The Blog @ Spolitics

Democrat Makes Crap Up. ABC Reports It.

According to ABC’s Political Radar, a “veteran Democratic operative” has found a slanderous message in John McCain’s latest ad: “a l q D.”

“al qD” is meaningless by itself. [And] The “l” is actually the capital “I” in “Iraq…”

Despite this meaninglessness, ABC goes on to say that the McCain never should have let “a l q D” appear for a split-second in their seven-minute ad because if you type “al qD” into Google, the reply you get is, Did you mean: al qaeda. Therefore, this glimpse of meaninglessness translates into subliminally calling Obama a terrorist.

Of course, the problem with this is that “al qD” doesn’t appear on the screen — “a l q D” does. And when you type that into Google, the answer you get is, Did you mean: a l o u d. So… if there’s any truth to any of this, it would be that the McCain camp is calling Obama a loud mouth.

Still, why not run with it. We here at Spolitics would like to go one better. If you look carefully, you will also see the letters “ID t” which of course means the McCain camp was subliminally calling Obama an idiot.

Lastly… what’s most interesting about all of this is that Rick Klein quoted the “veteran Democratic operative” anonymously. Why? Why on Earth would someone commenting on an ad need anonymity. Unless… the person works for the Obama campaign. Is this just a desperate attempt to change the focus from the fact that Obama has been all over the place when it comes to his Iraq strategy?

Hat Tip: Hot Air.

There Is No Evidence Carbon Emissions Cause Significant Global Warming. None.

Just a little something to keep in mind before our congress enacts the largest expansion of federal powers in decades in order to reduce said emissions.

NY Times: Bush “Admits” U.S. Will Not Stay In Iraq Forever

From the New York Times:

The United States and Iraq have agreed to set a “general time horizon” for the “further reduction of U.S. combat forces in Iraq” following the improvement in security conditions in the country, the White House said Friday.

But apparently this development wasn’t juicy enough for the Times.  They go on to say:

The White House offered no specific dates for troop cuts, but the inclusion of even just a reference to a time horizon is a significant concession by the Bush administration, which has long resisted setting a timetable for cuts in combat forces. It is a tacit admission that the United States military presence in Iraq is not endless.

The key word the Times left out was “artificial” timetable.  The Bush administration resisted tying a reduction in forces to an arbitrary deadline, regardless of the situation on the ground.  After all, didn’t the surge have a “timetable” element attached to it whereby the additional forces would be reduced by a target end date but only when certain objectives were met?  According to reports, this new agreement between Iraq and the U.S. is no different.  It’s the difference between setting goals and picking a date out of thin air.

Lastly, if the Times is under the impression that Bush has been advocating for an endless presence in Iraq perhaps they can explain what he has meant when he has repeatedly said: “We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed and not a day longer.”

Update: It appears the NY Times has rewritten their article.