Cleaning Up the Weapons that Didn’t Exist

BAGHDAD (AP) — Britain will help the Iraqi government dispose of what’s left of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons, still stored in two bunkers in north of Baghdad, the British embassy in Baghdad announced Monday. …

Really? They found Saddam’s chemical weapons? Shouldn’t that be news?

… Saddam stored the chemical weapons near population centers so that he could access them quickly, despite the danger to his civilian population. Most of Iraq’s chemical weapons were destroyed by military forces in 1991 during the first Gulf War or by U.N. inspectors after the fighting. …

So the UN knew about them? And didn’t bother mentioning that fact? Uncanny.

… The head of the Iraqi National Authority, Mohammed Al Sharaa, said the remnants “represent a great challenge to the Iraqi experts to safely dispose.” He called the agreement with British authorities “a good opportunity for Iraqi experts to benefit from the well-known expertise of U.K. experts.” British Ambassador to Iraq Simon Collis said Britain is glad to assist in what he called “this difficult and dangerous task.” (H/T: IMAO)

When does Bush get his apology?

I’m a Dad; Send ME Money

It’s Father’s Day, which (as you all know) is traditionally celebrated by sending money to Barack Obama. I guess that’s so he can take the day off with his sons or something. (Five mentions of the nonexistent sons so far and counting.) When was the last time he mentioned his daughters, by the way?

Anyway, the way Obama turns anything and everything into another opportunity to extort money from people these days, maybe he should be running for Nigerian Prime Minister rather than American President…

Outrage? Where is your HONESTY?

Today’s dose of Leftist revisionism and propaganda comes from Where is the Outrage:

GOP Equals Hypocrisy — With Eric Cantor walking out of the high-level debt ceiling negotiation, I thought it’d be interesting to look back and figure out how many times the House Majority Leader and his colleagues voted to raise the debt ceiling under George W. Bush. One would figure, because they are fiscally conservative, they probably only voted to raise the debt ceiling once or twice under the eight-year tenure of George W. Bush. The GOP hypocrites raised the debt ceiling … 7 times … under George W. Bush and not once did they hold the president hostage to debt ceiling negotiations. (H/T: Babbazee)

The bias and motivation are obvious. It’s also obvious that, in order for his claim (that hypocrisy is exclusively a GOP trait) to be true, that the Democrats (including Obama) must have remained consistent on their positions towards the debt ceiling. But since they voted against raising the debt ceiling under Bush, but are rabidly in favor of it now, why is a change of attitude only evidence of hypocrisy when the GOP does it? Surely, on that basis, if hypocrisy exists at all, it must certainly exist on both sides of Congress (and in the White House as well), no?

Of course, that makes the assumption that the situation under Bush then is identical to the situation under Obama now. If the only thing that’s different is that a Democrat (or “a black man”, to quote the deranged Sheila Jackson Lee and others) is in the White House now instead of Bush, and that this is the sole reason for the change in opinion (on both sides); then yes, a claim of hypocrisy may credibly be made (although the claims of racism, lack of patriotism, and so forth also being hurled at the GOP remain unsupported and reprehensible). However, the situation is not identical…

Ding Dong, the Bitch is Dead

I’m sure everybody (even Adolf Hitler) knows by now that Osama bin Laden is dead, dead, dead. I for one couldn’t be happier… for a variety of reasons.

First, I’m glad the bastard is dead. Some may have complained that his death was “too quick,” but any other suggestion just isn’t reasonable. Torture him first? Try to take him alive so that Eric Holder can hold his trial in New York City and get him released on a technicality? Just kill him and be done with it. I don’t begrudge the fact that he body was treated “in accordance with Islamic beliefs”, meaning that he was buried (at sea) within 24 hours of death – Yes, I’m sure we’d all prefer that he were buried in a shroud of bacon; but isn’t that just a waste of good bacon? I’m not sure exactly what they meant to accomplish by granting him this “honor”, but hey. As long as he’s not merely dead, but really most sincerely dead, we can afford to be magnanimous.

Secondly, I’m quite happy to see the lack of a groundswell of conspiracy theories surrounding the event. During Bush’s presidency his opponents frequently implied that he knew exactly where Osama was, and that he was just waiting for the right time (before his reelection in 2004, when his polls numbers hit rock bottom or he had a story to distract the media from) to capture/kill bin Laden for personal political gain. If Osama had been killed during the Bush presidency, regardless of the time and details; the media, academia, and left-wing blogosphere would have been abroil with innuendo and lies. Regardless of who gets the credit, I’m glad to see more maturity among the circles within which I move – For the most part, we’re just all happy to see him dead. Can I say “dead” again? A tingle goes up my fingers whenever I type the word… Osama is dead, dead, dead… (This must be Chris Matthews feels all the time since 2008.)

Third,

What? He Broke Another Promise?

Raise your hands if you’re surprised. Yeah, me neither.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Associated Press has learned that President Barack Obama is approving the resumption of military trials for detainees at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, ending a two-year ban. A senior military official says Obama will issue an executive order Monday. Defense Secretary Robert Gates will rescind his January 2009 ban against bringing new cases against the terror suspects at the detention facility. Obama vowed when he took office to close the detention facility at Guantanamo, but officials have recently acknowledged that closure is not likely because of questions about where terror suspects would be held. (H/T Weasel Zippers)

So it’s not just the White House that’s butthurt; just imagine how Obama’s supporters must be feeling right now. Why, if it wasn’t for the fact that there was a Democrat in the Oval Office, all of those anti-war pro-terrorist “activists” would be filling the streets, making their voices heard and their stenches smelled. But, on the Left, hypocrisy flows from the top down and from the bottom up. Not to mention laterally, diagonally, and even via vectors which can’t be described in a family blog (at least, not without using at least six dimensions; and who has time for that sort of math?)

Bush/Obama: Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco

I haven’t seen it, but people (or, to be more accurate, leftists) have been complaining about a new show called Sarah Palin’s Alaska. Zombie has responded with a collections of photos from the Zombie archives called Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco. (Warning! Not safe for work, and not in a good way!) These are all pictures taken by the undead one in San Francisco, and provide yet another timely reminder of what used to happen when dissent was still considered “the highest form of patriotism” by the left (a philosophy when ended the very second Obama was sworn in), and also of what hateful, angry protest (complete with swastikas and death threats against President Bush) really look like. Photos like this never appear in the mainstream media, since leftist protests are always sanitized (and the numbers exaggerated) while conservative protests are endlessly denigrated (and the numbers understated) if they’re even reported on at all. Not for the weak of stomach!

The Senate vs. The Wave

Although the GOP’s takeover of the House looks inevitable (barring massive fraud, of course), not many people seriously expect the GOP to capture the Senate as well. It’s not impossible, but it’s not likely. The reason for that is that Senators serve six-year terms (as opposed to the two-year terms served by Representatives); so in any given election year, only a third of the Senate is up for re-election. And, this year, the particular third that’s up for re-election isn’t the most favorable for the GOP – the Congressmen most vulnerable to challenge are those Democrats who were elected in 2006 and 2008, in normally conservative districts, who managed to ride the anti-Bush or Obama hopey-changey coattails to win their seats. Those are the candidates most vulnerable in the House; but in the Senate, those candidates won’t be up for re-election until 2012 and 2014. This is why it’s vital for the GOP, the Tea Party, conservatives, independents, and so forth to keep up the momentum in the future that’s fueling them today. Because the same momentum that’s going to cost some Democrat Senators their jobs next week could cost even more Democrats their jobs in years to come.

In a related story, which can be classified as a “feel-good” story or an “if only!” story, The Raw Story* reports that if the full Senate really were all up for re-election this year, according to polls, the GOP would likely win overwhelmingly. Not just the sixty seats required to break any Democrat filibuster, but possibly even the sixty-seven required to override a Presidential veto. (The latter point wouldn’t matter unless the House won a similar majority.)

*H/T: Lisette at HillBuzz.

Beware of Greeks Bearing Advice

According to The Boston Globe, former Massachusetts Governor, failed Democratic Presidential candidate, and John Lovitz-impersonator Michael Dukakis recently traveled to the White House to give Barack Obama the benefit of his wisdom.

“It seems to me there has to be a single message coming from Democrats, from the president on down,” Dukakis said. “We’ve got to pound that message as hard as can from now until November.” … Dukakis said that it was also important for Democrats to remind voters that former President George W. Bush left the country with an increasing deficit.

That was his advice? “Blame George Bush”? I’m sorry to break it to you, Mikey, but I’m pretty sure Obama has already thought of that one. Not to mention that it’ll be difficult for Obama to share a “single message” with the Congressional Democrats, since their current message is “Obama who?”

I wonder if anyone reminded Dukakis of how well he did when he ran against a George Bush? In any event, since Jimmy Carter is spending another day in the hospital after suffering a simple case of air sickness, I guess someone else had to step forward to take the job of Democratic Moron Emeritus.

UPDATE: They’re crawling out of the woodwork: Walter Mondale on how Obama is like Carter (H/T: PJTV)

Dems – Running on Empty

In another example of the Democrats planning to repeat history because they fail to learn from it, the Democrats are planning to run against George W. Bush in 2010. To the best of my knowledge, George W. Bush is not running for any office, nor does he currently hold any position of power – and unlike certain other former presidents (such as Carter and Clinton), Bush isn’t running his mouth off denigrating the country nor any of its current leaders, either. So, why are the Dems going to run against him, rather than run against any of the people actually opposing them, or to run on any of the actual issues that are of importance to America? Because they don’t want to go down in flames, of course! They’re hoping that the scarecrow of Dubya will be any effective rallying point for their troops.

Problem is, as Obama continues to drop in the polls, and people realize that George W. Bush really wasn’t that bad (because Obama is actually doing all of the things they’d falsely accused Bush of doing; and all of the Bush policies that they hated are still being performed by Obama), Obama is losing ground to Bush.

Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama’s declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they’d rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that’s somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country’s difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited.

Why did I refer to this as repeating history? Because when George W. Bush was still president, and popular, the Democrats needed another bogeyman to scare people in line with their candidates – so they decided to run against Ronald Reagan. They tried to “smear” Bush by comparing him to Reagan, and so forth, completely oblivious to the fact that most of the country still had positive feelings about Reagan – far more positive than the feelings they had against the cut-and-run disloyal-opposition Democrats. Comparing Bush to Reagan was a compliment, and may even have helped the Republicans.

So we’ll hate him. Because he can take it. Because he’s not our hero. He’s a silent gaurdian. A watchful protector. A dark knight. (source)

Miss as Good as a Mile

Discussing to the above billboard (that started things) and the new mystery Reagan billboard, I said that “We’ll know Obama’s really hit the skids when ‘Miss me yet’ billboards with Jimmy Carter’s face show up.”

Obama: Still With the Two Faces

According to Federal Eye, President Obama – who, during his exceeding brief stay in Congress, in between voting “present” and running for higher office, placed holds on at least three Bush administration nominees (since holds can be placed anonymously, the number could be higher) – is now raging against that very same practice being applied to his nominees by Republicans. (This, by the way, is the same hypocrisy which made Democrats suddenly turn against independent prosecutors when a Democrat – Bill Clinton – was the one being investigated; the same hypocrisy is also in play as Democrats and the MSM – but I repeat myself – are floating trial balloons about the “obsolete” and “undemocratic” filibuster, now that it may be used against them and their unconstitutional plans.)

“We’ve got a huge backlog of folks who are unanimously viewed as well qualified, nobody has a specific objection to them, but end up having a hold on them because of some completely unrelated piece of business,” Obama said at a question and answer session during the Senate Democratic Conference at the Newseum in Washington.

Please. There is absolutely no such thing – especially in the current environment – as a person “unanimously viewed as well qualified,” to whom “nobody has a specific objection.” That’s simply impossible, and so self-evidently so that the President’s teleprompter is obviously lying. Time to break out the world’s smallest violin again…

Addendum: “All indications are that President Obama will utilize the upcoming congressional break to make one or more recess appointments”, so let’s see what Obama had to say about recess appointments in 2005, such as John Bolton’s appointment to the UN by President Bush:

“To some degree, he’s damaged goods,” said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “I think that means we’ll have less credibility and, ironically, be less equipped to reform the United Nations in the way that it needs to be reformed.”

We’ll see whether or not his own appointments are treated and described as “damaged goods.” It’s already a safe bet that they are.

Obama Kiss of Death

Not only are the candidates for whom Obama campaigns losing, but he even endorsed the losing Superbowl team. The “Obama Kiss of Death” has become a joke or cliché among many bloggers, who are pleased to hear that the President is going to campaign for Senator Reid (D-NV) – right after Obama pissed off Las Vegas for the second time – because that just adds to the odds that the unpopular, ineffective, and downright idiotic Senate Majority Leader will lose big.

Unfortunately, it’s not a joke anymore when the “Obama Kiss of Death” becomes the literal truth. Not only is he, along with the Democratic Congress (including the so-called moderates who have shed their sheep skins), trying to destroy the health care (and thus, the health) of America (and various rich and politically-connected Canadians and other foreigners who can’t get prompt and proper care under their own socialist coverage), but he has frozen HIV spending in Africa. Even egotistical moonbats like Bono and Bob Geldorf have had to give George Bush credit for the lives he saved in Africa (and the Africans give him credit, too).

“George W. Bush is a hero in this country,” said Peter Mugyenyi, who heads Uganda’s Joint Clinical Research Centre, a leading AIDS treatment clinic. Uganda received 929 million dollars (678 million euros) from PEPFAR between 2003-2008 and used much of those funds to provide some 150,000 people with Antiretroviral therapy.

Apparently, the Obamessiah who was supposed to heal the world and make them all love us again has found a new continent to screw over. Currently, the only continent on which he has yet to reduce America’s prestige is Antarctica. Give him time.