Angered By Snubbing, Libya, China Syria Form Axis Of Just As Evil: There's a tribute to Satirewire on the web today and RWN is participating. This article is one of my all time favorites from Andrew Marlatt (who I interviewed by the way). I was sorry to SatireWire go down the tubes -- the net is a little less entertaining because of it...

The Quick And Dirty Leftist's Guide To Arguing Against The War On Terrorism: Some disreputable people have suggested that Right Wing News is for the 'war on terrorism' or that we're 'biased against liberals.' What scandalous accusations! The truth is that we here at Right Wing News view ourselves as a 'fair and balanced' publication -- just like 'Arab News' or 'The Guardian'! But talk is cheap! That's why we decided to write 'The Quick And Dirty Leftists Guide To Arguing Against The War On Terrorism' to prove RWN's good intentions. Here are the key arguments lefties across the planet can use against those warmongering, oil guzzling, baby killers on the right who are gungho about the 'war on terrorism'! (Cont)

The Gorebot Calling The Kettle Black: I was going to respond to Al Gore's latest brainless charges but Stephen Green nailed it so well I figured I'd just quote him...

Which of Gore's advisors is it who still allows his boss to speak in public?

Former Vice President Al Gore yesterday made his second attack this week on President Bush's war on terrorism, accusing the administration of ignoring signs that al Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden planned to attack the United States on September 11.

"The warnings were there" before the attacks, Mr. Gore said.

Which warnings, Al?

If Gore wants a future in politics, he has got to either shut up, or develop some actual political instincts. Between this absurd statement and Monday's idiot speech, he is absolutely killing himself.

Of course, I'd also throw something in about 1996, Sudan, and Bin Laden but I think Stephen covered almost everything else...

Update: Charles Krauthammer tears into Gore as well for his speech on Monday...

"The tone of the speech is best reflected in Gore's contemptuous dismissal of the U.S. victory in Afghanistan as "defeating a fifth-rate military power." If the Taliban were a fifth-rate military power, why didn't the Clinton-Gore administration destroy it and spare us Sept. 11?

They did nothing. Gore now scorns the success of the man who did something..."

It Was Bush That Murdered The 3000: Most Americans probably believe that America is being threatened by al-Queda, Saddam Hussein, and a global terrorist network. But the Democratic Underground knows the truth! 9/11 was actually perpetrated by a man more evil than Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden combined -- George W. Bush. Get ready to watch the tinfoil hat club at work as today's edition of A.C.P.O.T.I. gets underway...

Good News: The Truth Behind The Scare Mongering By Alan Caruba: Americans received a lot of good news early in September, but its importance was lost amidst all the aftermath of 9-11 ceremonies and the President's speech to the United Nations. Granted that Americans are experiencing economic problems, a report from the National Center for Health Statistics highlighted the fact that Americans are now living longer, healthier lives than ever before in the history of the nation.

This nation is awash in organizations that exist to do nothing than conjure up scenarios designed to convince us that life in America is one of crime, disease, and environmental disaster everywhere we look, but the truth is very different. (Cont)

American Culture Glorifies "Unilateralism": Since 9/11 President Bush and Americans in general have been called "unilateralists", "cowboys", have been accused of "wanting to go it alone", and have been said to care little for international law. To be honest, there's more than a little bit of truth to all of those accusations and that's the way Americans like it.

Rugged individualism, defiance, and rebellion against authority have been part of American culture since the beginning. In fact, our nation was founded by men rebelling against authority. Since then, Americans have grown to admire all sorts of rogues and anti-authority figures.

Just look at the archetypes of American cinema....

-- The rogue cop who breaks all the rules to get justice (Ex: Lethal Weapon, Dirty Harry)
-- The criminal with the 'code of honor' who fights dirty to win (Ex: Conan, Payback)
-- Gangsters (Ex: Goodfellas, The Godfather)
-- Gunslingers (Ex: High Noon, Tombstone)
-- Outlaws (Ex: Young Guns, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid)
-- Super-Heroes who operate outside the law (Ex: Spider-man, X-men)
-- Assassins (Ex: Unforgiven, Pulp Fiction)
-- One man against a horde of enemies (Ex: Die Hard, Planet of the Apes)

I could go on and on with this. But the point of it is, Americans love winners and people who get the job done and we're not particularly concerned with the details of how it gets done. Moreover, Americans detest bureaucracy, red tape, government, and other generally useless hindrances to accomplishment. While we don't mind working within the rules, most Americans don't see anything wrong with breaking the rules if that's what it takes to get things done.

So if Bush can get the rest of the world to go along with us when we hit Iraq, that's fantastic. But even if Bush couldn't get the support of any other nation and we had to go it alone, the overwhelming majority of Americans would back him once the shooting starts. Furthermore, if we won -- Americans would have more respect for Bush because he had the guts to go it alone no matter what anyone else thought. That's one part of what makes American culture great...

Saudis Confirm That They Were Offered Bin Laden In 1996: WorldNetDaily and Geostrategy-Direct talk about the story that the mainstream media refuses to report....

"American businessman Monsour Ijaz has said that the Sudanese government offered to send bin Laden to the United States in 1996, but the Clinton administration rejected the offer and instead suggested he be sent to Saudi Arabia. After the Saudis turned down the offer, bin Laden was sent to Afghanistan where he eventually developed the plot to attack the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

"In 1996, the Sudanese president offered to hand him over to Saudi Arabia provided that it agreed not to bring him to court," he said. "The Saudi government turned down the offer because we wanted to bring him to justice. At that time, and on instructions from the Saudi leadership, we shared the information we obtained on Osama bin Laden with the CIA."

Hello -- Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw -- where are you? How can the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC, & CNN all continue to ignore this story? Why do we not have reporters asking Bill Clinton about this story? Shouldn't the American people be aware that Bill Clinton was offered Osama Bin Laden and turned him down?

Fisking Barbra Streisand: Matt Drudge has posted a hilarious memo from Barbra Streisand to Dick Gephardt. You just have to see it to believe it...

DATE. September 25, 2002
TO: Congressman Dick Gebhardt
FROM Barbra Streisand/Margery Tabankin
RE. Take the Offense

As you know, Barbra Streisand is busy in rehearsals for the performance she's giving on Sunday for the DCCC, so she asked me convey to you her feeling that it is time for the Democrats to get off the defensive and go on the offensive.

This is hilarious! Streisand didn't even bother to write Gephardt herself, she handed it off to her assistant. That must of thrilled Gephardt almost as much as the fact that she spelled his name, "Gebhardt."

"Naturally, Barbra's not surprised to see the Bush administration evoke strong rhetoric about Democrats caring more about their own 'special interests' than protecting the security of the country. Of course, the Republicans will say anything they need to in order to accomplish their own political agenda. Barbra feels that the Democratic Leadership must not continue to take this lying down."

Come on Dick, put the future of your party on the line in the 2002 elections based on what "Yentl" thinks.

"While the Republicans are shouting about the Democrats' special interests, why are the Democrats not saying the same about the Republicans? How can we ignore the obvious influence on the Bush Administration of such special interests as the oil industry, the chemical companies, the logging industry, the defense contractors, the mining industry, and the automobile industry, just to name a few? Many of these industries, run by big Republican donors and insiders, clearly have much to gain if we go to war against Iraq. Barbra urges the Democrats to publicly convey this message to the American people."

Yeah "Gebhardt", why don't you start ranting about how we're really going to war in Iraq to promote the interests of the LOGGING INDUSTRY. Barbra will back you all the way....

While there are serious problems with Iraq and Saddam Hussein, Barbra feels that we can't let this issue become a distraction from the country's domestic problems and the President inability to fully dismantle the Al Queda network. Afterall, Sadam Hussein did not bomb the World Trade Center.

Don't you love the contradictory advice Barbra has for "Gebhardt?" Don't "take this lying down", "publicly convey" the message that we're going to Iraq so we can cut down their trees and build more cars. On the other hand, don't let this "issue become a distraction from the country's domestic problems." That would be a neat political trick for "Gebhardt" to pull off wouldn't it? The last line is just the best...

"Afterall, Sadam Hussein did not bomb the World Trade Center."

...and Hitler didn't bomb Pearl Harbor. But we took him out because we had to do it to win the war. Just like we have to take out the regimes that support terrorism to destroy the global terror network. Of course, you can't expect Barbra to understand that sort of strategic thinking since she apparently believes that Bush should have already fully dismantled the al-Queda network. I can hear her now, "I can't believe Bush hasn't wiped out al-Queda in a year! I made entire movies in less time than that! Al Gore would have gotten it done already. He would have called those Al-Queda boys and given them a good talking to and that would have been that!"

Anyone else find it funny that a memo to "Gebhardt" got into the hands of the press so quickly? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, "Gebhardt" got offended by this memo and made sure it was released to the press because it made Streisand look like an idiot?

Changing The Culture That Produces Terrorism: Arab News is an anti-American & Anti-Semitic paper out of Saudi Arabia that generally posts the sort of offensive spew most people have come to associate with the government controlled press of the Middle-East. However, every once and a while you'll find a nugget in the offal when you're reading Arab News. Here are some quotes from one such nugget....

"The attack on a Hindu temple in Gandhinagar in India's Gujarat state was an act of utter barbarity. It was also, if Muslim militants were responsible as the first indications seem to suggest, an act of sheer lunacy because Muslims will be the victims, possibly in their thousands. ..."

Wait a second -- he's admitting that yes, Muslims could have committed such an atrocity? He's also blaming THE TERRORISTS for the mistreatment of Muslims that may very well occur in India as a result of the attacks? That's a break from the norm. The writer then continues to hammer away at the terrorists...

"A link to Kashmir is more than likely, given the timing of the attack. But it is impossible to begin to understand the train of thought behind the act. Those who carried it out cannot surely have been so stupid as to believe that any good could come out of it. There can be no victors, only victims. Or did they see themselves as the victors? In which case this was the ultimate ego trip: a few minutes of a delusion of victory, at the cost of the corpses of so many, not just the tens of Hindus already killed, but also of Muslims - hundreds? thousands? - who might be killed as well."

Did he just suggest that the attackers were "stupid" if they thought any good could come out of the terrorist attacks? The "delusion of victory" comment is spot on too. After all, you don't win wars by murdering people praying in a temple. The final paragraph is right on target as well...

"There is another, even greater, reason for despair. This barbarity, along with the equally barbarous execution-style murder of six Christian charity workers in Karachi, does unimaginable harm to Islam....There has to be an end to such evil. The victims are not only those who get killed. It is also Islam's good name. That affects every individual Muslim the world over."

He just called terrorism "evil" and described it as a "barbarity" that negatively effects "Islam's good name." I love that because it's all true. You'll also notice that the author didn't give a quick "bloodless" denunciation of terrorism and then move on to describing all the things he thinks are wrong with Pakistan (which is a typical tactic of terrorism apologists.) This is the type of honest and genuine refutation of terrorists and terrorism that I'd love to see regularly in Arab News. Let's hope it starts a trend.

Why I Don't Respect The 'Anti-War' Crowd: To be honest, I don't even respect most of the anti-war crowd that's arguing against invading Iraq. You know why? Because the things they focus on and talk about incessantly don't have anything to do the crisis that's facing us.

Of course, it goes without saying that members of Al-Queda murdered almost 3000 Americans on 9/11. Furthermore, Al-Queda's forces are spread across 60+ nations, some of which are openly hostile to the United States. Moreover, Al-Queda is just one terrorist group out of many that is not friendly to the United States. So even if we eradicated Al-Queda, there would still be a worldwide terrorist network, supported by various rogue regimes that would be capable of funding terrorist groups, training them, and even supplying them with weapons of mass destruction. Soon, these terrorist groups may even have access to nuclear weapons courtesy of Iran and Iraq. Last but not least, many of these terrorist groups have to come to believe (with some justification), that they can influence and change US policy to their liking by murdering our citizens. Over the last decade, we've tried to several different tactics to deal with this threat. Economic sanctions, UN resolutions, offers of economic rewards, limited missile strikes, and diplomatic pressure have all been tried and have all failed while our country and our allies have been hit with more and more terrorist attacks of increasing severity.

Keeping all of this in mind, the "pro-war" crowd has in one form or another contended that there is a clear and present danger to the US and that we need to use military force to destroy al-Queda and the pro-terrorist regimes that refuse to stop supporting terrorism.

On the other hand the anti-war crowd has argued that this is "all about oil." Uh, what? Oh and despite the fact that it's a year after 9/11 we can't do anything until we have a "debate." Huh? Republicans are "politicizing" the war. O...K. "It's the new imperialism!!!" All righty then -- and that solves our problem how? You people are WAR MONGERS! Hello! 9/11, Saddam pursuing nukes, terrorists, those guys??! We want more inspections, sanctions, & diplomacy! That has failed over and over again for more than a decade. Why would anyone think it's going to work now?

This is the big problem I have with the anti-war people. There is a clear and present danger to the United States that in all likelihood will get worse unless some sort of immediate action is taken and the anti-war crowd's solution to that problem is **sound of crickets chirping**. Until the anti-war crowd has something of substance to say about a SOLUTION to the problem we're facing, there's no compelling reason to continue paying attention to their arguments.

Regular Reading: Here are just some of my favorite political pages that I read on a daily basis...

World Net Daily, The Drudge Report, Instapundit, Little Green Footballs, National Review, Frontpage Magazine, Vodka Pundit, Black Sheep News, Real Clear Politics, Lucianne, Town Hall, Newsmax, Andrew Sullivan, Croooow Blog, Jewish World Review, Fox News, & Tim Blair...

If you haven't seen any of these pages before you should give them a look...

Pieces Of Paper Do Not Enforce The Law: Stephen F. Hayes smashes Lynn Woolsey, CEDAW and the UN in two short, simple sentences after his first paragraph...

"CALIFORNIA REPRESENTATIVE Lynn Woolsey wants the United States to sign something she refers to as CEDAW--the United Nations' Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. So she sent out a "dear colleague" letter that reads, in part: "Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, United States, Iran. Which one of these is different from the others??? If you guessed the United States--you're wrong. If you guessed Saudi Arabia, you're right." The Saudis, you see, have signed the treaty. The United States has not.

Some people might conclude that this example proves the worthlessness of U.N.-sponsored paper proclamations. Not Lynn Woolsey."

Exactly =D

Daschle: WAH! We Don't Want To Talk About The War!: Tom Daschle is "very chagrined" with Dick Cheney. It seems the VP was "politicizing" the war...

"I must say that I was very chagrined that the vice president would go to a congressional district yesterday and make the assertion that somebody ought to vote for this particular Republican candidate because he was a war supporter and that he was bringing more support to the president than his opponent," Daschle said Tuesday. "If that doesn't politicize this war, I don't know what does"

Of course, the reason Tom Daschle doesn't want Dick Cheney to talk about that is political. The reason Al Gore gave his big speech about why he doesn't think we should invade Iraq? It was political. Why did the Democrats spend months calling for a "debate" and demanding that Bush go before Congress to ask approval for the war and then complain when he did? For political reasons.

The war is without question a political issue and when there are differences between political candidates on the topic, it should be approached as such. The 'war on terrorism' is on the line here and a slim majority of one party wants to essentially give up on it while the overwhelming majority of the other party wants to fight it to the end. This a huge issue with vast implications for our country and the voters should be aware of the differences between both parties and it should influence their vote. If a United States Senator like Tom Daschle really couldn't deal with that then he'd be in the wrong business -- but the truth is that his complaint is just politics.

**Update**: Now Daschle is mad that Bush had the audacity to tell the truth when he said, "the Democratic-controlled Senate is not interested in the security of the American people." Bush was not only calling it like he saw it, he was right. Setting aside the first couple of months after 9/11, the Democratic Party has contributed a big sack of nothing to the war on terrorism beyond whining, obstructing the President, and generally complaining about every idea the President has come up with to protect the American people. We have Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter all out saying they don't want to continue the 'war on terrorism.' They all want to give it up before we even go into Iraq and just wait for the terrorist attacks to roll in. If the Democrats are interested in the "security of the American people" they might want to start acting like it instead of sitting on the sidelines and carping.

Clinton Turned Down Bin Laden?!? Where Is The Press?!?: I have a request -- no -- a challenge for the Blogosphere. There is a HUGE story that should have been page 1 on every paper in America when it broke in December that has been almost totally ignored by the mainstream press. That story needs to be gotten out to the general public.

You see in 1996, Bill Clinton was offered Osama Bin Laden by Sudan and he said, "no thanks." Yes, five years before 9/11, Bill Clinton allowed al-Queda's #1 guy to walk away. Now, don't you think that's something that people should know about? With all the petty things that have made huge headlines since 9/11 (example: Bush was told terrorists might want to hijack planes), wouldn't you think this would qualify as big news?

As far as I can tell, the story was originally broken in the editorial pages of the LA Times (no direct link available) on Dec 5, 2001 in an editorial called 'Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize' by Mansoor Ijaz. In that article Ijaz claimed that,

"From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere."

Ijaz also claimed that he set up a deal that could have delivered Bin Laden into Clinton's hands in 2000 as well but let's stick to the 1996 deal because there is proof that Ijaz was telling the truth about it. What proof? Why the comments of Bill Clinton himself. Here's the transcript of Bill Clinton's comments to a February business luncheon on New York's Long Island...

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

Newsmax was there and they recorded & transcribed Clinton's comments and they also have an MP3 available if you want to actually hear Clinton say the words.

Now don't you think every American should at least KNOW that Bill Clinton was offered Osama Bin Laden and TURNED HIM DOWN? This is a big story that's getting spiked by the mainstream media and the blogosphere should do something about it. What can you do? Mention this story on your blog. I don't care if you link RWN, Newsmax, or don't link anyone at all, mention the story and put the mainstream media on the spot for ignoring it. All it will take to get this story on the national radar screen is one or two big newspapers splashing it on their front page -- then the rest will have to follow.

So if you think this a big story that the American public deserves to know about, make some noise, write about it, and get it on so many radar screens that the mainstream media will have to report on it...

A lot of people have been puzzled about why Bush hasn't spent more time tying together Iraq and terrorism. There are certainly plenty of ways Bush could do that if he were so inclined. After all, Iraq has long since been considered to be a " state sponsor of terrorism" by the State Department, they also sheltered notorious terrorist Abu Nidal until his mysterious death, Saddam's mistress claimed he met with Bin Laden in 1996, Iraq trained terrorists at the Salman Pak training camp, etc, etc.

So why isn't Bush pushing this angle? First off, he doesn't have push it because Iraq is violating UN resolutions from the Gulf War and is pursuing nukes. So Bush can (and has) made a very strong case for hitting Iraq while keeping the "terrorist talk" in the background.

Why is that important? Because if Bush started pushing the fact that Iraq is a pro-terrorist regime as his main reason for hitting Iraq that would lead to a lot of questions that wouldn't be "helpful" right now as Donald Rumsfeld would say. For example, if we're really hitting Iraq because they're part of the "global terrorist network", wouldn't it make just as much sense (if not more) to hit Iran and Syria for exactly that same reason? It would actually and isn't it funny that Syria and Iran both border Iraq? Why if we took Iraq, we wouldn't have to worry about having bases to hit either of those nations...or if it was necessary, even Saudi Arabia would we? In fact, we could drive tanks right up to their borders or easily make "preemptive" strikes from right next door without having to ask anyone for permission. Funny how it all works out like that isn't it?

Now, do we really want Europe, the UN, and the dictators and Islamo-fascists in the Middle-East starting to think along these lines BEFORE we're in Iraq?

Has Jesse Jackson Been Totally Destroyed?: Only a few years ago Jesse Jackson was a political powerhouse. Whatever they thought of him, few politicians and pundits dared to speak out against him because simply disagreeing with him was treated by some people as a racist act. But today I finally come to the conclusion that Jackson is a spent force. Why? Because of a thread on Fark.

Now at first that may seem kind of silly. Fark isn't a political web page and the political discussions on Fark tend to turn into left-leaning flame wars. But today there was a thread on Fark about Jesse Jackson's criticism of the movie "Barbershop." Now Jackson's criticism of the movie was almost universally panned which isn't necessarily surprising considering that Jackson's remarks were as per usual silly and self-serving. But I became convinced that you could stick a fork in Jackson by some of the comments by lefties in the thread who thought Jackson was so totally and utterly irrelevant that they didn't understand why anyone was even talking about him. To these lefties Jackson has is so discredited, such an obvious failure, such a lunatic, that they think Conservatives are deliberately trying to smear their views by associating them with Jackson. Just look at what they had to say...

Revscat: "Is it just me, or do the neoconservatives seem to obsess over Jesse Jackson? Granted, he's not nearly important as he thinks he is, but it's just that reason that makes me wonder why Limbaugh and all the other neoconservatives biatch about him all the time."

Ironbar: "It's true, most "lefties" are pretty nonplussed about Jesse and discard most of what he says.

If it wasn't for conservatives getting an immediate hard-on every time Jesse opened his mouth, we'd never hear a thing about him."

Dagrippa: "Rev. Jackson is the subject of conservative talk because he is such an easy target. Pure entertainment. See also Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney."

HomerSamson113: "Jesse Jackson is the world's most outspoken hypocrite. He wants everyone to think he's the savior for the black community, when, in reality, he's a money-hungry conservative who will change his views over and over again, as long as he keeps receiving paychecks."

MrGumboPants: "...Think about it.. Jackson only gets in front of the public because certain media outlets choose to put him there. And Fox (being rabidly conservative) can always make room for Jackson putting his foot in his mouth.

In other words, it's a symbiotic relationship. Jackson stays in the public eye, Fox gets ratings while pretending to be shedding the light of truth on stupid liberals. Each needs the other to survive, and neither is doing a thing in the public interest."

Now typically left-wingers will defend the indefensible without question as long as it's coming from someone they perceive to be on "their side." Whether it's Clinton's incessant lying, Chomsky rampant anti-Americanism, or Daschle's constant flip-flopping and obstruction, publicly most lefties will defend them to the end. But not Jackson...at least not anymore. Yeah Jackson may still have a few defenders and he may still get some photo-ops but he's passed his peak and he's rolling out of control down the mountain. His days of being a power player in US politics or even culturally can now officially be declared over.

German Politician Denies Calling George Bush a 'Whore of Zion': Dachau, Germany - In a press conference held in the charming Munich suburb of Dachau, German Justice Minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin [rhymes with watermelon], emphatically denied calling American President George W. Bush a "whore of Zion."

"I was completely quoted out of context," said Frau Daeubler-Gmelin [rhymes with convicted felon]. "What I actually said was 'George Bush is a filthy Jew-loving whore of Zion.' There's a big difference."

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was quick to distance himself from Frau Daeubler-Gmelin's remarks, and in a prepared statement to the press said, "I sincerely regret any offense that the ignorant non-Aryan President Bush may have taken from the remarks of Frau Daeubler-Gmelin, whose pure German blood is unsullied by any racial impurities."

Speaking later at a party rally in Nuremberg, Chancellor Schroedercommented on the recent controversy and said, "There are people in the press, which we all know is controlled by a vast Zionist conspiracy, who claim that Germany is once again descending into racism and intolerance. That is nonsense. Germany is the freest and most democratic country in the world. And anybody who says otherwise will be taken out and shot.

Satire by William Grim from Broken Newz.

Fisking Al Gore: I'm actually happy that Al Gore has now come out so strongly against hitting Iraq. This will help the Republican Party paint the Democrats as Vietnam era peaceniks who aren't serious about defending America (which is largely true by the way except for Zell Miller and a few other Southern Democrats). But let's just look at a few of Gore's comments today...

"If you are going after Jesse James you ought to organize the posse first," Gore said in a speech to the Commonwealth Club of California."

That sounds good but what do you do if the posse says, "Go ahead and let the James Gang burn down your house. That's not our problem." Presumably Al Gore thinks you should sheepishly step aside and let Jesse Hussein and company do what they want. That's a big part of the reason why Gore isn't fit to be sheriff.

"He added, 'We should focus first and foremost on our top priority -- winning the war against terrorism."

Again, this shows not only the difference between Bush and Gore, but the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats on this issue. The Republicans understand that the 'war on terrorism' can't be won without destroying the global terror network of which Iraq is a part. There IS NO war against terrorism without taking out Hussein. But Gore doesn't really care about winning the war, what he wants to do is strategically retreat, call it "peace for our time", and then spin the blame away for the millions of American deaths that would lead to.

"Gore said such an attack would cost American taxpayers "hundreds of billions of dollars,"

How much would it cost us if LA, NYC, DC, and Chicago were all blown to Hell by nukes? Because that would be the end result of letting the global terror network continue to flourish. Furthermore, can you imagine someone suggesting on Dec 23, 1942, "FDR, we better stop fighting WW2 because it's going to cost too much. It's more important that we save money that save millions of American lives..." If Al Gore were alive back then, would he have been the man to say that?

"Gore said such an attack...(may) leave Iraq dangerously unstable"

Is that supposed to be a bad thing considering the alternative is leaving a a maniacal dictator who may soon have nuclear weapons in charge? Keep in mind that this is a man who has used chemical weapons on Iran and on his own people, who has gone to war with the United States, who has tried to assassinate an American President, and who has ties with terrorists. Is that the type of "stability" Al Gore wants?!? Apparently so...

"Gore said such an attack..... would destroy the international goodwill the United States has sought to build since the Sept. 11 attacks"

"International goodwill" and 50 cents will buy you a cup of coffee. Personally, I'd be more concerned about protecting American lives than getting "international goodwill" from the likes of France, Germany, and Syria. Moments of silence are nice, but not so nice that they're worth letting Americans die for them.

One more thing, this whole little speech by Gore shows that he's willing the play political games with American lives. Say what you want about the timing of Bush's announcements about going to the UN and Congress, he's been talking about hitting Iraq for more than half a year. In fact, you can trace the roots of this attack all the way back to his big Sept 20, 2001 speech after 9/11.

On the other hand, Gore is only coming out against hitting Iraq so he can score points with the hard core anti-America, anti-military wing of the Democratic party during the 2004 primaries. You see the rest of the Democratic candidates for President are at least pretending to be for an attack on Iraq. So not only does Gore stand out from the pack, he scores points with the hard-core lefties who'll contribute money and time to his campaign and will turn out on election day. To get those voters, Gore is flip-flopping from his previous position on Iraq.

When Gore was running for President, he had this to say back on May 23, 2000,

"...And we will not let up in our efforts to free Iraq from Saddam's rule. Should he think of challenging us, I would strongly advise against it. As a Senator, I voted for the use of force. As Vice President, I supported the use of force. And if entrusted with the Presidency, my resolve will never waver."

I guess that "never waver" thing only counted if he was elected President? Wavering is apparently A-OK since he lost.

Also, back in February of 2002, "Gore "embraced Mr. Bush's description of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil"

In that speech he also said, "The United States must deal with the threat of Iraq "on our terms," he said. That means U.S. strategy must protect the security and interest of allies like Saudi Arabia. Gore said that once a strategy for Iraq is developed, "we must be prepared to go the limit."

I guess that Al "let's surrender to terrorism" Gore's limit wasn't all that high huh? How amazing is it that when all was said and done, a few hundred votes in Florida may have been the difference between winning the 'war on terrorism' and seeing millions and Americans die because of Al Gore's inaction? America came "this close" to an Al Gore presidency that we may never have recovered from folks. I can't even begin to tell you how lucky America is that the right guy won in 2000.

Steve Earle: Idiot Abroad: Country singer Steve Earle is in Britain soaking up the good vibes from the anti-American crowd for his sympathetic song about 'Jihad' Johnny Bin Walker Lindh. Of course, if you're looking to get a 'Monica' from than the anti-American media then The Independent is as good a place to start as any. From paragraph three...

"The record in question is Jerusalem, Earle's sixth album in as many years, and the first considered response to the attacks of last September by an American artist. Until its recent release, the responses fell into two broad camps: the piteous hand-wringing and heroic posturing of Bruce Springsteen and Neil Young's last albums, or the knee-jerk redneck anger of Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American)", which Earle believes panders to the worst instincts of his countrymen. In all cases, the tragedy was viewed as something that happened to America, rather than as an action with a much wider and more complex context to consider - a striking illustration of the self-obsession afflicting a country whose inhabitants have so little regard for the outside world that fewer than 30 per cent of them have even bothered applying for a passport."

Gee, why would we think 9/11, "happened to America?" Maybe because it did? And what "complex context" is this idiot talking about? That Europeans spent a few days mourning our losses before going back to their grousing about America? Oh and has he considered that maybe we don't have passports because it's not worth our trouble to go see Big "freaking" Ben or the Eiffel Tower if we also have to listen to 398484328 snide comments from Europeans about what they think is wrong with Americans?

"We don't travel outside our own country," agrees Earle. "Most Western European countries have been the most powerful country in the world, and know that it doesn't last for ever, and that there's life after that, and we're still carrying ourselves as if we're gonna be the big dog for ever, and we're pissing people off. The question that we're not asking is, 'What made everybody hate us so much?' I don't think we deserved it [the attack] - no one deserves it - but I think it's a question that needs asking."

Has Steve Earle ever asked himself why so many people hate him? Has the Independent? Has France? Has Germany? Hell, have the governments of Europe asked themselves why so many Americans think that with the exception of Britain, they're all snide, ungrateful, backbiters, who want to ride America's coattails without having to put in their fair share of the risk or treasure? When is someone in Europe going to start asking THAT question?

"So far, his (Earle's) enshrined right to free speech has allowed him to speak his mind openly on such matters; but under the sweeping provisions of the so-called Patriot Act, he could probably be arrested and held without trial for giving aid and succour to the enemy by criticising the President's plans.

That Patriot Act gets more and more powerful every day. Now all you have to do is to criticize the President's plans to be arrested and held without trial. Undoubtably, you'll be hauled away and labotimized by a secret police set up to enforce John Ashcroft's imaginary camp plan. I hope Steve Earle actually believes that garbage because it means he won't come back.

"Boarding his flight from the US, he (Earle) noticed every single such person publicly pulled aside for additional screening, simply, he feels, to make their white, Christian fellow passengers feel safer.

"That's racism, and that's why it's being done, whether they admit it or not," he fumes. "To me, that's un-American. After all, America was built on immigration; the only way we could do what we did as rapidly as we did was by embracing immigrants."

Yeah, we're only screening Middle-Easterners which is why Al Gore, an 86 year old WW2 veteran w/ his Medal of Honor, and this guy all got screened. So airport security could, "make their white, Christian fellow passengers feel safer."

You can read the rest of this idiotic interview here, but I'm not sure you'll be missing much if you don't.

I Get Emails...: Ever wondered what the life of a Conservative blogger is like? Yes I know, the excitement, the money, the women...you don't get any of those things. But you do get emails. Like this one from some guy who was angry about me making fun of white supremacists. Apparently I made the enemies list he'll be reading to his kids at bedtime...

"How can you truley believe what you are saying on your websight? I am a 40 yr old white male with three children. I work hard for a living and it doesent matter how hard I work or how smart I am. All I know is that this is the best time in all of history to be a black male living in the United States. I am a victom of racism by the laws of the elected oficials of the current U S gov't. A white man is 2nd at best to strive to get ahead in this country. I can go on and on but I don't have that much time. You need to get out of your own tiny little world and catch the big picture of what is really happening in the working class world and see what the f*ck is really going on around you. Your mind is totaly warped. This p*sses me off like you wouldn't believe and that is probably what you are trying to do. Get a f*cking life you! *sshole! Worry about the real problems. My children have been raised right and all I can do is hope that they grow up to eliminate *ssholes like you. F*ckyou!!!!"

There there's this...I don't know exactly know what to make of it....

"IT IS A (REAL LIFE ) SHOW

Cliff
XPgod2sed***@netscape.net
Where do you want to go to date me ?
Who didn't stop it even knowing all in advance ?"

Is it spam? Some random nutcase writing me? Weird...

I Told You The Time Magazine Story Was Bogus: A few months ago Time was claiming that there was a "Clinton Plan for a war with Al-Queda" that was given to the Bush administration. I told you that, "the idea that the Clinton administration was ready to go to war against Afghanistan is laughable." I also concluded with this paragraph,

"Now ask yourself how likely it is that Bill Clinton, after eight years of inaction and neglect, was suddenly inspired to start a 'War on Terrorism' by the USS Cole Bombing after ignoring several other attacks of similar or greater magnitude? I think the answer to that question should be obvious...unless you write for Time Magazine."

Well Clinton's national security adviser Sandy Berger has now, "contradicted published reports that the outgoing Clinton administration offered the incoming Bush team a war plan to go after Al Qaeda."

I told you so.

Iraq To Allow Weapons Inspectors Back Unconditionally, With The Following Conditions...: The truth is that this piece of satire isn't all that far from the truth...