CNN Betting the Farm on DEM Victory in 2008

Can any objective thinking person view the election cycle antics of CNN and not come to the conclusion that they are betting the farm that the Democrats will win the 2008 elections, especially the White House? Last night's GOP debate was yet another example of CNN stacking the deck in favor of the Dems. Michelle Malkin has documented proof that four of the questioners are not only extremely liberal, but have declared their support for a Democrat candidate. Citing You Tube videos, personal blogs and a Union website, Michelle shows how they have clearly put their support behind one of the DEMs. In fact one is pictured wearing a John Edwards '08 T-shirt.

Comparing these antics to the CNN DEM debate where it was one softball question by Wolf Blitzer after another ending with the pearls or diamonds debacle, if becomes obvious that CNN is barely trying to hide its actions. Hillary Clinton flipped, then flopped, then flipped on the Drivers License for illegals issue. On Hillary's third position in such a short time on the same issue, Wolf simply let it go without follow up.

So the question is what is behind all this? There are only two explanations. One is that the staff and decision makers at CNN are so rabidly liberal that all of this seems normal to them. They simply have no ability to rationally realize the role of objective mediator they claim to represent. They lean so far left their ears touch the ground and they think the visual perspective they see is normal. If they were on the ship the hit the iceberg in Antarctica they would think the view was normal. They also fail to notice the foam on their chins. They have a right to this perspective, of course. All I ask is that they declare their bias. However, they claim no bias because to them leaning 90 degrees to the left is the norm. Somebody standing up straight is a radical right wing fanatic in their eyes.

The second explanation is that CNN is making conscious decisions to stack the deck in favor of the Dems. They know and admit their bias to themselves, while claiming objectivity in front of the camera. Perhaps decision makers have gathered in a smoke filled room and clearly determined they cannot survive another 4-8 years under a GOP administration without the "fairness" doctrine. They have the educational institutions locked up in their corner. They have the lawyers associations locked up. They have the unions locked up. They have the libraries locked up. They have the senior citizens associations locked up. They have the medical associations locked up. They have the UN locked up. They have the scientific community locked up. They have the television, movie and radio entertainment community locked up. They have almost all of the major magazine publications locked up. They have live theater locked up. They have the major newspapers locked up. They have almost all of the television news and commentary locked up. They have just about every aspect of American life locked up in their hip pockets. However, they don't have talk radio locked up and they cannot stand it.

If not for Talk Radio, the US would be more left leaning today than Europe. Before Talk Radio even existed as it does today Ronald Reagan took the country by storm and physically moved it to the right several notches. Talk Radio helped move it to the right a few more notches in 1994. Since then regardless of Talk Radio, the country continues to drift back to the left. Talk Radio only slows down the drift.

Conservatives have two things going for them: Talk Radio and barely a Supreme Court that leans about one degree to the right. These two things are equivalent to the Dutch boys finger in the dike. So the second explanation for CNNs embarrassing behavior this election cycle is they know a Democrat in the White House is the only chance at taking away this finger in the dike. They are pressing ahead with no thought to their credibility or how they are going to salvage any reputation after this. They seem to be betting that if a Dem wins in '08, the spring feeding any ill will for them will dry up and this will all be forgotten in a few years. They are fantasizing over the good old days when they could say what they want without challenge and exposure.

Of course it could be a mixture of both. Like Al Gore and the UN on global warming and the Dems on Iraq, CNN is pressing ahead without any fear of becoming a laughing-stock or worse.
They are investing 100% of their stock into the immediate need. If conservatives hold the line this time, CNN and others just might be setup for a world of hurt. Of course, they can always deny, deny, deny while their friends circle the wagons around them like they always do. It is amazing how public ignorance is their best friend.

Give Him Something Broken

I continuously resist the urge to break out into a full scale Science Fiction / Fantasy topic. While I have not read much new SF in years, it is something near and dear to my heart - as R2W can attest. I would love to start an SF blog, but I hardly have time for this one so today I will simply drop a reference.

One of my favorite SF series is The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant The Unbeliever by Stephen R. Donaldson. He wrote the first and second chronicles and is now on a slow path to writing the third. As he is no spring chicken, I am biting my nails that he will finish. I also am waiting until he finishes to begin reading it. I had a long haul wait when he was writing the second set. In fact I did not even know it was a second series until I read the last page. I have been in the same camp with some of Terry Brooks books and others, so no thanks - I'll wait.

All that to point out that in the war between the "protagonist" (read it to find why it is in quotes) and the antagonist, it is stated that "The only way to hurt a man who has lost everything is to give him back something broken".

While George W. Bush is far from having lost everything, he is a lame duck so it fits in a way. The nomination of Michael Mukasey for AG was a clear attempt on the part of Bush to avoid controversy. Many across the aisle had a favorable opinion of Mukasey including Chucky Schumer. The confirmation should have been a slam dunk. Then, as always, the Dems began playing games. They threw in the red herring of waterboarding demanding that Mukasey declare the treatment to be torture. The choking hypocrisy of the Dems is apparent as we have yet to see any real attempt to outlaw the use of waterboarding by non-Pentagon agencies. As usual the Dems blubber and bluster about this or that, yet do not do anything about it. They do not want to be in the position of waking up to news of a terrorist attack where tactics like waterboarding were not used because they passed a law against it.

In the case of Mukasey, if they really had a problem with waterboarding they would not have confirmed him. Yet Mukasey was confirmed by a vote of 53-40. In short, the Dems could have praised Bush for the nomination of a mutually acceptable candidate, instead they threw a fly in the ointment by demanding action of the nominee they are unwilling to do themselves. The goal here as always is to avoid EVER, EVER giving Bush even the slightest word of having done something good. No matter the area, no matter big or small, the Dems and their water carrying media cannot allow the notion that Bush did something good or right to ever pass their lips unless it is well contaminated with offsetting criticism.

The Dems have taken a bipartisan, compromising nomination and returned Bush something broken. Instead of allowing him to begin his AG duties with an excellent reputation and moral authority, they have branded Mukasey with a mark of Cain and primed the public for the slightest criticism of Mukasey's actions if he does not do their full bidding. At the slightest controversy the media will immediately toe their party line and take the side of the Dems in undermining Mukasey's character and reputation.

After looking at the continuous behavior from both sides of the aisle, it never ceases to amaze me how the GOP has alone been the saddled with the reputation of "dirty tricks". The Dems never, ever miss a dirty trick and this is just another one.

As Troops Build Momentum Dems Stick Foot Out To Trip Them

As I write this post it is all I can do to contain the righteous wrath against a group of losers that continue to blow gleefully beyond the line at warp speeds. Nearly every day I read about yet another outrageous action by American Leftists that is so ridiculous, deceitful or angering that all support or credibility will be permanently erased from them. Of course the majority of people would need to know about these actions in order to react to them and the media only has time for stories about bathroom signals.

I wonder what the media would do it were discovered that the Dems were diverting funds to Al Queada and the insurgency. Or if they were revealing classified information to the enemy. Or if they were making deals with Iran and Syria to fight against our troops. Since they are Dems and the media is what it is, perhaps my point is weaker than I intend. In any case, the Dems are in the process of doing something equivalent to the things listed above. Whether or not it began purposefully, there has been plenty of warning and time to convey to the Dems the harmful effects on our troops by voting at this time to pass a resolution on the Armenian Genocide by the Ottoman Empire. Instead of waiting for a better time to consider this over 90 year old matter, the Dems are pressing ahead in spite of the likely effects on our troops if Turkey prevents us from using their country for crucial supply lines. According to AFP:

House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said possible reprisals affecting Turkey's cooperation with the US military were "hypothetical" and would not derail the resolution.

What Nancy "The Stumbler" Pelosi fails to recognize in her irresponsible offhanded reference to the "hypothetical" is what happens to her and her friends when this hypothetical situation becomes a reality. She was clearly warned that this action could get some of our troops killed. What will she say when troops do get killed when the Turkish government stops key supplies like Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles? The better question is what will the media allow her to get away with saying when troops get killed because of this irresponsible political ploy?

While there is no doubt this awful mass murder of Armenians is a serious breach against humanity, the question is why they are bringing up this action that occurred during WWI. Note, I did not say WWII - there is only one 'I' - WWI. This action has been denounced before. Ronald Reagan publicly labeled it a genocide. The Democrats, however, feel the need at this time to anger an ally in our war in Iraq.

Instead of setting aside this business until a time when our troops are not in harms way, Pelosi makes matters worse by bringing up other genocides:

"Genocide still exists, and we saw it in Rwanda; we see it now in Darfur," Pelosi said.

Interesting that she wants to pass a resolution against a nearly century old dispute while invoking the names of two genocides that Democrats have failed to aid: Bill Clinton and his NATO general Wesley Clark stood by and watched the genocide in Rwanda. The Democrat Congress is standing by and watching the China funded genocide in Darfur. Pelosi also says:

"Some of the things that are harmful to our troops relate to values -- Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, torture. All of those issues (are) about who we are as a country," she added.

So the Stumbler embarrasses herself again by equating Abu Ghraib with genocide by speaking of them in the same breath. She also forwards the unproven allegations about Guantanamo and torture by the US. She stupidly forgets that her party has won the election and as the Majority, she is in a much better position to expose any torture that is occurring at Gitmo. If she knows something and refuses to act upon it as Speaker of the House, is she not culpable? Instead she is allowed to refer to it freely without any responsibility to act - if it is true.

In summary the timing, the repercussions and the willful ignoring of consequences point to a very ugly picture of the Democrat's motives in this action. Since the surge began to take hold and the report by General Petreaus, we are seeing the situation in Iraq looking more promising. The Dems took a PR beating over their treatment of Petreaus. They have been lashing out like children throwing a tantrum ever since. They supported the twisting of the words of Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh to try and manufacture scandals of high profile conservatives. Now as the troops continue to build momentum, the Dems are sticking out their foot to try and trip them as they run by. The real story of the year is how the Dems continue their scandalous behavior without creating any scandals. Such is the way things are when the media carries their water in tanker trucks.

The Punishment Gluttons

The word 'gluttony' can only be truly appreciated by either viewing it or receiving a vivid description of it. The mildest form of gluttony can be simple overeating. From there advanced gluttons make eating a Olympic feat, gorging themselves with a constant flow of food. In the very worst form, the glutton is never satisfied with eating even after the capacity to take in more food ends. When the glutton can eat no more without bursting, vomiting is induced to make more room and the marathon continues. A glutton for punishment accomplishes the same thing with actions that cause others to saddle them with painful consequences to their words or actions. They find creative ways to continue encouraging others to deal their blows (physical or symbolic) long after their capacity to endure it ends. They simply cannot help themselves.

In a string of missteps the Dems keep handing conservatives one thing after another to beat them over the head with. As the Dems continue to reel from the Betray-Us ad fiasco and subsequent fallout, they jumped on a distortion of Rush Limbaugh's words spinning that he disparaged some of the troops. Now with a track record of undermining the troops at every possible turn, making the Limbaugh charge laughable, David Obey has found another way to undermine the troops. He has signaled initiating another round of games when it comes to supporting the troops with funding. He wants to try to attach two stinking red herrings to any funding bills: a withdrawal timetable and a tax hike.

The sheer hypocrisy of their feigned outrage over distorted comments by Limbaugh and others should be obvious to all. If not, it becomes yet another payload of ammunition to distribute during campaigns and public commentary. Ever since David Obey was assaulted by his own anti-war friends in a now famous video, he has probably been waiting for an opportunity to prove his loyalty and prevent another incident. Unfortunately for him, he branched out on his own with this step. It is unusual for Dems to see when they are overplaying their hands, but it seems Nancy Pelosi sees the damage this can incur and has soundly rejected the tax hike. Too late. Instead of sparing the Dems of any punishment, this gave conservatives the opportunity to poke fun at Pelosi for finally meeting a tax she did not like. So the punishment continues.

Irony of Phony Soldier Tom Harkin

Everybody has this clip from Stolen Valor, but I wanted my blog to have it too. It recounts how Tom Harkin was caught exaggerating his war service. Just like the phony soldiers like Jesse MacBeth, Harkin is a phony. To be clear, until he opened his mouth his war service was honorable albeit routine. It was when he falsely boasted of risky and exiting flight missions in Vietnam that he is now named among the phonies.

In a moment of supreme irony, Tom Harkin's was one of the nastiest commentaries against Rush Limbaugh. It is not certain how Harkin thought his wounds from being exposed as a fraud would not be publicly ripped open again when he opened his mouth in this phony soldier fraud. He has embarrassed himself, his family, his state and his party by being the absolute worst person to take the stage and perform his diatribe. I wonder how many Dems were actually thinking at the time and were shaking their heads knowing the coming punishment that would fall. Probably none as they were all whipped up in the orgy of once again overplaying their hand. It is the Wellstone Memorial all over again.

Top Dem Presidential Contenders Sign Onto Limbaugh Lie

In a desperate bid to pander to the far left, owners of today's Democrat Party, the top two Dem Presidential contenders and sitting Senators have signed their names to a known lie. The Senate Democrats have officially condemned Rush Limbaugh for a distorted version and interpretation of what he said about phony soldiers.

The fact is that a number of people have stepped forward, blatantly misrepresented their military service in order to gain a platform among easy believing lefties to trash the rest of the troops. Under any interpretation these people can without doubt be labeled as "phony soldiers". They are phony soldiers because of the lies they told about themselves and honorable troops. To distort this fact as a claim that they are phony because they oppose the war is a blatant and undeniable lie.

It is bad enough that 41 senators are willing to engage in this lie. It is far worse that the two leading Democrat Presidential contenders are among this list. While the offices of Representative and Senator are high, the office of President is the highest in the land and represents the most powerful person in the world today. It is unthinkable that a person so willing to throw truth out the window in such a high profile and reckless manner should even be considered for this honorable position. It seriously calls into question their judgment and one wonders how cheaply they will sell themselves if they ever achieved the office (and to whom).

I wrote about the coming blowback from this stunt by the Dems. The longer this goes on the more opportunities Limbaugh and other conservatives can beat them over the head again and again for their sorry record on supporting the troops, for their ultimate disparaging of the troops by calling their General a liar before he even said anything, for their track-record of eagerly jumping on the bandwagon of the phony soldiers that Rush was talking about, and for how foolish and dishonorable they are making themselves look by this distortion.

I doubt if anybody who has a favorable opinion of Rush Limbaugh will change to having an unfavorable opinion of him. In fact there will likely be some to give him a listen or another try and change to a favorable position of him. There is no doubt that this lying smear will turn off quite a number of Independents who will have a strong unfavorable opinion of the Democrats involved. These are the kind of missteps that steal defeat from the jaws of victory. A few more at the "right" time and the Dems will be panicking wondering what went wrong.

Ever Give Advice to an Opponent?

Have you ever given advice to somebody who was an enemy or an opponent? There are several ways to do this: sincerely, deceptively or sarcastically. You can give advice that will help them if they take it, or you can give advice that will really help you. Why do I bring this up? Apparently, President Bush is "quietly" providing advice to Hillary Clinton and other Democratic presidential contenders. The advice centers around their position on Iraq as a candidate and actually as President should one of them make it. An article in the Examiner begins with this opener:

President Bush is quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president.

One could glean from the article that Bush is simply serving himself by trying to influence decisions by the next President. The article states:

Bolten said Bush wants enough continuity in his Iraq policy that “even a Democratic president would be in a position to sustain a legitimate presence there.”

“Especially if it’s a Democrat,” the chief of staff told The Examiner in his West Wing office. “He wants to create the conditions where a Democrat not only will have the leeway, but the obligation to see it out.”

Bolten is the White House Chief of Staff and is the source of the claims of advice. Some could read this and claim that Bush is just trying to control things during the election cycle and beyond. Those with good motives can have the best reasons for wanting to influence an outcome. The article points out how different it is to be a candidate vs. actually being the President. The candidate is shooting for enough popularity to get elected. Hopefully a President is looking to do the right thing regardless of popularity. The most insightful section of the article states:

To that end, the president has been sending advice, mostly through aides, aimed at preventing an abrupt withdrawal from Iraq in the event of a Democratic victory in November 2008.

“It’s different being a candidate and being the president,” Bush said in an Oval Office interview. “No matter who the president is, no matter what party, when they sit here in the Oval Office and seriously consider the effect of a vacuum being created in the Middle East, particularly one trying to be created by al Qaeda, they will then begin to understand the need to continue to support the young democracy.”

To that end, Bush is institutionalizing controversial anti-terror programs so they can be used by the next president.

“Look, I’d like to make as many hard decisions as I can make, and do a lot of the heavy lifting prior to whoever my successor is,” Bush said. “And then that person is going to have to come and look at the same data I’ve been looking at, and come to their own conclusion.”

A Democrat candidate is either going to be sincere in their campaigning or they are going to say whatever they think will get them elected. Either motive, once elected they would need to live with their words on the campaign trail. A senior White House official states it well:

“One of two things will happen if a Democrat gets elected president,” he said. “They will either have to withdraw U.S. troops in order to remain true to the rhetoric — in which case, any consequences in the aftermath fall on their heads. Or they have to break their word, in which case they encourage fratricide on the left of their party. Now that’s a thorny issue to work through.”

The Democrats in Congress so far know the heavy price they will pay if they take the necessary action to pull us out of Iraq and the horrible consequences are laid at their feet. All of the games they have played this year have been targeted at getting enough spineless GOP Congressmen and Senators to join them in order to insulate them from the results. If a Democrat is elected President, there will be no political cover against the consequences. There will be no hiding place for one that runs on pulling out of Iraq and then stays.

Take it or leave it, this is strong advice for the Dems to really think about.

Doctor Sanity Spells Out the Democratic Strategies for Coping with Petraeus

This is one of the strategies represented by a series of cartoons Dr. Sanity has found and displays. It represents the "Rage" strategy. Be sure and go to her post to see the "Denial", "Projection", "Passive-Aggressive", "Suicidal" and "Homicidal" strategies also represented by a cartoon.

Only Soldiers Who Lean Left Worthy of Trust By Dems

Soldiers that tow the party line are automatically granted full respect, moral authority and unquestioned loyalty by the Dems. These are examples of such obeisance to certain military men.

All three of them opportunists willing to trash their country and the military they once served in for political gain. Their service and their medals are pointed to by the left as they swoon over every anti-Bush tirade. Yet, give the left a military man with impeccable credentials that says something they disagree with and suddenly they are not so respectful.

Give the Dems a man like General Petraeus, who has such a sterling reputation that he was unanimously voted by the Senate to become General. Although there were 19 no-votes, nobody voted against his confirmation. He appears in a highly decorated uniform before a joint Congressional committee today to give his assessment of the situation in Iraq. Yet the Dems undercut his report before he even opened his mouth, and shamefully branded him a liar during the report.

It is hoped that most people will be able to see through this farce by the Dems and recognize they are delusional and willfully ignoring reality. They are so invested in defeat in Iraq, that they cannot admit to even the slightest progress. Here, General Petraeus declared significant progress and the Dems resort to their usual clownish actions. They do not LIKE what he has to say, so they reject it. Wouldn't it be nice to simply reject reality in a similar manner when it comes to bills, taxes or a parking ticket. Simply declare it is not so and poof! it goes away. So while the Dems live in their fantasy world, the thinking public sees them for what they are. They have been bought and paid for by the anti-war left, and they must do their bidding.

September Will Determine Fate of Iraq and 2008 Election

President Bush is poised to make some concessions on benchmarks in order to obtain funding for Iraq until September. There are several points to observe with this seeming change in position. First, it will apply a lot more pressure on the Dems to actually provide the funding. The Dems have been dancing for months now with activity that is solely targeted at appeasing the anti-war crowd that put them back in power. Of course, there will never be enough appeasement until they see the troops coming home and Iraq falling into a slaughterhouse without the US there to stop it. I guess the anti-war crowd thinks war is bad but butchery is fine.

Second, unless there is a drastic improvement in Iraq by September support for staying in Iraq will crumble. The Dems and the Media have been hammering away at the resolve of the American people since we first entered Iraq and it is becoming obvious that too many are throwing in the towel. Too many want to leave Iraq, even if it is the right thing to stay. The attention span of half the nation evaporated early in the conflict. The remaining half wants their celebrity worship and entertainment addiction unsullied by constant news from Iraq.

It is obvious that President Bush has held the benchmark card in his hand until it was absolutely necessary. If the September report in Iraq does not show irrefutable evidence (even for the reality deniers) that the troop surge is working, it does not matter.

Both sides are drawing a line for September. Each side will be promoting their side of the propaganda war. The Dems will be setting up September to do what they cannot do now: force a pullout in Iraq without OWNING the massacre that will surely follow. Without OWNING the terrorist state that will be formed there and bring terrorism to the doorstep of the US. September gives the Dems and their water carrying media enough time to brainwash people into uncoupling that nasty concept of ownership.

Bush on the other hand seems optimistic that the surge will produce clear and undeniable results in Iraq by September. Such a report in September will be a shot in the arm for the effort and produce a political change with a return by many back to a supporting decision.

The September report will determine the fate of Iraq. If positive, it will grant the reprieve necessary to finish the job there. If negative or not positive enough, support will be irrevocably pronounced dead. Without the US to stop it, the slaughter of many innocents will occur. Whichever radical faction that comes out on top will certainly support terrorist activities that will hit our shores. They will be able to act with impunity knowing that the US will never choose to go back into Iraq.

The September report will also decide the political winds that will blow to the 2008 election. A positive result will bode well for the GOP (if they will have the spine to align themselves with it). A defeat in Iraq will increase the fortunes of the Dems. Does anybody wonder which outcome the Dems are hoping for?

Vote Buying Scandal Rocks Dems

A Washington Post editorial is rightly scolding Democrat House Leadership for a scandalous $20 Billion in spending bribes to buy the votes of Congressmen to add a drop dead timetable for withdraw in Iraq. According to the editorial:

TODAY THE House of Representatives is due to vote on a bill that would grant $25 million to spinach farmers in California. The legislation would also appropriate $75 million for peanut storage in Georgia and $15 million to protect Louisiana rice fields from saltwater. More substantially, there is $120 million for shrimp and menhaden fishermen, $250 million for milk subsidies, $500 million for wildfire suppression and $1.3 billion to build levees in New Orleans.

Altogether the House Democratic leadership has come up with more than $20 billion in new spending, much of it wasteful subsidies to agriculture or pork barrel projects aimed at individual members of Congress. At the tail of all of this logrolling and political bribery lies this stinger: Representatives who support the bill -- for whatever reason -- will be voting to require that all U.S. combat troops leave Iraq by August 2008, regardless of what happens during the next 17 months or whether U.S. commanders believe a pullout at that moment protects or endangers U.S. national security, not to mention the thousands of American trainers and Special Forces troops who would remain behind.

This action is egregious in multiple ways. First, the Dems are showing loudly and clearly that their criticism of GOP spending was a sham. They did not care about the taxpayer or the deficit while they were grandstanding in front of the media. Their rants against GOP spending were chokingly hypocritical. Liberals will always stand behind what they claim will be the "greater good" in order to do their dirty work. The informed knew that spending under the Dems would be as bad or worst.

Second, the Dem leadership is stealing from the taxpayers in order to bribe some of their fellow members into voting the way they want. What ever happened to the most ethical congress? What is the difference between this bribe and the $100,000 freezer bribe given to William Jefferson? Or the bribes given to Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney? Or the bribes given to a campaigning Hillary Clinton in exchange for pardons by her president husband? Nothing is different! They are all bribes in exchange for political favors. Is their argument so weak and the public support for their views so weak that they need to bribe their members. The editorial states the "The Democrats claim to have a mandate from voters to reverse the Bush administration's policy in Iraq." While I may disagree, if they think they have a mandate, why does it take bribes to get their votes? How many times did we hear from the media about Tom "the Hammer" Delay whipping the votes. What is this: whipping-bad, bribes-good? These bribes are scandalously representative of those providing them AND those willing to receive them to change their votes.

Third, the Dems continue to play games with our national security. As the quote above states, the firm timetable does not care what is going on at the time the deadline hits. It does not care who's life is in danger or any other related circumstances. The Constitution gave such responsibilities to a Commander in Chief, not to an unthinking piece of paper. The Dems continue to put their agenda above the safety of our troops and our people. You would think that having such a tarnished image in this area that they would be doing something to correct it. I guess repayment to their radical leftist puppetmasters comes before national security or their image.

Fourth, the fact that none of these actions target any timeline for a withdrawal from Afganistan shows how disingenuous the Dems are. They paint a picture that we are also doing poorly in Afganistan. This whole "mandate" claim is that the people do not feel the war on terror is going well. How is Afganistan any different? The kook left claims that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq AND that he is actually behind the 9/11 attacks. So why does one war front get a pass? Political games, that's why.

I am sure if I put some more thought into this I could find other reasons why this scandal is such a terrible thing. I wonder how much play it will get in the media? It seems only GOP scandals are worthy of day after day coverage. At most Dem scandals get a mention and then onto something else. The army of the uninformed and misinformed marches on.