Ahmadinejad Goes to College

When Bruce Dern's character, Long Hair Asa Watts shot and killed John Wayne's character, Wil Andersen in the 1972 release, The Cowboys, the left in America erupted with joy that the stand-up, brave, no nonsense figure-head played by the Duke had cinematically been silenced. Berkley University even went so far as to laud Dern with a standing ovation when he was invited to the far-left think tank.

Fast-forward 30+ years and we have another liberty-killing totalitarian-dictator (not that Dern was one, but a Marxist/communist hero all the same) receiving accolades at a prominent American educational institution.
Columbia University did just that with the invitation and whole-hearted acceptance of the Aqua-Velva man from Iran.

What suspends disbelief for me (and not the "force yourself" kind like Hillary Clinton) is not the anti-Semitic and "death to the West" drivel that came out his mouth, but the fact that he was invited in the first place. We've all heard the "Israel should be wiped off the map" derelict before, but why would an American university, even a lefty university allow a fountain of hatred like this to speak on American soil.
Don't give me that "free speech" stuff. These same marxists and their ideology weren't claiming free speech when Donald Rumsfeld, Ann Coulter, the Minutemen or the ROTC were invited to convey their messages. No, they were shouted down, their mics cut off, booed from start to finish and had pies thrown at them. All sure signs of the "tolerant" left.

Are we really going to grant people like this the platforms for espousing their propaganda, lies and hatred against us while our troops-the very same troops that he is killing with his al Queda-assisted weapons and bombs-are still in the theatre of battle. In case people don't know this (again, the MSM y'know) Iran is directly responsible for most (if not all) of the IEDs being fed to the enemy. Not to mention media wings and financial aid as well as explosives that kill our troops on a regular basis.

Have they already forgotten about the nine British soldiers that were kidnapped (and no, they were in Iraqi waters, as satellite photos have proven) had loaded weapons put to their collective heads, treated with torture (the loan female soldier was told she that the other prisoners had been released and she was the only one left and was forced to wear Islamic garb-a clear violation of the Geneva Convention...strange how people on the other side of the oceans are forgiven for that) How is that torture you say? According tho the left, anyone treated so that their "feelings" are hurt (i.e underwear on the head) is being tortured, right?

Some will inevitably say that Ahmadinejad had some"good points". So what? So did Hitler. Would they have invited him to speak as well? Sadly, yes. Disgusting. And apparently, 60 Minutes is giving AquaVelva Man a soapbox as well.
I mean if having "good points" means being a conduit of everything evil, then we are lost.
Examples?
Let's see, there was Benito Mussolini, he had some "good points", didn't he? He also made the trains run on time. How about Stalin, Pol Pot, Milosovich and Castro, they all at one time or another had "good points" as well, didn't they. Heck, while we're at it, why not throw in the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski or the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVie. Or how about Osama bin Laden or Charles Manson? Didn't they at one point or another have "good points"?

This was not about free speech. This was about attempting to the worst people in the world speaking time and a chance at warping and indoctrinating our youth to hate their own country.

What will the Mid-East media have to say about this? Is there any doubt? For starters, you can bet that al Jazeera and Iranian TV will be his conduit of propaganda. How much are you willing to bet that Columbia University President, Lee Bollinger's address will not get any airtime? Although I'm sure he was just pandering to his "powers that be" that told him he had to make some sort of stand so the right won't think all involved at Columbia U aren't totally lefty radicals (or at least to have something with which to argue with the right) either way, he's on the record.
I did enjoy certain passages of his opening comments, such as:

"...brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated" , "a petty and cruel dictator", "ridiculous" and "I doubt you have ...intellectual fortitude."

Cal Thomas has his take on this.

But to be fair, there were jeers for Hitler, Jr. . Not they will get much attention. But Ifear the cheers (head shake) will negate those anyhow.

WMDs Anyone?

New evidence is in about the so-called "non-existent" weapons of mass destruction. Apparently, along with the already available information regarding satellite photos of said weapons (what? you didn't hear about this from the MSM? The dickens you say) now, there's on the ground, human, eye-witness intel as well. As reported by real news agencies actually interested in the truth of the matter, Qusay and Uday Hussein gave the order to ship the weapons out into Syria right before they and their Hell-bound father raided the Iraqi bank(s). This was of course related to you by me and others, as well as a most reliable eye-witness to the reports, such as former Iraqi Air Force number two, George Sada. Daily Show interview link here. Republican American link here.

More info.

Go Get'em George

Gulianni can't be the only one anwering these creeps.

Mr. Adscam Has Really Stepped in it Now

So now that John Murtha has again profusely declined to apologize for besmirching the brave men of the Marines in the theatre of battle-remember, whom he said the marines killed Iraqi civilians "in cold blood".


Well, the FBI's unindicted co-conspirator captured was on video while being questioned by a young man by the name of Jason Mattera of the Young America's Foundation, who Murtha attempted to roll out the ol' tried and tested "I served and you didn't, so you aren't entitled to an opinion" excuse of the left before making his hasty escape in the nearest elevator; the news is now that four out of five of the Haditha marines in the "premeditated murder" case have been exonerated of ANY wrong-doing (with the fifth to be found not guilty any day now)



UPDATE: The fifth marine, Capt. Lucas McConnel (who wasn't even there, but was indicted anyway) has had the charges against him dropped.

For the life of me, I don't know why Murtha hasn't lost his position of power or why he hasn't been censured, but why oh why isn't there anytone following this guy around with a little shovel and baggies...or at least a muzzle.

Pay No Attention to the Frauds Behind the Curtain

You know, between her unwillingness to distance herself from MoveOn.org (along with every other presidential nominee) more or less calling General Patraeus a liar, her new idea on socialized health care and her associations with unsavory campaign contributors, the Republican presidential nominee is going to have a lot of ammunition come next November.

And why hasn't she given back the contributions she got from Hsu? Not that it matters, because she's just going to ask for the money to be re-donated anyway. Once again, what was that about the most "ethical Congress in history"? Be afraid, be very afraid.

Most Annoying Myth Poll

In keeping with the Newsbusters theme today, I thought I'd pass along a poll they've done. Now, generally, I don't like polls; as they can be skewed to get any answer you want, but I thought this one was interesting. As for my "favourite" annoying myth...hmm, ALL of them.

It's Not the 1/2 Hour News Hour...It Could be Better

It's a new segment from the people at Newsbusters.org. May I present the first three episodes of "NewsBusted". I'll try to update these as much as possible.

Ms. Coulter Nails it Yet Again

How could she be so wrong when she's usually right:

FROM THE HALLS OF MALIBU TO THE SHORES OF KENNEDY
September 12, 2007

Democrats claim Gen. David Petraeus' report to Congress on the surge was a put-up job with a pre-ordained conclusion. As if their response wasn't.

Democrats yearn for America to be defeated on the battlefield and oppose any use of the military -- except when they can find individual malcontents in the military willing to denounce the war and call for a humiliating retreat.

It's been the same naysaying from these people since before we even invaded Iraq -- despite the fact that their representatives in Congress voted in favor of that war.

Mark Bowden, author of "Black Hawk Down," warned Americans in the Aug. 30, 2002, Los Angeles Times of 60,000 to 100,000 dead American troops if we invaded Iraq -- comparing an Iraq war to Vietnam and a Russian battle in Chechnya. He said Iraqis would fight the Americans "tenaciously" and raised the prospect of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against our troops, an attack on Israel "and possibly in the United States."

On Sept. 14, 2002, The New York Times' Frank Rich warned of another al-Qaida attack in the U.S. if we invaded Iraq, noting that since "major al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been separated by intervals of 12 to 24 months, we will find out how much we've been distracted soon enough."

This week makes it six years since a major al-Qaida attack. I guess we weren't distracted. But it looks like al-Qaida has been.

Weeks before the invasion, in March 2003, the Times' Nicholas Kristof warned in a couple of columns that if we invaded Iraq, "the Turks, Kurds, Iraqis and Americans will all end up fighting over the oil fields of Kirkuk or Mosul." He said: "The world has turned its back on the Kurds more times than I can count, and there are signs that we're planning to betray them again." He announced that "the United States is perceived as the world's newest Libya."

The day after we invaded, Kristof cited a Muslim scholar for the proposition that if Iraqis felt defeated, they would embrace Islamic fundamentalism.

We took Baghdad in about 17 days flat with amazingly few casualties. There were no al-Qaida attacks in America, no attacks on Israel, no invasion by Turkey, no attacks on our troops with chemical weapons, no ayatollahs running Iraq. We didn't turn our back on the Kurds. There were certainly not 100,000 dead American troops.

But liberals soon began raising yet more pointless quibbles. For most of 2003, they said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Saddam Hussein. Then we captured Saddam, and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean complained that "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." (On the other hand, Howard Dean's failure to be elected president definitely made America safer.)

Next, liberals said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Then we killed al-Zarqawi and a half-dozen of his aides in an air raid. Then they said the war was a failure because ... you get the picture.

The Democrats' current talking point is that "there can be no military solution in Iraq without a political solution." But back when we were imposing a political solution, Democrats' talking point was that there could be no political solution without a military solution.

They said the first Iraqi election, scheduled for January 2005, wouldn't happen because there was no "security."

Noted Middle East peace and security expert Jimmy Carter told NBC's "Today" show in September 2004 that he was confident the elections would not take place. "I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there," he said.

At the first presidential debate in September 2004, Sen. John Kerry used his closing statement to criticize the scheduled Iraqi elections saying: "They can't have an election right now. The president's not getting the job done."

About the same time, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he doubted there would be elections in January, saying, "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now" -- although he may have been referring here to a possible vote of the U.N. Security Council.

In October 2004, Nicholas Lemann wrote in The New Yorker that "it may not be safe enough there for the scheduled elections to be held in January."

Days before the first election in Iraq in January 2005, The New York Times began an article on the election this way:

"Hejaz Hazim, a computer engineer who could not find a job in computers and now cleans clothes, slammed his iron into a dress shirt the other day and let off a burst of steam about the coming election.
"'This election is bogus,' Mr. Hazim said. 'There is no drinking water in this city. There is no security. Why should I vote?'"

If there's a more artful articulation of the time-honored linkage between drinking water and voting, I have yet to hear it.

And then, as scheduled, in January 2005, millions of citizens in a country that has never had a free election risked their lives to cast ballots in a free democratic election. They've voted twice more since then.

Now our forces are killing lots of al-Qaida jihadists, preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and giving democracy in Iraq a chance -- and Democrats say we are "losing" this war. I think that's a direct quote from their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, but it may have been the Osama bin Laden tape released this week. I always get those two confused.

OK, they knew what Petraeus was going to say. But we knew what the Democrats were going to say. If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid.

Amen.

Baghdad Susie

Move over (or perhaps Move on) Jane Fonda, there's a new contender to the enemy appeaser throne.

Susan Saradon is now claiming that American soldiers are being ordered to kill Iraqi women and children in the event that they may be killed by superiors themselves. I kid you not. Newsbusters has the story via the Washington Post.

Here's a great rebuttle from a commentor on the Newbusters thread:

Elian Gonzo movie?
September 14, 2007 - 15:40 ET by Mica the Magnificent

For a moment, I thought her new movie was titled 'Valley of Elian,' as in Elian Gonzalez.

Valley of Elian - (review) - A story about a young boy whose mother perished en route to America, he made it ashore and lived happily in freedom with loving relatives. But when the fist of communist leader Fidel Castro shook in front of the face of the president of the United States, Bill Clinton pissed in his pants and ordered his henchwoman Janet (I'm not a f***en man, damn it!) Reno to whisk the boy away in the darkness of night to ensure the child a life of misery and poverty. He now works in a 'valley' digging fresh graves for Cuban citizens who talk too much.

Hey Susan. Where's that movie?

Great.
I mean, unlike all the rest of these Hollyweird-types who bad-mouth the U.S. every chance they get, while continuing to bask in the freedom (not to mention financial success) that America affords them, at least perrenial America-hater, Johnny Depp puts his money where his mouth is by living abroad. Although with France now finally seeing the error of its ways, he may want to consider a change of address, to say...Cuba or Venezuela.

This Striesand Guy is a Jagoff of Astonomical Proportions

James Brolin (aka Mr. Barbra Streisand) pray I don't ever run into you, you insensitive, creepy, a**hole!
Check this out if you dare.

Folks, do you really need any more proof that the left (well, most of them, and especially those Hollyweird "elites") just don't care?

But I Still Don't Like Him

This doesn't mean all is forgiven with Mayor Maher of Leftyville, but still, good for him.

UPDATE: Video added.

Olby, Olby, Olby

Obviously, this slip was unintentional. And since he is transparently an anti-catholic, lefty-loon, secular progressive, I was wondering if he did his penence and flogged himself about it, but then I thought better of it.



Here's Newsbusters take on it.

Take That Senator!

Shrillery tried her best at pandering to the nutroots at MoveOn and all the rest of the wacky best, but General Patraeus would have none of it and let her know in no certain terms that he and the president are running this show. Oh, and that Congress was originally in on it at the ground floor.

See, Hillary is a Liar, Too

Well, I think the jig is up. It appears that a Dem finally let it slip that Bush was indeed NOT lying about Iraq and WMDs. She tries to cover it up with a little nervous laughter (that went on a little too long, as well) but the cat is out of the bag none the less.

Hatch Tells it Like it Is

We really, REALLY need more Republicans to stand up to the moonbats of the left way more often, like this.

Pelosi a "Failure" and Needs Reid to Bail Her Out

This is soooo apropo. Gotta love it. By the way, did she even answer the question?

Does Chris Matthews Reconize How Truly Idiotic He Really Is?

So A-Mess-NBC's Chris Matthews once again had the gaul to say that General David Patraeus was (in so many words)lying and that his plan/and or advice to Congress and the president to withdraw troops to pre-surge levels by March of '08' was "thought up months ago" and is simply "insincere window-dressing". How more bias and irresponsible can these morons get? I thought that's what these jackasses in Congress and in the MSM wanted for the last five years, an honest assessment of the situation in Iraq from someone that everyone could trust.

Remember, Congress unanimously confirmed the general as our guy on the ground. I guess they'd prefer to keep their regular source of information of the going-on there from lefty politicians and reporters that never leave the green-zone and their hotel balconies. Do you have any doubt that if Patraeus had said Iraq was a total failure and we needed to withdraw all troops immediately, that they would hang on and embrace every word that escaped his lips. Disgusting!

Never Forget

I don't have to tell you that today is the sixth anniversary of the terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001. Just a friendly reminder to say a little prayer for the victims and their families of that tragic day. Also, please be sure to send a little prayer of protection to our troops in the theatre of battle. Writing to one or more of them directly to let them know how much their service means to us would perhaps be even better. God bless the the victims and their families.

Never forget.

The Patraeus Report

So today's the day that General David Patraeus (or "Betray-us) as the Traitor Times of New York has sickenly dubbed him as they claim that the general has "cooked the books"-even though he has an exemplory record of service and isn't running for office here people, but of course according to the pro-genocide party, he's just a total Republican shill) makes his Iraq progress report to Congress. I don't think I'll be surprised by anything he will have to say. I fully expect "substantial military progress" and "lacking political progress"

Of course, the Dems have already launched a pre-emptive attack on the man (instead of just the report itself) by pandering to the aforementioned NYT article along with Upchuck Schumer's "the violence in Anbar province has decreased in spite of the surge, not because of it." What a political and intellectual coward. They know things are improving militarily and if that gives the President any credibility what so ever, they, of course, have to automatically deny any and all progress and/or positive results. Do you doubt for one second if Patraeus says the whole thing is a wash, the Dems will halt their "he's incompetent (pot-kettle-black) and not to be believed rhetoric? As far as I'm concerned, they can keep it up, for it will only gain more seats for ther Republicans, especially the big one that resides in the White House. The President's numbers are slowly going up, while the Democrat-led congress' are quickly goping down.

Anyone hear the transcript of Usama bin Laden's newest tirade? Global Warming? What the hell is that about? If his diatribes weren't in step with the Dems talking points before, they sure are now. Eisenhower preceded Kennedy as president, huh? O.k. Binny, nice re-writing of history. I thought this guy was supposed to be smart. Way to go.

That's it for today. Short but sweet.