Let’s Make Russia Our Sister Country!

"Historically, liberals show their manliness by demanding war with our friends and allies, while methodically undermining America's ability to fight the wars it's already in."

Ann Coulter  "The more hysterical liberals become about Russia, the more your antennae should go up. 

"Their selective misgivings with Russia are just like their selective alarm with (our ally) Chiang Kai-shek, leader of the nationalist Chinese government, and (our ally) Ngo Dinh Diem, president of South Vietnam.

"As explained in lavish detail in Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, liberals instinctively lunge toward treason.

"They say Putin is a "thug" and a "bully" who kills journalists. Liberals never used to mind Russian leaders killing journalists. Nor millions of scientists, writers, Christians, Jews, kulaks, Ukrainians and the entire 1980 Soviet Olympic hockey team.

"Have you guys heard of the Evil Empire? Now Democrats are hypersensitive to a Russian leader's flaws?

"Liberals were cool with the show trials, the alliance with Hitler, the gulags, the forced starvations, the shooting down of American planes and goose-stepping through Eastern Europe.

"But that was when the Russian leader was Joseph Stalin or Nikita Khrushchev -- not the beast Putin!

"Back then, liberals were spying for Stalin (Julius Rosenberg's code name: "Liberal"), the U.S. president was calling the bloodthirsty dictator "Uncle Joe," and The New York Times was covering up Stalin's infamous crimes. In the storied history of fake news, the Times'
Walter Duranty  won a Pulitzer Prize for his false reports denying the Ukrainian famine, in which more than 7 million people were deliberately starved to death." . . .

"As far as the Times is concerned, those were Russia's halcyon days!

"Back when Russia was actually threatening America with nuclear annihilation, Jimmy Carter warned Americans about their "inordinate fear of communism." Sting sang that "the Russians love their children, too.”

"But now liberals are hopping mad with Putin. They could never forgive Russia for giving up communism. " . . .

Wonderful Opening Statement Of Neil Gorsuch contrasts with the conduct of Democrats

Weasel Zippers  "This was why he was chosen, obviously a man of intelligence and grace."

In contrast, here is what Democrats do:

Former Female Student, Jennifer Sisk, Making Allegations Against Gorsuch Has Ties to Obama, Democrats
. . . "Will Hauptman, a current law student at the University of Colorado who says he was in the same class as Sisk, also claims Sisk is misrepresenting the account. According to his LinkedIn profile, Hauptman has clerked for Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman, a Republican.

“ 'Although Judge Gorsuch did discuss some of the topics mentioned in the letter, he did not do so in the manner described,” Hauptman wrote.

“ 'The judge was very matter-of-fact in that we would face difficult decisions; he himself recalled working late nights when he had a young child with whom he wished to share more time,” Hauptman continued. “The seriousness with which the judge asked us to consider these realities reflected his desire to make us aware of them, not any animus against a career or group.' ” . . .

In the end, politicians such as Schumer are the best reminder that we need more judges like Gorsuch.

"Schumer's chosen role as demagogue stands in stark contrast to what is demanded of judges and can be expected of Gorsuch."

Iraq then and now: Bush was right, and Obama was wrong

comicallyincorrect.com

Silvio Canto, Jr.  "We recall this week the 13th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War II.  It's a moment to reflect on a decision that still looks correct to me a decade later.

The first question we should ask is, what if President George W. Bush had not invaded Iraq?   

"The problem is that we always know what did happen as a result of a war, but we will never know what didn't happen.

"What if President Bush had not made the decision?  Let me suggest this scenario:   

1. Saddam Hussein would have become a bigger threat to the region and the U.S.  Saddam Hussein had clearly come to the conclusion that the West would not stop him and was acting as such. 

2. Iraq would have continued shooting at U.S. and U.K. planes enforcing U.N. resolutions.  How many times do you allow someone to fire missiles at your aircraft without interpreting it as an act of war?

3. What about Israel?  Saddam was not a friend of Israel.  What would the Middle East look like with Iraq and Iran threatening Israel?  Maybe Iran and Iraq would have gone to war again.  Or maybe they would have attacked Israel.  We do know today that Iraq won't be attacking Israel, nor does it have WMDs to threaten its neighbors.  We can thank President Bush for that.

"Yes, Bush's critics need to answer one simple question: what if Bush had not invaded Iraq?

"So far, I have not heard anyone explain to me how the region would have been better if we had left Saddam in power.  All I hear is that we lost 4,400 men and lots of treasure.  Yes, that's a serious cost, especially since one of my fellow ushers at church lost a son in Iraq.    

"Or they say "knowing what we know now," a silly question at best.  Leaders don't make decisions that way.  They have to make a call based on what we knew then.  What we knew in September 2001 is that the Twin Towers had been brought down, Saddam Hussein was behaving very badly, and no one wanted a nuclear 9/11.

"It's very easy to say that nothing would have had happened.  We knew Saddam's intentions to push his weight around the region.  If Americans have learned anything since 9/11, it is that when people say they intend to kill you, please take them seriously.

"The second question is, what if President Obama had left a force in Iraq in 2011 to protect our gains?  This is a more relevant question, and the Middle East is Exhibit A of what our retreat accomplished.

"For the moment, President Bush gets all of the criticism about Iraq, and President Obama gets a free pass from friendly media.  Over time, it will change, and President Bush will get credit for leadership, and President Obama will be blamed for retreating and forcing his successor to have to go back in." 

Oops! CNN accidentally confirms story that Brit intell passed along Trump communications to Obama admin

Thomas Lifson  "Lawyers are trained never to ask a question of a witness if they don’t already know the answer. But it is quite different in journalism – at least in principle, if the principle is getting at the truth. But alas, in these days of fake news and fanatical dead-ender opposition to President Trump, those MSM TV networks committed to driving Trump from office might want to consider retraining for their talking heads. Make them more like lawyers and avoid embarrassnents like that suffered by CNN’s Brian Stelter.

"Courtesy of Grabien, here is a disastrous interview in which the guest, Larry Johnson, confirmed the story that Judge Andrew Napolitano told on-air about British intelligence passing along surveillance data involving the Trump administration." . . .

"Here is the rush transcript:

STELTER: “Let me ask you about this thing.”
JOHNSON: “Sure.”
STELTER: “So my sense is that on Monday, Napolitano says this on TV, he says he has Intel sources who believe this is true. You’re saying you were one of those sources, but you didn’t know Napolitano was going to use you like that?”
JOHNSON: “What happened was I communicated, when Donald Trump tweeted what he did Saturday two weeks ago, the next day I was interviewed on Russia today. I had known about the fact that the British, through ghcq were information back channel, this was not at the behest of Barack Obama, let’s be clear about that. But it was done with the full knowledge of people like John Brennan and Jake clapper. Two people I flow within the intelligence community in January, they were very concerned about this because they saw it as an unfair meddling in the politics, but it was a way to get around the issue of American intelligence agencies not collecting.”
STELTER: “To be clear, you have this secondhand? So you didn’t get this information directly, you’re hearing from others.
JOHNSON: “I’m hearing it from people who are in a position to know, that’s correct.”

Trump’s Wiretap Allegation Was a Self-Inflicted Wound

The White House is quickly discovering that the rest of the government won’t back up any old accusation the president levels.

National Review  "Can a bombshell be completely expected? Testifying in front of Congress this morning, FBI Director James Comey said he has seen no evidence to support President Trump’s accusation, first leveled weeks ago on Twitter, that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump Tower during the 2016 general election: “We don’t have any information that supports those tweets,” he declared flatly. 

"By refusing, over and over again, to back down from Trump’s original, farfetched charge, his administration has inflicted a lot of completely unnecessary damage upon itself, and even upon the so-called special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. This is what happens when the White House prioritizes winning the daily news cycle above all else. This is the natural result of an amazingly shortsighted approach to governing. 

"Recall that all this began, as so many Trump controversies do, with an early morning tweet:" . . .