Friday, December 30, 2005

Stay The Course America!

If you read nothing else this weekend, read this and ponder what it means when a middle easterner asks America to "Stay The Course!"

An excerpt to whet your appetite:
"It's difficult for me to argue that the United States must do more. It's very hard pleading for foreign assistance. It's hard to ask a country that already has 150,000 troops deployed in a single Middle Eastern country, has domestic terrorist threats, and is plagued by horrendous natural disasters to do more."

Thursday, December 29, 2005

Another LONGHORN Touchdown!

Notice dear readers that Tiberius Gracchus has, in the post below this, and his "Oklahoma" posting has put a significant emphasis on "suck." Not that there is any thing wrong with that of course, and far be it from me to cast disparaging remarks about a fellow blogger, but only a USC fan (or a liberal) (ooooohhhhh, that's mean GM...ed... Yes, I know) would mistake a joyous expression of obviously another LONGHORN TOUCHDOWN for a LEWENSKI. But, since Tiberius Gracchus was kind enough to put up a picture of another LONGHORN TOUCHDOWN on HIS Entry (though you notice that he characterized the photo with an overlay indicating his predilection) I will be most appreciative, especially in the really big game coming next week, we will be seeing FAR MORE of these shots than we will of USC players jumping for joy. I'm just sayin'!!!

Oh, and Tiberius Gracchus, you have a LONG way to go before you can top this TEXAN but I appreciate your tryin', I really do! It'll make you stronger in the end, 'cause you don't get stronger pushing against a weaker foe. ;-)

In Texas, football is a labor of love...

But I guess, don't ask, don't tell.

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

TEXAS vs. usc

Not very long ago, I posted this graphic of the University of Texas Longhorn, with TEXAS superimposed above it:

Longhornlogo.jpg


Not willing to let things slide, some worthy, but ultimately losing USC fan posted on this very same blog this graphic:

trav_block_3color.gif


Kind of puny as graphics go, only 150 pixels wide and a mere 200 tall. Nothing like my robust 250 pixel wide and 225 pixel tall graphic of the GREAT TEXAS LONGHORN

But I digress. The real reason my worthy (but ultimately gonna lose fellow conservative and otherwise brilliant) blogger bud posted such a small graphic is because if you enlarge the graphic to where you can see what is going on, you see this:

trojan chest with steer copy.png


You really can't blame him though, who wants to publicize that the TROJAN mascot is rooting for TEXAS?

HOOK 'EM HORNS!

Face it, people : Life Just Sucks

More and more people are answering more and more surveys, and with the current lack of news, the media has decided that it all means that more and more Americans think life sucks.

Of course, they don’t reveal what percentage of the sample population queried were lefties, for whom life is an endless series of disasters since Johnson decided not to run for re-election around a million years ago.

This brilliant analysis, however, was included in the story:

The survey, part of a broader study of American society conducted by the university every two years, found that troubles were greatest among those with low income, poor education levels and among unmarried mothers.


They get PAID for this shi’ite?

(Crossposted at Dumbshit of the Week)

The NY Times; Ain't They Somethin'

My friend Seth, over at Hard A'starboard is down on the New York Times, as all thinking individuals are and he links his story to the always interesting Michele Malkin. But, Seth says it better than ever I could:
No, New York Times, We're Not Done With You Yet...
...and we won't be until everybody in America knows what a lying, treasonous, shameless, bogus, idiotarian, leftist propaganda generating, thoroughly liberal-biased source of disinformation you have become, abusing the reputation you earned back in the days when you were a respectable newspaper.

Columnist and blogger extraordinaire Michelle Malkin puts in her two cents, as succinct and on-point as always
. Anyone who thinks the times isn't a biased lefty rag is obviously not a thinking person!

Why is Oklahoma so windy?


I've spent many moons in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, doing training seminars for a company I worked for.

Many a native Oklahoman has been asked "Why is Tulsa, hell, why is Oklahoma so windy?"

The most common reply -- "Because Kansas blows -- and Texas sucks!"

I rest my case.

I would just hate to be a Texan on January 4 -- because there's gonna be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth when SC beats the everlovin' crap out of that whiney bunch of Texas-weenies in Beautiful Downtown Pasadena.

Sorry, girls, you're gonna get pwnd.

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

The Eyes of Texas


Longhornlogo.jpg Little did I know that when The Real Ugly American asked me to help out with this blog whilst he traveled, little did I know that there would be a USC fan also helping out. Then, I read on the blog that this USC fan really thinks that USC will win the National Championship against
TEXAS

of all schools! Well folks, that just ain't gonna happen. So, without further ado:

The Eyes of Texas are upon you,
All the live long day.
The Eyes of Texas are upon you,
You can not get away.
Do not think you can escape them
At night or early in the morn-
The Eyes of Texas are upon you
'Till Gabriel blows his horn.


And That Folks is THAT!!!

Stalin loved the monkeys...


Breeding a race of Supermen -- not just for Nazis any more!

(Crossposted on Dumbshit of the Week)

USC pwns



OK, he's gone. Now we can have some serious USC fan spam...

Actually, although I'm sorely tempted to post something really over the top about my Trojans, and rub RealUgly's face in the fact that the Boys from Troy own college football, and (except for a brief interlude having something vaguely to do with buying team members, but probably trumped up out of other school's jealousies) always have, and always will, I think I'll restrain myself and just post a really run-on paragraph.

Fight On for ol' SC
Our men Fight On to victory
Our Alma Mater dear,
looks up to you
Fight On and win
For ol' SC
Fight On to victory
Fight On!

The Silence Of The Candidate

Hillary is silent! What's that you say? Hillary, the mouth, silent? Ann Althouse suspects that Hillary knows that speaking out against the wire-tapping of folks here in America calling friends perhaps associated with Al Qaeda is a loosing proposition. Could be!

Hillary didn't get where she is by being dumb (although she is, from my point of view, nowhere near as brilliant as she and everyone else thinks she is - shrewd perhaps, but not brilliant). The fact of the matter is, as a commenter on Althouse noted:
"Scarcely anyone will admit to it, but most people are perfectly willing to sacrifice a little freedom for security. The revelation that the government is taking proactive measures against terrorism - even ones which may well be illegal, if not unconstitutional (see Orin Kerr's comments here) is reassuring. Of course, most people are also aware that there is something socially unacceptable about admitting ass much, but when you vote, it's just you and a ballot paper, and I think people get pretty honest about what they think when they vote."
I couldn't have said it better myself. And this, my beloved readers will indicate that Hillary is much smarter than the rest of the Democratic herd. Though that isn't saying much.

A tip of the GM Chapeaux to Ann Althous and the Instapundit

Cross Posted at GM's Corner

Monday, December 26, 2005

Be Back Soon / Meet GM's Corner and TiberGuest Bloggers

Yup the wife and I will be up in the mountains for a few days so I have asked my friends George from GM's Corner, and Tiberius Gracchus from DumbShitOfTheWeek to keep you folks entertained.

They are both great bloggers you should check them regularly. Hopefully this week will give you a good sample.

See you all Next Year!




Hello from Conservative America

Greetings to all. My name is GM Roper and I promised The Real Ugly American I would help out with a post or twelve while he is on his sojourn. I hope to keep you entertained with a little humor, a little politics and perhaps a mental health tip or three. Normally, I hang out at GM's Corner but you can also sometimes find me at The Wide Awakes or at South Park Republicans. First post (hmm, isn't this your first post?...ed... While I'm at it, let me introduce "...ed" Roger Simon's Muse who sometimes comes to haunt me... NO, this is an introductory post and it doesn't count!.. Oh...ed!)... where was I, oh, yes... First post up sometime tomorrow. See you then.

GM

Robertson and Rockefeller leaked Top Secret NSA Program?

This is one of the things I love about the blogosphere. When the MSM refuses to follow a story the bloggers run with it and get to the truth. This is exactly what is going on right now with the NSA leak story.

AJ Strata over at The Strata-Sphere blog, is all over this story with a theory that sounds pretty likely to me. Judge Robertson (the FISA judge who supposedly resigned in protest) actually was either forced to resign to chose to do so before being forced while under investigation for leaking this story in the first place.

We will know for sure if Robertson starts missing days on the bench on the DC circuit court - a position he has not resigned yet. But one he cannot retain while under investigation.

Is he clearing his docket of cases so he can go on a hiatus? We will know soon enough. Judge Roberts is due to be assigned emergency cases at the US District Court January 1-2, 20o6. We shall see if that status remains for the time being. Robertson is also assigned Motions Court for February.

If Robertson is under investigation, it should be ‘leaked’ fairly quickly.


You have to read the whole thing.

Dr. Sanity follows up on the double standard of the left and the MSM. With The left calling the leakers hero's in this case, and the MSM treating the coverage of this leak completely different than the Plame leak.


Michelle Malkin has some analysis of this story in todays Washington Post. Michelle suggests that reporters covering blogs should actually read them first:

The Washington Post profiles one of my favorite milbloggers, Bill Roggio, who runs The Fourth Rail and ThreatsWatch. Another ground-breaking milblogger, Michael Yon, gets a mention. The article's undertone is critical of Bush administration efforts to reach out to the blogosphere, and paints milbloggers as "weapons" in an "information war." The WaPo's take on bloggers as tools easily exploited by one major political party or the other is typical--and typically misinformed. Again, I ask: Is it too much to expect reporters who write about blogs to actually read them?

Not a bad idea. If you have ever read Michael Yon, or Bill Roggio, or the Dawn Patrol at Mudville Gazette, then you know their stories are far more credible than the various MSM reports. If you haven't then do yourself a favor and start reading them today. Contrary to what some would lead you to believe these milbloggers report the good the bad and the ugly as nearly all milbloggers do.

Outside the Beltway is also talking about this article, and bloggers role in "the information war"

Quite interesting. Politicians and their handlers have understood the power of the "alternative media" going back at least to the 1992 presidential campaign, when Bill Clinton used back door venues like the Don Imus and Arsenio Hall shows to reach voters. Given the rise of the blogosphere as an information medium, it was only a matter of time before those seeking to get their message out would turn there. Indeed, I've been getting emailed press releases from congressional offices, party officials, interest groups, and others for months now.




I hope you all had a very Merry Christmas and the left overs last you until the new year.

Saturday, December 24, 2005

How To Respond To A Moonbat

Yesterday Zatara took issue with my charge of moonbattery from the left and made several comments including this:

Just out of curiosity, how is moonbattery (interesting term there) to call a clearly unconstitutional grab for power what it is?

Over the past week or so, there were daily revelations of this administration abusing the already broad powers it has for wiretapping, investigating, and harassing private invidiuals that have not been charged or evenly vaguely connected with a crime.

Actions like those take place in wonderful nations like Burma and Cuba... they make the ghosts of Stalin's past cackle with glee. This is not how an open and free society acts.



Of course served a Dish like that I could not resist:

comparing our government conducting warrently searches or wire taps on people in the US communicating with terrorists outside the country with countries like Cuba is Moonbattery.

Comparing it with Stalin is foolish at best.

I as you do not want the government spying on my every day activities. Unless you are cooperating with terrorists I don't think you have anything to fear yet.


Go and read the opinions of the Constitutional Law Professors I mentioned in this post and previous ones. You will find either you are falling for the moonbats hyperbole or you are yourself in fact a moonbat.

I do hope for your sake it is the former and you still have a chance to listen to reason.



Well Unfortunately either Zatara is just being stuborn and doesn't want to admit to being so poorly informed or indeed he/she is a moonbat.



1) If being a Libertarian means that I expect, nay demand, the government follows a truely strict interpretation of the Constitution then I hate to see what so called Conservatives are.

Despite what some "law and order" politicians believe, the 4th Amendment is not there to protect the guilty, but the innocent. It's not there to hamper investigations but it's there to make sure that the investigators do their job correctly the first time and ge the guilty party.

I'm sorry you don't care about your individual rights... I guess you weren't using them and let the government take them away, for your own safety of course.


and of course I responded again:

You seem to continually confuse criminal surveillance (at worst a group of organized criminals trying to steal our money) with foreign intelligence surveillance ( people who have publicly stated they are at war with our entire country including you and want you, your family and everyone you know and love dead and all your civil rights violated for the rest of history).

Now if you don't see that fundamental difference then you Sir/Madame are a freaking lights out moonbat.

But this is what I wish I had said. Rick at Right Wing Nuthouse has the prefect response for moonbat constitutional absolutionists like Zatara. So Zatara I hope I haven't run you off yet. If you would endulge, please read the following excerpt from Right Wing Nuthouse:


I will take a back seat to no one in my support for the Bill of Rights – ALL TEN OF THEM. Liberals usually like to stop at about #8. After all, the 9th and 10th Amendments limit the power of the federal government vis a vis the states and the people which is a total anathema to your average lefty. Come to think of it, liberals aren’t very supportive of the 2nd amendment and even several parts of the 1st – like freedom OF religion. In fact, looking at a liberal’s translation of the Constitution, it would probably appear very similar to one of those documents requested of the CIA under the FOIA; so much of it would be blacked out that about all you’d be able to read is the page number.

That said, what has me breathing fire this morning is the idea that, in order to prevent the greatest of catastrophes – a nuclear weapon being exploded on American soil – people actually want the government to get a warrant to aim a Geiger counter at someone’s house. This is nuts. This is lunacy. This is as close to suicidal as one can get without actually putting the gun to your head.

I guess we’re really in trouble now. The Constitutional absolutists (I’m beginning to include some of the more pompous libertarians out there who are starting to annoy me more and more every day) are acting as if this is some kind of gigantic abstract game we’re playing. I can assure you that al Qaeda is not playing games. And the people who are currently responsible for seeing that the last thing you see isn’t a bright flash in the sky followed by the sighting of a mushroom shaped cloud are, thank the Lord, not playing games either.

What is not serious is this spate of revelations regarding what the government is doing to prevent the destruction of the United States. What is not serious is this internet-wide hand wringing over what appears more and more as a sensible, rational, response to a threat posed by an enemy that has sworn to destroy us – or perhaps many of you have forgotten that salient fact.

And the next person that quotes Ben Franklin’s warning about security and liberty is going to get a pie in the face – or my boot up their ass. Ben Franklin didn’t have to worry about a goddamn nuclear weapon going off in Philadelphia while he was romping between the sheets with some harlot. He could afford to be smug. We can’t.


You have to read the whole thing. Folks like Zatara allying themselves with idiots like Daschle, and the Kos Kids, and the Washington Monthly Whackos are gonna get us all freaking killed.


Right Wing Nut House isn't the only one putting the wood to idiots today. Michelle Malkin lays the smack down on the NYT for once again getting the story wrong. Their only possible excuse is incompetence or intentionally misleading their readers.

Hugh Hewitt socks LA Times whacko Tim Ruttan right in the eye with Ruttans own words and mocks the little twit for being the intellectual coward that he is.

The trouble with Rutten and other MSM apologists is that they have never, ever had a job remotely close to national security operations, and get most of their understanding of the business of intelligence from Ludlum novels and bar conversations with people who say they know spooks. The irony is that the close of Rutten's column is spent telling people that newspapers are too disorganized to conspire to do much of anything except get the paper out. He is asserting that if only you knew what went on in newspapers, you wouldn't be so quick to criticize them --that readers should defer to his "inside" knowledge of the way it really is.


Enough of the critics and their demands for candoor from self-serving, ideologically extreme and unswervingly Ahabite nutters in the newsrooms! Papers are to be worshiped, reporters exulted (and paid more) and never ever rebuked for endangering the national security!

Next week from Rutten: Why newspaper subscriptions should be mandatory, why PBS should have Bill Moyers as its boss, why reporters' salaries should be tax exempt, and why the publication of National Intelligence Estimates on a real time basis is actually good for the country.

But if he's going to slander me or some other radio show host again, perhaps he can borrow the spine to do so by name.



I am glad to see Christmas has brought out all this brotherly love.

Friday, December 23, 2005

The Carnival Of Christmas

Adam's Blog has a great post up for Christmas. With links to some wonderful charities, and lots of links to other bloggers christmas wishes, touching stories, and things to remind you what Christmas is all about.

It is a must read.

For my part I would like to remind you all once again it is Thank A Soldier Week. I encourage you all to not only take a moment of your time to follow the link and email a soldier but do something special with your family for Christmas and have everyone send an email during your Christmas gathering.

Merry Christmas Everyone!

You We Didn't Vote For! / Open Trackback post

Tom Daschle has an OpEd in todays Washington Post saying Congress never granted the President the powers he asserted to conduct "warrentless searches" to monitor people in the United States communicating with terrorists abroad.

Well I have news for Mr. Daschle. YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR US ANYMORE. That's right it appears Mr. Daschle didn't get the memo. The voters booted his ass out of office a year ago. The first Senate party leader to lose a race for re-election in 50 years. Why do you think that happened Tom?

Maybe we didn't agree with your judgement, your obstructionism, or your partisan political hackery over the best interest and safety of the American people.

So Tom doesn't think the president has the authority. Several constitutional law professors do, and many of those who disagree with the president politically admit this is a grey area in the law intentionally left this way by the Supreme Court.

Oh well as they say in the blogosphere "you are so 5 minutes ago Tom" move along.



****Update****

Just one Minute in his post Be Careful What You Wish For argues a criminal prosecution of the NSA leaker/s is not such a good idea.

Here is part of his reasoning and background.
However - waaay back when, in the summer of 2003, I noted a possible end game for a Plame investigation, and further noted that, by a large, leaks are a good thing in a free and democratic society.

My guess - the best course for annoyed righties (such as myself) would be to note vigorously the absurd double standard of the Fitzgerald prosecution, keep it in mind as one more justification for the pardon of Libby and others (if necessary), and move on.


I have to say as a non beltway insider. Pardons just come off as slimey to me as I think they do to most of the electorate. I think Michael Ledeen's sugestion is far easier to digest and actually would accomplish more than political victory. It might just make us all a little safer. Now there is a novel idea!

Captain's Quarters tells us Daschle: Democrats Clueless On 9/12, Too:


Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle writes an op-ed in today's Washington Post (which the Post covers as a news item on page A04, just in case its readers miss it) claiming that the declaration of war granted to Bush after 9/11 specifically limited his war powers. It's a must-read, if only to demonstrate that either the Democrats have to be the worst historical revisionists still received by polite society or have been truly clueless about the nature of the war on Islamofascist terror since its start.

Daschle actually makes a case for both in his essay:



Read the whole thing.



The Strata-Sphere has an exelent post on Daschle's colum, how the left is once again heading over the cliff on this issue, and how the MSM is hslping them along.

Apparently Brilliant at Breakfast hasn't read the opinions of Cass Sunstein, or John Eastman, Or Orin Kerr, and actually puts stock in Daschle's hackery. Maybe she hasn't had breakfast yet?

Just a Bump in the Beltway can't resist the call to moonbattery:

Daschle, clearly in an effort to be polite, left out two key terms: fascism and impeachment. With the statements made by the leaders of this administration over the past week, there can be no other rational conclusion for what is taking place and what must be done.





**************
Thats right this is an open track back post. If you have something interesting to share please leave a trackback. I will move them to the main page as I see then throughout the day. Just be sure to leave a link to This Post in the main body of the post you trackback here.


The Right Nation linked with: Open Trackback Holiday
TMH's Bacon Bits linked with: Top Ten (Profound) News Headlines
Freedom Folks linked with: I Am Ashamed
Freedom Folks linked with: Merry Christmas to All!
Tel-Chai Nation linked with: More mistakes made by Spielberg in promoting Munic
Don Surber linked with: How The Rudolph Stole Christmas


Thank you to these folks who also have Open Trackbacks today: Third World County, TMH's Bacon Bits,


Be sure to stop by and read them.

Thursday, December 22, 2005

La Shawn Barber's Liberal Views.......

Thats right in her fantastic post Do You Hate Black People, La Shawn offers up several examples of failed liberal policies, tired liberal mantras and offers several new ideas. Which as I have always maintained is the "Liberal Thing to do".

Doing the same thing over and over because thats the way its always been done is the very definition of conservative. Liberals are suposed to recognize when things are broken and try new ideas sometimes even radical ideas to fix them.

Here is an excerpt from La Shawn's post:

One of the government policies I hate is skin color preferences, which I’ve written about ad nauseum and will continue to do so as long as it exists. So-called affirmative action was intended to include more blacks in the candidate pool, but it has become the biggest entitlement program ever conceived. It has nothing to do with so-called racial discrimination and everything to do with lowered standards.

Apparently, it’s difficult to find black job candidates and potential university students with credentials comparable to whites. On the one hand, some blacks claim that credentials are comparable, but whites need a “push” to hire or admit. On the other hand, some blacks claim that “comparable” is relative. Just because a black person has a lower score, it doesn’t mean he’s not qualified for a job or admission. It is reasonable, however, to set hiring and admissions criteria, and if your score is below the threshold, you are, by those standards, not qualified. Unfortunately, some blacks — not all, thank goodness — see racial motives behind everything.

I hate “affirmative action” because it’s immoral, unconstitutional, embarrassingly unfair, and undignified.



If blacks with comparable credentials are being passed over, blanket skin color preference policies are not the remedy. Courts are where such disputes should be heard. If blacks are passed over because they don’t have comparable scores, we need to address the problem at a much earlier stage. We all know how dumbed down government schools have become. Get the socialist bureaucrats out of the front offices and demand better for your kids. Fight for school choice, support rigorous standards, and advocate excellence, not mediocrity. And for the love of God, stop making excuses. Discipline your children to turn off that idiot box and study. Embrace and reward studious behavior and penalize laziness.


Some in the "Black Liberal Establishment" may call La Shawn a "Traitor", or an "Uncle Tom", or a "House Slave".

I will call her a "Real Liberal". I hope she isn't offended.



As La Shawn is often so good at doing, Her post has lots of other folks talking. See what JunkYardBlog has to say, Tapscott's Copy Desk follows up on the media bias La Shawn Exposes in her post. Independent Conservative has a transcript of the exchange between Mike Wallace and Morgan Freeman. Honestly I am not quite sure what Vision Circle is talking about. Maybe you can figure it out.

An Open Letter To Harry Reid (Hint its not polite)

My Friend George at GM's Corner let off a little steam today and called a spade a spade. Here is his open letter to Harry Reid:

A short sample:

Did you learn nothing from the loss of Dear Leader Daschle? Do you not understand that this country is at war with a relentless enemy who wants nothing but your death, and the death of everything you say you hold dear? Have you not listened to those terrorists who proclaim the desire for a new Caliphate? Do you not remember the beheading of hostages in a brazenly cowardly attempt to sway public opinion or who murdered, yes murdered over 3000 Americans in a wanton terrorist attack?


I have to say George is right on target. As long as feckless partisan hacks like Reid are leading the Democratic Party we will forever be in the minority.

Hezbollah Scamming Canadian Cell Phone Users For Terrorist Activities!

Check this out courtesy of The Flying Lumberyard:

While clueless Liberal Bloggers in Canada bash Bush on domestic security in the U.S., the terrorist group Hezbollah is evidently still in the business of scamming Canada's Rogers Communications cell phone customers with clone numbers.

A quote from a December 19, 2005 story by Endagadget: "Susan Drummond - who was stuck with a bill for over $10,000 for calls to countries such as Libya, Pakistan, Russia and Syria - recorded comments made by a Rogers security exec, who admitted that the company had suffered cloning problems at the hands of Hezbollah going back as far as 1997."


Check out The Flys Blog and read the whole thing.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Thank a Soldier Week

Please follow this link and send an email to thank a Soldier. It only takes a moment. In fact here is an idea if you wanna do something really special for christmas.

Where ever your family gathers for Christmas Eve or Christmas day pull up this link and have everyone in the family send an email.

Last I checked about 36,000 folks had sent emails. If everyone does this with an average family gathering of 10 we should have over 350,000 emails by Christmas day.

Don't know what to say? Just say Thank You.

Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette has a very touching thank you from Congressman Joe Wilson's words

Here are some emails from other folks taking time to Thank our Soldiers.

**Please know that I join millions of Americans who are very thankful for your service to our country. As a veteran from the Vietnam era, I appreciate the risks and sacrifices you all are making. Merry Christmas to you, your comrades in arms, and your loved ones at home.**

**I am Brazilian and I would like to thank the American soldiers for their huge efforts in Iraq. Keep on doing what you're doing! Keep on fighting for the freedom.**

**Thank you so much for your defense of our country. I know that you endure many hardships and make many difficult sacrifices, and I want you to know that it IS appreciated here, despite what the "mainstream media" says. It is people like you that make me proud to be an American.**

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

The Left is loosing it again with the NSA story

****Update****

Check out the NSA Surveillance: Blog Post Roundup over at Concurring Opinions. It is terrific.

Be sure to read this post by University of Chicago Law School Professor Cass Sunstein:

The authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) says, "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."


****Update**** I found some more over at Atrios. Comon you guys aren't trying.




Nazi Bush: I am the power! I will protect! I will decide! I will allow! Thou shalt have no gods before me! Thou shalt not have the Constitution as a graven image!

Hey, hey
I saved the world today
Everything's okay
Now the bad thing's gone away.


But it hasn't. It still lurks at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Is it because we're sick in the head?
BlakNo1


Perhaps it's because we wish Bush were dead...

I'm still shaking with anger over the illegal domestic spying.

The Bushes are criminals. May there never be another Bush in public office for as long as the universe exists.

Nanci and Barbra are comm'in with impeachment for ya bushie....PANIC!

Will historians be talking about the chimp period as "the end of the Republic" as in the case of Rome?

Perhaps it's because we wish Bush were dead...
Vicki


WORD!




Don't just read this post read the comments section at Unclaimed Territory.

Here is a Sample:

I asked this question:


The Ugly American said...

btw you guys do understand how this works right?

Our special opps guys capture a terrorist in Afghanistan or Iraq. Joe citizen here in the U.S. Shows up on that terrorists incoming or outgoing calls. That guy is then monitored.

Not the government deciding to tap your phone for attending a protest march.

Do we agree this is what we are talking about?



and got these answers:

Dont_Feed_The_Meter said:

No, this is about another - egregious - example of the rampant abuse of authority and power and a willingness to deny and defile the very substance of the laws that the American Revolutionaries fought for, with a deceitful and pernicious intent.

Jake - but not the one said...

TUA, there are so many things to fear. Why pick terrorism? Why not tackle the issue rationally, with money and appropriate threats, and yes, even appropriate action. Not including invading Iraq - what was not a terrorist threat at all, then or now.

Glenn Greenwald said...

How do you know this? The only way to know is to have judicial oversight to make sure there is no abuse. That's why it's so crucial to only allow surveillance only with a warrant.



you get the idea.

And the Washington Monthly Whackos are off the chart:


Yes, constant war helps greatly in controlling the proles. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

Posted by: George Orwell on December 20, 2005 at 8:47 PM


Good point, Kevin. I'd add that this administration has consistently demonstrated an unserious attitude toward terrorism. From neglecting the 'Bin Laden determined to strike inside U.S.' memo to underfunding homeland security to bungling the aftermath of the Afghanistan invasion, Bush has shown that he only cares about terrorism inasmuch as it provides an excuse for doing things he wanted to do anyway --- cut taxes, invade Iraq, and as we are learning now, strip away American's civil liberties.

Posted by: ChristianPinko on December 20, 2005 at 8:48 PM

I'm not obligated to follow the law. Therefore, anything I do is legal.

Posted by: Shorter Bush on December 20, 2005 at 8:48 PM

Of course, given the one-party autocracy of the present incarnation of Republicans, and their lust for executive power, I doubt if we'll be seeing any small or big "d" Democratic presidents any time soon.

Posted by: R. Porrofatto on December 20, 2005 at 8:57 PM

I think saying his intentions were good is giving this guy way, way too much credit. This is the callous man who fiddled while New Orleans drowned. Do you honestly believe that he was wiretapping people because he loves his fellow citizens so much he's horrified to imagine they might become victims of terrorism?

There's not doubt that he is droning on and on about how he's doing this to protect us. But come on. Like all megalomaniacs this guy doesn't give a crap about anyone but himself.

Posted by: DanM on December 20, 2005 at 9:03 PM



Now this is funny or scary depending on how you look at it. Bob here actually suspects he just might be insane yet can not compel himself to take his meds.



The scariest thing about this is that Bush and the GOP have *every incentive in the world* to let another terrorist attack happen, so we can all stop our quibbly little doubts as to whether or not we're still "at war."

Seriously. Think about it. Think about the recent F grade from the 9/11 Commission two months ago.

I don't mean to get all moonbatty; I don't know whether I'm quite cynical (enough) yet to believe that Bush, for all his demonstrated cluelessness and/or mendacity, actually goes to bed at night dreaming of another great, unifying gift from Osama -- another "new Pearl Harbor" to "awaken our moral purpose" as it said in the Clinton-era PNAC docs.

What I *do* know is that his polls would spike and his arguments would prevail with most of the public.

What a nasty thought, huh.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on December 20, 2005 at 9:08 PM


Too late Bob you just did get "all moonbatty".

On another note why do people feel compelled to offer up detailed theories on the internet explaining what they think the NSA is doing ?

Are they trying to prove how smart they are to their anonymous fans?

Do they even care that they may just be right and that our enemies just might learn something they didn't know before?

I just don't understand posts like this one from Asymmetrical Information.

Also, using this approach makes it very difficult to obtain individual warrants, because the rate of number turnover would be high, and the number of simultaneous taps large. Not to mention that the vast majority of lines tapped would have nothing to do with terrorism, although it’s sounding like the FISA court may be pretty mellow on that score. It also sort of explains what the risk is in revealing this program, since now suspects would know that any international call they made, even if it was from a brand new phone to a “clean” number in a safe country, would be tapped.


If you have come across any moonbats commenting on this story please share and I will put em up on the main page.




Bloggers with Open Trackbacks today: Third World County, Diane's Stuff, Is It Just Me, bRight & Early, Adam's Blog, TMH's Bacon Bits, Cao's Blog,

Please visit them and say hi and don't forget to tip your waitress.

The NSA Story A Layman’s Perspective

****Update 3:15 pm*****

Welcome Hugh Hewitt Readers. Hugh actually inspired me to start this blog so it is great to have you all. I have been in meetings all day and didn't know you would be stopping by. I hope you don't mind the mess.

/bow and big thanks to Hugh.

****Update****


Thanks to The Talking Points Memo and Hugh Hewitt for a link to this letter from Jay Rockefeller. There is now no doubt he knew exactly what was happening and did not stop it at the time. Instead he chose to play politics. Disgraceful.

If Senator Rockefeller was truly concerned about this as he states in his letter he should have worked it out quietly with the Whitehouse to come to some agreement on what was and was not kosher with the main goal being the safety of the American People. Not the Democrats chances at gaining back congress in 2006.


Check out Bill Baar who is a disgusted Dem like me.

**** *************** ************ **********

All I know is this is far too complicated for me to know the answer to. Let the Legal experts and Con Law Professors argue out the minutia and their complicated constitutional positions. What I do know is I don’t want our president running roughshod over the constitution. I also know I don’t want bureaucratic BS getting in the way of preventing terrorist plots designed to kill as many Americans as possible.

It appears President Bush used a loophole to authorize the NSA wire taps. The constitutional / legal arguments aside, is anyone really arguing that these wiretaps were a bad thing?

If our military or intelligence agencies capture a terrorist’s cell phone with Americans Phone #s on it, then those Americans phone calls should be monitored immediately. If that’s not legal or constitutional then it should be.

I think the questions about the constitutionality and legality of this policy are justified. I understand the concept of the slippery slope. This legislation should be very narrowly defined and leave no ambiguity about what does and does not qualify for monitoring phone calls of citizens/aliens/ or residents with terrorist ties.

This story should have never seen the light of day. We should not be talking about this for the world to see, alerting our enemies to our abilities and tactics. Whoever leaked this story needs to be found and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

What should have happened is Senators or Congressmen in either party who took issue with this policy should have raised this privately with the Whitehouse and drafted legislation that clarified what was and was not kosher and got on with the business of protecting the citizens of the United States.

I am not letting the President off the hook on this one either. It seems the administration knew this was a grey area at best. They should have brought this up with responsible Democratic leaders (see Joe Lieberman) and quietly attached an amendment buried in some other innocuous sounding bill thereby keeping our enemies in the dark.

Our nation’s leaders have failed us all by playing politics with all of our lives.

You have to read

Will there be a place for Dems like me to run?

I think Just one Minute has the best round up on this topic.

I was very interested in this particular bit of information:

A high-ranking intelligence official with firsthand knowledge said in an interview yesterday that Vice President Cheney, then-Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet and Michael V. Hayden, then a lieutenant general and director of the National Security Agency, briefed four key members of Congress about the NSA's new domestic surveillance on Oct. 25, 2001, and Nov. 14, 2001, shortly after Bush signed a highly classified directive that eliminated some restrictions on eavesdropping against U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

Former senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who chaired the Senate intelligence committee and is the only participant thus far to describe the meetings extensively and on the record, said in interviews Friday night and yesterday that he remembers "no discussion about expanding [NSA eavesdropping] to include conversations of U.S. citizens or conversations that originated or ended in the United States" -- and no mention of the president's intent to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The high-ranking intelligence official, who spoke with White House permission but said he was not authorized to be identified by name, said Graham is "misremembering the briefings," which in fact were "very, very comprehensive." The official declined to describe any of the substance of the meetings, but said they were intended "to make sure the Hill knows this program in its entirety, in order to never, ever be faced with the circumstance that someone says, 'I was briefed on this but I had no idea that -- ' and you can fill in the rest."

By Graham's account, the official said, "it appears that we held a briefing to say that nothing is different . . . . Why would we have a meeting in the vice president's office to talk about a change and then tell the members of Congress there is no change?"



I am sure there will be more later.

Monday, December 19, 2005

Go Go Govenator!

I am by no means happy with everything the Govenator has done since voting for him in the special election (the first time I ever voted Republican for Govenor) but on the whole this guy has been a breath of fresh air. Cutting the defict, blocking one bill Gill Sedillos repeated attempts to give drivers licencses to Illegal Aliens, campaigning for desperately needed yet unpopular reforms, repealing the car tax, and recently denying clemency to the multiple murderer Monster Williams.

Stories like this one remind me why I voted for him and why I most likely will again.

Here is an excerpt:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday told officials in his hometown in Austria to remove his name from a sports stadium and stop using his identity to promote the city. The governor's request came after politicians in Graz began a petition drive to rename the stadium, reacting to Schwarzenegger's decision last week to deny clemency to condemned inmate Stanley Tookie Williams. Opposition to the death penalty is strong in Austria.

In a letter that began "Dear Mister Mayor," Schwarzenegger said he decided to spare the Graz city council "further concern" should he be forced to make other clemency decisions while he's governor. Another inmate is scheduled to be executed in California Jan. 17.

"In all likelihood, during my term as governor, I will have to make similar and equally difficult decisions," Schwarzenegger said in the letter. "To spare the responsible politicians of the city of Graz further concern, I withdraw from them as of this day the right to use my name in association with the Liebenauer Stadium."



Keep it up Govenator.

The Daily Pundit has an update on one of the Govenator's bad decisions.

Top Stories 12/19/05

Michelle Malkin is live blogged the presidents news conference this morning and has links to other bloggers covering the story. What a great press conference it was btw.

Stuck on Stupid heard the same thing I did yesterday morning on Fox News Sunday when Chris Wallace asked Harry Reid if he would give back the $66,000 he had received from Jack Abramoff and his clients. Chris Wallace is by far the best of the Sunday morning talk show hosts!

Stuck on Stupid has lots of other mud on Reid. I wonder if any of it will stick.

The President also addressed the nation last night. Here is a transcript from the Whitehouse.

Blogs for Bush has comments
. The Moderate Voice has his own comments and links to others on the opposite side of the aisle.

Am I the only one who cant wait for this movie to come out? For one Albert brooks is a very funny guy. Secondly I can't help but wonder if he will have to go into hiding ala Salman Rushdie when it does.

True Liberals Support Democracy!

As promised here is my response to Glenn Greenwald of Unclaimed Territory. I address his comments point by point starting with:

(1) I did not say that pro-war advocates never mention Iraqi dead civilians killed by the U.S. military. I said they rarely mention it, which is undeniably true. And those who do mention it do so in order to dismiss it as a sufficient reason for opposing the war (or, as in your cites, to complain about the coverage it is getting).

Rather than once again accusing you of making false claims I will ask you for examples. What you will find while searching for them are far more detailed reports than the MSM ever gives.

It can’t be denied that 30,000 dead Iraqis packs a significant emotional punch. And it’s at least 30,000 dead, since that’s an American estimate. I’m not interested in bickering over the number or the identity of each of them. Other estimates from months ago put the number at 100,000 civilians, and the important point is that no matter what number you want to believe, it’s a huge amount of innocent Iraqi people who were killed by this war. Even pro-war advocates – perhaps especially them, since the war is purportedly being fought to liberate Iraqis – must feel some strong sense of sorrow and remorse over this huge number of deaths.



Yes 30,000 people killed is a tragedy on a tremendous scale. And no 30,000 is the highest reputable estimate by non U.S. Governmental sources. It falls somewhere between 27 and 31,000. You say you are not interested in bickering over the number yet you cite yet another bogus source. Other than your flawed logic this is the biggest problem I had with your first post. You fill it with inaccurate and often grossly exaggerated propaganda. I have to question why this is. Are you just completely uninformed or is it intentional?

The 100,000 number you cite was long ago debunked.

I can not speak for others but of course I feel sorrow and remorse for the Iraqi people who have lost their own lives or those of their loved ones. I feel sorrow and remorse for those who have been injured. However at the same time I feel extreme joy and pride for my country and our men and women in uniform who have helped the Iraqi people remove a ruthless dictator who oppressed, tortured, and murdered those same people for 30 years.

Now for some real numbers over 300,000 of his own people killed by execution, chemical attacks, and torture. Over 1 million killed in his wars. I would say 30,000 is a very small price to pay to end that 30 year killing spree.

I am sure you have heard the term “Freedom isn’t Free”. Rush said it well.

Your argument however brings about a larger one. If you are arguing that the U.S. bares a large part of the responsibility for these 30,000 deaths (and I do not argue that) then you also have to admit we bare a large responsibility for the million before. You also have to admit if you are being intellectually honest that we have a moral responsibility to end that cycle of torture and death. As a Liberal I can not ignore that moral responsibility.

But the reason pro-war advocates are able to still favor the war despite the existence of huge numbers of dead Iraqi civilians is the same reason that I can oppose the war despite the emergence of democratic elections in Iraq – while it has a strong emotional effect, it does not, in itself, speak to whether the war is, on balance, a war that we ought to have fought or should keep fighting, particularly from the perspective of U.S. interests — which is, for me at least, what determines whether this war is a good idea.


You can absolutely make that argument just don’t claim to be a liberal when you do. You sound like a Vietnam era Republican. As a liberal I support my country promoting Democratic elections and removing murderous dictators from power. Especially when said dictator is a sworn enemy of the United States and has been proven to support our enemies as Saddam Hussein did.

(2) When I said that the existence of elections in Iraq is a neutral event, I did not mean, and did not imply, that the elections would have happened in the absence of our occupation. They clearly would not have. What I said was that they are neutral from the perspective of U.S. interests. Elections by themselves do not advance U.S. interests. Whether U.S. interests are advanced depends on who gains power by virtue of the elections. I have yet to hear anyone explain how U.S. interests will be advanced by these elections if they end up installing in power a Shiite theocracy loyal to Iranian mullahs or worse. Does anyone have an explanation as to how that can be?


And this I disagree with, first on the basic premise and secondly on the likelihood of a Shiite theocracy coming to power. First of all free and fair elections are in U.S. Interests no matter where they are held. As a liberal I hold this as a core belief. I believe in the nature of free people to make wise decisions in the long run (yes I know our own elections sometimes call that into question) but somehow in the end everything seems to turn out ok.

I am sure you know Iraq is one of if not the most secular country in the Middle East. This alone greatly diminishes the likelihood of a theocracy emerging. In fact the early returns from these historic elections seem to show secularists getting a significant percentage of votes. Why don’t we wait until we hear the final results, and see what coalition government is formed before taking firm positions on this one?

(3) If democracy is intrinsically helpful to U.S. security, do you actually favor taking steps to rid countries like Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and Saudi Arabia of their unquestionably dictatorial but intensely pro-U.S governments and replace them with a democratically elected government which is almost sure to be anti-American if not outright sympathetic to, and cooperative with, Muslim extremists?

Yes I do. I do not believe in real politic I think it was one of the most shameful policies of our history.

This is not the cliched argument that is often advanced to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the Bush Administration’s pro-democracy rhetoric. It is a genuine question about whether we really are willing to commit ourselves to democracy in this region even if it means – as it almost certainly will – that U.S. interests will be harmed in the process.


Again I disagree with your basic premise and hope you can now admit you are not a classic liberal. Maybe we should start calling folks who argue as you have neo-liberals. You are all for democracy in the world as long as it is good for us. Let me turn your question around and ask you do you believe the United States should support dictators if it is in our national interest?

Please do not mistake me for some naive idealist. I do understand we can not fight every evil everywhere in the world simultaneously. However I strongly believe we are obligated as a nation to do what we can when we can.


The 20th Century is full of examples of governments which were initially elected democratically but then become despotic. Adolph Hitler is but one of many such examples. And there are plenty of democratically elected leaders who are anti-American today, with Hugo Chavez being the most prominent, but not only, example around today. The mere existence of a democratically elected government does not even remotely assure us that the government will be pro-U.S., and in the case of Shiite religious dominated Iraq, there is every reason to believe that it will not be.

Now again I have to question your knowledge of history or your intentions. Either you know this is untrue or you are willingly spreading propaganda in an attempt to advance your argument. Hitler did not rise to power Democratically.

Neither did Hugo Chavez. Now if you wish to be stubborn and insist they did, you have to at least admit they did not retain power Democratically.

Open Trackbacks today at: Third World County, The Land of Ozz, Is It Just Me,

Sunday, December 18, 2005

Response from Glenn Greenwald of Unclaimed Territory

I sincerely appreciate Glenn coming back to answer my reply to his original post at Unclaimed Territory. Britt Hume said something on Fox Sunday this morning that is very true. War brings out passions. Although Glenn and I are about as far apart as possible on this issue, I think we are both on the same side here in wanting our country to be safe from terrorism while maintaining our civil liberties.

Here is Glenn’s reply from the comments section. I have moved it to the main board simply because it deserves to be read:



I intended to answer this post in a post of my own but I blogged today about the NSA eavesdropping controversey and consequently did not have time to do so. But these are the points in reply I wanted to make:

(1) I did not say that pro-war advocates never mention Iraqi dead civilians killed by the U.S. military. I said they rarely mention it, which is undeniably true. And those who do mention it do so in order to dismiss it as a sufficient reason for opposing the war (or, as in your cites, to complain about the coverage it is getting).

It can’t be denied that 30,000 dead Iraqis packs a significant emotional punch. And it’s at least 30,000 dead, since that’s an American estimate. I’m not interested in bickering over the number or the identity of each of them. Other estimates from months ago put the number at 100,000 civilians, and the important point is that no matter what number you want to believe, it’s a huge amount of innocent Iraqi people who were killed by this war. Even pro-war advocates – perhaps especially them, since the war is purportedly being fought to liberate Iraqis – must feel some strong sense of sorrow and remorse over this huge number of deaths.

But the reason pro-war advocates are able to still favor the war despite the existence of huge numbers of dead Iraqi civilians is the same reason that I can oppose the war despite the emergence of democratic elections in Iraq – while it has a strong emotional effect, it does not, in itself, speak to whether the war is, on balance, a war that we ought to have fought or should keep fighting, particularly from the perspective of U.S. interests — which is, for me at least, what determines whether this war is a good idea.

(2) When I said that the existence of elections in Iraq is a neutral event, I did not mean, and did not imply, that the elections would have happened in the absence of our occupation. They clearly would not have. What I said was that they are neutral from the perspective of U.S. interests. Elections by themselves do not advance U.S. interests. Whether U.S. interests are advanced depends on who gains power by virtue of the elections. I have yet to hear anyone explain how U.S. interests will be advanced by these elections if they end up installing in power a Shiite theocracy loyal to Iranian mullahs or worse. Does anyone have an explanation as to how that can be?

(3) If democracy is intrinsically helpful to U.S. security, do you actually favor taking steps to rid countries like Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and Saudi Arabia of their unquestionably dictatorial but intensely pro-U.S governments and replace them with a democratically elected government which is almost sure to be anti-American if not outright sympathetic to, and cooperative with, Muslim extremists?

This is not the cliched argument that is often advanced to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the Bush Administration’s pro-democracy rhetoric. It is a genuine question about whether we really are willing to commit ourselves to democracy in this region even if it means – as it almost certainly will – that U.S. interests will be harmed in the process.

The 20th Century is full of examples of governments which were initially elected democratically but then become despotic. Adolph Hitler is but one of many such examples. And there are plenty of democratically elected leaders who are anti-American today, with Hugo Chavez being the most prominent, but not only, example around today. The mere existence of a democratically elected government does not even remotely assure us that the government will be pro-U.S., and in the case of Shiite religious dominated Iraq, there is every reason to believe that it will not be.

Of course I disagree with most of what Glenn just said. I will reply to his comments tomorrow. I would also like to say that if you are a conservative who likes to read well said if not well reasoned arguments from the left, I strongly recommend stopping by Unclaimed Territory regularly.

Saturday, December 17, 2005

More Bias at the BBC? / Open Trackback Weekend

Well you tell me. Wednesday the BBC ran this story interviewing two former U.S. Soldiers serving in Iraq both had some critical things to say about our efforts and what conditions on the ground are. The problem is these two guys are completely unrepresentative of what the overwhelming majority of troops on the ground are saying. So why wouldn't the BBC at least offering a differing opinion or offer a disclaimer that these two men are the exception not the rule?

Here is an excerpt:

GR: "We are coming to a time now when we seriously need to think of withdrawal plans... I think that troops on the ground right now are instigating and motivating the insurgency to attack coalition forces rather than helping to keep the peace in Iraq, so I think that in a lot of cases we do need to draw down.




read the whole thing and then please you tell me was this article bias?

Trackbacked to: Stop The ACLU, Oblogotory Anecdotes, TMH's Bacon Bits, Stuck On Stupid, Adam's Blog, California Conservative, Diggers Realm, Point Five, Is It Just Me, The Uncooperative Blogger,

This is an open trackback post. If you have something interesting to share please leave a trackback but be sure to leave a link to this post in your post otherwise your trackback will be deleted. I will be checking in regularly and putting your trackbacks up on the main page as they come in all weekend.

TMH's Bacon Bits linked with Top Ten (Profound) News Headlines
Freedom Folks linked with Heartening, Yet Disheartening
The Right Nation linked with Sleepy Weekend Open Trackback
Peakah's Provocations linked with Sunday Open Post Extravaganza (yes he did this on Saturday I am Suing)

All Things Beautiful linked with
Europe Thy Name Is Cowardice (editors note: I was going to link to this article myself, you must read the whole thing)

***Note*** This trackbacks were just added. something screwy going on with Haloscan. Even though they were sent yesterday I just saw them for the first time today. Sorry for the delay in getting them up folks:

The Florida Masochist linked with: The Knucklehead of the Day award
freedom folks linked with: Christmas Parody Songs
freedom folks linked with : Who Voted Mexico into Congress?
Adam's Blog linked with : Men of the Year









Friday, December 16, 2005

How Far Will the Defeatists Go?

Well I may have found it. I was going to make this mornings post about the twits commenting at The Washington Monthly who can be every bit as vile as the Kos kids (thanks Decision 08 for compiling the top 10). However one of them was good enough to link to this post by Glen Greenwald on his blog Unclaimed Territory. I have intentionally avoided the non sequitors and straw men he raises in his article.

Other than the onslaught of insults there are quite a few inaccuracies in his post like this one:

Pro-war bloggers are almost always silent whenever the latest Iraqi police station is blown up or guests at another Iraqi wedding party are slaughtered by American bombs.

The intended pejorative aside, his claim is plain untrue. Bloggers who have supported the war in Iraq are usually the first ones to report on insurgent attacks or coalition operations. They also provide much greater detail and analysis of nearly every development in Iraq than the MSM. Unlike Mr. Greenwald I won't condemn lefty blogs I am unfamiliar with. Perhaps he could provide some links to the liberal blogger equivalents of Michael Yon, Major K, or Bill Roggio Iraq The Model, who are on the ground in Iraq providing first hand accounts.

Then he says this:

George Bush recently revealed that he believes that 30,000 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives as a result of this war -- 30,000 Iraqi civilians dead-- and I don’t recall
reading much in pro-war precincts about that


Now Mr. Greenwald seems like an intelligent fellow. (At least he has access to a good thesaurus). So such an obvious error as his this statement is either intentional or that of a delusional ideologue completely out of touch with reality. To quote the President and the article Mr. Greenwald linked to:

"I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis,"

It doesn't say anything about civilians. The total includes Iraqi Military killed in the initial invasion; insurgents killed in the ongoing violence, and yes thousands of civilians killed by both unintentional collateral damage by coalition troops and who were specifically targeted by the insurgents / terrorists.

But Mr. Greenwald doesn't stop there he compounds his error/lie with the next line:

and I don’t recall reading much in pro-war precincts about that.


If he doesn't recall reading about it then either he never did any research, or he is simply a liar.

It was the bloggers that support the war who exposed the biased and incorrect headlines of MSM news organizations around the world. It was the topic of the moment, as is evidenced here, here, here, and here for example.

Let’s move on to the ridiculous with this line from Mr. Greenwald:

Democratic elections are not inherently helpful to American interests.


Far from original as numerous defeatists echoed the same line yesterday. Being that we are a Democratic country and knowing that democratic countries do not go to war with each other this statement is demonstrably wrong. Yes Mr. Greenwald Democratic Elections are inherently helpful to American Interests.

But lets be fair and put Mr. Greenwalds last comment in context it was followed with this:

Elections are what produced the intensely anti-American Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, not to mention the Chancellorship of Adolph Hitler. Iran itself has had parliamentary elections -- some legitimate and some not, and yet it remains the greatest Middle Eastern threat to American interests.


I have to wonder if he intentionally left out the word "Democratic" from the examples he provided knowing full well they were not.

and in his conclusion Mr. Greenwald had this to say:

it should not be a surprise that the only people yelling about these elections are the ones who want to dance around, cynically exploiting the emotions of yesterday, all in pursuit of some sort misplaced and unwarranted sense of vindication.


To which there is really only one rebuttal:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/oo186-761084.jpg

Well as I was linking to Decision 08's Top 10 Kos Kid comments from yesterday I noticed he has some things to say about Mr. Greenwald as well. I would say great minds think alike but I don't want to insult Mark.