LA Times offended at pro-American articles in Iraq

If this doesn't qualify as gall, I'm not sure what does. From the AFP:

The US military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to print stories written by US soldiers in an effort to polish the image of the American mission in Iraq, a US newspaper reported.

US military "information operations" troops have written the articles, which are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of the Lincoln Group, a Washington-based defense contractor, according to The Los Angeles Times.

OK, the practice of planting stories is at the very least questionable, to be sure. It borders on propaganda. However, read this part (and avoid drinking anything while you do it, lest your beverage project from your nostrils):

Many articles are presented to Iraqi newspapers as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists.

Remove the word "Iraqi", and you've got a perfect portrayal of the MSM in this country: a bunch of slanted editorials masquerading as news "stories", written and reported by leftist journalists pretending to be "independent" and unbiased. The main difference is that in America, the MSM does this for the left for free. Maybe that is why the LAT is getting its panties in a bunch...they haven't been able to parlay their partnership with the left into moolah?

Don't resume drinking your beverage just yet...there's more:

Some senior US military officers in Iraq and at the Pentagon have criticized the operation, saying it could ruin the US military's credibility in other countries and with the US public.

That's exactly what the LAT and other insurgent-friendly and al Qaeda useful idiot MSM sources are hoping!

What's galling is that when the MSM gets planted stories from the left (including, but not limited to, the DNC), they run with the stories and think that it's fair. However, let the stories be America-friendly (and, by default implication, Bush-positive), and all hell breaks loose!

More on the Sheehag book signing

A recent moonbat visitor here asserted that Cindy Sheehag's book signing was a raging success and that she signed and sold all of her books...despite the photographic evidence to the contrary. It looks like said moonbat was simply taking the proven liar Sheehag's word for it. From Editor and Publisher:

Antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan and her book publisher are upset about Associated Press and Reuters photos that allegedly presented a misleading impression of her book signing last weekend in Texas.

Sheehan, whose soldier son was killed in Iraq, gained wide fame last summer in an antiwar protest near President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, and then in a march in Washington, D.C. She returned to Crawford last week for a Thanskgiving protest. Her new book, “Not One More Mother's Child,” had just been published, and her publisher organized a book signing in a large tent in Crawford on Saturday.

Photos of the event, carried widely on the Web, and then picked up by conservative blogs, seemed to imply that the book signing was a bust. The photos showed Sheehan looking dejected, sitting at a table, with no one in the tent except for a couple of photographers. The AP caption simply read: “Anti-war activist CindySheehan waits for people to show up at her book signing near President Bush's ranch on Saturday, Nov. 26, 2005 in Crawford, Texas.”

The Washington Post, which carried Evan Vucci's AP photo, noted that at a protest the same day Sheehan had addressed a crowd of only about 100. “In the morning,” the Post observed, “Sheehan signed copies of her new book, being published this week, for an even smaller crowd,” although it cited bad weather as a possible factor.

But in a statement today, Sheehan accused “right-wing” sites of “spreading a false story that nobody bought my book at Camp Casey on Saturday. That is not true, I sold all 100 copies and got writer's cramp signing them. Photos were taken of me before the people got in line to have me sign the book. We made $2000 for the peace house.”

Yeah, Cindy, the Washington comPost is a "right-wing" site...and Howard Dean is a moderate! Continuing:

Her publisher, Arnie Kotler at Koa Books, meanwhile released a letter to her supporters, charging that “AP and Reuters posted photos - I can't imagine why - of Cindy sitting at the book table between signings, rather than while someone was at the table. And now the smear websites are circulating an article, with these photos, that Cindy gave a signing and nobody came. It's simply not true…. the benefit books signing in Crawford, Texas on November 26, 2005 was well attended and a huge success.”

The publisher is doing damage control for Sheehag's fragile supporters. How does the AP respond?

Asked for a response, an AP spokesman commented this afternoon:

"Photographer Evan Vucci, queried about the incident today said that he was present at the book signing from about 10 a.m. to about 11 a.m. During that time, he said, people were coming in to have their books signed in small groups of a few at a time.

"At the time the photos were taken 'maybe 5 people had come in,' Vucci says, and Sheehan was waiting for more to stop by, which they did individually as well as in very small groups. Therefore the wording of the caption is accurate in that Sheehan was waiting for people to show up at her signing."

If any people were coming in when the photos were taken, such as the "maybe 5" that the AP folks saw, then how could Sheehag have been "in between signings" like her publisher said?

She wasn't in between signings. It's much simpler than that: Sheehag has become irrelevant even to her supporters. To the rest of normal America, she has been irrelevant for quite some time now.

Who is lying about Iraq?

Thanks to Kira for tipping me off to this great Cal Thomas column:

The Bush administration is partly responsible for declining poll numbers and the growing public disapproval of the war in Iraq.

Instead of responding immediately to questions concerning the reasons for the war and the honesty of top-level members of the administration, it allowed these allegations to fester until they became accepted, in many quarters, as fact.

Amen to that. I understand that Bush isn't guided by polls, which I greatly respect. However, this conviction does not shield him from criticism, nor does it lessen the need for him to explain to the public what is really happening in Iraq. Simply believing you're right and refusing to explain your position is foolish at best, and arrogant at worst. Continuing:

Terrorists are also winning the psychological warfare, partly because the jihadists are unified behind a goal and we often are not. They want territory and they want to kill "infidels." American leftists want "peace," without realizing that peace is a byproduct of defeating evil. The left also wants to use the war for partisan political gain and will seek to deprive President Bush of any credit for victory because it could benefit him politically. How sick is that?

Terrorists also gain because too many of us do not agree on which side is good and which is evil. Specifically, the left has reversed the political polarity: it sees the United States as evil and if it does not necessarily see the jihadists as good, it views "evil America" as the cause of jihadism.

Sick indeed. Our soldiers see this, too, and they will not forget who their friends really are. Any wonder they don't vote for Democrats? Oh, yeah...the "lying" part:

In the December issue of Commentary magazine, Norman Podhoretz - in an article entitled "Who Is Lying About Iraq?" - demolishes that myth. He lists the numerous individuals, nations and intelligence agencies worldwide that reached identical conclusions about Saddam Hussein's weapons. They include Hans Blix, who headed the UN weapons inspection team that tried to learn whether Saddam had complied with Security Council demands that he destroy weapons of mass destruction he was known to have had and used in the past. A few months before the invasion, Blix wrote of a "relatively new bunker" of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads 170 km southwest of Baghdad. He said, "They could be . the tip of a submerged iceberg." Blix noted the discovery of those rockets "does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for."

President Clinton's National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, stated flatly, "(Saddam) will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983." Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, said the "risk" that a "rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." President Clinton, who now keeps company with war critics, said in 1998, "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

The Podhoretz article is full of quotes from Democrats and others who were once gung-ho to topple Saddam. It also contains facts from bipartisan investigations that have looked into WMD and the run-up to the invasion. It exposes some liars, but President Bush and Vice President Cheney are not among them.

How patently unfair to quote critics in order to expose their hypocrisy!

Thomas' conclusion is accurate: The Bush administration has finally started to reply to these modern "summer soldiers and sunshine patriots." They had better persuade more of the public, or risk losing a war that we must win.

Fortunately, the MSM is losing influence faster than France and Cindy Sheehan combined, so there is great hope that despite the left's and MSM's (pardon the redundancy) best efforts, Iraq will turn into a flourishing democracy.

Brownie starts new disaster readiness consultancy

I couldn't make this up if I wanted to. Michael Brown, the embattled and clueless former FEMA head, has started his own "disaster-preparedness consulting firm to help clients avoid the sort of errors that cost him his job", according to the Washington comPost. Excerpt:

"If I can help people focus on preparedness, how to be better prepared in their homes and better prepared in their businesses -- because that goes straight to the bottom line -- then I hope I can help the country in some way," Brown told the Rocky Mountain News.

Michael D. Brown, the former head of FEMA, said he hopes "I can help the country in some way." (Susan Walsh - AP)

Brown said officials need to "take inventory" of what is going on in a disaster to be able to answer questions and to avoid appearing unaware of how serious a situation is.

If anyone can appear ignorant of the gravity of a situation, then "Brownie" certainly can do "a heck of a job" at it!

What's next? Ted Kennedy starting a personal fitness consulting firm? Maybe Jesse Jackson founding a fatherhood lecture series? Better yet, how about John Kerry and Jane Fonda holding a consortium on how to win friends in the armed forces?

Perhaps "Brownie" can join New Orleans mayor Ray "School Bus" Nagin to enlighten Jamaica on how to prepare for a hurricane! Oops...it looks like Ray has already done that while toiling away at the Sandals founder's private villa overlooking Montego Bay! I swear, work can be a real bitch sometimes!

CNN's "glitch"?

CNN has maintained that the "'X' over Dick Cheney's face" fiasco was the result of a "glitch", or a technical snafu. To be fair, most technical analysts said that CNN was likely correct. Well, apparently a CNN operator didn't get the memo. From Drudge:

A CNN switchboard operator was fired over the holiday -- after the operator claimed the 'X' placed over Vice President's Dick Cheney's face was "free speech!"

"We did it just to make a point. Tell them to stop lying, Bush and Cheney," the CNN operator said to a caller. "Bring our soldiers home."

The caller initially phoned the network to complain about the all-news channel flashing an "X' over Cheney as he gave an address live from Washington.

"Was it not freedom of speech? Yes or No?" the CNN operator explained.

"If you don't like it, don't watch."

Laurie Goldberg, Senior Vice President for Public Relations with CNN, said in a release:

"A Turner switchboard operator was fired today after we were alerted to a conversation the operator had with a caller in which the operator lost his temper and expressed his personal views -- behavior that was totally inappropriate. His comments did not reflect the views of CNN. We are reaching out to the caller and expressing our deep regret to her and apologizing that she did not get the courtesy entitled to her."

Kudos to CNN for doing the right thing, though it does make one wonder:

Just how different was this operator from his co-workers (other operators, on-air anchors, newshounds, etc.) at CNN? The institutionalized liberal bias we've come to expect from CNN can be easily referenced over the years, so was he perhaps simply more overt than his CNN brethren? If so, was he comfortable enough in his knowledge of co-workers' (and superiors') said liberalism to think that he would be shielded from repercussions?

If he was indeed this comfy, then he just got the Dan Rather - Mary Mapes rude awakening: welcome to the Information Age (and unemployment line), you schmuck!

Cindy Sheehag's book signing a dud

From WND:

While book-signings for political figures like Bill and Hillary Clinton, Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity often feature long lines and people waiting for hours, the scene at Cindy Sheehan's book-signing yesterday near President Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch was a much more lonely affair.

Photographs published by wire services including the Associated Press and Reuters depict a lonely "Peace Mom" in a virtually empty tent awaiting those seeking her autograph on her new book, "Not One More Mother's Child."



The Washington Post reported the scene this way: "Sheehan found herself addressing a crowd of only about 100 on Saturday afternoon. The large tent where supporters had erected a stage hung with the banner 'Speak Truth to Power' was only partially full. Earlier, Sheehan signed copies of her new book for an even smaller crowd.

"What if Cindy had a book signing and no one came?" asks one poster in an online messageboard. "Well we know what happened. No one cares about her but the press. Cindy is finished."

"Frankly I'm amazed the DNC/AP allowed these photos to see the light of day," writes another. "Usually their photogs do their (unlevel) best to angle their cameras and crop their pictures to make Mother Sheehan always appear to be at the center of a worshipful swarm. I'm afraid someone is going to be in hot water for letting us glimpse the truth."

I concur. AP and al-Reuters let these photos see the light of day? Boy, someone's going to get fired over letting that happen!

The collections department for the Fifteen Minutes of Fame Platinum Card called, Cindy. It seems that you're waaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy over your credit limit of fifteen minutes. Payment of the bill is long overdue. Time will tell if the MSM division of said collections department will extend her credit limit some more or not.

"You mean I wasn't drafted?"

Thanks to Kira for passing this on to me. Article here, excerpt follows:

Gov. Bill Richardson is coming clean on his draft record _ the baseball draft, that is, admitting that his claim to have been a pick of the Kansas City A's in 1966 was untrue.

For nearly four decades, Richardson, often mentioned as a possible Democratic presidential candidate, has maintained he was drafted by the Kansas City Athletics.

The claim was included in a brief biography released when Richardson successfully ran for Congress in 1982. A White House news release in 1997 mentioned it when he was about to be named U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. And several news organizations, including The Associated Press, have reported it as fact over the years.

But an investigation by the Albuquerque Journal found no record of Richardson being drafted by the A's, who have since moved to Oakland, or any other team.

Informed by the newspaper of its findings, the governor acknowledged the error in a story in Thursday's editions.

"After being notified of the situation and after researching the matter ... I came to the conclusion that I was not drafted by the A's," he said.

If I understand Richardson correctly, he thought that he was drafted by the A's. He never talked to the A's (or any other team), yet he thought he had been drafted? Have you ever seen a pro sports draft? They always talk to the athlete before drafting him, or at the very least, call him afterwards with necessary information (i.e. when to report for practice, where to go, etc.).

That's just too funny: "I thought I had been drafted, and have been maintaining it for years with the MSM simply taking my word for it. Now that someone actually did real journalistic work and investigated the claim, it looks like I hadn't been drafted at all. Well, that's news to me...as well as to the rest of the MSM who parroted my claim. I could have sworn that hearing from nobody was prrof that I had been drafted!"

Happy Thanksgiving

Take this day to give thanks for all you have in life, and keep the men and women in our armed forces in your thoughts on this blessed day.

John F'ing Kerry elected...

...jury foreman.

José Padilla finally indicted

It's about damned time! From the AP:

Three years after the Bush administration labeled U.S. citizen Jose Padilla an enemy combatant and denied him normal access to the courts, he's facing criminal charges that he trained as a terrorist in preparation to fight a jihad.

(snip...)

The spectacular allegations that led President Bush to classify Padilla an "enemy combatant" in 2002 — that the former Chicago gang member sought to blow up U.S. hotels and apartment buildings and planned an attack on America with a radiological "dirty bomb" — were not part of the indictment.

Padilla (pronounced "puh-DILL-uh") has spent more than three years in a Navy brig in South Carolina, until Tuesday held without charges and with only limited access to his lawyers. He is expected to be transferred quickly from military custody to a federal jail in Miami, where he will stand trial in September.

Emphasis mine. I've talked about this before, and my main problem is that the administration actually had the gall to argue that the Constitution did not apply to an American citizen! I am aghast and appalled by that assertion. Sure, I believe that Padilla is likely guilty as hell; however, I know he is a citizen whose constitutional rights were just sodomized.

I mean, if the government can get away with this for Padilla, who says you or I won't be next? All they have to do is make up some story about "national security risks", and our constitutional rights are discarded like a Bill Clinton mistress?

Continuing:

The Bush administration has argued that with national security at stake after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, terrorist suspects were not entitled to the constitutional protections given ordinary criminal suspects.

Like hell they're not! Club Gitmo detainees, fine. They're not American citizens. Padilla, however, is!

This part galls me to no end, too:

Eric Freedman, a professor at Hofstra Law School, said the Padilla indictment was an effort by the administration "to avoid an adverse decision of the Supreme Court."

Jenny Martinez, a Stanford law professor who represents Padilla at the Supreme Court, said, "There's no guarantee the government won't do this again to Mr. Padilla or others. The Supreme Court needs to review this case on the merits so the lower court decision is not left lying like a loaded gun for the government to use whenever it wants."

So if my understanding is correct, the feds held Padilla in violation of several federal laws and constitutional protections (right to a speedy trial, right to remain silent, right to an attorney, etc.) for three years, and ended up charging him with nothing related to the reason they detained him...and they even hurried those charges along so the Supreme Court wouldn't rightly whack them? Was it Alberto Gonzales prosecuting Padilla, or Patrick Fitzgerald?

Look, my heart does not bleed for Padilla. If he's found guilty by a court of law, I think he should be executed for treason. However, a court should find him guilty first!

"Put up or shut up"...so Dems shut up

Jack Kelly has great commentary on the 403-3 vote the House held last week calling for immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq per newfound media darling Jack Murtha's suggestion:

Showing more backbone and more brains than they customarily do, House Republicans called for a vote on immediate withdrawal from Iraq. It failed, 404-3. Democrats who'd applauded the introduction of Murtha's resolution whined it was dirty pool for Republicans to make them vote on his bottom line.

"It's a trap," a Democratic strategist told Newsweek's Eleanor Clift. "If the party comes out for a unilateral six month withdrawal, that would become the issue for 06, and they (Republicans) would kill us again." Democrats like to make antiwar noises for their moonbat base, but were unwilling to cast a vote that could hurt them with swing voters. They were too cowardly to be forthright cowards.

Voting in a pattern consistent with your rhetoric constitutes a trap, in the eyes of leftists like Clift. I gather that to mean that the left would like to blather on and spew platitudes of drivel without challenge, and without putting their money where their mouth is.

I guess Murtha's taken a page out of the John Kerry political playbook: he actually did advocate immediate surrender in withdrawal from Iraq, before he didn't!

The left is desparately looking for a horse to which it should hitch its anti-war wagon:

Last year, it was John Kerry. Did you know he served in Vietnam? Didn't work.

Earlier this year, it was Mother Moonbat herself, Cindy Sheehan. Did you know she lost a son in Iraq? Yep, she's gravy-trained off of his corpse more than Yoko Ono's gravy-trained off of John Lennon's corpse. Anyway, it didn't work.

Now, it's John Murtha. Did you know that he was a decorated USMC veteran?

You have to admire their tenacity. Time will tell if this works, but so far, signs (and history) aren't promising.

Fallout in academia for moonbat prof

From Town Hall:

Rebecca Beach is a freshman at Warren County Community College (WCCC) in Washington, New Jersey. Recently, she sent an email to the faculty at her school announcing the appearance of a decorated Iraq war hero named Lt. Colonel Scott Rutter. (Not to be confused with pedophile and Saddam shill Scott Ritter - Ed.) The war hero was asked to discuss America’s accomplishments in Iraq.

The simple email announcement was met with the following blistering response from part-time English Professor John Daly (jpdalyca@yahoo.com):

I am asking my students to boycott your event. I am also going to ask others to boycott it. Your literature and signs in the entrance lobby look like fascist propaganda and is [sic] extremely offensive. Your main poster "Communism killed 100,000,000" is not only untrue, but ignores the fact that CAPITALISM has killed many more and the evidence for that can be seen in the daily news papers. The U.S. government can fly to dominate the people of Iraq in 12 hours, yet it took them five days to assist the people devastated by huricane [sic] Katrina. Racism and profits were key to their priorities. Exxon, by the way, made $9 Billion in profits this last quarter--their highest proft [sic] margin ever. Thanks to the students of WCCC and other poor and working class people who are recruited to fight and die for EXXON and other corporations who [sic] earning megaprofits from their imperialist plunders. If you want to count the number of deaths based on political systems, you can begin with the more than a million children who have died in Iraq from U.S.-imposed sanctions and war. Or the million African American people who died from lack of access to healthcare in the US over the last 10 years.

I will continue to expose your right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like your [sic] won't dare show their face [sic] on a college campus. Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors and fight for just causes and for people's needs--such freedom fighters can be counted throughout American history and they certainly will be counted again.

Prof. John Daly

I won't even address the assertions of his moonbattery, except for one: fragging superiors. His response, issued only after the feces hit the fan, was that he was speaking "in the most metaphoric sense." Of course he was, since the rest of his diatribe was so well-reasoned, eloquently stated, and linguistically sound!

Who among us has not committed an occasional typo, or occasionally used the wrong word? Then why am I jumping on this guy like Michael Moore on a Happy Meal? Because this schmuck is an English professor! He got his master's degree in lunguistics! Parents are actually paying this school to teach their kids to learn from this moron, so consider this a public service announcement: Parents, if you care about your kids' education, do NOT send your kids to Warren County Community College!

Of course, Daly's employer isn't much better in the rhetorical eloquence department. From their web site's home page, which is currently dedicated to addressing the controversy of Daly's comments:

The Board of Trustees intends to consider the welfare and rights of its students, the college community, and the public in lieu [sic] of recent events. The board will also consider personnel issues.

That's "in light of", geniuses (or genii?). No wonder they hired this guy Daly: he looks brilliant compared to them in terms of the written English language (which, rumor has it, is still the overwhelmingly spoken language in America).

Using the government to stymie competition

Leave it to a liberal state like Dumbassachusetts to stifle capitalism. The irony is that the law was likely inspired by businesses, which are enterprises born of capitalism. However, some business owners would rather lobby their elected leaders to use the oppressive force of government to compensate for that which they have failed to do themselves in the marketplace: properly compete. From the AP:

There'll be no last-minute shopping for turkeys or trimmings on Thanksgiving Day in Massachusetts.

The state has warned the upscale Whole Foods supermarket chain that it will risk criminal charges under the state's centuries-old "blue laws" if it goes ahead with plans to open on the holiday.

The office of Attorney General Thomas Reilly issued a legal opinion after officials at a Whole Foods competitor, Shaw's Supermarkets, wrote him a letter asking him to block the opening, The Boston Globe reported.

Criminal charges? I can see it now: a chowderhead cop shows up at Whole Foods on Thursday and barks "You're under arrest for selling this little old lady some celery!"

OK, maybe the motivation to keep Whole Foods from opening on Thanksgiving is based on, as the story puts it, "Puritan-era blue laws", and I am mischaracterizing the situation. Fine...then explain this:

Shaw's, which has 200 stores in New England, complained to Reilly after some of its employees spotted a banner advertising a Thanksgiving Day opening at a Whole Foods in Bellingham.

"Besides disadvantaging competitors, a Whole Foods opening would harm consumers, due to lack of choice in the marketplace for consumers to shop and compare prices for the best deal," Shaw's legal department wrote to Reilly on Nov. 4.

That's right, folks. In the twisted mind of a failed business owner, and his useful idiots in state government, allowing people to buy last-minute items on Thanksgiving Day harms said consumers!

Also, spoken like a true socialist: everyone should be equally disadvantaged. It's not fair if I get to buy cranberry sauce from a business that chooses to be open on Thanksgiving (and pays its employees extra for working on that day)! I mean, what about those businesses that choose to be closed? That's not right!

What do customers think?

As for consumers, Jeff Orlinski, 26, of Hingham, was irked that the local Whole Foods wouldn't be open.

"What if you need something at the last-minute?" he asked. "What happens if your stuffing gets burned?"

Then enjoy your crunchy stuffing, sir...and thank your "enlightened" state leaders and local business flunky at Shaw's for protecting you from fresh stuffing!

Yours truly gets a plug on OSM

V the K of Caption This! fame brought this to my attention yesterday, since I wasn't exactly in the state of mind to think to look for it. It seems that your humble host received a plug from none other than OSM. That's the Open Source Media, whose mission is summed up by them as follows:

OSM’s mission is to expand the influence of weblogs by finding and promoting the best of them, providing bloggers with a forum to meet and share resources, and the chance to join a for-profit network that will give them additional leverage to pursue knowledge wherever they may find it. From academics, professionals and decorated experts, to ordinary citizens sitting around the house opining in their pajamas, our community of bloggers are among the most widely read and influential citizen journalists out there, and our roster will be expanding daily. We also plan to provide a bridge between old media and new, bringing bloggers and mainstream journalists—more and more of whom have started to blog—together in a debate-friendly forum.

I'm not harboring any delusions of grandeur just yet, nor am I insinutating that this blog is anywhere near as good as those of the big boys (and, in the case of Michelle Malkin and others, big girls). However, it's nice to be recognized by the big leagues of the blogosphere in any capacity.

Also, I must give credit where it is due: (1) Kira Zalan, who tipped me off to the OSM's blog carnival; and (2) everyone of you guys who contribute to the blog by way of your stopping by and by your comments. Thanks, all!

Anyway, here's the link to their blog carnival, with the mention of this fine "establishment" mentioned about halfway down.

Filed under "Nope...no liberal media bias"

This would be different had we not seen it from CNN before. From Drudge:

CNN SENIOR MANAGEMENT LAUNCHES INVESTIGATION OF CHENEY 'X'; CONTROL ROOM STAFFER 'LAUGHED' WHEN X FLASHED

CNN management has launched an internal investigation into how a giant black 'X' mark appeared over Vice President Dick Cheney's face -- as he delivered a speech from Washington on Monday!

"We are taking this matter very, very seriously, and I can assure you no one at this network would ever deliberately place an 'X' over the vice president's face," a top CNN source, who asked not to be named at this time, said from New York.

A well-placed CNN insider claims a control room staffer "laughed" when the image appeared shortly after 11 am.

A careful review of the tape now shows a white colored 'X' was also transposed over Cheney's face during the speech, it appeared for less than 1/15 of a second, creating a startling flash effect.

CNN spokeswoman Laurie Goldberg emails: "We concluded this was a technological malfunction not an issue of operator error. A portion of the switcher experienced a momentary glitch. We obviously regret that it happened and are working on the equipment to ensure it is not repeated."

A rival network news director asks: "When has an 'X' ever aired on CNN before? Who had the graphic sitting in the key signal? Who generated the 'X'?"

The vice president himself is said to have brushed off the incident, a White House source said early Tuesday morning.

Probably just an innocent Freudian slip, I'm sure.

Thank you, friends!

Thank you all who posted your kind comments and words of comfort about the loss of my friend Monica. I appreciate them deeply. You guys are the best!

And without further adieu, back to life as usual...

A day of personal mourning

I won't be posting anything today, due to me observing a day of personal mourning. Recall in a prior post that a high school friend of mine was recently diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. Well, Monica left this Earth peacefully late Friday night or the wee hours of Saturday morning to go to her new celestial home, now and forever impervious to the pain she felt prior to her rendezvous with God.

My thoughts and prayers go out to her parents, grandparents, and other family members that are going through incredible anguish right now. Politics can be really trivial when put into perspective like this, huh?

Anyway, I plan on resuming tomorrow. In the meantime, take a moment to touch base with a friend or family member and tell them how important they are to you. God bless.

Pre-war military intelligence

Much has been made, and rightly so, of the level of intelligence that the U.S. and its allies possessed going into the war in Iraq in 2003. Depending on what you read, you will get conflicting stories, and oftentimes, from the same sources.

Some of the following quotes are noteworthy, if for no other reason than their Kerryesque flip-flop nature:

John Kerry > January 23, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry > January 31, 2003
"If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me." (Fortunately for the world, most of the electorate did not! - Ed.)

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
"He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."

Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Hillary may have summed it up best (and forgive me if this is the last time I ever favorably quote that woman):

Speaking about the WMD's, "The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration, It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared." -Senator Hillary Clinton, April 20, 2004 on Larry King Live

And the left has been saying that Bush is dumb? Not so! He's so smart, he figured out how to lie to and trick Clinton and the world when he was still governor of Texas and thus not privy to such national security intelligence! If that's not a neat trick, then I don't know what is!

Now, the same Democrat and liberal advocates of disarming Saddam Hussein are now saying that Saddam never had the weapons, or that they were misled by Bush (which, going back to 1998, would have been a damned good trick). The most offensive part of all, besides the blatant undermining of support for our troops and their mission which the left allegedly support, is that these same power-hungry Democrats are blatantly disregarding their own previous statements. And rationales. And evidence. Hell, even Harry Reid accuses Bush of neglecting to provide the Senate with all the intelligence it needed, despite the fact that Harry Reid never read the NIE report anyway prior to voting to authorize the use of force in 2002!

So, what happens when those who are tired of the left's lies have the audacity to point out said lies, hypocrisies, and mischaracterizations? The left gets defensive, and accuses the other side of personal attacks! Since when is showing video evidence of the left's own words considered a personal attack? Similarly, why do the same people who scream about bringing the troops home reject the opportunity to do so on a 403-3 basis (all three supporters of immediate surrender withdrawal were Democrats)? Methinks they doth protest too much.

What could or should we have done in Iraq to mitigate the insurgency we face today? Well, there are two things in particular that we should have done:

1. Educate the world, specifically the press, to the fact that the insurgents are overwhelmingly foreigners dedicated to preventing Iraq from recognizing freedom. They are not Iraqis, but are instead Iranians, Saudis, and Syrians (among others).

2. Since most of the foreign terrorists (affectionately referred to by the left as "insurgents") are coming in from Syria and Iran, seal the borders tighter than Michael Moore clutching a double Whopper (the sandwich, not one of his truth-challenged films).

If the left wants to put forth a plan of how to improve the situation in Iraq, I would (a) be stunned, and (b) welcome it. If they want to bellyache and henpeck to further demoralize our troops, I for one will not stand for it. Here's guessing the war-weary (yet liberal-weary) electorate will not, either.

Roll call, liberals!

OK, put the bastards on record and let's see where they stand. They talk a mean game, so let's see if the cowards have the nads to go on the Congressional record with their anti-troop rhetoric. From WND:

Responding to Democrats' calls to withdraw troops from Iraq, House Republicans have scheduled a quick vote this evening to settle the issue and put lawmakers on the record.

House GOP leaders expect a swift rejection.

How about this, from Rep. Jean Schmidt(R-OH):

During the House session late this afternoon, Democrats erupted in anger when Republican Rep. Jean Schmidt of Ohio quoted Ohio state Rep. Danny Bubp, a Marine Corps Reserve officer.

"He asked me to send Congress a message 'Stay the course,'" she said, "he also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that 'Cowards cut and run. Marines never do.'"

Dems "erupted in anger"? Of course they did! Where does this bitch Schmidt get off by quoting an actual Marine constituent who offered an unsolicited opinion to elected elitists? "Piss off, Jarhead! Who asked you?", right, libs?

Murtha calls for Iraq surrender...but he did last year, too!

From NewsMax:

The press is pretending that Rep. John Murtha had been a longtime, staunch supporter of the Iraq war right up until yesterday's "shocking reversal," when the Pennsylvania Democrat abruptly called for an immediate U.S. pull out.

In fact, Murtha began advocating a cut-and-run strategy way back in May 2004 - after U.S. forces had been in Iraq just a little more than a year.

Standing at the time next to San Francisco-based House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi - who was last seen defending her city's decision to ban military recruiters from public school property - the allegedly pro-war Murtha proclaimed that the Iraq war was "unwinnable."

"We have to either mobilize or get out [and] I don't know that we have the will to mobilize," he declared 18 months ago.

If, by "we", he means "Democrats", I'm inclined to believe him. Continuing:

Peacenik Pelosi was delighted at the time - showing off her new catch as if Murtha was a prize-winning poodle.
"He is one of the most recognized experts on defense in the country," she boasted. "And no one has worked harder to meet the needs of our troops."

Of course, one of the troops' most compelling needs is support of their mission on the home front.

And Murtha very publicly yanked his support a long time ago.

Yes, but the press has been salivating like Pavlov's dog over his recent and more public calls for surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq.

Besides, just because a field commander in Iraq says the mission is incomplete, who's to say that simply by being there that he's more knowledgeable than an elected bureaucrat in DC?

Impeachment if Dems win House next year?

"If Dems win the House" is much like saying "if Hell freezes over." But let's work within the scenario. From Mort Kondracke:

The 2006 election is shaping up to be a bitterly fought referendum on President Bush - to the point where, if Democrats win, they just might impeach him.

The "I-word" so far is mainly tossed around in the left-wing blogosphere: Barbra Streisand is calling for impeachment on her Web site, for example, as is an unofficial "progressive" site called Democrats.com. But Democratic accusations that Bush lied to get the United States into the Iraq war would seem to lead logically to demands for his removal from office.

I like and respect Mort, but I lost a bit of that respect when he used the words "Democrats" and "logically" in the same sentence. Anyway, continuing:

On Monday, for example, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) charged that Bush "dishonored America's veterans and those serving today" by playing "attack politics" in a Veterans Day speech.

Such shameful tactics by Bush are even worse than, say, lying about what your fellow soldiers did in Vietnam in order to curry favor with the left and the media (pardon the redundancy); giving aid and comfort to the VC; throwing someone else's your metals over the White House wall, only to have them mysteriously reappear in your Senate office; and decades of a demonstrably anti-military voting record. But hey...he was there, right?

What about history's indicators? Well, aside from the ones that Bush has already broken (e.g. no president losing the popular vote has ever been re-elected, no president since FDR has had his party add Congressional seats to their majority in mid-terms or re-elections, etc.), how about this one?

In 1994, Republicans capitalized on the collapse of Clinton's health care agenda to win a net 52 House seats and regain control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. But in 1998, even though Clinton's approval rating descended as low as 39 percent after disclosures that he lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, Democrats gained five House seats after Republicans forecast that they would impeach him after the election - as they did.

"We overplayed our hand," said Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), who later became chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "The Democrats had better watch out that they don't do the same."

If anyone can screw up a slam dunk, it's the Democratic Party.

Plus, see prior post. Political eternity, people.

Rudy trounces Hillary in '08?

Look, Mom...a poll!

If the 2008 presidential election were held today, Republican Rudy Giuliani would beat Democrat Hillary Clinton according to a nationwide poll. Of the 455 respondents who volunteered an answer regarding the 2008 match-up, Giuliani received 54 percent of the vote to Clinton's 38 percent.

Let's see: this is 2005, almost 2006. The next presidential election is in 2008. Carry the one, square root of 10...pardon me while I use the slide rule here...OK, got it!

Over two years away. A political eternity. For two people who haven't thrown their hats in. Good grief, I love politics (duh! this blog! hello?), but isn't this a bit much?

Wake me up to this snooze...er, news...in mid-2008, m'kay? Thanks a bunch.

Reid didn't read pre-war Intel report

Thanks to Kira for passing this on to me.

How can that be? He's been saying that BushCo McHitlerburton lied and manipulated intel and evidence. That would imply that he actually read said intel and evidence! From Human Events Online:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.), who is leading a spurious Democratic campaign that alleges President Bush misled the country into war, admitted last week that he did not read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs that Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet prepared in 2002 at the request of Senate Democrats specifically so Congress would have up-to-date intelligence as it debated whether to authorize the Iraq war.

The NIE was delivered to Congress at the beginning of October 2002, and Reid voted on Oct. 11, 2002, in favor of authorizing the war.

John Kerry: "I actually DID read the report...before I didn't!" That would explain why he supported the war...before he didn't!

Woodward revelation may save Libby, while CBS & NBC spike story

From the Media Research Center:

Bob Woodward's revelations, in a Wednesday Washington Post front page story, "Woodward Was Told of Plame More Than Two Years Ago," seemingly undermined two premises of special prosecutor Peter Fitzgerald's case against Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former Chief-of-Staff -- that he was the first to tell a reporter about Valerie Plame and that everyone involved remembers when they were told about Plame.

But while the developments animated cable television all day, all the broadcast networks ignored it in the morning and in the evening both CBS and NBC, which led October 28 with multiple stories of Fitzgerald's indictments, spiked the story while ABC's World News Tonight devoted a piddling 31 seconds to Woodward's disclosures. The CBS Evening News found time for supposed dangers to kids of cold medicines and a look at "why the obesity crisis is far worse for African-Americans." The NBC Nightly News provided stories on claims the U.S. used "chemical weapons" in Iraq and on the effectiveness of diet pills.

On Thursday morning, CBS held the development to a very brief news update item, NBC squeezed it into the very end of a session with Tim Russert while ABC actually touted it at the top of Good Morning America and provided a full story.

Maybe if someone slipped the story to CBS on a piece of paper written in crayon and Xeroxed 473 times, then CBS might believe it! Thankfully, hardly anyone watches these alleged "news" broadcasts anymore.

Nope...no liberal media bias.

Sheehag's Euro tour

From the AP:

Iraq War protester Cindy Sheehan and 26 other peace activists were found guilty Thursday of protesting without a permit near the White House.

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

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

All the defendants contended they were trying to deliver petitions to the White House calling for an end to the war in Iraq on Sept. 26, but found no one willing to accept them.

"Our petitions were rejected like every request I have made of the president has been rejected," Sheehan said.

Sheehan, 48, of Berkeley, Calif., has tried repeatedly to meet with President Bush since her 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in Iraq last year. She spent several weeks near the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch this summer, and plans to return there Thanksgiving week.

"I absolutely believe he has an obligation to meet with me," Sheehan said.

He already has met with you, Mother Moonbat...in June 2004. You've since John Kerryed your version of how the meeting went. Anyway, I scoured the Constitution to see if you were entitled one, much less two, visits with the Commander-in-Chief. No dice. The last paragraph:

Sheehan said she plans to take her peace activist message to Europe next month with stops in London and Madrid.

Sorry...I just had a flashback to the 1979 song by M called Pop Musik:

New York, London, Paris, Munich
Everybody talk about pop musik...

But remember, folks: she's not a publicity whore who is well over her credit limit on her Platinum 15-Minutes-of-Fame Card, and aligned with some of the most loony moonbat organizations out there. No, she's just a poor grieving mother from Berkeley with no axe to grind and whose words haven't been used by the Al Jazeera Terrorvision Network and whose family didn't rebuke her. Right...and the Sierra Club is only interested in sound environmental policy instead of world socialism!

Treehuggers dishonest in ANWR debate? No way!

From the Sierra Times:

The same left-wing activists who claim that the liberation of Iraq is really a “war for oil” are doing everything they can to prevent oil and gas drilling in ANWR or anywhere else within the United States. Many in the media are busy asserting that Alaskan Natives oppose ANWR drilling and that drilling poses a grave danger to Alaskan caribou herds. Neither of these statements is true. A typical example of media deceit on ANWR is this quote from MSNBC:

“Congress could soon approve drilling in the refuge, a move opposed by environmentalists who along with Inupiat Eskimos also oppose offshore arctic development because of possible risks to migrating whales and other wildlife.”

This passage strongly implies that the Inupiat are opposed to drilling ANWR—this is false. The Inupiat oppose only offshore drilling, which is not currently technically feasible in the ANWR area. Their support for ANWR on-shore drilling is explained on the website of the city of Kaktovik, AK (population 286)--the only human settlement in ANWR:

“The essence of the Kaktovik position is that we would support oil exploration and development of the coastal plain provided we are given the authority and the resources to ensure that it is done properly and safely. Without the necessary provisions to ensure this protection, we would not.”

How does MSNBC interpret the last sentence? Naturally, they interpret the conditional endorsement as definitive opposition!

OK, there must be other Native Alaskans opposed, right?

Leftists point to one of the very few native groups to oppose drilling—the Gwich’in—but do not note that they are located hundreds of miles south of ANWR on the other side of the Brooks Range. The majority of Gwich’in live in Canada. Another native group opposing oil drilling in ANWR is the native city of Point Hope, AK—700 miles from ANWR. The vast majority of Alaskan Native corporations support drilling as do the vast majority of Alaskans.

Leave it to the Canadians to try and mold our energy policy, eh? Damned hosers!

What about the wildlife? We want to remain dependent on the volatile Middle East's oil if it means we might not disrupt the screwing patterns of the snow gerbil or whatever the hell is out there, right?

Media accounts of ANWR feature photos of caribou and musk oxen frolicking in fields of wildflowers. The Artic slope looks like this for about one month of the year. A more realistic image of harsh ANWR environment can be found in the photo galleries of the Kaktovik, AK city website.

The Sierra Club claims that, “the harm to wildlife and this spectacular wilderness would be permanent and irreparable.” ANWR is 19 million acres – larger than Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii, Connecticut and Delaware combined. If oil is found, less than 2,000 acres would be directly affected.

Caribou herds in Alaska’s existing North Slope drilling areas have actually increased in size since drilling began. Caribou around the Prudhoe Bay oilfield increased from about 3,000 in the 1970s to over 32,000 today. The Porcupine herd, which occupies the ANWR areas currently blocked from drilling, decreased in the same period. If they were truly concerned about the caribou, logically the Sierra Club should be demanding more drilling, not less.

Let's cut to the chase here: Who are the key players in this ANWR debate?

Their agenda is revealed in the “Earth Charter”, endorsed by the Sierra Club and many other so-called environmentalists, which reads: "the dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation.” They want to destroy the free enterprise system and replace it with a system that the Earth Charter says, “Promote(s) the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations” – in other words, socialism.

In order to destroy free enterprise, the eco-socialists are using false arguments about Alaskan natives, false images of life in ANWR and false claims about the effect of oil drilling on wildlife. Their real goal and its affect on the day-to-day life of millions of humans is contained in the preamble to the Earth Charter which reads: “when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more.”

There you go. They can't even debate honestly and factually about the topic without resorting to pathological lies.

One of the largest environmentalist groups around today is on record with a page right out of Das Kapital. Once the Soviet Union fell (and with it, the false pretense of communism's success), the displaced commies and socialists found a new home in the treehugger movement. After all, who could possibly be against the environment?

Answer: No one. No one is anti-environment. We expect common sense environmental solutions, not a rehashed and proveably failed leftist ideology that must be hidden from normal and proper-thinking America under the guise of "environmental stewardship."

Hillary throws shindig for "Sheets" Byrd

From NewsMax:

New York Senate hopeful Jeanine Pirro is blasting 2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton for throwing a birthday party tonight for Ku Klux Klansman-turned-Senator Robert Byrd at the home of a civil rights pioneer.

"It's outrageous and shocking that Senator Clinton and her Democrat colleagues would choose Frederick Douglass' house to honor Senator Robert Byrd, who has a history of involvement with hate groups and has used racial slurs publicly," Pirro spokeswoman Andrea Tantaros told the Associated Press.

Not only has "Sheets" used the N-word publicly, he did so only four years ago. So much for that "youthful indiscretion" defense! Anyway, Hillary should fire her mouthpiece Howard Wolfson (last seen working on John Kerry's campaign last year...how'd that work out for him?) for his anemic retort:

Mrs. Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, defended her tribute to the longtime racist, saying Pirro's criticism was off base.

"Sadly, Ms. Pirro continues to wage a campaign of insults and attacks instead of offering New Yorkers a positive agenda," he said, without explaining why Mrs. Clinton was honoring the one-time nightrider.

Apparently, pointing out the obvious history (though you'll never see the MSM refer to his Klan past...imagine if he were Republican?) and sorry record of "Sheets" counts as an "insult" and "attack" these days.

Trent Lott (Republican) paid a tribute to Strom Thurmond (Republican, and a former segregationist who, unlike Byrd, was never in the Klan) almost three years ago, and he was raked over the coals by the press. Yes-sir-ree, they were on that story like Michael Moore on a Snickers bar, yet nary a peep when Her Highness (Democrat) throws a hoe-down (not Bill Clinton's version) for the former Grand Cyclops (Democrat).

Nope...no liberal media bias!

Mandatory Spanish for kindergartners?

Thanks to ManicNole for alerting me to this.

Here in Florida, a Democrat (go figure) has come up with this brilliant idea (the odor of sarcasm should be pungent right about...now) to mandate (calm down, Congressman Frank) Spanish for students in grades K-2.

The most formative of years to learn math and English (which rumor has it is spoken by infinitely more people in this country than any other language) should be introduced to Spanish, thinks Les Miller, Democrat from Tampa. Interestingly, Miller's name doesn't appear in the article...only the reference to "The state's top democrat (sic)." Read into that what you will. Article:

The youngest students in Southwest Florida's public school system could soon be saying hola to a new language. A proposed law would make Spanish mandatory for students in kindergarten through second grade.

"I frankly believe, the earlier you teach someone, the better it is," said George Muentes, an English as a second language teacher.

The law would make Spanish a core class like math and science. It would also force school officials to shuffle an already crowded schedule."

The length of the school day won't change, but the Spanish would have to be squeezed in somewhere, which means a few popular classes may have to be cut to make room.

"The options would be the specials, the arts, music and PE. But here in Charlotte County those are very important to us," said Mike Riley of the Charlotte County school district.

Cut special education, art, music, and PE? Yes, screw the autistic kids. After all, José might have a bruised ego if Little Johnny "no comprende español"...and everyone knows that there is a constitutional right to not be offended, a right that somehow has eluded 200+ years of constitutional scholarly study.

Yes-sir-ree, these same people who think the government needs to get involved with the fatness composition of kids think that one of the best ways to combat laziness and obesity in kids is to teach them how to properly say "Yo quiero Taco Bell" instead of doing jumping jacks!

Oh, well, look at the bright side: if kids are learning Spanish, they may just avoid the indoctrination of books like King and King and Heather Has Two Mommies.

Cuban scientist's vaccine against American interests?

From the AP:

A Cuban scientist who helped develop a low-cost synthetic vaccine that prevents meningitis and pneumonia in small children says he was offended the U.S. government denied his request to travel to the United States to receive an award.

Vicente Verez-Bencomo was to accept the award recognizing his team's technological achievement during a Wednesday ceremony at the Tech Museum of Innovation in San Jose, Calif. He had also been invited to address a gathering of the Society for Glycobiology in Boston on Friday.

Verez-Bencomo said the State Department denied him a visa because the visit would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States."

"That is really offensive to me," the chemical engineer told The Associated Press as he sat on a stool inside the University of Havana's Synthetic Antigens Laboratory, where the vaccine was developed. "It's really a shame."

The State Department said it has a policy prohibiting comment on individual visa cases. The switchboard rang unanswered at the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, which evidently was closed Friday for Veterans Day.

"It's incomprehensible that a civilized nation can confuse someone who has dedicated his life to saving the lives of children with someone who goes against the interests of the United States," Verez-Bencomo said with a sigh. "I wasn't going there to talk about politics, I was going to talk about science."

Verez-Bencomo led a team that developed a vaccine for Haemophilus influenza type B, also known as Hib, a bacteria that causes meningitis and pneumonia. The diseases kill up to 700,000 children worldwide each year.

Before the development of a similar vaccine more than a decade ago, Hib was the biggest cause of meningitis among infants in the United States. That earlier vaccine has all but stamped out the disease in the western world, but mass immunizations are too expensive for many poor countries.

The synthetic vaccine created by Verez-Bencomo's team can be produced at a relatively low cost because antigens don't have to be grown in a bacterial culture, making it an attractive alternative for poorer nations.

So far more than 1 million doses have been administered to Cubans. Science Magazine last month said the vaccine "may someday save millions of lives."

Officials at the San Jose Tech Museum were disappointed the government blocked Verez-Bencomo's trip.

The museum organizes the award ceremony every year to recognize individuals or groups who use technology to improve the environment, economy, education, equality and health.

"We recognized them for cutting-edge technology and wish he could be here to accept this," museum spokesman Tony Santos said. "We wish that hadn't been the government's decision."

An editorial in the San Jose Mercury News also expressed disappointment.

"Verez-Bencomo won't be here to receive the award," it said, "because he's from Cuba. He's a scientist, not a terrorist, but our State Department nevertheless denies him entry. He brings ideas, not bombs, but we let ideology trump innovation."

It boggles the mind to try and determine what some pencil-pushing D.C. bureaucrat was thinking when the doctor's visa request was denied. "Detrimental" to American interests? I hardly see how allowing a doctor to accept an award on American soil for a vaccine that may ultimately save millions of lives can be perceived as "detrimental" to our interests!

If the federal government can botch a simple no-brainer decision like this, is there any wonder why I'm just a tad bit nervous about letting said government control our health care, education, etc.?

Thank you, veterans!

This day is set aside to honor veterans of the armed forces. Thank you, vets, for your service to the country! Regardless of what the Sheehanistas, the MSM, San Franciscans, and other anti-military types think, the rest of proper-thinking and normal America thanks you for selfless actions and honorable service.

Thank you again!

O'Reilly offers up SF to al Qaeda

My favorite antagonist Kvatch brought this to my attention in the comments of my prior post about Moonbat City, aka San Francisco. From MSN:

"Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead," O'Reilly said, according to a transcript and audio posted by liberal media watchdog group Media Matters for America, and by the San Francisco Chronicle.

"And if al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead," O'Reilly continued, referring to the 1933 San Francisco landmark that sits atop Telegraph Hill.

Despite the mention by Media Matters, a moonbat group that MSN generously calls a "liberal media watchdog group" (which means a group that thinks the media isn't nearly liberal enough), the story appears to be dead-on accurate.

Look, like O'Reilly, I'm exasperated with San Fran. If there was ever a nutty republic worthy of being its own country, it's certainly San Fran. Unlike O'Reilly, I don't want to see al Qaeda wipe them off the map!

If they were ever the target of a terrorist attack, it's certainly appropriate to wonder whether it's karma landing on their heads. It is not appropriate to wish it on them! As a matter of fact, it's just downright depraved!

If you dislike San Fran as much as I do, and if you think they're as loony as the rest of the nation does, there's a simple solution: don't live there. God knows I never will! Let them wallow in their moonbattery. However, not living there and wanting them dead are obviously two different things!

I know the left hates Fox News. Naturally, I do not. However, I will say that I will lose a measure of respect for them if they do not punish O'Reilly for this idiocy. Freedom of speech means he can say what he wants without fear of jailing. It does not mean that he's free to say what he wants and keep his job. Try telling your boss that you want him dead, maintain that it's free speech...and see how long you remain on his payroll!

Open trackback at the Political Teen

PT has a fantastic blog, and Michelle Malking references it often. PT was one of the first blogs (if not the first) to have Gen. Honore's famous "Stuck on Stupid" video clip.

Check PT out, and bookmark it! :-)

Andrea Mitchell: It's partisan to quote me!

Andrea Mitchell, on Imus' show, is pulling a bit of a Kerry, as shown here:

NBC's senior diplomatic correspondent Andrea Mitchell is claiming that her comments have been deliberately distorted in reports covering a 2003 interview where she said Valerie Plame's identity had been "widely known" before her name appeared in a Robert Novak column.

"The fact is that I did not know [Plame's identity] before the Novak column," she told radio host Don Imus on Thursday.

"I said it was widely known that an envoy had gone [to Niger]," she insisted. "I said we did not know who the envoy was until the Novak column."

But the actual exchange in question shows that Mitchell was questioned specifically about Plame's CIA employment, not her envoy husband.

"Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?" she was asked by host Alan Murray in an Oct. 3, 2003 interview on CNBC's "Captial Report."

Mitchell replied: "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that."

Confronted with her comments Thursday morning, the top NBC reporter insisted: "[The quote] was out of context."

When pressed, a flustered-sounding Mitchell explained: "I - I - I said it was widely known that an envoy had gone - let me try to find the quote. But the fact is what I was trying to say in the rest of that sentence - I said we did not know who the envoy was until the Novak column."

Moments later, however, Mitchell changed her story, saying she was talking about both Plame and Wilson:

"I said that it was widely known that - here's the exact quote - I said that it was widely known that Wilson was an envoy and that his wife worked at the CIA. But I was talking about . . . after the Novak column."

Read the full exchange. It's enlightening.

She ends up sounding bitter and disgruntled, like Dan Rather and Mary Mapes. When she gets called on her own quote and tries to lie her way out of it, she ends up stumbling worse than Ted Kennedy after Happy Hour...then blames bloggers for putting her in the position of lying to cover up her original words.

However, I am sure that her enmity for right-of-center bloggers has no carryover into her reporting. After all, no liberal media bias!

Jordanians rebuke al Qaeda for attacking their own people

Al Qaeda attacks a Muslim country, Jordan, for its perceived support for America and Israel. The people of Jordan aren't exactly pro-Western, yet they were the ones who suffered at the hands of those bloodthirsty al Qaeda savages. Or, as Mother Moonbat Cindy Sheehag would call them, "freedom fighters"! From CNN:

Three terror bombings that killed at least 56 people in Jordan's capital sparked furious protests against al Qaeda on Thursday after a Web site carried a claim that the group was behind the attacks.

Jordanians flooded Amman blaring car horns and waving the nation's flag to protest the suicide attacks at three hotels with Western connections.

Hundreds of angry Jordanians rallied shouting, "Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!" after the terrorist group he leads claimed responsibility for the blasts.

al Qaeda is so crazed with evil and bloodlust that they're mobilizing more Muslims against them! This development will come as a huge shock (and disappointment) to those on the left that felt al Qaeda was gaining recruits by the boatloads.

Somehow, I anticipate that not much time will elapse before we hear how this was George Bush's fault.

Filed under "Absurd Headline"

AP's wishful thinking headline:

Democrat wins signal trouble for Bush

"Trouble for Bush"? Hey, I didn't think about that! I mean, if this bad luck keeps up, Bush may not get re-elected in 2008!

What? He can't run again? OK, then exactly what trouble is Bush in for? Sagging popularity will do...what? Declining approval numbers mean...what? Seriously, now that he's firmly in place in his second term, just what kind of "trouble" does a NJ and VA guv race signal?

Trouble for GOP? That's a legit topic for debate. But trouble for Bush? Dream on, MSM.

SF welcomes criminals, snubs military

Can we all admit that San Francisco is definitely not representative of normal America? From the AP:

Voters approved ballot measures to ban handguns in San Francisco and urge the city's public high schools and college campuses to keep out military recruiters.

The gun ban prohibits the manufacture and sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city, and makes it illegal for residents to keep handguns in their homes or businesses.

Whew! I can already see the lines of criminals now extending for miles as they get into the queue to turn in their weapons! I mean, criminals care so much about the laws we already have, so I'm just positive they'll comply with this new law! If a homeowner dares to defend himself and his family against a violent criminal, that insolent homeowner will be dealt with in the harshest of terms!

S.F. just painted a bullseye on its citizens, and when the violence against defenseless homeowners and business owners escalates, you can go ahead and call it "self-inflicted."

However, that pesky Second Amendment thingee could become a problem for them. Speaking of which, let's get this out of the way:

For you liberals who maintain that the Second Amendment doesn't grant individuals the right to keep and bear arms, you would have to hypocritically and stupidly believe that every single amendment in the Bill of Rights (freedom of speech, freedom against unreasonable search and seizure, etc.) pertains to the rights of individuals...except for the Second Amendment! Yes sir, the Founding Fathers intended for us to have a limited government that recognizes and protects the rights of the individual, and they were so adamant about that principle that they forged a Second Amendment to protect...groups?

So save your breath, and take your anti-individual rants about the Second Amendment to the Kos kiddies. In the meantime, back to Moonbat City, aka S.F.:

The military recruitment initiative won with 60 percent in favor and 40 percent against.

The measure, dubbed "College Not Combat," opposes the presence of military recruiters at public high schools and colleges. However, it would not ban the armed forces from seeking enlistees at city campuses, since that would put schools at risk of losing federal funding.

It encourages city officials and university administrators to exclude recruiters and create scholarships and training programs that would reduce the military's appeal to young adults.

Nice to know that Moonbat City holds our armed forces in such high regard, eh? Maybe they've been reading the comPost article that portrays the military as a bunch of hayseeds, and God (insert deity du jour here) knows that the latté sipping leftist limpwrists of the Golden Gate don't want to lower themselves to bunking with red state rubes! Therefore, they must be diligent in protecting their kids (without guns, of course) by keeping the recruiters away from their offspring!

Is there any wonder why the Electoral College is so important? It keeps cities like San Francisco from singlehandedly determining the outcome of presidential elections. Our Founding Fathers were brilliant, for putting the Electoral College AND the Second Amendment into the Constitution...the same document with which San Francisco just wiped its pinko posteriors!

Tell me again why Americans don't take the left seriously when it comes to crime, defense, and other issues related to security?

A couple of takes on the Election 2005 results

Full coverage here, but I have a couple of views here:

Virginia governor's race
Democrat Tim Kaine beat Republican Jerry Kilgore in a red state. Dems are crowing about this one, and they should. However, they should also read what was an important indicator here: Kaine actually put forward an agenda, and he didn't run from who he was.

Kaine is against the death penalty, a stance that he attributes to his Christian faith. Fair enough. Rather than try to run from it, deny it, or spin it, he stood firm on it. While I clearly disagree with his stance, I admire his backbone. It was refreshing to see a Democrat actually have convictions and not run on public opinion polls. Dems could learn a thing or two from this guy.

Also, his opponent Kilgore ran ads against Kaine's death penalty stance, saying that Kaine wouldn't even allow Hitler to be executed. Godwin's Law, people...once Kilgore did that, he rendered his own point of view impotent. No one likes or takes seriously people who gratuitously invoke Hitler's name for political points.

Keep in mind that in November 2001, Virginia elected Democrat Mark Warner as its governor, despite President Bush's 75%+ popularity rating at the time. It didn't translate into VA becoming a Democratic state, nor did Kerry come very close to winning in 2004. In other words, while it may be tempting for the left to think "Hey, a red state rejected the GOP gubernatorial candidate; therefore, they're in BIG trouble in 2006 and beyond"...it didn't help the Dems in 2002, did it? Saying that VA has suddenly gone liberal is like saying that because the last three governors of Mass. have been Republicans, MA has gone conservative!

Having said that, the GOP should use this opportunity to reflect on how to make its base (which is larger than the liberal base) happy by returning to fiscal restraint, immigration enforcement, and energy independence roots. Failure to do so will not bode well for them in 2006.

Also, Mark Warner has been pro-defense and a moderate on certain issues in VA. He's considering a White House run, and if he pulls it off and gets the party's nomination, he could be a big force to reckon with. However, knowing how inept the national Democratic Party is, they'll probably (a) ignore recent history (the last three elected Democrat presidents were all from the South: LBJ from TX, Carter from GA, and Bubba from AR); and (b) replace their 2004 Northeastern liberal presidential candidate (Kerry)...with a 2008 Northeastern liberal presidential candidate (Shrillary).

New Jersey governor's race
A Democrat won in New Jersey. Yawn! This is news? Dems always win in NJ (Christine Whitman notwithstanding). It's a blue state, people! This race never should have been close, and in the end, it wasn't.

California ballot initiatives
I won't get into all four of them, but in short, the Governator (Arnie) ran two years ago on a platform of reform, and he specifically mentioned these initiatives. He was elected by Californians who seemed eager for these (and other) reforms, yet when he went to actually implement them, the voters revolted.

I was puzzled by this, then I recalled how Bill Clinton ran in '92 on (among other things) getting gays in the military. He was elected, thinking that the electorate supported his social experiment with the military. Once he tried it, the backlash was palpable.

Moral of the story: just because you get elected doesn't mean that the electorate supports ALL of your ideas. Arnie just found that out.

The anti-Bush revolt
It didn't happen. From the AP story linked above:

Most voters said President Bush was not a factor in their choices Tuesday, according to the survey conducted Tuesday by the AP and its polling partner, Ipsos. The survey was based on interviews with 1,280 adults throughout New Jersey who said they voted in the governor's election.

Dems had a huge night, and there's no doubt about it. Rather than reading too much into it, they (and other politicians from all parties) need to learn the various lessons from it.

Dems: be open about who you are and for what you stand. Get some ideas, since "Bush sucks" isn't enough to get you back into power on a widespread basis.

GOP: get back to your roots, the ones that got you elected 11 years ago and have kept you in ever since. Don't cater as much to the religious message as to the economic and security message.

Independents: now is a good time to articulate a message, raise some capital, and broadly distribute your message to an electorate getting increasingly fed up with the two major parties.

Does Kerry believe election was stolen?

Yes...if you take the word of a moonbat NYU professor with a book to sell. From NRO:

There is an ugly set of accusations and counter-accusations going on between Sen. John Kerry and an author who claims that the 2004 presidential election was stolen. In Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election and Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them), Mark Crispin Miller argues that a conspiracy of GOP officials, voting-machine companies, and shadowy political operatives created, in the words of Miller's publisher, "a new Republican electoral strategy...not one overwhelming fraud but thousands of little ones" that gave the election to George W. Bush.

Last Friday, Miller took to the left-wing media to announce that John Kerry, who accepted the election results in his November 3, 2004 concession speech, now agrees with Miller that the vote was stolen.

Wow! That would be truly huge news...were it true. Kerry spokesbabe Jenny Backus denies that Kerry ever said or implied any such thing. (Sidebar: Rumor has it that Kerry served in Vietnam! Why didn't I hear about this ad nauseum during the election?)

So is this professor, a man who molds the minds of college students, a brilliant man or a paranoid moonbat asshat? You be the judge:

I wrote about Miller in The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. Prior to his crusade to prove that the 2004 election was stolen, he was on a crusade to convince Americans that a powerful, well-organized theocratic movement, fronted by George W. Bush but controlled by a secretive group of right-wing religious figures, is working to establish Biblical law in the United States. Miller wasn't speaking figuratively; he wrote of a Republican-dominated United States in which adultery, for example, is punishable by death by stoning. In his latest book, Miller has combined his two areas of interest, arguing that the election-stealing conspiracy was carried out by Bush-supporting "theocratic militants." In his mind, apparently, it all fits together.

So, here's a message for those of you who help rock yourself to sleep at night in a fetal position chanting Rainman-like incantations that "Bush stole the 2004 election. Yeah. K-Mart sucks.":

You share the same point of view with a man who is convinced that America is headed for stoning deaths of adulterers, liars, etc. If true, I see the cause for his alarm: Bill Clinton would be the first one to go!

"The left is consistently inconsistent"

Please read Generation Why?'s post about the left's hypocrisy, and how it causes them problems in making their point of view accepted. Here is an excerpt:

National Security

They laughed and brushed aside the story of a National Security Advisor admitting that he stole and destroyed classified documents relating to the government's response and approach toward prevention of terror attacks... then they claim outrage when a prosecutor investigates the alleged outing of an undercover CIA agent and only comes up with an indictment on obstruction.

Iraq

They believe every Democrat that ever claimed Saddam/Iraq was a threat to America and American interests, but don't believe any Republican that claims Saddam/Iraq was a threat to America and American interests.

(snip...)

Military Draft

They cried foul when rumors of a draft surfaced last year, but they ignored the fact that the only draft bill submitted was authored and co-sponsored by only Democrats.

Social Security - Reform

They supported Democrats who said Social Security was in trouble and advocated partially privatizing social security, but they blasted Republicans who said Social Security was in trouble and advocated partially privatizing social security.

Mandates

They claimed a President who never received a majority of the popular vote had a mandate, but claim a President who received a majority of the popular vote does not have a mandate.

"Mandate"? Isn't that Barney Frank's plans for the weekend? Seriously, though, the rest makes for excellent reading.

A tale of two DC publications

Warning to moonbats: if you start your tired and logically fallacious (that means "flawed") "chickenhawk" argument, you will be banned, deleted, and ignored like Bill Clinton ignored the security of the country while getting his putter polished by an intern his daughter's age. I've beaten that horse deader than Mary Jo Kopechne, and I'm done with it.

From the Washington comPost: Military Made Up of Hayseeds, Army Recruitment Goals Down

From the Washington Times: Military Made Up of Heroes Wanting to Defend and Avenge America, Recruitment Goals Up for All Other Branches

So the comPost doesn't hold our soldiers in high esteem, and chooses to focus on the only branch of the four branches that missed its recruiting goals. Nope...no liberal media bias!

Chirac fiddles as Paris burns

It must suck more than usual to live in Gay Paree these days:



How do the French propose dealing with these Muslim thugs?

A Socialist opposition leader, Francois Hollande, said his party would closely watch to make sure the curfew law is applied properly.

"This law cannot be applied everywhere, and it cannot be long-lasting," Hollande said. He said Villepin should have put more emphasis on improving life in tough neighborhoods and said the premier's proposals were vague.

Villepin said he wanted to speed up a $35.5 billion urban redevelopment plan, triple the number of merit scholarships for talented students and offer jobs, training or internships to disadvantaged young people.

"We must offer them hope and a future," he said.

Do I really need to add anything to that? OK, I will: the Saudi 9/11 hijackers were predominantly from middle-class to upper-class homes, educations, and backgrounds. Sure, Pierre...great idea. They need more money to stop blowing up us infidels!

Considering that France has prided itself on its "good relations" with Muslims, and considering that we're seeing where that's getting them, someone tell me again: why should we listen to the Euros when it comes to being "tolerant" and "understanding" of Islamofascism?

Also, considering that the left has gotten giddy in telling us that since Islamofascism isn't a "state" but a nameless and faceless entity (and thus our "bombs won't do any good" against them), then surely these same leftists see the inherent problem that Chirac and the French face:

To whom are they supposed to surrender?

Ted Kennedy: White House 'Tarnished' by 'Scandal after Scandal'

I couldn't make that up if I tried. Story:

Sen. Ted Kennedy blasted the Bush administration Sunday morning for "subsuming" the nation in "scandal after scandal," saying: "Clearly there has to be a cleaning of the White House."

Asked about reports Saturday that Bush ordered his staff to attend ethics training classes, Kennedy told NBC's "Meet the Press": "I think ethics has to be more than a class, doesn't it . . . Ethics has to be a much more basic and fundamental issue."

"Clearly there has to be a cleaning of the White House," Kennedy railed. "We have a damaged presidency and a tarnished White House . . . At a time when America should be reflecting its vision of where we want to stand in the world, what we want to do here at home - we are being subsumed by scandal after scandal."

The ethically challenged Democrat claimed the public is demanding that the administration be held to account.

Scandal after scandal? I'll cut him some slack for missing the 1990's, when Billybob was the center of "scandal after scandal." After all, like the 1970's and 1980's, I'm sure the 1990's was a drunken haze in Teddy's memory banks.

Also, someone please show me where George W. Bush or any of his advisers left a drowning woman with whom they were having an affair to die a slow death in a watery grave at the bottom of a river...while attempting no rescue due to pondering their political futures. See "Y-Ted-K."

No, such depravity to human life rests within Ted Kennedy, yet the left looks up to him as a model leader of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Unlike the left, I generally don't poor-mouth citizens who elect (or constantly re-elect) politicians with whom I disagree. I find it insulting to do so. Having said that, I do have to wonder about the people of MA who are comfortable sending a drunken philandering murderer back to DC time and again. Disappointing, I don't mind telling you.

I have as much patience for Ted Kennedy's bloviations about morals as Bill Clinton has for getting to first base with a new intern. So as long as Ted Kennedy will never be "held to account" for the murder of Mary Jo Kopechne, you will have to forgive my lack of interest in or tolerance of the words of that fermented jackass.

(Sidebar: Kira told me of a piece of legislation that Teddy wrote dealing with alcohol abuse. What's next, a Bill Clinton book on how to be a gentleman towards women? Maybe a book by Hamas called 'How to Win Peace in the Middle East', or a Kofi Annan memoir entitled 'How to Make the UN Free From Corruption'?)

Bubba thinks the ball-and-chain would do better than he did

Story:

Former President Clinton said in an interview Friday that he believes his wife would do a better job than he did in the nation's highest office.

Not that this would be too tough to accomplish.

"Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed"

It's a children's book, and it received praise by the Godfather himself. Well, Her Highness, Queen Hillary, seems to be personally offended by it. From WND:

"Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed" skewers a variety of well-known liberals and their philosophy in cartoon fashion, and features a villain who bears an uncanny resemblance to Hillary taxing and regulating a child's lemonade stand.

Last month, the congressional newspaper the Hill quoted Clinton's press secretary Philippe Reines as dismissing the book, which also features look-alikes of fellow liberal icons Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. Reines was quoted as saying, "[I] can't wait for the sequel, 'Help! Mom! I Can't Read This Book Because Republicans Have Cut Literacy Programs!'"

Two observations here:

1. If Her Highness, who's been running from the "liberal" label faster than a N.O.W. hag from an iron, is trying to pass herself off as a non-liberal, then why is she getting so defensive about a book's title...hmm?

2. Her Highness doesn't do a very good job of running from said "liberal" label when she implies that only government (i.e. her "village") is capable of teaching kids to read. Or that normal education doesn't cover reading...only "literacy programs" can do that. Man, how did the republic ever survive before literacy programs existed? Rumor has it that there still exists a species known as "parents" that teach kids how to read. I know, I know, it's a radical idea that parents not defer that role to bureaucrats, but work with me here, people!

Hillary's economic illiteracy has been demonstrated here and elsewhere, and this story further bolsters that image:

When asked by the Hill's reporter last week to respond to DeBrecht's remarks, Reines insinuated the book was not selling well. "It's not the liberal under the bed that they should be worried about," he said, "it's the sales that are in the basement."

But the book has consistently been among the top-selling children's books on Amazon.com, and at one point it hit No. 1 on the Barnes & Noble best-seller list. It has been on the market for only six weeks and the publisher is already preparing for a third printing.

Sales in the basement? Maybe of the 2006 Hillary Clinton Pinup Centerfold Calendar, but not of this book!

Schumer worries Alito not committed to diversity

SATIRE ALERT! Schumer may indeed be worried about that, but this is a brilliant work of satire by Scrappleface:

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, today questioned Judge Samuel Alito's commitment to diversity noting that the Supreme Court nominee’s last name is 60 percent vowels and only 40 percent consonants.

In perhaps the most substantive critique of President George Bush's nominee to date, the senator also noted that the federal appeals court judge's full name contains every vowel, but a disproportionately small percentage of consonants.

"Not only is Judge Alito's name too vowel-heavy for mainstream Americans," said Sen. Schumer. "But 'Alito' begins and ends with vowels, suggesting that vowels are the alpha and omega of the alphabet, and clearly denigrating the contribution of consonants to our society."

For the record, we know that Schumer is committed to diversity. After all, he was partly responsible for the unauthorized and stolen credit report of a black Republican.