Think About It

Former White House Press Secretary Drops Bomb on President Bush

Politico.com is reporting that former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has turned on his old boss in his new book, What Happened.  McClellan served as White House press secretary from July 2003 to April 2006.  McClellan says Bush "veered terribly off course" and was not "open and forthright on Iraq.

McClellan’s book is due out next week.   He alleges President Bush relied on "propaganda" to sell the war and he also charges the Washington press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.

McClellan also apparently echoes many of the Democratic criticisms, including the administration’s handling of the Katrina crisis.  McClellan claims the White House spent most of the first week in a state of denial.

According to Politico’s website, McClellan also claims Scooter Libey misled him about the White House’s role in the CIA leak case.

This story, as they say, has “legs,” and will be discussed from now until the election.

Questions:

Did McClellan sell out for the quick buck?

Doesn’t anyone have confidentiality agreements anymore?

What motivated him to write the book?

Are Democratic operatives involved with McClellan?

Is any of this true?

Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Africa

Last night,     I watched the movie, Beyond the Gates, a movie about the genocide in Rwanda in 1994.  An estimated 800,000 Tutsis were killed by the ruling Hutus while the West looked on.  All of this happened on the watch of President Bill Clinton.  The UN did send a pitifully small force of 5,000 troops, most of whom did not arrive until the genocide was over.  Even then their mandate was not to fire on the Hutus unless fired upon first.  The frustrated UN soldiers were finally pulled out.

Fast forward 14 years to 2008, an International Criminal Tribunal  has put Callixte Kalimanzira, a former Rwandan cabinet minister on trial for taking part in the 1994 genocide.  The UN set up the  ICTR in the Tanzanian town of Arusha, in 1997, to try the most high-profile genocide cases.  Thirty-three people have been tried so far with 28 people being convicted and five acquitted.

Now, for today’s news: “Darfur School Bombed from the Air.”  The Islamic government of the Sudan has been busy carrying out, for the past 5 years, religious and tribal genocide, which has killed an estimated 300,000 people in Darfur.  There are now as estimated 2 million homeless people, thanks to the Sudanese government.  The UN, who has yet to fully deploy its peacekeeping force of 26,000, said the bombings were "unacceptable acts against civilians".  African Union troops make up about 1/3 of the troops deployed in Darfur.  Like Rwanda, the bulk of the genocide had been carried out before the UN managed to get a few token troops on the ground.  This happened on the watch of President George W. Bush.

The point is this, whether it’s a Democrat in office or a Republican, none in the West or anywhere else for that matter are outraged enough to do more than send token forces to help with humanitarian aid and to set up refugee camps. 

This leaves us with some questions:

Is the U.S. being hypocritical when we are quick to intervene in countries where there are “U.S. Interests,” yet do little when there is an ongoing genocide occurring under our noses?

Should “Peace Keeping” duties be taken away from the U.S. and given to NATO?    Would that change anything?

When our presidential election is held in November, will the new President do anything differently when it comes to Africa?

What should the West do when a “Darfur” or “Rwanda” situation breaks out?

Gas Prices - The Real Story

  There has been a great deal of public anger directed at oil companies, but is it justified? Yesterday, officials from Chevron, BP America, Conoco-Phillips, Shell, and Exxon-Mobil were hauled into Congressional hearings for a tongue lashing and a few questions.  A couple of committee members suggested that oil companies should reduce the cost of gasoline.  I laid out in yesterday’s blog some of the figures that came out of the hearing.

  Oil company officials stated their profit is 8% of the gas pump price.  This figure was not questioned or disputed by those on the committee, so I would conclude these figures are reasonably accurate.  This would mean that if one spends $ 50.00 to fill up his gas tank, then only $ 4.00 of that would go to oil company profits.

  I think it is important to note if oil companies simply announced they would forego all of their profit, that $ 50.00 fill-up would still cost $46.00, which really doesn’t do much to alleviate the pain being felt at the pump.

  Conversely, if the government agreed to give up their 15% tax, that $50.00 tank of gas would cost only $ 42.50.  Instead, it is clear to me that they plan to increase the amount of tax on fuel.  That should really help the consumer. 

Does anyone really believe the rhetoric of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama when they claim they will bring down the price of gas?  Think About It.

Can President Bush Win This One?

Surprise, surprise, it now appears that somewhere between  1,000 and 5,000 people who claimed they were victims of Hurricane Katrina were over paid as much as $175 million.  The federal government is now going to try to get them to return the money.  It’s being reported that many of those “victims” received about $35,000 on average, but it turns out these applicants weren’t supposed to get anything.   In other words - fraudulent applications. 

Poor President Bush.  He caught hell from the left wing and the media for not moving fast enough to help the victims of Katrina.  There was endless news coverage, coupled with endless caterwauling by the Democrats.  Bush speeded up the process which resulted in a large number of cheats getting  in line for government payments.

The question of the day:  When the government goes to collect these overpayments, who will line up in front of the television cameras to denounce Bush as a right wing racist?

A.  Those who submitted fraudulent applications                              B.  Jesse Jackson
C.  Al Sharpton                                                                               D. Barack Obama
E. Hillary Clinton                                                                            F.  Leadership of the Democratic Party
F. CBS                                                                                            G. NBC
H. ABC                                                                                           I.  PBS
J. All of the Above

Hollywood's Liberal Bias

People reading this blog might think I’m obsessed with movies that claim to be based on true stories, but in fact turn out to be fabrications.  I apologize; please bear with me.  I just finished watching the movie The Hoax, which purportedly is the true story about the con-man Clifford Irving’s forgery of the infamous Howard Hughes autobiography.  The Hollywood political propaganda machine has turned out their own twisted hoax. 

To digress, Clifford Irving was a little known novelist who hit upon the idea of fabricating a book about the billionaire recluse Howard Hughes.
Hughes had disappeared from public view and hadn’t made any public statements for many years, so Irving figured he could proceed with his hoax.  With the aid of several forged letters and notes, supposedly written by Howard Hughes, Irving conned publishers into paying him and “Howard Hughes” over a million dollars for the manuscript.  The scam fell apart when the real Howard Hughes held a telephonic press conference to expose the hoax.  Irving, his wife Edith, and Irving’s coconspirator Richard Suskind all pleaded guilty and went to prison.

Hollywood producers Betsy Beers, Mark Gordon, Leslie Holleran, Joseph Maurer, and Bob Yari couldn’t resist taking the story of a second rate con man and turning it into a left-wing political diatribe against Richard Nixon and George Bush.  They did this by inserting a wholly fabricated portion that shows Irving (played by Richard Gere) receiving a box full of secret files from Hughes that implicated Nixon in a host of crimes.  The scene continues with Nixon and Hughes entering into an agreement whereby Hughes will disavow Irving and his book in exchange for Nixon exerting his influence to get an airline merger approved for Hughes. 

Even Irving was disgusted with the movie:  “I was hired by the producers as technical adviser to the movie, but after reading the final script I asked that my name be removed from the movie credits. I didn't want anyone to believe that I had contributed to such a historically cockeyed story where the main character, almost by coincidence, happens to bear my name,” said Irving.  “The Hughes people mailing the package of files to me is also made up... The movie is best thought of as a hoax.”

The end result?  If anyone has any doubts about whether Hollywood is controlled by the left wing, they should regard this movie as exhibit “A”.

Interrogation, Morality, Terrorism and Politics

President Bush announced his veto of of a bill that was spearheaded by Nancy Pelosi and a group of Democrats that would have limited the CIA's ability to interrogate prisoners.  The bill, in essence, would have limited  the CIA's interrogation techniques to mirror those of the U.S. Army manual's list of permitted techniques.  Moreover, it would have outlawed the controversial water boarding.

President Bush used his weekly radio address to announce the veto.  He said the CIA's current interrogation techniques had helped stop plots against a Marine camp in Djibouti and the U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan in addition to plans to fly passenger planes into a Los Angeles tower or London's Heathrow Airport and city buildings.

  The bill's proponents had collected the signatures of 43 retired generals and admirals, along with an assortment of other high ranking retired government officials.  The proponents, including John McCain, argue the U.S. should be setting the example for the rest of the world to follow.  They also argue this would expose our troops to unlimited torture by other foreign forces.

  Did Bush make the right choice in vetoing the bill?  It is unlikely that congress can muster the votes for an override.  Are we on a slippery slope with with little or no restrictions on interrogation techniques?  Are we abrogating the high moral ground?  Has this really changed anything or is Bush merely giving legitimacy to actions that have been used secretly by the CIA for years? 
 

                 

Delete Reply Forward     Spam Move...

Previous | Next | Back to Messages Save Message Text

Delete Reply Forward     Spam Move...

Previous | Next | Back to Messages Save Message Text

Illegal Immigration's Impact on Los Angeles County

The subject of illegal immigration is finally getting some long overdue play in this election year.  Rook suggested we start a thread where we can explore the pros and cons of it.  People in many of the more rural parts of the country simply cannot figure out why illegal immigration is such a big deal in that it has had little impact on their lives. However, major cities closer to our southern border have been severely impacted.  The information, below, has been gathered from a number of sources, including from the testimony of Heather Mac Donald, a Senior Fellow from a Manhattan based research institute, who testified before the congressional hearings on Border Security. 

1.   40% of all workers in L. A. County ( L.    A. County   has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is   because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green   card.

2.  95% of warrants   for murder in Los Angeles   are for illegal aliens.

3.  75% of people on   the most wanted list in Los Angeles   are illegal aliens.

4.  About 65% of all   births in Los Angeles    County are to those of Hispanic origin. 

5.  Nearly 35% of   all inmates in California   detention centers are foreign nationals here illegally.

6.  The  Office of General  Accounting (GAO) reported in 1997 that  over  $700  million dollars in welfare  was given to the children of illegal  immigrants;  this is coupled with another  $350 million in food stamps .  Grand total  over $1 billion spent  on the families of illegal immigrants in the  year 1997 ,  alone!

7.  The LAPD estimates   half of all gang members in Los     Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south-of-the-border.    

8.  An estimated 60% of   all occupants of HUD properties are illegal  aliens.

9.  20 radio   stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.

10. In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9   million speak Spanish.

The candidates have only reluctantly touched on the subject for fear of alienating a future voting block.  The building of the "fence" on our southern border has come to a halt.  There doesn't appear to be any serious resolve by any of the candidates to put a stop to it, so exactly where do we start in order to get a handle on it?  What impact will this have on health care?  On education?  On criminal justice?  On the traditional American culture?

 

 

 

 

Is the Surge Working in Iraq?

When President Bush announced he was sending a surge of 30,000 more troops to Iraq, the screams in Congress could be heard in all the way to Baghdad.  Who among us can forget the infamous "General Betrayus" ad the liberals placed in newspapers the morning Congress was to begin their "impartial hearings" on the surge.  Then there was Hillary Clinton, flanked by fellow New York Senator Chuck Shumer, telling General Petreus that in order for her to believe his testimony, one "would have to have a willing suspension of disbelief."  A not so polite way of saying, "You're a liar."

Fast forward to the January 2008.  Terrorist attacks are down.  The dreaded Anbar region is once again under control.  The Iraqi police are assuming control over areas previously patrolled by coalition forces.  Normality is returning to Iraq.  Have terrorist attacks have stopped?  Of course not, but they have dwindled to the point they are manageable.   This will ultimately mean stability in Iraq.

Even the most vocal media opponents have grudgingly admitted the surge is working.   That is, except for a few die hards who have retreated into their media bunkers.  Michael Kinsley, who writes for the Washington Post, Time magazine, and Slate magazine (the liberal trinity) recently opined the surge isn't working.  How does he know?  He cites the fact there are still 130,000 troops in Iraq!  Wow, I didn't know that.  (Kinsley is a unabashed Obama supporter who believes the fact that Obama spent the first four years of his life in Indonesia qualifies as foreign affairs experience.  But that's another story.)  Kinsley is representative of the hard-core Bush haters, who will never have a kind word to say about him.  I strongly suspect that history will treat George W. Bush far kinder than he has been treated by today's media.