Lefties Line Up For Spitzer

Even those at the peak of leftist commentary, like Glenn Greenwald, can sense that there's something wrong with the hypocrisy of (soon to be ex?) Gov. Eliot Spitzer:

That hypocrisy precludes me from having any real personal sympathy for Spitzer, and no reasonable person could defend him from charges of rank hypocrisy.

But that doesn't mean he shouldn't get a good, secularist, amoralist defense:

But how can his alleged behavior -- paying another adult roughly $1,000 per hour to travel from New York to Washington to meet him for sex -- possibly justify resignation, let alone criminal prosecution, conviction and imprisonment? Independent of the issue of his hypocrisy -- which is an issue meriting attention and political criticism but not criminal prosecution -- what possible business is it of anyone's, let alone the state's, what he or anyone else does in their private lives with other consenting adults?

Indeed, one of Greenwald's commenters, DCLaw1, takes it a step further, with nodding heads all around:

I have always found it very curious that one of the following, but not the other, is illegal:

(a) Two people have sex, one of them gets paid for it;

(b) Two (or more) people have sex, all of them get paid for it, and it is videotaped and sold to third parties as a commodity.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument why this difference makes any actual sense.

In that, DCLaw1 is absolutely right. They ought to throw the porn stars, directors, producers, gaffers, editors and best boys in the slammer, too. There was a day, before Free Speech got naked, when that would have been what people like then-DA Spitzer did to earn their keep.

Whoa. The heads just stopped nodding.

But the Left has much bigger fish to fry than simple morality in the Spitzer case. As Scott Horton writes in Harpers:

It looks like the Bush Justice Department just bagged themselves another Democratic Governor.

Horton has a figure, undocumented, that under Bush's Justice Department, 5.6 times more cases were opened against Dems than Republicans.

He would like us to think that these are all high profile political cases, but he offers us no data to prove it. In fact, he says, "Indeed, a study of the cases out of Alabama shows clearly that even cases opened against Republicans are in fact only part of a broader pattern of going after Democrats."

Let me hazard a guess here. More drug dealers and pimps are Dems than Republicans. Are we being told to elect Clinton or Obama so the purveyors of crack and whores, and crack whores for that matter, will face less prosecution?

And stop me if I'm reaching here, but in watching The Godfather, I never got the sense that anyone in the Corleone circle of influence was a big man in the GOP elite.

Of course, we know from ABC that it was suspicious fund transfers that got Spitzer in trouble, not hooking up with hookers, and we know that it was a bank that initially reported him to the feds, not Karl Rove.

Are we being told to vote for Obama or Hillary so suspicious fund transfers are to be ignored? Hmmm. Maybe.

That seems to be Firedoglake's POV, given the questions asked there:

1. Why would the bank tell the IRS and not Spitzer himself if there was a suspicious transfer?

I believe it's this troubling thing called the law.

2. What is the USA doing prosecuting a prostitution case?

Her point, of course, is that the local DA, not the feds, should be prosecuting it. Certainly that's a harken back to the Clinton admin, whose Justice Department was notoriously soft on sex crimes. But look at the facts: A person from New York was doing business on a large scale with a prostitution ring in DC. Federal jurisdiction, baby.

3. Mike Garcia is a Chertoff crony.

She's following this case a lot closer than I am, but please ... cronyism? Cronyism, thy name is politics. The Dems are all over cronyism during the Bush Admin. It must be because they were exhausted containing their outrage during eight years of Clinton cronyism. This rings of 9/11 Truther Whacko garbage.

4. How did Spitzer's name get leaked to the media, and who did it? Didn't happen to Dave Vitter.

The answer is Karl Rove, of course! Why ask? And if we're so concerned about such questions, Jane, who leaked the FISA surveillance story to the media?

5. Why did Mike Bloomberg suddenly start talking about running for governor recently?

Could it be because he decided not to run for president? Spitzer is 18 months into his term ... about time to fire up an opposition campaign, ya think?

6. The Mann Act? Are you kidding?

People who don't like prostitution being prosecuted don't like the Mann Act and are always harping about it being a political tool more than a prosecuting tool. But it was written to provide the tool for prosecuting interstate prostitution. I kid you not.

7. Spitzer's been in the line of fire of the GOP hit squad for a while.

Technically, that's not a question. But here's one for you, Jane: What high profile, ambitious Republican has not been in the Dems' line of fire for a while?

Eliot Spitzer's fall is a great personal tragedy and his family has the misfortune of it also being a great political spectacle. By turning his crime and fall into a rant against prostitution laws, Bush, old laws, the GOP, Chertoff and goodness knows what else, the Left is doing their man no favors.

But I'd rather watch their ranting than Spitzer himself, any day.

Headline Readers Think Iran Doesn't Seek Bomb

The McClatchy headline and the lead are bold indeed:

Experts: No Evidence of Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program

WASHINGTON — Despite President Bush's claims that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons that could trigger "World War III," experts in and out of government say there's no conclusive evidence that Tehran has an active nuclear-weapons program.

Even his own administration appears divided about the immediacy of the threat. While Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney speak of an Iranian weapons program as a fact, Bush's point man on Iran, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, has attempted to ratchet down the rhetoric.

Leftyblogs were quick to jump on this bandwagon because, after all, there is no evil in the world other than Bush:

If you listen to White House officials, Iran’s nuclear-weapons program is already a reality. There’s no hesitation on the rhetoric — the program, top administration officials say, is an unfortunate reality that demands our immediate attention. As Dick Cheney recently put it, “Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions. We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

With this in mind, it’s probably worth taking a moment, now and again, to point out that there’s no conclusive evidence that such a program actually exists. (The crooks and liars at Crooks and Liars)

Then there's The Newshoggers with this pig-eyed view:

One of the contributing worries of people who believe that there is a significant possibility of overt US military actions against Iran before Jan. 20, 2009 is the roll-out of the propaganda and FUD factors. We have Kyl-Lieberman taking the place of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, we have the unfounded accusations, we have the massive hyping of potential threats built upon gossamar threads of plausibility, we have freakish exile groups stovepiping their 'intel' and we have a coterie of officials who have a long-standing hard-on for 'regime change' with power in the White House.

One of the positive repeats of that entire cycle was the McClatchy/Knight Ridder team. They were the ones who were digging around and pointing out the bullshit on weapons claims, threat assessments and intel 'sources' while the big boys in the national media reprinted official claims without any skepticism on the front page, or in the lede. McClatchy is doing it again today with an analysis of the Iranian nuclear capacity in a great article.

Beware, my friends, it appears the Leftyblogs are content to make news from headlines and leads, and not really probe into the articles they are basing their posts on. The highly suspect and blatantly anti-Bush motivations of McClatchy's headline and lead-writers notwithstanding, let's fisk a bit, shall we?

The gist of the article is that Iran is no doubt pursuing a nuclear program, but there's no evidence they're actually making bombs. Well, duh. There's not much point in making bombs until you have something to put in them, eh? And there's plenty of evidence related in the article about their efforts to do that, including:

• Seized drawings "that indicated that Iranian experts studied mounting a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile."
• Seized plans for a deep-bored shaft "apparently designed to contain an nuclear explosion."
• A document viewed by the IAEA that showed how to produce uranium hemispheres which have no application in nuclear power plants "but form the explosive cores of nuclear weapons."
• Iran's assertions that it only has P1 centrifuges, not P2's, which are much faster, fly in the face of IAEA evidence that they do, indeed, have plans for P2s.
• Iran's assertions that they're not doing anything with their P2 plans flies in the face of proof "that Iran sought to buy thousands of specialized magnets for P2s from European suppliers."

And on and on. The McClatchy article, in totality, is a condemnation of Iran's claims that it seeks nukes only for peaceful purposes, but the Left is content to skim the headline and lead and make their own safe, anti-American conclusions.

hat-tip: memeorandum

Bush Working With Dems On Iraq Transition

If I could nominate one news article this week as the one most likely to drive MoveOn.org and the Kos-sac into a fine dither, it would be the second excerpt from Bill Sammon's The Evangelical President that ran in the SF Chronicle.

In Sammon's piece, we see a president that is supposedly too stupid to articulate his way to the end of a sentence, and too partisan to ever look beyond the hateful blinders of his GOP cohorts, actually planning for the possible transition of the Iraq war to a Democratic president.

(Not that he thinks that will happen. In the first part of the two-parter, Bush predicts that Clinton will win the primary but lose the general, a statement that's obsessed the leftyblogs.)

Sammon reveals that Bush is "quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president."

Chief of Staff Josh Bolten told Sammon:

“He wants to create the conditions where a Democrat not only will have the leeway, but the obligation to see it out.”

The Left will think the Bush is taking recreational breaks with Marion Barry when they read the president's remarks to Sammon:

The Examiner asked Bush why Democratic candidates such as Clinton and Barack Obama, who routinely lambaste his handling of Iraq, should take his advice.

“First of all, I expect them to criticize me. That’s one way you get elected in the Democratic primary, is to criticize the president,” Bush replied. “I don’t expect them to necessarily take advice from me. I would expect their insiders to at least get a perspective about how we see things.”

He added: “We have an obligation to make sure that whoever is interested, they get our point of view, because you want somebody running for president to at least understand all perspectives, apart from the politics.”

Besides, Bush suggested that Clinton and Obama just might benefit from his advice.

“If I were a candidate running for president in a complex world that we’re in, I would be asking my national security team to touch base with the White House just to at least listen about plans, thoughts,” he said.

And apparently the Clinton campaign, and possibly others, are doing just that -- listening to the thoughts of a man MoveOn et. al. would have us believe is incapable of thinking. Why shouldn't they? Unlike most of us, they've seen Bush up close and bluster as they will in public, they know he's a smart man with a clear, long-term vision.

Of course, his long-term vision could become a short-term vision in the hands of a Dem president, but it looks more and more like we will be able to wrap up Iraq much more successfully than appeared would be the case earlier this year.

Part of the reason for optimism is that Bush has done such a good job of making that possible. He's taken the hits on surveillance and Guantanamo so others won't have to. He's changed tactics and leadership. He's cobbled together his shattered party to stand up to Dem white-flag bullying. And, we now learn, he's reaching out to anyone who may take his chair to help them form a viable ongoing policy for Iraq.

There must be no joy in Kosville.

hat-tip: Jim

Did Bollinger Completely Miss The Point?

Update: The Bollinger transcript is out; view it here. He did quite a good job all in all, as I discuss above ... which I'll post as soon as I'm done.

I'm still waiting for a transcript of Lee Bollinger's reportedly scathing introduction of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be posted. Despite the views of some I respect that it was an award-winning intro, I'm holding my opinion until I can see the transcript.

Here's why.

The LAT clip below is indicative of most clips I've read regarding the appearance:

In his scathing introduction to the much-anticipated on-campus event, Bollinger told the leader of Iran that he resembled "a petty and cruel dictator."

Bollinger levied repeated criticisms against Ahmadinejad, calling on him to answer a series of challenges about his leadership, blasting his views about the "myth" of the Holocaust "absurd" and saying that he doubted he "will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions."

"Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," Bollinger said, to loud applause.

He said Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust might fool the illiterate and ignorant.

It appears from all the coverage I've read that Bollinger focused on the Holocaust, which certainly wouldn't have been my focus. As appalling has Ahmadinejad's view on the Holocaust is, it is inconsequential in terms of the politics of today. That's not to say the extermination of Jews isn't a critical issue, but Bollinger should have gone after Ahmadinejad for his declarations that Israel should be wiped off the map today. That is much more relevant than his denial that Hitler tried to exterminate them 60 years ago.

I also have seen no mention that Bollinger attacked Ahmadinejad for Iran's supply of munitions, funding and training to terrorists in Iraq, all in a deliberate effort to kill as many American troops as possible.

It would have taken some real courage to bring that up at Columbia, a place where a fair number on the faculty and in the student body probably think killing "imperialist" U.S. soldiers is a fine thing to do. Criticizing holocaust deniers, in contrast, is not risk-taking in an American campus (yet, thank God), so I don't give Bollinger any kudos for that.

Like I say, when I get to read the transcript, I may change my viewpoint.

Meanwhile, I thought David Schizer, the dean of the Columbia Law School did some pretty commendable risk-taking with this statement:

A controversy has developed about the invitation extended to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran by the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs. Although Columbia Law School was not involved in arranging this invitation, we have received many inquiries about it.

This event raises deep and complicated issues about how best to express our commitment to intellectual freedom, and to our free way of life. Although we believe in free and open debate at Columbia and should never suppress points of view, we are also committed to academic standards. A high-quality academic discussion depends on intellectual honesty but, unfortunately, Mr. Ahmadinejad has proven himself, time and again, to be uninterested in whether his words are true. Therefore, my personal opinion is that he should not be invited to speak. Mr. Ahmadinejad is a reprehensible and dangerous figure who presides over a repressive regime, is responsible for the death of American soldiers, denies the Holocaust, and calls for the destruction of Israel. It would be deeply regrettable if some misread this invitation as lending prestige or legitimacy to his views.

Our university is a pluralistic place, and I recognize that others within our community take a different view in good faith, and that they have the right to extend invitations that I personally would not extend. I know that we will learn from each other in discussing the difficult questions prompted by this invitation. (emphasis added)

That's getting it right.

Meanwhile, over at Kos, we read this:

As an American, I was stunned and embarrassed by Bollinger's harangue of Ahmedinejad. It was a craven and cowardly capitulation to political pressures, and unworthy of the academic institution that Bollinger represents. I know who and what Ahmedinejad is, but I also know that he was at Columbia at Columbia's invitation. Bollinger's speech was less a challenge to Ahmedinejad than it was an ambush, and it dishonered [sic] all of us as Americans.

Hmm. I wonder what this writer's response would be if Bollinger had been equally pointed in introducing the president of the United States. I'll hazard a guess that he wouldn't think that to be unworthy of Columbia or -- and this is really odd -- dishonoring to Americans.

And speaking of Kos, we also see this on the site, courtesy of LGF:

Obviously, this is not a poll based on reality so a lot of people used it to make political statements that do not reflect what their actual actions would have been if we were suddenly transported to Bizzaro World, where such a vote might in fact take place.

Be that as it may, Kos posed the question, a question no one on the Left in the pre-Bush era would have ever thought about asking. It appears that as the Bush administration is winding down, the demented hatred of Bush is only increasing among the rabid Left.

hat-tip: memeorandum

Let No Ache Go Unpunished

Here's more proof, if you need it, that Bush is the fuel for the Dem machine. Without W to whine and rant about, the party without ideas, the party without huevos, would simply run out of gas.

When the results of the Prez' recent physical were released, disclosing that he was treated successfully for Lyme Disease, Dem mouthpiece The Dem Daily, had this to say (and it wasn't "We're glad he's better."):

Thw [sic] White House could have used the opportunity to alert the public on Lyme Disease, it’s [sic] symptoms and treatment. Instead at the time they found it, they kept it secret. Color me perplexed… Just another little tick about the Bush Administration… Secrets.

Not concerned about the people, secretive: That's quite a conclusion to draw from this episode.

I offer this alternative: Bush is a man. He doesn't go around complaining of every little ache and pain, and despite being in the highest office on the planet, he doesn't care all that much for celebrity.

But of course there are other explanations: Rove planted the tick to take the focus off Gonzales; Bush's stubbornness on Iraq is the result of tick-caused retardation; John Edwards, who, as we know, is adept at profiting from medicine, planted the tick; Fox News knew about it but didn't report it; he contracted it in Crawford ... suspiciously close to Cindy Sheehan; Homeland Security dropped the ball by not raising the Lyme Disease alert from chartreuse to lime green ...

... and on and on. We're lucky we got away with one jibe.

hat-tip: memeorandum

YearlyKos: No-Shows And Curious Sponsors

The weird world of the whacked out Left ... reading the Yearly Kos Convention home page is even odd ...

Noooo!!! It's the last day of the Convention! But we're ending on a higher-than-all-heck note with the Presidential Leadership Forum.

Can I get a wooo-hoooo??

Don't forget your lanyards today! That would be very bad. And why not put on little bits of ritz while you're at it? No pressure--just the whole world watching...

The Kos-sacks dressing up for the media with "ritz?" I thought they'd be dressing up in their best F*** Bush T-shirts.

Hillary's speaking now, apparently. Here's a lead-in from aging left-organ Mother Jones:

The secret service cars are out front and the mainstream media has shown up in force, so you know it's time for the big boys. Hillary Clinton, who is up first, provides the most compelling story lines here at YearlyKos. As Kos himself admitted in a press conference a few moments ago, "Her negatives in this community are fairly high." She isn't seen as a true progressive, nor as someone willing to stand strong for her principles when it is politically inexpedient. But as Kos admitted, Clinton has moved strongly in the last year to engage the netroots and bring down those negatives.

Will she get hit for being the most moderate of all the candidates, or will she get kudos for trending in the right direction? Or, as has the case been throughout this convention, will the crowd be polite, respectful, and almost bland? Stay tuned…

Polite, respectful and bland? From the Kos-mopolitans? That would be newsworthy!

Meanwhile the big highlight of the day, the DC "Meet the Leaders" session, bombed out entirely:

I know, I know--what could possibly be more important than our annual gathering of the Netroots? That's what I said!

We are officially listing Senator Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Rahm Emanuel as cancelled ....

The reason? No way they'd want to associate with this Kos-tic sorts. Just kidding. A vote on the energy bill is going on today ... far too much pork at state to risk a trip to the Kos-modome.

Meanwhile, I was interested to see that right there on the very top tier of sponsors was a division of mainstream corporate Hollywood, Warner Independent Films. Why would Warner Bros have one of its divisions so visible among the rebels with a Kos? Two reasons that I can see:

• The 11th Hour, Leo's follow-up to Al's global warming fearfest, which we understand is even scarier than the first. Due out from Warner Independent on Aug. 17.
• In the Valley of Elah, starring Tommy Lee Jones and the nuttier and nuttier Susan Sarandon as parents searching for their boy, who just returned from duty in Iraq but has gone missing.

Warner Bros. current mainstream offerings are Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, License to Wed, No Reservations and Oceans 13 -- all films going after mainstream audiences that probably aren't too keen to sit next to the smelly guys in the F*** Bush T-shirts.

Should we protest? Yawn.

What The Left Excels At: Censorship

I may be a bit late to the party on this one (vacation and all), but it's apparent the Left has been up to a game it plays quite well: infringing on others' freedom of speech.

It's going on at the incorrectly named Americablog, which apparently has a campaign going against Home Depot for (allegedly) advertising on the Bill O'Reilly show. Banging on the old drums of distrust and conspiracy, A'blog posts emails from Home Depot saying the don't advertise on Fox, or any programs "that express strong opinions or political views," then posts another saying they do, in fact, advertise on O'Reilly.

Perhaps Home Depot is doing "run of network" ads that appear across the FOX networks, with FOX choosing which shows the ads run on.

A thoughtful explanation, but don't expect the Left to play nice.

A lot of companies like to use this kind of advertising to claim that they don't advertise on particular shows - it's a smoke screen and a lie. If this is the case here, then Home Depot needs to specifically inform us that they have asked FOX not to run any Home Depot ads on The O'Reilly Factor.

Having said that, Home Depot has some explaining to do if it thinks Hannity is any better than O'Reilly. FOX, across the board, smears gays, blacks, attacks the environment, and more. Home Depot needs to dump the hate network now, across the board.

What gives this pig the authority to tell a corporation where to advertise? Has he not realized that Fox has trounced all other cable news networks and therefore can hardly be the hate-mongers he tries to dismiss them as?

If A'blog (which, come to think of it, is a nice moniker, reminding me of another A abbreviation) really thinks Fox "smears gays, blacks, attacks the environment, and more," then why not provide some links with each of the allegations?

Is providing debate on gay marriage "smearing gays?" No, it is free speech on topical issues.

Is questioning the motives of Jackson and Sharpton "smearing blacks?" No, it is free speech on topical issues.

Is running stories that raise issues about global warming or the economic viability of alternative fuels "attacking the environment?" No, it is free speech on topical issues.

It is clear that A'blog's big fight is with free speech, differences of opinion, and anyone that isn't bullied into goose-stepping along with A-blog and the party line. Were it not so, wouldn't A-blog be demanding that Home Depot not advertise on Keith Olbermann and MSNBC because he "smears Christians, the military, Capitalism, and more?" Wouldn't A'blog be demanding fairness from the networks, with their milquetoast anti-conservatism? Wouldn't A'blog be chiding the NYT, WaPo and the rest of print for their bias?

No, of course not. It's OK to be biased left, but it's not OK to be biased fair or conservative.

Home Depot has a right to advertise anywhere it wants to. If the rabid readers of A'blog decide to take their (probably scant) dollars elsewhere, let them. That's a free market, not the sort of bullying the Left is prone to do when facing something that dissatisfies them.

If you'd like to encourage Home Depot to continue to support free speech and their right to advertise wherever they feel is best, A'blog was kind enough to provide us with some email addresses:

Ron Jarvis, Vice President of Environmental Innovation
ron_jarvis@homedepot.com

Frank Blake, Chief Executive Officer
francis_blake@homedepot.com

Carol Tome, Chief Financial Officer
carol_tome@homedepot.com

hat-tip: memeorandum

Maybe Wonkette Will Slap Me With A Lawsuit

It seems Wonkette, the popular, foul Leftyblog, has become quite openly antisemitic, dropping all pretense of typical leftist cover-up of the movement's anti-Israel and increasingly Jew-hostile thinking. Here's its lead on a post a couple days back authored by Alex Pareen:

In a stunning rocket, Rudy Jew-liani basically admitted that he doesn’t know anything at all about foreign policy — or maybe that he knows too much. In an interview with the Jew York Times ...

That's enough; I won't bother you with the rest of the blathering drivel.

Hold up your hand if you think there's a defense that could be raised for Pareen. Anyone think the use of "Jew-liani" and "Jew York Times" somehow isn't blatantly and unquestionably indicative of antisemitic thinking? Anyone? Anyone?

Seeing none, I would rest my case, except Pareen refuses to do so.

Yisrael at the blog called My Right Word spotted this and posted on it yesterday. Here's that post in its entirety:

Is "Wonkette" Antisemitic?

Wonkette, that foul-mouthed but titilating blogger of Washington foibles, seems to have gone anti-semitic.

Editor Alex Pareene and Interns Nick Mueller and Lauren Spohrer may be responsibl;e for this post which refers to someone they call "Rudy-Jew-liani" who gave an interview to the "Jew York Times".

Anybody for bonking Wonkette?

A fine example of free speech, right? Yisrael found something interesting in the public forum and posted his thoughts about it in a way far more respectful than the typical "Kill Bush!" "Kill Cheney" rhetoric of the Left.

Again, I would rest my case, but Pareen refuses to. Wonkette, this time in the person of a Ken Layne, contacted Yisrael and threatened to litigate:

You know, it's kind of poor manners to go accusing people of being antisemitic based on nothing more than you being too lazy to read the site and know any of the references.

But since you don't, and since you so thoughtlessly and wantonly libel our editors and the owners and stockholders of our company, I will direct you to the specific reference from the day before, which just happens to be a viral video on YouTube that everybody in politics is talking about:

Wonkette Post

You can go ahead and apologize on your site now. Send us the link when you do and I'll send that to our lawyers and that will be the end of that.

Can you believe it? The left is so spineless, so thin-skinned, so easily affronted that merely asking the question, "Is 'Wonkette' Antisemitic?" is grounds for litigation! What a bunch of losers ... of fascists ... of censoring-mad, hypocritical lunatics. There, that should be enough for me to get a letter from Layne as well.

Go ahead, Kenny boy, give me your best shot ... and let's see if you can hold true to your "liberal" ideals as you do. Betcha can't.

Interesting enough, despite the attention the post is getting and the "up yours" response Yisrael sent back to Layne, Wonkette hasn't removed or changed the post. They're proud of their* cute little wordplay, just like Hitler probably liked the design of those nice armbands he had designed for all the Jews.

* Wonkette likes "Jew-liani" a lot, but didn't come up with it; it's in the non-Wonkette YouTube clip Layne referenced in his response. The clip does not, however, mention the "Jew York Times," and Wonkette mentioned both in a new, second post, because they thought them cute, not reprehensible.

hat-tip: Flopping Aces

Quote Of The Day: Voice In The Wilderness Edition

No responsible leader in Washington desires conflict with Iran. But every leader has a responsibility to acknowledge the evidence that the U.S. military has now put before us: The Iranian government, by its actions, has all but declared war on us and our allies in the Middle East. -- Sen. Joe Lieberman

What's so hard to get? Why is there such denial?

Russia fought proxy wars with us for decades, as did China. Now there's a new enemy, Islamofascism, and many are doing the intellectual equivalent of gouging out their eyes to avoid seeing the obvious.

In a major WSJ opinion piece today (which also tops RCP and Memeorandum), Lieberman lays out the case:

• Iran is using Hezbollah to train terrorists to kill our troops in Iraq
• The Iranian Quds force is taking Iraqi insurgents to training camps in Iran, training them, then dispatching them back to Iraq
• Iran spends $3 million a month on its proxies in Iraq
  

Lieberman shares my view that diplomatic efforts must continue as an effort to tighten the screws on Tehran through means other than military -- but to give our diplomacy some muscle by backing it with an ominous, powerful, intent military presence.

Kudos, as usual to Joe. He's worth a hundred Pete Domenici's, Richard Lugars and Crybaby Voinoviches. Too bad he doesn't get a hundred votes to their one, because compare his quote above with this one from Domenici:

We cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress.

We can't? Indefinitely? Not making progress? What a disgusting, cowardly line of reasoning. Domenici has to see that this has nothing to do with the Iraqi government's progress, which is an excuse, a convenient cop-out. The threats to us are real. If Iraq is ready to stand beside us, fine. If not, then we must still protect ourselves.

So it is with sadness that I read this from Lieberman's piece:

When Congress reconvenes next week, all of us who are privileged to serve there should set aside whatever partisan or ideological differences divide us to send a clear, strong and unified message to Tehran that it must stop everything it is doing to bring about the death of American service members in Iraq.

It seems like an obvious, unavoidable thing to do. But don't count on it. The Senate is filling with men of no stomach, men of no vision, men who live and die by opinion polls instead of thinking about who wants to kill us. But as bad as they are, they're infinitely superior to the human sump-sludge of the Leftyblogs, who greeted the op/ed like this:

Thank goodness you were there Joe to ensure their victory, for without this glorious cluster**** you love more than whining-itself Iran would not have won. In fact, our glorious stupidity, that you enabled, brought forth the crazy-man in the members only jacket. Naturally, your wisdom now is unimpeachable...just like your beloved Chimp.

Can't these pathetic losers get over themselves and their petty egos and grand paranoid visions? There's an enemy, and it's not us. There's a war, and it's not fake. There are good people, and there's them.

Glasgow Attack! Ready For Leftyblogs!

This just in:

GLASGOW, Scotland (AP)- Two men stuntman operatives of Karl Rove rammed a flaming sport utility vehicle into the main terminal of Glasgow airport Saturday, crashing into the glass doors at the entrance and sparking a fire, witnesses said. Police said two suspects were arrested intent on deflecting media attention from President Bush's failed foreign policy.

The green SUV with U.S. government plates barreled toward the building at full speed before crashing into security barriers. Witnesses said two stuntmen jumped out, one of them engulfed in flames over what appeared to be a Nomex suit. Two stuntmen were arrested, Strathclyde Police spokeswoman Lisa O'Neil, an M15 operative, said.

The airport — Scotland's largest — was evacuated and flights suspended. Smoke and black flames rose from the car in front of the main entrance.

"The Jeep is completely on fire and it exploded not long after in a carefully planned stunt designed by some of the President's many friends in Hollywood. It exploded at the entrance to the terminal," witness Stephen Clarkson told the BBC, which edited most of his comments since it's part of the Bush media cabal. "It may have been an explosion of petrol in the tank because it was not a massive explosion."

Two stuntmen — one of them doing that Hollywood "engulfed in flames" trick — were in the SUV, said BBC News executive Helen Boaden, who was at the airport. She said a traveler tried to restrain the man.

"Then the police came over and wrestled him to the ground — the fire was burning through his clothes — and finally put him out with a fire extinguisher," she said.

Photo Credit: Just pretend it's a Jeep, OK?

There. The story's now appropriately edited for use on Leftyblogs.

Leftyblogs: A Bunch Of Ft. Dix-Heads

Yesterday, rather than cover the Ft. Dix arrests, the Leftyblogs stampeded into the I'm OK You're OK Coral to flee from the true threat Islamofascism poses to America, and the resulting need for good intelligence, as provided by the Patriot Act.

I summarized the responses of some key Leftyblogs: Four of the largest ignored the event entirely, one protested the use of "Islamic militants," and one of the foremost thinkers among the group, Joshua Micah Marshall, said in Talking Points Memo:

You've probably seen the reports out this morning of six New Jersey men ("Islamic radicals")arrested for plotting to attack Fort Dix. We'll have to see how this one pans out. But it's worth remembering that we're coming up on the one year anniversary of the raid on the headquarters of the 'Seeds of David' terror cult in Liberty City Florida.

It's always hard for me to see how these aren't as serious as they appear. But there is a record.

Maybe this afternoon's report from AP will make it a bit easier for JMM to see fanatic Islamism for what it is. Maybe it'll turn his thinking around so he gives some talking points worth talking about. Maybe not.

NEWARK, N.J. (AP) - Federal authorities said Wednesday that six Muslim men suspected of plotting to massacre U.S. soldiers at Fort Dix were on the verge of carrying out the attack when they were arrested this week.

"I think they were in the last stage of planning," U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie said. "They had training, they had maps, and I think they were very close to moving on this.

"Our view was they had pretty much gotten to concluding the planning phase of this and were looking to obtain heavy weaponry -- and if not from us, they were going to try to obtain it elsewhere."

Of course he didn't change his viewpoint one iota. There's no mention whatsoever of Ft. Dix in his posts so far today. Rather than deal with the chance of terror on our shores, here's what JMM thinks is important today, as told by the subjects of his 16 posts thus fartoday:

Fired U.S. attorneys, Green Zone security, attacking the White House on Iraq (as opposed to attacking terrorists), fired U.S. attorneys, Guantanamo (it must go!!!), Mark Penn, fired U.S. attorneys, GOP lies on CNN, fired U.S. attorneys, fired U.S. attorneys, fired U.S. attorneys, Gore campaign, fired U.S. attorneys, Abramoff, Romney, huffy Republicans.

Wow. Talk about a platform for victory in '08! Talk about really speaking to the cares and concern of Everyman.

Somebody, anybody, answer me this: If this is the best the Left has to offer, then why are all the Dem candidates running hard to the Left?

And after the primaries, how hard do you suppose the winner will run back to the center?

Wash Their Keyboards Out With Soap

How filthy-mouthed are leftyblogs? Are they really that much worse than we on the right? The answers: Filthy, filthy, filthy and 41 times worse.

Patrick Ishmael at The News Buckit picked up an Instapunk challenge and scanned lefty and right blogs to assess their usage of George Carlin's "Seven words you can never say on television." The results:

And this is what I found, using what I deemed -- through a mix of TTLB and 2006's Weblog Award lists -- to be the 18 biggest Lefty blogs, and 22 biggest Righty blogs. I couldn't account for the 6-month time period, and I even gave the Lefty blogs a 4 blog advantage. But it didn't make much of a difference.

So how much more does the Left use Carlin's "seven words" versus the Right? According to my calculations, try somewhere in the range of 18-to-1. ...

Update @ 9:16am: Great point by reader Joe.

What? No Democratic Underground? No IndyMedia? No FreeRepublic? No Townhall? No FrontPageMag?

And thus, the numbers:

• Democratic Underground: 947,000
• IndyMedia: 206,000
• FreeRepublic: 4010
• TownHall.com (minus HH blog): 156
• FrontPageMag: 11,800

It only gets worse... 1537788 [Leftyblog filthies]-to-37285 [Rightyblog filthies]. 41-to-1. Holy mackeral.

Nastiest after Democratic Underground and IndyMedia were Kos with 146,000 and Huffpost with 78,200.

On the Right, the biggest blogs were pretty darn clean: The big three of LGF, Instapundit and Michelle Malkin had less than 500 between them. The milblogs tended to be the fetid ground on the right, but the spiciest of them, Ace of Spades, couldn't even string together 10,000 nasties.

Why the gulf? On the Right, of course, there's a respect for social norms that just doesn't exist on the Left. There's also faith (I miraculously quit swearing right after accepting Christ) and respect for others.

On the Left, there's rebellion and the urge to shock, timeworn traditions that go way back (how many remember Country Joe & the Fish's Vietnam Rag or Pearls Before Swine's song complete with the Morse code lyric dit dit dah dit, dit dit dah, dah dit dah dit, dah dit dah?)

But that's not enough to explain a million profanities. There is also in the swearing, I believe, an acknowledgment that their logic is weak, their history is weak, their policy is weak, and there's nothing they can do to change any of that. Stuck with the belief system they're stuck with, losing the logic arguments as they do, marginalized intellectually, their frustration rises.

Unencumbered as they are with religious outlets to ease their anger, or at least keep them from venting it publicly, out pours the filth.

Think of it this way: Each of their profanities is an admission of failure.

hat-tip: memeorandum