blogs4God - a Semi-Definitive List of Christian Blogs Rate this blog




This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

10/03/2003

 

at least he wasn't a nazi...



Broaddrick: "I first pushed him away and just told him 'No, please don't do that," and I forget, it's been 21 years, Lisa, and I forget exactly what he was saying. It seems like he was making statements that would relate to 'Did you not know why I was coming up here?' and I told him at the time, I said, 'I'm married, and I have other things going on in my life, and this is something that I'm not interested in.'"

Myers: "Had you, that morning, or any other time, given him any reason to believe you might be receptive?"

Broaddrick: "No. None. None whatsoever."

Myers: "Then what happens?"

Broaddrick: "Then he tries to kiss me again. And the second time he tries to kiss me he starts biting my lip (she cries). Just a minute... He starts to, um, bite on my top lip and I tried to pull away from him. (crying) And then he forces me down on the bed. And I just was very frightened, and I tried to get away from him and I told him 'No,' that I didn't want this to happen (crying) but he wouldn't listen to me."

Myers: "Did you resist, did you tell him to stop?"

Broaddrick: "Yes, I told him 'Please don't.' He was such a different person at that moment, he was just a vicious awful person."

Myers: "You said there was a point at which you stopped resisting?"

Broaddrick: "Yeah."

Myers: "Why?"

Broaddrick: "It was a real panicky, panicky situation. I was even to the point where I was getting very noisy, you know, yelling to 'Please stop.' And that's when he pressed down on my right shoulder and he would bite my lip."

Broaddrick also says the waist of her skirt and her pantyhose were torn.

Juanita Broaddrick: "When everything was over with, he got up and straightened himself, and I was crying at the moment and he walks to the door, and calmly puts on his sunglasses. And before he goes out the door he says 'You better get some ice on that.' And he turned and went out the door."

***

i'm not from california, folks, and i probably wouldn't vote for ahnold even if i was. but i'm amazed at the, ah, lack of perspective surrounding the indiscretions of ahnold's youth.

the nazi/racist stuff is serious, but is it as serious as being a former grand kleagle of the KKK? and jesse jackson says he's really, really sorry about the whole hymietown thing so all's forgiven. if you dems think byrd and jesse are now back on the straight and narrow, why couldn't ahnold be jogging along beside them? people either can and do change, or they can't and don't. you cannot pick and choose based on whether someone's got a (D) or an (R) trailing their name.

the allegations of sexual harassment are serious and would probably have cost ahnold my vote the same as the racist stuff, but are they as serious as those leveled by mrs. broaddrick against against a then-sitting president? how 'bout ted kennedy? and, what timing, the national organization for women has awoke from their ten-year nap just in time to get all frothy over the mistreatment of some sistas.

the timing of all of this stinks to high heaven, but what else is new. it was, what, two or three days before the 2000 presidentials that we learned of bush's dui conviction? both sides are only too happy to exploit the suffering caused by those on the other side for political gain (consider the glee with which some of you ghouls parade the iraq deathcount, for instance) and it's no use getting upset over it.

none of this exonerates ahnold, but you dems are still a bunch of hypocrites.

locdog's 0.02




 

if finding this funny is wrong



then i don't want to be right.

locdog the compassionless




10/02/2003

 

thoughts on rush



damn, and i thought i was having a bad day...

anyway, here's the deal.

1. the resignation

what did rush actually say?

Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.


so basically limbaugh criticizes mcnabb as a quarterback, one who he never thought was very good to begin with, and says that the media hype over him was largely motivated by their desire to see a black quarterback do well.

now can anyone explain to me how in the blue hell that remark is racist? other than establishing his opinion of mcnabb as a sub-par quarterback (what, are black quarterbacks exempt from criticism?), limbaugh's comments had nothing to do with the embattled philadelphia QB. his remarks had a whole heckuva lot to do with the media and their zeal to demonstrate that, yes virginia, an african american really can play quarterback, and the NFL's increasingly p.c. approach to race. witness the recent flap surrounding the detroit lions and their decision to hire steve mariucci as head coach. despite the fact that they'd never even considered anyone other than mariucci for the position, having wanted him as soon as they learned he would be leaving san francisco, the league insisted that they interview at least one minority. one local sports commentator suggested that they contact chris rock, since the whole business is a joke anyway.

what limbaugh was criticizing was the affirmative-action mentality that he believed made donovan mcnabb a star, that is, he was bashing white liberals. as for all the indignation, well, what do you expect? the NAACP, despite their feigned outrage, must have been turning cartwheels for joy when they heard what rush had said.

2. drugs. it's too soon to say anything on the drug story yet, but here’s something to keep a lookout for: how many times, in the coming days, will you hear the words “national enquirer?”

the washington post story that covered rush's bad day didn't even bother to mention their source until they were well below the fold, and only after attributing the story to the new york daily news article which had, ah, rebroke the enquirer's story.

whenever these things happened to the clintons or jesse jackson, the mainstream media couldn’t tell you often enough just where the news had come from.

now note i'm not saying that the story should be disbelieved simply because it was in the enquirer. they've broke some big ones over the years. but it will be very interesting to see if the trend of dissing their source established by the post is continued in the coming days.

locdog wouldn't be surprised if it is




10/01/2003

 

novak strikes back



"First," says bob "I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret."

it only gets better from there:

The current Justice investigation stems from a routine, mandated probe of all CIA leaks, but follows weeks of agitation. Wilson, after telling me in July that he would say nothing about his wife, has made investigation of the leak his life's work -- aided by the relentless Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. These efforts cannot be separated from the massive political assault on President Bush


so just who is wilson? why, he's "a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council," who "had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one." with his spidey-sense a-tingling, novak sets off to find out just why this rather unlikely figure gets uranium investigation gig. what does he uncover?

During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.


ah, nepotism...where would government be without you? so why publish the lady's name, bob?

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.


and just who was she?

I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations.


so why is this a big deal?

The Justice Department investigation was not requested by CIA Director George Tenet. Any leak of classified information is routinely passed by the Agency to Justice, averaging one a week. This investigative request was made in July shortly after the column was published. Reported only last weekend, the request ignited anti-Bush furor.


find the rest here.

locdog thinks it's worth the read




9/30/2003

 

the biggest non-scandal yet



this post was originally offered in response to jack schafer's slate column on the same subject, which you can read here.

since september 11th, the democrats have hurled bucket after bucket of steaming dog doo at the white house, hoping to get something to stick. more often than not, the rubber-coated walls have bounced the brown boulders back from whence they came. the only exception was the infamous sixteen-word flap from bush's state of the union address, where he informed the american people that

The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.


it was a throw-away line that comprised such an insignificant part of bush's case for war that, at the time, no one even noticed it. but these sixteen little words were destined to become the most remembered of the entire speech, as not long after they were spoken stories began circulating about the uranium claim's basis in bogus documents. when the BBC reported that bush had been warned by the CIA beforehand, the scandal was on.

the administration panicked and badly botched the clean-up. ari fleischer told the press that since the uranium reports were proven false "that is reflective of the president's broader statement," when what he should have said was that the president's statement was just as true as it had ever been: it was based on british intelligence and MI6 stood by their claim (and still does), arguing that the forged documents were not their only source of intel. (a real story went largely unreported in the haste to smear the president: just who forged those documents, anyway?)

without wasting too much time parsing the sixteen words heard round the world, the subject and predicate of bush's sentence were "british government" and "has learned" respectively. note that they were not "saddam hussein" and "sought." in the former case we have a perfectly truthful statement about british intelligence, in the latter, a statement about what saddam hussein did or did not try to do. notice that the latter is actually a subordinate clause of the former's predicate, describing just what it was the british government had learned. even if that clause is discredited, the president's statement is not.

is this so much clintonian textual gymnastics? no, not really. the distinction becomes meaningful if the president had a good reason for taking the word of british intelligence over that of the CIA. did he?

[A] former US diplomat, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, went on the record at the weekend to say that he had traveled to Africa to investigate the uranium claims and found no evidence to support them.

Now the CIA official has told the BBC that Mr Wilson's findings had been passed onto the White House as early as March 2002.


a former us diplomat, says the BBC? not an atomic scientist? not a weapons inspector? just some heretofore unknown ex-diplomat whose most recent ambassadorship was to the Gabonese Republic, the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome, and Principe? good gravy, i've never even heard of those places. and this wasn't just your average irrelevant ambassador, mind you, but an ex-clintonista who had a paul bunyon sized axe to grind with the bush administration. as clifford may reported in NRO online, wilson

had long been a bitter critic of the current administration, writing in such left-wing publications as The Nation that under President Bush, "America has entered one of it periods of historical madness" and had "imperial ambitions."

What's more, he was affiliated with the pro-Saudi Middle East Institute and he had recently been the keynote speaker for the Education for Peace in Iraq Center, a far-Left group that opposed not only the U.S. military intervention in Iraq but also the sanctions and the no-fly zones that protected Iraqi Kurds and Shias from being slaughtered by Saddam.

Mr. Wilson is now saying (on C-SPAN this morning, for example) that he opposed military action in Iraq because he didn't believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he foresaw the possibility of a difficult occupation. In fact, prior to the U.S. invasion, Mr. Wilson told ABC's Dave Marash that if American troops were sent into Iraq, Saddam might "use a biological weapon in a battle that we might have. For example, if we're taking Baghdad or we're trying to take, in ground-to-ground, hand-to-hand combat."

Equally, important and also overlooked: Mr. Wilson had no apparent background or skill as an investigator. As Mr. Wilson himself acknowledged, his so-called investigation was nothing more than "eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people" at the U.S. embassy in Niger. Based on those conversations, he concluded that "it was highly doubtful that any [sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq] had ever taken place.”


how curious that in the interests of "full disclosure," schafer lets us in on his friendship with nation editor david corn before mentioning corn's disgust with the plame leak, yet does not see fit to inform us that wilson had written columns for his good buddy eviscerating the president's policies and demonstrating beyond any reasonable doubt that wilson was far from a disinterested, objective analyst.

but if you think that's weird, wait 'till you get a load of this

On July 14, Robert Novak wrote a column in the Post and other newspapers naming Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative.

That wasn't news to me. I had been told that — but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of.


emphasis mine.

this stunning news was featured on fox and the drudge report, but schafer can’t be faulted for not mentioning it since his column was posted before may’s story came out. his rush to smear the administration before the facts of this story had even begun to emerge is noted, however.

and what about the rest of the media? may’s column has gotten zero play in the press, and i mean zero. a lexis-nexis search for “clifford may” or “cliff may” over the past week in major papers turns up nothing. nada. zippo. zilch. maybe the press doesn't consider a rightwing publication like the national review legit, but cliff may is a reputable if conservative journalist who hails from nothing less than the al jazeera of liberalism itself, the new york times. it’s possible they simply weren’t aware of may’s bombshell revelation, but if that's the case, our press is so dangerously uninformed that their continued scandal-mongering smacks of gross negligence—although in this case, malice is the more likely explanation. kudos to schafer, by the way, for being ahead of the curve: "It could be that Plame's "secret" is no secret at all."

the media blind spot doesn’t stop with cliff may. robert novak himself has gone on record denying the very heart of the accusation, that is, that the administration sought him out for the express purpose of burning wilson's wife. sort of hard to burn a mere analyst:

Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction.

Another senior official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else.

According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives.


novak's comments courtesy of matt drudge, who, unlike the rest of the media, has at least some clue as to what the hell is going on. to hear novak and may tell it, palmer was basically a glorified bureaucrat, not the cloak-and-dagger spy master she's been, ah, "sexed up" to be.

what we're left with is a woman whose identity was apparently as "secret" to your average washingtonian as clark kent's is to your average comic book reader, combined with the guy who started the whole thing flatly denying the media's spiciest allegations. against that, all the democrats, media, and Left in general have is one anonymous "senior administration official" quoted in the sunday washington post, a man whose identity has already been downgraded from senior administration official to merely "an administration official," which is what the post called him yesterday. by the end of the week, he'll be the roommate of the cousin of the wife of bush's former fitness instructor.

so maybe a couple of high-ups in the bush white house did casually mention that the shockingly unqualified joseph wilson landed the uranium investigation gig because his wife worked for the CIA and nepotism, as we all know, rules. what of it? it’s harmless, apparently widely-known news. are we going to make a federal case (pun intended) out of every security leak, however routine? i hope so. and i suggest we start with that classified missile guidance technology mysteriously turning up in the hands of some of clinton's biggest campaign donors, the red chinese. buddhist temple fundraiser my eye.

locdog thinks this plame nonsense is an even bigger non-scandal than the sixteen word non-scandal it's based on




9/29/2003

 

in a month they'll be "freedom fighters"



first it was the hussein regime. then it was regime loyalists banded together with terrorists slipping in from syria. then it was guerrilla warriors. now it's the iraqi resistance.

locdog expects comparisons to the founding fathers in short order