Quote

People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Are You All Getting This?

What's the most pressing issue of the day here in Virginia? It appears that we need to know whether Jim Webb uttered the word nigger at any point in time in his life.

For the love of God.
Webb 'never directed slur at anyone'
But Senate candidate can't say he has never used the racial epithet

By Kiran Krishnamurthy, Richmond Times-Dispatch

FREDERICKSBURG -- Democrat Jim Webb was unable to categorically say yesterday that he has never used the n-word, though the U.S. Senate challenger said he has never directed a racial slur at anyone. (
link)
So what does Webb plan to do about illegal immigration? With each passing day, it becomes ever more obvious, we'll never find out.

How shameful.

Delegates Throw Down The Gauntlet

Did anyone really expect the struggle between those politicians here in the commonwealth who see their primary responsibility as being to sustain the government and our courageous Republican delegates who are looking out for the already overburdened taxpayers to come down to something different in the special session of the legislature?

If you did, you were wrong. The delegates hold firm:
House tries again with no-tax-increase roads plan
By Michael Sluss, The Roanoke Times


RICHMOND — A key House of Delegates committee today once again ruled out tax increases to boost transportation funding, setting the stage for another clash with the Senate during a four-day General Assembly session that begins Wednesday.

The House Finance Committee rejected a Senate-sponsored plan to increase the gasoline tax and other levies to pump new dollars into the state’s road and transit programs. The panel also rejected a hotly debated proposal to increase taxes for transportation upgrades in the congested regions of Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads. (
link)
A number of analysts saw an opportunity for compromise on that second point, and there may yet be one. But the delegates at this point have turned toward their counterparts in the senate and are shouting, "What part of NO do you not understand?"

I love these guys.

The Sago Mine Tragedy Continues

News comes this morning that sorrow and overwhelming feelings of loss were too great for two of the miners who were involved in the Sago disaster:
Two Sago Mine workers commit suicide
By Vicki Smith, Associated Press Writer


MORGANTOWN, W.Va. (AP) -- Two miners whose jobs included watching for safety hazards inside the Sago Mine before the deadly explosion last January committed suicide in the past month.

Neither man had been blamed for the disaster that killed 12 of their comrades, and neither one's family has definitively linked the suicides to the accident. But those who knew the men say there is little doubt the tragedy haunted them.

John Nelson Boni, whose job that day was to maintain water pumps, shot himself Saturday at his home in Volga, State Police said.

William Lee "Flea" Chisolm, the 47-year-old dispatcher responsible for monitoring carbon monoxide alarms and communicating with crews underground that morning, shot himself at his Belington home Aug. 29, authorities said Tuesday. (
link)
So sad.

Surrender!

The Democrats' strategy for capitulation to the terrorists is emerging:

CHARLIE'S PLAN TO STAB THE TROOPS
New York Post editorial

September 27, 2006 -- Should the Democrats seize control of Congress in November, the first order of business will be to stab American troops now fighting the War on Terror squarely in the back.


How do we know this?

Why, Charlie Rangel told us so.

The Manhattan Democrat is in line to take over as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which drafts the government's general spending outlines - and says he'd use that position to cut off funding for the war.

"You've got to be able to pay for the war, don't you?" Rangel told the The Hill, a newspaper that covers Congress.

What a terrific message to be sending Osama & Co.

It's an engraved invitation to kill as many Americans as possible between now and Nov. 7, in hopes that Charlie Rangel and the rest of the anti-war nogoodniks carry the day at the polls.

What about the tens of thousands of soldiers and Marines now in harm's way? Rangel's leaving them twisting slowly in the wind: Why take risks in the War on Terror today, if Charlie and his friends intend to sabotage the effort tomorrow? (
link)

We are now beyond the point of trying to score political points. Lives are at stake. Lives - thousands of them - have been lost. These cowards are prepared to abandon the field to the Islamist terrorists and the bodies of our brave soldiers to the buzzards.

We went down this road in '75. The Democrats - in morbid glee - took us there.

Not this time. Never again.

Hillary: Ever The Loyal Bride

Hillary Clinton proves herself to be as fanciful as her husband is when it comes to imagining "what might have been." The boy Clinton said on Sunday that he did everything he possibly could to rid the world of terrorists (even though the number he took out in his eight years as Commander-in-Chief could be counted on one hand). Yesterday Hillary, ever the loyal bride, came to his defense:

Clinton Defends Husband’s Tack, Adding That All Democrats Should Take a Hint
By Raymond Hernandez, The New York Times


WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — The war of words between the Bush administration and the Clintons intensified on Tuesday as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested that her husband would have reacted differently as president if he had heard the same warnings about Osama bin Laden’s plans that President Bush had access to before 9/11.

In unusually blunt terms, Senator Clinton questioned the current administration’s response to an intelligence briefing President Bush received about a month before the 9/11 attacks. It mentioned that Al Qaeda was intent on striking the United States using hijacked planes.

“I’m certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,’ he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current
president and his national security team,” she said during an appearance on Capitol Hill. (
link)

So Clinton would have taken the threat more seriously ...

I'm reminded of the story Monica Lewinsky told in which she was "servicing Wild Willy" one day while he was on the phone in the Oval Office, talking to a congressman about sending American troops into harm's way.

He took his job seriously all right.

Hillary and Bill: A match made in heaven.

Or, As The Post Puts It ...

Bill Clinton is scrambling to change history. But that history has already been written. As the New York Post lays it out in an editorial this morning:

Of course, it is true that Bill Clinton never got such a briefing.

Instead, he got:

* The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 U.S. airmen.

* The bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224, including 12 Americans, and wounded 5,000.

* The 2000 attack on USS Cole, which killed 17 sailors.

And so on.

All those demonstrated that al Qaeda meant to kill Americans - as many as possible.

And those attacks, of course, all followed the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

As the 9/11 Commission report details: Despite irrefutable evidence of the threat from Islamic terrorists, "there was no National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism [undertaken] between 1995 and 9/11.
There was no comprehensive review of what the intelligence community knew [about al Qaeda] and what it did not know and what that meant."


Indeed, the report concludes, Clinton's flaccid response may have led bin Laden to make the "inference that such attacks, at least on the level of the Cole, were risk-free."

In contrast, Bush - almost immediately upon taking office - "began developing a new strategy with the stated goal of eliminating the al Qaeda threat [to America] within three to five years."

Indeed, even before that August 2001 briefing, Bush ordered the deployment of armed unmanned aircraft "to kill [Osama] bin Laden or his lieutenants."

It's interesting reading.

Both Clintons should try it. (
link)

My guess is, the use of the word flaccid was no accident. Seems appropriate to the age. In so many ways ...