***UPDATE - While Bernie's site is still down, local NBC affiliate WPTZ has details on Willie Nelson stumping for Bernie.***

At the moment Bernie's campaign site, Bernie.org, is down so I can't go there and get you a direct link to the Willie Nelson ad, if it's even online. I saw the commercial just the other day and I'm not sure that it was ever on Bernie.org to begin with, but it's a safe assumption that it was because most campaign sites feature the TV ads and additional web ads. I fear that this new Willie news may have caused them to remove it by the time the site comes back up.

NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - Country singer-songwriter Willie Nelson and several fellow musicians were charged with misdemeanor drug possession by Louisiana police after a search of their tour bus on Monday turned up marijuana and psychedelic mushrooms.

State Police seized about 1-1/2 pounds (0.7 kg) of marijuana and two-tenths of a pound (91 grams) of mushrooms from the bus, Williams said.

Nelson and four other passengers on the bus were cited for possession and released, while the driver had his commercial driving privileges suspended in addition to being cited for possession. Nelson faces possible jail time of up to six months and an unspecified fine, police said.

More to come hopefully, once Bernie's site is back up... Plus I hope to post the new Rich Tarrant ads, probably in a separate post, but they are currently available at BerniesRecord.com. Pretty damning ads. For previous posts with Tarrant's "Bernie's Record" ads, see here and here.

Here's a classic I just dug up on YouTube. I think it's a couple months old, but just recently uploaded.

 

For whatever reason, the YouTube user who uploaded this CNN video isn't allowing embedding, so you'll have to watch it at YouTube.

Blitzer excerpts Soros's book, noting where he compares President Bush to Nazis. It didn't take a genius to make Soros look like an idiot over this comparison, so Wolf "So poor, and so black" Blitzer was up to the task. While Soros started out defending his iditotic comparison, he later admits to maybe going "too far". Which is a bad enough excuse when you "misspoke", but come on, this is a book you would certainly have thought about before you had it printed up. Then he later says maybe he should have kept it to himself. No, if that's what you think, by all means say it, but expect to be called an idiot... idiot.

Anyway, big deal, Soros compared Bush to Nazis... what Democrat hasn't, right? I agree, it's not that big of a deal. What I find interesting, is that he bases his conclusion on the old "politics of fear" talking point. You know "Bush is playing the politics of fear", meaning he's trying to make us feel unsafe so that we vote GOP because they traditionally get the national security vote. My question to you is this: Who's really playing the politics of fear?

I can't count the times, over the past few days, weeks, months and years that I've heard Democrats say "We are less safe" because of Iraq, or any number of the President's other policies. "We are less safe" is to 2006 what "Bush misled us" was to 2004. But saying "We are less safe" is the picture of politics of fear is it not? Please tell me where I'm going wrong if you think I am, though I have a feeling this is just par for the liberal hypocrisy course.

The best defense I can see someone offering is "but they are speaking the truth, because we are less safe". But the fact is, that is a matter of opinion. I would, and the president would, argue that what he's saying is true and necessary too. But regardless of basis in reality, saying "we are less safe" is about as political as you can get. Go ahead, check out this news search, I'm not exaggerating at how big of a DNC talking point this has become.

 

You know, it's a sad day when your city is more to the left than Burlington, VT. Remember a couple weeks ago when I told you how Mayor Bob Kiss of Burlington proposed making Burlington a sanctuary city for illegals, but was shot down by the city council. Well AllahPundit has details on the intentions of Mayor Nick Inzunza of National City to do the same thing.

The council doesn't seem to approve of it, however they've all but made themselves a sanctuary anyway, just without calling it that. This is apparently why Inzunza acts as if he's really just stating what is already going on. The San Diego Union-Tribune has details:

Mayor Nick Inzunza declared in an interview on National Public Radio last week that he wants National City to be a sanctuary city, a designation being promoted through a grass-roots effort in other parts of California and the country.

However, the other City Council members are irritated that he never informed them of the idea.

“If he wants to declare it, he can do it as Nick Inzunza, but he can't declare it for the city,” said Councilman Ron Morrison. “We've already done so many things as far as the acceptance of the (matricula consular) ID cards. We've made sure that our police policy is such that we're not out there calling the Border Patrol on people.”

Inzunza said in a written response to questions that there was no need to notify the council of his intent because city policy already prevents immigrants from being targeted for deportation without reason. He said he is not enacting any new laws.

Inzunza said his radio statement was nothing more than a proclamation reaffirming the city's current practice, which does not need council approval.

By the way, there are a number of cities that have already declared themselves sanctuary cities:

Other cities in the state have deemed themselves sanctuary cities, including Maywood, Pomona, Huntington Park and Coachella. Outside of the state, El Paso, Texas; Portland, Maine; and Cambridge, Mass., have declared themselves sanctuary cities.

I'm still confused how this is able to happen. The mayors and council members of these cities are encouraging law breaking on massive scales. Why is it these guys aren't forced out of office by the state? It's not a matter of "disagreeing", this is encouraging criminal activity, and making their local law enforcement ignore federal law. Would this be allowed if it were any federal law other than immigration? I'm just really stunned that this can even happen.

 

It's definitely time that I pulled out that old photoshop I created prior to my blogging days. First Rockefeller tips off Saddam's neighbors that war is coming, back in January 2002:

No. The – I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I’ll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq – that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.

now he says he wants Saddam back in power?!

"The absolute cynical manipulation, deliberately cynical manipulation, to shape American public opinion and 69 percent of the people, at that time, it worked, they said 'we want to go to war,'" Rockefeller told CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. "Including me. The difference is after I began to learn about some of that intelligence I went down to the Senate floor and I said 'my vote was wrong.'"

Rockefeller went a step further. He says the world would be better off today if the United States had never invaded Iraq — even if it means Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq.

He said he sees that as a better scenario, and a safer scenario, "because it is called the 'war on terror.'"

Does Rockefeller stands by his view, even if it means that Saddam Hussein could still be in power if the United States didn't invade?

"Yes. [Saddam] wasn't going to attack us. He would've been isolated there," Rockefeller said. "He would have been in control of that country but we wouldn't have depleted our resources preventing us from prosecuting a war on terror which is what this is all about."

Is he just getting the ball rolling? Should we expect to hear more of this? All I know is that we won't hear the media challenge him with this:

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction. Oct 10, 2002

Translation: Bush tricked me!... And evidently tricked people for over a decade before he ever came to Washington, considering that all of the folks in the "Bush lied" "Bush mislead" camp made a stronger case than Bush ever did, including Bill Clinton who made the same arguments before striking himself, after making regime change our policy on Iraq.

This article on the recent Rockefeller comments actually opens with the "Saddam had no Qaeda ties" mantra we've heard hammered home all week. Which as I've said IS A FLAT OUT LIE!

 

Everyone's two favorite "allies" are at it again. CBC tells us what America's mohawk thinks about the motivation for the 9/11 terrorist attacks:

A majority of Canadians believe U.S. foreign policy was one of the root causes that led to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, and Quebecers are quicker to criticize the U.S. administration for its international actions than other Canadians, a recent poll suggests.

The poll suggests that 77 per cent of Quebecers polled primarily blame American foreign policy for the Sept. 11 attacks. The results suggest 57 per cent in Ontario hold a similar view.

And of course, Canada's uncle France weighs in with this, via Reuters:

France issued an implicit criticism of U.S. foreign policy on Thursday, rejecting talk of a "war on terror".

"Let us not forget that these crises play into the hands of all extremists," the prime minister said in a debate on the Middle East. "We can see this with terrorism, whether it tries to strike inside or outside our frontiers," he added.

Don't read the next part with any liquids in your mouth, I can't afford to buy you a new keyboard:

"Against terrorism, what's needed is not a war. It is, as France has done for many years, a determined fight based on vigilance at all times and effective cooperation with our partners.

"But we will only end this curse if we also fight against injustice, violence and these crises," he said.

Yeah, let's model ourselves after France. That way we can rapidly be invaded by Muslims and within decades, have a Muslim majority. Of course we can start by having tens of thousands of rioting Muslims, most of whom are unemployed, causing chaos in our streets torching the cars of thousands of innocent people. Thanks for the tips Dumbinique.

"It is the duty of France and Europe to show that the clash of civilizations is not inevitable," he said. "No one retains this wisdom, inherited from our history, as we, French and Europeans, do," he said.

You would think so wouldn't you Dom? You may be claiming to retain that wisdom, but clearly you haven't. Don't worry, no American president could politically let France burn. So in the near future when al-France is totally screwed, Uncle Sam will bail you out once again. Sleep tight.

 

A little Monday morning immaturity for those of you bored at your offices. Let me add a disclaimer by saying that I know it's crappily produced (buy me some software and teach me to use it) and that it's really dumb... Perhaps someone with the time and the resources can use this to inspire them to create something much better, but until then you'll have to live with this:

 

*(Scroll for actually city council resolution blocking this)*

When will the elected officials of my state stop embarassing us? If it's not Howard Dean and his "Civil Unions" it's Howard Dean screaming like a mental patient after the Iowa primaries... YAAAAAARGH. If it's not having U.S. Senate candidate and current congressman from VT Bernie Sanders being the only self-proclaimed socialist in Washington, it's crazy hippy ladies coming home after visiting their online Pakistani boyfriends in their homeland, flying with banned weapons and peeing on the floor of the plane. If it's not Howard Dean saying... well, I'll stop there because that could go on forever and I really haven't kept up with updating my Dean's List anyway.

It would seem that Vermont politicians are in a competition to prove their idiocy. Well, the mayor of Burlington (Vermont's largest city), Bernie Jr. Bob Kiss actually proposed making the city a sanctuary for illegal immigrants!!! I'm not putting on some Republican spin job, this is what he did. Luckily the city attorney and council wasn't having it, but he actually made the attorney look in to it. Locals may be familiar with the story already, but having not moved back until late June, I hadn't heard about it until my brother mentioned it to me at Al's French Fries earlier last night.

I figured he must have heard wrong, so I did a quick search and sadly I quickly discoverd via Burlington's City Council Agenda that he was all too right. What kind of fricken' twilight zone city do I live in? A mayor encouraging mass criminal activity by attempting to set up his city to host illegal immigrants. Not to mention that with the insanely high cost of living here, the last thing one should do is bring in a bunch of cheap labor.

Now for the goods... The City Council's resolution, blocking this crap after the mayor asked the city attorney to look in to implementing the "concept". Incase you don't have Acrobat to read the PDF, I've decided to reproduce the whole document below. Again, why should this even have to have been done?

CITY ATTORNEY EFFORTS ON SANCTUARY CITY CONCEPT

In the year Two Thousand Six………………………………………………………………
Resolved by the City Council of the City of Burlington, as follows:

That WHEREAS, the Mayor of Burlington, the Honorable Bob Kiss, has proposed designating the City as a sanctuary for illegal immigrants and directed the eminent City Attorney, Joseph E. McNeil, Esq., to research how such a concept could be implemented; and

WHEREAS, since the concept of a sanctuary city entails a municipality adopting a policy which would forbid its officials, including police, from inquiring into anyone's immigration status or cooperating with immigration officials, such a policy thus creates a safe haven for illegal immigrants by condoning their violation of Federal law; and

WHEREAS, while the United States is an immigrant nation and has been made great by the contributions of those who have come to our shores; and

WHEREAS, while we are all the children of immigrants and strongly support legal immigration, to become a sanctuary city would not only condone but encourage violation of Federal law on the subject and serve as an insult to the many millions of people who strove for the privilege of building their lives in this nation while adhering to the law; and

WHEREAS, in 1996, the United States Congress passed two bills enacted into law which dealt with the concept, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, both of which were later upheld and under which state and local governments can no longer prohibit employees from inquiring about immigration status or reporting to immigration authorities; and

WHEREAS, the Deputy Chief of the Burlington Police Department noted in response to the concept of a sanctuary city that law enforcement officers are bound to uphold federal laws on immigration and to make reports to immigration authorities; and

WHEREAS, however, it is not currently the practice of the Burlington Police Department, or any other City entity, to seek out illegal immigrants; and

WHEREAS, any influx of illegal immigrants to Burlington as a result of implementing the sanctuary city concept could place added burdens upon City social services and infrastructure at a time when both the municipal budget is overburdened with costs, to the extent that the Kiss Administration is proposing a 9% increase in property taxes that does not even include an educational tax component, and there is a serious affordable housing crisis; and

WHEREAS, the City Attorney has stated that his research indicates that while the criminal laws regarding immigration issues must be enforced, the civil laws are more complicated and has further stated that there will be "no recommendation from the City Attorney's Office that would involve anything less than full enforcement of our criminal laws. And with regard to the civil statutes there's a great deal of policy discussion that will have to take place between the research that we found and any implementation."; and

WHEREAS, the City Attorney's Office already has extensive tasks to complete on behalf of the City such as, most prominently and most importantly to the City Council, the Zoning Re-Write; and

WHEREAS, while the City Attorney's Office has always most ably and professionally served Burlington, there is a limit to how many demands can be placed upon its Staff and resources, particularly at this busy time; and

WHEREAS, since the Burlington City Council must ultimately approve any implementation of the sanctuary city concept;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does not now wish to consider the sanctuary city concept; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council therefore directs the City Attorney's Office to terminate both any of its further research efforts into and any of its further development of a proposal for implementing the sanctuary city concept.

lj/KAS/c: Resolutions/City Attorney Efforts on Sanctuary City Concept
6/8/06

 

A few days ago I posted on U.S. Senate Candidate Michael Steele's odd endorsement from Def Jam head Russell Simmons. I maintain my point that while I'm glad to see this known liberal and "black leader" dare to come out and endorse a Republican, letting black you know "it's okay to vote GOP", I still don't think having someone who has been behind some of the most thuggish rap out there on his team sends the right message. I'm also still not happy with this being the sole candidate that Simmons say makes Republicans "open for discussion". Why weren't any open for discussion before? Read my other post for details on that, and on Sharpton trying to sound more like Bill Cosby than the actual poverty pimp shakedown brother he is.

Anyway, this is just a quick follow-up for those who are interested in this story. Ian at HotAir attended the reception held by Simmons for Steele tonight and got video of the two palling around.

Again, I suppose this is for the greater good, in that it may help Steele get elected, but I just think if you look at the Def Jam artist list and think about the message of many of these "artists", and consider that Simmons has aided in them getting rich of peddling this crap that perpetuates the "thug life" and crime problems that continue to plague inner city, and particularly black, youth.

Michelle Malkin has a link round-up with some more background, as well as a prediction that we'll see dirty Dem tricks stepped up in reaction to this.

 

Another post specifically for Vermont voters, although everyone else might be interested in what we're dealing with up here. Before you check out the new Rich Tarrant ads from BerniesRecord.com, be sure to watch the ones I posted the other day on Bernie's anti-intelligence record. For those not familiar, "Bernie" is US Congressman Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Bernie claims "Independent" because clearly even the far left modern Democratic party isn't far left enough for this self identified socialist.

Did ya watch those first vids? Okay, let's check out the new ones where Tarrant deals some more severe blows to Bernie simply by exposing his own radical record. Note the vote numbers mentioned in these ads, in all of which Bernie was in the extreme minority, with about 400 voting the other way on each. This isn't your run of the mill "Republicans mixed it in with other stuff, so the Dems voted against it" crap, this guy is the fringe of the fringe.

First Video - Sanders voted against the Amber Alert and stricter sentences for repeat child molester.

Second Video - Bernie voted against cracking down on child porn

Third Video - Bernie voted against blocking visas for drug dealers.

Read more about these votes and many other shameful votes on many other issues made by Bernie over the years at BerniesRecord.com and stay up to date on the Tarrant campaign at Tarrant06.com.

 

Isn't the "don't play victim, drop the thug life, and help yourself" card a Republican staple? Where does notorious race and poverty pimp Al Sharpton get off stealing from our playbook? Of course he doesn't stay completely away from the blame game (come on, it's Sharpton).

INDIANAPOLIS - Many black youths fall under a spell of "gangster mentality," preventing them from becoming leaders and making a positive impact in politics, the Rev. Al Sharpton said.

The civil rights activist faulted Hollywood and the record industry for making "gangsterism" seem cool and acceptable.

"We have got to get out of this gangster mentality, acting as if gangsterism and blackness are synonymous," Sharpton said Thursday at the annual conference of the National Association of Black Journalists.

As an advocate of personal responsibility, I can't accept Al's blaming of Hollywood but what took him so long to say what we've said for a long time. There is an epidemic of thug/ganster style/attitude among black youths, and many think they won't do anything if they aren't a rapper or professional athlete. While there are always exceptions, the "black community" has clearly been headed in the wrong direction for a few decades. While almost everyone acknowledges this, rarely do you hear a voter panderer Democrat or "black leader" point out the actual problem, and usually they'll argue with those of us who make the point Al just did.

"I think we've allowed a whole generation of young people to feel that if they're focused, they're not black enough. If they speak well and act well, they're acting white, and there's nothing more racist than that."

Who is this guy? How can these be Sharpton's words? I can't believe he kind of takes responsibility for what's been happening (vs. blaming whitey) when he says "we've allowed...". And he nails it when pointing out that many black youths choose note to speak or behave properly because it's too "white". It's not "white" and I know plenty of honorable black people who are examples of people who don't feel the need to act like a thug or a gangster. Thug rap is not something to model your life after.

On the topic of thug rap, a stunning move by Def Jam founder Russell Simmons has him stumping for GOP Senate candidate Michael Steele. Stunning because Simmons is a known liberal. While I'm happy to see a "black leader" letting young blacks know that it's okay to vote Republican, I don't know that I would accept his endorsement if I were Steele. As head of a hip-hop label that has been home to some of the thuginest of rappers, I just don't think that he's a great representative for one's campaign. I fear that the conservative Steele is pandering for black votes here.

Hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons will be the host of a campaign fundraiser Thursday for Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele's run for U.S. Senate.

He applauded Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a Republican, in February 2005 for winning over black voters with urban initiatives, especially criminal-justice reforms, and raising the Republican Party's profile among blacks nationwide.

"He raised the whole party up," Mr. Simmons said at the time. "He makes every Republican open for discussion" among black voters. Mr. Simmons campaigned in 2002 for Mr. Ehrlich's Democratic rival, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, and said he initially had negative impressions of both Mr. Ehrlich and Mr. Steele. But he says the Ehrlich administration has demonstrated that both men "should be held up to the light as examples" of Republican leaders who are committed to all of their constituents.

Wow, what an open mind you have Russell. Republicans weren't open for discussion before? Again, I'm glad to see this in some ways because perhaps black youths who've been told to vote Democrat may feel a little more free to figure out what they really personally think about things and how they would like to vote.

I think the positives outweigh the negatives here, but I have to say I think we need to see more of Sharpton practicing what he preaches and I don't think Simmons is a great choice for a campaigner on a GOP ticket. I also find it more than a little annoying that it took a black candidate for Simmons to do this.

 

*Note - I originally read the poll wrong and gave the Dems to much credit myself, only stating that 40% of them hated America. Thanks to eagle eyed Milblogger Cpl M of A Soldier's Perspective, who emailed to notify me of my obvious mistake I made while sleep blogging this. So to be clear Dems, this is an even worse number for you, not better. My mistake didn't assist my case, the correct number does

Do I have your attention? You're probably asking yourself, "how could Dems actually flat out admit such a thing?" Well, they basically did, just not in those exact words. In the most recent Fox News poll, question #10 was asked:

10. Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not? SCALE: 1. Yes, want him to succeed 2. No, do not want him to succeed 3. (Don’t know)

You would think that everyone, even people that hate him, would say "Of course we want him to succeed. He's the President of my country, and a failure for him is a failure for my country." Well, you're giving Democrats WAY to much credit:

If you didn't catch that, 51% of Democrats don't want the President to succeed! I don't know where those 7% of Republicans that gave the same idiotic response came from, and disecting "independents" would be a waste of time. The point is that more than half of all Democrats want President Bush to fail, meaning they want America to fail.

Preemptive Strike
Before libs get on here and say "We didn't say we hate America or want it to fail, we are saying we don't support his policies". Sorry, that's not going to fly because that's not what the poll question asked. It asked simply if they wanted him to succeed. Now even if I were to grant you your spin that this is about Bush's policies, it's still appalling that you would hope that they failed and my point still stands. Suppose you argue that you don't want him to succeed because he's at war in Iraq. So your argument is then that you want us to lose in Iraq? See, it's not any better.

Again, that's not the point. The point is the question wasn't about policy, it was about the president succeeding. Basically what the question means is when you look back 20 years or 100 year from now or whenever, whether you would like President Bush's presidency to have been a success or a failure (the way we look at Carter's now). Of course you'll accuse me of trying to spin what the question said, but I'm not. It's quite simple, do you want him to succeed, i.e. do you want his presidency to be a success. 51% of you Dems have said no, and it's that simple.

 

Why am I not surprised that MP George Galloway met with one of the terrorists taken down in the massive terror bust this week.

TERROR suspect Waheed Zaman met controversial MP George Galloway many times, his sister said last night.

Safeena, 24, said of her 23-year-old brother: “He saw it as his duty to stand up for his community and that’s what led him to know George Galloway. He has a lot of respect for him and has met him many times.”

A spokesman for MP Galloway, above, said: “Waheed Zaman is not a name that George is familiar with. He is not known to him on a personal level.”

There is no suggestion Galloway is an associate of Zaman.

 

***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.

 

I am really not that interested in Democratic primaries, but I thought I'd pass interested readers along to HotAir and Michelle Malkin's coverage. (h/t Expose the Left).

Allah and Ian at HotAir liveblogged the events, and have videos for you including Liebeman's concession speech.

All I would like to say is that you should consider what today's Lamont victory says about the modern Democratic party. That they have been completely taken over by the far left (see my earlier post on Dean hosting a $10,000/plate dinner at Soros's house for more). Lieberman is as liberal as anyone, except he has the courage to stand by his convictions and previous statements, and not change his mind with each shift in the polls.

CNN reports that McKinney, in her concession speech, praised "leftist leaders" in Cuba and Venezuela, but stops it at that:

Despite her defeat, McKinney was unbowed, unleashing a stemwinder of a concession speech in which she barely mentioned her opponent but praised leftist leaders in Cuba and Venezuela, took aim at the efficacy of electronic voting machines and offered several swipes at the media.

One can only assume that the "leftist leaders" are Castro and Chavez, but why wouldn't CNN just use the names? I suppose it's possible that she didn't refer to them specifically. But if she did (as is a reasonable assumption) name the two men, could it be because CNN knows the stigma that comes with those names, and they don't want to reveal the increasing number of Democrats coming out of the woodwork that sympathize with Castro and Chavez? I don't know, mabye I'm being cynical, but we do already know of CNN's bias and I can't think of any reason why they would just say "leftist leaders" rather than name names, unless the "leftist leaders" refers to people other than Castro and Chavez.

 

(h/t Drudge)

As if having Howard Dean as DNC chairman wasn't evidence enough of how far the Democratic Party has gone, the good doctor has scheduled a (for the people) $10,000/plate fund raiser at the estate of none other than extreme leftist George Soros:

This year's Hamptons political schedule is unusually hectic for a nonpresidential election year. Last weekend, Attorney General and gubernatorial front-runner Eliot Spitzer held a trio of fundraisers in the Hamptons. On Aug. 19, Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean hosts a $10,000-per-guest fundraiser at the Southampton estate of financier George Soros.

At least they kept it at an affordable level. You know, because Democrats are all about the little guys, right? But Soros!?

All of us on the right and even some moderate Democrats have hammered the Democratic Party for going so far left in recent years, yet many elected Democrats insist that this is not the case. We often say that the party has been "hijacked" and that the party's control now belongs to the most extreme of liberals. Again, Democrats deny this. But WTF do you say when your extreme left party chairman hosts a $10,000 a plate dinner at Soros's?

I doubt we'll ever see any elected Democrats asked about this, but I suspect they'll respond the way the do everytime they're asked about insane rantings of Dean: "He doesn't speak for the party" (while ignoring that HE DOES SPEAK FOR THE PARTY, that's why he's the fricken chairman!)

Anyway, for all the Dems out there. This is what your party has become. A party of haters and obstructors who don't have a single plan for anything but to attack you if you don't hate George Bush with every bone in your body. You've certainly seen what happened to Joe Lieberman, simply because he has the balls to stand behind his previous statements and position on the war, and not change his mind with each opinion poll that comes out. By the way, the number of idiots in America has grown, and now a third of the country believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories. A few more points on these polls, and I predict we'll see many Democratic politicians jump on board.