I don't know what to say about this, because I don't know what it really means? Is he going hippy and talking "karma"? What is all this "threat by the universe"? I don't know. I post this more because it's humorous, not to show concern about it.

Drudge Exclusive:

Iranian president issues veiled threat to Bush, official news agency reports Wed Sep 06 2006 11:30:01 ET

Iran's official news agency reported Wednesday what appeared to be a veiled threat from hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to President Bush.

During the same speech Wednesday, Ahmadinejad reiterated a proposal from last month to debate Bush, suggesting on Wednesday that the United Nations would be the ideal venue, his official web site reported.

The official Islamic Republic News Agency said Ahmadinejad had warned in a speech that anyone who refused to accept an invitation would suffer a bad fate. It said the statement was a reference to Bush's rejection of an invitation by Ahmadinejad for a televised debate.

The official news agency did not provide any exact quote from Ahmadinejad containing those words, but reported that he said them. It quoted Ahmadinejad directly as saying: "This is not a threat by me. This is a threat by the entire universe. The universal trend is against suppression."

Developing...

 

***SCROLL TO BOTTOM FOR MORE UPDATES***

***UPDATE*** 5/5 8:36 AM CT
Michelle Malkin has a new post up on the Kennedy situation today which includes a question from Influence Peddler:

It also appears now that Kennedy was hitting the bars Wednesday night. I actually heard this mentioned a few hours ago on Fox & Friends, but got sidetracked and forgot to add the update.

***UPDATE, Strange Inconsistency***
I was just thinking about the combination of drugs Kennedy said he was on. He named Phenergan and Ambien. Phenergan is an antihistamine used for allergies, as well as a sleep aid. Ambien is simply a sleep aid. Why would a person take sleep aids before heading to vote in Congress (again, at 2:45 am)? Not that we need this inconsistency to make clear what happened here, but it's pretty interesting that while his initial excuse as he was rushing to get to a vote (obviously bogus), causing the accident. After getting the Kennedy treatment and taken home by police without FSTs being administered, he changes his excuse to "sleep aids made me do is". Is taking sleep aids normal protocol for making house votes? So now all they have to do is convince us that he took the sleep aids, intending to go to bed, but somehow they made him go crazy and think that he had a 2:45 am vote. And you know the rest.

By the way, it's 3:10 AM CT right now, and the Daily KOS still has no mention of the word "Kennedy"; on their home page. Perhaps they've all taken their ambien and hit the roads for an early start to work today.

***END UPDATE, Strange Inconsistency***

Well, at least Congressman Pat Kennedy's accident and cover-up didn't result in the death of a woman, like his father Senator Ted Kennedy's incident did over 35 years ago. But poor young Patrick did have to endure the pain of a free ride home from police, after superiors in the PD stopped those trained in DUI cases from performing sobriety tests, and then sent all other patrol units away from the scene. Must be tough being a Kennedy! More on the intial reporting by Roll Call, via Drudge.

First you have to ask yourself, 'would I have been treated the same way?' after police saw me crash and stumble out of my car, clearly appearing intoxicated? But that's different, Pat Kennedy was in a Rush to get to a vote..... AT 2:45 AM!?!?!? Michelle Malkin has kept a running post with updates on the matter, and points to this Bad Hair Blog post for another theory on the "I'm late for a vote" excuse, besides desperate drunken stupidity:

Late to a vote? One would think that answer showed he was drunk, but he was claiming something else: More like claiming diplomatic Constitutional immunity.

United States Constitution,

Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same;

Patrick claims he no alcohol prior to the incident.

And if he did, it sure didn't affect his memory of the Constitution.

It seems possible that he anticipated such an incident happening eventually and may have had this planned excuse ready. One might even speculate that stern warnings from daddy might have gone something like - "People like myself have done a lot of damage to the Kennedy family name and what you've been doing is just inviting more trouble. I know you're not going to stop, so when and if you ever get caught, claim you were on the way to a vote and you'll get off scott free, because it's right there in Section 6 of the Constitution."

Of course it's all speculation as to whether or not Kennedy was trying to make use of this loophole or not.

Michelle Malkin also notes that this same Pat Kennedy was in an accident less than 3 weeks ago, in his home state of Rhode Island, in which, judging by his hand written police statement, he seems to have been drunk as well. Michelle has posted the police documents obtained by Howie Carr, all of which you can find in this PDF document from Carr's site. I've pasted a screen shot of Kennedy's written statement (page 6 of the PDF):

Look, I'm the first to admit my handwriting is terrible, as is many other people's. But come on, look at that thing!

What I find interesting about some of the reporting is that many in the MSM are referring to this as "early Thursday morning". Yeah, that's technically right, but is it accurately telling the story? Early morning is like 5-7 AM, not 2:45! Expose the Left has video of a Hardball segment on the incident from this afternoon, in which host Chris Matthews opens with: "Well we begin right now with breaking news from Capitol Hill, about an incident early this morning...." He then asks the guest to talk about the incident from "this morning".

Need another example? Let's see how the AP is covering it (via ABC):

WASHINGTON May 4, 2006 (AP)— Rep. Patrick Kennedy crashed his car near the Capitol early Thursday, and a police official said he appeared intoxicated. Kennedy said he had taken sleep medication and a prescription anti-nausea drug that can cause drowsiness.

You'll notice that this is an updated story, containing the excuse Kennedy is using in his most recent statement, issued just a few hours ago (prescribed drugs, not alcohol). So the AP can't use the excuse, "we rushed the story out as it broke, so we couldn't change that sentence to be more of an honest reflection of the circumstances". "Early Thursday", is again technically accurate, but it's a totally dishonest portrayal of the actual incident.

As I said, Kennedy has released an updated "statement", trying to make excuses:

Later, however, he issued a longer statement saying the attending physician for Congress had prescribed Phenergan on Tuesday to treat Kennedy's gastroenteritis.

Kennedy said he returned to his Capitol Hill home on Wednesday evening after a final series of votes in Congress and took "prescribed" amounts of Phenergan and Ambien, another prescribed drug that he occasionally takes to fall asleep.

"Some time around 2:45 a.m., I drove the few blocks to the Capitol Complex believing I needed to vote," his second statement said. "Apparently, I was disoriented from the medication."

Kennedy appeared to be intoxicated when he crashed his Ford Mustand into a barrier on Capitol Hill early Thursday morning, said Louis P. Cannon, president of the Washington chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police.

(satire)Kennedy then tossed a few back and said, "Man, it's great to be a Kennedy" (followed by a laugh like that of Dr. Evil from the Austin Powers movies.) Meanwhile the mainstream media is frantically digging for this weeks "Bush scandal" in an effort to get negative headlines back aimed at the President and Republicans. Frantic NY Times reporters are digging through their stash of Abu Ghraib photo hoping they can find something new, after 60+ stories of repeating the same old story.(/satire>

On another note, I wonder what would be done had this been Jeb Bush or something? I can see the conspiracy theory crowd coming out with all of their Illuminati claims, for why he was driven home by police rather than treated like any other citizen. "They're forced to protect him because he's part of the dynasty, and is the next step in world domination plotted out for hundreds of years by the Bush's predecessors.

Anyway, my real prediction on this matter is this: Nothing will happen. Despite officers asking that they be allowed to complete their investigation, it won't happen. Even on the off chance it does, it won't matter because "the evidence" was taken care of when they drove Pattycakes home and didn't give him the usual field sobriety test (FST), that the rest of the public would get. I suppose the only way we could get the Capitol Hill Police to do anything is if we were to send Cynthia McKinney down there to slap them around a bit.

In an added twist, Dan Riehl notes that Kennedy had another recent accident, but this time involving a hammer rather than a vehicle. Riehl also wonders why it was so hard to find the story of Kennedy's earlier car accident. I think we all know why.

I also find it interesting that a quick "find" (ctrl+F or edit/find) of the word "Kennedy" reveals there is not one instance on the DailyKOS home page right now. Hmmm....

***UPDATE***
Flopping Aces remembers when the same Kennedy settled out of court, after shoving a female security guard at LAX a few years back. It would seem that the House Democrats have a problem with authority figures and a pattern of violence towards them.

***UPDATE***

More Pat Kennedy controversies, courtesy of Wikipedia:
* Kennedy has acknowledged being treated for cocaine use during his teenage years.[2]

* In 2000, Kennedy was accused of pushing a security guard at LAX. City prosecutors ultimately decided not to bring criminal charges against him and he paid an undisclosed civil settlement to the alleged victim almost two years later.[3] His critics have called this incident a "triple hate crime", as the security guard was an elderly black woman.[4]

* In 2000, Atlantic Navigation Company of Mystic, CT, claimed that a boat they rented to Kennedy was found abandoned off Martha's Vineyard and required $28,000 to repair. [5]

* In 2000, the Coast Guard was dispatched to Kennedy's yacht after he and his date became embroiled in an argument on his yacht off Martha's Vineyard.[6]

* In 2003, drew fire from his critics when he declared that "I have never worked a [bleeping] day in my life." [7]

Others:
Joust The Facts, Iowa Voice, The Sandbox, Stop the ACLU, Pundit Guy, Point Five, Donkey Stomp, Hot Air, The Political Pit Bull, Left Wing = Hate, Leaning Straight Up, A Blog For All, A Lady's Ruminations, Texas Rainmaker, Assorted Babble, GOP and the City, Wizbang, Just Barking Mad, Betsy Newmark, The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, Gina Cobb, Confederate Yankee, Say Anything, Conservababes, Boots and Sabers, Slobokan's Site, New England Republican, California Conservative, Right Wing Sparkle, Right on the Right, Unaccountable Liberals, No Agenda, Captain's Quarters

 

It seems that liberals get their fill of liberal media from the traditional mainstream liberal media (network news, CNN, NY Times, WaPo, etc.) and aren't bothering with the openly liberal outlets. We've seen Air American's ratings continue to tank and stations drop them since their inception, despite glowing article after glowing article in the NY Times. Today, in a Drudge exclusive, we learn that they certainly seem to be on their last leg:

Meanwhile, the just released radio Winter Book [Jan-Mar 2006] from ARBITRON shows AIR AMERICA in New York City losing more than a third of its audience -- in the past year!

Among all listeners 12+, it was a race to the bottom for AIR AMERICA and WLIB as mid-days went from a 1.6 share during winter 2005 to a 1.0 share winter 2006.

During PM drive, host Randi Rhodes plunged to 27,900 listeners every quarter hour, finishing 25th place in her time slot, down from 60,900 listeners every quarter hour in the fall.

Drudge also has the numbers on the failure of DailyKOS book "Crashing the Gate". KOS defends, and calls this a spin job, but even with their fuzzy math and assumptions, the numbers are still pretty pathetic. The KOS kids are arguing that this is still great for a first time author, etc. I don't know if this is true, but I would certainly think that with a site as wildly popular (with liberals) as the DailyBS heavily pumping this book and the recent media blitz would generate many more sales, if anyone were actually interested.

Back to Air UnAmerica for a minute... I have a theory about why they have been such a failure, and why conservative talk radio continues to monopolize the industry. When do most people listen to talk radio? I think it's safe to assume they listen in their cars on the the way to work. This is why liberal talk radio hasn't taken off... Liberals are all to busy sitting at home, complaining about Bush sending their job overseas, and ignoring record unemployment and over 5 million jobs created in about three and half years. The rest are too busy stumbling around their college campus, stoned, and contemplating whether or not to attend the protest of the day or call their parents for more money.

Now of course that theory is (partly) a joke, but really just an exaggeration of what I believe possibly drives the talk radio ratings for conservative talk radio. The working class, middle America types are traditional conservative types and these programs appeal to them and keep them informed. They don't have any use for the Bush hatred spewed at Air America. Anyway, are liberals really going to be upset with me for insinuating that they don't work? After all it's the DNC party chairman Howard Dean, when talking about standing in line to vote, who once said:

"Well, Republicans, I guess, can do that, because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives," Mr. Dean said. "But for ordinary working people, who have to work eight hours a day, they have kids, they got to get home to those kids, the idea of making them stand for eight hours to cast their ballot for democracy is wrong."

What a way to bring America together huh? Oh no, it's always President Bush who is dividing America, even though the same man (again the leader of the Democratic Party) once said:

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for"

Got a little off track there, but wanted to do a preemptive strike before liberals whined about me saying they don't work.

So anyway, why bother with these far-left media outlets with the most severe cases of Bush Derangement Syndrome when you can turn to the newest internet broadcast network HotAir.com for news and views from the right?

 

I suppose this isn't really all that shocking considering the extrem leftism of Rolling Stone. I actually cancelled my subscription a few years back because it became a magazine about hating Bush and Republicans, rather than a music magazine. So as obnoxious as this is, I feel it's only worth breif mention, considering the only thing surprising is that they didn't run this sooner.

Via Drudge

ROLLING STONE MAG: BUSH 'WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?' Tue Apr 18 2006 18:30:13 ET

"George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace."

So declares ROLLING STONE magazine in a planned cover story, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

"The Worst President in History?" streets Friday.

Developing...

Now if the NY Times and the rest of the MSM would just be as open about their feelings, we could have the cards out on the table.

 

By: Randy @ 08:37 AM in: Breaking News, Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS), Drudge Flash, Liberal Media, Liberals | Permalink | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

h/t Drudge

I know Jessica Simpson is already known to be a Republican and has done Republican events in the past. But at a time when the media is all about the playing of sound bytes of Democrats screaming "incompetence!", do we really need the queen of incompetence appearing at Republican dinners, which obviously makes news. Obviously she's hot, etc. But, setting aside the facts and reality being on our side, how are we to call the other side the idiots when we're doing stuff like this?

Anyway, it seems that she'll be next to Congressional Majority Leader Boehner.... Obviously he's a married man, but I couldn't help myself...

Again, this isn't based on anything, other than who Simpson will be seated next too... But word has it that since the announcement of Simpson's appearance, a certain someone has been all over Washington begging for tickets.

Drudge Has the exclusive:

JESSICA SIMPSON SET FOR REPUBLICAN DINNER Wed Mar 15 2006 10:16:35 ET

The National Republican Congressional Committee has snagged the wholesome, blonde and buxom Jessica Simpson to attend its fundraising gala on Thursday. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) is the lucky guy who gets to sit next to the “Dukes of Hazzard” star.

Not that he would recognize her, ROLL CALL reports.

“I’m not even sure if he knows who Jessica Simpson is,” the Majority Leader’s spokesman, Kevin Madden, told HOH. “Boehner’s celebrity recognition standards crashed and burned with the introduction of color television.”

Developing...

 

The media and "big science" are so desperate to prove that life exists elsewhere that in recent years they've hyped up stories that have basically boiled down to nothing more than discovering the possibility that water exists or used to exist on various moons and planets. Really, that's pretty much it. They think that if they can make us think it's "likely" that water exists, then it's "possible" that life could exist, thus they believe they could help support the evolution fairytale.

Setting aside the fact that on an almost daily basis "big science" discovers "intelligent design" in all sorts of cellular and molecular machinery and various other microscopic, previously unknowns, water doesn't automatically equal life. In fact far from it, but that is a different much more in depth topic. The point is that even if they were to find water (which they haven't) that is a far cry from finding life (which they have not a shred of evidence for, NONE), but even if they found some sort of microorganisms, this still doesn't support evolution, despite what they'd tell you. But this is the ultimate goal. They feel that if they can prove that life "arose" elsewhere, it supports their theory that it "arose" here as well.

Once you get in to reading about all of these sorts of issues of evolution, etc. you realize the ridiculous and annoyingly large amount of assumptions that go in to evere aspect of this "science". You begin to see the Darwin dogma as nothing but a giant religion, relying much more on faith than a belief in a God/designer. The most simple example of the type of "assumption" I like to use is when they found the T-Rex fossil with soft tissue. Well, soft-tissue had previously been thought to only survive, if it's lucky, for a couple thousand years. Scientists never gave thought to the fact that the "70 million year old" fossil, wasn't really that old. Many more examples of dinosaur soft tissue has been discovered since. It seems that evolutionary assumptions had caused them to not even be looking for the goods prior to finding it after being forced to break a T-Rex bone for transport.

Again, that T-Rex example is a simple, easy to grasp example. For much more in depth, scientific discussion of hundreds of other discoveries that challenge (in reality often destroy) previous religiously held beliefs of "big science", that leave them scrambling to change things around to fit it back in to their fairytale before they have to admit to being dead wrong, make Creation / Evolution News a daily read. This is often not very light reading, so be prepared for a bunch of science talk that is sometimes tough to follow, but the editor quotes and links to all the leading science publications who are, as you know, extremely die hard Darwinists who dismiss all challenges, and refuse to answer important questions and holes in their story. Again, make this a daily read to learn about the daily discoveries that baffle/shock/surprise/confuse scientists, and cause them to (even admittedly some times) reassess prevoiusly held beliefs. The thing is, even when they reassess previously held beliefs, it's only in a desperate attempt to find a way to fit new discoveries back in to the evolution fairytale. I especially like when "big science" discovers and publishes articles one complexity of things that we couldn't have imagined, and discoveries of complexity in things previously thought to be evolutionary "leftovers", especially when the "scientists" dare not attempt to guess at how such things "evolved".

So today, Drudge was running headlines about a "Huge" Nasa announcement, and even had his own exclusive (here). Like we've heard with various discoveries in the past, and as I mentioned earlier, the "huge" news is basically that there is a "possibility" that water exists somewhere far far away. From this, the evolutionists would have you believe the universe is full of intelligent life forms. But some articles were hyping a "life" announcement, and later had to pull that premature announcement (see here and here). What the NASA announcement actually said was that there is shocking activity going on, on Saturn's moon Enceladus.

See this Reuters article for a rundown of the story, which is mostly full of wild speculation by "scientists":

(a few excerpts)

The findings, published in the journal Science, suggest that tiny Enceladus could have a liquid ocean under its icy surface which in theory could sustain primitive life,

A bit of a jump don't you think?

"However, if we are right, we have significantly broadened the diversity of solar system environments where we might possibly have conditions suitable for living organisms."

Really? This is about as unscientific a statement as you can get. Science is based on things that are observable and testable, not assuming that life could live all over the solar system simply because you think it's possible that water exists on. If this sort of thing isn't of big interest to you, you might not have seen the insane desperation in that extreme speculation. But this is just par for the course.

"Water is being spewed out of this moon. It solves some real mysteries that we have been struggling with over the years."

Care to name one?

"Any life that existed could not be luxuriant and would have to deal with low temperatures, feeble metabolic energy, and perhaps a severe chemical environment. Nevertheless, we cannot discount the possibility that Enceladus might be life's distant outpost."

So basically, you have no reason to believe life exists there or ever did, but that is something you want to leave open, and is basically the central message of all of this. Think about this for a minute, the ONLY reason life is even talked about is because of evolutionary (bogus) assumptions that after the fictional big bang, it rained on a bunch of rocks and somehow life came from non-life. These pinheads would have you believe that the simple speculation of water existing on distant rocks leads to the conclusion that life is possible, or by the way they talk, you'd think likely. This isn't the first one of these "discoveries" (of "possible" water) and it won't be the last.

"I think the best you can say is there is biological potential. We have liquid water probably, and it is in contact with rocks so there are minerals," she said. "And there is energy. But we haven't detected life."

I just can't even begin to explain how obnoxious this is. Put your assumptions down, and just do some real science. Stop trying to dazzle the public with wild and irresponsible speculation, based on nothing but insanely impossible assumptions.

Anyway, Creation / Evolution Headlines wonders (before today's story) why the scientists aren't rethinking the age of Enceladus, since it's activity would imply it's much younger than previously assumed. Again, this is just one example of a long line of these sort of things that shatter "big sciences" dogma about the age of various bodies in our solar system. But like with discoveries on our own planet, the old Earth evolutionists just twist it, fold it, and chop it up until they can fit it back together with their story. Much more Enceladus coverage from Creation/Evolution Headlines here, here, here, and here.

Check out those posts that were all from within the past year, covering in depth, the findings on Enceladus. The "real" stuff, and how it challenges preconceived notions. Not like the Reuters article that is full of one or two line quotes from "scientists" making the most idiotic speculations we've ever seen.

 

h/t Drudge

AP FRIDAY NIGHT CLARIFICATION ON BUSH/KATRINA VIDEO Fri Mar 03 2006 19:48:29 ET

Clarification: Katrina-Video story
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.

The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.

The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.

I'm not expecting the media to run as wild with this one. This is basically the AP being forced, kicking and screaming, to admit their spin job... though not in so many words, and I don't really consider this "good enough", but it's better than nothin', and more than we usually get. (i.e. Dan 'The documents are fake, but the story is still real' Rather)

Mark Noonan Blogs For Bush adds:

And, of course, it is released after the days news cycle is all set. I'd like a Congressional investigation of this.

What we have here is a very strange confluence of events: this story started just as Mardis Gras brought New Orleans back into the public eye. Normally, the story would be about how New Orleans is recovering - but the story instead was a bogus re-write of videos that the Administration had long ago provided to the MSM. I smell a rat here - a DemocRAT, if you ask me. This is simply too beneficial for the Democrats for it to be coincidence - there could very well be collusion, and that would make what the AP did a de-facto campaign contribution to the Democratic Party. I believe that such a donation - which would have to be figured as a value of tens of millions of dollars - would be illegal under our campaign finance laws.

We should have a full hearing in Congress, with the AP and the DNC forced to turn over all documents which may in any way be related to Katrina from the day it went ashore to the day this AP story ran last week. We need to get to the bottom of this, lest the MSM - by getting away with this - merely become an adjunct of the DNC dressed up as an independent media.

Right on Mark... Sadly we know this will never happen, but I'm glad you pointed out one thing I left out in previous posts, which is that these tapes weren't some "leaked" new revelation, but something that had been shelved for months by many news organizations (I had read that somewhere too, but was to busy with how bogus the whole thing was at the time, and I can't remember where now.)

Bryan Preston at Junkyard Blog is out front on this too, as is Ripclawe at Narcissistic Views, and Sister Toldjah.

See previous:
SMASHED: AP's New "Bush Lied About Levee Breach Worries" Campaign Destroyed By Bloggers
Media Goes Nuts With New "Bush Knew About Katrina/Levees" Video... Distorting All The Way

Others who blogged on the bogus AP attack on the President (getting trackbacks out to bring attention to this new development that most are unaware of at this point... since we know the MSM won't be reporting this part) Wizbang, Outside The Beltway, Powerline, Captain's Quarters, Myopic Zeal, Iowa Voice, Generation Why?, Blogs For Bush, Sister Toldjah, Flopping Aces, The New Editor, Two or Three, MacStansbury, LawHawk, Pursuing Holiness

These folks blogged about the fact that the writer of the story is a former 60 Minutes II producer:
Wizbang, Powerline, Outside The Beltway, Willisms, Flopping Aces, The Jawa Report, Don Surber

The Army of Davids 'done good' forcing this "clarification" from the AP, and has seen many victories in recent years. Now march with this latest development.

UPDATE
The few other bloggers who are aware of this new development seem to all be noting the curious timing of this "clarification". Late Friday evening when it's only blogger types who are going to catch it. The day's news cycle is over, and they now have about 2 and half days for other news to become next weeks story so this thing gets absolutely no attention (not that it would have anyway... do you see any of the evening news programs, or CNN, or NY Times making this a leading story even if it had been released in time?) But this late release time did prevent folks like O'Reilly and Hannity from being able to report it.

Anyway, this is really just par for the course for the AP. Their motto is clearly "lie and retract, lie and retract", only instead of admitting it was a lie and retracting, they issue "clarifications". I'd go a step further than noting the suspect release time of this "clarification", and say this may have been planned all along. Do you think they were stupid enough to not know that the bloggers would bust this? I mean we're talking about a former CBS 60 Minutes II producer, surely she knows the power of blogs first hand, and surely she knew the lies she was telling in this article. Go back and read this "clarification", it is truly an admission of lying if you digest what it actually says. It's not a "this is what we meant", it's really admitting the lie, but trying hard not to.

Here's my other problem with this latest development... Why can't I find the "clarification" anywhere except Drudge? I've done a few Yahoo! and Google News searches and have yet to find it. Yet Yahoo! was running it in the news section of their home page for approximately a full day (maybe two, the days all ran together, but I know it sat at the top of that list for a loooong time, just like this headline has all day today: "Pentagon releases names of Gitmo inmates"). So why is this latest development, admission of guilt, not also top headline or even indexed? Interesting.

Scott at Powerline Blog is on this now too, and wonders if we'll see a similar "clarification" forthcoming from the Democrats for this pile of ridiculous they dumped out yesterday. Scott also has John of Powerline's comments on this:

I think it's reasonable to assume that the AP's "clarification" is the result of our dissection of their incredibly lame story. I think this highlights, though, how hard it is for truth to catch up to error. Hundreds of newspapers printed the AP's misinformation, and it was the basis for television news on all of the broadcast networks. The correction (or "clarification") will never catch up to most of the tens of millions of people who heard the original story. The news business is all about impressions, and corrections, days after the fact, never take away the impression that the original story falsely created.

Exactly. This is such hit and run BS from the AP. They had this whole thing planned - Launch the attack in the middle of the week when everyone will hear it, then "clarify" when no one will, and the damage is done. Disgraceful!

Captain Ed is now weighting in as well, and notes that the new "overrunning" language the AP has brought in isn't accurate either. This was clearly part of their attempt to keep from fulling admitting what they did and retracting the story.

UPDATE
More blogger reax:
RedState, Delmarva Dealings, Gina Cobb, Laura's Miscellaneous Musings, Newsbusters

By the way, I still haven't located this article online anywhere. Like I said earlier, why isn't this on the wires being picked up by Yahoo! News and all the rest? Why isn't this on Yahoo!'s home page right now, like the original bogus story?

 

We all know NBC's David Gregory for his hatred of the President and his desire to make news rather than report it, by acting like a pouty baby in the White House press room... but this story is just weird.

Now, I can't, and I don't think anyone else can say for sure, that Gregory is drunk here... but if not, what is wrong with him? And before any of his liberal defenders flip out, it was Imus and pals who immediately jumped to that conclusion, not us evil out to get him righties.

Anyway, you can make up your own minds...

Drudge has a partial transcript and audio clip here and Expose the Left has some video here. (watch/listen/read to all from both links because they are not overlapping, but each are parts of the whole picture)

I have to agree with commenters at Expose the Left, he seems stoned rather than drunk... but who knows. I think we can at least all agree he's being really weird.

 

SCROLL FOR UPDATES at 12:38 AM March 2, 2006
In the ABC interview, Bush was was referring to the "break" breach that occurred that no one anticipated. The overtopping (that never actually happened) concerns had been around for decades and everyone knew that. Everyone knew about the potential for flooding as a result of high storm surges going over the top of the levees, but that damage would have paled in comparison to the UNANTICIPATED break/breach that actually occurred as a result of design and/or construction flaws. Again, scroll for further explanation/update, but I suspect now that I've sort of wrapped my mind around this, I'll be creating a more clear and to the point post on this

I just noticed that John Powerline Blog sees basically the same thing, and tears down this whole AP anti-Bush campaign, piece by dishonest piece. Props to Ankle Biting Pundits for linking me to that post. ABP assumes, as do I, that the truth won't matter here because in the public won't get as involved as bloggers to find the real truth of this, and they'll buy what they see in the papers and on TV NewsBusters is on to the AP's dirty tricks as well, and like Powerline, they break it down much more articulately than I have. Newsbusters' post is also very brief but right to the point, with a supporting quote from the Army Corps of Engineers. I was linked to Polls and Pundits from a comment on ABP, who is on top of this as well.

(original post starts below)

Here's the new media hype headline I'm sure you've seen by now: Tape: Bush, Chertoff Warned Before Katrina

I first saw this story on the Yahoo! home page, and I knew immediately what it was attempting to say, and why it was an inaccurate portrayal... and that the media would be jumping for joy over this, and that we can expect all the usual Senate Democrats to be out with their "incompetence" talking points tomorrow, and for at least a week or two to come (vs. doing any actual work.. what's new?) Drudge is running the story as the top headline as well.

Here's the gist... The AP has exclusively obtained video of video conferences involving the President and FEMA that took place during the week of Katrina. This includes video from a day before Katrina where the levees breaching was discussed. This is supposed to be used to bust Bush "lying" when he said a few days later, on Good Morning America:

"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees"

What everyone is ignoring is that the levees never "breached" or "overtopped", they broke because of design and/or construction flaws. This is a known fact. The eye never struck New Orleans, but category 3 conditions were initially reported to have still hit the city. The levees should have been able to handle that. But as the experts have weighed in in the following months it has been determined that New Orleans only experience between category 1 and 2 conditions. I repeat, CATEGORY 1 OR 2 conditions hit New Orleans, and again, the levees were supposed to be able to handle a 3.

The article has quotes, and the video shows clips of things like this:

"I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not but that is obviously a very, very grave concern," Mayfield told the briefing.

Again, what does that have to do with anything? THE LEVEES WEREN'T TOPPED! The "levee concerns" that everyone had HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED!!! But the media loves to keep pushing the known bogus idea that the levees were "topped" every few weeks when some new development allows them to use it to spin and hurt the administration. By the way, we also know that Louisisiana's emergency people blew millions of dollars on who knows what, and I believe that is still under investigation (trying to get this post up quickly, because I've got to run so I don't have time to find the link... but I suspect you already know the story)

So while everyone may have screwed up, it is still known that the local and state REALLY screwed up, and could have prevented a lot of the pandemonium and death by activating their own plans. The FEDs were obviously unprepared to deal with something this large, especially with such idiotic local officials. But the point here is that this is supposed to be some explosive story, and it's really not.

I think maybe Bush wasn't getting the full story from his people, that's possible... But the point is that AFTER the storm, most people didn't know that the levees had broken (NOT overtopped) so early... actually not for a few days. So I suspect that in that week, as the reports kept rolling in revealing more damage and chaos than most had first realized Bush along with most people thought that the levees had dodged a bullet, which they should have had they not been poorly designed or built and broken down under week conditions that never came close to overtopping them.

This is just more media piling on to a non-issue. The levees were never "breached" or "overtopped" in the way that people were concerned they were. That bullet, technically, was dodged... The disaster was caused by many other factors, but not that. So this whole "Bush Knew" or Tape: Bush, Chertoff Warned Before Katrina campaign is a joke. Yeah they were warned at took note... but what they were warned about had nothing to do with what actually happened.

By the way, the FACT that we know it was design and/or construction flaws that caused all the problems in the New Orleans, it is beyond annoying to continue reading articles that say "damage caused by Hurricane Katrina" or "flooding caused by Katrina", etc. etc. These type of statements are totally dishonest and misleading, and always used coupled with misleading statements about warnings about levees overtopping that are irrelevent to the actual story. But don't expect it to end anytime soon.

Again, sorry about not have a lot of links, but much of what I'm missing links on is old but related news that you most likely already know, and I'm in too much of a hurry at the moment to dig them all up.

Ian at Expose The Left wonders where the media's outrage is over another video.

UPDATE - 12:38 AM March 2, 2006

In discussions with liberal commenters on this post, I've come to realize something... "Breach" is the all encompassing word for overtopping, breaks, or whatever. I get annoyed when the press uses it when trying to give a distorted picture of what happened, and make people think the levees were overtopped. But using the word "breach" is still accurate when people are talking about the breaks that actually ocurred, although again I've just not liked the word because of how it's generally used to spin the sitation.

So imagine you're the President in this interview. You're being told that the levees actually broke a day or two after the storm hit, and wasn't overtopped do to an extreme storm surge. Everyone had of course known for decades about the potential for an overtopping type of breach, so that wouldn't even make sense for the President to try to say that no one expected it, right? So if you consider that he was referring to the "break" type of breach that actually occurred, then it makes a lot more sense because no one did anticipate that. The concern that was discussed perviously had been about the levees being breached by high storm surges that couldn't be contained by the levees... not worry of them flat out breaking down under conditions they were supposed to be able to handle.

You can call this spin or you can disagree all you want... but I actually just realized that angle that made it all the more clear in my mind. Again, why would he be so stupid as to say no one anticipated the levees breaching when it has been talked about for decades and especially all the days leading up to the storm? Because he meant the "break" type of breach that happened, not the overtopping by storm surge that had been antcipated (but didn't occur). So we've got a country who had for about 24-48 hours breathed a sigh of relief that New Orleans had been spared the worst, and the levees hadn't dumped a bunch of water in to the soup bowl city, but then unpredictably the levees flat out broke down and caused immeasurable damage.

So yeah, the overtopping concern had been raised for many years, but the damage would have paled in comparison to what happened as a result of the break. We were all totally unprepared, especially after Nagin didn't use the buses to evacuate and Blanco didn't force a mandatory evacuation, to deal with the unprecedented amount of damage. I think that's what you libs are confused about. The damage from overtopping levees wouldn't have been anywhere close to the break that occurred. Try this experiment to understand the difference, fill a cup to the very top with water and put it in and empty bowl. Blow on it and notice some water come over the top and in to the bowl. Now do the same thing except instead of blowing this time, shatter the glass with a hammer.

Get it now? An overtopping causing bad flooding had been a concern... A flat out breakdown breach of the levees hadn't been considered and the flooding caused by it was beyond anything anyone could really wrap their minds around.

So to sum up, it is my belief that the President meant "breach" in the "break" sense of the word, and this was accurate. Yeah, I know I'm a shill for Bushy and trying to cover for him, but it seems clear when you look at the fact that a "breach" from overtopping had been a concern for decades, so he would have to be insane to have made the comment meaning it in that sense of the word.

 

Do we expect anything else from the Howard Dean run DNC? "I hate Republicans" they're "evil", ""The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong", "Republicans are "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party" (to name a few)... So are we surprised at this campaign? I'm not, but that doesn't make it okay.

Now I'm sure there are some libs that would try to compare my photoshops and such to these sort of comments. Well first of all, mine are clearly jokes. Secondly, IM NOT THE RNC! I know, I know - no one has pointed fingers at me yet. But I've seen it in the past. Whenever the Democratic party does something shameful, they point to right wing web sites to justify it, because they have no argument if they tried to say the RNC engages in this sort of behavior. Anyway, it won't probably even come to that in this case because the MSM will never report it, so they won't have to defend themselves.

Drudge Report Exclusive:

DEMS UNVEIL '08 MESSAGE: 'YOU'RE FAT!' Tue Feb 14 2006 08:28:55 ET

**Exclusive**

THE DRUDGE REPORT has obtained an email sent Monday evening by Democratic National Committee (DNC) research director Devorah Adler that contains ten opposition research packets on potential 2008 GOP presidential contenders.

In one packet titled “Newt Gingrich: 08 Watch February 2006” a picture of the former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA) appears with --- him holding two full plates of food!

The quote underneath the Gingrich photo reads “In His Own Words: Gingrich’s Solution To Childhood Obesity: ‘Turn off the TV, cut the fatty diet and get exercise.’ [AP, 2/8/06]”

The ten Republicans picked by the Democrat Party include: Sen. George Allen (R-VA), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN), Gingrich, Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Gov. George Pataki (R-NY) and Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA).

One Republican strategist who had seen the opposition research packets said: 'We should expect nothing less than name-calling and referring to one’s political opponents as ‘fat’ from Howard Dean’s Democrat Party.'

Developing...

 

This just in from Drudge:

White House seeking a retraction from NYT: Bush was 'on vacation in Texas' Fri Feb 10 2006 09:46:25 ET

NEW YORK TIMES’ Eric Lipton today writes that President Bush was “on vacation in Texas” on August 30th but their own reporter filed a pool report that day from San Diego where POTUS giving a speech on the War on Terror and was visiting soldiers and families of the fallen. Sources tell DRUDGE that the original story filed by Lipton did not contain the sentence about Bush being on vacation and that it was added by an editor.

The White House is seeking a retraction.

Developing...

Pool Report #2 (from August 30, 2005) Chaos briefly reigned. After conducting an interview with the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service at a cargo plane hangar near the previous event, President Bush arrived at the Naval Medical Center San Diego on schedule, and proceded to the first event, a meeting with health care providers that was supposed to last a half hour and include a photo op at the bottom. Instead, moments after arrival, the pool was rushed to the door and told the photo op would take place immediately. Then, just as suddenly, it was canceled without explanation. Minutes later – about an hour ahead of schedule, and equally suddenly – the pool was rounded up and rushed back to the motorcade for departure. It is now 11:21 AM local time and we are heading toward the airport. More to come.

Anne Kornblut

END

 

UPDATE: The Political Teen has video up of a CNN correspondent explaining the situation. Luckily it looks more and more like Kerry is just making of a fool of himself. If he is seriously thinking about running for President again in 2008, he should have sent some nobody out to call for a filibuster so he wouldn't look like such an idiot when it backfires. Or maybe Kerry doesn't want a filibuster at all. Maybe he just wants to be able to come out later and say he was for the filibuster before he was against it.

Hat tip Drudge for being first on this, as usual...

Read all about Kerry's call to filibuster the Alito nomination here, via CNN.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry has decided to support a filibuster to block the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, CNN's Congressional Correspondent Ed Henry reported Thursday.

Kerry, in Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum, was marshaling support in phone calls during the day, Henry said.

He announced his decision Wednesday to a group of Democratic senators, urging they join him, Henry said. Kerry also has the support of his fellow Massachusetts senator, Democrat Edward Kennedy.

Some senior Democrats said they are worried that the move could backfire.

Republicans need 60 votes to overturn a filibuster.

Senior White House officials said the move makes the Democrats look bad, and Republicans already have enough votes to overcome any filibuster attempt.

I suspect The Political Teen will have more to come, but just has a CNN screen shot up at the moment.

Interestingly, this development comes as more Dems back Alito. I'm obviously no fan of Byrd and don't know much about Johnson.. but it's just kind of funny that I read that story along side Kerry's call for a filibuster.

What a mess... anyway, I think this only stands to backfire on the Dems.

UPDATE: Check out the lefty blogs on this... they're all singing Kerry's praises for "growing a pair" and taking a stand, etc.... pathetic.

More:
Michelle Malkin, Stop the ACLU, Bullwinkle Blog, Lifelike Pundits, Mike Janitch, Public Figures Beware, Macsmind, Drumwaster's Rants, Below The Beltway, Iowa Voice, Small Town Veteran, Publius Rendezvous