Wednesday, November 30, 2005

I'm Still Around But Still Down

I just wanted to put up a quick post to let everyone know I'm still around but still have computer issues. The parts are on order, so it shouldn't be too long before I can post on a more regular basis.

I'm still jumping on computers here and there to put up the occasional post, but this whole episode has been frustrating to say the least. I hope everyone will keep checking back and be patient with me, but I know there's not much use in going back to the same blog over and over again and expecting different results. (Ok, I stole part of that line)

Thank you for your patience!

Technorati talk bubble

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

The X on Cheney

(Via Michelle Malkin)

The blogosphere has been in complete meltdown mode concerning the mysterious 'X' that was briefly superimposed over Vice President Dick Cheney's face during CNN's live coverage of his speech on Monday. I thought I would offer some non-expert analysis having operated video switchers during live productions both on the job and freelancing, so take it for whatever it's worth. I might also add that none of the work I've done rises to the level of complexity that is performed by the networks or any of the other cable news providers, however basic principles should still apply.

While it is possible that a technical glitch was responsible for what happened yesterday, I find it unlikely. Most major networks use Grass Valley switchers or something very comparable. In fact, CNN used the Grass Valley 4000 switcher during the 2004 Election Coverage, and I suspect they also use a similar, if not more elaborate model in their various studios worldwide. The reason: They are an industry standard and are extremely versatile and reliable. They are rock solid, for lack of a better term. They'd better be, considering the fact that you will drop the better part of a half million dollars to purchase the most sophisticated video switchers available in the market.

This is my long way of saying it would be extremely unlikely that the switcher was the culprit. It simply didn't do anything it was not asked or programmed to do. At some point, human interaction most likely caused what occurred yesterday.

Am I saying that what happened was intentional or deliberate? Not at all! I have no way of proving that one-way or the other. What I am saying, however, is this: The "technical malfunction" excuse given by CNN doesn't fly with me. I am fairly certain human error or "technician malfunction" came into play, whether intentional or not. At some point, the switcher would have to have been programmed or manually manipulated to perform the task. Period.

I did not see what happened as it was broadcast, so I have to conclude that if it occurred once, it was probably due to unintentional human error. If it was repetitive, it was probably done intentionally. Also, not knowing how obvious the ‘X’ was when broadcast or how long it was displayed, understand these are merely assumptions about what I think may have happened, not expert analysis or opinion.

The video you see on the screen actually has at least four layers: First, there is the live feed showing Vice President Cheney making his speech. On top of that you have the CNN graphic with the quote box that no doubt changes as the speech progresses. You then have a scroll bar on the bottom and a stock market indicator on the bottom right that changes at regular intervals. There is also the "Live" indicator in the upper left corner. The coverage is graphics intense to say the least, but not much different than any other major news broadcast.

The X that appears is nothing more than another layer added on top of the others, but something strikes me as odd about it in particular. It is a graphic that should never appear on screen regardless of circumstances. It is a marker that has been revealed to contain the text "Transition begins after 5 frames of black".

Put simply, this looks to me like a reminder to the operator to run 5 frames of black prior to transitioning to the next element, most likely a commercial. This is not something that should ever be seen by the viewer. If you consider that this was live coverage of a speech, the time for the transition to occur could not be pinpointed specifically, assuming the intent was to provide complete uninterrupted coverage of the speech. It just strikes me as odd that it appeared at all. That it appeared when it did seems a bit strange.

If you want to go the conspiracy theory route, then this would be a possible theory:

Video is broadcast at a rate of approximately 30 frames per second in NTSC. If you know that, then you would also know you can slip practically anything you want into a few frames each second and it will be practically invisible to the average viewer other than maybe a tiny flicker or unknown anomaly. This is how subliminal messages were supposed to work, if you buy into that sort of thing.

So if you broadcast the X over Dick Cheney's face a few times it goes practically unnoticed by the public, but you get a copy of the speech and play it back frame by frame for your friends at a Bush/Cheney bash and get a few cheap laughs.

You get caught by Drudge, who notices the anomaly and is much smarter than you think he is, and you go into cover mode and blame it on a glitch. Let's face it you are CNN! You've never been caught doing anything underhanded before, right?

The truth is, we'll probably never know exactly what caused it, but isn't it ironic that CNN has put themselves in a position in which their credibility is constantly challenged based on past behavior? If CNN were viewed as an unbiased news source, this probably would have gone unnoticed.

I would also like those who have second-guessed Ian, to get off his back. He provided the slow motion video at The Political Teen, but has been questioned as to its authenticity. I have never seen any indication that he would do anything deceiving and he provides a great service to all loggers. Keep in mind; the highest quality video you can hope to expect is no more than 15 frames per second without huge bandwidth requirements and unusually slow load times. The fact that his videos don't provide a full 30 frames per second proves absolutely no ill intent or underhandedness whatsoever. It's just the reality of video streaming.

Technorati talk bubble

Friday, November 18, 2005

The Weapons Game

There are those from one end of the political spectrum to the other, who have said I am naïve for believing WMD ever existed in Iraq and who were quick to jump on the “No WMD” bandwagon as soon as faulty intelligence could be used as the scapegoat.

The only difference between the two ends has been the way in which the issue has been framed: Those on the right say President Bush was “misled due to faulty intelligence” while those on the left say President Bush “used faulty intelligence to mislead us into war”. I maintain to this day that both views are shortsighted because both view the issue though a political prism instead of from a realistic and common sense perspective.

While I freely admit the available intelligence probably contained some errors, I don’t automatically assume those errors destroy the overall credibility of that same intelligence. I believe all intelligence contains errors, and would be of little use if every minute detail had to be fact checked prior to being deemed actionable. The overall picture the intelligence paints is much more important than a few errant brush strokes.

With that said, it was refreshing to read Jamie Glazov’s interview with Bill Tierney at Frontpage yesterday. Tierney has extensive first hand knowledge of Saddam Hussein’s weapons program as evidenced by this list of accomplishments:

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Tierney, a former military intelligence officer and Arabic speaker who worked at Guantanamo Bay in 2002 and as a counter-infiltration operator in Baghdad in 2004. He was also an inspector (1996-1998) for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) for overseeing the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles in Iraq. He worked on the most intrusive inspections during this period and either participated in or planned inspections that led to four of the seventeen resolutions against Iraq.

In the interview with Jamie Glazov, Tierney details the shell game Hussein played with weapons inspectors:

I came into the inspection program as an interrogator and Arabic linguist, so I crossed over various fields and spotted various deception techniques that may not have been noticed in only one field, such as chemical or biological. For instance, the Iraqis would ask in very reasonable tones that questionable documents be set aside until the end of the day, when a discussion would determine what was truly of interest to UNSCOM. The chief inspector, not wanting to appear like a knuckle-dragging ogre, would agree. Instead of setting the documents on a table in a stack, the Iraqis would set them side to side, filling the entire table top, and would place the most explosive documents on the edge of the table. At some point they would flood the room with people, and in the confusion abscond with the revealing documents.

Tierney goes on to detail a specific incident in which he found a critical document discussing Atomic projects only to have it disappear when the chief inspector fell for the “reasonable request” to lay it on the table for later discussion.

Another tactic used by Saddam Hussein to avoid inspection was to hold the inspectors at gunpoint outside the facility in question as his minions moved the material in question out the back door:

A good example of this was the inspection of the 2nd Armored Battalion of the Special Republican Guards in June 1997. We came in from three directions, because we knew the Iraqis had an operational center that tracked our movement and issued warnings. The vehicle I was in arrived at the gate first. There were two guards when we arrived, and over twenty within a minute, all extremely nervous.

The Iraqis had stopped the third group of our inspection team before it could close off the back of the installation. A few minutes later, a soldier came from inside the installation, and all the other guards gathered around him. He said something, there was a big laugh, and all the guards relaxed. A few moments later there was a radio call from the team that had been stopped short. They could here truck engines through the tall (10”) grass in that area. When we were finally allowed in, our team went to the back gate. The Iraqis claimed the gate hadn’t been opened in months, but there was freshly ground rust at the gate hinges. There was a photo from overhead showing tractor trailers with missiles in the trailers leaving the facility.

Tierney also notes an occasion in which the inspection team caught the Iraqis by surprise by rushing to a location while leaving one vehicle behind in an elevated position to watch the Iraqis remove the weapons from the facility.

Tierney believes the inspections process was flawed, not the pre-war intelligence. The process gave Saddam Hussein the ability and the time not only to hide the weapons ahead of the inspectors, but also to remove them from the country prior to the U.S. led invasion. Consider the following:

While working counter-infiltration in Baghdad, I noticed a pattern among infiltrators that their cover stories would start around Summer or Fall of 2002. From this and other observations, I believe Saddam planned for a U.S. invasion after President Bush’s speech at West Point in 2002. One of the steps taken was to prepare the younger generation of the security services with English so they could infiltrate our ranks, another was either to destroy or move WMDs to other countries, principally Syria…

There is also the practicality of weapons inspections/weapons hunts. After seventeen resolutions pleading with the Iraqis to be nice, the light bulb still didn’t go off that the entire concept is fundamentally flawed…

In Iraq’s case, the lakes and rivers were the toilet, and Syria was the back door. Even though there was imagery showing an inordinate amount of traffic into Syria prior to the inspections, and there were other indicators of government control of commercial trucking that could be used to ship the weapons to Syria, from the ICs point of view, if there is no positive evidence that the movement occurred, it never happened. This conclusion is the consequence of confusing litigation with intelligence. Litigation depends on evidence, intelligence depends on indicators.

The last entry in particular demonstrates that intelligence does not have to be perfect to be relevant. It does, however, have to be acted on to be useful. How is it that intelligence can be considered faulty if it was largely discounted due to a lack of “positive evidence”? How would one get this “positive evidence” other than to stop a truck or a ship once in a while to find out for sure? One must follow the intelligence where it leads in order to prove or disprove its reliability.

All of the indicators and countless eyewitness accounts pointed to Saddam Hussein not only having a weapons program, but also having the luxury of moving those weapons around at will. It is extremely unlikely that even he was bold enough to move them around without going to great lengths to disguise the cargo.

The sad fact is Saddam was in complete control of the process that was intended to eliminate his own WMD program. Only a fool or a political hack can come to the conclusion that these weapons either disappeared without a trace or were never there in the first place. The weapons were there but the inspections process failed to eliminate them or stop their movement.

Think about it this way: If Saddam was able to keep inspectors at bay by simply having guns drawn on them while his cronies finished moving the weapons out the back door, is it not also plausible that he moved them to Syria or some other location outside of Iraq? Is there really any doubt that, given the time he had between the removal of the inspectors and the U.S led invasion, Saddam could have moved the WMD practically anywhere he wanted? He was already doing that while the inspectors were there!

The only way to make the case that Saddam Hussein had no WMD program is to prove, in the words of Bill Tierney, that Saddam “had a change of heart”.

Bill Tierney’s not buying it, and frankly, neither am I.

Tags: , , , ,

Thanks to: Stop the ACLU, Cao's Blog, California Conservative, Blue State Conservatives, The Political Teen, Wizbang Blog

Technorati talk bubble

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Just Google It Update: Making it Easy!

Just Click on the graphic to see the results!

(Via:Junkyard Blog)

Technorati talk bubble

Monday, November 14, 2005

Just Google It

Bryan Preston of Junkyard Blog has a Tech Central Station Column today that blows the lid off of the “Bush Lied” meme:

The president could have destroyed the entire "Bush Lied" attack a long time ago. And he could have done it in a way that showed what a wired, technologically savvy president he is; and in a way that would have simplified his side of the debate down to three words and a number:

Google "Clinton Iraq 1998"

It only takes three words for the Google Search engine to demonstrate how pathetic the “Bush Lied” claims are. An example from the very first article returned by the search:

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.


"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

I wonder when the “Clinton Lied” meme will start. I’m not holding my breath!

Technorati talk bubble

Abortion Not A Constitutional Right

(Via The Washington Times)

Bill Sammon reports on the contents of a 1985 document obtained by The Washington Times that will probably comfort conservatives and send liberals over the cliff:

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" in a 1985 document obtained by The Washington Times.

"I personally believe very strongly" in this legal position, Mr. Alito wrote on his application to become deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin I. Meese III.

The document, which is likely to inflame liberals who oppose Judge Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, is among many that the White House will release today from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

In direct, unambiguous language, the young career lawyer who served as assistant to Solicitor General Rex E. Lee, demonstrated his conservative bona fides as he sought to become a political appointee in the Reagan administration.

"I am and always have been a conservative," he wrote in an attachment to the noncareer appointment form that he sent to the Presidential Personnel Office. "I am a lifelong registered Republican."

But his statements against abortion and affirmative action might cause him headaches from Democrats and liberals as he prepares for confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, scheduled for January.

"It has been an honor and source of personal satisfaction for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during President Reagan's administration and to help to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly," he wrote.

"I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." 

It will really be interesting to see whether the Democrats try to derail Alito’s nomination based solely on what they think he will do regarding Roe v. Wade. Of course, no matter how the Democrats frame the issue, abortion is not and probably will never be a constitutional right. I think most Americans, regardless of their stance on the issue, realize this.

Alito is absolutely right when he says, “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion”. The ruling in Roe v. Wade was a court decision, not a constitutional amendment. Since the courts cannot amend the Constitution, and the word “abortion” appears nowhere within it’s text, the issue cannot be argued honestly from a constitutional perspective.

One could even make the argument that it is unlikely that Alito will ever rule on the constitutionality of abortion for the same reasons. If an amendment to the Constitution someday allows abortion, then Alito would have a basis to rule on it. Alito’s stance as to the morality of abortion should have no impact whatsoever on his ability to serve as a Supreme Court justice, assuming his rulings deal with constitutionality and not his personal views.

My personal opinion is that abortion could never be a protected constitutional right simply because granting rights to one party (the mother) automatically cancels out the rights of the other (the unborn child). The Constitution protects the rights of all citizens and over the years amendments have been added to guarantee protections to groups who did not previously have the same rights as others. These amendments have never restricted the rights of one group in order to grant rights to another.

If the Democrats try to fight the Alito nomination from a Roe v. Wade perspective, they will lose. I suspect Roe v. Wade is just the tip of the iceberg. If that’s all they have to fight the nomination with, they will have a very tough time turning public opinion in their favor and will quite possibly add further to their political misfortune.

Tags: , , ,

Technorati talk bubble

Friday, November 11, 2005

Computer Crash Update!

I have taken my computer to someone for repair, and I have some bad news. My hard drive and my keyboard will have to be replaced for my laptop to be operational again.

The problem was caused by a drink spill that I did not realize had compromised my system. A small amount of liquid splashed onto my keyboard from about 3 feet from where I was sitting. I wiped what appeared to be only a few tiny drops from my keyboard and thought no more about it. Some of those drops seeped into the keyboard and caused a short. As luck would have it, some also made it down to my hard drive. If I didn't have bad luck....

Fortunately, my motherboard was spared, so it could have been a lot worse. As far as blogging is concerned however, I am essentially shut down. I am posting here and there as I can find a computer, but posting will be light for the next few days. This may be disappointing for some and possibly a relief for others, but for me it is absolutely miserable.

Blogging has become a part of my life and a great outlet for my frustrations, so not being able to sit down at the computer and post at will is a little hard to deal with. It is also frustrating not being able to keep up with what my "virtual" friends are writing. I will post as I can, but it will be light for the next few days.
I hope you will excuse any spelling and gramatical errors in this post as I am on, you guessed it, a borrowed computer. In the meantime, keep checking in. If I'm not here, surf my blogroll and check out what my favorite bloggers are saying.
(If you need a Pundit with two P's in the title, you can't go wrong with Partisan Pundit.)

If I have learned anything, it is this:

Never discount a few drops of liquid on the keyboard of a laptop. Even if you think you got it all and there wasn't enough to cause a problem, Murphy's law should tell you it will find it's way to some crucial component of your computer.

By the way, in case you were wondering, the liquid in question was sweet tea. I am a Southerner, you know!

(Also, if you happen to see any free laptops falling from the sky, please let me know.)

Technorati talk bubble

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Government Shares Blame for High Gasoline Prices

Five executives of “Big Oil” were invited to Washington to testify before a joint committee trying to get to the bottom of their record 3rd Quarter profits in the wake of supply shortages resulting mainly from the recent hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico.

Via (Fox News)

Asked to account for the record profits — said to be more than $32 billion in the third quarter among the five oil companies who appeared on Capitol Hill Wednesday — oil executives say it's a simple case of supply and demand.

"There are no quick fixes and there are no short-term solutions," said ExxonMobil Chairman Lee Raymond. Rather, he said, it is important to have a stable environment for an industry that is among the most volatile in the marketplace.

Raymond was joined by the executives of Chevron Corp., BP America, ConocoPhillips, and Shell Oil Co. in testimony before a joint meeting of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

They offered their suggestions on how to increase supply — exploration for new fuels, additional refineries and research and development. But in any of those pursuits, government regulation won't help, they said.

I’ll be the first to say I hate high gas prices as much as anyone else does, but for some members of Congress to sit there acting all high and mighty while placing all of the blame on oil companies is, quite simply, asinine. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say the government bears a considerably greater responsibility for the problem than do the oil companies.

I’m not saying price gouging does not occur. In fact, it probably does, but on a limited scale. It certainly cannot account for a rise in prices as dramatic as what occurred in the wake of the recent hurricanes. Other factors come into play, namely taxes and government regulation.

The federal government adds 18.4 cents per gallon to each gallon of gas we buy. Then you add in state taxes, which average 20.8 cents per gallon for gasoline and 21.3 cents per gallon for diesel. The range for gasoline is from 7.5 cents per gallon in Georgia to 32.1 cents per gallon in Wisconsin, and for diesel its 7.5 cents in Georgia to 35.1 in Pennsylvania. In most states, there are also additional taxes levied by city and county governments that also increase the tax on each gallon of gasoline considerably.

This brings to mind the biblical parable in which Jesus told us to remove the log in our own eye before removing the speck in another’s eye. The government at all levels are responsible for adding from 25.9 to 53.5 cents per gallon to each gallon pumped before
adding in other imbedded taxes that vary depending upon where you buy gas.
And what is one solution offered to stop rising gas prices?

One windfall profits proposal in Congress that would place a 50 percent tax on profits received on oil sold above $40 per barrel was criticized both by oil executives and some lawmakers. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., is the chief sponsor of that proposal.

That’s right! A 50% tax penalty on the oil companies that would simply go toward someone’s pet project or an additional government program. The consumer would pay the additional tax because oil companies cannot operate within an arbitrary price cap. When the penalty is levied, the oil company has to raise prices on the consumer to make up the difference. When the government messes around with the free market and tries to control prices, the consumer always pays the price. The principle of supply and demand will determine where the price should be and whether that price is too high.

When you add government and environmental regulations, area specific blends that force the prices even higher, refuse to allow new refineries to be built in the United States, and limit where the oil companies can drill for oil, it makes one wonder why the oil executives aren’t the ones questioning Congress about rising fuel prices.


Technorati talk bubble

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

United Nations Seeks Control of Internet

The United Nations will attempt to take over control of the Internet from the United States during the U.N. sponsored World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia later this month. Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota thinks granting control of the Internet to the U.N. would be a grave mistake. He made the reasons why very clear in his article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal:

The Internet faces a grave threat. We must defend it. We need to preserve this unprecedented communications and informational medium, which fosters freedom and enterprise. We can not allow the U.N. to control the Internet.

The threat is posed by the U.N.-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society taking place later this month in Tunisia. At the WSIS preparatory meeting weeks ago, it became apparent that the agenda had been transformed. Instead of discussing how to place $100 laptops in the hands of the world's children, the delegates schemed to transfer Internet control into the hands of intrigue-plagued bureaucracies.

The low point of that planning session was the European Union's shameful endorsement of a plan favored by China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Cuba that would terminate the historic U.S. role in Internet government oversight, relegate both private enterprise and non-governmental organizations to the sidelines, and place a U.N.-dominated group in charge of the Internet's operation and future. The EU's declaration was a "political coup," according to London's Guardian newspaper, which predicted that once the world's governments awarded themselves control of the Internet, the U.S. would be able to do little but acquiesce.

Do we really want our freedom of speech and access to information controlled by a plan endorsed by the likes of China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba? I surely don’t. We shouldn’t relinquish control of anything, internet or otherwise, to a group of countries best known for human rights abuses and speech regulation, nor to an organization such as the U.N. that turns a blind eye to these abuses and offers the representatives of these countries positions of high honor within their organization.

Senator Coleman also notes:

Nations like China, which are behind the U.N. plan to take control, censor their citizens' Web sites, and monitor emails and chat rooms to stifle legitimate political dissent. U.N. control would shield this kind of activity from scrutiny and criticism…

Allowing Internet governance to be politicized under U.N. auspices would raise a variety of dangers. First, it is wantonly irresponsible to tolerate any expansion of the U.N.'s portfolio before that abysmally managed and sometimes-corrupt institution undertakes sweeping, overdue reform. It would be equal folly to let Icann be displaced by the U.N.'s International Telecommunication Union, a regulatory redoubt for those state telephone monopolies most threatened by the voice over Internet protocol revolution.

Also, as we expand the global digital economy, the stability and reliability of the Internet becomes a matter of security. Technical minutiae have profound implications for competition and trade, democratization, free expression and access to information, privacy and intellectual-property protection.

Senator Coleman is right! If we allow an organization as corrupt and as irresponsible as the U.N. to gain control over the Internet, we will live to regret it.


Thanks to: Stop the ACLU, Mudville Gazette, Outside the Beltway , NIF

Technorati talk bubble

Monday, November 07, 2005

Jimmy Massey: Prevaricator Extraordinaire

(Via Michelle Malkin)

Ron Harris of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has the story of Jimmy Massey, a former Marine Staff Sergeant who has been making claims that he and other Marines committed atrocities in Iraq. Unfortunately, Harris is the only reporter I have seen so far that has been willing to question his claims. As it turns out, Jimmy Massey either has a very active imagination or is a habitual liar:

For more than a year, former Marine Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey has been telling anybody who will listen about the atrocities that he and other Marines committed in Iraq.

In scores of newspaper, magazine and broadcast stories, at a Canadian immigration hearing and in numerous speeches across the country, Massey has told how he and other Marines recklessly, sometimes intentionally, killed dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians.

Among his claims:

Marines fired on and killed peaceful Iraqi protesters.

Americans shot a 4-year-old Iraqi girl in the head.

A tractor-trailer was filled with the bodies of civilian men, women and children killed by American artillery.

Massey's claims have gained him celebrity. Last month, Massey's book, "Kill, Kill, Kill," was released in France. His allegations have been reported in nationwide publications such as Vanity Fair and USA Today, as well as numerous broadcast reports. Earlier this year, he joined the anti-war bus tour of Cindy Sheehan, and he's spoken at Cornell and Syracuse universities, among others.

News organizations worldwide published or broadcast Massey's claims without any corroboration and in most cases without investigation. Outside of the Marines, almost no one has seriously questioned whether Massey, a 12-year veteran who was honorably discharged, was telling the truth.

He wasn't.

Each of his claims is either demonstrably false or exaggerated - according to his fellow Marines, Massey's own admissions, and the five journalists who were embedded with Massey's unit, including a reporter and photographer from the Post-Dispatch and reporters from The Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal.

In what is yet another glaring example of the mainstream media establishment failing to fact check stories that further their own ideological agenda, they have allowed Massey’s version of events to be perceived by news consumers as the absolute truth.

Massey’s claims don’t appear to be difficult to challenge, and, in fact, were challenged by his fellow Marines and five embedded journalists who were there. It is unconscionable to me that the mainstream media at-large would accept Massey’s claims at face value without even a minimum of verification. Thank God there are still journalists like Ron Harris who actually believe fact checking is a critical duty in responsible journalism.

If the mainstream media had actually done their homework, they would have discovered they had to look no further than Jimmy Massey himself, to provide doubts as to the validity of his claims. The only consistency in any of Massey’s recollections is the inconsistencies.

Ron Harris details the metamorphosis Massey’s recollections have gone through and points out changes in ages of victims, locations of events, casualty numbers, and Massey’s own admissions that he did not personally witness much of what he claims.

Massey seems to back track whenever he is challenged on the validity of his claims, which begs two questions: If the facts are the supposed goal in newsgathering, why was the attempt not made to discover them in this particular case? If the mainstream media is able to chase down “facts” involving all things Bush, why is it so difficult to chase down facts from an anti-war protester who will sing like a canary when backed into a corner? I’m fairly confident I already know the answer.

Michelle Malkin was correct when she said this story has legs. With the notable exception of Ron Harris and a handful of others in the mainstream media, those legs will be found primarily in the blogosphere.

Massey may be getting a pass from the mainstream media while he is channeling John Kerry and having his own "Christmas in Cambodia" moment, but the blogosphere is an entirely different animal. As John Kerry himself can no doubt attest, the blogosphere is a tenacious bulldog with a bite every bit as vicious as its bark.

Tags: ,,,

Thanks to: Beltway Traffic Jam , NIF, Drop Zone Open Post

Technorati talk bubble

Sunday, November 06, 2005


I was surfing through my blogroll last night when it happened. Crash! It was unlike anything I have ever experienced in the many years I have used computers, and that includes both MAC and PC. I'm by no means an expert on either, but I can usually do almost anything I want to do on either platform. I had never seen anything like this before. It came right out of the blue with no warning whatsoever. Both my virus and spyware protection were up to date and the system was clean at the time the problem occurred.

I had actually clicked on a link to look at some moonbat photos that I found on Michelle Malkin's blog and when I hit the back button, my computer froze. It then went completely dark, and finally a blue screen popped up with a line at the end that was particularly distressing: Memory dump successful.

I have no idea what caused this, but I know darn well I didn't give anyone or anything permission to do this. It happened before I could do anything to stop it. No matter what I did, I could not get back into my computer and save any information. Everything I tried would eventually bring me back to the same message every time I did a hard reboot. I tested the hard drive and was given the message it had failed, I tried to boot up from a disc and that failed. I simply could not get back in no matter what I tried.

I did the next logical thing, which was to contact support. They seemed thrilled to inform me that my warranty had indeed expired, and they would be glad to help me for the low price of $45 or I could opt for $99 dollars for the year. All this for the privledge of talking to someone from India who would take a week or so to tell me my hard drive would need to be reformatted. I told the obviously stunned person on the other end of the line that neither option was acceptable. I would track down the solution by other means and would get back to them only as a last resort.

Let me be perfectly clear: I have no problem whatsoever with people who happen to speak in an Indian accent. I'm sure if we were talking about the weather, or any other topic that didn't involve DOS commands, I would have been just fine with it. To be totally honest, my fairly thick southern accent just doesn't translate into Indian very well, and vice versa. I felt I had enough problems already and didn't have the time or patience to add, "Could you repeat that?" to the mix

It is at this point that I made two critical decisons, neither of which may have been very smart.

1. I decided that I did not have a spare $45 to pay for someone to tell me in a foreign language that I would have to reformat my hard drive. I'm sure there is a possibility that something could have been done to save my data, but logic (possibly flawed) told me that if my memory had been dumped, there was probably nothing left to recover. I could get the original applications back using my install disks, I figured.

2. I decided if the only solution left was to reformat my hard drive and reload my software, I could do that myself and save the $45. I thought the money could be used much more wisely as a bargaining tool while begging my wife's forgiveness(i.e. dinner, movie, etc.)

So, I spent the afternoon reformatting the hard drive and reinstalling the operating system and have finally managed to get everything back. Everything, that is, that was on the computer when I initially purchased it two years ago. Everything since is history. Fortunately, we made back-up copies of digital photos and other critical files, but lost a lot of other things that I wish we still had. Thankfully, my blog posts don't reside on my computer so I didn't lose any posts.

The good news is my hard drive has apparently survived whatever it is that attacked it even though two years worth of saved data that may or may not have been useful, is gone. I think it will be much easier to live without the lost data than it would have been to find the money to purchase a new computer. All in all, it could have been much worse even though it didn't appear that way early this morning.

Needless to say, I don't have anything meaningful to post today as a result of all this. I will try to post again starting tomorrow, but am going to have to be extemely careful until I get my virus protection back up and running.

If anyone has any ideas as to what may have caused this, I would love to know. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of information about the problem other than the memory dump I referred to earlier. Feel free to call me a fool or to reassure me that I did the only thing left to do. I can take it either way. Maybe the law of averages caught up to me and I had just never witnessed a violent crash in the past, but it doesn't seem logical that it would occur without some type of prior indicator of a potential problem.

My sincere hope is that someone else can avoid the same fate I experienced, so I would be glad to post any information I receive about the problem, along with potential solutions that may have been wiser than the choice I made. I have a gut feeling that it was an isolated problem that affected only my computer, but if there is some type of worm or virus that may be causing this, it would be good information to spread around.

See ya'll tomorrow (I hope!)

Technorati talk bubble

Saturday, November 05, 2005

Centcom News Roundup #3

Reports From The Front Lines You May Not Have Read In The Headlines:

(Via Centcom)
CAMP BLUE DIAMOND, AR RAMADI, Iraq – Approximately 1,000 Iraqi Army Soldiers and 2,500 Marines, Sailors and Soldiers continue Operation Steel Curtain in Husaybah, near the Iraq-Syria border.The force is moving through the city to restore security along the border and destroy the al Qaeda in Iraq's terrorist network operating throughout the region. Husaybah is one of the main centers for transiting foreign fighters, equipment and money into Iraq.The Iraqi and U.S. forces have encountered sporadic resistance – mostly small arms fire and improvised explosive devices - from al Qaeda in Iraq-led terrorists throughout the city. Members of the Iraqi scout platoons, specially recruited soldiers from the al Qaim region, are embedded with U.S. and Iraqi infantry companies and are helping to identify terrorist strong points and areas known to contain these homemade bombs...More
CAMP BLUE DIAMOND, AR RAMADI, Iraq – Approximately 2,500 Marines, Sailors and Soldiers with Regimental Combat Team-2 and 1,000 Iraqi Army Soldiers began Operation Al Hajip Elfulathi (Steel Curtain) in western Al Anbar Nov. 5. The objectives of Operation Steel Curtain are to restore security along the Iraqi-Syrian border and destroy the al Qaeda in Iraq's terror network operating throughout Husaybah. The operation follows on the heels of Operations Iron Fist and River Gate. During Operation Steel Curtain, elements of the 1st Brigade, 1st Iraqi Army Division and specially trained scout platoons recruited from the Al Qaim region will take part in this operation. Since early summer, the combat capabilities of the Iraqi forces have grown in Al Anbar province. Iraqi security forces now include almost two full infantry divisions of Iraqi Army Soldiers. During the past six months, two division headquarters have formed in the province, four brigade headquarters and ten infantry battalions have deployed to the Al Anbar to join the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq led insurgency. Operation Steel Curtain marks the first large-scale employment of multiple battalion-sized units of Iraqi Army forces in combined operations with Coalition Forces in the last year in al Anbar Province...More
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Task Force Baghdad Soldiers found several weapons caches during combat operations Nov. 3-4 in and around Baghdad.The stockpiles of weapons and munitions now taken out of terrorists’ hands include rockets, homemade bombs, mortars, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, grenades and ammunition.Soldiers from 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division discovered the largest cache west of Baghdad shortly before noon on Nov. 3.The cache included 2,000 7.62-mm rounds, 15 RPG rounds, three 57-mm rockets (and a launcher), eight 80-mm rounds, two mortar base plates, a mortar sighting device and an 18-inch homemade bomb.Soldiers also discovered a second cache, which consisted of 33 81-mm rounds, 26 RPG rounds, 17 60-mm rounds, eight 57-mm rounds, three mortar base plates, two fragmentation grenades, two 120-mm rounds and about 300 7.62-mm rounds.An explosives ordnance disposal team destroyed both caches through controlled detonation procedures...More
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Coalition Forces identified five al-Qaida leaders killed by an air strike in Husaybah Oct. 29.Coalition Forces conducted a series of raids on suspected terrorist and foreign fighter safe houses to capture or kill terrorists operating in the town of Husaybah. During the raids, Coalition forces destroyed three safe houses with air strikes using precision guided munitions. One of the safe houses destroyed was the location of an apparent meeting between al Qaida in Iraq (AQIZ) terrorist leaders from the Husaybah and Al Qaim areas. Coalition Forces now confirm the deaths of five key al Qaida in Iraq (AQIZ) terrorist leaders who were killed in that meeting. They are:
§ Abu Asil, a North African terrorist, was the senior AQIZ foreign fighter facilitator in the Al Qaim region and an associate of Zarqawi. His influence stretched across Al Anbar province and he was relied upon to provide foreign fighters and suicide bombers to AQIZ terrorist cells in the region. Asil had contacts throughout the Middle East who were involved in the recruiting, transportation, training and smuggling of foreign fighters and suicide bombers into Iraq.
§ Abu Raghad, a senior AQIZ foreign fighter terrorist cell leader who operated in the Husaybah area. He was responsible for planning, coordinating, and executing attacks against coalition forces. Those attacks include the emplacement of IEDs and mines and the facilitation, production and use of VBIEDs.
§ Abu Talha, an AQIZ terrorist cell leader in the Ubaydi area. Talha directed, planned, coordinated and executed terrorist attacks in and around Ubaydi. Specifically, Talha’s cell was responsible for the production, and emplacement, and implementation of IED and VBIED attacks in the area.
§ Abu Usama and Abu Salman, AQIZ terrorist cell leaders in the Husaybah area who were active in carrying out local terrorist attacks. Besides planning and conducting terrorist attacks, they procured weapons such as rockets, anti-aircraft missiles and mines for use against coalition forces. The weapons then would be distributed to their terrorist cells to be used in attacks against Iraqi Security and Coalition forces.
RAMADI, Iraq – Iraqi Army troops and Coalition engage terrorists and seized a cache during firefight Nov. 2 northeast of Ramadi.Troops from the 1st Battalion, 1st Brigade, 7th Iraqi Army Division and Coalition forces engaged a group of 15 terrorists armed with AK-47s and RPG launchers when their patrol was attacked. Troops killed several terrorists during the engagement.A vehicle loaded with a cache of ordnance was discovered in the vicinity of the initial attack. An inventory produced one machine gun, two automatic rifles, two RPG launchers, over 1,200 rounds of various small arms ammunition, 10 propellant sticks, two license plates, three Iraqi Army uniforms and some documents.The contraband was turned over to authorities for further processing.No injuries to Iraqi or Coalition troops were reported.
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Task Force Baghdad dispatched elements to the scene where two terrorists attempting to build a car bomb were killed when the device prematurely detonated in central Baghdad Nov. 2. Elements dispatched included an explosives ordnance disposal team and a patrol from 6th Squadron, 8th Calvary Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team...More
Much More:
And the fight continues...

Technorati talk bubble

Friday, November 04, 2005

President Carter Says Something That Makes Sense

(Via The Washington Times)

Former President Jimmy Carter made a speech yesterday that is likely to send shockwaves throughout the Democratic Party:

Former President Jimmy Carter yesterday condemned all abortions and chastised
his party for its intolerance of candidates and nominees who oppose
abortion. "I never have felt that any abortion should be committed --
I think each abortion is the result of a series of errors," he told reporters
over breakfast at the Ritz-CarltonHotel, while across town Senate Democrats
deliberated whether to filibuster the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.
because he may share President Bush and Mr. Carter's abhorrence of
abortion. "These things impact other issues on which [Mr. Bush] and I
basically agree," the Georgia Democrat said. "I've never been convinced, if you
let me inject my Christianity into it, that Jesus Christ would approve

I have to say; I applaud him for standing before the press and actually saying what he believes. Instead of carrying the water for the Democratic Party, He stood on principle with apparent disregard for the backlash that might result.

He added:

"I have always thought it was not in the mainstream of the American public to be
extremely liberal on many issues," Mr. Carter said. "I think our party's leaders
-- some of them -- are overemphasizing the abortion issue."

I’m sure the liberals in this country are going to hate hear this, but it is true. Abortion is an issue the Democratic Party has staked its future on, but it will never be an issue that will bring them long-term success. It’s simply too volatile to ever become mainstream.

The abortion issue has always been framed in the context of “reproductive rights” or “a woman’s right to choose”, but never as what it actually is: murder. The issue is framed in these ways because support for it would be practically nonexistent if presented at face value. The support abortion has garnered has only come through describing it in less horrific terms, and even at that, has never been widely accepted enough to be considered mainstream. He is right when he says the issue has been overemphasized.

And now for the bombshell:

Mr. Carter said his party lost the 2004 presidential elections and lost House
and Senate seats because Democratic leaders failed "to demonstrate a
compatibility with the deeply religious people in this country.

I’m quite sure this will raise some eyebrows. He has basically said that the party most identified by its secularism is losing because it is to secular. If you treat the religious in this country as if they are extremist kooks and nuts, then those extremist kooks and nuts will not vote for you. Ever! It’s just that simple!

We don't agree on much, but I have to give credit where credit is due. You hit that one out of the park, Mr. President! Bravo!

Update 11:14pm: Sharing the same brain with Tran Sient, who has similar thoughts but, like me, is still waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Tags: ,

Thanks to: Outside the Beltway Traffic Jam, Mudville Gazette, The Blue State Conservatives, Two Babes and a Brain, Cao's Blog , The Political Teen and NIF.

Technorati talk bubble

Paris Riots

The riots in Paris continue:

A week of riots in poor neighborhoods outside Paris gained
dangerous new momentum Thursday, with youths shooting at police and firefighters
and attacking trains and symbols of the French state.
Facing mounting
criticism, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin vowed to restore order as the
violence that erupted Oct. 27 spread to at least 20 towns, highlighting the
frustration simmering in housing projects that are home to many North African
Unrest flared for an eighth straight night Thursday, though
scaled down from previous says. Young men fire buckshot at riot police vehicles
in Neuilly-sur-Marne, while a group of 30 to 40 harassed police near a synagogue
further east in Stains, said the top official of Seine-Saint-Denis, Prefect
Jean-Francois Cordet.
A special Interior Ministry operations center
monitoring the violence said some 60 vehicles were torched in the
Seine-Saint-Denis region by early Friday and a total of 165 throughout the Paris
metropolitan area. Some 40 vehicles were torched in the Val d'Oise area
northwest of Paris.
The bottom line: This is exactly what happens when you practice policies of appeasement and refuse to recognize evil for what it is. While opinions differ as to whether or not this is considered full-fledged terrorism, it is still a bad situation made worse by an unwillingness to confront lawlessness in all its forms. I call it terrorism, and if I were running that country, I would fight it as such.
This is a wake up call for France. I hope they understand that terrorists the world over have their eyes fixed on Paris. When they plan future attacks, I hope France doesn't consider themselves immune to it because of their appeasement stance and their openness to the Muslim community. Terrorist will see France for what it actually is: Easy Target!

Technorati talk bubble

Thursday, November 03, 2005

Update: CBS Poll Skewed to Obtain Desired Results

(Hat Tip Newsbusters, Real Clear Politics)

Apparently, I was right to be skeptical of the CBS poll released yesterday showing, among other things, President Bush with an approval rating of only 35%. According to The RCP Blog, the poll sample broke down this way:

Now for the numbers behind the numbers.
Take a look at the composition of the respondents:

Total Respondents (Unweighted) = 936

Republicans = 259 (27.67%)
Democrats = 326 (34.83%)
Independents = 351 (37.5%)

Now look at the weighted sample:

Republicans: 223 (23.80%)
Democrats: 326 (34.79%)
Independents: 388 (41.4%)

The result is a 35% job approval for the president, which is roughly 4-8 points lower than the other polls out right now.

Newsbusters takes the numbers and provides some additional analysis that, while revealing, is not particularly surprising when considering the source of the poll:

To put these numbers in proper perspective, according to the November 2004 exit
, the nation’s current party affiliation is 37 percent Democrats, 37 percent Republicans, and 26 percent Independents. As such, the polling agency involved in this result fell 36 percent short in sampling Republicans while over-sampling Independents by 59 percent.

This demonstrates what many statisticians have been saying about polls for years: If you are trying to ascertain a certain answer to a question, all you have to do is ask the right people.

I suppose my off-hand comment yesterday suggesting the poll results arrived via fax from Kinko's in Abilene, was not quite as over-the-top as I originally thought. One would think CBS would be a bit more careful with the information they release, considering their role in the forged document scandal of September 2004, especially considering the ease with which poll results can be analyzed. As the old saying goes: Some people just never learn!

Tags: ,

Thanks to: Nif and Mudville Gazette

Technorati talk bubble

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Breaking News From CBS!

The results of the latest poll showing "More Bad News for Bush" have just arrived at CBS News headquarters via fax from Kinko's in Abilene, TX.

(CBS) Most Americans believe someone in the Bush Administration did
leak Valerie Plame's name to reporters – even though Special Prosecutor Patrick
Fitzgerald indicted no one for doing that. Half of the public describes the
matter as something of great importance to the country, and this poll finds low
assessments of both the President and the Vice President – with the President's
overall approval rating dropping again to its lowest point ever.

In what they call "Assessing the Indictments" they match feelings regarding the recent Libby indictments to: Clinton-Lewinsky, Whitewater, Iran-Contra, and, of course, the Democratic holy grail also known as Watergate. I'm still trying to figure out exactly any of these comparisons really matter, but they sure seem to think it demonstrates something.

In the Rather(pun intended) ironically named section "Assessing Honesty", they return once again to WMD, did Bush lie, was the administration hiding anything, blah, blah, blah. Then they compare Bush's approval ratings to practically every president since Eisenhower. Every president, that is , except Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Carter, and Bush 41 because they were only comparing second terms. One term Democrat Presidents, such as a Carter or Johnson of course, could not be used since they only served one term right? And, of course, they couldn't stop without making the required comparison to Nixon.

I think, based on the source of the poll, I'm going to withhold final judgment until I personally examine the poll numbers and determine whether or not the fonts are proportionally spaced and the results are totally above board. For now, color me skeptical.

For a less sarcastic analysis, try

Technorati talk bubble

Jacoby Says it All!

Jeff Jacoby has a column in The Boston Globe today that is so honest, powerful, and well-written, that any words I could summon to describe it would merely detract from it's value. Instead, I will simply point it out to you and let you read it for yourself. The column is entitled "The good news from Iraq is not fit to print".

Here's but a portion:

The announcement on Oct. 25 that the first genuinely democratic national
charter in Arab history had been approved by 79 percent of Iraqis was a major
piece of good news. It confirmed the courage of Iraq's people and their hunger
for freedom and decent governance. It advanced the US campaign to democratize a
country that for 25 years had been misruled by a mass-murdering sociopath. It
underscored the decision by Iraq's Sunnis, who had boycotted the parliamentary
elections in January, to pursue their goals through ballots, not bullets. And it
dealt a humiliating blow to the bombers and beheaders -- to the likes of
Islamist butcher Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who earlier this year declared ''a fierce
war on this evil principle of democracy" and threatened to kill anyone who took
part in the elections.

No question: If you think that defeating
Islamofascism, extending liberty, and transforming the Middle East are
important, it's safe to say you saw the ratification of the new constitution as
the Iraqi news story of the week.

But that isn't how the mainstream media saw it.

Read the whole thing here. Seriously, read..the..whole..thing! When you finish, email it to your entire address book, read it to your children, post it on your refrigerator. Do whatever it takes to get this message out and ensure the mainstream media suffer the consequences for the disservice they have done to this country. Let's all follow Jeff Jacoby's example and spread the news the mainstream media has deemed unfit to print. America deserves the truth!


Technorati talk bubble

Playing Word Games

According to Crooks and Liars, Trent Lott suggested "Get Rid-O-Rove" on Hardball with Chris Matthews yesterday. Now I'll be the first to say that would be a stunning development, if it were actually true!

I suppose one could make the case that Senator Lott said that very thing, but you really have to read a lot into his words to pull it off.

Here's the discussion according to Crooks and Liars:

TRENT LOTT: Well, the question is, that you asked, is he good for American
politics? Look, he has been very successful, very effective in the political
arena. The question is should he be the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy under
the current circumstances? I don't know all that's going on, so I can't make
that final conclusion. But, you know, how many times has the top political
person become also the top policy advisor? Maybe you can make that transition,
but it's a real challenge, and I think they have to – I do think they need to
look at bringing in some more people, you know, old gray beards that have been
around this town for a while, help them out a little bit at the White House.

CHRIS MATTHEWS:...Do you think he should go?

TRENT LOTT: Well, I didn't say that. I mean, I said, you know, is he in the
right position? I mean, a lot of political advisors, in fact, most presidents in
recent years have a political adviser in the White House. The question is,
should they be making, you know, policy decisions. That's the question you've
got to evaluate.

Now, I'll agree Trent Lott didn't offer Karl Rove a ringing endorsement, but to say that he suggested Rove leave is a stretch. At best he said "they needed to bring in some old gray beards", but he did not go so far as to say they would be passing Rove on the way out while they were on the way in. Senator Lott even said "Well, I didn't say that.", when asked by Matthews "Do you think he should go?

It is possible that Senator Lott means exactly what Crooks and Liars is implying, but you can't make that determination solely from this exchange.

Technorati talk bubble

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Reid Slams Door On The Country

(Via Fox News)

Senator Harry Reid invoked Rule 21 and called for a senate closed door session today by uttering this asinine statement:

"Today the American people are going to see a little bit of light. On Nov.
14, we're going to have a phase-by-phase idea of how they are going to
this (investigation), finally," said Senate Minority Leader Harry

The presumption was that during this closed door session they would, once-and-for-all, get to the bottom of why we are in Iraq. I suppose Senator Reid feels the best way to do this is by slamming the door on the American people. I also assume the "little bit of light" he was referring to was coming from the cracks at the bottom of the doors. I fail to see the real strategic advantage behind this move. They could have been hanging new wallpaper or buffing the Senate Floor for all we knew.

When he emerged from the closed door session, he uttered this close second to the above statement:

"If the administration had all the information that they have
now back then, they wouldn't even have brought it to the Congress for a vote,"
Reid said of the Senate's 2002 consent to launch a war against Iraq.

"We know that there were no [weapons of mass destruction]
now in Iraq. We didn't know it at the time. We know now that we didn't know at
the time that there was no Al Qaeda connection. We know now that we didn't know
then that there was no 9/11 connection. We know now that they had no plan for
winning the peace. We didn't know that at the time," Reid, D-Nev., told
reporters after the closed session ended.
As much as I hate to break this news to Senator Reid, he had the same information as the White House and the other 99 Senators had, and he voted Yea on the 2002 Iraq War Resolution which said in part:

"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing
responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens and interests,
including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq:"Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terroist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of
United States citizens;"Whereas the attacks on the United States of September
11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations ...
The only way Senator Reid can honestly convince anyone he was fooled is to also admit that either he is a moron or that he wasn't paying attention to what he was voting on. Neither reason would make his actions anyone else's fault. He alone carries the burden for his votes.

The fact of the matter is the Democrats just can't get over the fact that they continue to lose and are so blinded by hatred that they can't figure out how to stop the bleeding. They are making political hay out of anything that rears it's ugly head, but in the process of playing to the desires of the far left, they are alienating the vast majority of the American population who find their antics vile and repulsive.

They can't handle the fact that they wanted Karl Rove in leg irons, but instead got Scooter Libby on crutches. They can't see that the real villian and threat to our nation in the whole "Plamegate" saga was Joe Wilson. Most importanly, they can't see that the only way to move their agenda forward is to win elections and stand for something besides obstruction. Until they figure this out, they don't have a prayer and it doesn't appear they will do so anytime soon.


Thanks to: Stop the ACLU Open TrackBack

Technorati talk bubble

Does Anyone Need a Translator?

Tran Sient has compiled the reactions of Democrats to the nomination of Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court. Like I said yesterday, you can learn a lot about the nominee by looking first to the reactions of the nominee's opponents.

In addition to the list of quotes by Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy, Charles Schumer and Ted Kennedy, he provides the translation of their statements free of charge. You will not find a deal this good anywhere else.

He also points out more bad news for the Democrats and predicts a "filibuster buster". I tend to agree wholeheartedly.

Technorati talk bubble

The Alito Smear Document

Red State(via Townhall) has the Democratic Smear Document on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. They also note that the Democratic National Committee never got the "don't forward Word Documents" memo. As a result of missing that crucial memo, Red State has it here.

As if it couldn't get any better, Red State did some old-fashioned detective work and followed the document trail. It turns out Chris Prendergast gets credit for Version 1, followed by Douglas Graham and Devorah Adler.

Red State also notes that Chris Matthews finds it offensive, so that should tell you all you need to know about the content. It was supposedly put out "not for attribution" according to Matthews. That didn't last long, did it?

That makes the smear document twice as pathetic as it originally started out. Not only is the initial smear pathetic in a grasping at straws fashion, but was so easily traceable, even I could have hacked it. Now that's pathetic!

Tags: ,,,

Technorati talk bubble
Locations of visitors to this page