Your Weekly Rush

Here's what Rush said.

"Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat. Where did this come from? Was Kosovo an imminent threat? No. Why did we go there? We went there because there was a horrible genocide going on there. I guarantee you that what was going on in Iraq was much worse. If we were justified in going to Kosovo, then we were 10 times as justified going into Iraq on the same basis.." - Rush Limbaugh, September 19, 2004

Here's what the President said.

"With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. . . .

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late." - President George W. Bush, State of the Union, January 28, 2003

Here is what the Los Angeles Times said about what President Bush said.

"Responding to demands from home and abroad, Bush laid out the case for war against Iraq in the most detail to date, arguing that use of force is not only justified but necessary, and that the threat is not only real but imminent." - Maura Reynolds, Los Angeles Times, January 28, 2003, Reporting on the State of the Union.

You can draw your own conclusions.

Star Wars, Episode 3

Yep, big news on the Star Wars Scene. They have finished principle photography (although they still have some locale work) on the next crappy Star Wars movie that continues to betray the legacy of the first set of movies. Or possibly the greatest one of all, the one that redeems George Lucas.

This shot is from the scene where Anikan, showing the smae sort of clear-headedness he showed in the first movie, tries using the old Jedi Mind Trick on himself. "You will lose weight. These aren't the donuts you are looking for."



Thanks to Caleb for the update.

Old Time Radio Fun

As some of you may know or may not, I am a fan of Old Time Radio; particularly the Goon Show from the UK, Gracie and Allen and Broadway is my Beat. But I like a lot of the old shows. Well if, like me, you are fan of Old Time Radio, check out this website.

If you've never tried Old Time Radio, they have samples at the website--if I can I'll post one of my own later on. And If I've mentioned this before, well, I'm cool with that.

We don't need no STINKIN' proof

Jay Bryant writes an interesting article today about the candidency of Wesley Clark. I suspect Townhall was happy to print it because it basically says Wesley Clark is running so that he can lose that the evilist of women, Hillary Clinton, can run in 2008. Yep.

"Wesley Clark is a stalking horse for Hillary Clinton.

That much is clear, but little else is."

Wait a second, you're saying. That's a pretty strong allegation. What proof does Jay Bryant bring to the table to prove this allegation. Well, none. But who cares? It sounds good and it certainly fits with the hatred every decent American has for the Clintons. They would happily scuttle their own parties chances to win this time around, in order to get a chance for Hillary in '08. I mean, we all know who mindblowingly ambitious they are; any insane scheme that gets them more power is totally believable.

Unless you, uh, don't believe it.

Why Don't you All Shut Up!

This is the name of my forth coming book (or maybe I'm pretending I already put it out; can't remember) Anyway Ellen Goodman has a good if meandering article today about political discourse. She comments on the recent books by liberals and conservatives, and says, "Still, I can't help thinking about political rant-lit the way I think about political candidates. The belovedly bellicose James Carville once said "If your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil." You want a politician who fights back. And you want politics to be more than just a fight.

Politicians and parties who don't answer attack ads are sunk. But if they do get (equally) down and dirty, they turn off more people who think politicians are just kids fighting in the playground. "

The problem is that President Bush rarely has to say anything negative about his enemies. He's got Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Cal Thomas, Dennis Prager, David Limbaugh, Ben Shapiro, Sean Hannity and so on to say it for him. So he ends up looking clean; while the Democrats look however Karl Rove wants them to looks. Without a counter apparatus any Democratic candidate might end up being drowned out by the Conservative Press. But who knows? We might have a Clinton who can cut through that and reach the American people.

Cal Thomas equivocates

Cal Thomas writes today about Alabama's recent electoral rejection of raising taxes to meet the states needs. All well and good, but he starts his article with this less then benign words.

"Campaigning for president in 1968, '72 and '76, Alabama Democratic Gov. George Wallace said, "Send 'em a message." Wallace believed that a vote for him would send a message to Washington politicians that the people were tired of Washington's dictatorial ways.

On Tuesday, Sept. 9, Alabama voters sent the country a different kind of message than Wallace's, which was mostly based on race and Southern pride. "

Well, George Wallace did run on a platform of promising a return to Segregation. Which makes it interesting that Mr. Thomas would be so comfortable comparing his current praise of Alabama with the glory of George Wallace.

Ann Coulter Names Names

Yes. Ann Coulter's book, accusing liberals of treason, was released on June 24, 2003. Now, 86 days after her book was published (according to Amazon, anyway), she is finally willing to name at least one liberal traitor. And that traitor is Arthur Ochs Sulzberg, publisher of the New York Times.

Exactly what treason is Mr. Sulzberg accused of? For daring to draw a link between the fall of Chile to Pinochet and the September 11th Attacks on our own country. Now, I'm no expert on Latin American history, but I have to say that Ms. Coulter's description of what happened in Chile doesn't square with many other accounts. One suspects that Pinochet's ruthless control over his country is, somehow, appealing to Ms. Coulter.

Oh, and Mr. Sulzberg's paper is guilty of noting that a lot of people have died since President Bush declared us victorious over Iraq.

You might wonder why Ms. Coulter has waited so long to name a traitor, despite numerous opportunities. She answers that, saying, "During my recent book tour, I resisted the persistent, illiterate request that I name traitors. With a great deal of charity – and suspension of disbelief – I was willing to concede that many liberals were merely fatuous idiots. (In addition, I was loathe to name names for fear that liberals would start jumping out of windows." Did you catch that? Ms. Coulter is kind hearted enough to believe that liberals are morons who would kill themselves if she called them traitors.

I have to say, if Ms. Coulter called me a traitor, I could probably take it.

New Blog

The Democratic National Committee has started a new blog with the sweet tempered name, Kicking Ass.

Where do I get my Inspiration From

You might ask yourself what keeps me going.

It does seem like tough times; maybe even the last times. And my weblog isn't getting a ton of hits; and it seems like society is still running the same damn way. President Bush asked for another $87 billion and instead of admitting "Hey, we didn't figure the war costing this much," they've said "Hey why don't we cut food stamps?" Makes sense to me.

But getting back to the main subject; how do I keep going. Well there are a lot of places i can go for inspiration, but one is the Diggers Archive. The way they combined poetry and political protest was brilliant. Inspiring. Here's one of their broadsides that seems particularly relevant today.

Time To Forget

FORGET the war in vietnam. Flowers are lovely.
FORGET America's 3300 military bases. Make music.
FORGET Wichita Vortex Sutra. Words are stronger than flesh.
FORGET planned war with China. Beauty is Carnaby Street.
FORGET the Dominican Republic. Todo Todo Hassan Sabbah.
FORGET police Brutality. The cops are your friends.
FORGET upheaval in negro ghettos. Spades ain't hip.
FORGET the Rumford Act. Show love.
FORGET the National Guard. Positively Fourth Street.
FORGET inmates on deathrow. It's a long time passing.
FORGET hypocracy of business. The merchants are your friends.
FORGET U.S. billion dollar investment in South Africa. Money is.
FORGET HUELGA DiGiorgio. We all live in a yellow submarine.
FORGET organized crime. Eternity is long and, sometimes, wide.
FORGET HUAC. The sun's not yellow, it's chickon.
FORGET concentration camps for subversives. It's a bummer.
FORGET FSM, VDC, SDS, SNCC, MARK COMFORT. Big Brother and the Holding Co.
FORGET Mime Troupe, Lenny Bruce, The Beard. Strobe lights are groovy.

You're free to forget. So forget! Follow the calm business tactics of the Psychedelic Shop, the I and Thou, and all other marketeers of expanded consciousness (Moe's Bookstore is important, really!) and dig yourself. Touch reality only for sex, only to eat, and only to join the Artist's Liberation Front for your own safety.

Afterall, expanded consciousness is a selfish hippy kissing the system's ass for the greater glory of the lonely dropout, isn't that right, Uncle Tim!

THE D I G G E R S .

Ben Shapiro, Boy Prognosticator?

Some of you may be confused as to why I call Ben Shapiro a Boy Prognosticator. Way back in December 2002, he wrote an article with the humble little title "I was right, I am right, and I will be right." In it he commented on how his predictions had proven true.

One section dealt with Bush's decision to go to congress. "On Sept. 4, I recommended that President Bush forgo congressional approval for a strike on Iraq. I said that he should address the American people, saying: "I did not want the bureaucrats in Washington to sidetrack a course of action that is clear and moral. And I know that congressional officials would do just that."

The president instead went to the Congress for a resolution authorizing force against Iraq. Congress balked. It effectively forced the president to go through the United Nations; the congressional resolution made U.S. action partially dependent on the whims of the patsies at the United Nations."

Well, today, September 17, 2003, Terrance Jeffrey is expressing a different point of view. "The White House counsel's office told the president last August he didn't need a vote in Congress to launch a war. "In disclosing this week that Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, had told the president that he has the authority he needs to wage a war against Iraq," reported The New York Times, "the White House reopened a debate that has periodically vexed policymakers: Can a president launch a war without explicit congressional approval?"

But Bush brushed aside his lawyers. "At the appropriate time," the president said last Sept. 4, "this administration will go to the Congress to seek approval necessary to deal with the threat."

In October, Congress authorized war. Twenty-nine Democratic senators, including Kerry, voted for the authorization.

Had Bush not sought it, he, not Kerry, might face disaster today. America, not the Democratic Party, would be bitterly divided. Left-wing presidential candidates wouldn't be pointing at their rivals' war votes, they would be pointing with their rivals at the war Bush started without a vote."

So I guess young Ben might have been wrong. Still, as others have pointed out, Kerry's transition does mirror that of many Americans who supported action in Iraq under what they feel are a false set of expectations. When Kerry talks about being deceived by the Bush Administration, some people will be able to relate, sharing those feelings. So it might not turn out to be entirely negative in the long run.

My interview with David Limbaugh

I know what a lot of you are thinking. How could I get an interview with the great David Limbaugh, the brother of Rush Limbaugh? I mean I'm running just a tiny little weblog with hardly any viewers. How do I rate?

Well thanks to a new rhetorical device, invented by David Limbaugh himself in his article today, I don't need to interview him. I just need to imagine what he might say; and even that is iffy. After all check it this selection from his "interview" with the 9 little generals (i.e. the Democratic Presidential hopefuls, not including Wesley Clark).

Me: "But the 16 word non-deception (Britain still stands by its report) had little to do with our decision to invade. And surely you're not going to deny the manifest connection between Muslim terrorists and Saddam, are you? And about those weapons of mass destruction, are you saying they didn't exist and Bush and the entire intelligence community lied about them just because we haven't found them yet?"

T9LG: "We'll say whatever we have to say to make Bush look bad. This is an election cycle, you know."

Me: "OK, but aren't you happy we liberated the Iraqi people from this mass-murdering tyrant?"

T9LG: "Could we reserve comment until we see where the American people stand on that around October 2004?"

Because, you know, that's exactly how they would respond.

Well, here's my interview.

Me: "So, Mr. David Limbaugh, what do you have to say for yourself?"

DL: "Well, first of all, I'd like to thank you for letting me appear on your webpage. This is the most politically relevant weblog in the nation."

Me: "Oh Pshaw"

DL: "No I mean it."

Me: "Well, let's get down to business, who do you like in 2004."

DL: "Well it's tough; I mean all us conservative commentators like to pretend that all the Democratic candidates are a bunch of losers; did you see that article where I called them the Nine Little Generals?"

Me: "Yeah, I think I caught that one."

DL: "Hee hee hee. Nine little generals. Anyway I think that actually there are several strong Democratic candidates. Kerry has a good organization and a war record, which President Bush lacks. Dean is passionate and is really working up the base. Edwards, Gephardt--both are interesting candidates who are certainly smarter than my guy. And if Clark comes in? Oh boy."

Me: "Hey I've noticed that your speaking voice doesn't sound much like your writing voice."

DL: "Well that's because you are too lazy to work up a voice for me."

Me: "Let's not make this personal."

DL: "Why not, you stinkin' liberal? I don't need to take this. I'm out of here."

With that he stood up and slammed out. So there you have it, a Make me a Commentator first!

Wesley Clark is in!

Despite Lowry's criticisms, Clark has entered the race. Look at this announcement from MSNBC. "Wesley Clark, the retired general with a four-star military resume but no political experience, decided Tuesday to become the 10th Democratic presidential candidate, officials close to him said."

Yep, gotta love that liberal press, always looking out for Democratic candidates.

This Just In; New Democrat Candidate a Dud says Republicans

Yep, I know this will shock you all. But Potential Democratic Presidential Candidate Wesley Clark has been declared unelectable by Republicans. Rich Lowry, in an article at Townhall, has stated, "Clark has other limits. Although his biography is impressive, he has no obvious appeal to any Democratic constituency, not the unions, the minorities, the feminists or the doves (owned by Howard Dean)."

I know it's dissapointing to have another candidate rejected by the Republican Elite; after Kerry and Dean it seems hard to bear. Still don't lose hope. It's kind of like the hunt Sean Hannity went through to find Alan Colmes. I mean, it took Hannity some time, but eventually he selected the right man. Republican commentators just want our candidate to be the same quality of liberal as Alan Colmes. Meek and retiring.

Between us and the Abyss

President Bush stands between us and the abyss, or so says Diane West today.

"The United States' war on barbarism (for what else are terrorists, but barbarians?), which George W. Bush is determined to win, is not only a military and intelligence effort against desperate Ba'athist remnants in Iraq, mad jihadist terror cells the world over, and the hostile nation-states that support them. It is also a great political struggle against international and domestic forces -- from the United Nations, where plans are afloat to expand the Security Council, to the Democratic Party, which finally found in the president's $87 billion budget for Iraq a federal spending program too rich for its blood -- that act to restrain and limit America's execution of and, therefore, victory in that war.

In some ways, this political battle may be trickier than the military campaign. It may even be more costly in terms of loss of life -- if, that is, we are defeated, or if we defeat ourselves."

Yep, defeating the Democrats is the only way to ensure America's victory in the war on terror. After all hasn't George Bush captured Osama bin Ladin (no), Saddam Hussein (no), put an end to terrorism (no), definiatively eliminated Iraq's Weapons of Mass Distruction (well, we can't eliminate what we can't find), brought peace to Iraq (no), and Ended Terrorist attacks on Americans (well, maybe on civilians, but our troops are still receiving them pretty regularly).

Do you feel any safer than you did two years ago at this time? I suppose that's a question we're all going to have to answer in our own way.

Love Means Never Having to Say Your Sorry

I've been in love, and I can tell you this isn't exactly the case. But never mind; let's get on to a fantastic article by Michael Kinsley.

In it he talks about how President Bush's request for additional funds would have been more palatable if he had just admitted error. "This $87 billion request is a minefield of embarrassments, through which a simple “We got it wrong” would have been the safest route. After all, Bush either knew we’d be spending this kind of money for two or more years after declaring victory — and didn’t tell us — or he didn’t realize it himself. Those are the only two options. He deceived us, or he wasn’t clairvoyant in the fog of war. Apparently, Bush would rather be thought omniscient than honest, which is a pity, since appearing honest is a more realistic ambition. Especially for him. "

I personally don't see any other two possibilities. Either he knew this was coming and kept it from the American people and Congress, or he didn't know this was coming. You take your pick.

Changed Quote on Top

Yep. And the Quotes Page.