Saturday, November 12, 2005
While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction.
Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.' That's why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.
The stakes in the global War on Terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our Nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.
This is the kind of sharp rhetoric Bush should've been making a long time ago. This is the kind of talk conservatives should want and expect from the President. This is the kind of speech leaders make. The time for being passive is long over. The time for catering to all the backseat drivers and Monday morning quarterbacks on the Left needs to stop. The time for being passive in the face of constant criticism from liars and conspiracy artists ends.
Democrats had their chance to speak and say 'no' and they blew it. Like the President reminded the nation, Democrats viewed the very same intelligence he did and they all came to the same conclusion. Everyone from Bill Clinton to John Kerry to Ted Kennedy to Charles Schumer voted 'yes' to the war in Iraq, made public statements confirming the need to get rid of Saddam Hussein and said that he had weapons.
I was skeptical about the war in Iraq because it has always been my belief that going to war should always be our last option in protecting our country.
Yet, Sadaam was an evil man and bad for world stability. The UN sanctions were not successful and saddam wasn't allowing the inspectors to do their job. Meanwhile massive amounts of Iraqi's were being raped, killed and tortured.
The Saddam regime killed thousands of its own people both convenionally and with gas (a WMD). Saddam even went as far as to video tape himself and his henchmen marching opposition political leaders outside government chambers where his sons summarily executed them. And as far as WMDs being a lie--every country, every leader (including the French, Germans, Russians and all past US Presidents) knew they existed in Iraq. Clinton even sent in a cruise missile attack because of WMD's in the 90's. Under these circumstances, Bush could not afford to ignore Iraq under Saddam. I believed that before the issue of the war ever came up.
Iraq has been a bad situation for a long time now and part of our responsibility to ourselves and to the world we live in is to aid people who are unable to help themselves. To ignore Iraq would be gross negligence on our part. Part of being a competent world leader is learning how to manage those bad situations. And knowing how to discern and manipulate the difference between evolution and revolution.
I believe Bush thought long and hard about his decision to go into Iraq. i believe Bush thought long and hard about not only the sheer magnitude of 9/11, but at the astonishment that the U/S. was that vulnerable to such an attack. I believe Bush thought long and hard about our troops and the lives that would be lost. I believe the restoration of Iraq is part of a much bigger plan to defeat global terrorism. I trust that the President told the truth about Iraq.
I'm glad he finally told all the naysayers to stick it.
Friday, November 11, 2005
HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. -- Former president Bill Clinton called Congress' impeachment of him an "egregious" abuse of the Constitution and challenged those who say history will judge him poorly because of his White House tryst with Monica Lewinsky.
Speaking at an academic conference examining his presidency here Thursday, Clinton challenged historian Douglas Brinkley's comments in a newspaper interview that Clinton would be deemed a great president were it not for his impeachment.
"I completely disagree with that," Clinton said in his speech at Hofstra University. "You can agree with that statement, but only if you think impeachment was justified. Otherwise, it was an egregious abuse of the Constitution and law and history of our country."
Clinton was acquitted by the Senate of perjury and obstruction of justice at his 1999 impeachment trial, which he argued was not about what he called his "misconduct."
"Now if you want to hold it against me that I did something wrong, that's a fair deal," he said.
"If you do that, then you have a whole lot of other questions, which is how many other presidents do you have to downgrade and what are you going to do with all those Republican congressmen, you know, that had problems?"
5 years after he left office and Bill Clinton is still begging the American public to remember him for anything besides a stained dress.
Sorry, no can do.
And yeah, I'm sure plenty of politicians and past Presidents have cheated on their wives. I'm sure JFK was sneaking out on midnight runs every week. But Slick Willie just can't seem to accept the fact that he didn't get impeached for cheating, he got impeached for lying under oath. Last time I checked,that's a crime.
And yes, even perjury is protected by our great Constitution.
Now will he ever go away?
Of course not, especially when you're being paid upwards of 6 figures to remain stuck in denial.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
From Allhiphop.com:Hip Hop legend Rev. Run has scored another hit with his MTV reality series “Run’s House,” as the hit show has been picked up for another season.
MTV renewed the show, which has been one of MTV’s top-rated shows after airing only three episodes – making it one of the network’s fastest pickups in history. Run attributed his success to his family values and his deep spiritual beliefs, which are featured on the show.
“My show is to preach by letting you look at my life on television,” Run told AllHipHop.com.
“Look at the way I raised my kids, look at the way I treat my wife. That’s my ministry. Look at me on MTV and say ‘wow, I like this guy. I don’t really give a big sermon on that show, but my life is a sermon.”
According to Nielsen Media Research statistics, in the week ending Oct. 30, “Run’s House” was ranked #5 in the Top 10 Ad Supported Cable
A friend of mine told me that I should check "Run's House" a few weeks ago and ever since I've been hooked. My interest also being sparked from being a longtime fan of Run-DMC, "Run's House" is sort of like a real-life Cosby Show, but with a Hip-hop edge. Also important to Run's House" success is the fact that it provides an able assist for the trashy filth that dominates current day reality TV, giving it such a bad rep.
Yet, while most people have a serious distaste for reality-TV, it wouldn't still exist if somebody wasn't watching it. Plus reality TV is nothing new -- it's been disgusting and amusing people for decades ever since Chuck Barris and "The Gong Show" dream. Unfortunately nowadays you can't get your reality-TV fix on without getting slapped in the head with inane rundowns of what's going on with Danny Bonaduce, Corey Feldman and other talentless wannabes who are doing a serious disservice to pop-culture.
Compared to such contemporaries, "Run's House" (named after a 1988 Run-DMC song) is at the top of the heap in quality, variety and realism. Indeed, take away the mansion and all the other benefits of fame and you have a show that most people can identify with. The five kids each have their nuisances, but they remain respectful and do well in school. But yeah, Run's kids do want the kind of fame MTV's unleashed, and now doles out itself: the oldest daughter is a Ford model -- but also a student in college -- and one of Rev. Run's son's, JoJo, is an aspiring rapper.
Run, who has a new solo album out in stores, serves well as the family honcho with a comedic edge. Whether he's trying to get his wife to exercise more, settling petty sibling disputes or taking care of Jojo's temper tantrums, he's the embodiment of everyday dad's, or better yet, the anti-Ozzy Osbourne.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
From the Daily News.com:It's one for the history books.
Mayor Bloomberg romped his way to a second term for mayor last night, crushing Democrat Fernando Ferrer 58.5% to 38.7% - the widest margin ever for a Republican mayor of New York.
With all precincts counted, Bloomberg had thrashed Ferrer by 19.8 percentage points - just eclipsing Fiorello LaGuardia's 1937 win and ensuring that a Republican holds the keys to City Hall for an unprecedented fourth consecutive term.
Before a cheering throng of supporters at Manhattan's Sheraton New York, Bloomberg declared not just a victory but a mandate for the results-oriented style he has used to drive down crime and improve city schools since 2001.
"I will continue to lead ... honestly and independently, by always putting people's interest ahead of the political interests and the special interests," said Bloomberg, who pays himself $1a year in salary. "That's why you hired me four years ago, andthat's why you rehired me tonight - and I'm not even asking for a raise."
Ferrer threw in the towel about an hour earlier in a brief phone call to the mayor.
"Thanks, Freddy. You're a gentleman to call," Bloomberg told the ex-Bronx borough president.
Soon after, Ferrer conceded at the nearby Waldorf-Astoria, telling supporters he was proud of a campaign that shined a light on the daily struggles faced by the city's poor.
But despite Ferrer's clarion call of "two cities" - a theme he used to convey the widening gap between rich and poor - voters clearly decided that Bloomberg had earned a second term.
Bloomberg won because he had way more loot to finance his campaign than Ferrer did, he's still living off the economic stability established by his predecessor Rudolph Giuliani and he was running against a boring candidate who has never really struck a chord with anyone outside his borough.
However, the size of Bloomberg's victory still displays the sanctimonious hatred New Yorkers have for President Bush. And the irony that NYC has now elected a Republican mayor for a 4th consecutive term speaks volume towards the hypocrisy of a city that the media keeps referring to as being largely Democratic.
In the last 2 presidential elections, New Yorkers overwhelmingly voted for, respectively, Al Gore and John Kerry . . . so much so that Bush didn't even bother to campaign here. And let's not forget the callous treatment Bush and the rest of the Republican bunch got from NYC when the Republicans held their national convention here last year.
Yet, when a desperate Democratic candidate who at very least had a valid platform needs their help, New Yorkers are nowhere to be found.
Monday, November 07, 2005
"Monster" nanny Noella Allick, jailed for allegedly shaking a Manhattan newborn and leaving her with brain damage, will soon be charged with breaking another infant's bones, the Daily News has learned.
Allick will be formally accused of injuring the Nassau County baby shortly after the girl's April birth.
The injuries - a fractured arm, leg and collarbone, and two broken ribs - were discovered at a routine doctor's visit in mid-June.
The nanny is soon expected to be taken from Rikers Island to a Nassau County courtroom to be arraigned on second-degree assault punishable by up to seven years in prison, according to the Nassau County district attorney's office.
"There are two stages in life where people are the most vulnerable: when they are newborns, and extremely frail and elderly," said top prosecutor Joy Watson, chief of the Sex Offense and Domestic Violence Bureau. "People who commit crimes against these two groups are the most heinous."
So it's not enough that children have to worry about strangers or sexual predators, or getting good grades, or peer pressure, etc., add to the list of worries violent women entrusted to take care of them. And while it's easy to point the blame at illegal immigrants and a judicial system that keeps finding excuses to allow these women to do very little jail time, more blame needs to be pointed at parents as well.
Ask parents and they'll talk about the cost of childcare, lack of a family friendly workplace or in the case of single, working mothers . . . having to do everything on their own. But none of that excuses the fact that parents themselves need to make serious improvements concerning who they leave their child alone with on a regular basis.
The case of killer nannies has reached epidemic proportions what with parents failing to do proper background checks on their caregiver, people like Allick calling themselves "nurses" without even having a nursing license and child complaints not being taken seriously.
Stories about home-alone children and killer nannies are proof that parents can no longer be trusted. And that should serve as a starting point for new family policies which set out to hold parents to stricter standards, including being arrested for criminal negligence when you leave your child with a woman with a record of abusing children in the past.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
From the AP:
WASHINGTON - A Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Sunday he believes Samuel Alito will get an up-or-down vote on his Supreme Court bid.
"We should commit," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., minimizing prospects of a Senate filibuster that would prevent final action on President Bush's choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
"I think the probability is that will happen," Biden said on ABC's "This Week."
Bush last week selected Alito, a former Reagan administration lawyer who is currently a judge on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, after White House counsel Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination amid withering criticism from conservatives.
Alito's confirmation hearings begin in the committee on Jan. 9. Some Democrats have raised the prospect of a filibuster until they get a fuller sense of his views on abortion and other social issues on which O'Connor has been a swing vote.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., another Judiciary Committee member, said he was not hearing his Democratic colleagues discussing the filibuster option.
Kennedy said he had an open mind about Alito's nomination, although he was concerned about the judge's rulings on privacy rights and rights of the disabled.I can't count how many times I've seen the media ask Democrat senators questions about a possible filibuster over the nomination of Justice Alito to the Supreme Court. It's almost become obsessive and it's not just liberal-leaning MSNBC that's doing it: they're ALL guilty. Whether it's CNN, the AP or one of the local news networks, the media seems to be on a mission to constantly remind Democrats that they can do harm to President Bush by filibustering Alito. And for what? Because Alito is so well-liked by the same right-wing extremists who hated on Harriet Miers? Or because the filibuster is seen as such an entertaining (i.e. "ratings") move? Or could it be because George W. Bush is getting to pick another justice instead of last year's media darling and presidential loser John Kerry?
Or maybe it's just all of the above.
Either way, It would seem to me that even Democrats know that they would have a very time selling to the American public the need to filibuster Alito. Why? Because the case agaiust Alito being on the Supreme Court is nonexistent. Put aside the usual hyperbole by liberals that any conservative judge is a threat to mankind as we know it, and you're left with a judge who is highly qualified, has a huge paper trail, clearly seems to understand constitutional law, has firsthand experience in dealings with the high Court and simply put, deserves the job.
In other words . . . HIRE THIS MAN!
The media's obsession with the filibuster and the Democrats response to it demonstrates clearand absolute media bias against Alito. After all, when you consider that even Ted Kennedy seems to be taking a "we'll see" approach to a conservative nominee, a fair-minded person might be inclined to think that Justice Alito might not be so bad after all.