Cuomo, Equivocator
Tim Russert interviewed former New York Governor Mario Cuomo last night. Cuomo, who's hawking a book on Lincoln, said a lot of stupid shit, but the following remarks, which I have fisked for your enjoyment, struck me as particularly insipid (italics mine):

So, yes, Lincoln took liberties he shouldn't have, the way President Bush is trying to take liberties now that he shouldn't have.

Liberals lie because the truth is too burdensome. They would like us to believe that there has been rampant censorship, mass arrests, and a huge surge in spying upon the American people. But all that's garbage. There's obviously no censorship in a time where a filthy liar like Michael Moore (whom Cuomo is shilling for) can release a two-hour propaganda film insinuating that the President is working in collusion with our enemies to enrich themselves and overthrow democracy.

Nor have there been mass arrests of innocent Americans ---just the arrests of people who are suspected of actual collusion with Muslim terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaeda. Is the civil rights crowd so far gone that they can't even see the wisdom in detaining terrorist sympathizers? Ask real Americans, who realize that we are in a war, whether they care that some Muslim troublemaker is being held without access to counsel.

And as for the G spying on us, I think it's safe to say that, if we are suspected of some sort of wrongdoing, that's something they've been able to do for quite a while. The saving grace? The vast majority of us aren't suspected of anything wrong. You think the FBI gives a rat's ass about Aunt Gladys' phone conversations with her neighbors? Get real. And slippery slope this.

And that's what the Supreme Court just about told him ---uh, I'm shocked that a Supreme Court that handed him the election, heh, you know, retreated sufficiently back toward objectivity that they were able to give, to give him a slap on the wrist.

It always comes back to the 2000 Election, doesn't it? The casually observed, fully ingested belief that the President is illegitimately the President. Cuomo is just as irresponsible as any other McAuliffite tapeworm in the Democratic Party with respect to this. As I say, liberals lie because they can't deal with the truth, which is that George W. Bush won every recount in the State of Florida and, therefore, all of that state's electoral votes. It was only because of the machinations of the DNC and the Florida Supreme Court that the nonsense of counting undervotes by constantly changing standards was ever entertained. But the trauma has been too great. They cannot believe they lost to the Cowboy from Crawford.

As for the Supreme Court's recent decisions granting more rights to these terrorists and terrorist sympathizers, it is not a "slap on the wrist," Mario. It will become a huge liability and hindrance to our efforts to successfully prosecute this war. And it would prove to be so even if your man gets in.

But I think Lincoln was wrong. I think Roosevelt was wrong, and I think it's a mistake to give them a pass because of the wartime excuse.

The old "wartime excuse" ploy, eh? Why would a President undergo the political risks and costs of making any abrogations of even a few people's rights if it weren't for the exigencies of war? What a lame-ass.

But I think Lincoln had a better excuse than Bush does because, while terrorism is a big problem, it is not a threat to this nation's survival. It's a threat, but it is not a threat to our survival. Lincoln was, was dealing with the threat to survival.

This is irresponsible as hell. It sounds a whole lot like the traitor Michael Moore's opinion that the deaths of the 3,000 victims in the atrocities of 11 September 2001 were not all that statistically significant in a nation of 280 million. After all, we only saw the World Trade Center disintegrate into rubble and the Pentagon erupt in flames. We only saw our entire nation's airspace close down for a couple of days. No effect at all on travel or tourism or America's economic and national confidence in general.

Cuomo, you are a joke. An overrated, liberal joke. I hope you remember your statement when we are next attacked on our own soil, you equivoacting turd. Can you imagine how much worse it would be if the Islamofascists have a nuke or some anthrax or sarin gas to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans?

So, I think they're both wrong, uh, I think Lincoln is less wrong.

I think it's a real blessing that your brand of pie-eyed, Leftist crapola never got past New York and my TV, you wretched sop.

Wall to Wall Horseshit
The World Court has ruled that the wall erected by the Israeli Government to protect its citizens on the West Bank is illegal, discriminatory, and must come down. Naturally, Arafish and the Car Swarm People are ecstatic:

The Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories and in Diaspora rejoiced and took to the streets to celebrate justice, following the advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that deemed the Israeli Apartheid Wall illegal.

Throughout the Palestinian provinces, massive demonstrations were organized to condemn the Wall and to assert on adopting the ICJ's advisory opinion by a resolution from the UN General Assembly and Security Council.

I don't know how effective this wall has been in meeting its purpose, which is to keep out car bombers and other kinds of terrorists, but it must be effective to some degree because it is helping to concentrate Arab movement into Jewish Israel into fewer and fewer points of access, terrorist or not. And since Arab terrorism against Jews in Israel has declined dramatically over the past 18 months or so, it is not unreasonable to make a connection between the two. (And, of course, the fact that the leaders of these savages are being smeared on the pavement every so often has also helped to quell their violence.)

Regardless, the World Court ---a front of judgement for the United Nations--- has once again stuck its nose in the business of Israeli sovereignty and security, proving that they are unconcerned with the rights of Jews to be safe from Arab savagery. After all, does the World Court have anything to say about the United Nations souping up the fence around their headquarters in Manhattan?

The United Nations plans a $21 million security upgrade at its New York headquarters in light of attacks on U.N. installations over the past year, including a bombing in Baghdad that killed 22 people, a spokesman said.

The improvements are to include a higher fence and new gates, improved outdoor lighting, additional closed-circuit television cameras, vehicle barriers and an electronic system for controlling access, according to U.N. documents.

Security for corrupt "diplomats" and immunity-abusers, not for Jews trying to live their lives in peace.

Laughable Rationales
Don't you love Teresa Heinz' explanation of why she converted from the Republican to the Democratic Party? It was just 18 months ago, she says, when her great disappointment at how Georgia Senator Max Cleland was defeated led her to change her affiliations. (Apparently, Cleland's patriotism was questioned beyond Ms. Heinz' ability to deal with it.)

The first comparison that came to my mind upon hearing this laughable rationale was Jack Ruby's explanation for why he shot Lee Oswald. You know: to spare Mrs. Kennedy the grief of having to return to Texas to testify at the trial of her husband's murderer.

Don't forget: Teresa Heinz is an incredibly wealthy woman. There is absolutely no question that she remains a Republican because it is inconceivable that she would willingly part with the millions more in taxes she would have to pay every year through higher rates and lost loopholes were her own husband to become President.

Populism my ass.

The Two Multimillionaire Leftists on the Democratic ticket preaching Two Americas is a farce. At least Bush and Cheney aren't going to pretend that they're not rich.

Limousine Liberals
Have a look at Thomas Sowell's take on the contrivance of the Kerry-Edwards ticket. He is not impressed.

Selecting Senator John Edwards as a vice-presidential running mate was more image-making. Senator Edwards has had few, if any, achievements during his one term in the United States Senate, and savvy political observers question whether he would have been re-elected if he had decided to run again for the Senate. But he brings more image -- a more lively and engaging image -- to spice up John Kerry's dullness with his own more gushing sparkle.

Just as Senator Kerry's long-ago military tour of duty in Vietnam is exploited politically today, so Senator Edwards' working class origins are being similarly exploited. But John Edwards has long since grown rich as a lawyer suing for millions of dollars in medical malpractice lawsuits.

This ticket is not much for ideological balance, is it? Presumably, that is what Kerry was looking for before when it was clear that he wanted John McCain to be his running mate. Yet this should tell us something about Kerry: here's a guy whose Senatorial voting record is extremely liberal, but who is so intent upon getting to the White House that he was willing to team up with a guy who is a moderate Republican ---and largely considered a thorn in the side of the consevrative wing of the GOP.

Why would Kerry have wanted that? Because he knows his own undeniable liberalism is not going to appeal to Middle America once they find out about him. (And they will. The DNC Convention is only a couple weeks away, and I very much doubt that his bland, platitudinous nonsense is going to sell.) So what does Kerry do instead? Pick a guy whose record in government is so brief and inconsequential that one can make of it whatever one wishes to. But Edwards is also very much a limousine liberal. And when you have a couple of multimillionaires with the balls to stand before the country and talk populism, it's gotta be a joke.

Right?

Meditate on the image of seditious and treasonous garbage like Michael Moore and Ted Rall and Maxine Waters and Ted Kennedy and know that a vote for John Kerry is a vote for those who hate America.

Attrit 'Em All!
Have a look at Ralph Peters' essay in this summer's issue of Parameters. Turns out, the only way we're going to be able to defeat the terrorists is to kill them:

And we shall hear that killing terrorists only creates more terrorists. This is sophomoric nonsense. The surest way to swell the ranks of terror is to follow the approach we did in the decade before 9/11 and do nothing of substance. Success breeds success. Everybody loves a winner. The clich?s exist because they're true. Al Qaeda and related terrorist groups metastasized because they were viewed in the Muslim world as standing up to the West successfully and handing the Great Satan America embarrassing defeats with impunity. Some fanatics will flock to the standard of terror, no matter what we do. But it's far easier for Islamic societies to purge themselves of terrorists if the terrorists are on the losing end of the global struggle than if they're allowed to become triumphant heroes to every jobless, unstable teenager in the Middle East and beyond.

Far worse than fighting such a war of attrition aggressively is to pretend you're not in one while your enemy keeps on killing you.

And Peters continues:

Curiously, while our military avoids a "body count" in Iraq--body counts have at least as bad a name as wars of attrition--the media insist on one. Sad to say, the body count cherished by the media is the number of our own troops dead and wounded. With our over-caution, we have allowed the media to create a perception that the losses are consistently on our side. By avoiding an enemy body count, we create an impression of our own defeat.

In a war of attrition, numbers matter.

Daschle Denies Hugging Traitor
Somebody's a liar. But we knew that already.

Can't Stand with Both Feet in Your Mouth
I have no idea why former L.A. Mayor Dick Riordan thought it would be funny to tell a little girl at a recent library event in Santa Monica that her name (Isis) means a "stupid, dirty girl," but I do have some idea why the craphounds in the racial identity-politics crowd thinks it's something worth their while.

See, Dick is a rich, white, male Republican. And any craphound worth his salt, like Democratic Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally from Compton, is going to know how to use Riordan's stupidity for his own political gain.

Dymally, who is African American, was quoted in Thursday's San Jose Mercury News stating that the girl was African American and asking whether Riordan "would ... have done that to a white girl?"

That's an excellent question, Mervyn! But first:

The NAACP and other civil rights groups had planned to attend a Capitol news conference Thursday called by [Dymally], who was demanding that Riordan step down. Dymally's office abruptly canceled the event, however, after learning that the girl is white.

Oh, ho! But it does get better, if that's possible:

"Mayor Richard Riordan has extended another apology ... and expressed his regret to me by way of a Los Angeles bishop," Dymally said in a statement. "To err is human; to forgive is divine. I have requested a meeting with Secretary Riordan to further discuss the issue."

For one thing, why is Riordan having to express his regrets to this man, who, not incidentally, is almost certainly named after a fucking department store? And what is Mervyn requesting a meeting to discuss? The fact that he is a presumptous and uninformed jackass?

Cut your losses, Merv. Trust me.

That prompted a reaction of disbelief from the girl's mother, who had been avoiding media calls to shield her daughter. She said she felt compelled to speak out after Dymally's comments.

"If he feels the man should step down, why does it matter if my daughter is white?" Trinity Lila of Goleta said in an interview.

That's an excellent question, Mervyn. But I see it's time to move on.

Has He Seen It?
Larry King ---King of the Softballs, that is--- asked John Kerry last night whether he had yet seen Fahrenheit 9/11, to which the Most Liberal Member of the United States Senate said no. But, he said, he's been watching it for the past four years.

Yuk, yuk.

So, was Kerry saying that he, too, has been afflicted with delusional, conspiratorial hallucinations coursing through his brain for the past few years?

Go ahead, John. The whole DNC has seen it already--- and they say it's very, very good.

Albatross! Albatross!

In the Event I Am Banned
Steve Soto, the guy who runs the Leftist blog The Left Coaster has recently issued a fatwa of sorts, encouraging his readers and fellow-posters to ignore "trolls" at their site. I don't blame him for wanting to control his own blog. After all, even Leftist websites aren't really collectives; someone's gotta pay for the bandwidth and run things.

But the fact is that Soto may have a total of a half-dozen so-called trolls. And only one or two of us are actually annoying (in that they do not make any arguments or add anything to the discussion, but only come to light up the proverbial sack of dogshit on the porch and run). So what's the deal?

Much to his credit, Soto apparently believes in the marketplace of ideas as much as I do. He has never banned me and, in one important instance early on in my visits there, he put his foot down in defending me against some prick who had published some of my personal information. But I can tell that things have begun to turn for all of us who are involved in the upcoming elections and the unbelievable number and importance of ideological questions riddling the world.

So Soto's got his game face on ---and I respect that. And I respect his desire to keep his site kosher. But I think he knows that the extremism of the Left and its hatred of Bush is going to continue to drag his party down in the eyes of the electorate. The Left are becoming as unhinged as Al Gore. They stand to be tainted by association.

But if you are as committed to the anti-war and anti-Bush position as Soto is, the aversion to dissent must be intense. The offense of being challenged must be an unwelcome intrusion. And the desire to see calamities in Iraq and in political events at home as validation of his partisan position must be intoxicating.

Anyway, the following is how I responded to Soto last night over the question of a pre-election al-Qaeda plot on American soil and whether it will give Bush the license to suspend our elections. (Yep, the Left really believes such a thing may happen.)

It may well be the last thing I may be able to say at The Left Coaster.

Steve, to give you an idea of how much an OCD weirdo I am, I was looking at an old videotape the other night from December 1998. It was all news coverage from the Clinton Impeachment vote in the House. But guess what else was going on in those very same hours? Operation Desert Fox. Do you recall thinking at the time that slamming Baghdad with Cruise missiles was a distraction from the impeachment? I know I did. And how convenient it all was for people like Dick Gephardt that our servicemen were exposing themselves to great dangers ---because, as he suggested, the vote to impeach should be delayed any time our men and women were in harm's way. After all, what would Saddam think of us? Were we willing to weaken our President in a time of military crisis?

It is to laugh.

My point is that there is never a "good" time to let loose the dogs of war or the spectres of peril. You say Ridge issued a threat warning "a day after Edwards and Kerry hit the road." What, is there supposed to be some sort of floating, Ramadan-like period of good taste and forbearance around their "road-hitting" for such an announcement? That's a very silly argument.

Okay, and how about the Pakistani thing where Bush is putting pressure on Musharraf? When is Bush not seeking to find and destroy OBL and Zawahiri and Omar? Oh, but the Iraqi excursion has been keeping us from doing what we should there in Afghanistan. Nonsense. None of us is qualified to say that we haven't done all that we might to find those animals. There are too many variables that we aren't privy to. All "we" know is that we don't have them in our hands. Then again, if you listen to Madeleine Albright, maybe we do. Ughhh...

As for the insinuation that Ted Olson and the others are planning on some sort of extra-Constitutional suspension of the elections, let me make a pledge to you right now. (And I hope every eye and ear there may be is on this statement, which I make under my own name and reputation.) If George W. Bush , for any reason, seeks to suspend the right of the American people to vote this November, I will fly out to California (Southwest Airlines is slashing their fares again! Yay!) and I will march and storm the barricades with you and absolutely raise hell like you can't imagine. I will denounce him as a tyrant and traitor until my throat is raw. I will never stand for that sort of usurpation. NEVER.

Today's Proof That the Anti-War Left Are a Lot of Titty-Babies
The Bush-haters are very suspicious of Secretary Ridge's announcement of a new threat from al-Qaeda. Wasn't it timed to hobble the Kerry-Edwards roll-out? And why doesn't the DHS raise the threat level if they know something the rest of us don't? Hmmmm???

This would be the same color-coded threat-o-meter that these same Leftist dolts routinely make fun of and disregard.

Therefore, what fucking difference does it make?

(Answer: it's the best news item they could find today to insinuate that the Bush Administration are controlling all of their brainwaves and impurifying their precious bodily fluids.)

Disenfranchising a Million Black Voters
Courtesy of the VodkaPundit, here's a little something about a lie the Left (and, now, John Kerry) likes to spread around to get black America's Irish up:

Don't tell us disenfranchising a million African Americans and stealing their votes is the best we can do. This time, in 2004, not only will every vote count - we're going to make sure that every vote is counted.

But that ain't how the cow ate the cabbage. And Kerry, being the opportunistic shitheel he is, knows it. As the VodkaPundit puts it:

That's not just rhetoric, it's the electoral equivalent of a blood-libel. For one thing, it's a flat-out lie, as reluctantly found by the partisan Democrat-dominated US Civil Rights Commission, which despite months of investigation, noted only 26 people with "disenfranchisement" complaints, most of which were found to be specious.

So how does shit like this stay airborne? I dunno. Ask Michael Moore. Or Ted Rall. Or Jim McDermott or Cynthia McKinney or Eddie Bernice Johnson or Jerrold Nadler or Terry McAuliffe or any of hundreds of other enemies of the state.

Yeah: enemies. Because saying that President Bush conspired to steal the 2000 Election by denying black people their right to vote is a vicious lie that only an asshole Leftist could believe.

Very Like a Correction
Well, the Los Angeles Times gave it their best in acknowledging their earlier chickenshit about Ambassador Bremer slinking out of Baghdad without so much as leaving some money on the dresser, but even their best isn't good enough:

A news analysis about the new Iraqi government in Sunday's Section A stated that outgoing administrator L. Paul Bremer III did not give a farewell speech to the country. His spokesman has since said that Bremer taped an address that was given to Iraqi broadcast media. The spokesman said the address was not publicized to the Western news media.

Right. No mention of the fact that their "analysis" included the jab that Bremer had left without looking the Iraqi people in the eye. And no mention of the fact that their ignorance of this address is inexcusable when one recalls that it was even broadcast on CNN! I mean, fuck these people! Are they journalists or are they McAuliffite tapeworms?

Patterico continues to kick the Times' ass about this. Keep on 'em, man.

I enjoyed certain parts of that paper very much when I was a resident of that megalopolis, but we keep hearing that they are losing a lot of their subscribers because of their rampant partisanship (e.g., their attempts at smearing Schwarzenegger before the recall election lost them hundreds, if not thousands, of subscribers). What are they thinking of?

A while back, Fox News had a story on the Times' troubles, featuring interviews with Hugh Hewitt and some old professor/think-tank guy, and the think-tank guy was saying that the reason the paper was having to lay off so many employees wasn't because of their bias, but because of declining ad revenues. Hmmm. Maybe there's a correlation there, professor. If people stop reading that thing, I would be surprised if its ad sales didn't drop off. Is that supposed to be hard to understand?

Daschle: Friend to a Traitor
The pro-Thune blog South Dakota Politics, has a nice catch on a big factual error made in veteran South Dakota reporter David Kranz' column on Tom Daschle's reaction to Fahrenheit 9/11, the premiere of which the Senate Minority Leader attended.

Kranz wrote:

Sen. Tom Daschle is characterized by critics as being close to Michael Moore, whose controversial documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is now showing. But area residents who saw the film say there may be a reason why Daschle left the movie early.

However, as we read in this week's Time magazine, Daschle didn't leave early. Instead:

Two weeks ago, at the Washington premiere, Moore sat a few rows behind Daschle. Afterward, says Moore, "he gave me a hug and said he felt bad and that we were all gonna fight from now on. I thanked him for being a good sport."

Got it? Daschle thinks this wretched loser is someone worth fighting with against the dark forces of Bushitler or whatever the Tinfoil Hat Brigades are calling the Administration this week.

It's disgusting. But when are we gonna hear what Kerry and Edwards think of Moore and his propaganda? Anyone seen their reviews yet?

(Big hat tips to Hugh Hewitt and Daschle v. Thune.)

American Traitor Teams with Hezbollah
The anti-American traitor Michael Moore apparently has no problem at all with Hezbollah's efforts at promoting his pile of agitprop in Lebanon where anti-American and anti-Jewish hatred run deep.

In the Power Line link above is another link to a recent Cliff May article on this Moore-Hezbollah connection at TownHall.com, but it is not working as of this moment. Will get back to you when it is.

UPDATE: The link is now working. And May drops names like Dick Cavett:

[...]prominent Democrats might want to reconsider their embrace of him. Recently a phalanx of such luminaries - including Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, South Carolina Sen. Ernest Hollings, Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, New York Rep. Charles Rangel, and Washington Rep. Jim McDermott -- attended a screening of "Fahrenheit 9/11" in Washington.

Like Hezbollah, these individuals were eager to boost Mr. Moore. Terry McAuliffe, the affable chairman of the Democratic National Committee, pronounced the film, "very powerful, much more powerful that I thought it would ... there are a lot of interesting facts that he [Moore] brought out today that none of us knew about." That most of those "facts" have proven to be lies and distortions ought to be taken into consideration. Mr. McAuliffe added: "I think anyone who goes to this movie will come out en masse and vote for John Kerry."

The Bitch-Slap of the Year
James Lileks puts a fisking to the traitor Michael Moore's recent Los Angeles Times essay that is so complete that you just have to go "Dang." Do read it.

A lot of well-respected conservative writers have made the point lately that you can tell whether someone is worth listening to by what their opinion of Fahrenheit 9/11 is. It's a true intellectual ---and I would say patriotic--- shibboleth. Because it requires a shameful lack of intelligence and judgement to sit through a movie whose premise is a complex of self-contradictory conspiracism and partisan manipulations and come out thinking that Moore has said something profound. It is deeply discouraging to know that millions of Americans ---including the most prominent members of the Democratic Party--- have embraced this disgusting piece of agitprop and are willing to be swayed by its lies.

I suspect my feelings are very much like what Jews in Germany experienced at the debut of Triumph des Willens.

(Hat tip to the InstaPundit.)

Bluff
John Kerry told a hangar full of Democrats today that he and John Edwards "know how to fight terrorism in a way that won't create more terrorists and will make America safer." Or something like that. I just heard it in passing on the TV.

But do you suppose it's true? What has Kerry said that would lead anyone to believe that he and Edwards have any sort of specific plan? See, that's what people who aren't ruled by their taste in good hair would like to know from this dynamic duo.

It isn't enough to say that they will work to rebuild our alliances with Europe (translation: get down on our knees and service Chiraq) because we already know that France will do nothing to help us or to honor their commitments anywhere or at any time. These lousy bastards won't help to provide security in Afghanistan for that country's upcoming elections, nor will they help to train or equip the Iraqi national defense forces. What good are they? They're not allies; they are the enemy.

So why is Kerry claiming that he has some way to move the French to help? And why does he think we need their help, anyway? All he can think to do is prey upon the poorly-refuted perception that Bush has squandered our moral authority in the world. He would like to set himself up as some sort of alternative, but he has nothing to offer.

Let the Dhimmicrats enjoy their little lovefest while it lasts. At some point, one supposes, Kerry might have to give some specifics. It's then that he will be exposed as a common hustler.

Geiger Counters
There's a report in today's Financial Times that the long-awaited intelligence inquiry made by Lord Butler will be published next week and will exonerate Tony Blair's and George W. Bush's claims that Saddam was, in fact, seeking to purchase uranium from Niger.

People with knowledge of the report said Lord Butler has concluded that this claim was reasonable and consistent with the intelligence.

President George W. Bush referred to the Niger claim in his state of the union address last year. But officials were forced into a climbdown when it was revealed that the only primary intelligence material the US possessed were documents later shown to be forgeries.

However, British intelligence's claim was not based upon these forged documents, despite the mewling protests of the anti-war Left.

The Bush administration has since distanced itself from all suggestions that Iraq sought to buy uranium. The UK government has remained adamant that negotiations over sales did take place and that the fake documents were not part of the intelligence material it had gathered to underpin its claim.

The Financial Times revealed last week that a key part of the UK's intelligence on the uranium came from a European intelligence service that undertook a three-year surveillance of an alleged clandestine uranium-smuggling operation of which Iraq was a part.

Intelligence officials have now confirmed that the results of this operation formed an important part of the conclusions of British intelligence. The same information was passed to the US but US officials did not incorporate it in their assessment.

In addition to this important point ---that Saddam was seeking out materials he had no business with--- we now know that almost two tons of depleted uranium was removed from Iraq last month by American authorities and with Iraqi permission. Even though the IAEA got its feelings hurt when we didn't ask their permission.

Let's see how much attention this gets from the wankers who want to spread the lie that Bush and Blair were not dealing squarely with the public.

Krauthammer on the Gallic "Third Way"
Charles Krauthammer examines the motivations behind the French resistance to helping not only the United States and NATO, but the people of Afghanistan in their own time of need. Chiraq, he says, is pursuing what Charles de Gaulle called the "third way" in which a self-serving France seeks to blunt American power by aligning itself with our enemies while maintaining the pretense of a friendship with us.

The joke is over. The first thing we can do is push for the complete deconstruction of the United Nations, which will at least drive these frogfuckers off of their perch in the Security Council. We then ought to start slapping some serious trade sanctions on these losers and put more pressure on Germany to back off of their little Franco-German fantasy of ruling Europe.

I hear some Leftists say that Europe won't deal with us fairly and respectfully until Bush is out of power. Which means that they are just waiting around for Kerry. If Bush is smart, he will do more to emphasize how the "foreign leaders" Kerry did declare he had met with last year are trying to meddle in our political lives. Kerry must be made not into the "second black President," as he claims he would like, but as the "first European President" (at least in the present century).

You figure Middle America thinks much of a bunch of perfidious waiters trying to influence our elections? Run with it, George. Paste him with it.

About As Big a Turd As Carter
Looks like the anti-American truck stop toilet Michael Moore has taken it upon himself to dabble in South Korean politics, urging the people there to resist their government's decision to send troops to Iraq in support of liberty and democracy.

According to Cinema People, the company in charge of the PR for the movie in Korea, Michael Moore was asked whether he wished to convey any messages through "Fahrenheit 911" to the Korean viewers, who are mired in controversy as a result of the nation's decision to send troops. Moore answered, "I hope Korean viewers start a social campaign against the dispatch of additional troops to Iraq." Asked what he thought of the Korean government's decision to send troops to Korea, however, he simply answered, "I don't know."

Say, Moore-on's almost enough of a fucking snake to be a French foreign minister.

Slinking Out
Over at the Power Line, they're still on the ass of the Los Angeles Times (as well they should be) for persisting with the lie that Jerry Bremer left Iraq without giving a farewell address.

In fact, Ambassador Bremer did give an address to the Iraqi people ---and it was televised and widely remarked upon by the whole country.

Why are the commie shitforbrains at the Times so dense about this? They have been totally called on it. Even the San Francisco Chronicle acknowledges it. Just admit that you were wrong and move on to the next pack of lies.