Friday, April 6, 2007

Pelosi's Grandstanding

Nancy Pelosi is to world diplomacy what Michael Jordan was to baseball: completely forgettable and unnecessary. But unlike Michael’s slightly amusing foray into the Babe’s world, there’s nothing funny about Pelosi in Damascus. The terrorists and their supporters, who are always looking for weak links and signs that the US does not have the will or backbone to win the war we’re fighting with them, just found a great ally in Madame Speaker.

Among the older members of my extended Syrian family, there was a general attitude that kindness equaled weakness. It wasn’t that they didn’t believe in charity, but that it must be parceled out carefully, because those of ill intent can be quick to take advantage of those they perceive to be gullible and soft. This is what Nancy Pelosi either doesn’t understand, or doesn’t care about: she’s being used by the very people who want to destroy us in another round of window dressing, subterfuge, and deceit. I suspect that Pelosi knows this, but is more intent on trying to undermine the President than in looking at how she could best support national security.

Let’s look at the record. Syria has admitted that it has financially supported Hezbollah and Hamas, but says that it doesn’t supply them with arms. What’s the difference? What do you think these groups buy with the money? How many Israeli and Lebanese men, women and children have been slaughtered because of Syrian backing of these groups? And who do you think Syria supports across the border in Iraq: our troops or the terrorists some blithely refer to as “insurgents”? Without the direct involvement of Syria and Iran, the current terrorism movement in Iraq would have considerably less groundswell.

Pelosi might respond that she’s aware of all that, but that she’s simply taking James Baker’s advice to talk with your enemies. Well, here’s the problem: Baker’s wrong. Talking to the Syrians has never accomplished anything. They correctly read the signs a long time ago that there would be no real consequences for continuing to support Arab and Islamic terrorist groups. And Pelosi has proven them right again: bend us and we will break.

This needs to stop. Syria and Iran need to know in a very real way that if they continue to support terrorism, they will experience the full wrath of the United States. And there cannot be any negotiating when it comes to this. Moammar Gadhafi —remember that boogeyman?—backed off when we bombed his palace in Libya. Gadhafi’s two-year-old adopted daughter died in that raid, which was a terrible tragedy, particularly since he was the one with blood on his hands, not her. Still, Gadhafi crawled back into his hole, and retreated even further when we invaded Iraq, making a public show of acquiescence to the US. He may be crazy, but he’s not stupid.

Syria and Iran need to be given fair warning to cease and desist all support of terrorist activities, prove they’re doing so, and if they don’t, be held to account.

Damascus and Tehran will continue to taunt and undermine us, and the UK, until they know they can’t. Assad would be a lot less likely to cut checks for terrorists if he knew it could cost him his job or his life. And the same is true of the little guy in the leisure suit over in Iran. This is what they both understand and respect: force, not treaties and tea.

And Pelosi would probably be adverse to hang out with these guys if she knew F-18s might be approaching. Charging her with treason in the meantime would be appropriate. If the Speaker of the House during the Vietnam War had broken bread with Cambodian leaders, the public would have demanded his resignation and the most severe punishment possible for such a crime. And yet when Nancy Pelosi sits down with our enemies’ collaborators, she’s given a pass, even praised by those who cheer on any action that goes against the President. Al Jazerra is probably her biggest fan right now, next to the New York Times.

The problem is she’s not just hurting the President, she’s betraying our troops, and everyone around the world at risk to terrorist attacks, which is most of us.

We should not let her get away with it. We need to hold Pelosi responsible for her actions, as well as Syria and Iran. The three of them have more than proven their status as enemies of the United States.

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

Marty gets a Limo!?

I'm so sick and tired of people making millions off tax payer dollars. If you thought Billy Bulger wasn't bad enough, check this out from Lowell. Marty Meehan gets a limo driver.

What's not covered for 'public officials' these days in this state? Do they get cooks? Do they get state-paid maids? You've got to wonder if we'll ever get to a point where enough is enough in this state. But herein lies the problem with socialism. When everyone is seemingly on the dole, don't expect anything to change.

Meehan's frivolous behavior is disturbing because this impacts the tax payer two-fold. It's reasons like this that college tuition is so high. Washington State University built the largest jacuzzi on the continent just to have it. Boat loads of tax payer dollars are forcefully taken from their hands and used to purchase 'needs' like limo drivers, Jacuzzis and build new hockey and basketball arenas for the sports teams. Dorms are falling apart and so are, that matter, the classrooms. College professors aren't seeing the money, either. Couple that with the fact that admissions standards are down to whether or not you have a pulse and the money, and there's really no reason for a college professor to give a crap. Milli0ns and billions of both tuition and tax payer dollars a year are wasted on Colleges and Universities. At least at Private Colleges, you know what you're paying into and making the choice based on the services provided. You pay tuition for UMass whether you like it or not.

Social droolers like Billy Bulger and Marty Meehan are all beginning to escape back into college life. There, they can steal as much as humanly possible from the tax payers and go relatively unnoticed. Stealing out in the open wasn't efficient enough, so now they're taking the gravy train under ground. Ask to see the budgets for many state colleges an universities. You'll be appalled. When guys like Marty and Billy see them though, they lick their chops.

Bulger walks off scotch free.

Voters in Massachusetts should be in an absolute uproar over this.

The US attorney's office let the clock run out this week on a federal grand jury in Boston investigating whether William Bulger had committed perjury or obstruction of justice, concluding that there wasn't enough evidence to seek indictments and take a case to trial, the sources said.

"Bill Bulger has been a political football for six years," his lawyer, Thomas R. Kiley, said yesterday.

Bulger, his wife, and children "have been through hell as a result of the focus on Whitey," Kiley said. "If they can get some peace that's a great thing."

US Attorney Michael J. Sullivan could not be reached yesterday, and his chief of staff, Robert Krekorian, declined to comment on the end of the investigation.

Whitey Bulger, 77, a longtime FBI informant, was warned by his retired FBI handler, John J. Connolly Jr., to flee shortly before his January 1995 federal racketeering indictment and has eluded authorities since. The international manhunt for the gangster, who is accused of 19 murders and is one of the FBI's 10 Most Wanted fugitives, alongside Osama bin Laden, has brought intense scrutiny to his family.

William Bulger, 73, of South Boston, who became president of the University of Massachusetts in January 1996, was pressured by Governor Mitt Romney to resign in 2003 after he was publicly grilled about his relationship with his gangster brother by a congressional committee investigating the FBI's mishandling of informants.

William Bulger told the committee that he didn't know where his fugitive brother was hiding and had not aided him in any way since he fled.

One law enforcement official said yesterday that investigators suspected William Bulger knew more than he was revealing and believed "if you put pressure on him, then potentially he or his family would give up where his brother is."


That's right, he's gotten away with all of it. I've never seen such a blatant miscarriage of justice perhaps ever. Billy Bulger is thumbing his nose at everyone today. Not only did he get off scotch free, he pocketed MORE money for his pension. How this guy's not in jail is an atrocity.

Monday, April 2, 2007

Hillary Sprinting Away From Hatred of Military

The epitome of fluff piece. Is this stuff even serious?

Of all the early problems Bill Clinton faced as president, few stand out to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as more frustrating and avoidable than his rocky relationship with the military, her advisers say.

During his 1992 campaign, Mr. Clinton was attacked for avoiding the Vietnam draft and organizing antiwar marches in the 1960s. After taking office, his early focus on gay men and lesbians in the military drew sharp criticism from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin L. Powell, and other officers. Even his ability to salute properly was called into question.

Mrs. Clinton, to use a phrase, has been practicing her salute. As a senator and now as a presidential candidate, she has cultivated relationships with generals and admirals, prepped herself on wartime needs and strategy, and traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan.

“I think eight years in the White House, traveling the world and seeing the United States military doing the nation’s business, and now her time in the Senate, has given her a significant appreciation of the military that maybe her husband didn’t have before the White House,” said Jack Keane, the retired general and former Army vice chief of staff who has become close to the senator.

For Mrs. Clinton, exhibiting a command of military matters is not just about learning from her husband’s experience. It could be vital to her, as a woman seeking to become a wartime commander in chief, to show the public that she is comfortable with military policy and culture — and with the weight of responsibility that accompanies life-and-death decisions.

It is also part of an effort to shed the image some voters hold of her as an antimilitary liberal, defined by her opposition to the Vietnam War and, now, by her criticism of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq.

Clinton must think the men and women in our military are as dumb as Rep. Charlie Rangel routinely makes them out to be if she honestly thinks she’ll ever win over a significant amount of military support. The military hasn’t forgotten the disdain for the armed services Bill and Hillary displayed while Bubba was Commander in Chief, nor will they forget that her husband dodged the draft during Vietnam. They also won’t forget her carefully crafted “If I knew then what I know now position on Iraq, a position she’s taken solely for political purposes aimed at catering to the nutroots left, in spite of her trying to soften her ton on the Iraq war a few months later.

Regardless, this picture tells it all:


US men and women serving might feel compelled by their superiors or bound by a sense of duty to take a picture with an opportunistic politician, but thankfully there is no coercion involved in going to the ballot box, where the military consistently votes around 65% Republican (something Democrats know to the point of trying to suppress their votes in 2000).

So, Senator Clinton, you might think building relationships with the military is something you can do for purposes of political expediency, but - as they say - you can run from your rocky relationship with the military but you cannot hide.

Romney Officially Makes Himself a Contender

Mitt Romney's fund raising totals almost equaled Hillary Clinton's. That's quite a feat considering her name recognition and the fact that she's got herself and a former US President to help raise money for her. Mitt's total ended up at around $25 million according to Mass live.

BOSTON (AP) — Republican Mitt Romney reported raising $23 million for his presidential campaign during the first three months of the year, shaking up the GOP field and rivaling the total reported a day earlier by Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Meanwhile, the Republican front-runner in the polls, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, said his donations totaled $15 million — including more than $10 million raised during March alone.

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a longshot GOP candidate, lagged far behind the two Republican money leaders, raising over $1.9 million, including a $575,000 transfer from his Senate campaign account.

Both the Romney and Giuliani totals blew away past party presidential fundraising standards, while Romney's figure put the former Massachusetts governor in competition with Clinton, the Democratic front-runner. The New York senator on Sunday reported raising $26 million between Jan. 1 and March 31.

"Facing opponents in an extremely competitive fundraising field who enjoy universal name identification and the clear advantage of existing networks of contributors, Gov. Romney's fundraising totals are indicative of the extraordinary success the campaign has had at building an organization and stirring excitement among grassroots activists responding to his message," said Romney spokesman Kevin Madden.

Rudy Giuliani did well for himself as well, raising near $15 million. Not too bad for the first quarter. We'll see how this stuff pans out, but it's obvious Mitt can talk the pants off a preacher.

Name, Rank Serial Number

Again, I don't much like to criticize people who get caught up in circumstances that I, myself, have never been in, but it seems to me that unless there's some sort of coercion going on that's unlike any we've seen in modern history, that the British sailors and marines who were captured by Iran recently were obliging their captors quite nicely and, dare I say, a little too easily? That's just based on my assessment of the situation. A second solider, one of the royal marines, is offering up a confession and apology to be used by Iran, so they of course, can turn it around and use it as propaganda against coalition forces.


(Royal Marine Nathan Thomas Summers "apologizes" on Iranian TV.)

It took less than a week for sailors and marines to start assisting Iranian thugs by writing letters critical of the US and British Governments and to start apologizing for 'tresspassing" on Iranian territory. Of course, this is at odds with the facts, but really, when did Iran ever care about the real world? These are the same animals that think the Holocaust never happened.

I'm not going to necessarily ride the soliders, as I have no idea about what's going on behind the scenes, but the British commanders have obviously done a pretty crappy job of making sure that their troops are prepared for such a circumstance. You'd think it had to have been considered a possible risk given the fact that this isn't the first capture of British troops working too close to Iran. If they weren't prepared to defend themselves with either the firepower or or 'rules of engagement', I wonder why they were there to begin with. Someone somewhere most know of some set of rules in the British Military that are equal to those I learned in the army regarding issuing statements from captivity that can't be used as propaganda by the enemy. What ever happened to name, rank, serial number?

And how many Iranians must it have taken to capture 15 royal marines and sailors driving along in patrol vessels. It's kind of like the whole claim that we were flushing Korans down the toilet. Like a book being flushed down a toilet isn't really physically possible, how many Iranian troops must've been sent in here to get all these guys to tap out? Anyone remember that transportation officer from West Virginia and her Native American best friend from Arizona who were wounded or killed before they were taken. I wonder what they'd think...

Cartoon of the Week

Helmets for Sledders, No Fluff in School, Now: Protect Teens from Tanning!

Is it me or is the nanny-state legislation spitting out of Beacon Hill at a ridiculous rate?

Here's the latest bill, to 'protect' teenagers from tanning booths:

BOSTON - Tanning booths are the latest area where teenagers need to be protected from themselves, according to lawmakers and health officials pushing legislation they say will reduce the number of new skin cancer cases.
New harsher penalties went into effect this weekend for teenage drivers who speed or drag race on public roads. Now, some on Beacon Hill want to prevent teens from recklessly exposing themselves to ultraviolet rays at an age in their lives when they can be most harmful.
The legislators are slated to testify at a hearing Thursday on a bill that would prohibit youths under 16 years old from using tanning booths and would require parental consent for 16- and 17-year-olds who want an indoor tan.

”Let’s not make it so easy for young people to expose their skin to dangerous rays,” said Sen. Pamela Resor, one of the bill’s sponsors.