Hat tip to Brother Ed:
http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp
Monday, August 14, 2006
Sunday, August 13, 2006
I think Lamont is getting the hang of it... Brilliant!
Looking at the transcript from Foxnews Sunday, here's (part of) what I got:
WALLACE: You say that the NSA warrantless wiretaps are illegal. You've called for President Bush to be censured because he allegedly broke the law. You also have been very critical of the Patriot Act. Now that we've had word of the terror plots — and we know as we've been discussing today that Britain already has a lot of laws, legal tools that we don't — would you really take away some of the weapons we have now to fight terror?
LAMONT: No, it's not a question of taking away any laws. It's a question of having a president of the United States who follows the law.
Typical flak, but lets continue:
WALLACE: You've also been critical of the Patriot Act. Are there some elements of that that you wish had not been passed?
LAMONT: Look, when it comes to the Patriot Act, again, I think it ought to be tightly drawn to respect our civil liberties but also give the American intelligence community all the tools they need to fight the War on Terror. And I think it's a careful balance we have to have there.
Didn't address any of the elements Wallace asked about, but invokes giving our intel guys all the tools they need. As long as its Libs doing the giving.
Brilliant!
Add in some Mom and Apple Pie. But lets continue...
WALLACE: Is there any specific measure in the Patriot Act that's in there now that you would like to see taken out?
LAMONT: Well, certainly, there's been an awful lot of talk about going after librarians...
That's it? BTW, all you terrorist guys, take the 1000's of tracphones you got and go to the libraries...they won't follow you there.
Brilliant!
WALLACE: Last week you were asked the following, and let's put it up on the screen, what would you do right now if you were in the Senate about Iraq? Your answer, "I would have supported, you know, the Kerry-Feingold amendment which calls for pulling out all U.S. troops out of Iraq by next July."
Lamont goes on for some time describing how bad things are there as the impetus for getting out and ends with this:
LAMONT: So let's negotiate a phased withdrawal. Chris, we'll be there. We'll be there for humanitarian support. We'll be there for reconstruction. But now's the time to get the very American face off of this perceived occupation.
WALLACE: But the prime minister, al-Maliki, was here just recently and said we need U.S. troops to continue to be there. What if you're wrong, Mr. Lamont, Senator Lamont? What if you're wrong? You vote for this, to get them out, and there's a blood bath?
Oh yeah...Chris Wallace is dealing with the 'pretend' Senator Lamont in this instance.
LAMONT: We'll be there for support. We've got our troops in Kuwait. We have our maritime presence. We'll make sure that Iran and others don't come in to create any mischief.
"We'll make sure that Iran and others don't come in to create any mischief." Now this is the most telling of all. Somehow, Mr. Lamont in his role as U.S. Senator will keep Iran and Syria out of Iraq by well, dropping back.
Brilliant!
Besides that, I thought he wanted Iraq to stand up on its own. Why be there at all if our presence actually messing things up? Can't have it three or four ways, can you?
WALLACE: So under all circumstances, all troops out by next July.
LAMONT: I don't know about all circumstances whatever.
Well Mr. Lamont, I think I'd make up my mind about when, so the Islamic Fascists (who use terror as a tactic) can mark their calendars.
The interview goes on to the idea that the war in Iraq caused the most recent situation with Hezbollah. I would agree with Mr. Lamont, but not as to cause and effect. Iran is getting closed in on by world opinion and diplomacy, and client organizations like Hezbollah prove well suited to keep the rest of the world focused away from them and their nuke program.
WALLACE: You say that the NSA warrantless wiretaps are illegal. You've called for President Bush to be censured because he allegedly broke the law. You also have been very critical of the Patriot Act. Now that we've had word of the terror plots — and we know as we've been discussing today that Britain already has a lot of laws, legal tools that we don't — would you really take away some of the weapons we have now to fight terror?
LAMONT: No, it's not a question of taking away any laws. It's a question of having a president of the United States who follows the law.
Typical flak, but lets continue:
WALLACE: You've also been critical of the Patriot Act. Are there some elements of that that you wish had not been passed?
LAMONT: Look, when it comes to the Patriot Act, again, I think it ought to be tightly drawn to respect our civil liberties but also give the American intelligence community all the tools they need to fight the War on Terror. And I think it's a careful balance we have to have there.
Didn't address any of the elements Wallace asked about, but invokes giving our intel guys all the tools they need. As long as its Libs doing the giving.
Brilliant!
Add in some Mom and Apple Pie. But lets continue...
WALLACE: Is there any specific measure in the Patriot Act that's in there now that you would like to see taken out?
LAMONT: Well, certainly, there's been an awful lot of talk about going after librarians...
That's it? BTW, all you terrorist guys, take the 1000's of tracphones you got and go to the libraries...they won't follow you there.
Brilliant!
WALLACE: Last week you were asked the following, and let's put it up on the screen, what would you do right now if you were in the Senate about Iraq? Your answer, "I would have supported, you know, the Kerry-Feingold amendment which calls for pulling out all U.S. troops out of Iraq by next July."
Lamont goes on for some time describing how bad things are there as the impetus for getting out and ends with this:
LAMONT: So let's negotiate a phased withdrawal. Chris, we'll be there. We'll be there for humanitarian support. We'll be there for reconstruction. But now's the time to get the very American face off of this perceived occupation.
WALLACE: But the prime minister, al-Maliki, was here just recently and said we need U.S. troops to continue to be there. What if you're wrong, Mr. Lamont, Senator Lamont? What if you're wrong? You vote for this, to get them out, and there's a blood bath?
Oh yeah...Chris Wallace is dealing with the 'pretend' Senator Lamont in this instance.
LAMONT: We'll be there for support. We've got our troops in Kuwait. We have our maritime presence. We'll make sure that Iran and others don't come in to create any mischief.
"We'll make sure that Iran and others don't come in to create any mischief." Now this is the most telling of all. Somehow, Mr. Lamont in his role as U.S. Senator will keep Iran and Syria out of Iraq by well, dropping back.
Brilliant!
Besides that, I thought he wanted Iraq to stand up on its own. Why be there at all if our presence actually messing things up? Can't have it three or four ways, can you?
WALLACE: So under all circumstances, all troops out by next July.
LAMONT: I don't know about all circumstances whatever.
Well Mr. Lamont, I think I'd make up my mind about when, so the Islamic Fascists (who use terror as a tactic) can mark their calendars.
The interview goes on to the idea that the war in Iraq caused the most recent situation with Hezbollah. I would agree with Mr. Lamont, but not as to cause and effect. Iran is getting closed in on by world opinion and diplomacy, and client organizations like Hezbollah prove well suited to keep the rest of the world focused away from them and their nuke program.
Friday, August 04, 2006
I love it when I engage the Left ( bad language alert)
This little exchange over at a liberal blog I hang around. It related to the prosecution of policy in Iraq, and the exchange between Hillary and Rummy during hearings yesterday.
I said:
It does beg the question: "Well Ms. Clinton, given the 20/20 hindsight you enjoy, why should I believe that you could have done better with the same info the current administration had to work with?"
The response I got back:
'Ran, the answer to your question is simple: A fucking lemur could have done a better job blindfolded than Bush. So shut the fuck up already, MmmmmmmmmmmmmmK?
Lovely
I said:
It does beg the question: "Well Ms. Clinton, given the 20/20 hindsight you enjoy, why should I believe that you could have done better with the same info the current administration had to work with?"
The response I got back:
'Ran, the answer to your question is simple: A fucking lemur could have done a better job blindfolded than Bush. So shut the fuck up already, MmmmmmmmmmmmmmK?
Lovely
Thursday, August 03, 2006
I can't be making this up, can I???
This article, from Fox News talks about a nine year-old girl being abused horribly by the egg donor and her 'roommate'. If there was any argument against the post-modernist, situationally ethical, moral relativist junk being touted as mainstream culture and society ( and by definition, acceptable), this would go near the top of the list. Pay close attention to the end of the article related to the boyfriend involved. You'll get the gist...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)