Well, I guess that's one way to put it.

Here's a list of link roundups from a few people who I admire quite a bit, and I can't say that they're particularly friendly.

First up, Mrs. du Toit, one of the most intelligent people on the web, comes up with a series of questions for you in a "screw with your head a lil' bit" post.

Exercise 1:
Think of the smartest person you’ve ever met—.......

Exercise 2:
Think of the most dynamic person you’ve ever met—.......

Exercise 3:
Think about the best sales person you ever met—.......

Exercise 4
Think about the most honest person you’ve ever known—.......

Done? Got all four? Don’t cheat and read on until you’re done.

OK… here we go.

Was it the same person in all four examples?

Chances are it wasn’t the same person. Again, your mileage may vary.

Now, here’s the screw with your head part:

Of the four you thought of, which one would be best President of the United States?

Exercise 5 (last one):

Rank, in order of importance, the qualities most important in the POTUS.

The Mrs. then goes into a nice clear wakeup call later on in the same post:

Quit telling the President to present his case better. He’s not our Grampa. He’s not our therapist. He’s not selling anything. He’s representing us. If you think the President’s policies are good or bad, it is YOUR job as a citizen to present the case to your neighbors.

If you’re not doing that, if you think the President’s duty is to put you or your neighbor on in his knee and explain how things work, GROW UP. The President isn’t our mascot. His job is not to conduct pep rallies.

Now, I know that we can all formulate arguments when we're sitting behind a keyboard. And I'll admit that screaming arguments with foaming-at-the-mouth leftists isn't my forte. But how many of us, when we hear a mistruth being said, step up and try to (gently) correct that person? I used to do it all the time when I worked in the hospital in Seattle. I wouldn't jump all over the person, but I would start listing off facts and sources for my facts. I did it all the time with guns and gun control topics. I spoke out quite a bit about the Army when people make uninformed judgements.

But how many of us are doing things like that today? I must admit, living on an Army base doesn't give you too many chances to argue with an anti-war nutcase. Other than blogging, there's not too many arguments to be had around my house or neighborhood. The question still stands, however: Why aren't WE the ones pushing the President's agenda. Why are we waiting for him to come out and give us a "Yay-rah-rah sis-boom-bah" speech?

Perhaps we are the ones that need to do a little more cheerleading and less waiting.

The Mrs. then goes onto a post that reminds everybody what support is supposed to be. And as much as I agree with certain premises she makes, I can't completely agree with her final outcome.

The best head of state the world has ever seen in a time of war was Winston Churchill. He was brilliant at war time, but he was perfectly dreadful when it came to the day-to-day affairs of the British government on issues of home. Bush is proving to be somewhat the same. Do NOT mix the two. Your support for our troops and winning this war should have nothing to do with how the President is handling anything else.

The opinion polls are showing a fading support for the war. Now the Left is thrilled with this, but of course the poll results are skewed. Assuming normal averages, 60% not happy with the President’s handling of the War, 30% (half) are likely to be against it because they don’t want us there. The other 30% (the other half) are likely to be negative because they think the President isn’t using enough force.

And you know what our troops see? Do you know what our enemy sees? SIXTY PERCENT AGAINST. And if you’re not happy because you think the President is not using enough force, SHUT UP ABOUT IT.

So get the duct tape, put it across your mouth, close the posts that are critical of the President, and get behind the troops and against the enemy, which, last I looked was NOT President Bush, but a group of megalomaniacs, using the guise of Islam, trying to dominate the world.

This isn’t a Holy War. This isn’t a time when you get to put down a religion you believe to be inferior and replace with one you feel better suited to the region. This isn’t a time for punishing the Arab world for all the hell its put Israel through.

Come the next election The People will vote on a new President. That is when The People get to share their two cents. We are not a strict democracy. We are a Republic. That means we elect officials to act on our behalf. If we don’t like how they’ve acted on our behalf, we don’t undermine them while they’re in office, we vote for someone else next time.

I do not want to hear one more “conservative” blathering on about how horrid Bush is, how he’s a sell out to this or that. If you continue this, you will cease to be “conservative”, cease to be “patriotic” and you’ve become the “digital brown shirts” the Right has been accused of being.

Now SHUT UP.

One thing I will never shut up about is the way the border has pretty much been opened up. If I hear "amnesty" mentioned for illegal immigrants by a conservative one more time, I'm going to vomit into a bag and mail it off to them as a way to express how I really feel.

But support for the war is dropping? I can't say that I'm surprised. Think about this:

There is almost no reporting on the successes that America has accomplished in Iraq or Afghanistan. Why is that? Because the Leftist media will not portray anything that could be construed as a victory for President Bush.

Casualty reports are run daily, if not hourly, by the Leftist press. Why? Because that's one of the tactics they used to change support for the Viet Nam war, and they are USING THAT TACTIC AGAIN. To them, it's Viet Nam all over again. It doesn't matter if we've removed two terrorist supporting regimes, freed millions of people from tyrants and thugs, removed the financial and logistical support from a terrorist network, and brought democracy and a chance for peace to an area that has never had that, it's all being done by a REPUBLICAN, so it has to be evil. Neveryoumind the fact that we had ample reasons to go into both countries, to the Left it's all one big illegal BusHitlerCheneyHalliburtanChimyMcRoveNeoCon plot to ruin their vision of global peace. And so they'll fight the president with everything they have. And one weapon that has proven effective in the past is casualty reports without context. Casualties, casualties, and more casualties, every hour on the hour without any other information. What if the media had simply stated "2,500 soldiers killed on Normandy Beach in one day" and left it at that?

How about "Over 10,000 soldiers dead since D-Day" without any other information?

How about "Over 200,000 casualties since begining of war efforts" without any other information?

Do you think we would have won WWII with todays media? I don't. Let's face it, the media today will do what they can to cause President Bush to fail, or at least get embarassed once in a while. When the only news you hear is "DEATH! FAILURE! QUAGMIRE! DEAD SOLDIERS! EVIL WAR! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL!" then you're going to get a little down in the dumps. And let's face it, as good as the blogosphere is at getting other information out, it only works when people come to read it. You can't force anyone to sit down and read Powerline, or Right Wing News, no matter how important you think the news is. Short of buying our own network and broadcasting the successes of Iraq on network TV, there's no way those stories are going to reach the main part of America. How many people in America know that the Army's re-enlistment rates are above what was expected? The re-enlistment rates are over 100% of quota. How many people in America know that? Did you see that on the nightly news? OF COURSE NOT! But when the Army had problems recruiting, it was on every damn show, every night.

Because the media wants us to lose.

Treasonous, lying shitheels at home: The Left has never let the truth get in the way of their lust for power. Ted (hic!) Kennedy, Chucky Schumer, Jim "Baghdad" McDermott, Charlie Rangle, they all lie with abandon if it'll help their cause. Remember when Baghdad McDermott warned about a draft during Bush's presidency, only to have people find out that MCDERMOTT HIMSELF SPONSORED THE DRAFT BILL? Remember that? The Left is populated by lying, worthless, cowardly, traitorous parasites who have elected more lying, worthless, cowardly, traitorous parasites to represent them on the national stage, and these people will say anything and everything they can in order to cause Bush to fail in some way. They don't care about success in Iraq, because they equate Iraqi success or failures as Bush's success or failures. Thus, if the terrorists win in Iraq, and the Middle East goes into spasms of terror, despotism and death, the Left will cavort with glee and shriek "BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!" while never caring that they are responsible for the failures. The Left would sacrifice every man, woman and child in Iraq for one big stick that they could beat President Bush for, and it's showing in how they comport themselves in America.

I'd say the real surprise isn't how low the support for the war is, it's how HIGH the support is after dealing with the lies, the hatred, the simple foulness of the Left and all it's tactics in this country. The only thing we can do is keep on keepin' on. Keep debating the Left and proving them wrong. Don't allow yourself to be shifted to a different topic when you're debating. Keep proving the Left to be nothing more than traitorous worms.

Bush never said that this was going to be quick and easy. He said it would be a long, hard process. I believed him then, and I believe him now.

Keep on keepin' on, folks. Don't let the Left win. The results will be horrible if they do.

Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies

It's amazing. It truly is amazing.

As anyone who has followed this story knows, this claim is utterly false. Sheehan has always been a "vocal opponent of the war;" her opposition had nothing to do with "reports of faulty prewar intelligence." By her own account, as we noted here, Sheehan was bitterly opposed to the war before her son Casey re-enlisted in August 2003...

It really is something to see - the canonization of Cindy Sheehan.

More here: Power Line: If the Facts Don't Fit, Make Them Up

Counting Pages

John Cross over at Drumwaster's notes some inequities in Mom Coverage.

Home from Iraq, Assaulted in Seattle

Police ask help in finding assault suspects

Water is wet, sunlight is bright, and other newsflashes

Lower taxes, raise revenues.

I can't believe that there are people out there who haven't learned enough macroeconomics to understand how this works. Hell, I haven't had a single course in economics beyond what I was taught in highschool, and I can still grasp the concept that if you let people keep their own money, the economy kicks it up a notch!

Yet few are asking what caused the cash flow. To read the papers, you would think that the fact that the Treasury is now swimming in revenue is like a cool August day at the shore after a number of hot ones: just another pleasant surprise.

But there should be no surprise. For the inflows are the direct result of the Bush administration's commitment to a concept: individuals respond to incentives. Not merely targeted ones -- a break, say, for a specific group of manufacturers -- but overall incentives for enterprise. The administration deduced from this concept that cuts in taxes on capital and work would inspire citizens and businesses to transact more. The Bush team then proceeded to make those cuts amid jeers about incurring deficits.

It's as simple as a history lesson: Every time the tax rates have dropped, the amount of money changing hands in the open market increased. And since many if not all transactions in this country are taxed in one form or another, more transactions means more tax revenue. EVERY TIME the tax rates were slashed, our tax revenues have risen in preceeding years.

Earlier, President Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin, his Treasury secretary, also cut the capital gains tax. The business activity and extra revenues helped create the surprise of that era, a federal budget surplus. Yet earlier, in 1978 and 1981, the US slashed its capital gains rate twice, moving from 35 per cent (or sometimes higher) to 20 per cent. With each cut, the inflows jumped, and "the magnitude of the response clearly shocked some of the staff" recalls Mr. Entin, then at the Treasury. What those involved would recall forever was a wistful feeling -- a new awareness of the likelihood of economic growth forgone in the 1970s, the period of higher rates.

If it weren't for President Bush's tax cuts, the Clinton-era recession (it started in 2000, before Bush was sworn into office) would have lasted for years. As it was, we made it through 2001, and started going like gangbusters in 2002. The proof is in the pudding, and it's been that way with every president who cut taxes, not just Bush Jr.

But the Democrats wail and whine and gnash their teeth, and talk about the rich getting richer, and how the poor are getting shafted, and all that other class warfare which has become part and parcel to the Democrat Party platform. Kim du Toit (from whom I got the link) puts it better than I can:

Of course, had the BushCheneyHalliburtonPuppets done the same as Rubin, we’d be hearing wails of how all this was done to help Bush’s rich conservative buddies, but such wailing was noticeably absent when Rubin, who was an ex-Wall Streeter, made the cuts.

So when it comes to the Evil Party’s caterwauling, we are left with two inescapable options.

Either: the Democrats are stupid because they didn’t remember how well tax cuts had spurred the economy in the past.

Or: the Democrats knew full well that the economy would benefit from tax cuts, but were prepared to sacrifice the well-being of the country in order to score socialistic economic points against “the rich” (and of course, against GWB).

When it comes to the Democrat Party, and one has to choose between evil motives and stupidity, the “evil” option is almost always the correct assumption. Hence their title at this site (when I’m not calling them the Socialist Party or the Gun Control Party).

The reverse is true, of course, for the Republicans, hence their nickname of the “Stupid” Party.

I'll go him one better, and say that the Democrats will sacrafice anything and everything they can in order to gain and control more power of any sort. Socialism is about control. And the Donks are socialists to the bone now, with more and more communists brought into the fold. The few remaining capitalist Democrats are either dying off or getting kicked out of the Democrat Party. And the main goal of socialism and communism is to control everything via the state. Since the Democrats in power are already controlling the state, who do you think will be the recipients of more state power?

Yeah. The Democrats don't care one whit about this country unless they can put it under their thumb.

Ooooooo, that's gotta sting!

The wife of murdered journalist Steven Vincent has apparently had enough of the professional whores like Juan Cole taking potshots at her deceased husband. So she wrote the simpering jellyfish an email and sent it off, and posted said email in the comments of M.O.

Yes, Steven was aggressive in criticizing what he saw around him and did not like. It's called courage, and it happens to be a tradition in the history of this country. Without this tradition there would have been no Revolutionary War, no Civil War, no civil rights movement, no a lot of things that America can be proud of. He had made many friends in Iraq, and was afraid for them if the religious fundamentalists were given the country to run under shari'a. You may dismiss that as naive, simplistic, foolish, but I say to you, as you sit safely in your ivory tower in Michigan with nothing threatening your comfy, tenured existence, that you should be ashamed at the depths to which you have sunk by libeling Steven and Nour. They were on the front lines, risking all, in an attempt to call attention to the growing storm threatening to overwhelm a fragile and fledgling experiment in democracy, trying to get the world to see that all was not right in Iraq. And for their efforts, Steven is dead and Nour is recuperating with three bullet wound in her back. Yes, that's right - the "honorable" men who abducted them, after binding them, holding them captive and beating them, set them free, told them to run - and then shot them both in the back. I've seen the autopsy report.

You did not know him - you did not have that honor, and you will never have the chance, thanks to the murderous goons for whom you have appointed yourself an apologist.

It's an asskicking bar none, and I can't think of anyone who might deserve it more than a pampered nitwit like Cole. But it gets better, because in the comments a SFC sounds off. Since I can't link to the comment, I'm cutting and pasting the entire thing. It's that damn good.

You sniveling little twit. I just love the way you liberal moonbats bitch about "censorship" and "shutting down debate" whenever someone counters your agitprop with facts and opinions of their own. Hate to burst your bubble sweetpea, but the 1st Amendment is not exclusive to the leftist fringe.

And as for your views of the war on terrorism:

We all know how difficult it is for you socialist "activists" with your post-election trauma and the weekly trips to your therapist, but the rest of America is getting sick and tired of your pissing, moaning, and imbecilic regurgitations ie: "Bush Lied". If you removed your head from your ass and stopped fawning over bin Laden and repulsive simps like Michael Moore, you might get that clue you so desperately need.

Hell, if all we wanted was "oil" we could have bombed the Middle East back to the Stone Age, which would only set them back about 2 weeks, and simply TAKEN every single oil well in the region. Meanwhile, we're paying about 3 bucks a pop at the pump.

You've conveniently forgotten about the 3000 Americans who were slaughtered on September 11th 2001. That was a Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century, and all you can do is spew Norman Mailer quotes.

Included in the war on terror equation is Afghanistan, the success of which is virtually ignored by the leftist media. We kicked the crap out of the Taliban. That success is reflected in the fact that bin Laden and whatever little band of thugs he still has, are scurrying like cockroaches back and forth across the mountainous region between Pakistan and Afghanistan hiding in caves to avoid detection.

As for Iraq: Saddam Hussein filled hundreds of mass graves with men, women and children, and slaughtered 5000 Kurds with “non-existent” chemical weapons. He thumbed his nose at the pusillanimous UN for 12 years, while he continued to research, develop, and hide the evidence of his WMD program. In addition, Iraqi intelligence met with al Qadea operatives and he provided them with training camps in Northern Iraq.

"About the oil", my ass.

Let me give you first hand experience as to how the war is going: We are kicking the shit out of the terrorists to the extent that they are getting desperate, and it shows. The Iraqis are starting to wake up and realize that the future of their country depends on how much they assist in their own reconstruction and protection. We are getting an increasing number of people who walk up to American troops and literally take them to weapons caches and terrorist hiding places. If you've been paying attention, you'll note the numerous press reports of captures/kills of high ranking Zarqawi Lieutenants.


The Afghan and Iraqi people are constructing fledgling democracies, can vote, run for office, and speak freely for the first time in their existence. Nothing threatens Islamofascists more than a democracy.

Oh, and this little gem of yours is a real side-splitter:
"It is sick how you warmonger chickenhawks keep sending our children to die. As Norman Mailer pointed out, Americanism as an ideology can be seen in the light of the apparent fabrications which lead to the police state which has come to pass."

I'm no "chickenhawk", toots. I've served in 2 wars and a so-called "peace keeping mission"; Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and a stint in Clinton's wag-the-dog tactic in Bosnia.

We're fighting Islamofascist thugs who would gladly subject the entire planet (including you) to their oppressive theocracy. Before you hit the sack tonight you should get down on your knees and give thanks to whatever God you pray that we are out front making sure that doesn't happen.

You can thank Bubba Clinton for giving al Qaida the green light. His total indifference to the terrorist attacks on his watch; the first attack on the World Trade center, Khobar Towers, and the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania went without retribution. He and algore (one word) were too busy using the Oval Office as their personal conduit for unethical, immoral and illegal activities. His Chinese/Indonesian friends Charlie Trie, John Huang, and James Riady bought the 1996 “election” in exchange for information on, among other items, classified satellite technology, He illegally obtained FBI files on political adversaries, and fired the Travel Office and threatened them with surveillance if they talked.

Oh, wait, he did have a response--he bombed Kosovo and an aspirin factory in Iraq. Abetted by lap-dog Janet Reno’s obstruction of justice, Clinton flushed the integrity of the Office as well as national security down the toilet, and not a peep out of you liberal shitbags.

Dedicated, brave Soldiers of the United States Army are fighting and sacrificing their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan so that ingrates like you won’t have to worry about another 3000 deaths on this soil.

You lefties are comprised of pseudo-anarchists, nihilists, and spineless MoveOn.org sycophants who would never let the facts get in the way of a good Bush bashing. The adults, thank God, are still in charge of the country. You ought to follow the lead, remove the nose rings and grow up.

Sergeant First Class Cheryl McElroy
US ARMY
Posted by: SFC McElroy US ARMY at August 23, 2005 01:51 PM

Damn, I'd love to buy that Sergeant a beer!

Found via Kim du Toit.

Open Invitation to Senator Hagel

Senator Hagel,

You are a disgrace to the Republican Party. Your defeatism is being trumpeted by Aljazeera. I invite you to act on your deep seated beliefs and become a true media darling by leaving the Republican party. I don't care where you go. As far as I am concerned, you are no longer welcome in the GOP. Leave. In the event that you are unable to find the courage within yourself to do so, I call upon the Nebraska Republican Party to replace you in the next election. They would be better served if they had a trustworthy Republican Senator rather than a back stabbing defeatist that sides with the views of the extreme left and provides aid and comfort to our nation's enemies.

Also Posted at Curiouser and Curiouser

Is the momentum gone?

Links and commentary galore at Instapundit. The central gist is that support for the war has waned and the President isn't out there beating the drums as he had been, up until about six months ago. Insofar as waning support draws power from the men and women at risk, I agree that the momentum needs to be regained.

There are points made that the President might be just plum tuckered out. I'm into that, and it makes me wonder: Where are our Senators? Why must the President carry the rhetorical ball all by his lonesome? Are our GOP Senators not out there? Do they not support the war? Are they afraid for their political lives and jockeying (like Senator Hagel)? Or are they out there and supportive but cannot get coverage?

I'll be damned if I'd not give my proverbial eye teeth for a couple GOP fellas (or gals) who'd be willing to go Zel Miller on Hardball or CNN or Today or wherever and snarl a bit, raised voice, angry-eyed, and remind Americans just who it is that we are facing in this war. Seems like an easy task, pointing out the necessity of fighting Radical Islam. It's not like there's a dearth of fodder to feed to rhetoric.

Alas but instead we see GOP 2008 polls and at the top is Rudy Giuliani. I like him but hot damn can't we get a couple ravers out there to pound the message home?

Some Thoughts on Casualties

From Powerline:

"We are conducting an experiment never before seen, as far as I know, in the history of the human race. We are trying to fight a war under the auspices of an establishment that is determined--to put the most charitable face on it--to emphasize American casualties over all other information about the war.

Sometimes it becomes necessary to state the obvious: being a soldier is a dangerous thing.
...

Even in peacetime. The media's breathless tabulation of casualties in Iraq--now, over 1,800 deaths--is generally devoid of context. Here's some context: between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one.

That's right: all through the years when hardly anyone was paying attention, soldiers, sailors and Marines were dying in accidents, training and otherwise, at nearly twice the rate of combat deaths in Iraq from the start of the war in 2003 to the present. Somehow, though, when there was no political hay to be made, I don't recall any great outcry, or gleeful reporting, or erecting of crosses in the President's home town. In fact, I'll offer a free six-pack to the first person who can find evidence that any liberal expressed concern--any concern--about the 18,006 American service members who died accidentally in service of their country from 1983 to 1996."

Three HaHas

Start here and proceed to the links. Excerpting now:

Along with two other detainees, we made plans for a daring assault on the Olive Garden Bottomless Pasta special. It was a risky gambit. We disguised ourselves as visitors and maneuvered past two night counselors and out the front door.

Haw!

UPDATE: Make that four: lgf: Some Things Don't Change

Gold Star Mothers

Gold Star Moms........I know......You're waiting to read "For Peace", right? Nothing doing. These moms understand that peace is not the absence of war, but the presence of justice and that this country is worth dying for.

Monday Evening tears the Democrats a new one

Again. It's painful, but necessary.

The national party has become increasingly hostile to anyone who is not a defeatist and/or conspiracist. It is no longer a question of the discreditable slogan, 'America, right or wrong.' It's that the Democratic party has come to be dominated by people who believe, 'America, wrong no matter what.'

The last war these people won is Vietnam; Are they so eager to recapture their youth that they will support any anti-American insurgency?

Not even John F'n Kerry (who by the way served in Vietnam and won three purple hearts without shedding a drop of blood or spending one day in a hospital and whose wife paid less than one half of one one-hundredth of one percent of her net worth in income tax in 2003) could tell you what his party stands for anymore other than higher taxes and keeping abortion legal. They've become nothing more than the anti-Bush vote-fraud party.

Why War, and Why Eroded Support For War

I believe I have not seen it stated any better than this.

"Don't dishonor me, don't walk on my grave."

I have to say - the more I read about Cindy Sheehan, the more I loathe her for the despicable pig that she is. I know that's callous.

Just The News

Being a Man, or something like it.

Somebody sent Kim du Toit an article on how men can reclaim their manhood.

It's written by women and homosexual Public Relations desk jockeys.

Do I really need to say more?

Coming out of their holes

The Clintonistas are coming out of the woodwork to defend Jamie Gorelick, and Captain Ed keeps smacking 'em down. Just start at the top and keep scrolling.

The bottom line is this: The Clintons are to blame for so much that went wrong, it's beginning to get a little insane. Until you remember that their fuck-ups are responsible for the deaths of 3000 people on September 11th.

There's Nothing About Cindy...

...that's new. More of the same American Leftist blather:

"Well, you know what? I ache for her blindness and for the millions of sheeple who have had the wool pulled over their eyes by this bunch of hypocritical, bad shepherds who are running a disastrous herd over the world. I have distressing news for the Soccer Safety Moms and the NASCAR Dads who are such ardent supporters of this administration and war:

"Your grandchildren and children who will be entering Kindergarten this fall will be fighting George's endless war if he gets his way and is allowed to continue spreading the cancer of imperialism in the Middle-East."

There you have it.

Mom, Who Lost Son In Iraq, Talks About 'Disgusting' White House Private Meeting With Bush

"In Iraq, Grace takes amazing hold"

You just can't find stuff like this if you stick to the networks.

"Liberal Scum"

Lee:

I say this honestly, and without hyperbole: there is absolutely nothing about San Francisco that is worth saving. The entire city is a disgusting stain on this great nation. The people are revolting, their ideology is disgusting, and if a massive earthquake ever levels the city, we’ll be better off for it.

What have those Bay Area Leftists done to earn so much ire?

Read on!

Because she had breast cancer....

...and because her son died in an automobile accident, Elizabeth Edwards sez: "I feel a connection with Cindy Sheehan. The president is wrong."

Oy.

One thing I read (likely amongst the material Dave and DW have already presented): If only military families can legitimately comment about the war, shall we have a referendum on the war only among military families? If we did, the talk of a pullout would end post haste.

It is another of those two-faced stances that the American Left seems to love so much - when military personnel were polled about the 2004 Presidential election, those polled overwhelmingly supported President Bush. The Left responded: "Well, only a small sample were polled!"

But one woman from California now speaks for all military Mothers.

Those wacky Leftists.

Bingo

Mark Styne nails it.

They're not children in Iraq; they're grown-ups who made their own decision to join the military. That seems to be difficult for the left to grasp. Ever since America's all-adult, all-volunteer army went into Iraq, the anti-war crowd have made a sustained effort to characterize them as "children." If a 13-year-old wants to have an abortion, that's her decision and her parents shouldn't get a look-in. If a 21-year-old wants to drop to the broadloom in Bill Clinton's Oval Office, she's a grown woman and free to do what she wants. But, if a 22- or 25- or 37-year-old is serving his country overseas, he's a wee "child" who isn't really old enough to know what he's doing.

(.....)

The infantilization of the military promoted by the left is deeply insulting to America's warriors but it suits the anti-war crowd's purposes. It enables them to drone ceaselessly that "of course" they "support our troops," because they want to stop these poor confused moppets from being exploited by the Bush war machine.

Every time I hear some leftist mouth the words "I support the troops" I want to vomit. There are very few leftists in this country who support the troops, because damn near the whole Democrat Party base is anti-military. During the 70's, 80's and 90's the Left made it OK for their political supporters to sneer at the military and denigrate military service. Hell, it was part of what you had to do in order to fit in with the Left, just like you had to think that the USSR was really gonna win and Ronnie Raygun was gonna start world war four.

But once you start to incorporate hatred into your political philosophy, you can't dig it out without revamping your politics and admitting that you were wrong, two things that the current Left refuse to do. And so that hatred of the military seeths in the Left, only now it's not fashionable to hate the military any more. The Left can't call us babykillers and spit on returning soldiers anymore without serious repercussions. So they make their "We support the troops" statements while wildly trying to think of ways that they can undermine us without too much public fuss. And calling us a bunch of misled dolts is on of the ways that they try to undermine the military.

The Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web had this snippet from the Seattle Times (not surprised here, nope).

America's purpose in Iraq is over. The soldiers should be brought home. It can be done, as has been proven in Vietnam, Somalia and other places.

STOP! FULLSTOP! SLAMTHEFUCKINGCARINTOREVERSEANDJUMPONTHEFUCKINGBRAKESSTOP! VIET FUCKING NAM?!?!?!?! DID THIS NEWSPAPER JUST TELL US TO PULL OUT LIKE WE DID IN VIET FUCKING NAM AND SOMALIA????

Yes dear readers, they did. To the Left, it would be a wet dream. America's military, running away and hiding, giving up, throwing in the towel. THAT is what the Left wants for our troops, and yet they claim to support them?

The whole leftist dominated MSM has been trumpeting defeat, bloodshed, loss and hopelessness for two years in Iraq. Most soldiers don't bother reading the newspapers or watching nightly news, because they know what they see in those outlets is unmitigated bullshit. Everywhere a military member looks, they can see exactly what the Left thinks about them, and what the Left wants. Miserable failure, death and dishonor. The Left wants the military to cave in and give up. The Left desparately wants the military to be the infantilized morons that they call us oh so often.

But we aren't, and we never will be, and it's driving the Left further insane. Witness Cindy Sheehan. Cindy is so far mentally gone that she can't understand the fact that her son was an adult who signed up for the military, re-enlisted in the military three years later, and volunteered for the mission that ultimately killed him. To Cindy, he was just a lost little boy, a mislead half-wit. To the Democrats, the military mindset is as alien as the free-market system. And I can't think of any better example of how the Left not only can't figure the military out, but the reason why they will not support us.

My first and last word on Cindy and Casey

If I could choose one Cindy Sheehan article that sums up my view, this would be it. The way the MSM has used Cindy to bash Bush is despicable though predictable. Mostly, it's the things they left out, like asking "Why won't Bush meet with Cindy Sheehan?" without noting that he already did, or filtering out the psycho things that Cindy has been saying, quite publicly, and not mentioning the letter that her family wrote to Cindy asking her to stop what she is doing and come home. And I find it interesting that the MSM has not found any other military family member newsworthy.

Cindy has said a lot of crazy things, but one statement in particular that seemed to resonate with the left bothers me: Cindy said, on camera, that "this country is not worth dying for." I am deeply offended by that statement. I think her son Casey would have been offended by that statement as well. Casey was not a child when he signed up nor was he a child when he reenlisted. (I guess if you think the government is supposed to take care of everyone then it must follow that its citizens are reduced to the status of children - but I digress.) He was fully aware, just like all soldiers know when they enlist, that it was possible that he would be in dangerous situations where he could die. People join the armed forces partly because they love their country and are willing to put their lives on the line for it. That is part of what makes you human - being willing to risk your life for the people you love. And it is the people of this country, the families, that are the country. FDR didn't win World War II, millions of Americans did. For anyone, including his own mother, to imply that Casey Sheehan died for no reason or worse, for a lie, is repulsive. Casey died in the most honorable way possible - defending that which he loved.

More About Cindy...

...at Right Wing News.

More About Kelo

You won't believe it. Really.

Adding Insult to Injury

More reasons never to trust the Democrats

They picked Howard Dean to lead them. And in case you hadn't heard, Screamin' Howie thinks that Iraqis are worse off now than when Saddam Hussien was in charge.

Right, because you know that rebuilt infrastructure, new schools, new hospitals, freedom of information, a growing economy, and not getting dropped into plastic shredders is so much worse than, well, a crumbling, inoperative infrastructure, no schools, ramshackle hospitals with no staff, a state controlled media, an economy going nowhere, and a despot who murdered, tortured, and raped people on a whim.

Right?

Fire the bums!

Fire every damn politican in Washington D.C. Hell, fire 'em out of a cannon into the Atlantic Ocean, that'd be find by me.

It's been often said that there are two kinds of people in America today: September 12th people, who realize that we've been thrust into war, and September 10th people, who go along mindlessly and try to pretend like nothing happened.

Washington D.C. is full of September 10th people, including most of the Congresscritters and asshats, such as the 9-11 commission.

Why do I say this? Because I've been reading around the Blogosphere, including Captain's Quarters, and what I'm reading makes me want to launch every gutless politician out of the guns of a battleship.

The first problem the 9-11 Commission had was two of the panel members: Richard "The Dick" Ben Veniste, and Jamie "Wall, what wall?" Gorelick. Ben Veniste was doing his best to damage President Bush by any means possible, including ignoring evidence that might make his bestest buddy Bill Clintoon look bad. Jamie Gorelick, just to hammer the point home one more time, was the architect of a piece of legislation that blocked the FBI and the CIA from speaking to each other or giving each other intelligence information, thus creating an intel void the likes of which had never been seen before.

The result? We have a 9-11 commission more interested in playing politics than making sure this country is safe. Let's start with the fact that the Commission stated that they never recieved any information about Mohammad Atta. Well, it's been proven that this Commission isn't worth a hill of beans, because plenty of people have come forward to say that the Commission is full of shit. The Commission was briefed completely on an Army project named "Able Danger", which had ID'd Mohammad Atta as an Al-Queda operative. The Commission is now engaged in a "Well, mebbe we did, mebbe we didn't" tapdance that only proves that they're nothing but a bunch of double-talking, shit spined politicians who need to be hung from the nearest lamppost. From the CQ post linked to above:

After Douglas Jehl first broke the story in the mainstream media, the Commission first denied ever hearing about anything that identified Atta as an al-Qaeda operative and the existence of Able Danger. They then acknoweledged hearing about Able Danger but nothing about any identification of Atta, with specific denials coming from co-chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean. Within hours, that changed to recognition of the Atta identification coming up in a July 2004 briefing that occurred as the report was being finalized, giving them little opportunity to check out the data. Finally, the Commission generated a breathtakingly detailed rebuttal for a subject on which they had attempted to deny any foreknowledge only days earlier.

Now, one of the main people who briefed the Commission on Able Danger and Atta is coming forward to tell his side of the story, and it doesn't look good at all.

Not only did Shaffer get stiffed on informing the FBI, it appears that the 9/11 Commission had less than a fully enthusiastic response to his information. He insists that he told Commission staffers about the identification of Atta when he briefed them in October 2003, despite the counterclaims of the Commission staff. In fact, Shaffer says he risked his current security clearance to go public after Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean released their last statement on Friday in order to counter the frustration their latest story change caused him.

At least we know that Rep. Curt Weldon didn't make up the whole story. The DoD has not responded to Shaffer's revelations, preferring to wait until it performs an internal investigation into Able Danger. The Times also reports that Shaffer is not the same officer who attempted to brief the Commission in July 2004, which establishes two separate sources for the Atta identification prior to 9/11.

And if that wasn't enough to raise your blood pressure, reports are coming out now that the State Department warned President Clinton to put a stop to Bin Laden back in 1996!

State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East," but the government chose not to deter the move, newly declassified documents show.

In what would prove a prescient warning, the State Department intelligence analysts said in a top-secret assessment on Mr. bin Laden that summer that "his prolonged stay in Afghanistan - where hundreds of 'Arab mujahedeen' receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders often congregate - could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum," in Sudan.

That's right, this country had warning about Bin Laden back in 1996, but I guess Bill "I'll fuck anything that walks!" Clinton was more interested in getting a fucking blowjob from a fat slut of an intern than doing anything that might be considered part of his fucking job! Clinton was told that Bin Laden was responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed OUR DAMN MILITARY MEN AND WOMEN, but selling weapons plans to the fucking Chinese was more important than dealing with a camel-fucking terrorist who was kill members of our military. I guess covering up the piles of shit he left behind was more important than protecting this country. I guess making a feel-good agreement with a COMMUNIST FUCKING DICTATOR that allowed North Korea to build a nuclear weapon was more important than stopping a major international terrorist.

Bill Clinton was the most fucking worthless piece of shit to ever sit in the Oval Office, and I thanked god for the day he left. He shouldn't be allowed to roam this country of his own free will, he should be rotting in a jail for the rest of his life for DERELICTION OF DUTY! He failed to do a SINGLE DAMN THING to make this country safer, and under his presidency, international terrorism flourished. Many of the problems we face today can be laid squarely at the feet of a fucking adulterous, coke-snorting buffoon from Arkansas.

Oh, and by the way, the very fact that Clintoon was briefed about Ben Laden in 1996 appears nowhere in the Commission's report. Isn't that nice? I guess that would be the reason why the Democrats wanted a hack and a whore to sit on the Commission for them.

You think you've had enough? Fuck you, take some medication because this is just some iceing on the cake: The FBI tried to warn someone about the dangers caused by Gorelick's wall, and they were pretty much told to shut up.

PRESIDENT Bill Clinton's team ignored dire warnings that its approach to terrorism was "very dangerous" and could have "deadly results," according to a blistering memo just obtained by The Post. ...

"This is not an area where it is safe or prudent to build unnecessary walls or to compartmentalize our knowledge of any possible players, plans or activities," wrote White, herself a Clinton appointee.

"The single biggest mistake we can make in attempting to combat terrorism is to insulate the criminal side of the house from the intelligence side of the house, unless such insulation is absolutely necessary. Excessive conservatism . . . can have deadly results."

She added: "We must face the reality that the way we are proceeding now is inherently and in actuality very dangerous."

Read the whole thing. Remember when Hillary "The Ice Bitch" Clintoon was waving the papers around and shrieking "What did he know and when did he know it?" From what we gathered, the FBI and the CIA knew quite a bit, but they weren't able to share it thanks to the Clintoon administration, Clintoon's AG Janet Reno, and Jamie Gorelick.

Janet Reno was just another example of how the Clintoons failed this country. Ruby Ridge, Waco, Elian Gonzales, the list keeps getting longer. Maybe if Bill Clinton had tried to do his job instead of stick his cigar into the cooch of an intern, he would have had the time to do something to prevent September 11th.

Just go over to Captain's Quarters and start scrolling. The Commission seems more interested in playing politics than doing it's job, and the Clintoon whores are doing their best to whitewash the fact that the Clintoon administration failed to combat terrorism so miserably that international terrorism exploded in growth during Clintoon's two terms.

Clintoon, Gorelick, Ben Veniste, and every political hack who helped cause this clusterfuck needs to be tossed in jail. Every last one of them. And I love Captain Ed's name for the Commission. The "Omission Commission".

It's still September 10th to the Commission, and to every gutless politician who lets them slide. It's still all politics and grandstanding and brown nosing and covering their ass while this country continues to fight a war for it's life. It's backstabbing and assgrabbing and hiding from the truth or anything that might look like it. It's politics at it's slimy, putrid worst at a time when we need honesty and straight talk from Washington D.C.

So screw them all. Fire them all. Get rid of them all by any means possible, and let them all rot in hell. I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. I wouldn't use the Capitol Building as a toilet right now, because my shit deserves better than to reside in so vile a sewer. I wouldn't feed them to my dog, for fear that my dog might get sick, and this is a dog that eats rotten toads off of the road on our morning runs mind you. I wouldn't bury these politicians in a landfill, because the sheer amount of pollution that would come off of their worthless bodies would create a cesspool that would take years to clean up. If I had the power, I would drop every politician in D. C. into the Marianas Trench and order new elections in every state, because the only thing that could help this country out is to get rid of the corrupt, worthless, yellow bellied bootlicking parasites that currently infest the capitol.

FIRE THEM ALL!

What Liberal Media?

Oy.

An anonymous tip that nearly landed Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in jail probably was not valuable enough to justify a promise of confidentiality, his editor said Tuesday.

Norman Pearlstine, editor in chief of Time Inc., lamented that reporters covering Washington have become too quick to offer total anonymity in exchange for information.

"A 90-second conversation with the president's spin doctor, who was trying to undermine a whistle-blower, probably didn't deserve confidential source status," Pearlstine said during a panel discussion sponsored by Court TV.

Time Editor: Info Not Worth Secret Source

Right Wing News made a list

...of why he's disgusted with Cindy Sheehan. It's worth reading, and the comments are word checking out as well, because you'll see the barking moonbats come out in force.

As for me, the more I read about Sheehan's lunatic remarks in regards to Israel, Bush and Co., ect., ect., ect., the more I feel that not only is she fucking insane, but she's allowing herself and her dead son to be used by some of the farthest-left fringe groups this country has to offer.

Now, I don't have the time or the patience to dig through all the Left's statements, so I'll just say this: When I get sent to Iraq, there's a damn good chance I'm going to get shot at. There's a chance that I could die. I knew this when I re-enlisted in 2004. Anyone who re-enlisted after we took out the Taliban knew for a fact that the US armed forces were being sent into combat. This wasn't a secret.

Sheehan's son had already served one stint, and he re-enlisted. He knew what was going on. He wasn't duped, or fooled, or lied to. And he volunteered to go on a dangerous rescue mission, where he was unfortunately shot and killed. But all of this he did of his own violition, as do all the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who enlist and re-enlist right now.

And if I happen to die when I'm deployed, and some Leftist scumbag uses my good name and my deeds to advance the cause of the most Anti-American, worthless, propagandizing, hate filled groups in America, as Mother Sheehan is doing, I might just come out of my freaking grave in rage.

The bottom line is that Sheehan and her fringe groups are using her son's death to push their agenda. After all, who would care about her if her son hadn't died? As a soldier, I'm fucking disgusted with her, and all the parasitic worms who have attached themselves to her. They have betrayed every ideal that he held dear, and twisted them to their own leftist goals.

And I'm talking FAR LEFT agenda here, folks. RWN also has a list of quotes from Cindy Sheehan and her pals. It's enough to make you vomit.

Sheehan doesn't want to meet with the President, she wants the media circus, she wants the spotlight, she wants the adoration of leftist throngs who are more interested in hurting this country than doing anything constructive. And it's repulsive.

Sheehan has a right to grieve. She has a right to speak her mind, and she has the right to say whatever she wants. But when she used her dead son's body to score cheap political points with Leftist asshats, she lost any pity or sympathy from me. She's a repulsive, manipulative bag of slime, and she fits in with the rest of the Left just perfectly.

And that's the last thing I'm going to say on the entire subject.

Does President Bush care?

Click and read.

Quite a contrast to the slanted assertions of Cindy Sheehan and her cadre of Leftist support groups.

The Grieving Mother....

...takes a step forward: Cindy Sheehan vows not to pay her taxes.

"The Enemies We Make"

Thought-provoking stuff from Done With Mirrors:

Atop a grieving Statue of Liberty, the demonic-looking U.S. president waves a banner reading "democracy," but in his other fist he clutches the club of "dictatorship." Around him, on the statue's crown points, a young woman hangs in fetters, "anti-war" soldiers carouse, U.S. workers protest, and a clown in a dunce cap emblazoned with the Star of David inflates a stars-and-stripes balloon.

The latest from Ted Rall, Ward Churchill, Steve Bell, or Michael Moore? Something from "Le Monde" or "Der Spiegel?"

No, the president caricatured is Roosevelt, and the image is by the great Japanese illustrator Ono Saseo, and it graced the pages of the January 1942 issue of the Japanese magazine "Manga."

Remember when it was our enemies, and not our friends and ourselves, who bent their natural talents to creating fanatical anti-American propaganda art?

I'll hereby take issue with the notion that Ted Rall is anyone's friend, but I take the point.

Done With Mirrors: The Enemies We Make

Click it

Spread the love:

www.stopcindysheehan.org is here due to the recent press that has been given to the anti-war efforts of Cindy Sheehan as well as her supporters. We have developed www.stopcindysheehan.org in order to see how many people are behind this great Country's Soldiers as well as it's Commander and Chief, President George W. Bush.

By using statistical data from this site including the visitor counter above, we
will keep this page updated with the amount of traffic www.stopcindysheehan.org receives. This should serve as a good platform for showing support for our Nation. I don't know about you, but nobody is knocking down my door to ask me what I think!

I personally think Sheehan is doing a great job of alienating anyone with a pulse, but I don't think it will hurt anything to show a little solidarity with this outfit by giving them some traffic.

How very EEEEEEEEEEEnteresting!

WMD found in Iraq.

I'll let Captain Ed explain all the details and repercussions. As he says, these chemicals came into the country AFTER the fall of Saddam. However, that still doesn't answer the questions of:

Where were they made?
Where did they come from?
Who was in possession of them up to this point?

Expect liberals to scream, shriek, gibber and howl as usual. Nothing new there. Feces flinging monkeys like the Democrat Party can only process one thought at a time, and they're still stuck on Bush's election in 2000.

"Confusing But Not False"

Not as cute as "fake but accurate" of course but shows promise, don't you think? NARAL pulled its anti-Roberts ad because it was a lie, and their star, bombing victim Emily Lyons, has coined a new phrase to describe and defend NARAL's blatant dishonesty:

Lyons admitted to the Associated Press Friday that the ad, which NARAL pulled, is "confusing, but not false."

...Lyons appears in the ad and tells viewers about the bombing that injured her, even though it occurred seven years after the brief Roberts filed. The ad never mentions the reasons for Roberts' brief...

All Roberts' brief said was, "You're applying the wrong law!" That's it. He wasn't condoning violence in any way and he couldn't have defended Lyon's abortion clinic bomber unless he had a time machine. Hmmm.... "Confusing but not false" ... kinda has a nice ring to it. Sort of academic sounding, and we haven't had a humorous cliche in a while. It has the same connotation as "fake but accurate" - i.e., "we lied our asses off but what we said was true" - but more nuance. What a charming little alternative universe these people live in. I guess it all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

What's the phrase?

A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.

Well, here's a liberal who was mugged by reality, although I don't know if it'll make him think any harder.

A Canadian naivo, someone who probably fancied himself a little too smart to be taken in by a thief, kind of ignored his tingling antennae in the case of castro. So, he obtained a house in Cuba and all the permits to repair it, probably happily thinking to himself that while those gringos have their trade embargo, he had no such problem. Silly gringos, didn't they understand that Cuba is a normal place, just like Canada? A place where you get permits and those permits mean what they say? Maybe it was better that they didn't. With the absence of a gringo buying market to drive up real estate prices, he had it made. What never occurred to him is that the embargo was enacted to protect Americans, not to punish castro. The naive Canadian had no idea he had no such protections.

So, he got TOOK for $100,000 in repairs he made to the house he "bought" in Cuba. It was something he intended to live in, and he vaguely says it was all legal, but the fact remains it was possibly obtained at the expense of some Cuban family castro confiscated it from earlier. If it wasn't, trust me, there were houses in that area that were. And in his naivete, the Canadian somehow thought it couldn't happen to him.

castro took one look at the Canadian's sumptious restoration and lovingly done repairs, and promptly ... confiscated it .... without compensation and without explanation. He handed it to some crony Cuban colonel.

Who's now turning his unearned spoil of socialist redistribution back into a hovel.

What kind of liberal asshat do you have to be to buy property in Cuba right now? Just how indoctrinated and mindless do you have to be in order to think you have any rights in Cuba right now? Just how fucking dumb do you have to be in order to think you can just go about life in Cuba as you would at home? These people have learned NOTHING! FUCKING NOTHING! Every communist cockgoblin who worships Castro (which includes a majority of the Democrat Party) has learned NOTHING IN THE PAST FIFTY YEARS!

I can't shed a single tear for this guy.

Found via RNS.

Hang the Traitors

Wasn’t it Kissinger who recused himself from the 9/11 Commission early on due to supposition that he had a conflict of interest because he was a prior secretary of state – thirty years ago? But Jamie GoreLick was ok though she was the #2 person in Clinton’s Department of Justice rather than Nixon’s National Security Advisor or Ford’s Secretary of State. Makes sense to me. Not! To any rational mind, Jamie GoreLick had a much, much bigger conflict of interest than did Henry Kissinger. Seems to me, Jamie GoreLick was put on the 9/11 Commission for a very specific reason – to deflect blame from the Clinton administration. Well, mission accomplished Jamie! Well done! Except for one thing – despite your rush to publish your best-selling novel and cement the history books in a tightly wrapped package, it ain’t over.

Apparently the 9/11 Commission decided early on to blame our failure as a nation to stop 9/11 from happening on the intelligence community rather than the Clinton administration which stripped both the intelligence community and law enforcement community of their ability to act. Why you ask? Just look to see who stood to lose if the Department of Justice and the “Wall” that separated international from domestic intelligence was implicated. Jamie S. GoreLick, creator of the “Wall,” 9/11 Commissioner, and #2 person in Clinton’s Department of Justice.

GoreLick never had to take the witness stand and explain why her "Wall" was enacted in the first place. That is the most relevant question the 9/11 Commission could have asked, and it is the one that it could not ask thanks to the fact that the one person who had had more to do with enacting the wall than anyone else was on the Commission itself.

The worst part about all of this is that the 9/11 Commission staff is going into the National Archive, tomorrow(!), to cover their tracks and make sure there is no remaining evidence that could implicate the Commission itself, and they are doing it right under our noses and going “Nyah! Nyah!” as they’re doing it. What’s their official reason for camping out at the National Archives tomorrow? Are they planning on revising their report? The 9/11 Commission is investigating itself now? Investigating their own cover-up? Isn’t that like sending an accused murderer to investigate the crime scene? No way! They just graduated from investigators to suspects. Their credibility is shot! We’ve got the motive (to save their careers, and a sweet book deal), the murder weapon (socks, a la Sandy Bergler), the body (the truth, as mangled as it may be), and they’ve been caught red-handed (by Congressman Curt Weldon). The 9/11 Commission must be really desperate at this point. Wouldn’t you be? If they’re going to raid the National Archives, again, then there’d better be cavity searches before they’re allowed to leave. I’m not joking! If it’s good enough for Martha Stewart, it’s good enough for the 9/11 Commission. They already had their chance when Sandy Bergler raided our tippity-top-secret archives in October 2003, just after the 9/11 Commission was alerted to Able Danger the first time – you know, that time they conveniently forgot about when writing up their report/novel but just now suddenly remembered when someone publicly rubbed their nose in it. The second time they were alerted to Able Danger, which they also said they forgot about, was ten days before their report was released (July 2004), too late to do anything about (yeah right) though it blows a hole in their report so big you could fly a Boeing 747 through it.

UPDATE (Tim): DANEgerus pulls a lot of stuff together here.

UPDATE 2: Poof! Down the memory hole it goes, and with the collaboration of the NY Times to boot. They've already hit the National Archives. According to Dr. Sanity's website:

Staff members now are searching documents in the National Archives to look for notes from the meeting in Afghanistan and any other possible references to Atta and Able Danger, [9/11 Commission spokesman] Felzenberg said.

That is a direct quote from a NY Times article that no longer exists, because the article has disappeared - what is left in its place is this article which has the same URL but a different title than the earlier one and makes no reference to the National Archives. The new article says:

''He could not describe what information had led to this supposed Atta identification,'' the [9/11 Commission's] statement said of the military [intelligence] official.
...
The relevant data discussed by the officer showed Atta to be a member of an al-Qaida cell in New York City from February to April 2000, the [9/11 Commission's] statement said.

Like I said before, the 9/11 Commission's credibility is shot. I hate to be the first to say it, but we're gonna have to start all over again with a new 9/11 Commission. Most of the data is already there except for the stuff they and Sandy Bergler destroyed - much of it needs to be looked at again and reevaluated, starting with the Prague Connection. You see, the reason that the 9/11 Commission discounted the Able Danger report on Mohammed Atta being in the U.S. prior to June, 2000 was because they needed to discount the Prague connection for political reasons.

"There was no way that Atta could have been in the United States at that time, which is why the staff didn't give this tremendous weight when they were writing the report," Mr. Felzenberg said. "This information was not meshing with the other information that we had."

This is what happens when you have politicians acting as investigators. So if one data point doesn't jive with the data coming from the immigration office, you just toss it? If Atta was not in the country then how could Able Danger, in 2000 more than a year prior to 9/11, identify him as an al Qaeda terrorist in the "Brooklyn cell" and ask to share information with the FBI?

Quote of the Day

Maybe even Quote of the Decade.

From TerrellOwens.com:

"Terrell only asks what every other worker in America asks for, respect and dignity."

Terrific!

Terrell Owens News

But there's more!

Over at The Huffington Post, the columnists are positively tripping all over each other to see who can fawn over Cindy Sheehan with the most zeal.

Here's my favorite excerpt:

There are simple actions that can change the world. In Tiananmen square on June 4, 1989, as the tanks rolled in the quell the protests that had united students and workers, everyone scattered. Except one man who came out of the crowd and stood, calmly in front of the tanks. On CNN you couldn’t tell if he was purposeful , or dazed, but he did not move. The tanks did not roll over him. That moment was the signal for all the changes that followed.

Classic, classic stuff.

And in case you weren't upset enough

....then check this out.

The largest terrorist WMD trial in history is opening in Jordan. 13 Al-Qaida and Al-Zarqawi loyalists are being tried for an attempted and nearly succcessful catastrophic chemical weapons attack on Jordan.

But gosh, where would Al-Qaida and Al-Zarqawi get chemical weapons from?

Ten of the captured Al-Qaida terrorists on trial in Jordan for attempting to explode roughly 20 tons of chemical weapons with explosives. Authorities captured the weapons coming into Jordan through Syria.

Now, I know that most liberals are about as dumb as a wet bag of hammers, but I'll allow you to cheat on this answer and use a map.

Guess what country borders Syria? Guess what country had convoys of trucks moving towards the Syrian border right before we went in and took down it's genocidal maniac of a leader? Guess what country had the same political party as Syria right before we smacked it down?

Go ahead, look at that map. I know you need to.

Ready to be pissed off?

I hope so. That's a nice neat little summary of why Hillary Clinton, or anyone associated with the Clintons, should never get her greedy claws on governmental power ever again.

It's rare that such a small group of people can cause so much damage, but when that small group of people have no morals, no standards, no dignity, and no integrity, nothing is too low for them to do.

Remove anything throwable from your desk before clicking on the FrontPage Magazine link. The inmates were running the asylum during the Clinton years, and the inmates were corrupt, rotten, filthy, slimy, diseased little maggots who would whore out their own grandmother to make a dollar.

Tonight's Sky for 7/31/05

Perseids

Able Danger

What was in Sandy Berger's Pants? Inquiring minds want to know.

It is an undisputed fact that former President Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger removed documents with the highest possible security classification from the National Archives, hid those documents in his clothing, took them home with him, and destroyed some of those documents. It will never be known exactly what information was destroyed, but we can be sure it was something that Sandy Berger did not want the 9/11 Commission to include in its report. What do you suppose was in those papers that could have been worth risking a jail sentence and sacrificing his career? Who was Berger protecting? Bill Clinton? Richard Clarke? As Dr. Sanity notes, it sure would be interesting to know what Berger knew about Able Danger and if he wrote a memo, or signed off on one, that specifically related to Able Danger, and whether he and Clark wrote notes that ultimately prevented the distribution of information that would have led to the arrest of the 9/11 hijackers in 2000. Hmmmm.... turns out we could've arrested Mohammed Atta and three of the other 9/11 hijakers back in 2000 and possibly stopped 9/11 from happening. Well that kinda changes everything, don't it? I wonder what was scribbled in the margins that had to be burned - something like, "What? Me worry?"

Adding insult to injury, it turns out that the "bi-partisan" 9/11 Commission was briefed by military intelligence about the Able Danger project, twice, but chose to ignore it - like Able Danger didn't exist. It certainly disn't exist in their report. As Ed Morrissey notes:

After over 24 hours of denying that anyone had told the Commission about the secret project, their spokesman now says that commission officials met with a uniformed officer who told them about the identification of Mohammed Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers in 2000, over a year prior to the attacks.
...
What does that mean for the Commission's findings? It meant that the cornerstone of their conclusions no longer fit the facts. Able Danger showed that the US had enough intelligence to take action -- if the government had allowed law enforcement and intelligence operations to cooperate with each other.

...[Wall? What wall?]...

So what did the Commission do? It ignored those facts which did not fit within its predetermined conclusions.

The 9/11 Commission has some 'splainin' to do. And why the hell isn't Sandy Berger in jail yet?

More Dangerous Without MAD

Via, Michael Totten at InstaPundit, this from Donklephant:

The rules of M.A.D. — all or nothing — gave us a false sense of safety during the Cold War. In an all-or-nothing world mired in a vast global political struggle, each side could attain relative normalcy. Normal life was disproportionate to the high stakes of the nuclear standoff — and we got used to it. All those layers of morality we built over that blinding apocalyptic core of immaculate annihilation could work a lot of miracles, providing that the promise of destruction was mutual, and total.
.
.
.
Weapons of mass destruction in the 9/11 era no longer represent the end of everything. The threshold to this brave new terror-nuke world is far lower than the threshold to M.A.D. Parity is no longer apparent. That makes catastrophe with a small ‘c’ far more likely to happen.

There's more to it than that, of course, but part of the point is that we at least seemed safer during the days of Mutually Assured Destruction, and in many ways we were safer.

An interesting argument, to be sure, and a complex one. I post it here because it makes me wonder:

Isn't this what Tom Tancredo was talking about when he said the "extremist" things he said?

Hollywood at War

The War is about to get very, very ugly right here at home according to Hollywood filmmaker Jason Apuzzo:

”…with box-office numbers trending down, studio executives are suddenly greenlighting movies they can describe to shareholders as 'controversial' or 'timely.' Whether the films are anti-American or otherwise demoralizing to the war effort is apparently immaterial. Its appetite whetted by "Fahrenheit 9/11"'s $222 million worldwide gross, Hollywood thinks it's found a formula for both financial security and critical plaudits: noxious anti-American storylines, bathed in the warm glow of star power.”

Nevermind that “The Passion of the Christ” made twice as much as "Fahrenheit 9/11." There is no way that money is the motivating factor here.

Apuzzo goes on to describe ten revolting movie plots already in production. Here’s a sample:

"No True Glory: The Battle for Fallujah." Universal has attached Harrison Ford to star as real-life General Jim Mattis - in this story blaming the White House for the deaths of fifty Marines in one of the Iraq war's deadliest battles. Based on the book of the same name by Bing West.

Hollywood has shifted strategies, says Apuzzo. Instead of Michael Moore, this time around it’ll be George Clooney, Jamie Foxx, Hugh Grant, Harrison Ford, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Kirsten Dunst, and they’ll all be entertaining as hell. Their attacks will be subtle, but the subtext and purpose should be obvious to anyone paying attention – they do not want America to win. In the WOT, Hollywood is on the wrong side. We need to fight back by working together to produce movies like “The Passion,” “The Incredibles,” and “Serenity,” or just something that portrays our military as it is. Or, I suppose we could start prosecuting people for treason. Would Congress have to declare war first? What would it take to make that happen?

Excuse me while I go short-sell some stock.

Michael Schiavo Named Guardian Of The Year

I've become numb. The irony and almost limitless depravity is making me sick. Go ahead. Read the article. The money quote:

Most guardianship association members are appointed by judges ...

"We see a lot of situations where family steps away," said association President-elect Michelle Kenney. "He stuck by. He didn't walk away."

Got that? He didn't walk away! Didn't move in and have an adulterous relationship (and two kids) with another woman or anything like that. No! Presumably, Michelle Kenney said this with a straight face! Michael Schiavo "stuck by" his wife, Terri. He "didn't walk away" like other families do. Like Terri's real family did? The ones who wanted to take care of her? The ones who didn't want to kill her by starvation? By slow torture? Her family who BEGGED Michael and his accomplice, Judge Greer, to let them care for Terri?

Sick, sick, twisted, subhuman scum. I am so glad I don't live in Florida. Excuse me while I puke.

Hooooooooo-boy!

Go read Dok Russia's piece and then come back and tell me if you have any way of rebutting it.

Because I don't.

Two years ago, I would have told him that there are moderate muslims who just want to live their lives much like we do. But in that time, I have also been waiting to see the muslim faith cleanse itself out. And that hasn't happened.

Even the Catholic faith, while not exactly a poster-boy for cleaning one's own house, has been kicking priests out for their crimes. And it's happening because John and Jane Doe are not willing to go to church while they know that a kiddy-diddler is saying mass. And they're telling the church exactly that. "Kick the bums out!" I see no such reformation in the muslim communities. And with every terrorist attack, every bombing of innocent people, every iman shrieking hatred and murder in a mosque that the muslim community accepted, I stepped closer to the line that Dok Russia just walked over without glancing back. And I'm close enough to that line right now that I have no problem with looking at Dok Russia's position and saying "Fine, let's work out the logistics."

Any thoughts?

The War on Drugs

There has been a lot of talk lately about the War on Drugs. Most of the people I read are against it, for one reason or another. Libertarians oppose it because it restricts people's freedoms (I know that's rather broad, but I don't want to get into every little detail of the argument) and liberals that I've been around hate it because, well, they want to do the drugs. Maybe it was just the Seattle people who's attitude I've seen, I dunno. But Ann Althouse, guest-blogging at Instapundit, links to an NYT article and states "...if you really believe in individual moral responsibility, you should let people make their own decisions about drugs."

As a basic premise, that statement is true. Giving people the go-ahead to do whatever they want to their own body really is about individual moral responsibility. However, having dealt with drug addicts both on the Law Enforcement side of things as well as the medical angle, I can say that allowing people to do whatever drugs they want infringes on everyone else's freedoms and rights, as well as adding to the decline of public safety and the rise of crime rates in whatever area the addicts are in.

One phrase that I have heard time and time again when it comes to being in a leadership position is that 10% of the people under you take up 90% of your time and resources. It's the 10-10-80 rule. In any average unit, be it in the military or the corporate world, 80% of your people do their job, meet the standard, don't cause any trouble, and make sure things run smoothly. 10% of your people exceed the standard, busting their butts and leading the way for everyone else. And the last 10% are the ones who are the trouble makers. They are the time consuming people who make leaders gnash their teeth and pull out their hair.

The same holds true for populations at large for the most part. People who work in law enforcement, the medical field, emergency response, ect spend the greater part of their time and resources dealing with a very small percentage of the population. And when it comes to law enforcement and medical, that small percentage of the population are mostly the criminals and drug addicts.

Ten drug addicts in Seattle cost the Harborview Hospital over one million dollars in 2003. That's money that isn't paid back to the hospital. Over one million dollars in treatment to people who choose to put various drugs into their body. And that's only for the ten addicts who stumble into the hospital more than any others. That doesn't count the others who come in to the hospital two or three times a year, using up hundreds of thousands of dollars each in treatment. Hundreds of thousands of dollars that the hospital doesn't get back.

In the hospital I worked at, we had one heroin addict that used up three hundred thousand dollars in one treatment. We've had others who, due to their use of drugs, had a hospital stay of four months and well over half a million dollars in treatment, all of it unreimbursed. Where else could that money go to? Millions of dollars are used up by drug addicts who are in the hospital because they made the choice to do drugs. How many people who needed medical treatment to due accidents could those millions of dollars treat? The Left howls about people in this country being uninsured, but I'm telling you now that there is enough money to treat common medical problems for most the uninsured people that are out there. However, it's being used up by the afore mentioned 10%.

Why not let people make their own decision about drugs? Because that small percentage again effects more than just themselves. Crime rates go up anywhere there is a large addict population, be it vandalism, burglery and theft, or assault. If people just got high and stayed at home, it wouldn't be an issue, but only the most naive or willfully ignorant people think that addicts do that. Many addicts steal to get the money for their next high. Some assault people to get cash, or because their drug-hazed brain can't determine whether that person walking by is just going home or coming to beat them up.

The Ave in the U District in Seattle is the perfect example of what happens to an area that allows people to "make their own moral decisions regarding drugs". Once a thriving business district as well as a cultural center of the university, the Ave is now a strip of concrete increasingly devoid of businesses, sporting a high crime rate, sidewalks filled with addicts and their refuse, and a source of much of the crime in the areas that surround it. Businesses lose customers when those customers have to step over an addict covered in his own feces in order to get to your door. People don't want to walk down the street and be hassled for handouts by aggressive panhandlers who haven't showered in two months, or deal with the stench of urine and feces that the addicts have left on the sidewalks. And it's hard to have a cultural event such as an art show when the people who want to see your art are getting stabbed, robbed, and driven off by the addicts who only care about getting high again.

If the people who took drugs only affected themselves, I would have no problem with letting people take whatever the hell they want in order to get high. But an addicts drug use has an effect on a much larger percentage of the population.

The NYT article talks about meth labs, and states "Shutting down every meth lab in America wouldn't eliminate meth because most of it is imported, but the police and prosecutors have escalated their efforts anyway and inflicted more collateral damage."

First of all, I have seen no evidence to state the premise that most meth is imported. If any reader cares to update me, drop me a line. Secondly, the simple fact is that meth labs are toxic in nature, to the point that some discovered labs that have been operating for months have to be declared a Superfund Site due to the toxiscty of the area. The fires caused by meth labs put police, firefighters, and rescue personel in more danger than if they were going to gas station fire. Iodine, ammonia, sulfer, psudoefedrine and all the other chemicals used can kill someone who accidentally inhales the smoke from a meth lab fire, or disable them to the point that they can never go back to their job again. Ever.

People on both the Left and the Right continually miss the point that the small percentage of the population who are addicts affect not only themselves, but a much larger percentage of the population around them. Until that problem can be dealt with, there must be a large effort to curb drug use in some form or another. The current War on Drugs can be scrapped, but only if we continue to fight drug use in other fashions.

In my opinion, the War on Drugs has been a collossal failure, but not because of the notion that we should allow people to do whatever drugs they want. It's a failure because it attempts to deal with the symptoms of drug use without ever deterring the drug use itself. If I were put in charge of the War on Drugs, I would make a very simple announcement:

Should someone need social or medical services due to their drug use, that person will be denied those services.

If you have an MRSA infection due to sticking yourself with a dirty needle when you did heroin, you don't get taxpayer funded medical treatment. If that means you die, so be it. You did it to yourself. It was your choice. Your "moral judgement about drugs". If you get into an accident because you were drunk, we leave you in your car and tell you to have a nice night. What happens to you is no concern of ours, as you made the choice to drive drunk, not us. Your meth lab caught on fire? We'll stop the fire from spreading to the area around it, but we won't lift a finger to save your place. And if you're burned from the fire, you are denied any public funds to treat your injuries. I hope you made enough money selling meth to cover the costs of the hospital burn center.

And at the very end, the addicts will use the one taxpayer funded service they'll ever use again: The morgue, and the public cemetary.

Now THAT will help keep people off drugs.

Making Margaret Sanger Proud

Scratch a leftist, find a dictator. What is a desperate, virulent, hate-filled, baby-killing leftist to do when their message fails to resonate with the public? Make a cartoon that shows them how radical violent and filled with hate you are! That'll draw them in:

An online animated video sponsored by Planned Parenthood's San Francisco-area branch features a superhero character drowning an abstinence promoter in a trash can and blasting into oblivion several pro-life picketers protesting in front of one of the organization's facilities.

The eight-minute "A Superhero for Choice," posted on the Planned Parenthood Golden Gate website, has a bespectacled black woman in San Francisco morphing into a red-suited flying enforcer.......

Viewers see three teenagers talking with an ugly green-faced man sporting a top hat and bow tie who tries to tell the kids abstinence is the only sure way to protect against sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy.

I love the following exchange. First the leftist "rebuts":

The teen girl rebuts the man, naming several birth-control methods.

By listing methods of preventing STDs and pregnancy that aren't "sure". And what leftist fantasy wouldn't be complete without misrepresenting the opposition as nothing more than religious zealots:

Retorts the little green man: "Those are instruments from the devil's toolbox!"

Because we know that there is no way the guy would have simply said, "The risk is minimized considerably, but it is not eliminated."

What's a leftist to do when faced with verbal opposition to their barbaric ways? Snuff dissent of course:

The superhero arrives in time to fill a trash can with water and dump the pro-abstinence character into it, slamming the cover down. After the man's muffled voice eventually dies off

By killing your opposition so you can keep on killing babies! Aren't leftists great?! In the tradition of Captain Planet style brainwashing:

the superhero tosses the teens a "safe sex kit," reminding the kids: "Safe is sexy!"

But this murder machine isn't done yet! No.

The "Superhero for Choice," dubbed Dianisis, next confronts a group of protesters in front of a Planned Parenthood facility. They, too, are ugly and have green faces, carrying signs that say, "Pray for thy sins."

The superhero character uses a "condom gun" that catches each protester in a prophylactic bubble, which subsequently explodes. Though she admits the protesters have a First Amendment right to picket, she glories in the fact that people can now visit the Planned Parenthood facility unimpeded.

Your free speech rights are insignifcant when they conflict with Planned Parenthood's bottom line! Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, would indeed be proud!

Hat tip to The Mad Zionist.

Update: DANEgerus has an excellent analysis of the Cartoon.

UPDATE: Since this story first was posted, the video has disappeared from the front page of the Planned Parenthood website. What's the matter, leftist scum? I thought Howlin' Mad told you all to be proud of your "verison of the facts". :)

"Uber-Lefty"

DANEgerus, obviously a misogynist and Jesus Shouter, comments on Hillary's triangulation follies.

How might the world end?

Pick your poison (or ice age, or nuclear war, or meteor strike, whatever).

Yeah

Those of you (no doubt VERY few of you) who were here at the outset of 4rwws know that one of my favorite sites is the immense and stupendous JetPhotos.Net.

It's just plain great.

Sample:



You're gonna need some rudder, fellas.

That's from the set of pictures from Hong Kong's now closed Kai Tak International. Search using China / Hong Kong Kai Tak as the airport and sort by Most Popular. Then lean back and imagine yourself in coach, with your seatback straight and your tray table locked in the upright position, prepared for arrival. For those of you with no time to poke around, here is another nice sample.

I was reminded of Kai Tak by the following video (not safe for work due to surrounding ads): bad landing.

Harry Belafonte

La Shawn Barber is dismayed with Ole Harry Has Been.

Bin Laden and Saddam (and China)

DANEgerus enumerates more connections. Excerpts:

Disturbingly, new evidence of Sudanese involvement in planned attacks on American soil continued to accumulate. In April 1996, for example, according to the State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism, a diplomat at the "Sudanese U.N. Mission" was expelled for having ties to a bomb plot against the U.N. building and other targets in New York in 1993. Two Sudanese diplomats even planned on using the U.N. building to coordinate attacks on the city.

And:

Even after bin Laden departed Sudan in 1996, however, both al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence remained active in the country. According to IIS documents first discovered by Mitch Potter of the Toronto Star and Inigo Gilmore of the Sunday Telegraph after the beginning of the Iraq war, the Iraqi intelligence station in Khartoum was still actively facilitating the relationship with al Qaeda in 1998. A "trusted confidant" of bin Laden's traveled, with the help of Iraqi intelligence, from Sudan to Baghdad in March 1998. He stayed in Baghdad for more that two weeks.

What is most instructive about this, in my opinion, is that the Radical Islamists have yet to issue any Fatwa against China, who are HEAVILY entrenched in Sudan:

Almost unnoticed by the outside world, China has become the key player in Sudan's oil industry.

Beijing has invested £8 billion in Sudanese oil through the China National Petroleum Company (CNPC), a state-owned monolith. The cost of Khartoum's new refinery alone was about £350 million.

Freshly painted billboards in Khartoum carry pictures of smiling Chinese oil workers and the slogan: "CNPC - Your close friend and faithful partner". But this faithful friend is secretive about its stake in Africa's largest country. China's embassy in Khartoum and its commercial office declined to talk about oil.

So there is China, godless China, exploiting Muslim lands for profit, and, I bet you didn't know, engaged in a "crushing campaign of religious repression" against Muslim Uighurs in the Xinjiang region (in the name of anti-separatism and counterterrorism, sayeth the linked piece), yet no Holy War declared against China.

As I said, instructive.

UPDATE: This is a redux from a couple weeks back; the Lebanese Political Journal wonders the same thing, and they add pork and alcohol to the mix.

Bloggus Interuptus

I'll be on a three week field training excersise next month, from the middle of September to early October. And since I won't have any internet connection in the field, don't expect too much from me after the middle of next month.

I'll take pictures for you so you can see what I did. But I'm not leaving yet, so I'll be around for a little while longer.

News updates

Peter Jennings, dead at 67. Rest in Peace. Since I don't speak ill of the recently departed, if you can't say anything nice about him in the comments, then don't comment.

Shuttle landing delayed due to weather. That's actually rather normal for the shuttle program. The weather has to be perfect before they touch down.

Lawmakers discuss steriods in baseball. My question is this: WHY????? Why the hell are our elected officials wasting their time discussing the effects of steriods on a damn game? This is a matter for baseball to deal with, not the damn government! And the fact that these congresscritters feel the need to stick their noses into a damn sport matter shows just how overbearing our government is. If they have so little to do that they have to try to mess with Major League Baseball in order to say they've "done something" then they obviously are getting paid way too much to do too little work. Kick the bums out of town that much earlier and pay them less.

Blah. More later when I find crap to be upset about. It shouldn't take long.

The time has come to say goodbye to tyranny

...world-wide. And that includes Africa. Even orphans without shoes in Djibouti get it:

"These kids aren't stupid, and they aren't hopeless. They share the natural optimism of youth with every other kid born anywhere else in the world. Their optimism and ambition aren't misplaced, but they require a few basic preconditions to be realistic--a normal government, and a normal free-market economy. Given those fundamental realities, and with an occasional helping hand ... there is no reason why these girls' hopes should be futile. The world--the African world especially, but with far too much support from Western enablers, including, sometimes, the U.S.--has tolerated corrupt, tyrannical and cruel governments in sub-Saharan Africa for far too long."

They say that one sure sign of insanity is when one does the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result. It keeps failing but they keep doing it over again. Other ideas might seem unlikely to work, but have worked nicely elsewhere nonetheless (i.e., free market capitalism and open competition), but no matter how much success such methods have had, those in power refuse to try them for fear of losing control.

The Stories They Chose Not to Tell

What about the heroes? Yes, many of us have heard of Sgt. First Class Paul R. Smith, Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester and Sgt. Rafael Peralta and many other modern American heroes, but too many have not because the mainstream press has chosen instead to focus on names like Scott Peterson, Lyndie Englund, and Natalie Halloway. And now they blame us, the public for a lack of interest and 'zeal.' What a crock. When will the Times realize that they are the problem?

UPDATE: Jason over at IraqNow writes a letter to the NYT that is just too good to miss. A taste:

You raised the specific instance of SFC Paul Ray Smith, who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for an action in which he lost his life -- and of course, blame the President for your failure to get the story.

But the record shows that in February 2004, just about everyone on the planet had the story. Except the New York Times. Hell, even the Australian media picked it up.

Now, granted, your staff is operating at a significant handicap: Apparently, you have entire editorial units, entire copy desks, and fact checkers who don't even know what a Congressional Medal of Honor is.

This, in and of itself, is symptomatic of the yawning chasm between the class of people from which you draw your editorial staff and the class of people you serve.

This is an example of the immense deficit you're running in your collective fund of information when it comes to covering military affairs.

This, in and of itself, is dysfunction.

Bill Keller, your paper is stumbling around like a drunken fool, and it's gotten to the point where you're ruining your reputation. Military men have already all but washed their hands of your crap coverage in exasperation. We already know you are too wrapped up in your own neurosis to cover our fighting men and women with any degree of accuracy.

Yes, some people like Blackfive, Greyhawk, Cori Dauber, and myself, have already tried, on numerous occasions, to stage an intervention. But your illness has already caused a lot of people to give up on you.

Nope - No Bias Here

Check out this "news" article from USA Today - specifically the last paragraph:

Truman will be remembered as the president who brought us both victory and peace in a war that was justified and necessary. By contrast, self-proclaimed "War President" George Bush has brought us neither victory nor peace in the Iraq war, which former president Jimmy Carter this week called "unnecessary and unjust."

What a crock of shit. If Jimmy Carter had done his damn job when Iran was kidnapping American diplomats for 444 days, the twin towers would still be standing today. Besides, the article happens to be about Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the A-bomb; what does this paragraph have to do with the rest of the article? Not a damn thing. I can't believe that Mr. Neuharth is actually getting paid for writing such trash.

Wake up!

This post nails it. Don't worry, I won't post pictures of the beheadings, the bombing victims, the acid baths, the cutting off of limbs, ears and tongues, the chipper shredders, etc. (though the pictures and videos are out there and easy to access), but I do believe that we need to see or at least be aware of what it is we're fighting against. The MSM only tell us when American troops do something bad. They spent three months obsessing over "abuses" by a couple reservists at Abu Graib, but they don't spend more than one day covering the insurgents' targeting and massacre of Iraqi children. People like Galloway have crossed all the way over the line, but at least he understands that we are in a war - he's just on the wrong side of it. George Galloway is a traitor, fighting against his own country. More people would support this war if they knew about the atrocities, the sheer evil committed by those we're fighting against.

From Iran with Love

There's no way this could happen without the involvement of the Iranian government:

'American soldiers intercepted a large shipment of high explosives, smuggled into northeastern Iraq from Iran only last week.

The officials say the shipment contained dozens of "shaped charges" manufactured recently. Shaped charges are especially lethal because they’re designed to concentrate and direct a more powerful blast into a small area.

“They’ll go right through a very heavily armored vehicle like an M1-A1 tank from one side right out the other side,” says retired U.S. Army General Barry McCaffrey.'

Right through an M1-A1 tank. Got that Wolf? MSM moron.