I guess making Howard Dean the party chairman wasn't enough, we've seen the Democratic leadership make the most idiotic comments imaginable as if they're in a contest to outstupid Dean. And today, Kerry submitted his entry for the month:

Asked if he dreads the prospect of being “Swift-Boated” all over again, Kerry counters that he would relish such a fight.

“I’m prepared to kick their ass from one end of America to the other,” he declares. “I am so confident of my abilities to address that and to demolish it and to even turn it into a positive.”

Yeah, because you did such a good time beating them back last time. Are you saying that now you've had time to formulate a response that will "kick their ass" so badly, that they won't be as effective as last time? If so, and if you're the one being truthful, why did it take you a bunch of downtime to come up with a way to combat the Swift Boat Vets? I mean, if you're the one telling the truth and who's right here, couldn't you have hit them back in 2004?

And despite the crappy second half of the year, yes I'm still a Red Sox fan, but don't try to appeal to me again by saying that your favorite player is some morphed player you invented called Manny Ortiz, after proclaiming yourself a big fan. Yes I am still annoyed by that you lying pandering clown.

Anyway, John O'Neill of the Swift Vets responded:

Kerry’s tough talk triggers laughter from John O’Neill, a fellow Vietnam veteran who helped found Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth and wrote a blistering 2004 book on Kerry, “Unfit for Command.”

“Well, he’s got eight times as much time to prepare for us as he spent in Vietnam,” says O’Neill, referring to Kerry’s short tour of duty.

I don't approve of mocking the amount of time someone spent there, and everyone should be praised for any service. But O'Neill has his issues with why Kerry was there, and how he got home. And of course there are the issues of lying about throwing his medals, lying about medals he was given, lying about being in Cambodia, meeting the enemy in Paris, Winter Solder, etc. etc., all of which came to light as a result of efforts by the Swift Vets. This isn't challenging your service, this is challenging your record of lying and politic playing with that service after making it an issue with your salute and "reporting for duty" speech.

None of this matters anyway, Hillary is getting the nomination but is unelectable, so you guys have already lost the 2008 presidential election.

 

***SCROLL FOR UPDATES***

I could throw together a link round-up of all the updates on the UK terror bust, but folks like Michelle Malkin have done that here, and HotAir's AllahPundit here, here, here, and here. All of those are definite must reads, that I couldn't even begin to catch up with. Instead, this post will focus more on the reactions to the terror bust, of Democrats and liberal bloggers.

Let's start with my favorite Piñata, and DNC chairman, Howard Dean. The venomous and hateful (by his own admission) Dr. who recently had the balls to call for end to divisiveness, set the tone for what became the standard reaction from the left, with this press release. Here's a taste:

"Today's events are a troubling reminder that we are living in dangerous and trying times. These are times that call for real leadership. Not posturing, or name calling."

For Howard Dean, of all people to ask that there be no name calling is about the most hypocritical thing I can imagine. Idiot! Whoops, that's a name isn't it. Seriously though, he obviously is referring to political opponents, and I can't say that I recall hearing any name calling from any Republican pols over this. Unless he's upset over Bush saying "Islamic Fascists" (video at HotAir), when (for once) properly labeling the terrorists, I don't know what name calling he could be referring to. While I don't think he was referring to Bush's comment, it wouldn't surprise me at all.

Most of the rest of the press release was just the same old talking points we've heard for the past few years, including the one broken record line that I will repeatedly translate as "we have no plan other than to get elected":

We need a new direction in our national defense policies that's tough and smart.

New direction! Time for change! Smart and tough on terror! Don't know how, but elect us and we'll show you!

Now the next part I'd like to excerpt, that followed more talking points, is priceless:

"It also means we have to be honest about the failures of our current foreign policies, which have let Iraq slip into civil war, enabled Iran to increase its nuclear capabilities, failed to address the growing threat posed by North Korea, and Afghanistan has seen a resurgence of the Taliban. Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda's mastermind, is still on the loose, and the Middle East is deep in crisis.

I think we can ALL agree that those are nothing but politically charged rhetoric. No big deal right? Especially because it's Dean. Well, it wouldn't be such a big deal if it wasn't immediately followed by this:

"We must put America's security ahead of politicking and come together as Americans. I urge President Bush, the Commander in Chief, to return to Washington to address the problems we face today."

So let me get this straight, you pile on a bunch of politically charged DNC talking points that you've been repeating for years, and then insist that we put security ahead of politicking? My initial reaction (as is my reaction everytime he opens his mouth) is that Dean must be crazy, playing politics with security, and then condeming such behavior. But then I remembered he's a liberal, and that he's playing to liberals who are either not bright enough to get what he just did, or are dishonest enough to pretend they didn't.

One more quick comment on Dean's comments. I put what he said about OBL in bold above. Notice what he said, which admittedly isn't anything that out of the ordinary to hear from anyone, about Bin Laden being the "mastermind". I just don't see how he's a mastermind. A figurehead/mascot? Yeah. But mastermind? I don't think so. Again, this is for anyone not just Dean, and it's just my personal opinion, but I think calling Bin Laden a mastermind puts him on a level where he doesn't belong.

Think Dean is the only one that can turn a successful terror bust in to a way to attack Bush and the GOP? Here's our favorite Democratic Senators from Massachusetts weighing in, Teddy first:

"Five years after 9-11, it is clear that our misguided policies are making America more hated in the world and making the war on terrorism harder to win," Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts said.

Hmm... So intelligence sharing between the Brits, the United States, and Pakistan leading to the bust of a terror plot that would have rivalled or eclipsed 9/11 translates (for a Kennedy) in to we're more hated and the war on terror is harder to win? He's obviously referring to Iraq, but what the hell does that have to do with this?

Let me get the obligatory Iraq paragraph out of the way before I move on. Kennedy himself, along with all other leading Dems spent over a decade making a stronger WMDs in Iraq case than Bush ever did. Clinton made regime change in Iraq policy, before making eerily similar arguments to President Bush and then launching his own strikes on Iraq. We thought WMDs were there (and I still say they were), and if they had gotten in to the hands of Al Qaeda and made it to our shores, Bush would have been tossed out on his ass for not having attacked Iraq. By the way, we have countless people claiming they were moved to Syria (possibly with Russian help), we have satellite images of trucks moving across the border in the days before the war, we have Russian and Turkish scientists hiding from UN inspectors in the months before the war, etc. etc. We have even found hundreds of chemical weapons. Of course the Dems say it doesn't count because they're old... but doesn't it? Why weren't they disclosed to the UN if they are so unusable? And if they weren't disclosed, why are we so sure that the recent stuff wasn't there too, but more tightly guarded and then moved?

I guess what I'm trying to say is Kennedy's an ass. Let's see if Kerry does any better:

But Bush's foe in the 2004 election, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, said America was "not as safe as we can and must be" and in part blamed the president's focus on Iraq.

"This event exposes the misleading myth that we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here. In fact, the war in Iraq has become a dangerous distraction and a profound drain on our financial and military resources," Kerry said.

Another Democrat who really knows how to celebrate a victory in the war on terror, eh? Again, wtf does Iraq have to do with this? This is a VICTORY dude. We haven't been attacked, and this shows that the intelligence network is currently working, though it would be better without all the NSA leaks, etc. and all you Dems playing politics with our intel gathering policies.

Yes this was primarily a British operation (because that's where the terrorists lived), but it actually was set in motion by arrests in Pakistan 8-10 days ago. But the investigation had been ongoing for months and Bush and Blair had discussed it numerous times. If liberals had their way, all intelligence gathering would be above the radar, tipping our hand to terrorists allowing them to go further underground to plan their attacks. Not many details yet, but apparently WE intercepted some calls that played a major part in this bust. I can't help but wonder if we would have intercepted these calls if liberals had had their way.

Before I get to the liberal blogs, Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid wanting to add his two cents:

"I commend British authorities for defusing this terror plot and apprehending the suspects. Their actions protected the lives of innocent civilians, including many American citizens. Today's events are an important reminder that we need to renew our focus on the war on terror and to continue to work with our allies to protect Americans from terrorism.

Renew our focus? When was our focus off of the war on terror? Oh you must be speaking just to your own party. Hit me with some talking points Senator, and round it out with some insanity!

"Terrorism remains the greatest threat to our security. As the five year anniversary of the September 11th attacks approaches, we should take this opportunity not just to remember, but to take stock of what progress has been made to protect Americans and what steps remain unfulfilled. As a result of mismanagement and the wrong funding priorities, we are not as safe as we should be and we still have not implemented the bipartisan 9-11 Commission's recommendations to secure our ports, airports, and chemical plants. The Iraq war has diverted our focus and more than $300 billion in resources from the war on terrorism and has created a rallying cry for international terrorists. This latest plot demonstrates the need for the Bush administration and the Congress to change course in Iraq and ensure that we are taking all the steps necessary to protect Americans at home and across the world."

Wow, your Iraq card playing is even lamer than the weak hands put up by your pals. How does this (foiled) plot, show that we need to "change course" (never heard that one before) in Iraq? At least Mr. Ed and the Kool-Aid guy were a little smoother when invoking the Iraq war in to a place it didn't belong, but they didn't go as far as to directly tie this event to it.

The odd thing about these comments from leading Democrats is the fact that they aren't that much more idiotic than the blogs this round. It seems the Dems keep going further left to the point where the insane lefty blogs are now becoming mainstream in the party.

Let's quickly get Michael Moore, the only man who defies all odds by being both full of crap, and full of cheetos at the same time, out of the way. He's the easiest to disect, because he simply didn't say anything. His news section is all about Sheehan and friends. I know, I know Mikey, if you've told us once, you've told us a thousand times:

"There is no terrorist threat," Moore insists. "Yes, there have been horrific acts of terrorism and, yes, there will be acts of terrorism again. But that doesn't mean that there's some kind of massive terrorist threat."

Moving along... How many DailyKos readers does it take to unscrew their brains and call this a Bush conspiracy? Well, out of 1414, it takes 689 or 48%. So almost half of Kosers don't believe this was real. I also (without proof) suspect some poll manipulation when the Kosers realized how insane they were looking, they tried to even it out a bit, because when LGF looked at it earlier 75% were calling it a conspiracy.

Perhaps the lefties are right this time though. I mean, everytime anything terror related happens they always say it's just Rove trying to bring up Bush's poll numbers. If it's an attack, many will say Bush Co. was behind it. But check this out, Dan Riehl has intercepted a call between Rove and Bin Laden that seems to prove that 689 Kos Kids can't be wrong.

While the Kos Kids were late to the game yesterday, they did eventually comment. A comment at 2:18 pm by "Hunter" is such a steaming pile I don't even really want to excerpt any of it. Basically he goes on to rant about how America sucks and talk about how great it is that the Brits could wrap up this terror plot while staying withing the "rule of law" while completely ignoring the differences in their laws and society. He offers this one paragraph that I have to quote because it's so stupidly hilarious:

That seems to be one big difference between U.S. and U.K. efforts in the War on Terror. Despite the obvious political and strategic bungles of the Blair government, the U.K. is beginning to show a history of wrapping up terror plots and arresting those involved, and seems even to have managed to have done so within the context of law.

Can you please name a successful terror plot in the United States since 9/11? I don't use that argument the way a lot of conservatives do to say "look, we haven't been attacked in 5 years", I use it to ask you what your point is. If there hasn't been a plot to bust, how do we bust it? I think the more likely scenario is that we've busted plenty in the early planning stages, with the few dozen arrests around the country spread out over a number of years, plus whatever has been kept quiet by the government. By the way, you must not have read the part about us intercepting calls and playing a role in this. I suggest you do so now, and then slowly explain to me again, why we shouldn't be intercepting calls.

I actually don't recommend reading the rest of the crap in that post, but it's funny to see Hunter get all upset about Bush saying "Islamic Fascists". He claims that this is a phrase used by "every significant racist and hate group in America"(without an example by the way), while ignoring that IT'S A PROPER LABEL of these people!

Hours after all of Hunters politicization, the Kos himself comes out to attack an unnamed GOPer for playing politics with this. Where would the left be without their unnamed sources? Even if it is true, I don't see what the big deal is about this:

"Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," said another White House official, who also spoke on condition of not being named, adding that some Democratic candidates won't "look as appealing" under the circumstances.

It seems pretty clear that it was in response to a question, but either way, what is the problem with pointing out the obvious? Dems have been trying to downplay the threat, and this doesn't work for them.

When I bookmarked a lot of stuff I wanted to include in this blog last night, the only mention of the terror plot from Tbogg was this. Boring.

Josh Marshall of Talking Points memo, like all the other lefties, questions the timing (yup, Rove did it). Also like all the rest he invokes Iraq to say it's wrong and we should be doing what the Brits did. (See response to Hunter and Senate Dems above). We had to go to Iraq, and this is a multi-front war on terror. Later Josh threw up a pointless BDS one line post:

Bush: Failed terror plot a reminder that everybody should stop complaining about how bad I screwed up Iraq.

More of the same at Crooks & Liars.

HotAir has video of Tom Delay and Ann Coulter giving it to the left on Cavuto yesterday. Delay's best line:

You have to go get these terrorists and either put 'em in a cell, or a cemetary. That's all they know.

Mike Gallagher piles on the left as well.

Ian at HotAir busts NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams comparing Army Rangers, Navy Seals, Special Forces, and 9/11 first responders to terrorists. You probably think that's an exaggeration, or the way I'm spinning it. No, that's what Williams did on Hardball with Chrissy Matthews, and I hope some of the big dogs at Fox pick up on this one, but I doubt it. WATCH THE VIDEO! I've got to steal this part of the transcript from Ian to make reel you in, and force you to watch it:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: But, here we have maybe 24 people who have lived in London and England and the free world for all these years that become citizens, subjects of the Crown, and yet, after having gotten to know us, they want to kill themselves to hurt us. Isn’t that an even deeper conundrum here than the chemicals being used in these attacks.

BRIAN WILLIAMS: And that, Chris, that last aspect, the willingness to take one’s own life. I always tell people there are guys on our team like that, too. They’re called Army Rangers and Navy Seals and the Special Forces folks and the first responders on 9/11 who went into those buildings knowing, by the way, they weren’t going to come out. So we have players like that on our team.

Screw you Williams. Sadly word won't get out about this causing deserved boycotts that cost you your job. I think my comment at HotAir about says it all:

What an ass.

First of all, the obvious… He just compared Army Rangers, Navy Seals, Special Forces, and 9/11 First responders to terrorists. No spinning on this one, that’s what he did.

Not that anyone here is stupid enough to need this explanation, but here it is anyway… The members of “our” team that he lists don’t commit suicide in an effort to kill innocent people. Even if you were to give moral equivelency to terrorist and say that none of us are innocent civilians, our guys don’t pyschotically go out to kill themselves to accomplish their mission. Are they willing to die doing what they believe is right? Yes, but they aren’t hoping too.

As for the 9/11 first responders specifically… What an idiot you are Williams. Do you actually believe they went in knowing they wouldn’t come out? For what purpose? They were going in to get people out… if they didn’t come out, neither did the civilians. Are you saying that these first responders didn’t feel like they had a right to live while others died so they just joined the death party?

If any of you reading this, and you're one of those who Williams just compared to terrorist, let him know how you feel here:

Nightly@NBC.com or visit this NBC page for all other contact options.

***UPDATE*** - Williams responds, and I'm not buying it. Misunderstood? No, you were very clear. Bryan at HotAir didn't hear an apology.

Malkin's is all over the reluctance of people to call these terrorists Muslims, instead opting to call them "British-born Asians".

I actually just noticed Allah's post on Dem reactions which he uses a Lamont image for on the home page. I totally ignored the link because I'm so bored with Lamont talk that I didn't realize until now what the post was about.

***UPDATE***
Beyond abusing their children by parading their dead bodies around repeatedly for cameras in orchestrated propaganda movies, they brainwash them to hate jews from when they're babies. You probably already knew that right? Well so did I, but I just found this video on YouTube that's personally saddening because I have a niece the same age as this girl, and I can't imagine that they make "True Muslims" (you'll see) out of their babies. This girl has learned that in the Koran, "their God" told them that Jews are "apes and pigs".

***UPDATE***
After all the politic playing from the Dems they dare to come out and attack Republicans?

***UPDATE***
Bryan at HotAir catches Richard Clarke repeating the same matra of the Senate Dems. Bryan sums up well what I've been trying to say in translating the Democrats' comments: Success is failure.

 

Partially cross-posted at Expose the Left

Only a week ago we were mocking Howard Dean for his claim that the current Middle East crisis wouldn't be taking place under Democratic leadership, but it seems the competition for idiot of the month isn't over yet. Former presidential candidate, and senator from Massachusetts John Kerry has named himself the Psychic of the Senate, and made the same odd and unverifiable hypothetical postdiction. I know that's a mouthful, but I can't think of another word, because to simply say "postdiction" would imply that he's pointing to vague claims he made in the past as a prediction of what we now see. So I'm sticking with "unverifiable hypothetical postdiction":

The Detroit News

U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D- Mass., who was in town Sunday to help Gov. Jennifer Granholm campaign for her re-election bid, took time to take a jab at the Bush administration for its lack of leadership in the Israeli-Lebanon conflict.

"If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," said Kerry during a noon stop at Honest John's bar and grill in Detroit's Cass Corridor.

It actually appears that Kerry's claim goes further than even Dean's. Dean essentially just told us that if the party in power had a "D" next to their name that it wouldn't have happened, but superhero Kerry claims that if HE were President, the crisis could have been averted. I think you're getting a little bit big for your botox here Senator.

In my Dean post I said that I wasn't that upset at how over the line it was or even at the media shrugging their shoulders, or even the hypocrisy and selective outrage of Democrats and the media. I was more shocked that anyone (now add Kerry to the list) could make such an idiotic statement. Like I said then:

Why don't you also tell everyone that if Democrats were in power we'd all be millionaires to you clown!?

That may sound like a much wilder claim, but it's not. They are both stupid, as well as totally unverifiable. There is no way to know how much truth there is to either. Maybe I should go on record as saying that due to the "butterfly effect", if the Democrats had won power, some unknown series of events would have led to a comet destroying the planet. Considering the fact that we don't have some sort of Tivo in the real world, we aren't living in one of those lame old books where you choose your own destiny (if you disagree, turn to page Kos), and this isn't a game show where we can "show him what he would have won!", Kerry's actual words and my hypotheticals all reach a level of idiocy most Democrats can only dream of achieving.

I would also briefly like to touch on the media hypocrisy issue again, as I did in the Dean post. Do you all recall when Vice President Cheney (supposedly) Predicted terrorist attacks if John Kerry were elected? Do you recall the outrage from the left, as if Cheney had gone way over some line? Do you recall the media coverage of the latest (at the time) Bush/Cheney "scandal"? If you were alive you certainly caught all of that, but if you were truly paying attention you'd realize that all the outrage was unjustified, when what Cheney did was criticize John Kerry's policies, saying that he would have handled terrorism as a law enforcement issue which could leave us more prone to an attack.

Dr. Dean may be surgical when it comes to putting his foot in his mouth, but Kerry had a decent day when beyond making unprovable "if only" predictions, as Expose the Left tells us, the Senator thought it appropriate to pick on Rush Limbaugh's weight:

Rush Limbaugh needs to pick up a history book instead of a donut.

I suppose this type of discourse is to be expect from the left though, considering their base gets their news from the Daily Show. Some of you might recall that a spokesman for John Kerry actually used the same elementary school tactics when saying that Karl Rove looked like a pig:

"The closest Karl Rove ever came to combat," said Kerry spokesman David Wade, "was these last months spent worrying his cellmates might rough him up in prison. This porcine political operative can't cut and run from the truth any longer."

I guess the source is the strangest part of these attacks on personal appearance. Isn't this the same John Kerry that bears a striking resemblence to Frankenstein? The same Kerry that so clearly used (uses?) Botox? The same Kerry that showed up to a Presidential debate so fake tanned out that he looked like a friggin' carrot? The same man who whenever I see his face I expect him to say "Hello Wilbur"? Why the long face Senator (I know played out, but still good). Oh wait, am I a hyporcite for mocking his appearance after deriding him for doing the same? Sorry, but I'm not a sitting United States Senator. There is a different type of behavior to be expected from these people, and they should be above this sort of thing. But I'm not.

*UPDATE*
Others now blogging:
Assorted Babble, Below the Beltway, Blogs for Bush, Captain's Quarters, Conservative Outpost, Cranial Cavity, Don Surber, Expose the Left, GOP Bloggers, HotAir, Moonage Political Webdream, Outside the Beltway, Power Line, Protein Wisdom, Right Wing News, Right Wing Nut House, ScrappleFace, Sister Toldjah, Stop the ACLU, Suitably Flip, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Wide Awake Café, Wizbang

... and more:
4 The Little Guy, Atlas Shrugs, Big Dog's Weblog, bRight and Early, California Conservative, Dangerous Dan, Hang Right Politics, My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Pirate's Cove, Publius Hamilton, Pundit Guy, Scribal Terror, Stix Blog, Texas Rainmaker, The Nose On Your Face, Theodore's World

 

***SCROLL FOR UPDATES***

Michelle Malkin is reporting, thanks to a tip from Free Republic, that CIA leaker, Joe Wilson associate, and John Kerry supporter Mary McCarthy is scheduled to be interviewed tonight at 10pm ET on WABC.

As this is the John Batchelor Show's timeslot, but it seems that McCarthy will be interviewd by Jed Babbin and Larry Kudlow. Be sure to tune in to the internet stream on WABC Radio's web site, which couldn't be easier to use. I'll be interested to hear if she is, as has been reported, "categorically denying" being the leaker.

The newborn HotAir.com has been all over the McCarthy situation, and her ties to leading Democrats and Bush haters. Today's "Vent with Michelle Malkin" gave a great round-up of what we know, and what is speculation at this point and wondered when we'll see a flow chart from the NY Times with all of McCarthy's Democrat connections, similar to the one they created (that was really reaching), in an effort to tie the Swift Boat Veterans to President Bush.

We briefly see a McCarthy flowchart float by behind Malkin during the segment, but if you're like me, you wanted to see the image and check it out for yourself. Thanks to Mind in the Qatar, we have one (h/t Expose the Left for the link).

This flowchart might be a little confusing if you don't already have the background on McCarthy's connections, which AllahPundit details in this HotAir post. If there's one roundup you read, make it this one.

AllahPundit has an even newer post up at HotAir that describes a bit of confusion on the McCarthy situation on whether she was "the leaker" or a "tipper" that lead to an investigation, that lead to leaks from others. I'm thoroughly confused now, but perhaps we'll learn more from her radio appearance. And as I look at the clock, I see it's about to start....

Before I post this and go listen to the show, just thought I'd let readers know that if they miss it, I just noticed that Expose the Left is planning to post the segment.

***UPDATE I***
The Commissar at The Politburo Diktat has put together another great flow chart for our viewing pleasure (or displeasure if you're thinking about CIA leakers).

***UPDATE II***
Have we been had? No mention of a McCarthy interview yet. I found it odd when I first read the Free Republic post that said:

According to John Batchelor's website, Mary McCarthy will be a guest tonight and be interviewed by Jed Babbin along with the host. Larry Kudlow will also serve as co-host. The show is on at 10 pm EDT on WABC radio and WMAL.

But I saw nothing on John Batchelor's site about it. Still, I assumed that with Malkin reporting it, and no reason to pull a hoax, that it was probably still true... I guess we'll have to wait and see. By the way, I just got a phone call, and missed the last 15 minutes, so if there was a mention of such an interview, I missed it anyway.

***UPDATE III***
Expose the Left confirms that there is no interview. I suppose that was all a bit of wishful thinking on our part, considering she probably won't be doing interviews when there is a likelyhood that she'll be facing charges soon.

 

***SCROLL FOR UPDATES***

Don't expect to see the same fake outrage from the left, as we've seen in "Plamegate", over this latest REAL leak. As we know, in the Plame situation, no one can seem to say she's covered under the "leak law" that everyone wants to bust a Bush official on (including the author of the law), and that attacking the credibility of Wilson was necessary when he was lying for his own political reasons. Oh by the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he a Kerry supporter too?

MSNBC

WASHINGTON - In a rare occurrence, the CIA fired an officer who acknowledged giving classified information to a reporter, NBC News learned Friday.

The officer flunked a polygraph exam before being fired on Thursday and is now under investigation by the Justice Department, NBC has learned.

Intelligence sources tell NBC News the accused officer, Mary McCarthy, worked in the CIA's inspector general's office and had worked for the National Security Council under the Clinton and and George W. Bush administrations.

Well we've all heard the news over the past couple days: Senior CIA Officer Fired For Leaking to Press. What I hadn't heard, until pulling up the Drudge Report today, is that the leaker was appointed by Sandy "I've got a filing cabinet in my socks" Berger, under President Bill Clinton's administration (Berger background here). Need more? The leaker, Mary O. McCarthy was a Kerry supporter, not to mention has a name that sounds like she is a character from a childrens book. By the way, it's the NY Times revealing the Kerry support, and I'm willing to admit when they get something right. But I'm surprised it didn't take a blogger to dig it up, and the Times to ignore it.

NY Times

WASHINGTON, April 21 — The Central Intelligence Agency has dismissed a senior career officer for disclosing classified information to reporters, including material for Pulitzer Prize-winning articles in The Washington Post about the agency's secret overseas prisons for terror suspects, intelligence officials said Friday.

The C.I.A. would not identify the officer, but several government officials said it was Mary O. McCarthy, a veteran intelligence analyst who until 2001 was senior director for intelligence programs at the National Security Council, where she served under President Bill Clinton and into the Bush administration.

Public records show that Ms. McCarthy contributed $2,000 in 2004 to the presidential campaign of John Kerry, the Democratic nominee.

What does that all mean? Not much, other than a pat on the back to the CIA for weeding this woman out and kickin' her to the curb. The Democrat connections are only important because I'll be interested to see the screeching Senate Democrats and lefty blogs up in arms over this. Needless to say I won't be holding my breath, waiting for their outrage. Luckily for them, the liberal media won't be beating down their doors to ask them about the hypocrisy. Just like when they call the President a liar on WMDs, the media never demands they answer for all of their stronger WMD arguments. I also doubt we'll see Cynthia "mamma said knock you out" McKinney, offer up a closed-fist punch over the incident. (she reserves those for police officers doing their job)

Now, one could go in to how this woman revealed information to the press that served no purpose but hurting the war on terror and say "just another anti-American Democrat", but I'm not going to go that far. I think I'll wait until she has a book that launches some time this fall or next spring. It will be heavily publicized, she'll refuse to go on Fox News to plug it because the Fox & Friends folks, Hannity, and O'Reilly would ask her questions and demand answers rather than let her give an "I hate Bush" speech. To be clear, I have no knowledge of a book deal, but I think it's safe to say she'll be approached very quickly and this "revealing" book will be pumped heavily leading up to it's release. When it finally comes out, the left will treat it like a bible for a month or two, while anyone who actually looks at it will realize it is light on facts, and is just one big hardcover spin manual. In a way this is a gift to her and the left. Now not only will she make millions off of a book deal, it will serve as a political tool for the left to further undermine the war on terror.

Back to the serious point for a minute. This woman was actively working against the country's war on terror. But worse, she's a veteran intelligence analyst. How long has she been working against the country?! Again, I guess the good news is they investigated and got her out, but how many more are there like her? Also, why is this woman just losing her job and not being brought up on charges? It sounds like just "broke the rules" and got fired, but it seems to me like she did a lot worse than that.

***UPDATE***
Expose the Left is commenting on McCarthy's political contributions, and the lack of media coverage.

Ace of Spades, Michelle Malkin and others on wondering if there is a Joe Wilson connection here... This looks like it might be even dirtier than we first thought. Stay tuned...

***UPDATE***
Many other bloggers share the same feeling that I do, that if what this woman was fired for is true, then certainly she should be charged with crimes as well. Many have been so bold as to call her a traitor already. Others are slamming the NY Times' coverage of this. Besides the original article I cited, the Times has a few other pieces out on this story now, and many feel that they appear to be running defense for McCarthy. Great reading all around:

Stop the ACLU, Leaning Straight Up, Unalienable Right, Stuck on Stupid, Left Wing = Hate, Small Dead Animals, The Dragon and the Phoenix, Freedom for Some, Tac Jammer, Protein Wisdon, Captain's Quarters, Sister Toldjah, Mind in Qatar, Rightwing Nuthouse, Balance Sheet, Iowa Voice, Think Sink, Macsmind, A Blog For All, Hillbilly White Trash, GroupIntel, Small Town Veteran, Hooda Thunk?, The Jawa Report, Riehl World View, In the Bullpen, Wizbang, Atlas Shrugs, The Strata-Sphere, Big Lizards, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Michelle Malkin

***UPDATE***
Flopping Aces has returned, after being down due to a hack, with probably the best round-up you're going to find on this whole situation. Flopping Aces has dug deep to find all of McCarthy's odd connections and what circles she's been running in.

Another interesting angle about all of this is that the left predictably defending the indefensible (as always), and treating McCarthy like a hero for being the big whistleblower here. What's odd is that even the AP and the New York Times, citing a number of investigations, can't seem to find proof that these secret torture prisons exist.

So again, it's not just important that she was leaking classified information and was rightly fired. It's not just that she should, and we assume will be brought up on charges. It's that she made still unproven allegations that did nothing but hurt the war on terror. All it did was further strain relations with our European allies, embolden far left hate Bushers worldwide, and give violent Muslims a convenient excuse for more violence. Like the Danish cartoons, it's just a cop out for already violent Muslims to justify their behavior, but this time it was delivered without proof from a CIA (what's a less harsh word for traitor, because I don't know if I want to go out on that limb yet?).

 

***SCROLL FOR UPDATES***

I had been seeing these commercials for Wednesday's Hannity and Colmes on Fox News for approximately 24 hours leading up to the show, that seemed to imply that Newt Gingrich was now calling for a Kerry/Murtha style Iraq pullout (read: cut and run). The commercials even implied he that Newt may have been doing it for political reasons. Of course this clever commercial drew me in (and obviously it drew in Alan Colmes), but the impression the commercial left was far from the reality of the situation.

Colmes, walking in line with the rest of the media, selectively quotes Gingrich out of context and then shows another quote that seems to show a complete 180, just like we saw Russert do to Kerry last weekend. Of course in the case of Kerry, Russert was absolutely right and busted him good. But in this case Newt made Alan look like a fool for quoting him out of context, and not actually watching the tape of the speaking event where the statements were made.

Editor and Publisher was one of those that bought the spin. Here's a short E&P article that basically shows how Colmes and the rest of the media tried to paint Gingrich's comments:

NEW YORK The Argus-Leader of Sioux-Falls, S.D. was on the scene Monday to report that Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker of the House, had told students and faculty at the University of South Dakota that the United States should pull out of Iraq and leave only a small force there, just as it did post-war in Korea and Germany.

"It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003," Gingrich said during an informal question-and-answer session at the school, according to the newspaper. "We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it."

Gingrich was greeted with a standing ovation when he appeared at the school for the inaugural Edmund Burke Lecture, named after a man who is often called the father of modern conservatism.

"We are at one of those great intersections in history when we as a people are going to have to have a great conversation with each other," Gingrich said.

I put the main quote that the libs have been trying to hammer home in bold. Sure seems like he's calling fro the Kerry "cut and run" huh?

You can also check out the Argus Leader piece mentioned above by E&P. Pretty much the same thing. Interesting to note though, the headline used to read: "Gingrich at USD: Pull out of Iraq (video)", but now it reads: "Gingrich at USD: Scale back to small force in Iraq (video)".

Basically what Gingrich said on H&C last night was first that he's not saying something new, and the statements are consistent with statements dating back to 2003. Secondly, the statements of "what we need to do", are what we are doing, but he just thinks it would have gone better had we implemented the plan we are implementing now.

Gingrich has a page on his own site, including audio of the segment in question, during the speaking event, that clarifies any confusion (read: liberal media spin) that folks might have. Newt's site also offers this explanation:

Gingrich's position on Iraq has been consistent and clear:

1. The decision by Paul Bremer to go from a liberation model to an occupation model in June 2003 was a major mistake (Gingrich first said this publicly in December 2003).

2. The United States needs to train the Iraqis as rapidly as possible and "pull back" from the cities to bases and air fields and serve as reinforcers as opposed to occupiers (this position is outlined in today's WSJ as the official policy).

3. The United States is likely to need to keep some forces in Iraq for a very long time (Gingrich has been saying this as far back in 2003).

Gingrich, like this University of South Dakota page, provides a link if you'd like to watch the video of the entire speaking event, (which you probably won't considering it's well over an hour long.) For some reason both sites just have the text (versus a clickable link), so you have to copy and paste the link in to your browser. Not sure why they did this, but I'll do the same just to be safe mms:\\video.usd.edu\newtgingrich

Anyway, nice try media. Get back to "digging up the dirt" on that evil liar Bush.

***UPDATE***
Ian at Expose the left has part of the video from Newt's appearance on Hannity & Colmes, in which he tears in to Joe Wilson's lies, and in to Alan for trying to defend Wilson.

 

It would seem that the less than warm welcome John Kerry recently received from anti-war protestors at Harvard has pushed him over the edge, and he's now flip-flopped.... AGAIN... and is pushing for a cut and run strategy.

A sampling of comments Kerry was greeted with (Harvard Crimson):

“Bush Lied. Kerry Complied. Bring the troops home now,” they chanted outside the Kennedy School.

and

“Stop this war, John, grow some balls” the man said. “You can do something, John.”

So I don't if Kerry's recent anatomy change occured naturally or unnaturally, considering we know what a fan of botox and fake orange tans he is. But it does seem that he is basis his foreign policy "plans" on what these protestors told him just a few weeks ago.

Anyway, if you hadn't heard by now Frankenstein's plan is as follows (via Editor & Publisher):

He proposed two deadlines this year: May 15 (when Iraqi leaders must form a true unity government or we will immediately exit); and Dec. 31 (if the unity government does come to be, we pull out all combat troops by this date, leaving behind troops to train Iraqis).

Genius! I wonder if this was his secret plan that he would never reveal to us during the 2004 election, but was saving incase he won.... You know, instead of working with the rest of the government to do what is best for the country. Of course I don't believe he had a "plan" to begin with, but if he did have one (as he claimed) that was the perfect example of how he (like all Democrats) care more about winning, rather than doing what is best for the country.

Well Russert called Kerry out on this flip-flop by showing video of him from 2004 and 2005 where he said he was against timelines and against cutting and running. He doesn't admit a flip-flop, but basically says he's changed his mind. Expose the Left has the video, check it out now.

Ian at Expose the Left, provides a few quotes in noting a couple other interesting moments in the interview. Kerry at one point tries to repeat the media spin we've all heard this week, basically claiming that the President authorized Libby to reveal Plame's name. The reality, when you get past the headlines of these stories is that the President declassified intelligence information to support WMD claims, and it had nothing to do with Plame.

Earlier in the interview I found it interesting when Russert listed off all the chaos that would happen in Iraq if we were to pull out, and Kerry is shaking his head and saying "no, no, no". Thousands of Al Qaeda couldn't flood in John? Iranians couldn't? You wouldn't have militias? "No, no, no." Interesting how these are EXACTLY what you predicted in one of the videos Russert shows of your previous claims of opposing a "cut and run" strategy.

Later they get in to the question of whether or not Kerry will run in 2008. Of course he doesn't know yet (gotta wait and see what the polls say of course), but he lists what issues he was fighting for. Of course it's a cliche list of things that he never laid out a plan for, but it's just the usual "security", "health care", and "stronger America" stuff. And a few seconds later he mentions some of these again as things he still fights for and even calls his little list "simple", and I think in a way inadvertently admits that these are more wishes or goals, rather than plans or ways to reach those ends. This has pretty much been all the Dems have offered lately is just a wish list, but never having any idea how to achieve the goals.

So go check out the video for yourself, but have a pillow ready on your keyboard tray incase the Senator's voice causes you to dose off before Kerry is finished arguing with Russert about how much of the popular vote he got after his introduction.

 

Last week TheSmokingGun.com posted scans of Dick Cheney's hotel demands, or "downtime requirements". It was more funny than anything, but many liberal blogs predictably whined about it, as if he were making all sorts of unreasonable demands. I guess they weren't expecting the Smoking Gun to get a hold of 4 pages of Kerry's list of demands (admittedly some information seems to be duplicated or updated within the 4 scanned pages). Kerry's lists are so extensive, I won't be able to cover everything without stealing the entire images from the Smoking Gun, so you can view all for pages here - 1, 2, 3, 4. But for what I will cover, let's start with news intake.

Libs who always accuse Fox News of being a mouthpiece for the administration were giddy to see that Cheney wants his hotel room TV tuned to Fox News.

But we now have the opportunity to shoot back with Kerry's news outlets of choice:

Is anyone shocked that Kerry chooses to read the NY Times and the Washington Post. Perhaps he might rethink that if he's seriously considering an '08 run, and question if this might have had to do with not connecting with voters. I mean we all know that many Democrats didn't want him, but only voted for him as a vote against Bush. Perhaps these papers were giving him a skewed view of America and the people's concerns and opinions. Of course on Cheney's list, we see written in a list of papers, including those papers too, but again it's written in later, and it's part of a larger package.

Now, lets move on to the food portion. Cheney's list doesn't talk about food, it just mentions just water, coffee, and soda, so this will be a stricly Kerry portion. Believe it or not, Kerry even manages to flip-flop in his choices of food!!! His lists of food are so extensive and broken down in to every meal and even what must be carried in the vehicle he's traveling in, I'll just try to stick to the flip-flops and anything else I think might be of interest.

First we have specially filtered water for the Senator, and a preference for organic food "not precut":

Again, I would have to steal everything from The Smoking Gun for you to get an idea of the size of his food lists, but below is just an example of the type of thing we see over and over again:

Now for some flip-flopping:

"I actually did like tomatos, before I decided to hate them. I actually did like milano and chocolate chip cookies, before I voted against chocolate. I actually did eat lemons and oranges, before I opposed citrus. I actually loved grilled tuna and halibut, before I didn't like it. I actually did like celery, before I didn't."

Okay, upon closer inspection, some of those might be a bit of a stretch, but it was a funny extension of the flip-flopping either way. What it looks like is that Kerry might have been having some kind of problem that he needed to stop eatting tomato, citrus, and chocolate and it may be that his wife was the one who won't eat tuna or halibut and will eat celery. As I look at the documents, I see nothing to indicate the third and fourth pages are Teresa's demands, but after reading The Smoking Gun's intro to the documents, I see that is what they are saying so I'll take their word on it.

So again, that may have really been flip flopping if some of it was a change because of heartburn or something, and the rest were actually just his wife's preferences. But you gotta admit, at a glance it looks hilarious. I mean that's quite a coincidence that things he hates, his wife has to keep in the vehicle with her, and things he loves, she says NO to in capital letters. By the way, I'm assuming the "no tomatos" stuff for "JK" was written after this photo

Anyway, a couple other interesting things of note.

Assuming The Smoking Gun is right, the Teresa Heinz Kerry pages have some interesting "comfort" demands too, but these are a couple of Kerry's.

So let me get this straight, Cheney would like the lights on, and his TV set to Fox News (presumably because you never know what channel it is from city to city), but Kerry needs a special exercise bike, and his phone and pay-per-view ready to roll! So maybe it wasn't all the NY Times and WaPo that messed up Kerry's campaign, perhaps it was lounging around ordering movies in his hotel room and gabbing on the phone with the gals about how cut John Edwards is and how they're going steady now, instead of getting out and connecting with the folks.

Again, check this all out at The Smoking Gun.

In the mean time, I've exclusively obtained some lists from some other Washington politicians. I'm not releasing them yet, but here is a bit of a preview:

Ted Kennedy

- Jack Daniels or anything with alcohol that you find laying around.
- One of those amphibious vehicles the military uses (to avoid any more unfortunate accidents)
- Lawyer friends on hand

(a couple for the lefties, kind of in the spirit of Conan O'Brien)
George Bush

Hotel Requirements
- Game Boy Advance
- Nightlight
- The Latest Harry Potter Book

Food Preferences
- Cheetos
- Anything Little Debbie
- Fruit Roll-Ups

Karl Rove

hotel
- Hotel room should have all lights shut off, pentagram drawn in the middle of the room.
- KR would prefer to have skulls and lit candles throughout the room
- Heat should be cranked as high as it can go (so he feels at home)

food
- if available, human hearts and/or your soul

Hillary Clinton

- separate room for Bill
- HC likes hot dogs, chopped up in to tiny pieces
- a prepared list of insane comparisons to choose from for a later speech like "congress = plantation" or "illegal immigrants = Jesus".

Coming soon...