Friday, September 29, 2006


Toon Credit: Calvin & Hobbes

I have a stash of fun things for posts when I don't have time to come up with a serious post. I enjoyed many of these and hope you do too. I have had an overwhelming week with my husband having knee surgery and other various things. So enjoy!!


I used to eat a lot of natural foods until I learned that most people die of natural causes.

Gardening Rule: When weeding, the best way to make sure you are removing a weed and not a valuable plant is to pull on it. If it comes out of the ground easily, it is a valuable plant.

The easiest way to find something lost around the house is to buy a replacement.

Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

There are two kinds of pedestrians: the quick and the dead.

Life is sexually transmitted.

Some people are like Slinkies. Not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see 'em tumble down the stairs.

Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing.

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

In the 60's, people took acid to make the world weird. Now the world is weird and people take Prozac to make it normal.

How is it one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?

Who was the first person to look at a cow and say, "I think I'll squeeze these dangly things here, and drink whatever comes out?"
Who was the first person to say, "See that chicken there? I'm gonna eat the next thing that comes outta its butt."

If Jimmy cracks corn and no one cares, why is there a song about him?

If quizzes are quizzical, what are tests?

If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?!

Do illiterate people get the full effect of Alphabet Soup?

Did you ever notice that when you blow in a dog's face, he doesn't like it, but when you take him on a car ride, he sticks his head out the window?

Does pushing the elevator button more than once make it arrive faster?

Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?

Friday, September 22, 2006

LMC Ambassador/Butt Kicker

Well--how many of you knew that I was an Ambassador/Butt Kicker? I have had an eventful week. Rabid liberals descended on my blog where I was accused of all kinds of things, a guy made a pass at me over the phone while doing phonecalls and the list goes on. But just when I thought all liberals were nuts James made my day by writing the most hilarious post I have ever read. You know James is a decent liberal when you consider the fact that he has been commenting on my blog almost since day one of when I started this blog a year ago and has never gotten banned. He is also the only liberal blogger to date that I have linked to aside from my local links. One of the things I love about him is his great humor. I seriously think he should be a writer for Saturday Night Live.

All that to say in his latest humor post he & I are ambassadors to Venezuela and we get a little payback for Chavez's most recent comments about Bush being the devil. I can't even begin to tell you how hard or long I laughed. I was only going to post excerpts but its so good that I am going to post all of it since James gave me permission but make sure you hop over there and tell him how awesome it is.

I did edit some of the language but tried to leave most of it on there since it added to the humor so the following post would probably be rated PG/PG-13 :-). Enjoy!!!

Bush Appoints Liberal Blogger As Ambassador to Venezuela

WASHINGTON – After Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called President Bush “the devil”, President Bush countered by appointing liberal blogger, James Manning as Ambassador to Venezuela. The move was a seen as gesture to smooth relationships between the two Presidents.

Although he was forced to resign as Press Secretary earlier this year after an altercation with George Will and getting into a fight with the First Lady and the President's mother, Mr. Manning was appreciative of the confidence in his ability.

Mr. Manning will be front and center on the international stage and will have to maneuver delicately while engaging one of President’s Bush more vocal detractors.

Immediately after accepting the appointment, Mr. Manning left LAX on Air Force One along with Deputy Secretary Chatterbox to meet with the President Chavez in his office in Caracas.

Scene on Air Force One

James: The President said he trusted me to do this so I don’t see why you are here.

Chatter: I’m here to ensure that you don’t cause an international incident.

James: What makes you think I would cause an international…

Chatter: You got into fight with the First Lady and the President’s mom at the White House. Is that evidence enough?

(Air Force One lands in Caracas and the two Diplomats are ushered to the President’s office for formal talks)

Scene in President Chavez’s Office

Pr. Chavez: Good morning Mr. Manning, Ms. Chatter, welcome to Venezuela. I hope you find our hospitalities worthy of approval.

James: I’m sure we will. Look here, dawg. Lets cut the formalities. You were out of line at the UN and we’re here to put you on notice.

Chatter: What Mr. Manning means is that the President feels that your speech was not appropriate and we’d like to open the channels of communication. After all, your country plays a very important role in the world’s economy.

Pr. Chavez: That it does (sits down and pulls out a cigar). So the President didn’t take kindly to me calling him the devil, huh?

Chatter: No he didn’t. However…

James: There’s no however in this. You need to apologize and pay me my royalties.

Pr. Chavez: Royalties?

James: Hell yeah. I made up the line of calling the President a devil. You need to come off the loot. Then you need to issue an apology... immediately.

(President Chavez leans back in chair, blows cigar smoke out his mouth and grins)

Pr. Chavez: I saw the news conference when you were appointed Press Secretary. You have big kahunas my friend. (quickly sits up and leans across desk with stern glare) But you are out of your league here. I will kick your ass all the way back to Chicago where you can watch you sorry Bears play that girly version of football.

(James looks to his right at Ms. Chatter. Then turns to look over his left shoulder.)

James: You… You… You’re talking to me? (leans on desk) Let me get this right. You’re talking to me?

Pr. Chavez: You’re the only tar baby in the room.

James: Man, I will beat yo…

Chatter: Gentlemen please.

Pr. Chavez: (pointing at Ms. Chatter) Stay in a woman’s place.

Meanwhile at the White House

Cheney: Do you think it was wise to send Mr. Manning to Venezuela? He’s rather uncontrollable.

Bush: He is, but that is why I sent Ms. Chatter along with him. I figure a Christian mother from Missouri would keep him level.

Cheney: That may be true but you do know Ms. Chatter spent some time in Chicago.

Bush: (with worried look on his face) I didn’t know that. Oh man, get them the hell out of there.

Back in President Chavez’s office.

Chatter (Standing on the desk, mercilessly slapping Pr. Chavez in the back of his head with her heels): I know the hell you didn’t. I'll knock out whatever sense you got left. Don't you ever (kick Pr. Chavez in the chin) think you can (elbows Pr. Chavez in the ear) talk to me (puts him in a choke hold) like that.

James (laughing): Whoop his ass, Chatter. Beat his motha... (blood from Pr. Chavez's nose spashes on shirt) Oh damn! You broke nose. You go girl!

(Ms. Chatter knees Pr. Chavez in the mouth the strikes him with a left jab. Pr. Chavez jumps up and runs towards the window)

Pr. Chavez: Get the hell out of my office you crazy broad and take your monkey with you.

James (jumps from chair): That’s your ass. (Hurdles desk and punches Pr. Chavez in the stomach)

(James kick Pr. Chavez in the back while Ms. Chatter jabs him in the neck with a chair. Pr. Chavez’s security team hears the commotion and enters the office.)

Scene on Air Force One on return flight to states

Ms. Chatter: This is your damn fault. You had to go and ask about some royalties. How are we going to explain this?

James: I really don’t give damn. I got my royalty check. Well, I owe you because he only wrote the check after I promised I’d make you pull that flagpole out of his butt. How the hell did you get it up that far?

Ms. Chatter: Will you get off of that. We have to explain this to the President.

James: C’mon Chatter. Admit it. When you elbowed Chavez in his ear and he went down crying like a baby… that felt good didn’t it?

Ms. Chatter: Well… Um… (shows a big smile) Hell yeah it felt good. I knocked him the hell out. Whew… I still got it, baby. (Give James a high five)

James: That’s what I’m talking ‘bout. Don’t mess with Chatter! I knew it was on when he told you to stay in your place. I thought we were going to have to call an excavation team to get that heel out of his temple.

(James and Ms. Chatter pop open a bottle of Hennessy and make a toast. Just then, a call comes in from the White House)

Ms. Chatter: Oh shoot. How do we explain this?

James: Hell, I got my money.

(Ms. Chatter answers phone)

Ms. Chatter: Hello Mr. President

Bush: What the hell happened down there? I got the press all over me.

Ms. Chatter: I’m sorry Mr. President. President Chavez was not very cooperative with us. We didn’t leave on very good terms.

Bush: Dammit. “Not very good terms” is an understatement. Mr. Manning, what are you not telling me?

James: Well… Well… I may have inadvertently declared war on his country.

Bush: What the …

James: Don’t worry, sir. Just give me a helicopter and let me call my boys from Troop 44 and we’ll go down and handle it.

Bush: I can’t believe you went down… (phone rings in background) Ho… hold on… let me get that.

(Bush voice is heard in the background. A few minutes pass and he hangs up the phone and returns to the conversation)

Bush: Ok, that was one of Pr. Chavez’s representative. He’s issuing a full apology in the morning. Good job team.

Ms. Chatter: Thank you, sir.

James: I'm glad you…

Bush: Shut up jerk. You’re fired.

James: What!

Bush: Wait (papers shuffle in background) I just got a memo here stating that Tim Russert wants to interview you on Meet the Press. If that goes well Mr. Manning, you’ll have a permanent position in my Administration.

James: Thanks.

Bush: Good night.

(hangs up phone)

Ms. Chatter: Well, that’s good. You should get along with Tim considering he’s a part of the Liberal media and all. (Notices worried look on James’ face) What’s wrong?

James: Well, I don’t exactly get along with Tim. We got into it at a Polka festival three years ago and...

Ms. Chatter: Oh man!!

(Tune in next time when James meets Tim Russert face to face since their last encounter at a Polka Festival. It will be a Meet the Press moment to remember)


posted by James Manning

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Chavez and the UN

Hugo Chavez calls our President the Devil on U.S. soil. As many of us have pointed out, how much of this crap do we have to put up with on our own soil? I loved John Bolton's awesome response though:
"Chavez had the right to express his opinion, adding it was "too bad the people of Venezuela don't have free speech."
And let us take a look at this psycho dictator who calls W the devil. Mike has an awesome post on this and makes these points about Chavez:
"Beatings and REAL torture of political opponents, firings from state jobs, restricting freedom of the press, freedom of opposition parties and stacking the courts."
He also links to the Human Rights Watch page on Venezuela.

Rush also made a good point that the only thing he does agree with Chavez on is that the UN should get out of the U.S. And to that I would have to wholeheartedly agree. Ron pointed out that maybe Antartica might be a good location!!

All of this has inspired me to finally join "Screw the UN" and

"Blogging for Bolton". If you want to get me on a soapbox where I would go on forever ask me what I think of the UN. It is a corrupt, worthless, anti-Semitic, anti-American organization.

Toon Credit: Chuck Asay

In the past decade alone they have completely failed on doing the one job I think they were meant for. They stood by and did nothing during the Genocide in Rwanda and now they stand by and do nothing while there is Genocide in Darfur. Oh, wait, I forgot they are passing resolutions. I'm sure that brings comfort to those who are dieing in Darfur.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Encouragement for the Day & Other Stuff

Cajun Tiger just recently talked about how awesome the group Rascal Flatts is and I would have to agree. I encourage everyone to go listen to the song "My Wish" that I have absolutely fallen in love with. It is so inspiring and encouraging. It will make your day. Here are some of the lyrics:
"I hope that the days come easy and the moments pass slow,
And each road leads you where you want to go,
And if you're faced with a choice, and you have to choose,
I hope you choose the one that means the most to you.
And if one door opens to another door closed,
I hope you keep on walkin' till you find the window,
If it's cold outside, show the world the warmth of your smile,

But more than anything, more than anything,
My wish, for you, is that this life becomes all that you want it to,
Your dreams stay big, and your worries stay small,

You never need to carry more than you can hold,
And while you're out there getting where you're getting to,
I hope you know somebody loves you, and wants the same things too,
Yeah, this, is my wish.

I hope you never look back, but ya never forget,
All the ones who love you, in the place you left,
I hope you always forgive, and you never regret,
And you help somebody every chance you get,
Oh, you find God's grace, in every mistake,
And you always give more than you take

President Bush is on a roll and gave another awesome speech yesterday, this time to the UN. He spoke directly to the people of Lebanon, Iran, Syria and Darfur. He offered them words of hope and thats why this conservative loves him. The KC Star printed my recent letter to the editor and titled it "Defense of President":
I’m writing this letter in response to Shawn Kalmus’ letter of Sept. 11. I am so tired of the grossly unfair attacks that are made against our president on a daily basis.

President Bush has kept this country safe with his courage in fighting the war on terror. President Clinton stood by as terrorist attacks were committed against American citizens. He didn’t want to fight the terrorists because he knew it would be unpopular.

President Bush has stood strong and done the right thing whether it was popular or not. As a result, we haven’t had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11.

We owe President Bush a debt of gratitude, not constant criticism. I think history will regard him much more favorably than his poll ratings do now.

Patrick found a great article over at The Wall Street Journal. It is written by Cyrus Nowrasteh who wrote the mini-series The Path to 9/11 that recently aired on ABC. It is entitled "The Path to Hysteria". Go check it out, it is a great article. Here are some excerpts:
"My sin was to write a screenplay accurately depicting Bill Clinton's record on terrorism.

I am neither an activist, politician or partisan, nor an ideologue of any stripe. What I am is a writer who takes his job very seriously, as do most of my colleagues: Also, one who recently took on the most distressing and important story it will ever fall to me to tell. I considered it a privilege when asked to write the script for "The Path to 9/11." I felt duty-bound from the outset to focus on a single goal--to represent our recent pre-9/11 history as the evidence revealed it to be. The American people deserve to know that history: They have paid for it in blood. Like all Americans, I wish it were not so. I wish there were no terrorists. I wish there had been no 9/11. I wish we could squabble among ourselves in assured security. But wishes avail nothing.

The hysteria engendered by the series found more than one target. In addition to the death threats and hate mail directed at me, and my grotesque portrayal as a maddened right-winger, there developed an impassioned search for incriminating evidence on everyone else connected to the film. And in director David Cunningham, the searchers found paydirt! His father had founded a Christian youth outreach mission. The whiff of the younger Mr. Cunningham's possible connection to this enterprise was enough to set the hounds of suspicion baying. A religious mission! A New York Times reporter wrote, without irony or explanation, that an issue that raised questions about the director was his involvement in his father's outreach work. In the era of McCarthyism, the merest hint of a connection to communism sufficed to inspire dark accusations, the certainty that the accused was part of a malign conspiracy. Today, apparently, you can get something of that effect by charging a connection with a Christian mission.

Despite intense political pressure to pull the film right up until airtime, Disney/ABC stood tall and refused to give in. For this--for not buckling to threats from Democratic senators threatening to revoke ABC station licenses--Disney CEO Rober Iger and ABC executives deserve every commendation. Hence the 28 million viewers over two nights, and the ratings victory Monday night (little reported by the media), are gratifying indeed.

"The Path to 9/11" was set in the time before the event, and in a world in which no party had the political will to act. The principals did not know then what we know now. It is also indisputable that Bill Clinton entered office a month before the first attack on the World Trade Center. Eight years then went by, replete with terrorist assaults on Americans and American interests overseas. George W. Bush was in office eight months before 9/11. Those who actually watched the entire miniseries know that he was given no special treatment."

Sunday, September 17, 2006

LMC's Sunday Smorgasbord

Toon Credit: Glenn McCoy
I literally laughed out loud when I saw this cartoon. I read it the morning I was getting ready to meet Bush. So when I got to meet Karl Rove I totally wanted to tell him about this cartoon but I didn't get a chance. This was total confirmation of what I had said in my earlier post:
"The media and the liberal Democrats owe the White House and Scooter Libby a HUGE apology. But I'm not going to hold my breath for one."

How ironic is that??

Rosie's View

Many of you have already commented on Rosie's extremely offensive comments on "The View" last week. First of all let me say that I have never wasted my time watching this pathetic show except for a couple of minutes. I despise feminist propaganda shows that claim to speak for all women because they don't speak for me. I remember seeing Star Jones holding up a thong when she was talking about Monica Lewinsky. And then to hear her talking about her unwavering devotion to Clinton & OJ Simpson. Plus, whoever was the conservative on the show at that time was pathetic. And even if she had been good she was outnumbered 3 to 1.

I must admit that I am extremely proud of the little I have seen of the new conservative Elizabeth Hasselback. But boy does she have a hostile work environment. Rosie has ticked me off in the past but I always gave her credit for being real and honest. I mean she went head to head with Bill O'Reilly, that takes guts when you are as liberal as she is. But these last comments just infuriated me. She said that radical Christianity is just as dangerous as radical Islam. Not only is that absurd but it is completely unfounded. And this seems to be a common theme liberals like to bring up. And a lie repeated often enough becomes truth to some people.

I predict that if Rosie is allowed to stay on "The View" poor Elizabeth won't be able to make it much longer. One's blood pressure can only withstand so much. And Rosie will continue to alienate whatever viewers "The View" has left.

Others posting on this:
Right Wing Rebel
Cajun Tiger
Little Orange Fox

Continuing on the theme of femi-nazi propaganda Gloria Steinem & Jane Fonda's radio company is starting an all women radio talk network. Here is what Gloria had to say about it:
"Steinem said the network, which is run by women, aims to provide an alternative to current radio talk, which she describes as "very argumentative, quite hostile, and very much male-dominated."

First of all I am very happy with current talk radio. I find it to be very inspiring and quite the opposite of hostile. And I can guarantee you that 2 liberal feminists will not be speaking for me. I predict this goes the way of bankruptcy like Air America just has. And speaking of that I find it humorous that no matter how much Soros' money was poured into it they still couldn't find any listeners. Thats just too bad.

Speaking of Talk Radio I found this tidbit of information very interesting. Here is a post from the KC Buzz blog entitled, New federal courthouse may be named after Rush. As some of you may know Rush is originally from Cape Girardeau, Missouri. They are wanting to name a federal courthouse there not after Rush the talk show host but his grandfather who has the same name. Here is an excerpt:
"Decades before his namesake grandson achieved prominence as a conservative commentator, Rush H. Limbaugh was practicing law and amassing a long record of civic service to Cape Girardeau and the state. He died in 1996 at age 104, after practicing law for nearly 80 years."
Guess who introduced the legislation for this? Senators Kit Bond and Jim Talent. I just got a huge smile on my face because even Democrat legislators are saying this is a no-brainer but how big a wad is this going to get liberal panties in?

The President kicked butt again in his press conference last friday. Which is more enjoyable, watching Tony Snow or W make mincemeat of David Gregory?? It's hard for me to say :-).

McCain and his pals Graham and Warner have once again ticked me off. What is it with Graham always jumping on the bandwagon with McCain? How many times does it need to be said there is no moral equivalency between terrorists who want to kill us and U.S. citizens. I think the president's plan is a great idea and McCain seems to be more interested in protecting the rights of terrorists and getting attention from the media. I can't believe this guy thinks he has a chance of getting the presidential nomination in 08!!


On the post below this I've established some rules. I've commented before on how I deal with trolls but have had a lot of new liberals show up so wanted to re-iterate them. I've become more tolerant of liberals lately if they don't attack personally and have an issue or idea to debate. I haven't banned anyone in a long time but did yesterday because after 3 attacks I warned them and they still felt the need to continue to lecture and insult me. I am going to put a link to the rules in the sidebar like many others do. Liberals--Comment at your own risk!!

Thursday, September 14, 2006

My Review of The Path to 9/11

Toon Credit: Glenn McCoy

I finally finished watching "The Path to 9/11" last night. For the most part I thought it was very well done and I learned a lot. I love documentaries but I like them to be in movie form since my ADD brain finds it easier to pay attention.


What I didn't like was the fact that they combined scenes and people to make the story easier to tell. I understand why there was a need to do that but it made it hard to know exactly which scenes were true to life and which ones weren't. I especially didn't like the way Condoleeza Rice and Richard Clarke were portrayed. There is no way you're going to convince me that the Condoleeza Rice we've seen and learned about over the past 5 years is the one they portrayed on the movie. And there is no way she told Richard Clarke to take over at the end of the movie when we know that she demoted him before 9/11 even took place. Richard Clarke was made out to be somewhat of a hero and I find that hard to swallow knowing what we know about him today.


I learned a lot about the progression of events and how things panned out. John O'Neill was portrayed as a hero and I think he was. He was critized for being tough and aggressive but had he been listened to we may have been able to thwart some of the terrorist attacks. The way Madeleine Albright, William Cohen and Sandy Berger were portrayed is how I viewed them their entire time they've been in the public eye. They have always been more concerned with not appearing to be the Ugly American. They are more concerned with not offending people and being politically correct than protecting the American people and accomplishing justice.


The reason the Clintonistas were so upset about this movie is because it revealed how weak-kneed the Clinton administration was about getting Bin Laden and fighting terrorism. Albright and others thought the Cole bombings and others were acceptable losses rather than appear to the U.S. people or the World as being too aggressive. And I completely agree with Dean Barnett's comments that I quoted in my last update on this docudrama. The bottom line is that Bush may not have taken terrorism as seriously as he should've either pre 9/11 but once 9/11 hit he did a 180 on his policy towards terrorism. The same cannot be said of the Democrats. It was frustrating seeing people not want to be aggressive enough before 9/11 but to know they don't want to now after what we've been through just leaves me flummoxed. The video below I found at Joe's blog and it totally proves my point. Make sure you watch the President nail Lauer and prove all the points I have been making.

Lauer & Bush

I cannot emphasize this next point enough. I know this will offend liberals but I feel very strongly about this. The whole point is that most Democrats still have a pre 9/11 mindset and want to handle terrorism like Clinton did. We lost almost 3,000 of our citizens that day and yet Democrats plan for protecting our country is to cut and run in Iraq and to fight Bush on all the successful measures that he has implemented to fight terrorism. Like I have pointed out the Democrats disagree with every measure for the War on Terror but their only solution in fighting terrorism is to engage people more. Bill O'Reilly was just saying last night he has yet to hear what the Democrats will do to protect our country from terrorists.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain-- and most fools do."--Dale Carnegie

This is my new quote of the week that I found at Mark's blog. I can't tell you how appropriate this is for the Democrats and their constant criticism of Bush's policies for the war on terror. They criticize, condemn and complain but they have NO SOLUTIONS!! A guy recently wrote a letter to the KC Star complaining about how awful Bush is. My blood pressure just rose and I have just had it with the constant barrage of negativity towards our courageous President. Below is the response I sent to his letter to the KC Star:

I'm writing this letter in response to Shawn Kalmus's letter that was printed on September 11th. I am so tired of the grossly unfair attacks that are made against our President on a daily basis. President Bush has kept this country safe with his courage in fighting the War on Terror. President Clinton stood by as terrorist attacks were committed against American citizens and he did nothing. He didn't want to fight the terrorists because he knew it would be unpopular and he didn't want his poll ratings to suffer. President Bush has stood strong and done the right thing whether it was popular or not. As a result we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11. We owe President Bush a debt of gratitude not constant criticism. And I think history will regard him much more favorably than his poll ratings do now.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Your Opinion?

Toon Credit: Calvin & Hobbes

Since I spend 3 nights a week talking to people about their opinions I thought it might be fun to survey all of you on your opinions. Some of you may not be comfortable sharing what yours are but for the rest of us who want people to know our opinion feel free to share your answers in the comments section. After everyone weighs in I will do an update and put what my answers would be to the survey. This survey is one of the ones we use but I've modified it some to fit beyond just Missouri.


1) What do you think are the 3 most important issues facing your state? Pick your top 3 from the following list or choose your own:

--Healthcare/Prescription Drugs
--Lower Taxes
--Morals/Family Values
--State Budget
--Stem Cell Research
--War on Terror

2) What is your opinion on the issue of guns? Do you support...?

--more gun control laws
--stricter enforcement of current laws
--a conceal and carry law

3) How do you feel about your level of taxes in general? Are they?

--Too high
--About right
--Not high enough

4) Do you generally consider yourself to be pro-life or pro-choice?

5) Do you usually vote more for Democrats or more for Republicans?

6) What political party do you most align yourself with?



Thanks to all of you for weighing in with your opinions. Here are my responses to the questions:

1) --War on Terror (if none of us are alive because we are wiped out by Islamic terrorists none of the other issues will matter)
--Stem Cell Research (this is up for a vote in November here in Missouri, I think this is a very important issue because Adult stem cells have proven success but embryonic stem cell research is destroying human life without knowing whether it will even help with cures or not)
--Education (we desperately need school choice)

2) Conceal and carry all the way. We just passed a law for this recently here in Missouri.

3) Too high (I'm incredulous whenever anybody answers anything but this)

4) Pro-life

5) Republicans

6) Republican

Monday, September 11, 2006

9/11 Tribute To Christina De Laura

When I signed up for the 2,996 bloggers tribute I was a little disappointed. There is very little information known about the lady's name I received. Literally all that is known about her is that she is Colombian and that she went missing from the World Trade Center. No one knows her age, her job, nothing, and there is no picture of her. I find it hard to believe that there was no way to locate information on her. It seems like relatives in Columbia would've come forward with some info but I wasn't able to locate any. It appears that her husband Oscar also went missing from the WTC but there is no information known about him either.

Nevertheless I write this post in honor of her memory. May we never forget the precious lives that were lost that day. And may we not forget why the War on Terror is so important. On this 5 year anniversary we must not forget the stakes. And on this 5th anniversary we can be thankful that we haven't had any further terrorist attacks on our soil. We can thank the great leadership of President Bush in part for that.

I will never forget how I felt that day and how personal it was to me. I remember everything I did and how I found out. By the time I found out we knew about all the planes and I just started crying. I was dropping my daughter off at pre-school when the towers collapsed. It took awhile for it all to sink in what had happened and what we had lost. The leadership of Bush & Giuliani meant a lot to me that day and was very comforting. I mourned the loss of Barbara Olson that day having seen her on Fox News and her funeral that weekend was especially moving. Mike has done a bunch of neat tributes to 9/11 and he has an extremely moving flash presentation that is a must see. Suzie also recounts her personal journey on that day in, Reflecting back on September 11th 2001.

I have been focusing on 9/11 a lot in the recent weeks because I think it is important that we never forget. I celebrate my 1 yr. blogging anniversary this month and I remember my 3rd post was about how disappointed I was in how little was said about 9/11. I'm thankful that isn't the case on the 5th anniversary.

I will be talking more about it this week since I need to do a review of the book I'm reading on it entitled, 102 Minutes. I also will be doing a review of the controversial docudrama The Path to 9/11.

Here are some of my recent posts on 9/11 & also links to fellow bloggers that have also done 9/11 tributes. Wordsmith especially did a personal one that was very moving:

The Path to 9/11--Must See TV!!
The Path to 9/11 Update
The Importance of Remembering 9/11
World Trade Center
United 93

Wordsmith's--In Honor of David Reed Gamboa-Brandhorst
Patrick's--Tribute to Lee Charles Ludwig
Gayle's-- 9/ll Blogburst Tribute to Mr. Anil T. Bharvaney
Neo-Con Tastic--A Tribute to Robert E. Russell
Anna's-- I Remember Louis F. Aversano Jr
Skye's--Skye remembers Marcello Matricciano, 31, WTC
Monica's--I Remember James M. Roux
JimmyB's--Sarah Khan - A Tribute
Mike--Deborah Kaplan
Chas-- 2,996 Tribute to Lorraine D. Antigua
Rob's-- 2996 Tribute to Capt. Daniel Brethel - died September 11, 2001
Bushwack's--A tribute to a life lost on 9-11
Juanita's--Felicia Traylor-Bass
Point Five--9/11 Remembrance: Christina Donovan Flannery
Rebekah's--Brian Novotny

Friday, September 08, 2006

I Got To Meet President George W. Bush

The President of the United States came to Kansas City today and I got to meet him. I can't begin to tell you what a dream come true this was for me. I got the call 2 weeks ago that I was going to get to meet him and have my picture taken with him. I have been a cross between ecstatic and a nervous wreck ever since. There was the possibility that his plans could get changed or that I wouldn't pass the security check ;-) but otherwise it was supposed to happen. I thought of that line on the movie "Girls Just Want To Have Fun" where Sarah Jessica Parker says "Things are going too well for me, I bet I get hit by a bus." One of my first thoughts was what do you wear to meet the president?

When I got the call I was in shock. I had worked my tail off volunteering for his campaign in 2004 but I figured the time had passed for me to be able to meet him. I had seen that Bush was coming to a special $1,000 dinner for Talent but since I didn't have $1,000 I figured the point was moot. And then I got the call.

There were 12 of us volunteers who got to be on the tarmac waiting for Air Force One to arrive today. It was so awesome to see the motorcade pull in and then to see Air Force One land. I almost had tears in my eyes as I saw him come to the door and begin to descend down the steps.

I had 3 things I wanted to say to him and I was able to get them all said. I let him know what a huge honor it was to meet him, I told him I was praying for him and that I was proud of how he was protecting our country in the war on terror. When I told him I was praying for him he said it was working!!! My only regret was I was talking to him when they snapped the picture instead of me turning towards the camera. Although how appropriate is that, Little Miss Chatterbox is talking to the President while getting her picture taken :-)!

I didn't bring my camera with me because I wasn't sure we would be able take pictures. We weren't allowed to of the president since we were getting the White House pics but we could take them of Air Force One. So a sweet College Republican guy took a picture of me in front of Air Force One and said he would email it to me. So I will post both pics as soon as I have them. We also got to meet Karl Rove who hung out for a couple of minutes at the end.

It was funny because a friend of mine's husband works for an NBC affiliate and saw me on the raw footage. He called my friend right after seeing me and said, "By any chance (uhm) was Dionne on the tarmac today with (uhm)the President?" My friend reminded him that she had told him about it but he didn't realize that I was actually going to be on the tarmac.

I figure even my resident liberals James and Kirk will be happy for me despite their feelings about the president. And to any other libs nasty comments on this post about the President will not be tolerated, wait until another post to bash him in the comments, this is a happy post only :-).

The KC Star not surprisingly only published a short article about the President's visit in the B section of the paper: Bush to Visit KC today for Talent fundraiser. I would hope he would make the front page tomorrow since the press was at the tarmac in full force. Ofcourse that will give them an opportunity to talk about the protestors like the KC Star's blog did today.

Nevertheless it was an awesome day and irreplacable memories were made!!

Saturday the KC Star did put Bush on the front page along with 2 of the people that got to meet him. They also had a picture of the guy who was standing right next to me. The article was entitled: Bush Zips in for feel-good Visit. Ofcourse they had to highlight the protestors and show a picture of them also but overall it was a pretty comprehensive article about him being in KC.

Also, my friend's husband who works at NBC was able to get the footage of Bush getting off of Air Force One and greeting all of us. You can't see a lot but enough that it was great that I have it on DVD. You can see me talking to him and I did get to see that I actually did turn towards the camera so that made me feel better :-). My friend is trying to find a way for me to put the footage on You tube so I can post it on my blog.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

The Path to 9/11 Update

When I posted on this docudrama earlier this week I knew it was creating controversy but things have really picked up steam. Every liberal in the known Universe is having panic attacks over this. There is controversy about whether ABC is bowing to pressure by the Clintons and actually editing the movie. Hugh Hewitt says that some changes have been made but that none of them are significant. The Los Angeles Times had this to say:
"After much discussion, ABC executives and the producers toned down, but did not eliminate entirely, a scene that involved Clinton's national security advisor, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, declining to give the order to kill Bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified because of the sensitivities involved.

"That sequence has been the focus of attention," the source said, adding: "These are very slight alterations."

In addition, the network decided that the credits would say the film is based "in part" on the 9/11 commission report, rather than simply "based on" the bestselling report, as the producers originally intended."

Now obviously it is irritating that ABC is doing any editing to appease the Clintonistas but it looks like so far the changes are minor. The liberals are declaring all out war on this so I would recommend sending ABC an email thanking them for airing this.

Dean Barnett who posts on Hugh Hewitt's blog commented today on why he thought the controversy surrounding all of this matters. He says that Bush wasn't that great on terrorism before 9/11 but that he was continuing the Clinton administration's policies. The difference is that once 9/11 happened Bush made drastic changes whereas the Democrats of today are still wanting to apply the pre-9/11 policies of the Clinton Administration. Here are some excerpts:
"After 9/11, the Bush Administration changed. Immediately. Beginning on the day of the attacks, Bush announced a bold new principle saying that the United States would not distinguish between terrorists and the regimes that gave them safe harbor. This meant the Taliban’s days in power were numbered.

From Afghanistan to Iraq to CIA detention cells to Gitmo, the administration has waged an active and aggressive war against Radical Islam. Many of the administration’s actions have been unpopular. Some have left elements of our own population gobsmacked and crippled with heartache. But the following is undeniable: The post-9/11 Bush Administration is an entirely different entity than its pre-9/11 incarnation.

THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID of the Democrats or the left in general. In the past five years, the left has vigorously protested aspects of the war with Radical Islam that have not been to its liking. From Abu Ghraib to water-boarding to Iraq to the way Donald Rumsfeld parts his hair, the left has been lamentably outspoken in expressing its unhappiness about what it considers to be the administration’s shortcomings.

But the left has introduced no ideas of its own on how to fight this war. The Democratic candidate for Senator in Pennsylvania said on Sunday that his “plan” is to double the amount of Special Forces troops (as if doing so could be done with just the wave of a Senator’s wand). But he declines to identify precisely what those newly minted Special Forces will actually do. Probably because he himself doesn’t know.

In 2004, John Kerry ran for President without offering any specific areas where he differed from the current administration. He would stay the course in Iraq he said, but promised to conduct a “more sensitive war on terror,” whatever that meant. In the not too distant past, Howard Dean disowned his party's responsibility to actually outline policies, saying doing so was the exclusive province of the party in power.

It came as no small matter of symbolism that while President Bush was giving a major address yesterday outlining concrete things his administration was doing and would do to safeguard the country, the Democratic caucus in the Senate was having a highly organized hissy-fit just to demonstrate how much they disliked Donald Rumsfeld. Again, it’s the same old tune. Bush is doing things and proposing other things to do; the Democrats just complain.

The sad fact is, from the Clinton Administration to the present day, the Democratic Party has been intellectually bankrupt when it comes to fighting terror. Strangled by their peace-at-any-price caucus and their overarching concern for political correctness, they haven’t come up with a single idea in a decade of how to fight this war.

AND THAT’S WHY THE “PATH TO 9/11” rubs salt in an old wound for them. Even though the current Democratic Party has long since parted ways with Bill Clinton philosophically in most areas of significance (e.g. free trade), when it comes to terrorism the continuum between the Clinton Administration and his Democrat descendants remains clear and intact.

For ten years, the Democrats’ policy has been to treat terrorism as a law enforcement matter – wait until a terrorist crime occurs, and then hunt down the terrorist criminals responsible for the act. This model sort of worked with the 1993 WTC bombing; the terrorists killed a few people, and were then brought to justice like any common killer would have been. The fact that their criminal enterprise attempted to kill 100,000 people and nearly succeeded didn’t dent the Democrats’ worldview.

But 9/11 changed everone else’s world view. It became apparent to most of America that we had to kill the would-be criminals before they actually became criminals. To most Americans, this was disquieting but a common sense necessity.

But the left never escaped its previous mindset. Liberals remain exactly where they were 10 years ago; desirous of a policy that waits for a terrorist act and then lets law enforcement mop up the aftermath.

The fact that people are talking about the Democrats’ attitude towards terrorism is horrifically damaging to the Democratic Party. There is, however, a way out for the Democrats. Truly, it would be best for the country and their party if they could arrive at a clearly articulated policy about what they would like to do, rather than simply loudly express primal emotions about how much they detest their domestic political opposition.

Alas, that’s all they have. And this controversy brings their intellectually bankrupt status into the open

I couldn't have said it any better!!

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Why President Bush & Tony Snow Rock

"For al Qaeda, Iraq is not a distraction from their war on America -- it is the central battlefield where the outcome of this struggle will be decided."

"History teaches that underestimating the words of evil and ambitious men is a terrible mistake."

"These radicals have declared their uncompromising hostility to freedom. It is foolish to think that you can negotiate with them."

"...the enemy has a propaganda strategy."

"America will not bow down to tyrants."

"Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The question is: Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say? America and our coalition partners have made our choice. We're taking the words of the enemy seriously. We're on the offensive, and we will not rest, we will not retreat, and we will not withdraw from the fight, until this threat to civilization has been removed."
--President George W. Bush

The President gave an awesome speech yesterday. Read the whole speech here. Below are some great excerpts:
"Five years after our nation was attacked, the terrorist danger remains. We're a nation at war -- and America and her allies are fighting this war with relentless determination across the world. Together with our coalition partners, we've removed terrorist sanctuaries, disrupted their finances, killed and captured key operatives, broken up terrorist cells in America and other nations, and stopped new attacks before they're carried out. We're on the offense against the terrorists on every battlefront -- and we'll accept nothing less than complete victory. (Applause.)

The terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, are men without conscience -- but they're not madmen. They kill in the name of a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs that are evil, but not insane. These al Qaeda terrorists and those who share their ideology are violent Sunni extremists. They're driven by a radical and perverted vision of Islam that rejects tolerance, crushes all dissent, and justifies the murder of innocent men, women and children in the pursuit of political power. They hope to establish a violent political utopia across the Middle East, which they call a "Caliphate" -- where all would be ruled according to their hateful ideology. Osama bin Laden has called the 9/11 attacks -- in his words -- "a great step towards the unity of Muslims and establishing the Righteous… [Caliphate]."

This caliphate would be a totalitarian Islamic empire encompassing all current and former Muslim lands, stretching from Europe to North Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. We know this because al Qaeda has told us. About two months ago, the terrorist Zawahiri -- he's al Qaeda's second in command -- declared that al Qaeda intends to impose its rule in "every land that was a home for Islam, from [Spain] to Iraq. He went on to say, "The whole world is an open field for us."

We know what this radical empire would look like in practice, because we saw how the radicals imposed their ideology on the people of Afghanistan. Under the rule of the Taliban and al Qaeda, Afghanistan was a totalitarian nightmare -- a land where women were imprisoned in their homes, men were beaten for missing prayer meetings, girls could not go to school, and children were forbidden the smallest pleasures like flying kites. Religious police roamed the streets, beating and detaining civilians for perceived offenses. Women were publicly whipped. Summary executions were held in Kabul's soccer stadium in front of cheering mobs. And Afghanistan was turned into a launching pad for horrific attacks against America and other parts of the civilized world -- including many Muslim nations.

The goal of these Sunni extremists is to remake the entire Muslim world in their radical image. In pursuit of their imperial aims, these extremists say there can be no compromise or dialogue with those they call "infidels" -- a category that includes America, the world's free nations, Jews, and all Muslims who reject their extreme vision of Islam. They reject the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the free world. Again, hear the words of Osama bin Laden earlier this year: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."

These radicals have declared their uncompromising hostility to freedom. It is foolish to think that you can negotiate with them. (Applause.) We see the uncompromising nature of the enemy in many captured terrorist documents. Here are just two examples: After the liberation of Afghanistan, coalition forces searching through a terrorist safe house in that country found a copy of the al Qaeda charter. This charter states that "there will be continuing enmity until everyone believes in Allah. We will not meet [the enemy] halfway. There will be no room for dialogue with them." Another document was found in 2000 by British police during an anti-terrorist raid in London -- a grisly al Qaeda manual that includes chapters with titles such as "Guidelines for Beating and Killing Hostages." This manual declares that their vision of Islam "does not… make a truce with unbelief, but rather confronts it." The confrontation… calls for… the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine gun."

Secondly, along with this campaign of terror, the enemy has a propaganda strategy. Osama bin Laden laid out this strategy in a letter to the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, that coalition forces uncovered in Afghanistan in 2002. In it, bin Laden says that al Qaeda intends to "[launch]," in his words, "a media campaign… to create a wedge between the American people and their government." This media campaign, bin Laden says, will send the American people a number of messages, including "that their government [will] bring them more losses, in finances and casualties." And he goes on to say that "they are being sacrificed… to serve… the big investors, especially the Jews." Bin Laden says that by delivering these messages, al Qaeda "aims at creating pressure from the American people on the American government to stop their campaign against Afghanistan."

Now, I know some of our country hear the terrorists' words, and hope that they will not, or cannot, do what they say. History teaches that underestimating the words of evil and ambitious men is a terrible mistake. In the early 1900s, an exiled lawyer in Europe published a pamphlet called "What Is To Be Done?" -- in which he laid out his plan to launch a communist revolution in Russia. The world did not heed Lenin's words, and paid a terrible price. The Soviet Empire he established killed tens of millions, and brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war. In the 1920s, a failed Austrian painter published a book in which he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany and take revenge on Europe and eradicate the Jews. The world ignored Hitler's words, and paid a terrible price. His Nazi regime killed millions in the gas chambers, and set the world aflame in war, before it was finally defeated at a terrible cost in lives.

Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The question is: Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say? America and our coalition partners have made our choice. We're taking the words of the enemy seriously. We're on the offensive, and we will not rest, we will not retreat, and we will not withdraw from the fight, until this threat to civilization has been removed. (Applause.)

Imagine a world in which they were able to control governments, a world awash with oil and they would use oil resources to punish industrialized nations. And they would use those resources to fuel their radical agenda, and pursue and purchase weapons of mass murder. And armed with nuclear weapons, they would blackmail the free world, and spread their ideologies of hate, and raise a mortal threat to the American people. If we allow them to do this, if we retreat from Iraq, if we don't uphold our duty to support those who are desirous to live in liberty, 50 years from now history will look back on our time with unforgiving clarity, and demand to know why we did not act.

I'm not going to allow this to happen -- and no future American President can allow it either. America did not seek this global struggle, but we're answering history's call with confidence and a clear strategy. Today we're releasing a document called the "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism." This is an unclassified version of the strategy we've been pursuing since September the 11th, 2001. This strategy was first released in February 2003; it's been updated to take into account the changing nature of this enemy. This strategy document is posted on the White House website -- And I urge all Americans to read it.

And now, freedom is once again contending with the forces of darkness and tyranny. This time, the battle is unfolding in a new region -- the broader Middle East. This time, we're not waiting for our enemies to gather in strength. This time, we're confronting them before they gain the capacity to inflict unspeakable damage on the world, and we're confronting their hateful ideology before it fully takes root.

We see a day when people across the Middle East have governments that honor their dignity, and unleash their creativity, and count their votes. We see a day when across this region citizens are allowed to express themselves freely, women have full rights, and children are educated and given the tools necessary to succeed in life. And we see a day when all the nations of the Middle East are allies in the cause of peace.

We fight for this day, because the security of our own citizens depends on it. This is the great ideological struggle of the 21st century -- and it is the calling of our generation. All civilized nations are bound together in this struggle between moderation and extremism. By coming together, we will roll back this grave threat to our way of life. We will help the people of the Middle East claim their freedom, and we will leave a safer and more hopeful world for our children and grandchildren."

And what was the Democrats' strategy again for fighting the War on Terror? In their own words, "Engage people more!" I guess that includes foolishly thinking they can negotiate with radicals and aiding the enemy in their propaganda strategy.

Tony Snow also gave some remarks yesterday during the press conference and he got into a little tussle with David Gregory. As I've pointed out before David Gregory likes getting attention during press conferences even if its negative attention. And apparently this time he didn't like being called on spouting Democratic talking points by Tony Snow. Editor & Publisher describe some of the exchange in this excerpt:
A not especially eventful press briefing at the White House today turned rancorous with NBC's David Gregory telling Press Secretary Tony Snow, "Don't point your finger at me," and Snow accusing the newsman of being "rude" and delivering Democratic talking points.

Earlier, speaking to reporters, Snow, continuing the administration's media focus on the war on terror, accused "some in the Democratic Party" of saying "we shouldn't fight the war" and "we shouldn't apprehend al-Qaeda" or even "question al-Qaeda."

Snow got into a tussle with Gregory after the NBC journalist told him, in a lengthy remark, that the public may wonder why the president's statement and report today on the war on terror did not admit more failings on the administration's part. Snow observed that he had nicely summarized "the Democratic point of view," and Gregory took exception to this.

You have just have to love this. Do you not remember my excitement over Tony Snow being the new press secretary? He has yet to disappoint me and has even exceeded my expectations. You go Tony!!

Also, Tony gave some remarks during the press conference. Here is an excerpt of his excellent comments: (He seems to be backing up points made by Ann Coulter and reiterated by me, and its great to see.)

"There have been some in the Democratic Party who have argued against the Patriot Act, against the terror surveillance program, against Guantanamo. In other words, there are some people who say that we shouldn't fight the war, we should not detain -- we shouldn't apprehend al Qaeda, we shouldn't detain al Qaeda, we shouldn't question al Qaeda, and we shouldn't listen to al Qaeda. In other words, they're all for winning the war on terror, but they're all against -- they're against providing the tools for winning that war.

"And we think it's a perfect opportunity for Democratic leaders to say, no, we are serious about winning the war. We have now reiterated some of the basic precepts of administration policy and also the policy put together by generals over the months of the engagement in Iraq. And we look forward to working with members of Congress to figure out how best to prevent terrorists from coming here, but, more importantly, how to defeat terrorism.

"Finally, one other point, which is, there is a reiteration of a call to replace or have Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stand down. The President strongly supports the Defense Secretary. It's not going to happen. Creating Don Rumsfeld as a boogeyman may make for good politics, but would make for a lousy strategy at this time. And, furthermore, if you listen to the speech that Secretary Rumsfeld gave last week, it was not only thoughtful, but comprehensive about trying to frame the ongoing war against terror, and also the war going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"So this, again, is something that the President would love to see members of both Houses of Congress returning to that sense of cooperation we had after September 11th, where the real goal was not to try to hand out pink slips at the Pentagon, but instead to win the war on terror in a way that is going to make not only America safer, but also the rest of the world safer so that democracy can take firm root throughout the globe."

Monday, September 04, 2006

The Path to 9/11--Must See TV!!

"Let me start by saying that "The Path to 9/11" is one of the best, most intelligent, most pro-American miniseries I've ever seen on TV, and conservatives should support it and promote it as vigorously as possible."--Govindini Murty

Rebecca frequently sends me articles and says, "You have to blog on this!" since she is no longer blogging but is still passionate about politics. Last thursday she sent me an article about the new mini-series on 9/11 that ABC is going to air on September 10th & 11th. I didn't have a chance to check it out right away. Then I heard just a little bit of Rush talking about it. But what really caught my attention was when I clicked on a link on my sitemeter that showed all these liberal blogs in hysterics over it. Then I knew this was a gem worth checking into.

Govindini Murty writes an excellent review of the mini-series for Frontpage magazine. Here are some excerpts:
"This is the first Hollywood production I’ve seen that honestly depicts how the Clinton administration repeatedly bungled the capture of Osama Bin Laden. One astonishing sequence in "The Path to 9/11" shows the CIA and the Northern Alliance surrounding Bin Laden’s house in Afghanistan. They're on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead. They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in essence tells the team in Afghanistan that if they want to capture Bin Laden, they'll have to go ahead and do it on their own without any official authorization. That way, their necks will be on the line - and not his. The astonished CIA agent on the ground in Afghanistan repeatedly asks Berger if this is really what the administration wants. Berger refuses to answer, and then finally just hangs up on the agent. The CIA team and the Northern Alliance, just a few feet from capturing Bin Laden, have to abandon the entire mission. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda shortly thereafter bomb the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing over 225 men, women, and children, and wounding over 4000. The episode is a perfect example of Clinton-era irresponsibility and incompetence.

The miniseries also has a scene in which the CIA has crucial information identifying some of the 9/11 hijackers in advance of 9/11, but refuses to share the information with the FBI because of the “wall” put up by certain Democrat officials to prevent information sharing between government agencies. The CIA is depicted as sitting in a meeting with the FBI (with John O’Neil present), and showing the FBI surveillance photos of terrorism suspects - some of whom will later turn out to be the 9/11 hijackers. The CIA asks the FBI for help in identifying the men in the photos, but refuses to give the FBI any of the information they have on who the men are. John O’Neil protests that it’s impossible for the FBI to help the CIA identify the men if they won’t provide any information whatsoever on them. When O’Neil tells the FBI to keep the photos so they can at least work on them, the CIA becomes hostile to O’Neil and takes the photos back. Tragically, John O’Neil himself will later die in the 9/11 attacks, in part because agencies like the CIA refused to share crucial information like this. Scenes like these really challenge the prevailing liberal media and Hollywood mindset by showing that the Patriot Act's information-sharing and surveillance provisions are crucial to the safety of this country, and that political correctness and bureaucratic inefficiency are Islamic terrorism’s greatest friend."

"The Path to 9/11" starts with the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, and covers the international terrorist conspiracy that unfolded over the next eight years and led to 9/11. The miniseries is shocking for taking a pro-American, anti-terrorist approach that is all too lacking in Hollywood’s depictions of the War on Terror ("Syriana," "Fahrenheit 9/11," and "V for Vendetta" anyone?). At a time when the resolve of this country in fighting the War on Terror seems to be flagging, "The Path to 9/11" - much more than Oliver Stone’s "World Trade Center" - will remind the nation why we’re in this war. "The Path to 9/11" provides the context and the history that "World Trade Center" misses."

"Fortunately, Nowrasteh and the producers of this miniseries have gone out on a limb to honestly and fairly depict how Clinton-era inaction, political correctness, and bureaucratic inefficiency allowed the 9/11 conspiracy to metastasize. Let me say here though that "The Path to 9/11" is not a partisan miniseries or a “conservative” miniseries. It simply presents the facts in an honest and straightforward manner (the producers have backed up every detail of the miniseries with copious amounts of research and documentation), and the facts are that for seven years, from 1993 to 2000, the Clinton administration bungled the handling of the world-wide terrorist threat. The miniseries is equally honest in depicting the Bush administration. It shows a few points where administration officials, following in the tradition of the Clinton years, do not follow certain clues about the terrorist plot as zealously as they should have. Nonetheless, "The Path to 9/11," by honestly depicting the unfolding of events over eight years, makes it clear that most of the conspiracy leading up to 9/11 was hatched during the seven years of the Clinton administration, and that since Bush was in power for only eight months when 9/11 occurred, he can hardly be blamed for the entire disaster."

"Overall, I thought "The Path to 9/11" was infinitely better than Oliver Stone’s "World Trade Center" (granted, Stone decided to tell a narrower story), and if this is properly marketed, ABC should have a huge hit on its hands. The problem is that I don’t see ABC marketing it at all, and I’m concerned that they’re dropping the ball on getting the word out about this show. They’ve reportedly spent more than $40 million producing "The Path to 9/11," and yet I see little advertising or promotion anywhere. Conservatives need to really step in here and spread the word via talk radio and the internet. Every American, and everyone alarmed by Islamic terrorism around the world should see this miniseries. "The Path to 9/11" should get every Emmy award and Golden Globe award out there - if Hollywood is willing to be fair and open-minded.

I’m highly encouraged by the ad that 84 Hollywood filmmakers and celebrities took out on August 17 in the Los Angeles Times denouncing Hamas and Hezbollah, and I’m thrilled by this ABC miniseries. I hope this heralds a new, saner approach on the part of Hollywood toward the world-wide problem of Islamo-fascism -- one that recognizes Islamic terrorism for what it is, and is willing to denounce it so that better things, such as democracy, civil rights, women’s rights, and free speech -- can take its place. These are issues that all conservatives and liberals can get behind, and I’m glad to see that the entertainment industry is finally, at least in these two instances, uniting for the greater good of this country and for the noble cause of democracy around the world."

And as I said it is so well done that liberals are weeping and gnashing their teeth. Rush heard from some of the people who were in a screening of the series in D.C. and the liberals in the audience were just furious. Bill Clinton is so ticked off about it he has personally gone to Bob Iger (the CEO of Disney) to ask him to edit out the parts that make him and his administration look bad. Where has this been talked about on the Drive By Media? Here is an excerpt of what Rush says about it:
"Bill Clinton himself is going to call Bob Iger, the CEO of Disney, and demand or ask that this mini-series, The Path to 9/11, be reedited and recut so as not to depict Bill Clinton and his administration as they are currently portrayed in this mini-series. Bill Clinton himself is going to call Bob Iger -- and this is not breaking news; I got the e-mail on this last night, and there have been some local hosts out in California who have been talking about this, but there is a huge movement afoot from inside the Clinton administration to put pressure on ABC to get this thing recut, reedited, if not more. Very powerful players obviously, much higher than just Richard Ben-Veniste and so forth."

So mark your calendars to watch ABC on September 10th & 11th at 8/7c.