From SFGate's Front Page this morning:

War Debate Resurrected
















The allegations lodged against Lewis "Scooter" Libby by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald (pictured) will likely renew questions about the Bush administration's justification for the Iraq war.

I'm sorry, but just when did the Liberaleliti ever stop "questioning" the war in Iraq (or Afghanistan for that matter?) I think the only lack of questioning that I have heard is a lack of questioning stories that allege mistreatment of prisoners (what? you mean some of those turned out to be totally bogus?), a lack of questioning the true motives of groups like al Qaeda (yeah, sure, it's all about religion), a lack of questioning their own leaders (do you really think that International A.N.S.W.E.R. is just a "peace" group and not a front group for communists? Really?) and a lack of questioning the reporting standards of the "mainstream" media (wait a second, the media gets it wrong a lot of times and is biased? No way man!).

Speaking of media lies and bias, Michelle Malkin reports on biased editing and spinning at the New York Times.

Dredges?

...well, people didn't die or anything, but Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) says that George Galloway "...gave false and misleading testimony on his involvement with the U.N. Oil-for-Food program at the Subcommittee’s May 17, 2005 hearing entitled, “Oil-for-Influence: How Saddam Used Oil to Influence Politicians Under the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program.”

Mr. Galloway claims that if charged with perjury he will "...head for the airport right now and face them down in court as I faced them down in the Senate room"
I'd be careful making those claims Mr. Galloway, I mean, it's federal perjury after all if true. I find Mr. Galloways statements interesting seeing as how Senator Coleman claims he "...personally sent Galloway a letter requesting an interview, and offered to fly staff to London in order to conduct the interview. Mr. Galloway declined both offers, and instead, offered to respond to written questions. Galloway denied any involvement whatsoever in any Oil-for-Food transaction in his written responses. "

Hmmm. Curious...George?

Brian Shields of The Bay Area is Talking has produced his very first VJ assignment. I was going to post this review as a comment on TBAiT, but I've realized that I haven't posted anything in a while and others seem to have noticed (ya know, I do actually read the comments at TBAiT ya bunch of degenerate hippies (Of course I am just joking... about reading the comments, you're all degenerate hippies (since I am apparently a representative of the "right-wing" and all I figure I should starting fitting the part ;) )

On with the review:

Not a bad piece. The framing on the EFF attorney (Bankston) was a little tight in my opinion and he kept leaving the top of the frame. Also, the screen shots of the childs toy microscope were kind of pointless, they didn't bring anything to the scene after the first shot and with no explanation of the content it was just random noise.

As for the choice of story; I agree with Xerox. It's much ado about nothing. Who really cares that there might be a [turn on 1940's serial reverb effect] "SECRET CODE" in someones poorly cribbed copy of the communist manifesto? Wouldn't that fit more with the whole "The GOVERNMENT is trying to suppress you and steal your soul (er, privacy)" mentality of groups like EFF et al?


I believe the EFF would complain about people having eyes if they thought it could garner more attention for them. (of course now I am probably going to get sued by the EFF for commenting or something. Viva la Constitution! Viva la First Amendment!)

Update: Hippies can't write code:
Pinging http://www.kronnews.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/901
Problem: Server said 'This TrackBack item is disabled.'

As pointed out in the (biased as hell) SFGate, the Iraqi election commission is investigating what some are calling an "...'unusually high' numbers of 'yes' votes in about a dozen provinces..."

Strange how the MSM make a big point of possible voting irregularities in a free country, but they didn't say much when Saddam would get 99.96% or 100% of the vote.

I applaud the Iraqi people for investigating their voting practices.

Also, while researching this I found this amazing quote on the BBC from 1999 with the lead in of the article being "US Vice-President Al Gore has told Iraqi opposition politicians that the United States remains committed to the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein"[emphasis added]:

"There can be no peace for the Middle East so long as Saddam is in a position to brutalise his people and threaten his neighbours"

-Al Gore, 2000

"We would not have invaded a country that didn't attack us..."
Al Gore, 2005

Which one is it Mr. Gore?

I guess had you won the election in 2000 we wouldn't have "attacked a dictator who brutalises his people and threatens his neighbors while preventing peace in the Middle East?"

Or would we have just assassinated Saddam? Or just let some sort of proxy fight in our place? Kill Saddam but try to keep our hands clean eh?

"In some area of San Francisco, whose name I do not care to recall, there dwelt not so long ago a gentleman of the type wont to keep an unused lance, an old shield, a greyhound for racing, and a skinny old horse"

I think my Sancho Panza analog and I need to go to Altamont Pass. There is just so much pessimism, idiocy and downright lying that goes on amongst the Liberaleliti here in San Francisco that I have to wonder if it isn't something in the water to which I, and a very few others, are immune.

One simply has to read the pages at The Bay Area Is Talking or the SFGate (a startling representative of the "free media") to realize that one is truely fighting a horde of Liberaleliti who chant their mantras loud enough and long enough to get the rest of the masses sympathetically tapping their feet and mumbling their agreement because they can't hear anything else.

Orator: The Iraqi Government is invalid and has no support!
Crowd: Truely it is so
[Never mind the 8,000,000 people who voted for it in January]

Orator: The Bushies are always lying to you and everything they do is scripted
Crowd: Truely it is so
[Never mind that one of the soldiers actually involved discounts this completely]

Orator: The Turkey in Baghdad was plastic
Crowd: Truely it is so
[Never mind that just about every newspaper printed a retraction to that story]

Orator: Iraq never did anything to harm us and therefore our attacking Iraq was evil and wrong!
Crowd: Truely it is so
[Never mind that technically Germany and Hitler never attacked us either]

Orator: Iraq was a peaceful country that never attacked anyone!
Crowd: Truely it is so
[Never mind that the attack on Iraq in 2003 was really just an extension of the original "Gulf War" in 1991 when Iraq "annexed" the nation of Kuwait and as per the terms of the cease-fire agreed to complete and absolute inspections by the United Nations, complete disarmament and cessation of hostilites. Terms of the cease fire that Iraq immediately broke and violated in both act and spirit]

Orator: The United States is responsible for more terrorism than anyone else!
Crowd: Truely it is so
[Do I even need to rebut this craziness?]

The list goes on and on, each day a new "orator of the masses" chants the mantra of the day.

I think I'll go saddle up the horses

I know that I said that I would post more about the AWOL officers in New Orleans, but things change and it's now been too long since I originally posted the article to make much difference.

Suffiice it to say that about the only reason I could think to go AWOL would be that your family was in mortal danger, even then, the officers should have had the forsight to have evacuated their families before the storm.