It was 55 years ago this evening, at 10:04 pm, that a bolt of lightning hit the Hill Valley Courthouse. Thanks to the work of Dr. Emmett Brown, 1.21 gigawatts of electricity was harnessed from the lightning and directed into the time-traveling DeLorean allowing Marty McFly to return to 1985.
Ed Morrissey sums it all up nicely over at HotAir.
Rasmussen’s new poll, taken before the release of June’s unemployment numbers, shows significant slippage for Barack Obama on the economy, his central issue. Only 42% of American voters give him excellent or good marks on handling the economy, the lowest ratings he has yet received. His personal approval rate has fallen to 53%.
The demographics of his decline portend more bad news for Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress. Only the youngest voters support him on fiscal policy, and only barely, 52%-46%. Every other age demographic above 30 years of age has majorities now showing disapproval. Independents have begun to run away in massive numbers; they now oppose him 75%-23%, a huge break away from Obama and a sign that his supposed moderate stances have been exposed as shams. Every income level except the lowest also has majorities disapproving of his handling of the economy. Voters outside the “political class” oppose Obama 65%-33%.
Obama doesn’t fare well on national security, either. Rasmussen reports that Obama only has 44% approval on these issues, and 55% opposing him. Majorities of both women and men view him disfavorably. Every income level has majorities opposed to Obama, and independents disapprove 68%-31%. Obama only wins within the $60K-$75K income level; even his base of support among the lowest income earners narrowly reject Obama’s national-security policies, 52%-47%.
Obama isn’t just coming back to Earth in the polling. He’s losing independents and demonstrating his radical bent on policy, and more and more Americans have begun to see it.
Perhaps the grown-ups in America are waking up before it is too late. The awakening will only increase over the July 4th weekend as talk of our shared economic disaster will trump Michael Jackson around the patio.
Is it 1979 again??? 10% unemployment. Americans being taken hostage by Islamists. President coddles dictators.
How depressing.Â From Kim Preistap at Wizbang.com:
I guess we can take War on Terror off of the Wizbang category list as Barack Obama has determined that we should no longer aggressively pursue our enemies and has put an end to the War on Terror with his executive orders. He insists of course that counter terrorism efforts will continue, but they sound purely defensive.Â It sounds like he will respond after we are attacked instead of aggressively preventing an attack.Â I may be misinterpreting that, but when he halts all efforts to find the terrorists who who are plotting against us before they attack, I’m not sure what else you’d call it.
Kim is referring to this Washington Post article from last Friday.
President Obama yesterday eliminated the most controversial tools employed by his predecessor against terrorism suspects. With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the “war on terror,” as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless.
Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military’s Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration’s lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.
I never thought I’d think this, but perhaps the two friends I lost in the terror attacks of 9/11 have, in fact, died in vain.
That said, if the USA is attacked nowÂ – the fault clearly will lie in the lap of President Obama who has moved us back to the Clinton Era of Denial and political correctness in the face of a declared war on the US by the jihadists.
Say what you want, at least President Bush kept our nation safe.
UPDATE (from Dan): Remember in the first debate when John McCain proposed to “spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs” in order to compensate for the then-massive outlays for the bailout?
Obama countered that the “problem with a spending freeze is you’re using a hatchet where you need a scalpel.” Isn’t that what he’s doing now, using a hatchet instead of a scalpel?
Six more bodies were recovered from the rubble of an Al-Qaeda den hit by a suspected US missile, pushing the death toll in two separate strikes to 21, security officials said Saturday.”Six bodies of local tribesmen were found in the rubble of the house which was destroyed in a US missile strike on Friday just outside the town of Mir Ali in North Waziristan district,” the official said.
On Friday officials said eight people including five foreigners — Pakistani officials use the term “foreigners” to describe Al-Qaeda militants — died in the missile strike at the house of a pro-Taliban tribesman near Mir Ali.
The strikes were the first under new US President Barack Obama and effectively dashed any hopes that Pakistani officials were nurturing that the new administration in Washington will halt such strikes.
Hours later another suspected US drone fired two missiles into a house in Wana, the main town in South Waziristan, killing seven people.
President Obama needs to go on trial as a war criminal as well as the rest of his blood-thirsty warmonger Administration.Â Congress needs to cut off funding for Obama’s War immediately.
No Blood For Terrorists!
Familiar with the case of Ezra Levant? Of course not… CNNABCNBCNYTIMES won’t bother to highlight this case of Canadian political correctness gone bad.
In February of 2006, the Western Standard magazine, of which I was publisher, reprinted the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. We were immediately hit with two “human rights complaints”. These are a strange species of lawsuit, inimicable to Western liberal traditions of rule of law and freedom of speech. A real court would have thrown these complaints out as baseless, but Alberta’s human rights commission has proceeded. Friday was the day of my interrogation. I videotaped it.
Suppression of freedom of speech and criminalizing different points of view. Right out of the handbook of Pelosi, Reid & Clinton, I’d say.
Or at least their pesky religious traditions (how inconsiderate of them).
In a campaign that has spread like wildfire across the Internet, a group of Israeli environmentalists is encouraging Jews around the world to light at least one less candle this Hanukka to help the environment.
The founders of the Green Hanukkia campaign found that every candle that burns completely produces 15 grams of carbon dioxide. If an estimated one million Israeli households light for eight days, they said, it would do significant damage to the atmosphere.
“The campaign calls for Jews around the world to save the last candle and save the planet, so we won’t need another miracle,” said Liad Ortar, the campaign’s cofounder, who runs the Arkada environmental consulting firm and the Ynet Web site’s environmental forum. “Global warming is a milestone in human evolution that requires us to rethink how we live our lives, and one of the main paradigms of that is religion and how it fits into the current situation.” (Jerusalem Post)
Um… if we can’t call environmental extremism a faux religion, will its adherents at least keep their noses out of our faith traditions?
Bonus points to the first MSM outlet that solicits the views of Iranian President Ahmadinawhatevertheheck about this…
UPDATE: Ok, this one gets bonus points for originality as we finally have something that both liberals and conservatives can get behind: Divorce Wrecks Environment Too! Of course the caveat for sosh cons is that this is also an argument for legalizing same-sex marriages (keeping the ol’ “conserve water, shower with a friend” concept in mind): “Save the plant, let gays marry!”
– John (Average Gay Joe)
Those of us that have excellent mental health knew from the beginning that The New Republic’s “Baghdad Diarist” stories stunk to high heaven.
Franklin Foer, editor of TNR and chief anti-US military propagandist for the Wacko Left blogosphere FINALLY admits it: IT WAS ALL MADE UP BY SCOTT THOMAS BEAUCHAMP. (…with the usual leftist double-speak and critic assassination thrown in for good measure, of course.)
[GP Ed. Note: After 13 pages of ridiculousness, we get the following...]
For the past four-and-a-half months, we’ve been reluctant to retract Beauchamp’s stories. Substantial evidence supports his account. It is difficult to imagine that he could enlist a conspiracy of soldiers to lie on his behalf. And they didn’t just vouch for him–they added new details and admitted gaps in their own knowledge. If they were simply lying to protect him, they likely wouldn’t have alerted us to Beauchamp’s Kuwait mistake. Furthermore, our conversation with Cross confirmed important underlying premises–the existence of bones, Bradleys running over dogs.
But, after our re-reporting, some of our questions are still unanswered. Did the driver intentionally run over dogs? Did he record his kills in a little green notebook? We’ve never been able to reach the driver. And Beauchamp told us that he’d procure a page from the notebook, but that has not materialized. This is a plausible anecdote, and several soldiers in Beauchamp’s unit had heard stories about dog-hunting, but only one had actually seen the driver Beauchamp wrote about intentionally hit dogs. He is one of Beauchamp’s friends, and, over the course of a number of e-mail exchanges with him, our faith in him has diminished.
Who said the following statement this week?
It suffices as evidence of this your entering of this war and your excusing of American soldiers from being held to account by the European courts. For this reason, this address of mine is to you, not to your politicians, as it is no longer a secret that Blair, Brown, Berlusconi, Aznar, Sarkozy and those with him and their like love to shade themselves in the shade of the White House. And there isn’t a major difference worth mentioning between them and many of the leaders of the Third World.
A – Cindy Sheehan
B – Nancy Pelosi
C – Osama bin Laden
D – Harry Reid
E – Dick Durbin
F – John Kerry
G – John Murtha
H – Hugo Chavez
Hard to tell, eh? The answer is C – Osama bin Laden…. but you would hardly know for sure, would you?
OMG! How could I forget?!? According to that paragon of objectivity and unbiased reporting, Al Jazeera, today is the 28th annual “Death To America” Day in Iran! Now as one of the minions of the Great Satan I should know this, but alas like the typical dumb American I just don’t remember. So, are we supposed to wear any special clothing? Your basic black I guess, with the appropriate exploding accessories? Do I need to buy presents for the good little jihadis and if so, what? Hmm…perhaps a nice family visit where all the loved ones gather around the table and chant “Death to America!”. It’s so hard to understand holidays from other cultures. Perhaps a video to celebrate would be enough:
And don’t forget: Death to America!
h/t Hot Air
– John (Average Gay Joe)
Osama bin Laden, October 22, 2007: “My mujahedeen brothers in Iraq, you are a people worthy of praise and flattery. You’ve done well to carry out a glorious duty by fighting the enemy.”
Um… I don’t think bin Laden was talking about “global warming” or “pesky alley cats” when he refers to “the enemy”. He’s talking about you and me… the USA and Western democracies.
“Do not be deluded by your power and modern weapons. Although they win some battles, they lose the war. Patience and steadfastness are better than them. What is important is the outcome.
We have been tolerant for 10 years in fighting the Soviet Union with our few weapons and we managed to drain their economy.
They became history, with God’s help. You should learn lessons from that.”
Meanwhile, back in Delusionville, USA…..
I suppose poor Nancy has never heard of Tehran, 1979. Or Beirut, 1983. Or New York City, 1993. Or Yemen, 2000. Or Bali, or London, or Madrid, or Islamabad, or Ankara for that matter.
I guess she simply hasn’t mastered those complicated war strategies of “multiple theatres and alliances.” Honey, you go to where the enemy IS. Not where they WERE.
Thank God for the Western democracies that Pelosi wasn’t a General in WWII. We’d have nuked the Japanese, yet be goosestepping across Times Square in brownshirts with red armbands.
Sorry I didn’t get this up earlier. You know, work…sleep….walking dogs….
THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp–author of the much-disputed “Shock Troops” article in the New Republic’s July 23 issue as well as two previous “Baghdad Diarist” columns–signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods–fabrications containing only “a smidgen of truth,” in the words of our source.
Separately, we received this statement from Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:
An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims.
According to the military source, Beauchamp’s recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military’s investigation. So as Beauchamp was in Iraq signing an affidavit denying the truth of his stories, the New Republic was publishing a statement from him on its website on July 26, in which Beauchamp said, “I’m willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name.”
The magazine’s editors admitted on August 2 that one of the anecdotes Beauchamp stood by in its entirety–meant to illustrate the “morally and emotionally distorting effects of war”–took place (if at all) in Kuwait, before his tour of duty in Iraq began, and not, as he had claimed, in his mess hall in Iraq. That event was the public humiliation by Beauchamp and a comrade of a woman whose face had been “melted” by an IED.
Nothing public has been heard from Beauchamp since his statement standing by his stories, which was posted on the New Republic website at 6:30 a.m. on July 26. In their August 2 statement, the New Republic’s editors complained that the military investigation was “short-circuiting” TNR’s own fact-checking efforts. “Beauchamp,” they said, “had his cell-phone and computer taken away and is currently unable to speak to even his family. His fellow soldiers no longer feel comfortable communicating with reporters. If further substantive information comes to light, TNR will, of course, share it with you.”
Just remember, we told you here first folks that this guy was a fraud and a liar. Now when, oh when, will The New Republic admit they goofed and apologize to the US military for this libelous liar who lied?
Oh yeah, and it would be nice if there were any liberal bloggers with any principle who would go after The New Republic. But I guess they are too busy looking for more fake stories to peddle to the masses.
Hey, at least a member of the House Democrat leadership finally admits that what is good for our troops and our national security is bad for his party.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party’s efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.
Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.
“I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us,” Clyburn said.
Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be “a real big problem for us.”
So good news and positive momentum in the War on Terror, Iraqi Theatre is…. “a real big problem” for Democrats.
Wow, what patriots they are. *sarcasm off*
It is absolutely amusing listening to Administration critics ranting about the ham-handed effort of White House officials to discredit a dishonest critic. Hillary Clinton thinks they were trying to “stifle dissent” while others claim they were trying to “smear” that disingenuous man (Joe Wilson) by telling the truth to reporters to rebut the distorted information he provided to the New York Times, both in comments to a columnist for that paper and in a piece he penned on his own.
Just yesterday that deceitful Democrat testified before the House Judiciary Committee (Via Ben Johnson via Instapundit). Doesn’t seem his ability to “dissent” has been stifled even as the accusations he made against the Bush Administration have been discredited (and here). Imagine if a Republican partisan, after his criticisms of a Democratic president had been shown to be false, being invited to testify before a congressional committee. The MSM would be in an uproar, but they seem to have uttered barely a peep at Mr. Wilson’s appearance yesterday.
In that appearance, he continued to blather on about “the deliberate deceptions” he still claims he disclosed, even as the Senate Intelligence Committee has long since made clear that he did no such thing.
Now this man, like so many on the left, is accusing the President of being involved in an “unseemly smear campaign.”
OK, where’s the smear?
While White House officials may have behaved in a clumsy manner in trying to make known the facts to counter Mr. Wilson’s deceptions, they did not provide false or misleading information.
Look, it’s one thing to criticize the president for his policies, but it’s quite another to distort the truth to allege his policies were criminal or his own actions had malicious intent. It’s a truly sad when dishonest men are invited to testify before a congressional committee and level false accusations against the president of the United States, particularly when those claims have long since been discredited.
I don’t know why the left remains so obsessed with accusing this Administration of practices (dishonesty and smear tactics) which seemed to be staples of the previous Administration. There are ample grounds to criticize President Bush and his team. Dishonesty and Smear Tactics, however, are not among them.
UPDATE (from GPW): Just realized that I had posted a piece with the exact same title nearly a year ago — on this very subject. Despite numerous revelations of his many deceptions, Mr. Wilson continues to spout the same silly nostrums which gained him fame (and perhaps fortune), but hopefully to an ever-shrinking audience.
President Sarkozy has fallen foul of intellectuals and critics who see his passion for jogging as un-French, right-wing and even a ploy to brainwash his citizens.
Attacks on Mr Sarkozy’s pastime, which he has made a symbol of his presidency, began on the internet as soon as he bounded up the steps of the Elysée Palace in shorts when he took office in May. That moment has become the icon of his hyperenergetic administration. The grumbling has now moved to television and the press.
“Is jogging right wing?” wondered Libération, the left-wing newspaper. Alain Finkelkraut, a celebrated philosopher, begged Mr Sarkozy on France 2, the main state television channel, to abandon his “undignified” pursuit. He should take up walking, like Socrates, Arthur Rimbaud, the poet, and other great men, said Mr Finkelkraut… (Times Online)
My, my how quickly “tolerance” and “diversity” get tossed out the window for political expediency by some leftist elites. We are told by many of these same people just how much the West is the source of all evil in this world, that we need to sympathize with and understand those who try and kill us (these poor dears provoked into such behavior solely because we are so eeeeevil of course), etc., etc., etc.
God The Entity Who Shall Not Be Named forbid that someone like Sakorksy actually enjoy some cardio exercise and a healthy – dare I say it? – lifestyle. No, rather than accepting such a benign alternative lifestyle we are informed that jogging is “undignified”, selfish “individualism” that cares nothing about the welfare of others, an “hypnotic” form of “media manipulation”, blah blah blah. If this tripe is the best they can sling at Sakorksy or anyone else who disagrees with their views, they’d best be prepared for a long season of being out of power. That jogging, of all things, makes these elitists go crazy speaks volumes about the vapidity of leftist ideology, or at least the intellectual bankruptcy of many of those who keep trying to pass off coprolite as being something other than pure crap.
– John (Average Gay Joe)
(h/t – Michelle Malkin)
Want to guess which state I’m two miles away from… that I’ll be spending a lot of time in… during the GOP Senate Primary next year?
Thanks to my co-blogger in crime Dan for forwarding me this column from the Jerusalem Post. (Dan, I’m surprised you didn’t take a crack at it first!)
It is a completely devastating and, most importantly, factual assessment of how Jimmy Carter can arguably be considered the “Father of the Iranian Revolution.” Brilliant!
The Left in America is screaming to high heaven that the mess we are in in Iraq and the war on terrorism has been caused by the right-wing and that George W. Bush, the so-called “dim-witted cowboy,” has created the entire mess.
The truth is the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of the leftist Jimmy Carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the Muslim world, the shah of Iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the ayatollah Khomeini.
Let’s look at the results of Carter’s misguided liberal policies: the Islamic Revolution in Iran; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (Carter’s response was to boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics); the birth of Osama bin Laden’s terrorist organization; the Iran-Iraq War, which cost the lives of millions dead and wounded; and yes, the present war on terrorism and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
When Carter entered the political fray in 1976, America was still riding the liberal wave of anti-Vietnam War emotion. Carter asked for an in-depth report on Iran even before he assumed the reins of government and was persuaded that the shah was not fit to rule Iran. 1976 was a banner year for pacifism: Carter was elected president, Bill Clinton became attorney-general of Arkansas, and Albert Gore won a place in the Tennessee House of Representatives.
In his anti-war pacifism, Carter never got it that Khomeini, a cleric exiled to Najaf in Iraq from 1965-1978, was preparing Iran for revolution. Proclaiming “the West killed God and wants us to bury him,” Khomeini’s weapon of choice was not the sword but the media.
The bottom line: Carter believed then and still does now is that evil really does not exist; people are basically good; America should embrace the perpetrators and castigate the victims.
Trust me, if we didn’t try to be “pithy” here I would have cut/pasted the whole article. It is a damning indictment of Jimmy Carter as the sellout of America that he was (and still is).
Jimmy Carter yesterday labeled President Bush’s policy of sidelining Hamas (a terrorist group) as “criminal.” Yet it is Carter’s criminal legacy that has left thousands of Americans dead in its wake since 1979.
Is it too late for Americans to demand a War Criminals trial for President Carter for creating the mess we are in today?
How about simply charging him with treason?
On May 8, 1991, in a room in the hotel from where I now write – then called the Excelsior but since converted into a ducks-marching-through-the-lobby member of the Peabody chain – Mr. Clinton is alleged to have sexually harassed Paula Jones. His initial refusal to settle the case Ms. Jones brought against him led to depositions, and those depositions eventually led to a young intern in a beret.
And you know the rest: a blue dress, the ham-handed attempt to impeach, hanging chads in Florida, four hijacked airplanes, Afghanistan, “W” landing in his green flight suit, Abu Ghraib, and our continuing, intractable mess in Mesopotamia.
It’s a long way from a sleepy capital city on the banks of the Arkansas River to chaotic sectarian slaughter along the banks of the Euphrates River a mere 10 years later, and a trip that cannot be made with fishing trawler. But apparently, a well-financed political fishing expedition will get you there.
Oh read the whole thing. It is priceless lunacy. This dude is a political science professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. (I guess the main Maryland Campus was too good for him?) Gee, I wonder if his students leave his classes hating America, hating the President and wishing Republicans and US military forces in Iraq were dead? Nah, I’m sure he keeps his personal political beliefs to himself in the classroom. (yeah, right)
I decided a response to Professor Schaller was in order. So I emailed him.
Wow. You have really drunk the Clinton Kool Aid.
How can you possibly weave your tale of the right-wing conspiracy to tie Mrs. Clinton’s land deal schemes in with the attacks of 9/11?
[GP Ed. Note - In my haste and astonishment, I failed to realize that in fact he never mentioned the land deals.... I guess I just assumed they were in his wild tale. My bad. But you get the point!]
You are one twisted soul, my friend.
Now if you were truly intellectually honest, you would admit that in 1997 we only THOUGHT things were honkey-dorey because the Clinton brigade was ignoring the threat posed by an organized, worldwide global Islamic terror movement. Four years later, and after many warnings and failed action by Clinton and his cronies, 3,000 Americans would be killed (not by the Bush Administration) but by a team of warriors from a worldwide global movement to destroy Western democracies.
Clinton let all of us down. So don’t kid yourself that 1997 was some great idyllic Garden of Eden. It was merely a window-dressed time of false economic growth and false sense of security produced by a man-child as President.
Finally, get some real journalistic balls and start reporting on the threat to all of us by the worldwide Islamic terror organizations.
You as a journalist, and I as a gay man, would be the first people beheaded if the Islamists were given the chance.
[GP Ed. Note - Also in my haste, I either promoted or insulted him by labeling him a journalist, rather than columnist/professor. Either way, a liberal professor would be high on bin Laden's chopping block.]
Think about that while you take another sip of your Clinton Kool Aid.
Yet again, an institution revered by the American Left, has voted to restrict free speech and further erode the human rights that liberal (small “l”) democracies are supposed to cherish and protect.
GENEVA (AP) – Islamic countries pushed through a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Council on Friday urging a global prohibition on the public defamation of religion—a response largely to the furor last year over caricatures published in a Danish newspaper of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.
The statement proposed by the Organization of Islamic Conference addressed what it called a “campaign” against Muslim minorities and the Islamic religion around the world since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States.
The resolution, which was opposed by a number of other non-Muslim countries, “expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations.”
It makes no mention of any other religion besides Islam, but urges countries “to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement and religious hatred, hostility, or violence.”
I’m sure there will be no demonstrations in the streets over this UN mandate by those who use their First Amendment to denegrate our President and our Armed Forces at the drop of a hat.
Will you be upset when the Leftist Thought Police on knocking on YOUR door to take more of your freedoms away?
Andrew Sullivan has discovered a new force in the universe. Those who commit acts of aggression are most certainly victims rather than criminals. In fact, Andrew is onto something very big here!!
It is actually more than excusing Iran for kidnapping British sailors against the Geneva Conventions because of the “Bush-Cheney torture regime.” No, in fact, Sully’s comparison can be taken to a more fundamental level. Everyone who does something wrong obviously has no ill intent of their own — they were just driven to extremes by examples they’ve seen in modern society. Let’s call it the “Sully Theorum.”
So the first test of the Sully Theorum is obviously this story from Germany:
Desperate mothers are being urged to drop their unwanted babies through hatches at hospitals in Germany in an effort to halt a spate of infanticides that has shocked the country.
At least 23 babies have been killed so far this year, many of them beaten to death or strangled by their mothers before being dumped on wasteland and in dustbins.
Police investigating the murders are at a loss to explain the sudden surge in such cases, which have involved mothers of all ages all over the country.
Why is it that so many on the left are so opposed to President Bush that they can’t acknowledge any of his accomplishments? It is as if they believe he is only capable of failure. And while we (just like most conservatives) have acknowledged his mistakes — and failures, his ideological adversaries refuse to admit that he has gotten a few things right, content are they to blather on about how he’s the worst president in U.S. history while twisting his record to fit their rhetoric.
Although the stock market has slipped in recent days, it is still considerably higher than it was when Bush took office. The economy continues to hum along, growing annually and creating new jobs while inflation remains relatively low. And we have captured or killed a number of leading terrorists, thwarting numerous plots to kill innocent civilians.
In the news this week, we learn of the role of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (long in U.S. Custody) in plotting the 9/11 attacks, in beheading “American journalist Daniel Pearl and [playing] a central role in 30 other attacks and plots in the U.S. and worldwide.” This terrorist’s confession is clearly a sign of success in the war on terror (or as our man Rudy puts it, terror’s war on us).
Yet, some on the left are so caught up in their hatred of President Bush that they show sympathy for a man who boasts of decapitating an American journalist, refusing to acknowledge that, under his leadership, we were able to work with our allies to capture this fiend and get him to admit to his involvement in numerous terrorist plots, many of which may well have been thwarted “as a result of his capture.”
Despite this man’s clear involvement in plots which killed (or planned to kill) innocent Americans, as 2006 blogress diva nominee Debbie Schlussel (via NewsBusters via reader Peter Hughes), Rosie O’Donnell is worried we will rob this creep “‘of all humanity’ because we call him a ‘terrorist.’” She suggests that he has been tortured at Guantanamo without any evidence to buttress her claims. Not only that, she notes that, after nearly four years in captivity, this thug finally confesses his sins, apparently unaware that he had been suspected of such involvement long before his 2003 capture.