What The Cheney Did He Just Say?

ThinkProgress is reporting that during a speech to Wyoming High School Vice President Dick Cheney "Lies To High Schoolers About Debunked Iraq/al Qaeda Connection" and also claimed that the United States was making significant progress in Iraq.

Yup. You guessed it, the VP is coming to a high school near you soon to lie to your children personally...

Never mind that all indicators show that ground is being lost in Iraq and that according to a new military assessment less than one third of Baghdad neighborhoods are under control three months into the so called "surge".

The Vice President also brings up Abu Musab al- Zarqawi and follows with the baseless claim that during fighting in Afganistan Zarqawi was wounded and fled into Baghdad for medical treatment, no one ever bothered to ask why Zarqawi would travel across borders and miles to seek medical treatment when there were cities much closer.

The Bush Administration has used the "Zarqawi was treated by Saddam" card as one of their lies in attempting to connect Iraq to al-Qaeda, claiming that Zarqawi had lost a leg in Afghanistan and traveled to Baghdad to get medical treatment and a prosthetic leg, possibly a gift from Saddam himself...

But let's examine this debunked claim a moment. Zarqawi would have had to have made it over the Afghanistan border into Iran without being detected, then he would have had to sneak across Iran and make it across the Iraqi border undetected. Seems like quite a feat for a supposedly injured man who should have been bleeding all over the place.

Again, no one asks how a bleeding and injured man, supposedly missing a leg makes it all the way to Baghdad from Afghanistan.

Look at it this way; in miles - (let's not even discuss the difficulties of navigating the harsh mountainous terrain in Afghanistan and Iran and desert conditions in Iran and Iraq)) this would be about the equivalent of going from Kansas to Washington D.C to get medical treatment and going directly over the Appalachians to do it. Do you think you could make it with one missing leg, in which the bleeding must be profuse? Didn't think so.

But what does it matter? We know know Zarqawi never sought medical treatment in Baghdad and it is unlikely he was ever injured in Afghanistan. Why? Because almost a year ago we killed Zarqawi, and the man had both his legs.

Going back even further we see that prior to the Iraq War, Zarqawi and Bin Laden were competitors not allies. This helps prove the United States preemptive war in Iraq has not diminished terrorism, but helped unite some extremist groups who used to be opposed to each other.

But hey, that doesn't stop the Vice President from strolling into a local high school of young, impressionable teens and filling their heads with fairy tales, now does it?

IN FACT

As Think Progress Reports :

"The implication that Zarqawi helped justify the war was thoroughly debunked last year by the Senate Intelligence Committee, then chaired by Bush loyalist Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS.)

It found:

Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and…the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. [p. 109]"

Dick Cheney proves that there are some people who will refuse to deal in the the truth and insist on dolling out lies even when contradictory evidence has been stapled to their foreheads repeatedly.

Sorry Dick, but history will never vindicate your lies, in fact history may be a crueler judge than we.

Coulter Claims Obama Lead In Polls Helps Terrorist

Of course Ann Coulter, the self described polemicist never mentions any facts to support her conspiracy theory.

Because facts are a pesky nuisance, developed by Liberals to make Conservatives look bad. That is, when Conservatives aren't busy making themselves look bad.

Coulter claimed that Newsweek was "doing more push polling for al-Qaida," during an interview with Geraldo Rivera on "At Large" because a recent Newsweek poll showed Democrat Barack Obama leading top Republican presidential hopefuls.

Coulter also indicated that she thought Newsweek would make up the poll with about as much earnest as a four year old insists there is a Santa Clause.

The hidden meaning behind Coulters statement is painfully transparent :

Conservatives fear Barack Obama, perhaps sensing he will be more difficult to defeat than Hillary Clinton. Obama's got the kind of appeal that could bring the young voters out in record masses and he offers the kind of hope many other adults are seeking after several years of Bush disparity.

It's not easy to come up with real dirt on Barack Obama, so smearing him and associating his name with terrorism (Obama-Osama) will have to do if your a Conservative. Playing up the fear of terrorism "the folks at home" feel is now a time honored technique among Conservatives.

For instance, when Keith Ellison - a Democrat who is Muslim - was elected to the House of Representatives a number of Conservatives attacked his nomination calling it a victory for the Jihadist.

Where in reality Ellison's election went unnoticed and uncelebrated by extremist. Islamic extremist are anti-Democracy and attack any other extremist groups who seem even slightly inclined to participate in a Democracy.

The attacks against Ellison that are now being leveled against Obama are just another tactic of the right wing to intimidate and mislead the Americans and make them fear their Democratic choice.

I used to be offended by Ann Coulter and all these other loose cannon Conservatives before I realized how deprived their minds were of any logical thinking and I thought what a sad place that must be. So then I began to feel sorry for them, but then I just realized how dangerous they were and stopped feeling sorry for them.

Ann Coulter in particular has the money to prove she can plagiarize a paragraph and distort the facts to sell a book that will appeal to a very strange demographic that has to be composed of white supremacist and perhaps even a few Uncle Ruckus characters.

By now it's obvious, Ann Coulter will say anything to get on TV and is working extra hard to stretch her fifteen minutes of fame into twenty. So the only real question would be : Is Ann virile enough to pull it off?

Rudy Giuliani - Married Three Times, Pro Abortion, Cross Dresser BUT HE CAN KEEP YOU SAFE.

Ahem ... Like he kept New York City safe on September 11, 2001.

"They [Democrats] do not seem to get the fact that there are people, terrorists in this world, really dangerous people that want to come here and kill us," Giuliani said. But, he said, if a Republican wins, "we will remain on offense" trying to anticipate what the terrorists are going to do and "trying to stop them before they do it."

Giuliani didn't mention that it was a Republican who was mayor of NYC when the 9/11 terrorist attacks happened, a Republican who should have anticipated terrorism because of the first WTC attack in 1993, a Republican who was him.

Giuliani also didn't mention that a Republican was in the White House when 9/11 happened, a Republican who had all but had a warning memo pinned to his shirt, that guy happened to be the President.

Giuliani also forgets to mention that Congress was also controlled by Republicans when America was attacked on 9/11.

So what was that again about Republicans anticipating terror and preventing it? I forgot.

If You Judge My Actions, You Let The Terrorist Win

"If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings," President Bush said in an interview on PBS "we have just handed those who commit suicide bombings a huge victory." and those who "judge the administration’s plan" have "just given Al Qaeda or any other extremist a significant victories."

If the standard of success is not based on the number of bombings carried out then what the hell else can success be based on?!? Should we base success in Iraq on the number of sunny days opposed to the numbers of civilians dieing in bombings?

Was Bush's brain even in the "on" position, or what?

The statement is such a black is white up is down statement that I think I need to read 1984 to better understand it.

Let me be the first to ask : How could success not be based on the number of bombings carried out? Success has to be measured in levels of violence because violence is the problem!

Wasn't the goal of the "surge" to reduce the violence in the first place? So tell me again how it's working and tell me again how more bombings means more success.

The whole "if you judge my plan you let the terrorist win" line is getting a little old, it's yet another attempt to deflect criticism for a plan that still has not proven itself to be viable.

Source of George W. Bush quote : Think Progress

Defending Imus Is Lame And A Shame
There is a fundamental difference between priviladge and right.

"Economic McCartyism" Ted Rall says of the deposition of the dreadful Don Imus. Well, I never liked Rall's cartoons anyway so it doesn't surprise me he is taking up a losing argument.

Just listen to these crybabies whine about how Don Imus should be allowed to broadcast bigotry that, well, most people just don't want to hear.

So if a rock radio station chooses to quit broadcasting a certain rocker because the listeners find it lame or offensive, is that "economic McCathyism" or is it a rejection of the product?

For one, there is no such thing as "economic McCathyism", it's a made up term for Americans who don't like boycotts on their products. They carry some kind of logic that suggests "Well, I don't care if you don't like my product, I'm going to shove it down your throat anyway."

Imus had the privilege, not the right to be on television and radio.

PRIVILIDGE, NOT RIGHT.

In America, privileges can be taken away, rights cannot be.

Imus may have been exercising his right to free speech by making such inflammatory remarks, but those who condemned his remarks and demanded his ouster were also exercising their right to free speech.

Just because speech is free in this country doesn't mean it is without it's consequences.

Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you have the privilege of being on the television or radio when you say it.

Let's not forget that Proctor & Gamble and Staples pulled advertising from the Imus show before Imus was fired. Once the advertisers start leaving the networks start losing, so let's not beat around the bush here, at the point Imus was more offensive than profitable he was out of a job.

That my friend, is not "economic McCarthyism". Companies have the right to not want their product associated with perceived bigotry and citizens have the right to voice complaints against open bigotry.

Only Don Imus is to blame in the firing of Don Imus. Imus' freedom of speech has not been infringed upon because Congress never made a law against Don Imus or what he said, READ THE CONSTITUTION PEOPLE!!

Imus' privilege of being broadcast by MSNBC and CBS may have been revoked, but his right to freedom of speech has not been revoked.

If Imus can find any advertisers willing to take him on (besides the KKK or Aryan Nation) then I am sure he will again have the privilege of using the airwaves to exercise his right to freedom of speech.

Otherwise Imus needs to get a blog where he can say any old thing he wants or fade into the background for a while and give everyone else some time to cool off.

With that said, people have the right to boycott anything they like, whether it is a product or a person. Products and people can be rejected for any number of reasons, and you can't force people to consume a product or person they don't like.

Don Imus was wrong to say what he said and he paid for his comments with his job. Imus has a long history of making inflammatory remarks about African Americans, Jews, and woman so let's cut it with the rhetoric and freedom of speech conspiracy theories.

Nancy Pelosi In A Hijab? Someone Notify The Culture Police!

Our little Republican friends were running out of ammunition to use against Nancy Pelosi's for her trip to Syria, being it that it may that a Republican delegation recently visited Syria and a Republican is traveling with Pelosi.

But now, after much effort the right wing presents...

Nancy Pelosi in a hijab!

This is the ultimate proof that the secular Democrats are colluding with Islamic extremist in an effort to rule the United States by Sharia law and hang the crescent and the star over the capital! OH, THE HUMANITY!!

Seriously though, Nancy Pelosi looks more like an poor old farmer woman from Romania than a terrorist in a hijab. I am sorry to be the one to inform the Reich Wing of that, but it's true.

But that hasn't stopped comments like the following:

"Pelosi in a Hijab. The modern Democratic leadership."

"This picture disgusts me. What message is Nancy Pelosi trying to send? Are women equal to men, or not? Why is modesty foisted only upon women? "

"FEMINIST IN AMERICA, subservient in Syria. "

"A woman must know her place when entering a mosque. … It pains the left too, I’m sure, to see the most powerful woman in America having to yield, however slightly, to a misogynistic culture’s expectations, "

Indeed, what kind message is Pelosi trying to send?

Hmm, just off the top of my head I bet the message she is trying to send is that she has respect and tolerance for the culture of the people she is visiting. Which is always a good idea when on a diplomatic mission.

A western woman wearing a hijab to a mosque is not a sign of subservience, it is a sign of respect. If a male was to enter a Synagogue it would only be appropriate and respectful for him to wear a Yarmulke. The same rules can be applied to a woman and a hijab when entering a mosque. World Bank President Neocon Paul Wolfowitz even had the "subservience" to remove his shoes when entering a mosque in Turkey.

Laura Bush wore a hijab when visiting the al-Aqsa mosque... Where were the accusations that Laura Bush was being subservient? Where was the disgust and distrust? Laura looks more authentic in a hijab than Nancy, that I can say for sure.

Look at Laura over there, dark blood red lipstick, black glasses and black hijab, she actually looks severe. She looks just like the kind of Muslim matriarch that the whole Drudge-Coulter-Malikin-Limbaugh-Hannity crowd despises. Nancy Pelosi in a hijab? She looks more like a potato farmer from Europe.

But Laura, like Nancy was only showing respect towards the people she was visiting. There is an old saying "While in Rome do what the Romans do." I suspect Nancy and Laura were doing as the Romans do, which isn't such a big crime when you think about it.

Pelosi was visiting an Omayyad mosque in Damascus in which the tomb of John the Baptist is believed to be in.

Pelosi crossed herself before the tomb, an action which should prove her Christianity to the logical. But the illogical ignore Pelosi while she makes the sign of the cross and focus in on her hijab, that despicably evil piece of cloth.

(Funny thought, in the USA it is OK to show lots of skin, the more skin you show, the better. But it is not OK to cover your skin and be modest. Interesting. What does that mean, and what does that say about American culture and sex?)

However, I do regret to inform the airbags at Hot Wind, I mean the windbags at Hot Air -- that the image of Pelosi in a hijab does not pain the left, that's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

I am sure some of the far left, those who are offended by ALL religion (including Christianity) are offended by this move.

But the base prides itself on tolerance and Pelosi wearing a hijab in a mosque is an ultimate sign of tolerance, so I am proud of Pelosi wearing the hijab in the mosque, but wearing a skirt and free hair when meeting with Syrian officials.

So, na-nana-na-bobo...

Eagles Gather For Flock Fest

(It's kind of long so grab your coffee)

In case you don't pay attention to the latest right wing conspiracy theories, let me clue you in, this one is good, and even kind of funny.

A group of right wingers who call themselves the "Gathering Of Eagles" (as pointed out by HP's Chris Kelly a group of eagles is not actually a "gathering" but a "congress") are gearing themselves up for the largest assault on American Freedom yet - an anti-war demonstration in Washington D.C. on March 17.

The Gathering claims that on this fateful date in history all hell will break lose when antiwar demonstrators deface the Vietnam Memorial and spit at war veterans. It's like the tribulations only worse for the chest thumping "Gathering of Hawks".

The only problem with this theory? Well, it's just that, a theory.

There has not been any plans made by the "radical left" for vet spitting contests or wall defacing debacles led by the "Hanoi Jane's" and "Cindy Sheehan's" who will be attending the peaceful demonstration.

So obviously the strange paranoia that "The Gathering" is suffering from is quite unfounded and quite delusional. But then again, with the "dedication" (some call it radicalism) of this group it wouldn't surprise me if some of their own "Eagles" defaced the memorial or spit at vets, just to reinforce the rest of the "flocks" point of view.

So however unfounded the conspiracy theory is, that didn't stop fellow flocker Russ Vaughn at Eagle Fest from writing an eloquent and creative poem (?) about the.. ah..umm.. huh.. umm.. imminent disaster that isn't going to happen on March 17.

I don't want to torture everyone with the simple mindedness of the entire poem, but a few lines are just screaming to be pointed out.

Linguistic genius Russ Vaughn at the Flock of Eagles or Gathering of Flocks, or Flock of Seagulls or whatever it is called wrote the following :

"You can shout and scream all you want,
On all that we'll give you a pass;
But you try some Wall-defacing stunt,
And, son, I'm gonna kick your ass."

First, I can't imagine in what world the words "want" and "stunt" would have any rhyming capability in. "Donchu be pullin' no stant" ?? Okay...

Second, it surely doesn't surprise me that a pro-war person would reduce themselves to the level of violence to prove their point, it doesn't surprise me a bit. I mean, it makes logical sense doesn't it?

Anyway, my friend Russy goes on to write in his "poem" (ahem)

"And understand you ain't layin' a hand
On our Wall you leftie mothers."

BOY! This guy has an incredible amount of insight, his writing skills are superb, I mean, all that stuff about Shakespeare being a good writer? Blasphemy! "Leftie motherfuckers" is art, it's poetry! "Ain't layin' "? That's a superior use of the English language right there.

But there is more, I can't stop now, it's just too interesting. Like, WOW, I thought people like this only existed in parodies of right wing lunatics, I didn't know they were actually real.

"And, son, you hear this loud and clear,
Don't even think about spittin'
Less you want that smart mouth busted here,
And believe me, we're not shittin'."

Oooh, more solving problems with violence! That's typical of a right winger for you. I'm glad to know that they are "not shittin'" because otherwise this whole thing could get messy...

OK, I am just going to pop this question ... Is this guy sitting in a splintered rocking chair on a dilapidated porch with a piece of wheat hanging from his toothless grin, wearing rolled up overalls splashed with mud, beat up old banjo in one hand, bottle of whiskey in the other and his shotgun leaned up against the house behind him while belting "Yah- whoo!!" somewhere? Because that is the pik-a-cher (picture in English) Russ Vaughn is painting of himself in my head.

Also, as already written there is not a vast left conspiracy to deface the Vietnam memorial, or spit on Veterans for that matter on March 17. Vaughn is just propagating anger and paranoia towards "the left" (I guess he means the majority of Americans who are now opposed to the war).

In a shift-the-blame-scapegoating tactic Vaughn also writes:

"Because of you losers we lose our wars,"

Really, who is this guy kidding? Or more accurately, who does he think he is trying to kid?

It must be himself, because last time I checked the reasons we lose wars is because we plan them poorly, have morons in charge, or have a flawed foundation for invasion - or all three.

When we win wars it is largely because we had intelligent and strategic planning and men of vision in charge and a justified foundation for war.

We don't lose wars because of protesters, but it is convenient to try to blame the protesters, isn't it? "We could have won the war if you supported it." Is a lot easier than admitting mistakes and failures, a lot easier. What the right wing ideologues fail to mention is that they had everyone support right up until the moment everything collapsed into scandal, corruption and failure. It's kind of hard to support those things, when, you know, you have a conscious.

Anyway, back to Vaughn's articulate and thought provoking "poem"

"So follow these traitors, those loser bitches,
Let them lead you to your fall;
But I promise you, son, you're gonna need stitches,
You even get close to this Wall."

More threats of violence, what a shock!

I was wrong to assume Vaughn was a harmless if ignorant hick, no, he's much more than that, more like the guy who will throw a brick through your windshield for accidentally cutting him off in traffic.

So all this talk of Vaughn, his poem, and the upcoming demonstrations (and counter demonstrations) in D.C. made me curious enough to look up the "Gathering of Eagles" on "the Internets". I had to use "the Google", but I found it, and let me tell you, it blew my mind.

Curiosity compelled me so I clicked on the link. Who are these people? Do they really believe what they are writing? If so, what planet are they from? Why do they claim to be the "Silent Guard of America's Memorials" but appear to be hosting an array of right wing conspiracy theories and talking points? Some of those soldiers must surely be liberals...

In "Answering the Call of Our Fallen" Kit Jarrell uses the cloak of patriotism to assail the left with conspiracies and fallacies such as :

"the American Left called for the defeat and humiliation of our military, even going so far as to support the barbaric hordes of Islam in their quest to destroy America." Do you hear that? Shhh... (coo-coo, coo-coo)

Yeah, I hear the Demoncrats are holding mass conversions, daily now, you know, for those of us who have decided to "support the barbaric hordes of Islam". The statement shows how little Kit Jarrell knows about "the left" or Islam.

Radical Islam is not compatible with the the Liberal left! (After all, according to the Conservative right, the radical Muslims attacked us because of our Liberal values, not despite of them). Radical Islam is, however, compatible with the values of right wing conservatism. There is no such thing as a Liberal Jihadist, they are all extremist conservatives! So to suggest the Liberals and Terrorist are in "cahoots", so to speak, is quite simple minded, their values are as opposite as the poles.

The same writer comments that :

"The college-age hippies of 1969 were now parents and grandparents, with families who didn’t have the faintest idea where Iwo Jima is and wouldn’t dream of enlisting in the “imperialist army” of their nation."

Oh, puh-leaze! Don't forget to mention the fact that the children and grandchildren of the "imperialist" war hawks wouldn't dream of enlisting in the military either, but their reasons are of cowardice and greed, not guided out of principals like the children of the "hippies".

"The antiwar crowd kept marching and declared themselves the majority."

The "antiwar crowd" did not declare itself to be the majority, the majority joined the antiwar crowd and left the ailing pro war "gathering".

The "antiwar crowd" did not grow because there is an alarming amount of anti-American citizens in this country (as the right wing likes to claim).

The "antiwar crowd" grew because successes in Iraq are few and far between, the crowd grows every time new evidence against the Bush Administrations flawed basis for war are unveiled, the crowd grows bigger when US soldiers are killed, when Iraqi children die, when we see the staggering amount of money invested and the new threats on the horizon.

But these vast right wing conspiracies, that become a way of life for some, about "the enemy at home" which blame Liberals for everything but the extinction of the dinosaurs, can get a little out of touch with reality.

Instead of undermining their Liberal antiwar "enemies" these right wing extremist validate them with their offering of assorted conspiracy theories(always a good friend of the right), violent poetry and insane ramblings tainted with endorsements of violence.

D'Souza Tha Louza

Are American Liberals to blame for 9/11 or is neoconservative mouthpiece Dinesh D'Souza inventing a right wing conspiracy theory to avoid the truth and responsibility that ultimately leads to the real reasons we were really attacked in 2001?

Ultra-Conservative Indian American Dinesh D' Souza has risen a few eyebrows and perhaps even a few fists with a new book that blames Liberals (what else?) for the attacks of September 11, 2001.

I am guessing D'Souza's next book will blame Liberals for killing the dinosaurs.

The book, "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11" should be offensive to all Americans with an ounce of decency and a sliver of logic.

But, before attacking the inaccuracies of the new book, let's take a look a D'Souza's track record of bigotry.

Though he is an Indian American and a minority himself D'Souza has the audacity to attack African Americans, who unlike he, were actually born in America.

In an older book written by D'Souza ironically titled "The End Of Racism" D'Souza wrote "Am I calling for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Actually, yes." What an appalling thesis.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination in America based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and to call for a repeal of it is to call for a return to the Dark Ages of America.

In the same book D'Souza also claims that “The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well.”

Pretty well???? I didn't realize selective breeding, routine beatings and forced labor was a "pretty well" way to be treated. Furthermore, being treated like property is perhaps one of the worst ways to be treated and perhaps on of the worst crimes to commit.

If that doesn't simultaneously disgust and disturb the reader D' Souza has also stated that he does not believe slavery was a racist institution.

Really? So that's why there were not any white slaves in America? There were African slaves, and even Native Indian slaves but I don't recall reading about the plight of the white slaves in the history books, so yes, it was a racist institution.

D'Souza must live in AmeriKKKa, not America. Because D'Souza is a minority himself I really have a difficult time understanding his inherent racism.

D'Souza also wrote Caucasians who were accused of being racist were not racist but only responding to the so called deficiencies of minorities. To me, that just sounds like a false basis for a false justification for racism, period. Actually, that sounds like something Hitler would have said.

These are some of the most heinously racist statements I have ever had the misfortune of hearing, and it is all inside of a book titled "The End Of Racism". It would have been more appropriate to title the book "The Revival Of Racism" by a guy who knows squat about America.

D'Souza's new book "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11" rolls Liberals into a mass that can alone be blamed for the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Never mind that Anti-Israel and Anti-American militant organizations that attack always declare the same reasons, Israel and Palestine, American Imperialism, American troops in the "Holy Land", "Christian Crusaders", and most recently, as with the 7/7 bombers in London who blamed their attacks on the War in Iraq.

Militant Muslim groups often claim that "the West" is in a "War against Islam" being led by "Christian Crusaders" in pursuit of "imperialism" in the "Holy Land". It's that simple!

As for D'Souza's remarks that rampant sexuality offends traditional Muslims, I will not disagree with that assertion and to a certain extent does factor into the equation, but they are the secondary, not the primary modus operandi of terrorist who are attacking the United States.

If one were to blame the terrorist attacks on Liberalism alone, which is absurd by the way, one would have to ask why very Liberal countries in Europe had never been attacked by Islamic militants.

There are counties in Europe where newscasters actually strip their clothing and gay marriage is legal - so if Liberalism and rampant sexuality were to blame it would only be natural to question why these countries had not been attacked, or even threatened.

Is it because these countries have never meddled in the affairs of the Middle East, which we have been doing quite frequently, extensively and unsuccessfully for the past six decades?

But, as written I will give D'Souza a shred of credit, to point out that yes, rampant sexuality does offend right wing militant Muslims, traditional and even moderate Muslims, it offends Christians and Jews as well.

But Liberalism is not the basis of the terrorist attacks against us, there are real reasons behind their attacks and if we are ever to put an end to militant Islam we must address the real problems and the real basis of their attacks if we are to ever hope to change the future.