Confederate Yankee
May 20, 2008
Third Cop Found Guilty in Botched Atlanta Raid; War Contagion Probably to Blame
Arthur Tesler has been found guilty of making false statements in a case resulting from the shooting death of a 92-year-old woman during a botched Atlanta drug raid. Gregg Junnier and Jason Smith were two other officers involved in the raid who have already pled guilty to federal conspiracy charges.
Smith was
profiled in a
botched New York Times article claiming that veterans were responsible for a disproportionate number of violent crimes.
Expect the
Times to now explain how Smith's war-related violence became contagious and affected Junnier and Tesler.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:39 PM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Ted Kennedy Diagnosed With Brain Tumor
The specific diagnosis has yet to be determined, but it is believed to be a malignant glioma, which could mean he has anywhere from 1-5 years to live depending on how aggressive the tumor is.
Our prayers go out to the Kennedy family.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:57 PM
| Comments (37)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I've been really impressed by what's been written about Kennedy here and at Malkin's blog. Way to put politics by the wayside for this post. It's good to see that even when this country is so divided, some people still recognize when families need our prayers. Guess it's the southern heritage.
Posted by: Juan Manuel de Rosas at May 20, 2008 02:23 PM (OEj00)
2
In 1956 when my step father was a USN Commander, he woke up and looked in the mirror at two images of himself. The Navy sent him to Bethesda and they gave him an eye patch. A few months later, the problem went away.
In 1963 at a party at his brother-in-law's in Birmingham, he had a horrible headache. Beau was a very tough guy, Ga Tech football player and WWII SeaBee. One of the guests was a neurosurgeon who suspected the worst and, of course, he was right. The craniotomy at Bethesda took 8 hours and removed an egg sized tumor which was "benign."
In 1977 when I was stationed at Clark AB, Philippines, he had another tumor. It too was "benign." Before his operation, he told mother to put him in a VA hospital and go on with her life. He never really recovered. He could not speak. It was awful seeing a Magna Cum Laude Harvard MBA reduced to nodding his head and drooling on a bib. In 1983, he died in a VA hospital in West Virginia. We buried him at Arlington in a wonderful ceremony.
Ted Kennedy is where daddy was in 1977. It is difficult to describe the pain and suffering. Although we could not be more different politically, I hope he has a better life than Beau.
Arch
Posted by: arch at May 20, 2008 05:17 PM (pKbp9)
3
Juan:
That is because we on the right tend to feel the left is just wrong about things.
Many on the left think everybody who doesn't row to the drum beat they beat out is Evil and Must Be Done In.
I really don't like Teddy on so very many levels. . . but a Brain Tumor is so very unpleasant, I'd not like for him to suffer through it.
Now imagine MyDD, Kos, and the DU if this were any Republican other than Olympia Snow, or Lincoln Chaffe
Posted by: JP at May 20, 2008 05:20 PM (Tae/a)
4
Prayers are going up for Teddy.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 20, 2008 05:26 PM (ub+LC)
5
JP -
Yeah, those on the right exhibit nothing but class, like this guy: http://ultra-conservative.blogspot.com/2008/05/ted-kenedy-has-brain.html
That took about 5 seconds to find.
Beware of gross generalizations -- on any side.
Posted by: Notnowjohn at May 20, 2008 09:06 PM (lxlUq)
6
GENTLEmen.
While I am all for tearing each other to bits (anyone who's hung around here for more than a day or so should know that), there is a time and a place for it.
This is neither.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 20, 2008 10:20 PM (ub+LC)
7
Kennedy is a vile man..the manor of his demise changes that not one bit.I will not gloat over his condition nor will I pretend to be sorry.
Posted by: thud at May 21, 2008 06:22 PM (F4/Qg)
Posted by: thud at May 21, 2008 06:23 PM (F4/Qg)
9
Indeed, it is proper for us all to offer prayers and what comfort we can to those who suffer and the same to those who love them. This has always been a clear dividing line between conservatives and the far left.
However, it's important to remember that we know beyond any doubt that Senator Kennedy is a traitor. Recall, if you will, that he actually wrote to the leadership of the Soviet Union during the cold war asking their aid in subverting US policy, policy formulated by a Republican administration of course. It would be hard to imagine, a clearer example of treason.
We should surely feel pity and sympathy here, but let's not enlarge him beyond what he is, nor praise unpraiseworthy conduct and character (notice how I've refrained from mentioning Mary Jo Kopechne, who remains unavailable for comment).
Posted by: Mike at May 21, 2008 10:05 PM (niRCJ)
10
Perhaps, Mike, my reticence comes from the fact that I know what the Kennedy family is going through.
I have a cousin--who, by the way, is anything but a conservative in politics or lifestyle--who had a malignant brain tumor some years ago. Through a combination of medical science and--at least I believe--prayer, the tumor has shrunk to where it cannot be detected any more. But during the time when she was being treated, we all went through a sort of a living hell not knowing what was going to happen to her next; for those of us who work in the medical industry, it was worse, because we knew the risks and the chances for success.
My cousin's politics mattered not one whit to any of us; we all suffered right along with her. I'd not wish that kind of suffering on anyone, not even Osama's family.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 21, 2008 10:56 PM (WLr2t)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Obama Aide: We'll meet with Any "Appropriate" Genocidally-Minded, Holocaust-Denying Iranian Leader Without Preconditions... Not Just Ahmadinejad.
Oh, I feel much better now.
File this as another reason Bush would want to strike Iran—and hard—before the end of his term.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:49 AM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Don't forget, yesterday Saint Obama proclaimed that Iran was a "tiny country" and not a serious threat.
Today, of course, Iran is a "grave threat."
So is a "grave threat" better or worse than a "serious threat"?
Can we get a color-coded Obama threat scale, like the Homeland Security "threat level" thingy?
Posted by: C-C-G at May 20, 2008 05:28 PM (ub+LC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Bush to Attack Iran Before Leaving Office
So says the Jerusalem Post, citing Army Radio, citing an anonymous Israeli government official, citing someone he says is "a senior member of the president's entourage."
Why, it's just like hearing it from Bush directly!
Responsible journalists don't run stories this poorly sourced as a rule, but exceptions are almost always made when the stories are sensational enough, and the story is something that journalists, editors, and many readers
want to believe. That is why variations of this story of an impending attack on Iran have been recurring for the past couple of years, and no doubt will continue until President Bush leaves 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, at which point the same rumors will be passed down to (hopefully) President McCain.
The story repeats because elements of it ring true enough for those convinced that a military strike against against the world's foremost sponsor of terrorism and arms used to kill American soldiers since 1983 is an
act of a fascist dictatorship, and also for those that have the good sense to recognize that reducing the capabilities of a rogue nuclear and asymmetrical warfare threat promising genocide as a matter of state policy is a common sense act of survival for the greater good of man.
It is quite possible that certain events before January of 2009 could trigger preemptive strikes upon Iran by the present Administration, Israel, or perhaps even both nations acting in concert. I rather doubt such rumor-mongering helps anyone, however, beyond creating full employment in
Palestinian phone banks calling on behalf of the pacifist candidate Obama.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:28 AM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
And then when Bush doesn't attack Iran, the liberals will say "see, we said he wouldn't!" or "we stopped the warmonger!" or, after Iran has nuclear weapons "Bush should have attacked Iran!"
You can never win with the left, since they have have no sanity
Posted by: William Teach at May 20, 2008 10:53 AM (cuTsc)
2
To be precise CY, Iran isn't really a dictatorship. There isn't any one particular 'person' in charge but rather a loose confederation of mullahs. Sure, there are the trappings of an administration so things look on the up and up but the reality on the ground in Iran is much more complex. I'm in no way implying that some groups with 'power' are benevolent in any way. Sometimes the Iranian right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Counterterrorism Blog had an article about it some time ago but I can't seem to locate it in the archives.
But I'm just being pedantic. The rest of your analysis is spot on.
Posted by: Dan Irving at May 20, 2008 11:03 AM (Kw4jM)
3
who said anything about Iran being a dictatorship? I was referring to the American dictatorship that the Think Progress readership is convinced they live under.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 20, 2008 11:09 AM (xNV2a)
4
Ah - my bad - I parsed that wrong.
Go on with your bad self

Posted by: Dan Irving at May 20, 2008 01:08 PM (Kw4jM)
5
The military, right now, has plans to invade Iran. And Canada. And South Dakota. And Lichtenstein. There are folks who get paid to draw up these contingencies, just incase. It does not mean that they are going to put them into action. America projects force to protect itself, and its allies, and threats can arise anywhere in the world.
Funny, because a belligerent Iran is already killing US soldiers, as well as Iraqis, with their weapons smuggling and training. And promising to wipe a certain nation off the map. But hey **** Bush, right?
Posted by: Dave Burton at May 20, 2008 07:07 PM (WPFyi)
6
Hi Confederate Yankee,
I did an In T View with an Iranian dissident(s),
who burns Qurans in Iran -- not exactly a good career choice if the Regime finds out who you are -- and asked them if they wanted a US intervention in the country. Even he/she/they who absolutely despises the Regime, didn't want the US to intervene... and how can Bush really attack Iran between now and the elections, which would destroy McCain; and after the elections, which would be unfair to his predecessor?
Mister Ghost
Iraqi Bloggers Central
Posted by: Mister Ghost at May 20, 2008 07:26 PM (Vlrej)
7
Well, you certainly made the case for an invasion.
Vox Day also reported the rumor. He thinks that the price of petroleum reflects that possibility.
Posted by: dad29 at May 21, 2008 08:23 AM (CfGtp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
We Take Our Leash Laws Seriously
Holly Springs, NC Animal Control & BBQ. Sent in via email.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:49 AM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Yes, that is a pig cooker being towed.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 20, 2008 08:56 AM (xNV2a)
2
Hot dogs.. hot dogs.. GET YOUR REAL HOT DOGS..
Posted by: Jim at May 20, 2008 09:00 AM (zqzYV)
3
*animal warden shows up at the door*
Mam, would you like to put that dog on a leash or would you prefer three BBQ sandwiches and a short rack of ribs...asian style?
Posted by: joe buzz at May 20, 2008 11:34 AM (Cihcs)
4
That is truly worthy of submission over at http://kurlander.blogspot.com
Posted by: Jeff at May 20, 2008 12:11 PM (yiMNP)
5
City-folk sure are easily amused... they see a photo and think "cognitive dissonance". It's like they've never collected and grilled fresh road-kill. Oh well, their loss...
...once a city dweller, now happy in the woods...
Posted by: Hans at May 20, 2008 02:27 PM (/2GfQ)
6
Holy crap! I live in Holly Springs! How did I miss seeing this?
Posted by: Pat at May 21, 2008 12:28 AM (0suEp)
7
!!!non-PC joke alert!!!!
see what you get with a Korean dog catcher??
Posted by: melky at May 21, 2008 10:35 AM (x1EMf)
8
Korean, don't be silly. This was made in China and purchased from Walmart.
Posted by: davod at May 21, 2008 11:24 AM (llh3A)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 19, 2008
Shhh! You Aren't Supposed to Talk About It
Michelle Obama is going to be making three campaign stops in Kentucky today, but even if she says something incredibly inflammatory or depressed, her husband requests, nay, demands that only the positive be aired.
Will it work? Who knows, but one thing is certain: if he doesn't want us to talk about her, he can tell her to leave the campaign trail and go back to the Hundred Acre Wood.
Chicago. I meant Chicago.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:14 PM
| Comments (36)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Now this may be over the top.
Posted by: Neo at May 19, 2008 02:00 PM (Yozw9)
2
"Hundred Acre Wood", now that is funny.
Posted by: David at May 19, 2008 02:26 PM (oLOMD)
3
Since I disagree with Obama on hope and change, patriotism, respect for the symbols of America and the US military, business regulation, redistribution of wealth, global warming, activist judges, Iraq War, labor unions, NAFTA, affirmative action, illegal immigration, defense policy, appeasing tyrants, motor voter, voter ID, abortion on demand, freedom of speech, gun control, FISA, black liberation theology and other racist ideologies, earned income tax credit, capital gains and windfall profit taxes, gas tax, socialized medicine, political correctness, gay rights, hate crimes, multiculturalism and moral equivalence, I must be a racist.
Posted by: arch at May 19, 2008 04:58 PM (pKbp9)
4
Tell ya what... I'll lay off Michelle Obama if:
1) The Obama campaign doesn't comment on anything any of the other spouses of candidates say... including Mr. Clinton.
2) Michelle stops putting herself in the public eye and making asinine comments.
Otherwise, she's fair game.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 19, 2008 05:26 PM (ub+LC)
5
Pot, meet Kettle.
"Unless John McCain's idea of being a different kind of Republican means disrespecting the voters by denying them the right to examine the links between his political career and the McCains' business ventures, he should immediately release Cindy McCain's tax returns," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Damien LaVera.
See point 1 in my comment above.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 19, 2008 05:57 PM (ub+LC)
6
People have been taking shots at Hillary for 16 years now. Deal with it, Barry. Or, you could do the smart thing and keep her away from the microphone.
Posted by: Pablo at May 20, 2008 07:22 AM (yTndK)
7
I dont see what Cindy McCains tax returns have to do with what comes out of Michelle Obamas mouth. As far as I know,she hasnt been stumping for her husband at rallys or anything,like that other woman.
Posted by: 1903A3 at May 20, 2008 08:41 AM (0JFRo)
8
Speaking of candidates' spouses, anybody heard from Bill lately?
Posted by: SicSemperTyrannus at May 20, 2008 10:23 AM (Mv/2X)
9
1903, the point is the scrutiny of Presidential candidate's spouses. If Obama's spouse is to be exempt, is she the only one, or does the same standard apply to all candidate's spouses?
Not to mention the fact that Obama lacks any power to stop any American from saying whatever he/she/it likes about Michelle. It's called the First Amendment, Barry. Get used to it.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 20, 2008 05:34 PM (ub+LC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Michael Moore: Thief
Something else to his list of descriptors.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:46 PM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
A Fine Whine
Barack Obama has made clear today that he is running an affirmative action Presidential campaign, demanding preferential treatment from both the Republican Party and the news media as the freshman Senator runs for the White House.
The preferential treatment comes in the form of a
unique entitlement: he wants his wife Michelle Obama to be able to campaign for him for president, but wants her held blameless for any controversial or newsworthy comment she makes.
Democrat Barack Obama has a message for Tennessee's Republican Party: "Lay off my wife."
Obama, his party's presidential front-runner, and his wife, Michelle, were asked in an interview aired Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America" about an online video last week by the state's GOP taking her to task for a comment some considered unpatriotic.
"The GOP, should I be the nominee, can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record," Obama said. "If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family."
I'm sure—absolutely positive—that Hillary Clinton would have liked to have had the same standard applied to husband, former President Bill Clinton. His outbursts during his months on the campaign trial have done as much to hurt as help her, but she understands that when you put you spouse on the stage, you make that spouse fair game for criticism when they say or do something newsworthy.
Barack Obama wants soft and special rules, just for his campaign. I'm sorry, Barack, but it doesn't work that way. You won't get special treatment as President when you deal with the rest of the world, and you don't get special treatment campaigning for the job.
Man up, or drop out.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:40 AM
| Comments (37)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
You are absolutely spot on. Hillary could be all over this if she so chooses.
The question is really whether she wants to keep knocking him down to improve her chances in four years?
Posted by: ThomasD at May 19, 2008 10:48 AM (hyaEM)
2
"You are absolutely spot on. Hillary could be all over this if she so chooses.
The question is really whether she wants to keep knocking him down to improve her chances in four years?"
The fact that she's not beating him over the head with this leads me to believe that she's already triangulating on the veep slot. Momentum is on her side, but the math appears insurmountable at this point...
Posted by: Diogenes at May 19, 2008 11:17 AM (2MrBP)
3
It's about acountability, Barack. Includes your wife, too.
Like the man said, Man up or drop out.
Posted by: Mockinbird at May 19, 2008 11:44 AM (1qbLj)
4
After all, no one wants to do anything to scuttle the nice lady's new-found pride in our country.
Posted by: tsmonk at May 19, 2008 01:35 PM (j0chB)
5
I understand a man wanting to protect his family. But if you are worried about them making themselves look stupid, keep them out of the public eye.
Idiotic, simply idiotic.
Posted by: Eric at May 19, 2008 02:30 PM (9V6Vj)
6
Well....that is something....
Obama has made me give a kudo to Bill Clinton.
This made me remember how he responded to press prompting him about Hillary and the criticism she got during his campaign and early in his first tenure --- this was back at the time.
He might have said other things elsewhere, but the one that came to mind today was when he said she took flack like Elanore Roosevelt and for many of the same reasons.
I didn't think much of the comment at the time - one way or another.
Now, I can say, "At least Clinton didn't try to say criticism of Hillary was dastardly conduct after having her take such a prominent role."
Posted by: usinkorea at May 19, 2008 04:37 PM (Rg5ML)
7
"The fact that she's not beating him over the head with this leads me to believe that she's already triangulating on the veep slot. Momentum is on her side, but the math appears insurmountable at this point..."
Well - here 'tis:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CLINTON_OBAMA?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
That was quicker than I tho't...
Posted by: Diogenes at May 19, 2008 09:13 PM (QbqbX)
8
Hussein O can't possibly 'man up'. There would have to be a man present for that to happen.
Posted by: Scrapiron at May 19, 2008 11:12 PM (AiJXe)
9
I seem to remember some adverse press on Cindy McCain for plagiarizing, um, recipes. Cindy, like Laura, is about as far from a political player as it is possible for a PrezSpouse to be. That has not insulated her. Give Barry a little break though. I'm sure he's just saying what she told him to say.
Posted by: megapotamus at May 20, 2008 10:32 AM (LF+qW)
10
Democrat Barack Obama has a message for Tennessee's Republican Party: "Lay off my wife."
Tennessee Republican Party has a message for Barack Obama: "Go SUCK WIND! You take her OFF the political stage and THEN we'll lay off her...but if she's going to campaign for you, then she has to take the good with the bad...as do YOU!"
Posted by: chiefpayne at May 20, 2008 11:14 AM (clifi)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 16, 2008
Huckabee Misfires Again
Mike Huckabee, the same grating "aw shucks" candidate that nearly shot members of the press on the campaign trail, shot his remaining credibility to shreds today in front of annoyed members of the National Rifle Association.
During his speech at the annual convention the following transpired, as noted by
CNN:
During a speech before the National Rifle Association convention Friday afternoon in Louisville, Kentucky, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee — who has endorsed presumptive GOP nominee John McCain — joked that an unexpected offstage noise was Democrat Barack Obama looking to avoid a gunman.
"That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he's getting ready to speak," said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. "Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor."
Oh my word.
The dead silence from an upset crowd of responsible gun owners—many of which were legally armed—was obvious in the
video. Huckabee beclowned himself, and everyone in the audience knew it.
Predictably, fringe bloggers on the left tried to make the most of Huckabee's moronic tastelessness. "smintheus" at
Daily Kos lied and said "this audience laughed," a falsehood proven by the icy silence that quickly resulted in the video linked above.
Pam Spaulding helpfully notes what liberals think about gun owners, claiming, "We've already seen the yahoo vote unapologetic about the fact that they'd never vote for a black man — and plenty of them have an NRA card."
Liberals such as Spaulding would equate gun ownership with Klan membership; I hope that the millions of law-abiding Democrat gun-owning "yahoos" remember that in November.
Only one good thing came out of Huckabee's comments today... his quick exit from the national stage.
Update: Some liberals in the comments are questioning whether or not there was laughter at Huckabee's comment that "someone aimed a gun at him and he hit the floor."
The video link is above, but here's a blow by block chronology, according the the clock on the 2:19 CNN clip.
There were hundreds of people in that room. No more than a handful made
any noise immediately after Huckabee made the follow-up gun comment, and they were silent within two seconds.
Timeframe, using the CNN counter:
00:00-00:50 HUCKABEE is giving an apparently good speech generating good applause from the audience
00:51 -- A loud noise is heard offstage.
00:52 -- HUCKABEE (turns and points): "That was Barack Obama. He just tripped off a chair..." Moderate chuckles from the crowd began to build.
00:58-1:00 -- HUCKABEE continued: "Somebody aimed a gun at him, and he dove for the floor." The crowd immediately starts to go quiet.
1:02 -- Crowd is DEAD SILENT. Huckabee looks out at crowd, seems to understand he really made a huge gaffe.
1:02-2:19. -- HUCKABEE rushes through the rest of the speech shown, rushing past obvious applause lines where pauses are designed.
The audience is DEAD SILENT on the CNN audio after ingesting Huckabee's comments, though I'm almost certain there was unheard murmuring not picked up by their microphones.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:53 PM
| Comments (50)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
where exactly on Spaulding's blog is there a reference to the klan?
Posted by: Notnowjohn at May 16, 2008 06:02 PM (CAytX)
2
That kind of talk must have been a real knee slapper back in the days when the Huckster was frying squirrels on a popcorn popper in his dorm room at Central Arkansas Bible College (I've got the name wrong and I don't mean to demean the college---it was a small Christian school and they do good works. But they only let their students have hot air popcorn poppers in their dorm rooms--no other cooking utensils allowed--and the Huckster and his roomies needed to figure out how to cook their squirrels.--Ah shucks, I didn't want to go there---but the Huckster did tell the story about cooking the little forest critters and I cringed when I thought what the New York Times would do to a squirrel fryin' candidate for President. ) Anyway, it's time for Huckabee to head back to Little Rock.
Posted by: Michael J. Myers at May 16, 2008 06:02 PM (LZ3cP)
3
As one commentator said (I think I saw it on NRO's Corner blog), sometimes you vet the Veep candidates, sometimes they vet themselves.
Of course, The Huckster always did have a talent for shooting himself in the foot.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 16, 2008 06:57 PM (ub+LC)
4
How dense are the democrats. The KKK is and has always been a democrat organization. Formed by democrats and supported by todays democrats. KKK Kleagle Byrd, D (WVa) anyone????
Posted by: Scrapiron at May 16, 2008 07:15 PM (AiJXe)
5
huckabee is a past pastor please that was in very very poor poor taste you need to seat down ans shut up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: felicia jackson at May 16, 2008 07:15 PM (NFA4y)
6
Let's hope that sealed the fate of any ideas of selecting him as VP. Adios, Huck.
Posted by: Pablo at May 16, 2008 07:47 PM (yTndK)
7
I can only think of one good thing about John McCain: he's not Huckabee.
Posted by: Bugler at May 16, 2008 09:22 PM (YCVBL)
8
"smintheus" at Daily Kos lied and said "this audience laughed," a falsehood proven by the icy silence that quickly resulted in the video linked above.
You might want to get your hearing checked.
Posted by: Urbaniak at May 16, 2008 11:58 PM (K0nmr)
9
Sounds like laughing to me.
I know you people love to tell people what to think, but that sure sounds like laughing to me.
I'm 52 and I know the difference between "icy silence" and laughter.
Nice try though.
Posted by: David at May 17, 2008 02:31 AM (UEoYe)
10
For whatever reason, I can't get the video to play on my machine right now, but, as per David's comment above, the quote cited in the post says the comment was greeted by "audience laughter."
Posted by: cactus at May 17, 2008 06:24 AM (jKDlG)
11
Urbaniak, David, cactus,
Wow. I didn't know that a person's political tastes could damage their perceptions so throughly. I just included a chronological timeline as a update to the main post to help your adjustment to our reality.
Pull that up alongside the CNN video linked in the main post that shows the event, and watch it with the chronology as your guide.
Also keep in mind that Huckabee said two lines.
The first line was that the noise was Obama falling, which generated mild, building laughter. After he made the "somebody pointed a gun at him" statement, a smattering of dying laughter is heard ending from the previous comment, and the entire audience of hundreds was dead silent within two seconds, which lasted throughout the rest of the videotaped segment.
Sorry to interrupt your community-based reality, but that is what actually occurred.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 17, 2008 07:01 AM (HcgFD)
12
This is sad.
The good news is that he won't be the Republican nominee in the fall.
Posted by: Neo at May 17, 2008 08:06 AM (Yozw9)
13
Oh, my Lord, I knew the lefties could sink pretty low, but not so low as to argue over when a crowd was laughing.
They'll do literally anything to smear those that support the right to keep and bear arms, won't they?
Posted by: C-C-G at May 17, 2008 08:10 AM (ub+LC)
14
I've seen two versions of the Huckabee clip. In one the crowd reaction is muted, in the other it's much louder laughing by most of the crowd. I have no idea which was edited but one surely was.
I can tell you there are lots of hunters in Illinois who aren't fans of the NRA or the Republican party. Any nut shoots at Obama and I predict it'll be open season on Republican politicians like Huckabee.
Posted by: markg8 at May 17, 2008 08:46 AM (7xxF4)
15
I'm not condemning the audience. But come on, the Kos poster wasn't lying when they said people laughed at the joke. The audience is totally silent after "somebody aimed a gun at him" but then after Huckabee says "and he dove for the floor" there's a fresh spurt of laughter. It may very well have been nervous laughter but it is laughter and it is in direct repsonse to the "conclusion" of the "joke."
Again, I'm not saying the laughter is indicative of any sort of right-wing depravity on the audience's part, it was probably a result of discomfort. You can argue with the Kos poster over the quality of the audience's laughter but not over the existence of the laughter.
Posted by: urbaniak at May 17, 2008 09:42 AM (K0nmr)
16
So let me get this right markg8, Democrats are hateful murderous thugs looking for an excuse to kill. Wow.
Posted by: David at May 17, 2008 12:25 PM (ZoIEY)
17
I dunno, I went to You Tube and found this. There's clear laughter after the "he dove for the floor."
Now, who knows, perhaps someone added the laughter later.
Posted by: cactus at May 17, 2008 05:08 PM (jKDlG)
18
Well, there were a lot of people in that hall, and not a lot of paople made whatever noise you hear. It sure wasn't much. I think we hear what matches our own reaction; mine was outright disgusted derision. Could anyone be so stupid as to joke about pointing a gun at anyone? At an NRA convention? Never mind the gratuitous handing of the whole gun toting KKK lynch mob thing to the Left? How freakin' STUPID can you be?
Folks, Dumb is forever. Bye Bye Mike.
What you libs never seem to grasp is that we get rid of people like this; you don't. That's why we can laugh at you right in the midst of this suicide by shoe leather by a Republican.
Posted by: Bill Smith at May 17, 2008 05:38 PM (ltKmi)
19
Good point, Bill... if Huckabee was a Dem there'd be excuses and equivocations buzzing around the "intertubes" like crazy.
As for Republicans, well, as I said before, sometimes you vet the Veep candidates, sometimes they vet themselves.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 17, 2008 06:09 PM (ub+LC)
20
Good point yourself, CCG. He vetted himself, and too big for Momma to change him!
Damn! I watched it again, and he didn't just put his foot in his mouth, he started CHEWING on it!
Posted by: Bill Smith at May 17, 2008 08:56 PM (ltKmi)
21
It would have been helpful if you'd provided the audio CY but I heard the sound clip twice on a local L.A. radio station yesterday. While it's not like the entire crowd was 'busting a gut', I did hear some laughter after he made the remark. I don't imagine that we should, you know, believe our 'lying ears' though. And of course, it's not like conservatives would laugh at something like that anyways. I distinctly remember people not chuckling when that darling, Ann Coulter would regale us with little 'one liners' like, "the best way to talk to a Liberal is with a baseball bat". And I distinctly don't remember the crowd erupting in laughter and applause when our Dear Miss called Edwards a fag at the CPAC Convention.
Posted by: tontocal at May 17, 2008 09:54 PM (7DtTW)
22
Who equates the NRA and the Klan?
Why none other than the man who gets a seat in the Presidential box at the 2004 Dem convention, Michael Moore. Watch "Bowling for Columbine," when he presents an animated history of the Klan/NRA.
Think many members of Kos and company might be influenced by this Oscar-award winning director's documentaries?
Posted by: Lurking Observer at May 18, 2008 10:58 AM (p/GCv)
23
"It would have been helpful if you'd provided the audio CY but I heard the sound clip twice on a local L.A. radio station yesterday. While it's not like the entire crowd was 'busting a gut', I did hear some laughter after he made the remark. I don't imagine that we should, you know, believe our 'lying ears' though. And of course, it's not like conservatives would laugh at something like that anyways. I distinctly remember people not chuckling when that darling, Ann Coulter would regale us with little 'one liners' like, "the best way to talk to a Liberal is with a baseball bat". And I distinctly don't remember the crowd erupting in laughter and applause when our Dear Miss called Edwards a fag at the CPAC Convention."
"Do you even manage to read before you post? Come on now.
Timeframe, using the CNN counter:
00:00-00:50 HUCKABEE is giving an apparently good speech generating good applause from the audience
00:51 -- A loud noise is heard offstage.
00:52 -- HUCKABEE (turns and points): "That was Barack Obama. He just tripped off a chair..." Moderate chuckles from the crowd began to build.
00:58-1:00 -- HUCKABEE continued: "Somebody aimed a gun at him, and he dove for the floor." The crowd immediately starts to go quiet."
Starts, STARTS to go quiet.
Think, type, read over what you type, then think again, then hit the post button.
Posted by: Eric at May 18, 2008 02:44 PM (Gj+EH)
24
Think, type, read over what you type, then think again, then hit the post button.
The big problem with that is that lots of those on the left don't know how to do the first step you list. They're capable, but haven't done it in so long they've forgotten how.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 18, 2008 03:30 PM (ub+LC)
25
Silly me. Didn't notice the helpful link to the video that CY had provided. As I remembered from hearing the audio that day, there was laughter after the 'aimed a gun' comment, (albeit, diminished from the 'fell over a chair' comment') So, to sum up, there is some laughter, then the crowd goes quiet. But again, I shouldn't believe my 'lying' ears. (or, you know, think)
Posted by: tontocal at May 18, 2008 08:22 PM (pYXRq)
26
People, please. Can we all just put aside our political differences for a sec and unite behind the fact that Mike Huckabee is completely unfunny. Democrats know it. Republicans know it. Even the NRA knows it.
I say this because I want that man off my TV forever. Help a guy out.
Posted by: Juan Manuel de Rosas at May 19, 2008 04:44 PM (OEj00)
27
For once, I agree, Juan. Huckabee's joke was in poor taste and was absolutely unfunny. He shouldn't be considered for second assistant dogcatcher of a one-stoplight town, much less VPOTUS.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 19, 2008 05:40 PM (ub+LC)
28
"He shouldn't be considered for second assistant dogcatcher of a one-stoplight town"
Little Rock?
Posted by: Juan Manuel de Rosas at May 20, 2008 10:24 AM (OEj00)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Obama: Hezbollah and Hamas Have "Legitimate Claims"
The U.S. needs a foreign policy that "looks at the root causes of problems and dangers." Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that "they're going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims." He knows these movements aren't going away anytime soon ("Those missiles aren't going to dissolve"
, but "if they decide to shift, we're going to recognize that. That's an evolution that should be recognized."
And just what are these "legitimate claims" that
Obama mentions in talking with David Brooks of the New York
Times?
Is it that the existence of Israel is a
catastrophe?
Democratic presidential frontrunner Sen. Barack Obama served as a paid director on the board of a nonprofit organization that granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe." (Obama has also reportedly spoken at fundraisers for Palestinians living in what the United Nations terms refugee camps.)
The co-founder of the Arab group, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, is a harsh critic of Israel who reportedly worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization when it was labeled a terror group by the State Department.
Khalidi held a fundraiser in 2000 for Obama's failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.
In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, at which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to AAAN for $35,000 in 2002.
Ah, the Woods Fund. Where Barak served with his domestic terrorist friend, Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground, who along with his domestic terrorist (and
Charles Manson fan) wife, Bernardine Dohrn, helped kick off Obama's political career at their house.
Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state, and
says (in part):
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up."
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
Somehow, I don't think that is a change most Americans or Israelis can believe in.
But what about
Hezbollah?
...Hezbollah's ideology is inspired by Khomeini, the original leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. According to "The Hezbollah Program", a document that specifies Hezbollah's ideology, Hezbollah's main goals are to fight against "western imperialism", achieve the destruction of Israel, and establish Islamic rule in Jerusalem. It also supports the transformation of Lebanon into an Islamic state in the same spirit as Iran, which Hezbollah takes as the model of an Islamic state. In addition, the party glorifies suicide bombers as martyrs. It promotes violent resistance as a means to an end and teaches that "each of us is a fighting soldier". This ideology—which includes anti-Semitic, anti-western and anti-democratic dogma—is indoctrinated in Hezbollah's schools and kindergartens, which are free for all of Hezbollah's Shi'a supporters.
I'd really like to know what is legitimate about the claims two terrorist organizations dedicated to the obliteration of Israel in the eyes of Barack Obama.
Please, Barack... do tell.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:32 AM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Leave it to Obama to let his ego get in the way of the truth. http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/the_white_house_changes_target.php
Posted by: Cory at May 16, 2008 01:13 PM (6A46n)
2
Maybe there is something in his attitude here:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/02/obama-arab-amer.html
Obama, according to what's going around, is less an "African" American than an "Arab" American. This is not about madrassas or any of that stuff. It is, however, about his lineage, which is a little bit surprising...and it may explain his weird name and his weirder views.
Posted by: marybel at May 16, 2008 04:31 PM (e+2Jh)
3
Kenya is in East Africa. Indonesia is in South East Asia. Kansas is in the middle of the US. Hawaii is in the Pacific and Illionis is in the midwest too. Where exactly is Obama's middle-east lineage?
Posted by: Notnowjohn at May 16, 2008 06:04 PM (+XTgN)
4
His father was Arab-African which makes Obama and Arab-African American.
Posted by: Sara at May 16, 2008 07:15 PM (Wi/N0)
5
From the Brooks interview of Obama at NYT:
The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.” He knows these movements aren’t going away anytime soon (“Those missiles aren’t going to dissolve”), but “if they decide to shift, we’re going to recognize that. That’s an evolution that should be recognized.”
===
From transcribing an American Radio Account from 1938:
"Now we know that Neville Chamberlain, who is a Realist and masterful man, has made up his mind that the time has come to give up attempts at ideal solutions to the European problems, such as through the League of Nations. To deal with facts, as he found them, and the two outstanding facts were the two dictators, Hitler and Moussolini. Both had grievances that had to be recognized and it's possible were right. Before Europe would turn over in bed and most dream comfortably. And Chamberlain told his Cabinet that he was going to settle this and on a Realist basis."
Can we hear more about these 'legitimate grievances' of Hezbollah and Hamas from Sen. Obama? I would like to hear them better defined than their charters which have the destruction of Israel as their central foundation... that is at least *one* of their grievances and an actual driving one. Considering that *no* President has been able to talk either of them out of those 'grievances', what makes Sen. Obama that they will suddenly 'see the light'?
And if talking to Iran has no 'preconditions' and yet they support these groups, wouldn't it be good to get them to stop that support, which has also been a centerpiece of multiple Presidents to-date?
If he is, from what I can see, stating the exact, same thing as the current and past occupants of the Oval Office on pre-conditions and having these groups end, then what is, exactly, the difference between the Obama policy and theirs?
Since the time of Thomas Jefferson Presidents have seen the limitations and inability of foreign institutions to promulgate US policy and the need to take action against those that threaten the US and our Allies. It is only when Presidents don't follow Jefferson's lead that things tend to go awry... can Sen. Obama stand with that tradition? Or don't we much need the lessons of Jefferson these days, either?
Posted by: ajacksonian at May 17, 2008 12:56 PM (oy1lQ)
Posted by: Neo at May 17, 2008 09:07 PM (Yozw9)
7
Oh Come on, I have read that article, Obama says US should help shites in south Lebonan for their legitimate claims to peel them away from Hezbollah.
Posted by: anony at May 17, 2008 09:37 PM (TTqpJ)
8
Oh Come on, I have read that article, Obama says US should help shites in south Lebonan for their legitimate claims to peel them away from Hezbollah.
And what legitimate claims are those? Those Shiites in S. Lebanon are Lebonese (those that aren't Iranians masquerading as Lebonese in service to Hezbollah, of course). What legitimate claims do they have vis a vis their own elected government? I am sure everyone would love to know what Hussein Obama thinks about that.
Posted by: iconoclast at May 19, 2008 09:34 AM (TzLpv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Totten On Yon
I don't think they could possibly find someone more qualified to review Michael Yon's Moment of Truth in Iraq than Michael Totten, another independent journalist who has spent and extensive amount of time in the Middle East, including Iraq.
Read Totten's review
The Real Iraq, and if you haven't yet read Yon's book, or would like to donate copies to your local library so that other people can, click the image above to order from Amazon.com.
I'd note that both Yon and Totten are independent journalists, and traveling to and through combat zones to bring you stories the media won't tell is both expensive and dangerous, so please consider contributing at their sites,
Michael Totten, and
Michael Yon.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:18 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Totten, Yon, C. Blake Powers, J.D. Johannes, Pete Hegseth and Bill Ardolino are the finest citizen journalists this country has to offer. They are on the ground and seeing what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan firsthand, then reporting what they see: the good, the bad and the ugly.
The efforts by some in the MSM to marginalize/minimize their efforts won't succeed.
Posted by: Major Kirk at May 19, 2008 02:12 PM (s2kbX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Up Close and Personal with an EFP
You've heard of EFPs (Explosively-formed penetrators or projectiles), a kind of IED, being used against American armored vehicles.
Very few people outside of the military have seen the results of an EFP strike in detail. Thanks to confidential sources inside Iraq, I have relatively rare photos of an EFP strike in my post at Pajamas Media,
How Iran Is Killing U.S. Troops in Iraq.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:32 AM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
May 15, 2008
Bit Dog Barks
In Israel, President Bush mentioned in a speech that:
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," the President said to the country's legislative body, "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Though not mentioned by President Bush, Barack Obama
howled in protest:
"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."
The White House went on to state that they were not talking about Obama, but as the saying goes, "it's the bit dog that barks loudest." Barack Obama recognized his own weakness in Bush's speech, even though Bush never mentioned him.
Perhaps we'd all find Barack's stance against meeting with terrorists a lot more sincere if he wasn't friends with several, kicking off his political career at their house.
Update: Heh.
Obama, sweetie, calm down.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:01 AM
| Comments (47)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Obama either has no idea of why any other country would listen to any "tough, principled diplomacy" without telling him to stuff it. And, when murderous thugs in Iran, Venezuala, etc. tell him to stuff it, what are his options? Yep, just like Chamberlain--feed some more innocents and friends to the monsters in the vain hope they will be appeased.
The other explanation is more depressing. Obama thinks WE are the monster and thugs like Iran, Syria are the good guys. Nice pick, Dems.
Posted by: iconoclast at May 15, 2008 10:08 AM (TzLpv)
Posted by: Neo at May 15, 2008 11:03 AM (Yozw9)
3
Obamas rush to deny allegations that were never made reveals his guilty conscious.
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at May 15, 2008 11:08 AM (gkobM)
4
Is Obama like not the biggest drama queen going? "It's sad.." boohoo - no crybabies for President.
Posted by: Bandit at May 15, 2008 11:26 AM (/R+6i)
5
Again W manages just the right note. Is this the blind pig with the occassional truffle? I don't think so. Of course he was talking about Barry but not Barry merely. The simple sad truth is that Obamesque vapid summitteering is regarded as the height of urbane good sense in many of our fellow citizens and elected officials. They really think that all our troubles are because the world dislikes Bush and his so-called arrogance. Like Barry though, I suspect that when they see this principle actually applied or hear it's precepts forthrightly expressed they will instinctively understand just how dangerous, foolish and cliche'd such a policy is. W is attempting to give them this opportunity. Obammy whiffed it.
Posted by: megapotamus at May 15, 2008 11:49 AM (LF+qW)
6
so, if not obama, who might W have been referring to and why in Israel on the anniversary of its founding as a nation? Who, exactly, might those "Some" be?
Posted by: po at May 15, 2008 11:51 AM (AP2dj)
7
so, if not obama, who might W have been referring to and why in Israel on the anniversary of its founding as a nation? Who, exactly, might those "Some" be?
We could easily start with Jimmy Carter, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean, but it would probably take a lot less time if we just made a blanket statement covering most (but not all) Democrats on the national level.
Obama is just one symptom of the appeasement disease.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 15, 2008 12:00 PM (zqzYV)
8
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 15, 2008 12:00 PM
Don't forget Rockefeller telegraphing our War plans to a great friends the Syrians before the war or the Democrats in congress who let terror connected pay for their trip to Iraq.
Posted by: Slipknot at May 15, 2008 12:09 PM (Uv3VJ)
9
Odd that Obama would mention Reagan and Iran in the same paragraph .. does Obama have “a cake and a Bible” ready ?
Ollie North .. Obama's office is trying to reach you.
Posted by: Neo at May 15, 2008 12:32 PM (Yozw9)
10
Or Jack Murtha's promising a "slow bleed" to turn American opinion against our occupation of Iraq.
Posted by: James at May 15, 2008 12:34 PM (B8gN+)
11
The truly sad thing is that if the president had spent the last seven years talking like this consistantly, putting his enemies on the defensive and making them explain their own words, his party and his projects might not now be on the verge of total destruction.
Too little, too late.
And the fact that you could easily add Condi Rice and George W. Bush to the list of those who would cheerfully appease terrorists (State Department foreign aid to the Palestinian "nation", anybody? How about another Condi-organized "Peace" conference where the Israelis have to enter through a seperate door?) doesn't help.
Posted by: DaveP. at May 15, 2008 12:35 PM (3Aj1g)
12
DaveP,
Agree almost completely. However... no way, no how was President Bush's Knesset "address" run past the State Dept. And that sir, makes it delicious.
That money quote? "We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Ever see the South Park episode about "the brown noise." Well, Bush found it. Upon the last word in that Bush's quote, every State Department employee and Democrat in office collectively shat their pants.
Posted by: Lamontyoubigdummy at May 15, 2008 01:41 PM (GrBA3)
13
The media idiots cannot even get the speech right. Tucker Carlson said that Bush's invoking of 'Hitler' and comparing someone to hHitker was beyond the pale!
Posted by: davod at May 15, 2008 04:01 PM (llh3A)
14
Fred Sanford: With respect, I considered the venue... and then remembered the Bush White House pressuring Israel to stop its offensive against Hezbollah a couple of years ago, and pressuring Israel again to accept the presence of United Nations "monitors" possibly the single worst strategic defeat Isreal has ever suffered, as now Hezbollah and Hamas have a big, bright blue shield to hide behind and Isreal can't do anything about it without making its European diplomatic situation even worse.
That pressure may have come with State's advice and backing, but in the end the buck stopped with Bush.
Posted by: DaveP. at May 15, 2008 04:16 PM (3Aj1g)
15
With Obama at the helm history will indeed repeat itself. The US will be Jonnhy come Lately's again if another conflict erupts. Just like WWI and WWII. Democratic isolationist policy's accomplish nothing other than reducing the US further in the eyes of her allies.
Posted by: Bart at May 15, 2008 05:22 PM (U7d2A)
16
The irony is, if Obama and his campaign had kept their collective mouths shut, the President's comments would probably have disappeared from the news and people's memories very quickly. By raising a big stink, the Obamamaniacs have made the President's comments much more memorable.
Sensitive ego + guilty conscience = bad news for a politician.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 15, 2008 10:47 PM (ub+LC)
17
Another Obama whopper revealed
Posted by: Neo at May 16, 2008 07:37 AM (Yozw9)
18
Gotta love it.
If Bush gave a speech about drug dealers, would you [Obama] release a statement saying, "how DARE you insult me!"? Of course not; you're aren't a drug dealer. So if you really aren't an appeaser, you shouldn't have willingly identified yourself with that group.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 16, 2008 07:04 PM (ub+LC)
19
Well, of course Bush wasn't referring to Obama in the speech to the Knesset. There was no mention of 'Hussein' or 'bitter' or 'elistist'. I'm quite sure this Knesset member actually was referring to Obama when he stated:
"It was an embarrassing speech, a collection of slogans that somebody wrote for him in order to be nice to Israel, or what he thinks is Israel, and to steer well clear of anything concrete," said Israeli lawmaker Yossi Beilin, a key architect of the Oslo peace accords.
"It's a shame and a scandal, in my opinion."
Posted by: tontocal at May 17, 2008 10:16 PM (7DtTW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
John McCain: Commander in Chief of the Israeli Military?
In a story on the L.A. Times blog Top of the Ticket about John McCain's new position that he thinks American combat troops will be out of Iraq by 2013, the Times includes this photo.
Pardon me for asking, but at what point did American Presidents command
Israeli solders?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:11 AM
| Comments (34)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
In their dreams on how to use the 3 Annapolis "monitor" generals: Dayton, Fraser and McCain's friend (Retd) Gen. James L. Jones, current Middle East envoy?
Posted by: ER at May 15, 2008 08:32 AM (C9+q9)
2
Obviously a member of the New York National Guard's 11th Kitten Battalion.
Posted by: bvw at May 15, 2008 09:20 AM (GldVa)
3
Why were you reading the Los Angeles Times.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at May 15, 2008 09:27 AM (eDnDo)
4
Gee, didn't you know that the vast neocon-zionist conspiracy controls both?
Posted by: Grey Fox at May 15, 2008 09:50 AM (9btbQ)
5
Meh, the Democrats can't tell Canadian troops from U.S. troops,
http://www.exurbanleague.com/2006/10/08/they-stand-on-guard-for-us.aspx
why should we expect different behaviour from the L.A. Times?
Posted by: ExUrbanKevin at May 15, 2008 11:54 AM (ppKzH)
6
Perhaps it is in the "Secret Protocalls of Zion".

Posted by: David at May 15, 2008 01:27 PM (cPLO6)
7
Looks peaceful, but I've been to anti-Bush rallies where the National Guard thugs were using those animals to intimidate the crowd.
Posted by: Brad at May 15, 2008 07:22 PM (d/RyS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 14, 2008
Obama: "Hold On One Second, Sweetie"
Here's the video:
I don't object to the word "Sweetie"... when addressing a female child, or as a term of endearment with a relative or close friend. Using it condescendingly here as Obama did here in addressing a grown, professional woman is demeaning, and the reporter he called "Sweetie" is obviously steamed at the dismissive slight.
At
The Politico Ben Smith has
more on the story, and the
comment thread there is certainly illuminating. Obama supporters on the site attack Smith, Hillary Clinton, and even the reporter for reporting the slight, instead of admitting that Obama went out of bounds.
The video says something about Obama's character, but the
Politico comments are even more shocking in how it reveals the character of his acolytes.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:55 PM
| Comments (38)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Wow, the story is much more powerful when you look at those comments. You should post a few comments.
Posted by: mekan at May 14, 2008 03:27 PM (hm8tW)
2
Wonder how he'd react if Senator Byrd refered to him as "Boy?"
Posted by: Big Country at May 14, 2008 04:08 PM (qLCaV)
3
So waht you're saying, Chuck, is that that reporter MADE Obama call her "sweetie"? Are we talking cue cards, or maybe mind control waves?
Posted by: DaveP. at May 14, 2008 04:43 PM (3Aj1g)
4
Well he and Michelle just paid off their student loans so he couldn't possibly be misogynistic ... or is it elitist? I can't keep these non sequiturs straight.
Posted by: capitano at May 14, 2008 05:37 PM (+NO33)
5
Patronizing and insultingly dismissive.
Posted by: Sara at May 14, 2008 06:36 PM (Wi/N0)
6
Perhaps this is why Hamas supports him? He's got a misogynistic streak they recognize and sympathize with?
Posted by: Lurking Observer at May 14, 2008 07:24 PM (O3AVU)
7
I'm going to have to buck the trend on this one. Well, sort of. Those comments at the link are startling and telling. Ugh.
I have a lot of problems with ole BHO, but this isn't one of them. Is is rude? Yes. It's is patronizing in a sexist manner? Slightly.
When reporters try to ambush folks, I think it's A-OK for them to be flippant. I actually sort of get a kick out of it.
Posted by: brando at May 14, 2008 07:31 PM (LXoqQ)
8
He's going to help the auto workers by eliminating all their worry and anxiety about what to do with any spare cash they got laying around.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 14, 2008 07:37 PM (fs+G8)
9
"When reporters try to ambush folks, I think it's A-OK for them to be flippant. I actually sort of get a kick out of it."
I agree. Clearly this reporter had an ax to grind and it seems by the time the video starts she had already been importuning him several times already. I don't begrudge him for saying it.
Posted by: Arbotreeist at May 14, 2008 09:38 PM (6I6OG)
10
The only explanation is that Barry is actually an agent/provocateur for Team Hillary. Really, this guys vaunted political chops are more revealed as an urban legend every day. Sure, the reporterette, like so many, was inviting insult. But if Obammy wants to change his trend lines in his weak demos... that is, he wants to change them UP, he must avoid, say, confirming all the alleged sexism that keeps Hillary barefoot, illiterate, in the kitchen and, of course, pregnant.
Posted by: megapotamus at May 15, 2008 11:53 AM (LF+qW)
11
HelloThunk You .. This info_____________ÝÓÇÊíä ÒÝÇÝ |Ïíᑥ | ÇáãßíÇÌ ÇáÎáíÌí | ãáÇÈÓ ááãÍÌÈÇÊ |ãßíÇÌ ÇáÚíæä |ÕæÑ ãíß ÝÓÇÊíä ÇÚÑÇÓ|ÇÈ | ÇÍÏË ÞÕÇÊ ÇáÔÚÑ |ÝÓÇÊíä ÒåíÑ ãÑÇÏ | ÝÓÇÊíä ÒæÇÌ | ÝÓÇÊíä ÒÝÇÝ 2009 | ÝÓÇÊíä ÝÑÍ | ÝÓÇÊíä ÓåÑÉ |ÕæÑ ÝÓÇÊíä ÓåÑÉ|ÝÓÇÊíä ÎØæÈÉ
Posted by: M3rof at July 10, 2009 02:27 PM (lAO5o)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Bloodless Bullets of Baghdad
I suspect that this is less a case of "fauxtography" than a curious physiological response, but Associated Press cameraman Karim Kadim captured this photo of a Sadr City woman having a bullet removed from her forearm.
Here is an enlarged and cropped version of the photo as tweaked in PhotoShop to focus on the wound. I got as close as I could without distorting the image significantly.
As you can see, the bullet is being pulled nose first, suggesting that it penetrated though the outside of the woman's arm and passed through the interosseous membrane between the ulna and radius to stop at some point on the inside part of her forearm.
All combat rifle cartridges commonly used should have fully penetrated this woman's arm completely with a significant (and ghastly) exit wound if not impeded by either hitting a barrier of some sort, or coming from an extreme distance away. I'd love to see a higher resolution version of this photo to see if we could determine what kind of rifle cartridge this was.
Whatever the bullet is, I'm pretty sure it isn't one of
these.
5/20 Update: After speaking with Associated Press resources in New York, trauma surgeons, and other resources in Iraq, this photo is confirmed as the extraction of a bullet that hit the woman in the photo after being fired from a considerable distance, and after the bullet had expended much of its energy. Additional still footage is said to exist showing the entry wound, and there is also said to be videotape of the extraction.
This was not a staged photo, just a strange physiological response to an uncommon wound.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:43 AM
| Comments (41)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
That looks to have a ballistic tip on it.
Posted by: Oilcrash at May 14, 2008 12:23 PM (XCqS+)
2
Kinda tough to make that assessment, as many kinds of military ammunition has painted tips as a visual aid showing the kind of ammunition it is. A red or orange tip is often the sign of a tracer round.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 14, 2008 12:32 PM (xNV2a)
3
It could have been a "spent" bullet, ie at the far extent of its range and just about capable of of such a wound.
But gloveless? Even washed for reuse? Heck, even cotton gloves? Well, maybe.
Posted by: teqjack at May 14, 2008 01:56 PM (CEphM)
4
A few thoughts:
Did you notice the amount of scarring on the arm?
That seems to be a large penetration to leave no trace of blood. Maybe the wound area has been cleansed with alch.?
If the wound was 'splinter' like, just under the skin, don't you think the lady would have removed it herself?
Posted by: mekan at May 14, 2008 03:26 PM (hm8tW)
5
mekan,
Good questions, all. In order:
by "scarring," are you referring to the disturbed skin around the bullet? I would love to hear from a trauma doc, EMT, or combat medic on this, but since none are around, I'll hazard a guess that it might simply be a reflection of how the skin is being stretched and pulled upon extraction. I could very well be dead wrong, too.The lack of blood is fascinating, especially if you dig up an anatomical chart of the forearm that shows the various major and minor arteries running though that general area of the arm. Frankly, I'm not confident about the use of alcohol to clean the wound.yes, if it was a splinter, I would think she would have removed it on her own, and quickly, as bullets tend to be quite warm, if not hot, when they hit flesh. If it had been the case where the bullet was hanging out as shown, and hot, I'd guess that human nature wold dictate to grab it and try to pull it out.
Of course, not being there, and not having much to work with, this is all guesswork.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 14, 2008 03:39 PM (xNV2a)
6
I sent the link to my sister, who is a combat medic. She may see something we don't.
Posted by: Grey Fox at May 14, 2008 04:04 PM (9btbQ)
7
I was a combat medic. The pic is an obvious fake. No way would that bullet still be shiney. No way would there be no blood with a piece of metal that large. No way would there be no apparent distortion of the point. For years after I returned from Vietnam, Republic of, I had pieces of shrapnel easing out of my side and leg. That little event was always accompanied by pus and blood. The person in the pic may have a "void" in their arm from a previous injury that just happens to be the approximate diameter of a bullet. But I really doubt the bullet you see in the pic was ever fired. Who but a vet or cop would know? None of the sheep would.
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at May 14, 2008 04:43 PM (GAL+4)
8
OK:
US Military Tracer round: Red tipped 5.56mm Round with red tip Ball, Tracer M193 55 GRN or New Version Ball, Tracer M196 55 GRN.
The 'scarring' around the arm looks more like what happens when your bandages are on too tight... the skin puckers and take on the fabric shape/distortion. Not agreeing that this is fake or disagreeing..
Also: Tracer BURN. Burn hot.
Lastly: The bullet appears (in relation to the thumbnail BIGGER than a 5.56mm round IMO
Posted by: Big Country at May 14, 2008 05:36 PM (qLCaV)
9
It's difficult to see from the picture what exactly that is, whether bullet or not. But I can tell you as a combat medic that extraction would not be bloodless, nor unbruised. Even a bullet that has been in a limb for months still shows up as a swelling.
Fresh bullets leave holes as large as themselves only at the entry point, and grow larger as they pass through. Exit wounds are BIG. And bloody.
I'd say the picture is definitely fishy, but I must also comment that the photo linked to it, the one with the woman holding up two bullets she says struck her house--that's hilarious! Bullets can be fired in their casings, now?
Posted by: Grey Fox's Sis at May 14, 2008 08:25 PM (FfV0/)
10
Based on the cross section of the round as compared to the medic's thumb I would say 7.62. Red tracer tip makes it a US 7.62 (at least I dont rember seeing any red tipped AK ammo)
My guess, a spent round at the end of its trajectory (possibly one fired up in the air as Haji is prone to do)
It entered the arm thru the hole and lodged itself right under the skin. She probably had it there for a day or two. The Doc pushed and pulled until he got the tip out enough to extract it. Has to be an Iraqui Doc. No US one would do it without gloves
Posted by: Rey at May 14, 2008 08:49 PM (085kT)
11
Fauxtography. As several others have suggested. The absence of blood and pus (the response of white blood cells to a foreign body) alone render this an obvious fake. In addition, if there is, in fact an entry wound on the opposite side of the arm, the "victim" would be screaming in pain as the person supposedly "removing" the bullet, apparently without rubber gloves, antiseptic or medical tools, put pressure on the entry wound.
As for the idea that this could be a round so nearly completely spent as to end up in this position in a woman's arm? Bullets and flesh don't react that way. Possible? Yes, but only to the extent that monkeys might, at any minute, fly from my rear end.
Do you suppose Scott Beauchamp is involved? Could this be one of those fabled square bullets?
Posted by: Mike at May 14, 2008 10:46 PM (niRCJ)
12
The scarring I was referring to are the lines that start about 1-2 inches above the foreign object. The statement by a commenter above that those are pressure lines from a tight bandage recently removed make sense.
Posted by: Mekan at May 15, 2008 06:12 PM (JJmRm)
13
Neither the M62 nor the M276 have a red tip. So you can count out 7.62x51.
The Syrian made PANSSART SYTYTYS in 7.62x39 does have a red tip.
Posted by: Eric at May 18, 2008 02:08 PM (Gj+EH)
14
"As for the idea that this could be a round so nearly completely spent as to end up in this position in a woman's arm? Bullets and flesh don't react that way. Possible? Yes, but only to the extent that monkeys might, at any minute, fly from my rear end."
As many projectiles used in AK style weapons are coper washed steel jacketed mild steel core, it would not be difficult to say that it could have gone through a soft structure and entered her arm with minimal (zero to no) deformation of the projectile.
It is very difficult to tell if they cleaned it before removing it.
It does seem fishy, I will give ya that. But weirder things have happened.
One odd thing here. While we can not see the projectile very well, we should be able to see some striations. We can not.
Posted by: Eric at May 18, 2008 02:16 PM (Gj+EH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Hussayn's Story
Despite feigned ignorance of the facts, the media knows that Muqtada's militias are being crushed, that al-Masri's terrorists are being picked off, and Iraqi's of all sects, Sunni Shia and Kurd, have newfound trust in a newly-muscular Iraqi government and military.
Iraq's want peace, are are willing to destroy the belligerents among themselves if it leads to a prosperous future. Here is
one Iraqi's story.
More, please.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:46 AM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I remember reading a very similar story over at Iraq the Model - it was either a story told by Mohammed/Omar or being related by them. I guess it could have even been off a link from their site.
Posted by: Dan Irving at May 14, 2008 11:56 AM (zw8QA)
2
Correctamundo, Dan. Here is that story.
I guess it works as well in 2008 as it did in 2007.
And I guess my memory still works, too... I remembered where I'd seen the story Dan spoke of, after all!
Posted by: C-C-G at May 14, 2008 06:26 PM (ub+LC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Gripes of Wrath
Liberal bloggers and journalists put their inability to focus on substantive issues on display yesterday along with a blind hatred for President Bush, thanks to a catalytic interview yesterday by Mike Allen of The Politico and Yahoo News.
The interview was entitled "Bush warns of Iraq disaster," and in it, President Bush warned of the regional consequences of the kind of a premature, headlong retreat from Iraq. Such a retreat is favored by Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama, who has pledged to withdraw American forces in
16 months.
Such a withdrawal window is not logistically feasible without abandoning costly American military equipment and supplies, and the cost of destabilizing Iraq's security is feared as a threat by every country in the region, and cannot be overemphasized.
Iraqis fear a return to sectarian conflict that may rapidly escalate into the genocide of hundred of thousands and the displacement of millions if their nation collapses due to a too-quick, timetable-based American withdrawal such as the one Obama has repeatedly promised.
Turkey fears an attempt by Iraqi Kurds to form their own country in the wake of a U.S. retreat, and would invade northern Iraq (they are already making multi-day raids, along with air and artillery strikes). Jordan, saturated with refugees only just returning to Iraq in past months due to the success of the surge, would face a new flood of Iraq refugees that would threaten the nation's economy and national security. Syria would face similar mass immigration problems, compounded by possible Turkish incursions to root out Kurdish rebels in northeastern Syria.
Saudi Arabia and Iran, already sharing sharp words over Hezbollah's actions in Lebanon, will engage in a proxy war in Iraq that many expect may erupt into an open regional war.
Such a conflict would shut down Persian Gulf shipping and drive the price of oil astronomically high (how would you like $10/gallon gasoline, or higher?), impacting financial markets worldwide, negatively impacting billions of people, with those in developing nations hardest hit.
In short, the headlong retreat promised by Barack Obama will plunge the Middle East into conflict and wreck economies worldwide, including our own. It would be, in every sense, the disaster President Bush mention in his interview.
How did liberal members of the media and bloggers react to the interview? They ignored a direct policy conflict of global importance between a sitting U.S. President and his would-be successor, in order to write
grade school-level snark.
I expect very little from the media. I see they delivered.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:39 AM
| Comments (79)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Even if you accept all the "Bush Lied" crapola it is still an unalterable fact that we are in Iraq and, whether we recognize a duty to continue our efforts or not, our hard national interests are tied up in that country's success and survival. Really, all the Dem candidates except D Kookinich knew this to be a fact of international life. One may recall that during the first or so Dem debate NOT ONE of the three leaders would promise to withdraw IN THEIR FIRST TERM. For those mathematically challenged, that would have been a vow of five more years of war... MINIMUM. Well, Barry is now backtracking to a 16 month plan. How this squares with the "Peace NOW!" crowd I can't imagine but can anyone doubt that Barry retains to himself the right to erase that promise for tactical or political reasons? I hope not and the late Samantha Powers thinks not. He would be unfit for that reason alone.
Posted by: megapotamus at May 14, 2008 12:03 PM (LF+qW)
2
But BHO would not have any of the problems yo mention, since he would invite all the involved Heads of State and their military advisers to join in a video conference at which his charisma would mesmerise them into stopping the violence, current or future. Oh, and Saudi Arabia would offer to desalinate the Dead Sea at its own expense.
Posted by: teqjack at May 14, 2008 02:03 PM (CEphM)
3
But BHO would not have any of the problems yo mention, since he would invite all the involved Heads of State and their military advisers to join in a video conference at which his charisma would mesmerise them into stopping the violence, current or future.Oh, and Saudi Arabia would offer to desalinate the Dead Sea at its own expense.
I thought you were channeling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad until I read the last sentence.
Posted by: Boss429 at May 14, 2008 02:32 PM (V1z4W)
4
Please, don't blame the “Liberal bloggers and journalists” for Bush’s failures.
His neocon war with Iraq has been a total disaster because of his ineptness.
He is hated by most Americans because he is bankrupting our economy and destroying the ability of our military to respond to future problems.
Posted by: DrKrbyLuv at May 14, 2008 03:07 PM (Uomtz)
5
I always love to see and hear people, particularly the leftys out there berate belittle and harp about "Bush's failures"...
Case in point: My own father when I was home recovering started telling me about "...the war Bush, Cheney, all their oil cronies and how his oil companies and such were all plotting and planning this war and others to further enrich themselves and how evil they all were..." at least thats what I got from it as Dad was frothing slightly and somewhat less than articulate than usual. He then went off on a tangent on how stupid Bush et al were...
I'm by no means a Bush supporter despite my profiting on this war, but I had to ask: "Dad you're essentially saying that Bush and Company are evil stupid men right?"
He answered "Yep... thats just what I'm saying."
Then I asked: "Dad, you are also saying that Bush and all his buddies plotted this VAST and HUGE conspiricy to go to war over oil and get rich in the process."
He answered (not quite as sure now): "Uh Yes... they planned it."
I then pointed out that he's either one or the other: Either dumber than Jethro Bodine or a Mad Evil Genius... at which point I also said that if he's both, then we need to call in Austin Powers to take care of him, b/c it's obvious that Dr. Evil has taken over the White House in disguise.
My Moms laughter drowned out whatever weak response he might have made.
Posted by: Big Country at May 14, 2008 04:04 PM (qLCaV)
Posted by: Mike at May 14, 2008 04:05 PM (ykut+)
7
When one nation invades another in order to replace its system of brutal repression with democracy, terrible things can result if the first nation gives up before the second is fully reconstructed: reprisals, terrorism, and the evils of the past.
Any Confederate should know that in his bones.
Posted by: Mike at May 14, 2008 04:06 PM (ykut+)
8
The Weekly Standard is reporting that one of their sources in the Iraqi Foreign Office is telling them that Obama's people have been talking to him (the Iraqi guy) and telling him that Obama's talk of retreat is pure politics and that Obama has no intention of pulling out troops. Make of that what you will.
Posted by: Grey Fox at May 14, 2008 04:10 PM (9btbQ)
9
Grey Fox, I'd say that's plausible, and not just cause Obama's campaign has been caught doing similar things before (remember Canada and NAFTA)?
Simply put, both Obama and Hillary know that if they are elected, and shut down the war, the Party of the Donkey will likely get the blame for the ensuing chaos, and the leftymedia can't keep that story from getting to the public, thanks to Fox News, talk radio, and blogs like this one right here. That's why out of all the "pull the troops out now" bills floating around Congress since the Dems became the majority party, not a single one has passed, if memory serves (I could be wrong). The Dems don't want the blame for things going wrong. They're the MAJORITY party, they could pass them if they REALLY wanted to.
Therefore, they say they'll pull troops out now because of political expediency. But they'll keep them there if they're elected out of that same political expediency.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 14, 2008 06:32 PM (ub+LC)
10
Well, were gonna have to pull out eventually so might as well start, like, drawing up a plan? (something that this administration seems definitely adverse to) And they all, you know, have to continue living there so why not get all concerned parties (Saudis, Syrians, Jordanians, Iranians and of course, the Iraqi Sunnis and Shia) to sit down together and work out a plan. Of course, Princess Sparkle Pony™, Secretary Rice is doing nothing on that front as usual. And Bush? He's so against any kind of peace settlement in the area that Olmert of Israel is going behind his back, sending secret notes to Assad of Syria, having to use the Prime Minister of Turkey as a go between. Just sayin'.
Posted by: tontocal at May 15, 2008 01:31 AM (4cWxS)
11
What mess might that be?
Polio vaccinations? Increased pay for teachers and civil servants? International law training for judges? New fire engines? Lifting the ban on satellite dishes and access to foreign news? Environmental recovery of the wetlands? New schools?
Recovery of bodies from Saddam's mass graves and proper burials via the families religious traditions with no interference from the government? Accounting for MIAs from the Iraq - Iran war and the Iraq - Kuwait war for grieving families? Justice for the Kurds? Justice for the victims of the Anwar uprising reprisals?
If I could take credit for a mess like that, I'd consider my life well lived.
Posted by: Adriane at May 15, 2008 06:05 AM (6cp7Y)
12
Tonto, just how high in the Pentagon are you, to be so certain that there isn't already a plan--or several plans, for differing withdrawal situations--in some General's desk drawer?
Just because you haven't seen it on CNN doesn't mean that there isn't a plan yet.
And, honestly, your assumption that if it ain't on the news it doesn't exist is revealing, but hardly shocking.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 15, 2008 07:51 AM (ub+LC)
13
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 05/15/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Posted by: David M at May 15, 2008 12:14 PM (gIAM9)
14
Tonto, just how high in the Pentagon are you, to be so certain that there isn't already a plan--or several plans, for differing withdrawal situations--in some General's desk drawer?
I don't work at the Pentagon C-C-G....I work at the State Department. My main charge is preventing too much dust from accumulating on all the plans that are already here (the ones that were drawn up during Powell's tenure) Funny that you mention the Pentagon though. I've been sending 'cease and desist' memos over to Sec. Gates office for months now. Frankly, I'm so frigging sick and tired of all these 'discredited' generals coming over here and bringing me all the plans from their desk drawers for storage! I'm choking on dust as it is! (I'm gonna have to start wearing a friggin' hazmat suit soon!)
Posted by: tontocal at May 15, 2008 02:08 PM (Rj0Is)
15
and if Gen. Shinseki comes over here one more time I swear I gonna get a frigging restraining order against him!
Posted by: tontocal at May 15, 2008 02:24 PM (Rj0Is)
16
Tontocal said: "I work at the State Department. My main charge is preventing too much dust from accumulating on all the plans that are already here (the ones that were drawn up during Powell's tenure)"
If you get some extra time, please see if you can find Powell's exit strategy for Iraq...I'm sure it's there somewhere.
Posted by: DrKrbyLuv at May 15, 2008 02:41 PM (Uomtz)
17
Interesting, Tontocal. Does this mean you are also a 'source' of leakage of classified information? Does this mean that whenever the MSM 'discovers' there is a 'plan' to attack County X...you are a potential source?
Wonder if the Justice Department would be interested in your discussion of your job here.
I am, of course, taking you at your word...
Posted by: Mark at May 15, 2008 09:13 PM (KDHro)
18
Hmmm... wasn't April Glaspie also employed by State?
If the name is unfamiliar to you, Google it.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 15, 2008 10:13 PM (ub+LC)
19
Does this mean you are also a 'source' of leakage of classified information? Does this mean that whenever the MSM 'discovers' there is a 'plan' to attack County X...you are a potential source?
Wonder if the Justice Department would be interested in your discussion of your job here.
I am, of course, taking you at your word...
Um......duh?
Posted by: tontocal at May 16, 2008 02:02 AM (WGGwF)
20
and hey Mark:
When you say 'leaking classified information', do you mean like exposing the identity of a NOC intelligence operative for partisan purposes? You mean that kind?
Posted by: tontocal at May 16, 2008 02:13 AM (WGGwF)
21
C-C-G:
I take it you're referring to former US Envoy to Baghdad, 'April Glaspie'? (under GHWB) I'm not sure why you'd mention her? What? She wasn't acting under the direction of the White House at the time?
Posted by: tontocal at May 16, 2008 02:29 AM (WGGwF)
22
Actually, CCG, I believe tontocal is referring to a certain Valerie Plame. The facts of that case however are moot. She was out of undercover work for more than five years and hence not a 'covert agent'. Case closed. Plus, if memory serves, it was Richard Armitage who was the actual source of the leak...and he received no punishment.
In response to your first reply to me. I now call Bravo Sierra on your claim to be a State Dept employee. If I'm wrong, of course, there will be no harm done after the Justice Department gets through its investigation.
Enjoy.
Posted by: Mark at May 16, 2008 03:07 AM (KDHro)
23
Tonto, you may not be aware of this, but Mark is actually a real government employee. I've verified this with his work email address. If he prods someone into investigating your claims here... well...
And as for the insinuation that Glaspie made her idiotic statements at the behest of Bush 41, that just shows how far gone into conspiracy theories are. Next you'll say that all the anti-Dubya leaks that have come from State were at his direction.
Keep an eye out for black helicopters, dude.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 16, 2008 07:58 AM (ub+LC)
24
DrKrbyLuv said,
"He is hated by most Americans because he is bankrupting our economy and destroying the ability of our military to respond to future problems."
Excrement. Pure human waste.
Most Americans like Bush. He is a friendly, personable man who makes reasoned decisions. We elected him twice. Many oppose his policies in Iraq, disagree with his Christianity, do not support his position on social issues. Others are dissatisfied with his spending and expansion of government.
The opposition on the Iraq War ranges from pacifists who oppose any use of military force to those who believe we did not act aggressively enough. In 2004, two years after the war began, Bush won handily.
Our economy has grown every quarter since November 2001. In 2002 the economy grew at 2.2%. In 2003, 2.5% and from 2003 to 2007, by 2.8%, 3.6%, 3.1%, 2.9% and 2.5%. Housing decline has adversely affected growth by about 1% beginning in 2007. GDP growth has slowed to about 0.7% in year 2008, but as of April, new housing starts have increased 8.2% (their largest increase in 2 years).
On the revenue side, Bush tax cuts have reduced budget deficit as a % of GDP from 3.6% in 2004 to 1.9% in 2006 and 1.2% in 2007. Once again, the economy has proven that reducing marginal tax rates has created jobs and thereby increased government revenue. Unfortunately, Pelosi and her allies want to reverse this trend by sun setting these cuts. [read: increasing taxes.] If the US economy slides into recession, it should be named "Pelosi's Recession."
About the military. The Left said we would not prevail in Afghanistan. They were wrong. We rolled up the Taliban with a few thousand special forces and an air campaign. They also said we would fail in Iraq. Again they were wrong. We conquered the entire country (about the size of California) with 150,000 troops in six weeks and only lost 150 killed. After we had taken the place, the coalition provision authority, in my view, bungled the peace. Fortunately, Petraeus' counterinsurgency tactics have destroyed Al Qaeda in Iraq, crushed the Mahdi army and enabled the Maliki government to proceed with uniting Iraqis behind the central government.
If you think our military cannot respond to future threats, you should ask why the Iranians, North Koreans, Venezuelans and other anti-American states are so careful not to attack us directly or threaten our interests. Bush wields a very big stick and has shown that we will, if necessary, use it. I know of no potential problem to which our military cannot respond.
Before posting a comment, get your facts straight.
Posted by: arch at May 16, 2008 10:28 AM (pKbp9)
25
C-C-G:
And as for the insinuation that Glaspie made her idiotic statements at the behest of Bush 41, that just shows how far gone into conspiracy theories are.
I'm certainly no 'conspiracy theorist', (I tend, as a refex, to reject them out of hand; ie., Bush orchestrated 9/11) While I gave only a cursory glance to her record, please enlighten me. Did Sec. Baker deny any involvement? Was she a 'rogue' envoy?
Posted by: tontocal at May 16, 2008 11:46 AM (JROsA)
26
To Mark and C-C-G:
My main charge is preventing too much dust from accumulating on all the plans that are already here
Umm...just so Mark doesn't go all forensic on the .gov employee databases.....it's called satire?
Oh...and Mark...about the claims that Plame's 'covert' status were all bogus, the following statement, cleared by CIA Director Hayden, was released on March 16, 2007 during congressional testimony:
"During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information. Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14 — Step Six under the federal pay scale. Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA. Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA."
Was Dir. Hayden lying?
Oh...and just so you know? I've read the 'snarky' comments about the 'MSM' and CNN. Now, there is almost nothing that I would agree with Rush Limbaugh on but one thing I do? I believe he coined the phrase, "drive by media". When I first ever hear him utter that phrase, I nodded my head and said, "ah say amen!" It's something that both us on the left and you on the right seem to agree upon. While my views on many things are certainly very much on the 'left', if you'd like to dismiss me as some closed-minded liberal idealogue, think again.
Posted by: tontocal at May 16, 2008 12:28 PM (CtQJP)
27
Wonderful, tontocal. I accept your evidence of Plame's classification as testified by the Director. I will have to review the specific statute to see if my memory is correct about the requirements for a crime to have been committed by ‘outing’ said ‘covert agent’. Presuming there are no specifics within the statute, how do you explain why Mr. Armitage was given immunity when he was the source of Novak's story (according to Mr. Novak himself)? Scooter Libby was not convicted of the crime (if it exists) associated with the outing of this 'covert agent'.
Personally, I don't give a damn if you are or are not an employee of the State Department. I do have a BIG issue with you discussing potentially classified information in a public forum. Whatever your opinions are on certain generals or Secretary Rice does not matter one bit to me. I'm sure, continuing the assumption you are an SD employee, your ultimate boss - Secy Rice - would be rather interested…the generals, likewise.
As for 'forensics' on gov databases, I'll leave that to the DOJ who have all of the information they need to investigate if they so desire as of approximately 2:30AM MDT today.
Satire? Now, are you suggesting you may have lied about your employment? Interesting, again.
I’m glad you agree with Mr. Limbaugh on something. There may be hope for you yet. Of course, I don’t agree with anyone 100%, Rush included.
My personal politics/philosophy are conservative and my party affiliation is Independent. I enjoy entertaining ideas/thoughts/debate from diverse individuals ranging the entire spectrum. Providing they do so honestly.
Posted by: Mark at May 16, 2008 01:01 PM (4od5C)
28
Mark,
In case I wasn't quite clear enough (what with my snark) no, I am not nor have I ever been an employee of the State Dept. As far as anything discussed here, I'm sure you would agree that it's all a matter of public record. (and if I was a DOS employee, I certainly wouldn't be stupid (or criminal enough) to discuss classified information on some 2-bit blog) If you want to pass anything on to the DOJ that you seem pertinent, feel free; be a bit of a waste of DOJ and DOS resources (as if there isn't enough waste in govenment as it is)
No, I'm just a regular 'joe shmoe' who just happens to pay attention to the issues. (oh, and you can check the statute concerning Plame; I think the relevant statute is under the "Intelligence Identities and Protection Act, though I'm mobile at the moment so I can't link it for you. I was surprised you didn't know about Hayden's confirmation. As to why there has been no one prosecuted for violating a federal statute, I imagine only Scooter Libby knows for sure)
And if you honestly believe that I was 'lying', considering how silly my previous post in question reads, you need to 'loosen up' abut Mark...(I'd thought from my first "um duh?" response that you realized It was a joke.
Posted by: tontocal at May 16, 2008 04:59 PM (dY+Dp)
29
Ahh, now we have Tonto admitting he lied. Of course, he is also spinning furiously, so as not to be branded a liar.
Good luck with that, liar.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 16, 2008 06:03 PM (ub+LC)
30
As a suggestion in the future, utilize a "/sarc" tag at the end of any "satiricle" or sarcastic post you make in the future. I tend to be one who "takes people at their word" and if you do not place that tag on your posts OR explain it sufficiently in your very next post then you lose credibility in my eyes.
No, tontocal, you 'misrepresented yourself'. And in typical Liberal manner you are now attempting to deflect the real issue I had with you. I state had in past tense for a very basic reason.
You LIED. I am now done with you.
Good day, Sir.
Posted by: Mark at May 16, 2008 06:13 PM (4od5C)
31
(now waiting breathlessly--well, not really--for Tonto to pull out the "Bush lied, too" excuse for his own lies.)
Posted by: C-C-G at May 16, 2008 06:17 PM (ub+LC)
32
That Hayden testimony that Tonto mentions and the use of the word "covert," I believe was covert for the purposes of the CIA as opposed to the IIPA. Waxman tried the same BS during his hearings, claiming he had definitive word from the CIA, but when pushed he relented and agreed he only had the CIA's operating definition of covert as opposed to the legal definition under the IIPA. Waxman promised to get back to his committee with a formal response, but none has been forthcoming. Fitzgerald tapdanced around the definitions during the Libby trial and in my recollection never produced an answer from anyone in authority which cited Plame as being covert under the terms of the IIPA. Check the transcript.
Posted by: daleyrocks at May 16, 2008 11:29 PM (OWv/z)
33
Ahh, now we have Tonto admitting he lied. Of course, he is also spinning furiously, so as not to be branded a liar.
Good luck with that, liar.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 16, 2008 06:03 PM
You LIED. I am now done with you.
Good day, Sir.
Posted by: Mark at May 16, 2008 06:13 PM
Well, I must admit, I'm finding this all pretty amusing. Again, I assumed from the tone of the first email that y'all would have realized that I was like, kidding?. That said, if I'd known what the 'rules' were (gawd, you righties are such sticklers for rules) in the interests of clarity, I certainly would have used the "/sarc" tag that Mark mentioned. I certainly didn't expect you guys to be calling for your 'smelling salts'' for goodness sakes. (and for the record, I am an guy...I conduct myself on the 'internets' as I would anywhere else...my real name is 'Patrick' by the way...and I'll take the 'offhand' comparison to Bush as a compliment, coming from you guys)
To: 'daleyrocks':
There is a pertinent statute that I remember reading through (though I can't quite remember if it's in the IIPA)....I'll find it and post it tomorrow.
Posted by: tontocal at May 17, 2008 10:51 AM (4cWxS)
34
er.....I mean't, "...tone of the first posting"
Posted by: tontocal at May 17, 2008 10:53 AM (4cWxS)
35
In response to Arch’s post dated May 16, 2008 10:28 AM:
“Most Americans like Bush. He is a friendly, personable man who makes reasoned decisions.”
This is fantasy. Bush is polling with disapproval ratings as high as 70%. He is the most hated President since Jimmy Carter (hard to believe anyone could be hated that much).
You are out of touch. Fortunately, GOP candidates are not as naive as you and they are running as far away as possible from Bush. Wake-up!
Posted by: DrKrbyLuv at May 17, 2008 11:24 AM (Uomtz)
36
oh.....and in my haste, I left out 'honest' as in "I'm a honest guy". Feel free to exorciate over that one as well.
Posted by: tontocal at May 17, 2008 12:05 PM (/JGtb)
37
Hey, Krby... take a gander at the approval ratings for your beloved MoveOn-Democrat-led Congress. They're even lower than Dubya's.
Kinda throws a big titanium-plated monkey wrench in your theory, doesn't it?
Posted by: C-C-G at May 17, 2008 01:15 PM (ub+LC)
38
hey there Yankee. I think you misunderstand Progressives, Anarchists and a great many Libertarians. Nobody "hates" Bush. He really has never risen to that level. But it's probably true that most of us loathe and despise his behaviors, arrogance, and unearned pretense to the respect of adults. You want to see Bush hate, talk to an Iraqi who has seen a million of his people killed because this grinning simpleton thought he could get away with it all quickly and cleanly and be forever applauded at home.
Posted by: oldfatherwilliam at May 17, 2008 09:31 PM (Y9Mm5)
39
Concerning Valerie Plame's status under IIPA:
Section 606, subsection 4:
(4) The term "covert agent" means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
You can read the entire thing:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/laws/iipa.html
Posted by: tontocal at May 18, 2008 10:13 AM (5vGLy)
40
Tontocal - I didn't need the citation. What I want to see is an authoritative source claiming Plame was covert under that section. That source would not include pundits, Fitzgerald, Waxman, etc. The Hayden citations I've seen made no reference to the statute. Let's see what you've got! Do you have an actual government legal source making the claim or not?
Posted by: daleyrocks at May 18, 2008 12:14 PM (OWv/z)
41
That particular section of the statute defines what constitutes a 'covert agent'. General Hayden has confirmed that Plame indeed was a 'covert' agent. IIPA SEC. 601. [50 U.S.C. 421] (a) states that it is a crime to knowingly 'out' a covert agent (high threshold that).
I imagine that's why Fitzgerald was only able to culminate the investigation with the Libby prosecution (so YAYS for Libby) I haven't yet been able to find a citation from the committee hearings of that particular statute violation (perhaps I won't) but it does mention:
"Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited fiom disclosure under Executive Order 12958. "
(yes, weak but....oh, sorry....forgot that I'm not supposed to quote anything from that lying, liar Waxman)
Perhaps, in the future, there might also be further indictments issued for violating:
United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 37 - ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP
U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 798. Disclosure of classified information
I'm curious though. Are you maintaining that by outing a covert agent, a crime wasn't committed though? (and by inference that when a Democratic administration is next in power, that it'll be okay to out an agent who clashes with them politically?)
Posted by: tontocal at May 18, 2008 02:30 PM (4Tr+k)
42
Tontocal - You keep finessing the issue as does everyone else:
"General Hayden has confirmed that Plame indeed was a 'covert' agent."
He did not say she was covert under section 606 of the IIPA did he? Have you found any authoritative government source willing to make that representation?
I am making no forward looking statements about future administrations, merely pointing out that people use the word "covert" in connection with Plame very casually and not in connection with the legal statute in which liability was intended.
If you find something that indicates she was covert under the IIPA, again, from somebody in a position to make an accurate representation, not a pundit, I would love to see it.
Posted by: daleyrocks at May 19, 2008 09:39 AM (lBZwI)
43
Are you maintaining that she wasn't a covert agent because that particular statute in the IIPA wasn't cited?
Posted by: tontocal at May 19, 2008 11:17 AM (6drOH)
44
oh daley....I did find this (from the 'sentencing guidelines' in the Libby trial)....it states on pages 4 and 5 that she was indeed a covert agent as defined in the IIPA statute:
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/files/sentencing_memo.pdf
Posted by: tontocal at May 19, 2008 12:23 PM (6drOH)
45
tontocal - You're still milking it! Read footnote 3 on page 5 of the document you refer to in your prior comment. It acknowledges the proof of her covert status under the IIPA is not a part of the court proceedings.
Classified is different than covert.
A covert employee of the CIA is different than a covert agent for the purposes of the IIPA.
I think some of this may finally be sinking in with you. Keep paying careful attention to how something is said and who is saying it. The sentencing brief you link was prepared by Fitzgerald, so of course he is going to make as strong a case as he can that she is covert, but parse his words carefully.
Posted by: daleyrocks at May 20, 2008 11:30 AM (li4JZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 13, 2008
Death of a Strawman
Hagee, we hardly knew ye:
The Rev. John Hagee -- who in some eyes threatened to become to John McCain what the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. became to Barack Obama -- has apologized for remarks that offended many Catholics.
Catholic League President Bill Donohue said in a statement today that he accepted the apology and any dispute is over.
Liberals had hoped to use Hagee as a counterbalance to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's minister whom the frehsman Senator was finally forced to disavow several weeks ago. Some had tried to draw parallels between the relationship between McCain and Hagee as being on par with Obama and Wright, but the charge was always far-fetched; McCain had merely political ties with Hagee, while Obama was a loyal member of Wright's congregation of 20 years, and regarded the pastor as a personal friend and mentor.
Obama has now disowned the conspiracy-theory spouting Wright, but he and his family remain at Trinity United Church of Christ, a church that is based upon Black Liberation Theology, a mostly political formulation of racial identity politics, Marxism, and Christianity. This is the same church that gave Louis Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award under Wright's leadership.
You'll note that
murder-minded Reverend Michael Pfleger, a radicalized Catholic priest Obama has known even longer than Wright and a longtime supporter of Farrakhan, also makes an appearance in the video.
You can see Pfleger in a "guest rant" at Trinity United below praising Wright and Farrakhan below, much to the delight of the congregation.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:07 PM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
So, now that Hagee has publicly apologized, will we see a similar apology to white folks from Rev. Wright?
I ain't holding my breath.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 13, 2008 06:55 PM (ub+LC)
2
The meme I've already seen is that Hagee's apology is of the "non-apology" variety, so I think you'll be seeing a lot of that on the leftside of the 'sphere over the next few days before it dies with a whimper.
And when Wright apologizes, we can expect a strong cold front in east Hell...
Posted by: ECM at May 13, 2008 09:36 PM (q3V+C)
3
I was listening to the radio on the way home this afternoon, and the station does A-B-C news station breaks, and in the montage, they had a note about how Republicans had tried to tar Obama with complaints about Wright but McCain would have to deal with complaints against him logged due to his association with Hagee, and others, with the report then going on to outline why Hagee was such a questionable associate.
I listened to the report in full, then reached over and shut off the radio for the rest of the ride home.
I'm going to have to listen to the Braves games via download on my mp3 player...
[The spam filter is being rather tough with this comment....for no good reason...]
Posted by: usinkorea at May 14, 2008 12:02 AM (6IDAI)
4
And, of course, given that the lefties seem to be stuck in the past regarding so many issues (Iraq foremost among them), we can surely expect lefty troll-drones to continue to bring up Hagee, completely oblivious to this apology.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 14, 2008 07:49 AM (ub+LC)
5
An unintended consequence of the Obama promise to meet with any and all heads of unfriendly states (with the apparent sole exception of Iran) is that, in about 10-15 years' time, when America does have to confront another one of these thugs, there will be pix of the President of the United States meeting with these leaders.
At that point, these pix will be touted, much like the Rumsfelt photo w/ Hussein, that the US is hypocritical, contradictory, inconsistent, and turning on those with whom it had previously had reasonable relations.
I expect many of Obama's current supporters to be among those who would be touting these photos for those reasons.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at May 14, 2008 02:13 PM (Yclmh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
GREAT: Claiming Obama's Coked Up Again
It isn't exactly a secret that Barack Obama has admitted a drug problem in his past. In "Dreams From My Father" he wrote of using both marijuana and cocaine (Though he says he passed on heroin when it was offered. Good for him).
Admitted drug use has ended many political campaigns before, but Obama's auto-biographical admission has largely been ignored by a pliant media that are "
in the tank" for the first-term Illinois Senator.
Still, fellow North Carolina blogger John Hawkins went over the top in suggesting that Obama's much-mocked
"57 states" gaffe was the result of the candidate wilting under the stress of the campaign, and
returning to hard drugs as a result.
Honestly, my first thought was that he was so coked up that he lost track of how many states we have. Is that implausible? Not at all. This is a guy who admits that he has used cocaine and was headed towards being a junkie at one point. Could he be back at it during a stressful campaign? Sure, he could. When was the last time the guy took a drug test? Has he ever taken one?
I strongly doubt that a person seeking the Presidency and almost assured of the nomination would run the risk procuring or using drugs on the campaign trail. The risk of getting caught and ending their politician career as a result is simply too high.
In addition, the kind of person who runs for the Presidency has to be
hard; if weak enough to be reduced to drug dependency while campaigning, four years in the pressures of the modern White House would literally kill them. I don't think any of the candidates in either party are that weak, even Ron Paul.
With all due respect to Mr. Hawkins, he shouldn't be accusing Obama of returning to drug use when there is no evidence to suggest he has done so.
Pound on his blatant inexperience, his Hyde Park elitism, his dangerous foreign policy, his economy-sapping domestic policies, and the massive tax increases they'll require, and expose the hornet's nest of America-hating rabble that are his friends and mentors. All of these areas are fair game.
Attacking Obama based upon an insinuation of drug use without any evidence is pushing beyond acceptable boundaries.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:26 PM
| Comments (36)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
OK, but can we say that Obama is Jimmy Carter II without the peanuts?
Posted by: bill-tb at May 13, 2008 03:52 PM (7evkT)
2
It is no coincidence: there are 57 Islamic states.
Posted by: Cao at May 13, 2008 04:36 PM (rnI6I)
3
It is no coincidence: there are 57 (56.7) grams in two ounces of you-know-what.
Posted by: capitano at May 13, 2008 05:33 PM (+NO33)
4
I can agree that no politician would use drugs. I mean we all realize their egos are normal and they believe they serve the people. Hence the lack of drunken senators and representatives not to mention presidents abusing their interns.
We all know that they expect to be treated like everyone else and share the same values as the rest of us. And in case you care to snicker remember that most politicians are former lawyers. Ever wonder why legal secretares earn so much more than normal secretaries? Ask one of them what lawyers are like.
Soif you connect the dots it is beyond the pale, simply impossible to suggest Snobama was coked up. I mean the next thing we'll hear is that senators were soliciting in public restrooms or leaving people to drown in their cars. This irresponsible rumor mongeringmust be labelled for exactly what it is.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at May 13, 2008 05:37 PM (LHaZf)
5
There's plenty of real issues to slap Obama down with, we don't need to go over the top with things like this.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 13, 2008 05:39 PM (ub+LC)
6
Yeah, this is a stupid line of attack, there's plenty of legit known things to criticize Obama about.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at May 13, 2008 05:45 PM (ZuzXA)
7
I think the simple explanation may be the better one: Obama's just not that exceptional intellectually.
Watch his North Carolina speech - and pay attention to his "save five words, break, look left, say the next set of words, break, look right, left, right, left, right and have no connect with the audience." Having coached debate and speech, I would have expected more from a high school sophomore.
His inability to get into any sort of detail is equally alarming. Then again, can anyone show any material legislation he authored in Congress?
The man's allegedly cute and wows women and metros. Other than that, there's really no competency of interest.
Posted by: redherkey at May 13, 2008 11:12 PM (kjqFg)
8
I don't think that being in a high pressure job and being addicted to drugs are mutually exclusive--think about doctors or people who work in Wall Street, or Ted Kennedy's famous capacity to imbibe. (Of, course, having never done either of those, served in the Senate, nor campaigned for President, I don't know how the stress compares.)
That said, it was still gratuitous to make that sort of accusation using such weak logic. Stuff like that threatens to reduce the signal to noise ratio of criticism of Obama and make it that much easier for his suppor...er, the media to ignore it.
Posted by: Matt at May 13, 2008 11:37 PM (uI85d)
9
I seem to recall a lot of speculation in years past that Geo W Bush, as a former drinker, would surely backslide under the pressure of the Presidency; indeed, some of the snarkier lefty blogs routinely accused him of having done so.
Posted by: Barry at May 14, 2008 02:51 AM (KOkrW)
10
True, Barry, but that doesn't mean that we on the right have to sink to their level. We're supposed to be the ones with high moral standards, after all.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 14, 2008 07:46 AM (ub+LC)
11
This might be called a distraction or is he just seeking 15 minutes of fame.
Wow. Different strokes for different folks.
Posted by: Neo at May 14, 2008 09:36 AM (Yozw9)
12
"I strongly doubt that a person seeking the Presidency and almost assured of the nomination would run the risk procuring or using drugs on the campaign trail. The risk of getting caught and ending their politician career as a result is simply too high."
Perhaps...yet stranger things have happened (a la Clinton nailing an intern in the White House). Besides, if he WAS an addict, he wouldn't have a choice in the matter anyway.
Just food for thought.
Posted by: chiefpayne at May 14, 2008 09:52 AM (clifi)
13
I don't think we can count on the simple high-quality of our politicians to keep them from the arms of Lady Poppy, or whatever but it strains credulity that any serious political actor would back someone they knew to be an addict or even serial user because it WILL come out. These people live in fish bowls. If Barry turns up sniffing suspiciously or some close associate is busted holding we may revisit. Besides which, didn't the Rev take a pretty dim view of drug use? Coke was the other arm of the pincer to Wright; in apposition to da aids.
Posted by: megapotamus at May 14, 2008 12:11 PM (LF+qW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 123 >>
Processing 0.07, elapsed 0.5629 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.5416 seconds, 224 records returned.
Page size 159 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.