This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Media

  • Bush commutes Libby’s sentence – so?

    First – an admission. I was told about a month ago that this would happen, by a source I can’t name. See? I keep promises. I guess I could’ve written it as a prediction a week or so ago and looked like a fricken genius, but I never got all wrapped up in the minutae of the case. I just made an off-handed comment to someone that the sentence was excessive and that the judge, Reggie B. Walton, was an asshole – that’s when my source told me the back story. So there’s still stuff I know that I’m not telling. By the way, I will tell you that Judge Walton is not an asshole – that’s all I’m saying at this point.

    But let’s get to the drama queens – like Obama;

    “This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law,” Obama said. “This is exactly the kind of politics we must change so we can begin restoring the American people’s faith in a government that puts the country’s progress ahead of the bitter partisanship of recent years.”

    We already know that Libby didn’t leak Valerie Plame’s name to Bob Novak – the reason for the whole investigation in the first place. So, what national security issue are we talking about here, Barack? I wonder if he even knows what the case is about judging by that nonsensical statement.

    “Today’s decision is yet another example that this administration simply considers itself above the law,” said Clinton of Bush’s decision to commute Libby’s sentence. “This case arose from the administration’s politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies.

    “Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House’s efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.”

    Does she think we just forgot about her first tour of the White House? Does she remember kathleen Wiley’s cat disappearing? Linda Tripp and others suffering the wrath of the IRS? And the only attempt to punish Joe Wilson for “speaking out” was made by Joe Wilson’s lyin’ mouth. Should I remind her that John Kerry dropped Wilson from his campaign website when it was proven that Wilson was nothing but a lying, self-serving primadonna?

    And the prettiest candidate ev-ver, John Edwards;

    “Only a president clinically incapable of understanding that mistakes have consequences could take the action he did today,” Edwards said. “President Bush has just sent exactly the wrong signal to the country and the world. In George Bush’s America, it is apparently okay to misuse intelligence for political gain, mislead prosecutors and lie to the FBI.

    “George Bush and his cronies think they are above the law and the rest of us live with the consequences. The cause of equal justice in America took a serious blow today.”

    Like John Edwards would know anything about being equal with the rest of us, or even anything about justice.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said: “The President’s decision to commute Mr. Libby’s sentence is disgraceful. Libby’s conviction was the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq war. Now, even that small bit of justice has been undone.

    “Judge Walton correctly determined that Libby deserved to be imprisoned for lying about a matter of national security,” Reid said. “The Constitution gives President Bush the power to commute sentences, but history will judge him harshly for using that power to benefit his own vice president’s chief of staff who was convicted of such a serious violation of law.”

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: “The president’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence does not serve justice, condones criminal conduct, and is a betrayal of trust of the American people.

    “The president said he would hold accountable anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak case. By his action today, the president shows his word is not to be believed,” Pelosi said. “He has abandoned all sense of fairness when it comes to justice, he has failed to uphold the rule of law, and he has failed to hold his administration accountable.”

    Reid and Pelosi had better check their hypocrisy meters on those statements and see how it pegs when the names William Jefferson and John Murtha are run through the meter. And it’s all hyperbole, any-damn-way.

    All of those Democrats act as if the rule of law has been tossed out the window – one guy who got railroaded by an over-excited prosecutor got an unreasonable sentence commuted. That’s it. He wasn’t even the target of the investigation – just an ancillary player.

    If they want to talk about breaches of national security and circumventing the rule of law, let’s talk about Sandy Berger and his reluctance to even meet the terms of his plea agreement. When the Democrats get their panties in a wad over that, maybe they’ll have some credibility on the Scooter Libby subject.

    The Bloodthirsty Liberal has more on the hypocrisy, Crotchety Old Bastard thinks it was a weak decision (so does the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal), Curt at Flopping Aces thinks the Left’s reaction will be pure entertainment for the rest of us, the editorial board of the Washington Post, typically a useless opinion, says that “Scooter Libby’s prison sentence was excessive, but so is President Bush’s commutation.”

    Mark Finkelstein at Newsbusters brings us the “Today” interview with Joe Wilson from this morning – as if Wilson has anything newsworthy to say about the case now. 

    Wesley Pruden gives the President “one cheer, but no more than two”;

    He spared Scooter Libby from prison, as decency demanded, but left intact a $250,000 fine, which can only be regarded as tribute to the venality of a special prosecutor and the vanity of a federal judge (both lawyers, after all).

    I guess that’s the only time that we’ll read that Libby still got hit with a $1/4mil fine.

  • So where is AP and the Washington Post on this atrocity story?

    The past few days I’ve written about poor journalism on the part of the Washington Post and the Associated Press regarding stories they’ve published about supposed atrocities that never happened – articles about Americans slaughtering innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    So where the hell are the Associated Press and the Washington Post on embedded independent reporter Michael Yon’s latest article, “Bless the Beasts and the Children“ (by way of Jewish Odysseus by way of Atlas Shrugs) about al Qaeda butchering an entire town in Iraq;

    I told the Iraqi commander, Captain Baker, that it was important that Americans see this; he took me around the graves and showed more than I wanted to see. He said the people had been murdered by al Qaeda. I made video of him speaking, and of the horrible scene. The heat and stench were crushingly oppressive and broken only by the sounds of shovels as Iraqi soldiers kept digging.

    My feelings mirror those of Jewish Odysseus;

    Mil-Blog Journalist Michael Yon [http://www.michaelyon-online.com/] deserves a Pulitzer for this story alone, the latest in a long string of superb battlefield reports.

    You haven’t seen a word about this anywhere in the MSM, have you?

    But, hey, I hear a prisoner in Gitmo was served COLD falafel this morning…Let’s send a camera-team to confront Gates!  

    Or let some legislature member in Afghanistan accuse Americans of murdering over a hundred civilians, or some anonomous Iraqi “police” officer accuse Americans of slaughtering Iraqis in their beds as they sleep and the journalists in their hotel rooms go into a writing frenzy.  

    So why aren’t there more stories that justify our actions in Iraq? Because the media is afraid that the Left will accuse them of being a tool of the Administration – the Left doesn’t want the truth broadcast to Americans (see the latest dustup about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine) because the Left looks like a pack of knuckledragging, drooling morons when the light is shown on them. And thanks to the independent journalists who actually venture out into the battle with the troops, like Michael Yon, the mainstream press looks like the Left’s lapdog.

    Well, at least Fox News has the guts to run it.

  • What passes for unbiased press these days.

    Confederate Yankee has been dealing deadly blows to the Associated Press this week, if you hadn’t noticed. A week or so ago, AP published a story about 20 beheadings near Salman Pak that Iraqi Defense Forces can’t find. It turns out that it never happened and AP’s sources were hundreds of miles away and intentionally misleading the formerly premier news service.

    Well, here’s another nugget from the AP – intentionally misinforming the world in the model of the Washington Post story I wrote about last night;

    American soldiers rolled into Baghdad’s Sadr City slum on Saturday in search of Iranian-linked militants and as many as 26 Iraqis were killed in what a U.S. officer described as “an intense firefight.”

    But residents, police and hospital officials said eight people were killed — all civilians in their homes, and angrily accused U.S. forces of firing blindly on the innocent. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki condemned the raids and demanded an explanation for the assault into a district where he has barred U.S. operations in the past.

    Hmmm. Shi-ites upset that US forces fought Shi-ite militias in their protected Shi-ite strongholds. Imagine that. And to bolster their claim that American troops are homocidal maniacs, before they carry on with the US forces explanation, the AP injects this unrelated sentence;

    Separately, two American soldiers were charged with the premeditated murder of three Iraqis, the U.S. military said Saturday.

    No agenda with adding that particular sentence there, would you say? 

    The U.S. military said it conducted two predawn raids in Sadr City, Baghdad’s largest Shiite slum, killing 26 “terrorists” who attacked U.S. troops with small arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs. But Iraqi police and hospital officials said all the dead were civilians killed in their homes.

    Can’t let the Americans tell their side of the story without interupting them, can we? And notice how the AP put the word “terrorists” in quotes – as if it was just the US forces opinion that they were indeed terrorists – despite the fact they were firing weapons at the Americans.

    “The Iraqi government totally rejects U.S. military operations … conducted without a pre-approval from the Iraqi military command,” Mr. Maliki said in a statement released by his office. “Anyone who breaches the military command orders will face investigation.”

    An American military spokesman insisted all of those killed were combatants. “Everyone who got shot was shooting at U.S. troops at the time,” said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, the spokesman. “It was an intense firefight.”

    The Iraqi officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity out of security concerns, put the death toll at eight, with 20 wounded.

    President Bush’s response should be to start packing up and moving out of Iraq. No, I’m not some Leftist anti-war nut – but if Maliki starts insisting that we approve our military operations with the Iraqis, we don’t need to bleed for his country any further. I’ll bet Maliki would change his tune fast enough.

    Sadr City is the Iraqi capital’s largest Shiite neighborhood — home to some 2.5 million people. It is also the base of operations for the Mahdi Army, a militia loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The fighters are blamed for much of the sectarian killing in Baghdad.

    In the Shiite holy city of Najaf, Sheik Salah al-Obaidi, a spokesman for Mr. Sadr condemned Saturday’s raids: “The bombing hurt only innocent civilians.”

    Oh, well, that tears it then, if Sadr’s spokesman says it was all civilians, that must be the case.

    The U.S. military statement said soldiers riding in armored vehicles “used proper escalation of force rules to engage four civilian vehicles.”

    “You start with warnings and work your way up to firing on a vehicle,” Col. Garver said. “Every structure and vehicle that the troops on the ground engaged were being used for hostile intent,” he said.

    U.S. soldiers fired a barrage of bullets at one vehicle after it failed to yield at a checkpoint, Col. Garver said. The other civilian cars were being used as a cover for insurgents, who hid behind them and fired on American forces, he said. Some of the 26 victims were in civilian cars, some had been hiding behind the cars and others had fired on U.S. troops from nearby buildings, Col. Garver said.

    But according to Iraqi officials, the dead included three members of one family — a father, mother and son. Several women and children, along with two policemen, were among the wounded, they said.

    And it would be the first time that the cowardly terrorists used innocent civilians to attack American forces, right?

    But back to the AP – why didn’t the supposed “journalists” (as if it’s someone’s opinion that these people who are write for the AP are journalists) get in their damn Mercedes SUV and drive out to Sadr City before they wrote the story and check to see who was in the morgue and the hospitals and see if they were indeed civilians?

    Of course, then they probably wouldn’t have been able to write the story the way it turned out if they’d see it with their own eyes.

  • This is journalism? (UPDATED)

    Today’s Washington Post is running a story writen by Griff Witte and Javed Hamdard entitled “100 Civilians Killed in NATO, U.S. Assault, Afghan Officials Say“ – pretty serious charge, huh? The brief on the front page says;

    Possibly 100 or more killed in a NATO and U.S.-led assault in southern Afghanistan, Afghans say.

    Well, the main story goes like this;

    Just a week after Afghan President Hamid Karzai chastised international forces for being “careless,” Afghan officials reported Saturday that possibly 100 or more civilians had been killed in a NATO and U.S.-led assault.

    I’m sure the Afghanis should be mad if NATO and the US were bombing civilians in groups of a 100. But let’s read on shall we?

    The battle in the southern Afghan province of Helmand, which was prompted by a Taliban ambush, began Friday night and continued into Saturday morning, Afghan officials said. It ended with international forces bombing several compounds in the remote village of Hyderabad.

    “More than 100 people have been killed. But they weren’t Taliban. The Taliban were far away from there,” said Wali Khan, a member of parliament who represents the area.

    The Taliban was far away. This is a member of parliment telling us the Taliban was far away. Ok, let’s see if any one else was interviewed;

    Another parliament member from Helmand, Mahmood Anwar, said the death toll was close to 100, and that the dead included women and children. “Very few Taliban were killed,” he said.

    Very few Taliban were killed – but wait the other member of Parliment said the Taliban was far, far away – so which was it. A few – or none?

    Spokesmen for the international forces acknowledged that civilians were killed in the battle, though they disputed the numbers. Maj. John Thomas, a spokesman for the NATO-led force, said the civilian death toll was “an order of magnitude less” than what the Afghan officials reported.

    Thomas said U.S. ground forces helping carry out a NATO mission had come under fire by Taliban insurgents using small arms, rocket propelled grenades and mortars. Thomas said the troops responded by firing on insurgents who were shooting from a compound and a network of trenches. U.S. helicopters and NATO bombers were later brought in for support, he said.

    Thomas said troops returned to the area after the battle and found what appeared to be civilian bodies among the dead insurgents in the trenches. “This confirms for us again that militants are willing to fire from among civilians,” he said.

    OK, so now there civilian bodies “among” the dead insurgents. That sounds like there were more fighting forces in those trenches than civilians. Civilians who happened to be going about their daily business in those trenches from which rockets, mortars and missiles were fired.

    So out of the three available scenarios, the Washington Post’s “writers” (I refuse to call these people who write stories from information they probably got over the phone “journalists”) picked the scenario least likely to be closest to the truth for their headline. Seems to me that someone could’ve gone out to the village and looked for themselves before they wrote this bogus-ass headline.

    So why would they do it? Well, so the illiterate and attention-deficit stricken “intellectuals” on the Left will write things like this;

    So, not surprisingly, the US has killed more civilians in Afghanistan in the last year than the Talaban has. link

    And I wonder what the government “officials’” reaction was to this;

    Elsewhere in Afghanistan on Saturday, three civilians were killed and seven injured when a Taliban rocket missed a NATO base in the eastern province of Kunar.

    Karzai should be lecturing the Taliban about being more “careful”, too.

    UPDATE: From CNN, of all places;

    An investigating team was sent to Helmand province’s Gereshk district, where fighting took place between insurgents and Western forces late Friday, said Dur Ali Shah, the mayor of Gereshk, and Mohammad Hussein Andewal, the provincial police chief.

    NATO’s International Security Assistance Force has acknowledged some civilians were killed in the southern battle but has said the death toll was nowhere near as high as Afghan officials have claimed.

    Because of the battle site’s remote location, it was impossible to independently verify the casualty claims. Afghan officials said fighter jets and ground forces were still patrolling the region and that the fighting continued into Saturday.

    So, if the Washington Post goofs had waited a day until this investigation was completed, they might have saved themselves from this embarassment.

  • What year is this?

    I made the mistake of reading the Washington Post this morning before I read anything else. I read about the Democrat presidential candidates debate last night here in DC (excuse me for not knowing there was a debate scheduled last night in my hometown). Anyway, I read about about some Supreme Court decision that somehow portends the end of civilization (something else I missed yesterday, apparently – probably because of the chattering class’ preoccupation with the immmigration bill);

    The forum at Howard University seemed to be a guaranteed fit for Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), the only black candidate in the race. He repeatedly discussed racial disparity, education and AIDS and used his unique status to call for greater responsibility from African Americans, one of his frequent themes. But the audience largely embraced the other seven Democrats on stage as well, applauding Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) when she called for a greater focus on AIDS research and cheering Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio) when he called for an end to the Iraq war.

    By the end of the 90-minute forum — attended by numerous prominent black leaders, including Al Sharpton and Princeton scholar Cornel West — the group had covered an array of issues, such as the genocide in Darfur and disparities in education.

    “You can look at this stage and see an African American, a Latino, a woman contesting for the presidency of the United States,” Clinton said. “But there is so much left to be done, and for anyone to assert that race is not a problem in America is to deny the reality in front of our very eyes.”

    Obama, when it was his turn, said, “We have made enormous progress, but the progress that we have made is not good enough.”

    Just hours after the Supreme Court handed down a decision restricting public school districts’ use of race in most school-acceptance decisions, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) described the ruling as “a major step backwards.” He added: “And as president of the United States, I would use whatever tools available to me to see to it that we reverse this decision today.”

    Referring to the Bush administration, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) said: “They have turned the court upside down, and the next president of the United States will be able to determine whether or not we go forward or continue this slide.”

    So, I’m thinking “Holy Crap!, the Supreme Court has refused to allow Black people into schools across the country based on their skin pigment”. But then I find out that’s not exactly true from the Wall Street Journal;

    In one of its most bitterly divided rulings of recent years, the Supreme Court sharply restricted how school districts can racially integrate their student bodies, reflecting deep disagreements over the meaning of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision.

    Yesterday’s ruling could bring sweeping change to hundreds of public-school districts, many of which must rethink the use of various race-based policies they have voluntarily adopted, including the busing of students from minority urban areas to predominantly white suburbs. Except for districts ordered by courts to remedy the ills of prior official segregation, the decision effectively outlaws assigning students to a school because of their race.

    That means more districts are likely to seek diversity based on students’ socioeconomic status. Some, such as Pinellas County, Fla., have already dropped any consideration of race.

    So basicly, the Supreme Court just ruled what it’s always ruled – no preference based on skin color, no restrictions based on skin color. So what’s earth shaking about this? Well, the Supreme Court actually ruled in favor of everyone equally, not giving any preferences to anyone. They said a lack of skin pigment is equal to some skin pigment and a lot of skin pigment – that in the Great Scheme of Things, all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.

    Someone said once;

    I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

    Honestly, I thought we’d arrived at Martin Luther King, Junior’s dream. So what are the Democrat candidates talking about?

    “You can look at this stage and see an African American, a Latino, a woman contesting for the presidency of the United States,” Clinton said. “But there is so much left to be done, and for anyone to assert that race is not a problem in America is to deny the reality in front of our very eyes.”

    Race is only a problem because Democrats see it as a problem. What, pray tell, is left to be done? Legislate away thoughts? Legislate some grandiose give-away program – based on skin pigment? The court said we’re all equal – regardless of skin pigment. I think we’ve come thousands of miles from where we were when I began my life.

    Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) described the ruling as “a major step backwards.” He added: “And as president of the United States, I would use whatever tools available to me to see to it that we reverse this decision today.”

    A step backwards from where? How? Just mouthing these empty words certainly don’t help, Mr. Pudgy. Words that promise to overturn the colorblind Constitution. Empty BS from the Empty BS Party.

    This is just another campaign issue they plan to wave like a bloody shirt – but nothing they can do anything about because there’s nothing that can be done. Remember the blue ribbon commission on Race that Bill Clinton empaneled? What did they do about race besides yammer? What could they do? Just talk – because the problem is only in some people’s minds. Usually weak-minded people at that.

    Like the guys at the Daily Kos – this guy in particular; Adam Bonin who wrote a lengthy essay on the decision today on AlterNet wherein he concluded;

    It is difficult to deny the importance of teaching children, during their formative years, how to deal respectfully and collegially with peers of different races. Whether one would call this a compelling interest or merely a highly rational one strikes me as little more than semantics. The reality is that attitudes and patterns of interaction are developed early in life and, in a multicultural and diverse society such as ours, there is great value in developing the ability to interact successfully with individuals who are very different from oneself.

    I thought we were all equal – that we’re all the same. And who gives a tiny rat’s ass whether or not we “interact successfully”, and where in the Constitution does mandate that the government has to insure that we “interact successfully”? Since when is a court required to engineer our social strata? Who are these goofballs and what law school teaches this goofball stuff?  

    And anyone who thinks Renquist and O’Connor would’ve voted differently, they’re fooling themselves – you can’t blame this on Bush. Blame it on the Constitution.

  • Warren Buffet; liar

    I’ve always admired Warren Buffet – he built an investment empire and became the third richest man in America from a paper route -but I believe he’s fallen off the deep end of liberal guilt. Speaking at a fund raiser for one of those Clintons – who knows which one – Buffet tried to attack the Bush tax cuts by lying;

     Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.

    First of all, Buffet probably (and I say probably because I don’t have access to his tax return) is counting the increase in his net worth by the increase in the value of the stock he owns – that’s not taxed until he cashes the stock out. A better explanation of Buffet’s low income tax rate at Greg Mankiw’s Blog – an economist who understands wealth and taxation better than I do, apparently.

    Buffet’s secretary, if she made $60k was taxed at 25% – that’s the marginal tax rate for a single person earning $60,000 – however, just by claiming herself as an exemption, she’d drive that down to 15.39%. If she contributed to a retirement plan it’d go down even more. The only way she’d be taxed at a 30% marginal tax rate is if her income was over $160,000 as a single filer, or $270,000 married filing jointly.

    Buffet went on to say even more stupid stuff;

    Mr Buffett said that a Republican proposal to eliminate elements of inheritance tax, which raises about $30 billion a year from the assets of about 12,000 rich families, would broaden the disparity between rich and poor. He added that the Republicans would seek to recover lost revenue by increasing taxes for the less prosperous.

    He said: “You could take that $30 billion and give $1,000 to 30 million poor families. Or should you favour the 12,000 estates and make 30 million families pay an extra $1,000?”

    Hey, Warren, I know that you’ve got yours, I appreciate that you built your fortune with hard work and perserverance, how about letting the rest of us get ours now. How about we let those 12,000 estates keep that $30 billion and use it to hire people and instead of giving them a one time wad of $1000, we let them earn $1000/month for the rest of their lives. How about that?

    If he feels so guilty about his billions, he can just give it all away – but engaging in class envy and class warfare just makes him look like one of the stupidest men in America. Maybe he thinks whichever Clinton he was campaigning for would give him a fat, wet kiss. And, if the media would get off their lazy asses and do a minute’s worth of research on everything these bozos say, I wouldn’t have to do it for them.

  • Ya’all Leftists created Ann Coulter, so suck it up

    In the 1992 election, the Democrats spent the whole time yammering about “it’s the economy, stupid” even though the economy was on its way to recovery. But the Republicans didn’t have anyone to answer the charges – they were too polite to call the Democrats liars. The 1994 election was full of charges that Republicans would starve children and throw the elderly out in the street. The 1996 election had Democrats charging that electing Dole would bring more burning Black churches in the South. And all of these charges went unanswered.

    David Horowitz, in 1998, wrote in his book “The Politics of Bad Faith” that Republicans needed to battle the Democrats using their own tactics – little did he know that Republican was already well-known  among many Conservatives. Ann Coulter wrote her first book “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” – a credible, well sourced legal brief for the impeachment of the President.

    Since the Left couldn’t dispute her facts, they attacked Ann personally and as time went on, she became nastier to counter the nasty attacks against her. Now, she’s nastier than almost anyone I knew in all my years as a paratrooper. So nasty, there’s hardly a Conservative that’ll defend her. David Horowitz, who called for a Conservative to step forward like Coulter, condemned her tactics when she was fired from USA Today in 2004.

    Hell, tonight I watched her on Larry Kudlow’s CNBC show call him an idiot! Larry Kudlow, for pete’s sake.

    And the laughable part of this latest dust-up is about a woman who used her cancer to increase fund raising for her silver-spoon-born husband who tried to run his neighbor out of the neighborhood because of the way he could afford to live and talks about Two Americas while he’s clearly in the America most of us aren’t. Edwards has used his dead son as a campaign issue, called us all morons by claiming to have taken a $1/2 million consulting job so he could learn about poverty and expected us to believe it – and operated a charity to cure poverty which so far has only helped Edwards afford his campaign.

    Elizabeth Edwards had the unmitigated gall to accuse Coulter that she “lowers the political dialogue at precisely the time we need to raise it.” The political dialogue reached its low in 1992, doll. And then this portly twit’s husband used his wife’s plea to Coulter as a fund-raising theme. Yeah, that raises the political dialogue.

    Ya know, I’m probably the only person left in America who feels sorry for Ann Coulter and the venom that she deals with every moment of every day – perhaps not undeservedly. But she’s a creation of the Left, so they should just suck it up. If she wasn’t so effective at uncovering their hypocrisy and criminal behavior, they’d ignore her. 

    And unless you’ve seen the whole clip of Coulter’s comments about Edwards’ assasination (not the clipped piece that’s been circulating) shut up until you have the whole story. Curt at Flopping Aces has the complete video.

  • Militantly militant militants

    Just checking my news today and I found this from the AP in a story that was titled “Israeli troops kill 10 Palestinians“;

    Israeli fire struck a Gaza City house, killing four people, including two militants and a 12-year-old boy, medics said. Five militants were killed in fighting with the Israelis in another outlying part of the city, Palestinians said.

    In southern Gaza, an Islamic Jihad militant was killed in a clash with troops in the town of Khan Younis. Hospital officials said a total of 40 people were wounded by Israeli shells in Gaza City.

    Two more Palestinians died in other violence. In Khan Younis, a Hamas militant was killed while mishandling explosives, and a senior Islamic Jihad member was killed in what Palestinians said was an airstrike. Israel, which usually acknowledges airstrikes, denied involvement.

    Another Palestinian militant died from wounds sustained in an Israeli airstrike on Sunday, medical officials said.

    So doesn’t anyone at AP have a Thesaurus? 5 uses of the same word in 4 paragraphs and seven sentences.

    Oh and the story was misleading – the Israelis didn’t kill Palestinians – they killed those rabid dogs that travel in that pack called “Hamas’. And since the 12-year-old boy was killed along with two “militants”, what’s to say that 12-year-old boy didn’t have his militant days, too?