At last! The Dems have an Iraq war plan

I was about to log off to go work out when I came across the following info that I felt compelled to post about:

Desperately trying to move away from the widespread belief that the Democratic party – on the verge of being completely taken over by stark-raving Bush-hating anti-war nutroot moonbats – has become the party of cut and runners, DNC Chair Howie Dean, in a stunning display of candor, revealed tonight to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews exactly what the real Dem plan is for Iraq.

Greg Tinti has the must-read part of the transcript. Here’s a sneak peek:

MATTHEWS: How about in a year? How about in five years? How about in 10 years? Can you narrow it down?

DEAN: No. I think the big difference between the Democrats and Republicans on this one is we know we shouldn‘t be there. The Republicans insist on being there. And furthermore, if you‘re one of the 61 percent of Americans who disagrees with the president, the vice president and the president think you‘re a sympathizer with Al Qaida. This administration is looking more and more ridiculous every day.

MATTHEWS: Let me question your position: You say not right away.

What‘s to be gained by us staying in that country another six months?

DEAN: We need to withdraw carefully and thoughtfully. As you know, we‘re talking about redeploying our troops. We‘re talking about keeping a force in some country in the Middle East to maintain, to deal with the terrorism problem that the president‘s problems have created.

So I don‘t think we‘re talking about a precipitous withdrawal.

But I think that most Democrats would agree that we ought to be out of there by the ‘08 elections.

MATTHEWS: Well, what‘s to be gained by staying? I still don‘t get your point. You‘re saying we shouldn‘t get out now, so you‘re saying we should stay.

DEAN: What I‘m saying—no…

MATTHEWS: Why should we stay in Iraq? I don‘t get the point.

DEAN: No, no, Chris, I‘m not, of course, making any such—as you know very well that I‘m not arguing that we should stay in Iraq.

Howie D reveals even more later in the interview … make sure to read it all.

More: Pelosi’s on a similar wavelength – not so much on Iraq, but on the ‘strong on security’ angle. Apparently next week’s talking points have been issued early.


It is official

Check the Sitemeter (the last thing you see on the lower left column of this page). Tomorrow, the ST blog will hit 400k visits. We’ve come along way, ya’ll :)

Speaking of the Sitementer, Iwas just checking it in order to view the referring URLs of who was visiting, and I see my blog is coming up on an, ahem, interesting link list for certain search terms. Scroll down and you’ll see a link to a post from yours truly. My blogpost is currently number 8 on that page. Eek. I’ll never fully be able to comprehend search engines.

Anyway, it’s time to kick back and relax. Take it away, Ms. Norah Jones:

How terrorists use our own media against us – part II

Malkin’s all over the latest in fake photography coming out of the war between Israel and Hezbollah. Post snips won’t do it justice, so just click here to read all about it.

Here’s the key link from her post: The Red Cross Ambulance Incident: How the Media Legitimized an Anti-Israel Hoax and Changed the Course of a War. It’s a devastating and detailed analysis of how Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon have utilized the super-power of the media in an effort to help their ’cause.’

PM Update: Bob Owens slaps around the Greg Mitchell, the editor for Editor and Publisher. Mitchell has written a couple of pieces recently advocating that media should actively work to undermine President Bush, and defending war photographers against widespread blogosphere criticism.

Sidenote: Owens will be on the same blogging panel as yours truly (along with Wizbang‘s Lorie Byrd and Sam from Sam’s Notes) at the Carolina Freedomnet 2006 conference on October 7th in Greensboro, NC.

Fri AM Update I: *SIGH*:

Inquiry Opened Into Israeli Use of U.S. Bombs


My God!

There is nothing – absolutely nothing– that rocks my world more than to hear a strong conservative male passionately go off on the utter moral bankruptcy of moonbat liberals, especially on the issue of the war on terror.

Who am I talking about? One Mark Steyn. I did not get to leave for lunch today at the 8-5 so I missed the show (and AM radio reception in my office is awful), but Allah oops, make that Ian, thank goodness, has a small audio segment of Steyn as he filled in for Rush today.

You’ll dig it. He digs freedom. He digs America. I dig Steyn.

I’ve never heard him speak before, but I’m very glad I did today.

Once again, here’s that audio link.

To segue into a semi-related topic, there have been some discussions in the blogosphere this week about people’s looks and whether or not it’s a good idea to ‘use’ them to help sell your book/blog, etc. While Steyn is easy on the eyes to yours truly, it’s what he says that really counts. You can be the most fantastic looking person in the world and it will not get you far if you don’t have the brains to go with them (with the exception of Hollywood and the modeling industry). Hot Air proves this every week with the gorgeous Michelle Malkin at the helm doing Vents, and they proved it this week as well with the lovely Mary Katharine Ham and Bethany guest-Venting. These gals look great, and they’re smart as hell, too. But even if they weren’t ‘all that’ it wouldn’t change a thing about what they’ve said in their vlogs. Nice looks just makes things more interesting, and heck – might entice people who otherwise wouldn’t tune in to do just that. And maybe those people who’ve tuned in because of that will learn something.

Chris Hitchens, for example, is not someone I’d look twice at if I saw him on the street – assuming for purposes of discussion that I didn’t know who Chris Hitchens is. But listening to him debate, reading what he’s written, if I did see him walking down the street and recognized him, I’d trip over my own feet to talk to him (that is, if my knees didn’t turn to jello first) Whether the looks are there are not, at the end of the day it’s what’s said that is important. And the passionate deliveries from the likes of Hitch and Steyn provide guarantees that these two really do believe in what they’re talking about.

To me, that rocks. Gotta love it. Gotta appreciate it.

Steyn or Hitch*. I can’t decide who kicks moonbat liberal bootie better.

Lastly, with all this talk about passionate conservative males, I have one final thing to add: Goldstein’s Vent debuts tomorrow :D

*Footnote: Yes, I know Hitch couldn’t techinically be classified as a ‘conservative’ but he sure sounds like one.

Update: Here’s what you need to do when you know Steyn’s gonna be on a talk station. The song is Autograph‘s “Turn Up the Radio” \:d/ :

Thursday open thread

I had originally put the Weds and Thurs open thread together, but decided to create a separate thread for Thursday since the other open thread is so far down on the page.

Here’s my contribution: The best cat commercial – EVER.

(Thanks to Cav X)

What up in your world?

BTW, if you’ve been having trouble posting comments the last couple of days, please email me and let me know. I’ve had to do a little more blacklist ‘tweaking’ and I’m afraid a few legit comments might have been caught up in it.

PM Update: Gosh, where is everyone today? Is it something I said …? :-b

Smackdown, Althouse style

Blogger and University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse lays the law down on US District Court Judge Anna Diggs recent ruling against NSA wiretapping. Professor Althouse writes:

TO end her opinion in American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency — the case that enjoins President Bush’s warrantless surveillance program — Judge Anna Diggs Taylor quoted Earl Warren (referring to him as “Justice Warren” not “Chief Justice Warren” as if she wanted to spotlight her carelessness): “It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of … those liberties … which makes the defense of the nation worthwhile.”

As long as we’re appreciating irony, let’s consider the irony of emphasizing the importance of holding one branch of the federal government, the executive, to the strict limits of the rule of law while sitting in another branch of the federal government, the judiciary, and blithely ignoring your own obligations.

So often, we’ve heard complaints about “activist” judges. They’re suspected of deciding what outcome they want, based on their own personal or ideological preferences, and then writing a legalistic, neutral-sounding opinion to cover up what they’ve done. That carefully composed legal opinion makes it somewhat hard for a judge’s critics to convince people — especially anyone who likes the outcome — that the judge did not decide the case according to an unbiased legal method of analysis.

Read the whole thing.

Hat tip: ST reader Fat Tone


Pluto gets a demotion

And the universe weeps

You know, just because Pluto doesn’t meet all the qualifications for “planet status” doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be a planet. I think Pluto is being discriminated against by the overly-agressive International Astronomical Union. Pluto should be given “victim” status accordingly – if that happens, this could become a key issue in the fall elections, as the Democrats would have the chance rally around yet another helpless ‘victim.’

Pluto, we hardly knew ya:

Pluto and its moons - photo courtesy of the AP

Update 11:01 AM: Heh.

Will George Allen have to tattoo an apology in blood in order for Dems to ‘forgive’ him?

This is getting beyond ridiculous:

Republican Sen. George Allen personally apologized yesterday for remarks he made to a young Democratic campaign worker nearly two weeks ago.
Allen phoned S.R. Sidarth at the University of Virginia, and they spoke for three or four minutes, Sidarth said.

“He said he realized that I was offended through comments I had made to the media,” Sidarth said.

“I’m glad he did the right thing and called me and apologized to me. I’m still not sure why it took the senator so long to talk to me. On the whole, he did the right thing.”

Probably because he was so busy apologizing to you several times in the national media:

The call followed a series of public mea culpas , including one heard across the country Tuesday on a conservative radio talk show hosted by commentator Sean Hannity.

“I take full responsibility. I’m not offering any excuses because I said it, and no one else said it,” a somber-sounding Allen told Hannity’s audience of more than 12 million listeners. “It’s a mistake. I apologize, and from my heart, I’m very, very sorry for it.”

Allen also apologized Tuesday at the Greenspring Village retirement community in Springfield, saying “from the deepest part of my heart, I’m sorry and I will do better.”


The term “macaca” refers to a genus of monkey and is considered an ethnic slur in some cultures. After Democratic challenger James Webb’s campaign posted Sidarth’s video on the Internet, the incident became national news and has left Allen on the defensive. The senator had issued a public apology and had said he was sorry at other recent events. Political observers said Allen appears to be trying to put the controversy behind him with more fervent expressions of regret.

Sidarth’s response to Allen’s call:

Sidarth said Allen told him that the apology was “from his heart.”

“His main point was he was sorry he offended me,” Sidarth, a fourth-year University of Virginia student, said in an interview later. “He realized how much he offended me from the comments I made in the media.”


Sidarth, who had been assigned by the Webb campaign to follow Allen on a swing through Southwest Virginia, said he asked Allen why it took him so long to apologize personally.

Allen said he had expected to see Sidarth on the campaign trail again and had wanted to apologize in person, Sidarth and Wadhams said.

“I still have some questions about why it took so long, but, yes, he did the right thing,” Sidarth said. Asked whether he thought the apology was sincere, Sidarth declined to comment.

Oh dear. Let’s hope the poor victimized Sidarth is sleeping better now that the Senator has personally called to apologize to him. I’m praying for Sidarth’s sake that those “questions” that he “still” has about why it “took so long” to answer are answered so he can move forward because right now it seems like this is so painful for him that he’s too distracted to be an effective campaign volunteer for Allen’s Democratic opponent James Webb. /sarcasm

At a fundraiser for Allen attended by the President, some Democratic loyalists protested:

[…] about 50 Democratic activists protested outside a Fairfax County fundraiser for Allen headlined by President Bush. As Bush arrived in Virginia last night, Democrats waved signs that included phrases such as “Hey, George, macaca is a bad word.”

Isn’t this just typical for Democrats? I swear, these guys would not know how to act if they did not have a ‘victim’ to rally around and a Republican to crucify at the altar of racial politics.

I do not mean to downplay any perceived insult/slur. I know in some cultures what Allen said is considered a racial slur, but not all of them. Whatever. But the man has apologized how many times now? How many more? Why does Sidarth claim to still have “questions” as to why it took the Senator “so long” to call him? Will Senator Allen have to to take out a full page spread in an India newspaper (a la Senator Trent Lott’s pandering appearance on BET back in December 2002) apologizing to Sidarth in order for the ‘outrage’ over this ‘incident’ to fade away? Or will tattooing an apology in blood be the solution?

And again, where are the apologies for these instances of racial demagoguery, instances that are far more routine than the media wants you to know? Will the media ever hold prominent minorities accountable for their racially divisive comments? After all, it’s the media who are supposed to be the watchdogs over our government so they can keep Americans informed of what’s happening, right?

Ok, enough rhetorical questions for one post. I know the answers.

PM Update: Hello, HotAir readers :)