If this were Baghdad, 2002...

...Stephen Colbert probably wouldn't have a tongue today.

At the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, Stephen Colbert thrilled the libs in attendance with an all guns blazing Bush-bashing routine.

According to some reports, Bush supporters and the President himself felt Colbert's schtick was a bit much.

WASHINGTON -- A blistering comedy “tribute” to President Bush by Comedy Central’s faux talk show host Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondent Dinner Saturday night left George and Laura Bush unsmiling at its close.

...Colbert, who spoke in the guise of his talk show character, who ostensibly supports the president strongly, urged the Bush to ignore his low approval ratings, saying they were based on reality, “and reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

He attacked those in the press who claim that the shake-up at the White House was merely re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. “This administration is soaring, not sinking,” he said. “If anything, they are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg.”

Colbert told Bush he could end the problem of protests by retired generals by refusing to let them retire. He compared Bush to Rocky Balboa in the “Rocky” movies, always getting punched in the face—“and Apollo Creed is everything else in the world.”

Turning to the war, he declared, "I believe that the government that governs best is a government that governs least, and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq."

...Colbert also made biting cracks about missing WMDs, “photo ops” on aircraft carriers and at hurricane disasters, melting glaciers and Vice President Cheney shooting people in the face. He advised the crowd, "if anybody needs anything at their tables, speak slowly and clearly on into your table numbers and somebody from the N.S.A. will be right over with a cocktail."

USA Today's report on the event presents a very different picure. According to its story, the President wasn't upset by Colbert's bit at all.

Colbert said the president seemed to get a kick out of the comedy.

"He was very nice. He was like, 'Good job, good job.'"

...Jeopardy's Alex Trebek, a guest of CNN, seemed to be enjoying the night: "I thought the two presidents bit was fantastic, a marvelous bit. I asked Wolf Blitzer – because he has attended about 20 of these – whether all the presidents have such a good sense of humor about poking fun of themselves, which I think George Bush does. It's a great quality."

...Actor and rapper Chris "Ludacris" Bridges was impressed with the president. "I didn't even know he could be that funny."

I wasn't there to see whether the President laughed or smiled or was ticked off. I can't explain the differing reports.

I will say that the President is clearly very gracious, and that really, REALLY bugs the angry liberals.

United 93

Saturday night, I saw United 93.

It was not a typical night at the movies.


I can’t remember the last time I was at a movie when the audience applauded at the end. That happened when United 93 was over.

I’m not sure what the people were applauding. The film-making? The acting?

Perhaps they weren’t applauding the movie at all. Maybe they were honoring the people who boarded United Airlines Flight 93 on September 11, 2001, and died fighting the terrorists.

Of course, there are no plot twists or surprises in this film. How could there be? We all know the story. The ending is never in question.

Thankfully, the film doesn’t fall into that typical Hollywood trap of turning a historical event into a sappy tale, creating lovers and heroes and demons for dramatic appeal. Instead, United 93 seems like a documentary, following the story of the fourth hijacked aircraft in real time.

More important than its realistic time frame is the way it follows the people on the plane and on the ground. A number of reviews have stated how fair the film is in that it doesn’t canonize or demonize anyone.

That’s true to a certain extent. Due to the film’s documentary style, there is an impression of impartiality. I think that’s a false impression.

Some may consider it detached and nonjudgmental. I don’t.

United 93’s writer and director Paul Greengrass’ story-telling isn’t grounded in the safety of emotional remoteness. I think he doesn’t tell his audience who to identify as the good guys or the bad guys for the simple reason that it’s completely unnecessary.

It’s clear who the heroes and the villains are. It's also frightening to acknowledge that although the horrible events of 9/11 reside in history, the threat posed by radical Islam is as present today as it was on that September morning in 2001.

I found the opening scenes to be very powerful. I could really relate to the people going about their routines like we all do, the mundane nature of “just another day.” That made it especially painful to watch, knowing that for the people on Flight 93 it would be their last day. That's another scary acknowledgment -- how incredibly fragile life is. No guarantees.

The actors playing the terrorists did a masterful job of relaying both their anxiety and fear while at the same time showing their unwavering devotion to their mission and their beliefs. The terrorists were portrayed as human, but not sympathetic figures.

They fully embraced the teachings of militant Islam. They wanted to attack America. They wanted to terrify and to kill.

When the terrorists took over the plane, I had to avert my eyes during the scenes of the brutal murders of passengers and crew members. I couldn’t look – too violent, too much blood.

For me, the most wrenching scenes were the several snippets, five or ten second segments, of passengers calling their loved ones. Again and again, passenger after passenger was shown saying that final “I love you.” Not a long dramatic speech, just a simple “I love you.”

Those most beautiful words, "I love you," were absolutely heartbreaking.

Toward the end, Greengrass did something that really highlighted the senselessness and incomprehensibility of the 9/11 attacks. He juxtaposed the passengers’ prayers, tearful recitations of the “Our Father,” with images of the terrorists mumbling their own prayers.

Here they were, the victims and the murderers, on a doomed plane, all talking to God. That is so hard to reconcile. Was God listening?

When the passengers and crew stormed the cockpit and tried to seize control of the plane, it was at once horrifying and inspiring. They knew about the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. They knew that they were aboard a suicide mission, so they fought.

I don’t think there’s any question that they were fighting to save themselves and to see their families again; but they also knew that they were battling an enemy intent on killing more Americans.

So, they banded together and chose to fight back. They chose to fight for their lives. These brave people did not surrender. They would not passively accept defeat.

In the film's final moments, amid the chaos of the struggle for the plane, the camera shifts out the window, to the field below, the green grass getting closer and closer. At the point of impact, there is silence – no thunderous crash or flames, just silence and a black screen.

Then, I could hear the sniffling of many in the theater, crying like me.

I felt similar to how I did on 9/11. Of course, there wasn’t that sort of paralysis or suffocating feeling of shock, but there was that same feeling of disbelief.

Those four merciless human beings on Flight 93, and the fifteen hijackers on the other planes, chose to kill in the name of God.

"Allahu akbar!"

"God is Great!"

THEY TRAINED, PLOTTED, AND KILLED IN THE NAME OF GOD.

I still have not come to terms with that.

United 93 is a dramatic reminder that we are at war with an ideology, one that exploits God to justify the killing of innocents.

It's a reminder that the only borders in this War on Terror are found in the minds of those that believe slaughtering non-Muslim men, women, and children is what God wants.

The film is also a tribute to the human spirit, to those brave men and women who desperately wanted to live. They did all that they could to get off of that plane alive, battling the barbarism of the terrorists. In that sense, United 93 is uplifting. It soars.

Only God knows how many lives were saved by their sacrifice.

THIS IS YOUR SOUTHERN NEIGHBOR ON DRUGS

Talk about bad timing!

Days before massive protests organized to demand that the U.S. government capitulate to millions of illegal immigrants and their supporters, the Mexican government and Vicente Fox disregard their professed commitment to the war on drugs.

MEXICO CITY (AP) -- Mexicans would be allowed to possess small amounts of cocaine, heroin, even ecstasy for their personal use under a bill approved by lawmakers that some worry could prove to be a lure to young Americans.

The bill now only needs President Vicente Fox's signature to become law and that does not appear to be an obstacle. His office said that decriminalizing drugs will free up police to focus on major dealers.

By signing the bill, Fox will also free up addicts, and consequently lead to crime that will certainly spill into the U.S.

...Currently, Mexican law leaves open the possibility of dropping charges against people caught with drugs if they can prove they are drug addicts and if an expert certifies they were caught with "the quantity necessary for personal use."

The new bill drops the "addict" requirement, allows "consumers" to have drugs, and sets out specific allowable quantities, which do not appear in the current law.

Those quantities are sometimes eye-popping: Mexicans would be allowed to posses 2.2 pounds of peyote, the button-sized hallucinogenic cactus used in some Indian religious ceremonies.

Police would no longer bother with possession of up to 25 milligrams of heroin, 5 grams of marijuana (about one-fifth of an ounce, or about four joints), or 0.5 grams of cocaine - the equivalent of about 4 "lines," or half the standard street-sale quantity.

The law lays out allowable quantities for a large array of other drugs, including LSD, MDA, MDMA (ecstasy, about two pills' worth), and amphetamines.

Right.

What a totally irresponsible move!

Just when Mexico is pressuring the U.S. to provide employment for its people and to force American taxpayers to cover their health benefits and educate them, Mexico proves that it is not a reliable ally in the war on drugs.

San Diego officials are having a fit over this, and rightfully so.

SAN DIEGO -- San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders Friday called a bill passed by Mexico's Congress decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana, cocaine and heroin for personal use "appallingly stupid."

...District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis called the bill a "critical mistake."

"For us here in San Diego, we are a global community with Tijuana and Baja California," Dumanis said. "There may be a border, but really our lives are intertwined. Now more addicts will pour into our streets."

San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne said Mexico's decision will lead to increased crime rates in the city.

Lansdowne argued that users and addicts are now going to enter Mexico for drugs and then come back across the border under the influence.

"They are the ones most prone to commit acts of violence," Lansdowne said.

Sanders said the bill could “not come at a worse time” for Mexicans during the national debate over immigration.

"I think it completely changes the arguments that are being talked about by the different sides," Sanders said. "I think this is going to stiffen the issues. I think that it's going to be necessary to have a much more secure border."

I applaud the San Diego officials for showing some backbone.

It's time for U.S. politicians -- federal, state, and local -- to quit pandering to people who have no respect for our laws.

I wonder if panderers Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschalger and AG candidate Kathleen Falk would be so receptive to the demands of illegal immigrants if Mexico sat on Wisconsin's southern border instead of Illinois.

Decriminalizing drugs, like decriminalizing illegal immigration, doesn't solve the problem. It merely signals defeat for the rule of law and a surrender of principles.

Francis Scott Key Rolls Over in his Grave

Well, I can't back that up; but I do know that Francis Scott Key's great-great-grandson Charles Key is not happy about the Spanish language rewrite of America's National Anthem.

He believes that his great-great-grandfather's lyrics should not be altered. Key says, "I think it’s a despicable thing that someone is going into our society from another country and changing our national anthem."From ABC News:

A group of Spanish music stars has presented its own take on the national anthem for Latino immigrants, in their native language, titled "Nuestro Himno" or "Our Anthem."

The idea came from music executive Adam Kidron, who sympathized with the recent immigrant demonstrations but was troubled by the number of Mexican flags in the crowd.

He hopes the new Spanish-language version of the national anthem will demonstrate Latino patriotism and encourage more American flags at the demonstrations.

"It has the passion, it has the respect, it has all of the things that you really want an anthem to have and it carries the melody," said Kidron.

Where to begin...

Let's start with the title, "Nuestro Himno" or "Our Anthem."

In the past, when artists "reinterpreted" the National Anthem, it wasn't retitled. Sure, there have been many versions of the anthem over the years, but this remake is more of a redo.

"Nuestro Himno" sends a message that is far more exclusive than inclusive.

The creators claim they are trying to show Latino patriotism. I think they do. They succeed in showing Latino patriotism, but not American patriotism.

I don't see how the new version of the National Anthem will "encourage more American flags at the demonstrations." Why would it?

If the protesters, the illegal immigrants, want to claim allegiance to America, then it's not too smart to alter the National Anthem.

The current version will likely spark debate, because it is not an exact translation. Some of the classic lyrics have been changed for rhyming reasons while other phrases were altered to soften war references. For example:

English version: And the rockets red glare, bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.

Spanish version: In the fierce combat, the sign of victory, the flame of battle in step with liberty through the night it was said it was being defended.

The LA Times has some more of the tampered lyrics.

[A]n English translation of parts of the second verse of "Nuestro Himno" reads:

"The time has come to break the chains.

Throughout the night they proclaimed, 'We will defend it!'

Tell me! Does its starry beauty still wave

Above the land of the free,

The sacred flag?"

Uh..., "break the chains"?

That's dramatically straying from the original. The National Anthem is not a protest song.

In my opinion, "The time has come to break the chains" doesn't evoke the "one nation under God" or "E pluribus unum" message that defines America.

NPR provides a complete English translation of "Nuestro Himno." Compare the versions.

A Los Angeles AP report presents differing viewpoints on the anthem debate.

Singer Andy Andy, who contributed to the recording, said on local Spanish radio station 107.5 FM, that the translation paid "careful attention to the essence" of the national anthem.

"It's a respectful translation," he said.

Shopkeeper Isala Sanchez disagreed. While she supports immigration reform and plans to stay home from work Monday, she said the translation shows "a lack of respect."

"Other countries wouldn't like it if we did that to their anthems," she said in Spanish. "I really hate it. It's a song for the United States. It would be better to make a new song for immigrants."

The problem I have with the reworked anthem is that it is disrespectful.

Of course, it's not nearly as disrespectful as the people who violate the laws of the United States.

Let's remember: A Spanish National Anthem isn't criminal, but entering the country illegally is.

I think the reason "Nuestro Himno" is striking a nerve is because the U.S. National Anthem, by definition, represents America. We are united by it. In that sense, it's a powerful symbol of who we are and what we share.

A bastardized version of "The Star Spangled Banner" could be viewed as an attack on the national soul.

Is taking such a stance lending the issue far too much importance? Possibly. Probably.

Still, I think the creators of "Nuestro Himno" chose a poor title. "We Won't Assimilate" would be more fitting.

Do illegals want to be Americans?

If they do, they need to act like it.


The Star-Spangled Banner
Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Terrorist Trilogy: The Final Installment

The trilogy is complete.

First, the latest Osama bin Laden audio surfaced on Sunday.

Second, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi put out his video on Tuesday.

Now, another terrorist mover and shaker has released a video. Al Qaeda's number 2 man Ayman al-Zawahri has rounded out the week's terrorist trilogy.

CAIRO, Egypt (AP)
-- Hundreds of suicide bombings in Iraq have "broken the back" of the U.S. military, al-Qaida's No. 2 said in a video posted Saturday _ the latest in a series of messages from the terror network.

...Al-Zawahri, an Egyptian militant believed to be hiding in Afghanistan or Pakistan, also denounced the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq as "traitors" and called on Muslims to rise up to "confront them."

He said that U.S. and British forces in Iraq had bogged down in Iraq and "have achieved nothing but loss, disaster and misfortune."

I think that al-Zawahri is a plagiarist. I'm almost positive that I heard John Murtha say on Meet the Press that the U.S. mission has only brought "loss, disaster and misfortune." Or maybe it was John Kerry on This Week. It could have been Ted Kennedy on Meet the Press. I'm not really sure.

In any event, I'm certain that al-Zawahri is stealing the intellectual property of the Democrats.

Al-Qaida in Iraq "alone has carried out 800 martyrdom operations (suicide attacks) in three years, besides the sacrifices of the other mujahedeen, and this is what has broken the back of American in Iraq," al-Zawahri said.

Al-Zawahri is the third terrorist this week to join the Dems in their assessment that the U.S. is in a quagmire in Iraq.

That's not as many as the number of retired generals calling for Rumsfeld to resign, but I think it's still worth mentioning.

...Al-Zawahri's 16-minute video posted Saturday, entitled "A Message to the People of Pakistan," was mainly dedicated to criticism of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, accusing him of undermining his own country to help the United States, Israel and India.

There was no date in the video, but al-Zawahri mentioned a "recent" visit in early March by President Bush to India and Pakistan. During the visit, Bush "gave a great push to India's nuclear program while handing out orders and instructions in Pakistan," al-Zawahri said.

"Every soldier and officer in the Pakistani military should know that Musharraf is throwing them into the burner of civil war in return for the bribes he is getting from the United States," al-Zawahri said

"For this reason I call on every soldier and officer in the Pakistani army to disobey the orders of his commanders to kill Muslims in Pakistan or Afghanistan or otherwise he will be confronted by the mujahedeen," he said.

Although this installment of the trilogy criticizes Musharraf and threatens the Pakistani military, its message is just as anti-American and anti-Israeli as the first two installments. It has all the necessary elements to make it a crowd-pleaser among supporters of terrorism.

I wonder if the terrorists' releases of audio and video will be compiled into a boxed set.

If so, will it be available in time for Ramadan gift-giving?

Rush Limbaugh Witch Hunt Ends

The media are in a feeding frenzy.

"RUSH LIMBAUGH ARRESTED"

MSNBC

CNN

ABC

CBS

FOX

Washington Post

This is highly misleading to say the least.

A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS REACHED.

Press release from Limbaugh's attorney Roy Black

The actions taken today are as follows:

• The State Attorney has filed a single charge of doctor shopping with the Court. The charge is being held in abeyance under the terms of an agreement between the State and Mr. Limbaugh.

• Mr. Limbaugh has filed a plea of "Not Guilty" with the Court.

The formal agreement between Mr. Limbaugh and the State Attorney will be filed with the Court on Monday. The terms of the agreement are substantively as follows:

• Mr. Limbaugh will continue in treatment with the doctor he has seen for the past two and one half years.

• After Mr. Limbaugh completes an additional 18 months of treatment, the State Attorney has agreed to drop the charge.

• Mr. Limbaugh has agreed to make a $30,000 payment to the State of Florida to defray the public cost of the investigation.

The headlines from mainstream media outlets scream that Limbaugh was arrested.

Here's the truth:

Limbaugh filed a plea of NOT GUILTY of doctor shopping.

There is NO ADMISSION OF GUILT by Limbaugh.

Limbaugh VOLUNTEERED to be processed as part of the settlement agreement.

There will NOT BE A TRIAL.

In 18 months, the CHARGE WILL BE DROPPED.


Keep these FACTS in mind when you read the headlines and listen to the fools on cable that don't understand what the settlement means.

This is a victory for Rush Limbaugh. This case is over. This isn't spin. This is the reality.

THERE IS NO ADMISSION OF GUILT.

How embarrassing for the Old Media!

They keep pushing the angle that Rush Limbaugh was "arrested," without emphasizing what the settlement really means.

I suppose they want to get in their last shots at Limbaugh before the story goes away.

The New Media, like Drudge, are reporting the story accurately.

NOT GUILTY.
___________________________________

PRNewswire -- A spokesman for Rush
Limbaugh said some news reports that state Mr. Limbaugh was arrested are
inaccurate.

Some in the Old Media are beginning to modify their headlines.

Too late!

Once again, the Old Media revealed their liberal bias.

GUILTY!
____________________________________

A sampling of the tolerant, compassionate Left's reaction, from the Huffington Post:

If he wants to self-medicate himself into a pleasant haze, I think that's his right as an American.

But I wonder if his intolerant audience will see it that way.
By: Optimist on April 28, 2006 at 06:45pm
_____________________________________

The cocky smiling mug shot didn't help Tom Delay and it won't help you either, you fat, worthless druggie.
By: BushBites on April 28, 2006 at 06:45pm
______________________________________

Rush Limbaugh is a proud American, a republican conservative, a staunch supporter of the IDIOT DUBYA, celebrated radio talk show host, and most of all, a FUCKING DRUG ADDICT!

This IS your republican "PARTY!"
By: OZ on April 28, 2006 at 06:46pm
______________________________________

HAHA! NEXT ROVE!
By: AlP on April 28, 2006 at 06:46pm
______________________________________

Say, these aren't very good GOP family values
By: postmastergeneral on April 28, 2006 at 06:47pm
______________________________________

Damn, only down side to this is they won't execute the Fat Bastard!
By: visualdata on April 28, 2006 at 06:48pm

DAVID GREGORY IS A JOKE

Once again, David Gregory proves himself to be a complete joke.

After President Bush made remarks about the FANTASTIC ECONOMIC NEWS, he took a few questions from the press.

True to form, David Gregory was...well, David Gregory.

President Bush used humor to highlight the abrasive, rude, ill-mannered Gregory's aggressive style.

THE PRESIDENT: David Gregory.

GREGORY: Mr. President, we're seeing some turnover and some change within your administration, and I wonder what it says about what you think is necessary to turn your presidency around at this point?

THE PRESIDENT: I think it's necessary to continue doing -- to achieving results for the American people. We've got big challenges for this country and I've got a strategy to deal with them.

The biggest challenge we face is winning the war on terror and to protect the American people. And we'll continue to keep on the offense, to keep the terrorists off balance, to find them and bring them to justice. And at the same time, we'll continue to work to spread democracy, understanding that democracy is the best way to defeat an ideology of hatred.

At home, it's important to make sure this economy continues to grow. And that's why I'm working with Congress to make the tax cuts permanent. I fully understand there are some here who would like the tax cuts to expire or raise taxes. In my judgment, that would be bad for the economy. It would hurt small business formation and hurt the entrepreneurial spirit. So I will continue to work with Congress to make these tax cuts a real part of economic life for a long time coming.

And we've also got to be wise about spending. I issued a veto threat the other day because I was deeply concerned that the supplemental was getting out of hand. And I recognize that in order for us to cut the deficit in half, we've got to keep pro-growth economic policies in place, as well as control federal spending.

I talked about the need for this country not to fear the future but to shape it. In other words, we shouldn't worry about competition from China and India. And because -- we can out-compete those countries if we're wise about what we do here at home. And one of the most wise things we can do is to make sure our children have got the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century.

I've been talking about energy independence for a long period of time. You might remember last summer I was urging Congress to pass a comprehensive energy bill so that we could deal with conservation and new technologies and diversification.

And so I'm going to keep working hard for the American people to get results.

By the way, we're in the midst of implementing now a Medicare bill, which is helping our seniors a lot. And if you -- if a senior has not signed up, I urge you to take a look at the Medicare prescription drug program, particularly if you're a low-income seniors. It's an enormous benefit, and it's a necessary benefit.

So there's a lot to do today, but we'll continue to be results-oriented.

Martha Raddatz.

GREGORY: But I asked you about your internal changes and what that says about how you think things need to be changed. They've been very public, your internal changes.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, David, I'm a results-oriented person, and my job is to achieve things for the American people, positive results that make us more secure and more prosperous. And of course, I will have people by my side that work toward that objective.

Thank you for your penetrating question.

GREGORY: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Plus, I'm not going to hire you, if that's what you were suggesting. (Laughter.)

GREGORY: I was not suggesting that. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: I would, except you can't pass the background check. (Laughter.) Okay, an unnecessary cheap shot, I take it back.

Martha.
_______________________________

HAHAHAHA

I love it.

This morning's exchange between the President and Gregory reminded me of comments made by Tom Brokaw as he talked with Don Imus yesterday.

NBC anchorman emeritus Tom Brokaw has taken the network's obstreperous White House correspondent David Gregory to the woodshed, warning him not to let his relationship with brand new White House press secretary Tony Snow devolve into a foodfight.

"David and I have actually talked about this," Brokaw told radio host Don Imus on Thursday.

"I would succumb to this from time-to-time," the veteran newsman recalled. "You get into that bubble in the White House press corps and you begin to think that it's between you personally and the press secretary. Or that you're showing off for your colleagues in the room."

...Still responding to Imus' question about the volatile reporter, Brokaw indicated that he thought Gregory had crossed the line.

"That's not the function of the White House press corps. The function of the White House press corps is to represent the country and ask the questions that they deserve to have asked and to get answers for them. And not to make it some kind of a personal exchange."

Gregory obviously hasn't taken Brokaw's advice.

The Troubled U.S. Economy

It's getting more and more difficult for the Democrats to use the economy as an issue in the 2006 elections, with claims of the country's dismal economic performance under the Bush Administration.

The good news of the economy's increasing strength is trouble for the Dems.

WASHINGTON (AP)
-- Casting off an end-of-year lethargy, the U.S. economy bounded ahead in the opening quarter of this year at a 4.8 percent pace, the strongest growth spurt in 2 1/2 years.

The latest report on the economy, released by the Commerce Department on Friday, showed that consumers, businesses and government all did their part in terms of robust spending and investment to spur a healthy pace of growth in the January-to-March quarter.

In the Rose Garden this morning, President Bush discussed the economy.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much for joining us today. I'm joined my two top White House economic advisors. The reason why is because we've had some very positive economic news today: the Commerce Department announced that our economy grew at an impressive 4.8 percent annual rate in the first quarter of this year. That's the fastest rate since 2003. This rapid growth is another sign that our economy is on a fast track.

The good news comes on the heels of two other important economic indicators reported earlier this week: new home sales surged forward by nearly 14 percent last month; consumer confidence reached its highest level since May of 2002. This confidence is largely driven by the many jobs being created in our country -- 5.1 million since August of 2003.

What's good for America is bad for the Dems.

Will the UN Give a Damn?

"The Iranian nation won't give a damn about such useless resolutions."

--MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, Iranian president


The Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), Iran's official source for information, is typically quick to post reports on its website.

Not surprisingly, the outlet took its time on getting the word out on the International Atomic Energy Agency's report on Iran's nuclear program.

From IRNA:

ElBaradei presents his report to IAEA on Iran dossier

UN nuclear watchdog Chief Muhamed ElBaradei presented his report on Iran's nuclear program moments ago on Friday to IAEA Board of Governors.

In accordance with the regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the report has to be distributed initially among the thirty five members of the IAEA Board of governors.

The United Nations Security Council asked the IAEA Director General on March 29th, 2006, to present a comprehensive report on extent of Tehran's abiding by its February demands within thirty days to the IAEA Board of Governors, and simultaneously to the UNSC in New York.

That was all, until just moments ago.

IRNA finally updated its stale report.

Chief of the Vienna based UN nuclear watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei said in his report on Friday that Iran had presented a proposal for setting a timetable for its nuclear cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors.

According to informed sources at IAEA here, Tehran has made its latest proposal conditional with the term that Iran's nuclear dossier would remain `totally' at the IAEA, be surveyed within its safeguard, and not referred to the UN Security Council.

The report says Tehran had failed to comply with Friday's UN [d]eadline to end enrichment activities.

ElBaradei has also noted that Iran has limited the span of its cooperation with the IAEA.

He said the Agency had been unable to make progress in its efforts to provide assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.

Iran has announced that it would in that case present its cooperation time schedule maximum within three weeks to the IAEA.

The news in this regard has not been confirmed by official sources.

Needless to say, IRNA's presentation of the "facts" puts a dramatically different spin on the release of ElBaradei's report than what the Western media are offering.

From the Associated Press:

The International Atomic Energy Agency said Friday that Iran has defied a U.N. Security Council call for a freeze on enriching uranium and its lack of cooperation with nuclear inspectors was a "matter of concern."

President Bush said "the world is united and concerned" about what he called Iran's "desire to have not only a nuclear weapon but the capacity to make a nuclear weapon or the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon."

The eight-page report, obtained by The Associated Press, said that after more than three years of an IAEA investigation of Iran's nuclear program, "the existing gaps in knowledge continue to be a matter of concern."

"Any progress in that regard requires full transparency and active cooperation by Iran," said the report, written by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei.

...But Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said no Security Council resolution could make Iran give up its nuclear program.

..."Today, they want to force us to give up our way through threats and sanctions but those who resort to language of coercion should know that nuclear energy is a national demand and by the grace of God, today Iran is a nuclear country," state-run television quoted him as saying.

Bush said he was not discouraged by Iran's vow to continue despite global pressure, and while he has refused to rule out the possibility of military action against Iran, he emphasized the pursuit of diplomatic efforts.

"I think the diplomatic options are just beginning," he said in Washington.

At the United Nations, Western nations promised to act urgently to introduce a new Security Council resolution next week to demand that Iran abandon uranium enrichment.

John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said "the United States is ready to take action in the Security Council to move to a resolution. ... We hope that we can get council action just as soon as possible."

Iran is being bullied by the West.

Iran is being fair and reasonable by proposing a "cooperation time schedule" to the IAEA.

That's Iran's propaganda.

What's really in ElBaradei's report?

The report said Iran's claim to have enriched small amounts to a level of 3.6 percent _ fuel-grade uranium as opposed to weapons-grade enriched to levels above 90 percent _ appeared to be true, according to initial IAEA analysis of samples.

Uranium conversion _ an activity linked to enrichment _ "is still ongoing," said the report, adding that more than 120 tons have been converted over the past eight months. Were it used for weapons, that amount would be enough for more than 15 crude nuclear bombs, according to experts.

In one of the few recent developments in the IAEA's inquiry, the report concluded that Iran used undeclared plutonium in conducting small-scale separation experiments.

"The agency cannot exclude the possibility ... that the plutonium analyzed by the agency was derived from source(s) other than declared by Iran," the report said. Plutonium separation is one of the suspect "dual use" activities that could be used for a weapons program.

But the agency was stonewalled by Iran's refusal to give more information on other key issues _ details of its centrifuge programs that are used to enrich uranium, information on drawings that show how to form fissile uranium into warheads, and apparent links between Iran's military establishment and what it says is a civilian nuclear program.

The report formally served notice that Tehran had shrugged off a 30- day deadline to meet council demands. As such, it opened the way for further council steps, including the potential threat of sanctions and military action if Iran continues to defy the international community.

What now?

I think Ahmadinejad's confidence and the country's defiance is grounded in guarantees from Russia and China that they've got Iran's back.

Furthermore, I'm afraid it's all but certain that Iran will acquire the bomb, whether through its own programs or via nations with major economic interests in Iran.

I suppose there will be the usual dance by the UN -- demands for transparency and cooperation, timetables, deadlines.

And as sure as the sun rises and sets, there will be noncompliance by Iran, with Russia and China remaining committed to Iran's right to pursue a peaceful nuclear energy program.

In the meantime, madman Ahmadinejad will keep insisting that Israel must be eliminated, inciting militant Islam to rise up.

And what will leaders in the U.S. do?

Dems will focus on ripping the Bush Administration for its supposed corruption. They will put all their energies into discrediting President Bush. They will do everything they can to paralyze the White House.

We should be presenting a united front. Instead, our enemies know that they can exploit the divisions in America. Russia and China can assume that President Bush is so weakened and faces so much opposition that they can dismiss him without facing any long term consequences.

And Iran acquires nuclear weapons.

DAVID BEAMER GETS IT RIGHT

David Beamer's piece for the Wall Street Journal is a must read.

As the father of Todd Beamer, one of the passengers and heroes aboard United Airlines Flight 93, he encourages people to see the new film, United 93, because Paul Greengrass and Universal "got it right."

Mr. Beamer writes:

There are those who question the timing of this project and the painful memories it evokes. Clearly, the film portrays the reality of the attack on our homeland and its terrible consequences. Often we attend movies to escape reality and fantasize a bit. In this case and at this time, it is appropriate to get a dose of reality about this war and the real enemy we face. It is not too soon for this story to be told, seen and heard. But it is too soon for us to become complacent. It is too soon for us to think of this war in only national terms. We need to be mindful that this enemy, who made those holes in our landscape and caused the deaths of some 3,000 of our fellow free people, has a vision to personally kill or convert each and every one of us. This film reminds us that this war is personal. This enemy is on a fanatical mission to take away our lives and liberty--the liberty that has been secured for us by those whose names are on those walls in Battery Park and so many other walls and stones throughout this nation. This enemy seeks to take away the free will that our Creator has endowed in us. Patrick Henry got it right some 231 years ago. Living without liberty is not living at all.

The passengers and crew of United 93 had the blessed opportunity to understand the nature of the attack and to launch a counterattack against the enemy. This was our first successful counterattack in our homeland in this new global war--World War III.

Mr. Beamer gives a wake up call to those who prefer to gloss over the nature of the enemy and the global nature of the War on Terror.

There are those who would hope to escape the pain of war. Can't we just live and let live and pretend every thing is OK? Let's discuss, negotiate, reason together. The film accurately shows an enemy who will stop at nothing in a quest for control. This enemy does not seek our resources, our land or our materials, but rather to alter our very way of life.

Mr. Beamer nails it.

We aren't at war with a country. We are at war with an ideology.

He concludes:

May the taste of freedom for people of the Middle East hasten victory. The enemy we face does not have the word "surrender" in their dictionary. We must not have the word "retreat" in ours. We surely want our troops home as soon as possible. That said, they cannot come home in retreat. They must come home victoriously. Pray for them.

As I said, Mr. Beamer's column is a must read.

United 93 is a must see.

The Left embraced Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, mainly because Bush was depicted as the enemy. It validated their hate.

I wonder how they will respond to United 93, and the depiction of our real enemy.

Will they be able to handle the truth that Mr. Beamer so eloquently relays?

Sadly, I doubt it.

Those on the Left are so blinded by hate and so hungry for power that they are willing to deceive themselves and the public. They are willing to ignore the truth.

It's unconscionable.

More Feingold Fund-Raising

Russ Feingold's latest move to keep all that cash coming in is an amendment about troop redeployment.

Tending to the needs of the far Left, Feingold intends to introduce "an amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill that requires the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq by December 31st, 2006... The emergency supplemental, which is currently being considered in the Senate, includes funding for ongoing military operations in Iraq."

Read Feingold's press release.

(Excerpts)

“Our country desperately needs a new vision for strengthening our national security, and it starts by redeploying U.S. forces from Iraq,” Feingold said. “Our military has performed valiantly in Iraq, but the indefinite presence of large numbers of U.S. forces there tends to weaken our ability to fight the global terrorist networks that threaten us today.”

In June 2005, Feingold became the first U.S. Senator to offer a resolution calling on the President to offer a flexible timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. When the President failed to provide any suggestion of when U.S. forces would redeploy, Feingold jumpstarted the issue by suggesting the end of 2006 as a target date. In November 2005, 40 Senators voted in support of an amendment including language crafted by Feingold that called for a flexible timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

“Our current path is unsustainable,” Feingold said. “While this amendment recognizes the need for certain U.S. forces to be engaged in counter-terrorism activities, the training of Iraqi security services, and the protection of essential U.S. infrastructure, it also recognizes that the President’s current strategy in Iraq is undermining our nation’s national security.”

Gee, will a cut and run, retreat and defeat strategy in Iraq bolster our nation's national security?

Setting an arbitrary timetable for troop withdrawal was idiotic when Feingold suggested the December 31, 2006 date last August.

It's still idiotic.

Yesterday, "Gen. George Casey, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, called the recent selection of new Iraqi leaders, including incoming Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a major step toward a partial withdrawal of U.S. troops."

As the top U.S. commander in Iraq suggested today (April 26) that the United States would soon reduce the number of troops in Iraq, Pentagon planners said to ABC News that they hoped to pull more than 30,000 troops out by the end of the year, and possibly by as early as November.

The reductions depend on political and security progress in Iraq.

In a surprise visit to Baghdad, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld hailed progress toward the formation of a new Iraqi government as a "turning point" that would enable the United States to turn over more responsibility to the Iraqis.

While the Pentagon plans to reduce troop levels, those reductions will not be based on political expediency, grandstanding, and high profile gestures to bring in campaign contributions, like Feingold's amendment.

No firm troop withdrawal date is possible. It's irresponsible. It's typical Feingold.

It's also disgusting that he's tying his amendment to an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to supply funds for our troops.

Does Feingold really want to undermine the funding?

I guess he does.

He seems to care more about collecting his own campaign funds than supporting our military men and women.

The bottom line: Feingold should not be exploiting the funding for our troops to benefit his personal political future.

Typical Feingold.

What does Herb Kohl think about this?

According to his office, Kohl doesn't support Feingold's measure, but he thinks the Bush Administration should present a plan to bring the troops home.

Typical Kohl.

Enemies of Peace

Two siblings of Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni, have been murdered in the past two weeks.

How utterly senseless!

How evil!

BAGHDAD, Iraq-- A sister of Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi was killed in a drive-by shooting in Baghdad Thursday, police said.

Mayson Ahmed Bakir al-Hashimi was shot by unidentified gunmen as she was leaving her home Thursday morning in southwestern Baghdad, said police Capt. Jamel Hussein.

It was the second killing in al-Hashimi's immediate family in two weeks. On April 13, his brother, Mahmoud al-Hashimi, was shot dead while driving in a mostly Shiite area of east Baghdad.

...The new Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, made a show of unity with his Kurdish and Shiite colleagues, calling for Iraq's insurgency to be put down by force.

Al-Hashimi shrugged off a videotape by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in which the al-Qaida in Iraq leader tried to rally Sunni Arabs to fight the new government and denounced Sunnis who cooperate with it as "agents" of the Americans.

"I say, yes, we're agents. We're agents for Islam, for the oppressed. We have to defend the future of our people," al-Hashimi said at a news conference with President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, and his fellow vice president, Shiite Adil Abdul-Mahdi.

"We believe that Iraq's interest now is to normalize the situation and maintain stability, as well as to impose security and peace by force," he said.

These methods of intimidation are inhuman.

Assassinating the family members of the Sunni vice president, in hopes of derailing a new government in Iraq, is absolutely sick.

Even more disturbing is the realization that there are people who consider these killings to be acceptable and celebrate them.

Those are the ones counting on the U.S. and coalition partners to lose our will, to cut and run.

They would probably echo John Kerry's remark from the 2004 campaign, saying that it's time for "a regime change in the United States."

I'm sure the terrorists (or if you're Michael Moore, the "freedom fighters") would welcome that.

It's Jail Time!

The Democrats' illegal tactics to suppress the Republican vote in Milwaukee and influence the 2004 presidential election are back in the news.

The four Democratic Party workers, the tire slashers of twenty-five rented vans intended to transport voters to the polls on Election Day 2004, are going to jail.

In a bold and highly appropriate move, Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Michael Brennan threw out the plea deal agreement made in January that would have allowed the four criminals to avoid any jail time.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Calling the vandalism more than harmless hijinks, Brennan admonished the four men, including the sons of two prominent Milwaukee politicians, for disenfranchising voters. The judge said he had received letters from Milwaukee County citizens upset over the crime.

"They see you tampering with something they consider sacred and that’s the ballot box," Brennan said during a two-hour sentencing this morning.

Michael Pratt, 33, and Lewis Caldwell, 29, were each sentenced to six months in jail while Lavelle Mohammad, 36, got five months and Sowande Omokunde, 26, got four months. Each was also fined $1,000. They will be eligible for work release and were allowed to surrender to begin their sentences within two weeks.

Pratt is the son of former Acting Mayor Marvin Pratt and Omokunde is the son of U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.)

..."This case has to be an example of what happens if you interfere in voters' rights," said Brennan.

I agree completely.

The criminal actions of the four men were meant to disenfranchise Milwaukee voters. It would be a major mistake to let them off with a slap on the wrist.

Finally, someone in Milwaukee is doing something to uphold the integrity of elections in the city, and in effect, preserve the value of every citizen's vote.

District Attorney E. Michael McCann and Mayor Tom Barrett have preferred to dismiss the issue of voter irregularities and election corruption, considering it a minimal matter and not worthy of serious attention.

Judge Brennan, on the other hand, determined that he would use his position to ensure that justice was done in the name of protecting the voting rights of Milwaukeeans.

By handing jail sentences to the four criminals, Brennan showed that he would not take part in allowing Milwaukee to remain fertile ground for voter suppression.

He put all other Dem operatives, and Republicans as well, on notice -- DON'T MESS WITH MILWAUKEE'S ELECTIONS.

Outside the courtroom Marvin Pratt shook his head and mentioned the three fired Milwaukee police officers recently acquitted in the Frank Jude Jr. beating.

"Isn’t it funny - in the city of Milwaukee you can beat a man half to death and get exonerated and here you’ve got four men who committed a property crime" and are sentenced to jail, said Pratt said.

Brennan said Pratt and Caldwell got longer terms because they have prior criminal convictions – Pratt was convicted in 1996 in a hazing incident while he was a University of Wisconsin-Whitewater student and Caldwell was convicted of causing injury by drunken driving. Omokunde received the lightest punishment, Brennan said, because of his remorseful remarks to the judge during sentencing.

Omokunde told the judge that the 2004 presidential election sharply divided America but that no matter how divisive the election, no one had the right to commit vandalism.

"As a child I was taught honesty by my family and by my teachers. Your honor, I crossed the line," Omokunde said, as his mother watched from the front row of the courtroom gallery.

Obviously, Omokunde's apology paid off. Although he took part in a crime, he accepted responsibility for his actions and was remorseful. I guess Gwen Moore, other family members, and teachers can be proud of him for that; but I do wonder whether his apology stemmed from sincere regret or a calculated move.

Now, let's examine Pratt's comment.

It is really, really lame on a number of levels.

First, he's playing the race card. That is utterly irresponsible for anyone to do, but particularly for a former elected official and a community leader to pull.

Personally, I'm outraged that at this point no one has been held accountable for the brutal beating of Frank Jude, Jr. Hopefully, federal prosecutor Steve Biskupic will see to it that the individual or individuals responsible for Jude's beating will pay for it.

That, however, is irrelevant to the crimes of Pratt's son and the three others.

Because the three officers were acquitted in the Jude trial, does that mean that others found guilty of crimes should not be penalized appropriately?

Because Jude has not seen justice YET, does that mean that judges should shirk their responsibilities to the public?

Also, the officers are under a federal investigation now. I disagree with Pratt's claim that they've been "exonerated." The case is far from closed.

It's disturbing that Pratt is passing off what his son and Gwen Moore's son and the other two did as some sort of minor property crime.

Slashing the tires of twenty-five vans intended to take Republican voters to the polls is not a minor offense.

It's voter suppression.

As the former Acting Mayor of Milwaukee, Pratt's reaction to his son's sentence is disgraceful.

Maybe the jail time is just what that little prankster Michael Pratt needs to keep him from getting involved in the disenfranchisement of voters again.

Alec Baldwin Flips Out -- Again!

Supposedly, Alec Baldwin, out-spoken critic of Republicans, gets very offended when anyone refers to his personal life and family, especially his divorce from Kim Basinger.

Recall the recent incident when Baldwin stormed out of the studio when he was sitting in with Brian Whitman during his March 26 radio show.

Baldwin tangled with Sean Hannity and Mark Levin when they called in to challenge him.

Among the "pleasantries" exchanged:

BALDWIN: Listen, Sean - you incredibly ignorant boob from Long Island ...

HANNITY: Oh, ouch, Alec.

BALDWIN: No, no, no, you've spoken, let me talk, Sean. Cause you've been spewing your ...

HANNITY: You're a third-rate Hollywood egomaniac.

BALDWIN: You're a no-talent, ignorant fool from Long Island. You should go back to building houses in Hempstead.

LEVIN: Why was your [former] wife [Kim Basinger] so pissed off at you, anyway?

WHITMAN: Now, c'mon guys.

BALDWIN: OK. We're done. [Gets up and leaves the studio]

WHITMAN: Come back. Come back. Alec? They're gone. Alec? Alec has walked out of the studio. Alec, please come back.

Baldwin addressed the incident on his blog at the Huffington Post.

Baldwin wrote:

After some back and forth between myself and Hannity, most of it predictable, Levin made a comment connected to my divorce proceedings. I turned to Whitman, who knew that I was due to depart the show no later than 8:30 PM New York time anyway, and told him I had to go. I thought that Levin, whoever he may be and whatever code he does or does not operate by, had crossed a line and I was under no obligation to continue in that vein.

Today, the New York Post has an EXCLUSIVE!

AN ACCLAIMED New York theater actress has quit the Off-Broadway play "Entertaining Mr. Sloane," charging that the volatile behavior of the show's star - Alec Baldwin - has "created an unhealthy and oppressive situation" on stage and off.

Jan Maxwell, who won rave reviews for her performance in Joe Orton's black comedy, wrote in an e-mail to a friend that Baldwin's frequent temper tantrums - including putting his fist through a wall because the air conditioning wasn't high enough - also caused her to fear for her "physical safety, mental health and artistic integrity."

...Baldwin, responding to Maxwell's charges, said the actress "has been unhappy" in the play from the beginning for reasons that "only Jan's doctor knows."

He said she never bothered to learn her lines correctly, complained about her role and was "indifferent at best" to the needs of the rest of the cast.

..."For her to pin all that on me is unfair," Baldwin said. "You'd think she was on the payroll of my ex-wife's divorce lawyer, pushing every button you could find," he added, referring to his ugly divorce from actress Kim Basinger.

WHAT?

I thought Baldwin considered Mark Levin's relatively innocuous comment "Why was your wife so pissed off at you, anyway?" to be SO over the line and inappropriate that he was forced to renege on his obligation to be a guest on Brian Whitman's show, and he was compelled to leave the studio immediately.

Now, Baldwin raises his divorce proceedings himself when criticizing actress Jan Maxwell.

That's a bit inconsistent to say the least. Apparently, when it suits his needs, Baldwin has no qualms about referencing his messy divorce.

Of course, for Baldwin to claim that it's off base to bring a public figure's family into the discussion is extremely hypocritical.

His 1998 appearance on Late Night with Conan O'Brien, when he said that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde should be stoned to death and his family killed, is testament to that.

Baldwin ranted:

"If we were living in another country, what we, all of us together, would go down to Washington and stone Henry Hyde to death, stone him to death, stone him to death! Then we would go to their house and we'd kill the family, kill the children."

Oh, I don't know. Do you think that Baldwin's suggestion that Henry Hyde's family and children be stoned to death was a tad over the line? Just a little?

Check the Huffington Post soon. I wouldn't be surprised if once again Baldwin uses that friendly forum to air his grievances and defend his erratic behavior.

I really think that Baldwin is a prime candidate for an anger management program, before he hurts himself or someone else.

Hypocrisy is Blowin' in the Wind

Greenpeace is unhappy with Ted Kennedy.

From the Cape Cod Times:

You'd expect Greenpeace to lampoon plenty of politicians as enemies of the environment.

But Ted Kennedy? Sure enough, the activist group known for its flair for drama hammers the liberal Bay State senator - and Cape Wind opponent - in new ads being shown in states nationwide in the days leading up to a congressional vote that could doom the Nantucket Sound wind farm.

In the 30-second spot, a cartoon Kennedy looms over the water like a Japanese movie monster, pounding wind turbines as they sprout from the water, and barks, "I might see them from my mansion on the Cape."



...The ads will run in the home states of several key lawmakers in the days leading up to the vote - an $8.7 billion Coast Guard bill that could make the Nantucket Sound wind farm vulnerable to state veto.

..."We've targeted the Senate because we need leaders to stop this amendment before it can even be voted," said Kate Smolski of Greenpeace.

...Why are they bashing Kennedy? Well, the Hyannisport homeowner is a well-known Cape Wind opponent, citing concerns about the federal process.

What's more, though, a spokesman for U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said Stevens inserted the language because Kennedy told him to, according to an Alaska newspaper.

A Kennedy spokeswoman denied the Massachusetts senator wrote the amendment, but conceded his opposition to Cape Wind is not likely to change.

Hot air and Ted Kennedy -- Same old, same old.

Al-Zarqawi -- The Video

The face

It seems that jealousy may be rearing its ugly head among Islamic terrorists.

First, Osama bin Laden puts out an audiotape.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi answers that with a videotape. Apparently, he didn't want to let bin Laden steal the spotlight, so he grabbed the world's attention by showing his face -- a first.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi revealed his face for the first time Tuesday in a dramatic video in which he dismissed Iraq's new government as an American "stooge" and called it a "poisoned dagger" in the heart of the Muslim world.

The video, in which he also warned of more attacks to come, was posted on the Internet only days after a breakthrough in Iraq's political process allowing its Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders to start assembling a government.

It also followed a high-profile audiotape from Osama bin Laden and seemed a deliberate attempt by al-Zarqawi to reclaim the spotlight following months of taking a lower profile amid criticism of bombings against civilians. It was his first message since January.

...[It] appeared to be an attempt by the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq to rally Iraqis and foreign fighters to his side at a time when U.S. and Iraqi officials are touting political progress as a setback to insurgents.

Al-Zarqawi appeared in the 30-minute video, which he said was made Friday, dressed head-to-toe in black with a black scarf around his head and a beard and mustache.

He seemed healthy, shown in one scene standing and firing a heavy machine gun in a flat desert landscape that resembled the vast empty stretches of western Iraq, where he is believed to be hiding.

Not quail hunting

He delivered his statement, sitting inside with an ammunition vest hung from his neck and an automatic rifle propped nearby.

America's leader, President Bush, has been called a trigger happy cowboy, a saber-rattling monster, and a terrorist.

He doesn't dress the part, like al-Zarqawi.

When Bush addresses the American people, I've never seen him wearing an ammunition vest.

Also, when Bush speaks from the Oval office, there are usually family photos visible behind him, not an automatic rifle.

Just an observation.

Al-Zarqawi addressed Sunni Arabs in Iraq and across the Arab world, warning that their community was in danger of being caught between "the Crusaders and the evil Rejectionists," the terms used by radical Sunnis for the Americans and the Shiites.

"God almighty has chosen you (Sunnis) to conduct holy war in your lands and has opened the doors of paradise to you ... So mujahedeen, don't dare close those doors," he said. "They are slaughtering your children and shaming your women."

In other words, al-Zarqawi is saying that God wants Sunnis to kill themselves in order to kill others. He's urging them to commit murder while committing suicide.

God almighty.

Any new government _ "whether made up of the hated Shiites or the secular Zionist Kurds or the collaborators imposed on the Sunnis _ will be stooges of the Crusaders and will be a poisoned dagger in the heart of the Islamic nation," he said.

I take it al-Zarqawi has some misgivings about a new government.

He trumpeted the success of the insurgency, saying "when the enemy entered into Iraq, their aim was to control Iraq and the area. But here we have been fighting them for the last three years."

Quagmire.

He sounds like John Murtha and those anti-Rumsfeld retired generals.

He addressed President Bush, telling him, "By God, you will have no peace in the land of Islam."

"Your dreams will be defeated by our blood and by our bodies. What is coming is even worse," he said.

Al-Zarqawi is pushing for American retreat and defeat, though he didn't set any timetable for troop withdrawal.

He differs with John Kerry and Russ Feingold on that point.

...The footage showed al-Zarqawi and about two dozen insurgents undergoing combat training together.

In another scene, he sat indoors with masked lieutenants and a man identified in a caption as the insurgent commander for Iraq's western province of Anbar. The men, sitting on traditional Arab cushions and mats, were discussing strategy over a large map spread on the ground. Only his face was shown.

How fascinating! A glimpse behind the scenes.

So that's what planning the deaths of innocents looks like.

What extraordinary access for the maker of the video!


Story time!

...Tuesday's video was issued under the aegis of the Mujahedeen Shura Council, whose logo appeared on the screen, along with the black flag logo of al-Qaida in Iraq.

I don't like all those logos. They clutter up the screen. They're annoying. Al-Zarqawi should consider a more stripped down style next time. He should keep his audience focused on his face and his gun rather than distract the viewers with logos.

Visually, I give the video a thumbs down. The production values are very low and rather embarrassing.

On content, I give it two thumbs down. We've heard it all before. Stale. Very stale.

Yom HaShoah

The gates of Auschwitz, with the inscription "Arbeit Macht Frei" (Work sets you free)

OSWIECIM, Poland (DPA) -- Thousands of Jewish teenagers from around the globe completed the solemn 3-kilometre "March of the Living" Tuesday between the notorious Auschwitz and Birkenau Nazi death camps, which claimed up to 1.5 million lives.


Children subjected to medical experiments in Auschwitz

The mournful wail of a shofar, or Jewish ceremonial ram's horn, sounded the beginning of the march, which coincided with Israel's Holocaust Remembrance Day, honouring the 6 million Jews who fell victim to Nazi genocide during WWII.

Close to 1,000 Polish youths joined some 6,000-7,000 Jewish teens in the procession, formally the 15th March of the Living.

Former Israeli prime minister and 1994 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shimon Perez headed the march, which began with all participants, including Holocaust survivors, passing through the infamous black iron "Arbeit macht frei" gate at Auschwitz.

...Up to 1.5 million people, mostly European Jews, perished at the twin camps between 1940 and 1945. They were built by Nazi Germany in the occupied Polish towns of Oswiecim-Brzezinka. Poles, Roma and Soviet prisoners of war were among its other victims.


A pile of the victims glasses at Auschwitz

Many participants marched Tuesday wrapped in blue-and-white Israeli flags emblazoned with the six-pointed Star of David, others touted flags from their home countries including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Hungary, Poland and the United States.

The march culminated with Jewish Kaddish prayers for the dead, speeches and special music near crematoria ruins inside the former Birkenau camp. The event went ahead under heavy security.


Sorting the shoes of victims in Auschwitz

...German-born Pope Benedict XVI plans to honour Holocaust and WWII victims at the camp on May 28 during a visit to Poland scheduled for May 25-28.

Sirens wailed across Israel Tuesday morning as the country came to a standstill to commemorate the victims of the Nazi genocide directed against the Jews.


The furnaces of Krema II in Auschwitz

Israel's Holocaust Memorial Day began Monday night with a ceremony at Jerusalem's Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial Centre when six Holocaust survivors lit beacons honouring the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust.

In 2005, the United Nations designated January 27, the day the Auschwitz death camp was liberated in 1945, as International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Israel, however, has traditionally marked it on the 27th day of the Jewish month of Nissan, one week before Independence Day, to symbolize the birth of the Jewish state from the ashes of the Holocaust.

___________________________________

"Some 60 years have passed since the end of World War II. Why should the people of Germany and Palestine pay now for a war in which the current generation was not involved?"

"We say that this fake regime (Israel) cannot not logically continue to live."


--MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, Iranian president

He Stays

From ESPN:

Brett Favre informed the Packers on Tuesday that he will definitely play the 2006 season in Green Bay, league and team sources have told ESPN's Chris Mortensen.

Favre shared his decision with general manager Ted Thompson and head coach Mike McCarthy in a telephone conversation on Tuesday morning, the sources said.

Finally, a decision.

I'm glad the waiting is over; and Brett Favre will be playing with the Packers one more season.

The announcement seems somewhat anticlimactic. I think it was clear that he wasn't ready to retire.

I certainly couldn't bear the thought of him playing for another team. That would have been the worst case scenario.

Now, it's up to Thompson and McCarthy to give Brett a worthy supporting cast of teammates.

I'm optimistic about the 2006 season, though I admit that my judgment is clouded.

(I predicted that the Packers would go 9-7 last year.)
__________________________________

Read more here and here.

UPDATE: In a one-sentence news release Wednesday morning, the Packers confirmed Favre's decision.
"The Green Bay Packers are very pleased that Brett has come to this decision, and look forward to a successful 2006 season," general manager Ted Thompson said.

TONY SNOW

It's official.

FOX News is reporting that Tony Snow will be the new White House press secretary, replacing Scott McClellan.

"I expect to see him at the podium in just a few days, in the press room at the White House," Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard and a FOX News contributor, said Tuesday.

...Barnes said if Snow is the next press secretary, he would be a good fit with the White House press corps.

"He's a major media figure, he's someone people know all over the country," Barnes said.

Barnes added that Snow would likely offer greater access to the president than McClellan did.

"I think what he'll bring is greater access to the president, he will be a press secretary who spends a lot of time with the president," Barnes said. “I think reporters in the press room are going to see a press secretary who fights back very toughly."

"If I were to take a job like that, no, I wouldn’t come in there and try to beat them up. But on the other hand, you have to stand your ground, you have to know what the facts are and you’ve got to know your brief," Snow said.

I would go bonkers if I had to deal with that White House press corps.

Just the thought of facing Helen Thomas and David Gregory and Terry Moran and the others on a daily basis makes me nauseous.

I think it's one of the most difficult jobs in the Administration.

Good Luck, Tony!

Bad Days for McKinney

In addition to her altercation with a Capitol Hill police officer, Cynthia McKinney has had to face some more trouble.

I don't think she can blame the latest on racial profiling, and I don't think Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte will be able to help her.

After an interview with Atlanta's WGCL-TV, the testy McKinney left, but her microphone was still on, picking up her comments.Here is a partial transcript of the interview and its aftermath.

Question: Has anyone asked you about your confrontation with the Capitol police officer?

McKinney: Actually you, media people, are the only ones who are asking about that.

Question: I'm sure you thought about this – potentially someone might ask you about this, outside of the media, about the confrontation – what would your response be, how do you explain it to the people of DeKalb County?

McKinney: Well, actually no one has asked me other than you and so ... I talk to my constituents about the things that are on their minds ...

Question: Do you think the incident will affect your chances for re-election?

McKinney: You're talking about the incident I'm talking about issues.

Question: You want to talk about issues, has the confrontation made it harder for you to focus on the issues? Has it been a distraction?

McKinney: You're a distraction because that seems to be all you want to talk about – but people here understand that my representation is much larger than any discreet incident.

(OFF CAMERA, WITH MIKE STILL ON:)

Oh crap, now you know what? They lied to Coz and Coz is a fool for believin' 'em. [Referring to aide Coz Carson]

(BACK ON CAMERA, SEATED:)

Anything that is captured by your audio while I'm not seated in this chair is off the record and is not permissible to be used – is that understood?

WGCL's assistant news director Mike Machi made no apologies about airing McKinney's off camera comments. He also insisted that McKinney knew that the reporter was going to question her about the assault incident.

Although this "McKinney uncensored" story is embarrassing for the congresswoman, in terms of significance to her political future, it doesn't begin to compare with the ongoing grand jury investigation into her attack on a police officer.

On that front, things aren't looking any better today for Cynthia McKinney.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- More House aides have been served with subpoenas to testify in the grand jury investigation of an incident last month where Rep. Cynthia McKinney hit a Capitol Police officer.

Staffers from four congressional offices, in statements read on the House floor Tuesday, announced they would comply with subpoenas issued by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

The offices of Reps. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., and Barbara Lee, D-Calif., confirmed that the subpoenas were related to the March 29 incident where McKinney, a Georgia Democrat, entered a Capitol building unrecognized by the officer on duty and then hit him when he tried to stop her.

...The other two subpoenas went to aides to Reps. Lois Capps, D-Calif., and Donald Payne, D-N.J. Capps' office would not comment on the purpose of the subpoena and there was no immediate response from Payne's office.

Subpoenas were previously issued for aides to Reps. Sam Farr, D- Calif., and Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich. Troy Phillips, senior legislative assistant to Farr, witnessed the incident and testified about it before the grand jury on April 18, Farr's press secretary, Jessica Schafer, said Tuesday.

The officer involved in the incident, Paul McKenna, testified before the grand jury within the past week, the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call said Tuesday. McKenna has said he asked McKinney three times to stop. After she refused, the officer reportedly placed a hand on her and she hit him.

McKinney's timeline of the "Capitol Police Incident," posted on her website on April 14, needs to be updated.

DRAMATICALLY.

If a Republican were the alleged assailant, you know that the lib media would be drooling over every detail of the investigation. They would be giving it priority coverage. Instead, details only slip out here and there, no feeding frenzy.

As far as I know, even the "demonic" Tom DeLay never hit an officer.

FactCheck.org Slaps Quack Feingold's "W"

This is too good.

FactCheck.org has done an analysis of "W" -- Feingold's disgraceful web ad, put together by his Progressive Patriots Fund.

Read the video's transcript.

Advisor: So Mr. President, how's our commander in chief feeling these days?

President (off-screen): Yeah, I'm fine, fine.

Advisor: Oh, you're a lot better than fine. The war's over like you said. Missions accomplished Georgie baby.

President (off screen): Huh?

Advisor: I'm sorry, that probably doesn't seem appropriate for the king of the United States. Yes I said "King." Think about it. You don't have to settle for just being President GW. The war still got everyone running scared. They'll go along with whatever you say. Forget the rules and quit treating the Constitution like it's set in stone. For starters, we should be eavesdropping on anybody who has the nerve to disagree with you - court order or not.

President (off screen): What?

Advisor: It's not domestic spying George. It's terrorist surveillance.

President (revealed as George Washington): Break the law? Ignore the Constitution? What you propose goes against the very things we stand for. As President of these United States, I would never condone that.

Feingold (voiceover): Our country hasn't stood for this kind of abuse of power for over two hundred years. Let's not stand for it now. Support the Progressive Patriots. We can fight the terrorists without breaking the law or sacrificing our freedoms. Authorized and paid for by the Progressive Patriots Fund.

The radical, foaming at the mouth, fringe Lefties consider this video to be a masterpiece, and an accurate reflection of reality.

FactCheck's review of the ad, in effect, turns the hose on Feingold and the liberal loons.

From FactCheck's summary:

Sen. Russ Feingold's leadership PAC sponsored an Internet video making an unfounded suggestion that President Bush is being urged to eavesdrop "on anybody who has the nerve to disagree with [him] - court order or not."

A Feingold spokesman says the ad is a parody. Funny or not, it makes an accusation for which there's no evidence.

Feingold himself says in the video that "our country hasn't stood for this kind of abuse of power in 200 years." We think he's forgetting such things as FDR's forced internment of 120,000 Japanese-Americans in World War II, and Lincoln's summary jailings of Confederate sympathizers.

More of FactCheck's check of the facts:

The ad concludes with Feingold's voice saying, "Our country hasn't stood for this kind of abuse of power in over 200 years. Let's not stand for it now."

Feingold may be forgetting his history. President Lincoln threw people in jail without charges during the Civil War, including members of the Maryland legislature and at least one former member of Congress from Ohio. Franklin Roosevelt moved 112,000 Japanese Americans out of their homes and held them in internment camps during World War II. They had support at the time but would be considered "abuses" by most today. In 1988 Congress declared that the WWII internments constituted "fundamental violations of the basic civil liberties and constitutional rights" of citizens. The wartime measures of Lincoln and FDR were far more serious that warrantless eavesdropping on overseas conversations.

Also, it's not clear to us what Feingold means by "this kind of abuse." If he means warrantless wiretapping of political opponents, as his ad seems to imply, then we'd like to see some evidence. If his ad is really a parody as his spokesman says, then we wonder why Feingold isn't laughing. Perhaps he doesn't get his own joke.

Feingold and his rabid followers are exposed as complete quacks.

Earlier, I said that "W" was a big mistake for Feingold. It revealed that he had really gone over the edge with his involvement in this fringe PAC.

He is so drunk with the far Left's approval, that he's destroying the last shreds of any credibility that he has managed to retain.

Perhaps FactCheck's analysis will prompt Feingold to step back and help him to realize that he is painting himself into the far Left corner of the room.

That's not a wise long term strategy.


The joke's on you, Russ.
(Hat tip to Charlie)