Long before anyone suggested that Homo sapiens had usurped The Sun's function in providing warmth for Planet Earth, (and indeed at the heighth of the speculation by some scientists that said planet was in the midst of a cooling trend that threatened a new Ice Age in the 1970's) Man, especially that portion of which resides in the United States portion of the continent of North America, sought to more efficiently employ energy use from fossil fuels for economic purposes and sought to reduce pollution from the use of same for health purposes.

President George W. Bush, prior to 9/11, earned the ire of the greenies (read: displaced socialist/communist left, and their well-meaning useful idiots) as well as the Leftist Press, a large portion of elected DC Democrats and possibly John McCain and friends when he refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty that had been unanimously rejected by a Democrat controlled Senate under Bill Clinton.

That treaty, pushed by European nations intent on reducing America's competitiveness in the global economy, has never been complied with by those nations that did sign it, and has never been used as a club to criticize India and China for following America's lead.

Meanwhile, America has reduced pollution and increased energy efficiency by much more than the signers.

Bush has never accepted the theory that man causes the Earth to be warmer (MMGW) to any significant degree. (Which is why he is not a defendant in the aforementioned lawsuit).

He dances around the question when in the presence of believers of the MMGW Church as he is sensitive toward other religions, and sees no need to offend them to their face.

Hence, we read from the AP a/k/a al-AP:

THE HEADLINE

Bush Looking at Global Warming Ideas
Jan 4, 7:18 PM (ET)
By BEN FELLER
(AP) President Bush, right, meets with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in the Oval Office of the White...

THE FIRST PARAGRAPH

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Thursday welcomed German Chancellor Angela Merkel's proposal to prod the Middle East peace process and said he was open to new ideas to combat global warming.

THE PENULTIMATE PARAGRAPGHS:

While Bush and Merkel are strong allies on many issues, there also are differences, including steps to combat global warming.

"We talked about climate change, and I assured the chancellor I'm committed to promoting new technologies that will promote energy efficiency and do a better job protecting the environment," Bush said.

Bush is a gentleman. They "talked" about the liberal German's MMGW religion. Bush "assured" that he would continue doing what America has been doing since Teddy Roosevelt's days, but especially since the days of the now defunct MMGC (man-made global cooling) Church days concerning energy efficiency (Earth to Lib-Dems-MSM Party: The USA is held hostage to dependence on foreign oil, much of which funds we spend on same funds terrorism-see 9/11) and pollution reduction.

GC has learned that there have been discussions that would re-name the MMGW Church to "The Chicken Little Church" so that it will be better positioned for future man-made trends.

The AP has apparently decided to make no changes in its misleading (read lying) "reporting" of the "news."

Plan your lives accordingly, and be thankful that President George W. Bush is President and that...

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for The Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report.

I have heard a number of commentators comment on the rather unique occurrence of the close proximity of the passing of so many prominent public figures, and wanted to look at them in light of history and our present circumstances.

I invite you to read Jeane Kirkpatrick, RIP, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.'s December 14 piece in the American Spectator, which includes this passage:

WASHINGTON -- It was at Jeane Kirkpatrick's funeral this week that I finally heard of some good achieved by the United Nations midst all its dithering and graft. According to Jeane's pastor, during her momentous tenure as our UN ambassador Jeane was so wobbled by the international body's cynicism and moral emptiness that she forsook years of atheism and became a person of faith. Mind you, she had always had an abundance of secular faith before President Ronald Reagan tapped her for the UN. Her faith in the American way of life, its freedom, democracy, and equality, was as ardent as it was intelligently conceived. But after leaving the house of hustlers on the East River, she became deeply Christian; and religion gently informed all she thought and did thereafter.

I rejoice that one of my hero's found the Lord. Amen. We miss you already,

But let's look more closely to the even more close-in-proximity departed:

Saddam obsessed his whole life and dedicated everything he did his whole life to obtaining and wielding power with megalomaniacal fervor. He killed anyone in his way, which numbered in the hundreds of thousands directly via political murders and mass slaughter even of the children of his political opponents, and over a million indirectly through imperialist wars. While he became the Dictator of a nation, he was thwarted in his EVIL dreams by people like Gerald Ford and James Brown who lived the American Dream and accomplished much more, and much, much, much more GOOD.

Gerald Ford epitomizes all that we admire about the Greatest Generation generally, and specifically the Midwestern variety of same, that were Boy Scouts, persevered thru the Great Depression, beat the Nazis and Imperial Japan, and stood up to the Soviets in the Cold War. It would be wrong to say that Ford was not driven by ambition, but it is accurate to say that he did not obsess over any dream of being president and that when he assumed the office, it was more as a duty than the achievement of a goal more than any other of the 42 that have held the highest office in our land.

James Brown epitomizes the now largely untold story of the monumental achievements of Black America from the end of the Civil War and before the passage of the Civil Rights and voting Rights Acts of the 1960s. In fact, liberals don't want this story told, beacuse it proves the lie that they seek to perpetuate that Blacks can't make it in America unless liberals help them.

Liberals viewed the ending of de jure segregation as but a very small step in fixing the evils of America. James Brown achieved the American Dream even before the ending of same, and after same never asked for a "more level playing field," not only as Black man, but also as a Southerner. But from 1865 thru 1965 Black Americans went from slavery to being the equivalent of the 13th most wealthy nation on Earth. But thanks to Liberals, since 1965, they remain today, January 1, 2007, still in 13th place.

And if it weren't for James Brown, they would have sunk to 14th. Yet, oftentimes liberals, black and white, resented Brown for his refusal to accept the Black public politically liberal victim-dependency orthodoxy and antipathy towards conservatives and especially Republicans.

James Brown was a conservative in the way he lived his life. He was also a sinner, yet not a whiner that blamed anyone but himself. But he was a self sufficient businessman who also had God given talent. But he wasn't called "The Hardest Working Man in Show Business" because of talent.

The man worked. He was an American pursuing the Dream. Living the Dream. Like when he sang at Nixon's Inauguration or visited Reagan's White House. Or when he sang and danced, and oh how he sang and danced!

And my fellow Southerner ate the same meal every New Years Day that I have, i.e. Greens and Black-eyed Peas!

But given the 93 years, the real question is: What did Jerry eat!? Or better, NOT eat?! And does this greens and black-eyed peas tradition cross the Mason-Dixon Line?

Expanded version cross-posted at Redstate.com, and at TMR link below.

Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for The Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report. “One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Before there was the Bush-Lied Dem-Lib-MSM Party intent on destroying a re-elected President and emboldening our enemies while our troops are at war and in harm's way, there was Walter-That's the Way it Ain't in Vietnam-Cronkite and the 3 Major Networks and the Honorable former House colleagues of Ford-Lied about the pardon so let's humiliate him and make him swear under Oath that there was no quid pro quo for the Nixon pardon and force the abandonment of our South Vietnam allies Dem-Lib-McGovern-Frank Church Party.

Two million plus dead South Vietnamese and Cambodians later, the honorable colleagues and weather-beaten old Carl Bernsteins feign respect for a "different kind of Republican" that healed our wounds after Watergate and Vietnam.

Never once mentioning that they lied about the war in Vietnam thus tearing the nation apart that Ford was needed to knit back together.

They pine for the kind of non-Reagan/George W. Bush republican that was content with minority status in Congress in perpetuity and which they could force into losing wars at will due to their shared "realism" in foreign policy.

I wretch.

Former President Gerald Ford deserves all our admiration and respect for his dignity in the battered office.

The media and former democrat colleagues of this honorable man now re-writing out of history the shabby treatment they gave him and the South Vietnamese during that time deserve our utter contempt.

Ford and Kissinger pleaded with the Democrat majority not to cut-off funds to our allies in Vietnam, that were winning at the time by the way, predicting the bloodbath that followed.

All this taking place while the Democrats made Ford the only president ever to testify before Congress. Ford didn't have to agree to testify, but he should never have been asked.

All to the Democrat Party's and their sycophant press's shame.

And I have heard not one person in the press, one republican on the MSM or any reporter on Fox News even, mention what the Dems did in calling Ford a liar about the alleged with no evidence quid pro quo pardon and in cutting off funds against Ford's objection to the South Vietnamese.

Yes, President Ford was an honorable healer. His former democrat colleagues were the same dishonorable dividers then as they are now. And the press then no more told the whole truth then as they do today.

I loathe the MSM and the Dem Party and I despise the alternative media and spineless republicans that, even today, after endless Ford-lied, Reagan was an old fool and Bush-lied, refuse to call them out.

All while the dems, libs and MSM pine for the good ole days of Republicans like Ford, who had a different "tone" and for "different times" when things were "less divisive."

Times were not less divisive then. Its just that now we have:

Townhall, Redstate, Rush, Gamecock & Co., who refuse to cooperate in the myth.

Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for The Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008, The Minority Report, and Redstate. “One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

President Bush meant it in 2003 when he identified Iran as part of an axis of evil that had to be pacified for America to be secure from more and deadly 9/11s and still means it now. He also still meant it when Iran's Hezbos and Syrian puppet were busy last summer making it clear to the whole world that Iran intended to control the Middle East. President Bush is a patient man and, while he desired that Israel take stronger action at the time including that they bomb Damascus, he knew it served his eventual purposes for Iran and its forward infantry, Hezbollah led by Nosehair Nassrallah, to make clear to all of the states of the Middle East and the whole world that Persian Iran intended to dominate the mostly Arab ME.

Also, for months we have heard Rumsfeld, Rice and Bush allude to Iran's "unhelpful" actions in Iraq (read acts of war) and wondered why the war was not being taken to the source, ie Tehran.

And now, today we read:

USA DETAINING IRANIANS CAUGHT IN IRAQ RAIDS... DEVELOPING... on www.drudgereport.com

BREAKING NEWS - UPDATE ON CAPTURED IRANIANS
(First Update above turns out to be a separate detention of Iranians and was not the major detention anticipated earlier today by the Drudge Report. Rather, the below report from Instapundit is the one)

December 25, 2006
CASUS BELLI?

The American military is holding at least four Iranians in Iraq, including men the Bush administration called senior military officials, who were seized in a pair of raids late last week aimed at people suspected of conducting attacks on Iraqi security forces, according to senior Iraqi and American officials in Baghdad and Washington. . . .

Gordon D. Johndroe, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said two Iranian diplomats were among those initially detained in the raids. The two had papers showing that they were accredited to work in Iraq, and he said they were turned over to the Iraqi authorities and released. He confirmed that a group of other Iranians, including the military officials, remained in custody while an investigation continued, and he said, “We continue to work with the government of Iraq on the status of the detainees.”

posted at 02:14 PM by Glenn Reynolds

http://instapundit.com/archives2/2006/12/post_1267.php

This comes on the heels of a major ongoing buildup of US naval presence in the Persian Gulf over the past several months.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2454083.1118055554.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/21/africa/web.1221navy.php

Bush rejected, out of hand on several occasions, the ISG aka Baker-Hamilton Surrender group's recommendations, especially the one suggesting dialogue with Iran and Syria:

From the NYT

Pres Bush distances himself from two of Iraq Study Group's most fundamental recommendations, as panel begins lobbying Congress to adopt report wholesale; Bush backs away from panel's recommendations to pull back US combat troops from Iraq over next 15 months and to engage in direct talks with Iran and Syria; Bush says he needs to consult his military commanders about troop movements, and he sets conditions for talks with Iran and Syria that are not likely to be met; Bush, with British Prime Min Tony Blair at his side, continues to talk about war in ideological terms, calling war part of broader struggle against good and evil, totalitarianism and democracy

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40A1EFA3C550C7B8CDDAB09...

Bush was clear just before and after the 2006 elections for those willing to listen:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

Transcript

October 25, 2006

INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT WITH COLUMNISTS

The Oval Office

2:27 P.M. EDT

As I said in the press conference today, it is conceivable that 20 or 30 years from now the world will see a Middle East in which violent forms of – extreme forms of Islam compete for power, moderate governments will be toppled, oil will be used to extract concessions, and Iran will have a nuclear weapon, and writers such as yourself would say, what happened to them? How come they couldn't see the great conflict taking place in front of their very eyes? Why did they lose their nerve? Why did they not support moderate people who yearn for something better than the vision of the extremists?

And my answer to it is, I see the threat, and will use American power to protect ourselves...

READ THE WHOLE THING

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061025/25bushtranscript.htm

Then on in Big Lizards

November 13, 2006
More Evidence Bush HASN'T Changed His Mind About Iraq

But in any event, it does appear that President Bush hasn't changed; he doesn't support withdrawal of U.S. troops; he isn't going to hand Iraq over to Iran and Syria; and even Tony Blair offered an ultimatum, not appeasement, to those two trouble making states.

READ IT ALL

http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/11/more_evidence_b.html

Michael Barone sees Bush Sticking to his guns:

Bush, like Truman and Churchill, seems determined not to concede defeat. And remember that for Truman on Korea and for Churchill after Dunkirk, no promising military courses were immediately apparent. Truman, after firing Gen. Douglas MacArthur, had forsaken the threat -- a nuclear attack -- that his successor Dwight Eisenhower deployed to get the communists to agree to a truce.

But Truman's perseverance despite his 22 percent job approval -- much lower than Bush's -- was essential in preserving the independence of South Korea, which now has the world's 14th-largest economy. Churchill, facing Hitler alone, could promise only "blood, toil, tears and sweat" until his enemies' mistakes -- Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union, the Japanese strike on Pearl Harbor -- gave him the allies that made victory possible.

Churchill's stubbornness prevented a Nazi victory in midsummer 1940.

We should keep in mind, as well, Bush's repeated vow not to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. That's in tension with the Iraq Study Group's expected recommendation of direct negotiations with Iran: The obvious quid pro quo for Iranian help in stabilizing Iraq would be dropping our opposition to Iran's nuclear program. In fact, the opposite approach may be what's needed.

READ IT ALL

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2006/12/04/sticking_to_...

NOW, Amnerica's greatest expert on and advocate for regime change in Iran, Michael Ledeen, sees a major change:

I’ve been wondering what accounts for the sudden change in tone regarding Iran from London and Washington. Both Bush and Blair had been playing the mullahs’ game, taking military options off the board, talking with feigned optimism about the diplomatic strategy, patiently working for UN sanctions, and so forth. Then, all of a sudden, we started hearing very tough talk about Iran (and Syria) from the two leaders, and over here from Secretary Rice and National Security Adviser Hadley. Blair even delivered a very strong speech in Dubai, which is virtually an Iranian protectorate. How come? Had something happened?

Copley News Service reported a few weeks ago that we and the Jordanians had uncovered an Iranian-backed plot to assassinate Bush when he was in Amman. Copley told me the evidence is very good, even though the plot never came to anything, and nobody tried to kill the president. If the story is true, it would be a virtual replay of Saddam’s efforts to kill W’s father on a trip to the region while Clinton was president. Now, the London Telegraph reports the possible cause of Blair’s ire:

A military aide to the commander of British forces in Afghanistan appeared in court yesterday accused of spying. Cpl Daniel James, 44, is charged under the 1911 Official Secrets Act with “prejudicing the safety of the state” by passing information “calculated to be directly or indirectly useful to the enemy”.

It was said he had communicated with a “foreign power” in the incident on Nov 2, believed to be Iran…The Daily Telegraph has learned that he acts as an interpreter for Gen David Richards, the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan and one of the most senior officers in the Army.

That might well do it, don’t you think? Here the Brits have been appeasing the mullahs, and all the gratitude they get is–if the story checks out–an Iranian spy getting information that would be used to kill Her Majesty’s soldiers. And notice the suppressed premise in this story: Iran is working with the (Taliban) terrorists in Afghanistan.

Leaders take these things very personally, as well they should.

READ IT ALL

http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/2006/12/20/what_does_it_tak...

The Cowboy that still lived in December 2006

http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/2006/12/cowboy-lives.html

and every December since December 2001 and which will still live, God willing, in the Decembers of 2007 and 2008, presently has Iran surrounded on two borders with its Gulf now an America Lake.

Before the US acted against Iraq it had not acted against Iraq, and during all those months of inaction after 9/11 and before Shock and Awe, Bush was criticized in the press and in conservative circles for his inaction.

Then the action came, and The Spider Hole is now history.

Bush knows what time it is, and knows that no amount of teeth gnashing BEFORE he acts can prevent him from acting, and that after he acts, all the teeth gnashing will be deemed either irrelevant or a source for self congratulations for those doing the gnashing to take credit for prodding Bush to act. (In all honesty, it certainly may be a positive good and encouragement for bush to see that many conservatives want him to act and therefore will be strong supporters after he does.)

For all who can see and hear, let them see and hear:

1 - Consistent words
2 - Troop build-up (The troop build-up that preceded the Iraq war in Kuwait. The troop build-up for action in Iran has been mostly accomplished since the troops moved from Kuwait to Iraq.)
3 - Ship movements
4 - UK unveiling of Iranian plots to assassinate UK and US leaders including President Bush
5 - Detentions of Causus Belli Iranian soldiers waging war against America and our Iraqi ally in Iraq (developing story on Drudge)

Be cool fellow warmongers, the Day of Reckoning is coming beacuse, The Spine, aka the Commander in Chief, aka President of the United States, George Walker Bush is

"One man with courage makes a majority."- Andrew Jackson
(especially when the minority are appeasement Democrats and cowardly Republicans)

UPDATE at 5:17 pm EST
RE Spokesman: U.S. Troops Detain 2 Iranians
-
Monday, December 25, 2006
(12-25) 06:52 PST BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) --

READ IT ALL

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/12/25/international...

more later from GC, ie
Gamecock, who is a conservative voice DeVine Columnist for The Charlotte Observer
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/2006/12/20/news/16279108.htm

and blogs at

http://gamecock.townhall.com - www.race42008.com -
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com

Merry Christmas to all!

If we want to get serious about reducing the size and scope of government, we have to disabuse ourselves of two notions that I think keep us from making progress:

1- Reagan did not reduce the size of government; and
2- Neither did Gingrich

They did good work in slowing the growth, but grow it continued and continues to do even after their years and after six years of Republican control of all political branches of the federal government in Washington, D.C.

Fiscally minded cons that really want to reduce government, need to do so in a serious way, holistic way, factoring in the differences between 1790s America and our post-WWII space age world and really get detailed about a plan we can sell to a majority of Americans

Simply citing Bruce Bartlett columns or Joe Scarborough diatribes gets us nowhere. We have to lay out actual proposals that reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Since part of that problem will mean a devolution of responsibilities ti states, we also need to stop demonizing State government Republicans that sometimes have to raise state taxes and meet state needs through government.

We need to truly replace FDR's New Deal with a non-Depression Era Deal. Even FDR himself commented that Social Security should evolve and that many programs should be eliminated whose purposes were to deal with The Great Depression. Some programs should remain that are the Safety Net Reagan favored and measures that help prevent depressions.

But, we are faced not with creating the perfect world, but rather with transforming a big government addicted world into a preferred world reflecting conservative principles. Therefore, we must wean the addicted from Big Government thru a transition phase before we can get to the perfect world, I call PLAN B. Or we risk being rejected by much of the middle class beneficiaries. We have to sell small government/fiscal conservative measures as problem solving measures, not just as an ideological end in itself. And we must not overstate our case by broad brush demonization of ALL government social legislation or doomsday allegations that don't match the experience of the past 60 years.

So I write to ask questions (and offer some ideas) about the transition and what PLAN B would look like concerning:

Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid care
Health Care Insurance costs
Medical care Costs
Education
Agriculture
Interstate commerce laws incl the minimum wage

I want to start with education and ask a serious question, but first let me say that my plan B would be a transitional NCLB with fed money contingent on state's offering voucher plans and a phase out of the federal dept over 10 years. BUT, does any conservative see a role for the federal government in radical programs to meet national security needs, ala after Sputnik? Don't we need to an emergency plan to train scientists?

I favor reforming social security along the lines of Dubya's plan.

Got no clue on medicare, etc except that we need major medical malpractice reform.

On agriculture and the minimum wage, I intuitively oppose agriculture subsidies and as an econ major of the Milton Friedman school understand the ridiculousness of the min wage law, BUT

1- Given that we have had these subsidies so long and at the same time have had cheap food, one has to wonder if food prices would actually drop if we ended all subsidies? a question

2-Much of the rhetoric on the minimum wage here at Redstate is quite over the top. We have to face some realities.

a-We have had the minimum wage for decades most of which time has been the greatest years for n economy anywhere at anytime in history.

b-We lost the argument with the public over the minimum wage decades ago, and cannot expect to re-educate them now, especially with doomsday predictions of what will happen that fly in the face of the past 50 years.

c-As long as its low enough its mainly irrelevant.

d-The key to me is removing the issue from the dems who demonize us with it, which is why I favor indexing it to some % of inflation.

Fiscal conservatives have to do more than complain about social conservatives and others in the winning coalition that Reagan created that actually wins elections for republicans and made them the majority party. Get serious about what you purport to favor. I, and other evangelical/neo-con hawks are in your corner awaiting serious, realistic proposals that we can sell to a majority of Americans. We need each other to make a Minority Report from now thru 2008 that will allow us to make a Majority Report in January of 2009!

Gamecock - "One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
DeVine Columnist for The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com and The Minority Report

The self-contradiction's in Pat Buchanan's latest column addressing Time Magazine's latest cop-out in their selection of The Man of the Year (YOU!) proved too tempting for gamecock to let pass without a line by line de-construction. I should say at the outset, that despite my very serious disagreements with Pat on a number of issues, that I do respect his intellect, analysis and patriotism (he recently vigorously defended Bush's refusal to surrender to the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Survey (aka Surrrender) Group).
 
However, the serious disagreements are the cause of this rooster crowing post. Below I have first printed Pat's column in italics and then entered my critiques below same, with a link to Buchanan's column at the bottom of this post.

Pat begins:

1-Since 1927, the year Lindbergh flew the Atlantic in his single-engine Spirit of St. Louis, Time has devoted its final cover of the year to the Man of the Year. The Lone Eagle was first. In the 1930s and 1940s, FDR was the Man of the Year three times. Stalin, Truman and Churchill made it twice, though the selection of Churchill in 1949 seems dubious, as he had been out of power four years, while Mao was seizing China by the throat in the bloodiest revolution of the century. Hitler was chosen in the year of Anschluss and Munich, 1938. Gen. Marshall made it twice, as did Ike, in 1944 as victor of Normandy and, 15 years later, as president. In the 1960s and 1970s, JFK made it once, LBJ and Nixon twice. Nixon's 1972 designation was shared with Henry Kissinger. In 1979, the dark and brooding face gracing Time's cover was that of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini. And Time got it right. For Time's Man of the Year, now Person of the Year, is the figure who, for good or evil, dominates the news. Yet this year Time could not bring itself to name the obvious choice. Instead, it chose you and me, all of us citizens of the digital democracy who create on the Worldwide Web. Why the copout?

Time has copped out many times that Pat inexplicably fails to mention: remember “Earth”, “the computer”, “whistleblowers.”? Time has very often gotten it wrong even when they pick a news figure. I agree that UBL should have been the Man in 2001. But the main issues here are threefold: The intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Media; Pat’s intentional refusal to address it head-on due to his own blind spots and Pat’s limited mindset due to being a creature and prisoner inside the beltway himself.

My suggested picks on Redstate a few days ago:

2001 - UBL/Rudy
2002 - Bush or Rummy - removed Taliban/decimated al Qaeda
or Ashcroft - he prosecuted the corp ceos
2003 - Bush or Rummy or Blair - removed saddam
2004 - Ashcroft or Bush - no attacks since 911/economy booming/wins re-election despite relentless 24/7 msm-dem attacks for 18 months of bushlied
2005 - Rick Warren
2006 - members only jacket in Iran or Bush

IF, BY PAT’S AND OTHERS’ CRITERIA, IT SHOULD BE “WHO DOMINATES THE NEWS” THEN WHO ELSE BUT THE MAN THRU WHOSE PRISM EVERYTING IS EVALUATED: PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

http://www.redstate.com/redhot/mark_kilmer/2006/dec/17/time_mags_man_of_the_year

2-Perhaps it was Ahmadinejad's hosting of a conference of Holocaust skeptics, including David Duke, that caused Time to recoil. Perhaps it was fear that the face of the Iranian president on the cover of Time would repel the American people and be death for sales. Surely that was the reasoning behind Time's refusal to name Osama bin Laden in 2001, choosing Rudy Giuliani instead, though history is unlikely to conclude that Rudy, his crowded hour notwithstanding, was the central figure of that annus horribilis. Richard Stengel, editor of Time, as much as concedes he could not bring himself to choose by the traditional standard, if that meant choosing Ahmadinejad: "It just felt to me a little off selecting him." Understandably. But the refusal to select Ahmadinejad reveals an unwillingness to confront hard truths. For putting his face on Time's cover would have done a useful service, jolting America to a painful realization.

I just can’t let the irony pass that Pat suggests an unwillingness to confront hard truths and a needed jolting of America to painful realizations, when Pat has refused to face the same since 1941 and 2001 with regard to the intellectual and practical bankruptcy of his isolationist tendencies; his moral relativism and abject ridiculousness in suggesting that, post-9/11, “they are over here because we are over there” excuse and apologetics for UBL; and his refusal to put the Iraq War in historic perspective and be a part of the MSM that would actual help us with painful realizations.

3-Not only George Bush, but the United States, its Arab allies and Israel, had a dreadful year, as Iran emerged as first beneficiary of a war fought by this country at a cost of 25,000 dead and wounded. What the choice of Ahmadinejad would have said is that Iran is in the ascendancy in the Middle East and it is not inconceivable that the United States is headed for defeat, not only in Iraq but Afghanistan.

This shows his POW status to the MSM more than anything (except what he says next). Bush and the US are, well….Bush and the US. Economy is booming; never lost a battle against the jihadists or Baathists; most of Iraq and Afghanistan are free; people still trying to get INTO the US; Iraq’s economy is booming big time; Israel destroyed much of the Hezbos; and The people of Lebanon are mad as hell at the Hezbos.

Iran? Riots in the streets bi-weekly that increasingly include more than just “the Yutes.” Iran is surrounded. The “Persian” Gulf is awash in US ships, making it an “American" Lake. Yes, Iran’s BULLYING Talk dominates the news. But on the ground? Nyet. An “ascendant” Iran would only be possible if we, the USA leaves before the job is done in Iraq and before we remove the Mullahs. That has not occurred. We are still there. Iran is not Ascendant. Iran doesn't have the northern and southern borders of These United States surrounded.

4-The Taliban have come back. The Pakistanis have ceded them sanctuary. Some NATO nations are refusing to risk troops in combat. And it has been some time since guerrillas who enjoyed a privileged sanctuary in that part of the world failed to expel European soldiers perceived as imperial occupiers.

This is pure MSM BS. Notice the skillful use of vague language that tells us nothing, ie “come back”, “sanctuary”…

The fact is that the Taliban openly control no territory and every time they raise their heads they lose hundreds if not thousands of fighters.

There is no sanctuary in Afghanistan or Pakistan that US troops and planes and spy satellites don't monitor (some sanctuary). The model for the sanctuary was Afghanistan and Iraq in the 90s and early 2000s. That was a sanctuary. The US destroyed them and they remain...Destroyed! Sounds like a qualification for Man of the Year to me! Even if the NYT doesn't see fit to print it!

5-Islamists control Somalia.

Pat is right on this and I’m sure Bush will move on it. Of course, every hour that he doesn’t Pat and others will harp on it. Then when he does, he will get no credit. Just as Bush gets no credit now for removing the regime that brought us 911 and the regime that defied us for a decade. Those threats are gone.

Wasn’t that worth Man of the Year!!

6-Anti-Americanism is rampant in Lebanon – after Condi Rice blocked a U.N. cease-fire resolution to stop Israel's bombing last summer in what was supposed to be a campaign to clear Hezbollah from her northern border. The Beirut government could fall at any moment or be forced into a coalition with Hezbollah

Pat has gall to even bring this up when he cares not a whit for Israel. Mike DeVine’s ears shut down when Pat speaks on this subject and prays for Pat’s soul.

7-Even Bush's defense secretary concedes we are not winning in Iraq. It may take a "surge" of 20,000 to 40,000 troops to stave off defeat before the end of Bush's term. On the West Bank and Gaza, Hamas and Fatah appear on the brink of civil war. The elections Bush demanded produced dramatic gains for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine and Moqtada al-Sadr in Iraq.

Pat conveniently leaves out that Bush said we weren’t losing either, with all this sophomoric talk of “-ings” insulting my intelligence. Were we “winning” at Iwo Jima?

Pat should appreciate that the elections produced CLARITY!! That was good. Later elections when Gazan and Lebanese barber shop owners vote for candidates that don’t want barber shop bombing wars no more, will produce what democracy promises over time.

Yes, let’s get Mookie in Iraq.

8-Eighteen months ago, Ahmadinejad was the unknown mayor of Tehran. Today, he is the visible face of anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism, both a cause of and the personification of our failures. He has defied Bush's demand that he give up the enrichment of uranium, split the Security Council, mocked the Holocaust, called for the end of the Zionist state and the expulsion of America from the Mideast, terrified the Sunni monarchs, and united the Arab and Islamic masses behind his defiance.

What “failures” of the US has Iran caused? None

Does Iran have the US surrounded in Mexico and Canada? Iran has no one unified. Not even the specially elected opponents  of the Mullahs in his own country!

9-His trip to the United Nations, where he ran circles around U.S. journalists, was a diplomatic triumph. And he has done it all not with military power – Iran would not last a week in an all-out war with the United States and has no defense against Israel's nuclear weapons – but with theatrics and rhetoric.

Diplomatic triumphs? Like the ones UBL and Saddam had before we removed them from nation-state sanctuary? Whoopee, the NYT lauds them.

10-He inspires all who hate Israel and Bush's America. And, according to the Zogby polling yesterday, that is a majority which, in some once-friendly nations, is approaching near unanimity.

The liberated peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t united with Iran or UBL. They are united with the USA. They despise the extremists.

11-Ahmadinejad, a man of words without real power, is the big winner of 2006, because Bush, America and Israel were the big losers.

Losers of what? Sticks and stones Pat, sticks and stones.

Pat puts too much importance on what he and Eleanor say on The McLaughlin Group…

12-Why do a billion Muslims prefer Ahmadinejad to America? That is the question that needs to be addressed.

Earth to Pat. They don’t prefer members-only-jacket. Most Iranians hate him. See the riots in the streets.

Pat's whole article:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53426

Rush Limbaugh's brief comment:

He thinks Ahmadinejad should have been the Man of the Year and TIME Magazine copped out. He's got some interesting points in his piece. A year and a half ago, Ahmadinejad was the never-heard-of mayor of Tehran. Today, he dominates the world with words. He doesn't fire a shot. He's got proxies that do it. He has proxies in Lebanon, proxies in Syria, and he's got proxies in Iraq. But he has totally dominated the news and the world. He has an army. If we decided to take care of Ahmadinejad militarily, there's no way he could compete with us. He would lose a war inside of a month with the United States of America. He is saber rattling. He is threatening practically weekly to blow Israel off the map, to end the United States as we know it. What are we doing? We're sitting around doing nothing! We're practicing words. We're trying to beat his words with our words in the form of diplomacy, but it isn't working. He's not intimidated; he's not shutting up. But in a contest of actual warfare, I mean this guy couldn't beat the Iraqis in eight years back in the 1980s! It would be no contest for us, and yet we're sitting around and apparently doing nothing. Well, we're not, actually, doing nothing. We're beefing up the Navy in the Persian Gulf, if you haven't heard that, in a response to his words, which is a helpful sign.

Gamecock thinks Rush may be guilty of a bit of what Pat and many Americans are guilty of, i.e. falling for the MSM meme that we are "doing nothing". Rush of course admits one something at the end. But we are doing a lot, and prior to all our doings of somethings, same is preceded by not somethings. Before D-Day, Normandy Beach was empty.

Moreover, Pat is simply a bevy of contraductions when it comes to recognizing the good guys and the bad guys in the Middle East, even with respect to his own country, and especially with respect to Israel. Pat mistakes media talk for facts on the ground.

Patience, and not letting the MSM meme's be one's reality are what's called for. Because Dubya is still The Cowboy with a spine and...

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/

I believe we'll prevail...I wouldn't have our troops in harm's way if I didn't believe that...[and]...we're in an ideological struggle between forces that are reasonable and want to live in peace, and radicals and extremists...trying to gain power and topple moderate governments, with energy which they could use to blackmail Great Britain or America, or anybody else who doesn't kowtow to them, and a nuclear weapon in the hands of a government that is -- would be using that nuclear weapon to blackmail to achieve political objectives -- historians will look back and say, how come Bush and Blair couldn't see the threat? That's what they'll be asking. And I want to tell you, I see the threat and I believe it is up to our governments to help lead the forces of moderation to prevail.

Bush still gets it.

Cross-posted at The Minority Report

http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/2006/12/cowboy-lives.html

So Gate's Boss speaks, again, as he did Monday to Hume, last week with Malachi, and humorous times since the Election and before including since the Axis of Evil Speech, always consistently strong and resolute, never showing weakness for one second, yet never seemingly enough to satisfy many of even his hawkish supporters here at Redstate.

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2006/nov/30/bush_still_sane_still...

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2006/nov/12/rumsfelds_departure_o...

He satisfies me, and more importantly, I suspect his enemies tremble at his continued hold on the power as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces that have removed regimes on their borders and who control their Persian Lake.

President Bush, after hours of Seinfeld re-runs, 24/7 MSNBC, the latest musing of anti-semite Baker whose advice Reagan regularly ignored in a nice way, and the Gates Declaration that sent so many here and all over the Conservative blogosphere into teeth-gnashing (are their any teeth left for many of these minute-to-minute seekers of gloom?) speaks at a news conference with Blair.

President Bush uses answers to snivelling reporters to reveal continued existence of Cowboy to enemies. The highlights followed by full answers and transcript of whole news conference with Blair:

-I believe we'll prevail. I know we have to adjust to prevail, but I wouldn't have our troops in harm's way if I didn't believe that...

-I believe we're in an ideological struggle between forces that are reasonable and want to live in peace, and radicals and extremists...trying to gain power and topple moderate governments, with energy which they could use to blackmail Great Britain or America, or anybody else who doesn't kowtow to them, and a nuclear weapon in the hands of a government that is -- would be using that nuclear weapon to blackmail to achieve political objectives -- historians will look back and say, how come Bush and Blair couldn't see the threat? That's what they'll be asking. And I want to tell you, I see the threat and I believe it is up to our governments to help lead the forces of moderation to prevail.

-And one of the things that has changed for American foreign policy is a threat overseas can now come home to hurt us, and September the 11th should be a wake-up call for the American people to understand what happens if there is violence and safe havens in a part of the world. And what happens is people can die here at home. So, no, I appreciate your question. As you can tell, I feel strongly about making sure you understand that I understand it's tough. But I want you to know, sir, that

-I also believe we're going to succeed. I believe we'll prevail. Not only do I know how important it is to prevail, I believe we will prevail. I understand how hard it is to prevail. But I also want the American people to understand that if we were to fail -- and one way to assure failure is just to quit, is not to adjust, and say it's just not worth it -- if we were to fail, that failed policy will come to hurt generations of Americans in the future.

-Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die. I understand there's sectarian violence. I also understand that we're hunting down al Qaeda on a regular basis and we're bringing them to justice.

Snivelling reporter's question and full response:

Q Mr. President, the Iraq Study Group described the situation in Iraq as grave and deteriorating. You said that the increase in attacks is unsettling. That won't convince many people that you're still in denial about how bad things are in Iraq, and question your sincerity about changing course.

PRESIDENT BUSH: It's bad in Iraq. Does that help? (Laughter.)

Q Why did it take others to say it before you've been willing to acknowledge for the world --

PRESIDENT BUSH: In all due respect, I've been saying it a lot. I understand how tough it is. And I've been telling the American people how tough it is. And they know how tough it is. And the fundamental question is, do we have a plan to achieve our objective. Are we willing to change as the enemy has changed? And what the Baker-Hamilton study has done is it shows good ideas as to how to go forward. What our Pentagon is doing is figuring out ways to go forward, all aiming to achieve our objective.

Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die. I understand there's sectarian violence. I also understand that we're hunting down al Qaeda on a regular basis and we're bringing them to justice. I understand how hard our troops are working. I know how brave the men and women who wear the uniform are, and therefore, they'll have the full support of this government. I understand what long deployments mean to wives and husbands, and mothers and fathers, particularly as we come into a holiday season. I understand. And I have made it abundantly clear how tough it is.

I also believe we're going to succeed. I believe we'll prevail. Not only do I know how important it is to prevail, I believe we will prevail. I understand how hard it is to prevail. But I also want the American people to understand that if we were to fail -- and one way to assure failure is just to quit, is not to adjust, and say it's just not worth it -- if we were to fail, that failed policy will come to hurt generations of Americans in the future.

And as I said in my opening statement, I believe we're in an ideological struggle between forces that are reasonable and want to live in peace, and radicals and extremists. And when you throw into the mix radical Shia and radical Sunni trying to gain power and topple moderate governments, with energy which they could use to blackmail Great Britain or America, or anybody else who doesn't kowtow to them, and a nuclear weapon in the hands of a government that is -- would be using that nuclear weapon to blackmail to achieve political objectives -- historians will look back and say, how come Bush and Blair couldn't see the threat? That's what they'll be asking. And I want to tell you, I see the threat and I believe it is up to our governments to help lead the forces of moderation to prevail. It's in our interests.

And one of the things that has changed for American foreign policy is a threat overseas can now come home to hurt us, and September the 11th should be a wake-up call for the American people to understand what happens if there is violence and safe havens in a part of the world. And what happens is people can die here at home.

So, no, I appreciate your question. As you can tell, I feel strongly about making sure you understand that I understand it's tough. But I want you to know, sir, that I believe we'll prevail. I know we have to adjust to prevail, but I wouldn't have our troops in harm's way if I didn't believe that, one, it was important, and, two, we'll succeed. Thank you.

Later Question on Talks with Iran and Syria:

Q Well, are you willing to engage direct talks with --

PRESIDENT BUSH: Oh, Iran and Syria.

Q -- just a regional effort --

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, no, I understand. Steve, let me talk about engaging Iran. We have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a possible change in U.S. policy, a policy that's been in place for 27 years, and that is that if they would like to engage the United States, that they've got to verifiably suspend their enrichment program. We've made our choice. Iran now has an opportunity to make its choice. I would hope they would make the choice that most of the free world wants them to make, which is there is no need to have a weapons program; there is no need to isolate your people; there's no need to continue this obstinance when it comes to your stated desires to have a nuclear weapon. It's not in your interest to do so.

And should they agree to verifiably suspend their enrichment, the United States will be at the table with our partners.

It's really interesting to talk about conversations with countries -- which is fine; I can understand why people speculate about it -- but there should be no mistake in anybody's mind, these countries understand our position. They know what's expected of them.

There is -- if we were to have a conversation, it would be this one, to Syria: Stop destabilizing the Siniora government. We believe that the Siniora government should be supported, not weakened. Stop allowing money and arms to cross your border into Iraq. Don't provide safe haven for terrorist groups. We've made that position very clear.

And the truth of the matter is, is that these countries have now got the choice to make. If they want to sit down at the table with the United States, it's easy -- just make some decisions that will lead to peace, not to conflict.

BUSH HUMORS THE CONSENSUS SURRENDER GROUP, MAKES CLEAR TO ENEMIES COWBOY STILL LIVES

Full News Conference Transcript Link:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061207-1.html

Bush is still the Cowboy, ie Old Hickory's

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

www.race42008.com
The Minority Report

The amendment reads as follows:

Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Levin (The Great One, as dubbed by his WABC pal, Sean Hannity) essentially agrees with my previously stated opinion that the Ninth Amendment is a rule of construction to interpret the first Eight Amendments in context, and which essentially codifies the Declaration's reference to inalienable rights, rather than being a source of amorphous and innumerable additional FEDERAL constitutional rights.

As Levin puts it:

"By its express text, the Ninth Amendment merely sets forth a rule of construction governing the first eight amendments. Its text cannot plausibly be read as a font of any rights. True, the Ninth Amendment presupposes the existence of “other [] [rights] retained by the people,” but the source of those rights must lie elsewhere...

And they include as well the broad array of non-constitutional rights that state law is free to protect, including (to the extent not covered by the Constitution’s guarantee of a “Republican Form of Government”) the basic right of the people to engage in self-governance. Indeed, those who seem to think that any right that is really, really important must be constitutional engage in the very disparagement of non-constitutional rights that the Ninth Amendment is designed to guard against."

I have generally agreed with Levin, but the two pending cases, as well as Barnett below make the best arguments I have ever heard on the other side of the substantive debate.

Read the whole Levin post and follow the links for two excellent posts at Benchmemos (also on NRO) by Ed Whelan and Matthew Franck respecting the Ninth Amendment.

http://levin.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjIwNjE4YjNlMTRlNWU5ODc3MzkzN2I4...

Below are the main portions of Randy Barnett's WSJ column and Matthew Franck's rebuttal on Bench Memos on the two potentially landmark cases that rely upon the Ninth Amendment to degree unprecedented in constitutional jurisprudence. The link to the whole Barnett article (subscription required) follows the following excerpt, which is followed by portions and link to Francks:

RULE OF LAW

In Re: Life or Death
By RANDY E. BARNETT
December 9, 2006; Page A9

In Abigail Alliance v. von Eschenbach, a three judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, when a drug passed Phase I trials establishing its safety, a terminally ill patient has a right to try the drug before its efficacy is established, provided the patient has no other FDA-approved drug available for treatment. However, two weeks ago the circuit granted the government's motion for an en banc rehearing before all the members of the court.

At stake is the right to life. Although the parties are pleading the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, their claim also finds textual support in the original meaning of the judicially neglected Ninth Amendment, which reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Ninth Amendment's author, James Madison, explained to the first Congress that it was added to guard against the implication "that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure." If the right to preserve one's life is not among the natural liberty rights retained by the people when they established government, then none are: The Declaration of Independence not only affirmed the natural right to life, it also affirmed that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."

Of course, under our Constitution, state governments have the power to protect the health and safety of their citizens, and the federal government has been accorded the power to regulate the interstate marketing of drugs. But the question is whether terminally ill patients with no alternative have the right to take a chance on a drug of unproven effectiveness after Phase I trials establish its safety to the satisfaction of the FDA. If the retained right to life is truly fundamental, as the Declaration attests, and is not to be denied or disparaged, as the Ninth Amendment attests, then this decision is the patient's to make unless very good reasons exist to the contrary.

This is not a situation where "quack" doctors peddle false hope to dying patients, inducing them to avoid alternative effective treatments or simply to waste their assets. A physician's recommendation of a post-Phase I drug is backed up by the FDA's conclusion that it is safe, as well as a pharmaceutical company's willingness to wager millions of dollars on the approval process to show it is also effective. Does it make any sense to respect the liberty of citizens to strap waxed boards to their feet and slide down snowy slopes with trees whizzing by for the thrill of it (I am not making this up), yet deny the dying access to potentially life saving drugs that have been proven safe?

The natural rights to life and health are also at stake in the "partial birth abortion" cases that were argued to the Supreme Court in October. The Eighth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals both held the federal ban on partial birth abortion was unconstitutional because it lacked an exception for the health of the mother. While this procedure is highly controversial when performed late term, the ban applied throughout the entire pregnancy. Moreover, the statute allows even late term use of the procedure to protect the woman's life (the very same right to life at issue in Abigail Alliance).

It is not as if Congress denies the existence of a constitutionally protected right to preserve one's health. Instead, Congress claimed that the procedure could be banned because it is never necessary to protect the health of the mother. However, both the Eighth and Ninth circuits found substantial medical authority that the banned procedures are necessary at times to preserve a woman's health.

In the face of this medical disagreement, the government argues that the congressional decision to ban the procedure should be upheld because it supported by some medical authority and therefore is "rational." Under the government's theory, however, when there is substantial disagreement among medical authorities, any decision by the government would be "rational" because supported by one side or the other.

Standing in the government's way is the 2000 case of Stenberg v. Carhart, in which the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska ban on partial birth abortion because it too lacked an exception for the health of the mother. The court ruled that "where substantial medical authority supports the proposition that banning a particular abortion procedure could endanger women's health" a woman and her physician have a right to opt for that procedure. In other words, in the face of disagreement among reputable medical authorities, we should defer to the choice of the individual and her doctor, rather than to politicians.

Stenberg was decided 5-4 with Justice O'Connor providing the fifth vote to strike down the statute and Justice Kennedy in dissent. With Justice Alito replacing Justice O'Connor, observers are guessing that Stenberg is "in play."

But these cases are not really about the contentious liberty to choose abortion. Rather, they concern the fundamental right to preserve one's health. Is it so hard to imagine a conservative justice siding with a patient, her doctor and a substantial body of medical authority, over the highly politicized opinion of Congress?

Which brings us back to the issue of deference. Is Congress entitled to blind deference when a person's life and health is at stake? Or do the people themselves deserve deference when their choices are supported by state-licensed and regulated physicians and either substantial medical authority or Phase I trials? The Ninth Amendment was added to the Constitution precisely to affirm, in Madison's words, "the just importance of other rights retained by the people." We will soon learn whether the courts agree.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB116562303655545069-lMyQjAxMDE2NjE1...

Mr. Barnett is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at the Georgetown Law Center and the author of "Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty" (Princeton, 2003).

Also see:

Matthew Franck's "Deny or Disparage" response:

In the Saturday edition of the Wall Street Journal (sub. req’d), Randy Barnett of Georgetown’s law school urges the federal courts to take up the Ninth Amendment in defense of the “natural liberty rights retained by the people when they established government.” In Barnett’s view, such rights would include the “right to preserve one’s life” by the use of experimental drugs that have been deemed “safe” in Phase I trials by the FDA but not finally approved for general prescription use after complete testing for their efficacy. And they would include the “right to preserve one’s health” by means of a partial-birth abortion as long as there is some “disagreement among reputable medical authorities” as to whether such an abortion was “necessary” to a pregnant woman’s health.

In one of his more trenchant opinions on our rights-manufacturing jurisprudence (a dissent, more’s the pity), Justice Scalia had this to say, in Troxel v. Granville (2000): “The Declaration of Independence . . . is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution’s refusal [in the Ninth Amendment] to ‘deny or disparage’ other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even further removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.”

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmQ1NTI3OTI5NDFkMjk2ODNmMWRlMDEz...

Levin:

"Just so. And anyway, “not . . . deny or disparage” is strange language to use in a provision calling for the judicial vindication of rights. How does one disparage a right, after all? Point and giggle?"

UPDATE

NEIL STEVENS' PRIOR DIARY EXCERPTS AND LINK

Denying and Disparaging the 9th

One amendment has been shoved under the bus by all though. That one is the 9th, and I wish it weren't so, but it doesn't get enough respect.

I understand why the left denies and disparages the 9th amendment. That's easy: they see 'rights' as alternately tools to be used by judges to achieve policy goals that cannot be won with elections, or as responsibilities of the government as a representative of classes of people collectively. That is about the only meaning the word can have with them, after all. Alien to them is the concept of an absolute natural order or, Sagan forbid, a deity-given order of how things are and should be.

So for them, such a broad amendment stating facts about the world, steeped in a concept of humanity that is contraindicated by their worldview, is nothing more than an "inkblot." It's easy for them to declare that, too. When you have a "living Constitution," some parts grow beyond their text (1st, 14th) while others shrink (2nd, 9th, 10th, Article 1,...).

The right's opposition to the amendment is harder to understand logically, though. We're the steady opponents of judicial activism, determined champions of an enduring Constitution, and last supporters of textualism in Constitutional interpretation. Why, then, do some of us hop onto the bandwagon and declare the 9th to be "meaningless?"

Unfortunately I think the reason is emotional. We've been hit over the head so many times by an activist Judiciary finding excuses to use their self-proclaimed supremacy over the Legislature and the Executive, that we've forgotten that our view of rights is not the same as theirs. We see "rights" in a Constitutional law context and cringe just on reflex.

What we should be doing instead is upholding the 9th along with the rest, but with the constantly-needed reminder that rights and the role of the Judiciary do not change with the makeup of the Supreme Court. We ought not shy away from our otherwise-principled respect for the document as it is written, just because we fear runaway judges perverting it into a blank check for activism.

READ THE WHOLE THING AND COMMENTS (MY COMMENTS ARE RE-PRINTED IN THE COMMENTS TO THIS DIARY AS WELL.)

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/neil_stevens/2006/sep/22/denying_and_dispa...

Gamecock, a civil and criminal trial and appellate lawyer for two decades in federal and state courts throughout the South, is presently vice-president of a multi-state real estate investment firm headquartered in Charlotte, N.C. For more Bio info see his personal "Gamecock" Townhall website. Gamecock is also an original contributing writer for www.race42008.com and recently joined The Minority Report as well.

http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/index.html

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

No word if the Study Group Program for the Sanity on War-Challenged will continue beyond this fiscal year.

Given the unique nature of MSM coverage actually reporting the facts and what they mean in the real world and not just in the All-Events-Only-Matter-Only-In-How-They-Confirm-Bush-Is-The-World's-Menace World, I will let them report the verbal shots heard round the world today:

Asia Times

Bush holds his course
By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - Despite a growing and virtually universal consensus both in the US and abroad that the United States must engage Syria and Iran if it hopes to stabilize Iraq, US President George W Bush appears determined to ignore Baghdad's two key neighbors as long as possible.

That is increasingly the assessment of analysts who had been hopeful that the Democratic sweep of the mid-term congressional elections in November, as well as Bush's decision to replace Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld with former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director Robert Gates, would incline the president toward a more accommodating stance.

In particular, it had been thought that those two developments would make the anticipated recommendation by the congressionally mandated, bipartisan Iraq Study Group (ISG) co-chaired by former secretary of state James Baker - that Washington actively promote and participate in regional negotiations on Iraq that would include Iran and Syria - politically irresistible. Its long-awaited report will be released next week.

But recent statements by Bush and other senior administration officials, as well as the departure of a key "realist" adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have fueled growing speculation that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney hope they can still prevail in Iraq without having to sit down with the two "evil-doers".

Indeed, that appeared to be the message Bush wished to convey on Tuesday at a North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in Riga where he recommitted the US to support for Iraq's "young democracy" and vowed not to withdraw US troops "until the mission is complete".

"He has no intention to change his policy in Iraq," Pat Lang, a former top Middle East analyst at the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, concluded after reviewing Bush's remarks.

In the same appearance, Bush also seemed to rule out talks with Tehran and Damascus under present circumstances. "Iran knows how to get to the table with us. That is to verifiably suspend their [uranium] enrichment programs," he said, stressing, however, that he had no objection to direct talks between the Iraqi leaders, such as those carried out over the weekend in Tehran by President Jalal Talabani, and their counterparts in Iran and Syria.

The New York Times described Bush's comments as "laying the foundation to push back against" the ISG's anticipated recommendations, an assessment that echoes recent suggestions by senior officials, including Bush, that the ISG is just one of a number of ongoing reviews of the situation in Iraq that the administration will consider in the coming weeks.

read it all

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HL01Ak01.html

Wall Street Journal-Transcript of News Conference

Bush:

Our objective is to help the Maliki government succeed. And today we discussed how to further the success of this government. This is a government that is dedicated to pluralism and rule of law. It's a government elected by the Iraqi people under a constitution approved by the Iraqi people, which, in itself, is an unusual event in the Middle East, by the way.

We talked today about accelerating authority to the Prime Minister so he can do what the Iraqi people expect him to do, and that is bring security to parts of his country that require firm action. It's going to -- the presence of the United States will be in Iraq so long as the government asks us to be in Iraq. This is a sovereign government. I believe that there is more training to be done. I think the Prime Minister agrees with me. I know that we're providing a useful addition to Iraq by chasing down al Qaeda and by securing -- by helping this country protect itself from al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda wants a safe haven in Iraq. Al Qaeda made it clear earlier that suicide bombers would increase sectarian violence. That was part of their strategy. One of our goals is to deny safe haven for al Qaeda in Iraq, and the Maliki government expects us and wants us to provide that vital part of security.

So we'll be in Iraq until the job is complete, at the request of a sovereign government elected by the people. I know there's a lot of speculation that these reports in Washington mean there's going to be some kind of graceful exit out of Iraq. We're going to stay in Iraq to get the job done, so long as the government wants us there.

We want the people of Iraq to live in a free society. It's in our interests. In my judgment, if we were to leave before the job is done, it would only embolden terrorists, it would only embolden the extremists. It would dash the hopes of millions of people who want to live in a free society, just like the 12 million people who voted in the Iraqi election. They want to live in a free society. And we support this government, because the government understands it was elected by the people. And Prime Minister Maliki is working hard to overcome the many obstacles in the way to a peaceful Iraq, and we want to help him.

Read it all (subscription required)

al reuters

He said that while the Iraqi government was free to talk to Iran about helping end the violence, U.S. conditions for direct talks with Tehran remained unchanged.

"As far as the United States goes, Iran knows how to get to the table with us, which is to do that which they said they would do, which is verifiably suspend their enrichment program," he told a joint news conference after talks with Estonian President Toomas Ilves on his way to a NATO summit.

read it all

spine still intact

Bush remains:

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

www.race42008.com

But just as armed American Dons could also exude pious charm in unarmed business deals, so Russia's Don famously fashioned a counterfeit soul to disarm the main obstacle to its devious designs. Bush is better at spotting evil from afar.

The premature death toll of vocal opponents of Russian President Vladimir Putin is mounting. The apparent poisoning death of ex-Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko is only the latest.

Sky News reports:

"A large quantity of radiation, probably from a substance called Polonium 210, has been found in the body of dead ex-Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko.

The "major dose" of alpha radiation was detected in his urine, said Government experts, who added that Polonium 210 is only dangerous if ingested.

They also revealed that police have found radiation at three locations: his Muswell Hill home, a central London sushi bar where he ate shortly before falling ill, and a hotel where he had met two Russians that morning.

Before he died in a London hospital on Thursday night, Mr Litvinenko wrote a statement on Tuesday blaming Russian President Vladimir Putin for ordering his murder.

The distraught father He accused the leader of having "no respect for life, liberty or any civilised value".

He told Mr Putin: "You have shown yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilised men and women."

The Russian President said the death was a tragedy, but he had not seen any definitive proof that it was a "violent death". He also brushed off suggestions linking him to the case.

Mr Litvinenko's tearful father Walter said: "This regime is a mortal danger to the world", adding: "It was an excruciating death."

Mr Litvinenko's supporters said he was killed because he was investigating the murder last month of journalist and fellow Putin critic Anna Politkovskaya.

see link to full text of statement:

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/24/uk.spy.statement/

The murdered journalist and activist noted by Litvinenko are not the only suspicious deaths of Putin's internal critics in recent years, not to mention the attempted murder of Ukraine opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko's who recovered from his mystery illness which was also caused by poisoning.

Meanwhile The Don's partners in Crime, Presidents Assad of Syria and Ahmadenijad of Iran, continue to live as Lebanon’s industry minister, Pierre Gemayel, a fierce opponent of Syria and Iran was murdered in broad daylight and Iran's Bearded would be destroyer of Israel is promised nuclear defense assistance and delivered missiles from his Godfather.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/24/061124134543.qth288nm.html

Reckon James Realist Baker, the kook leftists on his commission and the Kook DEM Party still favor dialogue with the Axis of Evil Leader, its Basher flunky and the unextinguished ember from the ash heap the Evil Empire was buried under?

Even the Libs in the UK suggest not. see link

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2466572,00.html

But what inspired this blog entry was hearing Fred Barnes on Brit Hume's show discussing the speculation that the Baker Group was considering proposing talks between the US, Iran and Syria over ways to stabilize Iraq last night, agree with the rest of the panel that "given the assassination in Lebanon", surely their could be no talks between the US and Iran/Syria now.

Ok, let me get this straight. Iran has been the world's number one sponsor of terror since 1979 and was singled out by President Bush, along with Iraq and North Korea, as part of the Axis of Evil that threatens America after 911. Iran's forward infantry army, The Hezbos, are stationed in Lebanon where they regularly, and as recently as THIS PAST SUMMER, wage war on Israel. Administration officials have frequently commented on Iran and Syria as aiding and arming our enemies in Iraq. The Members Only donned Bearded One regularly declares that he intends to wipe Israel off the map as he defies the UN over his oil-rich nation's ongoing nuclear program for "peaceful" purposes.

But IF ONLY Lebanon's Gemayel continued to breathe the air in Earth's atmosphere, Syria and Iran would be acceptable partners to discuss bringing stability to Iraq?

Has Putin poisoned the entire Beltway? What else can explain the Alice in Wonderland conventional "wisdom" spewing forth from there.

I suspect this whole notion was a trial balloon put out by Baker. And, I suspect we will talk to them, as in, "you have 72 hours to give up the nuke program, disarm the Hezbos and cease and desist arming our enemies in Iraq or your tenure as heads of state will end."

Christopher Hitchens puts Baker in perspective in his latest:

James Baker is the last guy we should listen to about Iraq

.....The summa of wisdom in these circles is the need for consultation with Iraq's immediate neighbors in Syria and Iran. Given that these two regimes have recently succeeded in destroying the other most hopeful democratic experiment in the region—the brief emergence of a self-determined Lebanon that was free of foreign occupation—and are busily engaged in promoting their own version of sectarian mayhem there, through the trusty medium of Hezbollah, it looks as if a distinctly unsentimental process is under way.

This will present few difficulties to Baker, who supported the Syrian near-annexation of Lebanon. In order to recruit the Baathist regime of Hafez Assad to his coalition of the cynical against Saddam in the Kuwait war, Baker and Bush senior both acquiesced in the obliteration of Lebanese sovereignty. "I believe in talking to your enemies," said Baker last month—invoking what is certainly a principle of diplomacy. In this instance, however, it will surely seem to him to be more like talking to old friends—who just happen to be supplying the sinews of war to those who kill American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. Is it likely that they will stop doing this once they become convinced that an American withdrawal is only a matter of time?

At around the same time he made this statement, Baker was quoted as saying, with great self-satisfaction, that nobody ever asks him any more about the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power in 1991. It's interesting to know that he still feels himself invested in that grand bargain of realpolitik, which, contrary to what he may think, has not by any means been forgotten. It's also interesting in shedding light on the sort of conversations he has been having in Baghdad. For millions of Iraqis, the betrayal of their uprising against Saddam in 1991 is something that they can never forget. They tend to bring it up, too, and to fear a repetition of it. This apprehension about another sellout is especially strong among the Shiite and Kurdish elements who together make up a majority of the population, but it seems from its public reports so far that the ISG has not visited the Kurdish north of the country. If Baker thinks that the episode is a closed subject, it shows us something of what the quality of his "listening" must be like.

In 1991, for those who keep insisting on the importance of sending enough troops, there were half a million already-triumphant Allied soldiers on the scene. Iraq was stuffed with weapons of mass destruction, just waiting to be discovered by the inspectors of UNSCOM. The mass graves were fresh. The strength of sectarian militias was slight. The influence of Iran, still recovering from the devastating aggression of Saddam Hussein, was limited. Syria was—let's give Baker his due—"on side." The Iraqi Baathists were demoralized by the sheer speed and ignominy of their eviction from Kuwait and completely isolated even from their usual protectors in Moscow, Paris, and Beijing. There would never have been a better opportunity to "address the root cause" and to remove a dictator who was a permanent menace to his subjects, his neighbors, and the world beyond. Instead, he was shamefully confirmed in power and a miserable 12-year period of sanctions helped him to enrich himself and to create the immiserated, uneducated, unemployed underclass that is now one of the "root causes" of a new social breakdown in Iraq. It seems a bit much that the man principally responsible for all this should be so pleased with himself and that he should be hailed on all sides as the very model of the statesmanship we now need.

Read the whole thing

http://www.slate.com/id/2154164/

We do need to talk to Iran and Syria. For Baker and his ilk, so long as 72 hours have passed between Iran/Syria sponsored killings of our Allies and/or Troops, Basher and Beard can visit him in Baltimore over Blue Crab. But for Bush, I suspect his end of the dialogue will be from the Oval office, hopefully after bombing has commenced.

The wild card in this is The Godfather of Mother Russia and the continuing revelations of his misread soul.

www.race42008.com

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Because I am sure when I hear unpatriotic speech and that most others do as well, I am convinced that if the GOP members of Congress would dare to publicly denounce unpatriotic speech every time they hear it, that it would resonate with Americans and transform the country. It would send the message that the PC speech code is no longer operative. that we are free to openly love this country and shame those that would embolden enemies to fight on and kill more of our troops.

I would compare the ease with which unpatriotic speech can be discerned with being able to distinguish mothers and non-mothers with children. Its a love thing, and

(begin inside Redstate inside communication) 

Yes, TS, Cella, Johne, and others, it is first an emotion. It is THE emotion. The emotion that animates a man to want to live.

I am writing this beacuse I am just too lazy to engage in the high level of discourse over on Paul's diary, ie Redstate's MENSA Mount Olympus!! My printer is down, and to intelligently engage I would need to copy off the comments and study more comprehensively so as not to embarrass myself amongst the Gods! This is a compliment to you guys. And don't worry, I'm secure. But I was inspired by reading snippets of yours over at

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/paul_j_cella/2006/nov/17/neighbors_and_pat...,

and so, I wanted to try and personalize part (not the TS imperialist designs on liberating Shanghai just yet, but) of what you guys have so eloquently dissected....

(end RS)

Yes, Paul, at its base, patriotism is the manifestation of many kinds of love; a desperation born of mortality to be reconciled with God; and the desire that one's mortal life have an immortal importance by being a part of something that he was part of and that others will be part of in a similar way.

Only people that love their life will fight others to save their life. And by life, I don't just refer to a man's physical well being. No, a man's life includes the other people that he participates in life with, that he influences and that influence him. People that think in the same general way. people that he is bonded with in a style of living in which they revere the same things.

I have always been an American exceptionalist that loved America from the First Grade till today. I have always been patriotic. I shed tears upon hearing the National Anthem, speeches quoting the Founders, Lincoln, FDR, etc.

But the patriotism I had before 911 doesn't compare to the patriotism I feel to my bones everyday post 911. The patriotism I feel now, is akin to the way one's feelings about one's parents changes over time after when they die. At some point you are shocked and stunned in a very desperate way with the fact of who they were, how so very precious and important they were, and how much they loved you, and you can hardly bear the fact that you can't repay it more now that you realize just how important they were.

My parents were both passed away before 911. Mother when I was 17, but Dad, just a few years earlier. To not be able to talk to Dad and watch ballgames was already a source of great pain, but then to not be able to see him now.

And then it struck me. I looked around at America in a whole new way, especially those in my communities and State, but also the whole country. I saw the country that my Mom and Dad lived and died in and left their mark upon. I was one of their marks, and this was my country. And Others wanted to destroy my country. To cause my Dad to die all over again. To cause all of us and all we have been, are and will be, to die, utterly, and forever.

The Cold War was never real to me. Probably because I was in a Carter-like liberal denial. After my conservative epiphany, though, when I read many books about Reagan and what he faced, I now realize how dangerous was the world I sleepwalked thru while Reagan won the war.

But on 911 and after, it really hit me just how much I loved this country and would do anything to preserve it for posterity. I thought back to a College Professor that I didn't understand at the time. He would tear up talking about sitting on the banks of the Panama Canal watching our Boys go to fight Japan after Pearl Harbor. I didn't understand then. I was a young spoiled American that just took all this for granted. WWII was history and it had to be that way....

Well, when the WTC towers fell, I knew that things would be like they would be only if we fought and won. And what was to happen post-911 wasn't in a history book.

It was and is in us. George W Bush is one of us, and he has in him what many of us have in us. Hopefully a majority. I am confident it is a strong majority. But there is a string minority that does not have in themselves what Bush and I and Millions have that will not let us ever stop fighting to save this country, and that is a love so deep that to live is to love this country.

Yes, TS, Cella, Johne, and others, it is first an emotion. It is THE emotion. The emotion that animates a man to want to live. That cares about his fellow man. After the fall, and more specifically, after man united under one government totally alienated from God living in pure evil, God separated man into nations so that evil would not compound exponentially. So that nations could check each other and not be as likely to think himself God.

So it is God's plan that men look after themselves in groups that take care of themselves first and protect themselves from others. For when man is not so separated, he is less able to see God.

Patriotism is really a barometer to determine if a man is truly alive in God's world. Is a man's life connected with others or is he an Island to self?

This patriotism I have post-911 is different in kind from what it was pre-911. I think about this love everyday. And I guess it explains my complete and total contempt for people that show that they do not love this country by what they say and do. They say they love this country, but what they really love is themselves and an imaginary country that never was and never will be. They are not connected to our people by love. No. They are connected to us and this land, more like a Scientist is to guinea pigs, or doctors to patients, or a hotel patron to the Hotel staff, or curious ex-patriots from Utopia nation. We just don't measure up to them. they just can't accept that this is as good as it gets. They hate life because they are surrounded by Neanderthals compared to them. they hate their parents for not fixing the world before they were born into it. They reject the notion that man cannot perfect himself thru social structure. They reject the notion that war is ever necessary. Send a few detectives to Tora Bora.

It is people like theses that look at 5000 years of history in which there has always been war and in which civilizations like them fell to barbarians, and yet come away clueless and in denial. If only people would just do right, then I might could love them...

Well, they wait to love and so are not prepared to fight.

And if we are to preserve this nation we love, we will have to defeat the Left just as surely as we have to defeat the Jihadists.

God Bless America

(Still thinking TS about whether I'm in for liberating China! smile - But I am a neo-con, and cannot imagine that after liberating oppressed peoples from tyrannical regimes posing a threat to us, that I wouldn't share America The Book with the liberated and help them be Connecticut!)

GC also writes for www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

OK, I made the last part up.

But, I haven't been able to find ONE elected Republican who thinks that it is inappropriate for Steny Hoyer to serve as a House leader despite his not one, but two racist comments denigrating Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who is Black.

The Caucasian Hoyer, who called Steele a "token" in 2002, described him as "slavishly supporting the GOP" when campaigning for his White opponent during October.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/10/18/132551.shtml?s=ic

But its worse than "just that."

See Malkin excerpt from before the Election:

Hoyer didn't just innocently use the word in ordinary conversation. He employed it during a comedy routine in front of a crowd of mostly black business owners:

[Democrat Senate candidate Ben] Cardin, a dry and detailed-oriented career legislator, was upstaged at his Upper Marlboro event Sunday by the irrepressible Rep. Steny Hoyer, who did a comedy routine about the event’s host, Cool Wave Water, and told the audience that Steele had had “a career of slavishly supporting the Republican Party.”

Why would it be funny if not for the sneering, racist implications? Hoyer is the number two Democrat in Congress. He knew what he was doing: pandering. Hoyer now claims disingenuously that no insult was intended. Bull. In the past, Hoyer has derided Steele as a "token." Black Democrats in Maryland have no problem with smearing Steele as an "Uncle Tom."

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006141.htm

Why doesn't the GOP, a party founded for the purpose of abolishing slavery, denounce Hoyer and demand he step down like they did Lott, if for no other reason than to to defend their own candidate? A white Democrat directs racial slurs at a Black Republican and the GOP is silent.

The GOP is usually silent when a spine is required. Silence. the sound of a content minority.

What must a white democrat do or say to Blacks before the GOP would take notice? Use the "N" word in public? Throw an Oreo cookie at them?

I doubt even that would move them. After all, Steny is their honorable friend. And he's a "reasonable" man. A guy they can deal with. Not like that Murtha character.

I have found no evidence that Murtha has ever denigrated black people. I guess Steny will tell better jokes in conference committees.

Does the GOP have ONE man with courage? Because if we do, you know...

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

To read the very interesting full debate on this racial issue at Redstate, where this blog was originally posted, click here.

A civil/criminal trial lawyer for two decades in federal and state courts throughout the South and presently Vice-President of a multi-state real estate investment firm headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Mike DeVine a/k/a Gamecock was a SC Democrat party activist, official and delegate for 20 years, until his June 2001 conservative epiphany that led him to leave the Jack Asses of the World's Oldest political party to embrace the Elephants' never forget Party of Lincoln and Ronaldus Magnus.

GC also blogs for www.race42008.com.

This blog entry originally posted on Redstate and was inspired by pagar's endorsement  just after a chickenhead explosion and just before this rooster concluded it was owed to the RS and TH public. It is submitted as a possible alternative explanation, not as a refutation of the other thoughtful surmises on Redstate or Townhall such as Dan McLaughlin's.

FTR, I am a great admirer of Rumsfeld and think that thanks to his strategies and leadership, never have our enemies been so decimated, our security so enhanced, so many living in tyranny been liberated in so short a time and at so low a cost by any military in history. Rumsfeld and Bush are known in liberated Afghanistan and Iraq by the vast majority of the gratefully liberated (most of whom have been blackballed from MSM appearances) as "The Liberators," as the history of the Muslim and Arab worlds will also remember them long after Pinch is pinched with death taxes.

I am wholly unconvinced that Rumsfeld's resignation on any particular date in the past would have helped the GOP keep their majorities or that the media spin on why his resignation occurred when it occurred has any basis in reality.

I suspect that Rummy, soon to be the longest serving DOD in history, has wanted to leave the post for the normal reasons his predecessors did for quite sometime, but that he has stayed in order to make sure that our enemies not be emboldened that his resignation is a sign the President is losing the will to fight and that the Dems would gain power. Once the Dems gained power, the goal of thwarting the Dems alliance with America's enemies was unachievable. Resigning right away limits the negative press by being in the same cycle as the Dem wins.

I am confident that had Rummy resigned during the campaign that it would have hurt the GOP more. Bush and the GOP have failed utterly in selling a most sell able war. That is the major reason they lost power. Well, not really. The main reason is the YEAR SIX phenomenon of built up grievances. The problem is that the conservative movement is still relatively young, and so we don't have the built up large majorities like the Dems had over their 40years. The GOP will re-gain the majority. The Dem party will make sure of that.

I also suspect that most of the work in Iraq requiring over 100,000 troops is largely done but that Bush's main goal is to make sure that when they begin with withdrawal it not be seen as a defeat like the Dems have tried to ensure. I think the Baker Commission will be the cover. It will cite the sterling achievements. The Dems cynical timetable ala Murtha actually coincided with the Bush's plans all along. But the Dems goal is that America be humiliated in the world.

See also Fred Barnes' "There's Still Life in that Lame Duck":

excerpt:

"With Rumsfeld's resignation, Bush demonstrated his willingness to make major concessions. Rather than change the strategy in Iraq, he changed the strategist. This is not the first step in a disguised retreat from Iraq, Bush aides insist, nor does it represent a turnover of national security policy to the "realists," as opposed to an idealist like Bush, who ran foreign affairs under Bush's father. The president told Rumsfeld's successor, Bob Gates, the goal is still to create a stable democratic Iraq that can defend itself--in other words, victory."

read the whole thing

And read Bush's comments on the war in his pre-election interview with conservatives in the Oval Office and I think we should conclude that Bush will never stop defending us and will not betray our purple-fingered allies in Iraq nor our troops.

How many times have we worried that Bush would waver and weaken on the war due to his silence or media spin and speculation? Yet he has never wavered. Never.

And The Decider won't ever quit before Inauguration Day, 2009.

www.race42008.com

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

cross-posted at http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock

FNC was a breath of fresh air for conservatives when it was founded a little over 10 years ago, and remains more breathable than any other MSM news network on cable or broadcast. The contrast between the way it covered the news and the rest of the MSM was stark in its respect for conservative ideas and its scrutiny of liberal conventional wisdom.

But unlike its critics claim, FNC has never come anywhere close to the advocacy journalism engaged in by the rest of the MSM, unless one considers being patriotically for One's own country as it wages war against Islamo-Facist terrorists and Baathist-Fascist mass murdering terror-sponsoring regimes to be improper "advocacy"?

Fox prides itself on being "fair and balanced," and compared to the MSM, it is, whatever "fair and balanced" means beyond having Combs eat up Hannity's valuable time.

However, given the recent spectacle of the MSM's grossly biased behavior as a 527 adjunct of the Democrat party during the recent campaign and their historical bias for the Democrats in varying degrees since the 1960's, America needs FNC to be the "balance" against the MSM for the sake of Jefferson's imperative that democracy cannot succeed absent an informed electorate.

How could Fox perform a balancing role and maintain their fairness and integrity?

Why not have a program fashioned after Brent Bozell's MRC, Newsbusters and Hot Air, and display the lunacy of the MSM as well as their factual inaccuracies and lack of similar treatment of democrats and republicans in similar situations?

Why not have a program that explores what patriotism meant to our founders and to Americans during previous wars?

Why not have a program that dissects liberal myths such as the Wall of Separation, McCarthyism, the unheroic 60s hippies, the noble cause in Vietnam and the carnage the Dems wrought with their activism, etc.

Why not cover Congress like a campaign commercial with a truth detector review?

Why not provide a regular forum for conservatives to advance their cause without being constantly interrupted by an emotional substanceless Democrat?

Why not occasionally deciding for themselves what is news instead of letting the NYT decide for them?

If this country is going to have a chance to staunch the Slouching Towards Gomorrah, modern day Liberalism, of the kind that Europe is dying from, the Democrat Party is sick with and which has given the GOP a rash, must be fought and weakened if not defeated outright.

We must have a public that hears the truth told in English and not the Orwellian 1984 PC speak of the MSM.

The MSM planned October surprises to divert the attention of the American people from the issues and Fox followed along with its nose up the MSM-Foley butt.

It has got to be tough on conservatives in the beltway. They are surrounded by stupid liberals that they want to be friends with, which makes it harder to call them stupid. But the MSM libs have no problem calling us racists, starvers of the old, the poor and the children, warmongers and religious kooks. And too many conservatives just smile and grit their teeth. This kind of go along get along crap will lead either to the fall of America or a bloody Civil War.

Can anyone doubt after the spectacle on the MSM in campaign 2006 and the behavior of the Dems and the MSM since soon after the invasion of Iraq, that the liberals are a clear and present danger to defeating our enemies abroad and maintaining the values necessary to our domestic strength?

Orwell feared an all powerful State. He had it half right. The Media is imposing 1984 on the State. We must have an ally in the milieu from whence the threat is borne.

Conservatives must own and use television media to combat the MSM political party, so dubbed by Howard Fineman and other honest liberal MSM reporters.

originally posted at www.race42008.com

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan