Rightroots

A Redstate Podcast Interview With Rightroots Endorsed Candidate Van Taylor

Alarming News

Andrew Gimson: Americans Will Die For Liberty

Boker tov, Boulder!

Extreme Mortman

FrontPage Magazine

Game: D*mn Birds

Gossip: Cindy Sheehan Had An Affair With Lew Rockwell?

Hezbollah Position Unclear; UNSCR Meaningless Unless Rocket Attacks End

NewsBusters

Orbusmax

Rotten Tomatoes

Scrappleface

Video: Britney Spears Acting Strange & Burping (Cursing)

Will Republican Jack Orchulli Enter The Race In CT?

Well, my gut instinct is that the fighting was stopped a few weeks too early and that the UN effort is doomed to failure, but it looks like there is a ceasefire that's about to go into effect:

"At the heart of the agreement lies the deployment to southern Lebanon of an international force of up to 15,000 troops, expected to be led by France, with units from Italy and other European nations.

After Lebanese objections to a first resolution last Saturday, these troops will be assigned to UNIFIL – the existing UN peace monitoring operation in Lebanon that was created in 1978.

But the new force will operate under a stronger mandate than the old 2,000-strong UNIFIL, given the authority “to take all necessary action...to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind”, and “to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence”.

The UN force is also tasked with supporting the Lebanese army in that there are no weapons or forces in a zone to the south of the Litani River – which runs 13 miles from the Israeli border – that are not controlled by the Lebanese army.

...The resolution left in an earlier clause objected to by Lebanon which calls for an “immediate cessation” of all Hizbollah attacks but seeks only the end of “offensive military operations” by Israel.

Emyr Jones Parry, the UK ambassador at the UN, said the hope was “that we’ve created enough conditionality, enough of a process, and enough security will be established, that Hizbollah will neither want nor be able” to disrupt the process.

“The first few days are going to be very challenging. Because if they do attack, it opens up a whole can of worms,” he said.

...If the fighting does stop, a second UN resolution on a permanent ceasefire would follow within a month, tackling a range of issues including the release of two Israeli soldiers held by Hizbollah."

Here's a little more on what the long term goals of this ceasefire are supposed to be:

"At the heart of the resolution are two elements: It seeks an immediate halt to the fighting that began July 12 when Hezbollah militants kidnapped two Israeli troops along the Blue Line, the U.N.-demarcated border separating Israel; and it spells out a series of steps that would lead to a permanent cease-fire and long-term solution.

That would be done by creating a new buffer zone in south Lebanon "free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government of Lebanon and UNIFIL" — the acronym of the U.N. force deployed in the region since 1978. The force now has 2,000 troops; the resolution would expand it to a maximum of 15,000.

South Lebanon had been under de facto Hezbollah control for several years until Israeli forces occupied parts of it after the start of the fighting last month. The political solution would include implementation of previous Security Council resolutions calling for Hezbollah's disarmament."

Long story short, Israel pulls out of Southern Lebanon and 15k European troops along with the Lebanese army move in. Under the ceasefire, Hezbollah isn't supposed to fire at Israel under any circumstances, but Israel can return fire. Also, Chebaa Farms and the kidnapped Israel soldiers aren't even being discussed yet.

Is this close to what Israel says that they wanted? Well, their main demand, since shortly after the war started, was a buffer zone in Southern Lebanon with international troops and the Lebanese army guarding it along with the disarmament of Hezbollah. Ostensibly, they're getting their biggest and most important demand met.

Unfortunately, I'm deeply skeptical about whether any UN Force or the Lebanese army is willing to fight against Hezbollah to keep them from rearming and/or attacking Israel. Moreover, Iran and Syria have been pulling Hezbollah's strings and any sort of long term compromise that doesn't force them to pay a terrible penalty for Hezbollah's actions isn't getting to the root of the problem.

PS: A lot of people on the right side of the blogosphere are calling this resolution a big win for Hezbollah. I think it's a bit murkier than that. After all, Israel did enormous damage to Hezbollah and their assets. Moreover, the UN resolution specifically calls for Hezbollah to be disarmed and for them to lose military control of Southern Lebanon. On top of all that, Israel still retains the right to attack Hezbollah for "defensive" reasons while Hezbollah is supposed to be constrained from attacking Israel at all.

So, why is this perceived by some people as such a big loss? Part of the problem is that there has been an enormous amount of mission creep since the whole conflict started. As I wrote back on July 31,

"There's a lot of talk about what Israel is trying to accomplish with these attacks on Lebanon. My original assumption was that they simply wanted to kill Hezbollah fighters, destroy and degrade their infrastructure, and punish the civilians in Lebanon that are supporting them. That's a worthy mission and one that Israel has been accomplishing.

But, since the fight has started we've heard about much loftier goals. Israel is going to eradicate Hezbollah? That seems unlikely since the Hezbos can simply disperse into the population. Israel wants an international force or the Lebanese army to come down and police the border? Since neither group is going to be willing to fight Hezbollah, any force on the border either turns into de facto human shields for the Hezbos, like the UN, or they'll just be there until Hezbollah is ready for another round of fighting and tells them to leave."

Actually, I think Israel has accomplished more than most people realize, although I have extremely low expectations for how effective this whole UN ceasefire proposal is going to be. But, however it works out in the end, since Israel wasn't willing to move on Syria, it was almost certain that some variation on this whole Lebanese Army/European peacekeeper force was going to be tried. If, and likely when, it fails, maybe there will be a little bit more serious thought given to making Hezbollah's puppet masters in Syria and Iran pay a price for the actions of their minions.

One of the hottest congressional races in America right now is in Iowa's first district where Rightroots Endorsed candidate Mike Whalen (R) is going toe to toe with Bruce Braley (D) for a seat currently held by Jim Nussle (who's running for governor).

Yesterday, I did a short interview with Mike Whalen and what follows is an edited transcript of our conversation.

John Hawkins: Before we start getting neck deep in the issues here, tell us a little about your background. You're an entrepreneur, aren't you?

Mike Whalen: Yes, I am. ...I opened a 100 seat restaurant called the Iowa Machine Shed in 1978...and it built up to a business that operates in 6 states.

...Over the course of the years, I got more involved in politics and I joined the board of what I think is the best conservative think tank in the country, the National Center for Policy Analysis. ...(I) became the policy chairman there for a while before I became a candidate (and)...I felt compelled to enter the arena.

John Hawkins: If a voter from your district walked up to you and said, "Give me three differences between you and Bruce Braley that would convince me to vote for you," what would you say?

Mike Whalen: ...I am a pro-growth conservative. He is an anti-business, liberal trial lawyer. We disagree fundamentally on the future of this country.

I think we have two big battles in the 21st century: the fight for jobs and the fight for freedom and against terrorism. He thinks we should immediately cut and run, pull the troops out of Iraq, and withdraw from that fight on terrorism. I disagree.

On the fight for jobs, I believe (in) a lower, simpler tax code that puts investment first. (We need to put) the consumer in charge of health care, rather than Hillary, we need to reform entitlements before the baby boomers retire, and we need to have lawsuit reform.

On all those issues, we have fundamental differences of opinion...

John Hawkins: Now, as you know, you've been endorsed by Rightroots, a group of bloggers, including myself, that have picked competitive races around the country that the GOP needs to win. So, because of that, there are going to be conservatives reading this interview from all over and trying to decide whether to chip in a few bucks to your campaign. Give those people an idea of what they could expect Mike Whalen to be like if and when he gets into Congress.

Mike Whalen: Well, first of all they'd have a consistent, conservative voice in Congress. I think that we need to be working on fundamental issues, whether it's getting a simpler, fairer tax code that puts investment first....We need to reform health care by putting the consumer in charge with health care savings accounts and association health plans.

...So, if you go right on down the line, conservatives are going to see somebody who's there to get a job done, not to have a job. I already got a job. I think conservatives...want someone not only with my views, but who's there for the right reasons. Not to be part of political Disneyland, but to try to get some things done.

John Hawkins: Now, I notice there's an immigration split between (you and Braley). Can you tell us a little bit about your positions on immigration?

Mike Whalen: Well, mine's simple. We have to stop the jobs to stop the flow. ...I've also said that we need to tighten our borders. We need to do both of those things and we need to go to it now.

When I talk to people, I don't hear racism, I don't hear xenophobia, I don't hear any kind of negative thing. What I hear from Iowans is that they want the rule of law to be (in effect again). They think that sovereignty is something that counts. They think it's not unreasonable to have to show an ID to get a job, the same way that you should have to show one to vote....

John Hawkins: We sort of touched on this earlier, but tell us a little more about Bruce Braley, about some of the positions of his that you find objectionable.

Mike Whalen: ..Bruce wants to...be part of the Nancy Pelosi, left-wing crowd. ...He's a former head of the Iowa trial lawyers. ...He suggested, in a televised round table, that we immediately cut off funding for the troops and force them all to come home. He doesn't take the global fight for freedom and against terrorism seriously. I do.

...On the economy, he's pretty much the opposite of me. He wants to put government in charge of health care. He thinks that the tax cuts are bad and that people need to pay more taxes. He tries to pretend that Social Security and Medicare don't need any kind of a fix. Finally, you know trial lawyers, they never saw a lawsuit they didn't like. He thinks that the current system is just fine.

John Hawkins: Last question. Last month, the National Journal ranked your district as the Democrat's number one pick-up opportunity in the country. So, you've got a big political target on your back. How do you think things are going right now? Are you ahead, behind? How do you see the race right now?

Mike Whalen: When I talked to Tom Cole, a Congressman from Oklahoma, he said, "In my district, a Democrat can beat a Republican. But, a conservative can beat a hard core liberal." I think the (best way to sum it up) is that when conservatives stand on pro-growth, pro-freedom, and pro-family issues and don't back down, we can win. (Our internal polls) show I'm winning. Contrary to what you see written in the national press, my pro-growth, conservative ideas seem to be resonating.

John Hawkins: Mike, I appreciate your time. Thank you!

If you're so inclined, you can donate to Mike Whalen's campaign through Rightroots.

Link #1

Link #2

Link #3

Link #4

Link #5

Link #6

Link #7

Link #8

Link #9

Link #10

Link #11

Link #12

Link #13

Link #14

The first poll from CT., after the Democratic primary, is out and it seems that Lamont doesn't have quite enough NedMentum:

"Just released by Rasmussen (behind the subscription wall), in a three way race, Lieberman (I) leads Lamont (D) 46-41. Schlesinger has 6."

On the one hand, I thought Lieberman would have a bigger lead right out of the blocks. On the other hand, Lamont is undoubtedly getting a little bit of a "winner's bounce" after beating Joe in the primaries and so Joe's margin will probably expand a bit once people see that he's ahead. Also, if and when Schlesinger drops out, you have to figure that 6% will probably move over to Joe, rather than Lamont.

So, for the moment, Joe seems to be in a pretty good spot.

Hmmm...there's an old, old song this brings to mind. What is it called? Oh yeah, I remember -- Who's Sorry Now:

...Right to the end, just like a friend,
I tried to warn you, somehow,
Aaaaaaaaahhh!
You had your way, now you must pay,
We're glad that you're sorry now.

Also see,

JoeMentum? How About Some JoeMath?

The Democrats -- for the most part -- are trying to put up a stoic front about Joe Lieberman's loss, as much as anything, so that they don't offend Kos and his pals in the liberal blogosphere. But, as you can imagine, there's probably a lot of grumbling behind the scenes about Ned Lamont's victory and Kos.

Enter Stacey Tallitsch, who's running for Congress and trying to curry favor with the Kos crowd. In a diary at the Daily Kos, Tallitsch brags that his staff has created a petition to "encourage the Party Leadership to remove Lieberman from his committee positions."

But, that's not the interesting part. The interesting part is an email that Tallitsch published from Robert Bunn, whom Tallitsch describes as a Democratic consultant, "within the DNC itself." Here's part of Bunn's email, which probably reflects the private thinking of a lot of DC Democrats these days:

"...Lieberman has voted with the Party 92.6% of the time. Thats more often than any single other person setting themselves up to run for the Dem Nomination in 08. He is one of the very few Incumbants that has managed to stay on the side of Harry Reid, supporting him on every issue regardless of how pointless it would end up being.. or how obvious the pointlessness of the arguement was to start with.

Joe has towed the line.. and towed it like a lemming.. and we reward him by allowing KOS and the Net-Ultra left to beat him over a SINGLE ISSUE. A SINGLE ISSUE!

This defeat for him wasn't about his being connected to his constutients. It wasn't about his commentary on policy. His support for Reid. His Support for John Conyers. His Support for Hillary the insane. Or his dynamic defense on many fronts of Nancy Pelosi's right to be Minority leader. He lost on National DEFENSE.. WHICH IS NOT EVEN OUR MESSAGE OR OUR FRAME! He was beaten by Republican propaganda and the lunatic net-left that now think they are KING MAKERS!

...Your running for Congress in the Red South Pandering to D.F.A. members who have already written you off. Koss the kingmaker himself just stated on his Blog within the last week " We do not need a single southern state to win in 08". I'm one of the few DNC consulants still in the south trying to win rurally. Trust me when I say, " Your barking up the wrong tree."

Robert Bunn Proud Member of: Moveon.org, Progressive Democrats of America Ally, League of Conservation Voters"

He doesn't sound so happy with Kos and the lefty bloggers, does he? What was that he called them, the, "lunatic net-left?" As an aside, you also have to love the, "Hillary the insane," line.

In any case, it wouldn't be the least bit surprising if there are Democrats all over Washington saying exactly the same thing as Bunn and, perhaps, secretly hoping that Joe pulls off a victory if only to humiliate Kos and Company.

Don't hold me to this because it's still very early and there isn't enough polling data out yet, but, at the moment, after taking a hard look at how the individual races are shaping up around the country, I see the GOP losing:

3 To 5 Senate Seats: The Dems would probably need to have everything break their way, which is far from certain, and win the Corker (R) vs. Ford (D) race to take back the Senate.

5 to 9 House Seats: At the moment, the Dems don't seem to have enough good pick-up opportunities to get the 15 seats they need to take back the House.

Unfortunately, the question right now doesn't appear to be whether the GOP is going to lose ground in November or not, it's whether we can contain the damage.

It's August, the slowest time of the year for political bloggers and it's Friday, the work day when the least amount of news tends to break. So, if I have to get a little creative to come up with content, you'll have to forgive me =D

This idea was stolen from Right Thinking Girl.

Here's a particularly wacky statement that was in the comments section of the The Democratic Underground: Terror Threat? What Terror Threat? thread yesterday:

"Remember, Remember Bush MIHOP. He seduced the American people into believing that the biggest threat to our existence was the A-rabs. Bush threw a dart at a map to determine which non-white people he was going to screw for absolute power. People... we are living V for Vendetta! Bush is Chancellor Sutler and Cheney is Mister Creedy. The American people were making up to the masterful bullshite that was 9/11 and him and Haliburton had to remind us all why we needed them to trample our rights. Pretty soon.. we are going to see a law that says we must swear allegiance to Jeebus. All who are non-believers in Jeebus will end up in camps. All who fall under the category of sexually diverse will end up in camps. We are living V for Vendetta. This foiled plot is what is supposed to begin the next phase of the plot for absolute power and this is America Under Jeebus. We are going to become the Republic of Jeebus and we will be required to watch hourly religious broadcasts from the government's official religious spokespeople and they will all be Pentecostal. Women will be oppressed. Abortion will be outlawed. We are living V for Vendetta and people are going to get their Valerie Letter and WE. WILL. FIGHT. which means we'll sit on our *ss and pretend we live in a totalitarian state and when this is all over.. a book will be written entitled American Police State: Jesus Land and Tim Robbins will make an Oscar winning film 10 years from now.

Viva la Revolucion! Hasta la Victoria Siempre!" -- VoiceOfTheWorker

Is this post from a kook or someone pretending to be a kook? Keep in mind that there are people this crazy out there, particularly on the Democratic Underground. Also, note the Commie nickname. As we all know, Commies are a little crazier than ordinary people -- which is part of the reason that they're Commies.

So, what do you think? Is this post from a real kook or a fake kook?

When freelance photojournalist Adnan Hajj’s camera caught shocking images of unbelievable destruction brought down upon the peaceloving Hizbollah people by a brutal Zionist aggressor, little did he know it would cause such a firestorm.

It seems the photographs, published by Reuters and described as "IDF forces marching across a field of human skulls while firing indiscriminately at civilians", were actually publicity stills of a popular Arnold Schwarzeneggar film with Hasidic Jewish hats and beards crudely pasted onto evil terminator robots. Reuters later printed a retraction and apologized for the inconvenience. But as they did with the damning memos proving Bush went AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard to snort coke with Hitler, Digital Brownshirts used the debatable authenticity of the photos to cast doubt upon their accuracy.

An incredulous Hajj insisted he had merely enhanced the images to remove dust that collected on his camera lens, but what he photographed was REAL.

“And it's gonna feel pretty f--kin' real to you, too!” he screamed at reporters as the doctors dragged him away. “Anybody not wearing two million sunblock is gonna have a real bad day, get it?! You think you're safe and alive. You're already dead! DEAD! Bhahahahahaaa!!!”

It was a reasonable explanation, but apparently not enough for the Blog Nazis. Reuters was inundated with hate mail until they had no choice but to terminate Hahjj and retract all the photos he took of war-ravaged Beirut, including his Pulitzer-Prize winning image of a bombed-out FAO Schwartz.

Hajj’s work opened the world’s eyes to a level of devastation unseen in Lebanon since the Cartoon Riots. But thanks to the same Little Green Turdballs who swiftboated Dan Rather, an award-winning photojournalist is now out of work.

But the future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves. I face mine, for the first time, with a sense of hope. Because if a machine, a Terminator, can learn the value of human life, maybe conservatives can too.

This satire was used with the permission of BlameBush!.

British Police Arrested 24 People In Overnight Raids And Said On Thursday They Had Foiled A Plot To Commit "Mass Murder" By Blowing Up Several Aircraft Flying Over The Atlantic Ocean To The United States

U.S. Says Terrorists Planned Dry Run Within Two Days

U.S. Picked Up The Suspects' Chatter And Shared It With British Authorities; New Federal Alert Warns That Peroxide-Based Explosives Could Also Be Employed In Future Attacks In The U.S.

Terror Suspect Waheed Zaman Met Controversial MP George Galloway Many Times, His Sister Said

Israel Warplanes Pound Hezbollah Targets

Bush: U.S. 'At War With Islamic Fascists'

U.S. Issues Terror Warning In New Delhi

Some Shiites Press For A Constitutional Partition Of Iraq (Free La Times Reg Req)

Seoul Seeks Wartime Control Over Its Army From U.S.

Officials Probe Lieberman Web Site Crash

Investigators: Pair With Passenger Info, Phones Linked To Terror

US Army Reaches Recruiting Goal For 14th Straight Month

Charles Krauthammer: Democrats as Myopic Doves, Again

The WSJ: A Terror Plot Is Exposed By The Policies Many American Liberals Oppose

Ed Koch: Bush's Fortitude On The Middle East

Newt Gingrich: The Only Option Is to Win (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Peter Schweizer: Gore Isn't Quite As Green As He's Led The World To Believe

The Owner Of A New American Basketball Association Team Has Stirred Up A Storm In Quebec But Is Sticking To His Decision To Use A Cartoon Frog In The Team's Logo

10 Grossest Candies

Website Of The Day: Boker Tov, Boulder!

These people may be complete idiots, but you have to give them credit for having the courage of their convictions:

"International and local activists are planning on Saturday to bring a civilian convoy to southern Lebanon, worst hit by Israel's 28-day-old war on Hizbollah, to deliver aid and show solidarity with suffering residents.

...One idea they are considering is to bring large numbers of people, rather than a few activists, to the Hizbollah strongholds of south Lebanon or south Beirut to try to protect them or draw attention to the plight of civilians there.

So far, activists who have shown up in Lebanon from the United States and Europe are part of an exploratory group, but Shapiro believes they can attract hundreds more, including from Arab states, once they come up with a strategy.

"In the United States people were already contacting us, Lebanese and internationals interested in coming to Lebanon to see how we could help," Shapiro said."

So, they're going to be driving a convoy right into the middle of a hot war zone that features Israel fighting against blood thirsty, non-uniformed terrorists, in order to deliver aid and act as human shields? Gee, what could possibly go wrong?

Let me be the first to say that I hope these people don't get killed. Even though, at best, they're very foolish and at worst, they're terrorist sympathizers, as long as they don't pick up guns or get caught directly giving supplies to terrorists, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

However, it also needs to be said that they've knowingly decided to take an incredibly dangerous course of action that will primarily be of benefit to terrorists with American blood on their hands. These people know what Hezbollah is all about and they know that the Hezbos have been known to use people like them as human shields. They also know that the Israelis are telling everyone to leave and then striking targets whether they hang around or not.

Since that's the case, if these peace activists don't make it out of Lebanon alive, in my book, they have no one to blame but themselves.

PS: Here's a question: why don't they head to Israel to act as human shields? Hezbollah is firing hundreds of rockets at the civilian population there. Couldn't they use some human shields and supplies? Could it be because Hezbollah doesn't care whether they kill peace activists or not? It could indeed.

PS #2: It could also be because they're anti-semites who want to help the terrorists kill Jews, but don't have the heart to pick up a gun. Whatever their motivations are, they're helping the terrorists murder more innocent Israelis and don't deserve much sympathy if they meet an unfortunate fate.

If you want to get an idea of how useless the left has become at fighting terrorism, a trip to the Democratic Underground Forums today would be very instructive.

Here we have a massive terrorist plot uncovered in Britain that may have been, "meant as next 9/11." The terrorists were planning to take down multiple planes headed in to the US, the Brits have arrested 20 people, hundreds of flights have been cancelled, they've banned taking liquids onto planes in the US, and the threat level has been raised to red.

Meanwhile, here are just some of the thread titles at the Democratic Underground General Forums:

Why blow up planes over the oceans? Somethings fishy
Cold War vs. Al Qaeda/Terror hoaxes now?
I call Bullsh*t on this foiled terror plot, who is with me?
MAJOR TIN FOIL GOING ON HERE
We are a country held hostage by fear
Should I mobilize the National Guard for my hiker shuttle today?
so one day after the Lamont win theres a foiled terror plot
I. Am. Hypnotized. ooooo pretty colors on Terror Alert bar
"President" on way to fundraiser, will address the latest terror hoax
The timing of the terrorist bust is almost obvious.
Lieberman loses, CODE RED, CODE RED, CODE RED
The terrorists won the war on terror even before it started.

Meanwhile, here are the results of a terror threat poll in one of the threads:

Do you see the terrorist threat from the perspective of the Democrats' now?

In their world, there is no serious threat so we don't need the Patriot Act, we don't need Gitmo, we have no reason to be in Iraq. In fact, they're so nonplussed by the idea of terrorism that they're more worried about how we're treating the terrorists we capture than protecting this country from more attacks.

If you try to tell them there is a threat, they just block you out. It's not serious, it's a political ploy, it's all a big joke.

But, if there actually is another big attack, we all know that those very same people who are working non-stop to undercut the fight will rise as one and blame Bush and the Republican Party, not the terrorists or even themselves, for the death and destruction.

So, we have one party that believes in defending American and another party full of people so blinded by ideology that they can't react, or even fully acknowledge, a threat when it's staring them right in the face. It's sad really.

Here we are, on a day the Democratic Party has purged their former vice presidential candidate from their ranks for being serious about the war on terror and we have a massive Al-Qaeda terror plot discovered.

It's quite a juxtaposition, isn't it? Yes, even as the Democrats are demanding that their Party members abandon Iraq to the terrorists as a test of loyalty, Al-Qaeda is caught planning to blow up planes headed from Britain to the US in an effort to "commit 'mass murder on an unimaginable scale.'"

There's a lesson here. Just because the Democrats are tired of fighting the war on terror doesn't mean that the terrorists feel the same way.

A Breakdown Of CT. voters according to the 2006 Almanac of American Politics:

43% Independent
34.2% Democratic
22.9% Republicans

If Joe Lieberman gets 60% of the Independent vote, which seems entirely plausible given Joe's popularity with them and the fact that he'll be running as an independent, that's 25.8% of the electorate for him and 17.2% of the electorate for Lamont.

If Lieberman gets 75% of the Republican vote, which seems entirely plausible given that Joe is fairly well liked among Republicans and Lamont is very liberal, that's another 17.2% of the electorate for Joe, which brings him up to 43% of the electorate. Let's assume the rest goes to Libertarians, third party candidates, Schlesinger (if he stays in), etc. Now, we're up to 43% of the electorate for Joe and 17.2% for Lamont.

If Joe Lieberman can get 24% of the Democratic Vote, which seems entirely plausible given that he got 48% in the primary and only 1 in 5 Lieberman supporters thought he shouldn't pursue an independent run, that would give Joe another 8.2% of the electorate while Lamont would capture another 26.0% of the electorate.

Final tally? Lieberman 51.2% and 43.2% for Lamont. Are those plausible numbers? You bet. Will it work out that way? Well, that's why we have elections, instead of just relying on number crunching. But, from where I'm sitting, Lieberman is still in the catbird's seat for the general election.

Mike Wallace came out of retirement to interview Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Wallace found him to be “an impressive fellow.” Indeed, he might have a little man-crush on him, remarking, “He’s actually, in a strange way, he’s a rather attractive man, very smart, savvy, self-assured, good looking in a strange way.”

Twenty-seven years after a chilling sit-down with Ayatollah Khomeini that was one of Mike Wallace’s most memorable, the CBS newsman snagged an interview this week with current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran. The 88-year-old Wallace had been pursuing the interview for so long that he had to be reminded by Ahmadinejad when he first asked for it. A portion of Wallace’s interview, conducted Tuesday at a crucial time in the Mideast with Israel fighting the Iran-backed Hezbollah, will be shown Thursday on the “CBS Evening News.” A fuller report will air on Sunday’s “60 Minutes.”

In the interview, Ahmadinejad said of the Bush administration, “see how they talk down to my nation.”

During the midst of the American hostage crisis in 1979, Wallace interviewed Iranian leader Khomeini, locking eyes with the cleric when he asked for a response to Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat calling Khomeini a lunatic. Of Ahmadinejad, Wallace said, “He’s an impressive fellow, this guy. He really is. He’s obviously smart as hell.”

Wallace said he was surprised to find that the Iranian president was still a college professor who taught a graduate-level course. “You’ll find him an interesting man,” he said. “I expected more of a firebrand. I don’t think he has the slightest doubt about how he feels … about the American administration and the Zionist state. He comes across as more rational than I had expected.”

Hollywood Reporter’s Paul Gough account makes it clear that Wallace had this reaction even after some rather rude treatment at his host’s hands:

[W]hen they got there they were told that the Iranian president was very busy and may not get to talk to them. The CBS crew cooled their heels, so to speak, in Tehran’s 100-degree heat in a hotel without air conditioning. “We waited, and they said, ‘he’s still busy, he doesn’t know, he hasn’t decided,’” Wallace said. “We were scheduled to return. If he hadn’t talked to us by late Tuesday we were going to get on the plane. All of the sudden word came through he was going to talk.”

The 3:30 p.m. interview didn’t come off until 5 p.m., but Wallace said their talk stretched for an hour and a half. “We went on and on,” Wallace said. “We were told we were going to get 30 minutes.”

Wallace has spent a lot of time in Iran over the past four decades, interviewing the Shah, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani and, most famously, the 1979 sitdown with the Ayatollah Khomeini who asked the Iranian leader what he thought of Anwar Sadat’s desciption of him as a lunatic.

There wasn’t any of that this time. Wallace dismissed the common perceptions of Ahmadinejad. “He’s actually, in a strange way, he’s a rather attractive man, very smart, savvy, self-assured, good looking in a strange way,” Wallace said. “He’s very, very short but he’s comfortable in his own skin.”

Despite problems with translation — there was only one translator for a time during the interview — Wallace said Ahmadinejad was patient. “He couldn’t have been more accomodating. He had a good time doing the interview,” Wallace said. And he believes that it was Ahmadinejad’s idea to do the interview. He acknowledged that he had become a much-desired interview subject but told the veteran CBS journalist that he remembered a discussion the two had over a year ago when Ahmadinejad was in New York. “I don’t know if you remember this or not but you and I had a talk over breakfast at the United Nations,” Ahmadinejad told Wallace. “Do you remember that you asked me at the time if I would sit down with you … and I said by all means, let’s do it.” Wallace said he was surprised that Ahmadinejad had remembered.

As for retiring, Wallace said that he isn’t having a happy retirement because he likes the job. He does acknowledge, particularly in this last voyage, that the airplane travel is “interminable” and the major reason why he wanted to retire in the first place. But he said there were other stories that he wanted to do. “When you love what you do, it’s not work,” Wallace said.

Now, Wallace is a professional journalist and, with some major caveats (see below), one of the best. That he found Ahmadinejah charismatic and impressive does not offend me, either. I’m sure Hitler and Stalin had a presence, too. I understand the same was true of Osama bin Laden in his prime; there haven’t been any interviews lately. Still, I share David Bernstein's befuddlement at the lack of countervailing disgust at a man who, as Bernstein puts it, is “the man whose agents are killing scores of Americans in Iraq, not to mention thousands of Iraqis, and who also is the world’s leading Holocaust denier and most dangerous anti-Semite [relevant aside: Wallace is Jewish], currently engaged in a devastating proxy war with Israel and threatening to wipe out the country entirely.” But, damn, he’s hot!

Wallace, though, is a man whose value set I can’t quite understand. I call to your attention, again, to a 1987 exchange from a PBS panel discussion. James Fallows describes in hindsight a dialogue between the late Peter Jennings, then anchor of ABC World News Tonight, and Wallace about a hypothetical war they were covering.

With Jennings in their midst, the northern soldiers set up a perfect ambush, which will let them gun down the Americans and Southerners, every one. What does Jennings do? Ogletree asks. Would he tell his cameramen to “Roll tape!” as the North Kosanese opened fire? What would go through his mind as he watched the North Kosanese prepare to ambush the Americans? Jennings sat silent for about fifteen seconds after Ogletree asked this question. “Well, I guess I wouldn’t,” he finally said. “I am going to tell you now what I am feeling, rather than the hypothesis I drew for myself. If I were with a North Kosanese unit that came upon Americans, I think that I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans.” Even if it means losing the story? Ogletree asked.

Even though it would almost certainly mean losing my life, Jennings replied. “But I do not think that I could bring myself to participate in that act. That’s purely personal, and other reporters might have a different reaction.” Immediately Mike Wallace spoke up. “I think some other reporters would have a different reaction,” he said, obviously referring to himself. “They would regard it simply as a story they were there to cover.” “I am astonished, really,” at Jennings’s answer, Wallace said a moment later. He turned toward Jennings and began to lecture him: “You’re a reporter. Granted you’re an American”-at least for purposes of the fictional example; Jennings has actually retained Canadian citizenship. “I’m a little bit at a loss to understand why, because you’re an American, you would not have covered that story.” Ogletree pushed Wallace. Didn’t Jennings have some higher duty, either patriotic or human, to do something other than just roll film as soldiers from his own country were being shot? “No,” Wallace said flatly and immediately. “You don’t have a higher duty. No. No. You’re a reporter!” Jennings backtracked fast. Wallace was right, he said. “I chickened out.” Jennings said that he had gotten so wrapped up in the hypothetical questions that he had lost sight of his journalistic duty to remain detached.

Bizarre, indeed. I fully understand the idea that getting the story is important. That this is paramount to one’s loyalties as a citizen, however, is beyond my powers of empathy.

This content was used with the permission of Outside the Beltway.

UK: Plane Terror Plot Thwarted

Israel Puts Ground Offensive On Hold

40,000 Troops Poised To Enter Lebanon (Jerusalem Post Reg Req)

Israeli Cabinet Backs Wider Ground Raids in Lebanon (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Claim: Iranians Among Hizbollah Combat Dead

Israel Attacks Palestinian Base In Lebanon

Iranian Leader Speaks To Mike Wallace

British MP George Galloway Asks Al- Jazeera Viewers For Funds And Says: Bush-Blair Relations Resemble Clinton-Monica Relations; Arab Rulers Are Fornicating With Foreign Occupiers

Liebeman Files To Run As An Independent. Fires Campaign Staff.

Experts Say Lieberman, Not Lamont, Will Drive Senate Race

Exit Polling: In A Hypothetical Three-Way Race Against Lamont And Schlesinger, Lamont Would Earn 49% Of The Votes Of These Democratic Primary Voters, And Lieberman Would Receive 36%

Democrats Rally Behind Lamont. Kick Joe Lieberman Under A Bus (Free LA Times Reg Req)

Claim: Rove Offers Help To Lieberman Not True

RNC Web Video: From FDR To Ned Lamont: The Democrat Party’s Transformation From Strength To Weakness

Russ Feingold To Give Lamont $5,000 Contribution

Sheldon Whitehouse (D) now leads Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), 44% to 38%.

SurveyUSA: Brown 48% Vs. DeWine 41%

McKinney Election Stolen...By 11,000 Votes

Rightroots Makes News in NY

Wired News Pulls Freelancer's Stories

Pat Robertson Prays For Israeli Victory

The WAPO: Joe Lieberman Would Be The Better Senator. That's Why Staying In The Race Is The Right Move (Free WAPO Reg Req)

National Review Endorses Lieberman

Jonah Goldberg: The Last Hawkish Democrat Leaves the Building (Free LA Times Reg Req)

Jacob Weisberg: Why Lamont's Victory Spells Democratic Disaster

Ann Coulter: Big Foot, Scoop Jackson Democrats And Other Myths

Jonah Goldberg: A Polish Future? Understanding Israel

Victor Davis Hanson: Worry About the West -- Not Israel

September 11 -- What Year? 30 Percent Of Americans Don't Know (That Is So Bizarre)

A Brazilian Man Died Tuesday When He Tried To Open What Police Believe Was A Rocket-Propelled Grenade With A Sledgehammer

Woman Has Pentagram Tatooed On Her As She Sleeps

Greg Gutfeld: Ned Will Rock You (The HuffPo Super Duper 'Contagious'™ Walking off The Pier Remix)

Humor: If You Touch My Hoagie One More Time, I Will Kill You (Very Offensive With Lots Of Bad Language, But Funny)

Website Of The Day: Musing Minds

"Joe Lieberman has become the Zell Miller of the Democratic party. A spiteful, hateful man who lost his way and became a Republican, yet never had the courage to just admit it." -- AMERICAblog

Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary. And if he has so little respect for the voters in that primary that he will not abide by the results, then the party leadership must show him the door. To do otherwise would be to sanction cheating Democratic voters of their rightful say in the party process — and would render the party leadership moot. That is true whether Ned Lamont won by one vote — or by several thousand." -- Christy Hardin Smith at Firedoglake

"Joe Lieberman has every right to run as independent. Those are the rules. And we as donors and grassroots leaders and patriots have every right to say to any and all Democrats, “you will support the nominee. If you do not, do not ever again ask for a dime for the DSCC or the DCCC or the DNC or for yourself. We cannot give money to institutions that carry the name Democrat but act as oligarchs." -- Rick Jacobs at The Huffington Post

"But now that so many from the caucus have bowed to base pressure and endorsed Ned Lamont -- I'm thinking here of Dodd, Clinton, Feingold, Kerry, Bayh, Kennedy, Schumer, Emmanuel, Reid, and Obama, all of whom have stuck the shiv into Joe -- Lieberman is apt to feel as betrayed by his colleagues as he does by his voters. That radically increases the chance he'll switch parties or leverage his independence against his side which, in turn, radically increases the importance that the party kill off his candidacy and ensure Lamont's election." -- Ezra Klein

"Nearly every Democrat set to run for president in 2008 is responsible for this war. They voted for it or they supported it. That single, stupid decision has cost us 2,592 American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Lieberman and Company made a colossal mistake -- and we are going to make sure they pay for that mistake. Payback time started last night.

I realize that there are those like Kerry and Edwards who have now changed their position and are strongly anti-war. Perhaps that switch will be enough for some to support them. For others, like me -- while I'm glad they've seen the light -- their massive error in judgment is, sadly, proof that they are not fit for the job. They sided with Bush, and for that, they may never enter the promised land.

...To every Democratic Senator and Congressman who continues to back Bush's War, allow me to inform you that your days in elective office are now numbered. Myself and tens of millions of citizens are going to work hard to actively remove you from any position of power." -- Michael Moore

"So Ned Lamont did defeat Joe Lieberman. But Lamont won by just under four percentage points, a far cry from the huge margins he'd captured in the polls just a week ago. Lieberman's concession speech was also a declaration of intent to run as an independent where there are more potential independents than Democrats and Republicans . But, if Lamont is trying to put himself forward as a new face in the Democratic Party, the two men who planted themselves right in back of him on the stage at the victory party gave it all away. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are hustlers, and racist hustlers at that. They have accomplished nothing for African-Americans, nothing." -- Martin Peretz at The Plank

"If Lamont had won by ten points or more, as polls suggested and as most people expected*, it would have been overwhelming. But the fact is that Lieberman is one of the most, perhaps the most, pro-Bush Democrats in Washington, in one of the most liberal states, and he only lost by a whisker. I don't think other Democrats are going to look at Lieberman and say "there but for the grace of God go I." -- Johnathan Chait at The Plank

"Democratic politicians in Washington are tripping over themselves to issue statements officially endorsing Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Ned Lamont. That’s a very good thing. But what isn’t so good is that most of these Democrats are blathering on about what a great guy Joe Lieberman is - even as Lieberman is leaving the Democratic Party, running as an candidate of one, going on network television to attack Democrats, and ultimately threatening not only Democrats hold on the Connecticut Senate seat but Democrats national efforts to retake Congress.

...The reaction to Joe Lieberman from Democrats should not be "wow, what a great guy he is" - it should be "we must crush this craven, selfish anti-democratic opportunist because he is trying to destroy the Democratic Party and ignore the will of voters."

Clearly, in some quarters, there is hesitation to embrace this simple statement of the truth. And that begs questions to all Democratic Party officeholders: Will you unequivocally endorse Democratic nominee Ned Lamont and not package that endorsement with salivating praise for Joe Lieberman - a man who is aggressively moving to undermine the Democratic Party? Will you sign General Clark’s letter demanding Lieberman back down? Contact your Democratic Senator today and ask them this very simple question." -- David Sirota

"Joe to Connecticut Democrats: "F*ck You"

I do not accept the decision of the voters

Classless till the end, Joe Lieberman concedes, announces that he will run as part of the First Second-Place Party, and then trashes Ned Lamont.

What. A. D*ck.

Of course this will result in cash and resources that should be going to the real Democrats down ticket being spent fighting off a Vichy Democrat.

But it's all about Joe." -- Tbogg

That pic is from an emailed promo for a RNC web video called, Weak And Wrong: Meet The Defeat-ocrats.

To the best of my knowledge, that is the first time either poltical party has actually used a blogger as a significant part of an attack ad. So, congrats to Kos for making history...making history for being such a weak, lefty peacenik -- but still, making history!

Update #1: I just got off a teleconference with RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman and he was hammering away on this topic.

He pointed out that Lieberman is a liberal who opposed ANWR, opposed banning partial birth abortion, but that he was purged because he supported the war.

Mehlman added that shows that the Democratic Party is isolationist, defeatist, and blames America first. Additionally, he said that the Democrats want to cut and run in Iraq, which would let the terrorists win and he also noted that Lieberman's loss shows that there is no room for anyone in the Democratic Party who doesn't agree with the most liberal, most isolationist, and most defeatist activists.

My reaction? It's great to see the RNC really going after the Democrats. If the Dems want to run as the wimp party, that's just dying to give up and hand victory to our enemies in Iraq, then we should be calling them on it. It's too bad Bush isn't a little more active in going after these guys like Mehlman did today.

Update #2: Ladies and gentlemen, I do believe we have a meme developing. From Congressman Jack Kingston:

"The hijacking of the Democratic Party by the Hollywood liberals, Starbucks pacifists, and angry bloggers was confirmed last night when Connecticut Democrats actually tossed overboard their beloved senior Senator for a single-issue elitist liberal.

With this win, the outliers of the Democratic Party are signaling a clarion call of their own: join the cut-and-run caucus or you will be replaced by someone who will.

...it is sad that there is no room in the Democratic Party for a statesman and gentleman like Joe Lieberman. It is clear to me that the far left Democrats have no room for bipartisanship, they have no place for leaders that put principle ahead of polling, and they have no patience for any Democrat who supports the Global War on Terrorism.

Clearly, the Democratic Party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Scoop Jackson, and Joe Lieberman no longer exists."

The French have wimped out at the UN. Big shocker there.

"The French-American alliance at the United Nations over a Mideast cease-fire agreement is crumbling, sources tell FOX News.

The French U.N. delegation has joined with Arab nations and is now calling for a complete and immediate Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon as a condition of any cease-fire, the sources said.

In addition, the French have reportedly agreed with Arab demands that the Lebanese force be accompanied only by UNIFIL, with no international force to be deployed.

Syria, Iran and Hezbollah are pushing to take Lebanon's offer to deploy 15,000 forces into the embattled southern region along with UNIFIL forces to gain stability without an international force there after more than three weeks of intense fighting."

Here's the problem: no country wants to see its troops die fighting against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The US and Britain are busy elsewhere in the war on terror and all the other big players are either incompetent or simply find it easier to blame the Jews for everything publicly while they secretly gloat over Hezbollah's destruction.

So, how do you solve this problem? Israel has to keep bloodying Hezbollah and systematically destroying their assets, but they also have to recognize that the Hezbos are just tools of Syria and Iran. When Iran and Syria, particularly Syria since it's closer, are hurt or become afraid of being hurt, they'll call off the dogs. In other words, the best way to eventually stop the fighting in Lebanon is to be willing, if necessary, to kill people in Syria.

Only time will tell if it will eventually come to that.

A lot of Republicans, especially Republicans in Connecticut, are probably asking themselves whether they should support Joe Lieberman's independent campaign. The answer is, "yes," and let me tell you why:

#1) The Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger, is not going to win. So, that means the choice is between Lieberman and the ultra, left-wing thrall of the netroots, Ned Lamont.

#2) If Lieberman wins as an Independent, with lots of Republican and Independent support, the Democrats will no longer be able to strong arm him into party line votes and it seems very likely that he'll move to the center to better represent the make-up of his new constituency.

#3) Even if Lamont and Lieberman were exactly the same on domestic issues (and they're not), Lieberman is serious about national security while Lamont isn't. That alone gives Republicans a good reason to support him.

#4) By backing Lieberman, the GOP may help widen their appeal to Jews, hawks, and moderates that have been leaning towards the Democratic Party.

#5) If Lieberman stays strong, it will divert millions of dollars in Democratic resources and time to Connecticut that could be better used elsewhere. Moreover, it'll create nasty rifts in the Democratic Party as the hard core left-wingers slug it out with the moderates.

#6) The Democrats are portraying Lamont's win as a huge victory for the anti-war movement. Therefore, it follows that if Lieberman wins in a liberal state like Connecticut, it'll be viewed as a loss by the anti-war crowd.

#7) The liberal netroots "own" this win by Lamont so it also follows that they would "own" the loss. Having Joe Lieberman knock off their candidate would be a real thumb in the eye to the left side of the blogosphere.

#8) If Lieberman wins, it's possible that he may end up voting to give control of Congress to the GOP. Now, he may not say that, but if it gets really nasty, and the GOP is friendly enough, you never know what might happen in 2006 and beyond. In any case, if control of the Senate comes down to one vote, Republicans would be much better off having Joe Lieberman as that vote than Ned Lamont.

For a long while now, people have been talking about the impact of the blogosphere on politics. On the right, bloggers have helped take down people like Dan Rather, Eason Jordan, and former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. Even today, as this column is being written, there's lots of chatter about Reuters photographer Adnan Hajj, who has been fired and had all of his pictures yanked offline after sharp-eyed conservative bloggers caught him photoshopping pictures from Lebanon.

On the other hand, while liberal bloggers haven't had as much success as conservative bloggers at breaking big stories, they have done one thing extremely well: raise money for liberal candidates. Granted, they don't have much of a win and loss record, because more often as not they seem to support candidates that don't have any chance to win, but that doesn't change the fact that they are funneling lots of lucre into Democratic coffers.

So, why have the liberal bloggers been able to raise so much money when conservative bloggers have been unable to do the same thing? Well, as RNC eCampaign Director Patrick Ruffini told me in a June 6, 2006 mini-interview, there's actually a very simple explanation:

John Hawkins: Oh, let me just throw this in. Why do you think the left side of the blogosphere has been so much more successful than the right at fund raising (for candidates)?

Patrick Ruffini: To the extent that's true, it's a matter of asking. You can't receive if you don't ask...when you see these candidates on the left (that raise a lot of money), the Francine Busby's of the world, it's because they keep pounding and pounding and pounding away.

Those comments got me thinking, "Here we are in an election year and the GOP is desperately trying to keep Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid from grabbing the reigns of power. Yet, even though we have the liberal blogosphere raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars for Democratic candidates, we conservative bloggers are just sitting on our hands."

Someone needed to step up and do something and since no one else was doing it, I decided that someone had better be me. So, I immediately starting reaching out to influential bloggers who might be willing and able to help out with a project like this. In short order, Mary Katharine Ham from Townhall, Robert Bluey from Human Events, Erick Erickson from Redstate, Ed Morrissey from Captain's Quarters, Patrick Hynes from Ankle Biting Pundits, and Lorie Byrd from Wizbang all volunteered to help out.

Once we got a team together, the next step was selecting candidates we could endorse. The first thing we decided to do was to back candidates in competitive races. So, we didn't bother with any candidates that were certain to win or certain to lose. We also decided not to back any incumbents, not only because an incumbent shouldn't need our help to raise funds -- but because we wanted to give people who weren't satisfied with the performance of the Republican Congress a slate that they could feel comfortable helping. Then, after much discussion, we decided not to back any candidates in contested primaries in order to avoid the sort of dog and pony show that Connecticut has turned into for the Democrats. In the end, we came up with a slate of 18 candidates -- 4 Republicans running for the Senate and 14 candidates contending for House seats.

Next, after we had our candidates, we still needed a place to handle the money. That's where ABC PAC came in. ABC PAC, which is completely separate from Rightroots, is run by experienced political professionals like Jason Torchinsky, the Deputy General Counsel to Bush-Cheney '04, and Michael Turk, the former eCampaign Director at the Republican National Committee. Soon after we sent them a slate of candidates, they had a Rightroots page prepared and were ready to help us raise money.

But, then came the debut of Rightroots on August 1st and I have to admit that we were all on pins and needles. On the right side of the blogosphere, no one had ever endorsed a whole slate of candidates before and we wondered what the reaction would be. Would other bloggers react favorably to the idea? Would it get any attention? Most importantly, could we raise money for these candidates? We were hopeful, but tense.

So, what happened? Well in our first week, we raised over $36,000 for our candidates, we were endorsed by Bill Frist, and we had Jack Kingston's PAC agree to chip in another $14,000 to our candidates. In my book, that is a fantastic start!

However, if we're going to keep that momentum going, we will need some help. We're going to need more contributions and we're going to need more people to spread the word about Rightroots. Although this started as a blogosphere project, we don't want it to end there. That's why we'd love to have more bloggers endorsing and linking our efforts, but we'd also love to get conservative magazines, talk radio, politicians, and party activists all helping out, too. After all, it is called, "Rightroots" and the "roots" of the party aren't just made up of bloggers.

We have a great opportunity here to help the GOP retain Congress by giving Republicans a way to contribute to some of the key races in the country, even if they don't live in competitive states or districts. Moreover, if we succeed in our efforts, there's no reason why we can't build on this effort. In the future, ABC PAC will have the capacity to allow just about anyone to set up a group of candidates, just as Rightroots has done. So, if we can show people that this fledgling effort can make a difference, then next time around in 2008, there may be dozens of independent fund raising groups like "Rightroots" that will all be working to create a conservative majority. That's why it's so important to help us make the Rightroots project successful, because the seeds we sow in the next three months have the potential to grow into an enormous harvest for conservatives by the end of the next election cycle.

Kos has finally got himself a winner, of a primary at least, and he's already puffed up with pride and making tyrannical demands:

"Lieberman just announced that he is running as an independent.

...Here's what we all need to do the next few days:

1. Push Harry Reid to strip Lieberman of all committee assignments.

2. Let people know what a sore loser Lieberman is.

3. Get all Democrats -- including Bill Clinton -- to publicly back Ned Lamont.

4. Get the Democratic interest groups who backed Lieberman to switch allegiances in the general.

The DSCC and the DCCC will have to deal with the fact that this race will continue to suck oxygen from great pickup opportunities. And I won't apologize for that, because as a proud Democrat, I will help in whatever way I can the Democratic nominee from the Great State of Connecticut."

That's right! Fall in line, boys, because there's a new boss in town! You, Harry Reid! Strip Lieberman of all his committee assignments. You, former President Bill Clinton. Get in there and back Lamont. All you interest groups? You are now backing Lamont because I say so! Over at the DSCC and DCCC, you can help by giving millions to Lamont. Everyone get to work or else you'll have to suffer the wrath of Kos!

Boy, is the infighting going to be fun to watch, especially when everyone starts to realize that Joe Lieberman is still up by a healthy margin statewide.

Hat tip to Mary Katharine Ham for the title.

Last week, I interviewed Tim Walberg for Human Events and this week, he knocked off RINO incumbent Joe Schwartz.

You think that's a mere coincidence? Well, let me tell you that....yeah, it was pretty much a coincidence.

Actually, the Club For Growth deserves a lot of the credit for helping Walberg win. They've been backing Walberg all the way, raising money for him left and right, and beating Schwartz down relentlessly.

So, great job, CFG! Tim Walberg is exactly the type of Congressman we need on the Hill.

"During World War II, U.S. and German forces fought the battle of Hurtgen Forest. It began Sept. 19, 1944 and ended Feb. 10, 1945. That was one battle in a strategically insignificant corridor of barely 50 square miles east of the Belgium-Germany border. The Germans inflicted more than 24,000 casualties on American forces, while another 9,000 Americans were sidelined due to illness, fatigue and friendly fire. Had live TV beamed this battle to America, there might have been an outcry that the policy was failing and somehow a cease-fire and an accommodation with Hitler should be achieved.

America won that war because the objective wasn't to understand the Nazis, or to reach an accommodation with them; the objective was to win the war. Anything less in this war - against an equally evil and unrelenting enemy - will mean defeat for the United States and for freedom everywhere. That's what Rumsfeld was getting at when he said, "We can persevere in Iraq or we can withdraw prematurely, until they force us to make a stand nearer home. But make no mistake: They are not going to give up, whether we acquiesce in their immediate demands or not."

Rumsfeld is right." -- Cal Thomas

Lieberman Loses, Vows Independent Run

Ed Koch: I'm Backing Independent Lieberman

Tim Walberg Defeats Joe Schwarz!

Hank Johnson Crushes Cynthia McKinney

Bouchard wins GOP Senate race

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay Intends To Withdraw As A Candidate For Congress, A Republican Strategist Said Tuesday, A Step That Would Allow The Party To Field A Write-In Candidate

Rasmussen Polling In Minnesota: Klobuchar (50% Vs. Kennedy (38%)

Maryland's Lt. Gov. Michael Steele In Car Crash

Israel Shut Down South Lebanon With A Threat To Blast Any Moving Vehicles Tuesday As Ground Fighting Intensified

Thousands Of Residents Are Moved From Northern Israeli Towns As Rockets Keep Falling (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Iraqi Reality TV Show Defies Odds (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Leftist Activists Took Over Toll Booths In Mexico's Capital Today And Allowed Cars To Move Through Without Paying To Protest Alleged Fraud In The July 2 Presidential Vote

The Anti-Defamation League To Keith Olbermann: "We Are Deeply Dismayed By Your Ongoing Use Of The Nazi "Sieg Heil" Salute..."

Dennis Miller To Join Fox News This Fall

The Top 20 U.S. And Canadian Oil Companies Actually Invested 50 Percent More Than They Earned In The Past 10 Years In Efforts To Produce More Oil

Lanny Davis: Liberal Mccarthyism: Bigotry And Hate Aren't Just For Right-Wingers Anymore

RedState Radio: A Conversation With Rush Limbaugh (Podcast)

John Stossel: Lawsuits Make Us Less Safe

Investor's Business Daily: Jihad Journalism At Reuters?

The Right State: Futile Care Law Enters the Texas Governor’s Race

Bombing Of Funeral: False Reporting By Reuters

Charles Johnson Shines When News Media Get It Wrong

Lebanon: The Passion Of The Toys

Dead Body Sitting Up In Press Pic At Qana Looks Like Rigor Mortis, Not A Trick

FBI Searches For Woman Who Killed Her Sleeping Husband With Boiling Oil

Website Of The Day: Media Blog

While it's normally not a good idea to put the cart before the horse, let's go ahead and assume that Joe Lieberman loses to Ned Lamont today in the Connecticut Democratic primary. Then, the question becomes: does Joe Lieberman go forward with an Independent bid? Here's Ben Craw from the TPM Cafe discussing some of the speculation:

"Seriously, where will Joe Lieberman be tomorrow? The Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate, preparing for an independent bid, or announcing his retirement from public service? What’s it gonna be?

Well we already know what Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) thinks. John Zogby over at Political Wire says: Iraq Will Undermine a Lieberman Indie Bid. According to Zogby it’s all about Iraq. No, seriously, it’s really all about Iraq. He writes more at Huffington Post.

Hotline says: “We've heard solidly conflicting information on whether Lieberman's independent signature bid has been successful. Several sources who have spoken directly to those involved in the effort insist that the campaign is now sitting on the necessary signatures. But at least one person who has access to the upper echelons of Lieberman's campaign insists that the opposite is true. Whatever the case, Democrats in Washington and Connecticut who have spoken with Lieberman and his top aides believe that unless the election tomorrow night is tantalizingly close (or Lieberman wins, obviously), he is far less inclined to mount an independent bid than he once was.”

Political Wire has video of a Fox News correspondent saying on air that Lieberman “is likely to go forward with his independent bid if he doesn’t win tomorrow.”

Dick Morris, who worked on Lamont’s failed 1990 state Senate run, believes that not only will Lieberman run as an independent, but he’ll ultimately be reelected Senator."

Of course, you can never really know what's in a politician's heart. Could we see Joe Lieberman become so dispirited by losing that he just gives up? Maybe, but I tend to doubt it for several reasons.

First of all, if Lieberman had no intentions of running as an Independent, then it seems unlikely that he would have brought it up at all. No politician in a contested primary wants to appear disloyal to his party because it undoubtedly will cost him some votes. So, if Lieberman pulled the "Independent gun" out of the holster without ever intending to shoot, that was a big mistake.

Secondly, along similar lines, it's hard to see Joe Lieberman staying out of the primary out of loyalty to the Democratic Party after the way he has been treated. He has had left-wing bloggers putting him in blackface and calling him "Rape Gurney" Joe. Al Gore, his former running mate didn't endorse him. Moreover, Democratic Party heavies like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have actually campaigned against him. So, at this point it would seem to be a little late for anyone to give him a, "Joe, don't run for the good of the party," speech.

There's something else important to consider: Joe Lieberman will still be the strongest candidate in the race by far even if he loses the primary -- and keep in mind, you're hearing that from a guy who has written a column about the futility of third party candidates.

The thing is: this is not a normal situation. In Connecticut, the Republican candidate in the race is a non-entity. At last glance, he was polling in single digits and dropping. Moreover, Joe is surprisingly popular with Republicans and Independents. So much so that he destroyed Ned Lamont in a general election poll conducted less than three weeks ago:

"Thirty percent of Connecticut voters are registered Democrats, 20% are Republicans and 50% independents. A July 20 Quinnipiac poll showed that if Lieberman were to run as an independent, he would get 51% of the vote to Lamont's 27%. The Republican challenger, Alan Schlesinger, registered 9% in that poll."

Let's just do a little rough math: if Joe gets 75% of the GOP vote and the rest votes Libertarian or votes for Schlesinger, that's 15% of the total vote. Then, if Joe wins 75% of the Independent vote, which certainly seems possible, that's another 37% of the Connecticut electorate. Now, he's up to 52% total. Then, let's say Lamont beats him 3 to 1 among Democrats. That still gives Joe another 7 1/2% of the votes he needs to win. Now, he's up to nearly 60% of the voters supporting him.

Will it work out exactly like that? Maybe not. But, there clearly is a way forward here for Joe that doesn't exist for most people in his position.

Lieberman should still be able to raise money and if he doesn't scare the Democrats too badly, by, for example, saying that he'll vote for Republican control of Congress, Lamont's money flow will probably start to dry up if he can't quickly catch up to Joe in the polls.

Furthermore, in a situation like this, you'd normally expect Joe's Democratic support to wilt down to nothing as all the Democrats rally around their nominee. However, since the Republicans don't appear to be a threat this time and since Joe may be ahead, a lot of Democrats may just figure, "I like Joe better than Lamont and I can have Joe. So, why shouldn't I vote for the candidate I like best?" That's why seeing Joe Lieberman capture 20%-25% of the Democratic vote in the general election wouldn't be a big surprise.

Of course, trying to appeal to Democrats, Independents, and Republicans all at the same time will be very difficult, so Joe will probably need to run fluffy, feel good ads, and/or go negative on Lamont, but there's no reason why that isn't doable.

Long story short, if Joe Lieberman doesn't win the primary today, there will be a deafening roar from the left side of the blogosphere and endless column inches written about what it all means. However, when the dust settles, people will start to notice that Lieberman is still ahead of Lamont in the race that matters and will likely stay that way until he reaches the finish line in November, unless he decides to throw in the towel.

Update #1: From Drudge:

Connecticut // U.S. Senate - - Dem Primary
608 of 748 Precincts Reporting - 81.28%
Lamont, Ned 116,387 51.71% **Winner
Lieberman, Joe (i) 108,683 48.29%

Assuming that Joe stays in, Karl Rove couldn't have planned it better himself. This will probably be an ugly, expensive brawl that will turn off Democratic moderates, hawks, and Jews -- pit Democrat against Democrat -- and humiliate the liberal netroots when Joe wins in the end. Ya gotta love it!

So, run Joe, run!

The number of soldiers killed in more than 3 years of action in Iraq: 2590
Population of the United States: 298,444,215

The number of Israeli soldiers killed in roughly 4 weeks of fighting: 58
Population of Israel: 6,352,117

That means the United States has roughly 47 times the population of Israel. Multiply the number of casualties Israel has taken by 47 and you get: 2,726

So proportionally, Israel has taken greater losses over the last month than the United States has taken over the length of the entire war in Iraq. That's something Americans should keep in mind as we evaluate the war.

Over at the Daily Kos, a diarist by the name of Michael Boldin takes the left's rhetoric about civilians in war time to its logical conclusion. Here's part of what he wrote:

"Collateral damage is nothing more than a euphemism for state-sponsored mass murder. It is the term given to people killed in military actions who were "not intentionally targeted." In reality, this is pure propaganda. It has always been morally just to protect innocent people against aggressors. But, on the other hand, it has never been moral, nor has it ever been necessary, to bomb cities filled with innocent people.

...Apologists for American soldiers killing people in Iraq would like us to believe that their killings are justifiable because they're done in "self-defense." The awful truth is that most killing in the course of this or any war is simply murder disguised as self defense.

...It should be quite self-evident by this point in history, that anyone who claims to believe in freedom and equality could never use the phrase "collateral damage" without being an utter hypocrite. Such hubris must not continue forever. The murder of innocent people is murder, period.

Yes, it is true that innocents die when war is waged. Yes, innocent people will always die when their cities are bombed and their homes are invaded. This is all the reason that should be needed to vehemently oppose every aggressive war that our government engages in!"

If killing civilians accidentally is murder, pure and simple, does that mean our troops deserve to be jailed?

Does this mean Boldin and his other pals at the Daily Kos oppose the Revolutionary War, WW2, and the war in Afghanistan because civilians were accidentally killed murdered?

If, "Collateral damage is nothing more than a euphemism for state-sponsored mass murder," then isn't the obvious implication that we should never fight a war for any reason (Incidentally, that seems to be the default position for a lot of liberals, even though they hate to admit it)?

Another key question would seem to be, "What happens when you run up against enemies who don't share your beliefs about civilian causalities, like say Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda?" How many American lives are these liberals willing to sacrifice rather than risk accidentally killing civilians in retaliation? 100? 1000? 10,000? A million? More?

One of the greatest mistakes we in the West in general, and liberals in particular, make is holding our own side up to nearly impossible to meet standards while holding our enemies to no standard whatsoever. It's almost as if some of these people live by that old maxim, "It doesn't matter whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game." When it comes to warfare, that's pure horsecrap. Once a war has started, winning, preferably with as little lost life and inconvenience on your side as possible, is everything and, "how you play the game," is of little consequence.

That doesn't mean you start immediately launching nuclear bombs, torturing your enemies, or willfully killing civilians just for the heck of it, but it does mean that winning the war is paramount and the ethics debates should be secondary issues.

We don't tend to do that because we've gotten too cocky, too sure of ourselves, too convinced that we're invincible. People look back at 9/11 and say, "That was a one time thing." They look at less than 2600 soldiers KIA in Iraq, which is an extremely low casualty rate historically, and they can't think of anything worth losing that many troops over. It's 1930's Europe all over again and unfortunately, if we keep going down this path, we may, like the Europeans back then, pay a higher price for our folly than we ever truly realized was possible when our enemies fully take advantage of our reluctance to act.

Over at the Israeli Military Forum, they have a whole thread of pics called, "Hot Israeli women in the IDF." Here a sample to give you an idea of what it's like.

Enjoy!

One of the things liberals love to ramble on about is, "chickenhawks." How dare someone who hasn't been in a war, advocate war.

Of course, that's pure nonsense. You could just as easily say, "Gee how can someone who hasn't fought a fire advocate a fireman risking his life to stop a building from burning. How can someone who hasn't ever arrested a dangerous criminal tell a policeman to risk his life apprehending a thug. Moreover, if you haven't spent years risking your life for peace as a human shield in hot spots around the world, then what business do you have demanding someone spend years in the military before he can have a say?"

The whole "chickenhawk" argument is bilge that liberals toss out to shut down debate and they don't even believe it themselves. Want proof? Well, look to Israel, a country that requires mandatory military service amongst all of its population.

Certainly, they're not a country of "chickenhawks," right? Yet, they're blasting Lebanon and the Palestinians into the ground and they're strong supporters of the war on terror. But, since they're not "chickenhawks," the left supports them, right? Wrong.

Via Michael Barone, here are some very interesting results culled from a LA Times/Bloomberg Poll:

"Should the United States continue to align itself with Israel, adopt a more neutral posture, or align more with Arab countries?"

Continue with Israel

Republicans: 64%
Democrats: 39%

More neutral posture

Republicans: 29%
Democrats: 54%

In the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, Israel acted properly.

Republicans: 64%
Democrats: 29%

Israel did not act properly

Republicans: 28%
Democrats: 56%

So, what does all this mean? Well, going back to the chickenhawk argument, it means that the liberals don't believe their own arguments. Even though Israel, which is a strong US ally, is fighting a war run by vets and supported by a population of vets, the Democrats don't support them.

More importantly, this bodes ill for Israel -- and for that matter, America -- if the Democrats get back into power. Even though the Israelis are fighting, and winning, a war against terrorists in Hezbollah and Hamas, the Democrats oppose it. That just goes to show you that the Democrats have become a weak party of Neville Chamberlains who oppose war not for any strategic reasons, but because they simply don't have the heart for it any more.

Think about how serious the consequences of having weak, vacillitating appeasers like that in office could be when we have terrorists out there looking to launch the next 9/11 and Iran building nuclear weapons.

Those consequences could be quite serious indeed.

A week ago Rightroots was introduced to the blogosphere. If you missed the unveiling, Rightroots is the blogger led effort (initiated by John Hawkins at Right Wing News) to fund conservative congressional candidates and help the GOP retain control of Congress. You can read a more detailed description here, then follow the links to the Rightroots site and give generously.

In the first week, Rightroots gained the endorsement of many bloggers and of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Congressman Jack Kingston. In just one week, over $36,000 has been raised for conservative congressional candidates through the Rightroots site. As a result of meeting his generous challenge, an additional $14,000 has been pledged by Congressman Kingston, bringing the one week total amount to over $50,000. Thanks is due to all those who have contributed, as well as to all the bloggers who have featured a Rightroots link at their site. The word is spreading, but there is still much work to do.

If you are a blogger and want to be part of the effort, there are several ways you can do that. One way is to run a free Rightroots blogad on your site. If you would like to run a Rightroots blogad, please email John Hawkins and let him know so he can hook you up.

Another way to support the Rightroots effort is to add your name to the list of those endorsing it and to post a permalink to the Rightroots site on the main page of your blog. To get the name of your blog listed on the Rightroots endorsement page, simply trackback this post. If you are not able to trackback, you can express your wish to be added to the list of endorsers in the comments section or by emailing me. Please include both your name and the name of your blog.

Thanks so much to all of those who have helped to make Rightroots an early success! November is approaching fast so now is the time to get busy. We really can make a difference.

This content was used with the permission of Lorie Byrd from Wizbang.

According to a Siena College Research Institute poll of New Yorkers, Hillary is far from politically bulletproof:

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., is maintaining big leads over potential Republican re-election opponents but would not fare as well among New York voters if she were to face former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in a 2008 presidential race, pollsters reported Monday.

The poll, by Siena College's Research Institute, found the Republican Giuliani leading the former first lady 48 percent to 42 percent among registered voters asked about a hypothetical 2008 presidential matchup. The poll has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

In another possible 2008 matchup, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona was favored by 46 percent of New York voters, compared to 42 percent for Democrat Clinton."

For Democrats, this is just the latest in a series of bad omens for their 2008 hopes. When primary time rolls around, they're going to have a popular, incredibly well funded, front runner for the nomination whose support is so weak that she gets outpolled by moderate Republicans in her home state.

However, despite all the Giuliani and McCain hype, neither of them is likely to be considered conservative enough to be palatable to Republican primary voters in 2008. Which again, brings up an obvious question: Why doesn't Giuliani run against Clinton now?

He would easily capture the Republican nomination in New York, fund raising dollars would pour in from all across the country, and Giuliani would start the race up by 6 points with 3 months left to go. Moreover, it's not as if this is a job that Rudy wouldn't want -- he originally intended to run against Hillary in 2000.

A Senate seat isn't such a bad job, Rudy....

PS: Hey, Jeb: Katherine Harris can't beat Bill Nelson, but you certainly can. Run, Jeb, run...

Israel Intensifies Airstrikes In Lebanon

Israel Is Studying Lebanon's Offer To Deploy Some 15,000 Lebanese Troops Along The Israel-Lebanon Border To Take Control Of The Hezbollah Stronghold (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Arab Moves Stall Ceasefire Deal As Israel Threatens More Attacks

The Lebanese Prime Minister Says Only One Person Died In An Israeli Air Raid On The Southern Village Of Houla, Lowering The Death Toll From 40

WaPo Reporter: Israel Deliberately Leaves Rockets In Place, Because Jewish Corpses Make For Good PR

Reuters Withdraws All Photos By Freelancer

Lacrosse Files Show Gaps in DA's Case

McCain: Drinking Contest With Hillary Didn't Happen. Senator Says 'Don't Believe Everything You Read' In New York Times

Bob Ney Decides Not To Run For Reelection

As Ney Quits, ‘Sore Loser’ Law Crops Up

Latest Quinnipiac University Poll: Lamont 51% vs. Lieberman 45%

Lieberman Campaign Website Hacked?

House Incumbents At Risk, Poll Finds. Percentage Of Americans Who Approve Of Their Representative Has Fallen Sharply

Martin Peretz: Lieberman. The "Peace" Democrats Are Back. It's A Dream Come True For Karl Rove

Heather Mac Donald: An Immigration-Enforcement Opportunity In Orange County

Byron York: The Democrats’ Impeachment Road Map

David Limbaugh: Democrats' Gloating Is Premature

David Warren: A Horrible Truth

Jack Kelly: Media Manipulating the War News?

A Group Led By Venture Capital Firm Softbank Is Investing $5 Million In The Huffington Post

I Stand With The Bunnies

Pics: Caterpillar Infestation Of A Bike

Hot Israeli Women In The IDF

Website Of The Day: Giuliani Blog

Right Wing News emailed more than 225 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to send us a list of whom they considered to be their "Favorite People On The Right." Representatives from the following 51 blogs responded...

The Absurd Report, Ankle Biting Pundits, The Anchoress, And Rightly So, Argghhhh!, AtlanticBlog, Bad Example, Betsy's Page, Bit's Blog, Blackfive, Blue Crab Boulevard, Boi From Troy, Brainster's Blog, The Club For Growth Blog, Damian Penny, dcthornton.com, Don Surber, Ed Driscoll, Election Projection, Euphoric Reality, Drumwaster's Rants, Guardian Watchblog, Hog Haven, Isaac Schrödinger, Kung Fu Quip, GOPUSA Northeast, Newmark's Door, IMAO, Iowa Voice, Knowledge Is Power, My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, No Speed Bumps, The Nose On Your Face, Peaktalk, PoliPundit (Oak Leaf), QandO, Relapsed Catholic, RightFaith, Right Thinking From The Left Coast, Right Thinking Girl, Right Wing News, Say Anything, Sister Toldjah, Slobokan's Site Of Schtuff, Suitably Flip, Texas Rainmaker, Toys In The Attic, Villainous Company, Viking Pundit, WILLisms, Wuzzadem

All bloggers were allowed to make anywhere from 1-12 unranked selections and were allowed to choose anybody on the right or generally perceived to be on the right that they liked: Republican, Conservative, Libertarian, politician, preacher, blogger, columnist, radio host, you name it! The bloggers were also told to keep in mind that their selections needed to be still alive and that the poll wasn't about electability. The goal was to get bloggers to choose the people they personally like &/or respect the most on the right.

Without further ado, here are the right-of-center bloggers' favorite people on the right with the number of votes beside of each selection in parentheses:

Honorable Mentions: Clarence Thomas (4), John Stossel (4), Mike Pence (4), John McCain (4), Rich Lowry (4), Tom DeLay (4), Tony Snow (5), Karl Rove (5), Mitt Romney (5), James Lileks (5)

21) Glenn Reynolds (6)
21) Laura Ingraham (6)
21) Sean Hannity (6)
21) Milton Friedman (6)
21) George Allen (6)
20) Antonin Scalia (7)
17) Hugh Hewitt (8)
17) Ann Coulter (8)
17) Tom Coburn (8)
15) Walter Williams (9)
15) Tom Tancredo (9)
14) Victor David Hanson (10)
12) Jonah Goldberg (11)
12) John Bolton (11)
11) Newt Gingrich (12)
10) Dick Cheney (13)
9) Rush Limbaugh (15)
7) Donald Rumsfeld (16)
7) Charles Krauthammer (16)
6) Michelle Malkin (17)
4) Mark Steyn (19)
4) George W. Bush (19)
2) Thomas Sowell (20)
2) Rudy Giuliani (20)
1) Condi Rice (22)

Also see,

-- Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select Their Least Favorite People On The Right (2006 Edition)
-- Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select Their Favorite People On The Right (2005 Edition)

12) Victor Davis Hanson: This is a man who understands the lessons of history and how to apply them.

11) Clarence Thomas: The embodiment of what conservative judicial philosophy should be.

10) Donald Rumsfeld: Other than George Bush, he's had the toughest job in politics since 9/11 and he's done it well.

9) Ann Coulter: Chairman Ann is wittier and more insightful than any of her detractors and even if she goes over the line sometimes, she also has a knack for saying things that other people are thinking, but don't have the guts to say.

8) Antonin Scalia: The greatest spokesman for originalism.

7) Mark Steyn: The standard by which all other conservative columnists are judged.

6) Tom Coburn: A one man gang waging a political street fight against the spendthrifts in the Senate.

5) George Bush: His domestic policies make me want to pull my hair out sometimes, but we're incredibly lucky to have him running the show on foreign policy.

4) Michelle Malkin: The standard by which all other conservative bloggers are judged.

3) Tom Tancredo: If it wasn't for Tom Tancredo, an amnesty bill would have already passed and the Republican Party and even America itself would have been harmed greatly as a result.

2) Newt Gingrich: If I were picking Bush's successor based on nothing more than who I thought would do the best job, Gingrich would be the choice in a heartbeat.

1) Rush Limbaugh: Everybody in talk radio and even the blogosphere is really just treading a path blazed by Rush.

The hottest story in the blogosphere this week-end was a photoshopped picture that Reuters ran. The pic was put together by Adnan Hajj, who has now been fired.

Of course, this raises a lot of questions. For example, are there other photoshopped pics out there by Adnan Hajj? Although I'm not a photoshop junky, this one certainly looks suspicious.

Of course, there are also plenty of other pictures that raise questions about whether they were real or staged. In fact, there was a controversy just last week about whether photographers had participated in a Hezbollah dog and pony show at Qana (Yes, Adnan Hajj was in the mix there, too) and of course, everyone seemed to be adamantly denying that any such thing was possible:

"An AFP executive said he was stunned to be questioned about it. Reuters, in a statement, said it categorically rejects any such suggestion.

"It's hard to imagine how someone sitting in an air-conditioned office or broadcast studio many thousands of miles from the scene can decide what occurred on the ground with any degree of accuracy," said Kathleen Carroll, AP's senior vice president and executive editor.

Carroll said in addition to personally speaking with photo editors, "I also know from 30 years of experience in this business that you can't get competitive journalists to participate in the kind of (staging) experience that is being described."

Photographers are experienced in recognizing when someone is trying to stage something for their benefit, she said.

"Do you really think these people would risk their lives under Israeli shelling to set up a digging ceremony for dead Lebanese kids?" asked Patrick Baz, Mideast photo director for AFP. "I'm totally stunned by first the question, and I can't imagine that somebody would think something like that would have happened."

Someone should call up Kathleen Carroll and ask her if she has a different opinion, now that she has had, "30 years of experience in this business," plus an extra week or so in which Hajj got caught posting photoshopped pics. Of course, even if she admitted that Hajj was a bad actor, she'd undoubtedly try to play him off as an exception to the rule.

However, I'm not so sure about that.

We know that a lot of these news organizations have working relationships with these terrorist/militia organizations. If they didn't there's certainly no way they could get shots like this one, which was taken by New York Times photographer Joao Silva.

We also know that some of these MSM organizations, at the highest levels, agreed to cover-up what really goes on in countries like Iraq, in order to get access and insure the safety of their personnel. Do you really think that the same thing doesn't go on all the time with terrorist groups like Hamas & Hezbollah or in areas controlled by militia fighters in Iraq? Do you really think that some of these local stringers that are taking pictures of these terrorists aren't friendly to them or maybe even on the payroll?

Even if they're not explicitly siding with these terrorists, here's an honest question: if you were a photographer who had to regularly work in Lebanon, would you publish a photo of, say, a Hezbollah fighter holding up a child as a human shield or throwing up his hands and running in terror from Israelis? Would you write a story saying that Hezbollah or Hamas was getting beaten into the ground by the Israelis if you knew the terrorists had your hotel room number and that they were going to be responsible for keeping you from getting killed in a war zone tomorrow? The question almost answers itself, doesn't it?

Since that's the case, how many staged photos, doctored quotes, and slanted news stories do you really think are in circulation out there? It's almost impossible to say, but it wouldn't be the least bit surprising if Adnan Hajj is just the tip of the mountain.

Joseph Lieberman (D) vs. Ned Lamont (D): (Big Edge to Lamont) If, as expected, Lamont wins, expect him to get a boost and for Joe's support among Democrats to plunge. Still, heavy support from Republicans and Independents along with some significant Democratic support as well could very well be enough to put Lieberman in office as an Independent. Expect things to get nasty, confused, and expensive for Democrats in Connecticut after Tuesday.

Tim Walberg (R) vs. Joe Schwartz (R) (Toss-Up): Conservative Tim Walberg is going head-to-head with RINO Joe Schwartz in the Republican primary. Although Walberg is likely to beat Schwartz among Republican voters, it's an open primary and the Democrats that participate are expected to vote heavily for Schwartz. There is no serious Democratic competition for the seat, so this is essentially a winner-take-all primary and a Walberg victory would send a real message to the Republicans in Congress.

Keith Butler (R) vs. Michael Bouchard (R) (Edge to Bouchard): Two conservative candidates are duking it out for a chance to take on potentially vulnerable incumbent Debbie Stabenow. The key here is for one of these candidates not only to win, but to get enough of a boost afterwards to poll close to Stabenow. If the polling gap between Stabenow and the winner is small enough after the primary, the funding needed to make this into a competitive race may be forthcoming. But, if Stabenow is still way up, the winner probably won't get the money he needs to have a shot to win.

Hank Johnson (D) vs. Cynthia McKinney (D): (Big Edge to Johnson). McKinney beat Johnson 47% to 44% in the primary, but Johnson picked up speed afterwards and is now favored to win the runoff election. Although Johnson is no conservative, it would certainly be nice to see him send Cynthia McKinney off to an early retirement.

This movie might as well have been called, "Six Hot, Foreign Chicks in a Cave with Monsters," which admittedly doesn't sound like the most promising movie concept you could ever come up with.

However, this was no plodding, formulaic movie. To the contrary, it did everything you could ever really ask a horror movie to do. The film was really creepy in a few places, there were a couple of wild twists, and it even made me jump 2 or 3 times.

Granted, if you're not a fan of horror films, you probably won't like this movie. But, if you enjoy a scary movie now and again, this is definitely a film you'll want to go see. Thumbs way up!

Here are a couple of podcast interviews with candidates endorsed by Rightroots.

First, we have Captain Ed interviewing Michelle Bachman. You may also enjoy this podcast interview of Diana Irey, who's going toe to toe with John Murtha.

If you like the interviews, remember that both of these ladies could certainly use your support!

Just for the fun of it, here are the TV shows I've got my Tivo set to record regularly:

Blade: The Series
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
Eureka
Family Guy
Futurama
House
Korgoth of Barbaria
Mind of Mencia
The Outer Limits
Reno 911!
Sealab 2021
South Park
Supernatural
TNA iMPACT!

The best new show on the list? "Blade: The Series." There hasn't been a bad episode yet.

In the process of defending Mel Gibson, Jackie Mason accurately described a whole cottage industry in the United States these days: professional grievance mongers. Here's Mason on Mel:

"When Cavuto asked, "So you think a lot of this is jealousy?" Mason fumed: "Jealousy and hate, their contempt for a guy who's doing too good! Also, this guy, [Abraham] Foxman, this head of the ADL [Anti-Defamation League] -- another fake from top to bottom. I don't talk about people; it's not my nature. ... He's a total fake. ... Let's be honest about it -- anybody who makes a life out of fighting racism in effect has to blow up racism in order to justify himself in his job he has. Otherwise he'd have to go to work. Otherwise he'd have to get up in the morning and get a real job."

Noting that ABC has already cut plans to co-produce Gibson's Holocaust special, Cavuto asked if Gibson is going to have "any ill effects from all of this in Hollywood?"

Said Mason: "He might have ill effects because people love burying a guy who's big. If a guy on a bicycle breaks down, you cry for him. If he breaks down in a Rolls-Royce, you applaud. People make a living from fighting anti-Semitism -- like Al Sharpton, or for fighting racism -- they have to convince themselves there's racism every place and that every minute they're about to blow up every Jew in America, because otherwise he would have to go to work for a living. He fears a job a lot more than he fears anti-Semitism. Getting up in the morning is the main fear that Foxman has. And all of a sudden, he made himself the judge and the jury of this man?!"

When Cavuto asked, "Who was that rabbi who suggested maybe Mel Gibson should apologize to his congregation on Yom Kippur?" Mason shot back: "You know why? Because nobody knows who this rabbi is. Who cares who he is! All of a sudden he becomes a producer, all of a sudden he's producing a show with him and Mel Gibson and he'll become the star of the show and then you'll see it in the newspapers: 'STARRING RABBI SCHWARTZ WITH MEL GIBSON' -- he'll probably get second billing because it's another rabbi looking for attention. They decided -- the judge and the jury of this whole situation -- they've become a personal mafia now because who knows who they are? Who would pay attention to them? Foxman and this other guy are loving it."

Nearly 400 Rockets Were Fired At Israel This Weekend, Killing Six People

Israel Captures Hezbollah Kidnapper

Saudi Religious Leader Blasts Hizbullah (Free Jerusalem Post Reg Req)

Mideast War Rages On Despite Draft Of UN peace Resolution (Syria, The Government Of Lebanon, Hezbollah, And Israel All Reject)

Israel Kills Two Palestinians, Detains More Hamas Leaders

A Middle Eastern Connection? A Leak From The Investigation Into A Pair Of Unexploded Bombs Found On Trains In Germany This Week Has Produced A Strange Detail

Defiant Iran Threatens To Use 'Oil Weapon' Against Sanctions

From Iran: "Death To America!"

Mexican Al Gore Calls For More Poll Protests

Reuters Is Doctoring Photos From Beiruit

Reuters: Picture Kill!

Reuters Drops Lebanese Photographer Over Doctored Image

Another Fake Reuters Photo from Lebanon? (Looks Like It)

Jackie Mason: Mel No Anti-Semite (You Gotta Read This Because Mason Just Goes Off)

Mel Gibson Has Israeli Bodyguard

Major Alaskan Oil Field Shutting Down

Questions Surround Guest Worker Concept

Morning Call/Muhlenberg College poll: Bob Casey 45% Vs. Rick Santorum 39%

Robert Menendez Leads His Challenger, New Jersey State Senator Tom Kean 44% To 38%

Democrats Feuding Over Midterm Tactics

Jonathan Garthwaite: Now Is Not The Time To Give Up And Go Home

Jonah Goldberg: Welfare Kings On Tractors

Jack Kelly: Hezbollah's Hopes For Victory Depend Entirely On Its Propaganda Campaign

Mark Steyn: Advocates Of 'Proportion' Are Just Unbalanced

Rightroots: Donate To Help the GOP Retain Congress

The GOP Is Finished? Not Hardly

The Man Behind The 'Girls Gone Wild' Soft-Porn Empire Lets Claire Hoffman Into His World, For Better Or Worse

The 10 Strangest Statues You'll Ever See

Website Of The Day: Duke New Sense