Updated:  Speech videos added.

Little Green Footballs had an interesting debate this afternoon.  Folks were trying to figure out what those floats and banners in today's Washington protest march symbolized.

I think I've figured it out.                

But first a little background.

For anyone who's never been to a REAL protest, simply re-wind that anti-war rally scene from Forrest Gump.  Now THAT was a protest, baby.  And today's speakers?  Errrrrrr .... well .... they were basically the same ones  speaking at protests 40-some years ago. 

Their tone seems to have mellowed a bit, though ... Was it just me or didn't  those voices from the past seem to be more "preachy" than inciting?   

In her time -- Jane Fonda could rouse a crowd into a frothing mob. (Including Vietnam vets.)  While I've never been able to decipher Jesse Jackson, I assure you that Tim Robbins didn't used to talk about God, either.  (What the heck was that all about, anyway?) 

Those Singing Grannies?  If you can find an old Woodstock video, you might recognize some of them.  (And no -- the second lady from the end is neither Joan Biaz, Judy Collins nor Janis-Joplin-reincarnated.) 

Protest sponsors just aren't what they used to be, either.  Ever hear of the SDS?  Black Panthers?  Weathermen?  Yippies?  The original NOW group?   Believe me -- no hippy worth his/her stash would wear pink (by any hippy code) unless it was a tie-dye color blend on a tee shirt.  (Exception:  Dennis Kucinich's wife wore a pink coat today, but she looked much younger than Dennis.)  Good grief -- if you've ever been to an SDS-sponsored rally -- you'd know what a protest really was, comrade.  And you'd definitely know how to dress.  Jeans, tee shirts, cotton hippy moo-moo dresses, love beads, second-hand military jackets, floppy hats and flowers.  Lots of flowers.  And headbands.  Humph -- no real hippy would be caught outside the VW van dressed like some of the freaks you saw today.

You younger folks will just have to trust me on this:  What you saw today was a demonstration -- not activism as it was in its heyday -- but what happens when  well-beyond-their-prime'ers try to revive those ole activist juices.  Won't work.  I'm not implying that Jesse Jackson, Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon,Tim Robbins or any other has-been's burned their brains out or anything.  I'm just suggesting that their promotional-time would best be  utilized hawking TV commercials for the geriatric crowd.  LIke Viagra.  Electric scooters.  Pill crushers.  Metamucil.  Depends.  Laxatives.   Botox. Supplemental medical Insurance.

And those protest floats and banners from today's march simply validate my premise(s) about elder-hippies -- in general and in particular.

Here we have a float supposedly  representing the spineless nature of Congress in not doing something congressional about the war. 

To the elder-hippy, however, this is a facsimile of a colon. 

See Metamucil and laxative commercials referenced above.

While designers may want you to think "dove," this symbolic sheeted fowl is either a loon (denoting Fonda's shallow-water back-flip performance in On Golden Pond) or an insurance-promoting duck.  

Same difference. 

AFLAC:  In over-the-hill protest-speak, this means Aging Female Liberal Against Constipation. 

This sign not only confirms my assessment, but literally AND figuratively sez it all --

   Just Poop.

Photo Credits:  C-Span and Little Green Footballs

Not sure why Alexandra Pelosi had to come to the "Bible Belt" to learn about evangelical beliefs and lifestyles. 

Few fringe personalities are hardly indicative of the actual beliefs and lifestyles of a practicing evangelical.  (It's not like they DON'T walk amongst us ....)  She could have saved the air-fare and driven to Southern California to get that scoop!

But filming southerners doing and saying things "southern" in the south  connotes credibility, yes?

Wrong.

For two years I attended a Sunday morning evangelical music program  smack-dab in the hills of Hollywood-land.  Great music by aspiring musicians (paid and volunteer) .... hundreds in attendance .... replete with waste-basket collection plates, testimonies, and a to-die-for massive video screen and professional video tech staff -- flashing lyrics (for those not closing their eyes while waving hands and arms skyward) or to span the faces of  musicians and fixated parishioners who mouthed silent prayers while swaying to the music. 

The music was awe-inspiring .... a holistic blend of new age Christian rock and classic gospel hymns.  Which is why I attended.  Back in my bible-belt youth, I attended all-night "singings" (in my grandfather's living room) or at the high school gym.  Even today, I often rise early to listen to gospel music programs ....

But I digress.

And after the singing, Southern California folks would do what most church-going folks in the bible-belt-and-beyond do.  They served coffee and cookies in the social hall.  Real-time religious congregations might even return to the sanctuary for some evangelical teachings.  Others likely just chat with friends as they amble toward the parking lot and then head home to have lunch, watch football, play golf, pick up a book or browse the Sunday paper again, maybe take a nap, etc. 

Similar to Alexandra Pelosi (who refers to her self as a "lapsed" Catholic), hell-fire-and-brimstone expositions by fringe fanatics ain't my thang.

Unlike Alexandra Pelosi, however, in all my evangelical exposures -- I've never heard the term "Hell's Box Office."   Come to think of  it -- I don't even know any evangelicals who subscribe to HBO!

But then, I'm more a Showtime-Encore/Starz! gal.  How else could I "ace" this test or find monthly re-runs of Elmer Gantry?

I'm confident that the thousands of bloggers and blog-readers who are signing THE PLEDGE are sincere in their commitment to withhold financial support for any Republican who joins Democrats in voting for a resolution against expanded military strategies in Iraq.

As a registered "independent" who has never contributed to a national political party, I signed The Pledge because of my fundamental stance against terrorism.  I support our troops AND their mission in Iraq.  My personal pledge, you see, goes beyond financial support and beyond party lines.

I vow to hold every elected official who either abstains from voting or who votes for any resolution-which-implies-non-support-for-the-military-mission-in-Iraq as morally accountable for

1) conveying irreparable damage to troop morale
                                       and
2) providing encouragement to Iraqi insurgents and to global jihadists. 

This is my personal pledge.  This will be my commitment.

* I'm not sure this rises to the level of Kerry forgetting who was President of the US when he was stargazing in Cambodia one memorable Christmas Eve -- but did anyone else note that Sen. Clinton stated that she watched one of her favorite movies (when in college in the 60's and 70's) "over and over" until she and friends had memorized the dialog?  The movie was Casablanca.  Great movie.  But someone pointed out that it wasn't released on VCR/video until the mid-90's .......

So maybe it ran for a couple of years in the local theater? 
Algore loaned her his VCR player while he was inventing the internet?
She remembers a guy named Sam, but doesn't recall the year?

Ehhhhh.  Chalk it up as an over-statement to appear steeped in average American cultural experiences.  That old connectivity thang.  You know -- Something to talk about when she drops by to chat ....

*  I have an idea why Speaker Nancy Pelosi was ::::blinkblinkblink:::: batting her eyes during the SOTU address last night. 

To stay awake.

Which obviously demonstrates the need for term limits. 

Working 3 days a week year-after-year-after-year-after-year takes its toll -- doncha know?

Me? 
I do what Nancy does. 
I blink a lot!

From the "Hey-how-about-this department:  If you believe "if ya snooze, ya lose," stand up and applaud!!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

UPDATE/Disclaimer:  okokok .... it is not unlikely that some of the folks  pictured above WERE either reading along with the President's speech or may have been toying with their blackberrys ....  It's just no fun giving them any benefit of doubt when they're unwilling to give the same to the Iraqi plan. 

photo credits:  multiple sites, including Bill's Bites.

I'm gonna throw up, I tell ya.  Thu-rooooow up. 

What is this motherhood fixation these dem women (i.e., Granny Pelosi, Mother Boxer and now Mommy Hillary) are pushing?   I'm expecting favorite recipes to suddenly appear on congressional web sites.  Testimonies on the pros and cons of breast feeding ....  How to maximize the empty-nest syndrome for fun and profit ...  Creative uses of menstrual distress ....

It's about time we separate moon-bats from womb-bats!!!

I don't know about Paul Pelosi or Mr. Boxer, but I've just gained insight into why Bill probably found his thrill sans the shrill ..... Anyone who saw the Hillary announcement video surely wondered where that calm and cool demeanor came from -- hard to fake some things, yanno?  'Specially while wearing makeup and sittin' up straight on a sofa.

Now there's nothing wrong with women in politics or any other leadership role -- nothing wrong whatsoevah -- but pleeeeeease stop with this moon-bat-womb-bat pretense.  It's so ... so .... so un-womanly.  Everytime I see a womb-bat gushing over kidlets in front of a camera, I think of those cowardly terrorists who hide behind children or dress as women to carry out some dastardly deeds. 

Know what I mean?

No skill needed ... shifting ... power run ... head walling ... trough .. ditching ... group rates ... whoopdeedoo ... down the chute... catching a rut ... cold feet ... leaning ... dragging a foot ... power shove ... spin ... run-off ... hitting a rough spot ... catching wind ... wipe out ... rump bump .... it's all about children -- snow tubing reminds me of politics.

What a wonderful weekend! 

Until Hillary invited me to talk.  She wants to talk with me?  Ha!  Errrrr ... no thanks, Hill.  First of all -- your "conversations" with New York were one-sided, at best.  Why should I expect anything different now that you've formalized your ultimate power run?

If you really want to talk, I suggest we cut to the chase. 

How long will it be before you name Bill Richardson as your choice for vice president?  He's been a long-time favorite for years .... successful New Mexico governor .... Hispanic ... foreign envoy .....  Not to mention his work for Bill (including hiring Monica to get her out of your House). 

Pound for pound -- Bill Richardson would probably make a better president, but we know first hand your ways and wiles for using people ....

How to beat you at your own game?  Match Mitt Romney with a vice-presidential candidate (McCain?) as Bill's counter-part.  You'll be no match for Mitt in a debate. 

McCain probably has enough voter and regional appeal to match Bill's -- unless another mid-westerner comes down the chute.  But will McCain be happy riding shotgun? 

Whoopdeedo.  I see the makings of a major head walling with a few rump bumps in this run, Hill!  Better catch wind while you're at the top!

So much for exploration, eh?  Looks as if Hillary has her committees confused, but we'll give her a pass this time.  After all -- she's been campaigning for this job since Bill let her orchestrate his national health care debacle.

#################################

Me?  I've been in a trough most of the day.  A snow tube trough, that is.  Lots of fun with the family and (fortunately) total strangers of all ages, stages and attributes in an unmaneuverable tube.  I'm sure that most of us older lead-bottom tubers used to ski the nearby slopes.  Back when the knees and hips and ankles allowed it, that is.  Thank the winter gods for remembering that even older bodies love to play in the snow .... Now if someone would just come up with a way to steer an errant rubber donut!

"Lady, can I help you out of your tube?"

Nahhhh.  Just push me over to that tow rope, sonny.  I'm good for another run or two."

A Wall Street Journal editorial today reveals that a Scooter Libby-Patrick Fitzgerald connection existed approximately twenty years ago.  Easy to swallow, but hard to prove -- could an old vendetta have been at play when Fitzgerald charged Libby with perjury?  Did Fitzgerald deliberately entrap Libby?  Didn't Fitzy already know that Libby was NOT the "official" who released information about Valarie Plame .... 

Two of the prosecutors who worked on the Rich case over the years were none other than Mr. Fitzgerald and James Comey, who while Deputy Attorney General appointed Mr. Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Mr. Fitzgerald worked in the Southern District for five years starting in 1988, at the same time that Mr. Libby was developing a legal theory of Mr. Rich's innocence in a bid to get the charges dropped. The prosecutors never did accept the argument, but Leonard Garment, who brought Mr. Libby onto the case in 1985, says that he believes Mr. Libby's legal work helped set the stage for Mr. Rich's eventual pardon.

This was all long ago, it's true. But Mr. Libby and Mr. Comey tangled more recently as well. In 2004, as Mr. Fitzgerald was gearing up his investigation, Mr. Libby was the Administration's point man in trying to get Justice to sign off on the NSA wiretapping program. In early 2004, Mr. Comey was acting Attorney General while John Ashcroft recovered from gall bladder surgery, and Mr. Comey reportedly refused to give the NSA program the greenlight, prompting the White House to seek out Mr. Ashcroft in the hospital in a bid to circumvent Mr. Comey.

Motive is a difficult thing to guage. We don't know whether this long personal history played any role either in Mr. Fitzgerald's single-minded pursuit of Mr. Libby, or in Mr. Comey's decision to grant the prosecutor plenary power even though the central mystery of the case had already been resolved. But connecting the dots linking the three men at the heart of this case seems worth doing given the puzzling nature of this prosecution.

(Bold font for emphasis added.)

Read the entire WSJ editorial. 

And when Libby's trial is over -- if Libby is acquitted of perjury or the case is dropped -- there should be another hearing to determine if Fitzy (or Comey) abused his/their powers in getting even with an old adversary.

Credit: Lucianne.com

As China blasts a defunct satellite from the sky, is anyone else remembering how Clinton secretly gave the Chinese access to U.S. "super-computer" systems and U.S. military data?

Try a deep Google and see what turns up.   I did. 

Maybe SandyB had more up his sleeve than stuffed in his pants .....

Yet, the usually left-leaning L.A.Times offers an out-of-character AND realistic op ed perspective this morning ...... 

What gives? 

Have LAT editors finally seen the hand-writing on the wall?  Gone bonkers  over a little Pacific coast snow storm?  Fear of hell freezing over?? The reality of tax season?  Seeking subsidies for the frozen fruit crops?   Resentment for not having a west coast team in the Super Bowl? 

How the left led us into 9/11
January 18, 2007

The Clinton and Carter administrations made the U.S. look like a weak, attractive target for terrorists.

 

In considering a funding cutoff for U.S. troops in Iraq, the liberal leadership in Congress runs the risk of making the United States more vulnerable to future attacks, not just in the Middle East but here at home. To understand this, it's not enough to revisit the factors that led to the Iraq invasion. We must consider the roots of 9/11 itself. Only by understanding the policies that sowed the seeds of 9/11 can we intelligently decide how best to proceed in fighting the war on terror.

Pundits on the left say that 9/11 was the result of a "blowback" of resistance from the Islamic world against U.S. foreign policy. At first glance, this seems to make no sense. American colonialism in the Middle East? The U.S. has no history of colonialism there. Washington's support for unelected dictatorial regimes in the region? The Muslims can't be outraged about this, because there are no other kinds of regimes in the region. U.S. support for Israel and wars against the Muslims? Yes, but the U.S. has frequently fought on the side of the Muslims, as in Afghanistan in the 1980s or in the Persian Gulf War.

But in a sense the liberal pundits are right. The U.S. made two gigantic foreign policy blunders in recent decades that did sow the seeds of 9/11. What the liberals haven't recognized is that these blunders were the direct result of their policies and actions, and were carried out by Democratic presidents — Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

To understand this, we need a little perspective. Radical Islam became a global force in 1979, when it captured its first major state, Iran. Before that, radical organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood were fighting losing battles to overthrow their local governments. This changed with the success of the Khomeini regime in Iran. The Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was the first Muslim leader to describe the U.S. as the "Great Satan" and to counsel martyrdom and jihad against it. Iran continues to be a model for radical Muslims.

Khomeini's ascent to power was aided by Carter's policies. Carter came into office stressing his support for human rights. His advisors told him that he could not consistently support the shah of Iran, who had secret police and was widely accused of violating human rights. The administration began to withdraw its support and finally pulled the rug out from under the shah, forcing him to step down.

The result was Khomeini, whose regime was vastly more tyrannical than the shah's. The Khomeini revolution provided state sponsorship for Islamic radicalism and terrorism and paved the way for Osama bin Laden and 9/11.

Clinton's policies also helped to provoke 9/11. After the Cold War, leading Islamic radicals returned to their home countries. Bin Laden left Afghanistan and went back to Saudi Arabia; Ayman Zawahiri returned to Egypt. They focused on fighting their own rulers — what they termed the "near enemy" — in order to establish states under Islamic law. But in the mid- to late 1990s, these radicals shifted strategy. They decided to stop fighting the near enemy and to attack the "far enemy," the U.S.

The world's sole superpower would seem to be much more formidable than local Muslim rulers such as Hosni Mubarak in Egypt or the Saudi royal family. Bin Laden argued, however, that the far enemy was actually weaker and more vulnerable. He was confident that when kicked in their vital organs, Americans would pack up and run. Just like in Vietnam. Just like in Mogadishu.

Bin Laden saw his theory of American weakness vindicated during the Clinton era. In 1993, Islamic radicals bombed the World Trade Center. The Clinton administration did little. In 1996, Muslim terrorists attacked the Khobar Towers facility on a U.S. base in Saudi Arabia. No response. In 1998, Al Qaeda bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa. Clinton responded with a few perfunctory strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan. These did no real harm to Al Qaeda and only strengthened the perception of American ineptitude. In 2000, Islamic radicals bombed the U.S. destroyer Cole. Again, the Clinton team failed to act. By his own admission, Bin Laden concluded that his suspicion of American pusillanimity and weakness was correct. He became emboldened to plot the 9/11 attacks.

Still, the 2001 attacks might have been averted had the Clinton administration launched an effective strike against Bin Laden in the years leading up to them. Clinton has said he made every effort to get Bin Laden during his second term. Yet former CIA agent Michael Scheuer estimates that there were about 10 chances to capture or kill Bin Laden during this period and that the Clinton people failed to capitalize on any of them.

Between 1996 and mid-2000, Bin Laden was not in deep hiding. He gave sermons in Kandahar's largest mosque. He talked openly on his satellite phone. He also granted a number of media interviews: in 1996, with author Robert Fisk; in 1997, with Peter Arnett of CNN; in 1998, with John Miller of ABC News; in 1999, with a journalist affiliated with Time magazine. Isn't it strange that all these people could find Bin Laden but the Clinton administration couldn't?

Two lessons can be drawn from these sorry episodes. The first one, derived from Carter's actions, is: In getting rid of the bad regime, make sure that you don't get a worse one. This happened in Iran and could happen again, in Iraq, if leading Democrats in Congress have their way. The second lesson, derived from Clinton's inaction, is that the perception of weakness emboldens our enemies. If the Muslim insurgents and terrorists believe that the U.S. is divided and squeamish about winning the war on terror, they are likely to escalate their attacks on Americans abroad and at home. In that case, 9/11 will be only the beginning.

 

Dinesh D'Souza, a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, is the author, most recently, of "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11."