What a difference a president’s party makes, huh? Turns out you can crap on the Constitution and get defended by many in your party, even if they look like the brazen, shameless, hypocritical scumbags that they are.
Here’s Howard Scream in 2003, when a Republican was looking to launch a military operation in the Middle East:
I do not believe the President should have been given a green light to drive our nation into conflict without the case having first been made to Congress and the American people for why this war is necessary, and without a requirement that we at least try first to work through the United Nations…
To this day, the President has not made a case that war against Iraq, now, is necessary to defend American territory, our citizens, our allies, or our essential interests.
The Administration has not explained how a lasting peace, and lasting security, will be achieved in Iraq once Saddam Hussein is toppled.
Here’s Deano now, in 2011, with his bud Oba-Mao calling the shots (good stuff at the 7:18 mark of the video clip, with Klein calling him out on his hypocrisy at the 7:30 mark):
“I don’t think you stay out of these things”…”We have an interest in Libya.”
Funny that Dean whips out the discredited leftist talking points about “being lied to” with regards to Iraq. You know why that’s funny? Because Dean was leading the anti-war charge before military action began in Iraq, before he knew whether or not Saddam had any WMD’s, etc. in other words, he was a peacenik up front, but now he’s trying to say his 2003 opposition was based on errors/lies about WMD’s after the war began? That’s a damned lie, and Dean knows it. Luckily for Dean, it was on MSDNC, so only two people saw his lie as it happened.
What a shameless, self-serving jerk! Excerpt from President Kick#ss’s speech:
And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad. They have met every test that they faced. Now, it is our turn. Now, it is our responsibility to honor them by coming together, all of us, and working to secure the dream that so many generations have fought for –the dream that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it.
Our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work. To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs. This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as President.
“Support my agenda, or the terrorists win”…or something. Actually, I like Ace’s blog post title the best to sum this up: “Now Is The Time We Must Honor Our Returning Troops By Transforming The Country Into Something They Wouldn’t Recognize And Don’t Want!”
The Commander-in-Chief (and a poor one, at that) actually used our soldiers’ moment in the sun for campaigning in favor of his horrific socialist economic and environmentalist agenda. How sick is that?
Biden: Hey, the surge worked awesomely, despite my predictions it wouldn’t…predictions I now deny having made
If not for the wonders of modern technology, specifically Al Gore’s invention of the Internet, Plugs may have gotten away with this. Video here.
Here’s part of what the Vice Plagiarist said on Larry King’s Still Barely Alive:
I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.
My head hurts. And trust me, that’s a large noggin to be throbbing, my friends.
John Hinderaker at Power Line notices some revisionist history about Iraq, specifically the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Here’s B.O.’s remarks to the Nobel crowd last week regarding Desert Storm:
Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait – a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.
“Consensus”, huh? Not exactly.
…The vote in the Senate on the authorization of military force to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, which took place on January 12, 1991, was 52-47. The Democrats controlled the Senate at the time; they voted 45-10 against the “consensus” on “the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait.” John Kerry, Joe Biden and 43 other Democrats voted to let Saddam Hussein keep Kuwait and expand his control over Middle Eastern oil from there, while continuing to develop nuclear weapons–which, we later learned, he would have had by 1992 or 1993, at the latest.
Can anyone doubt that if Barack Obama had been in the Senate in 1991, he would have joined 45 of his Democratic colleagues in voting for Saddam Hussein’s control over the Middle East? Of course not.
I disagree. I think he would have voted “present”!
On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to “end the war” in Iraq.
But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.
“I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team.
Great point by Ace:
Question: Now that their president is prosecuting an illegal war of choice, will the chickenhawks on the left sign up to fight en masse?
This has to be seen to be believed. Excerpt:
If Iraq can keep improving — still uncertain — and become a place where Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites can write their own social contract and live together with a modicum of stability, it could one day become a strategic asset for the United States in the post-9/11 effort to promote different politics in the Arab-Muslim world.
If he [Obama] pull this off, and help that decent Iraq take root, Obama and the Democrats could not only end the Iraq war but salvage something positive from it. Nothing would do more to enhance the Democratic Party’s national security credentials than that.
I don’t know how to break it to Thomas Friedman, but “a decent Iraq” has already “taken root”…no thanks to the left! The same war that the left has fought tirelessly to lose has been won, thanks to an armed forces network and an administration that tuned out the defeatists who openly declared the war lost and the soldiers’ efforts to be for naught. This war was won in spite of the left, not because of them, and this buttclown wants to give credit to a man who fought this at every turn?
Also, there’s another angle at work here. Now that the left has full control of D.C., any loss in Iraq would be on their shoulders. If an American loss could be blamed on the GOP, the Dems were more than willing to stomach that. But an American loss that might be attributed to the Dems? Why, that’s just unacceptable! Disgusting, no?
The MSM has been underreporting the success in Iraq, but why do I get this weird feeling that after Jan. 20, all that’s gonna “change”?
Ah. Now that Barack Obama carries the responsibility for carrying the war to ultimate victory, it seems that victory is almost at hand and shouldn’t be unthinkingly squandered.
Funny, when George Bush said that, AP was so much more skeptical.
We can’t have a Democratic President losing a war. The political fallout could be harmful. Only Republicans presidents can — nay, must — lose winnable wars.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
The One of Alternating Stances last night:
Moderator Tom Brokaw asked the candidates what their “doctrine” would be “in situations where there’s a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security,” such as “the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998,” or Rwanda or Somalia.
In such cases, answered Obama, “we have moral issues at stake.” Of course the United States must act to stop genocide, he said. “When genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening . . . and we stand idly by, that diminishes us.“
L’hypocrite supreme last year:
“Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep US forces there,” the AP reported on July 20, 2007 …
Translation: Genocide is awful, unless it’s happening to Iraqis, in which case “Who cares?” Got it?
What an awful human being! As Jacoby asks, “What kind of candidate is it whose moral response to genocide – genocide – can reverse itself 180 degrees in a matter of months? Is that the kind of candidate who ought to be the leader of the free world?” James 3:14 states that “But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth.” Proverbs 19:5 warns “A false witness will not go unpunished, And he who tells lies will not escape.” Something tells me that The One isn’t sweating it, and he is a fool for it.
A swing…and a miss. Allah has the details and the video clips, but in a nutshell, this new attack ad in MN has a couple who lost their son in Iraq wanting to know why Norm Coleman sent their son off to die?
Does it even matter to these sickos (who, by the way, supposedly don’t like to use the dead as political props) that the authorization for war in Iraq was passed in 2002…before Norm Coleman entered the friggin’ Senate? Does it even matter to these shameless liberals that Chuck the Schmuck Schumer, who helped fund and assemble this ad, did vote for the authorization for war?
Coleman has quite the retort himself, though. Keep up the pressure, Norm.
When The Chosen One says “I want an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq”, his definition of “immediate” is “not right now, as it might undermine my appeal to withdraw ‘immediately'”! From the NY Post:
WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.
Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops – and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its “state of weakness and political confusion.”
“However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open.” Zebari says.
But hey…he “supports the troops”, right?
Headline from AFP:
Bush: 8,000 US troops to leave Iraq
Great news, right? Here’s a sample of what Newsbusters found for alternate headlines for this reality:
MSNBC: Bush to keep troop levels in Iraq for ’08
Times Online: President Bush to maintain US troops in Iraq until almost last day in office
AP: Bush keeping Iraq troop levels mostly steady
Washington comPost: Bush to Keep Iraq Troop Levels Steady Until After He Leaves Office
USA Today: AP: Bush won’t reduce Iraq forces until early ’09
Financial Times: Bush to withdraw 4,000 Iraq troops
That last one is scary, in that the number is 8,000 and not 4,000. It certainly is reassuring to see the superior math skills of a financial publication, now?
Nope…no liberal media bias!
No. The surge helped make that–what made is possible in Anbar province is they did what I’d suggested two and a half years ago: gave local control. They turned over and they said to the Sunnis in Anbar province, “We promise you, don’t worry, you’re not going to have any Shia in here. There’s going to be no national forces in here. We’re going to train your forces to help you fight al-Qaeda.” And that you–what you had was the awakening. The awakening was not an awakening by us, it was an awakening of the Sunnis in Anbar province willing to fight.
Unfriggingbelievable! Dude is shameless in his lies, no?
He of Superior Judgment has finally stopped denying reality. From FNC:
The troop surge in Iraq has been more successful than anyone could have imagined, Barack Obama conceded Thursday in his first-ever interview on FOX News’ “The O’Reilly Factor.”
As recently as July, the Democratic presidential candidate declined to rate the surge a success, but said it had helped reduce violence in the country. On Thursday, Obama acknowledged the 2007 increase in U.S. troops has benefited the Iraqi people.
“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” (except for McCain – Ed.) Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.” …
Because the left just knew those incompetent boobs in uniform were going to screw it up like they always do, right? For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.
Anywho, this reversal ought to torque the moonbats.
As Ed Morrissey asks, how many ways can the Obamaliar be wrong in one speech? Oh, quite a few. Here’s just one dropping from a whole steaming pile:
There is no reason to believe that more of the same will achieve these objectives in Iraq. And, while some have proposed escalating this war by adding thousands of more troops, there is little reason to believe that this will achieve these results either. …
As Ed also points out, Barry O wants the same surge tactic in Afghanistan that he predicted would fail in Iraq…yet he refuses to acknowledge what the entire free world is admitting, which is that the surge succeeded. In other words, he wants to use a tactic that…uh…failed? But hey, let’s vote for “Hopenchange” based on his “judgment”, m’kay?
If you moonbats get your tinfoil hats in a tizzie over McLame’s out-of-context “100 years in Iraq” comment, then what say you about your boy Osamabama’s plans to keep 50,000 “residual” troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future? Not exactly that “get out of Iraq” and “hope and change and stuff” you were expecting, huh?
Story here. In related news, Hell freezes over.
Excellent analysis by Ralph Peters that nails the moonbats for their blatant hypocrisy on the war on terror. Read it, please. Here’s the intro:
AM I the only one who’s noticed the silence? Mere months ago, left-wing bloggers and demonstrators were wailing Support our troops, bring them home! seven days a week.
Now their presidential candidate has announced that he won’t bring all those troops home, but will simply transfer combat forces from Iraq to Afghanistan – expanding that war. (He’s discussed possibly invading Pakistan, too.)
And the left’s quiet as a graveyard at midnight.
Where are the outraged protests from MoveOn or the DailyKos? I thought the extreme left felt sorry for our service members in harm’s way and wanted to reunite them with their families.
We all know exactly what happened. The left has nothing against foreign wars (as long as they don’t have to fight in person). They just want to pick our wars themselves.
The problem with Iraq wasn’t that America toppled Saddam Hussein, but that George W. Bush did it. I’ve been saying it for years: Had Bill Clinton done the job, the left would’ve celebrated him as the greatest liberator since Abraham Lincoln. …
Hit the nail on the head with that one, didn’t he? Think about it: Bosnia was kosher for the left, since the Clenis was the one prosecuting it. Sure, there were no American interests involved, but by golly, if the Chief Diddler of Portly Interns said it was needed, then that’s all we peasants needed to know!
If there’s one thing that the Obamaliar has been consistent about, it’s his commitment to lose in Iraq. From the Washington comPost:
BARACK OBAMA yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: “They said we couldn’t leave when violence was up, they say we can’t leave when violence is down.” Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might “refine” his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.
Hopefully, this will present a problem for Ye Grand Lightworker as America’s confidence in victory in the war continues to grow.
This would be a candidate for “Quote of the Day”, but Dean Barnett already beat me to it:
If we had a “Most Offensive Quote of the Day” every day, Joe Biden would probably come to own the prize. But even by the senator’s lofty standards of chronic obtuseness, he outdid himself this afternoon:
“If John (McCain) wants to know where the bad guys live, come back with me to Afghanistan. We know where they reside. And it’s not in Iraq.”
I know Democrats get a certain tingling in their thighs when their politicos talk butch (“talk butch”…I love it! LOL! – Ed.) in such a manner, but this comment is so over the top, somewhere in America Wesley Clark is probably feeling much better about his public relations acumen. What’s more, Biden’s comment turns what ought to be a serious conversation about two vital foreign theatres into a juvenile schoolyard taunt.
I have a suggestion for the senator: Perhaps he could bring his newly benign assessment to our soldiers who are serving in Iraq and the veterans who have served there. It would surely come as a huge relief to our soldiers currently in Iraq that their work has suddenly become “bad guy free.” Perhaps Biden should also bring his crass bad-guy-appraisal to the attention of all of the Iraqis who have stood by us and who, like our soldiers, have given and still are giving so much for that nation’s freedom. …
But hey…Plagiarist Joe “supports the troops”, right?
McCain on Barry O’s impending “fact-finding” trip to Iraq and Afghanistan:
And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: first you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy.
Ouch. Hope and change…and stuff.
Down the memory hole, ladies and germs! From the NY Daily News:
Barack Obama’s campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop “surge” in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.
The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a “problem” that had barely reduced violence.
“The surge is not working,” Obama’s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks – not U.S. military muscle – for quelling violence in Anbar Province.
The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.
Obama’s campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an “improved security situation” paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.
It praises G.I.s’ “hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.”
Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is “not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.” (Changes such as “he was flat-out wrong from the get-go”? – Ed.)
GOP rival John McCain zinged Obama as a flip-flopper. “The major point here is that Sen. Obama refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong,” said McCain, adding that Obama “refuses to acknowledge that it [the surge] is succeeding.”
I’m guessing he thinks that with the MSM running interference for him, no one will notice his removal of evidence of his flawed judgment…you know, the judgment upon which he’s been running his entire campaign?
Barry O on Iraq this weekend:
“The belief that we have a national security interest in making sure Iraq is secure, I’ve been saying consistently,” he added. Noting “the worst-case scenarios and the parade of horribles that has been trotted out by John McCain and others about genocide if we left,” he said he has always reserved “the right to protect people from genocide.”
The Obamaliar a year ago:
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.
But…but…he’s been “consistent”!
Mosul’s al-Qaeda leader dies from carpal tunnel syndrome and a hailstorm of bullets…but mostly a hailstorm of bullets
Bad news for the left: Another Al Qaeda leader dies.
Worse news for the left: We’re winning the war on terror on every front.
Sorry ’bout that.
Recall the ridiculous Moron.org ad last week whereby a mother of a baby boy said that John McCain, if president, “can’t have” her baby to send to Iraq? Apparently, the dysfunctional derilicts at BowelMovement.org never did the math to see that even if McCain were elected twice, her son would be at most nine years old upon McCain’s exit from office. Plus, we don’t have a draft, and even if the Dems got their way and implemented a draft, I’m certain that nine-year-olds would be ineligible. But I digress.
Anywho, a brave soldier of Iraq and Afghanistan has released a rebuttal video, whereby his wife and kids thank McCain for his commitment to combat terrorism…not to mention their un-Michelle-like love for their country.
This is gratuitous political p0rn of the highest order! Excerpt from PJM:
…The shifts in Barack Obama’s policy toward Iraq show a remarkable correlation with the rise and fall of Tony Rezko’s business prospects in the Chamchamal Power Plant. As the story of the Rezko syndicate is exposed in his Chicago trial, the subject of its Iraqi commercial interests will come under a brighter light. Barack Obama has already said of his convicted ex-fundraiser, “this is not the Tony Rezko I used to know.”
What remains to be seen is whether new developments will see the same cognitive dissonance apply to Obama’s policy in Iraq.
Read the rest, as it’s tasty stuff.
And the left has been accusing Bu$hitler McRummyburton of wanting to use Iraq to enrich his buddies! Savor the aroma of irony, my friends.
James Kirchick makes the point that I have made for years: there is a big difference between lying (in bad faith) and acting on bad intel in good faith. Excerpt:
…In 2006, John F. Kerry explained the Senate’s 77-23 passage of the Iraq war resolution this way: “We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true.” On the campaign trail, Hillary Rodham Clinton dodged blame for her pro-war vote by claiming that “the mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress.”
Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.
Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House “manipulation” — that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction — administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.
In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it “did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments.” The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found “no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”
Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: “Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.”
Yet Rockefeller’s highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that “top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.” Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were “substantiated by intelligence information.” The same goes for claims about Hussein’s possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.
Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don’t get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were “misled” into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.
In 2003, top Senate Democrats — not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others — sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month’s report, titled “Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information,” includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees — who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors — many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering. …
Either Bush AND the entire international intel community AND the Senate and House Intelligence Committee lied…or none of them did. It cannot be (and isn’t) any other way.
In case you missed my fireman analogy in the past, here it is:
Let’s say you are at work (tough for you libs to imagine, but work with me here). You get a call from your neighbor saying that your house is on fire. You ask “How do you know?” He says “I see flames and smoke coming from the back of your house.” You call the fire department and speed to your house.
When you get there, the fireman says “There’s no fire here. You lied!” You retort with “No, I didn’t. I had some information that indicated I needed to act, so I did. I was led to believe that my house was indeed on fire, so I called you.” The fireman is insistent: “No, you LIED!” You are equally, if not more so, insistent: “No, I didn’t lie. If I knew it was bad info, then yes, I would have lied. Since I didn’t know, I could not have lied.” In this scenario, you are right and the fireman is wrong.
Got it? Good. Now drop the intellectually feeble (and discredited) “Bush lied us into war” meme and go get a life, m’kay?
By Allahpundit, regarding the left’s take on the the surge in Iraq:
Things are getting better, so by all means let’s get the hell out before they get better still and people start jumping to unhelpful conclusions about the left’s judgment of Iraq’s prospects being also less than infallible.
Over at Hot Air, where McCain basically asks Obama why he would meet with Iran but not with Gen. Petraeus. Ouch!
The Obamessiah’s flip-flopping continues.
John McCain challenged Barry O to go to Iraq with him. The Obamessiah said “Nope“, on account of it being a “political stunt” and all. Well, the O-Man has had a Kerryesque change of heart, and now may go. Solo, of course. Because going to Iraq by yourself during a presidential campaign is NOT a “political stunt”, right?
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett