Pro-terrorist lobby

In my last post I used the phrase "pro-terrorist lobby" and I was called on it by a commentor. The commentor innocently missed my extreme, over-the-top sarcasm in using the phrase. I invite everyone to go back and read my letter to the editor from the last post and the exchange I had with Conscience in the comments section of the same to get caught up.

What is truly hysterical about this whole topic is that subsequent to the last post BUT PRIOR TO the exchange with Consciene, I submitted another letter to the editor that used the phrase "pro-terrorist lobby" four times!

I reproduce that letter for you here:

Editor,

It was no surprise to me that selectively chosen pieces of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) were leaked to the pro-terrorist lobby for the sole purpose of harming the leader of the global war against terrorists, President George W. Bush (Report sees war fueling jihadists, September 27, A1).

And as it is true that Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists, it is equally true that there is a substantial pro-terrorist lobby that's "fueled" daily right here in the United States. No doubt that if you print this letter, it may be next to a pro-terrorist letter! (Blogger's Note: Two letters were published in the Boston Globe on September 29; of course, both were critical of the President.)

Of course, I'm no more justified in taking President Clinton's now famous "I failed (to protect the American people from Osama bin Laden)" quote from the Chris Wallace interview out of context as anyone in the pro-terrorist lobby is in using the selectively leaked NIE data.

But then, wouldn't I be justified if the pro-terrorist lobby doesn't relent? (End of letter.)

Now, do I honestly believe the "pro-terrorist lobby" that I speak of actually proactively support terrorists? Of course, not. Do I think there are Americans sympathetic to the terrorist's causes. Of course, I do. There are 300 million Americans; there are definitely some that hate our Country and support the terrorists; the contrary cannot be reasonably argued. However, the folks I'm targeting in my letters and commentary are not the same Americans sympathetic to the terrorist's causes and I definitely think the latter group is extremely small and, of course, fantastically radical.

But, let's talk about the former group, the "pro-terrorist lobby" as I will indefinitely refer to them.

This group takes it as an article of faith that President George W. Bush "lied" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. We've been over this several times in this space, but it is necessary to cover it again. In order for President Bush to have lied, he would have to have known Saddam Hussein DIDN'T have WMD. Of course, he didn't know this. That it is logically impossible to argue Bush lied, it does not stop the "pro-terrorist lobby".

This group takes it as an article of faith that President George W. Bush said "mission accomplished". LexisNexis and Google til your hearts content but you will never find the President saying this. This does not stop the "pro-terrorist lobby".

This group takes it as an article of faith that "cowboy", President George W. Bush is stupid and Sens. John F. Kerry and Hillary Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards are brilliant. They also take it as an article of faith that President Bush "misled" all three into voting to authorize the war in Iraq. It defies all logic that all three articles of faith are true. If you are smart and I'm an idiot but I convince you to buy my $1,000 car for $2,000, then at least one of three things is true: you really aren't smart; I'm really not an idiot; or I didn't convince you. As I'm not a member of the "pro-terrorist lobby" I really don't care which statement they relent on but they must stop telling me how brilliant Sens. Kerry, Clinton and Edwards are or stop telling me how stupid President Bush is or stop telling me how an idiot misled three geniuses. You want to turn the face of a member of the "pro-terrorist lobby" deep purple? Tell such a person that you agree with President Bush and Sens. Kerry and Clinton on the war in Iraq.

This group takes it as an article of faith that President Bush is manipulating the gasoline market (note the drastically falling gasoline prices) in advance of the November elections. Recall, he's an idiot and there is no smoking gun to prove this conspiracy. But, this doesn't stop the "pro-terrorist lobby."

This group take it as an article of faith that President Bush is manipulating the stock market to be at all time highs in advance of the November elections. Again, he's an idiot so how is he doing this exactly?

This group takes it as an article of faith that President Bush is manipulating the unemployment data to be near historic lows in advance of the November elections. Again, strong accusations against an idiot.

This group takes it as an article of faith that President Bush played a part in the downing of the Twin Towers; I saw a retired professor from the University of Wisconsin on television two nights ago making the argument so don't sit there reading this and deny it. Boy, this idiot sure can do extraordinary things while leaving no evidence. But, this doesn't even slow down the "pro-terrorist lobby".

This group takes it as an article of faith that President Bush is a racist. I know, he's done more for African-Americans than probably any President except Abraham Lincoln and it is completely lost. For those wondering what he's done, I point to the highest home-ownership rates among African-Americans in the history of the Country. I point to a Dow at 11,600. Yes, African-Americans own stock, too! I point to support for faith-based initiatives and other "values" issues (yes, that's code for "marriage" means a man and a woman). African-Americans go to church in huge numbers and I think they like a President that does the same. I could point to Dr. Condi Rice, Gen. Colin Powell, Alponso Jackson, and Rod Paige but these pale so miserably next to Dr. Joycelyn Elders. None of this dissuades the "pro-terrorist lobby".

This group takes it as an article of faith that the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, that was also just extended, infringes on the American public, that it violates civil rights. The vote to pass in the Senate was 98 - 1. Only Sen. Russ Feingold voted against it. You want to see a purple head explode? Tell the same person that you told up above about your opinion on Iraq that you agree with President Bush and Sens. Kerry and Clinton on the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001.

This group takes it as an article of faith that President Bush is a divider not a uniter. Well, in the past I have listed significant pieces of legislation that the White House supported that received incredible support in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House (see the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 above as just one example). Just yesterday, the Senate, with 12 cross-over votes from the Democrats, passed legislation to authorize military tribunals and specific interrogation methods for terrorists. The same day, the Senate voted 100 - 0 for $70 billion in additional funding for the war in Iraq. Not even a speed bump to the "pro-terrorist lobby".

This group takes it as an article of faith that President Bush is a mysogynist. Well, given how it seems every bloody advisor, those closest to him, are women, this article is just ridiculous. And, of course, I mean, Laura Bush, Dr. Condi Rice and Karen Hughes. Throw in Frances Townsend, Margaret Spellings, Mary Matalin, and Dr. Chao and I wonder if this President isn't close with any men. Donna Shalala(cane) was such a tower of femanism in the Clinton Administration. Where are the middle-aged white guys in this Administration? All ignored by the "pro-terrorist lobby".

Finally, the pro-terrorist lobby takes it as an article of faith that the President supports torture. That is precisely how all of this got started. The Boston Globe printed 5 letters critical of the President and none supporting him with regard to questioning terrorists. One letter writer was allowed to use the phrase "pro-torture lobby".

I will use the phrase "pro-terrorist lobby" exactly like I use the phrase "liberal extremists". I will try to make my point that the center is not going to be just to the right of Howard Dean. As the Left labels us with impunity I will attempt to provide even this small consequence. I encourage anybody that has a conversation with a Leftist whose friendship you don't care for to work "pro-terrorist lobby" into your next conversation. You will never sleep so well.

Pitiful President Clinton and The Pathetic Boston Globe

For those that need a reminder, my blog is primarily driven off the Boston Globe. It's my schtick, if you will. They write something stupid (every single, bloody, day!) and I respond (every few days).

These were the letters I submitted on Saturday and Monday, respectively. As with all my letters, these need no introduction.

Editor,

The Editorial Pages of your September 23, 2006 issue hit a new low for intellectual dishonesty.

First, the Boston Globe chose to print 5 letters on the subject of interrogating terrorists. All five were critical of the President and supportive of the terrorists. That's balance? Further, you allowed one pro-terrorist letter writer to cleverly insinuate the "apologists for Bush" want to "suspend the rule of law" when interrogating terrorists. The suspension of the rule of law or the "they'll do it to us so we can do it to them" argument is absolutely not the argument of the President, but maybe if you had the decency to allow even one letter from those of us that want to be protected from terrorists your readers may actually learn something in the Letters section. You allowed another pro-terrorist letter writer to introduce a new phrase in the extreme Left lexicon - "pro-torture lobby". Pro-torture lobby? That's laughable. Is that the new bumper-sticker phrase that liberal extremists think is the pathway to taking over the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives? I'm not in the habit of helping the pro-terrorist lobby, but I'm pretty sure they may want to lose the "pro-torture lobby" rhetoric.

Second, Mr. Derrick Z. Jackson began his latest hate-Bush column with, "The same White House that trashed generals . . . for saying it would take hundreds of thousands of more troops and billions more dollars to secure Iraq . . . . (Playing shell game on responsibility with Iraq, September 23, A15)." It is simply not true that the President or anyone that speaks for him ever trashed a general for disagreeing with him. Every single quote from the White House was the same, "the generals and admirals are entitled to their opinion, I disagree with them." No LexisNexis or Google search will produce anything more harsh than this. If Mr. Jackson cares to take issue with those trashing generals, maybe he can start with Sen. Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, who attacked General Michael Hayden during his Senate confirmation hearings for CIA Director with these beauties, "With all due respect, General, I can't tell now if you've simply said one thing and done another, or whether you have just parsed your words like a lawyer to intentionally mislead the public (Boston Globe)." And, "I now have a difficult time with your credibility (Wall Street Journal)." But why let the facts get in the way of another hatchet job on the President? (End of letter.)

Editor,

As a Republican, I usually delight in the failings of national Democrats (as you can imagine, I delight much), but the bizarre performance by former President Clinton in his interview with Mr. Chris Wallace has me, instead, feeling very sorry for the former President.

For the first time that anyone can recall, a national reporter didn't ask softball questions of a national Democrat. Let's not kid ourselves, though, the questions weren't piercing either, they just were not softballs. The hostile and childish behavior of the former President was clearly indicative of how disturb he must be. He still has that finger-pointing gesture down pat ("Now listen very carefully, I did not have sexual relations with that woman.").

Yes, we can still delight in the embarrassing behavior of national Democrats like Sen. John F. Kerry or Rep. Nancy Pelosi, but I ask everyone to join me in praying for the mental health of former President Clinton, a truly pitiful man. (End of letter.)

The GOP Big Tent

I submitted this letter to the Boston Globe prior to President Bush and Sen. John McCain agreeing on language that would govern the interrogation of terrorists. I thought the underlying theme, just how huge the Big Tent of the GOP is, was reason enough to share the letter here.

Editor,

Mr. Rick Klein had it exactly right when he wrote, " . . . the fight (over the rules of interrogating terrorists) among Republicans has . . . highlighted deep differences inside the party. Democrats have largely stayed out of the fight, aligning themselves with McCain's proposal but otherwise delighting in the GOP's internal turmoil (Possible pact on terror legislation arises, September 20, A2)."

As a loyal Republican, I think "deep differences" on major, non-party-alignment, issues should be celebrated. Tolerating different opinions is the sign of a vibrant, robust Party.

I ask, of which party would you rather be a member? The Republican Party where you can have two great Republicans, President George W. Bush, the leader of the global war on terror, and Sen. John McCain, US Naval Academy grad, bona fide Vietnam war hero and as candid and honest a politician that has ever lived, each representing a different opinion, but both decidedly in the Republican Party? Or, the Democrat Party where Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who voted against the Great Satan (according to Gov. Howard Dean's hero, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela), President Bush, 90% of the time but who is no longer welcomed because he didn't agree with every opinion of the extremists that dominate the Democrat Party?

The Big Tent is the Republican Party; it simply cannot be questioned. (End of letter.)

Then Don't Impose Your Views.

This letter to the Globe needs no set-up so here it is:

Editor,

Mr. Rick Klein had it exactly right when he wrote, "Throughout his career, (Sen.) Kerry has said he is personally opposed to abortion but would not impose his views on others (Kerry urges cooperation to reduce abortions, September 19, A1)."

This is exactly the kind of ridiculous sentiment that garners the Senator the well-earned, nickname "The Great Equivocator". To wit,

He's for raising taxes and he's prepared to impose this view on the hard working people of this Country. What, is he not "personally" in favor of raising taxes? Lucky us, he gets to impose his view!

He's for cutting and running from Iraq and he's prepared to impose this view on the people that want to defeat terrorists. Is he not "personally" in favor of cutting and running so he's free to impose?

He's against reducing our dependency on foreign oil by voting against sourcing oil from Alaska and he's prepared to impose this view on those of us paying $3.00 for a gallon of gasoline. Again, is this view not a "personal" view?

The list of the Senator's views that he seeks to impose on the American people is endless. Yet, only on the abortion issue does the Great Equivocator seek a nuanced escape clause? What a political coward. This is my view and I hope the Boston Globe allows me to impose it on its readership. (End of letter.)

I thought the only thing politicians did was impose their views. What a coward.

Random Thoughts (some re-cycled)

The Boston Globe printed a letter last week that sarcastically acknowledged gasoline prices were falling in advance of the November elections. The letter writer and the Boston Globe seeing conservative conspiracies everywhere. My goodness they're so paranoid, cynical and hate-filled. Here's an idea, maybe, just maybe it isn't a future event that has had a postive impact on prices. Just maybe a President, a Secretary of State and a UN Ambassador are reaping their just reward for negotiating a peaceful resolution to the recent Hezbollah attack on Israel. Just maybe peace is playing a role.

Sen. John F. Kerry, the Great Equivocator, says President Bush is failing America because "he" hasn't captured or killed Osama bin Laden. House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi says that it would be no great accomplishment if the United States military did capture or kill Osama bin Laden. So, if you are a liberal extremist, you can celebrate either side. Good for you guys.

In Bob Woodward's "Bush at War", Woodward quotes people inside the Bush Administration time and again saying that the war against terrorists is not about just one man. That capturing or killing just one man would not be the determining factor of success. I guess Rep. Pelosi agrees with the President. I'm sure a liberal extremist can explain how Pelosi is right and the President is wrong.

Of course, I believe the brave women and men of the United States Armed Forces captured Saddam Hussein and I believe the same women and men have not "yet" captured Osama bin Laden. I think only Senator Kerry and the dolts that follow him believe the military captured Hussein and President Bush has allowed bin Laden to remain free. Dolts with a capital "D".

I'll not accuse the Democrats of dirty tricks if a terror attack occurs before the November elections if the Democrats don't accuse the President of dirty tricks if bin Laden is captured or killed before election day. I know, I know, it's offensive for me to suggest such a thing about the Democrats. But that's the problem. Their equally offensive insinuation offends nobody on the extreme Left . . . or the Right, for that matter. Yeah, the President is risking American lives for political advantage. That's Dolts, again, with a capital "D".

On August 14 I posted Bush should fire his entire communications team. Last week the President barnstormed the Country and made his case to the American people about the danger terrorists pose to our Country. This week his poll numbers are up. I haven't gotten my "thank you" note from Mr. Tony Snow yet.

The Dow is again within striking distance of its all-time high. I wonder if the Communication team is going to point this out before election day?

Hey, congratulations to President Bush for not causing any hurricanes so far this year killing Americans and destroying American property. Again, it sounds so stupid but the converse didn't sound as stupid to so many people . . . blaming the President for hurricanes killing Americans and destroying American property.

And, as I've done about 5 times now, let's all recall together that on the eve of Hurricane Katrina hitting New Orleans, Secretary of Homeland Defense, Michael Chertoff, was attending a conference on the bird flu (the liberal extemists still making the argument, I think, that if Chertoff was in New Orleans the hurricane would have missed New Orleans?!?!). I suspect his attendance at the conference will still be very important some day in the next few years. I just want to make sure everyone remembers how seriously the Bush Adminstration took the bird flu and the possibility of a pandemic.

Heck, while I'm at it, Steelers over the Jaguars in tonight's Monday Night Football game 27 - 13.

Where Does Karl Rove go?

Where does Karl Rove go to get his name back?

For those that missed it, last week, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage (under Colin Powell) admitted that he inadvertantly divulged to reporters Robert Novak and Bob Woodward that Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

I'm sure all of you can recall headline after headline of your local liberal paper announcing that Bush aide, Karl Rove, was headed back to the Grand Jury for more testimony. I'm sure you can recall headline after headline that Bush aide, Scooter Libby, was headed back to the Grand Jury for more testimony. I'm sure you can recall headline after headline, editorial after editorial in your local liberal paper accusing the Bush Administration of a conspiracy to discredit the already laughable Joseph Wilson. Lo and behold, it was Richard Armitage the whole time.

My newspaper, the liberally extreme Boston Globe, put the story at the bottom of page 2. Remarkably, it was not a front page story. Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby were not mentioned in the article. Remarkable.

Just a word on Mr. Armitage. He's a US Naval Academy grad. He served in Vietnam for 6 years. He is the father of 8 (some of which are adopted). He and his wife have cared for and housed more than 50 foster children over the years. I just thought you'd like to know a little about Richard Armitage that the media might not share with you.

Oh, and back to the "leak". As of now, all three people privy to the conversations, Armitage, Novak and Woodward are quoted as saying that Mr. Armitage said Mr. Wilson's "wife" worked at the CIA. Nobody is claiming that Mr. Armitage mentioned her by name . . . the pathetically lame, Valerie Plame. Mr. Novak nor Mr. Woodward are contending Mr. Armitage's slip was meant to harm. One has to wonder how long Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald is going to wait before he cuts Scooter Libby loose from forgetting what day it was when he told the truth. Recall, Scooter Libby is under indictment for giving Mr. Fitzgerald the wrong date that he told reporters Judith Miller and Michael Cooper the truth.

Anyway, so where does Karl Rove go to get his name back. I know, it ain't gonna happen. The mockers of kinder and gentler are in no way going to apologize. It's not what they do. But, indeed, where do the maliciously smeared go to get their name back?

There's Gambling at Rick's?! Oh, my!

The liberal extremists were all a flutter this week following the announcement by President Bush that the CIA detained 14 al Qaeda terrorists at secret CIA locations.

These liberal extremists I guess would also be shocked to learn that the CIA also has secret agents, secret offices, secret codes and just plain secrets.

If one-tenth of the allegations against these 14 are true, then these 14 are super-bad guys. I just don't understand the American that thinks these guys should not be interrogated by somewhat strenuous interrogation techniques.

If even one of the alleged attacks by these 14 were defeated because of the use of somewhat strenuous interrogation techniques, again, I simply don't understand the American that thinks these guys should not have been so interrogated.

Our Constitution protects Americans, not non-Americans. I blame the Bush Administration for not making this point to the American people.

International treaties and international agreements protect non-Americans that are detained by the United States. I'll take the President at his word that the U.S. Government did not authorize the unlawful abuse of any detained terrorist. I'll also cite the collective evidence of all the Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay critics and say there is absolutely no evidence that the U.S. Government authorized the unlawful abuse of any detained terrorist. I will not deny that rogue interrogators and jailors "dehumanized" some terrorists but that is a far cry from torture . . . and, this dehumanizing treatment was defintely not authorized by the United States Government.

If you commit a terrorist act against the United States, are planning a terrorist act against the United States, or assist someone that participates in either and the United States takes you into custody and you are not a United States citizen, I have no problem at all with you standing in a stress position.

I think the family members that stood over a (empty?) casket of a 9/11 victim certainly stood in a stressful position.

I think every American that stands in a security line at an airport is standing in a stressful position.

I think every American soldier standing watch in Afghanistan is standing in a stressful position.

If Amercans are standing in stressful positions, I have no problem with those that want to kill innocent Americans standing in stressful positions. And, if they wet their pants while so standing, I'm good with that, too. Has not one air-traveler lost control of her/his bladder while standing in a security line or accelerating down a runway?