Vapid Edwards, Vapid Vanity Fair

Because of the National Enquirer report on John Edwards, I started to visit his website. I was curious about how much John Edwards talks about his family.
It turns out, he has a whole section of his "about me" for his wife and his daughter Cate.

You know what? If you want to run for president while cheating on your wife... great. I won't vote for you, but cool. Whatever. Its your life. You fuck it up.

Its her problem for getting involved with you. I know so many women who willingly block out such bullshit because they want to believe that they are different from the previous women that their husband has cheated on. They honestly think that they are the first woman that the man will faithful to.
They are naive, but its their problem.

But do me a fucking favor, and don't try to bullshit me into believing that I should vote for you because you are a family man.
Leave that shit off of your website.
If you don't have the integrity to divorce your wife before having an affair with a twenty-something, then don't even try to con me into believing you love her. -Or that you're faithful to her. -Or that you'll be more honest with me then you were to your wife.

John Edwards:
Assuming that you weren't at a hotel to provide emergency child care for a single mother... You are a dick. I hope she asks for the vice presidency as part of the divorce proceedings. If she does, I might actually vote Democratic just to see you whimper as she gets the title of VP.

One other thing I learned while dropping by the Edwards website, and its about John's daughter Cate:

Cate later lived in New York City, working as an editorial assistant for Vanity Fair magazine. She currently attends Harvard Law School.

Vanity Fair is a horrible mag. I'm not saying that because it leans so far left. (They actually have a "Bush Countdown" clock on their website.)
Its horrible because its one of the most vapid and shallow magazines I ever had the disdain to subscribe to. Yes, I actually subscribed to it... once. I thought it would be a good experiment to read something that I wouldn't ordinarily read, and the subscription was really cheap. Bad writing is usually very cheap.

So it made a lot of sense when I read that Cate Edwards, daughter of John Edwards, worked for Vanity Fair. This is the same magazine that trumpeted liar Joe Wilson (husband and wife of Valerie Plame/Wilson) as a whistleblower. Its the magazine that has a section on the "Sexiest Models" in this issue. It defends the NY Times.
Its so vapid that they actually have an article this month on The Unbearable Dullness Of Luxury Goods.
I'm not even going to touch their taste in music on their "Hot Tracks" page. Fuck... I gotta say something!
Apparently, you can't be a hot track unless you sound British.

I am a pacifist. I don't believe in violence. But if I could magically blink my eyes and improve the world with one nod of my head, I would use my mystical powers to make Vanity Fair disappear. It would improve the IQ of the US, and quite possibly make women love themselves again. It would definitely improve the political discourse of this country and there would be one less website with a George Bush Countdown Clock on its website, or a "Countdown to Obama" clock on their desktop workstation.
American music would start sounding less like Americans trying to sound British. And poor Cate, daughter of John Edwards, wouldn't have to sit on her hands as her boss at Vanity Fair explains away why her dad really isn't a dick... but just another wealthy Democratic presidential candidate who cheats on his wife.

Obama is losing traction after Berlin World Tour

He was covered live by the MSM while he gave his speech in Berlin.
He's been covered by so many magazines, news reports, and Olberman gushing that a poll suggests that half of Americans are tired of hearing about him.

How bad has it gotten?
He's dropping in the polls.

For the second day in a row Rasmussen shows John McCain and Barack Obama tied with 44 percent and with "leaners" added, McCain takes a 1 percentage point lead. Zogby also shows McCain with a 1 percent lead and Obama losing support with the young and women

A while back, I predicted to friends that - at some point - the Obama fascination would get old. After all, you think the prom king is cool when you're in high school. A couple years later, you see him working at his dad's office and he's not as cool anymore.

Obama is starting to work for his dad. (Note to Democrats: I mean that as a metaphor.)
It was bound to happen. After all, that Berlin thing was pretty over the top. To date, no one can explain to me why an American presidential candidate - in the middle of the election - has to campaign in Berlin.

The weird thing is that Obama hasn't had his Dean scream yet. I thought the Dean scream might have been the seat on his campaign airplane with the word "President" written on it.
I was wrong.
Apparently, no one thinks that's weird.
But people do seem to have a problem with him giving that speech in Berlin. And just for tonight, that will reenforce my belief in my fellow man.

Atlas Shrugs pwned Obama on donations

I've been looking into this myself, but I'm not as good as the staff of Atlas Shrugs. Their detailed articles on contributor Monir Edwan, an Obama contributor from the Gaza strip, is extraordinary.
A short summary, in case you haven't kept up on this:

Monir has two receipts. One dated 10/27/07 for $1,290.63 (primary - this is in the FEC file), the second dated 10/30/07 for $1,671.85 (primary - this is in the FEC file). The total on the receipt for Election Cycle is $9,598.54 (above allowed). NOTE THE TOTAL HE GAVE JUST ON 10/30/07 ACCORDING TO THE FEC FILE IS $7,435.81.

Atlas Shrugs would get a Pulitzer for their in-depth research if they were not a blog. -Or if they were reporting on contributions to a Republican.
If you don't understand how important this is, maybe I can help. A Palestinian has illegally contributed just under $10,000 to Barack Obama.
This leads me to two key questions:

• Why? Why would you donate $10,000 to Barack if you lived on the Gaza strip? As an American president, how would Obama affect your future that much if elected?
• Why wasn't this caught by the Obama campaign? Every campaign has some form of auditing to make sure they don't break election laws. This isn't because all campaigns want to be honest. Its because they know it looks bad if they get caught breaking FEC laws.

Congrats to Atlas Shrugs on their research! They earned a spot on my toolbar with their homework.

The small donors for Obama get bigger

Remember being told about how Obama was getting support mainly from small internet donations?

Uhm... it turns out that's not true. At least not now.
The always dubious International Herald Tribune has an article about Obama's big donors. Granted, I always have doubts about the International Tribune, however, this is their conclusion:

But records show that a third of his record-breaking haul has come from donations of $1,000 or more - a total of $112 million, more than the total of contributions in that category taken in by either Senator John McCain, his Republican rival, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his opponent in the Democratic primaries.

Yes, the man of the little people. The little people who can give $1,000 or more to a presidential candidate.

Will anyone admit Obama's real problem?

I don't get it.
If you were to rank the criticisms on a scale of 1-10 of Obama, what would be in first place?

1) Arrogant / self-aggrandizing

Right? That's 'our' worry, those of us who have been trying to warn others of him?
Right?

So if you were the campaign chief of staff, and you KNEW that, wouldn't you take every step to blunt that criticism? To make everyone believe that the charges of "arrogance" weren't true?

I mean, you don't need to have Obama prostrating himself in front of the press. But after the "presidential seal" fiasco, and the "presidential Euro trip" thing, wouldn't you try to tone down the presumptuousness?

Or does his staff think that's his best trait?

They must, because of this:

His chair has his name and campaign logo embroidered on the back top -- “Obama ‘08” on one line and “President” underneath.

Not "for president".
President.

If you think I'm making this up, look at the photo (CBS/Allison Davis O'Keefe):




Again... presuming that you were the person running the campaign, wouldn't you try to AVOID this kind of presumptiveness?
I know what you're thinking: "we'll... maybe he's owned this for a while"
No.
From the same article:

Barack Obama’s new campaign plane is nothing short of grand. Well, for the candidate that is.

What am I missing?
What makes this guy so special that he can just be president without a vote?
Even more importantly, what makes his campaign people so incompetent that they keep on allowing this side of him to show? -Or is it that Barack is SO arrogant, that they can't even STOP it from happening?

Obama and 200,000 Berliners, flyered in

How do you get 200,000 Berliners to show up for a presidential press conference? I mean, when you're not actually president?
You have your staff flyer the city.
Patrick Ruffin had linked to the flyer before the speech. Later, I read a report (yeah, I can't find the damn thing now) about how staff distributed flyers around the city.

This is what I find interesting about that report:
I can't find any references to it today. Which either means that I imagined it, or that none of the press thinks that was important enough to mention.

You almost have to admire the ability of the MSM to go along with the photo op.

What's popular vs. what's right

Is the popular answer the same thing as the right answer?

I'm pretty certain that Dale - a fellow blogger - will never cite the popularity of Bush from November of 2001 as proof that Bush was right. Not when his favorability ratings went into the 80 percentile. I'm quite certain that Dale would never argue that everyone should have liked Bush then, because so many other people did.
I'm also certain that he wouldn't argue that Americans are right, when between 55-75% disapprove of the job that the Democrats in Congress are doing.

Yet, in "That Fifth Dentist", Dale tosses himself into that logical void, never to return. In it, Dale argues that I'm the guy who doesn't agree with the population who disapproves of Bush... and thus I'm incorrect for calling Olbermann out for editing one word out of Bush's interview.

Being popular is never the same thing as being right.
Democrats used to brag about how popular Clinton was. They don't do that so much anymore.
We know what those four dentists said, but we don't know what the fifth dentist answered. Thus, there is that logical falacy of believing that the fifth dentist is automatically wrong.

Dale writes:

In the comments, Dentist #5 has thrown himself into to the defense of our so-called president, insisting that this answer stopped between the "o" in the word "No" and the comma immediately after it; the rest of the president's answer, the part that amounts to a detailed yes -- consisting of the president's anecdote about having had a round of golf interrupted by deadly news from Iraq, and arriving at the epiphany that it's just worth it to play golf -- only seems responsive to the question as asked.

I never said that the sentence stops at the word No.
Unlike Olbermann, I included the rest of the sentence.
I didn't leave out the one word that would put to death my conclusion, as Olbermann did.
I included the whole text. Which is why I'm still a thousand times more honest then Olbermann will ever be.

The rest of the president's answer doesn't amount to a detailed yes. Not if you include the word "no" before it.
I've explained this to Dale before, but I guess that the first few explainations didn't sink in. Maybe they weren't popular enough to warrant his attention.
I'll try again.

If I were asked if there was any particular moment or incident when I decided to learn how to program computers:
"No. My friend had a Bally computer that allowed you to program in BASIC. I remember sitting in front of it for hours, just to get it to put together streams on text on its own."

Does that mean that I learned how to program computers that day?
No.
Does that mean that it was the Bally computer that I first programmed on?
No.

Of course, if we're to take the Dale/Olbermann route to my answer, the word "no" should be ignored and clipped off, and only the second part of the sentece is relevant.

Its worth noting that Dale previously argued:

And the larger point, of course, is that the sacrifice of golf is all this piece of crap could give by way of reply to the question of how he himself has sacrificed for his Iraq war.

This is incorrect
Bush was never asked what he had sacrificed. He was asked:

Q Mr. President, you haven't been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?

I note that to date, Dale hasn't corrected himself for saying that. Maybe he's waiting for a different point of view to become popular first, so that he can agree with the other four dentists.

Why Politico and the Huffington Post are dishonest

About a week ago, I caught a brief glimpse of an article that said that George Bush had given up golf out of respect for the dead in Iraq.
I thought it sounded out of context, and it was. But what's pretty horrific to me is the way that Politico, the Huffington Post, and of course Keith Olbermann have been deliberately slanderous in interpreting what was said.

To bring you up to date, this is what Politico wrote, and quoted:

Bush said he made that decision after the August 2003 bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the top U.N. official in Iraq and the organization’s high commissioner for human rights.

Sounds pretty cut and dry. Right?
This is the actual quote from Bush that they provide:

“I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life,” he said. “I was playing golf — I think I was in central Texas — and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, ‘It's just not worth it anymore to do.’"

From that, you would assume that Bush was asked when he made the decision to give up golf, and his response was that he did it when de Mello was killed.
Correct?
There probably isn't a word that could change that meaning. Right?

Now let's look at the actual transcript:

Q Mr. President, was there a particular moment or incident that brought you to that decision, or how did you come to that?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life. And I was playing golf -- I think I was in central Texas -- and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, it's just not worth it anymore to do.

Note the very first word out of the president's mouth - the one I bolded - when he was asked if there was any particular moment or incident that bought him to that decision.
The word was "no."
That word is kinda important, because Politico left it out of their quote. Please note that.

Now Keith Olbermann has interpretted Bush's statement to say that he promised - the day that de Mello was killed - that he wouldn't play golf anymore. (Olbermann had video of Bush playing two months later, and slobbered into his petty microphone that Bush lied about golfing. Its important to note that in the past 4 years, no one has come up with an incident of Bush playing golf.)
This would be relevant if Bush hadn't actually said "No..." when he was asked if there was any particular moment or incident that made him take that decision.

Does Bush follow up with a story on something that clearly helped him come to that decision? Yes. But only after telling the interviewer "No..." that there was no particular moment or incident.

Let me put it another way. If the word "no" didn't blunt the words after it... then why did Politico edit it out?

Now you can argue that the Huffington Post just never read the actual transcript. Cool... they've had time to read it since then.
-And you can't possibly argue that Olbermann hasn't seen the whole transcript, so he's just being a dishonest asshole as usual.

But to me, the question becomes about the left in general. How is it that the actual transcript eluded all of them? Didn't someone on the left feel obliged to say, "Hey, you know, he actually said 'no' at the beginning of that sentence"?
Really?
Anyone?

Peace Prostestor Plagiarism

I really can't stand the idiocy of the anti-war crowd for many reasons. But one annoying constant is that peace protestors seem to lack any originality.

Please start by watching this video. Its from a group called "Improv Everywhere." Their ideas are pretty cool, and they create head-turning moments that I love. In this instance, they arranged for a couple hundred people to freeze in place for exactly five minutes, at the same time.

Cool... right?

Okay, now watch this video... also done in a train station.
I'd like to know what it is about the left lately, that their ideas have become so unoriginal. The left is supposed to be full of artist and free-thinkers. But more and more lately, they seem to be eating their own ideas rather then creating new ones.

Its annoying enough that they don't understand that they are undercutting the safety of men overseas by giving terrorists in Iraq hope. But do I really have to watch them plagiarize a great idea?

Obama starts to slide in the polls

But before I talk about polls, it's important to put Obama's support for Wright in context.
This might help.

"I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News, "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."

Obama said that in April of 2007. Wright was on his staff at the time, and Obama had known Wright for about 20 years.

We are now asked to believe that in the 20 years that Obama had known Wright - a man who he describes as being like an "uncle" to him - he had never said anything racist in Obama's presence before.

Obama was interviewed by Chris Matthews about Imus that April, and he said that Imus should be off the air. "He would not be working for me," he said. "I don't want to be an enabler"

But Obama was an enabler, and the polls are reflecting that.
According to Gallup, as quoted on PollingReport.com, Obama is slipping dramatically in the polls. Call this the story that hasn't been covered, but since March 13th, his numbers have gone straight down. My summary... among Democratic voters:

Clinton Obama
3/14 44% 50%
3/18 49% 42%

That's a pretty big slide.
It might have something to do with how tone deaf Obama has been about this issue. According to CNN's Anderson Cooper who had an exclusive interview with him after his speech:

Asked why he didn't denounce the controversial comment when he first heard of them more than a year ago, Obama noted Wright was on the verge of retirement.

"I told him that I profoundly disagreed with his positions. As I said before, he was on, at that stage, on the verge of retirement. ... You make decisions about these issues. And my belief was that given that he was about to retire, that for me to make a political statement respecting my church at that time wasn't necessary."

Yah. Right. Okay.
He was on the verge of retirement... a year ago. And Obama had him on his staff since then. Keep in mind what he said about Don Imus:

I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group.

Apparently, to Obama, those were words... just words.

An Obama video that you won't see on Olbermann

There's a lot to this story, so please stick with me.
A pastor named Jerimiah Wright has a long history of making anti-American rants from the pulpit. O'Reilly put together a selection of his comments on a video that you can watch for yourself.
Its pretty amusing stuff to see a pastor say "G--damn America" for bombing Iraq, 9/11, and Nagasaki. Its a bizarre thing to see a relic from the black panther days suggest that if we don't find WMDs in Iraq, we will plant them there 'like the cops in LA' plant drugs on people. That's all part of Mr. Wright's patter.

On the Huffington Post, Obama tried to distance himself from his pastor:

When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

So keep that in mind for a second... that Obama said that he knew about Wright's comments at the beginning of the campaign.

Obama further tried to distance himself on Olbermann's Countdown, and you can watch the video of it here. But he's careful to simply distance himself from Wright's comments, rather then the man himself. After all, Wright was his "spiritual guidance" counsler, and part of his actual campaign.
Obama has to make this small distinction of separating himself from Wright's comments, rather then the actual man, because even though Obama has said that he learned about Wright's comments at the beginning of the campaign, he praised the man as late as June of 2007.
Thanks to YouTube, you can see the video of Obama praising him.
If Countdown had any consistency, Keith Olbermann would play this video and then spend the next twenty minutes excoriating Obama for his outright lying.
But Countdown won't, because they aren't really a news program. They are Obama's cheerleaders, clear and simple.

The rest of the media still has a chance to show themselves as unbiased. Let's see what they do with the video, and if they cover this story as it should be covered.

Why Obama won't win the presidency

He can't be beaten. Right? Everybody wants Obama for President. Right?
Okay.
So if that's true, then how come he's only getting 46% of the vote in this survey of the Democratic primary? Shouldn't he at least be in the 60-70% range among Democrats?
That's not exactly a among his own party.

On the death of Gary Gygax

Like most geeks, I grew up awkward.
I loved chess and programming computers. I had my own TRS-80 Model 4 (That was one of the first home computers.) I made electronic kits.
I was the ultimate underachiever.

Somewhere around 1982, a friend of mine named Tom introduced me to a game called Dungeons and Dragons that changed my life forever. It was pretty complicated. It involved dice, but it didn't have a fixed playing board. You made up your own character and they existed in this other world.

I vaguely remember asking Tom what my character could / should do, and he said "whatever you want to do".
Anything?
A game where your character could do anything?

Dungeons and Dragons was the ultimate game that ever existed. It was only limited by the imagination of the "Dungeon Master" and ourselves. And if the Dungeon Master was feeling uninspired, he could buy an adventure (called a module) and let you explore that world.

It was a game that Gary Gygax had invented.

For the rest of my high school life, I spent way more time creating campaigns (worlds) for my friends to go through then I did on any of my homework. I created short programs on my computer to help me do the grunt work of creating monsters. At lunch, in the Cafeteria, my friends and I would play short adventures on graph paper, until our high school outlawed D&D. (They later overturned that ruling.)

Because of D&D, I knew at least five words on my ACT test that I wouldn't ordinarily know. I knew how to add and subtract extraordinarily quickly, because it was part of the game. I became adept at performing multiple characters, because as the DM (Dungeon Master) I was responsible for helping create the world that my friends entered.
I also got horrible grades because I was spending so much time on D&D.

For a number of years, my friends attended Gen Con (a convention of game players up in Wisconsin.) When I could afford it, I would go with. That became our pilgrimage. A "guys weekend" for us guys who were more geeky then the rest.

I learned of Gary Gygax's death through those friends. Although we no longer play Dungeons and Dragons on weekends, we still get together to play video games on occasion. That's been our social gathering for about 20 years.
Those weekends formed some of the most fun I've ever had with friends. We ate bad food, made stupid jokes, and argued about stupid things. But in the end, it was just a good time.
I owe Gary a thank you for a really good time.
...For the idea that I could go in any direction that I wanted on a map of a place that didn't exist.
...For the concept of a world where the good guys usually won, at least if they used their brains.
...For the notion of creating an adventure for my friends, and telling a story that they could take part in.
...For giving a creative outlet to a very quiet guy, who wasn't always the best at social interactions.
...For making me take pride in owning a set of "crystal" plastic D&D dice.

Its amazing to me how many of "us" know who Gary Gygax is.
I doubt that the World Of Warcraft would exist without him, or the game Hexen or Heritic which came before WOW. In my opinion, Gary started it all.

You can read the moving tributes of other fans here.
My friends are making the pilgrimage to Wisconsin for his funeral over the weekend. Once again, I can't go make the trip up North because of previous commitments. Which I suppose is fitting, but still bittersweet.

Gary, I had a hell of a lot of fun because of you and your game.
Thank you.

Clinton Aide Insults Ken Starr

According to this article from CBS news, an aide for Hillary Clinton landed the ultimate insult to the special prosecutor:

A top aide to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday compared rival Sen. Barack Obama to independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr.

I'm sure Ken wasn't too insulted. After all, they were words... just words.
:)

Barack runs head first into press favoritism

Barack has run head first into his first tough questions of the campaign. While in San Antonio, an incredibly good reporter named Carol Marin - from Chicago's own channel 5 - started asking Obama specific questions about his brushes with fund raising. She asked him specifically about his real estate deal brokered by felon and Obama fund raiser Tony Rezko.

What makes this even more interesting is the reaction of those who are covering the campaign to this latest development: The first two articles I've read on his press conference, the one above and this one, have both accused Hillary of being the catalyst behind the questions.

Which leads me to ask: why does the press need someone to push them into asking these questions?

This study from the Project on Excellence in Journalism might give some of the answer.
Its a study on the coverage of presidential candidates during the campaign.
Gathering stories over a five month period in the beginning of 2007, the project sorted stories into "positive" coverage, "negative" coverage, or neutral. They looked at network news coverage, cable news, talk radio, newspapers, and online coverage.

What it revealed wasn't that shocking to me. Its what conservatives always knew...

Overall, Democrats also have received more positive coverage than Republicans (35% of stories vs. 26%), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35% vs. 26%). For both parties, a plurality of stories, 39%, were neutral or balanced.

Of course, those of us on the right are not surprised.

And as much as I've argued that Obama was benifitting from a plethora of positive coverage, this was the part that confirmed my arguments:

Democrat Barack Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois, enjoyed by far the most positive treatment of the major candidates during the first five months of the year—followed closely by Fred Thompson, the actor who at the time was only considering running.

In fact, the only one approaching Barack's positive coverage number (47.6% of his stories were positive), was Rudy Guiliani (27.8%) and Hilary Clinton (26.9%)

The negative numbers were similiarly skewed. Only 15% of the stories on Barack were negative. The closest other candidate to him was Rudy, with 37% of his stories negative.

So yeah, I guess that number for Barack might actually go up to 16% negative coverage after this week. But since the press is blaming this on Hillary, I imagine her negative press coverage number will go even higher.

Chicago Reader publishes anti-war message as a PSA

For all of you who think that the media is not liberal: In the past issue of the Chicago Reader, there is a PSA on page 45 of the music section.
The "Public Service Announcement" is from "World Can't Wait", a we-hate-Bush/ anti-war group. The ad is for an upcoming protest that they are planning. This full-page ad would have normally cost them $3,000. But they are getting it for free, courtesy of the Chicago Reader.
As a public service, I thought I'd let you know that...
Chicago Reader = free ad for anti-Bush group

This is the ad. I'm copying it as a public service to the people who support the war and want to be at the protest.

When you want to assassinate the president...

...then its time to re-examine your politics.

I've hated presidents and politicians. I really have. I thought that Clinton was a scourge on this country, and when people asked me why, I listed off a string of things that had nothing to do with Monica. So I understand- to some distant degree- how some liberals can dislike Bush.

However, when you make a movie about assassinating the president?

The first question is, why would you make a movie about assassinating any real person? Someone who actually exists? You have to break a lot of new ground on being a dick before you could even get me thinking about such things. But Gabriel Range, the writer of the docudrama, starts there.

The thing is, someone along the line had to green light this project. They had to think that it was a good enough idea to assassinate (on film) an actual living person. They had to make the concious decision that this wouldn't be a dick move to another living human being.
Which makes them... a dick.

Gabriel; I'm sure you are a human being capable of love and other human emotions. But the day you decided to write this? That day, your heart died. -And when I say "died", I don't mean that I'm killing you off for dramatic purposes. I mean you ceased to be a normal human being, and you fell into that abyss that I reserve for only the most disconnected of those I know: moonbats.

-John

Newsweek Prints the Plame Truth

Do you think they got it right this time?
I mean, this was the same rag... er, mag, that kept suggesting that Cheney, er, Rove, er, Libby was the leaker?
It must have hurt Newsweek to admit that Bush wasn't responsible for Valerie Plame's name becoming public. You can practically hear the reporter typing through clenched teeth.

"The disclosures about Armitage, gleaned from interviews with colleagues, friends and lawyers directly involved in the case, underscore one of the ironies of the Plame investigation: that the initial leak, seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent, came from a man who had no apparent intention of harming anyone."

So Valerie Plame wasn't outed by, you know, Bush? Someone should put the members of the left on suicide watch. Isn't this going to just kill them?

-John

Further proof that anti-war jagmo's hate the troops

Cpl. Scott Vincent's name appears on an anti-war T-shirt. It is among 1,700 names on the shirt, casualties of the war in Iraq.
According to the New York Post, he T-shirt in question also says "Bush lied", "They died".


Now it would be ridiculous to assume that all 1,700 of those brave men would support the anti-war t-shirt that mocks their actions in Iraq.
Indeed, the mother of Cpl. Scott Vincent intervened, and asked jagmo and t-shirt entrepreneur Dan Frazier to remove her sons name from his shirt.


What do you think Dan's actions were?

Do you think, because he "cares" about the soldiers, that he would remove the name from the shirt?

Why... that would take a good $20 to create a new silkscreen.

Nope. Jagmo Dan Frazier sent out a public letter praising the "bravery" and "sacrifice" of the soldiers, and said that he would continue to sell t-shirts with Cpl. Scott Vincent's name on them.

I have a new headline for your t-shirt, jagmo Dan Frazier:
"Soldiers died", "So I could sell more t-shirts"

Asshole.

Ray McGovern's letter from "Camp Casey"

But hey, he's just some guy coming forward to question Rumsfeld. Right? He's got no axe to grind?
Here's his letter.

In it, he talks about a rumor going around that Karl Rove set fire ants off in the camp.
He says that he has a dream that "Camp Casey" can do a Selma-like march over the bridge, in protest.
But then he goes off and starts talking about how we can all help Cindy protest "an unnecessary war", and he goes into this part:

Ignore. That's what the vast majority of Germans did in the 1930s as Hitler curtailed civil liberties and launched aggressive wars. I was born in August 1939, a week before Hitler sent German tanks into Poland to start World War II. I have studied that crucial time in some detail. And during the five years I served in Germany I had occasion to ask all manner of people how it could possibly be that, highly educated and cultured as they were, the Germans for the most part could simply ignore. Why was it that the institutional churches, Catholic and Evangelical Lutheran, could not find their voice? Why was it that so few spoke out?

May I respond?

Nuts. That's what the vast majority of us think you are, when you compare our actions in Iraq to Hitler's Germany. America did not blindly support this war, nor do we look past when the very few of our men violate the rules of war.

Stop being a dick, Ray.
I don't mind if you have something of substance to add to this debate. But man, I cannot stand your ignorance and dishonesty.

-John

When all of the tin foil reaches critical mass

Sometimes you find something out that just makes soooo much sense.

Like... well, when you find out that Ray McGovern was planning on protesting with Cindy Sheehan. Or when you find out that there is a photo of him, David Swanson, and Cindy Sheehan at some "impeach Bush" rally.
(In case you haven't been paying attention, Ray McGovern is the self-appointed "CIA analyst with 27 years of experience" who told Rumsfeld that he lied about WMDs.)

The photo feels like the black hole of tin foil to me. Somehow, I imagine a swirling of Che shirts all around them, as all anti-Bush conspiracies reach critical mass.
You've GOT to see the photo. Honestly.

-John

The GAO final report on Clinton WH damage

Something I found while looking up other somethings.

It is the G.A.O.s final report on the damage to the White House when Clinton left. It was released in June of 2002, and kinda got lost in the news. I was curious so I started to read.

Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks did occur in the White House complex during the 2001 presidential transition. Multiple people said that, at the beginning of the Bush administration, they observed (1) many offices that were messy, disheveled, or contained excessive trash or personal items; (2) numerous prank signs, printed materials, stickers, and written messages that were left behind, some of which contained derogatory and offensive statements about the president; (3) government property that was damaged, including computer keyboards with missing or damaged “W” keys and broken furniture; and (4) items that were missing, such as office signs, a presidential seal, cellular telephones, doorknobs, and telephone number labels. In addition, documentation provided indicated that some broken, missing, or possibly stolen items were repaired or replaced at the beginning of the Bush administration. Several EOP staff said they believed that what they observed during the transition, such as broken furniture and excessive trash left behind, was done intentionally.

Basically, it says that yeah, there was a lotta damage to the White House, but according to Clinton staffers, the White House was damaged when they got there, too.
Oh, and the Clinton staffers said that they have no idea how the damage happened.
I guess that so many people are allowed through the White House offices unescorted, that pretty much anyone could have been gluing the "W" buttons to the walls and putting Gore stickers on the inside of cabinets.

The Bush White House responded to it at the time (their response is included in the report) and basically accused the G.A.O. of trying to downplay the damage. Which, if you read the report, is entirely true.

Anyway, read away. It shows you just how juvenile the former Clinton staff was, and kinda explains why they have to spend their nights bad-mouthing the Bush White House.

-John

Ray McGovern Lied About Rumsfeld

Here's a little background primer. Ray McGovern is a former CIA member with 27 years of experience. You probably already heard that, because every liberal website wants you to know that.
What they probably haven't told you is that he has been out of the intelligence business since the early 90's. Instead, he joined one peacenik group and created a second. His is called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, or VIPs for short.

I wanted to try to skip over the part where I make fun of someone who calls their organization VIPs. But you can't. For God's sakes, he calls his group VIPs. What does that say about his ego? His maturity? His inflated self-opinion?

Of course, the real point is 'was he right?'
Rumsfeld was speaking in Atlanta on May 3rd at the Southern Center for International Studies, when McGovern took him on in this exchange (Relevant parts bolded):

RAY MCGOVERN: I'm Ray McGovern, a 27-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. (Light laughter.) I would like to compliment you on your observation that lies are fundamentally destructive of the trust that government needs to govern. A colleague of mine, Paul Pillar, who is the top agency analyst on the Middle East and on counterterrorism accused you and your colleagues of an organized campaign of manipulation, quote, "I suppose by some definition" --

SEC. RUMSFELD: Could you get to your question, please?

MR. MCGOVERN: -- that's been called a lie.

Atlanta, September 27th, 2002, Donald Rumsfeld said, and I quote, "There is bullet-proof evidence of links between al Qaeda and the government of President Saddam Hussein."

Was that a lie, Mr. Rumsfeld, or was that manufactured somewhere else, because all of my CIA colleagues disputed that and so did the 9/11 commission. And so I would like to ask you to be up front with the American people. Why did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary and that has caused these kinds of casualties?

AUDIENCE: (Booing.)

MR. MCGOVERN: Why?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, first of all, I haven't lied. I did not lie then -- (applause). Colin Powell didn't lie. He spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence Agency people and prepared a presentation that I know he believed was accurate, and he presented that to the United Nations. The president spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence people, and he went to the American people and made a presentation. I'm not in the intelligence business. They gave the world their honest opinions. It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.

MR. MCGOVERN: You said you knew where they were.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were, and we were --

MR. MCGOVERN: You said -- you said you knew where they were near Tikrit, near Baghdad and northeast, south and west of there. Those are your words.

SEC. RUMSFELD: My words -- my words were that -- no, no, no. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Let him stay one second -- just a second. (Referring to security removing Ray McGovern from the press conference.)

MR. MCGOVERN: This is America, huh?

Do you think McGovern wanted honesty?
Did Rumsefeld say that he knew exactly where the weapons were to bring us to war? Did he say that they were in Tikrit, Baghdad, etc?

Here is the exchange from This Week With George Stephanopolous, March 30th 2003.
Note the date. The war was already under way.
So for McGovern to suggest that Rumsfeld said that he knew exactly where the WMDs were, as a justification for war, is a lie.
But let's move on...

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Second, the [audio glitch] facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area. It is the -- Answar Al-Islam group has killed a lot of Kurds. They are tough. And our forces are currently in there with the Kurdish forces, cleaning the area out, tracking them down, killing them or capturing them and they will then begin the site exploitation. The idea, from your question, that you can attack that place and exploit it and find out what's there in fifteen minutes.

I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.

So how is it that McGovern noted the first part of Rumsfeld's statements, but not the second?
How is it that McGovern noted where Rumsfeld said the WMDs would be, but he missed the caveat where Rumsfeld said that they might not be there anymore?

Why is McGovern quoting Rumsfeld's comments during the war as an example of what Rumsfeld said to justify going to war?
Is McGovern a liar? Or did he just a victim of bad intelligence?

-John

John Murtha, Democratic troll from PA, has opened his mouth against our troops. Again.

He held a news conference to talk about a November 19th action by our troops in Iraq. A pentagon investigation into the events in Haditha is pending, but Murtha has declared the troops guilty already.
According to The Seattle Times:

"There was no firefight. There was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed those innocent people," Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said during a news conference on Iraq. "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them. And they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. That is what the report is going to tell."
How does Murtha come to this conclusion? Its hard to say, since he admitted not reading the report.
So basically, Murtha has come forward again to oppose any action in Iraq.

What a douchebag.
Hey, if you want to spout your opinion, that's one thing. But Murtha is the ranking Democrat on the Defense Appropriations committee. Which means that he shouldn't hold a press conference to give a verdict on an investigation that he hasn't read the report on.
It also means that he's using the death of Iraqis as a political football.
Which makes him a douchebag.
But we already knew he was. Right?

-John

Dixie chicks; Flipping and flopping

Apparently, taking their cue from John Kerry, the Dixie Chicks are flip flopping.

How, you say?

In 2003, singer / political pundit Natalie Maines was in London when she said, "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas."

Natalie didn't expect the reaction from her fans, many who supported Bush. At first, she issued a kinda half-hearted "guess I shouldn't have said that out loud" kinda thing. That didn't go over with her fans. So, as CNN reported, she apoligized to the president:

"As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect," Maines said in her latest statement.

Of course, no one expects musicians to have convictions, thoughts, or consistency.
-But Maines seems to have none of these things. The Chicks put out the first single from their new album, "Not Ready To Make Nice." Which is kinda ironic, cause they already did. But now they don't want to be nice. Again.
From her Entertainment Weekly interview:

Every day a soldier dies, I am more proud that I spoke out. For the last three years, I am at a loss for words as to... what this country is. Who we are. I really think people have just gone insane. And they think we've gone insane. I think it's sad that you have to truly seek out the truth these days, because CNN and Fox News don't give it to you. So you can't really point a finger at individuals, because it's exhausting to seek out fact from fiction. I used to try and make sense of it but when Bush got reelected, I just didn't know what to do. Keep livin'. It's gotta change back.

Later, Maines says that the American people don't have a voice. She calls it a corpocracy, which makes her a corpocracy nut.

I want to be clear here; when someone hates the president, I'm cool with it. I'm even cool with the borderline conspiracy nuts who believe that CNN is on Bush's side. I would keep sharp objects away from them, but for the most part, they are pretty harmless.

But I can't stand people who apoligize for what they said, and then turn around and say it again.
You have no balls Miss Maines, which is why you don't understand what's going on in Iraq. We are putting a lot more then our reputation on the line in Iraq, and those of us who support the actions there, understand that. This isn't just about the safety of one soldier, or 100,000 soldiers. If you understand anything, please understand this;

There are people out there who want you and I dead because we do not worship their god.

They are not just upset with us because we traveled thousands of miles to kick a dictator out of Iraq. Its not as simple as "leave our country, and we won't hate you anymore."

You know those idiots who sent you death threats?
Picture tens of thousands of them, all organized, and ready to travel. That's our problem in the Middle East. Its not just some idiot sending you a "I hate when you speak" e-mail. Its a group of highly radicalized idiots who don't like it when you wear a low cut dress or talk dirty.

Now we can't pretend like those people don't exist. But what we can do is send over the people who are most qualified to kick their asses, and send them the message that they cannot sqelch the freedom to live as one chooses to live.

Anyway, I will now wait as that concept soars over the heads of those who aren't intellectually prepared to understand it. And I'll wait for Maines to get all whiny about the fact that I've called her a flip flopper.

-John

Translation: Democrats are gullible as perch

Yeah, I've been gone. But now its time to rant with a vengence.

My latest problem?
The un-fucking-believable tendency of the left to believe that everything that GWB says is a lie.

Yesterday, Kos went on a rampage because he found a Reuters article quoting Bush as sayng that he caught a 7.5 pound perch.
Which, as fishermen know, is damned impossible. Apparently, the record for perch is 4 pounds.

What did Kos leave out? Besides, you know, the fact that it was an interview with a German paper "weekly Bild am Sonntag"?
Kos left out the part that it was an English translation of a German article.

Which, of course, means that somehow Bass was translated into Perch.
Here's the White House version of the same interview.

Did I mention that the left is full of pillow heads?
This is the very example of moonbattery.

-John

Dems continue to jump the shark

Yesterday, they shut down the congress to the public so that they could discuss their Iraq-war conspiracy theories.

Today?
First, black Dem leaders are defending the people who threw oreo cookies at Michael S. Steele, a black Republican who is running for senate. In a statement (quoted in the Washtington Times) that could only have been written by a KKK member, Kweisi Mfume said:

There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names

In that case Mr. Mfume, you are one self-absorbed racist asshole.

Secondly, former president Carter comes out of his hobbit hole to attack Bush, in this AP article:

The Bush Administration's prewar claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were "manipulated, at least" to mislead the American people, former President Jimmy Carter said Wednesday.

I'd love to ask Carter why Clinton also attacked Iraq, and supported the attacks on Iraq. At least initially, and then of course Clinton had to say that it was wrong because it was the Democratic plot line.
Anyway, its nice to see Carter shedding his nice-guy image and coming out as an even bigger partisan jerk then the rest of his party.
Its difficult though to see the Dem party jumping the shark in masse. What is going to be their 2008 election theme? "We're sane, again"? Its going to be really hard for them to step back from that cliff.

Don't believe the hype: Judy Miller is a liberal

A lot of people have suggested that Judith Miller is in bed with conservatives.
I want to kill that notion immediately.
Unless she has had a change of heart her later years, there is nothing in her past to suggest that she is anything but a liberal. From a biography on her:

Before joining The Times, Ms. Miller was Washington bureau chief of The Progressive, a monthly and the nation's second oldest journal, was heard regularly on National Public Radio, and wrote articles for many publications.

I just want to set things straight.

Judith Miller comes down with Hillary Clinton disease

I guess I'm not the only person who thinks that Judith Miller is holding out on us.
During recent grand jury testimony, she reportedly got a case of what I call "Hillary Clinton" disease. That's when you find your back to the wall, and suddenly, you "can't recall".

My own take on it is that after she was given a heads up by Libby on Wilson's wife, she went looking to other sources of information to find out Valerie Plame's name. Where would you go if you were a Washington journalist to confirm such information?
Why... to your fellow liberals.
That's my educated guess.
Anyhoo, this is what the Editor & Publisher had to say about her memory problems:

John Temple, editor and publisher of The Rocky Mountain News in Denver, also noted such surprise. "It is hard to believe that Judy Miller couldn't remember the name of the source that gave her Valerie Plame's name," Temple said.

Indeed.

And the headline says what???

The AP puts a different kind of spin on the Iraqis voting on their first real Constitution, with this headline:

Sunnis Appear to Fall Short in Iraq Vote

In other news, the AP appears to be upset that the Constitution might be approved.
Interesting, that.

Soldier on the "staged" press conference

I'm going to skip past the idea that suddenly, it matters to the media, that politicians are staging events with people friendly to their POV.

Although it is curious that they suddenly noticed.

Instead, I'm going to focus on this, the blog of a soldier who was actually there and being asked questions:

We were given an idea as to what topics he may discuss with us, but it's the President of the United States; He will choose which way his conversation with us may go.
We practiced passing the microphone around to one another, so we wouldn't choke someone on live TV. We had an idea as to who we thought should answer what types of questions, unless President Bush called on one of us specifically.

'Nuff said?
Probably not.

On Harriet Miers...

Let's talk Miers.

Since everyone keeps on saying that she's not qualified, I decided to look up her resume, before she met Bush.

CNN has a pretty decent article about her:

Miers, 60, has a string of firsts on her resume that track her quiet but steady march to the top echelons of power: first woman hired by her law firm in 1972, first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association in 1985, first woman president of the Texas State Bar in 1992, first woman president of her law firm in 1996.

But wait, that's not all. According to the Washington Post:
On numerous occasions, the National Law Journal named her one of the nation's 100 most powerful attorneys and as one of the nation's top 50 women lawyers.

But outside of that... she just worked for the President of the US for a few years.
Not much experience, I guess.

I'm a libertarian. Of course.

You are a Social Liberal (61% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (75% permissive) You are best described as a: Libertarian Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid

So much to catch up on.

This should be first. My father passed away on August 28th, 2005. He was a good man. He was the best man I ever knew, with a sense of nobility that most people can never attain.

He was sick for a couple of months, so I was given the gift of being able to say goodbye. Not everyone is given that gift. If you haven't done so already, make sure you let your loved ones know that you love them.

-John

About Katrina...

I just sent this in to the NYT, in reply to an editorial where they blamed Bush for a lack of response.

I'm not including the entire thing, but the bulk of it. I'm hoping that someone picks up on these ideas:

The New York Times addresses, briefly, the money that was “slashed” from the budget for New Orlean's levees. But the Times ommitted that the money was earmarked for a study on the levees- a typical government study- that wouldn't have been completed until 2006, and would not have changed a damn thing.

There are things that can be done, but those things will take fortitude and the backing of such institutions such as the New York Times.

• The city needs to be completely evacuated, and martial law needs to be instituted today. Anyone found looting should be shot. Its that simple. We need to ensure that the residents of New Orleans have something to go back to, and that lawlessness is stopped overnight. Moreover, we need to make it possible for the rescue crews to do their job, without threat of harm from predators.

• No one, except authorized rescue personel, should be allowed back into New Orleans. The perimiter should be patrolled by the National Guard.

• Every available gas-powered water pump that can be donated should to be shipped to New Orleans, today. Ten pumps will not make a dent. A hundred pumps won't make a difference. But once the levees are repaired, a thousand pumps or five thousand pumps arrayed around the levee, and manned by volunteers, could speed up the rate at which the city would be emptied of water.

• We need to move the population of New Orleans out of the New Orleans area. Those people who can visit relatives should be transported there immediately. We need to spread out the population of New Orleans to areas that can help them, insteead of trying to ship food and shelter to New Orleans. Names of residents should be taken, and each family assigned an e-mail address with the New Orleans domain, so that they can receive updates on the status of the city. Then we can resettle them if and when New Orleans is emptied of water.

• A public works project should be instituted without the instrusion of unions into the process. Residents capable of work, should be put to work. Their first projects should be to clean and inspect those public buildings needed for basic services, like water and electricity. Then government buildings can be rebuilt and repaired, so they will be in place as the residents return. Schools can be repaired, so kids will be out of the way as their parents deal with rebuilding.

• Finally, every effort should be made to build up the floor of New Orleans. Essential buildings should be raised far above sea level, and a few large shelters should be built for the next emergency that are independent of outside electrical and plumbing needs.

There is enough space to criticise a lot of people at the end of this tragedy, starting with those people who choose to live below sea level in an area smack dab in hurricane territory. But the New York Times should focus on helping people now, not the casual placing of blame on their least favorite politician.

Scott Randolph writes one heckuva post

If you read no other post this week, go to ScottRandolph.net. Scott explains what it is that soldiers do, and a little bit about the concept of what it means to dishonour the fallen.

Soldiers know, when they enlist, that it is entirely possible they will be shipped out and never come home. It’s part of the job. The fact that people still walk in to recruiters’ offices and sign that piece of paper make them heroes. To imply that they are simple kids who didn’t know what they were getting into, or even worse, that they died for no reason, or an immoral reason, does a horrible thing. It strips their sacrifice of the honor that it deserves. Even though those folks sitting out there in the Texas fields claim to honor and support the soldiers, they obviously have been blinded by their own selfishness as to the real way to support them.

Amen, Scott.
These brave souls volunteer for a job that involves walking into harms way. Some people get upset when their job involves repetitive tasks. But repetitive tasks are the easy part of being a soldier. The hard part involves running into an area where people are trying to kill you, and trying to make sure that they don't succeed by killing them first.
That's honour. That's bravery. That's being a U.S. soldier.

Parents honour sacrifice of their fallen

Get a kleenex and read this editorial from Opinion Journal. Ronald Griffin lost Spc. Kyle Andrew Griffin, his son, in Iraq. After reading about Cindy, he contacted other parents who lost loved ones to guage their opinion. Here is one of the responses:

Karen Long is the mother of Spc. Zachariah Long, who died with my son Kyle on May 30, 2003. Zack and Kyle were inseparable friends as only soldiers can be, and Karen and I have become inseparable friends since their deaths. Karen's view is that what Mrs. Sheehan is doing she has every right to do, but she is dishonoring all soldiers, including Karen's son, Zack.

It amazes me how people who lost their loved ones can keep on giving.
That's the fabric of our country folks. Its how we value freedom above all else.

Mother supports war, and it was reported!

Somehow, a mother of a lost soldier actually supports the war. I know that sounds unbelievable, but she seems to know what it is that soldiers do for a living. CNN wrote:

At the funeral at Tri-County Baptist Church, Kathy Dyer delivered what she believed would have been her son's own message: "It has been with the greatest pride I have served ... fighting to preserve freedom."

Lance Corporal Christopher J. Dyer, you may rest in peace knowing that your mother is fighting to preserve your honor.

Matt Lauer was in Baghdad for the Today show, and asked a soldier for his thoughts on troop morale. After the soldier said that it was good, Matt doubted it, and asked for more. According to Newsbusters:

Asked Lauer: "What would you say to those people who are doubtful that morale could be that high?"

Captain Sherman Powell nailed Lauer, the MSM and the anti-war crowd with this beauty:

"Well sir, I'd tell you, if I got my news from the newspapers also I'd be pretty depressed as well!"

Yes, Captain Sherman Powell, you couldn't be more right. Matt has been interviewing the Hollywood and NY left for too long.

Okay, I promise... last one!

DS: What do you think true patriotism is?
CS: Seeing that there is something wrong in your country and in the world and trying to make the country a better place.

Later, she says, RE: Saddam:

CS: He was their brutal dictator. There are so many brutal dictators in the world and we are not removing them. We propped Saddam up and gave him weapons to gas his own people.
Besides, Bush gives the reason that we were attacked on 9/11 because 'they hate freedom and democracy', so why are we trying to force something on them that they hate? The country is demolished and so many people are dead for something they never asked for.

Okay, Cindy, which is it?
Are you for making the world a better place, or just letting dicatators be dictators?

Giving Cindy Sheehan the finger

One more post about Cindy, that kinda puts her all into perspective. This is a Daily Kos interview by someone who calls themselves Darksyde -insert joke here- with Cindy. Here is an excerpt:

DS: Well, some would say that removing a brutal dictator who tortured his opponents and their families, committed genocide, and giving the people of Iraq a shot at freedom and democracy has some value. How do you respond to those points?
CS: He was their brutal dictator. There are so many brutal dictators in the world and we are not removing them. We propped Saddam up and gave him weapons to gas his own people.
Besides, Bush gives the reason that we were attacked on 9/11 because 'they hate freedom and democracy', so why are we trying to force something on them that they hate? The country is demolished and so many people are dead for something they never asked for.

Cindy actually suggested that the majority of the people of Iraq were the people that Bush was talking about, when he said that they "hate freedom and democracy".
This is truly a "blond moment" on her part.

Cindy; Bush wasn't talking about the masses. He was talking about the Bathists, and the people that the MSM affectionately nicknamed "insurgents." They don't want freedom in Iraq, because if Iraq is free, they lose power.

Moreover, anyone who suggests that the people of Iraq didn't want democracy are outright racist.
The last time that argument was used, was prior to the Civil Rights Act... when Americans in the South tried to suggest that black Americans wouldn't know what to do with the right to vote, and did they really want it anyway?

And this is where irony comes in:
People like yourself accuse GWB of being a power-hungry facist. Yet, he's trying to spread democracy to a country in the Middle East, and you're attacking him for it. Moreover, you suggest (strongly) that the people of Iraq don't like democracy.

Well, that's not true. And at least one woman would like to give you the finger.
(photo by Andrew Parson)

-John

But he agrees with her. Really.

To everyone who insists that the great majority of Cindy Sheehan's friends& family support her, this article on Daily Kos:

I have lost almost every friend that I had before Casey died. My husband and I are separated, because he doesn't support my activities, although he knows the war is a lie.

To everyone who insists that we should listen to the troops, and their families:

We live near an Air Force base and our economy depends on war. It is a very conservative, republican community. White upper-middle class.
They believe that Bush is keeping our country safe and that I am a traitor for speaking out against a President during time of war.

Just keep this in the back of your mind, folks... this is what she actually thinks.

-John

On Cindy Sheehan

In case you don't know who she is, Cindy Sheehan is the mother of Casey Sheehan, one of our brave soldiers who lost his life in Iraq on April 4, 2004.

President Bush visited with her shortly after her loss. Back then, Cindy said:

I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,' Cindy said after their meeting. 'I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.

Now Cindy hates GWB, and she's literally camping out in a ditch outside of his ranch in Crawford, Texas, asking to meet with him again. She has become a liberal cause celeb, and she has a website www.meetwithcindy.org
How does someone change their opinion of GWB by 180 degrees within a year?
I decided to do a little web research.

First of all, I wanted to find out where Meetwithcindy.org originated. It looked like someone had created it overnight, and I was right. When I did a whois, I found out that it was born on August 8th, 2005.
So then I traced the name of the person that it is registered to: David Swanson, of Maryland.
The great thing about the progressive left is that they are all about touting their achivements. It makes their movements easier to trace on the web.

David Swanson has a few other websites, including:
afterdowningstreet.org Where you'll find a link to meetwithcindy.org
Lets Try Democracy (also known as davidswanson.org)

Who is David Swanson? If I have the same Maryland David Swanson, he was the communications director of ACORN from 2000 to 2003, and is the media coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association.

According to the Radio Left website, he is the media person for the Progressive democrats of America. And surprise, that website also has an article about Cindy Sheehan.

Now I'd like to give Cindy a little bit a leeway on her loss. I really would.
But she's a little nuts.
I'm not just saying this because of her 180 degree turn on GWB, or the fact that she doesn't want to try to explain it, every time someone in the media asks her about it. And I'm not just saying this because, you know, she's camping out in a ditch outside of someone's home demanding to speak to them.
Although that is kinda nutty.
I'm saying this because when you see her and hear her, you just instinctively know that she's a nut.

But now (from Drudge Report) comes a subtle confirmation from her family, who have obviously been trying to give her some room to live with her sorrow:

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.
Sincerely,
Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.

I love that phrase: "silently, with prayer and respect." Man, that says it all. How many people out there are silently supporting GWB, with prayer and respect?

Anyway, now you know a little bit about the background of meetwithcindy.org, and why she's suddenly interested in the Downing Street memos, and why her newest, bestest friend is a guy named David Swanson. Who, as far as I can tell, is just a little bit to the left of Eleanor Clift.

Don't like GWB? Spray paint their car!

And now, for someone who is completely idiotic...
We've all seen the bumper stickers by those who hate GWB.
Now there are the people who are so insane, that they feel the need to deface people's cars who have a GWB bumper sticker on them. According to Reuters, after several cars were defaced in a parking lot, the police set up a sting:

Police set up a bait car with a pro-Bush bumper sticker, parked it at the airport with a surveillance camera, and waited. On July 1, the camera recorded a man spray-painting over the bumper sticker with an expletive.

Investigators traced the license plate of the suspected vandal to Fecteau, 42, who turned himself into police last week and was released after posting a $5,000 bond.

Fecteau is Lt. Col. Alexis Fecteau. No doubt, he will soon become the liberal darling as another (rare) example of a member of the military who hates Bush.

Air America is taking money from Boys & Girls???

Its too bizarre to be true. Yet, it seems like it is.

Air America is known for its cash flow problems. So if this story is right, they took a loan from a Boys and Girls club.

In early 2004, the directors of the nascent Air America network were scouring the nation for potential contributors to its start-up. One of the network's directors, Evan Montvel Cohen, appears to have partially solved the problem by arranging loans from the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club that eventually totaled at least $480,000, and possibly more.

Cohen was also on the board of Gloria Wise, so he arranged for the loan.
Only the rest of the B&G club didn't seem to know about it. So now the feds have become involved, and they've suspended the $10 million of grants that the B&G club normally gets, because of bad use of their finances.

Wierd... huh?