politicalpartypoop.com

Boston Herald:
Hometown Paper Boos Kerry

more…

A Few Liberal Bloggers Not Happy With Kerry
By Susan Jones - CNSNews.com Senior Editor

(CNSNews.com) - Radio talk-show host Don Imus on Wednesday morning urged Sen. John F. Kerry to disappear for a while: “Please, stop it. Stop talking. (Kerry laughs.) Go home. Get on the bike. Go windsurfing. Anything. Stop it. Don’t. You’re going to ruin this.”

Kerry said he’s “not going to let these guys distort something completely out of its context solely for the purpose of avoiding responsibility.” He said “everybody knows” he “botched a joke” on Monday, when — in the course of a speech — he appeared to insult young Americans fighting in Iraq.

“Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well,” Kerry told students in Pasadena while campaigning for California gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides. “If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq,” he added.

Democratic blogs on Tuesday and Wednesday were strongly supportive of Kerry, with many liberals praising him for finally “fighting back.” That’s why the very few comments criticizing Kerry’s “botched joke” on U.S. troops) stood out.

A blogger on the Democratic National Committee website wrote that Kerry “cost us us the 2004 election. I don’t think we should allow him to cost us again. I wish he would just shut up and go away.”

And a blogger on the Democratic Underground website opined, We would all be better served if those candidates gunning for 2008 would please shut up and stay quietly on the sidelines until after Nov. 7.” This blogger called Kerry’s remarks “stupid…off the cuff at a time when Dems can’t afford” to mess up, especially so close to an election.

And a blogger on Kerry’s own website wrote that “John Kerry is a bitter, bitter man. Maybe he slipped in his speech. I’d like to give him a pass. But his response at his press conference later in the day, attacking President Bush and Rush Limbaugh. Shameful. Very shameful.”

Another blogger on Kerry’s website wrote that Kerry’s comments “came across the wrong way to many people.” This blogger said the “misinterpretation may hurt some of the Democratic candidates that Sen. Kerry has worked so hard to promote and I think he should apologize for the way this comment came across and try to do as much damage control as possible at this critical time before next Tuesday’s election.”

And then there’s this - again, from the blog on Kerry’s website: “He just doesn’t get it. His views about the war in Iraq are not the issue. He showed poor judgment at best, great disrespect at worst…I’m a Democrat and I’m concerned about this war, but I don’t like John Kerry. He’s an arrogant man.”

While some Democrats are upset with Kerry’s foot-in-mouth comments, others may be secretly rejoicing that the 2004 presidential candidate appears to be knocking himself out of the running in 2008.

Those rejoicing would be the Democrats with presidential ambitions of their own. But with the exception of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who demanded an apology from Kerry, none of the 2008 presidential hopefuls on the Democratic side are saying anything publicly at the moment.

DemBloggers

John Kerry Responds to Republican Distortions, Pathetic Tony Snow Diversions and Distractions from W

Cross posted from The Democratic Daily:

The right wing nut-jobs are full of Hot Air today as they attempt their latest attack on John Kerry.

My DD

We are supposed to be upset about this why, exactly? Kerry gets by far the better line in both versions. As I discussed in the “turnout myths” post back on Monday, Kerry’s vicious counter-assault will only help us with our base. That really seems to be what is happening here since, as Steve Gillard notes, Kerry’s fantastic, vicious response is getting as much play as any accusations against him. This is not even to mention that Kerry’s strange line about kids struggling in the educational system “get stuck in Iraq” might as well be left-wing code every bit as much as Dred Scott is for theocons, since it brings up clear echoes of Vietnam and a looming draft. That’s how people ended up in Vietnam, and a lot of people are noticing the similarities between Iraq and Vietnam these days anyway.

Fire Dog Lake

Oh, the horror. Except for one thing — the truth of the matter is that we are not winning in Iraq, and that the President knows it when he lies to the faces of his hand-picked, fervent crowds.  President Bush — still lying to himself, still lying to the public about Iraq.  Isn’t it high time we held him accountable for it?

Bring it On

Kerry, in a stunning display of what made him a crappy Presidential candidate, answered not only “no,” but “hell no” to an apology. He said his statement was the product of a bad joke and he railed, quite rightfully, about how the calls for an apology were nothing more than a diversionary tactic to change the subject away from Team Ineptitude’s record and toward his misstatement. Clearly, much of his ire, deservedly so, bubbled from the heinous treatment he got from the Swiftboaters during his time on the electoral hot seat. But as far as it went, it was a good speech that showed some of the fire Democrats must display in order to shed their well-deserved title as the wimps of the political world.

Oliver Willis

This is what the media and the right don’t seem to get. Whenever Bush attacks Democrats in order to shore up his base, it energizes Democrats as well. These things don’t happen in a vacuum. In the past, Bush could go on Limbaugh and it wouldn’t come up on the radar, but now there are people actually monitoring this media and the president doesn’t get to send out a dog-whistle to the rubes.

JABBS

Kerry Was Wrong, But Response From Bush, Radio Ranters Was Plenty Wrong, Too

John Kerry was wrong.

His series of jokes at the president’s expense, including one that suggested those unable to navigate the country’s education system “get stuck in Iraq,” were ill-timed and unnecessary.

On the eve of an election — in which Kerry’s seat is not in play — the junior Senator from Massachusetts gave the media, the conservative media and the White House a day to talk about nothing but his stupid comments. He gave the Republicans a chance for one day, and probably more, to talk about something other than the Iraq War, that Osama Bin Laden is still at large, the Mark Foley scandal, or any number of other more pressing issues.

KOS Diary entry

OLBERMANN - BUSH IS TOO STUPID TO KNOW WHEN SOMEONE CALLS HIM STUPID - UPDATED!!!
by jaybeck - kos Diary
BUSH IS TOO STUPID TO KNOW WHEN SOMEONE CALLS HIM STUPID!!!!Let’s all remember this simple meme. I know that everyone is sick to death of hearing about the Kerry brush-up today and the idiot in chief’s response, but it is important that we all are ready for the next news cycle if this unfortunate non-story lasts

The fact that dude wants to quote Keith Olberfart tells me everything I need to know.

The Democratic Daily 

General Claudia Kennedy Defends Veteran John Kerry Against GOP Attacks
Posted by Pamela Leavey

The firestorm over John Kerry’s comment yesterday that was BLOWN way out of proportion and distorted into an slight against the troops, who were by the way NEVER mentioned, continues.

Kerry opened his speech at Pasadena City College with several one-liners, saying at one point that Bush had lived in Texas but now “lives in a state of denial.”

He then said: “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Excuse me, but let’s get something straight — this major distortion, this major distraction is pure and simple the work of the Republican Noise Machine.

Ryan’s Take

Right-shmight, who cares about what’s right and wrong, so long as it’s truthy and the Herald is a tabloid. Hack pieces are par for the course in the pages of the Boston Herald. The truth is anathema to the Herald’s agenda (profits and shilling). Why report the news when you can piss lots of black ink on political careers, valid critiques or not?

Still, I try to hold out some hope that a “newspaper” will try to have a little bit more credibility than Rush Limbaugh talking about stem cell research. Alas, I repeatedly set myself up for disappointment. People have often asked why I bother reading the Boston Herald. I usually tell them “to know what my enemies are thinking,” but sometimes I think I must be a masochist.

I just love liberals…

Obviously we don’t want Walmart or it would have gone up already. Who wants Walmart around when they are obviously trying to screw us. Disgusting.

Don’t ya just love when moronic people claim to speak for you

I dislike Lawrence as it is. I shop less & less in Lawrence every month (because of my location) & once Douglas Co. closes the Lecompton bridge in April (for 5+ months)I see myself in Lawrence even less. Even though it will bring more jobs Walmart should let it go & spend the money on a building in North Topeka. Oh wait my bad I think they already are! I guess my money will be going to my local grocer & Topeka for bigger purchases. Come to think of it I’ll even save on gas too.

Then take yo ass back to Topeka! 

I feel the same way, Redneckwoman. I am so disgusted with Lawrence that I stopped shopping there. I am now buying all my stuff in Topeka because I don’t want Lawrence to get any of my money and I have found the prices to be MUCH cheaper. I am saving gas money as well. The Lecompton bridge closing was the clincher but these fights to stop free economy just sickens me. Lawrence was a wonderful city when I lived there 15 years ago and it has gone downhill quickly since. (or maybe my eyes have finally been opened.)

Good lets weed out the liberal gene pool

If WalMart goes up, I will seriously rethink my residency here.

Don’t let the doorknob hit ya stupid ass…well you know.

Marion, S.T.F.U, I think everyone is tired of your rambling. I think WalMart should put a supersized pawn & crook shop in thier store. That way Marion can get away for the news for a while and experience the wonder that is WalMart, minimum wage part-time no healthinsurance overtime shortpaying goodness. P.S. They also hire immigrants for late night cleanup and stocking work for less than $4hr. If you buy from WalMart you unanimously support thier money leeching corporate criminalism, and you have no respect for your neighbors or thier jobs.

NO YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP, WE ARE ALL TIRED OF YOUR RAMBLING!

These people bitching about and issue they really don’t give a shit about because if they did they would have engaged themselves in the planning process right from the start.
You see, I’ve been there and done that.
I worked with neighborhood associations and developers in plaining the right design and community framework to get the best outcome for all involved.
Not just on big box store issues but planning issues from roads, infrastructure, schools, planing and zoning and not for profit issues.

So it’s is off the charts silly for people to get on the Journal World site and spends hours banging on a keyboard bitching about something they could have involved themselves in from the start, but they were too fucken busy then, but now you have time to blow by posting a bunch of tired rhetoric?
 
I posted a small portion of the bitching and complaining first to just show you the type of crap idiots will say not grasping the fact that most of us just don’t give a shit about what they said,
all in the name of being heard,  just to try and make people believe that they know what the fuck they are talking about, to try and be relevant.
 
The same old tired “Walmart bad” bullshit that every community across the country has been ranting about for years.
The post below is written by someone who has sane insight and has tried to get her point across.
I invited her to post here just so she can let off some steam.

I said to her why bother?
The Lawrence city commissioners are a bunch of fucken dolts who would rather waste taxpayers money fighting a lawsuit they can’t win rather than work with Walmart on a solution that would be good for all.
But they are caught up by these hypocritical liberal skanks and their mental masturbation rants of evil corporate greed. So they have to kiss some political ass.
When you know the minute this new store opens (and it will open eventually) they will take their tired asses right into the store to pick up the latest sale item and usual good deal Walmart provides.

What Lady G provides are the basic facts, not all of this “if Walmart opens, I’ll move” or “I’ll take my money elsewhere!” bullshit.

When I read shit like that I wonder, do you really think I give a fuck you stupid bastards where you shop or spend your money, or who you will give your next blowjob to?
I mean seriously.
Do you mutherfuckers who get on these sites actually think that when you post multiple simplistic and meaningless rants about shit that nobody cares about that people care what you have to say, particularly after you have said it multiple times!?

How many fucken times and ways can you anti Walmart dolts say “Walmart is bad”?
What they pay and the benefits they provide are the business of the people who apply there, are none of your fucken business.

In addition If you have a small business and Walmart hurts your business you either have to reinvent yourself or pack yo shit up.
I want to keep as much money in my fucken pocket as I can and if Walmart will sell me laundry soap for 3 fucken dollars less that you will, who the fuck do you think I’m going to buy from.    

These city council member are members of or part owners of, or friends of people who invest in this local mercantile market, which is a fucken ripoff.
They sell a bunch or “organic” shit but everything is priced 20 percent higher.
It’s all about the money, even for liberals. But they just want to hide behind the “corporate greed is evil tag”, that means “they care.”

Anywho…the post…
 ———————–

By Lady Guinivere - Guest Writer

The people in Lawrence are having a melt down, as they divide into two camps: The I hate Walmart (at least one on the west side of town) and the we love Wallmart. They applaud or attack the current city council as it waffle dances back and forth. The two citizen camps post hundreds of comments on both sides. Bad Walmart. Good Walmart. And they are all missing the boat. This is a done deal, legally. No matter what you think of the issue, the legalities entirely favor Walmart.

A little history.

The prior city council approved this new mega-store to be built near the new highschool (free state). Never mind whether they should have done so, they did. Then, a new batch of city commissioners were elected (perhaps in reaction to that approval). Sure enough, the newly elected “hippy” majority yanked approval. A law suit by Walmart developers quickly followed. On the very day that the matter was to go to court, a settlement was reached. Wallmart would be allowed to build, just not the mega-store. But that wasn’t the end of the story. The most recent move in the city leader’s waffle dance was the council’s 2^nd change of heart and mind. They’ve backed off their settlement agreement. So Wallmart has taken the city back into court, this time demanding the whole enchilada (they‘re back to wanting the giant store). And if this matter actually goes to a judge, they will get exactly what they original council approved; the big mega-store. Like or hate Wallmart, at all or just in this location, the original council’s approval sealed the outcome.

It’s called Vested Property Rights people. Look up that phrase on www.google.com or something. In summary, it means that once the government has recognized your rights or given you something of value, it’s yours forever (or until you decide to give it up). The government can no longer deny it to you, unless they take it for public use, and then they have to pay you “just compensation” (what it is worth on the market).

(more…)

Sphere: Related Content

 This was the front page story in the Kansan, KU newspaper.
Apparently some dudes were preaching some anti-gay stuff, ho hum…
What was interesting that over a thousand students pissed off a part of their day to give these dudes some grief.
I find it odd, with the crap being perpetrated in the media about Rush and the Michael J. Fox scam ad, as being “hateful”, the Harold Ford ad being “racist” and now you have these student bitching and moaning about someone else exercising “free speech.”
My anger may be exacerbated by the fact that I am in an exceedingly fucked up mood, but I am so sick of fucken liberals and their wining and bitching and moaning.
These idiot students obviously did not have the fucken common sense to just leave these people alone.
These dudes got what they came for, an audience!
But I find it ironic that liberals keep constantly talking about how they are people who believe in free speech and don’t engage in hateful rhetoric.
They are documented in thousands of pictures with “we hate Bush”, “Kill Christians” “Kill Jesus if he returns”, Bush is a “punk ass”
Ah hell, although I love blogging there are just some days that I wonder why I bother with all the keystrokes ranting about liberals.
It tis obvious that much of their stupidity is innate. 

 

 From the University of Kansas, Kansan 

Students cursed, screamed at, spit on, threw eggs at and chucked Bibles toward two men who spoke on Wescoe Beach Wednesday with a message that homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, people who masturbate and people who listen to rap or rock and roll music are going to hell.

More than one thousand students gathered around Michael Venyah and Chris Lemieux on Wescoe Beach at the height of the disagreement. The two men, both in their 30s, wore red T-shirts with yellow writing that said “No Homos go to Heaven -1 Corinthians 6:9-10” on the front and “All Homos go to Hell -Corinthians 6:9-10” on the back. Lemieux said the two men from Michigan had been preaching at colleges for two years.

Students stood shoulder-to-shoulder, filling the front steps and the patio of Wescoe Beach. Most laughed at Venyah’s remarks or yelled back at him. Several times the chant “Let’s love, not hate” echoed through the crowd. Several students said they had missed class to see the protest.

At one point two women broke from the crowd and ground against one another and against Venyah as he spoke. A few students waved condoms and hot dogs in his face, others held signs in front of him, blocking his view of the crowd. People in the crowd held signs with things like “God hates Books” and “I ate chili for lunch” written on them. Venyah was constantly surrounded by students asking him questions or trying to disrupt his message.

The men began speaking about 10:30 Wednesday morning and stayed until 3:30 in the afternoon. Some of the things Venyah said included, “Tupac and Biggie Smalls are in hell,” and “You people don’t obey Christ, you obey your lust.”

Sarcastic shouts from students could be heard throughout the crowd. One student yelled, “We’re all going to hell and then we’re all going to Disneyland!”

Cameron Baraban, Overland Park freshman squirted ketchup packets on Venyah’s shirt as he spoke. “Anything to deface the lie that’s on his shirt,” he said. “His message is driven by hate.”

Lemieux, who video taped Venyah, but didn’t preach himself, said they were with a group called Soulwinners Ministries International. According to the group’s Web site, Venyah founded the group with his wife Tamika in 2004. Lemieux said she usually preached too, but couldn’t be there yesterday.

“This is our job,” Lemieux said. He said God provided for them as they preached their message at colleges across the country.

Liney Pugh, Washington, D.C., freshman said, “I think it’s really wrong to preach hate like they do.” Pugh and another girl approached Venyah together and kissed “just to piss him off.” She said Venyah then called her a whoremonger.

Lemieux said he thought they had converted 30-40 people to Christianity in the two years they had been preaching at colleges. He said he believed homosexuals were harming Jesus Christ by sinning against him.

“Most homosexuals don’t believe what they’re doing is a sin and most people in society don’t believe homosexuality is a sin,” Lemieux said. He said telling people they were going to hell helped them to develop a fear of the Lord.

Lemieux said someone preached to him and told him he was going to hell, turning him into a Christian.

Renee Burnett, a Kansas City, Kan., junior who is bisexual, said she thought the idea that God wanted homosexuals to burn in hell was absolutely wrong. She stood across from Venyah holding a rainbow flag with several other students. “I came here to stand up for the people I love,” she said.

Spencer Davidson, Linwood freshman, is a Christian. He said he disagreed with Venyah and Lemeieux’s message, but he also disagreed with KU students’ response to the men.

“They’re giving him what he wants by making this into a big event,” Davidson said. “By calling him things like a bigoted asshole, they’re not countering his argument at all and it’s not doing anything to help the Christian community or to help people reach Christ.”

By Thomas Sowell - Townhall.com

There are very few saints among people of any race, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation. None should be above criticism.

Increasingly, however, there are tighter and tighter restrictions on what you can say about more and more groups. San Francisco radio talk show host Pete Wilson discovered this recently when he criticized a city Supervisor and his female friend — but not lover — who had a baby together.

The man is gay and the woman is a lesbian, so they are not lovers in a committed relationship.

Raising a child is no piece of cake, even when the parents are married and committed to staying together. Raising a child where there is no stable, committed relationship may be cutting edge stuff but Pete Wilson’s point was that a child is not an experiment.

The same could be said of heterosexuals like the woman who recently had a baby in her sixties. That’s great for making a splash in the media but what is going to happen when the baby becomes a teenager and the mother’s energy level has declined with age, if she is still around at all?

The real issue, however, is neither heterosexual or homosexual, and it extends even beyond the important question of the best interests of the child.

The larger question for American society is, as Joan Rivers has often said: “Can we talk?”

Political bigwigs in San Francisco say “No.” They are demanding that Pete Wilson resign. In San Francisco, no one is supposed to criticize anything done by homosexuals.

Moreover, this attitude is not confined to San Francisco or to gays. On the other side of the country, Columbia University students stormed the stage when one of the Minuteman critics of our lax immigration laws was trying to speak.

At many other colleges and universities, he would not even have been allowed on campus in the first place. Many campuses have speech codes where it is called creating a “hostile environment” if you say things that make various racial, sexual, or other protected groups unhappy.

Young people educated at our most prestigious colleges and universities are learning the lesson that storm trooper tactics can silence those who are not in vogue on campus, and honest expressions of opinion about issues involving anything from affirmative action to women in the military can get you suspended if you refuse the humiliation and hypocrisy of being “re-educated.”

Meanwhile, liberals in Congress have long been advocating a return to the so-called “fairness” doctrine requiring “balance” in broadcasting. Talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative simply because liberal talk radio has failed repeatedly to attract comparable-sized audiences.

The listeners have spoken but the politicians want to overrule them. Some call it “hush Rush” legislation.

“Fairness” here, as in so many other contexts, means nothing more and nothing less than the exercise of arbitrary power by third parties, since everyone has a different definition of what “fairness” means.

Free speech is not a luxury but a necessity if we are to hear the various sides of issues before we decide what to do.

It is not a question of Pete Wilson’s rights or even of the rights of all the people who speak or write on public issues. Such people are not even ten percent of the population and probably not even one percent.

Their individual rights matter. But among the pressing problems of our time, their interests alone rank far down the list.

Free speech rights exist for the whole society, not for writers and speakers. When you say that we can hear only what a growing number of censors want us to hear, you are condemning us to grope in the dark when making all sorts of decisions — about ourselves, our families and the future of our society.

Whether Pete Wilson’s opinion was right or wrong is a very small issue compared to blinding us all for the sake of political correctness. Can we talk? Apparently, for some people, the answer is “No.”

Dems lead but lack message - From USA Today 

Polls indicate that if the November elections were held today, Democratic candidates would make major gains across the board. The Democrats are within reach of the 15 seats they need to win a majority in the House of Representatives and might even capture control of the Senate. That would be quite an achievement considering the party itself is in disarray.

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has been feuding with key members of Congress over how to spend the party’s money. Things got so bad this spring that Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the party’s point person for picking up House seats, stormed out of a meeting screaming obscenities. Their respective staffs patched together a compromise last month, but only after DNC staffers toyed with demanding a “good behavior” clause requiring Emanuel to stop badmouthing Dean.

At the same time, congressional Democrats failed to put together a platform as effective as the Contract with America was in bringing Republicans to power in 1994.

In 2006, Democrats could win despite themselves. They have the good fortune of running when the war in Iraq and corruption scandals have Republicans on the defensive.

For the Democrats to be more than a one-election wonder, however — or even to take advantage of increased power — they will have to do more than position themselves as the anti-Bush, less-bad party.

Dean, with an eye to the long term, has been pouring millions of dollars into hiring staff in all 50 states in an effort to make the party more competitive nationally. Emanuel and his Senate counterpart, Charles Schumer of New York, think it’s insane to put scarce resources into GOP strongholds such as Alaska; they favor pouring funds into competitive races with an eye on winning now.

Either way, the Democrats will achieve little until they can put together a vision that rallies voters. That presumably would include credible plans for addressing the quagmire in Iraq, restoring fiscal sanity and reining in Washington’s corruption.

So far all are missing, and if Democrats’ high hopes aren’t realized come Nov. 7, the screaming between Dean and other party leaders will only grow louder.

I post this retarded opinion piece from the Kansas University Daily Kansan mainly because I’m in a humorous mood. Although I imagine lots of left leaning folks might occasionally glance at Pooper, none are willing to come here and make a complete ass of themselves and willingly post inane drivel like this so I don’t mind giving up space to educate people on the utter ignorance of some left leaning folks. 

Just look at some of the other posts. The jackass liberal conspiracy theorists claiming the NYC plane crash was a Bush plot.
A Bush threatening teen getting star treatment in the liberal media.
CBS giving credence to the idiot notion that Bush and the Oil companies are secretly controlling gas prices as the elections draw closer.
Whether it’s idiot liberal thugs crashing a stage at Columbia or some moronic college student who does not even have the basic common sense to leave out the line: “Now let me make myself clear, I am not a Democrat.”
Only a liberal would verbalize such a ridiculous statement and do so with a straight face. 
It likely does not even dawn on this dude his credibility goes out the window and nothing he say after that means anything.
I wish someone could explain to me this particular trend that people on the left seem to have recently with starting these particular opinion pieces across the country with the firm warning to readers that “I am not a Democrat BUT” or “I use to be a Republican.”
A little advice to you people obviously devoid of common sense, most of us don’t care what your particular political bent might be.
Oh hell lets face it, most readers really don’t care what you have to say. There are millions of decently paid political pundits who can cite liberal Democrat talking points in their sleep. Leave the Democratic talking points to the experts. Howard Dean is much better at slamming right leaning types and he has the political position to back it up. 

THE EDITORIAL.. 

Well my fellow Jayhawks the 2006 midterm elections are fast approaching and if you haven’t registered to vote then run, don’t walk the library, post office or county treasurer’s office today and get it done. This election might just prove to be a pivotal point in American history.

Now let me make myself clear, I am not a Democrat.

This November however, I will be voting for every Democratic candidate that happens to be on my ballot. It will be a vote not as much for whom I want, but definitely a vote for whom I don’t want. Washington D.C. needs an enema people. The Republican control of the House and Senate must be broken up and the Democrats must move to impeach President Bush if given the majority.

For those of you who are thinking to yourselves that the midterm elections couldn’t possibly mean so much, wise up. Back in 1994, another year of midterm elections that proved to be of major importance, the Republican Party seized control of the federal House and Senate for the first time since 1954. The Republicans led by their Minority Whip, Newt Gingrich, took center stage and declared that they would clean up the “swamp” that Washington D.C. had become by restoring morality to the halls of government. Once the Republicans had control of the Congress, they moved against then Democratic President Clinton. Three years later President Clinton became just the second president ever impeached. The Grand Old do as I say not as I do Party, who declared that they would restore morals to the halls of government, chose to drag the entire country into the gutter with their investigation of sperm stains on blue dresses and strange places for President Clinton to store his cigars. As for the man leading the charge against Clinton, Time Magazine’s 1995 Man of the Year Newt Gingrich, while he was crucifying the President of the United States for an extra marital affair, he too was carrying out an affair with one of his own aids who was twenty-three years his younger.

The grounds for impeaching President Clinton were ridiculous and looking back on it the actions of the Republicans should have been a glaring indication of their hypocrisy, which is now blowing up in their faces. The Republican controlled congress has failed in their attempt, if it ever truly was an attempt, to clean up Washington and corruption is as rife as ever in the capital city. Corruption is something Democratic congressmen and senators are just as guilty of and there is no guarantee that the corruption will stop if the Republicans lose control of congress. Without a doubt though, the main reason the American people must beat the Republicans back into the minority of congress is because they have been the enablers to a man who sits in our oval office and believes that he is above the law.

Political analysts across the board believe that if the Democrats take control of the House and Senate that the impeachment process against President Bush will begin.

See only a novice would be ignorant enough to verbalize that. But he is correct, Democrats running for office are just too chickenshit to admit it.  

Republicans like to wrap the word “perjury” around the justification for their impeachment of Clinton, but the bottom line is that the presidential impeachment of 1998 was a joke that came at the expense of nearly 41 million dollars to the American taxpayers. The grounds for the impeachment of President Bush are no joke. President Bush has lied to the American people in order to send us into a war that has seen the deaths of almost three thousand U.S. servicemen and women, and 600 thousand Iraqis. He has signed off on illegal wiretaps of U.S. citizens and tried to hide it.

Wow that is news to me!

Members of his administration have leaked the identity of an active CIA operative as an act of spite when it was revealed that the Bush Administration was fabricating and over embellishing evidence to lead us to war in Iraq. All the while President Bush has pointed fingers, bullied anyone in government or the news media that was brave enough to question his administration, and continually shoved the tragedy of 9/11 in our faces as justification for his blatant disregard for the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Republican controlled house and senate has stood idle for too long. They have given too much control to the man who has dubbed himself the “Decider” and it’s time to stop the bleeding. You get rid of the Republican controlled house and senate and you effectively neuter the Bush Administration. I don’t care if the impeachment process lasts two years and on his last week in office President Bush is forced to stand trial for his abuse of the laws of this country. I hope that the political analysts are not wrong, and the Democrats will for the first time in five years show they have something other than a jelly spine. I’m all set to do my part, come that first Tuesday in November I will step in that booth and cast my vote, my prayer, for the impeachment of George Walker Bush, and I hope that the Democrats won’t let me down.

Is he done yet?  ZZZZZZZZZ!

 This post is a great example of why liberalism is bad for your health.
Liberals are simply incapable of processing positive vibes for their own country.
I believe they actually prefer to be miserable, and depressed while at the same time blaming America for their ills.
Their misery is not even logical or else it’s calculated.
How else can you explain liberal blogs and news sites complaining about the falling price of gas and the signs that the economy is healthy, while at the same time obsessing over the racial thoughts of a lone white guy.
The theme on liberals’ blogs I have read over the past few days is Republicans are trying to scare the American people into voting for them. Do they even process how stupid that sounds?
Liberals are continuing to sink to new lows, I almost feel guilty continuing to bash them,  it’s like kicking a puppy.
However I have way too much contempt for liberalism. Tis far better to analyze them ranting and raving on blogs and news sources rather than having these crazy ass people in power running this country into the nearest iceberg.

 

 

Title: Am I alone in this? Today I feel like I am a woman without a country  
By Diane Silver - From the Blog In This Moment

These are my thoughts from Kansas on a gray morning. I woke up today, and the first thing I thought was: I am a woman without a country.

In the aftermath of yesterday’s Senate passage of the torture-enabling and Constitution-trashing Military Commissions Act, it feels like my country has ceased to exist. I haven’t moved away from my commitment to citizenship and the ideals of the United States, but my country has.

I am in mourning.

The second thing I thought was: I need to post about this.

The third thing I thought was: Is it safe? If I speak so openly about my fury and my disagreement with this president will I someday be said to be aiding terrorists? Will my sentiments be the trigger for an arrest. Is that already possible?

(On second thought: Aren’t I being foolish! America will never do that, but look at the letter of this law. Doesn’t it give the president the right to define who will be imprisoned? The way this is written, no one need or possibly can look over George W. Bush’s shoulder, or am I wrong? I pray I’m wrong, and not just for me, but for thousands of other people and for the soul of my country.)

And then I thought: Should I leave? Is it time to pack up and go to Canada? My brother lives not far from there. Is it time to move near him so we could dash across the border quickly if necessary?

And then I thought: I will be damned if I let George Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, Joe Lieberman and all the rest steal MY country.

And then I went over to visit Blue Girl, Red State who lives in Missouri not far from me and found her wonderful post “Rest in Peace America.” Read all of it, but this is just a tiny snippet.

Sleep eludes me tonight, but it is understandable. I lost my country yesterday. It was not a sudden death - we knew it was coming. But that does not assuage the inevitable grief.

She talks about her anger and her promise to work for change. (And yes, oh great inquisitors, we are talking about political change, not violent change.)

It’s time.

Enough is enough.

America is better than this.

 I have read a number of left leaning blogs and none of them mentioned how silly Clinton looked. Like this article mentions, they LIKED what they saw.
This was an X-president crying and whining like a silly little bitch. The former leader of the free world looked pathetic, he reminded me of Cartman when he goes into temper tantrums.
You liberals liked what you saw? No wonder y’all are so fucked up!

Debra J. Saunders - SF Gate.com - Link 

THE SMIRK is the new angry. Remember the ’90s, which Dems spent putting down “angry white men?” Now the Dems are angry. They’ve been hopping mad for six years. Sunday, their biggest star, former President Bill Clinton, embraced his angry side during a Fox News interview with Chris Wallace, as he turned his ire to the new target of Democratic sensibilities, the smirk.

Since 1999, Dems have been dreaming about wiping the smirk off President Bush’s face. Sunday, Clinton expanded the smirk zone when he chided Wallace for having “that little smirk on your face and you think you’re so clever.”

Left-leaning blogs are lauding Clinton’s tantrum. Thinkprogress.org reported that Clinton taught Wallace “a lesson.”

If so, it was a lesson on “How Not To.” Bubba looked silly dismissing Wallace, his “nice little conservative hit job on me” and the Fox News network as conservative tools. Sorry, Fox News mogul Rupert Murdoch donated $500,000 to the Clinton Global Initiative last week and hosted a fundraiser for U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton this summer.

I don’t get it. If Bill Clinton is so smart, why has he made his failure to get Osama bin Laden the big story of the week twice in the last month?

Start with the ABC miniseries “The Path to 9/11.” I never saw it, so all I know about it is that Clinton thought it showed him to be too soft on bin Laden. Oddly, when Democrats were billing themselves as tough on terrorism, Clinton turned the spotlight on his failure to vanquish bin Laden.

Let me be clear. I in no way blame Clinton for 9/11. Before 9/11, neither Clinton nor Bush could have garnered the domestic or international support they would have needed to defeat al Qaeda.

Besides, if Clinton emboldened al Qaeda by pulling U.S. troops out of Somalia after the death of 18 U.S. soldiers, his actions were no worse than those of the first President Bush (who ended the Persian Gulf War prematurely) or Ronald Reagan who cut and ran after terrorists killed 241 Marines troops in Lebanon.

Clinton also was right to point out that in 1993 no one knew al Qaeda was paying attention to Somalia. Ditto his point that few of today’s critics were pushing for him to risk a war by bombing those suspected in the bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa or the destroyer Cole.

Clinton complained that the right accused him of waging a “wag the dog” foreign policy — as if he had nothing to do with his credibility problems. I believed the threats against America were real, but suspected Clinton’s martial responses were timed to deflect attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Some on the left thought so, too. So what? Surely Clinton would not argue that he could not fight Osama bin Laden, lest he be criticized.

Read Richard Clarke’s book, the former president repeatedly admonished Wallace. Hmm. If Clinton wants to remind voters that his own National Security Adviser Sandy Berger pleaded guilty to sneaking out and shredding three copies of a Clarke memo about the growing terrorist threat in America, well, OK. Twist my arm.

For three years, the left has accused Bush of lying to the public about intelligence that suggested Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Partisans seem to have forgotten that Clinton ordered air strikes over Iraq in 1998 in order to check the threat of Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction program.

On Sunday, Clinton got a taste of the Dems’ bitter medicine, and he choked on it.

Clinton’s finger-wagging moment
Slick Willie’s Day of Rage
Clinton’s excuses; Ace fact-checks
Wallace did challenge Bush admin
Viera gushes; Olby drools
Newsmax audio tape of BC

WATCH HOT AIR HERE

A mature, modest and (almost) scandal-free George Michael took the stage in his first solo concert in 15 years. But the pop star couldn’t resist making another controversial dig at George Bush.

At the end of the first set Michael sang his 2002 controversial anti-Bush song “Shoot the Dog.”

During the number, an enormous balloon depicting a cartoon-ish George Bush rose out of centre stage, drawing whoops and yells from the crowd. But the real surprise came when Michael leaned down to unzip the balloon’s trousers, and out popped a British bulldog draped with the UK flag. The dog was stuck to the balloon’s inflated crotch, wagging its tail. ARTICLE LINK

 

 

 

“I’m not saying that I have an open relationship with my boyfriend but he knows who I am,” Michael said. “He knows that I’m generally oversexed, so he’s been very, very good. … We love each other and he understands that it was a stupid mistake and he’s forgiven me, I hope.”

I think the criticism he getting to him just a tad, you think!?
No wonder he tried so hard to get the 9/11 movie stopped.
The thing is I, as a “right winger” (his words in the Fox interview) don’t “blame” him for inaction.
I don’t know about anybody else on the right but I think dude just had a different focus for his administration, and got distracted with stupid shit like M.L.
Clinton was simply the type of guy who wanted to be liked, by every damm body and did not want to take risks and take decisive action. Any Democrat would have been the same type of president and tried shoving diplomacy down our collective throats and hoped that those terrorists would just go away and be nice.  

WASHINGTON (Reuters) (Article Link) - Former President Bill Clinton, angrily defending his efforts to capture Osama bin Laden, accused the Bush administration of doing far less to stop the al Qaeda leader before the September 11 attacks.
In a heated interview to be aired on Sunday on “Fox News Sunday,” the former Democratic president defended the steps he took after al Qaeda’s attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and faulted “right-wingers” for their criticism of his efforts to capture Osama bin Laden.
“But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now,” Clinton said when asked whether he had failed to fully anticipate bin Laden’s danger. “They had eight months to try, they did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed.”
The September 11 attacks occurred almost eight months after President George W. Bush succeeded Clinton in January 2001.
“I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him,” Clinton said.

He added HE had drawn up plans to go into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and launch an attack against bin Laden after the attack on the Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden.

Sorry people but he is fucking lying there. Ok picture ANY president sitting in a dark room, drinking some wine, clothes wrinkled, intently looking at a detailed map, telling his minions,
 “ok folks” (remember to use you Clinton voice) “ya see were, gonna send out troops, up yander, were gonna flank our boys over this ridge, hit them with the heavy artillery and blast those terrorist sons of bitches out of those caves and pin then down HERE! I think we have us a plan y’all, call the Joint Chiefs and get them in here so I can brief them on what we is gonna do”

“Now if you want to criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: after the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, (cough, liar…) overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan — which we got after 9/11,” Clinton said.
The former president complained at the time the CIA and FBI refused to certify bin Laden was responsible for the USS Cole attack.
“While I was there, they refused to certify. So that meant I would have had to send a few hundred special forces in helicopters, refuel at night,” he said.
Earlier this month, Clinton dismissed as “indisputably wrong” a U.S. television show that suggested her was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal to confront the Islamic militant threat that culminated in the September 11 attacks.

“Now if you want to criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: after the Cole,  (cough, liar…) overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan — which we got after 9/11,” Clinton said.The former president complained at the time the CIA and FBI refused to certify bin Laden was responsible for the USS Cole attack.”While I was there, they refused to certify. So that meant I would have had to send a few hundred special forces in helicopters, refuel at night,” he said.Earlier this month, Clinton dismissed as “indisputably wrong” a U.S. television show that suggested her was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal to confront the Islamic militant threat that culminated in the September 11 attacks.
 

Here is a good post from Right Wing news.  This post points out just how crazy your typical crazy ass liberals are. Hell I know they AGREED with and LIKED what Chavez had to say. Democrats, including former presidents have been saying this shit for years now.
Why do you think that this idiot had the balls to come to this country and call out OUR president. Dude has CNN and I’m sure he is a big fan of Keith Olberman. He has Belafonte and Glover on speed dial. Of course he was comfortable with trashing OUR president.   
I found the responses by the top libs curious. But as RWN points out these liberals are out for blood. They are more specifically geared towards destroying the credibility of this president and undermining this country.
These people are lunatics and are fuelled by anger.
Fucken dumb ass liberals are too stupid to realize that a verbal bitch slap to the president is a bitch slap to ALL AMERICANS.
His rant pissed me off because he is nothing but a punk ass wannabe dictator crying for world attention. Reminds me of a yapping lap dog.
 

Hugo Chavez made some moronic and rude comments about Bush at the UN, which included:

 

“The devil is right at home. The devil — the devil, himself, is right in the house. And the devil came here yesterday. 

“Yesterday, the devil came here. Right here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of. Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.”

 

In response, Charles Rangel verbally socked him one:

 

“An attack on Bush is an attack on all Americans…’You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State’…” — Charles Rangel

 

Americans aren’t particularly fond of way over-the-top attacks on the President in any case and they certainly don’t want to hear them from some tinpot thug, Castro-wannabe whom we were gracious enough to allow to enter our country. So, Rangel’s comments were good politics and, if you ask me, just common decency.

But, of course, not everyone agrees — like the folks over at the Democratic Underground, in a thread called Rangel: An attack on (CHIMPY) is an attack on all Americans…

As you read these comments, note the poisonous hatred towards Bush which is so extreme, so out of control, that these people are actually spewing massive amounts of venom at an ultra-left winger like Charles Rangel just because he defended George Bush. Apparently, for these people, being a loyal Democrat means NEVER saying a kind word for the other side, cooperating with them , or defending them for ANY REASON, no matter how justified it may be. Some of these comments are just….wow, you’ll see:

 

Moochy: Oh brother. Nationalism is a poison… Thanks Rangel.

xchrom: then tell your president to stop trying to overthrow legitimately elected governments.

RandiRhodesArchives: that he needs to switch parties! and he can take Zell LIEbushlover with him too!

malaise: Attack? How is calling him the devil an attack. Doesn’t Bushco call people terrorists with no evidence. Bush is the fugging anti-christ. Charlie knows a Dem backlash is coming for Chavez speaking at a Baptist Church in Harlem

OneBlueSky: when that president represents an immediate threat to world peace . . .and, indeed, to the survival of humanity and of the planet itself, I’d say that criticism is quite appropriate — anytime, any place, and by anyone . . .

Generic Other: Evil translates into many languages. F*ck ALL BUsh apologists. I am not offended by the g*ddamn truth.

Rex: Well then he can go and goosestep with his new best friend George Bush. I hear Lieberman was a great progressive at one time and p*ssed his whole career away due to a kiss by the Devil.

michael_1166: Tell you what, Mr. Rangel: I’m just an ordinary German citizen, but I’m not only refraining from visiting your country, I also won’t buy any American products unless your mass murdering president is behind bars.

Skidmore: You know, none of us here could possibly hate this country as much as the chickenhawks voted for these imbeciles that head this Mickey Mouse administration (yeah, I’m calling Boosh & Cheney names so sue me) and the Mickey Mouse Club Congress y’all installed with them. By the time they are done, America will be unrecognizable and no longer sovereign. Land of the free and home of the brave, my ass. Bunch of cowards lined up behind a coward and a bunch of Christian fanatics trying to bring Armageddon on cause they’ve been told that Mickey and the gang are put there by God. Handed the nation over Bin Laden and the terraists a long time ago. “They wanna kill us all.” Inless we go shopping, of course. Shop till you drop, but my guess is y’all won’t wear a uniform and actually go fight. Of course, there are those lucrative positions with KBR & Halliburton in which you can always make megabucks in and retire after a year.

LaPera: SO F*CK YOU CHARLIE RANGEL! Yes, Bush with his war mongering, killer of the poor and his imperialism certainly is the “devil”…But, we all knew this! Viva Chavez! Bravo!!

El Zopilote: What is U.S. Congressman Charles Rangél doing? Is he betraying the Democratic Party? He’s bashing Hugo Chavez and defending Bush. It is very disturbing and alarming to see a Democrat, especially a monority, to critize an international Hispanic leader and ally by expressing sympathy for Bush and his racist Republicans. Has Mr. Rangél gone loco? Has he turned into a rogue Democrat? Is he a traitor? Hopefully Mr. Rangél has an ulterior motive. But as Democrats we must be careful not to create the slightest impression that our strong united coalition has a crack in it. I consider all minorities (African-Americans, Hispanics of course, Muslims, American Indians and all to be my brothers in the cause of solidarity). We must remain united. Solidarity is the key to victory. We do not need dissent.

THESE PEOPLE NEED A GOOD STIFF DRINK OR MAYBE THEY NEED TO GET LAID!

 Michele Malkin has this on Jabba the slut Rosie O’Donnell. I hope she keep running her mouth. Could you feel the collective cringe by Democrat operatives everywhere. Yeah, Rosie that’s righ…..er uh, shut up Rosie, wait until after the elections.
If this is an example of the kind of change you want in America vote DEMOCRAT in November! 

Rosie, I recommend you invite Bruce Bawer on your show to cure you of your abject ignorance. From Bawer’s website:

Let it not be forgotten, after all, how countries ruled by Koranic law treat their homosexual citizens. Under the Taliban, Afghanistan put at least ten homosexuals to death; on New Year’s Day, 2002, our good friends in Saudi Arabia beheaded three men for sodomy. According to one report, Iran has executed several thousand men for homosexuality since 1979. Even in Egypt, with its relatively moderate and secular government, a widely publicized mass arrest of suspected homosexuals in early 2001 resulted in the torture and imprisonment of dozens of males as young as fifteen. And these figures are undoubtedly dwarfed by the annual number of “honor killings” of female family members who have strayed sexually (or who have shamed their families by being raped)–a form of murder that is so much a part of traditional Muslim culture that it goes unprosecuted even in relatively moderate Islamic countries like Jordan. In May 2002, Amnesty International reported that in Pakistan at least three honor killings occur every day, and that the perpetrators are usually not even arrested, although their identities tend to be known to family, neighbors, and even the police.

What do all these liberal women who pretend to speak for women have to say about that? Or about Pakistan’s cave-in to the sharia-enforcers who protect and coddle rapists in the name of Islam?

Maybe The View should invite Mohammed Khatami for a comparative religion chat.

***

You know who I’d really like to see on The View? MKH. That 3-to-1 libs-to-conservative panel needs balance. And some Southern flava. Where’s their commitment to diversity?

Meanwhile, O’Donnell, Jane Fonda, and Gloria Steinem have formed an estrogen-fueled talk radio network–because left-wing female views are sooo suppressed in the MSM.

Rosie’s rant
MKH’s view
Newsbusters busts Rosie
Bruce Bawer: While Europe Slept; more
Khatami: execute gays
Townhall.com

 

 

 

 

WATCH: Michelle and Mary Katharine take on Rosie O’Donnell.

Former Nixon official turned liberal John W. Dean has written a book, Conservatives Without Conscience, claiming that conservatives have an “authoritarian” streak and insinuating that the Bush Administration comes close to being fascist in character. The fact that Dean could get publicity for such a wild charge proves that freedom of speech is alive and well in America. In fact, the real authoritarian threat comes from Dean’s liberal allies who want to use the federal government to silence conservative media voices.

Under the cover of “media reform,” these groups, led by the George Soros-funded Free Press, want to use the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to tell conservative media personalities how they should examine and debate public policy issues and how much air time they should be required to turn over to liberals. 

One of their initiatives, the “Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act,” is designed to rectify “an imbalance in the presentation of opposing viewpoints over the public airwaves” and revoke a station’s license “if the station fails to uphold its obligation to the public interest,” as defined by the liberals. The bill, introduced by liberal Rep. Louise Slaughter, has 12 co-sponsors, which is not a large number.

But if the liberals seize control of Congress in November, such a measure could suddenly rise to the forefront of legislative measures being considered on Capitol Hill.

In a Democrat-controlled Congress, Slaughter would chair the all-powerful House Rules Committee, the “traffic cop” that decides which legislation makes it to the House floor and the rules of the debate.

The point bears repeating: if Congress changes hands as a result of the 2006 elections, you could wake up one morning in 2007 and find that your right to listen to an alternative to the mainstream media’s steady drumbeat of liberal propaganda is threatened by a commissar-like government diktat.

Commentators such as John W. Dean, who claim to be concerned about the rise of “authoritarianism,” ignore this obvious threat to the First Amendment, which was envisioned by the Founding Fathers as the freedom to speak one’s mind on political issues of the day.

It’s clear that Dean and the liberals are upset because the American people are hearing alternative voices in the “new media,” including cable news, talk radio and the Internet. The liberals think these voices are partly responsible for their electoral reverses in recent years, and that passing a new version of the federal “Fairness Doctrine,” requiring balance in programming, could help their cause.

In reality, the left wants to return to the days when the gatekeepers of the one-sided biased “mainstream media” could ignore or disparage conservative views. 

READ THE REST AT ACCURACY IN MEDIA

 Article Link

Rosie O’Donnell says “radical” Christians in America are just as much of a threat as the followers of radical Islam who piloted hijacked jetliners into New York’s Twin Towers and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

O’Donnell, the newest face on ABC’s “The View,” yesterday let her feelings fly after co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck noted militant Islam provides a threat to free people.

“Just a minute,” she interrupted. “Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state.”

She had been saying America was attacked “not by a nation.”

Yet, she said, “And as a result of the attack and the killing of nearly 3,000 innocent people we invaded two countries and killed innocent people.”

A bewildered co-host, Joy Behar, protested that Christians are not threatening to impose mass murder on Americans.

“There’s that difference. This group is threatening to kill us,” Behar said.

And Hasselback, appearing surprised, said, “We are not bombing ourselves here in the country.”

“No, but we are bombing innocent people in other countries. True or false?” O’Donnell said.

Internet chat forums erupted.

“Please tell me why Rosie O’overrated Donnell is on TV at all,” said kathleenirish. ” One of the mysteries of life, like why no talents/low raters like her, Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann and Al Franken still hang around. … God Bless America.”

The television show segment launched with O’Donnell reading from President Bush’s speech the previous night, where he expressed sorrow that the war on terror has been thrust on America, but also promising to finish it.

Another Internet contributor, identified as Michelle, said O’Donnell apparently believes the federal government is a branch of radical Christianity. And, Michelle said, O’Donnell apparently never has heard of World War II “and the innocent civilians that unfortunately died in the struggle against the Nazis.”

“Iraq and Afghanistan never threatened to kill us,” O’Donnell said.

But Michelle suggested perhaps O’Donnell should review where the Taliban trained and plotted.

“We will never bring peace at the hands of war. … As a species we have to rise above it,” O’Donnell said.

Internet chat contributor dcpro said it wasn’t anything surprising.

“When you got Rosie sitting at your table, what do you expect?”

“The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on,” added Chris Norman. “So, Rosie O’Donnell, stand up comic and geopolitical analyst, thinks if we just do nothing except hang our heads and cry, ‘Oh, woe is me!’, the rest of the world will join together and ride to our rescue? Oh, really. We might get those warm and fuzzy statements of sympathy - maybe. I suppose the liberal plan is. ‘We probably deserve whatever we got. Be sad. Do nothing.’”

“Rosie who????” was the terse response from LJS.

“Rosie has got to go. Poor Barbara (Walters), you know she knows she made a terrible mistake. It is laughable,” said msh1973.

By Lisa Fabrizio
Enter Stage Right - Link

Whenever I or other folks write or even talk about the War on Terror, liberals are quick to deliver their favorite line with the obligatory sneer: “Have you ever served in the military?” When my answer, that I don’t believe in women in the Armed Forces, produces the requisite foaming at the mouth, I follow that up with, “Have you?”

It’s amusing, day after day to hear liberals call Bush Administration officials and their supporters ‘chicken-hawks’, especially when that term literally refers to “hawks that prey on chickens.” Notwithstanding the fact that one need not experience something to have some degree of expertise concerning it — I don’t know many historians who slogged through the Peloponnesian War but there are plenty of experts on it — what makes pacifists and anti-war niks think they’re more informed on matters of war than anyone else?
 
But experts they are, whose opinions and credentials are unchallenged by the media because they are on the proper side. Last week’s edition of the Chris Matthews Show was, as usual, both exasperating and comforting: exasperating because of the one-sidedness of the debate, and comforting because anything else would have been shocking on an otherwise tranquil and beautiful Sunday morning.

Led by General Dan Rather, Matthews and his panel of battle-hardened military authorities representing the BBC, NBC News and The New Yorker Regiments, sat in judgment of the topic; “The road to 9/11: who was behind it? What drove the killers? Plus, five years after 9/11, is Al-Qaida a gang or an idea — and can we beat it?”

Summing up the glory days of his former seat on the throne of influence, Dan, the former newsman said:

I hear time after time, after time, people say, “What the hell is going on here? I’ve lost any sense of what the war is about.” I’m not saying they should feel that way. I’m simply trying to be a reporter and say, that’s the way people feel.

Right. But wasn’t that the plan Dan? To keep the American people in the dark as to who we’re fighting and why?  As if to clarify, perky Katty Kay added, “This is an extremely complicated issue. It takes five years of research and a huge book (by one of her co-panelists) to try to understand the motivation of Al-Qaida.”

Well no, not really Katty. Contrary to the Matthews’ crack roundtable assertions, we knew fairly early on ‘why they hate us’. And it has nothing to do with anything more complicated than this: Al-Qaida and its affiliated groups are sworn to destroy any and all peoples who dare to obey to man-made law rather than submit to their twisted rule of Sharia.

And that is why we from time to time — in between planes crashing into buildings, car-bombings, beheadings and other subtle hints — receive charming invitations to convert to Islam, like this most recent one delivered by erstwhile California headbanger Adam Gadahn, aka ‘Azzam the American’:

To Americans and the rest of Christendom we say, either repent (your) misguided ways and enter into the light of truth or keep your poison to yourself and suffer the consequences in this world and the next.

Mr. Gadahn and his new playmates are lucky that Christendom in its truest sense, no longer exists. Their constant references to those who decline their polite invitations to conversion as crusaders are especially galling, since had they really been such, the Islamofascists would probably have been already defeated, as they had been once by those valiant Christian soldiers. And they still might be, should the collective West ever truly decide to see this war as a crusade to save its way of life.

Yet our liberal military experts maintain that if we just sit down with these fine fellows and engage them in friendly debate, our problems will be over. After all, it can’t really be religious fervor that’s causing this little dust-up; it’s just got to be some kind of sociological reaction to their mistreatment at America’s hands.

As if the twisted demands of our enemies are negotiable; and worse, as if ours should be

WATCH HOT AIR HERE

Cindy Sheehan: Confessions of a Dangerous Mom
The right-wingers who think nothing but the worst of Cindy Sheehan probably won’t change their minds after reading Peace Mom. In the book, which hits bookstores September 19, the antiwar icon admits she has fantasized about going back in time and killing the infant George W. Bush, thereby preventing the Iraq War. In fact, she reveals, her son’s death in that war almost drove her to take her own life: “Every night I had to restrain myself from taking my entire bottle of sleeping pills instead of just one.”

 No comment necessary, typical liberal bitching and griping. 

 Post from Fire Dog Lake:

 Does ABC/Disney Movie Include Bush Allowing Osama Bin Laden to Escape from Tora Bora? 

By: Christy Hardin Smith - Fire Dog Lake

I am as furious as I can ever remember being at the moment.  LHP sent me a link this morning to a WaPo article, and I only got about seven paragraphs into it before I had to stand up and walk around the house a while before I could read any more of the article.  Here’s what cause my sharp intake of breath and increasing feeling of rage:

The clandestine U.S. commandos whose job is to capture or kill Osama bin Laden have not received a credible lead in more than two years. Nothing from the vast U.S. intelligence world — no tips from informants, no snippets from electronic intercepts, no points on any satellite image — has led them anywhere near the al-Qaeda leader, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials.

“The handful of assets we have have given us nothing close to real-time intelligence” that could have led to his capture, said one counterterrorism official, who said the trail, despite the most extensive manhunt in U.S. history, has gone “stone cold.”

But in the last three months, following a request from President Bush to “flood the zone,” the CIA has sharply increased the number of intelligence officers and assets devoted to the pursuit of bin Laden. The intelligence officers will team with the military’s secretive Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) and with more resources from the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies….

Intelligence officials think that bin Laden is hiding in the northern reaches of the autonomous tribal region along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. This calculation is based largely on a lack of activity elsewhere and on other intelligence, including a videotape, obtained exclusively by the CIA and not previously reported, that shows bin Laden walking on a trail toward Pakistan at the end of the battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, when U.S. forces came close but failed to capture him.

Many factors have combined in the five years since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to make the pursuit more difficult. They include the lack of CIA access to people close to al-Qaeda’s inner circle; Pakistan’s unwillingness to pursue him; the reemergence of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan; the strength of the Iraqi insurgency, which has depleted U.S. military and intelligence resources; and the U.S. government’s own disorganization.  (emphasis mine)

You think the GOP-U-Drama about to be broadcast on ABC/Disney includes a scene showing George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld giving the order for forces to stand down in Tora Bora, with a flash to Bin Laden walking away unscathed toward the territory of our good old ally, Pakistan?  You think the Director’s CIA folks told them about that — or would they even use it if they knew?  Doubt it — doesn’t fit the political world view and agenda of a “blame Bill Clinton” group of financiers, does it?

They apparently have made a few changes to the GOP-U-Drama, if it airs here the same as it has already aired in New Zealand.  I got an e-mail from a reader living there — Kevin Jon Heller who blogs at Opinio Juris – and I thought I’d share it with everyone else.  Here’s what things looked like in NZ’s version of the film:

READ THE REST OF THE BITCHING AND MOANING AT FIRE DOG LAKE

From The Hot Air Website 

Via Spruiell. I forget the context, but I remember Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee saying a while back how disappointed he was in the Democrats over something, and I told him there’s an easy fix for that: expect nothing from them, like I do, and you’ll never be disappointed. Turns out I was wrong, though, because even with zero expectations, I can’t quite believe they’d stoop to this. As naked an example of intimidation as you’ll see this side of British Muslims playing good cop/bad cop with Tony Blair. If the GOP pulled this crap, it’d be top of the f’ng fold tomorrow in the Times. As it should be.

Wonderful network you’ve got there. It’d be a shame if something happened to it:

[T]he manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC… Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation…

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events…

These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows…

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to c