Lie: U.S. combat deaths in Iraq passed 2,000

Click image to enlarge

1,829

A realistic look at the statistics in Iraq - Is the media hiding this?

Click image to enlarge

IED attacks plummet in March '06.

Click image to enlarge

U.S. Wounded by month at an ALL-TIME low since the start of the war.

Source: http://icasualties.org/oif/

Most Ridiculous

He does it again!?

Once again, there he goes misrepresenting the positions of other people. Is this some kind of twisted fixation or what?

This week, he states "Toomey is something of a standard-bearer for those who want to see abortion outlawed entirely, and he told Matthews as much."

However, according to:

http://www.issues2002.org/PA/Pat_Toomey_Abortion.htm

Pat Toomey voted "yes" on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. That was called the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

Now, you just can't have it both ways. Either he wants it outlawed "entirely", or he wants it outlawed except to save the life of the mother.

This article clearly states Toomey's position is not what Gil implies it is.

Pa. Sen. Specter Faces GOP Challenger
Associated Press
Last Updated: March 8, 2003 at 8:03:06 a.m.

Toomey casts himself as a staunch opponent of abortion rights - a reversal from his stand when he first ran for his House seat in 1998. He would only allow abortion in the case of rape, incest, or if the mother's life was in danger. Specter, meanwhile, is a longtime supporter of abortion rights.

Got it wrong again.

ABC exec: Bush makes me sick

Story here, exclusively on Drudge Report

Iraq civilian deaths also at second lowest since start of war?

Thanks to whoever posted this graph.


Click image to view full picture

While it shows an increase over the year-to-year (although the first "year" is not a full year), it doesn't show an increase month-to-month. In fact, it shows a plummet in the figures.

As you can see, the statistics show a substantial decline in civilian deaths in Iraq since August of 2005 when you look at it month-by-month. Although the chart is somewhat "incomplete", it appears as if the civilian deaths in Iraq are nearly at the second lowest point since the start of the war (by month).

What's the real story on Allawi's "Civil War" comments?

Alot of news media has picked up on this story from the Daily Telegraph in London.

But alot of the media doesn't give you the complete quote.

His comments, in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, will cause deep concern in Washington and London. "This is one of the stages of civil war we are right in now," he said. "What you have is killings, assassinations, militias, a stagnant economy, no services. With the help of the world, we must try to avoid moving further and deeper into these stages."

They probably also won't tell you about the other quotes from the same article. See if you can pick them out from the full story, posted here:

Iraq has been plunged into the early stages of civil war by its government's policy of allowing armed Shia militias to infiltrate security forces, accentuating a spate of sectarian killings, according to a former prime minister.

Iyad Allawi, who spent six months as caretaker prime minister until national elections were held in January, gave a bleak assessment of a worsening situation that could lead to a "catastrophe".

He accused neighbouring Iran and Syria of interfering in Iraq's affairs and assisting an insurgency that was "getting more sophisticated". The policies of his successor, the Shia leader Ibrahim al-Ja'afari, he said, could cause the break-up of Iraq into a Shia south, Kurdish north and Sunni central region.

Closely allied to the United States and British governments, Mr Allawi, 60, is the most senior Iraqi politician to have said that civil war has become a reality.

His comments, in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, will cause deep concern in Washington and London. "This is one of the stages of civil war we are right in now," he said. "What you have is killings, assassinations, militias, a stagnant economy, no services. With the help of the world, we must try to avoid moving further and deeper into these stages."

He said that while suicide bombs grabbed the headlines, the murder of Sunnis by Shia groups and vice versa was more significant and ominous. "On a daily basis there are assassinations and liquidations. In Jordan, I was told that the official figures of Iraqi students trying to move to Jordanian universities is 14,000. We have an exodus of doctors from Iraq. These are all the ingredients of much wider problems."

US State Department officers and British Foreign Office mandarins have avoided even hinting that civil war - referred to by some officials as "the c-word" - is possible. But diplomats privately concede that a violent fragmentation could take place. "I don't think it's inevitable or even likely that we're seeing a descent into civil war or chaos of the type seen in Somalia or Lebanon," said a Western diplomat. "But you'd be a fool to rule it out."

Mr Allawi, a former Ba'athist who fled Saddam Hussein's regime and spent years in exile in London, earned the respect of Sunnis and Shias during his period as the first post-Saddam leader. Shia by religion but secular in outlook, he is tipped by some to return as prime minister in January. "He's probably the only credible candidate with national standing who could front a nationalist, centrist coalition," the diplomat said.

Mr Allawi backed a Yes vote in yesterday's referendum on the new constitution, although he has reservations about some of its passages, which many believe could give too much power to Shia and Kurdish blocs. He believes that the constitution's drafting and the December elections mean Iraq could be "moving in the right direction at last".

However, the situation was very dangerous because Mr Ja'afari's government, widely perceived to have close links with Iran, had allowed members of Shia militia groups to join the security forces without setting aside their sectarian loyalties.

"There are a lot of groups that have been integrated into the security forces," said Mr Allawi. "Sectarianism has increased. The role of militias has increased."

Bayan Jabr, the interior minister, also an exile during the Saddam era, is believed by many Sunnis to be in the pocket of Teheran and to have allowed Shia murder gangs to join the police.

"Insurgency feeds on an unhealthy political environment," Mr Allawi said. "The worse the unemployment and health services and water supply, the more their evil ambitions grow."

Iraq Casualties currently at second lowest statistic since beginning of war.

Click the picture to view the full image

Related Links

Iraq Civil War Threat is Over
U.S. Iraq Casualties Plummet in March '06

Fact: Texas Law overturned by Roe v Wade excluded situations involving the woman's health

It's true. You may be surprised, but nearly all quotes in this post will be from the Decisions of Roe V Wade.

I even have the quote that shows that the former law DID, in fact, allow for the life of the mother.

Art. 1196. By medical advice

"Nothing in this chapter applies to an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother

This is the part of the statute that basically overturned the Texas law. Why?

Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those "procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother," sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.

But what is even more interesting is what is before it.

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. [34]

And this:

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute.

Now, it begs to questions whether Gil did ANY research for this piece because he states:

And so as we hurtle toward the day when Roe v. Wade is overturned and people in this state, and others, labor to pass the most restrictive laws possible, it is worth wondering how you might feel had you been raped as St. Guillen was, and wound up pregnant.

Maybe you would have the child, regardless.

But if you didn’t want to, I suspect you might resent those who would paint you as the criminal.

That doesn't make any sense. In fact, in 1972, the ABA was pushing for the Uniform Abortion Act.

Here is the text, emphasis added.

8. The position of the American Bar Association. At its meeting in February 1972 the ABA House of Delegates approved, with 17 opposing votes, the Uniform Abortion Act that had been drafted and approved the preceding August by the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. 58 A. B. A. J. 380 (1972). We set forth the Act in full in the margin. n40 The [*147] Conference [**724] has appended an enlightening Prefatory Note. n41

==========Begin Footnotes==========

n40 "UNIFORM ABORTION ACT

"SECTION 1. [Abortion Defined; When Authorized.]

"(a) 'Abortion' means the termination of human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus.

"(b) An abortion may be performed in this state only if it is performed:

"(1) by a physician licensed to practice medicine [or osteopathy] in this state or by a physician practicing medicine [or osteopathy] in the employ of the government of the United States or of this state, [and the abortion is performed [in the physician's office or in a medical clinic, or] in a hospital approved by the [Department of Health] or operated by the United States, this state, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of either;] or by a female upon herself upon the advice of the physician; and

"(2) within [20] weeks after the commencement of the pregnancy [or after [20] weeks only if the physician has reasonable cause to believe (i) there is a substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother or would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother, (ii) that the child would be born with grave physical or mental defect, or (iii) that the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or illicit intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 years].

"SECTION 2. [Penalty.] Any person who performs or procures an abortion other than authorized by this Act is guilty of a [felony] and, upon conviction thereof, may be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding [$ 1,000] or to imprisonment [in the state penitentiary] not exceeding [5 years], or both.

"SECTION 3. [Uniformity of Interpretation.] This Act shall be construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this Act among those states which enact it.

"SECTION 4. [Short Title.] This Act may be cited as the Uniform Abortion Act.

"SECTION 5. [Severability.] If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.

"SECTION 6. [Repeal.] The following acts and parts of acts are repealed:

"(1)

"(2)

"(3)

"SECTION 7. [Time of Taking Effect.] This Act shall take effect -- -- -- -- -- -- ."

Other quotes that show that Republicans would not criminalize abortion in cases that involve the life or health of the mother:

"We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion."

Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 86

Bush: opposes abortion except in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother

Source: The Economist, “Issues 2000” special Sep 30, 2000

Bush has said he is opposed to abortion and would support a constitutional amendment making the procedure illegal - except in cases of rape, incest and when the woman’s life is jeopardy. But he also says Americans don’t support the measure, thus there is no need to pursue it. But he would not require his Supreme Court nominees to pass an anti-abortion ‘litmus test.’

Source: Associated Press Jun 14, 1999

Somebody stop my head from spinning!

Take a look at this piece by Marv Adams.

To read it, you would think that local newspapers have a larger readership than national cable news.

However, let's take a look at the actual Harris Poll, shall we?

Type of News Medium	%	Daily/ Several times a week (NET)	Daily	Several times a week	Several times a month/ year (NET)	Several times a month	Several times a year	Never
Watch local broadcast news	%	77	54	22	17	10	7	6
Watch network broadcast or cable news	%	71	49	22	21	13	9	8
Read a local daily newspaper	%	63	41	22	28	16	12	9
Go online to get news	%	64	40	24	26	15	11	11
Listen to radio news broadcasts	%	54	32	21	26	13	13	20
Listen to talk radio stations	%	37	22	15	30	12	17	34
Read a national newspaper (The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The New York Times, etc.)	%	18	10	8	40	14	27	41
Listen to satellite radio programming	%	19	12	7	13	6	7	68

Source

You can see that more people more frequently watch national cable news vs. national newspapers. Even more tha local newspapers as well. It looks as if Marv Albert...er, Adams doesn't realize O'Reilley is making a legitimate comparison between national news mediums? Or perhaps he is just trying to spin it that way?

Take a look at local TV news vs. local newspapers. Still blowing them outta the water! O'Reilly, you really stuck it to them.

New docs show Bush did not "lie"

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/13/115752.shtml

Newly translated Iraqi documents from Saddam Hussein's regime show that President Bush was factually accurate when he told the nation in his 2003 State of the Union Address that Iraq had recently sought uranium from Africa.

Bush's 16-word statement had formed the basis for the claim adopted by administration critics that "Bush lied" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

But according to the Washington Times today, an unnamed U.S. official reports that "newly translated Iraqi documents . . . tell of Saddam seeking uranium from Africa in the mid-1990s."

The documents also speak of burying prohibited missiles, a government official familiar with the declassification process told the paper.
In his January 2003 address, Bush told the nation:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The statement prompted former ambassador to Iraq, Joseph Wilson to complain to the New York Times seven months later: "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

The new documents strongly suggest, however, that Wilson was wrong - and that the "Bush lied" mantra adopted by most Democrats since Wilson first made his complaint has been based on bogus information.

Confirmation on African uranium claim offered by Iraqi documents may be just the tip of the iceberg.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Peter Hoekstra told the Washington Times that about 500 hours of Saddam audiotape is still being translated and analyzed by the U.S.

And U.S. Central Command has 48,000 boxes of Iraqi documents, of which the military has delivered just 68 pages to his committee so far.

"I don't want to overstate what is in the documents," Hoekstra told the paper. "[But] I certainly want to get them out because I think people are going to find them very interesting."

Related Links:
Media Ignore Iraq Uranium Bombshell
ABC "reinterpreted" Saddam tapes
Saddam on tape before 9/11: Terrorists will attack Washington DC
Secret Saddam Tapes on ABC Nightline
New Saddam Docs Hint at 9/11 Link
Santorum, Hoekstra: Release Iraq Papers

Nine Months After Portending Iraq "Civil War", Shaeffer repeats

Nine months ago, CBS anchor Bob Schieffer painted Iraq as spiraling into civil war. It didn't happen then, yet on Wednesday night Schieffer renewed his ominous forecast. But unlike in May, this time his ABC and NBC anchor colleagues expressed the same prospect. Back on May 19 of last year, Schieffer teased the CBS Evening News with this unique warning: "Good evening. I'm Bob Schieffer. It just keeps getting worse in Iraq. The death toll is rising. Tension is growing between Shiites and Sunnis. Is the country sliding toward civil war?" He soon added: "Now there's been a surge of attacks on Shiite and Sunni Muslim clerics, and some fear that Iraq is sliding toward civil war." From Baghdad, Mark Strassmann backed up Schieffer's thesis: "Tit-for-tat terror seems to be pushing Iraq towards civil war. This man says, 'We are heading toward a catastrophe.'"

On Wednesday night, Schieffer teased: "One of the worst days ever in Iraq, and it's Iraqis against Iraqis. A Middle East expert tells us the country has been plunged into civil war." Schieffer also relayed how "some are saying Iraq has been plunged into civil war." On World News Tonight, ABC anchor Elizabeth Vargas asserted: "One of the great fears of the American mission in Iraq has always been the prospect of civil war. Tonight, those fears are particularly real." Over on the NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams, just back to Manhattan from two weeks in Torino, warned of how "tonight there are new fears that Iraq is on the brink of civil war
Source: http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060223.asp

Iraq civil war threat "is over"

Iraq civil war threat 'is over'

Iraqi security forces have announced the capture of a senior al Qaida in Iraq figure as they seek to deflect criticism of their handling of a surge of sectarian violence.

The US ambassador said the risk of civil war from last week's crisis was over.

Violence throughout Iraq killed 36 people on Monday, as fierce fighting broke out between Iraqi commandos and insurgents southeast of the capital. But sectarian clashes have declined sharply since the bloodletting that followed the destruction of a revered Shiite shrine in Samarra, and Baghdad residents returned to their jobs after three days of a government-imposed curfew.

"That crisis is over," US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad declared. "I think the country came to the brink of a civil war, but the Iraqis decided that they didn't want to go down that path, and came together," the ambassador told CNN. "Clearly the terrorists who plotted that attack wanted to provoke a civil war. It looked quite dangerous in the initial 48 hours, but I believe that the Iraqis decided to come together."

Sunni Arab leaders said they were prepared to end their boycott of the talks on a new government if Shiites return mosques seized in reprisal attacks against Sunnis and meet other unspecified demands.

Also on Monday, Iraqi Interior Ministry officials said they believe American journalist Jill Carroll remains alive the day after a deadline set by her captors passed with no word of her fate. A senior ministry official refused to say why they don't believe Carroll's captors carried out their threat to kill the 28-year-old freelancer for the Christian Science Monitor.

The captured al Qaida figure was identified as Abou al-Farouq, a Syrian who financed and co-ordinated groups working for Iraq's most wanted terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in the insurgent stronghold of Ramadi, according to an Interior Ministry officer.

Acting on a tip from residents, members of the Interior Ministry's Wolf Brigade captured al-Farouq with five other followers of al-Zarqawi near Bakr, about 100 miles west of Baghdad, the ministry officer said.

The Defence Ministry said Iraqi security forces have killed 35 insurgents and arrested 487 in raids across the country since the bombing last Wednesday of the Samarra shrine.

Meanwhile, nine bullet-riddled bodies, including a Sunni Muslim tribal sheikh, have been found off a road south-east of Baghdad. The Iraqi army found the bodies near two burned minibuses in an open area off the road from Baghdad into Iraq's strife prone Diyala province, Diyala police said. The victims included Sheikh Hamid Irbat Ghazi, of the influential Mahamdeh tribe, and two of his nephews, police said.

© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved.

Rumsfeld: Iraq not fated to civil war

Insurgents not nationalists; Iraq not Vietnam, Pentagon chief says

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday tried to dispel concern over the possibility that a civil war could erupt in Iraq between Sunni Arabs and Shiite Arabs.

"People have been moving together, talking, discussing things," Rumsfeld said. "You can always find someone who's going to try to be a dead-ender and say, 'If you don't do this, I won't do that.' But that's part of negotiation. We see that in the Congress and we see it in democratic systems all over the world."

His remarks came amid a report that a Sunni Arab official believes civil conflict could arise from differences over the draft constitution.

Although lawmakers handed over a draft to the national assembly Monday night, a gulf of disagreements remain between Shiite Arabs, who prevail in the transitional government, and Sunni Arabs, who prevailed under Saddam Hussein.

Iraq's interim prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, said he expected negotiators to resolve those differences within a self-imposed three-day deadline. (Full story)

Rumsfeld praised the constitution-writing effort, saying "democracy has never been described as speedy, efficient or perfect."

"And, regrettably, completing the constitution is not likely to end all the violence in Iraq or solve all of the country's problems," he added.

Rumsfeld noted that the constitutional draft gives a nod to both democracy and Islamic principles.

Referring to comparisons to Vietnam made by some critics, Rumsfeld attacked arguments that any emerging government in Iraq is doomed to collapse under the insurgency.

"Their most prominent leaders are not Iraqis, they are not Ho Chi Minh's with a nationalist base, but in the case of Zarqawi a Jordanian murderer," Rumsfeld said.

"And their massacres of innocents have outraged most Iraqis, rather than attracting broad support. Indeed, polls indicate that the anger against the terrorists and the insurgents is growing."

Rumsfeld said that while the specter of civil war should draw attention and concern, "I haven't seen anything to indicate that the risk is greater today than it was yesterday or the day before."

So where is the coverage of this "civil war"?

Iraq's "Civil War" -- Will the Networks Ever Get It Right?
Posted by Rich Noyes on March 2, 2006 - 01:17.

Wednesday’s Early Show on CBS carried a segment on Iraq emblazoned with the headline “Iraq Civil War.” The worry that Iraq is about to tip over into an all-out fight between the Sunnis and the Shiites has been thick in the media since terrorists bombed an important Shiite mosque a week ago. As CBS anchor Bob Schieffer announced that night (February 22): “One of the worst days ever in Iraq, and it’s Iraqis against Iraqis. A Middle East expert tells us the country has been plunged into civil war.”

But while there’s been a definite uptick in violence and death in the week since the mosque bombing, the “civil war” scenario has failed to materialize. On FNC’s Your World with Neil Cavuto earlier this afternoon, a panel discussed whether notions of an imminent Iraq “civil war” are a grim reality, or a media myth. Former CBS and NBC reporter Marvin Kalb spoke for the rest of the liberal establishment: "What is going on in Iraq now is deadly, serious stuff. People are dying there....This is not a myth. This is what is happening and the American people deserve to know the truth.”

Well, if Iraq’s future matches the current prognostications from the liberal media, it’s purely a matter of coincidence. Pessimistic media mavens have been fretting about a “civil war” since shortly after the coalition liberated Baghdad in April 2003. A brief review:


“Senator McCain, are you concerned that if the transfer of power does take place on June 30th that a huge vacuum will be created and it will be an invitation to civil war? Because no matter how deplorable Saddam Hussein was considered, he was the ultimate referee who kept the Sunnis and the Shiites apart from killing each other.” — NBC’s Katie Couric to John McCain on Today, April 5, 2004.

Moderator Bob Schieffer: “So what you’re saying is that we may be looking at something like a Yugoslavia there, which wasn’t really a country, but Tito held it together with the iron fist, and once he went, it really came apart.”
New York Times columnist Tom Friedman: “What we’re gonna find out, Bob, in the next six to nine months is whether we have liberated a country or uncorked a civil war.” — CBS’s Face the Nation, October 3, 2004.

Moderator Tim Russert: “Tipping point, could it tip back into a potential civil war if the Sunnis continue to stay out of the government?”
The ubiquitous Tom Friedman: “Absolutely. Right now in Iraq the big question, Tim, is can the Shiites, who will dominate the next government basically, will they reach out and share power?” — NBC’s Meet the Press, February 27, 2005.

“I’m Bob Schieffer. It just keeps getting worse in Iraq. The death toll is rising. Tension is growing between Shiites and Sunnis. Is the country sliding toward civil war?” — Schieffer beginning the May 19, 2005 CBS Evening News.

“Whenever violence breaks out, many go looking for old enemies to blame. US commanders have privately noted every time a bomb goes off in a Shiite neighborhood, something bad seems to happen in a Sunni area. And that simply adds the specter of civil war to the overall mayhem, which is probably just what the insurgents had in mind.” — CBS reporter Kimberly Dozier on the July 18, 2005 Evening News.

Senator John Thune: “I think we’re making, what I believe is progress in that direction.”
Host George Stephanopoulos: “But you say it’s progress. But there have been an awful lot of signs that it’s not. We know that they presented, for example, the constitution to the assembly but have not called a vote on it. We hear this opposition from the Sunnis, from Muqtada al Sadr. Aren’t you at all concerned that this constitution may in fact be a prelude to civil war? That it may be deepening the divisions?” — ABC’s This Week, August 28, 2005.

Maybe this time the networks will be right in predicting doom for the mission in Iraq. But their track record thus far suggests reasons for optimism.

Oh damn, I think I just pissed my pants laughing!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186265,00.html

The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day

Lancaster, Pennsylvania, is the center of Amish country, a beautiful area. Great place to visit. But the newspaper there is strange and has been running articles that are flat-out false.

This Sunday, a guy named Gil Smart wrote, "Noted thinker Bill O'Reilly, who has smeared Iraq War opponents as 'pinheads' and appeasers, last week advocated cutting and running."

Now if you watch or listen to “The Factor," you know that statement's a lie. Mr. Smart took it off a far left Web site, which was not smart. But the fact that The Lancaster News allows a guy like that to write a column is disturbing as well as ridiculous.

And by the way, according to a new Harris poll, just 18 percent of Americans now read a national newspaper, and one of the reasons is that more than a few print journalists are now simply propaganda purveyors. Again, ridiculous in the extreme.

Andrew Timberlake-Newell

Would you please stop viewing my posts and websites?

Thanks.

USAToday: AP: Blanco erred on levees In video, reported they were intact.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-02-katrina-video_x.htm

AP: New Katrina video details misinformation between officials

WASHINGTON (AP) — In the hectic, confused hours after Hurricane Katrina lashed the Gulf Coast, Louisiana's governor hesitantly but mistakenly assured the Bush administration that New Orleans' protective levees were intact, according to new video obtained by The Associated Press showing briefings that day with federal officials. (Video:Storm day transcript released)
"We keep getting reports in some places that maybe water is coming over the levees," Gov. Kathleen Blanco said shortly after noon on Aug. 29, according to the video. "We heard a report unconfirmed, I think, we have not breached the levee. I think we have not breached the levee at this time."

In fact, the National Weather Service received a report of a levee breach and issued a flash-flood warning as early as 9:12 a.m. that day, according to the White House's formal recounting of events the day Katrina struck.

Critics have maintained the Homeland Security Department responded too slowly to the breaches, delaying repair efforts and allowing flooding to worsen. Formal reports of New Orleans' levee breaches reached the White House by 6 p.m., and the administration confirmed the damage by the next morning, according to the White House's recount.

In the video of the conference call, Blanco appears uncertain about the reliability of her information and cautioned that the situation "could change."

Blanco said floodwaters were rising in parts of the city "where we have waters that are 8 to 10 feet deep, and we have people swimming in there."

"That's got a considerable amount of water itself," the governor said. "That's about all I know right now on the specifics that you haven't heard."

More....

Kentucky? I think not!

Recently, I discovered the tremendous value and benefit of posting an image tracker in my posts. For example, I have one embedded on this blog. If you've visited here, I've tracked you.

Alot of sites to keep track of visitors to their website.

One of interest to me right now is this one:

Pic 1

Here is some more detail about the userinfo.

Pic 2

I did some searching for the username in Google (yes, it is legal and OK to google things).

Pic 3

Here is the "base" part of the URL. It is a tax website which only applies to Montgomery and Delaware counties in PA.

Pic 4

If you don't know where these counties are, please visit this map.

Pic 5

Also, I found that the IP resolved to Berea, Kentucky was suspicious, because it resolved to Coudersport, PA on Dnsstuff.com (home of Adelphia.Net).

Pic 6

I wonder who that could be? If anyone can provide some insight into this matter, please respond via my blog.

Update: Andrew, what happened? Haven't seen you on here for awhile. Heeheehee.