Tuesday, April 03, 2007

The anti-Schizophrenia Drugs wore off... again



In Firmly in control, I illustrated the egregious and schizophrenic behavior of many on the left side of the Congressional aisle.


Over the last few months, Democratic leaders have begun acting even more erratically.


In November 2006, Nancy Pelosi chose Silvestre Reyes as House Intelligence Committee chairman. Reyes promptly told Newsweek, "We're not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies. We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq. I would say 20,000 to 30,000-for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military."


Next, the Democrats in the Senate gave unanimous confirmation to Robert Gates as defense secretary.


On November 30, the Democrats' Senate leader, Harry Reid, said, "We're not going to do anything to limit funding or cut off funds."


On December 17, Reid, said it was reasonable to send more troops to Iraq: "If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that."


In January, the Senate confirmed Army General David Petraeus 81-0.


Well. I suppose times have changed. Or the anti-schizophrenia drugs wore off - once again. Once the commanders requested a surge of troops for -- yes -- a short period of time, Reid promptly reversed himself. The National Ledger observes that Reid has decided to cut off funding for American troops while they are at war. The liberal democrat said Monday he wants to cut off money for the Iraq war next year, making clear for the first time that Democrats are willing to pull out all the stops to end U.S. involvement. Playing to his far left base, the US Senate leader said Monday that he will join forces with Feingold, one of the party's most liberal members who has long called to end the war by denying funding for it.


This really shouldn't come as much of a surprise. Between 1998 and 2004, key Democratic leaders changed their tune on Saddam Hussein faster than Michael Moore can down a Biggie-sized Wendy's Triple.

* * *

Writing at the National Review, Kate O'Beirne observed:

Rather than back a non-binding resolution of disaproval, why didn't the gutsy Senators, like Chuck Hagel, who are riding the surf of public opinion opposed to the troop surge and taking on a president with approval ratings at the freezing level vote aginst General Petraeus' confirmation? Their convictions hold that he has endorsed a wholly unjustified escalation and will be leading troops on a futile mission. They want a role in the conduct of the war and with the need to win Senate confirmation of Gen. Petraeus the Constitution has given them one, but they have taken a pass.

It shouldn't come as much of a surprise, given their egregious track record of flip-flops.


One hopes that a knowledgeable M.D. in Congress can prescribe some Lexapro, a drug typically used to combat bi-polar disorders.

No matter. It's crystal clear -- even to the Left -- that the American people can't trust the Democratic leadership to hold a position longer than they can hold their breath.

They're a joke, but America's military isn't laughing with them.


Oven-baked good readin', just like Mama used to make:
Anchoress, Astute Bloggers, Atlas Shrugs, Captain's Quarters, Discerning Texan, Gateway Pundit, Hang Right Politics, OTB, Wizbang

Another picture you won't be seeing in the Times


Dave Hinz provides some excellent observations regarding this picture, which will certainly remain a blogosphere exclusive. The mainstream media wouldn't touch this one with a ten-foot pole.


George W Bush is the President of the United States, not an usher. Robert Byrd is a former Ku Klux Klan member-turned elder statesman of the US Senate, a Democrat who has said that the President lied about the reasons for invading Iraq. “Eventually, the truth will emerge. And when it does, this house of cards, built of deceit, will fall.”

So why then did this President take the time and trouble to take the hand of his political enemy, a man who has said, “We have heard a lot about revisionist history from the White House of late in answer to those who question whether there was a real threat from Iraq. But, it is the President who appears to me to be intent on revising history.”

Why would this President show such deference and respect to a man who has suggested that he, the President, has been guilty of impeachable offenses?

The answer is as simple as the humility of this President. He took the hand of Robert Byrd, to help him into his seat, because Byrd is approaching 90 years of age, and this President is respectful of his elders. He took his hand because he needed help, and this President is not the type of person to turn his back on a fellow human being in need. He took his hand as an act of friendship, because this President does not take his politics personally. He understands that his political enemies are not his personal enemies...

Click on the picture to read the whole thing.

The Trouble with Progressives


Former Zawahiri associate and professional terrorist Tawfik Hamid found an odd home today: the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal. Hamid dismisses the "progressive" idea that the extremist strain of his religion can be pinned on "root causes":


It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the "end of days." The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.

The grave predicament we face in the Islamic world is the virtual lack of approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that clearly challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah. Unlike Salafism, more liberal branches of Islam, such as Sufism, typically do not provide the essential theological base to nullify the cruel proclamations of their Salafist counterparts. And so, for more than 20 years I have been developing and working to establish a theologically-rigorous Islam that teaches peace.

Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals -- who unceasingly claim to support human rights -- have become obstacles to reforming Islam...

Read it all.

WSJ: Tawfik Hamid (subscription required)

Sunday, April 01, 2007

What would Horatio Lord Nelson do?



With the capture of its sailors and marines by Iran, the British government appears humiliated and impotent. Fifteen sailors have been held in an undisclosed location, interrogated, denied medical or diplomatic access, and paraded about on television complete with staged "confessions." And the British have lowered their heads in submission and just... taken it.

The question I have: what would Britain's legendary naval commander Horatio Lord Nelson do? From Wikipedia:


Given command of the 64-gun Agamemnon in 1793, Britain's Captain Horatio Nelson soon started a long series of battles and engagements that would seal his place in naval history.


In 1794 he was wounded in the face by stones and debris thrown up by a close cannon shot during a joint operation at Calvi, Corsica. As a result, Nelson lost the sight in his right eye and half of his right eyebrow. Despite popular legend, there is no evidence that Nelson ever wore an eye patch, though he was known to wear an eyeshade to protect his remaining eye.


On 14 February 1797 he was largely responsible for the British victory at the Battle of Cape St. Vincent. Here he showed his flair for dramatic and bold action. Under the command of Sir John Jervis, the British fleet was ordered to "tack in line," but Nelson disobeyed these orders and wore ship to alter course and prevent the Spanish fleet from escaping. He then boarded two enemy ships in succession, an unusual and bold move which was cheered by the whole fleet. Nelson himself led the boarding parties, which was not usually done by high ranking officers.


While commanding Theseus during an expedition to conquer Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Nelson was shot in the right arm with a musketball, fracturing his humerus bone in multiple places. Since medical science of the day counselled amputation for almost all serious limb wounds (to prevent death by gangrene), Nelson lost almost his entire right arm and was unfit for duty until mid-December. He referred to the stub as "my fin."


In 1798 Nelson was once again responsible for a great victory over the French. The Battle of the Nile took place in1798. The battle effectively ended Napoleon's ambition to take the war to the British in India. The forces Napoleon had brought to Egypt were stranded. Napoleon attempted to march north along the Mediterranean coast but his army was defeated at the Siege of Acre. Given its huge strategic importance, some historians (see Vincent 2003) regard Nelson's achievement at the Nile as the most significant of his career, Trafalgar notwithstanding.


In 1801 Nelson was promoted to Vice Admiral of the Blue. Within a few months he took part in the Battle of Copenhagen... which was fought in order to break up the armed neutrality of Denmark, Sweden, and Russia. During the action, his commander, Sir Hyde Parker, who believed that the Danish fire was too strong, signalled to Nelson to break off the action. Nelson ordered that the signal be acknowledged, but not repeated. He turned to his flag Captain, Sir Thomas Foley, and said "You know, Foley, I only have one eye — I have the right to be blind sometimes," and then holding his telescope to his blind eye, said "I really do not see the signal!" His action was approved in retrospect and in May he became commander-in-chief in the Baltic Sea.


On 21 October 1805 Nelson engaged in his final battle, the Battle of Trafalgar. Napoleon Bonaparte had been massing forces once again for an invasion of the British Isles, but he decided that his navy was not adequate to secure the Channel for the invasion barges. Thus, Napoleon had started moving his troops for a campaign elsewhere in Europe. On 19 October the French and Spanish fleet set sail from Cádiz... Nelson, with twenty-seven ships, engaged the thirty-three opposing ships.


As the two fleets moved towards engagement, Nelson ran up a thirty-one flag signal to the rest of the fleet, spelling out the famous phrase "England expects that every man will do his duty."


After crippling the French flagship Bucentaure, Victory moved on to the Redoutable. The two ships became entangled, at which point snipers in the fighting tops of Redoutable were able to pour fire down onto the deck of Victory. Nelson was one of those hit: a bullet entered his left shoulder, pierced his lung, and came to rest at the base of his spine. Nelson retained consciousness for four hours, but died soon after the battle ended with a British victory.


Nelson was noted for his considerable ability to inspire and bring out the best in his men, to the point that it gained a name: "The Nelson Touch". Famous even while alive, after his death he was lionised like almost no other military figure in British history... Most military historians believe Nelson's ability to inspire officers of the highest rank and seamen of the lowest was central to his many victories, as was his unequalled ability to both strategically plan his campaigns and tactically shift his forces in the midst of battle. Certainly, he ranks as one of the greatest field commanders in military history. Many consider him to have been the greatest warrior of the seas.


Returning to Iran's kidnapping of British soldiers: I'm pretty sure I know what Nelson would have done.

The only question that remains is: will we find a Nelson by the time Iran gets nuclear weapons?

Falling Panda: Boycott The View and its Sponsors


Dan at Falling Panda has a wonderful idea for dealing with the rot that has become The View. If you're just tuning in, Rosie O'Donnell, a co-host on the show, has fallen off the deep end.


In addition to dispensing her usual hard-Left blather, O'Donnell has now begun marketing 9/11 conspiracy theories. One of the hateful fictions: implying that the U.S. Government, neocons, Israelis/Zionists, or some combination thereof, used controlled explosions to bring down World Trade Center 7. Popular Mechanics promptly obliterated her ludicrous theory, using concepts foreign to the likes of O'Donnell (i.e., science, facts, and analytics).

Falling Panda calls for a boycott of not only The View itself but also its sponsors. Dan lists the following sponsors from the 3/30 show:

Humira - Arthritis drugPier 1 ImportsVaseline Intensive Rescue Body Lotion
Pilsbury Toaster StrudelT.J. MaxxStanley Steemer
Reach One Ultimate Clean ToothbrushM&M'sJanome Sewing Machine
ZyrtecTide Laundry DetergentMarshall's
Stainmaster CarpetCottonelle Toilet TissueCrest Whitening Rinse
Disney's Meet the RobinsonsBest Foods MayonnaiseWoolite
Claritin -DSearsHoney Bunches of Oats
Loestrin 24ExcedrinI Can't Believe It's Not Butter
BAM Power CleanerPepto BismolHead And Shoulders
Bush's Baked BeansMiracle-GroScrubbing Bubbles
SingulairAll DetergentDove Ice Cream
Clorox

Please join the effort. Avoid these products and make clear why. And feel free to repost this article in whole or in part.

Dan reports that since January, the ABC morning show has lost close to a half million --uhm-- viewers. Let's accelerate the demise of Rosie's hard left, anti-American soapbox.

Update at 20:40: Dan has provided a link to Janome's Customer Feedback Form. Feel free to rip off my letter if you'd like:

To whom it may concern:

I want to express my concerns regarding your association with the ABC show "The View" and Rosie O'Donnell in particular. O'Donnell has always been somewhat liberal in her views but last week she appeared to go way over the line.

On Friday, O'Donnell implied that the U.S. Government or some other conspiracy had played a part in the collapse of the World Trade Center.

This is outrageous and patently ludicrous propaganda. Popular Mechanics Magazine promptly rebutted her ridiculous assertions. I don't have a problem with most of what O'Donnell says, but 9/11 Conspiracy theories and the like debase the show and, by extension, your products.

I would recommend severing ties with "The View" until it cleanses itself of this anti-American rhetoric.

Best Regards, --name--

Gmail Paper: hardcopies of all your emails


Need hardcopies of your emails? Gmail Paper is a new Google service that threatens to revolutionize your email messages by transforming them into --er-- print.

Google's 2007 April Fool's Joke

Best of all, the service is free. It's subsidized by advertisers, who print subtle, context-sensitive ads on the hardcopies. For more information, just position your mouse over the photo.

Line o' the Day


Mark Steyn on Britain's Carter-esque response to Iran's snatch-and-grab of its fifteen sailors:

...the Royal Navy operates under rules of engagement designed by distant fainthearts with an eye to the polite fictions of "international law": If you're in a ''warship,'' you can't wage war. If you're in a ''destroyer,'' don't destroy anything. If you're in a "frigate," you're frigging done for...

More for the fainthearts to worry about: if this is how the Iranians behave without nukes, fasten your seat-belts.

Saturday, March 31, 2007

Rosie O'Donnell, The View and the Mainstreaming of Hateful Nonsense


Bernard Goldberg, visiting The O'Reilly Factor, distilled Rosie O'Donnell's bizarre rants with an incisive turn of phrase:

The real danger is that they're mainstreaming this hateful nonsense.

Hateful nonsense indeed. Her most recent diatriabe contained an allusion to a U.S. Government conspiracy to destroy World Trade Center 7:


...I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7—building 7, which collapsed in on itself—it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade [Center] 1 and 2 got hit by planes—7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible... To say that we don’t know that it imploded, that it was an implosion and a demolition, is beyond ignorant. Look at the films, get a physics expert here [on the show] from Yale, from Harvard, pick the school—[the collapse] defies reason.

Fortunately, Popular Mechanics has offered a scathing response to Rosie (hat tip: LGF). Using scientific data, engineering reports, analysis, and research, it has eradicated O'Donnell's sick meanderings. Read the whole thing; I've created an illustrated summary of the key facts.


"Initial reports from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) misunderstood the amount of damage the 47-floor WTC7 sustained from the debris of the falling North Tower—because in early photographs, WTC7 was obscured by smoke and debris."


"...Towers 1 and 7 were approximately 300 ft. apart, [a] small [distance] for structures that large. After further studies, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) told PM that debris from the 110-floor North Tower hit WTC7 with the force of a volcanic eruption. Nearly a quarter of the building was carved away over the bottom 10 stories on its south face, and significant damage was visible up to the 18th floor..."


"The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center weren’t knocked down by planes—they both stood for more than a half-hour after the impacts. But the crashes destroyed support columns and ignited infernos that ultimately weakened—not melted—the steel structures until the towers could no longer support their own weights... Ms. O’Donnell fundamentally misstates the case with her use of the word “melting”: Evidence currently points to WTC7 also collapsing because fires weakened its ravaged steel structure."


"Tower 7 housed the city’s emergency command center, so there were a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building—including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that fed some generators in the building by pressurized lines.. Steel melts at about 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit—but it loses strength at temperatures as low as 400 F. When temperatures break 1000 degrees F, steel loses nearly 50 percent of its strength. It is unknown what temperatures were reached inside WTC7, but fires in the building raged for seven hours before the collapse."


"Demolition experts tell PM that wiring a building the size of WTC7 for clandestine demolition would present insurmountable logistical challenges... there’s a clear-cut engineering explanation for why the building fell the way it did. Trusses on the fifth and seventh floors of the building were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another; with the south face heavily damaged... The entire building fell in on itself as the slumping east side dragged down the west side in a diagonal pattern. Still, damage to the Verizon Building... directly west of WTC7, and to Fiterman Hall... directly north, show that it was hardly an orderly collapse."


"NIST is currently preparing its final report on the collapse of WTC7, which is expected to be released this spring. In order to address concerns of conspiracy theorists, the organization added “Hypothetical Blast Analysis” to its research, according to a December 2006 progress report. The report also points out that 'NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition.'"

* * *

In other words, there's no credible evidence that the U.S. Government -- which has proven itself incapable of fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax or illegal immigration -- orchestrated a conspiracy of epic proportions. There's a word for folks who believe in this stuff, but I'm not allowed to say it in mixed company.

And consider the fact that Rosie O'Donnell is offered a forum on a major network to excrete these despicable concepts. And that such a venue provides these outrageous blatherings with a tenuous currency.

Rosie's vile secretions need to be excised from The View. ABC management should terminate her contract -- with extreme prejudice -- so that she can return to life as a magazine publisher.


Oven-baked good readin', just like Mama used to make:
Alphabet City, Dr. Sanity, Hot Air, Leaning Straight Up, New Quebec, What the Crap?, 7.62mm Justice

Friday, March 30, 2007

The Worst of Rosie O'Donnell, and that's saying something


Rosie O'Donnell represents a wonderful learning opportunity for children: shrill, stupid and wrong is no way to go through life.


Thanks to Lorie Byrd and the folks over at Newsbusters (hat tip: Larwyn), we've assembled a Rosie Hall of Shame. When put into the context of The View, it's no wonder ABC's rankings are sinking faster than Michael Moore's doughnut inventory.

• "And just one second, radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America."

• Claiming the U.S. Government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks: "...But I do believe the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics for the World Trade Center Tower Seven, building seven, which collapsed in on itself, it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved, World Trade Center Seven... Seven, miraculously, for the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible..."


• On 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: "Because you don't think terrorists, you don't think terrorists- you think that robs them of their humanity. That name "terrorist" makes them not human any more? ... But I just think, this man for whatever he did or didn't do, he is not the be all, end all of terrorism in America."

• On the British sailors held hostage by Iran: "But interesting with the British sailors, there were 15 British sailors and Marines who apparently went into Iranian waters and they were seized by the Iranians. And I have one thing to say: Gulf of Tonkin, Google it. Okay."… "In a no bid contract for 5 years Halliburton -- wait a second -- 16 billion dollars. You want to know why we would go into Iran? For the money. That's why we would do it."

• "Nearly everyone in this administration is under indictment or suspicion. Nearly every person. From Karl Rove to Rumsfeld to Gonzalez. What do you have to do to be impeached in this country?"

• On the U.S. Attorney firings: "Okay, Republican officials who supposedly called these judges that were fired and said, are you going to prosecute this Democratic, and they said, I can't talk about that because I'm actually a judge, and it's illegal. And they said "click," and they got fired."…That's mob tactics. That's Tony Soprano. We're going to lean on people. That's what the president's doing. That's scary.”

How did someone this ignorant land a co-host role on a mainstream morning news show? The answer is as much an indictment of the mainstream media as it is a testament to ABC's management abilities.

Dianne Feinstein's Billion-Dollar Culture of Corruption


Shockingly, there's no mainstream media coverage of Senator Dianne Feinstein's resignation from a sensitive post amid allegations of corruption. Instead, we've had to rely on grassroots news reports to find out that Feinstein just resigned from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee:

...As previously and extensively reviewed in these pages, Feinstein was chairperson and ranking member of MILCON for six years, during which time she had a conflict of interest due to her husband Richard C. Blum's ownership of two major defense contractors, who were awarded billions of dollars for military construction projects approved by Feinstein. As MILCON leader, Feinstein relished the details of military construction, even micromanaging one project at the level of its sewer design. She regularly took junkets to military bases around the world to inspect construction projects, some of which were contracted to her husband's companies, Perini Corp. and URS Corp...

Others covering the slime include Captain's Quarters, Hot Air, and Judicial Watch.

Billions of dollars are at stake. When Democrats mention a "culture of corruption," they know of what they speak. This is big-league sleaze at its worst.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Potential Gaffe o' the Week


The Broward-Palm Beach News Times reports that Hollywood, Florida will see an aerial marshmallow drop of epic proportions. On Saturday, children of all ages will revel as 30,000 marshmallows are dropped from a speeding aircraft into a park.


What could possibly go wrong with that?

My guess is that the aircraft will hit an altitude sufficient to freeze said marshmallows prior to dropping them. The sugary treats will transform themselves from squishy, delicious concoctions into rock-hard engines of destruction. They'll be fully capable of leveling the park and laying waste to swarms of kids.

Sounds like something Keith Olbermann might dream up.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

US Tests 15-Ton Bunker Buster


Global Security Newswire is reporting that the U.S. has tested a 15-Ton 'Bunker Buster':

In a tunnel under the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, the U.S. military this month conducted the first test detonation of a massive bomb designed to crack hardened bunkers... At the helm of the $30 million project to develop what the Defense Department calls the Massive Ordnance Penetrator is the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, a Pentagon branch devoted to countering threats from weapons of mass destruction.

The 30,000-pound bomb could be deployed against the type of underground facilities in which Iran is engaged in uranium-enrichment work in defiance of tightening U.N. sanctions...

Perhaps the ratio is one ton to one kidnapped Brit.

The timing for the test is relevant, as Jules Crittenden reports that Britain's treatment of Iran will enter a “different phase” if negotiations fail.

Evan Sayet: How Modern Liberals Think



One of Bill Maher's old writers, Evan Sayet, opines. It's a must-watch.

Monday, March 26, 2007

Sean Penn, Democratic Senior Foreign Affairs Adviser


Through an exclusive cross-posting agreement with The Stuffington Roast, we are pleased to offer an opinion piece authored by none other than Hollywood acting star and Democratic senior foreign affairs adviser, Sean Penn. He brought voice to his unique anti-war vision at a town hall meeting in Oakland, California.


Several years ago, I addressed the issue of war in an open letter to our President. Having not received a response -- and also having assumed a thought-leadership position in the Democratic Party -- I thought it was "past time at Ridgemont High" to revisit this outrageous conflict.


Sure, we could blame Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, or an incompetent Congress. After all, their diabolical evil knows no bounds. One only need recall that Cheney shot Condi in the tush during a recent so-called "hunting" trip, or was that just a cover story for a love affair that could result in a true spawn of Satan?


But I digress. America's evil and malicious military power should be in the hands of people like you and me. Instead, it rests in the hands of a so-called "commander-in-chief". What gives George W. Bush these ridiculous rights? Just one small piece of paper called a "constitution".


And since Bush has laid waste to said "constitution", I ask how can he be a real commander-in-chief? After the Dixie Chicks mysteriously disappeared, and Bill Maher was executed by a firing squad, and Keith Olbermann's tongue cut out, and American Bandstand canceled, what more needs to be said?


Bush has broken our country and our hearts. Wherefore art thou, Dick Clark? The blood is on your hands, oh evil administration, since you allowed September 11, 2001 to happen.


All the warning signs were there! President Clinton, in his infinite wisdom, provided you with all of the intelligence and proof you needed -- allowing our great country to be attacked eight times prior to 9/11. How could you not see what was coming?


Now you screech at us to "support the troops" and claim that we are hurting morale when we shriek "Abu Graib" and "Gitmo" or perform simple acts of civil disobedience. We burn troops in effigy and urinate on them because we support them. We call them Nazis and liken them to those who ran Gulags as a way of showing we're behind them.


You and your paid-off, monkey-boy pundits, those who soil themselves at the mere mention of Anna Nicole Smith or Natalie Holoway, you can take that noise and insert it into your septum. That is, if a septum is what I think it is.


We will be deceived no longer. Unlike you, Bush, we Democrats have never wavered in our anti-war direction.


You lied and connived our way into a war. There was never any "Al Qaeda in Iraq" or terrorists named Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. There was never any Boeing 707 used to train hijackers in a Baghdad suburb called Salman Pak. In fact, Saddam Hussein had no ties to terrorism whatsoever! All of these tales were lies! Lies, I say!!


And Mister Bush: why are your daughters not serving in Iraq right now? Other than the fact that we have a volunteer military, of course. Do they not support your policy? Or do they have minds of their own? Chickenhawks! They are chickenhawks! The Bush daughters are **squawk** chicken hawks!


Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis due to you, Bush! And though that Lancet study of the number of Iraq dead has been utterly discredited, I will still harp on it! After all, Saddam Hussein was a saint who had no ties to terrorism... and had no WMDs whatsoever!


And now you dare to rattle sabers toward Iran? These so-called fifteen kidnapped British soldiers and Iran's threats to wipe the U.S. off the face of the Earth aren't credible!


So Iran wants a nuclear weapon? We have one! Why not them? After all, we're just as corrupt as they are! We are morally equivalent! They're just posturing when they say that they will eradicate the U.S., the U.K., and Israel. It's a simple joke, lost in translation, not unlike an Iranian Henny Youngman who speaks in Urdu, thus the confused punchlines.


We are told not to engage in the "politics of attack!" To "keep away from the negative!" Well, Mr. Bush, when speaking of your administration, that would leave us fuming... having even more temper tantrums than usual! We stomp our feet and wail... but you ignore us! Well, you do so at your own administration's peril.


In conclusion, I address my remaining remarks to the choir or at least the chorus: it is time, yes time, for impeachment. I do not know the legal basis for such an act, I just know it sounds good. It is a powerful word. Scary.


Unfortunately, even a so-called victory for fellow Democrats in the House of Representatives brings us no closer to retreat. We must pull out immediately from all wars: in Iraq and elsewhere. War is unjust and mean. By talking to our enemies, even irrational, fascist dictators with delusions of messianic grandeur we are certain to advance the cause of peace, love, and understanding.


There are presidential candidates who understand this. We do have candidates of conscience. As things stand today, I will be voting for Dennis Kucinich, who has fought this war from the beginning. You might say Kucinich can't win and you'd be right. But I don't give a crap. It demonstrates that I have a firm grasp on reality as evidenced by this entire speech.


Thank you for your attention and please help make "President Kucinich" a reality in 2008. It's our choice, dammit! Why can't you people understand this?? Dammit all to hell and back! You people are ridiculous! Hand me that bottle of Jack, will you?