How much will we surrender for peace?
Inspired by this “V” poster
If America cuts a deal with the Taliban, giving them control over regions in exchange for their keeping Al Qaeda in check, she instantly confers credibility upon them – at least for as long as America’s credibility remains. Can they be trusted? If the Taliban can be trusted -and recall, Democrats have used the example of these human-rights-oppressing religious fanatics to characterize Republicans, so their sudden trustworthiness is both convenient and suspect- can they, in a theater as large as Afghanistan, actually disallow and prevent Al Qaeda from using that vast land-of-caves as their planning and training base?
I suggest the Taliban will not be able to keep its end of this face-saving bargain, and that the whole tactic is simply a way to blow smoke in front of our faces.
See Darleen Click for another Surrender photoshop.
Ugh…don’t get me started.
As was previously speculated, he is, apparently thinking about it.
Without having listened to the audio yet, I’m assuming on an Independent ticket. Not crazy about that idea.
I updated my earlier post: Scientist’s Story From 1995 Corroborates With Hacked CRU Emails with the following info, but I decided this deserved its own post.
Commenters at Watt’s Up With That have been looking into “Mike’s nature trick”, ripping into the code and discovering how they artificially came up with the now completely debunked “hockey stick”:
CRU Emails “may” be open to interpretation, but commented code by the programmer tells the real story
There’s a file of code also in the collection of emails and documents from CRU. A commenter named Neal on climate audit writes:
People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show. The code after a quick scan is quite a mess. Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public viewing. As examples [of] bias take a look at the following remarks from the MANN code files:
Go to WUWT to see the convoluted code.
Either the data tells the story of nature or it does not. Data that has been “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” is false data, yielding a false result.
Laura Ingraham had Patrick Michaels, (who was a target of derision in the emails) on her show to talk about the “conspiracy among climate scientists to conceal inconvenient scientific truths about global warming”. Audio here.
Michaels recently said this about the emails:
“This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents.
Now we’re talking!
Interview: Sen. James Inhofe will call for hearings into IPCC, UN, East Anglia CRU e-mails
Michelle has more:
ClimateGate: Both sides of the pond demand probes into data manipulation scandal
Yes, let’s get to the bottom of this.
Stephen Hayes posted about the appearance on The Weekly Standard Blog:
Cheney: Holder Wants “Show Trial” for KSM
Former Vice President Dick Cheney unloaded on President Barack Obama and his administration in a radio interview Monday morning, saying that Obama’s recent bow before the Japanese Emperor was “fundamentally harmful” to the United States and indicates that Obama “doesn’t fully understand or have the same perception of the US role in the world that most Americans have.” Obama’s behavior on foreign trips is “very upsetting,” Cheney added.
I found the video:
Hat tip: AlinskyDefeater on Twitter
Like we’ve been saying…
The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.
Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but “would explain what happened and why they did it.”
The U.S. Justice Department announced earlier this month that Ali and four other men accused of murdering nearly 3,000 people in the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. will face a civilian federal trial just blocks from the site of the destroyed World Trade Center.
Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain “their assessment of American foreign policy,” Fenstermaker said. “Their assessment is negative,” he said.
Has the White House really thought this through? Isn’t there a danger that the terrorists’ “assessment of American foreign policy” will correspond with what liberal Dems, most notably Obama, said during the Bush years? That’s one way of looking at it.
Michelle Malkin: Gitmo detainees will use trials as “platform” to bash America
Pelosi Won’t Answer If Osama Needs to be Read His Rights At “Arrest” (Video)
Jake Tapper is reporting that the five detainees intend to plead “not guilty” in US court.
Speaking to a crowd of 300 at an anti-ObamaCare march in Clayton, Missouri, Saturday, State Sen. Jane Cunningham (R-Chesterfield) described the Health Care Freedom Act she is going to introduce soon in the Missouri Senate:
Similar efforts are being waged in at least 20 states.
Bob McCarty covered the march of mostly medical professionals, here.