The family sits around the Christmas tree. The grownups sip hot cocoa. The children giggle as they shake wrapped gifts trying to guess the contents.

It's a Norman Rockwell, home and hearth, God-Bless-America moment.

But when the Masterson family ventures into public, they're not treated like full citizens. Archaic laws, religious bigotry and misguided morality often leave them feeling shunned -- strangers in their own land. What they see as a loving family, the government calls criminal.

That's because Bob Masterson is a polygamist. He shares his spacious suburban home with six wives, and their 23 children. The Mastersons are at the center of a court battle which they hope will grant polygamists the same rights that normal, heterosexual, monogamous married couples have.

The Masterson's case comes as the eyes of the nation are on New Jersey, where seven homosexual couples are suing for the right to marry.

"We are good citizens, we pay our taxes and we are caring parents — but we don't have the same equality as other Americans," Mr. Masterson said. "We're tired of having to explain our relationship."

Although it may seem like a pipe dream, given America's primitive, provincial culture, the Mastersons yearn for the day when they can enjoy the little privileges other married people take for granted.

"Someday," Mr. Masterson said, "I want to have my checks imprinted with 'Bob and Lorraine, Cindy, Jennifer, Lucy, Abigail and Barbara Masterson'. Is that too much to ask? I look forward to the day when I can check the 'Married, filing jointly' box on the IRS 1040, and there are enough signature lines for all of us. It's little things like that."

Although it doesn't seem much to ask, Mr. Masterson knows that it will take a tectonic shift in American culture.

"Like I keep telling the old ladies, it's going to take baby steps," he said. "It will start with the TV sitcoms, where you'll begin to see fun-loving polygamist characters. Then someone will do a show like 'Polygamist Eye for the Monogamous Guy'."

Still, Mr. Masterson and his wives know that fully-legal polygamist marriage is a long way off.

"Frankly," he said, "Right now, we'd settle for being treated under the law like ordinary Vermont lesbians."

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

I must be moving up in the conservative world, folks, because I scored a truly HUGE interview today, perhaps the biggest interview in RWN's history. As per usual, I'll give you an opportunity to guess who it is although I'll have to be vague to keep this one from being too easy. Here are your clues,

-- This person has run for elected office before (I won't say if they won or lost).
-- They've also worked in the White House.
-- I have read one of this person's books.

I think that should be enough for now. Take one guess per person and the first blogger who gets it right, will get a link to their blog in an update on this post.

Let the games begin!

***Update #1***: James nailed it. On Friday, I interviewed G. Gordon Liddy. Look for it at 12:01 AM EST on Monday.

This picture has been making the rounds on the left again,

It usually goes along with an addle brained rant that goes a little something like this,

"See, there's Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam back in 1983! The United States used to be friendly with Saddam. He was our ally! We were friends with him once and now we've thrown him from power! What do you think about that huh? Huh, huh?"

You know what I say to that? So what? Much of foreign policy is simply making the best of bad choices and trying to select between the lesser of two evils. In our case, we had Saddam on one hand and the fanatical fundamentalists who had once taken our people hostages on the other. So we dealt with both sides at one time or another.

You think that's unacceptable, you think it's wrong? Well, do you think FDR enjoyed dealing with Stalin, one of the most evil monsters who ever walked the planet? Of course not, but that's what he had to do to stop Hitler, so he did it.

Did Reagan want to help a bunch of militant Islamists & cavemen in Afghanistan? No, but that's what he had to do to stop the Soviet Union, so he did it.

That's what foreign policy is like. Every President has to deal with the scum of the earth as a matter of course and you know what -- YOU deal with them too. Don't believe it? When was the last time you rode in a gas powered vehicle? For most of us, the answer to that is "every day". Well some of that gas came from nations like Iraq & Saudi Arabia, places where brutal regimes have ruled their people with an iron fist? Want another example? Look around your house and start checking everything you own for a "made in China" label. China may be run by Commie thugs, but they also manufacture a lot of products that get shipped into our stores.

That's what the real world of foreign policy is like. Sometimes, heck, a lot of the time, we have no choice but to deal with dirty, rotten, SOBs. But because they are dirty, rotten, SOBs, they may end up on turning on us down the road. That's just the rules that we have to grit our teeth and play by sometimes, whether we like it, or not. If you can't accept that we sometimes have to deal with regimes we detest, then you're too naive to be commenting on foreign policy...

Unfortunately, I didn't catch it, but I've been told Joe Scarborough just posted the "Saddam's head on a platter" photoshop that I put up on Sunday. Thanks Joe! That may be the first time something from RWN has made it to Scarborough Country, but I hope it's not the last.

Just hours after the announcement that Libya has offered to give up its weapons of mass destruction program and submit to immediate, unconditional inspections, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Libya must be given more time to make the decision to abandon WMD.

"You can't just announce this all at once," said Mr. Annan. "Libya should invest the time to build a true multilateral coalition before inspections can even be contemplated. This is a 12-year process at minimum."

In related news, Democrat presidential candidate Howard Dean said that Libya would have destroyed its WMD program much sooner if the United States had not invaded Iraq.

"America will not be safer when Libyan WMD are destroyed," said Mr. Dean.

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

Here's quote of the day from James Taranto,

"...(C)ommunism, evil though it was, at least was premised on a universalist vision of a better world. Why does the left now defend fascist regimes? Because they're no longer for anything; what's important is what they're against: America, Israel, "Eurocentric" civilization. The motto of today's reactionary left ought to be "The enemy of my country is my friend."

I hate to say this; I really, really, do, but Taranto is dead on target with that quote. If you don't believe it, just look at any program or piece of legislation that's being seriously considered by the President and Congress and ask yourself, "Would our country's enemies support or oppose this?" and then look and see where each political party comes down on it. You will find that nine times out of ten, the Democrats will be coming down on the same side as America's enemies.

Just think about it. Do you think Al-Qaeda would rather see the Patriot Act stay in place or would they prefer to see it scrapped? They want it gone and so do the Democrats. Which party always seems to be trying to cut defense and intelligence spending...hint: it's not the Republicans. The overwhelming majority of which party favored removing Saddam Hussein, an implacable enemy of our country, the GOP or the Dems? Which party in essence wants to give the UN a veto over the use of our military, the GOP or the Dems and what do you think...oh, let's say Syria would prefer we did? Iran and North Korea -- do you think they want us to build a national missile defense shield? Of course they don't and neither does Howard Dean who plans to cut off funding for it...just like the Democrat Party cut off funding for the Vietnamese which led to a Communist takeover of the country we spent so much blood and treasure trying to save.

Now don't get the wrong idea; I'm not calling anyone a traitor or a member of the 5th column, but I will say that there are a lot of Democrats, perhaps even a majority of them in Congress, who systematically oppose almost every attempt to make our country safer and more secure while offering up only the most flimsy of excuses in the way of an explanation.

I chalk their behavior up to an empty-headed-utopianism, reflexive opposition to Republicans who usually end up on the right side of security issues, a generalized desire to see America weakened or punished, the pervasive dislike for the police, military, and our intelligence agencies that runs rampant on the left, or some combination thereof. That assessment of course doesn't include Dems like Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller, but at least since the McGovern years, the hawks have been outnumbered on the left.

What I've said before is sad but true; defending America has truly become a partisan issue. I can only hope that Bush hammers whoever the Democrats put up in 2004 so badly that it emboldens the hawkish Dems to rally the party to the right on foreign policy & security issues. That has happened -- at least to some extent -- on gun control issues and I'd love to see a repeat on defense. Having only one political party that can be trusted to make a serious effort to protect America is dangerous for our country, especially during the war on terrorism. Let's hope we see some changes in the Democratic party, for all our sakes...

***Update #1***: After reading the comments, I think some people are missing the point. Even among honest, informed, conservatives, there are going to be significant differences of opinion. I support the Patriot Act; others don't. I think removing Saddam Hussein was vitally important to the war on terrorism; some other conservatives don't agree. All that's well and good.

However, what I'm trying to get across here is that there are a lot of Democrats, perhaps even a majority of Dems in Congress, who seem to oppose almost EVERY policy that makes us safer. They're not just against the Patriot Act or the war in Iraq; they want to cut the military budget, intelligence funding; they want to give the UN a veto over how we use our military, etc, etc, etc. These Democrats seem to support whatever position most undermines our security unless the party leadership really cracks the whip on them because a hot political football is involved. I think it's important to acknowledge that's happening...

Wesley Clark, the Democrat presidential candidate, said yesterday that if he were president he would have captured Usama bin Laden by now and jilted First Lady Laura Bush.

"I would have gotten him," said Mr. Clark of Mr. bin Laden. "And I would have divorced Laura. I just don't find the woman attractive."

A spokesman for the Clark campaign said, "The former general's rich fantasy life and spirituality contribute to his geopolitical acumen."

Mr. Clark also noted that if he were Franklin D. Roosevelt, he would have captured Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini in early 1941.

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

Many people on the anti-war left are still reeling from capture of Saddam Hussein. Oh the agony of it all! They had to grit their teeth and pretend to be happy about it; as if anything that helps Bush at the polls could be a good thing!

But just imagine...horror of all horrors...what if Bin Laden were captured? All the "sheeple" would be cheering, Bush's approval rating would jump 20 points, why it would be the ultimate nightmare for the Democratic candidate!

So, the people at the Democratic Underground are preparing a little preemptive strike of their own. According to these folks at the DU, Bin Laden isn't all that important. He hasn't been convicted in a court of law has he? Why he's probably just a fall guy for the crimes of the Bush Family Evil Empire (BFEE)! In fact, these people at the DU act as if they believe that Bush is the real enemy here, not Osama Bin Laden. Just look at these comments and you'll see what I mean....

skjpm: "what, exactly, did bin laden do again?

All we know is that he cheered from the sidelines. What's the point of capturing him? Is he directly involved in anything?

Since Bush is friends with the Bin Ladens, maybe he just picked one and said, "Can we use him as our bogeyman?" It could be that Osama volunteered to be poster"

GreenPartyVoter: "There's still a possibility

he had a hand in 9/11.

Hard to tell, though. This Admin has coughed up so many lies on so many things now, I can't see the truth anymore. (Which, I am sure, was the plan all along.)"

Devils Advocate NZ: ...there is no such organisation as "Al Qaeda". "Al Qaeda" was the name of a base in Afghanistan run by Bin Laden (and funded by the CIA) to train Arabs to fight against the Soviet occupation forces.

If you answered "because Bin Ladin works for the CIA" give yourself a thousand points..."

leesa: "...We have never had any proof other than Iraq style unfounded allegations. Bush promised us proof...Tony Blair was supposed to release the "White Papers which were supposed to prove OBL did 911 beyond a shadow of a doubt. He never produced it.

There is Faaaar more circumstantial proof that Bush was involved than OBL."

DuctapeFatwa: "He has served the CIA faithfully for 27 years

He has been directly involved in all his assignments for his employer."

SpiralHawk: "To this day I have seen no evidence that bin Laden had involvement in 9/11. Nor have I ever seen a report that he was claiming involvement or responsibility.

Shouldn't we have some evidence before ChimpCo keeps on wildly spending all our wealth chasing "evildoers" without hard evidence of their "evildoing."

jokerman2004: "I thought it was an establsihed fact that

the nineteen 9/11 operatives were Saudi.

Enter SH -- substitute boogeymen -- more easily exploited."

spindoctor: "The prosecution would not stand a chance in court

Providing they can find an unbiased jury, of course.

Call me silly, but I like to see proof...real proof, especially when statements are brought to life by an Administration that is notorious for spreading lies and insinuations."

In a closed session today, the General Assembly of the United Nations debated the fate of captured Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

"The United Nations cannot support the death penalty under any circumstance," said UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. "The death penalty is a cruel and barbaric punishment now used only by the most backwards of peoples. For example, Texans."

"Instead we will encourage the humane treatment of Mr. Hussein."

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin (who is a man) lodged a proposal on behalf of France. "Under our proposal," said de Villepin, "Saddam will write 'I will not be a brutal dictator' 100 times on the blackboard. He will then apologize to his fellows."

De Villepin responded to claims that the French proposal did not do enough to punish Hussein. "Sacrebleu!," said de Villepin. "This is ridiculous. Our proposal is very strong. If Saddam apologizes, but does not mean it, then he will have to apologize again."

"Also, his handwriting must be very clear. If he is hasty, he will have to do-over."

The proposal was leading the debate. Another proposal, from Sweden, recommended that Saddam stand facing the corner for one hour. The Skeptician learned that this proposal would likely be worked into a Belgian proposal for Saddam to take "a lengthy time-out."

When asked about the upcoming joint Swedish-Belgian proposal, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder responded, "I think that we have reached a level of substantive agreement. What is in debate at this point is the duration of Saddam's 'time-out.' Others have suggested one hour. Our proposal would be... a little longer."

If you enjoyed this satire by Rip Rowan, you can read more of his work at The Skeptician.

Just as a little change of pace from all the news about Saddam and the wacky leftists who have been driven over the edge by his capture, I thought I'd start things out today with my favorite 100 movies of all time.

100) Tommy Boy
99) Pearl Harbor
98) Star Wars: Episode I -- The Phantom Menace
97) The Last Boyscout
96) Young Guns
95) The Beastmaster
94) Falling Down
93) Die Hard
92) Little Man, Big Man
91) Godzilla
90) Sergeant York
89) The Shining
88) Jurassic Park
87) Last Man Standing
86) Desperado
85) First Knight
84) Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
83) Payback
82) Saving Private Ryan
81) Chasing Amy
80) The Ghost and the Darkness
79) Scarface
78) Rush Hour 2
77) Maverick
76) The Blues Brothers
75) Highlander
74) The Life of Brian
73) Cabin Fever
72) Aliens
71) Pet Semetary
70) Face-Off
69) Blade
68) Shaft
67) Lethal Weapon
66) Rambo First Blood
65) Canadian Bacon
64) Ghostbusters 2
63) Office Space
62) Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom
61) South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut
60) Stripes
59) Excalibur
58) Tremors
57) Harry Potter and the Chamber Of Secrets
56) The Untouchables
55) Time Bandits
54) Big Trouble In Little China
53) Terminator 3
52) The 5th Element
51) Clash Of The Titans
50) The Outlaw Josey Wales
49) Ice Pirates
48) Red Dawn
47) The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
46) Conan the Destroyer
45) Ghostbusters
44) The Terminator
43) Silence of the Lambs
42) Black Hawk Down
41) House of a Thousand Corpses
40) Starship Troopers
39) Spaceballs
38) Drunken Master
37) The Matrix
36) We Were Soldiers...
35) Marked For Death
34) Lord Of The Rings
33) The Killer
32) The Two Towers
31) Tombstone
30) Swordfish
29) The Rundown
28) Kill Bill Vol 1
27) Freddy Vs. Jason
26) Independence Day
25) Caddyshack
24) Monty Python and the Holy Grail
23) American Pie
22) There's Something About Mary
21) Akira
20) Spider-Man
19) Equilibrium
18) Gladiator
17) Kull The Conqueror
16) Unforgiven
15) Invasion USA
14) Clerks
13) Signs
12) Animal House
11) The Princess Bride
10) The One
09) Patton
08) Ninja Scroll
07) Conan the Barbarian
06) Fist of the North Star
05) Fist Of Legend
04) The Crow
03) Army Of Darkness
02) The Patriot
01) Braveheart

According to the Boston Herald,

" (PETA) will single out small children at performances of ``The Nutcracker'' in the next few weeks by handing out fliers...

...Lisa Franzetta, a national coordinator for PETA, said the group will launch its ``fur-ocious'' protest at `Nutcracker' performances in as many as 20 cities across the United States."

Oh and what a flier it is. I want you to see what PETA plans to give to "small children"...

The flier closes with this,

"Ask your mommy how many animals she killed to make her fur clothes. Then tell her you know she paid men to hurt and kill the animals. Everyone knows. And the sooner she stops wearing fur, the sooner the animals will be safe. Until then, keep your doggie or kitty friends away from mommy-she's an animal killer!"

To give small children this sort of graphic material that contains cruel lies about their own mothers is worse than despicable, In fact, I'd say that giving these fliers to children is so beyond the pale that I would be surprised if it DIDN'T lead to fistfights. All people of conscience on the left and right should condemn this sort of behavior, but of course, I wouldn't advise holding your breath and waiting for anyone of note on the left to step up and do the right thing...

A Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel has approved over-the-counter sales of the so-called 'morning-before' pill. Although experts disagree over how the pill works, it seems to prevent unwanted pregnancy by attacking the problem at its source in the human brain.

The drug is an emergency pre-emptive contraceptive known as "Plan A", which, when taken 48-72 hours before potential unprotected sex, is 100 percent effective in preventing pregnancy.

Rather than causing a quick abortion, like the so-called 'morning after' pills, Plan A works on the cerebrum in the brain to actually keep women from getting into sexual situations in the first place.

"It seems to knock some sense into them, clinically speaking," said one unnamed FDA researcher. "After taking Plan A, our test subjects intuitively understood what men were really thinking. They no longer believed the words 'I love you' when it was just an inducement to sexual activity. In fact, they avoided situations where they might be alone together with any man to whom they were not married."

Scientists continue to work on a male version of the drug, also known as the 'personal responsibility' pill.

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

Ok, first of all, I want you to read the three money paragraphs from this USA Today article about poll numbers in Pennsylvania,

"Presidential hopeful Howard Dean is pulling ahead of the Democratic pack among Pennsylvania voters and is the only candidate to keep President Bush's support under 50%, according to a poll released Wednesday.
The Quinnipiac University poll shows Dean, the former Vermont governor, holding a double-digit lead in the Keystone State, the nation's fifth-largest electoral prize. Dean nabbed 28% of the 1,092 registered voters surveyed. Undecided accounted for 18% of the vote — more than those supporting any other candidate.

A slim majority of Pennsylvania voters is upset with the president for rolling back steep tariffs on steel imports more than a year before they were set to expire. The tariffs endeared the Republican president to politically key Rust Belt states, including Pennsylvania, where steelmaking remains a dominant industry. Bush scrapped the tariffs in the face of a $2.2 billion trade war threatened by the European Union."

Now, guess the headline of the story. Is it, "Bush Beats Top Dem by 6 in Pennsylvania"? Could it be, "Bush Leads in PA Despite Rolling Back Steel Tariffs"? Maybe it's "Bush Beating All Dems in PA, a Key State Gore Won In 2000"? No, it's this,

"Poll: Dean leads in Pennsylvania, holds Bush under 50%"

So "Bush under 50%" is part of the headline? What are we talking about here, the over/under on a Las Vegas betting sheet? Did they change the rules of the election when I wasn't looking and declare the challenger the winner if they can hold the President under 50% of the vote?

No, of course they didn't. It's just USA Today inserting a little bit of subtle bias into the article. Isn't it funny to see the mainstream already starting to twist themselves into pretzels just so they can put a little pro-Dean mustard on things?

Just for the fun of it, I decided to slap together a little contest for RWN's readers. Yes, for the first time ever, you get to vote for the craziest statement made by a prominent lefty or Democrat in 2003. Only Americans were eligible and I tried to weed out the lesser knowns with the exception of Kevin Manley who made the cut because his whacked out claims made it into USA Today. Tonight at 8 PM EST, I'm going to tally up the votes and declare a winner. Write-ins are welcome and one vote per RWN user is allowed.

The nominees are...

-- Wesley Clark: "I WENT BACK through the Pentagon in November 2001, and one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan. So, I thought, this is what they mean when they talk about “draining the swamp.”

-- Howard Dean on Bush & 9/11: "The most interesting theory that I've heard so far, which is nothing more than a theory, I can't-think it can't be proved, is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis."

-- USA Today's Kevin Manley: "President Bush meant to fall off his Segway. Oh, I'm sure of it. What we've got here is a clever conspiracy - a pre-emptive strike to save the oil industry from a technology that could sap its power."

-- Jim McDermott for replying "Yeah. Oh, yeah," when asked if he thought the capture of Saddam Hussein was timed to help Bush.

-- Michael Moore: "I think the United States, I think our government knows where (Bin Laden) is and I don't think we're going to be capturing him or killing him any time soon."

-- James Moran: "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing this.

...The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."

***Update #1***: And the winner is...Michael Moore. An appropriate choice to be sure although I would have had to go with Kevin Manley just because his Segway theory was so completely off the wall...

They just keep on coming folks, one right after the other. Lefty Rob Borsellino comments on Saddam's capture in Monday's Des Moines Register,

"Are they toying with us again, lying like they did about the weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq-9/11 connection?

And she's not alone, but it's not the kind of thing people feel comfortable discussing."

Hey Rob Borsellino, here's a newsflash; if your friend thinks "bloodshed and disaster" in Iraq & Afghanistan are "ultimately...a good thing," then she certainly doesn't "genuinely (love) this country". To the contrary, she's a lousy, unpatriotic, excuse for an American and a lousy, pitiful, excuse for a human being. Oh and by the way nutjob, you should quit your job and check yourself into a mental hospital to get help dealing with the paranoid conspiracy theories you buy into. Say hello to Jim McDermott and Cynthia McKinney while you're in there.

However, Borsellino is right about one thing; "she's not alone, but it's not the kind of thing people feel comfortable discussing". In my opinion, that sentence sums up why you see so many people on the anti-war left who downplay every bit of good news that comes out of Iraq & seem almost triumphant when they hear bad news. Are they hoping that things fall apart in Afghanistan and Iraq just so it'll help the Democrats in 2004? In many cases, I think the answer to that is "yes" although you'll only get a few of them to admit it. Go ahead, convince me that I'm wrong, it'll make me feel better about the anti-war left...

Democrat presidential candidate Howard Dean today said the capture of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein "lacks legitimacy because it was a unilateral effort by American forces."

"It's great that Saddam Hussein was caught, but we did it all wrong and he should be released immediately," said Mr. Dean, "This will allow him to be recaptured later by a true multilateral coalition led by the United Nations."

The former Vermont governor noted that U.S. forces acted pre-emptively to surround the area where Mr. Hussein had hidden, and declined the former Iraqi leader's offer to negotiate.

"It's just another example of cowboy diplomacy," he said. "The Bush administration's ignorance in foreign policy and military matters is stunning. Did they read Mr. Hussein his Miranda rights? Did he get his phone call? Was there even a search warrant? We in the global community demand the justice that only the United Nations can legitimately deliver."

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

I just wanted to give a quick thank you to Glenn Beck for sending me an autographed copy of his book. He's not the first person to send me a free book, but no one else has actually taken the time to autograph the book before they sent it out. That's appreciated, especially coming from a big name like Glenn.

While I haven't gotten a chance to read more than the first chapter so far, I can already tell that "The Real America: Messages From The Heart and Heartland" is going to be a fun read and I'm looking forward to digging into it over the Christmas holiday.

Do you ever wonder why there are so many crazy conspiracy theories and wacky ideas floating around on the left? Well, maybe it's because prominent left-wingers like Michael Moore, Ted Rall, Jim Moran, Cynthia McKinney, Howard Dean, and now Jim McDermott, D-Wash keep putting them out there. Here's what Baghdad Jim had to say about the capture of Saddam Hussein,

"In an interview Monday with a Seattle radio station, McDermott said the U.S. military could have found the former Iraqi dictator "a long time ago if they wanted."

"It's funny," McDermott added, "when they're having all this trouble, suddenly they have to roll out something."

How bad is it when you can't tell the difference between a Democratic congressman and the kooks posting in the tinfoil hat threads at the DU?

Either McDermott took his prozac after the interview or his campaign adviser convinced him that he sounded like a lunatic, because later he denied to the AP that he was saying Saddam's capture was "intentionally delayed". Of course, that was EXACTLY what he was saying,

On the upside, these sort of incidents help convince independents & yellow dog democrats that they're in the wrong party, but they also encourage the sort of insane rhetoric that has become all too prevalent on the left. If the Democrats had any common decency, they'd take McDermott out to the woodshed publicly just to send a message that this sort of conspiratorial poppycock wasn't going to be tolerated, but as we all know, that's just not the way they do things. Too bad...

Yesterday I was talking to a friend of mine about Saddam Hussein and she said in part,

FOH: ...I just don't agree with being lied to in order to take (Saddam) out.

John Hawkins: What lie do you think you were told?

FOH: That we were in imminent danger of being destroyed by weapons of mass destruction.

My friend isn't very political, but some left-winger apparently got to her and convinced her that Bush was lying about WMD. While her belief is erroneous, it's understandable that some people might buy into the idea that "Bush lied about WMD" because they're not political junkies who remember every detail of the build-up to the war. That's why it's so important for conservatives to remind people of what really happened even as the left tries to rewrite history. (Cont)

Unfortunately, the Democratic Underground's moderators have been deleting some of the crazier and/or more offensive posts on the DU of late. Of course, that makes perfect sense given that so many people on the right have been pointing out what a bunch of whack jobs they are. But don't worry, I was still able to pull a few gold plated cashews out of the DU nut mine for your amusement.

Magic Rat: "well...I guess I'm "supposed" to feel good about (Saddam being captured) Because he is a "brutal dictator" who "killed thousands of his own people."

But I think in cold, crass political terms. I think it's good for Bush so I think it's bad for me. So I'm not happy, and I don't care if it's politically incorrect to say so."

joeybee12: "My gut reaction was "Sh*t"--good news for Dumbo And speaking of politically incorrect, I'm glad it happened now instead of next October!"

neebob: "My reaction

I am: (1) surprised Saddam is still alive, (2) ashamed that the U.S. supported him for years, (3) sad about all the death and destruction, (4) sickened by the hypocrisy and lies, (5) angry at the stupidity of what I'm hearing on TV right now the people who are sucking it up, and (6) disgusted at the prospect of the trial and how it will be used.

In sum, I hate George Bush more than I hated him yesterday.

FXDS: "I agree with another poster. I think they have had Saddam locked up for several months. The capture of Osama will also be front page news around October 2004! There is nothing that this bunch of thugs won't do to hold on to power!"

bushwentawol: "The capture of Saddam is all fine and good, but does how does this help someone facing a bleak Christmas because they lost their job? How does this help someone with an illness who just lost their insurance coverage? How does this help someone who's underemployed, working several jobs and struggling to pay the mortgage? It just don't make me any money."

JailBush: "Saddam Hussein vs Osama bin Laden vs George W. Bush

Don't forget the amazing similarities and differences between the world's three most notorious terrorists.

George Bush and Osama bin Laden are both very secretive, spending much of their time in hiding. The same is probably generally true for Saddam Hussein."

They don't seem very happy that Saddam got caught, do they?

I took a look at a number of prominent left-wing blogs so I could see what they were saying about Saddam's Capture. Although there were a couple of exceptions, the majority of left-wing blogs I perused either didn't mention it all or either tried to play it off as no big deal. I guess that's what you have to do when your party regularly puts itself into a position where good news for America means bad news for the Democrats.

But here were my three favorite reactions from the people who had something to say...

In third place, the anti-Glenn Reynolds, Atrios, whinges about moral clarity...

"These are just some unorganized idle thoughts before I've had a cup of coffee. Capturing Saddam is a good thing - he was a bad guy. I'm really glad he was captured and not killed.

"But, it really doesn't change much. Capturing Saddam isn't going to end the resistance to the US occupation in Iraq. It may improve things slightly, or it could even make it worse, but the net effect will probably be negligible. Saddam was a bad guy, but it isn't clear he's any worse of a guy than some of the folks who are a part of our "Coalition of the Willing," so this pretense of moral clarity, etc... is ridiculous." -- Eschaton

In second place, there's TBOGG who thinks we're losing in Iraq while exploiting the Iraqi people...

"I hate to join the "Coalition of the Pissy" (Glen's got a new catch-phrase! All the cool kids will be using it......"Educational quagmire! Educational quagmire!") but just because we caught bad guy Saddam Hussein doesn't mean that the unprovoked invasion was right the right thing to do nor is the occupation. What's going on now among the Fighting Keyboarders is equivalent of a defensive end celebrating a sack when his team is down by thirty points in the 4th quarter. Is Iraq better off now than it was before? At the moment, yes. Will it be better off after the US Corporations finish acquiring all the Iraqi assets and have their own little colonial empire to bleed dry under the protection of a puppet military and private "security forces"? Nope. History and time don't stop with this moment, much as the warbloggers would like to believe.

The exploitation of the Iraqi people is over. Let the new exploitation begin..." -- TBOGG

Then last but not least, in first place, there's Phillip Shropshire from Warblogger Watch who says terrorists have the right to attack US troops. Welcome to the anti-war left's moral equivalence sewer Phillip! Ted Rall is down there somewhere with you, just follow your nose...

"SADDAM HUSSEIN CAPTURED. First, good riddance. I have nothing but contempt for corrupt American puppets. I hope he gets a trial where he can talk at length about his relationship with the United States. He'll probably get a trip to Gitmo. Remember: The Bush admininstration only rarely doesn't do the most evilest worstest thing imaginable. Like Tariq, I also think that his capture actually helps the resistance. Now, you can't say it's some insidious Baathist plot hatched by Saddam in his underground lair. I would hope that now your usual crew of jingoist, objectively pro imperialism, pro communist (a big faction of the coalition government's coalition) Sullys and Instapundits could define the resistance as being home grown. Subsequently, we should address their valid concerns. Give them a vote if they ask for a vote. Give them control of their oil revenues. That's what decent people and countries do. Don't fantasize and call people with legitimate concerns evil doers or "terrorists". We're a country that used force to get what we want. The "terrorists" have the same right. There is no high ground here." -- Warblogger Watch

A decade-long, multimillion dollar effort to 'Free Willy' has finally succeeded.

The beloved movie star killer whale, whose real name was Keiko, captured the hearts and minds of the global community as environmentalists attempted to mimic the finale of the movie by returning the captive orca to his natural environment.

"We're happy to announce that Keiko died this week of pneumonia off the coast of Norway," said a spokesman for the Free Willy-Keiko Foundation. "Although we were never able to break his co-dependency on humans we have finally succeeded in getting him to behave a bit like a wild orca again. Just like so many of his oceangoing brethren, Keiko stopped breathing and became food for scavengers. It was an intensely natural thing for a whale to do. It's really a triumph of science and human compassion."

Future donations to the Free Willy-Keiko Foundation will go toward an effort to return the Disney star, Nemo, to the wild.

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

As most of you know, I'm a huge fan of Victor Davis Hanson's work. I regularly link his columns, I've read 3 of his books (Culture & Carnage, Ripples of Battle, The Soul of Battle, & Mexifornia) and I've even interviewed him. So in order to top things off, I decided to put together the best Victor Davis Hanson quotes of 2003. Read and enjoy! (Cont).

If you're looking for a Christmas stocking stuffer, why not pick up one of G. Gordon Liddy's "Stacked & Packed" calenders? You can support one of RWN's advertisers & the G-Man while checking out a bunch of hot women handling firearms. What's not to love?

I don't normally post on Sundays, but in this case I'll make a short, triumphant, exception...

We got Saddam, hey...we got Saddam, hey...we got Saddam, hey! This is fantastic news for our troops overseas, for the Iraqi people, and for all Americans!

Furthermore, I just can't wait to catalogue the gloomy "this means nothing," "this is a conspiracy," & "we got Saddam, but...," reactions from people on the left who are going to be upset about this because it helps Bush.

This is just too sweeeeeeeet!!!! W00t!!!

***Update #1***: I just can't help it, I need to do another short update.

First off, Saddam's lice are on sale on Ebay. Get 'em while they're still wiggling (and before Ebay yanks this one =D)

Just to give you a little preview of what I'm going to be talking about tomorrow, here are just some of the thread titles that are currently up at the Democratic Underground...

-- I Really Am Suprised So Many DUers Are Cheering Today's News
-- Like all his other moves, capturing Saddam will backfire on Bush..
-- Bush will win Big in 2004 - There Is No Longer Any Hope For Us
-- Are you glad Hussein has been captured? Gut reactions here.
-- The capture of Saddam is all fine and good, but

and to top it all off, a DU poem called

Why saddam now? Roves as easy to read as Dr. Seuss...."

"It was a sad season in Chimpville. No news out congress. They'd all gone away. Bush down in Crawford with nothing to say. Nothing on TV but dems in a rage. Bad news from Iraq on every front page.

"Hoes, hoes, hoes," says Rove aKKKlaus, "come here. Come quick! I've got some news that will stiffen your..."

If you want news about Saddam today, take a look at the Drudge Report, the Command Post, & Lt. Smash. They seem to be covering things pretty well.

This is a great day folks and I look forward to talking about it tomorrow.

***Update #2***: I wasn't planning to post again, but this pic sent to me by RWN reader Gary Chapline was just too good to wait until tomorrow...

Got any ideas for a caption?