The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing -- Edmund Burke
Saturday, June 24, 2006
"For moderate Muslims the picture is dispiriting. They see the most religiously conservative and politically provocative groupings enjoy the lion’s share of attention and they wonder how serious the British State is about countering extremism. How can they convince young men within their community that the path of moderation brings respect and a voice in the nation’s deliberations when the most influential voices are seen to belong to those with radical agendas?"
"BY NOW IT'S UNDENIABLE: The New York Times is a national security threat. So drunk is it on its own power and so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives."
The Liberals are out of office- she doesn't have to take cheap shots at the USA- what about Iran, Syria, North Korea, Sudan, Somalia .......?
"The new government has rarely given us reason to dwell on partisan politics -- because it has been too busy getting things done."
"Equally impressive was the passage of the new Federal Accountability Act -- a more decisive response to the sponsorship scandal than anything the Liberals managed. With a new Public Appointments Commission to reduce patronage and a Procurement Officer to review contracts and purchases, a Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and expanded powers for the Auditor-General, the Tories have gone a long way toward ensuring there won't be a repeat of Adscam."
"No doubt this has slowed security-forces development. Which brings us to the next topic: the continuing necessity of coalition forces in Iraq. Mr. Zebari's primary mission in New York, in fact, was to review the U.N. mandate of coalition forces. He tells me about a fascinating discussion among Iraqi political leaders shortly before he left for New York. He told them, he says, that the new government was perfectly within its rights to ask for the departure of foreign troops. But he says he found no takers. In fact, the loudest objection to the idea came from Adnan al-Dulaimi, who represents a Sunni community generally thought to be most hostile to the "occupiers." They know only too well that coalition troops are their best protection against shadowy Baathist thugs who would like to lay claim to the Sunni leadership mantle. "Before the Sunnis were raising the flag for a withdrawal of all occupying forces immediately, that they are the sources of all the ills. Now they are the ones asking that they should stay," Mr. Zebari says."
"For the record, the White House practically begged them not to publish this, arguing it would imperil the highly successful counterterrorism program. (Remember: There have been no major terror attacks on the U.S. since 9-11). The New York Times rejected the plea, citing "public interest." The others followed.
We're left to wonder: Is this criminal behavior? The newspapers will claim they have the right under the First Amendment to publish government secrets if they see fit. But that's rubbish. Since World War II, Congress and a series of legal decisions have made it clear the media aren't exempt from the Espionage Act — which forbids giving secrets to the enemy.
While the legality of printing secrets may be debatable, it's clear there's a crisis among media elites that have allowed hatred of the president and his party to taint their reporting. In the process, they've destroyed whatever claims to objectivity and fairness they might have once had. Far worse, they've given aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war — and that is simply inexcusable."
"Will President Bush's current unpopularity translate into a Democratic recapture of either the House or Senate this fall -- or a victory in the 2008 presidential election? Probably not.
Despite widespread unhappiness with the Republicans, it is hard to envision a majority party run by Howard Dean, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Why?
All sorts of apparent and not-so-apparent reasons. First, recent events and trends have complicated Democrats' talking points about purported Bush failings. The so-called "jobless" recovery has seen low unemployment comparable to the Clinton boom years."