My arrogant opinions about politics, culture, science fiction, and whatever else I feel like talking about.

WHOOPEE!

        We, the People, reminded the clowns in Washington that ultimately we are in charge, and forced the Senate to pass a fence-and-enforcement-only bill!  Screw you, open-borders fanatics, we are on our way to taking back our country.  Kudos to Bill Frist, who forced a vote on the issue.

By the way, aside from the pseudo-independent Jeffords, and RINO Lincoln Chaffee, all the no votes on cloture were from Democrats, with RINO Snowe not voting.  When it came to the vote, eight Democratic Senators who voted against cloture voted for passage of the bill (as did Snowe).  Though I disagree vehemently with those who voted 'no' both times, at least the twenty didn't try to have it both ways.  (Teddy didn't vote on the bill, but I assume that was because he couldn't be there, and that he'd have voted no if he'd been around).

        Today was also the day the bill was signed creating a database of federal spending.  Another victory for truth, justice, and the USAmerican Way.

        Oh, in a second miracle, the al-Reuters story linked above is reasonably fair and objective!  Knock me down with a feather.

        It was a great day to be a citizen — though I confess I missed it when it was happening.  Instead, I was at the Midwest Booksellers Association, picking up "free" books.

Posted by: saintonge at 09:11 | link | comments
sense, social policy, border security, government policy, would-be greasy pole climbers

I Don't Know if I Believe This

        An alleged scientific study supposedly reports liberals have more nightmares and more sexual dreams, as well as more surreal ones.  Conservatives supposedly tend to dream of everyday things.

        For myself, I note most of my dreams seem to concern things I've been thinking about, reading, or seeing lately.  If I watch Rio Grande on Turner Classic Movies, I might have a dream with John Wayne in it.  And there's the old dependable 'naked-in-public' dreams.  But my dreams are mostly incoherent.

        So read the article yourself, and tell me if you believe it, or think its a put-on.  I don't feel like investigating this.

Posted by: saintonge at 06:39 | link | comments

Why Islam is so Primitive

        Muslim journalist Bashir Goth explains it here: Originality is not allowed.

        You are not allowed to be a person with vices and virtues, you cannot follow your own reasoning, and you cannot be unpopular or defend an unpopular idea.  You cannot go out of the circle.  To express yourself freely means to risk death.  And death indeed if you change your faith.  Invention itself is considered as an act of blasphemy.

        As long as that continues, Islam will fall further behing Christendom.

Posted by: saintonge at 05:43 | link | comments

In Case You Ever Doubted It II

        God will not make it too easy on us in this life.

Posted by: saintonge at 09:41 | link | comments

In Case You Ever Doubted It

        In case you ever doubted it, God is definitely on our side in the War With Jihadism.

        Let Freedom Ring, and let people know.

Posted by: saintonge at 09:10 | link | comments

A Very Interesting Site

        Chernobyl, twenty years after the accident.  The city is now largely overgrown with trees, all new since the fallout.

Posted by: saintonge at 08:43 | link | comments

The NIE Again

        Well, the gummint has declassified some or all of the “Key Judgments” from the National Intelligence Estimate of last April.

        We can now answer the question, ‘Just what did the NIE say about the Iraq War and Terrorism?’  The answer turns out to be ‘Something rather different from the impression given in The New York Treason’

• Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit.  Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qa’ida, could erode support for the jihadists. . . .

        We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.

• The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.  Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

        We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.

        Not quite what the treason wanted you to believe, eh?  I wonder why that doesn't surprise me.

Posted by: saintonge at 07:10 | link | comments

More on the Story About the NIE

        Thanks to Roger L. Simon, I just discovered a new blog, In From the Cold, which I heartily recommend to you all.  "Spook86", whose blog it is, says he's talked to some people who have read the NIE, and according to him it has the following conclusions:

        [the U.S.-led efforts have] seriously damaged Al Qaida leadership and disrupted its operations. . . .

        A large body of reporting indicates that [the number of] people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing...however, they are largely decentralized, lack a coherent strategy and are becoming more diffuse. . . .

        Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight. . . .

        Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq. . . .

        There is evidence that violent tactics are backfiring...their greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution (shar'a law) is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. . . .

        Progress toward pluralism and more responsive political systems in the Muslim world will eliminate many of the grievances jihadists exploit. . . .

        Hmm, gives a slightly different impression of the NIE, doesn't it?

Posted by: saintonge at 08:10 | link | comments

Some Interesting Observations

        Craig Charney, a former pollster for President Clinton, looks at the answers to a recent Fox News poll question.  Fox asked, "Regardless of how you voted in the recent presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?"  The overall response was that two-thirds of those questioned wanted Bush to succeed — but only forty percent of Democrats polled.  Fifty-one percent of Donks wanted Bush to fail.

        There's a war on, and the failure of the President may mean serious consequences for the country, but half of all Democrats don't care.  Further, ten percent more Dems express "strong disapproval" of Bush than Republicans ever did of Clinton, including during his impeachment trial.  As Charney notes, this is stupid politics.  Clinton hate cost the Republicans seats in Congress in 1998 and 2000.  It won't help the Democrats this year or in 2008.

        (Hat tip to Betsy Newmark)

        And then there's Pastorius, at a blog called Cuanus, whom we were pointed at by Pamela.  Let me quote Pastorius extensively:

        I don't hate Clinton the way most people on the right do. I liked Clinton as a President. . .

        That being said, I have to say that Clinton was behaving very bizarrely in this interview.  My wife and I watched Pamela's vlog together and we both agreed that Clinton is clearly obsessed with this question. . . .

        The question itself set him off, and he became very irrational.  At one point he senselessly changed the subject and asserted that Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox News) is "for climate change."  That is one of the most bizarre assertions I have ever heard a person make.  And, I've got some pretty moonbatty friends.

        So, I have to wonder what the intelligence was that Clinton rec'd on Bin Laden.  It must have been frightening.

        Here's the thing, Clinton had good reason not to take out Bin Laden.  To do so, he would have had to fire on a country which we were not at war with.  Additionally, he would have had to violate American law (signed by Ronald Reagan) which forbids political assassinations. [Actually, it wasn't a law, it was an executive order, which Clinton could have rescinded with a stroke of the pen — St. O.]

        Clinton could simply fall back on that argument.

        But, he doesn't, and that is telling.

        What that tells me is that Clinton knew something about Bin Laden that made him very upset.  Honestly, it must have been something beyond the Cole, the Khobar towers and all that.  Those were grievous acts of terrorism, yes, but they were not worse than the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut.  And that did not destroy Reagan's reputation.

        We know that Clinton was not a President who was obsessed with his responsibility to the country.  We know that he WAS a President who was obsessed with how he looked.  He was obsessed with his reputation.

        Therefore, he must have known something about Bin Laden which might have made him look bad.

        I have to wonder if the nuclear threat was more worrying than has been let on.

        That is the only thing I can think of that would have made Clinton this upset.

        Here's the thing, the whole story in that interview doesn't so much turn on his "purple-faced anger".  He actually doesn't look that out of control, until he made that statement about Murdoch being for climate change.

        When he said that you know he had completely lost his ability to reason. Clinton has been angry before, but never in my recollection has he lost his ability to reason.  Even his bizarre soliloquy on the meaning of "is", during his Monicagate testimony, relied on logic. . . .

        Clinton has never freaked out like this before.  He is a master at remaining calm when he is attacked.  He has been attacked in ways which are almost as stupid as the things that have been said about Bush.  The whole Clinton Chronicles thing was one of the low points of the Conservative movement IMO.

        The only time Clinton ever looked even remotely near this stressed out was during the Lewinsky scandal.

        Think about that, he looked ALMOST as stressed out when he was in position to LOSE HIS PRESIDENCY.  But, he is more stressed out over this?  Think about it.

        I have to wonder if something is going to come out soon, maybe.  Maybe he knows it.  Maybe he thought he was going to be ambushed in that interview. . . .

        There is something more to this.  That is exactly why Sandy Berger was willing to steal those documents in such blatant fashion.

        It just would have been too easy for Clinton to say "We were not at war with Sudan or Afghanistan and besides there is a law against political assassinations."  That is logical.

        He is freaking out about something that YOU AND I AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC do not know about.

        It is something that is worse than anything we know about.

        I'm not at all sure Pastorius is correct in his explanation, but the question is worth asking: Just why did our ex-President, who is used to attacks both justified and unjustified, get so upset at this question?  Why did Big Bill accuse all Republicans and righties of attacking him when he bombed Sudan, when in fact most of us supported him on that occasion?  And what were the annotations on those memos Burger stole and destroyed?

        Something weird is definitely going on there.

Posted by: saintonge at 07:09 | link | comments

The Republicans Aren't in Such Bad Shape

        Over at Hugh Hewitt's blog, Dean Barnett points us to some poll results from over the years, concerning how satisfied/dissatisfied the public is with Congress.

        If you go p9 of this PDF, you'll see that currently only 25% of those polled in The New York Treason/CBS Lies Poll approve of Congress's performance, compared to 61% dissapproval.  Some people would have you think that this spells a Democratic takeover of Congress.  But look at some other years:

1978: 29% approve, 51% dissaprove; neither chamber changes hands.

1980: 31% approve, 51% dissaprove; Senate changes hands.

1990: 23% approve, 69% dissaprove; neither chamber changes hands.

1992: 20% approve, 70% dissaprove; neither chamber changes hands.

1994: 20% approve, 73% dissaprove; both chambers change hands.

1996: 27% approve, 58% dissaprove; neither chamber changes hands.

2000: 49% approve, 38% dissaprove; Senate ties, then changes hands do to party switch.

        So, in six elections with Congress mightily dissaproved of, and twelve opportunities for a chamber to change control, it only happened three times.  Nine out of twelve times, the party controlling a chamber kept control.  That's pretty good odds for the GOP, I'd say.  And when those polled approved of Congress by a nine percent margin, the GOP went down to fifty seats.  Go figure.

        My money says the GOP retains both chambers of Congress in the November elections.

Posted by: saintonge at 08:41 | link | comments
democrats, republicans, elections, congress, reality, polling

The Information War

        Glenn has an excellent post on the symbiotic relationship between the MSM and terrorism.  If you haven't read it, do so.

        One part I really liked:

        In his novel Soft Targets, Dean Ing suggested a media-based information campaign against terrorism.  One of the many ways in which that novel is obsolete is that it's now impossible to imagine the press cooperating.

        Indeed^®.  The MSM is helping the terrorists make war on the U.S.

Posted by: saintonge at 05:54 | link | comments
terrorism, msm, treason

If That Wasn't Enough Bias For You

        Then check out The New York Treason's recent story on Iraq.

        According to the Treason, the latest National Intelligence Estimate slams the Bush administration's Iraq policy:

        WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

        The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

        Really?  Well, that's sure interesting.  Just what does the NIE say?

        Umm, the story has no quotes from the report.  The Treason apparently didn't see the report, or get read any part of it.  Instead, the Treason's reporters talked to people who supposedly read the NIE, or helped prepare it.

        So what did they say?  Good question, that.  There is precisely one direct quote:

        The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

        The rest of the story drags in many other topics, and presents a lot of assertions, but at no time has any evidence on what the NIE said, much less what the reasoning for this conclusion was.

        An honest opening paragragh, then, would have read something like:

        Our reporters, we claim, talked to a dozen or more people who've seen or helped write the latest National Intelligence Estimate, and one person who we claim is an "intelligence official," a term we won't define, told us that the NIE “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” — at least, that's our story, and we hope you'll accept his claim and our claims on faith.

        There is, of course, no comment from Bush or his appointees in the Treason story, but after it was released,the Administration responded:

        A White House spokesman, Blair Jones, said, "We don't comment on classified documents."  But he said the published accounts' "characterization of the NIE is not representative of the complete document."

        So what does the report actually say?  I have no idea, and I doubt the Treason does either.  But don't expect the MSM to admit that anytime soon.

Posted by: saintonge at 05:07 | link | comments
iraq, terrorism, foreign affairs, bush administration, george w bush, dishonesty, war with jihadism

Today's MSM Bias

        Over at Gates of Vienna, Baron Bodissey directs us to another egregious example of MSM bias.

        The Swiss Parliment voted to toughen the Swiss asylum laws, but various unidentified 'opponents' forced a referendum on the issue.  The measure passed about two-to-one.

        Being the MSM (Agency France Press in this case), there is little presented of the views of those who were in favor of the measure.  Only one voter is quoted, an opponent of the change.  There's also some outright editorializing against the new law, presented as straight news.

        But despite all, it's heartening that the Swiss are showing some sense on this issue.  No, they won't allow their country to be overrun by third-worlders, many of whom will try to destroy Switzerland from within.  Go cry in your beer, MSM.

Posted by: saintonge at 04:03 | link | comments
europe, msm, bias, demographics, social policy, war with jihadism

It never ceases to amaze me

        I refer to whining by the MSM.

        James Taranto pointed out a story by one Mike Lupica in the New York Daily News.  It seems that a couple of San Francisco reporters decided to violate the privacy of a federal grand jury.  Grand jury proceedings are secret, in great part because their rambling nature and lack of defendent protections mean potential injustice by accusing the innocent.  But the reporters don't care about that.  And of course, the people who knew about the grand jury investigation were legally required not to tell anyone what was going on.  The reporters didn't care about that, either.  What they cared about was getting the big story, and if anyone was damaged along the way, too bad.  They "told the truth," and that should excuse anything.

        The feds disagreed.  They thought that they had the right to know who had broken the law by speaking to the reporters.  Oh, how upset Lupica and the reporters are.  Why, California has a shield law for reporters, which the federals are mocking!  Apparently Lupica never heard that the federal government is not bound by state laws.  And the reporters "told the truth" — well, maybe they did.  Lupica keeps using words like "alleged," suggesting he doesn't have much faith in the accuracy of the "superb" stories the reporters wrote.

        But what matters, of course, is that it's all George Bush's fault, and "freedom of the press" must override every consideration, including obeying the law.  The evil Bushitler regime is waging a "war on the press" by trying to force the MSM to follow the law.

        Cry me a river.

       

Posted by: saintonge at 10:35 | link | comments
msm, bias, george w bush

Thursday, 21 September 2006

Don't Do As I Say OR Do

        From Best of the Web Today

        "On the eve of the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami condemned Osama bin Laden and suicide bombing but also defended groups such as Hezbollah for what he characterized as resistance against Israeli colonialism," the Associated Press reports from Harvard, where Khatami spoke last night.

        But wait a minute. Hezbollah is from Lebanon, a country from which Israel withdrew in 2000.  The only place Israel can be said to be practicing "colonialism" is in the West Bank, a Palestinian area.

        Khatami's argument, then, is that it is legitimate for party A (in this case Hezbollah) to attack party B (Israel) because of Party B's conflict with Party C (the Palestinians).

        By this reasoning, it would be acceptable for America to attack Iran because of Iran's threats against Israel.

Posted by: saintonge at 18:59 | link | comments

Strange News

        Apparently, there were SUVs in Antarctica millions of years ago!

        (AP) -- A 30-mile maze canyons in Antarctica was carved out of bedrock by the catastrophic draining of subglacial lakes during global warming between 12 million and 14 million years ago, according to university researchers who warn a similar event today could have serious environmental consequences.

Posted by: saintonge at 15:16 | link | comments