And then, when you call them on it...

This is part of an exchange between Chris Wallace and Senator Jay Rockefeller on Fox News Sunday...

WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, the President says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did. In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the President ever did. Let's watch.

SEN. ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 2002): "I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th, that question is increasingly outdated."

WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.

Now in all fairness, this isn't the totality of his response. Essentially, he argued that he wasn't getting the same level of intelligence that Bush was.

Soooo, how does that explain that he, not Bush, was the one saying the threat was imminent?

WALLACE…and yet you, not the President, said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Chris, there's always the same conversation. You know it was not the Congress that sent 135,000 or 150,000 troops.

WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.

WALLACE: You're not?

You have to love this. ' I'm a senator, and I vote, but I'm not responsible for the votes I cast, especially if it goes against the lie I'm telling you now...'

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. I'm responsible for my vote, but I'd appreciate it if you'd get serious about this subject, with all due respect....

OK, so he at least acknowledges that he voted for military action against Saddam, but wants Chris Wallace to get serious about it. I guess there's something more serious than voting to authorize troops in harm's way, or just flat-out disavowing what you yourself said about Saddam as an imminent threat leading up to the war.

Holy moly...

More liars and no one to call them on it

MICHAEL SCHEUER, the first head of the CIA's bin Laden unit in the Clinton Administration made this comment during an interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s “Snowball”(Hardball, it aint…) on 9 November

MATTHEWS: Michael, just to think outside the box, would we be better off with Saddam Hussein still running tyrannically that country of Iraq, right next door to Jordan? Would Jordan be more secure in that environment?

SCHEUER: No doubt about it, sir.

MATTHEWS: No doubt?

SCHEUER: There'd be many more dead--many fewer dead Americans, and we would have many more resources available annihilate al Qaeda, which is what we have to do. Without a doubt, in the war against al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein was one of our best allies.

Now, it wouldn’t be quite as insane a comment except that Mr. Scheuer actually outlined a number of instances where Saddam was ca-hooting with Al Qaeda and Al Zarqawi back in 2002.

Hehehe...just something I found.

COWS
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that our government can track a cow born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she sleeps in the state of Washington. And they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give them each a cow.

CONSTITUTION
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart Guys, it's worked for over 200 years and we're not using it anymore.

COMMANDMENTS
Want to know the real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse? You cannot post "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" and "Thou Shall Not Lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians! It creates a hostile working environment.

Lies and the liars who tell them..

Norman Podhoretz puts the whole 'Bush lied, people died' argument to rest here. Mr. Podhoretz pretty much pulls it all together in one place.

As has been talked up elsewhere, most notably by Bill Bennett, are the most recent revelations about the CIA and secret prisons in Europe. So, where is the outrage about the media revealing classified information? Why aren't we going after the CIA 'leakers'? Maybe its because the liberal media and certain CIA operatives are anti-administration. I guess that doesn't count

We need to stop criminalizing politics and politicizing criminality.

French Riots, Immigration, Mark Steyn, and Teddy Roosevelt

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Steyn has some analysis of what's happening in France that is not only a history lesson, but spot on. Had the French imposed the Teddy Roosevelt model (see below) of assimilation into their society, they wouldn't be having these problems now. Its no wonder now why France couldn't support an invasion of Iraq. But, here's the real problem. It wouldn't have mattered. What matters is showing weakness to these Islamic thugs. If there's no strong, head busting, "you're outta here!" reaction to this kind of behavior, they'll do this again, and worse. It won't be for the sake of freedom that they continue to torch, pillage, and murder. It will be for control of France. We need to also turn attention to our own situation here. If we continue to allow huge numbers of people to come into this country that refuse to assimilate fully to an "American" way of life, including language and culture, the blessings we enjoy as Americans will go up in flames as well.

Teddy Roosevelt was right...

Another Teddy Roosevelt quote:

Hat tip to my B-I-L, Pastor Ed

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Just in time for Halloween

Michelle Malkin, amongst others, posted these pictures from USA Today. You might notice a little difference between the two:

Halloween Condi









Whoo, pretty scary, eh?

Then, there's "unpossessed" Condi here











Oh man, the lights went off! I actually sent an email to USA Today. They blamed it on a 'new guy' that went a little too far lightening up the picture. Hmmm, wonder why nothing else got 'lighter' than the whites of her eyes? Halloween joke? Maybe, but how about doing Hillary while we're at it? Balance...

And for fun, Donald Rumsfeld

So which was it?

As you can see, ABC news wasn't quite so clear the first time. If you didn't catch it over the weekend, a Nazi group was going to march in Toledo, Ohio. With all the hubbub, the local police canceled the march. They didn't take one step. On the other hand, protesters definitely did take certain steps. Breaking windows, looting, burning, vandalizing...sigh.

Some more of what's out there...Beer and Jesus

Well, here was a post from that same site that I was getting the 'kudos' from. I don't think its much of a stretch to say that there's a correlation between ultra liberal, " bush planned 9/11" genre of blogs, and Godlessness. My take is in Italics

the top ten reasons why beer is better than jesus:

number ten: no one will kill you for not drinking beer;

I would guess that this reference goes back some 500 years to the Spanish Inquisition. Considering we've operated under the First Amendment for the last 200 years, I've not read of non-Christians being burned, lately.

Ironically, you can even in the year 2005 be killed for being an infidel by refusing to convert to Islam. So, in that regard, I would submit that beer is better than beheading someone.

number nine: beer doesn't tell you how to have sex;

Now here, I would heartily disagree. After all, how many instances are there of people having sex in situations they ordinarily never would have, without beer? What made you do it with that coyote ugly gal you met at the bar, your best friend's wife, your wife's best friend, underage teenagers at a party, and on and on...beer.

number eight: beer has never caused a major war;

Ok, so again we're going back a thousand years. In the twenty odd years I played in bars and nightclubs, I never once saw fights break out with Bibles flying back and forth with people yelling, "Immersion! No, sprinkling!". On the other hand...you get the picture

number seven: they don't force beer on minors who can't think for themselves;

Oh really? How many minors have been pressured into underage drinking by older folks (see sex reference above) or by their peers?

number six: when you have a beer, you don't knock on people's doors trying to give it away;

Of course not! Why be generous to strangers with YOUR beer? You keep giving it away, and eventually you'll run out. Now Jesus, on the other hand...

number five: nobody's ever been burned at the stake, hanged, or tortured over his brand of beer;

For the third time....how many hundreds of years ago?

number four: you don't have to wait 2000+ years for a second beer;

Assuming the 'non-believer' perspective behind this top ten list, its a good thing we're still waiting. You folks wouldn't like how it would turn out when He does come back.

number three: there are laws saying beer labels can't lie to you;

Yeah? I don't guess that all the advertising that equates beer with drop dead gorgeous super-models being around ordinary looking guys is 'dead-on' truth in advertising.

number two: you can prove you have a beer;

Depends on how many you've had. At some point, you may have difficulty proving that you exist.

and the number one reason why beer is better than jesus:

if you've devoted your life to beer, there are groups to help you stop.

Considering all the destructive behavior associated with alchohol and alchoholism, you're right.

I'm not sure we need groups to stop people from feeding, clothing, and housing the poor, healing the sick, and even helping alchoholics quit drinking.

Sheesh, this was too easy....

Well, at least Al Qaeda understands its not about oil

This from the WaPo...

Now, I'm always hammering the left for quoting articles with 'unnamed sources', so I'll be circumspect here. However, considering the Post's left-of-center posture, I'm thinking I'm on pretty solid ground.

So, what do we have here?

"The United States has obtained a letter from Osama bin Laden's deputy to the leader of Iraq's insurgency that outlines a long-term strategic vision for a global jihad, with the next phase of the war to be taken into Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, according to U.S. officials."

That's nice...he's sharing a vision. So why is OBL's number 2 sharing with Zarqawi?

"The letter of instructions and requests outlines a four-stage plan, according to officials: First, expel American forces from Iraq. Second, establish a caliphate over as much of Iraq as possible. Third, extend the jihad to neighboring countries, with specific reference to Egypt and the Levant -- a term that describes Syria and Lebanon. And finally, war against Israel."

There's your answer: Iraq is the first step...but wait, there's more.

"I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has blessed you with in terms of fighting in the heart of the Islamic world, which was formerly the field for major battles in Islam's history, and what is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era."
(emphasis mine).

So, I guess we can call Iraq "Jihadist Central", eh? Huhwuzzat? Bush just told us Iraq was the central part of the war on terror. He must have put those bad, bad Al Qaeda guys up to saying the same thing with some of those billions of dollars earmarked for Halliburton.

Boy, that Karl Rove is some kind of genius. Who would of thought of bribing those guys to back up W?

Or, maybe going to Iraq was the uh, ummm, right thing to do?

Now, here's the best part...

"In one indication of tensions between the al Qaeda leadership and its Iraqi division, U.S. officials said, Zawahiri writes about the need to maintain popular support. He is critical of Shiite Muslims and says a clash between the Sunni-dominated movement and the Shiite sect is inevitable, officials said, but he rebukes the leader of Iraq's insurgency for its brutal tactics -- noting that hostages can just as effectively be killed with bullets rather than by beheading, officials said."

Yeah, bullets are better. Not near as inflammatory in imagery. I mean, innocent people are just as dead, but without all those negative connotations. Yeah, lets 'ix-nay' the 'eheading-bay' from now on.

Boy, if this document is real..