House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, has a new explanation for falling civilian deaths in Iraq. Y'see, terrorists "are running out of people to kill," because "there are fewer targets of opportunity."

Obey must have missed it when 3,000+ families returned to the Baghdad neighborhoods they abandoned because of violence.

Obey just wasn't watching when Ramadi held a parade celebrating their opposition to Al Qaida and insurgents.

Obey somehow thinks that in a country of 27 million people there are no "targets of opportunity."

What an idiot.

Also: Obey is still talking about his Iraq War tax and persists in blaming Republicans for stalling appropriations bills. This, after he combined the bloated HHS bill with the veterans' affairs bill so as to hold off Republican efforts to trim the thing.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:20 AM | Comments (26)
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

As Tony Snow pointed out, the media seemed to have lost interest in Iraq once the US started suffering fewer casualties. Unfortunately, yesterday was a bad day in Iraq with 5 Soldiers killed in IED attacks. Despite the fact that one day does not constitute a trend, the media is now able to take yesterdayÂ’s attacks and hook it to a story they must have been salivating to report: 2007 now the deadliest year for U.S. troops in Iraq.

CDR Salamander takes a look at the trends in Iraq and finds some graphics you are not likely to see in the MSM today or ever, including this one:

My guess is once this story fades, The Deciders will go back to talking about their new favorite storyline…“mercenaries”.

Posted by: DrewM. at 08:02 AM | Comments (98)
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.

aoshq janitor mentioned this in the comments:

30 young women had a "brawl" in South L.A. last night. It was apparently girls-only which the police say is "very unusual."

The fight began about 2:30 p.m. Monday in South Los Angeles. Police said one of the women jumped into her car and struck the three victims. The woman killed was eight months pregnant and another victim was in critical condition and expected to lose her leg, authorities said. None of the victims' identities were released.

Unique Bishop, 21, fled but turned herself into authorities and was booked for investigation of murder, police said. She is being held on $1 million bail.

It is entirely speculation on my part, but race-relations in South L.A. are not pretty. This was a planned altercation, which leads me to think blacks vs. hispanics.

One question: (not to speak ill of the dead, but) what kind of eight-months pregnant woman goes to a brawl? Isn't that wierd?

UPDATE: aoshq janitor found a link to this with better coverage. Still not word on the cause of the fight, though.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:59 AM | Comments (49)
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

MSNBC, seeing its future as an ultra-left cable news network, wants to add more Leftist spin to the evening lineup. Keith Olbermann needs someone ideologically consistent to follow him. Better get Rosie O'Donnell.

Riding a ratings wave from “Countdown With Keith Olbermann,” a program that takes strong issue with the Bush administration, MSNBC is increasingly seeking to showcase its nighttime lineup as a welcome haven for viewers of a similar mind.

Lest there be any doubt that the cable channel believes there is ratings gold in shows that criticize the administration with the same vigor with which Fox NewsÂ’s hosts often champion it, two NBC executives acknowledged yesterday that they were talking to Rosie OÂ’Donnell about a prime-time show on MSNBC.

Rumor has it that Tucker Carlson's show will be cancelled. If the deal goes through, at least Allah will have new material from her.

The article also contained this puke-inducing comment from Chris Matthews:

“I really do take on people with power,” he said. “Deceit is what drives me crazy, either by Bill Clinton or the hawks in this administration.”

Oh, yeah, she's going to fit right in. Well, they'll have to get her a bigger chair...but you know what I meant.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 11:08 PM | Comments (58)
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.

Ron Paul has raised himself a nice little bundle of cash today, making a point to 'remember the 5th of November.' I wonder why?

David Freddoso of National Review says this should make us take Paul more seriously, a statement which makes me inclined to take Freddoso less seriously.

If Freddoso actually wants us to judge the seriousness of presidential candidates based on their ability to raise money, let's take a look at the numbers. According to Open Secrets, Ron Paul has managed to raise about $8 million. That is considerable, and today's fundraising is impressive. Until, that is, you compare it to what other candidates have managed to raise.

Hillary Clinton - $90 million
Barack Obama - $80 million
John Edwards - $30 million
Mitt Romney - $62 million
Rudy Giuliani - $47 million
John McCain - $32 million
Fred Thompson - $12 million

With the exception of Thompson, who entered the race late, the other candidates have raised considerably more money, and poll more than the margin of error. If anything, these fundraising numbers should make the Thompson campaign nervous. They certainly should not be a cause for celebration among the Paulbots.

There are two major reasons the Ron Paul candidacy should not be taken seriously. One is Ron Paul, the other is his supporters. The evidence against Ron Paul is very, very, very, very, very disturbing. Paul finds common cause with conspiracy theorists, white supremacists and lounge singers and he is using the Republican presidential primary to advance his message, not his candidacy.

In my opinion, that makes Ron Paul a disgraceful politician. Paul was elected as a Republican, campaigns as a Republican, takes money from the Republican party and is given a platform for his message during Republican debates. And yet heÂ’s repeatedly stated that once the primary is over, he will not campaign on behalf of the Republican nominee, endorse the Republican nominee or vote for the Republican nominee.

What kind of man takes money and attention from a party when it helps him, then spits in their face after getting what he wants? This entitlement attitude, when looked at within the context of who supports Paul and what Paul believes, does not reflect well on the character of the man who claims to be the "hope for America."

Posted by: Slublog at 09:37 PM | Comments (185)
Post contains 390 words, total size 3 kb.

Swastikas painted on her door. But who could the culprit be?

> After evaluating evidence from a hidden camera positioned in response to the swastika postings in Mitchell Hall, University Police have linked the student who filed the complaints to several of the incidents.

Following a final interview with investigators today, the student admitted responsibility for those incidents.

Maybe all this "hate" is due to the university refusing to take action against their last hate-hoaxers:

GWU failed to take action against seven students who perpetrated an anti-Muslim hoax against Young America's Foundation last month. Marshak's hate hoax began Oct. 23, and FBI agents were called to assist in the investigation.

Pathetic. Apparently now hate speech has more nuance than we used to think. If you can claim you were just trafficking in hateful symbols and statements to "raise awareness," you get off scot free. Even if your hoax winds up tearing up a university over the false allegations and costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in investigations.

[UPDATE: PA]
Robert Chernak, senior vice president for Student and Academic Support Services has been previously quoted as stating:

"We have no tolerance for acts that threaten or vilify our students or any members of our community,"

Posted by: Ace at 07:11 PM | Comments (43)
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

35-7 in the cold steel rain.

On the other hand, c'mon 10-4.

Heh.

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 07:07 PM | Comments (15)
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

That's Part I; the other parts (II-IV) are here.

From Newsbusters, which as usual is chock full of anti-global-warming-hysterics postings.

Posted by: Ace at 07:06 PM | Comments (15)
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Content warning for the post.

Say what you want Samir. Justify the murders of these people. Celebrate them. But don't ever---ever---accuse the U.S.---the country in which you reside--of being anything like your barbarous friends. We're nothing like them.

You would be wise to remember this: we have the capability of killing every Muslim on the earth. If this was really a war against Islam, why wouldn't we just kill you all?

The answer is obvious: because this isn't a war against Muslims.

This is a war against Islamists and terrorists. People like Abu Musab al Zarqawi. People like Osama bin Laden. People like you, Samir.

It is a war against the uncivilized. Against the vermon. Against the inhumane. I hope you all rot in hell and we help you on your way.

Proof that there is no "backlash" against Muslims in America?

This fat cocksucker is still drawing earthly air.

Posted by: Ace at 05:23 PM | Comments (27)
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

A great piece, though I'm a little biased because he makes a point I've been making for a while.

I call your attention to the front-page report in the Oct. 30 New York Times in which David Rohde, writing from the Afghan town of Gardez, tells of a new influx of especially vicious foreign fighters. Describing it as the largest such infiltration since 2001, Rohde goes on to say, "The foreign fighters are not only bolstering the ranks of the insurgency. They are more violent, uncontrollable and extreme than even their locally bred allies." They also, it seems, favor those Taliban elements who are more explicitly allied with al-Qaida, and bring with them cash and resources with which to sabotage, for example, the opening of schools in the southern provinces around Kandahar.

Now, if this were a report from Iraq, we would be hearing that it was all our own fault and that the Bin Ladenists would not be in that country at all if it were not for the coalition presence. It's practically an article of faith among liberals that only the folly of the intervention made Iraq into a magnet and a training or recruiting ground for our foes. One of the difficulties with this shallow and glib analysis is that it fails to explain Afghanistan and, in fact, fails to explain it twice.

We have fairly convincing evidence that a majority of Afghans do not, at the very least, oppose the presence of NATO forces on their soil....

I mention all this because there is no way to argue that the Taliban, either local or imported, is the product of some grievance or injustice or root cause. Its gangs are, instead, primitive fanatics making war on a Muslim society. And they are not there only because "we" are there. We know this because, long before "we" got there, they were in effective control of large parts of the place and had turned a terrorized and stultified land into a springboard and incubator for transnational nihilism. Bad as things may be now, they were infinitely worse when we ourselves were being isolationist.

After all, if the usual peacenik logic were to be pursued, and it was to be assumed that "we" are chiefly responsible for magnetizing "them," then it would follow that if we were to leave, they would either give up or go elsewhere. Is there anybody who can be brought to believe anything so fatuous? Well, then, if this logic is self-evidently false in the case of Afghanistan, why should it be any more persuasive in the case of Iraq?

Read the whole thing, as the man says.

Posted by: Ace at 02:52 PM | Comments (17)
Post contains 448 words, total size 3 kb.