Clinton Taylor's latest from Townhall:

WP is a terrible weapon, but it isnÂ’t illegal, and the charges are ably refuted in this essay by Scott Burgess. All that needs to be added to BurgessÂ’ analysis is some context: Fallujah was Al-QaedaÂ’s vision of paradise on earth, their ideal Taliban-style Islamic government, and it was hell. It was a nest of insurgent command and control, a site for making suicide vests and IEDÂ’s, and a slaughterhouse where beheadings were filmed and sent over the Internet to recruit more terrorists. (This slide show offers a chilling retrospective.)

Our troops are there to kill the enemy efficiently, not to inflict pain on them. When a bullet or a conventional explosive can do the job, it makes moral, tactical, and public-relations sense to employ it instead of WP. In this case, though, more Marines would have been killed had the Fallujah jihadists not been routed from their fortifications by the Willie-Peter rounds. Most of America sheds no tears for the head-hacking ghouls of FallujahÂ’s dungeons, who got no worse than they deserved, and who now reside where white phosphorus feels like a cool shower.

Let's not forget that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had turned Fallujah over to 'Shura councils' that were enforcing Taliban-like Sharia law. Crimes such as owning Western CD's were punished in Fallujah with execution for the unrepentant.

And the Left still thinks liberating that city was a mistake? Perhaps they also think Europe should have been left to the Nazis since, you know, invading the Continent caused so many civilian casualites......?

Posted by: Rusty at 05:13 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

Dear Markos,

You and the Left are sounding more and more like al Jazeera every day. You're blind hatred of the Bush Administration is endangering the lives of U.S. soldiers and embolding our enemies to kill them.

I know you 'love' America, but your 'love' of America is like that of an abusive husband who 'loves' his wife. You 'love' America so much that you will not let any opportunity pass to belittle and abuse her. You 'love' America only when America acts in exactly the way in which you believe it should act. When America gets out of line, you pull no punches.

Whether you 'love' America is beside the point just as whether an abusive husband 'loves' his wife is irrelevant. What I and the rest of America want is less of your proclamations of love, and more evidence of it.

From reading your blog I have come to the inevetable conclusion that you 'love' America so much that you are willing to kill it. I know you have the best of intentions for our great nation, but so does the abusive husband who really didn't mean to kill that bitch wife of his, but, you know, she just up and made him soooo angry that he couldn't help himself.

You have betrayed America with your perverse love in the exact way that an abusive husband betrays a wife. You are a traitor.

Your latest screed on the use of white phosphorous by the U.S. military in Fallujah is really beyond the pale. Equivocating between the U.S. military and the Saddam Hussein regime is exactly what our terrorist enemies do in their propoganda. You say:

Saddam tortured, we torture. Saddam used WP chemical weapons against insurgents and civilians, we use WP chemical weapons against insurgents and civilians.

Perhaps you are unaware of this, but supporters of al Qaeda read blogs like yours and take them seriously. The reason they fight us in Iraq is that they believe, like you do, that the U.S. is the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein. Each time you publish insane theories about the U.S. using chemical weapons, they eat it up.

If you actually believe that the U.S. is as bad as Saddam Hussein regime, then I suggest you grow a backbone and join the mujahidin in Iraq. The moral implications of your statements are that we are the bad guys. If such is the case, then the inevetable conclusion for you--or an Iraqi 'fence-sitter'--is that morality requires armed resistance to the U.S.

In fact, at a jihadi forum which I frequent, the terrorists and their supporters make the exact same argument that you are making. White phosphorous has become quite the hot topic lately 'proving' that the mujahidin are in the right and that the U.S. really is the Great Satan.

Thank you for legitimizing the jihadists and their belief system. They love Americans like you and use words like yours to benefit their recruitment efforts. See, they say, even the Americans now understand that their own government must be stopped.

Which is exactly the morally correct conclusion to reach if you actually believe the U.S. is guilty of systematic torture, mass murder, and the use of WMD against civilians.

If you believe this, though, than you have made yourself an enemy of the United States of America. No, not the Bush Administration, but the United States. The country which you love, but only insofar as she acts in the exact manner proscribed by you.

You are like so many member of the Communist Party USA in the late 1940s and 1950s who loved America so much that they gave our nuclear secrets to the Soviets. Their acts of treason, like yours, were done out of concern for the nation and for principle. They didn't hate the U.S., they loved it, but only to the extent that their love was conditioned on the U.S. acting in the exact way in which they thought it should act.

They, like you, believed a strong U.S. was a danger to world stability. Thus, in their own warped minds, giving the A-bomb to the Soviets was the only morally appropriate thing to do. It was for America's own good, they thought.

Markos, I don't mind it when you attack one of Bush's Supreme Court nominees. That's just domestic politics. But war is different. Tearing down our troops and comparing them to Hussein's murderous Republican Guard is outside the bounds of patriotic dissent.

And please don't hide behind your military service. Plenty of traitors have served in the United States armed forces and plenty of patriots have had no military experience. Benadict Arnold, Aaron Burr, and Lee Harvey Oswald all served with distinction before they betrayed the country. Bill Clinton, a patriot in my book, had no military record.

Last, you might argue that it is the actions of the troops that have disgraced our country and not your characterization of them. This is an idiotic thing to say when the morality of the actions are in dispute.

Using white phosphorous during a battle is a fact. Calling them WMD is a characterization---a choice of words meant to equivocate them with Saddam Hussein's gassing of the Kurds. It is your characterization--your choice of words--which degrades the soldiers who chose to use white phosphorous in the heat of battle to help the U.S. win victory over its enemies.

Facts are always morally neutral. It is human judgement that gives meaning to facts. By choosing to equivocate the use of white phosphorous to the gassing of the Kurds, you have morally judged our troops. You, in word and deed, have called our troops mass murderers. You have chosen to characterize them this way.

In light of that, I believe it would not be unfair to characterize you as a traitor. The kind of traitor that believes they are doing the right thing for the country that they love. But, alas, if you knew anything about traitors you would understand that the vast majority of them are well intentioned.

Cordially,

Rusty Shackleford

UPDATE: Apparently this has generated a lot of outrage. It should.

John Cole is pissed.
Confederate Yankee expresses righteouss indignation.
The Commissar, Dread Pundit Bluto, & Wunder Kraut agree.
Caedorioa has a slightly different nuance.
John at Castle Argghhh debunks the WP thing here.
Dean Esmay is right on here.
INDCent Bill makes up a new game out of this.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1100 words, total size 7 kb.

Jason at Generation Why does the yeoman's work of investigating Rep. John Murtha's (D-France) policy stances. The single greatest mistake made by the Clinton Administration was cutting and running from Somalia. Why, you ask? Because the financial and logistical force behind the warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid was a much more insidious and, at the time, unknown character: Osama bin Laden.

As Jason notes in his excellent post, Murtha urged cutting-and-running from Somalia too--making the sacrifices of the men who died their vanity.

Osama had something of a religious experience while in Somalia in which he predicted that America would cut-and-run. When the U.S. did pull its troops from Somalia, some Muslims--including Osama himself--took this as a sign that bin Laden had mystical powers. Bin Laden would later recall to ABC News:

"Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows," the terror chief recalled. "America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."

More from Jason at Generation Why. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 08:37 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 2 kb.

Chris Matthews has finally jumped the shark. Excuse the metaphor, but Ace dropped the ball on the obvious one this time.

I've never understood why so many on the Right hated Matthews so much. Personally, I always liked him much more than, say, Bill O'Reilly. Yeah, I thought, he's a blowhard, but name some one on Fox, CNN, or MSNBC who isn't?

I'm beginning to see where that disdain comes from.

Edmonton Sun:

"The period between 9/11 and Iraq was not a good time for America. There wasn't a robust discussion of what we were doing," Matthews said.

"If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil -- they just have a different perspective."

Matthews is the sort of liberal that would take great exception to Eisenhower's charicterization of WWII as the Crusade in Europe.

We dub thee: Chris Matthews, Dhimmi.

Malkin, Ace, and Charles Johnson, and Dan Riehl have more.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:35 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 2 kb.

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on surrender-monkey Rep. John Murtha (D-France) call for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Way to grow a set of cajones, House Republicans!

Of course, we wouldn't want to question Murtha's patriotism. Because as we all know, former members of the U.S. military cannot, by definition, be unpatriotic.

Except for Benedict Arnold.

Okay, one former miltitary man was a traitor.

How about Zebulon Pike ?

Er, okay, two.

Fine, but in addition to Murtha being a former Marine, the man is a sitting U.S. Congressman! A top official in the U.S. government!

Aaron Burr, any one?

Long, long time ago....

Alger Hiss, Roosevelt Administration

Enough!! So, there are a whole lot of cases where traitors happen to either be in high government positions or happen to have also served in the military. What does that prove?

Nothing, only that treason and military/government service are not mutually exclusive of each other.

So are you saying Murtah is a traitor? Doesn't he just want what is best for his country? By definition those trying to do what is best for their country can't be traitors, can they?

No, but he is a whiny bitch, isn't he?

Indeed.

Via Drudge, this news:

House Republicans, sensing an opportunity for political advantage, maneuvered for a quick vote and swift rejection Friday of a Democratic lawmaker's call for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq.

"We want to make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. "We will not retreat."

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi had no immediate reaction to the planned vote.

The GOP leadership decided to act little more than 24 hours after Rep. Jack Murtha, a hawkish Democrat with close ties to the military, said the time had come to pull out the troops. By forcing the issue to a vote, Republicans placed many Democrats in a politically unappealing position - whether to side with Murtha and expose themselves to attacks from the White House and congressional Republicans, or whether to oppose him and risk angering the voters that polls show want an end to the conflict.

More at OSM.

Reynolds supplied links: Let Freedom Ring, Hotline

Hos and pimps wearing stars and stripes: Brian "Former WWF Superstar" Maloney, Llama "Butchers, not Bitches", Ace "Not a Slave to Wonkette" of Spades, Jeff "Cut" Goldstein, Colossus (no, that isn't my screen name) Blog, Euporic "did you say jarkolicious?" Reality

Video voyeurism of upcoming smackdown: Political Teen

Self-pimpified patriots: Jason Smith, Super Fun Power Hour, Don Surber

Posted by: Rusty at 03:37 PM | Comments (33) | Add Comment
Post contains 465 words, total size 5 kb.

If taking the position that soldiers in Iraq ought to kill their superior officers isn't treasonous speech, then I guess nothing is.

Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors and fight for just causes and for people's needs..."

HT: Ace

Posted by: Rusty at 08:26 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

Rusty Shackleford stops blogging for a couple of months and the nation goes all wobbly.

To pull out of Iraq now is to lose the war. We cannot lose this war in Iraq, too much is at stake. Lives are at stake. Our national security is at stake. The long-term survival of liberal democracy is at stake.

To pull out will be to prove the Abu Musab al Zarqawi's and bin Laden's of the world correct: Western democracies do not have what it takes to stick out a hard fight. Their war in Iraq has always been the Afghanistan strategy--a war of attrition. The bin Ladenists will proclaim victory and redouble their efforts.

All this defeatist talk of early withdrawal from Iraq brings to mind the story, out of Genesis, of the sons of Judah. Onan was condemned in the Bible for, excuse the metaphor, pulling out too early as well. The sin, commonly misunderstood by Christians to be masturbation, was actually that Onan was under obligation to raise children to his dead brother. By spilling his seed on the ground, rather than impregnating his brother's widow, Onan did not finish the job he had started. Onan failed to live up to his obligation to his dead brother, so "What [Onan] did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so [the Lord] put him to death."

It appears that the LORD was more than a bit pissed at Onan's premature withdrawal. I am a bit pissed myself at the far more serious prospect of withdrawing from Iraq before we have crushed our enemies and left a legacy to that country that we can be proud of.

We are under obligation to our dead comrades in Iraq. If we do not finish the job, they will have died in vain. There are worse things than dying in war, dying in a lost war is one of them.

I'm back. Driven to blog by all this defeatist bullshit coming out of the Democrats' mouths. Administrations do not wage wars, nations do. So, yes, not supporting the war is the same as not supporting the nation you treasonous twits. We are at war, and the last time I checked the Democrats were a part of we. Until we win this war I will do my part. In the meantime:

Update: Tammy Bruce, good gay, chimes in:

Think about it this way--what if during World War II the Republicans kept arguing that the war was a "quagmire" and that President Roosevelt "lied" about Pearl Harbor, and that the Germans had done nothing to us, as a result he had "misled" us into the war. Then they start asking for a "time table" to get out of Europe. Does that sound normal to you? Or reasonable? Or does it sound like a defeatist, Hate-America first attitude? It certainly would have been manna to the ears of Hitler and Tojo.

Here is the time table for all war: it ends when the enemy is vanquished. The time table for Europe was when the Axis Powers all eventually surrendered, and it will be so as we face and fight the new facist enemy. It's now obscene what the Dems are doing and has moved far past the "loyal opposition" expected of the minority.

It's about time the White House respond to the absurdity of the Dems. Their attacks are not only ridiculous and old, they put this entire nation in increasing danger as our enemies look for more ways to kill our families and destroy civilization. This is not a game, but the Dems are treating it as though it were. Shame on them.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:49 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 618 words, total size 4 kb.

So, Richard Clarke believed that not only was there a connection between bin Laden and Iraq prior to 9/11, but also that those ties were so strong that he fretted over bin Laden finding safe-haven under the Saddam Hussein regime should he escape Afganistan? I really didn't believe it when I first saw this from Bryan blogging over at Michelle Malkin's place. Looks like Glenn was surprised, too.

Surely, I said to myself, this report must be exaggerating.

There's probably a good reason no MSM publication has mentioned the fact, right?

So I whipped out my copy of the 9/11 report only to find that Richard Clarke indeed is full of shit when he talks about the President misleading us into war. If Bush misled us into war, then Clarke is equally guilty of that sin (as are a majority of Democrats in Congress).

Here is a captured image from the original report. Click for larger view.

This is the same Richard Clarke who wrote in a book alleging the Bush Administration misled the American people into thinking there was an al Qaeda-Iraq connection that:

"There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

And, just so you know, President Bush isn't the only person in White House circles with a spelling problem. Click for larger view.

Richard Clarke, genius or scorned politician trying to shift blame?

Posted by: Rusty at 04:50 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 3 kb.

The leader of a Seattle mosque was arrested on Nov. 15th as he got off an airplane by the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force. Number of articles appearing in the US media about this? One.

Have imams being arrested by the Joint Terrorism Task Force become so commonplace that it is no longer 'news', or is the lack of MSM coverage more evidence that the MSM doesn't want you to associate terrorism with Islam? Hmmm, I wonder if a Christian pastor had been arrested by the Joint Terrorism Task Force would the media reaction be any different?

Notice this Seattle Post Intelligencer piece makes sure to qualify Abu Abrahim Sheik Mohamed's name by noting that he is a 'respected leader':

The respected leader of a Rainier Valley mosque was arrested Monday on an immigration charge, surprising those who knew his work in Seattle's Somali community.

Federal agents with the Joint Terrorism Task Force arrested Abu Abrahim Sheik Mohamed at Sea-Tac Airport as he got off a domestic flight, federal criminal justice sources said....

While he is being held only on the immigration violations, the Joint Terrorism Task Force is continuing its investigation, a source said.

Mohamed, a native of Somalia, has led prayers as the imam of Abu-Bakr Mosque for the past five years.

"I know the man. I'm shocked to hear that (he was arrested), if he's the one I have in mind," said Hisham Farajallah, president of the Islamic Center of Washington.

Several Somali immigrants expressed surprise Tuesday after hearing of Mohamed's arrest, saying the imam was well regarded in the community for his counsel on a wide range of family issues.

"He is a leader for all the Somali community, not just for the mosque," Hassan Nur said as he arrived at the mosque for midafternoon prayer.

Nur and a man named Ali said that Mohamed would solve "99 percent" of the problems brought to him, helping people with questions related to marriage, parenting, addictions and youths.

They said Mohamed even started a summer program at the mosque to keep youths off the street and out of trouble.

"I've never heard of him doing anything wrong," Nur said.

Mohamed is "a wise man in every aspect," said Mohamed Abdi, president of Somali Community Services of Seattle.

Mohamed has been the only imam at the mosque, which started six years ago without a prayer leader.

Though open to Muslims of all national origins, the mosque is used mostly by Somalis.

In November 2004, the Joint Terrorism Task Force arrested 14 people at about a dozen Seattle-area locations, including a business one block from the original location of Abu-Bakr Mosque.

Among those arrested in the November 2004 raids was Karim Abdullah Assalaam, who told an FBI informant that "his whole Muslim crew" is involved in an ongoing bank fraud scheme for personal gain and because "you can't go to war broke," court documents say.

In a tape-recorded conversation about guns, Assalaam told the informant, "I just want to die a Shaheed," which he defined as a martyr "who dies in the cause of Allah."

Assalaam is to be sentenced next month after acceding to a federal plea agreement.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:04 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 775 words, total size 5 kb.

OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Scooter Libby get indicted for perjury because they didn't have any proof that Valerie Plame was "outed?" At least that was the impression that I got. Because if you could actually prove the charges you were investigating, you would have indicted for them instead of some other thing that you just happen to think you might have found.

Yet, with that in mind, MSNBC runs a story today that not only says that Scooter Libby is guilty *before trial* of things that he hasn't been charged with, but goes on to say that people have come forth to testify that it actually was Karl Rove that leaked Valerie Plame's name to the press. They don't just indicate that this might be or that "rumors have it..." They come right out and say Rove is guilty and his security clearance should be removed. And strongly indicate that the Bush presidency can go nowhere until Rove is fired. Proof, you say?

...a person identified as “Official A” held conversations with reporters about Plame’s identity as an undercover CIA operative, information that was classified. News accounts subsequently confirmed that that official was Rove.

News accounts. I wonder if those news accounts (which I haven't seen or heard) are as trustworthy as this one. I also wonder why, if this is the case and they have such rock-solid evidence of a crime, the special prosecuter hasn't handed down an indictment on Rove? After all, he had plenty of opportunity. And he never once indicated in his press conference after Libby's indictment that he was looking for or at anyone else. As a matter of fact, he seemed to believe that Libby was completly guilty of the whole matter.

And with the cries of outrage coming from MSNBC today, one has to wonder what happened to their voice on April 12, 2005 when the Washington Post reports that:

During a hearing on John R. Bolton's nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations, Bolton and members of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee referred to the analyst as "Mr. Smith." They were discussing one of the officials involved in a dispute over what Democrats said was Bolton's inappropriate treatment of an intelligence analyst who disagreed with him.

But the committee chairman, Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) mentioned a name that had not previously come up in public accounts of the intelligence flap.

"Did Otto Reich share his belief that [the person in question] should be removed from his position? The answer is yes," Kerry said, characterizing one interview. "Did John Bolton share that view?" Kerry asked. Again, he said the answer was yes.

The CIA had repeatedly asked, even in writing, that the identity of this person not be mentioned in these public hearings. That is why everyone else was referring to him as Mr. Smith. But the esteemed Senator from Massachusetts just couldn't seem to help himself as he "outed" this agent. Where was the outcry? Where were the calls for indictment? Wasn't this a crime of terrible proportions? Didn't this, in the words of special prosecuter Fitzgerald "create a terrible danger for all Americans?" And if not, then why is it so much more horrible for Libby? Of course I think we all know the answer to that question.

Update: kimsch of Musing Minds believes that the "sources" quoted above are actually Howard Dean on Hannity & Colmes. Reading through the transcript (posted at the link above), this could certainly be the truth. Some excerpts:

Alan Colmes: WhatÂ’s your reaction to the nomination of Alito?

Howard Dean: Ah, a couple of reactions. First of all I think it shows the PresidentÂ’s weakness. The extreme right of the party seems to be driving the judicial nominations process and I think thatÂ’s unfortunate. Secondly, we still wonder when the PresidentÂ’s going to ask Karl Rove to resign since heÂ’s now been identified by the special prosecutor as the person who leaked the name. So, this all comes, uh, as kind of a, at kind of a difficult time. Uh, I donÂ’t. I think the PresidentÂ’s really using this as a distraction right now to get away from his ethical troubles. (emphasis mine)

One has to wonder where Dean is getting his information. Certainly not from the special prosecuter as he hasn't said anything about Rove. Of course one also has to wonder what that has to do with Alito as well. But no one ever accused the Democrats (especially Dean) of making sense.

Alan Colmes: Is it your belief that the President chose today to make this choice as a distraction from the indictment news?

Howard Dean: Oh sure. But the indictment is not going to go away. The President promised he would fire anyone who leaked. Karl Rove has now been shown to have leaked, even though he wasnÂ’t charged with a crime. This is a big ethical problem for the President. The President gave us his word that he would fire anyone who leaked. So far he hasnÂ’t done that. WeÂ’re waiting to see if the President will keep his word.

Alan Colmes: Well, there have been three different standards. First, McClellan said anybody involved in, then he said if anybody leaked, then if anybody committed a crime. Are you calling for the resignation of Karl Rove?

Howard Dean: Absolutely. Karl Rove has no business having a security clearance having now been established as a leaker by the special prosecutor. As I say, he wasnÂ’t charged with a crime, what he did was, not, certainly unethical. And he ought not to have a security clearance and he ought not to be working and being paid for by the taxpayersÂ’ money. (emphasis mine)

Dean then switches horses in midstream and claims that instead of Rove being the leak, it's now Cheney.

Howard Dean: Well, I'm not so sure about that although if there is such a thing, it'll be in the Vice President's office. And I do think there needs to be more investigation in the Vice President's office. One of the things established by the special prosecutor in the indictment is that Vice President Cheney was the source of Scooter Libbity's, Libby's knowledge about who the CIA agent was.

Alan Colmes: Are you calling for a broader investigation of the Vice President?

Howard Dean: Oh, I think there should be. I suspect strongly that, frankly that the prosecutor's already doing that because he, himself identified the Vice President as a source of some of the information that got leaked.

And just to make sure, I checked the special prosecutor's website again today (again, thanks to Musing Minds). No mention of Rove or Cheney. But we all knew that, didn't we? Heck, a full search of Libby's Indictment press release doesn't even mention Rove or Cheney. Even the indictment itself has no mention of either of them.

Posted by: Drew at 07:37 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 1157 words, total size 7 kb.

When Newsmax and the Village Voice report nearly identical political stories on the same day it can mean only one thing. Someone's been planting a story. Shenanigans are afoot.

From Newsmax:

Will Cindy Sheehan challenge Hillary Clinton for her Senate seat in 2006?

That's the proposition percolating throughout New York's anti-war left, which has grown increasingly frustrated with Sen. Clinton's refusal to denounce the Bush administration's Iraq policy.

Cindy Sheehan, a/k/a the "peace mom," probably never intended to sound like a candidate, but she did. Sheehan, the activist who became the face of anti-war sentiment after camping outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, last summer, had just mounted the podium at the Brooklyn Peace Fair on October 22. And already she was getting political.

More likely, Sheehan is simply a stalking horse for Hillary's re-election to the Senate and anticipated run for the White House. There's obviously no way that Hillary is going to run for President successfully as a liberal. That makes Sheehan's antics just so, so convenient politically, as a way to allow Clinton to pretend to be a moderate Democrat in 2008. The real question here is, what did Hill promise Sheehan and her followers? Support for a cut-and-run policy? A place in the cabinet?

That's not to say that there's anything illegal with clandestine collusion between Clinton and Sheehan. Just an indication that the wife shares the husband's character.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto, but ask yourself one question before you click on this link. "Am I cool enough to visit Bluto's crib?"

Posted by: Bluto at 06:44 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.

Ever wonder why the left is always on the negative? Why despite so many successes they scream defeat? Because they think if they just shout the same message long enough and loud enough it will become true. Sadly a good portion of the public does fall prey to this strategy.

Boston Globe registration required : That depends on what you consider ''important." Do you see the war against radical Islam and Ba'athist fascism as the most urgent conflict of our time? Do you believe that replacing tyranny with democratic self-government is ultimately the only antidote to the poison that has made the Middle East so dangerous and violent? If so, you'll have no trouble identifying the most significant development in Iraq last week: the landslide victory of the new Iraqi Constitution.

Also see Rantingprof :

You would think the left would be all happy about a black being elected unless that black man is conservative.

More left twisty stuff from Michelle Malkin.

Malkin : These are words you did not read in the New York Times. They are the words of the late Corporal Jeffrey B. Starr, whose letter to his girlfriend in case of death in Iraq was selectively edited by the Times to convey a bogus sense of "fatalism."

Our Friend Filthy has a great post on the hypocrisy of the left. See this direct link to the post in case you are kind of sensitive. No really itÂ’s good stuff.

Don't get the impression that you arouse my anger. You see, one can only be angry with those he respects(RMN). I've found very little reason to respect much in Washington. But at least the right seems to know what side our side is. If the left thinks the middle of Republican party (that would be me) is going to go with them by default they could not be more wrong. It takes concrete ideas and I could not be more turned off than I am right now.

Posted by: Howie at 03:03 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.