This is utterly stupefying.

When I saw this image at Clarity and Resolve, I thought that it was one of Patrick's making. He's no slacker when it comes to Photoshopping:

Imagine my surprise when I followed a link to discover that it was actually included in a CBS News online article.

An article, by the way, about the so-called "fatwa against terrorism" issued today by representatives of the Religion of Peace residing in the United States.

If NBC is Must See TV, then CBS can rightfully claim Dhimmi TV....

Posted by: Vinnie at 10:27 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.

Building on Suzanne's post below and Michelle's observations here, let me tell you what happened on our trip coming to sunny California. My entire family was singled out for security pat down. Twice.

The geniuses at the TSA decided that they had to search my six year old daughter, my three year old son, and my one year old infant. You know, cause terrorists could be anybody.

Just before we boarded plane number 3 (yeah, it took 4 planes to get here) they pulled us off the boarding line to pat us down again. I'm talking the full search on us all, including tearing apart our diaper bag, swabbing our little portable DVD player and Barbie Princess and the Pauper video for bomb residue, and running the metal detector over our one-year old.

I'm thinking it was the flip-flops I was wearing. Or maybe the In-'n-Out Burger tee-shirt. Nothing says terrorist more than that.

Alright, I'm off to the beach. Let's hope the Baywatch lifeguards don't take my pasty-white skin as a tell-tale sign of potential terrorist. And, no, that bulge in my bathing suit is not bomb. I'm just happy to see you.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:14 PM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

By Demosophist

Armed Liberal asks what ought to be a simple question about the Wilson/Plame/Rove affair:

So here's where I get stuck, and could genuinely use some help.

It looks to me like Iraq did make an attempt - at least a desultory one - to buy uranium.

That's what they were accused of.

Wilson, in his original oped, slams the Administration because

In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a ''white paper'' asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.

So I'm puzzled...it seems that the facts as he knew them supported the claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium.

So help me understand this gap. Too many smart people don't see it as a gap for me to just assume there is one.

Posted by: Demosophist at 01:35 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 763 words, total size 5 kb.

By Demosophist

There are still lots of mysteries associated with this so-called issue, including why there's an investigation without a crime in the first place, but the thing that has always stumped me was why the Bush Administration just didn't undermine "Yellow-cake Joe's" authenticity by pointing out that his report said just about the opposite of what he was claiming in his NYT Op-ed, and on CNN. Well, it turns out the Administration couldn't have taken that direct route to clarity by referring to what was in his report, because he didn't write one. more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 02:57 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 433 words, total size 3 kb.

Stunning you say, absolutely stunning. It can't be true, not THAT Abdurahman Alamoudi, the man who "portrayed himself as a “moderate Muslim” who served as a liaison between the U.S. government and American Muslims for two decades.

You can't possibly believe that a founder of the American Muslim Council (AMC), a Wahabi front, who played a key role in developing the Pentagon's Muslim chaplain program, who represented the State Department and attended meetings at the White House spanning two administrations, could possibly be an al Qaeda sympathizer and a terrorist.

However, on the other hand, remember what President George Bush said on November 21, 2001:

"If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States and our friends."

Well, I choose to believe that moderate Muslims do exist but that many apparently moderate Muslims choose to live a life of subterfuge in order to further the radical Islamic agenda, and that those Muslims, are not moderates but are indeed terrorists living among us who have and continue to attempt to, infiltrate our government and subvert our laws and culture to facilitate the establishment of Islamic law in the U.S.. A fabrication you say! Lets look at some facts:

First of all, the Northeast Intelligence Network, in it's article on the Almoudi revelation, writes:

(...) Pioneers in the research and investigation of Islamic terrorism such as Steve Emerson, Daniel Pipes, Bruce Tefft and others exposed the true nature of the “moderate” Alamoudi long before his arrest in September 2003 on multiple terrorism related financing charges. Convicted in 2004, the most recent allegation of Abdurahman Alamoudi raising money for al Qaeda while rubbing elbows with the Washington elite continues to boggle the mind of any reasonable person as it well should.

But it's a fluke you say, just a fluke. A rare bad apple in the batch. I say that's nonsense! more...

Posted by: Richard@hyscience at 12:56 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 954 words, total size 8 kb.

John Deutch, former Deputy Secretary of Defense and Director of Central Intelligence for the Clinton administration has a brilliant plan for Iraq: surrender. NY Times:

The insurgency cannot be overcome easily by either United States military forces or immature Iraqi security forces. Nor would the situation be eased even if, improbably, the United Nations, NATO, our European allies and Japan choose to become seriously involved.

Our best strategy now is a prompt withdrawal plan consisting of clearly defined political, military and economic elements. Politically, the United States should declare its intention to remove its troops and urge the Iraqi government and its neighbors to recognize the common regional interest in allowing Iraq to evolve peacefully and without external intervention. The first Iraqi election under the permanent constitution, planned for Dec. 15, is an appropriate date for beginning the pullout.

Militarily, we should establish a timetable for reducing the scope of operations that has enough flexibility so as not to provide a tactical advantage to insurgents. We should also plan on continuing measures like no-flight zones, border surveillance, training for Iraqi security forces, intelligence collection and maintenance of a regional quick-reaction force.

Economically, we should define what amount of assistance we are prepared to extend to Iraq as long as it stays on a peaceful path. It would be best if this aid was but one facet of a broader set of economic initiatives to benefit Arab states that advance our interests.

Of course, these measures cannot guarantee a secure and democratic Iraq free of external domination. But they could be first steps of a strategy to pursue America's true long-term interests in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf.

What is our true long-term interest in the Middle East if not maintaining secular governments and the nation-state system?

The problem with Deutch is that he fundamentally misunderstands who we are fighting in Iraq. We are not fighting a nationalistic insurgency, we are fighting Islamist terrorists. This is not the same war that was fought against Saddam Hussein. This is a different war.

In the first war we fought Saddam Hussein's secular Baathist armies. In this second war we are fighting Islamists allied with al Qaeda. As one who regularly monitors jihadi activity, I can say with some amount of authority that the vast majority of casualties in Iraq come from Abus Musab al-Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq, The Army of Ansar al-Sunna, The Islamic Army in Iraq, and a few other related groups. None of these groups had any interest in maintaining the Arab Socialism of Hussein. All of them share the goal of ousting the U.S. and toppling the Iraqi government.

We won the first war, but will we win the second? That depends.

Terrorists, despite what many on both the Right and Left believe, are not motivated by hate. These are political movements with political goals. Islam, unlike Christianity, does not distinguish between the political and the secular. The political goals of the Islamists are therefore religously motivated--yet they are concrete political goals all the same. In the case of Islamic extremism, the political goals range from the short-term goal of removing US forces from ALL Muslim lands to the very-long-term goal of a unified world government based on Islamic law.

In our rhetoric we say things like, "If [insert fear, civil liberties, etc. here] changes then the terrorists have already won." No, the terrorists are not interested in outlawing pornography, suspending the writ of habeus corpus, or in changing the routes we drive to work--they are interested in specific policy goals none of which have anything to do with U.S. domestic politics (except in the very-very long-term).

Terrorism, as a tactic, is chosen because terrorists believe those tactics will work.

Goal: U.S. Marines out of Beirut.
Tactic: Suicide car-bombing.
Result: U.S. Marines out of Beirut.
Lesson learned: Terrorism works.

They also believe domestic terrorism can lead to specific policy changes.

Goal: Spain out of Iraq.
Tactic: Terrorism against Spanish civilians.
Result: Spain out of Iraq.
Lesson learned: Terrorism works.

The Islamist forces that we are fighting, though, use other tactics as well as terrorism. In Iraq, for instance, much of what these Islamofascist forces are doing are textbook guerilla tactics. I've watched dozens and dozens of al Qaeda and Islamic Army in Iraq videos of U.S. military vehicles being blown up by roadside bombs, mortar attacks on military positions by small paramilitary groups, and even the occasional shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile. Thus, the terrorists we are fighting use terrorism as a tactic, but also use the tactic of guerilla warfare.

Why would they think they can defeat us in Iraq using geurilla warfare?

Goal: Soviet military out of Afghanistan/imposition of Islamic law.
Tactic: Guerilla warfare.
Result: Soviet military out of Afghanistan/imposition of Islamic law.
Lesson learned: Geurilla warfare works against super-powers.

But Afghanistan was not the only place where this lesson was learned.

Goal: U.S. military out of Somalia.
Tactic: Guerilla warfare.
Result: U.S. military out of Somalia.
Lesson learned: Geurilla warfare works against super-powers.

So, what will happen if we pull-out of Iraq? Can our long-term national interests be met using this tactic?

Goal: U.S. military out of Iraq/imposition of Islamic law.
Tactic: Guerilla warfare.
Result: U.S. military out of Iraq/civil war possibly leading to Islamic law.
Lesson learned: Geurilla warfare works against super-powers.

If we truly wish to win the second war in Iraq, we cannot abandon her to our enemies. If we do then the lesson they will learn is that the U.S. can be beaten. And if the U.S. is beaten in Iraq, then the U.S. can be beaten elsewhere.

That is a lesson we cannot afford our enemies to learn.

Hat tip Dale Franks from QandO

Posted by: Rusty at 01:35 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 996 words, total size 7 kb.

All these years trying to figure out various ways to get more sweet-sweet lovin' and it turns out all I had to do was become a terrorist and get thrown into Gitmo!

I think Witty Sex Kitten and Feisty Republican Whore might just have a future as Camp X-Ray interrogators/sex-workers.

Note to Professor Chaos: Your secret plan to join IRA sounding much better now....

Posted by: Rusty at 12:30 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

By Demosophist

The more I read about the Rove/Plame/Wilson affair the more confused I get. Well actually it's becoming like an aged and blended old tawny port. POwerline makes a pretty good case that no one violated a law forbidding the "outing" of a covert CIA agent because even Joe Wilson admits that his wife wasn't a covert agent at the time that she was supposedly outed. Yeah well that makes a lot of sense. We've been investigating a crime that has Judith Miller behind bars for nondisclosure of a confidential source, when according to the principal victim's husband there couldn't have been a crime. And that chocolate frog I'm looking at might just decide to hop out the window.... more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 12:41 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 471 words, total size 3 kb.

You ever wonder why moonbats like Farrakhan can keep a national profile? It's because they have corporte sponsorship. Not always directly, but indirectly. It seems that the Jew-hating lunatic spoke at a Jesse Jackson event last year sponsored, in part, by Toyota.

Maybe Toyota ought to forget the middle man and just hire ol' Farrakhan to be their spokesman? The cars should be a big seller in the Middle East. The National Policy Center's press release on Toyota's idiocy is here.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:26 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

Today, there are two main sources foreign born Islamist radicalism in the West. The first are political exiles who take advantage of Western tolerance for dissent--even dissent which advocates overthrowing the very liberalism which has generously given them refuge. The second are imams (Muslim clerics) brought to the West to lead congregations of economic immigrants and who bring with them all the social baggage of their native societies--disgust for Western society, conspiracy theories, antisemetism, anti-secularism, and a belief that the ills of the Muslim world can be laid squarely at the feet of Western Imperialism, etc.

Ending both sources of radicalism only requires minor adjustment to present law and, in the end, could prove instrumental in preventing further 7/7 type attacks.

Tony Blair today asserted that he would deport radical Muslim clerics from Britain. A bold move from a country which has historically tolerated the purveyors of hate. It should be remembered that it was from England that an exiled Karl Marx was free to give words to an ideology that would eventually kill tens of millions of people. He fled the corrupt and authoritarian Prussian state to find refuge in the Progressive British one--and then promptly advocated overthrowing both.

For too long those that promote evil ideologies have sought refuge in the pluralism and tolerance of the West. While the term 'political refugee' conjures up images of brave reformers persecuted by totalitarian regimes because of their love of Western style liberalism, the truth is that many refugees are forced into exile because they advocate replacing the current totalitarian regime of a given country with a new form of totalitarianism.

Such is the case with radical Islamists from all over the Middle East who are persecuted for their advocacy of replacing the corrupt secularism, militarism, Arab socialism of present regimes with far worse governments patterned after Afghanistan's Taliban or The Islamic Republic of Iran. Many of these exiles find refuge in the West and under present legal standards they certainly meet every definition of political refugee. In the West these radical purveyors of hate ideology find the resources to give voice to their totalitarian visions.

For instance, Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed was forced to flea his native Syria and found refuge in Great Britain because of his association with the Muslim Brotherhood and his support for replacing the secular Baathist regime in Syria with a religious one. According to this Los Angeles Times article, thousands of these refugees blend in with the large Muslim community of England's working class neighborhoods--the vast majority of whom came seeking economic opportunity. Among the immigrant community, these radical refugees find sympathetic ears, raise money, propagandize, and serve as intermediaries to the world-wide Salafist jihadi network.

It is time for Western countries to stop granting political assylum to those that wish only to destroy us. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 05:46 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 1778 words, total size 12 kb.

Is Rove guilty? Dunno. Do I care? Not really. What Rove did was not treason as the lunatics over in the head-up-their-asses community are so fond of pontificating. Criminal? Maybe, in that everything-inside-the-beltway-that-some-pencil-neck-finds-offensive-is-illegal way, but not treason or anything even smacking of treason.

Anyway, it's time for Rove to go. Last time I checked we were in a f*cking shooting war and the last thing the Commander-in-Chief needs is a low-life political opportunist in his inner circle. If for no other reason he should go because his actions are creating a political scandal. And it's not like were talking about the Secretary of Defense here, Rove is a pollster and a political strategist for crying-out-loud. So, Bush finds another low-life political opportunist to replace him--but one that knows to keep his mouth shut. Alright, easier said than done but, really, who really gives a rat's ass about Karl-freaking-Rove? I hear Clinton's low-life pollster and political strategist is looking for work these days.

I dunno about the rest of the world, but I for one did not vote for Karl Rove. I voted for George W. Bush. And I didn't vote for him because I was worried about indexing the alternative-minimum-tax to the inflation rate. I voted for Bush because I want a President who will respond to threats against the United States with force and without hesitation. Rove will only prove to be a distraction to the pussies on the Left looking for any excuse to appease our enemies. So, Mr. Bush, fire Karl Rove and then do what we elected you to do: Kick. Some. Terrorist. Ass.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:37 AM | Comments (115) | Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.

1 But you just listed all the (few) reasons I like Rove. He is a huge diestraction for the left, who would put more resources into honest-to-goodness things if he weren't around. And I doubt W. is taking any time out of his schedule on this. Good press, little substance. And the whole "I didn't vote for Karl Rove" argument could be held to a boatload of people running things. I didn't vote for Condi Rice either, but you knew she was part of the package, in some respect, going into the second term. Hell, I don't know of anyone that voted for Hillary in the 90s, and I am f***ing sick of that argument. Couldn't agree with you more on kicking ass, but when you're dealing with an opposition that want to coddle the prisoners in Gitmo or release them AND a press that is actively working to undermine your administration, you have more problems that dwarf this non-event. Yeah, minimize the liabilities, but at some point you have to tell them to go to heck. So you cut Rove loose. Guess what. There will be a new outrage that takes its place the next day.

Posted by: Chrees at July 12, 2005 12:57 AM (jjSiK)

2 It's not time for Rove to go until he no longer causes DNC/MSM meltdowns. And besides, lets remember that he's being accused and condemned by the same idiots who unwittingly delivered Dan Rather's head earlier this year. Now, if he suddenly gets caught actually sneaking classified top secret documents out of their libraries by tucking them into his socks, then we can start kicking him around a bit.

Posted by: ccwbass at July 12, 2005 01:00 AM (a1Hm0)

3 Nah, without Rove the leftards might find something of substance to cry about. He's like a babysitter; he keeps the brats occupied while the adults save the world.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 12, 2005 01:05 AM (0yYS2)

4 I agree.

Posted by: HundredPercenter at July 12, 2005 01:30 AM (bPVCX)

5 If Rove lied time for him to go. My thoughts: Strange that the liberals loonies can be very understanding about a president that goes on television and says ( I did not have sex with that young woman, no, not one time) while shaking his finger at the whole country. A week later he admits to having sex with this bimbo, in the white house where his family lives. Conclusion. Liberal leaders can tell whopping lies concerning sexual affairs while living in our most honored institution. He must stay. A minor conservative, who may or may not have lied, must be fired. Liberal equals sick, sick, sick. After all. They continue to worship that fat bastard liar Kennedy who killed Mary Jo and continues to lie about it.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 12, 2005 01:51 AM (CBNGy)

6 LMAO @ "Kick some terrorist ass" you fucks are retarded! Yeah, Bush "without hesitation" fights back. What a joke!. I seem to remember that on 9/11, after finding out about the first tower being struck, he proceeded to sit down & read a book to a bunch of kids. THEN, after learning of the second tower being hit, continued to sit there for several minutes with a dumbfounded look on his face. Yeah, definately a strong leader with quick resolve and "no hesitation". YOU FUCKING MORONS! Osama has been forgotten. What you fail to see is that Bush is in fact the real terrorist. Look @ Iraq. He accomplished his agenda of removing Saddam from power. Why are we still there? I mean other than oil? (even though i just paid $2.50 a gallon to fill my car). We have accomplished nothing in Iraq except terrorizing innocent people & losing american lives (let's not forget all of the troops that are mutulated for life to). There is no end in sight either. We are destroying a country and rebuilding it. We are closing schools and hospitals in America & opening them in Iraq. This is all a mess, and the only reason we are there is for Bush's agenda NOT TERRORISM! I love how the length of the ordeal is blamed on the "insurgents". I wonder, if we were occupied by another country, and used our guns to fight back, would we be "insurgents" or patriots? Bush Qaeda is the worst thing to ever happen to this country, and our only hope is to impeach him or shoot him. I vote for the later.

Posted by: Rich at July 12, 2005 03:09 AM (xtkbs)

7 Wow. That is one fat, steaming pile of righteous outrage, Rich. It must have taken you several hours to pinch that loaf. Pray tell us, what exactly is Bush's agenda. You know, I have yet to see it spelled out. Coherently. This is particularly revealing: Bush Qaeda is the worst thing to ever happen to this country, and our only hope is to impeach him or shoot him. I vote for the later.May we safely assume that you're commenting here because you're being temporarily banned from your usual haunts? Whatever the case may be, based on your post I find myself obliged to ask: [1] Do you have a police record? [2] Do your masturbation fantasies involve acting out in violence towards animals or people? [3] Have you ever tortured small animals? [4] Do you still wet your bed, or, if not, did you stop wetting your bed only as you approached your middle-late teenage years? [5] Is your weight somewhere between 155 - 175 pounds? [6] Is your shoe size app. 10 - 11? [7] Are you socially awkward? [8] As you were writing your comments, were you aware of feeling angry, sullen, and determined to retaliate? [9] Did you have ever commit acts of arson when you were a child? [10] Are you blogging from Louisiana? I'm just curious. I'm not implying anything.

Posted by: ccwbass at July 12, 2005 03:39 AM (295tL)

8 (1)no (2)no (3)no (4)no (5)no (6)no (7)no ( plead the 5th (9)no (10)no BTW....your daughter makes some killer pancakes. Her pussy stinks though. So i just fuck her ass. She loves it. No doubt she got that from you

Posted by: Rich at July 12, 2005 03:57 AM (xtkbs)

9 Rusty, I apologize. I'd forgotten that some species of vermin are best left ignored.

Posted by: ccwbass at July 12, 2005 04:12 AM (295tL)

10 Republican people = SHEEPLE

Posted by: Rich at July 12, 2005 05:03 AM (xtkbs)

11 Rove should be fired and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Posted by: greg at July 12, 2005 05:12 AM (YgjBA)

12 Screw it, fire BUSH and let Rove go back to his pigsty!

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 12, 2005 05:34 AM (ScqM8)

13 "U.K. Wants Massive EU Monitoring of E-mails, Cell Phones Newsmax | July 11, 2005 In the wake of the deadly London terrorist attacks, British Home Secretary Charles Clarke says millions of personal e-mail and mobile phone records could be stored and shared with police and intelligence officials across Europe to help thwart future attacks, according to an Observer report." And in a related story: Government to monitor when we fart.

Posted by: greg at July 12, 2005 05:44 AM (YgjBA)

14 Speaking of pink piggies, it is time for the milky payoff! "Shit, my wife just retired...Shes more man than you." The cockshockrocker admits the truth! A few years ago, the warty-palmed chicken beater was dressed up in his white pointy-headed Klan suit deep in some forest. He was hunched over a barrel watching some African Americans playing in the park with bad thoughts in mind. A confused man who was too unstable for the military, the Cock-of-the-wall became feather dust.. Love finds all and then he felt two arms on his shoulders - a blind date? Next thing the sheet was ripped apart as a wild, hairy boar drove himself home into the Klanrooster lin a wild sausage-packing frenzy! The bristly belly of the beast was slapping down onto his back while making a bellowing grunting sound.. the hooves locked tight around Rooster's neck and when he spun his head around in shock, he could smell the breath of the boar and feel it's tongue licking his right cheek. Grunt! Grunt! Grunt! Damn, this boar is more man than me! A hogtied morass of a racist bond gone mad!

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 12, 2005 06:36 AM (ScqM8)

15 As the boar stuck around and finished his deed, the disheveled Klansman screed, "I am the a**hole king! I can stink up anything!!"

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 12, 2005 06:39 AM (ScqM8)

16 The left has no right to "demand" Rove's termination or anything based on their own behavior. If Rove is terminated, it will be because he's causing more damage than good. Period. Is he guilty? I don't know either. If he is, he should not be exempt from any laws. To demonize the entire party and lay blame for everything, including soggy cereal, at Rove's feet is wrong. However, Democrats continue to copy his tactics. The challenge to the Florida vote in 2000? They copied Rove's tactics on that down to the letter. Rove did the same thing 10 or 15 years ago for a judge somewhere in the south (Alabama, I think it was). The only difference is that Rove was successful. There are other instances of their copy-catting if you just give it a little thought. Rusty's right. Political strategists are just what they are. And we all have similar feelings about most politicians. But, where do they get their ideas? Guys like Karl Rove. All we should worry about is when they cross the line from strategy to breaking the law.

Posted by: Oyster at July 12, 2005 06:55 AM (YudAC)

17 Is Rove really Rooster?

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 12, 2005 07:46 AM (ScqM8)

18 Does not matter a bit that Rove is innocent. The loonie left will strap on their tin foil hats and cry "CHARGE" in move into the breach once again as they did with CBS's forged document case.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at July 12, 2005 07:58 AM (yBHNA)

19 Now Rusty, I do not see how appeasing the left does W any good. F- the left. ROve did nothing wrong. Zip. Do you really think Pelosi, Kennedy, The Cyclops and Harry Reid will allow business to move forward if Rove is fired? THey will lead you to believe that but, as sure as The Cyclops attended lynchings, no fing way dude.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at July 12, 2005 08:02 AM (yBHNA)

20 No offense, Rusty, but it sounds like you think Rove did something which may or may not have been legal last week rather than back in 2003 and for that he should resign or be fired. Sorry, that may work for you, but doesn't for me. Any distractions provided by Rove will be to the Democrats and to the press, I don't think Bush will be distracted at all. Come on - Bush is a bone-head and bone-heads don't get distracted. Bush planned on taking out Iraq back in 1999 - he did that. He's planning on putting the US in a position to win the war on terra, and he's doing that. Bush is a 'Set and Forget' kind of President. Nor do I think the Joint Chiefs, or Theater Commanders, or the people stationed in Iraq will be distracted because a year and a half ago a person who worked at the CIA and may or may not (it's still not clear) have been an agent or an officer, but - hey - the D.C. Cocktail Circuit knew. So long as none of those parties were catered or hired bartenders, that vital information was secure. fwiw - the blowback on Wilson is going to be interesting. Not from any political point of view, but as issues about the substance of Wilson's statements regarding Bush's policies about terrorism.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at July 12, 2005 08:07 AM (DHSXc)

21 CHICKENHAWKS OF THE WORLD UNITE - JOIN THE ARMY!!

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 12, 2005 08:40 AM (ScqM8)

22 Boy, and you guys accuse the left of crazed ranting! There's so much foaming at the mouth at this site, it's coming out of my computer screen. But you seem to ignore the fact that without Herr Karl, your dear leader wouldn't even be in the White House.

Posted by: zen_less at July 12, 2005 08:53 AM (BkYcc)

23 Bush should keep Rove for no other reason than it drives Leftists bonkers. Think of all the Bushrovian conspiracy theories they've amused us with the last few years. All gone.

Posted by: Carlos at July 12, 2005 09:19 AM (8e/V4)

24 I think W should keep Rove around if only to drive the party of the Klan nuts. Byrd wouldn't comment, he was at a lynching this weekend.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at July 12, 2005 09:23 AM (yBHNA)

25 Zen: what happened to consistency? first diebold was how Bush got elected, then "Herr Karl" make up your mind?

Posted by: dave at July 12, 2005 09:24 AM (fsJ2z)

26 >>>"But you seem to ignore the fact that without Herr Karl, your dear leader wouldn't even be in the White House." shorter zenless: Rove was Bush's campaign manager.

Posted by: Carlos at July 12, 2005 09:31 AM (8e/V4)

27 Come on. You don't cavalierly shove out the door someone who knows where are the bodies are buried. And starting with TANG service questions, continuing through the SC primary campaign against McCain, and through the 9-11 fiasco and the Iraq house of lies, there are plenty of them bured. Best they stay where they are, no?

Posted by: John Dillinger at July 12, 2005 09:44 AM (7J3OH)

28 "our only hope is to impeach him or shoot him. I vote for the later." The First Amendment does not protect incitement to violence. And everything about Rich's comments indicates that he is sincere. There's no sarcasm or humor or tongue-in-cheek. Besides, he can't even spell "latter."

Posted by: The Commissar at July 12, 2005 09:51 AM (8UnDt)

29 The ignorance and stupidity of the right-wing is appalling. The lot of you should be shipped to an island somewhere to wallow in your idiocy. The fact is that you are a bunch flag waving pseudo-patriots who are brain dead and donÂ’t deserve to live in this great country of ours. If Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Adams were in charge today, they'd probably have you all executed on the spot. With all of your high-moral-values macho knee-jerk support-the-troops superficial BS, I ask you: Where is Osama? Your intellect doesn't permit you to have the capacity to even contemplate the following notion: IRAQ IS EXACTLY WHERE OSAMA WANTS US. You are traitors. You are traitors because you aid and abet the enemy. The proof is that you have managed to manipulate our country into meeting every one of OsamaÂ’s goals for America and the free world: 1) Start a Muslim vs. Christian war 2) Live in fear 3) Put our children in debt to fight fear 4) Fight among ourselves and 5) Remove our own personal freedoms. You small-dicked wishing-you-had-bigger-ones morons believe in your pea brains that we are now safer then we were on September 10, 2001. Listen, why donÂ’t you take a shortcut to the live-by-the-sword-die-by-the-sword axiom: cut off your heads and ship them to your fearless leader, Bin Laden.

Posted by: Joe Jackson at July 12, 2005 09:55 AM (HuAid)

30 Joe, are you questioning my patriotism? I'm hurt.

Posted by: Carlos at July 12, 2005 09:59 AM (8e/V4)

31 How can I report a threat towards a protectee? Contact your nearest USSS field office (listed in the "Emergency Numbers" section in the front of most phone books. The Secret Service does not desire or solicit information pertaining to individuals or groups expressing legitimate criticism of, or political opposition to, the policies and decisions of the government of government officials. However, we are interested in legitimate information relating to threats, plans or attempts by individuals, groups or organizations to harm USSS protectees. http://www.treas.gov/usss/faq.shtml#threat

Posted by: dave at July 12, 2005 09:59 AM (fsJ2z)

32 Joe, Are you just angry you got banned on dailykos? since all those bans occurred this site has seen an influx of angry cocksmokers like yourself. get a grip.

Posted by: dave at July 12, 2005 10:05 AM (fsJ2z)

33 Libs caged the nips back in WW2 as a just in case, why are the libs not demanding we cage the beardos now?

Posted by: Filthy Allah at July 12, 2005 10:21 AM (yBHNA)

34 Judith Miller, Robert Novak and the NY Times all know what the truth is on the Plame issue. Is there even one word spoken about forcing them to tell the rest of us? No, of course not. Not when the Bush hating part of the left has Rove in its sights. No, better to cling to these partisan rants about the right being ALL THAT IS EVIL IN THE WORLD and to use their voices to lie, obfuscate and appease those that would gladly kill them if given the chance. Reading some of the comments in this thread leaves me no doubt how the tyrants in our past got ordinary people to commit acts of unspeakable horror against their fellow man. It seems that there are some who would have no problem seeing it happen again. I worry that my children will not get to know the country that I knew. That if some have their way, the constitution will be shredded and those that do not tow the party line will be labeled unworthy of existence. There is a real enemy in this world and it is trying to silence the cry of freedom, and while this happens others will gladly shift the focus from them to those who merely have a difference of opinion. These are sad days for us all.

Posted by: Defense Guy at July 12, 2005 10:30 AM (jPCiN)

35 Dave: I think you're on to something. They can't rant among their buddies whilst patting each other on the back so they scatter and wreak havoc elsewhere. Wouldn't it be more satisfying, if not sustaining, to be amongst one's peers? Or does this carousing satisfy an inner urge to create anarchy? It think it's both. They spend time at Kos to get the affirmation they need before jumping into create and impart hostility among those who are simply of a different mind. There doesn't seem to be any other purpose. They certainly haven't changed my mind. The last thing I'll do is reconsider anything presented by one who tells me I'm an idiot in the same breath.

Posted by: Oyster at July 12, 2005 10:30 AM (fl6E1)

36 Two things are fun here: 1. People saying Rove did nothing wrong. Well, if he is responsible for revealing the identity of an undercover CIA operative, that is a felony. Also, the revelation of Plame's identity affected national security, since she worked with the group trying to reduce the spread of weapons of mass distruction throughout the world. So if Rove did it, he definitely did something wrong. Also, some people are saying that Rove's felonious actions and lies about them are somehow comparable to questions that never should have been asked about a topic that should never have been raised about Clinton's sex life. Clinton got away with actions that had no affect on the security of our country, so Rove should get away with actions that were felonious in and of themselves, and which threaten our securtiy. Yeah, right. 2. People from both sides of this argument reference the sexual proclivities, equipment, and practices of those who have differing views. To me, that says a lot more about the sexual proclivities, equipment, and practices of the people who post such comments than it says about the people about whom they are commenting.

Posted by: Biff Usually at July 12, 2005 10:31 AM (sWea+)

37 Karl Rove did not just out Valarie Plame. He also destroyed the asset called Brewster-Jennings, a CIA front which has been established for 20-30 years. In doing so, the status of dozens of agents have been compromized. Rove is a traitor. He should be shot.

Posted by: POed Lib at July 12, 2005 10:32 AM (EjPK6)

38 The CIA gave Novak permission to print the article 'outing' Mrs. Plame. Given that, I'd really like to know where the crime is.

Posted by: Defense Guy at July 12, 2005 10:41 AM (jPCiN)

39 off topic, but... All Bombers Died in Attacks

Posted by: Editor at July 12, 2005 10:47 AM (adpJH)

40 So much "disassemblng." The CIA did not authorize Novak. As a matter of fact, they were the agency who referred the outing matter to the Justice Department. And God help Republicans if we learn Bush and the White House knew of Rove's little tete-a-tetes with reporters about Plame. What's good for the goose, will be good for the gander. The law of "karma" may well bite Republicans who demanded Clinton be impeached for lying about what should have been a private matter. Finally, for friends of George, pray that Bolton is not called before the special prosecutor. I am very suspicious that his requests for names of secret intelligence communiques may well have been an attempt to find out the poop on Plame. Moreover, I think he's probably the one who told Rove, and possible Miller and Novak about Plame's status as a CIA operative.

Posted by: Mimi Schaeffer at July 12, 2005 10:57 AM (5MWcN)

41 The only reason Bush should not fire Rove is to piss off the demented Bush haters. That's the only reason. Otherwise fire the guy.

Posted by: Carlos at July 12, 2005 11:04 AM (8e/V4)

42 Where did all the lefties come from? Seriously. How did you guys stumble onto my little sandcrawler of a site? I'd be really interested to know. Anyhoo, Rich has been banned for insulting CCWBASS who is a friend of mine and was reading this site back when it was still my little pet jawa and my sitemeter said 10 hits a day.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at July 12, 2005 11:04 AM (JQjhA)

43 Mimi - I'm a wait and see person on whether Rove is guilty of anything. That said, nothing that happens in the White House, particularly the Oval Office is a "private matter" in the way you imply. Clinton lied under oath. I don't care if he lied about the color of his tie. And the constant focus by the left on the blow job is simply ridiculous. Let's talk about facilitating the passage of nuclear secrets to China, Whitewater, Travelgate, and pardoning the likes of Mark Rich to name a few.

Posted by: Oyster at July 12, 2005 11:07 AM (fl6E1)

44 "108,000 Iraqis Killed in 2003 Alone, 39,000 Killed in Fighting, New Swiss Study Finds Mon Jul 11, 2005 2:35 PM ET By Irwin Arieff UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Some 39,000 Iraqis have been killed as a direct result of combat or armed violence since the U.S.-led invasion, a figure considerably higher than previous estimates, a Swiss institute reported on Monday. The public database Iraqi Body Count, by comparison, estimates that between 22,787 and 25,814 Iraqi civilians have died since the March 2003 invasion, based on reports from at least two media sources. No official estimates of Iraqi casualties from the war have been issued, although military deaths from the U.S.-led coalition forces are closely tracked and now total 1,937. The new estimate was compiled by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies and published in its latest annual small arms survey, released at a U.N. news conference. It builds on a study published in The Lancet, a British medical journal, last October, which concluded there had been 100,000 "excess deaths" in Iraq from all causes since March 2003. That figure was derived by conducting surveys of Iraqi mortality data during the war and comparing the results to similar data collected before the war. Britain's government rejected The Lancet's conclusions shortly after their publication. The Swiss institute said it arrived at its estimate of Iraqi deaths resulting solely from either combat or armed violence by re-examining the raw data gathered for the Lancet study and classifying the cause of death when it could." Those lying Swiss bastards should stick to making chocolate milk. Gosh!

Posted by: greg at July 12, 2005 11:10 AM (ggN0L)

45 >>>"The Swiss institute said it arrived at its estimate of Iraqi deaths resulting solely from either combat or armed violence by re-examining the raw data gathered for the Lancet study and classifying the cause of death when it could." So the new study is based on the old study that has already been discredited. I'm convinced.

Posted by: Carlos at July 12, 2005 11:15 AM (8e/V4)

46 Greg, does that count include Iraqi deaths from IED's detonated by insurgents? or is this solely casualties caused by coalition activities?

Posted by: dave at July 12, 2005 11:16 AM (fsJ2z)

47 Well since we're talking about presidential pardons, can we include Cap Weinberger and five other convicted Iran-Contra felons Bush Sr pardoned just ahead of him leaving the White House...? I just finished doing a paper on propaganda and its use through mass media by the government. And it goes back to slavery and beyond, "Birth of a Nation," the yellow scare, war on drugs, the built-up of correctional institutional elites, now replaced by military elites, and so on. In fact, I'm beginning to think there may not be as wide a moral gap between Democrats and Republicans; and we need to take $$$$ out of politics and give free air waves to all candidates. If not, corporate power brokers will continue to manipulate the public to its detriment. And for that reason, if McCain should run and win his party's nomination, I will vote for my first Republican presidential candidate since Gerald Ford.

Posted by: Mimi Schaeffer at July 12, 2005 11:17 AM (ywZa8)

48 "The CIA did not authorize Novak. As a matter of fact, they were the agency who referred the outing matter to the Justice Department." In which case, I got some bad information. It happens on occasion. So, would someone be so kind as to tell me exactly which law was broken and which fact proves that Rove was the leak? Or are we now saying that speculation based on a loose collection of 'facts' is now all that is needed to convict someone?

Posted by: Defense Guy at July 12, 2005 11:20 AM (jPCiN)

49 39,000 rotting Iraqi bodies, $300,000,000,000. The joy in the neocon heart, Priceless!

Posted by: greg at July 12, 2005 11:28 AM (im3Ig)

50 I totally agree with taking the dollars out of politics, the constitution does not say that the President should come out of one, of two parties. Time to tear down the two party system with equal funding, and campaign finance reforms.

Posted by: dave at July 12, 2005 11:32 AM (fsJ2z)

51 Yes, much better to save all that money and let Saddam just keep on killing and oppressing.

Posted by: Defense Guy at July 12, 2005 11:33 AM (jPCiN)

52 >>>"39,000 rotting Iraqi bodies" why stop there when 39 kabizillion bodies is so much worse!

Posted by: Carlos at July 12, 2005 11:33 AM (8e/V4)

53 Boy just the mention of Darth Rove's name brings the leftard minions out like bees from a hive. They must Google his name every day looking for any mention so that they can swarm in and spew their moronic drivel then sumgly retreat and feel as if they've just delivered a monumental monologue of crushing logic. It's funny really. I read the crap they write and wonder if they are not really patients at a mental hospital somewhere who have been given internet access for therapeutic purposes, considering their complete ineptness at rhetorical argument, their inability to comprehend logic or reason, their total detachment from reality, and the fact that many obviously need their meds adjusted. I will demonstrate: 1)The sky above greg's house is filled with Jooooos in Black Helicopters™, who spy on him constantly because he knows their secret plans to rule the world, and who use mind control devices on him, against which an aluminum foil hat is the only protection. He believes that there is no worldwide islamofascist terrorist movement, but rather the Jooooooos and Republicans are going around using their mind control devices on poor, unsuspecting muslims to get them to commit crimes for Israel. 2)DSM is a pyromaniac who likes to burn small creatures to death, and has some sort of obsession with greyrooster, thinking he is in the KKK, though greyrooster is far less acerbic toward him than I. 3)Any of a number of transient morons who show up to spout their inanities then leave. They have different arguments, accusations, and conspiracies every week, yet their message is always the same; they hate America, they hate prosperity, and they hate freedom. They will unconditionally support any murderous lunatic anywhere as long as they seek to destroy civilization.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 12, 2005 11:36 AM (0yYS2)

54 Smugly, that is.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 12, 2005 12:16 PM (0yYS2)

55 All right, I'll leak the news. Lefties and progressives are posting comments 'cause your site was listed by salon.com. The same site who broke the story of Bush being wired during the debates.

Posted by: Mimi Schaeffer at July 12, 2005 12:24 PM (5MWcN)

56 Mimi: And what, pray tell, was salon.com's reason for the listing?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 12, 2005 12:30 PM (x+5JB)

57 >>>"The same site who broke the story of Bush being wired during the debates." Salon "broke the story" like when Dan Rather broke the story about some phony documents?

Posted by: Carlos at July 12, 2005 12:38 PM (8e/V4)

58 Does anybody doubt that if something like this had been done by a Clinton staffer that the Republicans would be screaming "Treason" at the top of their lungs, and pointing the finger not at the staffer but at Clinton himself? But no matter. The media seem obsessed with whether Rove was sneaky enough to evade the intent of the law against revealing the identity of American undercover operatives. In fact, he seems to have done a pretty good job of protecting himself, such as being careful to identify Plame without ever actually "naming" her, making it abundantly clear that Rove knew exactly what he was doing. But that's not terribly interesting, either. Far more interesting than whether Rove will face justice is what the case reveals as to the roots of the Bush Adminstration's many catastrophic intelligence failures in Iraq. The lengths to which the Administration was willing to go to retaliate for what we now know to be correct intelligence about Iraq's nuclear program is symptomatic of an administration that projected hostility toward any intelligence that did not support their preconceived notions. Ultimately, what resulted was a self-reinforcing system in which intelligence analysts were careful not to challenge the Administration's prejudices. Does it matter if Rove steps down or even goes to jail? Somehow, I doubt if it will end his influence in Washington. And while Rove is remarkably good at the dirty tricks business, I don't think that he is solely to blame for the Administration's "tell-me-what-I-want-to-hear" attitude toward intelligence. This sort of pathology comes down from the top.

Posted by: tgibbs at July 12, 2005 12:44 PM (4r59I)

59 Rusty, I dont know about this sudden wash of people with different opinions, but it probably has something to do with teh fact that your site is one of the few rightwing sites that allow for comments. Why there are so few, I will leave to others to discuss. But I assume some of the new readers are here for the same reasons as I am: to see another side of the story, read differing opinions, etc. Some of your regulars have some good and interesting stuff to say and are relatively open to arguement. Of course quite a few fall back on personal attacks and rants about jewish paranoia and are frankly unreadable and I just skip over them. But all in all, look at this as being a good thing, keep the name calling and frankly stupid threats against our president to an absolute minimum and I think we will all benifit from it. Cheers

Posted by: Max at July 12, 2005 12:59 PM (HFKAk)

60 What I like is the defense out there that he didn't actually reveal her name... he just said it was "his wife". Yeah, 'cuz that's hard to track down right?

Posted by: Linny at July 12, 2005 01:00 PM (EFx7r)

61 Max, all rightwing blogs allow for comments. Some require registration, others do not-- just like Leftwing sites.

Posted by: Carlos at July 12, 2005 01:06 PM (8e/V4)

62 Okay, let's assume that the actus reus is factual; that Rove actually said what is alleged. Now, what was his mens rea? Why did he supposedly blow the cover of a CIA analyst? I think it's a case of "the dog in the night".

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 12, 2005 01:18 PM (0yYS2)

63 IM: The curious incident of the dog in the night?!

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 12, 2005 01:20 PM (x+5JB)

64 It's elementary, my dear Watson!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 12, 2005 01:38 PM (0yYS2)

65 Forget it IM, if you want to bring the actual law into the argument you will find that suddenly no one has an opinion anymore. The law is a mere inconvenience to some righteous bush/rove hatred.

Posted by: Defense Guy at July 12, 2005 01:41 PM (jPCiN)

66 Rusty, sorry for the trouble. In Rich's defense - though it pains me to make it - I did blithely accuse him of being a serial murderer. I think what we're seeing here is the exodus of Daily Kos's and MoveOn.org's moonbats. As soon as they get the all-clear, they'll scutter back to their favorite ponds.

Posted by: ccwbass at July 12, 2005 01:41 PM (y6cNI)

67 IM: Any SILly notions reVERberating around in your head as to the BLAsted story that's from, or is it a haZE?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 12, 2005 01:52 PM (x+5JB)

68 I wish I had time for further discourse, but I am afraid, Watson that I shall have to go... but not to Dartmoor, rather to Abram's Creek. Ta ta!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 12, 2005 02:02 PM (0yYS2)

69 And just like Ashcroft (remember when it was all Ashcroft's fault?), he didn't get my dishes clean in the dishwasher last night, either.

Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at July 12, 2005 02:18 PM (go2A+)

70 IM: Hey, I'M Holmes!

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 12, 2005 02:22 PM (x+5JB)

71 Rove should be congratulated and given the Presidential medal of freedom. The Dems just want to deprive the President of a valued advisor and friend. Plame and Wilson pulled a scam on the government. She gets her husband sent to do a job he was not qualified to perform. He comes back with poor quality information that is justifiably disregarded. He then LIES about his information in a letter in the NY Times. Also, isn't Judith Miller in jail because she refuses to divulge her source? So, according to the times, they have to protect her source, right? So, if Karl Rove is the source, the Times is doing a freaking bad job of protecting them. The Times KNOWS who Miller's source is and the information that was given. If Rove is the source, then the Times is violating the ethical principle that they claim to be honoring by going after him. Unless of course Rove is NOT the source. But, you know, it is not as if Rove had low level civil servants fired, investigated by the FBI, and prosecuted for a non-existent crime...oh...that was Hillary Clinton and the White House travel office. As always, a Rep J-walks and gets investigated. A Dem commits murder and yells in his defense, "Look, that Republican J-walked!" and the Republican gets investigated.

Posted by: hugh59 at July 12, 2005 02:22 PM (NjHG9)

72 YBP: A little subliminal messaging there?

Posted by: Oyster at July 12, 2005 02:26 PM (fl6E1)

73 subliminibible? ;-)

Posted by: hugh59 at July 12, 2005 02:32 PM (NjHG9)

74 Bush is the only president to head into office with a criminal record

Posted by: Buckeye at July 12, 2005 02:33 PM (1BGJ7)

75 Oyster: Was it obvious?!

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 12, 2005 02:39 PM (x+5JB)

76 I'M SPARTACUS!

Posted by: hugh59 at July 12, 2005 02:57 PM (NjHG9)

77 "I'M SPARTACUS!" Hugh59: Great film despite obvious homo-erotic undertones...

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 12, 2005 03:01 PM (x+5JB)

78 "Okay, let's assume that the actus reus is factual; that Rove actually said what is alleged. Now, what was his mens rea? Why did he supposedly blow the cover of a CIA analyst? I think it's a case of "the dog in the night". Improbulus - I believe because the dog's husband was the one who revealed the whole "yellow cake" / Iraq shopping for plutonium scam was BS and just an excuse to dupe the American Public into going to war with Iraq due to their rather large pile of "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

Posted by: Whirly at July 12, 2005 03:05 PM (wUILq)

79 Buckeye my brother you are so right! And not only that, Bush and rove are also responsible for this: After frantically trying to stifle the Democratic People Republic of Korea and its Juche-centered system of Korean-style socialism by using satellites to provoke droughts across the land of Juche, the US imperialist criminals of the Bush clique of horrible capitalist contraptions, no doubt at the behest of Karl Rove the puppeteer, are now using hail storms to destroy the rice fields that the Korean people were just finished planting with rice seedlings. This is a clear attempt by the US imperialist monsters at destroying the crops, starving the Korean people. They are changing the weather Buckeye, and they have ruined the crops in the DPRK just like the crows did in the “Little House” books.

Posted by: Tom Tuttle at July 12, 2005 03:10 PM (3OPZt)

80 The reason most of the bigger conservative blogs don't allow comments can be seen easily in this thread - the trolls come out in droves. Michelle Malkin had comments for the first month or so and it was vicious. Much of it sexist, pornographic, and racist, I might add. Even my relatively small site has its trolls, but nothing like this thread. For most bloggers, it's too much of a headache to manage. If more commenters were like Max, I believe there would be more conservative blogs with comments. I comment very rarely on lefty blogs, mostly because I don't see any reason to converse with people who'll insult me.

Posted by: MartiniPundit at July 12, 2005 03:18 PM (fLdsW)

81 Clinton only President accused of Rape. Hillary Clinton, only female senator with a penis bigger than her husband.

Posted by: OBsnooks at July 12, 2005 03:22 PM (yBHNA)

82 Rusty, you just made CNN.

Posted by: IreneFingIrene at July 12, 2005 03:25 PM (DyTGg)

83 Hey...it's not TREASON if you have a REASON! Republican Party chief Ken Mehlman: " ...The bottom line is that Karl Rove was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise and the Democrats are engaging in blatant partisan political attacks." I personally find it SO refreshing that Rove was more concerned with journalistic accuracy than with National Security. Kind of makes me feel all warm and fuzzy about the guy. www.pettyrage.com

Posted by: LeftyJones at July 12, 2005 03:25 PM (JdEtR)

84 "Clinton only President accused of Rape. Hillary Clinton, only female senator with a penis bigger than her husband." Ok, I say Karl Rove raped me. There, now Karl Rove is an "accused rapist". Accusations don't mean squat unless they are proved. And by the way, no agents or agencies of the USA were harmed by Clinton's blowjob - so everyone can stop comparing Rove's screwup with Bubba's. As for wanting to look at Hilary naked to get your other info - I can only speculate at the stages of your mental illness... [shudders]

Posted by: Whirly at July 12, 2005 03:46 PM (wUILq)

85 AAh yes, the face of the modern left, decidedly pro-adultery. Also, let us not forget the brave stance he took in lying to the American public and then not being quite sure what the definition of ‘is’ is. Let us also forget that if Clinton had taken up the offer to have Bin Laden handed to us we wouldn't be looking for him now. In addition, his courageous stance at running away from Somalia is used as proof by Bin Laden that we are just a paper tiger. You are right, there is absolutely no comparison. But hey, Chimpy McHaliburton probably was responsible for all that too, or was it his little dog Rove?

Posted by: Defense Guy at July 12, 2005 03:54 PM (jPCiN)

86 Then again, I voted for him --- twice. Sorry.

Posted by: Defense Guy at July 12, 2005 03:55 PM (jPCiN)

87 I voted against him--twice!

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 12, 2005 03:59 PM (x+5JB)

88 Interesting way to make sure the lefty-blogosphere links to you. Now why didn't I think of this? I think I will rush back to my site (http://www.socalpundit.com) and write something along the lines of MR. BUSH PULL OUT OF IRAQ NOW!!!! A headline The Jawa Report can be proud of!

Posted by: Kevin at July 12, 2005 05:22 PM (Fg7uL)

89 To the person who asked what Bush's "Real" agenda is: To steal from the poor and give to the rich. Next!

Posted by: Robert at July 12, 2005 06:42 PM (XE8HR)

90 Scum, Rove may be. But there is no Bush without Rove.

Posted by: Sirkowski at July 12, 2005 07:06 PM (dsREQ)

91 Defense Guy: Don't feel too bad. I voted for Ross Perot. The next election I hated everyone so I wrote myself in.

Posted by: Oyster at July 12, 2005 07:34 PM (YudAC)

92 I hate everyone every election Oyster, but I bite the bullet and push the damnable button anyway, because "none of the above" isn't an option. The only exception I'll probably ever make is Condi '08, she's smokin' baby!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 12, 2005 08:12 PM (0yYS2)

93 Spoken like a true Chicken Hawk, Rusty. The day you'd ever pick up a weapon and back up your tough talk is the day I start drinking 46 oz. Mountain Dews in one sitting. But I suppose no leftists, no liberals ever defended this country. Only my brother, who has been "over there" for more than one tour, and who wisely thinks this war and everything you think should happen on the GWOT front is just freaking pathetic.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at July 13, 2005 01:24 AM (h9w01)

94 Of course, perfesser, of course. Perfesser of what anyway, Transgendered Afro-Aztec Gay Asian Women's Studies in a Postmodern Deconstructionist Context as Observed by Chomsky, Interpreted on the Conga Drum 101? By the way, Rusty isn't the warmonger, I am. And I'm a ten year, medically retired, Gulf War vet, and I can nail you through your tinfoil hat from 600 yards with open sights. You chickenshit traitors have nothing to say but "chickenhawk", as if producing a trump card and declaring victory. All you leftards know is how to repeat a slogan or buzzword ad nausem, i.e. the tactics of the Big Lie, but we are smarter than you are, and we know your tricks. Your days are numbered and the Hour of Doom approaches. Neither you nor your terrorist friends will survive the coming cleansing.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 13, 2005 01:37 AM (0yYS2)

95 Bush will not fire Karl Rove. Ever. Karl was the "Architect" of Bush's campaign, and nothing points to any wrongdoing by Rove. The President is a man who believes in loyalty, and he's not going to fire a good friend, and one of the best strategists and advisers in the business.

Posted by: Art Green at July 13, 2005 03:50 AM (G7DKH)

96 Grunt Grunt!!

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 13, 2005 06:45 AM (ScqM8)

97 As erudite and eloquent as always, DSM, you are a fine spokestroll for the leftards. And you morons wonder why you keep losing elections.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 13, 2005 11:54 AM (0yYS2)

98 So Rove released Cooper from his pledge of confidentiality. Yet Judith Miller is still in jail because she won't talk. Did Rove specifically decline to release Miller, perhaps because he wasn't as careful to evade the letter of the law in his conversations with her?

Posted by: tgibbs at July 13, 2005 02:42 PM (4r59I)

99 Hey Rusty, Check out Improbulus Maximus. These are the sort of freaking radical morons you are inciting. Proud?

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at July 13, 2005 02:45 PM (h9w01)

100 Von Nostrand: Trust me--IM doesn't need inciting.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 13, 2005 02:55 PM (x+5JB)

101 I have to add about salon reporting on Bush being wired. Sweethearts, they had the pictures to prove it!!!!!!!

Posted by: Mimi Schaeffer at July 13, 2005 09:25 PM (M7kiy)

102 I have to add about salon reporting on Bush being wired. Sweethearts, they had the pictures to prove it. You know, like Monica's dress and Cooper's emails.

Posted by: Mimi Schaeffer at July 13, 2005 09:25 PM (M7kiy)

103 Black muslims stink.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 13, 2005 11:22 PM (CBNGy)

104 White racists stink even more...

Posted by: osamabeenthere at July 14, 2005 02:28 PM (1zM97)

105 Wow. I'm frankly a little disturbed at the hatred here. For just a moment, kindly drop your party affiliation and look at this situation as an American rather than as a Dem, Rep, lib, con, etc... This is a relatively simple matter: If Rove knowingly gave up information that led to Plame's outing, he broke a federal law. And a big one. Now, as to his reasons, I think intimidation serves as a reasonable motive. In an administration that has no desire to hear opinions, however well-founded, that oppose its policy, intimidation is often used to suppress would-be dissenters. Can we extrapolate from the evidence so far that that's what happened? Not exactly. Would it be wiser to learn the facts of the matter before assuming that any indiscretion took place? Certainly. Will it make a damned bit of difference in the long run? Probably not. If you don't mind my saying so, you do your like-minded fellows a disservice with the sophomoric name-calling. It's simply not constructive, cathartic as it may be. Appreciating the concerns and viewpoints of different-minded people is a virtue, and you can't claim to have a reasoned opinion if you have to resort to characterization based on somebody's political beliefs. There ought to be room in this country for a blend of viewpoints and solutions to problems. Until you can accept that somebody else may have a valid answer, you're basically counting on being right 100% of the time. What's your batting average? Don't bother with the character bashing on my account - I just surfed in here, and I won't be back, but all this trash talk just gave me pause, and I felt like posting. Thanks for the bits.

Posted by: FirstTimePoster at July 14, 2005 03:42 PM (xTkua)

106 There is no point firing Rove. The lefties are going to complain about everything... This is just going to encourage them.

Posted by: forrest at July 14, 2005 04:20 PM (Xucpy)

107 Read Downing Street Morons posts above. Once again I am right. Nothing but ghetto trash. Damn they are easy to spot. Back on de porch monkey.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 16, 2005 11:30 PM (V+tDH)

108 MIMI: I'm glad you're finished with your paper. Do you think perhaps it is leaning to one side?

Posted by: greyrooster at July 16, 2005 11:41 PM (V+tDH)

109 FIRST TIME POSTER: Very well written post. Must be nice to be able to surf in for a few moments and be able to understand the history behind many of the blogs and why they act as they do. Why not spend a little time and listen to some of the pro terrorist, anti American crap, then post again.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 16, 2005 11:46 PM (V+tDH)

110 Figured that one would draw you out. THANK GOD FOR THE SICKLE CELL.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 16, 2005 11:49 PM (V+tDH)

111 I love everyone. And prace God who will make sure evil and fear does not win over faith. Yes, from a Southern Baptist, born-again Christian who is left/center politically.

Posted by: Mimi Schaeffer at July 17, 2005 12:38 AM (ywZa8)

112 Ain't it funny when someone from the right gets caught doing "something bad" they always seem to blame the "liberal press" for reporting on it? As far as I know the "liberal press" didn't make Rove out Plame - he did it all himself. But let's not let that stop us from shooting the messenger.

Posted by: someguy at July 18, 2005 10:38 AM (wUILq)

113 Mimi- Faith and God is what got both sides into this mess to begin with. When people stop trying to declare who's imiginary friend is bettter than someone else's imiginary friend, the world will be a much better place.

Posted by: organizedreligionsux at July 18, 2005 10:40 AM (wUILq)

114 Karl, get your dick over here and stick it back in my ass. How does it feel to have a cock in the presidents ass? Left Wing = Conservative Bush lovers. Christians, vote with your brains, not your penises stop looking at Britney Spears and vote for us RIGHT WINGers!

Posted by: I need it in me at July 19, 2005 11:32 PM (N89Uw)

115 speaking of idiots. . To the " RICH " man.. What a moron ! hahaha BUSH WASN'T READING TO THE CHILDREN, THE CHILDREN WERE READING TO HIM. . If you can't get a face that simple straight, then don't even bother trying to argue.

Posted by: Paul at July 21, 2005 10:43 AM (o0jsT)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Backlash? Terrible if true.

I hate to use the word but when speaking of something as horrible as a mosque firebombing. It seems like so much moral equivocation.

[Insert one act of injustice here] but [insert even greater act of injustice here].

In fact, I heard a British imam on NPR's Talk of the Nation using this tactic today. Condemning the London transportation bombings but noting that the Bush-Blair policies in Iraq and Afghanistan were so much worse and really the catalyst for the bombings. You know, the bombings were backlash against the war in Iraq. Daniel Benjamin makes much the same argument.

So be careful when using the word but and comparing two unequal wrongs.

Having made that disclaimer let me note that irrational backlash is wrong, but:

Incidentally, so long as we're so concerned about "backlash" -- the anti-Christian anti-Jew anti-Hindu anti-"apostate Muslim" "backlash" seems to have a much greater bodycount than the alleged anti-Muslim "backlash."

It sure would be nice to see Muslims have 1% of the concern for the "backlash" against the non-Muslim world -- the world that is actually experiencing mass-butchery at the hands of Muslims -- as they do for the hypothetical, always-on-the-horizon-but-never-quite-arriving "backlash" against themselves.

I'm far more worried about Islamic backlash than about any other type of backlash. Backlashes there be a plenty in a world of action-reaction.

Pop quiz. Which is worse?

a) Theo Van Gogh's backlash against mysogeny in the Islamic world in the form of his controversial film Submission.

b) Mohammed Bouyeri's backlash against Theo Van Gogh's controversial film Submission.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:36 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

via Beth

Posted by: Rusty at 11:23 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

It looks like we had a denial of service attack this morning on the mu.nu domain--and trackbacks may be down for awhile while it it taken care of. Do you think it might have been 'Jake' who I traced to Burlington, Ontario, Canada?

fuck all americans there fucking stupid all of them i know iraq will lose but the holy war has just begain every country i know hates america one day america will fall and the american flag will burn HA HA HA HA allahs army is coming and soon all americans will burn in hell BITCH!!!!

Posted by: Rusty at 11:16 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

I thought these guys already had a TV network. It's called al Jazeera. Chrenkoff and Decision 08 have more.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:58 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

Dean Esmay has recently called for truth in labelling for those that embrace the insurgency. In that spirit, here are a few comments from reader's around the world. Especially important is the context in which these comments are made.

If you are a consumer of the more radical leftist media or much of the Arab press, you might be forgiven for believing the 'resistance' in Iraq is no different than any number of revolutionary movements--hence Michael Moore's Minutemen analogy. Further, the news you read would be full of alleged attrocities committed by U.S. soliders while such things as the intentional murder of civilians by the 'freedom fighters' would be downplayed or explained as a tiny minority of incidents.

If this was the news you were reading daily, you too would root for the Islamo-fascists in Iraq, because your perception of them would be quite different than reality. Hence, I have argued on this blog from day one that the Bush doctrine--that we will not distinguish between countries that support terrorists and the terrorists themselves--ought to be extended to media outlets as well. Any media outlet that openly supports those bent on creating a Taliban like state in Iraq are the enemy of the United States and legitimate targets in war.

Such was the case during WW II when Joseph Goebells, had he not taken his own life and the life of his wife and six children, would certainly have been tried and convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity for his daily propaganda. It is also upon this principle which led to the conviction of Julius Streicher and for which he was hanged.

While such propaganda during times of peace may be seen as the price for an open society, the context of war changes everything. Words said in peace usually are harmless, but the same words during a shooting-war leads to death, destruction, and a continuation of hostilities.

What is the power of propaganda? I am convinced that most of the insurgents in Iraq actually believe they are fighting for a good cause. Further, they actually believe they are winning the long-term fight. If you were exposed to the daily propagandizing that they are exposed to, you might also. If we want to win we must convince those who may potentially go to Iraq to fight it is the insurgency that are the bad guys and that they are destined to fail.

Here is an example of a comment from a man who's IP address tracked to the Netherlands--which has a huge Muslim population and an even larger population of fascist apologists. What is so disgusting about the comment is the context in which it was given. The post described the taking of a Japanese hostage with an update that takes the reader to gruesome images of the dead man. Hans:

iraqi resistance has the right to defend thier land, what we see now is just the begining of long term fight..

i think the US is the real terrorist, and no matter what they do, this fight will never end, they are in for a more deadly and bloody Vietnam.
The so called terrorrist or insurgents are for me freedom fighters trying to free their land of occupying forces and they are doing well. for this to end the US must pull out of iraq because their main reason for going there is the oil and not WMD as claimed by bush. Shame to them!

YOU THE AMERICAN PIGS DESERVE WHAT THE GLORIOUS IRAQI FIGHTER FOR THE FREEDOM DO TO YOU> YOU BUSH IS A MURDERER>REMEMBER

Posted by: Rusty at 04:13 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 714 words, total size 5 kb.