Vice President Targeted by Taliban

Headlines from DRUDGE:

'I HEARD A LOUD BOOM'...

RUSHED TO BOMB SHELTER...
Vice President Dick Cheney was whisked into a bomb shelter immediately after a Taliban suicide bomber struck the main American military base he was visiting in Afghanistan on Tuesday.

Up to 14 people were killed, including one U.S. and one South Korean soldier, in the Bagram air base attack which rebels said was aimed at Cheney.


SUICIDE BOMBER OUTSIDE U.S. BASE KILLS 23...

'ATTACKER WAS TRYING TO REACH CHENEY'...

Taliban 'knew of visit'...

Security fears dogged trip...

Jonathan Karl of ABC News reported from the scene:

A suicide bomber struck at the main entrance to Bagram air base in Afghanistan today, as Vice President Dick Cheney was visiting.
Immediately after the attack, a red alert traveled throughout the base — a red alert that we heard saying that the base was under direct attack.

At least nine people were killed, officials tell ABC News. Associated Press reporters at the scene said that they had seen the bodies of at least 12 people, and that they had been carried in black body bags and wooden coffins from near the base into a market area where hundreds of Afghans had gathered to mourn.

A Taliban spokesperson has claimed responsibility, saying the intended target was in fact Cheney. The bomber never got near Cheney.

Qari Yousef Ahmadi, a purported Taliban spokesman, said Cheney was the target of the attack.

"We knew that Dick Cheney would be staying inside the base," Ahmadi told AP telephone from an undisclosed location. "The attacker was trying to reach Cheney."


And then the kooks came out with their horrid comments:
On Daily Kos:

I heard CNN about 30 min. ago emphasize (0 / 0)
for viewers benefit that Cheney was NOT injured! Also had info that attack had as its goal Darth himself! Couldn't happen to a nicer guy! (snark!!)

Aloha . . .

dolphin777

and...

Well gosh (21+ / 0-)

As long as Dick is "safely inside" we can all heave a huge sigh of relief. Big Time's safety is of utmost importance, of course. To hell with anyone else who died in order to save his pasty hide.
My local news just lead with his safety...as if we were all waiting for that particular news. No, I thought of the young man I know is over there as a medic. I sure hope HE is safe. This time.

Gahzette

damn they missed
dancewater

Good point (13+ / 0-)
I want him to rot in jail not die in a way that could in any way be construed as bravery, honor or decency.

and from World Net Daily:

Some Americans sorry Cheney survived
'You can never find a competent suicide bomber when you need one'

Readers of the Huffington Post, a blog run by Arianna Huffington, responded to an Associated Press account of the attack with at least a dozen pages of vitriol before the thread of posts was shut down.

Hey, Thalia, lighten up. I, for one, don't wish Cheny (sic) had been killed. I wish he had been horribly maimed and had to spend the rest of his life hooked to a respirator. Feel better now? (raisarooney)

Jesus Christ and General Jackson too, can't the Taliban do anything right? They must know we would be so gratefull (sic) to them for such a remarkable achievement. (hankster2)

Is it any wonder we can't discuss rational politics with the left, with this lunacy and idiocy? The hatred coming from these crazies is completely unconscionable. I am ashamed to admit that these comments are from fellow Americans.

GONE BABY GONE

I am really leaving. going somewhere warm. be gone one week. my cats and dogs are really mad about the suitcases.

In the DEMS Own Words...

Where are the strong willed Republicans? Why don't we ever hear them throwing these quotes back in the faces of the left? San Fran Nan, President Billary... they all knew there was a WMD threat, they are all on record as asknowledging it and being fearful. So where's the media? They want to sell papers? These quotes could really grab some headlines:
*************************

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but wh at happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb,18,1998

"[we]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"Saddam Hussan has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) an d others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct.9,2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
***********************************

What would "I've already been the co-president" Hillary say to this? And Nancy Pelosi who is accusing our troops of ethnic cleansing, only prove they will say anything in order to keep their jobs. And the imposter "media" ignores their hypocracy. Burn your newspapers and turn off the television.

Defrauding The Voters - Again

I will be gone for the next week. But before I go, let's review this: Drive seeks to revamp term limits. Who exactly is trying to get around term limits? C'mon Sacramento Bee, tell the whole story.

Sacramento Bee: An initiative drive launched Thursday would reduce the total years California lawmakers may serve but could let Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata remain in office long after they are scheduled to leave.

They just can't play by the rules... a classic example of defrauding of the voters.

But opponents blasted the proposal as a thinly veiled power grab.

"It's an example of why the voters hold the Legislature in such low esteem," said Kevin Spillane, a GOP political consultant. "It's a cynical ploy for politicians to serve their own interests rather than the public's."

California's existing term limits, adopted in 1990, limit legislators to six years in the Assembly and eight years in the Senate, thus allowing 14 years of service if an incumbent forced from one house wins election to the other.

The new proposal would reduce the total number of years that a lawmaker could serve to 12 but would allow all of them to be served in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both.

Núñez and Perata personally could benefit because incumbent lawmakers could remain in office past their current term-out dates -- until they hit the 12-year maximum.
Núñez would be allowed to serve an additional six years as Assembly speaker, while Perata potentially could serve an extra four years. Both Democratic leaders are scheduled to be termed out next year.

And while the article's author, Jim Sanders - Bee Capitol Bureau, tries to drag Arnold into the fray, this tiny paragraph is burried deeply in the article: Schwarzenegger, through a spokesman, stressed that he wants any alteration of term limits to be accompanied by a change in how the state's legislative districts are drawn. Sounds as if they need Arnold to lend the cause credibility...

Hmmm. Something smells really stinky. Every voter in the state remembers voting for term limits and now Nunez and Perata want to ignore the voters wishes (again) because they know what's best for us. Whom do they claim to represent?

Another self-serving, power-grabbing liberal trick once again proving that our full-time legislature clearly does not have enough of the state's real business in mind. What these lowlife slimy bottom dwellers need is for the voters to vote them right into part time jobs. How can we get that petition started?

Gore's Global Warming Hyperbole

Phil Brennen of NewsMax asks, "As a blizzard of snow and ice pummels the Northeast after trouncing the Midwest, and waves of Arctic cold fronts drop much of America below sub freezing weather, the $64,000 question is, Where is Al Gore?"

Answer: Flying around the world in Jet promoting his new job as global warming expert.

In Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years by Dennis T. Avery and S. Fred Singer explain why we're warming, why it's not very dangerous, and why we can't stop it anyway.

But what will Al Gore do? He'll be out of a job. He might not get his Academy Award.

Brennan continues: "What must have evoked the loudest laugh in heaven is the notion that if global warming is really occurring, puny mankind is going to overcome it by legislation and business regulation that would strangle the U.S. economy and be overseen by the super efficient United Nations."

Now there's a worthy plan; ruin American business for the sole purpose of supporting a kook agenda so that Al Gore isn't wrong, because he's never wrong.

Al bloviates incessantly and conviently lies about Global Warming, perhaps as a diversion to his real interest: Oil money. He's taken plenty of it and now is time for payback.

Lloyd Ponte has done extensive research into Al Gore; both into the oil money origins as well as Al's phony global warming crusade. Here's some of what he's found:

"Muslim money from Muslim (American) voters and even more so from abroad is becoming an influential factor in America's presidential elections. One of the largest political contributors to Kerry and Gore has been Iranian Hassan Nemazee, who has filed lawsuits denying Iranian ex-patriot accusations that he acts as a conduit for cash and lobbying influence for Iran's theocratic mullahs. Nemazee, as this column reported, contributed more than $180,000 to Kerry's primary campaign.

Nemazee also raised $250,000 for Gore in November 1995. Nemazee and his family also contributed the legal maximum of $60,000 to Bill Clinton's legal defense fund and slushed another $150,000 to the Democratic National Committee. In 2000, Nemazee gave $50,000 to his friend Al Gore's Recount Fund.

The source of such money is, of course, oil. But oil wealth is nothing new to Al Gore Jr. His senator father's fortune and Al Gore Jr.'s own portfolio today have gotten the lion's share of their money from Occidental Petroleum and its eccentric head Armand Hammer, whose father founded the Communist Party USA and, before his death, acknowledged carrying millions of dollars in cash from Moscow to fund the CPUSA.

The Gore family has controlled up to $1 million worth of Occidental stock, and Al Gore Jr. has pocketed up to $20,000 per year by leasing mineral rights on Gore property to an Occidental zinc mining operation cited for polluting the adjacent Tennessee River.

Despite an apparent conflict of interest that this column reported in 2000, the Clinton-Gore administration in 1997 allowed Occidental Petroleum to buy 47,000 acres of the U.S. Navy's Elk Hills strategic oil reserve near Bakersfield, Calif., for only $100 per acre. This purchase tripled Occidental's corporate oil reserve and boosted the value of its stock by about 10 percent – and Gore family shares by about $100,000. (Interestingly, Elk Hills was also involved in the Teapot Dome scandal, which erupted because Republican President Warren G. Harding's interior secretary in 1921 sold access to it to private oil interests.)

Gore even had the chutzpah to hire a firm to assess the "environmental cost" of this Occidental-Elk Hills deal – the firm of ICF Kaiser on whose board of directors sat Gore's future campaign chairman, the former California congressman who resigned under a cloud of financial scandal Tony Coehlo. Coehlo, further enriched by Gore's shell game, would also later be a campaign director in 2004 for John Kerry.

Luckily for Gore, the leftist national media is eager to cover up Democratic scandals and corruption. Occidental, incidentally, has oil interests in many nations, among them Russia and the Muslim nations of Yemen, Qatar, Oman, Libya and Pakistan.

Despite his environmentalist hysteria, Gore has rightly earned the nickname "Oily Al." How strange it is that the so-called mainstream media relentlessly accuses President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney of somehow being linked to "big oil" but never exposes how former Vice President Al Gore's life and entire political career have been largely fueled by oil wealth."

Gore is playing a dangerous game in which he will fail, particularly when he crosses the wrong people. His actions show you that he has little substance, is not very bright, is greedy, lusts for power and will do anything to achieve his goal. His Global Warming hyperbole serves as an effective cover for his dirty oil dealings, and he has himself caught up in a real oil scandal.

And unfortunately for Al, he's playing with the big boys; unless he can deliver what the're after, he's expendable. I don't think his Academy Award will help much.

read:
Analysis: Al Gore Ducks Northeast Blizzard
and
Lowell Ponte: Al Gore's Arab Pander
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/14/160148.shtml

Congratulations Are In Order...

...received great news this week: son Biff was accepted to the United States Naval Academy!

And before my friends on the left ask me one more time How can I let my son go into the military?, let me share this:

I am proud of him first for earning this privilege. He qualified on his own merit, without strings being pulled or favors called in (we don't know anyone who could have helped anyway). He did it on his own.

I am proud of him for not just hiding in some liberal university on the path of least resistance. He wants to realize his full potential, and not be just another idealistic college student. He has goals. He is a patriot. And while some call that idealistic, it is not. He is very focused and determined. He's not the type to settle for what everyone else is doing. He craves the challenge.

He will receive probably the most considerable, significant education available. Attending the Naval Academy is the equivalent of receiving a full-ride scholarship to a prestigious university, and getting paid to go.

Being the best parent you are able to be is more than just showing up to kids' soccer games and PTA meetings. Being a good parent is knowing your kids individually. A good path for one kids is not necessarily the path for the other. With some kids you celebrate a hard-earned "C" grade; with others you challenge any "B's." Some must pursue the arts, others want to go to Medical School. And some don't do well in school, but excel in trades working with their hands. Know your kids is my motto, and challenge them individually.

This kid is a leader and not content to follow. He needs challenges and needs to go up against the best and brightest.

So do I support his decision? Absolutely. It's what's best for him. And I couldn't be more proud.

Let's Have A Conversation

Here's the little, friendly fireside chat I'd like to have with Hillary, but Tom Fitton gets the credit.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton shares his fantasy interview with Hillary:

Ten (plus) Unanswered Questions for Hillary

Remember all of those “old” Clinton-era scandals? Well, now that Hillary Clinton is a candidate for President of the United States, what’s old is new. These scandals are more than relevant as the American people decide just what kind of president Hillary Clinton will make. Judicial Watch, of course, neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office. Hillary is free to run for president. But Americans are free to ask the tough questions and to hold her to account for her past crimes and ethical transgressions.

So, with that said, if I were to be granted an interview (admittedly most unlikely), here are the ten (plus) questions I would ask:

1. Who in the Clinton administration devised the plan to sell taxpayer-financed trade missions in exchange for campaign contributions to the Clinton-Gore 1996 re-election campaign? (Sworn testimony from Nolanda Hill, partner and confidante of the late Clinton Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, points to you as mastermind of the scheme.)

2. Why did you give “factually false” testimony under oath in the investigation of the White House Travel Office firings, as former Independent Counsel Robert Ray stated in his final report. (Ray said his office found "overwhelming evidence" you played a role in the dismissals of the seven longtime employees in the White House travel office, which you denied under oath.)

3. Who hired former bar bouncer Craig Livingstone and ordered him to illegally obtain for the Clinton administration the FBI files of former staffers in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush? (Sworn testimony and at least one FBI document shows you hired Livingstone.)

4. Why did you fail to report more than $2 million in contributions to your Senate 2000 campaign? (Testimony from the criminal investigation and trial of your National Finance Director, David Rosen, shows you knew the total costs of the fundraiser, yet failed to accurately report them.)

5. Your brothers Anthony and Hugh Rodham allegedly brokered cash deals to obtain presidential pardons from your husband on behalf of convicted criminals. Were you aware they were each paid large sums to obtain these pardons? Did you play any role in any of the 140 presidential pardons provided by Bill Clinton in the waning days of his administration, bypassing the normal pardon review process? How about the pardons of the Puerto Rican terrorists in the run-up to your first Senate campaign? Did you have any input on those?

6. Did you or your lawyers hire private detectives to investigate and intimidate critics of the Clinton administration?

7. What did you instruct James Carville and George Stephanopoulos to say in order to discredit and defame Gennifer Flowers, a woman with whom your husband had an affair? (Evidence suggests they smeared her at your behest.) Did you play any role in smearing and defaming other women sexually and otherwise abused by your husband, including, but not limited to: Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Dolly Kyle Browning, and Juanita Broaddrick?

8. Records from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange reveal that you turned a $1,000 investment in cattle futures in 1978 into to more than $100,000.00 in ten months… a return of 10,000%. How did you earn such an astronomical, and unbelievable, return on this investment?

9. How much money does Bill Clinton earn from his relationship with Ron Burkle, a contributor to your Senate campaigns, and Burkle’s company, Yucaipa? Are these funds currently available in bank accounts to which you have access? Will you use these funds for your campaign? How about Bill’s speaking fees, some paid for by foreign interests and governments – what are the financial benefits to you?

10. How do you explain the mysterious disappearance of your Whitewater billing records from the office of Vince Foster, the former Rose Law Firm partner and Clinton White House counsel who allegedly committed suicide in 1993? How do you explain the mysterious reappearance of those same records in the White House with your fingerprints on them?
Stopping at ten questions is hard to do. I want to ask about her illegal White House fundraising coffees, doing business with the state of Arkansas while her husband was governor, Web Hubbell, John Huang, Chinese generals, the Lippo Group, and paid sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom.

Will timid Republicans, cowering competitors for the Democratic nomination, or a liberal media ask any of these questions? I doubt it. These questions are important and relevant, and we deserve some honest answers. Perhaps the American people can have a conversation with her about them?

************

Funny how Hillary ducks all questions of relevance, such as the above questions of her recent history, or more accurately, Rewriting History.

Hillary VS. Hillary

Excellent piece by Amanda Carpenter

Senator Hillary Versus Hillary for President

By Amanda B. Carpenter (Human Events)

Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) has the star power and the solid anti-war credentials to be the liberal's golden child through the 2008 election. So, when he announced he would seek the White House in 2008 on January 15, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) panicked and declared she was "in it to win it" five days later.
She immediately drove her campaign far left to entice any supporters who might be attracted to Obama or the likes of John Edwards, who announced his bid on December 27, 2006 and has been publicly opposed to the war since November 2005.

Read the Full Story Online

Hillary: A Marxist In Democrat Clothing

At the DNC winter meetings in Washington the other day, Hillary revealed a choice tidbit of her Marxist politics:

"The Democrats know what needs to be done. Again, we're working trying to try push this agenda forward. The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative, smart energy; alternatives and technology that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence."

She referred to those profits as the highest in the history of the world, and she said: "I want to take those profits..." Not I want to take part of those profits. "I want to take those profits.".
Watch her here, and hear her screech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1pfe9k8j...

Hillary's obvious belief that the profits of American corporations are the government's to take. This attitude shows a complete disdain for the concept of private property rights. Those profits belong to the shareholders of Exxon Mobile, not to government, and certainly not to Hillary Rodham.

Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard has this analysis: "SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON is waging two presidential campaigns at once. She is running for the Democratic presidential nomination while keeping a sharp eye on the general election campaign against the Republican presidential nominee, whoever that turns out to be. Senator Clinton wants to run as a centrist, not a liberal, in the general election. But there's a problem. She is being tugged to the left in the nomination fight, forced to take positions that may jeopardize her chances later against the Republican candidate."

"First, after a trip to Iraq, she called for a cap on American troops in Iraq at the current level of 137,000, thus no "surge" in the number of troops. At a Senate hearing a few days later, Clinton lectured Gen. David Petraeus, the new Iraq commander, on the appropriate counterinsurgency strategy in Baghdad; she asked the general, the Army's foremost expert on counterinsurgency, no questions. Then during her first campaign trip to Iowa, she demanded Bush "extricate our country" from Iraq before he leaves office.

It was as if all the pressure had gotten to Clinton and she'd forgotten her need to remain resolute on national security. Rather than acting like a potential president, she acted like a bickering senator. She put the reputation she'd earned for seriousness on national security at risk. That the Iraq war was unpopular in 2006 and early 2007 probably won't help her in 2008, when Bush is stepping down."

Hillary Flip-Flops on issues to serve her current need, and tailors her speeches to the audience, while the press carefully guards her flip-flopping on issues by rarely reporting anything negative about her.

The lead editorial in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal chronicles Hillary's move from a "solid, even eloquent hawk” on the Iraq war to a presidential candidate calling for a quick withdrawal of American forces.

"Pressured by other candidates and by her party’s left wing, she is walking back her hawkish statements and is now all but part of the antiwar camp,” the editorial declares, citing Clinton’s statements over the past 4 1/2 years:

On October 10, 2002, Clinton spoke to the Senate in favor of a use-of-force resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, saying: "The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt.”

On December 15, 2003, when it was clear there were no large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Clinton’s support was unwavering. "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force,” she told the Council on Foreign Relations. "We have no option but to stay involved and committed.”

On April 20, 2004, Clinton told CNN’s Larry King that she did not "regret giving the president the authority,” noting that Saddam Hussein "had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.”

In October 2005, amid growing anti-war sentiment, Clinton still told the Village Voice: "I don’t believe it’s smart to set a date for withdrawal . . . I don’t think it’s the right time to withdraw.”
By November 2005, Hillary was softening her stance, saying in a letter to constituents: "If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed.”

On December 18, 2006, Clinton went even further, saying on the "Today” show: "I certainly wouldn’t have voted that way.”

On January 13 of this year, Clinton spoke from Baghdad about President Bush’s call for a troop surge: "I don’t know that the American people or the Congress at this point believe this mission can work.”

On January 17, Clinton called for a cap on the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, and suggested withholding funds for the Iraqi government.

Finally, on January 27, Clinton hit the campaign trail in Iowa and demanded that the president "extricate our country from this before he leaves office.”

The Journal opines: "What’s troubling about Mrs. Clinton’s record on Iraq is that it tends to follow, rather than lead, public opinion . . .

"The question we’d ask is whether this is the kind of stalwart drift that Mrs. Clinton would bring to the Oval Office?” (WSJ)

Will the real Mrs. Clinton please stand up? We have no idea where she really stands on anything except to guarantee her own "obscene profits." And I haven't heard anyone demanding that Hillary part with her new-found wealth.

Pajamas Media has a very interesting anonymously written post on Hillary's secret energy policy agenda, but as usual, Hillary gets a pass from most of the major media organs. (Be sure to link to the post - it's terribly interesting and offers plenty of backup)

Clinton does have an energy strategy, one that’s largely hidden from view. If we examine her record in the U.S. Senate over the past six years, the outlines of an extreme policy emerge.
Let’s go back to 2001.

Since the 9-11 attacks, Clinton and a sizable faction of Congress have halted every effort at energy independence through new energy production.

In the year 2000, Hillary Clinton was endorsed by the major environmental groups in New York in her bid to become a U.S. Senator. She was endorsed again by these groups in 2006. One of these groups is the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club has lobbied against every bill aimed at increasing the amount of energy available to Americans. They are against the construction of new refineries, have consistently blocked the construction of LNG terminals, adamantly fight the development of natural gas reserves in the Gulf of Mexico, oppose the construction of nuclear power plants, and don’t want ANWR explored.

According to the Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources division, in 2004 there were a record number of environmental lawsuits filed over oil and gas permits on public lands, more than 7,100. (newer figures are not yet available) Sierra Club heroes on Capitol Hill, like Clinton, have voted against, filibustered and obstructed nearly every energy production effort.
All of this adds up to higher costs for American consumers, the exportation of family wage earning jobs, and unaffordable energy costs for business and for the poor and the elderly.

But the environment is not really the issue Clinton and her supporters. They are among a group who believe America is a voracious consumer of energy and that Americans owe it to others to have less, make less, and do less. For them, it is not about an ice road or a smaller drilling platform. As for the alternative and renewable energy that Hillary seems to lionize today, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Industrial Wind Action Group, among others, are lobbying against wind power because of its affect on bird migration patterns. Friends of the Earth along with the Center for Food Safety are railing against biofuels because of their fears about genetically modified crops. Clinton’s support for these new eco-friendly sources of energy may soon vanish, too.

And in Hillary's own damning words: And let me add one other thing, and I want to be very clear about this. If I had been president in October of 2002, I would not have started this war. I would not--and if in Congress, if we in Congress, working as hard as we can to get the 60 votes you need to do anything in the Senate--believe me, I understand the frustration and the outrage, you have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding, to do anything.
If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will.

James Taranto at Opinion Journal has followed Mrs. Clinton closely and has this assessment: "So on Iraq, Mrs. Clinton stands resolutely on the side of public opinion, whichever side that may be in any given year. On Iran, about which public opinion is unformed, she is maddeningly noncommittal. This is fine for a senator, who merely casts one vote among 100. But the president--especially in times of international peril--needs to be able to make decisions in the national interest. Sometimes that means shaping public opinion, as President Bush did when he persuaded the public and Congress to support the war in Iraq. Sometimes it means defying public opinion, as Bush has done lately by resisting pressure to flee.

Mrs. Clinton now says that if she were president in 2002, she would not have led the country to war. This amounts to an acknowledgment that her vote in favor of the war was not an act of leadership--that she was a follower. Was she following the president? This president? Obviously not. President Bush led the public to support the war, and Sen. Clinton followed the public. Now that public opinion has turned against the president and the war, so has Mrs. Clinton."

But an excess of caution is itself a form of recklessness. Someone who can't and won't make decisions, won't make good or the necessary decisions either. Therein lies the extreme danger of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Gifting Self-Esteem

In the 1980's, California State Assemblyman John Vasconcellos set up a task force on self-esteem and personal and social responsibility. Vasconcellos argued that raising self-esteem in young people would reduce crime, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, school underachievement and pollution. He even argued that these efforts would one day help balance the state budget, a prospect predicated on the observation that people with high self-regard earn more than others and thus pay more in taxes.

Needless to say, the Self-Esteem team failed in their efforts to give kids self-esteem. The task force was disbanded in 1995. Unfortunately, a nonprofit organization called the National Association for Self-Esteem (NASE) picked up its sword, aiming (according to its mission statement) to "promote awareness of and provide vision, leadership and advocacy for improving the human condition through the enhancement of self-esteem." Vasconcellos, now a California state senator, is on the advisory board.

Telling kids they are great without demanding anything of them such as hard work, achievement, and self-discipline leaves most kids feeling really superior, but having nothing to back it up. We call this big-hat-no-cattle syndrome.

Townhall columnist Paul Greenberg writes on this subject: "Some of these kids may be all et up with self-esteem, but they're woefully short on self-respect, which is quite another thing. Self-respect flows from self-discipline and the real achievement it leads to. It doesn't depend on psychological gamesmanship.

And it's not just kids. Have you taken a good look lately at American politics, academia, fashion, journalism and public life in general? It over-runneth with the kind of self-esteem that cometh before a fall. "

Mr. Greenberg calls this not self-gratification but pre-gratification; putting the self-esteem cart before the horse.

Today's young employees show up oozing self-confidence and bursting with self-esteem. When they recieve their first written warning about shoddy work or their tardy problem, they are dumfounded with disbelief. They've been told by nearly every adult in their short lives how awesome they are. They are the product of level playing fields, and have never gone home a loser. Everybody wins in the self-esteem game.

Until they go out into the real world.

This is a very fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. Calling someone something does not make it real; I deem you worthy of self-esteem, therefore you must have it. Now go out into the world and do good things. Liberals love to sit around and have think tank talks. They love to come up with creative ways people don't have to actually do anything to achieve. Conservatives make you work at it. Break a sweat, it'll feel good.

How about a little hard work by today's kids for a change of pace? Self esteem and self respect must be earned. Work hard, put a little effort into you work, earn something and then, and only then will kids have self-esteem. Sitting around and waiting for it to be handed out like feel-good medications just doesn't cut it.

Out of twenty teenage male classmates my son knows well, only three have jobs. And some of these boys don't even participate in sports. Where will they learn that you have to work to earn anything, and it's not just about the money? Oddly enough, the boys who don't work in after school jobs as well as the boys who don't participate in sports have self-esteem issues. But the boys who go to school, participate in sports and work, seem to be the most confident as well as higher achievers. Obviously it's not scientific, but it's a real observation.

Greenberg ends with this wisdom: Expect, even insist on, competence. Don't pretend it's there when it isn't. If that sounds too hard, that's the catch with self-respect - it has to be earned. Self-esteem, on the other hand, costs little or nothing. And it's worth just what you pay for it.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

10 Top WORST Attorneys General In America

And California is right up there at Number 2 with Bill Lockyer, thug extraordinaire.

Ranked by Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

(Human Events) State attorneys general are among the most powerful office holders in the country. Unlike governors and legislators, each state's top elected lawyer has fewer institutional checks on his or her powers. Yet, with the possible exception of former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the power wielded by attorneys general receives very little scrutiny from the media, voters, and even tort reform advocates -- even though it can often be abused.

Based on a set of explicit criteria -- such as encroachment on the powers of other branches of government, meddling in the affairs of other states or federal agencies, encouragement of judicial activism and frivolous lawsuits, favoritism towards campaign contributors, ethical breaches, and failure to provide representation to state agencies or to provide legal advice -- the following state attorneys general have earned the dishonor of being the nation's Top Ten Worst:

10. Tom Reilly, Massachusetts
9. Peg Lautenschlager, Wisconsin
8. Lisa Madigan, Illinois
7. William Sorrell, Vermont
6. Darrell McGraw, West Virginia
5. Patrick Lynch, Rhode Island
4. Zulima Farber, New Jersey
3. Eliot Spitzer, New York
2. Bill Lockyer, California
1. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut

The historic function of a state attorney general (AG) is to defend the state in court and to give opinions to the governor and legislators on pending bills and policy decisions. In some instances, attorneys general have been entrusted by state legislatures with enforcing certain statutes,[ii] assisting district attorneys in prosecuting serious crimes, or disseminating information on legal issues confronting the state.

Like other government offices, the office of attorney general was designed to have limited powers, set forth by statute and constitution. Under all state constitutions, it is the legislature, not the state attorney general, which is vested with the authority to make laws and prescribe remedies for violations of the law. State constitutions give the attorney general no power to make or rewrite law. In fact, if the legislature has not conferred the authority on an attorney general to enforce a particular law, then the attorney general may well be exceeding his authority by bringing suit under it, violating constitutional checks and balances.

Federal law also limits attorney general power. If he attempts to regulate conduct in another state, that may violate not only state law, but also the due process and commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution, which forbid any state to impose its laws on another state, or to regulate commerce among states.

Unfortunately, many state attorneys general today find those constraints inconvenient. Over the past decade, attorneys general have increasingly usurped the role of state legislatures and Congress by using litigation to impose interstate and national regulations and to extract money from out-of-state defendants who have little voice in a state’s political processes. The worst offenders flaunt such abuse of power, with the most notorious of the lot, Eliot Spitzer, boasting that he “has redefined the role of Attorney General.” This sort of activism may benefit the political and policy ambitions of the office holder and his allies, but it imposes real costs on consumers, businesses, the economy, and our democratic system. The wave of lawsuits brought by state attorneys general has fostered corruption, circumvented legislative checks on regulation, taxes, and government spending, made the workings of government less transparent, and diverted attention away from their core responsibilities—enforcing state laws, defending state agencies against lawsuits, and providing legal advice to public officials.

Human Events
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Open Mouth, Insert Foot - AGAIN

John Kerry has once again inserted his size 13 right into his mouth. Not content with saying that our soldiers were ``terrorizing'' Iraqi civilians in their homes, he shortly after warned that uneducated Americans ``get stuck in Iraq'' -- a supposedly botched joke.

Now, he assures an audience at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that the United States is a ``sort of international pariah.''

Huh? Maybe in his elite world he's feeling a little left out.

Kerry, who appeared on stage in Davos this past weekend with former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, also proclaimed, ``When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don't advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy.''

Victor Davis Hansen corrects Kerry: "Kerry could learn a few simple rules of etiquette that should guide the "message" of all high American officials when abroad:

Tell the Whole Truth Without Posturing or Spinning.

"Kerry was clearly directing his criticism at the Bush administration, but the Kyoto Protocol, the international climate treaty, was first rejected by the U.S. in 1997. Ten years ago, President Clinton wisely chose not to refer the treaty to the Senate. Even that was not enough for outraged senators, who went ahead anyway to vote 95-0 to oppose any international agreement on climate control like Kyoto in which China, India and other developing countries would remain exempt. Kerry himself cast one of these votes -- an ironic example of what Kerry now calls "duplicity and hypocrisy."

"Nor was the United States "irresponsibly slow" in regard to African AIDS relief. In fact, the Bush administration has devoted $4 billion annually to combat AIDS in Africa. That's triple what the Clinton administration budgeted. That generosity deserves praise, not scorn."

"For all his anger at the current administration, Kerry conveniently doesn't tell his audience that the United States Congress voiced overwhelming bipartisan distrust of Kyoto. He forgets that he and other Democrats in the House and Senate, in traditional bipartisan fashion, authorized wars against Afghanistan and Iraq by large pluralities that are now so controversial.

What then drives John Kerry to say such ugly things?

Kerry must still hurt over his recent loss to the supposedly less sophisticated George Bush. And he and other leftist elites apparently must remind their kindred European counterparts that there are still refined Americans like themselves who are not flag-waving Christians from Texas.
But, mostly, it is intellectual laziness. It is always easier to cite America's flaws to applause than to take the time to explain the nature of its rare morality to catcalls. In truth, the United States has never been richer or more generous. Its military is preeminent, protects vulnerable allies and fights extremism worldwide. Immigrants risk their lives to reach our shores.

But we are in a deep spiritual crisis when a recent candidate for our presidency either cannot, or will not, patiently explain that to the world. Instead, Sen. Kerry, the new ugly American abroad, glibly misleads a global audience that his own America is a "pariah" -- a verdict that is as embarrassing to us as it is stupid for him."

John Kerry really needs to move to France and get this painful journey overwith. If he's embarassed by his country it's because he's so out of step with it.

I can't wait to hear his next faux pas.