It looks like Bush is going to declassify the report that the Democrats are using to claim that invading Iraq was a bad idea.

The White House contends that the document’s widely reported conclusion — that the Iraq war has increased the threat from terrorism — represents only “a fraction” of the judgments made in the document. The report, completed in April, reflects the consensus view of 16 government intelligence services.

Bush charged at the news conference that political opponents leaked select parts of the National Intelligence Estimate to media organizations last weekend “to create confusion in the minds of the American people” in the weeks before the Nov. 7 mid-term elections.

While it’s too bad that the Democrats have forced the government to partially undermine it’s security (after all, documents are classified for a reason, you can’t just go around declassifying them just because the left wing media and the Democrats are hoping there’s bad stuff about Bush in there), it’s good that we’ll finally be able to see the truth. We all know that the lies in the media about invading Iraq increasing terrorism aren’t true. Invading Iraq shows the terrorists that we mean business.

Now with the full report released, at least the media will have to apologize for their negative claims. But do you think they will? Of course not, they’ll just ignore it and pretend it never happened.

Bush agrees with my thoughts about declassifying documents for no good reason:

“Somebody has taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for political purposes,” Bush said. “I think it’s a bad habit for our government to declassify every time there is a leak.”

There should be more serious consequences for leaking classified information. What better way is there to strengthen terrorists than to give out classified information that they shouldn’t have? Classified information is classified because revealing it will damage our security. You can’t just go declassifying stuff right and left just because the Democrats want to see it.

Wow, this is really something worth mentioning and repeating as often as necessary. Maureen Dowd, the typical New York Times liberal writer, has a new column out called The Unslammed Phone where she talks about the new documentary about the Clinton administration’s involvement in 9/11.

But even Dowd can’t fight back against the truth of the matter in this case. Normally liberals will hold on to their lies with all their might, refusing to admit any bits of truth that might upset their precious little fantasy world that they live in. So to see Maureen Dowd give in and admit that Bill Clinton was responsible for September 11th, well, it just warms the heart. It shows that we are finally making some progress against the rediculous liberal bias in the media.

Dowd writes

Bill was distracted by the Monica fallout, just as W. was distracted, on Osama and Katrina, by his insistence on living life as usual in Crawford. Bill had no natural inclination to use American force and fumbled on how to strike back at Osama. W., petulantly, did not want to focus on terrorism because his predecessor had.

Wow. She openly says that Clinton was distracted by his Monica Lewinsky mess, and fumbled against Osama. Oh my God. If that isn’t something worth standing up and calling attention to, I don’t know what is. Here we have a liberal actually putting some of the blame of September 11th on Bill Clinton. Obviously everyone realizes the New York Time’s natural extreme liberal bias makes this article far kinder to Clinton than he deserves. That means that Clinton is hugely responsible for 9/11. We have the proof right here, Maureen Dowd admits it!

Here’s how she ended her column

The argument over which president is to blame for 9/11 is tiresome. Both obviously bear some blame. There are no West Wing heroes in this story.

We all know that Bush is not to blame, that’s just the typical mainstream media liberal bias seeping into the article. They can’t help it, it’s automatic over there. But seeing them put some of the blame on Clinton himself, well, it just brings a tear to the eye. This is a proud day in truthfulness in reporting, and I have never been prouder of this country.

I bet this will anger their liberal controllers in the Democratic Party, and I have a feeling the New York Times is going to get even more ultra-liberal as a response. But who knows, maybe this is the beginning of the end for them. We can only hope.

I’ve always pretty much assumed that, in general, black people were the loudest people around. You know that if you’re on the subway and hear people talking way too loud and clear from the other end of the car, they’re going to wind up being black when you look over.

But then today I started wondering if they really have that record. I was on the subway platform waiting for the train, and there was an Asian familiy down at the other end. They were trying to organize a picture of themselves in the subway station. Not only were they super loud, they always sounded shrill and nasal and angry, so it was a much more annoying loudness than the black kids who only take up lots of seats and be loud.

I don’t know what nationality they were, but Korean sounds like a good guess. No really I have no idea. Some kind of Asian tourists.

But wow they were loud. It was like a new record in how annoying one small group of people can be.

In case you haven’t heard, Miller Brewing has been helping to fund a pro-illegal immigration rally in Illinois, which even the mainstream media is pointing out is a blatant attempt to woo illegal immigrant business. From the Chicago Tribune:

The brewer has paid more than $30,000 for a planning convention, materials and newspaper ads publicizing the event.

The support of a major corporation for a controversial political cause shows how fierce the competition has become to woo the growing market of Latino consumers.

Now they’re trying to backtrack, and somehow appease both sides at the same time:

Miller Brewing Co. on Friday denied providing financial help for a planned march in Chicago supporting illegal immigrants, but a newspaper report of the firm’s involvement in a controversial political issue could create marketing headaches for the Milwaukee brewer.

The Chicago Tribune reported that Miller had paid more than $30,000 for “a planning convention, materials and newspaper ads” connected to this weekend’s “Immigrant Workers Justice Walk.”

Not so, Miller spokesman Peter J. Marino said.

“The money supported a recent convention on immigration issues in Chicago, which provided attendees with information on how to become legally naturalized citizens of the U.S.,” he said.

Oh, right, yeah. Much better. As Michelle Malkin points out:

Yes, it all depends on what the meaning of “finance” is. See, they didn’t “finance” the march. They just helped pay for the planners to plan it, advertise it, and publicize it. And, oh yeah, they handed out information on how to get citizenship.

It’s sickening, really. Here’s a major US company throwing around cash to support people who have broken the law and broken into our country illegally, and they’re not even scared to let everyone know. Isn’t that a sign that something is really screwed up around here? Shouldn’t we be living in a country where corporations should be afraid to announce that they’re supporting criminals?

It’s really sad, but there it is. How can we do something about this? Well, there’s a boycott of Miller Brewing that’s been set up. Get over there and support them. And yell at your representatives, especially if you’re in Illinois. How can the government let companies get away with this crap? We have penalties for doing business with Iran and North Korea and countries like that, so why can’t we have penalties for doing business with people who have gone even further and illegally invaded our country? Isn’t that just common sense?

Frank Rich has a new column out called “Donald Rumsfeld’s Dance With the Nazis.” I apologize in advance if I get too outraged over this, but just look at that title!

First of all, Rich is saying that Rumsfeld is very friendly with Nazis. I don’t see how this can possibly be true. Rumsfeld was even pointing out how all the liberals that were trying to stop the spread of freedom in the world were like the people who ignored the spread of Nazis before World War II. Doesn’t that mean that Rumsfeld doesn’t like Nazis at all?

But then he goes and uses the word dance, which is just more of the Hollywood liberal gay brainwashing campaign. He doesn’t talk about it any more, but the title is definitely saying that Donald Rumsfeld has a homosexual love for Nazi men. That’s disgusting, but no less then you would expect from these types.

In a decent society the New York Times would put out an apology saying that Donald Rumsfeld is not a gay Nazi at all, but I’m not expecting to see that any time soon. I’m sure they won’t fire Frank Rich over this either. It’s really a hothouse of fascism over there, and they seem to really and truly hate America. Disgusting.