Seriously? The Washington Times reports
On Tuesday, [House Minority Leader] Mrs. Pelosi and three other top Democrats called for a commission to investigate reported abuses of detainees from the war on terror. Mrs. Pelosi said it is past time that the administration established a policy on determining the fates of the detainees at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, arguing that most are from Afghanistan and that the conflict there has ended.
"I assume that the war in Afghanistan is over, or is the contention that you have that it continues?" she said to a reporter.
A few moments later, she said: "This isn't about the duration of the war. The war in Afghanistan is over."
Meanwhile, the Washington Post and Knight Ridder bring us this story
U.S. and Afghan forces fought a fierce, 11-hour battle Tuesday against about 100 Taliban militiamen in the mountains of southern Afghanistan, killing at least 60 rebels and capturing eight in some of the most intense combat since the Taliban government was ousted in 2001, Afghan and U.S. officials said yesterday.
Five U.S. soldiers and two Afghan policemen were injured in the clash and at least five Afghan policemen were killed, according to U.S. and Afghan officials.
U.S. and British warplanes repeatedly bombarded Taliban positions in the battle area near the remote town of Sheykhan in Zabul province. It was the latest in a series of increasingly deadly clashes between pro-government and Taliban forces in the period leading up to parliamentary elections set for September.
The latest fight offered fresh evidence of the Taliban's resilience 3-½ years after the extremist Islamic militia was forced from power by a U.S.-led bombing campaign. Although Taliban forces have been unable to hold territory against U.S. forces and have repeatedly suffered heavy casualties, they have continued to move through the south and east in units of 20 or more, firing light machine guns and grenade launchers during several pitched battles.
Both stories, I might add, appeared in today's edition. And both events occurred on Tuesday.
Ms. Pelosi is the top Democrat in the House.
Mr. Durbin is the number two Democrat in the Senate.
Mr Reid, the number one Democrat in the Senate calls any criticism of the unseriousness demonstrated on his side of the isle a "the noise machine of the far right" and "a distraction by the White House."
Yet it is these people who want Americans to trust it with our national security. But how is that possible when you have the top Democrat in the House believing the war in Afghanistan is over, you have the number two Democrat Senator calling American soldiers Nazi guards and Gulag prison-masters and the number one Democrat defending him?
Especially when you have the whole range of those on the left calling "Quran" abuse torture?
So when Karl Rove points out that
liberals responded to the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes by wanting to "prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."
He's just stating the obvious.
The worst of this is that there are things that do need to be focused on, and there are criticisms that are valid: like border security. The Republicans, and certainly the White House, has been terribly neglectful of this.
So why is it that Democrats choose to focus their attention and energy on delusion and hyperbole instead of pointing out real weaknesses and offering solutions?
Because they are not serious and can not be taken seriously.
Working on funny Germans need to loosen up. At least that's the assessment of entrepreneur-therapist Susanne Maier who has started a school to teach Germans how to be funny and spontaneous.
To ward off any collective despair-fueled illness (which some might say has already struck), Maier has opened Berlin's first school to actually teach Germans to laugh, since the jolly gene for that appears to have mutated out of the general population....
In the school in a northern district of the capital, participants do very un-German things. They run around the classroom without any purpose; they clap their hands, saying ho-ho-ho and ha-ha-ha; and they actually look each other in the eye, something few sane people would attempt on Berlin's own mean streets.
"Fake it until you make it," is Maier's motto and her students of laughter have to pretend to crack up until the real thing comes along.
Now it seems to be that this just adds to the stereotype that Germans need training in things that comes naturally to most people (well most people excluding the French). On the other hand, some stereotypes exist for a reason.
"If Germans can only learn to laugh through a kind of formal methodology, we'll go ahead and use it," she said.
There's a good chance Maier will be successful: After all, following orders -- unlike laughing -- isn't something Germans seem to have a problem with.
This is almost as odd as the idea of an entrepreneur in Germany.
We're Surrounded! Both the Left and the Right have raised my ire today. First:
Mark this day because it is not too often that you will ever find me agreeing with Democrat Representative John Conyers, but today is one of those days. In response to House Republicans passing an Amendment that makes the burning of the US flag illegal under the Constitution he said
"This amendment elevates a symbol of freedom over freedom itself."
Which is precisely the case. Making flag desecration a crime punishable by prosecution would be as bad as Muslim killing people for Quran desecration. Just as the Quran is not the religion, the flag is not America.
When I took my oath upon joining the US Air Force, I vowed to defend the Constitution, not the flag. And part of that Constitution is the guarantee the expression of political speech. And if some moron wants to burn the flag to express political speech, that person should not suffer prosecution. Scorn and derision maybe, but not prosecution.
Happily, the House does not get to change the Constitution. Congress doesn't even get to change the Constitution. We are the only ones who get to change the Constitution and it will not be changed in this fashion.
But is annoying that there was even an attempt by the party that is claims to stand for free speech and Federalism.
And speaking of the Constitution, Justice Kennedy sided with the Liberal side of the Supreme Court today in allowing the state to take away private property rights from people.
Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development...
The four-member liberal bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects.
Great. So people work to buy a home and property and because the State decides it needs a new shopping mall, they can condemn your home and bulldoze it into the ground.
"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," O'Connor wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
For all of you Liberals out there just remember, this is what you're voting for. More, bigger, hungrier and badder government. And it's not like this was given to a "public" works project, in essence these individuals lost their homes to other individuals.
The more Left you go on the spectrum, the fewer property rights you are voting for until finally, you get none.
And finally, while this story is about a Republican, greed has no political party. Representative Duke Cunningham is admitting he used "poor judgment" when he sold his home for almost twice what it was worth to a defense contractor who subsequently got more government contracts.
"At the time of the sale, I failed to adequately consider how this transaction might be perceived by others who don't know me," wrote Cunningham, a member of the appropriations subcommittee that controls defense contracting dollars. "I would never put the interests of a friend or a contractor above the interests of my country. I trust that the facts will bear out this truth over time."
Yeah, well, not good enough. Just like Senator Durbin's "apology" was not good enough, especially when he then went to live on a boat that very same contractor owned, rent free.
"I ask only that my constituents reserve judgment until any investigation is concluded and I have had the opportunity to defend myself against these false allegations," wrote Cunningham, a much-decorated former Navy fighter pilot in Vietnam who was first elected to Congress in 1990.
Look, I don't care whether or not all of this was legal, it simply isn't right. And if Rep Cunningham can't see that it's wrong, then he doesn't deserve to represent anyone in Congress.
He should resign and do it regardless of the outcome of any investigation or criminal prosecution.
And failing that, voters should fail to re-elect him.