Hamas' Mickey Mouse Club

Hamas is using a Mickey Mouse look-alike to indoctrinate children.

Yes, it's a product of anti-Semitic, disgraced former President Jimmy Carter's Hamas buddies.

Click here to watch.

Hamas TV has a new children's show which features a Mickey Mouse lookalike. But this Mickey does not romp about with Pluto, nor does he woo Minnie Mouse. Instead – he teaches his young viewers to fight the "Zionist Occupation" and dream of a world dominated by Islam.

The squeaky-voiced Mickey Mouse lookalike, named Farfur, is the star of a weekly children’s program called Tomorrow’s Pioneers on the official Hamas TV station (Al-Aqsa TV), which broadcasts from Gaza via satellite to the entire Arab world. Farfur and his co-host, a young girl named Saraa’, teach children about such things as the importance of the daily prayers and drinking milk, but also instruct them to hate Israel and the US and support "resistance" – a euphemism for terror.

Farfur tells children that they must pray in the mosque five times a day until there is “world leadership under Islamic leadership.” The earnest and soft-spoken Saraa’ explains that the nucleus of the Islamic leadership of the world will be from “all of Palestine,” including Israel. Farfur refers to Israel as “the oppressive invading Zionist occupation,” which the children must "resist."

Saraa’ announces that after death, the children will have to answer to Allah for what they did or did not do for the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and for Palestinian prisoners: “I remind you that Al-Aqsa and the prisoners are a responsibility on our shoulders, and Allah will ask us on Resurrection Day what we gave for their sake," she tells the tots viewing the show.

This is really sick stuff, appealing to children in this way.

"Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us."

--GOLDA MEIR


(h/t RJay)
____________________________

UPDATE:

There was a controversy about the translation of this Hamas Mickey Mouse Clone Club video.

Watch.

It turns out that the uproar over the translation was ill-founded.

Something positive came of the circulation of this clip of Hamas children's programming. The Mickey Mouse Islamic extremist propagandist is off the air.

From The Jerusalem Post:

A program using a Mickey Mouse-like character to urge Palestinian children to fight Israel and the West and work for world Islamic domination has been pulled off Hamas's television station for "review," Palestinian Information Minister Mustafa Barghouti said Wednesday.

Barghouti said the use of the cartoon character in such a role represented a "mistaken approach" to the Palestinian struggle against Israeli occupation.

Do you think Jimmy Carter got in tough with his Hamas pals are told them not to mess with Mickey Mouse?

Who knows?

Who cares if the Mickey Mouse Clone is off the air?

It certainly doesn't mean that adults are suddenly teaching Palestinian children to love and live in harmony with the people of Israel.

The Queen and President Bush

Britain's Queen Elizabeth II toasts with President Bush during a state dinner in the State Dining room of the White House in Washington, May 7, 2007. (Jason Reed/Reuters)

Why take a light-hearted, human moment and treat it as if it's some sort of international embarrassment?

It's what the lib media do. One of their favorite pastimes is to degrade President Bush -- Bush the buffoon.

Days ago, The New York Times set the stage for Queen Elizabeth's visit to Washington, D.C. by belittling Bush.

How does George W. Bush, a towel-snapping Texan who puts his feet on the coffee table, drinks water straight from the bottle and was once caught on tape talking with food in his mouth prepare for a state dinner with the queen?

With tips from an etiquette guide, of course — and a little gentle prodding from his wife.

The White House is atwitter over the visit on Monday by Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh. This is the first visit by the queen since 1991, when Mr. Bush’s father was president. White House aides say the state dinner in her honor is not only the social event of the year, but also of the entire Bush presidency.

It will be closely watched by the social elite for its collision of cultures — Texas swagger meets British prim. Dinner attire is white tie and tails, the first and, perhaps, only white-tie affair of the Bush administration. The president was said to be none too keen on that, but bowed to a higher power, his wife.

...Mr. Bush’s moniker for his father, 41, is well known, and he will surely need no etiquette guide to warn him away from referring to the queen as II. Even so, as it does for every official state visit, the White House has been consulting with the State Department chief of protocol.

The resulting booklet of tips is not exactly classified, but it is definitely not public.

Aides to Mrs. Bush shared a few dos and don’ts. The queen shall be addressed as “Your Majesty.” The prince is “Your Royal Highness.”

For women, curtseying is acceptable, but not required. One does not shake the queen’s hand unless the queen offers hers first.

And after Her Majesty finishes her meal, everyone’s meal is finished. (Not to worry, a senior official said of Mr. Bush: “He’s a really fast eater.”)

...In July 2001, the Bushes had lunch with the queen at Buckingham Palace.

“He didn’t drink water out of his bottle,” said Ari Fleischer, the former White House press secretary, who was there.

By Mr. Fleischer’s telling, Mr. Bush once did drink water out of his bottle at a United Nations lunch, prompting Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to give the president a gentle hint by pouring water in his glass.

On their official visit to the Britain in November 2003, the Bushes were feted at a state banquet, also white tie. Two years later, Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall were here. And, as Ms. McBride pointed out, the president and the first lady were guests in 1991 at the last state dinner for the queen, with Mr. Bush’s parents as hosts.

The president made no social miscues at those events, but last year he was spotted eating a dinner roll while talking to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. At that meeting of world leaders, Mr. Bush also gave Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany an impromptu shoulder rub.

Ms. McBride was not concerned. “I wouldn’t worry at all about his table manners,” she said, adding, “The president, frankly, is quite comfortable in every setting, no matter who it is.”

How lame!

I can summarize this article in one sentence: Bush is an ill-mannered, socially awkward dunce.

The lib media seem genuninely pleased to be able to report that Bush slipped up during remarks yesterday.

Also from The New York Times:

It was a day for pomp and circumstance — a military color guard, a fife and drum band in white wigs, red jackets and tricornered hats — punctuated by a presidential slip of the tongue that lightened the moment during Mr. Bush’s welcoming remarks. Mr. Bush reminded the 81-year-old queen that she had already dined with 10 American presidents.

“You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in 17 —— ” he went on, stopping to correct himself before 1776 could slip out. The crowd erupted in laughter, and the president and the queen turned to each other for a long, silent gaze. Then, Mr. Bush turned back to the crowd with an explanation. “She gave me a look,” he said, “that only a mother could give a child.”

Mr. Bush had been the recipient of such a look once before in the queen’s presence — from his own mother, back in 1991, when the first President and Mrs. Bush played host to their own state dinner for the queen. By several different accounts, including Mr. Bush’s own, Barbara Bush told the queen that she had seated her son far away from Her Majesty, for fear he might make a wisecrack.

Then, to his mother’s horror, he did, telling the queen that he was his family’s black sheep and asking, “Who’s yours?” The queen, apparently not amused, replied tartly, “None of your business.”

If the queen was not amused on Monday, she did not show it. “I’m sure she accepted it for what it was — a slip of the tongue,” said her press secretary, Penny Russell-Smith.

I don't think The Times is embarrassing the President in this article as much as it's insulting Queen Elizabeth. Of course, the intent is to make Bush look like a fool, but in the process, it doesn't present a very flattering picture of the Queen.

Are readers supposed to assume that the Queen is such an old bag that she would be ticked off that the President made a simple mistake?

"If the queen was not amused on Monday, she did not show it."

Good grief.

The Associated Press does its part to blow the President's slip of the tongue out of proportion. It, too, focuses on flubs.

[T]here was the president suggesting Queen Elizabeth was over 230 years old.

The president's slip of the tongue during morning welcoming speeches was inadvertent, of course, and quickly smoothed over with humor. But it wasn't exactly the flawless effort Bush had hoped would erase memories of the "talking hat" episode during the queen's last U.S. visit. (In 1991, during Bush's father's administration, a too-tall lectern left the audience able to see only the queen's hat behind microphones.)

The queen, a sprightly 81, gave an embarrassed Bush a gracious nod after he suggested she had celebrated the United States' founding in 1776. He meant to say she had attended 1976 bicentennial festivities.

"She gave me a look that only a mother could give a child," the president quipped, earning a reserved chuckle from his guest.

Laura Bush made her own minor calendar mistake. She flubbed the year that she and her husband attended the state dinner hosted by President George H.W. Bush in honor of the queen, saying it was in 1993.

Why do this?

The relentless criticism of the President and Mrs. Bush is really cheap. I'm more than sick of it.

The British press slams Bush as well.

From The Times:

President Bush welcomed the Queen to Washington yesterday with full White House ceremonial, a speech of warm praise, his first five-course, white-tie state dinner — and, being Mr Bush, an unfortunate slip of the tongue.

Standing with the Queen on a podium, he recalled her previous state visits, but had a little problem with the dates.

“You helped us celebrate our bicentennial in 1796,” he said confidently, and in a split second realised his error. “Er, 1976”, he corrected himself, to a gale of laughter from around the lawn. The Queen, smiling broadly, gave him a knowing sideways glance.

To another outburst of hilarity from the crowd he told her: “You gave me a look only a mother could give a child.”

At least he didn’t greet her with: “Yo, Majesty, how ya doin’?”

The White House was dressed with British and US flags as the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh arrived in a black limousine with smoked windows. George and Laura Bush shook hands warmly with the royal couple but there was no curtsy from the First Lady, only a nod of the head.

...A driving force behind the state visit has been Laura Bush who insisted that, just for once, her husband stay up beyond his 9pm bedtime. With Amy Zantzinger, her recently appointed social secretary, Cristeta Comerford, the White House executive chef, and Bill Yosses, the resident pastry chef, she drew up plans for a five-course dinner in the state dining room. The Bushes’ four previous state dinners for the presidents of Mexico, Poland, Kenya and the Philippines were mere four-course, black-tie occasions.

That is just plain stupid.

The image of Laura Bush planning the Queen's visit just so her husband would stay up past his 9:00 PM bedtime is really goofy.

Laura wanted to have a white tie dinner so she pulled all the strings to make it happen, dragging along the President as he kicked and screamed every step of the way.

The press is so mean-spirited in its treatment of President Bush.

Using the Queen's visit as an opportunity to bash him is really pushing it. Enough already.

The lib press can't even rein in their hatred for Bush for an event like this. They don't let up. They always keep that choke collar on the President.
_____________________________

Now this is worthy of mocking:

The tour is the Queen's first carbon-offset state visit, where a donation is made to an environmental charity to offset the plane journeys made by the royal party.


Total air miles - 13,317 km or 8,275 miles
Amount of CO2 emitted based on scheduled flights - 1. 5 tonnes
Estimated offset cost per person - £13.20 to £14.18 ($26.22-$28.17) depending on type of offset package
Source: The Carbon Neutral Company carbon calculator

What a joke!

Abortion: The Viability of Rudy Giuliani

There is so much that I like about Rudy Giuliani.

I think it's critical to our future as a nation that we have a president who really understands the global nature of the War on Terror and the consequences of following a path of retreat and surrender straight to failure. Victory is our only option. We need someone who has a spine. We can't have an appeaser in the Oval Office.

Giuliani fills the bill.

Then, there are the social issues.

In general, I'm not a single issue voter; but when it came to partial birth abortion, that was an automatic disqualifying factor. I refused to vote for any candidate that supported that gruesome procedure. I drew the line at casting a vote for infanticide.

Thankfully, when Rudy Giuliani got into the Election 2008 race, he did soften his position on abortion a bit by coming out against partial birth abortion. That was a step in the right direction.

I think abortion is murder.

It's the silencing of a beating human heart. That's not an opinion. That's a fact. There no debating that.

The BBC website has a page with a fascinating series of photos documenting fetal development. It's entitled, "In pictures: Watch me grow."

In the United States, 88% of abortions are performed in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.



This fetus, at ten weeks gestation, "can move her arms and legs with a range of movements that are fluid and supple."

"Fetuses as young as eleven weeks have been seen with their thumbs in their mouths."

When I look at these photos, I wonder how the pro-abortion crowd manages to dismiss the facts about fetal development.

A fetus in the latter weeks of the first trimester is not a glob of formless cells nor is it a blob of tissue. It is a growing human being.

But I digress. This isn't about the development of an unborn child. It's about the viability of Rudy Giuliani as the Republican nominee for president.

It's important to me that a candidate have a pro-life ethic.

I've been trying to reconcile Giuliani's position on abortion with mine. I've convinced myself that as long as he promises to appoint constructionist judges to the courts, he would be protecting unborn human life.

Without question, Giuliani was awkward in his handling of the abortion issue during the first debate among the Republican candidates. Still, I'm comfortable with his pledge about the judges.

Just when I feel I can, in good conscience, support Giuliani wholeheartedly, something else comes out that makes me uneasy.

From The Politico:

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani in his campaign appearances this year has stated that he personally abhors abortion, even though he supports keeping a legal right to choose. But records show that in the '90s he contributed money at least six times to Planned Parenthood, one of the country's leading abortion rights groups and its top provider of abortions.

Federal tax returns made public by the former New York mayor show that he and his then-wife, Donna Hanover, made personal donations to national, state and city chapters of Planned Parenthood totaling $900 in 1993, 1994, 1998 and 1999.

The returns have been on the public record for years, but the detail about Giuliani's support for Planned Parenthood -- along with e-mailed copies of the returns -- was provided to The Politico by aides to a rival campaign, who insisted on not being identified.

McCain's campaign?

Romney's campaign?

That doesn't matter. It's not like the rival campaign was saving this as material to use during a debate or as a primary eve surprise.

What matters is that Giuliani gave $900 to America's #1 abortion mill.

It's possible that Giuliani's ex-wife was behind the donations. If that's the case, Giuliani should say so. If he doesn't, one can assume that he wanted to donate to Planned Parenthood.

When he was mayor of New York, those contributions could have been cited as assurances to lib voters that he supported a woman's "right to choose," or what I like to call the "right to choose to kill."

But if this information is just being exposed now as part of some campaign's opposition research, Giuliani didn't use the contributions to cement himself as a pro-choice candidate. In other words, it wasn't a politically motivated move, or at least not one that he utilized.

On the campaign trail, Giuliani has a consistent mantra when the abortion issue comes up. "I'm against abortion. I hate it. I wish there never was an abortion, and I would counsel a woman to have an adoption instead of an abortion," Giuliani said last month in Columbia, S.C., in a typical comment.

He also frequently notes that, during his tenure as mayor, the number of abortions went down in New York City and that, as president, he would appoint "strict constructionist judges," a description meant to reassure social conservatives.

Asked how Giuliani could reconcile personal opposition to abortion with a contribution to Planned Parenthood, a Giuliani spokeswoman reiterated the former mayor's stump message and took what could be construed as a shot against former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has recently become an opponent of abortion rights.

"Mayor Giuliani has been consistent in his position -- he is personally opposed to abortion, but at the same time he understands it is a personal and emotional decision that should ultimately be left up to the woman," said Maria Comella.

Comella added that, "from the start, Mayor Giuliani has been straight with the American people about where he stands on the issues and saying exactly what he thinks.

"Ultimately, this election is about leadership, and it's a sign of leadership to stand by your position in the face of political expediency."

Giuliani's bid will test how far an abortion-rights politician can advance within the GOP. Every Republican nominee since 1980 has opposed abortion.

Opposition researchers for other candidates hope to make Giuliani's life more difficult at regular intervals -- and to help them out, they have a trove of video clips and quotes from Giuliani's time in City Hall showing him to be a vocal advocate of abortion rights.

The abortion issue is definitely something that Giuliani has to manage more effectively if he hopes to win the nomination. It's going to be a sticking point for a lot of conservatives and it's not something he can ignore.

It appears that Giuliani's opponents intend to employ a "death by a thousand cuts" strategy when it comes to attacking his pro-life credentials.

I admit that this Planned Parenthood thing bothers me.

I need Giuliani to explain it.

If Giuliani hates abortion as much as he claims, I don't get why he would donate to America's leading abortion provider.

It's one thing for a Republican candidate to say he or she respects established law. It's another to give money to fund the activities of abortionists.

Starbucks and God

(Photo/ Dayton Daily News)

Would you like a little splash of Atheism with your Starbucks coffee?

From WorldNetDaily:

An Ohio woman is steaming after reading an anti-God message published on the side of a Starbucks coffee cup.

The message that got Michelle Incanno's blood boiling reads:

"Why in moments of crisis do we ask God for strength and help? As cognitive beings, why would we ask something that may well be a figment of our imaginations for guidance? Why not search inside ourselves for the power to overcome? After all, we are strong enough to cause most of the catastrophes we need to endure."

The quote was written by Bill Schell, a Starbucks customer from London, Ontario, Canada, and was included as part of an effort by the Seattle-based coffee giant to collect different viewpoints and spur discussion.

"As someone who loves God, I was so offended by that," Michelle Incanno, a married mother of three who is Catholic, told the Dayton Daily News. "I don't think there needs to be religious dialogue on it. I just want coffee."

Like the woman from Ohio, I'm Catholic.

Does it bother me when people mock my faith?

Of course it does; but I'm used to it. The assaults on the Catholic Church are constant.

Would it bug me if my coffee cup had a quote dissing my belief in God?

Sure.

However, I think there are other battles in this world far more worthy of my energy than crusading against sayings printed on a coffee cup.

I'd rather have free speech than suppression.

It follows that I'm not always going to like what others have to say. (Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Maher and Harry Reid and Jimmy Carter come to mind.)

I can't imagine Starbucks having a cup that says something like, "Jesus is your salvation."

How do you think the Starbucks lib patrons would react to that?

Do you think that many of the self-proclaimed sophisticated "intellectuals" that frequent Starbucks would appreciate that?

I highly doubt it.

The "too cool for religion" crowd would probably freak out if it was served Starbucks coffee with pro-God sayings on cups.

Apparently, a quote from Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life, appears on a cup. So Starbucks does use a quote that acknowledges a Supreme Being.

I guess the Freedom From Religion Foundation doesn't know about that.

Also worth noting: The Starbucks website has a page welcoming patrons to offer submissions for the sayings on its cups. The Ohio woman could submit some Bible passages.

I think free speech is always best answered with more free speech.

Although I really do understand how she feels, I think Michelle Incanno needs to relax a bit. Maybe she should try consuming less caffeine, take it down a notch.

Myra Sanchick's Interview with McGee

Milwaukee's FOX affiliate aired an EXCLUSIVE interview with Michael McGee, Sr. on May 4.

Reporter Myra Sanchick did the interview. When she introduced the segment, she said, "Some people might find this offensive."

MIGHT?

You can watch it here.

Any decent person should find McGee's words offensive.

McGee has no regrets regarding his disgusting comments about talk show host Charlie Sykes and the death of his mother, comments that have for the moment cost him his radio show on WNOV-AM.

In fact, rather than backing off, McGee continues the war of words.

Sitting on the porch of his home, McGee talked about his controversial remarks.

He said:

"I would do the same thing for the devil. If the devil's mama died, if Hitler's mama died, I would say the same thing."

"Get Mark Belling to help him, I'll whoop both of their ass. That's the way I feel about it. Like I have no love lost for them because of the way that they slandered my son over that affair that he had...."

"When they try to destroy my family, I'll try to destroy theirs. That's the way I feel about it."

Sanchick said, "He told me there's only one thing he was sorry about."

McGee declared:

"His stringy-haired ho son wasn't layin' there with her. (LAUGHING) Exactly."

"I have no love for Charlie Sykes. In fact, uh, you can tell him that if he don't like it I'll meet him anywhere and whoop his ass."

Because McGee is a public figure, a radio personality, a former Milwaukee alderman, and the father of a current alderman, I can understand why FOX 6 would go after the interview.

What I don't understand is how Sanchick could be so clueless about the content of her report.

After airing the EXCLUSIVE interview, Sanchick talked to anchor Brad Hicks.

HICKS: Myra, You know I’m speechless watching this. I mean this is just terrible things that he is saying. This is a human being who died a painful death in a fire and he seems to find some joy in that.

SANCHICK: Well, not necessarily joy. However, these are two long-time rivals. He took...

HICKS: I heard him laughing.

SANCHICK: Well he took things personally that Sykes...

HICKS: I heard him laughing in that interview.

SANCHICK: I don't recall that. But, um, yeah, I don't recall that. And I was there, but I didn't remember the laughing. However, he took things that Charlie Sykes said offensively and he retaliated.

McGee was clearly laughing.

I don't know how Sanchick missed it.

I also don't get why she went out of her way to make McGee seem reasonable.

I have never heard Sykes say anything remotely like the sort of trash spewed by McGee.

This "long-time rivals" stuff suggests that the two radio hosts conduct themselves in a similar manner. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The McGee interview speaks for itself; but Sanchick has to have some regrets of her own for how she presented it.
____________________________

McGee gave another interview to FOX 6. Justin Williams had the dubious honor of giving McGee more air time.



Watch it here.

McGee is loving this.

He takes great pleasure in harassing Sykes. I would say he finds JOY in it.

Excerpts:

"I could see if I had really went over the line would have been if I had gotten my Uzi and went to the funeral and shot up some people at the funeral, that might have been over the line. But using words against words wasn't over the line."

"I've said enough. As long as I got Charlie Sykes the way I got him then every time he thinks about his dead mother when he 50, my mind..., my name will come in his mind. And McGee ruined it."

I hope McGee sticks to his statement, "I've said enough."

SHOCKER: MPS Violence Intensifying!

Put this in the "DUH" file.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's online edition has this headline:



Well, there's breaking news.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is always a step ahead and on top of things in the community. (Sarcasm alert)

The publication is doing a four part series about increasing violence in the Milwaukee Public Schools.

The first in the series details an extremely troubling list of recent violent incidents in the city's schools and points out their costs and the strain on the MPS system.

None of that's news. Some thug students and their thug parents, too many, are soiling the Milwaukee Public Schools. We know that.

Part one of the series does mention something interesting.

Nationwide, school violence peaked in the 1990s and then declined.

In Wisconsin, however, violence is on the rise again. Between 2003 and 2005 there were increases in school fights and weapons possessions on school grounds, according to the Youth Risk Behavior Survey filled out by students statewide.

This mirrors the increase in violent crime in Milwaukee.

The trend in many cities around the country has been a decrease in crime. Not Milwaukee. Violent crime has skyrocketed.

Read more here and here.

I suppose it should come as no surprise that the city's schools would reflect the city's general deterioration in terms of violence.

...The problems are growing in some rural and suburban schools, too.

In Whitefish Bay, Shorewood and Wauwatosa, the number of weapons and drug-related incidents resulting in suspension or expulsion at least tripled between 1999 and 2005 - a greater percentage increase than in the city.

In West Allis, a mother was charged with punching a 14-year-old boy in the face in front of his school and threatening to kill him. The state's most recent school gun killings were of a principal in rural Cazenovia last year, and an assistant principal at Wauwatosa West in 1993.

But on a daily basis, the situation is more dire in Milwaukee Public Schools.

In recent weeks, the city has been rocked by a series of high-profile cases. A seventh-grader was arrested with an unloaded gun and ammunition. A staff member at Walker International Middle School was knocked unconscious while trying to break up a fight. On the same day, a series of fights at Hamilton High School led to a lockdown.

The always politically correct, always lib Journal Sentinel highlights the problems in suburban schools. Violence has increased there, too.

Fair enough, but it's not at a crisis stage at those schools.

The reality is the level of violent crime in Milwaukee and the level of violence in its schools cannot be tolerated any longer.

Nonetheless, The Journal Sentinel Editorial Board routinely endorses candidates that DO NOTHING, other than hand-wringing and meaningless expressions of outrage, to address the crisis.

Yes, I'm talking about Mayor Tom Barrett and members of the new anti-flexicuffs school board. Throw in haters like Alderman Michael McGee, Jr.

When are the city's residents going to hold their leaders accountable for failing so miserably?

There are only a few lone voices calling for action and personal responsibility. Sheriff David Clarke and Alderman Bob Donovan come to mind.

When will the others, the "pass the buck" bunch, join them in offering real solutions and taking meaningful action?

Meanwhile, the city continues its death spiral.

It's very sad that so many have decided to surrender to the thugs.

ABC's Brian Ross and the D.C. Madam

Brian Ross creeps me out.

Ever since the Mark Foley scandal, Ross seems like he belongs at The National Enquirer or maybe working as a producer for Jerry Springer.

Ross has gone all Madam, all the time.



ABC has been teasing the D.C. Madam story for what seems like forever.

As it turns out, ABC withdrew its promise to expose the exploits of D.C. movers and shakers. The network pulled out at the last minute.

Why?

Because the scandal that was going to rock D.C. was unable to deliver.

I bet Ross hates it when that happens.

From The Independent:

There was an almost audible sigh of relief in parts of America's capital this weekend after a TV network said it would not reveal the identities of scores of clients of the alleged "DC madam" because they were not well enough known to be "newsworthy".

ABC News said that, having ploughed through 46lbs of phone records, it had discovered that among the clients of Deborah Palfrey's alleged prostitution ring were senior business executives, Nasa officials and at least five military officers. And among the women working for Ms Palfrey - who ran the network in Washington DC from her home in California - were an instructor at the US Naval Academy and a legal secretary at a prominent law firm. The secretary was suspended after telling her bosses she worked for Ms Palfrey "for spa money".

Ms Palfrey, 51, faces federal charges of racketeering and money-laundering associated with prostitution. She claims she offered only "fantasy sex" and she was not breaking the law.

The only government official known to have been a client was Randall Tobias, at the State Department. He resigned after being confronted by ABC.

Another client named was Harlan Ullman, a columnist for the Washington Times and a senior adviser at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

ABC describes its report as "dull."

Much ado about nothing.

What a disappointment!