Yesterday was a “bad news day” for Iranian President Ahmadinejad as news of the 30,000 lbs “bunker buster” bomb became common knowledge with the funding requests to produce and deploy a weapon that has been under development for years. (Well, seriously under development since Clinton left office, when the term “penetration” resumed its primarily military, rather than sexual, significance when discussed in the Oval Office.) In a defense “supplemental” budget item, the B2 bomber would be retrofitted to deliver this weapon. Having a credible conventional weapons capability that could destroy underground nuclear facilities could be the “big stick” that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice needs to jump start serious negotiations.  (Fox video Special Report)

The Iranians are not a state I think that will change its behavior….just through talking to them.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Oct. 24, 2007

Naturally, the Democrats, and Ron Paul (R?-TX), are already complaining about this weapon and threatening to “defund” it. Why? Because, they are the Party of Defeat! Anything that could potentially contribute to a US victory in the War on Terror is an anathema to virtually every major Democratic Party leader, with the possible exception of Joe Lieberman, who was forced to run as an independent when challenged by a left-wing fringe candidate from within his own party.

This new weapon system would provide “strategic and tactical flexibility” for political and military leaders according to sources familiar with the capabilities of this “unconventional-conventional weapon.” There will be no need to “go nuclear” in order to terminate, or seriously degrade, Iran’s nuclear ambitions once this weapon system is deployed. It may even help our spineless European “allies” rapidly evolve into vertebrates with regards to their dealings with the religious dictatorship in Tehran. After all, an armed strike against Iran’s apocolyptic facilities would almost certainly degrade Iran’s ability to export oil. “Junkies” can become quite compliant when their “supply” is threatened.

While a single weapon system may not represent a military solution to the Iranian theocratic dictatorship’s intransigence in negotiations to end its nuclear weapons capability, it could certainly be the “catalyst” that results in a “paradigm shift” in our dealing with the current Iranian regime.

Oh, by the way, this is also a weapon that is rumored to be increasing UBL’s “pucker factor.” It’s hard to enjoy paradise with 72 virgins while you are entombed for eternity in a collapsed cave.

(Editor’s note and correction: At the time this post was written, this incident was little more than a CSPAN video.  Reporting on this incident has taken on a life of its own in media outlets around the world.  Therefore, it has now been “widely reported.”)

Condi’s confrontation with a “Code Pink” protester yesterday during a congressional witch hunt  hearing was not widely reported.  CSPAN was there, and the video shows that the woman got her “blood soaked” hands  within inches of Secretary Rice’s face before being hauled off by security personnel while screaming “war criminal” over her shoulder.  (CSPAN video, Frank James in Baltimore Sun column “The Swamp” )

The attacker’s Code Pink sisters were attired in their usual frumpy pink sweat shirts – looking like they were hung over from an all-night Ellen DeGeneres marathon sponsored by NOW – while the woman that menaced Secretary Rice was dressed in dark pants and dark blouse.  This clever disguise confused the  Keystone Cops Capitol Police who apparently concentrated their attentions on the “uniformed” wackos, giving the ”camouflaged” Code Pinker an opening to get up close to Condi.  If all it takes is a change of clothes, minimal use of a hair brush, and a bath in the last 48 hours* to foil security on Capitol Hill — no wonder Condi isn’t too keen on responding to Congressional subpoenas!  (Where’s Blackwater when you need them?)

Is “menaced,” or “assault,” too strong a word?  The Sacramento CBS outlet, Channel 13, titled their report, “Condoleezza Rice Attacked At Capitol Hill Hearing.”  Blood is a biohazardous material that can carry any of a variety of infectious diseases.  What if the attacker’s hands had been covered in some caustic or hazardous chemical agent?  Even if it were only “simulated” blood, like a phony explosive device or toy gun, when used in this fashion during the commission of a crime it is certainly a form of terroristic threatening designed to provoke a fearful reaction in the victim.  Of course, Dr. Rice, was nonplussed by the incident and can be heard exchanging pleasantries with the non-delusional individuals around her as the “Pink Ladies” were carried out of the hearing room loudly protesting that they were being injured.  (A resistance tactic they picked up from their friends in Al-Qaeda?)

Where are the calls for Congressional investigation over this security breech?  It isn’t hard to imagine that some Democratic congressional staffers didn’t have some inkling that this attack was getting ready to happen or even shared an “after action” green tea and veggie wrap with the protesters during lunch.  Wouldn’t that make them complicit in a conspiracy?  Are restraining orders, at least, being sought against those involved to prevent them from returning to Capitol Hill for an encore performance?

Is the lunatic fringe of the Left finally being rejected across majority of the non-psychotropic drug taking political spectrum?  After Bill Maher’s recent outburst at 9-11 conspiracy protesters in his audience, calling on his security personnel to “kick ass,” we have to wonder if there may be some hope for some small measure of political sanity in our nation.  Wait a minute!  Was Bill advocating torture?  Call the ACLU!  On the other hand, it may be an isolated incident of Maher’s becoming “older and wiser” or just an unanticipated side effect of testosterone replacement therapy.

*Code Pink supporters are not known for their attention to hygiene.  Maybe soap causes global warming?

Between the Democratic media consultants and their mainstream media brothers and sisters, the “politics of personal destruction” are alive and well. So, in an act of mercy, Secretary of State Rice accepted the resignation of Richard Griffin, the State Department’s Director of the Diplomatic Security Service, thus ending his career of 36 years in government service. Mr. Griffin, once Congressman Henry Waxman put him in the cross hairs of his congressional “inquiry,” may not have initially appreciated that accepting his resignation was indeed merciful. However, once targeted, he contracted (according to an unconfirmed source) the equivalent of a “political Ebola virus” — a highly virulent, and an almost always fatal and highly contagious condition — that leaves those surrounding the afflicted with little choice but to isolate themselves from the source of the “disease,” or perish. (Read John Broder’s article in the International Herald Tribune)

The Diplomatic Security Service is an unsung hero in the War on Terror. A war that the Left, for example Senator John Edwards, insists is little more than a bumper sticker slogan. This small agency has been instrumental to many victories in this global conflict. Unfortunately, since most of their successes remain classified, their political cushion of past accomplishments is severely limited. With the current anti-Bush, anti-military, anti-American hysteria that holds sway in the main stream media; military and political leaders are only as good as their last mistake. In Mr. Griffin’s case, the last “mistake” was failure to keep private security contracting out of the headlines, most notably what is becoming commonly known as the “Blackwater scandal.”

We are not trying to make excuses for the inexcusable, but we cannot encourage government officials to “think outside the box” or make command decisions while being given inadequate resources and incomplete intelligence and then punish them when there are poor outcomes. This is the “fog of war.” There are fine lines between accountability, loyalty to subordinates and “witch hunts.” Given the caustic congressional “oversight” environment, Condi had little choice but to accept Griffin’s resignation and move on. After all, she has a long “to-do list.” Hopefully, she will short-circuit Waxman’s self-righteous, self-important oversight crusade and remove his self-serving pandering to the lunatic Leftist fringe from the mainstream media “radar screen.”

If we are to achieve victory in the War on Terror and regain sanity in our domestic policies, our mass media outlets must stop acting like PR shills for the radical Left. Are there any suggestions about how this can be accomplished?

With the Blackwater investigation still going on, there is no shortage of mainstream media misinformation.  For an interesting perspective on the issue with historical background information of just how contracted security forces developed, checkout Strategic Forcasting’s (Stratfor) new blog by Dr. George Friedman, Friedman Writes Back and his posts: Geopolitical Foundations of Blackwater and Further Thoughts on Blackwater.

Please note: As far as we are aware, there’s no underlying racial implication to the expression, “The Black Swan.” Rather, it is the title of Nissam Nicholas Taleb’s book, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, released in April, 2007. With a penchant for citing philosophers and writers that (with luck) most of us haven’t heard about since freshman Philosophy 101 and Western Civilization 101, the book describes how we all handle, or mishandle in many cases, situations that involve the highly improbable, or what the writer terms “black swans.”

Taleb is a Wall Street refugee who is reinventing himself as an author and philosopher.  How well has he done that?  That’s up to the individual reader, and we suspect, how closely one feels that his treatise confirms, or refutes, their own ideas.

So, how does this impact Condi? In a variety of ways, but the most direct application is 9-11, which he uses as an example of a “black swan” phenomenon.   (NYT Op-ed, from Fooled by Randomness blog)  If Taleb’s theory gains widespread acceptance, there are negative political implications for those, mostly Democrats, who are trying to assign blame for the attack in order to gain political advantage. A key part of their strategy for 2008 will be to try and attach President Bush’s lower approval ratings, fueled by the non-stop 9-11 and War on Terror-related liberal media attacks that pass for journalism these days, to any prominent Republican – Condi included. She is especially vulnerable to being targeted due to her high profile in the current administration and reputation for a “Teflon” coating that keeps her approval ratings considerably above those of many of her colleagues.

However, Condi herself is a “black swan.” Her personal history of growing up in segregated Alabama, seeking higher education, teaching, administering, and a life of public service is itself a highly improbable career trajectory. But when coupled with her ability to ascend to the Presidency one day, her status as a “black swan” is a certainty.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s book is available at Amazon, Barnes&Noble, and in downloadable audio at Audible.com

Yesterday’s Jerusalem Post published M. J. Rosenberg’s (Director of the Israel Policy Forum’s Washington Policy Center) op-ed Condi gets it right. (link) Predictably, there will be hard-liners, Israeli and Palestinian, that will reject the author’s thesis.  More than likely, they’ll simultaneously accuse Secretary of State Rice of being a shill for the other side. (Not even John Kerry could “flip-flop” fast enough to accomplish that feat!)

Rice’s position is precisely right. America should not boycott Palestinians who recognize Israel and oppose terrorism just because they serve in a government with people who don’t.

Dr. Rice’s recent accomplishments in the Middle East, however modest and subject to being impeded, or even derailed, by the winds of domestic and regional politics in the US, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the EU, Russia and, of course, the UN — not to mention the possibility of terrorism at any moment by any of a myriad of “splinter” groups; are on the threshold of breaking the “glass ceiling” of Middle East peace. Rosenberg asserts that the progress made by Condi’s ongoing efforts has set the stage for the equivalent of a Palestinian-Israeli Shanghai Communique.

The original, the joint statement that concluded President Nixon’s historic 1972 visit to Communist China, was short on substance, but nonetheless, arguably, marked the beginning of one of the most important geopolitical shifts of the last century and hastened the end of the Cold War.

Not much happened during the visit.. ..pictures of a US president in Beijing, shaking hands with Chairman Mao and visiting the Great Wall, were more significant than any agreement reached.. ..In fact, it was near-impossible to reach any agreement because the two sides agreed on virtually nothing.

Nixon’s national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, and Mao’s foreign minister, Chou En-Lai, drafted the so-called Shanghai communique which stated that the two sides had met, held “frank and honest” discussions, and hoped to meet again. Unable to state areas of agreement, the communique stated areas of disagreement.. ..Nevertheless, the joint statement changed the world by asserting that despite the differences, the process of reconciliation had begun.

Time will tell if this analogy is correct, but there is cause for cautious optimism if these recent reports are any indication: Time, “Condi Diary: Pushing Peace in the Desert,” Haaretz, “Olmert agrees to resume open-ended talks with Abbas,” Jerusalem Post, Rice: Abbas, Olmert to meet biweekly on ‘political horizon’,” Al-Jazeerah, “Condi’s Delicate Condition, but Hope is on the Horizon”

The admonition to “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem” is as timeless now, as it ever was.

The Democratically-controlled House succeeded in doing what Speaker Pelosi said it would.  In “voting to end the war” (It would seem by any means necessary, even surrender, or worse, “starving” our troops in the field for critical funding.), she is trying to accomplish what, up until now, al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and all the Islamic terrorists combined have been unable to do —  force a retreat (euphemistically called “redeployment”) by US forces in the War on Terror.  And all she had to do was bang her Speaker’s gavel to have almost all of the Democratic congressmen (and congresswomen) line up like pigs at the feeding trough as she poured out a mere $642 million dollars of taxpayer cash in order to get them to forget about our troops.  These are pigs that even an Ayatollah could love.

In spite of the mainstream media in full spin mode, the American public will see this for what it is — a betrayal of our military men and women, their families, and ultimately the entire country.  This vote and the pork barrel spending required to make it happen are going to “fatten up” these Congressional “piggies” for electoral slaughter in 2008.  So, in recognition of your legislative “victory,” Nancy, here’s a “Mission Accomplished” banner just for you!

If you want to use this image on your website, or blog, feel free to do so.  (Although, we would appreciate a link back to us.)  Just be sure to copy and save the image to your own server in order to protect our website’s bandwidth.

From the bleak tribal region of Pakistan, known as Waziristan, where Osama Bin Laden has been rumored to be hiding from time to time; there are reports — attributed to Secretary of State Rice, who presumably has the best intelligence available from hi-tech satellites to possibly even special ops forces (Pakistani, and possibly others) on the ground, that fighting has broken out between tribal forces and foreign “extremists” that have long used the rugged terrain as a safe haven for their activities.  (Source: Pakistan’s Dawn Edition)  

Remember how the special operations troops closely integrated to with the Northern Alliance proved crucial to battlefield success in Afghanistan?  Did we learn an important lesson?

For an idea of how rugged the terrain is, take a look at this video from the UK Guardian.  It’s tough to survive, much less fight under such conditions.  Hundreds of Pakistani troops have been killed in recent fighting.  (We wonder if there isn’t some way to send a “Care Package” to those troops to show our appreciation for their sacrifices?  Looks like they’ve pulled the toughest assignment in the Pakistani Army — largely because of pressure from the US.)

It would appear that the foreign terrorists have finally “worn out their welcome” with the Waziristan tribes that have hosted them for years in a perversion of the Islamic tradition of hospitality.  Initially, the deal that Pakistani President Musharraf struck last year with the Waziristan tribal leaders was not a welcome development in Washington.  (Pak Tribune)  However, Musharraf is a shrewd politician, having survived assassination attempts, failed coups, and frequent civil unrest.  And it looks like he may have again proven his political mettle.  After the Waziristan tribes concluded the agreement with the central government, there were reports that some tribal leaders were murdered as “collaborators” by the foreign fighters who had previously been their welcome “guests.”  This blunder by the terrorists may be an opportunity for progress that has been elusive for years.  Dr. Rice’s comprehensive “hearts and minds” approach towards the region, although it may take years to fully bear fruit, will be essential if the current split between the indigenous population and foreign terrorist “squatters” is to be exploited.

(Note to terrorists: If you plan on killing your hosts in the future, it’s generally wise to do so on your way out of town.)

     In the latest Zogby poll,  Condoleezza Rice finished foutrth behind the McCain Romney, and Giuliani.   This is great considering she hasn’t declared.  The big news, though,  is in the same poll,  she finishes third among self-identified “conservative Republicans”, behind  Romney and Gingrich.

     Why is the conservative Republican poll important?   The conservatives are still looking for a candidate they can rally behind.  A liberal GOP candidate will not energize the conservative vote, even if he runs against Hillary Clinton. Condoleezza Rice would be an excellent choice for conservatives.  She has both pro-life and pro-Second Amendment views.  She is also the only one who can continue leading the “War on terror”,  no training required.

   I think she can also serve to unite the RINOs and conservatives of the GOP.     The RINOs will enjoy making history and heading off Hillary or Obama.  Condi doesn’t have the “lightning rod” factor like other conservative candidates.   it would be more difficult for Dems to paint a caricature of Condi as a racist-sexist-homophobe conservative. The conservatives will enjoy having an experienced , principled Republican to continue protecting our country.

   Condi is a win-win for all of the GOP.

      Last week,  Sen. Boxer  grilled Secretary Rice regarding the war in Iraq.  During Condoleezza began discussing the progress.  Sen. Boxer , in her infinite wisdom, asked Secretary Rice “Who pays the price?”.   She went on to ramble about Rice not having children and being unwed.   Since Rice didn’t have children, somehow she was not qualified to discuss the war.

   When I heard her say this,  I had to do a double take.  Isn’t this Sen. Boxer, the liberal Democrat from California?  Isn’t she a liberal icon for feminism, the idea that women can choose not to have children and choose not to marry???

    I’m not the only one who thought this.  Secretary Rice responded in a very dignified manner:

“In retrospect, gee, I thought single women had come further than that, that the only question is, ‘Are you making good decisions because you have kids?’ ” Rice said on Fox News.”

       Sen. Boxer really showed her true colors.  She hits below the belt, undermining her own feminist values in order to take a cheap shot at the Republicans.  

   Will her liberal supporters call her on this?  Not likely. 

What lesson can Condistas glean from this?  Look at Condi’s response.  It was the response of a true statesman (stateswoman).  She took the high road during the hearing , and she gave a great response to the media.  Women who wonder about what Rice thinks about women’s equality no longer need to wonder.  Rice is the pinnacle of the American dream  and a model for young women all over the world.

Yesterday, Glenn Kessler in his Washington Post article, entitled “Rice’s pre-election appearances buck tradition — Secretary of State is expected to stay above the partisan fray,” reported on Condi’s pre-election activity with a rather critical tone. While Dr. Rice has largely avoided the megabuck politcal fundraising circuit with its infamous “rubber chicken” and photo ops (typically available for an additional donation), she has, as Kessler points out, been on talk radio quite a bit.

There are two reasons why Dr. Rice has taken on a higher profile than previous Secretaries of State. First, in these midterm elections, the War on Terror, foreign policy issues and Iraq have taken on dominent roles. So, in order to counter the Democrats’ disinformation campaign and to bypass their stooges in the mainstream media, Condi is speaking directly to the American people via talk radio. (Mark your TV Guide, program your TIVO; she’ll be making an election eve appearance Monday with Fox’s Neil Cavuto.) She’s becoming our nation’s “current events” teacher clearly explaining US foreign policy. Hopefully, this will be successful against the Democrats’ “stealth strategy” to hide shrill, ultra-left leaders like Pelosi and Reid right before the election while roling out Dems perceived as more “moderate” like Wesley Clark — who thinks the stars on his former uniform will blind Americans to the fact that Democratic anti-terror “redeployment” plans are just an eloquent way to surrender.

Second, even if she isn’t aware of it herself, recent past Secretaries of State (Thank God!) didn’t have a “date with destiny” to be our nation’s next commander in chief.

The confrontation between the Clintons and Condi that erupted after Bill’s interview with Chris Wallace on September 24^th was (is?) based on the claim, by Clinton, that he left behind a “comprehensive plan” on counter terrorism for the Bush administration when he left office. In making his point he relied heavily on Richard Clarke, author of Against All Enemies. (Amazon) Watch our video highlights of this controversy (link, click on the “play” button to start), then read the transcript of this “background briefing” given by Clarke to a group of reporters, including Fox’s Jim Angle. (We’re trying to see if there are any recordings, audio or video, of this briefing.) Could this be the “smoking gun” that clearly demonstrates who’s telling the truth?

Clinton: “I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the world, Dick Clark, who got demoted.”

Clarke (August 2002): “I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.”

Rice: “What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton Administration did in the preceding eight years.”
“We were not left with a comprehensive strategy to fight Al-Qaeda.”

Actually, Condi was being modest when she said that she and the Bush Administration were “at least as aggressive.” Under her guidance, the counter terrorism budget was quintupled, and the plans for implementing a much more aggressive counter terrorism effort were already underway when 9-11 occurred. This was the result of Bush’s order to “stop swatting flies.” Remember, many of the Clinton-era impediments were still in place, such as barriers to intelligence sharing between the CIA and FBI, and these had to be overcome, as well. Also, with this more aggressive attitude, and although it’s a moot point now, can anyone imagine that Bush and Condi would’ve refused to “pull the trigger” on UBL, on multiple occasions, as Michael Scheuer, PhD, contends the Clinton administration did? (Scheuer is a 22-year veteran of the CIA and now a CBS News analyst. He’s the author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, and Through Our Enemies’ Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America, make sure you read the updated 2005, revised edition, of the later book. It contains a lot of new information.)

(more…)

Hezbollah anti-Condi banner

It is disturbing to see criticism of Dr. Rice in the conservative blogosphere after her recent keynote address to the American Task Force on Palestine gala in Washington, DC, October 11, 2006. The dinner was held to honor a Republican Arab-American, (Blog editor’s note: Please accept our appologies for using a “hyphenated American” reference, but in this context I felt it was appropriate for Barbara to use it — in spite of Condi’s past criticisms of the practice.) John H. Sununu, Governor of New Hampshire (1983-1989) and White House Chief of Staff for George H. W. Bush (1989-1991). (Do not confuse former Governor Sununu with his son, a Republican Senator from New Hampshire, John E. Sununu.) How quickly forgotten is Condi’s support for Israel during the recent Southern Lebanon invasion. For this, she was “demonized” by Hezbollah,

(more…)

Our enemies in the Global War on Terror (GWOT) are economically dependent, in large part, on support from oil-exporting countries. As Secretary of State, Dr. Rice has spoken of how energy “warps” our foreign policy. Without much fanfare, Dr. Rice at the Department of State, in conjuction with the Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman (bio), has managed to launch an international alternative fuels effort, bring former rivals China and India on board, and help demonstrate US environmental sensitivities abroad. Intentional, or not, this is yet another way that Dr. Rice is getting ready for the Oval Office. She’ll have a major component of her energy policy in place the day she takes the oath of office. (link to “Energy Security as a Global Partnership” by Paul E. Simons, link to State Department press release “Investing in Innovative Energy Technologies”, link to testimony of James L. Connaughton, Chairman, White House Council on Environmental Change before the House Committee on Government Reform)

The following is from the Congressional hearing for the International Relations Budget for Fiscal Year 2006 where Dr. Rice testified and submitted prepared statements in response to questions from Committee Members. (link)

…addressing climate change requires a sustained effort by all nations over many generations. Developing and bringing to the marketplace transformational energy technologies will be key. To this end, the United States has launched five important multilateral partnerships:

1. The International Methane to Markets Partnership;

2. The International Partnership for a Hydrogen Economy:

3. The Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum;

4. The Generation IV International Forum; and,

5. The Global Earth Observation initiative.

In addition, the United States has established bilateral climate partnerships with 14 countries and regional organizations that together with the United States account for over 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

(We must thank the staffers from the offices of Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, (R-FL); Katherine Harris (R-FL); and Thomas Tancredo (R-CO) who responded to our requests for information about Secretary Rice, alternative fuels, energy policy and climate change. They responded with voluminous materials. We’ll be busy reading for a long time and buying more fax machine toner this afternoon!)

Life in Las Vegas taught me many years ago that if you want to truly understand something that you have to follow the money.  That’s what Secretary Rice did with her Mideast trip.

First, she makes an unannounced trip to Baghdad to deliver the message, “Get to work!  The meter is running.”  Then, she goes to Kurdish dominated Northern Iraq to cement relations with Kurdish leaders.  It is interesting to note that Secretary Rice’s State Department webpage today featured on the front page not her trip to Baghdad, nor her trip to London, but her trip to visit the Kurds.  A subtle way to let the world know which of the three she considered most important.  (article by AP’s Anne Gearan)

The US is looked upon very favorably by the Kurds.  Our intervention stopped Saddam’s “final solution” for them, and now Saddam is on trial for genocide — a trial that provides an international soapbox for them to showcase their suffering under Saddam.  The fact that the French, Germans, and Russians all “looked the other way” isn’t lost on the Kurds, either.

 Dr. Rice’s Iraqi trip, regardless of the actual words that may have been spoken during the few hours that she was ”in-country” clearly communicated to Sunni and Shi’a leaders in Baghdad that they need to ”step up to the plate.”  By meeting with the Kurds apart from the leaders in Baghdad, Condi is already making preparations to make sure that the oil wealth of Northern Iraq (where most of Iraq’s oil is located) will not become a treasure chest for terrorists similar to Iran — even if the leaders in Baghdad fail to unite the nation.  It’s a powerful message, much of it non-verbal, let’s hope it motivates the warring factions in Iraq to stop fighting each other and start seriously negotiating to insure their country’s future.

Turkish leaders, who now probably regret (even if only in private) that they were less than completely helpful to the US during the last Gulf War, are worried about the Kurds in Northern Iraq fomenting Kurdish separatists in their own country.  (Newsweek article, “Whatever is necessary”)  They want a unified Iraq because they see it as a way of keeping demands for Kurdish autonomy in check.

For more information about the Kurds visit the website “The Other Iraq,” from the group that produced the “Thank you, America” television spots.  Are these efforts aimed at gaining support in America for eventual Kurdish independence, or greater autonomy within Iraq?  We’ll see.

(Links to the Kurdish English language videos that have recently aired in the US are on the “Other Iraq website in case they haven’t aired in your area.)

In response to Bill Clinton’s outburst to Chris Wallace on FOX News, Condoleezza Rice set the record straight.  Bill said that he did everything he could to fight terorism while president.  He said he even a left a complete plan on how to fight Al-Qaeda for Bush.  He then concluded that Bush did nothing for 8 months.

     Condoleezza responded yesterday morning.  She said no such plan was left for the Bush administration. 

     Hillary Clinton, in the first lob of the 2008 Presidential race,  defended Clinton’s treatment of the terrorist threat.  She then said that Clinton wasn’t the one who ignored a report titled “Bin Ladin determined to attack within the United States”.

    Condistas already know about that report.  it was discussed during the 9/11 hearings.  Dr. Rice was on the stand when Sen. Biden asked her the title of the report.  After she responded with the title, she tried to explain that the report gave no details about when or where the attacks would be.  Sen. Biden interrupted , of course.  He said he just asked for the title. 

    There is a bigger picture here:  Hillary took this opprtunity to politicize the War on Terror and 9/11.  Condoleezza in her staterments this morning made it cleat that we shouldn’t be finger-pointing and blaming each other over this. 

   We can count on more of this from the Democrats as 2008 approaches. 

Producer Linda Ellman (Linda Ellman Productions) was concerned that her documentary, On Native Soil, would be overshadowed by other 9-11 related programming for the 5th Anniversary of the terrorist attack that changed America even though she was able to get Kevin Costner and Hilary Swank to narrate. (Swank spells her first name with only one “L.”). She was right, but like the “Tortoise & the Hare” she may win the “prize” in the long-term. On Native Soil is destined to become the definitive documentary for 9-11 education in the future UNLESS it receives critical examination. What our children and grandchildren are taught in school for years to come may be affected. A look at the reviews in the Paramus Post (review), Military.com (review), Variety (review), reflect its growing acceptance. Lending further to its credibility, conspiracy theorists have attacked it. (link 911Truth.org “Filmic 9/11 Fiction Wars: Whose Official Story Fantasies will Prevail?”). Even the ostensibly “mainstream media” Variety review closes with a reference to Fahrenheit 9-11. (Now there’s an authoritative source for you!)

“On Native Soil” breaks no new ground and studiously avoids some slippery older turf — making no reference to the seven-minute lag time after an aide informed President Bush that the country was under attack, perhaps the most damning moment in “Fahrenheit 911.” Nevertheless, “Soil” admirably documents a story that somehow feels as if it’s been told too often and still can’t be told too much.

New York Magazine reviews it in an article, “More Inconvenient Truths,” with negative comments that are another attempt by the Left to drag down any prominent Republican, including Condi, with 9-11 baggage. ?begins with the families of the victims of 9/11 insisting on an official investigation of the terror attacks while a shame-faced government tries to stonewall. The film then dips in and out of the subsequent testimony (bring in the clowns: Condoleezza Rice, Norman Mineta, George Tenet), while underlining still-unanswered questions? (Blog Editor’s note: Mineta, a Democrat appointed by Bush 43, was the longest serving Secretary of Transportation in US history. CIA Director George Tenet was a Clinton administration appointee “holdover.” So much for bipartisanship!)

Any production that repeatedly cites the rabidly Democratic partisan Max Cleland needs to be looked at very carefully. Why was he so prominently featured? This was supposed to be a documentary based on the 9-11 Commission report. Cleland resigned from the commission citing “stonewalling” by the Republican administration. Do you think he might have just a small political axe to grind? Of all of the material Ellman had to choose from, why choose extensive footage of Cleland’s opinions and pontificating? Broadcast & Cable’s “BC Beat” review cites the producer’s dilemma: She went on to explain that she compiled hundreds of 10-15 second sound bites into a 24-hour documentary. In order to put it on TV, she had whittled the footage down to 88 minutes. Because Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, and others complained about the ABC documentary, The Path to 9-11, very little attention was paid to On Native Soil. It “slipped under the radar” because it wasn’t aired on one of the major national networks, although cable’s Court TV isn’t shabby, either. (link to Court TV’s “On Native Soil” website, 911Report.com) After thinly veiled threats of lawsuits and licensing problems in the future (assuming a Democratic administration in 2008) ABC, in addition to post-production editing and “docudrama disclaimers” for The Path to 9-11, pulled many of the “educational materials” that were to be distributed for teachers while discussing 9-11 in conjunction with classroom showings of the mini-series. However, no such outcry came for post-production editing or disclaimers for On Native Soil, and Court TV prominently features these educational materials, lesson plans, etc. for use by teachers. Of course, they would like to stimulate DVD sales to schools and libraries across the country, too. (Court TV’s web page for On Native Soil Education Resources) If you haven’t seen it, it is worth the rental — clips of this “documentary” will be shoved in Condi’s face and learning how to respond to the implication left by On Native Soil that Dr. Rice lied to the 9-11 Commission will be imperative.

Condi was interviewed by Katie Couric on “60 Minutes” tonight. You should go here if you missed it. There are lots of video clips, including ones that didn’t air.

There is also a comments section on the page. Many comments show support for her running for President in 2008. We should all add our own comments to that page!

Katie did ask Condi about running for President. This segment didn’t air on TV, of course. She said that elected office “probably” isn’t for her. (link) Despite this statement, “60 minutes” set up an online poll asking “Should Condoleezza Rice run for President?” The results are currently 50/50. Let’s get on there and vote!

Katie asked her about her views on abortion. This clip didn’t air, either. (link) She said she supports parental notification and opposes late term abortion, but she would not ban abortion.

My favorite part of the interview was when Condi drew parallels between the bombings and terrorism committed on African-Americans during the segregation days and the bombings and terrorism in the Middle East. (link) These are both instances where people were fighting for freedom and being terrorized because of it. She said that when people say “Iraq isn’t ready for democracy.” it reminds her of when people used to say “Black people are simple people. They aren’t ready for the vote.” In another unaired clip, Katie asks her about cooking fried chicken. (link) I found this a little racist and rude.

Katie also accuses her of growing up shielded from the horrors of the civil rights movement. Condi responds “Until bombs started going off in the neighborhood.” (link) (What a great response!) This clip was also unaired. In the end, Condi turned out great and very Presidential. This is a great start to stirring the presidential pot.

Condoleezza Rice has an interview in this month’s Essence magazine. I will warn you, only the first part of the interview is available free on the website. You have to actually buy the magazine to get the complete interview. They ask a lot of the tough questions, but Condi answers with confidence and intelligence as always.

They ask her about the war in Iraq: “Do you still think it was a good idea?” She answers, “Absolutely.”

They ask her what she thought about Hurricane Katrina , seeing the people on the rooftops waiting to be rescued. She replies, “I knew that we had a terrible crisis on our hands, a terrible tragedy. You know, there are these pockets in America where race and poverty come together in a really terrible way. It was quite clear that in the poorest parts of New Orleans, people didn’t have the means to get out. I remember seeing school buses underwater and thinking, It’s a pity that they weren’t evacuated on those school buses before they went underwater.

But I will tell you what I deeply resented. I resented the notion that the President of the United States, this President of the United States, would somehow decide to let people suffer because they were Black. I found that to be the most corrosive and outrageous claim that anybody could have made, and it was wholly and totally irresponsible.”

She also later says if African-Americans truly cared about Africa, they should know that U.S. assistance to Africa has tripled since Bush has been in office.

Condi proves once again her strong convictions and impeccable Presidential qualifications. To read her complete life story, which in my opinion , is second only to the life of Ronald Reagan, you have to read “Condi: The Condoleezza Rice Story” by Antonia Felix. This is an absolute MUST READ for all Condistas. Most of my quotes for talking points come from this book.

Yesterday, Secretary Rice released the following statement in recognition of the fifth anniversary of 9-11.

broadband video, audio