Clinton would have saved Social Security

Isn’t it amazing how many wonderful things former President William Jefferson Clinton would have done for this world if it weren’t for the Uncalled-For Meddling of Special Prosecutor Ken Starr?

The most recent such revelation suggests that Mr. Clinton would have reformed Social Security in his second term if he had not been distracted by those dastardly and unnecessary impeachment proceedings. Such are the proclamations in a San Francisco Chronicle front-page story entitled "Social Security rehab died first under Clinton.”

To begin with, the Chronicle’s Carolyn Lochhead states that saving Social Security from imminent insolvency was a key initiative of the Clinton administration:

“'It would be unconscionable if we failed to act,’ President Bill Clinton said at a forum in 1998, when he made fixing the nation's retirement program a top priority of his second term.”

Top priority? In his 1998 State of the Union address, Mr. Clinton spent three paragraphs on Social Security out of a total of 140. That’s less than two minutes of an hour and a half speech. Is that how much time a president devotes to his top priority?

That said here was the crux of his solution presented to the nation that evening:

“Tonight, I propose that we reserve 100 percent of the surplus – that's every penny of any surplus – until we have taken all the necessary measures to strengthen the Social Security system for the 21st century.”

In his 1999 SOTU address, Clinton “increased” his focus on this “top priority” by committing ten out of 160 paragraphs to this issue, offering basically the same solution:

“Specifically, I propose that we commit 60 percent of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector just as any private or state government pension would do.”

In reality, both of these proposals were red herrings, and would have had a negligible impact on Social Security’s imminent insolvency if enacted. Why? Because in the four years that our nation was supposed to be in the midst of budget surpluses “as far as the eye can see,” the actual on-budget surpluses totaled $25.9 billion. That’s it. The other $533.4 billion worth of reported unified budget surpluses during this four-year period emanated directly from off-budget trust accounts -- mostly Social Security.

Given this, Mr. Clinton’s fabulous idea was to allocate budget surpluses to Social Security that were largely already in the Social Security trust. On the streets of Manhattan, this is widely referred to as a “Three Card Monty.”

However, the most uproarious solution to this imminent crisis offered by our 42nd president came in his 2000 SOTU address wherein he committed only one sentence of his entire speech to this “top priority”:

“Tonight, I ask you to work with me to make a bipartisan down payment on Social Security reform by crediting the interest savings from debt reduction to the Social Security Trust Fund so that it will be strong and sound for the next 50 years.”

What makes this so hysterical, and somewhat insulting? Well, because there never was any debt reduction during Mr. Clinton’s second term. In fact, contrary to Democratic assertions and public opinion, the last year that America’s gross federal debt declined was 1969. As such, there wouldn’t have been any interest savings, and, therefore, wouldn’t have been one penny credited to the Social Security trust under this proposal.

I would venture a guess that, like most Americans, Ms. Lochhead was not aware of this fact. Moreover, though she suggests, as her article continues, that it was questions about Monica Lewinsky which distracted the President from keeping his focus on Social Security reform, nowhere does she address military attacks in Kosovo as the real source of this distraction.

Instead, she conveniently chooses to omit that many people at the time felt that Clinton intentionally used problems in Kosovo and the need for U.S. involvement as a smokescreen to divert the public's attention away from his sexual indiscretions. Remember the movie Wag The Dog, Carolyn?

Former Clinton advisor Dick Morris has proffered on many occasions the real truth that the left conveniently ignores about this issue. In his view as a high-profile member of the Clinton team, the primary reason the administration moved away from any serious discussion of Social Security reform was because Clinton was advised by top Democratic leaders that he would be doing his party a huge disservice if he repaired a problem that they all needed to be able to campaign on every two years.

Of course, another truly delicious snippet of hypocrisy rests with the following obvious question that appears to have eluded Ms. Lochhead and her ilk: If Clinton was so prescient seven years ago with his concerns regarding America's largest retirement program, why are today’s Democrats trying to convince the American people that President Bush is inventing a problem that doesn't really exist?

Or, did Social Security become financially solvent the very moment Al Gore lost in 2000?

Hat tip to Noel Sheppard

It just gets better and better 

Satire Alert (For those who still can't figure it out)

Democrats: We're Spiteful and Proud of it

Nancy Pelosi: the kidney stone of American politics.

A story in Boston.com says Democrats are glowing with pride for blocking President Bush's legislative agenda:

Senior Democrats are increasingly confident that they have blocked Republicans plans for historic breakthroughs in legislation under GOP control of the White House and Congress, declaring that the Democratic strategy of unified opposition to major items on the leadership agenda has succeeded in turning Republicans against themselves.

Democratic leaders say the focus on opposition, rather than on their own legislative proposals, has allowed them to hold up President Bush's plans to remake Social Security.

In 1998, President Clinton proposed virtually the same reform program as Bush. So Democrats would rather spite the nation to deny Bush a historic breakthrough?

Children, can you say partisan? A gem:

''I'm very proud of our Democrats, because they know why they are Democrats," said House minority leader Nancy Pelosi of California. ''We have from the start come together as Democrats, focused on our core values which unite us as a party, and then proceeded from there. That consensus is what has kept us -- if you want to use the word 'disciplined,' but a better word in my view is 'united.' "

Put that on a bumpersticker: Democrats-- We're United for Nothing. That fits in nicely with Clinton's "Seinfeld Presidency" -- it, too, was about nothing.

SATIRE ALERT !!!

Gender Fascists Hijack Mrs. Oregon Pageant

A great big Toot o' the Hooka to Portland's Mayor Potter for his courageous stand against gender fascism by refusing to endorse the Mrs. Oregon Pageant.

In a thinly veiled attack on the Gay and Transgendered Community, the pageant has now officially restricted itself to females who were born without penises and are married to members of the Oppressor Gender. The same right-wing lunatics who are destroying America with their religious idealism have apparently hijacked the annual pageant and turned it into some sort of beauty contest.

This is nothing new. Last year, the mayor cut his vacation short over the pageant's new "No Mustaches" rule, which essentially disqualified 3/4 of Portland's female population. He sees this as just another attempt by the evangelical Christian right to shove their warped ideas about gender roles down everyone's throat. However, while I agree with his views, he's unfortunately prancing at the wrong windmill. The pageant's bigotry and intolerance are merely the unwanted stepchildren of our culture's archaic and unrealistic fascination with "beauty".

In a society where illusory concepts like "grace" and "charm" are used to define "beauty", what hope does a 300-pound belching bull dyke with Wayne Newton hair have to win the coveted crown? What chance does an androgynous meth addict with three teeth and an adam's apple the size of a grapefruit have against the anatomically correct, cookie-cutter Barbie dolls of the master race? The mayor can cry until his mascara runs, but it won't change the hegemonic stranglehold the gender purists have on our culture itself.

I'm sure that our Founding Fathers, with their powdered wigs and frilly-sleeved zoot suits, would yearn for a more inclusive pageant, one that celebrates our differences and isn't tainted by the mediocrity of established gender norms. Ideally, a diverse panel of judges comprised of angry butch lesbians and gender dysphoric hermaphrodites would judge contestants by more progressive standards of "beauty", such as Most Alluring Monobrow, Most Convincing Tracheal Shave, and Most Likely to Be a Strategically Shaved Monkey. Extra points will be given to the contestant who spits in the eye of every traditional concept of "feminine beauty", and makes Ed Asner look like the goddess Aphrodite. Then, once all beauty pageants have been liberated from the oppressive binds of conservative ideology and opened to all Americans regardless of gender or lack thereof, we will ban them entirely because they're glorified meat markets that exploit women.

Go Figure

For decades the United Nations has been critical of the United States. Not only critical, but downright antagonistic. Now President Bush has appointed a U.N. Ambassador who has been critical of the United Nations. Democrats don't like it. So ... a quick review. The United Nations slams the United States and Democrats remain silent. A U.S. diplomat criticizes the United Nations and Democrats go nuts. Would someone please explain this to me?

Anyone seen a swimmer in a turban??? 

More Hump Day Crap

Worried About Enemy SCUBA Divers?

Don’t be. Every six months for the last few years a story comes out about AQ “frogmen” planning to conduct submerged demolition attacks on US warships, ports, and maritime facilities. They envision the climactic scene from the 1965 James Bond film Thunderball where the evil forces of SPECTRE attempt nuclear holocaust only to be foiled by 007 and what I suppose had to be SEALs in a pitched underwater battle between opposing divers. While combat swimmer operations can have an important role in a conflict between nations with significant naval forces, it is not a tactic that lends itself to terrorism.

First of all, clandestine underwater navigation is not easy. In fact, an argument can be made that ship attacks are the most technically challenging SEAL mission in our repertoire. The diving equipment is highly specialized and takes significant amounts of training to operate effectively and safely. Even with the proper equipment and training, a combat swimmer is limited by not only hard limits on dive time, but “soft” limits on the diver’s physiology and stamina. These limits could be extended if the dive was planned as a “one way trip” as is the custom of our islamofascist enemies, but finding and training people with the physical and mental abilities to carry out such a difficult attack is made terribly difficult when they are also expected to be martyrs. The longer the dive, the larger the navigational error box each “leg” of the infiltration becomes, making it harder to find the target vessel on the dive plan. When this happens, the diver’s only option is to “peek” and visually acquire the target exposing him to compromise.

Then there’s the fact that the amount of demolition that a diver can carry is obviously subject to extreme limitations. The demolition charges used by SEALs to attack enemy vessels are highly complex and must be manufactured by contractors with decades of experience and research time. You can’t just wad up a ball of C-4, slap it on the hull of the vessel, and light some time fuse with a flare underwater. Splashproof firing assemblies can be improvised, but not with the level of certainty needed for a ship attack. There are attachment issues to consider as well as anti-removal devices that must be addressed. Fully loaded out with state of the art anti-ship limpet mines, a SEAL Platoon can only hope to disable a few ships on outer moorings thus preventing an enemy fleet from leaving port for a few days to a week. Of course submersible vehicles are capable of much more, but then you’re talking about even more training, equipment, and complexity.

Finally, the REASON AQ divers would never have the sack to enter any major US port, or come near US vessels in the Persian Gulf. Scroll down to the Mk 6 dolphin program which is managed by Navy EOD. Mk 6 dolphins are a diver’s worst nightmare, and that is no understatement. These marine mammals are trained to find and attack divers that are operating in the patrol area. Imagine swimming around a US warship laden with explosives at night with ill intentions on your mind, and suddenly a 500 lb. dolphin rams into your side at full speed out of nowhere. Of course this dolphin has a nose cone attached to a .45 caliber contact initiated round for good measure. Or how about a needle connected to a CO2 cartridge that injects the diver with gas forcing him to rapidly surface? Essentially the dolphin will continue to ram the diver until he surfaces… dead or alive. At which point, the guy will either have had a stroke or heart attack, certainly several broken bones, and perhaps even be shot from the pier. These things are for real, and they don’t dick around.

After considering the cost, most terrorists would rather go with the old car bomb standby or the spray and pray at a crowded shopping mall routine. To add insult to injury, dolphins are very, shall I say, sexually aggressive by nature. Mk 6 dolphins don’t generally contain their appetites to their own species either. I’m not sure how that could be explained to Allah in the afterlife.

What Form 180?????? 

Hump Day Musings

John Kerry, the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam*, showed up this past Sunday at a Boston event, where he was "using crutches as he recovers from knee surgery," reports the Associated Press. He was also using emotional crutches as he recovers from last year's election:

"Last year too many people were denied their right to vote, too many who tried to vote were intimidated," the Massachusetts senator said at an event sponsored by the state League of Women Voters. . . .

Kerry also cited examples Sunday of how people were duped into not voting.

"Leaflets are handed out saying Democrats vote on Wednesday, Republicans vote on Tuesday. People are told in telephone calls that if you've ever had a parking ticket, you're not allowed to vote," he said.

Where did Kerry come up with that idea about leaflets saying "Democrats on Wednesday"? Probably from this story, which appeared a week before the election:

With the knowledge that the minority vote will be crucial in the upcoming presidential election, Republican Party officials are urging blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities to make their presence felt at the polls on Wednesday, Nov. 3. . . .

"You can't walk through a black neighborhood here in Miami without seeing our 'Don't Forget Big Wednesday!' message up on a billboard, tacked to a phone booth, or taped to a bus shelter," Monreal added. "The Republican Party has spared no expense in this endeavor."

Before Kerry embarrasses himself further, someone ought to take him aside and explain to him that the Onion is a satirical publication--as is ScrappleFace.com, which came up with the idea first.

* And who by the way promised 71 days ago to release his military records.

They aint making Jews like Jesus anymore. 

Here are some things to piss off everyone.

Not Fonda Jane:

Despite repeated claims, Hanoi Jane Fonda has never apologized for her treasonous collaboration with the Vietnamese Communists. Writing that it was 'a betrayal' and 'a lapse of judgment' is a confession, not an apology.

She committed treason. She exploited and misused American POWs. She gave the North Vietnamese communists, with whom we were then at war, propaganda that American POWs endured unimaginable torture not to give them, she gave it to them for free. And, indeed, she caused the deaths of American fighting men and the deaths of our allies as well.

If you read Krugman -- read this:

9 indications that you might not be appropriate "academy" material, in Paul Krugman's estimation

1. You adhere to the crazy “conservative” notion that US has been a force for good in the world
2. Your quasi-retarded decision to vote for Ronald Reagan all but destroyed the last great hope for economic and social equity that was at the core of Communism.
3. Your antipathy to the UN proves that you’d be unable to abide the consent-driven grievance politics so essential to the proper functioning of university humanities departments
4. When you hear “Columbus Day,” you think “yay, parade!”—when what you really should be thinking is, “fucking egomaniacal Dago bastard and his band of murderous, sea-faring imperialist world destroyers!"
5. You refuse to acknowledge the self-esteem-wrecking affront to the social progress of women represented in the following sentence: “Everyone should bring his baseball glove."
6. Your skepticism over suggestions that Abe Lincoln was an active homosexual who spent the Civil War bedding union soldiers clarifies either a) your hateful homophobia, or b) your latent homosexuality.
7. To you, a quilt holds very little social significance—though you do like the way it keeps your feet warm on those cold, winter evenings when you and your friends sit around the fire, shotgunning beer and recalling all the “wool” you “fleeced” in college.
8. You refuse to say that it is NEVER okay to execute a multiple murderer, but that it’s ALWAYS okay to snuff a child in utero.
9. You believe in a higher power not named “Kennedy” or “Clinton."

New media adviser for the Bush White House?:
Jim Belushi is quite the press critic. Asked by Entertainment Weekly how ABC News should fill the "Nightline" time slot when Ted Koppel retires, the ABC sitcom star says: "ABC should create another breakthrough called 'Investigate Reporters.' ... The first 10 minutes would be dedicated to retractions, the next 15 minutes to all the lives ruined by the mistakes of journalists, and the last five minutes would focus on critics and what movies and TV shows they panned ... that became hits."

Harry "Dickhead" Reid:

As the fight over Bush's nominees rages on, the rhetoric of the Democrats gets increasingly self-righteous. Lately, the rhetoric has evolved into the Democrats attacking the Senate GOP's threat to the Senate rules to ban the filibuster of judicial nominees by equating the Democrats' obstruction with checks and balances...

"When it comes down to it, stripping away these important checks and balances is about the arrogance of those in power who want to rewrite the rules so that they can get their way," Reid, D-Nev., said in his party's weekly radio address.

I am no constitutional scholar, but I do remember quite a bit from my past education on our government and Constitution. So, let me give Senator Harry Reid a lesson on checks and balances, because clearly what I remember from a high school civics class forty five (45) years ago is greater than the knowledge Reid has today.

In our system of checks and balances, the President's check over the Judicial branch of government includes the power to appoint judges. Congress's check over the President includes the confirmation of judges, which is also a check over the Judicial.

The system of checks and balances does not include a separate check by the minority party to obstruct any nominees they don't like by requiring a super majority to break a filibuster before giving a nominee an up or down vote. I can say right back to Senator Reid, "When it comes down to it, stripping away these important checks and balances is about the arrogance of those out of power who want to rewrite the rules so that they can get their way," and that would be more accurate.

Yes--I'm an atheist

One atheistic tendency is to think that religious people are not only wrong, but insincere, or even liars. The feeling can be particularly strong during discussions with those who profess a literal belief that God is “everywhere,” in the sense that He’s in the room with them examining every fiber of their body and being. He sees your skeleton; has numbered every cell and atom of your body and keeps track of the most minute of changes on an instant-by-instant basis. He hears the slightest rustling of your hair and rumbling of your stomach; is simultaneously sniffing your armpits and your anus, and tastes every inch of you as surely as if He were licking you with His tongue. What’s more, He views you from every possible angle simultaneously and sees you bathed in every frequency of light, including the ultraviolet ranges that are imperceptible to human eyes.

Yet I’ve talked to enough religious people to know that they do honestly believe exactly that. They feel his presence inside and out. They know he hears their prayers as surely as if their mouths were pressed against His ear. Although unwilling to discuss some of the seedier implications of their theory (“do you truly believe his nose is up your ass?”), they refuse to concede that there are any limits to God’s perceptive abilities. To do so would deny Him the full measure of His glory.

But then again, I wonder, do they really believe this? One question to ask them is this: what would you do if a fifty-foot tall, fire-breathing Jesus suddenly materialized in your kitchen, staring at you intently? Continue to stir the Hamburger Helper and hum? No: most likely you’d jump out of your skin -- or at very least inquire of his mission, determine the purpose of His visit and what he intended to do with you.

But why the surprise? Certainly to those who are sincere about their belief in divine omnipresence, a mere physical apparition of that nature would be far less intrusive than the full-body scouring that His being administers daily. A pair of eyes staring down from several yards away is nothing compared to a God white-water rafting down your bloodstream. It’s no answer to say that there’s something out of the ordinary about God making a physical, personal appearance. Having an infinite being permeating your body is at least as odd, and if you sincerely accept that premise then a house call from Tall Jesus shouldn’t startle you anymore than a cat walking by and rubbing against your leg.

Also counting against the professed sincerity is the things people do despite their alleged conviction in His ever-pervasive presence. Most of them exercise a certain level of restraint the in company of strangers, children or their grandmothers, even if they’re away in another room. Yet they’ll curse, steal and commit adultery in full view of their God. And here again, it’s no answer to say one “forgot,” or succumbed to human weakness. If I were to thrust my head under a woman’s dress in the subway for a momentary glimpse of what God surveys eternally, she’d never forget the experience; how could anyone who for even a split-second at any time in her life believed that God was doing a complete inventory put that thought aside? And weakness is no excuse either -- even the weak exercise caution when they believe that the police are reasonably nearby.

For my part, I know that were I to find myself plucked out of bed at 3am by a pair of giant fingers, suspended over a black void and bellowed at by a supernatural spirit, I’d start behaving. That moment would be enough and He wouldn’t have to follow me around constantly. I might even tone down this blog, perhaps now and then leave the “o” out of G_d. But hasn’t happened and it never will. He isn’t everywhere. He isn’t anywhere.

Here's the point. If God is everywhere and anywhere all the time and knows everything while having a plan for everyone and every thing at all times---why can't the big guy just show up?

Because:

He isn’t everywhere. He isn’t anywhere.

I Love My Pants 

Sandy Pantload Comes Clean---Sorta

SANDY BERGER UPDATE: Really, a rather sordid story of deliberate misconduct that deserves close attention:

The terms of Berger's agreement required him to acknowledge to the Justice Department the circumstances of the episode. Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business.

The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil. . .
.

Berger's archives visit occurred as he was reviewing materials as a designated representative of the Clinton administration to the national commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The question of what Clinton knew and did about the emerging al Qaeda threat before leaving office in January 2001 was acutely sensitive, as suggested by Berger's determination to spend hours poring over the Clarke report before his testimony.

So Berger stole, and destroyed, classified documents as part of a politically motivated cover-up. Let's just be clear about that. Criminal penalties, aside, the man's career in public life should be over, and he certainly should never have access to classified documents again. Unfortunately, the penalty he'll actually receive looks rather light -- certainly lighter than most folks who stole and destroyed classified documents would undergo. That makes it all the more important that the details of his misbehavior get plenty of attention, and that they're remembered long-term.

Martha Stewart goes to jail and Sandy gets a slap on the wrist. Can you say "What a crock of shit?"

WMD REPORT RELEASED

A presidential commission on weapons of mass destruction released its report yesterday, and the report absolves the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. It puts the blame for the bad intelligence squarely at the feet of the intelligence community.

Naturally, the left is already up in arms about the report, because it does not blame the administration for anything. The Bush-haters are out for blood, and they're upset because they're not getting it. First up with his panties in a knot is Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. He complained that the report did not review how the administration used the intelligence they were given. In perhaps a breakdown in his own intelligence, Mr. Reid apparently doesn't realize that wasn't the purpose of the commission.

Next in the "Get Bush" receiving line is House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. She decided it was time to break out her Michael Moore talking points, saying "The president's decision to go to war in Iraq was also dead wrong — the intelligence never supported his claim that Saddam was an imminent threat to the United States." Actually, that is a lie and she is a liar. But we knew that.

Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States and his neighbor. He possessed weapons of mass destruction, used them and had the capability to restart his program at any time. He also possessed nuclear technology and the capability to produce a nuclear weapon that he could then sell to terrorists.

The decision to remove him by force was the right one and the left can't stand it.

HANOI JANE COMES CLEAN

The former Mrs. Ted Turner, Jane Fonda, has come out with a new book. She is making the rounds doing publicity...and she has given an interview to '60 Minutes' that will air this Sunday. In it, she admits (sort of) that she was wrong to go to North Vietnam and visit an anti-aircraft gun site used to shoot down U.S. pilots. Well isn't that nice....but she's a bit late, don't you think?

Fonda says that her trip to the gun site some 33 years ago was a "betrayal" of the U.S. military, its soldiers and "the country that gave me privilege." She calls the picture of her sitting on the enemy gun barrel the largest lapse of judgment she can imagine. Really. So what about the whole decision to visit North Vietnam in the first place? She won't apologize for that. No, Hanoi Jane will only apologize for posing for pictures with enemy weaponry. She won't apologize for being photographed with American POWs, nor will she apologize for going on Radio Hanoi and being a propaganda mouthpiece for the Viet Cong.

Jane Fonda gave aid and comfort to the enemy of the United States during a time of war. We used to call that treason, and there are people sitting in prison for it. Somehow, Jane Fonda got away with it...and now she wants us all to relieve her of her guilty conscience.

Question:

Why transfer what has been produced by some to others when you could spread the productivity that produced this wealth, making everyone better off? Knowledge is one of the few things that can be given to others without reducing the amount you have left.

CANADA GETS IT RIGHT FOR A CHANGE

Finally a reasonable decision from our near-socialist neighbors to the north. Since the war in Iraq began two years ago, a small number of U.S. soldiers have decided that they didn't want to go to Iraq. They just didn't seem to understand that joining the U.S. armed forces meant that they might actually find themselves in harm's way. Some tried and failed to become conscientious objectors, others were just AWOL. So they fled to Canada, thinking that they would be able to hang out there and request asylum.

Well, starting last week, it's not working. U.S. Army paratrooper Jeremy Hinzman decided he was going to live in Toronto and apply for asylum, telling the Canadians that if he were to perform his duties in Iraq, he would be forced to commit atrocities against civilians. The Immigration and Refugee board didn't buy it. They singled out his stance that he would be willing to return to the Army, so long as he didn't have to serve in combat. Bad move.

The ruling from the board read, in part: "I find Mr. Hinzman's position to be inherently contradictory. Surely an intelligent young man like Mr. Hinzman, who believes the war in Iraq to be illegal, unjust and waged for economic reasons, would be unwilling to participate in any capacity, whether as combatant or noncombatant." Oops. Hinzman is going to appeal the ruling, but he probably won't get very far.

The truth is that Hinzman is a coward. Nothing more, nothing less.

The United States has an all-volunteer Army for a reason. Unless you want to face the possibility of fighting and dying in a war, don't join. Hopefully the next step will be shipping this pantywaist back to his unit to be prosecuted.

67 Days ago:

Lt. John Kerry promised Tim Russert on national television (Meet The Press) that he woud sign form 180 and release his full military record.

He hasn't!

Why?

Here's why:

I [DONALD L. NELSON, CAPT, JAGC, USNR] was on active duty as a U.S. Navy lawyer when all of this was going on some 25 to 30 years ago, and so was Mark F. Sullivan, who at all relevant times was the personal lawyer to J. William Middendorf, then the Secretary of the Navy. We remember.

We are trying to break this absolutely true story nationwide, i.e., Fox News, C Span, and hopefully all the major networks. We are positive that John Kerry was one of those dishonorably dismissed from the Navy for collaborating with the Viet Cong, after he was released from active duty but still in the Navy, and for a totally unauthorized trip to Hanoi. He later got an "honorable" separation in 1978, some 12 years after joining the Navy, under President Carter's "Amnesty Program" for draft dodgers, deserters, and other malcontents who fled to Canada and Holland, among other places, to avoid military service to our country.

This is why he has refused, and continues to refuse, to release all of his Navy records: they reflect that he was Dishonorably Dismissed from the United States Naval Service. If they do not (which they do), he would have released them to the public. Again, he has not done so, because he well knows that the truth would kill his challenge to President Bush.

There are those who just can't figure out when it's real and when it's satire-----SHEESH!

Your tax dollars at work: the U.S. House has approved a bill that would provide $37 million to widen and extend the road to Wal-Mart's Bentonville, Arkansas headquarters. The provision was added to the massive $284 billion bill, now before the Senate, by two House Republicans. In other news, Wal-Mart reported profit last year of $10.3 billion.

Consider this:
Have you stopped for a moment to consider the long-term consequences of the Republican Party's fawning over religious extremists? Watch President Bush's judicial nominees. Watch the Democrats use the Schiavo matter to illustrate what might happen to other Americans if Bush's nominees are confirmed. And watch the congressional elections next year. If it's close, and if the Republicans lose their majority, look back to the crowd gathered since last week in Pinellas Park for an explanation. That, too, is Christian bashing.

Question:

If people who commit sex crimes against children are so dangerous that they have to be registered for life after serving their sentences, why are they let out of prison in the first place?

Oy Veh!

Rome, Italy, March 16, 2005

Special to The Raving Atheist

A top Catholic cardinal has blasted "The Da Vinci Code" as a "gross and absurd" distortion of history and said Catholic bookstores should take the bestseller off their shelves because it is full of "cheap lies."

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, in an interview with the Milan newspaper Il Giornale, became the highest ranking Italian Churchman to speak out against the book, an international blockbuster that has sold millions of copies.

"(It) aims to discredit the Church and its history through gross and absurd manipulations," Bertone, the archbishop of the northern Italian city of Genoa and a close friend of Pope John Paul told the paper in its Monday edition.

The central claim of the book, written by American Dan Brown, is that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had children. The Bible says Jesus never married, was crucified and rose from the dead.

"You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read it believe that those fairy tales are real," he said. "I think I have the responsibility to clear things up to unmask the cheap lies contained in books like that."

“The notion that Christ entered into a stable, monogamous relationship and raised a family is repugnant to every principle held dear by the Church,” said Bertone. “Jesus was a celibate, wild-eyed raving loner, despised and tortured to death his peers.”

Bertone also said that the claims made by the Code defied natural laws, noting that only those “not possessed of their full senses” could deny that Jesus is a resurrected 2,000 year old immaterial spirit who is invisible but simultaneously present everywhere in the universe. “Drink wine and it will turn into Christ’s blood,” Betrone said. “But be careful not to fall for the insane preposterous illogical fictions of madmen.”

In a hole?--Stop digging!

A POLITICAL PRICE TO PAY? APPARENTLY SO.

So, there he was ... Randall Terry, the anti-abortion zealot, screaming outside of the nursing home housing Terri Schiavo. He was screaming something about "hell to pay" if Terri Schiavo dies. He then went on to rant a bit about all of the work that the anti-abortion movement did to elect these Republicans, and that now is the time for them to deliver and perform.

You know what? This time Randall Terry may just be right. There just may be a political price to pay. But Terry is right for the wrong reasons. Republicans may pay a political price not because they didn't do enough to prolong the torture of Terri Schiavo, but because they did too much.

Have you seen today's approval ratings for President Bush? They're down. Way down. He's down to 45%. He was at 52% one week ago. This is the lowest point in his presidency. These polls are not because he hasn't done enough in the Schiavo matter. The downtrend is because he did too much. The largest loss of support was among conservative male church-goers. A majority of the American people were not impressed with the Republican Party's late night grandstanding this past Sunday, and Bush's rush back to Washington to sign a bill in the early hours of the morning.

Maybe conservative Republican politicians can learn a lesson from this. They were elected to reduce the size and intrusiveness of the Imperial Federal Government of the United States. They were elected to reduce our tax burden and lower government spending. They were elected to defend us against threats from abroad, specifically the threat of Islamic terrorism ... and to do so with preemptive action if necessary. In spite of the delusions of grandeur of the abortocentrist crowd and religious extremists, George Bush was not elected to facilitate a government takeover of the ovaries of every fertile American woman, nor was he elected to establish a theocracy.

Perhaps Republicans will take note. I truly believe that their control of the House of Representatives may be in jeopardy in next year's elections. Perhaps they'll learn from this. Maybe they'll start dancing with who brung them for a change, and pay attention to spending and tax cuts, school choice, national defense and individual liberty.

Some lessons are just learned the hard way.

And Finally!

Lookin' for Love in All the Wrong Places

Two long years have passed since the beginning of Bush's illegal, immoral, and unsanctioned-by-France invasion of Iraq. According to the flashing neon tote-board in Michael Moore's living room, over 1,500 troops have died without dignity. Goddess knows we've tried everything in the book to make the Shrub take his war toys and go home. Petitions. Protest marches. Organized hissy fits. Yet despite all our feminine hysterics, the chimp simply won't listen to reason.

But do not despair, for our beloved MoxieGrill's life partner, Kid Bastard, has the perfect plan to finally convince the swaggering fascist cowboy chimp to surrender his so-called "War on Terror":

"I am going to marry a man. And I'm going to encourage everyone to marry someone of their own gender. And if we can get enough people, we can have one big ceremony on the White House lawn. And then, after the marrying, comes the hot man sex...We are going to make George W. Bush watch live amateur gay porn on his front lawn in punishment for allowing and encouraging every travesty his cabal of bastards commits upon the world."

Not since's Kid Bastard shaved his balls for Jerry's Kids and ignited his farts for the endangered sea manatee, has his brilliant mind hatched such a noble and selfless plan. But it's been two weeks since he made his pledge, and the White House lawn remains oddly man-sex-free. Maybe his standards are too high. Maybe he's not shaking his little moneymaker around the right gay bars. But each day that he procrastinates, more Iraqi children suffer. Helpless, innocent Iraqi children, each holding a fluffy kitten with big, sad eyes.

So to assist him in his endeavor, I have rounded up three upstanding members of the Gay Community who would be more than happy to sodomize the crap out of Kid Bastard in the name of World Peace.

Bachelor #1: My cousin Dale just wrapped up a 15 year stint at the McNeil Island Corrections Center in Steilacom, Washington, and he's lookin' for some red hot lovin'. A compassionate crusader for social justice, Dale is horrified by the atrocities at Abu Ghraib and is anxious to teach Bush a lesson by buggering Kid Bastard. With his Level Three sex offender rating, he's highly skilled in the Art of Love - and with some fava beans and a nice chianti, he'll treat Kid Bastard to the night of his life.

Bachelor #2: Hairy back. Five o'clock shadow. Toothless grin. Rheumy, bloodshot, eyes. But enough about Moxiegrill. Lester, my former liberal arts professor at UC Berkeley, is ready to settle down with a "progressive, open-minded free spirit" who enjoys long walks on the beach, romantic evenings by the fire, the works of Oscar Wilde, and being spanked with a cricket bat "like the naughty little slut he is". A family man at heart, Lester has three beautiful children tied up in the trunk of his car. "But they won't be bothering us...not anymore, anyway."

Bachelor #3: Do you like Pina Colada? Jayjay is a socially conscious liberal whose forte is a pina colada enema that'll knock your birkenstocks off. Recently kicked out of the Boy Scouts simply because of his sexuality, Jayjay has has nothing but contempt for intolerant Christian evangelicals. "We're not 'freaks' to be mocked and ridiculed," he says as he carefully adjusts his tiara. "Homosexuality is a natural, beautiful celebration of love between two or more caring human beings and, in some cases, consenting adult rodents or other forms of open-minded livestock."

There they are, the cream of the Gay Community crop. Due to restraining orders and parole conditions, none of these gentleman can come within 500 feet of the White House, but they're perfectly willing to meet Kid Bastard in this white trailer for a night of unbridled passion. The blessed occasion will be video taped, and copies sent to each member of George Bush's bloodthirsty cabal, with a warning that Kid Bastard is fully prepared to have even more man sex until all U.S. forces are withdrawn from the Middle East. Don't think he won't, Shrub!

It's not like he wasn't already having man sex anyway.

Catching up

I have not written about the Terri Schiavo case because it is too complex, too multilayered, and too steeped in unknown or unknowable facts for me - indeed for most people - to have a fully informed opinion.

I don't know - and neither do you - if Michael Shiavo is trying to murder his wife or trying to fulfill her stated wishes for just such a scenario. I don't know what Terri Schiavo would want - and neither do you - because she didn't tell us via a living will. We have only the word of her husband who assures us that his wife once said she wouldn't want to be kept alive this way, and we have her parents, who love their daughter and desire only to care for her.

I do know that the Congress did the wrong thing, intervened where it had no Constitutional right, and solved nothing.

In coming years, political historians might look back and try to pinpoint the day or week or month that the Republican Party shed the last vestiges of its small-government philosophy. If and when they do, the week just past should make the short list. For it was in this last week that the Republican-controlled Congress made it clear that it sees no area of American life -- none too trivial and none too intimate -- that the federal government should not permeate with its power.

It looks like we're heading for a terrible result here. Congress has passed legislation that raises serious federalism and rule-of-law concerns. And Terry Schiavo is probably going to die at the hands of the state anyway.

The Surpremes got it wrong--donchaknow!

I am certain I am not the first to post on this, but had yesterday's shooter in Minnesota not turned the gun on himself, he would never have been eligible for the death penalty because of the recent Supreme Court decision. He killed young people, teachers, a security guard and his grandfather, but the Supreme Court has ruled that no civilized society could even consider executing him for his massacre.

That is an absurd result, and the Supreme Court's foolishness is underscored by yesterday's carnage.

Our International hit men

President Bush has infuriated liberal Democrats and other leftists by nominating John Bolton as ambassaor to the United Nations and Paul Wolfowitz as head of the World Bank. The opposition to Bolton's nomination is rational. Bolton's statements about the U.N. are quite controversial, and therefore it makes sense that his nomination is also controversial. Should our representative to the U.N. be someone who takes such a dim view of that organization? I think so. But I also understand the presumption to the contrary.

The Wolfowitz nomination is a different matter. Wolfowitz has a long history of supporting the World Bank's goals and objectives, and no history of disparaging that organization in any fundamental way. If one reads the second half of this Washington Post story, it becomes clear that Wolfowitz is an excellent fit for the job.

The opposition to Wolfowitz is based not on his qualifications or issues of "fit," but on his role in helping to formulate administration policy on Iraq and, more generally, Middle East democratization. And the intensity of that oppostion is based on the left's distorted view of that role. In the left's cosmology, administration policy has been hijacked by dreaded neo-conservatives with Jewish sounding names like Wolfowitz. Thus, the left (and the many Democratic politicians under its sway) views Wolfowitz as too evil to run the World Bank or, more precisely, too evil to be rewarded with any position (much of the left holds the World Bank in lower regard than John Bolton holds the U.N.). In short, the oppostion to Wolfowitz stems from the Democrats' new role as the "permanent opposition," not from any good faith concern about the future of the World Bank.

Nothing lasts forever. But the more the Democrats engage in this sort of posturing, the more permanent their opposition status is likely to be.

Can this guy be any more transparent?

Kofi Annan has released his report detailing his plans to reform the United Nations. In a speech to the General Assembly yesterday, Kofi made several proposals. One is that he wants rich nations like the U.S. to spend .7 percent of their GDP on "official development assistance." That's a fancy phrase for "international welfare." Keep in mind that the gross domestic product of the United States is something like $11 trillion a year. Kofi's little seven-tenths of a percent works out be several billion dollars. And we're supposed to just hand this money over to the corrupt United Nations? Right. They seem to be managing money so well these days...and certainly Kofi's stewardship of the oil-for-food program demonstrates that. How many rapists/peace keepers can you feed, clothe and house with a billion dollars?

Kofi the Korrupt also linked prosperity to the environment...making the nonsensical statement that the depletion of natural resources is somehow bad for business. Actually, if a nation is using natural resources, that's how you know they're prospering. Take a look at the African continent. Is there a continent more rich in natural resources? Africa has natural resources coming out the whazooo ... but it is still mired in poverty. If not depleting natural resources is good for business we would all be driving African automobiles and importing African HD televisions. But capitalism and prosperity is not the goal of the United Nations. The goal is the creation of a one-world government ... under the auspices of the UN.

And one of Kofi's most ridiculous schemes is his proposal to enlarge the security council. He wants to expand it from 15 nations to 24, adding countries from Africa, Asia and Latin America. But the U.N. security council is for nations that provide security, weapons and have a large, ready military. It is not a seat to be handed out to some tin horn dictator in Africa as political patronage.

Does the United Nations even have a point anymore?

Bobby "Sheets" Byrd getting ready for a Senate confirmation hearing on Condi Rice. 

What Pictures?

Who’s really the liar?

The fact is that Kerry's full Navy records have never been released, and probably never will, unless someone sues the military for a Freedom of Information Act release. Kerry isn't about to allow that file out, as his discharge papers will show that Kerry got booted out on a bad-conduct discharge due to his post-Viet Nam activities, which Thomas Lipscomb and the New York Sun confirmed two days after the interview. If they are released, his political career is over.

From Justice Scalia's dissent on the death penalty decision:

"The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards--and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent."

They have lost their freaking minds!!!!!!!

Just when you thought the insano-Democrats couldn’t get any more insane, Senator Robert “sheets” Byrd (D-WV) compared Republicans to Hitler on the Senate floor. Excerpt from the senator’s “speech“:

Hitler’s originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions, in modern conditions, are carried out with, and not against, the power of the State: the correct order of events was first to secure access to that power and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal.

The nuclear option is beginning to look increasingly attractive.

The problem with Byrd's argument (among many) is that while he wants to shroud the debate in terms of laws and the constitution what he's really fighting to save is Senate rules. Senate rules aren't laws - for the most part the only ones who give a shit when they are broken or changed is other Senators...

Senator Byrd does know filibusters - he filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Michelle Malkin profiled some of his finer moments in 2001. In 2003 Byrd took to the floor of the Senate compared the Bush administration to Nazi mass murderer Hermann Goering.

RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman did not let the sun go down on Byrd's offensive extremism --an extremism matched by the Democrats' tactics on judges:

"Senator Byrd's invocation of Hitler's Germany in discussing the duty of U.S. Senators to advise and provide consent on judicial nominees is reprehensible and beyond the pale. While members of the Senate are free to agree and disagree on the issues, this poisonous rhetoric only serves to illustrate the desperation and weakness of Senator Byrd's position."

And how did the MSM cover "Sheets Byrd" comments?

New York Times - No mention of Byrd.

Boston Globe - No mention of Byrd.

L.A. Times - No mention of Byrd.

CNN - No mention of Byrd.

MSNBC - No mention of Byrd.

Fox News - First paragraph mention.

CBS News - Are you kidding?

NBC News - Nope.

ABC News - Byrd's Nazi comparison couldn't bump a NYPD Blue tribute from the rotation.

Not one elected democratic official to date has disavowed Senator Byrd's Hitler comparison. Not even Joe Lieberman. They don't get it. They are out of power, out of ideas, and are morally bankrupt enough not to recognize when one of their own has crossed way over the line and needs to be called on it.

Hearts and Minds

#1

"Our military and the insurgents are fighting for the same thing--the hearts and minds of the people--and that is a battle we are not winning."--Ted Kennedy, Jan. 27

"Thousands of mostly black-clad Iraqis protested Tuesday outside a medical clinic where a suicide car bomber killed 125 people a day earlier, braving the threat of another attack as they waved clenched fists, condemned foreign fighters and chanted 'No to terrorism!' "--Associated Press, March 1

Interestingly, the text of Kennedy's infamous speech seems to have disappeared from his Web site; the above link is to the Yahoo cache. We guess it's a good sign that he no longer stands by the speech, but we'd think more highly of him if he actually owned up to his mistake.

Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.

#2

US troops in Iraq have discovered two caches of corpses this week. The dead were victims of the insurgents--terrorists--that Italian Communist journalist Guilana Sgrena can't seem to find the time to say a negative word about.

The victims...well, read for yourself.

Authorities found 26 of the corpses late Tuesday in a field near Rumana, a village about 12 miles east of the western city of Qaim, near the Syrian border, police Capt. Muzahim al-Karbouli and other officials said.

Each of the bodies had been riddled with bullets apparently several days earlier. They were found wearing civilian clothes and one of the dead was a woman, al-Karbouli said.

South of Baghdad in Latifiya, Iraqi troops on Tuesday made another gruesome discovery, finding 15 headless bodies in a building inside an abandoned former army base, Defense Ministry Capt. Sabah Yassin said.

The bodies included 10 men, three women and two children.

Children!

Those animals beheaded children.

Yet if we capture those responsible, if we have the gall to send them to Gitmo, there to await military tribunals or some other justice, we can be sure the ACLU will rise to defend them. The anti-war left, as exemplified by Guilana Sgrena, will embrace them.

Even though they beheaded children.

#3

Questions That Still Haven't Been Answered

1. Did Sandy Berger break top security laws and steal documents with criminal intent?

2. How big a role did Dan Rather actually play in pushing the forged documents, and has he yet publicly admitted they were forged?

3. Who forged the documents in the Rathergate scam, and how did they get into CBS' hands?

4. What did Eason Jordan say at Davos? Where is the videotape we know exists of his remarks?

5. Why is the mainstream liberal media completely ignoring these questions?

#4

If one is an incident, two is a coincidence, and three is a trend, feature this - top news executives at the New York Times, CBS News, and CNN, all toppled in the past two years by scandals that were heightened by pressure from new journalistic outlets. Taken in isolation, the departures of the New York Times’s executive editor, Howell Raines, and his managing editor, Gerald Boyd; the managing editor of the CBS Evening News, Dan Rather, and three other CBS executives; and the executive vice president and chief news executive of CNN, Eason Jordan, would each be big events. Taken together, they suggest a news industry in the midst of a stunning revolution.

Ann Coulter is a Middle-Aged Infidel

The Eva Braun of the conservative right has done it again. In an unbelievable display of insensitivity, syndicated Bush shill Ann Coulter referred to 109 year-old Lebanese immigrant Helen Thomas as an "old Arab", without at least prefacing her slur with the adjective "venerable".

"Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president," Coulter venomously scribbled in her February 23 column.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (AAAC), an Arab civil rights organization devoted to scanning newspapers for things to be offended by, condemned Coulter's remarks and called on Universal Press Syndicate to beat her senseless in accordance with the Holy Quran.

"Her insensitive and stereotypical words concerning the Arab peoples must not be tolerated" said the group's chairman, Muhammed Achmed Achmed Muhammed Muhammed Achmed Muhammed. "'Old Arab?' How would she like it if we referred to her as a 'Middle-Aged Infidel'? 'Look! Here comes that Middle-Aged Infidel! I'm surprised they let that Middle-Aged Infidel in here! Everybody laugh at the Middle-Aged Infidel! HA HA HA!"

Coulter is no stranger to controversy. Only two short days after the horrific events of 9/11, when many Arab-Americans were still reeling from the loss of twelve of their people aboard those doomed flights, she sadistically poured salt on their wounds by suggesting that we should "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity". So it was no surprise that 500,000 outraged Lebanese citizens took to the streets of Beirut yesterday to protest Coulter's bigoted remarks concerning the venerable old Arab. In addition, 26 Congressional democrats signed a resolution declaring March 9 "Ann Coulter is a Lying Whore with Cottage Cheese Thighs Day", including Senator Robert Byrd who blasted her as being "just another one of them white niggers".

While Faux News has been typically silent concerning their little rottweiler's naziesque nastiness, the mainstream media was righteously miffed over Coulter's insensitivity. DemsTV took a brief time out from microwaving Ann Coulter dolls to lash out at the conservative pundit for her immature, tasteless attacks. After being briefly overcome with the vapors, blogging sensation Oliver Willis also condemned the "vile, disgusting, filthy festering sore on the grace of humanity" for her insensitive hatespeech, and threatened to "scratch her eyes out" should she ever "show her cottage cheese thighs around Silver Spring".

Widely hailed as the "Great Dane of Journalism", Helen Thomas has been a fixture in the White House press corps ever since she completely calcified sometime during the Johnson administration. Proud of her Lebanese heritage, she kept her Arabic name when many others in her profession anglicized theirs. However, she chose to take the high ground and refused to comment on Coulter's insensitive remarks. Instead, she had strong words for the Bush administration, which has done much to create a vitriolic political climate where ad hominem attacks have taken the place of polite discourse.

"Condoleeza Rice is a monster...a monster and a goddam liar" the esteemed, unbiased journalist told the nice orderlies. "George Bush is...is a goddam fascist who eats little Iraqi children."

Ann Coulter is not a tenured university professor who hates America, and therefore isn't protected by our first amendment right to free speech. If the little Eichmanns of the right were real men, they'd tell that Middle-Aged Infidel to take her ratty hair, her cottage cheese thighs, and her divisive rhetoric back to Dumbfukistan where she belongs.

Correction: The chairman of The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee was incorrectly identified as Muhammed Achmed Achmed Muhammed Muhammed Achmed Muhammed. The actual chairman is Achmed Muhammed Muhammed Achmed Muhammed Achmed. Muhammed Achmed Achmed Muhammed Muhammed Achmed Muhammed is the assistant vice-chairman. I apologize for any confusion.

Correction: I inaccurately stated that "beating" was the punishment for disobedient women according to the Quran. Chapter 4:34 of the Holy Quran actually specifies "scourging", followed by a "beating" only if she's still got some sass left in her. Again, my apologies.

Go Ahead--Argue with this....

American Liberals Have Lost Touch With Reality Steve Darnell, Arab News

Gen. George S. Patton once said, “Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.” Those on the left seem to be cynical about everything to do with the war on terrorism. I think if Patton were alive today he would say liberals lack the courage to fight the enemy and would slap a few of them around. Liberals are also cynical about the way the military handles terrorist prisoners. I am sure Patton would tell liberals they lack the basic understanding of warfare and prisoner handling and challenge them to spend a few days on the front line to see how things are really done. Then he would slap a few of them around once again. A soldier’s job is to kill the enemy, or as Patton also said, “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” The sooner liberals understand the true meaning of war, the sooner we can make the “other bastard” die for his country. To prove how out of touch liberals are with reality these days look at the uproar that occurred because of comments made by Lt. Gen. James Mattis. Gen. Mattis, who has commanded troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, was recently speaking at a forum in San Diego about strategies for the war on terror. Mattis said, “Actually, it’s a lot of fun to fight. You know, it’s a hell of a hoot. ... It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right upfront with you, I like brawling.” Gen. Mattis is the kind of general I want leading our troops into battle. Marines are there to kill the enemy, not coddle them. They need a leader like Gen. Mattis. But, of course there was uproar by liberals. Jeff McCausland, director of the Leadership in Conflict Initiative at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pa claimed that, “Clearly for an officer from any service to say that publicly is unprofessional and inappropriate and sends a terrible message to subordinates.” I disagree; I think the general’s troops loved the message sent and probably feel the same way. What do liberals think Marines are doing in Iraq? Would liberals rather Gen. Mattis had said, “I hate to fight...I think war is much too bloody...I think we should stay home and polish our nails and listen to show tunes.” Somehow, I think liberals would. Liberals, especially young liberals seem to forget that war is a very nasty thing. It is not a panty raid on a women’s dormitory at a local college. In battle, the enemy has one thing in mind, he wants to kill. War is a contest of kill, or be killed and it is not nice. The closest most leftists have come to battle is fighting police at various protests in the United States and around the world. Their idea of warfare is yelling obscenities at local police and hurling the occasional rock or bottle. A liberal’s badge of honor is spending a few hours in jail after being arrested at a protest in Seattle or Washington, DC and getting his or her mug shots taken. Yet, even with their lack of experience in real warfare, liberals seem to think they have all the answers about how the military should treat captured terrorists and how best to fight the war on terrorism. Some liberals even claim that the US Constitution protects terrorists. I think they have a lot to learn. First, prisoners captured in Iraq are not leftist protestors staging a sit-in on the steps of a Federal Building singing “Give Peace a Chance”. Prisoners in Iraq have not studied “Activism 101”and have never heard of Martin Sheen, Janeane Garofalo or Al Franken. They are terrorist thugs who behead captured men and women showing no remorse in the act. They are murderers trained by Al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. They want to kill American men, women and children. They have no rights. Prisoners captured in Iraq are not handled with kid gloves and gently placed in a paddy wagon like liberal protestors arrested in Seattle. They are trying to kill Americans when captured and would love nothing better than to kill their captor and escape to fight another day. Captured terrorists should be treated like a rabid dog waiting to bite its handler and thrown in a cage. I really do not care how inhumanely we treat the captured terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib prison. They are murderers and thugs. I think terrorists should lose all human rights once they take the path of terrorism. A tough approach is the only deterrent these killers will understand. If making a terrorist wear a pair of women’s panties on his head will help save one innocent life by gaining information on future terrorist acts, it is worth the effort. I think Victoria Secret and Fredrick’s of Hollywood should contribute panties to the war effort. Maybe we would get a few more confessions. I think Gen. Mattis would agree. I know Gen. Patton would. — Steve Darnell is a self-syndicated columnist and can be reached at comments@stevedarnell.com.