Content by rbdwiggins
Posted at 10:12pm on Mar. 11, 2008 Another Victory for National Security... Sorry, Nancy. [Updated]
By rbdwiggins
House Democrats were unable to muster the votes for a two-thirds majority, and President Bush's veto of H.R. 2082 The Intelligence Authorization Act of 2008 was sustained.
Speaker Pelosi, you might have better luck if you'd pick something other than national security or executive privilege to make your stand. So far, your record is pretty dismal, and your chosen path looks mighty bleak.
Posted in National Security — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 4:18pm on Feb. 24, 2008 "We Have Lost Intelligence Information This Past Week..."
By rbdwiggins
“We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress’ failure to act.” - McConnell/Mukasey
It’s unconscionable, but not unexpected, that the Democratic leaders in the House have chosen to appease their special interest groups by allowing the Protect America Act to expire, even though the Senate passed S. 2248 with wide bipartisan support.
The standard response by the Democrats has been that “no intelligence would be lost since the program could continue for a year.”
However, in the real world, that simply is not the case. Congress’ inaction has placed the national security of the Nation at greater risk.
Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell have written a letter to the Chairman and ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in response to inaccurate claims made by Chairman Reyes and in light of recent developments regarding some cooperating partners since the expiration of the Act.
Posted in National Security — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 5:58pm on Feb. 9, 2008 "We don't have one."
By rbdwiggins
Sadly, reldim, you are absolutely correct. There is no Ronald Reagan waiting in the wings.
Those four-words speak volumes about the current state of the Republican Party and indicate a willingness by far too many of our elected officials to abandon conservative principles for political expedience.
Posted in Archived — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:27am on Jan. 12, 2008 MSM is in the process of redefining Conservatism ...
By rbdwiggins
and apparently, they are attempting to frame the debate within the GOP on terms that are perceived to be more advantageous to the Dems.
This is just the latest installment from CNN's Poll:
"Next I'm going to read the names of some of those candidates and ask how you would feel if each of them won the Republican presidential nomination next year."
(emphasis added)
When did "feelings" become an important consideration for conservative Republicans? Introducing this type of rhetoric into the political discourse only serves to obfuscate the candidate's record and position on policy.
Posted in 2008 — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:51am on Dec. 9, 2007 What’s wrong with the Democratic presidential candidates?
By rbdwiggins
From an AP story we’re told that Oprah Lends Star Power to Obama in Iowa
The weekend "Oprahpalooza" lends A-list star power to Obama's campaign, drawing huge crowds that Obama hopes will translate into votes. Tens of thousands were expected to turn out for Winfrey's Iowa stops and her Sunday visits to South Carolina and New Hampshire with Obama and his wife.
Posted in 2008 — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 4:51am on Oct. 14, 2007 LTG Ricardo Sanchez Addresses Military Reporters and Editors - The NYTimes Took It Personally, IMHO, And They Should
By rbdwiggins
On 12 October 2007, LTG (Ret) Ricardo S. Sanchez addressed a gathering of military reporters and editors in Washington, D.C., where he laid out a scathing indictment of the PartisanPress™ for their “unethical conduct” and willingness to sacrifice the truth in order to advance their “preconceived notions, biases and agendas.”
True to form, the NYTimes responded almost immediately with an article designed to establish the “action line” and shift the focus of Gen. Sanchez’s speech squarely on the Bush administration.
kowalski focused more on the “action line” in his latest blog, and thanks to Moe, I wish to focus on the first-half of the speech.
Because the PartisanPress™ has chosen to abandon the premise of the First Amendment, the foundation of our democracy is at risk.
From the Code of Ethics for the Society of Professional Journalists:
...public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility...
Posted in Archived — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:29am on Sep. 23, 2007 Public Editor: Times Betrays Own Interest
By rbdwiggins
Clark Hoyt, public editor for the NYTimes, admits the paper betrayed its own policy by giving MoveOn.org, a Hillary Clinton/George Soros liberal front-group, a discounted advertising rate it did not deserve.
FOR nearly two weeks, The New York Times has been defending a political advertisement that critics say was an unfair shot at the American commander in Iraq.
But I think the ad violated The Times’s own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to.
Posted in Archived — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 4:17pm on Sep. 1, 2007 What “Consensus”? ..... "What Oreskes got wrong."
By rbdwiggins
This began as a response to pliny, one of our more knowledgeable, resident AGW defenders after he invoked Oreskes, (2004) while commenting in a recent post by bs.
- One of my favorite AGW skeptics addresses that subject in these words:
- “The claim of “consensus” rests almost entirely on an inaccurate and now-outdated single-page comment in the journal Science entitled The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (Oreskes, 2004).”
What follows are a few excerpts from a rather lengthy paper published by the Science and Public Policy Institute entitled:
“Consensus”? What “Consensus”?
Among Climate Scientists, The Debate Is Not Over(Note: pdf)
Although I suspect it's purely unintentional, it's actually a well written defense of Schulte (2007: submitted).
Posted in Policy — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 12:30pm on Aug. 12, 2007 Not So Fast…
By rbdwiggins
For months on end, the top candidates from the party of retreat and defeat have voiced their opinions on the war in Iraq. They have actively sought to placate and win the support of the anti-war fringe from their party by promising to “end the war and bring the troop home.”
“It is time to bring our troops home because it has made us less safe,” Mr. Obama said to a throng of supporters, cheering wildly despite the pouring rain, at a campaign stop in New Hampshire last month.
Mrs. Clinton has been equally vocal in making “bringing the troops home” a central theme. In February, she said her message to the Iraqi government would be simple: “I would say ‘I’m sorry, it’s over. We are not going to baby-sit a civil war.’ ”
By now, one would think their positions on the war were well known.
But, wait…Not so fast…
Posted in Democrats — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 9:17pm on Mar. 19, 2007 USC Section 423 Report
By rbdwiggins
In an earlier comment to Mark's post regarding Brit Hume and Valerie Plame, I stated:
On an annual basis, the CIA must submit a written list of every agent that has been provided Non-Official Cover by the U.S. government to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Precisely what affirmative measures were taken by the U.S. government to protect each agent's NOC status must accompany the list.
I erred somewhat in my original statement, and I wish to correct the record.
The CIA submits the NOC list and the affirmative measures taken to protect those with NOC status to the President, who in turn reports that information to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.