Recently in Shameless Exploitation Category

By now, most of you are surely aware that Hillary made up the story about dodging sniper fire out of whole cloth. Her campaign offers no reasonable explanation to accompany their characterizations of "misstatement" and "minor blip". Had Hillary ever landed in a dangerous region under hostile fire (or the threat of same), they would have been quick to trot the details out as proof that Hillary simply remembered a detail or two incorrectly but her underlying story was indeed true.

Since that hasn't happened, we're left with the curtain completely pulled back in a way we rarely see when it comes to our politicians. So the blogosphere is having fun with the somewhat threadbare (in this case, anyway) "misspoke" language being utilized by Hillary's campaign. My favorite comes from John Hinderaker at Powerline:

It Lacked the Added Virtue of Being True

Follow the link for video of the CBS report that hammered the stake through Hillary's tale. Adding additional comic interest is that this helps Obama, whose resume is even thinner than Hillary's.

Back when we moved to Delaware, TB was skeptical about settling in the Newark area. "It's so far from work", she said. "And gas prices are going up."

"Look", I replied, "No matter how high gas prices get, we need to stay the course. If we just keep our large V8-equipped vehicles running as much as possible, in no time at all we'll be a short drive from the beach, and our property values will go through the roof! You just gotta be patient."

She and the kids still thought I was off my rocker, and I still catch flak about it to this day. Soon, though, that patience is going to pay off in spades. Vindication, baby. Vindication.

Three guesses who she blames, and the first two don't count:

"For too long, President Musharraf failed to confront effectively his growing unpopularity. The Bush Administration enabled Musharraf's delusion by ignoring his undemocratic acts and lack of internal support in exchange for his assistance in efforts against terrorism.

"Pakistan will only be a reliable and capable ally against terrorism when its government is not seen as an enemy by its own people. The interests of the United States are best advanced by policies that do not promote one goal at the expense of the other."

It's always Bush's fault with these people, isn't it? However, there's more than a little irony in Nancy taking a jab at Musharraf failing to address his unpopularity as she leads a House with the lowest approval rating in history. Instead of taking cheap BDS-driven shots at the administration, maybe she should address her own "growing unpopularity".

Update (11/6/07 7:08AM): Patrick Leahy blames Bush, too.

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

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.

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.

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.

This comes up every election - the agreement made with the Dems promising not to notice voter fraud unless it happens right in front of a poll-watcher's nose:

That consent decree prohibits the RNC from engaging in, assisting in or participating in any "ballot security program," other than "normal poll watch functions," "unless the program (including the method and timing of any challenges resulting from the program) has been determined by this Court to comply with the provisions of the Consent Order and applicable law." Applications by the RNC "for determination of ballot security programs by the Court shall be made following 20 days notice to the DNC which notice shall include a description of the program to be undertaken, the purpose(s) to be served and the reasons why the program complies with the Consent Order and applicable law."

At this point, it is too late for the RNC to comply with the 20 day deadline for notifying the DNC of any intended application to the Court for approval of any ballot security program. We assume, therefore, that the RNC does not intend to apply to the Court for approval of any such program, and that you intend to respect both the letter and the spirit of the law. For that reason, we also assume that the RNC will refrain from engaging in, assisting in or participating in any "ballot security program" carried out by anyone, including the RNC itself, its state or local parties, Republican candidates or allied organizations such as the Republican National Lawyers Association or National Republican Senatorial Committee.

It doesn't matter 25 years after the fact why there's a consent decree - it's what the Dems use it for here and now. And if a Republican sees voter fraud outside the scope of the decree, the Dems will use the decree to prevent any consequences.

It's comical that Howard would issue this letter decades after its relevance ended when in much more recent times, he and his party have blocked (or attempted to block) every single proposal to stem voter fraud. And illegal immigrants, imaginary people, and the dead are voting in droves, mostly for Democrats.

No, I guess it really isn't comical, is it?

...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....

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.

The left, through their shills in the media, have been enjoying themselves thoroughly over the remarks made by Rush about Michael J. Fox. Here's what they're reporting about the interview had last night with Katie Couric:

NEW YORK (AP) -- In a response to charges by conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, Michael J. Fox defended his appearance in recent political campaign ads, saying he was neither acting nor off his medication for Parkinson's disease.

On the contrary, he had been overmedicated, the actor said during an interview aired on Thursday's "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric."

"The irony of it is that I was too medicated," Fox told Couric, adding that his jumpy condition as he spoke to her reflected "a dearth of medication -- not by design. I just take it, and it kicks in when it kicks in."

"That's funny -- the notion that you could calculate it for effect," he said. "Would that we could."

The 7 1/2-minute interview with Fox, whose shaking at one point dislodged the microphone clipped to his jacket lapel, aired in two segments taped Thursday afternoon on the "Evening News" set. (Watch fox tell Couric that he doesn't want pity -- :32)

Fox drew some conservative criticism after an ad began running in Missouri during the World Series. It showed Fox visibly shaking while urging fans to vote yes for stem-cell research and Democratic Senate challenger Claire McCaskill -- and no to the Republican incumbent Jim Talent. (Watch the visibly ill Fox make a pitch for McCatskill -- 2:35)

"They say all politics is local, but it's not always the case," Fox says in the 30-second spot. "What you do in Missouri matters to millions of Americans -- Americans like me."

The Democrats have largely succeeded with the ads - a prominent conservative figure gave them the soundbite they wanted: "either off his medication or acting". And Ann Coulter, despite her ill-chosen words about the 9-11 widows, has been proven right once again about the tactics of the left. The right is villified as cruel and uncaring about the sick and dying in the ads, and in the aftermath, now stand accused of attacking the sick and defenseless messenger.

Were it not for the fact that left's entire argument is built on a lie, it would be perfect. As a result, I predict little effect on the elections. While the ads will sway a few of the gullible, those who already have views that disagree with their premise will just be angered.

In the interview last night, Fox claims to respect the views of those who object to killing human embryos for medical research. But the message in his ads shows that he in fact has none. Indeed, Michael's message is "If you don't vote for the Democrats, I will suffer. If the Republicans win, my blood will be on your hands." How selfish and cynical he is in this galling demagoguery. Rather than tiptoe around Fox's illness (wouldn't want to offend, after all), the true nature of these repugnant ads should be held up as an example of the of why the left is unfit to lead.

To Michael (and the Democrats who you support):

How dare you?

How dare you suggest that my belief that we shouldn't kill the unborn for medical research equates to a desire for you to suffer?

How dare you infer that my belief that all lives are equally important and deserving of our protection equates to a desire for you to die?

Again, how dare you? You and those you campaign for show an ugliness that should have become extinct long ago, along with the medical experiments that were routinely performed on those who couldn't defend themselves in asylums, prisons, and most recently, concentration camps. To those of us who believe that life begins at conception, your side has ressurected that barbaristic and inhumane mindset. Apparently the presence of shiny stainless steel equipment and starched white labcoats makes it all oh-so clinical, emotionless, and acceptable to you. To me, it's same twisted reasoning that defended slavery as natural order because "they aren't really human".

You also claim you want respect and not pity. But if the only way, in your view, for that respect to be shown is to accede to your selfish and barbaristic wants, then you shall not have it. For your small-minded and disrespectful view of my beliefs, and your inability to shed a brutal ethos that should have perished at Dachau, you have earned my pity.

Oh, and about the flap with Rush - his statements have been argued completely elsewhere, I feel no need to go into them at length. For what it's worth, though, I disagree with Captain Ed, who appears to feel that Rush's remarks were appropriate. Instead, I fall on the side that feels Rush erred in his phrasing. He nearly got it right - then he backed off, fearing what the reaction would be. I wish he had been more bold instead.

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.

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.

Earlier this month, I posted about how the arguments by the left simply don't hold water when applied to the debate about estate taxes. The repeal effort on the table at the time failed in the Senate, but the issue is back. Thursday the House passed a partial repeal - upping the exemption from its current 2 million to 5 for individuals and 10 million for couples. While this "lite" version is a mistake in that it still embraces inequality in the tax code, it's a step in the right direction and should make later efforts to repeal the death tax easier.

In my previous post, I discussed why the arguments of the left on this issue are based on deception. I saw a couple more examples raised earlier this week that further serve to illustrate my point. First, an unsigned editorial in the Washington Post gives the usual dishonest tripe so popular with many on the left:

LIKE THE GHOUL in the horror movie that refuses to die, estate tax repeal has returned from the grave to stalk the halls of Congress. Just two weeks after abolitionists failed in the Senate, they have regrouped behind a new bill that would achieve most of what they want -- not quite the elimination of the tax but its "reform" into insignificance. Like full repeal, this reform would expand the budget deficit and exacerbate inequality.

The deficit canard is the cornerstone of robotic liberal groupthink whenever government and money are discussed lately. In this case (as in most), it's being used dishonestly. The deficit does not exist because of tax cuts - the simple and irrefutable fact is that revenues have increased dramatically for the government in spite of (or more accurately, because of) the previous cuts. The deficit is a product of one thing and one thing only - irresponsible spending habits in Congress. Until this fact is recognized and addressed universally by both left and right alike, no serious deficit reduction is possible.

"Exacerbate inequality" - this one is rooted entirely in raw emotion and couldn't be more dishonest since it really doesn't have anything to do with fairness unless you're viewing it through the eyes of a six year old. "Timmy has a newer bicycle than me. It's not fair!" should not be the type of argument that mature people employ. Only a mortally flawed sense of fairness rooted in envy and greed view a progressive tax code as fair.

But what is fair? I have a friend that believes that if government costs 3 trillion to run, each of the 300 million people in the US should chip in ten grand, since all citizens benefit equally from the government's core responsibilities (common defense, domestic tranquility, etc). While it's hard not to appreciate the brutal simplicity of his argument, it's a model that doesn't take into account that a large portion of our population doesn't generate income, i.e., the very young and the very old being the largest groups to use as examples. So in recognition of this, we tax based on income. In such a system, fairness is also a simple concept if you can set aside greed and envy:

If I make 10 times more than you, I should pay 10 times the taxes.
If I make 100 times more than you, I should pay 100 times the taxes.

Seem fair? Not to the left, where childishness reigns. Add a "liberal" dose of covetousness, and "fair" suddenly becomes a grotesque caricature where an impaired syllogism views the following as just:

- You make 10 times more than I do, so you should pay 20 times more taxes.
- You make 100 times more than I do, so you should pay 400 times more taxes.

And it's just comical when applied to estate taxes:

- Your estate is worth 100 times more than mine, so I should pay no taxes, and you should pay 46%.

The truth is that fairness has nothing to do with the liberal views on taxation. Period. The Post article gives us a hint of why(emphasis mine):

The nation faces the expensive retirement of the baby boomers. It is grappling with rising inequality. Its prized social mobility may ultimately be threatened if the richest members of society are allowed to pass unlimited riches to their children.

I don't recall which part of the tax code addressed "social mobility". Can anyone help with a reference? This green-eyed phenomenon is even more plainly illustrated in a post I came across in FireDogLake yesterday. The author, Ian Welsh, should be lauded for his honesty in showing the true basis of the liberal view of taxes (I've included the bulk of the post so that context won't be an issue, only leaving out the graphs about income inequality and estate tax distribution. Please follow the link to see the graphs. Emphasis added.):

To summarize:

The top 1% pays 94.8% of all estate taxes.
The top 1/2 a percent pays 86.5% of all estate taxes
The top .1% pays 51.3% of all estate taxes

Most people will never be effected by the Estate Tax. Ever. But you will be effected if it’s repealed.

Here he shows clearly that the estate tax is unfair. Either 1% is being unfairly targeted, or 99% is skating out of their responsibilities. It's a point he misses altogether, though.

The general estimate of the cost of repeal is a trillion dollars a decade. A hundred billion a year. The government is already bleeding money, in both deficit and substantial debt. Any tax repeal - whether estate, or capital gains, or corporate taxes, wille eventually have to be made up (yes, the creditors will eventually want their money back.) Estate tax repeal will be paid for at some point, by the middle class. And by your children.

TANSTAAFL - There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. If you want a tax cut now, you pay for it later - with interest. If the rich want a tax cut now, the middle class will pay for it later, with interest.

This, as I pointed out before, is demonstrably false. Revenues have increased dramatically due to prior tax cuts, the problem is runaway spending. Fix that problem, and the middle class and children will be fine. By the way, 100 billion dollars a year, if correct (Not saying it isn't, but there are competing estimates of the effect of estate tax repeal) taken away from government control (where it would be badly mismanaged) and left in the private sector could create/sustain 3.2 million $15/hour jobs. Think the government would use the money even a fraction as well?

But I want to say something more about the estate tax.

There is no fairer tax. If it were up to me, it wouldn’t just be reinstated to it’s full 1999 level, it’d be increased to tax even more from the richest DEAD PEOPLE.

That’s right - dead people. By all means, let’s call it the death tax.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t expect to take it with me. I don’t think my money goes with me wherever it is I go when my heart stops beating. I don’t think I need money after I’m dead.

This has a morbid "They're dead! Quick, take the watches and wallets! No, leave the Timex - but get the Rolex from that guy over there!" quality to it that should offend anyone's sense of morals. If you think this isn't a popular view among the left, read the comments - Mr. Welsh gets lots of praise for his canonization of this grave-robbing mindset.

And I don’t think my heirs need more than a few million dollar head start over everyone else. Sure, if I ever have kids, I’d want to give them a head start, but I don’t deceive myself that they did anything to, like, deserve it, other than with the "lucky sperm contest".

Now we get to the heart of his argument. Jealousy. Greed. Envy. We should tax estates because the heirs don't deserve their inheritance. What I can't figure out: Why they don't display this level of contempt for the Kennedys?

Taxation is a zero sum game. You can take the money from dead people - who don’t need it or you can take it from living people who do need it.

Except heirs are living people, aren't they?

You can tax it from the kids of the rich, who did nothing to deserve it and who can probably make it on a few million from Daddy and Mummy; or you can tax it from people who actually earned it by the sweat of their own brow.

Moving from envy to hatred... They don't deserve it because Ian wasn't born lucky. Does arrogance trump aristocracy?

Oh, and those stories about people losing their family farms to the estate tax? Myth - no one has ever been able to find even one.

I'll agree with that one. Farms are indeed protected as far as I know. Now, about the medium-sized privately owned businesses...

The estate tax, the death tax, is about letting people have more money when they’re alive, and only taxing it when they’re dead.

And that, to me, makes it better than every other tax in existence.

Except you'd have more money if the government didn't tax the dead. Like it or don't, even Paris Hilton will use her money for your benefit. How? She'll spend it. She'll invest it. Every dollar that stays in the private sector helps improve the economy for all of us, increasing the chances that you or I will be able to induct our children into the "lucky sperm club". And the purpose of any tax should be to fund the government - not perform social engineering.

So forget estate tax repeal - let’s turn it around and increase the estate tax. Because dead people don’t need money, and living people do, and no matter how much rich people love their kids they didn’t do anything for the money, and a head start of a few million is enough for anyone.

But we're talking about fairness. And a twisted sense of fairness borne of contempt and envy isn't fair by any rational standards. A tax policy based on some masterbatory Robin Hood-ish fantasy is neither fair nor workable.

But government needs to be funded, right? So let's talk fair. Right and wrong do not change because of scale. If Paris Hilton doesn't deserve her inheritance because she didn't earn it, then equally do my children not deserve their comparatively meager one. An inheritance, if you believe it's unearned therefore undeserved, remains so whether it's 20 grand or 20 million.

So the fair answer is once again very simple. If you want to tax estates, then tax them all equally. No exceptions and the same rate for all, or my preference - tax none. Anything in between is counter to the principles upon which our republic was founded.

I say repeal the death tax. Then get to work bringing fairness and transparency to the rest of the tax code. That means eliminating regressive taxes that unfairly target the poor (like corporate taxes), and making every earned dollar look the same to each and every American.

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.

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.

Today's first sighting - AP:

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon Thursday confirmed that 2,500 U.S. troops have died in the Iraq war since it began more than three years ago. The grim milestone was announced just hours before the House was to begin a symbolic election-year debate over the war, with Republicans rallying against calls by some Democrats to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

I take back the nice remarks.

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.

I'd be remiss if I didn't comment on the Ben Domenech story. I won't rehash the particulars of his resignation from the Post, they're covered in great detail elsewhere.

But the story does raise a concern about the level of responsibility that our information-driven world requires. There's no question that Ben was aggresively attacked by a sizable crowd on the left, and on topics that fell far out of bounds for civil debate. I didn't have to follow very many links to see for myself that the attacks were vicious, personal, and intended to harm someone for the sole reason that the attackers disliked his message. That they found something in Ben's past that appears to be wrong in no way excuses the methods and motivations that led to their discovery. The finding of wrongdoing in Ben's past wasn't their goal - tearing down an individual out of fear and hatred for his beliefs was.

Again, I'm offering no excuse for Ben's actions. But no one can offer one for those folks that tore him down, either.

I wish Ben the best of luck in the future - and I'm glad he's continuing to post at RedState.

This quote from this morning's NSA hearings is one of the most shamelessly dishonest I've heard from the Democrats:

Sen. Patrick Leahy: "My concern is for peaceful Quakers who are being spied upon, and other law-abiding Americans and babies and nuns who are placed on terrorist watch lists..."

I guess that sets the tone for today, doesn't it? The Dems appear to want to top their performance in the Alito confirmation hearing.

Yesterday All Things Beautiful posted a nice roundup of the former Army sergeant Mark Seavey's exchange with Mothra and Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.). The video of the exchange is available at Michelle Malkin. Here's the words of Mark Seavey:

"Yes sir my name is Mark Seavey and I just want to thank you for coming up here. Until about a month ago I was Sgt Mark Seavey infantry squad leader, I returned from Afghanistan. My question to you, (applause)

"Like yourself I dropped out of college two years ago to volunteer to go to Afghanistan, and I went and I came back. If I didn't have a herniated disk now I would volunteer to go to Iraq in a second with my troops, three of which have already volunteered to go to Iraq. I keep hearing you say how you talk to the troops and the troops are demoralized, and I really resent that characterization. (applause) The morale of the troops that I talk to is phenomenal, which is why my troops are volunteering to go back, despite the hardships they had to endure in Afghanistan.

"And Congressman Moran, 200 of your constituents just returned from Afghanistan. We never got a letter from you; we never got a visit from you. You didn't come to our homecoming. The only thing we got from any of our elected officials was one letter from the governor of this state thanking us for our service in Iraq, when we were in Afghanistan. That's reprehensible. I don't know who you two are talking to but the morale of the troops is very high."

I'll add my comment to the fray, albeit late. It's beyond belief that an elected servant chooses to ignore a constituent like this - and in public, too. I hope some Republican shows this tape on the house floor the next time support for the troops comes up as a subject.

This tape would be a terrific cornerstone of a Republican ad campaign as well.

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)

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

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...

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

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."

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.

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.

Cindy has a new web post! (hat tip: Little Green Footballs)

Odd that it isn't posted at Huffington Post like usual. Maybe she's having trouble getting past Arriana's censors. That's where I usually go for her posts, since it's brighter lit and cleaner than the other places. And besides, I know I can take Deepak Chopra if he gets too rowdy. Anyway, the Damsel of Delusion serves up an unusually tasty Thanksgiving treat featuring Moonbat Pie as the desert. So lets get on to the quotes:

My family is spending our 2nd Thanksgiving without Casey thanks to you and your lies. I am spending the day crying on a plane on my way to come to Crawford to again ask you for a meeting.

Let's forget about the fact that President Bush didn't lie, and never mind the fact that Bush didn't kill Casey, the terrorists did. After 2 years, why does she continue to choose misery? No one is forcing her to cry on airplanes. Why keep stalking the President? Maybe it's all the attention:

But wait - there's more:

Also, since August we have discovered that American forces are using chemical weapons in Iraq . The Army admitted that white phosphorous was used as an offensive weapon against "enemy combatants."

Tsk, tsk. Caught in another one! The Army didn't say that! And let's assume (however wrongly) for a moment that WP is a chemical weapon. In that case, Saddam had a bunch of it! So are you really willing to throw out your "Bush Lied" fiction in favor of a much weaker one? Do none of your handlers give you advice? Oh, and if you're curious about the white phosphorous story, find out from folks who know. Start here.

Cindy also gets more personal than ever before in this post:

Are you and Laura going to hit the sack tonight and toss and turn or stare out of the window worried that Jenna or Barbara may be killed in Iraq?

It's their business, Cindy. And a mite distasteful of you to speculate what the Bushes do in bed, don't ya think? That said, I'd like to think since the twins aren't in Iraq, they'll be doing some tossin' and turnin' in the sack.

Cindy is now the Mistress of Monuments:

Yes, her fans have erected a monument to Cindy. Lots of folks, including me, have said the Dame of Despair needs a hobby to get her mind off all that hate and delusion. She's obviously not the only one:

The artist who carved the 1,200-pound monument, Ron Teska of Wind Ridge, Pa., drove to Crawford the last week of the protest with the stone slab in the back of his pickup. He spent about 45 hours carving it.

And what would be a day at Camp Moonbat without a few faux tears?

Cindy Sheehan, who staged a 26-day protest outside Bush's ranch in August, cried when she saw the 2-foot-high sandstone marker.

I think she should use it as a keychain fob.

Well, she back - and hamming it up for the press:

"I feel happy to be back here with all my friends ... but I'm heartbroken that we have to be here again," Cindy Sheehan said as she arrived at an airport in nearby Waco. "We will keep pressing and we won't give up until our troops are brought home."

Here's a photo accompanying the article showing how heartbroken she is:

Peace activist Cindy Sheehan, right, is greeted by supporter Kathleen Hernandez at the Waco Regional Airport after flying in from California, Thursday, Nov. 24, 2005, in Waco, Texas. Sheehan plans to resume her war protest near President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum)

Now, we've all seen that the anti-war crown seems to avoid things American, with their Che and Castro T-shirts, communist pamphlets and speeches, etc. So it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that meanwhile, back at the camp, the very same folks who believe that the terrorists who killed Casey Sheehan are "freedom fighters" avoided anything American in their holiday meal:

War protester Dede Miller, sister of Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan, dishes up a Thanksgiving meal of traditional Iraqi food at their camp near President Bush's ranch, Thursday, Nov. 24, 2005, in Crawford, Texas. About 100 war protesters gathered for the Thanksgiving meal. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum)

From the looks of that crowd, soap must be American as well.

Well, the Trollop of Turkeys won't be getting arrested in Texas tomorrow - but all her moonbatty friends will (emphasis mine):

Texas Anti-War Protesters Still Determined

CRAWFORD, Texas - War protesters say they are determined to demonstrate outside President Bush's ranch during the Thanksgiving holiday despite the arrests of a dozen people on Wednesday.

The group had pitched six tents along the road in defiance of new local bans on roadside camping and parking. Many in the group held up signs, including one that said "Give me liberty or give me a ditch."

Give me liberty or give me a ditch?!?!?!? What happened to "Power to the People"? A couple of these nuts wanted to play-pretend to be just like the Matron of Moonbats:

More than two dozen McLennan County sheriff's deputies arrived and asked if they wanted to walk out on their own or be carried. Two chose to be carried.

And we also had a verified sighting of the hypocritical yellow-crested chicken dove:

A dozen others left after deputies warned them they would be arrested.

Just as in earlier protests, some had no reason to be there other than to recapture the drum-banging, flower in the gun barrel, dope-smokin', unbathed days of their fabulously misspent youth:

Among them was Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department official who leaked the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam war, who estimated it was his 70th arrest for various protests since the 1970s.

Whew - Cindy was right! Getting arrested must really be addictive.

"Those of us who finally saw through the Vietnam war saw through this war, and all the actions that were necessary to end the Vietnam war will be necessary here," Ellsberg said Wednesday. "I think the American people will get us out of this (war)."

That's right, Danny. Americans are working very hard to get us out of this war. Let's see, there are the Army-Americans, the Marine-Americans, the Navy-Americans, and the Air Force-Americans. They're working very, very hard to get us out of the war the right way - by winning.

But alas, the Mistress of Missing was nowhere to be found. Apparently, she had a family emergency back in festive and ditchless California. No word on when she would reprise her role as the Doll of Ditches. She just said "soon".

My bet - she won't show up on Thanksgiving day, possibly due to the little-known fact that hippies have trouble getting the turkey just right.

I wrote about Monday is now available here. Just click on any of the still shots on the right side.

Not that I would suggest such a thing, but they do have a forum where folks could leave a comment about what they think of MoveOn rubbing salt in the wounds of any family with a loved one in the middle east, which I still feel is one of the lowest cheap shots they've made...

Added: The Republicans being singled out for special local airings of this ad are:

Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, Duncan Hunter of California; Phil Gingrey and Jack Kingston of Georgia; J.D. Hayworth of Arizona; Jean Schmidt of Ohio; Geoff Davis of Kentucky; and Steve King of Iowa.

In Frelinghuysen's case, MoveOn didn't like his statements last Friday during the withdrawal debate:

I

n his remarks last Friday on the House floor, Frelinghuysen called the immediate withdrawal of troops "a recipe for disaster, a dangerous defense policy, the wrong message for our soldiers and Marines who are truly doing the work of freedom."

"Frankly, I am concerned that such talk will only embolden the terrorists and demoralize our war fighters," he added.

"Our only exit strategy from Iraq should be victory," Frelinghuysen said. "Anything less than that virtually guarantees the next battleground may be closer to home!"

MoveOn says he was attacking Murtha personally:

Frelinghuysen and the other congressmen are out of step with the American people, who want a change of course in Iraq, Tom Matzzie, the Washington, D.C., director of MoveOn.org Political Action, said Tuesday.

"Frelinghuysen basically said Murtha was helping the terrorists," Matzzie said. "The debate that day was about repudiating John Murtha."

Uh, no, that's not quite what he said, Tom. But if the shoe fits...

Move On is going to air a TV ad over the Thanksgiving weekend to smear the administration. The 30 second ad will be available at their website tomorrow. In their press release, the script was included:

VIDEO -- OPEN ON A FAMILY AT THANKSGIVING DINNER. SEATED AROUND THE TABLE THEY HOLD HANDS, THEIR HEADS BOWED IN PRAYER.

AUDIO -- ANNOUNCER (VO): Some folks won't be home this holiday season.

VIDEO -- CUT TO SHOT OF FORLORN SOLDIERS IN IRAQ WITH MESS KITS.

AUDIO -- ANNOUNCER (VO): A hundred and fifty thousand American men and women are stuck in Iraq.

VIDEO -- CUT TO SHOT OF BUSH AND CHENEY, WALKING SIDE BY SIDE.

AUDIO -- ANNOUNCER (VO): Their president misled America to send them in and has no plan to get them out.

VIDEO -- CUT BACK TO DINNER TABLE. A WOMAN IN TEARS IS BEING COMFORTED BY FAMILY MEMBERS.

AUDIO -- ANNOUNCER (VO): Democrats in Congress are leading the way home.

VIDEO -- CUT TO THANKSGIVING TABLE SPREAD AND ONE EMPTY CHAIR.

AUDIO -- ANNOUNCER (VO): Where are the Republicans?

VIDEO -- STAY ON IMAGE OF EMPTY CHAIR. SUPER "CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE: (202) 224-3121."

AUDIO -- ANNOUNCER (VO): Tell your representative. Support our troops. Bring them home.

VIDEO -- AT SCREEN BOTTOM, SUPER FULL LEGAL DISCLAIMER: PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, WWW.POLITICAL.MOVEON.ORG. NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE'S COMMITTEE. MOVEOn.ORG POLITICAL ACTION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT OF THIS ADVERTISEMENT".

AUDIO -- ANNOUNCER (VO): MoveOn.org Political Action is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

The ad will be shown on CNN and in the states where Republicans "who launched personal attacks on Rep. John Murtha", according to MoveOn. Lord knows what criteria they used.

It takes a special kind of bottom-crawler to do this over a holiday. If they cared one whit about the troops and their families, they'd be placing ads thanking them for their service and sacrifice.

"Support our troops" my ass - supporting the troops doesn't mean using their famlies as pawns to help you make a political point.

These people are truly sick.

TB Adds: They're trying to create an image similar to Tiny Tim's empty chair scene in every rendition of "A Christmas Carol". It's very powerful imagery. And disgusting when used for this kind of political message.

Update (and bump): MoveOn hasn't placed the despicable ad on their website yet, but they did put some screenshots here.

Linked to Euphoric Reality!

Howard Dean, responding to the Murtha controversy, sent a letter to Democrats yesterday defending the former Marine. What's in it is fairly ordinary for this type of communication from Dean, lots and lots of mud-slinging against the Republicans. What's notable is what he doesn't include - there's not a word about what the fuss was really all about. Here's Dean's masterpiece of illusion in its entirety:

Dear Friend,

I want to tell you about John Murtha. He's a Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania. He's also a combat veteran and retired Marine Corps colonel.

Murtha spent 37 years in Marine Corps, earned the Bronze Star, two purple hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal. And for the last thirty years he's been one of the most respected voices in Congress on military issues -- universally respected by Democrats, Republicans and military brass alike.

Until now.

Republicans have disgraced themselves by viciously attacking John Murtha with such disrespect that not only veterans, but every decent American should be angry.

What did Murtha, a decorated combat veteran, do to draw fire from a White House led by a president and vice president who evaded service in Vietnam? He questioned their management of the war in Iraq. Here's part of what he had to say:

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region. ...

"For two and a half years, I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. ...

"I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

Shameless Republicans immediately went on the attack. Dick Cheney, who has said that he had "other priorities" and collected 5 deferments while people like Murtha served in Vietnam, called Murtha's comments "irresponsible" and regretted that "the president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone." The White House spokesman, who has also never worn the uniform, pronounced himself "baffled" that Murtha, who volunteered for two wars, wanted to "surrender to the terrorists". A Republican Congressman said Murtha and others "basically are giving aid and comfort to the enemy".

Shame on them. Every one of us -- right now -- needs to let Jack Murtha know that we respect his service, respect his leadership, and respect his right to speak the truth. This man has spent his life serving us. The very least each one of us can do is let him know that no matter what dishonorable smear campaign Republicans wage we will be there with him.

Send Congressman Murtha a note telling him that you will not be silent while he is attacked:

http://www.democrats.org/shameonthem

I will deliver your message to him personally, along with my own thanks for his service to our country and his continuing courage in the face of threats.

Lies and manipulation characterized the Republican case for war, and lies and manipulation have been the primary weapon against anyone who questions their failed leadership.

First it was Senator Max Cleland, who left limbs in Vietnam, being savagely attacked in 2002. Then John Kerry, who received three purple hearts, being smeared in 2004. The history of this war has shown that Republicans value political posturing more than the service of America's veterans.

Republicans don't want a serious debate about Iraq because they know the American people are simply not with them. They cannot respond to the substance of Murtha's criticism -- or any criticism -- because they are wrong.

Jack Murtha is already fighting back. When told of Cheney's comments he reminded people where Cheney was while he was in Vietnam: "I like guys who got five deferments and have never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

But Jack can't beat this back alone. Show him that Americans know that Republicans should be ashamed of themselves:

http://www.democrats.org/shameonthem

Enough is enough -- we cannot allow another veteran to be smeared by George Bush's cronies.

Thank you for taking a stand.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

What he fails to pass on to the rank and file is the part of Murtha's statement that got everyone riled up - the part about immediate withdrawal:

"This is the immediate redeployment of American forces because they have become the target," said Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats.

"To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces."

"I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy."

Not everyone follows the news as closely as the average blogger, and I'm sure that many Democrats had not heard the whole of Murtha's statement, if any of it at all. Obviously Dean was trying to capitalize on it by omitting key facts which would have revealed the true nature of Murtha's "Cut and Run" message.

All this from Howie, who in the letter says:

Lies and manipulation characterized the Republican case for war, and lies and manipulation have been the primary weapon against anyone who questions their failed leadership.

Yet it's Howie using lies and manipulation to sway the voting public once again.

Via Little Green Footballs - The Hen of Hand-Wringing's new book comes out Wednesday! Charles adds:

Will these speeches include the one where she called Iraqi insurgents “freedom fighters?” Or her anti-Israel statements?

Don’t count on it.

All her journal entries will be included:

Now those journal entries are in her book, “Not One More Mother’s Child,” to be released Wednesday. The paperback also contains some of her speeches to peace groups earlier this year, letters to politicians and writings since leaving Crawford.

You know your star has really fallen when the first release of your book is in paperback.

Cindy is hitting new lows. In her delusional world, any nutbag conspiracy theory and false accusation was always a fair straw of hope for her to grasp. And we can at least grant her the attribute of consistancy in her fantasy quest. She's been consistantly wrong from the very beginning.

Her message, however flawed, was guaranteed to have traction with certain groups. We've all seen who's been showing up at her protests - communists, socialists, racists, and the hard-core tinfoil hat factions. Her lack of honesty and sincerity have been transparent to mainstream America, which is why even the leftist media have abandoned her for greener pastures.

So having failed to be embraced by anyone with common sense, I guess nobody should be surprised when, in her desperation, she reaches further and further into the outrageous to get attention. For example, in an especially cynical Huffington Post entry, the Windbag of Woe attacks the President's mother:

Open Letter to George's Mama

Dear Barbara,

On April 04, 2004, your oldest child killed my oldest child, Casey Austin Sheehan.

Did you teach George to use his words and not his violence to solve problems? It doesn't appear so. Did you teach him that killing other people for profits and oil is ALWAYS wrong? Obviously you did not. I also used to wash my children's mouth out with soap on the rare occasion that they lied…did you do that to George? Can you do it now?

No comments from me this time. I want yours. Let me know what you think about "Mother Sheehan" attacking other Moms.

Well, the Femme of Felonious Fake Fatality didn't go to the big house:

They were each ordered to pay $75 in fines and court costs, but Sheehan's lawyer said he plans to appeal the verdict.

No word yet on whether she paid the fine. If she did pay it, doesn't that take away any moral standing to utter the word "liar" about others?

"We weren't demonstrating," Sheehan told reporters after the trial.

Snort. Chuckle. At least U.S. District Magistrate Judge Alan Kay saw right through that crap:

"They were consciously violating the law for publicizing their case," Kay said.

And since the Debutante of Derision loves the limelight so much, she's taking her show on the road again. This time, in Europe!

Hundreds of potential witticisms are swirling around in my head. But this one kinda writes itself.

Earlier I posted about the Girl of Gloom demanding a trial for her protesting without a permit charge. Now we have it in her own words what her defence will be:

"We will try to put on a necessity defense. This is my defense:"

"My dear, sweet boy was killed in Iraq on 04/04/04. He was murdered by an Iraqi insurgent, but George and his lying band of neocon criminals might as well have pulled the trigger. It has been proven over and over again that the thugs lied us into the invasion and are still lying to maintain the occupation."

Uh, actually, no, Cindy. You haven't been paying attention to the news lately, have you? It's been proven time and time again that the administration didn't. On the other hand, you've proven to most sane people that you're a moonbat.

"On 9/26/05, I knew I was breaking the law by sitting on the White House sidewalk without a permit. But, I was sitting there to call attention to the murderers who live and work there. If not for them, I would still have my son and tens of thousands of innocent people would still be alive. Isn't murder a crime? When are those people going to face justice for their war crimes and crimes against humanity?"

Judge, that sounds like an admission of guilt to me.

"Who wants to live free in a world where murderers are allowed to roam free and wreak havoc on innocent citizens and countries?"

"I know I don't."

I know I don't, either. That's why I'm staying right here in the good old US of A. Now, our hapless and humorless Hussy of Hatred could have payed the fine (a bargain at $75.00) and avoided the all-over-but-the-faux-crying conviction she's now going to get. But no, and our fearless flounter-of-law Femme of Fatality is going to face stiffer penalties as a result:

"My attorney, Jon Norris, has informed me that we could be facing up to a 500.00 fine and/or 6 months in jail."

"This seems like a pretty stiff sentence to me for demonstrating without a permit!"

Well, Cindy, you did set out with a goal of breaking the law. But wait! This isn't the end of it! Cindy is planning to further flout the law:

"I am prepared, but I will not be too thrilled, to serve the maximum sentence. I don't think we will get any jail time, but I am certainly not going to pay the fine either!!"

"If I wanted to pay the fine, I would have paid the 75.00 original fine and I would not even have to go to court."

There you have it, folks. I hope the judge hears about her plan...

Sheehan Demands Trial on Protest Charge

WASHINGTON - War protester Cindy Sheehan said Wednesday she was demanding a trial for demonstrating without a permit outside the White House.

Obviously, the Broad of Bad Bereavement isn't getting enough press, what with all the "real" news getting in the way. Maybe she's hoping for a media circus a la Michael Jackson or O.J. Simpson. Has Court TV committed yet?

I wonder if the judge will take a dim view of her previous statement saying that she would skip out on the fine.

Sheehan also plans to revive her protest near President Bush's Texas ranch during Thanksgiving week, despite new county ordinances banning roadside camping.

That new ordinance covers a five-mile radius around the Bush ranch. Look like she'll probably get arrested yet again. Of course, now that she's addicted to it....

I know it's been out for a couple of days, so forgive me if you've already heard about Jimmy Massey, the Marine Sgt who wrote a book about alleged atrocities committed in Iraq. I first heard about it from Gateway Pundit. Michelle Malkin is also covering the story and has a terrific roundup.

Being retired military, this disgusts me far beyond what folks who haven't served are likely to experience. Actions like this embolden our enemies and cause American lives to be lost.

I wonder if he was still on active duty (or inactive reserve) when he started writing his book? Maybe the Marines could call him back for a lawyer party.

By the way - I work with several retired Marines who are quick to tell you that there's no such thing as a "former" Marine. I wonder if they'd entertain an exception in Mr. Massey's case?

Wow. I take a week off to move and look what happens - the Spinster of Spittle Spewing Speeches goes to San Francisco to embrace everything her son didn't. Please go here to see photos and video courtesy of Zombie, who braved the moonbatty minions to show everyone what the MSM would never show.

Highlights include some of Cindy's speech in which she insists the folks who killed her son aren't terrorists - they're her "brothers and sisters". Considering the boost her son's death gave her career and the fun she's now having, I guess it's just natural for her to be grateful to the terrorists for helping her out.

If you go to the "The World Can't Wait" web site, you'll see one of the most definitive lists of nutbags ever. Here are some the folks and groups Cindy is currently aligned with:

Mumia Abu-Jamal (convicted cop-killer)

Aris Anagnos (Wealthy supporter of Marxist and Communist causes)

Edward Asner (Actor turned Moonbat)

Axis of Justice (Listen to this and this to get an idea of what they're about)

William Ayers (a terrorist who bombed government buildings during the 70s)

Aimee Allison (conscientious objector - Desert Shield/Storm)

Ed Begley, Jr (Actor turned moonbat)

Father Luis Barrios (Mumia Supporter)

Bob Bossie (advocates desertion, insubordination, mutiny)

Elombe Brath (another "free Mumia" type)

Campus Anti-War Network (violently attacks military recuiters)

Che Cafe ('nuff said)

Citizens For Legitimate Government (tin-foil hat types of the "Bush caused 9/11" variety, also very bitter that Gore lost)

DC Anti-War Network (primarily anti-military, but have branched out into BDS and other areas. My favorite quote from their web site: "An important and very sad part of the situation is how the American press has become the propaganda mouthpiece of Bush and the neocons, especially in their refusal to cover the myriad of non-violent efforts of both the Palestinian and Iraqi peoples to get rid of their respective occupations...")

Victor Toro Ramirez (Terrorist Supporter)

Michael Ratner (Lawyer for terrorists)

Rev. John Fife (helps illegals evade the U.S. Border Patrol)

Robin D.G. Kelley (Communist)

C. Clark Kissinger (Maoist, member Revolutionary Communist Party)

National Lawyers Guild (defends terrorists, illegal immigrants)

Not in Our Name (believes Katrina was man-made)

The Network in Solidarity with the People of the Philippines (communist)

Sunsara Taylor (Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade)

There are lots more, but I think you get the idea.

Normally when I see someone using a coffin as a stage for political hackery, I think of Cindy Sheehan. This morning, Chuck Schumer showed that he could ably out-exploit the master with this forceful meeting of boot and tomb:

The real question today is whether Judge Alito would use his seat on the bench, just as Rosa Parks used her seat on the bus, to change history for the better or whether he would use that seat to reverse much of what Rosa Parks and so many others fought so hard and for so long to put in place.

Cindy, take note. You have competition.

Update: The Duchess of Dismay noticed and answers by grinding her stilettos into her son's back. Damn, I love a good fight...

A press release today from the folks who are hurt the most from the Femme of Fake Fatality's selfish and disgusting antics:

WASHINGTON, Oct.28 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Gold Star parents and military family members issued the following statement regarding Cindy Sheehan's die-ins at the White House this week on the occasion of the 2000th death of American servicemen and women serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom:

"We, the parents and family members of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who have served and given their lives defending America in Operation Iraqi Freedom are thoroughly disgusted with Cindy Sheehan and her publicity stunts.

"We are angered that Mrs. Sheehan is once again using our fallen loved ones against our wishes to undermine the cause they voluntarily gave their lives for. Her macabre die-ins in front of the White House do not honor the dead nor do they help the living -- they give encouragement to Al Qaeda to keep killing Americans until we surrender.

"Mrs. Sheehan is offering souvenir bracelets with our loved ones' names on them as bonuses to those who join her in the die-ins at the White House. Her continued abuse of our loved ones makes our blood boil and we demand that she stop trivializing their sacrifices with her tawdry acts.

"We know that Mrs. Sheehan and her allies are not peace activists. She herself has called terrorists fighting for Al Qaeda in Iraq 'freedom fighters'. The groups she works with have openly expressed their support for the terrorists and their contempt for this country. She and they are working to bring about the defeat of America in the war on terror.

"We support our country, we support the war on terror and we honor our loved ones' service."

It's signed by a whole bunch of Gold and Blue Star families. You know, it's one thing for a pundit or blogger to express disgust with Cindy's theatrics, but these are the folks that are directly harmed every time the maiden of malevolence preens for the cameras. If you have a blog or web page, how about publicly thanking these folks for their courage and sacrifice, and let your readers know that there's two sides to the story. Then do it again next week.

You know the MSM won't.

You probably remember Berkeley cancelling Veteran's Day because veteran's groups opposed moonbat Bill Mitchell being a speaker at the event.

Well, the event is back on, and the moonbat will be there to mock the veterans (emphasis mine):

The local chapter of Disabled American Veterans, which has participated in past Berkeley Veterans Day events, had threatened to pull out if Mitchell were included, saying he would inject partisanship into the occasion.

But the committee approved Bates' compromise: Mitchell is in, although not as the keynote speaker, and the DAV is out, although individual members will still attend.

Bates promised to talk to Mitchell and warn him to keep his remarks non-partisan.

"But by his very presence, he'll be making a statement,'' the mayor admitted.

Some one in Berkeley is missing the point. Veteran's Day is about the veterans, not those that hate them.

That's what I get for going to sleep - apparently the Matriarch of Moonbats was arrested.

All the details are at Michelle Malkin

As I've previously mentioned, today Cindy will go to the Iraqi Embassy at 10:30 to hand out sympathy cards. At around 1:00 p.m., back to the white house to mock our fallen heroes and everything they died for by pretending she's one of them as she feigns death on the sidewalk. Her plan is to tie up police resources as many times as possible as she shoots for the one day protest arrest record. I'll bet the DC police have better things to do than to waste their time carrying Cindy. Of course, she doesn't care if an armed robbery or shooting or drug sale goes unaddressed due to personnel shortages.

If you live in DC (or are visiting), are the victim of a crime, and the police took longer than they should to respond, please go ask Cindy what noble cause she's impeding the DC police for.

Tomorrow, she branches out. Since the dead aren't giving her the attention she so desparately craves, she's going to aim for some live troops as well. She'll be harrassing wounded troops and their families at Walter Reed Hospital, at 10:30.

Welcome to Michelle Malkin readers! Please feel free to look around while you're here!

Update: In a related event, Zombie has some pictures of the smiling, happy faces of the folks attending a couple of the festive galas celebrating the deaths of our troops. Via Little Green Footballs.

Apparently not satisfied with desecrating the memory of her son, the Damsel of Desecration is seeking more graves to stand on as she celebrates the 2000th death in Iraq at Arlington National Cemetery today.

For those of you that don't know, I'm retired military (USAF). I have a few friends buried in Arlington. I haven't the words to express how foul and hideous this is. So I'll show you instead:

I had more, but this is all I can stand for today.

Another post from AP/Yahoo. It's mostly a rewrite of previous stuff except for this:

"I'll be laying down and not getting up," Sheehan said Tuesday to a small crowd in which the number of journalists exceeded the number of protesters. "When they let me out, I'll do the same thing if I get arrested."

While it may be amusing to see that the Broad of Bitterness can't draw a crowd, there's another message here. Make no mistake about it, the liberal media supports this demented and pathetic woman 100%. If no other protesters show up, it won't be because the press didn't try.

Via Polipundit.

Update (26 Oct 2005, 0500): Here's a visual:

The Matron of Melancholy is showing up in the news now that the 2000 dead in Iraq mark has been reached. Here's one (via AP/Yahoo) where she talks about her beef with Hillary Clinton:

"I believe that any candidate who supports the war should not receive our support," Sheehan said Tuesday in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "It doesn't matter if they're Senator Clinton or whoever."

The whole piece is pretty much a rehash of her earlier writings on Clinton. But we know from past experience that the Tootsie of Torment is eating up all the attention.

And here's the scoop from AFP/Yahoo:

Mother of slain US soldier urges civil disobedience to protest war

For those of that are too young to remember the 70s, "civil disobedience" means break the law. She was going to chain herself to the fence surrounding the White House, but now she's just going to lie down on the sidewalk and play dead.

Yup, that's right - Cindy and her communist wacko friends are gonna honor our war dead by mocking them in a hideous publicity stunt. The Pidgeon of Painful Political Protest Platitudes plans to get pinched in plurality:

"And when they let me out I will come back and do the same thing (again) if I get arrested," she said.

Is it too late for Washington DC to pass a "3 strikes" law?

Cindy is back in DC to celebrate the 2000th death.

My regular readers (both of 'em) knew this was coming.

The Mistress of Misery tells about how badly she wants to go back to jail in her latest post:

Each day we will be passing out black wrist bands and we will have each person who picks one up write a KIA troop's name and number on it. Each wrist band will also stand for 50 innocent Iraqis killed. Everyday at 6 PM we will have a "die-in." We will ask everyone who is present at 6 PM to lie down and represent a dead soldier. At that point, the park police will give us 3 warnings before they arrest us.

"Die-in"? Please, not so close to Halloween, Cindy. The Maven of Moonbattery also wants to go sightseeing:

On Wednesday the 26th at 10:30 AM, we will be going to Arlington Cemetery to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Then to the White House for our vigil.

On Thursday the 27th at 10:30 AM we will be delivering a wreath and signed sympathy cards to the Iraqi Embassy. We are asking people who come out to our vigil on the Lafayette Park side to bring sympathy cards. Then to the White House for our vigil.

On Friday the 28th at 10:30 AM we will be delivering flowers and get well wishes to Walter Reed Hospital and we are asking people to bring get well cards to our vigil. Then off to the White House for our vigil.

This is developing, I'll have much more later.

Update 1: Cindy was in Marin, CA over the weekend to speak at a rally with Maxine Waters and others. During the event, she spoke with the Marin Journal about getting arrested being a thrill for her:

"I'm kinda addicted to getting arrested," Sheehan said. "It's like getting tattoos."

Way too much information...

Since we're unofficially now up to 1,999 deaths, Cindy could get her sick, ghoulish, and disgusting "fix" today.

Update 2: I almost missed this one. Cindy makes this statement in her latest post:

"More American soldiers have been KIA in the first 32 months of Iraq so far then in the first 4 years of Vietnam."

1964 is when the Viet Nam war started for the U.S., prior to that we had a minimal advisory presence. By the end of 1967, the casualty number was approximately 11,000. I have no idea what she bases her sentence on - maybe she asked John Kerry. But it doesn't matter since it's just dead wrong.

Many people have speculated as to whether the Fräulein of Funerals really writes this stuff. No one can say for sure, but read her latest and see if it bears any resemblance to previous writings. If she is writing them herself, she's got to be getting help. And check out some of the pithy new phrases:

"...Bush and his supporters who are crumbling like 3 day old sugar cookies..."

"It is time to get peacefully radical."

Cindy quotes 3 letters from grieving Moms in her latest. Referring to other Moms, the Belle of Beleaguerment reminds us yet again of the dangers of mixing faux tears with torturous math:

"The little vignettes of pain that I have shared with you are just 3 stories out of millions."

And Cindy is going back to Washington, DC, in hopes of getting arrested once again for the cameras:

On the day of the 2000th (death in Iraq - ed), I will be in DC. I will go to the White House. Our house. I will sit on the sidewalk again and demand that the war criminals who live and work in there bring our troops home.

I wonder if the DC cops will bring up the issue of her refusal to pay the fine for the last time she broke the law?

While she hasn't been getting any attention from the MSM, Cindy still rants on in the Huffington Post. Today, we look at two posts (Oct 16 & 17) from the Diva of Despair:

On the 16th, she lets us know that she would support Hillary Clinton for President if Hillary would find it in her heart to become a hypocrite on the war:

I would love to support Hillary for President if she would come out against the travesty in Iraq. But I don't think she can speak out against the occupation, because she supports it.

Considering the Gal of Gloom, who wants no more sons to die, once tried to get recruiters to sign up some young conservatives for potential death in Iraq, I guess I can understand how she sets standards for candidates. Sorry, Hillary. You're bad, but just not bad enough.

Cindy also discusses her meeting with Hillary:

I thought the meeting with Sen. Clinton went well. I thought she listened and heard what we had to say. I went with another Gold Star Mother, Lynn Braddach, and my sister, Dede Miller. After Sen. Reid left, Mrs. Clinton stayed for a few more moments and she told us that she had met with the other Gold Star Mothers who had a different view from ours. I said it didn't really matter, because our view is right. Lynn, Dede, and I don't want our loved ones to be used as political pawns to justify the killing spree in Iraq. I can't believe any mother who has had her heart and soul torn out would wish that on another mother. How often do the lies have to be exposed before every American (elected official, media representative, average citizen) wakes up and says, "enough killing is enough!"

Who cares about the other Moms who have lost their kids? Evidently not the Sheila of Sorrow (sorry, that was in case I get some Australian readers). As for the last part about waking up, hows this: Cindy, your lies and crackpot delusions have been exposed over and over by hundreds, if not thousands. Stop killing the truth!

Hey, did she say Hillary listened?

I thought Mrs. Clinton listened, but apparently she didn't because immediately afterwards she said the following to Sarah Ferguson of the Village Voice:

"My bottom line is that I don't want their sons to die in vain... I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal... I don't think it's the right time to withdraw."

I see. If Cindy tells you something, but you don't agree, then you didn't listen. Maybe that's why the Democrats don't invite her to Hillary's fundraisers:

I didn't get an invitation to any of the events, but maybe it's because she doesn't stand up for what I believe in.

You'd think she would get the hint that neither side has any use for her moonbatty crusade. Here's her take on recent polls about the war:

62% of Americans now believe that this war is based on lies and betrayals and want our troops to start coming home. 53% of Americans want our troops to come home immediately.

Lie and betrayals? I've seen several polls lately about the war, none of them said this. If you have no facts on your side, then slander will have to do.

That covers Sunday's post. More dishonesty and slander are the theme of Monday's rant from the Dame of Doom, titled Peaceful Day in Iraq:

I keep hearing on the news that this past Saturday was a relatively "peaceful" day in Iraq. Despite many reports already of alleged election fraud (shades of Ohio and Florida), George and his cronies are cautiously optimistic that the referendum for the constitution will pass. George Bush says that it looks like Iraq is heading for "peace."

Apparently Cindy isn't satisfied with slandering Bush about the elections here. If a lie works locally, why not go international? She continues to show us her complete abandonment of reality:

George told us in his headlong rush to disaster in Iraq that Saddam had WMD's and that Iraq was culpable for 9/11.

Um, no, Cindy, he didn't say Iraq was culpable for 9/11. Not even once. Not even as a joke. Please, please, go back on your medication, Cindy.

Next, the Princess of Pouting shows us that math and moonbats don't mix:

The soldiers and the Marine were all killed by IED's. There exists such a thing as an IED jammer. For $47,000/vehicle, our children can be saved from most of the IED attacks. The Pentagon has decided that $47,000 is too much to spend to keep our children alive!!! Halliburton steals that much from the Pentagon before the CEO's first cup of morning coffee. For the two vehicles that were destroyed and the 6 of our children killed, it comes to a little over $15,000 per person. Not to be crass, but the government will be handing each family a check for $100,000.00 soon (the deaths are still "pending") and $400,000.00 in insurance death benefits. I know each family would mortgage their homes, or sell their souls, if they knew it would have cost $15,000.00 to keep their precious family member alive.

Where to begin? First, the IED jammers. Not true. Via Bloomberg:

Force Protection Inc., a company with 270 employees in Ladson, South Carolina, saw its revenue grow to $24 million in the first six months of this year from $2 million in 2002, based in large part on orders of specialized ``Buffalo'' armored mine- clearing vehicles and ``Cougar'' IED detection-and-jamming vehicles, Vice President Michael Aldrich said in an interview.

Note the year - 2002. They were deploying IED jammers before Cindy's first tear-filled pose for the press. And here's this from the Washington Times, referring to a confidential document:

The document said that after the U.S. had success with jamming radio signals between the bomber and the improvised explosive devices (IEDs), insurgents quickly reverted to direct-wire ignition that cannot be jammed.

The Pentagon also has rushed to Iraq off-the-shelf technology, such as electronic jammers and spy equipment. Jammers are affixed to vehicle convoys as they move along booby-trapped roads. The Pentagon also has developed a technology, which is classified, for disrupting cell-phone signals.

And this:

Roughly 400 defense-industry executives representing several hundred companies showed up for an industry day sponsored by the Army late last year. Dozens of companies are expected to throw their hats into the ring by the end of this month to compete for a contract worth as much as $350 million to develop next-generation IED jammers.

Army spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Rodney said the service plans to test the potential jammers between March and May. By June, the Army will select a technology.

“Hopefully then we will move into production as fast as possible,” Rodney said.

During the competition, the Army hopes to find a technology that can jam a wide array of remote-controlled IEDs, which can be detonated by everything from garage-door openers to cell phones.

“We are looking for one jammer to do it all,” Rodney said.

Until now, the military has been using a number of jammers and other equipment in Iraq, including the Warlock electronic countermeasure system developed by EDO Corp., a New York-based company specializing in high-tech niche products. The company has won roughly $125 million in contracts over the past year to produce hundreds of the Warlock systems.

But Cindy says we don't have jammers and the government is too cheap to buy any. Proof that you don't have to research to be a moonbat. As for the rest of her rant, well, I just hope that the CEO of Haliburton sues for slander.

I'll leave this edition of Sheehan Watch with a line from Cindy's Sunday post:

Playing politics with our soldiers' lives is despicable.

Then stop, Cindy. Just stop.

Cindy's latest foray into moonbattery is here.

Yesterday was movie day!

Going to the movies was something Casey and I enjoyed doing together. Casey was a Theater Arts major in college and he went with a critical eye. Since I love sharing my children's passions with them, Casey and I would go to the movie theater often.

We saw two movies the last time he was home at Christmas, 2003 before he was deployed to Iraq . We saw the last movie in the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the live action movie Peter Pan.

Now enjoying a little fantasy at the theater is OK. Living in one is not. She continues with more movie fun:

On Ash Wednesday of 2004, a few days before Casey left for Iraq, his dad and I went to see The Passion of the Christ. That was our Ash Wednesday penance that year. Casey's dad fell asleep during the scourging scene while I sat in my seat and quietly sobbed. I was especially touched by the character that played Jesus' mom who followed her son along while he was being violently tortured and killed by devious men with an evil agenda. Of course, since I became a mom over 26 years ago, I have identified with Mary as she sobbed at the foot of her sons cross and cradled his lifeless body in her arms.

I am recounting all of this, because since Casey was killed in Iraq by devious men with evil agendas, I find it extremely difficult to go to the movies.

Now I'm not going to say she's making the comparison, but I'm not going to say she isn't, either. You be the judge. By the way,do sleeping pills cause delusions? Also, I never considered going to the movies an act of contrition. But I'll try that next time I go to confession (Priest: "Your attonement is 10 'Hail Mary(s)', 5 'Our Fathers', and say the Rosary twice." Me: "Can I just go to the movies instead?").

Most of the rest of the post consists of the Maven of Morbid trying to break the record for using "God forbid" the most times in one sitting. That phrase is one I've never liked in casual conversation, as it's a little presumptive. Using it this many borders on profane.

That all for this edition!

Todays matchup - Sheehan vs. the Terminator:

Via KXTV News 10 Sacramento

Sheehan to Try to Meet with Governor About War

Vacaville mother and anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan plans to go to the State Capitol today to ask Gov. Schwarzenegger to pull California's National Guard troops out of Iraq.

So far, the governor's office has not agreed to meet with Sheehan.

Good for you, Arnold. Looks like you learned from McCain's unpleasant experience.

Also, I missed this last week. Cindy had an interview for the Palestine Chronicle. The Sister of Sorrow says most of the usual stuff, and of course there are no hard questions. Here's a typical example:

Joshua Frank: Many war supporters have furiously denied any link between our foreign policy and the risk soldiers are at in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tony Blair has denied any link between foreign policy and the summer bombings over in London. What do you see?

Cindy Sheehan: I think that U.S. foreign policy is totally responsible for 9/11, as well as the recent bombings in London. Our policies of killing innocent Iraqis; Afghans; supporting the occupation of Palestine; our permanent bases in Saudi Arabia; our presence in Lebanon; our support of the shah; supporting Saddam and giving him the WMDs used on his own people. I think this sort of behavior drives hatred toward the U.S. This is just all my opinion, of course. I am not a politician or a military strategist. I am just a citizen voicing my opinions.

Joshua Frank: What fuels the war in Iraq today is central to our geopolitical interests: oil. How do you think this affects our chances as a movement to end the current war, compared to what it took to end the Vietnam War?

Cindy Sheehan: I think even more than oil, it has to do with the industrial military complex that Eisenhower warned us about. They have to keep us afraid of something or someone. During the 1950s and '60s it was the Communists. We lost that focus in the 1970s – so the evil Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Perle, along with the rest of the neocons, kept that alive. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, we needed a new enemy; so now it is terrorists… they are the "ist" du jour. It really is impossible to fight "ists" and "isms." You just can't do it. All we get in the end is prolonged, evil, and unnecessary war and death.

"Our chances"? Nothing like unbiased journalism, eh? One more gem:

Joshua Frank: The 2006 mid-term elections are right around the corner, and there are a few pro-war Democrats up for reelection. The most popular among them [are] Hillary Clinton in New York and Nancy Pelosi out in California. There is a bit of speculation rumbling in activist circles that you may be planning to take on one or the other in the Democratic primaries coming up. Is this true?

Cindy Sheehan: I think Nancy Pelosi is changing her tune, but not nearly fast enough. I have met with her a couple of times lately. I am not thinking of running against Hillary, or Nancy, or Dianne Feinstein, for that matter. If it were anyone, though, it would be Feinstein because I am a Californian and I believe she is a despicable warmonger. People have been begging me to run, but I think I can do more good on the outside of Washington than the inside.

Shudder the thought. If she ran for office, I'd have to start a Sheehan Watch blog. And hire a staff.

In case you've never heard of it, Palestine Chronicle is a weekly online magazine that, well, I'll let them tell it:

Palestine Chronicle is an independent internet magazine, dedicated to addressing issues and offering perspectives rarely seen in mainstream western media. These issues include the plight and welfare of Palestinian refugees, as well as other displaced and oppressed people around the world. We are committed to democracy and freedom of expression, and we encourage contributions from people who are genuinely concerned with the specified above. However, we deeply oppose any form of literature that expresses religious or racial intolerance. Palestine Chronicle does not speak on behalf of any political or religious party. Palestine Chronicle is written and constructed solely by volunteers from various places around the globe with a common purpose, bringing to light the suffering of humankind everywhere, from Palestine, the Middle East and Beyond.

Their honorary editorial board members includes Noam Chomsky.

They have a photo section with lots of images "rarely" seen in the MSM, like this:

and these:

For a peace activist, Cindy's keeping good company these days.

Update: Rob at Say Anything asks:

"And why doesn’t Cindy ever bug Democrat politicians? It seems to me like there were plenty of Democrats who voted in favor of the war in Iraq. Why doesn’t she ever target some of them. I mean, if her cause truly does transcend politics, as she alleges, why not be bi-partisan in your heckling?"

Professional courtesy, maybe?

It's been a dreary day here in southeast Pennsylvania. Overcast, occasional misty rain, really depressing. So it's a good day to check in on the mistress of misery, Cindy Sheehan. Her latest post can be found here.

Since her last post, she participated in an anti war march in LA with Thich Nhat Hahn, A Buddist Monk from Viet Nam. He's got her waxing philosophical in her post:

He walks with an aura of peace and acceptance radiating from him.

Every day we do things, we are things that have to do with peace. If we are aware of our life..., our way of looking at things, we will know how to make peace right in the moment, we are alive. Thich Nhat Hahn.

And this:

Tha^y told us we should say those phrases with every other step. I have arrived. Every second we live is a new arriving in the present. I see so much conflict and struggle in our world because we don't live in this second.

I feel like hugging a tree. Anyone with me?

While there, the angel of anguish met a Mom who's son survived and returned home with post traumatic stress disorder:

I met a new friend today named Jewel whose son was a medic on the front lines in Iraq and has tried to commit suicide three times since he returned from the desert of pain. The distraught Mother who is beside herself with worry said if something isn't done about it and if her boy doesn't get help, he is dying. His superiors will not allow him to be diagnosed for PTSD so he can't get the treatment he so desperately needs.

Cindy of course gave her the universal message of hope:

Jewel is Buddhist and I told her: "You realize your son died in Iraq."

So sensitive.

And the big news from Cindy today is:

The war machine and the people who serve it in our government are getting a little afraid themselves of not being able to keep the industrial military complex rolling in the bloody dough, so George and friends have come up with a new enemy whose atrocities also can't be contained to borders and that doesn't wear a national uniform: The Bird Flu.

That's right folks, Bush is now responsible for BIRD FLU!!!

Mmmmm... Moonbattylicious!

Since she's almost completely dropped out of the media, I decided (with insistance from TB) to check up on what ol' Cindy's been up to as a regular feature here at DGITL. She's still posting sporadically over at Huffington Post, so I browsed over and waded through the sea of tinfoil-coated punditry to get the goods. For those of you that wish to read it for yourselves but want to avoid being accosted by Deepak Chopra in the hallway, please feel free to use this link.

In the latest chapter of the saga that exceeds "Moby Dick" in despair if not in length, Cindy provides some insight into her mental state:

There were many nights after Casey was killed and we buried him that I had to restrain myself from swallowing my entire bottle of sleeping pills. The pain and the deep pit of hopeless despair were almost too much to cope with.

Here's a question for the medical profession: When someone is severely depressed, why do you tank 'em up on depressants? Doesn't that seem a little counter-productive?

Cindy continues about why she didn't swallow those pills:

The only thing that restrained me from committing the cowardly and selfish act of killing myself was my other three children. How could I put them through something so horrible after what they had already been through?

But tearing apart your family to become a terrorist appeaser is OK?

Another side note: Attention Hillary! When you start talking about health care during your upcoming campaign, enlist Cindy's aid! Imagine Cindy on stage next to you sporting that patented woefull expression, and you observing that the evil HMO that limited her to 20 Psych visits is really to blame...

Later in her post she entertains with a little irony:

We realized that at Camp Casey we remembered something after almost 5 years of a virtual dictatorship of control we have in America now: we the people have all the power.

Lets pause for a moment to let that one sink in...

While we're waiting, time for yet another side note: If you want to use a blog as a showcase for your grief, despair, and anti-american sentiment, filter the ads. Huffington Post rotates ads, if you click refresh repeatedly you'll see gems like "Patriotic Shirts USA made - 10% of proceeds supporting our troops", "Fabulous Patriotic Jewelry - Son In Service, Bush Campaign Pins, Yellow Ribbon Pins, Flag Earrings", "Careers in Intelligence", "Calm your Mind", "Hypnosis Psychotherapy", "Natural Stress Relief", "Join the Peace Corps", "Get a New Job". Talk about low hanging fruit...

OK, lets move on. Here's one just to set up for another sidenote:

I thought all my hope was KIA on the same day Casey was KIA.

Sidenote as promised: This is really unrelated to the subject of this post. I was just wondering why the marketing folks at this company never checked their name against any potential acronyms? Wouldn't you think this should be an easier catch than Found On Road Dead?

Finally, Cindy ends her post with a tantalizing hint of making Sheehan Watch a long running feature on DGITL:

I love being alive now and will devote my life to peace with justice so our children will never, ever be misused by the war machine again.

The post is not really notable, but Cindy Sheehan has a new one over on Huffington Post. It's also cross posted to Op Ed News and probably Michael Moore's (I refuse to link) site.

She says pretty much as you'd expect about her meetings with several Representatives and Senators ("They made me sick").

I do note with satisfaction that no one she talked to agreed with her sick and loony cause. And for the most part, she's almost completely dropped of the MSM's radar.

As time goes by, she's finding less and less solid footing on the stage she's made out of her son's corpse.

(H/T Ankle Biting Pundits)

I really hadn't meant to spend so much time on this subject.

But I posted previously about the apparent glee Cindy Sheehan displayed while getting arrested Monday, so I can't let this go without a followup.

Cindy posts in her blog (hosted on Huffington Post) about the scores of comments made about her smile:

I had a huge grin on my face when I was getting arrested yesterday. I have received a lot of flak for smiling. Apparently I am not supposed to smile, but I had some really good reasons for doing so.

At least she didn't claim it was gas. And the reasons?

First of all, I was having fun. I was with a group of good-humored, cheerful, happy people. We were singing old protest songs and old Sunday school songs and clapping. I felt I had to be cheerful to set the tone. We didn't want any trouble or to do anything non-peaceful. Secondly, when I got arrested and the officers lifted me out I was afraid that America would see my underwear and that tickled me.

Having fun - more about that in a minute. If she didn't want any trouble, she could have cooperated with the police when they told her to move on. Failing that, she could have cooperated when she was arrested. I'm sure the D.C. cops would have been all too happy to let her walk to the awaiting paddy wagon. Resisting arrest, in ANY form, is trouble. Especially when the intent is to do so. And she intends to continue by not paying the fine.

Cindy continues:

There is another and more important reason that I was smiling. I had not genuinely smiled since Casey was killed in Iraq.

I suppose that this not a genuine smile. Or this. Or this.

The fact is, she's had a pretty good time with all the media coverage. So much so, it was rumored that she had made comments lamenting the shifting of coverage away from her in favor of hurricanes Rita and Katrina - rumors she confirms in this same post:

Now about Hurricane Rita: I woke up on Saturday morning filled with excitement. I knew that the rally and march were going to be amazing events and I was thrilled to be a part of them. I switched on the TV and turned on CNN and for 2 hours, I watched one of their reporters in front of the same downed tree and it wasn't even raining. I knew that there was a hurricane and it was damaging. At the point of the news cycle though, I thought CNN could be covering other news. 40 soldiers have been killed this month so far in Iraq and countless Iraqis have been killed. The war is still going on and the news has been dominated by hurricanes and the terrible aftermaths. I actually think the mainstream media has been doing a good job of pointing out the dropped balls in the Gulf States. However, CNN and other mainstream news outlets ALWAYS report other news besides the illegal occupation of Iraq.

I can only imagine her dissapointment in discovering that she was no longer the center of attention. Side note: The "countless Iraqis" were killed by the very same group of folks that killed her son.

She does offer a typical leftist non-apology, though:

I am sorry for what seemed to be an insensitive remark about the people who were affected by Rita, but that was not my intention. I am very aware that the failed policies of the Bush administration have all put us in the same boat, so to speak, and we need to take responsibility for righting the wrongs here in our country and in Iraq.

"I'm very aware that the failed policies of the Bush administration have put us in the same boat" - nice nod to all those whose homes have been flooded. Or does that only seem insensitive? Since she can't take the limelight away from the "affected", she tries to share it by suggesting that the hurricane victims' woes and hers have a common source. If this kind of thinking becomes mianstream, Bush is likely to replace the family dog as the antagonist in every "eaten homework" story.

Amusing in her post was this line:

There were hundreds of thousands of regular Americans who came out to protest the war and Bush's policies this past Saturday.

I watched most of the C-Span coverage, and didn't see very many "regular" folks. I did see communists, socialists, terrorist supporters, antisemites, racists, etc. - in other words, the non-mainstream left of left fringe. Cindy, please look around you - these are absolutely, definitely not "regular" folks.

I really don't know if Ms. Sheehan would benefit from therapy. Or perhaps she just needs to wake up and look around at the damage she is doing to herself and others. I would gladly pay for a venti drip if that's all it would take.

Via AP/Yahoo:

Cindy is smiling because she successfully managed to get arrested in a carefully staged stunt in front of dozens of the media cameras she craves.

Sheesh. She just can't seem to stop embarrassing herself. If she really wanted to look like the grieving Mom she claims to be, she at least could have put on her game face.

Update 1: I just saw some video of the arrest on a cable news channel, the crowd was clapping and cheering as Sheehan was carried off. Either they were all happy that the arrest went as planned, or they were happy to see her go.

Update 2: Michelle Malkin has more photos of the arrest.