June 22, 2006
The Left can try to spin this as a non-story on the fact that the 500 chemical weapons found were manufactured prior to Gulf War I all they want. Saddam Hussein claimed that he destroyed them. He didn't. Iraq had WMDs.
The Left can try to spin this as a non-story on the fact that they were found in a state considered not ready to use. They could have been made "ready to use" with minimal effort. They could have been given to terrorists who could have used them to kill innocent Americans (or innocent Europeans, Asians, etc). Saddam claimed he had no such weapons. He did. Iraq had WMDs.
The Left can try to spin this as a non-story on the fact that the 500 weapons represent a much smaller amount of WMDs than the U.S. claimed it had - a claim that everybody else who had access to the intelligence made including the U.N., France, Germany, Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and John F. Kerry. The 500 weapons containing traces of chemical weapons (specifically, sarin and mustard gas) had sufficient capacity to cause the deaths of thousands if not tens of thousands of people. Saddam claimed he had no such weapons. He did. Iraq had WMDs.
The bottom line here is that Bush didn't lie. SADDAM LIED. And now he is out of power and the Iraqi people are living in freedom and self-determination. And the United States (and every other target of Islamofascist terrorism) is safer.
So, those of you moonbats who've been beating this mantra into the ground have two choices:
1) STFU about "No WMDs", or
2) keep barking this idiocy and prove to the rest of the world how deranged and blind to reality you are.
|You Are 64% Gentleman|
You are definitely a gentleman. You're very considerate and you have excellent manners.
Occasionally, you slip and do something foolish... but usually no one notices!
hat tip: Robbo
June 21, 2006
Anyway, the story that accompanied this photo was "Cup Fever Breaks Out After
German Rump Germany Romp":
This gal from Iran gives us something to take our minds off that nut job Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:
And here's a fan from Mexico observing his nation's natural wonders:
Did Mexico win? I dunno. Great cans, though.
In her native America, the TOMB RAIDER star approaches both Republicans and Democrats in her bid to raise awareness of humanitarian crises in countries such as Sudan. Speaking on CNN, Jolie says, "You have to speak to every person individually. Honesty works. Just because you're a Republican doesn't mean you don't care about children."Gee, isn't that big of her? I'm so glad she's out there clearing this up.
Here's a little clue, hon: Look at the chart below.
That's right, charitable giving in the U.S. is at its highest level - ever. You think those are all Democrats comprising that number? Think again. Sure there a lot of rich Democrats in there - from Hollywood to the Upper West Side - but generally speaking Democrats are only generous with other people's money; namely, the taxpayer's money.
June 20, 2006
Apparently, they played some South American country or something like that.
"One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied with fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say they fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad."
And there's no doubt in my mind who it will be.
Now being CNN, I'm inclined to believe that they low-balled that figure. Imagine if the real number is 50% or higher? Now that would be news. Of course you also need to qualify the sampling since "adult Americans" does not necessarily mean "registered voters", much less "likely voters". In any case, the fact that Hillary has such high negatives only makes her position even more precarious. Her balancing act between appeasing the moonbats in the primaries and appealing to non-moonbats in the general election will be like threading a needle.
But, hey, it's a still a long way to go to November 2008. Without the results of this year's elections to complete the picture, 2008 is still a wide open race.
Related: Hillary Scares Voters!
The U.S. missile defense system includes 11 long-range interceptor missiles, including nine deployed at Fort Greeley, Alaska, and two at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. The system was switched from test to operational mode within the past two weeks, the officials said.Remember those douche bags who scoffed at missile defense? Remember those Left-wing nuclear-freeze idiots who derided it as "Star Wars" and called the research a waste of money (that could be better wasted on gubment handouts and pork projects)? Remember how they mocked Ronald Reagan and still do today, even though the Soviets admitted that his adherence to the program is what finally broke their system?
One senior Bush administration official told The Washington Times that an option being considered would be to shoot down the Taepodong missile with responding interceptors.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice added that any launch would be a serious matter and "would be taken with utmost seriousness and indeed a provocative act."
Well, thank God George W. Bush said "no" to the out-dated and useless ABM treaty and had SecDef Donald Rumsfeld put a plan in place to implement this program!
Rummy has issued a warning to that buck-toothed little twerp Kim Jong-Il:
"Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL missile defense shield! Fire at will, Commander!"
June 19, 2006
Looks like Irey is not holding back:
"John Murtha Â– Wrong on National Defense. John Murtha actually voted to cut spending on our national security by $76 billion. Then, he voted in favor of instituting the draft! And, perhaps most stunning of all, John Murtha spoke out against the brave men and women who are defending our freedom by calling for an immediate withdrawl of our troops from Iraq."She made an appearance on FoxNews today. HotAir.com has the clip.
Anyone who saw Murtha's appearance on "Meet The
Shills Press" yesterday can see the man has lost his mind.
Diana Ivey for Congress!!! Because Benedict Arnold served his country too.
"The primaryÂ’s August 8th. The deadline for submitting the requisite 7,500 signatures for an independent run is 4 p.m. on August 9th. If heÂ’s going to play chicken with Lamont in the primary, he needs to raise the stakes and promise that he wonÂ’t start collecting signatures until the primaryÂ’s over. WouldnÂ’t it be awesome on August 9th to watch the army of Joementum canvassers see if they can beat the clock? You know the nutroots retards would send out teams of anti-canvassers to harass them, too. Imagine someone opening their door in Danbury to find two kids with a clipboard in Lieberman t-shirts and two idiots behind them in black bloc gear trying to shout them down with blood-for-oil slogans. Please, god, make it happen.Personally, I'd prefer to see Lieberman win outright because it'll make the Kos Kidz and Moron.Org look stoopid. But then if Lieberman wins as an independent, it'll make the DSCC look even worse.
The next six to seven weeks should be fun.
Swedish chicks in bikinis savor victory (and each other)!
Swedish cheerleaders work their butts off showing national spirit!
Oh, and apparently there are a bunch of guys kicking a soccer ball around too.
Well, how'd we do?
Some of the early reviews are in - caution all contain some degree of spoilers (if it's actually possible to spoil a plot everyone is already familiar with):
Newsweek (thumbs up): "[Director Brian] Singer did the right thing. From the start of this gorgeously crafted epic, you can feel that Singer has real love and respect for the most foursquare comics superhero of them all, as well as a reverence for the Donner version, which serves as his visual and emotional template."
The Hollywood Reporter (thumbs up): "This high-wire act would have gone for naught if Routh had not so capably filled the Man of Steel's costume. Like Reeve, he is just right physically, looking at times like the old comic book drawings of Superman. There is honesty in his acting where the emotions that play across Superman/Clark Kent's face and body come from deep within."
Variety (thumbs up): "Singer imprints his handiwork with its own personality. Despite its acute awareness of what's come before, 'Superman Returns' is never self-consciously hip, ironic, post-modern or camp. To the contrary, it's quite sincere, with an artistic elegance and a genuine emotional investment in the material that creates renewed engagement in these long-familiar characters and a well-earned payoff after 2Ã‚Â½ hours spent with them."
And then, to provide a little balast, we have a dissent from Libertas (F*** This Sh*t):
Superman ReturnsÂ‘ FX tend to be on the hyper-detailed side, and impressive. Clearly about $200 million of the filmÂ’s budget was spent on FX, but after a while the visuals cease to be compelling. You just want a character, some recognizably human personality to hang on to. You canÂ’t make a 2 1/2 hour film and not have characters - but thatÂ’s basically what SingerÂ’s done here. He expects you to be Â‘blown awayÂ’ so much that you donÂ’t notice whatÂ’s missing: humanity, emotion, personality. One other point: superior filmmakers like George Lucas and Peter Jackson use visual effects to create worlds, new environments. Singer does none of that - his New York looks no different than Spider-ManÂ’s New York, no different from any other New York - just louder and a lot more violent.Jason's review may seem harsh and more of a critique of the whole genre, but he does make some valid points. The original "Superman" and "Superman II" were heavy on character and story wrapped in a few well done visual effects and a kick-ass soundtrack. In his opinion, this is more of special effects showcase built around an existing set of characters. In other words, it rings hollow for him.
IÂ’d like to stop the review here and make a suggestion to the powers-that-be in Hollywood. Although some of you read this blog, you wonÂ’t listen, because the din of the cash registers will be too loud when this film opens in a few weeks Â… but here goes anyway. Hollywood spends a lot of its time and seemingly all its money these days making superhero movies about guys with Â’special powers.Â’ Superman, Spider-Man, Batman, X-Men, Daredevil, Hulk, Fantastic Four, etc., ad nauseum. And hereÂ’s the rub: I donÂ’t remember guys like Humphrey Bogart or Gary Cooper or James Cagney or John Wayne or even Harrison Ford having Â’special powers.Â’ The only Â’special powersÂ’ those guys had were their fists, their wits, and their character - their substance as human beings. Most of us in life donÂ’t have Â’special powersÂ’ to brood over. WeÂ’re just regular Joes trying to get by, and we have a hard time relating to wonderboys like Brandon Routh or Tobey Maguire because their problems seem extremely trivial, and because while they probably look great in Zegna suits on the cover of GQ they donÂ’t look like they can take a punch. Nor do they seem to stand for much. I know what Gary Cooper stood for in his films. I have no frigging clue what your cute little superheros stand for, other than their own narcissism.
I felt something similar about this year's "Poseidon", but I think in this case the movie audience will look past this. There's something about "Superman" that really jacks up a young audience and fuels nostalgia for us old farts. I agree that the bar for great filmmaking has been substantially lowered over the last ten to twenty years. "Superman Returns" is probably not a great film. It probably won't stand the test of time as the originals (at least I & II).
But the bottom line is I have a ten-year old who can't wait to see it. And I can almost guaranty that he's going to love it. My own expectations are that I just hope that I like it. Because nowadays when I go to the theater, those are just about the best expectations I can realistically allow myself to have.
June 18, 2006
Sunset at the lake.
June 16, 2006
Dan is the guy on the right standing next to the Cuban dictator.
Once the dean of news anchors (back when the three networks had a monopoly on the information they wanted you to hear), Rather publicly embarrassed himself and lost all trace of journalistic credibility last November with his "fake but accurate" TANG story about President Bush. His attempt to stand by a story based on completely fabricated evidence was so pathetic and cringe-worthy that CBS forced him to retire his seat at the CBS Evening News anchor desk and hoped he would quietly retire. Apparently, Dan couldn't (or wouldn't) take the hint. Now he'll be wandering around his house in his pajamas, pining for the days when it seemed like he mattered.
Just because you want a story to be true, Dan, doesn't make it true. Too bad some sharp kids in the blogosphere were able to recognize a Microsoft Word generated font when they saw one.
Don't let the door smack you in the ass on the way out!
Oh, and Dan?
Which Scenario Do You Most Hope Is True For Al-Zarqawi's Afterlife?Since we about one third into the summer movie season, I thought I'd get a read on which of the higher profile offerings have most underwhelmed your expectations.
32.0% Reincarnated As One Of Michael Jackson's Adopted Children
30.7% Satan's Love Slave
21.3% Locked In A Room For All Eternity With Barbra Striesand Music Piped In
13.3% One 72-Year Old Virgin...With Leprosy
2.7% Locked In A Room For All Eternity With A Collection Of Ben Affleck DVDs
Pop on over to the sidebar and place your vote!
Among it's provisions:
- Praise for U.S. Troops
- Affirmation that Iraq is part of the GWOT
- Establishing arbitrary withdrawal dates are not in the national interest
In other words, victory is the goal and we are committed to the mission. NO "CUT AND RUN"! Every member of Congress is now on record heading into the November elections. We'll be checking back to see how CT's five voted. [UPDATE: As expected, it went along party lines - Simmons (CT2), Shays (CT4), Johnson (CT5): Yea, Larson (CT1) & DeLauro (CT3): Nay. I'm actually surprise that Shays had the grapes to buck his gold-coast, country club Liberal constituency on this one. END UPDATE]
How do ya like them apples, moonbats?
Related: Run Away, Run Away
For Democrats in Washington, however, these were the salad days of the party. You had Vietnam, Watergate, and a coming gathering of Congressional strength in the wake of these events. Michael Barone writes this morning about how Dems see 2006 through the prism of 1974. For them, Iraq is Vietnam, Fitzmas is Watergate and they are predicting a major shift in power come November.
Unfortunately for them, it's not quite turning out that way. The CA-50 special election was not a harbinger of a Dem takeover in the works, Iraq is a mission that is succeeding more every day (especially now that the Z-man has been terminated) and Fitzmas just flopped worse than they could ever imagine. All in all, a pretty lousy week for the Donks.
"Historians may regard it as a curious thing that the left and the press have been so determined to fit current events into templates based on events that occurred 30 to 40 years ago. The people who effectively framed the issues raised by Vietnam and Watergate did something like the opposite; they insisted that Vietnam was not a reprise of World War II or Korea and that Watergate was something different from the operations J. Edgar Hoover conducted for Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy. Journalists in the 1940s, '50s and early '60s tended to believe they had a duty to buttress Americans' faith in their leaders and their government. Journalists since Vietnam and Watergate have tended to believe that they have a duty to undermine such faith, especially when the wrong party is in office."Perhaps if Democrats tried looking forward instead of miring themselves in nostalgia for the past, voters wouldn't be so hestitant to entrust their future to them.
"A new poll found the prospect of a President Hillary Clinton scares more Americans than any other likely 2008 candidate.And before you say "oh, sure, FoxNews. no wonder.", the same poll had Rudy Guiliani coming in next at 17%.
When a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll asked which of four potential candidates for President "frightens you the most," 36% said the New York senator."
But 36%? Egads, that's one out of every three!
118 queries taking 0.0849 seconds, 279 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.