Recently in Terrorist Supporters Category

Charles nails Obama on his attempt to rewrite his own ignorant words in the pages of the New York Times:

Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”

Click through on the link above to LGF, Charles has posted video and quotes from Obama's own website that exposes Susan Rice's words as a cheap and sleazy whitewash. Just as Obama has rewritten history on his relationship with the racist Rev. Wright, his hope is that memories are just too short and the folks will be fooled.

I expect much more of this sort of thing once the general election ramps up. Shame is, he'll get away with most of it though the efforts of a complicit media.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb killed four U.S. soldiers in Baghdad on Sunday, the military said, pushing the overall American death toll in the five-year war to at least 4,000. The grim milestone came on a day when at least 61 people were killed across the country.

Well, I guess we know what the topic of the week is going to be for the Democrat candidates. Expect more dishonest tripe from both as Obama claims his ignorance-based stance on the war shows better judgment than that of those who actually had access to intel, and watch Hillary spin like a top as she regrets basing her Iraq war vote on facts instead of opinion polls of the moonbat wing of her party. And both will attack each other on which plan for surrender waves the white flag faster and higher.

Lost in all of this will be the troops, some of whom have made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom while the left continues to actively undermine the morale and mission of those that remain.

As a military retiree, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the men and women currently serving their country. Your tireless devotion, courage, and professionalism are appreciated.

Hideous.

Lamentably, I killed your cat while trying just to sting it. It was crouched, as usual, under one of our bird feeders & I fired from some distance with bird shot.

Had the Iranians been hanging around under his bird feeder in 1979, we might not have a terrorist threat today.

Never mind the fact that Hamas kept firing rockets into Israel after the "cease-fire"started, the MSM kept their powder dry until they could blame the real culprits:

JERUSALEM - Israeli troops shot and killed a Hamas-linked militant in a West Bank raid early Monday, endangering a day-old truce that stopped five months of Palestinian rocket fire and Israel operations in the Gaza Strip.

That was AP, who makes the absurd claim that the rocket fire actually stopped with the cease fire. Here's the headline from Al-Reuters:

Israel kills Palestinian gunman, woman despite truce

Bias? What bias?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However....

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

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

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

Well, good luck with that, Charlie.

Other bloggers confused by what Rangel said:

Conservative Blog Therapy
Jeremayakovka
Right Voices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Senate parlance, that means no.

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

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

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

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

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

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said Friday he would step down as Palestinian prime minister if that would persuade the West to lift debilitating economic sanctions.

Now if he can convince the rest of his pals to join him, we might have something.

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.

If something that even hints at a success for the administration rears it's ugly head, count on our supportive MSM to cast it in the worst possible light. Via CBS News:

(CBS/AP) In a world sharply divided on Iraq since the U.S.-led war began in 2003, Saddam Hussein's death sentence Sunday unleashed fears of fresh violence and new questions about the fairness and impartiality of the tribunal that ordered him to hang.

Underscoring the fault lines that split the international community and widened the divide between Muslims and Christians, Islamic leaders warned that the verdict could inflame those who revile the United States — undermining U.S. policy in the volatile Middle East and inspiring terrorists to strike.

"The hanging of Saddam Hussein will turn to hell for the Americans," said Vitaya Wisethrat, a respected Muslim cleric in Thailand, where a bloody Islamic insurgency is raging in the country's south.

"The Saddam case is not a Muslim problem but the problem of America and its domestic politics," he said. "The Americans are about to vote in a midterm election, so maybe Bush will use this case to tell the voters that Saddam is dead and that the Americans are safe. But actually the American people will be in more danger with the death of Saddam."

Stepping up to the plate for their pals.

Dan Rather is on Fox News as I write this, he's questioning the timing. Hope someone got video - I'll link if it's out there.

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...

H/T to KnightHawk for this chilling view of how terrorist leaders are viewing the prospects of a Democratic Party win next week:

Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."

"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told WND. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."

Nancy Pelosi recently suggested on "60 Minutes" that the insurgency would stop if only we left. Not so, say the terrorists:

WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.

Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."

He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."

Once shown that their tactics are a success, what incentive would they have to stop? Why would a winning team throw away their playbook?

If the left wins, it will be a victory indeed - if you're a terrorist.

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.

With only a week to go until election day, this would be a good day for these two to come out of hiding.

That's two houses you shouldn't take your kids to. Neither is a treat.

Of course, we know where they aren't:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Iran continues it's quest for nuclear weaponry:

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran has expanded its controversial nuclear work by starting a second cascade of centrifuges to enrich uranium, a semiofficial news agency reported Wednesday.

The news came as world powers moved toward introducing a draft resolution in the U.N. Security Council that would impose limited sanctions on Iran because of its refusal to cease enrichment — a process that can produce material for nuclear power reactors or weapons.

The Iranian Students News Agency quoted an anonymous official Wednesday as saying that Iran had started a second cascade of centrifuges two weeks ago and that "gas will be injected into the cascade during the current week."

"We will exploit the new product from the injection," ISNA quoted the official as saying, meaning that Iran would use the enriched uranium obtained by inserting gas into the centrifuges.

Will we soon be seeing more creepy celebrating as before?

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.

The question is whether Beijing will fall for it:

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korean leader Kim Jong Il expressed regret about his country's nuclear test to a Chinese delegation and said Pyongyang would return to international nuclear talks if Washington backs off a campaign to financially isolate the country, a South Korean newspaper reported Friday.

"If the U.S. makes a concession to some degree, we will also make a concession to some degree, whether it be bilateral talks or six-party talks," Kim was quoted as telling a Chinese envoy, the mass-circulation Chosun Ilbo reported, citing a diplomatic source in China.

Kim told the Chinese delegation that "he is sorry about the nuclear test," the newspaper reported.

Standard fare for NK - "if only those mean Americans will get off my back, we can talk" is a familiar tune.

I hope China shows some resolve this time. The sanctions should be lifted after he de-nukes, not before. Otherwise he'll just keep playing games.

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.

Via AP/Yahoo:

UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously on Saturday to impose punishing sanctions on North Korea for its claimed nuclear test, declaring that its action posed "a clear threat to international peace and security."

North Korea immediately rejected the resolution, and its U.N. ambassador walked out of the council chamber after accusing its members of a "gangster-like" action which neglects the nuclear threat posed by the United States. Ambassador Pak Gil Yon said North Korea wants talks but warned that it will consider increased U.S. pressure a declaration of war.

Captain Ed has more.

Update: Allahpundit has video!

Kim Jung Il makes good on his threat:

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea said Monday it had exploded a nuclear weapon for the first time, an underground test that defied international warnings but was hailed by the communist nation as a "great leap forward" for its people.

Good roundups at Stop The ACLU and Hot Air.

Also here. Shhh - MK is sleeping...

Let's see if China changes course. Somehow I doubt it. Japan's response will likely be the one to watch.

A lot of hay being made of the small size of the blast suggesting a less-than-successful test, combined with the failures of NK's long-range missiles. Small points, if you ask me. Surely NK is working to improve their designs.

Added: From the appeasement crowd, a stunning level of ignorance:

All of this, of course, comes after years of the Bush administration alternately mismanaging and ignoring the North Korea situation. President Bush claimed he would not tolerate a nuclear North Korea, but he has done worse than that: he ignored the threat of North Korea as it expanded its nuclear arsenal, and was unable to offer the appropriate carrots and sticks to prevent this hugely destabilizing event. Shameful.

So I guess it's our fault for not cowering to a madman and giving him whatever he wanted, eh? Never mind that this scenario was predetermined back in the 90's, and please lets forget that there was a multilateral effort in dealing with NK. If AJ in DC's views had dominated over history, we'd be having this discussion in a different language. Sick.

Here's the only good idea coming from the left blogosphere this morning (H/T Allahpundit, linked above). I'll be working hard all day to convince TB that the world is ending any day now to test the DUer's suggestions. I will not be providing a full report, however. If blogging tapers off again, you'll know why.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BEIRUT, Lebanon - The United Nations has decided to remove unarmed observers from their posts along the Israeli-Lebanese border, moving them in with the peacekeeping force in the area, a spokesman said Friday. The decision came three days after one of the posts of the observer force, known as UNTSO, was destroyed by an Israeli airstrike earlier this week, killing four.

Unfortunately, this means Hezbollah will increase reliance on women and children as shields of choice.

Nice to see some balance for a change. Jan Egeland, the UN guy who was excoriating Israel for "disproportionate response" and violating some fictitional "international humanitarian law" has added a new tune to his repertoire - and it's a very unfamiliar one for most UN staff:

On Monday, he had strong words for Hezbollah, which crossed into Israel, captured two soldiers and killed eight others on July 12, triggering fierce fighting.

"Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending ... among women and children," he said. "I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don't think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men."

But they are proud. Just as they are proud of targeting civilian areas in Israel with their missiles. Nonetheless, if this keeps up, Mr. Egeland might just get it right. Shame it probably won't be contagious.

Via AP/Yahoo:

Apparently Hezbollah needs more videographers:

UNITED NATIONS - Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Monday he wants the upcoming meeting of key Mideast players to agree on a package to stop the Israeli-Hezbollah fighting and ensure lasting peace between Israel and Lebanon.

That package should include a cease-fire, deployment of an international force and the release of two Israeli soldiers abducted by Hezbollah, he said.

Considering past history, not necessarily a move that any party should welcome.

Annan: "We're coming for your daughters, too"

From this morning's AP coverage of the video of the two mutilated soldiers:

It said that as soon as fighters heard of the rape-slaying, "they kept their anger to themselves and didn't spread the news, but were determined to avenge their sister's honor."

The 4:39 minute video shows two bloodied bodies in torn military uniforms lying near a curb on a bridge over a canal. One of them, partially naked, has been decapitated and his chest cut open. The other's face is bruised, the jaw apparently broken, and his leg has long gashes. Fighters are shown turning the bodies over and lifting the head of the decapitated man.

I don't know about you, but when I see this, I have a hard time thinking of those that did it as "fighters".

One of the left talking points of late has been the notion that the NYT disclosure didn't harm national security because it didn't include the most intimate operational details of the program. Besides, they say, the terrorists aren't that dumb - they know we're trying to track the money flow of terrorism.

Damage to the program, however, needs to be assessed not in terms of what the terrorists knew or assumed prior to its disclosure. The real damage will be from decreased cooperation from the participants in the program.

Early this week, the administration was on the phone reassuring allies of the importance of keeping the program running. But now that the program is common knowledge, objectors are coming out in droves. In Belgium, SWIFT is under fire:

June 28 (Bloomberg) -- The Belgian government has ordered an investigation into the decision by Belgium-based cooperative Swift to provide bank-transfer data to the U.S. government as part of President George W. Bush's efforts to fight terrorism.

Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt's office said today it asked intelligence and security officials to determine ``if the interests of certain Belgian nationals were possibly affected and if Belgian law was respected.'' The office also said in today's e-mailed statement that it is trying to ascertain whether Belgian oversight needs ``adaptations.''

And as many as 32 governments are also being challenged by a UK based civil liberties group:

BRUSSELS, June 27 — A human rights group in London said today that it had lodged formal complaints in 32 countries against the Brussels-based banking consortium known as Swift, contending that it violated European and Asian data protection rules by providing the United States with confidential information about international money transfers.

Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, said the organization filed the complaints in the hope of halting what it called "illegal transfers" of private information by Swift, whose full name is the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications.

The complaints were filed in all 25 member nations of the European Union, plus Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Iceland. The group said it also filed a complaint in the semiautonomous Chinese territory of Hong Kong.

"Swift appears to have violated data protection rules in Europe by making these transfers without the consent of the individuals involved, and without the approval of European judicial or administrative authorities," Mr. Davies said. "The scale of the operation, involving millions of records, places this disclosure in the realm of a fishing exercise rather than a legally authorized investigation."

There can be no doubt that the result of all this activity will be reduced participation in and cooperation for US-led anti-terrorism intelligence efforts. That's the real nature of the damage.

Update: Captain Ed feels the program may be over. Could be, but I think it's a safe bet that if it continues it will no longer be of much use.

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

Are you ready?

Jack Murtha.

Yeah, the one and only.

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

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

The NYT is exposing yet another classified program (H/T Polipundit):

WASHINGTON, June 22 — Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.

The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said.

The program, run out of the Central Intelligence Agency and overseen by the Treasury Department, "has provided us with a unique and powerful window into the operations of terrorist networks and is, without doubt, a legal and proper use of our authorities," Stuart Levey, an under secretary at the Treasury Department, said in an interview on Thursday.

The program is grounded in part on the president's emergency economic powers, Mr. Levey said, and multiple safeguards have been imposed to protect against any unwarranted searches of Americans' records.

Similar to other programs, expect the Democrats to start yelling loudly about this just before we find out that a number of them had been briefed and raised no objection.

Will Feingold dust off his resolution calling for Congress to ignore Article III of the Constitution?

I'll have more on this later. But in the meantime, I've started the countdown for the reflexive and robotic automatic declaration that it's illegal from the left blogosphere.

10... 9... 8...

Update (8:50am EST): First entry is this breathless headline at the Huffington Post: "Bank Data Secretly Reviewed By Bush Admin. Without Warrants Or Subpoenas..." - here's a screenshot:

Yet the NYT article that Arianna links to says subpoenas were indeed issued:

Indeed, the cooperative's executives voiced early concerns about legal and corporate liability, officials said, and the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control began issuing broad subpoenas for the cooperative's records related to terrorism. One official said the subpoenas were intended to give Swift some legal protection.

I suppose reading the article was too much to ask.

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.

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.

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

They don't look very happy, do they?

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

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

**snip**

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

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

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

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

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

Marine may call Murtha as witness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There. I feel so much better now.

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?

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

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

Naturally, Mr. Berg blames Bush.

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

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.

Georgia Senate Defeats Fonda Resolution

The Georgia Senate on Thursday nearly unanimously defeated a resolution that would have honored the actress' charity work in the state.

Good.

The Democratic sponsor had tried to withdraw the resolution after a rocky reception from colleagues and a phone call from Fonda's office, but a Republican leader forced a vote, saying members of his caucus wanted to go on record against it.

Fonda, who is out of the country, had asked for the resolution to be withdrawn to avoid the controversy, said the sponsor, Sen. Steen Miles of suburban Atlanta.

The effort was defeated 38-1, with even Miles voting against it.

I'd comment, but someone beat me to it:

"I can think of no living American who is less worthy of this honor," Republican Sen. John Douglas declared. "She is as guilty of treason as Benedict Arnold and Tokyo Rose."

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.

This from CNS is speculative but interesting:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

But wait - there's more:

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

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

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

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

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

Cindy is now the Mistress of Monuments:

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

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

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

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

I think she should use it as a keychain fob.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Texas Anti-War Protesters Still Determined

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I

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

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

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

MoveOn says he was attacking Murtha personally:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These people are truly sick.

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

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

Linked to Euphoric Reality!

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.

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!

I found a link in the comments of this post at Blackfive yesterday that alerted me to a particularly disgusting act being waged by college professors calling themselves "Replacements Needed". They have been putting up posters on utility poles and other places with disturbing images on them. I have a few examples below the fold. (WARNING - graphic and disturbing images). Their website is here.

The commenter on Blackfive (his name is Brad Torgersen) has been waging a one man war against the filth being spread by "Replacements Needed", and you can find his website here. Please visit Brad's site and send him an email telling him how terrific his efforts are. Here are a few of the posters he has placed over the top of the moonbat filth:

Remember to drop Brad an email if you appreciate his efforts.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know the MSM won't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the details are at Michelle Malkin

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

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

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

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

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

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.

If you haven't heard about George Galloway lying to congress yet, check it out here and come back...

Welcome back. George responds to the charges:

Come and get me, British MP Galloway challenges US Congress

"I'm still willing to go to the United States and still willing to face any charge of perjury in front of that Senate committee.

"I'm demanding that they charge me with contempt and with perjury, I'm demanding it.

"If a Senate committee can go on the international airwaves without putting this to you, without sending me an advance (copy) and accuse me of lying under oath in front of a Senate committee, then I demand they charge me with perjury -- and I'll be on the next plane to face it."

Can we take him up on it? Please? Pretty Please?