Newsbusters dismisses this as liberal agitprop/corporate boosting of its own show.

I'm afraid it's not quite that. 35% of the households in America are in fact having this "kitchen-table debate," and 20% are debating Ro-Ro's other interesting theory, that fire has never melted steel and therefore 9/11 was an inside job.

And yet, were GMA interested in accuracy, they would state, as they would if conservatives were indulging in such repellent talk: "This is sparking similar debate among left-liberals all across America."

But as always, the media doesn't bother to specify left-liberal, because they 1) tend to believe left-liberal thought is mainstream American thought and 2) to the extent they worry it is not mainstream American thought, they hope to trick the stupid conservatives and squishy independents into thinking it is.

So that's where we are. According to ABCNews, it's just standard American thought to consider the country a terrorist nation, as well, I'm sure, to wonder if Dick Cheney and/or his New York Money Men pals blew up the World Trade Center.

Meanwhile, ro hasnt gotten around 2 modera8ing her comments in a while, so liberals r able to tell her shes n embarrassment, and conseratives get 2 tell her she maligned the troops.

She's obviously a depressive head case. Her brief, disjointed, lifeless responses are pretty symptomatic of an emotionally disturbed woman. She reminds me of another heavyset depressive female psychotic, though I have to say, even at her size, Annie Wilkes was at least somewhat pretty.

(Content warning for a brutal scene from Misery.)

It's Played: I know these re-cut trailers are kinda passe at this point, but this one, unlike 90% of them, is pretty good.

That actually is pretty frickin' scary.

Posted by: Ace at 07:27 PM | Comments (26)
Post contains 310 words, total size 3 kb.

George Bush on vetoing Congress' timetable for withdrawal, arguing announcing such a timetable demoralizes one's forces and concedes an enormous advantage to one's opponents:

It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength -- and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq. I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure -- and that would be irresponsible.

Liberals, realizing that Nancy Pelosi's announcement off a pre-Memorial Day deadline for passing a spending resolution seems to have demoralized Democratic forces and conceded an enormous advantage to their opponents:

Some activists had privately feared that Democratic leaders were losing their resolve to stage a protracted fight with the White House over wartime funding. Pelosi had announced earlier that the House would not leave for the Memorial Day recess without a new funding bill, a signal to some of a looming defeat.

"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that seemed like posturing.

That move gave Bush the upper hand in negotiations, the aide said, since it allowed him to wait out the Democrats while continuing to oppose attaching more restraints on the funds.

"There was no question that this was going to be the end result," the aide added.

Their announcement of a timetable for withdrawal from a fight with a patient opponent in the White House having resulted in catastrophic failure, Democrats went on to immediately call anew for a timetable of withdrawal from a fight with a patient opponent in Iraq.

Isn't it ironic, and in a genuine, non-Morissettian manner besides.

Thanks to Gekkobear.

Posted by: Ace at 03:36 PM | Comments (41)
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.

Nuance:

Not one to stay out of a View controversy, Donald Trump also weighed in – this time taking aim at Hasselbeck. "On this one I think Rosie should win," he told Extra. "I think anybody that's against the war in Iraq is the winner of the fight, because to justify the war in Iraq – only an imbecile could do that."

And this is pretty stupid, but Alicia Sliverstone seems to deliberately snub Elizabeth here.

I like Elizabeth and all, but seriously, that maternity muu-muu isn't doing a good job of hiding her great big pregnant ass.

What?

Oh, that's Alicia Silverstone.

When's she due?

Posted by: Ace at 01:59 PM | Comments (65)
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

Mickey Kaus again charges that FoxNews is deliberately refusing to cover the immigration debate as they normally might as a favor to President Bush. And perhaps the Republican Party as a whole, which, Hotline says, is largely pretending to be reluctant about the amnesty bill while privately reassuring corporate lobbyists (who want the bill) that they hope it will pass.

I have to admit: Given it's such a big issue, FoxNews has been relatively quiet about this, hasn't it? Whichever way they choose to play it, it's a hot, emotional, ratings-grabbing subject, a natural for FoxNews' primetime shouting shows, and yet... kind of anemic coverage, yes-yes?

Kaus also points to the FoxNews website -- which very nearly doesn't even mention the debate at all. (And the mention itself is buried and small.)

So, what about it? What have you been told? Surely some FoxNews people read this site; let me know if the word has come down to cool the heat on this issue. Of course confidentiality is guaranteed.

email aceofspadeshq at gmail dot com.

Seriously, not-for-attribution and all that.

Cavuto... is was covering it (I'm behind on the DVR), featuring a woman cutting up her Republican voter card on camera.

On the other hand, he's got someone who is plainly a lunatic wearing an INS hat and threatening a new civil war over this.

Sometimes the best way to support a position is not to have an advocate on, but rather an opponent who alienates those wo might be inclined to opponent.

Now Michelle Malkin's on, though, trashing the bill. And (I forgot) Malkin guest-hosted O'Reilly a couple times earlier this week.

I'm thinking the Kaus theory isn't true.

This Just In: Peggy Noonan is a Milf.

Posted by: Ace at 12:56 PM | Comments (61)
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.

But they're serious about enforcement this time.

Coleman's amendment didn't even go as far as I thought it did. It didn't mandate officers to inquire into immigration status; it merely permitted them to.

The Dishonor Roll of Republicans voting against even this minor gesture in the direction of enforcement:

Graham (R-SC)

Hagel (R-NE)

Lugar (R-IN)

Martinez (R-FL)

Snowe (R-ME)

Specter (R-PA)

Voinovich (R-OH)

I don't think I need to issue any Important Action Alerts.

Given that we probably can't take back Congress this cycle or even next anyway, I'm starting to think it's about time for a purge. They think we'll vote for them because we have no alternative.

But we do.

PS, Lindsey Graham? This is one of the "bigots" telling you you've served your last term in the Senate.

PPS: John McCain actually voted the right way. It hardly changes the fact he's pushed an unsalvagably awful bill on us.

On a Conference Call... with some Townhall Magazine Heritage Foundation people, someone just pointed out something interesting.

What the ACLU and other leftwing lawsuit groups typically do with left-leaning legislation they like -- but hope they can "improve" through litigation -- is remain quiet about their numerous objections to the bill. Then, only after it's passed, do they begin their lawsuit campaign, removing right-leaning provisions and pushing liberal legislation even further left via the intervention of like-minded judges.

They note even the cosmetic "enforcement" features of this bill -- such as the very weak, very forgeable employer ID -- will be challenged by the ACLU days or weeks after Bush signs the bill into the law.

So the bill will almost certainly end up being weaker on enforcement than it appears now -- and right now, it appears ludicrously weak.

Posted by: Ace at 12:28 PM | Comments (45)
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

Dick Cheney.

Jewish bankers.

Apart, formiddable.

Together -- is there any force on earth that can oppose them?

(Link Fixed). Steve Clemmons, "good friend" of Joshua Micah Ezekiah Boutros-Boutros "Hambone" Marshall, finally blows the lid off the Christianist-Zionist conspiracy to trick peaceful Muslims into attacking us.

Again, I mean. Like they did six years ago (wink).

There is a race currently underway between different flanks of the administration to determine the future course of US-Iran policy.

On one flank are the diplomats, and on the other is Vice President Cheney's team and acolytes -- who populate quite a wide swath throughout the American national security bureaucracy.

The Pentagon and the Intelligence establishment are providing support to add muscle and nuance to the diplomatic effort...

"Nuance." They do love nuance.

And also: "muscle." Just in case you thought this "nuance" stuff was a little airy-fairy, no, it's nuance with muscle.

What the hell would that look like?

Oh yeah. Like this:

Anyway:

The person in the Bush administration who most wants a hot conflict with Iran is Vice President Cheney...

This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.

The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf -- which just became significantly larger -- as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.

The Lightning.

The Thunder.

Prepare for the Mother of All Storms...

The Plan Is Working: Cheney goes high. New York money men go low. Iran falls into line.

Iran's hard-line president warned Israel on Thursday that other nations in the region would "uproot" the Jewish state if it attacked Lebanon in the summer.

"If you think that by bombing and assassinating Palestinian leaders you are preparing ground for new attacks on Lebanon in the summer, I am telling you that you are seriously wrong," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a rally in the city of Isfahan.

"If this year you repeat the same mistake of the last year, the ocean of nations of the region will get angry and will uproot the Zionist regime."

In hopeful news, gibbering lunatics like Steve Clemmons are now giving marching orders to the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Ace at 11:53 AM | Comments (21)
Post contains 478 words, total size 4 kb.

Very, very strong content warning, though you'll have a chance to just read the background and avoid actually looking at the photos (which are obscene, but buried under multiple warnings).

A small grace note:

One of the leaders was rumored to be the now very dead Mullah Dadullah or his younger brother. In these frames Mullah Dadullah or a person with a close family resemblance can be seen coaching the young man on how to proceed.

At least Dadullah's been relieved of his position as Thug Scout troop leader.

Nearly as charming is Al Qaeda's torture manual (content warning: Graphic hand-drawn images, which in a way are even more repulsive than the 12-year-old decapitator).

Hey -- Andrew Sullivan? This is what torture looks like, you preening hysterical manbitch. Click -- but content warning. And this isn't even the worst of it.

Thanks to Vilmar, and also dri, who comments, "This is almost as bad as Abu Ghraib!"

Indeed. Almost. The drawing showing how to remove the eyes from a living human, or how to twist someone's head off in a vise, are nearly as repellent as the "torture" that so bothered Andrew Sullivan -- female interrogators smearing red ink on terrorists, pretending it to be menstrual blood.

But see, that's why I think we'll win this war: We're willing to perpetrate horrors like that that Al Qaeda cannot even dream of.

Question For Preening Hysterical Manbitch Sullivan: Given that the imperative against torture is absolute, praytell, is it permissible to waterboard in order to facillitate the capture of true torturers -- guys who jerk themselves off at the prospect of removing eyeballs from living humans?

If it's an absolute moral imperative to not torture -- and therefore also to stop torture -- aren't measures short of torture justified in preventing true torture?

To make it concrete. We know the captured US servicemen were tortured -- for real -- before being slaughtered like animals. If we had captured one of the Al Qaeda terrorists known to be responsible for their capture, is it Sullivan's claim that it would be immoral to waterboard him, thus permitting the actual torture and murder of three soldiers who are actually innocents?

It's preferrable for the innocent to suffer than for the monstrous -- those themselves who take a sexual delight in the true torture, maiming, and slaughter of others -- to experience some short-term discomfort?

This is the unshakable "moral" conviction of Andrew Sullivan?

Really?

No, um, "politics of doubt" enter into this strange moral calculus, eh?

Politics of doubt. Uh-huh. Seems to mean "my politics are doubltess correct, but you should have lots of doubt about any point upon which you disagree with me."

Posted by: Ace at 11:02 AM | Comments (38)
Post contains 482 words, total size 3 kb.

Which would suprise Ann Coulter, I guess.

Robert Shrum, the veteran Democratic strategist who worked on John Edwards's 1998 Senate campaign in North Carolina, does not remember his onetime client very fondly.

In his new memoir, "No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner," Shrum recalls asking Edwards at the outset of that campaign, "What is your position, Mr. Edwards, on gay rights?"

"I'm not comfortable around those people," Edwards replied, according to Shrum. He writes that the candidate's wife, Elizabeth, told him: "John, you know that's wrong."

Edwards's pollster, Harrison Hickman, who was in the room during the discussion, says Shrum "is sensationalizing and taking out of context what was an honest discussion about [Edwards's] lack of exposure to these issues and openly gay people. I don't remember anything that expressed any kind of venom or judgment about gay people."

...

While praising Edwards as a man of "many innate political gifts," Shrum says he hoped the senator wouldn't run for the White House in 2004: "I was coming to believe he wasn't ready; he was a Clinton who hadn't read the books."

Kind of an interesting juxtaposition. Ann Coulter, who is comfortable around gays, called John Edwards a faggot. She got beaten up for that (including by me).

John Edwards, who is not a faggot, says he's not comfortable around "those people," meaning gays. Will he get beaten up for this?

Probably not. To the extent the MSM mentions it ever again -- which they, you know, won't -- they will (hypothetically) portray it as a net-positive for Edwards, demonstrating he has the touch of the "common man" about him, a sign that he is "in touch with the people" in not really liking them there queeries.

Posted by: Ace at 10:52 AM | Comments (27)
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

In fairness -- because, really, I don't know a damn thing about body armor -- I'll link this point by point rebuttal of an unoffical Army paper denigrating the Dragon Skin system.

I won't quote much. Just enough to be kinda fair. (Really, I didn't set out to make this Dragon Skin armor day.)

Summary: Pinnacle says the Army seemed intent on deviating from accepted testing principles in order to fail the system, and fired on places not even covered by the actual scale armor to claim additional failures, and that the "scales falling out due to high heat" claim is overblown, based upon a single instance of product failure due to a manufacturing error rather than a basic design flaw.

Personally, I'd like to see more tests. Just not conducted by Lisa Myers.

As far as bias in the testing proces, this online comment by the man in charge of testing the armor for the Army does seem a tad... hot:

On June 6th, 2006 in comments posted on an online discussion forum, Karl Masters, director of engineering for Program Manager - Soldier Equipment, said he recently supervised the retest and commented on it. "I was recently tasked by the army to conduct the test of the 30 Dragon Skin SOV-3000 level IV body armor purchased for T&E [tests and evaluation]," Masters wrote. "My day job is acting product manager for Interceptor Body Armor. I'm under a gag order until the test results make it up the chain. I will, however, offer an enlightened and informed recommendation to anyone considering purchasing an SOV-3000 Dragon Skin - don't. I do not recommend this design for use in an AOR with a 7.62x54R AP threat and an ambient temperature that could range to 120F. I do, however, highly recommend this system for use by insurgents..."

If Dragon Skin armor is really awful, I suppose that comment might be warranted. If it's not awful, but simply not, all things considered, superior to Interceptor armor, then that comment seems out-of-line in its hostility. Maybe suggesting bias. I don't know.

Clarification/Correction: Having read that Masters worked for "Interceptor Armor," I wrongly concluded that meant he worked for the armor's manufacturor.

He doesn't. He works for the Army. "Interceptor Armor" is just what the Army calls its current armor design -- it's not a brand name, it's an Army designation.

Thanks to commenters for correcting me on that. I apologize for the error.

Anyway, some charges and rebuttals follow. No more about body armor for me. I'm swearing this subject off like I swore off Gleen Grenwald. more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:34 AM | Comments (24)
Post contains 932 words, total size 7 kb.

I've been meaning to link this bullet-point bullet-riddling of the amnesty bill: Comprehensively Bad.
Among the other problems already covered here (one-day instant no-background-check guaranteed visa, no back taxes, no actual "enforcement triggers," "enforcement triggers" themselves depend simply on how many people are hired or how many UAV's bought, not actual verifiable results in deterring and deporting new illegal immigrants, $2.5 trillion in new social spending costs, etc.), here's a couple more:

Weak employer verification: This is not the long-promised “tamper proof” identity for employment. No serious fingerprint digital system is required, massive fraud will continue.

No exit system for guest workers: The guest workers are supposed to be “temporary” and required to eventually leave. But there is no way to enforce their leaving because there is still no Entry-Exit system in place.

Trust criminal gang members: As former Ashcroft deputy Kris Kobach notes there are more than 30,000 illegal immigrant gang members “trafficking in drugs, arms, and people.” They get a Z (amnesty) Visa if they simply sign a “renunciation of gang affiliation.” I guess the Senate-administration “negotiators” trust these M-13 guys.

“Section 136: Nothing in this section may be construed to provide additional authority to any State or local entity to enforce Federal immigration laws.” Why not? The illegal aliens who were part of the Fort Dix terrorist conspiracy were stopped by local law enforcement 56 times but their immigration status was never checked. This bill does nothing to ensure cooperation between local and federal officials in combating terrorism.

No real merit or skills-based (point) system instead current extended family chain migration is accelerated: The chain migration of extended family members will continue and be greatly expanded for the next eight years and only then would a skills-based merit (points) system supposedly go into effect. That is, if you really believe that after eight years a skills system would be adopted against strong business and liberal opposition.

So:

No end to chain migration, at least not for eight years, and you're high if you think that won't be written out of the law before then.

No end to the sanctuary city loophole.

No additional internal enforcement.

No external enforcement/deterrent (i.e., a wall).

No expedited deportation process for future illegals.

Etc.

In short, absolutely no actual reform on the enforcement side. At most, cosmetic changes designed to sound tough to the chumps and saps they're hoping you are.

This is not a grand bargain. It's not a compromise. It's a total capitualtion to the open-borders agitators with not a lick of additional enforcement and not a single concession to those who would like to actually curtail future illegal immigration.

Allah digests and links other articles in NRO's "full court press" against this "piece of shit" bill. The second quoted passage -- about the phony claim that family-based chain immigration will end -- is the killer.

Captain Ed has a post about important amendments being offered by Senators Coleman and Cornyn:

In an effort to strengthen national security, Senator Norm Coleman yesterday introduced an amendment to the Immigration bill to make sure local law enforcement officials are able to communicate with federal law enforcement agencies regarding suspected immigration violations. Currently, a number of cities throughout the nation are using a loophole to get around Sec. 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 by instituting ordinances forbidding local law enforcement to even ask the question as to whether a person is in the U.S. lawfully, thereby evading their legal responsibility to report their suspicions to the federal government.

“In a post 9-11 world, it is simply unacceptable for communities to ignore federal laws requiring them to share this type of information with federal authorities. This is not a matter of making state and local governments enforce federal immigration laws, it is simply a matter of closing this loophole that certain cities have created,” said Coleman. “This defies common sense, as the rule of law must apply to both legal and illegal residents. Moreover, we know how crucial it is to connect the dots in order to avert another terrorist attack in this country. The consequences of prohibiting information sharing are too great. To close this loophole, I have introduced an amendment that will ensure the lines of communication are open between local and federal law enforcement officials.”

Inspired by the Dix Six terror gang, by the way-- as local police had had multiple run-ins with them but never bothered checking their immigration status.

Hard to argue with, eh?

Count on a lot of liberals arguing with it. If this amendment passes, the liberals cannot vote for the bill. And yet if the liberals reject it, I don't see how conservatives can afford to not filibuster it.

And Cornyn's amendment:

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, the top Republican on the Judiciary CommitteeÂ’s Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship subcommittee, on Wednesday introduced an amendment to the immigration bill to close a gaping loophole in the bill that will ensure the following individuals are either permanently barred from the United States or prohibited from getting any immigration benefit: members of terrorist-related organizations, known gang members, sex offenders, alien smugglers who use firearms and felony drunk drivers.

“The question I put to my colleagues is this: Should Congress permanently bar from the U.S. and from receiving any immigration benefit: suspected terrorists, gang members, sex offenders, felony drunk drivers, and other individuals who are a danger to society?,” Sen. Cornyn said. “I hope that every Senator would answer this question with a positive response."

Captain Ed thinks this will pass, because how can anyone argue with it?

Let me ask you:

Why the hell do such measures have to be offered as amendments? Did the scary-genius crafters of this Grand Compromise not consider ending sanctuary cities if they were really committed to a new tough policy on immigration enforcement, or not bother to rule out granting visas to dangerous criminals, gang members, sex offenders and terrorists?

If they didn't bother with this stuff, who knows what else is missing from this bill?

I have to say I hope these amendments don't pass. Because improving a piece of shit still leaves it, basically, a piece of shit. The worse the bill is -- and dear Martha, it is bad -- the more likely Republican Senators will do their jobs and filibuster it to death.

But improving it marginally around the corners will increase the likelihood it passes. And that's unacceptable to me.

It's not that I oppose a grand compromise in principle. I don't. It's that I demand that I do in fact receive my part of the compromise -- enforcement.

Meaning an end to, or at least a severe reduction in, further illegal immigration, and tough, serious, systematic enforcement of all the current laws on the books. Amnesty one more time -- and never again.

It's quite obvious that the President is unwilling commit to this. So are the majority of the our elected leaders. So I simply cannot trust them.

They continue attempting to swindle and double-talk their way towards the passage of this bill, offering bullshit "enforcement provisions" that we soon find out have loopholes you coud march Santa Ana's army through, or which may sound reasonable on paper, but mean nothing at all if the executive is not committed to actually following its own law.

Remember, Michael Chertoff has already openly enthused about the fact that he will no longer need be bothered with enforcing immigration laws. Given the flood of illegal immigrants which will inevitably follow this give-away-the-store amnesty, we need DHS bracing for additional dilligence in pursuing and deporting illegal aliens, not salivating at the prospect at never being troubled by this trifle of an issue again.

Posted by: Ace at 09:33 AM | Comments (41)
Post contains 1309 words, total size 9 kb.