Confederate Yankee
May 13, 2008
Obama Garners Coveted Nagin Endorsement
Democratic President candidate Barack Obama has won the endorsement of New Orleans Mayor and superdelegate Ray Nagin.
Now that the Mayor is in the first-term Senator's corner, it is recommended that any remaining
Manson-obsessed domestic terrorists,
angry communist mentors,
assassination-inciting clergy, or other inconvenient long-time Obama supporters that he has yet to denounce purchase a snorkel.
When thrown under one of
these buses, you don't want to drown.
Update: Next under the bus?
Gazans for Obama.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:14 PM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Articles of Faith
Some folks are remarking on the creepy Obama worship occurring among otherwise presumably lucid adults, but I wouldn't worry about his deification a great deal. After all, the bar has been set rather low.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:30 PM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Low enough for too many to trip over.
Posted by: Jerry Atchley at May 13, 2008 12:37 PM (wZ8Dr)
2
Well, I worry about it. Seems people are pretty quick to deify someone with so many skeletons in their closet.
Posted by: chiefpayne at May 14, 2008 09:55 AM (clifi)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Killing The Zombie
On the morning of Saturday, May, 3, Philadelphia Police Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski was brutally shot down at close range by one of three bank robbers. Liczbinski was hit at least five times with bullets fired by a cross-dressing thug armed with a Chinese-made SKS. It was a horrific crime that left Liczbinski's wife a widow, and his three children to grow up without a father.
On Thursday, May 8, Governor Rendell sent out a
press release calling for a reinstatement of the federal assault weapons ban, a 1994 law than banned the cosmetic features of various firearms, and several specific firearms by name. The features banned in the ill-fated law were insignificant to the function of these firearms, and lightly modified versions of these same guns (with the offending features removed) were already on the market by the time the law went into effect with no impact to the accuracy, rate of fire, or lethality of these weapons.
A MYTHICAL BAN
Pre-1994 TEC-9 made illegal by 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban(Left).
1994 and later AB-10 (AB mockingly meaning "after ban"
AB-10 already in gun stores before the 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban became active(Right).
Functionally, both firearms are identical, with only banned "scary looking" features removed. The ban did have one unintended consequence, that of creating an entirely new class of weapons, sub-compact semiautomatic pistols, which now sell at brisk pace to concealed weapons permit holders.
The Governor's press release is replete with falsehoods, inaccuracies, and embellishments, betraying a sloppiness of thought on the part of the Governor as he spoke, and on the part of his staff in compiling a press release based upon wishes, but not reality.
For starters, and perhaps ironically, the rifle used in this killing is not an assault rifle. The ownership, selling, or buying of SKS rifles such as the one used in this shooting was not outlawed under the failed 1994 federal law.
All the same, Rendell claimed:
"The firearm used to murder Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski was designed for one thing only - the death of a fellow human being," Governor Rendell said of the Chinese-made SKI assault rifle fired at the officer as he responded to a bank robbery Saturday morning. "There was no chance that his body armor could have protected him from the power of this weapon."
To be fair, the statement is partially correct. The SKS was designed to shoot at human beings when created back in 1945. The popular intermediate-powered carbine is best known, however, for its reliability and economy. It is popular in the civilian market, used as a knock-about utility rifle for plinking, wild animal control, and brush-country hunting.
Rendell is also partially correct on another point: it is unlikely that the unfortunate officer's body armor had any chance of stopping the carbine's 7.62-caliber bullets, but that result would have been the same for nearly any centerfire rifle bullet. "Bulletproof" vests worn by most police officers are not bulletproof, but are instead designed to stop moderate-velocity pistol bullets. The relative power of the cartridge used in the SKS is similar to that of the .30/30 lever-action rifle on the lower end of the rifle cartridge power scale.
Rendell could perhaps be forgiven some hyperbole due to the emotional nature of the day as he stood with members of the fallen officer's police force and the city's mayor, but only if the emotion of the day was a valid excuse.
Emotion isn't nearly a valid excuse, however for the blatant lies in Rendell's press release. The sheer scope of Governor Rendel's fabrication was magnificent to behold, completely misrepresenting not only the essential nature of a law that governed this nation for a decade, but miscasting it's subtleties as well.
In 1994, Congress banned the manufacture, transfer or possession of semiautomatic firearms and large capacity ammunition magazines, as well as the import of automatic assault weapons not already banned under law.
In that one masterstroke of a sentence, the Governor's press rewrote the entire ten-year history of failed law to make it something it never was.
Contrary to what the press release stated, however, the so-called "assault weapons" ban in the 1994 Crime Bill:
- Did not ban the manufacture of semiautomatic firearms. In fact, companies that manufacture semi-automatic firearms, such as Bushmaster and Olympic Arms thrived throughout the length of the ban, and Kahr Arms was founded as a direct result of a market created by the ban;
- Did not ban the transfer of semiautomatic firearms. Sales of semiautomatic firearms actually increased during the 1994-2004 ban.
- Did not ban the possession of semi-automatic firearms. This includes weapons defined as "assault weapons" under the ban, as long as they had been manufactured prior to the law going into effect, and tens of thousands of semi-automatic firearms made and sold during the ban;
- Did not ban the possession or sale of high capacity magazines. The manufacture of "high capacity" magazines (arbitrarily set at 10 rounds by Congress) was stopped during the ban, but magazines of up to 100-rounds manufactured prior to the ban were available for sale and ownership during the entire lifetime of the ban, and were commonly featured in sporting goods catalogs. An entirely new class of subcompact semi-automatic pistols designed for concealed carry such as the Kahr K9 and Glock 26 were developed as a direct result of the 10-round limit, with manufacturer's competing to see who could make the most compact handguns under the ten-round limit.
Rendell's press release is an example gun-grabbing revisionist history, lamenting the "loss" of a law that never existed as he described it, ignoring the ineffectually of the law during it's existence in slowing or stopping the manufacture or distribution of semi-automatic firearms, and glossing over the fact that it was responsible for the "revolution" in the handgun industry to design ever smaller and more concealable firearms.
Sadly, Governor Rendell is not alone is this alternate reality, where a long-dead and failed law is remembered as being bigger, better, and more robust now than it was during it's lifetime. The 1994 "assault weapons" ban was a "zombie" law that only became stronger after its passing. Lies about the ban's reach and effectiveness are pervasive in the media, perhaps encouraged by their own biases and ignorances, and certainly encouraged by many politicians in the Democratic Party and in dishonest gun control organizations such as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which I've exposed for apparently
falsifying evidence before.
From ignorant
local reporters to national reporters that
continue to deceive readers about the ban after being corrected
time and
time again, to op-ed columnists that base their work more on felling than facts, to misguided and occasionally dishonest local, state, and national politicians, the power of the "zombie" ban on "assault weapons" continues as ignorance, bias, and inaccuracies breed mythology.
Let's kill this monster now.
The "Assault Weapons" ban provisions within the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 did not ban a even a
single assault weapon, firearms that are capable of selective modes or fully automatic fire.
It only banned firearms that
looked like military assault weapons, i.e., similar cosmetic features such as flash suppressors, threaded barrels, or bayonet lugs. These cosmetic features were removed, and the exact same firearms—minus the offending cosmetics—were back in stores and for sale before the ban went into effect, and were sold without impediment throughout the life of the ban.
So-called "high-capacity" magazines were never banned for anything other than new manufacture, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, were available for sale in catalogs, on web sites, and in retail stores. Likewise, ownership was not banned.
It is time for those cling to the myth of the effectiveness of the so-called "assault weapons" ban to concede that this failed law never accomplished its goal. It posed no impediment to criminals when it was passed, served as only an annoyance to law-abiding citizens during the life of the ban, and actually served to increase sales in semi-automatic firearms prior to, during, and after the ban died.
The "assault weapons" ban was an unmitigated failure, and trying to bring it back from the dead won't change that fact.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:52 AM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
To put it another way: The 7.62*39 is designed to kill medium-sized mammals at short to intermediate range. It does a fair job of it, and is as unstoppable by common "bulletproof" vests as any other rifle round designed to kill medium-sized mammals. And yes, we are medium-sized mammals.
Posted by: Tully at May 13, 2008 11:31 AM (kEQ90)
2
Rendell is an idiot liberal. No brains at all.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at May 13, 2008 11:34 AM (M+Vfm)
3
If he doesn't like history, he can just rewrite it.
Posted by: brando at May 13, 2008 03:04 PM (qzOby)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 12, 2008
Obama's Lying Roots
According to an op-ed in the New York Time called "President Apostate," Barack Hussein Obama was indeed born a Muslim:
As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother's Christian background is irrelevant.
Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.
His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is "irtidad" or "ridda," usually translated from the Arabic as "apostasy," but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim's family may choose to forgive).
I don't personally feel that being born to any particular religion is of any significance; Obama could have been born a Buddist or a
Pastafarian for all I care. None of us chose the religion we are born into. If we want to discuss Obama's religion, then by all means ask why he chose a Marxism-tainted bastardization of Christianity when he was an adult, and why he still continues to cling to that discredited faith that is dedicated more to exploiting racial politics than worshiping God.
That choice is a far more relevant question of his suitability to represent all Americans than any mention of his simply being born to Islam.
That simply shouldn't have mattered... until,
as Charles Johnson notes, the Obama campaign was caught lying about his never having been a Muslim on
his own Web site:
To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago. Furthermore, the Indonesian school Obama attended in Jakarta is a public school that is not and never has been a Madrassa.
That Barack Obama was born a Muslim according to Muslim tradition is a fact. That he chose to dissemble about that to America is an entirely different matter. It shows an Obama campaign that has very little faith of the ability of the American people to think for themselves.
Barack Obama may have been born a Muslim, but he
chose to become a liar. To most of us, that counts far more against him.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:52 PM
| Comments (64)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I dunno - if I don't care for, or obey, Sharia law for anything else, I don't think I'm going to care that, even without any action on his part, Obama was declared a Muslim. As far as anyone can tell, he certainly never has believed himself one.
This one doesn't float as a lie in my book.
OTOH, since he's considered apostate by Muslims, he's welcome to go say hi to President Ahmadinejad... they might have a wall waiting to fall on him.
Posted by: Jeff at May 12, 2008 01:49 PM (yiMNP)
2
They left out that under Kenyan law, Obama is a citizen of Kenya.
Born a Kenyan Muslim.
Posted by: Neo at May 12, 2008 02:18 PM (Yozw9)
3
Yeah, the Wright stuff is sufficiently out there. But this is a teachable moment, as some chumps like to say. What kind of "religion" does not allow even the possibility of leaving the fold? We should get some CAIR types on record as to just what it means to them that Barry is a straying sheep. (or goat, I guess) Do our Muslim fellow citizens adhere to the Khomeinist Rule that ALL apostasy properly is enforced by ANY good Muslim any old where at any time? Is it a Muslim duty to send Barry to his reward/punishment? Does Hamas find this news... troubling? Or do they assume that Obammy's "Christianity" is one of those mandated deceptions, again, a duty of every good jihadi? Hmm. I'm sure Chris Matthews will get on that. Funny thing though, who could have predicted that Romney would have proven such a tactically important candidate? Without the Mormon issues (dealt with well enough by him) would we even be able to mention such heresies?
Posted by: megapotamus at May 12, 2008 02:18 PM (LF+qW)
4
It is funny how Obama's half sister and his childhood friends all remember him attending the mosque with his step Dad for Friday prayers. They all remember attending the same schools and claim they were definitely Muslim schools.
Posted by: Sara at May 12, 2008 02:33 PM (Wi/N0)
5
Did Obama have a Muslim childhood?:
• Obama’s Kenyan birth father: In Islam, religion passes from the father to the child. Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (1936-1982) was a Muslim who named his boy Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.
• Obama’s Indonesian family: His stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was also a Muslim. In fact, as Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng explained to Jodi Kantor of The New York Times: “My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim.” An Indonesian publication, The Banjarmasin Post, reports a former classmate, Rony Amir, recalling that “All the relatives of Barry’s father were very devout Muslims.”
• Obama’s Catholic school in Jakarta: Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press reports that “documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim” while at a Catholic school during first through third grades. Kim Barker of The Chicago Tribune confirms that Obama was “listed as a Muslim on the registration form for the Catholic school.”
• The public school: Paul Watson of The Los Angeles Times learned from Indonesians familiar with Obama when he lived in Jakarta that he “was registered by his family as a Muslim at both schools he attended.” Haroon Siddiqui of The Toronto Star visited the Jakarta public school Obama attended and found that “Three of his teachers have said he was enrolled as a Muslim.” Although Siddiqui cautions that “With the school records missing, eaten by bugs, one has to rely on people’s shifting memories,” he cites only one retired teacher, Tine Hahiyari, retracting her earlier certainty about Obama’s being registered as a Muslim.
• Barack Obama’s public school in Jakarta, Koran class: In his autobiography, Dreams of My Father, Obama relates how he got into trouble for making faces during Koran studies. Indeed, Obama still retains knowledge from that class: Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times reports that Obama “recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them [to Kristof] with a first-rate accent.”
• Mosque attendance: Obama’s half-sister recalled that the family attended the mosque “for big communal events.” Watson learned from childhood friends that “Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque.” Barker found that “Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers.” One Indonesia friend, Zulfin Adi, states that Obama “was Muslim. He went to the mosque. I remember him wearing a sarong” (a garment associated with Muslims).
• Piety: Obama himself says that while living in Indonesia, a Muslim country, he “didn’t practice [Islam].” Indonesians differ in their memories of him. One, Rony Amir, describes Obama as “previously quite religious in Islam.”
Posted by: Sara at May 12, 2008 02:40 PM (Wi/N0)
6
I'm pretty sure that Muslims believe that all newborns are Muslims and only by bad parenting does the child believe anything else.
Posted by: Sinner at May 12, 2008 03:00 PM (U/yZ+)
7
You speak about racism, what matters if Obama is Moslem, Christian or atheistic. What matters is how he can help to USA and to the world, already even they want to label he as Marxist. He not is Marxist, but this world needs a Marxist that arranges it.
Barack is the only one of the candidates that does not show arrogance in his vision of the world. If USA wants that the world respect it, it must begin respecting the others.
USA cannot continue being the policemen of the world, attacking and applying cruel sanctions to the countries. The peoples are the victims of these wars and of these sanctions.
What would think the american people if he was deprived of food, medicines..., only because we don't agree with his government? We don't have this genocidal and coward mentality, we are humanist and ethical.
The ignorance about what really the peoples of the world think has been a constant in the successive north american governments. The arrogance must be expelled definitively of the White House, and is Obama who could achieve this great change.
Posted by: Omar at May 12, 2008 03:51 PM (mUjMj)
8
That he was born a moslem under sharia law is of no concern to me. The Rifs like to claim everyone is born moslem.
I do see potential problems with some of those Rifs he claims will suddenly like us if he is elected as CinC. Though it is far more likely they will leave off on his apostasy if he allows them to rearm and nuke up.
He seemed to have been rather lacking in any religion as he got older, but going to church or mosque and seeming devout doen't bother me either, and no concern as I myself am a nontheist, yet was in Catholic Church every sunday and Confirmed though not believing, because my mom made me go. Once 18 I stopped going. He seems(as to his claims) to have plugged along rather agnostically until he found his calling in Trinity's BLT screed.
Now there is reason to find concern.
Marx with god added to it. The central/south american version of Marxism with black racial politics added to it. This is what he claims brought him to Jesus. Is anyone surprised he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate? He was listening to Wright and nodding in agreement damned often. Maybe not on the more racist versions, (If he really doesn't agree fully, he didn't really disagree either. . though Micheal likely was cheering Wright on) but the Identity Politics spewed as Sermon was right(or Wright) up his alley.
Barak Obama is a Marxist. His beliefs are that of a follower of Marx, but someone added God into the equation and they use religion as the Fig Leaf to help the pill go down. I take pills without water, but there is no way in hell I'm swallowing what Obama is giving. No matter how much sugar coating it gets.
Posted by: JP at May 12, 2008 03:53 PM (Tae/a)
9
But like his 1996 gun control survey where he said he favored an outright handgun ban, he'll say that a staffer said it, and if you question it, you're trying to be "divisive". And the media will offer no scrutiny, except perhaps of the seams on his jeans..
Posted by: BadIdeaGuy at May 12, 2008 04:25 PM (8zHCx)
10
What do you know about Marx?? Lamentably, the american people ignores many importants things of this world, and uses the power of war and terror.
Posted by: Omar at May 12, 2008 04:34 PM (mUjMj)
11
It makes no difference what religion Obama practices or practiced in his youth. What matters is his constant lying. It is becoming pathological. And his whining and blaming others for his own failures and lack of knowledge about almost everything.
And Omar, you might think the US needs to get the world to love them, but that is naive. When the "world" is in trouble, who do they beg for help? Who do they expect to step up to the plate and fix their miserable problems? When Saddam invaded Kuwait, were the Kuwaitis begging Muslems to save them or were they on TV imploring the US to come to their aid?
I don't give a damn who likes us. I know they respect us, respect both our strength and our generosity.
Posted by: Sara at May 12, 2008 04:47 PM (Wi/N0)
12
Is there something Freudian about Obama's 57 states gaff?
There are 57 Islamic states. Are those the states that this supposed non-Muslim is thinking about?
Posted by: Peter Boston at May 12, 2008 04:50 PM (6STKo)
13
Omar, you seem to be confusing America with Islamoterrorists.
The US doesn't fly hijacked civilian airliners into buildings full of civilians.
The US doesn't deliberately--note, I said deliberately--launch rockets at civilians.
The US doesn't ask people to strap bombs to themselves and walk into public places and then detonate them.
I could go on and on, but this should illustrate which side really uses the power of terror; it ain't the USA.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 12, 2008 07:35 PM (ub+LC)
14
This post may be the most idiotic thing I've ever read. People aren't born any religion, they choose it. CY actually makes this point, then ignores it to say Obama lied. He didn't lie because he never chose to be Muslim. Islam is a religion, not an ethnicity, idiots. What is wrong with you people? I'll bet my house you are all retards or insane.
Posted by: Craig at May 12, 2008 09:01 PM (0MZfd)
15
So the election of Obama is supposed to soothe anti-American savages into loving America? More likely the muslims will want to slit his throat for apostasy instead!
Posted by: Brad at May 12, 2008 09:41 PM (zcgKX)
16
But Craig, what do we need with a box?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 12, 2008 10:00 PM (HcgFD)
17
People aren't born any religion, they choose it.
Not according to some religions you insane retard. Craig, I have no interest in your trailer, but thanks for the offer.
Posted by: daleyrocks at May 12, 2008 10:07 PM (0pZel)
18
Some of our political/intellectual betters like His Saintliness, Obama, are correct, in a very narrow sense, that Americans can be somewhat unsophisticated. We do tend to view every other culture through an American prism of privilege, freedom and opportunity. This does cause us to make naive judgements about other nations and cultures.
Some correspondents suggest that no one is born into a religion; one chooses a religion. In the American experience, this is essentially correct, if we filter out the influence of parents in raising a child in a given faith. Ultimately, one may, once they're grown old enough to understand the utility of making such choices, chose one faith over another, or none at all. Americans have that freedom and few, if any, would think anything of it. Changing a faith is as unremarkable for Americans as buying a new cell phone or car.
Under Sharia, and Muslim cultural tradition, the child born of a Muslim man is also a Muslim for as long as they live. And while one may eventually choose to leave Islam, they do so, in virtually all of the Muslim world, under threat of death. In only a few Muslim nations is killing someone who leaves Islam notionally against the law, but even in those nations, the laws are virtually never enforced and anyone killing for that reason will likely suffer nothing more than an official wrist slap. In an interesting twist, horrifying to Americans, and utterly incomprehensible (requiring that the reality be ignored) to those who believe that every culture is equal, those most likely to murder one leaving Islam are the members of their own family, and great will be their glory in their religious community should they succeed.
What does this mean for Senator Obama? Let us assume that he is honest in his statements that he has adopted Christianity and has no involvement with Islam. That works just fine in America and among Americans, but not in the Islamic world, where the overwhelming majority of Muslims would see him as an apostate and would think themselves good Muslims for killing him.
If Senator Obama knows anything at all about Islam, he knows that he was born Muslim and that he studied Islam for years as a youngster. Americans might accept his protestations to the contrary, that is, after all, our religious tradition under the First Amendment, but no one should fool themselves into thinking that because he's black, hip, and multi-culti, Muslims would love Obama and thereby work hand in glove with him, improving America's standing in the world. Their first impulse, suspended only so long as it fulfilled their purposes, would be to kill him.
One is known by their enemies as well as by their friends. Being the enemy of the likes of Hamas (say, isn't Obama their man for president?) is a badge of honor.
Posted by: Mike at May 12, 2008 10:57 PM (niRCJ)
19
In that Omar capitalizes "Marx" and not "American" says a lot about Omar.
Posted by: sh at May 13, 2008 12:44 AM (Xm3Mq)
20
Omar
since you are so concerned about how the US looks to others around the world should you not be concerned that Barack has renounced the Muslum faith? The only thing that could possibly be worse than a Christian (Bush) is a Chritian who was born a Muslum and chose to renounce the "true religion", a crime punishable by death for those who you say we need to have better relations with. It seems to me that darn near anybody besideds Barack would be a better emissary to the Middle East.
Posted by: Web at May 13, 2008 07:15 AM (j72RB)
21
Craig - The republican play book is sooo 2004. This is just the 2008 version of "swift boating". They are already finding "childhood" friends who will say he went to a Muslim church and other that saw him do this and that Islamic as a child. Look for a 529 group called "Muslims for truth" to come out. Republicans KNOW they can't win without their religious base and you can't obviously campaign against "Hope", "change", race or gender. They need their signature "religious intolerance" issue (i.e. gay marriage, abortion, sexual affairs, catholism, etc) to rile their base. This is it, "he lied about being born Muslim! He's a bad Christian!" It is pretty stupid...
The Marxist label is simply to try and convince those uneducated that he is unamerican. The truth is that there is a many different versions of Marxism as there are Christian religions. Some Marxist principles have been adopted by US society (i.e. Unions for example, some would argue that OSHA and the EPA are also the product of Marxism at work). Can anyone point to a particular flavor that Obama subscribes to and some examples?
Of course feel free to simply insult and name call if that would be easier than civil discourse...
Posted by: matta at May 13, 2008 09:03 AM (jRTMP)
22
matta - With a candidate whose speeches are so full of platitudes and whose individual track record is so devoid of accomplishment but full of avoiding controversial decisions, determining what Obama actually stands for is the singular issue for many voters. How do YOU read his tea leaves?
Posted by: daleyrocks at May 13, 2008 09:30 AM (0pZel)
23
I wanted to put this yesterday, but suspiciously it was not allowed. I try again:
O.K. USA has done good things for the world; but I speak about that is the principal causer of badly that is the world. You know that USA supported the apartheid in South Africa; and that thanks to the troops Angolan and Cuban, and to the noble South African people, there was achieved the liberation of Namibia and the end of the apartheid in South Africa.
USA provokes wars for interest, now they are in Iraq for oil. It is what we perceive in the world.
Do you know that Cuba helps to the poor countries with doctors and not sowing terror? Why USA wants to exhaust for hunger and diseases the cuban people? Why now that Venezuela looks for the social justice does USA see it as his enemy?
Posted by: Omar at May 13, 2008 09:50 AM (mUjMj)
24
As you folks may guess, "Omar" is a Cuban government official posting from Havana.
Silly Omar.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 13, 2008 09:57 AM (xNV2a)
25
I must respectfully disagree. I don't care what Muslim law says. If Obama says he is not and never was a Muslim, then that is the end of it so far as I am concerned. All individuals are uniquely qualified to conclusively declare their own religious faith, or lack thereof. No one can gainsay that.
Now, there are about one billion other reasons why Obama is not suitable to be our President. Let's focus on those.
Posted by: George Bruce at May 13, 2008 09:59 AM (v4XVE)
26
CY-
Touche.
You're obviously an intelligent guy, but I don't understand why you split your efforts between being a serious investigative journalist and a poor man's Lee Atwater. All this alchemy to conjure up the perfect narrative and definition of Obama as a fundamentalist Muslim Marxist is nothing but an exercise in deceiving mental midgets like Daleyrocks and CCG. Clap, clap, good job, but it takes no special talents. Simply writing Obama = Muslim would have sufficed. That said, b.s. like this will always offset any acclaim that your more serious efforts could otherwise garner. That is, your credibility with the unconverted will always be undermined by your low-rent smears based on b.s. and wild exaggerations.
Posted by: Craig at May 13, 2008 10:08 AM (0MZfd)
27
When solid arguments are not had one comes to the offense; it is typical of your friends of the White House.
Posted by: Omar at May 13, 2008 10:21 AM (mUjMj)
28
... sez the communist shilling for Obama.
Please, Omar, do continue on why America sucks and Obama is the man to remake it more to your liking.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 13, 2008 10:28 AM (xNV2a)
29
@dale - Great question. I'm not inclined to try. My personal opinion is that Obama is the "Left"'s version of GWB. GWB came to DC with alot of the same platitudes and empty slogans and its pretty clear it was a smoke screen for an idealogical agenda. I've listened to Obama's speeches and reviewed his track record and I haven't seen any "Marxism" streaks that everyone slings around. It doesn't surprise me that a black church might have a marxist background given that the race's obvious history of class struggle in the US.
I'm simply not going to vote for him because I don't think he has the experience to be CinC. It takes more than the willingness to do what others won't. It takes the wisdom of national politics to know when to try. We are in Iraq and we need to have a commander who has some idea why we should remain and how it should be done and when is it time to leave. I think we need a CinC who realizes war is a last option, not the only one and then when war is being considered, realize more planning should go into executing it then spinning it. We need a CinC that realizes that tripling our national debt in 8 years has incredibly weakened our dollar and that balanced budgets/debt reduction is what will strengthen it (whether that takes raising taxes or reducing spending). We need a CinC that realizes that the govt's role in the free market isn't to look the other way but to hold individuals and companies accountable and prosecute illegal activities.
I don't think Obama will do any or most of that. Unfortunately, I don't think McCain will either.
Posted by: matta at May 13, 2008 10:31 AM (jRTMP)
30
Craig - It's tough for you to admit that those mental midgets to whom you refer are kicking your butt in every argument on this site, isn't it? Bitter much?
Posted by: daleyrocks at May 13, 2008 10:32 AM (0pZel)
31
"Of course feel free to simply insult and name call if that would be easier than civil discourse..."
matta, it is humorous that you chose that way to end a post which is dripping with insinuation, insults, implied insults and condescension. I suppose the irony is lost on you.
Posted by: George Bruce at May 13, 2008 10:44 AM (v4XVE)
32
When you do not notice arrogance and see possibility of kindness for the others, already you label the personage of communist, it is ridiculous.
Posted by: Omar at May 13, 2008 10:57 AM (mUjMj)
33
@George - You can call it irony, I call it setting the bar. It takes no special talent or inteligence to sling slurs and insults and yet anyone that dares to disagree with CY usually gets called all kinds of names and insults. An actual discussion of what Marxist principles Obama believes in would be interesting. From what I've gathered, the Marxist label seems to mostly come from the fact that his church has a Marxist background of some sort. Again, I don't find that overly alarming. I am a Southern Baptist for 30 years but I don't adhere to their prohibition against alcohol. I'd imagine similar disagreements occur with other religions and their parishers.
Posted by: matta at May 13, 2008 03:01 PM (jRTMP)
34
Matta, you once again are wrong. I have myself disagreed with CY, and he and I were polite throughout.
The people he is rude to are the numbwit lefties who come here and think that they can change our minds with their DNC-issued talking points.
If you had any brains you'd realize that you are not going to convince any of the regular readers/commenters here to accept any of your idiotic platitudes. Of course, that raises the question of why you keep coming here. I can only conclude that it's either overweening arrogance or blind stupidity, thinking that you're helping the Party of the Donkey.
What you're really accomplishing is nothing more than showing us the face of a typical lefty of 2008. At that, you are succeeding wonderfully.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 13, 2008 05:48 PM (ub+LC)
35
Anyone who can describe the Muslim call to prayer lovely has to be a Muslim or an idiot.
For people to believe you are born into a religion well I guess you can see who the secularists are or the buffet religionists. People who have faith do not get born into it they make a decision. I could care about Snobama's religion. I do care about his endless lies and the cult worship of the sheep that follow him. Its scary. It reminds me about the film about Stalin's projectionist who witnesses the lies and horrors and then cries when Stalin dies despite his hatred for the man.
I thought Jimmy Carter and Clinton were about as low as you could go until I saw Snobama's travelling circus.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at May 13, 2008 06:10 PM (LHaZf)
36
By the way, I wish to point out that when I spoke of Matta's "idiotic platitudes," I was not including his occasional non-idiotic statements, such as the one above regarding the qualifications desirable in a Commander-in-Chief. While I may not agree with everything he said in that statement, it was certainly not idiotic.
The statement I made still applies to his truly idiotic platitudes, of which there are many examples.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 13, 2008 06:51 PM (ub+LC)
37
@C-C-G - Thank you for again proving my point. I did not say that CY was impolite only that those that disagree with him are treated rudely and insultingly as you have more than adequately demonstrated. I'm not interested in convincing anyone of anything. I've already stated I'm not voting for Obama so the only one tossing platitudes around is you. Thanks for agreeing with me.
Posted by: matta at May 14, 2008 09:19 AM (jRTMP)
38
See what I get for admitting that one of Matta's posts wasn't idiotic?
The question remains, though, why are you here, Matta?
Posted by: C-C-G at May 14, 2008 01:36 PM (wKdud)
39
@C-C-G - Ah...my apologies for not acknowledging your most civil response yet. I will be more dilligent in the future...
I'm here to see what other people think and to contribute in dialog about areas I agree in and areas I don't. As an adult, I don't see the value in name calling and insults so I typically stay away from it. In my experience, I find that those that can only insult others do so because they have very little else to say.
I learn alot from his various posts on firearms and subjects that I haven't considered or thought about. I don't agree with all of CY's opinions and will say so when I don't. Then again, most of CY's opinions are about him disagreeing with others, so I imagine that is the point of the blog and the reason to discuss it.
Posted by: matta at May 15, 2008 12:16 PM (jRTMP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Corners Turned
Moqtada al-Sadr, the figurehead leader of the Mahdi Army that fled to Tehran long ago, has lost Basra. It must have been heartbreaking for the New York Times to make the admission that the Iraqi Army and Police had pounded Iranian-back Shia militias and criminal gangs into submission, but give them credit; they did report it.
Iraqi and American forces continue to pound gangs and Iranian-trained and equipped "Special Groups" in the massive Baghdad slum called Sadr City. Fighting continues despite al-Sadr's impotent call for a truce, and an "anaconda strategy" of squeezing out combatants while choking off of their resupply lines continued, as a wall slicing off the southern end of the slum reached 80% completion.
In Mosul, an Iraqi-led, American-backed assault on Mosul, al Qaeda's last urban stronghold in Iraq,
has begun, targeting the last significant bastions of al Qaeda and aligned insurgents in Iraq after the success of the "surge" in the Baghdad region and the Sunni civilian uprising against al Qaeda in Al Anbar over the past year.
The war in Iraq is not over, but no serious person can argue that Iraqi government forces and the coalition military forces backing them are not now dictating the terms and tempo of the conflict in Iraq. They and are imposing their will with considerable success upon areas deemed as unapproachable and lost as recently as weeks and months ago, and have won the support of the overwhelming majority of an Iraqi people tired of war and extremist ideologies.
And yet...
We still have an entire political party predicating their future success on a U.S. and Iraqi government defeat in Iraq. They abhor American soldiers with a spittle-flecked passion, find them to be thugs and criminals of the highest order, and deep down in their heart of hearts, think that American solders would torture innocent civilians and kill merely for sport, if only the watchful eyes of the media were no there to keep them in check.
They view a certain rising American politician as their only salvation in a regional conflict that vexes their very souls. They see his promises of "hope" and "change" and unconditional dialog with Nasrallah or Ahmadinejad and other regional leaders as a gateway to the kind of world they want to live in. They fear John McCain will prove to be a second George Bush.
But enough about the Iranian mullacracy.
I'm just glad we don't have Americans that act this way.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:37 AM
| Comments (32)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This is obviously another victory for Sadr who has lulled the Iraqi government and American occupiers into a false sense of complacency and has his 60,000 member highly trained militia ready to spring into action on a moment's notice. It is a quagmire in Iraq and we cannot leave soon enough.
How am I doing? I was practicing for a job interview with the MSM. Do I need to punch it up a little more?
Posted by: daleyrocks at May 12, 2008 10:52 AM (0pZel)
2
Ah, so the NY Times is right when they report now, but they were wrong to report seven weeks ago that the Iraqi army was losing.
The more obvious conclusion is that both reports are accurate: The Iraqi "army" failed, so the U.S. Army bailed them out and did their work for them.
This isn't surprising; the U.S. wins every battle it fights in Iraq, militarily. The point, however, is that since the civil war in Iraq cannot be "won" militarily, the only way to ensure an actual government in Iraq (as opposed to the Iranian-backed thugocracy conservatives support in Iraq) is for the U.S. to leave. Conservatives are naturally against this, since they approve of continuing the Iraqi civil war and helping one Iranian-backed thug militia kill another.
Posted by: T.B. at May 12, 2008 11:13 AM (JGJFa)
3
The more obvious conclusion is that both reports are accurate: The Iraqi "army" failed, so the U.S. Army bailed them out and did their work for them.
Uh, no.
A green Iraqi unit was sent in first, failed and then more experienced Iraqi units have done the bulk of the work. Other than stabilizing the line after the first units faltered inteh first couple of days, American forces have done little in Basra or Najaf in thw more than a month since, other than logistical support.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 12, 2008 11:18 AM (xNV2a)
4
There is mention in the NYT that "forces loyal to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki" had subdued Basra and they even managed to ignore the "forces loyal to President George W. Bush" for the most part, but what happened to the Iraqi Army ?
Posted by: Neo at May 12, 2008 11:18 AM (Yozw9)
5
The more obvious conclusion is that both reports are accurate: The Iraqi "army" failed, so the U.S. Army bailed them out and did their work for them.
T. B.,
Uh, so, using your logic, the Union Army, which was regularly shellacked by the Confederates, continually plagued by a much higher desertion rate, and suffered recurring logistical deficiencies, actually lost the Civil War.
Funny thing, I had always thought the North won the war despite the above problems. Good thing you set us all straight.
Posted by: MarkJ at May 12, 2008 11:29 AM (IKzfP)
6
If you are implying some criticism of Barry's advanced strategy of Pre-emptive Chattery, be advised: the Obamoids are no longer backing a policy of chatting any and all comers. Looks like the blowback from attempts to join with Hamas units already in combat has hampered efforts and forced a tactical withdrawal. Barry will meet Amadhinejhad but NOT known Hamas and Hezbollah officers. During these meetings, no kisses will be exchanged. This is a marked improvement, of course, over the recent Carter Initiative so, ya know, we should be happy about that.
Posted by: megapotamus at May 12, 2008 12:02 PM (LF+qW)
7
I will know the war in Iraq is fully over when --- the people running for the Dem nomination, and the press, drop all reference to Iraq as a whole --- in favor of non-stop, hostile coverage of Guantanamo Bay...
Posted by: usinkorea at May 12, 2008 07:18 PM (KpjEj)
8
Don't look now, but Sadr has also surrendered Sadr City. Imagine Washington ceding Washington.
If my math is right, this leaves the Mahdi Army in control of absolutely nothing.
We'd better get out of the before the situation deteriorates any further. /snark
Posted by: Pablo at May 13, 2008 07:54 AM (yTndK)
9
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 05/13/2008 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 13, 2008 12:11 PM (gIAM9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 11, 2008
Lifelike Pictures
Subject: Barack Hussein Obama
Painted: 2008
Artist:
John McCain
(h/t:
Instapundit)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:59 PM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Does anybody else have qualms about a Obama's apparent subservience to his wife? I've begun to be somewhat troubled about it of late. Obama's extreme leftist stance, his association with Wright and Ayers and now the appearance that he hasn't really established a equal relationship with his wife, I find disturbing in someone who would be the president.
Posted by: OneDayAtATime at May 11, 2008 05:56 PM (FWB8/)
2
Her daddy and his political friends got him elected twice. She was the major bread winner until his book came out.
If the phone rings at 3AM, let's all "hope" she answers it.
Posted by: arch at May 12, 2008 05:09 AM (pKbp9)
Posted by: David at May 12, 2008 10:59 AM (cPLO6)
4
"Effete" is to effete a term to make the case. A video mash-up of Obammy as Carlton from Fresh Prince might be more accessible. I'm on it...
Posted by: megapotamus at May 12, 2008 02:21 PM (LF+qW)
5
I am "borrowing" this image for future use.
If that's not OK..please leave a short reply and I won't. Thanks.
Posted by: Asianbadger at May 12, 2008 11:28 PM (ABlWO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 09, 2008
Obama's Double Standard
Presidential candidate with terrorist friends fires adviser friendly with terrorists:
One of Barack Obama's Middle East policy advisers disclosed today that he had held meetings with the militant Palestinian group Hamas - prompting the likely Democratic nominee to sever all links with him.
Robert Malley told The Times he had regularly been in contact with Hamas, which controls Gaza but is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation. Such talks, he stressed, were related to his work for a conflict resolution think tank and had no connection with his position on Mr Obama's Middle East advisory council.
"I've never hidden the fact that in my job with the International Crisis Group I meet all kinds of people," he added.
So Barack Obama fires a campaign adviser for having contacts with Hamas for the nutty "peace" group to which he belongs.
Obama, on the other hand, kicks off his political career by attending a fundraiser in the home of a pair of well-known and infamous domestic terrorists that led a group that had targeted and in some cases
killed American citizens, including off-duty soldiers and police officers. When this association is highlighted, he labels it a "distraction."
Clearly, Barack Obama has a problem with others associating with terrorists, but that moral clarity certainly slips when it is to his material benefit.
That's not change you can believe in. That's moral cowardice and craven opportunism.
h /t
Ace of Spades, who notes that Hamas had endorsed Obama.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:44 PM
| Comments (45)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Why do I have this really sneaky desire to smuggle some big Palestinian flags into the Demo's convention in Denver?
Posted by: Jeff at May 09, 2008 03:54 PM (yiMNP)
2
No doubt the Hamas endorsement is just the icing on the cake for the leftwingnuts that make up Snobama's base.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at May 09, 2008 04:16 PM (LHaZf)
3
Bob, you realize the MoveOnocrats will say you're a racist for pointing out that Hamas would prefer Obama. The fact that it's true doesn't matter, you're still a racist, according to Screamin' Howie Dean.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 09, 2008 05:55 PM (ub+LC)
4
Wow. If this Bill Ayers thing is the best you guys got, McCain is going to get completely slaughtered in November.
Posted by: Arbotreeist at May 09, 2008 06:25 PM (6I6OG)
5
That Hamas knew they were meeting with someone who consults for a possible POTUS is the real shocker here. Whether or not Malley was meeting on Obama's behalf is just about immaterial. Fact was, he was there quite frequently (in whatever capacity) but Malley also DOES work, however "casually" or for no remuneration for Obama. Malley and Obama were, after all, college schoolmates. When you connect all the dots, sitting listening to Wright's anti-American rants for TWENTY years, Michelle Obamamama's rancid bitterness, Ayers flag stomping, there is plenty to worry about about Barack Hussein Obama.
Posted by: Marybel at May 09, 2008 07:05 PM (e+2Jh)
6
McCain can certainly get slaughtered. Particularly if he doesn't bother to point out that Obama has chosen to associate with terrorists, racists, anti-americans, marxists, and crooks during his very short career. McCain might also point out the policies and philosophy of Obama is better suited to a 3rd world hellhole than the greatest nation in the world. And maybe someone will point out that electing someone who was born a muslim and was taught in muslim schools during a war with Islam might not be a very good idea. (Maybe that was why Hamas likes Obama so much).
But on the other hand, possibly it is time for an affirmative action president. Michelle has said that it is "our turn" now, and who are we to bar Michelle from finally getting enough from the USA to finally be proud of it.
Or....Obama's chickens might be coming home to roost. And young Mr. Hussein Obama will be subjected to a major defeat as the Democrats realize that university liberals and american blacks do not make a coalition.
Posted by: iconoclast at May 09, 2008 07:26 PM (TzLpv)
7
What, Arbo, you don't think it's a Bad Thing to have a campaign event at the home of someone who is not only unapologetic about bombing government buildings, but says he is sorry he didn't do enough?
Would your opinion be the same if McCain's campaign was launched at the home of Timothy McVeigh?
To ask the question is, of course, to answer it.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 09, 2008 07:27 PM (ub+LC)
8
It was ill-advised, yes. But are you going to pillory him for this, weighed against the entirety of the man's life? This guilt by association with Ayers (and the association is tenuous at best) is not going to hold water in the eyes of the American people.
Posted by: Arbotreeist at May 09, 2008 09:46 PM (6I6OG)
9
Actually, Arb, I don't subscribe to the "magic bullet" theory--that is, there is rarely (if ever) a single news story or event that dooms a political candidate.
However, I do believe that the Ayers connection is part of the "death of a thousand cuts" that Obama will eventually fall to. Ayers is part of an overall picture of Obama that the American people will probably reject.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 09, 2008 09:53 PM (ub+LC)
10
Arbo - The main subject of this post is not Ayers. Take another look. It's about another one of Obama's advisers who is hostile to Israel. It seems he's got a whole gaggle of them when you take a look at who/was on his list of foreign policy advisors. It sort of makes you wonder whether their views are really reflective of Obama's thoughts or the more pro-Israel comments the candidate is currently making now perhaps in an effort to retain the Jewish and pro-Israel vote.
Posted by: daleyrocks at May 09, 2008 11:08 PM (0pZel)
11
People who think like Arbo are the extremely cancerous enemy within America, the useful idiots.
We will eventually have to have a civil war I fear. They literally have no problem with anti-Americanism all forms, including violence it seems. Che is a mass mirdering terrorist and they love him, Bill Ayers, Rev Wright's church gives awards to the leader of the murderous Nation of Islam, they're not proud of America, etc. etc.
These people are nuts!
Posted by: Bob USMC at May 10, 2008 01:41 AM (liOjX)
12
(and the association is tenuous at best)
Yeah. And Wright? Taken totally out of context!
Being in the bag limits one's vision, Arbo.
Posted by: Pablo at May 10, 2008 05:39 AM (yTndK)
13
Precisely my point, Daley.
If any one of these radical friends--say, just as an example, Wright--was Obama's only nutty friend, it would be a reasonable assumption that it was just an aberration, and that the friend's views were not necessarily shared by Obama.
The profusion of these radicals, however, is what forms the "death of a thousand cuts" I spoke about earlier. With each new discovery of anti-American companions, it becomes that much harder for even someone who doesn't really follow politics, like Joe Six-Pack, to conclude that Obama himself does not share these views.
Add to that his comments in San Francisco, and Michelle's endless whining about how hard it is for millionaires to get by, and, well, that's not really what the majority of the American public want living in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 10, 2008 10:26 AM (ub+LC)
14
Daley is correct. Malley is being dumped so as not to lose the Pro-Israeli voters.
In January, Ed Lasky at American Thinker wrote an interesting piece entitled "Barack Obama's Middle East Expert"
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/barack_obamas_middle_east_expe.html
"Barack Obama's real thinking about Israel and the Middle East continues to be an enigma. The words he chose in an address to AIPAC create a different impression than the composition of his foreign policy advisory team. Several advisors have evidenced a history of suspicion and worse toward Israel. One of his advisors in particular, Robert Malley, clearly warrants attention, as does the reasoning that led him to being chosen by Barack Obama.
"This is merely a sample of Malley's views -- which are focused on disengaging from our ally Israel (whose lead America should not "follow") and engaging with and, in some cases financially supporting, the likes of Syria, Moqtada al-Sadr, Hezbollah and Hamas. His ideology is radically at odds with American foreign policy as it has been practiced by two generations of Presidents -- both Democrats and Republicans -- over the years. This is the type of advocacy Robert Malley has been pursuing in the years since the end of the Clinton Administration and from his perch at the International Crisis Group -- an organization that may share his agenda."
Not only is Malley anti-Israeli, he has major differences with Bill Clinton's Camp David peace process in which he blames Israel and absolves Yasser Arafat.
Posted by: arch at May 10, 2008 10:39 AM (pKbp9)
15
It would only be a double standard if Obama (who, btw, has consistently stated he would not meet with Hamas) actually did fire Malley, but this is not the case--just virally misreported as the case, i.e, a false accusation, a lie. Malley's role was also greatly overstated anyway.
Posted by: ER at May 10, 2008 12:25 PM (C9+q9)
16
Talk about lies, ER. From the same story linked above (emphasis mine):
Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Mr Obama, responded swiftly: “Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future.” The rapid departure of Mr Malley followed 48 hours of heated clashes between John McCain, the Republican nominee-elect, and Mr Obama over Middle East policy.
"Will not play any role in the future" sounds a lot like he's been fired.
Of course, you'll spin, spin, spin, and debate what the meaning of "is" is, but reasonable people know when someone's being shown the door.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 10, 2008 12:55 PM (ub+LC)
17
ER - Why does the Obama campaign have to formally sever ties with someone it doesn't have any formal relationship with according to your argument? The spin from Obama land doesn't make sense as usual.
Posted by: daleyrocks at May 10, 2008 01:26 PM (0pZel)
18
Guilt by association, eh? Obama's problem is that he is not only completely comfortable intimately associating with terrorist murderers (Ayers, Hamas, and all those with whom he'll immediately "dialogue" if elected) and racist bigots (the deranged Rev.), but when confronted about these associations, his first instinct is to attack those bringing up the problem rather than the terrorists and bigots.
Let's try a little thought experiment: An average American (perhaps a "typical white person") and His Saintliness Obama Are given some choices. Let's see how they respond.
Choice: To associate with and intimately befriend a man who tried to commit mass murder, but failed through incompetence, who is an accessory to murder, who was not prosecuted due to police failures, who brags about his crimes, and who, among other things, takes great joy in being photographed doing a tango on the American flag.
TWP: "Are you kidding? Associate with them?! I wouldn't urinate on someone like that if they were on fire!"
HSO: "He's lives in my neighborhood and is a friend, and we don't discuss things everyday anyway, and we served on some boards together, and this is a distraction."
Choice: Your pastor has been spewing the most vile, racist idiocy for decades. Not only that, his racist conspiracy theories are so deranged as to make the sane question his sanity. Do you continue to embrace him?
TWP: "Embrace him? After the first sermon with that kind of stuff I would have never returned to the church in the first place!"
HSO: "I never heard him say stuff. Well, some stuff. Kind of, more or less. I could no more repudiate him than I could the black community. OK, he attacked me, so I repudiate him. More or less" (you think they bought it, Michelle?).
Choice: The representative of one of the foremost and most bloodthirsty terrorist organizations in the world has announced that group's support for you in your bid for public office. How do you respond?
TWP: "He what?! You can tell that #@&&%$#3# to %$#@$$%^!!! I wouldn't urinate on Hamas if they were all on fire!"
HSO: "How dare you bring that up! That's the kind of racist hatred that the American people won't stand for! We're running a positive campaign here, a campaign that transcends division, that inspires, that...Hey! Wake up out there!"
Ultimately we have to ask a simple question: What kind of person is not only comfortable befriending and associating with such vile scum, but is so out of touch with decency, reality, and an understanding of the foundations of civilization that they can't see such associations as not only personally, morally, blindingly wrong, but as a massive political liability for a man who hopes to lead the free world?
Posted by: Mike at May 10, 2008 03:23 PM (niRCJ)
19
Malley continues an interesting, and disturbing, trend among Obama's supporters.
Samantha Power: "Informal" foreign policy advisor---also touted as Obama's leading foreign policy advisor. Wanted the US to suspend aid to Israel, and invade on behalf of the Palestinians. (She termed it deploying tens of thousands of US troops to act as peacekeepers on the West Bank---something which would be opposed by the Israelis. Sounds like an invasion to me.)
Joseph Cirincione. "Informal" foreign policy advisor---also touted as Obama's leading nuclear proliferation expert. Wanted Israel to declare all its nukes, wants the US to condemn Israel for possessing nukes, considers the reason for Syrian/Iranian proliferation to be Israel.
Robert Malley. "Informal" foreign policy advisor---also touted as one of Obama's leading Middle East experts. Wants US to negotiate with Hamas---which happens to be dedicated to the destruction of Israel.
IF all of these folks are really just "informal" advisors, why do they keep getting fired? And what do his "real," his "formal" advisors advise, especially regarding Israel?
The world wonders...
Posted by: Lurking Observer at May 11, 2008 12:54 PM (eqoS8)
20
Oooh, good question, Lurking. I'd be very interested to hear the answer from the Obamamaniacs around here.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 11, 2008 05:08 PM (ub+LC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
So When Will Chris Matthews Get Fired?
A Fox News staffer was fired this morning. Why? She told John McCain that she voted for him in a primary because her father was a Vietnam veteran.
I kid you not:
A 24-year-old Fox News Channel production assistant was fired this morning for something she said during the red carpet arrivals at the Time 100 Gala last night.
Insiders tell us the assistant, identified as Jennifer Locke, was on assignment with a camera crew to cover the entertainment angle of the event. When Sen. John McCain walked by, the assistant said, "I voted for you in the primary, you're going to win."
McCain was overheard saying to her, "You're not supposed to reveal that." Locke apparently continued to explain that she is the daughter of Vietnam veteran.
McCain is correct. Such disclosures are journalistically unacceptable, and Fox was right to release the staffer on those grounds.
So when is MSNBC going to step up to those same standards and dismiss Chris Matthews for his on-air announcement that Barack Obama caused a"thrill" up his leg? Is telling a candidate that you voted for him unacceptable, but blurting out a homo-erotic reaction to a candidate's speech not a level of disclosure that is forbidden, even if that disclosure is merely hyperbole making the journalist's personal attraction to the candidate equally strong? Should it matter that this is the
second time Matthews has related his "man-crush" on the air?
Yes, I know better... MSNBC doesn't have journalistic standards. It would be nice, however, if they'd fake it every one in a while.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:26 PM
| Comments (47)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
So conservatives insist on fighting with one hand tied behind our backs. Libral journo's fellate the liberal candidates: they get access.
A conservative expresses their opinion, they get canned.
Posted by: Smarty at May 09, 2008 02:32 PM (Jk5cI)
2
I imagine this is a better example of Chris Matthews "blurting out a homo-erotic reaction" toward a politician.
Posted by: cactus at May 09, 2008 03:37 PM (0Az4d)
3
If you have been paying attention, you will notice that Chris' crush has moved to Hillary since Pennsylvania.
If you want homo-erotic, look for Leibermann's comment about checking McCain's bearings. Yukkkk!
Posted by: JOHN K at May 09, 2008 03:53 PM (H+HUN)
4
So...I get it. Racism and sexism are off the table, but AGEISM is just fine, thank you. sir!
Posted by: Marybel at May 09, 2008 07:09 PM (e+2Jh)
5
Why are you wasting your time on Matthews? He has little credibility, professionally speaking, and that is a big reason why he rotates through the same handful of guests--no one else wants to go on that odious show of his. He's off MSNBC in a few months, and then he becomes some other news outlet's public relations nightmare. Just ignore him.
Posted by: CasualObserver at May 09, 2008 07:28 PM (xWG/i)
6
She was supposedly an unbiased journalist
Matthews is a liberal political hack
Hannity and Colmes could say essentially the same thing.
Steponallofus is supposed to be a ahem "journalist"
Posted by: Typical Whte Person at May 09, 2008 08:12 PM (p/VzK)
7
Hannity doesn't make any pretense of being a journalist. He's a commentator, and has said so on any number of occasions.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 09, 2008 08:18 PM (ub+LC)
Posted by: Reed at May 09, 2008 08:55 PM (UG6zQ)
9
If revealing your political bias is a basis for firing, then the whole bunch at MSNBC should be fired including Tim Russert. They have been frothing over Obama from Day 1 and so disrespectful and vicious, not to mention sexist, in their attacks against Hillary Clinton, a former first lady, that I'm ashamed for them. The way they have treated her is absolutely despicable and totally unwarranted. No other candidate in this entire election process has been so brutally and maliciously maligned. Where is the NOW organization? Are there no ethical standards governing journalists and pundits?
Posted by: dwilson at May 09, 2008 11:08 PM (ojaPq)
10
RE Confederate Re:
1) McCain is correct. Such disclosures are journalistically unacceptable, and Fox was right to release the staffer on those grounds.
2) If revealing your political bias is a basis for firing...
Why these politically correct things at Fox? (And here?) Amd since when revealing one's lineage IS "revealing one's political bias"?
Since we're talking about media impartiality, I write these just one hour after watching a KCET/LA (PBS) Washington Week Blah-Blah-Blah which was from the beginning to the end a crass, a'capella Obama lovein, moderated by an inanely beaming Iffel - and KCET/PBS are living on our taxes!
Why is inappropiate (if not criminal) for someone to mention that she/he is (remotely!) related with someone who seved this country in the Vietnam War?
Gee - isn't this a topsy-turvy world? Reverend Wright is acclaimed, and this girl at Fox is fired! And McCain agrees with this idiocy!
I voted for ever Republican, I plan to vote for McCain, but since his tantrum over the NC TV add, I started having serious doubts about him. Maverrick, my ass! Remember Talleyrand's saying: "This is not a crime, it is much worse, it is stupid thing!"
One more Maverick, and in November I'll be out, flying the kite - and I'll have lots of Republican company, I assure you.
Posted by: Misanthropicus at May 10, 2008 12:38 AM (2toxW)
11
Chris Matthews a liberal? He once said on air that he voted for George W. He keeps mentioning that his brother is a Republican organizer in Pennsylvania. He says he's going to run for political office (Specter's Senate seat?). When he runs on the GOP line, will that prove finally that he's a great liberal?
Get real.
Posted by: Ted at May 10, 2008 12:58 AM (6aBsz)
12
Chris Matthews, hell he is a lightweight, Kieth Olbermann is the biggest joke on tv. talk about metrosexual, the man is vicious, i have never seen so much animosity towards hillary clinton. He must hate women or something. I think he should be fired, MSNBC is the naional enquirer of journalism
Posted by: cavalier at May 10, 2008 01:45 AM (wearR)
13
Chris Matthews, and for that matter all of the MSNBC crowd, are irrelevant. They are all anti Clinton and you can't get an objective viewpoint on anything. Viewers are leaving in favor of CNN or Fox. Just a matter of time before they are all gone, but for me they are gone already.
Posted by: ncjack at May 10, 2008 01:51 AM (B/Zqo)
14
Wouldn't it be nice to have a Tom Brokaw or a Walter Cronkite whose political orientation you don't even know to this day? What we now have are Jack Cafferty, Campbell Brown, Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer at CNN who just get giddy when speaking of Obama. Then there are those guys at MSNBC. I don't know that there are any who AREN'T enamored with Obama. When can the American public expect the media to do their job and give an unbiased report???? When the best we can do is look at FOX NEWS for fair and balanced news, that is getting pretty sad.
Posted by: Gorgegirl at May 10, 2008 03:39 AM (LV7Fk)
15
Tried to 'explain that she is the daughter of Vietnam veteran'? Most Vietnam veterans I know, including my father and most of his friends, wouldn't vote for McCain if you stuck a gun to their heads after what he did with the POW/MIA issue (and he was a POW himself!). McCain might win among the WWII vets, and Vietnam era REMFs but not combat veterans.
Posted by: jack brown at May 10, 2008 03:43 AM (hnFsD)
16
Goregirl, your name alone should indicate what side of the fence you're on, so it should be no surprise to find out how clueless you are about Mr. Cronkite's views.
I give you this article to show just how clear it is where Cronkite stands:
Former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite, whose 1968 conclusion that the Vietnam War was unwinnable keenly influenced public opinion then, said Sunday he'd say the same thing today about Iraq.
"It's my belief that we should get out now," Cronkite said in a meeting with reporters.
Cronkite's views unknown to this day? Only if you have nice thick blinders on.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 10, 2008 07:56 AM (ub+LC)
17
Like Ron White said,"You can't fix stupid"!!!
Posted by: Gator at May 10, 2008 08:27 AM (uaTZE)
18
Actually, it would be a very *welcome* thing for journalists to acknowledge their political persuasion. If honestly stated, they might strive to overcome their natural bias, and certainly people can keep a grain of salt on hand if they don't.
Cordially...
Posted by: Rick at May 10, 2008 12:07 PM (zncSj)
19
I agree, Rick. That's why I trust Fox News.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 10, 2008 12:56 PM (ub+LC)
20
Talk about a double standard, look at the story from hotair.com
Article
"Video: Press corps swoons at sight of Obama in jeans"
If ABC, CBS, CNN, etc, fired all their leftist employees, there would not be enough employees to put on a single newscast.
It is an insult to every American to tell them the people bringing them the news everyday are neutral; just like it was an insult to every member of the US military to have John Kerry, Jane Fonda and Walter Cronkite leading the fight for the North Vietnamese in America's living rooms. There is no chance the North Vietnamese could have defeated America and destroyed South Vietnam with out the American leftists.
Posted by: Pagar at May 10, 2008 03:02 PM (Vfst4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
As If There Was Ever Any Doubt...
...that anti-war protesters targeting a Marine recruiting station in Berkley California are losers.
Members of the women's group began bringing placards and pink banners to the center Friday, where they are expected to rally later in the morning, armed with spells and pointy hats for a "Witches, clowns and sirens day."
"Women are coming to cast spells and do rituals and to impart wisdom to figure out how we're going to end war," Zanne Sam Joi of Bay Area Code Pink told FOXNews.com.
The group's Mother's Day week of themed protests, which included days to galvanize grannies and bring-your-daughter-to-protest, appears to have done little to boost its flagging numbers.
All those drugs taken in '68 really had an effect, didn't they?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:33 AM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"Witches, clowns, and sirens..."
Well, one out of three ain't bad.
Posted by: DaveP. at May 09, 2008 11:41 AM (3Aj1g)
2
You know, maybe those Puritans were on to something, with that whole burning-at-the-stake thing they had going on...
Okay, kidding.
Posted by: tsmonk at May 09, 2008 12:13 PM (j0chB)
3
It's called "wicca" and it has nothing to do with brooms or Halloween. Okay, it does have something to do with Halloween but it's really about getting back to the Earth Mother, ya know, the one that commanded twins be left in the woods to die and had bogmen ritually strangled. It's all about Peace, man. That's all. And magic. And drumming, I guess. Oh, and Global Warming.
Posted by: megapotamus at May 09, 2008 01:30 PM (LF+qW)
4
Why don't we end the war by winning? It seemed to work for us in the past and tends to promote a lasting peace.
Posted by: Greg at May 15, 2008 12:43 PM (dntel)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 08, 2008
Why You Won't See the Iranian Weapons We've Captured in Iraq
Starting over a year ago with the discovery of a new kind of roadside bomb—EFPs or explosively-formed projectiles—American commanders in Iraq began believing that Iran was supplying weapons to militants in Iraq. That belief grew as more munitions were captured, including 34 unfired rockets captured on July 12, 2007 that were said to be of Iranian origin.
In recent weeks American forces have claimed to have captured even more Iranian weapons, including those that were new, apparently manufactured in 2008. In addition, Iraqi government forces are said to have captured a significant number of weapons of suspected Iranian manufacture during military options in and around Basra over the past month. On top of the weaponry captured, recently-released information
claims that Shiite militiamen were trained by Hezbollah in Iranian terrorist camps near Tehran, and that some of those militants have been captured, and have resided in U.S. military custody for several months providing valuable intelligence.
But if solid physical evidence of Iranian military interference has been captured, then why hasn't that evidence been presented to independent experts for verification? Why hasn't that material been presented to a skeptical world media, still unwilling to believe governmental claims at face value after Saddam Hussein's WMDs turned out to be ghosts?
The answer is both simple and pragmatic: hopes of a diplomatic solution between Iran and Iraq have forestalled the U.S. military press conference displaying captured weaponry first expected in Baghdad over a week ago.
The press conference was delayed in hopes that an Iraqi delegation to Tehran bearing evidence of Iranian weapons captured by U.S. and Iraqi forces in recent fighting could resolve the issue as a matter between the two neighboring states.
Unsurprisingly, Iran has disputed the evidence, and as a result, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has ordered a special committee to compile evidence captured by both American and Iraqi forces. Once the evidence is compiled, it is hoped that this would help inform the committee in putting forth a coherent Iraqi policy on Iranian involvement in smuggling weapons into Iraq. That policy will be presented to the Iranian government in hopes of stopping Iranian smuggling of weapons and preclude a conflict between the two nations, according to U.S. military sources. Iran and Iraq fought a war from 1980-88 that claimed approximately one million lives when Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq, and the political goals of neither Shia-dominated government would be well-served by a return to conflict.
Iraqi foreign minister Hoshiyar Zebari is urging Iran and the United States to rejoin stalled security talks after U.S. officials described negotiating with Iran "meaningless" without Iran stopping military interference in Iraq, and Tehran accusing the U.S. of "massacring" Iraqis as operations in Baghdad's Sadr City against Shia militias continue. The resumation of talks is presently deemed
unlikely, but if the Iraqi committee completes its mission and determines that Iran has in fact been supplying training and weaponry to Shia militias presently fighting against the Iraqi military forces, the Iraqis will have a diplomatic weapon to use against Tehran that may force the Iranian government to stop its suspected supply of weaponry into Iraq, and it's training of Shia militiamen by Hezbollah terrorists and Iran's military.
The diplomatic pressure the Iraqi commission could bring to bear with it's findings could deepen divides in Iran's government between moderates and hardliners. Moderate former President Mohammad Khatami has recently made
statements that some are interpreting as an admission that the current hardline regime as supplying weaponry and training to militants in Iraq and elsewhere.
Iran's weapons may be taking the lives of American and Iraqi troops in Iraq right now, but with the Iraqi government's creation of a committee to build an official Iraqi policy position on Iran's interference, Iran's weapons may turn out to be a greater diplomatic weapon for Iraq.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:13 PM
| Comments (54)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It's hard to see how a cone shaped hunk of copper
can take out an MRAP or an Abrams Tank.I see we have one of our own now,it's about the size of a
1LB. coffee can and made of PVC and it can even
work on a ships hull...
Posted by: Gator at May 08, 2008 05:15 PM (uaTZE)
2
EFPs were first used by the Germans in WWII as tank destroyers. Most weapons use a form of EFP in various types to penetrate armor.
Posted by: bill-tb at May 08, 2008 05:22 PM (7evkT)
Posted by: John at May 08, 2008 05:35 PM (c14F7)
4
Gator, here is a good explanation on how an EFP works. Lots of technical jargon, tho, so be prepared to wade through lots of big words.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 08, 2008 06:12 PM (cwBZ+)
5
Gator:
An EFP is formed by turning that copper cone (or disk, or ball) into liquid by significantly/simultaneously compressing and heating it. Liquid copper formed this way is actually more dense than its solid form, but morphing the solid structure into a liquid also provides better penetration into any solid. There's nothing left of the structure of the penetrator to "shatter" or "break". Therefore, it is able to penetrate more quickly and deeper into a solid.
The same can be said for any number of metals that have been used as penetrators including DUP rounds (though, those don't go to liquid form).
I'm posting this on the fly...so ask if you've got questions about the physics behind it and I'll respond when I've got more time to craft my words
Posted by: Mark at May 08, 2008 06:16 PM (4od5C)
Posted by: Gator at May 08, 2008 11:09 PM (uaTZE)
7
This is all a smoke screen to keep the troops there longer and probably strike Iran before GWB leaves office. Saddam was the bad guy, then Al-queda, then Shia now Iranians. Why would anyone believe that diplomacy is going to work on a country that doesn't honor its own neighbor's soverign rights or signs nuclear proliferation treaties and then backs out of them? Why would anyone trust them even if they agreed to everything that was asked of them? And the more likely scenario is that they dispute everything and then what? Another round of sanctions? Ohhh, that'll hurt at $120 a barrel. This is just foreplay before the US acts militarily....
Posted by: matta at May 09, 2008 06:26 AM (F+fRS)
8
Matta - got take your meds.
Posted by: Dan Irving at May 09, 2008 07:02 AM (Kw4jM)
9
Uh, Matta, 90% of Iranians are Shi'a.
That's just one out of many errors in your screed above, but it shows to illustrate just how clueless you are about the whole situation.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 09, 2008 07:21 AM (cwBZ+)
10
Dan - OOOHHHH!!! You are sooo witty. If I were you, I'd write that one down and frame it...
C-C-G - Uh, duh. You can't invade a religion, only countries. When was the last time we invaded a Shia-majority country over "evidence" of threats to national security? Iraq isn't even history yet and we are already doomed to repeat it. I mean, come on. We invaded Iraq on the premise that we "thought" Saddam was going to give WMD (nuclear, biological, etc) to terrorists. Iran already has its own terrorist organization, Hezbollah, and is publicly driving towards nuclear capabilities. Israel just sent Syria a big present by digging a very large hole for them where a nuclear-related facility was suspected. Wars don't happen over night, but thru carefully scripted escalations such as this committee to review the evidence and "diplomacy" with a govt that endorses and funds terrorism. This is just the latest step...
Posted by: matta at May 09, 2008 07:47 AM (F+fRS)
11
Ahh, Matta tries lefty strategy #66, changing the topic, with a little bit of #31, the red herring.
Tell the nurse that you're done with the computer so she can take you back to your nice room with the rubber wallpaper.
By the way, here's another clue for you, that I am sure you'll disregard. Al Qaeda, and the Taliban, are all mostly Sunni, as was Saddam Hussein. So in invading Iraq and Afghanistan, we didn't invade Shi'a nations, we invaded Sunni ones.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 09, 2008 08:00 AM (cwBZ+)
12
C-C-G - Hate to burst your bubble but Iraq is and was by a vast majority, Shia. Saddam's sect was a minority in the country.
Where did I change the topic? I merely asked what was the point of diplomacy with a country that endorses terrorism???? Hell, we won't have diplomatic relations with Iran, so why do we think that Iraq can trust Iran? Where is the red herring if our own govt doesn't trust Iran?
And I'm not confusing the issue, merely showing how our govt is creating the new "boogieman". As for your "clue", it goes to my original point. Originally, the rationale for invading was that Saddam and Al-queda were working together at some level. The fact that they were the same sect of Islam was secondary but a supporting fact. Here we have the same scenario only now its Shia-oriented groups that are now the "threat" facing us so we can't leave.
BTW, keep up the name calling, the stereotyping and silly childish phrases. It only demonstrates you have zero points to make. You don't have to say I'm right, just keep bringing the insults. Its the same thing...
Posted by: matta at May 09, 2008 08:22 AM (F+fRS)
13
Matta,naw you don't matta, never have never will!!
Posted by: Gator at May 09, 2008 08:38 AM (uaTZE)
14
How is it "creating a new boogeyman" if the country in question does indeed support international terrorism, violates its neighbor's soverign rights and is violating the NPT?
It seems that would just be acknowledging reality.
Posted by: Pablo at May 09, 2008 09:18 AM (yTndK)
15
Pablo - You are right, Iran has been sponsoring terrrorism for a long time. I'm not saying it wasn't reality. I said it would become the "new" rationale for the troops staying, regardless of what the Iraq govt does in terms of progress politically or otherwise. It will be the new "national" threat to our security. The new thing to be afraid of. Look at the rhetoric now coming out of the WH. It used to be that GWB's talking points were Al-queda, talliban, Saddam. Now its Shia, Iran, Hezbolah. I believe GWB will take a swing at Iran before he leaves office. This diplomacy shtic is to CYA himself cause obviously he can't open diplomatic relations himself...
Gator - Oh, no! Not another tired cliche?!?!? Thanks for contributing...
Posted by: pablo at May 09, 2008 09:39 AM (F+fRS)
16
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 05/09/2008 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 09, 2008 09:58 AM (gIAM9)
17
The answer is both simple and pragmatic: hopes of a diplomatic solution between Iran and Iraq have forestalled the U.S. military press conference displaying captured weaponry first expected in Baghdad over a week ago.
Sure, the world would be better off without the Iranian regime, but I would suggest there's another, simpler answer to your question.
I would note that on issues of missing and/or sketchy evidence, you've ignored Occam's razor before:
And we wonder why the much vaunted UN Weapon Inspectors didn't find the WMDs that every major intelligence agency in the world says were in Iraq... They were apparently more interested in getting bombed than finding bombs.
Posted by: cactus at May 09, 2008 10:04 AM (0Az4d)
18
very interesting post Matta. In one you admit that Iran supports terrorist and is seeking Nuclear weapons and cant be Trusted and then in another argue that we are creating a Boogieman. Which i can only take as meaning that we are creating a fictional character that is not really a threat.
So which is it? Is Iran a threat or not? If they are then what do YOU suppose/support we do about it? You seem to be wanting both ways, but you can have it that way.
Also, no wants to invade Iran. The point is to put pressure on Iran to make them stop. Which you pointed out cant be trusted and i think we all agree but it has to be done to build a case. Once all efforts have beed exhausted, ie asking them to stop, letting Iraq deal with them, present evidence to U.N. Then we can take more drastic actions. Bolton suggest Bombing their training camp...may be the right thing to do.
As far as Muslim sects goes, it doesnt really matter what they are. If they are attacking Am. or our friends then they are an enemy. In the middle east politics that can change with the wind. It only shows Am willingness to forgive and help them grow into a democracy.
Posted by: Scot J at May 09, 2008 10:07 AM (mPpLn)
19
Scot - To me there is a difference in between a threat and the boogieman. There are threats all over the world, doesn't mean we occupy other countries to deal with them. "Boogiemen" are when fear of those threats are used to rationalize reasons as opposed to facts. What are we afraid of the Iranians doing?? The Iranian threat is something we all know very well. They fund terrorism. They want Israel wiped off the earth. Old news. Is Iran going to invade Iraq if we leave? I doubt it, given they saw how the international community stomped a mud hole in Saddam for taking Kuwait and other ME countries like Saudia Arabia will take severe issue with that. Could they help topple the govt. Sure, but that could happen anytime from within just as easily or 2 decades down the road when 2 sheiks decide to fight over a camel race. Could they strongly influence the Iraqi politics? Probably. But then a large majority of the population has similar back ground to Iranians so its not unexpected that the populations would want similar things. Could they become a haven for terrorists? Maybe, but that's kind of moot given that Syria and Iran on either side of Iraq actively fund and support terrorist organizations already...
So like you said, the US is building a case to attack Iran and will use the "fear" of terrorism, arms smuggling, military training, WMD, nuclear, etc as rationale for the pre-emptive attacks. It won't be long before we hear GWB or someone say, "we can't wait for the mushroom cloud".
Another saying in justifying the "boogieman" is real is when you tried things like bringing "diplomatic pressure". Iran has been under diplomatic and trade sanctions for decades. So now their weak-kneed sister country is going to come over and ask them pretty please to stop terrorizing us and they will just stop?? Even if they did, would we believe them? This whole thing is just so GWB can CYA hiself later...
Posted by: matta at May 09, 2008 10:48 AM (F+fRS)
20
"Boogiemen" are when fear of those threats are used to rationalize reasons as opposed to facts.
But you've noted that those threats are factual, have you not? Shouldn't facts be reasons, or reasons be based on facts? If there's a man with a gun kicking down my door screaming "I'm going to kill every one of you!" is he a boogeyman that motivates me to get my own gun? That doesn't make any sense.
Posted by: Pablo at May 09, 2008 11:38 AM (yTndK)
21
These people (IRAN) have been shouting "DEATH TO AMERICA" for thirty years. They have had all these years to reach their goal. Ever think they might be ready? I think we (the USA) needs to do what should have been done right after 9-11-2001.
DEATH TO IRAN!
LET FREEDOM RING! (LOUD)
Posted by: Stag at May 09, 2008 01:30 PM (gIQ/0)
22
The sooner Tehran becomes a parking lot the sooner terrorism will end. There are those who can never admit nor acknowledge the evil that exists in those who sponsor terrorism. They can only castigate America. But then they have never lived overseas nor experienced the humanity of these governments nor their good works. Little wonder these wingnuts continue to stay in the USA rather than live in these paradises.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at May 09, 2008 04:23 PM (LHaZf)
23
matta leaves out the small detail of Iranian weapons being used to kill American soldiers in Iraq from the summary of Iranian activities. Why should we put up with that crap?
Posted by: daleyrocks at May 09, 2008 05:35 PM (0pZel)
24
Daley, Matta apparently wants to let Iran get away with killing Americans by proxy. That speaks volumes about his character--or lack thereof.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 09, 2008 05:57 PM (ub+LC)
25
EFPs exist. They weren't 'In Country' until around 2005. From the end of 2003 til the introduction of them, the majority of the vehicles hit and destroyed by IEDs were totally destroyed, as the Insurgents were using leftover 155/102/105mm artillery rounds on unarmored M998 HMMWVs and the variants that thereof. The introduction of the M1114 and XM1151 and Uparmored variants were proven to be much more resiliant to these improvised artllery shells.
Back when they did manage to get a truck, usually it was blown to scrap metal... as in making my job here in Kuwait sort of like "CSI" to identify both it and the crews.
Nowadays they show up here with neat little holes burned right through the armor... most impressive actually... seeing a 3 to 4 inch hole burned clean through 5 to 8 inches of reinforced X Armor steel. The problem is and the depressing fact is usually these are almost ALWAYS fatal strikes... I can tell b/c we have to steamclean out the human remains... and trust me, there isn't usually much left of a person after being hit with a 10,000 degree cone of liquid metal travelling at 4 times the speed of sound...
Don't tell me that they are making these advance 'toys' themselvse... they never had them til the Iranian or SOMEONE started to supply them. I'm seen the evidence firsthand.
Posted by: Big Country at May 10, 2008 08:48 AM (EzEVw)
26
Thanks for the first hand report, Big Country, and for your service to our nation.
Unfortunately, it won't convince Matta. See, to him, and those like him, you're part of the neocon war machine, and as such, you're biased. The only way you can prove yourself unbiased (to Matta, at least) is to denounce the war and everything you have done in relation to the war. The fact that you won't do that is proof that you want more war--to him.
Nice vicious cycle there, and it keeps Matta and his buddies from having to actually do any thinking.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 10, 2008 10:30 AM (ub+LC)
27
Personally, I was hoping the US and Iraqi military were saving them to be returned to sender enmass. Perhaps to one of the centrafuge sites within Iran.
Posted by: joated at May 10, 2008 03:27 PM (d/RyS)
28
C-C-G - You have some serious fantasy vs. reality issues. I never said anything one way or the other about the war but because I don't bow down and pay homage to the altar of CY, I MUST be anti-war. I started out this whole post disagreeing with CY's assessment that there are "hopes for a diplomatic solution" with Iran. I don't see any reason for using diplomacy with Iran to ask them to stop infiltrating, arming and training Shia groups in Iraq. I'm the one who said that it was a pointless excercise because they can't be trusted. Keep slinging the lame insults and non-issues...
Pablo - Didn't say they weren't a threat, but then so is China and Russia and countless others. It comes with the territory of being the only super power left on the planet as other countries will percieve us as a threat. But neither China or Russia is "kicking down the door" and for that matter neither is Iran. That's a boogieman statement intended to create fear. Iran isn't kicking down anyone's door. Where are the mobilized armies? Where are the divisions doing war games? Are they funding low level insurrection and terrorism? Yes, but then so is every country over there. Its how the game is played. Hell, Israel funds groups to do the same thing and we have done it ourselves in the past. Given how the WH has spinned previous "evidence" of threats and the VP's policy of 1% doctrine, shouldn't we the people consider what the WH agenda is or the goals of our govt WRT Iran?
As far as I'm concerned, we treat the Iranian interference in Iraq like Al-queda's interference in Iraq. When you find them on the ground doing something obvious, kill or capture them. If you find a base of operations, regardless or where it is, destroy it. The whole diplomacy thing is simply a ruse to try and elevate the situation to footing with the rationales for invading Iraq and Afganistan.
Posted by: matta at May 12, 2008 07:16 AM (jRTMP)
29
"EFPs were first used by the Germans in WWII as tank destroyers. Most weapons use a form of EFP in various types to penetrate armor."
Please check your history. You are thinking of a shape charge (huge difference).
Yes EFPs have been around for a long while. But you are mistaken as to where they started out.
The penetration capabilities of EFPs are much more impressive than that of shape charges, and EFPs have the benefit of working with stand off.
Posted by: Eric at May 12, 2008 09:27 PM (9V6Vj)
30
"An EFP is formed by turning that copper cone (or disk, or ball) into liquid by significantly/simultaneously compressing and heating it. Liquid copper formed this way is actually more dense than its solid form, but morphing the solid structure into a liquid also provides better penetration into any solid. There's nothing left of the structure of the penetrator to "shatter" or "break". Therefore, it is able to penetrate more quickly and deeper into a solid."
Once again you are thinking of a shape charge. EFPs do not turn the copper disk into molten metal. They turn it into a penetrator.
Go ahead and google it. For some reason I can not post my source here.
Posted by: Eric at May 12, 2008 09:31 PM (9V6Vj)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
What's Good for the Goose...
John McCain's military record has been released after a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was filed by the Associated Press.
It is unknown if Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama will be pressured to release a similar document, listing of all of his current and former associates who have targeted the U.S. military.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:06 PM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I hope McCain knows that his friends in the MSM are now former friends and that he will be subject to as full as scrub as W. Remember the "missing" pay records? What a load. Since no MSMer is curious perhaps McC or a surrogate will ask Obammy; "Just what is a community organizer, what do they do and where does the compensation come from for them?" I have no idea what the answer is but somehow I doubt it is on par with extinguishing the flames on a burning crewmate and setting compound fractures with one's feet.
Posted by: megapotamus at May 08, 2008 01:38 PM (LF+qW)
2
Aren't we still waiting for the rest of John Kerry's military records to be released? When is the MSM going to FOI those?
Posted by: Razorgirl at May 08, 2008 03:44 PM (aUY9H)
3
So, can we assume that McCain has signed a Standard Form 180?
Posted by: Pablo at May 09, 2008 09:21 AM (yTndK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
What Philly Should Know
I just sent the following to David Gambacorta in response to an article he wrote that was published today in the Philadelphia Daily News about an increased call for a futile "assault weapon" ban in the wake of a police officer being killed by a burka-wearing thug armed with an SKS carbine during a bank robbery on May 3. One of the three criminals involved was killed the day of the robbery. Another was captured Sunday, and the third was captured today.
I just read In wake of Liczbinski slaying, a push for assault-weapon ban and thought I might be able to help correct some erroneous information contained within that story that I'm sure was accidental.
Mayor Nutter states:
"I don't understand how anyone can stand up and make any kind of argument or defense as to why someone should have an AK-47 or an SKS or whatever," Nutter said yesterday, while he paid tribute to fallen officers at the Living Flame Memorial in Franklin Square Park.
"These weapons . . . are for one purpose only, to maim and destroy human beings," he said. "We should have statewide legislation. The federal government has a role to play here as well."
Mayor Nutter, while obviously impassioned, is factually wrong in several respects.
The "argument or defense" for these kinds of firearms are to be read in the context of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which was written to insure that "we, the people" have a enumerated right to military-grade small arms suitable for militia service, to defend ourselves not only from foreign aggressors, but from rogue governments bent on enslaving the population. A simple reading of the Founding Fathers confirms this view.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting, but armed community defense by citizens. Firearms that have practical military use are more protected according to the founders principles than hunting or target guns would be. You would hope that the mayor of the city where our founding documents were created would have a better understanding about their origins and meaning.
In addition to Nutter's obvious historical ignorance, the SKS has far more uses than one, and "to maim and destroy human beings" is the function in which it is least used in this nation.
The cartridge fired by the SKS, the 7.62x39, is very similar to the .30/30 cartridge commonly chambered in lever-action rifles. Because of this fact, and because the SKS and its ammunition are far less expensive than many .30/30 rifles and the bullets they fire, they are commonly used in hunting medium-sized game such as deer at short to medium ranges. Because the ammunition for the SKS is readily purchased at reduced cost, it is also a favored centerfire "plinker" rifle useful from building familiarity with rifles, and those made in China are typically found with shortened stocks, which is often advantageous for women and smaller-framed men. It is an excellent all-purpose utility rifle.
Phil Goldsmith, who has an obvious bias as a member of an anti-gun group, is deceptive when he claims that "a weapon this destructive has no legitimate place or purpose in Pennsylvania."
As I just noted, the SKS and the cartridge it fires is similar to .30/30 rifles and is therefore certainly no more "destructive" than this and other rifle rounds of moderate power.
The SKS is far less powerful and has a shorter range than most common hunting rifle cartridges, including, but not limited to the following standard cartridges: the .270 Winchester, 7x57 Mauser, the .308 Winchester, .30-06, and all other long-action and magnum-action cartridges. Goldsmith, I will reiterate again, is being blatantly and purposefully deceptive when claiming that the relatively anemic 7.62x39 cartridge is especially dangerous when compared to other common rifle cartridges.
These are the corrected facts.
Now I'll editorialize a bit, and note that gun laws only disarm those citizens prone to following laws. As criminals by definition do not obey the law, such laws only serve to create more victims and more violence.
If you doubt this at all, you need to look no further than Washington DC and Chicago. Both cities have excessively strict gun control laws, and both have an extreme level of violent gun crime. Contrast that with other metropolitan areas where the laws are more intelligent and citizens have the right to earn concealed weapons permits, and you'll see cities with far less gun crime.
It seems paradoxical, but it really isn't.
Criminals know they can terrorize the law-abiding in cities where gun control is out of control, and that the only legally armed force (the police) are not likely to arrive until well after they've committed their crimes and escaped. Others illegally armed like themselves are unlikely to intervene on behalf of the victims and expose themselves to legal jeopardy.
Contrast that against a city such as Charlotte or Raleigh (the two cities in North Carolina with the highest population and highest number of concealed carry permits issued) and you will see far less violent crime. Criminals are unsure of who is armed, but most are smart enough to know concealed carry holders can only draw their weapons if life is at risk. As a result, we may have higher strong-arm robberies and property crime, but less gun crime. It is a pragmatic decision criminals have made to keep from dying at the hands of their potential victims.
If you truly want there to be less violence in Philadelphia, allow your citizens the freedom to defend themselves against petty tyrants both criminal and political. Once upon a time your city didn't have to be told that. Perhaps it is your turn to remind them what they once were, and could be again if the "City of Brotherly Love" only loved its citizens enough to trust them to do the right thing.
I suspect my letter will fall upon deaf ears.
Far some, particularly in liberal urban areas, attempting to legislate teh behavior of an inanimate object while at the same time ascribing to it human characteristics (typically those associated with evil or ill intent) is "logical," even as they avoid to making attempts to correct or eliminate the criminal culture responsible for the crime. Instigating firearms bans doesn't work, but it is easy and gives politicians the appearance of caring and of "doing something," even when that appearance is merely a mirage of effectiveness.
Expect Philadelphia to push an "assault weapons" ban. If passed, don't expect it to save a single life.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:53 AM
| Comments (35)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
All three of the clowns involved in the bank robbery and shooting had criminal records that would prohibit them from purchasing the weapons used.
Nutter is just trying to add fluff by having what is already illegal made illegal again.
Call it Fluff 'o Nutter.
Posted by: Neo at May 08, 2008 12:00 PM (Yozw9)
2
I would never run for office if I had a surname like Nutter. Douchebag maybe, but not Nutter.
Jebus - Mayor Nutter - no wonder their down is screwed.
Posted by: Dan Irving at May 08, 2008 12:21 PM (Kw4jM)
3
Has anybody who had to give up their weapon because they moved to a city that had a tight gun law, or beause that city passed a tight gun law , and was subsequently injured or had a loved one injured because of their inability to defend themselves sued a city? I know courts are usually worse than governers mansion on these things but ... we do have the right to life, libery, the pursuit of happieness and the abulity to defend these rights. Dont we?
Posted by: Web at May 08, 2008 01:57 PM (Bo1bB)
4
The Philly media is gonna be screeching as loud as they can on this, they want gun control in a huge way, but the rest of us in PA keep their Marxist authoritarian asses in check.
Philly passed or is in the process of passing a bunch of unconstitutional gun control laws that are in direct violation of PA state law, and will likely be unceremoniously b!tchsmacked down by the courts. Fast Eddie Rendell wants to pass some anti gun measures too, being from Philly.
Oh, and one last thing, its my understanding that SKS' aren't permitted for hunting in PA because they have rules against semi-autos. Not that it detracts from your point, Bob, but I guarantee that'll be pointed out and probably be the defense used.
Posted by: doubleplusundead at May 08, 2008 02:49 PM (ZuzXA)
5
Ah yes, an "assault weapon" ban. Fortunately, there is a federal model for whatever the nutters (whoops, I mean Mayor Nutter) might propose: The late, unlamented (by any rational being) federal Clintonoid assault weapon ban. It was in place across America for a decade, and allowed to sunset, because despite desperate attempts to find data that proved its worth by organizations diametrically opposed to freedom and liberty, no such evidence could be found. The "studies," such as they were, were reduced to observing that the ban had no positive effect whatsoever on crime. In short, the ban, for ten years, did nothing but inconvenience the law abiding. Brilliant political accomplishment.
This is hardly surprising, after all, in that gun control has nothing whatsoever to do with crime control. But those who hate liberty and the honest citizens they rule, embracing the criminal class with whom they are most comfortable (remember Mayor Marion Berry smoking crack on tape?), will never admit the obvious: Gun control is a shoddy smoke screen to cover up the incompetence of politicians who will not treat criminals as criminals.
Posted by: Mike at May 08, 2008 11:45 PM (Em1ZY)
6
Hunting big game with semiautos is illegal in the state of Pennsylvania unless one is disabled (i.e., has lost the total use of at least one hand. Source) PA, fortunately, has full pre-emption, so Philly can't pass its own gun laws; however, many of its laws are somewhat wonky with respect to Philly--e.g, PA is shall-issue for CCW, except in Philadelphia, which is may-issue. The PA state legislature has enough Republicans and pro-gun Democrats that a gun ban of this sort would be exceedingly unlikely to pass.
Unfortunately, there's been a murder epidemic in Philly, particularly of cops (5 in 6 months). However, all of the cop killers were already unable to legally own any gun, and this is (to my knowledge) the first of the five not committed with an illegally-possessed handgun. To any reasonable person, this would suggest that the problem isn't assault rifles or more gun laws for criminals to ignore, but an inability to enforce laws already on the books.
Posted by: Matt at May 09, 2008 12:25 AM (uI85d)
7
i really dont think this is about gun control to save lives, i think its the politics seeing how far they can get with disarming america without the people going crazy. they wait until there is a reason to ban the weapons and then use it as a tear jerking story to stir up the emotions of people. then they pound at the unfortunate killing until the bill passes. i still dont get the .50 cal ban. i have never heard of a criminal killing anyone with a .50 cal in the US. they are too large and too expensive for the average criminal. there are far more weapons that fit what the criminals need to commit crimes.
Posted by: Brett at May 09, 2008 03:02 PM (ZPCqS)
8
Excellent article and analysis. Ever notice why the gun ban nuts never like to review the crime rates in jurisdictions were such bans exist? One only look at the example of the UK and Australia to see how their bans impacted on the crime rates. Since these bans London has a violent crime rate three times as bad as NYC? Armed crimes have surged. Lession-disarming law abidding citizens gives criminals all the chance they need to prosper.
Thats why gun free zones are the scenes of massacres and gun stores and gun shows aren't.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at May 09, 2008 04:28 PM (LHaZf)
9
This is just insane.
A cop is more likely to be killed with his own weapon than being killed by an "assault weapon".
Of all the murders committed in the US last year, only 2% of them were committed with rifles. Less than 1% were classified as "assault rifles".
This is just insane. When are people going to learn?
Posted by: Eric at May 09, 2008 07:16 PM (9V6Vj)
10
Similarly, in the local paper I got as far as the headline and nearly wept: Mayor Daley proposes ban on automatic weapons.
I won't list the hundred or so reasons that headline is a sick joke as I assume your blog readers have the mental capacity to understand how very, very wrong it is.
Posted by: DoorHold at May 11, 2008 01:27 PM (bLVoQ)
11
First ban the inexpensive pistol as a "Saturday night special" (which eventually includes ALL pistols not in the possession of police and military), then ban the "assault weapons" because they're favored by criminal gangs (while issuing them to the police and military), then the "sniper rifles" favored by terrorists (but also includes your daddy's old deer rifle), then ban any firearm which fires multiple projectiles for every trigger pull (which sounds like it only covers machine guns, but, *OOPS!* also includes your grandpa's duck-hunting shotgun). *Viola!* Now all guns are banned from civilain ownership.
Posted by: Mattexian at May 11, 2008 09:23 PM (yc/eh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Huh?
CNN has an article posted this AM about the on-going misery in Myanmar resulting from the recent cyclone that devastated the Irrawaddy delta and has left as many as 100,000 dead. The country's paranoid military dictatorship is hampering aid efforts, and as a result, is no doubt adding to the number of dead and injured.
In writing about the U.S. forces in the area poised to help if the dictatorship will only allow international aid, CNN makes the following curious claim (in bold):
The U.S has also been pushing for access, pledging $3.25 million and offering to send U.S. Navy ships to the region to help relief efforts.
The U.S. military had already flown six helicopters on to a Thai airbase, as Washington awaits permission to go into the south Asian country, two senior military officials told CNN's Barbara Starr.
In addition, several C-130 cargo aircraft aboard the USS Essex, which was conducting an exercise in the region, were available for relief missions.
That is one neat trick.
Essex is a
Wasp-class amphibious assault ship. It is perhaps the most capable ship class in the world when it comes to providing help in the event of coastal disasters such as hurricane and cyclones due to its onboard 600-bed hospital, large helicopter contingent with search and rescue and transport capability, and well deck that houses LCACS and LCUs capable of landing heavy supplies and vehicles directly onto the beach.
Essex is capable of a lot of things... but launching and landing a C-130 is not remotely among their capabilities.
Either
Essex is merely being used to haul C-130s to the region that will have to be offloaded in port before being used, or CNN drastically has their story wrong. I suspect the former over the latter but you never know.
After all... "this is CNN."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:54 AM
| Comments (46)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Wow, I knew the Hurcules is one hell of a work horse but I didnt know it was a transformer too.
Posted by: D-lo at May 08, 2008 09:44 AM (4FSAp)
2
Another fine example of the cracker jack military analysts employed by today's MSM. They're cracked, Jack!
Posted by: daleyrocks at May 08, 2008 10:22 AM (0pZel)
3
This cyclone was all Bush's fault.
The wackjobs in the Myanmar/Burmese government that won't let aid in the country--that's all Bush's fault.
The screwups in reporting by CNN--that's all Bush's fault.
I think I've got tomorrow's CNN story line down pat. But the punchline "it's all Bush's fault" never changes at CNN
Posted by: Michael J. Myers at May 08, 2008 10:35 AM (LZ3cP)
4
Furthermore, why haul C-130's? Wouldn't it be more efficient just to fly the Hercules in rather than wasting deck space?
I could be mistaken, but looking at a Wasp class list of compliment aircraft, they are all vertical take-off. (In other words, probably no catapult nor arresting lines.) Now I know the C-130 has exceptional STOL capabilities (it has unassisted landings and take-offs on the USS Forrestal - deck length 1060ft) and may even be able to land and take off on the 844ft deck of the USS Essex, but with a wingspan of 132ft, landing on the deck of ship with a beam of 106ft might be problematic.
Posted by: bains at May 08, 2008 10:58 AM (xpcgN)
5
"This is CNN. We don't need no steenking facts, man."
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at May 08, 2008 11:45 AM (0wfsk)
6
After thought: They (CNN) are probably hurting bad after the MSNBC arctic penguin coup.
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at May 08, 2008 11:47 AM (0wfsk)
7
In point of fact, C-130's have landed aboard a U.S. Navy carrier. Unfortunately for CNN, it was one of the CVA(N) supercarriers with a flight deck in excess of 1,000 feet. The Wasp would fit comfortably atop one of these monsters, with room to spare.
But to the expert military reporters at CNN, who once referred to a fleet oiler as a "battleship", a C-130 is little different than a CH-53. After all, they both begin with "C".
Posted by: Navyvet at May 08, 2008 12:03 PM (xyyVG)
8
navyvet, you are correct... a KC-130F borrowed from the Marines was modified and used in a series of tests on the Forrestal in late 1963.
That said, the Forrestal was a heck of a lot bigger and more importantly, wider than either the Tarawa or Wasp-class ships, and a -130 attempting to land on one of these ships would likely rip off the right wing on the ship's superstructure, which I've heard tell is detrimental to their airworthiness, and would be generally unappreciated by the ship's crew.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 08, 2008 12:18 PM (xNV2a)
9
My son is a Aircraft Structures Mechanic currently on the USS Essex. You are correct; there are no C-130's on board.
Posted by: Deputyjoe1 at May 08, 2008 12:26 PM (bkfTF)
10
It's too bad people didn't feel sorry for the Katrina victims!
Posted by: Dale at May 08, 2008 03:15 PM (Xv9Cu)
11
And yes, it is all Bush's fault!
Posted by: Dale at May 08, 2008 03:16 PM (Xv9Cu)
12
And yet the talkingheads on CNN are trusted by millions of Americans for their military data.
I fear for my country; I truly do.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 08, 2008 06:18 PM (cwBZ+)
13
A MEU (SOC), in this case the 31st MEU out of Oki, usually has a pair of C-130s attached to it for humanitarian aid and non-combatant evacuation missions.
But CNN is again showing its ignorance - they can't land on the ship.
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." Bertrand Russell
Posted by: just_some_guy at May 08, 2008 08:00 PM (xIFnn)
14
I was on the Essex.
We did not carry any C130s.
We did carry the 31st MEU, a lot, and a bunch of jeeps (not sure the technical name) and LCACs, and helos, and some VTO&L jets, but no fixed-wings.
Deputy Joe! Is he AIMD? Is Chief Skrzyptchek (yes, I murdered the spelling) still there?
Posted by: Foxfier at May 08, 2008 11:00 PM (s2ydv)
15
Here is a link to a picture of a C-130 on the Forrestal:
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/odd/odd22.jpg
I've heard rumors about landing C-17s on carriers, but this image is photoshopped:
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/odd/odd55.jpg
And then there is this landing (which I offer without comment: http://home.grandecom.net/~austin/Engr/Humor/X-wing.jpeg
Posted by: Mark L at May 09, 2008 07:48 AM (AfORa)
16
To Foxflier -- My son is a Marine with Marine Aircraft Group 36, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, based in Okinawa. This is his second mission on board the Essex. Sorry, I do not know other names on board. He emailed last night to say "we're on our way".
Posted by: Deputyjoe1 at May 09, 2008 07:57 AM (bkfTF)
17
Deputy Joe-
Ah, well. Good luck to him!
Posted by: Foxfier at May 09, 2008 08:44 AM (s2ydv)
18
This is a mistake because other AP reports stated that these same aircraft were ready to deploy from airbases in Thailand. CNN is a crap hole of a news station. The Essex is supposed to be 4 days out doing exercises so they where planing on deploying the helicopters from the ship to get there first and help out. That is what the other articles are reporting.
Posted by: Scot J at May 09, 2008 10:20 AM (mPpLn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 07, 2008
11 Months?
A woman can turn a fertilized egg into a human being in nine months. Apparently it takes longer than that to amass enough evidence to bust a weapons dealer.
A Phoenix gun store raided by federal and state officials Tuesday provided hundreds of assault rifles and other guns to violent drug cartels in Mexico, where such weapons are used in deadly confrontations between rival cartels and against law enforcement officers, officials said.
The gun store's owner, George Iknadosian, 46, was arrested following the raid, as were two Mexican brothers who authorities say recruited "straw buyers" to go into X Caliber Guns and purchase weapons that would then be trafficked to the drug cartels.
A "straw purchase" simply involved having someone who can legally purchase a gun do so knowingly for someone who can't legally purchase a gun. In this case, Iknadosian is accused of selling more that 650 AK-pattern rifles to drug cartels through buyers arranged by two legal Mexican immigrants.
Why, though, did the investigation take eleven months? Conducting a sting on a suspect dealer should take an hour at the most once the targeted dealer is known. It should be readily apparent to any honest dealer that a "strawman" purchase is underway within a few minutes, and if this account is correct, the undercover buyers even indicated the weapons would be shipped to Mexico. There is no apparent ambiguity here.
Please don't get me wrong—as someone who used to work behind the gun counter myself, I want criminal dealers put away. My concern is that during the course of the 11 months it took to develop a relatively-localized felony into a major international arms-trafficking bust, that other criminals—not officers posing as criminals— may have been able to continue to purchase firearms.
I certainly hope that this is not the case, and that the ATF wasn't once again putting lives at risk while seeking publicity and funding increases with a high profile bust.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:06 PM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Federal prosecutors work rather slow. But they get a conviction most of the time.
Posted by: ExUrbanKevin at May 07, 2008 02:34 PM (ppKzH)
2
Valid point Kevin, but I wouldn't put the BATF above grandstanding...
Posted by: Gus Bailey at May 07, 2008 03:15 PM (LZarw)
3
I would say, Bob, that given the lengths that defense lawyers and modern juries will go to exonerate criminals, that the ATF wanted to make sure that they had all the i's properly dotted and the t's crossed just right before proceeding further.
Sad commentary on our current criminal justice system, ain't it?
Posted by: C-C-G at May 07, 2008 07:20 PM (cwBZ+)
4
From the article:
investigation into X Caliber Guns began 11 months ago after authorities traced some guns involved in crimes, including homicide, in Mexico to the store, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard said.
Not sure why anyone would think that crimes and murder in Mexico would be a priority here. I'm glad that the ATF is shutting this thing down but it doesn't surprise me that it would take this long given that the investigation started from crimes occuring outside of the US.
Posted by: matta at May 08, 2008 08:57 AM (F+fRS)
5
It is about glory for the prosecutor. I knew a woman who went to the police to inform on the guy who had been molesting her. She was 16, he had been on her since 11. They CHOSE to delay, to accumulate enough cases that they could put him away longer. Meanwhile, he molested more kids.
Posted by: Smarty at May 08, 2008 10:13 AM (Jk5cI)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 06, 2008
Blogwars
Blogwars: The New Political Battleground is out if you guys are interested in reading about the roll blogs play in politics. I don't have a copy yet, but do know that I'm mentioned in it favorably, as I can tell by his recent Washington Post interview.
If the author, David Perlmutter, sounds vaguely familiar to
CY readers, it is because we've linked to his work
before, and he had some
nice words to say about some of my work covering media claims in the Hezbollah/Israeli War of 2006.
He'll also be on
The Daily Show Thursday to talk about political blogging and his book. I might just have to DVR that.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:06 PM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"Blogwars: The New Political Battleground is out if you guys are interested in reading about the roll blogs play in politics."
I think you mean "role", not "roll".
Posted by: Harry at May 08, 2008 12:13 AM (0suEp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Calling It: Obama Wins N.C.
I just got off the phone with Mike Ash, Director of the Durham County Board of Elections in Durham, NC. He doesn't have any numbers as far as percentages of eligible voters making it to the polls at this point, but said several polling locations have already hit record numbers. That is as of 11:30 AM. It appears that the record turnout in early voting on Sunday is expected to continue through today.
This matters because Durham is something of a bellwether of African-American voter turn-out in North Carolina. A high African-American turnout—and it appears that is indeed occurring—makes a Clinton win impossible.
At this point, the only thing worth discussing is Obama's margin of victory here in the Tarheel State. If he wins by double-digits, he can claim to have staunched the bleeding over
Crackerquiddick and the damage done to him by his pastor of 20 years, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
If Obama only wins by 5-8 points however, it will be viewed as the sign of a faltering, damaged campaign.
Update: Turnout in Wake County has been varied, according to Wake County Board of Elections Director Cherie Poucher. There were significant lines at some precincts as polls opened this morning, while at other polling places, traffic has merely been steady. Turnout is higher than it would be for a normal primary, but it is too early to know if we're looking at record numbers. We should know more by approximately 3:00 PM.
If hinted-at trends continue, Barack Obama's victory here in North Carolina could be significant.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:42 AM
| Comments (76)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
High turnout? WOOHOO!!! That means Operation Chaos is working! (at least I hope so)
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 06, 2008 11:03 AM (kNqJV)
2
By the way, not so sure Durham is all that "black." Looks like it's 51% white and hispanic and 48% black. I wonder how many in that "record" turnout is because of Operation Chaos?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 06, 2008 11:07 AM (kNqJV)
3
Bob, you're confusing me, shouldn't record turnout help Hillary? Or do you dismiss Operation Chaos? I live in Union County and there was NO ONE but myself at the polls. Lots and lots of poll workers.......all for me
But then again Union County went for Bush in 2004 70%-30%
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 06, 2008 11:22 AM (kNqJV)
4
Somehow, I doubt that significant #s of black Reps in NC are cross-voting for Hill. Not an expert here but....
Posted by: megapotamus at May 06, 2008 11:22 AM (LF+qW)
5
What about the white Reps?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 06, 2008 11:27 AM (kNqJV)
6
YES!!!!
Frankly, I hope Obama wins the Democrat nomination for president. I don't want either of them as president (especially with their current "Be Blue-Collar" plan, a glaringly obvious charade), I've got to admit that Obama's inept bowling & somewhat-better basketball are MUCH more in-touch than Hillary's Crown Royal whiskey & babbling about guns & back-woods cabins. I saw that speech, & I swear she couldn't have been more incoherent if she'd taken PCP a few minutes earlier. I won't even go into her other issues (Obama definitely has his share, but Hillary's screwed up non-stop since Mr. Clinton became president).
Posted by: Thomas at May 06, 2008 11:36 AM (gU348)
7
Did he get the Nifong vote?
Posted by: M. Simon at May 06, 2008 11:37 AM (OANt1)
8
I don't think Nifong can vote in prison can he?
What's weird is that I grew up in Illinois and moved to North Carolina a couple years ago. I don't ever remember an actual political ad on tv. Illinois is deep blue and North Carolina is deep red so I've always been blessed not to see all the crap......until now. I'm inundated with Obama ads.
I was watching a tv show called "Bones" on hulu.com. It's a site that shows lots of old (and some current) tv programs. There are about 6 ads (all the same) through an hour episode and they only last about 15 seconds. Until yesterday they were always Intel or Chevy. Last night they were ALL OBAMA ads.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 06, 2008 11:45 AM (kNqJV)
9
There were significant lines at some precincts as polls opened
That was called disenfranchisement in Ohio during the 2004 elections. I wonder what it's called now.
Posted by: Hogarth at May 06, 2008 11:56 AM (0tHG6)
10
I turned out to vote last friday as part of Operation Chaos--lots of OBama supporters there.
Capitalist Infidel--you think NC is deep red? I guess in someways, and in some places it is, but on the other hand the state that has only had 2 republican governors since reconstruction. Yeah, NC may tend red on a national level, but local/state is a totally different picture. And if you live in a place like Durham, even more so. I did a voter registration check on my street. 70% democrat, 15% republican, 15% unaffiliated. Not exactly solid red! Incidentally, I grew up in Durham, lived in Chicago for a few years, and moved back to Durham, so my experiences kind of mirror your own!
Posted by: Khaos at May 06, 2008 12:11 PM (srqUA)
11
Keep in mind what the previous "record" is. NC primary turnout has traditionally be very, very small.
2006 - 12%
2004 - 16%
2002 - 21%
2000 - 18%
http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/content.aspx?ID=70
Posted by: BooneWeb Blogger at May 06, 2008 12:12 PM (tj3i1)
12
Operation Chaos? Unbelievable! I have to say how sad of a day it is that a right wing nut job like Rush Limbaugh can legally try to impact the state of our Presidential Election. What is wrong with you people? What is so wrong with having a smart person run the White House?
Posted by: Marie at May 06, 2008 12:53 PM (VjdKZ)
13
Marie,
Does your bumper sticker read:
Free speech for me, but not for thee.
Posted by: ACLU at May 06, 2008 01:02 PM (olMkv)
14
I fail to see how a double-digit win, fueled almost entirely by a large black vote, is evidence he has staunched the bleeding over any of the scandals in which he is involved. Once he is able to win an election in a state without large black and upscale white populations, that may be the case, but as of now, I don't see how that is true.
Posted by: boris719 at May 06, 2008 01:19 PM (RnF5u)
15
I wonder how much Obama's victory is being shorted due to the inability of blacks to get ID's.
Posted by: Vinny B. at May 06, 2008 01:29 PM (S7gDM)
16
Marie, there is nothing wrong with having a smart person in the White House. Did you have someone in mind? I don't see one with a (D), all I see are a pair of elitist, jerk lawyers who feel it is their entitlement. Neither has a viable plan for any major issue facing the nation today, much less the next four years.
p.s. I'm assuming you didn't mean McCain as the "smart person run the White House"
Posted by: Gus Bailey at May 06, 2008 01:31 PM (LZarw)
17
Vinnie, what the H@!! are you talking about?
Posted by: Gus Bailey at May 06, 2008 01:33 PM (LZarw)
18
Republicans don't want intelligence in the White House and they don't really even want someone with a real military background. Give them a fear feeding warmonger with a low I.Q. and rich parents and they will walk over glass for them. Why is that ?
Posted by: dhani at May 06, 2008 01:38 PM (+23II)
19
Of course I meant deep red in the national election. Just as the town I grew up in Wheaton Illinois was deep red the state of Illinois is deep blue.
By the way, I bet Marie didn't mind Kos trying to do the exact same thing in New Hampshire and Michigan. The intellectual dishonesty on the left is stunning!
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 06, 2008 01:39 PM (kNqJV)
20
Fear mongering like Republicans will take away your social security? Fear mongering like Republicans are going to reenact the draft? Once again the intellectual dishonesty on the left is stunning!
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 06, 2008 01:42 PM (kNqJV)
21
Don't worry about the ID's Vinnie, Diebold builds NC's voting machines. Even if they MANAGE to get ID cards, the Republicans can still steal the elections - right?
I mean even if the Dem's bring out the illegals, and the dead to vote, the Rep's still control the machines - right?
Somebody help me out here.....
Posted by: Lokki at May 06, 2008 01:54 PM (wSBsc)
22
Bob, looks like turnout in North Carolina was actually quite weak. What now?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 06, 2008 02:05 PM (kNqJV)
23
And don't forget, Jimmuh Catah got a big whopping 50.08% of the vote. Bwahahahaha!!!
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 06, 2008 02:07 PM (kNqJV)
24
OPERATION CHAOS..CHAOS..CHAOS..CHAOS!
Posted by: ddh at May 06, 2008 02:08 PM (mAI++)
25
At this point, the only thing worth discussing is Obama's margin of victory here in the Tarheel State. If he wins by double-digits, he can claim to have staunched the bleeding over Crackerquiddick and the damage done to him by his pastor of 20 years, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
not so fast there. as you note, if obama does indeed do well its because there's massive black turnout for him and that turnout is breaking 95/5 for obama over clinton. that result augurs precisely nothing with regards to the general electorate since blacks are also going to vote 95/5 for whoever the Dem is in the general election. the stickiness of obama's scandals (in the general election) can only be estimated by how the vote white breaks in the Dem primaries, since its only the white vote that can be influenced one way or another.
please remember blacks in durham also voted 95/5 to elect mike nifong even after it was clear he was framing the players.
Posted by: neil at May 06, 2008 02:28 PM (XNZ7F)
26
For me, this election season has become all about the media.
The media is what first got me remotely interested in it last year when they made a god out of Obama. I wasn't alive to see what they did with JFK, but that was the only thing I could connect it to. I'm only 37, but it was the most stunning display of press backing I've seen ---- considering what the man had done thus far in his career and what they could tell me about his tangibles. I didn't hold that against Obama, because they weren't telling enough about him to tell, but it said a lot about the media.
Now, with the defense they are doing for Obama and some they have done for Wright, I'm beyond disgusted with the whole lot.
I promise I'll never spend another cent for an American news product.
The thought of my paying even the tiniest part of their salary is abhorrent to me now and will stay that way.
Posted by: usinkorea at May 06, 2008 02:29 PM (mIoFG)
27
"Operation Chaos? Unbelievable! I have to say how sad of a day it is that a right wing nut job like Rush Limbaugh can legally try to impact the state of our Presidential Election."
But it was perfectly fine when the MSM influenced the Republican primary right Marie?
Once again, the hypocrisy of the left shows itself.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at May 06, 2008 02:47 PM (M+Vfm)
28
Barack is the man I am praying for him. This man is the one that we have been waiting for
Posted by: Lakisha Jackson at May 06, 2008 02:53 PM (QNkZ+)
29
Lakisha-
You're Jewish?
Posted by: Anon at May 06, 2008 03:07 PM (MdKJj)
30
Hey, Marie - "impact" is a noun, not a verb. Literacy helps when making an argument...
Posted by: Grey Fox at May 06, 2008 03:18 PM (ogM0d)
31
Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Write in Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.
Posted by: Mike Trenton II at May 06, 2008 03:20 PM (uFLGl)
32
The election isn't over until Diebold says it is.
Posted by: robertsgt40 at May 06, 2008 03:21 PM (ehvNW)
33
I accidentally came across this board and am shocked and the venom here. I'm a liberal Dem living in a blue island in Texas (Austin) and have always assumed that the media overplayed right wing nut jobs. I've never met one in person. I see I was wrong. You people actually exist.
Posted by: Kate at May 06, 2008 03:24 PM (x7pFy)
34
What is wrong with everyone here?
?? What would everyone be shouting if there was a "record turnout" of white people voting for a white person, because he was the white candidate? Isn't anyone bothered by this thing besides me? Are you all afraid of being called a racist for acknowledging the elephant in the room? You have my permission to speak freely and call the beast by it's given name.
Posted by: mike reed at May 06, 2008 03:42 PM (Bmk7w)
35
Just got back from voting - at 4 this afternoon over 1,500 people had voted at my precinct in Durham. That's higher than usual. There were a handful of non-blacks in the room when I voted.
It will be interesting to see the percentage that Barry Hussein wins by - I hope it is in single digits. Marxist crypto-muslims really need to be president of some country other than ours.
Posted by: hoodie in teh south at May 06, 2008 03:57 PM (X1eRt)
36
Anyone to the right of Stalin would be considered a "right wing nut job" to America hating, Saddam loving, terrorist appeasing, far left wing fanatical kook Kate.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 06, 2008 04:01 PM (kNqJV)
37
voted in asheville today at around 11:00. I was the 199th voter....poll workers said it had been steady but not busy. there was no wait at all.
Posted by: stike at May 06, 2008 05:21 PM (RLfUs)
38
Voted mid-afternoon in Kenilworth neighborhood, Asheville. Very blue, lots of Obama signs, saw only one for Hillary. Polls very busy for a primary, African-Americans very much in evidence as voters and boosters. Prediction: Obama landslide.
Posted by: Will T. Power at May 06, 2008 06:33 PM (ViOls)
39
Dear Lord,It's funny reading how some folks are yammering about having "intelligent" people in the WH.
The same people carping about this are most likeley near literally at half the IQ that GW possesses, not that it matters being simple logic trumps all...But "smart Obama" types lack both.
For the record.
Most Americans "as you will see in the general" dont want a whimpy marxist running the WH, dont want an obvious empty suit with zero backbone to represent them in facing down tyrants around the globe...who by the way are ALL pretty much unanimous in wanting the Big O to win the big dance the same as the smart folks, only the tyrants are just licking their chops and masturbating with glee at what a boon it would be for them, similar to boon in store for the mob and teamsters exept they tyrants run countries dead set on bringing the good ole USA down.
We dont want a president that will pull our troops out of the war just so he and his followers can sleep good at night wile at the same time 100,000's of people become slaughtered before we finish what we went there to do(yes I realize smart O folks realize we can never win a war and war never solves anything...the same smart folks said the exact same things in past wars that were won and changed the course of history)....but who cares what you think Nancy, go back to spitting on soldoers to show your version of patriotism or whatever you do to amuse yourselves but stay out of the way of the common folks who are doing what needs to be done.
Ya know, come to think about it, some smart people arent smart at all.
Didnt some real super smart people, in a European country just pass actual "rights" for foilage....ummm....yeah....Us common folk can follow "smart" stuff like that....Very typical of smart Obama types and those that follow him.
If smart is what you so dearly want in the WH, then vote for that little Iranian leader arma-whatever, I hear he is a real super smart fella.
Oh wait, your an Obama follower...thats pretty much the same deal in the end.
Posted by: Drider at May 06, 2008 07:04 PM (IQAbf)
40
Trivia questions for those wanting a "smart" person in the White House:
Q1) How many Presidents have had an MBA from Harvard?
A1) One.
Q2) Which President?
A2) The one currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Thus endeth the lesson.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 06, 2008 08:28 PM (cwBZ+)
41
Will T.,
I lived in Kenilworth for 12 years, moved away about 8 years ago to the Fairview area. Very cool.
Posted by: Grey Fox at May 06, 2008 09:02 PM (ogM0d)
42
But C-C-G, that doesn't count cuz Dubya bought that degree with his daddy's dirty Nazi-money.
As for Hogarth, it's an idiot. It obviously doesn't understand the difference between bad planning and deliberate obstruction, especially since the long lines in Ohio generally cropped up in Democratic Party-controlled voting districts.
Finally: alas, Grey Fox "impact" has also become a noun through common usage. I'm not sayin' I like it, I'm just sayin'...
Posted by: Casey Tompkins at May 06, 2008 09:06 PM (RJSy/)
43
John Ryan, I regret to inform you that I did not say what you hallucinated me saying. And as I am not in the habit of discussing what other people hallucinate, I'll leave it at that.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 06, 2008 09:40 PM (cwBZ+)
44
especially since the long lines in Ohio generally cropped up in Democratic Party-controlled voting districts.
Which is, of course, exactly where one could routinely expect to find bad planning.
Posted by: Hogarth at May 07, 2008 06:19 AM (0tHG6)
45
> IF A PASTOR IS KNOWN BY THE COMPANY THEY KEEP!
>
> When the Rev. William Procanick put his hand on the Bible during his
> sex-abuse trial in Oneida County Court earlier this year, he swore to
tell
> the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But as the former Clinton
> Pastor was sentenced Friday, January 22, 2008 for three years in
prison
> for first-degree sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child
> [inappropriately touching a 7-year-old girl at his home March of
2007],
> Judge Michael L. Dwyer said Procanick sacrificed his honesty the day
he
> testified.
>
> Okay, so now that Bill and Hillary Clinton's pastor has been convicted
of
> child molestation, will we see the same furor directed a t Hillary
that
> O bama has had to endure these last few weeks? I don't think so!!!!
>
> IF A CANDIDATE IS KNOWN BY THE PASTOR THEY KEEP......
>
> Then you need to email this article to everyone you know. Here the
> CLINTON'S former Pastor is convicted of unspeakable Child Molestation.
So,
> if Obama bears the guilt for his former pastor's comments, then
Hillary
> h as to be equally tainted by this guy's crimes.
>
> For proof, please see: http://www.uticaod.com/homepage/x1637676857
Posted by: THE at May 07, 2008 08:48 AM (Y2x7I)
46
> IF A PASTOR IS KNOWN BY THE COMPANY THEY KEEP!
>
> When the Rev. William Procanick put his hand on the Bible during his
> sex-abuse trial in Oneida County Court earlier this year, he swore to
tell
> the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But as the former Clinton
> Pastor was sentenced Friday, January 22, 2008 for three years in
prison
> for first-degree sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child
> [inappropriately touching a 7-year-old girl at his home March of
2007],
> Judge Michael L. Dwyer said Procanick sacrificed his honesty the day
he
> testified.
>
> Okay, so now that Bill and Hillary Clinton's pastor has been convicted
of
> child molestation, will we see the same furor directed a t Hillary
that
> O bama has had to endure these last few weeks? I don't think so!!!!
>
> IF A CANDIDATE IS KNOWN BY THE PASTOR THEY KEEP......
>
> Then you need to email this article to everyone you know. Here the
> CLINTON'S former Pastor is convicted of unspeakable Child Molestation.
So,
> if Obama bears the guilt for his former pastor's comments, then
Hillary
> h as to be equally tainted by this guy's crimes.
>
> For proof, please see: http://www.uticaod.com/homepage/x1637676857
Posted by: THE at May 07, 2008 08:48 AM (Y2x7I)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Hillary Blown Out?
I think Drudge's projections of a 15-point Hillary Clinton defeat here in North Carolina are a bit off the mark, but I think that it is still probably more accurate than those who are projecting a close race. There is no severe weather projected to dampen turnout, and enthusiasm for Obama is high in major population centers of the state. African-American voters coming out for Obama in droves based primarily on the color of his skin (content of his character? Yeah, Wright), and his "rock star" persona crafted early in the campaign is dominating university cultures across the state and the Volvo-driving, NPR-listening metropolitan 'burbs.
Don't expect those voting for him to be able to articulate his platform, but then, this isn't a quiz: Barack Obama will defeat Hillary Clinton here in North Carolina today handily, perhaps by 9 points, more or less.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:35 AM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
so far Obama has "outpolled" his results in just about every state. With operation chaos in full swing I say Clinton comes within 5 points. If she does this she can claim victory. I can't be the only North Carolinian to be an operative for operation chaos
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 06, 2008 07:27 AM (kNqJV)
2
I figure a 6 point win for Obama. Enough that he can claim momentum but close enough that Hillary! can claim it too.
Of course temper that with her 3-4 point Indiana win and we got some more popcorn coming (just a guess)
Posted by: Lord Nazh at May 06, 2008 07:32 AM (sBNzZ)
3
Lord, I believe the last poll had the Hildabeast up 12 in Indiana. My perfect scenario is for Clinton to blow out Obama in Indiana and also surprise everyone and pull out a nail biter here in North Carolina. Or at least come within 5 points. Now I'm off to vote for H......i.......ll.......a......I honestly can't finish it. I wonder if my hand will seize up at the voting booth?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 06, 2008 07:45 AM (kNqJV)
4
Lowering expectations, that way anything better is a win. Old trick, Drudge falls for it everytime.
When were polls right last?
Posted by: bill-tb at May 06, 2008 08:18 AM (7evkT)
5
"Rock star persona" is right. The Obamoids, whatever their failings, were there firstest with the mostest for the primaries anyhow. Like Paris Hilton, Barry quickly and irrevocably became famous for being famous. A chicken and egg paradox but there is no denying the fact today. So Barry it is, we knew that. It must be killing Hillary that if Florida had just counted she would have been the prohibitive favorite early on. Howard Dean had better start checking under his car.
Posted by: megapotamus at May 06, 2008 10:26 AM (LF+qW)
6
Obama's whole campaign is based on Obama girl.
Posted by: Bandit at May 06, 2008 11:46 AM (/R+6i)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 05, 2008
Once More Unto the Breach: More Biased AP Reporting in Iraq
It seems to matter little whether the location is Gaza or Baghdad. If there is a way to spin a story, Associated Press reporters will find it.
Today, American forces called in an AC-130 for support when they came under fire in the Kazimiyah district of Baghdad.
The Associated Press
editorializes:
The AC-130, a lethal tool used by the military since the Vietnam War, can slowly circle over a target for long periods.
Human rights groups have criticized their use in urban settings where militants may be among crowded populations of noncombatants. The four-engine gunships were also used to support the U.S. attack that took the western city of Fallujah from insurgents in November 2004.
What the Associated Press does not mention is that the modern
AC-130U is the most complex aircraft weapons system on the planet, and the reason for its complexity is that the aircraft's sensors, navigation, and fire control systems are calibrated to conduct exceedingly accurate surgical strikes. It is likely because of their precision strike capabilities that the AC-130U was chosen for this mission over other available means of attack.
The Associated Press reporter attempts to recall the image of the 40-year-old Vietnam-era AC-130A and it's ability to saturate large area targets, portraying it as an indiscriminate and careless weapons system to use in an urban area... and so it is good we haven't fielded that particular model in decades.
It's a dishonest conflation of aircraft using technologies developed decades apart, but sadly emblematic of the kind of reporting we've come to expect where creating imagery is as important as reporting facts.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:11 PM
| Comments (37)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Gee, imagine that, an AP reporter being clueless and irresponsible, if not dishonest. Who would have thunk it?
Posted by: David at May 05, 2008 12:27 PM (cPLO6)
2
The editorializing comments were probably inserted by some crusty old baby boomer liberal editor at the foreign desk, desperately trying to make Iraq another Vietnam.
Posted by: RaiderDan at May 05, 2008 02:34 PM (rx9LD)
3
I know I shouldn't even bother to bring it up again, but why aren't the human rights groups decrying the illegal tactics of the militants of operating among crowded groups of noncombatants?
Posted by: daleyrocks at May 05, 2008 02:38 PM (0pZel)
4
daley
Because if the guerrilas/militants/terrorists not to hide amongst the supposed civilians, the Israelis would find them and kill them. Which would be a crime against humanity, peace, the right of self-determination, and probably a ethical offense against any plants or animals nearby.
So, really, the Israelis are forcing those intrepid freedom-fighters to hide behind women and children while they attack those imperialistic, capitalistic, fascistic, monotheistic (whoops! how did that get in there?), Europeans who represent the 10th Crusade by the creation of the Jewish state of Israel. Or something like that.
Get it?
Posted by: iconoclast at May 05, 2008 04:46 PM (M+wD9)
5
oops, I meant Americans, not Israelis. Same difference
Posted by: iconoclast at May 05, 2008 04:47 PM (M+wD9)
6
Oh yes, the AC-130... the weapon that Bill Clinton wouldn't let the Rangers take to Somalia with them. If they had, there would have never been 2 MOH winners at Blackhawk Down... at least not posthumous ones.
And that's pretty much direct from LTC Danny McKnight's mouth.
Posted by: Jeff at May 05, 2008 06:34 PM (yiMNP)
7
The AC130 is a great urban warfare, close air support system. Since they are shooting down at a 20° to 40° angle, there is little gravity drop. The 105s are on a space stabilized platform which makes them highly accurate. Couple these weapons with the sophisticated sensors and computer aiming systems and you get a highly effective method of killing the enemy, protecting your troops and minimizing collateral damage.
Posted by: arch at May 05, 2008 08:01 PM (pKbp9)
8
This kind of reporting makes you long for the days earlier in the war when we used white phosphorus as an antipersonnel weapon. /sarc/
Posted by: daleyrocks at May 05, 2008 11:01 PM (0pZel)
9
dalyrocks, you just stole my thunder.......I guess I'll just add depleted uranium to your comment.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 06, 2008 07:41 AM (kNqJV)
10
The flying pig moment I'm waiting for is when the "human rights groups" criticize insurgents for hiding among noncombatants.
Uh, yeah--I'll be waiting for a while...
Posted by: ewo at May 06, 2008 11:38 AM (dfIYt)
11
'where militants may be among crowded populations of noncombatants...'
Heaven forfend the AP actually note, much less criticize, the use of human shields by said militants.
Posted by: ThomasD at May 06, 2008 11:02 PM (hyaEM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Barack's Willie Horton
Shankar Vedantam asks this morning in the Washington Post if Jeremiah Wright is Barack Obama's Willie Horton. If confiding ourselves strictly to the idea that only race matters, then yes, Wright is Obama's Horton, but I'm not convinced that the average American is hung up on race in 2008 nearly as much as they may have been a generation ago in the 1988 campaign.
September 11, 2001 gave Americans a new boogeyman in the back of their psychological closets to replace (or at least grab a share of) the paranoia associated with African-American felons, and that boogeyman is the terrorist.
Micahael Dukakis was destroyed when Republicans chose to focus on the fact that Willie Horton committed armed robbery and rape while on furlough. As disgusting a bigot at Jeremiah Wright is, he's no killer. No, if Barack Obama has a "Willie Horton," it is going to come in pairs, in the persons of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Why?
Michael Dukakis may have supported a program that let Willie Horton out of prison, but Dukakis never went to dinner at Horton's house, served on foundations with him, appeared at conferences with him, had money raised by him, and oh yeah,
had dinner at his house.
Ayers and Dohrn, a couple of well-known terrorists, have done that for Obama. Obama's own associates describe his relationship with an unrepetant pair of terrorists as "friendly."
I think that is a far more valid concern than Horton was to Dukakis, and one that may have more "legs" as well.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:12 AM
| Comments (41)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Obama could no more renounce Ayers than he could renounce his radical-academic community, or something. Besides, these are just snippets, you have to view it in context, whatever that may be.
Move along from these distracting distractions that are distracting from what's really important to America in this election: electing Obama, and bringing the hopey change
Posted by: Toby928 at May 05, 2008 11:04 AM (PD1tk)
2
Wait, does invoking the name Willie Horton mean bringing up inconvenient information about a candidate that may have a negative impact on his campaign? Isn't that the same thing as Swift Boating, raising inconvenient truths about a candidate?
Why can't these people say what they mean. Dukakis's program of weeken furloughs for convicted murderers, rapists and other violent felons became so unpopular with the people of Massachusetts and such a potential issue for the campaign that he was forced to rescind it in the spring of 1988.
Obama's association with Rev. Wright became so unpopular and such a potential issue for his campaign that he was forced to denounce Rev. Wright in the spring of 2008.
I guess they are similar in that way.
Posted by: daleyrocks at May 05, 2008 11:13 AM (0pZel)
3
Da Rev Al of all people seems to think examinations of Wright re Obammy are cricket, so long as the same airing is given to McC/Hagee. This seems to be the only tactical response they have on tap and Al is certainly not a campaign op so we can assume he thinks this is the best they can hope for. So let it be done.
Posted by: megapotamus at May 05, 2008 11:46 AM (LF+qW)
4
Mr. Owens, how long are you people gonna keep harping on this stuff already? Are you even aware of the fact that Barack Obama has already distanced himself from Obama?. And as for Bill Ayers, well, it seems as if he's already announced his intention to disown Obama
Enough is enough already! You need to start focusing on issues that really matter, like John McCain's age and the fact that he was such an incompetent soldier in Vietnam that he somehow managed to get kidnapped by the Viet Cong. What would happen if McCain were elected President and the Viet Cong kidnapped him? Who would run this country then? I think you guys have much bigger problems to worry about with McCain. It would behoove you to focus on those problems rather than worry about Barack Obama's ties to the Underworld. If Osama Bin Laden has managed to transform Al Qaeda into one of the greatest terrorist organizations of our time in spite of his heinous past, surely Barack Obama can do the same for America despite his, well, um...., questionable past!
Posted by: Angry Dude at May 05, 2008 12:18 PM (aTZaE)
5
Since my last comment did not come out the way it should have, I will try this all over again. Sheesh, I aint no geek, that's for sure. Now where were we? Oh, that's right!
Mr. Owens, how long are you people gonna keep harping on this stuff already? Are you even aware of the fact that Barack Obama has already distanced himself from Obama?. And as for Bill Ayers, well, it seems as if he's already announced his intention to disown Obama
Enough is enough already! You need to start focusing on issues that really matter, like John McCain's age and the fact that he was such an incompetent soldier in Vietnam that he somehow managed to get kidnapped by the Viet Cong. What would happen if McCain were elected President and the Viet Cong kidnapped him? Who would run this country then? I think you guys have much bigger problems to worry about with McCain. It would behoove you to focus on those problems rather than worry about Barack Obama's ties to the Underworld. If Osama Bin Laden has managed to transform Al Qaeda into one of the greatest terrorist organizations of our time in spite of his heinous past, surely Barack Obama can do the same for America despite his, well, um...., questionable past!
Thanks for your time!
Posted by: Angry Dude at May 05, 2008 12:23 PM (aTZaE)
6
Why do we blame George H.W. Bush for the Willie Horton ad? That Bush campaign was not the first to use Willie Horton in an ad - Al Gore's campaign did that in the primary. In addition, the Bush ad did not show Willie Horton's picture (just the prison "revolving door" theme) - so it can not be considered explicitly "racist." On the other hand, the Gore ad did us a picture of Willie Horton. Which party owns the "attack machine?"
Posted by: Steve at May 05, 2008 01:21 PM (BIwsj)
7
Barack Obama has been crippled by the combination of Wright and Ayers, although he and his people don't know it yet. Hillary has such high negatives, that once the light is shined on her she's going to be in a lot of trouble. As a democrat who wants to win in November I'm hoping that the rumors about the Denver Plan and Al Gore jumping in to the fray at the convention are true. Otherwise this summer is going to rival 1968 in the damage it does to the Democratic party.
Posted by: Beverly L. at May 05, 2008 01:41 PM (YgdgI)
8
I was working for a Member of Congress from Maryland when Dukakis decided to let a convicted murderer serving life without parole out of prison for a weekend furlough. Willie Horton came to our District and committed armed robbery and rape with a husband and wife in our District. I can assure you that it was NOT about his race at the time and the way the Democrats and the Media tried to make it about race was extremely offensive to those of us who knew the disgusting story and worked with that family. The man was an animal and to this day, I cannot understand why Dukakis did what he did by letting Horton out on that furlough.
Posted by: Sara at May 05, 2008 03:00 PM (Wi/N0)
9
Sara - That weekend furlough program was very popular with the violent felons of Massachusetts. I think about 80 of them in all disappeared from their furloughs. You are right that it was not about race, but the democrats tried to spin it that way.
Posted by: daleyrocks at May 05, 2008 03:25 PM (0pZel)
10
Angry dude, you're not making sense, specifically:
Are you even aware of the fact that Barack Obama has already distanced himself from Obama?.
How does one distance himself from HIMSELF?
You also show a shocking lack of understanding about the circumstances of John McCain's becoming a POW. He was a US Navy Pilot, flying the A-4 Skyhawk. He was shot down over enemy territory and was subsequently made a prisoner.
Now, either you are astonishingly clueless even for a lefty (and that's saying quite a bit), or you're a conservative playing games, or you're a troll; or some combination of the three.
Which is it?
Posted by: C-C-G at May 05, 2008 05:47 PM (cwBZ+)
11
As a democrat who wants to win in November I'm hoping that the rumors about the Denver Plan and Al Gore jumping in to the fray at the convention are true.
If Gore jumps in, there will be he-double-toothpicks to pay at the Democrat convention. The Obamamaniacs are threatening to stay home in November if the nomination is given to Hillary, and she's at least campaigned and won delegates on her own; what do you think they would do if the nomination was handed to someone who hasn't won a single delegate--and, don't forget, he's a (gasp) white guy too!
If you wanna see your party rip itself to shreds, Beverly, pray for them to nominate Al Gore.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 05, 2008 05:50 PM (cwBZ+)
12
CCG- Please have your humor detector serviced; it appears to be offline.
Posted by: DaveP. at May 05, 2008 06:16 PM (q6tuN)
13
I suggested it might be a conservative playing games, Dave.
However, to avoid confusion, it's a good idea to end such a message with a "/sarc" tag.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 05, 2008 07:20 PM (cwBZ+)
14
Snobama has some strange friends. He loves Wright replacement who seems intent on demonstrating that he makes Wright look sane. Then there is his mentor relationship with Frank Marshall, an old school Stralinist. Wrights mental state need not be covered. His affinity for terrorists speaks for itself. Can anyone think of any presidential cnadidate who travelled in such circles.
No wonder the wingnuts proclaim all mention of these individuals as a distrcation. Woe should we wonder what sort of judgement Snobama exercises or the type of changes he wishes to make. Perhaps discussion of these are also distractions which demonstrates why the annointed one has presented nothing concrete except for tax increases, pre emptive surrender and a radical re working of the Constitution.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at May 05, 2008 10:38 PM (LHaZf)
15
John Ryan, did Rasmussen correctly call the results of the 2000 and 2004 elections in May of 2000 and 2004, respectively?
If not, why the heck do ya think they'll get this one right?
Posted by: C-C-G at May 07, 2008 07:23 PM (cwBZ+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Was Hillary Betrayed?
Over the weekend, The Clinton campaign came under fire for a mailing that attacked Barack Obama's horrific record on guns. The ad was inaccurate—it didn't go nearly far enough in describing the number and kind of firearms Obama would like to see banned—but as Hillary's record is every bit as suspect regarding the ubiquitous and yet poorly misunderstood semi-automatic action, I can understand why should wouldn't want to undercut her own less-than-credible position.
Almost immediately after that story aired, however, Clinton came under fire for
the choice of gun used in the add, a rare Mauser 66 with double-set triggers. Rifles with double-set triggers are rare in the United States, but are a feature more common in Europe. The problem was further compounded by the fact that the image was flipped to show the gun as a left-handed model, and the Mauser 66 was never released as a left-handed gun. The picture therefore portrays a gun that has never been made.
This is all very amusing for everyone but the Clinton camp, but you have to wonder if the gaffe wasn't a gaffe at all.
With literally millions of stock photos to choose from "in the wild," including hundreds of thousands of hunting rifle photos, including expensively-produced high-resolution photos that typically would be provided by manufacturers for public relations campaigns, the Clinton campaign "accidentally" ends up with a high resolution image of decades-old rare European firearm for an American political mailer, and
compounds that gaffe by flipping the image so that it portrays a gun that was never built?
I'd like to know very much how that picture was selected for the mailer, who selected it, and why they chose that particular photo to mirror image.
It could very well be that the mailer is merely the perfect storm of coincidences.
Or...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:19 AM
| Comments (31)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
How s this situation different from the thing a while back that showed a Russian helicopter (ala Saigon) rescuing the last survivors in Baghdad?
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at May 05, 2008 10:12 AM (nDd9o)
2
C'mon Bob - this is just a curiosity side-show to the main event. I didn't notice the flipped image until I read about the "gaffe" on another site. There's nothing here - a graphic artist needed a stock photo of a gun - the only specification prob'ly was that it must be a "hunting" rifle - and flipped the image for composition purposes. This screw-up is no more relevant to the campaign than Hillary "picking" the ill-fated Eight Belles in the Kentucky Derby.
Hillary attacking Obama for his stance on guns is amusing enough in and of itself. Kettle?? Black??
Posted by: Diogenes at May 05, 2008 10:57 AM (2MrBP)
3
Yeah, there's just a whiff of tin-foil to the theory. What, is someone trying to embarass Hillary in the eyes of, not just gun owners, but gun experts, thus driving them to vote for.... Obama??
Occam's Razor stands. This is just someone going, "Ooh, here's a cool picture of a gun, let's use it." It got flipped, knowingly or unkowingly, by someone who (in the case of the former) probably correctly assumed it wouldn't matter all that much in the end.
Nothing that we don't already know to see here. Democrats know little about guns, probably care less. Move along.
Posted by: Andrew X at May 05, 2008 02:46 PM (mxg4A)
4
This isn't sinister, it is just another example of clueless people working for incompetent managers working for a lier. Liberals have NO CLUE about guns and the gun culture, and so when they venture into the arena they look like asses. Just like Barbara Boxer sweeping a crowd with an AK-47 during a press conference. These people are idiots, but are also s damn arrogant that they still think they know all that they need to know.
Posted by: Smarty at May 05, 2008 04:40 PM (Jk5cI)
5
Precisely, Smarty... there is probably no one in the Clinton campaign that knows much about guns, so they just searched for an "evil" looking gun on the "intertubes" and found that one, and ran with it.
Of course, this brings up another interesting point that Bob has made over and over again... the concept of "fact-checking" seems to be foreign to most lefties.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 05, 2008 05:39 PM (cwBZ+)
6
maybe flipping the gun to a left handed rifle was a poke a the conservatives like the left knows about guns too see. i dont know if they were smart enought to know there are left handed and right handed guns. there was a post on here about the bans on assault rifles due to the barrel shroud and when the woman getting interviewed was asked what the shroud was she said "the thing you put against your shoulder". democrats are ignorant so they can get away with stuff like this because the dem voters are ignorant enough to believe them.
Posted by: Brett at May 09, 2008 02:47 PM (ZPCqS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 124 >>
Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.1328 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.0922 seconds, 281 records returned.
Page size 220 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
