Tuesday, July 26, 2005

NASCAR fans are easy to spot

If forced to pick the NASCAR fan from a line up that consists of a well dressed black man with a briefcase, and old lady in a blue print dress, quarter heels and a hair net and an overweight white guy named Darrell with a two day beard, wearing a Dale Earnhardt hat, a Gordon sucks t-shirt, smoking a Winston cigarette and drinking a Busch beer - who would you pick? Well based on the information provided, if you picked Darrell you’re a racist. Or that is what certain politically correct buffoons would have you believe.

Right after, “Islam is a religion peace” the most often heard idiocy from the politically correct is “racial profiling does not work.” Well the last I heard Jewish religious leaders were not inciting their young people to blow themselves up - killing as many innocents as possible in the process – to further the cause of Judaism. So if the FBI is wasting time and valuable assets infiltrating synagogues across America, I’d be disappointed. In fact I’m sure they are not.

But the TSA and metropolitan police are hung up on some idiotic formula that has them pulling every tenth member of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir out of line for a full body cavity search while Mohammed the mad bomber with wires protruding from his shoes and the smell of symtex emanating from his body is whisked happily on his way. The ACLU and other wackos think this is how it should be. I mean fair is fair. Well until 80 year old white ladies from Minnesota start blowing things up, I think they should get a pass from the TSA and metro police.

If I was forced to pick which team would win a basketball game and the only information I had was that the teams were identical in every respect except one is made up of five 7 foot black men and the other is made up of five 6 foot white men, I’d pick the team of black men. I do that, not because I’m a racist but because I’m aware of the world I live in. I may lose my shirt because the black men are really hockey players while the white guys are the basketball players but I’d have to go with the information available. And most of the time I’d be right. And that is what the TSA and metro police need to do as well.

I’m taking Lex Jr. to camp. Be back Mon next week. Cruise the archives until then.

Monday, July 25, 2005

Funerals: Just another campaign stop for Dems

No, I'm not a traitor. But I would be doing the exact same thing if I were. Posted by Picasa

Clueless PA Lt. Gov. Catherine Baker Knoll sent a public, written apology to the widow of slain Marine Staff Sgt. Joseph Goodrich, 32, of Pittsburgh after showing up uninvited at the Marine’s funeral. Well, as if crashing the funeral wasn’t enough, the dopey Dem took the opportunity of canvassing the funeral crowd to pass out business cards and make a remark about the “government” being against the war. What the hell is she talking about? The government is the one waging the war. Does Ms. Brain-Dead think Marines work for Wal-Mart? In a further tasteless move, Knoll then asked the widow if she had decided what she was going to do with the deceased Staff Sergeant’s golf clubs.

Someone must have clued the clueless one in. On Monday numbskull Knoll sent an apology to Goodrich’s wife. In the damage control letter Knoll wrote, "Sgt. Goodrich's service was beyond the call of duty. If my regard for his family's grief was seen another way, it is thoroughly regrettable. The fact that you have been offended deserves and receives my most profound apology." Notice the letter is in the vein of the RC Durbin non-apology apology. It doesn’t say, “I was a callous dolt who should be horse whipped for trying to make political hay over the loss of your husband.” It says, “Screw you for figuring out what I was trying to do and exposing my tasteless ploy.”

Libs and Dems: They aren’t traitors but they wouldn’t be doing anything different if they were.

The smear is coming

OK, I don’t get it. The president nominates a person for the Supreme Court. The senate advises and consents – whatever that means. The senate, which cannot ask how a nominee will find on any particular issue, is left to consider the writings and prior decisions of the nominee to determine if that nominee is qualified. It’s all one big kabuki dance to me.

The only thing that Democrats care about is if the nominee is likely to overturn Roe. So when little Chucky Schumer asks, “Judge Roberts will you vote to overturn Roe as the established law of the land?” Roberts will say, “I can’t and shouldn’t answer that question as it is likely to be a case brought before the court. I do not want to pre-judge that case.”

So the only question Democrats care about should not be asked and will not be answered. What to do? Smear him. Guaranteed. Something will come up. Lying Joe Wilson will recall Judge Roberts uttering a racial joke in the basement of the yellowcake factory in Niger right before he sold a three layer chocolate covered job to Karl Rove who claimed he was sent to Niger to pick up a cake by some chick at the CIA named Plame. Some woman will come forward and swear Roberts exposed himself in front of her when they were playing house back in the 50s. Juan the illegal alien gardener will swear that Roberts whipped him one day when Juan missed a weed in the judge’s tomato patch. Democrats will say “well who cares if it’s true or not, it’s seriousness of these charges that we must consider.” Well, all Libs act like brain-dead traitors. That’s a serious charge.

The Democrats will be exposed as the clueless boobs that they are. Roberts will receive a vote on the floor and Kerry and the Shrill one will have to decide: do I want to look like a Lib for the moonbat money laden base or a moderate for my ’08 presidential aspirations. This whole thing is fraught with political danger. If they vote for Roberts and Roberts subsequently decides that pulling a full term baby feet first from the womb, puncturing the base of its skull with scissors and sucking its brains out is a grotesque practice which ought not to be sanctioned by the federal government, they are in big trouble. If they vote against him they look like the obstructionist that they are to a majority of Americans.

Friday, July 22, 2005

John Howard has it right

The leader of America’s second strongest ally, Australian Prime Minister John Howard, took on the Ken Livingstones of the world whose narrow view of history provided by a public education and reinforced by the MSM has them thinking that Islamo-terror-fascists (ITF) only started bombing Western targets after the war with Saddam’s Iraq:

“Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.

“Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.

“And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.

“Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn't have done that?

“When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?

“When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq -- a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations -- when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor.

“Now I don't know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I've cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.”

Howard understands that we have been at war with these ITF for a long time and never really knew it. We started out by acting as if the war were a police problem. Then Osama got greedy and instead of killing 3,000 Americans over several years, which would have been acceptable given our past responses to ITF acts of war, he decided to kill 3,000 all in the same day. Well that awoke the sleeping giant and it has been hell ever since.

Osama’s strategic aim is to get the American people to tire of this war so that he may revert to status quo anti and just blow up a hundred or so people at time with no real public outcry. His will accomplices in the press and his political arm in the US known as the Democrat Party are working overtime to achieve his goal. In fact the only outcry about ITF seems to be the MSM’s and Lib’s concern of “why do they hate us” or “this is all Bush’s fault for getting rid of that tyrant Hussein.” Osama’s useful idiots attack Bush at every turn. If Bush puts the ITF in jail, the useful idiots whine about Abu Grhaib and Gitmo. If Bush has the military kill them on the battlefield, the useful idiots bring soldiers in for Courts Martial for killing the enemy (two Marines tried for killing the enemy) and ridicule the leadership (Marine Gen Mattis) for wanting to kill the enemy. It is insane.

Remember, according to Atta's father, if we're lucky, we're in a 50 year war. Let's not go wobbly in the first quarter.

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Only half the country is at war

The father of Mohammad Atta, leader of the September 11 hijackers, said he had no sorrow for what had happened in London and claimed more terrorist attacks would follow. He said the attacks in the US and Britain were the beginning of what would be a 50-year religious war. Well we’ve been at it with Islamo-terror-fascists since about 1803, so a short 50 year war is pretty optimistic.

Anjem Choudary, the British leader of the militant Islamist group al-Muhajiroun, said that Muslim leaders should ignore Prime Minister Tony Blair’s call for talks while Muslims were being "murdered" in Iraq. Odd since it’s the murderous Islamo-terror-fascists in Iraq killing fellow Muslims.

Choudary declined to condemn the London bombings, which killed 56 people, and said there was "a very real possibility" of a repetition. "The British Government wants to show that they are on the side of justice and of truth, whereas in reality the real terrorists are the British regime, and even the British police, who have tried to divide the Muslim community into moderates and extremists, whereas this classification doesn't exist in Islam." Several posts below Lex made the same point - that by their silence and refusal to condemn radicals, “moderates” give aid and comfort to the hijackers of their religion.

While radical Muslims have openly declared war and are busy executing that war on the West, many Western leaders have their heads buried in the sand. London mayor Ken Livingstone opined that western foreign policy has fuelled the Islamist radicalism behind the bomb attacks in London. Democrats whine more about the treatment of Islamo-terror-fascists in Gitmo than Islamo-terror-fascists attacks on London. Who do Libs and Dems make the primary target of their outrage? Terrorists? No. Libs and Dems zero in on the two guys trying to wipe the terrorists out – President Bush and SecDef Rumsfeld.

In order to win a war, at some point you have to recognize that you’re in one. Libs and Dems have no idea that we are at war. To Libs the real war is with Conservatives. The war on Islamo-terror-fascists is simply a source of issues to beat the president and his SecDef about the head and shoulder for political gain. The war issues are used by Libs to demoralize the troops engaged on our behalf in the hope of making it more difficult for the US to achieve its strategic aims. These same issues are used by Libs to embarrass the administration in an effort to separate it from its allies. The Islamo-terror-fascists are deadly serious about the war on the West. Libs and Dems are serious about the war only in so far as it can be used for political gain against the president. This is all the proof necessary that it is not yet safe to vote for any Democrat.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Roberts has all the right enemies

When I went to bed last night here in Stuttgart, Germany, the press had appointed a woman named Clement to the Supreme Court. A fine moderate choice who has supported Roe and is a woman who would fill the seat of the retiring Sandra O’Connor, the first woman ever to take a seat on the court. The nomination should sail through. The press opined.

I get up this morning to find out the president had rejected the press’s nomination and nominated his own guy, John Roberts who is…GASP…“staunch conservative” instead. I’ve noted before that it takes about ten years to figure out what the real deal is with a Supreme Court judge. So, I’m not going to get all giddy with the idea that the president has chosen a “staunch conservative”. We’ll see.

I’m delighted at the reaction Democrats and their moonbat fringe that now comprises the biggest part of their base. The president’s choice prompted immediate attacks on Roberts from the usual suspects such as People for the American Way and NARAL Pro-Choice America. "We are extremely disappointed that President Bush has chosen such a divisive nominee for the highest court in the nation, rather than a consensus nominee who would protect individual liberty and uphold Roe v. Wade," NARAL Pro-Choice America said. These groups think that America survives as a nation only because it allows abortion on demand. They attacked Roberts for a 1990 legal briefing he wrote while serving in the first President Bush's administration that called for the Supreme Court's 1973 ruling legalizing abortion to be "overruled."

It should be overruled. Former ambulance chasers have no business making law. That is the job of the elected representatives of the legislative branch. The dirty little secret that NARAL et al don’t ever mention is that little would change were Roe to be overturned. The issue would simply return to the states. State legislators would have to wrestle with the issue and would be held accountable by voters for their decisions. This is as it should be.

Then there is this from Shrillary, "I look forward to the committee's findings so that I can make an informed decision about whether Judge Roberts is truly a guardian of the rule of law who puts fairness and justice before ideology." Yea right. I’m sure. And “fairness”? Since when did that enter into legal thinking? As anyone who has ever been caught up in a legal battle can attest, fairness has nothing to do with the law.

Prediction: Democrats and their moonbat friends will not be able to stop themselves. Before the week is out Roberts will be portrayed as some right wing nut too far out there for confirmation to the Supreme Court. The attacks will stem from a single issue – abortion.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Confronting terrorists

Quote in the chapel at the American Cemetery in Luxembourg Posted by Picasa

Something called the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) has reported that England’s participation in the war on terror has boosted recruitment and fund-raising for al Qaeda. The RIIA’s report further noted the following:
Standing up to bullies leads to a 29% rise in bullying incidents.
Killing rats in the basement leads to a rise in the number of rats trying to get into the basement.
Responding to fires only encourages arsonists.
Chasing down a mugger leads to more muggings.

Let’s just say the RIIA’s report is correct. What would the RIIA have Briton do? 55 of its citizens are slaughtered and the RIIA warns, “If we take action against the people that perpetrated this act of war we’ll only encourage them. Perhaps if we just ignore the incident or praise them for their courage and commitment they will leave us alone.” What would the RIIA have Briton do with regard to standing up for what is right? “Radical Islam is no problem for us as long as they are blowing up Americans. Let the US worry about it. We should be sure to criticize the Americans to make sure the terrorists know that we are not on the American’s side. That way the terrorists will come after us last. That is the best we can hope for because standing up to these people will only encourage them.”

Last weekend we visited the American Cemetery in Luxemburg. Inside the chapel etched into the wall is the quote “Grant us grace fearlessly to contend against evil and to make no peace with oppression.” That is what America and Briton have done since WWII. I guess the RIIA would change that to “Grant us grace to suffer every humiliating attack from every source of evil and to make the best peace possible with oppression. May we be the last to fall.”

I have noted in this space before that we have been in and out of war with radical Islam since 1803 when Jefferson sent the Marines to clean out the rats nest in Tripoli. Fighting terrorism does not encourage it. And if it does, too bad, terrorism must be confronted. If that means more terrorists, so be it. Let’s get them out in the open, show their hand, and kill them. Doing nothing is not option. Getting along with them is not an option. Appeasing them is not option. They must be confronted and killed.

UPDATE: The Griffin’s surefire way to get the terrorists. The Griffin sends:

The latest BS I heard this morning was that the Brits are more of a target now. Well terrorists killed Brits in the Trade Centers in NY on 9/11, in Bali, in Iraq, and numerous other places so they are NOW a target?? The French duck and hide or appeasement methods like pulling the blankets further up over their heads or paying ransom will not work for the Brits. They have to much Viking Blood in them to just "let it go? Haberdam, rubbish, and the Union Jack shall not be soiled by the likes of a few extremely misguided interlopers what??" Although it was terrible we must remember they have killed each other over a soccer match. Hey that's it! We need a soccer tournament between the terrorists and the Brits. It would be in Dublin on a Saturday with free beer for the fans. Don King would promote it for pay-for-view. Sounds like a sure thing money maker.

Monday, July 18, 2005

The elusive peace loving Muslim

We have heard it so often that it is like the hum of the refrigerator or a fan that is on all day, you never notice it until it shuts off. The “it” in this case is the phrase “Islam is a religion of peace.” Islamo-terror-facsists blow people up somewhere and right on cue the politicians rush to the microphones warning of a backlash against the “vast majority of peace loving Muslims.”

Let’s just say the vast majority of Muslims are peace loving. If that’s the case they are remaining oddly silent while a small group high jacks their religion. I’m thinking the Pope and all of his Cardinals would loudly and continuously reject any Catholic who blew up trains to further the cause of Catholicism. Well, where are the Imams calling for a fatwa on Osama and others that murder in the name of Islam? They cannot be found.

Virtually no Muslim leader can be found calling for his flock to cooperate with government officials in uncovering murderous cells among them. Anytime any Muslim spokesman gets on TV right after the religion of peace crap they launch into their “we have to watch out for a backlash against peace loving Muslims” bovine excrement.

So until the “vast majority of peace loving Muslims” can find their voice and reject the “tiny minority” of hate filled terror Muslims who have declared war on the civilized world, they too will be part of the problem.

UPDATE: From a Muslim who takes Lex’s side.

Friday, July 15, 2005

Getting Rove more important to Schumer than ChiCom Missiles

While Democrats, dopes all it seems, obsess over Karl Rove, the Financial Times reports the following, “China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese general said on Thursday. ‘If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,’ said General Zhu Chenghu.”

While pathological liar and creep Joe Wilson and his Democrat buddies who share the same characteristics are worried about the non-outing of the non-covert CIA agent wife of Wilson, China boasts, “We . . . will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”

While attention starved Chucky Schumer continues to lower his expectations from Rove in jail, to Rove without a security clearance, to Rove being sent to bed with out supper, to Rove being placed in timeout for ten minutes, the Chinese are planning to nuke the western half of the United States.

How did all of this happen? Well Lex pointed out several posts below that it was the Clinton Administration that allowed Loral to sell missile technology to the ChiComs that has directly led to Gen. Zhu Chenghu being able to make his comments. Chenghu’s comments while not nearly as important to the Democrat chattering class as getting Rove, it ought to raise the eyebrows of a Democrat somewhere who is concerned with US national security. Well maybe if the Democrats get their way on Rove they will turn their shifting attention to something that really matters like what color the new license plates in DC will be.

As if we need any more, this is further proof that it is not safe to vote for any Democrat.

Thursday, July 14, 2005

News legal offices differ with the newsrooms

Rove, Rove, Rove, what to do? While “newsmen” hound White House press secretary Scott McClellan in an effort to get Karl Rove, their legal offices have been working over time to convince the special prosecutor in charge of the case that no crime was committed. “In this case, there exists ample evidence on the public record to cast serious doubt as to whether a crime has even been committed under the Intelligence Identities Act (the ‘Act’) in the investigation underlying the attempts to secure testimony from [Judith] Miller and [Mat] Cooper. If no crime under the act has been committed, then any need to compel Miller and Cooper to reveal their confidential sources should evaporate” states the legal brief filed by 36 “major news organizations” on behalf of Miller and Cooper.

So if the major MSM legal departments are of the opinion that no crime was committed, why are the “newsmen” hounding McClellan as if Rove sold our nuclear codes to the ChiComs? It is comical to me that the best way to get these blown dried people to lose their cool thereby showing their true color is to ignore them. When Bush is out of the White House cutting brush on his “ranch” full time, there will be a score of books written about how Bush, considered by the Libs, Dems and their operatives in the MSM and Hollywood to be an idiot, beat his opponents like a drum at every turn.

With regard to Rove, there is absolutely no “there” there. Here we go - the facts.

Joe Wilson said that he was sent to Niger by the Vice president. He lied. His wife, what’s her name, recommended her dopey husband for the mission.

In an OpEd piece, Joe Wilson said that Iraq had no contact with African nations with regard to WMD. The SSCI found that not only had Wilson lied in his OpEd piece about Iraqi involvement in Africa, his own report contradicted his own OpEd. How odd.

Joe Wilson claims Rove blew his wife’s CIA cover. 36 “major news organizations” dispute that claim. Valerie Plame’s name appears Joe Wilson’s own biography. She has driven in and out of CIA HQ in Langley for years. Her last overseas assignment was nine years ago – well outside the five year scope outlined in the “Act.” How under cover can one be when they are driving in and out of the front gate at Langley? Shouldn't she be using a secret tunnel or something?

Karl Rove told the truth when he told Mat Cooper, “on super secret double background,” that Wilson was a liar. Seems to me if he were out to “get” Wilson for being anti-administration (as opposed to being just a lying sack of excrement) as Wilson insists, Rove would have demanded that Cooper expose Wilson and his wife.

Sometimes it’s best to just sit back and smile.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Bush continues new tone, Dems continue to screw him

President Bush is a decent guy. He came to Washington pledging a “new tone.” Yesterday, he proved he is better than any man the Democrats can offer up. After Harry Reid called Bush a liar and looser, Bush invited Harry to the White House for extra-Constitutional discussions on the next Supreme Court nomination. 98% of us would have kicked scrawny Harry’s worthless butt. Harry claims to have been a boxer, which is Pol speak for he got his butt kicked on the playground regularly.

So the president invites scrawny and Pat Leahy, to whom the VP had the only correct response, to the White House to talk about the Supreme Court. Now, after unprecedented consultation, Leahy squawks, “There has to be more consultation. This was only a first step." Were I the president I’d have Vice President Cheney deal with Leahy in the only language he apparently understands. "Hey Dick, how about giving Leahy a call and telling him to 'go...what was it... himself' again."

Then little Chucky Schumer, in between Rove must go press conferences, is calling for a summit. I’ve done a search on our Constitution, the word summit does not appear anywhere in the document. Maybe we could go back and examine those summits President Clinton held before naming his Supreme Court nominees. But then Chucky was never calling for summits back then was he? There never has been a summit on Supreme Court nominees. The winner gets to pick – period. Bush will string them along and then do the right thing.

The Griffin offers a unique way to do away with Democrat obstructionism.

The Griffin Sends:

"Okay. I have stayed out of this discussion because it is like talking about who will win the Super Bowl...but in July. Now all of the swords are firmly planted just waiting for despondent Dems to throw themselves on top of them. If I were GWB I would let Karl Rove leak that I had narrowed it down to Bork, Mighty Mouse, Goofy, Orin Hatch, and Zell Miller. Then I would let Dick Cheney leak names like Pryor, Brown and Judge Roy More of AL the next day. Then I would have wife Laura casually mention that her husband really likes so-and-so. Then I would have Bob Novak in for a chat and casually mention that I was really looking to backfill O' Connor with a women. Then I would have Condi Rice mention that the Pres is set on a black jurist. Then have brother JEB mention that the Pres is strongly considering a Hispanic.

"Within a couple of weeks every Dem on Capitol Hill have skewered themselves. My real nominee would be quickly approved 53-0 as no Dems were left to vote!"

You can lead the MSM to a story but you can't make them report

While Democrats and their attack arm, the MSM, obsess with Karl Rove Islamo-terrorists-fascists are planning to blow something up in America. While Democrats and the MSM fantasize about Karl Rove in an orange jump suite, Islamo-terror-fascists fantasize about dead Americans – lots of them. Matt Cooper has released an email synopsis of a two minute conversation with Rove where the name Plame was never mentioned. Now, who outted Plame? Cooper? Judith Miller, who is where all times reporters belong – jail? No. Bob Novak wrote the story using Plame’s name and identifying her as a CIA operative.

Why isn’t the MSM hounding Novak, Miller and the NY Times to find out who gave up Plame by name? It’s comical. The MSM is like my son the day I took him to the circus when he was five. Barnum and Bailey’s greatest show on earth, a man is shot from a cannon, men and women perform death defying feats on the high wire, trapeze artists relying on perfect timing while doing triple summer salts and landing in the iron grip of their partner 30 feet above the floor, all of this and what is the boy watching? He’s got his eyes glued to some guy hawking snow cones in the aisle.

Like young Lex, the Dems and the MSM have their eyes on the wrong stuff. Even if the Plame story were in the top 50 things going on in the world today, it would make more sense to be hounding Bob Novak, Judith Miller and the NY Times. But if they did that they couldn’t get Rove. What to do? Well, you can lead a five year old to the circus, but you can’t make him watch. Someone used Plame’s name. Novak knows for sure who it was. The NY Times and Judith Miller may know or just may be covering up shoddy journalism akin to Newsweak and it’s Koran piece.

The bottom line is the press could care less who leaked Plame’s name if it’s not Karl Rove.

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Selling China missile technology was a real threat to natinal security

GD (No GD doesn’t stand for that profanity. It stands for “Gold Digging.”) John Kerry sniffs that Karl Rove’s mention of half-wit Joe Wilson’s wife “threatens national security.” What a GD idiot. When Bill Clinton allowed Loral to sell China the technology to target us with nuclear missiles, GD Kerry couldn’t drag himself off of his windsurf board long enough to say, “Hey, maybe this is a bad idea.” But let Rove mention some third tier CIA bureaucrat that gets her lay about husband a gig in Niger and suddenly we’re so threatened that we need to reintroduce the duck and cover drills from the days of the Cuban missile crisis.

So according to GD Kerry, Rove’s mentioning that half-wit Wilson has a wife at the CIA is threat to national security but giving the ChiComs missile technology to blow us up is “just good business.” Thank God Mr. & Mrs. America had the sense to keep this GD clueless buffoon as one of 80 or so other clueless buffoons in the Senate and not the Commander-in-Chief.

Then there is scrawny Harry Reid who said, “The White House promised that if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration, his administration. I trust they will follow-through on this pledge.” Is that what the president said? Or did he say this, “If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if a person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.” Well, the second quote, not scrawny Harry’s, predictably is the accurate one. Hmmm. It would appear that scrawny Harry has misquoted the president…unless it really was the “White House” talking, which would be a really big scoop.

This is sooo funny. It’ll die quickly if and when the real leaker’s name (Rove never mentioned Plame by name) is revealed or the president makes his Supreme Court nomination.

Dems have found the smoldering tomato

Democrats have found a gun now they are trying to fan some smoke over to it in the hope of getting Karl Rove. The proof that this is much ado about nothing is that it is impossible to find the text of the complete “the email.” You can find bits and pieces of “the email” which are then put into context by some writer. Here is what the email said from what I’ve been able to piece together from a dozen sources:

"Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential) Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ..."

[Rove offered a] "big warning"

[not to] "get too far out on Wilson."

"DCIA—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney” [never authorized the trip]

"it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip."
"... not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger ... "

"please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]"

Hmmm….something’s missing here. What was it we were trying to find out? Oh yeah, who outted half-wit Joe Wilson’s wife, what’s her name? Flame, Blame… Plame! That’s it. Now we go back and look at the Democrat’s smoldering turnip and notice the letters p-l-a-m-e DO NOT appear sequentially anywhere in the text. What to do? “Get our MSM out there to break this thing up parsing it in every way possible to convict Rove. Public school grads will never be able to figure it out in time!” shouted the Dems.

It seems Rove is guilty of attempting to out Joe Wilson for the idiot liar he is. The Vice President had never authorized the Wilson mission as Wilson had claimed. It was his wife, what’s her name who picked Wilson to travel to Niger in 2002. Wilson lied when he denied that what’s her name had anything to do with the trip. In a further blow to Wilson’s ego and delusions of grandeur, the Senate investigation into 9/11 revealed that Wilson's own report suggested that Iraqis had in fact visited Niger. So only in the Dem Bizzaroland, where truth has taken a permanent holiday, can Rove be convicted of the crime of telling the truth to a reporter.

There is something else is going on here. Rove is not the guy the feds are looking for. A Times reporter is cooling her heels in jail to protect someone. It is unlikely that that someone is Karl Rove. Maybe she simply lied or made the whole thing up and doesn’t want to go to jail or be fired for what she has done. One thing is for sure, the MSM now has enough of the truth or at least the part of the truth they want, so the investigation can now be closed and Karl Rove tarred and feathered. After all that’s all they wanted in the first place.

Sunday, July 10, 2005

Help! Ron Reagan has been mauled and he can't get up!

Ron - Gee I’m glad daddy was president or I’d be selling shoes at payless – Reagan showed up with a Nerf ball for a gun fight with Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens came well armed with a 20mm Gattling gun. When it was all over, Hitchens had filled Reagan with more holes than the plot of one of his old man’s B movies. Reagan looked like one of those flattened cars in a Godzilla movie. Hitchens cut Reagan up like Chef Chen demonstrating a ginzo knife on a tomato. Reagan taking on Hitchens in a political discussion is about as fair as Reagan taking on Bob Sapp in K-1 fight. Reagan’s flip attitude and rolling eyes that he substitutes for thought were no match for Hitches. Hitchens whipped poor Ronnie boy like farmer Brown whips his stubborn mule on the last furrow of a 20 acre field before the rain. Enjoy the roast.

CH: Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?

RR: Well, I'm following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which...

CH: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it? ... At this state, after what happened in London yesterday?...

RR: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.

CH: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?

Friday, July 08, 2005

Terror pre-dates Iraq war

The Sun writes:
More than 4,000 people have died as Islamic terrorism has spread across the world over the last decade. Here we highlight some of the worst atrocities.
Posted by Picasa

Brain-dead Liberals, which seems to comprise a set of the whole, are opining that the war in Iraq has led to the terror attack in London. Hmmm. Nice try Al. As the map (Sun story with pictures and dates) posted above clearly shows, Islamo-terror-fascists have never needed a war in Iraq to murder innocent men women and children. It is what they are all about. It is what they do. Noticeably missing from the map are the plethora of attacks visited on Israel.

Hand-wringers on both sides are suddenly worried that we might be attacked here. Duh. Ya think? These fearless warrior pigs of Allah would love to take over a day-care center full of women and children somewhere – like the school in Russia – murder everyone in the building then blow themselves up all in the name of Allah.

The nature of this war has us drifting in and out of a true war-time footing. We cruise along month after month happy about the economy, the stock market etc. forgetting that we are locked in a death struggle with a ruthless enemy. Then our world comes crashing down when something like London occurs and we are reminded albeit briefly that we are at war.

Three things need to happen:

1) We need to start calling the enemy by name - Islamo-terror-fascists. We continue to talk around the elephant in the room. World leaders continue to walk on eggshells around this issue. They need to begin to confront it. Summits across the Islamic world need to be held. Muslim leaders, particularly Saudi leaders, need to be put on record loud and clear opposing the perverted version of their religion and its followers. We can then begin sorting the wheat from the chaff.

2) We need to start acting like this a war. State should put Syrian weasel Bashar Assad on notice, “If you don’t secure your border, we will. In the process of securing that border you – Bashar Assad – will be our primary target. You have 30 days. After that, the only warning you will have will be the whoosh of the cruise missile that blows your worthless scrawny little butt away.” The same message should be sent to Iran with the threat of a total blockade. The same message should be sent to Saudi Arabia with a note describing just how fragile and reliant on America the house of Saud really is.

3) The “loyal opposition” needs to put the emphasis on “loyal”. There has to be a way for the RC Durbins, Ted Kennedys, John Kerrys of this nation to voice their opposition to the war in a manner consistent with winning that war - unless they think we should lose, in which case they should clearly state their support for the terrorists. The stakes in this war are too high to have these people undermining the effort for political purposes.

Thursday, July 07, 2005

SCREW al Qaeda! Posted by Picasa


London is under attack. Whatever group is responsible IRA, al Qaida, G-8 anarchists, they will fail in their aims. The British have been bombed by the best bombers ever – Nazis, IRA - with no effect on British resolve. The British will not respond as the spineless Spanish and our own spineless class known as Libs. They will be galvanized and respond with vigor. The bombers are the same class of coward that are now being held in Gitmo. Lib calls for sympathy, trials and release for these murderers is now exposed for what it is – folly.

Judge Smails humiliated - again

Regardless of how funny, you’re not supposed to laugh when someone slips on the ice or drops their ice cream cone. But come on, we all do. Then, mustering a concerned look, we ask, “My goodness! Are you all right?” And the more pompous the figure, the more we laugh. Well, except for having to feign any concern whatever, that was my reaction to France getting rubbed out by the IOC yesterday. Just unrestrained joy at having the “leader” of Europe’s counterweight to America humiliated – again. Like when Al Czervik - the Rodney Dangerfield character - in “Caddyshack”, piloting a Titanic sized powerboat cuts the insufferably pompous blowhard Judge Elihu Smails’ (Ted Knight) sailboat in half.

Now Jack Chirac is on one incredible losing streak. His poll numbers are down; birth rates are down; economic growth is down; support for the unreadable EU Constitution is down; EU support for French farm subsidies is down; a French name in that nation’s own bicycle race is nowhere to be found in the top 20 or so. The only things on the rise in France are, their willingness to work fewer hours to right the sinking ship, unemployment and Chirac’s opinion of himself. As a good friend and British officer once told me with delight, “We have fought the French in a 100 wars and we have humiliated them every time.” Make that a 101.

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Dems vote for resolution; then call it all lies

A quick quiz.

1. Who said the following:

“Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

“Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

“Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;"

A) Bill Clinton in the run up to the 1998 bombing of Iraq
B) John Kerry in supporting Bill Clinton’s 1998 bombing of Iraq
C) George Bush in making the case for war against Iraq 2002
D) Nobody, it is the text from a Joint Resolution of Congress authorizing the president to use force against Iraq

2. In the Senate the resolution A) passed B) failed.

3. John Kerry A) voted for the resolution B) voted against the resolution C) voted for it before voting against it.

4. If the answers to 1-3 are D; A; A; the Democrats voting for the resolution should;

A) Support the president in winning the conflict in Iraq.
B) Refrain from statements that contradict what they voted for such as:
1) The president misled to war claiming their were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
2) Terrorists and al Qaida were never in Iraq
C) Both A & B

ANSWERS: D; A (77-23); A; C

Extra credit:
The MSM will use the above answers to point out the hypocrisy John Kerry and the Democrat Party. A) True B) False

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Any nominee will be trashed - "moderate" Dems will be mute

President Bush has said he will not name his replacement for Sandra (Loosen up Sandy baby) Day O’Connor until after his G-8 meetings this week. Bit Democrats have sounded general quarters and are already running to the ramparts. The Democrat response to O’Connor’s retirement, while typical, reminds of the grouch in “Green eggs and Ham.” Republican presidents gave the court Kennedy, Souter and O’Connor which have given the court its string of dopey 5-4 decisions that appear to have nothing to do with our Constitution. So try the nominee first, you may like him.

The MSM and Democrats claim that we have a “conservative” court principally because of the Bush v. Gore decision. Al Gore never had lead in the Florida vote count and as it turns out Al and his boys could have counted the votes six ways to Sunday and Al would never have achieved a lead. He lost plain and simple. Now Democrats claim that the Democrat designed “butterfly ballot” caused Democrats to lose thousands of votes in Florida. Well, once again if you’re too dumb to vote, maybe you shouldn’t. But if you removed idiots and felons from the Democrat base, they could not win any election in America. But because the court determined in Bush v. Gore that the “equal protection” clause in our Constitution meant something – unlike the “public taking” clause – Libs and Democrats have ignored the plethora of dopey decision that support their way of thinking and labeled the court “conservative.”

So Democrats are already whining like babies with a pant load. There are three Democrat litmus tests for any nominee will be required to meet. 1) Abortion 2) Gay Marriage 3) Affirmative action. Republicans always seem to play these games as if it were a father-son little league baseball game. The Republicans never seem to take advantage of positions. America is 80/20 split opposing the gruesome practice of partial birth abortion. America is 70/30 split opposing gay marriage. America is 70/30 split opposing affirmative action. So the issues line up in favor of Republicans but they never seem to take advantage of their position. So when Chucky Schumer demands to know a nominee’s position on abortion the nominee ought not answer except to say, “I find the practice of delivering a full term baby feet first and then sucking its brains out abhorrent.” When Chucky asks about gay marriage the nominee ought not answer except to say, “I see nothing in our Constitution to support such an idea.” When Chucky asks about affirmative action the nominee ought not answer except to say, “I don’t favor discriminating against one group of Americans to the benefit of another group of Americans.”

Whatever else happens, Lib groups will smear the nominee and Libs and Dems will cheer. The so-called moderate Dems, Shrillary, Bill, Joe Lieberman etc. will not say a word about the untoward tactics of moveon, Michael Moore, NARAL etc. nor will they say a word in defense of the nominee’s character.