*UPDATE* - Not surprisingly the headline the MSM is running with: Bush acknowledges secret CIA prisons. Wasn't surprised at all to see that on the Yahoo! home page when I opened a new browser.

I mentioned earlier that custody of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be transfered from CIA to the DoD (yes liberals, KSM is the mastermind, not that cartoon mascot Osama, who's capture you like to pretend would be some end all to terror simply because you know that name appeals to simple average Americans). President Bush is currently making the expected speech to announce it, but others are expecting 'significant news' based on statements made by Tony Snow this morning. I think we're going to be disappointed that the announcement is nothing more than a detailed elaboration on what we learned already.

He is talking a lot about getting congress to pass some type of military tribunals he's asking for.

I suppose it's somewhat interesting that these guys are actually going to Gitmo now that they've been transferred, but I don't think it's that exciting or surprising. The President also gave detailed explanations of what these guys were all about and their connections to attacks and planned attacks around the world, as well as defended his policies for dealing with these people. Other than that, there hasn't been a whole lot new (but he's still going).

Malkin and Allah are both liveblogging. Check them out for details, as they've been liveblogging from the start.

 

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

Drudge Exclusive:

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

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

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

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

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

Developing...

 

While there Bush's comments on the recent outbreak of war in the middle east have been pretty well received by most, I think many people are overlooking one small thing that he said, that isn't quite sending the right message.

First, yes, President Bush and the rest of the G8 crew were right in directing the blame towards those who are at fault for this flare up - Islamic terrorists "extremist elements" (gotta keep it PC, right?). I was pleasantly surprised to see a statement so on target from a group that plays host to so many weasels. One that even Israel concurs with!

Israel is welcoming a statement by Group of Eight leaders on the surge in Middle East violence, asking the militant group Hizbollah to act first to end the fighting.

In a statement from their summit in Russia, G8 leaders urged Israel to exercise the "utmost restraint" in its offensive in Lebanon. But they blamed the crisis squarely on "extremist elements" and called for the return of Israeli captives and an end to rocket attacks.

As well as these bits from the statement, via ABC News (h/t Michelle Malkin):

"These extremist elements and those that support them cannot be allowed to plunge the Middle East into chaos," said the text hammered out by the leaders of the world's richest nations.

"We demand first that the Israeli soldiers be returned to Israel healthy, that the attacks on Israel cease, and then naturally for Israel to halt military action," German Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters.

Of course Malkin notes that the statement wasn't without pointless warnings for Israel, but hey I still think the overall statement is better than we would normally expect out of this bunch.

I also particularly liked one of Bush's other comments on his own today:

"One of the interesting things about this recent flare-up is that it helps clarify the root cause of instability in the Middle East and that Hezbollah, Hezbollah's relationship with Syria and Hezbollah's relationship with Iran and Syria's relationship with Iran," he said.

Right on. Sadly, most of the world and more importantly most of America still just doesn't get it. People have been lulled in to this false sense that we aren't in a global war on terror which is in fact WWIII. It's pretty sad, but given history not that shocking, that it happened so quickly after 9/11.

Anyway, my only issue with President Bush's statements on this recent conflict is regarding this comment:

"Our message to Israel is: defend yourself but be mindful of the consequences. And so we've urged restraint."

Now I understand that he's not speaking condescendingly to Israel, the way a parent warns a child about the consequences of their reactions, and that he fully stands by Israel... But that be "mindful of the consequences" just doesn't sound right to me. Because the second I heard that, my intial reaction was - "Be mindful of the consequences of retaliation? What about the consequences of not retaliating?!"

Again, I understand that the President is trying to issue a statement that is diplomatic and non-inflamatory to Islamic terrorists religion of peace groups. But my bottom line point is, what is Israel supposed to do? I mean, they haven't killed thousands of people or invaded and taken Lebanon or anything. They seem to be excersizing a lot of restraint to me. Any more restraint and the attacks on them will only escalate, and it's important to remember how these terrorists fight.

So sure, Israel should be mindful of the consequences, and it's clear they are. But they should be equally or more mindful of the consequnces of inaction. So I suppose my disappointment isn't so much with the statement, as it is with the media pasting it on the cable news screens in large font, without full context. I'm just not pleased with how the uninformed viewer might read the statement I guess.

As for Senator John McCain? I've got nothing but praise for his performance on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews Norah O'Donnell (video at Expose the Left). O'Donnell took the typical media/liberal position and in her line of questioning asked McCain, "should Israel exercise some restraint?". McCain fired back with a lengthy question to answer her question, essentially asking - (paraphrasing) 'Shouldn't Hezbollah and Hamas exercise restraint? Shouldn't we direct that question at those who initiated all of this?'

After McCain shot that question back, O'Donnell took a few seconds (to comprehend the question?) of silence, which I translate as a big "oh crap, I just got punked". It was as if McCain's question back to her had never crossed her mind. Like in her circles, Israel is always the bad guy and the terrorists are the good guy, and this was the first time that someone had brought up that the truth is the exact opposite to her. O'Donnell recovers a few seconds later saying "It's a good question, it's a good question" and quickly changes the subject. Classic stuff, be sure to watch it.

In related, and odd news, the G8 official home page doesn't mention the conflict at all. Of course the meeting was planned earlier, with a different agenda, but they have a news section at the bottom of the page, and I just am a little surprised to see no mention at all.

Don't worry about the G8 not putting it on the web page though... Howard Dean is doing enough bloviating on his own, saying that this all wouldn't be happening if Democrats were in power. Wow! Brief post on that to follow.

More:
Captains Quarters, Freedom For Some, Captains Journal, Paxalles, Zionist, Move On and Shut Up, Ed Driscoll, California Conservative, Amy Proctor, Macsmind, Flapsblog, Stop the ACLU, Sister Toldjah, One Jerusalem, Israelly Cool, Noblesse Oblige, Right on the Right, Tel-Chai Nation

 

The latest example of President Bush caving in to pressures from the liberal media and international "rights" groups comes today, as the administration grants Geneva Convention rights to Gitmo detainees.

According to this article, not much should change and it doesn't necessarily make anything absolute, but one thing is for sure - if anything does change as a result of this, it only stands to make us less safe. If you need someone to explain why, then you clearly don't want to know in the first place.

Here Press Secretary Tony Snow downplays the significance:

"This could change nothing except for the fact that it is an admission for the first time that any law applies to al-Qaida detainees," she said. "The issue here is really one of interpretation — and we've seen how they've interpreted torture."

I hope it's much of a non-issue as you make it sound Tony, but I'm not fully convinced. I'm angered that the administration keeps taking beatings from the leftist media and international far left groups, and doesn't ever respond except by occassionally caving in or compromising with them.

***UPDATE***
Expose the Left directs our attention to Stop the ACLU's full coverage of the situation. I suspect Stop the ACLU will be all over this story as it unfolds, as the ACLU is the type of group that the administration caved to here, so this is right up their alley.

 

If you're looking for the "Bathroom Girl Talk" story, see this post.

It was only a few months ago that CNN flashed a giant black "X" over the face of Vice President Cheney (see here and here) during a speech, but it seems CNN rushed the sequel and X2 opened on the small screen last night.

As the President was rehearsing for his speech on illegal immigration and all the networks were awaiting their signal to pick up the live feed, CNN jumped the gun and caught 16 seconds of the rehearsal and of President Bush looking around the room. Expose the Left has the video.

Drudge explains it like this:

CNN AIRS FALSE-START LIVE; NETWORK CALLS MISTAKE

CNN aired President Bush false-starting his immigration speech from the Oval Office on Monday night!

The embarrassing images and audio [16 seconds total] captured the president starting and stopping his message, then looking at an unseen director for guidance.

"The president is rehearsing and the network pool inadvertently went to the president as he is rehearsing," anchor Wolf Blitzer explained.

FOXNEWS, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and other outlets did not air the 'rehearsal.'

NBC NEWS, which was operating the television camera in the Oval Office, said late Monday that it gave the president a cue to begin his speech too early.

Anyway, let me just say that this time I buy the CNN excuse. The X thing, as we know, was defended by some Bush deranged liberal at the CNN call center as "freedom of speech", and by all accounts it had to be deliberate. Yeah I know, they said it had to do with transitioning from a satellite feed to another camera, some crap like that... But why then has no one ever seen the same thing happen on any channel? Come on, we know what happened there. Some liberal, possibly a college intern, thought it would be funny. Perhaps he didn't even mean for it to go on air, but it may have been something the Bush haters at CNN do as a joke all the time... but this time someone slipped and hit the wrong button taking it live briefly. I wouldn't go further and say it is some deep subliminal message scheme, but it was most certainly deliberate. Last night's snafu (first time I've ever used that word by the way) was clearly just a mistake though.

 

I'm going to add this as an update to my post on White House and Pentagon talks of using military on the border, but thought it deserved it's own post as well

MSNBC:

WASHINGTON - President Bush will address the nation about the immigration situation on Monday night as Senate passage of sweeping legislation is virtually assured by Memorial Day.

This ought to be interesting.

The story goes on to give a repeat of all what we already know and hear day in and day out, but the only new information was about President Bush's plans to address the nation. Let's hope it's not another amnesty "path to citizenship" type speech, and that he is finally getting tough, as it appears may be the case, again with talks of using military on the border. Again though, we do have to do something about the 11-12 million illegals already here, and it's illogical to think we could deport them or get them to willingly go home and go through the legal process.

Ideas float around in my head about giving them a "legal" status, but not citizenship. These "legal" workers, would then have to carry identification, pay the fines and learn English like we've heard in other proposed plans. But then they would be forced to pay taxes (this would come as a result of cracking down on businesses hiring illegals). Once set up to pay taxes, they would have to pay an extra say 5-15% "alien" tax. They would also never be elligable to receive social security, but they would absolutely pay in to it.

Is that harsh libs? Cruel? Do you think these people would rather go back to Mexico? They risk their lives getting here, many of them try many times before actually getting here. Of course they get here and protest laws that we already aren't enforcing, instead of directing their anger at their own crappy country.

Anyway, my ideas aren't a "plan", just some off the top of my head thoughts.

***UPDATE***
Hot Air thinks that the President will discuss possible use of military on the border. I'm not sure he will unless he's really going to start getting tough, because you know the race card players will be all over it if he starts publicly pumping the idea in a speech to the nation.

Previous:
BREAKING: White House & Pentagon Discuss Using Military On The Border... Finally!
"Stop The Invasion" Border Security Billboards Hit Texas
Doing What The Feds Won't, Arizona County Cracks Down On Illegals.
A Day Without An Illegal Immigrant? We Can Only Hope...
California Senate Votes To Support May 1 Illegal Immigrant / Anti-American Boycott Day
Illegals Show Love For America By Trying To "Dent" Economy
"National Illegal Alien Day" Roundup
UPDATE: More From Sunday's Illegal Immigrant Protest In Dallas
National Illegal Alien Day Is Here!!! Work Walk Outs And American Boycotts?

 

***UPDATE***
President to addres the nation on immigration Monday.

***SCROLL FOR MORE UPDATES***

Finally, discussion of real solutions to the root of the problem. Yes, the matter of the 11-12 million illegals already here is an important one, but isn't border security infinitely more important? A secure border would stop the flow while we debate what to do with the millions already here, and I think anyone with an ounce of sense realizes we could never deporpt all of them. So I don't want it to sound like I'm ignoring the illegal aliens who have already invaded, but I'm more more about hammering home the importance of border security, and it would seem that there is a glimmer of hope!

It would seem that either the bricks have made an impact, or perhaps it's Bill O'Reilly repeating for years:

You guys could stop this immediately if you put the National Guard (search) on the border to back up the border patrol.

Whatever happened, the Pentagon and White House are considering this type of necessary action... We can only hope there are also discussions about a wall and/or fence. The AP by way of CNN.com covers this latest development.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Faced with growing pressure from Southern states, the Bush administration wants the military to come up with ideas to help solve security problems along the U.S. border with Mexico.

In back-to-back moves this week, the Pentagon began exploring ways to lend support at the Southern border, while the House on Thursday voted to allow the Homeland Security Department in limited cases to use soldiers in that region.

At the Pentagon, Paul McHale, the assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense, asked officials to offer options for the use of military resources and troops -- particularly the National Guard -- along the border with Mexico, according to defense officials familiar with the discussions.

Looks like "Bush's Brain", Karl Rove has his fingerprints on this:

Southern lawmakers met this week with White House strategist Karl Rove for a discussion that included making greater use of National Guard troops to shore up border control.

"The Texas delegation is very concerned about the border and are pushing urgency," said Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, who joined other Texas Republicans in a meeting with Rove this week. He said Rove was "very forthright" about border projects that Homeland Security is starting up, its current projects and what the needs are.

Rep. Ken Marchant, R-Texas, who also attended the meeting, said the lawmakers left "very encouraged."

Let's hope they are enouraged for good reason, and that the White House is truly serious about this. I suspect this is the case, simply because some of the sources for this article are unnamed, and this isn't a message or part of any plan we've heard publicly from President Bush or anyone in the administration.

Anyway, you get the gist. The rest of the article just talks about the use of military in the homeland, who makes the calls, who controls the National Guard in certain situations, what brances of the military can be used for law enforcement and when, etc. Important stuff, but the important development here is the discussions about getting military to help secure the border. Cross your fingers that this is part of what they call the president's "third term" strategy.

As President Bush said at the White House Correspondents' dinner, "I survived the White House shake-up". New Press Secretary Tony Snow seems to be coming out swinging, and perhaps some of the other resignations and new hires can bring around some change the base has been begging for.

Personally, I'm cautiously optimistic about this.

***UPDATE***
Others:
Hot Air, The Sandbox, Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU, Superfun Powerhour

Previous:
"Stop The Invasion" Border Security Billboards Hit Texas
Doing What The Feds Won't, Arizona County Cracks Down On Illegals.
A Day Without An Illegal Immigrant? We Can Only Hope...
California Senate Votes To Support May 1 Illegal Immigrant / Anti-American Boycott Day
Illegals Show Love For America By Trying To "Dent" Economy
"National Illegal Alien Day" Roundup
UPDATE: More From Sunday's Illegal Immigrant Protest In Dallas
National Illegal Alien Day Is Here!!! Work Walk Outs And American Boycotts?
Hillary Clinton's Crazy Comparison Of The Day! Howard Dean's Got Some Competition!
Why Are McCain And Hillary Clinton Holding Hands With ILLEGAL Immigrants?!
Illegal Aliens Hold Massive Protest In Chicago.
Mexico: "Let my people...in" - Demanding More Immigration!?

 

So News Corp./Fox News/Rupert Murdoch are all part of the "vast rightwing conspiracy" huh?

Drudge:

MURDOCH TO HOST FUNDRAISER FOR HILLARY CLINTON Mon May 08 2006 18:25:16 ET

Rupert Murdoch has agreed to host a political fundraiser for Hillary Clinton this summer!

Murdoch's surprise decision to raise money for Clinton in July, on behalf of NEWS CORP., parent company of FOXNEWS and the NEW YORK POST, underlines a dramatic turn of relations between Murdoch and Clinton, who in 1998 coined the phrase “vast rightwing conspiracy” to denounce critics of her husband.

The move by Murdoch is believed to reflected his views of her as a senator, rather than as a presidential candidate in 2008.

Last week, Clinton surprised Washington and media watchers by attending a FOX NEWS anniversary party, where she toasted Murdoch.

Political powerbroker and studio head Harvey Weinstein is said to have convinced Hillary that Murdoch could be a friend, not a foe, in her ongoing political maneuvers.

Developing...

What is going on here!? One can only hope that this is part of a "vast rightwing conspiracy" and Murdoch is hoping to get on the inside to get the dirtiest of dirt to filter down to Fox News Channel. Though if we're talking about Hillary for president, I suppose that won't be necessary, considering polls continute to show us just how unelectable she is anyway. I don't think Murdoch could do anything about that.

What's weird is this isn't new to some people. I mean, we all brushed off Hillary's little appearance at the Fox News Sunday anniversary party a couple weeks ago, but NewsMax was noticing these two getting cozy almost a year ago, and they weren't the only ones.

I see now that the Financial Times is on top of this story as well. I think the author of this piece also reveals her obvious liberal bias, unless she's a columnist that I'm just not familiar with. But as I read this story, it comes off as reporting of hard news, despite it's obvious bias:

Rupert Murdoch, the conservative media mogul whose New York Post tabloid savaged Hillary Clinton’s initial aspirations to become a US senator for New York, has agreed to host a political fundraiser for her re-election campaign.

The decision underlines an incongruous thawing of relations between Mr Murdoch and Mrs Clinton, who in 1998 coined the phrase “vast rightwing conspiracy” to denounce critics of her husband, such as Fox News, the conservative cable channel owned by Mr Murdoch’s News Corporation.

Mr Murdoch will host the fundraiser, due to be held by July, on behalf of News Corp.

One person involved in the event said it reflected his views of her as a senator, rather than as a presidential candidate. “They have a respectful and cordial relationship. He has respect for the work she has done on behalf of New York. I wouldn’t say it was illustrative of a close ongoing relationship. It is not like they are dining out together.”

The decision reflects an assiduous courtship by Mrs Clinton and former President Bill Clinton. Last month Mrs Clinton surprised Washington by attending the “Fox News Sunday” 10th anniversary party, where she chatted with Mr Murdoch.

Mr Clinton has encouraged Mr Murdoch’s involvement with his Global Initiative and has invited him to speak again at the second forum in September. The former president will also address News Corp’s summer conference.

The fundraiser for Ms Clinton’s re-election is in stark contrast to the brutal coverage from the New York Post of her first Senate campaign.

The partisan tabloid ran unflattering pictures, and frontpage headlines pleading: “DON’T RUN”. A poll from the Post’s website during the campaign identified her as the sixth “most evil” person of the millennium, ahead of Benito Mussolini and Vlad the Impaler. Her husband ranked second.

One media lobbyist said: “Murdoch will be for the Republicans but he is also smart enough to know that the Republicans might not win. At some level, whether nationally or in New York, Hillary is the future and what savvy businessman would not want to put a line of interest in someone who will be the future?”

Mrs Clinton’s campaign office declined to comment.

I put the obvious biased portion in bold, and incase ya missed it, they called Fox News a "conservative cable channel". Setting aside the obvious fact that they call it a "cable channel" rather than "cable news outlet" or "cable news channel" or "cable news network", no just a "channel"... No, my problem is with her calling it a "conservative" channel. Of course liberals will want to go point-counterpoint on this, but that's not the issue in this case. The issue is whether or not someone should be writing (again what appears to me) a hard news piece, with obvious opinion added to it. Someone please correct me if this is a Caroline Daniel "column" rather than a news story, and I'll accept that. But as far as I can tell, Caroline Daniel is a news reporter for FT, not a columnist.

Others:
Early Spin Blog, Right Voices

***UPDATE***
Exclusive photo of Hillary steppin' With Rupert Murdoch, a.k.a R-Mur.

 

A hat tip to Michelle Malkin for finding this story, and like her I don't have much to add, because the Washington Post (for once) struck back at Democrats with a little truth.

What the Dems are trying to say:

President Bush's crop of political appointees includes fewer women and minorities than did President Bill Clinton's at comparable points in their presidencies, according to a new report by House Democrats.

Women made up about 37 percent of the 2,786 political appointees in the Bush administration in 2005, compared with about 47 percent in the Clinton administration in 1997, according to the report and supplemental data released last week by the Democratic staff of the House Government Reform Committee. Similarly, about 13 percent of Bush administration appointees last year were racial minorities, compared with 24 percent in the fifth year of Clinton's presidency, the report found.

The 13-page report, compiled using data from the Office of Personnel Management, says the number of women and minority appointees increased during the first five years after Clinton took office and has declined during Bush's tenure.

And the reality:

What the report does not mention, however, is that Bush has established a record of diversity in his Cabinet. Bush's Cabinet, which includes the vice president and the heads of 15 executive departments, currently has two Hispanics, two African Americans and two Asian Americans. Three departments -- State, Education and Labor -- are headed by women, and a fourth, Interior, has an acting secretary who is a woman.

Before Bush took office, no minority had occupied any of the four highest-profile Cabinet positions -- attorney general and the secretaries of the Defense, State and Treasury departments. Now, Alberto R. Gonzales, a Hispanic, is attorney general. Condoleezza Rice is the first African American woman to be secretary of state; her predecessor, Colin L. Powell, was the first African American named to that post.

What a ridiculous way to attack. I thought these uncivilized obstructionists were confident that they'll be taking back at least one house, but obviously not if they have to really reach to try to attack on something so dishonestly spun and stupid. The fact is that this president has appointed more women and minorities to TOP positions than any other previous president. Like it or not, that's the reality. This whole idiotic thing had to focus on just one specific year of President Bush's administration to attack his appointments, and it's a flawed argument anyway. What are they mad about? That Bush isn't just throwing a bunch of minorities and women in lower positions to score political points by saying "look at my minority friendly appointments", but instead he appoints extremely qualified women and minorities to HIGH LEVEL positions, because they deserve to be there.

So again to make this clear, Democrats are mad that Bush hasn't filled as many low level positions with minorities in his 5th year as President, as Clinton did in his 5th year, but instead has filled high level positions with them? Okay, I think I got it now. Perhaps Cynthia McKinney should go slap President Bush around a bit to straighten him out.. oh wait he's not a cop. Nevermind.

 

For the first time in 27 years and Iranian President has written a letter to an American President. Now, I don't see this any huge breakthrough because Ahmadinejad keeps going back and forth (remind anyone of North Korea over the years?). One day he's all friendly and wants to work with the UN, etc. and the next day he's denying the holocaust and calling for the annihilation. We've seen this go in circles for a number of months now, and I think if anything is clear, it's that this guy needs to go.

Setting all of that aside for a minute, here's a little about the letter from the AP via MSNBC:

TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has written to President Bush proposing "new solutions" to their differences in the first letter from an Iranian leader to an American president in 27 years, government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham said Monday.

The letter will be sent via the Swiss Embassy in Tehran which has a U.S. interests section, Elham told a press conference. Initially it seemed the letter had already been sent, but later Elham told reporters it would be delivered Monday.

In the letter, Ahmadinejad proposes "new solutions for getting out of international problems and current fragile situation of the world," Elham said.

It is the first time that an Iranian president has written to his U.S. counterpart since 1979, when the two countries broke relations after Iranian militants stormed the U.S. Embassy and held the occupants hostage for more than a year.

Asked if the letter could lead to direct U.S.-Iranian negotiations, Elham replied: for the time being, it's just a letter."

Read on...

As I said, I don't know that this means much more than any of the other seemingly cooperative statements we've seen from Ahmadinejad in recent months, but it is interesting that it's sort of a "breakthrough" in that it hasn't happened in almost 3 decades. I guess what I'm saying is cross your fingers, but don't hold your breath.

What I can't wait to see is how liberals handle this. Will they praise Ahmadinejad for being so diplomatic and trying to work with our "war criminal" President? Or will they be silent since many has said "Bush attacked the wrong country, Iran was the real threat? And why not N. Korea!?" The right has always argued that different situations call for different measures. While I agree with many that military action will probably be required to deal with Iran eventually, this just shows that the President is trying (like he and previous Presidents did with Iraq) to work the UN route and handle the situation peacefully.

I may not think this letter means much, but some might argue it's a sign that diplomacy and pressure are working a little. Again, this is a pretty unusual move. Could Iran be feeling like the heat is on them now? Who knows. But what I can say is that Saddam Hussein didn't operate like this. He was firing at no-fly zone patrolling planes regularly, and when UN inspectors were actually in country he never gave them unfettered access, and it was just a total runaround waste of time to even bother with going that route. I still believe the WMDs were there for many reasons, many of which can be found here, but that's another story.

This story is also today's liberal bias in the headlines case:

Now admittedly, I'm nitpicking here a bit, but I thought I should at least mention it, because I did notice it. Why is it "Iranian President" but only "Bush" Not "President Bush"? Of course it makes it shorter and sweeter, and they could argue: "everyone knows who Bush is, but they may not know the name Ahmadinejad", and that may have some merit, but I think the "Bush" thing is all too common. Headlines constantly read "Bush" not "President Bush", and I can't count the amount of times I hear news correspondents reporting from Washington refer to him as "Mr. Bush". I can't recall hearing "Mr. Clinton" very often though, and usually when they mention him he's referred to as "President Clinton" or "Former President Clinton". Libs would argue that this is in my head, but the simple fact is it's disrespectful that these reports insist on calling him "Mr. Bush", and it's an obvious "he's not my President" dig.

As for this specific headline, I don't know if MSNBC or the AP is to blame. My guess is the AP since I see similar headline when I do a few news searches.

For something along the same lines, Expose the Left has video of two segments from ABC's This Week in which host George Stephanopoulos refers to Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi as "Speaker Pelosi". Stephanopoulos first "slipped" during his interview with Tom Delay, and again later with Howard Dean. Wishful thinking Georgyboy?

And for all the liberals whining about the "Bush mouthpiece" Fox News, and citing Bush's hiring of Tony Snow as an example... I haven't heard you whining about Stephanopoulos hosting a supposedly non-partisan program, even though he is the former senior political adviser press secretary, and communications director for former President Clinton. Selective outrage? And by the way, Snow was a "Fox News commentator" and a columnist, and former speech writer for Bush 41 and this was never a secret. And as I'm finishing this, I just heard Brian Kilmeade on Fox & Friends say that Stephanopoulos "slipped" 4 times! Honest mistake, right?

***QUICK UPDATE***
Props to India Daily for writing a proper headline: "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has reportedly written a letter to U.S. President Bush to propose new ways to resolve tensions"

***UPDATE***
Hot Air has posted on this, and sums up the entire Iran situation as it stands today.

 

Newly appointed White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten has said that the administration plans to get their "mojo" back. Too.... many..... Austin Powers jokes.... can't decide..... Oh well, enjoy this photoshop (click for full size):

WASHINGTON (AP) -- It's time for the White House to go on offense and "get our mojo back." Josh Bolten said Sunday in his first interview since taking over as the president's chief of staff.

"What the change does provide is an opportunity for the White House to step back, refresh, re-energize at a time when we're 5 1/2 years into an administration - normally a slow point, a low point, in many administrations - and a chance for us to get our mojo back, to go back more on the offensive and to get people within the White House to look at our operations, re-energize them for the next six months up through the election, the next 1,000 days through the end of this president's term," Bolten said.

More from the AP...

********THIS JUST IN***********

We're getting reports in that the President has in fact recovered his mojo.... what?... yes... yes we can now confirm that, President Bush has his mojo back. Yeah baby!

More:
The Moderate Voice

 

Last night I mentioned the White House Correspondent's annual dinner event, and it's odd guest list. Well, it turned out to be a less funny event than I've seen in the past, but President Bush's "speech" was pretty funny, so I thought I'd share the video.

Steve Bridges who makes a living by getting made up to look like the President, and impersonating him at various events and on television, stood next to the President, at his own podium and sort of played the role of the president's "brain" or "conscience". Basically when he spoke, it is supposedly what the President is really thinking, but then the real President Bush would speak and it would be much friendlier to the audience and his words would be screwed up, etc. Definitely worth a watch.

[NOTE FROM RIGHTWINGED.COM: Due to high site traffic, I've taken the direct video off of my site, and am now embedding version I found on iFilm.

I think my favorite line was:

... continue to spread our agenda globally, and around the world, as well as internationally

Stephen Colbert totally bombed during his portion of the show. And I don't just say that as a conservative who didn't like jokes at the President's expense. In fact I love jokes about his "Bushisms" and when cleverly written, even some jokes about policy can be funny to.

Colbert's performance was just extremely weak, and as I said he totally bombed. I don't base this on my reaction to the jokes... I base it on the dead silence for roughly 90% of his monologue, in a room full of liberals. Setting aside the fact that he had hardly any funny jokes, he also did go a little too far in his "jokes" in trashing the President who was seated only a few feet away. It just got worse and worse. The funniest part was probably when he pointed out Plame and Wilson (again, huh?) in the audience and then faked concern for "outting" her.

Anyway, I was shocked at Colbert's performance. Usually the guest entertainer is the best part, but I just can't believe how unbelievably bad he was, when he's usually pretty funny. I may dig through and find the one or two funny (or maybe just odd) moments later if folks express any interest, but it would be total waste to post the entire thing because it was just that bad.

Editor & Publisher has more on Colbert's performance, noting the President's obvious displeasure (not that visible on C-SPAN). While E&P provides a quick rundown of Colbert's material, it fails to mention how painfully unfunny it was.

***UPDATE***
(Should've known) Hot Air also has highlights from the Bush segment and the Colbert segment. If you are interested in seeing if my review is on point or not, check it out... but remember - I warned you. Do remember though, that these are only a few highlights. You'd have to see the entire thing to understand how truly terrible it was. Hot Air anticipates C-SPAN posting the video on their site, and then you'd be able to check out the entire thing.

More:
The Politburo Diktat, Outside the Beltway, Michelle Malkin, Captains Quarters, Carry On America, The Moderate Voice, Right Voices, The Political Pit Bull, The Zero Point, Stop the ACLU, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Unalienable Right, The Wide Awake Café, Leaning Straight Up, Think Sink, Severe Writer's Block, Passionate America, Liberty Just In Case, The Sandbox, Right on the Right, Bloggledygook, Unqualified Offerings

 

***UPDATE***
See video of President Bush's performance, alongside his impersonator at the White House Correspondent's dinner here.

If you're familiar with the White House Correspondent's Association dinners, you know that they're usually fun events where celebrities, journalists, and Washington politicians come together.... and zing eachother!!! It's usually all in good fun, even though many of those teasing the President truly do hate him. It is truly some of the funniest television you'll see (usually).

This year's dinner seems a little different... While I think Stephen Colbert, of Comedy Central's The Colbert Report, will probably be a great and funny host, I'm iffy on some of the other guests. Who, you ask? Well here are a few that are set to be in attendance:

AP via SignOnSanDiego.com

Others on the guest list included rapper-actor Ludacris, whose real name is Chris Bridges; James Denton, the hunky plumber on “Desperate Housewives” on ABC; “Dancing With the Stars” winner Drew Lachey; New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin; tennis player Anna Kournikova; and Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger.

Well it's more than a little annoying that thug rapper Ludacris will be attending. I guess the first, most obvious question, is why? Who inviting this clown? We know his songs promote everything that is wrong with this country, so of all places to put this thug, why at a White House dinner!? I suppose he wouldn't be "true to da game" if he didn't "pimp" in Washington, considering he does have a song called "Pimpin' All Over The World". Or maybe he's there to treat the audience to a special performance of another of his hits, "Get The F*** Back".

The rest of that partial guest list seems relatively harmless though, but I promised more guests to be outraged about, and more guests I shall deliver:

Expected to join ABC were former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, the CIA officer at the heart of a leak investigation that has reached deep into the White House.

WHAT!? I don't know if this is a great idea for Covert Plame be out in the open after someone "leaked" her name. United States security has been jeapardized, and Plames life is in danger!!! We all know the real story, but seriously, why would these two losers be there and why would they want to be there? Why would they want to be at an event where the evil administration who "outed" Plame is going to be yuckin' it up and having a good time? This is just the weirdest thing I've ever heard of... I may more on this strange twist later, but it's starting right now and I also have some other things to attend to.

more...
Enjoy the show...

 

Scroll down a ways if you want to skip my rant (PART I), and get to the current U.S. politics and hypocrisy stuff, including video (PART II). I didn't intend for this post to turn in to something this long, but since it did, I've separated it in to two sections, the second of which is most important to our current situation.

PART I: HISTORY, OIL THEORIES, MY THEORIES

It's no secret that oil prices have skyrocketed in recent years, and particularly recent weeks. We hear politicians, and commentators like Fox News' Bill O'Reilly screaming "gouging" day in and day out, but never provide a shred of evidence. The only thing these people have to support their reckless usage of "the g word" is record profits by the oil companies like Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips. Now admittedly I'm not an economist and won't pretend to know how all of these things work, but from all the analysis I've heard from people who do know what they're talking about, there isn't a shred of evidence supporting "gouging", and that this "commodity market" is operating on the up and up.

If you read articles or watch news reports on the surging oil prices you generally hear that the cause is speculation on supply shortages due to a possible future conflict with Iran or that greater demand caused by booming economies in China and India is outpacing supply, thus the old "supply and demand" comes in to play, meaning the less there is of something the more people have to pay to get it. Sometimes you hear that both of these factors combined are driving the price, but you never hear any actual evidence that the oil companies are "gouging" or doing anything illegal in any way.

Now, I believe that probably both of the commonly used explanations for rising prices are playing a part, but I'm also certain it's tied in to the common belief in "peak oil". If you aren't familiar, "peak oil" is basically the theory that the planet has a limited amount of oil that is running out and that we are going to, or may have already passed the "peak" and are now using up the leftovers of Earth's oil. This theory is based on the belief that oil is a "fossil fuel", and essentially created by dead organisms buried underground under intense pressure for millions of years. Of course this is the belief of the establishment science community that also pushes "evolution" and "global warming". I think we can all agree these too are ridiculous, but that's for another day. I mention them for a couple reasons though. Do you ever notice how these are treated like Gods of the scientific/materialist communities. We've barely learned to walk before they start ramming this crap down our throats, and there are a lot of theories what drives all of this, but again that's for another day.

Back to "fossil fuels"... As long as people try to tell us that oil comes from dead ancient organisms, and push evolution as a fact we're lead to believe that it takes millions of years to create more oil and that we're using up all the dead dinosaurs right now. In turn oil becomes the most valuable and sacred thing to human kind. Like global warming, this gives the wannabe New World Order UN more ground for their agenda to govern the planet by telling us that daddy knows best.

The problem with "fossil fuels" is that evidence continues to roll in showing that oil may not be from "fossils" at all, but a resource that the planet constantly creates on it's own. I feel, and hope, that the idea of abiotic oil gains popularity and is eventually proven, despite the fact that the mainstrea media all but completely ignores it. Note also that proponents of "global warming" hate the idea of abiotic oil, because they blame the use of oil for their bogus theory, and if there is an unending supply.... well, you can connect the dots here I think.

Another factor commonly believed to be a contributor is the fact that we haven't built an oil refinery in 30 years in this country. Like the other two believed main factors I mentioned earlier, this probably does play a role, but even if we were able to overcome all three of these components, they can always still tell us "we're running out". Don't you think that if we had an unending supply it would be dirt cheap? Why aren't we exploring the possibility that this is the case, considering the evidence that seems to support it? Can you imagine how things would change if we could be confident that we don't have to worry about running out of oil?

Here's a little from the Citizen-Times on previous misconceptions about the planet's supply of oil, that sound remarkably similar to what we continue to hear today:

• 1885; U.S. Geologic Survey — “Little or no chance of oil in California.”

• 1991; U.S. Geologic Survey — Same prophesy for Kansas and Texas.

• 1914; U.S. Bureau of Mines — Total future production limit of 5.7 billion barrels of oil; at most a 10-year supply remaining.

• 1939; Dept. of Interior — Oil reserves in the United States exhausted in 13 years.

• 1951; Oil and Gas Division — Oil reserves to be exhausted in 13 years.

• 2005; Energy Information Administration — proven worldwide reserves of oil at 1.28 trillion barrels.

Consider some good indicators. Russia’s giant Samotlor Field reached peak production in 1983. After BP spent 18 billion on “hydraulic fracturing,” production went from 30 tons per day per well in 2000, to 117 tons in 2004.

Brazilian oil giant Petrobras has seen surprising results by drilling ultra-deep offshore wells in Brazil’s Barracuda and Caratingua oil fields. Brazil’s oil production has grown at 9 percent per year since 1980.

Saudi Oil Minister Al-Naimi told a conference in Washington, D.C., that Saudi oil reserves have been drastically underestimated. Energy Information Administration estimated them at 262 billion barrels in 2004 — only 20 percent of Al-Naimi’s estimate. Ghawar oil has been dated with Precambrian rock produced 570 million years ago, but dinosaurs did not roam the earth until 250 million years ago.

Pemex’s Cantarell field formed 65 million years ago when the Chicxulub meteor impacted the Gulf of Mexico. Abiotic proponents argue that the deep fracturing of bedrock by the meteor’s impact was responsible for oil formed in the mantle to seep into the sedimentary rock.

Thunder Horse, 125 miles southeast of New Orleans, promises to produce 1 million barrels per day by next year. Thunder Horse is truly an ultra-deep project, and only part of BP’s 2.5 billion barrels of proven reserves in the Gulf. From the floor, BP has drilled down another six miles to hit oil.

There is no evidence that any ancient dinosaur walked on land that is now eight miles down. Thunder Horse illuminates the current technology that makes it possible to tap into reserves thought inaccessible.

A study by Integrated Geophysics Corp. emphasizes that almost 90 percent of the Gulf’s discovery prospects lie in 3,000-5,000 foot of water. However, radical environmentalists are currently blocking oil production almost globally. In actuality, oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would require 5,000-7,000 acres, or about 0.004 percent of Alaska’s total land mass. Even with Prudhoe Bay, the total area represents the size of a postage stamp on a football field.

Even a limited area for ANWR drilling would offer the option of producing 40 percent of the oil consumed in America from Alaska. But now, with oil at $60 per barrel, we are sending overseas nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars each year.

more...

This is not meant to be any type of smoking gun, but I'm certain it's totally new information for most of you. There is plenty more on this and abi