Recently in Moonbats Category

Glenn Reynolds notes that the McCains have $100,000+ in credit card debt: "That should enhance his credibility on the deficit."

Fair enough, I see the irony as well.

Meanwhile, over at Huffington Post, Seth Colter Walls is having a moonbattathon based on... his own ignorance of charge cards:

With news of the McCain family's six-figure credit card debt cropping up today, its not too hard to imagine a little light-hearted chuckling among middle class folks getting a look at the spendthrift habits of elites. As The Hill reported this morning, based on disclosure reports released today, Sen. John McCain and his wife Cindy owe at least $100,000 to American Express, with a "dependent child" also holding a card with a balance between $15,000 and $50,000.

So what? I travel frequently on business. I can tell you from personal experience that it's very easy to rack up $20-30 grand in a month from hotels, car rental, airfare, etc., and I don't have an enterage following me 24/7. The McCains are campaigning for the Presidency, while I'm sure the campaign takes care of some expenses directly, the fluid nature of campaigning would make using a charge card (and getting reimbursed later) necessary.

Seth continues:

But not all credit card debts are created equal. In fact, according to a prior disclosure form filed in May that was provided to The Huffington Post, a significant amount of the McCains' credit card debt is being held by American Express at an interest rate of zero percent -- making their debt a lot less like the costly credit card pitfalls facing many Americans and a lot more like the big sweetheart loans that can get national political figures in hot water.

Wow - some scoop you've got there, Seth - you've uncovered what most folks already know. The most common American Express card (indeed, the only up until a few years ago) is interest free. Not just to the rich, but to everyone.

Besides, if the McCains were getting sweetheart deals, what use would they have for a joint card at 25.99%?

This one made me laugh out loud:

Zero-percent credit card interest rates are not exclusively for the rich or well-connected, of course. But the most common offers of that kind are often capped at a few-thousand dollars and shed their zero percent rate after six to nine months

Um, no, Seth. Even a standard Gold card has no limit and no interest unless you pay late - a category which the McCains apparently fall into. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself.

There's so much low hanging fruit to pick when it comes to criticising McCain - is this really the best they can do?

Amnesty International USA will be in Dilworth Plaza to protest Gitmo:

Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) brings its national tour of a life-size Guantanamo prison cell replica to Philadelphia beginning Friday, May 30 until Sunday, June 1. On Saturday, May 31, AIUSA members and other activists will gather from noon to 2 p.m. in Dilworth Plaza (adjacent to City Hall) in Philadelphia, to listen to local musicians, the Late Nite Drifters and Tom Mullian, experience the cell and continue to push the Bush administration to shut down the U.S.-controlled detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

That's the Guantanamo Bay facility that's full of people who, if they had the opportunity, would kill the protesters along with their family and friends and consider it a good day after doing so. And indeed, many of those who have been released from Gitmo have returned to the battlefield to fight for al-Qaida or the Taliban, either of which would provide prisoner treatment that would make Gitmo look like a day care center in comparison.

The exhibit will be complete with starry-eyed, deluded moonbats in stylish orange jumpsuits. AIUSA is also asking visitors to make useful idiot videos:

Visitors may tour the cell and record a 30-second reaction video that will be posted on youtube.com and tearitdown.org.

I hope they get lines of people to look in the camera and say "It's better than these killers deserve". I suppose we wouldn't see any of those clips on you tube, though.

I hope you are all having a wonderful long weekend. TB, the kids, and I certainly are. Yesterday we had a movie night, and broke with our usual routine to dine in front of the TV. The movie was National Treasure: Book of Secrets. The movie fell somewhat short of the first due to its predictability, but the banter and special effects were top notch. And there was a hint of a third movie to come which we'll definitely want to see.

Today, the kids are over at a schoolmate's house for the afternoon. TB is taking it fairly slow since she's recovering from a tooth extraction combined with a sinus infection. Me, I've got around 35 pounds of pork shoulder (butt roast) on the smoker - it's pulled pork for dinner tonight.

Had we not received the invite for the kids, I would have liked to have driven south to the tour of Dover's Revolutionary War veterans at Christ Episcopal Church Cemetery in Dover. Did you know we lost 25,000 people in the Revolutionary War? Not all were battlefield deaths, most died from disease or in prison ships. Casualty-wise, the Revolutionary War differs dramatically from our current conflict in scope. What the first war does have in common with today is that the troops then, as now, were all volunteers.

While all those who have died in defense of our country deserve respect and remembrance today and every day, there's a special place in my thoughts for those who willingly serve knowing that they may not survive. It's a devotion and love for country and countrymen that some Americans don't feel and can't understand. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as this is a free country and folks can believe as they wish. Still, I can't fathom the need for some to take a day like this and use it to deride the sacrifices so many have made for our country.

For example, I saw a post yesterday on another blog suggesting that we separate Memorial Day into two holidays - one to "honor the troops that were drafted into fighting", and another to shower contempt upon those "schmucks that signed up for it" who "knew what they were getting into". This means volunteers, including, for example, the 25,000 I mention above and the 6.3 million who volunteered during during the second world war.

However, it's still a free country, and I don't mind having volunteered 20 years of my life toward maintaining his right to spit contempt and ignorance.

Back to the real nature of the holiday, though. TB and I wish for all of you to have a safe and happy holiday as we honor and thank those who gave us the freedoms we enjoy today.

Especially the volunteers.

For Jenna Bush and her new hubby over at CBS News:

I hope they”ve both been sterilized so as not to spawn any more GOP scum.

With lots more over at the Pirates Cove.

Rep. Robert Wexler has put up a website, in conjunction with Reps. Luis Gutierrez and Tammy Baldwin, asking for nutroots support of impeaching Cheney. On the page titled "Why We Need Hearings", we get a refreshingly honest view of what drives many Democrats, and it's what we all knew already:

I was serving in Congress and on the Judiciary Committee for the ridiculous and politically motivated impeachment hearings of President Clinton. During that witch hunt Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, and Ken Starr wasted a year and a half on investigations and hearings about President Clinton's personal relations. However, this attempted coup d'etat by Republicans against President Clinton was not and should not be the standard of impeachment that was enshrined by the Founders in our Constitution.

First, impeachment hearings are only proper when significant allegations exist that the President or Vice-President, or others civil officers, committed actions – within their official duties – that constitute 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors.' The allegations against Clinton – involving a personal affair - never reached this threshold. The serious charges against Cheney involve alleged crimes that are central to his duties of Vice-President; namely war and peace, the widespread violations of civil liberties, and the security of the United States and our covert agents.

Unlike the show trial put on by Republicans against President Clinton, a proper impeachment hearing would involve a fair and objective presentation of the facts without hyperbole or political gamesmanship.

Yup, that's right - it's all about getting even for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Oh, and here's Wexler in a supporting video - listen to his voice become louder and angrier - he practically spits into the camera - as he displays a "fair and objective presentation of the facts without hyperbole or political gamesmanship":

Hyperbole, indeed. Do you really think it's possible for someone so animated in his characterization of the administration's actions to be "fair and objective"?

Hope you caught the headlines in the background. I've linked them for you:

• "If Libby is Pardoned, Scrutiny Should Follow" - Since Libby wasn't pardoned, I guess scrutiny isn't necessary.

• "Former Press Secretary Points Finger at Bush, Cheney for Deceit in CIA Leak Scandal" - Noticing a pattern here?

• "A Judgment on Cheney Is Still to Come" - Wexler just can't get over Plame, can he? He must have missed the news about who the leaker really was. That matters little, though, since the theme is "any excuse for revenge".

It's a shame this soap opera was canceled last month. A year of impeachment hearings with this kind of tinfoil nonsense would give the Republicans their best hope of regaining Congress.

Posted on Delaware Watch is the below video on Diego Garcia. I'm not studied on the primary subject of British policy in Diego Garcia, but the second minute of the piece paints the US military as baby killers. Sadly, this kind of disgusting totally untrue smear of the troops happens far too frequently in leftist circles. It is beyond dispute that no military in history has worked harder than ours to avoid civilian casualties.

The piece does show what appears to be horrible treatment of the indigenous population of Diego Garcia. However, its view of the U.S. military is so dishonestly wrong that the rest of the piece is highly suspect.

There's a lesson here. Journalists who really care about exposing injustices should check any ideology at the door else risk discrediting any good they might accomplish. Same goes for those who spread it.

Update: If the atrocities outlined in the film are real, then notable are the dates - the key years for the United States' involvement are between 1961 and 1968 - all during Democrat administrations.

I'm sure that makes it all OK, right? Since it was for the "common good", after all...

This post was blocked by Blogrolling.

Well, his antics over the last few days helped his image with someone:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In the first real test of grassroots support for the eight Democratic Presidential candidates, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich scored a stunning first place finish nationally and topped every other candidate in 41 of 50 states, according to results released late last night by Democracy for America (DFA).

Of the 150,000-plus ballots cast, Kucinich received more votes than former Senator John Edwards and Senator Barack Obama combined. Kucinich tallied 49,364 (31.97%), compared with Edwards' 24,078 (15.6%), Obama's 21,403 (13.86%), and Senator Hillary Clinton's 6,504 (4.21%).

Of course, it's a self-parodying poll:

Undeclared write-in candidate and former Vice President Al Gore scored second nationally with 24.77% of the vote, and he "won" six states: New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Florida.

Hmmm. Unscientific web poll with numbers dramatically at odds with any respected national poll, over-the-top fanaticism for wildly non-mainstream views.... Wonder how much bleed-over from the fans of Ron Paul? Come to think of it, has anyone ever seen Ron Paul's supporters in the same place and time as Kucinich's supporters? Hmmm?

Had the Republican's gambit worked, the house would have debated for an hour followed by a vote. Republicans would have had a field day shaming the ludicrous assertions in the resolution, such as "Keeping all options on the table" meaning that Cheney was conspiring to wage war with Iran.

Back later with more...

Debate on Cheney impeachment averted

WASHINGTON - House Democrats on Tuesday narrowly managed to avert a bruising debate on a proposal to impeach Dick Cheney after Republicans, in a surprise maneuver, voted in favor of taking up the measure.

Bruising indeed. It would have been fun to watch, too. Statement from the White House in the same article:

The White House, in a statement, said Democrats were shirking responsibilities on issues such as childrens' health insurance "and yet they find time to waste an afternoon on an impeachment vote against the vice president. ... This is why Americans shake their head in wonder about the priorities of this Congress."

And I managed to make it all the way through the post without exploiting the extraterrestrial angle!

It's kind of a girl fight story with a little moonbatty BDS thrown in to stroke the base:

"Senator Clinton is voting like a hawk in Washington, while talking like a dove in Iowa and New Hampshire," Edwards said, referring to two crucial early-voting states.

"She's giving the administration exactly what it wants again."

Edwards also warned in a speech in Iowa City, that the Bush administration was trying to use attacks on US forces in Iraq, to justify a war with Iran.

"George Bush, Dick Cheney and the neocon warmongers used 9/11 to start a war with Iraq, now they're trying to use Iraq to start a war with Iran," he said.

This stuff from Edwards and the others is going to be pure gold for the Republicans next year. We've already seen Hillary play the "victim girl" card, so expect it to be played after she wins the nomination and the Republican candidate points out any inconsistency, no matter how accurate, in her positions. Having Democrats make the point instead will be so much easier.

Do you think these folks are going to rally around Hillary after she gets the nod? Count on it. And even the least amount of critical review from the press will prompt the best tap-dancin' you've ever seen. All the latest dust-ups between Hillary and the other candidates also serve to illustrate that they know how dishonest their positions are - it just takes a heated primary to get 'em to admit it.

I tried to call, but couldn't get through at all. Of course he'll say that the "interested citizens" are all supports of his impeachment effort. My guess is that folks on the right tipped 'em over the edge. Yay, team. Or perhaps he couldn't establish an up-link with the mother ship:

Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich is planning to re-schedule a nationwide conference call to discuss Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Richard B. Cheney after tonight's planned event encountered technical problems stemming largely from the overwhelming volume of calls from interested citizens.

The Kucinich campaign apologized for the snafu, explaining that staff had significantly underestimated the number of call-ins, and public interest in the issue exceeded technological capacity. The call will be re-scheduled within the next few days.

Kucinich, author and prime sponsor of the impeachment measure against Cheney, will be introducing a privileged resolution to the House tomorrow (Tuesday) to force a vote on the matter of impeachment.

I'll let you know if/when they reschedule.

Update (11/6/07 7:45AM): "Stay tuned for the day-long circus."

Update (11/6/07 9:48AM): Welcome Michelle Malkin readers! Thanks for the link, Michelle!

Oh, and if you didn't make it here through Michelle's post, head over there - she has the full text of the UFO-fueled resolution to impeach Cheney in all it's lunatic glory!

• The call-in number is (641) 715-3300.
• When the operator asks for an access code, key in 324341#.
• The call is  open to all interested citizens.

Update: Thanks for the link, Hot Air!  And welcome Hot Air readers!  We're just getting going again after a very, very long break, so not many recent posts yet - but feel free to look around!

Only in the extraterrestrially-addled brain of Dennis Kucinich could the phrase " ... if we fail in Iraq, it will advantage Iran" be transmogrified into "From the Oval Office on down, this Administration has been targeting Iran as the next domino it wants to topple..."

Shame and embarrassment over being associated with an obvious loony like Kucinich is surely going to cause a drop in the numbers for the next national poll about UFO sightings and abductions.

This online film from Nickelodeon has to be seen to be believed. I can't understand the mental process that drove them to feature children being utilized as unwitting tools by the anti-American World Can't Wait (WCW).

While it's to be expected from WCW (they've targeted young impressionable minds before), for Nickelodeon to glorify this kind of disgusting propagandizing of children is beyond reprehensible.

Goodbye, Nickelodeon. You're no longer welcome in our home.

BTW, I don't place all the blame on Nickelodeon. Simple decency prevents me from expressing my feelings about this child's parents - he surely didn't sink into the WCW cesspool on his own.

h/t Michelle Malkin and ArmyWifeToddlerMom

From yesterday evening on Fox News (via Hot Air):

I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.

A few folks were willing to give him a pass the last time. Not me, and I knew he'd repeat it sooner or later. To Charlie, our troops are greedy and/or desperate mercenaries who lack the civic spirit to join the military for altruistic reasons.

And we get some insight as to why he feels this way: "...as I did when I was 18 years old". Since the only reason Charlie joined was to escape his own poor neighborhood, that must be why everyone else joins. Very sad.

Maybe the lack of opportunity was what drove him to seek public office as well. You know, 'cause nobody would submit to being interviewed on Fox News if they had a decent career.

Over at Hot Air, watch the video of Charlie defending his proposal to reinstate the draft (something he's done before, if you'll remember).

Allahpundit couldn't follow it. Michelle couldn't follow it. It's mostly nonsense.

However....

It really sounds to me like he's suggesting that the troops aren't patriotic since money was all that lured them into service.

Added to Kerry's infamous moment of Freudian clarity and Murtha's characterizations, does that mean that Democratic leadership views the troops as stupid, lazy, cold-blooded mercenaries?

Maybe he'd like to eliminate pay, benefits, and bonuses to the troops. You know, so only the real patriots would want to serve be conscripted...

Well, good luck with that, Charlie.

Other bloggers confused by what Rangel said:

Conservative Blog Therapy
Jeremayakovka
Right Voices

After all, we've been thinking the same as Mort for some time now...

Update: Thanks for the link, Gary. And you don't need to steal it, you're welcome to use it anytime!

Naturally I'm talking about oil, folks. Something that's cheaper and easier to get everywhere else on the planet - and as a result, domestic production is a rusting shadow of it's former self.

The good news is the Dems' regognition that given the lack of a mandate for their reign in Congress, there's a limited amount of punishment they can mete out:

Hot-button issues such as a tax on the oil industry's windfall profits or sharp increases in automobile fuel economy probably will not gain much ground given the narrow Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

The bad news is that energy independence has a different meaning to the left than it should. Indeed, their plan is to discourage it:

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in an outline of priorities over the first 100 hours of the next Congress in January, promises to begin a move toward greater energy independence "by rolling back the multibillion dollar subsidies for Big Oil."

The subsidies in question are intended to encourage domestic production, something that has become excessively cumbersome and costly due to decades of liberal regulation and roadblocking:

Topping the list for repeal are:

_Tax breaks for refinery expansion and for geological studies to help oil exploration.

_A measure passed two years ago primarily to promote domestic manufacturing. It allows oil companies to take a tax credit if they chose to drill in this country instead of going abroad.

Of course, these are going to be easy targets for the Democrats, as the oil companies are none too popular with folks on the right or left after posting record profits in recent quarters. I accept that I'm in the minority on this issue.

But a little common sense should be applied here. Shouldn't any legislation pitched as promoting "energy independence" make domestic harvesting and refining of oil cheaper and easier? Seems to me this will have the exact opposite effect.

Keep an eye on the horizon, though, as there are darker views on the oil companies that if acted upon, will serve to punish the poor and middle class even further:

Last spring, Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said if the country is to reduce its addiction to oil and high energy prices it needs a "crash program" to develop more alternative energy sources, dramatically increase conservation and examine "whether or not we should break up the big oil companies."

Next year, Schumer assumes the No. 3 leadership position among Senate Democrats and will be one of the party's top strategists.

I'm tempted to quote Milton, who wrote several good passages about the petty behaviour the left's proposals demonstrate. Instead, I'm going to butcher a quote from Jean Baudrillard - originally in reference to Halloween, it easily and accurately adapts to our new Congressional majority:

There is nothing funny about the left. This sarcastic festival reflects, rather, an infernal demand for revenge by children on the adult world.

Yesterday gave us a couple of closely-related profiles in negativity:

Halfway around the world, a man driven by hatred performs an old ritual intended to cause ill toward President Bush:

Ki Gendeng Pamungkas slit the throat of a goat, a small snake and stabbed a black crow in the chest, stirred their blood with spice and broccoli before drank the "potion" and smeared some on his face.

"I don't hate Americans, but I don't like Bush," said Pamungkas, who believed the ritual would succeed as, "the devil is with me today."

Closer to home, a group of people driven by hatred performed an old ritual intended to cause ill toward President Bush:

WASHINGTON - Nancy Pelosi was unanimously named speaker-elect by House Democrats Thursday, the first woman set to take the post that is second in line of succession to the presidency.

Like Mr. Pamungkas, the Dems even had their own sacrifice, a carefully selected old goat offered up by a snake who crowed about the goat all week:

Nancy Pelosi, set to become the first woman to head the U.S. House of Representatives, suffered an embarrassing defeat on Thursday when fellow Democrats rejected her choice of a key foe of the Iraq war as her deputy.

At least the Dems had the good taste not to smear any of their sacrifice on their faces.

Added: Before I get tons of angry emails saying that these two events aren't even remotely similar - yes, I know, the Dems didn't use Broccoli. But Pelosi comes from a state that grows it. So there.

Now that campaign rhetoric is no longer necessary, they can stop pretending:

WASHINGTON - Legislation aimed at President Bush's once-secret program for wiretapping U.S.-foreign phone calls and computer traffic of suspected terrorists without warrants shows all the signs of not moving ahead, notwithstanding President Bush's request this week that a lame-duck Congress give it to him.

Senate Democrats, emboldened by Election Day wins that put them in control of Congress as of January, say they would rather wait until next year to look at the issue. "I can't say that we won't do it, but there's no guarantee that we're going spend a lot of time on controversial measures," Democratic Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois said Thursday.

In Senate parlance, that means no.

Of course, we knew this all along, didn't we? Indeed, rather than risk accidentally finding out what the terrorists are up to, the Democrats would rather follow Conyer's dream of endless investigations and impeachment:

Indeed, rather than move to authorize the program, Democrats said they would push in January to investigate how the program had been run and would seek legislation to restrict or ban outright the use of wiretaps without warrants.

Representative John Conyers Jr., the Michigan Democrat who is all but assured of taking over the House Judiciary Committee, has been one of the fiercest critics of the program and some other counterterrorism operations, saying he considers them abusive and potentially illegal infringements on civil liberties.

The shedding of such tears for the trampled rights of terrorists in far-away countries is because they care, folks. They care.

Update: To those in unwrapped territory eagerly anticipating that the new Congress will sate their hate-driven lust for presidential blood, the operative word is "Joyous".

Hey CREW, if you folks are still into attacking churches, how's about checking this out?

NASHVILLE -- In his race for U.S. Senate, Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D) has been outspent by millions, and his image has been battered by a barrage of negative ads, including the now-infamous spot with a blonde floozy that has been pulled off the air. Several polls show him trailing.

But being an underdog has its own righteous appeal, and the campaign used that status yesterday not only to rally voters but as evidence that God had looked with favor upon the Democratic campaign.

The fact that they are still in the race despite the odds, Ford told an African American crowd at Mount Zion Baptist Church here, was evidence that "we got something else at work."

"I think the congressman said something wise -- we got another manager in this race," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told the group.

(crickets chirping)

um, guys?

(crickets chirping)

I thought so.

The Johnstown Tribune-Democrat weighed in yesterday with their thoughts on the Murtha - Irey Congressional race, and it's not pretty (H/T Irey campaign). Unlike the NYT editorial endorsing Lamont, this one actually talks about the candidate they endorse - and they have little nice to say about him besides approving of his "cut and run" war stance. Emphasis added:

On his famous love for pork:

While we endorse the local congressman in his re-election bid, we fear the spending spree that might result from a shift in power...

On his smearing of the troops, which has made him very unpopular with the military:

We would also urge Murtha to sit down with area veterans who clearly have different views on the Iraq conflict than he does.

On his alignment with the moonbat wing of the Democratic Party:

We are frightened by Murtha’s willingness to align himself with California Democrat Nancy Pelosi. Clearly, Murtha is hoping that relationship paves the way for his ascension to a position of higher power in the House. But we don’t believe our region’s values match well with Pelosi’s, and we don’t see much good coming for the 12th district – even if the relationship benefits the congressman.

Beyond that, Murtha has endeared himself to liberals on both coasts – raising money for his allies in California, New England and elsewhere. We hope he can keep these “friends” and their spending ways in check if the Democrats retake the House.

They even acknowlege how corrupt he is, hoping he can restrain his urges:

But we urge him to remain faithful to his fiscally and socially conservative western Pennsylvania roots – even if it costs him in personal gain and national influence.

Read the whole editorial. It's painfully clear what the Tribune-Democrat is saying here - "Murtha sucks, but vote for him anyway 'cause he's a Democrat."

The Tribune-Democrat's editorial staff has surely reached new lows when their bias toward the left causes them to endorse a candidate whom they acknowlege is unsuitable in most ways. Do they really believe the voters in Johnstown are dense enough to buy it?

Update: Those troops that Murtha rushes to condemn have a few thoughts about cutting and running (H/T Captain's Quarters). The Tribune-Democrat is right, the troops simply don't agree with Murtha.

Via Little Green Footballs, a revealing view of Ned Lamont's base:

It certainly fits the pattern I've noticed among some Lamont supporters. I'm not ready to put a label on it, save to say that even just a small hint of it here and there is certainly disturbing and sad.

The nutroots know how utterly unappealing these views are to most Americans, and some are trying to keep a lid on any open discussion that may cast them in a bad light. Right now, in some places, if you use a normally acceptable far-left greeting such as "Gaza is a gulag", you might be answered with "...let’s leave this subject alone until next Wednesday. Please."

How very sad.

And in his world, as you might expect, we're just as bad if not worse.

The good news is the ringing endorsement he gives to the movie "Obsession: The Threat of Radical Islam":

"This film has to be seen to be believed."

Hopefully lots of folks will take Glenn's advice.

From Kerry's website earlier:

Statement of Senator John Kerry

As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.

I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.

It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don’t want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops.

"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative..." - In other words, "It's a shame that the troops (and the rest of you ignorant peasants as well) are too lazy and uneducated to understand the finely nuanced humor from my superior intellect."

This is as forced an apology as I've ever heard. And the addition of swipes at the right just give the impression that he hasn't had a change of heart since he made the "I don't apologize" speech yesterday. He's sorry anyone was offended, but not sorry he said it.

Even if, as he says, was making a joke about Bush, it would still warrant an apology. I've griped about the level of discourse in politics before, nowhere is it more of a problem than among our elected officials. The decline of statesmanship in Congress over the last thirty years is truly shameful. As a country, we deserve for our elected officials to set standards for dignity and grace. They can and should disagree - just act like adults.

Making jokes about the troops or the president in this manner is simply juvenile. It shows a distinct lack of maturity and character. The inability to offer a simple and contrite apology when necessary is a serious flaw - one that Kerry seems determined to display over and over.

Nope - this didn't cut it.

Here's a sad tale about someone who probably would have cheered Kerry's meltdown as a good thing for the left. That is, he would if he hadn't been so busy with problems of his own:

A US lawyer who released information in 2000 about President George W Bush's drunken driving conviction has been arrested after he dressed up as al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and waved a fake gun at traffic.

Police in South Portland, Maine, arrested Thomas Connolly, 49, of Scarborough, Maine, and charged him with criminal threatening.

An earlier version of the story (now removed) included this:

Police said the costume included plastic dynamite, grenades, and a replica of an AK-47 assault rifle.

The earlier version also stated that Mr. Connolly has been doing this kind of thing for years, frequently donning a George Bush Mask and dancing around on overpasses. This fellow didn't just snap yesterday, folks. He's been simmering in a BDS stew for a very long time.

Now you might think that someone this disturbed would be a loner - after all, what kind of family would out up with a guy who hates Bush so much that he dresses up in terrorist garb to harrass motorists? Just to prove that there really is someone out there for everyone:

His wife has described him as "marvelously eccentric."

This should give hope to sane singles everywhere. If he can find and keep a mate, then truly nobody should have to be alone if they don't wish it.

Connolly ran for Governor of Maine in 1998, and is considered a hero by many on the left for releasing details about George Bush's DWI back in 2000.

Sometimes we all wonder at the lunacy of the leading lights of the left without remembering that someone out there approves of and supports these "real men". Connolly is one such supporter.

Speaking as a 20 year veteran of the U.S. Air Force, I'd like to let John Kerry know that I didn't join because I was lazy and stupid. Even more insulting than his statement is this attempt to blame others for his greasy smear against the troops:

Washington – Senator John Kerry issued the following statement in response to White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, assorted right wing nut-jobs, and right wing talk show hosts desperately distorting Kerry’s comments about President Bush to divert attention from their disastrous record:

Nut-jobs? What Kerry said was clear as day. But if you quote it, you're a nut-job?

“If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.

Yes I do think a veteran would - if he's in the Democratic Party. Kerry forgets about his own remarks about our troops "terrorizing women and children in the dark of night", and the infamous verbal criminal conviction bestowed on our troops by his pal Murtha. Oh, and I did serve - a hell of a lot longer than Kerry, too. Having met Kerry's criteria, I suppose he would respect my right to speak out:

Mr. Kerry, you're a despicable excuse for a human being. To denigrate me and the millions of veterans and active duty in order to get a cheap shot during a political speech shows you to be lacking in both intelligence and soul.

Ahem. Back to Kerry's misdirection:

I’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.

Typical - drag in the sick guy as a sympathetic victim - maybe it will distract someone from Kerry's sad remarks about our military professionals.

The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it. These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor.

This entire line has been proven a lie time and time again. Oh, and when did Katrina become a country?

Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men because they’re afraid to debate real men. And this time it won’t work because we’re going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions. No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq.”

"Real Men"? Going for laughs won't get him out of this. Kerry has shown his contempt for servicemen over and over again, even as he aspired to lead them. Thank God he didn't get the chance.

Kerry screwed up big this time. And has the gall to declare himself a "real man" while he tries to blame his mistakes on President Bush and "right wing nut-jobs". In the meantime, real men (and women) are putting their asses on the line in Iraq and elsewhere. And Mr. Kerry better hope for all our sakes that what he thinks about them isn't true.

Update: Kerry makes a statement to the press, says it was a botched joke. I'm hoping to link a site with video soon.

Update 2: As usual, Hot Air has it!

Alec runs away from his moonbattery. But just enough to temper the bad publicity he's gonna get from narrating an Arnold Schwarzenegger hate-fest complete with Nazi imagery. He doesn't feel bad enough to issue an apology - can't let go of all the hate, you know...

"Running with Arnold" is not a bad film. It isn't a good one either. The people of California have the right to reelect an unqualified man to lead their state, and they have the right to do so without unfair and ultimately offensive images of the Third Reich thrown in for bad measure. Don't forget to vote on November 7th.

And Alec knows bad films:

The comments are interesting. While many of them praise Alec for getting it off his chest, some are claiming that the Nazi images are nothing to feel bad about. And not one that I saw suggested he apologize to Arnold, which he should. I guess they also see he's not really sorry.

Update: Maybe I have it wrong - perhaps Alec's retreat is because Nazi comparisons are out of fashion. The truly unglued are now comparing Republican elected officials (and their families!) to Iranian Mullahs. Just when I think I've seen it all, the hate-obsessed left ascends to new levels of offensive.

...but occasionally it comes out for all to see. There's a pattern this year - the racist treatment of Steele, racism (and yesterday's possible anti-semitism) in liberal blogs. The constant screeching of "racism" at conservatives in cases where there is none.

Hate does this - nothing else can.

Does anyone really think these people will calm down and start acting like adults if they win?

Of course, we know where they aren't:

Jack Carter has tried to reach out to Nevada voters who the Carters say 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry ignored. He talks openly about his Baptist faith, and appeared last weekend with his father at a black church in Las Vegas.

But it's okay when they do it....

When Lynne Cheney was ambushed last Friday on CNN, she make Blitzer look like an idiot. So it should be unsurprising that CNN would retaliate:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Lynne Cheney is deflecting talk of the sexual content in her novel "Sisters," a 25-year-old book that resurfaced in a campaign Friday and is stirring up controversy.

The novel, featuring a lesbian love affair, was brought up Friday amid a contentious Senate race in Virginia. Soon a Democratic committee and Cheney herself -- in an interview on CNN -- were weighing in.

This is probably one of the weakest hit jobs ever, though. The author of the article clearly has not read the book "Sisters", makes no quotes to back up the assertion, and is confident that you won't be able to either:

Readers will have a hard time judging the content of the book for themselves. The few copies available are selling for hundreds of dollars each.

On Amazon.com Sunday, four used copies of "Sisters" were being sold, ranging from $695.95 for one in "acceptable" condition to $999 for a copy in "collectible -- good" condition. Ebay had two copies available, with requested opening bids of $200 and $500. Froogle.com, on Sunday afternoon, found the cheapest copies available barely under $300.

Some of these prices were set before the latest blow-up over the work of fiction. It was not immediately clear what impact the last few days have had.

So where does CNN expect you to get the information to judge for yourself? The Democrats:

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sent out a news release listing sexual passages in books by Cheney and other GOP conservatives, including Dick Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The DSCC said Cheney's books featured brothels and attempted rape.

'Cause we all know the Dems would never say anything mean or untrue about a Republican, right? And after all, that seems to be where CNN gets much of their news nowadays, so why shouldn't you?

Harold Ford shoots a campaign commercial in a church. Seems like material support to me...

Think Melanie Sloan will notice?

One of the left's most repugnant figures is Michael Rogers. He's the sleaze who's been claiming to have a list of gay Republicans he intends to expose. The rest of the left seems to at least privately applaud his disgusting campaign - as long as it helps the cause, right, guys?

Outing a few minor staffers has been greeted by collective snores, I guess he's decided to up the ante with a little guilt by association. Press release here.

Anyway, the pond was left uncovered for a brief time today as Rogers set his sights on none other than Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican Party. Apparently in Michael Roger's world, if you have a gay friend, you must be gay yourself:

Today, I challenge to James Dobson to ask Ken directly: Are you a member of the so-called "homosexual lifestyle" and do you expect my followers to support you at the polls?

Rogers seem to forget an itty bitty fact - Ken Mehlman isn't running for office, and Dobson's "followers" won't see Ken's name on any ballot. Oh, and there's also a very lame video there with nothing to support his innuendo. Zzzzzzzzzz.

I'm waiting for his claim that President Bush is gay cause he knows Dick Cheney's daughter. What a pathetic loser.

Yes, CREW gave me a visit. I didn't believe it at first, so I emailed CREW through their contact page and received confirmation that the comment was genuine. I'll have to admit to being very surprised - I'm not usually kind in my posts about CREW.

I posted a few days ago about CREW's complaint to the DOJ concerning Curt Weldon. A comment was posted by Naomi Seligman Steiner, CREW's Deputy Director, taking issue with what I posted. Here's her comment:

In response to your wrongful assertion, CREW did recieve the e-mails as they appear. They were redacted upon receipt. CREW did not edit them in any way.

Naomi Seligman Steiner
CREW

The statement challenged by Ms. Stein was this sentence following the images of the emails:

"All of the dark line redacting was CREW's doing, I smudged out a few names they left in place."

I wrote this to explain the two visually different types of editing done on the images - the heavy black lines vs the smudging I added. No other point was intended by the statement. However, I should have worded it differently. CREW's letter to the DOJ states that the emails were provided to them in pre-redacted form:

"Although the emails CREW received were heavily redacted, we have been able to authenticate them."

My apologies to CREW for the error, and the original post has been corrected.

The remainder of the post stays as is - please note that no other portions of the post were challenged in any way.

And the Democrats are outraged. How do we know they are outraged? Because they leaked it:

A conference call to the committee's nine Democrats on Wednesday to inform them of the aide's suspension prompted outrage, said two congressional officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal committee business.

The officials said that the National Intelligence Estimate was marked "secret," rather than "top secret" or another more restrictive classification. As a result, thousands of people would have had access to it, including the intelligence, armed services and international relations committees of the House.

While I'm encouraged that some effort is being made to determine the sources of the leaks, this story is near zero for me. Why? 'Cause there is nothing but suspicion here so far. The Democrats correctly state that a large number of people have access to the NIE, and we don't know if the staffer ordered the report for someone else or for himself.

What I still don't get is why Congress ignores the press (and their role) in all of this. Classified information requires controls and boundaries. Once it crosses outside of those boundaries, it's no longer classified information - it's stolen classified information. One would think the government could leverage this to compell reporters to reveal the leakers as part of a criminal investigation, since receiving stolen goods is a crime. Until we do, the leaks will never stop. And while the left may think it's cute to leak classified data for political purposes, the fact is that it harms our country when they do so.

So until I see someone being prosecuted, I'm going to have to assume that this staffer suspension (along with all of the promises of investigation for past leaks) is simply intended to be eyewash - red meat for the base.

For me, though, it's a flavorless meal that leaves me not just unsatified, but starving.

This time in Kansas:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) today asked for an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigation into the activities surrounding the reelection efforts of Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline.

During the week of September 12, 2006 several Kansas-based news organizations published an internal campaign memorandum authored by Attorney General Kline that detailed his efforts to recruit churches to aid his reelection efforts. The memorandum includes several activities that may constitute illegal support of the Kline campaign by Kansas churches.

Kline identified Light of the World and Wanamaker Woods Nazarene, both in Topeka, and an unspecified Basehor-Linwood church as churches that had agreed to help disseminate his campaign literature. Redistributing partisan campaign literature is a violation of tax laws that forbid churches and other public charities from intervening in elections.

Three guesses which party Kline belongs to - and the first two don't count. Don't Democrats ever step into churches, Melanie?

John Conyers has released a new book, based on his "Constitution in Crisis" report. From the press release:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A report by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers and the Democratic staff, "George W. Bush versus the U.S. Constitution", is now available in book form, with an introduction by Ambassador Joseph Wilson, whose wife, Valerie Plame, is a former CIA agent, outed and harassed by the Administration, and a Foreword by Congressman Conyers.

Having an introduction by "Ambassador Joseph Wilson, whose wife, Valerie Plame, is a former CIA agent, outed and harassed by the Administration", gives an appropriately delusional beginning to a tome that promises to be full of delusion and deception. I'm sure Conyers and his partners in this saw the news last month on Plamegate. To continue this nutty tinfoil hat stuff when even the NYT now concedes that there wasn't a coordinated outing from the White House of Valerie Plame, places Rep. Conyers outside the mainstream of sane and rational thought. Don't expect the rest of the book to reverse that trend.

But it's not just his thoughts at play here. The press release claims the book is based on "A report by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers and the Democratic staff". It isn't even that. This report started, as I said above, as a document titled "Constitution in Crisis", a 350 page document you can download here. Written by him and his staff? Maybe partially, but the real credit belongs to a bunch even more delusional and ill-informed than Rep. Conyers (Screen cap here):

Much of the research in this report is a product of the input and hard work of DailyKos, Huffington Post and Conyersblog readers over the last six months (the help with my "timeline project" was particularly useful). I also am so grateful to progressive talk radio hosts and listeners, who have refused to allow the American people to forget the nation was deceived into war.

Get it? Conyers goes past the the arguably nutty Kos and Arianna and shoots staight for their readers. Yup - when you really need info about classified documents and intelligence practices, no better source than the comment threads of Kos and HuffPo. And every single loony BDS theory is in there - from the venerable "BushLied" meme, to the notion that the terrorist surveilance program tapped "millions" of American's domestic calls. Each and every one has been thoroughly disproven countless times, so I won't rehash them here. Consider the source, folks. It was mostly researched not by a respected investigatory agency, but by the readers of the Daily Kos.

This basic document, with the addition of some scary sounding mischaracterizations of the terrorist surveilance program, forms the new book. I'd like to get some tips from Rep. Conyers - usually when I try to get the foil that tight, it rips.

Conyers believes this material forms the justification for his oft-stated desire to impeach President Bush. And if the Democrats get control of the House, he's made no secret of the fact that he intends to utilize his chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee for that exact purpose.

All based on the fever-swamp conspiracy theories of the readers of Daily Kos and the Huffington Post.

More later (maybe) when my lunch digests a little more...

...in today's Washington Post to decry Republican name-calling. In the process, he continues to show why Democrats like him don't deserve to be in power. His message is unmistakably clear - Iraq is hard, we might lose, so we should give up.

Had the forefathers of this country decided that the possibility of losing was enough not to try, we'd still be a colony today. How about WWII? Winning wasn't a given when we engaged in Europe - matter of fact, we went over there because our allies were losing. Murtha's head-in-the-sand brand of defeatism would have condemned Europe to defeat at the hands of Hitler all because it was too hard.

Is Iraq a mess? Yes. Do the Iraqi people deserve the even worse chaos and loss of life that would ensue if we simply pulled up stakes and abandoned them? No.

Murtha was quite the humanitarian when speaking out on the loss of Iraqi life when he claimed our troops were killing them in cold blood without the benefit of a complete investigation. If our continued presence while the Iraqis gradually take over saves lives that would otherwise be lost in the expanded sectarian violence that would surely erupt if we left now, why wouldn't Murtha support that? Cause it wouldn't further his political ambitions? Some humanitarian, eh?

Lots of things are hard, Jack. Lots are painful, too. Running away from things that are right because they might be hard and/or painful shouldn't be the trademark of a decorated veteran.

That's what it sounds like, anyway:

Clooney told reporters at a dinner honoring him on Friday night that he had no intention of entering the political arena. "I'm not running for office. I like my life," Clooney said.

The article suggests this may come as a relief to us on the right. Personally, I feel that he would be a wonderful source of blogging material should he change his mind and run one day.

No comment save that only a hardcore BDS-ridden moonbat could call this art:

Truly sick.

I guess AP had to run it before someone else did. Dingy Harry adds to the stench of corruption he excreted while accepting money from Abramoff:

WASHINGTON - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show.

In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews.

Captain Ed is on the story with some spot on commentary:

Hilariously, this appears just days after James Webb tried smearing George Allen with a pseudoscandal over stock options that Allen disclosed and never exercised, meaning that he never cleared a dime from the options. Now we have the Democratic caucus leader dodging disclosures and failing to disclose $800,000 in profits from a project on which he partnered with a lawyer suspected of connections to organized crime and a bribery scandal.

Organized crime? My, our filthy little hatemonger has been busy, hasn't he?

Of course, some will be tempted to call for Reid's resignation. No, no, no, no, and no. The right thing to do is call for a complete investigation. We on the right should not sink to the opportunistic low that the power greedy left demonstrated regarding Hastert recently.

It's the right thing to do after all.

Saw this over at Polipundit earlier speculating about Kerry running in '08. Of course that would be a good this for us, with Waffles continuing to say something idiotic nearly every time he opens his mouth.

But I'd have to say to stop speculating. A press release this afternoon gives me confidence that Kerry is not only planning to run, he's pre-ordering the most important supplies for his campaign, giving a needed shot in the arm (well, a shot somewhere) to an industry that's surely missed him since the last election. Lot's of potentially good intel here - the presser also says what their next big thing (or "holy grail") is, but it would be tasteless of me to attach a lefty name to it...

By the way, W.C., I see him as more of a Edgar Winter with darker hair and a chemically-induced tan. Think "Free Ride".

Last week, Working Families for Wal-Mart put up a new website, Paidcritics.com, the mission of which appears to be providing background and research about the money politics, and personalities behind the anti-Wal-Mart movement.

Natch, the union folks respond by putting up a rebuttal website, A Bunch of Greedy Right Wing Liars Who Work for Wal-Mart. It's mostly drivel, actually. A few insulting profiles of folks on the right, and a link to vote for your favorite make up the bulk of the site. But the veneer of caring about workers is being stripped away as the UFCW steers the rhetoric away from union vs. business toward left vs. right:

Wal-Mart’s new attack website, paidcritics.com, is an unprecedented and dangerous decision by a $300 billion dollar corporation. In fact, this may be the first time in history that a corporation has set up, directly funded, and openly managed a website whose sole purpose is to attack Democrats, and the passionate and handsome staff of our campaign, let alone all of the Americans who want Wal-Mart to become a better employer.

So in response we have launched our very own site, www.ABunchOfGreedyRightWingLiarsWhoWorkForWalMart.com which will provide a more detailed account of Wal-Mart’s right-wing conspiracy including ties to the most extreme element of the Republican Party, Tom Delay, George W. Bush, Karl Rove and John Ashcroft, a biographic summary of the key right-wing operatives involved in the Wal-Mart war room, and an accounting of Wal-Mart’s extensive political contributions to Republicans. To be honest, there is so much good stuff there that it's enough for 2 or 3 more websites (just kidding).

Indeed, at the tope of every page of abunchofgreedyrightwingliarswhoworkforwalmart are pictures of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Tom Delay - as far as I know none of them work for Wal-Mart. I wonder how their rank and file would view such open political attacks on politicians being paid for by their dues? Is this really the union's charter?

Oh, and "handsome"? Are they trolling for dates as an aside to their right bashing?

As nasty as the union thugs and their supporters are, you'd think they could take as much as they dish out. Not these weenies, though. The cornerstone of the site is a missive about how PaidCritics.com "hurt our feelings". Honest. There are lots of cards people play to redirect away from a losing argument - but seriously, folks, the "feelings" card? My four-year-old stopped using that one last year.

Nowhere on their site could I find examples of lies told on PaidCritics.com. As for greed, PaidCritics.com points out some union greed and abunchofgreedyrightwingliarswhoworkforwalmart.com doesn't dispute any it.

I hope this is the last gasp we're seeing. Certainly the union members would appreciate their dues being spent on something that actually benefits its members for a change.

Oops - forgot to add the disclaimer:

I don't work for Wal-Mart or any of its affiliates, partners, associates, neighbors, casual acquaintances, suppliers, or vendors. I don't belong to a union - but I did have an account at a credit union once. I normally don't shop at Wal-Mart, either. I did, however, get a nice email from Edelman - which I didn't act on until I saw this somewhat slanted AP story. So there.

Yes, Greenwald's at it again, showing us the sloppiness of thought that goes into his views of anything done by Republicans:

Following up on yesterday's post regarding Arlen Specter's complete (and hardly unexpected) cave-in to the administration on the NSA scandal, it is now clear that the bill does not have an express amnesty provision in it (see Update II). But every other possible bad thing can and should be said about this bill. Marty Lederman has an excellent and very thorough statutory analysis of the whole travesty, explaining that Specter "introduces a bill, with Administration blessing, that gives the Administration everything it ever wanted, and much, much more."

But if you follow the link to this "thorough statutory analysis", you see that it's anything but, as Mr. Lederman freely admits:

The bill is difficult to follow, almost unreadable. I must confess that I've only given it a ten-minute once-over, which is probably more than it deserves.

Greenwald's post only makes sense if you replace the breathless hyperbole about "spying on Americans" and replace it with the truth - "spying on foreign powers and agents of foreign powers". Context reveals all.

Via AP/Yahoo/LMAO:

WASHINGTON - The CIA officer whose identity was leaked to reporters sued Vice President Dick Cheney, his former top aide and presidential adviser Karl Rove on Thursday, accusing them and other White House officials of conspiring to destroy her career.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Valerie Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador, accused Cheney, Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of participating in a "whispering campaign" to reveal Plame's CIA identity and punish Wilson for criticizing the Bush administration's motives in Iraq.

Since Novak is on record saying that none of these three offered Plames identity (He had to ask Rove), I can't imagine this going anywhere. In fact, this promises to be embarrassing to Wilson and Plame.

If it goes to trial, I hope they televise it.

Added: Considering that they whined about Plame being a "covert" agent being outed and that turned out to be a big fat lie, I can't imagine they'll find a friendly court anywhere.

It's certainly shaping up to be a bad week for Glenn Greenwald.

Prior to the publication of his book, he used his blog mostly to attack the administration and float odd ideas like abolishing article III of the constitution, instead advocating having guilt and innocence established by legislative decree. Since he got back from the book tour, he's posted 13 times - 9 of them specifically to attack conservative bloggers.

Since his blog is no longer a test market for his book ideas, it's now developing a personality. Unsurprisingly, it's not a pretty one.

Update (6:00 AM EST 13 Jul 06): Look who's found a new home!

This revelation from Bill Keller as to who the White House supposedly asked to intervene on the lastest exposure of secret anti-terror programs.

Are you ready?

Jack Murtha.

Yeah, the one and only.

Keller insists that "not all of them urged us not to publish". Bryan at Hot Air deduces that Murtha was the odd man out.

If this is the case, Murtha has some big-time 'splainin to do. But don't count on the NYT to tell us - Keller doesn't mind publishing national security related secrets, but considers his conversation with Murtha to be confidential.

I've pretty much ignored the ministorm between Glenn Greenwald and a number of prominent bloggers on the right (Tom Maguire, Jeff Goldstein, The Commissar, and Glenn Reynolds. There's plenty of painfully wrong things said by Greenwald and his robotic minions at Unclaimed Territory, and harping on minutia only serves to distract from larger issues, like the star author of left blogosphere's disturbing views on the constitution and crime and punishment.

Well, apparently he was right about this one. I'll skip the obligatory colloquial adage about blind squirrels and suggest that he's entitled to bask a little.

But one really has to wonder if the fame is going to his head. After all, nothing says "I am going to do my best to avoid flamboyant displays of celebratory vindication and instead focus on what I think are the substantive issues illustrated by this episode" like a 2,319 word post including phrases like "they wallowed in an orgy of incestuous links to one another" and streching a disagreement about whether an email was fake into a wider rant about Bush:

It is that corrupt dynamic that explains how things are going really well in Iraq; how Saddam really did have WMDs when we invaded; how the chaos and anarchy in Iraq is the fault (and invention) of the news media; how Saddam personally participated in the 9/11 attacks; how terrorists did not know before the New York Times story in December, 2005 that we were trying to eavesdrop on their telephone calls; how terrorists did not know before this weekend that we were trying to monitor their bank transactions; how Bush is really popular and most of the country agrees with him and that data to the contrary is due to flawed and biased polls, etc.

And he manages to put in plugs for a book appearance and a book review for good measure. Classy.

Today promises to be another big day for Republicans as the Democrats attempt a repeat of last week's Iraq debate:

WASHINGTON - Fierce election-year debate on Iraq spilled over into a second week on Capitol Hill with Senate Democrats lining up behind a proposal to start U.S. troop withdrawals this year and Republicans chastising them for espousing a "cut-and-run" strategy.

The Republicans are standing firm, as they should:

"Let me be clear: Retreat is not a solution," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "Cutting and running is bad policy that threatens our national security and poses unacceptable risks to Americans."

Democrats seem to think that keeping our word to the Iraqi government is a bad idea for a very anti-liberal reason:

"The administration's policy to date, that we'll be there for as long as Iraq needs us, will result in Iraq's depending on us longer," said Levin, top-ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. "Three-and-a-half years into the conflict, we should tell the Iraqis that the American security blanket is not permanent."

Would that they applied the same logic to their beloved entitlement programs here at home.

In a weird deja vu kind of way, Senator Kerry wants to ressurect his proposal from last week for yet another overwhelming defeat:

It would require the administration to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007, leaving in place only U.S. troops essential to training Iraqi security forces, conducting counterterrorism operations and protecting U.S. personnel and facilities.

Also joining Kerry is Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold (who doesn't support the war but supports nearly 86% of the constitution). I guess they felt left out last week.

Ultimately, today's debate in the Senate should prove to be a positive for Republicans as Democrats line up once again to show their lack of resolve on security issues.

Greenwald posts today about Glenn Reynolds and others who he perceives as "extremists" on the right. I don't want to comment on the back and forth between Reynolds and Greenwald, but instead want to focus on ideology. This caught my attention from the post (emphasis mine):

More importantly, it is incomparably beneficial to expose the extremist, dishonest underbelly of the pro-Bush movement. They have made great political strides by focusing as much as possible on easily disliked political figures on the Left who are susceptible to being depicted (rightly or wrongly) as extremists (Ward Churchill, Harry Belafonte, Michael Moore, etc.) and then turning them into illustrative symbols of Democrats generally.

Consider the apolitical blanket that Greenwald wraps himself in (at least according to his book reviews). Also, consider that Greenwald considers Howard Dean and Markos Moulitsas to be "perfectly mainstream".

I think it would be interesting to know: Which of the three mentioned in the quote above (Churchill, Belafonte, Moore) does he consider to be wrongly depicted as an extremist?

Just asking...

I'm sure over the course of this week there will be lots of pixels devoted to the shameful defeatist posturing of Rep. John Murtha yesterday on Meet the Press. Indeed, there already has. Today's Wall Street Journal has a terrific twofer on the politics of cut 'n run^TM and the war in general.

The first, Iraq and Congress, says of Murtha:

As for Mr. Murtha's proposal that U.S. forces should redeploy to some nearby part of the Middle East, this is merely a disguise for what everyone would understand was a defeat in Iraq. Anyone who doubts it should merely listen to Mr. Murtha, who said again yesterday on NBC's Meet the Press that "We can't win a war like this." It's more accurate to say that our troops have a harder time winning a war with political leaders as inconstant as Mr. Murtha, who voted to commit U.S. troops but now lacks the will to finish the job.

Certainly Rep. Murtha deserves the credit for being the loudest of those who would abandon Iraq and prove to the world that the United States can't be counted on to keep its word. And who could blame him? After all, what use is our integrity as a nation when the Majority Leader post is on the line? And the thrust of his message should not be mistaken by anyone, considering the ill-chosen comparison to Beirut or Somalia, both of which cost the US dearly by emboldening the ideology and strategy of Al-Qaeda.

It simply cannot be other than raw stupidity to repeatedly claim a need to "change directions" and offer only examples that abandoned friends and contributed greatly to 9/11. Murtha would have us take that route again, once and for all eliminating any measure of trust that might be placed in us by a nation in need.

But Murtha isn't alone - he has the backing of an opportunistic party so hell-bent on regaining power that they eagerly anticipate our nation's failure so that they can cynically sweep in and pick up the pieces. Nancy Pelosi referred to the war as a "grotesque mistake" recently. I wonder how the groups in Iraq most subject to the murderous whims of Saddam Hussein feel about the suggestion that their plight under Saddam was just fine by Nancy, and any attempt to liberate them was a "mistake"? Her political posturing fails to consider that the real mistakes have already been judged by history:

Most terrorism experts are agreed that the precipitous withdrawal from both places emboldened our enemies by convincing them the U.S. could always be made to back down in any conflict. Not repeating those mistakes may be reason enough to stay the course in Iraq.

It would be foolhardy to believe otherwise. Surrender in Iraq would be Al-Qaeda's greatest victory - not only would it embolden Bin Laden to plan more attacks, it would make his recruiting far easier.

Now Dianne Feinstein wants to followup the spectacular failure of the Kerry plan last week with a repeat of the surrender-based politics that have worked so well for the Democrats Republicans of late. Good. Let them bring it up every week if they want - right up to the mid-term elections. Let them ask the American people if our national integrity has any value at all.

Via AP/Yahoo:

WASHINGTON - A grand jury declined Friday to indict Rep. Cynthia McKinney in connection with a confrontation in which she admitted hitting a police officer who tried to stop her from entering a House office building.

The grand jury had been considering the case since shortly after the March 29 incident, which has led to much discussion on Capitol Hill about race and the conduct of lawmakers and the officers who protect them.

"We respect the decision of the grand jury in this difficult matter," said U.S. Attorney Kenneth Wainstein.

I respect their decision too. That's the way our justice system works. Granted, McKinney is one of the nuttiest politicians around, and a major racist. But that doesn't mean she's guilty of a crime in this instance, regardless of how reprehensable her behaviour was in the aftermath. And apparently the grand jury thought that there wasn't enough evidence to charge her.

I'm sure there will be a lot of complaints that had she been a normal citizen she'd be in jail now. I can't say that 'cause I wasn't there. And there's been damned little in the way of disinterested eyewitness account to shed light on this. Sigh. If only there had been a video...

I expect there will be some interesting blogging about this. If I see some really good ones, I'll gather them here.

Update: Here they come...

Daily Kos: "It seems to me, this is only fair. Rove gets off. McKinney gets off." Huh? I'll go out on a limb and suggest that I may not find a dumber reaction.

Below the Beltway: "Hardly a shocker. This is the same jury pool that acquitted Marion Berry on two sets of felony charges and then reelected him twice." Good Point.

And the liberals are seething, claiming this to be a political stunt.

They don't look very happy, do they?

WASHINGTON - The House on Friday handily rejected a timetable for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq, culminating a fiercely partisan debate between Republicans and Democrats feeling the public's apprehension about war and the onrushing midterm campaign season.

In a 256-153 vote that mirrored the position taken by the Senate earlier, the GOP-led House approved a nonbinding resolution that praises U.S. troops, labels the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism and says an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of troops is not in the national interest.

**snip**

Democrats denounced the debate and vote as a politically motivated charade, and most, including Pelosi, voted against the measure.

It appears to me that Murtha and his pals are now mired in an intractable war. He was there for the wrong reasons and has mismanaged it terribly. Indeed, this is a war that he cannot win, and made worse by the fact that many in his own party don't support the cut 'n run^TM strategy and are apparently now engaged in a civil war within the Democratic Party. Maybe it's time for Murtha to re-deploy back to Pennsylvania.

Political stunt? You bet it was. Democrats have had free reign to run from channel to channel crying "Time frame! We need a time frame! Bring 'em home now!" while ducking the harder question of what it means to advocate abandoning those we've sworn to help. A long-running dishonest stunt by the Democrats for cheap political points.

They'll find it harder to earn those points now.

Or at least that's the plan (H/T Protein Wisdom):

Marine may call Murtha as witness

A criminal defense attorney for a Marine under investigation in the Haditha killings says he will call a senior Democratic congressman as a trial witness, if his client is charged, to find out who told the lawmaker that U.S. troops are guilty of cold-blooded murder.

Attorney Neal A. Puckett told The Washington Times that Gen. Michael Hagee, the Marine commandant, briefed Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, on the Nov. 19 killings of 24 Iraqis in the town north of Baghdad. Mr. Murtha later told reporters that the Marines were guilty of killing the civilians in "cold blood." Mr. Murtha said he based his statement on Marine commanders, whom he did not identify.

Mr. Puckett said such public comments from a congressman via senior Marines amount to "unlawful command influence." He said potential Marine jurors could be biased by the knowledge that their commandant, the Corps' top officer, thinks the Haditha Marines are guilty.

"Congressman Murtha will be one of the first witnesses I call to the witness stand," Mr. Puckett said yesterday.

Mr. Puckett represents Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, an eight-year Marine who was a key participant in the Haditha operations that resulted in the 24 civilian deaths.

I don't know if the claim of unlawful command influence will have any traction - but somebody in the command structure thought these Marines were guilty. And the choice of Murtha as a recipient of the leak shows malice as it should have been predictable what would be done with it.

But the fact is that we don't yet know what the truth is regarding Haditha. I'm hoping they're innocent, but recognize that it could go the way of those who hope that they're guilty. If you're reading this and saying "but I don't hope they're guilty - I just know they are" then you're being dishonest. You can't know any more than I can since the facts haven't all been revealed. Only a fool driven by more emotion than brains could reach a conclusion of innocence or guilt on the public facts as they currently stand.

So if you believe they're guilty, it's not fact, but hope alone that drives you, and I don't have it in me to even pity you.

Murtha has hope, too. Political gain seems like such a petty motive, doesn't it? But his reprehensable act cuts both ways - if there is something that the Marines should be brought to justice for, Murtha and his informant may have given them the tools to avoid it. If they're innocent, they'll never be able to remove the stain that's been smeared on them.

That's not something to be proud of, folks. Why don't some of you "hopefuls" tell me again how courageous and patriotic Murtha is - OK?

Update (5:00pm EST): Okay, okay - I had a change of heart on the drive home from work. "Patriotism" is overused nowadays anyway - just like "integrity". Both are terrific concepts, but the application of each changes dramatically depending on perspective.

So in all fairness, it's entirely possible that Murtha believes that selling out a few Marines to achieve his party's and his own objectives is beneficial to the country, therefore, patriotic. You know, kinda like that woman down in Texas who claimed that the only way to save her kids was to drown them. So, in that spirit, the last paragraph of this post is corrected to read:

That's not something to be proud of, folks. Why don't some of you "hopefuls" tell me again how Murtha did the right thing - OK?

There. I feel so much better now.

Ian at Expose the Left posted audio of a John Gibson interview with Michael Berg.

He clearly says of Zarqawi: "He's almost as bad as George Bush". Go listen. "Over the rainbow" falls way short when describing this guy. Plainly one of the worst cases of BDS you're liable to see.

This is a picture of Berg from his campaign website wearing his trademark Yasser Arafat signature model terrorist scarf:

Added: Here's a blast from the past about Mr. Berg: INDC Journal Interviews Michael Berg
Aren't archives wonderful? Here's a teaser:

After that answer, Mr. Berg stopped taking questions, but another man insistently asked him, “Is it possible to get your contact information, to follow up?”

Michael Berg: "Who are you?"

Socialist Workers Party Reporter: "I’m with the Socialist Workers newspaper."

Michael Berg: "Socialist Workers newspaper? (Enthusiastically) Oh, yeah , oh yeah, oh yeah … (gives info) my e-mail is the best way to contact, because my wife probably will slam down the phone on just about anyone who calls; she’s still in a very emotional state. My son was a member of the Socialist Workers Party, yes he was, my son David, not my son Nick, my older son David. I supported his efforts working with the Socialist Workers Party, and I went with him to the headquarters in NY and I attended the rallies and I supported his trips to Cuba and … I don’t really want to say (gestures to me) because he’s (got a tape recorder)."

What was he afraid to say? Was it incriminating, or is Mr. Berg merely aware that his utility and mainstream image as an antiwar advocate would be tarnished by close association with a Communist political group?

I hope some of this comes up during the campaign (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

Here's a thread over at Huffington Post about the timing of Zarqawi's death being politically timed. Can't swing a dead cat without hitting a moonbat in there. Enjoy!

Channeling the nuttist far-left nutbags like Sheehan, Nick Berg's father is making the rounds for his obligatory 15 minutes today.

Yes, I know he's a grieving parent, but if he really believes what he's saying, he needs thorazine instead of a microphone:

"First of all, I'm not even certain that al-Zarqawi even killed my son," said Michael Berg, who doesn't believe the videotape of his son's execution or what he's been told by the FBI any more than he believes conspiracy theories suggesting his son was killed by the U.S. government.

Berg said that while al-Zarqawi may have killed a couple of hundred people, Bush is responsible for 150,000 deaths.

"He (Zarqawi) has a family who reacts just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel badly for that," Berg said. "I feel doubly badly because Zarqawi was a political figure, and his death will re-ignite another wave of revenge."

Political figure? What happened to terrorist????

I'm sure there will be plenty BS political statements to go along with the music. The BS foundation will pass the proceeds to BS favored causes. If you're a BS fan, dates and cities will be announced later.

Via AP/Yahoo.

That's the assessment from Jo's Cafe after Nick Berg’s father was interviewed on Fox News this morning about al-Zarqawi's death. TB also saw it, unfortunately I did not.

Apparently he claims that al-Zarqawi didn't kill his son, in spite of the video tape of the gruesome act.

Naturally, Mr. Berg blames Bush.

I hope someone recorded this. And I'm considering starting an office pool guessing the first time a major name Democrat calls al-Zarqawi's (and the 7 or so people who were with him) death a "massacre".

That seems to be the response to 'Not ready to make nice' as the Dixie Chicks are cancelling some tour dates due to poor ticket sales.

Unsurprisingly, the shows cancelled so far include Oklahoma City, Memphis, and Houston.

However, they sold out in Toronto where a second date is being added. Go figure.

Arianna hits bottom and digs yesterday as she shows her utter contempt for the troops and advises Democrats to sell out our military for political gain as "drugged up, hallucinating, and stressed out" killers for whom Haditha is an everyday occurance.

She starts by extending allegations about Haditha to all the troops.

It means the killings in Haditha -- like Abu Ghraib, like Bagram, like Guantanamo, like all the everyday, unheralded horrors perpetrated on innocent Iraqi civilians -- have made America less safe.

After all, says Arianna, smearing our troops is the moral thing to do. She continues by expressing her approval of Murtha's use of the tactic:

This is the issue that nationalizes the 2006 races. It's the right stance strategically (as Jack Murtha has been saying for months). It's the right stance morally. And it's also the right stance politically.

This is disgustingly cold and calculating by anyone's standards. But hey, it's about regaining power, right? After all, painting them as "baby killers" worked before...

And to Arianna, this represents an opportunity to be exploited - nothing more.

If Democrats can make this their defining issue, they can stop worrying about the laundry list of "what ifs" they are now obsessing over: What if people forget about Katrina and Abramoff and DeLay? What if gas prices come down? What if GOP gerrymandering trumps voter unrest? What if the gay marriage ruse works again? What if, what if, what if...

They need to calm their nerves and keep it simple. It's about making us safe, stupid. And keeping our worn-out, stressed-out, missionless troops in Iraq is making us less -- much less -- safe.

This is not just sick - it exposes an icy vacuum where heart and soul should be. In Arianna's case, I think the last thin veil of "I support the troops" - if indeed it was ever visible - has forever fallen away.

Update: Welcome Blackfive readers!

Haven't done one of these in a while - Cindy's moonbatty antics bore me. Yesterday, though, she closed (if that's possible) ranks with Murtha and much of the media in convicting the Marines who fought in Haditha and have yet to benefit from a finished investigation, much less a fair trial.

Written on the same day that terrorists slaughtered 20 civillians on buses, and knowing full well that it was a fairly normal day for the terrorists, Cindy wants us to know that regardless of the outcome of any investigation and/or legal proceedings, she knows who the real monsters are - and it ain't just a few bad apples, either. From My Lai to Haditha By Cindy Sheehan:

War turns our mostly normal American youth into wanton murderers who have lost their own humanity and love of others. Haditha in this war and My Lai in another disgusting war were unfortunately not aberrations.

Oh, and this caught my attention as well:

Our soldiers need to start disobeying the unlawful order to even be deployed to Iraq and not raise their weapons in appeasement to the Bush Regime and say: "This war is the criminal, I am not. Threaten me if you will, but I am not going to be an accomplice in your crimes against humanity."

That, my friends, sounds like sedition to me.

H/T AllahPundit as Hot Air.

DragonFlyEye visited this morning to comment on yesterday's fake news story. Since he raises some legitimate questions, I've decided to elevate his comment to this post and address it here. First, his entire comment:

LB,

Due respect, but what about what's actually going on? You make a lot of critcisms about the left, myself included, for not being entirely accurate but you gloss over the entire issue of the legitimacy of the VNR's. Truth be told, this is actually a trend started by the Clinton and not the Bush Administration. I say that to forstall the inevitable "Clinton started it" rant. The fact is that they're out there and becoming more commonly used by the Administrative Branch; irrespective of what issue or policy they are being used to support, don't you think that the trend alone is worth fighting against?

Much of the media handling style of the Bush Adminstration is, in at least it's nuts-and-bolts and it's basic theory, a derivation on Clinton-era politics. Presidential politics are generally cumulative in this way. We can, therefore, make a strong case that the next presidential administration ~ be it Liberal, Conservative or whatever ~ will undoubtably employ these types of tactics if they are not squashed. President Bush has seen fit to use signing statements to go around the Constitution and around the Congress, what makes you think he won't go around an organ *of the adminsitrative branch* which he controls?

We almost certainly disagree on a wide swath of our politics, but surely you cannot be so cavalier about institutionalizing propaganda?

DragonFlyEye raises some issues that should be discussed, but first, to clarify, my original post on the VNR story in the Independent was not intended to raise those issues. The post was simply to cover a case of dishonest journalism and it's effect. I'll agree that I wasn't particularly nice to left blogs in general. DragonFlyEye was quoted simply for his contention that Fox was the leading abuser of VNRs when the report that prompted the investigation showed that ABC clearly deserved that title - if indeed, a title should be awarded, since even the Center for Media and Democracy were reluctant to opine on that issue as their sample size precluded such a determination. If my post appered to infer any other criticism of DragonFlyEye, it was unintentional.

Many of us on the right use the catchall BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) to describe the reflexive assignment of evil intent to the administration. "Bush lied" continues to be used widely by the left in spite of the evidence to the contrary and serves as the most famous example. While it applies to a lesser degree to the blogs I quoted - for example, claiming "Bush Investigated For Propaganda" when the story, as bad as it was, made it clear that was not the case, I saved the label for Hume's Ghost exclusively. He earned this because he made it clear in his post that he had performed sufficient research to know the truth yet still chose to portray the story as "the FCC is currently investigating one of the most significant (at least to me) scandals of the Bush administration."

Surely there are examples of this kind of autoresponse on the right - ask any of us, I think most will freely admit it. Probably the best example is the reflexive claim of aiding the enemy that the right often hangs on the left. I've been guilty of that on occasion myself - it's unfortunate that we as humans can't more readily access the thoughts, passions, and motivations of others.

But I do see a distinct difference between various groups on the left. And it's not difficult to see a small faction that is so driven by their passions that they will go "scorched earth" on folks who least deserve it in order to make the administration look bad. Several very good examples immediately come to mind - Murtha's premature conviction of Marines at Haditha, folks leaking or printing certain classified items, for instance. There is a growing contingient on the left that applauds and encourages that harmful behavior and there's no doubt in my mind that this contingient is over-represented on the web. This makes makes such generalizations not only possible - they're awfully hard to resist.

Again, this isn't intended to be an indictment of DragonFlyEye, who seems genuinely interested in starting a dialog in which I'll engage in part two. I just think it's helpful to let all know where I'm coming from so the conversation isn't misunderstood.

Tomorrow, in part two - an honest discussion of the Bush administration's relationship with the press, and I'll answer DragonFlyEye's questions surrounding VNRs. Am I disturbed by them? Are they propaganda? Are they ethical? Are they legal? I may not please either side with my opinions.

A reader (name kept private by request) emailed to direct my attention to a followup post on Unclaimed Territory and asked if I thought my post from yesterday had anything to do with it. First, let's look at the latest, where Hume's Ghost issues a correction on his "Faux News" post:

Well, I don't call my blog The Daily Doubter for nothing. Looking at my first post here, it has come to my attention that sloppy writing on my part in the post on the widespread infiltration of faux news reports is misleading and needs to be corrected. I'm not sure what the blogging ethics of this are, so I'm going to identify the corrections here and then add this Addendum onto that post.

The way I have it written, it sounds as if the bulk of the VNR's being investigated by the FCC are government sponsored. That is not the case. The vast majority of video news releases are created by corporations (the VNRs tracked in the CMD's report were corporate sponsored ones).

*snip*

But here is the most misleading part of my post

But here is what bothers me about this story. We already knew this. Back in January of 2005, the New York Times reported that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) had found that these undisclosed VNR's constituted illegal "covert propaganda."

Ok, we already knew that the press had been corrupted by fake news, but the GAO had not found that "these" VNRs constituted covert propaganda. It could not have, because the GAO was only commenting on the use of government sponsored VNRs. Obviously, what I had written makes it sound if all the VNRs in the CMD's report were government propaganda. This should have been written as:

... We already knew that the press had been corrupted by fake news. Back in January of 2005, the New York Times reported that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) had found that the creation of undisclosed VNR's (by the federal government) constituted illegal "covert" propaganda.

Credit where credit is due - Hume's Ghost does acknowlege that his original post gave the impression that the majority of the VNRs being investigated are from the government. However, none of the VNRs being investigated are from the government, and Hume's Ghost stops a little short of saying that.

The heart and soul of Ghost's post (bashing the administration over VNRs) was based on a dishonest piece in the Independent (which was the focus of my post), and had he believed that none of the VNRs being investigated were from the government, then his entire post would have merited retraction starting with his tone-setting opening remark:

Allthough it hasn't managed to garner much attention, the FCC is currently investigating one of the most significant (at least to me) scandals of the Bush administration.

And ending with:

Why is it that the American public seems to not mind the manipulation of the truth in an effort to subvert democracy?

Also, Hume's Ghost doesn't credit anyone for his correction, and there's no indication that it's the result of anything other than his own introspection. And since planted stories shilling cadillacs, candy and chondroitin quite obviously present little threat to democracy, it appears to me that the thrust of his message remains intact.

So, the answer to my reader's question is no - I had nothing to do with it.

As far as the other blogs that I linked, I know a couple of them read my post (from the referral list on my stats page), and one of those squelched my trackback. And a couple of whois searches popped up as well, but I see those frequently after linking lefty blogs. No surprises here.

And DragonFlyEye has entered the room - I'll promote and address his comments in my next post.

AP/Yahoo on the makeup of a potential Democratic House leadership:

Only two of 20 earned grades of less than 90 percent on last year's voting records from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action interest group. Half had perfect scores of 100 from the ADA — or would have had it not been for missed votes.

Read the whole article. If this doesn't frighten you, nothing will. And it's a possible future unless the Republican Party pulls it's collective head out.

There's a bit of controversy about whether P.T. Barnum really said "There's a sucker born every minute". No matter - whoever said it was right.

Andrew Buncombe of the Independent knows it. And he artfully used that principle to stir up the left by livening up this Bloomberg story about corporate video news releases (subscription required, full text quoted here) with some old news, fake news, and innuendo.

Here's the thrust of the original Bloomberg article:

May 25 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin ordered a probe of dozens of television stations after a report found they aired advertisements as if they were news reports, people familiar with the inquiry said.

The April report by the non-profit Center for Media and Democracy found at least 77 stations, including 23 affiliates of Walt Disney Co.'s ABC network and seven Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. stations, ignored an FCC warning to disclose sponsors. The maximum fine for each violation is $32,500, rising to $325,000 for multiple infractions, said FCC spokesman Clyde Ensslin.

Got that? It's about TV stations and corporate-made Video News Releases (VNR). Nothing else. But as we've seen so often in the media, anything can and will become a Bush-bashing story.

The Independent's headline:

Bush 'planted fake news stories on American TV'

Federal authorities are actively investigating dozens of American television stations for broadcasting items produced by the Bush administration and major corporations, and passing them off as normal news. Some of the fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq, or promoted the companies' products.

Investigators from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are seeking information about stations across the country after a report produced by a campaign group detailed the extraordinary extent of the use of such items.

Buncombe provides a reference to an administration-produced VNR and infers that it's part of the investigation:

The range of VNR is wide. Among items provided by the Bush administration to news stations was one in which an Iraqi-American in Kansas City was seen saying "Thank you Bush. Thank you USA" in response to the 2003 fall of Baghdad. The footage was actually produced by the State Department, one of 20 federal agencies that have produced and distributed such items.

This particular example occurred prior to the FCC issuing it's warning on the use of VNRs last year, and was not part of the report that prompted the FCC investigation. The report can be found here, and here's an interesting snippet from a NYT writer on its contents:

Three of the 88 releases in the report were done for government agencies but were not broadcast, the report said.

Of course, we've seen this kind of thing before, so there's nothing really unique about this story. I'm documenting it mostly because of the effect this kind of dishonest reporting has. A small but growing amount of buzz has been generated on the left side of the blogosphere, and all of it based on the parts of Buncombe's article that are fake. And while it appears that few bloggers bothered to read the report referenced in the article, a surprising number apparently passed on reading the article they cut and pasted into their own posts. For example, Jason at My Observations quotes most of the Independent article and adds the headline:

Democracy At Work? - Bush Investigated For Propaganda

Which is a claim that Buncombe, even as distorted as his article was, didn't make. And had Jason actually read the very first sentence of the article, he'd know that.

Sean (he's a Libra) introduces the quoted article with:

In the following case, the "corporation" in question is the Bush Administration... and apparently our trusted media outlets didn't feel obliged to make clear that distinction for their viewers.

Sean should worry less about his teeth and more about shaken Libra syndrome when he sees that b-ball coming for him. Another breathless and uninformed headline:

More Media Whores for Bushitler

Barkeep, I'll have some of what he's having... There's also the occasional embellishment - most on the left seem to dislike Fox News, so this seems to be a natural for the dragonflyeye.net blog:

But back to these so-called VNR’s (Video News Releases). That the Administration and Corporate America seem to be engaged in exactly the same types of deception ~ and by all accounts, primarily through the collusion of Fox media outlets ~ is the kind of thing that should give even those cynical of media independence reason to pause.

Never mind that the report's top offenders were ABC affiliates - it's so much fun to bust on Fox, right?

Here's one that obviously had time to get creative with font sizes and animations, but no time to read the article.

I know, the above examples are not the larger mainstream lefty blogs. Okay, How 'bout Digby?

And about that disinformation and propaganda, I think we have a little hint about where that's going in this era as well...

Hook, line, and sinker - if it's anti-Bush, it must be gospel, right, Digby?

When I want the rabid anti-constitutionalist view from the left, I always trot over to Glenn Greenwald's blog. And there's no disappointment here, as Glenn is out on his book tour and Hume's Ghost fills in with a magnificent BDS inspired rant:

Allthough it hasn't managed to garner much attention, the FCC is currently investigating one of the most significant (at least to me) scandals of the Bush administration.

What's stunning is that he links several of the same sources that I use above, and still manages to conclude that the FCC is investigating an administration scandal. And on the left, this is apparently what passes for an influential blog - another blog called Outside the Spectrum links the post and comments:

More news today about the administration’s continued efforts to subvert the media from Glenn Greenwald’s blog. Apparently 77 different broadcast stations have used pre-packaged “news” items without identifying them as such, concerning subjects like how well the Iraq War is really going.

Um, barkeep? Maybe I should pass after all. Blindness and delusions aren't desirable side-effects.

What's sad is that in another month this will be likely become established "conventional wisdom" among the left, taking its place among such intellectually bereft gems as "Bush Lied", and "Domestic wiretapping". No critical thought applied. No research. As ubiquitous as it is dishonest.

Hume's Ghost closes his post with a question - "...why are we still even discussing this?". Because, Ghost, you and all the others want to believe. You went into the light - and ignored the signs that said "Bug Zapper". On one point I do agree with Hume's Ghost, though. No one could possibly mistake him for a pedant.

P. T. Barnum would have loved the modern left.

Update: If you really want to see fake news, try this instead. Michelle has a roundup with lots of real examples.

I stayed away from this one on purpose - I was Air Force, and didn't have the requisite Army know-how to spot all the discrepancies that the milblogging community did.

But it did seem fishy to me from the start. I watched only part of the video, but I saw enough to know that for someone to believe his story, they'd also have to believe that the largest war-crimes coverup in history was ongoing in Iraq. A few hundred thousand GIs, hundreds of imbedded media types, not to mention large numbers of Iraqi citizens all keeping quiet in the same environment that brought us over-hyped stories of Abu-Graib and white phosphorus from a media bloodthirsty for anything negative. No. No way that institutional slaughter of women and children would go unreported for this long.

Anyway, it now looks like Mr. MacBeth has some 'splaining to do. The best roundup, if you haven't visited yet, is from AllahPundit.

But what about the fallout from this sorry episode? Unfortunately, there are probably a few on the left who will believe MacBeth no matter what. And many that no longer do will now claim it's a plot by the right to discredit the anti-war movement.

Sigh.

The good news out of this is that MacBeth's dishonesty was outed in lightning fashion by blogs. Thirty years ago, Jesse's film would have become the predominant account, and the debunking would have been the urban legend - exactly opposite of what we saw this week.

I see it as a victory for truth.

There was a time during the previous century that Gary Hart was a US Senator, and a major Democratic primary candidate for President of the United States. But when an extramarital affair came to light, his poll numbers plummeted and he was forced to give up his White House bid.

When Gary dropped out of the race in 1984, he said at a press conference, "I said that I bend, but I don't break, and believe me, I'm not broken".

Nowadays, he's spending time over at the Huffington Post spitting cheap moonbatty ad hominems at the person holding the office he once coveted.

If this is bending, then Gumby is a steel girder.

I'd like to take this opportunity to formally thank Donna Rice and the Miami Herald for the great service they did for our nation.

Considering Kos' track record on supporting candidates, it's not surprising that they're desperate to claim a success. So when Ned Lamont makes the ballot, the headline at Kos is:

Lamont Made the Ballot! Big Time!

And it's complete with a quote from Matt at MyDD declaring "Ned Lamont is CRUSHING Joe Lieberman." However, reality seems to be inconveniently contrary to the Kos Kids' desires:

1509 votes count

Ned Lamont - 505 (33.4%)

Joe Lieberman - 1004 (66.5%)

I can't imagine a campaign feeling "incredibly dejected" when receiving two thirds of the vote. I can't imagine they'd feel "crushed", either.

Of course, the headline could easily read "Kos appearance in Lamont ad disgusts and frightens voters, holds Lamont back to only a third of votes".

Previous: Kos - televised moonbattery

Kos (Marcos Zuniga) is now appearing in commercials (H/T LGF).

I have some advice for the leader of the unhinged side of the blogosphere - playing with your nipples in public, however enjoyable, shows bad manners. Playing with them on TV is downright disgusting.

Now please excuse me while I go get really drunk in an attempt to get that image out of my head.

See this as well.

Via AP/Yahoo:

WASHINGTON - A Senate committee approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage Thursday, after a shouting match that ended when one Democrat strode out and the Republican chairman bid him "good riddance."

"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record) declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting.

"If you want to leave, good riddance," Specter finished.

"I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman," replied Feingold, D-Wis., who is considering a run for president in 2008. "See ya."

So what's his problem?

Among Feingold's objections was Specter's decision to hold the vote in the President's Room, where access by the general public is restricted, instead of in the panel's usual home in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

That's right - he was upset because he didn't have an audience for his theatrics. Never mind that the purpose of the meeting was to get some work done. Partisan politics and playing to the audience is much more important to the juvenile mind of primadonna Russ.

I do find Specter's choice of words interesting, though. He pays himself no compliment at all when he says "You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I" to Feingold. After all, Feingold's outright contempt for the constitution has been well demonstrated by his attempts to abolish Article III.

A reminder - we're paying for this. If I wanted to see this kind of behavior, I could could have gone to a pro wrestling match. And saved a lot of buckage, too.

Between the lightning strike and the Massachusetts flooding, Teddy Kennedy would be wise to avoid ladders and black cats.

By now everyone's heard that Nancy Pelosi has (at least publicly) pulled impeachment off the table (H/T Blue Crab Boulevard). Me, I don't buy it. This is just to counter the Republican stategy of letting the voters know that Democrats care more about satisfying their BDS cravings than keeping the country safe.

As Blue Crab Boulevard notes, the left has been fairly quiet about the announcement. I guess it's starting to sink in, though, as David from Radio Left declares "Democrats need to get rid of Pelosi". Here's more:

Rich Hope: "the democrats should go to hell in the same way that I hope the republicans will"
Aaron Bonn on DKos: "I say it's time to impeach Pelosi from her position within our party."
Robb Black on DKos: "I think this is simply pathetic..."

Folks, don't be fooled. She's lying through her teeth. Of course, it's nice to see you guys eat your own...

So I'm doing a little searching for a variety of topics last night, and come across a story of a web site that was apparently shut down when a law enforcement agency siezed the hard drive on the server they were hosted on:

As you can see, Pajiba.com is a mess. We were as surprised as anyone when the site went down yesterday, but based on the limited information we have, it looks like the Department of Homeland Security has seized the disk drive on which our site was hosted, and apparently they've also taken the backup files. So for the time being, Pajiba.com has no data, and we don't think DHS has any intention of returning the hard drive to our hosting company anytime soon. I suppose we shared server space with some punk who threatened the President or something, and now anyone on that server has to suffer the consequences. Frankly, the entire debacle is pretty heart-wrenching for us, and thus far, completely out of our control. We have no idea when, or if, the disk drives will be returned.

In the meantime, we've decided to copy all of our old reviews from their Google caches (thank God for Google), and do our best to rebuild the entire site from scratch, bottom up; (which, for me, means relearning a lot of things on Movable Type). So for the next few days, the place is gonna look like Oprah's couch after Tom Cruise has had his way with it. We'll do our best to get the most recent reviews up in as timely a manner as possible, and then we will start adding the archives. I'm not sure what that will mean for this weekend's reviews yet, unfortunately, but I'm not resting until I get this place back into a respectable place to visit.

Anyway, thanks for your patience ... thanks for dropping by ... and we do hope you'll return after we get our shit together. In the meantime, I suppose we can all thank either the Bush Administration or the dumbass terrorists threatening our government, depending on your politics.

"...we can all thank either the Bush Administration or the dumbass terrorists threatening our government, depending on your politics." In the "reality based community", who do you suppose would get chosen? Yeah, I know, it's too easy (profanity edited by yours truly). From Maryscott O'Connor:

I don't know WHAT the f**k to make of it. These people make a g*dd***ed LIVING off that site, and now, with no explanation, the DHS f**king SEIZES their work material?

Can you imagine the ramifications of sh*t like this? Imagine p*ssing off someone in the DHS and coming in to the office to discover your livelihood has just been shattered because you p*ssed off the wrong f**king Politburo *sswipe.

THAT'S what this f**king is, man. Remember those Russian bad guys we vilified throughout the Cold War in decades of movies and television? THEY'RE WORKING IN THE BUSH REGIME, NOW.

Congratulate the Bush Administration, man. They've turned us into the f**king KGB-riddled Soviet f**king Union.

Apparently the siezure affected a number of web sites, including one run by this guy, who dons a few extra ounces of tinfoil in response:

What I resent more than the loss of website files, is the idea of a massive bureaucracy that has the ability to shut down anyone's website, business, or livelihood, without Congressional or judicial oversight. Some weeks back, I read about a couple whose account was red-flagged by DHS when they tried to pay a large sum on their credit card. Is this still America anymore?

What's of even more concern is the potential that such an agency could pose to the rights of Americans who disagree with the administration in power - any administration. Given the unchecked power granted to such agencies, what's there to prevent planting "suspicious files" on anyone's computer or home, because you're a little too vocal in your opposition to war in your emails or at work? Does it not sicken you that you're more reluctant to say things you feel about certain people in power in your phone conversations?

A little civics lesson for you all courtesy of DHS:

The Financial Crimes Division (FCD) plans, reviews, and coordinates criminal investigations involving Financial Systems Crimes, including bank fraud; access device fraud; telemarketing; telecommunications fraud (cellular and hard wire); computer fraud; automated payment systems and teller machines; direct deposit; investigations of forgery, uttering, alteration, false personation, or false claims involving U.S. Treasury Checks, U.S. Savings Bonds, U.S. Treasury Notes, bonds, and bills; electronic funds transfer (EFT) including Treasury disbursements and fraud within Treasury payment systems; fraud involving U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Coupons and Authority to Participate (ATP) cards; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation investigations; Farm Credit Administration violations; fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents and fraudulent commercial, fictitious instruments,foreign securities. The Division also coordinates the activities of the U.S. Secret Service Organized Crimes Program, and oversees money laundering investigations.

In other words, they investigate a wide range of crimes. They have legitimate power to execute a warrant and sieze hards drives in order to bring criminals to justice.

And check this page titled "BEST PRACTICES FOR SEIZING ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE" to learn a little about the procedure they followed in siezing the hard drive in question.

If you go to the Kos link at the top of this post, there are lots of looney comments. Amazing that there are so many people who blame Bush for anything bad in the world. Also, here's what I use as a "Left-wing fever swamp" theme song (warning: opens Rhapsody music service window - but it's free!) while I read such gems as:

"They are slowly building electronic gulags and separating potential enemies (again, Dems, progressives, and so on) from the means to communicate and share information -- first, privately, and then AT ALL."

"I would not be surprised if they then declare a federal state of emergency and then herd us into REAL gulags."

"I said this sh*t would happen 5 years ago when the Patriot ACT destroyed our civil rights..."

"Costa Rica is looking better and better. Anyone want to start a commune down there?"

Can't any of these folks think? If the DHS was doing what so many of these folks seem to believe, there would be no Kos. No My Left Wing. No Eschaton. No Crooks and Liars. No Democratic Underground.

BTW, if the music link doesn't work for you, the lyrics to the song I linked are here. But it's much better if you listen to it.

No, not that one. This one:

WASHINGTON - Rep. Patrick Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) crashed his car near the Capitol early Thursday, and a police official said he appeared intoxicated. Kennedy said he had taken sleep medication and a prescription anti-nausea drug that can cause drowsiness.

Kennedy, D-R.I., addressed the issue after a spate of news reports. His initial statement said, "I consumed no alcohol prior to the incident."

He goes on to claim that prescription medications disoriented him, causing him to drive to the capitol complex at 2:45 AM believing he needed to vote.

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, although if I were him I'd be asking my lawyer about going after the pharmacist who obviously didn't place the "causes drowsiness" warning label on the bottle of Ambien he filled.

Now if this were an "R", I wonder if the lefty blogs would be so generous, or would they slip into a trance chanting "culture of corruption" and/or saying things like "Are ALL these motherF****rs drunks?"

Stephen Colbert's sad performance last weekend is still generating lots of buzz on the blogosphere. Even the New York Times is weighing in with a story today that focuses not on the performance itself but the reaction to it:

Mark Smith, a reporter for The Associated Press who is president of the White House Correspondents' Association, acknowledges that he had not seen much of Stephen Colbert on Comedy Central before he booked him as the main entertainment for the association's annual black-tie dinner on Saturday night. But he says he knew enough about Mr. Colbert — "He not only skewers politicians, he skewers those of us in the media" — to expect that he would cause some good-natured discomfort among the 2,600 guests, many of them politicians and reporters.

What Mr. Smith did not anticipate, he said, was that Mr. Colbert's nearly 20-minute address would become one of the most hotly debated topics in the politically charged blogosphere. Mr. Colbert delivered his remarks in character as the Bill O'Reillyesque commentator he plays on "The Colbert Report," although this time his principal foil, President Bush, was just a few feet away.

Over at Huffington Post they've been typical of left-wing thought on the issue. Any suggestion that Colbert wasn' t funny gets derided in the comments as if the notion was somehow sacrilege. But for many of the posters and commenters this isn't about funny. It's about the lack of media coverage in the first couple of days after the dinner. Chris Durang writes:

"Tell me if you don't think it's newsworthy he said all this IN FRONT OF THE PRESIDENT"

Peter Daou derides a media that has been decidedly anti-Bush for not being even more anti-Bush:

The AP's first stab at it and pieces from Reuters and the Chicago Tribune tell us everything we need to know: Colbert's performance is sidestepped and marginalized while Bush is treated as light-hearted, humble, and funny. Expect nothing less from the cowardly American media.

The wider view of this is, of course, about the left and their anger. Colbert gave an unimpressive performance, but he insulted George Bush, Laura Bush, and many others in the administration. The seething fringes of outer moonbattia don't care if the NSA wiretapping program is legal. They don't care if Plame wasn't covert. They don't care that Bush isn't single-handedly responsible for global warming. They don't care that there still isn't a civil war in Iraq. They just want Bush to look bad. They want him to fail. And they want him to suffer. And to a decidedly petty and small-minded audience, he delivered.

Those on the left who thought Colbert funny found him to be that way not because the jokes were good (they weren't). They laughed because one of their own got a chance to humiliate people they hate. Because so many of the left have made BDS their driving force, they cheer every time there's bad news - no, that's not right - they revel in bad news. And show their disappoinment like spoiled children when they don't get their way.

Consider Arianna's post from yesterday railing on the media:

It says everything you need to know about the current state of TV news -- indeed the current state of our media culture -- that on a day that saw Iraq moving closer to all-out civil war, with at least 76 Iraqis killed and 179 wounded in sectarian attacks, the CBS Evening News devoted one minute and thirty-nine seconds to coverage of Iraq... and one minute and fifty-six seconds to coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's appearance in front of the Supreme Court.

Snip...

Well, it depends how you slice it. CBS' update of the Smith story was given another minute and fifty-eight seconds of precious air time -- two seconds more than last time -- while its coverage of Iraq lasted two minutes and ten seconds. Aha, you may say, that's 12 seconds more than they gave Anna Nicole, and a 31 second increase from the last time the two stories went head-to-head. True, but Monday was also the third anniversary of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech -- a fairly significant news peg, wouldn't you say?

Nevermind the blatant dishonesty that the left has routinely applied by taking Bush's speech (and the accompanying sign) out of context. Arianna wants the news to be BDS 24/7. She goes on to cite casualty figures and whines because the 6 o'clock news doesn't repeat them often enough.

When you think about it, Arianna's rant about Anna Nicole Smith and the left blogosphere's angst about Colbert are really about the same topic. It's not the comedic value of the jokes. It's about wanting the media to deliver their message to the exclusion of all others. A message that increasingly conveys little more than hatred, despair, and a desire to seek revenge for manufactured wrongs that none of them has suffered from except in their own minds.

I'd have to say Colbert taught us a lot more about his friends than he intended.

in that it was much more busy than most.

Protests from the left that there is too much war in Iraq, followed by protests from the left that there isn't enough in Darfur.

Colin Powell confirms that different folks have different ideas, and the left goes nuts because the President followed the Pentagon's plan instead of the State department's.

Bush gets lots of laughs from the press, and a lefty comedian's jokes are answered with the sound of chirping crickets.

Iran is starting to fear the UN Security Council, so they're now sqirming to avoid them.

And we've still got tomorrow's May Day to get through as the illegals and their supporters protest for something they had a better chance of getting if they hadn't.

And in spite of all the negativity from the press and the left, we're still winning in Iraq. The goal of having the Iraqis take over their own security isn't yet achieved, but is in sight. And Al Qaeda in Iraq is running out of nutcases willing to blow themselves up.

Next week will have to be busy indeed to top it.

Huffington Post is linking yet another song that's sure to please the "Hate America" crowd.

It's pretty complete - genocide, racism, Abe Lincoln is gay, fixed elections, church bashing, etc. It appears that in Susan Werner's view, there's nothing that America has ever done right. But in spite of it all, she won't move to France. I wish she'd reconsider.

I'll bet we start hearing her sing at the rallies sponsored by the communists and socialists.

Full lyrics below the fold... Be warned, though, it's pretty hateful.

While I'm not a Drudge Report fan, I occasionally go to his site by following links on other blogs. Yesterday, I saw a mention of Drudge on PowerLine. The post John referred to was about low sales figures for Markos Moulitsos' book Crashing the Gate.

This must have touched a few nerves - Glenn Greenwald, who has a book coming out, stepped up to the plate to defend Markos' book. So did a lot of other leftist sites. Glenn's was titled "Anatomy of the "thought" process of Bush defenders", although he bases his rant on Drudge and two conservative bloggers. Yet he paints his assertions with an overly broad brush on all those "Bush Lovers" he dislikes:

There are so many data holes and misleading omissions in this item that it is literally and wholly useless in determining whether the book is a success. I want to emphasize that what matters here is not whether the book really is a success (I have no idea if it is or isn't), but how the baseless Drudge assertion became gospel fact among Bush followers, a distorted and corrupt process which generally governs how they come to think about the world with regard to virtually every issue.

What happened to the dislike of stereotyping he displayed last week? This theme gets repeated several times though his rant. He dismisses Drudge's source (Bookscan) as unreliable and then uses the same source to run down sales of conservative books. At least he backs off on the assertions of his encyclopedic knowledge of the liberal blogging book world - Tuesday's claim:

"There have been a few other recent blog-based books, including Markos and Jerome's highly successful Crashing the Gate..."

Is corrected yesterday to:

"I want to emphasize that what matters here is not whether the book really is a success (I have no idea if it is or isn't)..."

The interesting thing about this is how silly it is. Drudge is petty for starting it, the small number of right wing bloggers who chimed in are petty for revelling in the low numbers, and lots of folks on the left are being downright childish for taking offense at it. I point out Greenwald because it appears that this opened an especially large wound for him, apparently inspiring him to drag in every single issue he has with the right, but there are plenty of other examples. Jane Hamsher doles out the reasoned and intellectual discourse she's so well known for:

The success of both Crashing the Gate and Glenn Greenwald’s book? The right are quite literally gagging on it.

Bon a-fuckin’-petite, you warmongering, bedwetting bastards.

Classy, huh?

Atrios, in an unusually long introduction to an open thread, also ties this to generalities about the right:

"Their defective mind processes work the same way, whether it's Iraq or book sales."

Surprisingly, Crooks and Liars has it right:

"It is a stupid pissing contest."

Glenn defends his generalizations here. It seems to be situational - sweeping generalizations are repugnant when used to describe liberals but necessary when describing conservatives.

By the way, Glenn's book is still showing at #1 at Amazon, and that's just fine. I wish him success (honest, I do). I may even read it, as I am curious to see if it contains any insight into his apparent contempt for the constitution (particularly Article III). In case it's dropped from the top slot at Amazon, here's a screen shot
.

I've checked a couple of times and noticed something that the folks who focus on politics only probably didn't - the number two slot has been solidly occupied by the same book. It's a ground-breaking tome about doggy discipline entitled Cesar's Way : The Natural, Everyday Guide to Understanding and Correcting Common Dog Problems. Considering all the squabbling over rankings, and to demonstrate that there's more than sales numbers with which to evaluate a book, it occurred to me that Cesar's Way might be a useful marketing tool for Glenn in light of the constant companionship it's provided his book on the Amazon list. Maybe some creative marketing is in order....

I think it would look stunning in those glowing ad panels at the airport, don't you?

Update: Fixed link for screen shot.

I usually just delete the spam without reading it. Maybe I should pay attention - this one showed up in my inbox today:

From:Mrs hassan.

Attn:The Managing Director

Before I proceed, may I humbly introduce myself to your goodself, My Name is Mrs. Amina hassan, an Iraqi refugee ,my husband was until recently, one of the personal aid to the president of Iraq who was formerly overthrown out of power by American Government .

Prior to this last serious crisis that is still ravaging in my country,which recently led to misfortune of our government and my late husband position as the personal aid to the president, we were able to come over here in Thailand ,we inherited the sum of US$11 million.The funds were originally gotten from my late husband proceeds.

The rest is the usual plea for additional contact to further the scam.

While not universal, there are plenty on the left who feel that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was wrong. Apparently, the scammers are narrowing their demographic to increase their success.

After all, the folks who can be conned with even the most lunatic conspiracy theories regarding the Bush administration (in spite of evidence to the contrary) must be ready-made targets for this kind of scam that preys on the most gullable and emotion-driven of our society.

Note to scammers: If you can craft an email that contends that every breath Bush takes admits to breaking the law, I know where you can hit paydirt...

Mark Coffey and Glenn Greenwald are conducting some cross-blog chatrooming this morning. The tone is somewhat less than amiable - surprising considering their long history...

This morning's chat started when Glenn updated a post on the leak story with a shot at Mark that I'm sure he thought was clever.

Right now Mark has the upper hand by pointing out that the Dems opposed increased security at some ports in order to score a few cheap political points.

Glenn continues his tortured Democrat leaks good / Republican leaks bad meme today. In the "Dem leaks good" story, he misses the point of the CIA's objections to publishing the story. Many GWOT operations are being carried out with the cooperation of foreign governments - exposing ongoing classified operations has the natural effect of these governments cooperating less, since they can't trust that their own intelligence services won't be compromised by some partisan with an axe to grind. Political condemnation would surely be more than skin deep in this case.

While we're here, I'd still like to see if his praise of Ms. McCarthy's leaks would be in any way tempered by this, which came out Friday. Even a dismissive mention would make him appear a little less uninformed...

I promised myself I'd try to followup more - this one's a good opportunity because Maryscott O'Connor provided an update last Sunday:

"The only factually incorrect thing in the Washington Post story about me was the description of my husband Adam's job..."

Unfortunately, the piece painted her and bloggers in general in a pretty bad light, as I illustrated in my previous post:

I've also had a chance since then to read what a few others wrote - for the first time I agree with Glenn Greenwald:

There is no cheaper or emptier form of argumentation than to isolate a specific individual, describe her, and then, without any basis, ascribe those attributes generally to some larger group -- in this case, a much, much larger and more diverse group -- of which she is ostensibly a part. Anyone who has even minimal exposure to "the blogosphere" knows that it is insusceptible to the sort of sweeping generalization oozing from every misleading paragraph in this article.

Not that he agrees with it - in the same piece he also writes:

"The real difference is that, to find rank hatemongering on the Right, one need not go digging into the 300th Comment on a blog or the most extreme postings of a relatively obscure blogger, because this type of limitless rhetorical attack has been a staple of the mainstream Right for more or less two decades now."

Insusceptable indeed - but I digress.

The Post article was unquestionably a hit piece. It painted the entire blogoshere in an unwholesome light with all the class and finesse of a drive-by shooting. Mrs. O'Connor was used and she knows it - "of course they're using me", she writes. To her credit, she's refreshingly honest on the point:

"I am using them, too. And so far, the benefits have far outweighed the costs. Both personally and politically, I have been enriched by my experiences in the corporate media..."

So there we have it - a story that alludes to Maryscott's particular brand of BDS as a projection of other issues such as the death of her father. Presumably Finkel took the time to read her online bio where her father is discussed along with her disability (Fibromyalgia, a chronic pain disorder that commonly affects cognitive function). It's mentioned in other posts as well. That Finkel took advantage of anyone bearing so many crosses is repugnant.

And disconnected she truly is - in the above linked post, she makes this statement:

"Anyone who places wholesale blame on any group for a particular ill in this world is delusional."

Has anyone noticed that the left is sensitive to stereotyping? And that was just a week after she responded to the news of Brian J. Doyle's arrest with:

"Are ALL these motherfuckers sexual deviants?"

Delusional, indeed. But again I digress.

So each party involved in the Post story used each other - does that mean there's no villain here? I suggest no - Finkel is a villain, but not the primary one. The real villains here are the readers and commenters of My Left Wing - who have watched this slow-motion train wreck and knowing that it was a train wreck, encouraged, prodded, and praised Maryscott - and gave her the notoriety that made her vulnerable to media hacks like Finkel.

Rightwingsparkle points out the hypocrisy of Howies recent remarks.

Go read.

I guess someone on the left has figured out the same techniques that those who peddle cheap viagra and incest porn use. I got 2 spam comments today, each identical, with a bunch of nonsensical ranting about Tom Delay and including at least a half dozen links.

Just in case they aren't spam (they were both posted to a very old entry, which is why I suspect they are), I'll let you know that I routinely delete any non-topical comments. I have filters set up to hold any comment with more than 1 link as well.

That said, please feel free to utilize the comment area for on-topic discussion. All are welcome.

The carnage in Nepal continues:

KATMANDU, Nepal - Security forces opened fire on thousands of pro-democracy protesters in southeastern Nepal on Wednesday, killing at least two and wounding several others, a local official said.

Aren't you glad to be living in the USA, Cindy Sheehan? Well?

Does a profile on Maryscott O'Connor (pictured below) of the lefty blog My Left Wing.

It's a fascinating yet disturbing view into the rage-filled, spittle-infused, foul, and profane left side of the blogosphere. While the piece appears largely sympathetic, it is nonetheless frightening:

...she picks up the album about her father, where there's a letter from him to his wife, written three days before he died, that ends, "I love you and the baby more than I ever knew a person could love."

The baby.

He never knew her name, or that she was a girl, or that his wife weighed less on the day their daughter was born than when she was conceived. "Catatonic" is how O'Connor describes what her mother became for a while, and then the mother got better, and then the daughter got worse, and then the daughter got better by becoming angry rather than silent about a new war, so angry she began wishing her president would go to hell.

"In the angry life of Maryscott O'Connor, the rage begins as soon as she opens her eyes..."

The front door opens and in comes her 6-year-old son, Terry, home from school, who starts batting around a blue balloon at the other end of the living room, batting it closer to her, closer, closer. She searches through her iTunes library until she finds one of her favorite downloads -- not music, but a speech by a character named Howard Beale in the movie "Network." She presses "play" and turns up the volume. "I want you to get mad!" Beale shouts at one point. "I want you to get mad!" she shouts along, startling Terry. "What?" he says, backing away with his balloon.

Read the whole thing.

H/T Little Green Footballs

Update: Photo added.
Update 2: Kim Priestap at WizBang: "It's quite the irony, isn't it, how they allow the man they hate with every fiber of their bodies complete control over their lives."

Update 3: Captain Ed: "If I were a liberal blogger, I would cringe with embarrassment after reading this article."

Update 4: My friend Bob thinks the Post cherry-picked the worst of the left for the story. He's got a point that there are leftist blogs that don't spew vile. Unfortunately, the most popular ones do.

Update 5: Eventually someone else will post a "separated at birth" picture pair, so I may as well be first:

Specifically, all of you on the left who have been claiming for five years that the Bush administration has been taking away your rights.

Read this and tell me again why you have it so bad...

Well, sort of - I watched it live - the AP story is here:

WASHINGTON - Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., expressed "sincere regret" Thursday for her altercation with a Capitol police officer, and offered an apology to the House.

"There should not have been any physical contact in this incident," McKinney said in brief remarks on the House floor. "I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation and I apologize."

McKinney's comments came after the case had been referred to a federal grand jury for possible prosecution.

She had previously insisted she had done nothing wrong, and accused police of "racial profiling." She is African-American and the police officer is white.

Why can't politicians give a sincere apology?

Since it went to a grand jury, it looks like the seriousness of the incident has sunk in. This isn't much of an apology - there's no acknowlegement of her responsibility, and the remark about "there should not have been any physical contact" appears more directed at the CHP than at herself.

I'm afraid that this is just an attempt to get more Democrats on her side. It won't derail the grand jury, but if she gets indicted, all of her supporters will point to this "apology" and say the prosecution is politically/racially motivated.

Without all the race-baiting, this would be a pathetic excuse for an apology. With all the race-baiting, this is simply insulting.

Update (1:43 PM 06 APR 06): Video available at Expose the Left.

Update 2: "Miss McKinney" now has a bodyguard. He's a rude one, too. The CHP won't like having private thugs on their turf.... Film at Expose The Left.

Like we didn't know already.

He shows a stunning ignorance about both history and the present, and surprise - he's a potty mouth as well. My favorite line from his rant:

"The fear of been criticized can be paralyzing."

This kind of profound clarity draws like-minded people. And indeed, there's more than the usual comments. My favorite is from "ProudProgressiveDemocrat":

"If by wanting government to be effective and the President of our country to be the samrtest person in the room means I'm a Liberal then by God I'm one."

And it's possible that he's the samrtest poster in the comments area. For some, this appears to be a cleansing event - from "msopine":

"This is a lot like a twelve step program. My name is Carole and I'm a liberal too. You know what - - I do feel better."

All together now - awwww. "corkiesmom" thinks George is there to help her defect:

"Please, Please help us! I am afraid and I'm despretly trying to look into moving to another country. I'm afraid to tell you which one it is, because I'm afraid that they will find some way to stop me. I am so afraid."

"HLM" thinks he's hit on the formula for Democrats winning elections:

"Come this November, anybody who walks into a Diebold-equipped polling station without a baseball bat on his shoulder deserves what he gets."

If you can take it, there's also the usual hate-filled rants about the administration as well. For a post about the meat of Clooney's loonyness, try The Astute Blogger, Outside the Beltway, and All Things Beautiful.

Having failed miserably to get much political milage out of the NSA "domestic" wiretapping issue, Russ Feingold joins John Conyers as poster child for what's wrong with today's Democratic Party and the level (or lack) of civility in DC:

WASHINGTON - A liberal Democrat and potential White House contender is proposing censuring President Bush for authorizing domestic eavesdropping, saying the White House misled Americans about its legality.

"The president has broken the law and, in some way, he must be held accountable," Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., told The Associated Press in an interview.

A censure resolution, which simply would scold the president, has been used just once in U.S. history — against Andrew Jackson in 1834.

The text of the resolution isn't yet available, here's a "fact" sheet and press release from Feingold's office.

Since there are no real consequences associated with censure other than bad press for the President, the intent is crystal-clear. This is yet another cheap grand-standing effort to score political points. But this continues to highlight the secondary gift the NSA program has brought us (the first was increased protection from terrorism) - it gives the Democrats another opportunity to be themselves (as opposed to what they claim to be) and they deliver in bulk.

Disrepect the conviction (and sentencing) of a killer? No problem for liberals, as long as the killer is a lefty, or doing so scores points among their base. But when it comes to Bush (and the rest of the right), well... Lets skip any sane semblance of a fair trial or even a fair hearing. Announce that he's GUILTY - GUILTY - GUILTY of this crime and that crime without the mess or risk of involving the courts. After all, they have the MSM to repeat their baseless charges ad nauseum with nary an opposing viewpoint. Repetition in the press makes for transforming Joe and Jane Ordinary into liberal voters, they figure. After all, how many Americans believe Bush lied about WMD even though it's been proven to five nines that he didn't?

But the NSA flap showed us a different side of the electorate. The media, well coached by liberal talking points, disengenuously uses labels such as "domestic spying", "domestic eavesdropping", and "domestic wiretapping" trying to dredge up images of entire offices full of machine-like political operatives scrutinizing your phone conversation with Grandma for any hint of anti-American or anti-administration sentiment in the apple pie recipe she just gave you. Democrat politicians got lots of air time mischaracterizing it as "spying on ordinary American citizens", avoiding the inconvenient fact that the program was about finding out what the bad guys overseas were up to. The majority of the public, not surprisingly, didn't buy it. In fact, it turns out that they actually want someone using every means available to protect us from the next terrorist attack, and saw through the veil of partisanship being presented them. The over-the-top rhetoric of the Democrats, in large part, swung the pendulum of opinion toward the President. After all, in the week following the NYT story, the loudest voices of the left about the supposed legality of the program were from those that knew the least about it.

So Russ now proposes the final gasp of an issue that displays the hatred of the left toward this President nearly as well as the basement play-acting impeachment hearings. That it will fail is a given, but that's not the purpose. Reasonable heads will prevail, and the Dems will use it to frame Congressional Republicans in the upcoming election as [gasp] Bush supporters.

But this will fail as well. The public supports Bush on this one, and will likely support any sane politician who voted down an attempt to label a national security matter as criminal without the benefit of a disinterested review. Indeed, most folks take a dim view of sidestepping the courts, and there's a strong likelihood that this will backfire on the Democrats. There's a grim irony in their wanting to sidestep judicial review in order to punish a President who they claim is doing the same.

In spite of the conspiritorial views of many on the left, there's a good reason that impeachment hasn't been a serious possibility. There's just no proof that a crime has been committed. If such proof were offered, Republicans would do the right thing and the public would support it. If you could convince me, I would support it.

Labeling an act as illegal prior to knowing any facts isn't enough. Grandstanding to score political points doesn't do it either. And pandering to your base even in light of evidence that you were wrong ("Bush Lied", for example) just helps us win elections.

On second thought, just keep it up. You're doing just fine. We're scared. Have a nice day.

After the pathetic rumor-mongering about drinking being the cause of Dick Cheney's hunting accident, after the MSM's seething attacks on the White House because it was scooped by a small-town paper, after all the cruel jokes at the expense of a man still in serious medical trouble, you'd think the left had run out of fresh ways to exploit the situation.

You'd be wrong. Bob Cesca regurgitating raw sewage on Huffington Post:

Sirius radio's Alex Bennett just broke a rumor that the delay in reporting the news that Cheney shot an old man in the heart was due to an effort to hide or spin Cheney's female companion.

Pamela Willeford (shown right), ambassador to Switzerland and -- yes -- Liechtenstein, was part of the hunting excursion with Cheney and Whittington. And according to Willeford's account, Cheney and the ambassador were side-by-side when the shooting of Whittington took place.

The vice president's Secret Service detail had to decide what to do with Willeford by way of perhaps covering up her relationship with Cheney, and thus the delay in reporting the news.

The rumor goes that Lynn Cheney isn't happy with Cheney's close relationship with Willeford.

Again, just a rumor.

But obviously a rumor you thought was worth repeating, right Bob? Absolutely disgusting.

Added: Cenk Uygur swims in the toilet as well, but with a twist: "It's possible that the only thing more damaging than the Vice President shooting someone might be his mistress shooting someone."

Also, for those that place credence in these vile rumors, apparently Willeford's husband was also on the ranch. Any remorse? Cenk:

"I just read RJ's piece where Tucker Carlson confronted him with the "fact" that Willeford's husband was also on the ranch. First of all that's pretty kinky, Dicky. Second of all, how do we know they didn't chopper the dude in after the quail hit the fan? Third of all, this theory was fun while it lasted"

All that hatred is twisting their minds...

On weekends I get a chance to visit lots more places on the web than during the week. One of my regular stops is Huffington Post - mostly because of the "Weekly World News" -like quality of the headlines in the news area. No matter what the linked news item says, you can count on the folks at HuffPo to put a bizarre spin on it.

Today, though, I notice the church-burning story I referenced yesterday being mentioned on their home page, and thought I'd see what the comments were like. Here's a sample:

"Since most members of the clergy are fraudulent parasites, it's quite possible that this is just some sort of insurance scam." - Posted by: MoeLarryAndJesus on February 03, 2006 at 04:45pm

"Too bad it wasn't Pat Robertson's church with him in it." - Posted by: razorboy666 on February 03, 2006 at 04:47pm

IF THERE is a place to send money to those who are performing this public service, please post it.

THESE UBIQUITOUS churches are tax-exempt freeloading social clubs for the dimwitted, as common as kudzoo, and even less attractive.

"I ADMIT harboring thoughts of destruction whenever i see one of those stereotypical "victory" southern baptist churches, with the crosses for abortuses lining the hillsides, the proselytizing billboards, and the 50 foot illuminated mega-cross just off the interstate... pass the gasoline and the torch!" - Posted by: spinoza on February 03, 2006 at 04:51pm

"Unfortunately, burning the buildings won't get rid of the religious dogma. The ones promoting it will just build another." Posted by: lidia on February 03, 2006 at 06:24pm

"These were White church's maybe it was the hand of God smiting them for preaching false doctrin" Posted by: NICK19367 on February 03, 2006 at 09:07pm

"Well, gee, hells' bells, if you have to positively, absolutely burn something..." Posted by: HGMercury on February 04, 2006 at 01:08am

"This is somehow Bush's fault. Now sure how yet, but I know it." Posted by: jonwilson on February 04, 2006 at 02:24am

" down, a few hundred thousand more to go..........." Posted by: jhastey on February 04, 2006 at 02:31am

"WITHOUT DOUBT IT MUST BE DIVINE RETRIBUTION, THESE PEOPLE RAISED GOD'S IRE, BY SUPPORTING EVIL MEN LIKE BU$H, LOOKOUT !" Posted by: dapper on February 04, 2006 at 09:42am

Offered without comment.

"The World Can't Wait" is planning to surround the White House Saturday. Here's their entire agenda:

11 a.m. rally, 2 p.m. march to White House: 30 foot statue of Bush will be toppled.

In attendance will be:

Kathleen Chalfant, Broadway and TV actress

Ann Wright, former U.S. diplomat and military officer quit in protest of war

Martin Garbus, trial lawyer and author

Doris "Granny D" Haddock, walked across the country for campaign finance reform

Michael Ratner, Center for Constitutional Rights

Boots Riley, The Coup (Hip-Hop artist)

Rev. Al Sharpton, long time activist

Thousands of People: taking to the streets and circling the White House

They're also bragging about their moonbat credentials:

World Can't Wait is quickly attracting a surprising and broad range of well-known people in public life including U.S. Congressional Representatives JOHN CONYERS, CYNTHIA MCKINNEY, MAXINE WATERS, BOBBIE RUSH, and MAJOR OWENS, along with HARRY BELAFONTE, LEWIS LAPHAM, MARK RUFFALO, SEAN PENN, SUSAN SARANDON, GLORIA STEINEM, SERJ TANKIAN, CORNEL WEST, HAROLD PINTER, and PAUL HAGGIS. Two full-page ads have appeared in the New York Times and spots are running nationally on Air America radio.

Sean Penn, Harry Belafonte, and John Conyers - no, that's neither surprising nor broad-range. And by the way, attacking a person in effigy was something we were getting used to seeing only in the middle east by seething radical types. Is the downward spiral of the angry left heading in that direction?

Of course, we get the usual spittle-flecked line about their reason for being there from the always angry and unhinged Debra Sweet:

Debra Sweet, national coordinator of World Can't Wait-Drive Out the Bush Regime, states, "Torture, war, the rule of law and separation of church state eviscerated, an extreme rightwing Supreme Court nominee goes essentially unopposed... The hour is late. This whole regime is illegitimate and criminal, and politics as usual have failed to stop it. Bush will not be indicted, impeached, or driven from office without massive, determined, unrelenting protest with the concrete demand that BUSH STEP DOWN. This is what we set out to do."

They're still arguing the 2000 election, and haven't a clue as to how justice works. First thing you have to do, folks, is prove it. Your belief that something is illegal doesn't make it so. Notice they have no "concrete" evidence to accompany their "concrete" demands. For every goal that these loonys have, there is a procedure that works. Instead of screaming at a silly statue, why not scream at your Democrat officials? There's a reason they haven't tried to impeach Bush, and it has nothing to do with their minority status.

Their reference to Alito is interesting as well. "Essentially unopposed", eh? The Dems did everything they could to smear a well-qualified candidate, the fact that they failed is less due to the lack of opposition from the left and more due to the fact that Sam Alito is the right man for the job, and proved it in the confirmation hearings.

The last paragraph from their press release is disturbing:

On the night of the State of the Union address, at exactly 9 p.m. as Bush stepped to the podium, there were World Can't Wait rallies to "drown-out Bush's lies" in over 60 U.S. cities, including Greensboro, N.C., where 7 protesters were arrested, and in Iraq where several U.S. soldiers shot rounds of artillery into the air at 9 p.m. EST to drown out Bush.

Shooting rounds of artillery into the air, with no specific target in mind, is a big no-no. I sincerely hope that someone will look into that claim. The politics of the shooter is irrelevant - artillery is not meant to be an instrument for an individual making a political statement. I would like to discount the claim as ficticious - However, if someone really did fire rounds for the sole purpose of protesting his/her own chain of command, it violated a variety of laws and regulations in addition to subjecting both civilian and military personnel and assets to a very unecessary risk.

The World Can't Wait - if you'll recall, they're the ones who organized a protest day last year and called for high school students to walk out of class - are sponsoring the big protest tomorrow at the reflecting pool in DC during the state of the union address. The headliner, fresh from a communist photo-op, is Cindy Sheehan.

It will be interesting to see how many participants they get - the anti-war crowd has hurt themselves by being loony and dishonest. But whoever does show up is expected to bring noisemakers such as pots and pans, drums, etc:

During the State of the Union people will drown out Bush's address with drums and violins, banging pots, sounding car horns lifting voices, and churches will ring their bells. People will use flashlights to shine the light on Bush's lies.

Yeah, I'm sure that'll work. No mention of which church is going to be ringing its bells, either.

This bunch has marginalized itself time and time again through their willingness to display their disconnect with reality. Bush's approval ratings, although not great, have been rebounding lately, and The World Can't Wait must have written their press release last fall:

As Bush's approval ratings drops, people will be in the streets demanding Bush step down. According to the group, the people in America now know that we were falsely led into war, the devastation in New Orleans has more to do with government failure then nature, unemployment has risen to its highest rate in over a decade, and the people are no longer willing to accept Bush as president. Debra Sweet, national coordinator of World Can't Wait said, "Bush lies, spies, breaks the law, lets thousands die, receives huge disapproval ratings and just keeps going. The only way this regime will be stopped is if we, the people, urgently mobilize in truly massive, determined, unrelenting protest with the concrete demand that Bush step down and take his program with him."

As for Cindy (on break from her "Dictators of Love" tour - will Fidel be next?), her presence alone will undoubtedly draw a collective yawn from the media, who tired of her antics once it was clear what an embarrassment she was to the left. I do hope someone gets a transcript of her speech, though. I don't know if she can top herself after threatening to run for office, but I'd like to see her try...

FRANKFORT, Ky. - With a bust in the balance, Kentucky's governor is siding with Colonel Sanders over Pamela Anderson.

Gov. Ernie Fletcher wrote the "Stacked" actress to say a bust of the KFC founder will stay in the Kentucky Capitol, despite Anderson's claim that Sanders is a symbol of cruelty to chickens.

"Colonel Sanders remains a Kentucky icon," Fletcher wrote last week. "His success story has been an inspiration to many. The industry he began has employed hundreds of thousands of workers over the years. His business and his legacy have been good for Kentucky."

Please take note that his rationale involves people. As it should be. The folks in Kentucky take Harlan Sander's legacy very seriously. But the governor kept his composure over the issue, stubbornly refusing to engage in senseless breast-beating. Indeed, he was apparently a gentleman when responding to Ms. Anderson's request:

Fletcher was courteous in his letter, thanking Anderson for her comments. "I hope you will feel free to contact me any time an issue is important to you," he wrote.

Coincidentally, we're having fried chicken tonight in the B residence.

Or rather, more viral than usual. Arianna and the gang have come up with a contest:

The Huffington Post Contagious Festival is a unique opportunity for talented designers, political activists of any persuasion, filmmakers and comics to reach millions of people with creative, viral online work. The contestants that create the best projects get Internet fame and the chance to meet with friends of Huffington Post from the worlds of entertainment and politics to discuss future projects and opportunities.

First prize (based on website traffic) is $2500 and dinner with Arianna Huffington. The second prize (determined by judges) winner gets $2500 but is spared the evening of shrill moonbattery. The judges include a pair of "criminal impersonators" (My guess - Arianna either can't afford the real thing, or maybe her favorites have all been recently executed) and the flaming moonbat John Cusack.

They also have a list of websites to provide inspiration. Included are a site featuring photos of a model sitting on a toilet and vomiting, and a fake commerial featuring a suicide bomber. All of the "inspiration" sites seem to be parodies save one - Charles Johnson's (Little Green Footballs) famous Rathergate memo comparison (which was not a parody) seems wholly out of place sandwiched between the regurgitating gal mentioned above and a spittle-infused manifesto sensitively titled "Fuck the South".

So is Arianna trying to tell us something?

Deborah Howell, Ombudsman of the Washington Post gets a valuable lesson about the left as she gets a flood of obscene and vicious attacks over a column she wrote. The money quote:

"But it is profoundly distressing if political discourse has sunk to a level where abusive name-calling and the crudest of sexual language are the norm, where facts have no place in an argument. This unbounded, unreasoning rage is not going to help this newspaper, this country or democracy."

Welcome to the family, Deborah.

H/T Lorie at Polipundit.

Harry Belafonte on tour campaigning for Democrats later this year. He would look good standing next to Howard Dean and Cindy Sheehan, don't you think?

It would be a huge boost to the Republicans.

Last night the History Channel aired a special on Abraham Lincoln. We only watched a little of it - the part I saw was as dark and negative as I've seen. We changed the channel when Gore Vidal came on and made comparisons between Bush and Lincoln, suggesting that Bush is only "pretending" that he's a wartime President. Then he followed with (and I didn't tape it so the wording may not be exact):

"The ‘War on Terror’ is like a war on dandruff. It’s a metaphor, it's nothing. The Civil War was real.”

He didn't actualy mention Bush by name, but it was clear from the context who he meant.

How utterly inappropriate to use a documentary on Lincoln to showcase your BDS. Can the left get any lower?

No, it's not what you might think. Instead, she's talking about a bust of Colonel Sanders, founder of Kentucky Fried Chicken:

FRANKFORT, Ky. - Pamela Anderson is leading a charge to remove a bust of KFC founder Colonel Harland Sanders from the state Capitol.

Mmmm. For some strange reason I feel hungry.

The actress called the Kentucky native's likeness "a monument to cruelty" to chickens in a statement issued by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the animal rights group.

You know, it must be tough for the PETA folks. Missing out on all that yummy food.

Anyway, Governor Fletcher has assured us that he won't be swayed by Pamela's boob-headed rantings:

"Colonel Sanders was one of Kentucky's most distinguished citizens, a great entrepreneur and a fine charitable man of faith, and he certainly has a place in Kentucky history. We believe he warrants appropriate recognition as such," Fletcher spokeswoman Jodi Whitaker said.

Pamela shouldn't be so negative about busts. After all, hers got her through a lifetime of zero talent.

KFC spokeswoman Laurie Schalow called the move to oust the colonel "just another misguided publicity stunt by PETA in their attempt to create a vegan society."

This from CNS is speculative but interesting:

Having ascended to the national stage as one of the most vocal critics of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman John Murtha has long downplayed the controversy and the bitterness surrounding the two Purple Hearts he was awarded for military service in Vietnam.

Murtha is a retired marine and was the first Vietnam combat veteran elected to Congress. Since 1967, there have been at least three different accounts of the injuries that purportedly earned Murtha his Purple Hearts. Those accounts also appear to conflict with the limited military records that are available, and Murtha has thus far refused to release his own military records.

A Cybercast News Service investigation also reveals that one of Murtha's former Democratic congressional colleagues and a fellow decorated Vietnam veteran, Don Bailey of Pennsylvania, alleges that Murtha admitted during an emotional conversation on the floor of the U.S. House in the early 1980s that he did not deserve his Purple Hearts.

"[Murtha] is putting himself forward as some combat veteran with serious wounds and he's using that and it's dishonest and it's wrong," Bailey told Cybercast News Service on Jan. 9. Murtha served in the Marines on active duty and in the reserves from 1952 until his retirement as a colonel in 1990. He volunteered for service in Vietnam and was a First Marine Regiment intelligence officer in 1966 and 1967.

You'd think after the beating he's taken over the cut and run statements, Murtha would want to keep this issue from causing even more damage.

Of course, his medals could very well be legit. Rep Murtha, why not end the speculation by releasing your complete military record? All it takes is one simple form - after you get done, you can give lessons to John Kerry...

Update (12:15 PM EST): Ya gotta admit the folks at CNS know how to stir the pot - now they have the Washington Post on their trail - duck, guys! The WaPo quotes Nancy Pelosi, who predictably and breathlessly says:

"The Swift Boat-like attacks on an American hero, Congressman Jack Murtha, are despicable and have no place in politics."

Since we all know the Swift Boat crowd was never effectively disputed, Nancy must be telling us the CNS story is true. Although her contention that truth is despicable and has no place in politics is a little over the top...

Update 2 (1:19 PM EST): Ed Morrissey throws down on CNS' story:

If someone wants to attack John Murtha's policy statements, there's ample room for criticism there. If people have issues with his defeatism, then they should specifically call Murtha out for that. Let's not get into denigrating a former Marine's commendations when he has not abused them himself for political purposes, especially when he has such a long record of honorable military service.

As I said in the comments - Murtha has made his own bed politically by his statements made in this century. There's no need to go back fifty years for irrelevant stuff.

Also, here's Murtha's response, from of all places, the Huffington Post (thanks, Cap'n Ed):

"Questions about my record are clearly an attempt to distract attention from the real issue, which is that our brave men and women in uniform are dying and being injured every day in the middle of a civil war that can be resolved only by the Iraqis themselves."

"I volunteered for a year's duty in Vietnam. I was out in the field almost every single day. We took heavy casualties in my regiment the year that I was there. In my fitness reports, I was rated No. 1. My record is clear."

Update 3 (2:00 PM EST): Greyhawk weighs in as well:

Let me be clear: attacks on Murtha's Vietnam record are pointless. Murtha's latest statements against the success of US troops in Iraq speak for themselves; his current behavior renders his past insignificant. Democrats, grown tired of waiting for an attack on Murtha's war record from the Right, have created their own. He's painted as a victim now - of "right wing chickenhawk" contempt for real war heroes. But those serious about standing up to the current John Murtha would be well advised to let his fellow Democrats and the mainstream media keep this war "unilateral".

That's the name of the "water dog" in Sen. Kennedy's new book for children:

NEW YORK - Meet the latest children's author, Sen. Ted Kennedy, and his Portuguese Water Dog, Splash, his co-protagonist in "My Senator and Me: A Dogs-Eye View of Washington, D.C."

Scholastic Inc. will release the book in May.

"I am very excited about the opportunity to create a book for young readers and their families that will deepen their understanding of how our American government works," Kennedy said in a statement Monday issued by Scholastic.

So Teddy is going to show kids how government works using a water dog named Splash? This could only be better if he dedicates the book to Mary Jo Kopechne.

Ted Kennedy's book is 56 pages and includes illustrations by David Small, winner of the 2001 Caldecott Medal for his pictures in Judith St. George's "So You Want to Be President?"

Here's the cover:

If the name isn't familiar, the story should be - Paul is the former Canadian Defence Minister who announced his belief in UFOs last September, saying "I'm so concerned about what the consequences might be of starting an intergalactic war, that I just think I had to say something."

In a bold move to help flagging sales at Alcoa (makers of Reynolds Wrap), Paul is coming to the USA to deliver the keynote speech at a forthcoming conference in Hawaii on "Extraterrestrial Civilizations & World Peace". Here's the press release:

KEALAKEKUA, Hawaii, Jan. 9 /U.S. Newswire/ -- the Hon. Paul Hellyer, former Canadian Minister for National Defense, recently declared that evidence confirming the reality of UFOs and visiting extraterrestrial civilizations is subject to "what has probably been the greatest and most successful cover up in the history of the world." He confirmed that senior political officials even at the rank of Minister of Defense, a position he himself occupied, are out of the loop when it comes to information concerning UFOs and extraterrestrial civilizations visiting the Earth. Hellyer will be speaking at a forthcoming conference in Hawaii on "Extraterrestrial Civilizations & World Peace." In this, the first scheduled public presentation of his UFO related views on U.S. soil, the Hon. Paul Hellyer will deliver a key note address on many of the key policy issues over the UFO "cover up," and efforts to covertly target visiting extraterrestrial civilizations using space weapons.

The conference is scheduled for June 9-11. I kinda feel sorry for the folks in Roswell, this is sure to cut into their tourism revenue for June.

Hellyer has raised a profound policy question concerning the designation by the U.S. military of visiting extraterrestrials as an "enemy." According to Hellyer, this had led to the development of "laser and particle guns to the point that they can be used against the visitors from space." It is this targeting of visiting extraterrestrials that deeply concerns Hellyer, and he asks "is it wise to spend so much time and money to build weapon systems to rid the skies of alien visitors?" Hellyer poignantly raises the key policy question: "Are they really enemies or merely legitimate explorers from afar?" Hellyer's question has profound importance in understanding the relationship between visiting extraterrestrial civilizations and world peace.

Of course, I don't buy into any of this. If the military really regarded aliens as a threat, John Murtha would be advocating the redeployment of all our space weapons to a standoff location - right?

Paul Hellyer is the first senior politician to unambiguously declare the existence of a government cover up of evidence concerning visiting extraterrestrial civilizations. He is blazing a trail that many other senior politicians are destined to take.

Yeah, I see a groundswell of politicians taking this route. By the way, check out the web page for the conference here. Note the qualifications of the speakers - there are the ones you might expect, such as "extraterrestrial contactee". But I want to know where the latest dig was for the "Exoarcheology Researcher". And my guidance councellor was remiss in not mentioning the field of Exopolitics to me in high school. Don't forget to check the biographies as well. They refer you to Wikipedia for information on Hellyer. Classy. My favorite, though, is in the bio for Joan Ocean:

She was the convenor of the first Dolpin-Extraterrestrial Civilizations conference in Kona, Hawaii (2005), and is pioneer in human-dolphin-extraterrestrial communications.

I bet those late night bull sessions are fascinating.

Update: Just for fun, here's Joan's website about bigfoot. Apparently, they can read, write, and de-materialize whenever sane folks with cameras are nearby.

Update 2: I wasn't going to mention it, but I was disappointed the registration form was missing the checkboxes for "Alien Contact" and "Whales/Dolphins told me" under the question "How Did You Learn of the Extraterrestrial Civilizations & World Peace Conference?"

From Howard Dean on today's CNN’s Late Edition via press release:

“There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money and we’ve looked through all of the F.E.C. reports to make sure that’s true…I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people, and now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.”

Why then, Howie, are they all scrambling to give all the tainted money away?

Greenpeace has been spending much of its time lately chasing the Japanese whaling ship Nisshin Maru, engaging in petty vandalism and attempts to adversely impact safety at sea for the Japanese ship. Today, they rammed the ship, apparently taking advantage of the much larger and less manuverable ship's inability to avoid the collision:

Glenn Inwood, a spokesman for the Japanese agency, the Institute for Cetacean Research, said the Arctic Sunrise had rammed the Nisshin Maru.

"They hit the bow of our vessel, put a hole in the Nisshin Maru and caused considerable damage," Mr Inwood said. "It's lucky no-one was killed."

It is the third time the Japanese have clashed with Greenpeace ships.

In 1999 the same two boats collided and in December a chaser nudged the larger Greenpeace ship Esperanza away from the stern of Nisshin Maru.

Of course, Greenpeace sees it differently:

The incident happened in calm Antarctic waters north of Prydz Bay as Mr Rattenbury was mid-interview with the Herald.

He described how the Nisshin Maru came around a supply ship it had loaded with whale meat, entering into a collision course towards Arctic Sunrise.

From about 300 metres, Nisshin Maru came at the port side of Arctic Sunrise, which under the rules of the sea had clear right of way. Its captain, Arne Sorensen, was sounding the ship's horn repeatedly. The factory ship's horn blared in reply.

Over the next minute, Captain Sorensen swung the helm away, and Mr Rattenbury seemed hopeful that the two ships would shift to a parallel course, but the black bow of the Nisshin Maru loomed ever closer.

"They're coming back," Mr Rattenbury said. "We're going to hit. We're going … Oh s---. This is going to hurt. Brace. The captain is calling for us to brace … "

A distinct metallic shudder rang through the telephone line.

"We're hit, right in the bow. The foremast appears to be bent … We're going to hit again."

The collision left Arctic Sunrise with a dented bow and nearly collapsed foremast, but the hull was not penetrated.

Fortunately there's a video posted by Greenpeace on their website. Here's the money quote from the Captain of the Artic Sunrise:

"The ship that has the other one on the starboard side has to give way. The Artic Sunrise was on the starboard side of the Nisshin Maru, therefore, I maintained my course and speed."

Not being an expert on maritime rules, I looked up what the rules are. This stuck out at me:

(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.

The Nisshin Maru is much larger and heavier than the Artic Sunrise (8000 tons vs. 949), and less able to manuver. The captain of the Artic Sunrise, on the other hand, had a responsibility to take action to avoid collision even if he had to ignore the rules to do so. And by his own admission, he chose to collide with the Japanese ship instead.

Greenpeace, as usual, is skating on razor thin ice here. They've been spending the last few weeks placing their ships in the way of the Japanese ships in order to impede their movements. They have vandalized the Japanese ships with paint. And all of this risky manuvering around other ships was done out in open water where there was never a good reason to operate in such close proximity.

Now I'm no fan of whaling, but environmental terrorism isn't the answer. No whales are worth risking human lives, and Greenpeace should know better. Next time they pull a stunt like this someone may get hurt or worse.

It's a new year, but the moonbats remain the same. The Senorita of Shameless Exploitation yesterday shows us once again the immeasurable distance between her thought processes and reality:

"Then we have the unfortunate innocents of Iraq. I have heard reports of up to as many as 200 of them killed yesterday. So if 200 were reported, one has to really wonder what the true count was. Bill O'Reilly and George Bush define a terrorist as someone who "kills innocent men, women and children." Am I the only one who sees the irony and stunning hypocrisy in this statement?" Who do Bill and George think are being killed in Iraq? Well-trained and an organized Army? Terrorists? We all know that is false. This is who is being killed in Iraq: living breathing human beings, identical to Americans, or any other human beings on earth, who are just trying to go about their lives trying to survive in a war torn country that was no threat to America or our way of life."

Cindy suggests that the "200" deaths are attributable to Bush, therefore the artificially low number reported. Here's who really killed 200 people two days ago:

KERBALA/RAMADI, Iraq (Reuters) - Two suicide bombers killed 120 people and wounded more than 200 in attacks near a Shi'ite holy shrine and a police recruiting center on Thursday, the bloodiest day in Iraq for four months.

Seven U.S. soldiers were killed in two roadside bomb attacks, three bombs exploded in Baghdad and insurgents sabotaged an oil pipeline near the northern city of Kirkuk, causing a huge fire.

Coming a day after 58 people died in a wave of bombings and shootings, the latest bloodshed ratcheted up tension between Iraq's minority Sunni Arabs and majority Shi'ite Muslims.

Am I the only one who sees the irony and stunning hypocrisy in Cindy's refusal to see that her beloved "freedom fighters" are the terrorists responsible for the deaths?

In a rare moment of clarity, Cindy admits the ineffectiveness of her (along with the rest of the hate America crowd) tactics of marches and vigils:

"Apparently, candlelight vigils do very little to stop, or even slow down a little, the carnage committed by the war criminals in DC."

I wonder if this revelation affects her plans for a moonbat convergience in Crawford this Easter. So what to do to correct it? More of the same!

"Hold your vigils and marches in relevant places: such as warmongering local Congressional offices."

Yeah, Cindy, that should do it. (snicker)

Nancy issued this statement today:

"When I learned that the National Security Agency had been authorized to conduct the activities that President Bush referred to in his December 17 radio address, I expressed my strong concerns in a classified letter to the Administration and later verbally.

"Today, in an effort to shed light on my concerns, I requested that the director of National Intelligence quickly declassify my letter and the Administration's response to it and make them both available to the public.

"The president must have the best possible intelligence to protect the American people. That intelligence, however, must be produced in a manner consistent with our Constitution and our laws, and in a manner that reflects our values as a nation to protect the American people and our freedoms."

Of course, terrorists need good intel, too. And if Nancy and Howie have their way, they'll get it.

Careful how closely you follow Howard, Nancy. If he stops suddenly...

after this illuminating op/ed by Joel Mowbray in the Washington Times. He's apparently received one of the union group's communications detailing plans for the Ft. Lauderdale protest:

Inside a South Florida Wal-Mart last Thursday, union-sponsored protesters handed out empty, gift-wrapped boxes to children and made them cry, according to multiple witnesses -- and it appears that the arrests of two of the protesters may have been part of a grand strategy designed by Big Labor-backed WakeUpWalMart.com.

Yet despite internal WakeUpWalMart.com communication -- obtained exclusively by this columnist -- indicating that the union-funded front instructed its protesters to test police patience, the organization is now playing the race card since the two protesters arrested (out of 15 total) are both black.

You'll recall that I mentioned the race accusations in a previous post. But Mr. Mowbray add a new element - instructions from above to push the envelope of police patience, in front of the cameras, for the purpose of provoking an incident:

In an internal WakeUpWalMart.com PowerPoint presentation that lays out a 10-part timeline for attacking the retailer from late October through the end of the year, the ninth step -- which is supposed to take place between Dec. 14 and Dec. 19 -- calls for activists to place "Santa Claus in front of WMT stores with children asking for health care and signs." Beneath that, though, it reads: "they can't arrest Santa -- and if they do, make sure the press is there."

Mr. Mowbray poses the theory that the protesters mistakenly went too far, and this seems to be a good read of the situation. But it appears that the rest was planned. Getting arrested is a favorite and time-honored protest ploy.

Here's the way it appears to have happened:

The four protesters entered the store and started distributing their union pamphlets and their vocal views to the employees and the customers (in other words, disrupting business), all planned and executed knowing that it was illegal to do so, in hopes of getting the police called out. This also included passing out the "presents", or rather, empty boxes, to employees (planned) and the customers (likely unplanned, probably straying from the script due to the excitement of the moment). When the police arrived they would incite the police into an embarrasing photo-op in true protest tradition.

Their plan went south when the manager refused to take the bait, instead hustling them out of the store with only his staff to assist instead of the headline generating police that they craved.

Perhaps they felt the push to the manager, in their desperation to salvage something from the day, was the only way to get the police called to the store. Regardless, it backfired. The cops interviewed a few bystanders and simply arrested the two protesters - not because they were black, but because they were the ones who did the pushing. And all the posturing by wakeupwalmart's Paul Blank is an obligatory attempt at butt-covering, and making lemonade from an event that obviously went sour.

After getting caught in this lie, wakeupwalmart should issue an apology to the store employees, the public, and the police for the false assertions in their statements.

One would hope that the press would view further statements from the union with a jaundiced eye in the future.

I knew Howie couldn't stay sidelined for long - and the NSA flap was just too tempting for him to ignore:

I got a spamogram from the DNC today (click to view). In it, Dean is asking for signatures to a FOIA request for - oh, I think I'll let him say it:

"According to reports, political appointees in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel wrote still-classified legal opinions laying out the supposed justification for this program.

"I have asked our General Counsel to draft a Freedom of Information Act request for the relevant legal opinions and memos written by that office. Since the program's existence is no longer a secret, these memos should be released..."

So parts of a secret program is illegally leaked to the press, and Dean thinks that more of it should be made available to our enemies?

What a maroon....

Of course I've been following the story - Michelle Malkin, as usual, has been an invaluable addition to the news feeds and television reporting. I've stayed out of posting on it, with the exception of this about the reason for the sudden urgency at the New York Times.

It's not that I'm disinterested. Far from it. But I'm not a lawyer, or a constitutional scholar. I'm just a humble teacher. And the conversation very quickly centered on the legal aspects of the issue, and little else. So I've held back.

Now, the talking heads are starting to repeat themselves, and the media is turning to the more emotional aspects of the story. Case in point, Barbara Boxer's inquiry of legal scholars about whether the President has committed an impeachable offense:

"On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today."

"...Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible."

I'm not going to fisk this, even though she deserves it. Others will no doubt do so. No, I only quoted Sen. Boxer to illustrate the tone that I expect to spead over the next few weeks as the Dems take up their limp, non-violent swords over this, the latest battle cry from the BDS afflicted. Maybe I'll dismantle it later. Right now, I'm writing this to express my view.

It's mentioned frequently by politicians and pundits that we live in a nation of laws. Although it's stupid of them to repeat this so much (most other nations have laws too), it's also true. Laws represent boundaries - much the same as the fence that many of you had to restrict your movements as a toddler, or the edge of your yard (along with your Mother's voice) if you had no fence.

It appears from the discussions on the talking head circuit that there are indeed some gray areas here. If the President exploits those gray areas to further the mission of national security, I'm for it.

As the President of the United States, I expect George Bush to respect and follow our laws. But as the man responsible for protecting our country (which includes my family), I expect him to be bold enough to test the absolute limits of those laws. Bush gets no award for being a shrinking violet in my view. I expect him to walk all the way to the edge of the yard, not slow down or stop when 5 or 10 feet away. If there are gray areas, I expect him to occasionally stick his toes over that gray area - if it saves American lives, it's worth the risk.

Actually, I don't expect it. I demand it. There's just too much at stake.

As for the gray areas - If the laws weren't sufficiently clear, the President doesn't deserve impeachment for testing them. Rather than arbitrarily draw a fresh line where politicians and scholars alike couldn't agree on before, then apply it to the President after the fact, Congress needs to take a look at the ambiguity of it's own product. And take corrective action.

And as for those who have known about this for months, took no action, and now express shock over the President's "illegal" actions (like Reid, Rockefeller, Pelosi, etc.)- I'm sure there's a legal term for someone who witnesses a "crime" and does nothing (which would have continued had their inaction not been exposed). If they want to press the issue, I hope someone makes room for them in the hearing schedule. At the low altitude table.

Via AP/Yahoo:

"This Congress has done very little oversight," Reid, D-Nev., said on "Fox News Sunday." "There should be an investigation and hearings."

Reid acknowledged that he was briefed by the administration about the surveillance program "a couple of months ago."

Of course, when he learned about this a couple of months ago, he asked for hearings then. Didn't he?

To go from this:

To this:

Shows that Cindy's acting skills are improving. I bet she's taken lessons. Maybe she'll get her own TV show next year.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

A reader emailed me asking how I knew the Schmidt photograph was photoshopped to add the black warts. Well, if you don't believe me, believe the Ohio DNC. Here's the billboard (click for larger view):

And here's the full-page ad using the very same photograph (click for larger view):

Here's a closeup of the black spots:

Now, does anyone think they photoshopped the full-page version to improve Jean's appearance? I didn't think so.

I had already mentioned in a previous post how it's probable that the original picture wasn't black and white - even if it was, it was crudely adjusted to make the photo unreal and harsh. And thanks to someone scewing up at the Ohio DNC (using a pre-black spot picture for the full-page ad), we now have proof that the original billboard had the black spots puposefully added.

You know, when your ideas have merit, you don't have to go to all this trouble. Which is why I expect the DNC to continue the use of this tactic.

And again, I'm not defending what Rep. Schmidt said and apologized for. But she doesn't deserve this. Photoshopping a person's image to elicit a negative reaction is dishonest and infantile.

Previous posts:
Dems continue attacks on Schmidt
Lamar offered compromise, DNC refused
An interesting twist
All that begging - Wasted!
Dean: "Brother, can you spare a dime?"

The Ohio DNC couldn't get their disgusting billboard past Lamar. But they're continuing with rolling billboards and full page ads:

On Thursday, Dec. 15, Ohio State Representative and Iraq War veteran John Boccieri, Cincinnati-area veterans, and Ohio Democrats will participate in a news conference unveiling new Democratic National Committee (DNC) advertisements aimed at holding Republican Congresswoman Jean Schmidt accountable for her attacks on veterans.

Amazing how they'll exploit servicemen to achieve their goals, when all they normally show them is contempt:

Boccieri, a major in the Air Force Reserve and a C-130 pilot who served four tours of duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, will join Ohio Democratic Party Communications Director Brian Rothenberg, and local veterans in unveiling a new mobile billboard and ads in local newspapers and popular internet sites.

Disgusting and pathetic. Schmidt didn't attack veterans - she attacked the coward Murtha. And she apologized for it. But that doesn't stop Ohio DNC from showing a wraith-like photoshopped image of her, complete with black warts:

I'll try to get the full page ads as soon as they're available.

The Democrats feel they have found the proper "framing" of their message, hoping it will get them back into power:

Democrats Test Themes for `06 and `08

LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. - To hear Democrats tell it, an anxious and isolated public craves a sense of national community and would galvanize behind a leader who asks people to sacrifice for the greater good. John Edwards says he's that leader.

Wait a minute, so does Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack. Ditto for Virginia Gov. Mark Warner.

Edwards, Vilsack and Warner, all likely presidential candidates in 2008, are toying with the same lofty community-and-purpose message. And that says as much about the sour mood of the country as it does about the state of the Democratic Party.

Wonder if anyone will notice that this is the same Democratic Party that has obstructed and undermined every single step the current administration has taken? And done so not out of committment to "community-and-purpose", but instead for cheap partisan politics? Will anyone take stock of what the Democrats have sacrificed for "the greater good" in the last five years?

How rich. If this is the best they can come up with, I say bring it on.

In London, Euromoonbats continue to fawn over Cindy Sheehan. Now they're turning her into the Princess of Pathetic Plays:

LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. peace activist Cindy Sheehan, who won wide attention with a vigil outside President George W. Bush's ranch in the name of her soldier son killed in Iraq, is the subject of a new play by Nobel laureate Dario Fo.

"Peace Mom" received its world premiere in London on Saturday night, starring British actress Frances de la Tour, with both Sheehan and Italian dramatist Fo in the audience.

The one-woman show is based on extracts from Sheehan's letters to Bush and other writings. De la Tour delivered the monologues beneath large pictures of Sheehan's son Casey and a tank in the Iraqi desert in front of a plume of fire.

"Frances did such an amazing job of conveying my feelings of anger and betrayal," a tearful Sheehan said after the play.

I'm assuming this was classified as a comedy. If the name Frances de la Tour (pictured to the right) sounds familiar, it is. She plays the giant headmistress Madame Maxime in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Additionally, the play is going on tour:

The play was rushed into production to conclude a day-long conference of activists opposed to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, with de la Tour reading some passages from a script.

Fo, the leftist playwright who won the 1997 Nobel Prize for Literature, said his wife and artistic partner Franca Rame would star in a longer final version of the play in Italy.

I guess he has a knack for fiction. By the way, one of Fo's websites is creepy.. And here's another website of his where apparently, he's running for mayor of Milano. And if you're curious what kind of it takes to win a Nobel prize for literature, here's a sample of his "work" from 2004:

Dario Fo’s new play has aroused not only ire but a lawsuit. The Nobel Prize winner’s latest, The Two-Headed Anomaly, pokes fun at Italian premiere Silvio Berlusconi, with Fo himself playing the prime minister and Fo’s wife, Franca Rame, playing Veronica Lario (Berlusconi’s wife).

In the play, Berlusconi is visited by Russian leader Vladimir Putin, who gets shot by Chechen rebels, and part of Putin’s brain is put into the Italian’s head. The result is a vodka-drinking, confused drunk worried about men trapped in a submarine.

What a good choice to write a play about a demented moonbat. And to top it off, here's an excerpt from his bio in Columbia Encyclopedia:

A long-time member of the Communist party (he was denied entry into the United States in the early 1980s), Fo has often been critical of the policies of the Roman Catholic church, which has termed some of his plays blasphemous. Forceful, wittily anarchic, and often disturbing, his work was impeded by Italian censorship before 1962. In 1968, Fo and his wife, actress Franca Rame, with whom he has frequently collaborated in writing and acting, began presenting plays on contemporary issues. The most famous of these is Accidental Death of an Anarchist (1970), a farce about the alleged suicide of an anarchist in police custody. Among his more than 70 other plays are Mistero Buffo (1969), Can't Pay, Won't Pay (1974), The Pope and the Witch (1989), and The Devil with Boobs (1997). Fo was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1997.

Say it isn't so! Cindy being canonized by a communist? I wonder where we've seen that before...

Shawn A. Cox, that is.

If you'll recall, He's the one who jumped the White House fence last Monday. Turns out he was not after President Bush:

Chelsea Clinton, not any current occupants of the White House, was the preoccupation of an Arkansas man arrested after he jumped over a fence onto the grounds of the executive mansion at Washington, according to a preliminary psychological assessment.

A court-ordered report from the District of Columbia Department of Mental Health said Shawn Cox, 29, of Mammoth Spring believed that Chelsea Clinton still lived at the White House, and that he was destined to marry her.

Clinton is the daughter of former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and lived at the White House during her father's two terms as president, 1993-2001.

Cox was arrested Sunday at the White House by the Secret Service, which provides protection for presidents and their families, after scaling the fence separating the mansion's north lawn from public sidewalks. A judge sent him to St. Elizabeth's Hospital, which provides mental-health services to D.C. residents, for a month of evaluation before a scheduled Jan. 6 court appearance.

Robert Benedetti, a licensed clinical psychologist, said in a report filed with the court that Cox appeared "grossly psychotic and manic." The report said Cox told Benedetti that he had been hospitalized in Arkansas several years ago.

Cox told Benedetti his head was a "cell phone implanted by Jesus," the report said.

"He insisted that Chelsea Clinton was in the White House as well as President Bush and described how former President Bill Clinton had told him that (Cox) was 'going to marry my daughter' when he had met him in Arkansas," Benedetti wrote.

Cox is a possible danger to himself and others, the report said, and should be closely monitored.

I'm guessing that he probably won't see the outside of a padded room for quite some time.

Cindy Sheehan on her soapbox son, Casey, from an interview in the Guardian:

"His recruiter told him that even if there was a war, he would never see combat because he had scored so high in the entrance exam - he'd only be in a support role," says Cindy.

Obviously she feels that all those in combat roles are dimwits. I guess she didn't see this.

Also, she needs a massage:

The non-stop campaigning has taken its toll, she says, and Cindy feels in need of a good massage: "I really feel I'm carrying the whole world on my shoulders," she says.

Any combat soldiers want to help her out? I didn't think so.

Hat tip Little Green Footballs

Just keeps raging on. Now they're having candlelight vigils:

"The candlelight vigil is part of the "Light A Candle for Change" campaign launched by WakeUpWalMart.com, America's leading campaign to change Wal-Mart."

Sheesh.

So far, I've only seen press releases for 8 stores to get this treatment. Maybe if they had done this during warmer weather?

Note to the hate Wal-Mart crowd: No sense wasting you're whole evening, folks. As long as you're there, why not drop a few bucks into the kettle? It would be a good move - think of how good it would feel to help someone who wants and needs your help, rather than pretend to help folks who don't want or need it in order to make your union bigger and more powerful.

Via U.S. Newswire:

On December 8, 2005, members of the Japanese Parliament along with the Japanese based League of Citizen Organizations Opposed to the Deployment of a Nuclear-powered Aircraft Carrier at Yokosuka, will hold a Press Conference at the National Press Club, voicing joint opposition against the recent proposal to base nuclear-powered submarines at Yokosuka Port in Japan just 35 miles from Tokyo’s 30 million people. Peace Action will be hosting the Japanese mission while they are in Washington.

"As the only country to face the devastation of American nuclear weapons, Japan understands all too well the nuclear danger. The proposal to make Japan the only country in the world where the Pentagon home-ports a nuclear carrier outside the U.S. shows incredible insensitivity and callousness by the Pentagon towards the Japanese. We should not force a nuclear powered warship on a people that do not wish to host it. A home port should be welcoming, not hostile," said Kevin Martin, Executive Director of Peace Action.

Here's what they're all up in arms about, from a DOD press release dated 02 Dec 05:

The U.S. Navy announced today that the USS George Washington will replace the USS Kitty Hawk as the forward deployed aircraft carrier in the western Pacific and will arrive in Yokosuka, Japan, in 2008.

This rotation is part of the Navy’s long-range effort to routinely replace older ships assigned to the Navy’s forward deployed naval forces with newer or more capable platforms.

Note to Peace Action - a nuclear power plant isn't the same as a nuclear weapon. Also - Japan has nuclear power plants. It's nothing they haven't seen before, with the possible exception of Peace Action's rabid anti-Americanism.

By Peace Action's reasoning, Japan should be boycotting American made Xray machines since a) they're used on aircraft carriers and b) they're NUCLEAR! Oh horrors!

And I strongly suspect that they didn't wait 5 days to announce this protest because they're slow typists. Just in case you've forgotten, today is the 64th anniversary of Pearl Harbor. What motivated them to cynically pick today for their announcement is anybody's guess. But I can't accept that it was a coincidence.

Thanks for raining a little anti-Americanism down on our veterans, Peace Action. What an absolutely crass way to to soil a day of rememberance.

For a little more, here's a good article from Stars & Stripes.

From a press release by the Florida Democratic Party:

"With the President's latest PR campaign clearly failing, Republicans like Jeff Miller are now cherry-picking Governor Dean's words just like they cherry-picked the pre-war intelligence."

Hmm. Let's see what Jeff Miller said, shall we?

“Yesterday, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee said our troops can’t win in Iraq. Howard Dean effectively signaled to insurgents and terrorists everywhere that his party was ready to wave the white flag in the War on Terror.

For the sake of political gains, Dean’s Party has chosen to trivialize the sacrifices our men and women in uniform have made in Iraq. His Party has gone from attacking the liberation of Iraq, to attacking the Bush Administration, to attacking the Armed Services of this country and saying they cannot win.

Howard Dean’s comments were a direct attack on the morale of our military and border on treasonous.

Regardless of your opinions on Iraq, it is wrong to attack the capabilities of our military for the purposes of political gain. I call on Mr. Dean to resign as chairman of the Democratic National Committee.”

Just as a reminder, this is what Rep. Miller supposedly "cherry-picked":

"Iraq is a catastrophe for America and Americans will leave, it will only be a matter of time.

"I say to Bush: You entered Iraq with lies, you will lose Iraq and lie about it and you will leave with the pretext that you have completed your mission ... America only has to decide on the number of (troops) it wishes to lose before withdrawing."

Oops - I'm sorry. That was Al Zawahri. Maybe it was:

"...Iraq can not be won militarily."

Oops - Sorry again. That was Mothra. Here it is:

"We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha"

Sorry again - that was Nancy Pelosi. Lets try again:

the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

Maybe the Florida Dems are right - Rep. Miller did cherry-pick. But Miller wasn't incorrect, just incomplete. It was wrong for him to paint Dean's remarks as out of step with the rest of the party - increasingly, it's becoming the unified party message. A message of defeatism, surrender, and hopelessness.

Via Yahoo/Al-Reuters, Al Qaeda's number two guy is insisting that Osama Bin Ladin is still in charge:

"I bring a message of joy to all Muslims and mujahideen that al Qaeda is spreading, expanding and strengthening. Its prince Sheikh Osama bin Laden is still leading its jihad (holy war)," he said in a video interview aired on an Islamist Web site.

It's getting increasingly difficult to determine who is writing the talking points, and who is simply repeating them, as Al Zawahri appears to be channeling Howard Dean:

Zawahri said the United States had suffered a defeat in Iraq and it was only a matter of time before it pulled out its troops.

"Iraq is a catastrophe for America and Americans will leave, it will only be a matter of time.

"I say to Bush: You entered Iraq with lies, you will lose Iraq and lie about it and you will leave with the pretext that you have completed your mission ... America only has to decide on the number of (troops) it wishes to lose before withdrawing."

I hope Howard is proud of himself.

Updated: Klause corrects me - Al Zawahri's statement does indeed pre-date Howard's. Thanks, Klause - good catch!

The point is still valid, though. And it's been pointed out by others, many times, the uncanny similarity between the talking points of the left and the rhetoric of the terrorists. Howard really needs to pull his head out and ask himself if he really wants to throw in with a bunch of murderous thugs before he opens his mouth.

No matter how you support the terrorists, it's still support.

Whether you support them directly by undermining our nation's mission in Iraq.

Or indirectly by supporting others who give aid and comfort to our enemies.

It's still support. And there's a special phrase just for the kind of anti-American sub-human Howard has proven himself to be. But I promised not to use it here.

H/T Michelle Malkin, who has a terrific roundup of opinion on this.

Update: Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert weighs in:

"We should all be grateful that Governor Dean is not General Dean. Rather than standing by our troops who are fighting the War on Terror, Howard Dean has made it clear the Democratic Party sides with those who wish to surrender.

"This type of rhetoric for political gain is irresponsible. But even worse, it sends the wrong message to our troops who are fighting terrorism on the front lines and to the millions of Iraqis who are days away from another landmark accomplishment in their march towards freedom. We must take the fight to the terrorists in Iraq, rather than fight them here. I urge Governor Dean and the Democratic party to put away their negative and harmful political rhetoric."

Well said, Mr Speaker.

Update 2: RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman being interviewed on the same radio station that Howard Dean used as a urinal yesterday (emphasis mine):

"It's fairly extraordinary. I can't remember any time in history where the leader of a national party, one of our 2 national parties, predicted that America would lose a war we were engaged in. I think it sends the wrong message to our troops, the wrong message to the enemy, the wrong message to the Iraqi people just 10 days before the election."

"...You think about it, this isn't anything new. Just this past weekend on Sunday, John Kerry talked about American troops engaged in terroristic and other activity, terrorizing kids and children. He talked about we've already seen Nancy Pelosi embrace a retreat and defeat strategy...you have the Democratic nominee in '04, Democratic national chairman, lead Democrat in the House, have all now come out embrace a retreat and defeat strategy while our country is at war."

Host: "Well I actually asked him about that. I mean, I think that Murtha is the one that started it. Nancy Pelosi is now agreeing with it, that we should have these troops, and they're using the word redeployed within 6 months. Howard Dean won't go there. He says he wants it to happen within 2 years. So, if anything, the Democrats seem to be undecided about, you know, about agreeing on a time frame here. And do you think that it's wrong from its get-go to have any sort of a time frame at all or should there be?"

Ken Mehlman: "...here's why a time frame is a mistake.... If you tell the enemy when you're going to stop fighting, then the enemy knows when it needs to hold out (UI). If you want the Iraqi people to risk their lives, run for office (UI) vote in this election (UI) 10 days and do the things they're doing, if they know that after a given period, they're going to be abandoned to Zarqawi, they're much less likely to do it. You want the enemy to understand that there is no alternative but to air their grievances at the political process, then obviously, again, giving them a time frame is a mistake. Imagine if we had said to Hitler in 1942 that in 2 years we're going to pull out of Europe. Hitler would not have been, would not have ended his war. Hitler would not have surrendered. Germany would not have surrendered."

"It is always a mistake when you're fighting an implacable foe tell them the point at which you're going to stop fighting."

---

Ken Mehlman: "But think about it. Why would (UI) national party say America can't win a war while its troops are engaged in that war?"...

---

Host: "Well I think what's interesting also to add here, Ken, is that John Kerry also came out after the President's speech the other day and what he said was we don't want to redeploy; we don't want to get the troops; we just want to have a time frame for victory. So, again, in the Democratic party itself, there are varying answers. I want to throw this at you because Howard Dean brought this up yesterday, that 80 percent of the Iraqis want us out. And I asked him what is the source of that? Who exactly did the survey? Who did the poll and who exactly did they ask? And he didn't have an answer. Have you seen this poll that shows that 80 percent of the Iraqis want us out?"

Ken Mehlman: "No, not at all. I've seen polling that shows something very different, in fact, and that is that Iraqis increasingly understand and believe that they need (UI) their country is heading in the right, not the wrong, direction. They're optimistic about the future in a way they haven't been. ... Fundamentally it comes down to this. Do you believe this (UI) in the war on terror is victory versus defeat has a huge consequence for American security? Answer is unquestionably yes."

Excerpts from Nancy Pelosi's press release on the President's speech today:

"As he spoke before a group of working Americans, the President touted his tax cuts for the wealthy few..."

"Democrats stand united to build an America that works for everyone, not just the wealthy few."

Nearly every time the economy comes up, Nancy and her pals spout the same tired lines about "tax cuts for the wealthy. It's dishonest. I'll say it again. It's dishonest.

Nancy, lets talk about principles you and the Democrats claim to understand - fairness and equality. I'm going to put it graphically as well so that anyone can understand. It's not about the dollar amounts of the tax cut - it's the percentage of income that people pay. Any other measure is a gross distortion. And dishonest.

After taxes, this is what a dollar looks like to a couple making $12,000:

After taxes, this is what a dollar looks like to a couple making $40,000:

After taxes, this is what a dollar looks like to a couple making $100,000:

After taxes, this is what a dollar looks like to a couple making $200,000:

After taxes, this is what a dollar looks like to a couple making $350,000:

And don't forget about the Alternative Minimum Tax - 26% and 28%. Everybody plays.

Listen up, Nancy. You'll achieve fairness and equality when an earned dollar looks exactly the same to each and every singe American. And until you start caring about fairness and equality, take your class warfare crap elsewhere.

that the MoveOn ad showing American families having a miserable Thanksgiving because British troops are "stuck in Iraq" is still on their website. Still no apology, still no retraction, but lots of pride in their handiwork as the ad is still featured on their main page.

But remember, they support the troops.

Via AP/Yahoo:

Arkansas Man Scales White House Fence

WASHINGTON - A man from Arkansas scaled the fence surrounding the White House Sunday while President Bush was inside and was immediately captured by Secret Service officers.

Secret Service spokesman Jonathan Cherry identified the jumper as Shawn A. Cox. Cherry said Cox was being charged with unlawful entry and was expected to appear Monday in U.S. District Court.

I'm sure we'll hear more as the day goes on. Seems Mr. Cox was already known to the Secret Service:

Cox has previously come to the attention of the Secret Service, Cherry said, but he would not provide details.

Cherry said he did not know where Cox was from in Arkansas or why he wanted to get on the White House grounds. He did not have a weapon, Cherry said.

I'm stumped, too. After all, he looks like such a happy, well-adjusted fellow:

Comb that hair for 30 or 40 minutes and he could pass for a North Carolinian.

Actually, the "moonbat" moniker in the title of this post is conditional, since we really don't know anything about Mr. Cox yet. After all, it could turn out that he's just a mentally ill man suffering from delusions about the legitimacy of the last two elections and the reasons we went to war in Iraq, exacerbated by extreme hatred for George Bush and everything America stands for.

What, you thought there was gonna be a punchline?

If you can stomache something truly frightening and disgusting, check this out at Bare Knuckle Politics:

Brainwashing 101

Be sure to check out the forum where there are more images and some terrific discussion.

Living in a hopelessly liberal state like Delaware, I hope that this doesn't start showing up in school libraries.

Via Wizbang.

Update (5:33 PM): And the fun starts.

The DNC lied.

For all the posturing of the DNC, turns out we weren't being told the whole story on the Lamar billboard flap. The Cincinnati Post has a tiny little detail that most versions of the AP story and the DNC's press releases left out:

Kilshaw said late Friday that Lamar offered to put up the billboard if the DNC increased the size of a disclaimer saying it had paid for the ad, but the DNC refused.

So Lamar didn't "arbitrarily reject the billboards", but tried to work with them, eh? Kinda takes a little steam out of the "evil Republican supporter" meme of the DNC, doesn't it? Is it possible the DNC chose to pick a fight with a business known to donate to conservatives rather than put up the billboards it solicited funds from members for? Could be. Or maybe the DNC wanted their name small and unreadable to the motorists zipping past the sign and feared the embarrassment from having larger text announcing to the world who's responsible for the smear. Here's the proposed billboard (from the DNC website), you be the judge:

Sorry for the small size, that's what I had to work with. If you put up this billboard, would you want your name associated with it? The picture alone (on an otherwise color billboard) is enough to make you cringe. Here's a larger version showing how the DNC wants folks to see her (note the black spots near nose):

And this is what she normally looks like when the smear merchants aren't giving her the "wicked witch" treatment:

Of course the Dems want to keep their hands clean. And that's why they chose not to cooperate with Lamar, who would have been all too happy to run the billboards with a minor modification. Hal Kilshaw, vice president of government relations for Lamar, says that Lamar is only trying to protect itself - "We do get complaints if billboards are offensive, so we take our responsibility seriously."

I haven't yet found a copy of the original image the DNC used in their ad. If anyone can help, I'd appreciate it. But I suspect the the original lacks the black artifacts around the nose (are those supposed to be warts?).

Out of curiousity, I checked some other news regurgitators to see if they included this apparently unimportant detail:

AP/Yahoo left it out.
Kansas City Star left it out.
Thibodaux Daily Comet left it out.
Cincinnati Channel 5 left it out.
DNC press release left it out.
Lancaster Eagle Gazette left it out.
Chillicothe Gazette left it in.
Canton Repository left it in.
Cleveland Plain Dealer left it out.
Akron Beacon-Journal left it out.
Washington Post left it out.
Seattle Post Intelligencer left it out.
Philadelphia Daily News left it out.

I'm not a statistician, but I can see a pattern here. Never mind the bias behind the curtain, folks.

By the way, the Cincinnati Enquirer deserves kudos - they did their own legwork, and their story is much more complete than the version from AP. Worth a look.

Again, I'm not defending the remarks Rep. Schmidt made (and apologized for) on the house floor. This is more to illustrate some of the left's latest smear tactics - no matter what she said on the house floor, she doesn't deserve a smear campaign full of lies, half truths, and photoshopped pictures. Completely lacking in substantive programs and ideas, this is what the Democrats are left with to get votes. Disgusting.

that the MoveOn ad showing American families having a miserable Thanksgiving because British troops are "stuck in Iraq" is still on their website. Still no apology, still no retraction, but lots of pride in their handiwork as the ad is still featured on their main page.

But remember, they support the troops.

I posted yesterday on Lamar's refusal to give the Dems billboards that it felt were a "personal attack". Here's the Dems somewhat unusual twist on the situation:

While Lamar's form contract reserves to the company the right to refuse to run a billboard advertisement, Lamar's conduct in this instance raises serious questions about whether the company is unlawfully or improperly using corporate resources to favor or benefit the Republican Party or Rep. Schmidt.

So by refusing to display a personal attack on a political opponent, Lamar is "unlawfully" benefitting Republicans? Neat twist, eh? By the way, I'm not defending Rep. Schmidt's comments on the house floor, but she did apologize and had her unfortunate remaks striken. Yet the Democrat's billboard won't say this. The entire text for the ad:

"Shame on You, Jean Schmidt: Stop Attacking Veterans. Keep Your Eye on the Ball -- We Need a Real Plan for Iraq"

"Stop Attacking" suggests that it has happend more than once, and is still occuring. We know this to be untrue - it was once, and she apologized. So what we have is a classic personal attack - misleading or dishonest verbage combined with the omission of her apology and the striking of her remarks (also known as lying by omission). Yet the Dems would have you believe that they want the public to be informed:

Rep. Schmidt's constituents are entitled to know what she is saying on the floor of the U.S. House and the DNC has a right to tell them.

If that's what they really believe, then they should tell the whole story. Failure to do so is dishonest, and yet again displays why the Democrats don't deserve to regain power ever again.

You remember the