Anbar Government Dedicates Success to 9-11

President Bush made an unannounced visit to Anbar Province on Labor Day. We all heard about that. The visit and his remarks were analyzed in depth. His intentions and message were either hailed or criticized - depending on from what quarter the critique was coming.

Amidst all that hullabaloo, something happened that you likely didn't hear about. The Anbar Province Government presented a letter to President Bush.

RAMADI, Iraq - When members of the government of Anbar Province met with President Bush last week, they presented him with a letter dedicating their success in wiping out Al Qaeda here to the victims of Sept. 11

The letter, which was obtained by the Daily News, was signed by Anbar Governor Mamoun Sami Rashid, Provincial Council Chairman Abdul-Salam Abdullah, and Sheik Sattar abu Risha, the sheik credited with beginning the Anbar Awakening.

"In the month when the terrorists attacked the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, we dedicate the victory of Anbar Province to the families of the victims who suffred that criminal act," the letter said, which was addressed directly to Bush.

"With the help of the president of the United States, we pledge to continue to cooperate and communicate with you to continue to get good results," the letter said.

Yes gentle reader. From the Anbar Province Government to George Bush, dedicate to the victims of 9-11.

The above quoted article was in the New York Daily News on Monday, September 10, 2007. A quick search indicates this seems to be the only place it's appeared in the media, but has been posted on a few blogs.

Today, the Anbar Awakening leader, Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, was assassinated. Obviously his sin was working with MNF-Iraq and against al Qaeda.

[T]en days later, and a year after the young clan leader first rallied other Sunni tribes to challenge the terror movement, Abu Risha was assassinated Thursday.

American and Iraqi officials hoped the slaying would not stall the campaign to drive al-Qaida from the vast province spreading west of Baghdad and reconcile Sunnis with the Shiite-led national government.

[...]

All I want to know is why the letter from the Anbar Province Government isn't news. If the American people knew about that, how would they feel about our mission in Iraq?

h/t: Mark Levin Show

Ron Paul Radio with John Ziegler

Ron Paul did appear live, in studio, with KFI's John Ziegler Tuesday night.

Audio of the interview, about thirty minutes.

Below are my impressions of the interview. There is no transcript and I'm not going to go through the thirty minute clip several times to get exact questions and quotes. If you disagree with what my opinions and impressions are of the exchange, then click on the audio link and listen for yourself.

Ziegler bills himself as more libertarian than any other political leaning, but more cynical than anything. Despite his common ground with Paul's libertarian beliefs, the exchange sometimes turned testy and contentious.

Zig and Paul have differing opinions and viewpoints on the Iraq War and much of the interview was spent on that subject. One thing that Paul always brings up about Iraq is that it's un-Constitutional, because Congress didn't declare war. Yet, during the same interview Paul said he voted for the Afghanistan War. But that's not a declaration of war either. Much the same means and language have been used for both both military actions.

Most of the time I think Paul is just bent out of shape because it doesn't say United States Declares War on ________ at the top of the legislation.

Paul wouldn't even consider that the war in Iraq is simply the resumption of hostilities due to Iraq's breach of the Desert Storm cease fire agreement.

Ziegler turned the exchange to 9-11, as would be apt for the date, and especially Paul's views on the cause. Zig pointedly asked Paul if he was in the same camp as the 9-11 troofers. Paul adamantly denied that, saying he's not in the LIHOP/MIHOP* extreme. However, he does think we don't know the whole truth about 9-11, how we got there and what actually happened. Paul is not satisfied with the findings of the 9-11 Commission, nor, apparently, any other results of any investigations. However, sounds like he is of the belief we brought it upon ourselves - we deserved it.

I don't know how Paul thinks he's going to find a totally impartial, truth at any cost, body of people to find the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this day and age. Good luck on that.

In summation, Ron Paul has some good things to say and certainly has some valid points on the size and function and role of government. What he doesn't address is how he would be able to accomplish anything as President. If elected, even as a Republican, he would have no natural caucus in Congress. He might be able to cobble together a few from each side and get some legislation passed - but not very often. He could veto a lot of bills, which I predict would get overridden quite often.

As Ziegler pointed out to Paul during the interview it's not practical to make decisions today on what you should or should not have done in the past, but based on where you are today. I feel like Ron Paul would want to roll back our government to 1800. That's just not practical. Even if he's absolutely, 100% right, it's not practical - nor doable.

I was, have been, disappointed that no one has asked Paul about his invoking international law in one of his answers during the FOX debate in New Hampshire. I want to know how that squares with Paul's Constitution.

There's common ground I could find with some of Ron Paul's positions, just not as President. I simply cannot buy into Ron Paul's vision of foreign policy, especially not at this point in history. It's so one hundred years ago.

*Let it happen on purpose/Made it happen on purpose

Ron Paul on KFI - Should be Good Radio

Ron Paul is scheduled for an on air interview tomorrow, Tuesday, September 11, 2007, with John Ziegler of KFI AM 640 (listen to streaming audio here). The interview is set for the seven o'clock hour (Pacific).

If Ron Paul makes the appearance, it should be a good time. John Ziegler is an excellent interviewer and won't pull any punches with Paul. Zig will go right at Ron Paul on his 9-11 troofer positions. There could be fireworks - or at least we can hope.

A year or two ago, Mary Mapes appeared on John Ziegler's show after she released her book about the TANG Memos. It was obvious Mapes and her publicist did not do their research on Zig. He sucked her right in and it was almost the end of the segment before she caught on that he was not sympathetic to her position.

Bob Novak on the Mark Levin Radio Show

Thursday night, August 9, 2007, political columnist Robert Novak was a guest on the Mark Levin Show. Novak has recently released a book, The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington, that Levin and Novak discussed.

Novak went to Washington, D.C. as a political reporter during the last years of the Eisenhower Administration and he has some fascinating insights and stories and opinions.

There is no transcript of the interview, so I listened to the audio clips of the segments a few times and jotted down some of the things I found most interesting. Mind you, these are not word for word answers or all the answers by Novak, nor do they represent exactly the questions Levin asked. All of it is just the best I could do as I listened.

If you're interested in listening to the audio of the interview, here is the link to the page with the audio. The Novak segment starts at about the 55 minute mark and lasts about twelve minutes. On the QuickTime player, it's at about 75-80% through the clip. Look for the clips from 8/9/2007.

Mark lead off with the obvious question. What about Wilson-Plame?

Novak has never met them face to face, has never talked to Valerie Plame. Talked to Joe Wilson on the phone prior to first column. Joe Wilson never asked Novak not to mention Valerie's name. Wilson wanted Novak to know that he was no dove or peacenik; that he was very anti-Saddam, but thought he (Wilson) was just more prudent. Wanted Novak to know that Novak's former partner, Evans, had written glowingly about his time as Charge d' affaires to Baghdad Embassy in the days after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

After the column came out, Joe Wilson called Novak, complained that he thought Novak had said he had a CIA official source for Valerie's name. Novak says he was very explicit that it was an administration source (Armitage), and had a confirmation from a CIA spokesman. Novak says both the phone conversations were cordial and the ranting and raving that Wilson did in public at Novak was a show, because it didn't happen during the phone calls.

After that, Levin asked Novak for his observations on Patrick Fitzgerald.

Novak said he was scared while he was being interviewed during the investigation. Explained that special prosecutors have a lot of power and he didn't want to say something that would get him in trouble. Novak said he didn't want to make the mistakes Libby wound up making. After the fact, as he looked back, in retrospect, said Fitzgerald had special prosecutor's disease - just can't leave it alone. Said Fitzgerald knew from the beginning that Armitage was the source of the information, all he had to do was decide if a law had been broken, which no law broken is the conclusion he obviously arrived at. Yet Fitzgerald kept the investigation going, for whatever reason.

Levin next addressed Novak's feelings about Robert F. Kennedy.

Novak had an almost instant dislike of RFK. Thought JFK picking his brother as Attorney General was a bad idea. Thought RFK was very hard on civil liberties. Said RFK was ruthless, just like his father, Joe Kennedy. Added that he was never convinced Bobby was a compassionate liberal that he campaigned as during his run for president.

Then Levin asked Novak who he thinks has been the worst President during his time in D.C.

Unhesitatingly, replied Jimmy Carter. Said he was a liar; lied to the public, lied to him (Novak). Said he has a devastating analysis in his book of Carter by one of Carter's Treasury Secretaries, Michael Blumenthal. Carter was a poor party leader. Party hated him, from Tip O'Neil on the left to Patrick Moynihan on the right. Novak said everything Carter did was a failure.

Next up, Levin asked Novak who his best source was. (This is a bit out of order because it winds up relating to Carter)

Man named John Carville, (ed.- not sure of the spelling) an aide to Jesse Helms. Had secret group called The Madison Group, a group of right wing plodders (as Novak described them). Leaked documents to Novak. Once gave Novak top secret plans from the Pentagon. They documented plans to concede 1/3 of Germany to the Soviets and Seoul to the North Koreans in the event of attacks. [ed. - Levin interjected here that he wanted to make sure the audience understood what Novak was saying, that Carter was prepared to give up on these countries in the event of attacks.] Novak believes that the publishing of those plans forced Carter to back away from those positions.

A bit of disclosure here. I loathe Carter. I strongly dislike Bill Clinton and think he was a lousy President, for a number of reasons. But I absolutely, with all my body and mind, loathe and despise Jimmy Carter. He's a four year black mark on the history of the United States. He's the stain you can't get off a white sweater. He's, well, I think you get the idea by now - I just can't stand the guy.

Last, Levin asked Novak who was his favorite President. Note, he asked favorite, not who Novak thought was best. Novak clarified that he was only talking about President's he'd known since he was in Washington.

Reagan, without a doubt. Said Reagan was a leader, not a manager. All he wanted to do when he was elected President was restore the economy, win the Cold War and revive the morale of the American people - and he did all three. Only President in Novak's time he gives a passing grade to, but said he's a very tough grader.

A very interesting interview and I think worth the twelve minutes to listen to the audio clips.

Dick Cheney - Good Guy

Hugh Hewitt interviewed Stephen Hayes, the author of Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President, on his radio show Wednesday. The interview was fascinating as Hayes related some of the experiences he had while interviewing Cheney and President Bush as he worked on the book. It sounds like a good book and I've added it to my ever growing reading list.

From Hugh's blog: Cheney

[...] The next president has got to chose a vice president as skilled as Cheney and a team as experienced as that which was around President Bush after 9/11 if only because the scale of the responsibility is so great and the need for clear thinking so profound. The people diseased with BDS will never get this, but the country is extraordinarily blessed to have had President Bush and Vice President Cheney and their senior aides during these first few years of a very long war. Reading Hayes' book drives that point home again and again.

Read the whole transcript of the interview here.

Listen to audio of the interview Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 (each clip app. 34 minutes).

Hayes likes Cheney.

HH: [...] So back to the thirty hours, do you like the guy?

SH: Yeah, I do like the guy. You know, he gets a bad rap, and to be candid, I think he deserves some of the blame for that, because he doesn’t put himself out ever. You know, he doesn’t do this kind of thing. But I think if people had the opportunity to sit down with him and sit across from him, or listen to him more in long interview formats, which is what he prefers, I think it’s hard not to like the guy. And not just me, now it’s important to say this, Lee Hamilton, you know, Democratic representative from Indiana, former Democratic representative from Indiana, I said to him what explains Dick Cheney’s Darth Vadar image? Because as you know, if you look at the body of political coverage of Dick Cheney, from the time he came to Washington until he was chosen as vice president, it’s so overwhelmingly positive, it’s almost embarrassing for the Washington Press Corps.

Hayes interviewed the President for the Cheney book. Despite the reporting from time to time how Bush has shunned the VeePee and there's a chill between the two, etc., apparently the President likes Cheney and respects his input and counsel.

HH: This is extraordinarily well reported. You met with the President in December of ’06. Did you just have the one conversation with Bush?



SH: We ended up having two, actually.



HH: About Cheney, and did he warm to that subject? Was he eager to set the record straight about Dick Cheney?



SH: I think he was. I mean, he was, you know, as I was with my time with Cheney, I found Bush to be remarkably candid in these sessions. I mean, things that I didn’t expect, the first interview, the second question I asked, I just asked sort of a general, sort of a warm-up question. What can you tell us, the American public, that we don’t know that would surprise us about Dick Cheney? And the President launched into sort of the tension in his relationship with the Vice President, because the President favored a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and the Vice President didn’t.



[...]


HH: When Cheney goes fishing with Bush, and this is from Page 497, with Bush in the President’s stocked pond on his ranch in Crawford, Cheney stands up. “We float out there, and he’s firing a fly at these large mouth bass,” says Bush. “We’re chucking bubba bait, and he’s fly fishing.” They sound like they’ve become pretty good friends, not just trusted advisor, but like Gore and Clinton were not friends.



SH: No, right, exactly. Well, there’s none of that rivalry, I mean, because Cheney’s not going to run. But they also joke with each other quite a bit, and there’s a great story, I think it’s a great story, from when I interviewed Bush in the Oval Office

Hugh and Hayes both think Cheney and Bush should do more long format interviews - something neither one does very often. Hugh talks about how neither are great orators but both are great conversationalists.

HH: This is my frustration, and you probably see this coming, I’ve also interviewed the Vice President. I’m a big, big fan…I worked for Lynne back when she was at NEH, and so I’ve just admired the family for a very long time. He’s so tremendously persuasive, as is the President. But they’ve got to get into these long form interviews. They’re not great orators. They’re tremendous conversationalists. But then they don’t do it.

SH: Right.

I have my suspicions on why neither do a lot of long format interviews. Part of it is because American's have too short of an attention span to llisten to the whole thing to get the full context of what was said, and the driveby media will take a snippet of the conversation and report it dishonestly, taking it out of context to snipe or make a point.

Witness what we have as the main reason for going into Iraq - WMD and mushroom clouds. Of all the speeches, of all the briefings, of all the talking Bush and Cheney and everyone else did leading up to the war as reasons to go to war with Iraq, the only thing most Americans remember and that the media and dishonest democrat politicians now spout is WMD and mushroom clouds. Why is that all that most Americans remember? Because it's what the sound bite media continuously repeats.

Essentially, if doesn't matter what either of them say, the driveby media is going to make them say what it wants them to have said.

We all know about Cheney's love of fishing, and his love of shooting. Apparently, according to Hugh, if the he had to give up one it would be fishing. Of course, that was a concession Hugh got from Cheney before the shooting incident.

HH: You covered the fishing, I thought, very, very well, particularly since I don’t fish. I don’t…but I asked him once if he had to give up either fishing or pheasant shooting, which one would it be, this was before the accident, and he said he’d give up fishing before he gave up shooting.

SH: No.

HH: Yes, he did. It’s what he told me.

SH: You’re kidding.

HH: No. Isn’t that amazing, given what…you chronicle how much he is into this stuff.

SH: That blows me away.

HH: Yeah, go ask him yourself.

Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. But maybe the most cerebral person in the White House since Woodrow Wilson. Who knew Bush had such smart people around him.

HH: He was going to be a PhD. He was going to be the Congressional fellow turned professor, and when his life took a turn…on two occasions, you talk about the three times, twice he chose academia over politics, and once, he chose government. Is that, do you think he’s perhaps the most cerebral guy we’ve had in or near the White House as president or vice president in, well, since Woodrow Wilson.

SH: You know, I consider Bill Clinton pretty cerebral. I mean, I don’t think he’s probably in Cheney’s class.

I've been a fan of Dick Cheney's since Bush picked him as his running mate in 2000. I thought it was a brilliant choice and think it should be a template for the selection of a Vice President for every Presidential candidate. Vice President as loyal lieutenant and trusted adviser. Someone you don't have to worry about going out and making their own policy and establishing their own identity to set him self up as the heir apparent to the Oval Office. Sure, it would be nice if right now if we had a solid conservative sitting in the Vice Presidency that had more than an even chance of being elected President. But what's more important to the nation and the highest elected office in the land? I'll pick someone like Dick Cheney everyday. Besides, the heir apparent role hasn't worked very well since FDR and Truman.

HH: Okay, my guest is Stephen Hayes, I’m going to take some calls, but first, I want to go through a couple of my specifics here. You had some amazing quotes from the President, and I’ve got to go find them here. It’s in the back here. Did he express any regret that Dick Cheney was not running for president?

SH: He didn’t. I pushed him on that, and the way that I pushed him on that…actually, I don’t know that this actually made the book, because it was too, it was a little clunky. But I think it’s great stuff. The way I asked the President was, you clearly believe that your policies have kept America safe.

HH: Right.

SH: You clearly believe that this is a struggle for Western civilization, and yet you haven’t asked your vice president, the person most likely to carry on your legacy, to succeed you. Why not? And he said I have talked to him, and he doesn’t want to do it.

HH: Wow.

Wow is right. But who can blame him. He's sixty six years old. He's got a bad heart. He's got six grand kids and he wants to fish and hunt. No one can say Dick Cheney hasn't served his country. There is only so much you can ask one person to do, and apparently Dick Cheney thinks he's done enough.

All in all I thought it was a fascinating interview and I'm looking forward to getting and reading the book in the near future. As I said earlier, I'm a fan of Dick Cheney's, so that probably explains some of my enthusiasm. Besides, how can you not like a guy who can shoot a lawyer and get by with it? As my Uncle said at the time, "If this thing with the Vice President shooting that lawyer turns out okay for him, I think I've got a plan..."

Conservative Talk Radio Hosts Summoned to White House, Receive Talking Points

Ten conservative talkers were invited to the White House on Wednesday for a sit-down with President Bush. The conversation was off the record and they can't quote the President. The talkers attending were Glenn Beck, Bill Bennett, Neal Boortz, Scott Hennon, Laura Ingraham, Lars Larson, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Janet Parshall and Hugh Hewitt.

Listening to a couple of the attendees shows since the meeting, the theme seemed to be primarily centered around the President reiterating his commitment to the war in Iraq and the war on global terrorism. They came away with the impression that he is totally engaged, aware and committed to this effort.

What I got from their remarks was how open, communicative, engaging and human the man is. Anytime I've heard or read anecdotal reports from anyone who has met President Bush in that kind of setting, the stories are always the same. George Bush is just a good guy. Contrast that with the popular characterization of him in the driveby media or the left wing blogosphere and you would not know they are talking about the same person.

Hugh Hewitt posts: Wartime President

I will say on today's show that I am confident about the course of the war and about the momentum in Iraq, as well of the president's absolute commitment to doing right by the troops and his concern for every lost and wounded soldier and their families. President Bush's command of the details and his broad view of the conflict is reassuring, and among my comments to him was the wish that he found more opportunities to engage in long interviews that would allow the American public to see that grasp and that commitment.

Neal Boortz reports: No....I Didn't Go Play Augusta

As many of you know, I made a similar visit last September. My principal impression this time mirrored what I told you last year. Anybody who thinks that this president is, somehow, ignorant or stupid is either sadly misinformed or delusional. Let the left think this man is unintelligent at their peril. I was particularly impressed by his grasp of the political and cultural interactions among the various Muslim sects and countries of the Middle East.

Another observation ... actually a reinforcement of what I felt after last September's visit. This man was completely transformed by the 9/11 Islamic attacks against our country. From the moment he heard of the attack in that classroom in Florida to this day he has been completely dedicated to the cause of protecting and defending our country from another such attack.

Of course, as Neal points out, many people are invited for these one-on-ones with the President, but when it happens to be conservative talkers, then it's scandalous. I suppose the White House could invite some liberal talkers for the same thing, but there's the whole problem of how to get the slug slime off the Oval Office rugs once they are gone.

The Plame Still Flickers

Despite the celebration last week that the Plame suit against the Bush Administration (blogged about in Plame Suit Flames Out) being dismissed, the decision is being appealed to the DC Circuit Court.

Erwin Chemerinsky (professor of law at Duke University Law School) and John Eastman (Dean of Chapman University Law School) are regular guests on Hugh Hewitt's radio show - usually on Wednesday. Hugh refers to the pair as The Smart Guys. Today the issues were executive privilege and the Plame-Wilson suit. Erwin is one of the attorney's for the Plame's and argued the case in federal district court.

(from the transcript)

EC: I was, I was the lawyer who argued the case in federal district court. I continue to be the lawyer for Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson, and I will be involved in writing and arguing the case on appeal in the D.C. Circuit.

HH: And your grounds for appeal will be what?

EC: Well, the Privacy Act does not apply to the offices of the president and the vice president. That was conceded by all of the parties in this litigation, and the judge recognized it. And of course, at least as to Cheney, Libby and Rove, the Privacy Act provides no remedy. And our argument is a statute that doesn’t apply can’t be used to preclude a civil suit under the Constitution. Also, we have four Constitutional claims, a privacy claim, but also a 1st Amendment claim, an equal protection claim, and a due process claim. And our argument is that at most, the Privacy Act should preclude the privacy claim, but not the others.So, there's the basis for appealing the dismissal of the suit. When asked if he thought Richard Armitage had committed a crime, Chemerinsky said yes:

HH: But let me ask you, do you think Richard Armitage committed a crime?

EC: Yes.

Chemerinsky clings to the belief that Valerie Plame was a covert agent, stating that he knows for a fact that she held that designation:

HH: But it seems to me that…what’s obvious to all of us is that Fitzgerald concluded there was no crime in the revelation of Valerie Plame’s identity, because she was not covert, and it was not what the intent of the law was intended to do in this instance, and that therefore, Armitage wasn’t charged, because there was no crime, and that therefore, Libby didn’t commit a crime, and the Grand Jury ought never to have met, because he knew, Fitzgerald did, before the investigation even opened, that Armitage was a leaker, and he never charged him, therefore no charges and no Grand Jury should have happened.

EC: Some of what you said is just false, some I don’t know. First, there’s no doubt whatsoever that Valerie Plame was a covert operative. The attorney for the United States government said that in open court on May 17th, in the District of Columbia. So I don’t think we can dispute that she’s a covert agent. The United States government said that they would agree that at least for a certain period of time, she was a covert operative.

HH: Erwin, we certainly can dispute that, because it was not made in a context at when it could be challenged to an impartial observer. And of course, the United States government’s going to say that in that circumstance. I don’t believe it for a second, I’ve never been persuaded of that, and I think it is nonsense to ask my audience to take that on fact. It’s a disputed issue.

EC: I’ll tell you, I mean, you’ve known me a long time, whatever trust you have in me, I know as fact she was a covert operative.

From what I heard during the discussion and what I've read and heard previously on this matter, I'm still not convinced that Plame was a covert agent as defined by the law. What we do know is that the special prosecutor did not charge or indict anyone for revealing Plame's identity. That leads me to believe Fitzgerald didn't think she fit the definition of a covert agent or that anyone who revealed her identity didn't commit a crime as defined by the law.

Something else that I believe gets overlooked in this debate - someone revealing Plame's identity has to know she held the distinction of being a covert agent. Simply saying she works for the CIA reveals nothing except that she works at the CIA.

Erwin is a liberal, and that comes out clearly in most of the positions he takes week after week on judicial issues. He also doesn't like President Bush and I'm sure he'd love to be the attorney who helped to hang a crime on the President or someone in the Administration.

I still think they are tracking a cold trail, but maybe we'll still get to see Plame and Wilson cross examined in open court.

To read the rest of the interview, follow the transcript link above, or listen to the audio here (app. 30 minutes).

General Petraeus Interview

Hugh Hewitt had a taped interview today with Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq.

Listen to the Audio here (32 minutes) or read the Transcript here, it's worth the time. Consider it an early report on what we might hear in September. I wonder if the democrat leadership in Congress will have time to listen to General Petraeus this time.

From the transcript:

HH: Some have warned that a genocide of sorts, or absolute terms, would follow a precipitous withdrawal of coalition forces. Do you agree that that is a possibility, or a…and a significant one?

DP: Well, obviously, it depends on the conditions when we withdraw. I mean, eventually, we are going to withdraw. We cannot maintain the surge forever, as everyone knows. There’s always been an intention that the surge would be a somewhat temporary endeavor. So it has to do with the conditions at that time. I mean, we saw the sectarian violence of late 2006 and early 2007, and obviously, that was very tragic, and really quite horrific in a number of Baghdad neighborhoods. It literally changed the face of Baghdad. It struck at the very fabric of Iraqi society in places like Baghdad, and in other mixed, sectarian areas. And again, unless the conditions are sustainable by the Iraqis, one would certainly expect that sectarian violence would resume at a very high level. That’s not to say there’s not still some going on right now, although the level in June was about the lowest in a year, and we’re certainly trying to sustain that. I don’t know this month whether we can, given the two horrific bombings that took place, however that is certainly what we’re trying and fighting to do.

There is little doubt the terrorists, al Qaeda in Iraq, play to the media. Every time the democratics make Iraq surrender a center piece of Congressional debate, the terrorists ramp up their efforts, staging spectacular and deadly attacks that are sure to garner headlines and be featured on the nightly news

Fred! is Running!

Updated and Bumped 7/11/07 - Pictures of Fred! at yesterday's Freedom Concert. Fred! with Charlie Daniels and Larry the Cable Guy. (h/t: I'mWithFred)

Listening to the Sean Hannity Show broadcasting from the site of tonight's Freedom Concert. Fred! Thompson on live with Sean. Hannity just asked him, "Are you running for President?" Fred! said, "Yes. But I'm not going to tell you when." (As closely as I can accurately repeat the exchange.)

Of course, we all know Fred! is running, but it's good to hear a "yes" straight from his mouth. As I understand the testing the waters and exploratory committee rules, the potential candidates have to be careful of what they say about a candidacy. The wrong turn of phrase or statement can propel you from possible candidate to candidate and changes all the rules for donations and reporting.

Man On The Street

What are they teaching in school these days? Or, more precisely, what are they not teaching in school these days?

If you're a regular listener to Sean Hannity's radio show, you're aware of his irregular, weekly Man on the Street interviews. One of his staff goes down to the lobby or sidewalk around his radio studio building and corrals unsuspecting people and asks them questions about things that are in the news.

Over the time I've heard these pop quizzes, I've been astonished, and often dejected, with the lack of awareness and knowledge of what should be basic subjects by a citizen who has graduated from high school and stays in tune with the news.

Granted, I've not heard every one of these shows, but have never heard any questions concerning arcane or little known events or facts. There's nothing like what does Article Two of the Constitution address. We're talking about basic things about government and history and current events.

Once, shortly after the annual National Geographic Geography Bee the street interviewer had a map of the United States, absent the names. The quiz was to ask the man (woman, guy, girl) on the street to point out the state that was given. The results were disappointing. Most could point out major states such as California and Texas. A couple of them, who were standing right in New York, were not able to point it out on a map on the first try. In fairness, they didn't actually live in New York. However, one of them lived in New Jersey and couldn't pick out New York on the map. I mean, c'mon, New Jersey is practically part of New York. Apologies to Garden State residents, I know you all are sensitive about that.

Tuesday, July 3, 2007, the subject of the Man on the Street pop quiz concerned The Fourth of July, Independence Day. Flirty Flipper put in a guest appearance to conduct the street interviews. During the prelude, Hannity asked her some of the questions they would ask that day. Flipper didn't fare so well. I guess that proves you don't have to know a whole lot to write a kids book.

The Independence Day Man on the Street result's were mixed. The quizee's ranged in age from about 21 to 33. All high school graduates, a couple in or graduated from college. The best was the first victim, Fresh, who probably did the best of all of them. However, when asked who he liked for the presidential race, he answered Hillary. When Hannity asked him what she had done that he liked, he had nothing, and said he would vote for her because she's a woman and it's time we had a female president. Sean asked if she was a Republican would he vote for her for the same reason, he said no. I guess we're only ready for a female president if she's a democrat.

As discouraging as the early results were, the last victim sent my optimism plummeting. She was a kindergarten teacher from Miami. I'm guessing she has to have at least a four year college degree in something, and maybe even a fifth year for a teaching certificate. She stumbled and stammered over the answers, finally coming up with England as being the country we fought to gain our independence. When asked what the name of that war was, she came up with WW1.

Sigh.

Some will say none of this stuff matters in everyday life, it's basically irrelevant. I disagree. A nation that doesn't have a grasp of it's history is a nation that will lose it's fervor to exist. There are just some basic things that have to be taught, and learned, in school. American History is one of those subjects. We are obviously failing.

McCain Camp Lashing Out

I know it's not straight from the candidate's mouth, but an anonymous source in the McCain camp had this to say to the WaPo:

A top fundraiser for the Arizonan, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to talk for the campaign, was more blunt: "It's hurting with the main money guys. Overall, it's definitely a negative."

He added that the constant barrage of criticism from the likes of Rush Limbaugh is making it difficult to raise money from the conservative wing of the party.

"Like it or not, our base listens to that stuff," the fundraiser said. "Whether it's a good bill or a bad bill or an indifferent bill doesn't matter. The folks who are listening to that stuff, it's hard to persuade them with facts."

Uh, Mr. Fundraiser, don't you mean it's hard to persuade us with spin? Because the facts are very clear about what that bill would have done, and we want no part of it; nor McCain, who was pushing it; nor arrogant fundraisers like you.

With staffers like this, it's no wonder McCain's campaign is going under for the third time.