Rumsfeld comments

The new theme of the military establishment, judging by Secretary Rumsfeld's briefing yesterday, is that "this is their country". Brit Hume (FoxNews) pointed this out in the report on the briefing, playing 5-6 clips of Rumsfeld saying pretty much the same thing over and over again. As a side note ... Rumsfeld did say the same thing using different words, so once again the Republicans prove that they are not quite as good a parroting as the mindless Democrats are.

The one interesting thing that I got out of this was Rumsfeld's comments about us doing it for the Iraqis vs. letting them do it themselves. In a response to one of the questions about troop strength, he responded that we don't WANT the US Military to do all of the work if we can give the Iraqis a shot at doing it ... even if they are not as good as we are ... because they need the experiences, training opportunities, and CONFIDENCE to solve their own problems. One can certainly see where the slow progress (liberal perception, at least, the progress in Iraq has been OUTSTANDING in any historical context) can at least partially be attributed to the fact that we are allowing the Iraqis as big of a role as we possibly can.

The question that I have is ... exactly why did it take until now for the Administration to finally start SAYING these things? I mean ... this is so obvious, particularly to anybody that has a good business (delegation) or even raising children. Instead of President Bush constantly harping on "hard work", "hard work", "hard work" ... PUUUUUKKKKEEEEE! Why was he not instead emphasizing the simple theme of "do for themselves"?

Again, hopefully we will continue to hear this theme throughout Republican circles to help undo the damage that the garbage from the liberals has created.

Joe Lieberman Masterpiece

As we all know (and I believe all the lying liberals know ... which is what makes them liars), America is kicking butt and taking names in Iraq. ALL of the demonstrated evidence stands behind what the President has been saying all along ... we are making outstanding progress, we are winning, and the VAST MAJORITY of Iraqis want us there until we are no longer needed.

Proof, read Joe Lieberman's OUTSTANDING piece in the 29Nov2005 issue of the Wall Street Journal. Some interesting quotes (copyright Dow Jones) :

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.
The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear and compelling vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress against those 10,000 terrorists who would take it from them.

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.

The *rhetorical* comments by Democrats are demonstrably false:

1) A few lunatics blowing themselves up DOES NOT DEFINE DEFEAT, nor does it mean that the insurgency is growing. Do the math ... if there are 27 million Iraqis, and if 10000 of them are lunatic jihadists, you could literally have 10 of them blow themselves up everyday for the next 3 years and still not run out. This of course ignores the fact that Osama is pumping in new ones every day (see point #3), and there are nowhere near 10 of these idiots blowing themselves up DAILY.

2) Not having a set date for withdrawal DOES NOT DEFINE A LACK OF A PLAN. As specified in Lieberman's piece ... you leave when the job is done, and the job is done when there is no more progress required. Again, this completely ignores the fact that we are making great progress killing terrorists ... it only focuses on the fact that we are making excellent progress politically and in rebuilding infrastructure.

3) The bumper sticker talking point about "creating terrorists faster than we can kill them" is another left wing lie. First off, if you GUARANTEE that a jihadist will die, that makes the stakes a lot higher for any idiot joining the "cause". Do you think GW blowing up a house full of jihadists makes some young punk watching Al Jazeera MORE or LESS likely to join "the team"? Now, do you think the tearful plea by Rep John Murtha would be a useful recruiting tool for US or THEM? Give me a break ... Osama was probably laughing his BUTT off when he saw the same loser who called for a pullout in Somalia (number 1 recruiting tool for Al Queda pre-911) going to bat for Al Queda again in Iraq!

Now, one other message that has been coming loud and clear ... our military and the Iraqis that our on OUR SIDE are being severely impacted by the rhetoric of Democrats. Again, never mind the fact that Al Jazeera and Al Queda are LOVING the stuff coming from Kennedy, Reid, Pelossi, etc. The empty headed lies by the liberals about "being against the war but for the troops" is a crock of feces ... the TROOPS HATE THE RHETORIC ... and the Democrats are knowingly hurting our military as much as they possibly can. They are putting politics above victory, above the troops, and are summarily urinating on the graves of every soldier that perished, and every wounded veteran.

PERIOD!

So, what do you need to do? First off, NEVER EVER let a Democrap / liberal get away with their BS about Iraq. You MUST get in their face and make THEM scared of spouting off this total crap. If our soldiers are willing to put their asses on the line to protect your happy heiny, the LEAST you can do is to cover their flanks when these liars are undermining their efforts on the home front.

The Democraps have had free reign to lie through their teeth about the conditions in Iraq, how the war is being conducted, the progress being made across the board, etc. The time has long since passed since we should have been in their faces making them prove their lies, not to mention challenging them to PROVE TO US exactly how they would fight the war.

Thank GOD Bush has finally engaged, and the Republicans pulled off a major rhetorical victory by forcing a vote on Murtha's moronic plea to pull out. This article by Lieberman will also prove to be a powerful weapon against liberal lies. However, these weapons are ONLY useful if you actually pick them up and use them. The ball is in our court, there is no time like now to do something with it.

Simple ... they are lying

Was tuned into the radio this morning and heard a comment (or perhaps a replay of a comment) about the situation with the security forces in Iraq. His question was along the lines of "How can we go from 1 battalion to 200,000 soldiers being ready for operations in a matter of ... weeks?"

Simple ... the 1 battalion number came from Democrats, and the Democrats are lying.

What has been amazing to me is how much the liberals have been getting away with ... I think that literally many people in this country have consumed the garbage being massed produced by the DNC and parroted by the media.

Why?

Well, mostly because Bush and Rumsfeld have not responded.

Think about it ... is the oil flowing or not? When the terrorists were hitting the pipelines monthly, it was the top running story. When was the last time you heard the pipeline was taken out?

How about power, water, etc.? Well, when it WAS NOT working, you saw stories on it everyday ... similar to the crap you were fed from New Orleans. Now, however, what are you hearing? Nothing ... guess why?

The ONLY guys I hear talking about the good things happening are the military guys themselves. Whenever I talk to one (and I go out of my way to find out since I want to personally thank as many as I can) ... they cannot wait to talk about all the good things that are happening there. Also, and in virtually every case I have personally encountered, they are not happy (mostly bitter, some really pissed off) with the news coverage ... or should I say lack thereof. They want the credit for the good that happens.

Again, I blame Bush and Rumsfeld ... since blaming the liberals is redundant. I expect D.C. democraps to be despicable slime ... to be the poster boys/girls for Al Jazeera and Al Queda. But the lack of a response by the good guys is inexcusable.

Think about it ... Rumsfeld was at his high point during the war ... ripping on the media, always good for a great zinger ... where the hell has he been? Put him back on there front and center, and get the rest of the administration hammering home the positive message about Iraq. Also, whenever responding to a Democrat whine, the message should be "yeah, another whining liberal ... but what positive thing have they offered to help us win?" BEFORE dismissing of the whine with the facts.

And if I hear GW say "it is hard work" one more time, I am going to puke.

Liberal Bias ... point in case

I was really busy last week ... but I made a mental note of something that I happened to notice while running down the hallway of the hotel. USA Today (liberal garbage) headline, center story, above the fold (to paraphrase, since I did not grab the paper) ... "Economy moving forward..."!

Oh my god ... is the press changing? Of course not ... the rest of the article title was "but many left behind".

Never mind that there was another massive negative headline, in much bigger font, in the right column story ... I think it was the massive GM layoffs.

Now, your average lefty ... who runs the various stats to prove that there is no difference between how reporting is done during various administrations ... would run a stat that see this as being a positive expression on the economy during a Republican administration. However, if you read the title of the article only, you would not get that impression, would you? Never mind the fact that the much bigger heading, the one that is meant to draw your attention away from the good news about the economy, is profoundly negative. Finally, never mind that the picture between the two parts of the heading about the good news story is meant to be negative.

What is also noteworthy is that the first positive statement about the economy is in paragraph 4, second sentence. Up to that point, you read the sob story about some schmuck from Michigan who's COL adjustment is not meeting expectations. Then the article gets into a bunch of other carefully selected statistics about how bad things are despite the numbers.

Oh, but there's no difference between how reporting is done by the unbiased news media. Nope, and the stats prove it!

The Traitor speaks ...

Senator Kerry ... the guy who helped destroy American victory in Vietnam by lying through his teeth in Congressional testimony ... now has the cajones to comment about Dick Cheney's credibility when it comes to the Iraq war. His comments (quoted from several sources so I cannot guarantee precise wording) was ...

“it is hard to name a government official with less credibility on Iraq” than Cheney

Excuse me? I think Mr. Kerry can look in the mirror to see somebody that has less credibility on ANYTHING. For that matter, I cannot think of an entire STATE that has less credibility on the war than Massachusetts, given how both of its Senators are demonstrated liars, and who both have been unabashed in accusing the US military of wholesale war crimes without a shred of evidence to support their claims. I venture to say that few individuals in the federal government have been quoted more by Al Jazeera and Al Queda than the (dis-) honorable senators from Massachusetts.

So, Mr. "I voted for it before I voted against it" ... you would be best served (actually, WE would be best served) if you would spew forth your venomous and disgraceful talking points without calling into question the character of the individuals you are falsely accusing. Actually, we would all be best served if you would just shut up.

No WMDs?

I have seen and heard about a recent spate of reports regarding 500 tons of raw uranium and the buried centrifuge parts that they pulled out of Iraq after the invasion. I also heard another story about 2 tons of "processed" uranium, not highly enriched weapons grade but one heck of a lot closer than the yellow cake stuff. What really seemed strange about the reports is that the "hosts" in the discussions were nonchalant about the reports, like it was "old news", that everybody knew about it.

I had not heard about the uranium, and it would seem to me (since I tend to pay attention to these things) that most Americans had not known about this. I had known about the parts ... this was indeed covered by the media and written about by Saddam's top nuclear scientist ... but essentially dismissed by liberals ... and I was willing to accept the fact that without other stuff, having some parts (even if it was enough to actually build an operating centrifuge) is fairly useless without the fuel.

I have been scratching my head about this, because it seems to me that this should be the central message in any discussion about WMDs ... Saddam had already begun the process of enriching the uranium, his top scientist wrote all about how Saddam had every intention of creating a bomb once the heat was off, Saddam was busy lining everybody's pockets to get the heat off. He had the parts, he had the fuel, and his scientist says he had every intention of getting a bomb as soon as he could. So what the hell is the discussion?

I have also been scratching my head about the whole "fertilizer" deal ... how stupid do you have to be (Democrats excluded ... they love to play stupid) to believe that those trucks they found were really for fertilizer? I mean, those things were scrubbed down cleaner than an operating room, without even the evidence that any FERTILIZER chemicals were there, let alone anything else. Have you been to a farm lately? Trust me that there are precious few farms I have been too that I would consider to be cleaner than a hospital.

How about the chemical suits that they found? During the fall of Saddam, our boys pulled up to buildings that had stockpiles of chemical suits that the Iraqi army had staged in advanced positions. I guess that as a Democrat you play stupid and pretend like this was there in fear of American chemical weapons??? Actually, as a Democrat, you just ignore this fact, because you know damned well the news media is not going to bother to bring it up again and therefore nobody in the public will think about it.

Not convinced? OK, what about the videos of the trucks driving out the back door while the UN weapons inspectors were being held off from getting into facilities? Let's ignore for the moment that the Iraqis actually had welcome wagons for the UN inspectors when they showed up for a "surprise" inspection (hmmm, and Saddam was lining the pockets of UN chiefs all the way up to Kofi's kid, eh?). Even then, the Iraqis were plainly seen sneaking stuff out of facilities that were being inspected. Mr. Democrat ... can you please pull your head out of your ass long enough to explain what was on those trucks? Just tidying up the place, huh?

Where are the Republicans

So where are the Republicans on this one??? I only half blame the Democrats because even though they are lying through their teeth, nobody is holding them accountable. I mean, eventually their insanity (if we are dumb enough to follow it) will get us killed, but they are too arrogant to believe it will happen ... the sane must prevail. Nonetheless ... the Republicans are deaf and dumb on this issue ... and are to blame moreso then the Democraps.

The only thing necessary for evil (i.e. Democraps) to triumph is for good people to stand silent.

Finally ...

At long last, GW crawled out from under whatever rock he was hiding under and shot back at the lying Democrats who want to pretend that the beginning of time occured the day that we invaded Iraq.

In his Veteran's Day speech, Bush said that he doesn't mind criticism of the policy or even criticism of HOW the war was being carried out, but going back and trying to rewrite history in terms of the reasons for going to war is out of bounds. He also pointed out what the news media has not (with very few exceptions) ... that the Democraps ALL saw the exact same thing that the Administration did, and most of them came to the EXACT SAME CONCLUSIONS.

Nonetheless ... I suppose GW is still GW ... and he is too darned nice for his own (and the collective) good. At least he has taken the shot across the bow of the paper ship the Democrats are floating on, and we can only pray that he follows through and sinks that tub of manure fast and furious.

Now for some Comic Relief : The Fat Designated Driver from Mass. Comments

A release by the poster child for MADD, Ted Kennedy, indicates he was not happy with Mr. Bush using Veterans Day for political purposes.

Apparently he did not hear the original audio, in which the MILITARY people that was Mr. Bush's audience gave the Commander In Chief RESOUNDING applause throughout his speech, particularly when he got on the subject of the lying through their teeth Democrats trying to rewrite history.

What is remarkable, however, is that this Senator (the fat, drunk killer) spent day after day after day ... beating down the military in the Abu Ghraib situation ... trying to leave the impression that our entire fighting force was a bunch of renegade, trashy sleeze balls. He sure did not give a damn what the military thought when he and Senator (D)Turbin were comparing the military to Nazis, Polpot and other historical war criminals, but NOWWWW he is "Mr. Sensitive" about how Mr. Bush uses Veteran's Day?

Excuse me while my head explodes.

Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.

Wall Street Finally Making money again

As indicated in the last post ... I was browsing through the AM bands and came across Bloomberg radio who were reporting that after 5 years, and $12B in fines, Wall Street firms are finally showing a profit again.

I think there are two interesting points to this, one public and one very personal.

The first is the elephant in the living room ... these $12B in fines are a result of the massive fraud and corruption perpetrated against hard working Americans during the Clinton years. Clinton kool-aid drinkers will never stop talking about how great the economy was under der Schlickmeister ... but these $12B in fines are the proof of half of my theory on the economy of the 90s ... basically that a lot of what was going on was a house of cards built by Wall Street brokers. People were paying obscene amounts of money for paper, and brokers were (criminally) hyping the value of that paper. It turned out to be the world's biggest ponzi scheme ... and not only did Clinton's Justice Dept and SEC ignore it (ignoring Fed Chief Greenspans' alerts), but key players in his administration were pocketing millions in the various scams that were going on.

To add insult to injury, consider the fact that we (people who had investments) all got screwed, and yet once again the government is the beneficiary.

On the personal side ... I called the whole thing way back in 2000. For those of you that were not around back then ... there was a massive email swap going on (what ended up being the predecessor to this blog), and I laid out the case that the stock market would collapse (with a caveat), there would be a significant recession, etc. In fact, I finished with the statement that I could not understand why anybody would want to inherit the mess that Clinton's disasterous presidency would leave behind, particularly a Republican who would get all of the blame.

This turned out to be exactly what happened. What has been amazing is that GW Bush has managed to salvage the economy despite the monstrous additional problems that came up (9-11, hurricanes, never-ending run of natural disasters, etc.), and things are roaring now. This speaks to the amazing job that GW has done in his terms : given the dire situation the country was in at the end of Clinton on virtually every front, it would have been WAY too starry-eyed to predict back then that anybody could pick up the pieces left behind. If you want to scare the heck out of yourself ... could you imagine how bad off we would be right now if Gore had been successful in the Florida 'overthrow'?

Regarding the caveat to the market crash ... the one buffer I believe is built into the system now is the retirement accounts ... there are millions of dollars that buy up stocks every single week automatically, so any major problems in the market will be buffered as a result.

Have we learned any lessons?

Let us hope and pray that we have learned our lessons. Let us hope that we never elect another totally morally bankrupt disaster like Clinton, or his wife!

Unfortunately, we may do so precisely because (it seems that) only people like myself are pointing out the obvious (that the massive corruption and fraud CAUSED much of the boom), have you seen one article talking about it? Don't hold your breath.

No big deal ... the Republicans should be front and center pointing out this stuff, right?

Hello? anybody out there?

There was an election yesterday, ya know

Granted ... I have been unable to tune into a lot of what is going on in the world for personal reasons, so perhaps that is why I have this weird sense about nothing all that important going on. Perhaps it is also tied to the fact that there was nothing that I am aware of going on in New Mexico (election wise) ... our stuff was a few weeks ago. Catching glimpses of the news last night and on the radio this morning ... it sounded like there were OVERWHELMING defeats of Republicans in the elections yesterday, and I guess somebody was laying this down as a complete defeat for GW Bush.

Huh? What was up, as far as I can determine, were some state initiatives in California, and a couple of governer positions in the northeast (leftist) coast. In the "big" ones (were there others?) ... the "self-outing" gay democrat (you remember, the guy who put his gay lover in charge of homeland security) from New Jersey was replaced by another corrupt democrat, and the democrat from Virginia was replaced by another democrat. In CA ... the lefties decided to keep the corrupt institutions put in place by democrats to keep that state in eternal bankruptcy ... despite the best efforts of Governor Arnold.

So I guess that replacing democrats with democrats is considered massive victories by Democrats? And this taking place in left wing areas of the country?

Seriously though ... the way it was coming across on the radio was that this was a humiliating defeat for Republicans ... so I really came in this morning and pulled up the state governments of VA and NJ to see exactly who these Republicans were that got kicked out of office ... and that is why I am confused. It was sort of the same thing in Ohio a little while ago ... Democrats were crowing about the fact that their guy did not lose by as much as they expected him to ... ignoring of course the fact that the guy pretended like he was a conservative during the campaign.

Well, I say now what I said then ... I sure hope the lefties keep holding themselves to these same standards going forward!!!

The hero of the left trips on his tongue, again

By now, you have probably heard the asinine story Clinton told at Rosa Parks' funeral, about how he and his friends, in a showing of support for what Rosa did ... got up from their seats in the front of the bus and went to the back.

Oh, the tears were flowing (at least those of the lefties) ... what a great man ... the first "black" president.

You know something ... I just knew, without a doubt ... that within 24 hours we would know that Clinton was lying through his teeth. Again, this is not brilliance or anything ... in fact it would be far more brilliant to figure out the one occasion in his life where Bill Clinton did NOT lie ... where a story of his could actually be substantiated. It was not even the fact that on its surface ... a nine year old making a political statement ... was obviously a real stretch to believe. Nope ... that was not even it ... you just knew that within moments somebody, somewhere ... would provide the evidence that he was lying through his teeth because Bill Clinton is an idiot who does not even check to see if his lies are even feasible.

The schools in Arkansas were not desegregated until 2 years after Mrs. Parks' famous ride. Bill Clinton could not have been on a school bus with black kids as his story goes.

OK, OK ... of course this man is desperately ill ... I mean he just has this psychological problem where he "lives" his passions into his memory: he may really be sick enough to think that he really did move to the back of a bus with black kids when he was a kid.

What will be interesting to see is how people (i.e. lefties) respond to this ... whether or not they will be offended by this lie. I mean, it is one thing to upstage a true hero, given what a complete coward Bill Clinton is. It is a whole other thing to do so at a funeral meant to honor the hero ... to make himself equal to Mrs. Parks while she is being memorialized. This should have been offensive enough ... and I am fascinated (albeit not surprised) by the silence of the so-called black leadership. But now that we know it was a bald-faced lie ... let us see where this leads.

Wow ... you can hear a pin drop.

Just for fun ... imagine that Dick Cheney attended the event, and spent the time touting how Republicans were the ones that actually made Civil Rights legislation happen (which is actually true) ... that Republicans voted for Civil Rights in numbers (percentages) superior to those of Democraps. What do you think the reply would be!?!

Just think about it.

Now, this would have been the TRUTH, and it would have been ugly. In Clinton's case, you had a coward that denigrated Rosa's memorial by raising himself to her level, and he did it by lying through his slimey white teeth.

Will Bill Clinton EVER go away?

Harry's 'Hail Mary': liberal bliss!

After the disasterous letdowns for liberals last week, and in a desperate attempt to recharge the radical lunatics that now comprise the base of the Democrat party, Harry Reid invokes a little used and rarely needed "rule" to pull the Senate into a secret session. The message Harry tries to impart ... that "the Republicans are hiding something and this desperate move is necessary to hash them out!" The truth ... "everything we have tried so far has failed, and our faithful are getting tired of losing".

Well, Harry, get used to it (losing) ... because even this will not change the fact that you have absolutely nothing.

The original purpose for rule 21 was to allow the Senate to hash out details of highly sensitive matters ... i.e. wartime plans, intelligence, and the like ... without allowing our enemies to exploit the openness of our system to gain an advantage. It results in a session of the Senate being closed to the public.

In all sincerity, we probably need to have rule 21 used a lot more, since in recent history the Democrats have used the floor of the Senate to expose US objectives and even put US operatives in jeapordy to achieve their political objectives.

The Republicans were incensed ... to the glee of lefty crackpots ... but not for reasons that the media would have you think ("they are trying to hide something"). This is simply not how things work in the Senate ... they are supposed to be more "civilized" than this. There was no good reason for Reid to invoke rule 21 without letting Frist know it was coming, unless of course Reid was doing it to be a jerk. It was very fun to watch the other liberal Senators covering for Reid ... they obviously knew this was coming but you know it had to turn their stomachs ... like I said, the Senators like to think of themselves as the "stable" body: congenial, stoic, intellectual ... and Reid turned that on its head.

What was really strange, and of course it is not being reported ... is that what they were screaming for was already in play ... the subcomittee was working on the report, and in fact had already announced it would be released next week. Again, this shows that the politically bankrupt Democrats are absolutely dependent upon their friends in the media to cover for them.

I wrote about this, however, because I could not help the flashback that I got from this ... and those of you not familiar with "Black and Blue" division NFL football, please forgive me. You see, I am a diehard Green Bay Packer fan, and our arch nemesis is the Chicago Bears. For many years, particularly during the Brett Favre years, the Bears have been absolutely pathetic. During the Dave Wannstedt years, it was particularly bad, and the Bears were (in)famous for trying these whacky trick plays. Why? It was because they basically knew they could not beat the Packers straight up, so they had to try "rarely used" (ahem) backdoor ways to try to win.

Well ... it rarely if ever worked (the play that is) ... and the Bears went some 5 years or so before finally squeezing out a win.

Judging by Reid's innumerable miscalculations, particularly the fact that he assumes that the media is capable of covering up the truth of what is really going on, I see the Democraps on the same path as those hapless Bears teams of the 90s.

The best part is watching the liberal response ... "Brilliant" ... they tout ... "Masterful". Huh? What exactly was "brilliant" about it? Wait 48 hours and nobody will even remember what "rule 21" means.

You see, my radical lefty friends ... nobody but hardcore kool-aid drinkers even care if Bush manipulated the information (which he did not have to, but whatever). Everybody knows that intelligence is going to be manipulated ... that is what politicians do ... you might want to look at the speeches by all your left wing heroes in 2002-2003 ... they sounded more "bent" than did Mr. Bush. In fact, if we want to go back to the late 90s, the top Democraps were talking about Saddam's nukes like they were a done deal.

So even if Bush did the absolute WORST manipulation of information that you can possibly accuse him of, nobody will care. I will further assert that if it does come to people actually starting to care about it, then Bush will be lumped in with all the top Democrap leadership that were saying the EXACT same thing. This is far more damaging to Democrats however ... since their only excuse for manipulating the information is POLITICAL, and not national security. I predict that if it came to this, the problem will cost Democraps FAR MORE DAMAGE than accusing GW for sticking to intelligence that turned out to be wrong.

Nonetheless ... watching the liberals jump for joy is as entertaining as watching the Bears fans cheer and bounce and get their hopes up because one of these goofy trick plays work. In the end, when the time runs out in the fourth quarter ... we see what the score is, and the good guys win ... again.