Saturday, March 31, 2007
Diane Feinstein Not Held Accountable For Deficient Iraq War Veteran's Medical Care
DemocRAT Diane Feinstein, above, demonstrates holding a pencil that one of
her husband's defense contracting firms charged the Pentagon $71,735.89.
We have another in a long, long line of hypocrisy from the Liberals. Oh, the Libs can howl and scream, pointing the finger at Bush and Republicans in general for deficiencies at Walter Reed Hospital - some of the criticism warranted.
Now we find out that at least two years go Ms. Whinestein was aware of problems in medical care of Iraq War Veterans:
Two years ago, before the Washington Post became belatedly involved, the online magazine Salon.com exposed the horrors of deficient medical care for Iraq war veterans. While leading MILCON, Feinstein had ample warning of the medical-care meltdown. But she was not proactive on veteran's affairs.
APPROVED BY FEINSTEIN! Do you GET THAT, Libs? Does the significance of that sink into your feeble, wee brains? (No, of course not...)
The appearance of impropriety on the part of the Whinestein is evident, to say the least, if not outright unethical and perhaps illegal. This reeks of the same type of stench as the no-bid defense contracts awarded to 'Kit' Murtha, brother of Democrat Congressman John Murtha.
Democrats and Liberals will refuse to make an issue of this and will retreat into their bubble of supreme denial because this affects their party instead of the Republican party.
Another fine and stellar example of Liberals holding others accountable and responsible to a standard that they will not ever apply to themselves.
Another fine example of "Hypocrisy, Thy name is Democrat."
Where's Cluck Schumer calling for an investigation of Whinestein, Blum and Murtha? Notably - but not surprisingly - dead silent and mute. Whew - good thing this isn't a Halliburton "scandal"!
H/T: Bug Drivel: My Thoughts
The New And Improved United Nations (not)
The U.N. Security Council, in reacting to Iran taking British Sailors hostage, had the opportunity to word a resolution and warning to Iran as a situation that is "deplorable" and calling for the immediate release of the hostages. Instead, the U.N. opted for a feeble and unimpressive expression of "grave concern". I bet that had Tehran shaking in their boots.
Those of us who know that the U.N. is the most ineffectual organization ever created can only look forward to future follies from a corrupt and useless world body that sides with tyrants and dictators because they cower and fear repercussion from these despots.
Welcome to the new United Nations folks, led by Ben-Wa Balls.
An Open Letter To Syria RE: Nanny Pelosi
Friday, March 30, 2007
Al Franken Explains Taconite
For those of you who may not be familiar with taconite, I have an excerpt from Al explaining it.
Just click on the on the audio bar below, and give a listen:
Al Franken: The Next U.S. Senator from Minnesota?
Voice is impersonated. Or...is...it?
Labels: Al Franken Explains
Melted Steel And Other
When does idiotic propaganda finally meet its well-deserved death in favor of truth and reality? Maybe it never does and that's unfortunate. All of us know of urban legends repeated as hardcore facts by the group of uninformed troglodytes. One of the troglodytes who proudly displays her ignorance every time she opens her Dolly Madison Hole is Rosie O'Moo. During some point in her life O'Moo decided - just like every good uber-Liberal - to not let facts confuse her with her misinformed beliefs.
On Thursday's ABC's "The Spew", O'Moo repeated one of the patently false urban legends of 9/11; that of steel being "melted" by jet fuel. Now I'd like to think O'Moo looks at all sides of an issue in attempting to reach the truth or at the very least to dismiss the falsehoods of an issue - especially those as significant as an event of September 11. I must be wrong - she only looks for information that supports her erroneous beliefs.
Has O'Moo every heard of Popular Mechanics, because PM debunked the insane conspiracy theories advanced by the Lefties on circumstances surrounding 9/11.
PM sought out some of the very best people who actually know something about structural engineering and building collapse, image analysis, air crash analysis, air defense and aviation.
Here is what the EXPERTS say about "melting steel" (bolding mine):
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of 'The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety'. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Other blatant falsehoods and Liberal Propaganda debunked by the EXPERTS contributing to the PM article and book includes the absurd claim by Liberals that "Seismic Spikes" caused by explosives felled the Twin Towers:
FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam* tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
CLAIM: That the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 was caused by "controlled demolition":
FACT: NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse."
Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.
Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."
The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.
Who are you going to believe, experts with degrees up the ying-yang or Rosie O'Moo whose primary concern is, "What's there to eat?"
Rosie, "Facts are stubborn things," as John Adams said. I know that facts have a strange way of impeding and defeating what Rosie so desperately "wants to believe."
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Polar Bear Cub Knut To Be Executed
Recently, Knut was allegedly implicated in the death of a panda. Clearly Knut has worn out his welcome.
German President Eva "Shottsy" Heinlich-Goffgildersturm has ordered Knut to be executed on Friday by means of the guillotine. "Knut has ticked us off, mocked us and tried our patience for the last time," said Heinlich-Goffgildersturm.
Animal rights activists, who had been supportive of euthanizing Knut from the very beginning, echoed the sentiments of Heinlich-Goffgildersturm. "Frankly, we are tired of his cuteness," said activist Fudir Gongabong from his office in Munich. "Cuteness buys someone or something only so much time, and Knut has used up his nine lives. Off with his head! Achtung!"
"Tell the world my story," begged Knut.
Bush Insists On Clean Bill
Speaker Nancy Pelosi [responded], "Calm down with the threats."
One key Democrat with longtime ties to the Pentagon, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said Bush was exaggerating, and he estimated the real deadline for a fresh infusion of funds was June 1.
Bush should get exactly what he is asking for, a bill for funding the war without Pork. I would say the exact same thing no matter who was in the White House or to what political party they belong.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Charlie Is Mad About Madeleine
Charlie, you just had her on your show in December. Did you cycle through every name in your guest Rolodex and return to the "A's" again? Why are you helping this woman push forth her agenda....okay, dumb question. Charlie is a big bleeding heart who worships at the Altar of Liberalism.
I couldn't watch it, just like most Rose programs repulse me to no end..an endless orgy of liberalism. Albright being the guest was enough to tip it past the repugnant and unwatchable phase.
Simon Bar Sinister and the Butcher of The Balkans. Tell me they weren't Separated At Birth!
And on a slightly related note, the Charlie Rose Bobblehead can be viewed HERE.
Big Bad Tough Jimbo Webb
Webb is the tough guy who said he would have "liked to slug President Bush."
Suddenly Meeester Machismo needs a gun? An unregistered and unlicensed weapon? Suddenly Meeester Vietnam Veteran needs a gun? Suddenly Meeester "I wore my son's combat boots during my campaign" needs a gun to...uh...feel manly? Who or what are you afraid of Jimmy-Jim-Bob-Bobby-Jim-Jim? And, if you're such a tough guy, why can't you just "slug" someone who is menacing you?
Look, I love guns, they're great. I grew up in a family where I hunted with my dad and my brothers. I hunted with friends. All of us did target practice. Most importantly, all of us had gun safety ingrained into our heads. All guns are treated as if they are loaded even when they are not. Guns are never pointed at anything unless you intend to pull the trigger. Period. Guns are not an item to treat casually or to play with as a toy. You don't spin one around on your finger playing wild, wild west.
Jim Jimmy Jim Bob Webb, Latest Cowboy of the Village People?
The story - and that's exactly what it is, a "story" - going around is that Jim Bob Jimbo Bobby Bob Webb gave the gun to lackey Thompson when Thompson drove Jim Bob Bobby Jim Jimbo Jimmybob Jim Bobby Webb to the airport and that Thompson forgot he was carrying the weapon when he entered the Senate building. Yeah, sure...uh-huh. Sorry, I'm not buying this. One does not simply "forget" they are carrying a loaded weapon any more than one "forgets" they are carrying a suitcase nuke. Or an infant.
There's something that's being covered up about this. There's something that's not being reported. Where's Cluck Schumer in calling for an investigation? Something is not right about this incident.
Was Jim-Bob-Jimbo-JimmyBob-BobJim Webb trying to have his unregistered and unlicensed weapon smuggled into the Senate for some ulterior motive? Was Jimbo BobbyJim JimmyBob Jim in cahoots with some unsavory types, perhaps using patsy Thompson to sneak in an unregistered and unlicensed gun to be used against a political opponent...?
Big-time "Rule of Law" combat boot-wearing, kiddie p0rn writing, president-slugging Vietnam Veteran, now Senator JimBob-BobbyJim-Jimbo-BoJim Webb tyring to covertly get his unregistered and unlicensed gun into the Senate. Hmmmmmmm...there's something more to this story and we're not being told what is the full story.
There's a cover-up going on about this story. Cluck...why so obviously absent in calling for an investigation?
A Special Public Service Announcement
It is a sincere and heartfelt message that can help all of us get along in a far more harmonious nature. It is a true story. Thank you.
Simply click on the on the audio bar to listen.
The Best Gore-Bal Warming 'Toon I've Seen!
More of Mr. Campbell's work can be found Right Here.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Anti-War Democrat Keith al-Ellison
Angers His Base, or: Continuing Adventures In The World of Left Wing Hypocrisy
"We're very disappointed, and some people in the peace movement will be pretty demoralized by this," said Marie Braun. [Braun has organized sit-ins at congressional offices in Minnesota to pressure lawmakers to vote against funding the war.]
"We feel it unconscionable for anyone to vote for more money for this war," said Braun.
How does al-Ellison excuse his vote to his constituents? Well, he puts the best Liberal spin on it that he possibly can by doing a Kerryesque version of "I voted for it before I voted against it."
"I couldn't do what was going to please the crowd. I didn't enter the anti-war movement to please the crowd. And I didn't vote in favor of the benchmarks and the withdrawal date to please the crowd. I did it because I think it's in the best interest of peace."
"There was a withdrawal vote, and there was a stay-the-course vote. And I am dead set against this war, and I have to do everything in my power to oppose it. So I have to vote for withdrawal."
Keith al-Ellison (pbuh!)
But Keith...you ran your campaign - and got elected - by promising the anti-war crowd you would do their bidding. You ran on doing nothing but pleasing the pacifists. Flip flop, flip flop, flip flop flip.
There was no "stay-the-course" vote in H.R. 1591. It offered members of the House an opportunity to vote FOR funding the war (with Pork-laden items attached to it) or against funding the war. Voting against H.R. 1591 was most certainly not a vote for staying the course. Spin, spin, spin 'til you're dizzy Keith!
So his mentality for voting for the war funding and the Pork attached to it was based on not "pleasing the crowd." Gee, that's so funny, because the Number One Thrust of his political campaign was to get out of Iraq at all and any cost.
So how are all of you anti-war Liberals feeling about al-Ellison's vote? Demoralized? Lied to? Misled? Heh heh heh! Oh, this is so rich. Richer than Bill Gates. Richer than The Donald. Richer than John D. Rockefeller in his prime!
You have to love Democrat hypocrisy, especially when an uber-Liberal like al-Ellison poops on the people who put him in office.
My, how forgiving the Liberals are when one of their own votes to fund the war. They'll self-rationalize and continue their self-delusional warped thinking and make every excuse in the book why "one of their own" didn't cast the vote that was expected of them. The Minneapolis district that al-Ellison represents could have gotten the exact same vote from a Republican. I wonder how forgiving they would have been of that Republican? Not very. Effigy burning - of course! A lengthy and loud sit-in at the politician's office - absolutely! Anti-war picketing at his or her home - de rigueur!
I didn't hear much of Liberal Talk Radio on Monday, but what I did hear...none of them were talking about al-Ellison's vote. So shallow, so hypocritical, so lame. So afraid to apply the standard that they apply to others to their own representatives and themselves.
It's funny when Democrats disappoint their own base. It's funny when Democrats cannibalize their own. Who knew this slim majority of Democrats in the 110th Congress would be such a sit-com hit only three months into the season?
Stay tuned for many further episodes of Democrats eating their own! We have 20 more months of this sad and pathetic, yet hilarious, sit-com to run.
Monday, March 26, 2007
INLAND EMPIRE: Yes, Yet Another Post On My Favorite Filmmaker David Lynch
It's remarkable and impressive. It stars Laura Dern, Jeremy Irons, Justin Theroux and Lynch regular - the marvelous - Harry Dean Stanton.
I would be hard-pressed to describe the story or plotline. It may or may not be about an actress who is, or was, a prostitute. It may or may not be about a prostitute who is, or was, an actress. It may or may not be about parallel lives. It is - I think it is - about characters who have self-identity problems or who have self-delusional issues. Or maybe not.
Its visual texture is beautiful, as are all of Lynch's films. The musical score by longtime Lynch music collaborator Angelo Badalamenti is fantastic.
If you're a Lynch fan and have not yet seen it, check it out.
If you have seen it, and you have an idea about what INLAND EMPIRE is about, by all means leave a comment and let me know.
INLAND EMPIRE (French Trailer)
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Democrat PORK! P-O-R-K! Squeal
Little Commiecrat Piggies, Squeal!
These are the Democrats who, up until the November 2006 election, spent all their time criticizing and vilifying the Pork-laden bills passed by Republicans. And in some cases I agree with the Dems - the Repubs did indeed engage in reckless Pork spending. But it was the Dems who primarily campaigned on eliminating Pork for Porks sake. Such altruism we simply and rarely witness from the Dems, right?
Yet the Dems forgot all about their campaign promises, pushing aside their crusade against adding Pork to bills. Oversight...what's that? Where's Cheerleader in Charge of Oversight and Pork Spending, Democrat Henry Waxman the PigMan-MoleMan, on Friday's House bill? Where are you PigMan-MoleMan? How did Waxman, the little PigMan-MoleMan vote on H.R. 1591? Why, the PigMan-MoleMan Voted FOR the PORK!
How did anti-War, Bring-The-Troops-Home-Immediately-Cut and Run Democrat Keith al-Ellison vote on H.R. 1591? Why, the Muslim who campaigned and got elected professing an anti-War-at-all-costs mentality voted FOR funding the troops AND FOR the PORK! Heh - al-Ellison, who made his Muslim religion a centerpiece of his candidacy voted for pork. Should a Muslim be voting for pork? Tsk-Tsk!
The Dems, their supporters and their voter base are gutless cowards, nothing but gutless cowards. If they weren't such a bunch of - oh, how can I say this...I know, I'll quote Eric Cartman - "blood belching vaginas", they would cut the funding of the troops just like they promised their base they would do. But since now they are desperately holding on to that slim, slim majority they have - why - suddenly it's a different story. My oh my, the times they are a changin'.
How are all you uber-Liberals feeling these days? You were lied to by all the Dems who told you, in no uncertain terms, that if elected they would immediately Cut and Run from Iraq, that they would immediately put an end to Pork and would immediately move to run Congress far better than the Republicans ever had for the past twelve years. None of your so-called Democrat leaders have kept any of the promises they made to you.
Heh - the Dems hypocrisy is so rich and creamy in its chocolaty goodness, full of buttery and velvety nougat...something to be savored with each bite of every delicious morsel! Yum...as Cartman would say, "your tears are so sweet!"
I honestly thought it would take longer than three months for the Dems to begin their self-destruction phase. The Dems infighting, the Nanny Pelosi Camp versus the Steny Hoyer Camp, John Murtha talking out of his butt, Diane Whinestein and Babs Boxer screeching like neglected hens...Who knew it would begin so soon?
I'm loving this new Democrat slim-majority...aren't you?
Charming, Just Charming
Friday, March 23, 2007
John Edwards Pursues White
House Despite Wife's Cancer
Her husband has chosen to pursue his candidacy for the White House despite the return of his wife's cancer. He is being hailed by his supporters and other Liberal Mouthpieces - especially Liberal Radio Talking Heads - as some sort of hero for his political aspirations. Whoa - good thing this scenario happening to the Edwards isn't happening with Newt Gingrich.
We can only imagine the catcalls and the insensitivity from the Left if it were a Republican candidate choosing to pursue his political career over and above his wife's incurable disease. We've already heard it from the unsympathetic Lefties for the manner that Gingrich handled one of his divorces. (By the way, what about how Ted Kennedy has treated women in the past and his ex-wives and the way Bill Clinton treats women - heck, that's all fine and dandy with the Libs! Newt Gingrich is on his third marriage, cry the Lefties trying to manufacture an issue where none exists. Well, Dennis Kucinich is on his third marriage as well - but I digress.)
We can only imagine the the mean-spiritedness and bricks that would be thrown by the low-life Lefties at any Republican who decided to continue on with his political career while his wife underwent ongoing treatment and chemotherapy.
"The campaign goes on. The campaign goes on strongly," said John Edwards. I can't be the only one who finds his statement and behavior rather macabre.
This is a defining moment for the Lefties. None of us will forget the circumstances surrounding John Edwards proudly proclaiming his race for the White House shall continue despite his wife's cancer.
Time and karma is a funny thing. Stuff happens. There is no doubt that at some point in the future, perhaps many years from now, that something similar will happen to a Conservative or Republican politician. Life, disease and death doesn't discriminate simply because of one's political ideology. When it happens, we'll see just how compassionate and fair the Left is, with their actions and attitudes, their charity and kindness, their mercy and sympathy. Or they will demonstrate a complete lack of all these things.
Don't forget...plenty of Lefties are on record for having said, "Tragedy plus time equals comedy." I guess we'll find out just how funny Mrs. Edwards' cancer is.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Gore Pledges To Burn More
Fossil Fuels, Spew More Carbon
Albert Gore, Junior - inventor of the internets - REFUSED to take the personal energy ethics pledge that he asks of others in his false-u-mentary, "An Inconvenient
The pledge was presented to Gore by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, during [Wednesday's] global warming hearing.
Senator Inhofe showed Gore a film frame from “An Inconvenient Truth” where it asks viewers: “Are you ready to change the way you live?”
Gore refused to take the pledge.
Gore did recite the following:
"I, Albert Gore, Junior, inventor of the internets, reserve the right to be a hypocrite, refusing to take the Personal Energy Ethics Pledge that I ask others to take.
I, Albert Gore, Junior, exercise exclusive hypocrisy reserved for Liberals like myself and others, the ability to imprint a gigantic, enormous, super-duper humongous Carbon Footprint on the planet by globe-trotting via my private jets and traveling by multi-SUV and limousine motorcades.
I, Albert Gore, Junior, reserve the right to use twenty times more energy than the average American household.
For I am Albert Gore, Junior. Do as I say, not as I do. You may refer to me as the Moses of Global Warming."
Earth Suffering From "Fever"!
Labels: Gore earth fever
Who Died When Clinton Lied?
This Short Film also playing and appearing HERE.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
The Great Democrat Dog and Pony Shows
The First Dog and Pony Show the Democrats gave the nation was all the things they supposedly accomplished in their "first 100 hours". Can anyone name the issues the Dems "fixed" during their first 100 hours? How's that Minimum Wage hike coming along? Stalled and moribund, isn't it? Anything else of faux significance rolled out in their first 100 hours? No, but it was a good Dog and Pony Show for the newly elected slim majority of Democrats.
Then came the Second Dog and Pony Show, that of pulling U.S. Troops out of Iraq immediately. Immediately! Why, the newly elected slim majority of Democrats were ready to Cut and Run, and then Slow Bleed our Troops, in order to live up to the expectations of the Insane Liberal Clown Posse that put them in office in the November 2006 election. Then the Dems realized - actually they knew all along but used the issue for their own political gain - that Cut and Run is not a realistic solution. Various current analyses of Iraq show that Cut and Run would result in a massive civil war that would make the civil wars of Rwanda or Darfur look like a day at the county fair. In this instance we have the Dems majorly disappointing their Hardcore Far Left Base who demanded and insisted on immediate withdraw from Iraq.
The Third Dog and Pony Show was the ensuing hilarity of the Valerie Plame case. Ignoring some basic facts, such as former CIA official Fred Rustmann - Valerie Plame's boss - who said (bolding mine):
Plame was never a so-called deep-cover NOC (Non-Official Cover), he said, meaning the agency did not create a complex cover story about her education, background, job, personal life and even hobbies and habits that would stand up to intense scrutiny by foreign governments. "[NOCs] are on corporate rolls, and if anybody calls the corporation, the secretary says, 'Yeah, he works for us,'" says Rustmann. "The degree of backstopping to a NOC's cover is a very good indication of how deep that cover really is." (1)
"...we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion." (2)
Never mind that Victoria Tensig testified that under the CIA's own definition Plame was not covert. Now, just because Plame wanted to play back yard pretend spy, and engage in a delusional belief that she was covert, doesn't make it so. If the agency she worked for didn't consider her covert by their own standards and definitions, then what other definition does anyone need to use or apply? Well, I guess playing pretend spy carries a whole lot of weight with the Liberal mindset. It serves their political purpose and agenda, but little else.
The Fourth Dog and Pony Show the Dems flurried out was the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys. Doing a yeoman job of blatantly ignoring all facts and past history and policies of other presidents, the Democrats conveniently forgot that these U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president - any president. Ignoring that two of the eight U.S. Attorneys either were nearing the end of their term or decided to not continue their service, leaving six, the Dems were adamant that they could make an issue over something that is yet another non-issue in their path of shallow rhetoric.
Now we have the Fifth Dog and Pony Show from the Dems feigning outrage over E-mails from the Executive Office related to Dog and Pony Show Number Four. The Dems have Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and other White House staffers in their cross-hairs on yet another non-issue. Ho-hum, yawn, Ho-hum. While any objective observer can see that there's no "there" there, this does not deter myopic Democrats who are intent on generating a manufactured frenzy thereby creating the illusion that they are "doing something".
We are seeing nothing more from the Democrats than their usual, honed, assembly-line tactics of purely partisan speechifying and posturing. This is where there's no "there" there. Calling their motives and objectives a fishing expedition is an understatement. We witness this behavior from the Democrats every time they think they have a bite on their fishing line only to reel in an old soggy boot.
Democrats will continue their Dog and Pony Shows under the false premise of "seeking the truth", "obeying the Rule of Law" and "something that the American people want". By comparison, these same premises were completely ignored, overlooked and disregarded by the Democrats during all the many real scandals, cover-ups and law breaking during the Clinton Administration. What's different about it now? Well, there's a Republican in the White House, not a Democrat. This is all it boils down to, nothing more.
Showboating and Grandstanding is all the Democrats know how to do. Prepare yourselves for an unending series of future Dog and Pony Shows courtesy of the Democrats. They have not, and cannot, deliver what they promised to their voter base last November, so they have no choice but to perform their rank and amateurish version of an elementary school adaptation of "Our Town", if for no other reason than to pull the wool over the eyes of their own voter base giving the false impression that they are "doing something".
John Adams said, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
To which the Democrats always respond, "Facts? What are those?"
1 - Michael Duffy and Timothy J. Burger, "NOC, NOC. Who's There? A Special Kind of Agent," Time Magazine, October 19, 2003 - via Wikipedia footnote #9.
2 - "Transcript of Special Counsel Fitzgerald's Press Conference," Washington Post, October 28, 2005 - via Wikipedia footnote #14.
Labels: Dog and Pony Show
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Hillary Clinton... MrsSatan
...um... Auntie Remus!
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Fun With Audio...And Crybabies
Friday, March 09, 2007
PBS-Public Television Parody/Satire:
This Short Film also Appearing and Playing H E R E.
PBS-Public Television Parody/Satire: Part One is located H E R E.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
SNEAK PREVIEW No. One
This Short Film also Showing and Appearing H E R E.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
John Edwards: Regular Guy
Saturday, March 03, 2007
The Wonderful Wonderful Wonder Years
This Video also Appearing and Showing HERE
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Democrat Relationships: Feel The Love!
This Video also Appearing and Showing HERE
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.