The Saturday Cartoons

A New Name For This Site in 2006

I am both excited and a tiny bit saddened to announce that my humble web site will undergo a significant "rebranding" (as marketing folks say) on January 1 and I want to give readers some notice so the banner change and disappearance of "the dog" isn't too jarring.

Many, many factors have gone into this decision but, after getting the opinions of my fellow bloggers and other political and media professionals, I have decided to drop the "Yellow Dog Blog" identity and enter the new year as BobGeiger.com.

Many of you are going to yell "But I love the dog!" So do I. And, while not curing cancer or solving the riddle of Middle East peace, this has been a difficult decision for me.

But I have very specific professional goals -- including writing a book in 2006 -- and, while I understand that I have built a recognizable brand identity in the Yellow Dog, I strongly believe I can help myself and the Democratic/Progressive cause by making this change.

What does this mean to you, the reader? Not a darned thing.

I will be back stronger and more obnoxious than ever in 2006 and all of your favorites – from the Osama Clock, to the Friday Fruitcakes, to the Saturday cartoons – will remain the same. While the name is changing, the content, attitude and intent will be what you've come to expect. My two primary URLs -- bobgeiger.blogspot.com and bobgeiger.com -- will, of course, stay the same as well.

Thank you for your support in this endeavor.

Here's wishing all of you and your families a happy, healthy 2006.

Friday Poll Dancing

A recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, conducted December 16-18, shows that Americans didn't really buy George W. Bush's repetitive series of stay-the-course speeches on Iraq in December. Bush's approval rating -- which is the basic measurement of how well the public believes a president is doing his job -- stands at 41 percent, while more than half, or 56 percent, disapprove of how Bush is handling the presidency.

Other poll numbers:

• 53 percent have an unfavorable opinion of Bush personally

• 61 percent disapprove of the president's handling of Iraq

• 52 percent of Americans say it was a mistake sending troops to Iraq

Which leaves Karl Rove saying "OK, what the hell do we say now?" as Team Bush heads into 2006.

Cleaning Out The 2005 Image Vault

With special thanks to my buddy Joanna – AKA, Anntichrist S. Coulter – of BlondeSense, I wanted to post some graphics that say a lot, but that will lose steam if I wait too long to show them to you...

This one's kind of sad, but it speaks volumes...



Ditto, this one...



And here's the man we hope Fitz puts the kibosh on in 2006...



Finally, the GOP revives a beloved television favorite...

Wesley Clark: No Cause For War

Speaking truth in a place it's not often heard, General Wesley Clark appeared on Fox News yesterday to discuss whether, in the absence of weapons of mass destruction, there was any reason to invade Iraq. Fox is paying a lot of attention to this now to follow Team Bush's lead of admitting that the original rationale for war was bogus, while still insisting that there were many other good reasons to take Saddam out.

Here's Clark making it clear that Bush had already decided to invade and, to quote the Downing Street Memos, they were simply fixing the intelligence toward that end.

"If you read all of the writings about the [Bush] administration... The administration's greatest fears were, hey, what if the inspection program just keeps going and what if the inspectors don't find anything, then how are we going to justify the invasion? The administration kind of put the cart before the horse. They knew what remedy they wanted and they started down a process that was okay, but then they had to sort of jump ahead in order to justify the invasion."

Addressing that tired and dumb GOP question of "how long were we going to have to wait before taking action?" – as if the option of not taking action didn't exist-- Clark responded as follows:

"It might take some time. But, look, we've spent over 200 billion dollars there. We've had over 2,000 Americans die. We've got our armed forces deeply engaged. So what if we took two years if there was no threat to the United States that we couldn't deal with? If there wasn't anything he could do to hurt us, why not keep him in a vice?"

As always, you can see the whole video at Crooks and Liars.

The Bush administration will be driving hard to the hoop with their ends-justifies-the-means message as we head into 2006 and it's important that people like Clark keep speaking truth to that nonsense.

More Norah O'Donnell Stupidity

I must be getting immune to the sheer stupidity that comes out of the face of Norah O'Donnell whenever she fills in for Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball. I watched her usual, dismal performance last night and, while stunned over how obviously partisan she is, shrugged it off as just more of the same from her.

But AMERICAblog posts today about this interaction while interviewing a former CIA agent who has been critical of the Bush administration's lack of attention to Osama bin Laden:

O'DONNELL: So, Gary, you say that you knew where Osama bin Laden was and the president says he was in a cave with a door on it.

BERNTSEN: Well, let me say this. We tracked bin Laden with our reporting from Kabul, down to Nangarhar Province, into Jalalbad, down into the mountains. We had a steady stream. But, you know, every once in a while you get a report that says he's off, you know, in left field.

Here at this place or that place, but when you get a line of reporting, a stream of it, and we're marking it on a map, we can see consistently, you know, which way he's moving and from multiple sources. And then, of course, we were listening to his voice on an unencrypted radio.

O'DONNELL: Can I ask you, Gary, are you a Democrat?

BERNTSEN: No, I'm a Republican. And I'm a loyal supporter of the president and I think the president is doing a good job in the fight on terrorism.

Can any of you picture Walter Cronkite asking that question? I didn't think so.

Two other comments about the vacuous O'Donnell: First, watch for a few minutes tonight (if she's on) and tell me she doesn't look and act like someone who's just inhaled a bottle of amphetamines or done a whole gram of cocaine alone. She's almost jumping out of her skin.

The other thing is – and how funny is this? – reading O'Donnell's bio will tell you that her undergraduate degree is in... Philosophy.

As Matthews himself might say, "Ha!"

The 2005 Senate Weasel of The Year Award

Well, a long year has come and gone in the United States Senate, with countless committee meetings, thousands of issues considered and finally coming down to the 366 roll call votes taken on the Senate floor in 2005.

As we are inclined to do, we watch all of those votes and, throughout the year, have endeavored to keep you apprised of who's been living the Democratic creed and which of our brethren reach across the aisle so often they practically live on the other side. We've done that with the monthly Senate Weasel Meter, in which we've charted the number of times that a Democratic Senator has voted with the GOP on a major issue.

We expect Republicans to make votes that don't help people, the environment or generally serve the public good so, by definition, they won't appear here as weasel-like behavior on their part is a given. We expect better of Democratic Senators.

Also known as DINOs (Democrat In Name Only), Democratic Weasels are those who frequently forget what party they belong to and who often lose direction on their moral compass and social conscience.

And, we're now prepared to announced the winner of the ignominious Yellow Dog Blog Senate Weasel of The Year Award.

First, as we always do, let's go to dictionary.com for our definition of terms:

Weasel

intr.v. wea·seled, also wea·selled wea·sel·ing, wea·sel·ling wea·sels, wea·sels

To be evasive; equivocate.

Phrasal Verb: weasel out (Informal). To back out of a situation or commitment in a sneaky or cowardly manner.

Throughout 2005, I have selected the 50 roll call votes that I believe truly required Democrats to stand with their party and, while you could argue the relative importance of one vote or another, I believe the list sums it up pretty well. You can go here to see, based on our own liberal criteria, what this year's significant, bellwether votes have been.

So, enough with the suspense: Who was the biggest Democratic turncoat in the Senate this year? If you jump to conclusions and assume that literally playing kissy-face with George W. Bush all year, makes the race begin and end with Joe Lieberman (DINO-CT), you would be very wrong. While I was shocked at the results myself, Lieberman amassed only seven weasel-worthy votes all year for a reach-across-the-aisle rating of only 14 percent.

But, no matter how repugnant Lieberman's pro-war stance has been to us, that's not nearly enough to win the Weasel Award, which is based on a solid body of weaselly work and not just on a couple of major instances of shameful conduct.

So who would meet that standard? Who would vote with George W. Bush and the GOP so often that there are actually Republican Senators who have a better record of voting in a "Democratic" way?

It's Ben Nelson, of my own home state of Nebraska!

Nelson's work on behalf of the Republican party would be impressive, were it not so downright disgusting and infuriating. Blowing away the competition with a whopping 41 GOP votes – for an 82 percent weasel rating – Nelson voted with Bill Frist on most critical issues including the following:

• Voted for the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005
• Voted for cloture and for an end to debate on John Bolton and to deny Democrats information they requested.
• Voted for the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)
• Voted for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act -- AKA, the NRA bill
  
• Voted for Energy Policy Act of 2005
• Voted no on bill to provide funding for interoperable communications equipment grants for first responders
• Voted no on general relief bill for Katrina victims that included a critical exemption from new bankruptcy laws to take effect in October.
• Voted to confirm John Roberts as Chief Justice of Supreme Court
• Voted twice against money to provide for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
• Voted against increasing the maximum Federal Pell Grant award by $200
• Voted against increasing appropriations for Head Start programs
• Voted against funding for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program within the Health Resources and Services Administration.
• Voted for Republican budget reconciliation bill (the one Democrats tried to rename the “Moral Disaster of Monumental Proportion Reconciliation Act”)
• Voted against establishing a national commission on policies and practices on the treatment of detainees since September 11, 2001.
• Voted against providing for judicial review of detention of enemy combatants.
• Voted against sense of the Senate amendment concerning the provision of health care for children before providing tax cuts for the wealthy.
• Voted for the Tax Relief Act of 2005
• Voted to invoke cloture (end filibuster) on USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005

And that's less than half of his bad votes.

Somehow Nelson found it in his heart to vote with Democrats against the Bush budget which was recently passed by a 51-50 vote, with Dick Cheney breaking the tie – but that's only because Nelson was afraid that going against the Democratic leadership on that one might get him shanked in the Senate cloakroom.

You can get a full synopsis of Nelson's weasel-worthy votes here.

Here's how the top five weasels looked at year-end along with their number of lousy votes:

• Ben Nelson (D-NE) 41
• Mary Landrieu (D-LA) 19
• Kent Conrad (D-ND) 18
• Max Baucus (D-MT) 17
• Mark Pryor (D-AR) 17

Mary Landrieu, who had a front-row seat for how this administration treated her people in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina, is our runner-up weasel for 2005. Barely edging out Conrad, Baucus and Pryor as vice-weasel, Landrieu voted with Team Bush on the Bankruptcy bill, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, confirmation of Priscilla Owen, the NRA gun bill and for continued tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Nasty Stuff.

Now, I'm not saying we need to run these people out of the Democratic party entirely. What I am saying is that, like any good football team, we're only as good as our weakest link and these are the "positions" for which we need help in the next draft (primary season).

While I'm not hoping that Senator Nelson gets runs down by a feed truck on a Nebraska country road, I am hopeful that, even in the reddest of the red states, we can at least begin electing Democrats who vote with us more often than do some moderate Republicans.

That's the Weasel Award for this year. On Monday, we'll begin the new year on a positive note and pay homage to the anti-weasels – liberal Senators who consistently make us proud to be Democrats.

Katrina vanden Heuvel on Impeachment

I normally enjoy the wonderful Katrina vanden Heuvel of The Nation most when she shows up on one of the cable news shows and makes short work of whatever right-wing dinosaur goes up against her. There's something about her erudite serenity in a sea of GOP blather that always does it for me.

But I want to make sure you all see her blog column yesterday, The I-Word is Gaining Ground. It's an excellent wrap-up of Republican hypocrisy – being so aghast at Bill Clinton's "crimes" and not so much about the real criminal stuff going on in this White House – along with a good primer on roughly where we stand with the prospect of impeaching George W. Bush.

An excerpt:

"In 1998, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, currently under indictment on corruption charges, proclaimed: 'This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law...The other road is the path of least resistance' in which 'we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us...[and] close our eyes to the potential lawbreaking...and tear an unfixable hole in our legal system.' That arbiter of moral politics was incensed about the possibility of Bill Clinton escaping unpunished for his 'crimes.'

"Fast forward to December 2005. Not one official in the entire Bush Administration has been fired or indicted, not to mention impeached, for the shedding of American blood in Iraq or for the shredding of our Constitution at home."

DeLay was, of course, referring to the horrible offense of lying about consensual adult sex... But that's not really the point of vanden Heuvel's piece. Read the rest and get ready to charge into 2006.

Keith Olbermann Rocks O'Reilly, Gibson

It can be frustrating for us to watch the likes of Bill O'Reilly and John Gibson polluting the minds of intellectually-helpless Fox News viewers and doing it with what often appears to be total impunity.

Tell a lie? Smear someone with no foundation in fact? It's all standard fare on the GOP's own cable news network.

That is why I love Keith Olbermann, of MSNBC's Countdown so damn much. He not only takes them on with stunning regularity, but he often does it in such a take-no-prisoners way that I don't know whether to laugh or weep with joy.

Last night was one of the best examples I've seen. Apparently, O'Reilly and Gibson have taken exception to Olbermann so frequently skewering them on his Worst Person in the World segment. O'Reilly recently called Olbermann a "notorious smear merchant" on his show and made fun of Countdown for not having the sheer ratings numbers of The O'Reilly Factor.

"We never claimed O'Reilly's program doesn't draw vastly more viewers than does this one," said Olbermann last night. "To borrow a phrase, 'Hey, 800 billion flies can't be wrong.'"

But he said much more than that – and, of course, our friends at Crook and Liars have the entire seven-minute video clip.

"It is curious isn't it that he brands me a 'smear merchant' and yet instead of trying to refute just one of the hateful things we've quoted him as saying or doing he turns to the ratings?" asks Olbermann. "That's probably because the only thing we've smeared O'Reilly with have been his own quotes. To borrow another phrase, when you're as guilty as he is, change the subject!"

Olbermann then turns the guns on John Gibson, who has been the primary person at Fox pumping up the fake "war on Christmas" controversy.

Comparing him to O'Reilly – who he calls "one of those blissful idiots who can rationalize anything" – Olbermann says that Gibson is trying to destroy himself and, compares him again to O'Reilly saying "even he [O'Reilly] is not so functionally stupid as to deny saying things that are preserved on tape, which is what Mr. Gibson is doing."

Flashing back to a segment in which he said of Gibson "... he is one of those people who think that all religions but his are mistaken. You know, the way a lot of these religious nutbag terrorists think," Olbermann goes on to cite transcripts and play audio of Gibson saying exactly the things he claims Olbermann made up -- including this gem of compassionate conservatism:

"If somebody is going to have to answer for following the wrong religion , they're not going to have to answer to me. We know who they're going to have to answer to. And that's fine. Let 'em. But in the meantime, as long as they're civil and behave, we tolerate the presence of other religions around us without causing trouble."

Says Olbermann: "It's the same kind of misunderstanding and perversion of religion to which we react in horror when we see it in terrorists who have twisted religions for their own purposes. It might as well have been commentators on some all-access, al Qaeda show on Al Jazeera talking about infidels."

Olbermann then issues the coup de grace by saying that, because of saying these things and then lying about them on the public airwaves, Gibson should remove himself from television entirely.

"The audio clip is the definitive answer and I would hope John would now have the self-respect to acknowledge what he said and to leave the airwaves for good. Because between the remark and the denial he has, sadly, forfeited his right to stay here."

This is too good to miss. Catch it here at Crooks and Liars.

One More From Down Under

I have one more e-mail from an Aussie reader -- who answered my query about feelings towards America in Australia -- that defied easy excerpting or pigeonholing in my piece yesterday.

Daniel Green, of Newcastle, NSW Australia, send some comments -- and suggestions!

There is of course an interesting perception of Americans here in Australia at the moment. Mostly you are all portrayed as gung ho, cruise-missile welding idiots who are the cause of probably 99 percent of all the world’s problems. If it wasn’t for your imperialistic, materialistic, stop-at-nothing attitude we’d probably think you were an all right lot. I can see though their is a genuine difference between the average American (who, according to us all have chronic problems with geography) and the government who seems to have lost their direction somewhat.

So here’s what would genuinely change our (if not the world's) opinion on your country.

• Stop spending so much money on pets! Apparently the average American spends 20 dollars a week on pet food. That would sponsor four third-world kiddies with an education and all the food they can eat.

• Stop invading other countries that have big oil supplies. It makes us all very suspicious.

• Stop making sitcoms. They really aren't the pinnacle of civilized culture.

• When you make spell-checking programs stop making it change all my spelling to American English!

• Read more, eat less.

Had you suggested drinking less beer, I would have assumed you were "with the terrorists" instead of with us. But, save for the part about us being "the cause of probably 99 percent of all the world’s problems," these all make sense.

The one about invading other countries will have to wait until November. We have some pretty big elections coming up in 2006 and we Democrats will see what we can do on that score.

Time For Separation of Church And Food

While I'm not a religious guy, I respect people of faith and their inherent right to worship as they see fit. But I have three words when it comes to this obsession with seeing religious figures in common food items: Stop it already.

This is exactly why our forefathers wanted to limit religious influence.

Earlier this year, my tiny hometown of St. Paul, Nebraska was all atwitter over a 12-year-old girl's discovery of a Rold Gold, honey-mustard-flavored pretzel that everyone claimed looked like the Virgin Mary holding the baby Jesus.



OK, not bad. And, while I admit that my rabid interest in politics began when I spied the face of Hubert Humphrey in a bowl of oatmeal at age ten, I hardly think this snack-food is worth bowing and scraping over. Toss that pretzel on the bar at the County Cage Saloon and it's being washed down with some cold Bud Light in about 10 seconds.

Just last week, some Florida restaurant workers went nuts over a nacho-cheese pan that they swore sported the spitting image of Jesus – even though I'm sure half the world looked at it and saw Osama bin Laden's visage. See what I mean?


"Here I am, George"

Now, we have the "Nun Bun," a cinnamon pastry that some thought looked a lot like the late Mother Teresa and was recently stolen from its home in a Nashville coffee shop, where it has been worshipped for years.

I'm sorry but, for my money, I look at this and see Yogi Berra.

And, while I'm no theologian, I'm pretty sure that none of this enhances the role of religion in our society. Frankly, it just makes me hungry. Of course, the girl in my hometown ended up selling her Virgin-Mary pretzel for over $10,000 to an online casino.

Anyone interested in purchasing the image of a naked Britney Spears that my little boy just found in his Eggo Waffle?

Juan Cole: Top Ten Myths about Iraq in 2005

Juan Cole, Professor of History at the University of Michigan, has a must-read piece today. Titled Top Ten Myths about Iraq in 2005, the article encourages us to go into 2006 with our facts straight as US presence in Iraq continues to be the dominant issue in American politics.

Cole addresses the following "myths":

1. The guerrilla war is being waged only in four provinces.
2. Iraqi Sunnis voting in the December 15 election is a sign that they are being drawn into the political process and might give up the armed insurgency.
3. The guerrillas are winning the war against US forces.
4. Iraqis are grateful for the US presence and want US forces there to help them build their country.
5. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, born in Iran in 1930, is close to the Iranian regime in Tehran.
6. There is a silent majority of middle class, secular-minded Iraqis who reject religious fundamentalism.
7. The new Iraqi constitution is a victory for Western, liberal values in the Middle East.
8. Iraq is already in a civil war, so it does not matter if the US simply withdraws precipitately, since the situation is as bad as it can get.
9. The US can buy off the Iraqis now supporting guerrilla action against US troops.
10. The Bush administration wanted free elections in Iraq.

It's certainly enlightening to read Cole's perspective on the guerrillas not "...winning the war against US forces" as my brother-in-law was just deployed to Iraq and there's nothing better to hear. I just hope that statements like this don't give the neocons the stupid idea that this somehow legitimizes our continued presence in Iraq.

But Cole is very balanced and, while citing the reality that most Iraqis no loner want us in their country, also points out that we have "...a responsibility to get out of Iraq responsibly and to not allow it to fall into that kind of genocidal civil conflict."

"Good things and bad things are happening there," writes Cole. "The American public cannot help make good policy, however, unless the myths are first dispelled."

Aussie Readers Weigh In On America

I was fortunate enough to be mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald last week and I used that opportunity to write a piece called When Australians Don't Like Us, We've Got Problems. In that column, I cited evidence of what I perceive as an unusual level of anti-American sentiment Down Under, lamented what a bad sign that is given how friendly the Australian people have always been to America and, at the end, asked Aussies visiting the blog to write me with their thoughts.

And write they did. I've received over 100 e-mails from Australians in the last week and would like to simply quote the best of them and let them speak for themselves.

Most of the e-mails came from Australians who have nothing against Americans – in most cases, they say they just flat-out like us – but almost without fail, they have some real problems with the government of George W. Bush. To those who would say that people writing to me would by definition be expressing anti-Bush sentiments, I say fair enough – to some extent. While these are smart folks who obviously knew they were writing to a liberal American, they first came across my blog because it had a link in a major, mainstream Australian newspaper.

But this is obviously not a scientific opinion survey so read on, and take it as you will...

Luke Ryland -- Tasmania

"You asked about how Aussies feel about the situation there - basically the Blue Aussies are in solidarity with Blue Americans, and we share your contempt for the government and Red Voters - perhaps captured best by sorryeverybody.com.... Unfortunately, I won't be visiting [America] till there is regime change - particularly now with the spying situation."

Peter Kemp - Armidale, New South Wales

"The majority of this nation opposed going into Iraq in 2003 but unfortunately with John Howard as Prime Minister, we have a person whose servility to the Bush administration knows no bounds. He simply loves those rare photo-ops with your President (presumably not shown on your national TV due to the usual 30 second grab mentality of those dinosaurs) but many of us on the left or who are in your parlance 'liberal' , view his 'in bed together' foreign policy with the U.S. as being over-emphasized to the exclusion of multilateral approaches so necessary to solve difficult international issues.

"Many of us are deeply suspicious of U.S. foreign policy and particularly disdainful of the "Bushovics.'' I personally believe they stole the last two elections in the U.S. and represent not only a danger to the rest of the world with their abysmal ignorance and arrogance, particularly this illegal immoral war in Iraq, but they are also a danger to American democracy itself. I keep reminding the Republican supporters here that the Bushovics have a sad and sorry record for deception, disingenuousness, outright lies, distortions and criminality. Many here, including academics and the educated elite who are informed, can't wait for your Senate to impeach him.

"It is a consequence of the Bushovics that anti-Americanism here is probably at an all time high."

Maggie Churchward -- Devonport, Tasmania

"Sadly, there is a great deal of anti-U.S. sentiment here and unfortunately, some ‘rock apes’ display their anger toward U.S. tourists. Not often, but it happens. However, most Australian know only what the mainstream media tell them about what is happening over there so don’t have a full picture.

"I recently sent an e-mail attachment to a friend in the states. He works at a very well known university. My attachment said some very scathing things about the U.S. government. After reading about the wiretaps, I e-mailed him and told him to delete it because I had sent it in error!! How paranoid is that?!!"

Sammy Ringer – Maleny, Queensland

"Over the last 5 or so years, I have watched in dismay as a country whose people I love moves closer and closer to something that's really frightening and I run out of excuses for their behaviour. Radio and TV hosts who actively call for the death of anyone who disagrees with them (or is of Middle Eastern origin) - hey they even seem to think it's OK to suggest whole cities should be nuked!

"A president who uses concocted threats to take the U.S. to war. Uses same threats to justify torture, spying on U.S. citizens, detaining US citizens without charge, muzzling the press... whoa, this is getting way too depressing to continue. And though I am saddened by what's happened to the 'world's greatest democracy' I am double saddened by the fact that 'Sheriff [John] Howard' has been able to follow in his mate' s footsteps."

Alan Jones - Sydney, New South Wales

"I don't like to think of the U.S. as one country anymore. Like the Roman empire before it fell, the U.S. is now really at least two separate nations, geographically adjacent but culturally, economically and politically light years apart. I'm speaking of course of the Red States and the Blue States, which couldn't be more different if there were an Atlantic Ocean in between them.

"I'm headed to California on business this coming January, and I know while I'm there that I see eye-to-eye with most university-educated Californians on almost any issue you can name from birth control to Kyoto Protocol or foreign policy. We eat the same, look the same, consume the same media and entertainment, want the same things for our kids, and increasingly speak the same language. Sooner or later us enlightened citizens should use the internet to cobble-together some kind of virtual city state that we can all belong to."

Paul W. – Newcastle, New South Wales

"It's just the constant disgraceful actions of the U.S. President and his cronies that gets me and many other Australians so down.... I try hard to keep the American Government and it's actions separate from its citizens. But after Bush was voted in with an increased majority in 2004, particularly after the controversy of 2000, and the goings on with such depressing regularity, I must admit I am finding it increasingly difficult.

"Although I can't speak for any other Aussies, the general perception amongst the people that I associate with is that there is a real feeling of anger at the way the U.S. government is so hypocritical in its actions... I do feel this 'with us or against us' attitude is starting to divide the community. Ultimatums don't sit well with many Australians. We don't need to be anyone's 'Deputy Sheriff' in the region (the arrogance of that statement alone) and we certainly don't need to be dragged into a fight that has little to do with us, especially when the fight is based on evidence as dodgy and flimsy as Aluminum tubes and WMD's that everyone knew weren't there.

"The Democrats need a boot up the arse and the American people need to take their country back."

Nick Gadd -- Melbourne

"America's foreign policy (and no doubt domestic policy too - but I'm not qualified to speak on that) has made the world a more dangerous place, is hypocritical and driven by dangerous ignorant ideology. But at the same time, this is only happening because power in your country has been seized by a group of ruthless ideologues who are capitalising on the ignorance of the majority to advance their own interests.

"The current incarnation of 'America' is not the whole 'America.' It is quite plain that a vast number of Americans are in no way to blame for the actions of Bush and co. I'm sure lots of you are madder about it than we are, right? So it is entirely possible that at some time in the future America will once again take a position of positive leadership in the world."

"R" from Sydney

"George W. Bush is not America (thank god) and Aussies are smart enough to know that not all Americans voted for this awful man, so disdain for Bush doesn't necessarily translate into disdain for America or Americans.

"I sat and watched as 'Shock and Awe' beamed into my living room. Over the coming days I watched on American cable as America, a country I had always admired, waged a war of aggression on the third world nation with a fourth rate military. Worse, I watched and listened as (mostly) American anchors and reporters called the war like a football game, detailing every sophisticated weapon and it's capability with never a mention that at the end of them all lay untold death and destruction, innocents among them.

"And I wondered to myself: what happened to America? So did lots of others."

Anonymous - Via yahoo.com.au

"To be brutally honest, George W is probably the most hated man in Australia -- just in front of our own prime minister (who is making a late charge with his new IR reforms). It came as a massive surprise and disappointment when George won his second term, as it seems blatantly obvious that he is a complete moron."

Roy R. - Adelaide, South Australia

"I have mostly liked Americans (Yanks) when I have met them. Many of those I met were open and had a sense of humour. Those I did not like were the brash types. People that had little knowledge of anything outside the USA and told enormous porky pies, a bit like our mate George W.

"Australians generally get pissed off when people are not honest and open. Hidden agendas make us very wary. So you can discount our politicians for a start. I think many of us now know that we should have thought a little harder before charging after cousin George into Iraq, or any other war for that matter. But now we are there we will have to stick by you and see it out the best we can.

"But I have been lucky, I have met some damn fine Yanks."

Note: "Porky pie" is Aussie slang for a lie. In honor of my new friends, I will, for the remainder of 2005, refer to the White House Press Secretary as Scott "Porky Pie" McClellan.

Some Aussies were a bit more charitable, view Americans as favorably as ever and, in at least one case, overtly supported Bush.

Katrina Maguire -- Lives on a farm in Northeast Victoria

"Whatever anti-American sentiment is being referred to I haven't seen it. The left and its academics in Australia are anti-American, always have been and always will be. But I wouldn't worry about that – the left is anti-Australian too!

"I'm not anti-American. I love Americans but I do detest the Americanisation of Australia, not because I don't like American culture but because I love Australian culture and I don't want to lose it. That's about the extent of anti-American sentiment among ordinary Aussies, too, and I wouldn't even call it anti-American. So, don't worry about anti-American sentiment. Your friend John gained a mistaken impression."

Brian Baldo -- Lindfield, New South Wales

"Yes, we have our own 'left liberal intelligentsia' and those who advertise their moral superiority -- anti-Howard, anti- Bush, anti-Iraq war, anti-US, but I suspect they are not quite as vicious and destructive as so many US Democrat politicians, supporters, and activists. The Sydney Morning Herald (where I saw reference to your blog), was a once a great newspaper but now caters pretty well exclusively for the inner city elites and, I suspect, the sort of chattering class audience that you attract."

"The Sidney Morning Herald is marginally worse than the New York Times and constantly reflects its hatred of Bush and all the negative news it can muster about progress in Iraq -- you know the sort of thing e.g., there will be a new quagmire along soon, two new schools opened today but instead report the car bomb and so on. ABC radio and TV add greatly to leftist bias and anti-US sentiments in Australia despite its charter to cover stories and issues in a balanced way. As in the US, the media is overrun with left liberal commentators who don't seem to realise, or admit, that a thing can be true even if Bush says it is true.

"Despite this, Howard, probably Bush's greatest stalwart, has the majority of Australians behind him and, when the crunch comes, they trust him with their welfare and they believe strongly in the US alliance. Many of us admire Bush and Howard and believe in their efforts to not sit meekly at home behind closed borders and wait for the Islamofascists to strike and watch the democracy-free Arab world continue to fester and decline."

Hey, we're "chattering class." As Mohammed Ali once said "I don't know what that means, but if it's good, I'm it."

And we're going to end this on a somewhat light note with Owen Jones, of Port Macquarie, NSW who wins the award for shortest response and, because of his general irreverence, the guy I'd want to visit my first Aussie pub with. Says Owen:

"It seems like there’s a whole lot of hate here at the moment. Don’t think that Americans are anything special. We’re even hating ourselves at the moment. Why heck, I feel like beating the shit out of myself right now."

Hillary Clinton Must Give Democrats Reason to Support Her

I live in New York and have had a sidebar banner promoting the reelection of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on my blog since sometime last summer. I removed it yesterday.

I appreciate liberal readers who have written saying that I should not support Senator Clinton and citing, among other reasons, that she is allegedly the worst example of how all national politicians are in bed together and that, as one reader said "they're all the same, Democrats and Republicans."

Those of you who buy the whole they're-all-the-same mentality are simply wrong and need to spend more time on the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives web sites reading legislation sponsored by both parties -- and associated roll call votes -- to see how incorrect you are.

(I humbly submit Party of "No" is Not The Democrats and Legislation Killed By GOP Senate Defines Republicans on this site as a good start toward dispelling that myth.)

I've never been an adoring fan or a detractor of Hillary Clinton. I think she's done an able job as a New York senator—as has Chuck Schumer – and, yes, I support her simply because she's a Democrat. Indeed, I'm probably inclined to defend her a bit more because there's not a Democrat out there who will attract the GOP slime machine to the extent her campaigns will always experience. I may disagree with her on some of her stances (or the lack thereof) but I view it primarily as a family squabble – we're both Hatfields and I'll defend her against the McCoys any time.

But, as I've said previously in this space, our need for true leadership is immediate and, despite her de facto status and power as one of the perceived leaders in the Democratic party, Senator Clinton has not shown the courage or leadership required to maintain the enthusiastic support of people on our side of the political spectrum.

Not that she needs to go begging for grassroots support right now. Hillary Clinton could strangle a kitten on prime-time television in Times Square and still win back her Senate seat next year and, unless the Republicans find a way to swift boat her beyond recognition, she'll be reelected by a wide margin.

While I will immediately come to her aid if the GOP puts a serious dent in her candidacy, I resent the lack of a strong voice coming from her office right when we need her most.

And she has no excuse.

The demarcation between Democratic and Republican values has seldom been so clear and it manifests itself in many ways, including the divide over the Iraq war, tax breaks for the rich coupled with massive cuts in social programs, a soaring budget deficit and the culture of corruption and criminal, treasonous conduct on the part of the GOP. I don't recall a time when the need for Democrats to stand up and yell loudly was more apparent than it is now.

Can you imagine the sheer weight Senator Hillary Clinton could add to the national dialog if she were to raise her voice and get good and mad along with Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Barbara Boxer and John Conyers? And yet she stays silent, tucked away in a comfy little centrist cocoon that keeps her safe from Republican salvos (for now) but does absolutely nothing to fight the battles that need fighting in our country.

This is an act of pure ideological and political cowardice.

What makes it even worse – and I now don my cynical, political-operative hat – is that rising up and taking a stand against Team Bush is relatively risk-free from a political point of view. The Bush administration is under a dark cloud, the president's poll numbers remain lower than a snake's belly and he's bordering on impeachment proceedings. Republicans in Congress are swamped in controversy and support for the Iraq war drops almost weekly.

How much courage does it require to take these people on? It's a slam dunk when viewed through the prism of political strategy. Senator Clinton should be seizing the microphone and, if she showed such courage and emerged as the primary burr under the saddle of George W. Bush, she would lock up the Democratic presidential nomination by the end of 2006.

But instead, she remains silent and, despite the power and attention she could command, lets other Democrats carry the load in fighting the good fight.

I will vote for her in November but, until she starts acting more like a leader and less like political wallpaper, she will remain a disappointment and, even worse in our time of national distress, wholly irrelevant.

Wow, Bush Really is Engaged

He's much more involved in policy than we think... A big thank you to my buddy, Liz Smith, at BlondeSense for this one.

Workers See Jesus Image In Nacho Pan

Crossing the news wires yesterday was the story of employees at The Stadium Club Restaurant in Jacksonville, Fla. and their discovery of what they believe is an image of Jesus in a cooking pan used to warm nacho cheese.

The kitchen staff at the restaurant say they won't be using the pan anymore in the kitchen, but people are welcome to come and view the holy cookware.



OK, I held off for a day on this item, lest I appear to be an anti-Christmas liberal, but I'm not sure it's actually Jesus they see in that pan.

Take a closer look. I may be wrong, but... I'm thinkin' Saudi national. Missing about oh, I don't know, 1,561 days since our president said we would get his butt dead or alive...

I'm not sayin' – I'm just sayin'.

Monday Check Of The Osama Clock

If it's Monday, it's time to check the Yellow Dog Blog's Osama clock.

It has now been over four years since our country was attacked on September 11, 2001 and exactly 1,561 days since George W. Bush (The Resolute One) said that he would get Osama bin Laden dead or alive.

As we ask every Monday... Mr. Bush: Where's Osama?

Happy Holidays

There will be no political news or comment today...


Happy Holidays from The Yellow Dog Blog

With a big thank you to Talk Left for pointing it out, check out the video of Israeli singing star Liel, with Bill Clinton and 80 children -- 40 Jewish and 40 Arabic -- singing John Lennon's Imagine.

The Saturday Cartoons

Meme of Fours

From Roy, to Kevin Drum, to Digby, to Peter Daou, to my local buddy, Barbara O'Brien, to The Dog. And here's my answers:

Four jobs you’ve had in your life: Reporter, radio announcer, lumberjack, construction worker.

Four movies you could watch over and over: The Sting, Glengarry Glen Ross, Network, The War Room

Four places you’ve lived: St. Paul Nebraska, San Francisco, Los Angeles and a U.S. Navy ship at sea.

Four TV shows you love to watch: Hardball, Countdown, Meet The Press, Survivor

Four places you’ve been on vacation: Jackson Hole, Hawaii, the entire Southwest and, while in the Navy, much of the world – but that was hardly a vacation.

Four websites you visit daily: Crooks and Liars, Smirking Chimp, Alternet/Peek, Democratic Underground – and then some.

Four of your favorite foods: Steak, giant Caesar salads with chicken, Anything from Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles or Aunt Kizzy's Back Porch (both in L.A.) and onion rings.

Four places you’d rather be: San Francisco (just because), Los Angeles (because, unlike many people who lived there at one time, I loved it), Las Vegas (with my demented buddies), on a lengthy road trip anywhere with my wife.

Throwing this way over the fence, all the way to the West Coast, to … Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake!

An Absolute Must-Read This Weekend: The Brad Blog

In addition to being an all-around great guy, Brad Friedman is one of my favorite writers and I consider The Brad Blog a daily must-read. But he's really outdoing himself lately with a vital issue that most of us with non-blog day jobs simply cannot pay enough attention to: Election fraud and how people will be voted -- or not! – into office in our country now and in the foreseeable future.

This is a great place to go to find out all of the latest issues and problems with the likes of Election Systems & Software (ESS) and Diebold, including the Diebold "starter page" to get you quickly up to speed.

The Brad Blog is truly looking at how this is all being played out in every state and it's the best thing you can read this weekend.

So, thank you for visiting the Yellow Dog Blog and Happy Holidays to you and yours – now go see Brad.

Reader Mail: The Friday Fruitcakes

It's time to take our regular look at the Yellow Dog Blog mailbag and see what right-winger managed to sneak onto the family computer when Mom and Dad weren't looking.

A brand new entrant in our hate-mail roster, "GoBushGo," in an e-mail titled "Love it or leave it" writes...

Dear Yellow/Coward Dog,

What is it with you liberals. [sic] If you can't support our president and war like good Americans why don't you get the hell out of our country? Support Bush or get out!

A PROUD American

To which I respond...

Dear GoBushGo,

Aside from the fact that your love-it-or-leave-it ultimatum demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what makes our country so wonderful – that we have the freedom and right of dissent – the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids us leaving for that reason.

I will quote directly from the 29th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"While the right of the people to travel freely domestically and internationally, shall not be abridged, United States citizens are expressly forbidden from relocation to a foreign land, based on express or perceived dissent from the policies or practices of the federal government.

"Whether that decision is made independently or at the behest of right-wing troglodytes unfamiliar with the intent and scope of this document, it shall be the obligation of all Americans to remain domiciled within United States boundaries regardless of satisfaction with the executive, legislative or judicial branches of government. In times of war, buffoons who insist on telling fellow citizens to leave because of dissatisfaction with dissent, should be summarily ignored as this is a time when patriots of insincere intent most often reveal themselves."

So there you have it: I simply don't have the option of leaving.

OK, OK, OK. I made that up. There is no 29th amendment.

But I figured, given how few right-wingers like you actually seem to even know what's in our Constitution – much less understand it – I could blow that one by thousands of Republicans before a knowledgeable liberal finally called me on it.

Very immature of me.

However, given that I am familiar with the contents of our Constitution, I'm going to decline your polite invitation to leave. In fact, because I'm concerned with the happiness of all of my readers, let me know if you would like a list of every brutal dictatorship in the world, so you can consider moving somewhere more consistent with your philosophy.

Liberally Yours,

Bob

Tune in next week for another edition of the Friday Fruitcakes. And, for you hateful, self-loathing Republicans – keep those cards, letter and e-mails coming.

Catching Up on The "Christmas Wars"

I've tried to stay away from this as the issue is so incredibly stupid that one doesn't want to confer any legitimacy but, since, it's been all over the mainstream media, I'll try to bring you up to date on what many are calling the "Christmas Wars."

It started primarily when Fox News Nutcase-in-Chief, Bill O'Reilly and his able assistant loon, John Gibson, began a public campaign attacking what they've pumped up as a "secular war on Christmas." The two have been having a grand old time blasting companies greeting customers by saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" and similar grievous offenses that they try to sell as Christmas bashing. Gibson, host of The Big Story with John Gibson on Fox, has even published a book called The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought – and, no, I'm not kidding.

I'm guessing they test-marketed "Gay people hate Christmas" as this season's divisive issue and found it didn't sell to the Religious Right as effectively. Well, I'm happy to announce that the lunacy and hypocrisy of this is tumbling down all around them.

John Gibson appears to be in the middle of an ongoing breakdown as we see in a Wednesday meltdown on Fox News. In this one, Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State almost makes Gibson cry by calling him on his lies about American communities that are allegedly against Christmas.

Boston: You guys are rich. This stuff was made up. I called school superintendents and said you know O'Reilly...said you can't have cookies at your school...

Gibson interrupting: Rob-Rob-Rob, stop right there-Rob-ROB-STOP-RIGHT-THERE!

Boston: No you're wrong John, I'm not gonna stop...

Gibson: Yea you are, because the incidents in my book are not lies--if you're calling me a liar let's go one on one of it. --Hey Rob! Straighten up, you just called me a liar-Back up your charges--(Gary-pipe down)--Rob, you just called me a liar!--I did not say that!---(Gary, Stop!)

Gibson: If you're calling me a liar on that, you're going to get sued next.

For some reason, calling these conservatives "liar" seems to send them into a rage, which is a bit like a hooker getting mad for being called promiscuous. The "Gary" he's telling to back off is Gary McCaleb of The Alliance Defense Fund who's trying to jump in and help him against Boston.

The Carpetbagger Report gives the lowdown on how Gibson's tantrum had only just begun. Due to a personal friendship with Mr. Boston, they were able to get the story on Gibson's follow-up hissy fit via a phone call to Boston. An excerpt:

"A couple of hours after Gibson's show ended and Rob went home, Gibson's producer called Rob's cell, saying, "John's really upset that you called him a liar." The producer asked if Rob would be willing to appear on Gibson's radio show for Round Two. Rob, who managed to keep his cool while Gibson became unhinged, said he would.

"Before they could schedule an appearance, Gibson got on the phone to start screaming again. Rob, who does not suffer fools kindly, told Gibson the truth — explaining calmly that Gibson is a clown, Fox News is a joke, and their nonsense is demagoguery."

Please go to The Carpetbagger Report to read the rest.

Then we have good old Bill O'Reilly, who seems to come up with new and improved ways to act the fool on a regular basis. It's gotta be rough being one of the primary people promoting the bogus war on Christmas and then having to publicly apologize for just being flat-out wrong. But here's O'Reilly doing exactly that, after it turns out he was wrong about a previous charge he had made about a Plano, Texas school district he claimed had ruled that students could not wear the colors red and green during the holiday season.

While he doesn't apologize to the school district he defamed, here's a clip of O'Reilly on the invaluable Crooks and Liars giving as much of a retraction as you can expect from Fox News.

Finally, Fox News' own online store is adding to the hypocrisy and embarrassment by selling a stunning line of "Holiday," rather than "Christmas," ornaments.

Media Matters has the story about how Fox's goods really quite contradict what they claim to be so upset about. For example, they have a lovely set of Fox News and No Spin Zone bulbs sold as "holiday" ornaments but – hey, wait just a minute here! – when liberal bloggers started making fun of them, they changed their store language to reflect their more Christmas-centric philosophy.

Here's the old along with the new:

Before they were ridiculed, they were selling "Holiday" ornaments...



Then, after their two-faced approach was called, they suddenly became "Christmas" ornaments...



Wow, life's tough when you work at "Hypocrites R' Us, The Republican Superstore." Always a lie to explain and always hypocrisy to defend. Better them than us, huh?

And a merry Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanzaa/Holiday/Festivus/Whatever to us all!

Thanks to All New Australian Friends

When I wrote my piece, When Australians Don't Like Us, We've Got Problems, on Tuesday and asked for feedback from Aussie visitors to my site, I never imagined the deluge of lengthy, thoughtful replies that would follow – over 100 at this point. I intended on posting an article today summarizing some of those opinions but, because of the sheer volume of e-mail and my desire to do justice to the writers' efforts, I'm going to hold off until Monday.

I just wanted to keep you all posted on what was happening with that and let you know that, far from being forgotten, it's going to take a bit more time to read and absorb everything that's come in.

The gist so far seems to be as follows: Love you Americans; Hate your government.

No surprise there. I'll tell you more Monday.

Stranded Motorists You Should Not Help: Number 183

A reader in Waco, Texas – doesn't that just figure? -- forwards this bumper sticker seen just yesterday.

If you see a broken-down car with this bumper sticker, keep driving. They do not deserve your help.



Also, please let this serve as a reminder of how campaigns are conducted when dealing with Republicans and the Religious Right – and make that a motivating force for you going into 2006.

Please drop me a line at yellowdogblog@gmail.com if you spot a bumper sticker we should all know about.

MSNBC Online Poll on Impeachment

While it's a long way from scientific...



84,000 votes is still 84,000 votes. More importantly, the nation is beginning to even have the conversation.

Make your voice heard here.

Double-Mouthed Fish To Replace McClellan?

A Nebraska fisherman came upon an unusual catch last weekend when he hauled in a rare, two-mouthed trout.

"I reached down and grabbed it to take the hook out, and that's when I noticed that the hook was in the upper mouth and there was another jaw protruding out below," said angler Clarence Olberding.

The Yellow Dog Blog is investigating reports that the one-pound fish is being considered as a possible replacement for White House Press Secretary Scott "Two-Mouth" McClellan.

A Night With Scott Ritter – And Some Other Guy

"Hey, you guys are great taxi drivers," laughed Scott Ritter, the former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, as he warmly shook my hand and gave the traditional ribbing a former Marine gives to an ex-Navy guy like myself. (It's a joke among Marines about how they believe the Navy exists only to give Marines a ride.)

I met Ritter and got to spend a few minutes with him after attending a debate on the Iraq war between him and neoconservative apologist Christopher Hitchens Tuesday night.

Moderated by talk-show host Jay Diamond after the scheduled moderator, Air America's Laura Flanders, took ill, the debate was held at the old and austere Tarrytown Music Hall in Westchester County, NY.

Ritter, the author of Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein, was a top U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 through 1998 and frequently served as the chief inspector. Prior to his employment with the U.N., Ritter was a major in the U.S. Marines, where he served for 12 years as an intelligence officer and a ballistic missile adviser to General Schwarzkopf in the first Gulf War.

He struck me one-on-one as much the same person I watched dismantle Hitchens in front of a crowd of perhaps 600 people Tuesday: ramrod straight and solid, without an ounce of military bearing lost in civilian life and more than capable of debating both the technical and political nature of pre-war intelligence leading up to the Iraq mess.

The Gulf-war Veteran, who described himself in introductions as a "Reagan Republican who voted for Kerry," made it clear at the start of the evening exactly where he stood.

"I am opposed to this war as much as one can possibly be opposed to this war," said Ritter firmly. "I cannot come up with any justification worthy of a single American life, as to why we should be in Iraq today. And we must take a look at how we got there. That is the foundation of our involvement and, Ladies and Gentlemen, it is as corrupt a foundation as you can possibly imagine."

Hitchens, the acerbic British author and Vanity Fair contributor is a self-described "proponent of the Iraq war," and, while sometimes hard to pin down on his overall political views, clearly came to this event prepared to defend George W. Bush and the Iraq war.

"Another confrontation with Saddam Hussein was inevitable," said Hitchens in defending the Iraq invasion. "Who should have determined the timing of that confrontation? Saddam Hussein? Or the U.S. and other democratic nations?"

When asked point-blank by the moderator whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq had the credible capability of harming the U.S. at the time of the invasion, Hitchens, who was in no position to challenge Ritter's expertise on the subject, stuck to vague GOP talking points.

"As long as Saddam Hussein was in power, it was not possible for the U.S. to ever relax," Hitchens said.

Ritter, whose last role at the U.N. was as chief of the "Counter-Concealment Team," fired back at Hitchens.

"The Iraq Survey Group, headed by David Kay, found [in post-invasion Iraq] that Iraq had destroyed the totality of its nuclear weapons program and confirmed what the CIA had already said about them having destroyed it as far back as the summer of 1991."

The best Hitchens could respond with was the worn-out story of Mahdi Obeidi, an Iraqi scientist who in 2003 was found to have hidden spare parts for developing a nuclear bomb under some rose bushes in his yard, where they had been buried for 12 years.

The parts, Ritter pointed out, proved nothing about Iraq's WMD capability and were just the desperate actions of "... a scientist who didn't want to let go of his life's work."

But the lame spare-parts-under-the-rosebush offering was typical of an evening that saw Hitchens insulting people not there to defend themselves – Lesley Stahl, of CBS News, may want to see a transcript -- making nasty asides to both Ritter and the moderator and, at one point, asking Ritter to "...stop saying how many times you were in the Marine Corps."

Of course, like most people of a neoconservative bent arguing in favor of the Iraq war, Hitchens is snide about Ritter's military service while – and you just know this other shoe is going to drop – having never served in the military himself.

Ritter controlled the entire debate with his knowledge and straightforward style, saying "The mission in Iraq was never, ever about disarmament. It was about regime change. And that's all it was about."

"Stop evaluating Iraq from a national security perspective – you will go insane. If you evaluate America's policy in Iraq from a national security perspective, it makes no sense across the board," said Ritter. "This had nothing whatsoever to do with the security of the United States and it had everything to do with correcting a political embarrassment to the U.S. and that was Saddam Hussein remaining in power."

Hitchens even threw out that old neocon line about Muammar Khaddafi being frightened out of his wits by U.S. actions in Iraq and giving up his own weapons capability as a result -- at which point Diamond questioned whether Khaddafi's move wasn't actually the culmination of 10 to 12 years of negotiations with the Libyan dictator.

Said Ritter in response: "It represents a process that, had it been applied to Iraq, 2,125 plus Americans would be home with their families alive. 15,000 Americans whose lives have been torn asunder would have their bodies intact, their mental facilities intact and tens of thousands if not more Iraqis would be alive..."

Near the end of the debate, Diamond asked Hitchens to explain the constant linking of Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda and September 11 by the Bush administration, despite no proof of any such linkage. Hitchens stunned the crowd by saying the following:

"I think you'll find that with the exception of one slightly clumsy statement made by the vice president, there hasn't been any other allegations made to that effect."

While the mostly-liberal crowd either laughed or booed at that whopper, Hitchens continued to blather on while not answering the question, before being cut off by Ritter.

"We have not destroyed al Qaeda, we have not destroyed those who gave them safe haven and succor. al Qaeda still exists. Osama bin Laden still exists," Ritter said. "To make the link between September 11 and Iraq is absurd in the extreme. And it's wrong and it's morally wrong. And this is what the President of the United States does every time he makes a speech to this day."

Ritter ended the debate with passion that brought the most enthusiastic reaction from the crowd.

"This is a war that's not worth the loss of one American because it's a war based on a lie. And there's no way the revisionists of history can undo that," he said. "And if you buy into the notion that the ends justify the means and you call yourself an American, then throw your passport on the ground and get the hell out of my country because America is about the rule of law and due process!"

That part sure got my heart racing and my hands clapping.

Ritter was cool and calm after the debate as he met well-wishers and signed copies of his book. As we talked, I asked him if I was correct that, despite his tough-guy talk, Hitchens has never been in the military and was thus just another neocon chickenhawk.

"Well, I don't think Chris has ever served himself. But I know many in his family have a proud military history, so I think he has an appreciation for what people in uniform go through," said Ritter.

While I'm not sure I agree with that statement, it was a fitting end to the evening from a true officer and a gentleman.