konane's Blog

Skeletons are finally beginning to shake out of closets in both political parties except when one is found in the Republican party, it is drop kicked immediately along with a thorough housecleaning as a follow up. 

Dems seem to make light and defend their perverts, murderers and former KKK members, extolling their virtues and allowing them to continue to serve.  Want names, they're there.

For those who prefer short sentences with quick answers my blog is not the place for the Twinkie topping crowd who half reads something thinking they've grasped the entire meaning then fires back a half @$$ed reply.  That has gotten a few people blocked because I don't suffer stupidity well at all, much less having my words "interpreted" by someone who thinks they knew what I said or posted because they're accustomed to reading spun fluff.

Getting to the bottom of the Foley issue which should have been already addressed by anyone in a position to do something about it, there is a very large crumb trail leading back to Democrats who were on the run, scared spitless losing political ground big time. 

And no the door has never swung both ways when a exploiter is found among Dems but it's the end of the world when it's a Republican.

Two articles .... live embedded links for additional referenced, well substantiated reading.

___________

Washington Prowler

"Saved by Foley
By The Prowler
Published 10/10/2006 12:08:15 AM
"One of the stories going around Democrat Party circles is that party operatives like Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and American Family Voices weren't quite ready for primetime with the opposition research materials they had gathered for the 2006 election cycle.

According to one political consultant with ties to the DNC and other party organizations, "I'm hearing the Foley story wasn't supposed to drop until about ten days out of the election. It was supposed the coup de grace, not the first shot."

So why the rush? According to another DNC operative: bad polling numbers across the country. "Bush's national security speeches were getting traction beyond the base, gas prices were dropping, economic outlook surveys were positive. We were seeing bad Democratic numbers in Missouri, Michigan, Washington, Arizona, Florida Pennsylvania, even parts of New York," says the operative. "A month before, we were looking at launching an offensive against Republicans who according to polling barely held a five-seat majority if the election were to be held at the end of August. That was doable for Democrats from September 1 to November 7. But by mid-September, Republicans were back to having held seats for a 15-seat majority. In the Senate, it looked like a wash. We held seats in Florida, Nebraska, picked up seats in Pennsylvania, but that that was about it. They were holding in Missouri and possibly within reach of Maryland and Washington. We were looking at a disaster in the making."

So how to remedy? "You pull out the bright shiny things that distract the average American voter away from the issues we all know they care about -- national security, anti-terrorism -- and focus on the ugly: Foley and Iraq."

"Republicans had to have known we'd be looking to change the national debate," says a House Democrat leadership aide. "You had our leadership looking at cratering polling numbers. A majority within grasp wasn't drifting away, it was being yanked back by Republicans. I wouldn't be surprised if Foley had to be bumped up on the scandal schedule. That makes a lot of sense given where we were two weeks ago, and where we are now."

Conventional wisdom had Republicans seeing improving numbers in races across the country throughout the month of September after Congress spent the month of August home campaigning in their districts. But some Republicans don't disagree that the polls were improving that dramatically. "I've seen some of the polls and I don't buy into the notion that we were making up tons of ground in a lot of these races," says one GOP political consultant. "Some of the underlying data led me to believe that the polling was somewhat flawed, and that this was a lot of spin to re-energize a base that was growing disenchanted."

What no one disputes, however, was that the GOP was sensing some wind at its back and reinvigorated base with Bush on the stump, and Congress quietly at home not creating any more messes for the media to hit on. Now, of course, the Foley story has left a far bigger mess a month out of Election Day than anyone had expected. "

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10469

Let's follow this chain of events, which may be coincidental and may not be coincidental:

In August of 2004, Rodney Alexander's Chief of Staff, Brian Smoot, and five other staffers abruptly quit because Alexander switched to the GOP. National Journal reported on August 13, 2004, that the Chief of Staff "sharply criticized Alexander for switching parties." The Chief of Staff and five staffers were promptly hired by minority leader Nancy Pelosi.

In November 2005, Alexander is notified by a couple in his district that the couple's son had gotten emails from Mark Foley that were not really kosher.

In October of 2006, we find that Alexander's former Chief of Staff is now running the congressional campaign of Ron Klein in Florida's 22nd Congressional District against Republican Representative Clay Shaw -- a district that shares a major media market with Mark Foley's district.

Smoot is currently working as campaign manager for Democrat Ron Klein's bid to unseat GOP Rep. Clay Shaw in Florida's 22nd District. Shaw's district neighbors Foley's former 16th District. . . . When contacted, Smoot said while there is no love lost between Alexander and himself, he never worked for Pelosi and he only learned about the Foley matter from media reports. "I would be the last person to have any idea of what is going on in Alexander's office," said Smoot. "I had no idea about e-mails or ideas about this page and am absolutely not involved in this situation whatsoever. I also never worked for Pelosi nor have I ever worked for the [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] or Democratic Party."

"TAKE THE FENCE TO THE UNITED NATIONS? 

Source Boortz.com 

"Are you believing this nonsense? 

It's as if we're not even a sovereign country any more.  The United States doesn't exist.  There are no borders.  The U.S. is nothing but a grandiose economic system providing  jobs to Mexicans and shoring up the corrupt Mexican government in the process. 

Why the outrage?  Well, as you should know, Bush is saying he is going to sign a bill that calls for the construction of a fence along about 700 miles of the U.S. border with Mexico.  That fence will be built on our side of the border.  On U.S. territory --- if there is any such thing any more.

Well .... actually the Mexicans don't seem to think that there is any such thing as "U.S. territory."  They're raising hell about the fence and -- now get this -- they want the United Nations to stop it.  The message here is that we have no right to protect our border.  We have no right to keep people from entering into this country illegally. 

Vicente Fox only has about seven weeks left in his presidency, but he has dispatched his foreign secretary, Luis Ernesto Derbez, to Europe on a mission.  Part of that mission is to complain about the border fence.  So far Sr. Derbez has talked to the French foreign minister about the fence, and now he's on his way to complain to the governments of Spain and Italy.  Derbez says he will continue his campaign against the border fence until Fox's last day in office.

What the hell?  This payaso is traveling around Europe complaining that the United States is building a fence to keep his countrymen from crossing into our country illegally?  This is absurd?

Well .. .maybe not so absurd if you look at it through the eyes of Derbez and his cronies in the Mexican government.  First -- they truly feel that the border is illegitimate in the first place.  That border runs along the states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.  Those states, and the southern half of Colorado, are what many Mexicans refer to as the "Republica del Norte."  The area used to be part of Mexico -- or whatever preceded Mexico -- and is now being "re-conquered."  Go ahead.  Google "Republica del Norte" and take a trip through the 12,000+ hits you'll get.

This stream of Mexicans across our border is an invasion, not a migration.  They're invaders, not immigrants. 

I don't give a flying leap how many bales of pine straw they spread, how many square miles of sheetrock they hang, how many homes they build, how many cars they buff up as they emerge from the car wash .... I don't care.  It's an invasion just the same.  No real attempt is being made to assimilate into American culture.  No interest is shown in learning to speak anything past basic English.  Why should they?  The ultimate goal is their own country, or a brand new northern state to be part of Mexico.  Instead of trying to become part of our society, they write magazine articles informing us that "Los Angeles is Ours." 

So .. .along comes this idea for a border fence, and they react is if they are being fenced off from something that belongs to them!  They react that way because they feel that way.

In case you are one of the few out there who are wondering how it is that the Republicans came to be in such trouble in this upcoming election .... look at the stream of Mexican invaders coming across our borders.  What have the Republicans done to stop it?  The border fence?  Hey, it's about 1400 miles too short.  Besides ... and here's the key ... it hasn't been funded yet, and there are some serious doubts as to whether or not the congress will fund that fence at all. "

Ted Turner says he can't pick sides in War on Terror
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J-mUwkmw-M

_______________________

Ted Turner says media has no business showing American Flag
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPIA95SLv6g

"As of this writing in the early morning hours of October 9, President Bush is expected to announce that North Korea has conducted an underground nuclear test. Unlike the abortive launch in July, last night’s explosion netted the Stalinist gulag valuable information and packed a lethal impact. At 9:35 p.m. EST, the U.S. Geological Survey measured a 4.2 magnitude disturbance approximately 240 miles northeast of Pyongyang.

The Left quickly attempted the shopworn tactic of pinning the blame on the Bush administration’s rhetoric or unwillingness to bribe Kim Jong-il. Early this morning, Joseph Cirincione of the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress told CNN, “They had numerous opportunities to negotiate a deal…They did not.” He concluded, “I think the North Koreans came to that conclusion: that there is no deal to be had with this administration, and they decided they had nothing to lose.”

By way of commentary, the popular left-wing blog The Daily Kos quoted Selig S. Harrison from the international edition of Newsweek:

North Korea's missile tests in July and its threat last week to conduct a nuclear test explosion at an unspecified date “in the future” were directly provoked by the U.S. sanctions. In North Korean eyes, pressure must be met with pressure to maintain national honor and, hopefully, to jump-start new bilateral negotiations with Washington that could ease the financial squeeze. When I warned against a nuclear test, saying that it would only strengthen opponents of negotiations in Washington, several top officials replied that “soft” tactics had not worked and they had nothing to lose.

The Dear Leader’s nuclear test could not have occurred without Bill Clinton’s decade of dalliance. Clinton could have obliterated the Yongbyong reactor with one strike when he first learned of North Korea’s covert nuclear program in 1994. Instead, he allowed Jimmy Carter’s private foreign policy to preempt him. Upon completing the “Agreed Framework” in 1994, Clinton stated, “This agreement will help achieve a vital and long-standing American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula.” We now know the $4.6 billion bribe gave the Communists the two nuclear reactors they used to create their current arsenal.

If the Left’s policies allowed Stalinists to arm, they left Americans defenseless. The Democratic Party has defined its defense policy in opposition to the concept of defense. For more than two decades, the Democratic Party has worked in concert to block any missile defense program and castigated those who tried to shield the United States from a doomsday device. When President Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983, Ted Kennedy promptly denounced it as “Star Wars.” The New York Times called it “a projection of fantasy into policy,” and other outlets fretted the abandonment of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) would encourage the United States to pre-emptively attack the Soviet Union. Bill Clinton pledged his support for a missile shield in theory during his 1996 re-election campaign, then withheld critical funds and scheduled deployments in his second term. When George W. Bush pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty – negotiated in the 1970’s with a nation that no longer exists – the Left branded him a “unilateralist.” During the 2004 campaign, John Kerry adviser Rand Beers said North Korea was able to acquire a nuclear weapon, not because naïve leftists insisted on bribing its playboy despot, but because “Bush and his closest advisers were preoccupied with missile defense.” Twenty-three years after President Reagan’s vision of “rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete,” the United States remains vulnerable to madmen like Kim Jong-il…or whoever purchases his wares. Ironically, the Left’s got it wrong on SDI twice: the mere idea of missile defense caused the Soviet Union to spend itself into bankruptcy, and the fact that it remains merely an idea emboldens tinhorn dictators to engage in nuclear blackmail.

Even this has been insufficient for today’s partisans, who demand Bush’s full demonization. Comparisons to Hitler early became ubiquitous. Al Gore bellowed, “He buhtrayeed Amurrucuh”; Howard Dean referred to Bush-43 as “Big Brother”; and Air America, the British Guardian newspaper, and a new motion picture have pined for his assassination. If Kim Jong-il is insane, in the Left’s view, he is not materially worse than our president.

Not all blame can be placed on the Left, though. This administration’s foreign policy has sent an uncertain message in its second term. The Bush team has offered Kim Jong-il bilateral relations, the Dear Leader’s penultimate goal. (The ultimate goal being U.S. aid. Such prominent Democrats as John Kerry and Hillary Clinton also advocate rewarding Korean belligerence with direct talks.) Having dealt with the result of the Clinton-Carter Agreed Framework of 1994, President Bush offered Iran essentially the same deal. At stages, the war in Iraq has been carried out half-heartedly: backing off Fallujah, allowing anti-Americans prominent governing positions, doing little to stop supplies and terrorists from crossing the Syrian and Iranian borders, etc. There are even reports Yemen “will generate power through nuclear energy in cooperation with the United States and Canada.”

And there are troubling signs of a creeping failure of nerve. Chief of Staff Andy Card, brought in to “shake things up,” has publicly advocated firing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in favor of James A. Baker III. Jim “F-ck the Jews” Baker’s Iraq Study Group will soon release a study reported to call, in broad strokes, for the president to back down in Iraq, “the central front in the War on Terror.”

Today’s crisis has also raised eyebrows. According to early leaks of today’s UN Security Council proposal, the administration’s requested sanctions would exclude China’s oil trade, which provides some 85 percent of Pyongyang’s fuel.

The Bush administration could present a robust plan of action to the United Nations Security Council today as its needed rebound. China will likely veto any measure to curtail its oil exports, but the U.S. could support Japan’s desires to build an appropriate defense. We could and should do the same for Taiwan, as well. In addition to providing a counterweight to Pyongyang, this would apply long-term geopolitical pressure to Beijing. The president would also be well advised to use the crisis to push through greater funding for missile defense, the only ultimate hope of “rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.” 

Or he could acquiesce to Foggy Bottom’s wisdom and issue yet another empty threat or ineffective sanctions package, followed by offers of diplomatic carrots, which would reinforce the growing perception that, rhetoric aside, the United States is too paralyzed by internal debate to prevent apocalyptic madmen from acquiring nuclear weapons. Like a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, backing down before Kim Jong-il’s pressure will send a clear message to people like Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and other aspiring tyrants.

Well here we are....North Korea has done it.  Forget about stopping Kim Jong-Il from acquiring a nuclear weapon....that happened long ago.  Forget about his missile tests a few months ago.  Now he's done what many thought he wouldn't...he's tested a nuclear weapon.  He set off the bomb.

Geologists have reported an earthquake that registered a 4.2 on the Richter scale....and the cause of that explosion is assumed to be the underground detonation of North Korea's nuclear bomb. 

Condemnation was swift from around the world, including the United States.  Tony Snow issued this statement:  "A North Korean nuclear test would constitute a provocative act in defiance of the will of the international community and of our call to refrain from actions that would aggravate tensions in northeast Asia."  South Korea is mad...China is upset.....countries around the world are condemning the test.  So what is going to happen next?  What will be North Korea's punishment?

Absolutely nothing, and North Korea knows it.  That's why The Gargoyle pushed the button...he knows there aren't any consequences.  Oh sure...the U.S. says it will push for sanctions at the UN today.  But North Korea is already under military and economic sanctions.  Kim Jong-Il simply doesn't care.  He knows we're not going to do anything, at least militarily.

The most interesting reaction may be Russia's.  Prior to the actual test the Russian leadership said that if North Korea does conduct such a test that would be a signal for the United States to enter two-party talks with North Korea.  Well, that's exactly was North Korea has been asking for ... so that would make Russia's position one of appeasement. 

Ahhhhh ... appeasement.  It makes you wonder just how long it will be today before the Democrats start making similar statements.  My bet is that some leading Democrat will step forward and demand two-party talks before the sun goes down.  I'm betting on either John Kerry or Al Gore.  Maybe Hillary! 

And just why does that strange little gargoyle who rules North Korea want two-party talks?  Two reasons!

1. Any talks between just North Korea and the United States would legitimize the North Korean government.
    
2. It is much easier to stage a raid on the U.S. Treasury .. and on the American taxpayers .. in two-party talks.  The Gargoyle can't feed his own people ... a lot of U.S. money would help him. 

OK Democrats ... step up here!  Who is going to be the first to call for those two-party talks, and to support a raid on the U.S. taxpayers to calm The Gargoyle down?"

http://boortz.com/nuze/200610/10092006.html#nkorea

My Kim Komando free newsletter had this .... wish I could provide more info but she will fill in some blanks tomorrow.

There seems to be a ray of hope for online gamblers.     

"Mass Venezuela opposition rally

Powerline just posted this.  Looks as if we may be getting the job done in spite if everything.

BY RICHARD MINITER
Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Source WSJ.com

(excerpt)

Bill Clinton's outburst on Fox News was something of a public service, launching a debate about the antiterror policies of his administration. This is important because every George W. Bush policy that arouses the ire of Democrats--the Patriot Act, extraordinary rendition, detention without trial, pre-emptive war--is a departure from his predecessor. Where policies overlap--air attacks on infrastructure, secret presidential orders to kill terrorists, intelligence sharing with allies, freezing bank accounts, using police to arrest terror suspects--there is little friction. The question, then, is whether America should return to Mr. Clinton's policies or soldier on with Mr. Bush's.

It is vital that this debate be honest, but so far this has not been the case. Both Mr. Clinton's outrage at Chris Wallace's questioning and the ABC docudrama "The Path to 9/11" are attempts to polarize the nation's memory. While this divisiveness may be good for Mr. Clinton's reputation, it is ultimately unhealthy for the country. What we need, instead, is a cold-eyed look at what works against terrorists and what does not. The policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations ought to be put to the same iron test.

With that in mind, let us examine Mr. Clinton's war on terror. Some 38 days after he was sworn in, al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center. He did not visit the twin towers that year, even though four days after the attack he was just across the Hudson River in New Jersey, talking about job training. He made no attempt to rally the public against terrorism. His only public speech on the bombing was a few paragraphs inserted into a radio address mostly devoted an economic stimulus package. Those stray paragraphs were limited to reassuring the public and thanking the rescuers, the kinds of things governors say after hurricanes. He did not even vow to bring the bombers to justice. Instead, he turned the first terrorist attack on American soil over to the FBI.
In his Fox interview, Mr. Clinton said "no one knew that al Qaeda existed" in October 1993, during the tragic events in Somalia. But his national security adviser, Tony Lake, told me that he first learned of bin Laden "sometime in 1993," when he was thought of as a terror financier. U.S. Army Capt. James Francis Yacone, a black hawk squadron commander in Somalia, later testified that radio intercepts of enemy mortar crews firing at Americans were in Arabic, not Somali, suggesting the work of bin Laden's agents (who spoke Arabic), not warlord Farah Aideed's men (who did not). CIA and DIA reports also placed al Qaeda operatives in Somalia at the time."...........

(timelines)

........."There is much more to Mr. Clinton's record--how Predator drones, which spotted bin Laden three times in 1999 and 2000, were grounded by bureaucratic infighting; how a petty dispute with an Arizona senator stopped the CIA from hiring more Arabic translators. While it is easy to look back in hindsight and blame Bill Clinton, the full scale and nature of the terrorist threat was not widely appreciated until 9/11. Still: Bill Clinton did not fully grasp that he was at war. Nor did he intuit that war requires overcoming bureaucratic objections and a democracy's natural reluctance to use force. That is a hard lesson. But it is better to learn it from studying the Clinton years than reliving them."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009001

"RIPS 'FLATLY FALSE' CLAIM ON BUSH'S BID
TO GET BIN LADEN
By IAN BISHOP Post Correspondent
Source New York Post
(excerpt)
"September 25, 2006 -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making "flatly false" claims that the Bush administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.
Rice hammered Clinton, who leveled his charges in a contentious weekend interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel, for his claims that the Bush administration "did not try" to kill Osama bin Laden in the eight months they controlled the White House before the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," Rice said during a wide-ranging meeting with Post editors and reporters.

"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice added.

The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton's claim that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice responded during the hourlong session.

Her strong rebuttal was the Bush administration's first response to Clinton's headline-grabbing interview on Fox on Sunday in which he launched into an over-the-top defense of his handling of terrorism - wagging his finger in the air, leaning forward in his chair and getting red-faced, and even attacking Wallace for improper questioning.".......

....."In her pointed rebuttal of Clinton's inflammatory claims about the war on terror, Rice maintained the Bush White House did the best it could to defend against an attack - and expanded on the tools and intelligence it inherited.
"I would just suggest that you go back and read the 9/11 commission report on the efforts of the Bush administration in the eight months - things like working to get an armed Predator [drone] that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important," Rice added.

She also said Clinton's claims that Richard Clarke - the White House anti-terror guru hyped by Clinton as the country's "best guy" - had been demoted by Bush were bogus.

"Richard Clarke was the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 happened. And he left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security, some several months later," she said."......

........."Rice cited the final 9/11 commission report to substantiate her claims, while Clinton relied on Clarke's book as the basis for many of his rehashing the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks."....

........"Transitioning to the global war on terror, an animated Rice questioned, "When are we going to stop blaming ourselves for the rise of terrorism?" .....

Asked about recently leaked internal U.S. intelligence estimates that claimed the Iraq war was fueling terrorist recruiting, Rice said: "Now that we're fighting back, of course they are fighting back, too." .......

........"These are people who want to fight against us, and they're going to find a reason. And yes, they will recruit, but it doesn't mean you stop pursuing strategies that are ultimately going to stop them," Rice said.

She insisted U.S. forces must finish the job in Iraq and the wider Middle East to wipe out the "root cause" of violent extremism - not just the terror thugs who carry out the attacks.

"It's a longer-term strategy, and it may even have some short-term down side, but if you don't look at the longer term, you're just leaving the problem to somebody else," she said. ".......

....."In Latin America, home to outrageous Venezuelan bomb thrower Hugo Chavez, Rice said the U.S. approach is to "spend as little time possible in talking about Chavez and more time talking about our positive agenda in Latin America," including several trade agreements."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09252006/news/nationalnews/rice_boils_over_at_bubba_nationalnews_.htm