Obama Supporters Attacking McCain's War Record And Senator Jim Webb Embarrasses Virginia Again

Back in 2000 and 2004, the libs were all about the fact that their candidates had war records while President Bush had National Guard service only. Now, the libs have a candidate who doesn't even have National Guard service while the Republicans have war hero John McCain. You think the libs would respect that? Not in the least bit.

From The Politico:

The highest voltage third rail of this presidential campaign may not be race, sex, or age, but Senator John McCain's military service. McCain's campaign Sunday issued a pair of outraged statements after retired general and Barack Obama supporter Wesley Clark said he didn't think that McCain’s service as a fighter pilot and prisoner of war was relevant to running the country.

Wesley Clark, if you will recall, was a political appointee (by Bill Clinton) at NATO and damn near started a war with Russia because of his antics in Kosovo. The Brits stopped him from going over the edge.

More:

Obama and the Democratic establishment haven't challenged McCain's record. Indeed, even Clark's words came in response to a direct question from CBS's Bob Schieffer on the specific relevance of McCain's service to the presidency. West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller in April cut a bit closer, suggesting that McCain's days as a fighter pilot were themselves a critique of his character. "What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground?" he asked. "He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues." Rockefeller promptly, abjectly apologized, praising McCain's "honorable and noble service to our country" and deploring his own "inaccurate and wrong analogy." His apology reflected a conventional political wisdom that McCain's heroism is too well established, and a climate of respect for soldiers too strong, for attacks on his service to do anything but backfire.

But that hasn't been stopping Obama's surrogates.

David Fenton, a prominent progressive public relations executive who works for MoveOn.org and other groups, also inquired to old anti-Vietnam War circles about details of McCain's Navy sorties, a source familiar with the inquiries told Politico. Fenton declined to comment on the inquiries, and a person familiar with them said they were unconnected to his work for MoveOn. Some anti-war activists link McCain's current position on Iraq to his time in Vietnam. "I wouldn't characterize anybody who fought in Vietnam as a war hero," said Medea Benjamin, a co-founder of the theatrical anti-war group Code Pink. "In 23 bombing sorties, there must have been civilians that were killed and there's no heroism to that." "Anyone who can't look back and admit how wrong it was to be in Vietnam and be killing civilians deserves to be challenged," she said, though she stressed that her group is more focused on McCain's present support for the war in Iraq than on his past. ... A search of Obama’s community website, my.BarackObama.com, finds two posts calling McCain a “war criminal.”

If Obama truly wants to keep his promise about not criticizing John McCain's war service, he should also tells his supporters to refrain from criticizing as well.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Some On Left Target McCin's War Record
Ben Smith
The Politico
June 30, 2008

---

And Senator Jim Webb is still providing no end of embarrassment to the Commonwealth of Virginia. This time, he is using his Senatorial power for personal gain. When Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House, she insisted that she be given an entire Boeing 757 to transport herself, family and staff back and forth from San Francisco, despite the fact that the former Speaker only had a Gulf Stream jet to transport himself back home.

From Human Events Online:

According to Senate sources, Senator Jim Webb is now staging a similar struggle for family travel. Sen. Webb has “holds” on four Department of Defense nominees. The nominees are Hon. Nelson M. Ford to be Under Secretary of the Army; Mr. Joseph A. Benkert to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Security Affairs; Mr. Sean J. Stackley to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition; and Mr. Frederick S. Celec to be Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs. Their nominations can’t be voted on while the “holds” remain. Behind the scenes, Sen. Webb has told colleagues the holds are punishment for the Pentagon failing to provide him answers relating to Blackwater Worldwide, the security firm routinely used by the Pentagon. However, multiple Senate sources report the real reason for the hold is far different and very personal. Sen. Webb is expected to travel on a tax-payer funded junket to Southeast Asia. He wants both his wife and his 18 month old child to accompany him without having to pay reimbursement to the government. Unfortunately, according to a March 9, 2007, letter from Senators Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), while spouses are permitted to go with the Senator, “relatives of Senators (other than spouses) will not be permitted to travel with Senate delegations.” While none of this controversy has been made public, a senior Republican aide provided a me with a copy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s letter of June 26, 2008 to Senator Webb. The letter “follow[ed] up on [their] recent phone conversation and respond[ed] to [Senator Webb’s] letter regarding a training facility proposed by Blackwater Worldwide in Otay Mesa, CA.” Senator Webb’s letter asked a number of questions about Blackwater Worldwide. Gates’ response curiously goes on to the real reason for Webb’s feud with the Pentagon, “You asked me about the differences between the Department’s policy on military air travel for DoD dependents and for family of members of Congress.” Senate sources say Senator Webb most likely made it clear on the phone, and not in writing to the Secretary of Defense, that his hold was as much related to personal travel as it was to Blackwater. Curiously, and relevant to the speculation, Secretary Gates felt the need to add a paragraph to his letter about travel of “relatives other than spouses” of members of Congress. A Senate Republican aide said, “Webb is suggesting that he is holding nominations as punishment for not getting answers back from questions relating to Blackwater, but in reality, it is leverage to get the Secretary to let his wife and eighteen month old both accompany him on this trip.” With the Secretary of Defense’s admonition to Senator Webb that “Senate travel is governed by a memo signed by the Senate leadership dated March 9, 2007, specifically stating that relatives other than spouses are not permitted to travel with Senate delegations” and “DoD Directive 4515.12 prescribes policy for DoD travel support for members of Congress” in a manner reflecting the Senate policy, Senator Webb has run out of legitimate reasons for his holds.

The really sad part is that Webb makes enough royalties from his pedophile themed books to cover this trip from his own pocket and doesn't need us hard-working taxpayers to fund it for him.

The Commonwealth of Virginia is looking forward to getting rid of this worthless waste of flesh in the next four years.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Jim Webb Pulls A Pelosi
Erick Erickson
Human Events Online
June 30, 2008

Islamic Calls Children "Dogs," Brutal Teen Pack Attack And Rockefeller Lies About John McCain

Okay, so maybe it's because today is "hump day" and because I had to come into work on Sunday, it feels later in the week for me. But there are three stories that I feel absolutely must be blogged and made available for everyone to see.

First, this story comes out of Holland. Now, anyone who knows the history of Holland knows that when political and religious strife hit the rest of Europe during the Middle Ages, Holland was a sort of sanctuary for those with differing views. In fact, some of history's greatest scientific minds did their work in Holland free from the persecution they would have suffered had they carried on their research elsewhere. That is why this story is so disturbing and why we need to make sure that it gets disseminated far and wide.

A group of school children in Holland were on a field trip to a mosque. Ostensibly, this field trip was aimed at helping the children increase their understanding of other cultures, which is a long time tradition in Holland. But, these children were told by their Islamic guide that they were "dogs."

From NISNews.nl:

A primary school in Amsterdam wished to provide its pupils with an understanding for other cultures. But during a visit to a mosque, the children were told they were dogs. With a view to developing understanding and respect for other cultures among children, primary school De Horizon regularly organises outings to various religious organisations. The chairman of the El Mouchidine mosque told the children from group 7 (aged 10) and their chaperones however that non-Muslims are dogs. In a letter to the children's parents, the school expresses its regret at the incident: "We are shocked that during the guided tour, the mosque's chairman told the children and chaperoning parents that non believers were dogs. We consider this statement as unacceptable since we allow our children to partake in this project to develop respect for freedom of religious choice". In the meantime, the school's management has addressed the mosque on the undesirable behaviour of the chairman. Both parties will say nothing further on the matter. "We will resolve the matter amongst ourselves and I have no inclination whatsoever to discuss the matter with the media", as newspaper De Telegraaf quoted the school's spokesperson Mariet ten Berge. "We have been to the mosque before and it always went well". Angry parents had sent the letter on to De Telegraaf but were reportedly rapped on the knuckles by the school's management. "The school wishes to play this down. That is precisely the problem", as one mother commented.

Religion of peace? Religion of tolerance? What do you think?

As for the school trying to play this down, who will that help other than the Islamics?

You can access the original article on-line here:

Children Told They Are Dogs During Mosque Visit
NISNews.nl
April 9, 2008

---

Last night, I was watching Nancy Grace on Headline News and saw for the first time the video showing Victoria Lindsay being beaten by six other girls while two teenaged boys stood lookout.

Now, I know that there is some history of Lindsay having anger management issues, but in the video, she was completely defensive and never once raised her hands nor kicked her feet in an offensive way. I don't care what sort of trash-talking may have gone on in MySpace or any other website. There is absolutely no excuse at all for the gang attack that these six young women and two young men conspired to commit against Lindsay.

According to WFTV Channel 9 in Polk County, Florida:

When 16-year-old Victoria Lindsay arrived at her friend's house where she had been staying, six girls were waiting. Immediately, they started yelling and one girl began pummeling the victim. On the video, the girls can be heard encouraging the fight in the background, even taunting Lindsay to fight back, all while one of them held the camera. The victim's family has said it was an elaborate plot to injure and embarrass Victoria Lindsay. Lindsay's parents couldn't believe their daughter had to endure the attack. "That's my Tori. Don't do that to my Tori," said the victim's mother. The 16-year-old suffered a concussion, eye injuries and several bruises. During the attack, two others were outside keeping watch according to the sheriff's office. In fact, the sheriff said, Lindsay was lured into the home for the sole purpose of capturing and posting the video on the Internet. According to the sheriff's office arrest affidavit, Lindsay told deputies they "were going to post the beating on MySpace and YouTube." ... The suspects were identified as 17-year-old Mercades Nichols, 17-year-old Brittini Hardcastle, 14-year-old April Cooper, 16-year-old Cara Murphy, 17-year-old Britney Mayes and 15-year-old Kayla Hassell. Zachary Ashley, 17, and Stephen Schumaker, 18, were identified by deputies as the lookouts.

Now, I have a 16-year-old son and I will be the first to admit that he is no angel and has had probably more than his share of self-inflicted trouble to deal with, mostly due to poor decision making. But, I know that I was a good enough father that if he ever saw something like this, he would at the very least refuse to join in and at best immediately go for help and report what was happening. None of the eight involved in the beating did that. Some people are blaming YouTube and MySpace for this incident. I have more logical culprits to lay blame on.

Their parents. How bad a job did a parent have to do in order to allow a child to think that on some level, a gang-beating like this was morally acceptable? How bad a job did a parent have to do to allow a child to think that it was perfectly okay to videotape such a horrendously evil act for the purposes of gaining fame and notoriety? A pretty piss-poor job if you ask me.

I honestly hope that Victoria Lindsay's parents sue the pants off of the parents of those eight and also hope that all eight of the perps do time as adults.

As I wrote above, whatever circumstances precipitated the beating are irrelevent. What happened on that video had absolutely no excuse at all.

You can access the original article and pictures of the eight assailents on-line here:

Girls Record Brutal Attack On Teen To Allegedly Post On YouTube
WFTV.com
April 7, 2008

---

And finally, we have Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) talking trash about Senator John McCain. And I really do mean trash. Rockefeller clearly doesn't have enough intelligence to research his own issues before going out and making erroneous statements on those issues.

From the American Thinker

The Charleston Gazette reports: Rockefeller believes McCain has become insensitive to many human issues. "McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. "What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues." ... It’s even worse than a ridiculous term applied to a warrior. Rockefeller is tiptoeing into far left nuttiness, the path that leads to the argument that modern weaponry is immoral, and that McCain could be described as a war criminal for dropping bombs that might harm non-combatants. Take note that Rockefeller mentions McCain dropping laser-guided bombs. These were not used in Vietnam. Laser-guided missiles and bombs minimize civilian casualties.

And this:

Perhaps Rockefeller forgot McCain was a POW and was tortured. It would be kind of hard to keep your sensitivity in full flower under the hideous torture to which he was subjected.

Also note that Rockefeller refers to Senator McCain as a "fighter pilot." John McCain drove A-4 Skyhawks during Vietnam. The A-4 is a ground attack aircraft, not a fighter.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Jay Rockefeller Lets The Mask Slip
Thomas Lifson
The American Thinker
April 8, 2008

Should Telecoms Be Punished For Exposing Terror Plots?

I wonder how Shakespeare would write the answer to that question. Maybe something along the lines of: "'Tis a notable issue then that the usurpers of our secure quickness have found themselves met with agents of protectiveness who resolutely refuse to stead in silence." Or words to that effect. In plain English, the answer is a resounding: "No!"

Writing for TownHall.com, Cliff May has the following:

During the 1990s, thousands of terrorists were trained in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and elsewhere. The government did next to nothing about that. Terrorists groups and the regimes backing them were seldom infiltrated. Neither terrorists nor their masters were effectively monitored. ... But after 9/11/01, one of the steps our intelligence officials took was to go to the big telecommunications firms and ask for help. Another attack could be coming – maybe more after that. The officials wanted access to data that might contain clues – dots they might be able to connect. The idea was not to have a federal agent listening in on your calls to Uncle Moe in Toledo. The idea was to gather huge quantities of information, “meta-data,” and mine it – seeking out patterns that might indicate terrorist connections or activities.

And those efforts have been very effective. But only groups like terrorist supporters and the ACLU are against it.

More:

An important point: The Supreme Court has held for decades that telephone record information—as opposed to the content of phone calls— triggers no Fourth Amendment privacy interest. You have no expectation of privacy in the numbers you dial because you expect the phone company to keep records of those numbers. What if you wanted to challenge a phone bill? You’d be pretty peeved if the phone company did not have records of the calls you made, when you made them and how long you stayed on the line. I do not believe this kind of intelligence gathering outrages normal Americans. I think most Americans say: “Good for government and good for the telecoms. They did their duty. They helped protect us” But the ACLU and some other groups that call themselves “civil liberties advocates” do claim to be outraged. Also outraged – or perhaps just excited – are the plaintiffs’ attorneys who have nearly 40 lawsuits pending before federal courts. If these lawyers prevail, tens of billions of dollars will be extracted from such firms as AT&T, Cingular Wireless, Bell South, Sprint and Verizon Communications.

Anyone care to guess which political party these trial lawyers mostly support?

Trial lawyers are among the most generous donors to the Democratic Party -- but leave aside whether that may explain House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refusing to let House members vote on a bill to protect the telecoms from being sued for contributing to the effort to thwart terrorists.

But this little gem is priceless:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Democrat who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, defended the telecom companies last month, telling his colleagues: "What is the big payoff for the telephone companies? They get paid a lot of money? No. They get paid nothing. What do they get for this [for cooperating with intelligence officials to prevent terrorism]? They get $40 billion worth of suits, grief, trashing, but they do it.”

And this warning is the ounce of prevention that is worth much, much more than the pound of cure:

As the Washington Post reported, there is “one thing on which both sides agree: If the lawsuits go forward sensitive details about the scope and methods of the Bush administration’s surveillance efforts could be divulged for the first time.” Divulged not just to the media – but also to terrorists intent on murdering you and your children. For having written that, I will be accused of “fear-mongering.” So be it. If America’s experience with terrorism teaches anything, it’s that we have more to fear than fear itself. When politicians cave to special interests who want to make national security policy – and billions of dollars – in courtrooms, that should raise fears, too. And if it doesn’t outrage you, maybe nothing will.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Listen Up: Should The Telecoms Be Punished For Helping Protect You From Terrorists?
Cliff May
TownHall.com
March 6, 2008