts to get bin Laden according to Clinton the 9/11 commission report is just a political document. A political document?

The former President said, “ After the Cole I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan over throw the Taliban and launch and full scale attack and search for bin laden but we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan which we got after 9/11 the CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin laden was responsible while I was there they refused to certify so that meant that I would have had to send a few hundred special forces in in helicopters to refuel at night and even the 9/11 commission didn’t do that, now the 9/11 commission is a political document too.”

So let’s count the excuses. There was the, At least I tried excuse, the vast right-wing Neo-Cons is out to get me excuse, the I got closer than anybody else excuse, the FBI and CIA don’t certify bin Laden did it excuse, the CIA don’t kill him excuse, and the 9/11 commission is a political document excuse. Did I get them all?

So I’m thinking that Clinton like ex-New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey has a truth that is solely his and for him. Mr. Clinton can say in the same fashion of McGreevey, My own personal truth is that I am a President that has done more to try to kill bin Laden then any other President and failed. Now all he needs is for anyone who is not a Democrat to buy his spin.

Hey Oprah you gonna do that interview?

see related story

The Devil, Hugo Chavez and Jim McGreevey

This week Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in the most diplomatic language that he could manage expressed his dissatisfaction with the United States of America.

To a chorus of jiggles and grins from an anti-America United Nations audience Mr. Chavez defamed the United States of America by ad hominem attacks against our president.

On Oprah Winfrey this week disgraced ex-New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey was showcased as he self promoted his new book “Confessions”

What do these two things have in common? Why they are two despicable men, two despicable acts. There was a time that despicable human conduct was frowned upon but today it’s celebrated, adored and put before the world.

In a world with standards Hugo Chavez’s speech would have been shouted down and he would have been removed from the podium from which he stood by the U.N. sergeant-in-arms for undiplomatic conduct.

Only Reps. Charles Rangel, Nancy Pelosi and Chaka Fattah have the wherewithal to stand up for America! Later former President Bill Clinton denounced Hugh Chavez’s remarks too.

In a world with standards McGreevey would be vilified for two failed marriages, cheating on a current wife, putting his current wife in a very embarrassing public light, exposing their private sexual lives, that’s not even to mention the embarrassment of McGreevey’s political corruption and malfeasance in public office which lead to his stepping down from elected office. Yet he is applauded on Oprah.

After O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murdering his wife and Ron Goldman he vowed to look for the “Real” killer. I say that Mr. Chavez was wrong about who the devil is because al Qaeda called President Clinton the devil when he was in office, so any president would have been called that by Chavez.

I think if the America people would look for the “Real” devil they might find him standing in the United Nations speaking profane words against America and its leaders while he is plotting to kill Americans with planes and bombs.

Or on the Oprah show hawking his corruption and perversion to hundreds of thousands of American people.

His imps are all of those who jiggled, grinned and applauded his profane remarks that were to and against America!

For Peace Pope must Convert to Islam

Well friends if you didn’t understand what the western world is actually dealing with make no mistake that really the only thing that will completely satisfy Muslims is that the whole world converts to Islam.

Now that certain Islamic elements have money and weapons, they have abilities that were not available to them hundreds of years ago in the past. Without these resources they would simply be running around in the deserts only threatening one another.

However oil money and countries like China and Russia selling weaponry to Islamic countries has set the stage for conflict that will ultimately involve a face off between Islam and the Non-Islamic world.

At a press conference in Gaza City, a number of Muslim clerics said the pope's statements were "the result of his hatred for Islam and not the result of ignorance."

One of them, Dr. Imad Hamto, called on the pope to "repent and ask for forgiveness." He added: "We want to use the words of the Prophet Muhammad and tell the pope: 'Aslim Taslam'" Aslim Taslam is a phrase that was taken from the letters sent by the Prophet Muhammad to the chiefs of tribes in his times in which he reportedly urged them to convert to Islam to spare their lives.

It is foolish to think that this situation concerning the Pope is an isolated insular incident. Rather it is a warning. A grave warning that the world is only years away from answering the questions of whether it will accept Islam, migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs or if they refuse to migrate they must accept the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims. If the just mentioned options are reject then the non-Muslim world must be destroyed.

In essence for peace to exist not only the Pope, but the world must convert to Islam. If you don’t think that this is the meaning of all of the things which we are witnessing now you are indeed naïve!

Of Infallibility and Islamic Hypocrisy

"Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment."-- Anjem Choudary

If Infallibility means never having to say you’re sorry then being a religion of peace must mean never calling for the death of a leader of another religion.

There are approximately 2.1 billion Christians world-wide of which 1.1billion are Catholic. Pope Benedict XVI is the leader of those 1.1 billion Catholics.

There are approximately 1.3 billion Muslims in the world and a fraction of them are participating in the corrupting of a major world religion. Their religion, Islam.

In his sermon yesterday at the Papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo outside Rome, Pope Benedict spoke amid strengthened security.

He said: "I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.

"These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought. I hope this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address."

No other Pope is thought to have made such an apology. Yesterday's sermon by the Pope was the first time a pontiff has publicly said sorry.

Adherents of Islam are now defaming the Pope and threatening to murder the religious leader of the Catholics. They have burned him in effigy called him “…dog of Rome” and threatened violence against him, his followers and all of Christendom.

Why would Muslims threaten, defame and insult the living leader of the Catholic faith especially when they would not allow such regarding any of their leaders. Why? Because they claim that the Pope insulted their dead Prophet Muhammad.

They are saying in essence; you said we are violent; we’ll kill you for saying that we’re violent! (Hmmm?)

The threat of violence against Catholics and Christians was emphasized by the murder of an Italian nun in Somalia. Sister Leonella, 66, was shot as she walked from the children's hospital where she worked to her house in Mogadishu, a city recently taken over by an Islamic government.

If the Pope’s apology is not good enough for Muslims, some are saying that it is not, then that would be the second thing that Pope Benedict has done wrong in the span of a couple of days. So much for the doctrine of infallibility.

Should Muslims continue on this path of unwarranted violence, protest, murder, and terrorism it must be recognized that they are not a religion of peace, they will have to be rightly considered a religion that causes destruction of governments, countries and religions; their own religion and countries and also the destruction of Catholicism and the world.

The Pope Submits to Islam

Is exactly what a Pope apology is in the face of this present Islamic vitriol. Right before our eyes we are witnessing the west acquiescing more and more to senseless Islamic demands for apologies and special concessions to Islam.

In the Danish editorial cartoon flap the whole western media world submitted to Islam by not republish cartoons that where deemed offense to Islam even though American media has repeatedly publish National security leaks that have jeopardized the U.S. war effort against Islamic terrorism. U.S. media has publish war secrets under the veil of first amendment rights but those same first amendment defenders made puny excuses for not publishing cartoons when face with perceived threats from Islam.

Islam is now controlling the world. You don’t believe it? What do you have when the world media refuses to print anything truthfully negative about Islam or what do you have when all other world religions pay homage to Islam? After the Pope apology for offending Islam no other religious leader will dare speak against the Prophet and his religion of tyranny even thought Muslims are wrong!

During one rally gunmen in Gaza city opened fire at the Greek Orthodox church; no injuries or damage were reported. An unknown organization named “The sword of Islam claimed responsibility for the incident.

“We want to make it clear that if the pope does not appear on TV and apologize for his comments, we will blow up all of Gaza’s churches,” the group said in a statement.

Do Islamists think that people of world are stupid? Muslims are the ones threatening violence and war yet they think that they can blame the Pope for this latest show of Islamic intolerance? This is totally despicable!

Should speech in the whole free world be regulated because Muslims may be offended? Allow me to answer that… NO!

That’s called tyranny by any one’s standards. Muslims are threatening Islamic tyranny, Western media has already acquiesced to Islamic totalitarianism. Now Muslims have forced psychological submission on the Pope by succeeding to force Catholicism’s figurehead, the Pope, to apologize where there is no apology warranted. Muslims are attempting to force a psychological submission to their faith on the entire free world.

Muslims are out of control and they are solely the reason for the present unrest in the world. This Muslim raging must no longer be tolerated by the world community.

The world community must demand that Muslims stop the 7^th century theatrics and join the 21^st century. Any further threats against Jews, Christians or Catholics should be met with unified world rebuke and these world-wide puerile Islam temper tantrums should not be accepted by the world community.

This must stop and it will not be tolerated. The Pope may not be able to say it and the media is afraid to say it but all of Islam is corrupted when some of Islam acts this way!

Muslims continue to see offense where there is none!

Holy cartoon wars! I can’t believe that the Main Stream Media would propagate such a story after the puerile behavior of Muslims world-word over the Danish editorials that rightly showed a connection between Islam and world conflict and violence.

But here we go again playing into the Muslim victimization game while Muslims themselves cut off heads of those who oppose them. Why they have even threaten to assassinate past popes.

That being said here is the latest offense against the Ummah (the world-wide community of Muslims). Pope Benedict XVI in a lecture quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and a Persian scholar on the truths of Christianity and Islam.

"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the pope said. "He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'"

That was it in a lecture the Pope read a quote from a book and Muslims worldwide are upset the that Pope would have the nerve to read something aloud from a past record that seems to them negative to Islam.

When are Muslims going to grown up? And when is the MSM going to stop placating this type of nonsense?

Salih Kapusuz, a deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's party, said Benedict's remarks were either "the result of pitiful ignorance" about Islam and its prophet, or a deliberate distortion.

"He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world," Kapusuz was quoted as saying by the state-owned Anatolia news agency. "It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades."

"Benedict, the author of such unfortunate and insolent remarks, is going down in history for his words," he said. "He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as (Adolf) Hitler and (Benito) Mussolini."

Come on! These were not the Pope’s remarks he quoted them from a book during a lecture. If this is a problem then every College Professor in America and abroad should be beheaded because this has been done every day of the year for thousands of years in the civilized world. It’s called education!

Muslims should not be allow to deflect their inability to answer rightful criticizisms of their faith by attempting to pretend that they are offended by the slightest remark or quote in this case.

On Thursday, Turkey's top Islamic cleric, Ali Bardakoglu, asked Benedict to apologize for the remarks and unleashed a string of accusations against Christianity.

In Beirut, Lebanon's most senior Shiite Muslim cleric denounced the remarks Friday and demanded the pope personally apologize for insulting Islam.

Here’s a question, why does Ali Bardakoglu feel that he can attack Christianity and at the same time demand an apology for what he considers an offense against Islam?

Islamic clerics and Imams have been defaming Judaism and Christianity since Islam’s inception and they continue to do it daily with the hate that they preach against Christians and Jews.

This all seems like Muslims want to do evil unto others but kill others if they seem to be doing something unto you! (I bet that’s not in the Quran…or maybe it is.)

No apology is warranted by the Vatican but the world is still waiting on the countless apologies that Muslims owe the world for daily acts of violence against humanity!

And Islam is an Insult unto itself!

First Muslim to Congress in Minnesota?

Does it matter if a Muslim is elected to Congress? Will a Muslim show allegiance to America first or to Islam first? Will a Muslim write laws to favor Islam? Are exstremist Muslim organizations backing his candidacy and do they see this as a foot in the door into American Politics?

In Minneapolis Democrat voters are preparing to send a Muslim to Congress because they agree with his message of peace, withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and universal health care, but the question is does he value America over Islam?

Many America Muslims have problems with allegiance to their faith opposed to allegiance to their country when asked the question.

The question is, is this the beginning of the balkanization of American politics?

Feckless Dems Politicizes 9/11

President Bush spoke on Monday 9/11 to commemorate the 5 year anniversary of the attack against America and Democrats according to their plan to neutralize the Bush administration attacked President Bush’s speech saying that the speech was partisan and that it politicized 9/11.

These polarizing Democrat ideologues are also calling for network television to give them equal time. Equal time?

Just what office in the Democratic Party is equal to the Presidency of the United States of America? Are the Democrats suggesting that they have the equivalence of a Confederate Presidency? Just who is the Democrat’s President? Pelosi? Reid? Kerry? Gore? Dean?

The way it works in America comrade Democrats is that a party wins the Presidency (there’s only one Presidency) and that party leads the nation.

What the Democrats have attempted to do since President Bush has been in office is created a co-Presidency one which they are equal to President Bush and that’s wrong.

Democrats contended the president used a prime-time address commemorating the 9/11 terrorist attacks to make partisan arguments bolstering support for the Iraq war.

Wait a minute… is there something wrong with the President of the United States of America paying tribute to the nearly 3,000 victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and described the enemy as a global network of extremists who hate freedom and tolerance? No! There is nothing wrong with that.

The president said "The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict," he said. "It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our generation."

Much of the speech described the administration's foreign policy following the attack and the decision to go after enemies before they could harm Americans.

"I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks," Bush said. "The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat."

According to Democrat strategy no Republican statement will go unanswered or unchallenged. Any fair minded person can see that this kind of political tactic is what is causing the divisiveness in Washington D.C. and American politics.

Senator Harry Reid and Representative Diane Pelosi circulated a letter they sent to the television networks and cable news channels asking for equal coverage of Democratic viewpoints on terrorism and Iraq. "There has been a complete absence of balance in the news coverage of national security issues," they wrote.

In the Democrat’s attempt to displace Republican elected Senators and Representatives they have created an absolutely unworkable climate in Washington D.C. After 6 years and two failed attempts to defeat President Bush at the polls Democrats think that their hatred, obstructionism and counter-political terrorist tactics will win them control of the Senate and House of Representative and eventually the White house.

All of this has been done at the expense, safety and security of the American people. Democrats in their pursuit for political control and power have obstructed government, hindered the war effort and endangered the troops, and finally they have caused the current political uncivil wars in America.

If the Democrat’s would focus on the people who have declared war on America (al Qaeda) with the same ferocity as they attack Republicans, their fellow countrymen, al Qaeda would be defeated, the insurgency in Iraq would cease and the split in America would be healed.

Instead Democrats join with the enemies of this nation working from the inside as our enemies plot America’s destruction from the outside.

If Democrats want time to be equal then let there be reduced liberal time on broadcast and cable television and add Conservative programming in equal amounts to liberal programming. Also let’s change liberal news broadcast on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, C-Span, and Fox news to give the conservative view equal time.

If Democrats really want “equal time” then they owe Republicans half of every movie, sit-com, cable-show and news broadcast and Conservatives are owed back broadcast time too!

I figure Liberals owe Conservatives 20 to 30 years of back broadcasting time to make things equal!