Ace:

Sometimes "Never Again" just means "Not Until It's Our Turn."

I've said it before and I'll say it again: every time Nancy Pelosi opens her yap, potential voters have more reason to question the rationale for voting Democrat.

Finally, as Ace points out, the RNC is acting on that puzzlement.

Keep talking, Nancy. Don't bother looking at the polls that show you to be far less popular than President Bush. You know in your heart that you're right, and in tune with Americans — your own staff of fellow San Franciscans tell you so, right?

Keep talking, Nancy. When Jeanne Kirkpatrick coined the phrase "San Francisco Democrats," she was talking about you. Not just representatives from S.F. (though I'm sure that really boosts your image among working class Democrat voters in the heartland) but a party wrapped up in the most loopy left-wing values, blaming America (and, by extension, Americans) first for all the ills of the world.

Keep talking, Nancy.

And while you're at it, can we have a nice photo of you with Obama?

Finally, a Vision for America I can believe in.

I could have sworn that the Left was all about supporting the troops, but not their mission.

I guess that doesn't apply if the war has been over for nigh on 140 years, and if the supporter in question is a potential Vice Presidential candidate:

Barack Obama’s vice presidential vetting team will undoubtedly run across some quirky and potentially troublesome issues as it goes about the business of scouring the backgrounds of possible running mates. But it’s unlikely they’ll find one so curious as Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb’s affinity for the cause of the Confederacy.

Webb is no mere student of the Civil War era. He’s an author, too, and he’s left a trail of writings and statements about one of the rawest and most sensitive topics in American history.

He has suggested many times that while the Confederacy is a symbol to many of the racist legacy of slavery and segregation, for others it simply reflects Southern pride. In a June 1990 speech in front of the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery, posted on his personal website, he lauded the rebels' "gallantry," which he said "is still misunderstood by most Americans."

I'd say that pretty much kills Webb's chances for future advancement in the Democrat party, the privileges afforded ex-Klansman Senator Byrd notwithstanding.

The problem, of course, is slavery. While the root cause for which the South fought was indeed states' rights, the fact that the specific right they were defending was the right to own slaves taints the Confederacy beyond the hope of recovery. Had the casus belli been the right of states to set their own tariffs, we'd be having a different discussion. The Civil War would be a much less "raw and sensitive" topic if the South had acted as suggested by Lt. General James Longstreet in the film Gettysburg: "We should have freed the slaves, then fired on Fort Sumter."

For the sake of argument, can we posit that there is no one (apart from some vanishingly small number of nanocephalic cranks) in this country who believes that chattel slavery is a good idea? That no one, not even Senator Webb, would like to see a restoration of the antebellum South?

Might it then be just possible for the millions of Americans whose ancestors fought for the South to take some degree of pride in the undeniable courage and sacrifice of those ancestors — the overwhelming majority of whom never owned a slave?

My own ancestors were Northerners, or still lived in the Netherlands in the 1860s, so I really don't have a dog in this fight, but as a student of history, I can recognize gallantry for what it is, or was; a great deal of it sprang from the South in the period 1861-1865.

More at Gateway Pundit, Protein Wisdom, Hot Air.

Ted Kennedy Diagnosed With Brain Tumor.

As much as I oppose pretty much every thing he stands for, I can't help but wish him and his family well in this time of trouble. This goes way beyond politics.

I know it entirely too well from my own recent experience: brain problems purely suck.

At Hot Air yesterday, Allahpundit noted:

A winning campaign slogan if ever there was one: You're going on a diet.

Pitching his message to Oregon's environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to "lead by example" on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

Obama wants us to tighten our belts, and overlooks the fact that the U.S. already leads by example, already develops new technologies. Only prosperous societies such as ours have the extra energy to spend on worrying about the environment. Subsistence-level farmers in, for instance, sub-Saharan Africa can't be bothered, when their main motivation is simply to avoid starving.

My question, however, is: who cares what other countries say? Since when do they get a veto over our lifestyle?

Obama apparently wishes that our way of life was more like that of other (read: poorer) countries. If he's given the reins of power, I've no doubt we'll get that opportunity.

In the meantime, I think today I'll go for a drive in my big-ass pickup truck, stop at Hardee's — it's only about 10 miles out of my way — for a monster burger, and when I get home I'll turn my thermostat down from 74 to 72, just to irk some other country. It's my patriotic duty.

The best thing about yesterday's NC primary elections?

No more Obamessiah or Hillary! ads.

At least, no more until October, I figure.

Some time early this morning, far earlier than I am accustomed to being awake, I was woken up by the cats yowling. A shudder ran down my spine, and I noted through the window that a dark cloud had settled over this normally placid little town.

The feline complaining eventually ceased, and I went back to sleep puzzled by what had happened. What could have transpired to upset our sleepy little hamlet?

Then this afternoon, I read this.

Former President Bill Clinton courted Wal-Mart Democrats today, telling them his wife was well prepared to lead the country.

"If you vote for her, you'll make her the next president," Clinton told about 400 people at an Apex community center.

Mystery solved.

Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, and Gateway Pundit (and undoubtedly scores of others) are all over the story of Nancy Pelosi's made-up Bible verses, which she trots out when she's trying to convince us clingy rubes that Earth Day is a biblical imperative. To wit:

The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, ‘To minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.’

This, from a woman whose main base of support consists of people who are extremely unlikely to read, much less obey, God's word.

Query: what other verses has she made up to support her stands on:

• Abortion


• Tax Increases


• Gun Control


• Tort Reform

"Blessed are those who visualize world peace, for it is better to visualize peace than to actually go and make the peace."

Meh.

Please make suggestions in the comments.

Update: This story got me thinking; I knew there was an appropriate real passage from the Bible that might address this topic. It took a while, but I found it, in Paul's letter to the Romans, chapter 1, verse 25:

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is forever praised. Amen.

That sounds precisely like what Pelosi is doing.

Barack, Barack, Barack... did you think no one would notice?

. . . they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment. . . .

The condescension is breathtaking.

Actually, I suspect that Snobama never gave it a thought at all. That, I suppose, is what comes of being a liberal elitist; it's second nature. It's not as if upper-class leftists could be expected to think any different:

They are things that I think in a liberal world sound totally normal, and outside of that world I don’t know that he appreciates how it sounds.

No kidding? And they think the South is insulated.

The Democrat primary campaigns are coming here to North Carolina. I can't wait to hear what Obama thinks about us.

If he wants to get in touch with the people, maybe after a night working on the backbone of the Internet, I could offer to fry him up a mess o' possum or squirrel, and we could sit around on the porch picking our remaining teeth, playing banjos, whittling and spitting, while making passes at our cousins and firing shotguns at any small animals or foreigners that happen to wander by.

'Cause, y'know, that's just how we roll in the small-town South.

She's done.

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary's history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther — and goes much deeper — than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy's chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation — one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman's 17-year career.

Done? Well, no, not really. Were she a Republican she would be finished, and she certainly ought to be through, but the Clintons have the most remarkable ability to brush past scandal, to have their flaws overlooked. I can't think of anyone (with the exception of Ted Kennedy) who has more personal baggage and yet retains political viability.

If the story ever breaks into the mainstream media in a big way (and there's certainly no guarantee of that happening; Google News has five, count them, five listings for "Zeifman Clinton" at this writing — though the Obama Fan Club mainstream media might break it open, I suppose) some small number of people will be convinced to not support her, and many more will have their notions of her character confirmed... but the Democrat race to the convention will go on. She may be a liar, but she's not a quitter.

It's probable that Hillary!'s defenders will either declare this story to be old news and not relevant, or will call her former boss Zeifman a liar. Both tactics have been successfully employed before, having been swallowed — hook, line and sinker — by the Clinton partisans.

If, by some miracle, she gains the nomination, we can expect the story to be buried, or the Democrats' allies in the media will go on the attack on Clinton's behalf.

But then, I'm not telling anyone anything they don't already know.

I feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible is happening near by.

Yeah, this would explain it.

Michelle Malkin tracks anarchist protest plans for the Democrat and Republican National Conventions coming up this summer.

For a long time I wondered why the GOP had a history of holding its conventions in cities known to be distinctly unfriendly to the party. I mean, wouldn’t you want to have a friendly local government siccing the police on the various protesters?

Then a couple of things occurred to me. One, if there are going to be big disruptive protests and/or riots generated by out-of-towners, wouldn’t it make sense to have them in unfriendly territory?

Two, no matter how things go outside the convention, it only serves to make our side look better. No riots? OK, you have a big crowd of GOPers having a good time and basically showing the denizens of the “unfriendly” town that we’re real people, too.

On the other hand, if there are problems with disturbances, the locals have to clean up the mess, and (should) get the inevitable bad press when the batons start swinging.

Me, I’m in favor of batons (and more) when the anarchists cross the line from peaceful protest to active disruption/destruction... but it never looks good in the papers.

Still… I’m put in mind of the line from Thank You For Smoking:

After watching the footage of the Kent State shootings, Bobby Jay, then seventeen, signed up for the National Guard so that he, too, could shoot college students.

Too harsh?

Eliot Spitzer announced his resignation today, his wife by his side. Surprise, surprise.

What is it about politicians' wives that compels them to stand by their men, regardless of their betrayals? We see it over and over. Remember Jim McGreevy (D-NJ), who famously resigned his governorship after a gay affair was discovered? Even his wife stood by his side while he announced that he was a "Gay-American" and had carried on with a male employee. Now, of course, the McGreeveys are separated and on their way to a divorce.

More to my liking is the mental image conjured up by something Dick Armey (R-TX) said during the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal:

If I were in the President's place I would not have gotten a chance to resign. I would be lying in a pool of my own blood, hearing Mrs. Armey standing over me saying, "How do I reload this damn thing?"

If only more politicians' wives were like that — there would undoubtedly be less misbehavior.

Update: Heh.

Every time I say the words "my cane," it comes out sounding like "McCain."

I have got to stop watching the news.

I saw this headline at Instapundit: "WELL, IT'S PROGRESS: Hillary picks up half a delegate."

My first thought was, "Max Cleland?"

I am a bad bad bad bad man.

Senator Joseph Lieberman (Ind-CT) on the Senate floor, on the passing of Buckley.

The media leftists sure do seem to want to paint their darling Obama as the next JFK, RFK and MLK all rolled up into one... and the fact that all three were assassinated hasn't escaped notice.

Dan at Protein Wisdom points to another example of the media's "Obama's gonna be assassinated" drek, and asks a vital question.

My guess: no one — he'll accidentally overdose while huffing changey hope-itude.

I've had a near lethal dose just from seeing the ongoing media reportage this campaign season.

More from Bluto at the Jawa Report.

I don't like John McCain a whole lot, but an unverified and unsourced NYT smear-job might just get me to support him. If they don't like him, there must be something worthwhile about his candidacy — the enemy of my enemy, etc., etc. I'm only surprised they didn't figure out how to hold the story until the Friday before the general election.

Just wondering... has anyone seen Dan Ra^ther or Mary Mapes recently?

Shorter Ann Coulter: "Why pick the lesser of two evils?"

In the past, I've spent more than a little time working for Republican causes. My GOP bona fides can, I think, go unchallenged. I'm not a New York Times version of a "lifelong Republican."

But this year.... Let me put it this way: if Huckabee wins the nomination, I'm out. I won't vote for any of the Democrats, but there's no chance I'd vote for Huckabee. Zero. I won't lift a finger to help him.

We've already had one Jimmy Carter, and that was one too many.

We've already had one Arkansas governor in the White House, and that was one too many.

(See also: Frank J.)

If anyone else were to talk like this, family members would be shaking their heads and muttering about how maybe it was time to put grand-dad in a home.

But it's just a ranting loon Democrat congressman, so I guess it's par for the course.

On Hillary!'s propensity for gathering campaign funds:

The thing about donations from the Chinese is that no matter how much you get, you'll want more an hour later.

I believe the technical term for this is "making a silk purse out of a sow's ear."

Not, of course, that Limbaugh's comments that started the whole brouhaha could actually be classed as "sow's ear" by anyone who actually heard what he said at the outset.

Harry Reid, though, is just a self-serving opportunistic pig.

What does it say about you if someone "brave, honorable, and true" is a problem for you?

A modicum of sanity in Oregon, where charges of felonious butt-swatting against two 13-year-old boys have been dropped. I don't care who you are, butt-swatting when a 13-year-old should in no way mark you as a sex offender for life. Indeed, I can't think of too many things a 13-year-old can do that ought to label them for life. Are you the same person now that you were when you were 13?

Steve H. prognosticates. He may be on to something there. Me, I think we're looking at a major redefinition of the term "boob-tube."

No, Gary, it's not just you.

Garofalo to join cast of "24." Fonzie to jump shark.

Louisiana Democrats attack Bobby Jindal's religion. (Isn't Louisiana a heavily Catholic state?) They once tried a whisper campaign about his ethnicity, so this really comes as no surprise. That they have to take his words out of context is not only unsurprising, it's pretty much the standard modus operandi for Democrats these days.

John Edwards: not so bright. Less bright: the people who ever voted for him for anything.

Breaking and entering? Illegal. Squatting? Not so much.

LOL, cat.

I've only commented once — and briefly, at that — on the Immigration bill mess.

Now it's dead, and I, along with others, dance on its grave.

What has puzzled me all along, what I can't figure out, is why Bush would have staked so much on such a wildly unpopular piece of legislation, one which has completely separated him from his base. Indeed, though I strongly backed him in 2000 and 2004 (including hundreds of hours of work on the Blogs For Bush website) I now no longer trust him on anything, except perhaps taxes and the war on terrorism.

Similarly, many GOP senators — McCain, Lott, et al. — ignored the voices of their constituents and backed the steaming pile of crap called Comprehensive Immigration Reform to the hilt.

Why would they do so much to anger their base? The only thing I can think is that either they are completely tone-deaf, or that Vincente Fox and Felipe Calderon have pictures of them all with dead Tijuana hookers.

Adm. Painter: What's his plan?
Jack Ryan: His plan?
Adm. Painter: Russians don't take a dump, son, without a plan.

The first time I ever heard of Fred Thompson was when he played Rear Admiral Painter in The Hunt for Red October. I suspect this would be true for a lot of people in my age bracket.

[The only thing that bugs me about Red October is that when Alec Baldwin is on screen I must forcibly restrain myself from throwing small dense objects at the TV... but when RADM Painter utters the line "you might consider cuttin' the kid a little slack," I am compelled to do so, and can watch the remainder of the movie in peace.]

Now that Fred Thompson is considering a presidential run (I could support him) the always insightful Frank J. has published a list to remind us of the sheer awesomeness that is Fred Thompson:

Quite a resumé, I would say.

In a multiply-updated post, Glenn Reynolds talks global warming and the effect thereupon of congressional "private" air travel.

In the course of the post, Reynolds cites this statistic from Tourjet (which, as the name implies, is an aircraft chartering agency catering to celebrities):

The typical American is responsible for 10 tons of CO2 emissions annually through their direct energy use of home, cars and air travel, and about 24 tons of CO2 including their purchases, activities and the other services we all share throughout the economy.

By comparison, a Gulf Stream III business jet (10-12 passenger) from New York to Los Angeles will emit around 31 tons of CO2 during the 6 hour flight.

I'm no airplane expert (merely a well-informed hobbyist, you could say) but it seems to me that if a cross-country fight produces 31 tones of CO2, this means the aircraft would have to carry well over 31 tons of fuel, as not all the consumed fuel would be exhausted as CO2. I have a hard time believing that.

Turning to airliners.net we can see a bit of info on the weight of the Gulfstream III:

Empty 14,515kg (32,000lb), operating empty 17,235kg (38,000lb), max takeoff 31,615kg (69,700lb)

Quick math.... OK, so at the very most, the plane can carry 37,700 pounds (18.85 tons) of non-airplane weight.* That's passengers, luggage, cargo, and fuel. While that is a lot, it's not 31 tons, it's not all fuel weight, and not all of of the fuel would be used on a NY-LA flight, since the aircraft's range is something over 4,000 miles.

Unless, of course, there's more than one airplane called the Gulfstream III....**

It is hypocritical for "jet set" celebrities and politicians to blather about reducing greenhouse gas emissions while burning fuel by the ton, but accuracy counts, too. In this case, it's not quite as bad as it appears at first glance.

(So, I hope I got the numbers right....)

* It's just a guess on my part, but I think the difference between the "empty" weight and the "operating empty" weight might be the airplane plus a full fuel load, which would make the fuel capacity 6,000 pounds.

** Update: Errr... nevermind. I forgot all about the oxygen input into the chemical reaction, which would indeed boost the output CO2 mass to something rather higher than the carbon input into the equation. Good thing I don't make my living as a chemist.

I've been called many things before.

"Stretch," "Tiny" — classics. "Sasquatch," "Lurch" — a bit more creative. "Uncle Russ." My all-time favorite.

I won't get into the various insults.

But I don't think I have ever been called a "fine blogger."

It's not actually true. . . but I'll say thanks anyway to Jay Tea, who is 100% correct in the rest of his post on election dirty tricks. No one, but no one, gets a pass to mess with the integrity of our elections.

Saddam guilty, sentenced to swing. More at Hot Air.

As I predicted. Almost three years ago. Sort of.

Countdown to moonbats questioning the timing — in three... two... one....

The truth can hurt.

Right now my ribs ache, having seen the greatest political advertisement ever.

I needed a laugh. I talked to my niece today; we're all still pretty "down" about Bubba's passing.

^{[This is a re-post, modified, from 9/11/2004]}

One morning while working from home I turned on the TV in time to see one of the World Trade Towers burning. As I watched, an airliner slammed into the second tower; in that second, the world changed.

No, that's not right. The world didn't change — we all woke up.

As events unfolded, I could only think of the people trapped by the fire, and I wondered how the authorities would evacuate so many people. Helicopters on the roof, I figured.

Then the towers fell. A plane had crashed into the Pentagon, and everyone expected there would be more attacks.

Our "vacation from history" was over, and we were at war. Against whom didn't quite matter at that moment.

Remember the preliminary casualty estimates? Numbers upwards of 30,000 were cited that morning. The shock I felt could only have been the merest shade of the horror and despair felt by the families of the victims watching on TV, wondering if their loved ones had escaped... or wondering if the body falling from the tower was their family member.

Five years later, we count ourselves fortunate that "only" 3,000 died on 9/11.

From that day and in the years since, we have learned of acts of incredible courage and steadfastness, starting with Todd Beemer and his fellow passengers on Flight 93, continued by the people who stopped Richard Reid's potentially deadly shoe-bomb plot, carried on by men leaping into the darkness over Afghanistan, with leaders like GEN Tommy Franks, and continuing today with all our armed forces.

We are also fortunate that the man in the White House is a man of moral courage and intestinal fortitude, who knows that doing the right thing should not be subject to an opinion poll.

Since 9/11, the war on terrorists and terrorist states has gone very well overall, with few mistakes and a blessedly low casualty rate for our soldiers. We have also been lucky enough — and good enough — not to have suffered another attack approaching the magnitude of 9/11.

The lesson I take from all this is that we can never again allow ourselves to nap through history; it has a way of catching up with us, and when it does, it will take all our skill, intelligence and courage to face it down. The bad guys, present and future, may get lucky again some day, but real Americans are made of stern stuff. No matter the setbacks we may face in the future, we will ultimately win.

Part 1 of ABC's docudrama The Path to 9/11 airs tonight and, as Tigerhawk points out (h/t: Prof R) due to the Democrats' incessant blathering in every available media outlet about the unfairness of it all, it'll likely have a significantly larger audience than it would have, had the community of Clinton defenders simply pretended the miniseries didn't exist.

No one I know of is claiming that the miniseries is completely accurate, any more than The Longest Day was a 100% completely faithful account of the D-Day landings — but that movie is still a good way to learn about the Normandy invasion.

Perhaps this can be an object lesson for the Left on the difference between "reality" and "reality-based."

There's much chatter today about "assassination chic" as it relates to an upcoming film, in documentary style, about the imagined assassination of President Bush.

The real problem is not that such a film has been made. Jeff Goldstein mentions several other political thrillers which tend to fall into the category of what Jeff refers to as "ideological wish fulfillment."

No, the problem is that in the BDS-charged atmosphere of today's far Left, this new TV-movie is not going to be merely a docudrama.

It'll be a recruiting film.

John Kerry tosses his hat in the ring... again.

Following columnist Robert Novak's revelation earlier this week that the source for the "outing" of Valerie Plame was not in fact Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove, or any of the usual people lefties wish to see in handcuffs and shackles, Plame and her husband "Lying Joe" Wilson have filed a civil suit against those same people.

It seems that the very people who are not being prosecuted by the government for leaking are being sued for the damage their not-leaking may have done.

Suing people for damaging your reputation would be a legitimate thing to do, but in Joe Wilson's case, perhaps it might be best to disappear off the radar of publicity. The idea of such a suit is to gain back your reputation, but this case will almost certainly destroy Wilson's. If this suit ever goes to trial, old Joe is going to have his ass handed to him. There will undoubtedly be uncomfortable questions a-plenty.

Personally, I'd rather like to hear his explanation of how he could report one set of Niger facts to congress, and then publicly use a contradictory set of facts (read: "lie") in the NY Times in an attempt to damage the President. Now that is something that ought to be lawsuit-worthy....

Joe Wilson seems determined to go down in history as the man who put the "ass" in "ambassador."

Jeff Goldstein (the thinking man's Argus Hamilton), having had his family threatened, and subsequently having been the target of repeated Denial-of-Service attacks, has now achieved a status that in future will undoubtedly earn him great deference from the Left: he is now a victim.

To members of the political Left, being a victim is like having a Platinum AmEx card and never having to pay it off. It's like Chobham armor. It's as good as having a fusion-powered bullhorn.

Therefore:

It is henceforth forbidden to gainsay Jeff. He is a victim.

His opinions on all matters must be respected. He is a victim.

Those who criticize Jeff for any reason at all may be mere insensitive cretins, but odds are they're card-carrying Nazis. Because, of course, Jeff is a victim: blameless and praiseworthy.

. . . .

What's that you say? He's one of those "neo-cons"?

Never mind.

Update: Heh.

Almost three years ago, I suggested that the Racketeering, Influence and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes be used against the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, who line their pockets at our expense, for very little actual return.

Today at Captain's Quarters, Ed has some related news.

Thanks for coming. We have sampled your various cuisines. Lots of good food there. Thanks.

But now we have your recipes.

Your culinary contributions to America have been noted. Now go home.

Nice.

(Via Beth.)

Columnist George Will, not usually known for thinking the difficult isn't worth doing, says it would take "200,000 buses in a caravan stretching bumper-to-bumper from San Diego to Alaska" to deport all the illegal aliens currently in the country.

I say we'd better get started, then.

Not a bad speech, all in all. Pretty good, in fact. Maybe very good. I just have one small nit to pick....

Given that illegal immigration and border security is hugely on the minds of Americans, I was hoping there might have been some real red meat on the topic. Instead, we were served a bowl of weak broth and platitudes.

One might be tempted to think that Vincente Fox must have a photo of W with a dead Tijuana hooker.

Update: LaShawn Barber focused on illegal immigration during her liveblogging.

Since I'm off work on Mondays, I can watch the Alito confirmation hearings today.

I won't be live-blogging them (or even live-blogging the live-blogging) — I'll leave all that to:

• The Corner
• Bench Memos
• Michelle Malkin

and to whomever else I might happen to find, if I bother to look for more.

Dear Betty,

I have two vacancies — will you please be my grandmother?

Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) made rather a big splash this past week by very publicly "changing" his mind about the course of the war in Iraq — changing it to the same position he's held since last year, if not earlier. We already know this, of course, from a number of reports.

Murtha served honorably in the Marines, initially on active duty, and retiring from the Reserves in 1990, and is often described as a hawkish Democrat.

From the congressman's biography, I note that he has been in the House since 1974. Hmmm.

Murtha had a total of 37 years in the Marines, active and reserve. He had some number of years on active duty — his bio doesn't make it clear, but let's call it 12 years. I have no doubt that his years in uniform were spent completely honorably, and we know he was awarded the Bronze Star for valor during his tour in Vietnam. His service to the country cannot and should not be denigrated.

On the other hand, he has been a full-time Democrat congressman for more than 30 years.

Murtha has spent perhaps twice as much time in a suit as in a uniform. Which wardrobe, do you then suppose, has had more influence on his public pronouncements about the war?

Last night while flipping through the on-screen TV guide, I noticed something on a channel I've not watched before: the Discovery Times channel, a cooperative effort of the Discovery Channel and the New York Times.

Showcasing the best in journalism from The New York Times,

This bit of.... No, no, no, it's just too easy. It just wouldn't be sporting of me.

... Discovery Times introduces NEW YORK TIMES REPORTING. Working with the newspaper's award-winning journalists from around the world, NEW YORK TIMES REPORTING will offer insight into some of the most important domestic and international stories in the world today.

Popular science plus shoddy journalism — finally, together in one neat package!

I wonder if Jayson Blair hosts any programs?

Back on topic... the program listing that caught my eye was "Why Intelligence Fails: Intelligence to Please," the description for which was:

Intelligence agencies receive pressure from governments to gather certain information.

Digging into the channel's website leads one to the online description of the program:

The mission of intelligence agencies is to gather information. In the United States, pressure on intelligence agencies to provide evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has become a flashpoint for political criticism.

Except, of course, we know that there was no such pressure. [Don't believe me — believe the Senate Intelligence committee. Go here, scroll down to Conclusion 83... y'know, where it says there was no pressure.] On the face of it, it looks like the Times is attempting to pass off an hour of BDS-laden historical revision as a documentary. And the media wonder why many on the right think they're a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party.

I recorded the last half of the program, and if I think my stomach can handle a production with which the NY Slimes was involved, I'll watch it later and report back.

Update, 3:15pm: I watched it, and I feel like throwing up. The only good things that can be said of the program are that it wasn't funded by my tax dollars, and that Discovery Times doesn't have many viewers at 2am.

For the first 40 minutes or so, the program documents other countries' intel failures and the disasters that followed therefrom. [Surprisingly, the NYT thinks the 1968 Soviet crushing of Czechoslovakia was a bad idea. Walter Duranty, call your office!] This is known as "the setup." The show then moved on to the Iraq war, attempting to prove that the administration pressured the CIA to arrive at its pre-war WMD conclusions.

I don't know about you, but if I'm pressured to agree with my boss, against my better judgement, I'm not going to be enthusiastic enough about it to use the expression "slam dunk."

Apart from David Kay, ADM Stansfield Turner and Frank Gaffney (the sole Bush/Cheney defender on the program), I didn't recognize any of the people interviewed for the program, but Google can be useful:

Bob Baer: former CIA agent, current CIA gadfly.

Thomas Powers: former CIA guy, author of "The Vanishing Case for War."

Karen Kwiatkowski: former USAF Lt.Colonel, LaRouche supporter, conspiracy theorist.

Ray McGovern: notable, if at all, for his claim that the Bush administration didn't merely misinterpret existing intelligence, but that it manufactured the intelligence.

Greg Thielmann: State Department analyst since the Carter administration. Notable mainly for his disagreements with (now UN Ambassador) John Bolton and for his public disagreement with the current administration.

In short, however, the entire thrust of the documentary (one which Michael Moore would no doubt have been proud to produce) was to assume that the only casus belli was WMD, and then to try to show that the Bush administration pressured the CIA into delivering the results the White House wanted with regard to Iraq's WMDs, with the inevitable conclusion from Thielmann being that the actions of the administration amounted to a "high crime."

Do you suppose those last words were carefully chosen? What do you think the people at the Times are trying to say?

Are you an American?

In light of the need for the President to make another Supreme Court pick, I'd like to remind Mr. Bush: there's one more potential nominee who bears consideration.

It is clear now that no one in the White House is going to face up to reality and reconsider the decision to nominate Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. While I heartily disagree with the selection, I cannot fault the President for his loyalty to his associates. And we now know that Miers will not be withdrawing herself from consideration.

On the face of it, there is nothing wrong with her. I'm sure she has a squeaky-clean record, and her known accomplishments are real — though comparatively modest. The problem is that she just is not what those of us who voted for this President either wanted or expected: a Justice in the mold of Scalia or Thomas.

I've been perusing the historical record, looking for past examples of presidents' nominees who have withdrawn themselves from consideration for various positions. It occurs to me: it would be awfully convenient if Miers had in the past used illegal alien domestics — maids, gardeners, drivers, or even nannies (assuming, of course, that Miers actually has children, of course. Hey, I'm spitballing here. I don't have time to do elementary research.)

Faced with evidence that she had used such employees, she would surely have to stand aside.

In order for an illegal alien employee "tarbrushing" to succeed, the story would have to be credible enough to be believed by the Old Media, so that it will receive plenty of airplay, but little or no scrutiny. As luck would have it, I found a historical example of exactly that kind of tarbrushing.

Given a batch of crudely-forged memos with unverifiable provenance, the media will surely take them at face value and race to get them on the air in an attempt to torpedo the nomination.

All that's needed, then, is the aforementioned batch of crudely-forged memos.

The NC State Fair is in town... I think they have a livestock show.

Now... where I can find a Kinko's?

Harriet Miers?

Who?

Well, at least it isn't Alberto Gonzales.

Travis County, Texas district attorney Ronnie Earle today managed to get an indictment against Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, as well as against two of his associates.

Ronnie Earle has been after DeLay for quite a while, to no practical effect before today. He seems to be obsessed, perhaps out of sheer partisan hackery, perhaps because he's simply a bad prosecutor, perhaps because he's a complete nut.

This is, after all, a man who indicted himself — thereby proving that if no ham sandwiches are readily available, you can get a grand jury to indict a fruitcake.

I suspect DeLay will weather this storm and come through vindicated.

Update: Captain Ed weighs in.

The newly-initiated PorkBusters blog-campaign to find waste in the federal budget is a good idea, but it won't do a lick of good unless the people who actually appropriate the money can be persuaded or pressured not to do so.

I would therefore propose an appropriations rule (or perhaps even a law) which might have a positive effect for the national budget: prohibit the naming of any federally-funded project after any living person. If that's too extreme, prohibit naming them after any serving legislator. Removing the self-aggrandizement motive for federal spending might rein in some of the more extreme spenders' projects for which we all have to foot the bill.

One could start, for instance, with the projects brought to us by the King of the Swineherds, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV).

Byrd is so notorious for his ability to bring home the bacon (as well as sausage, tenderloin, pancetta, Boston Butt, chops, baby back ribs, ham, and crispy rinds) for his home state that he has his very own tribute page at the website of Citizens Against Government Waste.

How many of the West Virginia projects below would not have been paid for with federal tax dollars (read, our money) if there was no incentive for a certain Senator to use them as campaign ads?

• Robert C. Byrd National Technology Transfer Center
• Robert C. Byrd Highway
• Robert C. Byrd Federal Correctional Institution
• Robert C. Byrd High School
• Robert C. Byrd Freeway (what, having only a highway wasn't good enough?)
• Robert C. Byrd Center for Hospitality and Tourism
• Robert C. Byrd Science Center
• Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center of West Virginia
• Robert C. Byrd Cancer Research Center
• Robert C. Byrd Technology Center at Alderson-Broaddus College
• Robert C. Byrd Hardwood Technologies Center, near Princeton
• Robert C. Byrd Bridge between Huntington and Chesapeake, Ohio
• Robert C. Byrd addition to the lodge at Oglebay Park, Wheeling
• Robert C. Byrd Community Center, Pine Grove
• Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarships
• Robert C. Byrd Expressway, U.S. 52 near Weirton
• Robert C. Byrd Institute in Charleston
• Robert C. Byrd Institute for Advanced Flexible Manufacturing
• Robert C. Byrd Visitor Center at Harpers Ferry National Historic Park
• Robert C. Byrd Federal Courthouse
• Robert C. Byrd Academic and Technology Center
• Robert C. Byrd United Technical Center

Really, it could just as easily be any Senator... any one at all... but when a target just walks into the crosshairs, it seems so wrong not to pull the trigger.

[In a strictly metaphorical sense, of course.]

Beth of Yeah, Right, Whatever took a little road trip Monday...

... to Crawford, TX.

Someone recently asked me why more pro-WoT Gold Star Families don't speak up (against the group at Camp Casey, and against the anti-war protesters in general). I've been thinking about it, and (though R hasn't confirmed it) I think I have an idea. Most Gold Star Families, the ones who believe in what their children/spouses were doing with their lives, just want to be left in peace to mourn. They have faith in our country, and in the mission their family member was on. They don't want to be part of a movement.

Read about her trip here.

Ok, no, I don't have a secret. Not about the Federalist Society, anyway.

Perhaps the mainstream media wouldn't think the FedSoc was so secretive:

1. if any members of the press or anyone in their social circles were members of the society

or

2. if the press actually bothered to pay the Federalist Society the same level of respectful attention when there isn't a Supreme Court nomination pending that they pay to the ACLU on an ordinary everyday basis.

(Via Michelle)

It won't be long before we hear complaints from the feministas and the race hustlers that Bush has chosen a white guy for the Supreme Court.

Tough.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who thinks it is both sexist and racist to assume that only women or minorities are capable of judging issues related to women and minorities.

Bush is announcing his selection of John Roberts of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to replace Sandra Day O'Connor.

Needless to say, I am disappointed. I guess he didn't see that I was willing – and qualified – to take the position.

Plenty on that interloper Roberts from Michelle Malkin. And, of course, from Prof. Reynolds.

Update: In an altogether unsurprising development, Senator Schumer has made clear he won't settle for Roberts receiving the same treatment from the Judiciary Committee that nominees like, say, Ginsberg received. It's gonna be ugly.

Update 2: Even if I knew nothing else about the man, based solely on the groups already lining up to oppose him, I'd support his nomination.

Update 3: Best link collection ever at The Truth Laid Bear.

^{[This post was originally published 21Jun05. Due to the topicality today, I thought I'd bump it up.]
[There are updates - see below.]}

Neat-o. An actual lefty koolaid drinker, right here on my very own site.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if someone from the anti-American anti-war camp had found this site accidentally — it happens all the time, and some occasionally drop a turd or two in the comments — but this fellow actually came here from my mini-bio page at BlogsForBush. He came here looking for a fight to pick.

As is so often the case with the anti-American anti-war crowd, he rolled out what he thought would be a rhetorical nuke: the tired and discredited "chickenhawk" argument — questioning my "credentials," my qualification to offer opinions about the war. I guess the obvious military theme here escaped his notice, and I called him on it.

Not content to leave well enough alone, however, he decided to leave another steaming pile in the comments. I figured it deserved an up-front response. I know it will fail utterly to convince him, as he apparently arrived at his current opinions shortly before turning off his brain, but a response is nonetheless warranted.

Read on and, as always, feel free to comment.

My goodness you are defensive.

I can be offensive, if you would prefer. I'm good at it, but I find it distasteful.

Please read the one sentence post again. While it is certainly directed at you personally (no point in not being direct here), it is also "generic"; i.e. please explain to me where the millions of your "fellow right-wing white guy" Bush voters/Iraq war supporters are...now that their country needs them (and needs them precisely because of their political views and voting behavior? (they do not seem to be, unless I am mistaken, "enlisting in droves".

"Droves" are not required. No longer do we deploy tens of thousands of troops lined up shoulder-to-shoulder on the battlefields. Indeed, the military force structure is smaller now than at any time since before WW2.

Have there been recruiting shortfalls? Some, yes. The reserves can't meet their goals if active-duty soldiers are re-upping at rates above the quotas — which they are. The Navy, Marines and Air Force are meeting their goals.

Perhaps, however, if you and your ilk would cease the slanders against our serving troops, young peoples' attitudes towards the Army would be somewhat different. The perpetual shouting of "babykiller" (to take an example from history), despite the transparent falsity of the charge, will eventually make an impression. But I guess that's what the Left wants, isn't it?

As for the "chicken hawk" argument getting "old", it is getting old, again, precisely because you and your fellow right wingers are only too happy to encourage death and destruction, so long as it is someone else who does the dying.

Yes, we encourage death and destruction... specifically, the enemy's death and destruction.

Is there anything so awe inspiring as the "courage of the non-combatant"?

That's mighty brave of you to say from behind that keyboard. When's the last time you took a physical risk for something you believe in? Ever?

I'll bet the answer is "never." Paging John Stuart Mill...

You are a veteran...so what?

I enlisted when the outcome of the Cold War was far from certain. I served in Korea at a time when, had the Norks decided to come south en masse, the result would have been far from predictable, though the results predicted for those of us stationed over there were, euphemistically speaking, not altogether rosy.

I did my time. I took the risks inherent in military service. So now am I qualified to comment on the current war?

Well, guess what? I am no more or less qualified to offer an opinion than you or anyone else. I merely have the advantage of experience, but that's how it works here in America.

Or is it merely that you would rather try to use a discredited rhetorical device to shut up all those who oppose your point of view?

You claim to have a terrible boo-boo that prevents you from serving in the military?

Not just "claim." I assert that I have an injury that keeps me out. If you'd bothered to read a few of the archives here, you'd have known about it.

But I suspect that you'd simply prefer to hurl insults.

I have read recently of American soldiers who, having had limbs blown off, are returning to combat duty with prosthetic limbs. Is your injury worse than this?

No, I wouldn't say so. How can a herniated disk compare to a lost hand or foot? But it was enough to end my career, and is enough to keep me from re-upping, even if I were not already too old.

And even if it is...again I say...what about the "right wing millions"? Where are they? All nursing upper-class tennis elbow?

Thankfully, no. Most are out there making this country run on what is to all intents and purposes a peace-time footing. Austerity? Not hardly. Rationing? Don't need it.

Thankfully, the people who know how to make democratic capitalism work are doing so. I wouldn't be quite so eager to try to run the country's economic engine on patchouli fumes.

As for freedom of speech, your defensive reaction says more than I can. Of course I think you have a right to your "very strange" opinion. And I, in turn, have a right to mine. The difference, of course, is that I don't support "that which I am not willing to do myself". i.e. get my head blown off for...what, exactly?

For what? For what?

How about the end of $25,000 payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers? Would that be a good enough start? How about the end of mass executions, the end of the rape rooms, the end of people being fed alive into industrial shredders?

Are you in favor of those things continuing? Or is it just that you are so blinded by your dislike of the Right that you refuse to admit that those things actually happened, are not happening now, and that it is a positive good that they are not?

The real difference, which seems to me to be true of virtually all of your ilk, is that there is nothing whatsoever for which you would risk everything. Look up the word craven sometime.

The war is lost; it was lost before it started.

The millions of ink-stained fingers seen in Iraq this past January thoroughly refute your statement.

It sounds to me not so much that you're against the war — you'd just rather see us lose.

You might want to read, or reread, Halberstam's book about Vietnam. Or Will Durant's observations about "Muslim warriors" (in his "Story of Civilization".)

My reading list is already full. Halberstam? A New York Times reporter who wrote a book on Vietnam — I wouldn't waste my time. I can already predict what he thinks of the whole thing.

I anxiously await your response...so long as it addresses my questions, that is.

My blog, my rules. I address exactly what I choose to. Don't like it? Then leave.

I'd have gone on longer but, as yesterday, my back and shoulder still hurt quite a bit.

And, Bellino: don't let the metaphorical door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Update, 6/22/05: if your tolerance level for a bit of profanity is up to the task, Mad Dog Vinnie has more along the same lines. More accurately, he has more whether you can handle it or not.

Chris Muir gets it, too:

Update, 7/6/05: More folks are getting into the mood of things. See the commentary from Blackfive, Donald Sensing, and Baldilocks.

Iowahawk provides his R-rated take on the matter, from a slightly different perspective. Such a potty-mouth, that Zarqawi....

Of all the Kennedy brothers, why did this one have to be the one to live to a ripe old age?

The evidence of alcohol's efficacy as a preservative continues to mount....

Please, God — not another Souter.

Breaking News:

Justice O'Connor Retires From Supreme Court

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justrice Sandra Day O'Connor submitted her retirement notice to President Bush on Friday, setting the stage for a contentious battle over her replacement.

I would once again like to make mention of my availability and suitability for a seat on the Supreme Court.

I haven't received any calls from the White House yet. I'm somewhat disappointed.

With the anticipated retirement of one or two Supreme Court justices, the discussion this week is naturally revolving around who Bush will nominate to fill the expected vacancy or vacancies.

I know the perfect candidate for the bench, one whose name has not come up in any previous discussion, yet one who nevertheless is perfectly qualified to be on the Court.

Me.

Yes, me. No, I'm not a lawyer, but... so what? There is no requirement that a Supreme Court justice be a lawyer. Indeed, I think having someone on the bench who is not a lawyer would be a much-needed breath of fresh air.

Which still doesn't answer the question, what makes me think I am qualified to sit on the Supreme Court? Two things, really.

   • I have a copy of the Constitution and the Amendments.
   • I can read plain English.

The Constitution was written in plain (but obviously literate) English, and was meant to be understood not only by the comparatively small number of people who have been to law school, but by all of "We the people."

"Make no law" and "shall not be infringed" are supposed to mean exactly what they say.

Two supplementary facts might be mentioned as well:

   • I have a dictionary to help me with the big words, but
   • There are no big words in the Constitution. The biggest words I can find in a quick scan of the Constitution are "representatives," "representation" and "ratification." Maybe there's a bigger word in there, but whatever it is, I'll bet I know its meaning without having to look it up.

My "judicial philosophy" can be summed up as:

   • If the Constitution doesn't address it, neither should the Federal courts.
   • The actual written words and plain meaning of the Constitution and the law always trump "nuance" and "precedent."
   • Scotty couldn't change the laws of physics; judges shouldn't try it, either — pi will never equal 3.
   • The Constitution was written by Americans for Americans. Foreign influences have no place in American jurisprudence.
   • Opinion polls are no basis for interpreting law.

Obviously, my nomination wouldn't stand a chance.

[Yo, Rusty - I got yer fatwa right here.]

Our rulers in robes, the Supreme Court of the United States, having just effectively destroyed the right to private property, must be overruled.

The President should get out in public — now — and propose legislation to protect property owners from legalized theft eminent domain seizures designed to benefit private parties. This is a Federal civil rights issue at least as important as the right to free speech.

This assumes, of course, that the Legislative and Executive branches are actually co-equal to the Judicial branch, in practice as well as in theory.

Mighty big assumption, that.

I wonder now how long it will be until the Tree of Liberty gets the watering that it apparently needs? I think that sad day has come more than just a little bit closer.

Update: via a commenter at Wizbang!, a reminder of this quote from the Hildebeast:

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
— Hillary Clinton addressing a San Francisco Democratic Fund Raiser on June 28th, 2004.

Doesn't seem so far-fetched now, does it?

Update, 3:42pm: Shep Smith on FoxNews just now, at the end of a story on this abominable ruling, closed the item with the line "Molly Henneburg, reporting live from Havana... I mean, uh, Washington." Make of it what you will.

So John Kerry has released his military records to the Boston Globe. The Globe, being the upstanding paradigm of journalism that it is (see here, for an example of their journalistic credibility), will undoubtedly give the world the straight story on the contents of those records.

Yes. And someday I might don a cape and tights and fly under my own power.*

Globe reporter Michael Kranish tells us there is a "lack of any substantive new material about Kerry's military career" in the files.

I'm wagering that what we have just witnessed is a completely new usage of the word "substantive." Someone should let the folks at Merriam-Webster know about this.

Kranish — who, as Michelle Malkin notes, co-authored the Kerry campaign suck-up book John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography By The Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best (a title as wordy as the former candidate himself) — would appear to be Kerry's "go-to" guy in the print media.

Kerry thus gets the benefit of being able to claim full disclosure, without the slightest potential of a critical word being said by the news staff at his media outlet-of-choice.

As a sop to the critics, however, details of Kerry's academic career were published, including a photo of the undergraduate Kerry.

Guess which one is the young Brahmin:

OK, that was just cruel. Deliciously cruel. But it's no wonder he didn't want those records released. The camera just isn't friendly to him at all.

_{* I might someday fly under my own power, but I will never wear tights and a cape. Which, all things considered, would be for the best. Trust me on this.}