No surprise that the USA is always at fault in your eyes.

my fav part was carter "throwing the shah under the bus!" hahaha! this guy doesn't even know history…i thank him for his service but we overthrew a democratic government in iran, along with a big boost from the british and THEN we install a dictator in the shah and THAT begins the islamic movement against him AND the USA for SUPPORTING a dictator. just like we did in the 80's when we SUPPORTED saddam hussien.

oh, i know facts, annoying facts…

btw, i won't call this guy an idiot or traitor, even though he gives no such quarter to others in his screed. it is really nothing but sad…

Insight of a Sergeant Major

(The author, J.D. Pendry, is a retired Army Command Sergeant Major who writes for Random House.)

NO PUNCHES PULLED HERE

Jimmy Carter, you're the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the Runner-in-Chief.

Bill Clinton, you played "ring around the Lewinsky" while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia, and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses embolden the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately they grew bolder, until 9/11.

John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You've accused our Soldiers of terrorizing women and in Iraq. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time… the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You're a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can't win militarily in Iraq. You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof. And said we should redeploy to Okinawa. Okinawa, John? And the Democrats call you their military expert. Are you sure you didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You're a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You're not a Marine sir. You wouldn't amount to a pimple on a real Marine's ass. You're a phony and a disgrace. Run away John.

Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned South East Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? See Dick run

Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster sized pictures from Abu Grhaib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraqis torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news this week Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrate real torture for you again. If you truly supported our troops, you'd show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese which led to a communist victory there. You're a bloated fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on you wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington.

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer et al ad nauseam. Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied. That the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers. That we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers – the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers – cause to think that we will run away again and all they have to do is hang on a little longer.

American news media, the New York Times particularly. Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can't strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.

You are America's axis of idiots. Your collective stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don't ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam. If you want our Soldiers home, as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies. Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with -self. I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don't deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war and this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.

No Commander in Chief, you don't get off the hook either. Our country has two enemies. Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within. Your Soldiers are dealing with the outside force. It's your obligation to support them by confronting the axis of idiots. America must hear it from you that these people are harming our country, abetting the enemy and endangering our safety. Well up a little anger please, and channel it toward the appropriate target. You must prosecute those who leak national security secrets to the media. You must prosecute those in the media who knowingly publish those secrets. Our Soldiers need you to confront the enemy that they cannot. They need you to do it now.

enjoy, you lurking right-wingers, as you and your flunky solomon for the AP fail yet AGAIN to pin something on reid. meanwhile it's now up to 19 repubs curently under some sort of investigation. you must be very proud.

here's what the trib says:

The tempest that’s been created over Sen. Harry Reid’s Las Vegas real-estate transaction puts me in mind of the famous poet’s famous line “There is no there, there.”

In Reid’s case, the line could be adapted to say: There was no sale there.

For those who haven’t been following this tale, it all stems from a recent Associated Press story. The article reported that Reid, the Senate’s top Democrat as minority leader, may have run afoul of Senate ethics rules by failing to disclose on his ethics forms the 2001 “sale” of Las Vegas real estate he owned with a friend.

There’s only one problem. Reid of Nevada didn’t actually sell the real estate in 2001. What he did was transfer it to—get this—himself and the same friend he bought it with in 1998, a former casino lawyer named Jay Brown. (Read the point-by-point description provided by Reid's office. Download the point_by_point.doc))

The men transferred the real estate to a limited liability company, or LLC, they controlled called Patrick Lane LLC.

Such tranfers are very common and exceedingly legal. Indeed, many lawyers recommend the step to investors and small business people as a way to shield their personal wealth from liability, as in the event someone is injured or killed on the real estate.

So it’s credible when Reid says that he didn’t disclose a “sale” on his 2001 disclosure form because there was no sale.

When the men sold the real-estate in 2004 for $1.6 million, Reid received about 75 percent of that, between $1.1 million and $1.2. million, according to a Reid aide. His profit, based on his original investment of $400,000 amounted to about $700,000. His 2004 disclosure form doesn’t have the precise figure, saying only that it fell within a certain range. The reporting rules permit such ballparking.

Senate ethics requirements also didn’t require Reid to report on his disclosure form who his real-estate partner was.

But the Washington Post, in an editorial today, took the Nevada senator to task for not making such disclosures. It also, mistakenly, said he no longer owned the land after 2001.

“… That Mr. Reid no longer owned the land, but instead had sold it for an interest in the Patrick Lane Corp, was not some mere ‘technical change,’ as the senator would like to brush it off. It’s an essential element of financial disclosure rules, the purpose of which is to know how and with whom public officials are financially entwined.”

The problem with the Post’s position is, once again, there was no sale. The two men still owned the property though in 2001 it wasn't owned in their names per se but in the name of a legal entity they controlled.

They were even paying property taxes on the real estate in rough proportion to their ownership stakes. The AP story says as much. Not even Democrats are willing to pay real-estate taxes on property they no longer own.

Another problem: there weren’t any ethics rules that required Reid to disclose who his partner was. So he’s being pilloried for not following a regulation that didn’t exist.

It's not typical for lawmakers to go beyond what's required when they file their financial disclosures. For instance, House Speaker Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) didn't reveal on his 2005 disclosure his use of a trust to acquire and sell acreage–his own and other land owned by a partnership he belonged to–to a developer for $4.9 million.

He didn't have to. His lawyer said that instead of disclosing the trust without telling exactly what the trust owned, "Speaker Hastert disclosed the amount of his interest and the location of the property on the Financial Disclosure for the year in which the closing of the transaction occurred."

Getting back to Reid, the Posts suggests that Reid might have wanted to hide his business dealings with Brown, whose name has come up in federal probes as the Washington Post points out, though he has never been charged with wrongdoing.

But Reid and Brown's names could easily be found on real-estate documents on file with Clark County where Las Vegas resides, records accessible to the public, including Republican opposition researchers and investigative journalists. Not exactly the way one would operate if covering one's tracks was the goal.

"Obviously, Republicans are in danger of losing the House and the Senate and are desperate to push out any story that takes their troubles off the front page," said Jim Manley, Reid's spokesman. "The fact is Senator Reid owned the land from 1998 to 2004 and he fully disclosed that fact. If the ethics committee requests a technical correction to Senator Reid's disclosure forms we are happy to provide one."

The Republican National Committee picked up the Post editorial and other unfavorable Reid news coverage, wrapped it up in a press release and sent it out today, hoping to give this story more legs.

But the legs on this story seem very wobbly.

Great find kj….. take the rest of the day off.

check out book #5 on the USMC RECOMMENDED book list. do ya think they would have a book that was not true or "obscene?"

http://www.mcu.usmc.mil/reading/modules.php?name=Reading_List&op=booksbytitleletter&ltr=F

only a dirtbag like drudge would bring up something so STUPID and pointless…

My only complaint with Lynne Cheney is that she now denies what she wrote is what it is.

I'm also confused about your attitude concerning lesbians, Mencken. Weren't you the one who authored a previous post smearing Cheney for her novelized lesbian sex scenes? Why the self-righteous hullabaloo about lesbian public kissing?

Lesbianism legal and acceptable???? I suppose that depends on

where you're standing and who you're talking to. If it's legal and acceptable, that means two woman could smooch away at a Browns game without being harrassed, ejected, or arrested.

You all three of those things would happen.

Now stuff dog bones up your butt, urinate and vomit on the people in front of you at the game… that's the definition of legal and acceptable.

I also wanted to underscore the enlightened left's strange tendency to harangue the Cheney's on lesbian issues.

Isn't lesbianism legal and acceptable these days? How does it relate to pedophilia?