LOL! I love him.

In January 2002, the Enron story broke and the media turned their attention to the critical question: how can we pin this on Bush? As I wrote in this space that weekend: “Short answer: You can’t.”

Yessir, for eight years the Clinton administration was relentless in its commitment: no sooner did al-Qa’eda bomb the World Trade Center first time round, or blow up an American embassy, or a barracks, or a warship, or turn an entire nation into a terrorist training camp, than the Clinton team would redouble their determination to sit down and talk through the options for a couple more years. Then Bush took over and suddenly the superbly successful fight against terror all went to hell.nservative writers strike back! First the Kraut, now Steyn. I love it!

Sounds suspiciously like this teacher is the one engaging in “hate speech” - not the student:

Federal authorities are investigating an incident at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in which an instructor sent an e-mail to her class accusing a conservative student of “hate speech” for a statement he made about homosexuals.
The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights told the school last week that the investigation will determine whether the teacher’s actions amounted to harassment.

Crystall apologized Monday in another e-mail, saying her earlier message “crossed a line and inhibited free discussion.”

Hmmmm …..

Refreshing and encouraging. Let’s hope more follow their leads!

My unlikely bridge to the right

and

Goodbye, All That: How Left Idiocies Drove Me to Flee

By who else? None other than Bubba.

… as they tried to pass a resolution condeming Israel for killing their version of Osama: Yassin.

Incredible.

Who vetoed it? We did, of course. Thank goodness.

The United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution Thursday condemning Israel’s assassination of a Hamas leader, calling the measure “one-sided” and saying it ignored the group’s bloody record of terrorism.

Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas, was killed in a missile strike Monday morning in the Gaza Strip. He is the highest-ranking militant to die in a series of Israeli assassinations.

Bob Kerrey gets it right in one:

“From 1993 through 2001, the United States of America was either attacked or we prevented attack by radical Islamists close to a dozen times,” Kerrey told Albright. “During that period of time, not only did we not engage in any single military attack other than the 20th of August 1998 - there was no attack against al Qaeda during that entire period of time. Indeed, the presidential directive that was…written and signed in May of 1998, didn’t give the military primary authority in counterterrorism. They were still responsible for supporting the states and local governments if we were attacked and they were still providing support for the Department of Justice and doing investigations. It seems to me that that was a terrible mistake.”

“Well, what the hell does that say to al Qaeda?” Kerrey responded. “Basically, they knew - beginning in 1993, it seems to me - that there was going to be limited, if any, use of military, and that they were relatively free to do whatever they wanted.”*snip*

Despite all the negative press W has been getting over this, it’s good that it’s come out. Let’s hope the American people will judge accordingly as to who’s done the most to fight terror. You know who my $$ is on.

Bill Kristol discusses what we knew would happen this week once the bloviator extraordinaire testified:

I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11. To them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you, and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn’t matter because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask–once all the facts are out–for your understanding and for your forgiveness.”

No. In fact, what government officials owed the memory of those who died on 9/11–to ensure that they did not die in vain–was a greater determination to prosecute the war on terror than had been shown in the preceding eight months, and in the preceding eight years. *snip*

Right on, Bill.

Reeeeal classy.

Entering McAuliffe’s new corner office, which is equipped as a TV studio, visitors walk over a doormat bearing a likeness of President Bush and the words, “Give Bush the Boot.”

Or not. With any luck, instead of wiping their shoes on that mat, they’ll be shining W’s after this fall’s elections.

No - we know liberal media bias is just a figment of our imagination. It isn’t real:

Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff and Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank are in awe of Dick Clarke. On Wednesday’s Hardball on MSNBC, Isikoff described Clarke’s testimony as “highly effective” and maintained that though “there was a rather furious effort by the White House and some of the Republican commissioners to dent his credibility,” it didn’t work: “I don’t think they succeeded. And I thought the apology that he began with was, was actually a brilliant stroke.” *snip article*

A bit later, Matthews proposed: “But here we have this guy testifying, Richard Clarke, who’s pretty focused in what he is trying to do here. He’s trying to impeach the efforts overall of the U.S. government and the attempts by the politicians leading our government to really try to do a serious job by saying, ‘Hey, look, I thought of this.’”

Milbank: “Yeah I mean if you, if you, well there’s been a bit of self-aggrandizement in, he’s taking credit for an awful lot of things. But if you think about it, his critique is devastating. He said essentially that September 11th could have been prevented, that President Bush did not care about terrorism before September 11th and didn’t do the right things after September 11th. This undermines the whole Bush administration. So what they really have to do, they, they rather than just take on argument by argument, they just have to pull the rug out from under him and completely try to undermine his credibility. That’s what you saw some of the commission members doing today.”

And the WaPo puts out a hit piece today on Condi Rice (courtesy of Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus). Rich Lowry from NRO fisks their little hatchet job. In the meantime, Time runs it’s own little piece about Richard Clarke’s alleged contradictions.

The GOP, smartly, is firing back at this grandstanding narcissist. They want Clarke’s congressional testimony from July 2002 declassified. Good for them.

Charles Krauthammer sums up my feelings on this whole Richard Clarke/9-11 matter precisely. VodkaPundit feels the same. I could have written this:

It is only March, but the 2004 Chutzpah of the Year Award can be safely given out. It goes to Richard Clarke, now making himself famous by blaming the Bush administration for Sept. 11 — after Clarke had spent eight years in charge of counterterrorism for a Clinton administration that did nothing.

This is significant for two reasons. First, if the Clarke of 2002 was telling the truth, then the Clarke of this week — the one who told the Sept. 11 commission under oath that “fighting terrorism, in general, and fighting al Qaeda, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration — certainly [there was] no higher priority” — is a liar.
*snip article*

The Kraut can see it - I hope anyone out there with half a brain can see what’s going on, too. This guy is trying to sell a book and the more he appears in public attempting to appear humble and apologetic, the more phoney he appears. He owes America another apology - an apology for his using the 9-11 tragedy to make a buck.