Friday, July 29, 2005

An awesome picture!

Humiliated!

Someone should tell the British police that their treatment of these two individuals is very degrading and humiliating.

GOOD!


What a ma-roon !

Oliver Stone, who plans to make the first major feature film about 9-11 made this idiotic and uninformed comment;
Stone says, "There was an over-reaction after 9/11. Bush was given enormous powers and misused them. He created a war in Iraq that has further helped bust the economy, and has led to civil war there.

"He was the wrong leader at the wrong time. I always felt that. I wish I was wrong."

Your wish has been granted. You are a moron! Here.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. economy grew solidly at a 3.4 percent annual rate in the second quarter, the government reported Friday, just slightly below the first quarter's pace and with room to grow as stocks of unsold goods fell for the first time in two years.

While second-quarter growth eased from a 3.8 percent rate in the first three months of the year, it nonetheless marked the ninth straight quarter in which gross domestic product (search), or GDP, increased at a rate exceeding 3 percent, Commerce Department figures showed.

The first snapshot of second-quarter GDP matched Wall

Thursday, July 28, 2005

The thought has occurred to me as well...

The 7-7 London terrorist bombers bought round-trip tickets and did not leave suicide notes or videos for their families. This article suggests that perhaps they were duped into becoming suicide bombers.

Soldiers preview "Over There" and don't think much of it...

Soldiers at Camp Murray in Tacoma, Washington were given a preview of the new Steven Bochco FX series "Over There" and it was not what Bochco expected. Of course you've heard by now how "true to life" and "gut-wrenching" this show was suppose to be. The media has been raving about it, so immediately I was suspicious. If the media thinks its realistic something must be afoot.

A truck tire hits a flagged wire, a roadside bomb explodes, a handsome private with shredded leg screams in agony. In the bloody chaos of the moment, his soldier buddies panic. One pukes.

Stop the cameras! Sir!

"People don't act like that when an i.e.d. (improvised explosive device) goes off. They make us look like idiots. We're not idiots!" said a first lieutenant previewing "Over There," the new TV series from Steven Bochco ("NYPD Blue," "Hill Street Blues") that debuts tomorrow night on FX cable network. It's set in Iraq, hyped as "true to life" by producers and hailed by critics as "unflinching" and "gut-wrenching."

Well what do you expect from Hollywood? Lets sample a few other comments, shall well?

"Bogus" was the preferred adjective among the eight soldiers -- most of them Iraq vets -- viewing the series pilot last week at Camp Murray, headquarters of the Washington State National Guard in Tacoma.

"Thank God that's over," said a master sergeant as the credits rolled.

It appears that not only are there realism problems but the soldiers are not pleased with the way a scene depicts one soldier while describing killing an insurgent.

But some camo-clad critics at Camp Murray were left wondering just what the message was in "Over There." One said a young soldier who brags about slitting the throat of a child sentry "makes us look like murderers."

Master Sgt. Jeff Clayton complained that cameras deliberately dragged out the death scenes of Iraqi insurgents after a firefight, lingering unnecessarily on the carnage. "It made me sick."

And in keeping with the underreporting the mainstream media does of all the truely good things that the US military does in Iraq there is none of that in "Over There" as well. And it only gets a 1 line mention in this articles reeview of the show.

And where, soldiers asked, were the scenes of soldiers building schools, Iraqi kids waving American flags?

Finally the soldiers who previewed the show said they did get a few things right;
A few scenes passed muster. Heads nodded when a soldier opened up a packet of Taster's Choice freeze-dried and downed the whole thing. Nice detail. Ditto the scene of the earnest soldier describing the horrors of war via computer video e-mail as his adulterous wife is writhing in ecstasy with lover-boy back home.

"But after only a week?" commented one soldier.

"It usually takes at least two," added another.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

What motivates Iraqi police recruits?

Upon reading the title of the link above to this story on the MeSs-NBC page I thought finally a story from the MSM that will portray the Iraqi people in a positive light, one that shows why the Iraqi people are continuing to join the dangerous police force in the face of suicide bombings, hostage taking and executions of many the brave Iraqi policeman. A story that shows that the Iraqis are bravely and actively trying to fight the terrorists to take back their country from the ruins that the terrorists and Saddam Huessein have left.

And then I read the story...and returned to reality.

What motivates Iraqi police recruits?

More on the payola story

Yesterday I mentioned that record companies have found creative ways to skirt the laws while still benefiting from payola. In the LA Times today there is a brief paragraph that explains how its done;
In September, investigators in Spitzer's office subpoenaed executives at the four major record corporations — Sony BMG, Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and EMI Group — to request copies of billing records, contracts, e-mails and other correspondence regarding the [record] companies' relationships with independent music promoters who suggest new songs to radio programmers.
Those intermediaries have long been suspected of passing payments to deejays in exchange for airplay of specific songs. Such payments would violate a federal statute known as the payola law, which prohibits broadcasters from taking cash or anything of value in exchange for playing specific songs unless they disclose the transaction to listeners.

Radio airplay is considered the most powerful promotional tool for record companies. In the past, labels blatantly traded cash, drugs and prostitutes for airplay.

Today, record companies pay independent promoters to persuade radio programmers to spin particular songs. The independent promoters pay radio stations annual fees, sometimes in excess of $100,000, in exchange for advance copies of the stations' playlists. Promoters say the fees do not influence a radio station's choice of songs. However, critics suggest that the payments are a way to skirt the law.

Yeah, right. The payments have nothing to do with radio polluting the airwaves with trash from J-Lo and Jessica Simpson and other "artists" who wouldn't know a melody if it was written for them by Lennon/McCartney.

Monday, July 25, 2005

Payola Shocker? Not to everyone but finally something is being done...

Now we know why all of those crappy J-Lo songs continue to hit the top of the charts, it obvious it wasn't the quality of the singing/song and now it looks like the wheels are coming off this latest version of payola that the record companies are involved in.
"Please be advised that in this week's Jennifer Lopez Top 40 Spin Increase of 236 we bought 63 spins at a cost of $3,600."

"Please be advised that in this week's Good Charlotte Top 40 Spin Increase of 61 we bought approximately 250 spins at a cost of $17K …"

Ironically, it didn't help, as the memo notes that the company actually lost spins — or plays of the record — even though they laid out money for them.

See above: The internal memos from Sony Music, revealed today in the New York state attorney general's investigation of payola at the company, will be mind blowing to those who are not so jaded to think records are played on the radio because they're good. We've all known for a long time that contemporary pop music stinks. We hear "hits" on the radio and wonder, "How can this be?"

It really is incredible when read this article and see what has been going on, from buying "spins" to purchasing DJs and program directors plasma TVs, digital cameras, laptops and vacations to create these so-called hits these so-called artists like J-Lo.
Nice, huh? How many times have I written in this column about talented and deserving artists who get no airplay, and no attention from their record companies? Yet dozens of records with little or no artistic merit are all over the radio, and racked in displays at the remaining record stores with great prominence. Thanks to Spitzer's investigation, we now get a taste of what's been happening.

More memos. This one from Feb. 13, 2004: "Gave a jessica trip to wkse to secure Jessica spins and switchfoot." That would be Jessica Simpson, for whom Sony laid on big bucks in the last couple of years to turn her into something she's clearly not: a star.

And then there's the story of a guy named Dave Universal, who was fired from Buffalo's WKSE in January when there was word that Spitzer was investigating him. Universal (likely a stage name) claimed he did nothing his station didn't know about. That was probably true, but the DJ got trips to Miami and Yankee tickets, among other gifts, in exchange for playing Sony records. From a Sony internal memo on Sept. 8, 2004: "Two weeks ago it cost us over 4000.00 to get Franz [Ferdinand] on WKSE."

Franz Ferdinand, Jessica Simpson, J-Lo, Good Charlotte, etc. Not exactly The Who, Carly Simon, Aretha Franklin or The Kinks. The "classic" is certainly gone from rock.

I guess it didn't work...

Al "Carson"

Friday, July 22, 2005

Pissed off US soldiers greet Kennedy & Durbin last week.

Wonder why the mainstream media has not reported this story?
GIs criticize
Soldiers from Massachusetts and Hawaii who work at the U.S. military detention facility at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, gave visiting home-state senators a piece of their mind last week.
Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, and Daniel K. Akaka, Hawaii Democrat, met with several soldiers during a visit led by Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican.
Pentagon officials said soldiers criticized the harsh comments made recently by Senate Democrats.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, last month invoked widespread military outrage when he compared Guantanamo to the prison labor systems used by communist tyrant Josef Stalin, Cambodia's Pol Pot and Adolf Hitler.
"They got stiff reactions from those home-state soldiers," one official told us. "The troops down there expressed their disdain for that kind of commentary, especially comparisons to the gulag."
A spokesman for Mr. Kennedy had no comment. A spokeswoman for Mr. Akaka confirmed that the senator met with soldiers from Hawaii but did not recall receiving any complaints during the meeting.
Both senators made no mention of the incident in press statements after the visit. Mr. Kennedy, in his statement, said that he is "impressed with the courtesies and professionalism of the men and women in our armed forces."
Mr. Kennedy has been a leading advocate for closing the prison facility. Mr. Akaka in April voted for an amendment that would have cut funds for the prison.

See PM John Howard's response to the idiot press yesterday...

Yesterday PM John Howard of Australia did what Tony Blair could not, bitch-slap the stupid press when one of them asked this idiotic question, watch it here, via Trey Jackson. Just love it! Both videos are must-see, especially the video contained in UPDATE II where the aforementioned bitch-slapping occurs.

Give me a break!

The Washington Post must be having a hard time finding something to attack John Roberts on so instead they decide to attack his wife and kids in the Style section. Very class move...
There they were -- John, Jane, Josie and Jack -- standing with the president and before the entire country. The nominee was in a sober suit with the expected white shirt and red tie. His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues -- like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers. There was tow-headed Jack -- having freed himself from the controlling grip of his mother -- enjoying a moment in the spotlight dressed in a seersucker suit with short pants and saddle shoes. His sister, Josie, was half-hidden behind her mother's skirt. Her blond pageboy glistened. And she was wearing a yellow dress with a crisp white collar, lace-trimmed anklets and black patent-leather Mary Janes.

Thursday, July 21, 2005

A history lesson...

Especially for the "Blame Iraq" crowd check out the Anchoress.

As Orrin Hatch would say, this was a dumbass question!

John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia and a staunch ally in the war on terror, was in London to meet with Tony Blair today when the botched attacks occurred. Here is how he responded to a question from a reporter that implied the reason for the attacks was British, American and Australia's presence in Iraq;
PRIME MIN. HOWARD: Could I start by saying the prime minister and I were having a discussion when we heard about it. My first reaction was to get some more information. And I really don't want to add to what the prime minister has said. It's a matter for the police and a matter for the British authorities to talk in detail about what has happened here.

Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.

Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.

And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.

Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn't have done that?

When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?

When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq -- a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations -- when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor.

Now I don't know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I've cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.

PRIME MIN. BLAIR: And I agree 100 percent with that. (Laughter.)


Hat tip: Kathryn Lopez at NRO Corner.

On the hunt in London, again!

Michele Malkin has a good number of links related to todays attacks/incidents in London.

Good Riddance!

Bah, bye Michael.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Scotty Makes His Final Voyage

James Doohan who played "Scotty" on Star Trek has died at the age of 85. He was one of my favorite characters on ST:TOS, "Star Trek: The Original Series" for you non-trekers out there. I will have to watch a few of my favorite Scotty episodes tonight in honor of James Doohan, "The Doomsday Machine" and "That Which Survives" to name a couple.

See here and here for more on James Doohan.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Excuse me Mr. Cooper, you Googled her?

From Matt Cooper's Time piece:
"As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which. ..."

Ah, wait a minute, if he got her name from Google, wouldn't that mean that it was on the Internet for everyone to see? Ya think maybe a followup question is worthy?

Wonder if the BBC will try and understand this?

Father of Mohamed Atta has praised the London terror attacks.

Supreme Court pick to be announced tonight.

So says CNN.

It's John Roberts. And Chuck Schumer is not happy.

Katie Couric, just a lovely lady...

Funny but is this real? or a pretty good fake? or what Katie thinks of Good Morning America?

Don't worry Dick, there'll be other emails

Looks like Dick Durbin needs to find another FBI agent's email to read from the next time he compares US soldiers to Nazis and Stalin and other upstanding individuals.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner, Virginia Republican, rebuked Mr. Durbin in a Senate debate for reading, as fact, a raw FBI report, the charges in which had not yet been investigated.
That investigation was completed last week by Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt, who commands the 12th Air Force, the air component of U.S. Southern Command, which oversees the 520-inmate prison at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo.
Gen. Schmidt wrote in his report, "Another FBI agent stated she witnessed a detainee short shackled and lying in his own excrement. The [investigation] was unable to find any documentation, testimony, or other evidence corroborating the third agent's recollection to this allegation or her e-mail allegation that one of the detainees had pulled his hair out while short shackled."
The Schmidt report also said, "We discovered no evidence to support the allegation that the detainees were denied food and water."
In all, Gen. Schmidt said he found no evidence of torture, but did find cases of aggressive interrogations of reputed al Qaeda and Taliban members captured in Afghanistan.

Of course this won't deter Durbin's spokesman or Dick himself;
Joe Shoemaker, Mr. Durbin's spokesman, said Friday it is inaccurate to say the charges were disproved because investigators never talked to the FBI agent who wrote the e-mail or to some jail personnel who have since left active duty and declined to talk.

Monday, July 18, 2005

MSM argues in court opposite of it's front page Rove stories...

Check this piece in National Review about an unreported but extremely revealing legal brief encouraged by the NY Times and joined by the Washington Post and 34 other news outlets in which they basically say that their reporters should not be imprisoned since "no crime had been commited". Yes that's right, the same defense that supporters of Karl Rove are using, so does that mean that the MSM is on his side?

Yeah right.

Apparantly the MSM wants to have it both ways, trash Rove and the adminstration on a daily basis on the front pages of all newspapers and news websites but behind the scenes arguing in court in support of Rove.

Rove Mania: MSM misleading again...

The MSM is breathlessly (my new favorite word) reporting today that President Bush has changed his stance on what action he would take against Karl Rove;

Reuters is proudly trumpeting this quote from June 2004;
Asked on June 10, 2004, whether he stood by his earlier pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked the officer's name, Bush replied: "Yes." He did not add the qualification that the person would have to be found to have committed a crime.


That's not quite what he said, this is from CNN, February 11,2004 (although the President said this on 9/30/2003);
"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.


So the President's answer of "YES" to the June 10, 2004 question "do you still stand by what you said several months ago" was relating to the 9/30 statement noted above.

Geez, if I can find this stuff why can't Reuters!

UPDATE: Looks like the rest of the news media is picking up on this line, CBS News, ABC and NBC have the same AP article proudly displayed on their websites as well.

UPDATE 2: It appears that President Bush made the statement indicated in the CNN article on September 30, 2003 and not February 11, 2004 as the posted date of the article indicates. See here or more on this

Friday, July 15, 2005

The outing of Joe Wilson continues...

Now we know why Chucky Schumer and Joe Wilson had their big press conference yesterday, they knew all of this information was coming out today in the NY Times, Washington Post, AP and Washington Times. They needed to distract.

The NY Times is reporting today that Karl Rove spoke with Robert Novak about Valerie Plame some days before Novak's column outed Valerie Plame as a CIA "operative." However, the Times says it was Novak who called Rove about a different matter and then changed the subject and asked Rove about Valerie Plame. Novak identified her to Rove using her maiden name and also informed Rove of the circumstances surrounding her husbands mission to Niger to investigate Iraq yellowcake claims.

Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said.

Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.

After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."


Of course now Judith Miller's roll in all of this becomes even more interesting. Why would she still be in jail? Is she the source? Did she out Plame to Novak? or to Rove? or to both? Or is there someone else that she is protecting?

Lots of good information can be found at InstaPundit, Tom Maguire, Mickey Kaus, and another theory here. Even more great stuff at Betsy Newmarks Page and Michele Malkin.

By the way, can the headline in the NY Times be anymore misleading to the actual content of the story? Rove Reportedly Held Phone Talk on C.I.A. Officer

The AP surprisingly has a fairly balanced take on the same story being reported by the NY Times, even the headline is accurate.

And now Joe Wilson himself is deflating the story with this surprising admission on CNN yesterday;

BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.

What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you.

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.

She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in Vanity Fair appeared. And I have every right to have the American public know who I am and not to have myself defined by those who would write the sorts of things that are coming out, being spewed out of the mouths of the RNC...

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Joe Wilson on "Today" this morning...what a joke!

In an interview that is a complete embarrasment Jamie Gangel of NBC's Today Show asked former Ambassador Joe Wilson and current liar the following deep and probing questions;

What do you think of Karl Rove?
What does your wife think of Karl Rove?
What does she think of all this week? ( huh? )
Are you a Democrat? (he couldn't even answer this question)
Do you and your wife believe the perpetrators of this will ever be punished?
What do you think the White House should do now?
Do you think even though what Karl Rove did may not have broken a law, do you think from what you know he should be fired?


Wow! What a tough interview. I can't believe that Joe Wilson agreed to put himself through this.

How about these questions Jamie;

Why did you lie when you said that VP Dick Cheney and CIA Dir Tenent sent you to Niger?

Why did you lie when you said your wife had nothing to do with you being chosen to go to Niger when the
Senate Intelligence Committee report says that your wife "offered up" your name (page 39, sec B )

Why did you lie when you told the Washington Post in a June 12, 2003
article that the documents related to the possible sale of yellowcake to Iraq were probably forgeries because the names and dates were wrong when you admitted to the committee that you never had seen the documents (page 45, paragraph U)?

Why did you misrepresent your own findings in the
NY Times op-ed when the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded your report actually bolstered the case that Iraq was trying to obtain yellowcake from Niger (page 49, sec U) ?

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

NRO article on Rove mania...

A fascinating article from Byron York of the National Review who spoke to Karl Rove's attorney Robert Luskin about the latest feeding frenzy in Washington over Valerie "Vanity Fair" Plame.

It turns out it was Matt Cooper who called Rove about a completely different matter of welfare reform before changing the subject to Wilson near the end of the conversation.

Luskin told NRO that the circumstances of Rove's conversation with Cooper undercut Time's suggestion of a White House "war on Wilson." According to Luskin, Cooper originally called Rove — not the other way around — and said he was working on a story on welfare reform. After some conversation about that issue, Luskin said, Cooper changed the subject to the weapons of mass destruction issue, and that was when the two had the brief talk that became the subject of so much legal wrangling. According to Luskin, the fact that Rove did not call Cooper; that the original purpose of the call, as Cooper told Rove, was welfare reform; that only after Cooper brought the WMD issue up did Rove discuss Wilson — all are "indications that this was not a calculated effort by the White House to get this story out."


Rove was trying to warn Cooper that Wilson was not being truthful about how he was chosen for the Niger mission when he said VP Dick Cheney and Director of CIA authorized him for the trip. This was confirmed in the Senate Intelligence Committe report issued back in July 2004 which determined that Wilson's wife recommended him for the job. He was telling Cooper this because Rove knew later that same day CIA Director George Tenent was going to make a public statement saying that very thing.
Luskin points out that on the evening of July 11, 2003, just hours after the Rove-Cooper conversation, then-CIA Director George Tenet released a statement that undermined some of Wilson's public assertions about his report.


For more on Joe Wilson's lying see Powerline and theWall Street Journal.

Secondly it was not a last minute dramatic call from Rove letting Matt Cooper know he could reveal his source. Rove signed a general waiver back in Decemer 2003 or January 2004 for "any person" to disclose what Rove had said. But it wasn't until the day that Cooper was poised to go to jail did he finally take advantage of the waiver. He could have done that 18 months ago but did not.

Luskin also shed light on the waiver that Rove signed releasing Cooper from any confidentiality agreement about the conversation. Luskin says Rove originally signed a waiver in December 2003 or in January 2004 (Luskin did not remember the exact date). The waiver, Luskin continues, was written by the office of special prosecutor Fitzgerald, and Rove signed it without making any changes — with the understanding that it applied to anyone with whom he had discussed the Wilson/Plame matter. "It was everyone's expectation that the waiver would be as broad as it could be," Luskin says.

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller have expressed concerns that such waivers (top Cheney aide Lewis Libby also signed one) might have been coerced and thus might not have represented Rove's true feelings. Yet from the end of 2003 or beginning of 2004, until last Wednesday, Luskin says, Rove had no idea that there might be any problem with the waiver.

It was not until that Wednesday, the day Cooper was to appear in court, that that changed. "Cooper's lawyer called us and said, "Can you confirm that the waiver encompasses Cooper?" Luskin recalls. "I was amazed. He's a lawyer. It's not rocket science. [The waiver] says 'any person.' It's that broad.


The media's hysteria over this non-issue is laughable, just watch the White House daily press conference to see what I mean. Pay close attention to Terry Moran and David Gregory, they are the most entertaining of the WHPC.

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Is it just me or...

Isn't anybody wondering why Judith Miller is still in jail? After all, Karl Rove gave Matt Cooper a general waiver in order for him to disclose what he and Rove discussed in order for Cooper to avoid going to jail. Well the MSM seems to be assuming or implying that if Rove gave Cooper permission to reveal his source he must have given Miller the same waiver. But yet Miller remains in jail choosing not to reveal her source of the Plame leak, which the MSM seems to think is Karl Rove, or maybe thats what they want everyone to think.

Doesn't anyone find that curious?

Let's suppose that her source is not Karl Rove. Perhaps her source is someone that her employer the NY Times does not want revealed because it could be embarrasing to them or to the Washington news media? Maybe that's why the White House press corp is on a feeding frenzy right now looking to pin the entire episode on the evil Karl Rove and keep the attention off of Judith Miller for fear that someone might actually have an original thought and ask that question. If someone like me can think of this then surely the highly professional and dogged elite WHPC can think of this angle.

It's also kind of pathetic that they would let one of their own rot in jail just to protect someone that could put the WHPC in a bad light. God forbid.

Hey, maybe Judith Miller is her own source? After all Andrea Mitchell confirmed on MSNBC that it was pretty well known that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA so perhaps she is her own source? For God's sake he had his wife's name on his own bio.

Update: Just had another thought, I get them from time to time. Maybe Judith Miller told Karl Rove that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and recommended him for the mission to Niger. He then mentioned it to Cooper.

Update 2: I guess I am not the the only one, see JunkYardBlog for more.

More on Rove mania from NY Times...

It's almost like watching an NBA game, who watch the last 5 minutes of the games and you know the story, go to the end of this piece in the NY Times and you find this about the last on Rove Mania;
The e-mail message from Mr. Cooper to his bureau chief describing a brief conversation with Mr. Rove, first reported in Newsweek, does not by itself establish that Mr. Rove knew Ms. Wilson's covert status or that the government was taking measures to protect her.

Based on the e-mail message, Mr. Rove's disclosures are not criminal, said Bruce S. Sanford, a Washington lawyer who helped write the law and submitted a brief on behalf of several news organizations concerning it to the appeals court hearing the case of Mr. Cooper and Judith Miller, a reporter for The New York Times. Ms. Miller has gone to jail rather than disclose her source.

"It is clear that Karl Rove's conversation with Matt Cooper does not fall into that category" of criminal conduct, Mr. Sanford said. "That's not 'knowing.' It doesn't even come close."

There has been some dispute, moreover, about just how secret a secret agent Ms. Wilson was.

"She had a desk job in Langley," said Ms. Toensing, who also signed the supporting brief in the appeals court, referring to the C.I.A.'s headquarters. "When you want someone in deep cover, they don't go back and forth to Langley."


UPDATE: More great info over at Betsy Newmark's Page and at PoliPundit as well.

"Terrorist" is a barrier to understanding...

The BBC is afraid offending any terrorists, oh sorry, bombers.
The BBC has re-edited some of its coverage of the London Underground and bus bombings to avoid labelling the perpetrators as "terrorists", it was disclosed yesterday.


And furthermore labeling anyone a terrorist just puts up more barriers to understanding why these people want to strap bombs to themselves and then board subway trains and buses in order to blow themselves to smithereens and take any man, women and child with them.
Consequently, "the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding" and its use should be "avoided", the guidelines say.


I really need to understand this way of thinking.

Monday, July 11, 2005

AOL Biased on Rove Headline

AOL is notorious for very misleading headlines on their front page, here is a perfect example. The headline appears today on their website and on the front page when logging on;

Rove Was Time Reporter's Source

When clicking on the graphic you are taken to the actual article with the somewhat less but still misleading headline of "Rove Spoke With Reporter About CIA Agent" but it is not until the second to last paragraph of the article ( one sentence ) that says the following;
The e-mail did not suggest that Rove used Plame's name or that he knew she was a covert agent, the article said.

So what does all of this mean? Well it doesn't prove didly has far as I can tell. And as for Ms. Plame being an undercover agent why the hell is she posing for Vanity Fair like the one above or more recently like this one;


And was it even much of a secret? Andrea Mitchell reluctantly admitted on MSNBC that is was generally known by the news media, before @#$% hit the fan, that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.

So why do we even care about this?

Check out Betsy Newmark's page on the Rove madness. Of interest to me is this excerpt from this weeks Newsweek article;
Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip."

Friday, July 08, 2005

We're Not Afraid..

Blogs are linking to this site that is accepting pics with "we're not afraid" messages of support to London...

Thursday, July 07, 2005

AP propogating a new urban legend!

AP incorrectly reported this so now the terrorists will undoubtedly seize on this.

Then 27 minutes later they changed the story to this. NOw which version do you think will be picked up by news services all over the world?

It has since been debunked but the AP has not corrected their story yet...

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Live8 - What really rocks? Read on...

Mark Steyn in the UK's Telegraph lays it all out for ya.

I especially like this;
Or as Dave Gilmour of Pink Floyd put it: "I want to do everything I can to persuade the G8 leaders to make huge commitments to the relief of poverty and increased aid to the Third World. It's crazy that America gives such a paltry percentage of its GNP to the starving nations."

When compared to this from the NY Times;
But the fact is that Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than Bill Clinton ever did, increasing the money actually spent for aid there by two-thirds so far, and setting in motion an eventual tripling of aid for Africa. Mr. Bush's crowning achievement was ending one war in Sudan, between north and south. And while Mr. Bush has done shamefully little to stop Sudan's other conflict - the genocide in Darfur - that's more than Mr. Clinton's response to genocide in Rwanda (which was to issue a magnificent apology afterward).

President Bush's approval rating up...

And of course the media is very, very quite ...look here.

What have you learned, Dick? It appears nothing...

From the mind of Dick Durbin, here...

A little perspective on African aid from the NY Times...

The NY Times, of all places, provides a very interesting perspective on just how much of a friend to Africa President Bush reaaly is and how little the previous office holder did;

Those who care about Africa tend to think that the appropriate attitude toward President Bush is a medley of fury and contempt.

But the fact is that Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than Bill Clinton ever did, increasing the money actually spent for aid there by two-thirds so far, and setting in motion an eventual tripling of aid for Africa. Mr. Bush's crowning achievement was ending one war in Sudan, between north and south. And while Mr. Bush has done shamefully little to stop Sudan's other conflict - the genocide in Darfur - that's more than Mr. Clinton's response to genocide in Rwanda (which was to issue a magnificent apology afterward).


So to those screaming idiots at Live 8 accussing Bush of not doing enough, perhaps they didn't do enough homework on the issue, and does that really surprise anyone? When given the choice of bashing Bush or actually addressing the facts we know what the elites will do.

Friday, July 01, 2005

I didn't hear what I think I just heard, did I?

So this morning I hear an excerpt from last nights NBC News broadcast where apparently Brian Williams said that some of the Founding Fathers could be described as terrorists. Williams to Andrea Mitchell during last nights broadcast while discussing if the new president of Iran was in fact one of the American hostage takers back in 1979;
"What would it all matter if proven true? Someone brought up today the first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called 'terrorists' by the British crown, after all."

Mitchell: "Indeed Brian"

Michelle Malkin is all over this.

And this was an entry in Williams blog earlier in the day previewing the the broadcast for that night.