For all of those who defended Harriet Miers and urged us to support the President's judgment, without any evidence she was a genuine conservative and plenty of strong evidence she wasn't, I can only say you're welcome.

Okay, dick move. Sorry.

Posted by: Ace at 12:50 PM | Comments (22)
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

Maybe Prince Charles can explain to his mum that she's merely "misunderstanding" and "stereotyping" avowed terrorists who state they wish to murder her.

Posted by: Ace at 12:39 PM | Comments (13)
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

If I can no longer trust a Thai tranny whore, who can I trust?

I remember the old days, when Thai tranny streetwalkers lived by a code, man. The days when being a mix-and-match-genitaled bit of gutter meat meant something.

Question: Who kisses a Thai tranny whore, anyway? For one thing, they charge more for that. For another thing... ewwww.

Hey, if your kink is for trannies, whatever. But kissing? That seems more intimate than just, uhhh, takin' care of business.

Posted by: Ace at 12:37 PM | Comments (12)
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

Chris Wallace politely posed some very hard questions to Jay Rockefeller yesterday, and Rockefeller came off looking pretty badly.

WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, the President says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did. In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the President ever did. Let's watch.

SEN. ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 2002): "I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th, that question is increasingly outdated."

WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The – I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times.... Now, the intelligence that they had and the intelligence that we had were probably different. We didn't get the Presidential Daily Briefs. We got only a finished product, a finished product, a consensual view of the intelligence community, which does not allow for agencies like in the case of the aluminum tubes, the Department of Energy said these aren't thick enough to handle nuclear power. They left that out and went ahead with they have aluminum tubes and they're going to develop nuclear power.

WALLACE: Senator, you're quite right. You didn't get the Presidential Daily Brief or the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief. You got the National Intelligence Estimate. But the Silberman Commission, a Presidential commission that looked into this, did get copies of those briefs, and they say that they were, if anything, even more alarmist, even less nuanced than the intelligence you saw, and yet you, not the President, said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.

Rockefeller dodges the question here, simply repeating he never got the President's Daily Brief.

WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, I want to play another clip from your 2002 speech authorizing the use of force, this time specifically on the question of Saddam's nuclear program. Here it is.

SEN. ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 2002): "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons. And will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years and he could have it earlier."

WALLACE: Now, by that point, Senator, you had read the National Intelligence Estimate, correct?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: In fact, there were only six people in the Senate who did, and I was one of them. I'm sure Pat was another.

WALLACE: Okay, but you had read that, and now we've read a declassifiedÂ…

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: But Chris, let's a...

WALLACE: Can I just ask my question sir, and then you can answer as you choose. That report indicated there was an agreement – a disagreement among analysts about the nuclear program. The State Department had a lot more doubts than the CIA did about whether he was pursuing a nuclear program. You never mentioned those doubts. You came to the same conclusion the President did.

...

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Chris, there's always the same conversation. You know it was not the Congress that sent 135,000 or 150,000 troops.

WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.

WALLACE: You're not?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. I'm responsible for my vote, but I'd appreciate it if you'd get serious about this subject, with all due respect. We authorized him to continue working with the United Nations, and then if that failed, authorized him to use force to enforce the sanctions. We did not send 150,000 troops or 135,000 troops. It was his decision made probably two days after 9/11 that he was going to invade Iraq. That we did not have a part of, and, yes, we had bad intelligence, and when we learned about it, I went down to the floor and said I would never have voted for this thing.

WALLACE: My only point sir, and I am trying to be serious about it, is as I understand Phase Two, the question is based on the intelligence you had, what were the statements you made? You had the National Intelligence Estimate which expressed doubts about Saddam's nuclear program, and yet you said he had a nuclear program. The President did the same thing.

The points here are so simple it takes active dishonesty to pretend missing them. Wallace asks Rockefeller, repeatedly, if your own conclusions were made in good faith, how can you say the President's were not?

We've been asking them this for two years now. Actually, longer than that. They want to insist that their own conclusions were erroneous but honest, but that the President's were deliberately dishonest, despite the fact that they were based on the same intelligence.

They always change the question in the middle of the argument (as Juan Williams did later) to noting that the President made the decision to go to war, which Clinton didn't, and which Democrats in Congress didn't. But that's not the question they themselves are asking.

The Democrats may ask if that decision was ill-advised; certainly that's fair game. But the entire point of this exercise is their attempt to prove the President came to that decision in bad faith, and rallied the country to the cause through deliberate, knowing lies. And yet, in attempting to argue that the President lied, they change the topic from "statements" to "decisions" at the critical point of their argument.

If the President lied, and the Democrats feel they can prove that, why do they always have to change the topic away from his actual statements when pressed on this point?

More: Clinton's strike on the Sudanese aspirin-factory was apparently based on "twisted intelligence" linking ibuprofin to the relief of chronic back-pain.

Posted by: Ace at 12:23 PM | Comments (181)
Post contains 1002 words, total size 6 kb.

Cancelled.

NBC really screwed the pooch with this franchise. By running Martha and Trump simultaneously, they insured viewers 1) couldn't keep track of who the hell was on which show and 2) just became bored with the entire premise.

It made so much more sense to run the Martha show after the Trump show aired, after the finale generated the typical spike in interest, and viewers wanted more. But I guess NBC just doesn't have any shows anymore.

Posted by: Ace at 12:04 PM | Comments (7)
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

10. Motto "In God We Trust" has been replaced by "If this van's a-rockin', don't come a-knockin'"

9. Back of bill features image of Jefferson Memorial being attacked by Godzilla and Japanese Zero fighters

8. Real bills are printed on special paper with high linen content, not various pages of The Ultimate Collection of Fart Jokes by Nether Winds

7. Corners of bill identify it not as "One Hundred Dollars," but "Hundred Buck Cash-Money, Baby!"

6. American Eagle's head faces the wrong way; also, the Eagle has a massive throbbing erection (which also faces the wrong way)

5. Real bills identify themselves as legal tender, not "Mitch's Free Money Bonanza"

4. Portrait is not of Bejamin Franklin, but either of 1) Abraham Lincoln or 2) "Ziggy" from Quantum Leap

3. Bill's serial number is "4." Just "4."

2. Contrary to implication of signature on bill, the position of Secretary of the Treasury has never held by been Mookie Wilson

...and the Number One Sign of a Counterfeit $100 Bill...

1. When angled to the light, bill displays watermark of Yasmine Bleeth holding Bob Dole's cock

Posted by: Ace at 11:21 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 201 words, total size 1 kb.

Someone decided to give the Great Emancipator a promotion.

Via Fark.

Posted by: Ace at 11:08 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Not confirmed yet if it's the same guy, though:

.S. forces detained and later released an Iraqi with a name that matched one of three suicide bombers who struck Amman hotels, killing 57 others, the U.S. military said Monday.

Jordanian authorities said Safaa Mohammed Ali, 23, was part of the al-Qaida in Iraq squad that bombed the Grand Hyatt, Radisson SAD and Day's Inn hotels on Wednesday.

In Baghdad, the U.S. command said a man by that name was detained by U.S. forces in November 2004 during the American assault on the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah. The Americans said they did not know if the man they detained was the same Safaa Mohammed Ali identified by the Jordanians as one of the bombers.

"He was detained locally at the division detention facility" but was released two weeks later because there was no "compelling evidence to continue to hold him" as a "threat to the security of Iraq."

The U.S. detention of thousands of Iraqis has been cited especially by members of the Sunni Muslim minority that fuels the insurgency as a major motivation for the continuing campaign of violence.

Yes, by all means, let's release all of these guys if we cannot, in the midst of a war, prove their crimes or continuing danger before a federal jury.

I mean, that's what we did in WWII, right? After we'd captured tens of thousands of German troops, we let them go a few weeks later, because we could not prove them guilty of crimes and we could also not prove they'd immediately reconstitute with the Wehrmacht after release.

And here come the conspiracy theories. just when Bush has his lowest approval rate of his service, and shortly after the 12 months of Fitzmas, a man we "detained" and then "released for want of evidence" "just so happens" to show up in Amman and "blow up a wedding."

Just as Bush is claiming that "terrorists" intend to kill us, Europeans, Jews, and not-sufficiently-Islamist Muslims, this "surprise attack" comes to suggest that he's "right." * I question the timing.

* Overuse of scare quotes designed to emulate the paranoid schizophrenic school of political discourse.

Posted by: Ace at 10:59 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 383 words, total size 2 kb.

Let me give you some career advice.

Find a new job, while you still can.

Aside from the novel theory that giving inmates broader access to very useful weapons is a good thing, does anyone else figure that the sort of prisoner who most wants tattoos will want a gang/racist/unapproved tattoo?

That's okay, though, because the bleeding-hearts mean well, so whether their ideas are actually, you know, GOOD ONES, is beside the point.

Posted by: Harry Callahan at 10:11 AM | Comments (7)
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

The secret sauce is in combining being a convicted wife beater and drug abuser and currently serving time in prison. After all, who knows better about how to educate our children?

Posted by: Harry Callahan at 10:01 AM | Comments (5)
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.