January 22, 2004 by s.z.

Condensed Ann Coulter Here's an edited version of Ann's latest column, What Happened To Your Queer Party Friends? At the behest of the Democratic Party establishment, the media. . . Gwyneth Paltrow, Madonna . . . Ted Kennedy . . . Bill Clinton. . . Hillary's socialist health care plan . . . Ted Kennedy . . . If they could just figure out a way to abort babies using solar power, that's all we'd ever hear about. . . Barbra Streisand. . . .Bill Clinton. . . .Democrats aren't even man enough to run a genuine coward for president.  7:29:19 AM

And Speaking of Peggy . . . Our corporate master Sadly, No! quoted everbody's favorite NRO Corner Church Lady, Kathryn Jean Lopez, saying she doesn't like it when the President says "sexually."  Because, you know, children (such as little two or ten-year-old Ashley) might be listening to the State of the Union address (although THAT seems awfully unlikely).  K.Lo apparently thinks it would be better if Bush said "when-a-man-and-woman-love-each-other-very-much transmitted diseases" instead.  Roger Ailes (the smart and non-evil one) also liked this part of the Sadly, No! report, and followed up with the Peggy Put-Down of the Month: And speaking of Ashley, K-Lo says: I hate when people use the word "Reaganesque," but didn't that Ashley Pearson letter have to remind you of him? If I credited K-Lo. with any intelligence, I'd read that as a subtle dig at Nooners' writing abilities.  But I know it's just drivel. You know, if little Ashley isn't doing anything, maybe she could write Peggy's next column for her, freeing Peg to continue her investigation of The Case of the Counterfeit Christ Movie Blurb.  Oh, and speaking of Sadly, No!, check out his exploration of the myth we call Mr. Meghan Cox Gurdon.  Michelle Malkin's name comes up -- might she be the other woman in the picture? [Note: deleted and reposted without links to specific blog entries because the other way screwed up the line-wrap formatting.  I blame Satan.  And Peggy.] 6:48:38 AM

Those Who Would Question the Patriot Act Working along the same lines as Lumpy, here's Bill West, defending the Patriot Act in Front Page Magazine: The fact that only a few terrorism specific prosecutions have resulted since the 9-11 attacks is touted by some as proof that the Justice Department and investigating agencies either don’t know what they are doing or there really isn’t a threat out there.  It is interesting that the critics often appear to be apologist fronts for radical Islamic terrorist groups and certain of their lapdog spokespersons, generally an assortment of left-wing attorneys and politicians. Yup.  Nobody but terrorists would question the Patriot Act.  It just stand to reason.  For instance, Syracuse University is clearly a front for radical Islamic terrorist groups, because it conducted that study showing that most of those guilty of "international terrorism" in DOJ stats (stats trumpeted by Bush and Ashcroft as proof we need to expand the Patriot act) turned out to be mostly convicted of immigration violation, document fraud, etc.  Why else would it study DOJ stats if it wasn't to help the radical Islamic/ left-wing cause? The mainstream media is just as bad, because it picked up the story.  As am I.  Goes to show you can't trust anybody these days. 6:29:53 AM

Lumpy Does Ann Coulter (But only in a "stealing her act" kind of way.  As far as we know.) French pastry-resembling James Taranto , the Pillsbury D'oh! Boy*, shares his favorite "Democrats are Traitors" moment from the State of the Union Address: The al Qaeda Cheering Section The most telling moment in last night's speech came after the president noted that "key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year." In response, notes the New York Times, "some critics in Congress applauded enthusiastically." If Osama bin Laden watched the speech, one imagines him applauding too. Yeah!  Because once those provisions expire, Osama can, without fear, bribe Las Vegas officials to change Topless Dancer regulations.  And then his victory over the West will be complete!  But back to Tick Smug*: Perhaps the applauders were hoping to embarrass President Bush by provoking a Howard Dean-like outburst ("You sit down!"). Or maybe they were just peeved about how Bush framed the War on Terror issue. ("We have faced serious challenges together -- and now we face a choice.  We can go forward with confidence and resolve, and invade other nations which might have weapons of mass destruction-related programs and other souvenirs.  Or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us, as advocated by THOSE GUYS SITTING OVER THERE, who may themselves be terrorists.  Your choice.") But let us give the mic back to "Malcolm in the Middle's" Craig*: Instead, the president let them clap, then turned toward the Democratic side of the chamber and addressed them directly when he read the next line of his speech: "The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule." And then the Republican side of the chamber applauded.  They applauded the fact that the terrorist threat will not expire on schedule!  So, which is the REAL al Qaeda cheering section?  Over to you, Bobby 'Bacala' Baccalieri*: The president also had what appears to be an answer to John Kerry, the haughty, French-looking Democratic front-runner who by the way served in Vietnam.  In an October debate, Kerry declared: "This war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement operation"--in other words, that he wishes to go back to the Sept. 10 approach to terror. So, the President has been working on a comeback to Kerry's remark since October?  Slow thinker, isn't he?  I bet the thought process went something like this: "'Your MOTHER is less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering ...'  No, that won't work.  Okay, how about, 'You may have served in Vietnam, but I reached the third level of Battle for Europe on my Gameboy, so I think I know how to run a war.'  No, no, no.  What about: 'By the Power of the Patriot Act, I order you dead!' Just once I wish they'd let me say that.  Geez, this is hard.  I'll just make Karen Hughes think of something when she writes the SOTU address for me.") But seriously, other than the military operations in Afghanistan which disrupted al Qaeda activities two years ago, what real successes in the war on terror HAVE come by methods other than intelligence-gathering and law enforcement operations?  I'll give you three months to think of an answer, Polyester Boy.* But back to Hackmaster James*: The president disagrees: "After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got." Once the Dems have settled on a nominee, we look forward to the debate over this point. So, Raging Potsie's* argument can be summarized as: The Dems applauded when the Prez said that portions of the Patriot Act are due to expire, thus proving they support terrorism.  But the President sure showed them when he said that "Its not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers, because we're at war and we don't need no stinkin' laws."  Which is where the Patriot Act comes in: abridging the rule of law, to keep you safe from those who would allow topless dancers in gambling establishments. Good job of sticking to those traitorous Dems who had the audacity to applaud in the wrong place, Lumpy.  Now back to selling shoes*. *We wish to thank Peanut, Scott, David Niewert, Dr. Omed, Poetisa, Steve, Rob, CJ, and Chris Vosburg for today's Taranto Descriptors.  We'll use more of your suggestions next time. 5:43:47 AM

Peggy Drew Noonan and The Case of the Mysterious Papal Quote As we mentioned a couple of days ago, there are conflicting accounts about whether or not the Pope gave a thumbs-up to Mel Gibson's Jesus movie.  Peggy Noonan, quoting the movie's producer, Steve McEveety, quoting the Pope's aide, said the Holy Father said "It is as it was."  But then two senior Vatican official claimed the Pope didn't say anything at all.  And then Frank Rich wrote an article accusing Gibson's people of trying to drag the frail, old pope into their marketing scheme, and pointed out the contridictory stories about the quote.  And the latest developments involve lying, deceit, forged email, and a plot to kill the pope when he attends a performance of The Mikado in San Francisco!  And girl detective Peggy Drew Noonan! We'll let her fill you in: When questions surfaced challenging the quote, Mr. McEveety e-mailed [Vatican spokesman, Joaquin] Navarro-Valls and asked for his help. He answered by e-mail advising Mr. McEveety not to worry, to use the phrase "It is as it was," and to repeat those words "again and again and again." Mr. McEveety sent me a copy of the e-mail. It seemed to me obvious that some in the Vatican were disturbed that the pope's comment had become public and was being used to defend the film. Several important Vatican figures had praised the film on the record in the past few months, but the film continued to be controversial--and the Vatican hates unneeded controversy. But I knew of Dr Navarro-Valls's encouragement of the use of the quote, and assumed that at some point he would acknowledge that encouragement. Instead, intrigue. Yesterday, Jan. 21, Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News [and the NRO] e-mailed Dr. Navarro-Valls and asked him about the e-mails the spokesman had sent to Steve McEveety. How could the Vatican deny the pope's quote when you told the producer to use it again and again? Dr. Navarro-Valls quickly replied. He told Mr. Dreher that "the e-mails were not authentic. He was suggesting that they were fabricated. Jeepers, fabricated Vatican emails!  So Peggy Drew and non-threatening boyfriend Rod Nickerson compared his message from Navarro-Valls with the one Peggy had received from him in December, telling her he had no comment on the purported Papal quote.  They came from the same email address!  And hers was "sent via an e-mail server in the Vatican's domain, and the IP address belongs to a Vatican computer." Holy computer hacking or something worse?  Peggy emailed Navarro-Valls again and told him she was "flummoxed," but has as yet to receive a reply.  McEveety won't talk to her on the record about "the controversy."  But she vows to crack the case and solve the mystery. Believe me, it is painful to be accused however implicitly of being the accessory to a lie. And it would grieve me more than I can say to have been part of wrongly attributing an important statement to a great pope who is for me a personal hero. Last night I spoke to Mr. McEveety, but he would not speak on the record about Dr. Navarro-Valls or the controversy that continues to swirl. I'll be writing more soon about this extraordinary story. Has Peggy been made the innocent victim of a Vatican power struggle?  Is the janitor using Navarro-Valls' computer while he's at lunch?  Is the Pope being impersonated by his evil twin?  Did a movie producer LIE?  Can YOU solve the case before Peggy does?  Can her arch rival TBOGG?  I await further details.  3:06:50 AM