About Me

Name: Gary Gross
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

"Coming Home"? Or Did They Ever Leave?

I just finished reading this John Podhoretz article titled 'Coming Home', focusing on the polling that's now showing Republicans "coming home" this fall. What's amazing to me is that JPod still worries that President Bush's approval ratings rise might not be that helpful. I strongly disagree with that opinion. Here's a JPod observation:

The key indicator that Republican voters may be returning to the fold is the change in President Bush's approval rating. He was scoring in the low to mid-30s in early August according to all polls. Now he appears to have stabilized at a higher level, somewhere in the low 40s, a marked if not colossal shift. The primary reason for the change? An increase in support for Bush from Republicans. Late last week, pollster Scott Rasmussen noted: "Eighty-five percent of Republicans now offer their approval. At its low point earlier in the year, just 66 percent of the GOP faithful approved of his job performance."

You'd think that a 20 point jump would bring a smile to the GOP faithfuls' faces. Mr. Podhoretz sees a dark cloud in that sky:

"The improvement in Bush's ratings appears to result from a more positive evaluation of him from all party groups, rather than a short-term shift in more basic party loyalties," writes Joseph Carroll of Gallup. That may be nice for him, but when it comes to the new structure of American politics, Bush doesn't need support from voters "of all party groups."

I'd agree with Mr. Podhoretz in any other year but I won't this year because I think the realignment we saw in 2004 is continuing this year. The reality is that Democrats just aren't taken seriously on national security issues. That fact was accentuated this weekend when Bill Clinton came unhinged  on FNS. Clinton's coming unhinged underscores the lack of attention the Clinton administration paid to terrorism and national security.

I think that the thwarting of the terrorist attacks on August 10th was when people remembered why they didn't trust Democrats. As I said in Events, Dear Boy, Events,  big events shape elections. Let's remember that there were three things that changed the shape of this fall's elections in dramatic fashion:

Anna Diggs-Taylor declaring the NSA intercept program unconstitutional, the thwarting of the London plots and Ned Lamont's primary victory in Connecticut.

Democrats' reaction to Taylor's ruling told the nation that they didn't believe in giving the President the tools he needed to prevent terrorist attacks. The American people understood that the President had used the NSA intercept program to keep them safe. They weren't fooled when Reid and Pelosi said that the court's ruling told the President that he'd overstepped the bounds in trying to claim the power for warrantless intercepts. They might have been more believeable if they hadn't told everyone in the next sentence that they were willing to pass legislation that would grant him that power.

The NSA intercept program also came into play when it was reported that it was used to thwart the London terrorist plots. I'd bet that the American people took comfort knowing that President Bush utilized the NSA intercept program to prevent an attack that people inside the intel community describe as a plot as big as 9/11.

The third straw in this puzzle is the Lamont primary victory over Joe Lieberman. The American people saw this as proof that the most vocal group of Democratic Party supporters either didn't put alot of thought into the importance of a multi-leveled, comprehensive anti-terror strategy or that they were too consumed with Bush hatred to care about the consequences of automatically opposing President Bush for purely ideological reasons.

There's one thing in Mr. Podhoretz' column that's undeniably true:

Bush will have demonstrated that he has the longest coattails of any president in modern history, even though polls still suggest he is among the most unpopular of modern presidents. This is a conundrum we're going to have to examine pretty deeply if things go the GOP's way in November. 

The conundrum is solved by remembering that Democrats went so far off the deep end that Republicans were apt to be cast in a positive light by comparison. I'd also suggest that, while it's true that President Bush has been magnificent in building up the GOP during his turn in office, it's also true that Karl Rove took advantage of the Democrats' ineptitude and their willingness to oppose every Bush national security proposal. There were lots of times when I kiddingly said that Democrats would complain that President Bush didn't consult the 'meteorological community' before declaring that the sun set in the west.

Being that negative that often simply on the most important issues of the day doesn't work in politics.


Technorati: Election 2006, Karl Rove, NSA, Ned Lamont, President Bush
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is This a Sign?

When I read this article, I had to ask myself if we're seeing the start of a turnaround. Here's what I'm talking about:

Days after President Bush flew into the state and complimented U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris, the congresswoman got some more love, this time from GOP activists at a rally Saturday. It was one of the bright spots for Harris, whom party leaders had previously tried to force out of the U.S. Senate race before she won the GOP primary. She will face Democrat incumbent Bill Nelson in the November election.
State party Chair Carole Jean Jordan called Harris a hero, a term many Republicans used after Harris, as secretary of state in 2000, oversaw Bush's disputed 537-vote victory. "Katherine has overcome tough times. She's a gutsy lady and we love her," said Jordan, who tried to get Harris out of the race before the primary. The women hugged before Harris spoke.

Make no mistake about this: Florida is almost as solid a red state as Texas is. If Republicans decide that they can't let Bill Nelson return to Washington, then this race can turn. Polls showing Nelson leading Katherine Harris by 30 points likely were accurate. There's no doubt that Republicans prefered another option. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP faithful pulled together & said that they'd prefer Katherine Harris over Bill Nelson. If the GOP machine gets behind Harris' campaign, this race can tighten up in a hurry.

Technorati: Election 2006, Katherine Harris, Bill Nelson, Florida
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bill Clinton Unhinged

RCP just posted a rough transcript of Bill Clinton's interview on FNS. It isn't pretty. Let's take a peek at the most noteworthy exchanges:

CLINTON: OK, let’s talk about it. I will answer all of those things on the merits but I want to talk about the context of which this…arises. I’m being asked this on the FOX network…ABC just had a right wing conservative on the Path to 9/11 falsely claim that it was based on the 911 commission report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 commission report. I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden.

As LFR's owner, I'm offering the first person to tell me when a Republican accused President Clinton of being obsessed with bin Laden a mystery prize of incredible worth. I've paid a fair amount of attention to Clinton and I've never heard anyone say he was obsessed with bin Laden while he was president. There isn't a Republican that didn't accuse him of having an obsession but it wasn't about bin Laden.

They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in Black Hawk Down and I refused to do it and stayed 6 months and had an orderly transfer to the UN.

As I've said before, the 'they' he's refering to is John Murtha. The last I looked, John Murtha wasn't a member of the VWRC.

CLINTON: ...If you can criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this, after the Cole I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full scale attack search for Bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan which we got after 9/11.

President Clinton, Why didn't you have these plans drawn up after the Embassy Bombings? Why did you wait until a month before the 2000 election to draw up plans to invade Afghanistan and destroy al Qaida? Waiting 2+ years to figure out if we could take out al Qaida isn't how I'd do it if he were my top foreign policy priority.

CLINTON: ...So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know..

Clinton is still the sniping, undignified person he always was and always will be. He's also fast becoming a card-carrying member of the 'Unhinged Left'. Chris Wallace isn't a partisan pundit. He's a pretty level-headed reporter. I'd defy anyone to prove that he's a conservative or liberal based on how he interviews people.

I suspect that Clinton's rant is partially motivated by his anger at having his foreign policy failures exposed and partially to make his tirade the Monday morning story, not his failure to capture bin Laden.

CLINTON: Did you ever ask that? You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on Climate Change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you’d spend half the time talking about…

This interview is a great example of why we don't miss Bill Clinton. He's a boor and he's vindictive. He was well-suited for the 90's but I'm glad that President Bush is Commander-in-Chief right now.

Technorati: Bill Clinton, bin Laden, al Qaeda, President Bush
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bill Clinton Defenseless?

That's the conclusion I got from this story. His defenselessness became apparent when Clinton supposedly went ballistic on the issue of capturing bin Laden. Here's what's being reported on his diatribe:

In a heated interview to be aired on Sunday on "Fox News Sunday," the former Democratic president defended the steps he took after al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and faulted "right-wingers" for their criticism of his efforts to capture Osama bin Laden.
"But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said when asked whether he had failed to fully anticipate bin Laden's danger. "They had eight months to try, they did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed."
The September 11 attacks occurred almost eight months after President George W. Bush succeeded Clinton in January 2001. "I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him," Clinton said.

Mr. Clinton, They had 8 months, you had 8 years to get him. This diatribe is Clinton showing that he's worried about being seen as ineffective in his efforts dealing with terrorists. He's justified in being worried because he was ineffective in dealing with terrorists. (Hint to the Clintons: Reality shapes perception more than spin.) Let me refer to a Steve Emerson article from Sept. 1996:

And what has the Clinton administration done to combat radical Islamic groups operating in the U.S.? Very little. In January 1995 Mr. Clinton issued an executive order to freeze the assets of 12 terrorist groups. Investigators found terrorist front groups operating in more than a dozen states, with assets worth tens of millions of dollars. But the Treasury Department has seized only $800,000, from those with the most blatant links to terrorist activity: WISE; Musa Marzuk, the Hamas leader arrested last year by alert field agents at New York's JFK Airport; and Mohammad Salah, a Palestinian-American convicted by an Israeli court of receiving U.S. funds to attack Israelis. These funds were seized, according to one official, because "their existence had notoriously come to the government's attention and thus it was forced to seize the money. We didn't go out and look for it, that's for sure.It was shoved in our faces."

After reading Emerson's well-sourced accusations, are Clinton's statements about going all out to kill or capture bin Laden credible? After all, he didn't hardly lift a finger to seize assets verified as the terrorists' money here in the United States.

This begs another set of questions:
  • How is it that Clinton signed an executive order to seize terrorist assets but Robert Rubin's Treasury Department doesn't seize them?
  • Why didn't Clinton take Rubin to the proverbial woodshed for capturing a paltry $800,000 of terrorists' assets when there were "tens of millions of dollars" in those accounts?
  • Might it be because they were tight with terrorist groups?
Here's a little information about that:

At the same time, the Clinton administration has established close ties with groups like the American Muslim Council, which has supported Hamas and other radical groups. Hillary Clinton has worked particularly closely with the head of the AMC, Abdulrahman Al-Amoudi, who has openly collected funds for the legal defense of Mr Marzuk, the Hamas chieftain arrested at JFK Airport, and for Mr. Abdel-Rahman, who organized the World Trade Center bombing. It isn't credible to say that you're doing everything to capture bin Laden while aligning yourself with known associates of Hamas and the SAAR Foundation. Here's what SAAR was about:

SAAR stands for Suleiman Abdel Aziz al-Rajhi, a Saudi banker and billionaire who largely funded the group beginning in the early 1980s. He is said to be close to the Saudi ruling family and is on the Golden Chain, a list of early al-Qaeda supporters.

You're likely asking why SAAR belongs in this picture. This explains that connection:

Alamoudi is a past employee of the SAAR Foundation, the hub of the raided "SAAR Network." According to the search warrant authorizing the raids, officials were looking for, among other items, "Any and all information referencing in any way PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad], Hamas, Al-Qaida…Usama Bin Laden, and any other individual or entity designated as a terrorist by the President of the United States, the United States Treasury, or the Secretary of State." No charges have yet been filed in relation to that raid.
Let's put the facts together that we've gathered thus far:
  • Bill Clinton says that he "at least tried to capture bin Laden";
  • Hillary Clinton "worked particularly closely with the head of the AMC, Abdulrahman Al-Amoudi";
  • Al-Amoudi was "a past employee of the SAAR Foundation" which was "largely funded" by Suleiman Abdel Aziz al-Rajhi, a man "on the Golden Chain, a list of early al-Qaeda supporters."
Here's the conclusion I draw based on these verified facts:

Bill Clinton tried capturing bin Laden by having Hillary work closely with a man who openly supported Hamas and who was employed by a man who was an early supporter of al-Qa'ida.

Let's face facts, folks. If that isn't the strangest way to capture a terrorist, then I don't know what is. That's the lamest Clinton story I've heard in ages. Frankly, it isn't credible; it's laughable.

Technorati: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hamas, al Qaeda
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hillary's Got Some 'Splainin to Do

This morning, I came across some information about the Clinton Administration's efforts to stop terrorism. Frankly, what I found startled me. Here's what I found:

Hillary Clinton has worked particularly closely with the head of the AMC, Abdurahman Alamoudi, who has openly collected funds for the legal defense of Mr Marzook, the Hamas chieftain arrested at JFK Airport, and for Mr. Abdel-Rahman, who organized the World Trade Center bombing.

That got me digging into Alamoudi. Here's what I found on him:

ABDURAHMAN ALAMOUDI
  • Founder and executive director of the American Muslim Council
  • Islamic affairs advisor for the Clinton administration
  • "We are all supporters of Hamas...I am also a supporter of Hezbollah."
  • Arrested in 2003 for terrorist fundraising
There's more:

A self-described Muslim moderate, Abdurahman Alamoudi has had many public titles over the years: founder and executive director of the American Muslim Council; Islamic affairs advisor for the Clinton administration; official appointee of the Pentagon in charge of choosing Muslim chaplains; and State Department-selected Goodwill Ambassador to Muslim nations. In stark contrast, Alamoudi's private life has been devoted to supporting and fundraising for a host of anti-American/anti-Israeli terrorist groups and nations, from Hamas and Hezbollah, to Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda, to the Libyan regime of Muammar Qadhafi.

Mr. Alamoudi also contributed to Hillary's senatorial campaign, a contribution she eventually sent back. This brings numerous questions to mind:
  • Did Hillary know what Mr. Alamoudi was all about?
  • Did Hillary know that Mr. Alamoudi supported Hamas and Hezbollah?
  • If she knew that Mr. Alamoudi supported Hamas and Hezbollah, why didn't they run him out of their administration immediately?
  • How extensive of a backround check was run on Mr. Alamoudi?
  • What was found out about him through this backround check?
Considering that Mr. Alamoudi was "openly raising funds for Omar Abdel Rahman, the Blind Sheikh's defense fund after he helped orchestrate the original WTC bombing, shouldn't that have raised a ton of red flags for Mrs. Clinton? Or was it just not that important to her?

Mrs. Clinton has alot of questions to answer on her connections with Mr. Alamoudi. So does President Clinton. I'm betting that they'll do everything they can to avoid answering these questions because their habit is to avoid questions that cast them in a bad light. And make no mistake about it, these questions will make them look very bad, if not totally incompetent in fighting terrorists.

Technorati: Hillary Clinton, Hamas, Hezbollah, Omar Abdel Rahman
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (5) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Steele-ing Black Votes?

The Democratic Party is up in arms over Michael Steele, accusing him of "political identity theft. Here's what they're screaming about:

Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele's new campaign signs seem to identify him as a Democrat. A "Steele Democrat," they read. The bright blue placards and bumper stickers made their debut yesterday in Baltimore during an event announcing a new coalition of Democrats supporting the lieutenant governor's U.S. Senate bid. Steele, of course, is the Republican nominee for Senate and a former chairman of the state Republican Party.

Here's what Democratic leaders are saying:

"Michael Steele is trying to hide the fact that his campaign is funded and directed by George Bush and the Republican party," Singer said in an e-mail statement. "When Steele returns the money he's gotten from the national Republicans and unequivocally rejects the President's support, he can try to portray himself as an independent."

Mr. Singer's statement is designed to distract people from what's happening in Maryland and elsewhere: that the 'Black Monolith' is crumbling, with many in the black middle class being far more independent than what I call the 'Civil Rights Leaders' Generation'. Mr. Singer doesn't want people to learn that Mr. Steele is thought to be getting a third of the black vote in current polling. I'll guarantee a Steele victory if he draws upwards of third of the black vote in Maryland.

Terry Lierman, chairman of the Maryland Democratic Party, had stronger words. "Steele's new logo is the biggest election fraud perpetrated on the voters of Maryland in this campaign to date, and proves that Steele thinks his only chance is political identity theft," Lierman said in a statement. "But 'Steeling' a logo or party name won't work; Maryland's voters are smart enough to know that the former Maryland Republican Party Chairman, who was on the executive committee of the RNC and who was recruited to run by George Bush himself, will just be another Bush Republican vote in the U.S. Senate."

The ferocity of Mr. Lierman's attack is yet another sign that Democrats are worried about Michael Steele's candidacy. As I said here, Democrats have plenty of justification for their fears. Here's what I quoted in that post:

This year, the Maryland Democratic Party commissioned a statewide survey of black voters which showed that 44 percent were open to a Steele candidacy.

I can't imagine more than a handful of Democrats that could win without 80+ percent of the black vote. There aren't any Democrats that could win without 60 percent of the black vote. Here's some of the quotes from black Democrats that support Lt. Gov. Steele:

Among the few recognizable Democrats to appear was William H. Murphy Jr., a Baltimore lawyer who has ties to Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. "I'm sick and tired of being taken for granted by the Democratic Party," Murphy said. "We don't embrace George Bush, we embrace Michael Steele," he said. "We don't embrace George Bush's vision of America, we embrace Michael Steele's vision of America."

Mr. Murphy isn't ready to switch parties but Democrats should be worried because he isn't alone in his sentiments, as I wrote about here:

Leggette said there are two Democratic parties in St. Louis, one that benefits whites and another that ignores blacks. "At one time, Democrats were a solution for us. I don’t know when that changed or why that changed, but it has," Leggette told me.
————–
She has no intention of voting for McCaskill’s Republican rival, U.S. Sen. Jim Talent, but, like me, she’s grown bored with the dog and pony show put on when major elections roll around. Democrats show up, throw out the “evil Republican” mantra, ask for black votes, then disappear without ever addressing our socioeconomic concerns or needs.
Democrats raise millions for major campaigns that rarely trickle down to neighborhood committees, like Leggette’s, charged with getting blacks to the polls, she said. It’s a "frustrating" experience, complicated by "clueless" leadership and blacks seeking personal gain. "My community has been affected by benign neglect. Black political leaders only interested in lining their pockets with crumbs ought to get...out of the way," Leggette said.

These are just part of the signs that I'm seeing that verify the validity of my theory, which is that Democrats are in deep trouble once you read beyond the horserace stats. Historically reliable coalitions aren't reliable anymore. As Mr. Murphy said, blacks are "sick and tired of being taken for granted by the Democratic Party."

To add to the party confusion, a Democrat with the last name Mfume endorsed Steele yesterday. Michael Mfume, son of former Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Kweisi Mfume, linked arms with Steele in Baltimore. "I'm here, and I'm in support of Mr. Steele," said the younger Mfume, whose professional experience as a film and music producer includes directing the horror movie Ax 'Em, according to Internet postings.

That's gotta hurt Rep. Cardin. Like any Democrat, Cardin has to rely on winning a lion's share of the minority vote. This information is as close to a death knell for a Democrat as I've seen and I've been watching for many an election cycle.

Technorati: Election 2006, Michael Mfume, Kweisi Mfume, Ben Cardin
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Tale of Two Parties

This morning's WSJ ran op-eds from DNC Chairman Howard Dean and RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman  that offer a striking contrast between the Democratic and Republican parties. Here's the opening paragraph of Dean's op-ed:

We need a Democratic Congress to fight the war on terror, and to end the war on America's families. Republican policies of the last five years have damaged our economy and failed Americans. Democrats believe strengthening the middle class is essential for a thriving economy that rewards work, provides economic opportunity to all and makes it easier for parents to devote time to their families. An economy that favors the top 1% at the expense of everyone else might be good for President Bush's politics, but a shrinking middle class is bad for capitalism, democracy and America. We need a new direction.

The op-ed starts out with an outright fabrication then goes downhill after that. Why should Americans think that Democrats would do a better job of fighting terrorists when they cheered Judge Anna Diggs-Taylor's ruling the NSA's intercept program unconstitutional  or when they hear Harry Reid bragging about killing the Patriot? Or when they hear Russ Feingold saying that filibustering the Patriot Act is a "great moment for our Constitution and our democracy and a great moment in the fight against terrorism." That isn't a new direction. That's the Democrats' age old pacifist streak showing.

Dean's other outright fabrication is on the economy, which defies all logic. How can an economy create as many jobs as we have over the past 3 years and generate as much new wealth as the economy has when the largest portion of the nation is getting left behind?

Dean's schtick isn't working anymore because the Right Blogosphere is dissecting his accusations. Democrats aren't taking advantage of the internet that Al Gore created, mainly because the Mainstream Blogosphere covers more information than the newspapers, TV and radio stations can cover. Dean's schtick isn't working anymore because the mainstream blogosphere is proving that all wisdom doesn't reside in Washington.

Dean's essentially asking you to believe him rather than "your lying eyes." The Mainstream Blogosphere is asking you to believe well-sourced research rather than Dean's irrational diatribes. Right now, the Mainstream Blogosphere is winning that fight.

Here's a taste of Mehlman's op-ed:

Democratic leaders are saying Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror, that we should be more focused on defending the homeland. But again and again, the Democrats have proposed weakening our defenses.
We learned on 9/11 the need for coordination between federal, state and local governments; yet the majority of congressional Democrats voted against re-authorization of the Patriot Act. The foiled airplane plot re-emphasized the importance of following an enemy whose command and control is often obscure; yet Democrats opposed the NSA surveillance program and praised an activist judge's attempt to shut it down.

I won't insult your intelligence by telling you that Mehlman's op-ed is all sunshine because it's obvious that it isn't. What it is, though, is a sober analysis of the dangers we face. It's also a dissection of Democrats' policies. Let's start with Democrats' admonitions on Iraq.

Democrats say that Iraq's a "distraction", that we'd be better served "fighting the real war on terrorism" by "focusing more on homeland security here at home" in one breath, then fight with all their strength to repeal the Patriot Act. They try and make the President jump through an impossible amount of hoops to surveil the terrorists already here with the TSP. They've tried taking away the CIA's most effective tools of interrogation.


Chairman Mehlman is making the case that we'd be far less safe if Democrats' policies were enacted. He's making the case airtight and compelling. If this sounds scary, it's because it should. A barbaristic group of extremists want to kill us with every fiber of their being. If they have to die to do it, then that's what they'll do.

My neighbor is a typical Democrat. He's told me time and again that they'd leave us alone if we got out of the Middle East. That might've been true in the 40's and 50's, maybe even the 60's. That stopped being true in 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini unleashed a global terrorist movement. The Saudis contributed by not cracking down on the hate factories known as madrassas. PLO chairman Arafat stoked the fires by terrorizing Israel. The global terrorist movement reached critical mass with bin Laden's training camps being supported by Iran.

This global terrorism movement won't be stopped with our hands being tied behind our backs. We can't afford to be more worried about 'what the world community thinks' because this is war and we've got to match their energy in this war between Western civilization and their pre-medieval barbarism.

This election is about answering the question of whether or not we'll fight this determined band of barbarians with everything in our arsenal or if we'll fight it blind. When you strip away all the peripheral issues, this election's choices are really only about our will to defeat these merchants of death. One party, though flawed, still believes in fighting with everything in our arsenal. That party is the Republican Party. The other party has told us with their policy recommendations that they believe in fighting blind. That's the Democratic Party.

To my thinking, there's only one choice for thoughtful people. And it isn't the Party of Dean.

Technorati: Election 2006, DNC, RNC, Jihad, Patriot Act, NSA
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Kunin Failed 17 Times To Gain Access

This Strib article totally buries Mr. Kunin and his apologists.

Logs of Internet traffic show that blogger Noah Kunin made 18 attempts to gain access to an ad agency's website containing an unreleased ad for Mark Kennedy, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, a spokesman for the agency said Thursday. The blogger's aggressive attempts to penetrate the website might be criminal hacking or they simply might be routine antics in the new world of Internet-based politics, where computer geeks delight in discovering the undiscovered, and where pushing the envelope is part of the game.

Here's what one of his apologists is saying:

Guess what. This is not a password screen.

The code above confirms my suspicions. An actual password screen gives the user access to a restricted area. The screen above is simply a redirect to a publicly accessible client web page.

If this is a redirect screen, why did it take Mr. Kunin 18 attempts to redirect? Those of you who think that Kunin's actions are appropriate need to take a test at King's blog. It's a short test but it's a great teaching instrument. (It took me less than a minute.)

The ad agency isn't blameless in the episode, said Steven Schier, a political science professor at Carleton College in Northfield, Minn. "We wouldn't be talking about this if they had been competent about their own security," he said. And the Klobuchar campaign, with a commanding lead in the polls, should have stayed away from the ad, he said. "You're ahead, everything's going fine, and you're playing with this stuff? Come on!" Schier said. "This is an object lesson in how not to handle it."

Somehow I'd doubt that people will think that the webmaster for that site was incompetent. Somehow, I think that they'll remember this more for how it destroyed the Klobuchar candidacy. She'd already lost momentum by losing Tuesday's debate. Ms. Klobuchar and her staff are facing tough questioning from the FBI. I suspect that that'll be an intimidating experience for them.

This officially eliminates the Democrats running on their 'Culture of Corruption' meme. This also is aging Brian Melendez at an ever-increasing rate. First he had to deal with the fallout from the Dean Johnson debacle. Then he dealt with the Entenza week from Hades, the Hatch scandal where he tried intimidating a State judge. This week's scandals are Klobogate and and the Ellison debacle. That's on top of dealing with Democrats on a daily basis.

I almost feel sorry for Mr. Melendez.

Technorati: Klobuchar, Election 2006, Scandals, Mark Kennedy, Culture of Corruption
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On a Cracking Limb

Last week, Democrats were crowing about the cover John Warner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham were providing on the interrogation and military tribunals for terrorists. That cover disappeared Thursday night when the White House and McCain, Warner and Graham reached a deal on this legislation.

The Beltway media will spin this as President Bush giving up more than McCain but, based on the first reporting, the opposite is most likely the truth. What this deal does is force Democratic legislators and candidates off the fence. Here's how Jim Webb handled it on MTP

MR. WEBB: I’m with Senator Warner on this, and I think in terms of what Colin Powell is saying, that’s a very important piece of how we view—how we deal long-term with the Islamic world particularly, that we have to stay on the moral high ground. And what you’re seeing here is a split between the theorists, who have controlled so much of the policy in this administration, theorists who have never been on a battlefield, who have never put a uniform on, and who are looking at this thing in a totally different way from people who have had to worry about their troops and themselves possibly coming under enemy hands. This is a very easy issue for me to decide on.

I suspect that Sen. Allen will now ask Mr. Webb to actually state a position on this legislation. I suspect that Sen. Allen's campaign will remind Mr. Webb that this administration's "theorists who have never been on a battlefield" have firmed up their position on this issue and have gotten Sens. McCain and Warner, who've both "been on a battlefield" to agree to a deal that gives the President what he wants: the ability to aggressively interrogate terrorists, though I understand that waterboarding won't be allowed.

It'll be interesting to see how other Democratic candidates handle this issue.

Another interesting thing to watch will be to see how easily this legislation passes the House and Senate. I'll especially be watching to see how Democratic senators will play this and vote on this.

Bush, speaking from a Republican fundraiser in Orlando, said the accord "preserves the...most potent tool we have in protecting America and foiling terrorist attacks, and that is the CIA program to question the world's most dangerous terrorists and to get their secrets." CIA Director Michael Hayden told his staff in a memo that the agreement would give his operatives "the clarity and the support that we need to move forward."

The bottom line from that paragraph is that the same techniques that prevented at least 8 terrorist attacks will now be codified into law, which is all that mattered.

Technorati: Torture, President Bush, John McCain, Election 2006
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Walton Gives Fitzgerald a Way Out

MSNBC is reporting that Judge Reggie Walton essentially threw Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald a lifeline to get out of the Libby trial.

The judge in the CIA leak case ruled Thursday that if Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald feels that admitting certain classified documents at the upcoming trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby can jeopardize national security, Fitzgerald can then move to dismiss the perjury charges against Libby.

I can't imagine Mr. Fitzgerald not taking this lifeline considering how much he's been battered in the press lately. He's in a can't win situation and he knows it. If that isn't bad enough, The American Thinker's Clarice Feldman sent the DoJ a letter recommending that they investigate Fitzgerald's conduct in the Plamegate investigation Here's the 'eyegrabber' section of Ms. Feldman's letter:

I am writing to suggest that if one is not underway yet, it is long past due to undertake an investigation into the circumstances of the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald and the way in which he has conducted this matter.
As to more specific references to inappropriate conduct not outlined there, I draw your attention to his statements in the press conference announcing the indictment and particularly ask that you read those statements in light of recent developments: It is now apparent that Mr. Fitzgerald knew from the outset of his appointment that the source of the "leak" to Robert Novak was Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.  In spite of this, Mr. Fitzgerald appears to have never fully explored with Armitage whether Armitage had spoken to other reporters in addition to Novak—although it is now known that Armitage spoke about Plame to at least one other reporter, Bob Woodward, and quite possibly other reporters who have testified before the Grand Jury. That conversation happened a full month before the Novak article was published.

Frankly, this letter, now made public, has to have Fitzgerald worried because it's now out in public that attorneys think that he hasn't conducted himself in an ethical way. I'm not an attorney but I'd have to wonder if this letter isn't the reason why Judge Reggie Walton a way out. At minimum, Fitzgerald will be answering alot of questions about his conduct during this investigation. Some of those questions might be:

why he needed to impanel a grand jury for the Plamegate investigation when he knew that Richard Armitage was the leaker from the day he was named.
why he needed to hold Judith Miller in contempt of court for an investigation that shouldn't have happened
why Fitzgerald threatened throwing Matt Cooper in jail for contempt
why he called Karl Rove before the grand jury 5 times when Fitzgerald had the answers to all the important questions long before Rove testified the first time
why didn't Fitzgerald tell announce that there weren't any violations of the IIPA or the Espionage Act at his November press conference and close up shop?

If Mr. Fitzgerald was interested in doing the right thing, he'd end this charade and fade into obscurity. Let's hope he's interested in the right thing. After this investigation, I'm sure Mr. Libby can appreciate what Ray Donovan said after getting indicted then cleared of the charges "Where can I go to get my reputation back"?

That's a question Mr. Fitzgerald should have to answer.

Technorati: Plamegate, Scooter Libby, Fitzgerald, Karl Rove, CIA
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats' Despartion Increasing

This DNC press release , released yesterday, shows the Democrats' desparation, incoherence and willingness to say anything to cast themselves in the best light.

When RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman heads to Minnesota for a closed press fundraiser with struggling Republican Congressional Candidate Michele Bachmann today, he should not only denounce the recent barrage of intolerant comments by Minnesota Republicans, but as Chairman of the Republican Party, he should ensure that Republican candidates do the same.

Two days prior to the release of this statement, I reported, along with lots of other Minnesota bloggers, on this KSTP-TV poll showing Michele Bachmann with a 50-41 lead over Patty Wetterling. I'm certain that the DNC read this poll, too. Considering the fact that they read this poll's results, how can the DNC issue a statement saying Michele Bachmann's campaign is struggling?

As I said here, I attended Monday night's debate, which I thought Sen. Bachmann won. Mrs. Wetterling stumbled a couple times, including during her opening statement while Sen. Bachmann looked polished, responding directly to the questions.

If the Bachmann campaign is their idea of a struggling campaign, how would they characterize the Wetterling campaign? Their statement tells me that they're desparate because they've descended into namecalling and fabricating statements.

It isn't a pretty sight when you're watching a political party implode, is it?

Technorati: Election 2006, DNC, Bachmann, Wetterling
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Murtha Campaigning For Majority Leader Again

This Hill Magazine article  says that John Murtha's back campaigning for the House Majority Leader job. There's just two flaws in his strategy. Unfortunately for Mr. Murtha, they're significant flaws: (a) Murtha's Democratic Party will lose seats this November, keeping them the minority party and (b) Murtha won't be part of the 110th Congress.

The two Democrats vying to become House majority leader next year are courting Democratic candidates likely to win in November, hoping to reach out early to those who may one day have a say in their promotion. Rival Reps. Steny Hoyer (MD) and Jack Murtha (PA) have been discreetly raising the issue with candidates, even as they campaign to ensure that Democrats will win control of the House, without which their contest for the majority leader post cannot take place.

This isn't exactly startling news. Part of the reason why party leaders campaign for candidates is so that the leaders can call in those markers for everything from leadership positions to legislative battles.

"I am sure Mr. Murtha is a fine person, but Congressman Hoyer came out to my district, held a fundraiser for me. He met with the press. He’s been a mentor for questions, a coach, essentially a father figure," said a Democratic candidate in a competitive race who asked to remain anonymous. The candidate went on to suggest that Murtha’s position on Iraq made him too polarizing for the district. "I have an incredible respect for [Murtha’s] service background, but in regard to the war, I’m trying to give my own presentation."

His position on the war is what's thrust Murtha into the national spotlight but that's only one of the things that PA-12 voters are taking into consideration this fall. Other things that they aren't happy about are (a) Murtha's attempt to convict the Marines who were attacked while patrolling Haditha; (b) Murtha's voting against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act and (c) Murtha voting against securing the Mexican border. Each of those issues will be given by PA-12 voters for firing John Murtha this November.

The Democrats will lose seats this November but losing Murtha's seat will sting just as much as Daschle's defeat in 04.

Technorati: Election 2006, Murtha, Patriot Act, Illegal Immigration
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Artful Wording Stops Here

It's been obvious that the Strib has been in amy Klobuchar's pocket for some time now but this morning's headline  emphatically verifies it with this headline:

Klobuchar aide loses job for viewing leaked Kennedy ad

As everyone knows, a Minnesota blogger named Noah Kunin read password-protected information on Mark Kennedy's ad man's website, information he passed onto Klobuchar spokeswoman Tara McGuinness. There's a strong possibility that several federal laws were broken. So how does the Strib characterize what happened? They prefer the word "leaked" over stolen.

Here's what my good friend Gary Miller said at KvM  last night:

Leaked? You’ve got to be kidding me. Allow me to use leaked in a sentence: Career liberal bureaucrat Richard Armitage leaked the identity of Valerie Plame. Allow me to use the word stolen in a sentence:  A "local liberal blogger" admits to have stolen campaign ads and information from the Mark Kennedy campaign where it was read by a senior Klobuchar staffer.

Well said, Gary. I couldn't agree more with you.

Technorati: Amy Klobuchar, Election 2006, Bloggers, Scandal
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Security Matters

The Washington Times' Donald Lambro is reporting that national security is once again the dominant issue amongst most voters, with a significant, and telling, caveat.

And what issue will move the most voters? Well, Mr. Zogby says, "Another positive development for congressional Republicans is that 1 in 4 of their supporters, 23 percent, consider terrorism the top issue as they go to the polls, easily the top issue for those backing the GOP." But among voters who say they will support the Democrats, "terrorism barely registers 4 percent," he said.

How can a politician look at the foiled terrorist threats in London and not think that that's the highest priority item? This boggles the mind. That only 4 percent of Democratic-leaning voters think that terrorism is the top priority tells you that they aren't interested in fighting the GWOT. Keep this in mind the next time you hear Ms. Pelosi talk about getting our troops out of Iraq "so we can fight the real war on terror." That's just code for 'Another terrorist attack is inevitable. Bring the troops home so we can spend the money on first responders."

I haven't seen Democrats thinking of preventing terrorism; I've just seen them talk about how we clean up after an attack. Thoughtful people can disagree on how to fight the war. Thoughtful people can't disagree on whether we should do everything in our power to prevent future terrorist attacks.

In Congress, Mr. Bush and his party (with a few dissenters) are perceived as fighting for a tougher interrogation guidelines bill that will set clear, firm ground rules consistent with the Geneva Convention, but one that does not hamstring our intelligence efforts to protect Americans. I think Mr. Bush has similarly held the high ground on legislation to create military commissions that will ensure the delivery of swift but fair justice for the terrorists. The Democrats in this debate seem to be more concerned with protecting the civil liberties of terrorists than with convicting fanatic extremists who plotted to kill Americans.

If you asked voters if they were more worried about preventing terrorist attacks or a prisoner's civil rights, preventing future attacks would win 80%-20%. The average American knows that the American military holds itself to high standards. They also don't think of sleep deprivation or putting prisoners in a cold room as torture. Democrats, along with Media President McCain and Media Vice President Graham, don't seem to get that. When the final chapter in that debate gets written, people will agree that McCain and Graham and the Democrats were wrong and President Bush and the Republicans were right about this issue. And victorious.

The White House is betting the threat of terrorism, and the GOP's advantage on the core question of who can keep us safer, will trump the Democrats on Election Day. And with polls showing the Democrats still getting failing grades on this key security issue, that's a fairly safe bet right now. Public perceptions and defining your opponent are at the heart of good politics and effective campaigns and the president has effectively driven the Democrats into a corner on their weakest issue: national security.

Long ago, I coined a phrase that said "There's are bets and there are sure things." This is a sure thing, as sure a thing as there is. What's telling to me is that Democrats like Amy Klobuchar and Patty Wetterling aren't talking about prisoner interrogation techniques on their campaign websites. They do talk about bringing our troops home, with Mrs. Wetterling having long advocated getting our troops home by this Thanksgiving and Ms. Klobuchar saying "we have to manage our exit from Iraq in a responsible way. I do not support immediate withdrawal of our troops, as has been suggested by some, because the situation is just too precarious."

Defining "a responsible way" takes some doing because it's open to speculation from the right and left. I suspect that's why Ms. Klobuchar worded it that way. When candidates deal with issues of national security, the ones that get rewarded the most are the ones who offer specifics and who articulate clearly defined goals. I suspect that Ms. Klobuchar won't get rewarded for her evasive answer come Election Day.

Technorati: National Security, CIA, Interrogation, Torture, Amy Klobuchar, Patty Wetterling, Election 2006
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Who is Nihad Awad?

Most people know Nihad Awad only as the CAIR director who contributed $2,000 to the Keith Ellison campaign but he's much more than that. According to this article, he's got quite the 'colorful' history.

Nihad Awad got involved with the Islamic Association for Palestine [IAP], or in Awad’s words:  "After the Gulf War was over, I was offered a job with the Islamic Association for Palestine as their public relations director." He took the job, and soon after that, he accepted a position as a contributing editor for one of the organization’s publications, the Muslim World Monitor, as well.

This begs the question "What is the IAP about"? Here's that answer:

The IAP was founded by Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook, a "senior political leader" of Hamas, and the organization is credited with publishing the actual Hamas charter.  In a prepared statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information, Steven Emerson stated, "internal Hamas documents strongly suggest that parts of the Hamas charter… were first written by members of the IAP in the United States in the early to mid-1980's."

The next logical question is what role did Mr. Awad play at IAP. Here's that answer:

The IAP publication that Awad became an editor for, according to Steven Emerson in his book American Jihad, "celebrates successful Hamas terrorist attacks."

That's pretty interesting stuff for a man who practices a so-called "religion of peace." It gets more interesting after that:

...when Mike Wallace of CBS’s "60 Minutes" asked Awad if he supports the "military undertakings of Hamas," Awad stood up for the terrorist group and told him, "The United Nations Charter grants people who are under occupation [the right] to defend themselves against illegal occupation."

When Awad talks about the UN Charter allowing "people who are under occupation [the right] to defend themselves against illegal occupation", Awad is specifically talking about Hamas "defending itself" against the sovereign nation of Israel. What Mr. Awad omits from his thinking is that the UN sanctioned the creation of Israel. In international law, that means that Israel isn't an illegal occupier of Palestinian land. It's a sovereign nation.

If you're finding this information on Awad disturbing, you'd best take a deep breath because I'm just at the tip of this iceberg.

At the behest of then-IAP President Omar Ahmad, Awad met with him (Ahmad) and Rafeeq Jaber (Ahmad’s successor and current IAP President) to discuss the IAP branching out in another direction.  That direction was CAIR.
Just three months after the infamous "I support Hamas" statement, in June of 1994, the ‘IAP three’ incorporated the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), in Awad’s words, "to bridge the chasm of ignorance between Muslims in America and their neighbors."  Nihad Awad became the group’s Executive Director, Omar Ahmad took on the title of Chairman of the Board, and Awad solicited his friend and colleague from the Bosnian Relief Committee, Ibrahim Hooper, as CAIR’s Communications Director.

Let's recap what we've found thus far:
  • Nihad Awad is a supporter of Keith Ellison;
  • Nihad Awad was the PR director of IAP, a Hamas front group here in the US;
  • The IAP wrote Hamas' charter in the early 1980's while based here in the US;
  • Nihad Awad told Mike Wallace that the UN Charter allowed people to defend themselves "against illegal occupation," in this instance against Israel;
  • Nihad Awad said he "supports Hamas", going so far as to become an unofficial PR director for them here in the US.
Someone's sure to say that I'm bringing all this up to either (a) defeat Keith Ellison or (b) to sow fear in people so that terrorism is the dominant issue this campaign season rather than Iraq. I admit that I'd love seeing Alan Fine defeat Mr. Ellison this November. As a conservative, I'll proudly 'admit' that I want to limit the number of extreme left wing moonbats in the House or Senate.

As for the part about sowing fear, I'd characterize it a bit differently. I'd like to think that I'm making people aware of the threat that militant Islam poses to the US and the world. If people find this information scary, that's fine because it's scary information. When a so-called Muslim civil rights group like CAIR hires a man who was the PR director for 'Hamas in America' to lead their organization, when this man was the editor of a magazine that "celebrates successful Hamas terrorist attacks", when this man says that Israel illegally occupies Palestinian territory, why shouldn't we worry what else he believes?

Is my sole intention in doing this to get Republicans elected? Definitely not. Will this help get Republicans elected? Quite possibly, most likely because Democratic Party havs't shown the collective will to even fight terrorist groups, much less defeat them. Would I welcome more Democrats to take up the fight against terrorist-supporting Islamic groups? Defintely. We can never have too many people willing to stand up against terrorists. It isn't possible to have too many people who preach, practice and appreciate liberty and all its blessings.

Earlier I wrote that CAIR asked for donations to a charity named the NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund. I also told you that the 'charity' that was collecting the donations was the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a group that was later shut down because the donations were going to Hamas. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that someone doesn't believe that Mr. Awad knew of HLF's intentions. That's easily refuted in this article by Joe Kaufman. Here's what Mr. Kaufman wrote:

However, when one finds out that the head of the Holy Land Foundation, Ghassan Elashi, was none other than one of the founding board members of CAIR’s Texas chapter, when one finds out that the head of the Holy Land Foundation was a leader in CAIR who now sits in a United States prison, that paints an entirely different picture altogether.
And as stated previously, the Holy Land Foundation was founded by the same individual who founded CAIR’s parent organization, the Islamic Association for Palestine.
Furthermore, around the same time that CAIR asked for donations for the Holy Land Foundation, they asked people to donate money to another pseudo-charity that was shut down by the U.S. Government for raising funds for HAMAS, Al Qaeda and other terrorist entities, the Global Relief Foundation… and its leader, Rabih Haddad, was deported by the United States.

If, after reading this information, you can tell me that Nihad Awad didn't know what HLF was about with a straight face, then you've got a poker face that the professionals would be jealous of. Simply put, it isn't credible to think that Mr. Awad didn't understand all these connections. I've done alot of digging into these types of organizations and one thing I've found is that their statements aren't guarded about what they're about. Quite the opposite actually. Their statements are only guarded in public.

It's even less credible when you consider that Mr. Awad wasn't some low-level nobody in CAIR or in IAP. He was a major player in both organizations who knew alot about the operations and purpose of these organizations.

It's your right if you want to continue thinking of CAIR as a Muslim civil rights group. People can stick their head in the sand and pretend that the facts I've laid out don't paint an accurate picture of CAIR but it doesn't make those facts less trustworthy.

Ignore this information at your own risk.

Technorati: Nihad Awad, CAIR, Holy Land Foundation, Hamas, Keith Ellison, Election 2006
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive