Saturday, September 29, 2007

Liberals and Conservatives in the News

By Stanford Matthews
Blog @

Positive news is always welcome. It has been in short supply lately. Some attribute the predominance of negative news to a liberal leaning MSM. But there are plenty of left leaning sources who claim the press is right wing while the right leaning sources claim it's left wing. Which means the audience must rely on their own judgment in checking news.

A group of headlines viewed today are encouraging. An additional report on how Sarkozy is reinventing French politics reversing the trends from former leaders and a similar trend in the US Congress on views toward conditions in Iraq and Iran comes from the following reference. It is almost like people are beginning to understand what is at stake.

France Flips While Congress Shifts
By Charles Krauthammer
September 28, 2007

On the largest possible stage -- the U.N. General Assembly -- President Nicolas Sarkozy put Iran on notice. His predecessor, Jacques Chirac, had said that France could live with an Iranian nuclear bomb. Sarkozy said that France cannot.

A few months ago, the question was: Will the Democratic Congress force a withdrawal from Iraq? Today the question in Congress is: What can be done to achieve success in Iraq -- most specifically, by countering Iran, which is intent on seeing us fail?

Another report had a title asking if we were friends again with France. That might be getting ahead of ourselves. After years of opposition from France in international politics and not knowing what will come of the Sarkozy period in France, a little restraint might be in order before the hugging begins.

On another front, no pun intended, SOD Gates has reeled in some victories after replacing the controversial former SOD Donald Rumsfeld. Perhaps the one characteristic of Rumsfeld's cool appearing determination and quick remarks to shield himself from the press that forecast his fall from grace was the refusal to alter his agenda based on changing situations. It is as if current SOD Gates lost no time working other strategies in search of success. Not due to Gates alone, the public may finally be reevaluating positions on critical issues that will result in victory in Iraq as well as success in related matters.

Bob Gates’s Victory

To little notice, the Defense secretary has gotten his way on Iraq, and possibly on Iran. Now, Gates is about to appoint a former top Clinton official to prove he means business.

By Michael Hirsh

Sept. 27, 2007 - Defense Secretary Robert Gates is, quite by choice, the anti-Rumsfeld—a man so low-key and consensus-oriented that it’s hard to find his fingerprints on any particular policy. But no one can win internal battles the way Gates has been doing in Washington lately without leaving a few traces.

While some may view the next story as negative, anytime Ted Kennedy confirms he has overstayed his welcome in a world screaming for sensible politics is a good news day. Certainly Kennedy is not alone in adding nonsense amendments to active legislation but he must be a master at this useless self-serving practice. It is part of what makes Congress the recipient of the lowest approval rating since the earth cooled. This is not to say the amendment is invalid on its own although it is because it duplicates laws already on the books. If being convicted of a crime is not enough for liberals that they require extra vengeance if it offends their vindictive sensibilities, adding this amendment only serves to expose what is wrong with the left. Thank you Ted Kennedy for again drawing attention to the fact your self-righteous nature may inflict another inequity on the victims you so proudly misrepresent.

Kennedy’s defense priorities
By Byron York
September 28, 2007

While most senators were concentrating on defense issues during the defense reauthorization debate, Kennedy was busy trying to turn the fight over the authorization bill into a fight over something entirely different: a hate-crimes bill.

More proof of insanity among the leftmost of us. Whether it is or not an indictment of the left for falling over themselves to rub elbows with an errand boy from a land, by their own words, bent on the destruction of Israel and eliminating infidels, accepting a dinner invitation from one who supports insurgents in Iraq is beyond understanding. The only good news about this is people like Hugh Hewitt do not stay silent when those who hold themselves in high regard encourage international terrorists. Would you have dinner with someone who threatens to kill you?

There Is No Spoon Long Enough: Dining With Mahmoud
By Hugh Hewitt
Thursday, September 27, 2007

On Tuesday a group of Manhattan's elite accepted an invitation to dine with Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadienajd. Time Magazine's Richard Stengel recounts the vening here, and gives us a glimpse of the guest list which included NBC's Brian Williams and CNN's Christiane Amanpour.

What I cannot understand is how any American can accept an invitation to dine on Iran's tab even as that regime ships weapons and advisors into Iraq to kill more of the nation's finest. It is beyond moral confusion --it is moral collapse.

The article above and two others referenced below in a depressing fashion make the good news of the week list as they offer a record of those suggesting their superior understanding dictates not only surrender in Iraq but at every opportunity offered by those bent on their destruction. What's the word; sheep, lemmings, just plain foolish?

Worldview | My dinner with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
He really believes what he says, and knows less about the U.S. than he thinks.

By Trudy Rubin
Inquirer Columnist

The invitation for Tuesday dinner with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came from the Iranian Mission to the United Nations. The scene was the darkly brocaded Barclay Room of New York's Intercontinental Hotel.

The Iranians must be texting each other with LMAO at the stupidity of some who are called Americans. Not only were they duped to appease a terrorist but they did it in New York City. There's some irony.

Hear, Hear
Americans should not fear talking--and listening--to those whose views we loathe.
Friday, September 28, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

You don't want to judge Christ by Christians, someone once said. He is perfect, they are not.

In a similar way you don't want to judge capitalism by capitalists, or the legitimacy of democracy by the Democrats, or the vitality of our republic by the Republicans. You have to take the thing pure and in itself, while allowing for the flaws and waywardness of its practitioners.

Very good Peggy Noonan, now how about the part where the devil's in the details. If you want to 'talk' with Iran you don't do it with Nancy Pelosi wandering all over the Middle East or a cozy sit down with President Bush. Which would indicate by default that you don't accept invitations to a quaint dinner which indicates you are honoring someone who wants to kill you. A nice opinion piece from WSJ that fits the good news of the day by displaying one more person who just doesn't get it. You want to talk so bad but apparently you haven't been listening. Three stories representing a record of some of America's most naive citizens who cannot speed their own destruction fast enough. All with the blessing of the United Nations.


  1. Pelosi's wandering all over the Middle East?! Good riddance. No more pesky laws.

  2. Great article. The most serious issues on the liberal agenda are civil liberties and gay rights. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the overall War on Terror, the continuing erosion of our Judeo-Christian society and the fight to control our borders are all merely alarmist Republican political obfuscations.
    God help us if they win the White House.