Bush Calls Defese Sec. Gates a "Wuss."

I'm sure you've all heard about Bush going to Israel and mocking those who want to talk to Iran (the Nazi's in this little analogy-always classy).

Honestly, OK, cool. If you think talking is a bad move, you're the President, you're the chief diplomat so that's your call. But you would think you would get your cabinet on board before you go about running them under the bus.

Since the White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said that it wasn't talking about Obama,

there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president... thinks that we should not talk to".

"I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you," she added.

"That is not always true. And it is not true in this case.

So, if it's not Obama who could be included in the nameless masses that W was referring?

Could it have really been a way to attack Defense Secretary Robert Gates? After all, Gates was on record the day before saying we need to engage Iran in talks. Maybe this was W's way of chastising his Secretary of Defense. I mean what good is a Secretary of Defense who's an appeaser?

What about McCain? McCain also mocks Obama for wanting to talk. From Yahoo!

Meanwhile, in Columbus, Ohio, McCain said he took the White House at its word, but then he weighed into the spat himself, saying: "This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?"

Asked if Obama was an appeaser, McCain said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and added that Obama's position was a serious error. "It shows naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country that says Israel is a stinking corpse, that is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. My question is, what does he want to talk about?"

Excellent point. What kind of a jackass thinks its a good idea to talk (Gates) and more importantly for the American people, what kind of jackass would support that jackass? Not John McCain, that's for sure. Wait, what? McCain voted to confirm Gates? Well, surely it was reluctant. Let's look at the transcripts from the hearing.

MCCAIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Gates, thank you for your willingness to serve this nation again. We're very grateful. We know you left a very comfortable life in Texas to serve this nation again, and we are grateful. And I would like to offer my congratulations and condolences for your appointment.

MCCAIN: ...I wish you every success. I know that all of us on this committee and in this country have nothing but the interests of our nation's security and the men and women who serve it as our highest priority.

And I hope you will help us gain consensus so that, as a nation, we can move forward and make sure that the American people are not subjected to more sacrifice as a result of the failures that we've experienced in the past in this conflict.

And again, I thank you for serving, Doctor.

Hmmm, well that doesn't look good. I guess McCain will be calling for national attention on why the Secretary of Defense wants to sit down with terrorists. I imagine he'll be calling for W to fire Gates for beings such a stupid sissy. I'll be right here waiting...

The Anti-War Dirty Little Secret

As the article shows, the war in Iraq continues to be a war against Al Qaida. Granted, there is more going on than just that. But, sadly, too many critics are being allowed to assert the false claim that the Iraqi insurgency is just a manifestation of a civil war. It is not, it is a regional war and one that has real consequences for the west (that means you and me). If Iraq cannot be stabilized it will become a staging ground for attacks against the west. The same is true for Afghanistan. The same is also true for Syria and Iran. Like it or not, the reality is that Islamic terrorists will continue to kill us non-Islamic terrorists by launching attacks from ungoverned areas and sympathetic regimes. Iran is funding terrorism in Iraq and Israel, as is Syria. Al Qaida is funding terrorism in Iraq, Europe and the U.S. All of them have resources exposed in Iraq. Iraq is the place we should be destroying those resources. I will continue to appeal to those who want to see the U.S. abandon Iraq. How else do you propose we strike at the threat that is Islamic terrorism? Or do we not strike? Do we just attempt to build a fortress that cannot be penetrated? What cost offense and what cost defense? There is no cheap solution.

It was a crazy day, I also bought an ab-blaster

North Carolina DA Mike Nifong says he, "maybe got carried away a little bit" discussing the case of three Duke lacrosse players accused of raping a African American stripper.

Yes, maybe a touch carried away in torching the lives of three Duke students, their coach (resigned), and an entire sports program (suspended for the rest of the 2006 season).

Just reading some of Nifong's quotes for the Fox article in the last link.

"The circumstances of the rape indicated a deep racial motivation for some of the things that were done," Nifong said. "It makes a crime that is by its nature one of the most offensive and invasive even more so."

And,

"I needed to have the information about who will be charged," said District Attorney Mike Nifong said. "I feel pretty confident that a rape occurred."

Odd, with Mr Nifong's amazing gut, that all three students were cleared.

So now Mr Nifong may lose his lawyer license. Among the comments cited was this gem where he said "he wouldn't allow Durham to become known for 'a bunch of lacrosse players from Duke raping a black girl.'" That's at least somewhat ironic now, given all the media surrounding both the initial incident, and the current media all surrounding the fact that in Durham, a bunch of lacrosse players were incorrectly charged with raping a black girl by an out of control DA. Duke is now as much known for this incident as anything else. Congratulations Mr Nifong. Rarely have I ever witnessed such a complete failure in any endeavor. Just a loss across the board. Wow.

I really haven't been following any of this, but if the only thing Mr Nifong loses is his license to practice law...well that feels like a crime.

I know this will muddy the picture, but I have to point out that if any of these players were foreigners accused of anything having to do with terrorism, they would have not had the right of habeas corpus, the right to an attorney, the right to see the evidence against them (including the flawed DNA evidence), nor any type of jury by peers in front of a judge, and the rest of the tools and protections that freed these boys. The woman's accusation and Mr Nifong's gut would be more than enough to keep them locked up forever.

UPDATE: Nifong announced his surprise resignation today.

The day Romney lost my vote

From Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney in the Republican debates,noting that

"some people" have said we ought to close Guantanamo, boasted that "we ought to double Guantanamo,"And,He added that he liked to have suspects in Guantanamo because "they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil."

Count me out. Again, is our "War on Terror" about justice or vengeance? I strongly believe that our President should be passionate about our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Anyone who can be so dismissive of the concept that "All men are created equal..." or mentally amends it to read, "All men who I don't think are guilty are created equal..." is not fit to be President of the worlds greatest democracy.

Secret, Secret, the State's got a Secret.

Been following the legal case of Khaled el-Masri, a Lebanese born German citizen, and former terrorist suspect. He claims he was,

snatched while on a trip in Macedonia, taken to Afghanistan, jailed, beaten and harassed before being set free without charge after five months.

His request?

explanation and an apology from the United States for his detention, as well as 75,000 dollars in damages.

So he files suit, goes before a Judge, the Defense (the US Government) tells judge, "Hey we'd looooove to stand trial for all this, but unfortunately we can't. See we have this stupid 'state secret' problem. Man we hate that thing, its suuuuch a hassle. Anyway, can't help you, gotta go. Let's do lunch sometime."

Mr. Masri appealed. Defense comes in, says "State Secret" which is apparently Latin for "Screw off" and the appeal was denied. Also, in the appeal we find out that he was "sodomized with an object" while in custody, and while I'm sure that great fun was had by all, that seems like torture to me.

Let's review. A man was taken into custody, denied Habeus Corpus, denied access to a lawyer, taken to a foreign nation and tortured (which is expressly against US law), loses five months of his life (and I know how I felt when I lost 90 minutes of my life when I saw Date Movie), and is then told, "thank you for traveling with the CIA, go home now." Why? Prevailing guess is that his name is similar to someone else's, namely suspected terrorist Khalid al-Masri (wrong vowel leads to hurt bowel?).

The point isn't to rail against arresting an innocent man, it happens every day, and is just part of the legal/investigative process. The problem is that Mr Masri's wild ride was entirely avoidable. If he had the rights of habeas corpus, and the right to an attorney the mistake could have been caught early, avoiding trauma to Mr Masri and embarrassment to the US Government. Somehow habeas corpus and legal representation have come to mean support for the terrorists as opposed to support for the American way. Great marketing that, but entirely wrong.

W compares himself to the first (W)ashington

No lack of confidence for him.

But his analogy left me more scared than inspired. Says the modern W,

"On the field of battle, Washington's forces were facing a mighty empire, and the odds against them were overwhelming. The ragged Continental Army lost more battles than it won, suffered waves of desertions, and stood on the brink of disaster many times. Yet George Washington's calm hand and determination kept the cause of independence and the principles of our Declaration alive."

Ummmmm, who's who in the analogy?

OK. Lets assume we're the Continental Army. Is Al Qaeda the mighty empire? Are the odds against us overwhelming? Should I be planning to lose more battles than we win? Desertions? Are we on the brink of disaster? What the hell's going on? Maybe I haven't been scared enough? Or maybe W's finally starting to read papers. I mean, was that supposed to be inspiring? Is he really comparing the most powerful military ever to the "ragged" Continental Army? Is he saying troop moral is so low we're facing mass desertions? I'm not even going into the difference between defending the Declaration and putting it aside "for now." I'm completely baffled. That or he's just totally delusional. Worst. Peptalk. Ever.

But looking at it, it sounds more like a rallying cry for Al Qaeda. I mean, we're more like the "mighty empire." We could certainly be viewed as the modern version of Britain. And aren't the odds against them overwhelming? The insurgents are certainly rag-tag, and are definitely losing more battles than they're winning. Disaster is absolutely a constant presence. Seriously, wouldn't this speech make much more sense if it came from Binny?

However, maybe we should pay close attention to the current W's words. It's very hard to defy the locals if they don't want you around. A lesson the Brits learned about 250 years ago, one we learned 35 years ago, and one we may be learning now.

Finally, I think this quote is the scariest.

"After winning the war, Washington did what victorious leaders rarely did at the time. He voluntarily gave up power.

Isn't he acknowledging how difficult it would be for any leader to give up the powers he asked us to give him. Especially since he won't be that leader? I think this is the warning we should all be heeding.