Recently in Smear Campaigns Category

This is your irony of the day. If you don't see it, I can offer no help for you.

Dean laments the fighting between Hillary and Barack as "too personal".

Also, there's this for the "selected, not elected" file:

"You bring both sides together and say, `Don't you think it's time that the two campaigns made a deal on how we're going to do this?'" Dean said.

Time will tell if it diminishes the effect of the whispering campaign being waged against him, but I think it's safe to say that the whispering campaign will continue unabated. The folks that are attacking Mitt on his religion are doing it solely for political gain, and/or have no belief in religious freedom. Mitt's speech will have no effect on them at all.

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

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

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

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

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

This post was blocked by Blogrolling.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

(crickets chirping)

um, guys?

(crickets chirping)

I thought so.

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

On his famous love for pork:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How very sad.

Early yesterday morning I emailed another blogger on an unrelated topic, but included my thoughts on the NYT's story:

I'm staying away from the NYT nuke story for now. The article was clear that the documents were pre-gulf war, I think some of the arguments being made on the right are a little thin. More info is sure to come out, maybe I'll be proven wrong. I hope so. Right now, though, I see this as a negative, albeit a minor one that probably won't have much effect on the election.

I think the Times' story hasn't even lived up to my mild prediction, as apparently the story hasn't gained much traction. Indeed, Dan Riehl notes:

More than 12 hours after the New York Times dropped perhaps what they thought was a nuclear bomb on the Bush administration four days before the coming election, a look at Google News puts the story at second tier status with no more than 265 additional stories linked to the breaking news.

The argument from the left that this somehow helped Iran will sway few outside the BDS echo-chamber. Iran has worked on their program for years with plenty of help, it's unlikely these old Iraq documents will help them.

As for the right side, while I feel that there should now be some increased attention to all the captured documents, the notion that the Times has somehow validated all 48,000 boxes of them is somewhat silly. I would like to think we can come up with a better vetting standard than the New York Times. (yes, I know, Ed isn't being entirely serious with this. But he was among the first to say it, and many other blogs are flogging this as if it's a big "gotcha", and I simply don't think it is.)

Folks on my side are also hyping the fact that the documents place yet another dagger in the heart of the "BushLied" meme. ""Iraq is a year away from building a nuclear bomb" was supposed to be a myth, a lie that Bush used to trick us into war."

True, but there were more than enough daggers in that heart already, and yet the "BushLied" meme is still alive and well. It's a comforting and fun rallying cry for the anti-Bush/anti-war crowds, they're not going to stop beating that drum no matter how much truth they ignore. Just this week, Kerry repeated it:

John McCain ought to ask for an apology from Dick Cheney for misleading America. He ought to ask for an apology from the president for lying about the nuclear program in Africa.

Of course, when the higher levels on the left still say it, the low will follow. For example, this deserter:

"The whole story behind it, it all feels like a big lie," Glass said. "I ain't fighting for no lie."

Hmmm. Kerry might have been right about this particular fellow - he's obviously not applied himself to his studies. Point is, though, the article in the Times turned out to be a big, fat, hairy zero.

If this is the best the NYT can muster, maybe Tuesday won't be such a disaster after all.

Oh - something struck me as I read the response to the article by Rep. Hoekstra, specifically this paragraph:

"With respect to the possibility that documents may have been released that should not have been released, I have always been clear that the Director of National Intelligence should take whatever steps necessary to withhold sensitive documents. In fact, as of today the DNI had withheld 59 percent of the documents that it had reviewed, and has become more risk-averse over time. If the DNI believes that the documents that were released were in the safe 40 percent, imagine what the 60 percent being withheld must contain.

Am I the only one who thinks Rep. Hoekstra isn't waxing rhetorical? And could the media be sedate in their coverage of this because they fear being thrown off track by that "60 percent"?

Just asking...

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?

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.

Well, they're at it again - a second October surprise for Curt Weldon. This hasn't shown up yet in the usual places, so this is from CREW's press release:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Earlier today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asked the Department of Justice to investigate whether Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) violated the law by threatening those who made contributions to his political opponent Joe Sestak with retribution.

CREW received two emails describing Rep. Weldon's efforts. The first, sent to Mr. Sestak on June 29, 2006, described a "hit list" compiled by someone on Rep. Weldon's staff identifying people in the national security field who had made contributions to Mr. Sestak. The email indicates that a retired Navy flag officer reported that Rep. Weldon said something to the effect of "If they don't think there will be retribution before or after the election, they're kidding themselves." A second email, sent on July 21, 2006 states that Rep. Weldon had his staff contact Navy personnel to get information on Mr. Sestak.

Here are the emails, from CREW's blog:

All of the dark line redacting was CREW's doing already present in the documents I downloaded from CREW (They received them in pre-redacted condition). I smudged out a few names they left in place. (see this post for explanation of the change.)

I really like Curt Weldon. He's done a fine job for his district. But if this turns out to be genuine, it doesn't look good. Not being a lawyer, I can't say whether any of this would amount to any more than that. Of course, if it turns out that Weldon actually committed a crime, I'll applaud as he leaves office.

Also, notice that once again, CREW is admitting that they have hip-pocketed evidence of a crime (so they say) for several months in order to use it for political advantage. This time, apparently, with the assistance and knowlege of Sestak's campaign.

A few folks have predicted that these tactics will backlash against the Dems. I hope so. CREW (and their accomplices in the Sestak campaign) gets no points for their behavior here. Either they hid a crime for 3-4 months for political convenience, or it's a vile smear launched late enough into the campaign so that an investigation wouldn't be complete to clear Weldon before the election.

CREW and the Democrats have attained a new low in politics. These tactics should be enough alone to show the American public how unsuited to lead the Democratic Party really is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This time in Kansas:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anchoress: "…something is not sitting just right with me."

I tend to agree. As I theorized yesterday, the House's investigations will lead nowhere. Unless Hastert buckles under pressure and resigns, the damage will be limited to one Republican gone in shame, and a few points lost in the polls. There's still plenty of time for the numbers to recover, so what did the Dems purchase with all this effort?

Anchoress thinks the current Democratic vapors about the Foley mess might be a diversion to keep the GOP busy while they prepare something else. I considered that too - the question is what? Voter fraud occurs every election cycle, I can't imagine how this could provide cover for it. But I won't rule it out, either.

Of course, this may not be the "true" October surprise we've all expected, and the Foley thing was meant just to tank the career of a single Republican. The story subsequently grew much longer legs than anyone anticipated, thus encouraging more attention from the Dem leadership than originally planned - hence the ham-handed and hypocritical rantings from the left that we've all been exposed to.

So is there another shoe yet to drop? Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what it might be?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oops - forgot to add the disclaimer:

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

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.

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

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

The Republicans are standing firm, as they should:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just asking...

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

The first, Iraq and Congress, says of Murtha:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The headline of this story drips of it:

Rove avoids being charged in CIA leak case

The text of the article says that the "ruthless" Rove "escaped" being charged. In her disappointment over the cancellation of Fitzmas, Jennifer Loven (the author of the piece) also makes this odd claim:

Still, the White House has not emerged entirely from the cloud of the CIA leak investigation. Cheney and Rove, along with other past and present administration aides, have been identified as possible witnesses when Libby goes on trial, probably in January.

If you're Rove, just being a witness at a trial is apparently a negative.

I recommend counselling.

Heard on the radio on the way to work, here's the confirmation...

Breaking - via AP/Yahoo:

WASHINGTON - Top White House aide Karl Rove has been told by prosecutors he won't be charged with any crimes in the investigation into leak of a CIA officer's identity, his lawyer said Tuesday.

Attorney Robert Luskin said that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald informed him of the decision on Monday, ending months of speculation about the fate of one of President Bush's closest advisers. Rove testified five times before a grand jury.

Fitzgerald has already secured a criminal indictment against Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

"On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove," Luskin said in a statement.

"In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation," Luskin said. "We believe the special counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."

Fitzgerald called Luskin late Monday afternoon to tell him he would not be seeking charges against Rove. Rove had just gotten on a plane, so his lawyer and spokesman did not reach him until he had landed in Manchester, N.H., where he was to give a speech to state GOP officials.

Looks like lumps of coal in the fitzmas stockings. After all the praise the left heaped on Fitzgerald after the Scooter Libby indictment, it will be fun to see how they twist and turn to create conspiracy theories over this latest news.

This also blows yet another big hole in the left's "culture of corruption" meme - which has already been a disaster for them as their own laundry is none too clean. I expect the "culture of continuous accusation" to continue to no avail. Fact is, they have nothing else to offer.

Added: It'll take a lot of scrubbing to get all the egg off of Jason Leopold's face (H/T Jeff Goldstein)

Update (9:34am EST): Howard Dean is in serious denial:

"He doesn't belong in the White House. If the president valued America more than he valued his connection to Karl Rove, Karl Rove would have been fired a long time ago," said Dean, the Democratic Party chairman, speaking Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show. "So I think this is probably good news for the White House, but it's not very good news for America."

Update (9:50am EST): From the comment swamps at Huffington Post, where the crazed ones are in shock and disbelief, and are starting to pose conspiracy theories:

Fitzgerald may not have enough to prosecute him on perjury but the man still outed a CIA agent during a time of war and should be fired.

"All the time , money and fake investigation and "The Fitz" caves in to the White House pressure.

Just because they couldn't catch him this time does not mean he is not a dangerous man to the entire United States.

There is no God

He wasn't "cleared". He just wasn't indicted.

This is great news for the white trash assholes who still think this government is doing a helluva job. Dance your victory dance today. Keep up your white trash adulation of Rush and Ann Coulter. Enjoy the party.

At some point down the road there will be a nasty revolution when the masses begn to realize that us faggots and our marriage rights don't really mean much when the GOP has turned us into a total fascist state.

Enjoy the celebration today, Koolaid drinkers. But the party won't last forever. And this very evil man, Mr Rove, will one day get his reward.

These were off the first couple of pages, nearly 200 comments have been posted.

This is a very unhappy day for the left.

Update (5:00pm EST): Even Kos is displeased with Leopold:

...I hope this serves a lesson to all of you who link to crap internet sources like Jason Leopold merely because they write what you want to hear.

Sweet.

Today's Washington Post has the first instance of the accused in the Haditha incident speaking out. It's not a direct interview - the Marine's version of events is related through his attorney:

Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, told his attorney that several civilians were killed Nov. 19 when his squad went after insurgents who were firing at them from inside a house. The Marine said there was no vengeful massacre, but he described a house-to-house hunt that went tragically awry in the middle of a chaotic battlefield.

"It will forever be his position that everything they did that day was following their rules of engagement and to protect the lives of Marines," said Neal A. Puckett, who represents Wuterich in the ongoing investigations into the incident. "He's really upset that people believe that he and his Marines are even capable of intentionally killing innocent civilians."

It's a long article with lots of detail, too much to quote here. But the alleged coverup is addressed as well:

After clearing the second house, Puckett said, Wuterich immediately got on the radio and reported the "collateral damage." When the company radio operator asked him to estimate how many civilians had been killed, he said he thought it was about 12 to 15.

McConnell, the company commander, "knew the number was high" and reported it to the battalion executive officer, a major, according to McDermott, his lawyer. McConnell also said that a Marine intelligence team investigated the civilian deaths and reported their findings to senior Marine commanders, the lawyer said.

Wuterich told his attorney that he never reported that the civilians in the houses were killed by the bomb blast and maintains that he never tried to obscure the fact that civilians had been killed in the raids. Whether Wuterich gave false information to his superiors is the focus of one of the military investigations. He said the platoon leader, who was on the scene, never expressed concern about the unit's actions and never tried to hide them.

I've been relatively silent about the investigation thus far. It's been obvious since the story broke that there were details not coming out in the press or in the irresponsible and opportunistic statements from politicians and pundits.

But the Post article should serve to remind us that there numerous voices to be heard. The insistance by some that this event equates to My Lai on the sparsest of data from a bias source serves no one, especially the individuals being accused. Our system of justice requires the presumption of innocence - it's truly unfortunate that as we've seen before, so many lack respect for that simple concept.

The Post should be commended for bringing the other side of the story to us. I hope that the rest of the media picks up the Marines' account defending their experiences in Haditha and gives them the same prominence given to less credible accounts of our troops' behaviour in Iraq.

There's a certain segment of the left where hypocrisy reigns unchecked. There's really no reconciliation of "support the troops by bringing them home" and complaints of our "worn-out, stressed-out, missionless troops in Iraq" who commit "everyday, unheralded horrors perpetrated on innocent Iraqi civilians". Any attempt to concatenate these conflicting views results in a logic-defying mess. More balanced coverage in the media at-large of Haditha won't change the minds of these people, nor will it affect Murtha and other politicians who have abused their public voice and the troops for political gain.

Nonetheless, the Marines and the American people are entitled to a fair accounting. And that's certainly not too much to ask of the news industry, is it?

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.

If you didn't catch it live yesterday (I didn't) this is the must-see video from the weekend. John Hinderaker discusses classified leaks with Lucy Dalglish (Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press) and Michael Isikoff, (reporter for Newsweek) on CNN’s Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz. The transcript is here.

It's easy to imagine the press component of the discussion believing that they are somehow like narrators in a documentary, unable to have an effect on the events they describe - therefore unaccountable. And it's impossible to miss the contempt shared by all but Hinderaker for the law and the administration. For example, their dismissal of the Espionage Act:

Kurtz (in transcript, not on video):

"But first, it's no secret that the Bush administration is trying to choke off the leaking of secrets to the press. CIA employees are being given lie detector tests, according to "The Washington Post," and the Justice Department is talking about using a

World War I Espionage Act

to prosecute reporters for receiving classified information."

Dalglish:

"And there's a reason why the 1917 Espionage Act has never been used to prosecute journalists. It would be an absolutely ridiculous proposition."

Isikoff:

"And using statutes like the Espionage Act, which is so vague and open for -- you know, the number of investigations that could conceivably flow from this strategy is enormous and, you know, it's hard to see how it could not but have a chilling effect on doing, you know, standard reporting on what the government is up to."

"Just one point on what Mr. Hinderaker just said. He was -- selectively quoted from a portion of the National Defense Act. There's other -- there's other language in there talking about communications relating to national defense which are incredibly vaguely worded, nowhere defined, and can be used to prosecute just about anything."

"One of the recommendations of the September 11th Commission is that there was way too much classification in government, and that was hindering national security."

The inclusion of "1917" and "World War I" as descriptors is telling. The law is old. Antiquated. Obsolete. How arrogant. There are laws against murder, theft, and rape that are much older - should these laws be placed in the same category due to age alone? I guess keeping secrets was somehow more relevant during WWI than it is today.

Another good dodge is the "too much classification" line. Would Mr. Isikoff argue that since a duty roster may have been over-classified as confidential during WWII, the press should have published the attack plans in advance of D-Day?

But the undertone of the conversation is the fear sweeping news offices over this issue. And Lucy Dalglish illustrates nicely the abject terror felt by the MSM during this exchange:

KURTZ: Lucy Dalglish, why should journalists be shielded if it's a crime to leak it, classified information, when they're on the other end of that transaction?

LUCY DALGLISH, REPORTERS COMMITTEE, FREEDOM OF PRESS: Well, you know, I -- theoretically, you know, "The Washington Post" probably this morning in my newspaper broke the law 45 times. I mean, you cannot pick up a newspaper without reading classified information.

KURTZ: In other words, you could find the illegal justification to prosecute reporters every day of the week?

DALGLISH: You could find the -- absolutely you could. And there's a reason why the 1917 Espionage Act has never been used to prosecute journalists. It would be an absolutely ridiculous proposition.

Why, if the government enforced the law, we'd all go to jail! And wouldn't that be silly?

But certainly the threat of prosecution alone wouldn't frighten the stalwart defenders of free speech out of doing their noble duty to the public? John expertly tosses out the bait, but the panel pointedly ignores it:

The NSA program was capturing lots of international terrorist communications. That's dropped off drastically since "The New York Times" published the story. So they've -- they've damaged our security.

Sounds like "aid and comfort" to me. Even more than prosecution, the press fears prosecution using the dreaded "T" word. And that law is old, too, Lucy.

H/T PowerLine.

Added note: Ian at Expose The Left does a terrific job of making these videos available to everyone, if you agree, drop him a note of thanks for the service he provides. A hit to his tip jar wouldn't be unwelcome, either.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, just a rumor.

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

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

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

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

All that hatred is twisting their minds...

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.

Okay, folks, pretend you're Harry Reid for a moment...

If your smearing of Judge Alito has made you and your party look like a bunch of buffoons;

If your breathless accusations over Abramoff and his clients' donations haven't successfully washed away the $66,000 you received;

As your accusations of illegality over the NSA's efforts, become more and more shrill and dishonest;

If your insistance that President Bush fire an employee that hadn't even been charged, or indicted, or convicted of any wrongdoing makes you sound childish;

If your continuous attacks and repeating the phrase "culture of corruption" over and over have made the Democrats in congress even more unpopular than the Republicans;

And just having finished directing your fellow Democratic Senators to ignore Judge Alito's qualifications and vote for partisan political gain only;

What do you think your next move should be? Change directions, maybe?

Not if you're Harry - nope, you set up an organization to step up the same types of attacks that have failed so miserably:

WASHINGTON - An organization with strong backing from the top Democrats in Congress intends to launch a costly election-year campaign to promote issues on the party's agenda, officials said Tuesday, beginning with a television commercial arguing it's "time for a change" after a season of political corruption.

Americans United "will use all the campaign-style tactics which characterize political campaigns," ranging from paid advertising to grassroots organizing, according to a memo describing the group's plans.

"Campaign-style tactics" means attack ads. And lots of fund-raising, too:

Officials said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California met with potential donors in Los Angeles earlier this month, underscoring their personal interest in the group's efforts.

Americans United got it's start-up funds from MoveOn.Org and several large unions. The unions involved so far appear to be:

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
National Education Association
American Federation of Teachers
AFL-CIO
Service Employees International Union

The ethics-minded lefties have cleverly set this up as a 501(c) so that donors don't have to be disclosed. Also, the group will not support any individual candidate, so there will be no limits on the size of donations. This dovetails nicely with the Democrats' primary campaign strategy - since they don't as of yet have an agenda of their own, right-bashing is their only tactic at present. And AU can easily run ads supporting each individual Democratic candidates' platform of Bush and Right-bashing and still run a disclaimer on each ad stating their non-affiliation. Pretty clever, eh?

And there's more - the group is designed to emulate the very methodology of what Dems call the "Culture of Corruption":

"Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi are very supportive of efforts to advance progressive issues, much like the Republicans have done for years with conservative causes through such groups as Progress For America," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid.

I would think that the last thing Reid would want to do is copy his "corrupt" adversaries.

This coming election season promises to be the most fun ever.

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

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

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

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)

Nancy issued this statement today:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a maroon....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Via AP/Yahoo:

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

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

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

To go from this:

To this:

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

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

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

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

Here's a closeup of the black spots:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two weeks ago, I posted about Sen. Dorgan's dirty hands in the Abramoff scandal and how it affects his role in the investigation. Here's the latest via AP

Sen. Dorgan Returns Tribes' Donations

WASHINGTON - The top Democrat on the Senate committee investigating Jack Abramoff's Indian lobbying is returning $67,000 in donations in response to Associated Press reports that he collected tribal money around the time he took actions favorable to those of Abramoff clients.

Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record), D-N.D., said Tuesday that while he never met Abramoff and didn't take any actions at the lobbyist's behest, he nonetheless wants to return the money to avoid any appearance that tribal money was directed to him by the controversial lobbyist.

"Even though those contributions were legal and fully reported as required by law, I will not knowingly keep even one dollar in contributions if there is even a remote possibility that they could have been the result of any action Mr. Abramoff might have taken," the senator said.

A question for Sen. Dorgan - if all the other politicians give their donations back, does that give them a pass in your investigation? After all, what's good for the goose...

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

Democrats Test Themes for `06 and `08

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additionally, the play is going on tour:

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

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

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

Dario Fo’s new play has aroused not only ire but a lawsuit. The Nobel Prize winner’s latest, The Two-Headed Anomaly, pokes fun at Italian premiere Silvio Berlusconi, with Fo himself playing the prime minister and Fo’s wife, Franca Rame, playing Veronica Lario (Berlusconi’s wife).

In the play, Berlusconi is visited by Russian leader Vladimir Putin, who gets shot by Chechen rebels, and part of Putin’s brain is put into the Italian’s head. The result is a vodka-drinking, confused drunk worried about men trapped in a submarine.

What a good choice to write a play about a demented moonbat. And to top it off, here's an excerpt from his bio in Columbia Encyclopedia:

A long-time member of the Communist party (he was denied entry into the United States in the early 1980s), Fo has often been critical of the policies of the Roman Catholic church, which has termed some of his plays blasphemous. Forceful, wittily anarchic, and often disturbing, his work was impeded by Italian censorship before 1962. In 1968, Fo and his wife, actress Franca Rame, with whom he has frequently collaborated in writing and acting, began presenting plays on contemporary issues. The most famous of these is Accidental Death of an Anarchist (1970), a farce about the alleged suicide of an anarchist in police custody. Among his more than 70 other plays are Mistero Buffo (1969), Can't Pay, Won't Pay (1974), The Pope and the Witch (1989), and The Devil with Boobs (1997). Fo was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1997.

Say it isn't so! Cindy being canonized by a communist? I wonder where we've seen that before...

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

for good cheer, and Iowahawk serves up a barrel full in "POLL: 61% BACK TORTURE OF HOWARD DEAN".

As a side note:

Isn't it interesting that during the Christmas season, the leader of the party who counts among it's membership the people who would do away with the holiday becomes a surrogate for the usual Christmas traditions, at once delivering presents and answering prayers for Republicans?

Bill Clinton took some time out of his undoubtedly busy schedule today to give a surprise speech at the U.N. climate conference:

Former U.S. president Bill Clinton told a global audience of diplomats and environmentalists Friday that the Bush administration is "flat wrong" in claiming that reducing greenhouse gas emissions to fight global warming would hurt the U.S. economy.

Naturally, he's just continuing the tradition start by Jimmy Carter of former Democratic presidents going to other countries to undermine and bash Republican presidents.

In the meantime, Canadian PM Paul Martin is under fire for inviting Clinton to help his campaign:

Prime Minister Paul Martin flatly denied Friday trying to boost his electoral fortunes by wooing the popular Bill Clinton and antagonizing the unpopular George W. Bush.

Martin also rejected suggestions he was trying to score political points when he criticized Bush's environmental policies earlier this week.

Of course not. Politicians never criticize other politicians for political gain, right?

From a press release by the Florida Democratic Party:

"With the President's latest PR campaign clearly failing, Republicans like Jeff Miller are now cherry-picking Governor Dean's words just like they cherry-picked the pre-war intelligence."

Hmm. Let's see what Jeff Miller said, shall we?

“Yesterday, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee said our troops can’t win in Iraq. Howard Dean effectively signaled to insurgents and terrorists everywhere that his party was ready to wave the white flag in the War on Terror.

For the sake of political gains, Dean’s Party has chosen to trivialize the sacrifices our men and women in uniform have made in Iraq. His Party has gone from attacking the liberation of Iraq, to attacking the Bush Administration, to attacking the Armed Services of this country and saying they cannot win.

Howard Dean’s comments were a direct attack on the morale of our military and border on treasonous.

Regardless of your opinions on Iraq, it is wrong to attack the capabilities of our military for the purposes of political gain. I call on Mr. Dean to resign as chairman of the Democratic National Committee.”

Just as a reminder, this is what Rep. Miller supposedly "cherry-picked":

"Iraq is a catastrophe for America and Americans will leave, it will only be a matter of time.

"I say to Bush: You entered Iraq with lies, you will lose Iraq and lie about it and you will leave with the pretext that you have completed your mission ... America only has to decide on the number of (troops) it wishes to lose before withdrawing."

Oops - I'm sorry. That was Al Zawahri. Maybe it was:

"...Iraq can not be won militarily."

Oops - Sorry again. That was Mothra. Here it is:

"We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha"

Sorry again - that was Nancy Pelosi. Lets try again:

the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

Maybe the Florida Dems are right - Rep. Miller did cherry-pick. But Miller wasn't incorrect, just incomplete. It was wrong for him to paint Dean's remarks as out of step with the rest of the party - increasingly, it's becoming the unified party message. A message of defeatism, surrender, and hopelessness.

Via Yahoo/Al-Reuters, Al Qaeda's number two guy is insisting that Osama Bin Ladin is still in charge:

"I bring a message of joy to all Muslims and mujahideen that al Qaeda is spreading, expanding and strengthening. Its prince Sheikh Osama bin Laden is still leading its jihad (holy war)," he said in a video interview aired on an Islamist Web site.

It's getting increasingly difficult to determine who is writing the talking points, and who is simply repeating them, as Al Zawahri appears to be channeling Howard Dean:

Zawahri said the United States had suffered a defeat in Iraq and it was only a matter of time before it pulled out its troops.

"Iraq is a catastrophe for America and Americans will leave, it will only be a matter of time.

"I say to Bush: You entered Iraq with lies, you will lose Iraq and lie about it and you will leave with the pretext that you have completed your mission ... America only has to decide on the number of (troops) it wishes to lose before withdrawing."

I hope Howard is proud of himself.

Updated: Klause corrects me - Al Zawahri's statement does indeed pre-date Howard's. Thanks, Klause - good catch!

The point is still valid, though. And it's been pointed out by others, many times, the uncanny similarity between the talking points of the left and the rhetoric of the terrorists. Howard really needs to pull his head out and ask himself if he really wants to throw in with a bunch of murderous thugs before he opens his mouth.

No matter how you support the terrorists, it's still support.

Whether you support them directly by undermining our nation's mission in Iraq.

Or indirectly by supporting others who give aid and comfort to our enemies.

It's still support. And there's a special phrase just for the kind of anti-American sub-human Howard has proven himself to be. But I promised not to use it here.

H/T Michelle Malkin, who has a terrific roundup of opinion on this.

Update: Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert weighs in:

"We should all be grateful that Governor Dean is not General Dean. Rather than standing by our troops who are fighting the War on Terror, Howard Dean has made it clear the Democratic Party sides with those who wish to surrender.

"This type of rhetoric for political gain is irresponsible. But even worse, it sends the wrong message to our troops who are fighting terrorism on the front lines and to the millions of Iraqis who are days away from another landmark accomplishment in their march towards freedom. We must take the fight to the terrorists in Iraq, rather than fight them here. I urge Governor Dean and the Democratic party to put away their negative and harmful political rhetoric."

Well said, Mr Speaker.

Update 2: RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman being interviewed on the same radio station that Howard Dean used as a urinal yesterday (emphasis mine):

"It's fairly extraordinary. I can't remember any time in history where the leader of a national party, one of our 2 national parties, predicted that America would lose a war we were engaged in. I think it sends the wrong message to our troops, the wrong message to the enemy, the wrong message to the Iraqi people just 10 days before the election."

"...You think about it, this isn't anything new. Just this past weekend on Sunday, John Kerry talked about American troops engaged in terroristic and other activity, terrorizing kids and children. He talked about we've already seen Nancy Pelosi embrace a retreat and defeat strategy...you have the Democratic nominee in '04, Democratic national chairman, lead Democrat in the House, have all now come out embrace a retreat and defeat strategy while our country is at war."

Host: "Well I actually asked him about that. I mean, I think that Murtha is the one that started it. Nancy Pelosi is now agreeing with it, that we should have these troops, and they're using the word redeployed within 6 months. Howard Dean won't go there. He says he wants it to happen within 2 years. So, if anything, the Democrats seem to be undecided about, you know, about agreeing on a time frame here. And do you think that it's wrong from its get-go to have any sort of a time frame at all or should there be?"

Ken Mehlman: "...here's why a time frame is a mistake.... If you tell the enemy when you're going to stop fighting, then the enemy knows when it needs to hold out (UI). If you want the Iraqi people to risk their lives, run for office (UI) vote in this election (UI) 10 days and do the things they're doing, if they know that after a given period, they're going to be abandoned to Zarqawi, they're much less likely to do it. You want the enemy to understand that there is no alternative but to air their grievances at the political process, then obviously, again, giving them a time frame is a mistake. Imagine if we had said to Hitler in 1942 that in 2 years we're going to pull out of Europe. Hitler would not have been, would not have ended his war. Hitler would not have surrendered. Germany would not have surrendered."

"It is always a mistake when you're fighting an implacable foe tell them the point at which you're going to stop fighting."

---

Ken Mehlman: "But think about it. Why would (UI) national party say America can't win a war while its troops are engaged in that war?"...

---

Host: "Well I think what's interesting also to add here, Ken, is that John Kerry also came out after the President's speech the other day and what he said was we don't want to redeploy; we don't want to get the troops; we just want to have a time frame for victory. So, again, in the Democratic party itself, there are varying answers. I want to throw this at you because Howard Dean brought this up yesterday, that 80 percent of the Iraqis want us out. And I asked him what is the source of that? Who exactly did the survey? Who did the poll and who exactly did they ask? And he didn't have an answer. Have you seen this poll that shows that 80 percent of the Iraqis want us out?"

Ken Mehlman: "No, not at all. I've seen polling that shows something very different, in fact, and that is that Iraqis increasingly understand and believe that they need (UI) their country is heading in the right, not the wrong, direction. They're optimistic about the future in a way they haven't been. ... Fundamentally it comes down to this. Do you believe this (UI) in the war on terror is victory versus defeat has a huge consequence for American security? Answer is unquestionably yes."

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.

I posted yesterday on Lamar's refusal to give the Dems billboards that it felt were a "personal attack". Here's the Dems somewhat unusual twist on the situation:

While Lamar's form contract reserves to the company the right to refuse to run a billboard advertisement, Lamar's conduct in this instance raises serious questions about whether the company is unlawfully or improperly using corporate resources to favor or benefit the Republican Party or Rep. Schmidt.

So by refusing to display a personal attack on a political opponent, Lamar is "unlawfully" benefitting Republicans? Neat twist, eh? By the way, I'm not defending Rep. Schmidt's comments on the house floor, but she did apologize and had her unfortunate remaks striken. Yet the Democrat's billboard won't say this. The entire text for the ad:

"Shame on You, Jean Schmidt: Stop Attacking Veterans. Keep Your Eye on the Ball -- We Need a Real Plan for Iraq"

"Stop Attacking" suggests that it has happend more than once, and is still occuring. We know this to be untrue - it was once, and she apologized. So what we have is a classic personal attack - misleading or dishonest verbage combined with the omission of her apology and the striking of her remarks (also known as lying by omission). Yet the Dems would have you believe that they want the public to be informed:

Rep. Schmidt's constituents are entitled to know what she is saying on the floor of the U.S. House and the DNC has a right to tell them.

If that's what they really believe, then they should tell the whole story. Failure to do so is dishonest, and yet again displays why the Democrats don't deserve to regain power ever again.

You remember the fundraising drive the Democrats were having to put up billboards smearing Rep. Jean Schmidt?

At least for now, stopped dead in their tracks:

Company Blocks Ads Critical of Ohio Rep.

Lamar Advertising Co. of Baton Rouge, La., refused to put up two billboards in Portsmouth, Ohio, and another in Cincinnati with a picture of Schmidt and the following message: "Shame on you, Jean Schmidt: Stop attacking veterans. Keep your eye on the ball — we need a real plan for Iraq."

Turns out the folks at Lamar have a conscience:

Lamar's Huntington, W.Va., regional manager, Mark Watts, rejected the billboards criticizing Scmidt as a personal attack, said Hal Kinshaw, Lamar's vice president of governmental affairs.

And the reason they have a conscience? They're not moonbats:

In 2004 elections, it gave Republicans 70 percent of its U.S. House race donations and 60 percent of its U.S. Senate race contributions.

Thank God the folks at Lamar aren't those greedy heartless Republicans the left is always telling us about. They might have placed profits above morals and common sense.

that the MoveOn ad depicting British troops and passing them off as American is still on their website.

Had any of you still harbored even the smallest belief that MoveOn's membership really cared about our American troops, the fact that they haven't removed the ad from their site should remove all doubt.

That said, if they were they to remove the ad today, it would be folly to take it as a sign that their hearts have suddenly changed. After all, this was a Thanksgiving ad campaign, and would eventually would be removed anyway. That they've had more than enough time to do the right thing and chose not to do so speaks volumes.

Considering the depth of the hatred and contempt for America and its military seemingly held by the people at MoveOn, I expect we'll see another smear on the troops around Christmas. Let's hope that the general public looks past the lugubrious images of joyless and tearful family gatherings to see how black the heart of the far left really is.

Nancy Pelosi issued this press release today on President Bush's Iraq war plan. Although it was filled with the usual tripe we've come to expect from Rep. Pelosi, notable was the last paragraph:

"We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha, who has put forth a plan to make America safer, to make our military stronger, and to make Iraq more stable."

But when faced with having to put up or shut up, she bolted away from the Mothra Cut and Run Plan as if it had cooties.

I'm sure her opinion's just evolved - right?

I didn't post on the horrid Ted Rall cartoon yesterday. Nick at Conservative Dialysis addressed it pretty thoroughly, and I couldn't add to his analysis.

Today Ted dredges up a little more bile in his weekly op/ed subtitled "How Ragtag Insurgents Beat the World's Sole Superpower"

He wants to rewrite history on the Afghan war - something not even Nancy Pelosi would dare do. He claims the Afghan was not only lost, but claims our troops, to the last man, acted dishonorably and even criminally:

Banditry and looting soon made the average Afghan nostalgic for the security that accompanies tyranny. On the other hand, since U.S. soldiers quickly gained a reputation for shoving, kidnapping, robbing and even torturing innocent Afghans, perhaps their small number was a good thing.

If any of you reading this are veterans, this is what Ted Rall thinks of you. He doesn't stop there, however. He moves on to describe our Guard and Reserve:

As inexperienced weekend warriors shot up carloads of civilians from rooftops above invisible checkpoints, it soon became apparent that our forces were undereducated, poorly trained and excessively preoccupied with their own safety. The Americans' cultural insensitivity, often beyond the point of brutality, transformed people grateful to be liberated into insurgents in a matter of months.

If you ever served as a weekend warrior, that's what Ted Rall thinks of you. Oh - by the way - below the fold is another one of his cartoons in which he accuses our troops of homosexual rape. Just in case the above wasn't enough.

Linked with:
Conservative Cat
bRight & Early
Don Surber - then again, maybe not. No, I don't know why. MT 3.2 isn't as good with trackbacks as I would like.
Basil's Blog

In a sudden fit of balance, AP gives us some interesting reporting on the Abramoff Scandal:

Abramoff Tied to Dorgan Donation, Tribe Says

WASHINGTON - New evidence is emerging that the top Democrat on the Senate committee currently investigating Jack Abramoff got political money arranged by the lobbyist back in 2002 shortly after the lawmaker took action favorable to Abramoff's tribal clients.

A lawyer for the Louisiana Coushatta Indians told The Associated Press that Abramoff instructed the tribe to send $5,000 to Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record)'s political group just three weeks after the North Dakota Democrat urged fellow senators to fund a tribal school program Abramoff's clients wanted to use.

The check was one of about five dozen the Coushattas listed in a tribal ledger as being issued on March 6, 2002, to various lawmakers' campaigns and political causes at the instruction of Abramoff, tribal attorney Jimmy Fairchild said Monday.

Many of the recipients were lawmakers who had just written letters to the Bush administration or Congress supportive of Abramoff's tribal causes, documents show.

In Dorgan's case, at issue is $20,000 in donations recieved from tribes represented by Abramoff and the appearance that it was payment for a letter he wrote to the President supporting a tribal school program.

Previously, reporting in this has been focused primarily on Republicans, and the left has made numerous statements about the Republican's involvement while turning a blind eye to their own members caught up in the scandal. As the reporting has shifted toward something more balanced, the left, particularly the DNC, has adopted silence. Considering the aggressiveness of the DNC attacks at the outset of the story, I can't help but surmise that the DNC was blind-sided by the media on this, having been able to depend on the MSM's portward tilt in the past for cover.

In my previous posts, I've commented on the problematic nature of this particular scandal for the Democrats. After all, how can you deride the Republican "culture of corruption" when Harry Reid, Byron Dorgan, Mary Landrieu, and others are part of the same club? Defending their own is equally difficult when by default, they defend Trent Lott, Tom Delay, Roy Blunt and the rest. Not that Dorgan doesn't try, albeit weakly:

Dorgan's staff said Dorgan believes the letter was drafted by Sen. Conrad Burns (news, bio, voting record), R-Mont., who also signed it and got similar donations from Abramoff's clients in the same time frame.

Considering the treatment Republicans received from the DNC over this, I find it curious that Senator Dorgan would use the "he did it, too!" defence.

So far, everyone involved is saying the same thing:

"The suggestion in the story that I may have supported that school construction program because of Jack Abramoff or because of campaign contributions from Indian tribes is clearly and despicably wrong," Dorgan said.

But Dorgan's position as ranking Democrat on the committee charged with investigating the scandal adds another dimension to the story. He denies that it affects his duties, though:

Dorgan's spokesman, Barry E. Piatt, said he believed his boss had pursued the congressional investigation of Abramoff aggressively.

Asked why that investigation hasn't focused more on donations to lawmakers who wrote letters favorable to Abramoff's clients, Piatt said, "They're investigating what appears to be massive fraud, and there's lots of ground to cover and it is still early."

Honestly, folks. If Chuck Grassley was on that committee, what would the Democratic reaction be? And they'd be right. Even if this all turns out to be just a tempest in a teapot, the appearance of suspects conducting their own investigations casts a pall over any resulting conclusions that can't be ignored.

The appearance of impropriety is unmistakable. Senator Dorgan should step aside from the investigation. And if anyone on the Indian Affairs Committee is implicated in the Abramoff scandal, they should join him.

On the other hand, staying on simply reinforces what we've known all along - Democrats are only interested in dealing with corruption when it occurs in someone else's party. And this time it appears that the press is noticing.

You should recall the story earlier this month about the IRS investigating Rev. George Regas and All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena about a sermon titled "What if Jesus were to debate John Kerry and George Bush?"

Now comes another allegation:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 28 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) today filed an Internal Revenue Services (IRS) complaint against Focus on the Family, a conservative, non-profit organization led by its founder and chairman James C. Dobson. The complaint asks for the IRS to investigate activities by the group which may violate IRS regulations and require a revocation of its tax-exempt status.

Although barred from electioneering, Dobson has endorsed candidates for political office several times. In early April, 2004, Dobson endorsed Republican Representative Patrick J. Toomey in his race for Senate in Pennsylvania. In addition, it was reported that Dobson actively campaigned during a rally for Rep. Toomey. Other candidates that Dobson reportedly endorsed in 2004 include North Carolina Republican candidate Pat Ballentine for Govenor and Oklahoma Republican candidate Tom Coburn for Senate.

"Mr. Dobson's egregious violations of IRS code demand an investigation into his improper activities that break both the spirit and the letter of IRS law," Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW said today.

I don't think this will go very far. Endorsing a candidate as an individual is a far cry from making political speeches disguised as a sermon. But the real question is: Why did CREW make the complaint?

Recently, the IRS has actively pursued investigations against several perceived liberal groups. The IRS targeted the NAACP's chairman Julian Bond for a July 2004 speech in which he criticized the Bush administration's policies on civil rights and the war in Iraq. Additionally, the IRS has threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California because of an antiwar sermon there during the 2004 presidential election. In his sermon "If Jesus Debated Sen. Kerry and President Bush," the Rector Emeritus of the church, George Regas, never encouraged parishoners to vote for one candidate over another, but only to vote their deepest values.

Sloan continued, "The IRS has established a track record of scrutinizing organizations, in particular liberal ones, that have purportedly violated electioneering regulations. We hope that the IRS will fully investigate Focus on the Family activities as vigorously as it has targeted those of progressive organizations."

You know, my four year-old does the same thing.

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...

Asking the judge to throw out charges against him. But it looks like he'll have to wait for an answer:

Defense attorneys and prosecutors presented arguments Tuesday before Senior Judge Pat Priest, who said he wanted to read written responses from both sides before making his ruling. He said he would notify attorneys of his ruling either by e-mail or mail, but he didn't say how long that might take.

I'm actually on a fence about this.

Considering what's been made public about the charges, it appears DeLay has indeed been wrongly targeted by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who even engaged in a little gratuitous Grand Jury shopping to get the second charge for money laundering. If a judge throws the case out, Earle may be back in front of a grand jury re-framing his case. And the Democrats will claim he's a crook who got off on a technicality.

On the other hand, an aquittal could get Earle off his back forever, and the Dems would - well, they'd smear him anyway.

I suppose if it were me I might pursue the former, but then again, I don't have a political career to consider.

Any lawyers out there want to comment with some pros and cons on DeLay's case?

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!

The DNC continues the attacks on Republicans over the Abramoff scandal:

Two of Jack Abramoff's Closest Friends Reunited In Chicago

WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Just days after media reports that the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Illinois Republican Dennis Hastert, is caught up in one of the worst pay-to-play scandals to ever rock the nation's capital, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman is swooping in to Chicago tonight to raise more special interest money for Hastert. The Associated Press reported last week that Hastert helped indicted Republican super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's clients after receiving about $103,500 from Abramoff, his lobbying partners and tribal clients between 2001 and 2004. (Associated Press, 11/17/05)

Special interest money, eh? Like what Sen. Mary Landrieu got from the same source?

Democratic National Committee Spokesman Damien LaVera called on Mehlman and Hastert to return Abramoff's money and join Democrats fighting the culture of corruption that Republicans have brought to Washington:

"Instead of going to Chicago to raise even more special interest money for Speaker Hastert, Ken Mehlman ought to be Washington trying to figure out how to return all the money Jack Abramoff raised for President Bush and encouraging Republicans in Washington to end the culture of corruption they have fostered," said LaVera.

Odd that LaVera and the DNC, obviously concerned about corruption, aren't calling for Harry Reid to return the money he got from Abramoff's tribal clients as well. I guess they didn't hear about it yet.

Yesterday, I posted about the DNC's attacks on Republicans with potential ties to the Abramoff scandal. In concert with the DNC's theme of ignoring the elephant in the living room, the New Yok Times covers the story today:

Corruption Inquiry Threatens to Ensnare Lawmakers

WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 - The Justice Department has signaled for the first time in recent weeks that prominent members of Congress could be swept up in the corruption investigation of Jack Abramoff, the former Republican superlobbyist who diverted some of his tens of millions of dollars in fees to provide lavish travel, meals and campaign contributions to the lawmakers whose help he needed most.

The investigation by a federal grand jury, which began more than a year ago, has created alarm on Capitol Hill, especially with the announcement Friday of criminal charges against Michael Scanlon, Mr. Abramoff's former lobbying partner and a former top House aide to Representative Tom DeLay.

The article weighs in at 1254 words, but not one of them is "Reid" or "Landrieu" or "Breaux". In fact, Democrats aren't mentioned anywhere in the article save for this one vague hint:

Scholars who specialize in the history and operations of Congress say that given the brazenness of Mr. Abramoff's lobbying efforts, as measured by the huge fees he charged clients and the extravagant gifts he showered on friends on Capitol Hill, almost all of them Republicans, the investigation could end up costing several lawmakers their careers, if not their freedom.

One really has to wonder - if the worst actually happens and all of the players are indicted, will the NYT acknowlege Harry Reid in its coverage? Will the DNC still be able to maintain their own effrontery, brashly shouting "Culture of Corruption" at conservatives while ignoring the involvement of their own?

Seems to me that this isn't a scandal the Democrats would want to wecome so openly.

Update: Here's another from the NYT today with no mention of Democrats involved (emphasis added):

What may be equally troubling for Republicans is the filing on Friday of a criminal conspiracy charge against a former senior Republican House aide, Michael Scanlon. Mr. Scanlon was once a spokesman for Mr. DeLay and was a partner of Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who is the subject of a federal investigation and had close ties to some House Republicans. The charges hint at potential legal exposure for lawmakers who were wined and dined by the two, adding to Republican ethics cases.

And I can't say I blame her. Go and read her post from late last night, "Just a yellow woman doing a white man's job".

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths the folks on the left will go when challenged by minorities who don't agree with the liberal message.

While the tone of her post is set by her (obviously justified) frustration, it also gives a glimpse into Michelle's private life - something I wish she had shared in a happier post, because I think there's a terrific story there. Framing issues aside, though, I'm still glad she shared it. Michelle, is there any chance we'll get to see more?

Anyway, this is a must-read for today.

To Michelle, a quote from Samuel Johnson (English author, 1709–1784):

"Attack is the reaction. I never think I have hit hard unless it rebounds."

Keep hitting 'em hard, Michelle.

May only be getting worse. After the fire he took last week when he advocated surrendering Iraq to Al-Zarqawi (something even Al-Zarqawi's family wouldn't do), now he may be facing an ethics probe:

Republican lawmakers say that ties between Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and his brother’s lobbying firm, KSA Consulting, may warrant investigation by the House ethics committee.

I think the timing isn't good on this, as the left will surely paint it as retribution no matter how valid the reasons for the probe. Considering the cries of "corruption" from the left every time a Republican sneezes and the bloodlust displayed in pursuit of Plamegate, Delay, Frist, etc., it's certainly a cynical paint job, though - a point that hopefully won't be missed by the public.

Even if the ethics allegations are true, it's no more than a pimple on the butt of the damage Murtha's already inflicted on himself.

Check out the rest of the story at NeoCon Central.

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.

Is still being pushed over at Wake Up WalMart.

I woulda thought there would be an outcry over this. Am I really the only one who noticed?

The DNC is flinging feces again. And this time it's splattering back at them. Yesterday evening, they rushed out a slew of press releases to try and deflect some of the attention away from their hypocrisy on the Iraq war:

DNC: Rep. Hart Wrapped Up in Abramoff Pay-To-Play Scandal

DNC: Sen. Grassley Wrapped Up in Abramoff Pay-To-Play Scandal

DNC: Rep. Shadegg Wrapped Up in Abramoff Pay-To-Play Scandal

DNC: Rep. Ryun Wrapped Up in Abramoff Pay-To-Play Scandal

DNC: North Carolina Republicans Wrapped Up in Abramoff Pay-To- Play Scandal

DNC: Texas Republicans Wrapped Up in Abramoff Pay-To-Play Scandal

DNC: Rep. Aderholt Wrapped Up in Abramoff Pay-To-Play Scandal

DNC: Speaker Hastert Wrapped Up in Abramoff Pay-To-Play Scandal

Sen. DeMint Wrapped Up in Abramoff Pay-To-Play Scandal, Says DNC

Mississippi Republicans Wrapped Up in Abramoff Pay-To-Play Scandal, Says DNC

Majority Leader Blunt Wrapped Up in Abramoff Pay-To-Play Scandal, Says DNC

Reps. Cantor and Goode Wrapped Up in Abramoff Pay-To-Play Scandal, Says DNC

To: State Desk, Political Reporter

Contact: Damien LaVera of the DNC, 202-863-8148

WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Associated Press reported yesterday on the startling number of Republicans in Congress, including Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, who are embroiled in one of the worst pay-to-play scandals to ever rock the nation's capital. The Senate Indian Affairs Committee investigating the dealings of scandal-plagued Republican super lobbyist Jack Abramoff has learned that Hastert is among the more than 30 Congressional Republicans who signed letters on behalf of Abramoff clients just days after Abramoff gave them money or hosted fundraisers for them.

According to the Associated Press, "Rep. Dennis Hastert, R- Ill., the Speaker of the House, along with other members of the House Republican leadership, signed a letter to Interior Secretary Gale Norton on June, 10, 2003, that helped lobbyist Jack Abramoff's clients. The lawmaker received about $103,500 from Abramoff, his lobbying partners and tribal clients between 2001 and 2004, including roughly $25,000 in the period around which the letter was sent. Rep. Hastert also used Abramoff's restaurant, Signatures, for a fund-raiser or other event, records show." (Associated Press, 11/17/05)

Democratic National Committee Spokesman Damien LaVera today issued the following statement:

"It is deeply troubling that Speaker Hastert has dragged Illinois into the same culture of corruption that Congressional Republicans brought to Washington. By engaging in one of the worst pay-to-play scandals in decades, Speaker Haster turned his back on the values and priorities of the people of Illinois.

"Illinoisans deserve better. That is why Democrats are committed to promoting honesty and ethics in government. The American people deserve a government as good as them, and Illinoisans deserve leaders who represent their values and interests in Washington. Since, Speaker Hastert clearly is not interested in providing that leadership, Democrats will."

Whoever came up with this stunt has got to be either blind or incredibly stupid or both. When Damien Lavera says things like "That is why Democrats are committed to promoting honesty and ethics in government", and "Since, Speaker Hastert clearly is not interested in providing that leadership, Democrats will", I suppose he means Democrats like Harry Reid:

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada sent a letter to Norton on March 5, 2002, that also was signed by Sen. John Ensign (news, bio, voting record), R-Nev. The next day, the Coushattas issued a $5,000 check to Reid's tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second tribe represented by Abramoff sent an additional $5,000 to Reid's group. Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations between 2001 and 2004.

Or maybe he means Mary Landrieu:

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who was engaged in a tight re-election race in 2002, sent her letter March 6, 2002. That same day, the Coushattas sent $2,000 to her campaign and she received $5,000 more by the end of that month. By year's end, the total had grown to at least $24,000.

Or Jon Breaux:

Then-Sen. John Breaux (news, bio, voting record), D-La., wrote Norton on March 1, 2002. Five days later the Coushattas sent $1,000 to his campaign and $10,000 to his library fund, tribal records show.

I'm not going to comment on the potential improprieties, except to say that I'm all for equality. If any of the parties involved did something wrong, Republican or Democrat, I want action taken.

But to slime the Republicans over this while ignoring the exact same thing in their own party is simply another indication of the systemic hypocrisy of today's Democratic party.

Update: Added three more press releases that weren't available when the post was first written.

Update 2: Linked with Euphoric Reality

Update 3: See additional here.

House Resolution 571

For: 3 Against: 403 Present: 6

All Ayes and Present votes were Democrat, 16 Rs and 6 Ds did not vote.

It's gonna be awful hard for some of the Dems to face their anti-war constituents. Snicker. Snort.

Of course, the outcome was guaranteed:

Pelosi sent word to rank-and-file Democrats to vote - with the Republicans - against immediate withdrawal of American troops.

I'll try to give a roundup in the morning.

By the way, I spent most of my time over at Euphoric Reality where the vote was being live blogged. It was great fun!

In an answer to Representative Murtha's call to pull out of Iraq immediately:

WASHINGTON - House Republicans, seeing an opportunity, maneuvered for a quick vote and swift rejection Friday of a Democratic lawmaker's call for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq.

"We want to make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. "We will not retreat."

The bill is very short and sweet:

House Republicans planned to put to a vote — and reject — their own resolution that simply says: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

This is a smart move - it forces the Democrats to put up or shut up on their posture regarding the war. If they vote yes, those Democrats will have given the GOP more ammunition to use in the current pushback campaign from the White House.

If they vote no, then they have exposed themselves to even more criticism on their recent posturing. It will be difficult for such Democrats to continue to pander to their anti-war base.

This should be interesting.

Update 1: Kos thinks the Democrats should cut and run from the vote. I think that would still be illustrative to the nature of the Democrat's hypocritical position.

Update 2: John Hinderaker: "Notwithstanding the media's breathless heralding of each liberal politician who comes out against continuation of the war, a substantial majority of House members will vote to reject the call for surrender. That's good, as our service personnel deserve the assurance that our government continues to stand behind their mission."

Ace of Spades: "Brilliant."

Jason Smith at GOP Bloggers: "Let's dispense with the public flogging of our troops' efforts and put it to a vote."

Rick Edwards at PowerPundit: "When the Democrats cry that holding them accountable for their words is "challenging their patriotism," as a number of them are doing on the House floor now, you know that they understand that their position is weakening."

Sister Toldjah: "The House isn’t playing around. It’s time to put up or shut up for the cut and run wing of the Democratic party."

Democratic Underground: Cleveland eaten by Batboy!

The Political Teen: "The Republicans have called Murtha’s bluff and boy has it paid off."

Kender at Stop the ACLU: "The Dems, railing constantly about the War in Iraq, have found themselves backed into a corner by the House Republicans, who finally tired of all the lies and rhetoric and have decided to vote regarding whether we should pullout of Iraq or not."

Euphoric Reality is live-blogging the vote. That's where I'm hanging out - Come and join us!

Very interesting: Murtha Acquaintaince Speaks Out

Update 3: (9:50 P.M. EST) Amazing. We went out to dinner and they're still at it when we get back. Democrats apparently have been foaming at the mouth with anger over being forced to act like adults and put their money where their mouths are. More later...

Via U.S. Newswire, a press release from "Stop Torture Now" (part of the Center for Theology and Social Analysis) about a weird event they're having in North Carolina:

Peace Activists to Deliver 'Indictment' Friday

On Friday morning, Nov. 18, a group of a dozen peace activists will deliver an "indictment" against the owners of Aero Contractors, charging them with conspiracy to commit torture in violation of United States law, the United Nations Convention against Torture, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The "indictment" also cites former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director George Tenet and present CIA Director Porter J. Goss, for violations of the same laws and treaties.

The event is happening at the Johnston County Airport in Smithfield. If all this sounds familiar, it is. Johnston Co. Airport and Aero Contractors were outed by the New York Times back in may. I hope the folks at the NYT are proud of themselves. (Via PowerLine)

The phony "indictment" being delivered by Stop Torture Now is available as a PDF here. I'm not a lawyer - any out there that care to look at it for me?

Interesting that the media and the left are still infatuated with Plamegate when here is a real covert operation that has been harmed through the compromise by NYT and it's sources. Unreal.

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.

Nancy Pelosi has no class whatsoever. About Jack Murtha's statement today demanding that the U.S. turn our backs on our allies and flee from our enemies - basically, surrender - she had this to say:

I also want to recognize the courageous statement made today by our distinguished colleague Congressman Jack Murtha.

Today he made a very courageous statement.

The courage of his statement, and the eloquence with which he presented it, and the passion and knowledge that he brought to the conversation were met very positively by our colleagues.

And that's all from the same press conference.

On the other hand... Maybe I'm reading too much into this. Maybe she wasn't saying that the "cut and run" argument is courageous - it's saying it in public.

Naaahh.

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.

Via AP/Yahoo:

House Democrat Wants Immediate Iraq Pullout

WASHINGTON - An influential House Democrat who voted for the Iraq war called Thursday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, another sign of growing unease in Congress about the conflict.

"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.

Mothra channelled Cindy Sheehan as he spoke:

At times during his remarks to reporters, the decorated Vietnam War veteran was choking back tears.

Here's the jewel:

It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region," Murtha said.

Evidently he feels that letting the terrorists win would be more desirable.

The report also acknowedged the abandonment of thirty years' work to garner respect among his peers:

Murtha, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, has earned bipartisan respect for his grasp of military issues over three decades in Congress.

Well, I guess that ship has sailed.

Update: Full transcript now available. Two points for the use of the word "Iraqitize".

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....

Here's a press release from yesterday:

Ten-Point Plan For Democrats to Negate 'No Message' Urged by Democratic Strategist Robert Weiner

WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Democratic Strategist Robert Weiner, a former Clinton White House public affairs director, has urged Democrats to negate constant criticisms of "no message" with an "Urgent Ten-Point Plan" framing the issues the Party has been stating.

Odd that the Democratic party didn't issue the press release. I guess Weiner's doing a little pro bono work.

Says Weiner: "Democrats do have a clear message -— they have just not stated it in understandable terms. But it can be something like an 'Urgent Ten-Point Plan'

Personally, I think the Democrat's message has been as clear as it's ever been. Let's see what Mr. Weiner's "Urgent Ten-Point Plan" entails:

-- Build International support and funding for a democratic Iraq, unlike the current 90 percent U.S.-funded effort;

Back during the 2004 election, non-coalition governments were adamant that their desire not to participate would remain unchanged if Kerry was elected. Who does Weiner think is gonna chip in - France?

-- Fight al Qaeda where they are rooted, and do not create additional fronts or bypass human rights standards for detainees;

We're already fighting them where they are. I wonder where Mr. Weiner thinks they are? And as we find more terrorists, we should create whatever new fronts necessary to defeat them. That's how you win, Mr. Weiner. And the detainees, as a matter of fact, are getting 5-star treatment compared to what they would give any of us.

-- Protect, don't destroy, Social Security and Medicare;

In other words, pretend there's no problem. Obstruct every attempt to even discuss a fix, much less take action. And whatever you do, don't entertain any ideas about empowering folks with their own future. If they have control over their own future, after all, then they won't need the Democrats.

-- Ensure rapid, competent domestic natural disaster and terror response;

Is he suggesting a change in the Democratic leadership in Louisianna? Granted, Brownie didn't do a good job, but he would have come out smelling like a rose if local governments had not made so many stupid mistakes.

-- Corral the Oil companies, quit subsidizing their obscene profits from high gas prices, and build more refineries as we institute energy independence;

Tax, tax, tax the oil companies. That'll show 'em. And gain independence from foreign oil by blocking any domestic exploration. Yup, good plan. A quick business lesson for Mr. Weiner - when you increase taxes on business, they charge more for their products to make up for it. The Democrat's "plan" for the oil companies will guarantee higher gas prices, disproportionately affecting lower-income folks. So much for being for "working Americans".

-- Nominate moderate Supreme Court appointees;

Clone Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Repeat. Rinse.

-- Balance the newly skyrocketing budget deficit and retool tax cuts to help average Americans;

Tax, tax, tax.

-- Restore the quality of jobs for American workers at home, and reduce foreign outsourcing;

Capitalism is a wonderful thing. As the economy continues to expand, and unemployment continues to decrease, wages and benefits will also increase as the employers have to compete for workers. And it all happens in spite of the government, not because of it. And by the way, if all the jobs are going overseas, then why is the unemployment rate still falling?

-- Promote Ethics in Government and end cronyism’s incompetence;

I suggest Ted Kennedy head up this important cause.

-- Provide honesty to Americans in reasons for any war, and reduce selective use of intelligence with a reminder that the Constitution begins "We the People", not "We with Top Secret Clearances."

Here's a list of folks with security clearances and what they had to say about the war way back when. Of course, now they are saying something different, and it's purely for political gain. Remember, it's "We the People", not "We, the polically opportunistic", or "We, the desparate for power".

If more of the same is all he has to offer, then why is this plan so urgent?

All in all, Mr. Weiner's advice doesn't break any new ground. There's no suggestion for the Dems to change course, just frame it differently for the press and the public. Since they've already been following this plan for several years now, we don't have to listen to the talking points. We can judge their plan by what they have done. And folks, it's not much. Unless you count obstructionism, whining, rewriting history, pandering to special interest groups with communist and socialist ties, and helping the dead to vote...

Update: Added link above. Sorry.

In response to President Bush's recent drive to correct the vicious smears of the left, Peace Action is having a hatred fest tonight in Washington, D.C.

Speakers for the event include U.S. Representatives Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Barney Frank (D-MA), Danny Davis (D-IL), Hilda Solis (D-CA), Bob Filner (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Sam Farr (D-CA), other Congressmembers, Kevin Martin, Executive Director of Peace Action and Paul Kawika Martin, Peace Action's Political Director.

I'm bettin' the "other" Congressmembers don't include any "R"s.

I just don't get the mindset that drives people full of hate and denial of the truth to spend time with others full of hate and denial of the truth in order to share misery, pain, and gloom with each other for the goal of enhancing their own misery, pain, and gloom. What a terrible waste of time.

Oh, and the reason that Peace Action is hosting this unhappy event?

WHY: "While the President calls the peace movement 'irresponsible,' the polls show the American public hungers for a more responsible policy in Iraq. For 2006, Peace Action supports those candidates with foreign policies based on international cooperation and human rights," stated Paul Kawika Martin, Peace Action's Political Director.

Well, actually, he didn't say the peace movement was irresponsible, Paul. He said that it's "deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began". But I guess you missed that part of the speech. In other words, it's OK to be for peace. Just don't levy spurious charges against the administration in order to achieve it. You know, Paul, President Bush may not have been talking about you at all.

Lets take a look at your website and see:

"...no more Americans shall die because of Bush’s lie!"

"...the Bush administration fixed facts to support their foregone conclusions and unilateralist ambitions."

"Bush stood there before god, country and the world and lied his ass off. On Veteran’s Day, by lying about the intelligence, again, Bush dishonored the over 2000 service people who he sent to die."

Oops. Oh my, Paul. I guess he was talking about you after all.

Update: Welcome Michelle Malkin Readers! And special thanks to Lorie Byrd!

Update 2: Welcome Myopic Zeal Readers! Thanks, Eric!

Update 3: Welcome Ex-Donkey Blog Readers - No garlic needed here! Cheers, Gary!

Via AP/Yahoo:

"Turns out, we were wrong," Stephen Hadley told "Late Edition" on CNN. "But I think the point that needs to be emphasized ... allegations now that the president somehow manipulated intelligence, somehow misled the American people, are flat wrong."

Republican lawmakers and other officials who appeared on Sunday news shows echoed Bush's Veterans Day speech in which he defended his decision to invade Iraq.

And John McCain is chipping in as well:

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said Democrats have a right to criticize the war but that it was disingenuous to claim that Bush lied about intelligence to justify it.

"Every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russians, the French ... all reached the same conclusion," McCain said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Regardless of the President's late awakening, you should have been doing this all along. But, better late than never, so thumbs up, guys.

The Washington Post has an op/ed today from John Edwards. It is interesting that in the wake of President Bush's speech on Friday, the left not only refuses to tone down the destructive and selfish rhetoric, they've stepped it up. But Edwards' delivers it with a twist - an apology:

"I was wrong."

"Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda."

"It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake."

You see, in the fantasy world the left spins for us, apologies are the key to salvation. Thanks in no small part to a kind media, when the left apologizes, all is made right. Nothing left to see here, move along. But this is a thinly veiled bait and switch, the switch being a challenge to the administration to follow suit:

"George Bush won't accept responsibility for his mistakes. Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has made horrible mistakes at almost every step: failed diplomacy; not going in with enough troops; not giving our forces the equipment they need; not having a plan for peace."

Since the perfectly-maned presidential hopeful accepts responsibility for his "mistakes", we're expected to give credance to oft-repeated leftist talking points on diplomacy (how many UN resolutions, John?), troop numbers (c'mon, we steamrolled 'em), equipment (proven not true time and time again), and inadequate planning. The "planning" meme is one that the left still feels to be essential from a PR standpoint. The administration, and rightly so, won't expose classified plans to scrutiny out of concern that doing so will jeopardize the mission. Since moonbattery adores a vacuum, the left rushes in to take advantage. The administration, being unable to respond, concedes the debate through default. It's a shamelessly dishonest game Edwards and his party plays, and he knows few can effectively call him out on it.

The switch of getting the President to "admit mistakes" has been attempted numerous times by the left. Any hint of admission by the administration so far has only resulted in even more shrill accusations from the left ("See, he admits he screwed up! Let's impeach him!") as demonstrated by the mock impeachments and calls for more investigations in spite of the fact that such investigations have continuously shown the Democrats' accusations to be baseless. The media, being more hostile to this President than any I can recall, is the all-too-willing accomplice to this charade.

As for me, I am pained to see the ineffectiveness of the White House in getting out even the most basic message. I do understand the difficulty of the President's PR task - after all, the decisions on Iraq (and the underlying policies) are vastly more complicated than the cute slogans and sound bites spewed by the left. And simple one-liners just play better in the media - even one not already driven to see this administration fail.

As I said yesterday (and others have said as well), Bush needs to follow-up aggressively. It may not cause opinion to sway much, but I can't respect not trying.

Back to Edwards - in his current rant, he would have you somehow believe that his admission of mistakes is an act of courage. But in his challenge to the President, he shows us cynisism behind the veil.

Bathing in "If I had it to do over again" doesn't make you clean. It's just revisionist. And in this life, you don't get a do-over. "Given the same situation and the same intelligence, I would vote the same way again" would have garnered a little more respect. But Mr. Edwards' willingness to completely abandon of his convictions of old to facilitate a cheap political attack just exposes his cowardice and lack of character.

Yesterday, President Bush said:

"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will."

Today, conservatives are still celebrating that the President finally stood up to the vile smear attacks the left have levied against him. However, there's one group who could not (or would not) hear a word of it. The left. Here's Henry Waxman's take from today:

"There are many unanswered questions about why the Bush Administration led the nation into war in Iraq. Why did the President and his top advisors make literally hundreds of misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq? Were these honest mistakes, as the President insists, or was the intelligence deliberately twisted, as mounting evidence would indicate?"

Howard Dean:

"The fact remains that pre-war intelligence was manipulated and cherry-picked. Instead of trying to pass the buck to members of Congress, who like so many Americans were willing to trust their Commander-in-Chief, the President should tell the truth to our troops and their families about how they were sent to war."

Harry Reid called the president's comments a return to what Reid calls "his old playbook of discredited rhetoric about the war on terror."

Edward Kennedy says it is "regrettable" that the president is attacking those "who seek the truth" about how intelligence was manipulated before the war.

Nancy Pelosi says it is "never appropriate" to try to play politics with war or with veterans. She says the president is doing "a disservice" to U.S. troops and the nation by trying to silence those asking questions about putting U.S. forces in harm's way.

Oddly, Dianne Feinstein seems almost reasonable when placed against the backdrop of the above smearmongers. No mean feat, considering I've never found her to be reasonable before:

``If I knew then what I know now, I never would have voted that way,'' Feinstein said. ``I'm pretty good about trying to do my homework. . . . This was the first vote of its type for me, so it was a very big vote. And I was convinced that there was an imminent threat.''

At least she admits to supporting the war, something most of the left now runs away from.

It's obvious the President has to continue what he began Friday, and aggressively so. The left is so driven by hate that truth no longer means anything. All that matters is defeating Bush at any cost. They will continue to repeat the lies again and again depending on the persuasive power of repetition to drive the public toward untrue conclusions about the Iraq war.

Bush not only needs to push back hard and often, he needs to take the fight beyond words. Re-release the portions of the intelligence committee's report showing that the left is wrong. Scour the documents from the lead-up to the war and release those that prove that the administration didn't mislead or lie. I know lots of that stuff is classified, but surely there are lots that are no longer sensitive.

The media can't be counted on to help. The president's speech has already been relegated to the talking head shows on cable, blogs, and the op/ed pages, while the left's relentless smear campaign is still front page news. The President needs to learn a new skill - public relations. Failure to do so harms the GWOT and the effort in Iraq every bit as much as the dishonesty shown by the left does.

Well, Howard Dean noticed that President Bush made a speech today. Terrific speech, too. After months upon months of moonbats smear artists like Howie spewing dishonest bile, President Bush finally fought back. And Dean shows us he has no shame:

On Veteran's Day, a day to honor the sacrifices of Americans who have so bravely served our country, President Bush chose instead to deflect from the truth and resort to political attacks, even as more Americans now doubt his honesty and his ability to handle the war in Iraq.

"While the White House continues to shamefully stonewall and hide behind their attacks, Democrats will continue to press for the truth. The President ought to be ashamed of himself. With more than 2,000 brave Americans dead to date and tens of thousands more injured, the President ought to be telling the truth to the American people. Mr. President, the best way to honor our troops is to tell the truth about why they went to war and when they can come home.

"The fact remains that pre-war intelligence was manipulated and cherry-picked. Instead of trying to pass the buck to members of Congress, who like so many Americans were willing to trust their Commander-in-Chief, the President should tell the truth to our troops and their families about how they were sent to war. In a democracy, the truth is not withheld. In a democracy our leaders provide real leadership and do not hide behind political attacks.

"Democrats stand committed to our troops and their families. Americans deserve the truth and the answers to hard questions when it comes to the decision to go to war. We can no longer stay the course. Our troops and the American people need a comprehensive plan so that success can be achieved in Iraq and our troops can come home safely."

Note to Howie: When the President said, "The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will.", he was talking about you.

Lets hope that Bush keeps it up. The Dems have the advantage of months of repetition, and their distortions and lies about Bush and their own actions in leading up to the war have convinced many. If Bush continues to put the message out, eventually many of those mislead by the left will hopefully come to recognize the truth.

By the way - Talking about using your soapbox on cheap shots for political gain, Dean released this under the header "Dean Honors America's Veterans and Servicemembers on Veterans Day":

"While Democrats are fighting to fund combat-related trauma centers, VA medical and prosthetic research, and programs to expedite the processing of benefits claims, Republicans in Congress have stood in the way. While Democrats are fighting to get full TRICARE benefits for all members of the Guard and Reserve, which would help thousands afford health insurance for their families, the Republicans in Congress have blocked this. And, while Democrats have fought against the Bush Administration's underfunding of veterans' health care by $3.7 billion, Republicans in Congress have refused to join us.

"Together, America can do better. Our veterans deserve better. Republicans in Congress need to put aside their broken promises and empty rhetoric about supporting our veterans and join Democrats in standing up for the brave men and women who have served our country. We owe at least this much to those that have sacrificed so much for our nation."

I figured it out, Howie. That line across your forehead isn't a wrinkle, it's a circumcision scar.

This is from a press release on a letter to President Bush from Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, David Obey, Henry A. Waxman, and Bennie Thompson:

We are writing to urge you to immediately terminate Michael Brown's ongoing consulting contract with the Department of Homeland Security. After Mr. Brown's dismal performance in preparing for and responding to Hurricane Katrina, your Administration's decision to continue paying Mr. Brown an annual salary of $148,000 is inexplicable and a gross waste of taxpayer dollars.

After being relieved of his Katrina-related duties, Mr. Brown resigned as Undersecretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response on September 12. Two weeks later, Mr. Brown testified before Congress and confirmed that he was continuing to receive his salary as a consultant to FEMA. (1) Amazingly, he had been asked to stay on the payroll for 30 days in order to determine what went wrong with FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina. The Department of Homeland Security justified the contract by saying that Mr. Brown was "transitioning out of his job" and that FEMA needed to get a "proper download of his experience."(2)

Now, we have learned that Mr. Brown's contract has been extended for another 30 days. That is unacceptable. Incredibly, Secretary Chertoff defended the decision to retain Mr. Brown by saying, "We don't want to sacrifice the real ability to get a full picture of Mike's experiences."(3)

Lets see... Michael Brown resigned on Sept. 12 with a 30 day notice, which was extended 30 days, (sound of calendar flipping), (sound of calculator keys), Hmmmm. His time is up in TWO DAYS!!! Yup - looks like just a cheap press stunt for political points.

D'ya think Nancy will claim credit for Brown leaving at the end of this week?

A group called wakeupwalmart.com is putting out an attack ad on Wal Mart that features Tom Delay, Bill Frist, and Scooter Libby.

The ad can be viewed here.

This vile and vicious smear is simply disgusting. None of these three have had their day in court, characterizing them in this way is dishonest and only serves to undermine the justice system. And interesting that there is a blatant anti-Republican flavor to an ad that has nothing to do with politics. I wonder who funded this ad? Oh. I see.

Update: fixed link above. Sorry.

Update 2: The United Food and Commercial Workers bunch probably aren't buddies with these two.

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.

It's beyond spin and into the realm of delusional when you judge the seriousness of a crime by the potential punishment.

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.

From AP/Yahoo:

Prosecutor Seeks DeLay Associates' E-Mails

AUSTIN, Texas - Three indicted associates of Republican U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay are being asked to hand over to a Texas prosecutor all their e-mails from 2002 in an investigation into an alleged campaign finance scheme.

Now remember, I'm not a lawyer, but... Isn't this the kind of basic investigation you do before you charge someone with a crime?

If you haven't heard about the new grave-dancing commercial from MoveOn.org, Michelle Malkin has the link here.

I don't know if it's a coordinated effort, but another one has sprung up here from a bunch called Operation "Truth". It's about as you might expect, with lots of gratuitous images of flag-draped coffins. I thought the emphasis on the word "dead" was interesting.

It's obvious that these ghouls have been tracking the numbers and carefully planning so that they could exploit the memories of these heroes for cheap partisan political gain.

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?

Via AFP/Yahoo:

Senator urges Bush to fire any aide indicted in CIA leak probe

Excerpts from the article:

"I write to encourage you to swiftly and strongly clarify that anyone who is indicted in the ongoing CIA leak investigation will be removed from the White House immediately and until the case is resolved," the New York Democrat wrote in a letter to the president Tuesday.

Independent counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is nearing the end a nearly two-year long investigation into the leak, and rumors have swirled that among those who might face charges are senior White House Bush advisors Karl Rove and Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

With indictments possible at any moment, "it is important that you make this clear ... that your standard will not shift depending on the status of the individual(s) indicted -- whether it is a low-level assistant or the most trusted and high-ranking aide," Schumer wrote.

"Anyone indicted, and thus found likely to have violated the law on a national security issue, should be treated the same and removed from the White House staff."

Chuck and his Democratic contemporaries have had a lot of fun parsing the President's statements on this topic. If the speculation is true and the only indictments issued are for perjury or obstruction (in other words, no indictments for leaks or outings), then no national security issue is involved. Will Chuck stop asking for firings? I bet no. Will anyone in the media call him out on it? Again, I bet no.

Also, It's really become an upside down world when Chuck Schumer writes this to the President:

"Recent press stories have contained some troubling statements from anonymous 'White House allies' attempting to discredit Mr Fitzgerald personally, perhaps in anticipation of coming indictments," Schumer wrote, praising Fitzgerald as "an apolitical 'prosecutors prosecutor,' and beyond reproach."

"I urge you to call on your alleged 'allies' to refrain from attacking either Mr Fitzgerald or his decision, whatever it is."

There's still a chance (albeit small) that Fitzgerald will not indict anyone. If that happens, will Schumer continue to be so kind?

The "collective" is swarming over Kay Bailey Huchison's remarks yesterday on Meet the Press. Some examples from the left-wing blogs:

Kos: "This Sunday we got a preview of the GOP post-Fitzmas spin -- that perjury isn't a crime."

Atrios: "Republicans to Americans: It's Okay to Lie Under Oath in a Criminal Investigation!"

John in DC: "Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has a soft spot in her heart for traitors."

Democratic Underground: "Bat Boy Spotted in DU Comment Area!"

Several on Huffington Post:

Alec Baldwin: "Why are contemporary Republicans so full of shit?"

Trey Ellis: "It’s Only a “Technicality” in a Culture of Corruption"

Robert Schlesinger: "Hutchison didn’t always feel this way."

Interestingly, some right wing blogs have joined the fray. Examples follow:

Michelle Malkin: "...I found Hutchison's pooh-poohing more than a bit disturbing."

BullDogPundit: "A Memo To Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison: Please Shut Up"

John Hawkins: "That is not the sort of behavior Republicans should engage in..."

It bothers me a little to see some of the critisism from the right side. I don't think Sen Hutchison was saying that perjury or obstruction should not be prosecuted. I'm not even sure that she was attacking Fitzgerald directly as some have indicated, although I think she could have been clearer with her remarks.

Controversy over those two issues aside, I do agree with her remarks in general. The left would love to have an indictment on the "outing" of Plame. Given only perjury, they will try to make the charge just as serious in their attacks anyway by dragging in peripheral issues. To them, this is about a wider issue on the war itself, and they will use any straw they can grab.

Look for Sen Hutchison and others who understand this to try and deny them that straw. Yes, perjury should be prosecuted. But put it in perspective. If there was no "outing" of a CIA agent, then perjury should stand alone without any attachment to peripheral issues. That is, unless the left goes unchallenged when they suggest otherwise.

The administration gets a black eye either way. This is about how long it will take to heal.

Perhaps I'm just being hopeful to interpret her remarks this way. Hopefully she'll find an opportunity to clarify her remarks.

From AP/Yahoo:

Hearing Set for DeLay Judge Request

C. W. Duncan, a former state district judge, will hold a hearing Nov. 1 on DeLay's request that Perkins leave the case because he has contributed money to candidates and Democratic causes that oppose DeLay.

And not a moment too soon. The bogus nature of the charges not withstanding, time is a real issue for DeLay.

Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Lawyers Report:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 - I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.

Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby's testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said.

"Suggest"? "Appear to differ"? The NYT is normally not cautious or shy when it comes to throwing negatives at this administration. Sounds like the NYT is taking some interpretive license here, and I "suggest" not getting wrapped around the axle on this unless something more substantial comes out.

Also, note that there's no suggestion that Cheney directed Libby to do anything with the information. I don't think the Times would have passed up on even a vague hint in that area.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Via AP/Yahoo:

Bush Won't Release All Miers Documents

But the disagreement will be over what is privileged and what isn't. Hopefully it won't matter and Harriet Miers will withdraw.

Hey, I can dream can't I?

Howard Dean was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week, and the DNC made a press release from it:

Excerpts of Democratic National Committee Chairman Dean on 'This Week'

Quoting excerpts wouldn't do this justice. Go read the entire moonbatty thing.

This deserves a brutally thorough fisking, but I'm too tired to do it right now. Screamin' Dean manages to sqeeze more dishonesty and hatred into five minutes than most moonbats can in a year. I just wish the mainstream media would give stuff like this the scrutiny it deserves. If the left was subjected to just one or two day's worth of what the right has to endure from the MSM, they would find themselves so unpopular that no amount of dead voters would be enough to get them elected.

Via PoliPundit.

It really was a very smart move. Tom DeLay posed for his mug shot sporting a big smile in hopes that the Democrats wouldn't be able to use it in ads.

Some folks simply won't settle for the truth, though. The folks at Cafe Press have decided to abandon good taste in order to lure dollars from the "reality based community".

I won't put the disgusting and slanderous image here. If you really want to see it, go follow the link.

Via JunkYardBlog, one of my favorites!

A group that calls itself "Free Press" has this posted on their website:

Don't FOX with local news

Fox News Channel's political agenda is coming to a television station near you.

Roger Ailes, the architect behind the right-wing tilt of cable news, is now remaking 35 local television stations -- broadcasting to nearly 40 percent of America's homes -- in Fox News Channel's image.

Media consolidation made Ailes' takeover of local news possible. We need to break up the big media conglomerates and get higher quality news and information in return for free use of the public's airwaves. To protect local media from corporate consolidation, millions of Americans need to stand up and be counted.

Free Press Basics

Free Press is a national nonpartisan organization working to increase informed public participation in crucial media policy debates, and to generate policies that will produce a more competitive and public interest-oriented media system with a strong nonprofit and noncommercial sector.

We believe that a more democratic US media system will lead to better public policies — at home and abroad. As our world becomes more and more interconnected, it is imperative that any kind of development takes into account basic environment, economic, and human rights, while defining corporate and personal responsibilities. Free Press considers information to be among the most important resources to any society. We strive to open up the media system to allow more diversity of opinion to be expressed, to present a broader perspective, and to increase the caliber of information available to everyday people. This, in turn, will lead to a more participatory and accountable government and to more sustainable policies and practices regarding national and global development.

Talk about low hanging fruit...

Via AP/Yahoo:

Prosecutor Subpoenas DeLay Phone Records

AUSTIN, Texas - A Texas prosecutor subpoenaed records for the home telephone of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and the phone of his political campaign Thursday.

Also subpoenaed by prosecutor Ronnie Earle were records for two numbers for DeLay's daughter, Danielle DeLay Ferro.

DeLay is facing charges of money laundering and conspiracy in a Texas campaign finance case.

The subpoenas list telephone numbers, but not whom they belong to. They ask for information about the calls and the numbers' subscribers, voice mail service, billing information, long distance calls made from or charged to the numbers and special features.

OK, I'm not a lawyer, so forgive my asking. Shouldn't this be the kind of basic investigative stuff you'd want to do before you charge someone with a crime?

Hey Kids! Have you heard the new jazz?

It's here. And here. And here. And here. It's called "Culture of Corruption". And it's coming to a speech, interview, or campaign ad near you.

Bonus quiz!! See how many times you can hear the phrase in this video!!!!

Seriously, though, I think this will be remembered as the first real volley of shots fired in the 2006 campaign. Expect lots of ads slinging this broad-stroke smear at every single republican. Even if Tom Delay and Bill Frist are cleared, it won't matter. Just as "innocent until proven guilty" has no meaning to Pelosi, Reid, and the moveon.org crowd now, "cleared" and "not guilty" will be equally meaningless in the future.

Ever watch the TV show "Cops"? So many of the bad guys are shirtless that it's become common to assume that someone without a shirt is up to no good.

The Democrats are are nothing if not predictable. Watch over the next year as they attempt to paint Frist, Delay, and by association, the entire Republican party as shirtless.

And lets pray that they fail.