Confederate Yankee
May 03, 2008
Hmmm...
Last month as Michael Yon's Moment of Truth in Iraq came out, I provided links so that you guys could go to Amazon.com and buy a copy.
Buy you did.
One person bought seven copies; another bought six, another bought three, and of course most people bought a single copy for themselves. On behalf of Mike I'd like to thank you for buying what I personally feel is an important book, one that tells the truth of what is going on in Iraq far outside the range of most news organizations and pundits.
And while it's a crappy segue, Amazon is pushing their "Wireless Reading Device" (we used to call that "paper", didn't we?) to me via email, a device called
Kindle that they've developed. It looks petty interesting, but I don't know much about it.
Anybody got any experience with this?
Who is going to be the brave soul to test-drive this thing and let me know if it lives up to its promise?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:49 AM
| Comments (38)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I think the Sony equivalent is supposed to be better, although more expensive.
Posted by: Kevin at May 03, 2008 08:21 AM (eWFIE)
2
Can't remember any more where I saw the posts, but one of the blogs just RIPS Kindle to shreds. IIRC, that's due to a stone-age technological base and serious limits to the functionalities.
Upshot: wait a few years...
Posted by: dad29 at May 03, 2008 08:32 AM (UJZm/)
3
I've been using the Sony competitor for about 18 months and love it. However, I think the Kindle may be a better choice as they have a larger inventory of books, somewhat lower prices, and the instant gratification of Wireless downloads.
The e-paper technology is great and on my Sony I get 5000+ page turns on a single battery charge. I suspect the Kindle isn't as good on charge life as it's doing much more.
Posted by: RiveRat at May 03, 2008 08:45 AM (ybWKw)
4
get a cheap laptop from WalMart. The kindle is less useful and smaller screened.
Posted by: JP at May 03, 2008 01:12 PM (Tae/a)
5
I have a Kindle. It's a wonderful device *for reading books*. If anyone is expecting it to do anything more than that, they are barking up the *wrong* tree.
The wireless delivery is fantastic and the selection, while not yet ideal, is leaps and bounds (and bounds and leaps) better than any of the competing devices.
Sure, it doesn't have the gee whiz appeal of the Sony or iRex devices but, where it counts (actually buying and reading books), it eats the others alive.
The only downside is that you can't share the books with anyone so if they want to borrow one they have to take the device with them. Hopefully there's at least some chance in the future the DRM issues like this will be loosened enough so that you can at least share them amongst other Kindle users in some fashion.
In summary: buy one!
Posted by: ECM at May 03, 2008 01:53 PM (q3V+C)
6
It is not worth it. The tech is not ready for prime time.
Posted by: Mekan at May 03, 2008 03:07 PM (Vfwfe)
7
Well, I like books - although I can remember when a paperback was $0.25-0.75, not $6.50-44.00, which latter on my income pretty much restricts me.
But it has DRM. Major League Baseball went through some contortions to get limited support for their users when they pulled their plug. Microsoft is pulling the plug on their stuff [music], although the claim is that you need not worry since you can either keep the devices with the files forever or write to a CD (if you can figure out how to convert the format, which you are not supposed to do if RIAA hears of it).
The original idea of DRM was fine: let a corporation have confidential files (like blueprints for a new television) available online to people with a valid password, and if the company went under nothing (well, jobs...) was lost. Then the media companies decided that since they were developing this protection they could apply it to products meant for outsiders. If one goes under, millions may lose their files.
Messy.
Posted by: teqjack at May 03, 2008 03:12 PM (CEphM)
8
I love mine. It's great for reading, and the wireless net makes it effortless to get new books.
But you have to remember this is a v1.0 device, so it isn't perfect. There is room for a lot of improvement. You have to have an early-adopter attitude, willing to deal with a few hassles in order to have the latest tech.
If that's not you, then I would wait for version 2.0. (whenever that is)
Posted by: Lee at May 03, 2008 08:35 PM (aFzJC)
9
I have a Kindle and my only complaint is that I can't get all the books I want on it. It's annoying that Book 1 of a particular trilogy is available but if I want to finish reading the story I have to go to hardcover.
Posted by: GISAP at May 03, 2008 11:17 PM (g5kuC)
10
I had one, and hated it:
1. I hate DRM, and I refuse to support (through purchases) anything DRM'ed if there is a reasonable alternative.
2. With a real book, when you're done with it, you can pass it on, donate it to a library, leave it at Starbucks for others to read, and so on. With a Kindle file, no one else can ever use that file. Ever. (Unless Amazon 'grants' them the right.)
3. I can take a book with me anywhere, leave it around for weeks, and when I open it up, it "works." With a Kindle, you're tied to your battery.
4. I can drop a book and it might get creased. I can put it in my backpack and it might get dented. If I drop a Kindle or "dent" the screen, it's broken.
5. I have books that are almost 70 years old - some paperbacks, some hardbound. Benchley, Parker, Thurber. They still "work." I can't see a Kindle lasting 5 years before it breaks or is obsolete.
6. I have books I bought from a variety of bookstores throughout the years. With a Kindle, I'd be tied to one source - Amazon.
Don't get me wrong. Kindle is amazing in other ways. But DRM absolutely breaks it for me. The cost of the device is completely unreasonable. The cost of books is unreasonable, especially when you consider that you can't reuse the book in other contexts (give aways, sell, and so on).
Posted by: steve miller at May 04, 2008 08:12 AM (OHn8w)
11
The Kindle is actually a really nice device. I have had an ebook reader for over 10 years. My son has now appropiated it, changing from hardbacks to read David Weber Honor Harrington's stories. The pro is that you can store a lot of books. For those of us who have stacks of books that is an issue. The Kindle also has a neat trick unlike any other reader. It pays for the wireless connection fees from the purchase of the books. The reader allows Newspapers and blogs to be daily downloaded. Some email etc. The purchaser does not pay a monthly subcription for the connection service.
It is easy to purchase using your Amazon account.
The downsides. It is eink which is very readable but can not be back lit. It cannot be read in the dark. It also uses DRM for the books.
I really like the ability to read in the dark since I have used my rocket book for over 10 years on camping trips and with boyscouts trips. My rocket book battery would last a week, much longer than a laptop and fit into a small bag.
DRM is a principle with me , I avoid it assidously. I actaully buy most ebooks at BAEN and Fictionwise and ask for DRM free. Baen is always DRM free. IT is a principle agianst DRM.
Amazon had to use DRM since publishers would not allow their books without DRM. This has been a hard argument to show DRM is useless and does not save the authors and publishers money. That is another argument.
I personally would recommend the Kindle though, most people have been very happy with it.
Posted by: RAh at May 05, 2008 01:39 PM (dkIgz)
12
I still use my Palm M125 as a book reader. If the Kindle included all the other PalmOS functions, as well as the ability to read Mobipocket books that I could upload to it for free, I'd probably look at it.
Until I get even a hint that it can, I'll stick with what I've got.
Posted by: Jeff at May 05, 2008 06:30 PM (yiMNP)
13
Convert to PS3,Convert MKV to PS3,Convert AVI to PS3,Convert MOV to PS3,Convert Divx to PS3,Convert MP4 to PS3,Convert WMV to PS3,Convert VOB to PS3,Convert Xvid to PS3,Convert FLV to PS3,Convert MPEG to PS3,Convert RMVB to PS3,Convert 3GP to PS3,Convert MP3 to PS3,Convert WMA to PS3,Convert AAC to PS3,Convert AC3 to PS3,Convert WAV to PS3,Transfer iPod to PS3,Transfer iPhone to PS3,Transfer iTouch to PS3,Convert Quicktime to PS3,Convert DVD to PS3,Convert Youtube to PS3
Posted by: ps3 converter at May 18, 2009 02:13 AM (lhhx6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 02, 2008
Bomb Detonates in Front of NC School, Moron Bombers Injured
May Day. A great day to relax, enjoy spring weather, and attempt to throw pipe bombs at schools.
Acting on an anonymous tip, Sampson County deputies found a Chevrolet minivan outside Sampson Regional Medical Center with a side window blown out and blast marks on the outside of a door, authorities said.
Inside the hospital emergency room, Martin Bryant Boyette and Julio Frentez Morales were receiving treatment for injuries from a bomb blast, authorities said. An investigation determined that the pair had made several bombs at Boyette's house, where both lived, and Morales tried to throw one out the window of the minivan on U.S. Highway 701 as they drove past Hobbton Schools, authorities said.
The bomb went off in Morales' hand, seriously injuring him, and a piece of shrapnel hit Boyette in the back of the head, authorities said.
"It's scary to think that these individuals were going to throw an explosive device out of a vehicle in front of a school," Sampson County Sheriff Jimmy Thornton said in a statement. "What were they thinking? What possible thrill could be worth potentially injuring an innocent person, especially a child?"
Follow the link, and you'll be shocked,
shocked to discover that other explosives—and drugs—were found in a search of their home. Luckily this special class of moron is mercifully rare
everywhere, and getting rarer day-by-day.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:06 PM
| Comments (34)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I find it disturbing that Boyette was held for $35,000 for a bomb while Lisa Mooring was held for $200,000 for drug. Both crimes are awful but the drugs worse than the bomb? Since he threw the bomb, he had intent to injure or kill.
Posted by: Denny at May 02, 2008 01:12 PM (+hnIk)
Posted by: baldilocks at May 02, 2008 01:39 PM (+p46f)
3
I'm sure they found quite a bit of porn there too. Tweakers and porn go hand-in-hand.
Posted by: thebronze at May 02, 2008 01:51 PM (kdYxN)
Posted by: chris at May 02, 2008 02:05 PM (IcTtQ)
5
'Course in South Carolina a Ryan Schallenberger wanted to blow up a high school, die, go to heaven, and kill Jesus. Prosecutors thinks he needs a psychological exam. Gee, ya think? What the heck is in the water down there?
I tried to put a link but appearently CNN is questionable content.
Posted by: David at May 02, 2008 02:08 PM (+NV2F)
6
I'm guessing his bail is lower than hers because they figure he won't be throwing anymore bombs anytime soon...
Posted by: Mr. Bingley at May 02, 2008 02:24 PM (jii9y)
7
Higher bail for the drug dealer because drug dealers have lots of money. Though which of them was the boss is not clear. Neither made bail anyway.
The guy who blew his hand off made bail, but as Mr. Bingley noted, he's not much of a threat now.
Posted by: RIch Rostrom at May 02, 2008 04:47 PM (Cm4vt)
8
Fortunately, most moron bombers take care of the problem themselves, by the "oops, BOOM!" method.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 02, 2008 06:39 PM (RP0Mk)
Posted by: jb at May 02, 2008 07:15 PM (HrVHr)
10
Kids, drugs're bad, mmmmkaay?
Posted by: B Smith at May 02, 2008 09:10 PM (EIk9n)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Silly Question I Know...
...but why was Hillary Clinton campaigning in Mexico?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:00 AM
| Comments (31)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
were was her broom?? LMAO
Posted by: Rich at May 02, 2008 12:49 PM (siQqy)
2
Or Inspector Clouseau.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7889356019785504899&q=inspector+clouseau+balloon&ei=bGwcSPvWBZCqrgLX7fjNAg&hl=en
(You-yube is down right now).
Posted by: Kurt P at May 03, 2008 08:48 AM (zlUde)
3
It was the only way she could compete with McCain for the Hispanic vote.
Posted by: davod at May 06, 2008 02:24 PM (llh3A)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Another Gaza Media Moment
Three days ago, I contacted Associated Press Director of Media Relations Paul Colford, asking him about photos taken by AP photographer Khalil Hamra, in Beit Lahiya, a town in the northern Gaza Strip, on Monday, April 28, 2008.
The caption for one Hamra photo read as follows, without a
hint of uncertainty:
A Palestinian woman reacts as she stands next to a house hit by an Israeli shell that killed a mother and her four children, in Beit Lahiya, northern Gaza Strip, Monday, April 28, 2008. An Israeli tank shell slammed into a tiny Gaza Strip home on Monday, killing a Palestinian woman and four of her children as they prepared to sit down for breakfast, officials and relatives said.
I asked Mr. Colford to "please acquire the other photos Mr. Hamra shot outside that home and send them to me... I should be able to tell which account is true by the simple differences between blast signatures of HEAT rounds used by Israel tanks impacting buildings, and the kind of blast that would be consistent with the Israeli account of a gunman carrying explosives that detonated." Responding via email, Mr Colford suggested I should acquire the images somewhere else. It was a polite brush-off.
But the story told with such apparent certainty by Associated Press photographer Hamra and apparently deemed insignificant by Colford was never as certain as the media tried to make it sound.
An Israeli military inquiry into the incident has concluded that the family was indeed killed by a
Palestinian militant's explosives detonating. Tank shells were not fired into the home, a fact neither side now alledges. According to the IDF, a single airborne missile was fired from a drone at a cluster of four armed militants. How small was the missile? According to these video stills from an
al Jazeera story, showing the missile's impact point, quite small.

The "crater" according to al Jazeera.

A bemused civilian inspects the same missile "crater" as the reporter moves away.
Al Jazeera repeats Palestianian claims a that second missile was fired by the Israelis, but the visual evidence of the missile strike is not very convincing.
An alleged second missile "crater" outside the family home, estimated to be four inches deep.
As Noah Pollak pointed out in his
Commentary story
Factless in Gaza, "There is a deeper problem here:the manner in which news is gathered from Gaza, which has been inhospitable territory for western journalists for quite some time (remember what happened to Alan Johnston?). News organizations like the AP and Reuters rely, for their on-the-ground Gaza coverage, on Palestinian reporters and stringers whose objectivity and professionalism, to put it charitably, are in doubt."
Adnan Hajj was by far the most obvious example of dishonest journalism by the Palestianian media as he manipulated images he sold to Reuters, but the facts are that very essence of news reporting in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon are conducted primarily by reporters with a deep and personal interest in the stories they are reporting, often under the direction of terrorist groups that are not above "suggesting" stories and guiding media coverage with the barrel of a gun.
Internationally respected news organizations such as
Reuters,
AFP the
Associated Press, and the
BBC have proven themselves time and again to be very susceptible to being manipulated by agenda-driven journalists and photographers. Moreover, they seem not to care very much about passing along staged photos and biased information as long as it allows them to publish
something. They the news organizations will likely never admit it, hating Israel is big media business, and stories alleging that Israeli military forces are killing innocent Palestinians sell very well in the global media market.
As a result, initial reporting of this incident squarely places the blame for the blast on the Israeli military, without seriously looking for any other possible cause. It is both a business decision (these kinds of stories sell) and a practical one (unbiased reporting is not allowed by militant media handlers that guide and spy upon reporters and photographers).
That armed militants were moving among civilian homes for cover is never mentioned, and their argument that "it couldn't have been our explosives, because I have some pictures of some explosives that didn't blow up right over here" is readily digested with a degree of acceptance because there is no viable alternative.
Truly, truth is not an option.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:43 AM
| Comments (63)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Iraq is as misreported as Israel and Palestine. I have less and less faith in the MSM every time I hear the AP quote an unnamed "doctor" from a sadr controlled hospital in Sadr city regarding "at least" X civilians killed including "at least" why Y children.
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at May 02, 2008 09:31 AM (gkobM)
2
Why would the Israelis fire a HEAT shell (High Explosive Anti Tank) when the Palestinians have no tanks or other armoured vehicles, or armoured protection of any kind?
Posted by: Max at May 02, 2008 09:58 AM (VRb5p)
3
To take out buildings, Max. It is a multi-purpose munition.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m830a1.htm
Posted by: Pablo at May 02, 2008 10:16 AM (yTndK)
4
Well why were they trying to destroy the building (a civilian house, not a military target)? You can't launch a rocket or a mortar from inside a house.
Posted by: Max at May 02, 2008 10:24 AM (VRb5p)
5
Yes you can, Max. You can also snipe from one and set off an IED from one. Doing any of the above is considered a war crime, FYI. Hasn't stopped any Palestinian in the past, though.
Posted by: DaveP. at May 02, 2008 10:45 AM (3Aj1g)
6
If you actual bother to you know, read the articles and watch the video, you'll not neither side was claiming the building was targeted. The Israelis insist that only one rocket was fired a group of armed militants. The Palestinian and Arab news accounts claim a second missile was fired, which is their way of explaining how the blast occurred.
I suspect that the most likely story is that the bag of munitions was hit by shrapnel during the initial strike, and then was tossed, still smoldering, into the alley where it detonated outside the shack, killing the family.
And yes, Max you can launch rockets, mortars, and missiles from inside of and on top of structures, though I fail to see how that is relevant.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 02, 2008 10:47 AM (xNV2a)
7
I saw a photo of three of the kids being placed in the hospital morgue. The injuries to two were not apparent from the photo. But one of the little girls, whose upper body was uncovered, had three deep wounds clearly visible. All were approximately the same size, maybe three-four inches long.
I would guess that she was killed by flechettes, rather than improvised explosives. The Israelis admit that they use flechette shells in Gaza. In fact, they used one earlier in the month to kill a Reuters cameraman, along with five others (some were children).
But hey, they did kill a gunman along with that family! So it's a ratio of five civilians to one terrorist. Is this acceptable? Well, I don't think the IDF will be losing any sleep over it.
Posted by: Max at May 02, 2008 10:55 AM (VRb5p)
8
That's a brilliant theory there, Max, except for a few small problems.
no flechettes were firedno flechettes were recoveredfletchettes don't cause blast craters, even small onesno one on either side claimed flechettes were usedthe wounds you describe are not consistent with fletchette wounds
Other than that, great work.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 02, 2008 11:04 AM (xNV2a)
9
CY-
Respectfully, regarding points 1-5, above:
1. You can't prove this without access to IDF records
2 Prove it
3. Prove it
4. So?
5. Prove it
Consider also amending your online bio to include "IDF ordnance expert and board certified forensic pathologist."
Posted by: Craig at May 02, 2008 11:41 AM (0MZfd)
10
OK, maybe it wasn't flechettes. Regardless of the weapons used, the result is the same - a dead Palestinian family. My main point is that it's so easy for the Israelis to kill Palestinians, because of their firepower, they really don't care very much if they kill civilians. In just five days last February, the Israelis killed 107 Palestinians in Gaza, of which at least 52 were civilians not involved in fighting. Three Israelis (one civilian) were killed.
Every country has a right to defend itself, but when it uses its power in such a fashion and kills such a high percentage of non-combatants, it only stores up more trouble for itself.
I know that most contributors here regard the Palestinians as evil incarnate anyway, and deserve what they get, so in that sense I know I'm wasting my time explaining this. But as long as Israel uses this iron fist, it will never know peace. Of course, I guess that suits the IDF top brass just fine.
Posted by: Max at May 02, 2008 11:51 AM (VRb5p)
11
Regardless of the weapons used, the result is the same - a dead Palestinian family.
Right, by way of a Palestinian own goal.
My main point is that it's so easy for the Israelis to kill Palestinians, because of their firepower, they really don't care very much if they kill civilians.
Your point would work better if
1. the Israelis had done the killing in this case
2. the Palestinians didn't specifically target civilians and strive for their deaths when they attack.
One would think it wise not to attack people who seriously outgun you.
Posted by: Pablo at May 02, 2008 12:01 PM (yTndK)
12
So Max, you would give any terrorist a pass as long as they were hiding amongst "civilians"? Any supposed military force that used civilian human shields must be removed with all the care that a US police force exercises when recovering hostages?
And all this while the opposing force:
1. targets civilians preferentially
2. refuses to adhere to any laws of war (e.g. not use ambulances to transport troops, wear identifiable clothing, etc., etc.?)
Following your guidelines, the Israeli's would be "dead but right", while the arab terrorists would have engaged in regrettable but ultimately understandable excesses.
Too bad the Israeli's won't just all die to satisfy your flawed and self-indulgent moral certitude.
Posted by: iconoclast at May 02, 2008 12:07 PM (M+wD9)
13
Well why were they trying to destroy the building (a civilian house, not a military target)?
They weren't, and they didn't, in this case. But they do use the weapon, and if a civilian house is being used as a firing position, or a weapons depot or for any other military purpose, it is a military target and a HEAT round blows stuff up.
Posted by: Pablo at May 02, 2008 12:09 PM (yTndK)
14
My main point is that it's so easy for the Israelis to kill Palestinians, because of their firepower, they really don't care very much if they kill civilians.
Max, you're a terrorist apologist... we get that.
What you seem far too daft to grasp however, is the simply fact that if Israel wanted Gaza emptied of Palestinian lives, it could unquestionably do so though either military force, an economic blockade, or by simply cutting off the lights.
Reality, however, shows us something quite different. It shows us an Israeli government with a special terrorist targeting group that specializes in locating and targeting terrorist leaders, and goes through great pains to minimize Palestinian civilian loses. IMI has even gone so far as to develop weapons systems to minimize civilian casualties.
The Isreali power company is the only group of utility workers regularly targeted by their customers, and yet, they continue to go out every day and supply power, repairing the lines the Palestinians damage at night.
Where does Gaza get its food and medicine? Israel again.
Israel cares a great deal about the loss of innocent life. they've shown it time and again. You're simply a shameless shill.
You cling to terrorists born into and thriving on hate, who continually renounce peace, who dream of genocide, and who purposefully target Israeli civilians for death with rockets and mortars. These munitions are characteristically smuggled into, stored, and fired from Palestinian civilian neighborhoods with the blessing of that population, even that by doing so, the civilians are willingly exposed to counterbattery fire.
No sir, it is only the Palestinians who do not care about innocent life. Theirs is a culture predicated on hate and martyrdom. You of course, will not admit that.
Why don't you run along now... if you're lucky, you might be able to catch their new Holocaust denial film.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 02, 2008 12:44 PM (xNV2a)
15
I don't know why Israel is so patient with the Palestinians anyway. I give Israel great credit for not blowing the whole damn mess off the face of the earth and be done with it. Instead they hold back, give concession after concession and it get them nothing back in return, but ignorance and accusations and more of their own civilians killed. The Palestinians entire existence seems to be predicated on causing worldwide hate and violence and then whining about it. Israel turns the desert into a productive land, the Palestinians take billions of dollars and do nothing but wreak more havoc. They're a canker on the world.
Posted by: Sara at May 02, 2008 01:18 PM (Wi/N0)
16
What I cannot fathom are the terrorist apologists and supporters like Craig and Max? Are they simply brain-dead, pollyanna people who cannot understand "why we cannot all just get along"? Or are they actually convinced that the liberal, post-Enlightenment West is the great evil oppressing native peoples who just want to conduct their ethnic cleansing, misogyny, and tribal-tyranny without being disturbed?
Posted by: iconoclast at May 02, 2008 01:25 PM (M+wD9)
17
Wow, drink much Kool-Aid? It's pretty funny seeing y'all tripping over yourselves to swear allegiance and defend the honor of a foreign country. A foreign country with its own interests that are not aligned with ours, and that regularly spies on us and steals our secrets. You guys are true patriots.
Posted by: Craig at May 02, 2008 01:46 PM (0MZfd)
18
Why do you hate facts, Craig?
Posted by: Pablo at May 02, 2008 02:22 PM (yTndK)
19
Craig, your reading comprehension ranks right down there with your knowledge of history and common sense. No one swore allegiance to Israel. As for defending the honor of Israel, I guess we recognize an important ally when we see a free, democratic state with whom we have many important economic and political ties.
But I guess all that went over your head, since your head is so clearly embedded in the ground--or somewhere else more personal.
Posted by: iconoclast at May 02, 2008 02:46 PM (M+wD9)
20
I absolutely love it when the brain trust of the left, here in the person of Craig and Max, attempt to comment on military matters. They expose their total cluelessness for all to see.
Craig - You obviously don't understand how this works. You have demonstrated that you have no credibility here. CY, particularly on military matters does. He has nothing to prove. It is up to you to disprove the claims he makes, retard. His stand on their own. Good luck.
Posted by: daleyrocks at May 02, 2008 02:59 PM (0pZel)
21
Why do they hate facts? Is it facts they hate or are they just flaming antisemites who despise Jews and agree they should be exterminated? I vote the latter.
Posted by: Sara at May 02, 2008 03:44 PM (Wi/N0)
22
I don't know Sara. I tend to think it is just an adolescent love of rebellion against the "System" that motivates them. Over and over again they (people like Craig and Max) demonstrate that their own desires and general anger completely fog things like facts, understanding and history. I don't think they suffer as much from bigotry as much as a sophomoric self-indulgence and wishful thinking.
After all, it is hard to imagine why any American, after seeing Arabs in Gaza and West Bank dancing in celebration of 9/11, after seeing repeated mass homicides specifically targeting the most innocent and helpless, and after seeing the misogyny, tyranny and outright Nazi behavior of the Pali "government" can possibly think that our cultural, political, and economic future is tied to them rather than Israel.
Posted by: iconoclast at May 02, 2008 04:17 PM (M+wD9)
23
You may be right, iconoclast. How sad.
Posted by: Sara at May 02, 2008 05:04 PM (Wi/N0)
24
I see Craig and his buddy Max are still at it, trying to spin everything we or Israel do as evil.
Tell ya what, you two dimwits, if America is sooooooooooooooo terrible, why don't ya leave? Airplane tickets out of the country are easy to get. Maybe go down to Venezuela and hobnob with your buddy Chavez. Or over to Iran where they have the same view of Israel that you two seem to have.
I bet that makes you proud, having the same opinion of Israel that Ahmadinnerjacket has.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 02, 2008 07:07 PM (RP0Mk)
25
That's awesome, C-C-G, keep it up. You and (the ironically named) Iconoclast just further prove my point.
Posted by: Craig at May 02, 2008 08:40 PM (0MZfd)
26
And what point would that be, Craig?
Are you referring to the point that we believe that we should protect our allies?
My, my, what a radical idea. Protecting our allies.
Only a lefty could consider protecting our allies to be a Bad Thing.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 02, 2008 09:25 PM (RP0Mk)
27
ccg
according to the likes of Craig, the USA should only defend those who hate and despise us, since it is our fault that they do.
Craig
weak, dude. very, very weak. keep messing up those ad hominem attacks and they will ban you from DU.
Posted by: iconoclast at May 02, 2008 11:28 PM (TQiUf)
28
Who else but Israel would invent a missile that leaves a crater the size of teacup?
Doesn't sound too bloodthirsty or uncaring of collateral damage to me.
On the other hand, which people deliberately target unarmed civilians with bombs that contain shrapnel to cause horrible wounds, human feces to cause infection, and rat poison that serves as an anticoagulant so the victim bleeds out?
Which side dances in the street, sings, laughs, and passes out candy when its shrapnel-, feces-, and rat-poison human bombs go off?
Which side literally stomps people to death in the streets, tearing their bodies limb from limb like hungry sharks? Go to Getty Images and see for yourself. Which side murders its daughters when they look at the wrong person?
The Israelis are up against living relics of the ninth century, ancient life forms with no mercy, no morals, and no humanity. Whatever Israel does to defend itself is okay by me.
Oo, how Kool-aideish of me.
Posted by: Tom W. at May 03, 2008 01:51 AM (mjiKA)
Posted by: Craig at May 03, 2008 08:50 AM (0MZfd)
30
As all clear thinking people know it was just another "Palestinian work accident."
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 03, 2008 12:47 PM (kNqJV)
31
Personally, when you consider that for 1/4 the cost of a Kindle, I got a Palm Centro smartphone that reads e-books as well as does a lot of other things, I'd consider a Kindle a waste of money.
I'll consider buying one when they're $40, not $400.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 03, 2008 03:30 PM (RP0Mk)
32
I usually steer clear of Israel-Palestine debates. But I just think it needs to be pointed out that not all Palestinians in Gaza support the destruction if Israel and targeting civilians. Some support a peaceful end to this conflict. From all these "ancient forms of life" comments, I just thought someone should point that out.
Posted by: Juan Manuel de Rosas at May 03, 2008 05:03 PM (duarq)
33
Craig:
DU could be Depleted Uranium, which is extremely dense but not very radioactive ("Depleted", dig?) and is used for airplane balancing weights, elevator counterweights, and in armor-piercing shells.
It could also be 'Democratic Underground', a web community populated by people of approximately the same density as the above entry.
Posted by: DaveP. at May 03, 2008 08:51 PM (q6tuN)
34
DaveP, nice.
That sums up the description of DU on _both_ accounts.
Posted by: steve miller at May 04, 2008 07:29 AM (OHn8w)
Posted by: Craig at May 04, 2008 12:23 PM (0MZfd)
36
Craig would fit right in at DU. Which is why I can't quite bring myself to believe he was ignorant of its existence.
By the way, please ignore my way off-topic post above... meant to put it in the thread where CY was asking about the Amazon Kindle. That's what I get for trying to deal with three different Firefox tabs at once.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 04, 2008 07:42 PM (cwBZ+)
37
Back to the topic at hand, in case anyone is wondering what the truth really is the IDF has video proof of their assertion. The Palestinian terrorists were carrying explosives that then detonated. When will liberals stop believing the lying Palestinians?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 05, 2008 07:35 AM (kNqJV)
38
Unfortunately, the Paliwood Paligandists seem to be outwitting Israel everywhere on the international stage.
Moreover, the Arabs-Muslims have attrited Israeli security. In 1967, Israel put Arab arms far from its borders; now Israel proper is under attack from south, north, and east.
I worry the Arabs are winning the long-term war.
Posted by: Pro-Israeli at May 05, 2008 08:54 AM (4jHbx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 30, 2008
The Greatest Story Ever Sold
It isn't "what did he know, and when did he know it," but instead appears to be "he knew it all along, and is trying to hide it."
That is the impression left when reading
this article in the NY
Post today.
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright would be happy to see Barack Obama's presidential campaign derailed because the pastor is fuming that his former congregant has "betrayed" their 20-year relationship,
The Post has learned. "After 20 years of loving Barack like he was a member of his own family, for Jeremiah to see Barack saying over and over that he didn't know about Jeremiah's views during those years, that he wasn't familiar with what Jeremiah had said, that he may have missed church on this day or that and didn't hear what Jeremiah said, this is seen by Jeremiah as nonsense and betrayal," said the source, who has deep roots in Wright's Chicago community and is familiar with his thinking on the matter.
And perhaps most damning:
"Rev. Wright, as well as other senior members of his church, believe that Obama has betrayed over 20 years of their supposed friendship."
If the source is correct, other senior leaders of Trinity United Church of Christ know that Barack Obama was familiar with the radical content of Jeremiah Wright's sermons. For Obama to say otherwise is a betrayal of the pastor and the church.
The obvious implication is that Obama knew
precisely what Wright's views and positions were for 20 years, and Obama "never batted an eye" until Wright's positions became too much political baggage for the Senator's presidential aspirations.
The implication is obvious. Either:
- Barack Obama believes in the angry, paranoid and racist teachings of Jeremiah Wright and the Marxist liberation theology of his church, and is lying about it in public in hopes of getting elected, which is essentially the betrayal Rev. Wright accused him of in front of the National Press Club Monday morning, or;
- Barack Obama's membership in Trinity United Church of Christ and his relationship with the pastoral staff and congregation were nothing more than a 20-year lie of convenience and exploitation of the Church and Wright of Homeric proportions.
No matter how you slice it, Obama is guilty of an epic deception in his quest for power, and potential supporters should start to wonder just how much he's willing to lie to them to get elected if he's already betrayed a 20-year-old relationship in that pursuit.
I don't know if the United Church of Christ has a process for excommunication, but it would be interesting as an intellectual exercise to speculate about Trinity excommunicating Obama for his actions. He has obviously embarrassed the church and the man who grew it into what it is today, and has done as much as he possible can to separate himself from the church, short of locking the door and burning the congregation inside (a tactic, by the way,
actually used by his cousin's supporters in Kenya this past January).
Exit Question: If TUCC did excommunicate Obama, would it hurt him or help him as a candidate?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:54 AM
| Comments (73)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
TUCC's excommunication of Obama would absolutely be the only thing that would trully end the current controversy. His current membership in the church would no long hang over his head. That, in itself, would be a plus for him as a candidate.
He would still have to answer the question of why he sat in those pews for 20+ years and said or did nothing regarding the church's and ministers views.
The possibility of his nomination by the Democratic Party brings to life the old story that the Dems could nominate a Yellow Dog and still get people to vote for it!
Posted by: SShiell at April 30, 2008 12:24 PM (8UXyu)
2
A TUCC excommunication wouldn't matter much anymore. The damage done can't be undone and further damage will happen either way. It will be with different people but the numbers are about the same.
Wright will do anything he can to undermine Obama. An Obama win would render his "everything is racism" philosophy as silly. That might be the best reason to support Obama. It's not a very good reason but it's the best one I can think of.
Posted by: Ken Hahn at April 30, 2008 01:00 PM (uT2/F)
3
Isn't this distraction over? Obama denounced Wright yesterday. Can't we move on? I mean McCain denounced Hagee's stupid statements and there was nothing like Obama's tight 20 year relationship with Wright between McCain and Hagee. You never hear the left bringing up Hagee anymore do you?
What?
Oh, nevermind.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 30, 2008 01:55 PM (0pZel)
4
I simply cannot wait for Rev Otis Moss' sermon this Sunday. You'll recall his sermon that found Wright being both lynched and crucified simultaneously (and metaphorically) in sort of a sadistic Reeses, along with admonitions to the congregation that they should not talk to the visitors present.
Sunday should be mighty interesting. Who will get the demonization? Wright? Obama? Whitey? OK, Whitey is a given, but who else?
Posted by: Pablo at April 30, 2008 04:56 PM (yTndK)
5
Yeah, Otis is another figure Obammy would wish a prosperous vacation upon. Barry is waking up to the notion that the quaint eccentricities he has indulged over the years in his associates are actually raging and bizarre pathologies. These are pathologies shared by the milieu he has so snivelingly ingratiated himself to, the one that nominates Dem candidates, and gosh darn it, he just couldnt' see it. Probably because he is such a uniter and peacemaker he just couldn't see serious harm in "AmeriKKKa". These raving lunacies are "mainstream" in his view, as he has said of Ayers. Of course everyone thinks THEY are centrists; it is the nation that is wrong. Electorally this is problematic. But hilarious!
Posted by: megapotamus at April 30, 2008 05:07 PM (LF+qW)
6
CY-
Who cares? Plus, McCain has his own wacko preacher issues (Hagee, Robertson, Falwell (dead)), so it's zero sum, IMO. As much as you guys look forward to Rev Wright commercials in the Fall, you can expect the DNC will run Hagee commercials (anti Catholic slurs, Katrina was God's punishment to NO) and showing McCain on stage with him. Mutually assured destruction.
Posted by: Craig at April 30, 2008 05:31 PM (0MZfd)
7
Here's a question for you guys: Should I renounce my Catholic faith because of the recent sex-abuse scandal? I mean, I know the Church has done a lot of good around the world with its social programs, but if I were to hold myself to the same standards that you all hold Obama, then I'd have to kick the Catholic Church to the curb. Covering up sexual abuse by priests — at least to me — seems much worse than Wright's comments, as inflammatory and stupid as they were.
Moreover, why doesn't stuff like this get more press around here? CY, for someone who criticizes the MSM so much, you seem pretty in sync with their recent news cycle.
Posted by: Juan Manuel de Rosas at April 30, 2008 05:41 PM (m7m+t)
8
Craig,
Who cares?
Obama cares. Pay attention.
Juan,
Should I renounce my Catholic faith because of the recent sex-abuse scandal?
No, you should speak out against it, as the vast majority of Catholics did. And as Obama is finally doing with Wright.
Posted by: Pablo at April 30, 2008 05:48 PM (yTndK)
9
Craig - Good luck with those ads if you think they'll be as effective as the potential GOP ads. Smearing dead guys is always a winning tactic I think.
Juan - Faith is a personal matter in my judgement. I don't understand why your are soliciting advice here. Speak to your priest.
If you are unhappy with the topics covered by CY, it is not difficult to start your own blog and cover them yourself. Is anybody forcing you to come here and comment? Idiot.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 30, 2008 05:57 PM (0pZel)
10
"Covering up sexual abuse by priests — at least to me — seems much worse than Wright's comments, as inflammatory and stupid as they were."
As far as I know you are not running for president and claiming that the priest abuse is mainstream, something your wacky uncle would do, a little bit like the comments your dear granny used to make and just a big misunderstanding by white America.
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 30, 2008 05:57 PM (gkobM)
11
Craig - Does this mean Farrakhan is out of the running for VP if Obama wins the nomination? I'm not clear on that point.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 30, 2008 06:00 PM (0pZel)
12
Craig... feel free to run those ads if you think they'll help you.
After all, the Obamamessiah has never miscalculated in his life, has he? He is, of course, perfect.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 30, 2008 06:39 PM (RP0Mk)
13
Is anybody forcing you to come here and comment?
Yes, Daley, I'd imagine that MoveOn has told him that April is his month to troll CY... he either obeys or they take away his secret decoder ring. Since tomorrow is the start of May, we should see another troll show up within the next week or so.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 30, 2008 07:02 PM (RP0Mk)
14
This really is a load of unimportant ordure, but I'm not surprised that you're all fixated by it.
We wouldn't want to talk about McCain's dismissal of a new GI Bill, or the bogus band-aid highway tax holiday embraced by McCain and Clinton, those would actually be about, you know, issues.
But Bob, you keep hammering away at the one candidate who might, possibly, maybe, get beyond the Atwater/Rove politics of personal destruction that has paralyzed any sort of real progress on important issues like veterans care, health care, the war, the budget deficit, and a rational energy policy.
Wouldn't want to do that, would we?
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 30, 2008 07:49 PM (Bx4FB)
15
David - Very interesting points given that there is absolutely no evidence that he has the ability to move beyond the politics of personal; destruction when you consider the mechanism he used to reach the Illinois legislature and submarine the campaign of his Republican opponent for the U.S. Senate, who was leading at the time. His subsequent opponent, Alan Keyes, would have lost to a ham sandwich.
Looking at Obama's laundry list of legislative accomplishments, or should I say lack thereof, I find it stunning to say the least that you find hope for him to achieve bipartisan breakthroughs on such a wide range of issues. Are you already drunk again tonight David?
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 30, 2008 08:02 PM (0pZel)
16
David, please show us any evidence at all that Obama can make the hard decisions on important matters.
In point of fact, the actual record of his political service is downright dismal. He has never authored or sponsored an important bill, and in fact has missed a number of votes on important matters.
By all means, let's tell the American public about the legislative career of Senator Barack Can't-Say-That-His-Middle-Name-Is-Hussein Obama.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 30, 2008 08:19 PM (RP0Mk)
17
Daley,
I'll admit, his resume is thin. And I'll admit I'm desperate. I do not want a third Bush term of irresponsible fiscal and energy policy. I don't want another episode of the Clinton soap opera. So where do you suggest I go?
I like the guy. I think he's genuine. Given a shot, I think he might prevail over politics as usual. I hope so, anyway.
McCain has sold his soul to become the nominee and Clinton had no soul to begin with. So I ask again, where do you suggest I turn?
As for being drunk, it's the last solace for thoughtful men who have endured the last seven years of ineptitude.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 30, 2008 08:24 PM (Bx4FB)
18
David, Obama has shown that he's just as blatant a politician as Clinton is. There was nothing in Wright's speech Monday that he hadn't said before. All that changed was that Wright himself showed that the "sound bite" and "looping" and "snippet" defense wasn't going to work anymore, so Obama did--as Wright had said--what a politician had to do.
Anyone who doesn't think that's "politics as usual" must not have been watching politics for very long.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 30, 2008 08:35 PM (RP0Mk)
19
CCG,
I've been active in politics since Goldwater. There have been rare times, and rare men, who have come along and inspired us to see above the mud.
I believe this guy might be one of those men. At the very least, he's not McCain or Clinton.
No one is perfect. We all have baggage in our history. This election, more than any other in my 58 years, is one where we can choose to go with the failures of the past, or we can take a leap and hope.
Do I expect you, a hardcore GOP supporter to jump with me? No. But I do hope you and others will choose to be positive this year instead of negative. Negative is easy. Choosing to go a different is hard.
But if you're satified with the direction we're going in, by all means, vote for McCain or Clinton. It'll be 4 more years of the same.
As I said, I'm desperate. Can you make a positive argument for Clinton or McCain? Because I can't.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 30, 2008 09:13 PM (Bx4FB)
20
I know a lot of Bob's readers support our soldiers. So I ask why, or how, you can support McCain's stand against a better GI Bill?
The GI Bill of my father's generation paid for a full ride, the GI Bill of my generation barely covered the cost of books. It was another slap in the face of the Vietnam generation, which makes me want to fix this for our vets.
And, a bigger issue, why isn't the media, Bob included, spending as much time on this as they are Obama's pastor?
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 30, 2008 09:24 PM (Bx4FB)
21
David, how about I turn your statement on its head? I support McCain because he isn't Obama or Clinton.
Does that satisfy you?
Posted by: C-C-G at April 30, 2008 09:27 PM (RP0Mk)
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 30, 2008 09:29 PM (Bx4FB)
23
David - Unfortunately everybody's choices are limited at this point. If you are desperate and serious, however, the last place I would turn for responsible fiscal and energy policy is to a democratic candidate.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 30, 2008 09:36 PM (0pZel)
24
David at 9:13 PM
Maybe you should read over your post again. The man is running for POTUS, the most important and powerful position in the world. You wish to hitch not only your horse but the entire corral to a man with no discernable executive experience and HOPE he represents change? I'd go along along with you if this were the PTA.
Posted by: RicardoVerde at April 30, 2008 09:40 PM (r9DD+)
25
Actually, David, I am only echoing your own arguments. You said yourself: "At the very least, he's [Obama's] not McCain or Clinton."
And now when I turn it back on you, you realize just how weak an argument it is, so you stick your nose in the air like the self-anointed elite you are and attempt--not very well, I might add--to look down at me.
Next time, try using arguments with a little substance to them, or, at the very least, arguments that can't be turned around so easily.
Or you could just go back to DemocraticUnderground where the trick you tried is no doubt considered the height of cleverness.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 30, 2008 09:43 PM (RP0Mk)
26
I'd go along along with you if this were the PTA.
I wouldn't even go along with that for PTA... in fact, not even if Obama was running for Second Assistant Dogcatcher would I buy that line of argument.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 30, 2008 09:44 PM (RP0Mk)
27
Wow, I'm an elitist? I can take you to a parking deck here in town I helped build as a laborer. I've spiked ties for the railroad, was an enlisted man, went to West Virginia University on the GI Bill and worked as a short order cook.
If that's an elitist resume, I'm the fricking Pope.
I understand the man's running for POTUS. Look at the man who holds that office now and ask if any of these candidates could possibly do worse?
You have two candidates who stand for the status quo, McCain and Clinton. Both have shown themselves eager to pander to whatever audience they face. Clinton even puts on a southern accent when she talks to us rednecks. McCain has backed away from his very own bills and embraced Falwell and Robertson and Bush.
McCain and Clinton are the politics of the past. I hope Obama is a part of the future. I want to be part of the futute because, frankly, I'm sick of fighting the politics of the 60's over and over.
My wife's brother was at Pensacola with McCain. I believe McCain's an honorable man. But I also believe his time has past. His changing course is pure politics, and it does not do him honor.
That all of you go for McCain doesn't surprise me. You're Republicans. That's fine. I only want to ask you to consider that maybe McCain's policies might be slightly more important that Obama's pastor.
That's all I'm saying.
But if it makes you feel better thinking I'm some kind of Democratic Underground troll, you go right ahead. There's not much I can do about that kind of ignorance.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 30, 2008 10:07 PM (Bx4FB)
28
[[McCain and Clinton are the politics of the past. I hope Obama is a part of the future. I want to be part of the futute because, frankly, I'm sick of fighting the politics of the 60's over and over.]]
Yikes have you ever got it turned around David. Obama is stuck in the 60's. To him whitey is still opressing the brothers and black liberation theology has relevence in the modern era. As to why obama would be a crappy president,
1) He will raise taxes and throw the economy down the drain.
2) He will surrender in Iraq and throw Iraqs new democracy to the wolves.
3) He wants to appease Iran and Syria.
4) He is pro-abortion.
3) He has the most liberal voting record in congress.
4) Its is becoming increasingly clear that he is a liar.
Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 30, 2008 10:23 PM (2wI6h)
29
Right, David... tell me, what color is the sky in your world?
And while you're at it, tell me one--just ONE major legislative accomplishment with Senator Obama's name on it as something other than a senator voting on it.
And since you can't do that (there are none), please change your name. You're making Davids everywhere--including me--look bad.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 30, 2008 10:29 PM (RP0Mk)
30
Grr,
You're angry. That's good. We should all be angry. I'm as angry as any man I know.
You list things you don't like about Obama. That's progress. At least it's not about his pastor.
Other than that he's pro-choice (I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion), the other points can be argued. What about Obama's tax policy don't you like? Do you prefer McCain's policy of making the Bush tax cuts permanent. That's not very sophisticated, but simple. Do you think our current policy of borrowing from the Chinese is a good, long term strategy?
I missed the part about him surrendering in Iraq and about appeasement with Iran and Syria. He will talk to them, which I prefer rather than having another war we can't afford. But we can discuss.
I don't know what a liberal voting record is. What votes, specifically? Did his work in preventing proliferation of nukes liberal?
He's a liar? OK. I don't know how he's a liar, but people who run for president always say things they later regret.
But you're angry. That's good. Now get angry about things that matter like this GI Bill, combat pay and the declining dollar.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 30, 2008 10:39 PM (Bx4FB)
31
David aka CCG,
It took me a moment to find this:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/dear-chris-matt.html
You may not like what Obama's done, but he has done something. Now, tell me what of McCain's legislative accomplishments you like. Campaign finance? Immigration? The opening of Vietnam to trade? I happen to like that last one.
That you are so willing to swallow Chris Matthews' talking points tells me you haven't really been following this race seriously.
And I suggest that those who have had this name for more years gets to keep it.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 30, 2008 10:49 PM (Bx4FB)
32
Oh, and in the day time, the color of my sky is usually a beautiful Carolina blue, which is one of the reasons I live here.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 30, 2008 10:56 PM (Bx4FB)
33
[[You list things you don't like about Obama. That's progress. At least it's not about his pastor.]]
Way to miss the point. Its directly related to his pastor of 20 years, a foolish and disgusting man who Obama clearly has an affinity for and similarities with.
[[(I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion)]]
Well, except, of course, all the folks who support err, abortions.
[[What about Obama's tax policy don't you like?]]
The fact that he wants to raise them. Bad at the best of times, worse in a weak economy.
[[Do you think our current policy of borrowing from the Chinese is a good, long term strategy?]]
No, thats why we have to stop spending like drunken sailors. Do you really think the guy with the most liberal voting record in congress will be a good fiscal conservative?
[[I missed the part about him surrendering in Iraq.]]
Wow, really? Let me fill you in. Hes a hard core "defeat at any cost" lefty.
[[I don't know what a liberal voting record is. What votes, specifically?]]
Let me help. Heres how its done in a quantitative manner.
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/methodology.htm
Obama was most liberal. For example, he voted against a measure that would prevent a doctor killing a baby accidently born alive during a botched abortion. Nice guy isnt he?
[[Now get angry about things that matter like this GI Bill, combat pay and the declining dollar.]]
Im not mad about the GI bill, either Webbs inferior version will pass or McCains better version. I like a weak dollar, it helps Americans sell thing abroad and makes us seek domestic alternative to foreign stuff.
Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 30, 2008 11:00 PM (2wI6h)
34
Grrr,
When the petroleum producing countries, and the Chinese, decide to take Euros over dollars, come back and tell me how this whole Chicago school of economics has worked you.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 30, 2008 11:08 PM (Bx4FB)
35
[[Now, tell me what of McCain's legislative accomplishments you like.]]
Hes a tax cutter, not a tax and spend liberal (like Obama does).
He dosnt support the killing of babies born alive during a botched abortion (like Obama does).
We will get a 60% conservativism out of McCain, not a 0% conservativism which is what Obamas "most liberal in congress" record indicates we will get out of him.
Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 30, 2008 11:28 PM (2wI6h)
36
Actually, David, I've never watched a moment of Chris Matthews in my life. I don't even own a TV.
So tell me this... why isn't Obama running on his legislative record? Why isn't he coming forward and saying, "this is what I have done" instead of offering us fluff and empty words?
I think I know why... because those items that Obama worked on support the idea, pointed out by Grrrrr above, that Obama is a knee-jerk lefty, and he knows that he can't get elected that way.
So he campaigns as the candidate of HOPE, by which he seems to mean that he HOPEs you won't notice his far-left record, he HOPEs people won't ask him tough questions at press conferences or debates, he HOPEs his friends and associates won't come to light, and he HOPEs his wife won't make asinine statements about not being proud of the USA.
There's your candidate of HOPE, David.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 01, 2008 07:55 AM (RP0Mk)
37
"Exit Question: If TUCC did excommunicate Obama, would it hurt him or help him as a candidate?"
I doubt that it would do much either way, CY. The issue hasn't been so much that Obama is a member of the church but what it says about his character and philosophy that not only did he join but also that he stayed. For twenty years.
If he were to be excommunicated, that would only show that the church doesn't want him, not visa versa. It wouldn't change his views or his affinity for them. And his excommunication would most likely be for his public repudiation of his friendship, not their beliefs.
---
As for the comparison to McCain and Hagee, or Robertson or Falwell. None of those are McCain's pastor. But more importantly, the comparison is different in many ways that make it more inappropriate than appropriate. One I think is fundamental is that in Wright's case, it is easy to suppose he would accept all comers to follow him for that is his purpose. Obama chose to have Wright lead him and, obviously, Wright's beliefs take precedence here as they are the guiding philosophy. After all, a pastor's job is to lead, guide, shepherd. In Hagee's case, however, it is McCain who is accepting all comers to follow him for that is his purpose and McCain's beliefs transcend those of his followers -- including Hagee -- not the other way around.
Thus, for the comparison to stick one must look further to a coincidence of values in McCain which in Hagee you decry. As for Hagee, it is not there. I think you can make the same argument for Robertson and Falwell.
Posted by: Dusty at May 01, 2008 10:04 AM (GJLeQ)
38
Why does everyone so easily buy into Davids premise? I've had a GREAT 7 years!!! In 2000 I was struggling mightely with my business, by 2003 I was really starting to make some money and by 2006 I was able to sell my small bar in Chicago and buy a nice size bar/restaurant in Monroe North Carolina with my salary approaching 6 figures. The last 5 years were the BEST 5 years of my life so I have absolutely no problem extending the "Bush" years!
When the Bush tax cuts were made in 2003 it helped my struggling business greatly. That's the reason I started to make real money. Since I was in the bottom half I got the biggest tax break personally and the help he gave small businesses was a saving grace to my business.
I reject the left wing media premise that things are so bad. Bullsh*t! I couldn't have asked for more. Except for maybe a 5'9" blonde 34/24/35....

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 01, 2008 06:28 PM (kNqJV)
39
Cap, clearly, the last seven years have been terrible... terrible, I tell you...
...for BDS sufferers and others who can't "Move On" past the 2000 election.
(can I get a rimshot?)
Posted by: C-C-G at May 01, 2008 06:37 PM (RP0Mk)
40
C-C-G
I guess I could blame Bush for not finding that 5'9" blonde blue eyed 36-25-35

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 01, 2008 06:51 PM (kNqJV)
41
Well, Cap, at least you could trust Bush with such a blonde... there are some ex-Presidents you couldn't trust with one.
Posted by: C-C-G at May 01, 2008 07:06 PM (RP0Mk)
42
Oh, yes. It's all about HOPE.
/facepalm
Posted by: Conservative CBU at May 01, 2008 10:53 PM (M+Vfm)
43
The Obamites remind me of the liberal callers to conservative radio programs. They try to fill up time so others do not get the chance to talk.
Forget about Obama and Wright's talks, just read Obama's books. They show that he is in the tank for Wright's Black supremacy views.
Posted by: davod at May 02, 2008 07:45 AM (llh3A)
44
A third implication of the Wright-Obama drama commanding 24/7 media coverage is that it is a remake of the George C. Scott movie, The Flim Flam Man, in which an old con artist and his young trainee pull off the grand double-gotcha by staging a fake hatred for each other. Wright-Obama have everybody looking the other way.
Posted by: twolaneflash at May 02, 2008 10:37 AM (05dZx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 29, 2008
Hangman
"No one should start a ministry with lynching, no one should end their ministry with lynching."
Rev. Otis Moss, Trinity United Church of Christ, March 23, 2008
"The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago," he said. "His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church."
"They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs," he said.
"If Reverend Wright thinks that's political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn't know me very well and based on his remarks yesterday, I may not know him as well as I thought either."
"I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia, explaining that he has done enormous good in the church," he said. "But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS; when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century; when he equates the U.S. wartime efforts with terrorism – then there are no excuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced, and that's what I'm doing very clearly and unequivocally here today."
Barack Obama, Winston-Salem, NC, April 29, 2008
Ace pretty much
sums up my thoughts on the matter, if in language a bit more colorful than I typically use.
Too little, too dishonest, and too late. Obama cuts into Wright for being
precisely the man he has been for the past 20 years.
Wright has been consistent, and Obama has proven to be precisely what everyone feared—just another cheap empty suit, willing to say or do anything according to the requirements of the polls.
Far from being the Messiah, he makes for even a shoddy secondhand
Brian.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:10 PM
| Comments (53)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
CY-
"...just another cheap empty suit, willing to say or do anything according to the requirements of the polls."
If that were the case, Obama would have thrown Wright under the bus in Philly. To me, that's strong evidence that he won't just "say anything." At least not all the time, or on this topic.
Posted by: Craig at April 29, 2008 05:01 PM (0MZfd)
2
So it's still okay to lynch during the middle of a ministry? Glad that's clear.
Posted by: Sobek at April 29, 2008 05:26 PM (6GK9U)
3
I think it's refreshing that Obama is willing to state that Wright is crazy.
I don't want to punish him for saying what's good and true.
I gotta punish what's bad and praise what's good. Obama said the correct thing, and he deserves praise for it. Rev Wright's claims are evil and bonkers.
Posted by: brando at April 29, 2008 05:44 PM (LXoqQ)
4
Please that is not the reason he didn't throw him under originally. He was hoping to avoid that at all costs.
Posted by: cv at April 29, 2008 05:55 PM (GmamD)
5
Isn't it just a gift from the Gods that the Rev. Wright seemed to give Obama this great seconds chance to have that conversation on race.
What BS !!
Frankly, the whole thing felt fishy from the beginning. Making it worse was the effort to blame Clinton for setting up the Nation Press Club affair where Wright could oh so well re-self destruct. But, of course, it would be topped off by Obama's attempt at a Sister Soulja Moment.
Only a political novice would ever believe that this was a coincidence. Even Karl Rove isn't this obvious.
The whole thing is just too easy that it stinks to high heaven.
And, of course, it still doesn't explain why Obama sat in Trinity UCC for 20 years ?
Posted by: Neo at April 29, 2008 06:04 PM (Yozw9)
6
And, of course, it still doesn't explain why Obama sat in Trinity UCC for 20 years ?
Posted by: Neo
Well he tells you why in his book!
Obama said today of Rev. Wright: "The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago."
Obama's recollection in Dreams from My Father of his first time at Trinity United 20 years ago:
The title of Reverend Wright's sermon that morning was "The Audacity of Hope." He began with a passage from the Book of Samuel—the story of Hannah, who, barren and taunted by her rivals, had wept and shaken in prayer before her God. The story reminded him, he said, of a sermon a fellow pastor had preached at a conference some years before, in which the pastor described going to a museum and being confronted by a painting title Hope….
"It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere…That's the world! On which hope sits!"
And so it went, a meditation on a fallen world. While the boys next to me doodled on their church bulletin, Reverend Wright spoke of Sharpsville and Hiroshima, the callousness of policy makers in the White House and in the State House. As the sermon unfolded, though, the stories of strife became more prosaic, the pain more immediate. The reverend spoke of the hardship that the congregation would face tomorrow, the pain of those far from the mountaintop, worrying about paying the light bill…
Posted by: LH at April 29, 2008 06:16 PM (WJDFy)
7
There are two possible explanations for Obama's throwing Wright under the bus today:
1) Obama is so naive and clueless that he had no idea that his spiritual mentor of the last 20 years was a fan of Farrakhan, thought the US government created the AIDS virus, and called the USA the US-KKK-A.
2) Obama knew who Wright was and what he believed, but hung onto Wright and his support as long as it was remotely defensible; but when the "it was all sound bites" defense was demolished by at least one of Wright's speeches being carried on live TV, Obama reacted like the politician Wright said he was, and did what he had to do to maintain even a small possibility of being elected.
Neither one looks very good for Obama.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 29, 2008 07:08 PM (RP0Mk)
8
"If that were the case, Obama would have thrown Wright under the bus in Philly."
There's ALWAYS another bus.
Posted by: Dave at April 29, 2008 07:53 PM (Cv59z)
9
Obama once again lied to our faces and not only that but he lied so badly that he obviously thinks Americans are complete and total idiots, who cant put 1 and 1 together and come up with 2.
Not only did he lie but he has added another layer of disgust by those who thought he would be somewhat of what he advertized....and that is "different" than any other weak politician and forsaked a life long mentor and friend....a guy who "he" said was like family.....and for what....for rants and comments that Obama has been listening to for 20 years on a weekly basis.
I suppose when you have near 90% of the African American votes then you can pander at will to the white folk and not worry about it.
Obama does not have my vote...ever.
Posted by: Drider at April 29, 2008 08:46 PM (IQAbf)
10
Well, BO's followers sure remind me of the gang following Brian all over the valley. Tens of thousands shouting in perfect union.
"You're all different!"
- "Yes! We're all different!"
- Keith Olbermann saying, "I say you're the Messiah and I should know, I've followed a few."
Posted by: tsmonk at April 29, 2008 09:02 PM (j0chB)
11
That photo creeps me out--more than his other ones do, at any rate.
Posted by: baldilocks at April 29, 2008 09:07 PM (+p46f)
12
I'm not sure what creeos me out the most:
-Snobama followers chanting "change"
-The media offering up sacrficies to Obama
-Wright's ravings and his supporters bellowing
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at April 29, 2008 10:28 PM (LHaZf)
13
Interestingly, there has been speculation by Newt Gingrich that Wright may be intentionally going 'over the top' to damage the Obama-mama. See
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/gingrich-wright.html
Makes you wonder if he my/may not be in Hitlery's pay? 30 pieces of silver anyone?
Posted by: Big Country at April 29, 2008 11:19 PM (62pYV)
14
I agree with both your possibilites C-C-G but think there is a third.
3) Obama knew what Wright thought and said and agreed with it. Despite his fairly cushy upbringing Obama believes deeply in black liberation theology, that whitey is evil, that the USA is evil, that even in moderm America blacks are opressed, that Israel is an apartheid state, that the US liberators of Iraq are no different that the Romans who tortured Jesus etc. etc.
Even adding this possibility, there are still no go options for BHO.
Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 30, 2008 12:20 AM (2wI6h)
15
There's ALWAYS another bus.
.. but you really have to admit that the Rev. Wright seems to have paid for this bus himself .. or did he ?
Didn't the Rev. make this oh soooo easy by conviently re-self destructing at the National Press Club ? So easy that one could thing that it was a setup job with Wright taking a dive for Obama's benefit.
If not, then the ultimate question is .. does it always take Obama 20 years to really size up the people he deals with ?
I like my Presidents to do it in less than 8 years .. better yet .. in less than 4 years.
Posted by: Neo at April 30, 2008 07:37 AM (Yozw9)
16
Grrrrrrrrrrrr, your option 3 is implicit in my option 2.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 30, 2008 07:46 AM (RP0Mk)
17
Doesn't Obama have to deny him three times before he can be properly crucified?
Posted by: Neo at April 30, 2008 08:24 AM (Yozw9)
18
Please don't say "Hitlery". It detracts from your point. That's just not her name.
Posted by: brando at April 30, 2008 08:29 AM (qzOby)
19
There was someone(Geraghty?) over at National Review that suggested that the best way for Obama to handle Wright was to have Wright say something so radical in public that it would strecth the imagination to believe that Obama beleived it, and then for Obama to say, "Enough! That is not th ePastor I sat under for 20!" and denounce Wright completely.
Sounds like Obama reads National Review....
Posted by: Grey Fox at April 30, 2008 09:01 AM (ogM0d)
20
Should read:
"the pastor I sat under for 20 years"
Posted by: A Sheepish Grey Fox at April 30, 2008 09:07 AM (ogM0d)
21
"when he equates the U.S. wartime efforts with terrorism – then there are no excuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans."
Well no they didnt "rightly offend all Americans". In fact I heard a bunch of people clap and chear when the Rev. said that. Does that make those people who claped not Americans? Did Obama just question the patriotism of his entire church, many Democrats, and 2/3 of the media?
Posted by: Web at April 30, 2008 12:18 PM (92wJc)
22
So, either:
1. Obama is a leftist who pretty much agrees with Wright, Ayers, et al, and after trying to avoid it had to finally publicly distance himself because his electoral chances were in jeopardy--pretty much as Wright said in noting that Obama is a politician; OR
2. Obama was clueless for 20 years about what Wright was saying and doing, notwithstanding evidence to the contrary such as keeping Wright out of his announcing his presidential run, and material in his (Obama's) books, etc.; OR
3. Obama WAS a leftist, etc., and suddenly "saw the light" and honestly changed what he is all about.
Doesn't matter, tho; any way I parse it, I can't take him seriously as a responsible adult, let alone a President.
Posted by: Marty at April 30, 2008 12:40 PM (3Vake)
23
Why do I get the feeling I'm reading about Wright/Obama in the context of Heinlein's "Farnham's Freehold"?
Posted by: Mark at April 30, 2008 01:19 PM (4od5C)
24
I do not think I am alone in feeling Sen. Obama could have said, when this first appeared, "I disagree with some of his views, but my respect for him and his achievements allows me to continue to hear his arguments."
Instead, we heard "I never heard him say any of that," followed by "I never paid attention," through "I do not think his views unusual," to "I only knew this man twenty years ago for a little while, the last nineteen-plus years were just a dream." [actual quote "The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago," he said.]
Posted by: teqjack at April 30, 2008 04:39 PM (CEphM)
25
Obammy would have to struggle mightily to achieve the testicular fortitude of an empty suit. He is rather, an empty dry cleaners bag; weightless, colorless; a husk one might fill with anything but it presents a choking hazard. He declares himself post-racial while larding up an opulent golden parachute for this vile racist loon. And of course there is more and worse to come, Obamoids. Much more and much MUCH worse. If Wright is Barry's garlic, Rezko is holy water and sunlight combined. Best hold on to your smelling salts. For those subscribing to a Kanye West level of seriousness (most Dems), there is far greater and pernicious evidence that Barry don't like white people than there is that Bush don't like black people. This self-righteous twerp is poison. Better Hillary over him, not that it is likely to come to that.
Posted by: megapotamus at April 30, 2008 05:24 PM (LF+qW)
26
Mega, don't forget Bill Ayers. I suspect McCain is holding back some stuff to use on the Obamamessiah during the general election.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 30, 2008 06:52 PM (RP0Mk)
27
Didn't have time to read the comments....
Yes, Obama only had one honest choice, but it is one he and the media and I guess the Democrat party refuse to take ----- that would be sticking by their beliefs and engaging in a heated open debate about the true nature of the United States in the world and for the American people.
Rev. Wright's worst comments play worse than what the average Dem intellecutal and pseudo-intellectual would say, but they really don't have much of a difference in opinions. Too many active liberals view American history, and the society today, and say we have a systemic problem - a rotten core - that cause most everything we do to be bad or wrongheaded (or at best, not good enough to give a thumbs up).
With the war in Iraq and things still going on in Afghanistan and with the inmates down in Cuba and with how Bush came into office in 2000, you would think the liberals would have enough confidence to stand tall and proud and call out the conservatives to face off in a wide open debate about the evil or good in the US as a nation.
But they are clearly too scared to engage openly in the debate, because they know they will not win over the bulk of the American people.
So, Obama has to cover and deny and the media has to shield him instead of standing up for what they believe.
Posted by: usinkorea at April 30, 2008 09:48 PM (Ldw99)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The DNC IED
Several people have forwarded me a link this morning to the Democratic National Committee ad against John McCain that shows two American soldiers at the moment an explosion goes off beside them.
The soldiers are on screen for just a split-second, just long enough for viewers to see that there was an explosion, but not long enough to know if the soldiers pictured survived uninjured, if they were wounded, or if they were killed (note: Both soldiers survived. See final update below).
More than 3 full decades after the last U.S. soldier left Saigon, the party of Bill Ayers still revels in the imagery of blowing up U.S. soldiers as part of their political expression.
Update: RNC slams ad as
deliberately distorting what McCain said (a fair charge) and demands that the networks pull the ad off the air.
As for the source of the video clip, we're a little closer to running that down—it was used in
Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911, a movie completed no later than April of 2004. The clip came from the first year of the war.
Additional Update: Charlie Foxtrot notes that the same networks who placed restrictions on 9/11 imagery did not apparently
have the same problem with this Democratic National Committee ad.
And because it matters,
both U.S. soldiers survive the blast (h/t
Political Punch).
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:09 AM
| Comments (56)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Absolutely disgusting. I expect this for the al Qaeda, not from the DNC.
Posted by: Jeff at April 29, 2008 10:28 AM (ueKJq)
2
Wow. One presidential candidate knows Bill Ayers and he becomes the mascot of the entire political party??? That's like saying Republicans are the party of the KKK because of David Duke.
Both parties use fear as part of their political expression. GWB didn't mind using images of 9/11 and bodies being pulled from rubble either to further his argument to be re-elected...(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/politics/030304-2v.htm)...Love the irony of a Spanish speaking ad in GWB's voice...
Posted by: matta at April 29, 2008 10:39 AM (F+fRS)
3
You liberals have no shame whatsoever. None.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at April 29, 2008 11:09 AM (M+Vfm)
4
I sit here as a long time Democrat who is sick and
tired of his party and the "TRASH" that runs it.
They are as elitist as they come.Ried,Pelosi,
Durbin,Murtha,ect,ect.They have no use for our Military,infact I would say it borders on total
contempt.This Country needs an other Teddy Roosevelt.I'm not much of a John McCain fan but
looking at the 2 on the other side it's a no brainer...As for Bill Ayers if he was run over by
the "L" today I wouldn't even blink.You know I
think I'll stay home and clean my Gun's today...
Posted by: Gator at April 29, 2008 11:11 AM (uaTZE)
5
"That's like saying Republicans are the party of the KKK because of David Duke."
Which plenty of lefties have been willing to do, matta.
Posted by: Rick C at April 29, 2008 11:13 AM (76b+R)
6
The issue isn't that Obama "knows" Ayers, it is that A) Ayers specifically pledged to "bring down" America and used violence to prosecute those ends, B) Ayers still holds the view that America needs to be, in essence, destroyed, C) Ayers was an integral part of Obama's rise to prominence (ex. Ayers was Obama's boss at one point and was prominent enough in Obama's planning to be the host of his candidacy announcement) and D) Obama has lied about all of the above.
David Duke, on the other hand, can call himself a member of any party he wishes. McCain isn't beholden to Duke in any way, shape or form.
Sheesh, can you think rationally at *all* about these kinds of things?
Posted by: Wildmonk at April 29, 2008 11:13 AM (O7a8U)
7
Just to allay any fears, the soldiers were not killed or hurt though at least one Iraqi walking next to the car bomb was blown to bits. The vid is from very early in the war.
That being said, the libs don't really care about the soldiers, alive or dead, they are merely tools to be used and discarded as necessary. Notice that the dems haven't been telling us how important it is to have a vet as POTUS during a time of war, ala 2004.
Posted by: Saint Patton at April 29, 2008 11:13 AM (MQVqX)
8
Matta: The Democrats already have a lock on the KKK vote, thanks to Robert Byrd, the Exalted Cyclops.
Posted by: Kevin at April 29, 2008 11:14 AM (L6xiZ)
9
Matta, why is there irony in Bush speaking Spanish? As Governor of TX, he had quite a few occasions to speak Spanish...hell, as a resident of TX I have numerous occasions to speak it every day...
Posted by: wyzbok at April 29, 2008 11:24 AM (HqhQg)
10
@wildmonk - Who said anything about Obama? CY was criticizing the DNC which is exactly my point. Guilty by party afiliation, what a fine American tradition! Taking a single candidate's association with Ayer and linking the entire party to it? Then the reverse should be fair too, right? No, its stupid and childish. How long before all the adults run around going, "you've got democrat/republican cooties!"?
@Rick - agreed, neither party is above such stupidness...
Posted by: matta at April 29, 2008 11:41 AM (F+fRS)
11
That's like saying Republicans are the party of the KKK because of David Duke.
Duke also sought office as a democrat and Duke won his senate seat over the objections of high-ranking Republicans. Republicans didn't want Duke, big difference from the loving embrace given to Obama by the libs.
Sorry but if the left can try to tie McCain to Dubya in a quest to somehow taint him, then Obama's connection to Ayers (and others) is fair game.
Posted by: Gil at April 29, 2008 11:42 AM (MQVqX)
12
That's like saying Democrats are the party of the KKK because of Senator Robert "Exalted Cyclops" Byrd.
Posted by: Doh at April 29, 2008 11:51 AM (txZij)
13
No, matta, this is not the same thing and rough moral equivalences are the harbinger of complete moral breakdown. Has ANY Republican defended Duke in the terms Obammy has Ayers? He's a neighbor, a colleague, a member of the mainstream (that last especially). And that is BEFORE we even compare the relative careers of Duke and Ayers. Correct me if I am wrong but Duke has never been associated with ANY crime, no? Much less murderous terrorism within our own borders. Ayers and Dohrn and Boudien and whatever element of their representative freak show has not killed itself are a cancer on our nation and our society; indeed, the very notion of society itself. Barry cannot play patty-cake with this vermin and expect us all to look away. If there are new facts or statements, things could change but anyone who says Ayers is no big deal is, first off tactically wrong as regards this election, but much more importantly is a villain themselves. Yes, you.
Posted by: megapotamus at April 29, 2008 11:54 AM (LF+qW)
14
Also, let us not forget that Ayers launched Obammy's political career. Why would he do that? Out of buddy-hood? Or because he saw Barry as a valid vehicle for his own political preferences? Is Barry merely a pawn in game of life? And on the topic, who is Duke's Barry? Who is the mainstream political figure beholden to him, who owes his political genesis to Duke? Of course, there is no one. Ayers is a traitor and a murderer; unpunished and enthused, still, by the same passions of yesteryear. It seems in this that, yes, he is a worthy avatar and stand-in for the Dems generally. The primary voters in any case. I am willing to be educated on the relative evil of David Duke.
Posted by: megapotamus at April 29, 2008 11:59 AM (LF+qW)
15
That's like saying Republicans are the party of the KKK because of David Duke.
Did Duke commit a crime as Ayers did?
Posted by: Hemisphere Danger at April 29, 2008 12:02 PM (MQVqX)
16
I am interested in exactly which known terrorists McCain toasted at a private party, since we are talking about equivelance, that would be it. Otherwise, you are full of it.
Posted by: moptop at April 29, 2008 12:05 PM (I5axq)
17
Too damn bad. How do your rightwingers like the Rovian tactics thrown back in your faces?
Just wait...just wait....we've learned alot from you guys. There's much much more to come in the switboating of the Republican Party and Senator Grampa Munster.
You just wait....
Posted by: TimPundits at April 29, 2008 12:19 PM (AgR20)
18
Why aren't the dems using the truly awful vids that actually show US troops being shot or shattered by bombs?
Because the libs know the price would doom their party for the next twenty years. So instead they inch up to the line but don't quite go over; it will still cost them.
Posted by: Sacred Trust at April 29, 2008 12:19 PM (MQVqX)
19
McCain is a fool if he doesn't go hammer and tong after the Dems. The 350 million that Soros is promising his 527's are going to attempt to make him look like a traitor who caved into the Commies and sold out his fellow POW's.
I wonder if 90% of them will work against him like 90% of the Swifties worked against Kerry.
If not that, at least all of their allegations will be unable to be refuted because McCain will not release his Service records. Like Kerry.
Yep,
KKK=Republican
DNC=RNC
Kerry=McCain
the new math at work.
Posted by: hang all traitors at April 29, 2008 12:23 PM (2z4Bl)
20
Hey, no matter what your politics, leave Grampa Munster ALONE!
Posted by: anon at April 29, 2008 12:33 PM (evspJ)
21
hey Tim, swiftboating means being called a liar by 90% of your compatriots and not being able to refute it. Like John Kerry.
I think what you are trying to say (but I admit I have a hard time crawling around in the fever swamp of left pseudo-intellectuals so I may be wrong) is "TANGing".
TANG-Texas Air National Guard.
TANGing means lying blatantly; using forged documents that are comical in their inauthenticy; destroying the reputation of your employer; having yourself and subordinates fired over the incident and having an inquiry done by a former Senator to assess just how big a lie it was... Like Dan Rather, Mary Mapes and CBS News.
Is that what you mean?
Posted by: hang all traitors at April 29, 2008 12:33 PM (2z4Bl)
22
Timpundits
"There's much much more to come in the switboating of the Republican Party and Senator Grampa Munster."
The problem with your strategy is that Swiftboating relies on truth, not lib fantasies.
Posted by: coggieguy at April 29, 2008 12:36 PM (mTQTD)
23
Trolling here:
Speaking of the Munsters and JFKerry, I rented the first season of the Munsters has an episode, I think it is "Far Out Munsters", that has a beatnik poet that I swear looks and sounds just like a young John Kerry right down the the sonorous voice and incomprehensible beatnik poetry.
Posted by: anon at April 29, 2008 12:42 PM (evspJ)
24
Wow. They sure do get a lot of joy from US Troops getting hurt.
Posted by: brando at April 29, 2008 01:19 PM (qzOby)
25
democrats get as much joy out of injured and dead American soldiers as al Qaeda
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 29, 2008 01:26 PM (kNqJV)
26
@mega - you are making my point for me. Nobody in the RNC supported Duke or the KKK either. The DNC doesn't endorse or support Ayer either. Obama and the DNC are not the same thing like McCain and NC's GOP aren't the same thing either. Yet CY wrote a post about a DNC ad and then baited the end of the post by linking the DNC and Ayer together. Now a conversation about whether or not the ad went over the line or not is fine, but where does Ayer show up in the ad which is the subject of the post? hmmm, I don't see him and yet CY plays the political version of 7 degrees of Obama to smear one with the other.
Obama bashing is fine, but has nothing to do with the subject...
Posted by: matta at April 29, 2008 01:38 PM (F+fRS)
27
I'm in my 40's, retired military. My wife, US Army, is currently in Iraq. I will never, I say again, NEVER, vote for a Democrat for the rest of my life. I don't care how the parties change through the years. The Democratic base desires the defeat of the US military, and praises the death of US military servicemen and women. There is nothing they can do to ever get me to believe that they didn't wish for my death in my three tours in Iraq. I cannot, will not, shall not, vote for anyone who desires the support of those who wish for my death.
Posted by: Diggs at April 29, 2008 01:52 PM (6T736)
28
Woh's surprised that Al Q and the DNC are on the same side? When has the American Left EVER sided with America against those who wish the deaths of Americans?
Posted by: DaveP. at April 29, 2008 02:33 PM (3Aj1g)
29
Hopefully Soros and TimPundits will be stupid enough to accuse McCain of breaking under torture.
That will allow McCain to publicly describe in detail--for the first time--exactly what was done to him. Broken shoulders, teeth broken out with a rifle butt, etc.
When the dust settles, the entire country will see McCain as a man who endured unimaginable physical and psychological pain in the service of his country.
And he'll be running against either Hillary "Sniper Dodger" Clinton or Barack "My Pastor Hates America" Obama.
Sweet.
Posted by: Tom W. at April 29, 2008 03:18 PM (UUp3o)
30
regarding matta's kkk comment
are you forgetting about Robert Byrd?
Posted by: Diego at April 29, 2008 03:47 PM (0V8Cs)
31
matta, um, what? Of course "the party of David Duke" is a rhetorical flourish that throve in its day and thrives still in many precincts, I'm betting those comfortable to Bill Ayers. It is YOU who wants to dismiss Ayers as a mere foil to Duke, butcha can't, as I said. So, no, I have not made a point for you. You do not have one.
Posted by: megapotamus at April 29, 2008 03:56 PM (LF+qW)
32
And also "Taking a single candidate's association with Ayer and linking the entire party to it?"
Yeah, Obammy ain't runnin' for dogcatcher. He is the leader of the Dem party as long as he is the front runner for Prez. If he gets the nom, win or lose he is the Dem leader until the next cycle. So, no cookie there, either. The hilarious thing is, even if Ayers is successfully declared off limits, even if Wright is, it does not matter. Obammy has a deep, deep bench as regards lifelong associations with vicious domestic radicals. Obviously, he is one himself.
Posted by: megapotamus at April 29, 2008 04:00 PM (LF+qW)
33
Capitalist Infidel: democrats get as much joy out of injured and dead American soldiers as al Qaeda.
Actually more, the dems never met a terrorist they didn't want to protect and love.
Posted by: Sara at April 29, 2008 04:00 PM (Wi/N0)
34
We've lost 44 soldiers in April so far, the deadliest month for the US military since last September. John McCain has flip flopped four times now on his "Korea" plan for Iraq.
In 2005 he told Chris Matthews: “I would hope that we could bring them all home,” he said on MSNBC. “I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff.”
When Matthews pressed him on keeping bases in Iraq, offering up the German and Korean precedents McCain said:
“I not only think we could get along without it, but I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence,” he responded. “And I don’t pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be.”
Kind of sounds like he was just touting the then current Bush "hide in our bases" strategy but he was talking long term.
Then in 2006 he changed his mind. The Korea model sounded just fine. He needed to a political hug from George Bush.
But last fall he told Charlie Rose: “Eventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws”
Now of course there's another election and he's running for president. Now he considers anyone who holds the position he himself embraced in 2005 and 2007 a terrorist sympathizing defeatist. He'd like us to keep killing Iraqis until those who are left accept domination by a nation that invaded, occupied and destroyed their country. One that arrested them without charge, imprisoned them without trial and tortured them.
As with almost every other issue, on Iraq John McCain is all over the map. He is intellectually and temperamentally unsuited to be president. We've already had a president like that for the last years. We do not have the time or resources to waste another four years.
Posted by: markg8 at April 29, 2008 04:21 PM (7xxF4)
35
markg8, McCain evolved his position over time as conditions in Iraq changed, and over five years they have changed dramatically. He has taken defensible positions about what was then known (positions which you, like the DNC, purposefully and dishonestly misrepresent. A character flaw on your part, to be sure).
There is a phrase, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
That phrase neatly sums up Obama's unthinking, inflexible view of the conflict, and that of the progressive wing of the Democratic party in general. You were first trapped in a quagmire of "the war is lost," in March of 2003, and nothing will change that ironclad view, no matter what what develops.
Wars have their ups and downs, and this one is no different, but at this point of the conflict, with al Qaeda having conceded that they cannot win, and al Sadr's militia being cut to shreds even with Iranian Quds force support, no credible observer sees anything but a decided U.S. advantage in the conflict.
It is too early to say the war is "won," but you lose credibility if you claim coalition forces are not presently winning.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 29, 2008 04:44 PM (HcgFD)
36
Moptop, you need to worry about Ata testifying in Rezko's trial, he could take Hill and Obama out.
Posted by: justbecause at April 29, 2008 04:50 PM (jjtod)
37
Mark, obviously you know very little about war. It's long been an axiom that no battle plan survives contact with the enemy.
War is about adapting your plans to what your allies and your enemy do. That's just what McCain is doing... as the situation changes, McCain sits down and takes a long look at what the new strategy should be.
It's amusing that not too long ago, the anti-war lefties were demanding a change in strategy; that is part of what led to the Surge, which was, let us remember, a new strategy. Now, all of a sudden, it's bad form to consider new strategies.
There's a term for people who try to fight today's war with yesterday's battle plans and strategies: losers.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 29, 2008 07:14 PM (RP0Mk)
38
The Dhimmierats concern for the troops is matched only by their courage and patriotism. The Dhimmierats have all the characterists of a rat except for the tail.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson at April 29, 2008 10:36 PM (LHaZf)
39
Glorious Iraqis resistance fighters liberating their country from...Iraqis?
The complaint was we weren't training them fast enough, then oh, the Iraqis flee from battle! Now mark puts us back on track with unjust invasion, and America is terrorizing the poor Iraqis. Last time I checked they ELECTED their government. They didn't elect Joe Bob from Texas to rule Iraq, they elected some Iraqi folks. America is fighting to keep those Iraqis alive through a turbulent time. And the results will be a stable country that doesn't threaten other nations.
The Left doesn't take merit into consideration. They see a political enemy and they Attack Attack Attack until it is gone, no matter what is being argued. The War on Terror started after 9/11, but the opposition started in Florida 2000.
There's more blood on Iraqi/Al-Qaeda/Iranian hands than on any American's. Everytime a carbomb goes off, the Dems take a poll.
Posted by: Dave at April 30, 2008 01:36 AM (o9pa5)
40
Correct me if I am wrong but Duke has never been associated with ANY crime, no?
You're wrong. To the best of my knowledge, he has never been convicted of a violent crime- but he has been convicted of fraud and filing a false tax return, and has served time.
Search wikipedia for his entry, the details are there. Apparently CY's 'questionable content' filter doesn't like 'wikipedia.org'.
Posted by: rosignol at April 30, 2008 05:17 AM (kBAUO)
41
@mega - a) Obama is only a Senator and a presidential candidate, not the leader of the DNC party. b) I don't need a cookie, your empty blustering isn't a counter point. Taking a despicable person who is associated with one person in the entire party and linking an entire organization to that same person is childish. It doesn't work for Duke and RNC and it doesn't work for Ayer and DNC.
@CY - McCain "evolved" his position??? Shouldn't that be "intelligently designed"? Is that the answer for his changing position on the GWB's tax cuts, religious endorsements and public financing as well? Love the nuances.
Posted by: matta at April 30, 2008 07:08 AM (F+fRS)
42
So who IS the Dem leader if not Barry? Bueller? Ayers? Clinton? But he's ahead of Clinton. Right?Hilarious! Dealing with Leftwingers is like playing darts with the blind, but less challenging. So... what if Barry IS elected? Is he the Dem leader then? Not so much? Of course in such a situation we could still not speak of Ayers, disrespectful to the office, dontcha know, not to mention racist. Speaking of bluster.... How pathetic.
Posted by: megapotamus at April 30, 2008 08:36 AM (uJ9Kn)
43
Of course, the David Duke = Bill Ayers discussion would have a tad more relevancy if David Duke were considered a respected academic and educational leader by the Republicans rather than routinely rejected, condemned and considered a general douche bag. By the way, incase you didn't know David Duke has run for various offices not only as a Republican, but also as a Democrat, an independent and on various minor party tickets, including the Populist Party.
Posted by: submandave at April 30, 2008 11:39 AM (0135J)
44
@mega - By your logic, when Hillary was leading, she was the leader of the DNC then she lost being the leader. By the same logic, Giuliani was the leader, then Romney and I guess McCain is now the leader of the RNC, right? Oh, wait maybe that would be GWB. BTW, Howard Dean is the chairman (i.e. leader) of the DNC. Keep coming with the insults or is recess overwith?
@subman - I knew he ran as a democrat but he switch to be a Republican and its not really the point. My analogy was if the DNC = Ayers, then RNC = KKK as Obama knows Ayers and Duke knows KKK. My point is that CY's post of smear tactics of guilty by organization is childish. I know alot of good people who are both democrats and republicans who do a lot of good work at local, county and state level. They don't deserve to be smeared simply because of the associations of 1 individual.
Posted by: matta at April 30, 2008 02:04 PM (F+fRS)
45
So who is the leader of the Democrat party?
Posted by: megapotamus at April 30, 2008 04:50 PM (LF+qW)
46
Mega, that would be Screamin' Howie Dean, the architect of this marvelous Dumb-o-cratic Primary Process that is all process and no results.
If the Party of the Donkey ran primaries the way the Party of the Elephant does--that is, in a reasonable fashion--Obama would have sent Clinton back to New Yahk months ago, and their party might have had a chance to coalesce behind Obama.
As it is now, thanks to the oh-so-fair proportional representation rules of the DUMB-o-crat primaries, there's a good chance that the party will split right down the middle during or after the convention.
I begin to wonder if Dean isn't a Karl Rove agent.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 30, 2008 06:59 PM (RP0Mk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 28, 2008
Sorry, Barack: NC Gov Goes For Hillary
I first heard the suspicion that North Carolina Governor Mike Easley would buck the huge advantage Barack Obama has in North Carolina's polling to support Hillary Clinton late this afternoon. The Associated Press now confirms it:
Hillary Rodham Clinton has won the endorsement of North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley, a surprise boost to her candidacy in a state where Barack Obama is heavily favored to win the Democratic primary.
Easley was expected to announce the endorsement Tuesday morning in Raleigh, the state capital, one week before North Carolina's primary on May 6, according to people close to the governor and to Clinton. The individuals spoke on condition of anonymity because the formal announcement was pending.
With its liberal white enclaves and large population of black voters, North Carolina has been viewed as exceptionally favorable to Obama. Public polling in the state has him leading the former first lady by 10 points or more.
But Clinton has contested the state in hopes of an upset. Short of that, her campaign aims to peel off enough pledged delegates to stay competitive with Obama.
The former first lady spent Monday campaigning across North Carolina and has run a heavy television advertising campaign in the state. She was headed Tuesday to Indiana, whose May 6 primary is viewed as much more competitive.
Easley is relatively well-liked—or at least, isn't heavily disliked—by both Democrats and Republicans in North Carolina, and has enough political capital that his endorsement could actually make things interesting if Clinton continues to close on Obama.
And yes, she very well should continue to close.
Obama looks weak and scared for dodging another debate with Clinton. His dodge ie occuring even as Jeremiah Wright's
latest rants give Tarheel voters good reason to find Obama's judgment suspect for the two decades (and counting) he has spent at Wright's radical church, where paranoia, anti-Americanism, racism, and conspiracy-theorizing has proven to be not only accepted, but a bizarrely lucrative business.
I'm not convinced that African-American voters will turn on Obama for Wright's lunacy even as few buy into his hatred, but I suspect that some white and Latino Democratic voters who had been leaning towards Obama now realize that his hopes of prevailing in the general election have been heavily damaged, and they may flip to Clinton instead of throwing away their vote. Thus does Easley's endorsement become important for Democrats on the edge.
A few weeks ago, North Carolina was predicted as a blow-out victory for Barack Obama. Now?
Anything's possible.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:30 PM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Darn it, I wanted to see Obama as the nominee. He'd be so easy to beat it'd be Bush-Dukakis all over again.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 28, 2008 08:43 PM (RP0Mk)
2
It's interesting to consider the Hispanic vote. I don't follow the politics in that at all, but in the couple of areas I've lived where there was a very significant Hispanic population, the relationship with the black community was not good - at all. And in a couple of places - that is putting very mildly...
The Hispanics where I live now despise Pres. Bush, despite amnesty attempts, just as blacks seem to despise him despite Rice and Powell being given two of the most powerful positions in the world.
But, if the media fails in its attempt to keep Obama's connections to blacks-for-blacks-ultra-nationalism out of the mainstream discussion of Obama, I could see Hispanics pulling away from him and moving for McCain.
Posted by: usinkorea at April 28, 2008 10:24 PM (x4a4p)
3
I've done my part, I changed my party affiliation so I could participate in Operation Chaos on May 6th. I bet I'm not the only North Carolinian to do so.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 28, 2008 11:24 PM (kNqJV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
When Jesus Drove a Porsche
I am not a very good Christian. I can't confidently flip to the right book, chapter and verse Sunday mornings without looking at the index as some others in my congregation can.
Still, I'm fairly confident that Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not a religious martyr. He has never been
publicly crucified. Hoisted on his own petard, perhaps, as he's been caught damning our nation and accusing our government of genocide and racism, even as he has profited handsomely from a theology based upon a devious blend of Marxism and racial politics, but not crucified.
I'm pretty sure he isn't Jesus, even as he would like to make himself a messianic martyr. Last I checked, Jesus didn't drive a Porsche, and wasn't building a mansion in the exclusive neighborhood of Tinley Park while lecturing his inner-city flock about the evils of aspiring to "middleclassness" in the US of KKK-A.
Though certainly grist for the media mill, I can't hold Wright's more recent outbursts directly against Obama. Wright's most recent vitriol has come after Obama has made at least minimal attempts to distance himself publicly from Wright's worst comments, even as he clings to the pastor and his warped theology.
What I can question, however, is Obama's judgment in associating with such a man and other radicals throughout his adult life.
As a nation, we've only known Jeremiah Wright for a few months now, but Barack Obama has known him for two decades. He knows the man's theology, his ministry, and after two decades, at least something of the man as an individual. Whether or not Obama heard any of Wright's
specific rants is frankly irrelevant. In the larger picture, he should know who and what Wright is as a man.
If the self-righteous, vitriolic narcissist we continue to see in the news is the real Jeremiah Wright, then we have every reason to question Barack Obama's devotion to a racial and radical theology well outside of the mainstream of the American religious experience. It is a matter of his personal judgment and his character.
Barack Obama promises "change we can believe in" and a new spirit of bi-partisanship in politics.
Were he a more mature candidate, we would have his record and his experience as a national legislator to judge him on as someone capable of making such a change, but his record is almost non-existent. He has taken few stands (if any) on issues he now claims to be important. The meager voting record he has compiled shows him to be anything but bi-partisan. Instead, he boasts the most liberal voting record in the Senate, to the left of even self-described democratic socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
With no record of bi-partisan accomplishments, all Barack Obama has to stand on is rhetoric—"just words."
With mere words being insufficient, few actions to his credit and what little record he has compiled showing him to be a radical leftist instead of the inclusive moderate he claims to be, we're left to judge Barack based upon what we can divine of his character by the company he keeps.
Radical violence-promoting priest
Father Michael Pfleger, whom Obama has known even longer than Wright, and Wright is a man made rich by exploiting Chicago's urban poor via religion. Terrorists
Bill Ayers and
Bernardine Dohrn, who formally declared war on the United States, and still despise this nation. Michelle Obama, who has an Ivy League education and a job that pays her hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, but still finds this to be a "mean" country.
Barack Obama's minister may have made a mint off of preaching hate and may also be his greatest continuing public relations embarrassment, but his relationship with the man who would liken himself to being martyred like Jesus is just one example of Obama's poor character judgment, or perhaps just poor character.
A man of few accomplishments to support his rhetorical promises, no proven leadership skills, and a past, present, and future filled with radicals more interested in fighting America than fighting for it, Barack Obama is not a candidate America can trust.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:02 AM
| Comments (64)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
reverend wright, the gift that keeps on giving!
Posted by: Conservative CBU at April 28, 2008 11:33 AM (M+Vfm)
2
Jesus was a carpenter, he drove an old F-150. :-)
Posted by: DirtCrashr at April 28, 2008 11:44 AM (VNM5w)
3
What we are seeing is an extension of the MSM's continual blind eye in respect to black churches campaigning for Democrats. Just let a Republican set foot in a church and civilization as we know it is in danger of its very existence; however, Democrats of every race and color get a free pass.
The conservative preacher who voices disapproval of homosexuality, abortion, etc. is denounced as a "hater," while the racist black preacher is repackaged by the media as the victim.
Posted by: Paul at April 28, 2008 12:24 PM (WOi7W)
4
These several appearances by Wright are so tactically baffling I think we can assume Barry would rather he had gone off on an Antarctic cruise. But Rev Jeremiah is simply not the dissappearing type. Even Moyers couldn't give Wright enough slack to actually recover from a bit of this claptrap. It is obvious Wright is a wackjob but worse for Obammy, he is a narcissist and as deeply self-righteous as a fool can be. Maybe he thinks he is helping Team Obama but more likely he is just pissed at the world for being so bougie about the whole shtick. Wake up, suckers, just don't wake up MY suckers, he seems to say.
Posted by: megapotamus at April 28, 2008 12:49 PM (LF+qW)
5
With no record of bi-partisan accomplishments, all Barack Obama has to stand on is rhetoric—"'just words.'"
Ha! A blogger complaining about someone being all words. The irony is fantastic.
Posted by: Juan Manuel de Rosas at April 28, 2008 01:28 PM (e2+FE)
6
Juan, you're an idiot. The blogger in question is not running for President. Obama is.
Posted by: Harry at April 28, 2008 01:41 PM (0suEp)
7
Harry, you expect logic and facts from an America hating far left wing fanatical nut job?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 28, 2008 02:09 PM (kNqJV)
8
Faced with Mr. Wright's latest antics, one must ask: Why? What is his motivation?
The answer should be obvious: money.
Jeremiah Wright is seeking to replace Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton as the new black spokesperson. And the media is giving him tons of free publicity to achieve that goal.
Ahead: the book deals, the interviews, the fame, the fortune.
Wright is a man who has seized the moment, and who cares nothing for Barack Obama.
Posted by: Just Askin' at April 28, 2008 02:17 PM (xyyVG)
9
Wright is a man who has seized the moment, and who cares nothing for Barack Obama.
Bingo! I'd be surprised if it weren't mutual. Barry's "christianity" is obviously a simple campaign gimmick. Ranks right up there with kissing babies...
Posted by: Diogenes at April 28, 2008 03:55 PM (2MrBP)
10
The Rev. Wright must be more mainstream than you think. This here is the poster boy for "Prosperity Theology," which teaches that God wants Christians to be "abundantly" successful in every way, including financially. If it's OK for white, southern televangelists, why not Rev. Wright? Or is it only obscene when a black minister gets rich peddling religion?
Posted by: Craig at April 28, 2008 04:02 PM (0MZfd)
11
"Harry, you expect logic and facts from an America hating far left wing fanatical nut job?"
When did I express anything that resembled "America hating" in that post? As a patriot, a fiscal conservative, and someone who cares about public policy — ie. not this BS discussion about what someone's pastor said at some point in time — I'm personally insulted.
I just thought it was a little ironic for a blogger to say that Obama was all rhetoric when 99.9% of all blog entries are, in fact, rhetoric.
Oh, and CY, you write really good articles on the issues from time to time. I like these articles because they point out where the candidates (and not the periphery figures in their their lives) stand on the issues. Please write more of these articles. I actually think you've got a good case against Obama, especially considering Obama's "let's pull out of Iraq in 16 months" delcaration. But what do I know? I'm just an America hating, left-wing, libtard, defeatocrat that hates America and eats babies for breakfast.
Posted by: Juan Manuel de Rosas at April 28, 2008 04:05 PM (e2+FE)
12
You really shouldn't eat babies at all. Turn yourself in to your local sheriff.
Posted by: brando at April 28, 2008 04:59 PM (qzOby)
13
Actually, Craig, you're not gonna find a lot of approval here for televangelists. I've seldom found one that was worth watching or listening to.
And that was a pathetic attempt at a straw-man. Televangelists, as a group, are only barely more respected than politicians, used car salesmen, and telemarketers.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 28, 2008 06:35 PM (RP0Mk)
14
Or is it only obscene when a black minister gets rich peddling religion? Heck no. And why does the fact that those charlatans exist and rake in the lucre in any way mitigate the fact that Rev Wright is a repulsive and rich demagogue? Wright is spiritual mentor and pastor to a candidate for President of the United States. I know of no white televangelist who has such a close 20 year relationship to any other candidate.
Posted by: Zhombre at April 28, 2008 09:09 PM (SRZ4E)
15
Well gee, I would think that the way the pastor got rich might have something to do with it. Somehow getting rich by whipping one's flock into an orgy of pathetic racist hatred and resentment against the very people who are paying taxes so the members of the flock can be cut every imaginable break seems pretty bad form.
Posted by: Lancaster at April 28, 2008 09:28 PM (N91Mr)
16
Rev. Jesse Jackson makes a fine living as a race pimp as does Rev. Al Sharpton, who is currently trying to shut down New York City, so maybe Rev. Wright's claim to speak for the entire black church is not off the mark. I would hope to see some black religious leaders challenge him on the claim though as some of his claims and rhetoric seem particularly divisive. The whole left brain/right brain, clapping and tone differences explanations from Wright, if offered up by a white pastor, would have led to widespread and immediate denunciation.
I don't think he's helping the Messiah by supplying the context Obama's supporters ridiculously claim had been missing.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 28, 2008 09:34 PM (0pZel)
17
Zhombre-
I think you're onto something. John McCain, a candidate for POTUS, also has close ties to controversial ministers. John Hagee, for instance, who has said vile things about Catholics and is a blatant anti-Arab racist, was an endorsement McCain sought and got. Also, McCain got close to Jerry Falwell following the 2000 election smackdown, and it was Falwell who said 9-11 was caused by "pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians, the American Civil Liberties Union and the People For the American Way." (That seems a lot wackier than "chickens coming home to roost," IMO). And of course, those words were said to Pat Robertson (another now-friend of McCain) on the 700 Club, who completely agreed on air.
Posted by: Craig at April 28, 2008 10:05 PM (0MZfd)
18
And for how many decades did McCain attend Haggee's church? Was McCain drawn to become a member of a specific church because Falwell was the pastor, was he married by Falwell, and did he have his children baptized by Falwell, and did he expose his minor children to racist, paranoid ranting delivered by Falwell or Hagee week-in, and week out?
If so, Craig, you've got a legitimate comparison. If not, you're simply a sad apologist.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 28, 2008 10:12 PM (HcgFD)
19
Zhombre--"Arab" is not a race. Accordingly you sound like a moron.
Posted by: Magnus at April 28, 2008 10:15 PM (N91Mr)
20
Craig, there ya go with that silly straw man again. You never learn, do you?
Did McCain sit in Hagee's church for 20 years? How about Falwell's?
Did McCain take one of Hagee's or Falwell's sermons as the title of his book?
Did McCain give Hagee or Falwell an official position in any of his campaigns?
Did Hagee or Falwell marry McCain and his wife, or baptize his kids?
Do you comprehend the difference between a 20 year association and a one-time meeting?
Are you ever gonna drop that silly straw man? Perhaps after we demolish it a dozen times?
Posted by: C-C-G at April 28, 2008 10:15 PM (RP0Mk)
21
C-C-G - No, Craig is such a newb he wants to reargue the start of the Iraq war and WMD for the 10,000th time. College is a time of discovery!
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 28, 2008 10:26 PM (0pZel)
22
Then he can display his straw man on campus... it's getting annoying having to knock it down every time this subject comes up.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 28, 2008 10:31 PM (RP0Mk)
23
Didn't have time to do more than skim the comments...
The mainstreammedia is going to kick themselves when this is all over if they don't do something quick to bury Obama and rebuild Hillary. The results and tone will be different, but it will be similar to Bob Dole being given the nod by the Rep. party when it seemed obvious to me he had no chance of winning. Obama's associations, coupled with the little amount of time he's been in a big position, is fatal. We should start using that in the past tense: was fatal to his candidacy.
I thought the MSM would understand that right away and destory him, but they went for playing defense for him, and that just shows how out of touch with mainstream American society they are and how out of touch with the reality of alternative sources the people have been turning to for information for some time.
I thought the MSM would be won over by the tactical expediency of burying Obama.
I under estimated their hold on the long-term strategic platform that ----- basically agrees with Rev. Wright --- that the US is the biggest problem in the world --- and with Obama on gun toting, weak willed, desperate Bible thumping rednecks that make up all those red states....
Posted by: usinkorea at April 28, 2008 10:31 PM (x4a4p)
24
C-C-G-
So it's OK to actively solicit endorsements from nutso pastors so long as you don't attend their churches, write books about them, have kids baptized by them, and/or put them in your campaign? That seems to be the only distinction you've drawn.
By the way, you've been awfully niggardly with the "nice try's" lately. Don't think I haven't noticed.
Posted by: Craig at April 28, 2008 10:38 PM (0MZfd)
25
Craig: Prove that McCain made the first move towards Hagee and Falwell, as opposed to them approaching him first.
If you can, then yes, I will say that McCain was wrong to do that. God knows it's not the first nor the last thing he's been wrong about, and I am not the least bit reticent about saying that he's wrong on many issues.
However, I seriously doubt that you can prove your assertions, which means that you're just another lying lefty trying to smear someone who, unlike Obama or Hillary, actually served his country in a time of war.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 28, 2008 10:41 PM (RP0Mk)
26
(Confidential to C-C-G:
The day you best me in an argument, I'll buy you the DVD box set of Davie and Goliath. BTW, when you learn a brand new term (e.g. "straw man") (a) try to use it correctly and consistently and (b) don't overuse it.)
Posted by: Craig at April 28, 2008 10:42 PM (0MZfd)
27
Ahh, yes, the old lefty "debating" technique... when asked a question you can't answer, start with the ad hominem attacks.
Now, where's your proof that McCain approached Hagee and/or Falwell, as opposed to the other way around?
Posted by: C-C-G at April 28, 2008 10:49 PM (RP0Mk)
28
C-C-G:
Go to the external links in the John Hagee Wikipedia page and you will see that John McCain admits to having courted/solicited Hagee's endorsement. Hagee, by the way, said Katrina was God's punishment to New Orleans.
Interesting quote by you:
"[Y]ou're just another lying lefty trying to smear someone who, unlike Obama or Hillary, actually served his country in a time of war."
I'd be interested to hear if you had this same attitude when John Kerry was getting the Swift Boat treatment. Recall that W only defended Texas during Nam, and Cheney had "other priorities."
Posted by: Craig at April 28, 2008 10:59 PM (0MZfd)
29
Sorry, not in the market for red herrings today, Craig.
And Wikipedia is hardly a credible source, since I could easily edit it to show just the opposite of what you claim.
Try again. I am gonna get some sleep while you scour the internet for a reliable source.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 28, 2008 11:06 PM (RP0Mk)
30
C-C-G - I'm sure you saw that McCain disavowed Hagee's comments regarding Katrina and he has not attended his church for 20 years. Heagee endorsing McCain means that Hagee endorses McCain's views, not that McCain endorses Hagee's. I don't know why the left keeps getting confused on that point. It's unlike Obama's refusal to distance himself from Wright or to be specific about which comments of Wright's he disagrees with.
The left also perverted the meaning of Swift Boat. None of the claims in the original Swift Boat advertisements relating to John Kerry have been debunked in spite of the left's repeated claims to the contrary. I would be interested if someone like Craig has new evidence to the contrary. So Swift Boating originally meant telling inconventient truth about someone, which the left has twisted into telling lies.
John McCain actually complained about the treatment of Kerry by the Swift Boat vets.
Bush did voluteer for overseas service, I believe, but was turned down.
I think this site needs a better crop of trolls again.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 28, 2008 11:34 PM (0pZel)
31
C-C-G - I'm sure you saw that McCain disavowed Hagee's comments regarding Katrina and he has not attended his church for 20 years. Heagee endorsing McCain means that Hagee endorses McCain's views, not that McCain endorses Hagee's. I don't know why the left keeps getting confused on that point. It's unlike Obama's refusal to distance himself from Wright or to be specific about which comments of Wright's he disagrees with.
The left also perverted the meaning of Swift Boat. None of the claims in the original Swift Boat advertisements relating to John Kerry have been debunked in spite of the left's repeated claims to the contrary. I would be interested if someone like Craig has new evidence to the contrary. So Swift Boating originally meant telling inconventient truth about someone, which the left has twisted into telling lies.
John McCain actually complained about the treatment of Kerry by the Swift Boat vets.
Bush did voluteer for overseas service, I believe, but was turned down.
I think this site needs a better crop of trolls again.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 28, 2008 11:34 PM (0pZel)
32
I'd like to see video evidence of these so called remarks from Hagee. As far as I can tell the "quotes" have been made up out of whole cloth. But then again Craig will believe what any left wing kook says.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 28, 2008 11:34 PM (kNqJV)
33
C-C-G - I'm sure you saw that McCain disavowed Hagee's comments regarding Katrina and he has not attended his church for 20 years. Heagee endorsing McCain means that Hagee endorses McCain's views, not that McCain endorses Hagee's. I don't know why the left keeps getting confused on that point. It's unlike Obama's refusal to distance himself from Wright or to be specific about which comments of Wright's he disagrees with.
The left also perverted the meaning of Swift Boat. None of the claims in the original Swift Boat advertisements relating to John Kerry have been debunked in spite of the left's repeated claims to the contrary. I would be interested if someone like Craig has new evidence to the contrary. So Swift Boating originally meant telling inconventient truth about someone, which the left has twisted into telling lies.
John McCain actually complained about the treatment of Kerry by the Swift Boat vets.
Bush did voluteer for overseas service, I believe, but was turned down.
I think this site needs a better crop of trolls again.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 28, 2008 11:34 PM (0pZel)
34
>Or is it only obscene when a black minister gets rich peddling religion?
I've never heard Pat Robertson say 'G-D America'.
Posted by: Bloody Yank at April 29, 2008 05:10 AM (KOkrW)
35
Pretty sad all around actually. Instead of posts and debates about economy, deficit, war, etc, its BS about who is associated with the nuttiest religious leader and how. Ah, the great experiment...
Posted by: matta at April 29, 2008 08:33 AM (F+fRS)
36
Pretty sad all around actually. Instead of posts and debates about economy, deficit, war, etc, its BS about who is associated with the nuttiest religious leader and how.
And the funniest bit about that, matta, is that keeping the electorate focused on Obama's associates is probably far better for him than us focusing on him and his rhetoric.
Obama is a trainwreck on policy issues, has taken little or no initiative as a leader while in the Senate (or even in state elective office, I think), and has no noteworthy experience that suggests he is in any way ready to be President.
If people focus on him, they find a far left liberal well out of the mainstream, without anything in his record indicating that he is capable of the bipartisanship required in "change we can believe in."
And as much as he irritates me at times, guess which Presidential candidate has a very substantial record of crossing the aisle, and who really is the best candidate to deliver "change?"
Yup. I find it ironic that McCain could easily highjack "change we can believe in" and beat Obama into the ground with it if he so desired.
Barack Obama better hope we stay interested in his associations and his associates. Once we get around to substance, McCain (and for that matter, Clinton, and probably whoever McCain chooses as Veep) will wipe the floor with the inexperienced freshman.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 29, 2008 08:44 AM (HcgFD)
37
CY - Because Obama is still protected by the national media, there is some very good work related to his time in state politics that has not received national attention at this point. It shows him as a typical corrupt Chicago machine politician trading favors. Most people from Illinois are familiar with the system, but those from the outside would certainly be shocked at the sleaze.
Not all the shoes have dropped on Comrade Obama's campaign yet.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 29, 2008 08:57 AM (0pZel)
38
And the funniest bit about that, matta, is that keeping the electorate focused on Obama's associates is probably far better for him than us focusing on him and his rhetoric.
Obama is a trainwreck on policy issues, has taken little or no initiative as a leader while in the Senate (or even in state elective office, I think), and has no noteworthy experience that suggests he is in any way ready to be President.
GREAT! Lets see some posts about that. This Bill Ayers and Wright silliness is all about the freakshow distractions...
And as much as he irritates me at times, guess which Presidential candidate has a very substantial record of crossing the aisle, and who really is the best candidate to deliver "change?"
McCain won't run that way because for a Republican to promote himself as the "change" agent is to imply that the last 8 years was a mistake in some way and we all know that since GWB himself can't remember any mistakes, no one else in the party can. He'll be asked what needs to be changed and why now and not back then and why did he vote for it then but not now. This approach would demoralize his base and make him look like a panderer. He can try and nuance himself by saying we need to change somethings but minute corrections will be lost on the electorate at large when someone else is saying it all needs to be changed...
So even though I agree that McCain is more of a "change" agent the Obama is, if he runs that way, he's toast.
Posted by: matta at April 29, 2008 09:15 AM (F+fRS)
39
C-C-G:
I wrote EXTERNAL links. External. Links. The content of the sites linked to by the external links are not subject to editing, to the extent they link to non-editable sites. But since you asked, here's a piece in Editor and Publisher, which cannot be edited by you and me, demonstrating that McCain sought Hagee's endorsement. And another is a video of McCain explaining how Hagee's endorsement proves he's reaching out to the "far right."
Daleyrocks: Evidence that severely undercuts the veracity and credibility of the prime swift boater.
I won't hold my breath waiting for yous to cede ground, but now you know.
Posted by: Craig at April 29, 2008 10:31 AM (0MZfd)
40
Fine, Craig, as I said, I hereby say that McCain was wrong to solicit Hagee's endorsement.
I also say that McCain-Feingold is wrong, McCain-Kennedy was a travesty and I am glad we defeated it, and McCain is wrong in upbraiding the NC GOP for their recent ad featuring Rev. Wright.
See, as I've mentioned before--I think it was to you, in fact--we on the right are willing to admit our candidates can be wrong on occasion. It's called "honesty." You should try it sometime.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 29, 2008 07:18 PM (RP0Mk)
41
Craig - Thanks for the link. Read the whole story. Next time try to provide one that supports your argument rather than mine.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 29, 2008 09:12 PM (0pZel)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 27, 2008
Comments Closed...
...due to Chinese spammers.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:56 AM
| Comments (40)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
They still look open to me.
Consider using a ReCAPTCHA to filter out spam bots?
Posted by: Matt at April 27, 2008 10:36 AM (cXWnh)
2
OK, so this is a trick to get more comments?
Posted by: bill-tb at April 27, 2008 12:07 PM (7evkT)
3
I guess that's the latest trick for propping up the Chinese economy.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 27, 2008 12:17 PM (RP0Mk)
4
Let me rephrase that... "comments closed on those comment threads being targeted."
If they hit this one, I'll have to close this on as well.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 27, 2008 12:21 PM (HcgFD)
5
The problem with Chinese comment spam is the same as with Chinese food. A little never fills your threads up, the spammers keep trying to add more.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 27, 2008 05:11 PM (0pZel)
6
Impressed to find Keith Nolan contributing comments. A site that draws his attention can take some pride in it. Anyone who hasn't read at least a couple of his numerous Vietnam books should get off the web for a while and hit the library (or buy 'em at Amazon.)
Regarding captured Iranian weaponry etc., how come Bush, who we're told can manufacture any misleading evidence he needs, and is capable of bringing the WTC down and shifting the blame to Muslims, etc. etc., forgot to plant convincing evidence of WMDs in Iraq? I suppose the point might have escaped his attention, but surely not Rove's or Cheney's?
Posted by: Bill B at April 28, 2008 04:07 PM (G4m7W)
7
This should fix it. A link to all Chinese an Korean net blocks. Just filter them out.
Posted by: crosspatch at May 02, 2008 06:30 PM (K6QFs)
8
dpqg riysoelvp rqvtu mijgzuaht fbxzpagi ksbe gwmry
Posted by: njqzsakx byalzev at May 03, 2008 02:40 PM (lp66t)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 25, 2008
New Iranian Weapons Captured in Iraq
Iranian 107mm rockets recovered after attack on U.S. FOB Hammer in Iraq, July 2007
Playing a very dangerous game:
The U.S. military says it has found caches of newly made Iranian weapons in Iraq, leading senior officials to conclude Tehran is continuing to funnel armaments into Iraq despite its pledges to the contrary.
Officials in Washington and Baghdad said the purported Iranian mortars, rockets and explosives had date stamps indicating they were manufactured in the past two months. The U.S. plans to publicize the weapons caches in coming days. A pair of senior commanders said a presentation was tentatively planned for Monday.
The allegations, which couldn't be independently verified, mark a further hardening of U.S. rhetoric on Iran, which senior American officials now describe as the greatest long-term threat to Iraq.
This month, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Iranian support for Shiite extremist groups had grown. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said for the first time that he believed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad knew about the shipments.
Iran has long denied that its government knowingly funneled weapons into Iraq or trained Shiite militants there. It has derided the U.S. claims as propaganda. Several senior U.S. military officials said the weapons caches would undercut the Iranian denials and provide new evidence of continuing Iranian support for Shiite militants across Iraq.
"You can see the manufacturing dates right on the armaments themselves," one senior commander in Baghdad said. "These are very clearly weapons that were made in the last month or so."
Markings, of course, are easy to fake, and the truther fringe of the "Bush lied, people died!" sect are sure to accuse the Administration and/or elements of the military with doing just that. Much harder to fake, however, are the materials used, certain tool marks, and other mechanical and electrical components. Taken together, the component pieces form a unique signature that EOD experts can read like a fingerprint. As far as our military is concerned, the markings only serve to confirm what explosive experts could already tell from even unmarked weapons.
This is a stupid mistake by Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime, coming at a time when Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is celebrating stunning military successes in Basra and other parts of the Shia south against Iranian-backed "special groups" within Muqtada al-Sadr's Madhi Army militia. The recovery of this cache can only help Iraq's central government grow even more cohesive, upsetting hopes for a failed Iraqi state and U.S. defeat.
Iran's foreign policy is turning out to have been very poorly calculated as of late. One can only wonder what their next gaffe will be, and what affect it may have on the hardline regime in Tehran.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:06 AM
| Comments (114)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This is a stupid mistake by Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime
No one ever accused them of being particularly intelligent. How smart is it to anger the nation with troops right on your doorstep and a military so advanced that rolling over your nation would hardly cause them to break a sweat?
No, intelligence is hardly in Ahmadinnerjacket's repertoire.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 25, 2008 07:24 AM (RP0Mk)
2
"Iran's foreign policy is turning out to have been very poorly calculated as of late."
It seems to be doing alright. After all, the Iraqi government is primarily run by Pro-Iranian Shiites. Not such a bad achievement really.
Posted by: Rafar at April 25, 2008 08:37 AM (EDjeA)
3
So pro-Iranian that they've helped hundreds of them find paradise in recent weeks.
I can get used to that.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 25, 2008 08:40 AM (xNV2a)
4
This has about as much credibility as Colin Powell's displaying the "evidence" of Iraq's WMD at the UN.
That is, virtually none.
What you guys don't seem to realize is that the US has very little credibility in the wider world at this stage.
Posted by: Max at April 25, 2008 08:52 AM (VRb5p)
5
[[What you guys don't seem to realize is that the US has very little credibility in the wider world at this stage.]]
Hardly matters given that the US went ahead, assembled a massive coalition and liberatred Iraq and A'stan anyway.
The Iranians would do well to remember the ease with which the Hussein regieme was crushed.
Got to love the speed woith which the left rushes to protect repressive governments the world over, "free Tibet BUT Hugo and Ahmadinajad are cool".
Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 25, 2008 09:03 AM (gkobM)
6
max, for you and Rafar and others like you in "the truther fringe of the 'Bush lied, people died!' sect" that I anticipated in my very first paragraph, it is a matter of religious faith that any evidence can't be real. It screws up your worldview, which only has room for America to be evil.
Of course, you're part of the same bunch that still insists that the was is lost, that recent Iraqi operation in Basra was an epic failure, and that the President can at once be the dumbest man on the planet and yet is so brilliant that he can fool Congress and the governments and intelligence operations of the entire world into starting a war based on "obvious" lies. We're not exactly holding out high hopes of you uttering anything profound, but thanks for stopping by all the same.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 25, 2008 09:04 AM (xNV2a)
7
CY
Did, or did not, Colin Powell put forward a farrago of lies and misinformation about so-called Iraqi WMDs in the UN in the run up to the war?
A simple yes or no answer will suffice.
Posted by: Max at April 25, 2008 09:14 AM (VRb5p)
8
Did Colin Powell have Saddam's WMDs in his possession like we do with these rockets, mortar shells, and explosives?
A simple yes or no answer will suffice.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 25, 2008 09:18 AM (xNV2a)
9
CY
Your unwillingness to answer the question I posed indicates to me that you know he presented a pack of lies, but you're unable to admit it.
Posted by: Max at April 25, 2008 09:23 AM (VRb5p)
10
"Pack of lies," huh?
Sure, why not? Colin Powell lied for George W. Bush's War for Oil.
We also tricked the British, the Germans, the French, the Israelis, the Russians, the Chinese, the Saudis, the Iranians, etc. We're the bestest ever at lying, not just one lie at a time, but in entire packs—nay, legions and divisions of lies employed with blitzkrieg like precision.
-OR-
We bought into the disinformation that Saddam was pushing, and interpreted dubious data from bad sources in the way we expected it to come out. There is a world of difference between bad and agenda driven interpretation and lies, of course. But don't worry, we don't expect you to have the intellectual honesty or integrity to admit that.
But we do have these munitions in our hands right now, and a press conference ill be held Monday providing the media with details of the captured material in handouts (and of course, a powerpoint slideshow), along with confirmation for various folks who were captured with the weapons.
Of course, I'm only talking to the military in Iraq involved in this right now via email, so what would I know?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 25, 2008 09:44 AM (xNV2a)
11
Good morning, Mr. Owens. One of your readers opines above that the U.S. military is "so advanced that rolling over [Iran] would hardly cause them to break a sweat[.]"
Do you endorse such a point of view?
The U.S. military, excellent as it is, seems to be breaking more than a sweat in Iraq. Do you really think an invasion of Iran should be contemplated with the attitude that it would be a no-sweat operation?
This thinking seems near delusional, and highly dangerous.
Thanks,
Keith Nolan
Posted by: KeithNolan at April 25, 2008 09:52 AM (mjgg9)
12
Max:
Stop drinking the kool-aid. Powell went with the best information he had. Some of it was wrong. That is not lying.
Hell, Saddam Hussain thought he had WMD. He gave orders to use them. He had probably been lied to by his officers trying to avoid 9-mm brain hemorrhages. That's the problem with being a ruthless dictator. People ain't likely to tell you the truth if it's bad news. Considering that a lot of our intelligence from Saddam's Iraq was signal intelligence, we got the same lies he did. Again, believing the lies told by your enemies is and repeating them is not the same thing as lying.
And we did find tons of Sarin gas in Iraq after the war. We were told by the left that it's supposed to have been left over from before the Gulf War (and therefore does not count -- even though Saddam said he would get rid of all of it, no exceptions). The strange thing was that the first shell we found (as an IED) was a binary shell -- and the Iraqis did not have any of those prior to the Gulf War. Where oh where did that come from?
The "Saddam had no WMD and planned on getting none" meme repeated ad nauseum has been exploded many times. Repeating an untruth over and over again does not make it true.
Posted by: Mark L at April 25, 2008 09:53 AM (useHt)
13
Keith,
"Without breaking a sweat" is an overstatement, I think. It would not be particularly easy. However, I suspect that if the US and the Iranian military were to go toe-to-toe the US win handily - without entirely discounting the Iranians, I think we have a clear advantage in terms of air and naval power. The problem, like in Iraq, would be afterwards.
Posted by: Grey Fox at April 25, 2008 10:06 AM (cEYtc)
14
Exactly, Grey Fox. In Iraq, we are attempting to rebuild the country and foster a democracy. Assuming the same would be true with respect to Iran, your concern is correct. However, CCG's statement of "no sweat" does not presume the same intentions. His presumption is that our military vs theirs would not be a contest as evidenced by the performance of Saddam's military in 2003.
Posted by: Mark at April 25, 2008 10:19 AM (4od5C)
15
Clarification - "your concern is correct" above is directed @ Keith.
Posted by: Mark at April 25, 2008 10:22 AM (4od5C)
16
you know Max, you've been posting here long enough to know I don't allow profanity, so by all means, keep posting it, and I'll keep deleting it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 25, 2008 10:28 AM (xNV2a)
17
-OR-
You wanted to invade Iraq from the get-go. Even the neocons have admitted that the whole WMD effort was a pretext, something to provide a legalistic figleaf for the invasion and which would help some reluctant allies join in. (They've nearly all gone now, haven't they? Even the Brits don't want to help at this stage.)
So the plan was to eliminate Saddam and occupy Iraq. "For a 100 years, if necessary" as McCain has said. Wonder why? Nothing got to do with oil, has it? Surely not!
Maliki launched the attack on Sadr to wipe out his power base before the upcoming elections. (How democratic!)
The Americans want to wipe out Sadr not because he is pro-Iranian but because he is anti-American. Maliki is more pro-Iranian than Sadr.
No-one doubts the ability of the Americans to eliminate everyone and everything that gets in their way by means of their firepower. The problem is that strategically they are completely confused. Or at least they are if you believe that their goals are a free Iraq, democracy, blah blah blah.
If you believe that what they really want to do is occupy Iraq indefinitely, with a pretty low rate of casualties (who anyway mostly come from the poorest strata of American society and are dispensable), then I guess they are not strategically confused at all.
Posted by: Max at April 25, 2008 10:36 AM (VRb5p)
18
Good morning, Mr. Owens. One of your readers opines above that the U.S. military is "so advanced that rolling over [Iran] would hardly cause them to break a sweat[.]"
Do you endorse such a point of view?
Not at all. I agree with you it would be highly dangerous, specifically, brief and intense, with a lot of purposeful collateral damage against civilians by the Iranians. It is not desired, even when it seems all but inevitable. Military conflict should be a last resort only after all political options fail.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 25, 2008 10:38 AM (xNV2a)
19
If you had Ahmadinejad on tape holding Americans hostage it still wouldn't be sufficient to convince the America Haters of his hostility.
Posted by: megapotamus at April 25, 2008 10:39 AM (LF+qW)
20
Mark is correct, I was referring only to the relative ease with which we'd win a military-vs-military confrontation, not any counterinsurgency that might develop.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 25, 2008 10:45 AM (wKdud)
21
I think some of the lefties get confused between "War" and "Post-war rebuilding". Not to discount the danger during the rebuilding process here, but we have not been at "war" since three weeks after we entered Iraq.
As such, CY's comment about not breaking a sweat is an overstatement, but it is not much of one. If the United States and Iran decide to step onto the court and play a little one-on-one, it would be like Michael Jordan playing a high school JV player. As long as Michael plays to win, the JV player is not going to even score a basket, let alone win the game. Now, if Michael does not put full effort into it, the JV player may make a basket or two and mug for the cameras. He will not win, but he knew that going into it.
If this JV player is being a punk and threatening the others in the gym, than by all means treat him like the punk he is.
Posted by: Watcherdownsouth at April 25, 2008 10:48 AM (IoWCW)
22
Max,
Did Saddam admit, under questioning by the US, that he planned to get the UN out of his country and restart his WMD factories?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Did Saddam admit that he lied to make it appear as if he actually had WMD?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Does the American left think that Iraq run by a dictator with ties to Al-Qaida, plans to make WMD and a history of using WMD would be a better than a democratic Iraq run by the Iraqi people?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 25, 2008 10:49 AM (gkobM)
23
Megapotamus, that was actually pretty funny. Dark, ironic humor, but pretty funny.
Posted by: Watcherdownsouth at April 25, 2008 10:50 AM (IoWCW)
24
Dang, Grrrrrr, you waved your logic stick at him and he got scared and left.
Posted by: Watcherdownsouth at April 25, 2008 10:56 AM (IoWCW)
25
I should also point out that I do not actively wish war with Iran. I am merely pointing out Ahmadinnerjacket's idiocy in provoking the world's only superpower.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 25, 2008 11:04 AM (wKdud)
26
Why is it that military haters like Max have to keep lying. We all know that soldiers come from higher academic and financial backgrounds than the average American. I bet the average soldiers IQ would be 20 to 30 points higher than Max's
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 25, 2008 11:07 AM (kNqJV)
27
Capitalist Infidel, it's hard to square your observation on the US military with the fact (reported only a few days ago) that the Army is letting in more felons than ever before. High standards indeed!
Posted by: Max at April 25, 2008 11:25 AM (VRb5p)
28
Max, how can we get you to stop lying? I know far left wing fanatical America hating kooks like yourself are incapable of shame but here are the facts anyway:
Myth: Military recruits are less educated and of lower aptitude than American youth.
Fact: The opposite is true. Over 90 percent of military recruits have a high school diploma – a credential held by only about 75 percent of their peers. A traditional high school diploma is the best single predictor of “stick-to-it-iveness” and successful adjustment to the military. Recruits with a high school diploma have a 70-percent probability of completing a three-year term of enlistment, compared with a 50-percent likelihood for non-graduates.
Nearly two-thirds of today’s recruits are drawn from the top-half of America in math and verbal aptitudes – a strong determinant of training success and job performance
You can find the rest of the truth here.
Why is it the left has to lie? And their lies are so easily debunked. Like I said before I have no doubt that the average IQ of our soldiers is considerably higher than Max and the rest of his military hating ilk.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 25, 2008 11:45 AM (kNqJV)
29
Many thanks, Mr. Owens, and others, for responding so quickly to my question about the U.S. military's ability to roll over Iran without breaking a sweat. Glad that most here do not really agree with such a statement.
I must respond, though, to another reader's comment that "I think some of the lefties get confused between 'War' and 'Post-war rebuilding.' Not to discount the danger during the rebuilding process here, but we have not been at 'war' since three weeks after we entered Iraq."
My jaw is still hanging open at that one!
First of all, I'm not a lefty. Secondly, war is war is war no matter what faux-comforting labels one slaps on the different phases of involvement. We're not at "war" in Iraq? We're only involved in some "post-war rebuilding"? There hasn't been a "war" in Iraq "since three weeks after we entered Iraq"?
Such thoughts are almost too surreal to digest.
I guess the U.S. wasn't really at "war" in Vietnam, either. I mean, the U.S. military landed en masse in South Vietnam in 1965-66, secured all major cities, and quickly built an incredible series of fire bases, base camps, and logistical facilities. I guess the "war" was over at that point. All that killing, dying, and maiming that took place from 1966-1975 was just "post-war rebuilding?"
You know, as a middle-of-the-road type, politically speaking, I might suggest that the right-wing does itself no favors by speaking so glibly about something as sordid and terrible as war.
Cake walks, no-sweat invasions, and post-war rebuilding, indeed.
Finally, there's this comment: "Why is it that military haters like Max have to keep lying. We all know that soldiers come from higher academic and financial backgrounds than the average American. I bet the average soldier's IQ would be 20 to 30 points higher than Max."
To begin with, there is a big difference between military-haters and war-haters.
Secondly, while the U.S. officer corps is mostly made up of college graduates (and those up the chain have advanced degrees, etc.), I find it incredible that anyone believes that the grunts on the ground--the guys who actually do most of the killing and dying--come from the higher educational and financial backgrounds in the U.S.
Really? For reasons too involved to discuss here, I know thousands of Vietnam veterans. Those who served in rifle companies, by and large, were black, brown, country kids, or the sons of blue-collar workers.
I've lived in both rural and middle-class communities during the war in Iraq. At my daughter's current middle-class school, you'd hardly know there's a war on. When she was going to school in Washington Co., Missouri--one of the poorest counties in our state--the classrooms were plastered with photos of fathers and older brothers who were in Iraq. The collar brass on all those rural servicemen was either infantry or cavalry.
There are exceptions to every rule, but, by and large, rich kids do not run out and sign up to be grunts.
Thanks Again,
Keith Nolan
Posted by: KeithNolan at April 25, 2008 11:51 AM (mjgg9)
30
Well, CI, that's fine and dandy if they're such an accomplished bunch. I'm still curious as to why the military is dropping its standards. From Sept. 30, 2006, to Sept. 30, 2007, the army granted so-called conduct waivers for felonies and misdemeanors to 18 percent of its new recruits, three percent up on the previous year.
That's almost one fifth of new recruits! What gives?
Posted by: Max at April 25, 2008 11:53 AM (VRb5p)
31
[[Many thanks, Mr. Owens, and others, for responding so quickly to my question about the U.S. military's ability to roll over Iran without breaking a sweat. Glad that most here do not really agree with such a statement.]]
Without breaking a sweat is clearly an overstatement. But based on what happened in Iraq its clear that it would not be very difficult
Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 25, 2008 12:14 PM (gkobM)
32
Doesn't it seem appropriate to return them .. from say 20,000 ft.
Posted by: Neo at April 25, 2008 12:24 PM (Yozw9)
33
[[From Sept. 30, 2006, to Sept. 30, 2007, the army granted so-called conduct waivers for felonies and misdemeanors to 18 percent of its new recruits, three percent up on the previous year. That's almost one fifth of new recruits! What gives?]]
The rising number of US citizens with felony and misdemeanor convictions for one. The same thing is happening in US companies.
Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 25, 2008 12:35 PM (gkobM)
34
Hey Max, Is anybody there? Presented with the actual facts regarding the educational level of our troops your response is "well that's fine and dandy...". Then you go and quote a New York Times smeer piece about the convicts that will be taking over the military. Great rebutal pal. I think the Daily Koz is one moonbat short today!
Posted by: SacTownMan at April 25, 2008 12:49 PM (nFGR9)
35
I may be misunderstanding what Max is referring to (not being fluent in anti-war gibberish), but it sounds to me like the Armed Forces are giving people who've made a mistake or two a second chance; and a chance to learn a trade and serve their country at the same time. Rehabilitation, in other words.
Seems Max thinks that's a bad thing.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 25, 2008 01:08 PM (wKdud)
36
Um...haven't we seen this movie before?
In February of 2007, the U.S. trotted out "Iranian" shells and rockets with "incriminating markings" - the only problem was, the markings were in English, and used the Western B.C. calendar year of 2006(Iran marks their weapons in their own language - Persian - and uses the "Anno Persarum" calendar (currently AP 1387 per Wikipedia).
See the photos from the U.S. Army-provided slide-show: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/iran-in-iraq/?resultpage=11&
Do they (do you) think the American public is THAT stupid, and has THAT short a memory...? ...oh, wait...they do, because they do...
Posted by: NE Clark at April 25, 2008 02:22 PM (lhckj)
37
[[Do they (do you) think the American public is THAT stupid, and has THAT short a memory...? ...oh, wait...they do, because they do...]]
Are the pascifist, lefty defenders of the Iranian regime so STUPID that they think that Iran would illegally send weapons to Iraq with Iranian markings on them? I guess so other wise "NE Clark" wouldnt be posting this BS.
Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 25, 2008 02:44 PM (gkobM)
38
Do they (do you) think the American public is THAT stupid, and has THAT short a memory...? ...oh, wait...they do, because they do...
I'd like to thank you for proving my first sentence after the WSJ content yet again.
For your future reference, countries build munitions for both local and export markets, and those built for export markets typically feature English writing, metric measurements, and the Western dating system. Just as English is the language of international air travel and many other international businesses, it is with arms distribution. Not that that choice of stenciled words or numbers really matters in identifying a weapons origin.
As I noted in the second sentence, it is the construction of the weapon that matters.
Let me reproduce both of those sentences now, since you obviously skipped over them to throw out your irrelevant talking points:
Markings, of course, are easy to fake, and the truther fringe of the "Bush lied, people died!" sect are sure to accuse the Administration and/or elements of the military with doing just that. Much harder to fake, however, are the materials used, certain tool marks, and other mechanical and electrical components. Taken together, the component pieces form a unique signature that EOD experts can read like a fingerprint. As far as our military is concerned, the markings only serve to confirm what explosive experts could already tell from even unmarked weapons.
So to answer you, I don't think the American public is stupid. They understand logic, and can grasp that how something is made and what it is made of can indicate where it was made, and even when.
I worry, though about some people with rabid fanaticism. You have no interest in discerning facts, just dictating beliefs. Enjoy your faith, but don't expect to win many converts.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 25, 2008 02:47 PM (xNV2a)
39
Some American people are stupid, and some are smart. The real issue is that a lot of smart and stupid Americans like to believe their leaders won't play on their patriotism to back a war based on false pretenses. Those people got duped in 2002-03. You all got duped. What's astounding is that you don't care. You're like abused wives of alcoholics defending their husbands. As each "reason" for the war is discredited, you brave armchair warriors just pick up another one. It's pathetic that you don't demand better from our government.
Posted by: Craig at April 25, 2008 03:07 PM (0MZfd)
40
[[Some American people are stupid, and some are smart. The real issue is that a lot of smart and stupid Americans like to believe their leaders won't play on their patriotism to back a war based on false pretenses. Those people got duped in 2002-03. You all got duped. What's astounding is that you don't care. You're like abused wives of alcoholics defending their husbands. As each "reason" for the war is discredited, you brave armchair warriors just pick up another one. It's pathetic that you don't demand better from our government.]]
Whats really pathetic is that some Americans still cling desperatly to the notion that we were "duped into war based on false pretenses". Are you trying to tell me that Saddams use of WMD, he self admitted desire to recreate them, his ties to al-Qaida, his repression of his own people, the fact that "Bushes War" has established a democracy in place of a brutal dictatorship is "false pretenses".
The left are like abused wives. They get attacked on 9/11 and they just smile and grimly await another one.
WEAK.
PATHETIC.
Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 25, 2008 03:23 PM (gkobM)
41
"Are you trying to tell me that Saddams use of WMD, he self admitted desire to recreate them, his ties to al-Qaida, his repression of his own people, the fact that 'Bushes War' has established a democracy in place of a brutal dictatorship is 'false pretenses'."
Yes, because some of what you say is false, and because some has nothing to do with the stated reasons for invasion. That you continue to parrot them like White House spokesman after all you've learned is fascinating, though.
Start with the easy one. Saddam had no ties to Al Quaeda. That's been discredited up one side and down the other. Therefore, no connection to 9-11. But Saudi Arabia sure did.
Next. Saddam did in fact disarm, so he had no WMDs on invasion day. (To have fully investigated this prior to invasion would have spoiled the party, though). Thus, not only did he not have them, the U.S. was in no danger, and thus no cassus belli.
Next. The U.S.'s reason to go to war was to enforce the 1991 UN sanctions, not to create a democracy. So, yet again, you believe the war was waged for a reason that doesn't exist. Same goes the the repression of the Iraqis pre-invasion.
It's funny, though, that you seem self-satisfied that we did the Iraqis a big favor by "liberating" them. Unfortunately for them (including all the dead and maimed ones), there's worse ways to live than under a secular dictatorship.
Posted by: Craig at April 25, 2008 03:49 PM (0MZfd)
42
Craig, you're lying just like max. The 9-11 report clearly states that Iraq had many many ties to al Qaeda. Do you left wing kooks even bother to check facts or do you just believe what other kooks say? Have you any idea how embarrassing you guys look? It's so easy to debunk all your lies.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 25, 2008 04:37 PM (kNqJV)
43
[[Start with the easy one. Saddam had no ties to Al Quaeda. That's been discredited up one side and down the other. Therefore, no connection to 9-11. But Saudi Arabia sure did.]]
Infact Al-Qaida was but one of the many international terrorist organizations (all inter related in terms of personel, goals and funding) that Saddam had ties to. Saddam hosted conferences for militant Islamic groups for heavens sake.
[[Next. Saddam did in fact disarm, so he had no WMDs on invasion day. (To have fully investigated this prior to invasion would have spoiled the party, though). Thus, not only did he not have them, the U.S. was in no danger, and thus no cassus belli.]]
Riiiight, the US was in no danger for a dictator with the ability, experience and desire to make WMD and ties to Islamic terror groups including Al-Qaida. Come see the suicidal thought process of the hard left!
[[Next. The U.S.'s reason to go to war was to enforce the 1991 UN sanctions, not to create a democracy. So, yet again, you believe the war was waged for a reason that doesn't exist. Same goes the the repression of the Iraqis pre-invasion.]]
Completley false. Read the resoulution congress voted on to authorize the liberation of Iraq. Amidst the recognition that Iraqis deserved freedom, that al-Qaida had ties to Saddam etc was the observation that democracy in Iraq would be good for Iraqis, the US and the world.
[[...there's worse ways to live than under a secular dictatorship.]]
True, but the new democratic Iraq is not one of them. The stable, strong and peacefull Iraq that is emerging is certainly not one of them. The desire of the pascifist left to leave the people of Iraq in Saddams hell hole simply boggles the mind in terms of it calous, lazy, apathetic evil.
But hey free Tibet, save Darfur and all that (as long as we dont, you know, actually do anything about it).
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 25, 2008 04:40 PM (gkobM)
44
Does Glenn Greenwald still think U.S. forces are bogged down fighting an unwinnable battle against Sunni insurgents in Anbar province?
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 25, 2008 04:48 PM (0pZel)
45
G+rx15-
That the resolution "recognized" that a democratic Iraq would be good thing does not turn that into the justification for war. Those are like a superfluous "wherein" clauses in contracts. It's just happy fluff. What I said initially was accurate: alleged violations of 1991 sanctions.
You're also conflating contacts with cooperation. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. This has been known and reported for years.
The very fact that he did disarm in response to the weapons inspectors and sanctions proves that the U.S. was safe from Iraq. I can't help that you were scared so witless after 9-11 that the only comfort was whooping up on Saddam, but nonetheless, the U.S. was safe.
As between you and me, I'm the conservative. You're the radical. It is radical and not conservative to start wars of choice to nation build based on happy talk of "beacons of hope" for the Middle East. It is radical and not conservative to squander U.S. power and money destroying a country, then trying to build it differently again. And it is radical, not conservative, to use OUR resources to reinvent societies and governments halfway around the world.
You let fear rule you back when W said he'd keep you safe, and you should feel ashamed. It takes more strength and courage to hold off from war than to charge in like a bunch of frightened school girls. So don't act like you're a tough guy, since you so clearly needed daddy W to keep scared little Grrrrrr safe. There there, Grrrrrrr, it's ok, don't be scared, shhhh, shhhh, mean ol' Saddam can't hurt you anymore.
Posted by: Craig at April 25, 2008 05:08 PM (0MZfd)
46
Craig is lying once again, he stated first that Iraq had no ties to al Qaeda, when I proved he was lying he changed to Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. How embarrassing to be Craig.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 25, 2008 05:18 PM (kNqJV)
47
CI:
I said not ties, not that there had never been contacts. There's a difference. Did you make and have contact with Piggly Wiggly checker when you bought your Weekly World News? Yes. Do you have ties to that checker as a result? No. Step up your game, son.
Posted by: Craig at April 25, 2008 05:31 PM (0MZfd)
48
[[You're also conflating contacts with cooperation. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. This has been known and reported for years.]]
Thats a BS leftist straw man argument. Of course Iraq has no direct involvement in planning and carrying out the 9/11 attack, Bush never claimed that. (but neither did the Taliban and many lefties are happy to see the US still kicking their ass 6 years after the liberation of Afghanistan).
[[Just happy fluff.]]
Trying to claim that only certain parts of the liberation resoultion count is completly dishonest. If violations of the 1991 resolution was the reason the US freed Iraq then you have no argument because Saddam regularly violated the terms of his surrender by attacking US forces in Iraq.
[[As between you and me, I'm the conservative. You're the radical. ]]
Well jolly good for you and me. I'd argue that its conservative to liberate opressed people (after all Republicans ended slavery, Democrats supported slavery).
[[You let fear rule you back when W said he'd keep you safe, and you should feel ashamed. It takes more strength and courage to hold off from war than to charge in like a bunch of frightened school girls. ]]
LOL. Thanks for the psycoanalysis. You should feel ashamed for your blatent anti-Arab rascism regarding Iraq and you characteristic lefty fear; ("ooooh, we have to flee from Iraq, it sooooo scary, and I think Ive peed my pants).
It takes more courage to wimper like a "dont taze me bro" hippy college girl than "charge in" and liberate Iraq? ROTFLMAO
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 25, 2008 05:31 PM (gkobM)
49
Weakness is strength.
Strength is for the weak.
Doing the moral thing is cowardice.
Being a coward is strong.
Human rights are a "radical concept".
Retreat is winning.
Victory is failure and is only for conservative wimps.
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 25, 2008 05:37 PM (gkobM)
50
Craig, scroll up and read the 9-11 report, Iraq had many many TIES to al Qaeda. It is a fact. Now, please stop lying.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 25, 2008 05:44 PM (kNqJV)
51
Gr-
"I'd argue that its conservative to liberate opressed people (after all Republicans ended slavery, Democrats supported slavery)."
If up is down, and black is white, then you're right that killing thousands and thousands of people and spending crazy money trying to remake an entire society is conservative. But you're wrong.
Nevertheless, now we're getting somewhere. Quick, let's liberate the Palestinians who live in the world's two largest open air prison camps. And as a result, we will be more SAFE since the Muslim world won't think we're in the Israelis' pockets anymore. No more Marine Corp barracks bombings, no more 9-11's. How 'bout it?
Posted by: Craig at April 25, 2008 05:48 PM (0MZfd)
52
What a surprise, Craig is also a vicious anti-Semite
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 25, 2008 05:54 PM (kNqJV)
53
I agree, Craig, let's go liberate the Palestinians. That means getting rid of Jimmah Cahtah's latest friends, Hamas, because they're the ones that are responsible for lobbing missiles at Israeli territory and other acts of war.
By all means, let us destroy Hamas and the terrorists and sympathizers and free the Palestinian people from their grip.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 25, 2008 05:54 PM (RP0Mk)
54
[[Quick, let's liberate the Palestinians who live in the world's two largest open air prison camps. And as a result, we will be more SAFE since the Muslim world won't think we're in the Israelis' pockets anymore. No more Marine Corp barracks bombings, no more 9-11's. How 'bout it?]]
Well we did liberate the Kosovars and Kuwaitis (both Muslim populations) so your proposal will be unlikly to help in the way you suggest. Of course, who would we liberate the Palestinians from, since thay are living in their own country under leaders they elected? Libearting them from Hamas and Hisbolla is an OK idea I guess. Just dont put the "free Tibet", "save Darfur", "stop the Iraq sanctions crowd" in charge else nothing will get done.
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 25, 2008 05:57 PM (gkobM)
55
And CI takes the bait.
Posted by: Craig at April 25, 2008 05:57 PM (0MZfd)
56
[[If up is down, and black is white, then you're right that killing thousands and thousands of people and spending crazy money trying to remake an entire society is conservative.]]
BTW, how many French die when we liberated their country? How many Germans ands Japanese died when we remade their societies from fascist imperialistc dictatorships into free democracies?
How many Koreans died when we defended them from Communist totalitarianism?
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 25, 2008 06:00 PM (gkobM)
57
Look, the only people craig wants to see die are Americans and Jews.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 25, 2008 06:04 PM (kNqJV)
58
Craig - Virtually the entire left stopped using your talking points a few years back because they couldn't pass the pink face test with them anymore. Are you just finishing Poli Sci 201 or are you a few years behind the times? Making arguments based on demonstrable falsehoods is not a good way to gain credibility for your side, but I don't think that is your interest in any event. You've had your backside handed to you so many times on this site I am curious why you come back though.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 25, 2008 06:09 PM (0pZel)
59
You have to be pretty freakin' ignorant to compare WWII to Iraq. But there is no way I will trade my Friday afternoon/evening to bring you up to speed. But it does give me a window into your mind (Brave Sir Grrr imagining himself on a white horse saving the people of Iraq).
Korea should not have been fought. Or Nam.
Posted by: Craig at April 25, 2008 06:09 PM (0MZfd)
60
Daleyrocks-
I come back b/c you make it so easy for me. Look at what you wrote! Not a single factual source to refute anything I wrote. Not a single argument. Just snide comments and insults. See, that's not how one hands another said other's backside. It's how one looks too intellectually lazy or clueless to form-u-late an argument. You too need to step up your game.
Posted by: Craig at April 25, 2008 06:15 PM (0MZfd)
61
Like I said the only country (other than the U.S.) Craig would like to see attacked is Israel.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 25, 2008 06:16 PM (kNqJV)
62
It is Friday, I guess Craig got his government check in the mail today
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 25, 2008 06:20 PM (kNqJV)
63
First of all, WOW. The vitriol in these comments! You guys need to google the phrase "Arguing on the internet is like..." Seriously, wow.
Secondly, CY, you really should give the guys at The Post some props. You nitpick every word in their articles, but never give them credit when they write damn good articles. Credit is due here.
Posted by: Juan Manuel de Rosas at April 25, 2008 06:21 PM (duarq)
64
Craig, one refutes an intelligent debater.
One plays with a cat-toy.
Guess which category you fall into.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 25, 2008 06:23 PM (RP0Mk)
65
Craig - Why do you think you deserve to be more refuted than you already have by the other commenters. Every time a new idiot boy from the left comes by here with the stale debunked talking points you are using they expect to be taken seriously. WHY? You don't look at the links that others have provided, you ignore the data, you use compromised sources of your own. You are intellectually dishonest and appear to lie deliberately.
Is there a reason anyone one here should take the time to respond seriously to your garbage Craig? Is your information sound? Are your theeories sound or just mindless BDS?
As far as I can tell from your comments here you deserve absolutely no credibility.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 25, 2008 06:44 PM (0pZel)
66
No hude surprise really. Iran was always going to attempt to grab larger influence in Iraq after Saddam.
Posted by: Rob at April 25, 2008 09:49 PM (ctUih)
67
[[You have to be pretty freakin' ignorant to compare WWII to Iraq.]]
Not really, both were wars where Americans liberated opressed peoples, (much to the annoyance of Americans foolish liberal minority).
[[But there is no way I will trade my Friday afternoon/evening to bring you up to speed.]]
Thank you, your amateurish attemps at debate so far suggest that your attemp would be undearably lame.
[[But it does give me a window into your mind (Brave Sir Grrr imagining himself on a white horse saving the people of Iraq).]]
LOL. OK you dress wearing liberal. Seriously, I think America needs to bring back dodge ball. Its a little scary that so many American men are feminized wimps.
[[Korea should not have been fought.]]
The people of South Koreas vibrant society, looking north the the commy waste land of uncle Kim disagee.
[[Or Nam.]]
The worst foreign policy mistake in US history was the cowardly democrat parties failiure to fund the South after the US had won the war in Vietnam. The subsequent communist invasion, plus the killing fields of Cambodia amount to simply more blood on the hands of the girly men on the left.
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 25, 2008 10:55 PM (2wI6h)
68
Nobody's talking about invading Iran. We don't have to. The point of a military operation will be first to send a message to Iran to knock off their terrorism inside Iraq.
If Iran retaliates, then we'll destroy their offensive military capabilities. People forget that Iran is a much more open society than Iraq was, so we have much more information on where things are located. We have Iranian, Iraqi, other Arab, and Israeli assets throughout Iran. Also, several high-ranking Iranian intelligence officials defected last year.
In 1988 we defeated Iran in one afternoon. Iran is using the same military technology they had back then, while ours is exponentially more sophisticated.
Also, the U.S. military is now the most experienced industrialized fighting force on the planet. No other developed country today has fought as prolonged a conflict as we have.
Iran fought its last war twenty years ago. It couldn't even beat Iraq, which had the worst army in the middle east.
Posted by: Tom W. at April 26, 2008 01:33 AM (UUp3o)
69
"In 1988 we defeated Iran in one afternoon. Iran is using the same military technology they had back then, while ours is exponentially more sophisticated"
We Did?
Posted by: davod at April 26, 2008 07:19 AM (llh3A)
70
Juan,
Secondly, CY, you really should give the guys at The Post some props. You nitpick every word in their articles, but never give them credit when they write damn good articles. Credit is due here.
I agree. This is a great piece of journalism. Kudos to Yochi Dreazen and The Wall Street Journal.
Posted by: Pablo at April 26, 2008 08:44 AM (yTndK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 23, 2008
Hack
Eric Boehlert starts off his article cracking on warbloggers for the "Jamil Hussein" fiasco, claiming that it imploded. Well, he's half-right: Jamil Gulaim Innad al-Jashami embarrassed the Associated Press when I outed him as a man hiding behind a pseudonym when they swore his "Hussein" identity was real. AP has refused to discuss "Hussein" since I published that story.
Boehlert also wants to attack some bloggers for not covering Bilal Hussein and his release under Iraq's new amnesty law, but isn't it Boehlert himself being deceptive when he "forgets" to mention that 300 other suspected insurgents were given amnesty
that exact same day, undermining his thesis that it was Bilal Hussein's innocence, not amnesty, that set him free?
"Imploded."
I think he understands what that word means, but not to whom it applies.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:33 PM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Boehlert also fails to mention the 50 plus fabricated stories attributed to the ubiquitous Jamil Hussein which have also never been addressed by the AP. As usual, Mr. Boehlert is constitutionally incapable of telling the truth.
In the case of Bilal Hussein, he has a slimy new ally in the person of Scott Horton, a person who deals largely in innuendo and rumor as opposed to fact, as seem from his campaigns against Karl Rove and Alice Martin relating to the conviction of Alabama governor Don Siegelman. Horton ranks neck and neck with Glenn Greenwald for frothing BDS and imaginged conspiracies, but presents little if any evidence to back his theories. Rove just handed him his backside last week in a letter to MSLSD. Is there any evidence of what Boehlert attributes to Horton of the judicial review of Hussein's case and is it any different from the review performed of the cases of other detainees? If have not seen any such evidence and would like to see it before accepting the conclusions of such total hacks as Horton and Boehlert.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 24, 2008 09:48 AM (0pZel)
2
On the bright side, Charles has some interesting information on this piece up at LGF:
Here’s a telling comparison.
Since the Media Matters Eric Boehlert hit piece on “warbloggers” was posted this morning at 9:51 am Pacific, we’ve received exactly 36 hits from people who clicked one of the two links in Boehlert’s article. (One of them was probably from Keith Olbermann.)
36.
But since Glenn Reynolds linked to our post about Boehlert’s hit piece, at about 5:45 pm Pacific (less than an hour ago), we’ve gotten more than 900 hits from people who clicked his link.
The Instapundit number is going up faster than I can keep track of it. It’s already gone over 1,000 since I started writing this post.
The Media Matters number is staying at ... 36.
George Soros isn’t getting a good return on his Media Matters investment.
Posted by: Pablo at April 24, 2008 05:17 PM (yTndK)
3
George Soros isn’t getting a good return on his Media Matters investment.
My heart bleeds.
NOT!
Posted by: C-C-G at April 24, 2008 05:38 PM (RP0Mk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 22, 2008
ABC News Caught Lying About Guns... Again
I've really had it with ABC News and Brian Ross.
Last year in the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre, Ross and the crack staff of The Blotter
lied about the effect 1994 Crime Bill as it related to pistol magazines used by the shooter, refused to issue a retraction, and
deleted blog comments warning them of how wrong they were while continuing to get basic facts of the case wrong through carelessness.
Today, Ross and accomplice Richard Esposito continue that fine ABC News tradition of
making up the news, in a story claiming that the U.S. Second Amendment is to blame for Mexico's drug cartel problems.
The deception starts with the picture at the beginning of the article.
The focus of the story, according to ABC News, is that U.S. dealers of civilian firearms are to blame for Mexico's drug cartels and their violence problems... so why do they highlight an M60 general purpose machine gun, a weapons still in use in
Mexico's military, but impossible to find in the open U.S. civilian market?
From that visual deception, we'll transition to outright lie number one in the text, an attempt to smear the Bush Administration:
Assault weapons made in China and Eastern Europe, resembling the AK-47, have become widely and cheaply available in the U.S. since Congress and the Bush administration refused to extend a ban on such weapons in 2004.
AK-pattern rifles were legal to own or import during the entire life of the 1994-2004 "Crime Bill," something that Ross knows for a fact... or should. This claim is a blatant falsehood.
The only effect of the law was to outlaw the importation or manufacture of certain specific firearms by name, and cosmetic features found on other firearms, without banning their manufacture, important, or purchase once these features were removed or replaced. The result was that the same functioning firearms were imported the day after the "ban" went into effect without a bayonet lug or flashhider, and with a thumbhole stock instead of a pistol grip. Functionally, the weapons were identical, with no reduction in firepower, magazine capacity, controlability, or or lethality. The "Crime Bill" outlawed virtually nothing, and was merely a fig-leaf for anti-gun politicians.
As for Bush,
he was in favor of extending the ban. ABC News failed to get that fact correct, either, even though checking it would have taken less than ten seconds on Google.
Now, to the second visual deception by ABC News. Once again, this article is about how common U.S.
civilian weapons are being used by Mexican drug cartels.
So why does ABC News insist on displaying highly-restricted SBRs (short-barreled rifles), automatic weapons, what appears to be no less than 4 M-203 grenade launchers, and at least 20 40mm grenades, military hardware not readily available on the civilian market?
Once again, they post pictures designed to deceive, but we're not quite done with ABC's print deceptions, either.
The drug cartels' weapons of choice include variants of the AK-47, .50-caliber sniper rifles and a Belgian-made pistol called the 'cop killer' or 'mata policia' because of its ability to pierce a bulletproof vest.
"It's in high demand by your violent drug cartels, their assassins in Mexico," said Newell of the ATF. The gun can fire a high-powered round used in a rifle. "
Again, more fiction, aided and abetted by a law enforcement officer that is either incompetent, or who is as dishonest as ABC News.
The FN Five-seveN (their punctuation, not mine)
does not fire rifle bullets as the article claims. It fires a tiny
5.7mm personal defense round designed for light carbines, submachine guns and pistols.
It is not any more armor-piercing than many other pistol cartridges, and less powerful than all centerfire rifle cartridges. Furthermore for the 5.7 cartridge to be truly armor-piercing, it must fire special ammunition that is only available to military and law enforcement sources.
There are multiple inaccuracies in this story that display outright incompetence on the part of ABC News, or a willful desire to deceive. Based upon prior performance, the blatantness of the misrepresentations that far surpass simple incompetence, and a pattern of deleting comments that point out their errors in the past, an attempt to willfully defraud ABC News consumers should be inferred in this article until mere incompetence can be proven.
It may well be true that civilian weapons are making their way across the border into Mexico, but that does not give ABC News the right to manufacture or misrepresent evidence to increase their story's impact.
Update: Warner Todd Huston notes
yet another fabrication in an earlier version of the ABC News story.
Also made minor edits to the text to further clarify that M60s, SBRs, and machine guns are not readily available on the open market as ABC News implies. Such firearms are heavily regulated under the
National Firearms Act.
Update: Story video
here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:57 PM
| Comments (64)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
AK-pattern rifles were illegal to own or import during the entire life of the 1994-2004 "Crime Bill"...
Typo? Did you mean "were legal to own"?
Posted by: JavaMan at April 22, 2008 11:43 PM (8Jyq+)
2
I thought that Hugo Chavez was finishing up an AK-47 factory in Venezuela. He's certainly supplying ammo to FARC. What makes anyone think that the full-auto Mexican AK-47s came from America, where they are illegal, when Venezuela just bought 100,000 of the suckers that we know about? How many did Chavez buy in secret with his Citgo/Petro money? And how many will he have to spare when the factory is up and running?
Posted by: Wolf Pangloss at April 23, 2008 12:02 AM (Mq/Vg)
3
Javaman's right. You could buy AK-looking rifles in the US under the ban. Didn't matter - they still only represent only a fraction of a percentage of weapons used in crimes. They just look scary to those not familiar with them. It's less dangerous than a gallon of gasoline... (see Happy Land Fire)
The 5.7 is about the same as a .22 Magnum. And while the cartels may call it whatever they like, Mexican police run around with M16s. The Mexican police don't have laws to follow like US law enforcement. Anybody who's ever had to fork over a $20 to pass an impromptu checkpoint knows just how that works.
Keep in mind the cartels and the police are the same thing a lot of places, so any complaint the mexican govt. has is usually just because they've lost a monopoly on corrupt force in an area.
The cartels raided an armory in Sonora a couple years back and all those military grade weapons went straight into their personal armories. An RPG launcher (or 2 or 3) made its way from Mexico to the US to be picked up by Border Patrol.
It's easy to understand Mexico's gun-hatred. If those pesky natives down in Yucatan were armed, it would've been a longer war of extermination.
Posted by: ST at April 23, 2008 12:31 AM (lIcJ+)
4
Wolf--I think you're on to something:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/13/mexican-intelligence-hugo-chavez-equips-and-funds-the-pemex-pipeline-bombers/
Posted by: See-Dubya at April 23, 2008 02:12 AM (dtCy0)
5
Typo? Did you mean "were legal to own"?
Correct. Fixed.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 23, 2008 03:41 AM (HcgFD)
6
I had no idea the antis were in a snit over the Five-seveN. I will definitely be buying one now and maybe a matching PS90 to go with it.
Posted by: ka at April 23, 2008 09:32 AM (niJdi)
7
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 04/23/2008 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 April 23, 2008 12:09 PM (gIAM9)
8
I wondered what the real story was... my wife was watching the news as I was making dinner.
My thought was that if we had real border control, most of that sort of problem (if it existed) would go away.
Posted by: Jeff at April 23, 2008 01:52 PM (yiMNP)
9
What did you expect? At least with ABC news, you are not disappointed. No one expects any better from them. I guess that is why fewer and fewer people watch them. I never do.
Posted by: George Bruce at April 23, 2008 02:32 PM (v4XVE)
10
I guarantee ATF and/or ICE will use this kind of sophistry to argue for ever-greater firepower using the old "out-gunned" ruse that has almost completely militarized law enforcement in America.
Posted by: MeckDeck at April 23, 2008 04:30 PM (E4hdc)
11
"has almost completely militarized law enforcement in America."
And that's wrong how???
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 23, 2008 05:02 PM (kNqJV)
12
MeckDeck, may one assume from your comments that you'd rather see the criminals better armed than the cops?
I imagine you're too young to remember the North Hollywood Shootout, where the cops literally had to go to a local gun store to get the firepower to deal with a pair of gunmen. After all, it only happened in 1997.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 23, 2008 05:39 PM (RP0Mk)
13
Bzzzt. Wrong all around. Anymore exceptions to prove the rule that far too many departments have tact'ed up at the expense of actual effective police-work?
Jewelers have tools, so do building-demo guys. They are not interchangeable.
Posted by: MeckDeck at April 23, 2008 06:32 PM (E4hdc)
14
In case anyone missed the meaning of the reference to $20 import permits ... I'm within 60 miles of the border, haven't crossed it in twenty years, prices have gone up ... in my day, you handed $10 to the Mexican border guard, and he didn't inspect your car. You might have a trunkful of AKs and explosive, but for $10 you got them in. Any place that has that situation really is in no position to complain.
(In my day, you didn't tender $20 because then he'd think you really did have something, and might search. But the weakening of the dollar has I supposed changed the going rate.)
Posted by: Dave Hardy at April 23, 2008 08:34 PM (mMJyS)
15
Linked by Stubborn Facts. Thanks once again for the good work, Bob.
Posted by: Tully at April 23, 2008 08:54 PM (kEQ90)
16
How about you show the evidence that supports your conclusion first, MeckDeck?
I'm sure you can find some, and not from known anti-gun sites.
Once you show your evidence, I'll be happy to debate you.
Of course, if you don't have any, I'll just assume you're just another gun-fearing lefty talking out of your backside, and treat you accordingly.
Your move. Evidence or ridicule. Take your pick.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 23, 2008 09:03 PM (RP0Mk)
17
CI, C-C-G,
MeckDeck is absolutely correct. Many law enforcement agencies have militarized beyond their actual needs, using homeland security monies to purchase tactical weapons systems for average patrol officers that are not warranted by the crimes common to their area.
North Hollywood is a great example proving his point. One incident in one city in a nation of 300 million, 11 years ago, does not justify the near-universal militarization of American police.
Of course, if you still want evidence, I can direct you to a number of sites that agree with MeckDeck. Instapundit Glenn Reynolds is one, and you happen to be on another right now.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 23, 2008 09:24 PM (HcgFD)
18
I'm not saying it justifies, for example, Ottumwa, Iowa getting an APC, CY, but surely examples like North Hollywood are cause for at least some increase in firepower for the average cop in areas where such crimes are likely to occur.
I am not--I say again, NOT--advocating the various police forces becoming militias, merely stating that the police need weapons to deal with what they are likely to find in their average patrol area.
However, neither am I advocating US police forces taking up the British model of no guns in the hands of patrol officers at all, and I think you'd agree with that, CY.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 23, 2008 09:43 PM (RP0Mk)
19
The North Hollywood shootout was perplexing to me. If you listen to the radio tapes you hear one officer utter this incredible and nonsensical statement: "They've got A K forty sevens - NOTHING WE HAVE CAN STOP THEM!!" Does anyone understand that logic? They have an automatic weapon - therefore, we can't take a defensive position, like behind the huge brick wall that lined the street, and take a head shot with our 9mm sidearms? I don't get it.
Posted by: Unclebryan at April 23, 2008 10:05 PM (bdL/4)
20
I'm not saying it justifies, for example, Ottumwa, Iowa getting an APC, CY, but surely examples like North Hollywood are cause for at least some increase in firepower for the average cop in areas where such crimes are likely to occur.
Uh, no.
One isolated incident over a decade ago is not a valid excuse. Patrol officers are already armed with high-capacity service pistols, multiple magazines of ammunition for said pistols, various less-lethal weapons systems, radios to call more individuals similarly armed, and hours of taxpayer-funded training on how to use all of it in the most effective manner possible.
That have far more force than they are likely to encounter already.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 23, 2008 10:06 PM (HcgFD)
21
It's not hard to see what MeckDeck is getting at here. 'Militarizing' police creates an us vs. them attitude in which all citizens are suspect. Civilian policing--I'll go ahead and call it the Andy Griffith model--depends on support from the law-abiders among us. North Hollywood might even be taken as an exemplar. A sheriff who knows who his local machine-gun hobbyists are does not need to keep Ma Deuce in the trunk, when several are a cell-phone call away. I'm a military vehicle hobbyist myself, so believe me when I tell you that there's not a privately-owned tank in this nation that's not at the beck and call of the county posse--if they only think to ask. The big Armed Forces Day military vehicle show in my corner of the state is personally sponsored by a county sheriff, and I've got to think the old fox knows what he's doing with that.
Posted by: comatus at April 23, 2008 10:11 PM (NGGW2)
22
Well, we're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one, Bob.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 23, 2008 10:41 PM (RP0Mk)
23
Who watches ABC News anymore...
Posted by: LeftCoastRighty at April 24, 2008 12:53 AM (q7FC/)
24
Yeah, despising the fact that ATF and the various local SWAT ninjas have on multiple occasions caused thousands of dollars in property damage, raided the wrong places multiple times, planted evidence, conspired to cover up their mistakes, charged law abiding citizens with defending their homes, and killed innocent people because of their inability to read a street sign does not make one a "gun-fearing lefty talking out of your backside".
The citizens are supposed to outgun the government, not the other way around.
Posted by: Britt at April 24, 2008 02:02 AM (1jt+u)
25
TO: Confederate Yankee
RE: ABC
Anything
But
Correct
'nuff said....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not. -- Thomas Jefferson]
Posted by: Chuck Pelto at April 24, 2008 06:37 AM (XaaHr)
26
Sigh. Bush, as president, never said he approved of extending the assault weapons ban nor did he ever say he would sign such a bill.
The closest to this claim one can get is an off-hand remark, never repeated, by the president's press secretary Ari Fleischer.
The statement: "As for Bush, he was in favor of extending the ban" is, at best, misleading.
Posted by: Ymal Brucker at April 24, 2008 06:51 AM (GlEEF)
27
Ymal, your statement :
"The closest to this claim one can get is an off-hand remark, never repeated, by the president's press secretary Ari Fleischer"
Is wrong on several points. It was Scott McClellan who made the ststement. And it was repeated, by none other than Diane Feinstein, in the Senate record.
[http://feinstein.senate dot gov/04Speeches/assault%20weapons%20ban%203%201.htm]
As I can't find any record of Bush or his Administration correcting Scott or Diane, I have to believe whether or not the remark was off-hand, it was truthful.
So, between your word, and the facts, I gotta beleive my own lying eyes here.
Thanks for playing, though.
Posted by: Dark Jethro at April 24, 2008 07:41 AM (Ei+Zj)
28
Ymal Brucker:
The statement: "As for Bush, he was in favor of extending the ban" is, at best, misleading.
Factcheck.org:
The ad also claims that Bush "will let the assault weapon ban expire," which is misleading. In fact, Bush spoke in support of the ban during his campaign four years ago and his spokesman said as recently as May of last year that he still supported it. It was Congress that failed to consider extending the ban and didn't present Bush with a bill to sign.
Washington Post:
White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said that Bush "supports the reauthorization of the current assault weapons ban." She noted that "the president's views are well known" among GOP leaders in Congress.
NY Times:
President Bush and the National Rifle Association, long regarded as staunch allies, find themselves unlikely adversaries over one of the most significant pieces of gun-control legislation in the last decade, a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons.
At issue is a measure to be introduced by Senate Democrats on Thursday to continue the ban. Groundbreaking 1994 legislation outlawing the sale and possession of such firearms will expire next year unless Congress extends it, and many gun-rights groups have made it their top priority to fight it. Even some advocates of gun control say the prohibition has been largely ineffective because of its loopholes.
Despite those concerns, the White House says Mr. Bush supports the extension of the current law -- a position that has put him in opposition to the N.R.A. and left many gun owners angry and dumbfounded.
''This is a president who has been so good on the Second Amendment that it's just unbelievable to gun owners that he would really sign the ban,'' said Grover G. Norquist, a leading conservative and an N.R.A. board member who opposes the weapons ban. ''I don't think it's sunk in for a lot of people yet.''
Advocates on both sides of the issue say the White House appears to have made a bold political calculation: that the risk of alienating a core constituency is outweighed by appearing independent of the gun lobby, sticking to a campaign promise and supporting a measure that has broad popular appeal. The president has claimed the middle road -- supporting an extension of the current ban but not endorsing the stronger measures that gun-control supporters say would outlaw many ''copycat'' assault weapons. That position has forced Democrats in the Senate to reject plans for a more ambitious weapons ban.
Mr. Bush's position ''cuts against the N.R.A.'s position,'' said Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation, ''and it will put the president -- for one of the first times since he signed the campaign finance reform bill -- at odds with his own political base.''
''He's built up enough positive political capital in other areas that it won't be fatal,'' Mr. Franc added, but the issue could hurt Mr. Bush in Middle America, considered critical to his re-election chances in 2004.
The assault-weapons issue puts the president in a precarious political spot. When Mr. Bush was campaigning for president in 2000, a top N.R.A. official boasted that the group's relationship with Mr. Bush was so ''unbelievably friendly'' that the N.R.A. could practically claim a seat at the White House. The N.R.A. has been a major donor to Mr. Bush, and the gun lobby and the Bush administration have been in lock step on most major gun issues, including the current push to limit lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft has been a particularly close ally of the gun lobby, pushing an expanded view of gun rights under the Second Amendment and initiating law enforcement changes sought by the N.R.A.
But White House officials said the assault-weapons ban was one case in which the president and the N.R.A. did not see eye to eye.
''There are times when we agree and there are times when we disagree,'' said Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman. ''The president makes decisions based on what he believes is the right policy for Americans.'' Mr. McClellan added that the ban was put in place as a way of deterring crime and that Mr. Bush ''felt it was reasonable.''
CPD: 10-13-2004 Bush/Kerry Debate Transcript
SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, new question, two minutes.
You said that if Congress would vote to extend the ban on assault weapons, that you'd sign the legislation, but you did nothing to encourage the Congress to extend it. Why not?
BUSH: Actually, I made my intentions -- made my views clear. I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban, and was told the fact that the bill was never going to move, because Republicans and Democrats were against the assault weapon ban, people of both parties.
I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be able to own a gun. I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere to make sure that guns don't get in the hands of people that shouldn't have them.
But the best way to protect our citizens from guns is to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns.
And that's why early in my administration I called the attorney general and the U.S. attorneys and said: Put together a task force all around the country to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns.
And the prosecutions are up by about 68 percent -- I believe -- is the number.
Neighborhoods are safer when we crack down on people who commit crimes with guns.
To me, that's the best way to secure America.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 24, 2008 07:43 AM (HcgFD)
29
sorry:
statement, not ststement.
typing too fast for conditions again...
Posted by: Dark Jethro at April 24, 2008 07:44 AM (Ei+Zj)
30
C-C-G, I agree with you, give the cops howitzers for all I care. That would put an end to those car chases in California

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 24, 2008 08:15 AM (kNqJV)
31
shhhhh, dont let ABC find out that some of us handloaders are necking the FN 5.7x28mm case down to 14cal. They might "think" that we are up to something counter-liberal.
Posted by: Joe Buzz at April 24, 2008 08:53 AM (YLGud)
32
Patrol officers are already armed with high-capacity service pistols, multiple magazines of ammunition for said pistols, various less-lethal weapons systems, radios to call more individuals similarly armed, and hours of taxpayer-funded training on how to use all of it in the most effective manner possible.
And, in Brookfield, WI., a prosperous suburb of Milwaukee, patrol officers also have M16A2 rifles available on dashboard-mounts.
Sure helps with the DUI arrests which constitute 90% of the police blotter.
Posted by: dad29 at April 24, 2008 09:28 AM (kqTIT)
33
A civilian police force should have the same arsenal as the civilians they serve. If they want to become a paramilitary force, I'd prefer we have an open debate about it *BEFORE* they purchase and train with the weaponry.
Posted by: Squid at April 24, 2008 10:15 AM (XyDTQ)
34
If the cops are outgunned by thieves, etc. then what's wrong with calling in the National Guard or even the Army itself on those *extremely* rare occasions? That's how the Detroit riots of the late '60s finally were put down, as I recall. Citizen-police for one job, soldiers for another.
Posted by: Rich at April 24, 2008 12:44 PM (Zl7hg)
35
Personally, my opinions on this matter are rooted in my strong affection for Federalist principles.
If Hoboken, NJ wants to arm their cops with shoulder-fired missiles, let them. If the citizens of Hoboken don't like it, they can put pressure on the cops through their elected officials. If the mayor gets enough phone calls and letters, chances are very good he'll have a talk with the chief of police.
Also, law enforcement is one of the few truly legitimate activities for the government to be involved in. I'd rather buy every cop on the beat a tank to patrol in than buy a stadium for some sports team that can surely afford it. Mind you, I have no problem with sports teams and players making lots of dough, that's the free market. I just don't think city government has any business subsidizing them. The city didn't pay for my employers' buildings, why should they pay for any other employers'?
Ronaldus Magnus (a/k/a Ronald Wilson Reagan) wanted to get the federal government out of the business of telling local school districts what to do, by abolishing the Department of Education, though, unfortunately, he didn't succeed. I think he'd have the same reaction to anyone besides the local voters telling a city how they can and cannot arm their cops.
Anyway, that's my view. And I am now bowing out of this debate.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 24, 2008 05:46 PM (RP0Mk)
36
ABC isn't careless about its "facts" concerning guns. This is a carefully orchestrated agenda of propaganda. In other words, they are not wrong, they are LYING to us!
Posted by: R.J. at April 25, 2008 10:07 AM (Dib12)
37
Wow! You guys who support the cops having anything they want scare the hell outta me! If you really believe what you say, you support nothing less than a police state. Or did you forget how the cops acted illegally in New Orleans, stealing people's guns under color of law, and driving them out of their homes? Remember Patricia Konie? She was body-slammed against the wall, her gun was wrenched out of her hand, and she was taken from her perfectly safe home. Laws aren't always right, and many are outright unconstitutional. But they give the cops authority to force us against our will, and often the cops overstep their legal bounds, either out of ignorance, or out of sheer lust for power.
It's because citizens had firearms equal to those of the Redcoats that we won our independence, andthat spirit should continue. It is freedom.
Posted by: R.J. at April 25, 2008 10:40 AM (Dib12)
38
RJ - Yes, I support the cops having 'anything they want'...as much as I support law-abiding citizens having 'anything they want'.
The local cops are controlled by the populace via their elected representatives. Where the cops are 'out of line', you will also find those elected representatives are worthless. Taking your case in point - New Orleans after Katrina. I believe you would agree NO's elected representatives were, at the very least, out to lunch most of the time.
Posted by: Mark at April 25, 2008 04:03 PM (4od5C)
39
Exceptional post. You would think they would know enough at least not to make their point by showing military weapons illegal in the U.S. marekt. Linked.
Posted by: GW at April 25, 2008 05:02 PM (AiJXe)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
How Many Military Suicides?
The San Francisco Chronicle posts this without question:
More than 120 veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq commit suicide every week while the government stalls in granting returning troops the mental health treatment and benefits to which they are entitled, veterans advocates told a federal judge Monday in San Francisco.
The rights of hundreds of thousands of veterans are being violated by the Department of Veterans Affairs, "an agency that is in denial," and by a government health care system and appeals process for patients that is "broken down," Gordon Erspamer, lawyer for two advocacy groups, said in an opening statement at the trial of a nationwide lawsuit.
He said veterans are committing suicide at the rate of 18 a day - a number acknowledged by a VA official in a Dec. 15 e-mail - and the agency's backlog of disability claims now exceeds 650,000, an increase of 200,000 since the Iraq war started in 2003.
We're looking at the conflation of multiple claims here, so lets take them one at a time:
More than 120 veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq commit suicide every week while the government stalls in granting returning troops the mental health treatment and benefits to which they are entitled, veterans advocates told a federal judge Monday in San Francisco.
There is no way to get a constant figure of
X per week, but if they are presuming that 120/week figure from the beginning of the Iraq War on March 20, 2003, we're talking 1860 days (not including today), rounding down to 265 weeks * 120 suicides/week = 31,800 suicides of Iraq and Afghan War veterans.
If we instead presume they arrived at 120/week starting with the October 7, 2001 war with Afghanistan, we're looking at 2389 days (not including today), rounding down to 341 weeks * 120 suicides/week = 41,920 suicides of Iraq and Afghan War veterans.
Are they trying to tell us between 31,000-41,000 modern war veterans have committed suicide, and we're
just now starting to notice, five years later?
* * *
The 18/suicides a day figure seems to quietly leave out which wars are covered, and could be construed to assume the aging veterans of WWII, Korean, Vietnam, and other campaigns as well as Iraq and Afghanistan. It would seem prudent to assume that many of these may be due to issues perhaps unrelated to PTSD caused a half-century or more before in many instances.
If they do mean all veterans, regardless of war, but measure from the start of the Afghan war at a rate of 18 suicides a day, we wind up with 43,002 suicides for all veterans of all wars during this time period. If we instead use the 18 suicides/day figure from the beginning of the Iraq War, we wind up with 33,480 suicides for all veterans of all wars during this time period.
Are they trying to tell us between 33,000-43,000 U.S. military war veterans have committed suicide in the past 5-8 years, and we're
just now starting to notice?
According to the math cited here, the VA may be shorting veterans on care, but they excel at hidden burials.
We are not treating out veterans with nearly the care and respect for their service as we should, but I'd be shocked if we were losing as many as these figures suggest.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:16 PM
| Comments (47)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Interesting numbers to be sure. I can state for fact that Veterans (of that "ALL" category) are dying at high rates based simply on observations regarding VA Home admittance figures. I highly doubt they are dying due to suicide.
My ex-father-in-law was just admitted yesterday to a VA home in NE. Their waiting list is pages long. He only waited 2 months though. That means a lot of residents at this particular facility are dying rather frequently. He's a Korean era vet who never went to Korea though. So he simply can't qualify for PTSD.
Posted by: Mark at April 22, 2008 05:09 PM (4od5C)
2
This does not make any sense.
National Suicide Statistics (2005) show a total for the entire nation at 32,637. That is the latest tally I can find.
http://www.suicidology.org/associations/1045/files/2005datapgs.pdf
Posted by: Sara at April 22, 2008 05:18 PM (Wi/N0)
3
"...if they are presuming that 120/week figure from the beginning of the Iraq War on March 20, 2003 .... "If we instead presume they arrived at 120/week starting with the October 7, 2001 war with Afghanistan ..."
I think the problem is in presuming either. It seems clear they're saying the CURRENT rate. Well, currently there are several million vets from all three wars. No time to look up the number. In any event, dollars to doughnuts their source is NOT the VA but CBS News's own "investigation" that I ripped apart here:
http://www.fumento.com/military/suicide.html
Posted by: Michael Fumento at April 22, 2008 05:35 PM (oLg2s)
4
The numbers do seem wrong. However, I've been led to understand it is a real problem.
My first cousin returned home two weeks ago from a blood clot in his lungs associated with his spending his duty in Iraq crouched up in a turret. He's dealing with some real issues from the stress and being targeted all the time in their vehicle, and is (as his dad says) a real head case.
He got to see his wife and baby daughter a week ago and due to readjustment problems, tried to kill himself after some minor family argument he couldn't handle. He's being treated at Walter Reed and they're adjusting medications. From what my uncle has explained, it's a problem they're overwhelmed with there.
Granted, this is just anecdotal data and one point does not a trend make, but from what we've learned, the stresses our soldiers are under with the constant hidden threat is a factor. Say a prayer for our guys and more importantly, be there for them when they come home.
Posted by: redherkey at April 22, 2008 05:36 PM (kjqFg)
5
Unfortunately the VA is what we can all expect if we get "universal health care." The government can't run anything worth a damn
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 22, 2008 05:46 PM (kNqJV)
6
I know of two suicides that would be counted as military suicides and neither were combat-related. One was an active duty guy who came home after a year long Vietnam tour to find his wife in bed with another man. The other was a family argument where the father mocked him as being "only half the soldier his buddies in WWII were." Both left notes detailing their reasons. Both would be classified as military suicides.
My experience over my husband's long career was that those who went into the service with prexisting baggage and/or attitude problems usually didn't fare all that well psychologically. Many became drug addicts or alcoholics and were, in general, a mess. But, I would venture to say that they would have probably ended up the same way anyway, although it might have take longer.
Posted by: Sara at April 22, 2008 05:50 PM (Wi/N0)
7
I hear so many horror stories about the VA, I figure they must be true. However, 2 years ago, my cousin called on the VA for help with my Uncle. He was a WWII vet who was with McArthur in the Philippines. I spent some time with them during that period and I was very impressed with what the VA provided for him. He was outpatient, living with my cousin, but they provided wheelchair transportation any time she needed it, they sent in a hospital bed, a special wheelchair, even nurses aide help for her so that she could still work nights. All his medication was free, as were any first aid or sanitary supplies she needed for my Uncle's care. And they provided all his therapy, even picking him up at home 3 times a week to take him to the hospital facility.
This is my only exposure to the VA care I've had, but I was impressed and so was my cousin. BTW, this was in Pittsburgh.
Posted by: Sara at April 22, 2008 05:57 PM (Wi/N0)
8
I agree with Sara. I was a token phone guest on National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation when two men discussed the planned emotional deprograming service the government intended to help returning War on Terror veterans. I described my unusual experiences, and one man said I was a "perfect storm" the sort of person the program was designed to help.
I had some problems when I returned home, but I never drank, did drugs or deviated from the course I had set for myself. Some of the worst experiences happened after my return home, since Vietnam Era veterans received a less than perfect welcome. To this day, I don't like anti war protesters.
Posted by: James at April 22, 2008 06:05 PM (EUX3a)
9
When I first heard of this a few months ago, I too was skeptical. Here's your source document, a CBS investigation from last year.
I was writing an editorial about the reports, which I was concerned might be statistical projection. But the CBS data were hard counts of state death certificates. Actually an impressive piece of work.
Posted by: km at April 22, 2008 06:28 PM (mrk0R)
10
KM, you might want to read the earlier comment from Mr. Michael Fumento, who looked at that CBS investigation already and posted about it above.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 22, 2008 06:54 PM (RP0Mk)
11
Well, according to the National Institute of Mental Health, veterans are twice as likely as non veterans to commit suicide. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/science-news/2007/male-veterans-have-double-the-suicide-rate-of-civilians.shtml
Given that there are approximately 23,532,000 veterans in the US (VA statistics as of Jan '0

and approximately 300,000,000 people living in the US, that would mean that approximjately 765 non veterans commit suicide each week, which should put our suicide death rate in the neighborhood of 39,780 non veterans per annum. If we assume that the additional 6240 veterans are then added to this number we find, not too surprisingly, that a deviation of over 42% from the reported numbers. I would call that a gross exaggeration (of course others may call it a lie).
Posted by: David at April 22, 2008 07:51 PM (98dot)
12
Looks like the Chronicle has a problem with their unit of time...
http://english.pravda.ru/news/society/31-01-2008/103784-iraq_suicide_soldiers%20-0
The Russian press says 89 confirmed suicides and 32 "under investigation" makes 121 suicides during 2007 (a year, not a week). According to the Russians, this was a 20% increase over 2006.
Posted by: scp at April 22, 2008 09:25 PM (r0iRq)
13
Remember the missing children craze of the 80's? The plantive pictures on milk cartons? "Have you seen me?" Before long, the numbers of missing children exceeded the numbers of troops killed in Vietnam. It was only when someone did a bit of thinking and realized that those numbers couldn't possibly be right that it was discovered that the number of legitimatelly missing kids was actually in the very low double digits a year--for the nation. Seen any plantive milk cartons lately?
I suspect that something similar will soon happen with this issue. Such always happens when the media relies on what they believe ought to be true rather than what is. Tragic how reality so often follows conservative lines of thought rather than liberal, isn't it?
Posted by: Mike at April 22, 2008 09:28 PM (ewSYJ)
14
It sounds like "whole cloth" was involved.
Posted by: Neo at April 22, 2008 10:58 PM (Yozw9)
15
Where do you THINK they get Soylent Green?
This explains a lot.
Posted by: George Bruce at April 23, 2008 02:37 PM (v4XVE)
16
I wonder why this story has dropped from every major publication today?
In testimony today, a VA critic says the suicide rate for vets in 2007 was estimated at between 3.2 abd 7.5 times the public rate. In 2004 the public rate was 32,459 x 7.5 = 243,443 suicides? X 3.2 = 103,869? I can't find the figures for 2007, but if they were close to the 2004 totals are they really trying to tell us that between 103,869 and 243,443 veterans killed themselves last year? I'm sorry but I think that is patently absurd.
It is most likely that they "attempt" suicide in those numbers, and who is the verifier of the "attempt"? What are the criterion in labeling an "attempted suicide"?
The VA most definitely needs to be restructured and needs to cater to our vets, but I don't think pushing such and absurd meme is the way to go about it.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/23/BADL10A15L.DTL&hw=va+vets+suicide&sn=001&sc=1000
Posted by: Cheryl at April 23, 2008 04:16 PM (CHJ2J)
17
Cheryl, remember they're talking "rate", i.e. numbers per hundred thousand or whatever such measure they use, not "total" numbers. So it all depends on the number of veterans to begin with.
The following numbers are rough, back-of-the envelope calculations taken from figures above, but the math process is the idea I'm addressing here.
If there are 32,000 suicides in one year in the US population of 300 million, that's a rate of 10.7 suicides for every 100,000 people per year. If the veteran rate is 3.2 times that, what they're saying is the suicide rate among the vets would be 34.2 per 100,000 per year. But, of course there aren't 300 million vets. To get the total number of vet suicides in one year you would use the following math. The number of vet suicides per year would be 23,000,000 vets x (34.2 suicides / 100,0000 vets) = 7866 suicides per year.
I have no idea if the numbers used are accurate, so I don't know if they reflect the true situation and give a reality-based result, but that's the math you need to use to get to the numbers you're looking for.
Posted by: kcom at April 23, 2008 05:45 PM (GjT73)
18
And using the same math, the high end number would be 18,446 per year.
Posted by: kcom at April 23, 2008 05:49 PM (GjT73)
19
Excellent, so we can't even treat our veterans the way we should and the Dems seem to think that we can give health care to the entire country?
We can't treat the 10 or so percent that have sacrificed so much, lets wait until we can do that, OK?
And those suicide rates have to be total crap, that means that about 5% of people that come back kill themselves.
Posted by: Jeff at April 23, 2008 09:07 PM (ueKJq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Iraq Steps Forward, and the Media Slinks Away
Ed Morrissey notes that Iraq is continuing down the path to political reconciliation even as the media choses to largely ignore these developments in favor of more pressing stories, like the present cost of Barak Obama's half-eaten waffle on eBay.
One of those points of political reconciliation in Iraq is amnesty for some classes of detainees after determining they no longer present a threat of resuming insurgent activities.
Among those detainees released due to Iraq's amnesty law in recent weeks was Associated Press photographer
Bilal Hussein, who was arrested with a known al Qaeda terrorist leader in his home and in possession of bomb-making materials and terrorist propaganda that he presumably helped make. Part of the reason he was released is that he was no longer considered a threat; the insurgents he had (allegedly) provided propaganda for in Fallujah are long dead or dispersed.
I find it somewhat amusing the amount of time and legal expense the Associated Press incurred trying to free their photographer—and their reputation—to no avail, despite mounting the
most deceptive,
ethically-
challenged of media campaigns on his behalf. It was only through the political progress of the Iraqi government that Hussein was released.
Perhaps tellingly, the Iraqi government advances that led to Hussein's release was down-played by the news organization, as it
stretched the shaky boundaries of their credibility by implying his release was conditioned on innocence instead of amnesty.
Increasingly, proof of progress in Iraq is measured by how little the media talks about the nation's successes.
Enjoy the silence.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:23 PM
| Comments (43)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Off topic, but wanted to get an answer. You often mention the MSM is very Left.
Is that because the corporations, which own the MSM, trust the Left more than the Right to provide them with what they want (profit)?
Posted by: Robert in BA at April 22, 2008 02:43 PM (iaV+w)
2
Robert, I've seen this construct on the supposed influence of corporate ownership on journalism many times before, and think it is probably one of the more delusional suppositions out there.
For such a statement to be true, individual journalists would have to be near mindless drones, devoid of individuality, that can be redirected or casually reprogrammed with merely the replacement of a CEO figurehead.
It assumes that individual journalists have cognitive processes that are as
easy to rewrite as a jump drive. I tend to find many journalists surprisingly incurious, prone to rote tasks and reformulating instead of thinking, but even I give them more credit than this "interchangeable corporate head" theory allows.
I think that most journalists are far more robust drones than that, and therefore, harder to reprogram.
The journalism trend towards leftist thought comes from deep roots, from inherent personal sensitivities within individuals that guide students toward journalism as a potentially appealing profession (and others to engineering or business programs, for example), to collegiate texts and cultures within j-schools during formative years when journalists are taught how to think that push a liberal perspective and dogma into their world view.
This is hardly the stuff of just journalism school, however; most university humanities departments are left-leaning, as are the professions that these degree programs support. The big difference between journalism and these other programs is that by its nature, journalism has a much more public face.
After a biological predisposition, home influences, collegiate training, and cultural immersion in news organizations, most people will develop cognitive processes that will have coached them to process inbound information in a prescribed, nearly uniform way, eliciting a specific, almost reflexive response.
It is because of this that you can take nearly any event of major significance and watch a dozen reporters, regardless of where they were born or raised, write articles on the event that are remarkably similar in tone, focal point, emphasis, grammar, and organization. That uniformity, however, comes at the expense of flexibility.
To suppose that the hire of a new CEO or CFO can simply and quickly overwrite a journalist's firmware--a way of thinking that took years to form and almost to impossible to erase--is insulting to the drones and the culture than spawned them.
"Journalism happens" independent of the business, corporate side of the equation. This fact should be obvious in their continued insistence of practicing liberal-biased journalism, even as it alienates audiences, and in so doing, costs news organizations money, power, and positions.
Businessmen in new organizations would love to get journalists to grow and adapt so that the organizations can adapt and survive, but rather like the dodo, journalists seem to have a hard time evolving.
I don't know if that answers your question, but to be honest, is wasn't very well-formed to begin with.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 22, 2008 03:42 PM (xNV2a)
3
CY,
Nice theory, but I'm not buying it.
The journalists want a career. They live in a capitalist society. They march to the orders of their bosses. Those that don't receive the same treatment as Ashleigh Banfield. Toe the line or we'll shut your career down.
Your theory imparts that the media would be the only business where the worker bees (drones, to you) don't march to the orders given by ownership and management and there are no repercussions. Not a very sound business practice in the land of capitalism.
Also, if the MSM was liberally biased we would have seen a lot more (anything) about the hypocrisy of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, the guys who simply hate taxes. GWB hates them so much (the govt. stealing the hard-earned money of the citizens) that he lobbied to have taxes pay for his baseball team's new stadium. Of course all team owners want the citizens to foot the bill for their playgrounds, but not all of them have made being anti-tax their main mantra.
Cheney, on the other hand, made most of his money by being the CEO of a corporation which gets most of its money from government contracts (paid for with tax dollars).
In a world where the MSM harps about the hypocrisy of Edwards' $400 haircut, you'd think this might get some (any) play. (For now we'll leave aside that the Edwards charge is about the Media's belief of the poor not deserving political representation).
Also, the fact that the MSM chased Whitewater for 8 years, and covered the Downing Street Memos for almost 24 hours makes me think the "liberal MSM" charge is a bunch of hooey.
Posted by: Robert in BA at April 22, 2008 04:28 PM (iaV+w)
4
Robert:
Who are journalists' bosses? The CEO/CFO or the Publishers or the Editors? Chain of Command affects most organizations, not just the military.
Take the NYT for prime example. The stockholders have been hammered for the last 20 years. However, the Sulzberger family has kept any take-overs of NYT leadership at bay thanks to their ownership of controlling (I forget the correct term) 'preferred' stock. "Pinch" Sulzberger is the COB of the NYT. He is, by all reputable accounts, left of center and many would put him on the extreme left.
So, while you might think you've got a nice torpedo for CY's hypothesis, you have completely failed to understand the 'culture of journalism'. It is as CY has stated. Born, bred, nurtured, taught, and reinforced - LEFT. That is why a self-identifying "conservative" journalist is about as rare to find as a self-identifying "conservative" Democrat. (My sincere gratitude to Zell Miller.)
Next, how do you explain the success of Fox News? Do you write it off due to 'gullible' viewers or some other BS? Rupert Murdoch is not a right-wing person. In fact, he is more in line with left-wing ideas...just more centrist than the current incarnation of the Democrat party. However, he does not dabble in the reportage of Fox News. He set up a business plan and hired people to run it. By most of those previously mentioned reputable accounts, Fox News is 'right of center'. And they are making a lot more money where others are making much less.
Posted by: Mark at April 22, 2008 05:39 PM (4od5C)
5
And the fact ABC (Disney) was headed by far left wing fanatic Michael Eisner. CBS president is also a far left wing nut job, Les Moonves. I have no idea about Jeff Zucker at NBC but NBC is considered the farthest left of all the network stations. Is Robert really that stupid?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 22, 2008 05:59 PM (kNqJV)
6
No, Cap, Robert isn't stupid. He is just a typical lefty.
I believe I've expounded on this here before, but it's been a while, so a rerun seems to be in order. I should point out that much of this is based on "The Vision of the Anointed" by Thomas Sowell... if you can get a copy, do so, it's well worth the money.
Anyway, here's how it works. The average lefty believes, deep down in his/her soul, that they are a "good person" because they believe certain things, not because of anything they do (as most conservatives would consider more important), but because they believe and espouse certain political views. In fact, if you espouse these views loudly enough, most lefties will give you a pass for breaking them... i.e. Algore flying private jets and having a huge mansion--both contributing to a "carbon footprint" the approximate size of King Kong's.
The reverse is also true for lefties... if you do not toe the lefty line 100%, you are, by their definition, a "bad person." For example, see how they treated Senator Lieberman. He is a perfect lefty in all respects but one--the Iraq war. And for that, the lefties kicked him out of their party. Imagine how "bad" a person who is even farther out of the lefty lockstep must be, in their eyes.
Thus it is that Robert can talk about Bush's "hypocrisy" without ever blinking at Algore's. Algore, you see, is a "good person," and therefore it's OK if his walk doesn't match his talk.
Thus endeth the lesson.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 22, 2008 07:05 PM (RP0Mk)
7
C-C-G, but they just embarrass themselves with their lack of intellectual honesty. Did Robert not bother to see who was in charge of the news organizations before making that comment? If all he did was google ceo cbs he would have found out how ridiculous his question was. What's worse, that Robert is just a sheep and believes whatever left wing talking point he hears or the fact he doesn't do any research on his own?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 22, 2008 07:20 PM (kNqJV)
8
Cap, Robert is a perfect lefty. That is, he is a sheep. Whatever MoveOn, DailyKos, etc. say, he believes. If they tell him that ice is hot and fire is cold, he'd believe it. And if the next day they say that ice is something else, he'd believe that too.
The bottom line is, he--and most of the other lefties--believes that his "good person" status is wholly dependent on echoing what other "good people" say. If you don't echo the "good people," you are a "bad person." So if the "good people" say that stone is soft, all the little lefty sheep would be finding rocks to use as pillows.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 22, 2008 07:29 PM (RP0Mk)
9
My bad.
NBC, owned by the largest defense contractor in the US, was virulently against the war.
My eyes must have been playing tricks on me, when I saw them cheering on the war and dismissing those against it as pacifists, Saddam lovers, and hippies.
BTW, I love that nickname ("hippies") for those who marched against the war in early 2003, but "prescient" or "absolutely 100% correct" are more accurate.
(Although I doubt even they could have foreseen the greatest military in the history of mankind being fought to a 5-year standstill by middle eastern teenagers).
Also C-C-G, I can see Gore's hypocrisy. I also saw him called out for it by the "oh so liberal" MSM. Bush and Cheney's hypocrisy, not so much.
Why that?
Should I believe you or my lying eyes?
Posted by: Robert in BA at April 23, 2008 01:14 AM (iaV+w)
10
C-C-G, once again Robert is lying. Another simple google proves it.
"An April 2001 article in USA Today described the president's 4,000-square-foot single-story limestone house in Crawford as an "eco-friendly haven."
"Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground -- one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called 'gray water,' and one tank for 'black water' from the kitchen sink and toilets," it said. "The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater."
In addition, "the Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25 percent of the electricity that traditional heating and air-conditioning systems consume."
Is it even possible for far left wing fanatical nut jobs like Robert to be embarrassed when they are proven liars so quickly?
Oh, and did you notice how he "supports our troops?" Our brave men and women in the military can't even beat a bunch of teenagers. I'm wondering....can we question their patriotism yet?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 23, 2008 05:34 AM (kNqJV)
11
(Although I doubt even they could have foreseen the greatest military in the history of mankind being fought to a 5-year standstill by middle eastern teenagers)....
Should I believe you or my lying eyes?
It seems you're going with your lying eyes. Or perhaps there's a transmission problem somewhere along your optic nerve. Or maybe you're just not paying attention. One way or another, reality is being badly garbled somewhere along the line between it actually occurring and your fingers striking the keyboard.
Posted by: Pablo at April 23, 2008 07:29 AM (yTndK)
12
Thank you, Robert, for proving my point.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 23, 2008 07:41 AM (RP0Mk)
13
"(Although I doubt even they could have foreseen the greatest military in the history of mankind being fought to a 5-year standstill by middle eastern teenagers)...."
A comforting fantasy for leftists, to be sure, but a fantasy nevertheless.
The people we're fighting are trained, equipped, and financed by two of the most sophisticated and lethal military-intelligence apparatuses in the world, those of Syria and Iran.
In addition, you have the former Mukhbarat of Iraq doing its bit. Saddam's boys have essentially transformed al Qaeda into a stateless military-intelligence apparatus, so our troops are actually facing four of the most sophisticated, lethal, and ruthless such organizations in the world.
Only as genuine cretin would refer to our enemies as middle-eastern teenagers.
Posted by: Tom W. at April 26, 2008 03:27 AM (UUp3o)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Without Ethics
Did you read the article in the New York Times today implying that John McCain sold political favors to an Arizona real estate developer that is also big campaign donor?
I'm no McCain fan, but after reading all four pages, I'm left still waiting for some substance, some sort of bombshell, that legitimizes this story as news.
Real estate developers try to make money from land deals? They're willing to trade for properties that they feel may be more profitable to them, and discard those properties they feel aren't going to be as profitable? Real estate developers try to attract and keep the attention of politicians by raising money for them?
Shocking. I'm sure such things have never before happened in the history of earth.
For the story to have merit and legitimacy it needs a "gotcha," an impropriety, some sort of ethical or legal breach on behalf of the businessman by the politician. This story runs on for four long pages, but the authors never present anything approaching unethical conduct on the part of the candidate.
To the contrary, instead of making a solid case based upon evidence, the article editorializes, it speculates and implies, but provides nothing to support the implied thesis of McCain's corruption.
In fact, the only evidence the story supplies are specific instances where McCain rejected inappropriate interventions, including one instance where McCain allegedly stopped speaking to the developer for a year over behavior—hiring a personal lobbyist—that was self-serving but
entirely legal.
This
Times story sought to create a furor over shady, unethical behavior, and it has done that in spades.
Jim Rutenberg is one author of the article, and a man who has apparently discarded his integrity as a reporter to write political hit pieces. This is the second Rutenberg article attacking John McCain in the
Times in recent months, neither of which has provided any actual evidence of impropriety. The first
alleged an affair with a female lobbyist that was remarkably evidence free, a trait that today's article
also seems to share.
Rutenberg has now twice attempted to smear McCain with charges unsupported by evidence, and twice his editors have not only elected to run the hit pieces, but gave them prominent placement in print editions.
We've been fortunate in knowing for some years now that we don't have to wonder about the editorial biases in play at the New York
Times, and now because of these articles and
others like them we have no reason to question their ethics... they have none.
In the end, Rutenberg and other newsroom editorialists at the
Times are
hastening their own demise with this kind of journalism.
I'm not sure who will miss them when they're gone.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:02 AM
| Comments (33)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Ethics? Ethics? We don't need no stinking ethics!
Posted by: David at April 22, 2008 11:26 AM (cPLO6)
2
Great, good to have a serious scrutiny and air all this out. I'm sure we can look forward to a Rezko story in the next couple days and a Whitewater/Castle Grande expose' in the Sunday mag.
Posted by: megapotamus at April 22, 2008 12:11 PM (LF+qW)
3
The NYT has sent one of its more strongly coded signals. By putting "McCain" in the same headline as "developer", the four-page article is just frosting on the cake - the headline has already told the faithful that McCain and the Devil are identical twins. Oh, the horror!
The Sunday WaPo expressed its exquisite "concern" about the temperament of McCain. The NYT earlier shrilled its warning that McCain had occupied the same room as a female lobbyist who wasn't wearing hijab. Tune in tomorrow for the next in the MSM series of drip-drip-drip erosion and erasure of its former love affair with John McCain - now that there are real lefties in opposition to him.
Posted by: Micropotamus at April 22, 2008 02:04 PM (YeWPs)
4
Megapotamus, I expect to see an Obama/Rezko story about the same time that Satan opens an ice rink in Hades.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 22, 2008 05:54 PM (RP0Mk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Heroes
Glenn Reynolds is giving J.D. Johannes' Iraq War documentary trilogy Outside the Wire a big push this morning, noting that Amazon is bundling the film with Michael Yon's Moment of Truth in Iraq, which Glenn dubs the "Iraq War Honesty Pack."
It is probably worth adding
Congressional Medal of Honor nominee David Bellavia's
House to House, and
My Men Are Heros, a book about Navy Cross nominee Brad Kasal to that list, but those are only scratching the surface of the material out there about the conflict and the men fighting it that you won't often see reported in the larger media.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:47 AM
| Comments (31)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Having read both House to House and My Men Are Heros, I can give a hearty recommendation to both of these books. House to House is a much more grittier and raw read, but they are both fantastic books about men who we owe our thanks to for their service and sacrifice. I recieved Yon's book today and cant wait to start it.
Posted by: Helofixer at April 22, 2008 10:24 PM (v0jv0)
2
Oh and to point out that Brad Kasal isnt a Navy Cross nominee. He was awarded the medal May 1 2006.
Posted by: Helofixer at April 22, 2008 10:26 PM (v0jv0)
3
Johannes' documentary Outside the Wire is outstanding. He covered Battle Company, 1-28 Infantry (the Black Lions)of the Big Red One's 4th Brigade for his segment on the Baghdad surge and he got it exactly right. If you want to know how the troops are implementing Gen. Petraeus' COIN doctrine, just watch that and you'll realize that there are hundreds of CPT (now Major) Brian Ducotes there around the country doing similar things to great effect. You're missing the boat if you haven't seen this.
Posted by: Major Kirk at April 25, 2008 05:46 AM (s2kbX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
PA Voting Forecast
Bitter and cold, with bluster increasing throughout the evening hours, with little hope of change for tomorrow.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:03 AM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
April 21, 2008
Tarheel Dems Attempt to Cover for Obama as He Bails on NC Debate
Running from a challenge? Unsurprisingly, that's something they can believe in:
A proposed debate in Raleigh between Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton has been called off, officials said Monday.
CBS had agreed to host a debate next Sunday at the RBC Center and televise the event nationally. Clinton agreed to the date, but Obama, who had earlier committed to an April 19 debate, said repeatedly he wasn't sure whether he could fit an April 27 debate into his campaign schedule.
The North Carolina Democratic Party said in a statement Monday that the logistics of staging a national event on short notice, if Obama were to agree to the debate this week, were too daunting to try to pull everything together. Democratic officials also said there were "growing concerns about what another debate would do to party unity."
That is a truckload of bovine excrement, of course.
The NC Democratic Party could have easily provided for a debate with the resources we have here in the state capitol, even on short notice, and plans were no doubt in place to do just that until Obama backed down from the challenge.
Leading Tarheel Democrats—including both Democratic gubernatorial candidates—are in the tank for Barack Obama, and they understand that another dismal performance by a faltering Obama could give the Clinton campaign the opening it needs to finish a bruising primary season strong and throw the nomination process even further into turmoil. They don't want to risk his double-digit lead and his overall viability when it isn't absolutely necessary.
The NC Democratic Primary isn't about producing the most viable candidate. It's about letting the selected candidate get the nomination with as little risk as possible.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:34 PM
| Comments (44)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Waiting on Harry Reid to declare this war lost and over.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at April 21, 2008 04:32 PM (M+Vfm)
2
Bob, I really have no problem with them pushing Obama into the nomination. He'd actually probably be easier to beat than Hillary.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 21, 2008 06:48 PM (yDWgl)
3
Yeah, at this point Hillary may be the stronger candidate. Still, it is amusing to watch Obama act like a pansy...
Posted by: Grey Fox at April 21, 2008 07:16 PM (+Jr79)
4
So this would be what, the 22nd debate between these two? Like anyone really needs to see another one of these. I don't, especially if it amounts to watching Obama get hounded with inane and irrelevant questions about flag lapel pins and former pastors. For cripes sakes, enough already.
Posted by: Arbotreeist at April 21, 2008 08:34 PM (6I6OG)
5
Yeah, Arb, such things are just a distraction from the real issues.
Funny how you probably didn't think that way when Bush's Texas Air National Guard service was brought up in 2000 or 2004.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 21, 2008 08:49 PM (yDWgl)
6
One more, Arb, you might check out this article from the anti-Cheney magazine The Nation:
In the circles in which Cheney has traveled throughout his career, Libby might come off as a paragon of virtue and veracity. That ought not much trouble prosecutors, however. The vice president is his own man, and he plays by his own set of rules. Just as Cheney has never felt constrained by any Constitutional definition of duty to the republic, nor has he ever provided even the slightest indication that he is familiar with the textbook definition of "honesty" – let alone with the notion that an official ought to value that quality in those with whom he chooses to associate.
(emphasis added by me.)
Hmmm... when it comes to Mr. Cheney, we can look at "those with whom he chooses to associate," but that's off limit for Mr. Obama?
Double-standard, anyone?
Posted by: C-C-G at April 21, 2008 10:04 PM (yDWgl)
7
Deciding not to wear a flag lapel pin and going out of one's way to avoid service in a foreign war...hmm, I'd say not quite on the same level of triviality.
I will agree though that a double standard exists.
There was never a comparable controversy that I can recall about Bush and his "good friend" Pat Robertson. This is the guy who said 9/11 was God's way of punishing America for the supposed error of its ways...not too far off from Jeremiah Wright's comments which have has caused such a tizzy in conservative circles.
Posted by: Arbotreeist at April 21, 2008 10:56 PM (6I6OG)
8
So you think that service in the National Guard isn't good enough huh? Screw you buddy.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at April 22, 2008 02:32 AM (M+Vfm)
9
one thing to remember cbu, arbo is as dence as a tree
Posted by: 1903A3 at April 22, 2008 05:07 AM (0JFRo)
10
"dence as a tree"
I love irony.
Posted by: Arbotreeist at April 22, 2008 09:44 AM (6I6OG)
11
What might it be that Obama is afrain to reveal? We know where he stands on the issues. That depends on who he is speaking to. To gun owners he is pro 2nd Amendment. To Hillary Clinton supporters, he is the finger and a smirk. To American he is a danger. Arbo, what will you bet B. Hussein can recite the first six verses of the Koran?
Posted by: Zelsdorf at April 22, 2008 11:19 AM (vwffN)
12
Afrain (sic) to reveal.
What exactly was said at the meeting between Cheney and energy company representatives?
Probably not anyone's business but those involved and their bosses. Who exactly does Cheney work for?
(Hint: the citizens of the U.S.).
What is he afrain (sic) of?
Posted by: Robert in BA at April 22, 2008 05:05 PM (iaV+w)
13
C-C-G,
Why won't the media inform the public that Jeremiah Wright was a marine?
Posted by: Robert in BA at April 22, 2008 05:08 PM (iaV+w)
14
Robert, probably because, in the eyes of the left (which is to say, most of the media), Marines are baby-killers and torturers who enjoy shooting innocent Iraqis just to satisfy their bloodlust. Therefore, to call Reverend Wright a Marine would be, in their eyes, to impugn him.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 22, 2008 05:57 PM (RP0Mk)
15
By the way, Arb, I tried to post this earlier but the spam filter was choking on anything with a "ch" in it, so I wasn't able to. Here it is now.
Your darling lefties in the media did try to make a big issue out of Mr. Robertson's comments, as well as Mr. Falwell's (who said essentially the same thing). In fact, they tried it more than once.
So, why did it never gain traction? Simple. The American people aren't quite as stupid as you--and the lefties in the media--think they are.
They realize that an unsolicited endorsement from a crackpot is just that, unsolicited. And it's a lot different from sitting in a church led by a crackpot for 20+ years.
They also realize that an unsolicited endorsement from a loony televangelist is quite a different thing from having a campaign event in the personal home of a terrorist who, years later, says he doesn't think he did enough.
The American public is intelligent enough to see the difference, Arb. It's a crying shame you apparently aren't.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 22, 2008 07:14 PM (RP0Mk)
16
There was never a comparable controversy that I can recall about Bush and his "good friend" Pat Robertson.
Your recollection is faulty. Robertson was roundly hammered and apologized for the comments, which is why they've never been a huge deal beyond the huge deal they were at the time. The Bush Administration also repudiated them.
So, Arbo, how was that a controversy about Bush?
Posted by: Pablo at April 22, 2008 11:10 PM (yTndK)
17
Arb seems to be unable to grasp the concept that the fact that he knows about the Robertson comments is prima facie evidence that the media did try to make it into a big story. How could he have known about them if they hadn't reported it (since I doubt he watches Fox News)?
Ya gotta love it when your opponent is so clueless he refutes his own points.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 23, 2008 07:43 AM (RP0Mk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Hey, Cracker...
...who do you hate the most?
This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don't mean people, I mean white men. How ironic is this? After all this time, after all these stupid articles about how powerless white men are and how they can't even get into college because of overachieving women and affirmative action and mean lady teachers who expected them to sit still in the third grade even though they were all suffering from terminal attention deficit disorder -- after all this, they turn out (surprise!) to have all the power. (As they always did, by the way; I hope you didn't believe any of those articles.)
To put it bluntly, the next president will be elected by them: the outcome of Tuesday's primary will depend on whether they go for Hillary or Obama, and the outcome of the general election will depend on whether enough of them vote for McCain. A lot of them will: white men cannot be relied on, as all of us know who have spent a lifetime dating them. And McCain is a compelling candidate, particularly because of the Torture Thing. As for the Democratic hope that McCain's temper will be a problem, don't bet on it. A lot of white men have terrible tempers, and what's more, they think it's normal.
Unreliable white men. Think of how wonderful this land would have been without them.
The author of this bigoted rant (my bold, by the way) is Norah Ephron, another Barack Obama supporter clinging to "hope" and "change" along with sexism, racism, and bitterness.
(h/t
Hot Air, where Ed has fairly refined, if no doubt unreliable and hateful, thoughts on this rant.)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:21 AM
| Comments (41)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I am speechless, but not surprised.
Posted by: David at April 21, 2008 10:41 AM (cPLO6)
2
I see only two ways out of the morass that Comrade Nora points out to us. Possibly we could have a system of gender/race based vote-norming. Each white male's vote could count, say, 3/5s. Just to even up the playing field. Some boycrackers do vote properly you know, so we can't just wipe 'em out wholesale. That would be Plan B.
Posted by: megapotamus at April 21, 2008 11:18 AM (LF+qW)
3
Send her a Copy of Larry Elders book (Stupid
Black men.Play the race card and lose)Checked
out here photo,looks like a Pelosi clone!!
Posted by: Gator at April 21, 2008 01:20 PM (uaTZE)
4
I'm too busy clinging to my guns and religion to give a hoot about some Lefty know-nothing who probably doesn't know where to find a "Pennsylvania Tiger".
Posted by: Neo at April 21, 2008 01:44 PM (Yozw9)
5
Actually she's claiming that DEMOCRAT White males are either racist or sexist. This is the DEMOCRAT primaries after all.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 21, 2008 01:55 PM (kNqJV)
6
You couldn't be more wrong, Infidel. Of course when any ordinary citizen votes for someone OTHER than Obama, or declines to vote at all that is the direst racism. However the enlightened geniuses that show up for Democrat primaries, well, if they vote NonObama it is because they KNOW everyone else is a racist and so, he wouldn't have a chance. Or might get shot. See, it's for his own good. And Hillary's.
Posted by: megapotamus at April 21, 2008 02:54 PM (LF+qW)
7
These urbanites like Ephron. They are bitter that Bush won in 2000 and 2004 and now they see the Democrat majority won in 2006 ineffective, so they cling to their moral relativism and their lattes and their valium and they distrust people different from them. People with penises, for example.
Posted by: Zhombre at April 21, 2008 09:13 PM (SRZ4E)
8
wow, that was some good crazy
Posted by: shoey at April 21, 2008 10:47 PM (docNz)
9
Hey, Cracker...
...who do you hate the most?
I think I'll go with Nora Ephron. Stupidity really bugs me.
Posted by: Pablo at April 21, 2008 10:56 PM (yTndK)
10
Jeremiah Wright was a U.S. Marine.
Nuff said.
Posted by: Robert in BA at April 22, 2008 05:06 PM (iaV+w)
11
and Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marine...
See, I can play that game too, Robert. It proves absolutely NOTHING!
Posted by: Mark at April 22, 2008 08:53 PM (KDHro)
12
Other famous Marines include:
Bob Bell (who played Bozo the Clown)
Judge Robert Bork (the first victim of "Borking)
the late Senator John Chafee (R-RI)
Bob Keeshan (Captain Kangaroo)
Robert McFarlane (Reagan's National Security Advisor--was involved in Iran-Contra)
Zell Miller (former Democrat who gave a speech at a GOP convention, earning him the opprobrium of Democrats everywhere)
Colonel Oliver North ('Nuff said)
Donald Regan (Treasury Secretary under Reagan)
George Schulz (former Secretary of State, Treasury, and Labor)
Charles "Chuck" Swindoll (Christian preacher and author)
Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY)
Senator James Warner (R-VA, also former Secretary of the Navy)
All of which proves, what, exactly, Robert?
Posted by: C-C-G at April 22, 2008 09:25 PM (RP0Mk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 125 >>
Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.2191 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1691 seconds, 439 records returned.
Page size 344 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.