Rocky Mt News Mike Littwin, Rubberman

When I was a kid I had a hero called Rubberman. His elasticity could thwart crime and stop a speeding bullet. I was reminded of him when I read an op-ed by Mike Littwin in Denver's Rocky Mountain News titled, "Salazar waves red flag at Democrats." Although Littwin should be refered to as "bizarro" Rubberman, according to the Seinfeld dictionary.

Salazar is Colorado's Democrat Senator who ran as a conservative to get elected. He promised that he would give President Bush's judicial nominations an up or down vote. He has taken a lot of heat for his broken promise.

Now comes an anti flag burning amendment and our duplicitist Senator has wrapped himself in the flag to repair his image. But Bizarro Rubberman Littwin tries to stretch Salazar's support of the amendment over the eyes of his readers and promote him as a patriot, fighting fellow Democrats based on stong principles . He would have us believe that Salazar is a maverick to be - invoking the McCain word. What are you smoking Mike? His vote for an anti flag burning amendment wouldn't even make Pelosi blink (if she could).

Salazar got in trouble because he broke his election promise to give judicial nominations an up or down vote in the Senate. The burning flag amendment is symbolic and the Democrat leadership understands that Salazar needs to cover his posterior. The only issues that are important to Dems now are Supreme Court nominees and how they can obstruct the administration.

Littwin, If you don't see Salazar's ploy you shouldn't be writing about politics? My guess is you do understand Salazar, and your piece is flat out bias.

Anyone out there, besides Littwin, that believes Salazar is bucking the Democrats, raise your hands; send me your address, and I'll send you a brochure featuring some choice swamp land in Colorado.

MSM Ignores Durbin Rant, Indict Rove

The MSM didn't cover the Durbin comparison of Gitmo with death camps until he started his non apology, apology. He made his statement on Tuesday and the MSM didn't cover it until seven days later. The Media Research Center has the facts. The Washington Times agrees.

But the MSM is all over Rove's characterization of liberals as soft on terrorists the day of, and the day after he spoke. The Washington Post reports here. What news bias? As Alfred E. Newman of Mad fame would say, "who me?" And politics is certainly a mad world.

Those Mean Republicans

According to Richard Cohen at the Washinton Post, Republicans are just being mean to Senator Durbin for his comparison of Gitmo to death camps.

...Durbin is not being faulted for a lack of nuance. He has instead come under vitriolic attack by Republicans who would have you think that the Democrat from Illinois likened America to the Soviet Union or the American military to Nazi Germany or disparaged the military in its entirety. In the name of our armed forces, Virginia Sen. John W. Warner asked for an apology.

Cohen erases all doubt that The Post is other than a liberal rag.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times, exoriates Durbin.

Mr. Durbin's most grievous offense, of course, was his defamation of American troops who protect us from terrorist operatives, trainers, recruiters, bomb-makers and financiers confined at Guantanamo. He has not only derided their service. He has legitimated our enemies' efforts to wage war against us by suggesting the government whose orders they follow is literally -- as well as morally -- equivalent to the most repressive regimes the world has ever known.

N o matter which way you look at Durbin's words they fuel anti-Americanism.

The Despicable Senator Durbin

Here is the latest Senator Durbin "non apology" apology .

"I have learned from my statement that historical parallels can be misused and misunderstood," said the Illinois senator.

Notice his reference to "historical parallels." Evidently he thinks there is still a parallel between gitmo and gulags, Nazi death camps and Pol Pot's killing fields; and he just misused, and we misunderstood his meaning. He's a victim of his passions and our ignorance ginned up by the vast right wing conspirators.

What amazes me is his blatant lie that President Bush has withheld POW status from Gitmo detainees contrary to the Geneva Convention.

The administration did not grant POW status to the Taliban or al-Qaeda militants, because they were not members of a nation's army, did not wear uniforms or have a chain of command and they targeted civilian. Iraqi solders captured before the Iraqi army collapsed were afforded POW status, but insurgents/terrorists have no rights under the Geneva Convention.

Durbin wants all detainees to be considered civilians unless judged otherwise by a Geneva Convention
Article 5 hearing. But Article 5 calls for a hearing only if there is "doubt" as to a combatant's status. There is no doubt that al-Qaeda captured on the battle field do not qualify for POW rights. But in addition is Durbin ignoring the fact that 230 detainees have been given a hearing by the Combat Status Review Tribunal?

Liberals who oppose Gitmo state that perhaps The Convention does not preclude the US treatment of detainees; but international law should be considered, and we should consider the damage to the good name of the United States. And would we want our troops treated the way we treat Gitmo detainees? You can almost hear the ghosts of the gulags, death camps and killing fields scream YESSS!

Media and the Terrorist Agenda

One question: If the main stream media and cable TV did not report Iraq and Afghanistan bombings 24/7, would terrorists be less inclined to strap a bomb belt on themselves to kill innocent civilians? You might classify this as a rhetorical question.

Are terrorists in Iraq fighting a war of attrition. There is no way they could they wipe out the US army or the Iraqi people. They're fighting a PR war and our MSM is publishing their news releases-bomb-after-bomb-after-bomb.

With the proliferation of news outlets, bombing victims die over and over on each news break. A small example is the AOL news page; good news has a short life span, but Iraq casualties are posted for two days. And Ted Kople On Nightline, publishes the names of fallen solders, ostensibly to honor their heroism, but most pundits conclude that he's really making an anti war statement.

Because of bias anti war media, the US is losing its will to fight. Is it no wonder that the army is having recruitment difficulties? Our enemy is willing to give their lives for their cause. We are not.

Rush Limbaugh has an interesting idea. He's calling for a 90 day moratorium on media attacks against the Iraq war. Shades of WWll, it will never happen, even though reporters and pundits are indirectly responsible for the death of innocent civilians. Is there any doubt that over-kill-coverage by the New York Times of so called prisoner abuse at Abu Graib and Gitmo has been used by terrorist to recruit homicide bombers and embolden their cause-and consequently more innocent civilians die.

Terrorist justify beheading and bombing as means towards their end, and our MSM supplies them with moral equivalence by branding prisoner interrogation at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib as "torture."

While Newsweek told us about alleged abuse of the Koran at Gitmo, they failed to put Gitmo in context. We have subsequently learned that prisoners are fed better food than out troops. For example one meal served includes honey glazed chicken Breast, rice pilaf, and steamed peas. Compare that meal to Army MREs (meals ready to eat). MIRE include chili, beans, turkey, spaghetti etc. Sounds yummy.

Each detainee is given a Koran w/web holder, prayer rugs and directions towards Mecca. Guards must use gloves to handle the Koran and then must only use their right hand, and this because infidels are unclean. But surprise, surprise, most of the abuse of the Koran at Gitmo has been committed by prisoners.

A news moratorium is too much to expect, but could the war news be relegated to page twenty instead of page one. Or could editors be more selective when they choose which syndicated pundits are published. If they can, they should shun the anti war zealots. Editors during WWll were patriotic and brought the US together to defeat fascism. Do we deserve less in the war against terrorism?

Are Democrats Really Unhappy with Deanspeak?

Fellow Democrats are criticizing DNC Chairman Howard Dean's shoot from the lips style, but are they really unhappy or are we witnessing a good-cop-bad-cop scenario.

On recent occasions, Dean has said many Republicans ''never made an honest living in their lives," described the Republican Party as ''pretty much a white, Christian party," and declared that House majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas, who is facing ethics questions but has not been charged with any crime, ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence. (more)

Actually Dean's virulent rhetoric has been very effective. His timing was great, coming during the slow news days of congress's ten day Memorial Day weekend. And what's the down side for Dean? He isn't running for office and his fund raising is lacking. As Dean tosses red meat to the faithful, you can hear the cash register ringing in the background.

Put Dean's rant in context. Can the Democrats be unhappily with President Bush's low job approval ratings (48.6%), or the majority of people against the Iraq war, (57%) or the President's failing effort to bring about Social Security reform? While Dean might not be entirely responsible for these GOP negatives, he certainly can't hurt them and besides Democrat presidential hopefuls like Joe Biden and John Edwards can play against his comments in an effort to appear more moderate. And look for the MSM to dutifully report reasonable Democrat's response to "outrageous" Deanspeak.

... the "Christian party" comment has the potential of repelling millions of voters, and it had many Democrats running for cover. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told reporters yesterday, "I don't think the statement [Dean] made was a helpful statement," and she attributed it to "the exuberance" of being in the job.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), one of Dean's opponents in the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries, said the comment was "way over the top" and said he will ask Dean to explain himself during a previously scheduled meeting with Senate Democrats today. "I'm sure I won't be the only one," Lieberman said.

Give me a break, Pelosi and the DNC have never met a GOP bash they didn't love.

US Senate, a Polish Joke

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) has placed a "hold" on President Bush's nomination of Julie Finley as ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Mrs. Finley is well qualified. She has been a strong and active advocate in Washington for the expansion of NATO, the integration of Turkey into the European Union and the spread of democracy to countries of the former Soviet Union.

But on the grounds that Mrs. Finley is pro-choice on abortion, Senator Brownback has exercised the Senate's Polish procedure and figuratively cried "I oppose".

One senator can hold up a nomination by just noting his or her objection. As did Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) when she put a hold on the Bolton confirmation.

The holder's identity is supposedly secret and his or her motive need not have anything to do with the nominee's qualifications.This arcane practice does have a precedent in history. James Michener, in his book Poland, writes" The incredible Liberum veto, by which one man in a Seym (parliament) of hundreds could negate and prorogue the entire work of the Seym by merely crying ' I oppose' was a major cause of Poland's disappearance from the map of Europe."

You might say the U.S. Senate has become a "Polish Joke."

The Wall Street Opinion Journal has an interesting op-ed regarding the Senate "hold."

More on Gitmo

Is there any doubt that the liberal media is driving the Gitmo abuse claim? E.J. Dionne of the Houston Chronicle opines that there are two reasons why Amnesty International's should not have used the word gulag. One, its not accurate, but two, it provides Bush with an opening to "attack" AI. According to Dionne, President Bush "attacked" AI when he said, "It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of and the allegations by people that were held in detention, people who hate America, people who have been trained in some instances to disassemble, that means not to tell the truth." Dionne went giddy over the Presidents misuse of the word dissemble and goes on to deflect AI's duplicity. Its the Bush administration's dishonesty stupid!

But I hope the group learns a lesson that all of Bush's opponents should also take to heart. That lesson is not to pull back from criticism or to cower before administration attacks. It's outrageous that Bush tried to dismiss all questions about practices in Guantanamo as the work of "people who hate America."

On the contrary, it's people who love America and the liberties it espouses who are most vehement in insisting that we live up to our creed. Those who care about the fate of our men and women in uniform worry how the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib might affect what happens to Americans taken prisoner in current and future wars.

This last paragraph above is so disingenuous that it brands Dionne as the liberal propagandist he is. Let me see, if we give every detainees a Koran and appropriate meals and time to pray, fanatical islamicists will not cut off the heads of US solders or citizens. Come on E.J., confess that you're anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war, anti-US foreign policy. Don't give us this platitudinous crap.

On the other side of the gitmo issue is straight talking pundit Charles Krauthammer, the token conservative at the Washington Post. In his op-ed, Gitmo Grovel: Enough Already he writes:

Even greater hypocrisy is to be found here at home. Civil libertarians, who have been dogged in making sure that FBI-collected Guantanamo allegations are released to the world, seem exquisitely sensitive to mistreatment of the Koran. A rather selective scrupulousness. When an American puts a crucifix in a jar of urine and places it in a museum, civil libertarians rise immediately to defend it as free speech. And when someone makes a painting of the Virgin Mary, smears it with elephant dung and adorns it with porn, not only is that free speech, it is art -- deserving of taxpayer funding and an ACLU brief supporting the Brooklyn Museum when the mayor freezes its taxpayer subsidy.

Amnesty International is supported by donations, and without encouragement by the MSM, they would not use the word gulag. They wouldn't risk alienating their constituents.