Abu Wabu

Same Shit, Different Day
Gateway Pundit corrects Screamin' Howard on a matter of historical fact. Devastating.




Have We Looked Into The Root Causes For This?
An armed man has taken hostages at a Hillary! campaign office. Promising to blow up two hostages if he doesn't get an audience with Hil.

UPDATE: All's well that ends well.




Sistani: Smile On Your Brother
Iraq reconciliation may not be going the way Harry Reid and the Surrendercrats say it should, but it's happening nonetheless. In big ways, as the Tank explains.




Flashback: Ouch
Jeff Goldstein coolly deconstructs the inane rantings of a leftist pissant (apologies to non-idiot pissants everywhere). I knew there was a reason I saved it to my desktop.

Q: Can you leftist pissants please stop being inane so that I may employ a different adjective? Just once?




Put A Sock In It
"I think, I think, the, the surge is working." Chrissakes, shut the fuck up, you crazy old man!!!




As Plain As The Hole In Your Head
A Goldbergian aside and a reader's response richly illustrate the difference between intellectual honesty and smug self-righteousness.




Front Row Moonbat
Cumb dunt/hideous terror apologist Helen Thomas gets told by White House Angel-In-Our-Midst Dana Perino, who admonished the Old Thing to "Stop being such a cumb dunt." Refreshing to see Perino put it in its place when even Ari Fleischer and Tony Snow had no stomach for combat with it. In their defense, I imagine interacting with the Old Thing is akin to lowering oneself into a months-dormant hot-tub in the Villages, so good on the Lovely Angel for going in to engage.

Here's the Lovely Angel in all her stunning color, with her big ole' Army friends:


There ya go. And she's six-foot-two, I shit you not.

Thanks to Ace for the term "hideous terror apologist". It works on so many levels.

Notorious liar Bill Clinton, November 2007:

Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers.

Notorious liar Bill Clinton, June 2004:

“After 9/11, let’s be fair here, if you had been President, you’d think, Well, this fellow bin Laden just turned these three airplanes full of fuel into weapons of mass destruction, right? Arguably they were super-powerful chemical weapons. Think about it that way. So, you’re sitting there as President, you’re reeling in the aftermath of this, so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I’ve got to do that. That’s why I supported the Iraq thing.”

Except, Bill, you had eight years to "support those soldiers" and instead you dismantled half the military while Hillary! regularly insulted the other half, so I guess I have to conclude that you're as full of it as you ever were.

I supported the Iraq thing and still do. So does anyone who understands the threat.

Bill and Hillary! just use it.

President Bush, in a statement from the White House on the Annapolis Conference, defines the problem simply by enumerating the fruits of its solution:

Today, Palestinians and Israelis each understand that helping the other to realize their aspirations is the key to realizing their own, and both require an independent, democratic, viable Palestinian state. Such a state will provide Palestinians with the chance to lead lives of freedom, purpose and dignity. And such a state will help provide Israelis with something they have been seeking for generations: to live in peace with their neighbors.

The President is doing exactly the right thing, setting the table for the creation of a Palestinian state that spends its energies on building itself up into a democracy. He is forcing the Palestinians onto the world stage to once again choose between the barbarism of the past and the possibilities of the future. The Saudis and others apparently demanded this conference as a condition for opening embassies in Iraq. Whether they thought that would be a deal-stopper isn't clear, but Bush's response says that he's fine with it, and why not? It puts the ball squarely in the Palestinians' court.

All Arabs including Palestinians can formally and permanently acknowledge the legitimacy of the state of Israel, and there will be peace. Or Palestinians can continue launching yet more and better Kassams at Israeli civilians.

Either way, Bush has made it clear that the entire world, including all you Islamist fucks skulking over in the corner, must recognize the state of Israel. Otherwise, there can be no peace, because Israelis will never surrender to the cruelties of Islamofascism. Too much in the way of Hitler.

UPDATE
I note that Andy McCarthy is not so sanguine. I know where he's coming from, because I don't think that anyone, including President Bush, believes that the Palestinians will go for "Israel, The Nation State."

But it's right to offer the Palestinian leadership another opportunity to opt for co-existence with Israel on mutually agreeable terms.

Anything about that that isn't reasonable?

Little Green Footballs has the goods on how blogs and their friends in the leftwing media snuff dissenting views in the most underhanded way possible. While hardly needed, it's further proof that the only way for the idiots to sell their message is through dishonesty and deceit.

Can you say George Soros?

More here and here.

Deroy Murdock chronicles the myriad terrorist plots against the U.S. that have been thwarted since 9-11. These are only the ones we know about; there may well be more:

As Americans enjoy the peace and comfort of Thanksgiving weekend, be grateful the U.S. has suffered no significant terror attack since the September 11 massacre. As the Heritage Foundation demonstrates, this is no accident.

...

This chilling roster proves that Islamo-fascism is real, not just “a figment of the neocon imagination,” as writer Paul Krugman claimed in a recently published hallucination. He also believes he sees “fear of dark-skinned people in general” as Republicans’ rationale for fighting militant Islam.

Defeating Islamo-fascism is not about color. It’s about carnage, such as what Americans collectively experienced on live TV seven Septembers ago. If Krugman cannot fathom this, he should put down his quill pen and pick up Heritage’s report.

I understand Murdock's criticism of the Bush White House in giving such bullshit a pass:

The Bush Administration’s maddening sense of modesty is among its greatest failings. Unlike its critics’ ceaseless heckling and catcalls, the president and his top aides rarely proclaim their victories, even in this vital area. Rather than trumpet terror plans unraveled and bombs defused, the White House emits a passing mention here and a presidential mumble there. Into this relative silence stroll Krugmanite detractors who denounce Team Bush as paranoid cranks who worry too much about a supposedly minor terrorist challenge.

I personally don't need to know about every single time a KSM gets rounded up and grated for intelligence, but it would probably be beneficial to tell a tale here and there. At any rate, picking off nineteen catastrophic attacks in six years certainly works for me.

Self-Correcting Problem Dept.
This is the sort of uplifting news that can make a guy's day: sterilization is a developing fad amongst eco-fanatics.

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to “protect the planet”.

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.

While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35.

“Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”

While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.

So thanks for paying forward all those never-to-be-claimed carbon credits, Toni- I used some of them renting that smokin' hot Hertz Shelby convertible a few weeks back.

HT: The Eeeevil MM

A vintage whine, silly yet presumptuous in character:

One of the Sillier DNC Gripes in a While
The DNC hits Rudy Giuliani for his ad "ignoring charges" from the 9/11 families, who are recycling the same unpersuasive charges in that union video.

Is Giuliani somehow obligated to not "ignore" his critics in his own campaign advertising? Do Democratic candidates' ads regularly offer their critics a forum for attacking the candidate?

Christ Almighty.

The DNC presuming to dictate Rudy's agenda? Priceless.

According to terror-enabling idiot Chris Hedges, President Bush is lying again, this time blaming Iranian troublemaking in southern Iraq as a false pretense for attacking Iran sometime before the 2008 election. Tiger Hawk points out that this news is problematic to idiots who deny Iran is causing mayhem for Iraqi Shiites.

More than 300,000 Shiite Muslims from southern Iraq have signed a petition condemning Iran for fomenting violence in Iraq, according to a group of sheiks leading the campaign. "The Iranians, in fact, have taken over all of south Iraq," said a senior tribal leader from the south who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared for his life. "Their influence is everywhere."

...

The petition, which the organizers said was signed by 600 sheiks, calls on the United Nations to send a delegation to investigate what it termed crimes committed by Iran and its proxies in southern Iraq.

"The most painful stab in the back of the Shiites in Iraq by the Iranian regime has been its shameful abuse of Shiite religion to achieve its ominous end," the sheiks said in a statement. "The only solution and hopeful prospect for Iraq, and in particular the southern provinces, is the eviction of the Iranian regime from our homeland."

Belmont Club:

This is the kind of organizing strategy the Left, back when it supposedly championed this sort of thing, would have been proud to espouse. Too bad it left the job of fighting dictatorships to MNF-Iraq. Iraq has been a tragedy for the Left in a way that it has never been for conservatives.

Here's Hitchens unloading on the aforementioned hapless Chris Hedges. I particularly like Hitchens' closing evaluation of Hedges' moral relativism and intellectual slovenliness, for which Hedges naturally has no reply.



Booyah.

Via Patterico, John Stossel presents the real Thanksgiving Story:

“Every year around this time, schoolchildren are taught about that wonderful day when Pilgrims and Native Americans shared the fruits of the harvest. “Isn’t sharing wonderful?” say the teachers. They miss the point. Because of sharing, the first Thanksgiving in 1623 almost didn’t happen.

The failure of Soviet communism is only the latest demonstration that freedom and property rights, not sharing, are essential to prosperity. The earliest European settlers in America had a dramatic demonstration of that lesson, but few people today know it.

When the Pilgrims first settled the Plymouth Colony, they organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share everything equally, work and produce. They nearly all starved.

Why? When people can get the same return with a small amount of effort as with a large amount, most people will make little effort. Plymouth settlers faked illness rather than working the common property. Some even stole, despite their Puritan convictions. Total production was too meager to support the population, and famine resulted. Some ate rats, dogs, horses and cats. This went on for two years.

“So as it well appeared that famine must still ensue the next year also, if not some way prevented,” wrote Gov. William Bradford in his diary. The colonists, he said, “began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length after much debate of things, [I] (with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves. … And so assigned to every family a parcel of land.”

The people of Plymouth moved from socialism to private farming. The results were dramatic.”

Happy Thanksgiving!

Troops are returning to the United States from Iraq in a drawdown that will proceed in the months to come. British Army units are withdrawing from Basra. Violence is down by a phenomenal measure.

Now The Times Online reports a mass convoy of Iraqis is scheduled next week to return to Iraq from Syria.

Iraqi refugees are returning home in dramatic numbers, concluding that security in Baghdad has been transformed. Thousands have left their refuge in Syria in recent months, according to some estimates.

The Iraqi Embassy is organising a secure mass convoy from Damascus to Baghdad on Monday for refugees who want to drive back. Embassy notices went up around the Syrian capital yesterday, offering free bus and train rides home.

Saida Zaynab, the Damascus neighbourhoods once dominated by many of the 1.5 million Iraqi refugees, is almost deserted. Apartment prices are plummeting and once-crowded shops and buses are half empty.

Typically, the U.N. is struggling to even process the news, let alone add anything useful to the matter.

The UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) was scrambling to assess the transformation last night. An interim report is expected today. “There is a large movement of people going back to Iraq. We are doing rapid research on this,” a spokesman said.

An interim report is expected today. Wow. We are doing rapid research on this. Wow. What a bureaucratic genius that guy must be. It reminds me of the U.N.'s pathetic diddling while U.S. Marines and Aussie forces delivered real-life aid to post-tsunami Thailand, much to leftards' bewilderment. I'm going to have to check on that, a leftard said to me upon hearing that particular news.

I'll just bet you will, I thought. Happy checking, leftard.

I've got a question: Is there an Interim Report and Rapid Research on UN child-porn and slavery rackets in Africa?

Anyway, back to the returning Iraqis, and what their exodus portends: Iraqis are slamming Iranian interference in Iraq and signing a national petition against it.

Wouldn't you know it: give Iraqis freedom and all of a sudden they're a bunch of uppity troublemakers, all shouting about initiative, the vote and rebuilding the country. What a bunch of Rethuglicans.

Victory: It comes from confidence and commitment.

Idiots mistake those virtues for arrogance and stubbornness, which is but one reason they are idiots.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi announced long ago that Iraqis weren't worth American efforts in their defense. Meanwhile Iraqis are embarrassing Reid and Pelosi with their commitment to a new democratic Iraq.

For the past 32 years during his family's Christmas dinner Dick Cheney has carved and served the turkey pardoned by the President at Thanksgiving.

In "Path to Victory: Refashioning Institutions For The Challenges Of The 21st Century," Donald Rumsfeld recounts a chance interview that perfectly illustrates the difference between worlds:

I remember being in South Korea a few years ago, and looking out over the lights of the city of Seoul at night. A young journalist walked up to me with a microphone. She said, “The South Korean parliament is currently debating whether to send South Korean troops to Iraq. Why in the world should young Korean people go halfway around the world to fight and possibly die?”

South Korea has the same people and resources as North Korea. Yet today South Korea is one of the most successful economies on the face of the earth. It is a success because of its free people and free economic system. And so I told the journalist, “Why should young Americans have come to South Korea, halfway around the world, to fight and potentially die fifty years ago? The answer is that you only need to look out the window.”

This is funny, but it's also probably the end for ole Huck.

Super Big Fun.

Via Gateway Pundit:

The Al Dura fabrication has been discredited: France 2 was caught pimping for the Palestinians. The phony Al Dura footage was used to justify terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens.

Islam sanctions the murders of Israelis because they are not of Islam. How's that for tolerance and multiculturalism?


Decades of murderous Arab-Palestinian-Islamofascist attacks against Jews around the world?

Understandable given the circumstances.

There's a joke in there somewhere.

HT Ubama

Via the brilliant Wretchard:
An Israeli government minister's choice of master highlights the core conflict between Islam and civilization.

Idiots have Scott Beauchamp and Jesse MacBeth.



Meanwhile, Greyhawk is writing about the real Iraq and related matters:

Vermont is probably much like the rest of America - a privileged class sheltered and protected by a warrior class it will never comprehend. Their fear that those warriors won't be there to shovel their roads and driveways for them if the snows fall too heavy is valid, they will have to find another way. But feigning concern for the lives and livelihood of their proletariat neighbors is neither helpful nor convincing.

As for that privileged class: we've won the war. We've won the war without them.

I am always disappointed when a writer misuses the word "myth" in place of the words "lie" or "falsehood". A myth is a metaphorical tale of heroism that illuminates a universal truth. A lie is a self-indictment. The two could not be farther apart. That's an important point.

Having clarified that, let's go with the vernacular:

Ralph Peters - 12 Myths of 21st Century War is the sort of brusquely honest analysis that makes idiots pee their pants, so most of them won't read it, but it has quickly become the talk of the town.

Wretchard at Belmont Club seizes on the theme by answering Peters' list of "myths" with their opposites as a way of illustrating the emotional truck the idiot left has with radical islamists.

Dr. Sanity's roundup focuses on "the rhetorical and philosophical symbiosis of Intellectually Elite Westerners and Islamofacists." Which is a typical Ann Arbor shrink's way of saying "the emotional truck the idiot left has with radical islamists."

I'll now be accused of hating Ann Arbor shrinks. I'm a regular Hatey McHaterton.

HT Protein Wisdom

On this Remembrance Day, NRO's Michael Ledeen points across the pond to a message to Canada of recognition and appreciation:

I suppose I should have left this to David Frum, but while we're celebrating Marine Birthday and then Veteran's Day, we should drink yet another beer, this time for our neighbors to the north.

Sunday Telegraph Article from today's UK wires:
Salute to a brave and modest nation - Kevin Myers,
The Sunday Telegraph
LONDON

Until the deaths of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan, probably almost no one outside their home country had been aware that Canadian troops are deployed in the region. And as always, Canada will bury its dead, just as the rest of the world, as always, will forget its sacrifice, just as it always forgets nearly everything Canada ever does.

It seems that Canada's historic mission is to come to the selfless aid both of its friends and of complete strangers, and then, once the crisis is over, to be well and truly ignored.

Canada is the perpetual wallflower that stands on the edge of the hall, waiting for someone to come and ask her for a dance.

A fire breaks out, she risks life and limb to rescue her fellow dance-goers, and suffers serious injuries. But when the hall is repaired and the dancing resumes, there is Canada, the wallflower still, while those she once helped glamorously cavort across the floor, blithely neglecting her yet again.

That is the price Canada pays for sharing the North American continent with the United States, and for being a selfless friend of Britain in two global conflicts. For much of the 20th century, Canada was torn in two different directions... it seemed to be a part of the old world, yet had an address in the new one, and that divided identity ensured that it never fully got the gratitude it deserved. Yet its purely voluntary contribution to the cause of freedom in two world wars was perhaps the greatest of any democracy.

Almost 10% of Canada's entire population of seven million people served in the armed forces during the First World War, and nearly 60,000 died.

The great Allied victories of 1918 were spearheaded by Canadian troops, perhaps the most capable soldiers in the entire British order of battle.

Canada was repaid for its enormous sacrifice by downright neglect, its unique contribution to victory being absorbed into the popular memory as somehow or other the work of the "British".

The Second World War provided a re-run. The Canadian navy began the war with a half dozen vessels, and ended up policing nearly half of the Atlantic against U-boat attacks. More than 120 Canadian warships participated in the Normandy landings, during which 15,000 Canadian soldiers went ashore on D-Day alone. Canada finished the war with the third largest navy and the fourth largest air force in the world.

The world thanked Canada with the same sublime indifference as it had the previous time.

Canadian participation in the war was acknowledged in film only if it was necessary to give an American actor a part in a campaign in which the United States had clearly not participated... a touching scrupulousness which, of course, Hollywood has since abandoned, as it has no notion of a separate Canadian identity.

So it is a general rule that actors and filmmakers arriving in Hollywood keep their nationality... unless, that is, they are Canadian. Thus Mary Pickford, Walter Huston, Donald Sutherland, Michael J. Fox, William Shatner, Norman Jewison, David Cronenberg, Alex Trebek, Art Linkletter and Dan Aykroyd have, in the popular perception, become American, and Christopher Plummer, British.

It is as if, in the very act of becoming famous a Canadian ceases to be Canadian, unless she is Margaret Atwood, who is as unshakably Canadian as a moose, or Celine Dion, for whom Canada has proved quite unable to find any takers.

Moreover, Canada is every bit as querulously alert to the achievements of its sons and daughters as the rest of the world is completely unaware of them. The Canadians proudly say of themselves, and are unheard by anyone else, that 1% of the world's population has provided 10% of the world's peacekeeping forces. Canadian soldiers in the past half century have been the greatest peacekeepers on Earth...in 39 missions on UN mandates, and six on non-UN peacekeeping duties, from Vietnam to East Timor, from Sinai to Bosnia.

Yet the only foreign engagement that has entered the popular Canadian imagination was the sorry affair in Somalia, in which out-of-control paratroopers murdered two Somali infiltrators. Their regiment was then disbanded in disgrace, a uniquely Canadian act of self-abasement for which, naturally, the Canadians received no international credit.

So who today in the United States knows about the stoic and selfless friendship its northern neighbour has given it in Afghanistan? Rather like Cyrano de Bergerac, Canada repeatedly does honourable things for honourable motives, but instead of being thanked for it, it remains something of a figure of fun. It is the Canadian way, for which Canadians should be proud, yet such honour comes at a high cost. This past year more grieving Canadian families knew that cost all too tragically well.

I appreciate the writer's sentiment that Canadians deserve more recognition for their fight against Islamofascism. The fact is that it's not cool to be doing that right now in Canada. We're afraid of offending our Islamist enemies.

'Splain to me, Lucy.

Austin Bay signs a bomb.

An Islamofascist pig does his thing:

Dozens of schoolchildren and five teachers were among those killed in a suicide attack in northern Afghanistan earlier this week — the country's deadliest since the fall of the Taliban — the government said Friday.

The 59 schoolchildren had lined up to greet a group of lawmakers visiting a sugar factory in the northern province of Baghlan on Tuesday when a suicide bomber detonated explosives.

"The education minister has ordered that no children should be ever again be used in these sort of events," said Zahoor Afghan, an Education Ministry spokesman. He said the children ranged in age from 8 to 18.

In all, the explosion claimed the lives of at least 75 people, including several parliamentarians, and wounded 96. It was the deadliest attack in the country since the toppling of the Taliban regime from power in the 2001 U.S.-led invasion.

170 innocents shattered by Islamofascism. Can we get the bomber some Constitutional rights so that leftards will be all happy?

Iraq Pundit speaks Truth to Idiots:

...I know those who are wedded to the idea of a failed Iraq are calling me a deluded idiot and worse. But things are improving slowly. My relatives in Baghdad say there's no comparison; things are much better than they were six months ago. They can visit friends in different areas and walk about the neighbourhood in the evening.

Frankly, I don't understand why so many mock us for wanting a future for Iraq. Is your hatred for George Bush so great that you prefer to see millions of civilians suffer just to prove him wrong?

It really comes down to this: you are determined to see Iraq become a permanent hellhole because you hate Bush. And we are determined to see Iraq become a success, because we want to live.

The answer to your question, I.P., is a big fat YES. Because Bush is the real terrorist!

A leftard told me so.

Add to this these words from Senator Joseph Lieberman:

“…there is something profoundly wrong—something that should trouble all of us—when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran’s murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops."

Speech by Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the French Republic before the Congress of the United States of America:

Together we must fight against terrorism. On September 11, 2001, all of France—petrified with horror—rallied to the side of the American people. The front-page headline of one of our major dailies read: "We are all American." And on that day, when you were mourning for so many dead, never had America appeared to us as so great, so dignified, so strong. The terrorists had thought they would weaken you. They made you greater. The entire world felt admiration for the courage of the American people. And from day one, France decided to participate shoulder to shoulder with you in the war in Afghanistan. Let me tell you solemnly today: France will remain engaged in Afghanistan as long as it takes, because what's at stake in that country is the future of our values and that of the Atlantic Alliance. For me, failure is not an option. Terrorism will not win because democracies are not weak, because we are not afraid of this barbarism.

America can count on France.

Which means I guess that MediaMatters And The Betray-Ussies can't.

Good.

Quagmire
Quagmire
Quagmire
Quagmire
Quagmire
Quagmire
Quagmire
Quagmire
Quagmire

Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

Via Confederate Yankee (he's on a roll):
Twenty-four signatures belonging to erstwhile "intelligence professionals" endorse their polemic to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary demanding Michael Mukasey not be confirmed as Attorney General until he absconds with Congressional powers and unilaterally defines the law. The letter is so shot full of nonsense that all it does is confirm once again that Larry Johnson and his closest friends, including notorious liars Joe Wilson and his double-knot-spy soccer-wife Valerie Plame-Wilson, are at best traitors and at worst Constitutional dunces.

Meanwhile, adults read Andrew C. McCarthy:
Mirror, Mirror on the Wall
Waterboarding and Torture

A leftard once feverishly described to me a guy code-named "Curveball" as a Chalabi-INC plant meant to give the Bush Administration cover for a false casus belli against Saddam. Yes, he really bought that little ditty, but then so did most idiots. As 60 Minutes has shown, "Curveball" had nothing to do with the INC, although CBS conspicuously left that crucial fact specifically unobserved.

I'll turn the matter over to the most capable Michael Ledeen:

What? "Curveball" Wasn't Chalabi? But... [Michael Ledeen]
We are a long way from being able to calmly tell the story of the Iraqi war, but it's already clear, I think, that one of the major themes in any such history will be the ferocious battle waged by significant parts of the U.S. Government—notably the CIA and the State Department—against the Iraqi National Congress (INC), its leader Ahmad Chalabi, and its allies elsewhere in the government—notably the Pentagon. Part of that battle was the CIA's very successful campaign to get gullible journalists to blame the INC for Iraqi sources who falsely claimed knowledge about Saddam's various WMD programs. Since "Sixty Minutes" has now identified the guilty party, an Iraqi with no relationship to the INC, the INC seems to me fully justified in its public statement today, seething with righteous indignation:

INC STATEMENT ON ‘CURVEBALL’
BAGHDAD (4 November 2007): The release of the name of Iraqi defector known as Curveball by CBS News 60 Minutes is the final evidence that there is no link between this person and the Iraqi National Congress. The INC can state categorically that there has never been any person at any level of the INC who is related to anyone named Rafid Ahmed Alwan.

The CIA engaged in a smear campaign to link Curveball to the INC in order to deflect blame from its own failures in Iraq. These lies were repeated by media outlets such as the Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, Knight Ridder and others with no evidence or substantiation and no attempt by the reporters to check the truth. They have been most recently repeated in a book about Curveball. The INC calls upon these media organisations to publish corrections to the false information that has misled their readers.

Actually, I think those various media outlets can do even better. I think at this point, with the knowledge they were deceived, the folks who wrote the disinformation should identify their sources, so that their colleagues in the press will know to avoid them.

This blog has written often about the CIA's campaign of sabotage against the Bush White House, and once again today we see how idiots swallowed a CIA story hook, line and sinker, simply because it fit their BDS-fuelled fantasies.

Whereas I'm quite particular about not being a useful idiot.

That's the overly-kind headline in this post describing how Tim Russert purposely misquoted Fred Thompson on MTP. It should have read, "Russert Lies About Thompson."

Russert (very) occasionally practices solid journalism, such as asking Hillary! about hiding her White House communications with Bill from the public until after the 2008 election. But watching his interview with Fred Thompson on Sunday, I was reminded again how Russert will dishonestly mangle the facts, the truth and the English language itself in service to his "gotcha" brand of pseudojournalism:

Here's what Russert said:

RUSSERT: You were in Iowa, and you’re talking about Saddam Hussein, and you said, it was, "He was certain former Iraqi leaders Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, a point of contention in the four and a half years since the war began. ‘We can’t forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any WMD down there, he clearly had'" "'WMD. He clearly had, 'the beginnings of a nuclear program,' Thompson told the audience of about 60 at a Newton cafe."

The Duelfer Commission, David Kay, all the weapons inspectors said they did not find any WMD. And yet you’re—you seem to be raising the whole herring again...

THOMPSON: No, no, I’m not...

RUSSERT: ...of chemical, biological and nuclear.

However, the story in question, which appeared in the Des Moines Register, actually quoted Thompson saying that Saddam "had had" WMD and the beginning of a nuclear program, not that he "had" them at the time of the invasion as Russert's reading of the article suggested. Here's the exact quote:

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson said Monday he was certain former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction prior to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, a point of contention in the 4 1/2 years since the war began.

“We can’t forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any WMD down there, he clearly had had WMD. He clearly had had the beginnings of a nuclear program,” Thompson told an audience of about 60 at a Newton cafe.

Russert showed the exact quote from the article on screen while asking the question, but changed "had had" to "had" in reading it for his audience (click the netcast link here and go to 13:40). Thompson, of course, denied the allegation.

The exact quote, including Thompson's proper use of the past perfect tense "had had", was shown on the screen even as Russert purposely misread it to Thompson before going off on him. The moment was reminiscent of Olbermann's (feigned) indignant attack on Rudy for saying something he didn't say, which device appears to have become perfectly acceptable to the leftwing mediocracy.

Tim Russert is a lawyer. It is clear to anyone familiar with his testimony in the Plame fiasco that he knows full well how to parse words and use nuance to his advantage; he knows the language, and knows what he's doing with it. So I don't believe for a second that something that was so obviously designed to prejudice his audience against Thompson's honesty and judgement was a simple mistake of omission on Russert's part. Conversely, it speaks volumes about Thompson's character that he was not the least bit put off the beam by Russert's ploy, and in fact did not allow Russert to get away with it.

Russert's mischaracterization of Thompson's recent comments on AQI and bin Laden as "trivializing" them are particularly indicative of his dishonesty, by which Russert trivializes his own role as a journalist, especially one who arrogates to himself the authority and judgement to publicly vet Presidential candidates in a time of war.

Okay, so Bill says that Russert's questioning about the archived White House communications between himself and Hillary! are "breathtakingly misleading." As usual, Bill is lying. Via The Corner:

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I’d like to follow up, because in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave? Because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012.

And the follow-up:

RUSSERT: But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban?

[The entire exchange is here.]

Clinton says the question was misleading because, "She was incidental to the letter, it was done five years ago, it was a letter to speed up presidential releases, not to slow them down."

True, the letter (which you can read here) did urge the National Archives to speed up the release of some records from the Clinton administration, with several key exemptions that Clinton listed in the letter. Among them:

... communications directly between the President and the First Lady, and their families, unless routine in nature... (Emphasis mine)

That's exactly the passage Russert asked about, almost word for word. How is that misleading?

Typical full-on Clinton bullshit. If this is going to be the norm heading into the general election, I can only say that I welcome Bill's presence in the campaign and wish him luck in his new position batting cleanup for Hillary.

Being able to go after both Clintons will make a much stronger case against another Clinton presidency than if Hillary campaigned on her own. For just as she can't enter a ring full of men and then cry "piling on", she can't send Bill out to fend for her and then distance herself from his record, on which it is now once again open season.

Jonah Goldberg has some uncomfortable questions for Hillary Clinton. The kind her sycophants won't ask:

You’ve repeatedly denounced Halliburton’s “no-bid contracts.” Did you object when the Clinton administration awarded a similar non-competitive contract to Halliburton for reconstruction work in the former Yugoslavia? If not, why not? If so, why didn’t your husband listen?

Can you explain — without accusing anyone of anti-Asian bigotry — why so many Chinese criminals keep giving you and your husband piles of cash?

When promoting your autobiography, you gave interviews expanding on your personal feelings while insisting you’d rather talk about substance. And yet, you told the Washington Post that you wouldn’t discuss the political substance in your book. Why? Because playing the victim helps?

You’ve claimed that you are the Democrat best able to “deal” with the Republicans’ natural advantage if there is another terrorist attack. Why is it wrong for Republicans to say they’re tougher on terrorism than Democrats, but O.K. for you to say so?

Your husband granted clemency to 16 Puerto Rican terrorists linked to more than 100 bombings and several murders on the eve of your run for the Senate. You supported the decision. How does that square with your claim to be tough on terror? What did you think of the Palestinian Liberation Organization in the 1970s? Why did the New World Foundation approve a grant that ultimately went to PLO-affiliated groups when you chaired its board in the 1980s? Does your infamous decision as first lady to sit silently next to Suha Arafat as she viciously and deceitfully propagandized against Israel weigh against your tough-on-terror credentials? How about the $50,000 you took in 2000 from the anti-Semitic and pro-terror American Muslim Alliance, which you returned only after being criticized for it?

TPM Muckraker:

The key swing votes have swung. Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) say they're voting for, meaning that Michael Mukasey will make it through the Senate Judiciary Committee and almost certainly be confirmed as the next attorney general.

Here's Schumer's explanation, via Roll Call (sub. req.):

“I deeply esteem those who believe the issue of torture is so paramount that Judge Mukasey’s views on it should be the sole determinant of our vote,” Schumer said in a statement. “But I must respectfully disagree.

“The Justice Department is a shambles: politicized and demoralized. The belief and hope [is] that Justice Mukasey, with his experience, independence and integrity, can restore the department motivates my vote.”

And here's Feinstein, in a release just out:

"I believe that Judge Mukasey is the best we will get and voting him down would only perpetuate acting and recess appointments, allowing the Administration to avoid the transparency that confirmation hearings provide and diminish effective oversight by Congress."

Feinstein has broken with Democratic leadership, such as it is hardy har, in the past over justice appointments. Schumer has a singular face-saving motivation in that he has recently trumpeted Mukasey's virtues from the hilltops, and would have crowned his reputation as a first-class cad had he abandoned Bush's appointee. Such bitter fruit for Chuckie to swallow, but Bush will do that to you, oh will he.

Cue the Children:

Alguien wrote on November 2, 2007 4:59 PM:

Chuck:YOU SOLD OUT!No more contributions for YOU!Tell AIPAC to write you a nice fat check in exchange for betraying your country!YOU HAVE BLOOD IN YOUR HANDS!(And I truly hope some day you have water in your lungs, so you can experience the pleasure of waterboarding!] (Wow! I have blood in my hands, too! ~ Ed.)

oldtree wrote on November 2, 2007 5:02 PM:

We can't expect more from either of these two senators. They are probably the victims of the wiretapping and their illegal campaign dollars are known to cheney.they are repulsive, and I am thankful that I don't live in a state that would elect such human garbage. Imagine voting to confirm someone you know to be working against the law you swore to uphold?

Makes them traitors according to the rule of law, doesn't it? (Uh, no. ~ Ed.)

Yada yada yada.

I'm willing to bet that every one of these lefties vowing to never ever give another red cent to the Dems has never ever given one red cent to the Dems. Otherwise the Dems'd be in better shape, yeah?

Darleen at Protein Wisdom:

Ah, the love and understanding when one of their “own” pet minorities steps from the Revealed Truth.

Delaware University says I'm a racist because I'm white, which seems somehow racist to me, but as of now I'm being given a reprieve.

This is leftist idiocy at its zenith, as dangerous as ever.



Diplomacy is the answer, until diplomats get the call to action. Then the answer is to close the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. Because taking an oath doesn't count if you're a pussy. Drew M. offers a solution:

If there are members of the Foreign Service who aren't willing to step up and take on this challenge, then they need to find another career. Something less challenging, less important to the good of the world. Maybe they could become professors.

I wouldn't waste my time on this crap movie anyway, and especially not after seeing this. Yecchh. The upside: this dog may put paid to future antiwar crap movies.



More money = more violence. Hell, with these guys, more anything equals more violence.



Power Line: Iraqis Returning Home

Remember a few months ago when the Left was furiously denying any suggestion that our armed forces were fighting al Qaeda in Iraq? We haven't heard much of that lately.

Nor will you...



The Politics of Something-or-Other: the Edwards Campaign parses Hillary!.





More "intelligence" for the Muslim "street". Al Jazeera: American planes attacked Syria with tactical nuclear weapons. And Bush and Cheney led the squadron to glory. Praise Allah.



As another evil Zionist plot unfolds, the Gaza Strip takes on a whole new meaning.



Good news is no news.

Commentary Magazine has no peer. In the latest issue, leading conservative thinkers answer four questions:

1. Do you accept the term “World War IV,” or the idea behind it, as an apt characterization of the West’s battle with Islamic extremism, and do you, like Norman Podhoretz, see Iraq as a crucial early theater in that conflict?
2. Six years after 9/11, how would you assess our progress? What would you like to see happen next?
3. On the specific issue of the spread of democracy—a linchpin of the Bush Doctrine and a point of acute controversy between foreign-policy realists and neoconservatives—do you agree or disagree with Podhoretz that “democratization represents the best and perhaps even the only way to defeat Islamofascism and the terrorism it uses as its main weapon against us”?
4. Turning to the political climate at home, do you think the Bush Doctrine has a chance of surviving the elections of 2008, and if so in what form?

The roster:
Fouad Ajami
John R. Bolton
Max Boot
Reuel Marc Gerecht
Victor Davis Hanson
Daniel Henninger
Martin Kramer
William Kristol
Andrew C. McCarthy
David Pryce-Jones
Claudia Rosett
Amir Taheri
Ruth Wedgwood
James Q. Wilson
R. James Woolsey

Here's a small slice of the debate:

We are in a world war that America cannot avoid. The challenges, if unmet, will continue to grow. The next big attack will come. Primed by the liberty and law of our own democratic system, Americans did much to create today’s world of high technology, instant messages, and global markets. The benefits are vast, including the spread in many quarters of greater wealth, health, and freedom. But along this network, poisonous ideologies and their foot soldiers can also hitch, or hijack, a high-speed ride. We are not fighting for democracy in foreign lands out of altruism—in any event, a treacherous guide. We are fighting to gain strategically vital ground against enemies who must put out the light of the great American experiment of democracy if they are to prevail in their dreams of power and plunder under cover of a new dark age.

That contest, not some whimsical U.S. mission of global good will, is why the Bush Doctrine has it so very right in putting democratization front and center as our natural cause and best hope. For most of us, despite the shock of September 11, the full character of the threat against us has yet to be felt in our daily lives. When it is, this country will go to war to win.

Read it all.