Gov. Romney has been aggressively recruiting Republican candidates to run for the state legislature.

GOP boosts number of legislative candidates:

The state GOP said yesterday that 133 Republican hopefuls filed papers to run for legislative offices this week, making good on Governor Mitt Romney's pledge to recruit candidates to run against Democratic incumbents, who dominate Beacon Hill.

The party expects that those 133 Republicans will be running in roughly 130 districts this November. That total, which includes the 25 GOP incumbents running for reelection in the Senate and the House, is the highest tally of Republican candidates since 1990, said state Republican Party executive director Dominick Ianno. Candidate signatures have yet to be certified, and some hopefuls may not qualify for the ballot. Still, fully six months before a ballot is cast, Ianno claimed a victory yesterday for Romney.

'There are a lot of people running, and we're still compiling them, there are so many,' Ianno said. 'We have a strong leader, and a strong message of reform. We went out and talked to hundreds and hundreds of potential candidates. We talked to people who have been involved in politics and who haven't been involved in politics. We were able to convince people we need reform, and people were willing to sign on, and run under the banner of the reform team.'

In some cases, Romney called potential candidates personally to persuade them to run.

'He really did a good job of closing the deal,' Ianno said of the governor.

In each of the last four election cycles, the party has fielded candidates in fewer than 80 seats, Ianno said. And if the 133 number holds, it will be the highest tally since 1990, when Republicans contested races in 158 districts, he said.

Although we have had a Republican governor for over a decade, the Democrats have had a veto proof legislature that blocks most attempts at reform in this one party state.

I have re-evolved to a Flappy Bird in the TTLB Ecosystem again. This comes less than a week after slipping in the food chain to a Slithering Reptile. All these body changes are starting to make me nauseous.

Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks to my readers and to all those who link to the site. I still find it hard to believe that in less than 3 months I've had over 2800 visits.

Turns out the NY Times poll was more disingenuous than I thought (see earlier post today). RealClearPolitics points out that the poll undersampled Republicans. Here is how the poll respondents break down:

• Democrats - 35%
• Independents - 36%
• Republicans - 29%

I don't believe for a second that this was by accident. Even with this mix, Bush came out 2 pts ahead. As I said before, this was not a poll of registered or likely voters. Had it been, the results probably would have been even better for Bush.

You can't make this stuff up!

I didn't see this but it is disgraceful that a 9/11 Commission member has stooped to a new low by appearing on a comedy show. (via Washington Times):

What House Majority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri still can't figure out is why a September 11 commission member in this case former Sen. Bob Kerrey, Nebraska Democrat would appear on Comedy Central's 'The Daily Show' and satirize hearings into why the terrorist attacks happened and just hours before testimony from President Bush.

'This is not a laughing matter,' says Mr. Blunt, a Republican. 'Just two days before the 9/11 commission is scheduled to question the president of the United States about intelligence failures that precipitated the loss of more than 3,000 Americans, Senator Bob Kerrey asked a comedian for pointers.'

In the opinion of Mr. Blunt, Mr. Kerrey turned the hearings 'into comedy central when he chastised National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice for forgetting specific details of brief conversations held three years ago all the while, he was unable to even remember her name.'

The only thing out of 9/11 that can be considered a joke is the commission itself.

The Wall Street Journal asks why the media is ignoring the chemical bomb plot in Jordan.

Jordanian authorities say that the death toll from a bomb and poison-gas attack they foiled this month could have reached 80,000. We guess the fact that most major media are barely covering this story means WMD isn't news anymore until there's a body count.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi--the man cited by the Bush Administration as its strongest evidence of prewar links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and the current ringleader of anti-coalition terrorism in Iraq--may be behind the plot, which would be al Qaeda's first ever attempt to use chemical weapons. The targets included the U.S. Embassy in Amman. Yet as of yesterday, most news organizations hadn't probed the story, if at all, beyond the initial wire-service copy.

Perhaps the problem here is that covering this story might mean acknowledging that Tony Blair and George W. Bush have been exactly right to warn of the confluence of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Jordan's King Abdullah called it a 'major, major operation' that would have 'decapitated' his government. 'Anyone who doubts the terrorists' desire to obtain and use these weapons only needs to look at this example,' said Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer.

The media who barely covers this story would be calling for Bush's head on a platter had the attack succeeded. One of the reasons 9/11 was such a surprise to many Americans is that the media barely reported the growing threat from Al Qaeda. It looks like they didn't learn any lessons.

Update: If you came to this post from Wizbang, please go this post as I accidentally cut and paste the wrong link on the trackback.

Some quotes from a column on how John Kerry stinks on TV.

"It’s a lot of words and no clarity, a lot of presence and no warmth," said Chris Matthews, the host of MSNBC’s Hardball

"...He’s not Jack Kennedy, although he wishes he were" - Joe McGinniss, author of The Selling of the President

The NY Times apparently felt the need to explain why it's poll results are consistently more negative towards President Bush than other polls. Here are a couple excerpts:

Different Poll Results, but Much in Common

At least five organizations have surveyed the public this month about President Bush's performance, the war in Iraq and the political prospects for this year, and the differences among them are typical of surveys asking different questions at different times.

Because of the statistics of polling, those differences are less than they seem on the surface — comparisons among polls of about 1,000 respondents, as these polls had, carry a sampling error of 4 percentage points.

The New York Times/CBS News Poll's main findings were consistent with trends in some other recent polls but somewhat more negative for Mr. Bush. For example, an ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted April 15 to 18 put Mr. Bush's job approval rating at 51 percent. A poll by the Pew Research Center conducted April 21 to 25 put it at 48 percent. The current Times/CBS Poll, taken slightly later, April 23 to 27, put it at 46 percent. In statistical terms, these are virtually the same.

***

Every polling organization has different ways of wording questions and of conducting surveys, but those methods tend to remain consistent over time within an organization. For this reason, the trends within an organization's polling are generally viewed as more relevant than the results from polls by different organizations within a short period of time.

This explanation is disingenuous at best. Nowhere in the article do they mention that they poll all adults, not just registered or likely voters. So by default about 50% of the people they poll don't even vote. The other polls they mention in the article also poll all adults. If they really wanted to compare the results, they would have included the Gallup poll which limits responses to likely voters and the Fox News poll which limits responses to registered voters.

All that having been said, the Times poll shows some bad news for Kerry even though the Times article describing the results does it's best to paint a bad picture for the president.

The diminished public support for the war did not translate into any significant advantage for Mr. Bush's Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. The poll showed the two men remaining in a statistical dead heat, both in a head-to-head matchup and in a three-way race that included Ralph Nader.

Support for Mr. Bush is stronger in other areas vital to his re-election, including his handling of the threat from terrorism, which won the approval of 60 percent of respondents.

***

The survey held hints of trouble for Mr. Kerry as he seeks to introduce himself to an electorate that knows relatively little about him. While 55 percent of Mr. Bush's supporters said they strongly favored the president, only 32 percent of Mr. Kerry's supporters strongly favored their candidate.

Sixty-one percent of voters said Mr. Kerry says what he thinks people want to hear, versus 29 percent who said he says what he believes. The Bush campaign has attacked Mr. Kerry for months on that score, portraying him as a flip-flopper with no convictions.

On the same question, 43 percent said Mr. Bush says what people want to hear and 53 percent said he says what he believes.

Via the Drudge Report:

$1000 HAIRCUT? KERRY FLIES IN HAIRDRESSER FOR TOUCH-UP BEFORE 'MEET THE PRESS'

On the Friday before his MEET THE PRESS appearance, Dem presidential hopeful John Kerry flew his Washington, DC hairdresser to Pittsburgh for a touch-up, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Cristophe stylist Isabelle Goetz, who handles Kerry's hair issues, made the trek to Pittsburgh, campaign sources reveal.

"Her entire schedule had to be rearranged," a top source explains.

A Kerry campaign spokesman refuses to clarify if Goetz flew by private jet on April 16 or on the official Kerry For President campaign plane.

The total expense for the hair touch-up is estimated to be more than $1000, insiders tell DRUDGE.

One source suggests the hairdresser was flown to Pittburgh on Teresa Heinz Kerry's 'Flying Squirrel', a Gulfstream V private jet.

[The 'Flying Squirrel' is worth about $35 million. A deluxe model; plasma TV, two bathrooms, fancy mahogany and burlwood paneling, gold-plated fixtures.]

"Senator Kerry thinks Isabelle does a superb job," a campaign source said.

Goetz grew up in a small town in eastern France. She also does Hillary Clinton's hair.

Having seen John Kerry's hair, I'd say he's getting ripped off. I think I'll stick to my $14 haircuts.

Remember hearing about how unified the Democrats are this year? Well you can throw that line out the window. The cracks in the Democrat foundation are beginning to show themselves publicly. This was in yesterday's Village Voice: John Kerry Must Go

With the air gushing out of John Kerry's balloon, it may be only a matter of time until political insiders in Washington face the dread reality that the junior senator from Massachusetts doesn't have what it takes to win and has got to go. As arrogant and out of it as the Democratic political establishment is, even these pols know the party's got to have someone to run against George Bush. They can't exactly expect the president to self-destruct into thin air.

With growing issues over his wealth (which makes fellow plutocrat Bush seem a charity case by comparison), the miasma over his medals and ribbons (or ribbons and medals), his uninspiring record in the Senate (yes war, no war), and wishy-washy efforts to mimic Bill Clinton's triangulation gimmickry (the protractor factor), Kerry sinks day by day. The pros all know that the candidate who starts each morning by having to explain himself is a goner.

What to do? Look for the Dem biggies, whoever they are these days, to sit down with the rich and arrogant presumptive nominee and try to persuade him to take a hike. Then they can return to business as usual—resurrecting John Edwards, who is still hanging around, or staging an open convention in Boston, or both.

If things proceed as they are, the dim-bulb Dem leaders are going to be very sorry they screwed Howard Dean.

I don't believe Howard Dean would have done any better. With his temper it is possible he could have done worse. But now that one source has gone public with this, will more follow? Stay tuned, it's going to be a wild ride to the conventions!

HT: Llama Butchers

Robbers die trying to hold-up suicide bomber:

A Hamas suicide bomber blew up two armed Palestinians who tried to rob him at gun point in the Gaza Strip.

Hamas claimed the stickup men worked for Israeli intelligence, while Palestinian security forces said the two were ordinary thieves.

Rather than give up his explosives, the bomber detonated them, killing himself and the two robbers near the border fence between Gaza and Israel.

Palestinian security officials said the the gunmen were criminals who were involved in a car theft ring that brought stolen vehicles from Israel to Gaza.

Hamas said the bomber was on his way to try to infiltrate into Israel, accompanied by another Hamas member and a guide, when they were stopped by the armed men.

The robbers forced the bomber to lie on the ground and tried to steal the bomb, but the militant detonated it, killing all three. The other Hamas man and the guide escaped.

I agree that allowing concealed weapons can help prevent crime, but this is ridiculous!

Wesley Pruden explains why the medal controversy may be Kerry's Dukakis moment:

"Monsieur Kerry and his handlers are frightened that the medals episode could be taking another Massachusetts pol for a ride in a tank. Most Americans, who regard combat medals awarded for valor as more than pieces of cast metal and strips of colorful cloth, as something, like the flag, to hold in awe and reverence because such objects have been endowed with blood spent on battlegrounds at Lexington and Concord, on hillsides from Manassas to Pea Ridge, on killing grounds in the Argonne Forest and at Guadalcanal and Pork Chop Hill and the Ia Drang Valley and a lot of other places besides. Americans will regard the distinction between a combat medal and a combat ribbon as the ultimate distinction without a difference. Both medal and ribbon are fraught with holy meaning, and the man who treats them as trash, throwing them back at the country that bestowed them as tokens of gratitude and thanksgiving, is a man whose soul has withered to a dried prune."

From today's Washington Times:

Former Sen. Max Cleland, the Georgia Democrat who lost an arm and both legs in Vietnam, is rushing to the aid of prospective Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry. He labeled six Republican lawmaker-veterans critical of the candidate "a bunch of chicken hawks who never went to war, never felt a wound, but are so quick to criticize a man who went to war and got wounded doing it."

"Ultimate hypocrites," Mr. Cleland told the State newspaper in Colombia, S.C., after the six congressmen, each a military veteran, demanded during separate appearances on the House floor last Thursday that Mr. Kerry apologize for his "misleading" testimony 33 years ago before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"Thirty-three years ago today, John Kerry appeared before the Senate to talk about Vietnam," said South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson, who served in the Army Reserves but never fought in Vietnam. "Many veterans, including myself as a veteran, view John Kerry's testimony that day as one of the worst public slanders ever against the valor and character of the American military."

***

The five additional Republican "chicken hawk" congressman fingered by Mr. Cleland were Reps. Sam Johnson of Texas, John Kline of Minnesota, Jim Gibbons of Nevada, and Duncan Hunter and Randy "Duke" Cunningham, both of California.

Apparently, Mr. Cleland has forgotten that Mr. Cunningham was America's first pilot ace of the Vietnam war. He downed his first MiG-21 in a treetop-level dogfight in 1972, and later came under attack by no fewer than 22 enemy fighters, three of which he shot down.

The Navy pilot was forced to eject over the Gulf of Tonkin after his Phantom was hit by a missile. He was rescued by helicopter. Among his awards is the Navy Cross for heroism.

So now an ace pilot during the war is a "chicken hawk". These people are becoming completely unhinged.

From a Boston Herald Editorial:

If there were a medal for trying to have it both ways on virtually every issue, we know whose chest we'd pin it on. And increasingly, so do the voters.

John Podhoretz says the conventional wisdom is wrong about the upcoming election.

The conventional wisdom is that the presidential election will be close. It's a 50-50 country, so the CW goes, just as it was in the year 2000.

The problem is that the conventional wisdom hasn't taken a proper accounting of John Kerry. Here's the truth that Democrats don't want to admit and that Republicans are fearful of speaking openly because they don't want to jinx things:

Kerry is a terrible, terrible, terrible candidate.

It's not so much the policies he proposes, although they don't add up to all that much. The problem is Kerry himself. He no sooner opens his mouth than he sticks first one foot and then the other right in there.

Yesterday, Kerry went on "Good Morning America" to try and clear up a controversy about the Vietnam medals and ribbons he threw over a fence in 1971 as part of an anti-war protest to "give them back" to the U.S. Congress. Instead, he only made himself look worse.

***

ABC reporter Brian Ross uncovered the 33-year-old interview. But Kerry tried to blame the controversy on George W. Bush instead: "This is a controversy that the Republicans are pushing," he raged, "and this comes from a president and a Republican Party that can't even answer whether or not he showed up for duty in the National Guard. I'm not going to stand for it."

Kerry mentioned Bush's National Guard service not once, but twice, during his five minutes with Charlie Gibson. So now we have the Democratic candidate for president himself making the accusation that the president of the United States was a deserter.

You don't have to be a Bush fan to think this is spectacularly stupid. The issue isn't Bush or his campaign. The issue is Kerry and a series of statements he made on the record in the media dating back more than 30 years. Trying to change the topic to Bush's service simply smacks of cornered desperation.

And that is Kerry's great weakness as a candidate - a weakness that will be hard for him to overcome, because it appears to be a character trait. The man who said "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" is a man filled with the conviction that he can talk himself out of a tough situation.

Sometimes, it's better just to be silent, take the hit and move on. But Kerry seems constitutionally incapable of doing that.

Kerry has been the presumptive Democratic nominee for two months now. Ask yourself: Aside from fund-raising success, has he had a good day? Has he come up with a winning soundbite? Has he made a policy proposal you've heard people talking about?

Bush has had about as bad a time as he could have had these past two months, and he's not only still standing, but doing better than he was a month ago. And why? Because when he takes center stage, as he did in the press conference last week, he usually helps himself.

Not so for Kerry. To put it mildly.

Yes, he has time, plenty of time, six months' worth of time. Kerry will surely get better, but that's only because he can't get much worse.

Here's the conventional wisdom: The margin on Election Day will be razor-thin because only 7 percent of the electorate hasn't made up its mind yet whom to support. So the entire campaign will be a fight over that 7 percent, and the whole business will come down to a few battleground states - Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Mexico - where polling now suggests the race is neck-and-neck.

Every piece of information you've just read is true. But there's a strong possibility the conventional wisdom is wildly wrong.

Events over the past week suggest that Bush may win a substantial victory in November, and for this reason alone: Kerry's performance may seriously depress Democratic turnout. Or drive Democrats to vote for Ralph Nader, just as George Bush the Elder's performance in 1992 drove millions of Republicans to vote for Ross Perot.

Guys, you should have gone with John Edwards.

The press dropped the AWOL story months ago because there was no evidence to sustain it. For Kerry and McAuliffe to bring back up this AWOL nonsense just shows how desperate they are to change the subject. Kerry brings up the subject of his Vietnam service every 15 minutes, he can't afford to have that topic turn into a negative for him.

Senator John "Flipper" Kerry after his interview with Charlie Gibson:

"God, they're doing the work of the Republican National Committee"

This story has been around the blogs for the last week or so. It appears to have been confirmed now.

Jordanian authorities said Monday they have broken up an alleged al Qaeda plot that would have unleashed a deadly cloud of chemicals in the heart of Jordan's capital, Amman.

The plot would have been more deadly than anything al Qaeda has done before, including the September 11 attacks, according to the Jordanian government.

Among the alleged targets were the U.S. Embassy, the Jordanian prime minister's office and the headquarters of Jordanian intelligence.

U.S. intelligence officials expressed caution about whether the chemicals captured by Jordanian authorities were intended to create a "toxic cloud" chemical weapon, but they said the large quantities involved were at a minimum intended to create "massive explosions."

Officials said there is debate within the CIA and other U.S. agencies over whether the plotters were planning to kill innocent people using toxic chemicals.

At issue is the presence of a large quantity of sulfuric acid among the tons of chemicals seized by Jordanian authorities. Sulfuric acid can be used as a blister agent, but it more commonly can increase the size of conventional explosions, according to U.S. officials.

Nevertheless, U.S. intelligence officials called the capture of tons of chemicals that together could create several large conventional explosions "a big deal."

***

In a series of raids, the Jordanians said, they seized 20 tons of chemicals and numerous explosives. Also seized were three trucks equipped with specially modified plows, apparently designed to crash through security barricades.

The first alleged target was the Jordanian intelligence headquarters. The alleged blast was intended to be a big one.

"According to my experience as an explosives expert, the whole of the Intelligence Department will be destroyed, and nothing of it will remain, nor anything surrounding it," Jayyousi said.

Details of the alleged plot were shown Monday on Jordanian television, including graphics of how the cell apparently intended to carry out the attack.

In an videotape shown on Jordanian TV, Hussein Sharif said Jayyousi recruited him as a suicide bomber.

"The aim, Azmi told me, was to execute an operation to strike Jordan and the Hashemite Royal family, a war against the crusaders and infidels," Sharif said. "Azmi told me that this will be the first chemical attack that al Qaeda will execute."

Jordanian authorities said the attack would have mixed a combination of 71 lethal chemicals, which they said has never been done before, including blistering agents to cause third-degree burns, nerve gas and choking agents.

A Jordanian government scientist said the plot had been carefully worked out, with just the right amount of explosives to spread the deadly cloud without diminishing the effects of the chemicals. The blast would not burn up the poisonous chemicals but instead produce a toxic cloud, the scientist said, possibly spreading for a mile, maybe more.

The Jordanian intelligence buildings are within a mile of a large medical center, a shopping mall and a residential area.

"And there is no one combination of antidote to treat nerve agent, choking agent and blistering agent," the scientist said.

Hmm, wonder where those 71 lethal chemicals could have come from.

HT: Drudge

The newest Fox News Poll has Bush & Kerry in a statistical tie. But a look inside the numbers shows some problems for Kerry:

• More than twice as many Americans pick Bush over Kerry as the candidate who “takes strong stands and sticks with them” (51 percent to 22 percent respectively).
• By a 15-percentage point margin, Kerry is seen as the candidate making more “personal attacks against his opponent.”
• Since a televised appearance before the 9/11 commission, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice’s (search) approval rating has gone up 11 points. Today, 58 percent approve of her job performance, up from 47 percent in early April.
• Despite the continuing violent attacks against coalition troops, a 65 percent majority supports the U.S. having taken military action in Iraq, up four points in the last month.
• The public is equally likely to think the recent problems in Iraq are confined to hot spots (46 percent) as to think the problems are widespread across the country (48 percent).
Images of kidnapped soldiers are more than twice as likely to make the public feel the U.S. military should “fight harder” (59 percent) than to feel American forces should “pull out” of Iraq (25 percent).
• Fully 69 percent of Americans think most Iraqi people are glad the U.S. removed Saddam Hussein from power.
• Americans would rather get the job done than set a time limit on how long U.S. troops should be stationed in Iraq. A 55 percent majority thinks U.S. troops should stay in Iraq as long as it takes to establish a stable government over having troops stay in Iraq only a specified amount of time (39 percent).
• Finally, 41 percent of Americans think President Bush has a clear plan for handling Iraq while half say he doesn’t. When asked the same question of Sen. Kerry, 22 percent think he has a clear plan for handling Iraq, 59 percent say he doesn’t and 19 percent are unsure.

Kerry is seen as a negative campaigning flip-flopper who doesn't have a plan for Iraq. I'd say the Bush commercials are working.

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, Florida Republican in response to John Kerry saying you can bump in to foreign leaders in NYC restaurants:

I just want to make sure Senator Kerry understands that just because you go into an International House of Pancakes does not mean you are meeting with foreign leaders unless, of course, you are referring to their Belgian waffles, stuffed French toast or German pancakes.

Via Boston Herald:

Senator John "Flipper" Kerry has been caught in yet another lie, this time about whether he threw his own medals over the White House wall in 1971. He let people think he threw his own medals until 1984 when he ran for the Senate and a reporter saw his medals displayed on his office wall. He then said he had thrown his own ribbons but someone else's medals and has repeatedly said since then that he never said or implied that he had thrown his own medals over the wall. He basically just let people believe they were his own medals until 1984.

Now fast forward to the presidential race. He still has been publicly maintaining that he never said or implied that he threw his own medals but ABC News has unearthed video from an interview in 1971 where he said just that.

Contradicting his statements as a candidate for president, Sen. John Kerry claimed in a 1971 television interview that he threw away as many as nine of his combat medals to protest the war in Vietnam.

"I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine medals," Kerry said in an interview on a Washington, D.C., news program on WRC-TV called Viewpoints on Nov. 6, 1971, according to a tape obtained by ABCNEWS.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Kerry has denied that he threw away any of his medals during an anti-war protest in April 1971.

***

And in an interview with ABCNEWS' Peter Jennings last December, he said it was a "myth."

But Kerry told a much different story on Viewpoints. Asked about the anti-war veterans who threw their medals away, Kerry said "they decided to give them back to their country."

Kerry was asked if he gave back the Bronze Star, Silver Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for combat duty as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam. "Well, and above that, [I] gave back the others," he said.

The statement directly contradicts Kerry's most recent claims on the disputed subject to the Los Angeles Times last Friday. "I never ever implied that I did it" Kerry told the newspaper, responding to the question of whether he threw away his medals in protest.

I am starting to believe that this man is incapable of telling the truth. As an issue, this isn't that big of a deal since it happened over 30 years ago and he could have just claimed he was young and foolish. But rather than do that, he keeps lying until he has lied so many times that even he doesn't remember what the truth is. The fact is, if he lies about little things like this, how can we trust him on the big issues such as will he pull out of Iraq or will he only raise taxes on the "rich" but not the middle class.

Roger Simon sums it up:

One of the things that makes a man honorable is that he owns who he is and what he did. It's that Hemingway thing most Americans understand, stemming from those moments of truth that appear in the author's best work like "The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber."

Well, John Kerry just had one of those moments and he has failed it. Actually the moment began thirty-three years ago, but keeps repeating itself because of its original bad faith. It was at that point that the young vet famously threw away his Vietnam War medals... or did he?

Looks like my feet are going to be back on the ground for a while. I have lost my wings and devolved back to a Slithering Reptile in the TTLB Ecosystem. Not quite sure how this system works, I've been getting links but seem to be going backwards. Oh well!

On a related note, congratulations to the Llama Butchers who have evolved up to Adorable Little Rodents. I think the need to add a llama category to this ecosystem! Don't forget us little guys down the food chain though!

One of my first posts on this Blog was of some pictures of President Bush at Daytona 500. Today, I came across a modified version of one of those photos. (HT: Political Humor)



I thought it was pretty funny. Good way to subsidize Air Force One and save some tax dollars.

Update: Speaking of humor, when I did a spell check on this post, Blogger's spell checker didn't recognize the word "blog". Hello!!! Clue phone, it's for you Blogger!

This quote from Solomonia is causing me to wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat!

...order of succession: VP, Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate...I'll be damned. Robert Byrd. The man who's taken to singing on the floor of the Senate could, at a time of the greatest national crisis our nation has seen, could be in line to lead the nation.

The thought of this is worse than any horror movie I have ever seen. I don't think I will ever be able to sleep through the night again.

Someone please tell me it will never happen.

Update: Ok, someone please tell Solomonia to stop. This image of a teddy bear is not going to help me sleep again!

I usually check Taegan Goddard's Political Wire daily as one of my sources for political updates. I have found that the site usually displays a liberal bias but not enough to stop me from reading it.

Yesterday he had a post about the controversy surrounding the images of coffins of soldiers killed in Iraq. I am not going to comment on that controversy as I have mixed feelings about it.

But I was offended at a link to a picture he added as an update to the post. I won't display the picture, but you can see it here. It is a portrait of George Bush composed of little pictures of the soldiers killed in Iraq.

The author of this picture and those who display it should be ashamed of themselves. It cheapens the sacrifice these soldiers have made in order to make a political point. It is nothing short of capitalizing on the deaths of these soldiers. I would venture a guess that were these soldiers still alive, most of them would not give consent to be used as political pawns, nor would their families give consent had they been asked.

Please comment below or link to this post with your thoughts. I feel it should be roundly criticized .

Update: This post has been added to the Beltway Traffic Jam at Outside the Beltway.

Via Fox News: Ex-NFL Star Tillman Killed in Afghanistan:

Former NFL defense back Pat Tillman died while serving as an Army ranger in Afghanistan, several news organizations reported Friday.

The Arizona Cardinals, the team Tillman played for before making his decision to join the armed forces, had no immediate comment on the reports. The team told Fox News it was aware of the reports and may hold a news conference later Friday.

Tillman shocked fans when he turned down a $3.6 million contract with the Cardinals to be an Army ranger.

You've probably seen the map of the 2000 election that showed red states for Bush and Blue states for Gore. An even better version of the map breaks the results down to the county level. It shows how much the Democrats rely on urban areas for votes. This can also be seen in a new map that shows fund raising by area code. Doesn't look to good for the democrats.



HT: LGF

This quote from Wretchard at Belmont Club says why pulling out of Iraq is not an option.

The ultimate difference between Vietnam and Iraq has always been the fact that the Viet Cong could never follow the boys home. But the jihadis will and many are already here, smiling, waving, hating. And they will have nuclear weapons. Failure is not an option.

Scary, but true.

Support is growing for sending more troops to Iraq:

For three weeks the nation has been battered by the worst news from Iraq since the war began 13 months ago. But despite the shootings, bombings, sieges, ambushes, kidnappings and combat deaths, most Americans still support the war. And an increasing number think it should be stepped up.

In a series of interviews across the nation from a Marine base on the Pacific Coast to New York's Ground Zero, where the terror war began people say they are worried about the war's progress and shocked by its violent images but unable to see an alternative or an easy way out.

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken over the weekend found a third of Americans say the United States should send more troops, and a fourth say present troop levels should be maintained. Only a fifth favor withdrawing all troops.

The days of Beirut and Mogadishu are over. 9/11 made sure of that. The media can try to turn Iraq into Vietnam all it wants. The American people are smarter than that. Unlike the elites, they remember what is at stake.

HT: Bill Hobbs

Yesterday I noted that the Kerry campaign had flip flopped on releasing his military records after telling Tim Russert he would release all of them. Well last night they flip flopped again and said they will post the records on his website. (via Boston Globe)

After a day of heated criticism from Republican Party officials, the campaign of Senator John F. Kerry yesterday switched course and said it would release more of Kerry's military records.

An initial distribution of 13 pages to the Associated Press last night did not include any previously unavailable documents. A campaign official said in a press release that more records would be posted online by today.

***

Late yesterday, after Kerry's stance and the Republican taunts became the subject of numerous media reports, the campaign announced that it would release more records than it had given to the Globe, but it did not say what additional records would be made available.

The campaign said in a brief statement that it ''will post the military records that the US Navy provided Kerry on his active military service from 1966-1970 on www.johnkerry.com."

The campaign has released records that are publicly available under the Freedom of Information Act, but many papers can remain secret under privacy law and thus can only be distributed at Kerry's discretion.

By Monday, the Globe had already obtained from or been shown by the campaign perhaps two dozen pages of documents and, aside from a letter of recommendation, they do not include evaluations from Kerry's commanding officers.

***

The other documents released yesterday to the AP include the award citations and two after-action reports that describe the wounds that Kerry received for his second and third Purple Hearts. The award citations have been available from the campaign previously, and the after-action reports have been publicly available from the Navy Historical Center and were reported last year by the Globe.

From what I can tell, nothing new has been released. So that would mean that they are flip flopping on their vow to release all records after they flip flopped on their statement Monday saying they would not release any new records which was a flip flop from Kerry's statement on Meet the Press saying he would release everything. Geez, I need a scorecard!

Lets see if he posts anything new to the website today. Of course, the amount of press attention on this is minor compared to the bogus AWOL controversy. At the height of that controversy, the hyenas in the White House press corp will climbing all over each other to demand all of the president's records be released.

Powerline has more here.

Update: Here is the page with John Kerry's records. I am not sure if these are newly released records or the ones that have been available. Many of them are hard to read. I'll let the military bloggers analyze them.

Bush team confident in steady poll results:

Senior officials in the Bush reelection campaign are expressing growing confidence that the president has weathered weeks of rocky national security news -- and may even have benefited from it -- amid polls indicating that President Bush is holding steady against the likely Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.

Political strategists in both parties had anticipated problems for Bush from a series of dramatic developments, including the harsh claims in a book by former terrorism czar Richard A. Clarke that the administration had failed to address terrorism and rushed to war against Saddam Hussein; the testimony of the national security adviser and other officials before the Sept. 11 Commission; and the bloody insurgencies and US casualties in Iraq.

But at a minimum, Bush appears to have held his ground. His advisers attribute the durability of his standing in part to an aggressive $40 million advertising blitz last month and his overwhelming head-start in fund-raising, which have helped neutralize negative events as long as the overall focus is on national security.

Campaign advisers are so convinced that national security issues play to Bush's strength that they have posted a link on the Bush-Cheney reelection website to the new book by Bob Woodward, ''Plan of Attack," despite several disputes they have over facts and a portrayal of Bush as driven to war by an unrelenting Vice President Dick Cheney without input from Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

''Despite pundit speculation that the president had been weakened over the course of the last month, the president's ballot position has improved," Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for the campaign, wrote to other campaign leaders in a memo that was made public yesterday.

The more Democrats try to attack Bush on national security issues, the more they show they offer no real alternative. They just keep reminding voters how important the issue is which plays to Bush's strengths.

Yesterday, Kerry accused Bush of making a "secret deal" with Saudi Arabia to lower oil prices before the election:

"If, as Bob Woodward reports, it is true that gas supplies and prices in America are tied to the American election, then tied to a secret White House deal, that is outrageous and unacceptable to the American people," he said during a campaign stop in Florida.

Only one problem, Woodward never said that:

The charge that Saudi Arabia made a secret pact with President Bush to lower gasoline prices in time to help him in the November presidential election was denied Monday by the White House, the Saudi ambassador to the United States -- and even by journalist Bob Woodward, who raised the specter of such a quid pro quo in a book released Monday.

"I don't say there's a secret deal or any collaboration on this," Woodward told CNN's "Larry King Live" Monday. "What I say in the book is that the Saudis ... hoped to keep oil prices low during the period before the election, because of its impact on the economy. That's what I say."

The Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who appeared on the program with Woodward, said his characterization of Saudi policy was "accurate."

"We hoped that the oil prices will stay low, because that's good for America's economy, but more important, it's good for our economy and the international economy," he said. "This is nothing unusual. President Clinton asked us to keep the prices down in the year 2000. In fact, I can go back to 1979, President Carter asked us to keep the prices down to avoid the malaise."

Maybe the senator should read the book next time.

Another day, another flip flop.

"KERRY REFUSES TO RELEASE MORE RECORDS": "The day after John F. Kerry said he would make all of his military records available for inspection at his campaign headquarters, a spokesman said the senator would not release any new documents, leaving undisclosed many of Kerry's evaluations by his Navy commanding officers, some medical records, and possibly other material." MORE

KERRY COMM DIRECTOR CUTTER says the Kerry camp will release "everything"... They want to have a doctor pore over them first, however - "due diligence"... Timing of release TBD, ABC News' Dan Harris reports.

RNC CHAIR GILLESPIE: "Guess it depends on what your definition of the word "all" is. When President Bush committed to release all his military records on the same program, he kept his word. John Kerry should do the same. Voters aren't stupid, and he shouldn't treat us as if we are." (excerpted from Gillespie speech to be given at the Lucas County GOP Lincoln Day dinner this evening in Ohio)

Let's see if the press is as relentless about this as they were about Bush releasing his records. Don't hold your breath.

Two polls from CNN/USA Today/Gallup and ABC/Washington Post give President Bush a lead of at least 5 pts over John Kerry. This is after a very bad month in Iraq, the 9/11 commission and a supposedly bad press conference.

The Gallup poll is limited to likely voters, which is more accurate. The Washington Post poll is of adults which is less accurate, but usually these polls show better numbers for Kerry. An example would be the Newsweek poll which showed Kerry up by 7 pts only a week ago.

The good news is in the details. See Right Wing News for a table that summarizes individual issues. One issue that must have the Kerry team sweating is the Economy. Since March, Bush has erased a 12 pt spread to go even on the issue with Kerry.

Looks like the "Bring it On" mantra isn't working too well for Kerry.

HT: Viking Pundit

Looks like John Kerry chose not to pay the higher income tax rate here in MA (see earlier post here). So the man who wants to raise taxes, didn't pay more when he had the chance. Typical liberal, do as I say, not as I do. The rest of the libs here in MA are just like Kerry. In this extremely liberal state, 99.97% of taxpayers chose to pay the lower rate, yet the majority of them vote for people who want to raise their taxes.

Howie Carr, a local talk radio host, has a column in the NY Post about this:

ON the issue of affluent Americans paying more income taxes, John Kerry is, as always, consistent in his inconsistency.

On the campaign trail, he's in favor of raising taxes on everybody who makes over $200,000 a year. Unless, of course, he's the one being asked to pay more, in which case, forget about it.

We know this because of a little whoopee cushion recently inserted into the income tax forms of his home state of Massachusetts.

Weary of liberals always clamoring for higher taxes on other people, an anti-tax group managed to place a line on the tax form giving Bay Staters the option of paying at the old, since-repealed 5.85 percent rate, rather than at the current 5.3 percent rate.

For two years now, John Kerry has had the opportunity to pay his "fair share." But like some Benedict Arnold CEO, the Democratic Party candidate for president has taken the money and ran.

"Why do you even call asking about this?" his spokesman, Michael Meehan, said Saturday morning. "He has made the same decision as 99.9 percent of his fellow Massachusetts residents."

Actually, it's more like 99.97 percent. Of 2,104,326 Massachusetts state returns filed by April 15, exactly 624 taxpayers had opted to pay at the higher rate, a very small number indeed, considering that in a statewide referendum, 1,055,181 good liberals voted against cutting the income tax rate.

Kerry claimed income last year of $395,338, which means had he decided to assist the "most vulnerable members of society" etc., he would have owed an additional $2,174 - chump change, considering that his second wife is the 391st richest American, according to Forbes magazine, with a fortune of at least $550 million.

The senator also decided to give to charity this year, being an election year and all:

You can learn a lot about a politician by studying his tax returns. In John Kerry's case, one thing you can quickly figure out is what years his name actually appears on the ballot. If it's an election year, he makes charitable contributions. Last week, for example, he claimed $43,735 in charitable donations for 2003, more than he'd given in the prior two years combined.

In 1990, running for reelection to the Senate, he donated $1,835 to charity. After winning, he ponied up a total of $975 in the next three years.

More liberal hypocrisy. They always want to raise your taxes to pay for social programs, but when given the chance to donate, Kerry's wallet becomes lost, unless of course it is an election year.

HT: Viking Pundit

Light blogging today, taking advantage of Patriots Day (MA State Holiday) and some nice weather for a change. But, if you are looking for something to read, see this post at PoliBlogger about Kerry's Meet the Press appearance. The man can't take a position on anything.

From an article about the response to Kerry's college visits

Some weren't sure exactly who the visitor causing all the commotion was.

'Who's John Kerry?' asked Kristin Ward, 20.

'You know, he's running for president,' admonished her friend Tina Tucker, a junior psychology major.

' Oh yeah,' Ward responded. 'Isn't he the one who says that everything that Bush is doing, he'd do the opposite?'

Be sure to check out the Democrat Convention Schedule.

(HT: Accidental Verbosity)

Your assignment for this weekend is to read this letter from a contractor in Iraq, something you won't see the newspaper.

Woohoo! I've evolved into a Flappy Bird in the TTLB Blogosphere Ecosystem! Sorry for the lack of posting but I'm busy with a project at work. I will try to post later. Gotta fly!

Click here to see a moving tribute to our troops.

Peggy Noonan thinks the hyenas in the White House press corp helped the president:

What do I think public opinion of the president's news conference will be? Generally positive. Here's why: The president spoke uninterrupted for the first 17 minutes, when most people were tuning in to see what he had to say. His speech/announcement hit every point that had to be covered, crisply and yet somberly. Yes, things are tough in Iraq now; yes, we are going to stick to the plan to turn sovereignty over to the Iraqis; yes, we will stay as long as our presence makes the difference between success and failure, stability and chaos. Yes, we will increase troop strength if needed; yes, we have faith that Iraq will ultimately choose democracy and civic health. It was a measured and logical layout of U.S. plans and positions. (Read the opening statement here. It tells you everything you need to know about what Mr. Bush thinks and where he stands.) It will have made a positive impression while people were watching with wide-awake eyes.

It was after the statement that things got more awkward. The president rambled and repeated talking points, playing for time as he tried to remember what he'd decided he was going to say in response to this question or that. Sometimes he remembered and became energized; sometimes he didn't.
But here the press came to his rescue, and God bless them. They are so clearly carrying water for the left-liberal establishment, they were so clearly carrying water for the preening and partisan hacks who dominate the 9/11 commission, and the Washington Post's coverage of the news conference yesterday morning was so clearly teeing up Bob Woodward's next book, that the media nullified their hostility. They could have done some damage to the president with a grave and honest spirit of inquiry.

Instead, they played left-wing Snidely Whiplash. They almost twirled their mustaches, and I don't mean only the women: Will you apologize, Mr. President? Do you feel personally responsible for Sept. 11? Do you think you're a loser as a communicator? What was your worst mistake? Do you really like that tie? Do you ever consider hanging yourself from a cornice in the East Room with your tie? When you look in the mirror do you feel mild disgust or just that feeling of shame where you sort of want to tear your face off and run screaming from the room?

Imagine it is April, 1943 and FDR is meeting with the press. Mr. President, why did you fail us on Dec. 7? You call it a day of infamy, but didn't it reveal your leadership style to be infamous? Why did you let the U.S. fleet sit sleepy and exposed at Pearl Harbor? Do you think your physical infirmity, sir, has an impact on your ability to think about strategic concerns, and will you instruct your doctors to make public your medical records?

But of course they wouldn't have asked these questions. Our press corps in those days was more like Americans than our press corps is today. They were both less self-hating and more appropriately anxious: Don't be killing our leaders in the middle of a war, don't be disheartening the people. Win and do the commentary later.

The NY Post has joined the Boston Globe in asking questions about Kerry's purple hearts from Vietnam:

...And the future commander-in-chief-wannabe certainly would have known that - under Pentagon rules then in effect - three Purple Hearts guaranteed him an early exit from the war.

One down, two to go? Seems so.

Kerry did leave Vietnam six months ahead of schedule - thanks to those Purple Hearts.

And he refuses to make public the detailed medical-treatment records relating to his wound - none of which, significantly, took him out of service for more than a day or two.

As noted, they did get him out of Vietnam - he won a cushy billet as an aide to an admiral. Presently he was out of the Navy altogether - also ahead of schedule - and free to begin his political career as an anti-war activist.

Yesterday, in response to questions about Kerry's Purple Heart, campaign aides released a document stating that Kerry received treatment for a wound suffered on Dec. 2, 1968.

Whether he required surgery or stitches - or even a Band-Aid - isn't specified.

And Hibbard told a reporter that the supposed wound resembled a scrape from a fingernail: 'I've had thorns from a rose that were worse,' he said.

Kerry wouldn't be the first to fabricate a combat decoration - if, in fact, that's what happened a long time ago.

But Kerry has forged a war-hero persona of particular relevance as he seeks to become a war-time president - in the here and now.
While other young Americans are earning Purple Hearts of their own, in Iraq and elsewhere around the world.

So it is time for Kerry to come clean.

He needs to authorize the release of all relevant medical records for each of his three Purple Hearts.

If Kerry's medals were deserved, he has nothing to fear.

If not - well, it's time to find that out.

What comes around goes around! President Bush was forced to release his military records for the bogus AWOL story. If Kerry has nothing to hide, he should immediately release all of his military records to answer these questions.

The Wall Street Journal has joined the calls for 9/11 commissioner Jamie Gorelick to resign:

From any reasonably objective point of view, the Gorelick memo has to count as by far the biggest news so far out of the 9/11 hearings. The Mary Jo White prosecutions and the 2001 Moussaoui arrest were among our best chances to uncover and unravel the al Qaeda network before it struck the homeland. But thanks in part to the Clinton Administration's concern with appearances and in part to its legacy, these investigations were hamstrung.

Ms. Gorelick--an aspirant to Attorney General under a President Kerry--now sits in judgment of the current Administration. This is what, if the principle has any meaning at all, people call a conflict of interest. Henry Kissinger was hounded off the Commission for far less. It's such a big conflict of interest that the White House could hardly be blamed if it decided to cease cooperation with the 9/11 Commission pending Ms. Gorelick's resignation and her testimony under oath as a witness into the mind of the Reno Justice Department. What exactly was the purpose of the wall?

It is outrageous that she is a member of this committee and not a witness. The Wall Street Journal is right when they say if she were republican, reaction would be very different.

If Jamie Gorelick were a Republican, you can be sure our colleagues in the Fourth Estate would be leading the chorus of complaint that the Commission's objectivity has been fatally compromised by a member who was also one of the key personalities behind the failed antiterror policy that the Commission has under scrutiny.

The fact that the often quoted 9/11 families (the Jersey four) are not screaming for her resignation speaks volumes as to what their real motives are.

Update: The NY Post has an editorial with details of even more conflict of interest. Read the whole thing.

It's Tax Day and Eric the Viking Pundit has a good question for Kerry to answer.

The Boston globe has this story on the front page today: Kerry faces questions over Purple Heart

...Some Vietnam veterans are using the Internet and talk radio to question the Democratic candidate's military record. They complain that Kerry's three Purple Hearts were for minor wounds and that he left Vietnam more than six months ahead of schedule under regulations permitting thrice-wounded soldiers to depart early.

A review by the Globe of Kerry's war record in preparation for a forthcoming book, "John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography," found that the young Navy officer acted heroically under fire, in one case saving the life of an Army lieutenant. But the examination also found that Kerry's commanding officer at the time questioned Kerry's first Purple Heart, which he earned for a wound received just two weeks after arriving in Vietnam.

"He had a little scratch on his forearm, and he was holding a piece of shrapnel," recalled Kerry's commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard. "People in the office were saying, `I don't think we got any fire,' and there is a guy holding a little piece of shrapnel in his palm." Hibbard said he couldn't be certain whether Kerry actually came under fire on Dec. 2, 1968, the date in question and that is why he said he asked Kerry questions about the matter.

But Kerry persisted and, to his own "chagrin," Hibbard said, he dropped the matter. "I do remember some questions, some correspondence about it," Hibbard said. "I finally said, `OK, if that's what happened . . . do whatever you want.' After that, I don't know what happened. Obviously, he got it, I don't know how."

Later in the article is this quote from Kerry's commanding officer:

Thirty-six years later, Hibbard, reached at his retirement home in Florida, said he can still recall Kerry's wound, and that it resembled a scrape from a fingernail. "I've had thorns from a rose that were worse," said Hibbard, a registered Republican who said he was undecided on the 2004 presidential race.

Notice how the Globe is quick to point out that Hibbard is a Republican, yet how often do you see certain 9/11 families that are always the first to be quoted listed as representing liberal groups.

Trade Gap Shrinks as Imports, Exports Hit Record

The U.S. trade deficit narrowed in February as a combination of the weak U.S. dollar and stronger economic growth propelled both exports and imports to record levels, a government report showed on Wednesday.

The February trade gap totaled $42.1 billion, down more than 3 percent from January and slightly below analysts' pre-report expectations of $42.5 billion.

U.S. exports leapt four percent -- the highest monthly increase since October 1996 -- to a record $92.4 billion, while imports rose 1.6 percent to a record $134.5 billion.

I blame those damn tax cuts for the rich!

There is only one person who should apologize for 9/11 (not that an apology would change anything, I'd still fire a cruise missile up his ass):



The hyenas in the White House press corp should be ashamed of themselves. They often complain that Bush doesn't have enough press conferences. If that is the case, why did they spend what little time they had asking ridiculous questions like "are you sorry?" or "have you made any mistakes?" Wouldn't the media's readership/viewers learn more from specific questions about the war in Iraq or other specific policy questions? Why waste your time asking questions that you know are not going to get the answer you want?

Did they really expect the President to stand there and help them make a campaign commercial for John Kerry. If the president had admitted any "sorrow", it would have been immediately spun into an admission of guilt for 9/11. The only people who are guilty are Al Qaeda. The attempt last night to smear a president during a time of war was disgusting, no wonder most people don't pay attention to politics.

The media has gone into full spin mode concerning the Gorelick memo mentioned below. Captain Ed has a summary of media reaction here. The silence is deafening. Compare this to the media frenzy over the PDB that basically gave no new information. What media bias?

Attorney General John Ashcroft went for the jugular yesterday when he released a memo written by one of the 9/11 Commission members while she was part of the Clinton administration. The memo called for more separation between the CIA and FBI which is one of the major issues the 9/11 commission has focused on.

Ashcroft fiercely defended his performance since taking office, declaring: “Had I known a terrorist attack on the United States was imminent in 2001, I would have unloaded our full arsenal of weaponry against it, despite the inevitable criticism. ... Every tough tactic we have deployed since the attacks would have been deployed before the attacks.”

But the FBI was operating under the constraints of the 1995 policy cited by Freeh.

Ashcroft said he had declassified the memo that laid out the policy so the commission could review it, noting that its author was a member of the panel, a reference to Jamie Gorelick, who was deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration.

The memo detailed instructions that were designed to “more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations” to allay concerns that intelligence information could be used in criminal prosecutions, according to a copy released late Tuesday afternoon by the Justice Department.

Ashcroft did not mention Gorelick’s name, but according to a commission document obtained by The Associated Press, Pickard had already raised questions about her presence on the panel, reporting that Pickard found her membership “surprising” because she and Reno had developed the policy to counter international terrorism through the use of law enforcement techniques.

Ashcroft instead broadly criticized inaction in the final months of the Clinton administration, saying a review of proposals to disrupt al-Qaida by the National Security Council in March 2000 went unheeded, perhaps because Clinton officials did not have the stomach for “the outcry and criticism which follows such tough tactics.”

“These are the same aggressive, often-criticized law enforcement tactics we have unleashed for 31 months to stop another al-Qaida attack ... Despite the warnings and the clear vulnerabilities identified by the NSC in 2000, no new disruption strategy to attack the al-Qaida network within the United States was deployed. It was ignored in the [Justice] Department’s five-year counterterrorism strategy,” Ashcroft said.

Reno did not even tell him about the National Security Council report when he became attorney general, he said, adding that he did not learn of its existence until after the Sept. 11 attacks. (via MSNBC)

Why in the world does this commission have a member that has such an obvious stake in its outcome? That would be like making Ashcroft himself a member of the commission. The commission is now so politicized it should just disband.

Of course Ashcroft is right. If there had been any specific threats that led Ashcroft to respond forcefully, liberals would have gone crazy saying we were about to become Nazi Germany. Oh wait, they are doing that now even after 9/11. Michelle Malkin takes the NY Times to task for its blatant hypocrisy on this issue:

The Bush-bashers who have relentlessly accused the president and his War on Terror team of acting like jack-booted bigots are now imperiously attacking them for acting like light-footed fumblers. This self-serving display of liberal hypocrisy has provided more idiotic entertainment than "The Nick & Jessica Variety Hour."

In an editorial this week that embodies the Left's unmitigated gall, the New York Times castigated President Bush for not doing enough after receiving an Aug. 6, 2001, briefing memo warning vaguely of bin Laden-planned domestic terrorism. According to the Times, Bush should have "rushed back to the White House, assembled all his top advisers and demanded to know what, in particular, was being done to screen airline passengers to make sure people who fit the airlines' threat profiles were being prevented from boarding American planes."

That's right. The same editorial board that has barbecued the Bush Justice Department after the Sept. 11 attacks for fingerprinting young male temporary visa holders traveling from terror-sponsoring and terror-friendly nations (editorial, June 6, 2002); temporarily detaining asylum seekers from high-risk countries for background screening (editorial, Dec. 28, 2002); and sending undercover agents to investigate mosques suspected of supporting terrorism (editorial, May 31, 2002) now expects us to believe it would have applauded Bush for his vigilance if he had swiftly ordered airport security officials to stop thousands of young Middle Eastern men at airports during the summer of 2001 on the basis of an ill-defined threat.

The level of hypocrisy coming from the left is staggering. If Bush and Ashcroft had done any of the things that liberals now say should have been done on the basis of vague warnings, he would have been impeached. The world was a different place before 9/11 and unfortunately it took a tragedy to wake America up to the threat of Al Qaeda. It is outrageous for liberals to say more should have been done when they now complain that too much is being done and want to repeal the Patriot Act.

Via Georgewbush.com:

By comparison, Kerry's index fails to pass the laugh test -- looking to Jimmy Carter's presidency as a golden age of middle class prosperity. According to Kerry's index, the economy was stronger under Carter -- with double-digit inflation, high unemployment and long gas lines -- than it was under either Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. If this isn't proof positive that Kerry is out of touch with economic reality, we don't know what is.

Hey if you don't like the results of the official misery index, just make up a new one.

The left continues to display an unbelievable amount of hatred that leads to a complete lack of moral and political judgment. Here is the latest example of why these people are not fit to lead this country (via Drudge):



Here is the key quote suggesting Donald Rumsfeld should be shot:

"We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say 'This is one of our bad days,' and pull the trigger,"

This is what the left feels it needs to do to raise money from their deranged base.

It's just one more example from a long list of outrageous behavior from Democrats who have the nerve to talk about the "Republican Attack Machine". But I don't want to complain too loud because I don't want them to stop. I can't wait for the Republican Convention where America will see how crazy the left has become. Every time the average voter sees an ad like the one above or sees the Move On ads comparing Bush to Hitler, or sees protestors carrying signs like signs like this, the left will have shoveled out some more dirt from the hole they are going to fall in on election day.

HT: Llama Butchers

I have said before that I think the Democrats are making a big mistake trying to beat Bush on the issue of terrorism and national security because all it does is keep reminding voters that there is still a serious threat of attack which plays to Bush's strengths as a candidate. ABC's The Note has this quote from a Democratic interest group who was thinking of running an ad blaming Bush for 9/11.

One leading Democratic interest group recently asked a focus group in Florida to respond to a potential television ad accusing Bush of negligence in failing to stop the attacks. The result was volcanic against the ad.

'They were so angry I thought they were going to turn the tables over,' said a Democratic operative who watched the session.

So I say to the Democrats who want to make an issue of 9/11, Bring it On! Unlike John Kerry, we mean it when we say it.

HT:KausFiles

Just a reminder to read Belmont Club for some great analysis of the situation in Iraq. His posts are lengthy but well worth the time. Click here and just scroll up. This excerpt gives a historical perspective to the superiority of our military:

Lost in the frenetic headlines of the last week was an unnoticed military revolution. Never in history have 1,200 men stormed a city of 230,000 in urban combat without extensively using heavy weapons before the US Marines did in Fallujah. This is nothing short of amazing because the 90% of the combat power of an infantry unit is embodied in their heavy weapons. And they were stopped only by a truce, not by enemy resistance. When the Marine casualties from the Ramadi ambush, not part of the Fallujah battle are subtracted, the Marine losses have been spectacularly low by historical standards. They are actually lower than the IDF losses in the smaller Jenin engagement (which used armored bulldozers to clear lanes) and several orders of magnitude beneath the Russian casualties in Grozny, despite the lavish use of armor, artillery and air by the Russians. US forces were never tested in extensive urban combat during Iraqi Freedom. MOUT is no longer theory. It is practice. Nor is the American success confined to Fallujah. Kut is being retaken without significant losses.

Go check out Osama's thank you letter to the useful idiots on the left

About a month ago, the Bush/Cheney website had a feature that allowed you to create customizable posters in pdf format. This feature was quickly abused by liberals to make posters that mock the president. Wonkette still has an example here.

Well not to be out done, the Kerry campaign came up with the bright idea of allowing people to have customized websites at the Kerry website (apparently cybersecurity isn't one of his strongpoints). As you can imagine, Bush supporters quickly made many websites mocking Kerry and after about seven hours the Kerry campaign disabled this "feature". Fortunately a few bloggers were smart and took screenshots of some of the funnier ones. You can see some samples here and here.

From today's Boston Herald editorial about the PDB:

In short, much of this ``shocker'' could have been put together by any semi-literate Web surfer who Googled bin Laden - which sadly says much about this government's intelligence operations prior to Sept. 11.

That sounds similar to what I had to say yesterday:

Im shocked! You mean the president was actually given a history of Al Qaeda that any 14 year old who paid attention to the news would already know.

The end of the editorial sums up what is most important to Democrats these days:

Now the nation and the world can read the memo partisan Democrats on the 9/11 commission have harped on repeatedly. It tells us little we didn't know before. But it tells us a great deal about what lengths Democrats will go to create confusion around the worst terror attack on American soil - all in an effort to win back the White House.

John Podhoretz is fed up with the attempt to Blame Bush for 9/11

...never in the now-declassified Aug. 6 Presidential Daily Brief - which the president's opponents are using to make the outrageous case that he was warned in advance and failed to act - does the word "suicide" appear.

How on earth can anybody say that the Aug. 6 PDF is a warning of 9/11 when it never mentions suicide bombing?

It's vital to remember that what happened on 9/11 wasn't just the same old thing al Qaeda had done in the past. Nobody - no terrorist organization, no government, nobody - had ever done any of these things:

* Used 19 people at the same time as a suicide-attack squad.

* Hijacked four planes within an hour of each other.

* Slammed passenger jet planes into skyscrapers.

* Flew a jet plane into a government building in Washington, D.C.

On 9/11, al Qaeda did all these things - and did them simultaneously.

When government officials from President Bush to Condi Rice to Donald Rumsfeld say nobody could have imagined the attacks of 9/11, they're right - and everybody who says otherwise is delusional, stupid or dishonest.

Read the whole thing.

I've been meaning to post this for a couple of weeks now. Some of you may have noticed that I rearranged my blogroll on the right-hand column of the page. Blogs are now split up into 4 categories.

• New England Blogs
• Political Blogs (blogs not listed in another category)
• MilBlogs (military bloggers)
• Iraqi Bloggers

I also made some small color changes. While making these changes I added a number of blogs to the blogroll. In the future when I add blogs I will post an announcement to point out the additions.

Here are the newest additions by category since I started this blog:

New England Blogs
Accidental Verbosity
Boston Common
Cos Blog
Dog Snot Diaries
Hub Blog
Matt Margolis
Mutated Monkeys
Solomonia

Political Blogs
Allah is in the House
A Small Victory
Belmont Club
Bush over Kerry
Dean's World
INDC Journal
King of Fools
Lileks - The Bleat
Llama Butchers
Pejmanesque
RealClearPolitics
Technicalities
Victor Davis Hanson
Whomping Willow
Tim Blair

MilBlogs
Five Wasps
Mudville Gazette
Sgt. Hook

I also joined 2 more blog groups in addition to Blogs for Bush:

Friends of MilBlogs
Bostonites

Feel free to leave a comment or email me to let me know what you think about these changes.

Yesterday I gave this warning at the end of a post about the soon to be released PDB:

...expect the media and democrats to twist and spin this story beyond recognition. These are people you would never want to challenge to a game of Twister!

So what do I see plastered across the front page when I go get my Boston Globe this morning:

Bush was told of Qaeda steps

Im shocked! You mean the president was actually given a history of Al Qaeda that any 14 year old who paid attention to the news would already know. Here is the beginning of the article:

The CIA told President Bush five weeks before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that Al Qaeda had been planning to attack the United States since 1997, and appeared to have been laying plans "for hijackings or other types of attacks," according to a top-secret memo declassified yesterday by the White House.

Replying to mounting pressure from the independent commission investigating the attacks, the administration took the extraordinarily rare step of making public a copy for Aug. 6, 2001, of the president's daily briefing, one of the most closely guarded documents in the intelligence world. Generally, only the president and a small group of top security officials are allowed to see the memo.

Titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US," the briefing told Bush that the FBI was conducting "approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Laden-related," and that the CIA and FBI were investigating a tip that Osama bin Laden's supporters were planning attacks in the United States.

The memo also said the FBI had detected "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks."

The document, a little more than a page long, summarized a series of indicators that bin Laden, Al Qaeda's leader, was trying to hit the United States. It also said that Al Qaeda members "have resided or travelled in the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks."

It did not mention using hijacked planes as missiles. And it did not give specific times or places for any attack.

It takes them six paragraphs to get around to saying the memo had nothing to do with 9/11. I didn't think it was possible but the Globe has outdone themselves.

For some good analysis of the PDB and the media's reaction, see Captain's Quarters.

If you came to the sight yesterday and found no posts it is because Blogger was having technical problems that stopped me from being able to publish my posts to the web. That problem has been resolved as of this morning so if you scroll down, you will see the posts that should have been visible yesterday.

Thanks for reading my rantings and have a Happy Easter!

Newsweek has a new poll showing Kerry beating Bush 50-43. Don't believe it. Newsweeks number are usually way to the left of other polls. The reason is that they poll all adults. They don't restrict the results to registered voters, so right off the bat probably 50% of the people in this poll probably won't even go vote. For more accurate results, good pollsters go one step further and only include results from "likely voters" because many registered voters don't bother to vote either. Basically, Newsweek was too cheap too pay the money requred for more accurate polling and got the results it wanted anyway.

This is why the partisan finger pointing over 9/11 is a waste of time (via The New Republic):

"AN ALTERNATIVE HISTORY: washington, april 9, 2004. A hush fell over the city as George W. Bush today became the first president of the United States ever to be removed from office by impeachment. Meeting late into the night, the Senate unanimously voted to convict Bush following a trial on his bill of impeachment from the House.

Moments after being sworn in as the 44th president, Dick Cheney said that disgraced former national security adviser Condoleezza Rice would be turned over to the Hague for trial in the International Court of Justice as a war criminal. Cheney said Washington would "firmly resist" international demands that Bush be extradited for prosecution as well.

On August 7, 2001, Bush had ordered the United States military to stage an all-out attack on alleged terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Thousands of U.S. special forces units parachuted into this neutral country, while air strikes targeted the Afghan government and its supporting military. Pentagon units seized abandoned Soviet air bases throughout Afghanistan, while establishing support bases in nearby nations such as Uzbekistan. Simultaneously, FBI agents throughout the United States staged raids in which dozens of men accused of terrorism were taken prisoner.

Reaction was swift and furious. Florida Senator Bob Graham said Bush had "brought shame to the United States with his paranoid delusions about so-called terror networks." British Prime Minister Tony Blair accused the United States of "an inexcusable act of conquest in plain violation of international law." White House chief counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke immediately resigned in protest of "a disgusting exercise in over-kill."

When dozens of U.S. soldiers were slain in gun battles with fighters in the Afghan mountains, public opinion polls showed the nation overwhelmingly opposed to Bush's action. Political leaders of both parties called on Bush to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan immediately. "We are supposed to believe that attacking people in caves in some place called Tora Bora is worth the life of even one single U.S. soldier?" former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey asked.

...Bush justified his attack on Afghanistan, and the detention of 19 men of Arab descent who had entered the country legally, on grounds of intelligence reports suggesting an imminent, devastating attack on the United States. But no such attack ever occurred, leading to widespread ridicule of Bush's claims. Speaking before a special commission created by Congress to investigate Bush's anti-terrorism actions, former national security adviser Rice shocked and horrified listeners when she admitted, "We had no actionable warnings of any specific threat, just good reason to believe something really bad was about to happen."

The president fired Rice immediately after her admission, but this did little to quell public anger regarding the war in Afghanistan. When it was revealed that U.S. special forces were also carrying out attacks against suspected terrorist bases in Indonesia and Pakistan, fury against the United States became universal, with even Israel condemning American action as "totally unjustified."

...Bush seemed bitter. "I was given bad advice," he insisted. "My advisers told me that unless we took decisive action, thousands of innocent Americans might die. Obviously I should not have listened."

The people who are screaming that Bush should have done more to prevent 9/11 are the same people who would have been demanding Bush's impeachment in the above scenario.

This AP headline has been prominently displayed all over the internet today:

al-Qaida Threat Included in Bush Memo

One look at that headline and you think "Oh My God, he really did know about 9/11!". So what was it all about?

President Bush's August 2001 briefing on terrorism threats, described largely as a historical document, included information from three months earlier that al-Qaida was trying to send operatives into the United States for an explosives attack, according to several people who have seen the memo.

It was about a plot involving explosions that never happened! That's it, we need to impeach Bush now for not telling us about this attack that never happened!

The article goes on to say that much of the memo was a historical listing of previous intelligence (most from the 8 years Clinton was in office) and did talk about some more current intelligence that was being investigated, none of which had to do with the 9/11 plot. But if you watched the 9/11 hearings you would know that if only there had been more meetings every thing could have been prevented. Could someone please tell me why more meeting would make a difference? All known intelligence in the memo was being looked into by the appropriate agencies and warnings had been sent out to the FAA and other agencies involved.

The memo has not actually been released yet but expect the media and democrats to twist and spin this story beyond recognition. These are people you would never want to challenge to a game of Twister!

For a more detailed look at the AP story, visit Captain's Quarters.

James Lileks has a good example of why newspapers are losing readership.

Started with the newspaper, of course. Headline: A DOZEN MARINES SLAIN. Subhead: At least 20 wounded in fierce fighting; Iraqi attackers suffer heavy casualties. Sidebar: 'LATEST US DEATHS.' Story from the Washington Post; three paragraphs before the jump with scant but sufficient context: there's this Al-Sadr out there, a radical Shiite cleric. Last line before the jump: In nearby Fallujah, meanwhile, Marine officers said Tuesday they control the city.

Given the horrible headlines that followed the brutal deaths of four Americans last week, you'd think that would be the main story, or at least something that merited a mention in a headline. But a dozen dead Marines is the main story. The reason they died is not the main story. What has been accomplished is not the main story. To me, this is like printing Four Thousand Dead in French Assault and putting Omaha Beach secured in the subhead.

Which one honors the dead more?

I am convinced that it would have been impossible to win World War II if today's media had been around in the 1940's.

As the clueless media mindlessly repeats the Democrat's mantra of the so-called "jobless recovery", the economy continues to roar and make liberals like Paul Krugman look like fools. Here is a small summary of recent good economic news:

• April 2004 -Jobless claims fall to 328,000, the lowest level since January of 2001.
• March 2004 - 308,000 New jobs added in March, largest gain since April of 2000. Revisions of previous months numbers means over 700,000 jobs have been added since August.
• October 2003 - GDP for 3rd Quarter of 2003 incresed by 7.2%, strongest increase since 1984.

Another measurement that the media has quietly forgotten about is the "Misery Index". It turns out that this measurement is better than it was during Clinton's term (via Wesley Pruden):

The Club for Growth researched the so-called "misery index," determined by adding the inflation rate and the unemployment rate, to calculate a figure for the past six presidential election years.

Jimmy Carter, to no one's surprise, set a misery standard that is likely to stand until the Rockies crumble, Gibraltar falls and the Chicago Cubs win the National League pennant. The misery index stood at 20.6 percent in March 1980, which was all Ronald Reagan needed to send Mr. Jimmy home to his peanut patch. An unfavorable misery index preceded the defeat of Gerald Ford (13.5 percent) and George H.W. Bush (10.5 percent) as well.

But here's the surprise: The misery index for George W.'s administration is lowest of all six of those worthies. George W. inherited the Clinton misery index of 8.4 percent and has shaved it (so far) to 7.7 percent. You just wouldn't know it from the coverage of the economy. The Wall Street Journal calls it "the Rodney Dangerfield recovery" because, as Rodney might say, "it don't get no respect."

But that's only among the doofuses and the media elites. What has actually happened is that the economic markers have surpassed those set during the second Clinton term, which usually is presented as the greatest four years in the history of the republic. The stock markets, which went south with the pricking of the dot.com boom, have grown by a little more than a third since the peak set in 2000 and, taken together with surging home prices, have set a record for family net worth. The stunning jobs growth in March marks the seventh consecutive month of jobs gains, with 61 percent of American factories showing payroll expansion. This, too, is the highest percentage since July 2000.

The economy will contune to improve with more jobs being added and it is going to be fun watching Kerry continually have to change the number of jobs lost in his stump speech. For more historical context on economic numbers, see my earlier post here.

Update: This post was added to today's Beltway Traffic Jam.

Eric at Viking Pundit on the improving economy:

Thank you, Dems, for coining the phrase "It's the economy, stupid." It's gonna come in handy.

The liberals on the 9/11 Commission are in full campaign mode and have turned the commission into a political witch hunt. John Podhoretz in the New York Post takes the liberals on the panel to task for their blatant partisanship.

The liberals and Democrats on the 9/11 commission are using the public hearings to develop a plotline about the months leading up to the attacks - a plotline whose purpose is to harm George W. Bush's chances for reelection, help John Kerry's chances and whitewash the Clinton administration's failures.

The liberal plotline was on display yesterday in the questioning of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, whose refusal to capitulate to the partisan goals of her Democratic cross-examiners resulted in some shockingly inappropriate behavior on their part.

Memo to Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste: The last Democrat who sighed, rolled his eyes and shook his head when he didn't like what he was hearing was Al Gore in his catastrophic debate with George W. Bush. Not a good role model.

Memo to Commissioner Bob Kerrey: Don't complain about Condi Rice 'filibustering' when she's trying to answer your questions after you spend minutes of your supposedly precious time yelling at her about the situation in Iraq. Also, Bob, you might consider anger management. And new glasses: You called Condi Rice 'Dr. Clarke.'

What the hell does the current situation in Iraq have to do with the events leading up to 9/11? Using his limited time to address Iraq did nothing to help the commission meet its goals of preventing future attacks. All it did was further politicize the panel and frankly it was hypocritical since Kerrey himself wanted us to attack Iraq after the USS Cole was bombed even though Iraq wasn't involved. One of the best moments in the testimony came when Rice reminded him of that:

[Kerrey]...why didn't we respond to the Cole?

RICE: Well, we...

KERREY: Why didn't we swat that fly?

RICE: I believe that there's a question of whether or not you respond in a tactical sense or whether you respond in a strategic sense; whether or not you decide that you're going to respond to every attack with minimal use of military force and go after every -- on a kind of tit-for-tat basis.

By the way, in that memo, Dick Clarke talks about not doing this tit-for-tat, doing this on the time of our choosing.

RICE: I'm aware, Mr. Kerrey, of a speech that you gave at that time that said that perhaps the best thing that we could do to respond to the Cole and to the memories was to do something about the threat of Saddam Hussein.

That's a strategic view...

Podhoretz then discusses the August 6th memo that the democrats on the panel were clearly using to try and leave the impression that it warned of a specific imminent attack that was ignored.

What was new at yesterday's hearing was the public revelation of the contents of the president's Aug. 6 daily intelligence briefing, or PDB, headlined "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." Commissioners Richard Ben-Veniste, Bob Kerrey, Jamie Gorelick and Tim Roemer tried to use this document to fashion an indictment of the Bush administration.

The indictment's particulars seemed to be that as a result of this memo, the president should have called a lot more meetings.

He should have met with Clarke - even though his boss, Condi Rice, said yesterday that she has no memory of Clarke ever asking for a meeting with the president to offer a specific warning about al Qaeda.

He should have met with FBI Director Louis Freeh - except for the fact that Louis Freeh was already gone, having left the FBI in late June 2001.

"Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the Aug. 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country?" Ben-Veniste demanded.

Rice explained that the document contained no actionable intelligence - that it laid out the history of bin Laden's plotting. This neither interested nor deterred Ben-Veniste, who was simply following his predetermined partisan script.

"Was the president, in words or substance, alarmed or in any way motivated to take any action, such as meeting with the director of the FBI, meeting with the attorney general, as a result of receiving the information contained in the PDB?" Ben-Veniste asked.

Yeah, because that's what we need in Washington - more meetings!

So there we have it, if only more meetings had occurred, 9/11 would have been prevented! Never mind that Richard Clarke said the attacks would not have been prevented even if everything that he had suggested had been followed or forget the fact that the CIA and FBI were not allowed to communicate with each other because of laws passed by Congress not the Executive Branch. Meetings would have shown good intentions and that is what counts with liberals. The Clinton team supposedly met often but Al Qaeda continued to grow but hey, at least they discussed it often.

From the Guardian (HT: Best of the Web Today)

"The Americans think we are afraid while we recognise them as cowards," said the young man, the commander of this small band of fighters in this village. "We have many heroes who are standing here and elsewhere. We will not be afraid of their tanks and their weapons and their other equipment. We will stay until we defeat them."

Suddenly the gunmen scattered, unnerved by the sound of an approaching US helicopter. Villagers who had been standing in the street fled into their shops and houses and, within seconds, the crossroads was deserted.

I've been busy at work today so I haven't had much time to dive into the Condoleezza Rice testimony. Many other bloggers have covered it in good detail anyway. So if you are wondering what I think, this cartoon should sum it up! (via Boston Herald)

David Guarino in the Boston Herald campaign blog, throws cold water on the rumors of McCain being Kerry's choice for VP.

Sen. John McCain must be getting sick and tired of these Kerry/McCain ticket rumors.

The Republican senator from Arizona took to the Senate floor today to use what amounted to Bush campaign language about the escalating post-war violence in Iraq. McCain argued the US can't 'cut and run' and hammered U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy for calling Iraq President Bush's Vietnam.

None of this will play well with the Kerry crowd, who somehow seems to have developed a love affair with McCain.

This, by the way, appears to extend to Kerry himself - who inserted some very glowing language about how he, not Bush, can best work with the powerful senator during his big economics speech at Georgetown today.

But McCain appears to want out in a big way, after weeks of flirting with it - only to boost his profile, I suspect. Now he's officially making Shermanesque statements about not leaving his party or being vice president. Taking to the Senate floor to back the president and knock Kerry's buddy is just saying so to the Beltway crew and the inner circle.

So let's end the head-fake, shall we, and move on to some real veep choices.

You can read her whole opening statement here.

Rice quickly put to rest Clarke's assertion that the Bush administration did not see terrorism as an urgent priority.

We also moved to develop a new and comprehensive strategy to eliminate the al-Qaida terrorist network. President Bush understood the threat, and he understood its importance. He made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al-Qaida one attack at a time. He told me he was "tired of swatting flies."

This new strategy was developed over the Spring and Summer of 2001, and was approved by the President's senior national security officials on September 4. It was the very first major national security policy directive of the Bush Administration - - not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al-Qaida.

Although this National Security Presidential Directive was originally a highly classified document, we arranged for portions to be declassified to help the Commission in its work, and I will describe some of those today. The strategy set as its goal the elimination of the al-Qaida network. It ordered the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies to make the elimination of al-Qaida a high priority and to use all aspects of our national power - - intelligence, financial, diplomatic, and military - - to meet this goal. And it gave Cabinet Secretaries and department heads specific responsibilities. For instance:

It directed the Secretary of State to work with other countries to end all sanctuaries given to al-Qaida.

It directed the Secretaries of the Treasury and State to work with foreign governments to seize or freeze assets and holdings of al-Qaida and its benefactors.

It directed the Director of Central Intelligence to prepare an aggressive program of covert activities to disrupt al-Qaida and provide assistance to anti-Taliban groups operating against al-Qaida in Afghanistan.

It tasked the Director of OMB with ensuring that sufficient funds were available in the budgets over the next five years to meet the goals laid out in the strategy.

And it directed the Secretary of Defense to - and I quote - "ensure that the contingency planning process include plans: against al-Qaida and associated terrorist facilities in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control-communications, training, and logistics facilities; against Taliban targets in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control, air and air defense, ground forces, and logistics; to eliminate weapons of mass destruction which al-Qaida and associated terrorist groups may acquire or manufacture, including those stored in underground bunkers." This was a change from the prior strategy -- Presidential Decision Directive 62, signed in 1998 - - which ordered the Secretary of Defense to provide transportation to bring individual terrorists to the U.S. for trial, to protect DOD forces overseas, and to be prepared to respond to terrorist and weapons of mass destruction incidents.

The Clinton administration who supposedly had no higher priority then terrorism did not even have any offensive military plans, all the military was to be used for was to transport terrorists and respond to attacks that have already occurred.

There is much more to the statement so read the whole thing and stay tuned for more from the actual questioning.

U.S. Jobless Claims Tumble to 328,000

The number of people filing new claims for unemployment benefits dropped last week to the lowest level in more than three years, a promising sign that companies feel better about the economy's prospects and are less inclined to get rid of workers.

The Labor Department reported Thursday that new applications filed for jobless claims declined by a seasonally adjusted 14,000 to 328,000 for the week ending April 3. That marked the lowest level since Jan. 13, 2001.

The jobless claims figures were better than economists were expecting. They called for a slight decline from the previous week to around 340,000.

The more stable four-week moving average of claims, which smooths out weekly fluctuations, also went down last week by 3,250 to 336,750. That represented the lowest level since November 25, 2000.

Damn, those tax cuts for the rich are to blame! At some point Kerry is going to have to change his rhetoric to more closely match economic reality.

Hindrocket at Power Line:

"John Kerry, their standard-bearer, says the threat of terrorism is 'exaggerated.' And this is after September 11, not before! Why in the world should we be arguing about who did or did not take the threat of terrorism seriously enough before September 11 when one of the candidates doesn't take it seriously now?"

HT: Little Green Footballs

"In an interview broadcast Wednesday morning, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry defended terrorist Shiite imam Moqtada al-Sadr as a legitimate voice in Iraq, despite that fact that he's led an uprising that has killed nearly 20 American GIs in the last two days.

Speaking of al-Sadr's newspaper, which was shut down by coalition forces last week after it urged violence against U.S. troops, Kerry complained to National Public Radio, They shut a newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq.

In the next breath, however, the White House hopeful caught himself and quickly changed direction, adding, Well, let me . . . change the term legitimate. It belongs to a voice because he has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment."

The man who says terrorism is exaggerated now says aligning yourself with Hamas and Hezbollah is a "sort of" terrorism alignment. This man can not be trusted with the national security of this great country.

Senator Christopher Dodd had this to say about senator Robert Byrd a few days ago (HT: Right Wing News):

"It has often been said that the man and the moment come together. I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great Senator at any moment. Some were right for the time . Robert C. Byrd , in my view, would have been right at any time . He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation. He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century. I cannot think of a single moment in this Nation's 220-plus year history where he would not have been a valuable asset to this country. Certainly today that is not any less true."

High praise for a former klansman! Here is Robert Byrd in 1944:

"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

Does Senator Dodd really believe that a former klansman would have been "right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation" or that he was a "valuable asset to this country" during the Civil Rights movement!

How is this statement any different than Trent Lott's praise of Strom Thurmond. It never ceases to amaze me how comments like these by Democrats get a free pass from the media but Republicans get crucified until they step down or resign. Some how I doubt this time will be any different.

Go to Belmont Club for some great analysis of the military response in Iraq over the last few days. Just click here and scroll up.

Viking Pundit has a question for Paul Krugman:

Krugman has been bitching bitching bitching about job growth (or the lack thereof) nearly incessantly for two years. When job growth in February was a meager 21,000, Krugman wasted no time churning out a column titled “No more excuses on jobs.” But now job growth topped 300K in March – fastest growth in four years - and…what? Nothing. A re-hash of a flawed NYT Magazine article. Will Krugman wimp out again on Friday?

I think we already know the answer.

Dick Morris:

The Democrats really have no issues and their candidate is way too far to the left. The hiring of John Sasso, competent as he may be, is indicative. Kerry seems destined to run the worst Democratic campaign since Mike Dukakis, Sasso's previous employer.

Update: Oh well, Viking Pundit beat me to this post by about 20 minutes.

Via Washington Times: Al Qaeda absent from final Clinton report

"The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress 45,000 words long makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.

The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an 'urgent' threat, while President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, 'ignored' it.

The Clinton document, titled 'A National Security Strategy for a Global Age,' is dated December 2000 and is the final official assessment of national security policy and strategy by the Clinton team. The document is publicly available, though no U.S. media outlets have examined it in the context of Mr. Clarke's testimony and new book. "

One of the few mentions of terrorism in the report, describes the Clinton administration's reaction to terrorist attacks:

The Clinton administration's final national-security report stated that its reaction to terrorist strikes was to "neither forget the crime, nor ever give up on bringing the perpetrators to justice."

The document boasted of "a dozen terrorist fugitives" who had been captured abroad and handed over to the United States "to answer for their crimes."

That sums up the Clinton view of terrorism. If you attack us we won't forget it, but don't worry we won't retaliate either. This left terrorists free to plan more attacks without much fear of reprisal.

Compare those dozens of captured terrorists to what has been accomplished since 9/11:

Several high-ranking Bush administration officials, and the president himself, have faulted the Clinton administration for treating global terrorism as a law enforcement issue and not recognizing that bin Laden declared war on the United States in 1998.

Mr. Bush often notes that about two-thirds of al Qaeda's thousands of members — including many key leaders — have been either captured or killed since the attacks, and that 44 of the 55 top Iraqi officials under Saddam Hussein in a deck of cards have been "taken care of."

As Condoleezza Rice's testimony will show, it is absurd to say that the Clinton administration considered terrorism an "urgent" threat as attack after attack occurred for 8 years but then blame the Bush administration after only 8 months in office (many of those months were understaffed) for attacks that were planned during Clinton's second term.

I hope the democrats keep talking about terrorism and national security. The more they talk the deeper the hole they will have to climb out of in November.

Update: Looks like the 9/11 commission has noticed the above article (via Washington Times):

The September 11 commission will look at the discrepancy between the testimony of Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered the threat of al Qaeda "urgent" and its final national-security report to Congress, which gave the terror organization scant mention.

Al Felzenberg, spokesman for the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States, said commission members are familiar with an article in yesterday's editions of The Washington Times, which showed that President Clinton's final public document on national security never referred to al Qaeda by name and mentioned Osama bin Laden just four times.

"We're still taking evidence. We know that certain people say many things," Mr. Felzenberg said. "It's not at the point yet where we can resolve apparent contradictions ... but we read all these reports with great interest.

"The commission has Clinton and Bush administration documents and will try to make a definitive conclusion when the time comes for that," he said.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the administration had seen The Times report and hoped that the September 11 panel would look at the entire decade in context.

Ralph Peters in the NY Post:

The atrocities in Fallujah's streets were acts of rage, not strength.

Something the residents of Fallujah are about to find out.

Kerry Camp Hits Bush for 'Drunken Sailor' Spending

What does Kerry have against drunken sailors? Didn't he used to be one? One drunken sailor is not going to take this lying down stinking drunk. Chad at Five Wasps is upset and is demanding an apology for these insensitive remarks!

Secret Plan to Kill Bin Laden (Actually, it's been around for a while but I just came across it again.) Be patient, takes a minute to load.

A little Boston humor (via BostonHerald):

Headline in the Boston Herald: Thanks lots, neighbors!:

"There goes the neighborhood for Sen. John F. Kerry - the only presidential hopeful gracing the cobblestoned, old-money streets of Beacon Hill these days.

Three of Kerry's well-heeled Louisburg Square neighbors broke ranks with the presumptive Democratic nominee and wrote $2,000 checks to President Bush's re-election campaign, according to www.fundrace.org, a new Web site that tracks campaign cash down to the street level.

Bush has collected $46,000 in Kerry's 02108 ZIP code home turf, while Kerry has pulled in $85,250. "

Wow, Bush has collected over half the amount Kerry has in his own neighborhood! Quite a surprise considering how liberal Boston is.

Terror Group Warns Spain on U.S. Support

An Islamic group that claims responsibility for the Madrid bombings says it will turn Spain "into an inferno" unless the country halts its support for the United States and withdraws its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan...


The letter gave Spain until Sunday, April 4, to fulfill its demands of ending support for the United States and withdrawing troops from both countries.

"If these demands are not met, we will declare war on you and ... convert your country into an inferno and your blood will flow like rivers," the letter said.

So lets review the timeline here:

• 3/11 Madrid train bombings kill 191 people and wound 1800 more.
• 3/14 Spain votes for "Peace in our Time" and elects a Socialist government that vows to remove it's troops from Iraq. Spain's new leader says the war was based on lies and the occupation is a disaster.
• 3/17 Al Qaeda group offers truce to Spain if it pulls it's troops out of Iraq.
• 3/18 Prime Minister-elect José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero describes the U.S. occupation of Iraq as "a fiasco" and suggests American voters should follow the example set by Spain and change their leadership by supporting Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in November.
• 4/2 Another bomb is found on a high speed train track outside Madrid.
• 4/3 3 Bombing Suspects blow themselves up when surrounded by police killing one police officer and leveling the building they were in.
• 4/5 Spain receives a letter from an Al Qaeda group demanding they pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan or Spain will be turned into an inferno.

Looks like that appeasement strategy isn't working out so well for Spain. Will they take the next step and pull out of Afghanistan also? If they do, what will Al Qaeda demand next? This is why appeasement will not work. Once the terrorists see that their demands are being met, they will threaten more violence and make more demands. In the case of Spain, they will not be happy until it is reclaimed as a Muslim state.

Via StrategyPage  (HT: Outside the Beltway):

Businesses Add 308,000 Jobs in March

U.S. employment rose last month at the fastest pace in nearly four years, easily outstripping expectations, as workers returned after a grocery store strike and construction hiring bounced back on better weather, a government report on Friday showed.

The latest report from the Labor Department offered comfort to President George W. Bush as the jobs market — a hot political issue in the U.S. presidential campaign — finally made a decisive break to the upside.

Non-farm payrolls climbed 308,000 in March, the Labor Department said, the biggest gain since April 2000 and well above the 103,000 rise expected on Wall Street.

It's all Bush's fault, those damned tax cuts! I can't wait to see the liberals spin this. Watch for this report to quickly appear in some Bush campaign commercials.

Update: January and February's numbers were also increased. This means that America has created more than 700,000 new jobs since August! (via GeorgeWBush.com)

Flip-Flopping May Have Injured Kerry's Shoulder (HT: Right Wing News):

"With Senator John F. Kerry (D-Mass) set for shoulder surgery in Boston today, an orthopedic surgeon familiar with the Senator's condition said that Mr. Kerry's penchant for flip-flopping may have caused the injury to his shoulder.

Constant or repetitive flip-flopping can cause major orthopedic damage, said Dr. Robert Claman of Massachusetts General Hospital. If it goes unchecked, flip-flopping can injure a shoulder far more seriously than tennis or golf.

Dr. Claman said that Mr. Kerry first felt a nagging pain in the tendon of his shoulder at the outset of his quest for the Democratic nomination, when he started flip-flopping on his vote to authorize military action in Iraq.

At first he started favoring his right shoulder, but as Howard Dean started gaining in the polls, he started favoring the left, Dr. Claman said.

The orthopedic specialist added that once the surgery is completed, he would strongly urge Mr. Kerry not to change his positions for the next two weeks to give the damaged tendon time to heal.

I told him that if he goes out there and starts flip-flopping on gay marriage or taxes, he's going to wind up right back on the operating table, Dr. Claman said. He agreed with me at first, then disagreed, but then agreed with me again."