An incredible fisking of Michael Moore

This is terrific screed from James Lileks hammers Michael Moore in fashion I've not seen elsewhere. A must read (hat tip to Andrew the Genius).

Of Yellowcake, Jospeh Wilson and Lies

This piece in the Washington Post basically says that Joe Wilson is a liar and a partisan hack. Check this:

Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

Kerry and Michael Moore: a prediction

For the record, let me state that I haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11 and never will. It's not because I think it's director, Michael Moore, is an Anti-American scumbag who thinks the jihadists are right and the victims of 9/11 actually deserved it. No, it's because I don't go to movies at all, ever. That stated, John Kerry (D-MA) has a bit of a problem on his hands. The teeny-tiny fraction of the electorate that has seen it, supports it. Okay, great, score that for the Kerry Camp. But the vast majority of the American people who vote, haven't seen it and won't. Think of them as The Passion of The Christ audience.

Now, say whatever you want to about the veracity of Mr. Moore claims, the point remains: a lot of people are more offended by F9/11 than think it's the gospel truth. So what happens to Sen. Kerry when asked about the movie. Does he:
A) Agree with it and state for the record that the House of Saud owns the Bushes;
B) Have "Sistah Soljah" moment and whack Mr. Moore as a vile pig who should be thrown out of the back of a speeding car, or
C) Issue some mealy-mouthed statement applauding Mr. Moore's 1st amendment rights, while weasling out having to make a committement one way or the other?

I think that the only way he can win is to realize that the self-referential left lives in a world so blinkered that they have no clue how the vast population in flyover country live and think. Both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton (the last two lawyers elected to the Presidency, incidently), understood that you have to run to the center after the nominating process. With the selection of Gooberhead John Edwards (D-NC) (more on that later), that process is now over. And Mr Kerry will need to make that center run if he really wants to win. His spectacular flip-flop over when life begins is only the beginning that I don't think anyone is going to believe.

Prediction:
If Kerry doesn't denounce F9/11 and he's not ahead by more that 10 point on August 15th, look for the Bush blowout I've been talking about for months.

More on the Unhappy Dems: a great post from Matt Taibbi, in The New York Press. Money graf:

[The Democratic Party are] money junkies. And as anyone who's had any experience with junkies will tell you, junkies cannot be trusted. They'll say anything you want them to say about going straight, but at the critical moment, they'll still steal your television and shoot it straight into their arms.

The only way to deal with a junkie is to change your phone number or, if you ever find him in your house, chain him to a radiator. If you're feeling generous, you might consider bringing him hot chocolate and chicken broth during the three days he spends freaking out and writhing on your floor. But the one thing you can't do is keep giving him that one last chance. That only guarantees that he will come back again very soon, covered with mysterious bruises and needing 200 bucks to pay for—tchya, right—a Hepatitis shot.

Shit, just look at what's happened since the last election. The junkies got kicked out of office, which ought to have been a wake-up call, and what did they do? They went out and almost unanimously voted for the Patriot Act, the No Child Left Behind Act and two wars.

And now here they come, four years later, and they say: "We need all your votes right now or we're fucked." Am I the only one laughing?

That said, I understand the Democrats' point of view. I used to take a lot of drugs, too. And when you take a lot of drugs, absolutely nothing matters except getting off. In the quest for drugs, any kind of behavior is excusable. You will be standing with a nice fat gram firmly in your fist and you'll still stare your best friend right in the eyes and swear to him that you couldn't find anything, either. And the funny thing is that later, when he finds out that you've been smacked out watching Starship Troopers for three days, he won't even be mad. He'll laugh. Because he would've done the same thing to you.

That's junkie morality. That's why, from the Democrats' point of view, it makes perfect sense to nominate a gazillionaire missile-humping aristocrat who'll have more corporate logos pasted on him than a NASCAR driver when he gets into office. What's the difference? We got off! Why is everybody complaining?

The dems I know hate Bush but really don't like Kerry either. I don't understand why they don't just which parties and enjoy politics for a change. Read it all here.

Iran

It looms. This bit about Iraqi security picking up Iranian agents in Baghdad with explosives is actually good news. I think that honest people are slowly understanding that the term "Iraqi insurgients" is really wrong. I figured after we kicked over Saddam, the mullahs would be freaked out figuring that they would be next. This from Ali at Iraq the Model:

Anyway, I think this issue is very serious and it shows clearly that Iranian authorities attitude is a clearly aggressive one and they don’t seem to be keen on at least keeping their efforts to hinder the progress in Iraq a secret. They seem to be very frightened (and they should be) by the democratic changes in Iraq that they have lost their caution and are not considering how dangerous it is what they’re doing.

And Iran's meddling are not limited to just Iraq; they're expanding as is pointed out here by Ilan Berman. The basic premise of the piece -- and you should read the whole thing:

Over the past year, Iran has become a major cause of concern in Washington. The Islamic Republic has been discovered to possess a robust nuclear program, of a scope well beyond previous estimates. It has also made substantial breakthroughs in its ballistic missile capabilities. Less noticed, but equally significant, has been Tehran's growing activism in the Persian Gulf, the Caucasus, and Iraq....
Under the rubric of "deterrent defense," Iran is exploiting U.S. preoccupation with Iraq to build capabilities that will establish its hegemony in its immediate neighborhood and enhance its role across the Middle East. Iran's moves, if unchecked, will create a grave and growing challenge to U.S. aims in the region. At stake are nothing less than the geopolitical balance in the Middle East and the long-term achievement of U.S. goals, from stability in Iraq to regional peace.

It all began with Jimmy Carter, that maven of malaise. It looks like we'll need to take care of the mullahs sooner rather than later.

WMDs

When is the world going to realize that they were there? We just moved more than a ton of enriched uranium out of the country. Couple that with the Polish Army discovery of missiles armed with Sarin gas warheads and I think we have a pretty compelling argument that WMDs were there and we found them. Yet the silence is percussive. Am I the only one who sees this?

dpny