Cheney comments on dirty Harry, video:

I usually avoid press comment when I’m up here, but I felt so strongly about what Senator Reid said in the last couple of days, that I thought it was appropriate that I come out today and make a statement that I think needs to be made.

I thought his speech yesterday was unfortunate, that his comments were uninformed and misleading.  Senator Reid has taken many positions on Iraq.  He has threatened that if the President vetoes the current pending supplemental legislation, that he will send up Senator Russ Feingold's bill to de-fund Iraq operations altogether. 

Yet only last November, Senator Reid said there would be no cutoff of funds for the military in Iraq.  So in less than six months' time, Senator Reid has gone from pledging full funding for the military, then full funding but with conditions, and then a cutoff of funding — three positions in five months on the most important foreign policy question facing the nation and our troops.

Yesterday, Senator Reid said the troop surge was against the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.  That is plainly false.  The Iraq Study Group report was explicitly favorable toward a troop surge to secure Baghdad.  Senator Reid said there should be a regional conference on Iraq.  Apparently, he doesn't know that there is going to be one next week.  Senator Reid said he doesn't have real substantive meetings with the President.  Yet immediately following last week's meeting at the White House, he said, "It was a good exchange; everyone voiced their considered opinion about the war in Iraq."

What's most troubling about Senator Reid's comments yesterday is his defeatism.  Indeed, last week, he said the war is already lost.  And the timetable legislation that he is now pursuing would guarantee defeat.

Maybe it's a political calculation.  Some Democratic leaders seem to believe that blind opposition to the new strategy in Iraq is good politics.  Senator Reid himself has said that the war in Iraq will bring his party more seats in the next election.  It is cynical to declare that the war is lost because you believe it gives you political advantage.  Leaders should make decisions based on the security interests of our country, not on the interests of their political party.

This is the kind of thing the Bush Administration should have been doing all along. When one of these Democrat America haters come up with this crazy stuff, they need to be called on it.
I can understand not wanting to cause any trouble, but the fact is when they do not call them on it, it makes The Administration look weak. Look at what they have done to the Attorney General for Heaven's sake, or Scooter Libby, etc....

I have said this before. Democrats only care about elections. Winning is everything, elections that is. They are prepared to lose a war to re-take the White House. I think they are "shooting themselves in the foot" on this one. Americans don't like to lose wars. America cannot afford to lose this one. This is not Vietnam, we are not fighting to help spread democracy here. We are fighting to defend our homeland from further attacks.

 First they bring about a bill that calls for proof of progress in Iraq. Now they say the people who would provide such proof are liars. Its all about getting re-elected.

For some reason they think the American people want to lose this war. That is not why the Republicans lost the election. They lost because they forgot the policies that put them in power.

This is good. Read the whole story here. The message for Reid:



yeah and i got a qoute for that d**che harry reid. these families need us here. obviously he has never been in iraq. or atleast the area worth seeing. the parts where insurgency is rampant and the buildings are blown to pieces. we need to stay here and help rebuild. if iraq didnt want us here then why do we have IP’s voluntering everyday to rebuild their cities. and working directly with us too. same with the IA’s. it sucks that iraqi’s have more patriotism for a country that has turned to complete sh*t more than the people in america who drink starbucks everyday. we could leave this place and say we are sorry to the terrorists. and then we could wait for 3,000 more american civilians to die before we say “hey thats not nice” again. and the sad thing is after we WIN this war. people like him will say he was there for us the whole time.



You have to admit, grunts know how to relay a message.

Fred offers a response to an article called Thompson's Tort Trouble, by Ramesh Ponnuru:

Adhering to the principles of Federalism is not easy. As one who was on the short end of a couple of 99-1 votes, I can personally attest to it. Federalism sometimes restrains you from doing things you want to do. You have to leave the job to someone else – who may even choose not to do it at all. However, if conservatives abandon this valued principle that limits the federal government, or if we selectively use it as a tool with which to reward our friends and strike our enemies, then we will be doing a disservice to our country as well as the cause of conservatism.

Read the whole link. I hope Fred is going to run.


Run, Fred, Run.

A college professor at Emmanuel College in Boston has been fired for re-enacting the Virginia Tech murders:



(WBZ) BOSTON A reenactment of the Virginia Tech massacre has caused some serious problems at a Boston school. According to a local paper, an Emmanuel College adjunct professor was fired after replaying the incident to prove his pro-gun view.

The Boston Herald reports that Nicholas Winset, 37, of Newton, received a letter by courier that informed him of his termination. During his reenactment, the paper said Winset, an adjunct professor of financial accounting, was trying to prove that if there were more guns in society, someone might have been able to stop the massacre.

Winset tells the paper the college's decision to fire him was pathetic and will affect the discussion of controversial issues at schools. Emmanuel College argues that "the well-being of our student body is a primary concern, and the action taken, which was to dismiss the adjunct faculty member, reflects this belief."

According to the Herald, Winset said he gave students a disclaimer before his replay of the Virginia Tech shooting.



Colleges are supposed to be a place to experience many different ideas. They can as long as they are liberal ideas.

He just makes sense:

The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.

 

Still, there are a lot of people who are just offended by the notion that people can carry guns around. They view everybody, or at least many of us, as potential murderers prevented only by the lack of a convenient weapon. Virginia Tech administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon onto campus.

 

In recent years, however, armed Americans -- not on-duty police officers -- have successfully prevented a number of attempted mass murders. Evidence from Israel, where many teachers have weapons and have stopped serious terror attacks, has been documented. Supporting, though contrary, evidence from Great Britain, where strict gun controls have led to violent crime rates far higher than ours, is also common knowledge.

 

So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university's "concealed carry" policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who have passed background checks and taken training classes. The university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure.

 

The logic behind this attitude baffles me, but I suspect it has to do with a basic difference in worldviews. Some people think that power should exist only at the top, and everybody else should rely on "the authorities" for protection.

 

Despite such attitudes, average Americans have always made up the front line against crime. Through programs like Neighborhood Watch and Amber Alert, we are stopping and catching criminals daily. Normal people tackled "shoe bomber" Richard Reid as he was trying to blow up an airliner. It was a truck driver who found the D.C. snipers. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that civilians use firearms to prevent at least a half million crimes annually.

 

When people capable of performing acts of heroism are discouraged or denied the opportunity, our society is all the poorer. And from the selfless examples of the passengers on Flight 93 on 9/11 to Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who sacrificed himself to save his students earlier this week, we know what extraordinary acts of heroism ordinary citizens are capable of.

 

Whenever I've seen one of those "Gun-free Zone" signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I've always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago.

Run, Fred, Run

I'm sorry, but I like the man. He is also the only one that can beat all democratic nominees. I let you decide. Read this, read it all:

* I asked him about his vote for the Iraq war and the Bush administration's failure to explain to the American public the real story of the prewar intelligence on Iraq. I ask Thompson how it is possible that a majority of the country believes the Bush administration lied about Iraqi WMD, when the U.S. intelligence community and the world consensus was that Saddam Hussein had these weapons.

"Part of it had to do with what has become almost a knee-jerk suspicion on the part of a lot of people with regards to anybody in authority," he says. And then he directly faults the Bush administration. "A part of it has been the administration's inability to sufficiently communicate the reality of the situation. It's not just the president. . . . You have to have an organized, pervasive ability to get your message across and rebut erroneous misstatements of the history. It is amazing to me how something like this could be perceived so erroneously by so many people. Because we all? know what the facts are. We've all seen the statements and the comments of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton, and the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, and the list goes on and on and on."

Thompson slips into sarcasm. "It is amazing to me how a man that they say is so dumb fooled so many real smart people. But that's what they're saying about Bush. Bush? canoodled the entire Democratic establishment. Absurd on its face, and yet some people want to believe that sort of thing."

Then he goes on to give a better defense of the White House than anything that has come out of the White House communications shop in four years.

The irony here is that intelligence services had consistently over the years understated the capabilities of enemies and potential enemies. Now, here there was unanimity among the intelligence services, some of whom are supposed to be better than ours. . . . People don't understand intelligence. They don't understand. It's seldom clear. It's often caveated. It's sometimes flat-out wrong. Different people often have different ideas. That's what a president is faced with. And some today would say that politically a president has got to have unanimity before he can make a choice. And then they say that if he has that unanimity, the president has to make that choice--at the same time talking about how deficient our capabilities are. But if those deficient capabilities produced a recommendation, the president of the United States and leader of the free world has to take that recommendation. That has been so faulty in the past. It's absurd. Presidents in the future, as always, have to make a determination based on a lot of things, and intelligence is one of them. And the president not only has the right to evaluate the intelligence that he's receiving, he has a duty to do that. He listens to the British. I mean, if history was any judge, I don't know about now, but if the Brits tell me that there's an [Iraqi] deal with Niger and our guys don't know whether there was or not, I tend to rely on the Brits. I mean, those are the calls the president's got to make, and the question is really: Which way do you want the president to lean? Caution--that it's probably not so? When bad news is delivered, he gets mixed messages, he gets various intelligence reports of various kinds. Did you want him all balled up in all of that, you know, trying to apply some kind of a scientific equation to it for fear that somebody in an intelligence committee is going to wave it around at a hearing later on or something like that? Is that what it's come to? If so, the world is going to be a lot more dangerous than it otherwise already is. You've got to exercise the authority and the responsibilities that you've been given. I mean, in this debate over intelligence and what it is and what it ought to be and how it's used and all of that, you know, [it] needs to be dealt with and laid out in a way that people can understand it. . . . The next report says somebody's got weapons of mass destruction, you know what're we going to do with that? You know, just because history--a cat won't sit on a hot stove twice, but he won't sit on a cold stove either.

* He is equally blunt about Iran. Thompson says that the actions of the Iranian regime--harboring senior al Qaeda leaders, funding and training Iraqi insurgents, supplying terrorists in Iraq with devices that are killing American soldiers--are acts of war. He stops short of calling for a military response, but seems to suggest that he would be saying something different if circumstances were different.

"Unfortunately, today it can't be considered in isolation, so you have to take into consideration our capabilities and our priorities worldwide right now. And unfortunately we're stretched too thin." Nonetheless, he says, the long-term objective in Iran is the same one that led to the Iraq war. "I think the bottom line with Iran is that nothing is going to change unless there is a regime change."

* In the days since Thompson allowed that he was thinking about running for president, his views on abortion have come under scrutiny. Thompson finds the news reports from his first run for Senate perplexing.

"I have read these accounts and tried to think back 13 years ago as to what may have given rise to them. Although I don't remember it, I must have said something to someone as I was getting my campaign started that led to a story. Apparently, another story was based upon that story, and then another was based upon that, concluding I was pro-choice."

But, he adds: "I was interviewed and rated pro-life by the National Right to Life folks in 1994, and I had a 100 percent voting record on abortion issues while in the Senate."

Darla St. Martin, associate executive director of National Right to Life, supports Thompson on those claims. She traveled to Tennessee in 1994 to meet with him. "I interviewed him and on all of the questions I asked him, he opposed abortion," she told the American Spectator's Philip Klein.

There is a lot more at the link. It's worth the time.

Run, Fred, Run!

Should Fred Thompson run, he will win the primary. This is because he can communicate with the American people, does not have a lot of  "excess baggage", and has the image required to be the President. He is not afraid to tell it like it is:

It's that time again, and I was thinking of the old joke about paying your taxes with a smile. The punch line is that the IRS doesn't accept smiles. They want your money.

So it's not that funny, but there is reason to smile this tax season. The results of the experiment that began when Congress passed a series of tax-rate cuts in 2001 and 2003 are in. Supporters of those cuts said they would stimulate the economy. Opponents predicted ever-increasing budget deficits and national bankruptcy unless tax rates were increased, especially on the wealthy.

In fact, Treasury statistics show that tax revenues have soared and the budget deficit has been shrinking faster than even the optimists projected. Since the first tax cuts were passed, when I was in the Senate, the budget deficit has been cut in half.




He speaks for himself:

One final footnote on Fred Thompson. It's a little thing, but it struck me and my executive producer Gary Schreier as we greeted him this week: He came alone.

Alone — no handlers, no enablers, no key people, no any people.

Just Fred, by himself.

And Gary and I are thinking, hey this guy is tracking sometimes second in GOP polls for president.

For president! Of the United States!!

And we're looking for his entourage, his hangers-on, you know, the guy who holds his briefcase.

Another, his cell phone, still another his coat.

Someone who polices his words, advises him on statements to the press.

Nope. No briefcase guy. Or cell phone dude. No policy wonk or statement checker.

No people at all.

Get this: I had more people than he had people.

You have to respect a man who calls it the way he sees it. You will not see many politicians do this. Politicians care about getting elected, period. Every decision is made in order to get re-elected. If they were doing their job, they would not have time to think about it. It they do their jobs good enough they will be re-elected. If they are not doing their jobs, they will try to make you think they are. I have heard about Fred not working hard enough when he was in the Senate. I think he was doing his job right the first time, so he did not have too work hard at convincing people he was doing so. After all it was his decision to leave the Senate. Should he have wanted to stay, he would not be called the "former" senator from Tennessee.


Run, Fred, Run

Matt Margolis has a great post up.

There are two key differences between Republicans and Democrats we can easily see from this opening statement. First, that Democrats define success as "surrender," and Republicans define success as "victory." The Second difference is that Republicans actually support our troops. Democrats, however, have to tell people over and over again that they support the troops, because their actions say the opposite.

If I tell you every day, for a year, I love onions. Not just like them.  I LOVE ONIONS!!!  I can't eat a meal without them.  But you notice, every time I eat a meal that has onions, I pick them out. Do I like onions? Or am I just saying that I love them?

I do love onions, by the way.

I DO SUPPORT THE TROOPS, too.

Someone finally did it.

NEW YORK —  The NFL has handed down its punishment and Titans cornerback Adam "Pacman" Jones will sit out the 2007 season.

Roger Goodell has informed Jones that he's being suspended without pay for violating the league's personal conduct policy and engaging in conduct detrimental to the league. The league also announced Chris Henry of Cincinnati is suspended for eight games.

The commissioner made his decision after reviewing the cases under the NFL's previous personal conduct policy and his longstanding authority to discipline for conduct detrimental to the NFL.

It's about time.

I think it is sad that so much attention has been given to this idiot. I must admit I have only heard a small amount of his rants. I found out pretty quick that, like Anna Nicole, I could care less. He will endure this outrage for a few weeks, then all will be forgotten. He is a liberal you know. 

Fred is blogging:

Oil prices fell. The stock market rose. Video images of smiling British soldiers with Iranian President Ahmadinejad were everywhere. So were pictures of the 15 freed hostages embracing family members back home. The relief over the return of the Brits was so tremendous; you could almost hear birds singing.

Maybe it's because military action won't be needed or maybe it's just because the ordeal won't drag on and on, but the world is breathing easier now. A lot of folks are happy. The problem, as I see it, is that Ahmadinejad seems to be the happiest.



“To misrepresent unpunished piracy as a victory is as Orwellian as the congressional mandate banning use of the term "the global war on terror." What are we — Reuters?”



Our next President?

I don't know what their code is. I do know what the code is for the US:

                                                                          I

I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.




I'm sorry. I tried to link this the usual way But was unable to. The site is: www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/code_of_conduct/the-code-of-conduct.shtml


This is one thing that has bugged me about the whole situation. I would expect to see these soldiers beat up. I served in the Navy, I would have to have the he** beat out of me before I would give anything but name, rank, and serial number. Then it would just be a few choice words. But I served in the US Navy. That was our orders.

This is what we need:


 

DALLAS  —  A Texas legislator wants to require the state's nearly 1,700 public school districts to teach the Bible as a textbook, "not a worship document."

The House Public Education Committee was set late Tuesday to consider — but not vote on — a bill by Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, mandating high schools to offer history and literacy courses on the Old and New Testaments. The courses would be elective.

The idea of teaching the Bible in school seems to be undergoing a revival nationally. Two literature classes on the Bible are included on a list of state-approved courses that Georgia public schools could choose to offer beginning next year. Some critics say it would be the first state to take an explicit stance endorsing and funding biblical teachings.

The Texas measure goes a step farther — requiring school districts to make such courses available, advocates on both sides agreed.

Our children need to learn about the Bible. A lot of the things my children bring home from school worries me. This would be the best thing that could happen. When I was in school we were taught about the Bible. I don't remember hearing about any shootings or stabbings. With all the negative things our children see, this would give them a chance to learn things that will help them become "better" people.

If this report is true it will lead to many more hostages:


 

BAGHDAD —  A senior Iraqi foreign ministry official said on Tuesday that the government was "intensively" seeking release of five Iranians detained by the U.S. military more than two months ago in northern Iraq.

"We are intensively seeking the release of the five Iranians," the senior official said.

"This will be a factor that will help in the release of the British sailors and marines" held by Iran since March 25.

It saddens me that we would allow Iran to get away with this:

The Iranian diplomat who was released on Monday was kidnapped in mysterious circumstances two months ago.

Iranian authorities reported the release of Jalal Sharafi, the second secretary at the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad, and said he would return to Tehran later Tuesday.

An official at the Iranian embassy confirmed Sharafi's release, but said he did not know who was responsible for freeing him.

Prepare for more of this kind of thing to take place. If they get by with it once, they are bound to try it again.