first!!

I should've known that Yankee would be in favor of Unions. As far as Kucinich goes I think it's pretty clear that he wasn't dozing off during Tony Blair's remarks, but rather in a deep space interstellar communications trance exchanging data with the mothership, "Sell low, buy high; Bush lie people die..."

There is no longer any serious doubt that Bush administration officials deceived us into war.

The key question now is why so many influential people are in denial, unwilling to admit the obvious...

But even people who aren't partisan Republicans shy away from confronting the administration's dishonest case for war, because they don't want to face the implications...

[Editor's Note: It seems unlikely that Paul Krugman posted this comment, and didn't even include the link so you could buy a copy of his column from The New York Times online. The material above was "borrowed" from it, without proper attribution.]

If there's any group that knows about obvious dishonesty, it is the Democrat liberals. While apparently indifferent to eight years of lies from the previous occupant of the White House, lies so obvious and self serving they staggered the mind, the libs think that an honest Republican admitting to errors is dishonesty of such perfidy to require --- what exactly? Reburial of all the bones in the mass graves? Reinstitution of the corpses of Uday and Qusay in their Bagdhad palaces?

PeeKrugman, what EXACTLY is it that you claim was deceitful?

Even Bill Clinton, who used to be a President, did not say nonsense:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92677,00.html

There's only one problem with Dean going to Mars. There's almost no oxygen in the atmosphere. One can only conclude that the Clintons have already been there, and sucked all the oxygen out of the planet.

Would that make Dean the clone of the Clintons?

Much of what the American public was told about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was sexed up, blown up or just plain made up.This is not merely a question of imaginary, anthrax-armed Scuds.

It is a fundamental question of truth and integrity in governance.

Most of what Pres Bush told us about Iraq was common and accepted knowledge across the intelligence services of nations that have intelligence services.

"It is a fundamental question of truth and integrity in governance" by Impeach Bush. Now THAT is gall. The mind of a liberal. How does this make sense? What happens to their brain? It HAS to be a chemical imbalance. The synapsis reroutes information to the looney tunes section of the brain and then they spew it out. The world will never cease to amaze me. Ain't it great?

Given how "Impeach Bush"'s brain works, then Clinton should have been kicked out for bombing that aspirin factory.

But then again, IB's brain is probably not engaged at all.

Hey, IB: Does this mean that Kofi Annan will have to leave office, too? After all, his organization passed 18 resolutions about WMD in Iraq. Were they oversexed, too?

Why do you all (translation: y'all) argue with IB via facts and logic? He probably knows that Clinton made military decisions on bad intel convieniently the day before a senate hearing on his impeachment, that the UN and all countries (even those against the war) agreed with our assessment of the big picture, that Iraq had WMD and hadn't proven their destruction, etc. He knows all that. What you conformist Scrapplers don't understand is that IB has a certain perspective. Let me help you understand it:

1 Close eyes
2 Put fingers in ears
3 Pants optional
4 Scream as loud as you can: "BUSH LIED; I HATE BUSH; STOLEN ELECTION; BUSH IS STUPID"
5 Repeat, hundreds of times a day

You would sooner teach your dog algebra than change IB's mind with logic or facts.

Hmmm. My hamster is currently working on the Grand Unification Theory, linking gravitation to the strong and elector-weak nuclear forces.

Yet, still, the liberal in my cube farm continues to post MoveOn.org petitions.

Speaking of...hey, the war is over...Iraq is liberated. Can't we just MoveOn to reconstructing the country? Why are we looking back into ancient history, like way back in January?

Here is what Bill Clinton, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry had to say about Iraq BEFORE Bush II was elected and "deceived" them into supporting armed intervention:

"Sometimes the United States has to act alone, or at least has to act first. Sometimes we cannot let other countries have a veto on our foreign policy."
--President Bill Clinton, October 6, 1996

"What if (Saddam Hussein ) fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

These are the words not of President George W. Bush in September 2002 but of President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998.

Bill Clinton again in 1998:
"Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM. In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and chief organizer of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth."

"Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability--notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century," he argued. "They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

"I hope Saddam Hussein and those who are in control of the Iraqi government clearly understand the resolve and determination of this administration and this country. This may be a political year, . . . but on this issue there can be no disunity. There can be no lack of cohesion. We stand united, Republicans and Democrats, determined to send as clear a message with as clear a resolve as we can articulate: Saddam Hussein's actions will not be tolerated. His willingness to brutally attack Kurds in northern Iraq and abrogate U.N. resolutions is simply unacceptable. We intend to make that point clear with the use of force, with the use of legislative language, and with the use of other actions that the president and the Congress have at their disposal."
--Senator Tom Daschle, September 1996

"None of us knows why Saddam decided to test us now. But if the history of the last six years has taught us anything, it is that Saddam Hussein does not understand diplomacy, he only understands power, and when he brandishes power in a manner that threatens our interests or violates internationally accepted standards of behavior, we must be prepared to respond--and with force if necessary. The United States under President Bush and then President Clinton, led these earlier efforts to contain Saddam. Whereas some of our allies in the region are constrained from acting on this occasion, we are not."
--Senator John Kerry, September 5, 1996

Saddam "has to agree that there will be compliance with international law and the agreements that he signed in 1991. Period."
--Senator Tom Daschle, February 11, 1998

"Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? . . . The answer is, we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."
--Senator Tom Daschle, February 11, 1998

I mean, if ever there was a time for us to present a unified front to Iraq, this ought to be it. . . . Let's not . . . send all kinds of erroneous messages to Iraq about what kind of unity there is within the community.
--Senator Tom Daschle, February 25, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."
--John Kerry, February 23, 1998

"send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with international law."
-Tom Daschle, February 1998

Here is what they had to say after September 11th:

"Working through global institutions doesn't tie our hands -- it invests US aims with greater legitimacy and dampens the fear and resentment that our preponderant power sometimes inspires in others."
--Presidential candidate John Kerry, 2003

"We think it is critical - absolutely essential - that the United States work in concert with our allies and the world community," stressed Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle on March 12, 2003

"We have yet to see any evidence that Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction."
--Tom Daschle January 25, 2003

So apparently they were utterly convinced we had to act when Clinton was in office, but after the worst terrorist attack we have ever sustained and the death of 3000 people, they apparently either forgot why they were convinced we had to act or...
what other motive could they have?

An exhaustive list, Cassandra - thanks for putting it together.

I suspect IB just threw in his poo in the pool just to watch everyone scrambling around.

Bush's willingness to scare the children and drape himself in the flag may not be enough for voters in a 2004 election focused on largely economic issues.

You're right, PJ. It's too bad for you guys that the economy is turning around. And I thought scaring children and old people was a Democratic ploy. Are you claiming Bush has stolen this from you as well?

Yeah, I mean, how could Bush think that cutting tax rates would help the economy? What has he been reading, economics textbooks? And what did he do to stop the dot com bubble burst of 2000 that started the slide? Nothing, that's what. It was like he wasn't even President then.

Why did we invade Iraq ?

Was it because they were "reconstituting" nuclear weapons? Nope, they made that one up.

Was it because they were in possession of weapons of mass destruction? Apparently not.

Was it because they were in league with the Al Qaeda terrorists who attacked us on 9/11? Sorry, ix-nay on the evidence-nay.

Did we do it to further the cause of democracy and human rights? I don't think so. Nope.

by far the most interesting paragraph in the linked article:

The former Vermont governor did not mention any of his rivals by name, but he did display an enlarged copy of the resolution and pointed out that it did not require the president to exhaust all diplomatic means before going to war -- a slap at Kerry's assertion Monday that Bush circumvented portions of the resolution by failing to pursue international help.

Why did we invade Iraq?

****It has been explained here many times. See Cassandra's post above.

Was it because they were "reconstituting" nuclear weapons? Nope, they made that one up.

***Britain still stands by its intelligence which is based on more than the "forged" document. But even if they weren't, there was legitimate reason to believe so. Ask Brits. Ask Clinton, Kerry etc in 1998.

Was it because they were in possession of weapons of mass destruction? Apparently not.

***Well, we don't know that, and most intelligent people don't think they destroyed it all. But here is a thought: try to imagine a world where you do something on a reasonable belief, but that belief might be wrong. Even if they didn't have WMD, which is a pipe dream, we (and everyone else of every party and every country) reasonably believed they did. And Iraq sure never tried to convince us otherwise.

Was it because they were in league with the Al Qaeda terrorists who attacked us on 9/11? Sorry, ix-nay on the evidence-nay.

***No one in Bush administration ever made this claim. Straw man, anyone? The left makes the claim that Bush can't back this up, but Bush never claimed it was true. BUT, Iraq does have documented, admitted, ties with and harborred known terrorists. The war is on terror, not just 9/11 -- b/c they all will try to do another 9/11.

Did we do it to further the cause of democracy and human rights? I don't think so. Nope.

***Well, we did do that. So I'll take that.

"God bless you" Boiling Up/Impeach Bush, you try to make leftist dogmatic points, but you have the brain of a tree stump. That's nice.

I am enjoying all the comments. Thanks, ya'll. I look forward to the day that Dean, et al, will be broadcasting from Mars. It'll be a bright day here on Earth.

Hmmm. My hamster is currently working on the Grand Unification Theory, linking gravitation to the strong and elector-weak nuclear forces.

You bet he is:

Dean Exposed! He is a hamster! Probably king of the rodents holding their secret meetings on Mars where they plot to take over the world!

Now I know why Dean always looks like heís ready to snap. He must be exhausted from all his travels through space and time!

Click my name for further detailsÖ

Ever noticed how Dean and Marvin the Martian are never seen at the same time? I smell a conspiracy....

You know, I never noticed the typo until The Exterminator referenced it. It's supposed to be "the electro-weak force" However, the Left is most definitely "the elector-weak force".

I guess that's why they try to force their agenda through the courts.

As there are not enough leftist ramblings here so far, allow me:

BUSH LIED; I HATE BUSH; STOLEN ELECTION; BUSH IS STUPID; BUSH LIED; I HATE BUSH; STOLEN ELECTION; BUSH IS STUPID; BUSH LIED; I HATE BUSH; STOLEN ELECTION; BUSH IS STUPID; BUSH LIED; I HATE BUSH; STOLEN ELECTION; BUSH IS STUPID; BUSH LIED; I HATE BUSH; STOLEN ELECTION; BUSH IS STUPID; BUSH LIED; I HATE BUSH; STOLEN ELECTION; BUSH IS STUPID; BUSH LIED; I HATE BUSH; STOLEN ELECTION; BUSH IS STUPID; BUSH LIED; I HATE BUSH; STOLEN ELECTION; BUSH IS STUPID; BUSH LIED; I HATE BUSH; STOLEN ELECTION; BUSH IS STUPID; BUSH LIED; I HATE BUSH; STOLEN ELECTION; BUSH IS STUPID; BUSH LIED; I HATE BUSH; STOLEN ELECTION; BUSH IS STUPID; BUSH LIED; I HATE BUSH; STOLEN ELECTION; BUSH IS STUPID; BUSH LIED; I HATE BUSH; STOLEN ELECTION; BUSH IS STUPID; BUSH LIED; I HATE BUSH; STOLEN ELECTION; BUSH IS STUPID;

Dr. Dean is great for the Democrat Party. All the folks who are blinded by hatred of President Bush, some of whom, pathetically, post on this log, have found a leader.

When, in the last election, Democrats claimed that they had failed to get their message out, it begged the question, "What message?" Dr. Dean has a message. Right now, that message, "Raise taxes, bring all our troops home and increase the pace at which we are Slouching Towards Gomorrah” resonates with only a few.

The goal of conservatives is to ensure that our policies energize Republicans to keep it that way.

What we don't need is a two-party system consisting of Demopublicans and Republicrats where you get the same legislation no matter who gets elected.

I was going to send a contribution to Ralph Nader’s spoiler campaign but maybe a few bucks will have to go to the Howard the Doc.

Normally, I would agree with you - that a R/D system without a difference between them is undesirable.

The problem now is that the Dems, like a spoiled child, are sliding into self-destructive behavior. Doc Dean is but an example.

The Republicans, OTOH, have moved to the very center of the electorate. They have exiled the Buchanans and Dukes to obscurity. Fire-breathing rightwingers, like Mike Savage, are as welcome in the GOP like maniacs like Sharpton are in the Dems.

Reps repudiate their fringe, Dems welcome their fringe. As a result, the center of mass of the Dems is an increasingly out of touch group of single-issuers, all nursing their grudges over their lattes in the Hollywood Hills, while the rank and file are being converted to Reps by folks like Limbaugh and Hannity and Coulter and Noonan.

How do the Dems recover? I really don't care. I am totally against their cradle-to-grave smothering, so I rather hope they flame out like thw Whigs. I don't think they'll ever get over Macho Grande.

Oops, durn.

Savage is NOT as welcome in the GOP, yet Sharpton is in the Dems.

Should have previewed.

Everyone on here knows I'm essentially conservative (or, 18th century liberal). But I see an opportunity here to engage is some Bush bashing, but not on the war.

Ross said "What we don't need is a two-party system consisting of Demopublicans and Republicrats where you get the same legislation no matter who gets elected."

Ross, we are already there. On foreign policy, and in light of the war on terror, there may be a difference between the two parties' leadership. But domestically, there is hardly any reason to vote for a dem or Bush.

Here are some figures from John Fundís column in Mondayís Wall Street Journal. Fund reports that in thre first two Bush budget years federal spending has increased by an inflation-adjusted 5.3% per year. How does that compare with other administrations?

Carter 4.2%

Reagan, first term 3.5%
Reagan, second term 1.8%

George Bush 1.9%

Clinton, first term 1.0%
Clinton, sencond term 1.9%

George W. Bush (first two years) 5.3%

Carter wasted all his spending on social programs and destroyed our military. Reagan's big number was fixing the military. Since he also reduced some federal spending and cut some unneeded programs/departments, he gets a high grade. Clinton would have spent more but for a Republican congress. Bush II could argue he has these military actions and increases due to homeland security. But he is spending and expanding social programs at home like a drunken sailor. And the Republican Congress that held Clinton's spending down, is letting him do it.

No, Bush II is just a democrat on most home grown spending issues, though he pays lip service to important things like school choice and social security choice. But even there, he hasn't done anything about those issues yet.

I voted, but did not vote for Bush, Dole, Bucky or Nadar last time, and I may not again. If I do this time, it will only be b/c I don't trust the Libertarian candidate on national secuirity issues. When the Republicans start cutting spending and pushing for freedom in all aspects of my life, I'll listen more often.

With all that said, if I had only two choices, it would usually be an easy choice. Only one party thinks it is the party of the felons, deadbeats, leaches, lazy, uneducated, irresponsible, non-workers, unskilled, union mobs of society. The other party cozies up to some corporate fat cats who usually do much more good than harm and some overly zealous theocrats who lack real political power in most issues. I know who I'd rather run my government if those were my only choices.

Typical Cassandra: Drop a massive, substantive post to overwhelm the opposition.

It should be noted that just because Clinton or Kerry made quote X or Y in the late 90's does not absolve Bush's policies from careful scrutiny...The conclusion from that scrutiny should be (for the reasonable person) is that, whatever your reservations about going to war, the United States is ultimately safer at day's end with Hussein gone.

Further, I love seeing those old Clinton quotes. It highlights that Clinton was content with mouthing meaningless platitudes about foreign policy and Bush is taking action to make us safer.

Anybody know anything about the battle of Canae? Hannibal's great victory over the legions?

Or about General Guderian's victories over the Nazis?

How about the battle featured in the movie the Patriot? I think it was Cowpens.

We are about to see a political version of these. Bush and Blair retreating for two weeks, may retreat for four more, but come September, or earlier, the trap will close, the WMD information will be released, and the Democrats who had chareged ahead into the 'weak' center, will be surrounded.

By the way the BBC says Blair 'sexed up' WMD info? Now it turns out it was the other way around, and the so called expert appears to have offed himself after despondency set in when he got caught letting himself be used by the BBC.

It's my version of the Powell Doctrine (really Caspar Weinberger's, but nevermind...)

For "the key to success in any military conflict is the use of overwhelming force...instead of matching the enemy's force, entirely overwhelm it..."*, substitute:

"the key to success in any debate is the use of overwhelming and superflous verbiage".

*credit to Charles Krauthammer for wording

I agree that inconsistency in the Dems quotes doesn't mean Bush's actions shouldn't be scrutinized, but it certainly points up the hypocrisy behind their passionately expressed outrage. You've got a bunch of whiners claiming they only supported the war because Bush misled them, but their own words clearly indicate they were all for military intervention long before Dubya led them down the primrose path with sweet kisses and cubic zirconia....

Drop the question mark in the second sentence, insert period.

Spelling error (charged)

My new personal secretary is just not getting the job done.

Well said, Cassandra.

As far as for "misleading" the Dems....the intelligence gathered for the run-up has been available for those on the House and Senate Intelligence committees for at least a month, and the Washington Times reports that less than ten Congressfolk have even bothered to look at it.

So, the Libs are shrieking not from facts, but from focus-group verified emotion. And these are the people who would be president?

Please - spare me.

Has anyone seen this yet? Apparently UC Berkeley has studied conservatives and has come up with a non-politicized list of characteristics.

Article is linked to my name - warning: you may want to visit the Necessary Room for Ladies/Gents before reading this - I couldn't decide whether to laugh or cry...so I'll probably drink.

sorry - right click on my name in previous post and open in new window - forgot the target tag

The article makes me want to hurl.

The most intolerant people in the world are the PC Police.

The most egregious error in the whole thing is the equating of what is "conservative" around the world. The preservation of the Indian caste system by that country's Brahmins is equal to the Southern Dems' desire to preserve Jim Crow. Neither has any bearing on American conservatism.

It looks like they started with the conclusion, then 'meta-analyzed' the data to fit. What happens when we uncover WMD and uranium in Iraq with Nigerian shipping labels on it? Will they withdraw the report? Doubt it.

The Democratic echo chamber lives on in the Peoples Republic of Berkeley.

Jericho: It's plausible (but I don't think likely) that the administration is not releasing WMD info piecemeal to make the postwar "where are the WMDs!!" crowd look really dumb. Also: Heinz Guderian was a German general...I think you mean Zhukov who set the trap at Stalingrad that encircled Von Paulus and the German 6th army.

Cassandra: If you're drinking, I'm buying...do you like single malts?

Taranto's Best of The Web Today does a write-up on the Berkeley article.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003785

No, because if the Clintons had been there they would have had total recall...

GLG: You know, I normally stay with the soft stuff, but after that article I may reconsider. Just when I think the folks at Berkeley can't get any scarier - I wonder what they would have said if they were TRYING to be political...

Cassandra, you're aggression is just an outpouring of your fear as you try to manage your terror of uncertainty and your intollerance of ambiguity caused by this ground breaking research.

That, and you're full of hate;)

My favorite quote: "Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way."

That's nice.

Anyway, Reagan = Hitler = Mussolini. And Hitler is right wing? Uh, he was a socialist. That is left wing.

But this one is a hoot: "The researchers conceded cases of left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly resisted change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism."

"Yet, they noted that some of these figures might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended. The researchers noted that Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system."

What they meant to say was they were liberal because as communists the supported equality (eg, Stalin and Castro lived (live) in the same modest accomodations as the average Russian/Cuban). But when they started killing people and crusing dissent and doing other bad things, they are conservative.

Engage Brian - Correct!

My error.

First time I have been wrong...
Since the last time I was wrong.
:-)!

LOL

Scott you hit anouther one right on the head!

[Editor's Note: It seems unlikely that Paul Krugman posted this comment, and didn't even include the link so you could buy a copy of his column from The New York Times online. The material above was "borrowed" from it, without proper attribution.]

Scott, do you think someone made up a phoney name to post here??? good heavens!!! What HAS the world come to.

***Unrelated note about HTML***
<Language="GeekSpeak">
Cassandra: You don't need to put the target="new" in when the website is linked to your name. It gets put in automatically - you don't even need to put the <A href=""> part. Just the URL.

Oh, and is anyone else noticing that the posting script is screwing up HTML code? The <IMG> and <U> tags disappear now, and the <B>, <I>, and <A> tags get messed up. If you do add the target="new" after the href="" portion of the <A> tag, it gets removed when you click post. And if you use <I> and <B> tags, it only affects the text before the first CRLF sequence. You have to use <BR> tags instead of the Enter key. Is this intentional, or is it a bug?
</Language>

I think Clinton just set a record: I didn't see any obvious lies in what he said!

Ken:

I was going to put it under my name, but I get tired of typing "click on my name" so people will see it - I have a dirty mind and it sounds too much like, "for a good time, call ###-####".

I've been using the same tags for quite a while, but all of a sudden they don't always work. Sometimes I can put the link in by itself and it works and sometimes it doesn't open in a new window unless I add the target tag, but if you preview before posting the target tag gets stripped off. Long URL's are also problematic.

Image tags no longer work for me either unless they're in the URL field, perhaps because The Great Cheetoh-Eating One disapproved of my Chief Moose stunt in the comments section (which is fine - it was probably a dumb thing to do).

However, since I am too dumb to have my own web log, I can't complain. Mr. Ott is still the reigning Wizard of Blog.

I used to be happy to be able to hit post correctly. When I was a young boy in the Scottish highlands, we didn't have blogs you see. Then, when I decapitated the last immortal, I became all knowing. So I guess I should be able to link to all supporting cites. But I just say what I have to say in my cute accent. What I say is authoritative all by itself, because I know everything.

Hhmmmmmmm ... links. I wonder if they are snausage links? Did I think that or say that? D'oh.

Was that really a test?

Or was it a plan to distract us all from link failure in threads on Scrappleface.

The question has now become, what did Scott Ott know and when did he know it?

[Editor's Note: It is a demostratration that the official ScrappleFace ombudsman always brings the readers' concerns to the vast editorial staff at ScrappleFace. One of myriad geeks in our IT department has ameliorated the known issues. ]

Dear Mr. A. Lert Editor:

Sure...fine...so it worked for YOU!

Test One...img tag...check.

Test Two...link opening in new window...RATS - STILL CAN'T MAKE IT WORK

It ain't easy bein' cheesy

But thanks for listening :)

I'm saddened, hurt and deeply saddened that Scott Ott would resort to such tactics as a single img tag link test.

And so the cover-up at Scrappleface begins.

Following extensive questioning by the Select People's Democratic Committe for Satirical Blog Oversight the Scrapplface ombudsman falls on his sword, because of his miscommunication with the Scrappleface public, namely Miss Sandra Dee.

But the question on all Americans lips tonight is, "Will the scandal reach all the way to Chairman Ott's office?"

BREAKING STORY

ScrappleFace Editor Scott Ott is facing serious allegations of scandal and perhaps even murder in the mysterious disappearance of Chester Cheetah (click on my name for link...sigh...) from a post entered at July 23, 2003 06:39 PM.

"One minute he was there - the next, he vanished into thin air", said one long-time ScrappleFace analyst. "It really made me realize - it ain't easy, bein' cheesy", pondered the puzzled poster.

John F. Kerry, (who many people do not realize is a VietNam Vet and part-owner of Frito-Lay) called for a Congressional investigation into the matter. "The American people demand to know what is going on - there is an intelligence gap, a credibility gap, and most importantly, a junk food gap that must be addressed by the adminstration at ScrappleFace. If I am elected President, I promise to make this my first priority. The whereabouts of Chester must be made public."

Congressman Rangell (D, Whatever) had this to say:

"The disappearance of Chester Cheetah is clearly murder - there are laws against assasination in this country. The fact that it took the entire vast editorial staff at ScrappleFace to subdue and abscond with one poor cheetah is a sad comment on the current adminstration".

More at 11.

How can one critize Mr. Ott?

Clearly past leaders have had similar problems with dissappearing fast or junk food. I can recall a recent leader with whom any McDonalds product was short lived. And another around which jelly beans would not last. Clearly all our leaders are susceptible to such actions and there is no need to think Mr. Ott acted abnormally in the disappearance of the character in question.

Mr. Lock Step:

You American cowboy conservatives are all alike. You'll believe anything your leaders tell you - just blindly goose-stepping along with the marching band down the road to facism. UC Berkeley has your number, and it's 666...

The public is now increasingly demanding - what happened to the missing Scott Ott test post and who made off with Miss Sandy's Chester Cheeta image? Thoughts of the missing 16 and 1/2 minutes of the Nixon tapes come to mind.

After Mr. Ott was arrested in San Diego with a new haircut (a little off the top, but not too much, and a new part on the left side), 15,000 pecos, orange fingers and a gift certificate to an Encenada brothel, Mr. Ott's attorney made this statement:

"Mr. Ott is innocent. At most, he made the mistake of junk food glutony. Chester Cheetah was known to hand out with undesirable swingers in the San Diego area, and quite frankly we believe that he may have been killed by a satanic cult or that cat mutilator in Colorodo. Although Mr. Ott used to go to the Texas dessert to shoot guns with Mr. Cheetah, he has never shot Mr. Cheetah. We believe that the police should be interviewing that Lynch family in Colorodo, who have seemed to disappear lately. We believe that the ransom note, found in Cheetah's basement, contains teh answers for the police in this case. I have hired a crack staff to investigate and find the real killer. At this very moment, OJ is searching behind a sand trap in Santa Monica looking for that Cheetah fella. We believe that Mr. Ott's name will be cleared shortly."

Yo! KJ. talkin' smack bout me behind my tail???....

The Lynch family is REALLY from **Palestine...therefore wouldn't that add to your post-catnip smoking conspiracy theory?...I happen to be their not-quite-bi-coastal cat. Fame does that to a person....errr....feline!---
**(Palestine, W VA.)

As for Chester Cheetah. He's too cheesy for me. I hang only with the cool cats!

Regarding my absence from here...well fame has a way of doing that to a person...err...feline....that and a computer hacker!!!--But I'm baaaaack....with NO orange stains on my paws either. Let me hoist the keyboard up to the monitor so you can see for yourself! See...no stains. As for your Otta get his haircut theory: I've got a tip for you linked to my name...

I suggest they look behind OJ's sand trap for a 2nd glove...or Michael Jacksons real estate...he's gotta have another glove somewhere...and I'll bet one of em's tainted orange. Jacko probably kidnapped Chester....(boy did I just open up a whole new potential thread hijacking with THAT comment. sorry!)

Me thinks Michael Moore ATE Chester. After Farenheit 9-11 flops he'll come out with another "cheesy" flopumentary about ties between Chester Cheetah and Scott Ott...all the while Moore is the one who ate the giant Cheddarshire Cat!

If Cheetos every comes out with a catnip flavor---Id' like to know about it. Meanwhile KJ...you should be ashamed of yourself stealing the neighborhood cats personal stash of feline whacky weed!! As they say in the--ahem--Cheez Its(TM) commercial: GET YOUR OWN BOX!

KJ
please take your medication...
there yah go
now relax..
see all better

oh by the way......

4 MORE YEARS
4 MORE YEARS
4 MORE YEARS
4 MORE YEARS
4 MORE YEARS
4 MORE YEARS
4 MORE YEARS
4 MORE YEARS
4 MORE YEARS
4 MORE YEARS
4 MORE YEARS

I'm just reporting the facts. Personally, I think that Ott's attorney is a looney.

Medication ... kicking ... in ... must ....... sleep ........... zzzzzz

you liberals dont deserve freedom
you live off the blood of its defenders

you liberals dont deserve freedom
you live off the blood of its defenders

you liberals dont deserve freedom
you live off the blood of its defenders

you liberals dont deserve freedom
you live off the blood of its defenders

you liberals dont deserve freedom
you live off the blood of its defenders

you liberals dont deserve freedom
you live off the blood of its defenders

TRUTH HURTS DONT IT

Whoa - not my fault. And I'm not a whistle-blower, either.

I think the whole thing is a bug, anyways, since it showed up (or I noticed it then, I'm not sure) at roughly the same time as the warning screen on posting that said:

Warning: fopen("/usr/local/psa/home/vhosts/scrappleface.com/httpdocs/commentsubscribe/987.txt", "a") - Permission denied in /usr/local/psa/home/vhosts/scrappleface.com/httpdocs/functions.php on line 29

Warning: fopen("/usr/local/psa/home/vhosts/scrappleface.com/httpdocs/commentsubscribe/subscriptions.inc", "a") - Permission denied in /usr/local/psa/home/vhosts/scrappleface.com/httpdocs/functions.php on line 35

please wait... your comment is being submitted.

Ken:

I see Scott got to you first - the coverup continues...

And I thought you'd never sell out - I'm deeply saddened by your defection.

We, the Ruling Council of Mars, protest this unilateral threat to send a weapon of massive democrat to our pristive and sovereign planet. We will send a copy of our formal protest to your United Nations.
No doubt this ruling body has the power to control a rogue state like the U.S.

(p.s. send more robot probes, the kids love to play with them.)

Those martian kids and their probes. Nuttin' but a bunch of sicko perverts. But all of us prior-abductees on earth already new that.

Judd Winick knows why aliens abduct people. It's all in Barry Ween 2.0.

<language="GeekSpeak">
Actually, the error messages stopped very soon thereafter. But the messing-up of HTML tags continued. Such as the use of <B> and <I> tags. They still work, but only when the </B> or </I> end-tag comes before any CRLF combinations that are after the <B> or <I> tags. But they still show up in the edit box after clicking preview, and they are still in the original positions. They just have no effect past the first line. So it's just a bug.

BTW, the target= is not a tag. A tag is surrounded by <> characters. It is a property of the A tag. And target="new" is required to open the target in a new window. If you don't put it in, it will always open in the same window, unless you have tweaked your OS to always open links in new windows (I'm not sure this is possible, but you can do it for directories/folders.)
</language>