Unluckily for you, RWN's valued readers, it's time for me to take another week-end vacation at the beach. RWN will return on Tuesday the 20th.

While I'm gone, I was hoping you could take a look at a few of our advertisers. Come on, I'd do it for you. Please? Pretty please with sugar on it? Pllllllleeeeeeeaaaaaaaassssssssseeeeee? So you don't want to click on any of my advertisers? Well OK, I guess. I mean I do put in a lot of work here on RWN to compile daily news, write posts, do interviews, etc, etc. I understand. I guess you just hate Right Wing News. You hate RWN and you wish I'd die -- that's it isn't it? Ok, don't try to deny it...well, OK, maybe you don't hate RWN. Maybe, just maybe, I'd believe you if you clicked on some of our advertisers....that's right...click, HA! Sucker..I was just kidding! I know you don't hate RWN, I got ya good didn't I? Har har har!!! Uh, you did click on those links didn't you? Come on, click, click, click! Click like the little linkmonkey that you know you are! Click, click, click!!!!!

Blogads
---------
52 Reasons To Re-Elect George Bush
Robert Lamutt For Congress
Bryan Coffman For Congress
Nathan Tabor For Congress

Banners
---------
PABAAH!
Right Wing Nut
Right Wing Stuff
Vitamin USA

Other
---------
Light Cavalry
The Modern Museum Of Left-Wing Lunacy
Neowhig 2004
Shop The Right

While I'm gone, I wanted to give you something to read. So here are a few of RWN's greatest hits...

Editorials
-----------
An Open Letter To The Arab Street
The GOP Needs To Reach Out To Conservative Black Voters
I Practice Speciesism
Is America Better Off Being Feared Or Loved?
The Nostradamus Effect

Brass Knuckles Webzine Humor (older, raunchier, humor from my BKW days)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Amazing Japanese Dog Translator
The BKW Guide to Anti-Americanism
The Bono Interview
A Day In The Life Of A Puppy
Fan Mail: Why Is Your Website So Violent?
The Persistent Spammer (An ICQ Prank)
Right Wing News Needs Women!
The RWN Real-Estate Sale
The Top 10 Biggest Lies Told On The Internet
The Top 10 Worst Things You Can Say On A First Date

Interviews
------------
An Interview With Ann Coulter
An Interview With Milton Friedman
An Interview With Victor Davis Hanson
The G. Gordon Liddy Interview
The Michael Medved Interview

Misc.
-------
The 125 Most Popular Political Websites On The Net
ACPOTI: The Greys Are Mutants From Atlantis Who Bred With Lizards And Survived Earths Cataclysms
A Blogger Symposium On The Media & The Blogosphere
Bloggers Select The Greatest Figures Of The 20th Century
Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death
Janeane, You Ignorant Slut…
John Kerry In Quotes -- Version 2.0
RWN's Favorite George S. Patton Quotes
Text of US Propaganda Broadcasts in Afghanistan
Tragic French Offensive Stalled On Beaches

"I'm President Bush, and I approve this message."

"You don't have to say that before a speech," remarked a reporter.

"Shut up!" Bush shouted, "This is my speech, and I can do what I want!" He looked at some index cards. "Now what did I want to say... Oh! We are doing good in Iraq. Many bad people are dying. Osama is a bad man and we will find him. There are many camels in Iraq. And... uh..." He shuffled through his index cards. "Oh yeah... and screw you stupid reporters. I will now open the floor for questions, but I would like to point out that I have one brick." Bush held up a red brick. "I will throw it at the head of anyone whose question makes me mad. You may think I might not use it on you because your question isn't maddening enough, but I remind you I'm quite impulsive. Who has the first question?"

"Would you like to apologize for anything involving 9/11 because... AHHH!"

"D@mn; there goes my only brick," Bush sighed, "Next question."

"Do you regret anything during your presidency?"

"No, and you suck," Bush answered.

"Is there anything you think you should apologize for?"

"You're all asking the same d@mn questions!" Bush exclaimed, "I don't regret or apologize for anything. It was terrorists who crashed those planes on 9/11; not me! I only crashed two planes in my entire life, and never into buildings. And, after all the terrorist evil, I went and killed bad people, like a good president should. I regret nothing! Now does someone have some question that doesn't involve apologizing or regretting?"

"What do you think of comparisons of Iraq to the quagmire in Vietnam?"

"That's stupid," Bush answered, "Anyone who thinks that is a complete retard... and I mean drooling on himself. Let's look at the facts. Vietnam was a jungle. Iraq is a desert. There were Asian people in Vietnam. There are Arab people in Iraq. Oh, and one last thing: I'm going to win in Iraq! You hear that?" Bush shook his fist. "Bad people die when I'm president, and I don't back down! You write that in your writing book thingies."

"Our notepads?" suggested one reporter.

"Could one of you hand me back my brick?" Bush asked.

No one moved.

"You guys are useless! Ask your next stupid question."

"Why are both you and Vice President Cheney going to testify before the 9/11 commission together?"

"Well... uh... er..." Bush stammered, "You see... I think Dick might answer that better."

Cheney walked on to stage. "SHUT UP!" he shouted, threw a whiskey bottle at the reporters, and then walked off.

"Good 'ole drunken Dick," Bush chuckled, "Always straight and to the point. Anymore questions?"

"Is there anything you regret having done since 9/11?"

Bush groaned. "I regret not bringing more bricks."

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

Because of the fighting in Iraq, a huge change in US policy towards Israel that would have produced a week of headlines a few months ago is barely drawing anyone's notice in the US. Here are the money paragraphs from W's remarks on the subject...

"In an exchange of letters today and in a statement I will release later today, I'm repeating to the Prime Minister my commitment to Israel's security. The United States will not prejudice the outcome of final status negotiations. That matter is for the parties. But the realities on the ground and in the region have changed greatly over the last several decades, and any final settlement must take into account those realities and be agreeable to the parties.

As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders which should emerge from negotiations between the parties, in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. And all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities."

In short, W is saying that while he still supports a two state solution, the "Right of Return" is off the table and that he doesn't expect Israel to go back to the pre-1967 borders.

After checking around, I think you can get a good feel for the reaction from the surrounding states, Palestinians, European appeasers, etc, by reading this piece in the Guardian. Here are the high spots...

"Palestinians yesterday lashed out in anger and confusion at the Bush administration's move to legitimise Jewish settlements on occupied land, calling the seismic shift in US foreign policy a "catastrophe"....

The European Union's Brian Cowen adopted a similar stand. "The European Union will not recognise any change to the pre-1967 borders other than those arrived at by agreement between the parties," he said."

First off, the "peace process" is and quite frankly, always has been, little more than a figure of speech. There simply is no point to continuing to negotiate with a "government" that is little more than a terrorist gang without the desire or capability to curb terrorism against Israel. So despite all of the complaints about "unilateralism," every decision Israel makes is in effect "unilateral" since they have no "partner in peace".

Furthermore, when you're dealing with people whose response to anything you do is more terrorist attacks at worst or a temporary cease fire they'll use to get better prepared for more terrorist attacks later at best, it's pointless to try to negotiate with them until something changes. Put another way, if they're already trying to kill as many of your people as possible, what difference does it make if they get even angrier at you?

On the other hand, what Bush is doing, long-term, has the potential to help bring peace to the region. I say that because Bush is simply acknowledging the facts on the ground, something the world should have done long ago.

The Israelis are never going to agree to the "Right of Return" as envisioned by the Palestinians. It would be nothing less than national suicide for Israel to allow itself to be demographically overwhelmed with millions and millions of Jew hating, terrorist loving, Palestinians from all over the Middle-East.

Moreover, Israel's pre-1967 borders left them much more vulnerable than they are today to conventional warfare. Yes, the Israelis currently (but perhaps not always) have far superior forces to the rest of the region, but if Israel were to go back to the borders demanded by the Palestinians, they'd be merely 9 miles wide at one point, and much more vulnerable to another attack by an Arab coalition bent on genocide. So again, any peace plan that insists on Israel going back to the armistice lines of 1949 is for all intents and purposes doomed to failure before it begins.

There is no silver bullet that will fix all the problems between the Israelis and Palestinians, but taking a common sense approach to some of the issues on the table, which is what Bush has done, may help both parties reach some sort of mutually acceptable agreement down the road.

As most of you may have heard, Bin Laden or someone who sound like him if he was killed deader than Uday Hussein back at Tora Bora in 2001, offered a truce to Europe " if they pull troops out of Islamic countries". Fortunately, not even the Spanish or French seem to be buying into it.

However, I wanted to hear what the man on the "cyber-street" thinks about this truce offer. So I went to Fark and read through their truly massive thread on the subject. Because RWN is fair and balanced -- like CNN or the New York Times -- I'm presenting a few of the most entertaining responses and a handful of posts -- unrepresentative of the general sentiment though they may be -- from people who were ready to wheel and deal with Al-Qaeda...

Against The Truce
-------------------------

tyguy101aa: "now by truce he means jihad right?"

GSC: "word is Europe is holding out for the extra set of steak knives..."

No Catchy Nickname: "I think Europe should agree to the truce, as long as Bin Laden agrees to come along in person to the signing ceremony. Or even a singing ceremony /go Osama, it's ya birthday.."

iLEZ: "I for one welcome our new Taliban overlords."

For The Truce
--------------------

taranducal: "I wish the entire world would agree to a truce so we can start living our lives. The only way this war will ever end is if we all stop hating each other. We're all human. The problem isn't as complicated as it seems."

Malicious_Intent: "It may be "wussing out," but for farks sake, swallow your pride and leave, European nations. You have no reason to be there other than to say "I'm tough enough to take some terrorist bombings." All that is going to do is get your citizens killed, and your tax dollers spent on making your troops suffer in a sweltering, hostile nation."

JohnnyC: "First off... if you're too close minded to make an attempt to look at a subject from more then one side, please stop reading this post.

Europe, save yourselves...

The U.S. government has declared war. Regardless of the fact that many Americans were opposed to this war for various reasons, we were unable to stop our leader from sending us into a long and quite possibly unwinable war. I, for one, am sorry I personally couldn't do more to stop my government from committing acts of war, murder, and terror (I believe the Iraqi people are quite terrified of the U.S. at this point. Our bombs and our other various weapons of war have killed roughly three times the number of people who were killed in the 9/11 attacks on our country. The worst part is that those people we killed didn't even have anything to do with the attacks on us.

Bin Laden has offered to not kill people from Europe, and all he asks in return is that they stop killing muslims. Sounds pretty fair to me. I would personally not think less of you for backing out of the mess that we have made.

Bin Laden has also said that he will not offer this truce to America, that... unfortunately I also understand. The majority of the people the U.S. has been slaughtering are Iraqi, but many of them are also Muslim. So although they may not be Bin Laden's countrymen, they are people of his faith. I know that if thousands upon thousands of my people were being slaughtered, I would be equally upset...."

dev1lf1sh: "I dont see the problem with negotiations. By no means does negotiating mean surrendering to terrorists or siding with the terrorists or supporting terrorists. Although it is probable that his intentions are tainted seeking a truce is a step in the right direction and doesn't do any harm."

National Public Radio (NPR) today announced it would acquire all of the assets of the new, but financially-troubled, liberal radio network known as "Air America."

Assets include former comedians Al Franken and Janeane Garafalo, as well as several small bottles of spring water and a full pallet of Mr. Franken's book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right."

NPR's development department will immediately begin on-air fundraising to support Air America operations.

"Contributors who give at least $100 will receive an autographed copy of Mr. Franken's book," said an unnamed NPR executive. "Donors at the $200 level will receive the book, without the autograph. And listeners who give $500 or more will receive a small bottle of spring water."

Air America was Knocked Off the air in Los Angeles and Chicago today due to its alleged failure to pay $1 million to the owner of the two stations.

"On behalf of the American people, NPR will assume all of Air America's debt," said the NPR source. "The national audience for this kind of programming isn't big enough to sustain two networks. We own the niche...at least on radio."

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

So I'm trying to come up with a new blogger poll and one of the ideas I had (and later discarded) was "If you were on a desert Island, which bloggers (5 male / 5 female) would you want to have along with you"?

After thinking about it, here's who I came up with...

-- Dawn Olsen of Up Yours & Other Helpful Tips. Dawn seems like the type of person who could make the best out of things. I suspect she'd come up with some game featuring coconut bowling or sand flinging that would keep all of us distracted from how crappy it is to be stuck in the middle of nowhere....

-- Moxie would be great too and not just because she's this hot Cali chick. Mox seems like she'd be a chipper, perky, kind of fun person to converse with which would of course be incredibly important since we'd be on a Godforsaken island with nothing but monkeys for company.

-- Speaking of monkeys, Frank J. of IMAO would make the cut not just because he's funny, but because he seems like the sort of guy who would detest monkeys so much that he'd chase them all away, thereby sparing me the trouble.

-- Allah from Allah Is In The House would be there too for the same reason. He could grab a volleyball, name it Wilson, and make jokes about how it was Arafat's cousin or something...and uh, it would probably be more entertaining than that sounds.

-- Michele Catalano of A Small Victory would be great to have along too because she strikes me as the sort of person who'd be organizing the hut building, or fishing, or making a giant SOS sign on the beach out of rocks. Sure that's doesn't sound like as much fun as say playing "Ratchet & Clank: Going Commando" on the PS2, but beggars can't be choosers.

-- Tim Blair would also be a good guy to have along not only because he's funny, but because he's from Australia. Those guys are used to killing poisonous snakes with boomerangs and beating down wild Koala Bears with just their bare hands & teeth. Even if Tim has never been to the outback in his life, he'd figure it out. That sort of stuff comes as naturally to Aussies as playing the didgeridoo!

-- I'd also want to have Joyce from Transcended there. Not only is she easy on the eyes, but she still seems to have that fresh "Hey, what do you think the meaning of life is & should I be a nuclear physicist or bartender when I get out of college" perspective on life which would make for fun chats.

-- Laurence Simon from Amish Tech Support would also get the nod. Not only is he funny, but if you believe what he says on his blog, he can cook. And when you're going to be stuck eating nothing but fish, crabs, coconut, and whatever monkeys Frank J. can kill, you need someone who can figure out how to spice up your meals.

-- Hugh Hewitt would also be a good addition. Not only is he a really upbeat guy, but if he can manage to keep millions of people interested in a radio show that runs 3 hours a day in some markets, you know he could always figure out something interesting to talk about. More importantly, unlike the rest of us, Hugh is a VIP and you'd have to figure they'd make more of an effort to search for him if he was missing.

-- Last but not least, I'd go with Kymberly Swygert of #2 Pencil. She comes across as personable and really brainy. If anyone on the island could make a radio out of coconuts like the professor did on Gilligan's Island, it would be her.

You know what time it is -- that's right, time for more hate mail!

We'll start out with one of my all-time favorites from someone who calls herself "Ms Voltaire". And if I understand her correctly, I believe she's saying Saddam has been out of power in Iraq since 1990, but the media has been covering it up....

From: Ms Voltaire
Subject: New Fascist Regimes for Afghanistan & Iraq

Too bad fascist hacks have nothing but lies to work with and politics HATED by the majority of people. That is why you have to install police states with controlled fake news and academia around the world."

Here's a pithy one that's fairly typical of a lot of the hate mail I get...

From: Caesar
Subject: EXCELLENT site!

Just kidding - go F*CK YOURSELF you nazi-fellating rightard @ss-licker.

Here's another short one that echoes the message today's Democratic party is putting out, while falling a bit short on the measured tone you usually hear from Kerry & co...

From: Todd A. Randall
Subject: please tell me

"You suck you right wing piece of filth. You and your right wing friends are the greatest threat to this country."

This last one seems to have been inspired by a post I made about a Passion of the Christ necklace (which I did end up buying incidentally) and my attack on the government's stealth censorship of Howard Stern and other shock jocks....

From: chad
Subject: 'Christians'

"I've noticed that 'Christians' and 'vegetarians' have something in common.It seems you can't get 2 minutes into a conversation with them before they identify themselves as such.My son was born 6 lbs. 6oz. 6/10 oz. Is he the anti-Christ?You would think so the way my 'Christian' associates reacted when I joked about his weight!I don't have the time to leave a message about Howard stern,free speech,wearing 5" nails fashioned after the ones that caused Christ to suffer excruciating pain and your disingenuous remarks about the governments crack down on free speech.(as long as it doesn't involve Limbaugh who is blatantly racist.(Right down to his black chauffeur in his 'driving miss daisy' hat and outfit'.)But I'll get back to you.I wonder if you're a good ole boy?My bein' a new yarker an' awl.And a registered conservative republican.By the by, I hope the local bible thumpers can tolerate my 'pctwistn' license plate."

There were plenty more where those came from, but I think they give you a pretty good idea of the sort of hate mail I regularly receive...

Former White House CounterTerror advisor Richard Clarke's new book "Against All Enemies" reveals not only George Bush's sick obsession with Saddam Hussein, but another twisted obsession of the president's, as well.

"He would get this glazed look in his eyes," writes Clarke, "and it was like there was no getting through to him, and he would put his arms forward, stretched out like Frankenstein, and first he would say 'must kill Saddam, must kill Saddam' and then he would say 'must have Twizzlers, must have Twizzlers.' It was sick." Clarke writes that the president's obsession with Twizzlers was so extreme that "he would just seethe and bristle in fury until Condi Rice would show up with his 'supply.' And if she was late, he'd be screaming, 'where's my sugar? Get me some sugar!' It was horrifying."

Clarke also writes that the famous "pretzel incident," where the president allegedly choked on a pretzel in the White House, was a coverup for the real problem. "He choked on a Twizzler, but Karl Rove didn't want the public to know the awful truth." Clarke claims that senior officials in the administration were aware of the president's "problem" and "played along."

"Paul Wolfowitz always had a bag of Twizzlers on his desk, Rumsfeld too, to court favour with the president. I remember the week before 9-11, I called a meeting to discuss the terror threat, and instead, Don and Paul just wanted to talk about Twizzlers, saying 'who cares about that Bin Laden guy? It's all about Twizzlers!' And then after 9-11, remember Afghanistan? Well, that was just a ruse to throw the public off of the president's real goals: to topple Saddam and to buy every last Twizzler in the DC area. While US soldiers were liberating Kabul, Bush was chuckling to himself, chewing on a Twizzler, saying 'fooled 'em!'"

If you enjoyed this satire by Marni Malarkey, you can read more of her work at Broken Newz.

COUNSEL DECRIES RICE "BLACK FEMALE PRIVILEGE"

Sept. 11 Commission Democratic Counsel Richard Ben-Veniste today blasted National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice for her "condescending arrogance toward male commissioners of no color" during her testimony last week.

"As a pasty white middle-aged male lawyer, I was offended by her patronizing tone," said Ben-Veniste. "Frankly, we are getting tired with Dr. Rice and her 'good ol' black girl network' power game."

GORELICK: BUSH FAILED TO FIX GORELICK F*CK UPS

Sept. 11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick said today that she planned to grill witnesses from the Bush administration to "find out why they failed to stop me when I allowed thousands of known criminals and terrorists enter the United States between 1993 and 2000."

"This is simply incomprehensible," said Gorelick, a former official on the Clinton administration's Department of Letting In Dangerous Foreign Terrorists. "Some of these people were so bad, the Clinton White House seriously considered returning their campaign donations."

COMMISSION RECESSES TO REPAIR APPLAUSE SIGN, CLOWN CAR

A series of unexpected technical mishaps at the 9-11 Commission hearings today forced the panel to an early recess during testimony from former FBI Director Louis Freeh. The hearings are slated to resume tomorrow after technicians repair glitches to committee IT equipment, including applause meters, dunking booths, calliopes, clown cars and chimpanzee tricycles.

"Unfortunately, we are working with obsolete A/V technology," said committee member Bob Kerrey. "Our eerie Sci-Fi theramin and laugh track are from the fifties."

WHITE HOUSE RELEASES PDB

White House officials today released the contents of the controversial August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) memo that was the focus of acrimonious 9-11 commission testimony last week.

Entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S., Donuts in Breakroom," the newly declassified document warned that "according to 1997 reports, bin Laden is poised to launch an assault in the US, sometime in the next two to fifty years, concentrating on cruise ships, cities, the Pacific Northwest, airlines, Orange Julius stands, national parks, The Daytona 500, or possibly Wrestlemania XXII: Summer Smackdown," using a variety of methods up to and including "chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, suicide operatives, LSD, specially trained attack monkeys, laser cannons, and/or truckloads of surplus Fizzies."

The report goes on to note the availability of donuts in the breakroom, and warns of possible construction obstructions in the parking garage as well as sheet feeder problems in the Xerox machine.

"This document shockingly demonstrates that the White House was asleep at the switch on September 11," said Walter Pincus of the Washington Post. "Our sources inside the White House janitorial staff tell us that over two dozen breakroom donuts were thrown out the day of the memo."

If you enjoyed this satire by Iowahawk, you can read more of his work here.

Given that we're more than a year out from the start of the war in Iraq, fighting has flared up recently, and opponents of the war have been trying rewrite history to take advantage of the fact that our intelligence estimates about WMD in Iraq have proven to be inaccurate, it's important to remind people why we went to Iraq.

To begin with, it's important to put the war in context. We must remember that we have been trying to remove Saddam Hussein from power since the Gulf War. Here's David Frum on that subject,

"In the 2000 election, both candidates spoke openly about the need to deal with Saddam Hussein. Al Gore was actually more emphatic on the topic than George Bush was. In 1998, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. Just to show how conspiratorial they were, they put it in the Congressional record. In 1995, the CIA tried to organize a coup against Saddam Hussein and it failed. The coup was secret, but it has been written about in 5 or 6 books that I know of. In 1991, representatives of President George H. W. Bush went on the radio and urged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam Hussein. So America's policy on Saddam has been consistent. What we have been arguing about for years are the methods. First, we tried to encourage a rebellion in Iraq, that didn't work. Then we tried coups; that didn't work. Then in 1998, we tried funding Iraqi opposition. That might have worked, but the money never actually got appropriated. Then, ultimately we tried direct military power. The idea that Saddam should go has been the policy of the United States since 1991." (Cont)

One other thing that irritated me about the press conference tonight was the idea that Bush should apologize for 9/11. What a load of horse puck! Maybe I just don't remember it, but I don't recall any demands for Clinton to apologize for the first WTC attack, for the Oklahoma City bombing, for the Khobar Towers bombings, for our African embassy bombings, for turning down Sudan's offer to hand over Bin Laden in 1996, for the US Cole bombing, etc, etc, etc.

Moreover, do we hear these calls for apologies every time there's a terrorist attack in Israel? Again, maybe I just missed this, but when was the last time Ariel Sharon was asked by an Israeli reporter to apologize because some Hamas terrorist blew himself up on a bus?

What about the police? If someone robs your apartment or house, do you ask the cop who comes to take the report to apologize because you got robbed? No, you place where it belongs, on the criminal responsible. And as far as 9/11 goes, aren't the members of Al-Qaeda the ones who should be apologizing? They're the ones who planned the attacks and carried them out.

But Al-Qaeda's not running for office in November and Bush is. Besides, the whole idea that Bush should apologize fits in perfectly with the Democratic approach to the war on terrorism. They'd rather promote the false idea that we can win on defense, that we can prevent attacks solely by beefing up our internal security. So if something goes wrong, if an attack gets through, that means WE must have screwed up and we'll just have to spend more money and give the government more power to deal with the problem. That allows Democrats to sit back, like Clinton did and Kerry plans to do, and pretend that we're taking significant steps against terrorism while actually doing very little of significance.

But that's the wrong approach if we want to make American more secure. So if anything, people should be thanking Bush for relentlessly hunting down the people responsible for 9/11 instead of asking him to apologize....

Since violence has flared up in Iraq, John Kerry -- among others -- has been peddling this line,

"Where are the people with the flowers, throwing them in the streets, welcoming the American liberators the way Dick Cheney said they would be?"

Well, the Iraqis did welcome their American liberators -- when we liberated them. For example, here are some quotes from a RWN post from March 3rd of last year...

"In Zubayr...

..."It was like the liberation of Paris," said Army Lt. Col. Chris Hughes, 42, of Red Oak, Iowa, after returning from a meeting with representatives of the city's leading Islamic cleric. "It was incredible."

So let's make it clear -- we got a fantastic reception when we liberated Iraq. But gratitude is not forever, it's fleeting. So, if you're someone who still expects the Iraqi people to be just grateful to us today as the day we freed them from Saddam, then I'd suggest you don't have much of an understanding of human nature....

The Drudge Report today revealed a fund raising ad for John Kerry run by the St. Petersburg Democratic Club. Here's the text of the ad...

"Senator Edward Kennedy is absolutely right when he called Iraq "Bush's Vietnam." But it's not only Bush. It's his whole d@mn Bunch: Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove and Ridge.

We have Marines and soldiers being killed by the dozens with many more wounded. How many have to be killed before the Bush Bunch is satisfied? How many burial services of our Iraq dead has Bush attended? Any? How many military hospitals has Bush visited to talk to our wounded who have lost arms, or legs, or their eye sight, or combinations of these – how many?"

Do you know what the most fascinating thing about this ad is to me? It calls the thugs, terrorists, and religious fanatics who make up the Iraqi insurgency "patriates" & compares them to the Founding Fathers, advocates leaving Iraq right now which would lead to an Iraqi civil war, and suggests tossing Donald Rumsfeld "up against a wall" and "pull(ing) the trigger" -- all in an effort -- perhaps a successful effort -- to convince Democratic voters to give money to John Kerry!

Welcome to the new Democratic mainstream folks, hope you like what you see....

After careful analysis, the now-famous President's Daily Brief (PDB) memo from August 6, 2001 seems to reveal that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency relies heavily on a previously-unknown intelligence source, code-named 'TV News.'

A clearer picture of the shadowy world of international espionage emerged in the memo which stated: Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

"When you say 'CIA Agents' most people picture James Bond-style spies, sleuthing around at risk of life and limb," said one unnamed source at the CIA (who is not Valerie Plame). "But most of the time, we're flopped on the couch, eating Pop-Tarts and watching the top three news networks -- FoxNews, CNN and al Jazeera. Of course, it's all in a top-secret, secure location and the TV satellite signal is encrypted."

The source noted that the CIA uses "descrambling" technology, purchased on the cyber-black market, to decode the satellite 'TV signal'.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the president receives a similar "feed" directly from a cable TV company, through a "digital black box" which sits on top of a "TV set."

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

Michele Catalano of A Small Victory seems to be a touch bitter about Wonkette's meteoric rise to fame,

"I'm just wondering - how does a relatively unkown person suddenly become the hottest blogger in the political blogger circle when it seems that her column is just a Gawker for the DC crowd?
Not that there's anything wrong with Gawker - it's a favorite of mine - but it doesn't try to pass itself off as something it's not.

...So now this chick comes along and she writes a couple of half-witty paragraphs every day, most of them dealing with John Kerry's sexual organ and anal sex, and she's the hottest thing on the internet. Men love her, women worship her and people quote her like she's the queen of all that is popular. Including the person who originally wrote me chastising me for my sex talk."

Honestly, I can't explain how Wonkette got so big, so fast either. Ana Marie Cox who runs the page is funny on occasion and she updates a lot, but I'd estimate Wonkette is at least 2 or 3 times bigger than Right Wing News and her page got that big in the blink of an eye. But, how did "All Your Base" get so big so fast? How did "Hot Or Not" go from nobody to like a million people a day in about a month? How or better yet, why, did the Hampster Dance become an internet sensation a few years back? That's just one of those freaky things that happen on the net sometimes.

Michelle seems to think Wonkette blew up because she peppers her posts with talk about "John Kerry's sexual organ and anal sex" and she goes on to say,

"Many months ago I received an email from a male blogger who told me that if I want people to recognize my writing and if I wanted to make a name for myself, I should concentrate on my serious writing and stop writing about topics such as boobs and sex."

Psssst Michele? That would have been good advice if you're trying to get a job writing for the Cato Institute. But, you run a blog. Talking about boobs and sex on occasion is only going to help. But, I digress...back to Michele on Wonkette -- no, not literally although I would buy the PPV (just a little sexist humor there, snort, snort)...

"Guys will give you all the props you want as long as you are hot and write about sex. But if you aren't hot, or if you don't have a cute little image on your site depciting how adorably cute you are, then just give it up....

You want the big boys to link you, girls? Start undressing. Or get a makeover."

I fully know that what I'm about to say going to get me into trouble, but I just have call it like I see it. This statement is so bogus....

"This is why guys have an easier time "making it" or being taken serisously than women do. They just have to write. We have to be whores."

The reality is that women have a much EASIER time making it in the blogging world than men do. The average male blogger will link a piece written by a female blogger, especially one who's attractive, over an equally well written piece on the same topic by a man, 9 times out of 10.

I know some of you are thinking "BS Hawkins! There's a glass ceiling out there for women in the blogosphere!" Pshaw! There are at least 5 -- AT LEAST -- talented and driven male bloggers out there on the right side of the blogosphere for every talented female blogger so it's much easier for a woman to stand out. Especially if she's "hot and write(s) about sex".

Just to show you what I mean, I went back and looked at a post I made last month picking my favorite 40 blogs on the net. Keeping in mind that gender was the last thing on my mind when I made the list, guess what the breakdown was? 35 men to 5 women. To be honest, I'm not even sure there are 35 readable blogs written by women on the right side of the blogosphere. By the time you get that deep -- assuming you don't count male/female group blogs -- you'd practically be down to women posting flag cake recipes every two days.

Hey, shoot the messenger if you like, but I didn't make the blogosphere the way it is, I'm just pointing it out. The truth is: if you're female and you can write, you can make it just fine in the blogosphere -- just like Michele and Wonkette have. And as far as the sex talk goes? Heck, women should just be glad they have the option to use that as a way to pull in extra traffic if they so desire...

Rarely has there ever been so much sound and fury over a government document of such little importance as the August 6th memo entitled, "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US". This was the memo that produced the "Bush Knew!" media storm a while back, seemingly endless questions to Condi Rice, and insinuations from the left lately that Bush could have had the info he needed to stop 9/11 but didn't act.

So what do we have in this memo that's supposed to be actionable? The title? Like everybody didn't already know "Bin Ladin (was) Determined to Strike in US"? Gee, I'd have thought the first WTC bombing and the foiled Millennium bombing plot would have clued everyone into that.

There was a mention of hijacking a US plane, but the briefing refers to that as a "sensational threat" that "(w)e have not been able to corroborate".

Here's another line from the briefing that some people have cited...

"Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

First of all, when are there not people engaged in "patterns of suspicious activity in this country"? I also love the fact that they say the "suspicious activity" could have something to do with "hijackings or other types of attacks". Maybe it's just me, but calling that a bit broad is like calling the sun "sort of hot". Then there's the "surveillance of federal buildings in New York". Here's a newsflash -- the WTC wasn't a federal building and the "surveillance" turned out to be a couple of Yemeni tourists.

So what should Bush have done based on the non-specific information in this briefing? We already know from Condi's testimony that,

"The FAA issued at least five civil aviation security information circulars to all U.S. airlines and airport security personnel, including specific warnings about the possibility of hijacking."

Come on you critics out there, what else should they have done? Keep in mind that the President gets briefings like this one ALL THE TIME. If you warned the public every time information like this came in, the public would soon tune it out. If you start closing down airports or cancelling events based on information this generic, we'd literally have multiple closings EVERY WEEK OF THE YEAR.

Look, here's the fundamental reality people need to come to grips with: While I will grant you that we can always improve security and intelligence gathering, there is no such thing as 100% safety. We live in an enormous country, with sparsely guarded borders, & airplanes and boats that arrive daily from overseas. Truthfully, it's just not that hard for terrorists to get into our country. Then when they get here, they have an almost infinite supply of high value targets with minimal security to choose from. Just ask yourself: how many places are there in the United States where let's say 500 or more people gather in one place with minimal or no security? As we all know, there are tens of thousands of locations like that and the terrorists only have to get an attack through on one of them to be successful while we have to block them all.

That's why it's so essential to go after the terrorists before they get in the United States. We have to go AFTER THEM where THEY LIVE, before they come AFTER US, where WE LIVE. That means showing up on THEIR DOORSTEPS and blowing their brains out or capturing them and pumping them for information. It means going after the rogue states that shelter, supply, and train them. It means that our military has to put their lives on the line fighting terrorists in Iraq, so that unsuspecting, unarmed, civilians in the United States don't have to fight the terrorists here one day.

That's what Bush is doing right now and it's the most important thing we can do to minimize the chances of another 9/11 from happening here one day....

A presidential briefing, dated August 6, 2001, and released by the White House yesterday, shows that in 1998 George W. Bush did nothing to respond to the threat of terror attacks from Usama bin Laden's al Qaeda network.

In fact, when correlated with last week's testimony before the 9/11 Commission by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, it seems clear that the Bush administration had virtually no plan to act on top-secret intelligence gathered during the Clinton administration until after George W. Bush took office in 2001.

"The August 6 PDB (President's Daily Brief) clearly shows that the White House knew of potential al Qaeda threats within the United States in 1998," said an unnamed source from an unnamed, non-partisan Washington think tank, "and yet Texas Governor George W. Bush didn't do anything about these threats until after he became president."

A former senior official from in the Clinton administration, who requested anonymity, said that former President Bill Clinton was "aghast at the lethargic response of Governor Bush to the clear and present danger al Qaeda posed to our homeland in the 1990s."

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

When you have left-wingers out in the street, not simply protesting the war, but declaring solidarity with the people who are fighting against US troops, has not the line between dissent and treachery been crossed?

What about someone carrying a sign like this one from the San Francisco anti-war rally on Saturday? Would any patriotic American carry a placard that said something like...

How about this guy? He's rooting for the very people our troops are fighting against. Is he a "good American"? I say "no"...

Here's another pic from Little Green Footballs reader Zombie. Would someone who loved their country carry a placard like this?

Then there's this little speech, by U.C. Berkeley Lecturer Hatem Bazian, calling for an Intifada -- which by definition would include terrorist attacks -- here in the US....

"Are you angry? [Yeah!] Are you angry? [Yeah!] Are you angry? [Yeah!] Well, we've been watching intifada in Palestine, we've been watching an uprising in Iraq, and the question is that what are we doing? How come we don't have an intifada in this country? Because it seem[s] to me, that we are comfortable in where we are, watching CNN, ABC, NBC, Fox, and all these mainstream... giving us a window to the world while the world is being managed from Washington, from New York, from every other place in here in San Francisco: Chevron, Bechtel, [Carlyle?] Group, Halliburton; every one of those lying, cheating, stealing, deceiving individuals are in our country and we're sitting here and watching the world pass by, people being bombed, and it's about time that we have an intifada in this country that change[s] fundamentally the political dynamics in here. And we know every-- They're gonna say some Palestinian being too radical -- well, you haven't seen radicalism yet!"

Why isn't the mainstream press letting you know about the radical activities going on at these rallies? After all, if some comparable group -- like let's say a group of neo-Nazis -- were holding a large rally in San Francisco and were obviously rooting against John Kerry, wouldn't the press cover it? Heck, wouldn't the White House be asked to speak out against them? Where is the WAPO? Where's the NYT? Why can't CNN give you the scoop on what's really going on? Isn't a lecturer at a major American university calling for an American Intifada while "anti-war activists" support the people fighting our troops at a rally organized by Communists worth some indepth coverage?