Can Someone Set The Record Straight?

Saw this on Facebook last night:

Now, leaving aside that the hat and jacket are from a Navy ship (clearly visible on the hat), I'm confused. We just had eight years where the president had never served a day in the military, so I thought we'd finally put to rest the served/didn't serve question.

I mean:

In 1992, we had WWII war hero George H.W. Bush against draft-dodging Bill Clinton. Military service? We were told it didn't matter.

In 1996, it was Clinton against WWII war hero Bob Dole Clinton. Military service? Still didn't matter.

2000? George W. Bush (accused by the left of dodging the draft despite serving in the TX Air National Guard) against Al Gore Jr., who served honorably in Vietnam. Military service? Now means everything.

2004? The same George W. Bush against John Kerry, who also served honorably in Vietnam. Military service? Still means everything. Remember "Reporting for duty"?

2008? Barack Obama, never served, against John McCain. 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton? Yeah, he served honorably. Military service? Not only does it not matter, it wasn't even brought up.

So... Now military service matters again? Interesting that it's brought up after the election, given that Hillary Clinton not only didn't serve, but by being female, she didn't even have to worry about the draft.Or, is it possible that there are only certain times and circumstances that military service means anything? Like, say, depending on the political affiliation of the person in question.

I mean, not that our media would ever show bias or anything like that, of course...

That is all.

Nope. No Bias Here...

Wow. Just wow. This is rather stunning, really...

Screenshot because, well, you know...

This is the CNN main webpage as of about 6:30 Saturday evening. The story about the FBI re-opening the Clinton case is framed as "strange" and "unprecedented", with a bonus story calling for the FBI to ditch Comey. At the bottom of the page is a graphic showing, allegedly, how a (formerly) right-leaning area is now trending left, and how that portends abject failure for Trump and the Republicans.

We're still hearing dribs and drabs about the circumstances that caused Comey to re-open the investigation. From the sounds of it, disgraced NY congresscritter Anthony Weiner, recently estranged from Clinton's closest advisor Huma Abedin, had documents that pertained to the FBI investigation closed in July on a computer that was under investigation for an unrelated matter. "Tens of thousands" of e-mails dealing with Clinton - which we have to wonder how many were classified - wound up on a completely unrelated device, with unknown security.

That, Madame DeFarge, is "strange" and "unprecedented."

The media is actively working with the Clinton campaign to get her elected. How hard will they work to investigate wrongdoing on her behalf once she's in power? We saw the media perform more actual "journalism" "investigating" Melania Trump's speech as it pertained to speeches given by Michelle Obama than we've seen in the entire eight years of Obama's presidency. Imagine that. The media acting in a critical manner and doing investigative journalism. Compare and contrast that to the ridiculous lengths they're going through to cover for Hillary Clinton.

I want an adversarial press, not a supplicant one - Vote Trump.

That is all.

Hypocrisy...

It's fair to say my single biggest pet peeve is hypocrisy. And I'm seeing a lot of it, lately.

• Folks who went apeshit insane when Obama was called by his full name are more than happy to call Donald Trump "Drumpf." What does that even mean? It sounds idiotic, and doesn't give the speaker much credibility.

(For the record, I feel the same way about "Obummer" or "Obambi" or any of the other stupid plays on Obama's name. "Shrub" was idiotic, too.)

• I won't get into the Hillary/FBI thing for a number of reasons, but I do want to address one thing: The idea that "nothing" has been found because they declined to prosecute? Okay, fine. We'll give you that. However, you have to admit that Reagan and Bush were innocent in Iran/Contra - that was $50 million, and neither Reagan nor Bush were prosecuted. If one is true, the other certainly is as well, right?

• So, California just passed another round of gun control, where they made the "bullet button" illegal. The bullet button that they insisted be present in any magazine-fed rifle in the *last* round of gun control in CA. They're also banning all magazines in excess of 10 rounds, and requiring people to turn them in. Without, it seems, remuneration. Two, two, two amendments in one. 

Where's the hypocrisy, you ask? The CA legislature exempted itself from CA's gun control 5 years ago...
And, just in general, "Because [other guy] did it too" is a logical fallacy. It's even worse when the two situations are not comparable. 

That is all.

I'm Curious...

Bruce Springsteen cancels N.C. show over anti-LGBT law

The LBGT community in North Carolina just got a big show of solidarity from none other than Bruce Springsteen.

The rock icon announced Friday on his official website that he is canceling Sunday's scheduled show in Greensboro to protest the state's newly passed House Bill 2 — dubbed the "bathroom law" — which dictates which public restrooms may be used by transgender individuals and prevents LGBT individuals to sue over human rights violations in the workplace.

First off, I have a problem with this being called an "anti-gay" or "anti-LGBT" law, but that's a post for a different time. I'm afraid this is going to lead to every establishment open to the public having to make 16 - 20 different bathrooms, leading to an ever-escalating "bathroom equality war" where we have new and unique special snowflakes that need to be catered to. Honestly, the bathroom is binary: you have an innie or an outie. Period. I don't see why this is an issue at all.

Secondly, to get something else out of the way: Springsteen has every right in the world to cancel his concert. Happens all the time, often over illness or weather-related or any other number of instances. It's his show, his rules. If he honestly feels that strongly, good on him for taking a stance.

What I really want to know, though, is this: What do you suppose the Venn diagram of "people that applaud Springsteen's decision to cancel his show in NC" and "people who think Christian bakers should be forced to make cakes for gay weddings" looks like? I'd wager that's pretty close to a circle. To be intellectually honest and consistent, if you think someone that provides a service (whether that be a baker or a singer) should be forced to provide said service to their public regardless of how they feel about said public, then Springsteen should have been forced to put on that concert.

The whole "Christian bakers need to be forced to make cakes" business is ludicrous to say the least. It's a free-market solution in search of a problem: I'd wager there's plenty of bakers out there perfectly happy to take your money in exchange for a cake. I'd wager there's plenty that would make a cake for the Lord High Chuthulu as long as your money's green. If a baker feels so principled that they would turn away perfectly good cash money, well, power to them. Maybe they'll make their business up making cakes for other small-minded people.

Then again, I have to wonder about the mindset of someone that would want to eat a cake prepared by someone they forced to make it...

That is all.

The Trumpening...

*sigh*

I honestly think that Trump jumped into the very crowded GOP race for the nomination thinking, "hey, this is a month or two's worth of free advertising. I can't possibly hurt my brand any more than I already have; why not benefit from some free press?" He figured he'd drop a few bombs, say a few outrageous things, then drop out when it became apparent he had no f**king clue what he was doing.

Then he started doing well in the polls.

I wonder if he saw his stock starting to rise, thought to himself, "S**t. Now what? I've been in this about as long as I thought I'd last and I keep doing better. Better ratchet up the stupid crap, drop more outlandish bombs, and get drummed out so I can get back to doing whatever it is I actually do that makes me a billionaire."

And he *kept* doing well.

No matter how outlandish he gets, no matter what stupid drivel comes out of his mouth, the people appear to be eating it up. He yells at reporters, has people escorted out of his press conferences, tells people (essentially) to get bent, and has issue perfect non-answer politician-speak when confronted about the actual issues. He has expended the greatest amount of words to say exactly nothing in a generation.

And he's winning primaries.

I honestly can't explain it. I mean, I get that the pool isn't exactly brimming with likable, talented politicians. I think you could probably distill all of them and *maybe* get half a decent pol (if such a critter exists). Cruz is the least detestable of the bunch, but he keeps going all GOD BOY and will be easy for the left to destroy - simply toss out some ZOMG ABORTION or GAY MARRIAGE shiny and watch him froth. Rubio? I honestly can't tell what distinguishes Rubio from, well, any other GOP politician since Bush Sr.  - naturally I figured he'd get the nod.

And it's not that Trump is bucking the establishment, either - hell, he *is* the establishment. Guy's been holed up in uber-liberal NY donating to every Dem that puts their hand out; it defies credibility to think this guy isn't neck-deep in the same good old boy/business-as-usual BS that has helped us get further into this mess as we progress. And yes, Bush helped, as did Obama. "Too big to fail", bailouts, etc. If you think for one second that President Trump wouldn't reward cronies and punish adversaries, well, I'll see if I can stop the turnip truck so you can get back on.

What scares me, what really scares me, is that I can't tell which would be worse: President Clinton, or President Trump. Whoever gets the "W" does get to pick at least one US Supreme Court Justice, and I have to believe that Trump would pick someone better than Clinton. Especially since Clinton has already praised Obama as a possibility. If more Justices need replacing, though, it becomes even more critical that "NotHillary" be the winner in November.

Except for one thing: Gridlock. Hillary! gets the win, the GOP maintains its hold on the House and Senate and we (hopefully) spend the next four years heaving blame and not doing much else. Trump wins, and he's got two years to really f**k things up before the country tosses the GOP out in favor of the other party. Handing the House and Senate over to the Dems in time for a 2020 drubbing is a recipe for disaster.

Really, I'm rooting for an asteroid and/or alien invasion/zombie outbreak at this point...

That is all.

Remind Me, Again...

Why did we trade five high-level terrorists for this guy?

Bergdahl charged with desertion

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was held five years after being captured by the Taliban when he left his remote post in Afghanistan, was charged Wednesday by the Army with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.

The misbehavior charge carries a potential life sentence, the Army said in a statement, but legal analysts said it was likely Bergdahl would reach an agreement that would result in a light punishment.

So we gave away - GAVE AWAY - five high-level Taliban terrorists for a guy who abandoned his Army post. I distinctly remember, at the time, that we were told Bergdahl was deathly ill, and that's why the Obama Administration couldn't wait for congressional approval for making the swap. Bergdahl was not sick, was not a captive, and the exchange seems to have served no purpose other than to let terrorists go free.

This is exactly the kind of world-class leadership we've come to expect from this administration.

Contrast, if you will, to the Reagan administration selling arms to the Iranians in exchange for the release of American hostages. That was the worst thing in the world, according to the Democrats, and resulted in a 7 year, 50 million dollar special investigation that resulted in the NSA head going to jail for six months. And these were actual hostages, not people that abandoned their military post.

But then again, you know, dude that was like two years ago, right?

That is all.

I'm Confused...

Now, I know I'm just one of those knuckle-dragging neanderthal bitter clingers, but I can't seem to reconcile these next two stories:

Obama: I First Learned About Clinton’s Email Address ‘Through News Reports’

President Barack Obama said he first found out through the news about Hillary Clinton’s private email address she used for government business while secretary of state.

“The same time everybody else learned it through news reports,” Obama told CBS News.

The president said he’s glad his former secretary of state instructed her emails be disclosed to the public.

Got that? “The same time everybody else learned it through news reports” - that's when President Obama claims to have learned that his Secretary of State Hillary! Clinton was using private e-mail rather than the official, mandatory .gov address.

And then this:

White House: Obama did trade e-mails with Clinton

A White House spokesman said Monday that President Obama did trade e-mails with then-secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton but did not know about her private e-mail system that included a server at her home.

"I would not describe the number of e-mails as large, but they did have the occasion to e-mail one another," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest, adding that he did not know about the content.

I mean, I must be missing something, right? Because what it looks like to me is that, in the first story, Obama is claiming that he didn't know about Hillary using private e-mail until the news broke earlier this year. In the second story, the White House admits that they exchanged e-mails with Clinton on her private server.

Now, maybe they do things differently at the White House. Maybe it's official protocol to just blindly hit "reply" to any e-mail that comes in, not bothering to look at the sender. Maybe President Obama gets his e-mail directly, without anyone else looking at it, and the man is a complete and utter noob when it comes to electronic mail.

Or do they really honestly and truly expect us to believe that Barack Obama, acting as the President of the United States, the single most powerful man in the world, was corresponding with his Secretary of State, the face of the United States in the world community, without knowing which e-mail address she was using?

The real question, in my mind, is why is Obama lying about what he knew and when he knew it? Why did he allow - and make no mistake, he knew and allowed it to happen - Clinton to bypass established security protocols? Why did his administration knowingly foster this breach of the law requiring open and honest - remember, transparent - communications? Why would they allow Hillary Clinton to operate an untraceable e-mail address that only she controlled access to while she was SecState?

There's something going on here that doesn't even vaguely pass the smell test, folks...

That is all.

Ann Coulter Was Right...

For liberals, history really did begin this morning. Check this out:

PBS's Mark Shields: Scott Walker's Idea of Foreign Policy Is 'Beat Ohio State'

Anyone who thinks the PBS NewsHour is a calm, rather nonpartisan forum on politics where no one does any trash-talking hasn’t seen Mark Shields on Fridays.

On Friday, Shields trashed Jeb Bush as a bumbler, and then just insulted governors Scott Walker and Chris Christie as “total novices” on foreign policy, like he’s a standup comedian.

Ah, yes. Experience matters - when it's a Republican that the media doesn't think has experience. 1992, when it was George H.W. Bush vs. Bill Clinton, experience (and military service) didn't matter a whit. So what if Bill Clinton was the governor of a small southern state and had no foreign policy experience whatsoever? So what if Barack Obama has exactly 143 days as a US Senator before he started running for president? They're Democrats - experience doesn't matter.

Yet George W. Bush - governor of a state much larger than Arkansas - was the "least qualified person to ever run for president" according to the left. Scott Walker doesn't have the experience to lead the country - but Barack "Community Organizer" Obama did. Sorry guys. After Obama - and his penchant for voting "present" during his very brief time as US Senator from Illinois - you're going to have a very hard time making the case that the experience a candidate brings to the table matters.

Well, it does - when the candidate is a Republican...

That is all.

ID? They Told Me That Was Racist/Sexist/Ageist/Nationalityist...

Curiouser and curiouser...

New York City launches municipal identification card program

New York City has launched its municipal identification card program, the largest in the country, which officials say will allow immigrants living in the country illegally to access key city services they were previously unable to obtain.

The card, dubbed IDNYC, was approved last year and became available to New Yorkers on Monday. It is aimed at those who do not currently have a government-issued ID, including the elderly, homeless and an estimated 500,000 immigrants in the city who live in the U.S. without legal documentation.

Okay, wait. Wait wait wait. Haven't they been telling us that requiring an ID to vote puts an undue burden on the poor/elderly/minorities/whatever? That it was unfair to [insert whatever group is being pandered to at the moment]. Requiring ID to vote has been likened to a "poll tax" - a tax on voting - ignoring, of course, that every state that requires a permit to carry a firearm is charging a tax on exercising Second Amendment rights...

Looking at the "reasons" that voter ID is "unfair", it seems to boil down to either "those people are too stupid to get ID" or "those people are too poor to get ID". Well, then, why can't we use this model? If NYC can hand out nearly half a million IDs for free, why can't they require IDs to vote?

I think we all know the answer, don't we?

That is all.

Another dispatch from...

(image courtesy of Robb Allen)

I'm Confused.

Wasn't it just a few months ago that the media was telling us that the NRA was responsible for ebola?

If only there was someone around who could educate the American public about the actual level of risk. Someone who was trusted as a public health expert and whose job it was to help us understand what we really need to worry about and what precautions we should take.

Actually, that is one of the primary responsibilities of the United States surgeon general. There’s just one problem: Thanks to Senate dysfunction and NRA opposition, we don’t have a surgeon general right now. In fact, we haven’t had a surgeon general for more than a year now — even though the president nominated the eminently qualified Dr. Vivek Murthy back in November 2013.

And yet:

Surgeon general nominee Vivek Murthy, opposed by gun lobby, confirmed

President Obama's pick to serve as the next surgeon general was confirmed Monday evening more than a year and half after being nominated, the first of nearly a half dozen of the president's picks set for confirmation this week as Democrats prepare to cede control of the U.S. Senate.

Senators voted 51 to 43 to confirm Vivek Murthy, a Harvard and Yale-educated doctor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, whose nomination had been in limbo amid concerns about his experience, and opposition from the gun lobby.

So, basically, the media was/is full of s**t. Back when they were claiming that the NRA was responsible for holding up Murthy's nomination, that was a big wet sack of horse manure lie. Nothing changed in the Senate from the time that first story came out. Heck, nothing changed in the Senate from the initial nomination of Murthy.

Except, of course, that in about a month the Senate gets handed over to the GOP. You know, the party that the American people overwhelmingly elected last month? And before the Senate changes hands, it's one big middle finger to the GOP and the people that elected them. Top. Men. They could have confirmed Murthy literally at any time after he was nominated. ANY. TIME. Yet they didn't, because by and large the Surgeon General position is a useless figurehead, and far better for it to be a bludgeon with which to beat the GOP about the head and shoulders should something go wrong.

Like, you know, letting a bunch of people from a region experiencing an ebola outbreak come to the U.S. with no rules of quarantine...

Don't change the rules. Keep them exactly as Harry Reid changed them. No more "nuclear option." They're the ones that removed it when they were in power. Let them deal with the consequences of their actions now that they are no longer the majority party. This is one of the few battles you can win - it is THEIR actions that did this. You quite literally need to do NOTHING - why should you change the rules back?

Just sit back and - for once - let the Democrats reap the consequences they have sown...

That is all.

Tipping Their Hand...

Ah. So Rand Paul is 2016's John McCain...

I'm a Liberal Democrat. I'm Voting for Rand Paul in 2016. Here Is Why.

The editor of Breitbart Unmasked, a site that I enjoy immensely and find informative, recently told me that supporting Rand Paul disqualifies a person from being labeled a progressive. My rebuttal was that he might be right. However, I also mentioned that Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia agreed with my latest Congress Blog piece. In the article, I explain why Rand Paul is correct in questioning the legality of President Obama's troop deployments. Sadly, people at UC Berkeley are more interested in protesting Bill Maher than condemning a conflict George McGovern stated weakens our country in the same manner as Vietnam. Hundreds of airstrikes, over 3,000 soldiers deployed, and a request for $5.6 billion is a war, folks.

I don't know the author of this piece from a hole in the ground, but I'm going to go ahead and call shenanigans here. I have a hard time believing this self-proclaimed "liberal democrat" is going to vote for Rand Paul over Hillary! Clinton or whatever stump the donks put up in 2016. I suspect that Rand Paul is, like John McCain in 2016, the Republican the Democrats would most like to run against, and therefore we're going to see favorable press like this from now until the nomination.

After the nomination, of course, the knives come out and the press savages Paul for being an ultra-right-wing extremist. Don't believe me? Run a Google search for "Mitt Romney Right Wing Extremist". Seriously, do it. Mitt freakin' Romney. The man who was Governor of MASSACHUSETTS, is a right wing extremist. The man who signed into law the health care bill that Barack Obama would use as the template for ObamaCare is a right wing extremist.

If HuffPo is pushing Rand Paul, be afraid. Be very afraid.

That is all.

Defining the Category...

Stretch sent this in. I think I gained five pounds from the delicious schadenfreude...

Heh.

Oh, believe me, I know. It won't last long. Five minutes after the GOP Senate is sworn in, they'll do something stupid, craven, evil, or all three. I have no misconceptions about their ability to squander this opportunity miserably. I actually can understand the mindset that says this is a good thing for the Democrat nominee in 2016 - Obama can't run, Biden is excruciatingly unlikely to get the nod, so whoever runs will have none of the stink of the administration.

Whoever the GOP runs, which at this point looks like either Jeb Bush (shudder), Mitt Romney (SHUDDER) or Chris Christie (shudder AND hide the donuts). None of these are appealing choices, nor choices that have any chance of winning in 2016. I don't care how great Jeb Bush may or may not be, his last name is "Bush", which means the media will do everything possible - including outright lying - to make sure he never wins. Romney already lost to what may have been the weakest candidate for re-election ever. And Christie, well...

I'm not optimistic about 2016, not at all - but for now, we revel in the gnashing of liberal teeth.

That is all.

So, Yeah, That Happened...

I think it is absolutely hysterical how the media and Democrats (but I repeat myself) are falling all over themselves repeating how Tuesday's election didn't mean anything. They've contorted a historic GOP win (both Massachusetts and Illinois now have Republican governors) into "doesn't matter". The Republicans picked up seats in Congress, added more Governor's mansions, and re-took the Senate, and the takeaway is that this is... good for Hillary!?

Yeah, that's it. The American people just tossed the Democrats out on their collective ears and handed the Senate gavel to McConnell because they're itching to vote for Hillary! in 2016. Sure. Keep thinking that.

The media was hardly as circumspect in 2006, when the GOP lost the Senate and the majority of governor's races. It was a stinging referendum on the Bush presidency -  even though the GOP lost fewer Senate seats in 2006 (6) than the Democrats lost in 2014 (7). It's amazing what a difference 8 scant years makes, isn't it?

Of course, Obama's just going full speed ahead on immigration "reform" - a red-button issue with the GOP, despite the clear message sent Tuesday about his policies. In a world where the media wasn't in the tank for one party, a journalist might ask hard questions of the president. Like how he can claim the GOP is obstructing his policies when they clearly are doing their jobs and representing the people.

After all, "[they] won"...

That is all.

If I Had A Nickel...

...for every time I heard some leftist dillweed shriek about the "Republican Diebold machines" that magically created vote fraud in favor of GOP - without a single shred of evidence - I'd have a s**tload of nickels.

Reality, of course, is that the fraud happens the other way, as has been documented in Virginia, Maryland, and Illinois, as well as undefined irregularities in CT and GA (now, I'm not a betting man, but I'd wager money if the "irregularities" reported in either state were votes cast for Democrats that switched magically to Republican, we'd be hearing it from every news network).

Any guess why the Democrats are pushing so hard against any form of voter ID? These are the blatant examples, and they're only going one way. In addition, there are instances in Texas, where the GOP candidate was left off the ballot in the third most populated county, and similar party-switching machines observed in North Carolina.

Can anyone honestly say, with a straight face, that if the roles were reversed and there were at least a half-dozen states with some form of voting irregularity that favored the Republicans, that this would NOT be a national news story? That it would NOT be the leading story on every newscast and top-of-the-fold fodder on every newspaper of any consequence? Top billing on all news-related website? Because if there is, I have some prime beachfront property in Kansas to sell them.

That's why it's important to win outside the margin of cheat - except that goalpost keeps moving...

That is all.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

That Civic Duty Thing. Do It.

I really hate to put it like this, because it plain sucks, but I want to see the GOP re-take the Senate. Oh, not because I think they'll do a better job - they won't - but because the media has been falling over themselves inventing excuses for why they can't/shouldn't/won't take it over. It would be extra-nice to be able to - yet again - point out the media's biased myopia.

I mean, they've been so desperate for *SOMETHING* to crucify Republicans with that they's STILL harping on the Palins in AK two solid months ago. A shouting match at a Labor Day BBQ is somehow newsworthy two months later - whereas the Veep's kid getting booted from the Navy for coke use is a page 57 blurb. Right.

And here's something to think about. For the first time in recent memory, the GOP has been able to avoid going positively batsh*t insane over either birth control, abortion, or homosexuals. The media has been waiting patiently for the next Todd Akin, and the GOP, to their credit, has refused to give them their sound bite. It's a small thing, to be sure, but it's *something*.

Remember, voting for the lesser of two evils still means that less evil has a chance at winning...

That is all.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Best News I've Seen Today...

Brad_in_MA sent this in. He rightfully assumed I'd get a chuckle out of this news...

Poll: Charlie Baker leads Martha Coakley in Massachusetts

For the first time in the Boston Globe’s weekly tracking poll, Republican Charlie Baker holds a significant lead over Democrat Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts gubernatorial race, 45 percent to 36 percent.

The poll, first posted Thursday night, is the first showing the race as anything but a near tie in recent weeks. Last week’s Globe poll showed the candidates neck-and-neck, as did a separate tracking survey this week from WBUR-FM, conducted by the MassINC Polling Group.

Now, I don't believe that Baker's lead is anywhere near that high, but this really sealed the deal for me:

Charlie Baker for governor

The Boston FREAKIN' Globe just endorsed Charlie Baker - the Republican - over Martha Coakley for Governor. The Globe endorsed Coakley over Scott Brown in 2010. They used this subhead:

To move Mass. forward, state government must work better

Massachusetts is 90% controlled by the Democrats. The state reps and senators are overwhelmingly Democrat, MA's Senators and Congresscritters are all Democrats, most of the mayors are Democrats, etc. If the state isn't working properly, it's pretty clear which party is involved in the not working department. For the Globe to admit this is pretty shocking.

We'll see what happens next Tuesday, of course, but just getting the Globe's endorsement is amazing...

That is all.

Top. Men.

I feel so much better now that the grownups are back in charge.

Former U.S. president candidate Hart to be representative for Northern Ireland

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday named former Senator Gary Hart as his representative on Northern Ireland, nearly 30 years after the Democratic politician's bid for the U.S. presidency was cut short by a sex scandal.

Kerry said in a statement that Hart, 77, who in recent years gained a name as a national security expert and author, would play a "direct, on-the-ground diplomatic role."

Gary Hart. The man who dared the media to follow him around to ensure he wasn't cheating on his wife and then had his girlfriend sit on his lap on the boat named -- I kid you not -- Monkey Business. Top. Men. The man was a Senator nearly 30 years ago, lost the Democratic nomination in 1988 to Michael Dukakis, and became famous for an affair in which he got caught. Easily.

Now, how Hart, a former Senator from Colorado, became a national security expert is anyone's guess. He's been on several boards through the Obama administration, and stumped for Lurch in 2004 (yes, bringing *all* the star power of Gary Hart), but somehow this makes him a security expert. The man who had an affair after telling the media to follow him to prove he was innocent of having an affair.

Then again, our "Ebola Czar" is a lawyer whose main claim to fame is having been Joe Biden's chief-of-staff, so why the hell not?

That is all.

Another dispatch from...

(image courtesy of Robb Allen)

My Powers of Analogy Fail Me...

I... I just... There are no words...

Carter criticizes Obama on ISIS: 'We waited too long'

Former President Jimmy Carter said President Barack Obama "waited too long" to go after ISIS and criticized what he described as the president's changing foreign policy.

"First of all, we waited too long. We let the Islamic State build up its money, capability and strength and weapons while it was still in Syria," Carter told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in an interview published Tuesday. The 39th president was in Texas working on a Habitat for Humanity project.

That's not the real kicker. This is:

More broadly, Carter criticized Obama's foreign policy, an approach that he says is lacking in "positive action."

Ouch. Better put some ice on that, Barry.

When Jimmy "a giant swimming rabbit attacked me" Carter says you suck at foreign policy, well, wow. I mean, that's Gengis Khan telling you that you went overboard in sacking a village, or Leona Helmsly saying you were too mean to the waitstaff. I mean, I guess it could be worse. You could have Bill Clinton tell you that you should have responded better to attacks on Americans...

I mean, when the guy whose response to the energy crisis was "put on a sweater" says your policy is lacking, well... If the man who allowed American citizens to be held hostage to a foreign government with only one ill-conceived rescue effort thinks you suck at foreign policy, there's no amount of polish that will fix that turd.

It is interesting that Carter is speaking out. He was oddly silent when extremists tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, or in Somalia, or the attack on the Cole, or when our embassies in Africa were bombed in 1998, etc. He was quite vocal on the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq, though; routinely criticizing everything Bush did in regards to Iraq and the prosecution of the war effort.

When Jimmy Carter says your foreign policy is lacking in action, though, that's gotta sting...

That is all.

Optics...

That's what President Obama called him taking off to go golfing immediately after his press conference in the wake of the first American journalist to be beheaded by ISIS. He "should have anticipated the optics" of going golfing after delivering such horrible news; meaning of course that he should have been mindful of appearances.

Not that it was generally a pretty callous thing to do, mind you. An American journalist was beheaded by terrorists over in Iraq and Syria, an area that we have had interest in for over 20 years, and you can't wait to hit the links. Somehow I don't think it's the "optics" that are the issue here.

Especially when recent news shows President Obama getting off Marine One and not even bothering to take the coffee cup out of his hand when he salutes the Marines in charge of his safety. That, Mr. President, is bad optics. You look like a pampered prince, giving a half-hearted salute to people you obviously consider below you.

People, mind you, that have more integrity in the stuff they scrape off their boots than you have in your entire body.

I wish I could say this surprised me, but really, it doesn't. That he could have taken a fraction of a second to transfer the cup into his empty left hand - but didn't - tells me everything I need to know. The military salute is considered the pinnacle of respect:

SALUTING

Military courtesy is the traditional form of politeness in the profession of arms.

The Military Salute

The salute is the most important of all military courtesies. Over the centuries, men-at-arms have rendered fraternal and respectful greetings to indicate friendliness. This gesture survives as today's hand salute, which is the traditional greeting among soldiers of all nations. Regulations require that all officers be saluted by their juniors, and that they return such salutes. The salute formally recognizes the officer as a military superior, and returning the salute expresses the officer’s thanks for the junior’s support.

Got that? That's might poor thanks you're showing our men in uniform, President Obama. It's especially ironic considering that you've recently made statements and issued orders to commit our troops to more fighting overseas - and you can't even offer a proper salute to the Marine detail charged with escorting you safely to and from your engagements.

Pathetic.

That is all.

Who Writes This Stuff?

This is what I see in my Comcast homepage:

It gets even better, though. It goes to this video. David "I committed a felony in DC and used the 'favored journalist' loophole to avoid prison time" Gregory is responsible for this. Someone gave the green light to this interview; someone else gave the green light to use "ISIS could be a big threat to America" as a title.

To quote the inimitable Monty Burns, "Well, duh."

Gee, we have a radical, violent terrorist group wandering around the newly-liberated Iraq killing people indiscriminately. There are reports of ISIS factions burying women and children alive. All of this is happening in a country that, since 1991, we have had some presence in, and the terrorists behind these acts have come up entirely since we pulled out of the region.

Now, here's where the partisans bicker. The left says that it's Bush's fault for going into Iraq in 2003. He had no plan for dealing with a post-Hussein Iraq, etc. And there is a ring of truth to that - we weren't given a cohesive plan for what was going to happen. I think we expected to depose Hussein and his nutjob kids and have Iraq magically transform into a stable democracy. When it failed to do that, when tribal factions that have been at war for millennia went right back to war once the maniacal despot was taken down, well...

The right points to Obama's complete and utter lack of anything resembling a foreign policy. We withdrew from Iraq as one of the few campaign promises that Obama actually kept, only we did so with a complete and utter lack of understanding what that was going to mean to the area. There wasn't an Iraq capable of dealing with an entity like ISIS, and - nature abhorring a vacuum, ISIS stepped up to be the dominant evil mofos in the area.

And there's a good deal of truth to this, as well. We telegraphed our intent months if not years in advance. "We're pulling all troops out of Iraq on [DATE X] come hell or high water, whether they're ready for us to leave or not." When we did leave, the squabbling and squalling returned in full force, and it was only a matter of time before one group or another established dominance. Like so many other areas, the group that established dominance was the most evil, violent, and bloodthirsty one.

What does this mean for us? Well, if ISIS is in fact on a par with al Quaeda who knows? They might be angling to take a chunk out of us like al Quaeda did with 9/11. They may be content to become the biggest baddest feudal warlords in Iraq. Or, equally frightening, they may herald the rise of the next Saddam Hussein to use their evil acts as a pretext to seize power and drive them from the country.

Frankly, none of these are terribly great outcomes, for either us or the Iraqi people...

That is all.