Democrats race to get scoop on Foleygate before elections ....

Credit:  Lucianne.com

hee hee hee.  Forgive me.  I couldn't resist.

Let outrage reign.  Lots of outrage.  About that louse Foley.  Why not keep the rage going for the next few weeks?  Let's just declare the next few weeks as a political feeding frenzy!

Nevermind that Republicans have expressed their disgust and have accepted Foley's resignation with obvious relief. 

Nevermind that the party of traditional values is likely being blind-sided by the party of self-serving values!

Nevermind that the Woodward book has an early release -- chockful of criticisms of the Bush administration -- just in time for another distraction before the election ....

Nevermind that I have a problem with those to the left of the aisle and their media. 

Nevermind that there is a reason why Democrats and the media continue to release IM's detailing repulsive interactions between Foley and a receptive youth.   Of course Foley is to blame.  He is the adult in this scenario.  As an adult, he has betrayed -- not only his constituency -- but also his duty as a responsible adult.

Nevermind that, if talking heads are correct, Foley may have broken no laws.  Too bad.  He deserves to be punished beyond the stripping of his dignity. 

Nevermind that the media and democrat operatives have deliberately delayed releasing these IMs -- simply to gain a political advantage in the upcoming elections.  They should be be guilty of either enabling and/or hiding Foley's  behaviors.

Nevermind -- heck --- I do mind seeing the public duped and distracted.  I do mind feigned outrage. 

Hopefully -- the FBI will expedite their investigation to identify the source, validity and "timeliness" of the IMs.  I certainly mind that their investigation will likely be stymied by restraints and appeals ....

I also "mind" that Foleygate may be credited with bringing about the loss of Republican seats in the House and Senate.  Why?  Because Republicans -- by their failure to work together during the past few months -- have most likely already splintered themselves into defeat.  [For which you can thank the leadership -- including Frist, McCain AND Hasert.  BTW, we know what Hasert has been doing for the last few days -- but where are Frist and McCain on the outrage?]

Foley doesn't deserve credit for anything beyond being the low-life sick person that he is. 

And if riding the backlash to a sick pervert is the only way democrats can win -- they don't deserve credit either.

Subtitled:  Slugs Under Stones un-Slanged

Yep.  While not excusing Foley's alleged mis-conduct -- there WERE Democratic operatives behind the timing of the release of still-unconfirmed email/IM's.

Recognize the names  Soros .... Biden .... ABC ... Clinton?  Now meet their associates called the  C.R.E.W. -- the group behind the timing of this sordid scenario.

This is an article by investigative reporter and Washington attorney, Clarice Feldman.

Foley and the Blame Game
October 1st, 2006

Pardon me, but I smell something very peculiar in the way we have learned of the disgrace of Rep. Mark Foley.

The email scandal which led to the resignation of the Republican Congressman is reverberating throughout the capital and the nation, as Democrats attempt to capitalize on bad news for Republicans. The seamiest of the released emails, which Foley has not denied, are right up there with Rhodes Scholar and Illinois Democratic Congressman Mel Reynolds’ taped phone conversations lusting for 15 year old Catholic school girls in their uniforms.

But Democrats are attempting to make hay by alleging that the Republican leadership may have known about the inappropriate emails and covered them up for months. Their hope, no doubt, is to discourage turnout by disillusioned evangelical and other voters sensitive to moral issues. But the emerging background detail suggests that this is simply not the case, and that an attack strategy has been devised by parties anxious to damage the GOP and swing the coming election.

In July a blog  appeared, designed it said to trace sex predators. Few posts were made in that month or the following month. All recounted years old stories. Then on September 18, the blog printed the fairly innocuous email exchange between Congressman Foley and an unnamed page.In this correspondence initiated by the former page, Foley asks the former page how he is after Katrina (the boy lived in Louisiana) and asked for a photo. Thus began the latest political kerfuffle which swirls through the final five weeks of the campaign. How likely is it that this site with virtually no readership , few posts and hardly any history or posts of interest suddenly receives this bombshell? I’d say slight. About as likely as Lucy Ramirez handing Burkett Bush’s TANG papers. Let’s track back what else we know of this story. Sometime last year a former page contacted the St. Petersburg Times with an exchange of emails between himself and Congressman Foley. In the words of the editor, they never ran the story. (The following has been realeased by the office of the Speaker of the House, but does not yet appear online at the time of this writing.) 

In November of last year, we were given copies of an email exchange  Foley had with a former page from Louisiana. Other news organizations later  got them, too. The conversation in those emails was friendly chit-chat.  Foley asked the boy about how he had come through Hurricane Katrina and about  the boy’s upcoming birthday. In one of those emails, Foley casually asked  theteen to send him a “pic” of himself. Also among those emails was the  page’s exchange with a congressional staffer in the office of Rep. Alexander,  who had been the teen’s sponsor in the page program. The teen shared his exchange he’d had with Foley and asked the staffer if she thought Foley was out of bounds.

There was nothing overtly sexual in the emails, but we assigned two reporters to find out more. We found the Louisiana page and talked with him.He told us Foley’s request for a photo made him uncomfortable so he never responded, but both he and his parents made clear we could not use his name if we wrote a story. We also found another page who was willing to go on the record, but his experience with Foley was different. He said Foley did send a few emails but never said anything in them that he found inappropriate. We tried to find other pages but had no luck. We spoke with Rep. Alexander, who said the boy’s family didn’t want it pursued, and Foley, who insisted he was merely trying to be friendly and never wanted to make the page uncomfortable.

So, what we had was a set of emails between Foley and a teenager, who wouldn’t go on the record about how those emails made him feel. As we said in today’s paper, our policy is that we don’t make accusations against people using unnamed sources. And given the seriousness of what would  be implied in a story, it was critical that we have complete confidence in  our sourcing. After much discussion among top editors at the paper, we  concluded that the information we had on Foley last November didn’t meet our standard for publication. Evidently, other news organizations felt the same way.

Since that time, we revisited the question more than once, but never learned anything that changed our position. [b]The Louisiana boy’s emails broke into the open last weekend, when a blogger got copies and posted them online. Later that week, on Thursday, a news blog at the website of ABC News followed suit, with the addition of one new fact: Foley’s Democratic opponent, Tim Mahoney, was on the record about the Louisiana boy’s emails and was calling for an investigation. That’s when we wrote our first  story,for Friday’s papers.

After ABC News broke the story on its website, someone contacted ABC and provided a detailed email exchange between Foley and at least one other page that was far different from what we had seen before. This was overtly sexual, not something Foley could dismiss as misinterpreted friendliness. That’s what drove Foley to resign on Friday.

So, the paper had nothing it could act on. But Foley’s opponent somehow got wind of the story which had appeared before only on a very new, utterly obscure blogsite and demanded an investigation. ABC then picked up the story and when it did , further anonymous sources with far more salacious and troublesome evidence appeared on the scene. What an amazing-and unlikely to me-turn of events. Like that paper, the Republican leadership only knew of the innocuous email exchange:

Late night Congressman Hastert said of the incident (in terms remarkably similar to the editor’s):

In the fall of 2005 Tim Kennedy, a staff assistant in the Speaker’s Office, received a telephone call from Congressman Rodney Alexander’s Chief of  Staff who indicated that he had an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House page.  He did not reveal the specific text of the email but expressed that he and Congressman Alexander were concerned about it.

Tim Kennedy immediately discussed the matter with his supervisor, Mike Stokke, Speaker Hastert’s Deputy Chief of Staff.  Stokke directed Kennedy to ask Ted Van Der Meid, the Speaker’s in house Counsel, who the proper person was for Congressman Alexander to report a problem related to a former page.Ted Van Der Meid told Kennedy it was the Clerk of the House who should be notified as the responsible House Officer for the page program.  Later thatday Stokke met with Congressman Alexander’s Chief of Staff.  Once again the specific content of the email was not discussed.  Stokke called the Clerk and asked him to come to the Speaker’s Office so that he could put him together with Congressman Alexander’s Chief of Staff.  The Clerk and Congressman Alexander’s Chief of Staff then went to the Clerk’s Office to discuss the matter.

The Clerk asked to see the text of the email.  Congressman Alexander’s office declined citing the fact that the family wished to maintain as  much privacy as possible and simply wanted the contact to stop.  The Clerk asked if the email exchange was of a sexual nature and was assured it was  not. Congressman Alexander’s Chief of Staff characterized the email exchange as over-friendly.

The Clerk then contacted Congressman Shimkus, the Chairman of the Page Board to request an immediate meeting.  It appears he also notified Van Der Meid that he had received the complaint and was taking action.  This is entirely consistent with what he would normally expect to occur as he was the Speaker’s Office liaison with the Clerk’s Office.

The Clerk and Congressman Shimkus met and then immediately met with Foley to discuss the matter.  They asked Foley about the email.  Congressman Shimkus and the Clerk made it clear that to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and at the request of the parents, Congressman Foley was to immediately cease any communication with the young man.

The Clerk recalls that later that day he encountered Van Der Meid on the House floor and reported to him that he and Shimkus personally had spoken to Foley and had taken corrective action. 

Mindful of the sensitivity to the parent’s wishes to protect their child’s privacy and believing that they had promptly reported what they knew to the proper authorities Kennedy, Van Der Meid and Stokke did not discuss the matter with others in the Speaker’s Office.

Congressman Tom Reynolds in a statement issued today indicates that many months later, in the spring of 2006, he was approached by Congressman Alexander who mentioned the Foley issue from the previous fall.  During a meeting with the Speaker he says he noted the issue which had been raised by Alexander and told the Speaker that an investigation was conducted by the Clerk of the House and Shimkus.  While the Speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynold’s recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution.

Sexually Explicit Instant Message Transcript

No one in the Speaker’s Office was made aware of the sexually explicit text messages which press reports suggest had been directed to another individual until they were revealed in the press and on the internet this week.  In fact, no one was ever made aware of any sexually explicit email or text messages at any time.

It is not only the recent, unread blog spot breaking the story which raises my suspicions. The  rest of the genesis of the story is as murky.

Brian Ross of ABC ran the story, beginning with the same “overly friendly” but not sexually suggestive email exchange and adding a series of  instant messages dating to 2003 previously unseen by anyone in Congress between Foley and anonymous recipients said to be former pages. The Republican leaders, seeing the more damning correspondence, sought and got Foley’s resignation.

As soon as the ABC story ran, and organization called C.R.E.W., which said it had the original exchange which Hastert had heard of and the St Peterburg paper had seen, put them on their website .They said they’d earlier conveyed them to the FBI, were releasing them because of the ABC story, and asked for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the Republican leadership.It is abundantly clear to me that C.R.E.W. and ABC communicated and may have coordinated the release of this story.

Who is C.R.E.W.?

Here’s what The Hill wrote:

One target of Republican criticism is Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the group that last year assisted former Rep. Chris Bell (D-Texas) in drafting an ethics complaint against DeLay, which resulted in an admonishment of DeLay from the ethics committee. At last week’s press conference, Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, said that DeLay should step down as majority leader.

From 1995 to 1998, CREW’s Sloan served as minority counsel for the House Judiciary Committee under Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). Before that, Sloan served as the nominations counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee under Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.).

According to GOP research, Mark Penn, who had been a pollster for President Clinton, and Daniel Berger, a major Democratic donor, are on CREW’s board. Spokeswoman Naomi Seligman declined several requests to reveal the membership of CREW’s board, although she confirmed that Penn and Berger are members. Last year, Berger made a $100,000 contribution to America Coming Together (ACT), a 527 group that was dedicated to defeating Bush in the presidential election, according to politicalmoneyline.com, a website that tracks fundraising.

CREW declined to respond to the RNC talking points or House GOP research.

C.R.E.W. is one of four “public interest” organizations which the RNC has long identifed as  major donors of George Soros richly-funded Open Society Institute. It is backing  the risible Wilson/Plame  civil suit against Cheney and others.

What do we know of Brian Ross?

My favorite media watcher, Steve Gilbert reports:

Brian Ross of ABC News is the reporter behind the story that Rep. Dennis Hastert is being investigated by the Department Of Justice. Ross is sticking to his charges despite vehement denials from both the DOJ and Hastert himself.

Some may recall that Brian Ross has been involved in past journalistic controversies. Just last week, Mr. Ross reported he was tipped off by unnamed “senior federal officials” that his cell phone was tapped by NSA.

Last month, Ross was one of the first (if not the first) to report that Rush Limbaugh “had been arrested.” Reports which turned out to be greatly exaggerated, but which Ross never corrected.

In January, Brian Ross was the first to promulgate the claims of the self-proclaimed NSA whistleblower, Russell Tice. Ross treated Tice has a highly credible source even though Tice had been cashiered from the agency due to “psychological problems.”

ABC has not disclosed the names of the recipients of the instant messages which were sexually explicit, years old, and not seen by anyone else. We do not know how anyone but the recipients could have retrieved them. We do not even know if they are authentic. None of the recipients has come forward and identified himself. What we do know is that reputable media and the Republican leadership acted appropriately on the initial innocuous correspondence and could not proceed further in view of the parents’ demand that their son’s privacy be respected only to find  months later just before the election that same correpondence showing up on an unlikely blog site and then almost simultaneously on ABC and on  C.R.E.W.’s site. As for the demand that a special prosecutor be appointed, maybe Patrick Fitzgerald can be appointed. Then he can fail to ask ABC or C.R.E.W. how they got the correspondence, ignore their political motivations, conflate their partisanship with “whistleblowing”, not look for the sources of the later sexually explicit emails, and nab Hastert for forgetting when he went to the bathroom on the day he heard about the emails.

The buzzards.

 to Herb for this Scripture reference:  "And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it...." 

I was thinking this morning about those who slang (OK, sling) contemporary stones.  For example ....

Foleygate:  Foley deserves a) a thorough and public horse-whipping, and b) full and public prosecution IF the accusations are true, BUT Dems are riding a very sick horse to gain a House seat IF subsequent evidence indicates that either the timing OR content of email/IM's alleged to Mark Foley have been manipulated. 

Is there a statute that covers hiding criminal activity?

This morning I watched a pimple-faced former page with darting eyes (never a good sign unless person has an ocular disorder) recounting what his FRIENDS had told him about receiving email and IM's from Foley .... hummmmmmmm ....

 ....recounting what his FRIENDS had told him about receiving email and IM's from Foley????

Why aren't these former-page "friends" talking for themselves? 

Who actually KNEW about these disgusting advances and WHEN?  Who released the email and IM's to the press?  Why weren't the email and IM's released concurrently?  Is the timing of these releases related in any way to the pending election?

Yanno.  If some rat-faced scuzball delayed the release of these disgusting IM's solely to impact the pending election  --------- they deserve the wrath of every parent and person who TRULY cares about exposing sexual predators and pedophiles.

Something isn't jiving here.  Not sure what it is, but something is NOT jiving ....

Yuck.  This topic is so sickening, I'm gonna scrub my keyboard and hold the other stone slangings until later.

  Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh.  Where's a good plank when you really need one, eh?

Oh -- not for walking, mind you.  That might equate to "cruel treatment and torture."   But for whomping.  Whomping a few of these mainstream moonbats up side 'o the head.  Let's also include a few wingnuts while we're at it. 

I'll name names later.

First let's talk torture.  Do I care what interrogators actually  "do" to terrorist  detainees to get information?  Nope.  Don't ask -- don't tell comes to mind. 

It's not like these scumbags are American citizens -- no matter how a handful of hypocrits on the right and a passle of them on the left protest.  They (terrorists) are cold-blooded stark-raving-mad murderers.  Let them (and their ACLU lawyers) whine all they want about judicial review.  Our courts are already overloaded.  Why the heck should we allow an enemy combatant to further jam up our dockets????  ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGH.  Let the military courts and commissions handle them.

But back to torture --

I posted a comment today that I've had on my mind since the Fox reporters were forced to convert to Islam and since water-boarding became such an issue:

What if we just referred to water-boarding as baptism?

We could baptize all detainees and set them free. (Unless they wanted to hang around and talk, of course.) We could issue pocket-sized Bibles (with their names in gold letters on the front cover), drape them in flowers, teach them hymns, tatoo crosses and Jesus pixs on their forearms, video-tape them as they "witness" their conversion, then introduce them to the world (similar to a Swaggart-fest) as "born again" converts!

Hallelujah!!  Hallelujah!!   Hallelujah!!

Islamo-facists have been known to "convert" captives (those they don't decapitate, that is) to the religion of peace!   So what's the difference?

Surely the world and even a few peac-lovers accept the concept of baptism, no?

OKOKOKOK -- how about another torture option?

Why not assign terrorists to spend the weekend with some of our primetime national 'wingers?  (Here's the naming names section.)

* Whitewater rafting with Bill and Hill and DeLay to discuss fund-raising and donor lists!
* Sharing a small cell with Mark Foley, Barney Frank and Fred Phelps!
* Moonlight swimming with Ted Kennedy.
* Bible Study with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
* A jungle excursion led by the Jim Jones non-drinker fan club.
* Shopping with Paris Hilton.
* Playing with Michael Jackson in NeverNeverLand.
* Sitting in Pee Wee Herman's playhouse watching his Big Adventure non-stop.
* Shoveling sludge in New Orleans with Ray Nagin.
* Viewing Attack of the Killer Tomatoes non-stop with Oliver Stone. (no subtitles)
* Bar-hopping and bike riding with Rosie O'Donnell.
* Listening to Rosanne Barr's rendition of The Star Spangled Banner non-stop.
* Watching Matthew-Lesko-does-Ronco infomercials LIVE!
* Playing spin the bottle with Janet Reno and Helen Thomas.

The scumbags will beg for water-boarding.  Errrr -- baptism.

Click the photo for the story ....

Have a safe and secure weekend.

This is a   of our Congressional leaders who voted NO or were absent in today's Terrorist  Rights Bill (a.k.a., Detainee Bill) vote.  They are Republicans, Democrats and Independents.  There will likely be more readable lists online soon, but regardless of the format -- all nay-sayers on these lists should be remembered.  Especially at the ballot box.  

I don't know or care WHAT excuse these legislators gave for voting against this bill, but ANYONE who puts barbaric terrorists' rights above the ability of our nation to collect data from detained combatants ---- from ruthless barbarians -- under the guise of "morality" is not someone I want representing me or my nation. 

Not that what I think makes much difference -- but those two-faced, hypocritical BDS-ed, blame-Bush, tunnel-visioned, self-centered, political hacks who purport that American's should demonstrate "morality" while these Islamic-extremist idiots savagely dismember and decapitate our soldiers and attack citizens OR who place politics above common sense OR who suggest "turning the other cheek" to some lunatic who is hell-bent on killing anyone who is not of THEIR deprived misguided, hateful fanaticism -- are most welcome to invite detainees to their homes for a weekend furlough.   Maybe they can demonstrate "acceptable" types of interrogation in the comfort of their own homes. 

I'm angry.  I'm disgusted.  And here's why:

House Naysayers:  AbercrombieNo AckermanNo AllenNo BacaNo  BairdNo BaldwinNo  Bartlett (MD)No  BecerraNo BerkleyNo BermanNo BerryNo Bishop (NY)No  BlumenauerNo  BoucherNo Brady (PA)No  Brown, CorrineNo  ButterfieldNo  CappsNo CapuanoNo CardinNo CardozaNo CarnahanNo CarsonNo  CaseNo CastleNot Voting ClayNo CleaverNot Voting ClyburnNo ConyersNo CooperNo CostaNo CostelloNo CrowleyNo  CummingsNo Davis (CA)No Davis (FL)Not Voting Davis (IL)No  Davis, TomNot Voting DeFazioNo DeGetteNo DelahuntNo DeLauroNo  DicksNo DingellNo DoggettNo DoyleNo EmanuelNo EngelNo  EshooNo  EvansNo FarrNo FattahNo FilnerNo Frank (MA)No GilchrestNo GonzalezNo Green, AlNo  Green, GeneNo GrijalvaNo GutierrezNo   HarmanNo Hastings (FL)No HincheyNo HinojosaNo  HoltNo HondaNo HooleyNo  HoyerNo InsleeNo IsraelNo  Jackson (IL)No Jackson-Lee (TX)Not Voting JeffersonNo Johnson, E. B.No Jones (NC)No Jones (OH)No KanjorskiNo KapturNo KellerNot Voting  Kennedy (RI)No KildeeNo Kilpatrick (MI)No KindNo  KucinichNo LangevinNo LantosNo Larsen (WA)No Larson (CT)No LaTouretteNo LeachNo LeeNo LevinNo Lewis (GA)Not Voting LipinskiNo Lofgren, ZoeNo LoweyNo  LynchNo MaloneyNo   MarkeyNo MatsuiNo McCarthyNo McCollum (MN)No McDermottNo McGovernNo McKinneyNo McMorris McNultyNo MeehanNot Voting Meek (FL)No Meeks (NY)No Millender-McDonaldNot Voting  Miller (MI)Aye Miller (NC)No Miller, GeorgeNo MollohanNo Moore (WI)No Moran (KS)No Moran (VA)No  MurthaNo NadlerNo NapolitanoNo Neal (MA)No NeyNot Voting OberstarNo ObeyNo OlverNo OrtizNo  OwensNo  PalloneNo PascrellNo PastorNo PaulNo PayneNo  PelosiNo Price (NC)No RadanovichNot Voting RahallNo RangelNo  ReyesNo   RothmanNo Roybal-AllardNo  RuppersbergerNo RushNo Ryan (OH)No  Sánchez, Linda T.No Sanchez, LorettaNo SandersNo  SchakowskyNo SchiffNo  Schwartz (PA)No Scott (VA)No  SerranoNo  ShermanNo  SkeltonNo SlaughterNo Smith (WA)No SnyderNo  SolisNo StarkNo StricklandNot Voting StupakNo TauscherNo Thompson (CA)No Thompson (MS)No TierneyNo TownsNo Udall (CO)No Udall (NM)No Van HollenNo VelázquezNo ViscloskyNo Wasserman SchultzNo WatersNo WatsonNo WattNo WaxmanNo WeinerNo WexlerNo  WoolseyNo WuNo WynnNo

Senate Naysayers:
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)

not voting:  Snowe (R-ME)

  Mainstream media most likely won't be highlighting what may be one of the most  articulate and passionate responses delivered by a visiting dignitary during a White House press conference. 

AP reporter (and identified democrat operative/spouse of a Clinton adviser, etc.) Jennifer Loven asked President Bush and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai two loaded questions. 

Their responses are best assessed, not by words, but by delivery .....  A link to a video is at the bottom of this post.

Loven:  Thank you, sir.

Even after hearing that one of the major conclusions of the national intelligence estimate in April was that the Iraq war has fueled terror growth around the world, why have you continued to say that the Iraq war has made this country safer?

And to President Karzai, if I might: What do you think of President Musharraf's comments, that you need to get to know your own country better when you're talking about where terror threats and the Taliban threat is coming from?

Bush:  .... John Negroponte, the DNI, is going to declassify the document [NIE] as quickly as possible -- declassify the key judgments for you to read yourself.  I want you to read the document so you don't speculate about what it says.

You asked me a question based upon what you thought was in the document -- or at least somebody told you was in the document. And so I think you'll be able to ask a more profound question when you get to look at it yourself...

(LAUGHTER)

... as opposed to relying upon gossip and somebody, you know, who may or may not have seen the document trying to classify the war in Iraq one way or the other.

KARZAI: Ma'am, before I go to the remarks by my brother, President Musharraf, terrorism was hurting us way before Iraq or September 11. The president mentioned some examples of it.

These extremist forces were killing people in Afghanistan and around for years, closing schools, burning mosques, killing children, uprooting vineyards with vine trees, grapes hanging on them, forcing populations to poverty and misery.

They came to America on September 11, but they were attacking you before September 11 in other parts of the world.

We are a witness in Afghanistan as to what they are and how they can hurt. You are a witness in New York.

Do you forget people jumping off the 80th floor or 70th floor when the planes hit them? Can you imagine what it will be for a man or a woman to jump off that high?

Who did that? And where are they now? And how do we fight them, how do we get rid of them, other than going after them? Should we wait for them to come and kill us again?

That's why we need more action around the world, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to get them defeated. Extremism, their allies, terrorists and the likes of them.

On the remarks of my brother, President Musharraf, Afghanistan is a country that is emerging out of so many years of war and destruction and occupation by terrorism and misery that they brought to us.

We lost almost two generations to the lack of education. And those who were educated before that are now older.

We know our problems. We have difficulties. But Afghanistan also knows where the problem is, in extremism, in madrassas preaching hatred, places by the name of madrassas preaching hatred. That's what we should do together, to stop.

The United States, as an ally, is helping both countries. And I think it is very important that we have more dedication and more intense work, with sincerity, all of us, to get rid of the problems that we have around the world.

 HOTAIR has the video.  It's a must-see.

Too bad the camera was not on Loven's face when Karzai spoke directly to her. 

Yeah, I'm referring to Chavez and the Alphabet Man from Iran.  I'm also referring to those who cower from engaging in a dialogue on religion and religious nuances -- a dialogue among and between followers of all faiths (especially Islamic and Christian) -- a dialogue that may well contain the keys to our survival.

A must read:  Realities of Religion by Michael Ledeen.  Here are two excerpts:

It’s a big question, not easily reduced to newspeak like “did the pope anticipate the reaction?” Or “did the pope go too far?” That sort of banter is embarrassingly silly. Of course the pope anticipated the reaction, he’s one of the smartest and most learned men in the world, and he’s spent a lot of time studying Islam. He wanted to draw a line. He is not prepared to extend total, blind toleration to people who use violence in the name of faith, and he’s challenging the Muslims to answer the real questions. That quotation he chose — the one that asks, Is there anything positive that has emerged from the expansion of the domain of Islam? — wasn’t generated at random. He picked it quite wittingly. Of course he knows that, for several centuries, Islam conserved the wisdom of the West, the same “Greek” wisdom he invoked as the indispensable partner of Christian faith. He’s defying the Muslims to admit that, because he knows that the jihadis don’t want to hear about it, and that an open debate about it may undermine the sway of so many dogmatic mosques, schools, TV stations, and Internet sites.

and

Ignorance of things religious is terribly damaging for other reasons as well, not least of all because it prevents us from understanding the nature of our most dangerous enemies. Michael Rubin wrote a fine piece in the Wall Street Journal the other day, listing some of the lies produced by the Islamic Republic of Iran, and noting that there was actually a provision in sharia that made such lying to infidels completely acceptable and on occasion admirable. Yet the Europeans, who preen themselves on their cultural superiority, continue to be gulled by the Iranians, and W. has now completely swallowed the notion that if the Iranians ignore one ultimatum, we must not act, but simply set a new deadline. Down this path lies ruin. Yet the self-proclaimed “realists” always color themselves “surprised” when the Iranians do it.

Read the full article by clicking the link above.

Then read Michael Rubin's full article, excerpt below:

Iranian lying should not surprise; what should is how often Western governments fall prey to it. The British government demanded that Tehran lift the bounty on Mr. Rushdie's head as a precondition to re-establish relations. On Sept. 24, 1998, the Iranian government said it would do nothing to harm Mr. Rushdie. No sooner had London and Tehran exchanged ambassadors, than Iranian authorities once again reversed themselves.

For U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the cost of Iranian lying is high. While Iranian diplomats pledged not to destabilize Afghanistan and, indeed, cooperate in its reconstruction, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps sent in operatives disguised as school teachers to further instability. As Afghan President Hamid Karzai struggled to wrest control away from warlords, Afghan commanders intercepted a dozen Iranian agents and proxies organizing armed resistance.

In Iraq, too, Iranian diplomacy has been duplicitous. Prior to the Iraq war, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi and U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Javad Zarif, pledged Iranian noninterference to British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and Zalmay Khalilzad, then President George W. Bush's envoy to the free Iraqis. But, Iranian journalists now describe how, days after Saddam's fall, the Iranian leadership dispatched 2,000 Revolutionary Guards replete with radio transmitters, money, and supplies. On Nov. 18, 2003, Mr. Kharrazi again pledged good behavior. He lied outright; his promise coincided with a new deployment of Iranian intelligence across Iraq.

I'd make at least one change in Nora Ephron's observations on Bill Clinton's meltdown on Fox News Sunday night:  

Bill Clinton has ALWAYS been about Bill Clinton.

I'm surprised Ephron would dare criticize Bill Clinton, however ....

What surprised me most about the Clinton meltdown yesterday was that no one told him to pull up his socks. This is a man who never goes anywhere without staff, lots of staff. Was there no one there to see that his pants were hiked up too high and his socks were pulled down too low and the flesh on his legs was showing?

Can no one say things like this to the former POTUS?

So Bill Clinton was sandbagged by Chris Wallace. By Chris Wallace? And he lost it. And he wasted a television appearance - when he could have been talking about taking back Congress - talking about (no surprise) Bill Clinton. Poor Bill Clinton. The victim of Fox News, the media arm of the right-wing conspiracy. The man who went after Bin Laden and was accused of wagging the dog. "I tried," he said. I tried? How lame is that? I haven't been able to listen to that since the sixties, when Werner Erhard, of all people, became famous for demolishing that excuse. When people said "I tried" to Werner Erhard, he would put a glass on a table and say to them, "Try to pick that up."

How does it happen? How does one of the smartest men ever elected president end up sandbagged by Chris Wallace? Is this what one docudrama does to the guy? I don't think so. I'm afraid this is classic Clinton, Clinton the monologist, Clinton the guy who used to keep his White House houseguests up until 4 a.m. while he went on and on about what the press was doing to him. What a waste. On top of which: Clinton calls George Bush "43"? Is he so confused about his role in the Bush family constellation that he has adopted their nicknames for one another?

Clinton should simply have answered Wallace's question. He should have said that he went after Bin Laden and that if Al Gore had been elected (which he was) we probably would have killed him and 9/11 would never have happened. And then Clinton should have moved on to his real subject, which is not rescuing his legacy from his self-inflicted wounds, but helping elect a Democratic Congress in 2006. In fairness, he finally got the conversation around to that subject in the final minutes of his interview with Wallace.

But until then, it was only about Bill.

Come on, guy. Pull up your socks.

Yeah.  What Ephron said.   Except for the part about Al Gore winning the election and what Gore would have done about Bin Laden ....