Mohammed at Iraq The Model addresses a post to Cindy Sheehan:

Ma’am, we asked for your nation’s help and we asked you to stand with us in our war and your nation’s act was (and still is) an act of ultimate courage and unmatched sense of humanity.

Our request is justified, death was our daily bread and a million Iraqi mothers were expecting death to knock on their doors at any second to claim someone from their families.

Your face doesn’t look strange to me at all; I see it everyday on endless numbers of Iraqi women who were struck by losses like yours.

[...]

Your son sacrificed his life for a very noble cause…No, he sacrificed himself for the most precious value in this existence; that is freedom.

His blood didn’t go in vain; your son and our brethren are drawing a great example of selflessness.
God bless his free soul and God bless the souls of his comrades who are fighting evil.
God bless the souls of Iraqis who suffered and died for the sake of freedom.
God bless all the freedom lovers on earth.

You want to know what your son died for, Cindy? Here is your answer. Read the whole thing.

Well, they are all coming out of the woodwork now. Haven’t these idiots learned anything from the last election?

I hope Cindy Sheehan brought lube to Crawford because every anti-war moonbat in this country looks to be jockeying for a chance to ride her ass.

This warrants a blogroll addition. This warrants medication.

Welcome Ace, from the bottom of my cloak room. Playful straight guys are just cool, especially the conservative ones.

**UPDATE** 4/13/05 8:09 AM

Little did I think adding someone I thought was freaking hilarious to the blogroll would invite one of his detractors to bring his issue with Ace to my comments, but Downtown Lad has been busy. So, as a reminder, The Comment Rules. I suppose this is the type of reaction Ace’s humor sparks among those that are especially sensitive and defensive about their sexuality. I am not, and unless someone can point me to something Ace has said that is blatantly hateful (e.g. “I hope that fag dies”), then he stays on the blogroll and I am going to continue to dismiss criticism like Downtown Lad’s as coming from someone that just can’t take a joke.

Bill Clinton suggests Arthur Finkelstein is “self-loathing” for being gay and a member of the GOP.

Former President Bill Clinton wasn’t about to let just anybody attack his wife – especially a gay Republican operative.

Clinton fired back yesterday, suggesting that political consultant Arthur Finkelstein, who has launched a “Stop Her Now” campaign, is suffering from “self-loathing.”

Finkelstein married his male partner in a civil ceremony in Massachusetts in December, with a few of his conservative clients at the nuptial.

“… He went to Massachusetts and married his longtime male partner and then he comes back here and announces this,” Clinton said at a Harlem news conference.

“I thought, one of two things. Either this guy believes his party is not serious, and is totally Machiavellian in his position, or there’s some sort of self-loathing there. I was more sad for him.”

His decision to bring up Finkelstein’s sexuality hearkened back to a similar remark made by John Kerry in an Oct. 13, 2004, presidential debate.

I thought Bill Clinton was more original than to flog the Michael Rogers/John Avarosis “they must be self-loathing” meme. Of course, this comes after Finkelstein launched his “Stop Her Now” campaign against Hillary Clinton. Billy must be really scared. I mean, a gay GOP operative even goes so far as to come out and get MARRIED, PUBLICLY, to his partner and instead of praising that as courageous, he is “self-loathing” in Bill Clinton’s eyes.

Before Bill Clinton starts examining the psyche of others, maybe he should reflect on the deeply embedded personal issues that led him to screw half of Arkansas and develop a taste for interns and cigars.

Given the battle shaping up over Social Security, the new poll asks the question, “Do you support the concept of using some portion of your Social Security taxes to fund a Private Retirement Account that you control?”

Previous Poll:

Do you believe we are the only intelligent life in the universe?

Yes 6.2 % 1 votes

No 87.5 % 14 votes

Not Sure 6.2 % 1 votes

Howard Dean is officially DNC Chairman. Where has my former party gone?

Think the Democrats are universally opposed to making changes to Social Security? Think again.

WASHINGTON (AP) – A second Senate Democrat said Friday he was open to President Bush’s idea of letting people divert some of their Social Security taxes to personal retirement accounts as Republican Party leaders tried to allay re-election fears among wavering GOP lawmakers.

Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., said any plan should be bipartisan, in part to give lawmakers from both parties political cover for supporting major changes to such the popular retirement program.

“I don’t believe that we should rule out the accounts,” Carper said Friday in an interview. “We have a very low savings rate in this country and clearly need to find ways to stimulate savings, and I think we should be open to a wide range of ideas and not dismiss them out of hand.”

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., also has said he is open to discussing the private accounts, saying he wants to see details.

No Senate Democrat has signed onto a Social Security bill, and most say they are absolutely opposed to taking money from the traditional Social Security system to create these accounts. Several Democrats do like the idea of creating personal accounts on top of regular Social Security benefits.

In the House, Democratic Rep. Allen Boyd of Florida is backing a Social Security bill.

This is just the beginning of the cracks. As the political realities of wide-spread support of those under 55 becomes clear, more Democrats will follow.

While the left side of the blogosphere bemoans Jeff Gannon, they seem to be unphased by Russell Mokhiber, reporter for Ralph Nader’s Corporate Crimes Reporter. Mr. Mokhiber is a recipient of the very same daily press pass issued to “Jeff Gannon”. And while Mr. Mokhiber doesn’t go by a pseudonym, he does ask pointedly biased questions, just like most of the reporters in that room.

Some of Mr. Mokhiber’s greatest hits?

02/01/05: Scott, does the President believe in Commandment Number Six – thou shalt not kill – as it applies to the U.S. invasion of Iraq?…

12/06/04: Scott, on the Middle East – many evangelical Christians in the United States are supporting right-wing Jews in Israel who want to rebuild the temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem…

12/03/04: Scott, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday that the Pentagon deliberately misled CNN about the invasion of Fallujah…

11/17/04: Scott,has the White House counsel looked at the President’s legal exposure to a war crimes prosecution?…

If the left is going to go into hysterics because a conservative reporter had the gall to ask how the President was going to get his agenda past a suicidal Democratic party, something that is quickly becoming how Democrats are viewed by the public at large, then obviously they are willing to hold ALL the White House reporters to the same standards, right? Yeah, right.

For the record, I have no issue with Mr. Mokhiber or his questions. I think Scot McClellan said it best:

He, like anyone else, showed that he was representing a news organization that published regularly, and so he was cleared two years ago to receive daily passes, just like many others are. The issue comes up — it becomes, in this day and age, when you have a changing media, it’s not an easy issue to decide or try to pick and choose who is a journalist. And there — it gets into the issue of advocacy journalism. Where do you draw the line? There are a number of people who cross that line in the briefing room.

Glass houses, stones, and all that.

How fitting. (h/t Rob @ Say Anything)

I found this quote in Howard Kurtz’s WaPo column especially amusing, and also indicitive of how CBS’ denial of political bias will continue to reign, at least in the short-term:

CBS News Vice President Linda Mason, named to a new post overseeing broadcast standards, said the network faces a perception problem on the bias question, in part because the Mapes call to Lockhart “gives the impression you’re working with a political campaign to help them.”

“There was a rush because Mary felt it was a great story and she was going to get scooped on it by USA Today,” Mason said. “I think she would have done that with any story. I firmly believe if they found something about Kerry and his past, they’d be rushing to get that on the air, too.”

CoughBULLSHITCough. Is this dingbat serious? At BEST, CBS would cover the story only after every other major news outlet was all over it.

This is the person, the very FIRST person, to hold the new broadcast standards post at CBS and if she can’t see the laundry list of IGNORED stories, UNASKED questions, and OUTRIGHT BIAS in the liberal media today, there is little hope she will have any success reintroducing journalistic broadcast standards (you know, the ones the panel said were completely missing in the fake documents store).

CBS learned nothing except how to better hide their bias the next time.

** UPDATE **

This one is even funnier:

“We didn’t come clean soon enough,” Linda Mason said yesterday. But, she added, “Dan does think he’s constantly attacked. If we backed off every story that was criticized, we wouldn’t be doing any stories.”

HELLO U.S.S. CLUELESS! No one is suggesting that CBS or Dan Rather back off their stories, but if you are CONSTANTLY being attacked for being a liberal hack, don’t you think reflecting on that and doing some soul searching might be in order? That there might be a grain of truth to it? Talk about heads in the sand.

** UPDATE **

Howard Fineman has an interesting take. He is not far off the mark in his analogy of the MSM to a political party, but he seems to forget he too is considered biased, even a partisan hack in some circles, and a member of that party. It is like listening to Bob Dole refer to himself in the third-person.