Democrats

"I’ve Killed More Babies Than You Have!"

Calvin Freiburger 2008, abortion, Democrats, evil, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, murder, NARAL, Obama
You know the Democrat Party is messed up when this sort of thing is seen as a selling point: Hillary Clinton is professing to be a more vigorous defender of babykilling than Barack Obama. But in this skirmish, Obama has the upper (lower?) hand:
–
In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.
–
So Barack is even more extreme than NARAL. I don’t think Hillary can top that, but the fact that she’d like to speaks volumes about her.

Barack I’ll-Bomb-Ya

Calvin Freiburger 2008, Democrats, GOP, Islamofascism, Obama, Pakistan, War on Terror
For a while I was hoping Hillary Clinton would get the Democrat nomination, but now I’m thinking maybe Barack Obama would be the better general election opponent. First he agrees to unconditionally meet with America’s enemies within the first year of his administration, and now he’s threatening to invade Pakistan. Y’know, a Muslim nation that not only didn’t attack us on 9/11 (where have I heard this before?) but whose government is actually an ally? Oh, and did I mention that Pakistan already has nukes?
–
Dean Barnett posts an appropriate bumper-sticker on the subject, and Mitt Romney nailed it, too: “from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week.”

A Democrat for Survival

Calvin Freiburger Democrats, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Iraq, Kerrey, War on Terror
As if signs of reemerging sanity in France weren’t unsettling enough, today ex-Senator Bob Kerrey, a committed Democrat, has an editorial in the Wall Street Journal standing for victory in Iraq. Read the whole thing, but here are some highlights:
–
– “Democracy cannot be imposed with military force.” What troubled me about this statement–a commonly heard criticism of U.S. involvement in Iraq–is that those who say such things seem to forget the good U.S. arms have done in imposing democracy on countries like Japan and Germany, or Bosnia more recently.”
–
– “As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program.”
–
– “The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.
–
“Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn’t you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.
–
“American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq’s middle class has fled the country in fear.
–
“With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.
–
“The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically ‘yes.’
–
“This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified–though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.”
–
– “We must not allow terrorist sanctuaries to develop any place on earth. Whether these fighters are finding refuge in Syria, Iran, Pakistan or elsewhere, we cannot afford diplomatic or political excuses to prevent us from using military force to eliminate them.”
Hat tip: The Corner

Cultures of Corruption

Calvin Freiburger blogosphere, Daily Kos, Democrats, GOP, Harry Reid, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Redstate, scandal, William Jefferson
The conservative blog Redstate is taking aim at a potentially-corrupt Republican’s ascension to the House Appropriations Committee:
–
A popular conservative blog will step up its efforts this week to force Republican leaders to pull Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) from the powerful Appropriations Committee. In addition, the website will begin a coordinated effort to target members of the GOP Steering Committee in order to save the party from electoral disaster in 2008, the editor in chief of the site said Sunday.
–
“This party of ours must be pruned and it must be pruned by those of us who care about it before meeting the butchers sheers in the hands of the voters again in 2008,” Erick Erickson, editor in chief of http://www.redstate.com wrote to The Hill. “If they refuse to hear that change is needed, we will wipe them out and replace them with new blood that recognizes that a corrupt party rejected by the voters will not be embraced again by the voters until the corruption is purged.”
–
Question: how many grassroots Democrats can similarly claim to police their own? (To their credit, the Daily Kos blasted William “The Freezer” Jefferson. However, evidently Harry Reid is off-limits…)

The Statesman that Time Forgot

Calvin Freiburger 2008, Democrats, humor, Mike Gravel, moonbats
His name is Mike Gravel. He hasn’t held public office since 1981. He manages to make the rest of the Democrats look hawkish by comparison. And he wants to be your president.
–
Senator Gravel advocates a plan that empowers individual citizens to actually make law, believes in global warming (of course), and wants to “de-criminalize minor drug offenses.” Oddly enough, he also happens to support the Fair Tax.
–
The would-be commander-in-chief “firmly opposed President Bush’s decision to send 40,000 [say what?] more troops to Iraq.” How would he get out of the war? He would “pass a law. Not a resolution, a law making it a felony to stay there,” and he thinks Barack Obama (!) wants to nuke somebody.
–
Huh.

Why Democrats Can’t Be Trusted to Protect You

Calvin Freiburger Democrats, national security, War on Terror
The laundry list keeps growing…
–
ITEM 1: Pelosi Shills for Syrian Despot
–
The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi recently met with Syrian President Bashar Assad, and is wasting no time in parroting his line: “We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process. He’s ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel.” And by the way, the trip is legal grounding for Pelosi’s impeachment (or, if the Bush Administration had threatened to stop her, even imprisonment). Not that our current crop of “leaders” will stand up to her.
–
ITEM 2: House Dems Vote to Allow Intimidation of US Citizens in Favor of Muslim Pressure Groups
–
In response to the lying imams’ desired lawsuit against the terrified passengers who reported their suspicious conduct, Rep. Peter King offered a proposal to protect those who report potential terrorist activity from legal action. Though it passed the House, more than half of the Democrats voted against it—and surely there are more than a few liberals waiting to follow suit once it gets to the Senate.
–
Outrageous, yet all-too common these days.

Plame….Val Plame

Calvin Freiburger Bush, Democrats, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Plame, scandal, Wilson
I guess the Democrats aren’t satisfied with the likely imprisonment of Scooter Libby. Now we apparently have to milk this invented scandal for every bit of political expediency we can.

Valerie “007” Plame, wife of liberal hatchet-man Joe Wilson, testified before Congress today that she & her husband were victims of a White House smear campaign. Over at National Review’s Corner, they’ve been keeping track of the highlights. In particular, John Podhoretz notes:

“Valerie Plame Wilson has been testifying for an hour, and while it appears on a chart, the name of Richard Armitage — the actual person who actually leaked her identity to Robert Novak (and, a month earlier, to Bob Woodward) — has yet to be spoken. Scooter Libby’s name? Ten times.”

“Valerie Plame Wilson complained that Dick Cheney — the elected vice president of the United States — made an “unprecedented number of visits” to the CIA in the run-up to the Iraq war. She’s right. It’s shocking. Evidently, Cheney actually listened to the CIA.”

“This is what Valerie Plame Wilson just said about her husband’s trip: “I did not recommend him, I did not suggest him, I did not have the authority.” An officer serving under her was upset to have received an inquiry from the vice president’s office about yellowcake from Niger and evidently, while she was comforting that junior officer, some guy walked by her office and suggested her husband should go to Niger to check it out. She said she was ambivalent about the idea because she didn’t want to have to put her 2 year-old twins to bed by herself at night. Still, she and the guy who had just happened to walk by then went to her supervisor. Supervisor: Well, when you go home this evening, would you ask your husband to come in. Then her supervisor asked her to write an e-mail about the idea. She did so. That e-mail, she said, was the basis for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence claim that she had been responsible for sending her husband to Niger for the CIA. In other words, she didn’t recommend him or suggest him. Rather, it was a guy who walked by.”
Cliff May notes: “My friend the ex-CIA officer reminds me that, in addition to Valerie Plame’s new and very creative assertion that sending Joe Wilson to Niger was the idea of a guy who just happened to be strolling by her desk one day, there also is the fact that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found that the Wilson was known to the CIA because Plame had recommended him for an earlier mission. See attached excerpt.”
———-
Impressive, huh?

Most importantly, take a look at this PDF file—it’s the testimony of Victoria Toensing, who, as one of the key players in drafting the final version of the law in question on “outing” “covert agents,” knows this as well as anybody.

No crime was committed. You’d never know it from the media’s ominous headlines. Or the Democrats’ hysteria. Or the White House’s cowardice.

Pardon Scooter Libby

Calvin Freiburger Armitage, Bush, Democrats, Fitzgerald, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Krauthammer, lying, prosecution, Wilson
Charles Krauthammer analyzes the pathetic trial, spearheaded by a pathetic prosecutor, that ended in Scooter Libby’s conviction:

—
“There are lies and there are memory lapses. Bill Clinton denied under oath having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Unless you’re Wilt Chamberlain, sex is not the kind of thing you forget easily. Sandy Berger denied stuffing classified documents in his pants, an act not quite as elaborate as sex, but still involving a lot of muscle memory and unlikely to have been honestly forgotten.

“Scooter Libby has just been convicted of four felonies that could theoretically give him 25 years in jail for . . . what? Misstating when he first heard a certain piece of information, namely the identity of Joe Wilson’s wife.

“Think about that. Can you remember when you first heard the name Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame? Okay, so it is not a preoccupation of yours. But it was a preoccupation of many Washington journalists and government officials called to testify at the Libby trial, and their memories were all over the lot. Former presidential press secretary Ari Fleischer testified under oath that he had not told Post reporter Walter Pincus about Mrs. Wilson. Pincus testified under oath that Fleischer definitely had.

“Obviously, one is not telling the truth. But there is no reason to believe that either one is deliberately lying. Pincus and Fleischer are as fallible as any of us. They spend their days receiving and giving information. They can’t possibly be expected to remember not only every piece but precisely when they received every piece.
“Should Scooter Libby? He was famously multitasking a large number of national security and domestic issues, receiving hundreds of pieces of information every day from dozens of sources. Yet special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald chose to make Libby’s misstatements about the timing of the receipt of one piece of information — Mrs. Wilson’s identity — the great white whale of his multimillion-dollar prosecutorial juggernaut.
“Why? Because on his essential charge as special prosecutor — find and punish who had leaked Valerie Plame’s name — he had nothing. No conspiracy, no felony, no crime, not even the claim that she was a covert agent covered by the nondisclosure law. Fitzgerald knew the leaker from the very beginning. It was not Libby but Richard Armitage. He also knew that the ‘leak’ by the State Department’s No. 2 official — a fierce bureaucratic opponent of the White House, especially the vice president’s office — was an innocent offhand disclosure made to explain how the CIA had improbably chosen Wilson for a WMD mission. (He was recommended by his CIA wife.) Everyone agrees that Fitzgerald’s perjury case against Libby hung on the testimony of NBC’s Tim Russert. Libby said that he heard about Plame from Russert. Russert said he had never discussed it. The jury members who have spoken said they believed Russert.

“And why should they not? Russert is a perfectly honest man who would not lie. He was undoubtedly giving his best recollection.
“But he is not the pope. Given that so many journalists and administration figures were shown to have extremely fallible memories, is it possible that Russert’s memory could have been faulty?
“I have no idea. But we do know that Russert once denied calling up a Buffalo News reporter to complain about a story. Russert later apologized for the error when he was shown the evidence of a call he had genuinely and completely forgotten.
“There is a second instance of Russert innocently misremembering. He stated under oath that he did not know that one may not be accompanied by a lawyer to a grand jury hearing. This fact, in and of itself, is irrelevant to the case, except that, as former prosecutor Victoria Toensing points out, the defense had tapes showing Russert saying on television three times that lawyers are barred from grand jury proceedings.
“This demonstration of Russert’s fallibility was never shown to the jury. The judge did not allow it. He was upset with the defense because it would not put Libby on the stand — his perfect Fifth Amendment right — after hinting in the opening statement that it might. He therefore denied the defense a straightforward demonstration of the fallibility of the witness whose testimony was most decisive.

“Toensing thinks this might be the basis for overturning the verdict upon appeal. I hope so. This is a case that never should have been brought, originating in the scandal that never was, in search of a crime — violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act — that even the prosecutor never alleged. That’s the basis for a presidential pardon. It should have been granted long before this egregious case came to trial. It should be granted now without any further delay.”
—
Look up “travesty of justice” in the dictionary, and you’ll see a picture of Patrick Fitzgerald.
But the Democrats don’t care. Just when you thought the Party of Babykilling couldn’t come up with fresh ways to disgrace itself, they manage to come through. They’re glad Libby’s been nailed. After all, it makes the Bush Administration look bad. When chronicling the despicable double standard for political prosecutions (and how Republicans have been “gutless appeasers” in standing up to it) this week, Ann Coulter called this exactly what it is: “a surrogate for political warfare.” It’s official: the Democrat Party will send innocent people to jail for political gain. If this is not evil, what is?
Mr. President, you have been silent on this witch hunt against one of your own from Day 1. Still you’re silent. Why haven’t you pardoned Scooter Libby already? If you’re worried about your image (which would be disgraceful), can it—your reputation is in a shambles, and the only chance you have of salvaging any of it is to start showing true courage in your leadership.
There aren’t too many people on Capitol Hill who should feel proud of themselves these days.