I have to admit I’ve used blogads (I run them and have occasionally taken out a small one or two) — but this kind of advertising raises eyebrows:

For $10,000, Kari Smith has gone ahead and had her forehead tattooed with the Web address of a gambling site.

Smith, 30, who sold her unusual advertising space on eBay, said the money will give her 11-year-old son a private education, which she believes he needs after falling behind in school.

“For the all the sacrifices everyone makes, this is a very small one,” she said. “It’s a small sacrifice to build a better future for my son,” she said.

“To everyone else, it seems like a stupid thing to do. To me, $10,000 is like $1 million. I only live once, and I’m doing it for my son,” she said.

Tattoo artist Don Brouse said he and his staff spent nearly seven hours Wednesday trying to talk Smith out of putting “GOLDENPALACE.COM” above her face. When he did go through with it, he kept the inch-tall letters close to her hairline, where bangs or a hat could provide some cover.

Here’s a teeny weenie question: Do they really think that having that tatooed is going to make everyone she sees run out to a computer and gamble on line?

It’ll more likely get her lots of junk mail and spams from companies offering her “free” trips to Las Vegas and Indian Reservations.

On the other hand, my Uncle Sid once did something like that.

He had the name of a Deli tatooed on his private parts. The deli insisted the ad had errors so they sued him and he had to show the ad to the judge.

It didn’t hold up in court.

So he continued showing the ad for several years but spent some time in prison as a repeat flasher. His wife tried to get him quit showing the ad but he decided to stick it out for one more year.

There’s been a lot of talk these days comparing Vietnam to Iraq. How does it hold up?

Oxblog’s David Adenesnik looks at this post that raises the issue and here’s his reaction.

But now he’s not and THIS PERSON seems to be the one Californian’s like best.

A Zogby poll shows yet more erosion of President Bush’s ratings, even after his high-touted Iraq speech at Fort Bragg.

And it also shows heightened polarization, where a large chunk of the electorate believes he should be impeached if it’s proven he lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq.

It’ll be interesting to see if this coincides with other poll findings over the next few weeks — you have to keep individual polls in the overall context and Zogby’s reputation suffered a blow due to its 2004 election polling — but it’s jarring stuff:

President Bush’s televised address to the nation produced no noticeable bounce in his approval numbers, with his job approval rating slipping a point from a week ago, to 43%, in the latest Zogby International poll. And, in a sign of continuing polarization, more than two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.

The Zogby America survey of 905 likely voters, conducted from June 27 through 29, 2005, has a margin of error of +/-3.3 percentage points.

Just one week ago, President Bush’s job approval stood at a previous low of 44%—but it has now slipped another point to 43%, despite a speech to the nation intended to build support for the Administration and the ongoing Iraq War effort.

The Zogby America survey includes calls made both before and after the President’s address, and the results show no discernible “bump” in his job approval, with voter approval of his job performance at 45% in the final day of polling.

But it isn’t all bad news for the Prez:

Where voters live has some impact on their perceptions. The President’s job rating remains relatively strong in the South, with 51% rating his performance favorably; in all other regions, those disapproving his performance are in the majority.

In a more significant sign of the weakness of the President’s numbers, more “Red State” voters—that is, voters living in the states that cast their ballots for the Bush-Cheney ticket in 2004—now rate his job performance unfavorably, with 50% holding a negative impression of the President’s handling of his duties, and 48% holding a favorable view. The President also gets negative marks from one-in-four (25%) Republicans—as well as 86% of Democrats and 58% of independents. (Bush nets favorable marks from 75% of Republicans, 13% of Democrats and 40% of independents.)

In a sign of the continuing partisan division of the nation, more than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment. While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country.

Right now the impeachment issue is one of those journalistic scenario stories. There is no indication that a serious movement to impeach George Bush has begun among the general population or the Democrats that weild the most power. Impeachment would require some evidence that cannot be refuted by the administration, as opposed to evidence (no matter how convincing some may feel it is) that has any iffy areas.

So at this point it’s a hypothetical — but the strong polling numbers the question goes does underscore the degree of polarization in the country.

UPDATE: But the Democrats’ glad-all-over-feelings about GWB’s polling nosedive are probably tempered by another poll that gives them back news, too:

A poll on the political mood in the United States conducted by the Democratic Party has alarmed the party at its own loss of popularity.
Conducted by the party-affiliated Democracy Corps, the poll indicated 43 percent of voters favored the Republican Party, while 38 percent had positive feelings about Democrats.
“Republicans weakened in this poll … but it shows Democrats weakening more,” said Stanley Greenberg, who served as President Clinton’s pollster.
Greenberg told the Christian Science Monitor he attributes the slippage to voters’ perceptions that Democrats have “no core set of convictions or point of view.”
Fellow strategist James Carville said the war in Iraq and rising fuel prices are affecting party loyalty as well.
“The country is just in a foul mood,” Carville said. He noted within the same poll, 56 percent of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction.

Some of the hostages in the 1979 Tehran embassy are claiming that the new Iran leader-elect was one of their captors!

Speaking of the war on terror, what about that 9/11-Iraq connection?

Time Magazine is about to discard a fundamental journalist principle — and if Newsweek doesn’t do the same thing, you can bet Newsweek’s reporting is going to have many more details than Times’ in the future:

Time Inc. said Thursday it would comply with a court order to deliver the notes of a reporter threatened with jail in a probe of the leak of a CIA officer’s name. The New York Times, which is also involved in the dispute, said it was “deeply disappointed” at the move, which came days after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected two journalists’ appeal.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan is threatening to jail Matthew Cooper, Time’s White House correspondent, and Judith Miller of the Times for contempt for refusing to disclose their sources. Time said it believed its cooperation would make Cooper’s jailing unnecessary.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the reporters’ appeal and the grand jury investigating the leak expires in October. If jailed, the reporters would be freed at that time.

In a statement, Time, which is a defendant in the case along with the two reporters, said it believes “the Supreme Court has limited press freedom in ways that will have a chilling effect on our work and that may damage the free flow of information that is so necessary in a democratic society.” ‘

But it also said that despite its concerns, it will turn over the records to the special counsel investigating the leak.

“The same Constitution that protects the freedom of the press requires obedience to final decisions of the courts and respect for their rulings and judgments. That Time Inc. strongly disagrees with the courts provides no immunity,” the statement said.

The New York Times, of course, is aghast:

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the newspaper’s publisher, said: “We are deeply disappointed by Time Inc.’s decision to deliver the subpoenaed records.” He noted that one of its reporters served 40 days in jail in 1978 in a similar dispute.

“Our focus is now on our own reporter, Judith Miller, and in supporting her during this difficult time,” Sulzberger said in a statement. Unlike Time Inc., the newspaper itself is not a defendant because it did not publish anything. Miller did some reporting but did not write a story, while Cooper wrote a story about CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Protecting a journalist’s sources has been a paramount principle for many many years. It’s not just a convenient excuse, as some think, to make up sources. In fact, as we have seen in recent years, anyone who makes up sources eventually finds that their career has effectively ended or they lose that job and only if they have some luck can they land one of the same stature (it does happen but that isn’t the norm).

Now the next issue will become: will the identity of the source become public knowledge? And, if so, is it someone who is high profile. And if that is the case: will that person face the required legal consequences for his actions?

So in this case there are going to be two lingering issues here — the shield law and how corporate media respond to it and the actual source and how the system responds once it has a name.

Mexican President Vicente Fox better get ready for another phone call from the Reverend Jesse Jackson.

First, Fox proved himself not-so-foxy when he stepped in it after making a comment widely labelled as racist about blacks. And now his government has issued a stamp with artwork that looks as if someone copied a program from a minstrel show in America at the turn of the century — the turn of the 20th century.

But, hey, there can’t be anything offensive about it: it’s just from an old Mexican comic strip…

It all seems supremely ironic: the government of Mexico has issued a stamp with a cartoon that suggests racial stereotyping and a total lack of racial sensitivity. And the offense (when you see the cartoon) isn’t overblown PC. So fasten your seatbelts, THIS controversy has yet to reach its peak:

The Mexican government has issued a postage stamp depicting an exaggerated black cartoon character known as Memin Pinguin, just weeks after remarks by President Vicente Fox angered U.S. blacks.

The series of five stamps released for general use Wednesday depicts a child character from a comic book started in the 1940s that is still published in Mexico.

The boy, hapless but lovable, is drawn with exaggerated features, thick lips and wide-open eyes. His appearance, speech and mannerisms are the subject of kidding by white characters in the comic book.

Activists said the stamp was offensive, though officials denied it.

“One would hope the Mexican government would be a little more careful and avoid continually opening wounds,” said Sergio Penalosa, an activist in Mexico’s small black community on the southern Pacific coast.

“But we’ve learned to expect anything from this government, just anything,” Penalosa said. In May, Fox riled many by saying that Mexican migrants take jobs in the United States that “not even blacks” want.

Fox expressed regret for any offense the remarks may have caused, but insisted his comments had been misinterpreted.

Carlos Caballero, assistant marketing director for the Mexican Postal Service, said the stamps are not offensive, nor were they intended to be.

“This is a traditional character that reflects part of Mexico’s culture,” Caballero said. “His mischievous nature is part of that character.”

Oh, really? TMV as a reporter did several projects dealing with the Latino populations while working on the Wichita Eagle in Kansas and on the San Diego Union here. In each case the issue of cartoon stereotyping of Latinos came up. The typical cartoon of the Mexican covered by a sombrero taking a siesta came up. Hollywood depictions of Hispanics came up. Hollywood depictions of how Mexicans were portrayed in Western and historical movies came up.

Mexican officials at the consulate in San Diego would often talk about the importance of improving the Mexican and Latino images.

And, of course, some years ago there was that monster controversy about how the Warner Brothers cartoon Speedy Gonzales, with the voice made by notably non-Latino voice-over great Mel Blanc, was terribly racist (you don’t see many Speedy Gonzales cartoons on TV anymore). And the Frito Bandito? Fahgettabouddit..

PS: PLEASE, government of Mexico, don’t do a stamp honoring people of my religion. Spare us the cherished cartoon of Pinnochio eating bagel.

BUT THAT’S JUST OUR OPINION. THERE ARE OTHER VOICES, SUCH AS:

–American Digest:In a post titled Tia Jemima: Stamps from the Land of Day Labor writes:”Is it too much to hope that the United States issues a similar tribute using, say, Gordo and Speedy Gonzales?”
–Angela Winters:”So, from this article photo, which is a new Mexican stamp, I can only assume that Mexico has a rather low opinion of us black folks. Okay that might be an exaggeration, but even removing the deceptive veil of political correctness doesn’t keep this from being offensive. I bet President Fox ordered (it) in bulk.
–Michelle Malkin has EXCELLENT links and a roundup and writes:”You’d think there would be more of an uproar about this. President Bush likes to recite his empty platitude that “Family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande. Neither, apparently, does old-fashioned bigotry.”
–John Cole:”Which just goes to show how silly I am- a story about an allegedly racist stamp and all I can think about is how government is the same everywhere.”
–La Shawn Barber:

I wasn’t going to blog about this because it nauseates me, then I changed my mind….Whenever I see racist caricatures of blacks from back in the day, I cringe. To think there was a time in the U.S. when whites openly mocked and ridiculed blacks with these exaggerated stereotypes, and blackface comedy was all the rage. Ironically (and sadly), blacks also performed in blackface. To see it in 2005 coming from any country or anyone raises my blood pressure.

Let’s put it to you this way: a cigar draws better….

We usually get more on this site (too much) and that includes some posts by the evening San Diego time. But we’re going to resume our posts here tomorrow morning after 6 a.m

The reason: work continues on our server (he’s getting his teeth capped). Powerblogs needs TMV to put his wordiness on hold for at least one evening.

So our posts will resume after 6 a.m. tomorrow, San Diego time.

Richard Nixon is still making headlines from the grave…this time via some new tapes in which he calls India’s later-assassinated Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and “old witch.”

It’s a delightful look at what REALLY lurks underneath the fixed teeth-showing smiles of heads of state when they meet. And Secretaries of State, too: in the tapes Henry Kissinger calls Indians “bastards.”

In a tape that will perhaps turn Jerry Springer Show viewers onto foreign affairs fans, the words fly fast and furious, according to the Washington Post:

President Nixon referred privately to Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi as an “old witch” and national security adviser Henry Kissinger insulted Indians in general, according to transcripts of Oval Office tapes and newly declassified documents released Tuesday.

Nixon and Kissinger met in the Oval Office on the morning of Nov. 5, 1971, to discuss Nixon’s conversation with Gandhi the day before.

“We really slobbered over the old witch,” Nixon told Kissinger, according to a transcript of their conversation released as part of a State Department compilation of significant documents involving American foreign policy.

Nixon’s remark came as the two men speculated about Gandhi’s motives during the White House meeting and discussed India’s intentions in the looming conflict with neighboring Pakistan. The United States was allied with Pakistan and saw India as too closely allied with the Soviet Union.

“The Indians are bastards anyway,” Kissinger told the president. “They are starting a war there.”

Kissinger also told his boss that he had bested Gandhi in their meeting.

“While she was a bitch, we got what we wanted too,” Kissinger said. “She will not be able to go home and say that the United States didn’t give her a warm reception and therefore in despair she’s got to go to war.”

Other documents chart U.S. contacts with China, as facilitated by Pakistan, and U.S. concern that India was developing nuclear technology. The archive covers U.S. policy in South Asia in 1971 and 1972.

The documents, many declassified only earlier this month, generally cover old ground, several Cold War scholars said. Still, the particulars are intriguing, including rosters of who was in various meetings and quotes from conversations among Nixon, his aides and foreign leaders.

WebIndia has a transcript of some of the controversial remarks, which includes this gem of an exchange:

Nixon: The Indians need - what they need really is a-

Kissinger: They’re such bastards.

Nixon: A mass famine. But they aren’t going to get that. We’re going to feed them - a new kind of wheat. But if they’re not going to have a famine the last thing they need is another war. Let the goddamn Indians fight a war [unclear].

Kissinger: They are the most aggressive goddamn people around there.

Nixon: The Indians?

Kissinger: Yeah.

Nixon: Sure.

Gandhi was unavailable for comment (she was cremated years ago).

PERSONAL NOTE: This tape was made some months before I went over to India as a student on a senior year independent study project while at Colgate Unversity. My main task was to intern on New Delhi’s Hindustan Times newspaper.

I arrived there in January 1972 and was shocked at the bitterness and disappointment of Indians who at all levels (on the newspaper, when I’d visit a village and when I met some upper-class elites) would talk about how the U.S. was “tilting” to Pakistan and how Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger disliked India. Most of us Americans (except diplomats) dismissed it as paranoia at the time. But these tapes would suggest they were correct.

A complicating factor in those days was the fact that as the United States drew closer to Pakistan, India would edge closer to Moscow — a factor which didn’t endear the Indian leadership to American policymakers.

Plus, Mrs. Gandhi was a piece of work. In 1973 I returned after journalism school, this time to work as a freelance foreign correspondent. I wrote for the Chicago Daily News. I attended a meeting of the Foreign Correspondents’ Association at which Mrs. Gandhi was to speak. The officers said that I would have to be first in line, since the most junior member was at front. So Mrs. Gandhi came in and did her “namaste” to me first. The camera lights went on and she smiled at me, clasping her hands. The lights went off, the picture taken. Her smiled dropped immediately, she looked virtually through me and moved on.

“Did you see that?” I said to a British journalist.
“Hey,” he said, “she didn’t want to waste it…”

When polls show that this administration is losing swing voters who previously supported it in droves it’s due to Pinocchio-like whoppers like this that totally destroy it’s credibility:

A Republican congressman from North Carolina told CNN on Wednesday that the “evidence is clear” that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.

“Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11,” Rep. Robin Hayes said.

Told no investigation had ever found evidence to link Saddam and 9/11, Hayes responded, “I’m sorry, but you must have looked in the wrong places.”

Hayes, the vice chairman of the House subcommittee on terrorism, said legislators have access to evidence others do not.

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said that Saddam was a dangerous man, but when asked about Hayes’ statement, would not link the deposed Iraqi ruler to the terrorist attacks on New York, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania.

“I haven’t seen compelling evidence of that,” McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told CNN.

On Tuesday night, President Bush mentioned the September 11 attacks five times during his address on the war in Iraq, prompting criticism from congressional Democrats. (Full story)

The 9/11 commission, appointed by Bush, presented its final report a year ago, saying that Osama bin Laden had been “willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq” at one time in the 1990s but that the al Qaeda leader “had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.”

And it gets even more damning:

The 520-page report said investigators found no evidence that any “contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship.”

“Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States,” it said.

President Bush said in September 2003 that “We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks].”

Hayes’ statement sounds like classic CYI:

• The President is under fire because he can’t prove an assertion not just mentioned in passing, but one that was mentioned several times.
• The President is jumped on by Democrats, some talk show hosts, and some newspaper writers who ask: Where is the proof?
• So a GOP Congressman says there is a link and you must not have seen it. So there…

It’s unlikely the Congressman helped his side. If he was urged to make the statement by a political strategist the strategist must have gone to the Bob Shrum School of Political Consulting. All he did was to prolong this issue — to increase press and opposition demands that proof be produced. It will NOT make the White House look good.

NOTE: This writer has supported the war and will flatly say: to date there has been no solid evidence he has read or that has been presented in an official report that Saddam Huseein was involved in 911. Yes, Saddam was a very bad man. But the tie-in with 911 has not been proven. And it wouldn’t take a California jury to reach that conclusion. Simply saying “it exists” isn’t proof.

Editor’s Note: President George Bush delivered a long-awaited speech in Iraq last night at Fort Bragg. Accounts of the speech were carried by news organizations and shown on television. The speech received mixed editorial reviews and was criticized by some as being dull — but The Moderate Voice has learned the REAL SPEECH was not.

A reliable source has provided TMV an exclusive video of the REAL speech delivered last night without after-the-fact editing changes. Here are excerpts which clearly show the White House had tried to make the speech livelier. These excerpts suggest the mainstream media did not tell the whole story on what President Bush said in his speech:

Text of President Bush’s speech Tuesday night at Fort Bragg, N.C., as NOT provided by the White House:

Thank you and good evening. I am pleased to visit Fort Bragg, home of the Airborne and Special Operations Forces. It is an honor to speak before you tonight and have you serve as props for me to improve my image.

Take Howard Dean. Please.

My greatest responsibility as president is to protect the American people, get my poll numbers up — and make sure that from now on I have lunch with Bill Frist at least once a week.

The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. This war reached our shores on September 11, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us and the terrorists we face murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent.

Speaking of rejecting tolerance and despising all dissent, just attend one of my speeches. You’ll have to sign a loyalty pledge first and if you shout out anything, you’re outta there. And, by the way: no pies allowed….

To achieve these aims, the terrorists have continued to kill in Madrid, Istanbul, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Bali and elsewhere. They won’t try anything in Bridgeport, Connecticut, because its dead enough there already.

The terrorists believe that free societies are essentially corrupt and decadent. Speaking of corrupt and decadent: What’s the latest on Tom DeLay and Randy Cunningham?

With a few hard blows the terrorists can force us to retreat. A “few hard blows”? Who put in that reference to Monica Lewinsky?

These are the jokes, guys. You’re supposed to laugh

Is this a military audience or the NAACP?

Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home.

Some have made accusations against us of torture — but we have never forced anyone to listen to a lecture on psychiatry by Tom Cruise.

The commander in charge of coalition operations in Iraq, who is also senior commander at this base, General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said, “Do you know where I can get Viagra at a discount?”

Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists. We are helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We are advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren. We are trying to improve our image by talking in front of a military audience. We are unleashing Karl Rove tomorrow to give a speech that will reveal that Harry Reid doesn’t wear underwear.

The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous but not as dangerous as teaching high school.

Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed…but enough about parental behavior at Little League games.

Every picture is horrifying and the suffering is real. But let’s not talk about those nude photos of Dick Cheney.

Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country. And tonight I will explain the reasons why or my name isn’t Joe Lieberman.

Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and other nations in search of a place that serves REAL pizza.

They are making common cause with criminal elements, Iraqi insurgents and remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime who want to restore the old order and make sure Sadaam from now on only wears boxer shorts.

They fight because they know that the survival of their hateful ideology is at stake. They know that as freedom takes root in Iraq, it will inspire millions across the Middle East to claim their liberty as well. And when the Middle East grows in democracy, prosperity and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world — and they won’t get many presents at their bar mitzvahs.

Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Some wonder whether this recycled speech is at all necessary.

Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: “The fleas in my beard are killing me” and “The whole world is watching Desperate Housewives.” He says it will end in “a ratings triumph for ABC and they’ll eventually turn it into a movie, which will have big B.O. — just like me.”

The lesson of this experience is clear: The terrorists can kill the innocent but they cannot stop the advance of freedom. The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11, if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like bin Laden. For the sake of our nation’s security, this will not happen on my watch — because my watch is small and Mickey Mouse takes up a lot of space on it.

A little over a year ago, I spoke to the nation and described our coalition’s goal in Iraq and that speech wasn’t so terrific, either.

Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard and rebuilding while at war is even harder. It requires work. Hard work. Our progress has been uneven but progress is being made. That’s hard work. We are improving roads and schools and health clinics and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity and water. And together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens. That’s hard work.

Why isn’t that getting any laughs? Repeating a funny phrase works for Letterman….

Hey, Rove — who wrote this comedy material? Ralph Nader?

You guys in the front row: sit down NOW or you’ll be guilty of desertion. I still have more:

Whatever our differences in the past, the world understands that success in Iraq is critical to the security of all our nations.

As German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said at the White House yesterday, “Heil Hitler!”

Hey, Rove: who wrote that crappy Schroeder joke? Oh. Well, next time I’LL handle Laura’s contributions….

Finally, we have continued our efforts to equip and train Iraqi security forces. We have made gains in both the number and quality of those forces. Today Iraq has more than 160,000 security forces trained and equipped for a working as telemarketers. That’s about 1/4 the number in the average American city.

Iraqi forces have fought bravely helping to capture terrorists and insurgents in Najaf, Samarra, Fallujah and Mosul — and in Sherman Oaks.

And in the past month, Iraqi forces have led a major anti-terrorist campaign in Baghdad called Operation Lightning, which has led to the capture of hundreds of suspected insurgents.

This is not to be confused with the Operation Lightning that took place in the Oval Office with women who worked on Bill Clinton’s staff. And I do mean who worked on his staff.

Hey, Rove, who wrote THAT loser? Oh. Well, tell Limbaugh his brother Dave is FUNNIER….

The progress in the past year has been significant and we have a clear path forward. To complete the mission, we will continue to hunt down the terrorists and insurgents. To complete the mission, we will prevent al-Qaida and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban - a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends..a country named after a long haired dog…What do you mean it isn’t?

So our strategy going forward has both a military track and a political track. You’re believe me you’re watching the political track in frantic action right now.

The principal task of our military is to find and defeat the terrorists and that is why we are on the offense. And no adminstration has ever been as offensive as mine.

And as we pursue the terrorists, our military is helping to train Iraqi security forces so that they can defend their people and fight the enemy on their own. Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. As the Iraqis get fed down, the American public gets fed up.

We have made progress but we have a lot more work to do. Hard work. Today Iraqi security forces are at different levels of readiness. Hard — hey, I TOLD you this stuff isn’t working! Next time when I want a FUNNY speech I’ll have Scalia write it!!

Where was I? Oh…

I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible and for me to shut up. So does my wife.

Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don’t you send more troops? And I say to them: I have a better question for you. Knock Knock. Who’s there? Sadaam. Sadaam who? Sadaam shame we can’t really set a timetable on this war…

If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. I will send the COMMANDERS — not more troops. Just think of the backlash and poll numbers if I sent more troops now. No way, Jose.

Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are in fact working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders.

Speaking of sober: did you watch that video of Tom Delay slurring his speech the other day? It was posted on Crooks and Liars. I’d make a joke about who that site is named after but Rush and Sean wouldn’t like it.

These are JOKES, you guys.

Is this an audience or a scuplture exhibit?

The other critical element of our strategy is to help ensure that the hopes Iraqis expressed at the polls in January are translated into a secure democracy. Translation is vital — especially when I speak….

As Iraqis make progress toward a free society, the effects are being felt beyond Iraq’s borders. Before our coalition liberated Iraq, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons. Today the leader of Libya has given up his chemical and nuclear weapons programs but he won’t leggo my Eggo.

We have more work to do. Hard work — Jez, how many times did you idiots insert that phrase in this and think it’d get a laugh??

And there will be tough moments that test America’s resolve. We are fighting against men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons who are capable of any atrocity. Even playing Kathy Lee Gifford CDs at full blast.

They wear no uniform; they wear no socks; they wear no underwear. Hey, Karl: if that’s true then do a speech linking Reid with the terrorists. Oh. And remind me not to let Reid sit on our couch ever again….

They respect no laws of warfare or morality. Hey, they sound like my former frat brothers on party weekend!

That’s a JOKE, guys! Who booked me into THIS gig? Diane Feinstein?

They are trying to shake our will in Iraq just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001. They will fail. The terrorists do not understand America. The American people do not falter under threat and we will not allow our future to be determined by car bombers and assassins. This needs to be repeated thousands and thousands of times — and I have done just that in one speech alone.

America has done difficult work before. Hard work.,,,Oh, not again!

From our desperate fight for independence, to the darkest days of a Civil War, to the hard-fought battles against tyranny in the 20th century, there were many chances to lose our heart, our nerve or our way. But Americans have always held firm, because we have always believed in certain truths. We know that if evil is not confronted, it gains in strength and audacity and returns to strike us again. We know that when the work is hard — hard w…I WON’T SAY IT! — the proper response is not retreat, it is courage….

In this time of testing, our troops can know: The American people are behind you. Next week, our nation has an opportunity to make sure that support is felt by every soldier, sailor, airman, Coast Guardsman and Marine at every outpost across the world. This Fourth of July, I ask you to find a way to thank the men and women defending our freedom by flying the flag, sending letters to our troops in the field or helping the military family down the street. I ask you to do this for the troops. I ask you to do this because it shows I care and it can help drive my poll numbers up. And if it doesn’t Rove will be back wearing that bright uniform and hat selling corn dogs on a stick in the food court down at the mall..

I thank those of you who have re-enlisted in an hour when your country needs you. And to those watching tonight who are considering a military career, there is no higher calling than service in our Armed Forces. We live in freedom because every generation has produced patriots willing to serve a cause greater than themselves. Those who serve today are taking their rightful place among the greatest generations that have worn our nation’s uniform. When the history of this period is written, the liberation of Afghanistan and the liberation of Iraq will be remembered as great turning points in the story of freedom. And they will remember that we did hard work. CRIPES!!

After September 11, 2001, I told the American people that the road ahead would be difficult and that we would prevail. Well, it has been difficult. And we are prevailing.

Wait! We are succeeding NOW. So doesn’t that mean we’re vailing? Someone needs to work on their grammar..

Our enemies are brutal, but they are no match for the United States of America and they are no match for the men and women of the United States military. So if you hear from a pollster, tell them you support me, OK?

Thank you. And may God bless America. And Karl Rove.

In what was billed as a major address before large group of uniformed soldiers, President Bush made the case that the war in Iraq was worth the sacrifices and tied it into the context of 911 — but was this a speech that will pick up or regain lost public support or simply impress those who already support him?

First, some details, via the New York Times:

President Bush sought to rally the American people behind his Iraq policy tonight, urging them to look beyond the daily carnage, and indeed their own doubts, and see a path to victory.

“The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous,” Mr. Bush said in a speech at Fort Bragg, N.C., to airborne and special-operations soldiers, some who have experienced - or will - the hardship and dangers themselves. “Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying, and the suffering is real.”

Mr. Bush was speaking on the first anniversary of the formal transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis after the American-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in the spring of 2003. But while the president and his top advisers have celebrated the nascent Iraqi government, polls have shown increasing doubts among Americans about whether the situation in Iraq is improving, and whether the sacrifice is worth it.

“It is