New Evidence Vindicates President Bush

But underwhelms in the face of Cheney coverage.

If you got caught up in the overblown, childish, and utterly irrelevant coverage of Vice President Dick Cheney’s hunting mishap, you may have missed what may be the most important story of this young century. It had naught to do with Hurricane Katrina, Bird-flu, or Project DUL. Rather, it had everything to do with vindicating an administration that has been dogged by a media engine that desperately feeds the irrational and unmitigated rage of liberal voters, who, if properly stirred by the right people, would vote for Al Gore again given the opportunity.

As ABC Nightly News reported—probably to its own chagrin—evidence in the form of previously classified tapes of Saddam Hussein indicate that not only the tyrant sought to reinvigorate his chemical and nuclear weapons projects, but may indeed have had such weapons by the time the US intervened in 2003, and could have potentially transported those weapons to other hostile countries.

But the Dick Cheney interview still dominates the headlines. Did someone say obvious media bias? Not that it’s the media’s fault. But if given the choice to help matters, or hurt matters, they consistently choose the latter.

The decisions regarding the dissemination of information to major media outlets following President Cheney’s fault represent similar failings that have plagued the Bush administration for 5 years. If Cheney had immediately alerted the White House press corps, the subsequent frenzy of frothing, idiot journalists shouting at Scott McClellan could have been prevented. Instead, the ‘path of least resistance’ which equates to the ‘path of greatest conspiracy’ was chosen. So the same scenario played out. But how does that relate to the tapes translated by Tierney? The kind of mishandling that blows up an incident like a hunting accident after 5 years of experience with an inflammatory, biased and arrogant media that cares little for facts and everything for sensation indicates ineptitude at all parts of the administration. So, while Tierney’s reports have been circulating the intelligence offices, it wasn’t until they fell into the right hands that any progress was made.

If you managed to catch any of the hour that Bill Tierney spent on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory this evening, you caught a direct account summarizing the material that was barely scratched by the ABC Nightly News report. However, even in the hour of radio time, Tierney failed to adequately cover all the information he had. Two major handicaps now work against this vindicating and troubling information Tierney has uncovered: the vast amount of information to be covered and summarized, and effectively disseminating that summary to a populace that has become more convinced that the intelligence supporting an invasion of Iraq was faulty.

I can only pray they get it right this time.

I’ll admit, I enjoy writing about this, though. I enjoy writing about America being right regarding its own intelligence, regardless of the administration’s willingness to demure to a raging, illogical left. I enjoy writing this almost as much as media outlets have enjoyed spewing filth like ‘dead babies being raped in the New Orleans Superdome freezers,’ ‘President Bush is reading your email, constantly, and laughing while doing so,’ and ’11 miners found alive, but later killed by President Bush.’ Some of us like it when America succeeds. Others like it when America fails. If the past 5 years haven’t illustrated who is on which side, I don’t know what further evidence you may need.

The Grey Area Between Abortion and Murder

The grey area between abortion and murder was illustrated in a Lorain County court in the state of Ohio. Six years after the murder to their newborn child in 1999, Jessica Coleman and Thomas Truelson received six and two year jail sentences respectively for killing their child at birth. At the time of birth, Jessica was age 15 and Thomas age 18.

The irony in this case, to me, is that the two could have easily escaped any legal consequence for their action. Had the idea gelled a mere few days earlier, the young woman could have aborted the child. Instead, the couple chose the home option—that being a ‘do it yourself partial birth abortion’—which required waiting for natural labor to induce a partial birth in order to terminate the pregnancy.

However, in the eyes of the law, the couple is guilty of murder. Had a licensed physician performed the procedure, the only negative consequences endured today would be emotional rather than legal.

But Coleman and Truelson murdered their infant. Why is abortion held in a different regard?

The Domestic Spying and Wiretapping Program

Or as it’s called by Senator Leahy and Democrat leadership—project “dupe unintelligent liberals.” Good thing they alerted the media to project DUL as it will henceforth be called, so that misleading phrases such as ‘domestic spying program’ ‘domestic wiretapping program’ and ‘the great white invasion’ would effectively integrate themselves into daily discourse among the under- and misinformed.

You see, Democrat leaders have no interest in stopping the Bush counter-intelligence operations—the real nature of the activities that inspired project DUL. It became abundantly clear to me while watching the Daily Show this evening, a program that was much better under the guidance of Craig Kilborn. After following up a segment in which Jon Stewart seemed to have forgotten how repugnant he thought the Paul Wellstone memorial service was back in 2002 by lauding those who used the casket of Coretta Scott King as a soap box, Stewart delved into a segment in which Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez refused to answer questions before a Senate Judiciary Committee. Of course it was funny when Senator Leahy questioned whether or not Gonzalez would answer any question that pertained to the Bush counter-intelligence program.

Of course. That’s why the television cameras were there.

Doesn’t it strike you as somewhat inconsistent that Democrat leaders would force the entire Senate into a closed session in order to demand evaluation of intelligence data utilized in making the case for the invasion of Iraq over two years after the engagement began, and yet that same leadership wants the doors to the judiciary committee wide open when grilling the Attorney General on the topic of counter-intelligence? This inconsistency underscores the purpose of project DUL. Senator Leahy and the rest of the Democrat leaders are well aware that a midterm election approaches, and the more posturing and agitating they can do before national television audiences, the more gratified upset, underrepresented Democrats will feel.

Granted, my assessment of the situation is entirely too logical to be embraced by any major media outlet. It speaks too much to common sense and rationality. Four months after the closed door Senate session, we’re no closer to understanding the apparent flaws of the intelligence employed in making the case for war in Iraq. Similarly, four months from now, no actions to impede the Bush counter-intelligence operation will have been taken, and project DUL will have served its purpose and reform as another type.

As long as major media publications continue to champion Democrat ideals, hordes of impressionable individuals with little critical thinking skills and short attention spans will be indonctrinated into their party. In spite of having such a powerful recruitment weapon, the Democratic Party finds itself in the minority in all but the slow moving judicial branch of government. Would Senator Kennedy like to speak to such matters? Perhaps that night at Chappaquiddick? Or perhaps to a pint of Ben & Jerry’s and a fifth of scotch?

I’d say that answer is quite clear.

A Case Study in Free Speech

And self-restraint, tolerance, human progress, civilzation, and the problem with fundamentalist Islam. Since I write a lot, I will let the pictures speak.

Recent History Repeats Itself at King's Funeral

As it is wont to do.

In 2002, the Democratic Party descended upon the funeral of Senator Paul Wellstone and turned what ought have been a day of remembrance into a political rally. Vice President Cheney offered his attendance at the time, but his presence was rejected. Apparently, there wasn’t room for the likes of him at the 20,000 large crowd in Williams Arena at the U. The service’s somber tone was hijacked by the likes of Richard Kahn and Wellstone’s sons David and Mark, who roared “we will win!” They were referring to the replacement of former Vice President Walter Mondale, a native Minnesotan, who took Wellstone’s place on the ballot. I personally witnessed the rally on live television on a local station in Alexandria, MN, and was frankly disgusted. My reaction was not uncommon.

The voters in Minnesota responded by electing Republican Senator Norm Coleman to his first term in office, and finally replacing Governor Jesse Ventura with Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty. Though the electoral votes in Minnesota ultimately went to John Kerry, that’s hardly unusual given the last Republican to win Minnesota in the Presidential race was President Nixon. However, the election marked a definite movement away from the stranglehold the Democratic party has traditionally had on the great state of Minnesota.

Will the rest of the nation recognize the debacle that occurred during Coretta Scott King’s funeral? Having learned the lesson from the Wellstone funeral, many news broadcasts are focusing merely on the appropriate sentiments voiced by all parties attending: the Bushes, the Clintons, even Ted Kennedy seemed to have relatively benign and appreciable things to say. However, in merely presenting these events, media outlets have missed the obvious political agendas advanced during the funeral service.

Advancing political agendas during a funeral service. I’ll admit, I dislike many things about the Republican Party. I hate the way conservatives are duped into believing Republicans really believe in limited government, free markets, and the spread of Democracy and prosperity to the greatest extent. Clearly, they do not when they continue to grow the government to suit their constituencies and ideas, allow radical Muslims to kill innocent persons exercising free speech and perform cliterectomies and genocide amongst their own peoples, and refusing to protect American industries when other governments exploit our free market systems to their advantage. That being said, I could never see eye to eye with such an amoral party as the United States Democratic Party. To not understand the reasonable bounds of appropriate behavior is to cast aside and shun those who may otherwise support a candidate contrary to their own political beliefs in order to inspire change within the political system.

Bill endorsing Hillary as “his” president is disgusting. “Reverend” Joseph Lowery saying, “we know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there . . . that there are weapons of misdirection right down here,” is disgusting. President Carter’s assertion that “It was difficult for them then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps,” visibly alluding to the surveillance program utilized by the Bush administration is disgusting. Not only disgusting, but non-factual and misleading. Equally misleading as his later statement that “the struggle for equal rights is not over. We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi.” Need I remind my readers that, proportional to population, whites faced much higher fatality rates in New Orleans and the surrounding areas? Probably. How short our attention spans are.

I only hope that Americans can remember lessons like the Wellstone memorial and King funeral in the coming elections when listening to the bloated Democratic rhetoric.