There are rumors flying about the exact nature of the relationship between Hillary and Huma Abedin, “Hillary’s Mystery Woman” according to the liberal New York Observer (Wikipedia), in an April 1, 2007, article by Spencer Morgan. (We have speculated among ourselves as to the significance of the publication date.) Such rumors, while probably on the same level as the National Enquirer cover and article that featured Dr. Rice recently (see our post, “In the closet?”); are not as troubling as the unknown implications of the influence exercised by a top advisor to a prominent Senator, with half a chance of becoming President — according to Newt Gingrich, who recently downgraded Hillary’s chances of winning in 2008 from 80% to 50% on yesterday’s Sunday morning political talk shows.

While we (well, most of us) couldn’t care less about what Hillary does in the boudoir (with or without Bill); there are apparently some of Hillary’s wealthy New York Jewish supporters who have been given pause by the position of influence that Ms. Abedin has attained on the Senator’s staff.  She’s a Washington, DC resident, and frequent transient New Yorker (especially since her association with Hillary Clinton) who arrived from her native Kalamazoo by way of Saudi Arabia.  Pro-Israeli Clinton supporters concerns about Huma have been heightened, since as the Observer pointed out, her counsel is sought out about issues concerning the Middle East and her title among the campaign staff is “Traveling Chief of Staff.”

Interestingly, the Hillary campaign just “fired” two volunteers who had forwarded what have been described as “dirty trick” e-mails that spoke of Barak Obama’s Islamic ties.  (AP - Raleigh News Observer) Unconfirmed sources suggest that part of the decision-making involved in booting these campaign workers was that Hillary didn’t want her “Huma connection” and other Islamic assoications being brought under the scrutiny of the intense press coverage leading up to Iowa caucuses.

With the Annapolis Middle East Summit, many column inches across the nation were devoted to Secretary of State Rice’s “legacy.” While the conference was historic in that it simply occurred, the real diplomatic activity that might help define Condi’s tenure as SoS may be taking place on a little reported issue with regards to US Foreign policy, but very central to the Middle East, the War on Terror, Climate Change (a.k.a. “Global Warming”) and our economy. That issue is energy.

Secretary Rice has had the tough job of continuing to reject the flawed Kyoto Protocol in the face of widespread international support. Kyoto, although championed by Al Gore, was never actively promoted for ratification for years by the Clinton administration – even he realized that the one-sided impact of the treaty would be a severe competitive disadvantage for the US economy. (See, Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and The Elephant and the Dragon)

President George W. Bush opposes mandatory caps on greenhouse emissions, preferring voluntary goals. He believes the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases unfairly exempted rapidly developing countries and that ratifying it would have hurt the economy of the United States… Environmental News Network, article, “World Energy Revolution Needed for Climate,” Sept. 25, 2007

However, by combining the near global hysteria over global warming* to our own strategic energy interests that scream for alternatives to fossil fuels and a Democratically controlled Congress with few accomplishments to show voters in 2008, Dr. Rice has quietly (thanks to minimal press coverage), albeit slowly, started to enlist international and domestic support for a “global revolution” in energy. Her chief lieutenants for energy issues are Undersecretary for Energy, Economic and Agricultural Affairs Rueben Jeffrey (bio) who was sworn in just this past June. However, given Jeffery’s rather broad portfolio and relatively recent addition; it has been Gregory Manuel (State Dept., “Condoleezza Rice’s Energy Guy,” article EnergyBiz, PDF format), Condi’s Special Advisor to the Secretary and International Energy Coordinator since 2006 that has been her “go-to guy” for energy. Interestingly, both Jeffery and Manuel have post-graduate degrees from Stanford. According to an unnamed source, “If there is going to be a ‘fourth quarter energy legacy’ coming out of State, it’ll be the Secretary’s drive and direction and these two guys’ heavy lifting that gets it done.”

*Actually, “climate change” is the new “PC” term. It’s not a wise move to commit to whether the temperatures are going up or down, or whether the reason they are changing is air-conditioned soccer mom SUV’s, livestock flatulence, or the lack of human sacrifices to the sun god until the all the evidence is in, say in 10,000 years, or so. Or perhaps, it doesn’t really matter since our planet’s biosphere goes on a “blind date” with an asteroid every few millennia.

Smelling the possibility of some political advantage leading up to the 2008 election, Democrats practically tripped over themselves getting up to the microphones to express their “outrage” over the revelation that the CIA had erased tapes of the interrogations of top terrorists. (Chicago Tribune, Toronto Star) In one of the few (known) intelligence successes of the post 9-11 era, these interrogations produced information that was “actionable,” accurate and resulted in the disruption of terrorist activities.

The CIA’s stated rationale for erasing the tapes was to protect the identity of the agents involved in the interrogation. This certainly seems reasonable given the fact the e-mail written by the agency’s director, Michael Hayden, to explain the erasure to CIA personnel was in the hands of the Associated Press within hours of distribution at Langley. (The Register) However, he neglected to mention that agents would need not only protection from al-Qaeda, but also several American Senators, Congressman, and left-wing activists.

Are rumors that our Secretary of State is a lesbian true? Is this the reason that she is so reluctant to run for the Presidency? In order to broach these subjects, the Sunday Times reporter, Tony Allen-Mills, used the fig leaf of a National Enquirer article, “Who’s Gay and Who’s Not,” to denigrate the progress, however modest, made at the Annapolis Middle East summit in his December 2nd article, “Gay rumours eclipse Condi’s glory moment.”

This article brings up some interesting points.

• Is it an insult to call someone “gay?”
• Is someone’s private sex life a legitimate campaign or political issue? Most us would answer “no,” but notice the use of the word “private.” For example, marriage is a state-sanctioned institution, so marital infidelity is both a public and private matter, especially for those in positions of public trust – as an indicator of one’s propensity to violate one’s serious commitments. (Lying under oath about such infidelities is in no way excusable using the guise that it is strictly a “private” matter.) Likewise, public solicitation of sex in public bathrooms is not part of an individual’s “private” sex life. Additionally, salacious comments made by senior leaders to subordinates, especially interns, with whom they have come into contact in the course of conducting public business, while not always necessarily criminal, are certainly inappropriate and a matter legitimate public concern. (Apologies to Messrs. Clinton, Craig and Foley.)
• Tabloid articles are becoming “trial balloons.” If a story appeals to a particular journalist, for whatever reason, the tabloid story can become the basis for an article in a more mainstream publication. Allen-Mills described the motivation for such practices as a way for so-called mainstream publications to spice-up their content and compete with the Internet and tabloids.
  

  The steady flow of salacious and often thinly sourced sex-related stories is causing headaches for US newspaper editors, who have been bludgeoned by shrinking circulations and internet competition yet are still clinging to values….The drift towards internet-fuelled sensationalism was deemed to be so serious earlier this year that the Columbia Journalism Review, a bastion of US media elitism, convened a panel of top editors to consider whether the government should step in to subsidise serious newspapers…

  The reporter himself seems to have employed this “thinly sourced sex-related” strategy with the following anonymous quotations pulled from the National Enquirer article – not to mention the article’s title.

  According to the buzz among political insiders, it’s an open secret that . . . Rice is gay. The piece quoted an unnamed “in-the-know” blogger as saying that during her years as provost of Stanford University in California, Rice was “completely out as a lesbian…”

  The one fact that is used to corroborate the story is that Dr. Rice and a female friend bought a home together in 1998. Well, that’s certainly conclusive evidence! This morsel was uncovered by Glenn Kessler, a Washington Post correspondent, who is hawking his recently released book about Condi, The Confidante: Condoleezza Rice and the Creation of the Bush Legacy. (Do you think that he might have some small personal agenda? Or that he might just have some small, infinitesimal elements of bias?) If purchasing property with a member of the same sex is proof positive that one is homosexual, then there are a lot of us that need to become card-carrying members of Log Cabin Republicans. (website) Randy Bean, the woman with whom Dr. Rice purchased the property in question, has been interviewed in Radar magazine, in that publication’s “DC Confidential” column.

  “Condi and I have been friends for 25 years,” she told us. “We co-own an investment property in Palo Alto. We do not share a home. Bean, who now works for Stanford University, told Kessler on his radio show that she was buried in medical bills, and Rice helped her buy the home along with another acquaintance, Coit Blacker, a Stanford professor who is openly gay.

Unless someone makes their sexuality a public issue by personal choice or public misconduct, then it should remain private. Once private sexuality becomes “fair game” for politics, we are in danger of having political discourse in our nation truly degenerate. Do we really want to have candidates for high offices asked about their private sex lives? For example, how many aging male politicians would like to discuss the intimate details of their treatment for prostate cancer and how it has affected their private sex life? Spouses and ex-spouses will asked about the use of sex toys, whether they’re multi-orgasmic, etc. It wouldn’t be long until Jerry Springer would be moderating presidential debates as accusations and innuendoes fly. Do we really want this?

The tabloid press does uncover important news items from time to time. Then again, a broken clock is right at least twice a day. Does anyone remember this Globe cover? (Or our blog post?) So which is it? Is Dr. Rice a lesbian, or a home-wrecking seductress? (We can already see where this is heading! We predict that the next time you see Condi on the cover a tabloid that she’ll be bisexual!) Enough is enough. Mainstream outlets should exercise extreme caution when citing the tabloids, lest they seek to join their titillating colleagues in the checkout line.

The American Left and our terrorist enemies are setting themselves up for a big “I told you so” regarding the Annapolis Middle East Conference that officially starts tomorrow.  (Unofficially, it has already begun.  EuroNews article and video; AFP, “Rice in diplomatic flurry ahead of Mideast peace talks”)

In contrast to Secretary of State Rice’s “failure is not an option” statement regarding the objectives of the conference, expectations for success have been, generally, characterized as modest or even low.  (Baltimore Sun, “Failure is not an option.” by David Wood)  True, how much can be accomplished in a single day?  But as has been widely reported, the conference has been “front loaded” with “pre-negotiations” including visits by Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas to the White House. 

Just the fact that the Saudis and the Syrians are going to be present is an accomplishment in itself and may lower the threshold to their participation in the future. 

Ninety percent of success is just showing up. 
Woody Allen 

Of course, the Syrians and the Saudis have both downplayed their participation and the chances for success in their domestic (state controlled) media outlets — not wanting to appear overly friendly with Washington or Israel.  In reality, both of these Arab states see the conference as a forum for their respective positions on their own “pet” issues, especially the Golan Heights for Syria, and if they score a few diplomatic points with Washington in order to hedge their bets against a future nuclear-armed Iran, so much the better.  (Alsumaria, “Assad and Ahmadinejad: Annapolis Conference to Fail”)

What is a more disturbing than the expected negativity from Iran’s Ayatollahs is reading about the politically motivated opinions of “experts” in the US media, such as the Sun article, where reporter David Wood quotes the “heavyweights” Lee Hamilton (of the quickly forgotten Iraq Surrender Study Group) and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was White House national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter. (Now there’s an entry on your resume that you’d like to forget!  Instead of “heavyweights,” shouldn’t he have written ”has beens?”)  It seems that these guys are on almost the same page as Ahmadinejad and Iran’s ruling Ayatollahs when it comes to prospects for Annapolis! 

Hamilton, along with Brzezinski and six other foreign policy heavyweights, wrote to Bush and Rice last month warning that failure at Annapolis “risks devastating consequences” in the Middle East because it would undercut moderates.  (Blog Editor: Kinda like in 2000, when President Clinton’s Camp David get together failed, right?)

Robert Little, also of the Baltimore Sun, quotes Aaron David Miller, a Woodrow Wilson Center Public Policy Scholar who doesn’t mind criticizing his own board members (Condi currently sits on the Wilson Center’s Board of Trustees) in his November 25, 2007, ominously titled article, “Rice’s legacy on the line at Annapolis conference.”

“She’s about a year or so away from being judged as a kind of inconsequential secretary of state,” said Aaron David Miller

That takes chutzpah from a guy who proudly lists himself on his Wilson Center bio as a ”Former Advisor to six Secretaries of State on Arab-Israeli Negotiations, 1978-2003….Expertise (in) U.S.-Middle East relations; Arab-Israeli negotiations; Arab world and Palestinian politics; Israeli politics”  (Notice that does NOT include Dr. Rice’s tenure as Secretary of State)  Let’s see, how many “comprehensive” Arab-Israeli peace accords were concluded during that period?  ZERO.  Maybe without his advice, Condi will do better than her predecessors.  She certainly would be in a better position with some bipartisan support, but no such luck.  Also, Mr. Little neglected to mention in his article that Miller has a book coming out next year, America and the Much Too Promised Land: The Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace.  It would be disastrous for his book sales if peace just started breaking out all over the Middle East.  Further evidence that his opinions, to which he is fully entitled to have and communicate, may be weighted down with ideological baggage was a June 19, 2007, Washington Post op-ed that he co-authored with Robert Malley: “West Bank First: It won’t work.”  (Blog Editor: We don’t mean to imply that Dr. Miller’s writings are economically influenced, but we do find these facts about his point-of-view interesting and wish that they would have been mentioned in the Sun article.  Some aspects of his work are quite beneficial to the cause of peace, such as his work with Seeds of Peace.)

Achieving any progress towards Middle East peace in one day is difficult enough no matter how much diplomatic preparation has been undertaken.  Partisan reporting and criticism only make peace that much more “elusive” (to use Miller’s book title), but that’s exactly the point.  The undermining of peace efforts in order to gain political or personal advantage for 2008, and beyond, is just another obstacle that our Secretary of State, unfortunately, must overcome.

The Annapolis Middle East Conference, scheduled to begin tomorrow, has already accomplished something that has been difficult for the US to achieve in the past.  It has managed to irritate Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hamas! 

The often bellicose Ahmadinejad has been whining to Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah by telephone about the kingdom’s participation.  Hamas, an Iranian client organization and terrorist proxy, has announced a “counter-conference” in response to Annapolis.  (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and a few of their sympathizers are going to sit around for a couple hours and blame all of their problems on the US, Israel, and the International Zionist Conspiracy.  We suggest that an Arabic translation of It’s my party, and I’ll cry if I want to be used as the event’s theme song.)

(Agence France-Presse, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, al-Bawaba)

Mainstream media (MSM) apologists for the extreme left fringe (Code Pink, MoveOn.org, Air America, etc.) are, knowingly or unknowingly, subverting the nation by becoming the accomplices of their more radical ideological brothers and sisters. How? They are the “bridge” that connects them to the rest of the “body politic.” But is this really possible to do without specific intent, or knowledge? Could such a large “conspiracy” really exist except in the disturbed minds of conspiracy theory nuts?

It is doubtful that there is some secret liberal “star chamber” (other than the “war room” of the Hillary for President campaign) that is working behind the scenes to plot our national destiny. One only needs to look at the multitude of missteps taken by the recent Democratic “leadership” of Harry “the war is lost” Reid, Nancy “self-appointed ambassador to Syria” Pelosi, John “Impeachment” Conyers, Charles “tax-hike” Rangel, Hillary “Ask me a question” Clinton, and others to realize that if there is any liberal leadership cabal that they aren’t the “sharpest tools in the political shed.” However, this does not mean that the collective effect of the shrill, even rabid, Left is not effective at shaping national politics when facilitated by constant, and favorable, media access.

The Clinton strategy of “triangulation” illustrates how a noisy “lunatic fringe” on the Left works as a political strategy to shift national politics toward an overall liberal agenda. It can make what was politically unthinkable, possible. While the radical Left has generally been too delusional to carry out large scale organized, effective political activity within, or in conjunction with, the Democratic Party that does not mean that their impact has not been felt as they tilt the national political debate to the Left. In legal terms, to be guilty of conspiracy it is not necessary for the left hand to know what the right hand is doing. (Or in this case, the far left hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing.) This is why none of the current crop of Democratic candidates are willing to alienate themselves from the radical Left. They need them to make their own liberal agendas seem moderate.

The right-left political spectrum (represented by the inferior line of the triangle) is bridged by the political media (represented by the two superior, angled lines of the triangle) which if, “fair and balanced,” does not result in a skewing of political discourse.  However, if the political media caters to radical ideologies due to personal, collective, or organizational biases; the entire political environment is shifted towards the radical end of the spectrum.  The strategy of furthering a “progressive” (that’s code for “radical and liberal”) agenda within the Democratic Party is outlined in Paul Waldman’s Being Right is Not Enough.  Of course, the book’s subtitle, “What Progressives Must Learn from Conservative Success,” points out that it’s all the Republicans’ fault that such tactics are necessary in the first place.  (Amazon, Audible audio book)

In announcements by United Jewish Communities (UJC) and the State Department, the appearance of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to speak about the upcoming Annapolis Middle East Peace Conference at the November 13, 2007, Nashville gathering of the UJC was confirmed.

“(The) United Jewish Communities represents and serves 155 Jewish federations and 400 independent Jewish communities across North America.” (taken from the UJC website)

In a David Neff article appearing in Christianity Today, October 30, 2007, the details of a meeting between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and several evangelical leaders spelled out the framework with which she is pursuing Middle East diplomacy leading up to the Annapolis summit.  This is a must read for Condistas everywhere.

This Sunday, Secretary of State Rice will appear on ABC’s This Week, hosted by George Stephanopoulos, to discuss the ongoing situation in Pakistan. (ABC News)

It saddens many of us to see attacks on Secretary of State Rice’s Middle East peace efforts. That is her job — in case anyone has forgotten. By definition, the SoS is supposed to provide diplomatic options to the Chief Executive and then facilitate, foster, even nurture the domestic and foreign support that is typically essential to the success of foreign policy.  (blog posts at Powerline & Daled Amos)

The 24-hour news cycle has aired any number of pundits that, until recently, were mostly Democratic Party shills that do not want to see the Bush Administration accomplish anything during their last two years in office — lest it be used to demonstrate the superiority of Republican Party ideology. In essence, they’d rather have potentially resolvable conflicts (and other issues across the political spectrum) be left as “works in progress” for Wonder Woman Hillary’s administration to come in and “save the day.” This will then become the grist for the mill that will feed into Hillary’s “constant campaign” strategy ushering in 8-years (or more) of Democratic “dark ages.”

Diplomacy involves finesse. It’s typically not just a “this is our position, take it or leave it.” proposition. (Although, there are times that this tactic would be appropriate.) As successful business leaders (and poker players) will tell you, your outcomes are better if you wisely employ negotiation strategies. This is something that is being lost on conservatives who have started to attack Condi. The criticism from both Left and Right about ongoing Middle East peace efforts implies that Condi is blinded by the desire to reach a deal — any deal — just so that she, as a key player in the Bush Administration, leaves a “legacy” for the history books. Does anybody seriously believe; other than Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Code Pink, etc.; that Dr. Rice would “give away the farm” just to strike a deal that put her ego over our national interest?

Also, diplomacy is as important for what it does not accomplish — although it doesn’t make for great headlines or photo-ops. When a diplomatic solution is not reached, this is often a necessary first-step in enlisting the help of allies and neutralizing potential adversaries in non-diplomatic solutions. Remember England’s help in Iraq, for example?

Our Secretary of State deserves our support as she pursues the peaceful resolution of conflict around the globe. And keep in mind that “successful” negotiations frequently are successful for when they do not reach an agreement. The appearance of critics from within her own party and among our allies only weakens her negotiating position as she tries to do her job. 

In preparation for further Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations, Secretary of State Rice is doing her homework — even speaking with former President Carter and former Secretary of State Madeline Albright — in order to be ready to exploit any potential breakthrough at the upcoming Annapolis conference without hesitation by knowing what has worked, and what hasn’t, in the past.  Likewise, she has ordered the State Department’s historian to compile an extensive, classified history of past US brokered Middle East peace efforts.  (Matthew Lee, Associated Press, article)

CNN’s Lou Dobbs is something of a unique cable news journalist.  Personally, I find him to be rather pompous and self-important with his “War on the Middle Class” theme.  Also, he has an irritating anti-GOP bias that is, fortunately, readily transparent.  However, he does have some valid points and criticisms to make of both the Left and Right from time to time.  But yesterday, I had to hit the rewind button on my TIVO several times to make sure that I heard him correctly.

During an extended segment on Lou Dobbs Tonight October 26th episode, an almost agitated Lou discussed the defeat of ”Dream Act” legislation that was little more than a smoke screen for an illegal immigrant amnesty. He dutifully noted that both Hillary and Obama (a co-sponsor of the bill, no less) were both supporters of the legislation.  Continuing, he then went on to express his, and more than 70% of New Yorker’s, outrage over Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer’s plan to issue driver licenses to illegal immigrants.  Plus, in an invitation to massive voter fraud, Spitzer has ordered state employees to register ”voters” on an essentially “no questions asked” policy which can conveniently be accomplished in the Great State of New York while obtaining a driver license.  It’s not hard to connect the dots here.

But the most notable of Lou’s comments came in response to a viewer who wrote in to say that she had changed her voter registration to “independent” and that she felt that Governor Spitzer, and both Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton should be “voted out” of office.  To which Lou replied that he “couldn’t agree more.”  Remember, this was on his prime time CNN news program!  Watch the video and see for yourself.

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?

Secretary of State Rice’s and Secretary of Defense Gates’ recent visit to Russia was widely reported as confrontational and as having made little, or no, progress.  (See the links in our post, “Putin postures, Condi walks the line.”)  There were even reports of a new “cold war.”  But after the international press corps packed up and left Moscow, a different picture is now emerging.  Once again, the mainstream media’s reporting may be ”accuracy challenged.” 

Russia Profile has a series of columns today, in their “Weekly Experts Panel“ introduced by Vladamir Frolov and entitled: A New Opening in U.S.-Russia Relations?  The German news agency, DPA (Deutsche Presse Agentur), also released an op-ed today: “Russia says US suggestions on missile defence are ‘interesting’.”  Compare it to the Russian News Agency’s, Novosti, article.  They are well worth the clicks.

Although peace in the Middle East has been elusive for decades, will Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s “spiritual passion” be the catalyst that begins the long, arduous march towards that long sought after goal? Even the Washington Post is reporting on the possibility. (link, “Rice Draws on ‘Spiritual Passion’ in Push for Peace”)

An overview of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s efforts for Middle East peace and their prospects for success appeared in an article by Jonathan Beale of the BBC (Surprise, surprise!  Well, no surprise if you’re a Condista who’s had the pleasure of meeting or speaking with Mr. Beale.  For a BBC reporter, he is quite the professional.)  No one can divine the outcome of this most recent attempt at peace.  As Mr. Beale writes, it may amount to little more than another “photo op,” but then again, like most former smokers can attest, it may take many attempts to finally “kick the habit.”  In this case “the habit” is not a physical dependence, but the status quo of the cycle of terrorist violence, followed by Israeli retaliation.  Who knows if this attempt will be the one that is finally successful?

Oddly the Fatah-West Bank and Hamas-Gaza split may actually augment the chance for success this time.  In the past, extremists have always been able to torpedo peace efforts with violence.  With Fatah needing to clearly demonstrate that they can “deliver” — at least the hope of economic progress and a better life to their constituents; they need to “make a deal.”  Likewise, the Israelis, after a less than convincing victory — at least on the propaganda front –  during their last incursion into Southern Lebanon need to make progress as well.  A peace agreement, even a partial one, would allow Israel to concentrate its efforts on more extreme Palestinian elements — especially those that have an Iranian “connection.”

“The thing speaks for itself,” or res ipsa loquitur (Wikpedia link).  The following product needs no explanation.  It’s a metaphor that we expect our male readers will immediately feel, uh — viscerally, and instantly understand why the 2008 election is so important.  Feel the squeeze and watch the video!

*Blog Editor: We have no financial interest in this product, nor those selling it:  HillaryTheNutcracker.com, Overnight Express, Amazon