Kicking Their Own Assess

Apparently, the DNC weblog is groupthink central, and interfering opinions should not be posted.

Damn Unilateralists

Those Bloody Unilateralists, Blair and Bush, are at it again:

Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has admitted trying to develop weapons of mass destruction but now plans to dismantle all such programs, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Friday.

Bush said Libya's decision -- which would open the country to international weapons inspectors -- would be "of great importance" in stopping weapons of mass destruction in a global fight against terrorism.

Britain and the United States have been talking about the issue with Libya for nine months, Blair said.

"Libya came to us in March following successful negotiations on Lockerbie to see if it could resolve its weapons of mass destruction issue in a similarly cooperative manner," Blair said in England.

Too bad Bush still hasn't had his lessons from Dean yet- imagine how much better this would have gone if Dean had taugh him a little something.

Literacy Programs for Democrats

I am going to start a general literacy program for Democrats, since the schools seem to be failing them and they simply can not comprehend even the smallest of sentence. Today's example is from Pandagon:

John Cole gets very angry that Democrats are critcizing Bush for having failed to attend even a single funeral for troops who have died in Iraq. He then links to his debunking of the issue. Only debunking might not be the right word. You see, what he finds is that though past presidents don't attend every funeral, they have all atteneded at least a couple. If not that, than they attended memorial services for soldiers who died. Bush, by contrast, has done none of this which, despite Cole's protestations, makes the criticism entirely true. And even if no past presidents had done it, why shouldn't they? Bush was the one who wanted to go to war, these men died on his initiative. As such, shouldn't historical precedent take a backseat to common decency, and Bush should hold a memorial, attend a funeral, or at least lay a wreath down somewhere?

Of course not. What Cole fails to mention is that Bush won't go to a funeral because the press would report it, thus giving more air time to the brave men and women dying over there. It is the same motivation that led to a ban on photographing coffins of dead soldiers and a name change for body bags (they're biological containers or something similarly weird now), it's about minimizing the political impact of the fallen and maximizing the president's political gain from the war. It didn't end up working, but they tried their hardest. And for John Cole to laud them in that quest is not only strange, it's beneath him and anyone else who professes to "support our troops". One of the ways to support them is to honor them for their sacrifice.

Anything more than "Taxes good, Bush bad" seems to be beyond the level of reading comprehension of the modern left anymore. Ezra (who wrote this, and not Jesse- the mistakes point that out quickly) links to the 'debunking,' but either failed to recongize the differences, or failed to read it. Let's go through it one more time, and let's try to remember that this information came from the History News Network:

Lyndon Baines Johnson - According to the Johnson Library, LBJ attended two funerals for soldiers who died during the Vietnam War. The first funeral was for Captain Albert Smith, son of White House correspondent Merriman Smith, which was held February 28, 1966. The second was for Major General Keith R. Ware, held September 17, 1968. LBJ had met Ware while visiting Vietnam.

Richard Nixon - Richard Nixon does not appear to have attended the funerals of any soldiers killed in Vietnam. He did award posthumous medals of honor to the families of several soldiers on 22 April 1971 and on several other occasions. On Veterans day in 1971 he visited the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington Cemetery. In 1973 he met with the family of Colonel William Nolde after the colonel was buried in Arlington Cemetery. Colonel Nolde was killed on January 27th, the night before the cease-fire went into effect.

Jimmy Carter - According to the New York Times, Jimmy Carter attended a memorial service for the soldiers killed in the failed rescue of America hostages in Iran in 1980.

Ronald Reagan - Ronald Reagan attended memorial services on several occasions for American soldiers. In 1983 he attended a service at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, in connection with the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, which cost the lives of 241 people. In 1987 he attended a service at Mayport Naval Station in Florida for the sailors killed on the USS Stark.

George H.W. Bush - President George Herbert Walker Bush does not appear to have attended any funerals for American soldiers. (The NYT, citing Marlin Fitzwater as a source, indicated that the president did attend several such funerals. But no details were provided.)

Bill Clinton - Bill Clinton attended a service in October 2000 in memory of the 17 sailors killed in the attack on the USS Cole.

After the terrorist bombing the Murrah building in downtown Oklahoma City he publicly grieved with the families of the victims at an event that was regarded at the time as a turning point in his presidency.

So the rundown is that LBJ went to two funerals, one to a soldier he had met personally, and one soldier whose father was a White House correspondent- think if Wolf Blitzer's son had been killed. Nixon visited the Tomb of the Unknowns and a Colonel who was killed a night before the end of the war.

Those are the only PERSONAL funerals that any of the Presidents attended. LBJ knew the people whose funeral he was attending, Nixon went because symbolically this was one of the last few soldiers killed in Vietnam.

Let's check the other Presidents action: There is no mention of Ford doing anything, while Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton ONLY ATTENDED mass memorials.

I think the notion that previous Presidents went to individual soldiers has been de-bunked, regardless of how bad Ezra's reading comprehension is. Look at the facts, and look at Ezra's interpretation:

Only debunking might not be the right word. You see, what he finds is that though past presidents don't attend every funeral, they have all atteneded at least a couple. If not that, than they attended memorial services for soldiers who died

The past SEVEN Presidents before the current President Bush attended 4 funerals and several memorial services for LARGE EVENTS. Those events include Carter at Desert One memorial services, Reagan for the Beirut bombings, Clinton for the members of the USS COLE.

I might mention that Bush went to a mass memorial for all those killed at the Pentagon during the 9/11 attacks, keeping in line with the unwritten protocol that has been established by his predecessors.

Let's look at Ezra's foolish projection again:

Of course not. What Cole fails to mention is that Bush won't go to a funeral because the press would report it, thus giving more air time to the brave men and women dying over there. It is the same motivation that led to a ban on photographing coffins of dead soldiers and a name change for body bags (they're biological containers or something similarly weird now), it's about minimizing the political impact of the fallen and maximizing the president's political gain from the war. It didn't end up working, but they tried their hardest. And for John Cole to laud them in that quest is not only strange, it's beneath him and anyone else who professes to "support our troops". One of the ways to support them is to honor them for their sacrifice.

For the last time, this is not the role of the Commander-in-Chief. Generally, I ignore the basic ignorance of the military and military tradition when the left babbles on and on. In my mind, being stupid about the military is a radical improvement from the 60's, 70's and early 80's, when they were not only stupid but overtly hostile. Stupid, as in the case of Ezra here, is a dramatic improvement. However, since Ezra insists, let's go through this one more time. There are multiple reasons a President does not attend funerals of those killed in the line of duty during wartime. These reasons include- which funeral should he attend, why was this soldier's service greater than any others, is it not the role of the Commander-in-Chief to be the 'Mourner in Chief' (ever heard of ministers andpriests?), it sends a message of weakness to the enemy- that this was a tragic loss and not the ultimate sacrifice given willingly in wartime, it shows a lack of national resolve, it will fuel resentment among families whose funeral the President does not attend, the attendance by the President will overshadow the funeral itself- the focuse of which should be a beautiful ceremony for the deceased and the deceased's family and not the President, and on and on.

As far as the policy regarding the press coverage of flag draped caskets, this is a policy from 3 administrations ago that only recently has been enforced due to litigation. Ezra should know this, although it is apparent there is a world of things he does not know, can not comprehend, or is too lazy to look into.

When we get to the specious claims that the President has not met with wounded soldiers, I guess this was just a fabrication:

I guess Ezra missed today's papers, too:

The notion that the President is avoiding funerals because he is afraid of negative coverage is simply vile rhetoric from the know-nothing left. I am going to refuse to even discuss this disgusting agitprop from our friends on the fringe left until they can come up a coherent argument better than the one provided here by the lightweight lunatic Ezra Klein.

*** Update ***

Ezra still can't read.

Ezra states (in defense of his argument babble):

As it goes, past presidents have attended few funerals or memorial services (though they have mostly attended a couple of each), so Bush shouldn't have to.

Two of the seven past presidents have attended INDIVIDUAL funerals, and I noted the exceptions. LBJ knew the people in the two he went to, Nixon went because the person killed was killed the night before a ceasefire. It is documented. I challenge him to find otherwise, or dismiss his new definition of 'MOST.'

Other Presidents have gone to MASS SERVICES, and I noted the types of occassion- The Beirut Bombing for Reagan, Desert One services for Carter, the USS Cole bombing victims for Clinton, and the 9/11 funeral that this President attended.

That is it, for the most part. That is all. I also list a number of reasons why the President SHOULD NOT attend funerals, and this is Ezra's response (again- that reading thing):

Quite basically, Bush has done everything humanly possible to keep casualties out of the media. It hasn't worked, but they've tried damn hard. They have stepped up (as in, this is the first time it will be enforced) enforcement of an old ban on photographing military caskets, reporters are not allowed anywhere near funerals (regardless of the family's wishes, it's a law), body bags are now called "transfer tubes", and despite being at Fort Carson during a military memorial, he declined to attend. Let me repeat, he declined to attend a memorial service he was already at! I guess the reasoning is that Clinton wasn't there, either.

John can blow all the gaskets he wants but it doesn't change the essential facts of this issue. Bush, or others from his cabinet, should be attending funerals simply so they understand the cost of war. Further, the Bush Administration has done everything humanly possible to keep Americans from seeing the casualties and losses we've sustained, which is a cheap way to keep up support for a war. It is dishonorable to launch wars and ask nothing of the American people, up to and including denying them sad moments where they reflect on the human cost of such ventures. Government should not willfully create a disconnect between their policies and their constituents; we should see and know what is occurring, that is how we can make informed decisions.

John accuses me of being "stupid" about the military. Ignoring the schoolyard quality of his rhetoric, he's out of line. I am advocating that I, and all people, become less stupid about the military. There are people dying over there and that deserves recognition. As it is, we live in an age of bloodless wars where Americans don't understand the cost of military conflict. That's not to say that it isn't often necessary, but we are too free with force and too ignorant of what it actually means. Notice that the only person in the Administration who didn't want to enter into this conflict was Powell, "coincidentally" the only member of the Administration who had actually been in a war.

This disconnect between the reality of war and the easy victories we see will, sooner or later, lead us into a fight we won't win, and we're going to pay dearly in lives for that bit of ignorance. John is set upon aiding this Administration in their secrecy and media-based manipulations of the conflict, a strange position for any conservative to put himself in. If Clinton did this, he was wrong. If Carter did it, he was wrong. Bush is doing it, and doing it on a much greater scale than any of his predecessors, he is wrong and it should not be tolerated.

Ezra is simply wrong or lying about the policy regarding the ban on the military caskets. Since I have corrected him once, and he repeats it, he must be lying. Reporters are allowed to film or attend military funerals- I saw two on the NBC news the other night. They are forbidden from filming remains in transport- in other words, filming the caskets before they have been delivered to the families of the deceased.

The administration has not 'stepped up' enforcement of this decade or so old law, but litigation that was enacted when the regulation was put in place has finally been ended, and now the regulation can be enforced as intended.

That is 0 for 2, Ezra. Why are you lying?

The rest is just more of Ezra's loony left double-speak and tinfoil hat madness. I am not intent on hiding the casualties of this war- the number of dead and wounded can be found easily, and when soldiers are killed it is displayed in every newspaper and on every television show. No one is hiding anything- but we do refuse to play politics with the dead, something that is not beneath Ezra and his ilk. If they are not playing politics with the dead, the whole of his argument is that 'Hey- war is real tough and people die.'

Deep thinkers, these guys.

BTW- Ezra- 'Poisoning the debate' and 'poisoning the well' means knowingly and willfully injecting lies and falsehoods into the public and pretending they are the truth. I merely assumed you were semi-literate in my previous post. Now, it is clear you are a liar.

*** Update #3 ***

Still not addressing his lies and mistakes, Ezra now insists that since Ezra himself thinks Bush should attend funerals, Bush is to fault because he is not going to those funerals. Again, no mention of all the reasons why Bush isn't and the historical context.

At any rate, all aspiring politicians should email Ezra and get his email address or cell phone number. I am sure policy makers and leaders everywhere are dying to know what you think they 'should' do. Meanwhile, Jesse chimes in and has his knickers in a twist because I spelled since wrong (it has SINCE been corrected). Someone please go explain the difference between reading comprehension, argument formulation, debate, and a typo.

Those Lovely Democrat Candidates

Reader Jeremey Winer emailed me this lovely tidbit from a Wesley Clark interview:

"We've got a president who will go halfway around the world for a photo opportunity but won't go halfway across town for a funeral for an American serviceman.

"I've been to those funerals. I've comforted families. ... I don't think you can make good policy at the top if you don't understand the impact at the bottom of your organization."

Bush has on only two or three occasions met with the families of fallen servicemen and women, most recently at Fort Carson, Colorado, and he has not attended funerals or greeted caskets returning from Iraq.

WHAT... A... JERK... And as a military man, he has no excuse, he should know better. For chrissakes, how many times are we going to have to debunk this damn meme?

Is there some sort of competition between the Democratic candidates to see who can make the most outrageous statement? Or is that was a Democratic primary is anymore?

LOTR Quiz

Legolas Greenleaf If I were a character in The Lord of the Rings, I would be Legolas, Elf, a son of the King of Mirkwood. In the movie, I am played by Orlando Bloom. Who would you be? Zovakware Lord of the Rings Test with Perseus Web Survey Software

(via Rosemary)

O'Reilly Math

More idiocy from O'Reilly:

FOXNEWS's top-rated host Bill O'Reilly recently claimed that he is "running against Hillary for most copies of nonfiction books sold this year!"

But numbers obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT show a dramatically different sales scene for 2003 than O'Reilly's TODAY show comments.

NIELSEN's BOOKSCAN placed O'Reilly at #6 for the year on the nonfiction charts, trailing rival Al Franken by nearly 30%!

What do you expect, really? Bet that Franken part really pisses him offf, though. Goodness, I dislike that man.

This Is Appalling

MArk Kleiman details the latest outrage in the War on Your Neighbor.

Good Point

I'll just quote this entire Matt Yglesias post and then comment, as it is a short post:

Dominique de Villepin quote lurking in an article about debt relief:

De Villepin also promised to send constitutional law experts to help Iraqis draft their new constitution. Hakim in turn thanked de Villepin, saying France was "the first country to call for a rapid transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi people" and "the mother of law and human rights."

At the end of the day, I think this is what Franco-American conflict is really all about. Here you have two countries, both of which think of themselves as "the mother of law and human rights" and have a tendency to get self-righteous about it.

While I do believe that the Fench engage in their fair share of shady dealings, Matt has a very fair point here. Both nations are acting in their own self-interest, and what has become irritating is that the French have determined that it is in their self-interest to beat down American 'hegemony' at every opportunity. Thus, the French engage in a whole bunch of self-serving and self-destructive power plays that are essentially what my mother always called 'cutting off your nose to spite your face.'

In an attempt to mute American power and restrain the Cowboy Bush, the French engaged in a number of duplicitous and manipulative behaviors behind the scenes in the UN Security Council (all of which had the extra side benefit of leaving Hussein in power, thus preserving arms debts and TotalFinaElf contracts, I might cynically add). The end result, of course, is an impotent Security Council that half the world now views as unimportant and sterile. Did this really serve French interests? Was this an effective stop-gap on Amercian powewr? The answer, quite simply is no. A strong UNSC is most certainly in the best interests of the French (and everyone, I would assert).

The French also attempted to align the entire EU against the United States, threatening countries, warning Turkey- all to create a counterbalance to American power- that being the collective might of the EU balancing out the EU. Did this work? Of course not, and rguments could be made that many of the problems with the EU right now stem from just this type of behavior.

I don't even have enough time or web space to devote to all the French perfidy involving NATO, but I will simply assert it did not help French stature or power.

The end result has been that all of the French actions in their self-interest have served France poorly, have hampered the global effort to get rid of Saddam and rebuild Iraq, have stirred up anti-American sentiment abroad, anti-French sentiment at home, and in the worst cases, stopped us from opening a northern front (and causing how many American deaths) and empowering the resistance from Saddam and now the defeated Ba'athists.

The most irritating thing, however, that drives people like me up the wall, is the opinion that the French are not acting in their self-interest while the United States is, and this attitude seems to exude predominantly from people on the left side of the political spectrum. There is no International Coalition in Iraq because the French and Germans are not involved, etc.

Matt's post is basically right- both countries tend to act in their self-interest (what a shock), but the French are never called to task for it. Add to it that France's recent behavior has been short-sighted and self-defeating, moe based on a knee-jerk reaction to stop American will, and it is quite easy to understand why people like me frequently think "Who the hell cares what the French think?"

The Face of Scare Politics

From the drooling ninnies at the NY Times:

Let's hope that this week will mark both the beginning and the end of the use of Osama bin Laden as a prop in political campaign commercials. The current TV ad starring the most infamous face in terrorism is part of a "stop Howard Dean" movement from his fellow Democrats. Perhaps the true originators — whose identities are as murky as Qaeda operatives' — can be persuaded to cease and desist as a holiday present to the people of New Hampshire and South Carolina.

That ad's message — that Dr. Dean, the former Vermont governor, lacks foreign policy experience — is fair enough. But it is delivered with low-blow stealth as the ad's graphics dwell entirely on the sociopathic bin Laden stare. The screen shows floating scraps of scare phrases, "Dangerous World . . . Destroy Us . . .," and finally the tag-line bodkin alleging that Dr. Dean "just cannot compete with George Bush on foreign policy."

The ad is scary- the idea of Howard Dean letting our policy be run by Kofi Annan ad his ilk scares the shit out of me. I guesss the Times is not only content not letting us run ads late in the campaign, but early on during the campaign they want to tell us what kind of ads can and can not be run.

Steyn Online

Your daily dose of Steyn.

#2?

Let's cross our fingers.

Turn In Your Membership Card, Card

Looks like Oliver has another Democrat to excommunicate. This time, Orson Scott Card has dared to wander off the plantation. Some excerpts:

In one of Patrick O'Brian's novels about the British navy during the Napoleonic wars, he dismisses a particularly foolish politician by saying that his political platform was "death to the Whigs." Watching the primary campaigns among this year's pathetic crop of Democratic candidates, I can't help but think that their campaigns would be vastly improved if they would only rise to the level of "Death to the Republicans."

Instead, their platforms range from Howard Dean's "Bush is the devil" to everybody else's "I'll make you rich, and Bush is quite similar to the devil." Since President Bush is quite plainly not the devil, one wonders why anyone in the Democratic Party thinks this ploy will play with the general public.

There are Democrats, like me, who think it will not play, and should not play, and who are waiting in the wings until after the coming electoral debacle in order to try to remake the party into something more resembling America...

...Iraq is not Vietnam. Nor is the Iraq campaign even the whole war. Of course there's still fighting going on. Our war is against terrorist-sponsoring states, and just because we toppled the governments of two of them doesn't mean that the others aren't still sponsoring terrorism. Also, there is a substantial region in Iraq where Saddam's forces are still finding support for a diehard guerrilla campaign.

In other words, the Iraq campaign isn't over--and President Bush has explicitly said so all along. So the continuation of combat and casualties isn't a "failure" or a "quagmire," it's a "war." And during a war, patriotic Americans don't blame the deaths on our government. We blame them on the enemy that persists in trying to kill our soldiers.

He's a witch! Burn him! Run him out of the party! Maybe if Orson had read Howard Dean's collected works on national defense. It may not be to late, Mr. Card- I hear he is still giving lessons.

Debt Relief

This is something I feel very strongly about (I remember going almost nuclear about this earlier his year), and it appears we are making progress:

France and Germany agreed to work toward a "substantial reduction" of Iraq's towering foreign debt next year, marking a significant step forward in the United States' effort to rebuild the devastated country as well as progress in mending ties with the two countries most opposed to the American-led war there.

"Debt reduction is critical if the Iraqi people are to have a chance to build a free and prosperous Iraq," said the statement released by French President Jacques Chirac's office following language agreed upon by the three countries. "Therefore, France, Germany and the United States agree that there should be substantial debt reduction for Iraq in the Paris Club in 2004, and will work closely with each other to achieve this objective."

What remains to be seen is whether or not they will put their money where their collective mouths are (I refer you back to Sebastian's piece discussing the difference between words and deeds), but this is a positive first step.

If only Howard Dean had taken the time to teach former Secretary Baker and President Bush about foreign affairs, instead of just teaching them about defense, perhaps that could have been negotiated today. Howie will soon save us all, I guess.

*** Updates ***

Great minds, and all that.

Afghan Reconstruction

This is positive:

"We are standing — literally — on the road to Afghanistan's future," Mr. Khalilzad said, speaking to a group of dignitaries gathered for an inauguration ceremony at kilometer 43 of the seductively smooth strip of gray. "It is a future of national unity. It is a future of prosperity. It is a future of peace."

The resurfacing of the road, which has reduced the travel time on its 300-mile distance from as much as 30 hours to 6 hours or less, has become the most visible sign of Afghanistan's postwar reconstruction, which many Afghans say has otherwise been frustratingly slow. It has given the Afghans who live nearby easier access to health care and markets and linked the Pashtun-dominated south with the north.

It is also the most visible evidence of the United States' commitment to that reconstruction, with America providing $190 million to complete the highway, the first phase of an effort to rebuild the ring road that circumnavigates Afghanistan. The highway had originally been built with United States government financing in the 1960's. The reconstruction began in January of this year.

"President Bush personally committed himself to the success of this project and he is a man who keeps his promises," Mr. Khalilzad said, referring to Mr. Bush's determination that the highway be finished before the end of the year.

Bah, Karzai- just another Bush crony. Clearly, George Bush could learn something from Howard Dean about foreign affairs.

My New Personal Hero

The truth hurts:

Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, accused the United Nations Security Council today of having failed to help rescue his country from Saddam Hussein, and he chided member states for bickering over his beleaguered country's future.

"Settling scores with the United States-led coalition should not be at the cost of helping to bring stability to the Iraqi people," Mr. Zebari said in language unusually scolding for an occupant of the guest seat at the end of the curving Security Council table.

"Squabbling over political differences takes a back seat to the daily struggle for security, jobs, basic freedoms and all the rights the U.N. is chartered to uphold," he said.

Taking a harsh view of the inability of quarreling members of the Security Council to endorse military action in Iraq, Mr. Zebari said, "One year ago, the Security Council was divided between those who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and those who wanted to hold him accountable.

"The United Nations as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure."

He declared, "The U.N. must not fail the Iraqi people again."

Bitchslapping the Axis of Weasels. Of course, everyone will declare, Mr. Zebari is just a puppet for that tyrant George Bush.

Link Diagrams

Here is an interesting WaPo article on the types of intelligence techniques used to find Saddam. Read the whole thing, including the 'carrot and stick' strategy they intend to use to approach those who were on the fence prior to Saddam's capture.

Like I Said

In the short term, I expect an uptick in bold and poorly planned attacks on American troops withe results like this:

American soldiers killed 11 attackers who ambushed their patrol using a flock of pigeons as a signal of the force's approach, an American military statement said today, in an incident that appeared to be a further sign that the insurgency has not slowed after the capture of Saddam Hussein.

The military also said in other statements issued today that unrest continued in Ramadi and Falluja, two towns known for their support of the former Iraqi leader, and that American troops shot and killed at least two gunmen.

These "dead-enders" have nothing left, and this should taper down in a month or so, if not before. These are not rational actors with a long-term strategy. These are Ba'athists and other Saddam loyalists lashing out in anger and, more importantly, embarassment from the way their cowardly leader surrendered.

What will probably continue to be a problem are the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism conducted by the usual coalition of whackos and jihadis from abroad. At least that is my prediction- and it is starting to appear that the Iraqi population has little patience for these wing-nuts.

Miller Time

Via DailyPundit, this short Time.com interview with Dennis Miller:

Explain how the war in Iraq makes sense to you as a response to 9/11.

Like there's no chance that the secular state of Iraq and Islamic fundamentalists cohabitate? They both think we're Satan. How about that as a nice point of departure for them car-pooling? I wish there was a country called al-Qaedia that we could have invaded, but there wasn't. (Saddam was) the only one who had a home address.

A lot of California Republicans want you to run for Senate. Will you?

At some point that involves moving to Washington, D.C., sitting in a room all day with a moron like Barbara Boxer. I'm just not interested. I like open minds, and I think in Washington right now, we might as well start painting those people red and blue.

Heh.

Dean's Speech

I guess I am not the only one to realize that Dean's speech yesterday was breathtaking in its simplicity and naivete. In short, it was like a poly-sci undergrad gathered all the anti-Bush unilateralism diatribes and co-mingled them with some of the isolationist and 'peace at all costs' rhetoric of the loony left, and then disguised it all as an appeal international 'cooperation.'

Howard Dean declared on Monday that "the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer," provoking an avalanche of new attacks from rivals who have seized on Sunday's surprise news as a way of redrawing the foreign policy debate in the Democratic presidential campaign...

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, who supported the war, spent a second day in row hammering Dr. Dean on the Iraq issue, and scheduled a speech for Tuesday in New Hampshire to highlight their differences on national security.

"If he truly believes the capture of this evil man has not made America safer, then Howard Dean has put himself in his own spider hole of denial," Mr. Lieberman said. "I fear that the American people will wonder if they will be safer with him as president."

Mr. Edwards, in his first major speech on foreign policy in months, said that while Mr. Hussein's capture "did not end the danger in Iraq," it had "kicked the door wide open for all of us to hope that sooner and not later democracy will thrive for the Iraqi people." He called on the administration to include the international community in rebuilding Iraq and in trying Mr. Hussein."

Dean and his supporters are living in some parallel universe- that much is clear. This statement from his speech is just a gem:

Let me be clear: My position on the war has not changed.

Which is why you are entirely unelectable. Standing on principle is great, but it helps if you are right, and it also helps if your principle does not appear to be a construction based upon political calculus. Gephardt said it best:

"We can't beat George Bush by playing politics with foreign policy," Mr. Gephardt told reporters in a campaign swing in Ecorse, Mich. "We've got to stand up for what we think is right. That's what I've always done and that's what I'll always do."

In a rational Democratic party, Lieberman and Gephardt would be the only candidates getting any attention. The Democrats are not rational, however, and as I have predicted for the last year, Dean is still their favorite. The Democratic party needs to get rid of McAullife, spend a year or two soul-searching, take some anger management classes, and pull themselves together. They have simply lost it- and with another southern Democrat retiring from the Senate, the executive branch is the only branch they have a remote chance of recapturing in the next 6 years.

And The Spin Begins

Seems someone agrees with Kofi Annan that Saddam should be tried in an 'International Court:'

Saddam Hussein's family wants the former leader to be tried by an international court instead of a special tribunal set up by the U.S.-installed Iraqi Governing Council, one of his daughters said Tuesday.

Raghad Saddam Hussein said her father appeared sedated in footage released Sunday by the U.S.-led occupation authority after his capture near his home town of Tikrit.

“Every honest person who knows Saddam know that he is firm and powerful. Saddam was tranquilized when captured,” she said in an interview with the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television station.

“He would be a lion even when caged,” she said.

The cowardly lion. At any rate, it seems Saddam will have top notch legal council:

Captured former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein already has at least two lawyers who are prepared to defend him.

For one, a French defense lawyer, also known as the "devil's advocate" said Monday he would be prepared to defend Saddam Hussein and that the former president must be presumed innocent at any trial.

Jacques Verges, a former French Resistance fighter who later campaigned against colonialism, has represented Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie and Carlos the Jackal in the past. Verges said hiding Saddam away was against international conventions.

"If he had to be prosecuted tomorrow, he would have to be presumed innocent," Verges told French radio station Europe 1, and added that Saddam should be allowed to receive visitors if he is held as a prisoner of war.

Verges has taken on some tough cases in the past. Barbie, also known as the "butcher of Lyon", was jailed for life in 1987 for crimes against humanity in Nazi-occupied France. Carlos the Jackal is serving a life sentence in France for a wave of deadly attacks in Europe in the 1970s and 80s.

Meanwhile, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark was quoted on an Islamic Web site saying he would take the job of defending Saddam.

Verges, when asked if he was ready to defend Saddam Hussein, replied, "Yes." However, he stressed he was only speaking hypothetically.

In short, the Coalition of the Pissy wants the Coalition of the Willing to turn Saddam over to a Coalition of Barking Moonbats.

More from the "All Dissent is Patriotic Crowd"

Rep. McDermott is back in the news:

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., who earned headlines across the globe last year for criticizing President Bush while in Baghdad, is enmeshed in a new controversy over remarks he made about the capture of Saddam Hussein.

In an interview Monday with a Seattle radio station, McDermott said the U.S. military could have found the former Iraqi dictator "a long time ago if they wanted."

Asked if he thought the weekend capture was timed to help Bush, McDermott chuckled and said, "Yeah. Oh, yeah."

McDermott went on to say, "There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing."

When interviewer Dave Ross asked again if he meant to imply the Bush administration timed the capture for political reasons, McDermott said: "I don't know that it was definitely planned on this weekend, but I know they've been in contact with people all along who knew basically where he was. It was just a matter of time till they'd find him.

"It's funny," McDermott added, "when they're having all this trouble, suddenly they have to roll out something."

Really- they just dislike Bush's policies.

(via Drudge)

*** Update ***

JKC, in the comments section, claims I am fringebaiting. I may be, but let's keep one thing crystal clear- Jim McDermott and his ilk are the main supporters for Howard Dean, who is the Democratic frontrunner to date.

*** Update #2 ***

Matt Stinson and Right Wing News have more.

*** Update #3 ***

Gary Farber comments on the War on Straw. He is right, of course. But it is so much damn fun quoting people like McDermott.

Should Have Seen This Coming

I guess now that Saddam is in captivity, I should have seen this coming. The NY Times gives seom front p[age web coverage to yet another pop psychology voyage in the "Bush and his daddy vs. the evil Hussein."

They have a team of monkeys working at the Times? Jeebus. Good thing Krugman is on vacation- I am not sure how the hell he would have spun Saddam's capture as bad for the economy.

Poor Underfunded Democrats

Those poor underfunded Democrats, now that they have led the charge in protecting incumbents and silencing critics with CFR, are now leading the charge in soliciting international funds to further their cause.

Frustrated with the lack of domestic support, left-leaning website MoveOn.org has apparently been reaching beyond American borders to generate cash revenue over the internet!

The provocative international fundraising strategy threatens to embroil the presidential candidacies of General Wesley Clark and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.

Both men are named on international fundraising websites suggesting donations to MoveOn.org.

Meanwhile, MoveOn.org, which has been running ads critical of the Bush Administration, has named an "International Campaigns Director," the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

It is not clear how much money has been raised -- to date-- from foreign sources, but political websites from London to Portugal to Montreal are directing their citizens to stop the American president George Bush by donating to MoveOn.org!

Wesley Clark's official campaign website has been offering a link to "Canada For Clark", which in turn advises Canadians: "Non-Americans can't by law, give money to any particular candidate's campaign. But we can support pro-democracy, progressive American organizations like MoveOn.org, which do their best to spread the ugly truth about Bush and publicize the Democratic message. Click here to donate to MoveOn.org."

The top traffic referrer to CanadaForClark.com is Clark's Official Campaign Website.

Cute. I guess with Clinton out of office, the Chinese money dried up. At any rate, it appears the Swedes are a non-player at this time.