Misc Commentary For July 18th: A few things worth talking about that didn't merit their own posts...

-- Here's more info from an intelligence assessment by the CIA last October that backs the Bush admin position on the SOTU speech flap...

"The report asserts that Baghdad "if left unchecked...probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

It also cites unsubstantiated reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from three African countries: Niger, Somalia and "possibly" Congo."

-- Ever notice that the only time the left ever seems to care about how much something costs is when it concerns giving people more of their own money back via tax cuts or defending our country?

-- You're going to see all kinds of Poll Numbers between now and the 2004 elections. Until they start breaking things down state by state, there are two particular types of polls I think are worth focusing on. Bush's overall approval rating & his numbers vs. specific numbers. If Bush is above 50% approval, he's going to win unless there's some sort of major third party challenge that siphons off his votes. Also, look at his numbers vs. particular Democrats. Bush isn't going to running against some ideal Democrat, he'll likely be running against Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, or Lieberman, so watch the numbers when he goes head to head vs. those candidates. Last but not least, don't be surprised to see Bush behind at some point or below 50%. That's just part of the game.

-- This is good news for the country and if it turns out to be true, it will make Bush VERY difficult to knock off in 2004,

"JOHN SNOW and Alan Greenspan gave a strikingly upbeat assessment of the US economy this week. The US Treasury Secretary said in an exclusive interview with The Times that revival in the US is already making progress and is set to continue into next year. "The American economy is coiled like a spring and ready to go," he said. Mr Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, told Congress that the country could be on the verge of a period of extended growth."

-- I agree with this quote about the homeless 110%...

"The ultimate problem of these street people is their addiction," said City Councilman Jim Kenney. "If I fell down on the street and split my head open and the rescue squad came and saw that I was unconscious, would they ask me if I wanted to go to the hospital? No. They'd take me to the hospital and fix me. Well, these people are broken, too.

"But instead of taking them before a compassionate community court judge who would compel them receive proper treatment, we force our police to ask them if they want treatment. If they say no, they're right back out living on the street. So the homeless problem is like a hamster wheel. It just keeps going around and around. It never ends because we are unwilling to end it."

The majority of people who are homeless in America are either alcoholics, junkies, or people with mental disorders. These people have let their lives fall apart to the point where they've burned all their bridges with family and friends, can't hold a job, and aren't even capable of putting a roof over their heads. We need to round these chronically homeless people up and either force them to dry out or get treatment for their mental problems. Allowing these severely damaged people to fend for themselves on the streets isn't "freedom", it's cruelty.

If You Think Bush Is Another Hitler, You're Either Ignorant Or Delusional: It has become relatively commonplace to hear people on the left compare Bush to Hitler. In fact, it happens so often these days that it's tempting to just simply write these people off as screwballs and ignore them, but it deserves more of a response than that.

I say that because if you truly believe Bush is another Hitler, there are only two possibilities; either you are appallingly ignorant and don't really know what you're saying or you're so delusional that you should probably speak to a psychologist. That's not just rhetoric, I mean exactly that. If you really think Bush is going to become a dictator and start gassing his enemies, you have about as firm a grasp on reality as someone who thinks the moon is made of green cheese.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people on the left who are...let's be 100% honest here...a little bit deranged when it comes to Bush. If you want to see a perfect example of what I'm talking about, just look at the article on the front of Counterpunch (which is one of the most popular left-wing web pages on the net) right now. It's called "Bush and Hitler...Compare and Contrast", by Dave Lindorff. Let me post a few things Lindorff says along with my response and I think you'll see how detached from reality a significant part of left is today...

"So far, for example, while he has rounded up some Arab and Muslim men purely because of their ethnicity or religion, Bush has not started gassing them--at least not yet.

So here we have someone on one who believes we may start GASSING Arabs and Muslims. When you hear something like that, you've got to wonder what sort of view he has of America if he thinks Bush could start gassing millions of Arabs & Jews while the rest of America stood idly by.

"What I did say, however (and I think subsequent events have proven me even more correct than did the events that had occurred prior to Feb..1), is that some of the tactics of the Bush administration resemble those of Hitler and his Brownshirts. I would go further and add that Bush's attorney general, John Ashcroft, a man who has pointedly praised the old Confederacy, would probably feel quite comfortable in brown with a hakenkreuz tacked to his sleeve.

So Lindorff believes the people of Missouri would willingly elect someone who'd be comfortable in the brown shirts? What a low opinion he has of the people from that state.

"Now we may not yet have a dictatorship..."

So here we have someone who is hinting that the Bush may become a dictator and a popular left-wing online mag didn't laugh him off, they featured his work. What does that say about the tenuous grasp the people at Counterpunch have on reality?

"So let's make ourselves clear here. George Bush is not Hitler. Yet. America is not a fascist state. Yet. John Ashcroft isSwell, let's not go there. The attorney general, a man whose claim to fame is having lost an election to a dead man, is perhaps the leading edge of a drive in that direction."

Bush isn't Hitler yet? American isn't a fascist state yet? You might as well say "Chinese troops haven't poured out of Mexico and conquered the United States. Yet. Aliens haven't flown down and kidnapped millions of us to take off to their world. Yet. The Illuminati haven't taken over the planet and made us into slaves. Yet."

Some people may say I'm being too hard on Lindorff, Counterpunch, and the fruit loops who buy into what they're saying. But, anyone who believes Bush is another Hitler is just as much of a crank as the raving moonbats who believe lizard people run the planet. Maybe the bogeymen they're raving about don't sound quite as strange, but it's just another flavor of delusion. Guys like Lindorff can cloak their madness in political rhetoric, but that doesn't change what it is -- madness.

***Update***: RWN reader John Henke wrote down some rather shocking similarities he found between Lindorff & Hitler in the comments section of this post. Here's what he had to say...

"Hey.....this can work both ways.

What are you gonna do with rhetoric like this?
Just in case, though, we should send in ground troops."

That's positively chilling! After reading that comparison, I'm sure the only question on everyone's mind is; Can Dave Lindorff be stopped before he turns America into another Nazi Germany or is it already too late?

Put Career Criminals In Jail & Throw Away The Key: I'm a big supporter of laws that are very tough on repeat offenders," but some people -- judges included -- don't agree. Here's one case in question...

" A judge reluctantly gave a man life in prison after a $20 burglary, saying he had no choice under a state law that requires such terms for repeat offenders.

The judge said his hands were tied and noted that the cost of Reed's incarceration will be $560,000 if he lives to be age 75."

First off, the opening of the article is misleading. Yes, Reed committed a $20 burglary -- he also assaulted an undercover officer after offering to sell him drugs.

But theoretically, let's say that Reed really didn't do anything but snatch $20 and run. Would it still be worth putting him in jail for life? Absolutely, because he's not being sentenced to life for just stealing $20 -- he's going to spend his life in jail because he has led a life of crime. Judges often take people's previous police record into account in their sentencing and when they're dealing with a career criminal like this guy, they need to put them away to protect society.

Now some people -- like the judge -- point out the expense of incarcerating this man for life. But society pays a huge price for letting a career criminal like Reed roam the streets. Just think about how many hospital bills, police reports, & property repairs are going to be caused by a thug like this over the course of his lifetime. Consider how many lives this guy is going to help ruin by selling them drugs. What about all the victims he is undoubtedly going to rob and beat-up? When this violent thug with a record as long as your arm goes too far and kills someone's wife or son (if he hasn't already without being caught), what do you say to their family; "We didn't know he was dangerous?" Give me a break!

Putting career criminals like Maurice Leonard Reed away for life is one of the most important things we can do to help reduce crime in our country and I only wish it were happening more often.

The Best Quotes From Walter Williams -- July 17, 2002 -- July 18, 2003: Walter Williams does a fantastic job in his columns of making economic theory easy to understand while mixing in relevant statistics & logic. After reading Williams' quotes, I think you'll find that you see some old issues in a new light, one that will give you more ammunition when you're arguing with the left.

CNN to Package News by Topical Themes By Scott Ott: As the major news organizations go into their annual summer re-run cycle, CNN announced today it will package its programming in topical categories as "headline theme shows".

Among the categories scheduled for rebroadcast:

-- Arab TV airs more tapes from guys we thought we had killed.
-- Democrats shocked and saddened at things George Bush does.
-- If you lived here, this weather would probably kill you.
-- Someone you never heard of is missing...possibly killed.
-- The economy, while apparently rebounding, will likely get worse.
-- Diseases with acronyms or animal names will probably kill you.
-- Someone is killing people in a town you never heard of.
-- Something you use everyday will probably kill you.
-- Everybody in the world still hates America.
-- Someone you never heard of just won the lottery.
-- Someone famous said something outrageous.
-- Stories we broke keep making news on our network.
-- Disturbing video you need to see again and again.

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

Critiquing Glenn Reynolds' Advice For Democrats: Glenn Reynolds pointed out a few issues he thought the Democrats should hit in 2004. Here is the crux of what Reynolds had to say with my thoughts afterwards...

"...(T)he administration's unwillingness to look into the intelligence failures leading up to September 11. That the September 11 attacks occurred isn't, by itself, proof that people dropped the ball, but there's reason to think so, and the Bush administration has been notably reluctant to look into the matter, or to have anyone else do so."

As far as 9/11 itself goes, I don't think the Democrats will gain much by hitting Bush on the subject. After all, they've already tried it with whole "Bush Knew!" shtick. Furthermore, this is playing to Bush's strength. I'm sure the Bush campaign would be delighted to focus on security & defense as much as possible given that they're going to have a huge advantage over any candidate the Dems can put up in this area.

"The Bush administration has been awfully friendly with the Saudis, as has the Bush family. It may be, as blogger Steven Den Beste writes, that we've gone easy on the Saudis as part of a longer-term strategy, and that the administration will start tightening the screws now that the liberation of Iraq reduces the Saudis' leverage. I hope that's true, but there's no question that there's a lot of room to criticize in the administration's relations with the Saudis."

Given that we're going to pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia, I think Bush is less vulnerable on this issue than he was a year ago. Moreover, I'm not sure what a Democrat can claim he wants to do differently than Bush w/ the Saudis. Is a Democrat going to say we're going to stop buying their oil and leave himself open to charges that he's going to cause the price of gasoline to go up? This issue could be of limited use to a Democrat, but limited use only.

"Homeland security is, as I've written already, ripe for criticism. It's about empowering bureaucrats, not about protecting America. From the pointless absurdities of airline security to the Homeland Security Department's new focus on non-terrorist-related issues, it's a happy hunting ground for people looking for idiocies to attack. You could make a good commercial based on tweezer confiscation alone, and millions of frequent fliers would laugh.

The Democrats are definitely going to hit Bush on this area and it could bear fruit. However, my guess is that the Bush administration would be happy to slug it out on Homeland Security, especially given the Democratic base's tendency to freak out over anything that actually improves security. Because of this, what'll probably happen is that the Bush administration will end up proposing real security measures that resonate with the voters while the Democratic candidate will be reduced to calling for things like more funding & more policemen & firemen on the streets.

"Lots of people are worried about media concentration. This can be put in more basic terms: There are lots of channels, but they stink. There are lots of movies, but they mostly stink too. And there are lots of radio stations, but they all play the same crap."

Media concentration concerns some people on the net, but it doesn't move the general public. Most of them don't understand the issue and don't care much about it one way or the other. Because of that, I don't see this as being a major issue.

"Those are my main suggestions. Want more? Here's one from James Morrow: Lower the drinking age. The increase in the drinking age from 18 to 21 was a federal encroachment on traditional state affairs, foisted on the country by a Republican administration."

I actually think would be a good issue for the Democrats. This would appeal to certain younger voters and as Reynolds says, "(the) "old enough to fight = old enough to drink" argument seems a pretty strong one."

Reynolds is dead on target when he says,

"My biggest advice for the Democrats is to come up with positions, not just criticisms."

I do not believe the Democrats are going to win the election in 2004 running on a "we're not Republicans platform". Unfortunately for the Democrats, their party platform is less palatable on the whole to the American public than the GOP platform and their scare tactics (ex: Republicans are going to take your Social Security away) have lost a lot of their impact because voters have gotten wise to them. Unfortunately for the Democrats, the only "big idea" any of their candidates seem to be touting in the primaries so far is nationalizing health care, which has been and still is a political loser. They're going to have to do much better than that if they're going to win in 2004.

FAQS & Advertisers: Two things...

1) There are three sets of frequently asked questions I'm looking to work on:

A) An Israel FAQ: Any questions people have about Israel's history will be discussed. Things like the USS Liberty, Israeli spy rings, & Sabra & Shatila will be covered.

B) An Iraqi War FAQ: This will cover things like aluminum tubes, UAVS, Iraq's connection to Al-Qaeda. I intend to discuss controversies related to the war on this one.

C) A Bush FAQ: I'm going to talk about Bush's "cocaine habit", his going AWOL, and the other myths that the fringe left is trying to keep alive here.

If you have any questions yourself, have heard people making claims that you're not sure of, have heard lefties saying things that you want to hear addressed, etc, put it in the comments section and I'll deal with them. The more questions, the better.

-- Also, RWN appreciates our advertisers at Zogby Blog, Electric Venom, Ravenwood's Universe, The Catholic Samurai, 4ranters, American Realpolitik, Ghost Of A Flea, Widgets, & Thank You Tony. Give their pages a look so they'll know their advertising dollars were well spent.

Radio Interview With Patrick Johnston: I did an interview today with Patrick Johnston of AM 1430 WION. He's on in the Western/Central Michigan region and his show runs between 10:00am to 11:30am. The interview will be running tomorrow. Unfortunately, there's no internet feed so you won't be able to hear it unless you live in the area. Patrick is a left of center host so I got to answer questions about the deficit, "uraniumgate", whether the Iraqis want us there, the war on terrorism, etc. It was a lot of fun and I wish all of you were able to hear it.

Good News From Iraq: Amir Taheri has spent several days in Iraq and what he found largely flies in the face of the negative spin our press has put on things...

"...ONE fact is that a visitor to Iraq these days never finds anyone who wants Saddam back.

MOST hospitals are functioning again with essential medical supplies trickling in for the first time since 1999. Also, some 85 percent of primary and secondary schools and all but two of the nation's universities have reopened with a full turnout of pupils and teachers.

There is plenty more, go read it all. Also, take a gander at these poll numbers from Iraq. They're certainly not all glowingly positive, but neither do they reflect the picture the media has tried to pain of what's going on Iraq. Here are a few key numbers...

"...GIs might feel relieved to learn that only 9 per cent of Baghdadians say they are "very hostile" - but this small percentage amounts to around 250,000 adults.

By then, most people hope that the occupation will be over; but, despite the criticisms, fears and acute day-to-day problems, only 13 per cent want the Americans and British troops to leave immediately."

When you consider that the Iraqis just went through a war and that we're struggling to maintain order & get the power and services working 24x7, these numbers don't look too bad. As the Iraqis take a larger role in running their country and as the people's day to day lives improve, these numbers may very well improve significantly. While Iraq is no Garden of Eden, it is also not the quagmire our media is the anti-war left is so anxious to paint it as.

Download A Song, Go To Jail: I masticated Orrin Hatch back in June for advocating the destruction of hundreds of thousands of PCs because it "may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights". As bad as that was, Democrats John Conyers and Howard Berman have gone one step farther; they want to put people, "who copy music, movies and other copyrighted files over 'peer-to-peer' networks" in JAIL. Here are the details...

"The Conyers-Berman bill would operate under the assumption that each copyrighted work made available through a computer network was copied by others at least 10 times for a total retail value of $2,500. That would bump the activity from a misdemeanor to a felony, carrying a sentence of up to five years in jail.

...A Conyers staffer said the bill had won the backing of many Democrats but Republicans had yet to endorse it."

Yeah, tell me what a fascist John Ashcroft is when you have Democrats who think you should spend five years in jail for downloading a copy of Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Freebird."

Also, when you see a member of Congress proposing -- what's an appropriate word for it -- INSANE legislation like this, the first thing you should do is follow the money. So let's go to opensecrets & see how much money it takes to get John Conyers and Howard Berman to advocate giving jail terms to kids who download songs on the net....

Conyers' 2nd biggest contributors in the 2002 & 2004 election cycle are the "Communic/Electronics" industry -- TV/Movies/Music in particular. A little less than 10% of his money from PACs in this cycle ($2860) & roughly 11.5% of the money from PACs in the 2002 cycle ($40,609) comes from the TV/Movies/Music industry.

Berman's 2004 numbers aren't out, but he got about the same amount of money as Conyers from the TV/Movies/Music in the 2002 cycle -- $40,500. However, that amounted 17% of the funds Berman got from PACs.

So just in case any of you were wondering, if you ever decide that you want to have people put in jail for 5 years for jaywalking or littering or some other trivial offense, apparently it costs about 40k per cycle to get a Democratic Congressman into the "pocket of big business".

In any case, proposing jailtime for downloading a song is ridiculously harsh & Conyers and Berman should be excoriated for even proposing it.

White House Says Deficit Will Reach $455 Billion This Year, But Doesn't Want To Control Spending: Here are a few budget numbers....

"The Federal budget deficit will be $455 billion, roughly 50 percent larger than the White House estimated in February, the President's Office of Management and Budget said this afternoon.

Based on past performance, curbing spending does not seem likely."

You know, I don't blame Bush for running a deficit. Given that the economy was in a recession when he came into office, 9/11, & the costs associated with building the military back-up and running the war on terrorism, running a deficit was unavoidable. Moreover, cutting taxes was the right thing to do. If that 3.6 percent growth rate they're predicting pans out, it'll be because Bush primed the pump by letting people keep more of their own money.

However, Bush & our Congress have totally abandoned all financial restraint. We should making significant cuts in our spending on the domestic side, not creating massive new entitlement programs like the prescription drug benefit. The President & the rest of the GOP should be leading the fight against wasteful government spending, not inviting more people to suckle at the government's teat. Maybe it's good politics, but it's bad government, bad economic policy, and America is going to pay a big price down the road for the government's irresponsibility today.

Bush Pushed Dubious Claim About Saddam's Sanity By Scott Ott: The American Psychiatric Association today challenged President George Bush's pre-war claims that Saddam Hussein was a "madman."

The original data for the assertion came from a British dossier which was based on a French summary of an Italian intelligence briefing intercepted by the CIA in Niger.

Experts now say a translation error led to an inaccurate assessment of Saddam's mental state. The original transcript said "Saddam is an angry man." However, after being translated through several languages, the British version stated "Saddam is a madman."

"We believe that Saddam Hussein was a mentally-healthy despot," said the statement from the world's largest psychiatric association. "His strategic, deadly suppression of dissent and intentional genocide program could only have been achieved by a cold calculation which would have been impossible for an insane person."

CIA Director George Tenet immediately released a statement blaming himself for allowing the White House to refer to the former Iraqi leader as a madman.

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

Misrepresenting What Bush Actually Said In The SOTU Speech: There sure are a lot of people out there playing fast & loose with the truth about what Bush actually said in his State of the Union Speech. Again here's the controversial line from the speech...

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

That line was absolutely, totally, 100% accurate then & now. To this day, the British government still says Saddam tried to acquire "significant quantities of uranium from Africa" and they have made it clear that the forged Niger document has nothing to do with their conclusion.

Despite the fact that what he said in SOTU was true and approved by the CIA before his speech, Bush decided to withdraw the claim because the CIA didn't have enough evidence to support it without the forgery (although the forgery wasn't their only evidence) & because we don't have access to all the Brits intelligence to confirm what they're saying.

If anything, the Bush administration is getting in trouble for being TOO HONEST here. In retrospect, the Bush administration should have just stood behind what Bush said in the SOTU since it was 100% correct.

So let's see how a variety of pundits on the left are misleading their readers about what actually happened in an effort to drum up a "scandal"...

Let's lead off with Maureen Dowd ...

"When the president attributed the information about Iraq trying to get Niger yellowcake to British intelligence, it was a Clintonian bit of flim-flam."

Bush never said anything about "yellowcake" or "Niger" in his speech and British intelligence wasn't based on that forged document. However, I am glad to see more liberals talking about what a liar Clinton was even if they're trying to smear Bush at the same time.

Eleanor Clift joins in...

"The revelation that Bush relied on a forged document to make his case for war has emboldened critics. Claiming that Iraq tried to buy uranium from the African country of Niger wasn't a judgment call. By the White House's own admission, it was a fraud, a lie."

I haven't heard the White House say their claim was a "fraud, a lie". They're saying it's true & the British are standing by their intelligence as well. Moreover, Bush didn't claim "Iraq tried to buy uranium from the African country of Niger" in his SOTU. Do these people think Niger is the only country in Africa for some reason?

Robert Scheer calls for impeachment over Bush's true statement in the SOTU...

"Those questions arise because of the White House admission that the charge that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger was excised from a Bush speech in October 2002 after the CIA and State Department insisted it was unfounded. Bizarrely, however, three months later -- without any additional evidence emerging -- that outrageous lie was inserted into the State of the Union speech to justify the president's case for bypassing the United Nations Security Council, for chasing U.N. inspectors out of Iraq and for invading and occupying an oil-rich country."

And of course, Bush never claimed that Saddam tried to buy "uranium" from "Niger" in his SOTU speech.

Nicolas Kristoff makes things up about the SOTU speech...

"After I wrote a month ago about the Niger uranium hoax in the State of the Union address, a senior White House official chided me gently and explained that there was more to the story that I didn't know.

Based on conversations with people in the intelligence community, this picture is emerging: the White House, eager to spice up the State of the Union address, recklessly resurrected the discredited Niger tidbit. The Central Intelligence Agency objected, and then it and the National Security Council negotiated a new wording, attributing it all to the Brits. It felt less dishonest pinning the falsehood on the cousins.

There are more countries in Africa than Niger and again, the Brit's intelligence is not based on the forgery.

There are plenty of other left-wing pundits I could have quoted, but you get the idea. Given that these people are pitching a hissy fit over the accuracy of one piece of minutiae from a year long case Bush made for war, you'd think that they'd at least try to be accurate in what they said themselves. But I guess "getting Bush" is more important than the truth to these people.

I Saw A Lizard Cloaking Himself..... I Think I Am Part Lizard: I ran across a page called Light Think that I thought might be freaky enough to merit being included in an edition of ACPOTI (Anyone Can Post On The Internet). However, I was going to give them a pass despite the fact that the guy who runs the page claims to have been kidnapped by aliens because he's such a boring writer. Seriously, how do you make MEETING ALIENS seem more tedious than watching Leonardo Dicaprio's "The Beach?" But just as I was about to head to another page, I found letters written by his crazed readers that cut the mustard. Their stories about alien babies, lizard people, wingless planes, disappearing houses, & shadow people were more than crazy enough to be worthwhile. Enjoy the loopiness in the latest edition of ACPOTI!

Barton: "One summer when I was out at night, I could see a darkness like a smudge cloud that would drift around the neighborhood. At first I thought it might be a spot before my eyes from looking at the moon, but during the new moon I still saw it.

I guessed it caused arguments. I was always on the lookout for it because I didn't want it near me. A few weeks later I never saw it again. I realize now that it was probably a powerful shadow being or a group of shadow people."

Johnny: "There was a sand pit on a dirt road throu the woods to my uncles house. Some times I saw an old house there throu the trees. Sometimes I dident.

So when I did one time I went over to it with Billy. It was empty and real old. There were just torn kertins and an old piano. Next day my frend and me went to see if we could get the ivery off the keys. We herd it was valable. The house was gone. There was only a old fondation."

cloak's Master: "I saw a lizard cloaking himself..... I think I am part lizard....outof my mind....no exit."

Alice: "I was abducted once. They showed me a alien baby. It was almost all head. It was very cute. Big eyes. It talked to me with its eyes. It was only a foot long and smarter than me. It wasn't scary. I amazed myself. I wondered what makes a baby anything cute? I can tell a puppy from a large dog is not a fully grown small dog. Same with other animals and birds."

Ted: "1958- My brother Bob and me were helping my father fix the roof. Bob (age six) was just handing me things up the ladder. I was ten years old. Suddenly there was a loud buzzing sound. It sounded like what I imagine a WW II buzz bomb would sound like. We all looked up and saw a what looked like a WW II fighter plane hovering about one hundred feet above the house. It had no wings or propeller. It still had its rudder and stabilizer. At the position of where the engine would be, there was lots of coiled tubing or wires. The cockpit, which looked as if it were two position for pilot and co pilot, was open, slid back, only a lone pilot sat in the front. He was waving down at us. The neighbors flooded out, looking up and pointing up at the noisy, hovering plane. suddenly the plane became smaller and smaller until it collapsed to nothing. All was quiet. Everyone dumbfounded."

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

-- Today, Senator Hillary Clinton, the woman many Dems want to run for President said this....

"Asked whether she regretted voting for the war resolution, Clinton said "I'm going to reserve judgment until I see some evidence."

So she can't make up her mind about whether she should have voted for the war was or not? Isn't that just like a woman -- kidding, I'm kidding -- that's just a little Vast Right Wing Conspiracy humor. Besides, if being wishy-washy about the war was a female trait, how could you explain John Edwards, John Kerry, & Dick Gephardt?

-- This is just poor planning on the part of the Bush administation,

"The Justice Department on Monday refused to produce an al-Qaida prisoner for questioning by terrorism suspect Zacarias Moussaoui, an extraordinary defiance of a judge's order that could trigger legal punishments.

Excuse me, but why didn't the Bush administration send this guy to Guantanamo Bay in the first place if they didn't want this sort of thing to happen? He's not an American citizen so they could have easily shipped him off to Gitmo, but nooooooo, they decided to send him though the court system. Well, they decided to go that way, so as far as I'm concerned, they should do what the court tells them to do. They made their bed, now they should lie in it.

-- The Senate is going to kill "Total Information Awareness". Given that even Conservatives seem to be largely opposed to the program, it should have been killed by the Bush administration long ago.

-- RWN reader Staff Sgt. K, USAF writes...

"Hello Mr. Hawkins. I am a regular reader of your blog, and would first like to say that I really enjoy reading it and thanks, especially for the entertainment sections (ACPOTI, etc.).

Don't get me wrong here, I am not whining about how "politically incorrect" this is, but am simply asking you to use discrection in what kind of satire you choose to post. Thanks."

Staff Sgt. K

Like you said, I have nothing but respect for our men and women and uniform. So of course, I wouldn't put up the 'Buck the Marine' material if I thought it was disrespectful to our armed forces. But the whole "In my world" series that Buck comes from is part of a style of comedy that emphasizes playing up the stereotypes that liberals have of Conservatives. It's the same sort of humor that inspired the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy humor that I wrote here, here, & here. Then there's my favorite image from the Simpsons...

Buck the marine is just meant to be funny, not a slap at the people putting their lives on the line to defend our freedom. So keep that in mind when you read it -- oh and thanks for serving our country.

-- Boy the media is really reaching for more WMD "scandals". Just look at this title, "CIA: Assessment of Syria's WMD exaggerated." Woah! Sounds big huh? Know what the crux of the story is? "Anonymous sources" claim that John Bolton was going to exaggerate the threat of Syria's WMD today, but the speech was postponed. Yes, Bolton didn't actually say anything today, but he was going to exaggerate -- really he was -- the anonymous sources say so! Bolton was going to lie & people were going to die! Impeach Bush and Bolton now! Now! Wait -- does Syria have oil? They do? No blood for oil! (Have I mentioned that I've grown to really distrust any controversial story based on anonymous sources?)

-- Here's an interesting theoretical question that we may have to actually consider in the next few months. Let's say that for whatever reason, we believe there's a better than high probability that North Korea is on the verge of launching a nuclear strike and starting up another Korean war. The North Koreans are certainly capable of blowing Seoul to pieces with all the artillery they already have in place and although we're not sure of exactly what their nuclear capabilities are, it's possible that they may be capable of launching a nuke that can hit Japan or POSSIBLY even the Western United States. If we believed that there was a high chance of war and we believed the only way to keep them from destroying Seoul & launching nukes would be to preemptively nuke them first, would you support it or would you risk the consequences of not acting? That may sound like a fantastic scenario, but it's not as farfetched as you think. Personally, if I thought there war was likely and I thought nuking them first would make it highly unlikely that they would be unable to respond with nukes, I wouldn't hesitate to hit 'em and I guarantee you that there are more than a few people in the Bush administration who think the same way. It's the old, "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" philosophy taken to a national level. So when the North Koreans go shooting off at the mouth about their nuclear capacity & making threats, they should understand how fatal it could be if the Bush administration starts to take them seriously.

Pope Urban The II's Speech In 1095 -- The Speech That Began The Crusades -- The Robert The Monk Account: You don't hear a lot about this speech, but it deserves to be better known. Pope Urban II gave this speech and then the ill-fated "Crusade of the Poor" and the first "real" crusade followed afterwards.

Interestingly enough, this speech is reminiscent of what radical Islamists are pushing TODAY. Horror stories about what the infidels were doing, mixed with religious appeals & a promise of heaven for fighting. It's also worth remembering that the crusaders desperately wanted to take Jerusalem and more than 900 years later, people are STILL fighting over the same city. That old quote, "The more things change, the more they stay the same" really seems appropriate...

Buck's Opinion on the State of Union Speech Intelligence Fiasco By Frank J. People have been making a big deal out of sixteen words in the President's State of the Union speech, but it almost seems to me like they're blowing things out of proportion. I don't think whether that mention of uranium had been in speech or not would have changed whether we would go to war with Saddam, but I thought I'd get the opinion of someone who had actually been in Iraq risking his life on what he thought of this possible falsehood.

Hi, Buck here... Buck the Marine, that is. Now, I don't get myself involved much in politics, I just kill fore'ners, but some people have been saying that President Bush lied and that, as a result, people have died. I'm here to tell you that, whether Bush told the truth or not, I would have killed lots of fore'ners. These were some bad people, and we can all be happy that they are now in fore'ner hell.

As for whether Iraq was trying to get uranium from Africa really concerns me, I have to say it did not. When I was in the midst of battle, my thoughts were not, "Kill'n these fore'ners is only justified because of Iraq trying to get uranium." Instead, the thoughts going through my head were, "These people are sure foreign; I should kill them," and, "It sure is satisfying to be kill'n these people who are foreign," and, "I just killed me all them fore'ners; hope I can find some more," and finally, "Ooh-rah!"

Now, maybe to the oppressed Iraqis, it was possible that they only wanted to be liberated if Iraq had tried to obtain uranium from Africa. There was a lot of cheering when we entered the cities, but a lot of what they said was in crazy fore'ner gibberish, so I can't be sure what they said. One little Iraqi girl did run up to me and say, "Thank you, Mr. American," which made me happy, and then she asked, "I heard some people did not want you to save us. Could you stab them with your big knife?" She was so sweet and innocent, so of course I had to tell her yes. I almost teared up at that point, and maybe that made me so distracted I missed her next statement of, "But, if it wasn't true about what Bush said about Iraq and uranium in the State of the Union speech, could you please put Saddam back in power so he can torture my family," but I doubt she said that.

Anyway, while in Iraq, I killed a lot of people, and, if they didn't want to have been killed, they shouldn't have been so foreign. And we were way too busy in that conflict to be parsing through the President's State of the Union speech at the same time. Like I've said, I'm a Marine; not a politician. I'm just stating it as it is.

Godspeed to all the troops still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and may you find all the fore'ners still in need of kill'n. Ooh-rah!

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

Pat Robertson, The Crazy Aunt In The Basement Of The Republican Party: First there was this...

"Charles Taylor, the Liberian president who has been indicted by an international court for crimes against humanity, has few remaining supporters in the United States. But one prominent American who has stuck with the West African leader is religious broadcaster and Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson.

"So we're undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country. And how dare the president of the United States say to the duly elected president of another country, 'You've got to step down,' " Robertson said to his viewers on Monday."

Supporting a psychopath like Charles Taylor just because he claims to be a Christian is bad enough. But claiming to support Taylor because he's a Christian, while really being more interested in an eight million dollar investment you need him on hand to collect is loathsome.

As if those comments weren't enough to assure Robertson first place in any "idiot of the week" contests, he came out with this little gem last night...

"We ask for miracles in regard to the Supreme Court,'' Robertson said on the Christian Broadcasting Network's ``The 700 Club.''

The same letter targets three justices in particular: ``One justice is 83-years-old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition. Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire?''

Now Robertson wants God to get involved in who's on the Supreme Court? What, does he have an 8 million dollar retirement bet with a bookie somewhere that he made to cover the money he's going to lose in Liberia?

If Robertson actually cared about these issues, he'd shut up about politics and stick to preaching. I say that because he has no political instincts and he often smears the issue he supports with his silly comments. In any case, I don't like Robertson, don't care what he has to say, and can't think of a single issue I'm behind that I'd want Robertson to publicly support. Last but not least, I'm tempted to end this post by publicly asking God to convince Pat Robertson "that the time has come to retire," but I have more class than that...

Heredity Caused Death Sentence in 'Bad Blood' Case By Scott Ott: Pennsylvania jurors who sentenced Landon May to death in December credit heredity for their decision.

Mr. May, who with an accomplice tortured and murdered a man and woman, and raped the woman, has appealed the sentence on the grounds that he inherited "bad blood" from his father, also a convicted murderer.

The jurors however, say they inherited "good blood" from their parents, genetically predisposing them to serve justice.

"It was fate," said one unnamed jurist, "We couldn't help ourselves. After hearing the evidence of the 200 wounds inflicted on the victims, we sentenced Mr. May to death. We don't deny that he was genetically bent to kill. But he got a jury that was born to convict and to faithfully apply the righteous judgment of the law."

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

Bob Graham, Dumb Republicans, Impeachment, & The Boy Who Cried Wolf: Dan Quayle was relentlessly lampooned and treated as the dumbest man alive for misspelling the word potato despite the fact that he was given a card with the word spelled incorrectly on it. So will Bob Graham get the same treatment for saying this?

"I would not use the three-letter word," the Florida senator told reporters. "I would use the five-letter word: deceit. That (Bush) deceived the American people by allowing into a State of the Union speech at a critical point when he was making the case for war with Iraq, a statement that he either knew was wrong or should have known was wrong."

I'll answer my own question; no he won't because he's a Democrat. Reagan, Quayle, or W, they might be called stupid, but a Democrat? No way, the press doesn't tar people on their side as 'stupid.'

But Graham had more to say...

"If Democrats were in control of the House, Graham was asked if he would support impeachment.

"If the standard of impeachment that the Republicans set for Bill Clinton a personal, consensual relationship was the basis for impeachment, would not a president who knowingly deceived the American people about something as important as whether to go to war meet the standard of impeachment?" Graham asked."

So Graham's implying that Bush should be impeached for what he said in his State of the Union speech huh? Well, that does make perfect sense. After all, Bush did say that...

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

...and as it turned out, the British government had learned that Saddam Hussein had recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. It's outrageous! It's worse than the Enron "scandal" where Democrats ceaselessly repeated the words "Bush", "scandal", & "Enron" over and over! They even have a better sounding slogan than "no war for oil"; this time it's "Bush lied, people died!" See? It rhymes! Why don't all the "sheeple" get this?

Just keep repeating "Bush lied" over and over again fellas -- 72% of the American public has already tuned you out to the point where they don't even know this "scandal" is happening. You can only cry "wolf"...ehr "scandal" so many times without a payoff before much of the public starts to ignore you. Happily, the Democrats seem to have already reached that point...

PS: In case Bob Graham is reading, the word "scandal" has 7 letters in it...

I Get Letters -- Bush In 2004: A letter I received from a reader and my reply...

Dear John,

Denys Gontard
Mexico City

===

Dear Denys

It may surprise you to hear this, but I agree with much of what you say. I've been bitterly disappointed in many parts of Bush's domestic agenda. Without question, W. is not a fiscal conservative. The farm bill was hideously bloated and the prescription drug benefit is a big government monstrosity that no one who has the slightest concern about the deficit could ever support. I was also against the steel tariffs, think Bush is wrong not to support lifting the assault weapons ban, believe amnesty for illegal aliens is a terrible idea, and I am totally opposed to sending our troops to countries where the US has no interests, like Liberia.

That being said, Bush has some major pluses as well. He has conducted the war on terrorism like a pro -- he's doing what it takes to defend our country. Furthermore, he's another Reagan when it come to cutting taxes. No, his cuts haven't been as big, but he pushed through the largest cuts Congress would allow. He also wants to help fix Medicare & wants to partially privatize Social Security. So it's not as if Bush is all bad.

However, we do part company on whether Bush will be reelected if he, "continues on this path". The reason he's supporting some of these decidedly non-Conservative programs is because he wants to be reelected. It's triangulation pure and simple. He's "hugging" his opponents on issues where they have an advantage and playing to his own strengths. I mean let's face it, do you think any of the Democrats running would have refused to sign on to the Medicare bill? Are they going to cut taxes or raise taxes? Would you trust Howard Dean, John Kerry, or Dick Gephardt to defend America in the global war on terrorism? That's the point of what he's doing. Where Bush is "weak", his opponents are no better or even worse. Where he's "strong", none of his opponents can match him.

While I'm not happy with a lot of the things that Bush is doing domestically either, is there anyone better on the horizon? It's not as if we have a choice in 2004 between Bush and a rejuvenated Ronald Reagan. It's going to be Bush or a Democrat and we're going to have to pick the best person to get as much of our agenda pushed through as possible. That means for me, Bush is going to be where my vote is going even if I disagree with some of the positions he takes.

Blogger Symposium -- The War On Terrorism: I got together with Venomous Kate from Electric Venom, Kathy Kinsley from On The Third Hand, Lee from Right-Thinking From The Left Coast, & Sparkey from Sgt. Stryker's Daily Briefing (who showed up late) and discussed the war on terrorism last night. Read & enjoy the edited transcript of our discussion...(Cont)