Dewey Napoleon

So, what is the deal that Obama has been against the war in Iraq? For one, he is wrong. Bush has been and is right about Iraq and has proven his critics to be quite wrong even to the point that today their only response is complete silence.

One can only conclude that for Obama it would be simply fine for Saddam to still be in power in Iraq doing his dirty deeds, for his sons to still be alive raping and murdering people and for Saddam to be plotting and planning to restart his WMD programs and to be a grave threat to the ME and America.

Make no mistake about it Obama and company hasn’t any idea what change to make except maybe for old rehashed hippie liberal ideas or simply change for change’s sake. For him even to be running for President of the United States in dangerous and complicated times when he knows he hasn’t any real solutions is irresponsible and very selfish.

Whay say you ?? Obama ??

CNN’s Cafferty Overlooks Soros Connection to ‘Bush Lied’ Study

CNN’s Jack Cafferty, on Wednesday’s "The Situation Room," unsurprisingly heralded the study by the Center for Public Integrity that Bush Administration officials made hundreds of false statements in the lead-up to the Iraq war. He did not mention, however, the Center’s funding by various left-wing individuals and foundations, most notably George Soros.

Cafferty, who commented on the study during his regular "Cafferty File" segment eight minutes into the 4 pm Eastern hour of the CNN program, bluntly referred to the supposed "false statements" made by these officials as "lies." He also repeated a line from the study that the "lies" "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses." With that last phrase, one cannot doubt the political leanings of these "nonprofit journalism groups," as Cafferty referred to them.

Before he read his "Question of the Hour," Cafferty lamented the fact that American troops were still in Iraq and that thousands of them had died. "President Bush said that at the time he and other officials made these statements, the U.S. intelligence community and other nations thought Iraq had WMD. But they didn’t. And yet, we’re still there, and almost 4,000 of our troops are dead because of it."

At the end of the hour, when Cafferty read some of the viewers’ answers to his question, he did read one response from a person named Vinny that took him to task not mentioning the Center for Public Integrity by name in his segment and its connection to George Soros.

The full transcript of the "Cafferty File" segment from Wednesday’s "The Situation Room":

JACK CAFFERTY: President Bush and top administration officials publicly made 935 false statements — that’s a polite way to say lies — about the risk posed by Iraq in the two years following 9/11, according to a study done by two nonprofit journalism groups. The study found President Bush led the pack with 260 lies. But he wasn’t alone. Other officials include: Vice President Cheney, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (before she got promoted), and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, among others. The study points to at least 532 times where officials said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to get them or had links to al Qaeda. They say the statements ‘were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.’

The White House called the study ‘flawed,’ and repeated the administration’s position that the world community saw Saddam Hussein as a threat. President Bush said that at the time he and other officials made these statements, the U.S. intelligence community and other nations thought Iraq had WMD. But they didn’t. And yet, we’re still there, and almost 4,000 of our troops are dead because of it.

Here’s the question: What do you make of a study that shows President Bush and his top aides made 935 false statements about the threat from Iraq in the two years following 9/11? Go to cnn.com/caffertyfile where you can post a comment on my new blog.

The real world Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

Soros Funded Lancet Study Claiming 650,000 Iraqi War Deaths – source Newsbusters

Remember that highly controversial study published in the journal Lancet in 2006 claiming that 650,000 Iraqi citizens have died since the start of the war in March 2003?

Well, according to an article published in England’s Sunday Times, antiwar activist and MoveOn.org founder George Soros was partially responsible for the funding.

I’m sure this will be front-page, headline news for all of America’s press outlets in the coming days, aren’t you?

While you ponder, here are the facts according to the Times (emphasis added):

Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.

The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology.

New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people – less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate – have died since the invasion in 2003.

"The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research," said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London.

Darned straight!

Of course, I’m sure this will be the position taken by pressrooms across the country as this matter is given great focus in the next 24 hours.

On the other hand, maybe I shouldn’t hold my breath, huh?

Top Clinton Adviser Arrested for Drunk Driving, Media Mum – source Newsbusters

Imagine if a longtime adviser for Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, or Fred Thompson had been arrested for drunk driving two nights before the New Hampshire primary. Do you think this would have gotten reported?

Probably as much as Hillary’s crying game, or even more, correct?

Well, Newsweek’s Stumper blog reported Friday evening that longtime Clinton adviser and confidante Sidney Blumenthal was so arrested in Nashua, New Hampshire, on Monday, astoundingly with no press coverage of the event (emphasis added, h/t NBer EvilCon555):

Sgt. Mike Masella, one of the arresting officers, said the movements of a Buick caught his eye. "I observed all his erratic driving," Masella said. "When I first noticed him it was at an intersection. He abruptly stopped. That caught my eye … He was drifting in his lane." Masella followed the car, a rental, for a mile and a half, and clocked its speed at 70mph in a 30mph zone–more than twice the legal limit. Masella pulled the car over at 12:30 a.m. Monday morning. Blumenthal told the officer he was returning to his hotel from a restaurant in Manchester. After declining to take a Breathalyzer, Masella says, Blumenthal failed a field sobriety test. Blumenthal was handcuffed, booked, had his fingerprints taken and was held for four hours–standard operating procedure in such arrests in New Hampshire–before posting bail and being released. (He will be arraigned later this month.) Because the car was moving at excessive speeds, Blumenthal was given the more serious charge of "aggravated" DWI–which carries a mandatory sentence of at least three days behind bars. "He’s charged with a serious crime," says Nashua Police Capt. Peter Segal, who will oversee the case as it moves toward a court date.

As this occurred at 12:30 AM Monday, this means Blumenthal was arrested just hours before Hillary shed a tear in a New Hampshire diner dramatically changing the results of the following day’s primary.

Did the Clinton campaign know that Blumenthal had been arrested hours earlier? Did this somehow get embargoed from the press, or did local media intentionally boycott it?

More importantly, how did this possibly elude so-called journalists for almost five full days? Would the same have happened if an adviser to a Republican presidential candidate had been arrested hours before a primary?

Finally, now that Newsweek has broken the story, and Drudge linked to it, will this get any coverage, or just stay buried?