Dallas police are reporting the Dallas Cowboys receiver, Terrell Owens, tried to off himself by swallowing a bunch of pills. Apparently, he was reportedly "depressed".

What is wrong with this idiot?

UPDATE:
T.O. says that's B.S.

Posted by: Gary at 09:49 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

Why not? They both hate Bush right? John at Wuzzadem shows a useful idiot and the Iranian nutball finding "common ground".

Warning: Finish your breakfast/morning coffee before clicking or you'll risk having it fly out your nose.

Posted by: Gary at 09:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

In response to a leak of the classified NIE memo - which only told part of the story on the state of Islamo-terrorism - the President has authorized National Intelligence Director, John Negroponte to declassify as much of the memo that can be done without compromising national security.

"You read it for yourself. Stop all this speculation," Bush said.

He complained that "somebody leaked classified information for political purposes," Bush said, criticizing both the news media and people in government who talked to them about classified material.

The initial leak, coming from Bush opponents in the intelligence community and shamelessly reported by the NY Times and WaPo, was a nakedly political move aimed at undermining the U.S.'s Global War On Terror in the heat of an election season. Those portions that were reported were selected specifically to give the impression that the U.S. presence in Iraq is a direct cause of increased terror activity around the world. As if such activity never existed prior to 2003.

And as if the Left and their MSM enablers weren't already doing enough to encourage America's enemies.

Michelle Malkin has the definitive round-up.

Prior to Bush's release order, House Democrats tried their best to make political hay of the report by pushing for a "closed-door" session to discuss it.

The proposal from House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was denied by a vote of 171-217. Such a session hasn't happened in the House since July 1983, when the chamber went into a closed session to discuss the United States' support for paramilitary operations in Nicaragua.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Pelosi said the secret session was needed to allow members to better understand the intelligence community's most recent assessment on global terrorism, some of which leaked to the news media over the weekend.

Now that it will become public record, the proper context of the report and information that shows our military efforts and results in a more favorable light will put an end to that garbage.

The NY Times and the WaPo will now be free to report the parts that they didn't care to, such as those highlighted by "Spook86", the author of "In From The Cold" (Originally linked by the folks at Power Line):

In one of its early paragraphs, the estimate notes progress in the struggle against terrorism, stating the U.S.-led efforts have "seriously damaged Al Qaida leadership and disrupted its operations." Didn't see that in the NYT article.

Or how about this statement, which--in part--reflects the impact of increased pressure on the terrorists: "A large body of reporting indicates that people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing...however, they are largely decentralized, lack a coherent strategy and are becoming more diffuse." Hmm...doesn't sound much like Al Qaida's pre-9-11 game plan.

The report also notes the importance of the War in Iraq as a make or break point for the terrorists: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight." It's called a ripple effect.

More support for the defeating the enemy on his home turf: "Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq." President Bush and senior administration officials have made this argument many times--and it's been consistently dismissed by the "experts" at the WaPo and Times.

And, some indication that the "growing" jihad may be pursuing the wrong course: "There is evidence that violent tactics are backfiring...their greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution (shar'a law) is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims." Seems to contradict MSM accounts of a jihadist tsunami with ever-increasing support in the global Islamic community.

The estimate also affirms the wisdom of sowing democracy in the Middle East: "Progress toward pluralism and more responsive political systems in the Muslim world will eliminate many of the grievances jihadists exploit." As I recall, this the core of our strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Quite a contrast to the "doom and gloom" scenario painted by the Times and the Post. Not that we'd expect anything different. But the obvious slant of their coverage does raise an interesting question, one that should be posed to their ombudsman or public editor. If sources used by the papers had access to the document, why weren't they asked about the positive elements of the report? Or, if sources provided some of the more favorable comments regarding our war on terror, why weren't those featured in articles published by the Times and the Post?

(note: all original bold/italics emphasis appears as it does on "In From The Cold" blog)

Posted by: Gary at 02:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 834 words, total size 6 kb.

Dick Morris reminds us that the Bill Clinton we saw on FoxNews this weekend is the Bill Clinton that those who worked closely with him knew all too well:

From behind the benign façade and the tranquilizing smile, the real Bill Clinton emerged Sunday during Chris Wallace’s interview on Fox News Channel. There he was on live television, the man those who have worked for him have come to know – the angry, sarcastic, snarling, self-righteous, bombastic bully, roused to a fever pitch. The truer the accusation, the greater the feigned indignation. Clinton jabbed his finger in Wallace’s face, poking his knee, and invading the commentator’s space.

But beyond noting the ex-president’s non-presidential style, it is important to answer his distortions and misrepresentations. His self-justifications constitute a mangling of the truth which only someone who once quibbled about what the “definition of ‘is’ is” could perform.

On a related note, The Anchoress has a rather lengthy and well written analysis of Clinton's "daddy" issues - a must-read.

Posted by: Gary at 08:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

I got tagged with this one, so here goes...

- you take several days before you accept the premise that you are actually middle-aged before you agree to do this meme...

- you've learned to walk through your house while looking down to avoid stepping on stray lego pieces...

- you didn't even know that Saturday Night Live was still on the air...

- the only reason you've heard of the band Bowling For Soup is because you just love that song "1985"...

- when they card you for beer at the supermarket check-out, it makes your week.

That's all for me. So let's see. Now I'm tagging GroovyVic, Steve and Robbo (the Llama Butchers) and Rick, The Real Ugly American.

Posted by: Gary at 08:25 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

The Hartford Courant has an editorial up that takes a look at what Ned Lamont says compared to what Ned Lamont does.

The public has to look at the fragments it can find of Lamont's private life to figure out what sort of public figure he would be. The man who seemed a fresh force in the spring is starting to look like a contrivance as the fall begins. Here are some examples:

Lamont, like all Democratic candidates, has been in hot pursuit of union endorsements. Lieberman snagged most of them in the primary campaign. Most, but by no means all, have stuck with Lieberman.

In his cable business, however, Lamont has not been so eager for union attention. At one conclave, Lamont gave the cold shoulder to Bill Henderson, president of Communications Workers of CT Local 1298, when Henderson had the temerity to suggest to the cable executive that he ought to let the union into Lamont Digital.

When Henderson, a Lieberman supporter, complained in public about Lamont's anti-union attitude in his own business, registered lobbyist and Lamont campaign manager Tom Swan called it a "red herring" because Lamont's employees are well compensated. But Henderson points out that unions aren't only about wages. They also secure better working conditions and the dignity of their members. Lamont and, suddenly, Swan aren't interested in the union credo.

Candidate Lamont is keen to call for more corporate responsibility from the likes of Wal-Mart and Enron. He made the obligatory appearance at a protest of Wal-Mart this summer.

Lamont, however, won't say much about corporate shenanigans closer to home. His wife, Ann Lamont, is a formidable venture capitalist. And while piling up their millions, there have been a few casualties. The Lamonts won't disclose details, but public documents reveal that Ann Lamont was successfully sued for securities fraud in 1999 for her role in a disastrous public offering of stock by a Florida medical management company that went bust in a big way. Ann Lamont and other defendants entered into a multimillion-dollar settlement with fleeced shareholders.

Some of the records are sealed, and the Lamont campaign won't reveal how much of the settlement Ann Lamont had to pay in 2001 to get out of the mess. Substitute the name of, say, Lynne Cheney for Ann Lamont and imagine the outrage on the left for such a doomed scheme.

As the campaign spotlight shines a little brighter on the Greenwich millionaire who wants to be CT's next Senator, voters - especially unaffiliated, moderate voters - should take the opportunity to have a closer look.

Posted by: Gary at 03:25 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 509 words, total size 3 kb.

This week's Carnival is up at Tinkerty-Tonk!

Posted by: Gary at 12:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

OK, since the big Bill blow-up on FoxNews has already been covered to death, I'm only going to make one link and one comment.

First, Hugh Hewitt has - in my opinion - the best assessment on this bizarre incident:

Bill Clinton's record vis-a-vis Osama cannot withstand even two minutes of sharp questions-and-answers. He's obliged to tightly control every encounter with the press, denounce every serious work of history, obfuscate by pointing to meeting after meeting or to non-sequitors like the fact that no one knew at the time that Osama was connected to Mogadishu (but when, Mr. Clinton, did you become aware of his connection), legal tap dancing --the FBI and CIA wouldn't let me do it-- and the worst of all, chest thumping about how he'd be waging the war if he was still president.

Whatever Clinton hoped to accomplish with this childish filibuster and tantrum, it guaranteed the opposite: No such fury is required when the facts are on your side. You don't have to control every encounter and explode with anger and accusations when asked if you would like to comment on a new book.

Posted by: Gary at 10:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm pleased to announce that guest blogger, Skye, has officially rolled out her newly redesigned site...

I give you: MidnightBlue - reloaded!

Posted by: Gary at 07:14 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

...Did Bubba's face get this flushed just before he stained Monica's blue dress?

Posted by: Gary at 05:00 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

Baby's in black

And this week's Diane Lane Netflix Pick of the Week:

Streets Of Fire (1984)

Gary's take: Interesting production design (a mix of '50's, '80's and whatever era visuals), awful dialogue and not enough Diane. But it's got a kick-ass soundtrack and when she's on-screen, Ms. Lane is smokin'. You will believe this babe can sing.

See Diane "not" sing "Tonight Is What It Means To Be Young" from the movie The lip-synching isn't really that bad, it's the clip. And as an added bonus, hear Michael Pare and Amy Madigan dubbed in Italian at the end.):

Sweet!

Posted by: Gary at 08:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 2 kb.

SCHWARZENEGGER GIVES UP HUMMERS

And it's not even Lent.

Seems to me that this headline could just as easily have been reported in 1986, albeit in a different context.

Posted by: Gary at 11:45 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

Michael Dukakis: Lloyd. How's that martini treating you?

Lloyd Bentsen: Not too badly, Mike. I wish the polls were treating us a little better.

Michael Dukakis: Well, Lloyd, we represent unpopular and discredited views.

Lloyd Bentsen: Mike! Now that it's all over, you can tell me. You were gonna raise taxes, weren't you?

Michael Dukakis: Well, you bet I was! Through the roof! But now.. I won't get the chance.

- Dukakis After Dark
SNL 11/5/88

The President launched a second front in his campaign offensive on behalf of GOP Congressional candidates - "They will raise your taxes".

No idle threat, this is a statement of fact. Democrats all along have been assailing "Bush's tax cuts for the rich", ignoring the reality that everyone who pays taxes has benefited - and has felt that benefit in their personal situations. Voters understand this only too well. High gas prices this past year have reminded Americans how tough even a small bite into their discretionary income can be. It also ignores the fact that the President's tax cuts have led to a booming economy, low unemployment and reduced deficits.

To borrow a cliche from Forrest Gump: Democrats and taxes go together like peas and carrots. It's always been standard operating procedure for them. But the President is reminding voters what happens if the Dems take the House, and if Charlie Rangel becomes Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee: repeal of the tax cuts of the past five years, which means tax hikes.

It's not speculation, it's the truth. And it's a winner for the GOP. Expect to hear it between now and November 7th again...and again...and again...

Posted by: Gary at 10:33 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

The White House and the squishes in the Senate have come to agreement on the Interrogation Bill.

Liberals everywhere are outraged and the NY Times hates it, so it must be a good one.

A.J. Strata gets to the nut of deal:

Bush now has a definition of what is illegal, and therefore everything else is legal. Checkmate.

Posted by: Gary at 06:50 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Outraged liberals? I'm liking this agreement already

Posted by: Skye at September 22, 2006 08:14 PM (N1z5v)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

French-bashing has usually been popular in the U.S. But since the run up to Iraq it seems like it's hit a fever pitch, particularly among those who strongly support the President. America (and the West) is in the fight of it's life against Islamofacist terrorism and the perception to many in this country is that the French government is doing its best to impede our efforts in this struggle.

How accurate this perception is can be debated ad infinitum. more...

Posted by: Gary at 02:00 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 736 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Mon Dieu, Gary! I don't hate the french.... I love the french...as much as they love President Bush. Seriously, I believe that puts me on a level playing ground when I travel. I've been fortunate enought to have had fantastic opportunities to travel since I was in highschool - a trend that continues to this day. What I've found bubbling under the surface, especialy among Europeans my age, is a jealous fascination with the American culture. To the lurking libs - this phenonmenon did not arise after 9/11. I encountered this repeatedly through the 90's. I applaud you, Gary, for advocating a non-bashing policy towards the french. When dealing with Euros in public I find it is best to maintain a cool cordiality, until they slip up, then I let them know that their comments are reprehensible. Most wisely shut their mouths... Look, I know there are French citizens that truly admire President Bush and think highly of the US. I found such individuals when I was last in Spain and I'm sure they exist in france. If they would only organize and vote out of office their current governments... Anyway, I'm off to plan my next trip...BA is looking good

Posted by: Skye at September 21, 2006 03:55 PM (N1z5v)

2 Yeah, you know it's nice if we all just got along. But, seriously, ask yourself this: exactly what has France been good for since it lost its king. That's awful. There are few countries that I can think of who were less useful to the world after they got rid of their monarchies. Russia, China and France are three of them. It's very difficult for me to think of a country that has, in the last 200 years, achieved so little, yet is so full of itself. Britain has, for example, been infinitely more useful to the world, and the Brits have nowhere near the chauvanism of the Gauls. Yes, we do share more in common with the French than we differ. Matter of fact, we share more with chimpanzees than with donkeys, but that doesn't mean I don't hate chimpanzees. Wait, what am I saying? In truth, one could make the argument that we have more in common with Saudis than we differ. This argument used to be made with the Russians. (Do we share much in common? We have a different language. A different system of government, essentially, very different views on the value of an aristocratic class, different economic views, different appreciation for philosophy (they like a philosopher if he's French, we like one if he's useful), different views on religion, the proper role of the state. What do we share in common with them? A Christian heritage? Fat lot of good. We shared that with Germany, too (and more Protestantism in Germany than in France, actually). But Germany was still our enemy. I don't give a fig what the French think about us, or what they think about themselves alone at night with their pants around their ankles. What I do care about is that the French stop making things worse EVERY. WHERE. THEY. GO. Name a Democracy France helped create. Now name all the people around the world who live in tyrranical countries supported or established because of French perfidy. Example: the only reason Ho Chi Minh could even make a case for Communism (and really, he pushed Nationalism with the people) was because the French were such bastards in Viet Nam for a century. We ended up losing our boys for that mess. So, no. I won't respect the French until they stop asserting their worth and start proving it. And they do damn little of that.

Posted by: Grayson Hill at September 21, 2006 04:41 PM (3Vh45)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

My lovely wife has a style of communication that is endearing but one that I've needed to adjust my comprehension skills to really appreciate.

In a nutshell, she tells long stories. I mean really long stories, often including details and information that I as the listener find to be unnecessary and even distracting. I often tell her, "Hon, give me the punchline first. Then go back and fill in the details" (in a gentle way, of course, from which she does not take offense).

That is similar to the way I read a New York Times article. I go to the punchline first.

Case in point is yesterday's article on a recent poll related to the performance of the U.S. Congress, "Poll Finds Most Americans Displeased With Congress". Starting with the headline and meandering through the opening paragraphs, the article paints a picture of a Congress that is ripe for turnover:

With the midterm elections less than seven weeks away, Americans have an overwhelmingly negative view of the Republican-controlled Congress, with substantial majorities saying that they disapprove of the job it is doing and that its members do not deserve reelection, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The disregard for Congress is the most intense it has been since 1994, when Republicans captured 52 seats to end four decades of Democratic control of the House and retook the Senate as well. It underlines the challenge the Republican Party faces in trying to hold onto power in the face of a surge in anti-incumbent sentiment.

But wait. If you bother to continue down (and way down) to the end of the article you get this observation:

For all the clear dissatisfaction with the 109th Congress, 39 percent of respondents said their own representative deserved re-election, compared with 48 percent who said it was time for someone new. What is more, it seems highly unlikely Democrats would experience a sweep similar to the one Republicans experienced in 1994. Most political analysts judge only about 40 House seats to be in play at the moment, compared with more than 100 seats at this point 12 years ago, in large part because redistricting has created more safe seats for both parties...

...Voters said that Democrats were more likely to tell the truth than Republicans when talking about the war and Iraq and about the actual threat of terrorism. And 59 percent of respondents said that Mr. Bush was hiding something when he talked about how things were going in Iraq, while another 25 percent said he was mostly lying when talking about the war.

Not that Democrats should draw any solace from that: 71 percent of respondents said they believed Democrats in Congress were hiding something when they talked about how well things were going in Iraq — while 13 percent said they were mostly lying.

So here's my advice: when reading the Times, read the punchline first. I't could save you from a big waste of time.

And I think that "punchline" is an apt term, considering what a joke that paper has become.

Posted by: Gary at 07:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 626 words, total size 4 kb.

The Ned Lamont For Senate campaign has released a curious ad in which it attempts to paint Senator Joe Lieberman as a "turncoat".

Lamont's campaign is spending $93,000 this week on a series of statewide television ads that call Lieberman a "turncoat." One ad suggests that Connecticut residents should wear their coats inside-out to protest Lieberman's general election campaign.

Lamont predicted the ads will appeal to his base and undecided voters. "It was a humorous look at a guy that's been a lifelong Democrat who overnight changed his stripes," he said.

Ken Dautrich, public policy professor at the University of Connecticut, said it's important for both candidates to campaign for Democratic votes, but added that unaffiliated voters will likely decide the race. Lamont won 52 percent of the Democratic vote in last month's primary.

Here's a newsflash: it doesn't. Consider why unaffiliated voters are not registered with a party. It's not because they can't decide which one they like. It's because they have no use for either of them. The idea of a Senator who's not in lock-step with his party on every issue actually appeals to them. And while some unaffiliated voters have always been so, many changed to being unaffiliated when they became disgusted with the party to which they originally belonged - feeling that they no longer did. For Democrats, Joe Lieberman doesn't belong. Does that mean that any Democrat who votes for him is a "turncoat" as well? And exactly how many non-Democrats will be up for the idea of making themselves look ridiculous by wearing their coats inside out? Stooooopid!

This strategy tells me one of two things: either the Lamont campaign is so myopic in their approach that they can't move beyond their crusade to punish him for his heresy on Iraq or their internal polling is showing that support for Lamont among registered Democrats is slipping and the percentage of "undecided voters" is growing.

Why spend so much time focusing on "the base" with seven weeks to go? If you don't have the base shored up by this point, then your campaign is in serious jeopardy.

Posted by: Gary at 09:20 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 383 words, total size 2 kb.

The MSM loves reporting about "newly released polls" (especially if they like the results) because frankly it's easy enough to throw out raw (and often select) numbers and make suggestions as to what they mean in the grand scheme of things.

But whether you like the results or not, it's critical to put them into historical context. This is just what Rich Galen of Mullings.com does on the recent data showing a trend in favor of the Republicans:

The big news was the answer to the question: "If the election for Congress were being held today which party's candidate would you vote for in your Congressional District?" This is known as the "generic vote;" it is asked without using candidates' names because the incumbent is often much better known than the challenger and will tend to sway the results.

Among likely voters, the answer was: Republican 48%; Democrat 48%. A Tie.

Among some Republican electoral experts, the feeling is: If the GOP is in the minus five percentage point range going into election day, that's good enough because the Republican turnout operation will overcome that.

Yes, things are looking gloomy again for Democrats. But Republicans should be aware of what has made this shift. It's not so much a referendum on President Bush as it is on his anti-terror policies. And as long the GOP are able to keep the focus on this most important issue the more voters are inclined to keep to the status quo. Unless you're an unhinged Bush-hating moonbat, why risk it otherwise? Republican candidates should embrace the President on this issue.

Democrats, on the other hand have focused their full firepower on the President counting on the countries uneasiness over Iraq to be his undoing. Galen explains why this "strategery" is flawed:

I have thought this because the Democrats are making the same mistakes this year as we (I was running GOPAC that cycle, so I take my share of the blame for a flawed strategy) made in 1998: It was all anti-Clinton all the time.

The Democrats have placed all their electoral eggs in being all anti-Bush in the same strategic way. They have no positive message and, with less than two months to go, the chances of finally crafting a coordinated national message which will attract a majority of voters in a majority of the Congressional Districts are fading fast.

Of course, the vote for Members of Congress is not a national vote. It is 435 separate elections and while there are only seven weeks to go, there are still seven weeks to go.

Posted by: Gary at 07:10 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 3 kb.

A new USAToday/Gallup poll has the President's approval rating up to 44%. As I've always said, Bush isn't on the ballot so the influence of this statistic on the results of November 7 has its limits.

But there really is only one major reason for the uptick: Republican voters, who've expressed their dissatisfaction with Bush on many issues, are starting to see the forest for the trees. The issue of the Global War on Terror is THE issue and it trumps everything else.

Bush's approval rating edged up largely on the strength of Republicans coming back to the fold with 86 percent saying they support him now, compared to 70 percent in May, USA Today said.

For the first time since December 2005, a majority of people polled did not say the war in Iraq was a mistake. The respondents were evenly split at 49 percent to 49 percent, the report said.

However, the poll finds that the Iraq war continues to be a problem for Bush. Sixty percent said he does not have a clear plan for handling Iraq and 75 percent said Iraq is in a civil war, USA Today said.

The White House has spent the last couple of weeks putting that fear to rest. The President's strategy - as it was in 2002 and 2004 - is to double down on his policies that have kept the country attack-free since 9/11. Republicans candidates would do well to get on board. If they do, then the GOP's superior Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) machine will ensure Republican retention of both chambers of Congress.

Jim Geraghty at NRO takes a closer look at the numbers.

Posted by: Gary at 09:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 351 words, total size 2 kb.

The last time the Mets won their division I was still in college.

Damn! I feel old.

Congratulations, guys! On to October!!!!!

Posted by: Gary at 10:49 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.