World Net Daily is runing a story drawing pretty much the same conclusions I drew a few months ago, and wrote on a few weeks back.
I wonder, myself how long they’ll be able to keep up the denial nonsense.
For those who wonder what all the bisiness about those Intel committe memos was about.. Tony Blankley puts it plainly:
1) Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee had drafted plans to use and misconstrue classified intelligence data to politically undercut the president of the United States (“pulling the trigger” closer to the election);
2) the CIA and other intelligence offices of the government have identified 10 years of contacts between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden —thus tending to dramatically justify our war against Iraq and contradicting one of the major Democratic Party criticisms of President Bush’s Iraq policy; and
3) Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee were working closely with outside groups to block judicial appointments for the purpose of ethnic bigotry and unethical manipulation of court proceedings. In Sen. Durbin’s case,the memo advised that Miguel Estrada be blocked as he is “especially dangerous because he is Latino.” In Sen. Kennedy’s case, the memo advised to stall Judge Gibbons appointment so she couldn’t get on the bench in time to decide the pending Michigan affirmative action case. The memo questioned “the propriety” of such tactics, but nonetheless advised it. She was confirmed just two months after the landmark case in question.
Tony goes further:
In Sen. Durbin’s case,the memo advised that Miguel Estrada be blocked as he is “especially dangerous because he is Latino.”
Can you imagine this kind of comment having been made by a republican and leaking out and not being pounced on by the press?
In Sen. Kennedy’s case, the memo advised to stall Judge Gibbons appointment so she couldn’t get on the bench in time to decide the pending Michigan affirmative action case. The memo questioned “the propriety” of such tactics, but nonetheless advised it. She was confirmed just two months after the landmark case in question.
Kennedy ball up a Judicial nomination for political reasons? Who’d have thought it?
The Wall Street Journal editorialized the other day that the Democrats on the committee seemingly didn’t really help to run the committee, but rather “their real bosses are the liberal interest groups that more or less tell the Senators when to sit, speak and roll over.”
As good a quote as I’ve pulled form them in a couple years, that one.
I found it interesting how the idiots in Trafalgar Square, protesting against our actions in Iraq kinda just melted away when the news of the attacks against British targets in Turkey came in.
Can it be even they now understand what we’re up against?
Sullivan makes note of something else, this morning. He questions if they’ve gotten so stupid because of a lack of leadership. It’s an interesting point. It’s downright stupid to hit those targets because in doing so, you tee of both the Truks and the Brits. All that will do is strengthen their resolve to defeat the terrorists.
Says Sullivan…
Perhaps al Qaeda is now so disorganized that it is practically incapable of any intelligent strategy. Either way, these terrible murders are indicators of something worth noting: the enemy may be falling apart. This may make it more dangerous in the short term. But it bodes well for eventual victory.
A reasonable surmise. One the left will not like, I suppose.
But again, for the record, I note that the protests in the UK, what little there were, have died down.
I’m seeing pictures showing up in blogsville, and from some of the webcams in London, that the numbers were amusingly small… certainly smaller than the press would have you think.
Boortz asks a good question this morning:
Is it possible that Jackson got tired of paying blackmail money to some parents, and those parents retaliated by going to the police? Some of the news reports say that Jackson lavished money, cars and possibly a new home on this family before the alleged incidents of abuse. Could the family have become dependent on Jackson’s largesse? Did they become bitter when the money dried up? Did they make threats? In plain language, did Jackson fail to respond to a blackmail threat?
This question would seem to tie in with the questions of timing I spoke of yesyerday.
A while back, I posted notes about Jackson and some legal problems he was having. My comments stand, with the addendum that’s been tacked on.
Michael Jackson is one strange bugger, isn’t he? He seems another in a long line of persons whose artistry in their craft is quite good, or at least was, (one does not, after all sell the numbers of albums he’s sold and not have some talent at entertaining) and has since succumbed to their own excesses. Writes Stephen McGinty in The Scottsman, recently, in
(outdated link removed)
“His difficulty in relating to people his own age probably stems from the emotional and physical abuse he suffered as a child, and the fact he grew up in the spotlight of fame. I see a damaged man who has not had the chance to develop to his full potential in an emotional sense. Jackson’s relationships with the mothers of his children – two by ex-wife Debbie Rowe and one conceived using a surrogate mother – further illustrate this. Rather than create a family environment, he’s
taking these children away from their mothers almost from the moment they are born. That is a terrible thing to do to a child, which has a basic right to know its biological parents, unless one of them poses a threat. What kind of father does this? Not a healthy individual.”
That Jackson is a few white gloves short of a wardrobe is unarguable.
But Jackson hardly seems alone at having his own private (and eventually, very public) demons, in terms of today’s stars of stage, screen and sound. Anyone watching VH1’s “Behind the Music” and CMT’s similar shows, will tell you that (insert band or star name here) has gone through hell after becoming a star, apparently unable to handle stardom, and the emotional stresses it brings. Fleetwood Mac who is
now announcing an album and I hear, a touring schedule, is as good an example of this as any, though I’m certainly most of my readers can make an entire list of their own favorite examples. Most of those examples didn’t survive. Says McGinty, trying to explain the allowance for Jackson’s excesses:
“The problems with Americans is that they are obsessed with fame. If a jobless man on a housing scheme in Edinburgh did this, police and social services would be in there instantly – and rightly so.”
Perhaps. Then again, perhaps not.
First, I doubt it’s fame, so much as it is success that drives this obsession. In terms of stars, the two are certainly linked. Western society, however has always at it’s root, prized success, and thereby, successful people. Consider the near star status of such people as Donald Trump, Ted Turner, and so on. These are people who are successful, but do not have any ‘star’ value of their own, save that they’ve been wildly successful in making money… often despite the fact that they’re idiots, and who in a realistic sense, are as devoid of entertainment value as they are of social value.
Also, that there is a tendency to accept oddball behavior from such people is not only an American issue, but is rather worldwide. Consider British Rock bands, for example. Or those from anywhere in the world, for that matter. And it should be noted that while we spend a lot of time trying to achieve stardom, or riches, or whatever, we seem to lack the ability to handle it once we have obtained it, Jackson being no exception. At some level, and possibly as a result of conditioning on both sides, (Star and Fan) being apart from the mainstream of society is what being a star is about, particularly for Rock and Pop stars, and some degree of oddball behavior is expected, even anti-social behavior, much of it overtly sexual, and certainly controversial. (I’m not suggesting this is desirable, but it has come to be the norm in the last few decades.)
One gets the impression that Jackson, however, is somewhat different, possibly due to the different paths he took to stardom. Says Jackson, in a recent interview;
“I have slept in a bed with many children … Why can’t you share your bed? The most loving thing to do, is to share your bed with someone?.. “When you say ‘bed’, you’re thinking sexual. They make that sexual. It’s not sexual; we’re going to sleep. I tuck them in.”
Even taken at face value, this is a strange attitude. Is Jackson being honest, here? I don’t know.
In fairness, I must ask; Would I even be asking the question, if as McGinty suggests a homeless man were doing this? The answer, of course, is no. Not because one is rich and one is not… not because one is demonstrably successful and one is not. No, because the odds are that the homeless man was likely not exposed to the same pressures as Jackson was, while growing up. (How many homeless celebs besdies Ron Delums do you know of?)
This is not a matter of pity on my part, misplaced or otherwise. Rather , this is a matter of determining influences learned early on, and based on that, determining current motivations behind current actions. In all likelyhood, the homeless man grew up in a more normal environment than Jackson did. Therefore the homeless man’s motivations are less likely to be as innocent…(misguided, but innocent) as Jackson’s stated motivations.
Mind you, I’m not defending Jackson, here. Let’s be clear about this.
Are Jackson’s actions a bit strange? Certainly.
Does he need some serious counseling session time? No question.
Would I allow my kids to stay in his house? No.
But here’s the rub: Are his actions criminal?
Sorry, I’m forced to say this by honesty… I’m just not fully convinced that kids are being sexually abused by him in these
situations. Somehow his actions, given the lack of a childhood, and all the other twisted signs we know of the man, have a ring of innocence about them, at least insofar as criminality goes. Let’s just say that based on this, I could very well be wrong, here… but I have a reasonable doubt criminal actions are being committed on the part of Jackson. While I can understand most of the DA’s zeal, (this is his job, after all) I wonder if there isn’t some political overtones there, too. This is a case with a lot of those little black and white spots, called ‘particulars” (Some who don’t want to get close call
them ‘grey areas’) that make this case more complex, and it looks like many are willing to make conclusions prior to understanding such particulars.
I’ll be watching this case with some interest, but I fear that the situation has spiraled out of control, and is headed to some nasty end or another., with or without some kind of proof of criminal activity.
One additional comment seems worth mentioning; That these charges always seem to surface when Jackson’s about ready to release a new LP, or about to make a major special appearance. The charges against him may or may not be true, but I find the timing of the charges of interest. Once like that, I could buy… twice with the same timing? One has to wonder a bit.
Wasn’t there a bit of a row over Strom Thurmond’s retirement, and comments from Trent Lott about him? If I recall rightly, folks got all bent out of shape because of Thurmand’s past, and charges of racism abounded.
But here comes Hillary, honoring a member of the KKK.
NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story
I won’t even bother re-re-re-posting the quotes.
The hell I won’t.
“…there are white niggers. I’ve seen a lot of white niggers in my time.”
Was he talking about whites who act like blacks, I wonder? Years after Byrd supposedly renounced the Klan, he wrote in a letter, he would never fight…
…”with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”
It was Byrd who fought against the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act — an act which was supported by the supposedly racist Republicans – and fillibustered it for over than 14 hours.I wonder if he mentioned
his little dog, Billy. Byrd also worked against the nominations of the Supreme Court’s two black justices, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas.
Hitlery supporting this guy is OK, but Lott supporting Strom Thurmond was racist?
DOUBLE STANDARD!!!
James Taranto passes on a note from the Guardian:
Frederick Forsyth (ellipsis in original):
You will find yourself assailed on every hand by some pretty pretentious characters collectively known as the British left. They traditionally believe they have a monopoly on morality and that your recent actions preclude you from the club. You opposed and destroyed the world’s most blood-encrusted dictator. This is quite unforgivable.
I beg you to take no notice. The British left intermittently erupts like a pustule upon the buttock of a rather good country. Seventy years ago it opposed mobilisation against Adolf Hitler and worshipped the other genocide, Josef Stalin.
It has marched for Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Andropov. It has slobbered over Ceausescu and Mugabe. It has demonstrated against everything and everyone American for a century. Broadly speaking, it hates your country first, mine second.
Eleven years ago something dreadful happened. Maggie was ousted, Ronald retired, the Berlin wall fell and Gorby abolished communism. All the left’s idols fell and its demons retired. For a decade there was nothing really to hate. But thank the Lord for his limitless mercy. Now they can applaud Saddam, Bin Laden, Kim Jong-Il . . . and hate a God-fearing Texan. So hallelujah and have a good time.
Bush seems to have taken Forsyth’s advice. Good for him–and good for America.
Why was there no coverage of this speech in the press?
FOXNews.com – Politics – Raw Data: Bush’s Speech at Whitehall Palace
From the Independant, today, ..comes news that bakeries around the western world have fallen on harder than usual times. It’s an interesting ground shift.
… and yet again, my points about Islam following civilians dying, raises questions about Islam being the reason these blodthirsty idiots are doing this.
Bootz raises an interesting point as well, today, asking, in part, what kind of world would it be today,
“…if other countries, including the Axis of Weasels (France and Germany) had joined Britain and America in the fight against terrorism in Iraq and the Middle East. ”
In this case, one needs also to ask if Turkey would have been spared this attack, had they co-operated with us in the initial attack on Iraq. They tried to placate the terrorists by not opposing them. Apparently, the lessons of past wars have eluded them… that there are some people you simply don’t deal with.
I wonder if this attack will change their attitude?
They’ve already had to drop “The Reagans”. Now, events have forced CBS to retreat again… this time, Michial Jackson’s special, which I think was due to air this week sometime. They’re still not doing badly in the sweeps, though, so don’t feel too badly for them.
Which does raise the question, though about these rather dramatic splashes every sweeps week; are they really needed? Perhaps they’d be better off just sticking with good programing?
Imagine waking up on November 3, 2004 and hearing these words: President-elect Wesley Clark. How would you feel?
Clark’s campaign casually announced the other day that it expected to take in $12 million this quarter. That’s more than any Democrat has ever raised in a single quarter. Except for Howard Dean, of course. Having smashed Bill Clinton’s fundraising records, Dean expects to eventually match President Bush’s $200 million take.
But wait, it gets worse. Ultra-liberal extremist groups like MoveOn.org expect to raise an unprecedented $420 million from limousine liberals. They’ll spend it on harsh negative ads and Get-Out-The-Vote efforts in key swing states.
The lying liberal media won’t tell you this: The Bush campaign is now badly outgunned when it comes to fundraising.
You have the power to change that. Bush and the Republican party now have hundreds of thousands of small individual donors, far more than the Democrats have. You can join their ranks by clicking here and making a small, recurring monthly contribution of $24, $54 or $104 to the Bush 2004 campaign.
If you’ve already donated and volunteered for the Bush campaign, then talk to your friends and enlist them in this battle for America’s very soul.
Today is Wictory Wednesday. Every Wednesday, I ask my readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush 2004 campaign.
So, lemme see if I’m getting this right….
Teddy “Hang a left off the bridge” Kennedy, after the Senate Debate on Bush’s judicial nominees last Friday, said, “What has not ended is resolution and determination of members of the U.S. Senate to continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president of the United States for any court.”
Neanderthal?
Kennedy has just proven what a racist little twerp he really is. Think about it;
A Harvard educated Ecuadorian immigrant, is a Neanderthal. Clearly, it can’t be the Harvard education. Must be the skin color, huh?
A judge who was re-elected with 75% of voters in California, who happens to be black is a Neanderthal?
Normally, I’d say Kennedy’s got a lot of explaining to do. But clearly these are the words of a pol who knows he’s not going to get slapped down for what he says… not by the Democrats,and certainly not by the press, who share the Democat’s views. I’d like to see someone rattle Al Sharpton’s cage on this one, or perhaps Carol Mosley-Braun. Wish we could depend on the press to ask them to comment on Kennedy’s statements.
But of course a press with any integrity is a pipe dream of mine.
Never mind.
And Democrats?
Forget it; Dashiele was heard defending Kennedy’s comments.Can you imagine a Republican making such comments about Democrat nominees? What would they say, do you suppose?
ABU QASH, West Bank — Raped by her brothers and impregnated, Rofayda Qaoud refused to commit suicide, her mother recalls, even after she bought the 17-year-old a razor with which to slit her wrists.
So Amira Abu Hanhan Qaoud says she did what she believes any good Palestinian parent would: restored her family’s “honor” through murder.
Armed with a plastic bag, razor and wooden stick, Qaoud entered her sleeping daughter’s room last Jan. 27. “Tonight you die, Rofayda,” she told the girl, before wrapping the bag tightly around her head.
Next, Qaoud sliced Rofayda’s wrists, ignoring her muffled pleas of “No, mother, no!” After her daughter went limp, Qaoud struck her in the head with the stick.
These are the people we’re to be negotiating with as equals? The girl s gang raped by her brothers, and killed by her mother? And this kind of thing is routine, there!!!
Qaoud’s confessed crime, for which she must appear before a three-judge panel Dec. 3, is one repeated almost weekly among Palestinians living in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Israel….Qaoud will likely be sentenced to three to five years in prison
