This Is How Us Regular Folks See You Kooks

Wow, a new episode. I'm lucky I just happened to be watching.
Doesn't this sum it all up though?

Hey, Did You Hear on the News That...Oh, Right.

Gee, do ya think she'll have to answer to any of this? Not bloody likely. You know it won't see the light of day, and if it did, or this, this and this; what are the chances of Brian Williams, Katie Couric, Chris Matthews, Keith Olberloon, et al will admit they are wrong, or print retractions or clarifications of any kind? Of course, there would have to be an investigation into the story; the odds of that happening is the basis of the title of this post.

It's About Freakin' Time Liz

It's finally out there. Rosie can't deal with real questions that don't come from Loose Change or Google news. Typical far-left liberal, when you can't answer the question (because she doesn't have an intellectual answer for it) start the personal attacks. It's all right here folks. Even some the mostly pro-Rosie audience were clapping for Hasselbeck. I think Liz finally had enough, too bad it's about one year too late. You notice how Rosie gets louder and-yet again-tries to bully Hasselbeck. Did you notice how many times Liz had to tell Rosie to let her finish. She also pointed out the favourite liberal ploy, when you have no facts, start with the emotions. You know, I thought when you were 18 and you weren't a liberal, you didn't have a heart and when you were 30 and weren't a conservative, you didn't have a brain; Rosie has it a little backwards. Or didn't grow up.

Rosie called Liz "cowardly" and said, "You didn't defend me."
So apparently Rosie believes that, even though Hasselbeck said, "You couldn't answer your own question, I don't believe that your suggestion was right" that no matter what Rosie's opinion, Liz has to cater to her and stand bye anything she says, even if she doesn't agree, because they're "friends".

Rosie won't be on tomorrow.

Possibly The Best Speech I've Ever Heard From Him

Is this empassioned enough and sincere enough for you? Or do you blame him as much as Bush? What does your heart of hearts tell you of what these men's legacies will truly be given the next 40-50 years?

Weez Don't Believe Yuz Neither, Eh.

I can't believe it myself. Someone in this conservative-led, but socialist-mindset country has some balls.
EQ: Does it get squashed?
Release the hounds.

Amnesty!

No matter what you want to call it, that's what it is. I can't defend the president on this one. Apparently he just didn't want any more political heat. I guess he finally got his second term accomplishment. Giuliani and McCain defend it and this will be the end of their presidential drive. Mitt Romney and most level-headed conservatives oppose it and I'm with them.

For starters, this will simply entice more illegals to, if you'll pardon the Taco Bell pun, make a run for the border. It's simply a natural occurrence to want to get to the bank before it closes, if you follow me. Believe me there will be a massive rush to get inside the country and be rewarded for breaking the law along with the rest of the 12 million other illegals. If you think for one second this is going to all of a sudden halt wannabe Americans from crossing the southern border, you're fooling yourself. I guess Geraldo and his bleeding heart-types have won. Jerry Rivers himself claims to have been on the southern border for three months and says "not one" illegal came over the border while he was there, because he was "looking for them." Yeah, just like how he was looking for insurgents in Iraq when a sniper "took a shot at him." Go back to Capone's vault and look for your brain, Jerry.

To be fair, I haven't got all the details yet, so you may say I'm jumping the gun, but I think I have all I need to know. Ok, so the head of the households of these families (if they have one) have to go back to wherever their from (mostly Mexico, but not all) and have to pay a $5,000 fine. That may be a substantial amount to pay for most, but is this whole Congressional plan fair to the thousands upon thousands of people clamoring to get in to the country who have done it the right and legal way? Of course not. Somehow, taxpayers are going to end up paying for these fines anyway.

As for border security, this will do absolutely nothing. The fence is at about 1800 miles right now (you may correct me if I'm wrong and I probably am) and this will just put more kinks into it because the Democrats will want to cut that in half claiming it is no longer needed and will do everything to stymie and more being built. Switch to manpower patrolling the border and there simply isn't enough boots on the ground, nor will there be, because Congress-and everybody involved-simply don't care to reinforce security at the border(s). Carter had no clue about it, Reagan didn't, Bush 41 didn't, Clinton didn't and Dubya obviously doesn't.

Lou Dobbs is proving to be a prophet with his chastising of not only this proposal, but Bush's whole immigration policy. However, I still adamently disagree with his opinion on the whole "North American union" thing. That will never happen. The American people and economy simply won't allow it.

The illegals will also continue to recieve all the rights and privaleges of native-born Americans, includong the medi-care, unemployment benefits and the RIGHT TO VOTE AND SUE!

By the way, if Ted *hic* Kennedy is all for this thing, the most liberal democrat going, what does that tell you?

I have to look at this thing some more...to be continued.

The Most Ethical and Honest Congress in History...But Not Accountable

I've said it before, it just never ends. These people just simply cannot be trusted to be a legitimate governing legislative body. Non-binding resolutions, pork-filled funding bills and now changing 185-year-old House rules to allow increasing taxes without voting on it, thus avoiding accountability. I would normally say here, unbelievable, but nothing surprises me anymore with these clowns.

UPDATE: Looks like I posted my legitimate gripe a bit to soon.

There appears to be a trend brewing from both sides of the aisle.
From HotAir.com:

Democrats are wielding a heavy hand on the House Rules Committee, committing many of the procedural sins for which they condemned Republicans during their 12 years in power.

So far this year, Democrats have frequently prevented Republicans from offering amendments, limited debate in the committee and, just last week, maneuvered around chamber rules to protect a $23 million project for Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.).

On Wednesday, Democrats suggested changing the House rules to limit the minority’s right to offer motions to recommit bills back to committee — violating a protection that has been in place since 1822.

Much of this heavy-handedness is standard procedure in the House, where the majority has every right to dominate, but it contradicts the many campaign promises Democratic leaders made last year to run a cleaner, more open Congress…

This perceived drift by the party in power resembles a similar drift by the Republicans after they stormed to power in 1994 as a spirited band of small-government reformers. The realities of the majority eventually forced them to play with the rules, too, and ignore many of the reforms they approved during their first months in power.

Fred's Response to Michael Moron

Short and to the point. Beautiful. But I still think he should verbally and intellectually dissect the fraud.
And I wish he would let us know what he's going to do already.

UPDATE: It appears the cut and run cowards have failed yet again in their attempts to hurt the troops. They actually, finally, showed their true colours by attempting to cut the funding in a cowardly (but expected) way to end the war. No surprise that over half of the Senate democrats voted for it.
Does Hillary actually think we believe her when she says she's tough on terror?

The Clinton Chronicles

Just to be clear, I don't put much stock in this; well not most of it and I know it's really old news (although I bet a lot of people have never even seen it) but I figure if Tokyo Rosie and the Loose Change idiots can permeate the globe with their inane conspiracy crap (there are a lot of similarities in the way it's presented, by the way) why can't I? Eye for an eye, right? Hey, I'm just "asking questions." But it goes to show that anyone can post videos accusing someone of something they didn't do using so-called "experts", cherry-picked information, official-sounding narration and absolute insane propaganda. Yes, I realize I'm defending Clinton, but crap is crap. Like I said, I don't really believe MOST of it. But then again, knowing the Clintons' record of dishonesty and corruption, I wouldn't be surprised.

Flippity-Floppity

And so it continues...and again.
As a commenter said on Qube TV, there appears to be only one true Democrat in Washington today, Joe Lieberman, even though technically, he's a independent. The reason being, once he showed he was a man by standing up for what he believes in and in doing so, the far left tried to destroy him. Remember, this is the same man, with the same views and morals that they wanted as their Vice-President in 2000. How quickly they forget...and learn to hate.

Well, Whaddya Know

It appears, from a new Gallup poll, that Congress has a lower approval rating that the President. That's saying a lot, folks. Now with all the references to "what the American people want", does this not mean that Nancy Pelosi and company should abandon their socialist policies, including their cut and run rhetoric? I mean if the Democrats rely so heavily on polls, saying they so accurately determine what the American voter wants, doesn't this mean that they should change their course of action? Shouldn't they abandon their misguided state of denial? Oh, right, polls don't really mean that much now. Of course they don't. But to hear the Dems outlandish speeches and hypocrisy on the matter, you would think what the people say and think actually matters to them. But of course, only when the winds blow their way.

On another matter, it's been well over 100 days since the Democrats assumed control of both houses of Congress, but yet they have not passed any real legislative bills with any real meat to them (not even the attempted political point-scoring, pork-filled troop-funding bills)
They raised the minimum wage. Well, chalk one up for them. However, they have managed to install one of the most corrupt and hypocritical bodies of Congress in the nation's history. From Barney Frank and William Jefferson's indiscretions, to Nancy Pelosi's persona non-grata on the union front. Is this the will of the people?

And have you heard that Ms. Pelosi and company (notably Dennis Kucinich) have once again brought up the issue of installing the "fairness doctrine?" Lets call this fiasco what it is, censorship. It is an attempt to legitimize the left's whining and crying about being killed in the ratings pertaining to cable t.v. and talk-radio. There's a reason why conservatives own liberals in these mediums. Because people don't want to hear the left's whining, complaining, fabrications and total hypocrisy from losers like Al Franken, who by the way wants to be Minnesota's next jr. senator. He will be humbled, to say the least. He's trailing waaaay far behind by the way, not because Minnesotans don't know him and his far-left insanity, but quite the contrary, because they do, quite well. Whatever happened to Air America? Oh right....
But as for the fairness doctrine, everybody knows they only want to have a say in what goes on in the land of conservative opinion. Does this mean people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage will get to sit next to Chris Matthews or Katie Couric and refute their verbal diarrhea? Don't count on it. If they want ratings, they should start being honest, or least fake it (of course, that's what they're doing now)
The free exchange of ideas is more prevalent now than it ever was, even more than it was when the doctrine was first brought up in 1987. The left thinks that the "vast right-wing conspiracy" needs to be monitored. The reality is, the left simply doesn't trust the people to choose their own source of information or entertainment. I don't think this is going to apply to mainstream television. No, only where politics and the outing of liberal hypocrisy is concerned. Why aren't there more liberal radio talk-shows? Is it that phantom "conservative conspiracy"? No, like I've stated, it's simply that liberal radio doesn't have the intelligence, guts or staying power. Do you honestly think that people enjoy the unintelligent and uninformed rants of the aforementioned Al Franken? Why do so many liberals listen to people like Limbaugh, Savage, Matt Drudge or Michael Medved? The same reason why Howard Stern gained so many listeners in the beginning, not because people liked him so much, it was because people wanted to hear what shocking thing he was going to say next. Do you think for one little second if the situation was reversed and liberal talk-radio commanded such ratings that the loose cannons in Washington and elsewhere would be up in arms over this? Hardly. Why do you think that Limbaugh's popularity took off so quick so soon after his radio debut, not to mention his television one. The mere fact that conservative radio exploded after the demise of the original fairness doctrine, in which liberals-as they do now-owned television before the days of cable, which they weren't complaining about by the way, nor were conservatives, shows the true nature of the free market. It's censorship folks, pure and simple.

Here's something on it from Captain's Quarters

Kucinich To Bring Back The Fairness Doctrine

The continuing impact of the Democratic takeover of Congress has just gotten worse. In a little-noticed development from this weekend, Dennis Kucinich announced that he would use his position on a House government-reform subcommittee to focus on the Federal Communications Commission -- and that the Fairness Doctrine may make a comeback:

Over the weekend, the National Conference for Media Reform was held in Memphis, TN, with a number of notable speakers on hand for the event. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) made an surprise appearance at the convention to announce that he would be heading up a new House subcommittee which will focus on issues surrounding the Federal Communications Commission.

The Presidential candidate said that the committee would be holding "hearings to push media reform right at the center of Washington.” The Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee was to be officially announced this week in Washington, D.C., but Kucinich opted to make the news public early.

In addition to media ownership, the committee is expected to focus its attention on issues such as net neutrality and major telecommunications mergers. Also in consideration is the "Fairness Doctrine," which required broadcasters to present controversial topics in a fair and honest manner. It was enforced until it was eliminated in 1987.

The Fairness Doctrine did not require broadcasters to present issues in a "fair and honest manner"; it required them to turn their stations into ping-ponging punditry if they allowed opinion to appear on the air at all. It created such a complicated formula that most broadcasters simply refused to air any political programming, as it created a liability for station owners for being held hostage to all manner of complaints about lack of balance.

Congress and the Reagan administration repealed the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, and it allowed a market for political opinion to flourish. It also revitalized the AM band, which had been badly eclipsed for music broadcasting during the 1970s due to the rise of static-free FM stations. Radio stations could air local and syndicated talk shows without having to worry about metering time between differing viewpoints, allowing the station owners to reflect the market and their own personal preferences for politcal viewpoints.

Why would Kucinich want to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine and kill off the AM band and talk radio? Because his allies have proven less successful than conservatives at building a market for their broadcasts. Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, and a slew of conservative thinkers carved out an industry out of the AM wilderness, and the Al Frankens and Wendy Wildes can't keep up without government intervention. Air America would lose as well in this scenario, but I'm sure Kucinich sees that as a fair trade, and for good reason.

Democrats aren't wasting much time in rolling back free speech now that they have the majority. Putting Kucinich in charge of domestic policy reform was no mistake on their part. They want to kill talk radio, and if they manage to hold their majority and win the White House in 2008, they just might do it.

Maybe they could start with getting rid of incompetents like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann ("a monkey posing as a journalist") Merideth Veira and the like. There's a reason why the CBS Evening News' ratings are even lower before Couric took over. But to stifle free speech, which the left pretends to believe in, is not only unconstitutional, but criminal. Instead of playing by the rules, they want to change them. I'm telling you, if they keep this up, come November, 2008, they're outta here.
Of course, they say nothing of the MSM or the major television networks and their obvious bias. Yeah, yeah, I know, what bias? All I have to say to that is, don't make me laugh. There is no doubt that conservatives control the radio airwaves; at last count the numbers hover around the 80 percent mark. But I don't hear the public complaining, at least not enough to make a difference. The bottom line is, regardless of where their ideology lies, it's good radio. It's no coincidence that Limbaugh draws approximately 20 million listeners a day and Bill O'Reilly, regardless of what you think of him, draws three times the numbers than that of Olbermann on MSNBC. As I said, will conservatives be allowed to rebuke the likes of Matthews and Olberloon? Look folks, let's be honest, this is a conservative witch-hunt, because liberals are losing, and they know it. But all of this is really much ado about nothing, me thinks, because it will never get through Congress, nor the high courts.

Hey, did you hear Congress' approval numbers are now lower than the President's?

Another One Bites the Dust

So the Taliban military leader in Afghanistan, Mullah Dadullah is dead. The story can be found here and the aftermath here.

Unfortunately, as the latter story correctly states, this won't have much bearing on the top leadership of the terrorist outfit, as Mullah Omar and Jalaluddin Haqqani are alive and well and living their cowardly existence in their rat holes. As stated in a previous post, just like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who was killed by American forces in Iraq, then his replacement, Abu Ayyub al-Masri was also allegedly sent to hell. I'm still waiting for confirmation on that one. It doesn't matter, all of their days are numbered, one way or another.

Yes, yes, we still have to either kill or find the bodies of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahir. I predict that al-Zawahir will be killed in an air-raid in the near future with bin Laden probably getting away yet again, however he will be severely maimed and will probably expire not too long afterwards. I don't know why, I just have a feeling about it. However, that begs the question, will we know he's dead if he does perish?

Wouldn't it be wonderful if like al-Masri, who was purportedly gunned down by his own men and al-Zarqawi who was betrayed by his own henchmen (torture is wrong and it doesn't work, uh-huh) either bin Laden and/or al-Zawahir met the same fate? Don't be surprised, there is no honor among thieves.

It happens all the time folks. Do you have any idea how close Hitler came to being whacked by his own generals? Hey, look at Julius Caesar.

Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Sharpton

From an email that was fowarded to me:
comments follow-


Where are the Good Reverends Now......

The Victims

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom



The Suspects

Lemaricus Davidson, Letalvis Cobbins, George Thomas, Eric Boyd and Vanessa Coleman


The above accused raped Christopher Newsom, cut off his penis, then
set him on fire and fatally shot him several times while they forced his
girlfriend, Channon Christian, to watch. An even more cruel fate awaited her!

Channon Christian, was beaten and gang-raped in many ways for four days by all
of them, while they took turns urinating on her. Then they cut off her breast
and put chemicals in her mouth and then murdered her.

Knoxville (WVLT) - The District Attorney General of Knox County announced the
list of charges facing now five suspects in the double murder of Channon
Christian and Christopher Newsom.

The District Attorney General Randy Nichols is not saying whether or not he
will seek the death penalty, but he does say the state will seek conviction for
all charges filed in a 24-page indictment from the Knox County Grand Jury.

Lemaricus Davidson, 25, faces a total of 46 charges. Davidson was indicted on
16 counts of Felony Murder growing out of rape, robbery kidnapping and theft of
Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, 2 counts premeditated murder of Christian
and Newsom, 2 counts especially aggravated robberies from Christian and Newsom,
4 counts especially aggravated kidnapping of Christian and Newsom, 20 counts
aggravated rape of Christian and Newsom, and 2 counts of theft from Christian
and Newsom.

Letalvis Cobbins, 24, faces a total of 46 charges. Cobbins was indicted on 16
counts of Felony Murder growing out of rape, robbery kidnapping and theft of
Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, 2 counts premeditated murder of Christian
and Newsom, 2 counts especially aggravated robberies from Christian and Newsom,
4 counts especially aggravated kidnapping of Christian and Newsom, 20 counts
aggravated rape of Christian and Newsom, and 2 counts of theft from Christian
and Newsom.

George Thomas, 24, faces a total of 46 charges. Thomas was indicted on 16
counts of Felony Murder growing out of rape, robbery kidnapping and theft of
Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, 2 counts premeditated murder of Christian
and Newsom, 2 counts especially aggravated robberies from Christian and Newsom,
4 counts especially aggravated kidnapping of Christian and Newsom, 20 counts
aggravated rape of Christian and Newsom, and 2 counts of theft from Christian
and Newsom.

Just last night, police in Lebanon, Kentucky, arrested 18-year-old Vanessa
Coleman. She faces 40 Tennessee state charges. Coleman was indicted on 12 counts
Felony Murder growing out of rape, robbery kidnapping and theft of Channon
Christian and Chris Newsom, 1 count Premeditated Murder of Christian only, 1
count Especially Aggravated Robbery of Newsom only, 4 counts especially
aggravated kidnapping of Christian and Newsom, 20 counts of aggravated rape of
Christian and Newsom and 2 Counts of theft from Christian and Newsom.

Eric Boyd, 24, also arrested in connection with the fatal carjacking, only
faces federal charges as an accessory after the fact. He was not indicted by
Knox county grand jury.

Felony Murder carries a possibility of death, life without the possibility of
parole and life with parole. Especially Aggravated Robbery is a Class A felony
that carries a possibility of 15 to 60 years in prison. Aggravated Rape is a
Class A felony that carries a possibility of 15 to 60 years of prison.

At a news conference Thursday, Nichols commended the cooperative efforts
between several departments and credits that cooperation for the fast pace this
case is moving through the court system.

Nichols says he hopes to move the case to trial on the first day it's set.

The four are expected to make their first court appearance within ten to
fifteen days.

This is certainly a case garnering a lot of public interest, Nichols
recognizes that and says he expects all kinds of requests filed in this case,
including a change of venue in order to receive a fair trial. But he says he
does hope 12 Knox County jurors will be able to determine the guilt or innocence
of these suspects.


Where are "Reverends" Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? Are they providing
counsel and help to the families of the victims?

Of course not, the victims were WHITE!

Why hasn't this received National coverage by the news media like the Duke
"rape" case?

Oh, that's right, the victims were WHITE!

Why hasn't the NAACP, ACLU, New York Times etc., called for an investigation?

Must be cause the victims were WHITE!

Why hasn't the FBI been called in to investigate this as a hate crime?

Oh, that's right, the victims were WHITE!

All of the bleeding heart liberals are so busy trying to outlaw the "N" word
(but not words such as cracker, honky, white trash etc.) at the same time allowing this to continue by not drawing national attention to it, or even a blurb in any national newspaper. Calling the New York Times. Disgusting.

I can't wait to hear the spin the lawyers for the five animals will put on
this. The white's brought it on themselves? The accused are victims of an
oppressive white society? The accused came from broken homes? They all have
learning disabilities? They are disadvantaged? They never finished school? They're
poor?

This is a horrific, racially-motivated hate crime that apparently isn't horrific enough for the MSM. Why isn't this being reported on a national scale? Is not sensational enough? Does it not have enough of a class warfare angle to it? No, because it was a black on white crime. Remember the Duke non-rape case? The MSM everywhere couldn't get enough of a potential "rich, white kids rape a downtrodden black stripper" story. Where are they now? Again, where are Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? Imagine, just imagine the outrage of those race-baiting lunatics if a black couple had been raped, tortured, mutilated, shot and set on fire by white assailants. Remember the how fast and often the MSM latched onto the James Bird story. I know I don't have to tell you what the networks would be debating and reporting all the live-long day, every day. Apparently Anna Nicole Smith, Britney Spears and falsely accusing affluent caucasions are newsworthy. Any crimes, especially abhorant, despicable crimes against whites is not. There may be a backlash by some idiots committing an equal or worse crime (if that's possible) to blacks for some irrational and unescusable reason of revenge or "retribution". Watch how fast that story gets reported.
No liberal bias, huh?

Ignored by the MSM...Of Course

O.k. here's yet even more proof that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and that they were moved to Syria and hidden there-after the 1990s. Jon Stewart interviews Hussein's former #2 man in the Iraqi Airforce, Gen. Georges Sada. I would think that would make him privy to all sorts of valuable inside information and intel. So naturally the MSM is not interested in what he has to say.

Do you think if he had stated that Hussein never had WMDs that his words would be all over the front page of the New York Times, Washington Times, L.A. Times, et all. You better believe it. When are the MSM and the anti-war activists including just about every celiberal in Hollyweird going to wake up, support their own damn country, president and troops and just apologize. I hope what he says that all of America will learn the truth of Hussein's intentions and lies will come to fruition. But, of course it won't, because that means that all the members of the MSM, Hollywood, the Democrats and everybody else who has made up anything and everything to undermine the president, troops and the country will simply cover their behinds with more lies, misinformation and if all else fails, just do what the MSM and their minions always do when proved wrong-just act like it never happened. Either that or the nay-sayers will simply call him a Bush shill, lying ally, buddy, or whatever. Just wait, it'll happen, if this guy gets any creedence or any attention from the MSM at all.

Go ahead, call this man a liar, a Republican shill, or whatever else you need to make yourself feel riotous and help you sleep at night. Man, I'm getting sick and tired of proving something that the world already knew.

Again ,thanks to Amy Proctor. Man, she's invaluable, isn't she?

UPDATE: General Sada was just on the Larry Elder radio show today to re-affirm his statements he made on the Daily Show, plus some other interesting opinions, like the same ones made by Joe Biden concerning partitioning Iraq into three different provinces like it was pre-1920.

This is for Rosie (And For That Matter the Loose Change Idiots)

I have to get on the ball and start posting this stuff when it happens. Admittedly, not too good for someone who just graduated with a journalism diploma. I guess I just post when it strikes me, I suppose. In my own defense, it's not like I have deadlines here. But, I digress.

But here is yet ANOTHER steel supported structure that collapsed because of fire. As opposed to the WTC towers that collapsed due to failing trusses due to the fires compromising the building's structural integrity, in which the building's load (i.e. weight) was transferred the building's outer structural columns, resulting in a "pancake" collapse.

Care to explain this Ms. O'Donnell? Oh, wait. But this wasn't a building, right? Idiot.

Tenet's Untold Story

As from Newsbusters.com and Fred Thompson.

George Tenet, the former CIA director who resigned a while ago has been out promoting a new book. Most of the media has spun the book as attacking the Bush administration, however, as Fred Thompson points out, much of what Tenet says is supportive of many of the claims made by Bush and his staff. Naturally, these aren't the kinds of facts you hear reported in the media:

My attention was drawn to Tenet’s statements that al Qaeda is here and waiting and that they wish nothing more than to be able to see a mushroom cloud above the United States.

Naturally, the media emphasis is not on that. Its attention is on any differences Tenet had with the administration. The media’s premise is that Iraq should not have been considered a real threat to us and that the administration basically misled the country into war. While one may take issue with Tenet on several things, I was intrigued that on some very important issues, Tenet did not follow the media script when answering Russert’s questions.

On the issue of al Qaeda’s relationship with Iraq, for example, Tenet said that the CIA had proof of al Qaeda contact with Saddam’s regime; that the regime had provided safe haven for al Qaeda operatives and that Saddam had provided training assistance for al Qaeda terrorists. He went on to say that the CIA had no proof that the relationship was operational or that they had any ongoing working relationship — that it could have been that each side was just using the other. Maybe my recollection is faulty on this, but that doesn’t seem to be inconsistent with what folks in the administration said. In other words, there was clearly contact and a relationship, but no one knew exactly what it meant.

On the issue of weapons of mass destruction, although Iraq undoubtedly had such weapons in the past, Tenet acknowledges that everybody got it wrong as to whether they would have them at the time of the invasion. On the nuclear issue, he said that the CIA thought that Saddam was five to seven years away from a nuclear capability — unless he was able to obtain fissile material from another source.

A couple of things occur to me here. In the first place, is five to seven years that far away? Since four years have passed since the invasion, that would be only a year from now if we had not invaded. If he had been able to obtain fissile materials, the time could have been much shorter. There are over 40 countries in the world with fissile material sufficient to make a nuclear bomb and much of it is unguarded.

Oh don't worry, after I personally read Tenet's book, I will be ripping into the MSM and their sheep for consciously skimming over the facts about WMDs, "Bush lied" , Hussien and all the rest of everything ignored. And believe me, there are already is much that isn't being told, if not from both sides. Although I doubt if the left and the MSM hasn't scourged everything they can out of this already. Remember, the right haven't even beared their guns yet.

This May Never Happen Again

I can't believe I'm about to say this about a liberal, but good for Alan Colmes.

Whew! Kooky.

And just for fun, I had to post this video by a band called The Right Brothers (ever heard of 'em? They also did a tune entitled, "Bush Was Right") This is pretty apropo, I would say.
UPDATE: I found another tune/video at their website. They're most definately not The Beatles, but I like these guys just the same. Hey at least their not the Dixie Chicks.


Check out their website www.therightbrothers.com and their store for song samples. Check out the aforementioned, "Bush Was Right" along with "I'm In Love with Ann Coulter" and "Shut Up and Teach". Great stuff.

Here's a Taste:

Bush Was Right

Add to My Profile | More Videos

Obama, You've Got Some More Splainin' to Do

Check out the tarnished halo (a stolen quote from a commenter, I admit) on Barack Obama.

More Water to Throw on the Sleeping, Lying Liberal Dems

I just thought I'd add more debunking to the "Bush Lied" myth. I think I may keep this as an "open thread" of sorts, and just keep adding new evidence to the contrary; that is the the truth.

This is from the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal.

The Tide's a-Turnin'

Well now that Nicolas Sarkozy has won the French presidency, the tide is starting to turn in conservatives favour, in terms of leadership of the world's most powerful and influential nations.

Of course we have:
President George W. Bush - U.S.A.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper - Canada
Prime Minister Tony Blair - Great Britain (although not for much longer)
Prime Minister John Howard - Australia
Chancellor Angela Merkel - Germany (quasi-conservative)
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe - Japan (about as conservative as you can get in Japan)
President Philipe Calderone - Mexico (not that he's much help)

As Bugs Bunny would say...(carrot much)..."Ehh, nnnext!"
We're on the march, folks.

Just Another Reminder

In case you've chosen to forget, or simply need a friendly reminder, here's more evidence of Democrat hypocrisy, cowardice and political maneuvering.



And...



Tell those who want us to stay that you want to leave.

By the way, I don't seem to recall Tenet, in either the 60 Minutes interview or on O'Reilly, that Bush knew about "faulty" or "deceptive" intelligence.
Also, about Tenet "running into" Richard Perle in the White House who allegedly told Tenet that Iraq must be involved in 9/11 (I'm paraphrasing) on Sept. 12, it turns out Perle was in France that day. When questioned on this inconsistency, Tenet admitted he "may have been off by a couple of days." He was pretty damn sure on the CBS interview though, wasn't he?

Once again, thanks to Amy Proctor

WOW!

I can't believe this, but even A-Mess-NBC thinks Tokyo Rosie is nuts, and that's saying a lot coming from the network who employs Keith Olberloon and Chris Matthews. Of course, they're only doing it out of concern for Baba Wawa's legacy.



First CNN actually has field reporters saying pulling out of Iraq would be a colossal mistake, then ABC has a segment on actual progress in Iraq (because of the surge, which still hasn't been fully implemented yet) and now "Scarborough Country" says O'Donnell is an embarrassment. What's next? Someone in the MSM actually saying something nice about Bush?

UPDATE: I can't believe it. Someone from the MSM DID actually defend Bush. What is happening? Is this truly the appocolypse? NBC's David Gregory (of course not actually reporting for NBC but a guest on MSNBC's Softball...oops, Hardball) did it.
He's actually done it twice. I missed the first time on Real Time with Bill Maher.
I'm shocked, folks. Truly.

Maybe This is Old News, But...

Does anyone know about this? I found this information while I was surfing some Townhall links:

Juanita isn't the only one: Bill Clinton's long history of sexual violence against women dates back some 30 years

(Editor's Note: The following story is an update of previously-published information and contains some new material.)

By Daniel J. Harris
& Teresa Hampton
Capitol Hill Blue

Women have been charging Bill Clinton with sexual assault since his days as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford 30 years ago.

A continuing investigation into the President's questionable sexual history reveal incidents that go back as far as Clinton's college days, with more than a dozen women claiming his sexual appetites leave little room for the word ''no.''

Juanita Broaddrick, an Arkansas nursing home operator, told NBC's Lisa Myers five weeks ago she was raped by Clinton. NBC shelved the interview, saying they were confirming all parts of the story, but finally aired it Wednesday night.

Broaddrick finally took her story to The Wall Street Journal, which published her account of the brutal rape at the hands of the future President, followed by The Washington Post and some other publications.

But Capitol Hill Blue has confirmed that Broaddrick's story is only one account of many attempted and actual sexual assaults by Clinton that go back 30 years. Among the other incidents:

* Eileen Wellstone, 19-year-old English woman who said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where the future President was a student in 1969. A retired State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed it was consensual. The victim's family declined to pursue the case;
* In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident. The woman, tracked down by Capitol Hill Blue last week, confirmed the incident, but declined to discuss it further and would not give permission to use her name;
* In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. She complained to her faculty advisor who confronted Clinton, but Clinton claimed the student ''came on'' to him. The student left the school shortly after the incident. Reached at her home in Texas, the former student confirmed the incident, but declined to go on the record with her account. Several former students at the University have confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students;
* Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton's gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape;
* From 1978-1980, during Clinton's first term as governor of Arkansas, state troopers assigned to protect the governor were aware of at least seven complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force, himself on them sexually. One retired state trooper said in an interview that the common joke among those assigned to protect Clinton was "who's next?". One former state trooper said other troopers would often escort women to the governor's hotel room after political events, often more than one an evening;
* Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met then-governor Clinton at a political fundraiser and shortly thereafter received an invitation to meet the governor in his hotel room. "I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn't even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room."
* Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown. Last year, Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen (from her first marriage), told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. Close friends of Ward, however, say she still maintains privately that Clinton forced himself on her.
* Paula Corbin, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones recently with an $850,000 cash payment.
* Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, DC, political fundraiser says Presidential candidate-to-be Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation's capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was all right, at which point Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she wanted to keep working. Miss James has since married and left Washington. Reached at her home last week, the former Miss James said she later learned that other women suffered the same fate at Clinton's hands when he was in Washington during his Presidential run.
* Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton's leased campaign plane in 1992, says Presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself to her, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. A video shot on board the plane by ABC News shows an obviously inebriated Clinton with his hand between another young flight attendant's legs. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.
* Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, reported that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November, 1993. Willey, who told her story in a 60 Minutes interview, became a target of a White House-directed smear campaign after she went public.

In an interview with Capitol Hill Blue, the retired State Department employee said he believed the story Miss Wellstone, the young English woman who said Clinton raped her in 1969.

''There was no doubt in my mind that this young woman had suffered severe emotional trauma,'' he said. ''But we were under tremendous pressure to avoid the embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape. I filed a report with my superiors and that was the last I heard of it.''

Miss Wellstone, who is now married and lives near London, confirmed the incident when contacted this week, but refused to discuss the matter further. She said she would not go public with further details of the attack. Afterwards, she changed her phone number and hired a barrister who warned a reporter to stay away from his client.

In his book, Unlimited Access, former FBI agent Gary Aldrich reported that Clinton left Oxford University for a "European Tour" in 1969 and was told by University officials that he was no longer welcome there. Aldrich said Clinton's academic record at Oxford was lackluster. Clinton later accepted a scholarship for Yale Law School and did not complete his studies at Oxford.

The State Department official who investigated the incident said Clinton's interests appeared to be drinking, drugs and sex, not studies.

"I came away from the incident with the clear impression that this was a young man who was there to party, not study," he said.

Oxford officials refused comment. The State Department also refused to comment on the incident. A Freedom of Information request filed by Capitol Hill Blue failed to turn up any records of the incident.

Capitol Hill Blue also spoke with the former Miss James, the Washington fundraiser who confirmed the encounter with Clinton at the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington, but first said she would not appear publicly because anyone who does so is destroyed by the Clinton White House.

''My husband and children deserve better than that,'' she said when first contacted two weeks ago. After reading the Broaddrick story Friday, however, she called back and gave permission to use her maiden name, but said she had no intention of pursuing the matter.

"I wasn't raped, but I was trapped in a hotel room for a brief moment by a boorish man," she said. "I got away. He tried calling me several times after that, but I didn't take his phone calls. Then he stopped. I guess he moved on."

But Miss James also retreated from public view this week after other news organizations contacted her.

The former Miss Moffet, the legal secretary who says Clinton tried to force her into oral sex in 1979, has since married and left the state. She says that when she told her boyfriend, who was a lawyer and supporter of Clinton, about the incident, he told her to keep her mouth shut.

"He said that people who crossed the governor usually regretted it and that if I knew what was good for me I'd forget that it ever happened," she said. "I haven't forgotten it. You don't forget crude men like that."

Like two other women, the former Miss Moffet declined further interviews. A neighbor said she had received threatening phone calls.

The other encounters were confirmed with more than 30 interviews with retired Arkansas state employees, former state troopers and former Yale and University of Arkansas students. Like others, they refused to go public because of fears of retaliation from the Clinton White House.

Likewise, the mainstream media has shied away from the Broaddrick story. Initially, only The Drudge Report and other Internet news sites have actively pursued it. Since initial publication of this story, a few mainstream media outlets have expressed interest in interviewing the women.

The White House did not return calls for comment. White House attorney David Kendall has issued a public denial of the Broaddrick rape.

Copyright 1999. Capitol Web Publishing

SOURCE: chblue.com

Are you surprised? Do you doubt that Hillary knew? Oh, that poor, poor woman.


And this is true, too. I remember it well. I was actually reading the paper over a bowl of Fruit Loops when the news hit that morning.

Republican Women v.s. Democrat Women

I've just noticed something...



This is NOT a coincidence

Thanks to PIG, Politically Incorrect Gazette for the image. Be sure to check out the add for the "Heart Attack Grill" in Tempe, AZ. Gotta love those burgers...HUGE!

Mission Accomplished

I'm not going to go into this big spiel about how the "Mission Accomplished" banner was an ill-fated grasp at an opportunity. Never mind the fact that particular aircraft carrier's mission (tour of duty) in the Gulf was over and knowing they were on television, took advantage of it. It's true, research it.

Also, you can bet every left-wing wacko couldn't tell you what was in the President's speech that day. They couldn't tell you that he warned the WAR WAS NOT OVER and wouldn't be for some time. I bet they don't remember (or even care to try) that he called Iraq but a front on the War on Terror (did you hear the MSM and the Move.org and HuffingtonPost crowds don't want anybody to use that term anymore) and that is just but one front. If you think getting out of Iraq will end the war, you're kidding yourself. Yes, Iran probably is next, but most likely Syria or Lebanon. This probably won't really be over within our lifetimes, kids.

One more time:



But this is an embarrassing picture, isn't it?
Should we have anniversaries to celebrate it?




Flopping Aces has a good post on this and
he has real good backlinks on this very topic. If you want to see all that he offers, just go there and follow his own instructions.






THIS GUY HAS TO RUN
Please Fred, save us from ourselves!


Does he know the Dems or what?

Also, I don'tknow what Newshounds.com message was with their little tag line at the end of the video: "We watch FOX so you don't have to." I believe by posting this on YouTube, they kind of proved the right's message, didn't they?
It just goes to show that even lefties watch FOX over Olberloon.

What?

So President Bush finally got to veto only his second bill as president. This one is no surprise, as he has said on numerous occasions that he would veto any troop funding bill that came across his desk that had a time-tabled troop withdrawal from Iraq. I'm not going to go into what would happen if the troops were pulled, because we all know; even Democrats that don't want to publicly admit it (although they already have by simply not having the guts to just "end the war")

For the record, Bush has also on many occasions explained his actions about the war and the invasion. I'm paraphrasing here: 1) The war is not a quick-fix, it will take years to combat terrorism around the globe 2) WMDs- see the many quotes and statements by EVERYONE (incl. President Clinton, Hillary, Reid, Pelosi, President Bush, Colin Powell, Rumsfeld, Dean, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, George Tenet (the new MSM darling), everybody.
3) Iraq: "We will make no distiction between the perpetrators of these cowardly acts and those who harbour them (Saddam Hussein knew al Queda was in Iraq, he attempted to obtain "yellowcake" from Nigeria...YES, IT IS TRUE and he sponsored the families of suicide bombers (if only after the fact) 4) We're not leaving because..."We will not tire, we not faulter and we will not fail."

Now onto some laughs about the "180 Days" the Democrats want to impose into a war. There are no words. Oh yeah...WHAT!?



Here's what the President had to say about his veto.



-Saddam Hussein was usurped from power and executed for crimes against humanity (done by IRAQIS)
-Iraqi has its first truly democratic government its history.
-Multiple plots broken up by the CIA, MI5 and other coalition intelligence communities since 2001
-Terrorist's finance network disrupted and frozen.
-Thousands of terrorists, insurgents, their leaders and allies killed or captured.
-Every time they set up a leader of al Quada in Iraq, we knock him down.
-Every day, more and more Iraqi citizens give tips that lead to insurgent deaths and the destruction of weapons and bomb factories; not to mention Iraqi citizens and insurgent operatives themselves, are gunning down al Quada members in the streets(there's something that the MSM damn sure won't tell you)
-Violence is down 80% in Baghdad since February. This, despite that only 20% of the troop surge has in fact arrived in the region as if this writing.
-No attacks in the continental US has occurred in almost six years.

But no progress.