Today's pop quiz on world politics has one question. Good luck!

Question:
Who recently labeled President Bush as a devil, imperialist, fascist, assassin, stupid, criminal, killer, madman, and genocidal murderer?

Possible Answers:
A. Hugo Chavez
B. Sen. Harry Reid
C. Al Franken
D. The New York Times
E. All of them
F. Answer is A, but the rest didn't disagree.

Voters should be concerned when you cannot distinguish the crazed rants of a South American communist dictator from the impressions given by a major U.S. political party and its mouthpieces.

[Update]

Rep. Charlie Rangel, a Harlem Democrat who has called President Bush just about every name in the book including "our Bull Conner," just concluded a press conference on the Chavez anti-Bush speech in which Rep. Rangel said, "You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, but do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State."

Well, when I heard him, I admit that I was surprised. Maybe he hates the competition on attacking President Bush. But, Rep. Rangel did let some people of the world know that we may have squabbles among ourselves, just like a family, but that doesn't mean that we want outsiders to come here and attack our family members. That's how it should be. Let's see how many other Democrats and members of the media follow suit.

[More]

Leading Bush critic at home calls Chavez a "thug"

One of President George W. Bush's fiercest political opponents at home took his side on Thursday, calling Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez a "thug" for his remark that Bush is like the devil. "Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he is an everyday thug," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference, referring to Chavez' comments in a U.N. General Assembly speech on Wednesday. "Hugo Chavez abused the privilege that he had, speaking at the United Nations," said Pelosi, a frequent Bush critic. "He demeaned himself and he demeaned Venezuela."

If this keeps up and if Michael Moore comes out to defend President Bush, then I'll know that I've entered "The Twilight Zone" or "Bizarro World."

UPDATE AGAIN (But this time from GM) Well, that didn't take long, for ole Tom Harkin (DIM-0-crat, Iowa) to up the ante:

Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, a democrat, today defended Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's United Nations speech in which Chavez called President George Bush the devil. Harkin said the comments were "incendiary", then went on to say, "Let me put it this way, I can understand the frustration, ah, and the anger of certain people around the world because of George Bush's policies." Harkin continued what has been frequent criticism of the president's foreign policy."

[More Chavez Insults]

Oh, no! How bad can it get? Further talking about President Bush, Hugo Chavez said, "He walks like John Wayne." And, what's wrong with John Wayne? Chavez is producing more gas than Citgo.

Well, here you can see the kind of person that Hugo Chavez does like....

I'll take John Wayne any day, thank you.

Posted at 04:20 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 596 words, total size 4 kb.

The subject of 9-11 is frought with pathos. It is both a sad remembrance and an act of war. But, on the 5th anniversary of this tragic day, the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) has decided to show a production of a "Docu-Drama" called "The Path To 9-11". Now, in and of itself, that is nothing remarkable, the history of the socalled "docu-drama" is long and comical for its historical inaccuracies and/or outright fiction, witness the productions of "Death Of A President" in England for example (which many have defended on the grounds of "free speech").

Yet, let a shibboleth of the left be challenged (Clinton was a terrific - though perhaps oversexed president) and watch the fur fly. The reaction of much of the left is almost comical, nay, it is entirely comical and I'll take a few snippits from here and there to prove my point.

First up my friend Marc Cooper (a self identified "progressive") posts "The ABC's of Panderning" in which he states:

L.A. Times media columnist Tim Rutten perfectly nails the shameless shlockmeisters at ABC who think it's just spiffy to capitalize on the pain of the 5th anniversary 9/11 to broadcast one more manufactured piece of dreck -- a two part "docudrama" on the Twin Tower attacks powered by blatant right-wing spin.

More amusing (if that is indeed the word) are some of the comments from that blog entry. This one for example:

NeoDude Says:
September 9th, 2006 at 9:14 am

When has Right-Wing Nationalists (SALUTE!!!), in any Western tradition, not exploit a national tragedy?

How about this one (if you are a fan of conspiracy theories you will LOVE this one):

r. l. c. Says:
September 9th, 2006 at 10:14 am

It really is obvious what happened here. These projects don’t get made overnight and when ABC Entertainment (NOT the news division) OK’ed this Bush was riding high - just been reelected and had increased majorities in both houses of Congress. And what were the pundits saying? Why the GOP wiould be ruling the roost for a long time to come and the Dems were in “Disarray” (a town near Vegas, I believe). So why not get in bed with right wing crazies? They would be in position to help the Mouse with issues like Intellectual Property and Media Ownership. Its not personal, just business.

(Hell Robert Iger was a Clinton Contributor, as were a lote of ABC/Disney Execs)

Sure the Dems would complain but what could they do? Well its now two months from an election that will probably produce a tsunami for them and the miniseries don’t look so hot now does it? That is what happens when you listen to experts!

But Marc's commenters are rational compared to others (although that is obviously not saying much). For example, Ann Althouse has a terrific post on some of these left-wing rantings here and she has a link pointing to something called "AMERICAblog" with some suggestions to sue, boycott etc Disney, ABC and Apple because of the so called docu-drama. A sample:

Certainly we're going to be live-blogging the show, Sunday and Monday. I'd appreciate those of you in Australia and New Zealand, if the show does air there shortly, please give us feedback as to what they cut and what's still in the show? It will give us a window as to what defamatory material Disney/ABC insisted on keeping in the show, which will help the lawsuits and our organizing.

Secondly, when the show airs in the US, if Disney/ABC still run it, I want to be sure a number of us are live-blogging it to list the defamation and the errors. If Disney/ABC insist on making a cartoon out one of the blackest days in America history, then we will hold them responsible."

I think iTunes is a really good place to hit Steve Jobs and Apple. It is direct and to the point, and it is not platform-based.

It is OUTRAGEOUS that they are offering this as a free download.

They would notice immediately if there was a slack-off in sales.

I have already written to Steve Jobs and the iTunes crew about this.
samia | 09.09.06 - 6:38 pm |

It appears that the governments use of the MSM for propaganda distribution is becoming extremely transparent. If we, as Americans, cannot stop this from happening, or becoming any worse, then we have lost the control of our public servents, and more drastic actions must be taken. Boycotts/leaflets/emails/videos/ demonstations etc.
Joe Danger | Homepage | 09.09.06 - 6:43 pm |"

OK, how about this one:

As well as an organized and long-term boycott of Disney and ABC, we should use this opportunity to call for reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.
nervesofsteel | 09.09.06 - 6:50 pm |"

The latest (well, maybe not the absolute latest) lefty "talking point" (I'm being generous here you understand) is that this is NOT the same as Michael Moore's fatuous "Farenheit 9/11" which everyone now says was a "polemic." A polemic?

WordNet
po·lem·ic (p-lmk): adj : of or involving dispute or controversy [syn: polemical] n 1: a writer who argues in opposition to others (especially in theology) [syn: polemicist, polemist] 2: a controversy (especially over a belief or dogma)

Again, I digress, the whole point of this little exercise is to point out the utter insanity of the left in regards to this docudrama. Reminds me of the "revised" words of the Bard: "The left doth protest too much, methinks."

Cross posted at The Real Ugly American

Update, I've only scratched the surface of the left's response to "The Pathway to 9-11" but James Joyner at Outside The Beltway has looked at how "The Left Remembers 9-11." It's an excellent read and I'm in awe of his article.

Posted at 02:04 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 1339 words, total size 9 kb.

Regarding claims and investigations about Valerie Plame and "Smokn' Joe" Wilson (and, I'm not saying what he smokes), imagine, for a moment, that a Republican had made charges against the Democrats similar to those that Joe Wilson and the Democrats made against the Republicans. Well, we would expect that the major media would have buried the story in that case. So, I'm not surprised that major media is burying the revelation that, as many knew, Joe Wilson, himself, was the one most responsible for exposing his wife's role with the CIA--and, oh yes, lying about his Iraq report.

But, somewhere away from the front page, the Washington Post comes forward to set things straight.

We're reluctant to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband....

I bet. Just like all the liberal Democrats are reluctant to return to the subject now that they've been proved wrong. But, major media didn't thinik that too much attention was devoted to claims with no proof before.

Then, the Washington Post does offer this accurate summary after, naturally, suggesting that high level Republicans must still be guilty in some fashion even absent a conviction. Note that the summary rightly goes beyond the initial charge of who identified Ms. Plame and addresses the fact that Joe Wilson also lied about his report on Iraq shopping for uranium, for which Christopher Hitchens received flak (to put it mildly) with his evidence, as did I whenever I referenced Hitchens' columns.

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy.

Exactly. However, the paper doens't address who is supposed to reimburse taxpayers for the needless costs of the grand juries and the special prosecutor's investigations against our highest government officials. Would that be Joe Wilson or the Democratic Party--both who profited from the lies? Shouldn't the losers pay?

Then, the Washington Post offers this polite way to end the discussion on Joe Wilson:

It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Unfortunate, indeed.

And, just who might have been among those who were telling everyone to take this seriously during the Presidential election? Could it beeeeeee Satan?! No, but that's close. It might be the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, CBS, etc.--not to mention the Democrats, Moveon.org, and every left-wing blog. How "unfortunate" that they got this wrong. Perhaps, they will do a better job of helping to restore the good reputations of those damaged. Don't hold your breath.

May I suggest a better a more appropriate way to end this matter. If you're one of those liberal Democrats who made outrageous statements against Republicans on this matter, follow these instructions.
(1) Print out this post.
(2) Write the word "crow" boldly across it.
(3) Eat it.

I like my way better.

Oh, and if we really want justice on this matter, let's allow Joe Wilson to have his wish:

Wilson wants leak culprit 'frog-marched'

Whoever released the name, Wilson said, "potentially engaged in outing a national security asset. "If that was determined to have been a crime, I would love to see them frog-marched out of the White House," he said.

Joe Wilson, can you say "ribbet?" Those frog legs could be your own.

Posted at 08:50 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 682 words, total size 5 kb.