I have seen a lot of BS artists come and go, but I'm not sure I've ever seen one who compares to guy named Jim F. Kukral. Here's a guy with a weblog ranked 439,979th on Alexa, writing an e-book called "Blogs To Riches" and charging $47 a pop for it, when NOBODY is getting rich blogging with the possible exception -- if your definition of rich is loose enough -- of Andrew Sullivan.

So let a blogger who averages more than 6000 daily uniques per weekday, has an Alexa rank of 35,487, and 20 advertisers currently, give you a little primer about making money via blogging. I may not have any fancy marketing degrees, but then again, I'm not going to charge you $47 to read this post either.

First off, if your primary motivation is to make money, don't bother with blogging. That's not to say that you can't make money blogging, but most people don't and it usually takes a long, long, time to make any serious lucre even if you do. Just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, among political bloggers, I'm going to **guess** that there are maybe 4 or 5 political bloggers right now who could scratch -- and I do mean scratch -- out a living based solely on advertising revenue (Glenn Reynolds, Andrew Sullivan, Josh Marshall, Daily Kos & Atrios). Out of that group, to the best of my knowledge, only Sullivan is really raking in what I think of as big time money with his huge fundraisers. Over time, the blogs getting that kind of traffic and therefore getting those kind of advertising opportunities are going to continue to grow, but for now, the numbers are small.

But, let's cut to the chase and talk about ways to make money blogging.

Amazon: I've tried selling Amazon products before, but really wasn't terribly impressed with them. For the amount of space you end up giving them, you just don't get enough of a return to make it worth it. In my opinion, you'd be better off putting ads in the same space. However, other people like Oliver Willis who really push Amazon in individual posts may get better results. If you're going to use Amazon, that's the way I'd recommend that you go.

Banner Ads: I actually have a waiting list for my banner ads and they're very popular with advertisers. But, do keep in mind that they're fairly large ads and can slow down your page loading time. Also, the click-through rates tend to be much lower than most people think. Usually somewhere around .5% - 1.5%.

Blogads: Personally, I chose not to do Blogads because I felt comfortable with the advertising I already have set up. However, I've heard a lot of good things about them, they're selling a lot of ads, and a quite a few top notch blogs use them. I think for a lot of people, Blogads are probably a good way to go.

Button Ads: I'm not sure why button ads have never really caught on in the blogging world because they've been around for a long time. Personally, I made more money on button ads last month than on text and banner ads combined. Furthermore, because I keep the size small (2 kb or less), 10 button ads load in the same amount of time that 1 banner ad does. So I think button ads are good way to go for bloggers.

Donations: Over time, I really haven't made all that much money off of donations with the exception of a $150 that someone chipped in once. Otherwise, I've only irregularly received small dollar amount donations. Other people may take in more than I do, but I wouldn't count on making a lot of money this way.

Charging For Content: It's highly unlikely that you're going to make any money charging for content because there is so much great info out there that you can get for free. Unless you can offer your readers something they cannot get elsewhere, they're just not going to pay you.

Just to give you a personal example, the only online service I pay for is Totalfark and I'm chipping in a grand total of $5 a month to get access to a truly vast amount of offbeat & easy to overlook links that I can't find anywhere else. The truth is that very, very, few people are going to pay even $5 a month for the content of your blog because they can get the same info from other free sources.

Freelancing: As your blog builds up a reputation, you may get an opportunity to make some money freelancing for the A-list political mags out there that pay for content. However, while I have absolutely no doubt that those sorts of opportunities are going to increase in the future, right now, there are just not a lot of bloggers getting paid for columns. For the overwhelming majority of political bloggers, this is not something you can look to as a source of income yet.

Fundraisers: Andrew Sullivan has had incredible success with fundraisers, but he's an exception to the rule. Not that there haven't been some other people who've had success raising money for limited reasons (I.E, contribute money because of crisis X or I need a laptop so I can do X,Y,Z), but I'm not sure the average person is going to make a mint with a fundraiser. But, I guess it can't hurt anything but your ego -- if you have very little money donated -- to try.

Pop-Ups/Pop-Unders: You get paid more for hosting pop-ups/pop-unders than any other type of advertising -- however, it does come with a price. It can delay your page load time and it can really annoy a lot of your readers. So much so that you can lose a significant amount of traffic. That's why in he past I have turned down ad agencies that have offered me a pretty good rate for pop-ups.

Text Ads: I originally got the idea of text ads from the classified ads on Fark. I like the concept of having cheap, rotating, ads that allow you to pull in people who otherwise might not be able to afford advertising.

I do expect this form of advertising to catch on over time as well. All people will need to do is move their permanent links to a separate page, and then slide the text ads in. If let's say Glenn Reynolds dumped his permanent links and put up 20 text ads a month in their place, how much would people pay for them? Keep in mind that I pulled almost 200 hits off of my Reynolds permanent link yesterday and if there were less names on the list, it would undoubtedly lead to more traffic.

I hope this post has been helpful for all the bloggers out there looking to make a little extra dough.

Today, Feb 6, 2004, is the birthday of the greatest President of the 20th century, Ronald Reagan. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Reagan legacy, hopefully these speeches, columns, and quotes from RWN will help give you a better feel for a titan among men...

Quotes from Reagan on America, Freedom, and War
The Best of Ronald Reagan's Quotes Part 2
Reagan 101
Ronald Reagan: An American Hero
Reagan On Freedom, War, And Appeasement
Time to Recapture Our Destiny by Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan's Speech on the Space Shuttle Challenger Explosion (1986)
President Reagan's 'Empire Of Evil' Speech On June 8, 1982
President Reagan's Farewell Speech

America and the whole free world was fortunate, very fortunate to have the Gipper on our side. Sadly, because of Alzheimer's, today Reagan is no longer aware of what he accomplished and the unending appreciation so many Americans have for his great leadership. I hope that when the Gipper does go to a better place than this one that they fill him in on our gratitude for all he did.

John Kerry's presidential campaign staff today "shifted into neutral for the swift downhill glide to the nomination" after receiving word that its candidate would receive the coveted Dick Gephardt endorsement.

"We're pulling all of our ads and cancelling dozens of campaign appearances," said Mr. Kerry's campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill. "Why blow all that money when you've got the Gephardt mojo working? From now on, Sen. Kerry will devote his time to polishing his acceptance speech and interviewing candidates for cabinet posts."

According to a prepared text of his endorsement remarks, Mr. Gephardt will say, "John Kerry is the frontrunner for the Democrat nomination, and that's why I'm endorsing him now, rather than before last week's primary in my home state of Missouri. Unlike George W. Bush, he's no miserable failure. I'm encouraging all of my supporters, including the union members who helped me capture fourth place in Iowa, to get behind John Kerry."

A spokesman for Mr. Gephardt said that the Missouri Congressman ran for president recently, although the claim could not be independently confirmed.

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

If you do a search for George W. Bush quotes, you'll run across pages and pages of dumb "Bushisms," most of which were uttered back when W. was running against Al Gore. However, Bush has churned out a lot of very notable quotations in his Presidency and I thought somebody should take the time to catalogue some of them. Naturally, somebody ='s me. So here are some of my favorite George W. Bush quotes. Read and enjoy...(Cont)

PS: If you have any quotes you think belong in this list, post them in the comments section and I'll consider adding them after I confirm their authenticity.

CIA Director George Tenet gave a speech at Georgetown today that made it absolutely clear that the CIA believed Iraq had WMD before the war & that the Bush administration didn't push them to spin the evidence. But of course, much of the liberal mainstream media is obsessively focusing on this quote from Tenet,

(Analysts) never said there was an imminent threat."

The implication being, that the Bush administration said the threat was imminent and Tenet is saying that it wasn't. Rather than rehash that issue, I'll just once again point out this quote from George Bush's 2003 SOTU speech and let the left try to come up with reasons why Bush means exactly the opposite of what he said,

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"

Now, let's take a look at just some of the meat from this informative speech that I'd strongly recommend that you read in its entirety,

-- "No one told us what to say or how to say it."

-- "Several sensitive reports crossed my desk from two sources characterized by our foreign partners as established and reliable. The first from a source who had direct access to Saddam and his inner circle said Iraq was not in the possession of a nuclear weapon. However, Iraq was aggressively and covertly developing such a weapon. Saddam had recently called together his nuclear weapons committee, irate that Iraq did not yet have a weapon because money was no object and they possessed the scientific know-how. The committee members assured Saddam that once fissile material was in hand, a bomb could be ready in 18 to 24 months. The return of U.N. inspectors would cause minimal disruption because, according to the source, Iraq was expert at denial and deception. The same source said that Iraq was stockpiling chemical weapons and that equipment to produce insecticides under the oil-for-food program had been diverted to covert chemical weapons production."

The bottom line here is that the CIA without question believed that the Saddam Hussein had WMD, that the Bush administration didn't tell them "what to say or how to say it," and that although the WMD haven't been found, Saddam was still violating UN resolutions, had WMD programs in progress, and had every intention of building WMD.

Democrat National Committee (DNC) chairman Terry McAuliffe today said that presidential candidates John F. Kerry and John Edwards have gone AWOL from the Senate, missing almost every Senate vote in the past three months, and perhaps longer.

"These men signed up to serve their country, yet they failed to show up for duty," said Mr. McAuliffe, who earlier this week repeated spurious allegations that President George W. Bush had gone absent without leave from the National Guard in the early 1970s.

"I have reviewed the Senate voting records going back to the beginning of November 2003," said Mr. McAuliffe. "They show that Sen. Kerry missed 32 votes and Sen. Edwards missed 30. These men draw six-figure annual salaries to represent the citizens of their respective states. If we had this kind of dirt on Bush during the 2000 elections, Al Gore would be sitting in the Oval Office today."

Mr. McAuliffe said he came forward with the Senate AWOL charge because "American's have a right to know whether their potential president keeps his commitments to voters."

The DNC chairman noted that retired General Wesley Clark is the best candidate still in the race, "because nobody needs him to show up anywhere, and yet he does anyway. That's dedication."

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

Oh my god what a fool I was. Yes, I realized this just lately, although I had my doubts but I was blinded by some facts and now thanks to some good friends of the Iraqi people, I’ve opened my eyes to see the naked truth.

For the 1st time I realize what a big lie I’ve been living in for the last 9 months and the worst thing is that it was me who made that lie and believed it so much that I accepted no other opinion. The whole world was telling me to wake up and get real, have some brains and try to find the truth. They offered me several pieces of evidence that left no doubt that I was living a lie, but I was so stubborn and I apologize for it. For 9 months I’ve thought that things were OK, that America did the right thing, we got rid of S.H. and his killing machine, that I’m happy, free and dreaming of a better future.

Thanks to all the true friends of the Iraqi people, I began to have some doubts and began asking myself real questions and day by day my doubts grew bigger and bigger then I tried to do what I was afraid of during these 9 months. I decided to re-evaluate everything I see and compare it with what it was before the war. (Cont)

The whole "Bush was AWOL" meme that the media and the Democrats are pushing right now is the biggest sack of nothing since they tried to tie Bush to Enron. It's a tempest a teapot that had no real impact in 2000 and that no one is going to care about in November of 2004. Especially since there is absolutely no "there there".

Let me give you a rundown of Bush's time in the Guard. In 1968, Bush joined the National Guard after scoring in the, "25th percentile as a pilot (qualifying, but just barely), in the 50th percentile as a navigator (promising material), and in the 95th percentile as an officer (outstanding)."

Bush wasn't just a weekend warrior back then either,

"(From 1968-1972) Bush served the equivalent of 21 months on active duty, according to the Globe account, including more than a year of flight training. The Globe quoted Bush’s flight instructor, retired Col. Maurice H. Udell, as saying "I would rank him in the top 5 percent of pilots I knew.”

Then in 1972, Bush went to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign and was to fulfill his National Guard duties, albeit not as a pilot, there. But, from May of 1972 to May of 1973, some people are claiming that there is no record of George Bush reporting for duty. Moreover, officer William Turnipseed, who Bush was supposed to report to, has no recollection of ever talking to Bush during that period. This is where the fictitious AWOL charge comes from.

However, as the Boston Globe originally reported when they broke this story, the military itself said in 1973 of Bush's "missing time", "report for this period not available for administrative reasons". So, they're in effect saying that they lost the paperwork. Moreover, Turnipseed recently reported to the WAPO that, "he could not recall if he, himself, was on the base much at that time". On top of that, here's the coup de grace that was originally reported by the New York Times way back on Nov 3, 2003...

"Mr. Bartlett pointed to a document in Mr. Bush's military records that showed credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May. The May dates correlated with orders sent to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April 23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10."

I want to sum all of this up for those who may be confused or alternately in the case of people like Max Cleland, Michael Moore, and Terry Mcauliffe, are lying through their teeth. George Bush served during that "missing year", the military never categorized George Bush as a "deserter" or "AWOL", and Bush was given an honorable discharge after putting in some more time in 1973. So there is absolutely no substance, none, to charges that George Bush was ever "AWOL" from the National Guard. Therefore anyone who claims there is must either be ignorant of the all the facts that have been brought to light, a liar, or some combination thereof.

Hey Bob, why are you wearing that long sleeve shirt? It's 90 degrees out.....

Most. Unfortunate. Tatoo. Ever.

Hat tip to Neil Boortz for posting this pic.

I don't think there is a single blog out there I read that hasn't at least once linked to Democratic Underground's Forum. The place is like a train wreck of human thought; you just can't help but gawk at their twisted logic and wild-eyed conspiracy theories. I've even ended up becoming addicted to the site; anytime there is breaking news, I think, "I wonder what the nuts are saying about this," and head straight for DU. It’s like a daily freak show. Yet, I've begun to tire of it, and I realized why. In the end, it's really just the same thing over and over. After careful analysis (two minutes thought), I think I broke down all the variance of opinion you'll ever see on DU and put into one imitated thread. They will often go on longer than this, but then it's a lot of the same posts being made over and over by other people.

Well, without further ado, here is the...

UNIVERSAL DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND THREAD

----

muck4d00

[News Headline]

[Excerpt of article about military issue, political issue, man-made event, natural occurence, or... well... anything followed by link to entire article]

Looks suspicious to me.

----

[Index of response titles]

----

8lame8ush

1. Obvious ploy

It's obvious that Karl Rove is behind this. How this happened on [whatever the date is] is just too convenient in timing, especially considering that [Bush's poll number's are up/Bush's poll numbers are down/Bush's poll numbers are neutral/it's raining in Antigua].
----

Th!nkH3sFunny

2. Treat for Bush*

I bet Karl Rove is giving Chimpy a banana over this one.
----

muck4d00

LOL!

Though your humor was blunt and inept, I will praise you for it, Th!nkH3sFunny, and pretend I laughed since it goes along with my own prejudices.
----

halfempty

4. Nothing we can do

This just make me feel so depressed. There is nothing Bush* and the neo-cons won't do to keep power and wage war. Remember, these are the same people who rigged an election, killed Carnahan and Wellstone, and stole my bong. They're going to steal the election again with the "liberal media" helping them all the way. Then they'll plunge the world into death and chaos and I'll never be able to get another bong.
----

halffull

5. This will sink Bush*

I disagree, halfempty, this is exactly what is going to make people realize that Bush* really is like Hitler… and then everyone will turn against him… and then true progressives will get in office… and then peace will be had in the world… and then gumdrops will fall from the sky… and then unicorns will roam the land once again.
----

M3sn00ty

6. We smart

You may be right, halffull, but remember that we, the progressives of DU, are much smarter than everyone else. We have to carefully move all others to our viewpoints because most still don't understand [convoluted conspiracy theory no one understands].
----

halffull

7. At least we have debate

It's great at least that we talk about things like this here, and don't block out views we don't like such as the Freepers and Repugs do.
----

Name removed

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules and better conform to GroupThink™.
----

Imune2Irony

9. Repugs are nazis

This all just goes along with the Bush*'s and the Repugs' nazi mentality. The only way we can preserve liberty is to round up the Repugs and put them in ovens.
----

N3wGuy

10. My own 2 cents

Ooh! Ooh! I'm a monkey!
----

muck4d00

11, Back to the main point

Imune2Irony and N3wGuy makes some great points, but I just hope everyone keeps in mind how [what was mentioned in the original article] can really be used against us. I bet even the Zionists and the Christians are all cheering about this.
----

AFewM4rblesL3ft

12. Careful

Watch how you phrase things. Let's try not to get labeled anti-Semitic and anti-Christian again.
----

4sylum3scapee

13. Don't be dumb

I wouldn't worry about offending Jews or Christians. If you've been paying attention to all that going on, especially [a weather occurrence that unconvinced Democrats], it's obvious that GOD IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY HALIBURTON!
----

muck4d00

14. Exactly

If a glowing angel approaches you or a burning bush starts talking to you, DON'T LISTEN TO IT BECAUSE IT IS PURE PRO-BUSH PROPAGANDA!
----

4sylum3scapee

15. Beware

Holy Spirit = Goebbels
----

Th!nkH3sFunny

16. Wouldn't that be great

I wish someone would burn Bush*.
----

Moderator

17. Locking

Thread is being locked to keep nuttiness evenly spread throughout the forum.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
DU moderator

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

-- Things couldn't be going better for John Kerry, the "French looking" liberal from Massachusetts. All he has to do right now is sit back, work on his hair, and enjoy the ride. Meanwhile, Edwards, Dean, & Clark are just trying to keep enough lucre coming in to keep going while portraying their 2nd and 3rd place finishes as the events that are going to turn their lackluster campaigns around.

-- John Edwards, the powerful, ultra-rich, favorite of other trial lawyers who claims to be fighting for the "little guy" against the powerful, ultra-rich, and special interests is still viable because of his victory in South Carolina. But, since Wesley Clark edged him out in Oklahoma, look for the two of them to both stay alive which will probably keep either of them from being able to truly build up enough momentum to really challenge Kerry.

-- Dean is really fading fast -- I mean he's down in "Joementum territory" -- and his strategy reeks of desperation. In essence, he seems to be saving up money and hoping Kerry implodes under the media scrutiny that the front runner always endures. But, unlike Dean, Kerry is an old-pro who can take the heat and while he'll take a beating, I don't see him falling apart the way Dean did when he was on top of the heap.

-- Joe Lieberman? Toast. His "Joementum" has run out and he's getting ready to throw in the towel.

-- Dennis Kucinich? He's past toast -- he's a tinfoil covered poptart.

-- Sharpton's campaign wasn't about winning, it was about Sharpton taking Jesse Jackson's mantle as the new "black leader" that the Democratic party had to cater too. But, since Sharpton's campaign has been such a flop that he has only captured 4 delegates, he isn't going to have much influence at the Democratic convention. That's probably in everybody's best interests anyway, except of course for Reverend Al.

-- If only George W. Bush had just popped off a mighty "Yeeeeaaaarrrgggghhhhh" at a campaign rally instead spending money like Mike Tyson at a strip club and offering up an immigration plan that was less popular than a Milli Vanilli reunion tour. Furthermore, having David Kay confirm that there was not a, "large-scale production program in (Iraq in) the '90s" didn't help things either. While I think the presidency should still be Bush's to lose for 2004 despite the fact that he is now well behind John Kerry in a head to head matchup, the political tone deafness coming from the White House is starting to get a little bit disconcerting. I mean it doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out that you don't give the National Endowment of the Arts, an agency that is anathema to conservatives, a huge budget increase when your entire base is already furious with you over your extravagant spending. Come on guys, wake up and pull it together....

Here's an excerpt from an email sent to Andrew Sullivan that I thought was worth addressing...

"Many conservatives are b*tching and moaning about some of the legislation, some of the compromises, and lack of spending control; and some criticism is definitely warranted. But one cannot b*tch about the agenda, since (Bush) laid it out on the table as clear as day when campaigning."

To the contrary, conservatives can and should "b*tch about the (Bush) agenda" when he strays from conservative values.

"But Hawkins, but Hawkins, you guys voted for him. So it's like you endorsed his agenda."

Hey, I've got news for you; we don't have an unlimited number of viable candidates for President to choose from. Now if conservatives had a **REAL** choice between say Tom Delay, Jonah Goldberg, Thomas Sowell, & George Bush -- and we voted for George Bush -- you'd be right to say, "stop b*tching".

However, that's not how the political process works in the real world. In reality, conservatives first had a choice between George Bush and John McCain and they chose the more conservative candidate. Then they had a choice between Bush and Gore and again, conservatives chose the best candidate out of the two.

But, that doesn't mean we should hold our tongues when Bush, on certain issues at least, acts more like Ted Kennedy than Ronald Reagan. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm a conservative first and a Republican second and if conservatism is best served by going after a Republican, it doesn't bother me one bit to do it.

From FOXNews,

"A 7-pound block of cyanide salt was discovered by U.S. troops in Baghdad at the end of January, officials confirmed to Fox News.

The potentially lethal compound was located in what was believed to be the safe house of Abu Musab Zarqawi, a poisons specialist described by some U.S. intelligence officials as having been a key link between deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the Al Qaeda terror network."

Yep, there was nothing to worry about in Iraq, nothing at all. No reason for anyone to have the slightest bit of concern...

Last week, I listed how Bush could lose reelection. Now, here's how the Democrats can win.

TOP TEN WAYS THE DEMOCRATS CAN ENSURE VICTORY IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

10. So as not to scare moderates, lock all the extreme wacko leftists in an underground cavern feeding them nothing but sardine heads and anti-Bush rhetoric until Election Day.

9. Though I'm pretty sure Satan is a registered independent, you could win the favor of his evil power by sacrificing a goat in his honor or sending him a fruit basket.

8. Gain even more potential Democrat voters by making sure that convicted felons, the criminally insane, dead people, and feces-throwing monkeys have the right to vote.

7. Don't fall for the temptation to look tough on terrorists as that will make you lose the important "Death to America!" vote.

6. Get lots of free publicity by having attractive, female staffers have "wardrobe malfunctions" during rallies.

5. If presidential candidate had served in Vietnam, make sure to mention it.

4. Texas has a large number of electoral votes certain to go to Bush. As Janet Reno demonstrated, it's quite flammable, and "accidents" happen.

3. Say that, if the Democrat wins, a large number of puppies will be given to orphans, but, if the Democrat loses, the puppies will be drowned while the orphans are forced to watch.

2. Use more advanced AI on voting machines so that they know that improperly punching a ballot or just staring at the voting machine and drooling are meant to be votes for the Democrat.

And the number one way Democrats can ensure victory in the presidential election...

1) Run for president in some other country, you pinkos.

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

I think something important has been lost in all of the hubbub about David Kay's recent comments. Quite understandably, most people have been focusing on the fact that Kay says that there was not a, "large-scale production program in (Iraq in) the '90s". That's certainly something worth discussing and it merits an investigation to find out why the intelligence fed to Republicans and Democrats alike, was so far off.

However, I think it is also worth pointing out that the following argument made by Bush over and over before the war, has not been discredited...

"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

But, Iraq had no WMD so how could they "provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group" on "any given day"? Well, they certainly had the nuclear material needed to make a dirty bomb at the Tuwaitha nuclear research facility among other places. Having a dirty bomb go off in New York, DC, LA -- or all 3 cities at the same time -- could be far more devastating than 9/11.

Furthermore, as David Kay also pointed out recently, Iraq was, "working to produce a (chemical) weapon using the poison ricin until the American invasion last March". Hello...RICIN...it has no cure. How can anybody just shrug their shoulders and act like that doesn't matter?

On top of that, Kay noted in his interim report that, "(e)ven those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed."

What programs did Saddam likely intend to resume you may ask?

"When Saddam had asked a senior military official in either 2001 or 2002 how long it would take to produce new chemical agent and weapons, he told ISG that after he consulted with CW experts in OMI he responded it would take six months for mustard.

Another senior Iraqi chemical weapons expert in responding to a request in mid-2002 from Uday Hussein for CW for the Fedayeen Saddam estimated that it would take two months to produce mustard and two years for Sarin."

What you have to understand here is that Iraq wasn't another Sweden just because they weren't producing WMD throughout the nineties. We had an anti-American dictator who hated America, had started two wars of aggression, tried to assassinate a US President, had terrorist ties, had WMD programs going, and intended to produce more WMD as soon as the heat was off.

Moreover, you have to understand that our troops could not encircle Iraq indefinitely and the inspectors would have been kicked out of the country again when they left -- not that they were even stopping Iraq from working on "a (chemical) weapon using the poison ricin" while they were there. Given that, if you thought Saddam was a threat before the war, despite all the sound and the fury, nothing has happened since then that should have changed anyone's mind. Taking out Saddam was the right decision and I only wish we had done it a long time ago.

***Update #1***: RWN reader David F. Carlson sent me an email saying in part,

"Ricin as a toxin is not biologically active. It is a toxin, and as such is a chemical weapon. It is derived from a castor bean but does not "infect" its target host."

That is my thinking on the subject as well, but I've taken a look at a dozen plus articles on Kay's latest comments and they all seem to be referring to the ricin as being part of a biological weapon, not part of a chemical weapon. I suspect that they're just copying an error made by the New York Times, but on the other hand, I'm not an expert on WMD and perhaps and I'm missing something. So can someone clear this up definitively in the comments section?

***Update #2***: Jed Babbin has chimed in on this topic at The Corner,

"Ricin -- a toxin extracted from castor beans - is not, as being reported, a biological weapon. It is a very potent chemical weapon. A dose as small as one milligram can kill an adult. Biological weapons cause disease. Chemical weapons -- such as ricin or the nerve gas VX -- poison. Exposure to ricin is not infectious. All chemical weapons require ingestion into the body, by breathing, absorption through the skin, or other intake. Ricin poisoning, unlike many biological weapons such as anthrax, and some other chemical weapons, is not treatable."

That's good enough for me. Changes have been made in the article above to reflect the correct status of ricin.

If John Kerry is the nominee, one of themes you can expect to see the GOP hit is that the senator from Taxachusetts can't be trusted to defend America from terrorists. Kerry can cry "Vietnam" all he wants, but RNC Research has the goods straight from Kerry's long and undistinguished Senate record (Check out the link for the footnotes)...

"- Running For Congress In 1972, Kerry Promised To Cut Defense Spending. “On what he’ll do if he’s elected to Congress, Kerry said he would ‘bring a different kind of message to the president.’ He said he would vote against military appropriations.”

- As Senator, Kerry Also Pushed To Cut Intelligence Funding By More Than $2.58 Billion."

On top of that, Kerry voted against the first Gulf War and although he voted for the war in Iraq, he flip-flopped all over the map on it during the primaries and then opposed funding the very war he originally supported (in other words, he voted against the $87 billion for Iraq).

Now, anyone who reads RWN knows I have pummeled Bush for his domestic policies. But, if the choice in 2004 is between a country club Republican who is dead serious about winning the war on terrorism and a Massachusetts liberal who isn't -- well, let's just say that's a really easy decision for anyone who believes we've got to do whatever it takes to prevent future 9/11s.

I wasn't even going to bother to comment Janet Jackson showing one of her ta-tas at the Super Bowl halftime show since everyone else on the planet has already had their say, but this comment by Howard Dean demanded a response...

"I find that to be a bit of a flap about nothing. I'm probably affected in some ways by the fact that I'm a doctor, so it's not exactly an unusual phenomenon for me....In general, I think the FCC does have a role in promoting some reasonable standard of decency. However, considering what's on television these days, I think the FCC is being pretty silly about investigating this."

So there you go. Since Howard Dean is a doctor and wasn't offended, why should parents watching the game with their small children be upset? Moreover, if a pop singer flashing her breast in front of an audience that included millions and millions of children is within Howard Dean's "reasonable standard of decency," what isn't? Big Bird humping Mr. Snufflelufagus? The Powerpuff Girls reenacting the Britney Spears / Madonna /Christine Aguilera kisses?

The Super Bowl is not the time and the place for a pop star to get some cheap publicity by flashing the general public. Even someone like Howard Dean should have enough common sense to figure that out.

CBS expressed regret this morning for deliberately airing a segment of its Super Bowl half-time show in which Justin Timberlake deliberately rips off fellow pop star Janet Jackson's bustier accidentally.

Executives at the network were quick to show their dismay at the unintended display of nudity which they had been preparing to show for a long time.

"There is no excuse for this to happen, especially since we have been planning for it to happen for months," said CBS President Les Moonves.

"I want to apologize for this inadvertent incident -- which we have worked out to the most minute detail -- for going exactly the way we expected," Moonves added.

CBS officials vowed that such a well-calculated mistake would never not occur again, perhaps.

If you enjoyed this satire by the Chortler, you can see more of there work here.

I last ranked the political blogs the political blogs back in June of 2003 and I thought it was time to do it again. I think you'll find that the rankings have changed quite a bit since then in some cases. (Cont)