Last month, Obama demanded an F-22 be removed from a hangar where he was giving another human-shield speech.

White House aides demanded the plane be changed to an older F-15 fighter because they didn't want Obama speaking in front of the F-22, a controversial program he fought hard to end.

"White House aides actually made them remove the F-22-said they would not allow POTUS to be pictured with the F-22 in any way, shape, or form," one source close to the unit relayed.

...

The airmen there took offense to the Obama aides' demand, sources told The Cable, seeing it as a slight to the folks who are operating the F-22 proudly every day. They also expressed bewilderment that the White House staff would even care so much as to make an issue out of the fact that the F-22 was placed in the hanger with the president.

I guess he thought the right would make a big issue out of him standing next to a plane he'd personally killed.

We wouldn't do that, would we?

I'm not sure what can be said here. I can't gin up a lot of the petulant outrage the left exhibited about every single thing Bush did; I can't keep up with their level of intense caterwauling. I try -- but I can't.

I have to give the left their props: They can scream and gnash their teeth like 24/7. Where do they get their energy? Oh, right: Tall skinny Starbucks lattes with a shot of Vermont Maple Hatred and a firm exercise regime of having nothing else going on in their pathetic lives.

I guess this confirms this guy thinks constantly in terms of staging and "optics," but we already knew that. And he seems to view the military with constant suspicion and palpable animosity: enemy camp and all.

Now, if any of you want to rant about this: Maybe I just didn't find the angle.

Meanwhile: a cadet read a book called "Kill Bin Ladin" as he waited for Obama to give his long, uninspiring, "victory"-free self-serving speech. Since he was reading before Obama showed up, he can't get into any trouble.

The guy was probably just reading a book, not attempting any kind of silent protest. Still, I guess it's a good reminder of why we're in Afghanistan in the first place... since our President seems to have forgotten his pledge to -- personally, he often made it sound like -- get bin Ladin at any cost. Any cost -- not with a lot of balancing for his outsized domestic spending initiatives.

Check out Reuters (emphasis added):

Obama is expected to announce a plan to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan over six months in a bid to beat back the Taliban and bring a quicker end to a costly and unpopular eight-year war.

Notice how eager they are to call the war "costly and unpopular." Obama's health-care initiative is far more costly and also quite unpopular, but they seem to have this... inexplicable reluctance to say so.

And by the way: The war is unpopular, to the extent it is, because we haven't won it. The goal of the war is certainly not unpopular.

In fact, Obama campaigned expressly on a platform of Kill bin Ladin.

Posted by: Ace at 10:12 AM | Comments (148)
Post contains 589 words, total size 4 kb.

After setting off a firestorm of protest, the federal panel that talked down the value of breast cancer screening for women backed off their recommendations.

"The recommendation about breast cancer screening for women 40 to 49 did not say what the task force meant to say. The task force communication was poor," insisted Dr. Diana Petitti with the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

The panel also backpedaled by saying it won't recommend against screening.

Petitti said, "We need to immediately figure out how to get that statement off the website."

But Republicans pounced, saying the new "relaxed" guidelines are a glimpse of what new health care legislation will bring to the nation.

"We are willing to accept the higher mortality rate to save money. That's what this report says," stated Republican Congressman Mike Rogers of Michigan.

I guess the science isn't settled here. Or more likely, it was settled but the politics got in the way. So much for Obama's promise to get politics out of science.

Here's the thing...the panel may very well be right from a cost/benefit analysis. That leads to the next point...who cares if they are? As I laid out before, we don't have health care rationing in this country, so if people want to spend money on procedures that may or may not be cost effective over the entire population, it's none of the government's business. If that 'wasted' money buys people peace of mind, then it's not really wasted. They have every right to spend their money and benefits and they want.

Either way, it's none of the government's damn business.

Of course, it will be the government's damn business if the current re-form efforts pass. Decisions like this will become binding under the law. Will that lead to denial of care? Sometimes. Unless you have a powerful political lobby. You know like women.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski has offered an amendment to the Senate health bill that mandates...

… coverage shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for—

… ‘‘(4) with respect to women, such additional preventive care and screenings not described in paragraph (1) as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration for purposes of this paragraph.’’

As former Bush economic adviser Keith Hennessey points out at the link, this is a government mandate that puts government bureaucrats in charge of what is covered and eliminates any consumer choice.

So you see the cross purposes here. A federal panel wants to cut costs and care, while another part of government is going to react to political pressures and provide strong support for favored groups.

I don't know what the right balance is here but neither does this federal health panel or Sen. Mikulski. Free people, exercising their best judgement will find the right equilibrium between costs and benefits. Right now the disconnect between the benefits received by individuals and the costs paid is too great. Any re-form effort that puts more variables and distortions between people and their own care will only cause more problems.

Congress is taking the Charlie Gibson approach to this issue, "Free markets? Never heard of them".

Posted by: DrewM at 07:39 AM | Comments (121)
Post contains 556 words, total size 4 kb.

We're looking for strong challengers. We're looking ahead at what could be a Conservative blowout in 2010. This is an excellent moment to promote our best and get them into office, everywhere.

Going forward, please TELL US when you see a candidate who can confidently and clearly enunciate and defend Conservative principles and who needs some exposure. Tip me, or tip Ace or any of the other cobloggers.

Here is an electrifying address from Lt. Col. Allen West, who would very much like to represent Florida District 22 in the U.S. Congress.

Lt. Col. West's Website.

An excerpt from his Wiki page (fair warning):

While serving in Taji, Iraq on August 20, 2003 as commander of the 2d Battalion 20th Field Artillery, 4th Infantry Division, Lieutenant Colonel West was in charge of the interrogation of an Iraqi police officer who was suspected of having information about planned attacks on American forces. According to the Iraqi police officer, Yehiya Kadoori Hamoodi claimed that during the interrogation, soldiers under West's supervision assaulted him attempting to get him to talk.

The police officer insisted that he did not know anything about planned attacks and was loyal to the United States Army. However, when the detainee didn't talk, Lieutenant Colonel West fired his 9mm pistol close to the man's head and at this point, the man, according to some mainstream media such as CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/12/sprj.nirq.west.ruling/), gave information about a planned ambush, resulting in its being thwarted. According to West, there were no further ambushes on U.S. forces in Taji until he was relieved of command on October 4, 2003.

FRICKIN AWESOME UPDATE: From the CNN article in the Wiki quote. Lt. Col. West's testimony at an Article 32 military hearing:

Asked if he would have act differently if under similar circumstances again, West testified, "If it's about the lives of my soldiers at stake, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can."

Thanks to scott.

Posted by: LauraW at 06:24 AM | Comments (223)
Post contains 335 words, total size 3 kb.

Evil is not overcome by fleeing from it, Mr. President.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:24 AM | Comments (126)
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

There was an early Simpsons that showed a Democratic political rally. The crowd vigorously lifted placards that protested themselves, stating We Can't Govern!

(The Republican rally featured signs that said We Want What's Worst for Everyone!, for those wanting to know the rest of the joke.)

That is the ridiculous image that comes to mind when I read this this.

Members of President ObamaÂ’s own political party are charging that the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership are not doing enough to help the unemployed and are threatening to organize a march on Washington of jobless Americans.

“Obviously there’s something that’s not getting through to them,” said Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Illinois. “And we’re going to let the White House and everybody who’s concerned know that we have got people in our districts who are depending on us to deliver for them.”

Representative Bobby Rush is threatening to stage a march to make sure the "message gets through" to, um, himself, and the president he supports.

Good Lord. It's coming apart now, isn't it?

Larwyn again.

Posted by: Ace at 06:03 PM | Comments (232)
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.

Humpety Humpety Humpety Hump! And welcome to the official mid-week ONT.

The Classic OMG Video Compilation
As one commenter declared, "This. Is. Why. The. Internet. Exists." And the police running past the getaway car is a classic. Thank you Al Gore and DARPA engineers.

Posted by: Open Blog at 06:00 PM | Comments (756)
Post contains 232 words, total size 3 kb.

Since I was a kid, I read that killer whales somehow killed sharks by stunning them or something. Never got the details straight. I thought it was some kind of headbutt to the gut or something.

In fact, it turns out they raise their tails to the surface near a shark, which creates a vortex that whisks the shark up to the surface, where I guess it can't breathe or something. Then they pull their tails up clear out of the water and "chop" them, smashing down.

Okay, kind of cool. But the thing is, this wasn't the way I envisioned it as a kid. Because, okay, maybe this is a cool tactic, and maybe it means they're using their brains or something, but the killer whales seem to have another impressive advantage over their shark-victims:

They're about 3-5 times larger than the sharks they're hunting.

You know what other tactics work when you have that kind of size advantage? All other tactics. Including plainly stupid ones.

Hey, try brute force, too, guys. No real need to get all finesse-y when you're bullying a poor little shark you've got a good three bills on.

Remember when Mike Tyson beat the hell out of me last year? You know how did that? He out-thought me. He came ready with a plan and I didn't.

Also, he hit me once and it turned my brain into gray applesauce.

But that, and out-thinking me.

Ah, one more lie of youth dies. One more jewel of innocence cracked and shattered. What's left?

Thanks to rdbrewer.

Oh: I'm informed what the orcas do is flip the sharks over on their backs with that vortex-move, which somehow discombobulates their brains and puts them into a daze, and I'm also informed that male commenters are so over Meredith Baxter and now all over Dr. Ingrid Visser.

Posted by: Ace at 04:45 PM | Comments (142)
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.

A rather lame attempt at re-branding.

"You call it ClimateGate," she hisses (I guess to Inhofe), "I call it Email-Theft-Gate."

Again, as Treacher says, ClimateGate is about stealing emails in much the same way Watergate was about parking garages.

What a rotten nasty old buzzard. Dumb, too.

Thanks to Milton.

Posted by: Ace at 04:12 PM | Comments (167)
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

This is his habit, after all: He offers wisps of gauzy Hope to the center and right, but he offers the iron-clad promises of Change to the left.

McCrystal and Gates both thought the evacuation date was subject to actual facts on the ground.

Obama says, "Hah, fooled you again. This is getting too easy."

Posted by: Ace at 03:22 PM | Comments (73)
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, she said she's a lesbian. I infer the grab-ass-with-Mallory part, because, like, how could you not?

In other celebrity news from TMZ, in this clip Jesse Ventura does his Trutherism act, refusing to quite say that Bush was responsible for 9/11, but saying "we're not getting the whole story." He starts by asking comic Jim Norton if we've identified all the bodies from 9/11 -- his implication (they always imply) seeming to be there are some black-ops guys mixed in with the civilian dead.

Here's the thing: Frigging 130 pound Jim Norton tells him to shut up -- well, worse than that -- and does not back down an inch even when Ventura stares him down.

Guy seems willing to take a beating to tell an ex-Navy-SEAL ex-pro-wrestler Truther that Trutherism is for scumbag lunatics. Give him props.

F-bombs galore, by the way.

Not a SEAL: Grant writes:

Not to take anything away from the UDTs, but Gov. Ventura was a UDT member, not a SEAL team member at a time when they were distinct units. Ten years after Ventura left the navy, the two were merged. He was never a SEAL.

UDT I guess is underwater demolitions teams?

Anyway, not a SEAL, not really.

Posted by: Ace at 02:49 PM | Comments (268)
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.