Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Spy story could bite Democrats

By Dick Morris

Whom did the Valerie Plame leak hurt?
Valerie, who went from undercover to on the cover when she posed for Vanity Fair?

Joe Wilson, who got a best-selling book out of the deal?

The current leak, however, of classified material relating to National Security Agency tactics in intercepting conversations between people abroad and those within the United States is a vastly serious proposition that may have materially compromised investigations in progress and tipped terrorists off to our methods so that they can hide among us undetected.
This leak, far more than the Valerie Plame incident, deserves a full investigation to identify who spilled the beans and to whom and how. The consequences of this leak alone merit an independent investigation and, perhaps, a trial for treason.
Why does President Bush need to use taps without warrants in the fight on terror? The answer is obvious: We often don't know who or what we are looking for.
Our analysts' best hope of catching and exposing terror plots against us lies in combing the airwaves, listening for suspicious words and phrases or patterns. Unlike criminal investigations, which are deductive -- predicated on a single suspect or a number of alternative suspects -- terror investigators want to find out what is going on, and only an inductive approach -- amassing lots of material and searching for patterns -- has any chance of success.
For example, in 2002 the federal government tipped off the New York City Police Department that there was a lot of chatter about the Brooklyn Bridge. The resulting police tactics stopped the attack and eventually led to the apprehension of the would-be bomber.
What warrant could the anti-terror investigators have gotten to allow such a search? They had no name, no phone numbers, no idea of what to look for. But a careful analysis of the data averted a massive tragedy.
Politically, the Left is making a big mistake in focusing on the issue. Bush is well-served by bringing the terrorism debate home. Isolationists -- about 40 percent of the nation, divided between the two parties -- will not back him on a war in Iraq but sure will support him against attempts to handcuff homeland security in the name of privacy or civil liberties.
By raising this issue and the concomitant issue of the Patriot Act renewal the Democrats are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Iraq is a winner for the Left. Homeland security is a loser.

Hillary's strings

Anyone who wonders about Hillary Clinton's nuanced position on the war in Iraq need look no further than the polls she is seeing.
To outside observers, Mrs. Clinton's position -- that she takes "responsibility" for her vote but that she wouldn't have voted for the war if she knew then what she knows now, but we shouldn't withdraw, but we should set a series of milestones to use in deciding when to withdraw, but we shouldn't set a timetable for pulling out -- seems a trifle tortured. But to her pollster, Mark Penn, it makes perfect political sense.
Unable to keep the puppet strings from showing, Penn blabbed to Washington Post political writer John Harris. In a strategy memo to Democrat moderates, Penn and Democratic Leadership Council President Al From warned that "Democratic leaders could be playing with political dynamite if they call for an immediate pullout of American troops."
Penn and From argued that a middle path is better, in which Democrats reject troop withdrawal but endorse "clear benchmarks" to measure progress and set a path to a victory and a pullout.
Curiously, that is exactly what Hillary said.
A warning to Mark Penn: Hillary doesn't mind being a puppet. But she does mind if the strings show.

High Maintenance Women

During a New Years eve gathering with friends and family the discussion of High Maintenance Women was hotly debated. Several of us men tried to explain the concept to some of the women in attendance.
This is not a complicated issue, especially for me since I would describe myself as High Maintenance.
Therefore, this is my literary 2 cents worth of knowledge and perspective on the issue.
First thing, you need to ask yourself some basic questions. There are quizzes all over the net, but I narrowed the questions down to the basics:

Do you change relationships often?
Do you get upset when your mate misses your birthday an anniversary?
Do you like it when your mate buys things for you? REPEAT!
Which do you prefer small, thoughtful gifts chosen for their personal value, or extravagant, possibly expensive PUBLIC displays of affection?
Do you expect things how you want them, when you want them?
Do you like to go out to expensive restaurants/clubs?
Do you often throw temper tantrums because of something he did but refuse to tell him?
Is social and or monetary status (particularly that of your mate) critical to YOUR existence. NOTE I SAID YOUR EXISTENCE! Is the need to disclose that important to you?

“High maintenance women are like high maintenance sports cars. They are lots of fun when you are out on the town together, but for every hour of showing off, there are another 10 hours spent on upkeep and repair behind the scenes.”
I stole that one but it fits!
HM women are those who NEED many things (money, material goods, affection) to be happy.
High maintenance women love dressing up whenever possible, and are obsessed with all aspects of their personal appearance and grooming in general. This almost obsessive attention to detail usually extends beyond their person, to their homes or apartments, their pets, and yes, evens their men.
In addition, they tend to be perfectionists, overachievers, self-centered, and a ridiculously vain.

More questions:
Do you pick out you own gifts on your birthday and at Christmas because people think you are so fussy that you would only return the gift anyway?
Do you often send back food in restaurants if it's not exactly to your liking?
Does you put make-up on whenever you go out, even if it's just to the grocery store?

HM women are arm candy, pure and simple. Their fascination with their own looks means that whenever they step out of the house, they look perfect.
HM women insists on being with a man who can match her when it comes to looks and status. They will NEVER date down (in their mind), under any circumstances.
HM women try to encourage and may even buy things on their own initiative that they think will better their mans appearance. They will give constant advice on grooming, whether it's about haircuts, which styles suit you, or what the heck you should do with that facial hair.
HM women insist on attention, (GOOD OR BAD) constant compliments and fancy dinners, they will demand the best of all these things.
HM women are straight shooters who are eager to let you know when they are not pleased. However, the problem is they cannot be satisfied! REPEAT, THEY CANNOT BE SATISFIED!
HM woman always want more of everything. She will find faults in ANY MANS best efforts, and for MOST men, some women just aren't worth the bother.
If they have lots of money to keep you away and happy for awhile fine, but if you have to spend too much time around them you will want to strangle them.
HM women are often victims of the "Princess Syndrome," or excessively precious behavior stemming from the belief that they are somehow above certain people, things and tasks. Some HM women may just flatly refuse to shoulder their share of the load. For example, HM women will always makes her mate do all the yard work and mowing because she is too "delicate" for it. Typically, they hate camping, hiking, loud parties, and more. This behavior is not good for developing and equal partnership.
But above all else, being HM means “Its about you”, every waking hour, every conversation, every trial, tribulation, IN FACT the sun revolves around THEM.
Every conversation, personal relationship, friendship hinges on themselves.
They will only care about what’s going on in your life IF it affects THEM!

Liberals are so transparent

“I love the smell of defections in the morning,” That is the tag line at the end of a post on the Daily Kos referring to a letter written by some schmuck claiming that he is some disgruntled Republican.
Remember I always mention that if you want to know the talking points of liberal blogs you focus on Kos and what shit they are throwing against the walls hoping that it sticks.
Well even before, I read this letter on Kos I wondered why so many liberal blogs were publishing letters from so-called defecting Republicans.
Instead of solidifying their base of support, they are trying to forward the notion that Republicans are leaving the party in droves.
Ask yourself something. Why would you give a fuck about what some John or Jane Doe utters on some letter to the editor?
You could also ask, why read the rantings of some crazy Negro who calls himself Snoop?
Both are legitimate questions. Lol! Yes we do like to use each other for our own political, personal, social or whatever gratification.
This certainly is no different that posting editorials here reflecting my political bent.
But my question is, if someone has an axe to grind with this administration does announcing their political affiliation in the piece give them some credibility?
I hear more and more on radio talk shows people start out by saying the oft used phrase “I love your show BUT.” Then they feel as if they must explain that “I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A REPUBLICAN” So Fucken what? Your point is.
I have written a number of pieces that were published, both letters to the editors and guest editorial pieces on all sorts of topics. Few people knew my political affiliation because I have always believed that divulging my political preference would actually hurt my credibility in addressing various topics.
If you want to bitch about G Dub and his policies, the War, Spygate, whatever, your political leanings frankly do not mean jack in the grand scheme of things.
However, liberal Democrats are scanning the net hunting for examples of Republican angst and using these to convince SOMEONE, that SEE even Republicans hate Bush.
Here are a few examples I found:

I have been a registered Republican all of my adult life, but after observing the Bush administration for the past five years, I feel obliged to express my public outrage at the actions of a president who claims to represent my party.
The Republican Party I joined 25 years ago believed in fiscal responsibility.
Under the "leadership" of President Bush, domestic spending has risen at the fastest rate since Lyndon Johnson's "great society," and of all the pork-filled bills passed by Congress, Bush has not vetoed even one.
Consequently, the deficit has ballooned, and future generations face an ever-growing mountain of debt.
Is this fiscal responsibility?
The old Republican Party championed the individual against the might of Washington, D.C., but this president in his arrogance thinks checks and balances don't apply to him.
He asks us to trust his judgment with our civil liberties, but why should we?
His judgment must be questioned because the only thing that matches the administration's arrogance is its incompetence.
One only has to consider the prosecution of the Iraqi occupation, the shambles of post-war reconstruction or the hurricane response to realize that this administration is not fit to be trusted with the rights and liberties that generations of Americans have sacrificed to acquire and preserve.
President Bush has called for an investigation to find out who leaked the information about his domestic spying program.
In reality, it is this appallingly arrogant administration's blatant and egregious abuses of power that should be investigated.

Portland Press Herald”


“My grandparents always registered Republican but voted Democratic. That’s what you did in those days if you didn’t want your kids to go to Vietnam. Philly is working class and Democratic but local politics in those days was always Republican bully politics where we lived. Being a registered Republican could be helpful in getting deferments or getting in the guard to avoid the war in the jungles of South East Asia. This mentality was pervasive in our community. You just didn’t register as a Democrat when Nixon was in charge. If you needed anything from the local government you better be a Republican. Vote Democratic quietly. Politics was reserved for talk around the dinner table. In our house you didn’t discuss your democratic proclivities with anyone on the outside. You might end up on the “list”.”


"I am 40 yrs. old & have been a registered Republican my entire adult life. Although I agree with the party's position on taxes, and other related issues, I am ashamed of their "war" on the environment. I appologize to the American people and promise to continue working to protect wilderness and wildlife.”

“A Registered Republican Since the 70s - Me!
I've always supported the Republicans' tight fiscal policies.
However, their support of monopolies, big religion, expensive
military and their war on the environment have always been
disappointments. As a Republican, I'll continue working to attempt
bringing honor, reason and decency to the Republican party.”


“What disturbs me the most is the moral climate being established by President Bush and his Administration. President Bush is absolutely right when he says that values should be a prominent topic in this crucial election. As a registered Republican, I've felt this way for years -- long before my first child was born. It's why this dad will be voting for John Kerry. As a registered Republican, I am stunned that so many in our political party are so staunchly defending President Bush. It's time we put the good of our country ahead of our partisan interests.
I was a life-long Republican, my family members are all Republicans, but this year I reregistered as a Democrat because I can't stand what the Republicans are doing to our country right now. - Sue from Boulder, Colorado”

“In case you're wondering, (NO ASSHOLE I WASN’T) I've been an active Republican for years. As a grade-schooler in the early 1970s, I went door to door handing out GOP campaign literature. As a young adult in the early 1980s, I was such a party stalwart that friends called me Alex -- after Michael J. Fox's conservative TV character on "Family Ties." In the 1990s, I proudly served for seven years in the Voinovich Administration when he was governor.”