Foleygate, Revisisted

I've been waiting for the whole Foleygate thing to settle down before commenting on what I thought the fallout wil be. Things were moving so fast with one new revelation after another, frankly even I couldn't keep up. If you want the details I would suggestion visiting Gateway Pundit for the low down (he's got all the inside stuff.)

Enough time has passed and the results are coming in, and they don't look good. That being said, I still think there is more at play here than simply reading the polls. I've picked up a vibe from conservatives that the whole episode has generated some motivation among the base. I wouldn't expect that to show up in the polls, so I'm still taking them with a grain of salt. The polls, I think, reflect the general attitude of people such as those that work in my office. They seem to get their news from The Daily Show and of course are clueless about the details of the story. For instance, they think that Denny Hastert knew of the lurid IMs, when in reality it was the emails Hastert knew about. That's probably neither here nor there, because I don't think any of them vote Republican anyway. But I do believe they probably reflect the general population represented in the polls.

So, the bottom line is that it certainly has caused some problems, but I believe there is still time to motivate the base that so desperately wants to be motivated. The story seems to have dropped a little too early and events such as North Korea's nuclear test pushed the Foley story off the front pages and reminded people of the dangerous world we live in (damn that Karl Rove is good.) Remember Gary Condit? He was front page news on September 10, 2001. Enough said. Also, another reality not reflected in the polls is the superiority of the GOPs Get Out The Vote (GOTV) effort. It is time to see how effective Ken Mehlman's machine can be.

Time and events will tell, but there is no doubt that it'll be tough going for the next few weeks.

Tolerance, The Liberal Way

Ah yes, Babs, a model of tolerence, love, and peace. During a concert in which she was performing a skit portraying President Bush as a "bumbling idiot" (gee, that's original), some in the audience, after shelling out big bucks, were none to please. Babs response?

"Shut the **** up! Shut up if you can't take a joke!"

Nice. They love to dish it out, but they just can't take it. Actually, I was surprised that people in the audience weren't just lapping it up. Considering how well her radical views are known, it's surprising that anybody who doesn't agree with her in lock-step would give her money. Oh well, I guess they got just what they deserve.

Hastert Not Hasert

Ooops.

Should Hasert Resign?

I'm perplexed by the Washington Times' call for Denny Hasert to resign as Speaker of the House. The meat of their argument:

Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois, the Republican chairman of the House Page Board, said he learned about the Foley e-mail messages "in late 2005." Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the leader of the Republican majority, said he was informed of the e-mail messages earlier this year. On Friday, Mr. Hastert dissembled, to put it charitably, before conceding that he, too, learned about the e-mail messages sometime earlier this year. Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Hastert insisted that he learned of the most flagrant instant-message exchange from 2003 only last Friday, when it was reported by ABC News. This is irrelevant. The original e-mail messages were warning enough that a predator -- and, incredibly, the co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children -- could be prowling the halls of Congress. [emphasis mine]

If the initial emails weren't enough to raise even the hackles of liberal newspapers such as the St. Petersburg Times or the Miami Herald, they were supposed to be "warning enough" for Denny Hasert to launch an investigation? The Washington Times dismisses the differences between the emails and the IMs as "irrelevant"? If Rep. Hasert launched an investigation into every such matter concerning questionable behavior of a fellow Representative, the House would be one big non-stop investigation of itself.

So far, I've seen nothing that indicates the House Leadership knew anything more than the contents of the original email. Could you imagine the uproar from liberals if they had launched such an investigation of Rep. Foley, long known inside the beltway as a homosexual, based soley on such ambiguous emails. Liberal would have been screaming "homophobia" at the top of their lungs. They would have accused Hasert of painting all homosexuals as pedophiles.

With everything we now know, I not only hope that Denny Hasert doesn't resign, but I hope he digs his heels in and fights back. There have been some pretty ugly accusations tossed in his direction, including covering for a known pedophile. That is not something you should take lying down Mr. Speaker.

UPDATE: Mark Levin at The Corner makes some good points along the same lines that I believe I'm following here. Of course he's much clearer and better spoken on the matter than I, but then again I'm only about half as smart as he is. Also notice the mature discourse displayed by conservatives on this matter in contrast to the... ah, you know.

UPDATE II: Investor's Business Daily appears to be the first to call into question the timing of Foleygate and questions about what did "Democrats know, and when did they know it?" As the story continues to unfold, it should begin to become clear that the Democrats will have quite a bit to answer for as well. This is politics at it's dirtiest and the only way for the Republicans to fight back is, sadly enough, to get down and dirty with 'em.

Foley, Foley, And More Foley

The left side of the blogosphere is going absolutely nutso about the Foley resignation. As of this writing, seven of the last twelve post in KosLand has been about Foley. It's pretty clear that Foley is a sick perv who got exactly what he deserved. The real question surrounds what the House leadership knew and when they knew it. Of course the left has already decided that it's a clear cut case and Denny Hasert and the entire House leadership should be run out of town on a rail. The facts, or lack thereof, of course tell a more ambiguous story.

I'll let those facts shake out before passing judgement. I've always been apathetic towards Denny Hasert as Speaker of the House. He seems like a nice guy, and as a former teacher if he really knew the perversity of Foley's exploits I have a hard time believing he would simply look the other way.

As far as the possible fallout and impact this story has on the elections, I don't see a lot to it. Of course that could change if it turns out that the House leadership was complacent in the matter, but as of now I don't see it. The story involves sex, so of course the press will cover it in the most sensationalist fashion possible. And right now the dems are taking full advantage of the situation, which of course I don't blame them for doing. In the end, however, I suspect once again they'll over-play their hand on this, because they have nothing else to offer, and within a week or so barring any further incriminating developments it'll be back to business as usual as we head down the home stretch leading to the November elections.

To be continued...

UPDATE: I found this headline from ABC News blog, the Blotter, very interesting:

E-mails Show Foley Sought Rendezvous with Page

My understanding is that there are two completely different issues between emails and Instant Messages. The emails, while creepy, are not explicit and didn't warrant any disciplinary action against Foley. The IMs, on the other hand, are perverse and may land Foley in jail. It's a very sloppy piece written as if they want to blur the line and confuse the story. Big surprise? NOT!

Bush Blast With Both Barrels

President Bush is a master at lower expectations and sandbagging his opponents. Many times persons like me find ourselves criticizing him for not fighting back, only to find out later he was letting his opponents climb further out on the limb before he starts the cutting. Well, he's at it again with this blistering speech at a funder raiser in Alabama yesterday. A little taste:

Some Democrats in Congress say that we should not be fighting the terrorists in Iraq; it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the first place. I believe these Democrats need to answer a simple question: Do they really believe that we would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power? In a recent interview, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee was asked this very question. And his answer was, yes, yes, and, yes.

If this is what the Democrats think, they need to make this case to the American people: They need to make the case that the world would be better off it Saddam Hussein were still in power.

[snip]

After the attacks of September the 11th, it became clear that the United States of America must confront threats before they come and hurt us. Saddam Hussein's regime was a serious threat, a risk the world could not afford to take. America, Iraqis, and the world are safer because Saddam Hussein is not in power. (Applause.)

In a recent series of speeches, I made it clear that we're in the early hours of a long struggle for civilization. I have made it clear that we're in the ideological struggle of the 21st century. I've also made it clear that the safety of the American people depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad.

I strongly believe that Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. The Democrats may not think so, but Osama bin Laden does. Here are the words of bin Laden, "I now address... the whole... Islamic nation: Listen and understand... The most... serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War... [that] is raging in [Iraq]." He calls it "a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam." He says, "The whole world is watching this war," and that it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation."

For al Qaeda, Iraq is not a distraction from their war on America, it is a central battlefield where there's -- outcome of the struggle will be decided.

The NIE I quoted earlier says this about Iraq. It said, "Perceived jihadist success there," in Iraq, "would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere. It also says that "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

Democrats in Washington have been quoting the NIE a lot in recent days, but you don't hear them quoting that part of the document. The Democrats can't have it both ways. Either they believe that Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror or they agree with the intelligence community and the terrorists themselves that the outcome of Iraq is important in the war on terror. Truth is, the Democrats are using the NIE to mislead the American people and justify their policy of withdrawal from Iraq.

[snip]

The stakes in this war are high, and so are the stakes this November. Americans face the choice between two parties with two different attitudes on this war on terror. Five years after 9/11, the worst attack on American homeland in our history, the Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction, and endless second-guessing. The party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut-and-run. (Applause.)

That last part will have Democrats in full purple-face rage. More Mr. President, please.

Dems, Follow These Men

Senators Leahy, Kerry, Feingold, and Dodd, that is. They're up in arms over the terrorist detainee legislation which passed the House yesterday and is now before the Senate. Nothing would be better for the Republicans than for the Democrats to get behind these Senators in their quest for bestowing the right of habeus corpus upon terrorist being held at Club Gitmo. Liberals cheered when the Supreme Court ruled the military tribunals proposed by the Bush Administration unconstitutional. Now, though, they have to deal with the reality of coming up with a solution themselves. Gee, things get a little harder when you actually have to come up with ideas as opposed to just heaping non-stop criticism.

That's My Niece!

This is an article about my niece, Laura. She helped pass a law in New Jersey that allows students to opt out of dissecting animals, without penalty, as required in some classes. Apparently there are other methods that can be substituted. Good for her. Towards the end of the article you learn she's working to start a Young Republicans Club. Brains, looks, personality, Republican! Oh, sorry, a button just bounced off my screen. And by the way, big brother is a Marine. A big thumbs-up to my sister, Karen.

Ahhh, Is That It?

Now that portions of the NIE have been declassified and we get to see the key conclusions, we can make a few conclusions for ourselves.

First, if this is representative of what the intelligence community is generating, we're in big trouble. There is absolutely nothing of substance in the document. A lot of "if's" and "maybe's" and nothing more. Second, it is clear that the information leaked to the New York Times was cherry picked to put the Administration in the worst possible light and the New Yorks Times ate it up without a single critical thought. The New York Times has abandoned any pretence of objectivity and is nothing more than an extension of the Democrat Party and should be viewed as such. And lastly, the Democrats have once again demonstrated they can not to be taken seriously when it comes to fighting the War on Terror (a phrase which I despise by the way.)

In the end, this is a big todo about nothing. The report is from April, tells us nothing new (other than our intelligence agencies remain inept,) and within a week will be forgotten. Next.

UPDATE: I forgot to add that with the Democrats demanding the President Bush release the NIE in it's entirety, it proves they don't like the results of Bush calling their bluff. They know perfectly well that the President won't declassify the document, so now they can run around blabbing about how the President isn't being honest with the American people. They're not serious about this, they simply want cover for the fecklessness.

Stepping In It

The Democrats are going to regret jumping on the leaked information from the NEI. Now that President Bush has order it's declassification we will get the complete picture. This was nothing more than a political hit job by President Bush's enemies within the intelligence community.

Nancy Pelosi's request for a rare closed-door secret session to discuss the analysis is a sure sign of panic. In their zeal to denounce Bush and the Iraq War they once again put their complete unseriousness and pure partisanship regarding the War on Terrorism on display for everyone to see. They simply are not serious and cannot be trusted with the defense of the this country.

Now, let's get to bottom of who continues to leak classified information to the The New York Times and start prosecuting theses people to the fullest extent of the law.

Fighting Enemies Makes Them Mad

This just in, fighting your enemies makes them mad. Much is being made of the latest National Intelligence Estimate in which it states that our invasion of Iraq has help create more terrorists. Let's put aside the fact that, once again, classified information is being leaked in an effort to undermine the Bush Administration, and look at the logic of the Democrats criticism. I think Neal Bortz has the perfect analogy. He ask us to think about the Civil Rights movement and about how that helped recruitment for the Klan. Does that mean that it was wrong? Of course not, and it doesn't make any more sense in the case of Iraq.

Islamists had been gaining momentum from the time of the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Iran through the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole and ultimately 9/11. The latest National Intelligence Estimate appears to view terrorism as a threat that began with the invasion of Iraq in 2003, ignoring the history of the Islamist movement. Judging by the reactions of the Democrats, they want to go back to what we were doing on September 10th, 2001 -- nothing.

The Wagging Finger

When was the last time I saw Bill Clinton wagging his finger in indignation? Hmmm... Oh, yeah, when he was lying through his teeth to the American people about the whole sordid Lewenski affair. Now he's wagging it again complaing about the "right wingers" criticism of his less than agressive approach to capturing or killing Osama.

Look, nobody took terrorism seriously enough from Jimmy Carter through George W. Bush's first eight months in office. Mistakes were made and the threat was underestimated. Frankly, I don't really care much about pointing the finger of blame as much as I care about making sure we don't make those same mistakes again. Clintons outrage, much the same as his protest concerning the ABC miniseries Path to 9/11, does nothing more than draw attention to his abysmal record on fighting terrorism during his eight years in office. By attempting to rewrite history in an effort to salvage his "legacy," he's only undermining himself.

Mr. President, my advice to you concerning this matter is to follow the words of the immortable Sergeant Hulka, "Lighten up Francis."

Osama Dead... Again

Here we go with another report that Osama bin Laden is dead. Of course nobody believes these reports anymore when they come out. I almost convinced myself that he was dead up to the 2004 election, but when he reappeared just before the election I learned my lesson.

It's curious that this news comes out a few weeks before a new rumored video message from Osama is to appear. This has to do with the chatter that another, spectacular, attack is to occur sometime during Ramadan of this year. We shall see within the next few weeks.

Personally I'd like nothing better for this rat bastard to die of typhoid in some dark, damp, cave, in the hills of Pakistan. Nothing would be better than to deny him the supposed glory of having died as a martyr.

Kos Speaks on Chavez

Well, Kos has finally commented on the Chavez kerfuffle (TM James Taranto) and has this to say: Move along, nothing to see here. The Anchoress is not amused and takes the Democrats and their Kos minions to task for enabling such nonsense:

There are some on the left who are suggesting that Hugo Chavez’s remarks are simply an indicator that the world “disrespects” President Bush…well…I wonder who gave them the idea that they could? Was it John Kerry calling him a “fucking liar,” and not having to answer for that rudeness to anyone while the press shrugged it off? Good heavens, Bush calls terrorism “evil” and he was mocked and criticized for using that word, but the press never had a problem with “fucking liar, fucking crooks and thieves” or with adolescent musings about the president’s name and female genitalia. It was alllllll soooooo funnnnneeeeeee, newsreaders could hardly deliver the spite without grinning, themselves.

Please read the whole thing, she's on fire.

Saying Goodbye to the F-14

The F-14 Tomcat is now officially retired. Growing up, I always loved the F-14. It was just a cool looking aircraft: twin engines, swept wings, huge ordnance capability. It was one bad mother. Of course it became immortalized in the movie Topgun, where everybody learned about fighter pilot culture and became familiar with cool call names such as Maverick, Iceman, and Goose.

It was one great plane that served it's country well. Thanks to the F-14 and all of the pilots it's served throughout the years.

(via The Corner)

Cartoon of the Day

I got a kick out of this cartoon (via RealClearPolitics). While I do give credit to Reps Rangel and Pelosi for calling out Chavez, I get the feeling they're doing it more out of political expediency than authentic outrage. It certainly isn't helping them with their Netroots though. They made their bed by cozying up to the fringe, now they have to sleep in it.

Chavez for Prez!

After listening to Hugo Chavez at the UN yesterday, I thought perhaps he was running for the Presidential nomination on the Democrat ticket. I mean, he was feeding them the red meat they so desire. He doesn't mince words, speaks truth to power, hates George W. Bush, and is a socialist - their perfect candidate!

But, now I see the responses coming in and it looks like even the Dems are not that dense. Even Charlie Rangle is defending the Prez for crying out loud! The only bulb dim enough to defend Chavez appears to be Sen. Harkin of Iowa (link down) which really isn't much of a surprise. There aren't many Senators more partisan than Harkin and he doesn't disappoint here.

Hugo Chavez did President Bush and John Bolton a great service yesterday, he exposed the UN as the worthless anti-American organization it is. Thanks Hugo! I'd also like to note that there is nary a word over and DailyKos about this embarassing episode for their beloved UN, there too busy continuing to try and paint Senator George Allen as a racist.

Oh, and by the way, Citgo is owned by Hugo Chavez. You may want to take that into consideration next time you fillup.

P.S. Chavez is the gift that just keeps giving. Here is Chavez this morning while touring Harlem:

Speaking while walking in a Harlem street, Chavez told a group of passers-by: "Bush is an alcoholic, a sick man with a lot of hang-ups."

"He walks like John Wayne," declared the left-wing Venezuelan leader. "He doesn't know anything about politics, he got there because of Daddy."

This is straight out of the Dem talking points. By all means Mr. Chavez, please continue on...

Blogging Continues

OK, it's been way too long since my last entry. With the election rapidly approaching I'm going to make another effort with this thing. Having said that, now that football season has started, isn't it about time you starting blogging as well, Jim?

Olbermann Puff

This puff piece by the New York Times on Keith Olbermann is what DailyKos characterized as Fox "feeling the heat from Olbermann". Here's a snippet of the "heat":

...Mr. Olbermann has managed to climb past CNN into second place in the news channel competition at 8 p.m. among that 25-to-54 group. That qualifies as a feat for MSNBC, though Mr. Olbermann’s show remains little more than a dot in the rearview mirror of Fox News.

A little more than a dot and the KosKids are dancing in the streets. Oh well, I guess you take what you can get. I admit to watching a bit more of Olbermann these days than I ever did before. Not for anything substantive, but for the mere entertainment of the nutiness. I don't find him funny in the slightest, but the material he covers on his show is a rabid Bush haters dream. It's not for everybody, but if you want to crawl inside the head of a nutty left winger, this is a good start.

News AP & Al Reuters Style

AP and Reuters both report the same way on the video released of two soldiers tortured and murdered in Iraq. Here's the AP:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - An al-Qaida-linked group posted a Web video Tuesday purporting to show the mutilated bodies of two U.S. soldiers, claiming it killed them in revenge for the rape-slaying of a young Iraqi woman by American troops from the same unit.

And here's al-Reuters:

DUBAI (Reuters) - A group led by al Qaeda in Iraq released gruesome footage of two corpses it said were of U.S. soldiers killed in June, and dedicated the video to an Iraqi girl raped and shot dead by U.S. forces.

Obviously from this reporting the soldiers accused of rape and murder have already been found guilty by the AP and Reuters. To bad they don't give as much benifit of the doubt to our soldiers as they do to the terrorists. Oh yeah, to them one man's terrorist is another man freedom fighter.