Tomfoolery of the Highest Order

I hope I do not offend the Chinese, who celebrate their New Year at a different time, but Happy New Year!!! Please do not drink and drive, and may 2004 be more prosperous than 2003, and may 2004 see a Bush re-election, the capture of bin Laden, the continuing embarrassment of Paul Krugman, a few Supreme Court retirements (especially O'Connor), and the continued health of the most important people in my life, Stephanie, Emily, Chelsea, John-John and Baby Shannon.

Happy New Year!!!

More on that Rick Lyman puff piece on Howard Dean in the New York Times, Howard Dean's Mommy speaks:

Mrs. Dean sees her son's unpretentiousness as something he learned at home, pointing out that her own parents taught her to treat people in an egalitarian way.

"When I was growing up," she said, "we didn't even treat the servants like servants."

So Howie is a regular guy, brought up by a regualr mommy who was kind to her servants. Wow. I was totally wrong about Howie. He's a regular Joe, not some uppity Manhattan liberal.

Lifted shamelessly from one of my favorite blogs, Viking Pundit:

Today's the day that some fellow bloggers and I remind readers the important stakes of the 2004 Presidential race. As I've noted before, I want Americans to support President Bush not as the "lesser of two evils" but as a true leader during trying times.

During his tenure, the Bush Administration has eradicated one of the most brutal regimes in the world in Afghanistan, uprooted the worst tyrant of modern times in Iraq, reformed Medicare, and guided the U.S. out of recession and into a recovery on par with the days of Reagan.

With a record like that, why bother to bash Howard Dean? Bush's record stands for itself. You can stand with the President by donating or volunteering to help in his re-election. Much thanks.

Other blogs to check out:

If you want to know the real priority of liberals, then see Time Magazine's Canada Newsmaker of the year: The first two homosexuals who got legally married in Canada.

Liberals are anti-war, anti-Christian, and anti-Bush not because they give one damn about the people of Iraq, who were tortured and wantonly murdered, or the 3,000 people we lost on September 11th, 2001, but because responding to those events gets in the way of such things as the gay agenda. (Note to ACLU director Anthony Romero and his boyfriends: This is not homophobic: I have no fear of men. This is an expression of my opposition to the radical gay agenda and my belief that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. In other words, I am exercising of my First Amendment rights, which you and your boyfriends love, unless they are used to dissent from the homosexual agenda, or any other aspect of your liberal/communist/socialist agenda.)

Let Canada have gay marriage. Let them experiment with it, and we'll take a look at it in 10-20 years. I'll bet it will be just like Canada's health care system: An unadulterated failure.

Bill Murchinson says it brilliantly:

The imposing opposition to gay marriage may indicate that, nutty as our society may lately have become, we aren't yet totally nuts.

Because I can write whatever I want here on the internet, without fear of winding up like this Vietnamese writer.

As we all know, before Bush was President, there was no arsenic in the water, Islam was filled with peaceful worshippers who respected women and were tolerant of Christianity, there was no unemployment, soup kitchens and bread lines didn't exist, there was no John Aschroft checking what books we took out of the library, honesty reigned at the White House, the French loved us, and Osama bin Laden was busy building day care centers instead of attacking us. Now, this new revelation: Bush is causing asthma!!

Just ask that French guy running for President:

"When we hear statistics like these and when we know how to turn them around, it is flatly unacceptable and irresponsible for the president of the United States to simply look the other way," Kerry said during a visit to a community health center in Waterloo, which is in a county with traditionally high asthma rates.

Thanks President Bush. It is probably your fault that I have a slight cold right now. If you would only eradicated stomach viruses, instead of spending your time making Haliburton rich, I would have not had diarrhea on Thanksgiving 2001.

Oh yeah, that's reminds me of a joke I heard about the New York Times: "If Bush cured cancer, the headline would read: 'Bush Makes Drug Companies Richer.'"

A big thanks to Jon and the guys at one of my favorite blogs, The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, for the encouragement and a mention on their site today. My hits have increased tenfold today because of them. Thanks guys!!!

And, if this is your first time here, bookmark this site and come back as often as possible. In a few weeks, my cousin Jamie will be adding posts from the frontlines in Iraq, with pictures, as often as he can.

Seems that, like the so-called Augusta scandal (a total Times invention), The New York "Once Upon A" Times is now "flooding the zone" with the "the economy real sucks because there are no jobs" angle. Left-wing scumbag Bob Herbert yesterday, and far, far left-wing scumbag Paul Krugman today, with yet another of his misleading, the sky is falling thanks to Bush columns. Donald Luskin and his readers fisk Krugman better than anyone, as usual. My penny and a half:

An aside: how weak is the labor market? The measured unemployment rate of 5.9 percent isn't that high by historical standards, but there's something funny about that number. An unusually large number of people have given up looking for work, so they are no longer counted as unemployed, and many of those who say they have jobs seem to be only marginally employed. Such measures as the length of time it takes laid-off workers to get new jobs continue to indicate the worst job market in 20 years. Sounds just like Bob. People are giving up, and it must be Bush's fault. It just can't be that they are lazy or milking unemployment benefits now, can it?

So if jobs are scarce and wages are flat, who's benefiting from the economy's expansion? The direct gains are going largely to corporate profits, which rose at an annual rate of more than 40 percent in the third quarter. Indirectly, that means that gains are going to stockholders, who are the ultimate owners of corporate profits. (That is, if the gains don't go to self-dealing executives, but let's save that topic for another day.) Good ol' Marxism. Sounds just like something you would read on the World Socialist Web Site.

His conclusion:

The bottom line, then, is that for most Americans, current economic growth is a form of reality TV, something interesting that is, however, happening to other people. This may change if serious job creation ever kicks in, but it hasn't so far.
The big question is whether a recovery that does so little for most Americans can really be sustained. Can an economy thrive on sales of luxury goods alone? We may soon find out.

More Marxist and liberal bunk, "the rich get richer." Let's just for second pretend that Krugman is correct (stop laughing!). What does he suggest be done? Raise taxes? Krugman cannot be a respected economist anymore, not with his column after column of nonsense. I am benefitting from tax cuts this year big time, to the tune of nearly 5 Large. I know that isn't much compared to Krugman's 50 Large "consultant" fees from Enron, but for me, that is a real nice bump. Sorry Kruggie, it ain't just the rich benefitting. Average schmoes like me are too. (I think this Jim Huber classic sums up liberal attitudes towards tax cuts quite nicely)

In Philadelphia, hockey is so popular that we have both the Flyers and the Phantoms, an AHL minor league team. If you want some tomfoolery on ice, go see the Phantoms some time. As the late, great Gene Hart would have said, "We have ourselves a brou-ha-ha!" Look at what happened last night. They had to end the game early because there were not enough players to finish. Hilarious!! Watch all of the tomfoolery here. (especially watch goalie Neil Little swooping on the pile. Classic)

When I have to visit the head, and there is nothing else to read, I'll read the Arizona Republic, a liberal rag best used for housebreaking puppies. In there, you can find a real "brilliant" cartoonist named Steve Benson. This guy is so far left, he would fall off the side of the earth if it were flat. Check out this cartoon about gay marriage. Note to Benson: It isn't the "far right" against it, it is the majority of the population. Why do you think that courts are forcing it on people? They wouldn't have to if gay marriage were able to be passed legislatively. Benson is so anti-Bush and far left, it is ridiculous.

In fairness, Benson was right on (a rare occurence) with this on the Campaign Finance Reform decision.

I saw these 2 headlines on Drudge, and could not help but see the irony:

IRAN TO USA: QUAKE DOES NOT HEAL DIVIDE

Dean Says Bush Administration Is 'Most Dangerous' In His Lifetime

Howie needs to get real. Does he fail to see what Bush has to deal with? We are sending tons of aid to Iran (as we should) and Iranian President Mohammad Khatami responds with a thanks, but, "I don't think this incident will change our relations with the United States," and "[i]n incidents like this governments normally do not consider their differences, but this has got nothing to do with political issues. The problems in Iran-U.S. relations are rooted in history."

Earth to Howie. This is the world Bush deals with. Bush is not dangerous, the world he deals with is!! He is not dealing with Sweden or New Zealand here. It was Iran that lost 40,000, and who feels worse about it? We do!! Iran's government is too busy saying "F U" to Israel and the United States, who are willing to forget decades of history in order to help with humanitarian assistance and to view this an opportunity to improve relations. Like the Terminator, these people, "can't be reasoned with, can't be bargained with. They don't feel pity...or remorse...and they will never stop until [we] are dead."

Right Thinking from the Left Coast has more on this line of reasoning.

Update: As expected, the New York Times has a different take on their headline: Iran's President Thanks U.S. for Aid Following Earthquake

This is a headline of a story in our favorite bird-cage liner, the New York "Once Upon A" Times.

In Southern Stop, Clark Promises to Enforce Voting Rights

What year is this, 1964?

Now, read this first paragraph:

BIRMINGHAM, Ala., Dec. 29 — Forty years after four black girls were killed in a church bombing here, Gen. Wesley K. Clark visited the same church on Monday and said African-Americans were still in danger of having their votes go uncounted and their voices unheard.

And, ol' Weasley, reaching in to the Clinton bag of tomfoolery, said:

[V]oting rights were a "very personal issue for me," as someone who had grown up in the South and who had supported affirmative action in the armed forces.

And, sounding like he listened to Jesse Jackson's crap in 2000, Weasley said:

"If anyone is intimidated or turned away from the polls illegally, we will push to prosecute the perpetrators to the full extent of the law," he said.

Oh stop it!! This is ridiculous. We all know that Democrats get 90% of the black vote, and if they lost even a little of it, they are finished as a national party. What makes me laugh most is the "Winston Smith" treatment of history by the Democrats, acting like Republicans have a history of racism and discrimination, which is certainly false. Will this never end?

An addition to this blog: My cousin Jamie, blogging from Iraq. He got the call up and is going over to take care of business. He will be blogging as often as he can, letting us know what he see over there, good or bad. He should be starting in early to mid-January. Maybe we'll call it Tomfoolery in Iraq or something.

My favorite liberal blogger, who I love to torment, rip, and criticize early and often, has some video on his site. I may just steal that idea. Take a look and see real liberal tomfoolery in action.

Thomas Sowell is a brilliant writer. His look at the difference between the recent earthquakes in Iran and California and their relationship to multiculturalism is more of the great work I have come to expect from him. And, Dennis Prager clearly explains how Iran would rather have their peope die than be saved by Jews from Israel. The money quote:

The two reactions -- Iran's preference for Iranian deaths to Israeli help and the Jewish state's instinctive offer to help save Iranian lives -- ought to be enough anyone needs to understand the source of the Middle East conflict. But they won't. Because those who are anti-Israel or "evenhanded" are not so because of the facts, but despite them.

Yeah, all the problems in the Middle East are caused by Israel's oppression of Arabs.

Let's see: Lee Malvo wantonly murders people at random, and he is just a "child." Lionel Tate viciously murders a 6 year old girl, and is just a child, unable to understand what he was doing. You can't see The Last Samurai unless accompanied by parent or guardian if you are under 18. But, if you have the temerity to stop an 11 year old from having an abortion without her parents being notified, my God, how dare you violate the Constitution like that?

It is sickening that scum organizations like the ACLU and NARAL will dedicate their lives to making sure anyone, anywhere, regardless of age, can have unrestricted access to abortion on demand. For example, look at how vile NARAL is. They are opposed to a law (The Unborn Victims of Violence Act) that protects pregnant women from violence which results in the death of an unborn baby a crime because they are worried about abortion rights.

Note to those abortion advocates: It is not an embryo or a fetus, it is a baby!! Stephanie just gave me Emily a few weeks ago, and I loved Emily when she was the size of a dime in Stephanie's belly. Funny, I don't ever recall her saying, "Gee, the fetus was kicking me today," or someone asking her, "how's the fetus today?"

These self-important women who waste their lives in these women's groups make me sick. They are nothing like the fine woman who delivered Emily, Susan Moore Daniels, who went to Yale, and got a Master's degree, and has dedicated her life to taking care of pregnant woman and delivering healthy babies.

Not only can we expect 2004 to have article after article on the "centrist" Howard Dean, we can expect to hear how no one has a job, and it is Bush's fault. Just today, I saw this story, from, shockingly!!! the Los Angeles Times and datelined San Francisco, headlined:

Jobless Count Skips Millions

Yeah, millions of people are secretly unemployed. This part of the article is hilarious:

There are also the 1.5 million people who want a job but didn't look for one in the last month. Nearly a third of this group say they stopped the search because they were too depressed about the prospect of finding anything. Officially termed "discouraged," their number has surged 20% in a year.

Aww, poor babies. This is America, and jobs can be had, or self-created. These are people who blame Government rather than face the real problem: Themselves.

And, this from an alleged straight news story:

Bush, meanwhile, is quick to seize credit where he can. When the unemployment rate for November fell one-tenth of a point, he went out immediately to give a speech at a Home Depot in Maryland. Yeah, there's no liberal bias there.

After that tomfoolery, I read this column from the resident affirmative action hire columnist in the New York Times, our friendly neighborhood anti-American Marxist Socialist, "Look to Government to solve all our problems" liberal idiot Bob Herbert. Some excerpts:

Americans are working harder and have become ever more productive — astonishingly productive — but are not sharing in the benefits of their increased effort. If that isn't Marxist, then I don't know what is.

The economy is going great guns, we're told, but nearly nine million Americans are officially unemployed, and the real tally of the jobless is much higher. Even as the Bush administration and the media celebrate the blossoming of statistics that supposedly show how well we're doing, the lines at food banks and soup kitchens are lengthening. They're swollen in many cases by the children of men and women who are working but not making enough to house and feed their families. Wow!! I didn't realize we are in another Great Depression. Soup kitchens? Where Bob?

And, this willfully blind, don't let the facts get in the way of a good Bush-bashing sentence:

Government policy at the moment is focused primarily on what's best for the corporations. From that perspective, job destruction and wage compression are good things — as long as they don't get too much high-profile attention. Gee, Bob, I don't seem to remember you or your liberal ilk getting so upset at NAFTA, especially when it was pushed by your boy Al Gore. And, as expected, it's the big bad heartless corporations, according to Herbert, who, frankly sucks as a columnists.

Maybe I am just biased. Herbert would call me a racist for criticizing him, and a hard-core bigot for suggesting he is an affirmative action hire. But, I despise this tool because of his anti-American, "flag-waving yahoos" comment. Bob, if you ever read this, know that you don't have your job because you are any good. In other words, I think of you what you exactly what Maureen Dowd thinks of Clarence Thomas.

UPDATE: After thinking about this more, I had another thought: Why are liberals so gung-ho about giving citizenship to illegal aliens, saying "they do jobs that no one else wants" while crying about loss of jobs here? I think we would do just fine if we threw out every illegal tomorrow. Hmm, we have millions if illegals and millions of unemployed. Why are illegals here other than to work? (I guess to collect welfare.) Democrats want them legalized because they need new voters. I wouldn't be against a repeat of this.

Once again, I ask: Does anyone want to try and tell me that Clark isn't a Clinton tool?

Confessions of a Political Junkie has this, about an ad Clark is running that features 'ol Slick Willie.

There are few things that anger me more than those dopes who pronounce Mumia Abu-Jamal an innocent man, unjustly arrested by the racist police and convicted by a racist judge and jury for the murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. He is guilty as sin.

Now, from prison, he is appearing on the California Presidential primary ballot on the ticket of some jango group called the Peace and Freedom Party, a radical left group that is vile and disgusting, to say the least.

Now, we all now this is a joke and Jamal will get about 30 votes by losers similar to him. What pisses me off is that guy is still breathing. He has been sitting on death row since 1982. I am from Philadelphia, born and raised, and I have seen this game for a long time. I am tired of it.

In college, the professor who oversaw our radio station was a long time Philadelphia radio talk show host (before every third guy had a talk show), and he hired Jamal time and time again, and supported his radio career despite Jamal being a member of MOVE, a radical group in Philadelphia that Mayor Wilson Goode dropped some C-4 on and burned down an entire city block..

I asked Professor Moore, "Why did you hire this guy time and time again?" he said, "He was very talented." I then asked him, "Why are you not speaking out on his behalf now, when there are a ton of people doing it." His answer: "Unlike those people, I know him. That is why I am not supporting him now. He's guilty."

If you are one of those who think Mumia Abu-Jamal is a victim, then click here and here, and learn something. Then, read about a real hero, Mr. Daniel Faulkner, here.

And now, drumroll please, the Top 5 Moments of Tomfoolery in 2003:

5 – The Jayson Blair Scandal – The New York Times gave this guy an opportunity of a lifetime, and lots of second chances, all for one reason: He is black. And, what did he do with it? He lied, plagiarized, and scammed his way along. When he was caught, who did he blame? The white man of course!! The same white man who overlooked his every act of malfeasance and that he never graduated from college. All this guy had to do was get out there and get the story, do consistent work, and before he knew it, he would be a highly paid and respected lying and deceiving columnist like Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman. Instead, he wasted it all. What pisses me off is several things: I used to love the New York Times. Plus, being white, they would never give me such an opportunity. And, Blair is going to get paid big time for being the lying weasel that he is. Unbelievable that this could happen at the so-called “paper of record.”The New York Times’ downfall is inevitable if they continue on their present course. History may say it all started with Jayson Blair. The truth will be that Blair was only the one who brought the lies and deceptions, which existed before him, to the forefront.

4 - The California Recall - The far left wankers all circled the wagons for Gray Davis. The ACLU cried about how the voting process, the very same process that elected Gray Davis less than a year before, would disenfranchise minorities, trying to get the recall delayed to buy Davis time. They got a panel of judges at the Ninth Circuit to at first agree, until the full court came to its senses. Gray Davis pandered to every interest group he could, from gays to illegal aliens to labor unions, trying to save his job. The Los Angeles Times tried to sandbag Schwarzenegger at the last minute. And they all failed. Schwarzenegger was in, and Davis was out. This was without a doubt tomfoolery of the highest order. Look who ran for governor: Gary Coleman, Larry Flynt, a porn star, a third-rate comedian, and a whole other slew of fools. To make the laughs complete, the candidate who came in dead last was the guy who made the video “Bumfights.”

3 – The Candidacy of Howard Dean - Howard Dean's candidacy is like Arthur Anderson accounting; Looks great on paper, but everything falls apart when the bills come due. He will not be President. The liberal press (the ones who are no longer Clinton tools anyway) act like this guy is the second coming. They slobber all over him and his so-called internet revolution. They gloss over his embarrassing tomfoolery. Every week he is more exposed for the fraud that he is. He rips Bush for "unilateralism" abroad, which would be news to the dozens of countries who not only have supported us in the war on terror, they have lost lives in it. (And his people have the nerve to call Bush a liar?) His reflexive anti-American responses to every Bush foreign policy success, i.e "Time to bring in the U.N. and take the American label off" the Iraq war are both shameful and shameless. Why is a guy who is ashamed of America a serious Presidential candidate? Even his fellow Democrats know his foreign policy ideas are bankrupt. This guy will get smoked in the South and the Midwest, and he knows it. "Forget guns, God, and gays, don't take sides in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, let me raise your taxes, and I'll wait for U.N. permission before I defend America. Vote for Dean!" sure sounds like a winning campaign to me. This guy will get thrashed by Bush, and I can't wait. Note to Democrats: Please nominate this guy.

2 – The Jurisprudence of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O' Connor - I would mention the entire Supreme Court, but that would impugn the only three stellar justices on the Court, Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist. Also, Justices Souter, Breyer, Stevens, and (especially) Ginsburg are beyond redemption, so there is no point in discussing their nonsense.
As the swing vote on the Court, and arguably the most powerful person in the nation, Justice O'Connor has gone senile. Her ludicrous opinions in the University of Michigan affirmative action cases (We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary) , the Lawrence v. Texas decision (she repudiated a decision she concurred with in 1986, disingenuously making a false 14th Amendment distinction rather than admitting that she changed her mind), and the Campaign Finance Reform Case were the product of an embarrassingly out of touch justice, and will have an awful impact in the years to come. What upsets me the most is her view that the Court should look to foreign law for guidance on decisions. This is outrageous!! The Supreme Court's duty is to interpret the Constitution, not to legislate from the bench, nor forcing upon us "foreign fads, fashions, or moods." (Kudos to Justice Thomas for that line) In my view, future Supreme Court nominations are second only to fighting terrorism as the most imporant reason that Bush must be re-elected. I don't wish death or ill-health on O'Connor. Her recovery from cancer was admirable. I only wish she would retire to the ranch in Arizona, and allow Bush to nominate a justice who isn't tired, old, and bored, looking for a legacy rather than properly interpreting the Constitution.

1 – Baghdad Bob – This guy is tomfoolery personified!! The very word tomfoolery conjures up images of his press conferences. I will never forget this guy, and I am happy that we did not arrest him. Americans immediately loved him. Even Bush liked him, telling Tom Brokaw, “He’s my man, he was great.” My favorite quotes from the guy:

-"Our initial assessment is that they will all die"
-"My feelings - as usual - we will slaughter them all"
-"There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"
-"I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that they have started to commit suicide under the walls of Baghdad. We will encourage them to commit more suicides quickly."

Long live Baghdad Bob, King of Tomfoolery!!!

Did I miss one? You have any better ones? Leave a comment or e-mail me at slybri957@aol.com

None actually. Read this subtle, anti-Bush tomfoolery about how white men favor George Bush.

This is a very coded article, typical of the liberal mindset. White man: Bad.

Can there be any doubt the L.A. Times is subliminally pushing this message? They really mean, without saying it, "Racists love Bush." Plus, get this dig:

The president's black-and-white pronouncements on terrorism and war — from his promise to capture Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" to his "bring 'em on" taunt to Iraqi resisters — which generate unease among many women and even some more affluent men, help cement Bush's attachment to blue-collar men, who, recent polls show, support him at higher levels than men with college degrees.

That's right: Dumb, uneducated white men don't know any better, so they prefer Bush. Dumb white men, just like Bush, have no concept of a nuanced pursuit to terrorism and war, and can't think any deeper than black and white. Well, I have a degree (and received it with honors too) and I see it all clear, which is black and white: Terrorists want to destroy America; They cannot be reasoned with; Thus, the terrorists must be killed. It is that simple. Studying "root causes" is nothing more than a waste of time.

This guy says it right:

Stanley B. Greenberg, the pollster for Gore in 2000 and Clinton in 1992, agreed. "Younger, married white men are disastrously, overwhelmingly Republican," he said. "They are trending more Republican over time. Everything about George Bush speaks to them." Disastrously for Democrats, that's for sure. As a member of the evil group, White Christian Hesterosexual Males, Bush does speak to me. Telling me I am racist because I don't support affirmative action, and telling me that I am a bigot because I don't support gay marriage, and telling me that "We need to get the American label" off the war a day after one of our biggest successes (and bring in the U.N.) does not speak to me. Complaining about how the world doesn't like us (i.e. France and Germany) doesn't speak to me either.

The top 5 moments of Tomfoolery in 2003 will be revealed tonight...meanwhile, 6-10 are:

10 - The so-called "outing" of CIA Agent Valerie Plame Pure Democrat tomfoolery!! This "scandal" started two months or so (2 months!!) after a Robert Novak column mentioned her name. If this was an egregious and illegal act by the White House, you would think the "scandal" would have commenced the day the column was published. And, Valerie Plame's husband, that total scumbag Joseph Wilson, was quickly proven to be a Kerry-supporting, Bush-hating publicity whore. He blamed Karl Rove, saying he wanted to see him "frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." (Funny quote actually) But, as expected, when he was called on the carpet for this, he quickly backed off. Wilson is a shameless far left winger who did nothing but drink tea when he went to Niger as an ambassador/investigator, simply because he hates Bush more than he loves America, if he loves America at all. You just knew this scandal had no legs when commentators starting saying "the cover-up could be the real crime here" or something similar. This was yet another example of how bankrupt the Democrats are.

9 - President Bush falls off a Segway, that over-hyped, 21st century Edsel. Hilarious.

8 - CNN's war coverage - First, from the pie hole of CNN's Christiane Amanpour:

"I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did....The entire body politic...did not ask enough questions, for instance, about weapons of mass destruction. I mean, it looks like this was disinformation at the highest levels." Yeah, OK. You are just pissed that Fox News outdid and outrated CNN by a landslide, and that Fox wasn't anti-American and pro-Iraqi like you and CNN, you dunce. Intimidated? You should be ashamed of yourself, and you deserve all of the mocking you get.

From Wesley Clark's doomsaying, to CNN letting people get killed rather than report what they knew and lose their Baghdad bureau, and Aaron Brown's nightly rooting for America to lose, CNN was almost like al-Jazeera. They can piss and moan about Fox all they want. Moral equivalence and anti-Bush tomfoolery may play in their studios in Atlanta, as well Manhattan, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and in Ted Turner's office, it doesn't play well to an average American viewer. Is it any wonder now that when news breaks, like the Hussein capture, Fox News gets higher ratings than CNN?

7 -Liberal reaction to Saddam Hussein's Capture - From Howard Dean's "America is not safer" to Derrick Z. Jackson of the Boston Globe, lefties proved what we already knew: They'd rather have Saddam back in business that have Bush get re-elected. Simply shameful.

6 - The Candidacy of John Kerry - That French-looking guy could not tell you what he stood for from one minute to the next. In his mind, he was the man to beat for the Democrat nomination, until Howard Dean blasted his way to the top. And, faced with this challenge, Kerry did what could be expected of a Massachusetts liberal: He wilted under the pressure. Let's see: He voted for the Iraq War Resolution. But, when Dean's anti-war tomfoolery propelled him to the top, Kerry responded that he voted "only to threaten the use of force" and did everything he could to run away from not only his vote, but his past support for attacking Iraq. He said ridiculous things like, "Because no child growing up in America today should ever have to go to war for oil." And, all along, he kept saying "We need the U.N." yet he blasted Dean for wanting U.N. "permission" before America defends itself. I almost feel sorry for Kerry. He has great hair, a great voice, and even looks Presidential. Sadly for him, he does not act Presidential. His whole campaign is, and continues to be, a disaster.

Top 5 coming tonight....

Thomas Friedman has a few great lines in his latest column:

I found the cure to anti-Americanism: Come to Poland.

Maureen Dowd is on vacation

Every once in a while, you should visit Democratic Underground, just for the tomfoolery and cheap laughs. In my last foray there, I found a hilarious conspiracy theory, that the U.S. may have caused the earthquake in Iran, and a hilarious photoshop picture based on American soldiers raising our flag in Iwo Jima. Only this time, they are raising a McDonald's sign (with Arabic lettering.) Hilarious!!

Expect to see many articles in the New York Times from now until election day touting Howard Dean as some sort of moderate. Rick Lyman, no stranger to nonsensical tomfoolery, writes on this very subject in today's New York Times. The money quote:

George Walker Bush and Howard Brush Dean III are from opposite sides of the nation's political fault line. Yet it may be their similarities that worry some Republicans.

By election day, Howard Dean will be described in the liberal press as a "moderate," "centrist," "fiscal conservative," and "tax-cutter." All lies mind you, but that won't stop our friends at the "fishwrap of record."

Update: NewsMax has more on this line of reasoning.

What the hell is wrong with the Washington Post? Read the Townhall.com version of Charles Krauthammer's latest column, then read the Washington Post version. The Post changes the title from "Aftershocks of War" to "Doggedness of War." And, the Washington Post completely removes the opening quote, rendering the article almost incomprehensible. Why? Because Krauthammer exposes the embarrassing liberalism of the Post, starting off with one of their headlines.

"Libya Vows to Give Up Banned Weapons; Two Decades of Sanctions, Isolation Wore Down Gaddafi''
-- Washington Post headline, front-page news analysis, Dec. 20.

That rag is merely a step behind the NY Times.

Phillies legend Paul Owens has passed on. Some of my best memories as a young baseball fan are because of Paul Owens. I loved the guy. Thanks Pope!!

Guess who uttered this brilliant statement on Howard Dean:

"What kind of muddled thinking is it if you can't instantly say that in your heart you know that bin Laden is guilty? After every episode comes a statement trying to explain it away. Will Americans really vote for a foreign policy by clarifying press release?"

Was it Jonah Goldberg? Charles Krauthammer? George Will? No, it was......John Kerry!! Who'd have thunk it?

And, the latest "brilliance" from Howard Dean.

Asked how he would persuade people who were not opposed to the war to vote for him instead of President Bush, Dean responded, "By going after him on terrorism, where he's really weak."

Is this guy really a serious candidate for President? Perhaps he got frostbite of the brain while skiing in Colorado and now thinks he is one of the fringe candidates in the California recall.

The Top 10 Tomfoolery of 2003. Missing the cut:

Wesley Clark's candidacy (If I took him seriously, he would easily be top 10); Jonathan Chait of the New Republic and his embarrasing “I hate Bush” diatribe; 16 Words in the State of the Union address; Maureen Dowd's "Dowdifying" of a Bush quote about al-Qaeda; Michael Moore at the Oscars; Al Gore endorses Howard Dean; Al Gore's speech for MoveOn.org; Kofi Annan and the U.N.; France; Rush Limbaugh on ESPN; Tom Daschle's speech ripping Bush on the eve of the Iraq War. (facing re-election in November, notice how quiet he has been since?); Sean Hannity exposing a Democrat Intelligence Committee Memo.

Tell that to the people of Bulgaria and Thailand, who lost 6 soldiers today in Iraq.

Also, Iraqi policemen were killed and 172 civilians were injured. I would love to know what these killers were thinking. Do they actually believe they are dealing with those blue helmet wearing pussies from the U.N.? I expect we'll see a strong, forceful response to these attacks. Old Iraq is finished. Looks like a few people haven't gotten the message....yet.

You think my vote for the BBC as a "Knave" is unjustified? Then read this "unbiased" article:

The sub-headline: Millions of Zimbabweans will go hungry this Christmas because international donors have failed to provide enough food, the United Nations has warned. U.N. code for "The United States' fault."

In this piece of "reporting," the real reason for hunger in Zimbabwe, the scum dictator Robert Mugabe, is not even mentioned!!!

And, get this part:

The BBC's Southern Africa correspondent, Barnaby Phillips, says the crisis is complex; erratic rains, disastrous economic policies, the upheavals of the land invasions and the spread of HIV/Aids have all played a part.

It is not complex at all. It is Robert Mugabe's "disastrous economic policies" and Robert Mugabe's causing of "the upheavals of the land invasions" that are causing the people of Zimbabwe to go hungry!!!!

The kicker:

In the space of just a few years Zimbabwe has been transformed from a major food exporter to one of the most aid-dependent countries in the world. The BBC would have one believe that some unforseen events or some set of circumstances caused this, not that murderous tyrant piece of filth Robert Mugabe.

Why the British media covers for this reprehensible dirtbag scum-sucking son of a bitch asshole is quite beyond me. (Yeah, I hate this man. More than you can imagine.)

Every Saturday, the Washington Times has a column titled "Knobles and Knaves," which I read without fail. They have a list of nominees for their annual Nobles and Knaves contest. My votes:

Nobles
-British Prime Minister Tony Blair, true friend and stalwart ally of the United States.
-Pittsburgh shoeshiner Albert Lexie, who lives on a shoestring but has donated nearly $90,000 to sick children. (Read the story of this man's generosity. It'll bring tears to the eyes of even the most hard-hearted. Even Al Gore might be touched!!)
-Warm-hearted Frankie Mayo, for her cool soldier's charity, Operation Air Conditioner.

Knaves
-Rep. Charles Rangel, Democrat from New York, for asserting that Saddam's sons Uday and Qusai Hussein had been "assassinated."
-Michael Moore, for his despicable depiction of the heroes of Flight 93. (Among 1000 other reasons.)
-The unbearably biased British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)

Read the article and e-mail your picks to: crousseaux@washingtontimes.com

I feel awful about those thousands of people killed by an earthquake in Iran. I despise Iran, yes, not the people, but the Mullahs who run the place. The people there want freedom, and I have believed for a while now that their day is coming. Iran has asked for humanitarian assistance, and I suggest we give to them as much as possible, and as visibly as possible. I am not trying to be crude, but this earthquake can be a great opportunity to win some hearts and minds in Iran. Face it, there are many parts of the Arab world that are not subject to reason, and would hate us no matter what. But, the people of Iran are different. Take a moment to read a previous post to get my full feelings on Iran.

One of my favorite blogs, Right Thinking From The Left Coast, had this brilliant observation:

Well, look at Iran. They have an earthquake, and they have to appeal to the Great Satan for humanitarian aid. How humiliating is that, especially when we had a massive earthquake in California just a few days ago and there was not anywhere near the death and devastation that Iran has experienced? It's got to be a bitter pill to swallow, that Allah would protect the infidels and slaughter the faithful.

Well said, Lee. Well said.

The ACLU is offering to help Rush Limbaugh in his case to stop prosecutors in Florida from accessing his medical records. That is definitely tomfoolery!!

The ACLU may be the scum of the earth, but they didn't become the scum they are by not knowing how to play the PR game. This is a smart move by them, so later they can prove their "non-partisan" nature by saying, "Hey, we even offered help to Rush Limbaugh."

I am sure Rush will summarily reject their offer.

There are few columnists in Charles Krauthammer's league. His latest column is yet another example why.

Howard Dean is a Jesus kind of guy. Who knew?

I guess him telling those dumb ol' Southerners that they should not base their votes on "Guns, God, and Gays" was not very successful. Of course he wants them to stop voting based on that. He'll lose everytime. That's like Joe Lieberman asking a group of Arabs to not base their vote on whether someone is Jewish or not. Next thing you know, he'll be singing and swaying at lack churches, reminding every one how the evil white man (it was Democrats, of course, conveniently not mentioned) bombed churches and was against civil-rights 40 years ago, a la Clinton. (oh, he does that already?) As can be expected, The Village Voice is dreaming with this headline.

Once again, I ask you Democrats: Please nominate this guy.

From Ann Coulter's latest column:

(Perhaps in addition to the usual processing requirements for new immigrants, there should be a form that says: Welcome to America! You will no longer have to live in a mud hut, earn 32 cents a year, and have members of your family periodically dragged off and shot. However, you may, on occasion, have to see people praying.)

Oh, the humanity!!!

Ann Coulter lists many instances of how the communist gay mafia, otherwise known as the ACLU, is suing people all over the place to remove the Ten Commandments from public property. Yeah, that thing is real hate speech. Pure evil. Now, let's take a quick look at the Ten Commandments, and why the liberals hate them so much:

1 - Thou Shalt Not Have Strange Gods Before Me: This does not agree with multiculturalism, which says all cultures are equal, except for Eurocentric Christian culture, which has been responsible for the downfall of civilization for centuries.

2 - Thou Shalt Not Take The Name of the Lord Thy God in Vain: Infringes on free speech rights, especially when referring to those "God-damn Republicans."

3 - Keep the Sabbath Holy: Once again, this interferes with multiculturalism. For Muslims, Friday is the holy day, Saturday for Jews, and Sunday for Christians. That's 3 days, and completely unfair to those who are not religious, who are without a day of their own, leading to feelings of exclusion. It is "hurtful and divisive" to non-Christians to be forced to wait until noon on Sunday to buy their booze. And, since Friday is a normal work day, people who go to work offend Muslims. Thus, there should be no Sabbath for anyone.

4 - Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother: Being forced to honor your parents would mean an 11-year old could not get an abortion without parental notification. We just can't have that now can we?

5 - Thou Shalt Not Kill: This casts "suspicion" on heroes like Che Guevara, Mumia Abu-Jamal, and the Palestinians, who must kill to destroy the forces of oppression such as Jews, the racist police, freedom-loving people, and white Christian males.

6 - Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery: Two words: Bill Clinton

7 - Thou Shalt Not Steal: All 538 members of Congress are against this one.

8 - Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor: We can't let religion get in the way of Bill Clinton's perjury. And, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Weasley Clark, et al cannot be forced to tell the truth about Bush and his policies now, can they? The New York Times, CNN, and NPR strongly object to this one as well.

9 - Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife: Totally incompatible with the "If it feels good, then do it" mentality. And, it restricts the very core of freedom, to hit on someone else's wife when they aren't around. (Bi-partisan support against this one)

10- Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbors Goods: This interferes with yelling "Tax Cuts for the Rich!!" We just can't have that. Plus, to obey this means not to supported socialized health-care. Why should some people get better health care than others simply because they got off their ass and made a good life for themselves? Everyone deserves an equally lousy level of health care services like the people of Canada, France, and Great Britain.

You see? When you break it down by each Commandment, the Godless-liberal opposition to them is easy to see. Anthony Romero and his boyfriends should stay in New York City and let the people in each community decide for themselves if they want to display them, as many have for decades without a problem!!

This is not so difficult. Congress can fix this problem very easily. First, they should read that oh-so uncool document called the Constitution. (It hasn't been ruled unconstitutional by those old geezers at the Supreme Court...yet) Then, they should find the part that allows them to restrict the federal courts from having any say in the matter of displays of the Ten Commandments. This way, each town, county, or state is free to decide for themselves if they would like to display the Ten Commandments or not. This way, if Anthony Romero wants to walk to the bathhouses in the Village without seeing a display, he can get his "friends" to all help him get it done. Or, if some Vermont liberals are upset because a display of the Ten Commandments gets in the way of a bike path, they can get rid of it too. But, if Alabama wants to have a display in their Supreme Court, they should be able to.

There's a novel concept: The people deciding for themselves what laws to live under, not under the pronouncements of an unelected few. (In the old days, we called them feudal lords. Today, we call them federal judges.) Imagine if we could have system like that here. There's no telling what the U.S. could do.

Merry Christmas to all. (Note to ACLU: This blog receives no government funding) Hope Santa treats you well.

If these Rangers fans had tried this stunt in Philly, they would needed a shovel to scrape these jangos off the ice. Smarter of them to do this at the Chowderhouse.

Check back often as I have coming up:

-The Top 10 Moments of 2003

-The Top 10 Instances of Tomfoolery in 2003

-Top 10 Dopes of 2003

-The Top 10 People of 2003

Have an idea for me? E-mail me at slybri957@aol.com or leave a comment here.

If I took this Wesley Clark seriously, I'd say his pronouncement that Bill Clinton deserves credit for Libya giving up their WMD's was possibly the dumbest thing he has said yet. Of course, he has said so many dumb things, it would be too hard to pick the dumbest. If I took this dope seriously, I would ask him, "Then, by your logic, Clinton is responsible for 9/11?"

Anyone else want to e-mail me and dare argue that Weasley is not a Clinton tool?

I am a huge death penalty supporter, but the decision by the jury today to spare Malvo was the right one. (If you can call sentencing someone life in prison "sparing" them) If anyone deserved the death penalty, Malvo surely deserves it for his crimes. But, since the jury decided that life without parole was the proper sentence, then I am in full agreement. The great thing about our justice system is that we, the people, get to decide on a death sentence, not a "judge with a grudge," or a "jury with fury to stop on your mug." (If you know what song those lines are from, I'll send you it on CD) If that jury felt this was for the best, then we should respect that and move on. I have no sympathy for Malvo, despite all of his tear-jerking excuses. He did it. he knew what he was doing. The rest is nonsense.

By the way, until last year, certain states allowed judges to impose a death sentence. But, the Supreme Court, in Ring v. Arizona, found the practice of having a judge sentence a convicted killer to death was unconstitutional. (Especially note Justice Scalia's concurring opinion. Scalia changes his mind from an earlier opinion he had, and, unlike those other old geezers, actually is honest and forthcoming about it.

As selected by the New York Times.....

Lee from Right Thinking From the Left Coast, one of the tops blogs going, fisks that anti-American jerkoff Michael Moore. Well worth the read.

If I took Clark seriously, I'd respond to this latest "brilliance" to eminate from his trap:

"If I were a Republican, it would be real easy," Mr. Clark said. "Republicans would say, 'Ah, general, we had Eisenhower, we like generals. Big authority.' Democrats aren't like that."
He said Democrats "want to look through that uniform."
"And they have trouble with that uniform because a lot of them marched [against the Vietnam War], and a lot of them, they're not authority-oriented and the military seems like rigid authority."

Why again is this Clinton stooge running as a Democrat?

We haven't heard much from the Mad Doctor since the Libya announcement. His spokesman Jay Carson has come out and said:

"Look, the agreement with the Libyans is good news and an important step forward in the effort to combat weapons of mass destruction, but the agreement is the result of years of diplomacy and sanctions, conducted in concert with the international community, which Governor Dean believes is the most effective means of pursuing that goal."

Yeah, Kadhafi was talked out of them. Sure. Whatever you say. Just completely ignore what Kadhafi told Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi:

"I will do whatever the Americans want because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."

Dean's spokesman's response?

"I haven't seen that quote. It's tough for me to respond to something I haven't seen."

What else could he say? Perhaps he should watch his favorite network, CNN, to get the story from the horse's mouth.

Kwanzaa is a fraud, pure and simple, made up by a convicted felon. Confessions of A Political Junkie says it best.

Every once in a while, I have to make a nearly 500 mile drive from Albuquerque, New Mexico to Tempe, Arizona. The drive sucks, but I do get the experience of listening to a lot of AM radio I do not normally hear. Once again last night, I found some liberal crank named Ray Taliaferro on KGO-AM (810) out of San Francisco. By listening to this joker for a mere hour, I learned:

- That Clinton diligently pursued al-Qaeda and President Bush put a stop to it upon taking office, ignoring Clinton's warnings about bin Laden.

- Bush's "lies" are a product of his alcoholism, and his continued "lies" make him think that Bush still hits the bottle on a regular basis.

- That Bush knew in advance of 9/11.

-That Tom Ridge is Elmer Fudd.

- It's all about oil.

- He has no respect for Condelezza Rice. (Funny how liberal blacks have no respect for a conservative black with a PhD from Stanford who is also a classic pianist. I guess she never got the memo about how racist Republicans are)

I spent a long time in major-market radio in Philadelphia and quickly noticed that he was able to banter along without any commercials (stop sets) interrupting him. The reason for that is simple: The salespeople CAN'T sell the show to advertisers!! And, take a look at the regular lineup at KGO-AM and you will know right away why he even has a job. This clown would be irritating if he weren't so pathetic. No wonder he has been buried on overnights for nearly 20 years.

His people are saying "See, he was right!!" in his comments that "America is not safer" after catching Saddam since the terror alert was raised to orange.

Hugh Hewitt fisks that tomfoolery perfectly.

The raising of the terrorist alert is a product of the constant whining by the Democrats for the last two years. From Hillary's "What did [Bush] know and when did he know it," and the Mad Doctor's peddling of "The Saudi's warned Bush, but it's only a theory I don't (wink wink) believe," Ridge has no choice but to do this, based on intelligence received. He knows, just as we all do, that the Democrats are just praying for another terrorist attack, and dying to say "He knew about threats and DIDN'T warn us!!"

Face it: Howard Dean and his fellow Democrats are at the point where anything bad for America is good for them. They know a repeat, or even an worse (better yet to them) attack than September 11th will go a long way in helping them defeat Bush next November. And, believe it, they are hoping for it.

Meanwhile, a headline reads: Anti-Dean ad wields image of bin Laden

The narrator of this anti-Dean ad says: "[Americans] want a president who can face the dangers ahead... . But Howard Dean has no military or foreign policy experience. And Howard Dean just cannot compete with George Bush on foreign policy." Who wrote and paid for this ad? Dean's fellow Democrats!!! Even they know what a fool he is. The Atlanta Urinal-Constipation must be kidding, thinking this might actually happen.

I have added a new comments section to this blog. Please feel free to add anything that comes to mind. Agree, disagree, tell me I am an idiot, whatever. Political correctness is not encouraged or desired. All I ask is no ridiculously foul language or racism. I love free speech, and I won't be like the DNC, who deletes comments that don't agree with them. I look forward to hearing your feedback, and please leave your name and where you are from!!

If I took that lying weasel Wesley Clark seriously, I'd comment on this statement he made:

And I would say to the Europeans, I pledge to you as the American president that we'll consult with you first. You get the right of first refusal on the security concerns that we have. We'll bring you in.

And, I would discuss his boasting that he would have had both Saddam and Osama a lot quicker than Bush did, asking him where those Serbian war criminals are. But, he is so ridiculous as a candidate, with zero credibility, why should I bother?

This is the headline on Yahoo.com:

Saddam was held by Kurdish forces, drugged and left for US troops

Notice something? No disclaimer!!! The headline misleads (intentionally) people that this is stone-cold fact. Only in the first paragraph do we find that a British newspaper is reporting it:

LONDON, (AFP) - Saddam Hussein was captured by US troops only after he had been taken prisoner by Kurdish forces, drugged and abandoned ready for American soldiers to recover him, a British Sunday newspaper said.

Of course, the liberal media will report this to no end, facts or reasonable analysis be damned. A few things that make me believe this is nonsense:

- Why didn't they collect the $25 million?
- If it was such a blood fued, why didn't they kill him? Surely they knew we would treat him a lot better than anyone else would.
- Why would they secretly hold him, only to make a big deal about it later to a teabag rag? Wouldn't they have made a video of it and show it off on Al-Jitbag-Zeera before turning him over?

I need to see a video before I believe anything other than the story I've heard. Of course, I don't expect the liberal media to work hard to try to disprove this teabag report.

It seems that Al Gore's son is just like his Daddy, and was busted for toking on the ganga. And, the humanity, he was driving a gas-guzzling Cadillac!! Looks like Gore 3 needs a lawyer. It's a shame his Daddy flunked out of Vanderbilt Law School, or he could hire him to represent him, to tell the judge "there is no controlling legal authority."

Also, look at the how the liberal media and others gloss over the fact that Gore flunked out of both Vanderbilt and Harvard. They just casually mentioned he did graduate work at those schools. The Washington Post for example. The draft Al Gore in 2004 website as well. The NYU Law Students against the Death Penalty list him as a Vanderbilt law graduate!! Yeah, Gore is a real brilliant man, and a real genius. Bush made him look like the jackass he is during their debates.

One of my favorite blogs, Allah Is In The House, has a hilarious page of tomfoolery.....take a look for yourself.

One of my all-time favorite poems, Ozymandias, has been reworked, in honor of Saddam's capture, called Saddamanias:

I met a traveler from an antique land

Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,

Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed,

And on the pedestal these words appear:

"My name is Saddamandias, King of Kings:

Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Beautiful. (Thanks to Professor Robert Lorenzi who, a decade ago, introduced me to Ozymandias.)

The BBC, the British Government-funded media people who hate the British Government (think of the teabag equivalent of PBS and NPR combined) have deemed that Saddam is no longer to be described as a "former dictator", but henceforth as the "former leader of Iraq." (Or deposed President) Their reasoning:

"Apparently, because his presidency was endorsed in a referendum, he was technically elected. Hence the word dictator is banned. It's all rather ridiculous."
The Beeb insists that the email merely restates existing guidelines. "We wanted to remind journalists whose work is seen and heard internationally of the need to use neutral language," says a spokesman. Yeah, Saddam got 100% of the vote in what was without a doubt a legitimate election.

Expect future memos to read:

"Yassar Arafat is not be referred as a terrorist leader and inciter, but as 'Nobel Laureate'."

"Al-Qaeda, Hamas, The PLO, and Hezbollah are no longer to be called terrorist organizations, but as 'Arab-based charities providing careers for Arab youth who advocate social change through political means'."

"Colonel Khadafi is to be referred henceforth as 'the early front-runner for the Nobel Peace Prize'."

"Reports about the deaths of soldiers are now to end with '[Soldier's death] brings the number of deaths to X since Saddam Hussein was captured on December 13th'." (Actually, Scrappleface said this first, but would anyone be surprised if that became BBC policy?)

"Every piece on Israel must mention that Israel is the target of more human rights condemnations by the United Nations than any other nation."

"Any mention of September 11th, 2001 must carry the disclaimer, 'the day that alleged terrorist attacks on America took place'."

You have one to add? E-mail me at slybri957@aol.com

Shockingly, the Times, in a editorial, gives Bush the full credit he deserves: (or do they?)

Over the past five years, by turning over two suspects for trial, acknowledging its complicity in the Lockerbie bombing and paying compensation to victims' families, Libya finally managed to persuade the United Nations Security Council to lift the international sanctions that had shadowed its economy and its international reputation for more than a decade. Those sanctions were lifted in September. This page recommended lifting American sanctions as well, but President Bush left them in place pending further steps, most notably Libya's decision to end its unconventional weapons programs. It is now clear that he was right to do so. The added American pressure worked just as intended.

Sadly, the Times is still the Times by obfuscating the facts: It was not sanctions that caused the ol'Colonel to see the error of his ways. Not only did he see what happened in Iraq, and what happened to Saddam, he was caught red-handed!!

Libya's promise to surrender its weapons of mass destruction was forced by Britain and America's seizure of physical evidence of Col Muammar Gaddafi's illegal weapons programme, the Telegraph can reveal.
United States officials say that America's hand was strengthened in negotiations with Col Gaddafi after a successful operation, previously undisclosed, to intercept transport suspected of carrying banned weapons.

The Times editorial is willfully ignorant in this sentence:

To an extent that cannot be precisely measured, the fate of Saddam Hussein, who was ousted from power by the American military with British backing after endless prevaricating about Iraqi weapons programs, must have been an important consideration in Libya's decision.

The Times just can't bring itself to say that the war on Iraq is now reaping some serious benefits. To the Times, it had to be the sanctions, because, well, anything else would go against their entire editorial position on the war.

Regardless of how the Times reads this, what Libya is doing is a great victory for Bush's foreign policy. Another rogue state has come off the radar. Plus, Iran and that Brillo Pad head in North Korea just lost a supplier and business partner.

As far as I am concerned, Kadhafi could take the dirt nap. However, I'll take them dismantling their WMD's and attempting to rejoin the "Community of Nations" (P.C. term for "Civilized World") without us being forced to bomb Tripoli. Expect the liberal media to call Kadhafi a "statesman," "a man of conscience," and every other hysterical compliment they could invent for him now, giving him a full pass for the Pan-Am bombing. He may even win a Nobel Peace Prize. (Don't laugh, if Yassar Arafat can get one, why not the ol' Colonel?)

Under Bush, the United States of America is once again a feared and respected power as it should be. Bush gave Libya the choice, a stick or a carrot. They wisely chose the carrot. Libya is not to be feted for doing not only the right thing, but the obvious one. I will always say this: If an American President is popular around the world, then something is wrong. If most of the world hates Bush, then he must be doing something right. Plus, under a man of respect like Bush, you don't see jokers like Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan taking a "World Friendship Tour" through the who's who of terrorist-sponsoring nations, mocking America at every opportunity.

Bush is a miserable failure? I don't think so.

FreeSpeech.com put it best: To review, North Korea came to the table to negotiate the issue of their nukes, Iran is going to let in inspectors, and now Libya has agreed to give up WMDs, too.

So let’s tally the score. Unilateralist “cowboy” diplomacy: three points. Multilateralist transnational progressivism: zero.

Note: This is an updated post with the cartoon link I promised.
A few weeks back, along with many others, I ripped the New York Times for their "Bush doesn't attend funerals or allow cameras to capture the return of lost soldiers" crusade. (Here and here) Well, Times Watch has the latest on a New York Times poll, taken by them as a way to legitimize their criticism. (My favorite part: a quarter of respondents said, incorrectly, that Mr. Bush was attending those funerals.)

I saved a hilarious, yet completely truthful, B.C. cartoon for an occasion such as this, and now it is time to use it. Click here, and this will tell you all you need to know about how the New York Times conducts its' polls.

A few days ago, I wrote about more tomfoolery at the New York "Once Upon A" Times. The soldier I wrote about e-mailed me and thanked me for for his support, and to tell me I spelled his name wrong. For the record, the soldier that the Times did wrong was:

Mike Beidler

I appreciate him taking the time to correct me. More importantly, I appreciate the huge sacrifices he and his family made to protect me and my family in our war on terrorism. Thank you Mr. Beidler.

I just finished listening to President Bush's speech about Colonel Moamer Kadhafi saying that Libya tried to acquire WMD's and will cooperate in getting rid of them. Of course, right after, a CBS News "analysis' said "This will give more credibility to the anti-war protestors who said this could be done without war."

(By the way, this guy has 9 different spellings of his name. I use the one I like best)

Uh, WRONG!!! Without the toppling of Saddam, Kadhafi would not be doing this, you liberal dopes!!! Kadhafi has always been right up there with Saddam on our shit list, and he knows it. And, CBS News mentioned how he could become a "statesman," etc. What idiocy. I am sure that this is how it all went down: American and/or British Intelligence told him, "We know what you got, and here's the proof. You can deny it and face the fate of Iraq, and wind up on TV like Saddam. Or you could come clean and slowly rejoin us in the civilized world. Your choice. Of course, this should be the easiest decision you ever made." Tony Blairsaid they have been talking for nine months. (Gee, it was 9 months ago this week we went after Iraq...I guess it was just a coincidence.)

I expect this "See, we could have stopped Iraq without war spin to be all over the place."

Obviously, Kadhafi knows that Bush is a hell of a lot more like Reagan than Clinton, and would not put up with his shit for too long. For some fun memories, read about how Reagan sent a few "regards" to Kadhafi in 1986.

According to the New York Times' Gina Kolata:

"Those who believe that pregnancy begins with fertilization say the pills in doing this can induce abortions."

Well, if someone doesn't believe that pregnancy begins with fertilization, then I would like to know exactly when they believe it begins. Stephanie and I had our first baby last week, the beautiful Emily (gratuitous mention). Maybe I am dumber than I thought, and her pregnancy actually began 3 or 4 months after fertilization. Who knew?

You know that falsehood about how we caught Saddam is being put out by the pro-American, hard-core right-wing press we suffer under ever day? Well, forget it. We were all lied to. The truth is Saddam was drugged and that is why he did not put up a fight or eat his pistol.

Ousted Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, was betrayed by a relative who served as his personal bodygyard and who led US troops to the former leader's secret hideout after drugging him, a Jordanian newspaper (Al-Arab Al Yawm)reported Thursday, quoting a source close to the US-led occupation in Iraq.

Since Al-Arab Al Yawm is the New York Times of Jordan, this must be totally accurate.

I am not so against the Padilla decision by the 2nd Circuit, who ruled that, as an American citizen, he has a right to an attorney. The one thing I find interesting is that he is known once again as Jose Padilla. When he was arrested, he was known as Abdullah al-Muhajir. Read his BBC profile. As can be expected, that teabag rag lists his long criminal history, but makes sure they get in this laugher:

Neighbours quoted in the US press remember Brooklyn-born Mr Padilla as "a nice kid who always helped his mother".

He was out of the United States from 1998 until he returned in 2002. Seems he was hanging out in Afghanistan and Pakistan with al-Qaeda. Why wasn't his U.S. citizenship revoked? Don't worry, right around the time of his trial, the press will make it like he was an innocent man searching for life's higher meaning. If he gets out of jail, he'll be on Larry King the same day, explaining how the racist U.S. Government was out to get him because he converted to Islam.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, located (where else?) in San Francisco, has ruled against President Bush (another shocker) and said enemy combatants in Guantanamo Bay have the right to an attorney. The money quote:

"Even in times of national emergency - indeed, particularly in such times - it is the obligation of the Judicial Branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the Executive Branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority.

Good 'ol Judge Reinhardt, Since he is married to Ramona Ripston, the Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California, it is not a stretch to call him what he is: a tool for the ACLU. (He has never ruled against the ACLU...funny, ain't it?) His ruling is a parrot of the ACLU company line on Guantanamo Bay. And, they sure are gloating. When that happens, you just know the decision sucked.

Oh how lucky we are to have his holiness to protect us from that evil Bush. Of course, this type of tomfoolery can be expected from the most overruled court in the nation. For some historical perspective, know that it was that liberal hero, he of the New Deal, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who started the concept of the "enemy combatant." Read this case, Ex Parte Quirin, and you'll be one step up from Reinhardt: You'll have actually read the case.

Let's hope the Supreme Court does the right thing and smacks this down. Of course, with O'Connor become more senile by the decision, thinking she is Ruth Bader Ginsburg (another ACLU tool), she may just agree with those radicals at the 9th Circuit.

It seems that the Washington insiders are circling the wagons against that outsider Howard Dean. Now, the Washington Post, who usually could be counted on to prop up the Democratic front-runner, use the opportunity of this week's events to disparage Howard Dean. This editorial could have easily been written by the Washington Times. The concluding sentence:

His most serious departure from the Democratic mainstream is not his opposition to the war. It is his apparent readiness to shrink U.S. ambitions, in Iraq and elsewhere, at a time when the safety of Americans is very much at stake.

Exactly.

I once read, and never forget, a great line. "When liberals can't argue on substance, they complain about process." That is so true in this article (of course, on Slate) by Daniel Drezner titled "Bush the Bumbler." I guess they will never give up that "Bush is dumb" attitude. (Yeah, and they say that while they simultaneously argue how dumb he is they also argue how he conned the entire world on WMD in Iraq.)

Some fisking is in order:

The latest process screw-up was last week's decision to bar allies outside the coalition of the willing in Iraq from receiving reconstruction contracts. The Defense Department memo in question was badly worded and badly timed. Claiming that the policy was "necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States" made it seem like the administration trusted Egypt and Saudi Arabia more than Germany or Canada. Releasing the memo the day before Bush was to call the leaders of France, Germany, and Russia to discuss forgiving Iraq's prewar debt was none too bright. I just love how much these leftists worry about France and Germany getting upset. Notice that this posture combined with the capture of Saddam (conveniently not mentioned at all) has changed the attitude of these "axis of weasels" countries to a more cooperative one?

This had to be written after Saddam was caught, because the fine U. Of Chicago professor (which reveals his slant right away) quotes several columns from Sunday's NY Times and LA Times. What seems to bother the professor (and the agreeing quotes he uses from conservatives; a nice technique perfected by the NY Times) is that things are not happening fast enough for him. Bush had said since day one that will would be a long process and would not be easy.

Drezner's conclusion, in which he sounds like a DNC strategist:

Given the high stakes that the administration is playing for in Iraq and the war on terror, Bush's process failures make him far more vulnerable on national security issues than one might imagine. Yeah, go ahead and make those process arguments. They'll only convince the converted and make for wonderful conversation between the "intelligensia." Tell the Democratic nominee to run on the platfrom that he will make things run smoother behind the scenes, and that France and Germany will be happy and better friends if he is elected. That'll work.

I may have said the ACLU, but didn't I tell you that someone would bitch that we got Saddam without a search warrant? From Derrick Z. Jackson of the Boston Globe , which is owned by the same people as, you guessed it, the New York Times

With no weapons, no ties, and no truth, the capture of Saddam was merely the most massive and irresponsible police raid in modern times. We broke in without a search warrant. I would ask, "Is this guy for real?" but he is from Boston, where reality is suspended at the Massachussetts state line. Jackson must be drinking the same water as that liberal dope Oliver Wiilis. (Who has now banned me from his site!!)

And, didn't I tell you someone would make a comment about Saddam getting free dental care? Why it is none other than that fat, smelly, looks like he has gone-without-a-bath-longer-than-Saddam Michael Moore:

"Thank God Saddam is finally back in American hands! He must have really missed us. Man, he sure looked bad! But, at least he got a free dental exam today. That's something most Americans can't get."

Those leftist wankers are so predictably dumb, it is a farce.

I also predicted:

"Human Rights Watch (or Amnesty International) upset at inhumane treatment of Saddam after capture by U.S. Forces"

You just knew that was coming. But from the Vatican? I am sorely disappointed in them.

A few weeks back, along with many others, I ripped the New York Times for their "Bush doesn't attend funerals or allow cameras to capture the return of lost soldiers" crusade. (Here and here) Well, Times Watch has the latest on a New York Times poll, taken by them as a way to legitimize their criticism. (My favorite part: a quarter of respondents said, incorrectly, that Mr. Bush was attending those funerals.)

I saved a hilarious, yet completely truthful, B.C. cartoon for an occasion such as this, and now it is time to use it. Click here, and this will tell you all you need to know about how the New York Times conducts its' polls. (link pending...comic strip is on my laptop..sorry!!!)

I think John Kerry served in Vietnam. I'm not sure, but I'll check on it. Anyway, this is that nicely-coifed dude at the Council on Foreign relations about 2 weeks ago:

"Simply put, the Bush administration has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history."

And, l'homme qui semble francais said, on Fox News Sunday, after Saddam was captured:

"This is a great opportunity for this president to get it right for the long term. And I hope he will be magnanimous, reach out to the U.N., to allies who've stood away from us."

And yesterday, the guy who married an insanely rich widow said:

"And at other times, Governor Dean said that we should not go into Iraq unless the UN Security council gave us authorization. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how a President protects the United States. I have said many times I believe that America should have worked to get international backing before going to war. Our diplomacy should have been as good as our soldiers. A true international coalition would have been better for our troops, better for our security, better for Iraq's future. Perhaps it reflects inexperience, but for Howard Dean to permit a veto over when America can or cannot act not only becomes little more than a pretext for doing nothing, it cedes our security and presidential responsibility to defend America to someone else -- a profound danger for both our national security and global stability... To follow the path that Howard Dean seems to prefer is to embrace a 'Simon Says' foreign policy where America only moves if others move first."

Perhaps I am tired from staying all up with my stunningly beautiful newborn daughter Emily, but I seem to remember Bush doing exactly what Kerry proposes that he would have done if President!! Bush went to the United Nations and warned them that they would be irrelevant if they did not enforce their resolutions. And, he went back AGAIN to ask for their assistance in the rebuilding of Iraq, and explained in detail how they can stay relevant. They did nothing!! Kerry said Bush "should" have worked to get international backing. If going to the United Nations twice to speak forcefully and honestly is not "work[ing] to get international backing,' then I do not know what is.

Then Kerry rips Howard Dean for suggesting we allow others to veto our actions. Once again, did Bush allow France or Germany's opposition to get in the way? HELL NO!!!

So, which is it, Monsieur Kerry? Do we go with the U.N., or do we ignore them? Or, do we try our best to get them to go along, and if they refuse to assist in defending our security, go along without their so-called "legitimacy?" So, depending on what time of the day it is, you advocate a position that only plays to the far-left of your party. Then, at other times, you advocate exactly what Bush has done and is doing!!! Either way, you lose mon ami.

I feel sorry for Kerry. It is plainly obvious he is aware of the reticence of France and the worthlessness of the U.N. He needs to stop saying we need to bring them in. Bush tried, and they ran off after the first car bomb, and they are ready to abandon Afghanistan as well. What Kerry needs to do now is stay his new course, and re-affirm his support for his vote to authorize the war in Iraq. Let Dean take the nomination and have the Democratic Party implode. He can at least be one of the guys who tried to save the party. Instead, he is one of the main people bringing it down. But, since I am a huge Bush supporter, I hope he doesn't take my advice.

P.S. Jean, Bill O'Reilly made you look like a rambling dope on his show.