More Things To Ponder: -- Don't get too excited since we've had a number of false starts already, but...

"THE US has discovered what it believes is decisive proof of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and taken the material to the US for testing.

Well-informed sources have now told The Weekend Australian that US soldiers made the discovery in Iraq two weeks ago. They believe the material will contain chemical weapons materials."

-- This is something you don't see often enough and it should be applauded...

"Grand Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of the Al-Azhar mosque of Cairo - which is seen as the highest authority in Sunni Islam - said groups which carried out suicide bombings were the enemies of Islam.

...Sheikh Tantawi said Muslim suicide attacks, including those against Israelis, were wrong and could not be justified."

-- I ran across this email on Roger Simon's page...

"Also, wanted to share my thoughts on Iraq. This way's best, as it would've for sure cast a pall on the dinner conversation. But there it is: I think it's rapidly turning to sh*t in Iraq. Reinforcing that belief is the fact that the neo-con bloggers barely want to talk about it: not Sullivan, not LGF, not you. David Warren is the exception & he tries to say things really aren't so bad. But, I fear, they are."

Personally, I don't talk a lot about what's going in Iraq because the same media that was crying "quagmire" during the war puts such a negative spin on everything that it's almost impossible to tell what's really going on. The mainstream media usually talks "growing resistance", how the Iraqis all hate us, the museum is missing 170,000 artifacts, our soldier's morale is shot, etc, etc. Yet polls show the majority of Iraqis want us there and several knowledgable sources (Warren included) say things that contradict the usual negative line. But the poor quality of information overall makes it very difficult to figure out what's really going on. It's like someone in the Soviet Union in the eighties picking through Pravda and trying to figure out what the truth is and what the lies are. Until the quality of the info improves, it's hard to write about what's going on except in relatively general terms.

-- Considering that what Bush said in the SOTU was actually true even though the CIA was uncertain about the conclusion the British reached, Tenet shouldn't be in any trouble. However, he's in the same unenviable position that Trent Lott was. Democrats want a scalp and the GOP doesn't like him very much and wouldn't mind seeing him take a fall. This whole "Niger forgery scandal" is a big sack of nothing that isn't going to hurt Bush, but I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see Tenet crash and burn over it anyway.

-- If this turns out to be solid, it's a huge story that Glenn Reynolds broke before all the big boys...

"One of the lawyers with whom I have been working for the past five weeks had come to me and asked me whether a list of the 600 people closest to Saddam Hussein would be of any value now to the Americans.

The document shows that an Iraqi intelligence officer, Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, assigned to the Iraq embassy in Pakistan, is ''responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group.''

Bush To Personally Verify Future CIA Reports By Scott Ott: In an effort to make sure all of his public statements are accurate, U.S. President George Bush said today that he will personally verify all CIA reports before using them publicly.

"I regret that I didn't go to Niger to check out that uranium sale to Iraq story," said the President. "Today I deputized myself as an agent in the CIA. I'll go on deep-cover missions, onto foreign soil, sometimes behind enemy lines to verify all crucial information."

An unnamed Democrat Congressman praised the President for his decision.

"It's important that the President speak only when he has first-hand knowledge," the source said. "He needs to emulate the impeccable record of Congress in this regard."

If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.

My 11 Favorite Women Bloggers: Just for the heck of it, here are my favorite blogs done by women -- in order.

**Just as a side note, these sorts of lists change all the time depending on my mood, how often their page is being updated, etc. So don't take it personally if you were left off or didn't rank as high as you thought you should.**

11) On The Third Hand
10) A Gaggle Of Gals (And One Guy)
9) Transcended
8) Up Yours! ...And Other Helpful Tips
7) Courtney
6) Cut On The Bias
5) Right We Are
4) Electric Venom
3) Betsy's Page
2) A Small Victory
1) Rachel Lucas

An Interesting Ethical Question: Once this comes into being, it will revolutionize warfare & perhaps the world...

"The U.S. military's research wing is seeking to develop a new generation of unmanned aircraft able to blow up terrorist camps or other targets anywhere in the world, without relying on overseas bases or slow-moving manned warplanes.

"In a matter of hours - sometimes in a matter of minutes - any target in the world can be struck," said ABCNEWS military consultant Anthony Cordesman."

Imagine how militarily useful that would be, especially given the advances in intelligence technology that are likely to be in place by then. For example, take Liberia. It's entirely possible that if we got into a similar situation 20 years from now, the US President could pick up the phone and call someone like Charles Taylor and say, "You have 24 hours to relinquish power. Do it or die." Then if Taylor didn't do as he was told, two hours later he'd be obliterated. Taylor would have no chance to defend himself, no way to strike back against Americans on another continent, and not one American life would be at risk.

That leads to an interesting question -- would it be immoral to use this technology to help bring freedom to other nations? For example, would it be wrong to make the same kind of phone call I just talked about to Egypt, Zimbabwe, Cuba, & Iran? It might not be plausible in every case (China has nukes, North Korea has mass artillery in range of Seoul even if they get rid of their nukes), but it could be very useful. Consider that I (and many Conservatives) don't support risking American blood and treasure in Liberia since we have no interests there. However, if I could take care of Taylor just by pressing a button, without having to risk American lives, he'd be gone or dead in short order -- and he probably wouldn't be the only dictator hitting the road (Castro comes quickly to mind).

Having that sort of power concentrated here in the US will pose interesting ethical questions, but I'm glad we're going to be the nation wrestling with those issues and not a nation like France or China.

More Niger Forgery Spin From The Press: Since the bogus document from Niger is hot right now, I thought I'd tackle a ridiculous piece of left-wing spin from CBS that actually comes close to being pure anti-Bush propaganda. It's titled, "Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False". Those are pretty strong words right? Well, let's dig into it. Here's how it starts out...

"Senior administration officials tell CBS News the President's mistaken claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa was included in his State of the Union address -- despite objections from the CIA.

CIA officials warned members of the President's National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa."

I love controversial statements from anonymous sources. Especially when they directly contradict other statements from other anonymous sources. As I noted in
Rewriting History To Attack Bush On Iraq, the Washington Post's anonymous sources say exactly the opposite of what the CBS' sources are saying....

"A key component of President Bush's claim in his State of the Union address last January that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program -- its alleged attempt to buy uranium in Niger -- was disputed by a CIA-directed mission to the central African nation in early 2002, according to senior administration officials and a former government official. But the CIA did not pass on the detailed results of its investigation to the White House or other government agencies, the officials said."

Since the anonymous sources directly contradict each other, either the Washington Post or CBS News is pulling a Jayson Blair or getting snookered by their source. But just for the heck of it, let's just assume that the CBS News sources are telling the truth. Here's the next thing CBS News wrote,

"The White House officials responded that a paper issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: "Iraq has ... sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that's how it was delivered."

Woah, stop the presses. CBS News seems to be telling us that the forged document from Niger had nothing to do with the SOTU speech, that the CIA signed off on Bush's speech, and that it was entirely based on British intelligence, which the Brits still stand by to this very day.

So where exactly is the "false info" supposed to be here? Hell, they should have called the article "Bush Exonerated By New Information." But no, that's not the spin they wanted to put on it. Here's what their rational is...

"The statement was technically correct, since it accurately reflected the British paper. But the bottom line is the White House knowingly included in a presidential address information its own CIA had explicitly warned might not be true."

So let me get this straight; what Bush said was "technically correct", but the CIA warned the White House it "might not be true" even though they signed off on the SOTU speech as it was written? How the heck do you get "Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False" out of all that?

Deliberately misleading articles like this one are a perfect example of why Conservatives will tell you that the media tilts to the left.

***Update***: It will still take it a little while to fade away, but Condi just killed this "scandal" as dead as a doorknob by saying, "the CIA cleared President Bush's State of the Union address in its entirety, including the now-controversial sentence stating that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Africa."

It's pretty hard to argue that Bush somehow manipulated the truth about this or that the CIA told Bush this information was false given that the CIA actually read and cleared the speech beforehand.

***Update #2***: John Cole from Balloon Juice points out all the things that the left is trying to make you believe based on this silly little "scandal" they're trying to drum up.

***Update #3***: CBS has now changed the title of this article to, "Bush Knew Iraq Info Was Dubious." I guess too many people were calling them on their ridiculous anti-Bush spin...

CIA Director George Tenet confirms what Rice & Bush have been saying...

"Let me be clear about several things right up front," he said. "First, CIA approved the president's State of the Union address before it was delivered. Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my agency. And third, the president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound."

"This should not have been the test for clearing a presidential address," the statement continued. "This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed."

Rewriting History To Attack Bush On Iraq: If you picked up a paper in the last week or so, you probably got the impression that George Bush spent a year demanding an Iraqi invasion based on claims that Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons with uranium bought in Niger. But now that the war is over, we've found out that it was all a lie & there were never any weapons of mass destruction to begin with. So far, nobody has suggested putting Saddam back in power, apologizing, and sending him a fruit basket, but just give them time.

Of course, that wasn't how it actually happened. While the Bush administration certainly talked extensively about weapons of mass destruction, they also continuously discussed Iraq's breaking of UN Resolutions, freedom for the Iraqi people, and Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda & terrorism. But I'm sure many of Bush's critics were too busy screaming about a "war for oil" & "US imperialism" to pay attention to what the Bush administration was actually saying; so we'll have to forgive them. (Cont)

Posse Power By Frank J.: Whatever happened to the posse? Used to be whenever something went wrong, a group of angry people with guns would get together and take care of it. Nowadays, it always seems the answer is to sit on one's lazy ass and either ignore it or call the police. Well, I'm tired of that; I think it's time to bring back the posse.

Think of all the advantages to the posse:

* It's an outdoor activity: Nothing like getting fresh air when walking around angry with guns.

* It involves exercise: Exercise comes in the form of walking... and sometimes punching and kicking.

*It involves brainwork: You have to figure out who the perpetrator is to a 55% degree of certainty before you rough him up, and that takes detective work.

* It helps you meet people in your community: Either from them joining the posse or you roughing them up.

* It's an excuse to openly carry guns: Guns are cool.

A posse to me sounds like the American way: people taking things into their own hands. Well, next homeowner's association meeting, I'm going to bring up the idea of the posse committee, which I will head. Something goes wrong in our neighborhood, people come talk to me and I'll get together a group of considered citizens to handle it. Chair missing from the cabana? When we find out who took it, he'll wish he had never been born. Someone trample through my neighbors prized begonias? One we take out his kneecaps, he won't be trampling through anything no more. Something knock over a trashcan at night. Probably raccoons, but it could be ninjas. Better get the posse together.

I think I'll take my shotgun, my .45, and my samurai sword (in case it is ninjas), and then I get a big group armed to the teeth and start questioning people.

"What do you know, kid?"

"I just learned my ABC's today, mister."

I pick the kid up by his collar. "Don't get wise with me! What do you know about that trashcan getting knocked over last night?"

"You're a mean and scary man!"

I squint my eyes. "You just think I'm mean and scary now."

Man, that sounds so cool. And think of how great a posse will be in places where there is actual crime. Maybe I could write a book on posse etiquette to help other people start their own posse, putting forth rules on how to alternate who gets to do the roughing up so that no one feels left out (the main part of a posse is making friends). Why hasn't anyone brought up this idea before? Oh yeah, because only I am super-smart enough to have thought of it.

Hey, I hear Saddam is still on the loose and worth 25 million dollars. Anyone interested in getting a posse together and go finding him?

If you enjoyed this satire by Frank J., you can read more of his work at IMAO.

Dusty Baker Worried About President's Africa Trip By Scott Ott: Chicago Cubs manager Dusty Baker said he's concerned that U.S. President George Bush's pale skin pigment might cause problems for him during his current tour of African nations.

"He should have sent Colin Powell or Condi Rice," said Mr. Baker, whose recent comments about the superior ability of Blacks to withstand heat have earned him the respect of diversity advocates nationwide. The baseball skipper has now expanded his teaching on the value of epidermal pigmentation.

"Historically, whites prefer cold regions because their pale skin provides better camouflage against the snow," said Mr. Baker. "But Mr. Bush is going to stick out like a sore thumb over in Botswana. To a lion or a cheetah, our commander in chief looks like a big piece of white meat on Thanksgiving."

If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.

I Stand Corrected, This Is The Worst Forum Thread Ever: The first ACPOTI articles I ever did was called, "The Most Idiotic Commentary Ever. But that one isn't even in the same ball park as these comments that I found at a website called "Osama Bin Laden -- Messenger Of Peace, Prophet Of Change". You just have to read them to believe them. Here are all 7 posts from the thread called "kill the enemy"...

redvenom: The only enemy is jew people. Fight them and we are the masters

Ravus: What about the Christians? The liberals? The feminists? The capitilists? This is one of the most over-simplified statements I've ever seen, and completely false. Kill the Jews and you still have many other groups to take their place.

Gein: What we need is another holocaust, not just a Jewish holocaust, but also a Christian, Muslim, liberal, feminist, capitalist holocaust. First you would have to get past all of the anti-racists and stupid political parties. Instead of that, you'd have to go over all of their heads. At first even the most liberal people would want the Jews being killed, as if it were their own idea. Until we started killing them...

RejectHumanity: The Jews need to get the f*ck out of the West Bank. The f*cking US need to get the f*ck out of every other f*cking country they occupy. And Tony F*cking Blair needs to be a f*cking man and stop letting George Bush use the UK as a f*cking backup whenever he wants. This will never happen though, because Israel practically runs the US Government and thus runs most of the "free" world.

The only credible option is acts of unspeakable terror, en masse.

Hail Misery!

hateplough: Kill the english.... then were all ok!

(I am going to kill George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, as my final act on this earth. - Hateplough)

Hannibal88: quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RejectHumanity:
The only credible option is acts of unspeakable terror, en masse.!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now you're talking. Ovens for everyone!

tod: Massive gassing of Jews and Christians will not only eliminate many problems but suggest a forcible separation of the cultures/races.

===

Hat tip to RWN reader Chris Talbot for pointing this website out.

Give Dusty Baker A Break -- No Really: Dusty Baker latest comments are drawing a lot of heat. Last night Joe Scarborough had a guest on who thought he should be fired, Rush Limbaugh -- although more bemused than angry -- spent quite a bit a time on Baker yesterday and the editorials are flying fast & furious. Here's what Baker actually said...

"You have to pretend that you're a construction worker out there. You have no choice. It's easier for me. It's easier for most Latin guys and it's easier for most minority people. Most of us come from heat.

(Blacks') skin color is more conducive to heat than it is for lighter skin people, right? You don't see brothers running around burnt. Yeah, that's fact. I'm not making this stuff up. Right? You don't see some brothers walking around with white stuff on their ears and noses."

First off, let's be honest here -- is anyone offended? I'm certainly not and I really can't imagine that there are a lot of white people out there who are upset that Dusty Baker doesn't think they can take the heat as well people with darker skins. After all, it's not as if Baker went on some sort of malicious Louis Farrakhan style rant about white devils.

Of course, what a lot of people are actually cheesed off about is that there's a "double standard". White people (think Jimmy the Greek) are held to one standard and blacks are held to another. But hasn't Baker been hammered for his comments in more than a few places? Moreover, you have to admit that the old 'double standard' is slowly fading away. For example, I remember back in the eighties when just criticizing Jesse Jackson was enough to produce knee-jerk shrieks of "racism". But today, Jackson is commonly blasted as a shakedown artist & Al Sharpton is laughed at as a clown -- well at least in the Conservative media. So things are getting better on that front.

So given all that, why not cut Dusty Baker a little slack?

No Special Favors For Soviet Canuckistan: I have to admit that I have been "underwhelmed" by the Canadians help in the war on terrorism, so much so that I, like a lot of Americans, no longer look at Canada the same way. Before 9/11, I put Canada in the same class as Britain, Australia, & Israel -- they were a friendly nation that America could count on when the going got tough. But now? Canada has gone from being a "friend" to an "acquaintance" that happens to be to our North.

Back in May, I wrote this about our erstwhile ally...

"As far as I'm concerned, America has no friends that are not with us in the war on terrorism and Canada is not with us. They haven't been serious about border security, they didn't support us in Iraq, and now they're surreptitiously showing their support for Hizbollah. I guess as long as the planes are flying into buildings in New York and Washington instead of Toronto and Montreal, they figure it's not their problem. Well that's fine, let Soviet Canuckistan take that attitude, but don't expect any favors or special treatment from us. Favors are for friends, not for nations that can't figure out which side they're on in the war on terrorism."

Apparently there are more than a few people in the House of Representatives who share my view that Canada should no longer, "expect any favors or special treatment from us." This article will explain what I mean...

"Sweeping "Buy-America" provisions in proposed U.S. defence-spending legislation could cost Canadian defence and aerospace companies billions of dollars in lost contracts and throw thousands of their employees out of work, Canadian and U.S. industry officials warn.

...Mr. Cyr said the measures, if implemented, could result in layoffs of 13,000 to 20,000 defence-industry workers, most of them in high-technology jobs in Ontario and Quebec."

Should Canada be punished for not giving us the support we deserve in the war on terrorism? No, that was their decision to make. But given that Canada isn't with us in the war on terrorism, do they deserve any sort of special exemptions? Not in my book...not anymore.

The Democratic Underground Post Of The Day -- The 9/11 Poll: I love the Democratic Underground, not just because they produce lots of great material, but because I think they give you a pretty good idea of what the left is thinking & talking about. These guys represent the Ted Rall, Noam Chomsky, Mark Morford, Molly Irvins, & Eric Alterman wing of the Democratic party and quite frankly, they're more than a little bit deranged. Maybe that seems like a strong word to use, but what else can you call the results of this poll about 9/11 in the DU forums?

All the questions are slanted against Bush -- which is fine, since we know DU isn't exactly claiming to be fair and unbiased. But out of 160 response to the question, "9-11 was...", we see 32 votes (20%) saying....

"9-11 was a premeditated attack by BushCo and/or its allies in the MIC specifically designed to amass power and justify conquest."

Another 79 votes (49%) say...

"9-11 was an attack by "Al Qaeda", which BushCo knew was coming but stood down and let it happen so it could amass power and justify conquest."

So out of 160 people who participated in this poll, 111 (69%) are tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy freaks who either believe Bush took down the WTC or deliberately allowed it to happen. Scary as it may seem, I think they're descending deeper into psychosis as the Bush presidency goes on...

If It Can't be Solved by Kill'n Foreigners, It Can't be Solved By Frank J.: I haven't said much about the conflict in Iraq in a while, as there isn't much that is funny about the current situation where the troops are getting attacked every day through guerilla tactics. In response, President Bush told the terrorists, "Bring it on!" and this made the Democrats whine like all 'ell. So, to get some comment on this situation, I turned to Buck the Marine:

Hi, Buck the Marine here. Getting some stability in Iraq will probably not be an easy thing as there are still many foreigners in Iraq who are alive who shouldn't be. They think they can attack American troops, and that is a big miscalculation on their part - considering, of course, that the foreigners like not being dead. Some people think we can stop them if we can prove Saddam is all blowed up. You see, Saddam is a really evil man - he's like extra-foreign - and making sure he's dead would be very helpful to peace and discourage his supporters. Well, while I think it would be great to kill Saddam (just as I think it's great to kill any evil foreigner), I also believe that attacks can be stopped without it. Personally, I've never known a diplomatic situation that can't be solved be killing more foreigners, and I think that's just what we have to do here. Just like, if a dog does something bad such as chewing up a shoe, getting on the furniture, or failing to bite a hippy, you would train him by hitting him on the nose with a rolled up newspaper, you train foreigners from doing something bad by kill'n 'em. Eventually, they will say, "By doing this bad thing, Americans kill us, so we should stop." Now, it's now easy to train foreigners, as it takes time, energy, bullets, and stabbing, but it's worth the effort to help keep our troops safe.

Some people are angry at Bush for telling the bad guys to, "Bring it on," but that seems perfectly fine to me. We don't like the foreigners hiding around and waiting to attack us; instead, we like them out in the open where we can kill them good. Currently, many troops are going days without a chance to kill foreigners, and that is hard on their morale. Now, personally, I wouldn't have said things exactly the way Bush did; what I usually yell out to foreigners is "You die now!" or, to be more clear, "You die now 'cause you foreign!" That's just me, though, and everyone has their own style of dealing with evil foreigners.

Anyway, God please watch over our troops out there and keep them safe, and, if it so pleases You, smite a foreigner or two. But don't kill too many; that's our job. Ooh-rah!

If you enjoyed this excellent foreign policy advice / satire from Frank J., you can read more of his work at IMAO.

Is Mitt Romney A Jerk For Saving People's Lives?: Remember when Bill Frist stopped and helped some people who had been thrown from their vehicles? Frist may have saved lives, but some of the people at the Democratic Underground took the opportunity to bash Frist and claim that the whole thing was staged. I found the whole thing to be so ridiculous that I actually wrote it up in the ACPOTI section.

Well, now Mitt Romney & his sons helped "rescu(e)a family whose boat sank in Lake Winnipesaukee" and believe or not, there are actually Massachusetts Democrats taking the opportunity to publicly criticize him. Check out the quotes...

...``There are lots of people drowning in the commonwealth right now who would certainly welcome a rescue,'' said Rep. Jay R. Kaufman (D-Lexington).

``Mitt Romney only chooses to run for office from Massachusetts - he doesn't vacation here,'' said Democratic Party spokeswoman Jane Lane."

All of those snide comments were prompted by, "Romney and two of his sons (leaping) onto Jet Skis and pluck(ing) members of a New Jersey family and their dog out of dangerous waters Saturday night."

Honestly, who do those Democrats think they're impressing by taking shots like that at Romney given the circumstances? It makes them look small, petty, partisan, & undignified and I can't imagine that those types of attacks would appeal to anyone except the most rabid partisans.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, they seem to have settled on a strategy of mad dog attacks on Republicans come hell or high water. But politically, that's a mistake. A sophisticated politico knows when to "hug" his opponent on a winning issue or failing that, at least has the good sense to keep his mouth shut. Here's an example of what I'm talking about from the article,

"Even some Democrats piled onto the kudos wagon. ``When somebody's drowning, we're not Democrats or Republicans,'' Rep. Eric T. Turkington (D-Falmouth) said. ``I'm impressed that we have a governor who can do that kind of thing.''

Now, who sounds more likable, Eric T. Turkington or Jay 'There are lots of people drowning in the commonwealth' Kaufman whose quote was mentioned a little earlier in the post? Which one sounds more like a statesman and which one sounds like a "nattering nabob of negativism" who'd probably criticize fluffy kittens if Romney said he liked them?

Voters don't like negativity & excessive partisan attacks from their government officials. I'm sure that those Massachusetts Democrats will get that message soon enough and I suspect the much of the Democratic Party will once again be taught that lesson at the ballot box in 2004.

***Update***: Hat tip to Betsy's Page for finding this story.

Why Some On The Left Support Going To Liberia, But Not Iraq: Even someone who doesn't follow politics that closely would have to sense something askew in the contradictory positions taken by Democratic note-worthies like Jessie Jackson & Howard Dean on Iraq & Liberia. Both men were strongly opposed to invading Iraq, yet favor using our military to intervene in Liberia, ostensibly on humanitarian grounds.

But if this was really about doing good works, both Jackson and Dean should be huge supporters of the Iraqi invasion. After all, Hussein and his children raped, tortured and enslaved the Iraqi people, gassed and slaughtered dissenters, and filled the countryside with mass graves. In fact, freeing the almost 25 million Iraqis who were pinned beneath Saddam's iron boot was an act of compassion that far surpasses interceding in little Liberia, population 3 million.

So why were Jackson, Dean, & so many others on the left rabidly opposed to going to Iraq, while supporting sending US troops to Liberia? Some have suggested that it's pure politics and that they merely want to appeal to the black vote in the US. That has a ring of truth to it, but I don't think it entirely explains things. It also goes without saying that pure partisanship plays a part. Iraq was "Bush's war" and anything Bush supports will be opposed by many on the left. But again, I think that's just another contributing factor, not the root of the anti-Iraq/pro-Liberia crowd's beliefs.

In reality, what we're really seeing on display here are some of the rarely talked about core principles of foreign policy that the left in America has embraced at least since the days of George McGovern.

You see the American left has a very different approach to using the military than the American right. Liberals believe that using America's military to further American interests is immoral. Moreover, the idea that an American President would decide to use American troops to further American interests is so repugnant to the left that any good that might come out of that exercise of American power seems insignificant by comparison. So to lefties, using America's military in places like Bosnia & Liberia is good because we have no real interests there, while using our military in places like Iraq & Grenada is bad -- even if we do good work there as well -- because we also benefit by our actions.

In addition, the American left strongly believes in a global community. So much so that were they able to get away with it, the majority of American liberals would be happy to give the UN veto power over when & how we could use our troops. For many on the left, being popular in Europe & at the UN trumps everything else -- including the security of the American people.

Given that these views are commonplace on the left, one almost wishes that mere petty politics was causing people to say "no to Iraq" & "yes to Liberia." Regrettably, that's not the case.

Joke Of The Day: An American, a Dutchman and a Frenchman are all in Saudi Arabia, sharing a smuggled crate of booze when, all of a sudden, Saudi police rush in and arrest them. The mere possession of alcohol is a severe offense in Saudi Arabia, so for the terrible crime of actually being caught consuming the booze, they are all sentenced to death!

However, after many months and with the help of very good lawyers, they are able to successfully appeal their sentences down to life imprisonment. By a stroke of luck, it was a Saudi national holiday the day their trial finished, and the extremely benevolent Sheikh decided they could be released after receiving just 20 lashes each of the whip.

As they were preparing for their punishment, the Sheik announced: "It's my first wife's birthday today, and she has asked me to allow each of you one wish before your whipping."

The Dutchman was first in line, he thought for a while and then said: "Please tie a pillow to my back."

This was done, but the pillow only lasted 10 lashes before the whip went through. When the punishment was done he had to be carried away bleeding and crying with pain. The Frenchman was next up.

After watching the Dutchman in horror he said smugly: "Please fix two pillows to my back." But even two pillows could only take 15 lashes before the whip went through again and the Frenchman was soon led away whimpering loudly (as they do).

The American was the last one up, but before he could say anything, the Sheikh turned to him and said: "You are from a most beautiful part of the world and your culture is one of the finest in the world. For this, you may have two wishes!"

"Thank you, your Most Royal and Merciful highness", the American replied. "In recognition of your kindness, my first wish is that you give me not 20, but 100 lashes."

"Not only are you an honorable, handsome and powerful man, you are also very brave". The Sheikh said with an admiring look on his face. "If 100 lashes is what you desire, then so be it. "And your second wish, what is it to be?" the Sheikh asked.

The American replied: "Tie the French B*stard to my back."

This joke was first found at Common Sense & Wonder.

RWN's Guide To Raising Your Dog: Everybody who has been reading RWN for any significant amount time knows that I love dogs. I've explained why they're better pets than cats, brought you the day in the life of a puppy, featured an Amazing Japanese Dog Translator, and I even explained how puppies could help us win the war on terrorism.

But now, after publishing our award winning, acclaimed, useful, reviled Guide to Childcare, we here at RWN thought it would be a great idea to publish a guide to raising your dog based on how I've raised my half-Jack Russell Terrier, Patton.

A Few Things To Ponder: Here are some things I wanted to mention that probably weren't quite developed enough to merit their own posts...

-- I don't have a problem with keeping the name of rape victims out of the media to avoid stigma, but why should their accusers be given the same courtesy? Does their reputation not suffer as well because they're being accused of rape? I bring this up since Kobe Bryant now stands accused. Is he guilty -- is he innocent -- I don't know. But if they're going to keep the woman's name quiet, Bryant's name shouldn't be revealed either.

-- Howard Dean has picked up a lot of momentum by winning the moveon.org primary and I can't say that displeases me. First off, I think he's unelectable -- in fact the campaign commercials practically write themselves...

(In The South) "Howard Dean said signing gay civil unions into law was the 'most important event in my political life' -- does Howard Dean represent North Carolina (fill in the Southern state) values?" Then of course, there's "Can we trust Howard Dean to defend America?" You have to love Dean as an opponent for Bush.

Perhaps better yet, Dean may push Bush to the RIGHT on a couple of issues. Dean has an excellent record on gun rights and on balancing the budget. That could mean that Bush will feel compelled to perhaps introduce a Balanced Budget Amendment or really beat the drum for the NRA crowd in order to keep Dean from stealing any voters away. That would be a big plus.

-- A lot of people on the right don't like Ann Coulter. Want to know why? Here's a quote from Coulter about Joe McCarthy that could just as easily be applied to Annie herself...

"McCarthy was a popularizer, a brawler. Republican elitists abhor demagogic appeals to working-class Democrats. Fighting like a Democrat is a breach of etiquette worse than using the wrong fork. McCarthy is sniffed at for not playing by Marquis of Queensbury Rules -- rules of engagement demanded only of Republicans."

I believe the Conservatives who don't like Coulter have a problem with her largely because she "Fight(s) like a Democrat." I for one am glad we have her around because she hammers home some very important points and brings them to the public's attention in a way few others can.

-- This is the first time I've heard a full and complete explanation for why the power isn't on in Baghdad yet. Apparently they're having the same sort of problems California did -- they just don't have enough juice to go around...

"The two also conceded that the electric power level in Baghdad was now lower than before the invasion of Iraq earlier this year because reconstruction officials were using improvements to the national grid to distribute more power to the rest of the country.

"And as we have brought the system back on line, we have tried to get more equitable in the distribution of that power. So what you're seeing here is the people of Baghdad are receiving less than they did before, but about 80 percent of the population (of Iraq) is receiving more."

-- Byron York points which political party really has the support of the "little guys" and which party is really "party of the rich"...

"A new study by the Center for Responsive Politics found that in the last election cycle, people who gave less than $200 to politicians or parties gave 64 percent of their money to Republicans. Just 35 percent went to Democrats. On the other hand, the Center found that people who gave $1 million or more gave 92 percent to Democrats - and a whopping eight percent to Republicans."

-- David Warren explains Bush's "Bring em on" comment and a couple of benefits of having our troops in Iraq that have not often been discussed...

"What the media, and U.S. Democrats affect not to grasp, is that the soldiers are now replacing targets that otherwise would be provided by defenceless civilians, both in Iraq and at large. The sore thumb of the U.S. occupation -- and it is a sore thumb equally to Baathists and Islamists, compelling their response -- is not a mistake. It is carefully hung flypaper...

...At the moment it appears that most of the infiltration of Iraq is coming from the west, through Syria, and consists of Lebanese-based Hizbullah elbowing their way into Saddam's old territory. Their intention is to do to the U.S. Army in Iraq what they did to the Marines in Beirut in 1983. The chief source of both men and materiel is what Gal Luft has called "Hizbullahland" -- the 1,000 square kilometre patch, that Hizbullah now rules under Syrian protection, which was formerly Israel's security enclave in southern Lebanon (until they withdrew in a peace initiative in the year 2000)."

I hate to see our troops in Iraq under fire, but better to have the terrorists fighting and dying against our military in Iraq rather than slaughtering our civilians here on the home front. Moreover, if Hizbollah attacks our men, it proves that they're enemies and it gives us every reason to swoop in and slaughter them (or to make Syria do it rather than risk our wrath).

Dem Candidates Try Versions of Bush Taunt By Scott Ott: After seeing the news coverage that U.S. President George Bush generated last week with his "bring 'em on" comment regarding Iraqi terrorists, several Democrat presidential candidates are testing their own versions of a brash taunt.

"There are some who feel that the conditions are such that they can attack us [in Iraq]," Bush said. "My answer is: Bring 'em on. We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."

In an effort to appear strong on defense and tough internationally, the Democrat hopefuls have put several dozen macho phrases before focus groups this week, including the following.

Howard Dean: "My answer is: Bring 'em home. We're ashamed that we used force to free the Iraqi people."

Al Sharpton: "My answer is: Bring in da noise. Bring in da funk."

John Kerry: "My answer is: I'm a Vietnam veteran. Need I say more?"

John Edwards: "My answer is: Mister, you'll be hearing from my attorney. Wait...I am an attorney. Well then, you'll be getting a terse letter from me if you don't cease and desist."

Dick Gephardt: "I'm issuing an executive order to stop these attacks."

Carol Mosely-Braun: "Is this thing on? Can you hear me now? Am I still running for president?"

Dennis Kucinich: "Back off, or I'll do the same thing to you that I did to Cleveland when I was mayor."

Joe Lieberman: "Look within yourself and answer this question: Is it right to shoot our troops?"

Bob Graham: "My answer is: I disavow anything Franklin Graham says about Muslims. I am not related to Franklin or Billy Graham."

If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.

Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines Review: I have admit that I thought Arnold had jumped the shark a long time ago. Sure "Conan the Barbarian", "The Terminator", and "Predator" were all classic action movies, but "Total Recall" back in 1990 was the last Arnold Movie that I really liked a lot. Sure "The 6th Day" & "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" weren't bad, but Arnold has also pumped out a lot of stinkers like "Jingle All the Way", "Batman & Robin", "Collateral Damage", "Juinor", "The End of Days", & "The Last Action Hero" since then. In short, you have to dig through a lot of dirt to find Arnold's diamonds in the rough (of course, it could be worse, Arnold hasn't fallen as far as Sylvester Stallone).

So given all that, I wasn't exactly counting the days until "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" was released. But after seeing the movie, I have to say that not only did surpass expectations, but I honestly thought this was a better movie than "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" -- although this movie certainly aped the plot of the previous movie in the series. As in the 2nd movie, a Terminator played by Arnold is sent back in time to stop another terminator from murdering John Connor and his liutenants. Of course, this requires lots of rolling firefights & terminator vs. terminator brawls which I found quite enjoyable.

Speaking of the terminators, Schwarzenegger was well served by being more of a mix between the relentless killer he was in the first movie and the sort of overly friendly to the point of being goofy version he played in movie two. Arnold got off a number of funny lines while still coming off as a killing machine. Moreover, the new Terminator played by Kristana Loken made an excellent villan. As remorseless as she was sexy, Loken played her part well.

There were a lot of other things to like about the movie. John Connor (played by Nick Stahl) & Kate (Claire Danes) both play likable characters who make you care whether they live or die, the movie has no "dead spots", the action is outstanding, and the plot while similar to T2, will throw some twists at you that you don't expect.

All in all, I was very pleased with this movie. It's an excellent action flick that anyone who enjoyed the first and second Terminator movies will certainly enjoy this time as well. Thumb way up....

***Update***: I should have mentioned "True Lies" as one of Arnold's quality movies since "Total Recall" although I still think "Total Recall" was a better movie. Furthermore, I was not a huge fan of T2. Not that it was a bad movie, but I really thought they made Arnold's character too "cutesy" for my taste.

The Best Quotes From Ann Coulter's 'Treason': I read Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism this week-end and it's typical Coulter. Lot's of acidic rhetoric aimed at liberals backed up with a heaping helping of research, all written in Coulter's electric style.

Coulter also made an attempt to rehabilitate Joe McCarthy's reputation in this book and she did a pretty good job of it. Not that McCarthy was a saint, but after reading what Coulter had to say, you definitely come away with the impression that McCarthy performed a great service for our country by going after all the Communist spies and dupes that riddled our government. I certainly can't condone everything Joe McCarthy did, but things could have turned out much worse for our country in the Cold War if Tail Gunner Joe wouldn't have been on the job.

Enough talk about the book, enjoy the venom!