The defeatist Democratic leaders in Congress are attempting to bribe war fence-sitters into voting for a bill that would end the war. How so? With pork. Lots and lots of pork is being offered to key Congressmen in a funding bill that would cut off money to troops in Iraq. The President, to his credit, has threatened to veto the bill.

WaPo:

House Democratic leaders are offering billions in federal funds for lawmakers' pet projects large and small to secure enough votes this week to pass an Iraq funding bill that would end the war next year.

So far, the projects -- which range from the reconstruction of New Orleans levees to the building of peanut storehouses in Georgia -- have had little impact on the tally. For a funding bill that establishes tough new readiness standards for deploying combat forces and sets an Aug. 31, 2008, deadline to bring the troops home, votes do not come cheap.

Let me just reiterate a point because I was reminded of it this morning when reading one Lefty's (or, perhaps, a sock-puppet for a jihad) anti-war comment about "Bush's war".

Administrations do no have wars. Nations have wars. Just as political parties do not have armies. We did not fight 'the Nazis', we fought the Germans. The Republican Party does not have an army. America does.

This is our war. This is America's war. And, I would suggest, that whatever the reasons it began or whatever bad strategy has gotten us to this point, that it is in America's interest to win its wars.

Hat tip: Pundi

Posted by: Rusty at 11:20 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

Japan wants to buy the F-22 Raptor, but the U.S. State Department is saying no. Why? Because they are afraid it might anger Beijing. Why does the first decade of the 21st century increasingly look like the 1980s to me?

With Europeans protesting about plans to install anti-missile systems because they might anger the Russians, peacenicks wishing to appease Islamofascists because is it such a crazy thing to do if the Muslims love their children too, and Democrats in Congress trying to hamstring the abilities of the President to fight international enemies--- it's like a tragic deja vu.

Only this time, we have no one in the White House to convincingly articulate the moral and strategic imperetive of a strong America.

The ghost of Ronald Reagan, where art thou? Uncle Ronnie, why hast thou forsaken us?

Posted by: Rusty at 08:47 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

Regarding the 8 ousted USAs non-scandal, Chuck Schumer's ridiculous witch hunt is politically motivated:

Senator Specter, a Republican of Pennsylvania, said yesterday that Mr. Schumer had crossed the line, pointing out that a senator caught up in the controversy, Peter Domenici of New Mexico, is a lawmaker Mr. Schumer is aiming to oust in 2008. Mr. Specter, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he confronted Mr. Schumer about the issue last week and that the New York senator had "taken a very political stance." "I think that the inquiry by the Judiciary Committee ought to have at least a modicum of objectivity,"

Posted by: Good Lt. at 11:15 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

O, delicious irony of delicious ironies.

Soros is now officially a hypocrite, with the title signed and sealed in dollar signs. What say you, lefties?

Wait - I know. "CHENEY DOES IT!!1! WARMONGER!!"

Sadly, Factcheck.org says NO to that as well.

You lefties spent years and many sleepless nights trying to convince the free world that this company is "pure eeeeevil," and yet here is your own transnational sugar daddy dipping his hand deeeeep into the honey pot of Halliburton stock.

So I'm to assume now that Soros supports war profiteering, because he just became Exhibit A for the definition. At least, that's the Democrat definition of war profiteering we last heard being screamed obnoxiously from the proverbial rooftops.

Can't part with that juicy Halliburton stock, though, can he? Cheney did, after all.

Hypocrisy, cubed.

PS - The mere fact that Keith Olbermann can't legitimately 'report' on Halliburton and Republicans anymore without a huge dipsh*t omelette smeared across his face is just the cherry on top.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 10:25 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

Heh.

Tell us news, not history.

Here's an MP3 of Richard Armitage telling Bob Woodward that Joe Wilson told everybody about Valerie Plame.

Also, read this interesting and valid point from protein wisdom commenter proudvastrightwingconspirator:

It’s interesting to ponder how this drama would have played out if instead of being a critic of the Bush Administration, Joe Wilson had written an editorial for the NYT that contained damning information about, say, Bill Clinton’s lack of interest in capturing Bin Laden during his tenure as POTUS, and was later proven to have lied by a bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee review of his allegations. Further assume that his wife, a CIA employee was “outed” by one of the many Clinton synchophants in the media.

Would there even bee a Senate hearing about his wife’s identity being revealed? Would Joe and Valerie be the toast of the DC cocktail circuit with book deals in hand? Or would Joe be getting the Linda Tripp/Ken Starr treatment from the mainstream media? To what great lengths would the NYT and major networks go to define and clarify his every lie and misrepresentation? And how snarky would the coverage be of his too-pretty wife and her absurd allegations of her own self-importance within the CIA?

This whole thing just reeks of media bias and lies by ommission.
Sorta like the phony “outrage” over the firing of eight Federal Attorney’s, or the lack of any outrage (or media focus on) Sandy Berger’s document thefts, William “Cold-Cash” Jefferson’s bribe money or the fact that the Nancy Pelosi’s hand-picked Democrat Chairman of House Intelligence Committee doesn’t know a Shiite from Shinola.

It was also in the 1999 edition of Who's Who?. Proof?

Posted by: Good Lt. at 11:10 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I thought there was something weird about the way she attacked President Bush and the White House during her testimony!?!?!

Something rotten in the state of Denmark?!!?!?!?

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at March 17, 2007 01:54 PM (EdIIN)

2 Never saw that who's who. Where did you find it?

Posted by: Max Power at March 17, 2007 03:05 PM (TmLg9)

3 Man. How do you guys type with the administration's hand so far up your ass? That's quite the trick.

Well for one thing I doubt anything I read in the Moonie Times. That's right... you guys are with the Moonies. Good company!

Now as for these claims... how's about some proof. Simply quoting sources doesn't cut it against the proof.

And really... fuck all this bullshit. At the core is the issue that the president lied about Iraq, and struck back at Willson for calling him out on it. Scummy to the max.

The deaths of all those American soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis is on your hands. The truly sad think is you still can't see your mistakes. How fucking stupid can you get?

Posted by: John at March 17, 2007 03:08 PM (S3Rzh)

4 The shrieks of somebody with everything to lose and nothing to say.

Thanks for playing!

Posted by: Good Lt at March 17, 2007 03:09 PM (yMbfY)

5 Look, the CIA considered her to be covert. I don't think that her marriage was to Joe Wilson was classified, just that she worked for the CIA. Even if at some previous time ANYONE else had "outed" her, she was still considered to be covert. Any publication of her status should not have occured. Her safety wasn't really an issue here, but the safety of foreign nationals might well be harmed.

Posted by: John Ryan at March 17, 2007 06:32 PM (TcoRJ)

6

She has greatly exxagerated her importance in the CIA. Her and her loud mouthed husband were both on everyone's shitlist.

 

 

John the canadian muslim: "How stupid can we get" Pretty stupid. They haven't kicked your ridiculous ass out of here yet. That's very stupid.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 17, 2007 08:42 PM (XDiqx)

7 Bushbot Richard Armitage, in the interview with Bushbot Bob Woodward  (which John Ryan is afraid to listen to,) makes it known that "everybody" knew who Joe Wilson and his wife were and what they were doing - in both media and according to Ms. Plame's testimony, the "DC Cocktail circuit." Therfore, she wasn't covert. People knew who she was and what she did.

Need more? Easy.

She wasn't covert, because nobody was charged under the IIPA; Armitage was the only one who would've been. Bushbot Henry Waxman never approached this line of questioning in his show trials yesterday, because he knows that nobody is being charged with outing a covert agent. Its that easy, and liberal fantasy-making won't change the IIPA law or Fitz's lack of prosecution of any individuals under that law.

Done. End of story. You lose. Thanks for playing, John Ryan.

Posted by: Good Lt at March 17, 2007 09:00 PM (yMbfY)

8 And piss on ya John Lyin.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 17, 2007 09:42 PM (XDiqx)

9 It's kind of funny hearing a liberal demand truth ad honesty..... now if they could just learn to add "everytime and all the time" to it, we'd be getting somewhere. But as long as they continue to fall back on a lie as the base of their thought, it won't ever be right. President Bush did not lie. And no matter how many times you repeat that he did, it doesn't change anything and until you face up to that, you'll never be able to have a rational thought about it. There could be lots of reasons to complain about how things are, but when you persist in staying delusional, it really doesn't matter what you say because it's just not real. Too bad, there are a great deal of other things to address but we can never get out of bullshit 101. The islamists are allot like that, maybe that's why they get along so well with the liberals, they are willing to tolerate each others bullshit. And there you have it.

Posted by: wb at March 17, 2007 10:43 PM (s6CsG)

10 "It's kind of funny hearing a liberal demand truth ad honesty..... now if they could just learn to add "everytime and all the time" to it, we'd be getting somewhere."    Now ain't that the truth    ???          
                                         USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 17, 2007 11:21 PM (2OHpj)

11 Is Richard Armitage still walking free?  Has he even been charged with a crime?   Then Valerie Plame wasn't covert.  That's why the only person charged was Scooter Libby-- for obstruction of justice.  Not the underlying crime.  End of story.  Spin away, Leftards.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 18, 2007 09:27 AM (yJKSD)

12 John up there is a real piece of work -- and his rantings about Moonies puts him in the same category with the idiots who refer make reference to the "Jew York Times".

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at March 18, 2007 09:58 AM (+Rf05)

13 The Washington Times IS as joke. And citing the fact that they are owned by a weirdo cult does not compare to calling the Times, the "Jew York Times"

And simply noting that he was married to Valerie Plame does not mean that he blew her cover. Marriage is part of something called "the public record." You're boys in the WH outted her for polictical reasons.

All this noise you are making clouds the issue. The Bush admin tried to smear a dude for pointing out the fact that they were citing false intelligence. Which as it turns out has proven to be true.

The only thing worse than that two-bit bible salesman of a president, is all the losers who continue to support him.

What's it feel like to be wrong all the time? You guys are more dangerous to America than Bin Laden could ever hope to be.

Posted by: John at March 18, 2007 05:00 PM (S3Rzh)

14

You tell me John. The real truth here is that not only did Joe Wilson commit perjury before congress when he claimed that there was no connection between Saddam and Niger, he did exactly what godless immoral fucks like you do every single day when you make the choice that the end justifies the means and lie through your teeth to get your way.

 

And now we see Plame herself doing exactly the same thing as her husband committing perjury before congress. Can I back this up, you bet your worthless liberal pansy ass I can.

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-b.htm

 

(  ) Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." This was just one day before CPD sent a cable DELETED requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.

 

(               ) The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it.Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(                    ) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."

  ) When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials' accounts in some respects. First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to rouge nations, and noted that Nigerien officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Nigerto purchase uranium. Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Mayaki. Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that the source of the information was the          intelligence service. The DO reports officer told Committee staff that he did not provide the former ambassador with any information about the source or details of the original reporting as it would have required sharing classified information and, noted that there were no "documents" circulating in the IC at the time of the former ambassador's trip, only intelligence reports from          intelligence regarding an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. Meeting notes and other correspondence show that details of the reporting were discussed at the February 19, 2002 meeting, but none of the meeting participants recall telling the former ambassador the source of the report                      

(U) The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because `the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents.

 

 

 

The fact that Richard Armitage has not been charge with outing a covert agent and no one in the Democratic Party is even remotely suggesting that he should be is all the proof anyone needs to know that Plame was not a covert agent. The dems may be vile evil bastards but they aren’t so stupid as to attempt to charge him with something they know damn well wasn’t a crime.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834
 

Posted by: doriangrey at March 18, 2007 08:54 PM (F5T2G)

15 You guys are more dangerous to America than Bin Laden could ever hope to be.

Exhibit A of why liberalism is a mental disorder.

Only a warped and damaged liberal mind could accuse the only people in the world even remotely serious about fighting fist-for-fist the throat-slitting airplane-hijacking nuke-seeking misogynist psychopathic anti-Semitic anti-Christian anti-Western Islamic zealots who kill children while chanting to Allah of being more "blameworthy" for perceived crimes than the people who, you know, actually are the Islamic killers and psychopaths on the warpath doing so.

Maybe John can point out all of the suicide bombings that "conservative Republicans" are guilty of. Maybe John can name one "conservative Republican" who was piloting the planes into the WTC or the Pentagon. Or maybe he can point out some "conservative Republicans" who are launching rockets into Israeli towns in order to murder as many civilians as possible. Perhaps John could illustrate for all of us why Islamic terrorists have anything to fear from liberal Democrats like himself, when he spends each waking moment of his day supporting and abetting them.

If he's really serious, maybe John can point us to a Democrat besides Joe Lieberman who hasn't been infected with the virulent and manifest strain of terminal Republican Derangement Syndrome that he has apparently contracted.

That last one's a toughy. We'll wait...

Posted by: Good Lt at March 18, 2007 10:59 PM (yMbfY)

16 So, John, is it your contention that individuals should be profiled based upon their religion to prove whether or not they are trustworthy?

Does that apply only to followers of Rev. Moon (who I agree is a nutjob), or does it also apply to Muslims as well?

And sorry -- your attack on the paper because of the religion of its owners is no different than the "Jew York Times" label.  Why don't you instead go after actual problems with the reporting by the paper, rather than someone's religion?  Probably because facts would get int he way of your religious prejudices.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at March 19, 2007 05:42 AM (MAd+s)

17

Well John I notice that when confronted with the facts all you can do is tuck your dick between your legs and run away like the traitors little faggot you are...Good show there asswipe...............Oh wait you would have to be an American to be a traitor and since you aren’t…How about you just stick a hand grenade in your fucking pie hole and go straight to hell.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Posted by: doriangrey at March 19, 2007 09:48 PM (F5T2G)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Howard Dean is openly undermining American national security by making sure our enemies feel free to walk all over us.

Llama Butchers is wondering why this shouldn't be prosecuted under 18 USC § 953:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

ht: Ace

Posted by: Good Lt. at 09:43 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

All Democrat blustering, posturing, and beclowning aside, the Democrats are all talk. Unless they can get the 60 votes needed for passage in the Senate, they've got nothing. They just don't have the votes.

And they know it.

So much for the much vaunted "national realignment" we were hearing so much about in November. More like business as usual - Democrats playing politics with the war, and the GOP doing little more than holding ground rather than doing anything to move it forward.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 07:33 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

Literally…AP Via Yahoo.

Democrats seeking votes for their Iraq-withdrawal plan have stuffed the bill it's in with billions of dollars.

Money in the bill not directly related to the war exceeds $20 billion.

$500 million in "emergency" money for a Western fire season that has yet to start

$4.3 billion in disaster aid, aimed chiefly at the drought-stricken Great Plains and California farmers hurt by a hard freeze earlier this year.

$74 million for a peanut storage program.

$25 million for spinach farmers

Extend income subsidies aimed at small dairy farms. Obey's 13-month extension would cost $283 million

$2.5 billion for homeland security projects such as additional cargo screening at ports and airports, $2.9 billion for levee improvements and other aid for the Gulf Coast, and $735 million to close shortfalls in the State Children's Health Insurance

Democrats insist they aren't being bought off.

"Absolutely not," said Rep. Jim Costa.

More here via Tigerhawk:

$20 billion and counting -- for pork-barrel projects that could not pass otherwise in order to secure the votes necessary to force the United States to surrender in Iraq…. … That is, frankly, disgusting, even by congressional standards.

Who's 20 billion in slow bleed money are they using? These guy's.

Posted by: Howie at 10:57 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Yeah, money for food programs.  I'm outraged! Thank you for your unbiased analysis.  I'd love to see the next piece on much money was wasted during the republican controlled Congress.

Posted by: Bobby Boeche at March 10, 2007 03:06 PM (kaMd2)

2 Water boy misses the point. The allotments are not war related and should be processed independently.
 
On their own they are fine with me but how do the dems plan to cut spending elsewhere to make up for these expenses? Oh yes, I remember, they want to take away armour and ammo from the troops.

Posted by: SeeMonk at March 10, 2007 03:33 PM (yKwZ2)

3 " Yeah, money for food programs.  I'm outraged! Thank you for your unbiased analysis. ".......you can eat a levee ?  Can you provide video evidence of that ?  Your "outrage " is falacious and unconvincing...on a good day.  So your arguement is " they did it too "....nice even a 3 year old can do better than that. The point, is that the dems promised that they wouldn't do this, but, they haven't the BALLS to let their appropriations stand on their own. Spineless cowards that they are, they have to attempt to hide their pork in an unrelated appropriations bill. What a bunch of spineless eunuchs. Clowns could screw up a wet dream, if they'd ever had one.

Posted by: Edward Lunny at March 10, 2007 03:44 PM (QkaPP)

4 No, I see the point clearly.  $74 million allocated to a peanut storage program is the biggest misappropriation since the beginning of the war.  Again.  I'm shocked.  Thank you for bringing this to light Jawa Report.  Almost makes me forget about the problems in our VA hospitals.

Posted by: Bobby Boeche at March 10, 2007 03:46 PM (kaMd2)

5 Thanks Ed.  I tried to bring myself to the level of "Clinton did it!".

But this is all everyday politics.  Don't pretend to be so shocked. 

Posted by: Bobby Boeche at March 10, 2007 03:52 PM (kaMd2)

6 I had actually waited for the Democratic controlled congress to start stuffing pork down their faces but in all honesty I had hoped they wouldn't and would show the past GOP dominated congress a thing or two in that regards.  Obviously we right back to "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" when it comes down to money.  Sad (sigh)

Posted by: Buzzy at March 10, 2007 04:12 PM (CXz7T)

7

Both Parties sell pork. The appropriations are a back door method of getting their money or blocking passage of funds to the troops. The nature of their actions is doubly nefarious compared to the GOP. I am not advocating pork on either side, I just had my taxes done. But Dems are assiduously washing the soil away beneith our military's feet and/or bleeding us dry via our pocket books. They should be ashamed but the Romulans have no honor. Oops, I meant the Dems.

Posted by: SeeMonk at March 10, 2007 05:23 PM (yKwZ2)

8 Oh now, We bitched about delay too.  Fair is fair now STFU and take credit for your work lefties. You promised sword to god on high that when the dems took congress thing would be different. Actually, I'm not shocked. And if you think this post is somehwat less than objective, mmmmmm, could be....

Y'all did throw in a lof of fluffy little puppies, kittens and sweet things to cover up the stink.  nice try.

Posted by: Howie at March 10, 2007 07:46 PM (YHZAl)

9 MORE PORK FROM THE BIGIST DEMACRATIC PORKERS AROUND. IT LOOKS LIKE THE DEMACRATS ARE TRYING TO GET IN GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SAME FARMERS THEIR TRYING TO FORCE OFF THE LAND THE SATISFI THE GREEN ECO-FREAKS

Posted by: sandpiper at March 10, 2007 11:45 PM (jAP6C)

10 Mr. Bush should do the smart thing and INCREASE his request for funds to $300 billion making it specifically geared to the continuance of the war until April 2010.
 
I would just LOVE to see the Dems faces when thay have to vote against their own amendments or fully fund the war for the next 3 years!

Posted by: eliXelx at March 11, 2007 09:35 AM (GtVvx)

11 I talk to a lot of people everywhere I go, and one unifying theme in
all the conversations is the near universal loathing of the US
government, and not just among disaffected, disgruntled types, but
mostly among those who consider themselves true patriots. The time is
just about right for an armed uprising of We the People, and with any
luck, the morons in DC will screw up enough this time around to make it
happen, then we can re-establish a Constitutional form of government.



Power to the people and death to the scumbags in Washington!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 11, 2007 12:28 PM (eGb9y)

12 Impropbulus Maximus is talking about the same people I see, and talk with walking around town.
 
Only thing that he left out was that polarization has created a 'progressive' marxist counter to Constitutionalists.
 
When I talk about the possibility of civil war, I am saying I hope it doesn't happen, that I hope it doesn't have to happen. You can't sit down for coffee in a diner, without hearing people say its about time for us to really throw the bums out.
 
Except at City-Brew.
 
What is it with fancy coffee, and marxists?  I like fancy coffee as well, but I don't go around pretending it makes me an elite spokesperson for the oppressed masses.  Anyway, I accidentally stepped on an Al Gore enviro's feelings the other day. I forgot what counter I was standing at, and offended his god. It was kinda funny.
 
I just mentioned having to bring in firewood out of the snow, and went on to remark how its funny Al Gore would object to my wood heating, what with it producing carbon and all. I can't remember it all, but as I watched the guys half flinch as he detected my tone, I knew
 
Anyway, the danger is real. If we don't find a way to get things fixed ... you can figure it out.
 
And if you know who Harry S Dent is, you should find out. His economic predictions are certainty. If you take his forcasts, and tie in the fractured political landscape, it seems our greatest risk for civil war is within a decade. I estimate a civil war in four years time. Don't blame Dent. I'm only borrowing his economic theories to put the politics we are dealing with into perspective.
 
I wish my own take on this was a happier one.
 
Bobby may mean well, but his comment is so informative in unintended ways. The failure of the government will ravage us all, and it won't matter about storing peanuts, or VA hospitals. People will probably be murdering each other for siphoned gasoline.
 
USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 11, 2007 05:28 PM (2OHpj)

13

Impropbulus Maximus is talking about the same people I see, and talk with walking around town.  

Only thing that he left out was that polarization has created a 'progressive' marxist counter to Constitutionalists.

  When I talk about the possibility of civil war, I am saying I hope it doesn't happen, that I hope it doesn't have to happen. You can't sit down for coffee in a diner, without hearing people say its about time for us to really throw the bums out.   Except at City-Brew.  

What is it with fancy coffee, and marxists?  I like fancy coffee as well, but I don't go around pretending it makes me an elite spokesperson for the oppressed masses.  Anyway, I accidentally stepped on an Al Gore enviro's feelings the other day. I forgot what counter I was standing at, and offended his god. It was kinda funny.  

I just mentioned having to bring in firewood out of the snow, and went on to remark how its funny Al Gore would object to my wood heating, what with it producing carbon and all. I can't remember it all, but as I watched the guys half flinch as he detected my tone, I knew   

Anyway, the danger is real. If we don't find a way to get things fixed ... you can figure it out.   And if you know who Harry S Dent is, you should find out. His economic predictions are certainty.

If you take his forcasts, and tie in the fractured political landscape, it seems our greatest risk for civil war is within a decade. I estimate a civil war in four years time. Don't blame Dent. I'm only borrowing his economic theories to put the politics we are dealing with into perspective.  

I wish my own take on this was a happier one.   Bobby may mean well, but his comment is so informative in unintended ways. The failure of the government will ravage us all, and it won't matter about storing peanuts, or VA hospitals. People will probably be murdering each other for siphoned gasoline.  

USA, all the way! Sorry for the re-edit, repost

Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 11, 2007 05:33 PM (2OHpj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The coward Agustin Aguayo is found guilty of desertion. Is it wrong to pine for the good-ol-days when deserters were shot?

Posted by: Rusty at 11:31 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

Mark S. Zaid, attorney for Marine Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, emails to draw attention to a new website aimed at countering the slander and lies of people like the Honorable John Murtha (D-AQ), who seems determined to deny Wuterich and his fellow Marines a fair trial.

Zaid writes:

This is not a typical military case. It has become highly politicized and, in our opinion, these young Marines are being sacrificed for foreign policy reasons. Indeed, one of the first things Neal [Neal A. Puckett, co-counsel] and I did after I reviewed the facts of the case known at that time was to initiate, on August 2, 2006, a defamation lawsuit (which has no partisan agenda whatsoever) against Congressman John Murtha for incredibly inappropriate public statements he made that have already been proven by the government's alleged charges to be false. These statements created a further climate that contributed to the public pressures to file charges against our client.

Posted by: Bluto at 11:33 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.

1998? Grab his terrorist ass! Take him down! International law be damned!
2007? Assasinate Bush! Take him down! International law be praised!

Politics as usual. History is an inconvenient truth to these Democrat wankers.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 08:12 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

h/t : John at PowerLine, who provides his own commentary.

Posted by: Ragnar at 01:23 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

Steve Inskeep's liberal leanings are getting on my nerves. I've been trying to ignore his voice inflections and pay attention to the "information". But his rude interruption of Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry this morning, followed by his manipulation of the subject was the last straw.

I was interested to hear what the general had to say. Mr. Inskeep made damn sure he never got the chance. Come on, let the man speak.

I’ve been feeling guilty for letting my pledge to my local NPR station lapse, but really, I’ve not had the cash. But lately things are looking up. I made some crazy blog money. I spent half of that on a new hard drive for a computer I’m rebuilding. I’m also expecting a rather large “tax cut for the wealthy” check in a few days, even though I’m kind of poor.

So I thought that since I’m all flush, I could use some of those bucks to renew my pledge to my local NPR station. I do listen every day, so I probably should show some support. But, thanks to Mr. Inskeep, I'll not contribute another dime to public liberal fat-head radio until at least some objectivity returns to NPR’s programs. more...

Posted by: Howie at 11:16 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 1 kb.

Allahpundit has this video of John Murtha predicting that the Iraqis will get rid of al Qaeda once we leave. That's an interesting theory you got there Mr. Murtha. Kind of like when we left Vietnam, there was that massive grass-roots movement to get rid of Ho Chi Minh. In fact, it's less of a prediction than it is of a fantasty used to justify retreat.

It's probably on par with the fantasy many had that Iraq would go from dictatorship to liberal democracy within a year or two of the invasion.

It's people like John Murtha who empower al Qaeda to continue fighting because, as I've argued here time and time again, it is only the prospect of success that keeps any military force fighting. And that includes al Qaeda.

It's funny how the guys at al Qaeda understand the American Left's propensity to cut-and-run much better than the average American. There nothing new in this, but here is an underemphasized point made by Ayman Zawahiri, al Qaeda's #2 man, yesterday:

These traitors in Iraq and Afghanistan must face their inevitable fate, and face up to the inescapable facts. America - which was transformed from the “Great Satan” into the “Closest Ally” - is about to depart and abandon them, just as it abandoned their like in Vietnam.

It's funny, really, in that tragic sort of way. Osama bin Laden has been arguing the same thing for over a decade---that America is a "paper tiger", and the Democrats and even some Republicans rush to prove him right.

If I haven't made my position on the Iraq war clear, let me do so now: I do not know whether the decision to invade was a good or bad one. What I do know is that when America engages an enemy--any enemy--we must win. That is, by definition, the default position of all patriots.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:30 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 2 kb.

UPDATE: A vet who experienced this "rumored" leftwingnut BS during Vietnam responds in the comments.

Remember the wanker who tried to pretend that nobody spat upon vets in the Vietnam War, and that no vets of today were spat upon by anti-war activists?

"Sociologist" Jerry Lembcke claims that those stories were just rumors and the stuff of warmonger fantasy. He claims that they vets were lying, as well as the journalists who saw and reported it firsthand. Gee -glad we cleared that mystery up!

Jim Lindgren notes that Lembcke apparently never opened a vicious rightwing theocon paper of the day like the NYT, WaPo, etc., during the course of his "research." Facts and history are stubborn things when it comes to forming leftwing ubernarratives, and so they must be eliminated.

Jerry Lembcke - I award you no points, and may G-d have mercy on your soul.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 08:27 AM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

Mr. "Two Americas" took five minutes between not knowing his campaign employed one of the most idiotic and deranged people on the web and purchasing plungers for his new multi-thousand squarefoot mansion to tell you ingrates that you aren't paying enough in taxes.

He declined to say exactly when the Democrats plan to specify to the American people the amount of federal taxation for EdwardsCare and the Democrats' socialist utopian visions will be deemed "enough."

Posted by: Good Lt. at 01:18 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

Maybe not a traitor in the legal, Constitutional sense. But a traitor, nonetheless. It's not so much that the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are asking William Arkin to shut the hell up, it's that they are asking him to root for the home team.

It's a simple litmus test, really: if you don't root for the home team, get the hell out of the stadium. If you don't want us to win, you are a traitor.

Anyway, I got nothing else for you. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 06:04 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

Wow. Just, wow.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:30 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

Can't you just feel the passion?

If you are annoyed by people who absolutely can't sing and who mumble words, click nay further.

Meanwhile, the MSM tries its damned best to ignore the lawsuit and scandal enveloping one of Hillary's largest campaign contributors. Here's the 50-page official filing from the California Superior Court.

Want some perspective on the media maleficence here?

To put this in some perspective, last year, a sitting senator from Virginia, who was considered to be a serious presidential candidate in the future, uttered the word “macaca” at a campaign stop. As a result, the media pounced, the videotape of the event and its transcript was splattered incessantly all over the print and airwaves, and the senator not only lost his re-election bid, but probably also saw his political career come to an end.

Furthermore, the media in recent weeks have been giving almost non-stop coverage to the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the Vice President's former chief of staff.

By contrast, the media have totally ignored a serious lawsuit against a former president and his senator wife that was originally filed on February 25, 2004. Since this point, this senator has successfully been re-elected to Congress in a landslide, and is the prohibitive favorite to win the Democrat nomination for president in 2008.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 11:53 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

Don't question his 'patriotism,' but the US is now a "pariah" according to the 2004 Democrat Presidential candidate.

He just has to find out where the Jew-hating, bloodthirsty, mysogynist, homosexual-killing Islamic psychopaths are coming from.

Presumably, he and his party they haven't figured it out by now because they've been trying for six years with all of the energy they could muster to make George W. Bush America's enemy.

Maybe FDR should have sat down and talked with Hitler; some analysts say that Der Fuhrer was actually a reasonable guy once you got past the anti-Semitism, psycho ideology and systematic mass murder.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 03:35 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

US Democrats
Anti-war activists
Abu Sayyaf
al-Qaeda
Ba'ath Loyalists
Ba'athist Iraq
Bashar Assad
Hamas
Hezbollah
Iraqi insurgency
Islamic Courts Union
Islamic Jihad
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
The Mullahs of Iran
Jemaah Islamiyah
Mahdi Army
Taliban
Islamic Emirate of Waziristan

They say you can tell the character of a man by the company he keeps...wonder if that applies to groups of people.

ht: Commentor at Olbywatch.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 07:55 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss. It dies in the Senate, which isn't exactly "swarming" with a new Democrat majority.

Hence, the-talk-of-the-town "symbolic" voting in the House. Quote of the day, from Turbin Durbin:

Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., also said the DeMint provision was "unworkable" because it was so broad it could be applied to thousands of projects included in federal spending bills.

Oh, and the minimum wage is now hiked...except for certain businesses in Pelosi's home district. So she flat-out lied, pissed off Charlie Rangel over taxes who she is now at loggerheads with, and the culture of corruption continues unabated. This time, its Prime Grade-A stamped with a (D).

Morons.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 11:05 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

AllahP has the goods.

I have a question - doesn't that mean that the Democrats never actually had a platform?

Well, we can rest assured that the legions of anti-Semites, socialists, high school dropouts and America-haters at at Kos will be sure to steer the Donks to a reasonable and nuanced plan for the future of Amerika America.

Like this one...

Thanks to LGF for the video.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 02:21 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

The Democrat House organ, whose editorial board is populated with military experts from colleges and troops and generals in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan (heh), is on track to 'demand' the withdraw of US troops. Saigon redux: (read below jump) more...

Posted by: Good Lt. at 11:17 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 486 words, total size 3 kb.

I was bothered by Dante Chinni’s article about Bill Roggio at the Christian Science Monitor. Dante accuses Bill of a “pro war” bias. I was just reading this article by Mr. Roggio and I found it to be objective.

So I decided to run a little experiment. I wrote this post this morning. It includes three stories. The first is the car bombing in Baghdad today. The second is a story about Iraqi Police finding a bomb near the Golden Mosque in Samarra. The third is about Iraqi army forces freeing 23 hostages and capturing or killing some members of the cell.

I consider the deaths of the innocent people in the car bombing, “negative news.” I consider the other two stories “positive news.”

I decided to follow all three today and see just who picked them up and who didn’t. To test the old saying, “Bad news travels fast.”

First we have the bad news about the car bombing. It has 779 entries on Google news. Everyone reported it as expected.

Next we have the attempted bombing at the Mosque. It has only 10 entries on Google News. NPR did report this over lunch hour. However, note the al-Reuters story uses a misleading sensational headline, “Bomb explodes at Iraq's Samarra mosque”. That kind of dampens the mood eh?

And last but not least we have Centcom’s report on the hostage recovery, with enemy terrorists killed and captured. It has one entry on Google News, me.

But we follow a lot of hostage stories. So I thought surely CSM will be covering this. After all Jill Carroll works for CSM. So I surfed on over and nope, nada, nothing!

I would have expected that 23 hostages saved from being shot or cruelly beheaded would be news and big news at that. I guess not.

MORE BELOW more...

Posted by: Howie at 04:51 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 587 words, total size 5 kb.