What if they gave a peace rally, and no one came?

Momma Moonbat couldn’t agitate up a crowd at her “book” signing.

The pictures of Mother “Sadsack” Sheehan are priceless. Also note the Reuters spin.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here’s the story from the WaPo. To their credit, they don’t sugar coat it.

Admittedly, it’s a lot easier to draw a crowd in August, when the media (and a lot of students) have nothing better to do, than on Thanksgiving weekend. But in the face of the latest vigorous defense of the administration, and the resulting polls, her time has definitely passed, and the media will no longer even attempt to prop her up. Well, other than Reuters…

[Update on Monday morning]

Here’s another pic from AP, with story that is less than genuous:

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan waits for people to show up at her book signing near President Bush’s ranch on Saturday, Nov. 26, 2005 in Crawford, Texas.

Note that the wording allows (even encourages) the interpretation that she’s just a little early–that the adoring throngs are simply delayed, and on their way. Of course, it also allows the interpretation that she will be waiting forever, but I think that there would have been clearer ways to state that, if it was intended to be the (accurate) implication…

…about Iraq.

…that Iraq isn’t like Vietnam. We have no POWs there.

It’s not the only one, of course. In fact, the only similarity that I can see is that, for varying reasons, the left (including many of the Dems and the media) want us to lose, and will continue to pretend that we are, despite all the evidence on the ground.

That seems to be the rumor in the Arab press:

A fitting end, if true (though it might actually be better for him to live a long time with nails and ball bearings buried in every pore). Let’s hope it’s true, and that they can find DNA evidence to verify, and if it is, good riddance to rotten rubbish.

A small victory:

As the terrorists entered the street, a volley of shots rang out and the three insurgents slumped to the ground.

Each terrorist had been killed by a single head shot – the snipers having spent the past few days rehearsing the ambush in minute detail.

The SAS troopers had been warned that only a direct head shot would guarantee that bombs would not be detonated.

I suspect that as time goes on, and the Iraqis get ever more disgusted by the “insurgents,” and less fearful that the Americans will abandon them, the intelligence needed to do more of this will get better and better. Of course, calls like Murtha’s latest one do nothing to help.

This war continues to resemble something out of Monty Python:

The speaker on the tape, identified as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, also said the group’s suicide bombers did not intend to bomb a Jordanian wedding party at an Amman hotel last week, killing about 30 people…

…Al-Zarqawi accused the Jordanian government of hiding casualties among Israeli and American intelligence agents, and he insisted al-Qaida in Iraq was not targeting fellow Muslims.

“We want to assure you that … you are more beloved to us than ourselves,” al-Zarqawi said, addressing Jordanians.

See, he’s right. This was supposed to be a happy occasion. Let’s not bicker and argue about ‘oo killed ‘oo.

…people died.

No, really.

Remember (hey, they won’t let you forget!) the standard anti-Bush^H^H^H^Hwar talking point–that Saddam Hussein never cooperated (and never would have cooperated) with bin Laden or Al Qaeda? Well, let’s make “boogie to Baghdad” a phrase known across the web.

Saddam Hussein’s defense team has lost 1100 lawyers. Like the old joke of what you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean, it’s a good start.

I was some combination of amused and befuddled by this. I had no idea that he had so much legal ballast that could be tossed. It would seem that the trial will require a soccer stadium just to hold the defense team. How many lawyers are left?

I suppose the next step is for his remaining lawyers to move for a mistrial on the basis of lack of adequate legal representation.

[Update an hour or so later]

The more I read this story, the stranger it seems, and I have to wonder at the reporter who passed it on without asking the obvious questions.

How did these people become Saddam’s “lawyers”? Why so many of them? Who is paying for them? I don’t know what percentage of the population of Iraq is lawyers, but don’t they have something better to do, anyway? Has there been a lot of lawyering not going on because of the large contingent on Saddam’s defense team?

And if so, is this not actually bad news for the Iraqis, since they’ll now, being relieved of the burden of defending the former predator-in-chief, return to their own predation on the wealth and welfare of the country?

[Update at 10:15 AM PST]

Fox is reporting on the story now. No answers to my questions, but they do say that the presiding judge claims that “…the withdrawals will have no effect on the work of the court.”

Heh.

Rioting has broken out in the city center of Lyon.