Quagmire.

My one objection here is... well, this all seems sort of random. I wish we had a plan of some sort to extricate our troops from Iraq. I don't know, something like "As they stand up, we stand down." Why can't Bush propose something like that?

Ummm... An anonymous commenter isn't happy with this post:

I've read this blog a long time. That, without doubt is the lamest remark Ace has ever made, hyperbole intended.

For a guy dispensing news he surely never reads it.

I was being sarcastic, guys. "As they stand up, we stand down" is a direct quote from Bush. He's said it approximately seventeen bazillion times.

My point was, despite the howling from the left, we do have "a plan" and always have had one, and we're executing it. Not quite on schedule, but it's coming together.

Is this mike on? Is there no one who understands what I'm doing here? Is no one capable of comprehending my genius as I really explore the studio space?

Posted by: Ace at 09:48 AM | Comments (72)
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

The Paper of Record knows the difference. And wants you to know, too.

That Scott-Ritter-looking buffoon from the NSA was of course a "whistleblower" for revealing highly classified information. But the man who leaked the Barrett report to the NYT isn't:

A copy of the report was obtained by The New York Times from someone sympathetic to the Barrett investigation who wanted his criticism of the Clinton administration to be known.

Powerline is waiting for the New York Times to identify the source of one of its myriad anti-Bush leaks as:

A copy of the report was obtained by The New York Times from someone sympathetic to the Democrats' position who wanted his criticism of the Bush administration to be known.

As The Man says, I think it's going to be a long... long time.

Posted by: Ace at 09:33 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

Lepae sends as evidence that Jon Stewart is not an unfunny partisan hack.

Admittedly, the comedy left is mocking Hillary Clinton and Ray Nagin, which surprises me... a bit. I guess it shouldn't have, as some targets are too big to avoid. He also takes a shot at the unhinged leftist base of the Democratic Party, which isn't really brave or unexpected. Any Democrat close to reasonable know these guys are a big problem for the party, and they need to marginalize them as the Republican Party has marginalized its uglier racist and nativist members.

Still, I don't think it's all that funny. I just don't like Stewart's manner. Never have. He's much too smug about his modest gifts.

If there's any question, though, of whether or not he's a liberal hack, check out his fawning interview with the director of the new anti-military agitprop film Why We Fight, following after the second commercial. His big, challenging question: "I can't imagine that guys at Halliburton and KBR know they're completely evil, do they?"

Posted by: Ace at 09:26 AM | Comments (188)
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't see why we can't monitor al Qaeda this way and follow the law, that's all. If we need to finesse the law, fine. One other critical point. Oversight helps identify errors and mistakes. It's a small insurance policy to avoid self-inflicted black eyes. And it's not as if this administration hasn't given itself a few. Too little secrecy can hurt us. So can too much.

Summing up:

We can't both pursue Al Qaeda "this way" and follow the law. From previous posts we know it's "outrageous" that we've violated the law (at least according to noted Constitutional scholar St. Andrew of the Sacred "Heart-Ache"). But "finessing" (i.e., breaking) the law is "fine."

The Administration has given itself a few "black eyes." Exclusive. Must credit Andrew Sullivan.

Too little secrecy can hurt us. Surprisingly enough, however, too much secrecy can hurt us too. In much the same way, chocolate is good, but not too much of it.

St. Andrew has two modes of expression: over-the-top hyperemotional shrillness and silly, nothing little farts of bromides that even David Broder would consider to be too bland and empty.

Posted by: Ace at 09:13 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

Unbelievable.

It was actually statutory rape (WND waits a bunch of paragraphs before letting you know that), but still: a teacher had gay sex with his 15-year-old student.

No jail time. A 2 1/2 year suspended sentence plus five years' probation.

I'm not sure this is the outrage it seems. Or at least-- it's not the uncommon outrage it seems. I don't think teachers typically do jail time for statutory rape of their charges.

But still. Not even six months?

Plus Five Counts Of Possession Of Child Porn On His Computer: I forgot that part. Yep, stat rape of a 15 year old boy, five counts of child porn... sounds like suspended sentence to me.

Why not just throw him a fucking parade while we're at it?

Posted by: Ace at 05:57 PM | Comments (222)
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

Shut up, really?

Seventies teen idol Leif Garrett was charged this morning with possession of heroin after his arrest in the Pershing Square subway station over the weekend.

Garrett was due to appear in Los Angeles County Superior Court later today. If convicted, he would be eligible for a diversion program rather than a prison sentence, officials said.

Garrett, 44, was being held without bail because he was also detained on a bench warrant for allegedly violating the terms of his probation for a previous offense, Los Angeles County sheriff's and district attorney's officials said.

The musician-actor, who has a history of drug issues dating from the 1970s, pleaded guilty in March to attempted possession of cocaine-based narcotics and was placed on probation, said Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles district attorney's office, on Tuesday.

Don't do drugs, kids.

Although, really, he wasn't all that when he was a kid, either. Never got the attraction. I mean, sure he was hot, but not Sean Cassidy hot, you know?

Thanks to... well, their name is their email, so I'm not sure I should say. You know who you are. Love ya.

Posted by: Ace at 05:51 PM | Comments (32)
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.

Laura's already covered this.

I'll just say I don't see what the problem is. For the leftist mantra of "chilling effect," I have another catchphrase they're fond of: "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."

And how about, "Integrity means doing the same as you would while being watched and not being watched."

If these flakes are convinced of the rightness of their ideas, why are they so afraid to have the rest of the world know the sermons they're a-preachin'? Isn't that just getting the Good Word out?

I feel a little bad for this naive soul, though:

In another course at UCLA having nothing to do with politics, I wrote an academically excellent, thoroughly researched paper, knowing that I was probably taking a position opposite to one held by a professor, but naively hoping that he would recognize the quality of my effort. Wrong. I received a mediocre grade. In yet another course, having learned from that experience, I deliberately adopted a liberal point of view in writing an extensive paper, simply parroting back what I knew the professor believed. Frankly, my paper was intellectually shallow. Nonetheless, I received an extremely high grade for the paper and the course.

Sure, I learned things from both experiences. The main thing I learned was how to "toe the line" -- how to say whatever the person holding the Power of the Grade wanted to hear. This is actually a useful skill for the real world.

I'm sure that Gina Cobb is a bright woman -- hey, she's got a blog, so she has to be, I figure -- but let me ask her this: What the fucking fuck were you thinking?

Really. College, law school, grad school, whatever school -- when you're talking about something that's going to be graded, tell them what they want to hear. Simple principle: When you're agreeing with someone, you "fill in" the various logical and evidentiary gaps with stuff in your own head. (Or, if you don't know how to fill in the gaps specifically, you fill them in with hypothetical logical connections and evidence which you're sure exists somewhere, because, hey, you're sure this position is right, so the logic and evidence must support it, right?)

When you read something you don't agree with, your critical faculties are much more engaged, and lapses in logic and gaps in evidence are suddenly glaring errors you just can't take your eyes away from. Or, more importantly, your red marker.

College and grad schools are great places to learn and challenge dogma and all that jazz. Just not in a blue book.

I know some readers out there are in college and grad school. Please, please, for the love of everything holy, tell the idiots what they want to hear.

I promise-- you don't have to believe a bit of it.

Posted by: Ace at 04:59 PM | Comments (51)
Post contains 489 words, total size 3 kb.

Okay... it's from the National Enquirer, which people have mixed feelings about -- tabloid trash, yes, but they seem to win most of their lawsuits -- so this might be irresponsible rumor-mongering. (As opposed, I guess, to responsible rumor-mongering.)

But I'm not on much sleep so fire away:

The National Enquirer splashes this week with a shocking story about Sen. Ted KennedyÂ’s secret love child with a Cape Cod woman whom the mag says he dated during his days as a swinging single.



According to the tabloid’s source, the boy, named Christopher, just celebrated his 21st birthday and is “mature enough to make his own choices about his background and biological father.”



A Kennedy family confidante told the Enquirer, “This is one of the biggest secrets in the Kennedy family and known to only a few people including Ted’s ex-wife, Joan.”



As for the senator, his spokesgal Melissa Wagoner last night called the tabloid tale “irresponsible fiction.”



Here’s the story according to the Enquirer: Back in 1983, Kennedy, then 51, took up with Caroline Bilodeau, an attractive brunette, several months before divorcing Joan, the mother of his three kids — Kara, Ted Jr. and Patrick.



Bilodeau’s friends told the Enquirer the local lass became so smitten with the senator, she “had dreams about being the next Mrs. Ted Kennedy.” But the love affair came crashing down when Bilodeau told Ted a baby was on the way, the mag reports.



“Caroline announced to the family that she was two months pregnant around May 1984,” blabbed a Bilodeau confidante. “Ted was not happy about the news. He already had three kids with Joan and knew a baby out of wedlock could hurt him politically.”



According to the Enquirer, the scandal-scarred senator begged Bilodeau to have an abortion, but she refused.



“He told her he couldn’t undergo another scandal — not after Chappaquiddick, not so close to his divorce from Joan” said the source. “He was very angry when she defied him and had the child.”

Such things happen, I suppose, but the liberal media only seems to notice conservative hypocrisy. Yes, conservatives are hypocrites, as is any person on the face of the earth who professes a belief in an ideal or code of conduct.

Do you believe in honesty? Then you're a hypocrite, because you lie. Do you believe in personal responsibility? Then you're a hypocrite, because surely there's been at least a couple of times in your life when you did something very wrong and attempted to claim circumstances beyond your control.

The liberal media, especialy Michael Kinsley, who's quite a bear on the subject, are forever pointing out hypocrisy as a vehicle to undermine the value itself being championed. They don't like anti-drug laws, for example, so they're delighted when a Senator's son gets caught with coke and the Senator, quite understandably, fights tooth and nail to keep his kid out of prison. (HYPOCRITE!, they shout.)

But it's only the values they're not very fond of they play this hypocrisy game with. For values they don't particularly deem high priorities, the fact that someone might be a hypocrite is, to them, proof that the value itself is meaningless and should probably not be considered a value at all.

But that's absurd. The only people who aren't hypocrites are perfect nihilists, and there aren't even any of those, because even nihilists secretly believe in some values.

All reporters profess to believe in "honesty" (giggle), but they never suggest that hypocrisy as regards this important value is evidence of its valuelessness.

So, Ted Kennedy, liberal lion, secular saint, lectures Sam Alito about his alleged mysogyny while, until last week, belonging to a Harvard-associated club which refused women members, and he bullies women into abortions and keeps children in bastardy to protect his political career.

Hypocrisy?

Not to the liberal media. The only hypocrisy that counts is that which undermines conservative values. If a liberal hero falls while championing liberal ideals -- well, so be it.

Certainly it says nothing at all about feminism. There are just some ideals that are so wonderful and yet hard to live up to that some will, inevitably, fail in living up to them. And really, who are we to judge? Can't we all be brothers? Or, I mean, sisters?

Thanks to Craig. Via Wizbang.

Posted by: Ace at 04:24 PM | Comments (65)
Post contains 729 words, total size 5 kb.

By Tony Danza, which only half ruins it.

Thanks to Joe.

Posted by: Ace at 03:48 PM | Comments (9)
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

Not too shabby:

ABC News has learned that al Qaeda's master bomb maker and chemical weapons expert was one of the men killed in last week's U.S. missile attack in eastern Pakistan....

The United States had posted a $5 million reward for Mursi's capture.

Not to put a happy spin on things (but why not?), but hey, this organization is lousy with maniac clerics. It's the doers that actually, well, do stuff.

Posted by: Ace at 02:45 PM | Comments (24)
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.