Gore MIA

Here's a summary of the effort to get Al Gore to debate climate change. Gore is unresponsive.

-------------------
In ads appearing in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Times, [Czech President Vaclav] Klaus has called on Gore to face him in a one-on-one debate on the proposition: "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis." ...

The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based free-market think tank, launched the debate campaign in April, using ads, press releases, and other tactics to prod Gore into confronting those who reject his alarmist views on global warming.

...
Gore's refusal to take on the likes of Klaus, Avery and Lord Monckton is no isolated incident of the former vice president's lacking the courage of his convictions. In June, Professor Scott Armstrong of the University of Pennsylvania urged Gore to put his global warming money where his mouth is. Armstrong, one of the world's leading experts on forecasting, has studied the forecasts made by Gore and such organizations as the UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) and found their methodology wanting.

Who made Bollinger the Ambassadors of Insult?

Dean of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, tried to make it seem like his invitation to the President of Iran was useful by putting him on the spot and insulting him. I'm sorry, but this was ineffective, immature and futile. Am I to believe that the Dean planned all along to invite "Ahm-a-nuttah-job" just to insult him? 1) No, I don't believe that. 2) If it was, why does Bollinger get to appoint himself the voice of America vitriol towards Iran? Shouldn't this be the role of the State Department or the President? I'd prefer to hear President Bush calling Ahm-a-nuttah-job "a petty and cruel dictator" and suggesting he is "astonishingly uneducated".

Here's a round-up of reaction from cheer to jeer at American Digest:
--------------------
Charles Johnson at LGF holds his line: lgf: Ahmadinejad's Columbia Speech, Thread 2

Lots of readers seem to think Columbia president Lee Bollinger deserves credit for his opening speech. I don't. I think it was an attempt to redeem his reputation and keep the money flowing in from alumni, and does not even begin to make up for the atrocity of giving this creature a podium at one of America's most prestigious schools.

Koz Kids (which Johnson links to in the same item) agree with him, but for slightly different reasons: Daily Kos: Bollinger's Diatribe

As an American, I was stunned and embarrassed by Bollinger's harangue of Ahmedinejad. It was a craven and cowardly capitulation to political pressures, and unworthy of the academic institution that Bollinger represents.
----------------

UPDATE:
From Gateway Pundit's round-up, this is my fear about this invitation:
---------------
(After the Dean chastises Ahmadinejad for wanting more research into the holocost)

"But, from the applause Mahmoud's getting from the university audience, Bollinger is the one who looks ridiculous."

Hollywoods deals out punishment

Not sure who made Hollywood the parents of America, but they seem to feel that its their duty to punish America for being an economic and human-rights leader. By undermining success in the middle-east, they feel that America will be sufficiently punished for projecting her power for sucurity. Future wars and attacks on the west will surely still be further punishment for these wars. Certainly, Hollywood's weakness in the face of fascism will not be a source of the enemy-of-freedom's inspiration.

LA Times presents opposing views on the anti-war movies about to debut this fall. This includes a fictional (slanderous) movie about our soldiers in Haditha, Iraq by Brian DePalma, "inspired by true events". Yeah. The only truth being that there are soldiers in Iraq. The rest is propaganda to push for political change at the expense of America security.

From the Anti-Hollywood perspective, Andrew Breitbart:
------------------

To the Hollywood defeat set the Iraq War is painted as Abu Ghraib and a soldier raping an Iraqi 14-year-old girl and killing her family. Anomalous hideous behavior for which the perpetrators are rightfully prosecuted is used to slander the majority in the pursuit of political propaganda intended to demoralize a nation in the pursuit of ending the war. Brian De Palma admitted as much. Shameful. Predictable.

Democratic Leader

Blatant lying from the Democratic leader, Harry Reid. (via. Hugh Hewitt interview with Victor Davis Hanson)

---------------
HH: Well, on the weekend, Harry Reid told a Nevada newspaper that a million Iraqis had been killed in Iraq since the invasion. That’s trafficking in propaganda.

VDH: Yeah, it is. He’s unhinged. I think that people have to realize that he’s unhinged. You know, when he said the war was lost, or that Petraeus was untrustworthy, this was a man, remember, that on October 12th, 2002, gave a speech and said that he didn’t care about WMD, because we were in a de facto war with Saddam since ’91 when he broke the armistice accords, and we had to go to war with him. So I think he’s just somebody who’s…he’s almost a poster boy for the Republicans.

Your Commander-in-Chief?

Should one be elected Commander-in-Chief if one does not trust one's generals? 69% of Americans trust the military. Shouldn't you're president be in this segment of the population?

-----------
“You have been made the de facto spokesmen for what many of us believe to be a failed policy. Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony ... I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.”
-----------
- Hillary Rodham Clinton 9/11/07

This is political speak for, "I don't believe you."

Hsuicide?

Now we learn that Norman Hsu, the Clinton/Democratic fund raiser busted for shady fund raising and donations, has left a suicide note. Brings back memories of the Vincent Foster story.

----------
Vincent Walker Foster, Jr. (January 15, 1945 – July 20, 1993) was a deputy White House counsel during the first term of President Bill Clinton, and also a law partner and personal acquaintance of Hillary Clinton. His death was ruled a suicide by multiple official investigations, but became a subject of conspiracy

Hobson's Choice

From Wikipedia:
"Hobson's choice is a free choice in which only one option is offered. The choice is therefore between taking the option or not taking it. The phrase is said to originate from Thomas Hobson (1544–1630), a livery stable owner at Cambridge, England who, in order to rotate the use of his horses, offered customers the choice of either taking the horse in the stall nearest the door—or taking none at all."

Mario Loyola at NRO
---------------
... Democratic-party leaders are faced with Hobson's choice. They must play the pessimist's part – it is the only way to maintain their majority. Anything else is political suicide for them. They are irretrievably invested in defeat. They therefore have to deny that we are making progress, no matter how obvious that progress is — and no matter how relieved they are, deep down inside, as Americans, that we are making it.

Chuck Schumer - Shame...

The despicable Democrat from New York, Chuck Schumer slanders our troops. Then, realizing what he said, apologizes? No. He tries to re-write history. Sorry, Chuck. You Tube remembers what you said...

-----------
And let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down in spite of the Surge, not because of the Surge.

The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from Al Qaeda said to these tribes, "We have to fight Al Qaeda ourselves."

-Chuck Schumer 9/5/07
-----------
(via. Gateway Pundit)

Moveon.org's Pre-emptive Strike

In an effort to shape opinion on what should be a discussion of facts, Moveon.org has placed an add in the New York Times calling General Petraeus "General Betray us". Comments from the Weekly Standard:

---------------
Let's be clear: MoveOn.org is suggesting that General Petraeus has 'betrayed' his country. This is disgusting. To attack as a traitor an American general commanding forces in war because his 'on the ground' experience does not align with MoveOn.org's political objectives is utterly shameful.
...

So, veterans who served in Iraq ask the Democratic leaders in Congress: Does MoveOn.org speak for you? Do you agree with MoveOn.org? Or do you repudiate this despicable charge?

Follow-Emulate

I have long thought about how a population, generations in the making, who have only known tyrannical rule, could open their eyes to being a free and open society. The answer is here in Michael Yon's latest. A life of following is perfect if we are the ones they follow. The Marines.

------------
Over the next several days, I saw how much the Iraqis respected Rakene Lee and the other Marines who were all courageous, tactically competent, measured, and collectively and constantly telling even the Iraqis to go easy on the Iraqis. It’s people like Rakene Lee who are winning the moral high ground in Iraq. It is people like this who are devastating al Qaeda just by being themselves. Over those same several days, I would also see the Iraqi Lieutenant Hamid treat prisoners with respect and going out of his way to treat other Iraqis the way he saw Americans treating them. Lieutenant Hamid, in his young twenties, seemed to watch every move of the Marines and try to emulate them.

Data has no Political Bias

Here is an excellent post about the latest casualty figures from Iraq. Civilian deaths were steady even though 1/3 of these casualties came from the worst attack of the war (400 people). US Military deaths were flat, but at pre-surge levels. These are the signs that we are winning in Iraq. And we must continue until the war is won.

--------------
Although I wish more progress were evident in the civilian casualty chart, one has to say that the new strategy adopted by General Petraeus is showing results. Actually, the results have been quite spectacular, but this fact is obscured by the high number of civilian casualties that are still evident. I have thought all along that if civilian casualties did not drop very substantially by the Fall "deadline," Harry Reid would use that fact to successfully convince the American public that "this war is lost." And because most Americans do not pay close attention to the details and therefore do not really understand what is happening in Iraq, I had thought that surrender (to al Qaeda) would be in the cards.

I don't think that any more. In fact, I am amazed that Americans (and even some Democratic leaders) are able to appreciate the momentous turn of events that has occurred in Iraq lately. More and more Americans seem to understand that we really are in a war against al Qaeda in Iraq (whether or not Iraqi politicians reconcile with each other), that al Qaeda has made it so, and that losing to al Qaeda would have profoundly negative consequences. They also seem to appreciate that the tide has turned against al Qaeda in a very big way even though the terrorists remain capable of launching sneak attacks against and slaughtering unarmed and completely innocent men, women and children. Although the mainstream media often refers to these attacks as being carried out by Sunni "militants" or "extremists," the American public seems to appreciate the glaringly obvious fact that these attacks are instead carried out by "terrorists." Al Qaeda terrorists, in fact. They are doing so not because they are participating in a Sunni-vs.-Shiite civil war but because they are trying to provoke a civil war to bring down the Iraqi government and to demoralize you (so that you will throw your support behind Harry Reid and like-minded anti-victory Democrats).

I have long pointed to the eerie code of silence that Democrats have adopted on the subject of al Qaeda in Iraq. On those rare occasions when they do happen to mention al Qaeda in Iraq, they typically deny its importance and point to the absurd notion that the real terrorists are in Afghanistan. You know that this is false. All you have to do is add up the number of civilians killed by foreign suicide bombers in Iraq this year and compare it to the number killed by suicide bombers in Afghanistan over the same period of time. It would be something like 2000 (Iraq) vs. 60 (Afghanistan) in 2007 alone. Obviously, al Qaeda's leaders are hiding somewhere along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, but they are sending their foot soldiers to Iraq to evict American forces from that country first. Then they'll turn their attention to Afghanistan (at which point the Democrats will finally be right about where the real terrorists are).

Sacrificing America to defeat Bush

This is a sad highlight of the pending anti-Bush/anti-America movies about the be released just in time for the election.

--------------------
However, most of these films will serve to reinforce the negative messages delivered daily by the MSM to a public largely ignorant of what’s really going on.

Just as in Britain during WWII there’s no guarantee that we’re going to win the War on Terror. However, unlike then, most of today’s filmmakers and actors, along with most journalists, feel no compunction to rally the people to the cause. They want to see Bush defeated, and if that also means defeat for America, and the consequences for the Middle East and the Western democracies that such a defeat would entail, then so be it.

Hopefully continued progress in Iraq and Afghanistan will diminish the public's appetite for fictionalised bad news stories. And perhaps more film-makers who, while not necessarily cheerleaders for the war at least aren't invested in the idea of defeat, will produce more balanced, even positive movies (where are you Bruce Willis?). If so, and if movie-goers shun the anti-war polemics, then Hollywood will be hit where it hurts – at the box office – and might just get the message.

"Leaders"

The Democratic "leadership" has changed direction now that the polls tell them to. This is not leadership. This is pandering for job security. For Shame.

--------------

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has backed down from demands for a withdrawal of our troops in Iraq by next spring.

Selling voters on cut and run was always tough, but now a new UPI/Zogby Poll finds that 54% of Americans believe the Iraq war is not lost.