Daily Archives: March 23, 2007

Fruit Bats Gone Mad*UPDATE


In addition to the other protester pictures from Portland from over the weekend (see a few blog entries down here) there’s THIS photo from San Francisco (above).

ADDITION FRIDAY 7:15 AM:
I’ve noticed that you’ve mentioned the editorial in the Oregonian separating this Portland anarchist bunch from the so called “peace” crowd. Sorry, no sale. The Orwellian named Portland Peaceful Response Coalition, the folks who have been leading pro Palestinian, anti United States, no war protests for years are EXACTLY among the people who were burning the soldier in effigy and declared F*** the Troops in their signs.

The PPRC, once upon a time, used to have their member groups listed on their website. They changed their website to members only and then eventually removed their list of members, but not until after I outed them on the air on my Saturday show on KPAM several years ago. Apparently pointing out their members on the air made them nervous. And why wouldn’t they be? Their membership included what we now know are terror groups! Among their members are: EARTH FIRST, ELF and ALF (in addition to the usual communist and socialist party folks. Here’s their current list of causes with which they associate. While there are the assorted far left groups with which they associate, this is a SIGNIFICANTLY SANITIZED LIST.

And let’s duly note this: according to the folks who have been keeping track of the usual crazies out in front of Schumachers, two of the “regular” protesters from Schumachers WERE ARRESTED over the weekend at the “peace” protest. What are the chances that it’s the first time these professional protesters have ever broken the law during a protest? Slim to none I’d say. So, Portland police, why aren’t you more closely watching the Schumacher protesters…from the FRONT…not the back!
Read Debra Saunders piece on the Bush Lied trope here. Nut graphs here:

I decided to re-read the NIE excerpts that the administration released. What does the report say? “Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.” The NIE also reported that Iraq had “expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production,” that Baghdad had renewed production of mustard and sarin gases, and that Iraqi missiles could threaten the “U.S. homeland.”

Yes, the NIE key judgments reported that some officials in the State Department did not believe Saddam Hussein was pursuing a “comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons.” But the report also noted that, “Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that (U.N. weapons) inspectors departed — December 1998.”

So let us review the Bush-lied argument that Anderson and other war critics espouse. They say Bush lied about WMD, when, in fact, America’s best intelligence presented no doubt about Iraq having chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. And according to the NIE, most intelligence agencies also believed Iraq had been working on nukes for four years.

Here’s another point that the Bush-lied misinformation campaign has forgotten. While war critics point to Bush’s inclusion of this sentence — “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” — in his 2003 State of the Union Address as proof that Bush misled the country into war, Bush uttered those words three months after Congress voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

Bush Lied is the Big Lie. It takes the controversy over one aspect of U.S. intelligence on Iraq’s WMD — the nuclear program question — to argue that the whole WMD argument was bogus. That is, the president’s accusers are guilty of the very sort of dishonest selectivity that they accuse Bush of using.

Now the Bush-lied lie is boomeranging on those Democratic presidential hopefuls — Sens. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd and former Sen. John Edwards — who voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution.

By going along with the Bush-lied spin, by refusing to acknowledge that the intelligence community presented strong reasons to vote for war, these Democrats have boxed themselves into a corner. They now have only one rationale for their vote that they can use — they were duped by the nincompoop Bush — or one rationale that they cannot use — they sent U.S. troops to Iraq against their better judgment but out of naked ambition.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com