Tuesday, November 29, 2005

It Took Them Long Enough

france is tightening standards for immigration and naturalization. Now, (and I shudder to say this) maybe the U.S. can learn a lesson from the Brie-buggerers and be selective with who enters the country. The one thing that still sets me on edge though, is the tired phrase usage by the MSM. Terrorists are not terrorist, they are "freedom fighters." An example of this line of thought is used in the story below to describe the rioters who almost tore france apart a couple of weeks back. They are simply called "disaffected youths of African or Arab origin." WTF? Look... disaffected youth listen to Marilyn Manson, or maybe Green Day if they're feeling happier while on Zoloft. Hoodlums and terrorists (which these animals in france are) fire bomb cars and businesses. This disaffected crap has gotten me seriously PO'd. At what point did we become so afraid of offending thugs by calling them what they are? No wonder newspaper subscription are at an all time low. The MSM can't even report a story correctly when they feel they must dance lightly around the subject matter. How this issue holds up in france will be fun to watch. Bush is also angling for something similar here in the U.S., but he's being very wishy-washy about it. I love the guy, but you can't help feel that he's hedging himself somewhere by still keeping the guest worker program on the table. Here's an idea for Mr. Bush: Shut the border down, build a fence, deport everyone here ilegally, and then see where the market demands workers. If there's a gap between the work and the available American workforce, you then allow more workers to enter. The problem, of course, is the disruption in business would be too much of a liability for any political party to undertake. That is a shame, since it's the only way to really find out what the market would accept in a guest worker program. Anyway, back to the frenchies: The basic idea here is that france will "begin a longer wait for citizenship for foreigners who marry French people, a tougher selection process for students visiting France, and close checks on immigration by families joining a foreign worker already living in the country." One more item that belongs here in the U.S. as well is "Foreign students wishing to follow courses in France will be subject to a tougher selection process." It's something to think about Mr. Bush... Something to think about. Full story here

Monday, November 28, 2005

Some Oddities

Generally odd links from the web. All safe for work, but sick in their own little way.

Carlos Santana whores himself out to a cologne. I bet it smells like Che Guevara after a night of refried beans, and killing and torturing anyone that did not agree with him and Fidel.

Keep your kids safe with a baby cage. Child protective sevices would be all over these people if it were real.

A banana cover?... She says: "Honestly, it's a back massager." Or, in this case: "Honestly, I need to keep my bananas fresh with this hard plastic-ribbed cover."

Idiotic Mike Tyson quotes. Like I needed to tell you that.

So disturbing. Web page intro. Just make sure no one is looking over your shoulder.


Monday, November 21, 2005


Found this floating around. With the sick sense of humor I have, I find every one of these statements funny. Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits. Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried. Chuck Norris was the fourth Wiseman. He brought baby Jesus the gift of "beard". Jesus wore it proudly to his dying day. The other Wisemen, jealous of Jesus' obvious gift favoritism, used their combined influence to have Chuck omitted from the Bible. Shortly after all three died of roundhouse kick related deaths. Rather than being birthed like a normal child, Chuck Norris instead decided to punch his way out of his mother's womb. Shortly thereafter he grew a beard. Chuck Norris had his own version of Punk'd. Only in his version, he would walk around and roundhouse kick people in the throats. A man once asked Chuck Norris if his real name is "Charles". Chuck Norris did not respond, he simply stared at him until he exploded. Little Miss Muffet sat on her tuffet, until Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked her into a glacier. Chuck Norris lives by only one rule: No Asian Chicks. (I guess even Chuck can be wrong sometimes.) The original theme song to the Transformers was actually "Chuck Norris--more than meets the eye, Chuck Norris--robot in disguise," and starred Chuck Norris as a Texas Ranger who defended the earth from drug-dealing Decepticons and could turn into a pick-up. This was far too much awesome for a single show, however, so it was divided. Chuck Norris's girlfriend once asked him how much wood a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood. He then shouted, "HOW DARE YOU RHYME IN THE PRESENCE OF CHUCK NORRIS!" and ripped out her throat. Holding his girlfriend's bloody throat in his hand he bellowed, "Don't FUCK with Chuck!" Two years and five months later he realized the irony of this statement and laughed so hard that anyone within a hundred mile radius of the blast went deaf. Chuck Norris recently had the idea to sell his urine as a canned beverage. We know this beverage as Red Bull. Chuck Norris built a time machine and went back in time to stop the JFK assassination. As Oswald shot, Chuck met all three bullets with his beard, deflecting them. JFK's head exploded out of sheer amazement. To prove it isn't that big of a deal to beat cancer. Chuck Norris smoked 15 cartons of cigarettes a day for 2 years and aquired 7 different kinds of cancer only to rid them from his body by flexing for 30 minutes. Beat that, Lance Armstrong. Chuck Norris once shot a German plane down with his finger, by yelling, "Bang!" Chuck Norris can make a woman climax by simply pointing at her and saying "booya". When Chuck Norris's wife burned the turkey one Thanksgiving, Chuck said, "Don't worry about it honey," and went into his backyard. He came back five minutes later with a live turkey, ate it whole, and when he threw it up a few seconds later it was fully cooked and came with cranberry sauce. When his wife asked him how he had done it, he gave her a roundhouse kick to the face and said, "Never question Chuck Norris." Chuck Norris once went to a frat party, and proceeded to roundhouse every popped collar in sight. He then drank three kegs and shit on their floor, just because he's Chuck Norris. Takeru Kobayashi ate 50 and a half hotdogs in 12 minutes. Chuck Norris ate 12 asian babies in 50 and a half minutes. Chuck Norris won. (See? He saw the error of his ways.) When Chuck Norris plays Oregon Trail his family does not die from cholera or dysentery, but rather roundhouse kicks to the face. He also requires no wagon, since he carries the oxen, axels, and buffalo meat on his back. He always makes it to Oregon before you. Chuck Norris sold his soul to the devil for his rugged good looks and unparalleled martial arts ability. Shortly after the transaction was finalized, Chuck roundhouse kicked the devil in the face and took his soul back. The devil, who appreciates irony, couldn't stay mad and admitted he should have seen it coming. They now play poker every second Wednesday of the month. Chuck Norris frequently signs up for beginner karate classes, just so he can "accidentally" beat the shit out of little kids. Chuck Norris took my virginity, and he will sure as hell take yours. If you're thinking to yourself, "That's impossible, I already lost my virginity.", then you are dead wrong. At the end of each week, Chuck Norris murders a dozen white people just to prove he isn't a racist. In one episode of Fresh Prince of Bel Air, Chuck Norris replaced Carlton for one scene and nobody noticed. Chuck Norris found out about Conan O'Brien's lever that shows clips from "Walker: Texas Ranger" and is working on a way to make it show clips of Norris having sex with Conan's wife. Chuck Norris has every copy of National Geographic in his basement. He also has the ability to lift every single one of them at once. Before each filming of Walker: Texas Ranger, Chuck Norris is injected with five times the lethal dose of elephant tranquilzer. This is, of course, to limit his strength and mobility, in an attempt to lower the fatality rate of the actors he fights. Chuck Norris doesn't have normal white blood cells like you and I. His have a small black ring around them. This signifies that they are black belts in every form of martial arts and they roundhouse kick the shit out of viruses. That's why Chuck Norris never gets ill.

No Godzilla Toys, But Plenty Of Porn And Beer

Thanks to Capitalist Lion for the link to the info below. I've always heard about mysterious vending machines that dot the land in Japan. They sell everything from squid to porn. Or maybe you're supposed to use the squid to make tentacle porn..... I dunno. I've been intrigued about this for a while (the machines, not the squid porn), and thanks to Capitalist Lion, I now can see a pretty good selection of the machines. The Japanese are a very unique and unusual people with their consumer goods, and their likes and dislikes. It's night and day when viewing Eastern culture through Western eyes. Like Vincent Vega says in Pulp Fiction when comparing Amsterdam to America: "It's the little differences." So have a look. Vending machines that dispense porn, beer, fried food, Rhinoceros Beetles?... and, from the site: 'used' schoolgirl panties! We had heard that such machines existed but had never seen them. A colleague came across this machine in suburban Tokyo just recently (May 2002). This particular machine is a converted cigarette machine that now takes 10,000 yen notes (about US$80 bills). The current contents run from 1000 to 3000 yen. $80.00 for used schoolgirl panties? If they're making $80 a pop for that, looks like I need to change occupations. Anyway...

Yes, there is even picture goodness to go with each machine... Although on some of the items, I almost wish there wasn't. Check out the rest of Photomann's photos from interesting locations around the world at the link above, but stay the hell away from the panty machines, you freaks.


Thursday, November 17, 2005

Another Obvious Story

We need a fence on the southern border... Preferably one that is electrified, and has "frickin' laser beams" on the ten feet deep razor wire strung across the top of the fence. I know I'm going overboard, but when it gets as bad as it is now with the streaming influx of humanity, something needs to be done. I would like to direct your attention to the following site: http://weneedafence.com/ A few talking points from the site include: **Illegal immigration into the United States is out of control, particularly across our southern border. **Several members of Congress and Governors have declared states of emergency. The problem is not merely the number of illegal immigrants. **In addition to the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from Central and South America, there are several hundreds, perhaps thousands, of illegal aliens from countries that sponsor terrorism or harbor terrorists entering the United States each year across our border with Mexico. Thus, it is a national security issue as well as an immigration issue. All of the above have been mentioned multiple times by me in other posts: here, here, and here, just to name a few. I think it is so painfully obvious that a fence is a logical choice, but people start equating it with the Berlin wall. (It also fits perfectly with the screamin' lefties that call Bush a Hitler clone.) But, there's a huge difference that most people fail to grasp; besides the general stupidity of calling anyone Hitler, other than Hitler. The Berlin wall was erected to keep citizens in, while a southern border wall would be erected to keep people (ILLEGALS) out. Combine the fence with additional border patrol, and declare a state of emergency across the entire southern border region so you can employ the National Guard until the fence is complete, and you have a good start on something that should have been done 20 years ago. **A secure, state-of-the-art border fence must be one element of any comprehensive effort to address the illegal immigration problem. **Similar fences in Israel have reduced terrorist attacks by up to 95%. **Until the border is secured and the tide of illegal immigration is stemmed, proposals to adjust immigration quotas, whether up or down, are doomed to ineffectiveness. **A border fence is entirely compatible with a guest worker program. In fact, a guest worker program would be reduced to irrelevance without such a fence. The best arguments for a fence comes partly from the website linked above with the statement about the Israeli fence. Another argument for the fence has been noted by me before, and is mentioned here, in a USA Today article: "...Hunter points to the experience in San Diego, where the number of illegal migrants arrested is one-sixth of what it was before the fence was built." and: Even at the Homeland Security Department, which opposes building a border-long fence, Secretary Michael Chertoff this fall waived environmental laws so that construction can continue on a 14-mile section of fence near San Diego that has helped border agents stem the flow of illegal migrants and drug runners. I always catch hell when I go off on this subject. But I really don't care about that. It's time America understood you don't have a country if you don't have borders. Rep. Duncan Hunter, (R) California sums up the issue best: “You have to be able to enforce your borders,” says California Rep. Duncan Hunter, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. He's proposing a fence from San Diego to Brownsville, Texas. “It's no longer just an immigration issue. It's now a national security issue.”

Get Over It!!!!!!!

I guess this really doesn't surprise me, but John Kerry believes the 2004 election was stolen. Thanks to the usual lefty screaming points of "voting irregularities," "No blood for oil," and saying Karl Rove sold his soul to Satan, I begin to wonder if they have a brain, or if they are automatons with a CD playing out of their mouth. Anyway, I've had this story sitting around in the draft area for over a week, not sure if I really wanted to say anything about it. But, Democrats are making me shudder again with Carter's yammering, and clinton's talk of the Iraqi war being wrong while he is in a foreign country: "Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done, " Clinton told students at the American University of Dubai The idiot does understand you don't go mouthing off while away from home, doesn't he? Or not.... Link to above story here. Of course, clinton also said this in while still in office in 1998: "Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said. And now, little Napoleon himself, John F'n (I was Genghis Khan in Viet Nam) Kerry believes the 2004 election was stolen based on hearsay and "information" from a book that says, among other ridiculous things like: ...disquieting stuff that troubled Kerry included reports that touch-screen systems had malfunctioned in such a way that voters who tried to vote for Kerry saw their votes switched to Bush. The link below is a lefty website, so it is uncertain how much, if anything, below is true, or some fabrication to drum up the core, like calling Bush a monkey or Hitler. By the way, I wonder how many Democrats started screaming for us to leave Europe or the Pacific theater in 1943?..... Or, would any Republican have called Roosevelt a crippled monkey?... Probably not. Just goes to show how low politics has fallen. Anyway, if the story below is true (meaning Kerry believes it, and not that the election was actually rigged) it just goes to show how wonky the dems are right now. No surprise there. http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/110505.html Kerry Suspects Election 2004 Was Stolen By Robert Parry November 6, 2005 Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, has told acquaintances over the past year that he suspects that the election was stolen, but that he didn't challenge the official results because he lacked hard proof and anticipated a firestorm of criticism if he pressed the point. Kerry heard all the disquieting stories about voting irregularities in Ohio and other states, said Jonathan Winer, a longtime Kerry adviser and a former deputy assistant secretary of state. But he didn't have the evidence to do more. The Massachusetts senator conceded to George W. Bush on Nov. 3, 2004, the day after the election when it became clear that the uncounted votes in the swing state of Ohio were insufficient to erase Bush's narrow lead. The move infuriated some Democratic activists who felt Kerry should have lived up to his campaign promise that he would make sure every vote was counted. In January 2005, as Bush's victory was being certified by Congress, Kerry also refused to back a resolution challenging the fairness of the Ohio vote. Mark Crispin Miller, a New York University professor and author of a new book about the 2004 election entitled Fooled Again, said he discussed the voting issue with Kerry on Oct. 28 when he encountered the senator at a political event. In a Nov. 4 interview on Amy Goodmans Democracy Now, Miller said he gave Kerry a copy of Fooled Again, prompting Kerry's comments about the 2004 election results. He told me he now thinks the election was stolen, Miller said. He said he doesn't believe that he is the person who can go out front on the issue because of the sour grapes question. But he said he believes it was stolen. He says he argues about this with his Democratic colleagues on the Hill. He had just had a big fight with Christopher Dodd. But Kerry's decision not to fight has left millions of Americans wondering if their democratic birthright has been stolen along with the last two presidential elections. Read the rest of the drivel at the link above if you have a strong enough constitution. One more thing, please do me a favor and not let on to the Democrats about the black helicopters following them around. Thanks.

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Pajama Media Part Two

I've enjoyed reading Tony Pierce for a while. He has a pretty easy going stream of consciousness approach to blogging that makes him easy to read. It's kind of like Raymi's Blog, but Tony makes a lot more sense. He has a several good points I completely missed when I discussed the Pajama People from yesterday, so I'd like to touch on a few of them. And just in case someone comes along later, I'm claiming rights to the name "The Pajama People" when dealing with creepy Stepfordesque bloggers in book or movie form. You've been warned. Anyway, Tony's article is here. Highlights include: "...the Pajamas Media trainwreck is headed to the big apple... Judith Miller will be giving their keynote address. Yes that Judith Miller. Presumably because Jayson Blair and Armstrong Williams were busy..." "When even midwesterners like Ann Althouse take a pass while calling PM revenue scheme "skimpy compared to Blogads" you're either holding out on the B-list (your base) or you're off on a really bad foot." "60+ Conservatives and 2 Liberals does not make...the best of mainstream media and best of blog media...It makes for a Fox News" Simply beautiful, and 100% correct. Read the rest at Tony's link above.

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

This Looks (And Reads) Familiar

Blogs = weB LOGS. Many of the big name power blogs were started as an attempt to hold the MSM in check. An example would be Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, and Instapundit (All three are referenced in the story below). These folks (and a few dozen others like them) really know their stuff, and prove it day after day. But almost a year ago many of the big boys decided it was their turn for MSM status. I guess they were not content with their own reporting. Maybe they tired of getting the glory without the paycheck. Who knows? Sometime last year an idea was put forth that set the blog world on its head: Pajamas Media formed and said "Let's create our own little world of dedicated bloggers to cover events. We'll even pay them for their contributions." Or, put another way, since they (as of the last time I read about them) would execute full editorial control over the content from contributors: They became the MSM. The editorial board for Pajamas is quite possibly the most impressive group of journalists I have seen together: Michael Barone, Austin Bay, Tim Blair, Tammy Bruce, Marc Cooper, David Corn, Richard Fernandez, Jose Guardia, Jane Hall, Larry Kudlow, Michael Ledeen, Clifford May, John Podhoretz, Claudia Rosett. Even those I know are outright liberals, I still have respect for them and how they craft their words. These aren't stupid people. In fact, they are some of the brightest minds the media (any media) has to offer. But would I really want Jane Hall editing my work? No thanks. That led to a mini-revolt last year when several high profile blogs wondered about Pajamas intentions, and voicing my argument as well, began to question how content would be picked and showcased. Also, what would the rule be for outside submissions or fact checking? Pajama sidestepped the questions, kept a low profile outside the blog world, and crept back to its dark hiding place where it slowly gathered forces, and most importantly, venture capital. It looks like this is a done deal and they could be on their way to become The online powerhouse for news and opinion. This might actually turn online media around the way Fox did for cable news. Since we are moving in that direction with fewer newspaper subscriptions being sold each year, this may not be a bad idea. But to me, the idea of a blog is freedom to question, to tell, and to rant. Pajama limits much of this as it strives to become a polished image of the beast it hated in the first place. It sounds like it will end up with editorial control confined to a few. This could lead to a site that is one of the driest wastelands online. Another way to put it is: It just might turn out to be MSM-light, with half the taste and calories as your average blog. "Ooooooh, Bitter Blog Face!!!!" Pajama Media story

Friday, November 11, 2005

Friday's Stupidity

Most Fridays are slower than the rest of the week, so there's time to find items like the following two news bits to post. I almost always have to throw in that there are some things I disagree with 'W' on (border control, spending), or inevitably someone comes along with the usual moonbat rants that I'm nothing more than a shill for the Republican party. I'm far from a shill, but give me Republican rule any day of the week over the Democratic nanny-state. Today I'd like to take a look at the pros and cons of spreading your ass cheeks for islamic terrorists to bugger. If I didn't know the following happened in france, I would have guessed the sit-in shown below happened in San Francisco. (For those just now reading this blog, france does not have the respect needed for me to capitalize it as a proper noun) Link to the entire story here: frenchies are fried French Stage Sit-In to Protest Violence By JAMEY KEATEN Associated Press Writer PARIS Police tightened security in central Paris on Friday with riot forces and bomb squads along the Champs-Elysees, and angry residents of riot- torn suburbs staged a sit-in Friday near the Eiffel Tower, calling for an end to more than two weeks of arson and vandalism across France. The moves came as the wave of violence that spread outward from Paris's impoverished outlying neighborhoods appeared to be calming in other French cities but remained persistent in the capital. "Stop the Violence," read one banner draped on the Wall of Peace near the Eiffel Tower. Some of the 200 demonstrators _ a small turnout in protest-friendly France _ waved white flags. (More at the link above) In my opinion the story title should read: In an effort to appease terrorists, france lubes up and bends over. I also like the the mention of the white flag.... So appropriate. Alright, here's what you have: a bunch of hippy wannabes, probably singing John Lennon's Give Peace a Chance while parts of france, and other places in Europe, are torched by gangs of roving islamo-thugs. This has been coming for a long time, but france and the rest of the continent wait two weeks before doing anything. What does it feel like to be someone's biatch, Chirac? Thanks to the welfare state Europe has become, these animals believe they deserve to be fed, housed, clothed, and given jobs that allow for a month's vacation. And if they don't get what they want, they revolt, burning cars, schools, businesses, people..., citing poor living conditions, racism, etc., etc. Funny how they forget if they tried something like this in the mid-east, they'd be taken away and have their heads removed. Here's my thought: This thing could go two ways for all of Europe. 1. The worst case scenario would be the violence spreads as some kind of jihad to overtake Europe, a Crusade in reverse, if you will. This will either lead to Europe accepting muslim rule over their daily lives, or fighting back. It's hard to believe such control is possible, but when you have millions of islamic immigrants pulling together instead of assimilating into Western culture, it's more than possible. The Baltic states will then move together with the northern African nations to gain a stronger foothold across Europe and through its political system. Don't think that's possible? Take a look at the former Soviet states and the Chechen animals running wild there. Or, it could be the same scenario above, but culminating in a civil war along the lines of Bosnia, but on the scale of World War 2, with Western values versus muslim values as the war cry. God help us all if that happens since it will not be an average war, but will still have global implications. 2. The second, more hopeful prediction is france, and the other nations in Europe being affected by these terrorists, will put their boot firmly down on their necks, and break a few if necessary. But that doesn't seem to be happening. Chirac made the following statements in the article above: "...France must confront the social inequalities and prejudice that has fueled the violence..." and "There is a need to respond strongly and rapidly to the undeniable problems faced by many residents of underprivileged neighborhoods around our cities," Chirac said. "Whatever our origins, we are all the children of the Republic, and we can all expect the same rights." That doesn't sound like Chirac is going to put the boot on anyone, and really shows how far off base he is. These animals do not consider themselves as "children of the Republic." They consider themselves muslims. Capitulation during a time of war will lead to death. And believe me, despite what the media shows: a few cars burning, nobody seriously injured, calling them "troubled and restless youth", etc., the world is at war. The last thing we need in Europe is Chirac (and other European leaders) imitating Chamberlain with Hitler. The situation will go straight to hell if this spectacle is allowed to continue unchallenged.

Old but good: Quiz Time

1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by a. Superman b. Jay Leno c. Harry Potter d. a Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40 2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by a. Olga Corbett b. Sitting Bull c. Arnold Schwarzenegger d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by: a. Lost Norwegians b. Elvis c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by: a. John Dillinger b. The King of Sweden c. The Boy Scouts d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by: a. A pizza delivery boy b. Pee Wee Herman c. Geraldo Rivera d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by: a. The Smurfs b. Davy Jones c. The Little Mermaid d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by: a. Captain Kidd b. Charles Lindberg c. Mother Teresa d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by: a. Scooby Doo b. The Tooth Fairy c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by: a. Richard Simmons b. Grandma Moses c. Michael Jordan d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by: a. Mr. Rogers b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems c. The World Wrestling Federation d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by: a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd b. The Supreme Court of Florida c. Mr. Bean d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against: a. Enron b. The Lutheran Church c. The NFL d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by: a. Bonnie and Clyde b. Captain Kangaroo c. Billy Graham d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 14. After getting rid of Saddam Hussein, the American soldiers and Iraqi people are being threatened with car bombs and suicide bombers by: a. NASA Astronauts b. Star Jones c. Dan Rather d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 15. In 2005 the streets of Paris, France were set ablaze--a nursery school was burned and hundreds of cars were torched by: a. Karl Rove b. George W. Bush c. Simon Cowell of American Idol d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 (Pssst.... If you have to guess on any, it's a good idea to pick D) ------------------------------------------ And finally, Bush grows a pair Bush Forcefully Attacks Iraq Critics
  • Bush story
  • By DEB RIECHMANN Associated Press Writer TOBYHANNA, Pa. President Bush, in the most forceful defense yet of his Iraq war policy, accused critics Friday of trying to rewrite history and charged that they're undercutting America's forces on the front lines. "The stakes in the global war on terror are too high and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges," the president said in his combative Veterans Day speech. "While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," the president said. Finally! Bush takes a lesson from past presidents (even though it's about 6 months late) and sets the agenda, not the media or the opposing party. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., quickly returned Bush's criticism. "Its deeply regrettable that the president is using Veterans Day as a campaign-like attempt to rebuild his own credibility by tearing down those who seek the truth about the clear manipulation of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war," Kennedy said in a statement. What a shame Sen. Kennedy seems to have brain freeze when it comes to facts. I'd invite him to read this. Several of his Democratic colleagues (Kerry, Clinton: Mr. and Mrs, and Reid, to name a few) voiced an opinion three years ago that parallels Bush. "Instead of providing open and honest answers about how we will achieve success in Iraq and allow our troops to begin to come home," Kennedy said, "the president reverted to the same manipulation of facts to justify a war we never should have fought." Teddy really should lay off the sauce. Perhaps the Senator would prefer fighting the terrorists on American soil the same way Russia, the Philippines, and Europe is now. It's statements like the ones from Kennedy that make me fear Democrats gaining control again.

    Wednesday, November 09, 2005

    For My New Friend... You Know Who You Are.

    It hurts to break someone's bubble, but I'm posting this for you, and for the next time someone comes around here claiming the Iraq war was wrong, Osama is really Bush and will have a kegger with Saddam next week, Karl Rove is in charge of the Matrix, yadda, yadda, yadda..... This is a very long piece of commentary that took forever to download with cable from the piss-poor server it's hosted on. I'm posting it in its entirety so you don't have to wait. And I know it's a little dry. I don't write it, I just post it. It's pretty balanced in it's assessment of the lead-up to war, and the reasons behind it, both right and wrong. Yes there's a slant to the right, but you can't argue with what comes out of the mouths of people like Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, etc. Original link to the commentary below is here. I don't have time to hyperlink everything right now. See the original web page if you want supporting footnotes, and backing and reference material. Some background on Mr Podhoretz here Enjoy. December 2005 Who Is Lying About Iraq? Norman Podhoretz Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed. What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what. Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled. The main “lie” that George W. Bush is accused of telling us is that Saddam Hussein possessed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, or WMD as they have invariably come to be called. From this followed the subsidiary “lie” that Iraq under Saddam’s regime posed a two-edged mortal threat. On the one hand, we were informed, there was a distinct (or even “imminent”) possibility that Saddam himself would use these weapons against us and/or our allies; and on the other hand, there was the still more dangerous possibility that he would supply them to terrorists like those who had already attacked us on 9/11 and to whom he was linked. This entire scenario of purported deceit has been given a new lease on life by the indictment in late October of I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, then chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby stands accused of making false statements to the FBI and of committing perjury in testifying before a grand jury that had been convened to find out who in the Bush administration had “outed” Valerie Plame, a CIA agent married to the retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, IV. The supposed purpose of leaking this classified information to the press was to retaliate against Wilson for having “debunked” (in his words) “the lies that led to war.” Now, as it happens, Libby was not charged with having outed Plame but only with having lied about when and from whom he first learned that she worked for the CIA. Moreover, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor who brought the indictment against him, made a point of emphasizing that [t]his indictment is not about the war. This indictment is not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel. This is simply an indictment that says, in a national-security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer’s identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person—a person, Mr. Libby—lied or not. No matter. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, spoke for a host of other opponents of the war in insisting that [t]his case is bigger than the leak of classified information. It is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the President. Yet even stipulating—which I do only for the sake of argument—that no weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq in the period leading up to the invasion, it defies all reason to think that Bush was lying when he asserted that they did. To lie means to say something one knows to be false. But it is as close to certainty as we can get that Bush believed in the truth of what he was saying about WMD in Iraq. How indeed could it have been otherwise? George Tenet, his own CIA director, assured him that the case was “a slam dunk.” This phrase would later become notorious, but in using it, Tenet had the backing of all fifteen agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. In the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with “high confidence” was that Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions. The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and—yes—France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix—who headed the UN team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he get rid of the weapons of mass destruction he was known to have had in the past—lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion: The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. Blix now claims that he was only being “cautious” here, but if, as he now also adds, the Bush administration “misled itself” in interpreting the evidence before it, he at the very least lent it a helping hand. So, once again, did the British, the French, and the Germans, all of whom signed on in advance to Secretary of State Colin Powell’s reading of the satellite photos he presented to the UN in the period leading up to the invasion. Powell himself and his chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, now feel that this speech was the low point of his tenure as Secretary of State. But Wilkerson (in the process of a vicious attack on the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of Defense for getting us into Iraq) is forced to acknowledge that the Bush administration did not lack for company in interpreting the available evidence as it did: I can’t tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits, and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the UN on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can’t. I’ve wrestled with it. [But] when you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical-weapons ASP—Ammunition Supply Point—with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they’re there, you have to conclude that it’s a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP, and everything is changed, everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet] was convinced, John McLaughlin [Tenet’s deputy] was convinced, that what we were presented [for Powell’s UN speech] was accurate. Going on to shoot down a widespread impression, Wilkerson informs us that even the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) was convinced: People say, well, INR dissented. That’s a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That’s all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios. In explaining its dissent on Iraq’s nuclear program, the INR had, as stated in the NIE of 2002, expressed doubt about Iraq’s efforts to acquire aluminum tubes [which are] central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear-weapons program. . . . INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors . . . in Iraq’s nuclear-weapons program. But, according to Wilkerson, The French came in in the middle of my deliberations at the CIA and said, we have just spun aluminum tubes, and by God, we did it to this RPM, et cetera, et cetera, and it was all, you know, proof positive that the aluminum tubes were not for mortar casings or artillery casings, they were for centrifuges. Otherwise, why would you have such exquisite instruments? In short, and whether or not it included the secret heart of Hans Blix, “the consensus of the intelligence community,” as Wilkerson puts it, “was overwhelming” in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq that Saddam definitely had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and that he was also in all probability well on the way to rebuilding the nuclear capability that the Israelis had damaged by bombing the Osirak reactor in 1981. Additional confirmation of this latter point comes from Kenneth Pollack, who served in the National Security Council under Clinton. “In the late spring of 2002,” Pollack has written, I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes). No wonder, then, that another conclusion the NIE of 2002 reached with “high confidence” was that: Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.1 But the consensus on which Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Clinton himself, speaking in 1998: If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction program. Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998: Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam: He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983. Finally, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained “absolutely convinced” of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003. Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic Senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs. Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus: Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process. This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new President, a number of Senators led by Bob Graham declared: There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies. Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told Clinton some years earlier: Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002: In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members. Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well: There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction. Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush’s opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002: We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. And here is Gore again, in that same year: Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002: I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force—if necessary—to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002: Kennedy: We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. Byrd: The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.2 Liberal politicians like these were seconded by the mainstream media, in whose columns a very different tune would later be sung. For example, throughout the last two years of the Clinton administration, editorials in the New York Times repeatedly insisted that without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year [and] future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again. The Times was also skeptical of negotiations, pointing out that it was hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as his country’s salvation. So, too, the Washington Post, which greeted the inauguration of George W. Bush in January 2001 with the admonition that [o]f all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous—or more urgent—than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade’s efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf [where] intelligence photos . . . show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.3 All this should surely suffice to prove far beyond any even unreasonable doubt that Bush was telling what he believed to be the truth about Saddam’s stockpile of WMD. It also disposes of the fallback charge that Bush lied by exaggerating or hyping the intelligence presented to him. Why on earth would he have done so when the intelligence itself was so compelling that it convinced everyone who had direct access to it, and when hardly anyone in the world believed that Saddam had, as he claimed, complied with the sixteen resolutions of the Security Council demanding that he get rid of his weapons of mass destruction? Another fallback charge is that Bush, operating mainly through Cheney, somehow forced the CIA into telling him what he wanted to hear. Yet in its report of 2004, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, while criticizing the CIA for relying on what in hindsight looked like weak or faulty intelligence, stated that it did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities. The March 2005 report of the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission, which investigated intelligence failures on Iraq, reached the same conclusion, finding no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. . . . [A]nalysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. Still, even many who believed that Saddam did possess WMD, and was ruthless enough to use them, accused Bush of telling a different sort of lie by characterizing the risk as “imminent.” But this, too, is false: Bush consistently rejected imminence as a justification for war.4 Thus, in the State of the Union address he delivered only three months after 9/11, Bush declared that he would “not wait on events while dangers gather” and that he would “not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer.” Then, in a speech at West Point six months later, he reiterated the same point: “If we wait for threats to materialize, we will have waited too long.” And as if that were not clear enough, he went out of his way in his State of the Union address in 2003 (that is, three months before the invasion), to bring up the word “imminent” itself precisely in order to repudiate it: Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. What of the related charge that it was still another “lie” to suggest, as Bush and his people did, that a connection could be traced between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11? This charge was also rejected by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Contrary to how its findings were summarized in the mainstream media, the committee’s report explicitly concluded that al Qaeda did in fact have a cooperative, if informal, relationship with Iraqi agents working under Saddam. The report of the bipartisan 9/11 commission came to the same conclusion, as did a comparably independent British investigation conducted by Lord Butler, which pointed to “meetings . . . between senior Iraqi representatives and senior al-Qaeda operatives.”5 Which brings us to Joseph C. Wilson, IV and what to my mind wins the palm for the most disgraceful instance of all. The story begins with the notorious sixteen words inserted—after, be it noted, much vetting by the CIA and the State Department—into Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. This is the “lie” Wilson bragged of having “debunked” after being sent by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to check out the intelligence it had received to that effect. Wilson would later angrily deny that his wife had recommended him for this mission, and would do his best to spread the impression that choosing him had been the Vice President’s idea. But Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, through whom Wilson first planted this impression, was eventually forced to admit that “Cheney apparently didn’t know that Wilson had been dispatched.” (By the time Kristof grudgingly issued this retraction, Wilson himself, in characteristically shameless fashion, was denying that he had ever “said the Vice President sent me or ordered me sent.”) And as for his wife’s supposed non-role in his mission, here is what Valerie Plame Wilson wrote in a memo to her boss at the CIA: My husband has good relations with the PM [the prime minister of Niger] and the former minister of mines . . . , both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity. More than a year after his return, with the help of Kristof, and also Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, and then through an op-ed piece in the Times under his own name, Wilson succeeded, probably beyond his wildest dreams, in setting off a political firestorm. In response, the White House, no doubt hoping to prevent his allegation about the sixteen words from becoming a proxy for the charge that (in Wilson’s latest iteration of it) “lies and disinformation [were] used to justify the invasion of Iraq,” eventually acknowledged that the President’s statement “did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union address.” As might have been expected, however, this panicky response served to make things worse rather than better. And yet it was totally unnecessary—for the maddeningly simple reason that every single one of the sixteen words at issue was true. That is, British intelligence had assured the CIA that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy enriched uranium from the African country of Niger. Furthermore—and notwithstanding the endlessly repeated assertion that this assurance has now been discredited—Britain’s independent Butler commission concluded that it was “well-founded.” The relevant passage is worth quoting at length: a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. b. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible. c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not claim this. As if that were not enough to settle the matter, Wilson himself, far from challenging the British report when he was “debriefed” on his return from Niger (although challenging it is what he now never stops doing6), actually strengthened the CIA’s belief in its accuracy. From the Senate Intelligence Committee report: He [the CIA reports officer] said he judged that the most important fact in the report [by Wilson] was that Niger officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Niger prime minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium. And again: The report on [Wilson’s] trip to Niger . . . did not change any analysts’ assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original CIA reports on the uranium deal. This passage goes on to note that the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research—which (as we have already seen) did not believe that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop nuclear weapons—found support in Wilson’s report for its “assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.” But if so, this, as the Butler report quoted above points out, would not mean that Iraq had not tried to buy it—which was the only claim made by British intelligence and then by Bush in the famous sixteen words. The liar here, then, was not Bush but Wilson. And Wilson also lied when he told the Washington Post that he had unmasked as forgeries certain documents given to American intelligence (by whom it is not yet clear) that supposedly contained additional evidence of Saddam’s efforts to buy uranium from Niger. The documents did indeed turn out to be forgeries; but, according to the Butler report, [t]he forged documents were not available to the British government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine [that assessment].7 More damning yet to Wilson, the Senate Intelligence Committee discovered that he had never laid eyes on the documents in question: [Wilson] also told committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article . . . which said, “among the envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.’” Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. To top all this off, just as Cheney had nothing to do with the choice of Wilson for the mission to Niger, neither was it true that, as Wilson “confirmed” for a credulous New Republic reporter, “the CIA circulated [his] report to the Vice President’s office,” thereby supposedly proving that Cheney and his staff “knew the Niger story was a flatout lie.” Yet—the mind reels—if Cheney had actually been briefed on Wilson’s oral report to the CIA (which he was not), he would, like the CIA itself, have been more inclined to believe that Saddam had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. So much for the author of the best-selling and much acclaimed book whose title alone—The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife’s CIA Identity—has set a new record for chutzpah. But there is worse. In his press conference on the indictment against Libby, Patrick Fitzgerald insisted that lying to federal investigators is a serious crime both because it is itself against the law and because, by sending them on endless wild-goose chases, it constitutes the even more serious crime of obstruction of justice. By those standards, Wilson—who has repeatedly made false statements about every aspect of his mission to Niger, including whose idea it was to send him and what he told the CIA upon his return; who was then shown up by the Senate Intelligence Committee as having lied about the forged documents; and whose mendacity has sent the whole country into a wild-goose chase after allegations that, the more they are refuted, the more they keep being repeated—is himself an excellent candidate for criminal prosecution. And so long as we are hunting for liars in this area, let me suggest that we begin with the Democrats now proclaiming that they were duped, and that we then broaden out to all those who in their desperation to delegitimize the larger policy being tested in Iraq—the policy of making the Middle East safe for America by making it safe for democracy—have consistently used distortion, misrepresentation, and selective perception to vilify as immoral a bold and noble enterprise and to brand as an ignominious defeat what is proving itself more and more every day to be a victory of American arms and a vindication of American ideals. —November 7, 2005 NORMAN PODHORETZ is the editor-at-large of COMMENTARY and the author of ten books. The most recent, The Norman Podhoretz Reader, edited by Thomas L. Jeffers, appeared in 2004. His essays on the Bush Doctrine and Iraq, including “World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win” (September 2004) and “The War Against World War IV” (February 2005), can be found by clicking here. 1 Hard as it is to believe, let alone to reconcile with his general position, Joseph C. Wilson, IV, in a speech he delivered three months after the invasion at the Education for Peace in Iraq Center, offhandedly made the following remark: “I remain of the view that we will find biological and chemical weapons and we may well find something that indicates that Saddam’s regime maintained an interest in nuclear weapons.” 2 Fuller versions of these and similar statements can be found at http://www.theconversationcafe.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-3134.htmland. Another source is http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php. 3 These and numerous other such quotations were assembled by Robert Kagan in a piece published in the Washington Post on October 25, 2005. 4 Whereas both John Edwards, later to become John Kerry’s running mate in 2004, and Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, actually did use the word in describing the threat posed by Saddam. 5 In early November, the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, who last year gave their unanimous assent to its report, were suddenly mounting a last-ditch effort to take it back on this issue (and others). But to judge from the material they had already begun leaking by November 7, when this article was going to press, the newest “Bush lied” case is as empty and dishonest as the one they themselves previously rejected. 6 Here is how he put it in a piece in the Los Angeles Times written in late October of this year to celebrate the indictment of Libby: “I knew that the statement in Bush’s speech . . . was not true. I knew it was false from my own investigative trip to Africa. . . . And I knew that the White House knew it.” 7 More extensive citations of the relevant passages from the Butler report can be found in postings by Daniel McKivergan at www.worldwidestandard.com. I have also drawn throughout on materials cited by the invaluable Stephen F. Hayes in the Weekly Standard.

    A Regular Dr. Doolittle Democrat

    Meet Nan Aron from New York. ....and the best line from the article.... "My one responsibility at home was to feed the fish, talk to the fish and protect their safety, and I'd come home and start counting" and realize that there was trouble. Talking to fish? This isn't something she did as a child; this was over the summer... four months ago. Maybe she's Dr. Doolittle with Dr. Moreau tendencies. I wonder if the fish spoke to her too? I don't have to write much. The story speaks for itself. Long story short: She's a hippy activist who has set her sights on breaking judicial confirmations of conservative judges. The people she associates with speaks volumes: Aron, Ralph Neas of People for the American Way and Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights have been a close-knit and consistent team of opposition to conservative judicial nominees. I always make fun of hippy culture because of their altruistic outlook about society. That is: "If you love it, and nurture it, it won't turn around and kill you." Yeah....right. Tell that to a grown lion you raised from a cub as it guts you, or a terrorist organization like the PLO you try to constantly placate. Animals are animals. The PLO is the PLO. You can't change that because you personally raised them, or in lib cases, continually throw money at it. And no matter how hard they try, libs will not be able to circumvent the will of the people when it comes to wanting judges who interpret law instead of make it. Libs are funny in that they continue to think their ideas are relevant. Bruce Fein, Nan Aron's conservative counterpart sums it up nicely: The left, he says, seems stuck in time. "I think that many on the left like Nan pioneered certain ideas and a particular view of the court in the 1970s and that's what they continue to push today even though the court and arguably the country has moved beyond that view." I couldn't have said it better myself.

    Tuesday, November 08, 2005

    The Goggles.... They Do Nothing!!!!

    Look you liberal freaks, I've had it with your nutty protests. I don't begrudge your right to protest, but I do resent you using really ugly people... Alright, it's not just really ugly people, it's really ugly naked people. Have a heart... Please!!!!!! And please, please, please, shave your nether regions: underarms, crotch..... backs. The back shaving goes for you hippy chicks out there too, alright? If you can't go that far, I understand. You're a nature lover/hippy/boomer/looser, so you don't follow the same civil conventions as "The Man." Alright, I'll admit that I really don't understand. What is wrong with you people? Can anyone answer that? Maybe your actions are the result of the beatings you received in the 60's and 70's from guardsmen and police. That may offer a clue to your odd behavior, but maybe not.

    The human body is a wonderful thing, but you people make me want to take a bath in acid because I begin to feel itchy just looking at you. Link to the story: Topless Ugly People For those who need it: Relief from the freaks. Come back to this link after you finish looking at the pictures below. And now.... Topless ugly people photos. Let your freak flag fly, babe. Look, a Muffin Top... By Evan Halper, Times Staff Writer 2 Protesters Arrested After Going Topless SACRAMENTO Police arrested two members of an organization called Breasts Not Bombs after they removed their tops during a protest on the steps of the state Capitol on Monday afternoon. The women, who were protesting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's ballot measures for today's special election, took off their shirts despite warnings from the California Highway Patrol last week that doing so would lead to their arrests and possibly their inclusion on the state's list of sex offenders. A federal judge Friday refused to grant a request from Breasts Not Bombs to block the police from arresting topless protesters. For those who like the smell of rancid cheese laying in the sun for days, you can read more at the above link. And for Pete's sake, clean yourself whether you think you need it or not. Ok?


    Monday, November 07, 2005

    Jennifer Aniston Is An Idjit

    You'd think that a movie/television/model-type star making, what?.....a million dollars per episode on Friends?, would be a little more on the ball. I mean, she has time to save the world with dozens of charity events each month, I just figured she'd have a little time to read and understand what's going on around her. I figured wrong. The one thing I truly love about Hollyweird elites is they really think people give a rat's ass about them. I don't, until they make goofy statements.... Statements that make me want to bitch-slap them. Jen is only two years younger than I am. So, for the sake of saving our youth, I feel it is my duty to set Ms. Aniston straight, and inform her she's an idgit. Interview is here: Jen is an idjit Jen: My new movie, "Derailed." It's a really sexy psychological thriller with Clive Owen. I had never done a thriller before. It was hard to kiss Clive, but you know what? Somebody had to do it, and that's what they pay me for. I'd like to be paid to be an idjit like Jen. I think that would be cool. Then I realize I have a real life, with real concerns, surrounded by real people. Hey, I got it pretty good compared to Jen's vapidness (For Jen: Vapidness means lacking liveliness, animation, or interest, or dull.) Jen believes she has the perfect product for the masses with her new movie. Here's the plotline to draw you in: When two married business executives (Owen and Aniston) having an affair are blackmailed by a violent criminal, the two must turn the tables on him to save their families. And here's one reviewer from Canada at IMDB.com that sounds like something I'd write.: This is the kind of movie that drove me out of theatres years ago. It is filled with senseless violence and immoral behaviour with no redeeming characteristics. Jennifer Annistan is subtle - like a brick. The plot is a rework of the hackneyed "con-within-a-con" that can be either funny or suspenseful but in this case is neither. Jen: My dog, Norman. I got him from the animal trainers on "Friends"---the ones who worked with the chick, the duck and the monkey. He was an actor dog, but he was so lazy that he had a terrible reputation. He wouldn't hit his mark. He just sat there. They said they sent his doggie head shot out and he wasn't getting any calls. Ok, Jen gets points here for getting a lazy dog. I'm a dog fan, so that makes her a little more acceptable... but not by much. On the plus side, the dog has also probably seen her walking around her hous(es) naked. So that's a good thing. Jen: I'm pegged as a crier, aren't I? I was upset about the Vanity Fair article. I had one moment when I got emotional because I hadn't sat down with an interviewer since this whole debacle took place. It happened for a second and then it was over. But I do cry when I watch shows about babies being born. And I can turn on "Terms of Endearment" at any point and start crying or "The Champ," with Rick Schroder. She sounds so cute with the answers above. Then the real Jen comes out. Below, she's still trying to be cute, but I think you can sense just how out of touch she is. Jen: The long-term effects of Botox. It seems like people are messing around with dangerous stuff. Look at some of the faces out there! Men age gracefully, although you're seeing more men having plastic surgery, which is weird. Nothing is worse than a guy with an eye job and don't think we can't tell. Now she's a doctor.... Or did she just play one on TV? No. That was Joey......(Either you get that, or you don't. I'm not explaining it) Yes Jen, Botox® is a trade name for botulinum toxin A, AKA: Botulism, AKA: food poisoning, but maybe you better check the history before opening your yap hole. I'm not a fan of plastic surgery either, but something tells me, despite what she says now, in a few years Jenny will be off to the doctor for "help" in saving her sagging career, and sagging breasts. Anyway, Botox® was only approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for cosmetic use in April 2002, and has been approved for the treatment of several medical conditions since 1989. I think I trust the scientist and the FDA just a wee bit more than Doctor Jen when it comes to medical safety. Jen: The state of television. Where are all the sitcoms? Why are we so obsessed with reality TV? We don't know how to write and create good shows. I wonder if reality TV is adding to the obsession with the rag magazines that create all those soap operas with celebrities. So-and-so is scratching so-and-so's eyes out and, oh, my God, they may meet! It's so pathetic. I love this the most. Jen sees her career flash before her eyes. "No more sitcoms???? Oh my, what will I do when I'm not doing movies?" Look Jen, there's a couple of good reasons there are so many reality shows on television, so let me explain this to you. At one time, you were one of the highest paid actresses on television.... EVER. According to E! online, Courtney Cox, Lisa Kudrow, and you were making $1 million an episode for the last two seasons. Prior to that you were making over $700,000 per episode. I'm a free market guy, and I have no problem paying anyone 5 million an episode if that's what the market will accept. But money, and the pockets and cheking accounts in which it resides, is finite. This isn't the 80' and 90's anymore Jen, and nobody wants to pay television actors more money than they would make on a full length feature movie. So, you resort to "Reality" programming that requires no writers, or actors. Count yourself lucky sweetheart, you laughed all the way to the bank with one of the highest rated shows on television, lots of money, and bagged (for a time) one of the most sought after men in Hollywood. Therein lies the point you should understand. Jen, you basically have play money. If you want to head to Europe to relax, you hire a jet, and off you go. No biggy, and I am happy you are able to do that, but it's still play money to you. While 99.999 percent of the world's population gets up and goes to work every day, you have the luxury to go anywhere, and do anything. Assuming you invested the money you received from 5 or 6 shows worth of Friends, you should be able to live a comfortable life. So quit complaining about what you want to see on television. If it concerns you so much, use some of that Friends money to start a production company that specializes in sitcoms. Jen: The state of the world. How about that indictment?! And why did it take so long to respond to the crisis in New Orleans? Everything is imploding. It all seems to lead back to our dear president.

    I see Jen fancies herself a political mastermind. I really don't know where to start on this since she leaves herself wide open to be torn apart. Damn, Jen... It's just too easy.

    First: State of the world. There is no difference in the state of the world now, compared to what it was like 300 BC. People killed each other, raped each other, started wars, and died from horrible disease. Get out of your bubble every once and awhile and you may not sound like an idiot when you speak. As far as the indictment, it's just an indictment, and means nothing until he's proven guilty. Learn the laws of your own land, ya idjit!

    Second: The New Orleans flood was a fact of nature that was bound to happen this year, or twenty years from now. Looking for someone to ultimately blame? Try a corrupt city government and police force, and an inept and poorly planned state response team led by Governor Blanco (D) of Louisiana. See here and here for a better, more concise, explanation.

    Third: Everything's imploding? Such as what? The economy is great, unemployment is low, and France is ripping itself apart because of the muslims they refused to do anything about when they had the chance. It couldn't be better. (Burn, baby. Burn)

    And the usual no-brainer liberal bugaboo: It's Bush's fault.... "It leads back to our dear president?" What is "it" Jen? How does "it" lead back to the president? What exactly are you talking about? You don't know, do you? You're simply spouting liberal talking points that can be torn apart by anyone who takes the time to educate themselves. But, based on your last statement, and judging by your glee at the Libby indictment, you must have hated the Clinton administration: - The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance - Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates (33) (47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges.) - Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation - Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify - Most number of witnesses to die suddenly - First president sued for sexual harassment. - First president accused of rape. - First first lady to come under criminal investigation - Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case - First president to establish a legal defense fund. - First president to be held in contempt of court - Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions - Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad - First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court http://prorev.com/legacy.htm if you want more details. Jen: Radiohead. When are they going to make a new album? Where are they? Where did they go? I also want to know why Steve Perry left Journey. Radiohead sounds like a dog with the skivey squirts. I don't know what skivey squirts means, but I like how that sounds. Perry "left" Journey because Neal and Jonathan got tired of listening to him bitch and moan about the direction of the band, and were tired of him single handedly producing Raised On Radio and wanting to do the same on the next CD. Firing Ross Valory and Steve Smith didn't win over too many fans either. And, because he f'd up plans for the Trial By Fire tour by busting his back on a mountain climb just weeks before the tour would start, and f'n up his voice too, Jonathan and Neal brought back Ross, and hired a perfect lookalike/soundalike to take over for Perry. They also got one hell of a good drummer to replace the session players used on Raised and Trial. Does that answer your question? The conclusion to this longwinded diatribe is not just that Aniston is an idiot, it has more to do with me knowing that I may never see a million dollars in my lifetime, but I know that I have intelligence and critical thinking ability better than, oh let's use the number I said earlier: 99.999% of the people in Hollywood. Keep talking guys, you make for good copy, and good ridicule.

    Wednesday, November 02, 2005

    Democratic Racism? Say It Isn't So. Clueless, Part 2

    Part One is here. I mentioned earlier that Democratic leaders were slinking off the deep end, or now I could say they are diving off cliff like lemmings if you prefer that analogy, when describing something or someone they don't like. Usually it's someone along the lines of Nancy Peloci or Teddy Kennedy doing the screaming, but this time I think we can see a little more into the true feelings of the Democratic party. African-American Democrats calling an African-American Republican "Uncle Tom" and "Sambo," can it get any better than that? Ignorance of the highest order is on display here. Link to the story below is here 'Party trumps race' for Steele foes By S.A. Miller THE WASHINGTON TIMES November 2, 2005 Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican. So with that line of thought I can say all black men should play basketball because they're black? For that statement I'd surely be called a racist. But the "inclusive" party believes it is acceptable to attack a black man, and paint him as the white man's boy? What kind of insanity fills their skulls? Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log. I guess watermelon is out of season, so they pelt him with Oreos? Oohhhhhh, that's a racist statement. I better watch my mouth. Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted. Desperate to find anything, they resort to pulling credit reports. When will they go through his garbage? But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious." He's obviously a Sambo, right? "There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes. "Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy." No dear lady, common decency is what democracy is about.. Along with giving someone the right to decide what path their life takes, instead of resorting to slurs about someone's choice in how they live their life. Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black. That explains Bush (A CONSERVATIVE) appointing more minorities to positions of power than your first Black President, Bill Clinton. "Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people." She speaks for the black masses? That's a frightening thought. I guess the best interest for you and your masses, as you so quaintly put it, is keeping minorities from overcoming the poverty forced on them by Democrats following LBJ's Great Society plan? During the 2002 campaign, Democratic supporters pelted Mr. Steele with Oreo cookies during a gubernatorial debate at Morgan State University in Baltimore. In 2001, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. called Mr. Steele an "Uncle Tom," when Mr. Steele headed the state Republican Party. Mr. Miller, Prince George's County Democrat, later apologized for the remark. "That's not racial. If they call him the "N' word, that's racial," Mrs. Marriott said. "Just because he's black, everything bad you say about him isn't racial." I guess since he's one of mine now, I can't use the "N" word, but I can call him "my boy" and that would be acceptable? This lady has a mind that works in strange ways. This week, the News Blog -- a liberal Web log run by Steve Gilliard, a black New Yorker -- removed a doctored photo of Mr. Steele that depicted him as a black-faced minstrel. Here's the link with the poor photoshop work done to Mr. Steele, if anyone wants to see it. Hell, I could piss a better fake black-face picture in a snowbank than this. However, the blog has kept its headline "Simple Sambo wants to move to the big house." A caption beneath a photo of the lieutenant governor reads: "I's Simple Sambo and I's running for the Big House." A spokesman for the Maryland Democratic Party denounced the depiction as being "extremely offensive" and having "no place in politics or in any other aspect of public discourse," The Washington Post reported. Democrats have denied any connection to the News Blog. Of course you (Democrats) deny any association with it, but you gladly court the black vote year after year, and still have nothing to show in the way of progress. Still, Mfume spokesman Joseph P. Trippi said Mr. Steele opens himself to such criticism by defending Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. for holding a Republican fundraiser in July at the all-white Elkridge Club in Baltimore. "The facts are the facts. Ehrlich went to that country club, and Steele said it didn't bother him," Mr. Trippi said. "I think that says something ... and should be part of this debate." Several club members told the Baltimore Sun that, though blacks are welcome as guests and there is no policy banning blacks from membership, the club never has had a black member in its 127-year history. And I, as a white man, while doing my best to play golf every week, have never been a member of a country club either. I also don't have $100K or more to lay out for a membership, as well as the yearly fee those places charge. Democrats also have used the club for various events, including Peter O'Malley, brother of and adviser to Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, a Democratic candidate for governor. Peter O'Malley held his wedding reception there in 2003. State Sen. Verna Jones, Baltimore Democrat and vice chairman of the General Assembly's legislative black caucus, said black Republicans deserve criticism because the Republican Party has not promoted the interests of the black community. Think again, sweetheart... Oops. Is that sexist? Well, it shouldn't matter to her. Every time a Republican government official does anything to get people off the government teat, you scream racism. Worse yet, as this story so clearly points out, any person of "color" who has the nerve to go against you, will receive the full brunt of Democratic name calling, and being labeled a lackey to the white man. "The public policies supported by Democratic principles are the ones that most impact the African-American community," she said. "I'm not saying [Mr. Steele] is a sell-out. That's not for me to say." No, but you sure imply it, don't you? In July, however, Mr. Mfume noted how Republicans were rallying for Mr. Steele but his party had ignored his historic candidacy. That's because, unlike your party, we don't look at skin color as a hindrance, or a plus. To me, Mr. Steele is just a man looking to do the best he can with the talent and ambition God gave him, and not relying on the old Democratic standards of saying the Republicans will eat your children and take your welfare checks if you don't vote for us. Seems to me the whole Democratic welfare scam is the one big reason the black man has been kept in place. Democrats like it that way, and become afraid anytime someone breaks ranks. "More voters in Maryland are carrying the impression that the Democratic Party talks the talk, but doesn't always walk the walk. People may find a way to cross over in the fall," he said. Steele campaign spokesman Leonardo Alcivar said state Democrats are afraid of losing the black vote to Mr. Steele. "That has caused a great tremble throughout the Maryland Democratic Party," he said. "Of course [they are] going to condone racism. It's nothing new, and it's not surprising." Here lies one of the many differences between the Republican party and the Democrats: Republicans can argue and bicker (See Harriet Miers, or the border issue) and still come away content they gave it their best shot if their view fails acceptance. Democrats, on the other hand, scream racism against our beliefs, but think nothing of attacking one of "their own" who refuses to go lock-step with them, or has a differing opinion. (See Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzales, and now Mr. Steele) All of the above have been called slaves, Uncle Toms, and I've even heard Democratic supporters call Condi the "House Mammy." Pretty pathetic.
    Free Web Site Counter
    eXTReMe Tracker