Gay Patriot Header Image

The War On Terror Isn’t New….

YouTube Preview Image

This is a great advertisement I saw on cable TV over the weekend.  I literally stopped what I was doing because it caught my attention immediately.   I first thought it was a guy running for office.  Since the McCain-Feingold incumbent protection clause has gone into effect, I guess these are the only kinds of ads that third-party groups can run before Election Day.

This one is great.  You can download it from the Progress For America website.  I also encourage donations to this very good organization.

PS — Thanks to our Webmaster Jay for allowing GayPatriot to “go video” now!!!  (Bruce the techno-moron couldn’t figure out how to do it!)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Chris Wallace’s Hit Job…On Rumsfeld?

I would think Bill Clinton is really cursing Al Gore right now for inventing the Internet.  Clinton’s rash of lies in his meltdown with Chris Wallace are really coming back to haunt him as the actual facts of history emerge.

The debate in the blogosphere has moved to the topic of whether Clinton exploded in rage on purpose — as a rallying attempt for Democrats.  If so, he should have been very careful about his loose use of factual evidence and his hyperbolic rantings about “right-wing conspiracies.”

For example, Clinton’s charge that Chris Wallace was only targeting him with tough questions about al-Qaeda and not anyone in the Bush Administration….

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked why didn’t you do anything about the Cole. I want to know how many you asked why did you fire Dick Clarke.

Wallace replied that such questions had been asked. Clinton replied: “I don’t believe you asked them that.”

…. isn’t holding up under the light of the information age

Here’s what Wallace asked Clinton today:

[H]indsight is 20 20 . . . but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

And here is what Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld on the March 28, 2004 episode of Fox News Sunday:

I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?

What do you make of his [Richard Clarke’s] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?

Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.

And this look back at this 1998 column (following the twin Embassy bombings) from The Weekly Standard shows that far from thinking Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden (as he stated with Chris Wallace), many conservatives believed he wasn’t doing enough to confront this growing threat.

Does the administration actually grasp the nature of the threat we face? Following the August 20 retaliatory strikes, secretary of state Madeleine Albright and national security adviser Samuel Berger rejected the predictable “wag the dog” accusations with solemn admonitions that, in terrorism, the United States has suddenly been confronted with a “new war” — one we would now have to be prepared to fight, alone if necessary. (GP Note: ALONE, if necessary!!!  Berger and Albright.  1998.  But now they want the world to love us.  How hypocritical.) 

This was exceedingly curious. There is nothing at all “new” about radical Islam’s terrorist war against the United States. It has been going on since the late 1980s. It has been openly declared since the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center in Manhattan, which killed six, injured over a thousand, and caused nearly $ 1 billion in damage. Its leaders, moreover, have been promising for more than five years that in pursuing this war, they would kill American civilians and bomb American military installations and embassies overseas….

Such an adversary will not be defeated by the techniques the president recommended at the U.N. — increased international cooperation in the prosecution and extradition of terrorists. These are necessary steps, but breathtakingly inadequate. A military threat calls for a military response….

In the main, international terrorism is a military problem, not a criminal-justice issue.

Two more Clinton lies from his conspiracy theory-driven FOX News meltdown are debunked.  Was it really smart of Clinton to open up this can of worms?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Leading Political Indicators Showing GOP To Hold Congress

I’ve been holding off on this posting since Labor Day.  I didn’t want to get ahead of the curve.  But I also couldn’t help remembering all summer that the predictions of the Dems’ “landslide” (aka 1994) were quite premature and very reminiscent of similar talk in the summer of 2002 and the summer of 2004.  

You may recall those elections produced historic wins for a sitting President’s party, including the first President to garner over 50% of the vote since 1998.  (Bill Clinton isn’t on that list).

But the evidence has grown to the point that it is hard for any rational (i.e. – non-Bush hating Liberal) to avoid it.  The Democrats have squandered their best chance to take control of Congress since 1994 and I do believe — as I have felt all summer, actually — that the Republicans will hold both the House and Senate.

The latest leading political indicator — a new Gallup Poll on Congressional preference. (Hat tip:  Wizbang Politics)

The Democrats’ yearlong lead among likely voters has evaporated, strengthening Republican chances of holding majority control in the House, according to the Gallup Poll.

Gallup’s latest survey of voters who say they will go to the polls Nov. 7 showed the contest is a “dead heat” between those who say they will vote Republican (48 percent) and those who say they intend to support Democrats (48 percent). The poll of 1,003 adults was conducted Sept. 15-17. 

Democrats continue to maintain an advantage among registered voters; however, pollsters consider likely voters to be a more accurate measurement of the electorate’s preferences. The neck-and-neck estimates suggest the Republicans have the potential to offset the Democrats’ lead “with greater turnout,” Gallup said last week in an analysis of its findings. 

“Should that result persist until Election Day, it suggests Republicans would be able to maintain their majority-party status in the House,” Gallup said.

The Congressional preference polls have also historically shown that they skew Democrat, and as long as the GOP is within 4 or 5 that really means they are ahead.

Prospects for the Dems to take control of the US Senate have always been weaker this year than for the House.  The chances for a Senate control flip are getting even worse as we get closer to November 7.  New Jersey and Maryland are seriously in play and most political observers say it would be near impossible for the Dems to take control of the Senate if they lose either.

To give you an idea of why this is happening and why Republicans will continue to control Congress for many years to come, you only need read a great new book that I’m halfway into:  Voting to Kill:  How 9/11 Launched The Era of Republican Leadership by Jim Geraghty.  I’ll be doing a full-review when I’m finished.  It is outstanding so far and a very quick read!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Clintons See Right-Wing Conspiracies Everywhere!

I didn’t realize that blaming the amorphous “right-wing conspiracy” was actually a pattern with Bill and Hillary Clinton.  The Clinton Meltdown on FOX News Sunday is just the latest example apparently.

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post cites another.  Note the similar language and hostile tone Clinton takes with the late Peter Jennings (hardly a right-wing tool).

Clinton has on occasion scolded other interviewers, most notably in a 2004 sitdown with ABC’s Peter Jennings, who drew this response after alluding to Clinton’s personal misconduct: “You don’t want to go here, Peter. . . . Not after what you people did and the way you, your network, what you did with Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every, little sleazy thing he leaked.”

This was all started, of course, by Mrs. Clinton (as First Lady) creating the phrase “vast-right wing conspiracy” on NBC’s “Today” program.  Mrs. Clinton was defending her husband against “false” charges of having an affair with an intern (which in all other cases is also sexual harrassment).  Her husband did nothing wrong! (she said).  It was all a vast-right wing conspiracy.  And once again, the language used by her and her husband are very similar.

“I do believe that this is a battle,” the first lady said.

“Look at the very people who are involved in this. They have popped up in other settings. The great story here for anybody willing to find it, write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president,” Mrs. Clinton said.

The first lady called the sex and perjury allegations swirling around her husband part of an effort “to undo the results of two elections.”

She was wrong to believe him, wasn’t she?   Weren’t we all?

How interesting that Bill Clinton’s finger-wagging moments are never ever his fault.   But everyone else.  The neo-cons, the mysterious “right wing” conspiracy.  ABC News.  FOX News.  Ken Starr.  The CIA.  The military.

I found it most interesting in Clinton’s breakdown with Chris Wallace that he said “I have never criticized President Bush.”  Well, that is an outright lie.  I sat there watching him explode and thinking:  “How classless.  I can’t imagine President Reagan acting like this.  He looks more like Nixon.”

What a very pathologically disturbed couple.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)