It was a nice dream while it lasted.

"I don't know how I'd do on the Senate floor if I got in a confrontation with someone I didn't appreciate or maybe didn't appreciate me," he said.

Yes, but that was one of your selling points, Mike.

We weren't interested in your rhetorical skills. We wanted you to bust some heads.

Posted by: Ace at 07:22 PM | Comments (4)
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

Thanks to Otalp for this gem. Who knew filming a Winnebago commercial was so fuckin' difficult?

Was Paul Anka involved in this production?

Warning: Contains the f-word about once every 1.5 seconds. Also contains some lesser profanity, tossed in for a bit of relief from the fuckin' monotony.

Hat Tip to Cold Fury, who has an interesting snippet from the 1984 spy-thriller The Fourth Protocol which reads like current non-fiction. And he's also got a great post on the current state of the CIA, and the current state of our world.

Posted by: Ace at 07:03 PM | Comments (3)
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

New Jersey maintains its reputation as the Louisiana of the Northeastern Corridor.

Governor Jim McGreevey's top donor, under investigation for corruption, now employs a $10,000 whore to entrap government witnesses so that he can blackmail them against testifying.

It is unclear at this point if the whore in question has a blog.

There's just too much in these two articles to excerpt. Here's some of the best bits, starting with the second article:

NEWARK, July 13 - Gov. James E. McGreevey's top contributor was charged on Tuesday in a bizarre scheme to enlist prostitutes in an effort to silence potential witnesses in a federal investigation of possible illegal campaign contributions.

...Charles Kushner, a New Jersey landowner and businessman with close ties to many religious and political figures, was charged with hiring prostitutes to entice his brother-in-law and his accountant into sexually compromising situations.

The complaint says that the accountant did not take the bait, but that the brother-in-law did. The result, prosecutors said, was a sexual encounter between the brother-in-law and a high-priced New York call girl in a Bridgewater motel room last December that was recorded by a hidden camera.

...

The governor, a Democrat, is still reeling from the fallout from a federal indictment last week involving another campaign contributor and a top fund-raiser, and has been plagued by a long list of scandals involving people close to him. This week there is growing pressure for his commerce secretary, William J. Watley, to step down after a state criminal investigation into possible improprieties by a top aide.

Mr. McGreevey has had a close relationship with Mr. Kushner, who has been the largest contributor to his campaigns over the years, donating $1.5 million for his 1997 and 2001 campaigns, the first one unsuccessful, for governor.

...

Mr. McGreevey is still trying to explain how he came to use the word "Machiavelli" in a conversation with a fund-raiser and contributor - a fact revealed last week in an indictment of the fund-raiser.

The fund-raiser, David D'Amiano, said the word was a designated code that would signal the governor's complicity in a deal to assist the contributor in a land dispute in return for $40,000 in campaign funds. Mr. McGreevey insists the use of the word was entirely innocent.

Keep that "Machiavelli" codeword in mind.

By the way, here's a tip, assholes: When you're coming up with codewords for corrupt dealings, avoid words like Machiavelli.

Should Mr. Kushner go to trial and be convicted, he faces up to 10 years each on the charges of retaliating against a witness and attempting to obstruct another, and five years on charges of promoting interstate prostitution.

Okay, now for the first article linked. Some of this is a little repetitive:

TRENTON, July 13 - Last week, when federal prosecutors disclosed that Gov. James E. McGreevey was secretly taped discussing a land deal with the target of a corruption investigation, New Jersey politics was consumed with speculation about whether the governor might be involved in any wrongdoing.

...

Mr. McGreevey was elected as a reformer, but his 30 months in office have been defined by a dizzying procession of ethical and criminal accusations against his fund-raisers, party operatives, staff members and cabinet members. No one has accused Mr. McGreevey himself of violating any laws or ethical codes. Indeed, the United States attorney, Christopher J. Christie went out of his way on Tuesday to say that the governor was not directly involved in the new charges, that his most generous campaign contributor, Charles Kushner, hired a prostitute to obstruct an inquiry into Democratic fund-raising. Mr. Kushner was indicted for obstruction of justice on Tuesday.

But Mr. Kushner, whom the governor tried to make chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, is so closely tied to Mr. McGreevey that his indictment is still a significant political setback for the administration. Mr. Kushner's prominence, and the seriousness of the charges against him, raise the possibility that he or other McGreevey aides who are under criminal investigation might cooperate with prosecutors and allow the scandals surrounding the administration to grow even more.

...

As recently as Monday afternoon, Mr. McGreevey's aides argued that the governor had regained his footing after being rattled by the damaging revelations that surfaced in last week's indictment of David D'Amiano, who is charged with soliciting campaign contributions by promising political favors to a man engaged in a land dispute. Although Mr. McGreevey was taped discussing the deal and saying the word "Machiavelli," which prosecutors say was a code word for the illicit scheme, the governor insisted his utterance was nothing more than an innocent literary allusion.

There's that word again: literary. Apparently American jurisprudence now recognizes the "literary" defense.

I think Bill Clinton originated it, actually, although we didn't have the neologism until now.

But Republicans are determined to remind voters of the many links between Mr. Kushner and the governor. Mr. Kushner and his companies donated more than $1.5 million to Mr. McGreevey and his campaign committees. He also had business dealings with Gary Taffet, Mr. McGreevey's former campaign manager and chief of staff, who is now the subject of a criminal investigation for allegedly using his office to inflate the value of a billboard company he owned.

...

The furor swirling around the governor's office is also likely to embolden those Democrats who have quietly been urging party leaders to ask Mr. McGreevey to step aside and let Senator Jon S. Corzine have the nomination in next year's governor's race. But the governor has said he has every intention of running again, and at this point, party leaders are not willing to challenge him.

The problem for Mr. McGreevey is that the various investigations involving his associates are likely to continue their periodic eruptions.

I think there must be a Right Wing Conspiracy forcing McGreevey and his cronies to take money for political favors.

Note to liberals: This is what a genuine political scandal looks like. Of course, no one outside of Trenton has heard of it, because it involves a Democrat.

We all heard about Governor Rawlings' ethical lapses in Connecticut-- and those lapses seem like small potatoes compared to this.

Rawlings, front-page news. McGreevey, buried. No one interested. Just like no one was interested in the corruption and subornation scandal involving "The Torch" Torricelli. Another Democrat, of course.

Dirty Money Gets Around Update: Kushner also a big contributor to Charles Schumer. His companies, friends, and family have donated $60,000 to Schumer over the years.

Chuck Schumer gallantly agreed to donate the last $4000 to charity. No mention on what's to happen to that other $56,000.

At least $2000 went to Hillary Clinton, too.

Posted by: Ace at 04:49 PM | Comments (8)
Post contains 1131 words, total size 8 kb.

"There's one other base here, the media. Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win and I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox. They're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there's going to be this glow about them, collective glow, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points." -- Evan Thomas, Newsweek

Well, now. Apparently Evan "Dead Zone" Thomas can see the future by touching liberals:

If you can't read that headline, it's "Kerry's Bet on Edwards and the Politics of Optimism."

Oh, and in "web-exclusive commentary," we have this unpredictable analysis as well: Campaign Paragon: John Edwards has morphed into an almost-perfect candidate. And his sunny outlook is infecting Kerry, too.

Hmmmm... sunny outlook, almost perfect, paragon.

Wasn't some Yoda-like Newsweek writer just telling us that Kerry-Edwards would be portrayed as "dynamic," "optimistic," and "with this glow about them"?

Whether psychically attuned to the future or else simply having inside information about his own liberal magazine and the liberal mindset generally, credit Thomas for having the integrity to admit the blindingly obvious.

The Liberal Media is Smitten Update: Check out MyPetJawa's run down on the media's barrage of valentines in John Edwards' direction.

Give the liberal media credit: Unlike that abused enlistee in Full Metal Jacket, the liberal medai do have the common courtesy of providing a reach-around.

Posted by: Ace at 02:17 PM | Comments (7)
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

So Joe Wilson describes his numerous lies, on talk shows across the nation.

As "a little literary flair."

Think. About. That.

Can there be a clearer admission that he lied to promote his quickie-book sales?

Although the Democrats, predictably, blocked just about any conclusion that would harm their Bush Lied, People Died thesis, they cannot deny the underlying facts which dictate such conclusions. The Republicans' "Additional Views" statement make this clear:

During Mr. Wilson’s media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had “debunked” the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. As discussed in the Niger section of the report, not only did he NOT “debunk” the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true. I believed very strongly that it was important for the Committee to conclude publicly that many of the statements made by Ambassador Wilson were not only incorrect, but had no basis in fact.

In an interview with Committee staff, Mr. Wilson was asked how he knew some of the things he was stating publicly with such confidence. On at least two occasions he admitted that he had no direct knowledge to support some of his claims and that he was drawing on either unrelated past experiences or no information at all. For example, when asked how he “knew” that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved “a little literary flair.”

The former Ambassador, either by design or through ignorance, gave the American people and, for that matter, the world a version of events that was inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and misleading. Surely, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has unique access to all of the facts, should have been able to agree on a conclusion that would correct the public record. Unfortunately, we were unable to do so.

The Additional Views also determine:

Conclusion: The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassadorÂ’s wife, a CIA employee.

The former ambassador’s wife suggested her husband for the trip to Niger in February 2002. The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on behalf of the CIA, also at the suggestion of his wife, to look into another matter not related to Iraq. On February 12, 2002, the former ambassador’s wife sent a memorandum to a Deputy Chief of a division in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations which said, “[m]y husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” This was just one day before the same Directorate of Operations division sent a cable to one of its overseas stations requesting concurrence with the division’s idea to send the former ambassador to Niger.

Question for Joshua Micah Percival Sweetmuffins Chancleroy Marshall:

You earlier stated that there was no technical loophole in the law against disclosing the identities of undercover agents regarding the disclosure of an identity to reveal a partisan conspiracy.

Fair enough, Mr. Marshall. I'm not sure you're right on the law, but, as you've expressed a disdain for such loopholes:

Tell me, is there a technical loophole excusing lies based upon someone injecting "a little literary flair" into his statements?

Can Bush begin claiming to have captured Osama bin Ladin in order to add "a little literary flair" to his inevitable presidential autobiography?

Awesome Update! Check out Jonah Goldberg's catch of conclusion particularly damning to Joe "Sweet Mint Tea" Wilson.

(Note: This is the same update mentioned in the last post. It's an important update for both posts.)

Posted by: Ace at 01:26 PM | Comments (8)
Post contains 675 words, total size 4 kb.

"From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:

"a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.

"b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.

"c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government did not claim this.

"d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it."

And yet they continue deliberately conflating the two, don't they?

Further excerpts here.

Awesome Update! Check out Jonah Goldberg's catch of conclusion particularly damning to Joe "Sweet Mint Tea" Wilson.

Joshua Micah Hoonvroder Esteves Beebelbrox Marshall Update: Several days ago, Marshall claimed that the intelligence from the French stating that Iraq tried to buy uranium was based on the discredited Italian Forgeries, and thus shouldn't be taken as evidence for the attempted purchase.

He then allowed that the British intelligence was, however, "more complicated." He promised a post explaining this "more complicated" situation -- as always, he promised it "later" -- with the clear implication being that he would discredit that intelligence as well.

Later, you understand.

You will not be surprised that we're all still waiting on yet another bit of Josh Marshall vapornews.

Posted by: Ace at 10:28 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

Nice:

WASHINGTON, July 13 (Reuters) - The U.S. government posted a larger-than-expected budget surplus in June, propped up by higher quarterly business tax receipts, a government report released on Tuesday showed.

In the Treasury Department's monthly budget statement, June income outpaced spending by $19.14 billion, slightly less than the government's June 2003 surplus of $21.23 billion.

"What we are seeing is the impact of a good economy, the impact of extraordinarily strong corporate profits, and likely the impact of more people being caught in the alternative minimum tax," Drew Matus, financial markets economist at Lehman Brothers in New York, said in response to the report.

"Surprisingly strong receipts are really helping out a great deal here. There is no reason to suspect, given the employment growth we have seen, that this trend will change any time soon," he said.

The June result exceeded Wall Street forecasts of a $16.50 billion surplus, as well as a $16 billion surplus projection from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

...

Corporate income tax inflows grew 38 percent in June, when quarterly tax statements are normally filed, compared to June 2003. Individual tax receipts were nearly 9 percent higher.

Just in case anyone is confused, this doesn't mean that we're actually in surplus for the year. Some months (like April) feature higher tax receipts, and thus some months show a surplus. We're not out of deficits by a long shot, but this is a nice indicator of the trend.

Hat Tip to See-Dubya.

I think it was William Shakespeare who said:

"Out of this nettle, danger

Pluck this flower, cowbell."

Posted by: Ace at 10:23 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.

As the Department of Agriculture considers abandoning the "Food Pyramid" (is there anyone out there who has ever made a single feeding decision based upon this dopey thing?), Michele steps up to the plate (ahem) and offers the Food Pentagram.

Why a "Food Pyramid" in the first place? The "Food Pyramid" just never made any sense at all. Pyramids aren't food.

"The Food Soup," okay, I can understand that. "The Food Meal," okay, a little generic, but still something I "get."

Why not something intuitive and instantly memorable, like "the Food Sandwich"?:

See? It's all there. Bread, meat, dairy, a vegatable that you're probably not going to eat, nonstop profanity, creepy eyes...

Photo Credit: Used with permission of Enjoy Every Sandwhich. "Sandwich for Skippy" pic created by Zombie and Rowan.

Posted by: Ace at 09:22 PM | Comments (9)
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

Despite the aggressive spin -- in which the consensus reports of entire intelligence agencies are considered to be unreliable if a few "officials" (presumably of the liberal stripe) express doubts -- the story is useful as to the basic timeline.

In other words, if a few "officials" are enough to discredit the CIA's consensus report in favor of the left, it seems that a few "officials" also should be able to discredit the CIA's consensus reporting from the right.

Surely, for example, there are CIA "officials" who believe in a strong Al Qaeda-Saddam tie. And yet we never seem to hear about those officials, nor is it suggested that the contrarian beliefs of a few should outweigh the conventional-wisdom beliefs of the agency as a whole on this count.

According to the New York Times, we seem to have a new rule. We've all heard that "one man with courage constitutes a majority." Now one man with a differing opinion that advances a liberal cause also constitutes a majority.

The article is particularly useful as to disproving the "Bush lied" charge. I challenge anyone to read it and conclude that the CIA and other intelligence organs were reporting that the story were false. They weren't-- they were reporting it as true, if smoky in some particulars.

Hitchens can't resist joining in the pig-pile, either. In addition to reciting the facts that you already know, he offers this:

To say this is not to defend the Bush administration, which typically managed to flourish the only allegation made about Niger that had been faked, and which did not have the courage to confront Mr. and Mrs. Wilson in public with their covert political agenda. But it does draw attention to an interesting aspect of this whole debate: the increasing solidarity of the left with the CIA. The agency disliked Ahmad Chalabi and was institutionally committed to the view that the Saddam regime in Iraq was a) secular and b) rationally interested in self-preservation. It repeatedly overlooked important evidence to the contrary, even as it failed entirely to infiltrate jihadist groups or to act upon FBI field reports about their activity within our borders. Bob Woodward has a marvelous encapsulating anecdote in his recent book: George Tenet on Sept. 11 saying that he sure hopes this isn't anything to do with those people acting suspiciously in the flight schools. ... The case for closing the CIA and starting again has been overwhelming for some time. But many liberals lately prefer, for reasons of opportunism, to take CIA evidence at face value.

He says the left is increasingly in solidarity with the CIA. I wonder if the actual case is more like the opposite-- that the CIA is increasingly in solidarity with the left.

Update: The New York Times story is breathtakingly dishonest. Note the following:

In January 2003, the State Department's analyst sent an e-mail message to other analysts saying that he believed that the documents obtained in Italy were fake. The "uranium purchase agreement probably is a hoax," he wrote.

What doesn't that say? Well, it says that one State Department analyst-- ONE -- thought the uranium purchase agreement supplied by the British was a hoax. What it doesn't mention is that, by implication, everyone else thought it was legitimate, and continue to believe so. But the New York Times sets up this single source-- this ONE analyst in the State Department -- as the only authoritative arbiter on the question.

I can easily write a similar article in which I credit this ONE analyst here or that ONE contrarian there where I prove that Saddam Hussein planned 9-11.

And check out this conclusion:

His address suddenly gave the uranium issue high visibility, but it could not withstand global scrutiny. In February 2003, Washington sent copies of the Iraq-Niger documents to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors nuclear proliferation. The next month, the agency determined that the documents were forgeries. On March 11, the C.I.A. issued its own assessment, in which it said it could not dispute the atom agency's conclusion.

Note we begin by talking about "the uranium issue," then move to the Italian documents regarding the sale. The New York Times dishonestly -- deliberately dishonestly -- takes proof that these documents were forged as proof that the uranium sale was never agreed to, or even sought. In fact the documents were never cited by Bush as evidence of the sale, and were never relied upon by British Intelligence.

But that conclusion is deliberately written to suggest that the uranium-from-Africa story is now doubed by both the IAEA and the CIA, when in fact both bodies are only talking about some specific Italian forgeries.

Posted by: Ace at 06:35 PM | Comments (15)
Post contains 798 words, total size 5 kb.

Son of Nixon links a photographic essay detailing Moore's porcine portliness.

And then scroll a bit down to find a hot new addition to "The Team" -- FoxSports' Leann Tweeden (muy caliente) is apparently a Bush-booster.

Posted by: Ace at 01:30 PM | Comments (4)
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.