DailyKos Hurts Dems’ By Running Soldier-Hating Column

It’s interesting that the DailyKos, a Democratic blog, wants to see its favorite party win the presidential elections and yet it hurts the party’s chances by allowing a hate-filled column about American troops on its Web site.

A. Whitney Brown, a writer and humorist, called our brave troops in Iraq “morally retarded” for killing the insurgents and terrorists. And no, it wasn’t some sick joke, he actually meant it. And why the DailyKos decided to kill the Democrats chances by publishing this column, no one knows.

Not only doesn’t Brown like our troops, but he called them insane for deciding to join the military and be allowed to be ordered to kill.

Interesting that nowhere in Brown’s column does he mention the insurgents or terrorists in Iraq who joined up for a nice little jihad to kill not only our troops but also innocent men, women and children.

And the former Saturday Night Live commentator doesn’t seem to realize that with every captured or dead al-Qaeda member means there is less chance that person will come to America and try to kill hundreds of people with a dirty bomb. Nor does he seem to care.

It’s pretty disgusting to have people like Brown calling brave soldiers insane retards for doing what needs to be done: Kill the enemy before they get a chance to kill innocent lives.

As George C. Scott said in his role in “Patton”: “Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.” Maybe a trip to Blockbuster is in order to refresh Brown’s memory of the purpose of an army.

But what’s really striking is that the DailyKos allowed this repugnant piece of trash to be published on its blog, while next week it invited presidential candidates to speak at the YearlyKos, a convention held in Chicago.

The Democrats are having a hard time right now, dancing to the tune of “We support our troops but it’s time to pullout.” But Hillary Clinton is going to be a speaker at this forum. She not only voted for the war in Iraq but now she wants to start pulling the troops out. Does she really want to associate herself with a group that supports the obnoxious statements that Brown wrote?

Listen, it is one thing to have a blog like the DailyKos, where posters write in and say all sorts of stuff against President Bush. That’s to be expected and to be fair, there are conservative blogs that do the same thing against Democratic leaders.

But to actually post a column that severely bashes our troops who are dying in Iraq? These are the same young men and women who are trying to lessen the terror threat by killing or capturing as many blood-thirsty terrorists as possible, as well as foiling deadly plots. To call them mentally unstable is way over the top and it should leave a bad taste in anyone’s mouth.

The DailyKos claims that its purpose is to have a Democrat win the White House in 2008. And there is nothing wrong with that. But maybe they should listen to some of the political advisors that will be attending the YearlyKos.

Because publishing a rant, hate-filled column is going to brutally hurt the chances of any Democrat who wants to win the White House.

Bush Creating ‘Islamophobia’?

According to Parvez Ahmed, who spoke to CAIR symposium at the National Press Club, the Bush Administration is creating a fear against of Islam and terrorism is too small to even bother with.

“Terrorism is a tactic. You cannot eradicate it by declaring a war against it. The war on terror is causing us infinitely more harm than the terrorists could have ever imagined,” said Ahmed, a chairman of the national board of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), as reported in The Washington Times yesterday.

President Bush and his group are creating fear of Islam? It appears that Ahmed is giving too much credit to Bush and taking away credit from the terrorists who have killed nearly 3,000 Americans on that fateful day.

Ahmed would have far more credibility if he actually criticized the number of people locked up for plotting terror attacks, such as Assem Hammoud. In July of 2006, law enforcement officials said that Hammoud was allegedly plotting to blow up the New York City train tunnels to flood the financial district.

Or maybe Ahmed should have blamed the six radical Islamists for spreading fear of his religion for their alleged plan to attack Fort Dix.

Better yet, maybe the chairman would like to speak with Narseal Batiste, who law enforcement officials claimed that he was allegedly creating an Islamic army to blow up the Sears Tower, the Empire State Building and a number of other buildings.

Hopefully, many have noticed that these plots and others have been foiled by what Ahmed so wisely stated as the president’s useless fight against terrorists.

Ahmed told his audience that it was important to keep in mind “that terrorists cannot destroy America.” But it’s not because of their lack of trying.

When a terrorist group of Islamic extremists have numerously called for a jihad against America and other countries and are actively plotting to kill as many innocent people as possible, that is not fear created by President Bush but the horrific reality of the enemy we are facing.

How Gang Silence Prevents Justice

Karl Ross wanted to have a taco before a jam session at his home. Instead, the young man, who was studying auto mechanics at Riverside City College, in Riverside, Calif., was shot dead by a 12-gauge shotgun. His mother, Marilyn Holley-Ross, called to him as his lifeless body lay on the street.

The Press-Enterprise, a daily newspaper in Riverside, recently did a great feature on gang violence that threatens the area and the surrounding towns.

The feature article focuses on battling gangs, many coming from Los Angeles, as well as combative measures by police and anti-gang programs, which teach troubled youths that there are alternative ways of making something of themselves without succumbing to the dangers associated with gangs.

The feature also highlights the tools that have benefited the street gangs, especially the G-Code, a code of silence that many residents and gang members live by. Those who live by the G-Code, either known as gangster or ghetto code, refuse to report crimes or knowledge of criminal activity to the police. It is because of this code that prevented Marilyn Holley-Ross from discovering her son’s killer, despite a reward of $15,000 for the capture and conviction of the person responsible.

It’s understandable why people are silent about reporting murders and other gang activities. By keeping quiet and turning a blind eye to the increasing problem, they are ensuring the safety of their loved ones and themselves.

But it also denies people who have lost family or friends, like Ms. Holley-Ross, the justice and peace of mind they seek. Being deprived of that knowledge creates a torturous nightmare of never knowing why a son, brother or father died; an unknowing nightmare that can be taken to the grave.

Denying anyone of that type of information is cruel, but there are ways around the code of silence without endangering the safety of loved ones. Most police departments’ Web sites have an anonymous tip section where crimes can be reported. The one at the Riverside Police Department is a good example of this. If your local police department does not have this feature, you can easily create a new Yahoo account under a false name.

An anonymous message, either by e-mail, letter or voice mail, should have information about the crime, such as the time, date, location and who was there and what happened. With that amount of information, there should be enough for an investigation, and hopefully, justice will be done.

If someone showed that type of courage to report what they knew about Karl Ross’ murder, then maybe his mother would have known the truth and found some type of peace before she died last month.

Running Of The Idiots

As you probably have heard, two American brothers participated in Spain’s “Running Of The Bulls” and got gored.

Now, I’ll admit, my brother and me did a lot of stupid things together. If I remember correctly, I cracked his front tooth with a baseball and he almost broke my neck when we went down our driveway in our metal wagon and it flipped over.

However, we were kids. When your young, you do a lot of stupid things that seemed perfectly safe at the time, like when we thought we could follow deer tracks like pioneers but ended up lost in the woods for five hours.

But these two genius, Lawrence Lenahan, 26, of Hermosa Beach, Calif., and his brother, Michael Lenahan, 23, of Philadelphia, Pa., didn’t think that being chased by six 1,300-pound bulls and six steers would result in any injuries. Michael Lenahan had his skin pierced by a bull’s horn, while his brother, Lawrence, had a bull's horn slice through his left cheek, the one that he uses to sit down on.

Sure, we can chalk it up to youth. After all, they are in their 20’s. However, like misery, stupidity likes company. The ages of the other runners who were also gored are between 23 to 50. Unless the 50-year-old had a big red S on his shirt, he should have had the intelligence to realize his not young or fast any more.

With age comes wisdom, usually. When I was a kid, I jumped off the sixth step of a flight of stairs in my house, thinking nothing of it. Now, I won’t even consider jumping off the first step, fearing that I may slip and break something. So, being chased by a few 1,300-pound bulls really wouldn’t cross my mind. Sure, I would fantasize it and who wouldn’t? I can see the appeal of it. But that’s where it ends.

Because the reality is my once firm, big muscles are now really strong flab. My brother’s curse that I would get fat from eating ice cream before bed while at college is firmly in place and prevents me from running away from a butterfly much less a more than half-ton beast of pure anger and two very sharp horns on its head.

Of course, if I were in my former body, my brother and I would still have enough sense not to be chased by something that should really be on my BBQ grill but that’s just me.

Why Sheehan’s Impeachment Call Won’t Happen

Nancy Pelosi is about to discover that Republicans aren’t as dangerous as an angry mother. Cindy Sheehan has made a simple challenge to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives: If you don’t introduce the articles of impeachment against President Bush within the next two weeks, you’ll have a fight on your hands come election time.

Sheehan, the champion of peace protesters, said she’s disgusted with the Democrats who haven’t impeached the president for a number of reasons. But let’s just focus on the one major allegation Sheehan and others have made against President Bush: That he misled the public for going into war with Iraq.

Now, if Sheehan really believes Pelosi is going to impeach the president over that, then she has another thing coming. Pelosi has already stated in the past that impeachment won’t be on the table. Why? Because in all fairness, Pelosi would also have to impeach her fellow Democrats who voted in favor of giving the president the power to use military force.

It’s something that Sheehan and many critics of the president fail to realize: The Democrats read the same information as the president had when they decided on how to vote. Information that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction came from our own intelligence service, including other nations. And let’s not forget that even the U.N. concluded that Iraq lied about its amount of WMD and how it couldn’t account for its missing stockpiles.

These Democrats came to the same conclusions as the president. And, of course, many of them at that time are quoted as saying how dangerous Saddam Hussein was and that he must be stopped.

So that is why Pelosi won’t try to impeach the president, because she would have to point an accusatory finger at her colleagues and that will not do, especially when some of the most popular Democrats are running for the presidency. And even if Pelosi was foolish enough to do that, it would be a gift-wrapped invitation to Republicans, conservatives and columnists like me to attack her and her party. And why ask for a headache like that?

But it seems unlikely that Pelosi will do that. Her only hope is that some other news item will be big enough to divert attention to that and not her problem. With any luck, Sheehan will become background noise.

And if Sheehan really does decide to run against Pelosi, she doesn’t have any experience in office. The only way she will win Pelosi’s title is by popularity alone, which should make the congresswoman from San Francisco quake in her shoes just a bit. Sheehan has the type of following and support that would make any politician’s mouth water. Sheehan may present a real threat to Pelosi if she runs as an Independent.

The question is what will Pelosi do since the gauntlet has been thrown? It’s a tough call. While I don’t agree with Pelosi on a number of things, I don’t think she’s a stupid person. A good politician views any opponent as a potential threat and Sheehan isn’t just some “weekend protestor” either. She protested next to the president’s Crawford ranch for nearly four weeks straight before going to the White House to protest some more.

And Sheehan isn’t just some opponent that Pelosi can start doing character attacks on either. It would be political suicide to trash the mother of Casey Sheehan, who died in the Iraq war in 2004.

The only thing Pelosi can hope for is that the voters will realize that she does have experience in office, something that Sheehan doesn’t.

But maybe that’s what the voters would rather have: Someone fresh who is ready to take a stand. Sheehan said people voted for the Democrats to end the war in Iraq but they haven’t done it. She said they caved into the president. Whether or not you believe any of that, it really does say something when a peace protester and a huge Bush critic basically calls Democrats a bunch of cowards.

And Pelosi thought she had to worry about conservative Republicans.

Hypocrisy Over Libby's Commute

President Bush has used his powers to commute the sentence of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby but has no power to commute the hypocrisy of Democratic presidential candidates.

“Today’s decision is yet another example that this administration simply considers itself above the law,” said Hillary Clinton of the president’s action.

“Above the law?” The New York senator and former First Lady seems to forget that her husband didn’t commute but pardoned those with far more serious charges. But let’s keep that list short? We have:

First there is Marc Rich. We all remember him. He’s former President Bill Clinton’s friend, who was not only a fugitive but was found guilty of evading more than $48 million in taxes. And let’s not forget that he was involved with the oil-for-food scandal between the U.N. and former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, plus dealings with Iran.

Of course, Bill Clinton pardoned him. Interestingly enough, Rich’s ex-wife, Denise, gave a nice donation to a certain, current Democratic presidential candidate when she was running for senator in New York.

Interesting to note that both Rich and Libby share an almost eerie fate: Libby was Rich’s lawyer from 1985 to 2000. Makes one wonder what Hillary Clinton thought of Libby at that time.

And then we have Susan McDougal. She’s another person that former President Bill Clinton pardoned. He pardoned her for her involvement in the infamous Whitewater scandal. Susan McDougal and her husband, James McDougal, never paid a $300,000 federally backed loan.

Sadly, Hillary Clinton does not allow bothersome facts like that get in the way of slamming the president.

But getting back to Libby, he never disclosed the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity to reporters but he was found guilty of deceiving investigators and a grand jury during the investigation. Should he have served the 2 ½-prison sentence? Yes. But at this time, President Bush did not erase the $250,000 fine or the two years probation, making Libby the first highest-ranking White House official convicted of a crime in this century.

The real question is this: Was justice done for Plame?

The simple answer is no, justice was not done. No one has been convicted of leaking Plame’s identity, although there are a number of good guesses flying around as to who did. No one should escape justice for leaking a former CIA operative’s identity and placing Plame and those who secretly serve and protect our country in mortal danger.