Unfortunately, I didn't catch it, but I've been told Joe Scarborough just posted the "Saddam's head on a platter" photoshop that I put up on Sunday. Thanks Joe! That may be the first time something from RWN has made it to Scarborough Country, but I hope it's not the last.

Just hours after the announcement that Libya has offered to give up its weapons of mass destruction program and submit to immediate, unconditional inspections, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Libya must be given more time to make the decision to abandon WMD.

"You can't just announce this all at once," said Mr. Annan. "Libya should invest the time to build a true multilateral coalition before inspections can even be contemplated. This is a 12-year process at minimum."

In related news, Democrat presidential candidate Howard Dean said that Libya would have destroyed its WMD program much sooner if the United States had not invaded Iraq.

"America will not be safer when Libyan WMD are destroyed," said Mr. Dean.

If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.

Here's quote of the day from James Taranto,

"...(C)ommunism, evil though it was, at least was premised on a universalist vision of a better world. Why does the left now defend fascist regimes? Because they're no longer for anything; what's important is what they're against: America, Israel, "Eurocentric" civilization. The motto of today's reactionary left ought to be "The enemy of my country is my friend."

I hate to say this; I really, really, do, but Taranto is dead on target with that quote. If you don't believe it, just look at any program or piece of legislation that's being seriously considered by the President and Congress and ask yourself, "Would our country's enemies support or oppose this?" and then look and see where each political party comes down on it. You will find that nine times out of ten, the Democrats will be coming down on the same side as America's enemies.

Just think about it. Do you think Al-Qaeda would rather see the Patriot Act stay in place or would they prefer to see it scrapped? They want it gone and so do the Democrats. Which party always seems to be trying to cut defense and intelligence spending...hint: it's not the Republicans. The overwhelming majority of which party favored removing Saddam Hussein, an implacable enemy of our country, the GOP or the Dems? Which party in essence wants to give the UN a veto over the use of our military, the GOP or the Dems and what do you think...oh, let's say Syria would prefer we did? Iran and North Korea -- do you think they want us to build a national missile defense shield? Of course they don't and neither does Howard Dean who plans to cut off funding for it...just like the Democrat Party cut off funding for the Vietnamese which led to a Communist takeover of the country we spent so much blood and treasure trying to save.

Now don't get the wrong idea; I'm not calling anyone a traitor or a member of the 5th column, but I will say that there are a lot of Democrats, perhaps even a majority of them in Congress, who systematically oppose almost every attempt to make our country safer and more secure while offering up only the most flimsy of excuses in the way of an explanation.

I chalk their behavior up to an empty-headed-utopianism, reflexive opposition to Republicans who usually end up on the right side of security issues, a generalized desire to see America weakened or punished, the pervasive dislike for the police, military, and our intelligence agencies that runs rampant on the left, or some combination thereof. That assessment of course doesn't include Dems like Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller, but at least since the McGovern years, the hawks have been outnumbered on the left.

What I've said before is sad but true; defending America has truly become a partisan issue. I can only hope that Bush hammers whoever the Democrats put up in 2004 so badly that it emboldens the hawkish Dems to rally the party to the right on foreign policy & security issues. That has happened -- at least to some extent -- on gun control issues and I'd love to see a repeat on defense. Having only one political party that can be trusted to make a serious effort to protect America is dangerous for our country, especially during the war on terrorism. Let's hope we see some changes in the Democratic party, for all our sakes...

***Update #1***: After reading the comments, I think some people are missing the point. Even among honest, informed, conservatives, there are going to be significant differences of opinion. I support the Patriot Act; others don't. I think removing Saddam Hussein was vitally important to the war on terrorism; some other conservatives don't agree. All that's well and good.

However, what I'm trying to get across here is that there are a lot of Democrats, perhaps even a majority of Dems in Congress, who seem to oppose almost EVERY policy that makes us safer. They're not just against the Patriot Act or the war in Iraq; they want to cut the military budget, intelligence funding; they want to give the UN a veto over how we use our military, etc, etc, etc. These Democrats seem to support whatever position most undermines our security unless the party leadership really cracks the whip on them because a hot political football is involved. I think it's important to acknowledge that's happening...

Wesley Clark, the Democrat presidential candidate, said yesterday that if he were president he would have captured Usama bin Laden by now and jilted First Lady Laura Bush.

"I would have gotten him," said Mr. Clark of Mr. bin Laden. "And I would have divorced Laura. I just don't find the woman attractive."

A spokesman for the Clark campaign said, "The former general's rich fantasy life and spirituality contribute to his geopolitical acumen."

Mr. Clark also noted that if he were Franklin D. Roosevelt, he would have captured Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini in early 1941.

If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.

Many people on the anti-war left are still reeling from capture of Saddam Hussein. Oh the agony of it all! They had to grit their teeth and pretend to be happy about it; as if anything that helps Bush at the polls could be a good thing!

But just imagine...horror of all horrors...what if Bin Laden were captured? All the "sheeple" would be cheering, Bush's approval rating would jump 20 points, why it would be the ultimate nightmare for the Democratic candidate!

So, the people at the Democratic Underground are preparing a little preemptive strike of their own. According to these folks at the DU, Bin Laden isn't all that important. He hasn't been convicted in a court of law has he? Why he's probably just a fall guy for the crimes of the Bush Family Evil Empire (BFEE)! In fact, these people at the DU act as if they believe that Bush is the real enemy here, not Osama Bin Laden. Just look at these comments and you'll see what I mean....

skjpm: "what, exactly, did bin laden do again?

All we know is that he cheered from the sidelines. What's the point of capturing him? Is he directly involved in anything?

Since Bush is friends with the Bin Ladens, maybe he just picked one and said, "Can we use him as our bogeyman?" It could be that Osama volunteered to be poster"

GreenPartyVoter: "There's still a possibility

he had a hand in 9/11.

Hard to tell, though. This Admin has coughed up so many lies on so many things now, I can't see the truth anymore. (Which, I am sure, was the plan all along.)"

Devils Advocate NZ: ...there is no such organisation as "Al Qaeda". "Al Qaeda" was the name of a base in Afghanistan run by Bin Laden (and funded by the CIA) to train Arabs to fight against the Soviet occupation forces.

If you answered "because Bin Ladin works for the CIA" give yourself a thousand points..."

leesa: "...We have never had any proof other than Iraq style unfounded allegations. Bush promised us proof...Tony Blair was supposed to release the "White Papers which were supposed to prove OBL did 911 beyond a shadow of a doubt. He never produced it.

There is Faaaar more circumstantial proof that Bush was involved than OBL."

DuctapeFatwa: "He has served the CIA faithfully for 27 years

He has been directly involved in all his assignments for his employer."

SpiralHawk: "To this day I have seen no evidence that bin Laden had involvement in 9/11. Nor have I ever seen a report that he was claiming involvement or responsibility.

Shouldn't we have some evidence before ChimpCo keeps on wildly spending all our wealth chasing "evildoers" without hard evidence of their "evildoing."

jokerman2004: "I thought it was an establsihed fact that

the nineteen 9/11 operatives were Saudi.

Enter SH -- substitute boogeymen -- more easily exploited."

spindoctor: "The prosecution would not stand a chance in court

Providing they can find an unbiased jury, of course.

Call me silly, but I like to see proof...real proof, especially when statements are brought to life by an Administration that is notorious for spreading lies and insinuations."

In a closed session today, the General Assembly of the United Nations debated the fate of captured Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

"The United Nations cannot support the death penalty under any circumstance," said UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. "The death penalty is a cruel and barbaric punishment now used only by the most backwards of peoples. For example, Texans."

"Instead we will encourage the humane treatment of Mr. Hussein."

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin (who is a man) lodged a proposal on behalf of France. "Under our proposal," said de Villepin, "Saddam will write 'I will not be a brutal dictator' 100 times on the blackboard. He will then apologize to his fellows."

De Villepin responded to claims that the French proposal did not do enough to punish Hussein. "Sacrebleu!," said de Villepin. "This is ridiculous. Our proposal is very strong. If Saddam apologizes, but does not mean it, then he will have to apologize again."

"Also, his handwriting must be very clear. If he is hasty, he will have to do-over."

The proposal was leading the debate. Another proposal, from Sweden, recommended that Saddam stand facing the corner for one hour. The Skeptician learned that this proposal would likely be worked into a Belgian proposal for Saddam to take "a lengthy time-out."

When asked about the upcoming joint Swedish-Belgian proposal, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder responded, "I think that we have reached a level of substantive agreement. What is in debate at this point is the duration of Saddam's 'time-out.' Others have suggested one hour. Our proposal would be... a little longer."

If you enjoyed this satire by Rip Rowan, you can read more of his work at The Skeptician.

Just as a little change of pace from all the news about Saddam and the wacky leftists who have been driven over the edge by his capture, I thought I'd start things out today with my favorite 100 movies of all time.

100) Tommy Boy
99) Pearl Harbor
98) Star Wars: Episode I -- The Phantom Menace
97) The Last Boyscout
96) Young Guns
95) The Beastmaster
94) Falling Down
93) Die Hard
92) Little Man, Big Man
91) Godzilla
90) Sergeant York
89) The Shining
88) Jurassic Park
87) Last Man Standing
86) Desperado
85) First Knight
84) Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
83) Payback
82) Saving Private Ryan
81) Chasing Amy
80) The Ghost and the Darkness
79) Scarface
78) Rush Hour 2
77) Maverick
76) The Blues Brothers
75) Highlander
74) The Life of Brian
73) Cabin Fever
72) Aliens
71) Pet Semetary
70) Face-Off
69) Blade
68) Shaft
67) Lethal Weapon
66) Rambo First Blood
65) Canadian Bacon
64) Ghostbusters 2
63) Office Space
62) Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom
61) South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut
60) Stripes
59) Excalibur
58) Tremors
57) Harry Potter and the Chamber Of Secrets
56) The Untouchables
55) Time Bandits
54) Big Trouble In Little China
53) Terminator 3
52) The 5th Element
51) Clash Of The Titans
50) The Outlaw Josey Wales
49) Ice Pirates
48) Red Dawn
47) The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
46) Conan the Destroyer
45) Ghostbusters
44) The Terminator
43) Silence of the Lambs
42) Black Hawk Down
41) House of a Thousand Corpses
40) Starship Troopers
39) Spaceballs
38) Drunken Master
37) The Matrix
36) We Were Soldiers...
35) Marked For Death
34) Lord Of The Rings
33) The Killer
32) The Two Towers
31) Tombstone
30) Swordfish
29) The Rundown
28) Kill Bill Vol 1
27) Freddy Vs. Jason
26) Independence Day
25) Caddyshack
24) Monty Python and the Holy Grail
23) American Pie
22) There's Something About Mary
21) Akira
20) Spider-Man
19) Equilibrium
18) Gladiator
17) Kull The Conqueror
16) Unforgiven
15) Invasion USA
14) Clerks
13) Signs
12) Animal House
11) The Princess Bride
10) The One
09) Patton
08) Ninja Scroll
07) Conan the Barbarian
06) Fist of the North Star
05) Fist Of Legend
04) The Crow
03) Army Of Darkness
02) The Patriot
01) Braveheart

According to the Boston Herald,

" (PETA) will single out small children at performances of ``The Nutcracker'' in the next few weeks by handing out fliers...

...Lisa Franzetta, a national coordinator for PETA, said the group will launch its ``fur-ocious'' protest at `Nutcracker' performances in as many as 20 cities across the United States."

Oh and what a flier it is. I want you to see what PETA plans to give to "small children"...

The flier closes with this,

"Ask your mommy how many animals she killed to make her fur clothes. Then tell her you know she paid men to hurt and kill the animals. Everyone knows. And the sooner she stops wearing fur, the sooner the animals will be safe. Until then, keep your doggie or kitty friends away from mommy-she's an animal killer!"

To give small children this sort of graphic material that contains cruel lies about their own mothers is worse than despicable, In fact, I'd say that giving these fliers to children is so beyond the pale that I would be surprised if it DIDN'T lead to fistfights. All people of conscience on the left and right should condemn this sort of behavior, but of course, I wouldn't advise holding your breath and waiting for anyone of note on the left to step up and do the right thing...

A Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel has approved over-the-counter sales of the so-called 'morning-before' pill. Although experts disagree over how the pill works, it seems to prevent unwanted pregnancy by attacking the problem at its source in the human brain.

The drug is an emergency pre-emptive contraceptive known as "Plan A", which, when taken 48-72 hours before potential unprotected sex, is 100 percent effective in preventing pregnancy.

Rather than causing a quick abortion, like the so-called 'morning after' pills, Plan A works on the cerebrum in the brain to actually keep women from getting into sexual situations in the first place.

"It seems to knock some sense into them, clinically speaking," said one unnamed FDA researcher. "After taking Plan A, our test subjects intuitively understood what men were really thinking. They no longer believed the words 'I love you' when it was just an inducement to sexual activity. In fact, they avoided situations where they might be alone together with any man to whom they were not married."

Scientists continue to work on a male version of the drug, also known as the 'personal responsibility' pill.

If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.

Ok, first of all, I want you to read the three money paragraphs from this USA Today article about poll numbers in Pennsylvania,

"Presidential hopeful Howard Dean is pulling ahead of the Democratic pack among Pennsylvania voters and is the only candidate to keep President Bush's support under 50%, according to a poll released Wednesday.
The Quinnipiac University poll shows Dean, the former Vermont governor, holding a double-digit lead in the Keystone State, the nation's fifth-largest electoral prize. Dean nabbed 28% of the 1,092 registered voters surveyed. Undecided accounted for 18% of the vote — more than those supporting any other candidate.

A slim majority of Pennsylvania voters is upset with the president for rolling back steep tariffs on steel imports more than a year before they were set to expire. The tariffs endeared the Republican president to politically key Rust Belt states, including Pennsylvania, where steelmaking remains a dominant industry. Bush scrapped the tariffs in the face of a $2.2 billion trade war threatened by the European Union."

Now, guess the headline of the story. Is it, "Bush Beats Top Dem by 6 in Pennsylvania"? Could it be, "Bush Leads in PA Despite Rolling Back Steel Tariffs"? Maybe it's "Bush Beating All Dems in PA, a Key State Gore Won In 2000"? No, it's this,

"Poll: Dean leads in Pennsylvania, holds Bush under 50%"

Aaaaah!

No, of course they didn't. It's just USA Today inserting a little bit of subtle bias into the article. Isn't it funny to see the mainstream already starting to twist themselves into pretzels just so they can put a little pro-Dean mustard on things?

Just for the fun of it, I decided to slap together a little contest for RWN's readers. Yes, for the first time ever, you get to vote for the craziest statement made by a prominent lefty or Democrat in 2003. Only Americans were eligible and I tried to weed out the lesser knowns with the exception of Kevin Manley who made the cut because his whacked out claims made it into USA Today. Tonight at 8 PM EST, I'm going to tally up the votes and declare a winner. Write-ins are welcome and one vote per RWN user is allowed.

The nominees are...

-- Wesley Clark: "I WENT BACK through the Pentagon in November 2001, and one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan. So, I thought, this is what they mean when they talk about “draining the swamp.”

-- Howard Dean on Bush & 9/11: "The most interesting theory that I've heard so far, which is nothing more than a theory, I can't-think it can't be proved, is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis."

-- USA Today's Kevin Manley: "President Bush meant to fall off his Segway. Oh, I'm sure of it. What we've got here is a clever conspiracy - a pre-emptive strike to save the oil industry from a technology that could sap its power."

-- Jim McDermott for replying "Yeah. Oh, yeah," when asked if he thought the capture of Saddam Hussein was timed to help Bush.

-- Michael Moore: "I think the United States, I think our government knows where (Bin Laden) is and I don't think we're going to be capturing him or killing him any time soon."

-- James Moran: "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing this.

...The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."

***Update #1***: And the winner is...Michael Moore. An appropriate choice to be sure although I would have had to go with Kevin Manley just because his Segway theory was so completely off the wall...