Bush Administration Stance Toward Iran Vindicated

I remember December of 2007. I remember that every libtard in the country was walking around with freshly wet pants caused by their excitement over the National Intelligence Estimate for Iranian Nuclear Weapons Capability which concluded with a high level of certainty that Iran had abandoned it's aspirations for a nuclear weapon in 2003. And also concluded even if Iran restarted the program, it would be nearly impossible for them to generate a weapon in less than 5-10 years.

I remember every dinosaur media outlet in the country bumping every other major story at the time to headline that Bush had lied about Iran's nuclear capabilities, and had used his strong rhetoric to galvanize the citizens of America into crazed jingoism so that they would support his calls for military action against Iran.

I remember that Bush lied and Ahmadinnerjacket cried. I remember that Bush was defensive about his stance on Iran.

Well, now we know the truth... That Bush guy was a moron! Wait, what? Whadduya mean, 'he was right?!' So Iran didn't abandon their weapons program? Are you sure? Damn, he was right. Sigh.

Turns out that that NIE report was as fake as the picture above. It seems that in this flurry of news coming out regarding Iran's real nuclear capabilities that the dinosaur media has forgotten their own incompetence in reporting the findings of the NIE uncritically. We know that the dinosaur media never highlighted that the NIE's authors included 3 "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials". It also turns out that Western Intel has known about the program and the supposedly secret site for years.

Media mea culpa in 3...2...Wait, it's the media. Nevermind.

Please take the time to comment!

Government Denies Care To Cancer Stricken Veterans

Can you say, 'preview of things to come?'

"My wife would hug me, and it became almost unbearable," he said. "I went to a doctor, and they sent me to the oncologist, and they did biopsies on both sides. And then I ended up with a double mastectomy."


Kelly is one of 20 retired U.S. Marines or sons of Marines who once lived at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and who are now suffering from breast cancer, a disease that strikes about one man for every 100 women who get it.

Wait... 20 retired U.S. Marines or immediate family members who lived at Camp Lejeune now have breast cancer? That's a pretty freaky coincidence, no?

All 20 fear that water contaminated with high levels of toxic chemicals may have caused their illnesses, but the Marine Corps says no link has been found between the contamination and their diseases. Without that link, the men are denied treatment by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which says it can't treat them for a condition that hasn't been shown to have been "service-related."

Huh. So, the same government agency which would be forced to spend millions of dollars in care for these individuals cannot find a link between water contamination, contamination which the military does not dispute, and the cases of cancer. Why, I'm completely shocked by that!

Kelly said his VA representative told him, "It's not the VA's problem, it's the Marine Corps' problem."


And Peter Devereaux, who was stationed at Camp Lejeune in the early 1980s, was told in writing that his breast cancer "neither occurred in nor was caused by service."

One Government Agency pointing at another, neither of which claim responsibility. Shocking.

The men with breast cancer are among about 1,600 retired Marines and Camp Lejeune residents who have filed claims against the federal government. According to congressional investigators, they are seeking nearly $34 billion in compensation for health problems they say stemmed from drinking water at the base that was contaminated with several toxic chemicals, including some the federal government has classified as known or potential cancer-causing agents.

20 cases is coincidence, 1600 cases of disease caused by contaminated wells is indisputable.

In 1980, the Navy hired experts to test for trihalomethanes, a byproduct from chlorination, in the base tap water. The experts reported that some of the base tap water was "highly contaminated," according to a test report.


In 1981, the lab again found "water highly contaminated" -- and added the word "solvents," with an exclamation point. In August 1982, the experts found one sample with levels of trichloroethylene, a degreaser believed to cause cancer, of 1,400 parts per billion. Today's EPA safe level for the substance is five parts per billion.


"We've never seen 1,400 parts per billion of trichloroethylene, so that is very high," said Frank Bove, an epidemiologist with the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

I believe this is what's referred to as a 'smoking gun.'

But it would take until late 1984 and early 1985 for the Corps to begin widespread testing of wells on the base and shutting down ones that had been polluted. In addition to trichloroethylene, chemicals eventually identified in the drinking water included benzene, which the federal government identifies as a known cancer-causing agent; and the dry-cleaning solvent perchloroethylene, a suspected carcinogen.


The Marine Corps said two independent studies have found no link between water contamination and later illnesses. And in a statement to CNN, the Marine Corps wrote, "Once impacted wells were identified, they were promptly removed from service."

Let's see, the contamination was discovered in 1980 and reaffirmed in 1981 and the wells were shut down in late 1984? Hell, by Government standards that qualifies as "promptly removed from service."

A fact-finding panel created by the Corps in 2004 ruled that officials acted properly and that the water was "consistent with general industry practices" at the time. And investigations by the Bush administration's Justice Department and Environmental Protection Agency found no criminal conduct by Marine Corps officials and no violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Ah HA! Now we get to the nut of it! It was all Bush's fault. Bastard...

Two years ago, Congress ordered the Marine Corps to notify all Marines and their families who might have been exposed -- an estimated 500,000 people. The Marines say they have worked with environmental and health agencies "from the beginning" to determine whether the contamination resulted in any illness, and "this collaboration continues to the present day."


"I think if cancer of the breast in men or other kinds of cancer have been linked to this exposure, that we ought to know about that," said Richard Clapp, a nationally recognized epidemiologist who has studied clusters of cancer cases at toxic sites. "The families deserve that. The veterans themselves should know about that, and they should be compensated if the link can be made."


But for now, there is no proven link -- just Marines and their families who say they are suffering.

I'm ready to turn over my health care decisions to the government! Who's with me?!

Please take the time to comment!

Tom Ridge: Schizophrenic

I was politically pressured to elevate the threat level. No, I wasn't.

How was this thought process birthed, there Tommy?

'I'm gonna make an outrageous claim, sure to ignite a fire in the press. That'll get me another 100,000 book sales! And no one within the former Bush administration will ever know, because they're too dumb to read, heh. I'm a genius!'

So, how many former Bush Administration flunkies are we going to have to be subjected to plugging their books?

And people accused Bush of being retarded... Seriously, this brings latest count to at least four former administration officials, who are indeed.


Please take the time to comment!

Major Course Correction Needed

Scrap that, continue on Democrats! Is anybody really shocked by this? Yeah, maybe if you'd been on a family vacation at the hottest resort on Mars for a year, you'd be surprised, but otherwise no big shock here.

This got me to thinking. Is this expected gain for the Republicrats a result of people becoming wise to the error of liberal ways, or is it merely disdain for the party in power? Nearly each of the last 6 Presidents has seen their approval numbers dip below the 50% mark, so being an unpopular CIC, is not unprecedented. However, to fall so far so fast?

I would argue that a large amount of the backlash within this country stems from the President's misreading of the election results last November. They read it as a landslide victory and a mandate for Obama's agenda to be carried out. However, there was no significant increase in voter turnout versus the last few Presidential election cycles. As a matter of fact, the increased voter margin that Obama experienced is roughly equal to the amount of additional voters this cycle, approximately 4 million voters. Considering the number of Republicans that sat out this election cycle (2.08 million), had Obama actually earned himself a landslide and a mandate, the margin of victory should have been significantly higher than it was. Just to chase this rabbit a little further, the man Barack Obama owes his election to most significantly is George W. Bush. Had public sentiment not weighed so heavily against Bush during the last 2 years of his term, this election would have been significantly closer and likely would have resulted in a McCain victory. *Shudder

All of this to say, Obama has misread his so called mandate and in his effort to push through sweeping reforms has caused outrage amongst the electorate and citizenry. I predict that during the next two national election cycles (2010 & 2012) the United States will see a dramatic increase in the number of registered voters, and size of election day turnout. Just as Barack Obama owes his Presidential victory to George W. Bush, gains made by the Republicans in 2010 and 2012 are owed significantly to Barack Obama.

At the end of the day, however, I believe that there is a general disdain for whomever holds the highest office and by proxy whichever party the President belongs to.


Please take the time to comment!

Let's Get Wee Weed!

Last evening I came home with the intention of writing some more of the best blog posts you'll ever read, ever, but instead I got caught up reading some of the other outstanding, albeit less awesome than my own, blogs. Here for you are a collection of some of the great work I beheld last night!

RSMcCain tees up another loon.

Hikes up her skirt a little more.

I'm getting ready to assign the nickname blog tease to RSMcCain, seriously...

Even Dan Riehl is in on this teasefest!

It's so close I can taste it and the anticipation is killing me!

Then this guy comes along and deflates the balloon. No fanfare, no long winded RSMcCain post about all the hours of gumshoeing, nothing. I feel... violated. All this build up with no 'pop,' now I have a case of blue blogs.

Then to top it all off, I find out my favorite blogger is going on 'Hiatus'.

With all this traffic I am sending RSMcCain's way, he's going to have to link me as the reason he got a Million blog hits in less than a year. Anyway, here is an intellectual and detailed explanation shedding light on the marxist roots of Political Correctness. Do yourself a favor and watch both videos (the one embedded and the one that is linked).

Pac-10 h8r!

Medical Genius! H/T Pat.

The return of Reagan's Optimism?

Good news Paul, there's hope!

Andy pegs the libtard politicians!

The difference between now and WW2 is that when this nation made a mistake (i.e. Japanese Internment) we took responsibility and made amends as a nation. No longer the case, now it's personal because you took orders from a president of the wrong political party. Joey Liebs breaks it down.

Somebody get me this bumper sticker, stat!

Moral Obligation persuasion failure!

How many Kenyans can you feed for the price of a few solar panels?

Hope & Fail!

Angry White People!

I'll know if you didn't read all of these links, and I will send the Link Dump Czar after you... I'm just saying.

(UPDATED) In Case You Didn't Know

UPDATE- Andy and ChristinaJade share their political leanings! Also, I've adjusted where a few folks lie on the political spectrum. Let me know your thoughts!



---

Lifted from Conservative Cotton

I align with the political 'Far Right.' I am one of those nut jobs your President warned you about.

My Political Views
Classicaliberal is a far-right social moderate. He is also a neo-con and culturally conservative. Classicaliberal's scores (from 0 to 10):
Economic issues:+8.78 right
Social issues:+0.19 libertarian
Foreign policy:+4.52 neo-con
Cultural identification:+4.15 conservative

Political Spectrum Quiz

However, as most of us know, the political spectrum as illustrated above is a misnomer. It should look more like this:

Some notes:

• Obama is the most radical leftist President America has known.
• Reagan is placed where he was philosophically at the end of his Presidency. He started off with a much more aggressive stance on the size and role of Government (i.e. he ran on eliminating the Dept. of Education).
• Notice the little difference between Johnny Mac and Billy Jeff.
• Ron Paul is an isolationist who wants to repeal the Federal Reserve. In my limited study on currently serving politicians, he would be the most 'anarchist' candidate around.
• I believe I align closely with where Reagan was as a candidate. Less government, specifically in the form of eliminating the Dept. of Education and scaling back the role of the Dept. of Engery, however, I believe that some government involvement is required in our monetary supply. That's why I'm a little closer to center than Ron Paul.
  
• America is a center right country, thus the big blue dot. Most Americans are content with the amount of government currently, and the country leans just a little liberal on social issues.
• This graph clearly indicates that the whole 'Right Wing Nazi' thing is a farce. Nazi is the German word for Nationalist Socialist Party. Nationalists and Socialists are in favor of complete governmental control, which falls on the far left of the political spectrum. It is impossible to be politically conservative and a nazi, or fascist.
  

Where do you fall? Let me know in the comments below. Where do you think the Founders would fall on this list? Feel free to download the image and MS Paint your name in where you feel you belong. Email your graph back to me. If I receive enough of a response, I'll post the results later this week. Happy painting!

I'm Back! And the Latest In The Greatest Nonstory of The Bush Administration

Bane of Libtards everywhere.

Sorry for the lack of posts over the last 72 hours, I've been all over the beautiful state of Californistan, just over 650 miles in 24 hours. Anyhow, I'm back home now and jonesin for a bloggy fix! Let's dive right in, shall we?

The Washington Post recently had an article covering the new testimony from Karl Rove in closed door hearings over the 9 fired US Attorneys. Being questioned is what, if any, role did White House staffers have in the firings of the 9 US Attorneys back in 2006-2007.

The reason that the firings of the US Attorney's is because no President had ever fired a sitting US Attorney, since the founding. None except Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton, who axed all 93 soon after taking the White House. The difference, libtards claim, is that W Bush did it for political reasons and he did it in the middle of his 2nd term.

First, let's back up here and cover the appointments of US Attorneys and under what circumstances they serve. From teh Wikipedia:

"The U.S. Attorney is appointed by the President of the United States for a term of four years, with appointments subject to confirmation by the Senate. A U.S. Attorney shall continue in office, beyond the appointed term, until a successor is appointed and qualified. By law, each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President. The Attorney General has had the authority since 1986 to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys to fill a vacancy."

US Attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President, and 'By law, each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.'

Another claim is that W fired the attorney's for political reasons...gasp! Once again quoting from teh Wikipedia:

"By tradition, U.S. Attorneys are replaced only at the start of a new White House administration. U.S. Attorneys hold a "political" office, and therefore they are considered to "serve at the pleasure of the President." At the beginning of a new presidential administration, it is traditional for all 93 U.S. Attorneys to submit a letter of resignation. When a new President is from a different political party, almost all of the resignations will be eventually accepted. The attorneys are then replaced by new political appointees, typically from the new President's party."

Let's see, after accepting the resignations from or firing an attorney, the President selects a new POLITICAL appointee? Huh, so then that whole 'political reasons' thing doesn't hold any water...

Okay, so we've established that W's three predecessors had removed US Attorney's from office, and that each had the constitutional authority to do so. So... that leaves Bush fired them in 'an unprecedented' middle of the [second] term. I'm sorry, but 'who cares?' Oh, that's right, the law enforcement hating left...sigh.

The reality is that Federal Prosecutors (aka US Attorneys) are in what is considered a political position and are subject to Presidential dismissal at any time, regardless of reason. This story is nothing more than the continuation of the liberal attack machine attempting to bring the Bush Administration down for: stealing the election in 2000, starting the war in Iraq, lying about WMD, stealing the election in 2004, refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol, causing global warming, creating the AIDS virus to keep the black man down, lying about man landing on the moon, Haliburton, Blackwater, Enron, ad nauseam, etc., so on and so forth, insert crackpot conspiracy theory here. Getting anyone in the executive branch, but especially in someone within the President's circle was the libtard's wet dream with Bush being at the top of the list, and Karl Rove being number two.

The facts are: The Federal Prosecutors are POLITICAL appointees. The Federal Prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President, and can be terminated at his discretion. End of story, get over it and move on with your lives you bitter, defeated bastards.

54% of Americans Still Too Dumb to Breathe On Their Own.

H/T to HotAir



Rasmussen is reporting in a recent poll that 54% of Americans still blame George Bush for our current Economic situation... Seriously, sometimes I just want to pack it all in and hang myself by my scrotum from a tree, as I believe that would be less painful than dealing with these 54% of Americans, but I digress. In another poll, roughly the same percentage of those surveyed state that they look at the toilet paper after they wipe... coincidence?!

Help me out here... which President wanted their legacy to include the greatest increase in minority homeowners in spite of the risk of increased loan defaults? Which President's Justice Department threatened banks with investigation if they did not increase the number of home loans to at risk (read: minority) borrowers? Which President recently flushed $1.3 Trillion down the toilet?

The answer? NOT BUSH!

Which Congressional Members denied there was inherent risks in allowing Fannie May and Freddie Mac to continue the sub-prime loan insuring? Which Congressional Members got sweet heart deals from Lenders for homes for themselves? Which (gay) Congressional Member got their boyfriend a sweet executive position at one of the GSO's? Which Congressional Members recently passed a jobs killing Minimum Wage increase?

The answer? NOT REPUBLICANS!

Okay, so where and how does blame land on Bush's shoulders?