Clarke, the War Profiteer
Mood:  on fire
Richard Clarke is a dishonorable and disgruntled ex-employee who is getting even with the White House by selling himself and what's left of his integrity to the Dhimmicrats. But that's not even the worst of it. He's also a war profiteer.

Clarke is pissed off because Dr. Rice demoted him. He's pissed off because he didn't get the number two spot with the Homeland Security Department. So, instead of accepting his fortunes in the manner that all bureaucrats do, he finally quit out of pique (rather than on principle, as he should have before, had his principles been as strongly insulted as he now portrays them), turned on his President, and wrote a self-serving load of manifestly inaccurate and self-contradictory bullshit.

In order to make the maximum profits from his treasonous sell-out, Clarke engaged in a highly-publicized promotional campaign with the help of the major media ---in particular, CBS, which is owned by Viacom, which also owns the publishing house that produced Clarke's book. They did this to coincide perfectly with Clarke's testimony a few days later before the Kean Commission. They arranged to move the book's release date up to accomodate this. That is war profiteering, ladies and gentlemen.

How's that? Because we are at war. Does anyone deny that? Against All Enemies is a book that strongly criticizes the President for waging the war in Iraq. But what does that have to do with Clarke's own failures as a top counter-terrorism adviser? Before 11 September, and before this Administration came to power, terrorism had been treated almost entirely as a law enforcement issue. After that awful day, and because Bush acts decisively where Clinton refused to, terrorism became a cause for war. The paradigm has shifted. So have all the policies. Clarke found himself marginalized and he didn't like it. What, then, would be a better way to get back at the Bush White House than to pander to the President's detractors ---even if the war in Iraq actually has nothing to do with Clarke's area of responsibility?

After all, the anti-war Left says terrorism and Iraq are unrelated issues, the former possibly being legitimate, although not really, by their lights, and the latter being a cynical "oil grab" or some other crap that's distracting us from more important things. Yet Clarke, as someone who was "inside America's war on terrorism," doesn't seem to think so. He thinks that the war in Iraq has somehow kept us from prosecuting the war against al-Qaeda. But that's a stupid position to take. Are we not in Afghanistan now? Did we not destroy the Taliban's hold on that country and help to establish a friendly government there? Are we not killing and capturing al-Qaeda members on an almost daily basis? Hasn't Bush accomplished a very great feat by turning Musharraf into a cooperative ally against al-Qaeda?

Who cares what Clarke thinks? His judgement is obviously worthless if he can't even acknowledge that the utter inadequacy of the Clinton White House's response to al-Qaeda and terrorism in general was a prime factor in what happened to us on 11 September. It was because of hand-wringers like him that bin Laden was enticed into making an attack on American soil. Why not? The clowns in the Clinton Administration hadn't done much more than jack up to that point.

This shit steams me. The people who are slobbering all over Clarke are abetting a war profiteer. Don't forget that.

Meteorological Snobbery
Mood:  special
Apparently, hurricanes don't form in the South Atlantic. Did you know that? I sure didn't. But, as with bumblebees that violate the laws of physics, there happens to be one ---and it's headed towards the eastern coast of Brazil. Read this story, yanqui. And then go home.

If You Can Get up from This...
Mood:  on fire
Mark Steyn lays into Richard Clarke and the Clintonistas like a bat on a pi?ata. Enjoy!

Gaul and Spleen
Be sure to check out Nick Schulz's review of Ken Timmerman's new book, The French Betrayal of America at Tech Central Station, which is a really fine site.

It's important to recognize that the charge of "unilateralism" made against the Bush Administration is nothing but Leftist code for French disapproval. Had the French agreed to take our side in liberating Iraq and actually making UN sanctions mean something, you may be sure that the anti-war mobs here would not have been so vocal. But that would not have happened, anyway, although most pro-French peaceniks don't know it, because they don't realize just how crooked French foreign policy is. In this regard, our government has nothing on the French.

Remember: Chiraq and Villepin are dishonorable men, and their refusal to help us liberate the Iraqi people was not rooted in any sort of pacifist principles or out of respect for another nation's sovereignty, but was a function of their greed. They stood to lose a lot of money if the Saddamites fell ---and that's what has happened.

I very much doubt that more than a handful of anti-war zealots in this country or elsewhere have the character to admit that their own "moral" alliance with the French was built on false premises.

UPDATE: Here is an even fuller review and commentary of Timmerman's book and the situation in general (courtesy of "Gabriel Gonzalez" at Winds of Change). The money quote:

If you think that France is like everyone else, then you would have no trouble imagining George Bush using U.S. government resources to negotiate protection for Bill Gates in a European criminal proceeding without a word of objection from the public, the Democrats or the media.

A Winning Argument
Mood:  incredulous
All the big shots in the Democratic Party were at some sort of love-in last night where they declared John Kerry the leader of their party and just a great guy in general.

But the best soundbite I caught (and I'm hoping to bring you a full transcript later) was Bill Clinton's explanation for Kerry's vote against the funding package to help out our military and the new Iraqi government. Clinton said that the package was going to win, anyway, so Kerry voted as he did in protest of the President's war of liberation. Was there another reason why Kerry lodged his protest (besides the need to appeal to the left wing of his party)? Why, yes! Kerry voted no because Bush did not bring the UN into help decide how things were going to be.

That's good stuff there. That would be the same UN which is full of crooked assholes whose sole reason for opposing us in our just cause was to preserve their kickback arrangements with Saddam Hussein.

Disgusting. Is there any doubt that a vote for Kerry is a vote for those who hate America? Is it really appropriate for Jimmy Carter to publicly discourage Ralph Nader from running and accuse him of costing the Gorebot the White House in 2000? Just because Carter humiliated this nation with his ineptitude while he was the President doesn't mean he has the privilege of trying to freeze out a legitimate candidate for the Presidency. And is it really right that a draft-dodger and kook like Howard Dean has any business of once again insinuating that Kerry's war record somehow makes Bush a coward? Where was Dean during the Viet Nam War? Enjoying a medical deferment for a bad back while hitting the slopes. He's almost as big a turd blossom as Richard Clarke, who ought to be indicted, tried, and convicted of perjury.

Shame on all of the Dhimmicrats.

Krauthammered! Clarke's Got Chutzpah
Mood:  chillin'
Yeah, yeah, I know. Cliches must be exorcised or they fester. Now say uncle.

Note: Access to Washington Post articles now appears to require a subscription. But it's no biggie: a few pieces of info for their files to track you down (pursuant to the Patriot Act) and you're in.

Perfect
This cartoon says it all. Right, Katie?

Clarke and Other Dhimmicrats Are Wrong About Iraqi Terror Connections
As NRO contributing editor Deroy Murdock amply demonstrates, it is a lie to deny that Saddam and his intelligence services were innocent in the global terrorist trade. Why don't this Administration's detractors acknowledge the former Iraqi regime's guilt? Uh, because Algore was robbed of the Presidency? No, no ---it's because Halliburton is a front for the Trilateral Commission and GWB is their puppet? Dang! I can't figure out which explanation is the most convenient. All I know is that Kerry is a Viet Nam War hero and that makes up for his 20-year Senate record of voting against our military and intelligence services.

If Kerry wins, so do America's enemies.

Clarke Opposed Invasion of Iraq; Turned His Coat
Richard Clarke believes his opposition to our invasion and occupation of Iraq is all the justification he needs to so dramatically criticize the Bush Administration. Clarke didn't believe in the war, and now he has found the right to go off on a man whom he said had handled the situation of 11 September 2001 with distinction. He, like so many others crypto-Dhimmicrats, is enamored with the intellectual distinction he has drawn between those two issues, as though they were not actually and ultimately the same. But History will make nonsense of this, just as it will make nonsense of Kerry's facile concern with "procedure."

The refusal of this Administration's critics to see the connection between terrorist networks like al-Qaeda and Islamofascist dictatorships like Saddamite Iraq is, I think, a failure of their imagination, probably worsened by their purely personal interest in opposing GWB's other policies. If they were capable of seeing the forest for the trees, they would understand that The United States must have a place to stand in that region of the world from whence it may exert the necessary influence (through democratic and other socioeconomic reforms) and apply the proper pressure (i.e., military force) to obtain the results the whole world is looking for. But the anti-war crowd is morally bankrupt. They attack our President for doing what must be done, which is to initiate what will prove to be a decades-long reformation of Arab and Islamic culture. Nobody is calling it that, but that is the goal and it is a noble one.

Consider what a very great undertaking this is and how utterly worthless, desperate, and paranoid are the criticisms of it.

I think a lot of what Bush and his people are doing domestically is crap ---and I've said so many times. But, on the issue of our response to terrorists and tyrants, they are right ---and the only enemy that compares to the ones we are vanquishing abroad are the ones who are here on our own soil, marching for "peace" and against "Bushitler" and all the other acid-soaked craphoundery.

Go ahead and make Clarke your Ellsberg all you want. I think you'll find, in the coming days, that his version of the events will have proved so contradictory and self-serving that not even the liberal media could deny it. But they will, anyway; they'll just bury it by neglect.

Bush-Cheney '04, baby. If you love your country.

The Fear of God
Now Playing: "Under My Skin" by Frank Sinatra
Think the Palestinians are getting the idea yet? Read this story and tell me that Sharon was wrong to send Yassin to Hell. Now that these filthy Transjordanian floor-kissers know that the IDF will decapitate their leaders, "spiritual" or otherwise, they're finally starting to see the light; finally starting to publicly question the legitimacy of their tactics and strategies. Jeeze! It's almost like a grass-roots response against the ward bosses.

Avenge this, you sorry bastards. Sending retarded teenagers to kill the evil Zionists at their checkpoints? What pathetic shit.

The whole world's watching, Abdel. I'll bet even a few asshole anti-warheads in Ms. Lindauer's neighborhood know it's time for you to fold 'em.

These Guys Rule
Mood:  a-ok
Now Playing: "You've Got Another Thing Coming" by Judas Priest
Check out the latest from Cox & Forkum, a couple of super-talented political cartoonists who have been criminally neglected at the syndication game.

But thank God we've still got the patron saint of splash-booths (Austin American-Statesman cartoonist Ben Sargent) to keep all of us here in stitches.

Dos Passos: "Americans Are Losing the Victory in Europe"
Now Playing: "Swan Swan H" by R.E.M.
From the 7 January 1946 issue of LIFE magazine, an interesting story by John Dos Passos on what noisy cats are we.

Here's a bit of Dos Passos' socialist cocksuckery:

We know now the tragic results of the ineptitudes of the Peace of Versailles. The European system it set up was Utopia compared to the present tangle of snarling misery. The Russians at least are carrying out a logical plan for extending their system of control at whatever cost. The British show signs of recovering their good sense and their innate human decency. All we [Americans] have brought to Europe so far is confusion backed up by a drumhead regime of military courts. We have swept away Hitlerism, but a great many Europeans feel that the cure has been worse than the disease.

(Thanks to the blog Jessica's Well for this cool link.)

Local Rag's Top Story: "Ex-aide issued warning on Sept. 4, 2001"
Mood:  incredulous
This morning, our local daily rag ran the wire story from the Washington Post on Richard Clarke's revisionist bullshit before the Kean Commission yesterday, downplaying in every possible way (short of omitting the fact altogether) that he himself was one of the major impediments to the implementation of a counter-terrorism strategy for this country.

But, when you're taking your marching orders from the DNC and the Kerry campaign, like Egg-on and Pinko are, who cares if you emphasize the upside and minimize the downside? As Clarke himself says, that's what he was intimidated into doing before when he talked up the Bush Administration's efforts against al-Qaeda.

There is no question that the major media and Clarke are using each other to the fullest advantage: Clarke sells more books by playing the put-upon Laocoon and the networks and the Eastern Establishment papers get a high-level truncheon to make their point with. The whole thing is transparently self-serving.

Just remember this: Clarke had eight years under Clinton's watch to make his case for a more proactive approach to fixing the al-Qaeda problem ---and he didn't do it. In fact, he found reasons not to do it. He blew off Dr. Rice and he blew off Chairman Shays and now he wants to claim credit as the lone voice of reason? Fuck that shit. The guy's a liar and a stooge for the Kerry campaign, despite his protestations to the contrary.

Watch this story closely and recognize that you are getting a fraction of the truth.

Required Reading
Mood:  a-ok
The online Weekly Standard is re-running an absolutely brilliant essay by James Piereson on the history of the phrase "under God." Do not miss this one.

Conscience
Back when I was a schoolteacher out in Los Angeles, I led my homeroom of seventh graders in the Pledge of Allegiance every day. As a man of conscience, I never insisted that my kids place their hands over their hearts and say a single word that they did not believe, but I did insist on two things: that they stand and, if they weren't going to make the pledge, that they remain silent out of respect for those of us who were. That's because no one is above civility, regardless of his own personal beliefs.

Every now and then, a few of them would take their time to get to their feet, but that was simply a matter of twelve year-olds taking their teacher's measure and hardly a demonstration of moral choice. And, in practice, all but a few (and even they, sometimes) would stand and deliver. Why shouldn't they? This is a great country and civilization, worthy of at least a moment's respect. Even a hormonally-supercharged adolescent could understand that.

But the one thing that got their attention most during our pledge-making was the fact that, at the point of reciting the phrase "under God," the strongest voice in the class ---mine--- would fall silent. I did this for some very particular reasons, the most important of which is that I don't believe in God. And by omitting that phrase, it underscored to my kids the larger point that we should say what we mean and not say what we don't.

More than a few times, my omission occasioned a discussion of our beliefs in God and religion. It even got around to my sixth-graders, who would hear from their older school friends that "Mr. Pretzel" didn't believe in God. Some of them held that against me and it fueled their disdain for me. But that was rare. I would like to believe that my choice was a demonstration of conscience to them and, in that, was a positive example.

The current case of the atheist father in California who does not want religion to be "forced" on his daughter has reminded me of all this. He, too, is using the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance for his own purposes. But, I think he's dead wrong. He is exercising the tyranny of the minority, completely mistaken in his belief that the Constitution is written to oppose the affirmation of religious belief. We have in this country the freedom of religion, not from religion. And what we also have is an obligation as adults to instruct our children to learn respect for differences in religious and political and individual expression. This guy is teaching his daughter to reject that principle, much to her detriment were she to learn that from him.

The hyper-secularized society is a degenerate society: just ask France.

If you don't want to say "under God" while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, then don't. I don't. But don't pretend that you are benefiting yourself or society by denying others the right to publicly affirm their own religious beliefs. In this country and in these times, you aren't going to be executed if you don't pronounce the shibboleth, so take it easy and take your stand elsewhere.

Trafficker
One of the most nauseating moments today during Richard Clarke's testimony was when his justification for changing his story was applauded by some Dhimmicrats in the audience. He very dramatically turned Gov. Thompson's suggestion that he had acted immorally when he had previously described the Bush Administration's efforts against al-Qaeda as aggressive when, as he says now, he did not believe they were, by remarking that it was not a matter of morality, but of politics. At that, many in the audience made a demonstration of their approval.

But, what were they applauding? Clarke's own disingenuousness? Thompson was right: if Clarke did not believe what he was saying at that time, then he should have refused to mislead the public and resigned. But, he did not. And now he wishes to claim credit for his own hypocrisy? Nonsense. He's no hero, but now that his government career is over, he's selling to the highest bidder. No wonder the Dhimmicrats like him so much.

I didn't catch the now-famous condemnation/apology Clarke issued at the start of his testimony, but it's just more evidence of his desire to find a home with those who are as embittered as he is with the bold and proactive direction the President has taken. While Clarke worked for Clinton, they accomplished very little against an Islamofascism that was murdering our soldiers and diplomats around the world. He owes the public a real explanation for his serial neglect, not just some self-serving apology to curry favor with those who, like himself, are working to reverse our advantages against the real enemy.

Backing a Loser
I don't care which administrations Richard Clarke has served or for how long or well or anything else. The bottom line is that he has permitted himself to be drawn into a monstrously hypocritical posture of attacking the President for the benefit, if not at the behest of, the anti-Bush/anti-war media, when many of the terrorist events we have suffered through in the past decade occurred on his watch.

Clarke is a fucking sell-out. He is very obviously getting his knob polished by the major networks to boost the sales of his book ---in particular, by the leftist crew over at 60 Minutes, a program broadcast by CBS, which is owned by the media giant Viacom, which also owns the publishing house for Clarke's book. Did Leslie Stahl mention that fact? No. She and Hewitt and all the other McAuliffite turds are a bunch of partisan shaders. They were so hoping to use Clarke to bludgeon the Bush White House but, instead, they've got a guy with major credibility problems.

Everything Clarke is saying is a contradiction of what he has said and done before. I am quite pleased to see that the members of the Kean Commission are letting him have it for being the hypocrite he is. More, please.

An e-Mail I Sent to NBC's Today
Mood:  suave
To Whom This Concerns:---

After seeing how you people and the other network morning shows tried to turn Richard Clarke into some sort of American Hero today, I am finished as a viewer of your propaganda. I'm absolutely serious. You're all a bunch of leftist suck-ups, even when Madame Couric isn't there to crack the whip. All you do is indulge yourselves in a lot of gimmicks and inanities, unless there's some hay to be made with tearing down one of the most courageous and far-seeing Administrations of the past century. THEN you're all real serious about propping up anybody with a grudge. What a joke.

Did it ever occur to you that Clarke was ALSO Mr. Anti-Terrorism when al-Qaeda was killing our people during the Clinton Administration? Where is HIS culpability?! How dare you call yourselves journalists!

Your program is a joke. A bunch of stupid fluff for dumbasses who need to take their information with a generous helping of celebrity plugs and fashion advice. Disgusting.

The Purest Horseshit from The Guardian
Mood:  don't ask
This is unbelievable horseshit from The Guardian. David Hirst has written the most ridiculously anti-Semitic/pro-Islamofascist eulogy imaginable for the mass-murderer Yassin. But don't eat breakfast before you check it out, or you might lose it.