Quote of the day

Today's QOTD brought to you by Leaky Leahy (D-VT), via Big Lizards:

I'm listening to Hugh Hewitt, who (after a completely inaudible "interview" with Mark Steyn via bad cellphone) is now broadcasting the Senate blathering of Sen. Patrick "Leaky" Leahy (D-VT, 100%) about the military tribunals bill. And this is what Leahy just said, word for word, near as I can recollect (and it is seared, seared in my memory):

Even though they [the Bush administration] had him [Osama bin Laden] cornered at Tora Bora, they yanked the special forces out of there to send them to Iraq.

Is it just me?

I was evidently misinformed that the Battle of Tora Bora took place sometime in December of 2001. There was not even a resolution on the table to invade Iraq at that time... the resolution was not even introduced into the Senate until October 2nd, 2002; it passed the Senate without amendment on October 11th, and was signed by the president on the 16th. And we did not send troops there until March of 2003.

So in the consensus reality -- rather than in Leahy's own private version of history -- more than two solid years elapsed between the battle of Tora Bora and the call-up of troops for an invasion of Iraq. Whatever caused us not to kill or capture bin Laden in 2001, it certainly had nothing to do with the not-yet-extant invasion of Iraq.

Has this been the Democrats' plan all along, why they took over the government schools: to so damage Americans' knowledge of history that demented demagogues like Pat Leahy can make risible claims like this on the Senate floor and not be laughed out of Congress?

I eagerly await the transcription in the Congressional Record, to see whether he decides to "revise and extend his remarks."

I eagerly await the return of Halley's Comet before I expect Leaky to revise his remarks.

Foley resigns, effective immediately

From the AP:

Rep. Mark Foley (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., resigned from Congress on Friday, effective immediately, in the wake of questions about e-mails he wrote a former teenage male page.

"I am deeply sorry and I apologize for letting down my family and the people of Florida I have had the privilege to represent," he said in a statement issued by his office.

The two-sentence statement did not refer to the e-mails and gave no reason for Foley's abrupt decision to abandon a flourishing career in Congress.

Foley, 52, had been a shoo-in for a new term until the e-mail correspondence surfaced in recent days.

His resignation comes less than six weeks before the elections and further complicates the political landscape for Republicans, who are fighting to retain control of Congress. Democrats need to win a net of 15 Republican seats to regain the power they lost in 1994.

Florida Republicans planned to meet as soon as Monday to name a replacement in Foley's district, which President Bush won with 55 percent in 2004 and is now in play for November.

If it's all the same to you, I'm not going to dwell on this particular race's prospects right now. This event is horrible, regardless of the outcome of this House seat's race. Anyway, continuing:

Campaign aides had previously acknowledged that the Republican congressman e-mailed the former Capitol page five times, but had said there was nothing inappropriate about the exchange. The page was 16 at the time of the e-mail correspondence.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert said he had asked the chairman of the House's page board, Rep. John Shimkus (news, bio, voting record), R-Ill., to investigate the page system. "We want to make sure that all our pages are safe and the page system is safe," Hastert said.

He said Foley submitted the letter of resignation to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and submitted a copy to him. A House clerk read Foley's resignation on the House floor.

"He's done the right thing," Hastert said. Asked if the chain of events was disturbing, he said, "None of us are very happy about it."

That may a candidate for "quote of the day" here. Well, DUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHH! "None of us are very happy about it"? Anyway...:

The e-mails were posted Friday on Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington's Web site after ABC News reported their existence. The group asked the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate the exchange Foley had with the boy, who served as a page for Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La.

"The House of Representatives has an obligation to protect the teenagers who come to Congress to learn about the legislative process," the group wrote, adding that the committee, "must investigate any allegation that a page has been subjected to sexual advances by members of the House."

In 2003, Foley faced questions about his sexual orientation as he prepared to run for Sen. Bob Graham (news, bio, voting record)'s seat. At a news conference in May of that year, he said he would not comment on rumors he was gay. He later decided not to seek the Senate seat to care for his parents.

I don't think this has anything to do with whether or not Foley is gay. Yes, I know that the leftist hypocrites who proudly state their pro-gay credentials were screaming "Foley is queer!" back in '03, as if being gay is OK only if one is a Democrat. However, leftist hypocrisy notwithstanding, we're not talking about consenting adults here, are we?

Foley is innocent until proven guilty, and I recognize that. However, preliminary indications don't look very flattering. Drudge is reporting that an exchange went like this:

Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen: A little.
Maf54: Cool.

In another bizarre bit of cruel irony, he was chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus.

Just as it was wrong for darling-of-the-left Scott Ritter to try on two occasions to pick up teenie girls, it is equally wrong for Foley to be attempting horizontal encounters with teenage boys. The gender of the victim is irrelevant, but the age is most certainly relevant. I certainly hope the boy and his family haven't been scarred by this incident. If they have been, who could blame them?

I've seen comments across the leftisphere that have been predictable: Foley is a perv, he's gonna be fresh meat in the pen, etc. Hey, I don't disagree with any of that, nor do I take offense to it. However, it's pretty telling that the comments I've seen thus far from the 'bats have not been in any way related to the victims here. In other words, they're having too much fun rejoicing in Foley's self-inflicted misery that they haven't stopped to consider that his misery necessarily means that someone has been victimized. Then again, why ruin a good hoedown with such a buzzkiller like THAT, right?

Oscoda, MI, high school cancels remainder of football season

The Oscoda Area High School is, according to principal Rex Hart, the "home of the mighty Owls." How "mighty" are they? They're SO mighty that they...have forfeited the rest of their football season.

The Owls are 0-4, having been creamed AND shut out in all of their games. After the first four games the Oscoda School Board decided to cancel the remainder of the football season. They forced the players to stop. Naturally, the players and parents didn't like it. Tough toogies. The school board figured that they just weren't going to win any games, so they needed to quit. Their purported concern? "Safety", they said. The players might get hurt...as if a team that was 4-0 would have been LESS likely to get hurt!

The message that the "educators" are sending to the kids is loud and clear: when life gets tough, just quit. Ignore what your parents may have taught you growing up about getting back up and dusting yourself before trying again. Your parents were morons. It is easier to just stay down and not continue and not fight. Hmmm...I wonder if this is how Democrats or Frenchmen are bred? But I digress.

Abe Lincoln was defeated about three or four times while seeking public office, before finally being elected president in 1860. Had he listened to people like the Oscoda School Board at any time along the way, God knows where our country would have been and would currently be.

Oliver Stone echos Kerry's approach to counterterrorism

Oliver Stone, moonbat director extraordinaire, went to the Euros to profess his shame for the country a la Dixie Chicks. Color me with the "unsurprised" crayon. That doesn't bother me, since I've come to expect it from the self-flagellating left. However, this is what Ollie (being that brilliant political scholar that he is) had to say about how to deal with terrorism:

We did not fight back in the same way that the British fought the IRA or the Spanish government fought the Basques here. Terrorism is a manageable action. It can be lived with.

This sounds remarkably similar (and dangerously naive) to Senator Ketchup's approach to terrorism: it's a mere "nuisance". You know, like a mosquito or a sunburn or a Jehovah's Witness at the door or your aunt who always mentions her flare-ups at the dinner table? Terrorism can be "lived with"? "Just ignore that explosion across the street, children. It's just Hamas blowing up some more 'Zionist pigs' again. Hey, who wants ice cream?"

As Bush, Hastert, et al, accuse the left of not understanding the nature of the enemy, the leftists one-by-one prove the GOP's point. Folks, don't get mad when idiots like Stone speak. Be thankful. After all, the more that he and his kind talk, the further they reinforce the notion in normal America's head that they haven't the foggiest idea as to how to keep the country safe and destroy our enemies.

House Speaker wannabe Pelosi: The Golden Rule should apply to terrorists

Please forget that I ever openly advocated Republicans losing the elections this year. The more this moonbat speaks, the more clear it is that she and her crazy-ass leftist ilk must be stopped. How would Pe-loser handle terrorists? Listen to her own words and decide for yourself:

This is a time when the Golden Rule really should be in affect [sic]. Do not do unto others, what you would not have them do unto your troops, your CIA agents, your people in the field.

Nancy is saying that if we just install a few hot tubs at Gitmo, maybe have some personal masseuses stroke the jihadist detainees' crust-infested weirdbeards with some disinfectant-soaked combs, and give them a nice hummus face mask to go with their cucumber-mint body rub...the poor misunderstood heathens will implore with their terrorist brethren in Satan's Armpit (better known as the Middle East) to take it easy on us infidels. Sorry, Nancy, but they'd still want you in a burqa or your head to decorate their tents' mantles.

The President and Speaker Hastert, among others, yesterday accused Democrats of wanting to coddle terrorists. Way to show America just how correct they were, Nancy! Nothing says "We're tough on terrorists" quite like upgrading Gitmo to the "Cubano Cabana and Salon", oui?

Sen. Inhofe mocks MSM outraged by his "attack" on global "warming"

This is a follow-up to my prior post describing where Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) mocked the global "warming" Chicken Littles and their allies in the MSM. Predictably, the MSM got madder than Bubba in a Fox News interview. Hilarity ensues. From Sen. Inhofe:

This past Monday, I took to this floor for the eighth time to discuss global warming. My speech focused on the myths surrounding global warming and how our national news media has embarrassed itself with a 100-year documented legacy of coverage on what turned out to be trendy climate science theories.

Over the last century, the media has flip-flopped between global cooling and warming scares. At the turn of the 20th century, the media peddled an upcoming ice age -- and they said the world was coming to an end. Then in the 1930s, the alarm was raised about disaster from global warming -- and they said the world was coming to an end. Then in the 70’s, an alarm for another ice age was raised -- and they said the world was coming to an end. And now, today we are back to fears of catastrophic global warming -- and again they are saying the world is coming to an end.

Today I would like to share the fascinating events that have unfolded since my floor speech on Monday.

CNN CRITICIZES MY SPEECH

This morning, CNN ran a segment criticizing my speech on global warming and attempted to refute the scientific evidence I presented to counter climate fears.

First off, CNN reporter Miles O’Brien inaccurately claimed I was “too busy” to appear on his program this week to discuss my 50 minute floor speech on global warming. But they were told I simply was not available on Tuesday or Wednesday.

I did appear on another CNN program today -- Thursday -- which I hope everyone will watch. The segment airs tonight on CNN’s Headline News at 7pm and repeats at 9pm and midnight Eastern.

Second, CNN’s O’Brien falsely claimed that I was all “alone on Capitol Hill” when it comes to questioning global warming.

Mr. O’Brien is obviously not aware that the U.S. Senate has overwhelmingly rejected Kyoto style carbon caps when it voted down the McCain-Lieberman climate bill 60-28 last year – an even larger margin than its rejection in 2003.

Third, CNN’s O’Brien, claimed that my speech earlier contained errors regarding climate science. O’Brien said my claim that the Antarctic was actually cooling and gaining ice was incorrect. But both the journals Science and Nature have published studies recently finding – on balance – Antarctica is both cooling and gaining ice.

CNN’s O’Brien also criticized me for saying polar bears are thriving in the Arctic. But he ignored that the person I was quoting is intimately familiar with the health of polar bear populations. Let me repeat what biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Arctic government of Nunavut, a territory of Canada, said recently:

“Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.”

CNN’s O’Brien also ignores the fact that in the Arctic, temperatures were warmer in the 1930’s than today.

O’Brien also claimed that the “Hockey Stick” temperature graph was supported by most climate scientists despite the fact that the National Academy of Sciences and many independent experts have made it clear that the Hockey Stick’s claim that the 1990’s was the hottest decade of the last 1000 years was unsupportable.

So it seems my speech struck a nerve with the mainstream media. Their only response was to cherry pick the science in a failed attempt to refute me.

It seems that it is business as usual for many of them. Sadly, it looks like my challenge to the media to be objective and balanced has fallen on deaf ears.

Gee, big surprise there. Continuing:

SPEECH BYPASSED THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

Despite the traditional media’s failed attempt to dismiss the science I presented to counter global warming alarmism, the American people bypassed the tired old traditional media by watching CSPAN or clicking on the Drudge Report and reading the speech online.

From the flood of overwhelming positive feedback I received, I can tell you the American people responded enthusiastically to my message.

The central theme was not only one of thanks, but expressing frustration with the major media outlets because they knew in their guts that what they have been hearing in the news was false and misleading.

Here is a brief sampling:

(Letters from thankful Americans here. - Ed.)

My speech ignited an internet firestorm. So much so, that my speech became the subject of a heated media controversy in New Zealand. Halfway across the globe, a top official from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition challenged New Zealand’s television station to balance what he termed “alarmist doom-casting” and criticized them for failing to report the views of scientists in their own country that I cited here in America. ( http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0609/S00306.htm )

As the controversy in New Zealand shows, global warming hysteria has captured more than just the American media.

The reaction to my speech keeps coming in: Just this morning, The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review newspaper wrote an editorial calling my speech “an unusual display of reason” on the Senate floor.

I do have to give credit to another publication, Congressional Quarterly, or CQ for short. On Tuesday, CQ’s Toni Johnson took the issues I raised seriously and followed up with phone calls to scientist-turned global warming pop star James Hansen’s office. CQ wanted to ask Hansen about his quarter of a million dollar grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation, whose money originated from the Heinz family ketchup fortune.

As I have pointed out, many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics (i.e. "the study that debunks global warming was financed by Big Oil!" - Ed.), but the same media completely fail to note Hansen’s huge grant from the partisan (i.e. leftist - Ed.) Heinz Foundation. It seems the media makes a distinction between ketchup money and oil money. (Ouch! He nailed the MSM on THAT one! - Ed.)

But Hansen was unavailable to respond to CQ's questions about the 'Ketchup Money’ grant, which is highly unusual for a man who finds his way into the media on an almost daily basis. Mr. Hansen is always available when he is peddling his increasingly dire predictions of climate doom.

Some more well-deserved pounding of the MSM follows, but let me cut to the ending, which is another home run:

A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll in August found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe that climate change is due to natural variability has increased over 50% in the last five years.

Given the diminishing importance of the mainstream media, I expect that trend to continue.

I hope my other colleagues will join me on the floor and start speaking out to debunk hysteria surrounding global warming. This issue is too important to our generation and future generations to allow distortions and media propaganda to derail the economic health of our nation.

My admiration for Sen. Inhofe will increase as the left squeals like Ned Beatty in Deliverance.

Al Qaeda admits they're losing

I'm confused here. I mean, the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) have been telling us that a selective clip from the National Intel Estimate (NIE) shows that our presence in Iraq is creating more jihadists. Apparently, Al Qaeda either hasn't received the memo or has a pisspoor HR department, because they've been putting out the "Help Wanted" signs with difficulty in filling the positions. I bet it's the pesky Jihadist Camelhumpers Union that makes it harder to staff Islamofascist nutjob positions than it otherwise would be...damn unions! But I digress.

Anywho, from MSNBC:

The new leader of al-Qaida in Iraq purportedly said Thursday in an audio message posted online that more than 4,000 foreign militants have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 — the first apparent acknowledgment from the insurgents about their losses.

The message also called for experts in the fields of “chemistry, physics, electronics, media and all other sciences — especially nuclear scientists and explosives experts” to join the terror group’s holy war against the West.

“We are in dire need of you,” said the man, who identified himself as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir — also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri — the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. “The field of jihad (holy war) can satisfy your scientific ambitions, and the large American bases (in Iraq) are good places to test your unconventional weapons, whether biological or dirty, as they call them.”

Hmmmm...you mean the weapons that the left has been telling us that they don't have?

Larry Sabato loses credibility with Allen accusation

Dr. Larry Sabato, a political science professor from the University of Virginia, has been a respected pundit for a number of years now. He has always been known for his keen political insight from a purely scientific standpoint, and I've never been able to detect his specific ideology because he has traditionally been objective when analyzing political races. He may not always be right, but his analyses have usually been well-founded.

That is why I report with great sadness that Sabato has officially lost his credibility as an impartial analyst of political races, because he's getting involved with a different type of "race". Powerline has more:

I wrote about Salon's story on Senator Allen's alleged use of a racial epithet while Senator Allen was a University of Virginia undergraduate in "The macaca offensive." I sarcastically commented on what I thought was the weakness of the story. The following day I noted the personal attestation of Professor Larry Sabato on Hardball supporting the gist of the Salon story in "The macaca offensive, take 2." On Hardball Professor Sabato stated: "I'm simply going to stay with what I know is the case and the fact is he did use the n-word, whether he's denying it or not."

I followed up that post yesterday in "Sabato's sabotage," including a reader's email correspondence with Professor Sabato. Based on the email corresopndence, I commented that, contrary to his assertion on Hardball, Professor Sabato was merely "passing on the 'hearsay' of unidentified third partiies as of his own knowledge." My comments yesterday drew a response from Professor Sabato's spokesman, Matt Smyth:

I think there might be some confusion based on the contents of your post; Larry’s comments on Hardball were not based on hearsay, but rather on the public comments of individuals like Ken Shelton, as well as others who have come forward since and stated their firsthand experience. Larry was unable to reveal the extent of this during the Hardball interview because of his promise to the reporters who were breaking the rest of the story the next day. As an analyst, he was satisfied with the sources’ credibility and the journalistic research that went into their claims, and based his assertion on that. It seems apparent that the individuals who came forward after the Hardball interview substantiated his assertion further---and not call it into question. If you could update your post to reflect that, we would appreciate it.

Best,

Matt

Matthew V. Smyth
Director of Communications
Center for Politics
University of Virginia

I wrote Matt back and stated that I would be happy to post his message in its entirety on our site as a separate item. I added:

[Y]ou don't seem to understand the concept of "hearsay." The point is that [Sabato] made the declaration [on Hardball] of his personal knowledge. This turns out to be false.

Beyond that: What grounds did [Sabato] have to opine on anyone's credibility? Does [Sabato] know the names of Salon's two unidentified sources? Did the Salon reporter share the names with [Sabato]? Whom are you talking about as having come forward? What investigation has [Sabato] performed on the sources' credibility?

Matt responded:

Larry is not a journalist, and as a result he does not investigate these types of stories; he simply was contacted by the sources and forwarded them to members of the media. It is up to the journalists who pursue a story to perform the appropriate research. If they are not comfortable with the accuracy of the information, then it is up to the editors not to publish it.

Aside from that, Larry is not opining on anyone's credibility and he's not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't believe. At no point did he say that he had firsthand knowledge of the language in question; all he did was assert that it did happen, and he's either right or wrong. He has a long career behind him and he wouldn't still be around if he wasn't right much more often than he was wrong.

The other sources that have come forward with information about the stories are Chris Taylor, George Korte, George Beam, Doug Jones, Ellen Hawkins, and others---all with different types of information.

The names provided at the conclusion of Matt's second message include those such as Doug Jones and George Korte who have come to Senator Allen's defense. Is Sabato vouching for their credibility too? Matt's message suggests that Professor Sabato has become the hub of the race-based stories on Senator Allen that have mysteriously appeared over the past few days. What is going on here? At the Allen campaign blog, Jon Henke suggests that what is going on is "a coordinated character assassination."

Sabato says the following in an interview on Moonbat Matthews' little-watched show Hardball: "Yes, you are incorrect in what you just said. I never said that I personally heard Allen use racial slurs. What I have said and have made clear is that the individual who's came forward in the New York Times and other publications such as The New Republic contacted me quite some time ago, at least some in some cases and they made the allegation, they provided circumstances and evidence that is credible. ... I'm simply going to stay with what I know is the case and the fact is he did use the n-word, whether he's denying it or not."

In other words, Sabato never heard Allen say it, and has instead relied on what other people have told him that Allen said...which, by definition, is "hearsay"! You would think a respected political scientist like Sabato understands the simple meanings of simple words like "hearsay", and that you cannot say that an incident you did not witness and that is being disputed by several people is necessarily a "fact"!

Did Allen use the racial slur in question? Who knows? It's a matter of "he said, he said", which by definition cannot be a proven "fact", right? Here's a question I'd like to ask: "Does it matter what a college kid said in the ignorance of his youth?" I mean, Bubba wrote a letter as a college kid whereby he penned his "loathe" of the military, but the left told us to forget about what some Arkansas college kid had to say way back when. Yet now, it's all of a sudden an important issue what a Virginia college kid said way back when?

Is it fair game to examine Allen's (alleged) utterance from yesteryear because it may provide some insight into his way of thinking? I guess it would be a fair question, if the ones asking it weren't the same people who felt it was unfair to ask the same question of Bubba in 1992. Bubba's disdain for the military was so eloquently stated in his snot-nosed letter in college, and that disdain for the soldiers carried on through his presidency. But it wasn't fair to delve into the writings of an ill-informed college student, right? No, it wasn't...unless he was Republican.

Poll: Bush controls gas prices

I generally try to avoid characterizing the American people as being idiots. When the electorate voted for Clinton twice, the left crowed that "Americans are smart enough to see through the right's rhetoric and they have spoken!"...yet these same people characterized red-state Americans in 2000 and 2004 as residents of "Dumbf#ckistan." That kind of arrogance and hypocrisy is such a turn-off and I strive to not think so low of the American public as a whole.

However, it sure is hard to find anything positive to say about my fellow Americans' intellect after reading this. From AFP via Yahoo! News:

Some Americans are suspicious that recent steep declines in gasoline prices might be the result of political manipulation, since the savings at the gas pump come just weeks before critical midterm US elections.

Earlier this year, news of record oil profits led many US consumers to believe that energy companies had deliberately kept prices artificially high to improve their bottom line.

Now gas prices have fallen for several consecutive weeks, and recent polls show that consumers have a new suspicion -- that the price break is meant to give a boost to a US president and Republican Congress who had fallen out of favor with voters.

A USA Today/Gallup poll last week found that 42 percent of the roughly 1,000 adults surveyed across the United States believed President George W. Bush's administration had "deliberately manipulated the price of gasoline so that it would decrease before this falls elections."

White House spokesman Tony Snow addressed -- and summarily dismissed -- the speculation at a press briefing earlier this week.

"I have been amused by ... the attempt by some people to say that the president has been rigging gas prices, which would give him the kind of magisterial clout unknown to any other human being," he told reporters.

"It also raises the question, if we're dropping gas prices now, why on earth did we raise them to 3.50 dollars before?" he said.

Granted, I don't know the exact wording of the poll question or the tone of voice used by the pollster or any of those variables. However, it seems absolutely ludicrous to think that a president who is perceived to be an intellectual lightweight is somehow brilliant and powerful enough to singlehandedly move the pillars of capitalism and economics enough to affect change within the entire country's (and world's) gasoline infrastructure.

Hell, I've joked here frequently that the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) would accuse Bush of manipulating gas prices to coincide with the election. However, it was always that...a joke. Sadly, the public missed the punch line.

Stupidest. Headline. Ever.

AP headline: "'Crocodile Hunter' Believed He Would Die"

While the story actually does elaborate, I have to say that this is arguably the stupidest headline ever written. I mean, I don't even have to elaborate on WHY it's stupid, do I? Well, I guess for the sake of our friends on the left, I will:

Unless one is mentally infirm, it's pretty safe to say that we ALL believe we're going to die. Granted, nearly none of us know exactly WHEN we will die. However, we all know that we WILL, in fact, turn toes-up one day. I doubt the late Steve Irwin was any different in that regard.

I can see the AP headline tomorrow: "President Bush believed he would go to the bathroom"! Of course, there would be a likely subheading of "Democrats question the timing, decry potty break as 'politicizing bodily excretions'", but I digress.

Sen. Inhofe mocks global "warming" alarmists and MSM

I wish I lived in OK so I could vote for this guy. He skewers the global "warming" alarmists and their allies in the MSM. From Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK):

I am going to speak today about the most media-hyped environmental issue of all time, global warming. I have spoken more about global warming than any other politician in Washington today. My speech will be a bit different from the previous seven floor speeches, as I focus not only on the science, but on the media’s coverage of climate change.

Global Warming -- just that term evokes many members in this chamber, the media, Hollywood elites and our pop culture to nod their heads and fret about an impending climate disaster. As the senator who has spent more time speaking about the facts regarding global warming, I want to address some of the recent media coverage of global warming and Hollywood’s involvement in the issue. And of course I will also discuss former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age.

From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.

Recently, advocates of alarmism have grown increasingly desperate to try to convince the public that global warming is the greatest moral issue of our generation. Just last week, the vice president of London’s Royal Society sent a chilling letter to the media encouraging them to stifle the voices of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism. (Heck, our MSM seems to have received the same memo! - Ed.)

During the past year, the American people have been served up an unprecedented parade of environmental alarmism by the media and entertainment industry, which link every possible weather event to global warming. The year 2006 saw many major organs of the media dismiss any pretense of balance and objectivity on climate change coverage and instead crossed squarely into global warming advocacy.

(Some sections found here are entitled as follows:
SUMMARY OF LATEST DEVELOPMENTS OF MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING HOCKEY STICK;
END OF LITTLE ICE AGE MEANS WARMING;
COMPUTER MODELS THREATEN EARTH;
KYOTO: ECONOMIC PAIN FOR NO CLIMATE GAIN;
MEDIA COVERAGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE;
BUT MEDIA COULD NOT DECIDE BETWEEN WARMING OR COOLING SCARES!;
TIME MAGAZINE HYPES ALARMISM;
AL GORE INCONVIENIENT TRUTH;
ENGINEERED "CONSENSUS";
POLAR BEARS "LOOK TIRED"?;
ALARMISM HAS LED TO SKEPTICISM - Ed.)
...
According to a July Pew Research Center Poll, the American public is split about evenly between those who say global warming is due to human activity versus those who believe it’s from natural factors or not happening at all.

In addition, an August Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe global warming is naturally occurring is on the rise.

Yes -- it appears that alarmism has led to skepticism.

The American people know when their intelligence is being insulted. They know when they are being used and when they are being duped by the hysterical left.

The American people deserve better -- much better -- from our fourth estate. We have a right to expect accuracy and objectivity on climate change coverage. We have a right to expect balance in sourcing and fair analysis from reporters who cover the issue.

Above all, the media must roll back this mantra that there is scientific “consensus” of impending climatic doom as an excuse to ignore recent science. After all, there was a so-called scientific “consensus” that there were nine planets in our solar system until Pluto was recently demoted.

Breaking the cycles of media hysteria will not be easy since hysteria sells -- it’s very profitable. But I want to challenge the news media to reverse course and report on the objective science of climate change, to stop ignoring legitimate voices this scientific debate and to stop acting as a vehicle for unsubstantiated hype.

For pure entertainment purposes, read the whole thing. Especially his reference to a term I wish I had thought of: "the media’s addiction to so-called ‘climate porn’"!

Rangel would zero-fund Iraq war

From The Hill:

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) will chair the powerful Ways and Means Committee if Democrats win control of the House next year, but his main goal in 2007 does not fall within his panel’s jurisdiction.

“I can’t stop this war,” a frustrated Rangel said in a recent interview, reiterating his vow to retire from Congress if Democrats fall short of a majority in the House.

But when pressed on how he could stop the war even if Democrats control the House during the last years of President Bush’s second term, Rangel paused before saying, “You’ve got to be able to pay for the war, don’t you?”

Rangel’s views on funding the war are shared by many of his colleagues – especially within the 73-member Out of Iraq Caucus.

Some Democratic legislators want to halt funding for the war immediately, while others say they would allocate money for activities such as reconstruction, setting up international security forces, and the ultimate withdrawal of U.S. troops.

“Personally, I wouldn’t spend another dime [on the war,]” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.).

Woolsey is among the Democrats in Congress who are hoping to control the power of the purse in 2007 to force an end to the war. Woolsey and some of her colleagues note that Congress helped force the end of Vietnam War by refusing to pay for it.

There you have it. If Dems win the election, then Iraq will be zero-funded. If this isn't a de facto strategy of "cut and run", then Bill Clinton is a level-headed choir boy.

It's quite simple, folks. If you believe that the "cut-and-run" approach is the best method in dealing with Iraq, then vote for Dems and it will be done. If, however, you fear that "cut-and-run" will send the same signal of weakness to the Dark Ages jihadist camelhumpers that prior administrations have sent (from Carter's Iranian fiasco to Reagan's Beirut withdrawal to Bubba's limpwristed anemic reactions), then you must do your part to ensure that "Chairman Rangel" does not become a reality.

Choose wisely.

"Declassify the Terrorism NIE"

If the administration doesn't have enough hair on its scrotum to prosecute those who are violating federal law by leaking classified national security intelligence information to the obliging New York Treason, at the very least they could follow the Wall Street Journal's advice to declassify the entire National Intelligence Estimate:

As media scoops go, those based on "classified" information seem to have a special cachet. But judging from the latest, selective intelligence leak about terrorism, we wonder if anyone would bother to read this stuff if it didn't have the word "secret" slapped on it.

That's our reaction to Sunday's New York Times report claiming that a 2006 national intelligence estimate, or NIE, concludes that "the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse," according to one of the unidentified "intelligence officials" cited in the article. This is supposedly because the war has provoked radical Islamists to hate America even more than they already did before they hijacked airplanes and flew them into buildings. If this is the kind of insight we pay our spooks to generate, we're in more trouble than we thought.

It's impossible to know how true this report is, of course, since the NIE itself hasn't been leaked. The reports are based on what sources claim the NIE says, but we don't know who those sources are and what motivations they might have. Since their spin coincides rather conveniently with the argument made by Democratic critics of the war, and since this leak has also conveniently sprung in high campaign season, wise readers will be skeptical.

The White House responded yesterday by saying the full NIE on "Trends in Global Terrorism" is far more nuanced and complex than the press reports claim. Spokesman Tony Snow added that one "thing the reports do not say is that war in Iraq has made terrorism worse." So here's our suggestion for President Bush: Declassify the entire NIE.

It's not as if NIEs usually contain sensitive raw intelligence. They're more like Council on Foreign Relations reports, full of consensus analysis and glorified by the mere fact of being "secret." To the extent that any passages might compromise sources and methods, those parts could be redacted or summarized. Meanwhile, disclosure would give the American public a valuable window into the thinking that goes on at places like the CIA. Since some of our spooks are leaking selectively to make the President look bad, Mr. Bush should return the favor by letting the public inspect the quality of analysis that their tax dollars are buying.

Releasing the NIE would also show that the White House has learned something since 2003, which is when the last pre-election bout of selective intelligence leaks began. That leak du jour claimed that an October 2002 NIE had contradicted Mr. Bush's claims in his [RANDO]State of the Union address about Iraq seeking uranium in Africa. We happened to gain access to the complete NIE, however, and reported on July 17, 2003, that the leaked accounts were incomplete and misleading. The Senate Intelligence Committee vindicated our account a year later, but the Bush Administration could have reduced the political damage by declassifying that 2002 NIE immediately.

As for the substance of the 2006 NIE's alleged claims, does anyone doubt that many jihadis are rallying against the American presence in Iraq? The newspapers tell us that much every day. Whether the war in Iraq has produced more terrorist hatred than would otherwise exist, however, is a matter of opinion and strategic judgment.

We recall, for example, that one of Osama bin Laden's justifications for declaring war against the U.S. was American enforcement of sanctions and a no-fly zone against Iraq before the 2003 invasion. Bin Laden didn't need the war to hate us. More broadly, the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan has deprived the jihadis of two safe havens and sources of funds. So while there are still many al Qaeda-type terror cells out there, there's no reason to believe they are any more dangerous now than before April 2003. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the terrorists who was harbored in Iraq before the war, certainly isn't any more dangerous; he's dead.

The real issue at stake here is a political and policy fight over the future of Iraq. The Democrats claim that Iraq is a "distraction" from the war on terror and so a rapid U.S. withdrawal would leave the U.S. with more resources to fight elsewhere. Mr. Bush says Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror, and that withdrawing would create a vacuum that the Islamists would fill and give them a potential new state-supported base of operations. That's the choice voters really ought to be thinking about as they go to the polls in November, and if the NIE has something useful to say about that debate, Mr. Bush should disarm the selective leakers in his bureaucracy by making it public.

Actually, as I put this together, I see that the White House may be doing just as the WSJ proposes.

"Islamic Fascism 101"

Quick, someone get this column by Victor Davis Hanson over to Sen. Feingold's office before he bitches about the term "Islamic fascism" again. Excerpts:

Make no apologies for the use of “Islamic fascism.” It is the perfect nomenclature for the agenda of radical Islam, for a variety of historical and scholarly reasons. That such usage also causes extreme embarrassment to both the Islamists themselves and their leftist “anti-fascist” appeasers in the West is just too bad.

First, the general idea of “fascism” — the creation of a centralized authoritarian state to enforce blanket obedience to a reactionary, all-encompassing ideology — fits well the aims of contemporary Islamism that openly demands implementation of sharia law and the return to a Pan-Islamic and theocratic caliphate.

In addition, Islamists, as is true of all fascists, privilege their own particular creed of true believers by harkening back to a lost, pristine past, in which the devout were once uncorrupted by modernism. (Sounds much like the Unabomber, doesn't it? - Ed.)

True, bin Laden’s mythical Volk doesn’t bath in the clear icy waters of the Rhine untouched by the filth of the Tiber; but rather they ride horses and slice the wind with their scimitars in service of a soon to be reborn majestic world of caliphs and mullahs. Osama bin Laden sashaying in his flowing robes is not all that different from the obese Herman Goering in reindeer horns plodding around his Karinhall castle with suspenders and alpine shorts.

Because fascism is born out of insecurity and the sense of failure, hatred for Jews is de rigueur. To read al Qaeda’s texts is to reenter the world of Mein Kampf (naturally now known as jihadi in the Arab world). The crackpot minister of its ideology, Dr. Zawahiri, is simply a Dr. Alfred Rosenberg come alive — a similar quarter-educated buffoon, who has just enough of a vocabulary to dress up fascist venom in a potpourri of historical misreadings and pseudo-learning. (Actually, that describes a lot of American leftists, too. You know, they learn just enough to give the illusion that they're not profoundly stupid? - Ed.)
...
Fifth, fascism springs from untruth and embraces lying. Hitler had contempt for those who believed him after Czechoslovakia. He broke every agreement from Munich to the Soviet non-aggression pact. So did the Japanese, who were sending their fleet to Pearl Harbor even as they talked of a new diplomatic breakthrough.

Al-Zawahiri in his writings spends an inordinate amount of effort excusing al Qaeda’s lies by referring to the Koranic notions of tactical dissimulation. We remember Arafat saying one thing in English and another in Arabic, and bin Laden denying responsibility for September 11 and then later boasting of it. Nothing a fascist says can be trusted, since all means are relegated to the ends of seeing their ideology reified. So too Islamic fascists, by any means necessary, will fib, and hedge for the cause of Islamism. Keep that in mind when considering Iran’s protestations about its “peaceful” nuclear aims.

We can argue whether the present-day Islamic fascists have the military means comparable to what was had in the past by Nazis, Fascists, and militarists — I think a dirty bomb is worth the entire Luftwaffe, one nuclear missile all the striking power of the Japanese imperial Navy — but there should be no argument over who they are and what they want. They are fascists of an Islamic sort, pure and simple.

And the least we can do is to call them that: after all, they earned it.

Sorry, Feingold, but if it's all the same to you, we in normal America are going to continue referring to our enemies as they are and not as you would have them to be.

Quote of the day

From Saddam Hussein, via CBS (I checked other sites to verify that this story was not forged "fake but accurate"):

The chief judge in Saddam Hussein's genocide trial threw the ex-president out of the courtroom Monday in a stormy session boycotted by the former ruler's defense team.

"I have a request here that I don't want to be in this cage anymore," said Saddam, referring to the court. He waved a yellow paper before he spoke to chief judge Mohammed Oreibi al-Khalifa.

Really? I wonder if any Kurds said to Saddam that "we have a request here that we don't want to be gassed anymore!" Maybe some Iraqi girls said to Saddam or one of his crazy camelhumping sons that "we have a request here that we don't want to be raped anymore!" Perhaps some dissidents begged Saddam that "we have a request here that we don't want to be fed feet-first into a wood chipper anymore!"

"Want" in one hand, "sh#t" in the other...and see which gets full faster. Tough luck, you genoicidal b#tch!

Headline: "Alcoholics Anonymous may prevent murders"

From MSNBC:

Alcoholics Anonymous, the worldwide group that helps addicts stop drinking, may also help drive down the number of murders in a community, Canadian researchers reported Sunday.

Well, isn't that special? This information sure would have come in handy for Ted Kennedy in 1969, wouldn't it? I would say "Better late than never", but somehow I doubt the Kopechne family would share that opinion.

Bubba unhinged

My, my, my! It seems that the former Diddler-in-Chief became a wee bit unglued during an interview over the weekend with FNC's Chris Wallace. Video clips here and here, Myway news excerpts here:

In a combative interview on "Fox News Sunday," former President Clinton defended his handling of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden, saying he tried to have bin Laden killed and was attacked for his efforts by the same people who now criticize him for not doing enough.

"That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said in the interview. "They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try."

Ignoring the "they didn't try" lie, does it not occur to him that he sounds like a blithering idiot comparing Bush's eight months to Bubba's eight years? Continuing:

Clinton accused host Chris Wallace of a "conservative hit job" and asked: "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, 'Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?' I want to know how many people you asked, 'Why did you fire Dick Clarke?'"

Yeah, that "conservative hit man" Chris Wallace never asks the Bushies the same question that sent Bubba off the deep end. Oh, wait...that's not true! Patterico fact-checks:

Here’s what Wallace asked Clinton today:

[H]indsight is 20 20 . . . but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

And here is what Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld on the March 28, 2004 episode of Fox News Sunday:

I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?
. . . .
What do you make of his [Richard Clarke’s] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?
. . . .
Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.

So much for that load of crap. Then again, as RCP's Ronald Cass points out, truth and facts haven't exactly been Bubba's forté, have they?

One of Clinton's bigger whoppers was this declaration about the fight against bin Laden: "I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have 20,000 more troops [in Afghanistan] trying to kill him."

The man who was in the Soviet Union demonstrating against the American military during Vietnam, who as President left our armed forces short on so many fronts, now is - in his own 20/20 hindsight - The Defense President. Now he criticizes the Bush Administration for not doing enough, proclaims himself the champion of effective military action, and implies none too subtly that the fight against terrorism would go better if we had a Clinton in the White House instead of a Bush.

This isn't mere spin. It's full-scale invention.
...
Before anyone starts taking our most recent ex-President too seriously, let's review the bidding. Clinton wasn't the President who ordered the armed forces to go after bin Laden without reservation, to get him "dead or alive." He wasn't the one who sent thousands of troops after al-Qaeda and nations that harbor and support terrorists

Instead, President Clinton responded to attacks on our troops in Somalia by withdrawing, and responded to attacks by al-Qaeda on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya by bombing the aspirin factory of an innocent pharmaceutical firm in Sudan. He reacted to al-Qaeda's bombing of the USS Cole by lobbing a few cruise missiles at empty tents in the desert. He turned down Sudanese offers to cooperate in tracking down and capturing bin Laden.

The bipartisan 9/11 Commission concluded that - far from doing more than anyone to kill the brutal murderer who now is the international face of terrorism - President Clinton had flatly refused to allow the military or CIA to kill Osama bin Laden. Clinton's instructions were that bin Laden should be taken, if at all, alive not dead. CIA officials reported that this instruction cut the chance of success in half.

Hey, not even Bubba's most vocal critics have ever accused him of an underactive imagination! As Kathryn Lopez at National Review Online describes it, this was Bubba's "Tom Cruise moment." Yeah, well not if the MSM has anything to say about it.

Bubba's finger-wagging denial in 2006 is as convincing (and truthful) as it was in 1998.

Report: Osama bin Laden is dead

From the Khaleej Times:

Saudi intelligence services have determined that terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden died of typhoid in August, the French regional daily L’Est Republicain reported on its website on Saturday.

The newspaper said it based its information on a document classified ‘defence secret’ originating in the French DGSE intelligence services. According to the story, the DGSE informed President Jacques Chirac of the Saudi report on Thursday.

The DGSE document, printed with the report, reads in part, ‘According to a usually reliable source, the Saudi intelligence services are said to have acquired the information that Osama bin Laden is dead. The information gleaned by the Saudis indicates that the head of Al Qaeda was a victim of a very strong attack of thyphoid... in Pakistan on August 23, 2006.’

The document goes on to say that bin Laden’s geographical isolation rendered all medical assistance impossible.

We've seen a few reports over the last few years that Osama was dead...only to have him flare up like a case of herpes. However, IF this is true (and it's a big "if"), then I will be delighted to see the left's and the MSM's (pardon the redundancy) reaction.

I mean, we've heard the Dems bitch about how "Bush let bin Laden get away" (conveniently overlooking Bubba's complicity in 1996, 1998, and 2000). "Where's Osama?", they bellow. IF it turns out that he's finally toes-up, they'll be forced to move the goalposts again...thought I doubt the electorate will be in the mood to have those BDS-afflicted #ssholes rain on our parade. You know, like they did at first when the news of Zarqawi's death first broke?

Again, this news report could be total crap. But I sure hope not.

The Democratic Party becoming more anti-Semitic?

Considering the the Democratic Party's (and Democratic Virginia Senate candidate Jim Webb's) recent obsession with Sen. George Allen's (R-VA) potential Jewish heritage, this column by Ed Lasky seems appropriate and timely. Excerpts follow, but do yourself a favor and read the whole thing (it's not long):

The Democratic Party has been a congenial political home for many American Jews since the era of FDR. The party welcomed them into its ranks (along with many blacks and urban dwellers) and its programs comported well with many values Jews cherish. The Party was also seen as one that had offered help to the doomed Jews of Europe, opposed prejudice, and supported the fledgling state of Israel from enemies that boasted of its plans to destroy the state.

Conversely, the Republican Party was perceived to be a WASP enclave, isolationist in its outlook, and weak on support for Israel (though George C. Marshall under the Truman Administration advocated abandoning Israel to the tender mercies of its Arab neighbors).

However, these views are now anachronistic and need to be revisited.

Developments in the Democratic Party bode ill for the Jewish people and for the state of Israel – home of up to 40% of the world’s remaining Jewish population. The rank and file of the Party has become increasingly anti-Semitic and support for Israel has noticeably fallen. Democratic Congressmen have reflected this trend in very visible ways: their votes and actions in Congress reveal that support for Israel has eroded in alarming ways. Furthermore, more than a few Democratic Congressman have openly made statements that are either clearly anti-Semitic or can be fairly construed to be at least, “anti-Semitic in effect, if not intent”.
...
(moonbat blogs' posts here...seriously, please read this column! - Ed.)
...
Cartoons more suitable in Iranian street protests calling for the destruction of Israel, have graced the pages of Daily Kos (the leading, by page views, Democratic blog) . Other greatest hits on Daily Kos include entries extolling the benefit to the world if Israel did not exist, another praising “the Iranian President” for being “absolutely right to suggest that Israel cease being a sovereign state as is”, and others suggesting Israel commits terrorism on a daily basis.

Lest these commentators be dismissed as a lunatic fringe, national surveys show a very clear decline in support for Israel among all Democrats. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in late July showed a strong gap between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to support for Israel. Among Republicans, an overwhelming 84% say they sympathize more with Israel than Arab states (which 1% of Republicans sympathize with) compared to just 43% of Democrats who do so (12% sympathize with Arab states).

These declines are confirmed by a separate Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll regarding views towards Hezbollah, the genocide preaching terror group that launched yet another attack on Israel two months ago leading to a month-long war between Israel and Hezbollah. Regarding whether America should align itself with Israel, Democrats support neutrality over alignment, 54% to 39%. By comparison, Republicans strongly supported alignment with Israel, 64% to 29%.
...
Is it a sign of the times, that Kos took pride in sabotaging two campaigns in particular: those of Martin Frost (the moderate – and Jewish – Democrat from Texas who had hoped to become the DNC Chair) and Senator Joe Lieberman – perhaps, America’s most widely respected Jewish Senator?
...
(Congresspersons' and former peanut-gorging presidents' positions and quotes here...not just the kooks in the blogosphere, but our elected leaders! - Ed.)
...
The loyalty American Jews have shown to the Democratic Party is increasingly not appreciated or reciprocated. As the Jewish population faces demographic decline, the Democratic Party is increasingly beholden to groups for which Israel is of no importance whatsoever (unions, for example). Several groups that form the core of the Democratic Party have anti-Semitism rates that are higher than the American population as a whole. As the party skews to the left, it has increasingly adopted the anti-Israel philosophy and attitudes that animate so many on the left.

Conversely, the Republican Party has never been more welcoming to Jews nor as supportive of Israel. The party has welcomed an increasing number of Jews to its ranks, and its candidates garner an increasing number of votes from Jewish voters. While Democrats demagogue the rise of evangelicals in America (and in the Republican Party) and demonize them as a threat to the Jews, such mythmaking does not reflect the fact that evangelicals cherish the Jewish people, for reasons having absolutely nothing to do with end-of-days scenarios. Indeed, Jews have assumed leadership posts in the Republican Party. While Democratic National Committee head Howard Dean joyously dances with a keffiyah draped over his shoulders, Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman waxes nostalgically and publicly about his Bar Mitzvah.
...
In an era when over half the world’s Jews face the prospect of annihilation, it is time to reconsider old habits and political alignments. The ability of Jews to survive over the ages has depended on the ability to recognize that situations change and people have to adapt. At times, such changes have compelled Jews to move on to “greener pastures” – to more welcoming and supportive places. This is now such a time- a time for the Jews to wander to the other side of the aisle.

Like I said, please read the column to get a fuller appreciation of just how little the Democrats think of Jews.

Harkin defends Venezuelan President's U-N speech against Bush

One wonders if Tom Harkin has officially sampled the Kos kool-aid when even Nimrod Pe-loser and Chuck Rangel have condemned Vennie's thug ruler Huge Ass Chavez, yet Harkin defends the Chomsky-toting socialist ruler. In this election year when Dems are trying (against their nature) their damnedest to look tough on security matters and to look like they just might give a rat's posterior about this country (stop snickering, folks!), Harkin has to go and pull this stunt. I'm sure Pelosi et al are wincing more than Americans seeing Al Gore playing tonsil-hockey with Tipper at that convention six years ago. From Radio Iowa:

Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, a democrat, today defended Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's United Nations speech in which Chavez called President George Bush the devil. Harkin said the comments were "incendiary", then went on to say, "Let me put it this way, I can understand the frustration, ah, and the anger of certain people around the world because of George Bush's policies." Harkin continued what has been frequent criticism of the president's foreign policy.

Harkin says Bush came to office saying he wanted a new humility in foreign policy in reaching out to other countries, but Harkin says Bush's actual policy has been heavy handed. Harkin says the anger against Bush is generated from the Iraq war, which Harkin says was "unnecessary." (So "unnecessary that Harkin voted FOR the war? Sorry, jackass, but today's not a good day for historical revisionism. Tomorrow's not looking good for you, either. - Ed.)

Harkin says, "We tend to forget that a few days after 9-1-1 thousands, thousands of Iranians marched in a candlelight procession in Teheran in support of the United States. Every Muslim country was basically on our side. Just think, in five years, President Bush has squandered all that."

Yeah...the entire Muslim world sure was on our side, huh? Funny, because I don't seem to recall it that way. I could have sworn that I saw jumpin' jihadis "Lee-lee-lee-lee-lee"ing and "Allahu Akhbar"ing in the West Bank and Gaza at that time. Then again, time seems to cloud the memory oftentimes, as our friends on the left have demonstrated frequently over the last 5+ years, so I suppose my visions of Muslim camelhumper joy may have been but a dream...right?

Techniques McCain Wants to Ban Have Broken 14 Al-Qaeda Prisoners

From the Godfather:

Brian Ross, the chief investigative correspondent for ABC was on The O'Reilly Factor last night. He said that all of his CIA sources, a portion of whom opposed controversial interrogation methods on legal or moral grounds, agreed that those methods worked to break all 14 high-value al-Qaeda leaders in custody at Club Gitmo. In some cases, Al-Qaeda members and plots were revealed, saving lives. In addition, ladies and gentlemen, it was revealed that Ramzi Binalshibh was crying like a three-year-old.

Now, this is going to make it tough for John McCain and Lindsey Graham and Warner. And I still maintain to you that it is not the White House caving on whatever deal is being negotiated. Even MSNBC earlier today, has discussions on whether or not McCain's position is hurting him and his presidential perspirations for the 2008 presidential election. So the media buzz is not that the White House has caved. If the White House had truly caved, they'd be singing victory chants for Senator McCain. Now they're worried whether or not his efforts have actually provided a new source of concern and a new element of self-inflicted harm for the great senator from Arizona. Let's go to the audio sound bites. O'Reilly says, "The CIA broke 14 top Al-Qaeda leaders. This is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, Zubaydah, all 14 coerced, the worst thing that they did to them, water boarding?"

ROSS: Fourteen high value prisoners they have kept in secret prisoners and they have used these coercive techniques, that is the most harshest of the treatments and that's where a man is put upside down, they put a cellophane or a cloth over his mouth, they pour water, it gives the impression that the person is drowning. Now, some people liken it to a mock execution. It's very tough to withstand. When the CIA officers who are trained in these interrogations go through it themselves, some of them couldn't last more than 35, 40 seconds.

The article goes on to say that Ramzi Binalshibh "broke down and started sobbing." Well, doesn't that just tug at the ol' hearstrings? For those of you on the left, the prior question was both sarcastic and rhetorical. However, assuming that the question was not rhetorical, then I would have responded with "No, my heart bleeds not for Binalshibh." But that's me.

As usual, you're on the wrong side, Johnny Mac.

Quote of the day

Sorry, folks, but I gotta call this like I see it. Besides, funny is funny...I don't care who you are. Link:

President George W. Bush today told Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, "Welcome to Washington, D.C.," although the two were at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City.

Conyers: Trust me, I won't impeach Bush!

Conyers now:

Democrats and liberal advocacy groups have been talking about impeaching President George W. Bush for months. But when Republicans say the president indeed may be impeached if Democrats regain control of Congress, they're just trying to scare people, a Democratic operative says.

In an op-ed column in Thursday's Detroit Free Press, Robert Weiner (you people thought MY name was unusual? At least it's not phallic! - Ed.), a former press secretary to Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), accused Republicans of "trying to create hysteria about the likelihood of impeaching President Bush."

According to Weiner, "Impeachment is not on Conyers' current agenda. It is only a red herring on the Republican agenda."

(In a Democratic House, Conyers would be chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and thus a key player in deciding to impeach, or bring charges against, the president.)

Weiner (who also worked for the Clinton White House) says Conyers "has told me directly: 'I'm not going to conduct an impeachment. That would take all of our time. I would not want to bring an impeachment investigation because that would drain time and energy from the work that needs to be done, and it would take away the country's attention from issues that need to be addressed.'"

Conyers then:

The prominent headline on the front page of Conyers’ website reads: “Stand with Congressman Conyers. Demand an investigation of administration abuses of power and make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.” The message continues, “I am taking steps against the Bush Administration’s handling of the Iraq War and its warrantless wiretapping. I am going to need you to stand with me in fighting for accountability. Join me to demand the creation of a Special Committee to investigate administration abuses of power and make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment."

Republicans are "just trying to scare people" by...referring to Conyers' past actions and words! Those ruthless b#stards! Have they no decency? What's next, using a Congressman's voting record against him? When will this lunacy end? For those of you on the left, this paragraph is sarcasm.

Yeah...trust him. "Vote us in power, then take our word for it." I think I'll pass.

Wal-Mart to sell cheap drugs, yet MSM still bitching

From Myway:

Wal-Mart announced today that it will start a test program in Florida, where it will sell generic prescription drugs for $4 for a 30-day supply. The test will start tomorrow in 65 Tampa Bay-area stores and is to expand to the whole state by January.

In a statement, CEO Lee Scott says the world's largest retailer intends to "take the program to as many states as possible next year."

On average, generic drugs tend to cost between $10 and $30 for a month-long supply.

The world's biggest retailer said that it will test the program in Florida that will make 291 generic drugs available, which are used to treat a variety of condition from allergies to high-blood pressure. It will also be available to the uninsured.
...
"Each day in our pharmacies we see customers struggle with the cost of prescription drugs," said Wal-Mart CEO H. Lee Scott, Jr., in a statement. "By cutting the cost of many generics to $4, we are helping to ensure that our customers and associates get the medicines they need at a price they can afford."

Sounds great, doesn't it? Oddly enough, the following makes it way into the article:

Union-backed Wake Up Wal-Mart, one of its most vociferous critics, have called upon Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart to offer better health care coverage and higher pay to employees.

Critics contend that the company's benefits are too stingy, forcing taxpayers to absorb more of the cost as the workers lacking coverage turn to state-funded health care programs.

This past summer, Wal-Mart won a successful fight against a first-of-its-kind state law that would have required the retailer to spend more on employee health care in Maryland. A federal judge ruled in July that it was invalid under federal law. But other states are considering similar legislation aimed at the company. (In other words, other states are also considering similar taxpayer-funded grandstanding and politicking that will, as in Maryland, be shot down from the courts. - Ed.)

Aside from the words "Wal-Mart" and "health", exactly what does an article about Wal-Mart's new cheap drugs have to do with union and leftist (pardon the redundancy) critics OR with employee benefits? I mean, Wal-Mart says "We're gonna offer the entire general public cheap drugs", and the article focuses on what kind of health coverage Wal-Mart gives to its employees? Nope...no liberal media bias!

Associated (with terrorists) Press takes on Malkin

Boy, the MSM sure gets defensive when they're exposed like Bubba's willy to an intern! Now the AP is trying to furiously spin their association with a terrorism suspect, sounding more like the ACLU and Amnesty International. Michelle Malkin has all the details here.

Excerpt:

Yesterday evening, I received a call from my column syndicate, Creators Syndicate. The Associated Press had phoned my editor to inform her that it would be sending a response to my column yesterday about detained AP photographer Bilal Hussein. (Funny how quickly they respond now. Where have they been the past five months? Oh, right: Busy covering up the news about Hussein's April 12 capture by the military at a Ramadi apartment with an alleged al Qaeda leader and a weapons cache.) The AP last night asked my editor to supply its corporate communications office with my newspaper client list so it could disseminate its response.

Well, I am happy to help out the AP by posting its statement right here on my blog (we'll also send it out in a bonus column to all my syndicate clients). The AP's non-response response is a very instructive, valuable, and revealing document that I'd like not just my newspaper readers, but also all of you, to see. It is as damning for what it says as for what it doesn't say. As you'll see, AP's statement abandons any attempt to address the key issues bloggers and my column have raised--its questionable journalistic judgement in suppressing news of Hussein's detention for five months (see LGF), its compromised neutrality (see Power Line), and its dangerous dependence on dubious local stringers embedded with the Iraqi insurgency (see Jawa Report, EU Referendum, Dan Riehl, and Democracy Project). Instead, AP has written a little policy brief that calls into question the news organization's ability to be fair and impartial in its reporting on the capture, detention, and interrogation of security detainees in Iraq and other fronts in the war on terror.

Go read the details for yourself, and repeat ad nauseum: "Nope, no liberal media bias!"

Quote of the day

From FNC's resident blowhard, Bill O'Reilly:

O'Reilly says his fame and success — and sometimes controversial views — have come with a price.

"With the controversy comes death threats on a daily basis," O'Reilly said. "Not only from kooks. But the FBI came in and warned me and a few other people at Fox News that al Qaeda had us on a death list. ... That's a little disconcerting."

News flash for ya, Billy: we're all on al Qaeda's death list!

News bytes

News from around the web:

Ted Turner says the Iraq war was one of history's "dumbest moves of all time". Turner then trumps this supremely "dumb move" by performing the actual single dumbest move of all time: touting Al "I can't win my own state" Gore for president.

Sean Penn may play Einstein in a TV movie. In related news, I will be playing Brad Pitt in a TV movie.

A Texas County considers free gastric bypass to obese county employees. Note to potential applicants: eat as much as you like for as many years as you like, then when you feel like stopping, just ask the Travis County citizens to foot the bill. Accountability? Come on, where do you think this is...Texas? Oh, wait...yes it is. Uh...

US Treasury Sets New 1-Day Tax Receipt Record Of $85.8 Billion. Couldn't have anything to with tax cuts and their stimulating effect, could it? Didn't think so. Now, if only the "conservatives" could figure out how to stop spending this extra money, we'd be fine.

Butressing my contention that global "warming" alarmists are either anti-capitalists disguised as environmental stewards, or are grant-hungry scientists, a Colorado State University professor has commited professional suicide by asserting that humans have diddly to do with global "warming." If Professor Gray isn't tenured, he should begin polishing up his resumé, since the enviroweenie leftists won't stand for such heresy.

Iran President to U.N.: "What Is the Problem?" Yeah, really! Haven't you ever seen an anti-Semitic anti-American weirdbeard with a nuke before?

Thailand's PM ousted in military coup

From the AP:

In the dead of night and without firing a shot, Thailand's military overthrew popularly elected Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra on Tuesday after mounting criticism that he had undermined democracy.

The sudden, well-orchestrated coup — a throwback to an unsettled era in Thailand — was likely to spark both enthusiasm and criticism at home and abroad. The military said it would soon return power to a democratic government but did not say when.

Striking when Thaksin was in New York at the U.N. General Assembly, army commander Gen. Sondhi Boonyaratkalin sent tanks and troops into the drizzly, nighttime streets of Bangkok. The military ringed Thaksin's offices, seized control of television stations and declared a provisional authority loyal to the king.

While the PM was in New York? Wasn't Bush also in New York? A-ha! The coup in Thailand...was George W. Bush's fault! Dammit, is his imperialistic thirst unquenchable?

For those of you on the left, the prior paragraph was sarcasm.

Detained AP photographer had "strong" insurgent ties

Michelle Malkin has been all over this. Click here for the full story, along with a photo collage of some of Mr. Hussein's handiwork, including photos of the jihadists with Italian hostage Salvatore Santoro...shortly before they killed him. Amazing access, I'm telling ya...too amazing!

The Pentagon said on Monday that an Iraqi photographer working for The Associated Press and held by the U.S. military since April was considered a security threat with "strong ties to known insurgents."
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said there was sufficient evidence to justify the continued detention of Bilal Hussein, 35, who AP said was taken into U.S. military custody on April 12 in the Iraqi city of Ramadi and held since without charge.

He declined to elaborate on what that evidence was.

"All indications that I have received are that Hussein's detainment indicates that he has strong ties to known insurgents, and that he was doing things, involved in activities that were well outside the scope of what you would expect a journalist to be doing in that country," he said.

In three separate "independent objective reviews," Whitman told reporters, "it was determined that Hussein was a security threat and recommended his continued detention."

Naturally, the AP is getting defensive about themselves and Mr. Hussein. They'd been pretty silent, but now they're madder than the moonbats will be when Ned Lamont loses to Joe Lieberman. Cries the AP:

The U.S. military in Iraq has imprisoned an Associated Press photographer for five months, accusing him of being a security threat but never filing charges or permitting a public hearing.

Military officials said Bilal Hussein, an Iraqi citizen, was being held for "imperative reasons of security" under United Nations resolutions. AP executives said the news cooperative's review of Hussein's work did not find anything to indicate inappropriate contact with insurgents, and any evidence against him should be brought to the Iraqi criminal justice system.

Hussein, 35, is a native of Fallujah who began work for the AP in September 2004. He photographed events in Fallujah and Ramadi until he was detained on April 12 of this year.

"We want the rule of law to prevail. He either needs to be charged or released. Indefinite detention is not acceptable," said Tom Curley, AP's president and chief executive officer. "We've come to the conclusion that this is unacceptable under Iraqi law, or Geneva Conventions, or any military procedure."

Hussein is one of an estimated 14,000 people detained by the U.S. military worldwide — 13,000 of them in Iraq. They are held in limbo where few are ever charged with a specific crime or given a chance before any court or tribunal to argue for their freedom.

In Hussein's case, the military has not provided any concrete evidence to back up the vague allegations they have raised about him, Curley and other AP executives said.

The military said Hussein was captured with two insurgents, including Hamid Hamad Motib, an alleged leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. "He has close relationships with persons known to be responsible for kidnappings, smuggling, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and other attacks on coalition forces," according to a May 7 e-mail from U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Jack Gardner, who oversees all coalition detainees in Iraq.

"The information available establishes that he has relationships with insurgents and is afforded access to insurgent activities outside the normal scope afforded to journalists conducting legitimate activities," Gardner wrote to AP International Editor John Daniszewski.

I am just sure that Hussein's presence with Motib was a big fat coinkidink. AP then defends Hussein's access to terrorists thusly: "One of Hussein's photos was part of a package of 20 photographs that won a Pulitzer Prize for breaking news photography last year. His contribution was an image of four insurgents in Fallujah firing a mortar and small arms during the U.S.-led offensive in the city in November 2004." Considering the Pulitzers handed out to the MSM for criminally leaking national security classified documents, coupled with Hussein's up-close-and-personal with the jihadists, one could reasonably assume that MSM-led efforts to provide aid and comfort to our enemies will always win recognition, praise, and adoration from your MSM colleagues.

Sorry, AP, but you'll get Mr. Hussein back when America, not you, is good and ready to give him back...assuming he isn't sent to Club Gitmo.

Terrorism suspect tortured in Syria...and it's Bush's fault!

Leave it to the Canucks to blame Bush for Syria's torturing of a terrorism suspect. From (where else?) the New York Slimes:

A government commission on Monday exonerated a Canadian computer engineer of any ties to terrorism and issued a scathing report that faulted Canada and the United States for his deportation four years ago to Syria, where he was imprisoned and tortured.

Damn that Bush! He creates hurricanes that wipe out cities, he creates heat that melts polar bears' homes, he puts panties on the heads of Al Qaeda prisoners in Abu Ghraib, he pulls the triggers and creates the car bombs that kill our soldiers, he keeps Alzheimer's patients afflicted...and NOW he makes that bastion of human rights (Syria) torture innocent prisoners! This man must be stopped!

For those of you on the left, the prior paragraph was sarcasm.

Photo of the day

Hat tip to Wuzzadem. For the religion of the perpetually offended:

What media bias?

Hat tip to RCP. Initially, the AP headline read as follows: "GOP Gains Ground In Battle For Congress." Evidently, someone in the AP newsroom bitchslapped the rookie who allowed that headline to get through. The headline was subsequently changed to read "Poll Shows GOP Not Making Its Case", though the content of the story didn't change.

As RCP notes:

So, sometime between roughly 6:30 am and 10:26 am the Associated Press switched the header on the story about its own poll results from being pro-GOP to something decidedly more negative.

Nope...no liberal media bias!

Quote of the day

Though the quote was a couple of days ago, I just now saw it, ergo it qualifies as my "quote of the day". From Speaker-wannabe Nancy Pe-loser (Moonbat-SF) on national security:

"'A third questioner pointed out that Republicans have regained the lead on national security. 'This is what, I guess, campaigns will be about,' Pelosi conceded with some reluctance. 'It shouldn't be about national security.'"

There you have it. No campaigns this year should be about national security. I mean, national security is just sooooooooo passé, isn't it? I don't suppose this position statement has diddly to do with the fact the left is more interested in protecting the rights of terrorists than in protecting Americans, does it? Nah...couldn't be.

Unfortunately for Pe-loser and her moonbat nutroot ilk, this election will likely indeed hinge on national security. William Kristol properly notes the following:

A few defections won't prevent Republicans from saying--truthfully--that there is a real difference between the two parties on the war on terror, and that they stand with Bush and against Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

Pope pisses off Muslims

Surprise, surprise: Muslims are threatening (and commiting) acts of depravity and violence. Their excuse du jour this time? The pope pissed them off.

Firebombing churches in Gaza. Riddling an elderly Catholic nun with bullets. Threatening media members for printing cartoons. Apologies are never enough. Yessiree, the message is clear: "Quit portraying our religion's followers as a legion of barbaric and bloodlusting evil cretins...or else we'll commit acts of barbarism and evil!" Boy, was that Pope guy way off base or what?

Go ahead, lefties...bend over backwards telling us how yet scores of more examples of Islamofascists (apologies in advance for offending the hypersensitive Sen. Feingold) are in no way representative of a sizeable portion of Muslims worldwide. We're in the mood to hear more "yeah, but"'s and "Christianity is as bad" and other morally relative politically correct bovine feces. Yeah, no "clash of civilizations" here. Nothing to see, move on, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain...

A perfect representative of the religion of "peace"

Out of town

I am out of town today and tomorrow. I'll be back on Sunday afternoon. Everyone have a great weekend!

"Alcohol use helps boost income: study"

This would explain the secret to Ted Kennedy's success. From Breitbart:

People who consume alcohol earn significantly more at their jobs than non-drinkers, according to a US study that highlighted "social capital" gained from drinking.

The moral of the story is simple: get drunk, get rich.

Time to start the fast again!

Gas prices to plunge?

We're all seeing the price of gas dropping big time since the summer. Heck, I remember screaming when gas was starting at $3.05 here, but I'm not so miffed now that I am filling up at $2.43. Anywho, from the Seattle fishwrap:

The recent sharp drop in the global price of crude oil could mark the start of a massive sell-off that returns gasoline prices to lows not seen since the late 1990s — perhaps as low as $1.15 a gallon.

"All the hurricane flags are flying" in oil markets, said Philip Verleger, a noted energy consultant who was a lone voice several years ago in warning that oil prices would soar. Now, he says, they appear to be poised for a dramatic plunge.

Crude-oil prices have fallen about $14, or roughly 17 percent, from their July 14 peak of $78.40. After falling seven straight days, they rose slightly Wednesday in trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, to $63.97, partly in reaction to a government report showing fuel inventories a bit lower than expected. But the overall price drop is expected to continue, and prices could fall much more in the weeks and months ahead.

A-HA! Those evil "Big Oil" companies are trying to grease the skids to help keep their corporofascist Republican buddies in power! You know, drop the prices now (and thus screw their shareholders) to help re-elect Republicans, then turn around in December and raise the prices right back up to $3.00! Or even higher! Grandma's gonna have to decide between filling up her car in order to get to bingo, or eating Alpo for breakfast and dinner! Damn you, George Bush!

For those of you on the left, the prior paragraph was sarcasm...even if it does happen to mimic whatever the dimwits at the Kos kooks' playground happen to say/think (and I use the word "think" reluctantly).

Since Bush was blamed for skyrocketing gas prices, do you think he'll get credit for the falling prices? Me neither.

"al-Qaeda And The Nuclear Threat"

I'm sure it's all a fear-based hoax, concocted by Bu$hitler McRummyburton. From Dan Riehl:

A key al Qaeda terrorism suspect was in Canada looking for nuclear material for a "dirty bomb," The Washington Times has learned.

Adnan El Shukrijumah is being sought by the FBI and CIA in connection
with a plot to detonate a dirty bomb - a conventional explosive laced with
radioactive material.

This is supposed to coincide with Ramadan, which starts on Sept. 24. Please read it...there's a lot more.

I'm going to go out on a limb here (hardly) and predict that if the MSM doesn't bury this story like a cat turd in a litter box, then Leftistan will be pegging this as a potential "October surprise" (even though Ramadan is in September, but I digress). We'll see.

"Liberalism as Condescension"

Excellent column by George Will, on how the attitude of the left towards their current boogeyman (Wal-Mart) is part and parcel of the their overall condescending attitude towards the American public. Excerpts follow:

Which vexes liberals like John Kerry. (He and his helpmeet last shopped at Wal-Mart when?) In 2004 he tested what has become one of the Democrats' 2006 themes: Wal-Mart is, he said, "disgraceful" and symbolic of "what's wrong with America." By now, Democrats have succeeded, to their embarrassment (if they are susceptible to that), in making the basic numbers familiar:

(Numbers of jobs created, customers served, money saved and earned by the American public, go here. Read the column for specifics. - Ed.)

People who buy their groceries from Wal-Mart -- it has one-fifth of the nation's grocery business -- save at least 17 percent. But because unions are strong in many grocery stores trying to compete with Wal-Mart, unions are yanking on the Democratic Party's leash, demanding laws to force Wal-Mart to pay wages and benefits higher than those that already are high enough to attract 77 times more applicants than there were jobs at this store.

The big-hearted progressives on Chicago's City Council, evidently unconcerned that the city gets zero sales tax revenues from a half a billion dollars that Chicago residents spend in the 42 suburban Wal-Marts, have passed a bill that, by dictating wages and benefits, would keep Wal-Marts from locating in the city. Richard Daley, a bread-and-butter Democrat, used his first veto in 17 years as mayor to swat it away. (Not all elected liberals are totally devoid of common sense, are they? - Ed.)

Liberals think their campaign against Wal-Mart is a way of introducing the subject of class into America's political argument, and they are more correct than they understand. Their campaign is liberalism as condescension. It is a philosophic repugnance toward markets because consumer sovereignty results in the masses making messes. Liberals, aghast, see the choices Americans make with their dollars and their ballots, and announce -- yes, announce -- that Americans are sorely in need of more supervision by ... liberals.

Before they went on their bender of indignation about Wal-Mart (customers per week: 127 million), liberals had drummed McDonald's (customers per week: 175 million) out of civilized society because it is making us fat, or something. So, what next? Which preferences of ordinary Americans will liberals, in their role as national scolds, next disapprove? Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet?

No. The current issue of The American Prospect, an impeccably progressive magazine, carries a full-page advertisement denouncing something responsible for "lies, deception, immorality, corruption, and widespread labor, human rights and environmental abuses'' and of having brought "great hardship and despair to people and communities throughout the world."

What is this focus of evil in the modern world? North Korea? The Bush administration? Fox News Channel? No, it is Coca-Cola (number of servings to Americans of the company's products each week: 2.5 billion).

When liberals' presidential nominees consistently fail to carry Kansas, liberals do not rush to read a book titled "What's the Matter With Liberals' Nominees?" No, the book they turned into a best-seller is titled "What's the Matter With Kansas?" Notice a pattern here?

Liberals look down their noses at the very people they want to govern. They see that American landscape riddled with churchgoing, freedom-loving, individualist rubes, and their perceptions are reinforced when said "rubes" consistently reject them at the ballot box.

The problem couldn't possibly be liberalism or its messengers, could it? But of course not! The problem is that the public just isn't "smart enough" to know what's good for them, but thankfully (in the liberal's mind), the citizenry can be salvaged and rescued by liberals...if only the idiots who vote can be convinced, right? Just "What's the Matter with Americans" anyway?