Just half-listening to the late rerun of Hannity & Colmes and was surprised to hear Colmes ask his guest, Senator John McCain, about the supposed vodka drinking contest he had with Hillary "One of the guys" Clinton, in Estonia 2 years ago. You might recall this was "news" for about 24-48 hours due to a NY Times piece that was all about their cordial relationship and what that will mean for the two possible 2008 presidential race opponents.

I think we all sort of assumed it was true, particularly sense we (to my knowledge) didn't hear any denials coming out of either senators' office, until today. McCain said with a very straight face, "Not true." Colmes persisted, "Didn't happen?" McCain, "No." It was a very uncomfortable moment. Colmes and Hannity both chuckling uncomfortably in the studio. He seemed to lighten up, just slightly, when Hannity took over a few seconds later saying that he was glad to hear that he hadn't been drinking shots with Senator Clinton. McCain showed a slight smile, and said "I was not", but still leaving the viewer with the impression that he was annoyed that it was brought up at all.

A cynic might say this is just a politician covering his hide before a potential big race. I suppose this is possible, but I'm going to give McCain the benefit of the doubt here, considering that the other party who has gone on the record about this was the NY Times. In a truth telling contest, the Times wouldn't make it past registration.

Anyway, just a brief update on a twist in the vodka story. Obviously this is a very unimportant story, but it became more important now. Is the Times lying, or is McCain? Your move Hillary. Also, posting on this topic allowed me to use this photoshop again.

 

***SCROLL FOR UPDATES***

(h/t Drudge)

The media is still buzzing, and will continue to buzz, over the recently leaked NSA phone call data collection program, until they're able to create a new bogus scandal to attack the president with.

What we all learned over the past few days that most of the nation's major phone companies are giving data on their customers' phone calls to the NSA to help fight terrorism. This has nothing to do with monitoring content of calls, the NSA is just searching for patterns of calls, and who's calling who. Despite this information the media has continued deceptively to use the word "monitoring" in their headlines and the left is predictably screaming "invasion of privacy". As usual, the ACLU is leading the privacy pack, but we learned yesterday that they are secretly collecting data on their members for fund-raising purposes! Where's the lefty outrage about that?

Before I tell you about the latest development, be sure you're up to date by reading my previous posts, here and here.

Now the one thing I hadn't mentioned is that Democrats and Republicans in both houses have been briefed about this program, so this isn't some sort of shock that they should pretend to be outraged about, simply because USA Today put this article out in perfect time to hurt the nomination of General Hayden for the new CIA chief position. Hayden is the former head of the NSA. This morning Fox & Friends went as far as to say that the program is really just an extension of the old Project Echelon, and if you read about Echelon, that seems to be the case.

That all said, today we learn that the NY Times already covered this story.... LAST DECEMBER!

This lengthy NY Times piece, dated December 24, 2005, basically reported all of what yesterday's USA Today reported, if not more. So the question you have to ask is: "Why did USA Today treat this like some sort of exclusive story they broke?" Of course we know the answer to that question, again, it's because former NSA head General Hayden was just nominated for the top position at the CIA, and clearly some axe grinders at the NSA (in classic liberal fashion) have decided, once again, to put politics before national security.

I won't bore you with a bunch of boring excerpts from the Times article, since it's basically all what you just read in the USA Today yesterday, but here's a taste:

The volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the officials said. It was collected by tapping directly into some of the American telecommunication system's main arteries, they said.

As part of the program approved by President Bush for domestic surveillance without warrants, the N.S.A. has gained the cooperation of American telecommunications companies to obtain backdoor access to streams of domestic and international communications, the officials said.

What has not been publicly acknowledged is that N.S.A. technicians, besides actually eavesdropping on specific conversations, have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might point to terrorism suspects. Some officials describe the program as a large data-mining operation.

Officials in the government and the telecommunications industry who have knowledge of parts of the program say the N.S.A. has sought to analyze communications patterns to glean clues from details like who is calling whom, how long a phone call lasts and what time of day it is made, and the origins and destinations of phone calls and e-mail messages. Calls to and from Afghanistan, for instance, are known to have been of particular interest to the N.S.A. since the Sept. 11 attacks, the officials said.

Again, this is the same story, but the point is that the NY Times already reported this 5 months ago!!! The only thing I can see that USA Today added was the information about the specific phone companies who are passing along the data to the NSA. This hasn't stopped nervous nelly politicians from both sides of the aisle in Washington from expressing shock and outrage.

Before we learned about this new twist, Newt Gingrich joined the fellas at Hannity & Colmes for a chat about this no longer secret program. There was a lot of joking about Newt agreeing more with Alan about this one, but when you break it down, Newt agreed with the program and it's motives, but he feels that the administration needs to be more honest and upfront about it. I would say that's a reasonable request except for the fact that the NSA probably wants the program to be secret for a reason: If the program becomes public (as it now has thanks to those whistleblowers leakers) the terrorist know one way that we're trying to track them. This will cause them to change methods of communication, effectively leaving us scrambling to figure out new ways to find these people before they attack us.

Hopefully we find out who these leakers are so we can thank them for putting us all in greater danger, simply for their own political motivations. I know lefties "your privacy is under attack", right? Please tell me how this hurts you? Please tell me that you truly believe that out of the billions of calls being made and added to some super computer, the NSA has sent an actual human in to pull your calls and passed the information along to Rove, Cheney and Bush who are plotting how to take you down. They see all those calls that you made to your parents for extra weed money since you've decided to stay in college for a few more years rather than get a job, and boy are they pissed! Keep telling yourselves it's true, that the NSA has the time, money, and resources to pay attention to what you're doing unless you've been making repeated calls to a phone number that's linked to an address that simply reads: 123 Cave Rd., Cave, Afghanistan

***UPDATE***
s
I just found this great San Francisco Chronical article that explains how this NSA "data mining" program works, and makes it more clear what a joke it is to be outraged over trumped up privacy issues. For starters:

Somewhere in America, powerful computers ingest crumbs of data about your personal life. Your income level. The kind of car you drive. Your home address. Your credit rating. All input, assimilated and analyzed at lightning speed.

The result: A piece of paper arrives in your mailbox offering you 10 percent off an oil change at your local service station.

That, in a nutshell, is data mining as practiced for more than a decade by companies around the world to target current and potential customers. The methods have changed since the old days of reverse telephone directories and mailing lists, but the basic objective is the same. And data mining of some type, experts agree, is almost certainly what is behind the National Security Agency's reportedly successful efforts to obtain the phone records of tens of millions of Americans from private telecommunications companies.

As I mentioned ealier, the ACLU, leader of the outraged, is doing this for fundraising purposes and we aren't hearing a peep from the left.

More from the San Francisco Chronicle, on tracking our digital footprints:

"Data mining is going through data from the past, historical data, and predicting what is likely to happen in the future based on patterns in the data," said Ken Bendix, president of North American operations at KXEN Inc., a company headquartered in San Francisco that develops data mining software for business applications.

It is used by credit card companies to spot spending patterns that suggest a card has been stolen and by marketing companies who use enormous databases to target advertising.

The technique has been gaining in popularity in the private sector thanks to advancements in computing technology and the mathematics underlying the software, Bendix said.

"The data is very rarely at the individual level," Bendix said. "When people are doing these data mining analyses, they don't care that you are you. They don't care what your name is or what your social security number is. All they care about is what group you fit into and how you relate to everybody else out there."

More on the history and theory behond this program (of course before it was compromised, and terrorists have now been tipped off)

The program, the brainchild of President Ronald Reagan's national security adviser John Poindexter, collapsed under public and political criticism in 2003. But the idea lived on, said Forno, who lectured on information warfare at the National Defense University from 2001 to 2003 and participated in the 2000 White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Information Security Education Research Project.

"TIA may have died on paper," he said. "But it got parceled out to various other agencies, including the NSA."

The NSA's interest in what is essentially copies of tens of millions of old phone bills is not hard to understand, Forno and other analysts said.

In theory, a powerful computer could process all those numbers and find a link between a phone in, say, Iowa to a phone in an al Qaeda training camp on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border -- even by way of dozens of other phones, linkages far too scattered for a human eye to notice. And the search wouldn't necessarily stop there.

"You have these phone numbers, you might also at a minimum run them against credit reporting companies," Forno said. "Local state DMV records. Tax records. Business employment records. All those other resources might help you narrow down your search."

While most of the criticism we see and hear is about privacy concerns, but it seems that there might be legitimate criticism over how useful the program might actually be.

But while the program's defenders insist it is a crucial instrument in the U.S. war on terror, some private security experts question its usefulness.

"We're looking for a needle in a haystack," said Bruce Schneier, a security technologist and chief technology officer of Counterpane Internet Security Inc. in Mountain View. "Dumping more hay on the pile doesn't necessarily get you anywhere."

Again, this may be a legitimate criticism, but shouldn't we encourage our government to at least do everything they can, in hopes that they might find that needle in a haystack? Or should we just assume we won't find anything and let those needles hijack planes and fly them in to buildings, killing thousands of people? Allah-hu-haystack!

Read the entire article here...

***UPDATE***
Michelle Malkin remarks on a Washington Post poll, showing that Americans support the NSA's efforts. Michelle also has a column in the NY Post today in which she thanks the NSA for actually doing their job. In reading it I become annoyed again at the fact that the left is upset over this non-issue, while they aren't outraged at the illegally leaked information that compromises security, and again, they aren't mad at the heros of the "privacy" movement, the ACLU, for data mining for fund-raising purposes.

Others (some of these are from yesterday, I'll try to update as I come across new posts):
Others:
Hot Air, The Moderate Voice, Sister Toldjah, Stop the ACLU, Confederate Yankee, Outside the Beltway, AJ Strata, Rick Moran, Macsmind, Michelle Malkin, The Sandbox, Flopping Aces, Ninth State, Sensible Mom, Nathan Branfield, OKIE on the LAM, The View From North Central Idaho, GroupIntel, The Unalienable Right, Flap's Blog, Don't Go Into The Light, Donkey Stomp, Independent Conservative, Iowa Voice, Wizbang, Left Wing = Hate, Amber, Small Town Veteran, Joust the Facts, A Lady's Ruminations, Gateway Pundit, Michelle Malkin 1, Michelle Malkin 2, Michelle Malkin 3, Chickenhawk Express, Riehl World View 1, Riehl World View 2, A Blog For All, The Political Pit Bull, Blogs For Bush, UrbanGrounds, Captain's Quarters

 

Remember the "Dubai Ports Deal" controversy? Well it looks like we're set for round two.... Or are we?

I just ran across this this New York Times article, that explains the situation. After reading it, I realized it was actually written last Thursday, so where was the news? Did everyone else catch this but me?

WASHINGTON, April 27 — President Bush is expected on Friday to announce his approval of a deal under which a Dubai-owned company would take control of nine plants in the United States that manufacture parts for American military vehicles and aircraft, say two administration officials familiar with the terms of the deal.

But his action is almost certain to attract scrutiny in Congress, because of the political furor that erupted over the administration's approval of a deal earlier this spring that would have given another Dubai-owned company, Dubai Ports World, leases to operate several American port terminals through its acquisition of a British company, the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company.

So where was the outrage and weeks of non-stop coverage, and Democrats going to ports for photo ops and press conferences? Even the Republicans were in a tissy over the "ports deal", that if you recall wound up not going through because of all the political pressure. I do always feel the need to point out that the "ports deal", wasn't some sort of deal where companies bid on the deal and Bush gave it to Arabs. It was simply that the Brits sold a company to a UAE government owned company. This new "deal" is the same situation.

In this case, the plants in question are owned by Doncasters Group Ltd., a British company that is being purchased for $1.2 billion from the Royal Bank of Scotland Group by Dubai International Capital, which is owned by the United Arab Emirate government.

Because the plants make turbine blades for tanks and aircraft, the deal was reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which sent it on to Mr. Bush himself for a decision, a step used only when the potential security risks or political considerations are particularly acute.

Administration officials alerted Congress that the deal would go through the committee's review process in an effort to head off the kind of public debate that surrounded the ports deal.

First off, why are the British selling all of their companies to the UAE? Secondly, like with the ports it doesn't seem like we're going to be having a bunch of Muslim clerics taking over operations, so I'm not sure what the objections might be. I mean, if we had a bunch of American companies in a bidding war, trying to get the takeover deal, that would be one thing, but that doesn't seem to be the case. For those who use the "no foreign ownership" argument, I have to ask why they haven't had a problem with the British ownership?

Obviously I'm not in favor of Arabs owning this company. Quite frankly, I'm not in favor of too many things as they relate to Arabs period. But this sounds like a perfectly legit deal, and unless we've got an American company wanting to takeover instead, what are you going to do? I'm just not clear on what the difference is between this an the ports though? Why haven't we heard the same outrage, or seen the media coverage?

I understand that with the ports, we were talking about the security risk (i.e. the ability to sneak a nuke in inside a container), but by all accounts operations wouldn't have changed. The security situation, as it pertains to the nations ports, is already a joke... but it wasn't going to be a funnier one under Dubai ownership. From what I'm able to gather, the only difference here is that the administration more thoroughly investigated the deal's implications before deciding to sign off on it.

Representative John Barrow, Democrat of Georgia, likened the Doncasters deal to "outsourcing" part of the nation's industrial-military complex.

But Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security and one of the foremost critics of the ports deal, said on Thursday that he would not necessarily have a problem this time around, in large part because the White House had given the deal a thorough review.

"It's a significant improvement over what happened before," Mr. King said. "It's been much more thorough, much more detailed."

As I said, that article was written last Thursday, and stated that the President would sign off on Friday. According to this International Herald Tribune piece, he apparently did, and again with surprisingly little outrage.

Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat of New York who has been a leading opponent of the failed deal that would have given Dubai Ports World control of major U.S. port operations, said he would not oppose the purchase of Doncasters by Dubai International Capital. But another lawmaker, Representative John Barrow, a Democrat of Georgia, said he wanted more details.

Wait a minute.... Schumer supports this deal? Perhaps we need to take another look at it.

U.S. Army Secretary Francis Harvey said the Army had recommended approval of the deal even though it normally preferred to have more than one source for the parts it buys.

"We have British firms, we have French firms, we have Japanese firms" as suppliers, he said. "I don't have concern."

Alright, I guess if you say it's okay.

This time, the administration briefed some lawmakers, and the White House also sent a classified report about its decision on the deal to House and Senate leaders on Friday.

Schumer said Friday that the Doncasters' deal was different from the ports saga because it was carefully considered and involved products - not services possibly easier to sabotage.

House Armed Services Committee Duncan Hunter, a California Republican, said his own staff review indicated the Doncasters deal was okay. "Numerous American companies" could make the tank components that Doncasters makes, Hunter said.

I find it hard to believe that briefing lawmakers is the only reason this thing seems to be going off without a hitch. Just seems weird after the shocking amount of outrage and media coverage of the ports deal.

I still don't know why we never heard any noise in Washington about a foreign company running all operations at Indianapolis Airport or the Dubai owned cargo terminal at JFK. Wonder if if it has anything to do with those deals not going through under President Bush, and not being as juicy for politic playing.

Previous:
Harold Ford Jr. Lies About Ports In Campaign Ad In Bid For U.S. Senate Seat
BREAKING: Dubai Ports World Will Transfer Port Operations To United States Entity
Foreign Company Runs Indianapolis Airport. Left Ignores As Deal Wasn't Under Bush.
Dubai Basher Clinton "Didn't Know" About Dubai Lover Clinton's Ties
What Is The Clinton Machine Up To? Hillary Opposes Port Deal, But Bill Helping UAE!
Hillary Clinton Caught Lying About Ports...
Saudi Arabia - Gore Slams Bush Treatment Of Arabs. Wait, I thought Bush Was "In Cahoots" With The Saudis?

 

***IT'S A DONE DEAL, SEE THIS NEWER POST. I see a lot of people landing on this page from search engines, but this was just the original post when this was all speculation and rumor.***

(ORIGINAL POST BELOW)

***SCROLL FOR UPDATES***

The rumors of an impending White House shake-up continue to swirl, and the latest is sure to have all the liberals whining louder than usual.

Rumor has it that Fox News Channel's Tony Snow has been approached about being a replacement to Scott McClellan as White House Press Secretary. I first heard this on Fox News this morning, and the buzz is beginning to quickly spread. The New York Times, of all places, is actually reporting this rather fairly and in with proper context:

Also on Tuesday, speculation increased that the White House was focusing on changing its press secretary, Scott McClellan. Officials have spoken with Tony Snow, a commentator for Fox News and a former speechwriter for the president's father, to see if he would be interested in the job, said two people with knowledge of the discussion who were granted anonymity so they could speak freely about a matter the White House did not want to be publicly known.

They, surprisingly, point out that Snow is a "commentator" not a news anchor on FNC, and that he is also a former speechwriter for President Bush 41. A lot of lefties think they are smart by "digging up" that little tidbit about Snow, which has never been a secret and he mentions occasionally without hesitation anyway. Even though Snow isn't reporting the "hard news" and is a "commentator", the left thinks that this NON-secret about Snow's past is evidence of the Bush's running Fox News. You know, the usual stuff. Tie that in with White House interest in Snow for Press Secretary and they're all going to be crazy over this today!

Look what the liberal "The Nation" has to say about it:

Finally, total synchronicity. Fox News and the White House are merging into one entity. Well, not really.

CNN just reported that a few weeks ago new White House chief of staff Josh Bolten asked Fox News's Tony Snow if he would be interested in replacing Scott McClellan as White House press secretary. CNN did not report whether Snow responded affirmatively and Snow refused to comment publicly. Funny how his website boasts of "The Power of Fox. The Connections of Snow."

This causes us to think of other potential White House hires:

Lou Dobbs as head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement?

Geraldo Rivera as Secretary of Defense?

Bill O'Reilly as director of Faith-Based Initiatives?

Why not call it a day and hire Roger Ailes as communications director?

So ridiculous... Although the Geraldo jab is semi-funny. But notice that they don't mention that Snow is a commentator and that he's got a open history of working in a Bush White House. They will probably dribble that bit out later to their audience as if it's a secret so that their audience will keep coming back for "breaking" developments and "findings".

Even Fox News Channel's web site has this in their Tony Snow bio:

In 1991, Snow took a sabbatical from journalism to work in the White House for President George H. Bush. He first served as the deputy assistant to the president for communications and director of speechwriting, and later as deputy assistant to the president for media affairs.

At least Cincinnati.com/The Enquirer is reporting the fact that Snow is a commentator, but like The Nation, they fail to mention that he's got a history of working in a Bush White House. So all of the liberal readers see these stories and say "Ah-ha! I knew Fox News was a bunch of righties! Even the White House goes to them for staff!", without noting that Snow has already been in a related position.

The New York Times, meanwhile, reported that Fox News commentator Tony Snow, a Princeton High School graduate, is being considered for the job of press secretary.

You know, I think that it would make sense to put a journalist, who can clearly articulate Bush's ideas, in such a position, rather than just some Washington insider without any communication experience.

Fox News is now reporting the story on their own site:

One of the people the White House has approached as a possible replacement for McClellan is FOX News Radio host Tony Snow. The White House discussed the possibility with Snow as recently as this week.

Snow, who hosts "The Tony Snow Show," once served as a speechwriter for President George H.W. Bush.

Other people have also been approached about the position, including former Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clark and Dan Senor, the former Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman in Iraq, who served the U.S. civil administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer.

I'd actually like to see Dan Senor in the position. He always explains things in a very clear and understandable way, and in a way that you don't often hear anywhere else. The problem is, being the former CPA spokesman in Iraq might hurt him, but we'll have to wait and see.

***UPDATE***
Wow, just as I predicted, the lefties are all up in arms about this with a bunch of predictable comments. The Fox News "watchdog" site NewsHounds has a post up on this and all the libs are using all the obvious and predictable comments you can imagine:

Isn't he already their press secretary?

Posted by: Luc Richard Mbah a Moute at April 18, 2006 07:41 PM

I'm not the least bit suprised. Fox is the communications arm of the RNC and the Bush Administration, so why wouldn't the White House offer the job to Tony Snow? Makes perfect sense to me.

Can you imagine what Fox News would be saying if the Clinton Administration offered a job to Dan Rather back in the late 1990's? They would be going bonkers. But when it comes to a Republican, Fox to the rescue!

Posted by: Mary from Manhattan at April 18, 2006 07:45 PM

Isn't Tony Snow already Bush's press secretary?

Posted by: Jonathan at April 18, 2006 09:41 PM

You get the point. But this commenter (I'm assuming a conservative) nails it:

Oh please, Where was your outrage when George Stephanopolis became ABC's Sunday Morning host?? Or David Gergan's ins and outs??? And the list goes on, all though the media/govt axis.

Posted by: Kayak at April 18, 2006 10:18 PM

Of course that's just one example, but you get the point.

****UPDATE II***
Reports were just coming in that McClellan was set to resign, as I saw the video come in to Fox News of McClellan announcing his resignation. Scott has done a great job handling the vultures, but it seems like it might be time to take a break. He seems to not be leaving by his own choice, but I can't imagine wanting to deal with the hateful White House press corps. that seems to exist for no reason but to "get" the administration.

Michelle Malkin is blogging this as well.

***UPDATE III***
AP via Breitbart has the text of President Bush and Scott McClellan's comments this morning.

**UPDATE IV***
The Political Pit Bull has posted a humorous highlight video.

***UPDATE V***
Expose the Left has the video of McClellan and Bush's breif comments this morning.

Wuzzadem has appointed Mr. Stick Figure to replace McClellan.

***UPDATE VI***
A commenter at Expose the Left reminds us not to buy the media hype that this "shake-up" is the President hitting the panic button. I hope someone will be able to do a complete comparative analysis with the Clinton administration, but from what I've heard, Bush has stuck with people longer than normal, and has become known for his loyalty (right or wrong). Anyway, until we get that comparitive analysis, the Expose the Left commenter provides us this list of Clinton administration resignations:

Secretary of State: Warren Christopher

Secretary of the Treasury: Lloyd Bentsen, Robert Rubin

Secretary of Defense: Les Aspin, William Perry

Secretary of Agriculture: Mike Espy

Secretary of Commerce: Ronald H. Brown, Mickey Kantor, William M. Daley

Secretary of Labor: Robert Reich

Secretary of Housing and urban Development: Henry G. Cisneros

Secretary of Transportation: Federico F. Pena

Secretary of Energy: Hazel R. O’Leary, Frederico F. Pena

Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs: Jesse Brown

More:
Lifelike Pundits, Suitably Flip, Sister Toldjah, PoliPundit, Real Clear Politics, Wizbang, The Real Ugly American, Seixon, Powerline, Gateway Pundit, Musing Minds, NewsBusters, Outside the Beltway, Ankle Biting Pundits, BlackFive, Stop the ACLU, NeanderNews, The Little Platoon, GZ Expat, A Lady's Ruminations, California Conservative, All Things Beautiful, This Blog is Full of Crap, Martin's Musings, The Moderate Voice, Uncommon Sense, My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

 

h/t Michelle Malkin

W. Thomas Smith, Jr. has written a column detailing the decision of the NY Times to spin stories to suit their not so hidden agenda, regardless of how it might put troops at risk.

(excerpt below, read more)

Then on February 13, Army Times senior staff writer Gordon Lubold reported that at the behest of Congressman Curt Weldon (R–PA), "Mallak testified at [a February 2 Congressional] hearing that the quote in The New York Times story ‘was very much taken out of context’ and that his remarks were made not in regard to body armor but to another issue altogether."

Indeed, the issue screaming to be published had to do with Mallak’s concern over some Marines’ use of Ephedra, a performance-enhancing drug that dangerously raises heart rate and blood pressure. Lubold continues, "At that, Weldon began to pound the table and scream. 'Families all across this country are worried about their young people because a reporter took this out of context,' he thundered. 'Somebody has to hold the media accountable because families all over the country that we represent think that somehow the military doesn't care.'"

(read entire column here.)

Of course this is no surprise to the rest of us, and even a somewhate minor example... But a documented one anyway.

RELATED

Rick Moran at Rightwing Nuthouse post on the fact that we are winning the war in Iraq. No one is saying it's a walk in the park or we're leaving tomorrow, but U.S. casualties are down,, terrorist attacks down, and more Iraqi security forces doing the fighting. But don't expect to see this making headlines. You should expect more of the MSM pumping skewed Bush approval polls, subliminal Cheney photos, and and rooting for Iraqi civil war in your paper and on your evening news.

Much of Rick's information is based on this piece from StrategyPage

(excerpt... read more)

The violence has shifted away from American troops, who are suffering 60 percent fewer casualties this month than in the past year. and more towards Iraqi security forces and civilians. Part of this is because there are simply more Iraqi police and soldiers patrolling the streets and policing the neighborhoods. Where there are about two American advisors for every hundred Iraqi security troops, these Americans are there to advise, not fight. And the Iraqis are doing the fighting, and taking the casualties. American troops are still making raids and patrols, but there has also been a sharp decline in terrorist attacks. Some six months of sweeps and battles in western Iraq has shut down many of the Sunni terrorist sanctuaries. Indeed, many al Qaeda terrorists have fled western Iraq for towns and villages on the Iranian border. Iranians don’t like to advertise the fact, but they do provide support to al Qaeda, despite al Qaeda’s attacks on Shias (for being heretics.) Iran would also like to see a civil war (ethnic cleansing of Sunni Arabs) in Iraq. If that were to happen, Shia Arabs would be 75 percent of the Iraqi population, and likely to side with Iran on many issues.

(read entire article)

Be sure to read Rick's analysis of the entire Iraq situation, how far it's come and where it may go. I think he's right on, except I may not be quite as optimistic. I still fear that the media and the American left have caused irreparable damage to the war effort and the will of America to see this through. I think if they're able to gain any power in the upcoming elections we're all screwed.

 

If you've been reading RightWinged.com regularly, you know we've been following the bill in South Dakota that would ban all abortions except when the the mother's life is at risk, and that abortion performing doctors could be charged with a felony, though not the mothers. (see here and here)

Well it appears that after passing through the SD House, and then a Senate Committee, the bill has reached the floor of the state Senate:

small excerpt from NY Times article:

Lawmakers here are preparing to vote on a bill that would outlaw nearly all abortions in South Dakota, a measure that could become the most sweeping ban approved by any state in more than a decade, those on both sides of the abortion debate say.

If the bill passes a narrowly divided Senate in a vote expected on Wednesday, and is signed by Gov. Michael Rounds, a Republican who opposes abortion, advocates of abortion rights have pledged to challenge it in court immediately — and that is precisely what the bill's supporters have in mind.

Optimistic about the recent changes on the United States Supreme Court, some abortion opponents say they have new hope that a court fight over a ban here could lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that made abortion legal around the country.

The article goes on to discuss something one of my commenters brought up the other day... The Supreme Court isn't tilted totally our way and having this brought to them without another seat change might cause it to be shot down and deal a heavy blow to those trying to get Roe vs. Wade overturned.

Some are speculating that the 85 year old John Paul Stevens may be retiring very soon leaving open yet anothe seat and that this could all come together at the perfect time. I've got to wonder a couple of things though... For starters, would Stevens retire with all this swirling around (if it comes to that)? You don't think the libs could pressure him to stay? Beyond that, you saw how viscious and psychotic the libs have been over the past nominations (or every day for a number of years really), can you imagine what they would do in a situation where it was almost certain that Roe would be overturned!?

I don't know how easy the "nuclear" option would be, because I can see these nutjob Democrats chaining themselves to the doors of the Capitol, not to mention the riots of the far left "protest" types that always show up for events like this. I think we would see some of our streets look like what we see in the Middle East over the Danish cartoons. Not a joke. These people already show up to their "rallies" with hoods and masks on, and often get violent and throw molotov cocktails. Can you imagine the desperation if Bush gets to nominate another Supreme Court Justice!?

Anyway, another annoying part of this article, but not surprising because you've always got some baby killer who says it in most abortion related articles...

"While they are making political maneuvers, we're trying to fight for the women of South Dakota," said Kate Looby, the state director of Planned Parenthood in South Dakota.

Ms. Looby said she had spent hundreds of hours meeting with lawmakers and others as a vote drew near. "I hate to envision the day when the women of South Dakota are treated differently than the women elsewhere when it comes to safe and legal health care," she said.

As I pointed out in my last post on the matter that "health care" line is the biggest load of bull. DON'T BUY IN TO IT!:

from a previous post on RightWinged.com

Anyway, incase anyone actually buys in to the excuse that abortions are "health care" as liberals and Democrats like to refer to it, let's agree that that is ridiculous. I just can't stand when I see Howard Dean or someone on a news program talk about women's health care to try to make abortion sound like a routine physical. "Reproductive rights" is bad enough, but "health care" is demonstrably false. Only about 6% (and I'm guess that's actually high) of abortions are for anything other than birth control:

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

* 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.

* 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.

* 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.

* 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)

* 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.

* 7.9% of women want no (more) children.

* 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.

* 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

The reason I say that the 6% is probably high is because "risk" is a pretty broad term. That could encompass a lot of things. "Risk" operates on a scale, and these would obviously include all levels of risk.

Anyway, about 94% of abortions are then nothing more than birth control, right? Supposedly abortions are slightly down now, but the average was about 1,300,000 per year in the United States alone. What that means is that 1,222,000 children are killed in the United states every year out of convenience, not "health". And we didn't even have decades of intelligence saying these babies had weapons of mass destruction! Maybe the babies moved their WMDs to Syria too, long before we started doing surveillance. Otherwise, what is the excuse from liberals for attacking these innocent people?

"Health care"? I think not.

For further study, about a month ago I posted on the terminology bias in the media as it pertains to the abortion issue. Of course the exact numbers change by the day, considering it it based on articles indexed in Google and Yahoo! News search, but the trend always remains.

For now, we'll have to wait to see what happens in South Dakota today...

Open Trackbacks:
Right Wing Nation, Don Surber, Rhymes With Right, TMH's Bacon Bits, Freedom Watch USA, Blue Star Chronicles

 

This just in from Drudge:

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

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

The White House is seeking a retraction.

Developing...

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

Anne Kornblut

END

 

hat tip: Michelle Malkin

You might remember that the blogosphere ripped apart the NY Times a few days ago, for clearly staging a photo for maximum heartstring pulling impact, or at the very least, stupidly running with a photo with a false caption because it suited their agenda. Either way, it was unacceptable. At least they apologized, but at some point they should just start getting it right instead of having to apologize....

Fast forward to today >> We are still not sure if we got Al Qaeda number 2 al-Zawahiri, but it's being reported that we did make an Al Qaeda Kebab... or is it Khabab? As in Abu Khabab al-Masri, also known as Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar.
Fox News:

The U.S. Justice Department names Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, as an explosives expert and poisons trainer who operated a terrorist training camp at Derunta, near the eastern city of Jalalabad in Afghanistan.

In addition, it's looking like we got two other high level Qaeda targets, including one Abu Ubaida, who may or may not be a close relative, even a son-in-law, of Al-Zawahiri.

So to be clear, the NY Times and the Kos kids and the rest all wanted us to believe that we just sloppily killed some innocent families, but as he facts come in, it seems more and more like we went after and got the bad guys, and the verdit is still out on Zawahiri in particular.

More:
Michelle Malkin, Small Town Veteran, Flaps Blog, The Opinionator, LawHawk, Bright and Early, The Kellino Zone, Flopping Aces, Conservative Zone, Iowa Voice

 

hat tip Michelle Malkin
I'm sure I don't need to rehash the far left liberalism of the New York Times, particularly what we've seen over the past few years (although I would like to gather together a comprehensive and ongoing list at some point), so I'll just get right to it...

I actually read about this on another blog the other day, but I was actually specifically looking for something else at the time and forgot all about it. I'm pretty sure I saw it at Hit & Run first, but either way they were certainly out earlier than the rest of us. Anyway, at least we're talking about it now.

Anyway, the long and the short of it is that this is a false caption, leading to the belief that this photo is all together a staged event meant for maximum heartstring pulling impact (i.e. "How could Bush bomb these poor people, look at how sad they are standing in their rubble next to that U.S. missile")

Pakistani men with the remains of a missile fired at a house in the Bajur tribal zone near the Afghan border.

This exceprt from a Thomas Lifson article on TheAmericanThinker.com (Great article, breaks it all down)

Ned Barnett is an expert on military technology, and frequently serves as a contributor to The History Channel on mil-tech issues. He has plenty of experience researching military ordnance. He told me:

“Based on my extensive experience in researching military technology, I can verify that this is a 152mm or 155mm artillery shell – unfired – and by the looks of it, fairly old. It also looks like it has a fuse in it, suggesting that the guys in the photo are either ditch-water dumb or have a death-wish.

Again, I'm no expert, so someone might be able to convince me that a Predator would drop one of these things... but I'm not the NY Times, and I probably still would have checked it anyway! This kind of reminds me of MoveOn.org not knowing the difference between British and U.S. troops in one of their commercials *cough*propaganda films*cough*. Then busted photoshoping stills on their web page trying to cover their tracks.

Like all the other daily examples of staged photos, headlines, and articles the Misleadstream Media won't touch this... These sort of things happen with such regularity, equaled only by the regularity at which the media ignores it, even when the bloggers bring it to their attention. I just wish enough people knew so we could demand media reform, because it's only going down hill folks.

More:
The Political Teen, Jeff Gannon, Sister Toldjah, Augean Stables, Iowa Voice, Old Controller, Generation Why, Gina Cobb, California Yankee, The Strata-Sphere, Reverse Vampyr, North Canton Airline, The Kellino Zone, Dread Pundit, Maggie's Farm, Severe Writer's Block, Kokonut Pundits, The Florida Masochist, Murdoc Online, Independent Christian Voice